RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 13 SEPTEMBER 2005 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20050001464 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 Ms. Deborah L. Brantley Senior Analyst The following members, a quorum, were present: Ms. Shirley Powell Chairperson Mr. Robert Duecaster Member Ms. Jeanette McCants Member The Board considered the following evidence: Exhibit A - Application for correction of military records. Exhibit B - Military Personnel Records (including advisory opinion, if any). THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST, STATEMENT, AND EVIDENCE: 1. The applicant requests that a document denying her award of the Army Good Conduct Medal be expunged from her Official Military Personnel File (OMPF). 2. The applicant states she was not aware of the disqualification action until it appeared in her OMPF. She notes the memorandum is not signed and she was not counseled on the action. 3. The applicant provides a copy of the disapproval document. CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE: 1. Records available to the Board indicate that the applicant entered active duty on 15 September 1994. Her records confirm she was awarded her second Army Good Conduct Medal on 14 May 2001 for the period 15 September 1997 through 14 September 2000. 2. The applicant's performance evaluation reports for rating periods ending in April 2001, April 2002, and April 2003 all indicate the applicant was a successful Soldier and in compliance with both the physical fitness standards and the Army's weight control program. On 1 May 2003 she was promoted to pay grade E-6. 3. On 7 July 2004, while assigned to Fort Campbell, Kentucky, the applicant's commander initiated a memorandum, addressed to the applicant, which disqualified her from award of the Army Good Conduct Medal for the period 15 September 2000 through 15 September 2003. The basis for his disqualification was because the applicant was "flagged" during this time period. The memorandum informed the applicant that she was to acknowledge receipt of the memorandum and provide a rebuttal if appropriate, within 7 working days. The memorandum does not indicate the applicant complied with the requirements of the memorandum and contains no statement that she refused to acknowledge the referral. 4. At the time the applicant submitted her application to this Board, in January 2005, she was still on active duty and still assigned to Fort Campbell, Kentucky. However, on 1 June 2005 the applicant was honorably discharged from active duty by reason of physical disability. Her separation document does indicate three awards of the Army Good Conduct Medal, although her records do not contain orders confirming her first or third award. 5. Army Regulation 600-8-22 states that commanders may disqualify Soldier’s from award of the Army Good Conduct Medal by preparing a statement of the rationale for his or her decision. The statement will include the period of disqualification and will be referred to the individual for comment in accordance with Army Regulation 600-37, paragraph 3-6. The unit commander will then consider the Soldier’s statement, if provided, and if his decision remains the same, the commander will forward his or her statement, the individual’s statement, and his or her consideration for filing in the individual’s OMPF. The custodian of the individual’s local file will forward the documents to the Commander, United States Army Enlisted Records and Evaluation Center for permanent filing in the individual’s OMPF. 6. Paragraph 3-6 of Army Regulation 600-37 (Unfavorable Information) indicates that if the recipient of unfavorable information refuses to acknowledge the referral of unfavorable information a statement indicating "On (date), (name) has been presented with the unfavorable information and refuses to acknowledge by signature." The document can then be directed for filing. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS: 1. Whether the applicant knew or did not know that her commander had disqualified her from award of the Army Good Conduct Medal until the disqualification memorandum showed up in her OMPF, is not at issued. The issue in this case stems from the fact that the document on file in the applicant's OMPF contains neither her acknowledgement nor the appropriate statement required by Army Regulation 600-37 that she refused to acknowledge the disqualification. As such, the document contains administrative errors which render it inappropriate for filing in the OMPF. 2. The applicant’s available file contains no derogatory information, which might have served as a basis for disqualification. In fact, the applicant’s record indicates that she was a successful Soldier and was promoted during the period the statement indicates she was disqualified from receiving the Army Good Conduct Medal. 3. Although the applicant's file does not contain orders awarding her a third Army Good Conduct Medal the fact that her separation document indicates she was awarded three Good Conduct Medals is sufficient to conclude that in spite of the disqualification a third award was made. Such evidence further supports a conclusion that in the interest of justice and equity, the disqualification document should be expunged from her OMPF. BOARD VOTE: ___SP __ ___RD __ ___JM __ GRANT FULL RELIEF ________ ________ ________ GRANT PARTIAL RELIEF ________ ________ ________ GRANT FORMAL HEARING ________ ________ ________ DENY APPLICATION BOARD DETERMINATION/RECOMMENDATION: The Board determined that the evidence presented was sufficient to warrant a recommendation for relief. As a result, the Board recommends that all Department of the Army records of the individual concerned be corrected by expunging the 7 July 2004 memorandum, which indicates that the applicant was denied award of the Army Good Conduct Medal, from her OMPF. _____ Shirley Powell_______ CHAIRPERSON INDEX CASE ID AR20050001464 SUFFIX RECON YYYYMMDD DATE BOARDED 20050913 TYPE OF DISCHARGE (HD, GD, UOTHC, UD, BCD, DD, UNCHAR) DATE OF DISCHARGE YYYYMMDD DISCHARGE AUTHORITY AR . . . . . DISCHARGE REASON BOARD DECISION GRANT REVIEW AUTHORITY ISSUES 1. 110.00 2. 3. 4. 5. 6.