ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS BOARD DATE: 13 August 2019 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20170006682 APPLICANT REQUESTS: * correction of his DD Form 214 (Armed Forces of the United States Report of Transfer or Discharge) to show in: * Item 5a (Grade, Rate, or Rank) – sergeant (SGT) instead of specialist five (SP5) * Item 23a (Specialty Number and Title) – 71H30, Senior Personnel Specialist instead of 71H20, Personnel Specialist * award of the Army Good Conduct Medal (AGCM) and its addition to his DD Form 214 APPLICANT'S SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS CONSIDERED BY THE BOARD: he provides three DD Forms149 (Application for Correction of Military Record). FACTS: 1. The applicant did not file within the three year time frame provided in Title 10, United States Code (USC), section 1552 (b); however, the Army Board for Correction of Military Records conducted a substantive review of this case and determined it is in the interest of justice to excuse the applicant's failure to timely file. 2. The applicant states a. The Army eliminated the rank/pay grade SP5/E-5 and changed it to SGT/E-5. He believes his record should be changed to SGT/E-5. He performed like a SGT with the 108th Military Intelligence (MI) Group and he was in charge of details. Why should his DD Form 214 show the rank that no longer exists? He believes all SP5 Soldiers should be SGTs. It was ridiculous they had to be ordered around like corporals. If SP5s no longer exist, than the record should be corrected for all. Being a noncommissioned officer was treated as being higher than a specialist. Why correct the record and not give Veterans the same consideration. He still thinks like a Soldier at 71 years of age. It is the right thing to do. b. He never received an Article 15 or court-martial. In fact, on his last day of service he was awarded the Army Commendation Medal (ARCOM). They forgot to award him an AGCM and he would like awarded now. He never had an issue with his conduct while serving 3 years in Vietnam. He was the company clerk in Vietnam and senior personnel specialist while assigned to the 108th MI Group, Fort Devens, MA. The last time he inquired on the internet, not the DD Form 149, he was basically told "too bad." This was insulting because he earned it. c. He has no documents; however, his records contain orders for the ARCOM. It would make no sense to award an ARCOM and not an AGCM. Although this is a DD Form 214 and records from 1968, he believes the record must be corrected for himself, his child, and posterity. Errors are errors and must be corrected. He had an impeccable career, worked 12 plus hours a day, 7 days a week, in Vietnam and 10 hours a day, 5 days a week, in the 108th MI Group. He was on orders to go to the Republican and Democratic Conventions in 1968. d. He was a Senior Personnel Specialist while assigned to the 108th MI group and also a drawing specialist. As senior, he was told his military occupational specialty (MOS) was 71H30 (Senior Personnel Specialist) instead of 71H20 (Personnel Specialist). His DD Form 214 shows his MOS as 71H20 and it is incorrect. An SP5/E-5 in the 108th MI Group should be a 71H30. It is a Senior Personnel Specialist and this is what he was told. It is too bad that he did not handle his own records. After reviewing his DD Form 214, he noticed that he handled strengths, statistics, pay issues, morning reports, and classified information. He reviewed his DD Form 214 and was shocked to discover the error. He assumed the Army personnel did a better job. The MOS 71H30 was earned after 14 months of doing the job. e. Evidence should be found by the Department of the Army regarding his rank and MOS. In addition, he was not assigned to a company or battalion, he was assigned to a group commanded by a full-bird Colonel. If evidence is required, the Army has his DD Form 2/1 (Personnel Qualification Record – Part II). 3. The applicant provides three DD Form 149. 4. Review of the applicant’s service record shows: a. He enlisted in the Regular Army on 26 November 1965. After completion of advanced individual training, he was awarded primary MOS 71H2O on 27 July 1966. b. His DA Form 20 (Enlisted Qualification Record) contains the following information: * Items 31 (Overseas Service) and 35 (Record of Assignments) – shows he served in Vietnam from 12 September 1966 to 12 September 1967 * Item 35 (Record of Assignments) – shows he was assigned to the: * 854th Transportation Company, APO, on 12 October, 1966 and served in MOS 71H20 as the company clerk * Headquarters, 108th MI Group, Fort Devens, MA, on 17 October 1967 and he served in the following MOS’s: * 71H20 from 17 October 1967 to 8 July 1968 * 71H30 from 9 July to on or about 25 November 1968 * he received all "excellent" conduct and efficiency ratings throughout his service, and there is no evidence indicating he was the subject of any court- martial convictions and/or a commander's disqualification that would have precluded him from being recommended for or awarded the first award of the Army Good Conduct Medal * Item 41 (Awards and Decorations) does not list the AGCM c. Special Orders Number 33, issued by the 159th Transportation Battalion on 26 February 1967, announced his promotion to SP5 in MOS 71H20. d. He was honorably released from active duty on 25 November 1968 and was transferred to the U.S. Army Reserve. His DD Form 214 shows he completed 3 years of active service, which included 1 year of Foreign Service. This form also shows in: * Item 5a – SP5 (P (Permanent)) * Item 5b (Pay Grade) – E-5 * Item 6 (Date of Rank) – 26 February 1967 * Item 23a – 71H20, Personnel Specialist * Item 24 (Decorations, Medals, Badges, Commendations, Citations, and Campaign Ribbon Awarded or Authorized) the: * National Defense Service Medal * Vietnam Service Medal * Vietnam Campaign Medal * Expert Marksmanship Qualification Badge with Rifle Bar (M-14) * two overseas service bars * ARCOM 5. In 1985, the Army converted all their SP5’s to SGT’s. 6. By regulation (AR 635-5), the DD Form 214 is a summary of the Soldier's most recent period of continuous active duty. It provides a brief, clear-cut record of all current active, prior active, and prior inactive duty service at the time of release from active duty, retirement, or discharge. The information entered thereon reflects the conditions as they existed at the time of separation. The regulation states: * Items 5a and 5b were to show the Soldier’s rank/pay grade at time of separation * Item 6 was to show the effective date of rank * Item 23a was to show the Soldier's primary MOS and title * Item 24 was to show all awards authorized during the Soldier’s period of service BOARD DISCUSSION: After reviewing the application and all supporting documents, the Board found some relief was warranted. The applicant’s contentions were carefully considered. He received excellence ratings for his conduct and efficiency. The Board agreed to award the Army Good Conduct medal as a result of his exemplary service. The applicant’s record confirms he was a SP5 and there was no lateral promotion to a SGT during his period of service. He contends SP5 no longer exists and that he should be a SGT. The Army has an interest in maintaining the integrity of its records for historical purposes. The information in those records must reflect the conditions and circumstances that existed at the time the records were created. In the absence of evidence that shows a material error or injustice, there is a reluctance to recommend that those records be changed. Although the applicant served in a 71H30 position, the Board agreed regulatory guidance provides the correct annotation on his DD Form 214 was to show the MOS and level skill level commensurate with his pay grade of E-5, which is 71H20. Prior to closing the case, the Board did note the analyst of record administrative notes below, and recommended the correction is completed to more accurately depict the military service of the applicant. BOARD VOTE: Mbr 1 Mbr 2 Mbr 3 : : : GRANT FULL RELIEF : :X :X :X GRANT PARTIAL RELIEF : : : GRANT FORMAL HEARING : : : DENY APPLICATION BOARD DETERMINATION/RECOMMENDATION: 1. The Board determined the evidence presented is sufficient to warrant a recommendation for partial relief. As a result, the Board recommends that all Department of the Army records of the individual concerned be corrected by awarding him the Army Good Conduct Medal (1st Award) for exemplary service from 26 November 1965 through 25 November 1968, and amending his DD Form 214 for the period ending 25 November 1968 by: a. deleting the Vietnam Service Medal b. adding the following awards: * Army Good Conduct Medal (1st Award) * Vietnam Service Medal with 2 bronze service stars * Republic of Vietnam Gallantry Cross with Palm Unit Citation * Meritorious Unit Commendation 2. The Board further determined the evidence presented is insufficient to warrant a portion of the requested relief. As a result, the Board recommends denial of so much of the application that pertains to amending his rank and MOS. I certify that herein is recorded the true and complete record of the proceedings of the Army Board for Correction of Military Records in this case. ADMINISTRATIVE NOTE(S): A review of the applicant’s service records shows he is entitled to awards not listed on his DD Form 214. As a result, amend his DD Form 214 as follows: * delete Vietnam Service Medal * add Vietnam Service Medal with 2 bronze service stars * add Republic of Vietnam Gallantry Cross with Palm Unit Citation (DAGO Number 8, dated 1974) * add Meritorious Unit Commendation (DAGO Number 17, dated 1969) REFERENCES: 1. Title 10, USC, section 1552(b), provides that applications for correction of military records must be filed within three years after discovery of the alleged error or injustice. This provision of law also allows the Army Board for Correction of Military Records (ABCMR) to excuse an applicant's failure to timely file within the three-year statute of limitations if the ABCMR determines it would be in the interest of justice to do so. 2. Army Regulation (AR) 635-5 (Separation Documents), in effect at the time, prescribed the separation documents prepared for Soldiers upon retirement, discharge, or release from active military service or control of the Army. It established the standardized policy for the preparation of the DD Form 214. It stated the DD Form 214 was a summary of a Soldier’s most recent period of continuous active duty. It provided a brief, clear-cut record of active duty service at the time of release from active duty, retirement, or discharge. The regulation stated: * Items 5a (Grade, Rate, and Rank) and 5b (Pay Grade) – would list the active duty rank and pay grade at the time of the Soldier's separation; the rank would be taken from the Soldier's promotion/reduction orders * Item 6 (Date of Rank) – would list the effective date for the grade shown in items 5a and 5b. * Item 23a – would list the primary specialty number held at the time of separation * Item 24 – would list all awards authorized 3. AR 672-5-1 (Awards), in effect at the time, stated the Army Good Conduct Medal was awarded for the first award only, upon termination of service on or after 27 June 1950 of less than 3 years but more than 1 year. The enlisted person must have had all "excellent" conduct and efficiency ratings. There must have been no convictions by a court-martial. 4. AR 600-8-22 (Military Awards) prescribes Army policy, criteria, and administrative instructions concerning individual and unit military awards. The regulation states a bronze service star is awarded for wear on the Vietnam Service Medal for participation in each campaign. During the applicant’s service in Vietnam, campaign participation credit was awarded for: * Vietnam Counteroffensive, Phase II, 1 July 1966 – 31 May 1967 * Vietnam Counteroffensive, Phase III, 1 June 1967 – 29 January 1968 5. Department of the Army General Orders (DAGO) Number 8, dated 1975, announced award of the Republic of Vietnam Gallantry Cross with Palm Unit Citation for service in Vietnam to Headquarters, United States Army Vietnam and its subordinate units during the period from 20 July 1965 to 28 March 1973. 6. DA Pamphlet 672-3 (Unit Citation and Campaign Participation Credit Register) lists the unit awards received by units serving in Vietnam. The pamphlet shows his unit, the 854th Transportation Company (Service), was cited for award of the Meritorious Unit Commendation, for the period of service from 1 April to 30 September 1967, by DAGO Number 17, dated 1969. //NOTHING FOLLOWS// ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont) AR20170006682 4 1