IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 4 May 2010 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20090017205 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 award of the Army Good Conduct Medal (AGCM). 2. The applicant states his honorable service meets the criteria for award of the AGCM and the Army failed to give him the award prior to his discharge. 3. The applicant provides no additional documentary evidence in support of this 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 6 February 1969. He was trained in and awarded military occupational specialty 11B (Light Weapons Infantryman) and the highest rank/grade he attained while serving on active duty was specialist four (SP4)/E-4. 3. The applicant's DA Form 20 (Enlisted Qualification Record) shows, in item 38 (Record of Assignments), he received a "Good" conduct and efficiency rating during his assignment to Company, B, 4th Battalion, 10th Infantry Regiment, Fort William D. Davis, Canal Zone (CZ), for the period 13 August 1971 to 26 December 1971. 4. On 10 August 1971, the applicant accepted non-judicial punishment (NJP) under the provisions of Article 15 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) for violating a lawful general regulation by driving an unregistered motor vehicle on a military installation. 5. Unit Orders Number 58, dated 1 October 1970, issued by Company B, 4th Battalion, 10th Infantry Regiment, ordered the applicant's reduction from SP4/E-4 to private first class (PFC)/E-3, effective 25 September 1971, based on a civil court conviction. 6. A DA Form 2166-4 (Enlisted Evaluation Report (EER)) the applicant received for the period August 1971 through December 1971 shows he received five below average and one unsatisfactory ratings of the six rated characteristics. Under advancement potential the rater indicated that if he had the authority and responsibility to promote the applicant he would not promote him. 7. The applicant's Official Military Personnel File (OMPF) is void of any documentation that shows he was recommended for or awarded the AGCM by proper authority while serving on active duty. 8. On 27 December 1971, the applicant was honorably released from active duty in the rank/grade of PFC/E-3 after completing 2 years, 10 months, and 22 days of active military service. 9. Army Regulation 672-5-1 (Awards), in effect at the time, provided the Army's awards policy. It stated the normal qualifying period was 3 years; however, for the first award only, a period of less than 3 but more than 1 year was qualifying upon termination of service on or after 27 June 1950. It further indicated that in order to qualify for the AGCM a member must have received all "Excellent" conduct and efficiency ratings (emphasis added). There must have been no convictions by a court-martial. The regulation stipulated there was no right or entitlement to the award until the immediate commander made a positive recommendation for its award and until the awarding authority announced the award in General Orders. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS: 1. The applicant's contention that he should have been awarded the AGCM based on his honorable service has been carefully considered. However, the regulation in effect at the time required all "Excellent" conduct and efficiency ratings and a recommendation from the immediate commander to qualify for award of the AGCM. 2. The record shows the applicant received "Good" conduct and efficiency ratings during a CZ assignment and there is no AGCM recommendation from his immediate commander in the record. Further, his record reveals he accepted NJP and was reduced for cause based on a civil conviction and that he received poor ratings on an EER ending in December 1971, as evidenced by a DA Form 2166-4 in his record. As a result, he did not meet the criteria necessary to support award of the AGCM prior to his separation. 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) AR20090017205 3 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 1 ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont) AR20090017205 2 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 1