PROCEEDINGS

	IN THE CASE OF:       

	BOARD DATE:            6 May 2003
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR2002080352

	I certify that hereinafter is recorded the true and complete record of the proceedings of the Army Board for Correction of Military Records in the case of the above-named individual.  

	Mr. Carl W. S. Chun		Director	
	Mr. Jessie B. Strickland		Analyst	

The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Mr. Fred N. Eichorn		Chairperson	
	Ms. Lana E. McGlynn		Member	
	Mr. Larry C. Bergquist		Member	

	The applicant and counsel if any, did not appear before the Board.

	The Board considered the following evidence:

	Exhibit A - Application for correction of military 
            records
	Exhibit B - Military Personnel Records (including
	            advisory opinion, if any)

FINDINGS:

1.  The applicant has exhausted or the Board has waived the requirement for exhaustion of all administrative remedies afforded by existing law or regulations.

2.  The applicant requests that his report of separation (DD Form 214) be corrected to reflect that he was awarded the Army Commendation Medal (ARCOM) with "V" Device.

3.  The applicant states, in effect, that he was awarded the ARCOM for Valor and his DD Form 214 does not reflect the ARCOM with "V" Device.  He further states that he does not have the orders for his ARCOM but he was awarded it for saving three soldiers pinned down by enemy fire.  He goes on to state that he became addicted to drugs and alcohol as a result of his Vietnam experiences and he wants his children to know that he served with honor and was cited for valor in combat. 

4.  The applicant’s military records show that he enlisted in the Regular Army in Montgomery, Alabama, on 1 December 1969.  He completed his basic combat training at Fort Bragg, North Carolina, and was transferred to Fort Lee, Virginia, to undergo his advanced individual training (AIT).  He successfully completed his AIT and was transferred to Vietnam on 7 June 1970.  He was initially assigned to the 855th Supply Company and on 1 July 1970 he was assigned to the 490th General Supply Company as a stock control and accounting specialist.  He was advanced to the pay grade of E-4 on 16 February 1971.

5.  On 18 April 1971, General Orders Number 221 awarded the applicant the ARCOM for meritorious service during the period of June 1970 to May 1971.  There are 22 names on that order for the same award.

6.  The applicant departed Vietnam on 26 April 1971 and was transferred to Germany on 8 June 1971.  He remained in Germany until 22 July 1972, when he was transferred to Fort Rucker, Alabama.

7.  On 30 August 1972, he was honorably released from active duty due to the expiration of his term of service (ETS).  He had served 2 years, 10 months and 10 days of total active service and was awarded the National Defense Service Medal, the Vietnam Service Medal (VSM), the Republic of Vietnam Campaign Medal and the ARCOM.  His records show that he had excellent conduct and efficiency ratings throughout his service and there is no evidence of any derogatory information contained in his records.

8.  A review of the applicant's records fails to show that he was awarded or recommended for award of the ARCOM for valor or any other award for valor.   

9.  Army Regulation 672-5-1, in effect at the time, provided policy, criteria and administrative instructions for individual military decorations.  It provided, in pertinent part, that each recommendation for award of a military decoration must be entered administratively into military channels within 2 years of the act, achievement or service to be honored.  If the Secretary of the Army determines that a statement setting forth the distinguished act, achievement, or service and a recommendation for official recognition was made and supported by sufficient evidence within 2 years after the distinguished service, and no award was made because the statement was lost, or through inadvertence the recommendation was not acted upon, he may within 2 years after the date of the determination, award any appropriate military decoration.

10.  Army Pamphlet 672-3 (Unit Citation and Campaign Participation Credit Register-Vietnam Era) was published to assist commanders and personnel officers in determining or establishing the eligibility of individual members for campaign participation credit, assault landing credit, and unit citation badges awarded during the Vietnam Conflict.  Table 1 (Army Units in Numerical Order) of the pamphlet indicates that the applicant’s unit was awarded the Republic of Vietnam Gallantry Cross with Palm (RVNGC w/Palm) Unit Citation for the period he was assigned.  Additionally, he participated in two campaigns, which entitles him to two bronze service stars for wear on his already awarded VSM.

11.  Army Regulation 672-5-1, in effect at the time, also established the criteria for award of the Army Good Conduct Medal (AGCM).  It states, in pertinent part, that the AGCM was established by Executive Order 8809, 28 June 1941 and was amended by Executive Order 9323, 1943 and by Executive Order 10444, 10 April 1953 and is awarded for exemplary behavior, efficiency, and fidelity in active Federal military service.  The regulation also states, in pertinent part, that for first award only, upon termination of service on or after 27 June 1950, a period of service of less than 3 years but more than 1 year qualifies for award of the AGCM.

CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The Board has noted the applicant's contention that he was awarded the ARCOM for Valor; however, neither the evidence submitted with his application or the evidence of record support his contention.  Therefore, absent evidence to the contrary, the Board must presume that his record correctly reflects the award of the ARCOM that he actually received for meritorious service.

2.  However, the evidence of record does show that his unit was awarded the RVNGC w/Palm Unit Citation and that he is entitled to be awarded two bronze service stars for wear on his already awarded VSM.

3.  After carefully examining the applicant’s record of service, the Board has determined that the applicant should have received the AGCM for his service from 1 December 1969 through 30 August 1972.  This conclusion is based on the fact that the record is void of any derogatory information, which would preclude the applicant from being awarded the AGCM, and the lack of any specific action by the applicant’s unit commander to disqualify him from receiving the award.  

4.  The Board found that the applicant not receiving the AGCM was likely the result of an administrative error as opposed to it being the result of a conscious disqualification by any of the unit commanders for which he served.  Therefore, in the interest of justice, the Board determined that this error should be corrected and the applicant should receive the AGCM at this time.

5.  In view of the foregoing, the applicant’s records should be corrected as recommended below.

RECOMMENDATION:

1.  That all of the Department of the Army records related to this case be corrected by awarding the individual concerned the AGCM for the period of 1 December 1969 through 30 August 1972, the RVNGC w/Palm Unit Citation and two bronze service stars for wear on his already awarded VSM.

2.  That so much of the application as is in excess of the foregoing be denied.

BOARD VOTE:  

___lem __  ___lb___  ___fe ___  GRANT AS STATED IN RECOMMENDATION

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

________  ________  ________  DENY APPLICATION

		_____Fred N. Eichorn_____
		        CHAIRPERSON

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2002080352	
SUFFIX		
RECON	YYYYMMDD	
DATE BOARDED	2003/05/06	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE		
DATE OF DISCHARGE		
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY		
DISCHARGE REASON		
BOARD DECISION	GRANT PARTIAL	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.  66	107.0020/ARCOM	
2.  102	107.0056/AGCM	
3.  140	107.0094/RVNGC	
4.		
5.		
6.