IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 19 MARCH 2009 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20080017618 THE BOARD CONSIDERED THE FOLLOWING EVIDENCE: 1. Application for correction of military records (with supporting documents provided, if any). 2. Military Personnel Records and advisory opinions (if any). THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST, STATEMENT, AND EVIDENCE: 1. The applicant requests that his DD Form 214 (Armed Forces of the United States Report of Transfer or Discharge) be corrected to reflect his awards of the Good Conduct Medal (GCMDL), the Army Commendation Medal (ARCOM), and the Expert Marksmanship Badge with Rifle Bar (M-16). 2. The applicant states that he was awarded the GCMDL, the ARCOM, and the Expert Marksmanship Qualification Badge with Rifle Bar (M-16); however, those awards were omitted from his DD Form 214 at the time of his release from active duty (REFRAD). 3. The applicant provides a copy of his DD Form 214 and copies of orders awarding him the GCMDL and the ARCOM. CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE: 1. Title 10, U.S. Code, section 1552(b), provides that applications for correction of military records must be filed within 3 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 3-year statute of limitations if the ABCMR determines it would be in the interest of justice to do so. While it appears the applicant did not file within the time frame provided in the statute of limitations, the ABCMR has elected to conduct a substantive review of this case and, only to the extent relief, if any, is granted, has determined it is in the interest of justice to excuse the applicant’s failure to timely file. In all other respects, there are insufficient bases to waive the statute of limitations for timely filing. 2. The applicant enlisted in the Regular Army in Chicago, Illinois on 24 April 1968 for a period of 2 years. He completed his basic training at Fort Leonard Wood, Missouri and was transferred to Fort Riley for his first and only duty assignment. He was initially awarded military occupational specialty (MOS) 84G (photographic laboratory specialist) in October 1968 and in January 1969, he was awarded the primary MOS 71M (chaplain's assistant). He was promoted to the pay grade of E-5 on 20 August 1969. 3. On 10 April 1970, General Orders Number 42, published by Headquarters, Fort Riley, KS, awarded him the ARCOM for meritorious service during the period from 4 November 1968 to 23 April 1970. 4. On 20 April 1970, General Orders Number 16, published by Headquarters, U. S. Army Garrison, Fort Riley, awarded him the GCMDL for exemplary behavior, efficiency and fidelity during the period from 24 April 1968 to 23 April 1970. 5. On 23 April 1970, the applicant was honorably REFRAD due to the expiration of his term of service (ETS). He had served 2 years of total active service. Item 24 (Decorations, Medals, Badges, Commendations, Citations and Campaign Ribbons Awarded or Authorized) of his DD Form 214 issued at the time of his REFRAD reflects that he was awarded the National Defense Service Medal and the Sharpshooter Marksmanship Qualification Badge with Rifle Bar (M-14). 6. A review of the applicant's records failed to show any evidence that he had qualified with the M-16 Rifle. The only weapons qualification orders contained in his records are for the M-14 Rifle (Sharpshooter). DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS: 1. The applicant's contention that his records should be corrected to reflect his awards of the GCMDL and the ARCOM have been noted and found to have merit. The applicant was awarded those awards through competent orders and is entitled to have them entered into his records at this time. 2. The applicant's contention that he qualified with and was awarded the Expert Marksmanship Qualification Badge with Rifle Bar (M-16) has been noted and appears to lack merit. The applicant's records are void of any evidence to show that he was awarded the Expert Marksmanship Qualification Badge with Rifle Bar (M-16) or that he ever qualified with that weapon. Therefore in the absence of such evidence, there appears to be no basis to grant that portion of his request. BOARD VOTE: ________ ________ ________ GRANT FULL RELIEF ___X_____ ___X_____ __X______ GRANT PARTIAL RELIEF ________ ________ ________ GRANT FORMAL HEARING ________ ________ ________ DENY APPLICATION BOARD DETERMINATION/RECOMMENDATION: 1. The Board determined that the evidence presented was 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 adding to item 24 of his DD Form 214 the GCMDL and the ARCOM. 2. The Board further determined that 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 adding the award of the Expert Marksmanship Qualification Badge with Rifle Bar (M-16) to his records. ________XXX_______________ CHAIRPERSON 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. ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont) AR20080017618 3 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 1 ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont) AR20080017618 3 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 1