2. The applicant requests that he be issued a Good Conduct Medal, an Honorable Discharge Certificate, and that his one year of duty in Germany be entered on his DD Form 214 (Report of Transfer or Discharge). 3. The applicant states that his duty in Germany is not listed on his DD Form 214 and his medical records from his service in Vietnam are missing. The medical records will show that he had an eye problem in Vietnam. His eyes were bandaged and he was blind for one week. 4. The applicant enlisted in the Army on 1 December 1969, completed training, and in June 1970 was assigned to a signal company in Germany. On 18 September 1970 the applicant received nonjudicial punishment under Article 15, UCMJ, for disrespect to a commissioned officer. 5. The applicant’s DA Form 20 shows that he served in Germany from 16 June 1970 through 10 July 1971 and was promoted to pay grade E-4. 6. On 22 July 1971 the applicant was assigned to a signal unit in Vietnam. The applicant was AWOL from 17 December to 27 December 1971 and from 2 January to 29 January 1972. On 17 February 1972 the applicant was arraigned, tried, and found guilty by a special court-martial and reduced to pay grade E-1. 7. The applicant was again AWOL from 1-14 May 1972. The applicant returned to the United States, and was discharged at Letterman General Hospital in San Francisco on 22 June 1972 under the provisions of a phase down release program. His discharge was honorable. He had 2 years, 6 months, and 22 days of active service and 41 days of lost time. His DD Form 214 shows his rank and grade as Private E-1, and his foreign service as 10 months and 12 days. Neither his DD Form 214 nor his DA Form 20 show that he was awarded the Good Conduct Medal. The remarks section of his DD Form 214 shows that he served in Vietnam from 17 July 1971 to 28 May 1972. 8. Army Regulation 672-5-1, then in effect, provides for the award of the Good Conduct Medal. Chapter 3 states, in pertinent part, that the Good Conduct Medal is awarded for exemplary behavior, efficiency, and fidelity in active Federal military service. 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. 9. Any one of the following periods of continuous enlisted active Federal military service qualifies for award of the Good Conduct Medal, in conjunction with the criteria contained in paragraph 3-5: For first award only, upon termination of service on or after 27 June 1950, of less than 3 years but more than 1 year. 10. Paragraph 3-5 pertains to character of service and states, in pertinent part, that conviction by a court-martial terminates a period of qualifying service; a new period begins following the completion of sentence imposed by the court-martial. 11. Army Regulation 635-5, then in effect, prescribes the policies and procedures concerning the preparation and issuance of separation documents. Chapter 2 concerns the preparation of the DD Form 214, and states, in pertinent part, that the total active duty outside of the continental limits of the United States for the period covered by the DD Form 214 and the last overseas theater in which service was performed will be entered in item 22c (foreign service) of that form. That chapter does not provide for listing other foreign service areas. CONCLUSIONS: 1. The applicant was not awarded nor is he now eligible for award of the Good Conduct Medal. 2. The applicant should be issued an Honorable Discharge Certificate. 3. The applicant’s total foreign service of 1 year, 11 months, and 7 days should be shown on his DD Form 214. 4. In view of the foregoing findings and conclusions, it would be appropriate to correct the applicant’s records as recommended below. RECOMMENDATION: 1. That all of the Department of the Army records related to this case be corrected by issuing the individual concerned an Honorable Discharge Certificate and that his DD Form 214 be corrected to show his foreign service as 1 year, 11 months, and 7 days. 2. That so much of the application as in excess of the foregoing be denied. BOARD VOTE: GRANT AS STATED IN RECOMMENDATION GRANT FORMAL HEARING DENY APPLICATION CHAIRPERSON