IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 6 August 2009 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20090003122 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 Good Conduct Medal and its addition to his DD Form 214 (Report of Separation from the Armed Forces of the United States). 2. The applicant states, in effect, that his DA Form 24 (Service Record), Section 14 (Remarks), shows that he was favorably considered for award of the Good Conduct Medal. 3. In support of his application, the applicant provides copies of his DA Form 24. 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 military records are not available to the Board for review. A fire destroyed approximately 18 million service members' records at the National Personnel Records Center in 1973. It is believed that the applicant’s records were destroyed in that fire. However, a reconstructed record and documentation submitted by the applicant were sufficient for the Board to conduct a fair and impartial review of this case. 3. The available evidence show the applicant was inducted into the Army of the United States, in pay grade E-1, on 11 December 1953 and he entered active duty on the same date. He served overseas for 1 year, 6 months, and 13 days and was assigned to the 552nd Engineer Company (Pontoon Brigade). He served in Germany from 25 May 1954 to 27 November 1955. He was promoted to the rank of specialist three (SP3) (temporary) on 1 July 1955. 4. The applicant's DA Form 24, Section 4 (Chronological Record of Military Service) shows he received "excellent" conduct and efficiency ratings from 17 December 1953 through 4 August 1955. From 5 August 1955 to 22 November he was rated "very good" for conduct and "excellent" for efficiency. Section 1 of his DA Form 24 contains the entry, "12 Jul 54 – 23 Aug 54 transferred, character – excellent, efficiency – excellent favorably considered for good conduct medal." 5. The applicant was honorably released from active duty, in the rank of SP3, on 30 November 1955 and was transferred to the Army Reserve. He was credited with 1 year, 11 months, and 20 days of net active service and 1 year, 2 months, and 19 days of other service. He had no lost time. 6. Entries on the applicant’s DD Form 214, Item 27 (Decorations, Medals, Badges, Commendations, Citations and Campaigns Ribbons Awarded or Authorized) list the following awards: the National Defense Service Medal, the Army of Occupation Medal (Germany), and the Sharpshooter Marksmanship Qualification Badge with Carbine Bar. The Good Conduct Medal is not listed. 7. Army Regulation 600-65 (Personnel - Service Medals), in effect at the time, provided for award of the Good Conduct Medal to Soldiers for exemplary behavior, efficiency, and fidelity in an enlisted status upon termination of service, on or after 27 June 1950, of less than 3 years but more than 1 year. During the period of service for which an award of this medal was contemplated, all character and efficiency ratings, including those pertinent to attendance at service schools, must have been recorded as "excellent" or higher. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS: 1. The evidence of record shows the applicant received "excellent" conduct and efficiency ratings from 17 December 1953 through 4 August 1955 and he received favorable consideration for award of the Good Conduct Medal. However, he received a rating of "very good" for his conduct and a rating of "excellent" for his efficiency from 5 August through 22 November 1955. Notwithstanding the favorable consideration, in accordance with regulatory guidance in effect at the time, all character (conduct) and efficiency ratings must have been rated as "excellent" or higher to qualify for the award. Therefore, he was disqualified for award of the Good Conduct Medal and he is not eligible for the award at this time. 2. In view of the foregoing, there is no basis for granting the applicant's request. 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) AR20090003122 3 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 1 ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont) AR20090003122 2 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 1