| Mr. Carl W. S. Chun | Director | |
| Ms. Deborah L. Brantley | Senior Analyst |
| Mr. Luther L. Santiful | Chairperson | |
| Mr. Charles Gainor | Member | |
| Mr. Joe R. Schroeder | Member |
2. The applicant requests award of the Army Good Conduct Medal. He states, in effect, that he complied with all the demands of the military and his supervisors. He indicates that he was being reassigned during the period he should have received the award.
3. Records available to the Board indicate the applicant was a member of the Army National Guard when he enlisted in the Regular Army for a period of 4 years on 26 April 1978. He was initially assigned to Fort Hood, Texas and in January 1979 was transferred to Germany as part of a unit move. In January 1980 he was promoted to pay grade E-4. In July 1980 the applicant's installation check cashing privilege was suspended when he failed to redeem a $40.00 check from the local Post Exchange. The check was returned by his bank for insufficient funds. His check cashing privilege was suspended for 6 months. There is no indication he received any other disciplinary action for this single incident.
4. In March 1981 he was reassigned to Fort Carson, Colorado.
5. Army Regulation 600-8-22 provides that the Good Conduct Medal is awarded to individuals who distinguish themselves by their conduct, efficiency and fidelity during a qualifying period of active duty enlisted service. This period is 3 years except in those cases when the period for the first award ends with the termination of a period of Federal military service. The applicant completed a qualifying period for award of the Army Good Conduct Medal on 25 April 1981.
6. In November 1981 the applicant was punished under Article 15 of the UCMJ (Uniform Code of Military Justice) for driving a vehicle while under the influence of alcohol. Civilian authorities also confined him for several days as a result of that incident.
7. Although Army Regulation 600-8-22 notes that there is no automatic entitlement to the Good Conduct Medal, disqualification must be justified. Current practice requires that the commander provide written notice of nonfavorable consideration and permits the individual to respond. There is no evidence in the applicant's official military personnel file that his commander ever disqualified him for award of the Good Conduct Medal.
8. On 29 April 1982 he was released from active duty with an honorable characterization of service. His records do not reflect entitled to the Army Good Conduct Medal.
CONCLUSIONS:
1. The applicant completed a qualifying period of service for award of the Good Conduct Medal on 25 April 1981. While his check cashing privilege was suspended for 6 months in July 1980, the Board notes that this was a single incident, with no indication of any more severe disciplinary action by his chain of command. The Board believes that this single incident would not likely disqualify him from an award of the Good Conduct Medal.
2. There is no evidence in available records that the applicant's commander ever disqualified him from award of the Good Conduct Medal. The applicant's contention that he was in the process of moving from one unit to another during the period he would have received the award is confirmed in evidence available to the Board. It is possible that the applicant's chain of command overlooked his eligibility for the Good Conduct Medal during the period he was being reassigned and assimilated into his new unit and then his November 1981 UCMJ action may have impacted on any attempt to award the decoration retroactively.
3. The applicant's conduct between 26 April 1978 and 25 April 1981, the period for which he would have been eligible for his first Army Good Conduct Medal, was honorable and as such the Board concludes it would be appropriate and in the interest of justice to award him the Good Conduct Medal for that period.
4. In view of the foregoing, the applicant’s records should be corrected as recommended below.
RECOMMENDATION:
That all of the Department of the Army records related to this case be corrected by awarding the individual concerned the Army Good Conduct Medal for the period 26 April 1978 through 25 April 1981.
BOARD VOTE:
__LLS __ __CG ___ __ JRS__ GRANT AS STATED IN RECOMMENDATION
________ ________ ________ GRANT FORMAL HEARING
________ ________ ________ DENY APPLICATION
____Luther L. Santiful
CHAIRPERSON
| CASE ID | AR2001059618 |
| SUFFIX | |
| RECON | YYYYMMDD |
| DATE BOARDED | 20011010 |
| TYPE OF DISCHARGE | (HD, GD, UOTHC, UD, BCD, DD, UNCHAR) |
| DATE OF DISCHARGE | YYYYMMDD |
| DISCHARGE AUTHORITY | AR . . . . . |
| DISCHARGE REASON | |
| BOARD DECISION | GRANT |
| REVIEW AUTHORITY | |
| ISSUES 1. | 107.00 |
| 2. | |
| 3. | |
| 4. | |
| 5. | |
| 6. |
ARMY | BCMR | CY2001 | 2001057242C070420
EVIDENCE OF RECORD : The applicant's military records show: The record of trial was forwarded to the United States Army Court of Military Review for appellate review. No pay records were available for review.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2011 | 20110019136
The applicant requests that his general discharge be upgraded to honorable. In a letter dated 23 December 1982, the applicant's commander notified him of the return of his personal checks dated 23 October, 3 and 9 November 1982 for non-sufficient funds. Based on his record of misconduct and poor duty performance, the applicant's service clearly does not meet the standards of acceptable conduct for Army personnel.
AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2004-00235
On 30 September 1981, an Article 15 for absenting himself from his place of duty without authority, from 16 September 1981 to 18 September 1981, and failing to go to his place of duty on 14 September 1981. A complete copy of the evaluation is attached at Exhibit D. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: Applicant states that he makes no excuses nor does he deny any of the facts concerning his general discharge. He can...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2011 | 20110017959
THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST, STATEMENT, AND EVIDENCE: 1. The separation authority approved the findings and recommendations of the administrative separation board and directed the applicant's discharge by reason of misconduct under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 14, with a UOTHC character of service. An honorable or general discharge may be awarded by the separation authority if warranted by the member's overall record of service; however, a discharge UOTHC is normally...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2007 | 20070007906
Army Regulation 600-8-22 (Military Awards) provides that the Good Conduct Medal is awarded to individuals who distinguish themselves by their conduct, efficiency and fidelity during a qualifying period of active duty enlisted service. Evidence of record shows that the applicant successfully completed the Parachute Rigger course conducted by the U.S. Army Quartermaster School and held an awarded MOS of 43E. Therefore, he is entitled to award of the Parachute Rigger Badge and correction of...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2011 | 20110016173
On 6 February 1981, the applicant's battery commander initiated a DA Form 4126-R (Bar to Reenlistment Certificate). When it seems appropriate, a bar to reenlistment should be initiated even if the commander is aware that an honorable or general discharge will be issued for the current period of service or that the Soldier served honorably for a number of years. Army Regulation 140-111 further states that normally a bar to reenlistment should not be initiated against an individual during...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2009 | 20090011914
After the presentation of evidence and witnesses, the Board of Officers found that the preponderance of evidence indicated a pattern of misconduct and recommended that the applicant be separated and that he be issued a discharge under honorable conditions. On 16 May 1985, the acting commanding general waived the rehabilitation requirements, approved the separation recommendation of the Board of Officers, and directed that the applicant be separated from the U.S. Army under the provisions of...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002071577C070402
The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein. He departed Germany on 21 July 1978, en route to Fort Campbell, Kentucky, with a report date of 24 August 1978. He failed to report as ordered and was reported as AWOL from 24 August 1978, until he was returned to military control on 7 September and charges were preferred against him for the absent without leave (AWOL) offense.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2014 | 20140005881
On 23 June 1986, his bar to reenlistment was approved. Therefore, he is not entitled to the requested relief; c. NDSM, he did not serve during an authorized period for this award. Therefore, he is not entitled to the requested relief; and d. AFRM, he did not complete 10 qualifying years of Reserve Component service or serve on active duty in support of specific U.S. military operations or contingencies on or after 1 August 1990 for this award.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002080134C070215
The record contains no evidence that he was ever punished for this offense. On 28 January 1987, the Army Discharge Review Board denied the applicant’s request for clemency The available records contains no medical evidence and the applicant has provided no evidence that demonstrates he suffers from an illness or an injury that was either incurred in, or aggravated as a result of his military service.