IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 10 August 2010 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20100008445 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 correction of his DD Form 214 (Armed Forces of the United States Report of Transfer or Discharge) to show award of the Army Good Conduct Medal (AGCM). 2. The applicant states, in effect, he does not see any reason why he should not receive the AGCM along with the accompanying medal set. 3. The applicant provides a copy of his DD Form 214. 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 records show he was inducted into the Army of the United States on 25 February 1964 for a period of 2 years. Upon completion of basic combat and advanced individual training, he was awarded military occupational specialty (MOS) 05C (Radio Telephone Operator). He was honorably released from active duty on 19 February 1966 and transferred to the U.S. Army Reserve (USAR) Control Group (Annual Training) to complete his remaining Reserve obligation. He served 1 year, 11 months, and 25 days of total active service with 5 months and 3 days of foreign service in USARPAC [Vietnam]. 3. Item 26 (Decorations, Medals, Badges, Commendations, Citations and Campaign Ribbons Awarded or Authorized) of the applicant's DD Form 214 does not show award of the AGCM. 4. There is no indication in the applicant’s personnel records that he was recommended for or awarded the AGCM. A copy of his DA Form 24 (Service Record), section 2 (Chronological Record of Military Service), shows he received four "excellent," one "good," and two "unknown" conduct and efficiency rating periods during his active service. 5. Army Regulation 672-5-1 (Awards), in effect at the time, stated the Army Good Conduct Medal was awarded for each 3 years of continuous enlisted active Federal military service completed on or after 27 August 1940; for first award only, 1 year served entirely during the period 7 December 1941 to 2 March 1946; and, for the first award only, upon termination of service on or after 27 June 1950 of less than 3 years but more than 1 year. The enlisted person must have had all "excellent" conduct and efficiency ratings. Ratings of "Unknown" for portions of the period under consideration were not disqualifying. Service school efficiency ratings based upon academic proficiency of at least "Good" rendered subsequent to 22 November 1955 were not disqualifying. There must have been no convictions by a court-martial. However, there was no right or entitlement to the medal 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 request for correction of his records to show award of the AGCM was carefully considered and found not to be supported by the evidence. 2. The applicant's records show he did not receive all "excellent" conduct and efficiency ratings during the qualifying period for award of the AGCM. The regulatory guidance in effect at the time stated the enlisted person must have had all "excellent" conduct and efficiency ratings. The applicant did not have all "excellent" conduct and efficiency ratings. Therefore, based on the foregoing, he is not entitled to the AGCM. BOARD VOTE: ____X___ ___X____ ___X___ GRANT FULL RELIEF ________ ________ ________ GRANT PARTIAL RELIEF ________ ________ ________ GRANT FORMAL HEARING ________ ________ ________ DENY APPLICATION BOARD DETERMINATION/RECOMMENDATION: 1. Notwithstanding the staff DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS above, the Board determined that the applicant's service was "excellent" while he was in a permanent party status. He received "good" conduct and efficiency ratings only while in basic combat training. The Board believed those "good" ratings should not prevent him from being awarded the Army Good Conduct Medal. 2. Therefore, the Board determined that the evidence presented was sufficient to grant relief. As a result, the Board recommends that all Department of the Army records of the individual concerned be corrected by: a. awarding him the Army Good Conduct Medal for the period 25 February 1964 through 19 February 1966; and b. adding the Army Good Conduct Medal to his DD Form 214. _________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) AR20100008445 3 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 1 ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont) AR20100008445 2 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 1