IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 26 March 2009 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20080018983 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, in effect, award of the Army Good Conduct Medal (AGCM). 2. The applicant states, in effect, that he was informed in Turkey that he would receive the AGCM when he arrived at Fort Dix, New Jersey; however, when he arrived, he was informed he should have received it in Turkey and no follow-up was done. 3. The applicant provides his DD Form 214 (Armed Forces of the United States Report of Transfer or Discharge) in support of his application. 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's record shows that he enlisted in the Regular Army and entered active duty on 20 July 1959, and was trained in and awarded military occupational specialty (MOS) 059.10 (Radio Operator). His DA Form 24 (Service Record) shows that he was promoted to specialist five (SP5)/E-5 on 13 December 1961, and that this is the highest rank he attained while serving on active duty. 3. Section 4 (Chronological Record of Military Service) of his DA Form 24 shows that he received less than "Excellent" conduct ratings during three of his assignments, which included the period between 28 July and 24 September 1959; 20 June and 27 July 1960; and 28 July and 14 October 1960. It further shows that during the periods between 28 July and 24 September 1959 and between 20 June and 27 July 1960, he also received less than "Excellent" efficiency ratings. Section 9 (Medals, Decorations and Citations) shows that during the period of his enlistment, he earned the Sharpshooter Marksmanship Qualification Badge with Rifle Bar. No other awards, to include the AGCM, are listed in Section 9. 4. On 6 June 1962, the applicant was honorably released from active duty (REFRAD) after completing 2 years, 10 months, and 17 days of active military service. The DD Form 214 he was issued at the time shows he earned no individual awards or decorations during the period of his enlistment. 5. Army Regulation 672-5-1 (Awards) provided the Army's awards policy at the time of the applicant's REFRAD. The policy in effect at the time required that a member meet all the following criteria in order to be eligible for the AGCM: a. all conduct and efficiency ratings must be recorded as "Excellent" except that rating of "Unknown" for portions of the period under consideration were not disqualifying and service school efficiency ratings based upon academic proficiency of at least "Good" rendered subsequent to 22 November 1955 were not disqualifying; and b. no conviction by court-martial during the period. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS: 1. The applicant's contention that he was eligible for and should have been awarded the AGCM upon his REFRAD in 1962 was carefully considered. However, there is insufficient evidence to support this claim. 2. The governing regulation, in effect at the time, required that a member meet all specified regulatory criteria in order to be awarded the AGCM, which included that he receive all "Excellent" conduct and efficiency ratings during all assignment periods. Two specific exceptions to these criteria were identified in the regulation, which included "Unknown" ratings and "Good" efficiency ratings at schools that were based solely on academic proficiency. 3. The evidence of record confirms that the applicant received less than "Excellent" conduct ratings during three separate assignment periods and less than "Excellent" efficiency ratings during two assignment periods. As a result, he did not satisfy the regulatory criteria necessary to be eligible to be awarded the AGCM at the time of his REFRAD. Therefore, absent any error or injustice related to award of the AGCM, there is an insufficient evidentiary basis to support granting the requested relief. 4. In order to justify correction of a military record the applicant must show to the satisfaction of the Board, or it must otherwise satisfactorily appear, that the record is in error or unjust. The applicant has failed to submit evidence that would satisfy this requirement. BOARD VOTE: ________ ________ ________ GRANT FULL RELIEF ________ ________ ________ GRANT PARTIAL RELIEF ________ ________ ________ GRANT FORMAL HEARING ____x___ ___x____ ____x___ DENY APPLICATION BOARD DETERMINATION/RECOMMENDATION: The evidence presented does not demonstrate the existence of a probable error or injustice. Therefore, the Board determined that the overall merits of this case are insufficient as a basis for correction of the records of the individual concerned. _________x_____________ 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) AR20080018983 3 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 1 ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont) AR20080018983 2 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 1