IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 28 July 2015 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20140019423 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 an upgrade of his general discharge and correction of his records to show all authorized awards. 2. The applicant states that he served with Company C, 5th Battalion, 87th Infantry Regiment in Panama. The unit was awarded the Presidential Unit Citation and he was awarded the Combat Infantryman Badge, Humanitarian Service Medal, and Overseas Service Ribbon. 3. The applicant provides a copy of his DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty). 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 had prior honorable enlisted service in the Army National Guard of the United States and Minnesota Army National Guard from 30 March 1987 through 7 May 1988. He was awarded military occupational specialty (MOS) 11B (Infantryman). 3. He enlisted in the Regular Army on 9 September 1988 for a period of 2 years. 4. Headquarters, U.S. Army Training Center, Fort Dix, NJ, Orders 004-14, dated 4 January 1990, and Headquarters, U.S. Army South, 1st Endorsement, dated 6 February 1990, assigned the applicant to Headquarters and Headquarters Company (HHC), 5th Battalion, 87th Infantry, Fort Clayton, Panama, effective 6 February 1990. 5. The applicant's DA Form 2-1 (Personnel Qualification Record) shows in – * item 5 (Oversea Service) the country where he served, period of overseas service, and if credit for normal tour completion (NTC) was granted, as follows – Country Period (From – Through) NTC Germany 28 September 1988 – 10 September 1989 No Panama 4 February 1990 – 14 June 1990 No * item 9 (Awards, Decorations and Campaigns) – * Army Service Ribbon * Sharpshooter Marksmanship Qualification Badge with – * Rifle (M-16) Bar * Hand Grenade Bar * item 35 (Record of Assignments): HHC, 5th Battalion, 87th Infantry, Fort Clayton, Panama, from 8 February 1990 through 14 June 1990 6. A DA Form 3822-R (Report of Mental Status Evaluation), completed on 19 April 1990, shows the applicant – * was found to be fully alert and oriented, his mood unremarkable, thinking process clear, thought content normal, memory good, and mentally responsible for his behavior * had the mental capacity to understand and participate in proceedings * was cleared for administrative action deemed appropriate by the commander * Diagnoses – * Axis I: * Cocaine Abuse (no diagnosis apparent misuse) * Alcohol abuse, continuous * Axis II: Deferred * Axis III: No diagnosis * The Behavioral Science Specialist and Chief, Department of Psychiatry, placed their signatures on the document 7. On 2 May 1990, the applicant accepted nonjudicial punishment (NJP) for wrongfully using cocaine on or about 19 February 1990. His punishment included a forfeiture of $366 pay for 2 months, and 45 days of restriction and extra duty. He was also reduced to pay grade E-1 on 2 May 1990. 8. On 1 June 1990, the applicant's commander notified him that he was recommending him for separation under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations – Enlisted Personnel), chapter 14 (Separation for Misconduct), paragraph 14-12c, based on commission of a serious offense. a. The reason for his proposed action was the applicant tested positive for the use of cocaine. b. The applicant was advised of his rights and the separation procedures involved. The commander also informed him that he was recommending the issuance of a general discharge. c. The applicant acknowledged receipt of the commander's notification and that he had been advised of his right to consult with counsel. 9. Following notification of the separation action, the applicant consulted with legal counsel and he was advised of the rights available to him. a. He was advised he may expect to encounter substantial prejudice in civilian life in the event a general discharge under honorable conditions discharge was issued to him. b. The applicant also acknowledged he understood that if he received a discharge/character of service that was less than honorable he could make application to the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) or ABCMR for upgrading his discharge. However, an act of consideration by either board did not imply that his discharge would be upgraded. c. He elected not to submit statements in his own behalf. d. The applicant and his counsel placed their signatures on the document. 10. The applicant’s chain of command recommended approval of the applicant's discharge, under honorable conditions discharge (general). 11. The separation authority approved the recommendation for discharge of the applicant and directed that the applicant be discharged under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 14-12c, and that he be issued a General Discharge Certificate. 12. The applicant's DD Form 214 shows he was discharged on 15 June 1990 under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 14-12c, based on commission of a serious offense, with service characterized as under honorable conditions (general). a. He had completed 1 year, 5 months, and 23 days of net active service during this period. b. Item 13 (Decorations, Medals, Badges, Citations and Campaign Ribbons Awarded or Authorized) shows the – * Army Service Ribbon * Sharpshooter Marksmanship Qualification Badge with Rifle (M-16) Bar * Sharpshooter Marksmanship Qualification Badge with Grenade Bar * Armed Forces Expeditionary Medal 13. A review of the applicant's military personnel records failed to reveal evidence that he was awarded or authorized any other awards or decorations. 14. A review of the U.S. Army Human Resources Command, Awards and Decorations Branch, "Approved Unit Awards" listing shows the 5th Battalion, 87th Infantry, was awarded the Army Superior Unit Award for the period 1 February 1990 to 31 December 1990 in Department of the Army General Orders Number 20, dated 30 August 1991. 15. The applicant submitted an application to the ADRB for an upgrade of his discharge. On 3 January 1994, the ADRB determined that the reason for his discharge and the character of his service were both proper and equitable. Accordingly, the ADRB denied the relief requested by the applicant. 16. Army Regulation 600-8-22 (Military Awards) provides policy, criteria, and administrative instructions concerning military awards and decorations. a. Appendix B, Table B-1, lists campaigns, service requirements, and inscriptions prescribed for unit streamers. A review of Table B-1 shows, in pertinent part, the Panama Campaign was from 20 December 1989 through 31 January 1990. b. The Presidential Unit Citation is awarded for extraordinary heroism in action. A unit must display such gallantry, determination, and esprit de corps in accomplishing its mission as would warrant award of the Distinguished Service Cross to an individual. c. The Armed Forces Expeditionary Medal is awarded for qualifying service after 1 July 1958 in U.S. military operations, U.S. operations in direct support of the United Nations, and U.S. operations of assistance for friendly foreign nations. Qualifying service for this award includes participation in Panama in support of Operation Just Cause from 20 December 1989 through 31 January 1990. d. The Combat Infantryman Badge is awarded to infantry officers and enlisted Soldiers who have an infantry MOS. There are basically three requirements for award of the Combat Infantryman Badge. The Soldier must be an infantryman satisfactorily performing infantry duties, he must be assigned to an infantry unit during such time as the unit is engaged in active ground combat, and he must actively participate in such ground combat. The Combat Infantryman Badge is authorized for award for combat operations in Panama from 20 December 1989 to 31 January 1990. e. The Humanitarian Service Medal is awarded to members who, after 1 April 1975, distinguished themselves by meritorious direct participation in a Department of Defense approved significant military act or operation of a humanitarian nature. (1) A service member must be on active duty at the time of direct participation, must have directly participated in the humanitarian act or operation within the designated geographical area of operation and within specified time limits, and must provide evidence that substantiates direct participation. (2) Table C-1 lists Department of Defense and Department of the Army Approved Humanitarian Service Medal Operations. A review of Table C-1 failed to show the Humanitarian Service Medal was approved for operations in Panama during the period of service under review. f. The Overseas Service Ribbon was established by the Secretary of the Army on 10 April 1981. Effective 1 August 1981, all members of the Active Army, Army National Guard, and Army Reserve in an active Reserve status are eligible for the award for successful completion of overseas tours. 17. Army Regulation 635-200, in effect at the time, sets forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel. a. Chapter 14 establishes policy and prescribes procedures for separating members for misconduct. Specific categories include minor disciplinary infractions, a pattern of misconduct, commission of a serious offense, conviction by civil authorities, desertion, or absences without leave. Action will be taken to separate a member for misconduct when it is clearly established that rehabilitation is impracticable or is unlikely to succeed. A discharge under other than honorable conditions is normally considered appropriate. However, the separation authority may direct a general discharge if such is merited by the member's overall record. b. Chapter 3, paragraph 3-7a, provides that an honorable discharge is a separation with honor and entitles the recipient to benefits provided by law. The honorable characterization is appropriate when the quality of the member's service generally has met the standards of acceptable conduct and performance of duty for Army personnel or is otherwise so meritorious that any other characterization would be clearly inappropriate. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS: 1. The applicant contends that his records should be corrected to show all of his authorized awards, including the Presidential Unit Citation, Combat Infantryman Badge, Humanitarian Service Medal, and Overseas Service Ribbon, and an upgrade of the characterization of service to fully honorable. 2. The evidence of record shows the Panama Campaign was from 20 December 1989 through 31 January 1990. Records show the applicant was assigned to HHC, 5th Battalion, 87th Infantry, Fort Clayton, Panama, from 6 February 1990 through 14 June 1990. Thus, the applicant did not serve in Panama during the Panama Campaign. a. There is no evidence of record that shows his unit was awarded the Presidential Unit Citation. b. There is also no evidence that shows he was awarded the Combat Infantryman Badge. In fact, the evidence of record fails to show the applicant served in Panama during the period authorized for award of the Combat Infantryman Badge. c. There is no evidence of record that shows the Humanitarian Service Medal was approved for operations in Panama during the period of service under review. There is also no evidence of record that shows the applicant was awarded the Humanitarian Service Medal. d. The evidence of record shows the applicant served overseas in Germany and Panama during the period of service under review. However, records show he did not receive NTC for his foreign service in Germany or Panama. Thus, he is not authorized award of the Overseas Service Ribbon. e. Therefore, in view of the foregoing, the applicant is not entitled to the Presidential Unit Citation, Combat Infantryman Badge, Humanitarian Service Medal, or Overseas Service Ribbon. 3. General orders awarded the applicant's unit the Army Superior Unit Award. Therefore, it would be appropriate to correct his DD Form 214 to show this unit award. 4. Records show the applicant enlisted in the Regular Army on 9 September 1988 and he was discharged under honorable conditions on 15 June 1990 after completing about 1 year and 6 months of active service. 5. The applicant's administrative discharge under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 14, based on commission of a serious offense was accomplished in compliance with applicable regulations with no indication of procedural errors which would have jeopardized his rights. In addition, the reason for and type of discharge directed were appropriate and equitable. 6. The evidence of record shows the applicant received NJP for wrongfully using cocaine while he was serving in Panama and he was reduced to pay grade E-1. In addition, he completed only about 18 months of his 2-year active duty obligation. Thus, the applicant's service during the period under review did not meet the standards of acceptable conduct and performance of duty for Army personnel and he is not entitled to an honorable discharge. 7. Therefore, there is an insufficient basis for upgrading his discharge to fully honorable. However, it would be appropriate to correct the applicant's DD Form 214 to show award of the Army Superior Unit Award. 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 13 of his 15 June 1990 DD Form 214 the Army Superior Unit Award. 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 the Presidential Unit Citation, Combat Infantryman Badge, Humanitarian Service Medal, Overseas Service Ribbon, and his characterization of his service. _______ _ __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) AR20140019423 3 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 1 ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont) AR20140019423 8 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 1