2. The applicant requests award of the Good Conduct Medal. He states that he earned the medal but was never awarded it. 3. The applicant enlisted in the Army for five years on 23 May 1990, completed training as an intelligence analyst and served at Fort Huachuca, Arizona, Fort Hood, Texas, Fort Monmouth, New Jersey, in Korea, and in March 1993 was assigned to an armored unit in Germany. The applicant was promoted to pay grade E-4 and he received two awards of the Army Achievement Medal. 4. On 26 April 1993 the applicant made a sworn statement to the effect that he had led a homosexual life for the past two years, and was requesting discharge as soon as possible, in accordance with the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 15. 5. The applicant’s commanding officer recommended to the separation authority that the applicant be discharged for homosexuality and that he be issued an honorable discharge. The separation authority approved the recommendation and directed that the applicant receive an honorable discharge. 6. The applicant was discharged at Fort Dix, New Jersey on 16 August 1993. He had 3 years, 2 months, and 24 days of service. His DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty) does not show that he was awarded the Army Good Conduct Medal (AGCM). The applicant’s records do not indicate that he was awarded this medal, nor do his records show that he was disqualified for award of this medal. 7. Army Regulation 600-8-2 prescribes the Army policy for individual awards. Chapter 4 of that regulation concerns the award of the AGCM. Paragraph 4-1 states that the AGCM is awarded for exemplary behavior, efficiency, and fidelity and is awarded on a selective basis to each soldier who distinguishes himself by his exemplary conduct, efficiency, and fidelity. There is no right or entitlement to the medal until the immediate commander has approved the award and the award has been announced in permanent orders. 8. Paragraph 4-5 lists the qualifying periods of service for the award, one of which is each three years completed on or after 27 August 1940. 9. Paragraph 4-8 provides reasons for disqualification of the award, and includes conviction by a court-martial during a period of qualifying service. Individuals whose retention is not warranted under standards prescribed in AR 604-10, paragraph 2-1, or for whom a bar to reenlistment has been approved under the provisions of AR 601-280, chapter 6 (specifically for the reasons enumerated in AR 601-280, paragraphs 6-4a, b, and d) are not eligible for award of the AGCM. Homosexuality is not listed in the above cited references as being a reason for disqualification for award of the AGCM. 10. Paragraph 4-8c states that in instances of disqualification as determined by the unit commander, the commander will prepare a statement of the rational for his decision. The statement will include the period of disqualification and will be referred to the individual concerned. The unit commander will consider the affected individual’s statement, and, if the commander’s decision remains the same, the commander will forward his statement and the affected individual’s statement for filing in the individual’s military personnel records jacket. 11. In the processing of this case an informal opinion was obtained from an official of the Awards Branch, Total Army Personnel Command (PERSCOM). That official stated that homosexuality, by itself, is not a disqualifier for award of the AGCM, and that unless the unit commander disqualified the applicant for award of the AGCM, according to the aforementioned procedures, the applicant should have been awarded the AGCM. CONCLUSIONS: 1. Admission of homosexuality is not a reason for disqualification for award of the AGCM. The applicant’s records contain no evidence of disqualification for this award. 2. The applicant’s record of service has been commendable, as evidenced by his two awards of the Army Achievement Medal. He should have been awarded the AGCM after completion of three years service, for the period 23 May 1990 to 22 May 1993. 3. In view of the foregoing findings and conclusions, it would be appropriate to correct the applicant’s records as recommended below. RECOMMENDATION: That all of the Department of the Army records related to this case be corrected by showing the individual concerned was awarded the Army Good Conduct Medal for the period 23 May 1990 to 22 May 1993. BOARD VOTE: GRANT AS STATED IN RECOMMENDATION GRANT FORMAL HEARING DENY APPLICATION CHAIRPERSON