| Mr. Carl W. S. Chun | Director | |
| Mr. Joseph A. Adriance | Analyst |
| Mr. Fred N. Eichorn | Chairperson | |
| Mr. John E. Denning | Member | |
| Mr. Terry L. Placek | Member |
2. The applicant requests, in effect, that he be awarded the Army Good Conduct Medal (ARGCM).
3. The applicant states, in effect, that he honorably served on active duty in the Regular Army for 2 years, 11 months, 22 days, from 10 June 1974 to 1 June 1977, and never received the AGCM. He claims he never violated the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) while on active duty and that he subsequently served in the United States Army Reserve (USAR) for 27 years. He indicates that he has always felt deserving of the award and felt it necessary to make the effort to apply for it at this time.
4. The applicant’s military records show that he entered active duty in the Regular Army (RA) on 10 June 1974, and that he continuously served in that status for 2 years, 11 months, 22 days until 1 June 1977, when he was honorably separated in the rank and pay grade of specialist four/E-4 (SP4/E-4).
5. The DD Form 214 issued to the applicant on the date of his separation shows that he was honorably released from active duty and that the only award he received during his active duty tenure was the National Defense Service Medal (NDSM). There is no reference made to the AGCM in this separation document nor is there any indication in his record that he was disqualified from receiving the award by any of his unit commanders.
6. Army Regulation 600-8-22 (Military Awards) prescribes Army policy, criteria, and administrative instructions concerning individual military awards. Chapter
4 prescribes the policy for award of the AGCM. Paragraph 4-4, gives the specific criteria for approval of the AGCM. It states, in pertinent part, that it is the immediate commander’s decision to award the AGCM based on his personal knowledge of the individual and on the individual’s official records. It further states that the lack of official disqualifying comment by previous commanders allows that period of service to qualify for use in awarding the AGCM.
7. Paragraph 4-5 of the regulation defines periods of service which qualify for award of the AGCM. It states, in pertinent part, that for the first award only, upon termination of service on or after 27 June 1950, a period of more than one year is a qualifying period for award of the AGCM. The available evidence contains no indication that the applicant had committed any infractions that would have disqualified him from receiving the AGCM or that he was ever disqualified for the award by any of his immediate commanders.
CONCLUSIONS:
1. By regulation, a period of more than one year of active military service terminated after on or after 27 June 1950, is a qualifying period for the first award of the AGCM. The evidence of record confirms that the applicant completed a total of 2 years, 11 months, and 22 days of honorable active military service at the time of his separation on 1 June 1977, which more than satisfies this regulatory qualifying period of service criteria.
2. The applicant’s record is also void of any disqualifying comment from any of his unit commanders and of any derogatory information or a disciplinary history that would prohibit him from receiving the AGCM. Therefore, the Board concludes that it would be appropriate to provide him the first award of the AGCM for his honorable active duty service from 10 June 1974 and 1 June 1977.
3. 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 AGCM based on his having completed more that one year of honorable active military service during his first enlistment, from 10 June 1974 to 1 June 1977, and by providing him a corrected separation document that reflects this award.
BOARD VOTE:
_ FNE __ __JED__ __TLP__ GRANT AS STATED IN RECOMMENDATION
________ ________ ________ GRANT FORMAL HEARING
________ ________ ________ DENY APPLICATION
__Fred N. Eichorn __
CHAIRPERSON
| CASE ID | AR2001060668 |
| SUFFIX | |
| RECON | |
| DATE BOARDED | 2001/09/13 |
| TYPE OF DISCHARGE | HD |
| DATE OF DISCHARGE | 1977/06/01 |
| DISCHARGE AUTHORITY | AR 635-200 |
| DISCHARGE REASON | ets |
| BOARD DECISION | GRANT |
| REVIEW AUTHORITY | |
| ISSUES 1. 46 | 107.0000 |
| 2. | |
| 3. | |
| 4. | |
| 5. | |
| 6. |
ARMY | BCMR | CY2001 | 2001060855C070421
Army Regulation 600-8-22 (Military Awards) prescribes Army policy, criteria, and administrative instructions concerning individual military awards. Paragraph 2-10 contains guidance on awarding the National Defense Service Medal (NDSM) and states, in pertinent part, that the award is authorized to any member for any period of honorable service performed after 2 August 1990. The evidence of record confirms that he received three separate awards of the AAM for meritorious achievement during...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2003 | 2003087636C070212
The evidence of record provides no confirmation that the applicant was ever recommended for and/or awarded the ARCOM by the proper authority. Lacking any derogatory information on file that would disqualify him from receiving the AGCM, or a specific disqualification from any of the active duty unit commanders for whom he served, the Board finds that he is entitled to the first award of the AGCM based on his qualifying period of honorable active duty service from 13 March 1968 through 4...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2007 | 20070010937C080407
On 20 August 1976, the Commander, United States Army Health Services Command (HSC), issued the applicant a letter of appreciation indicating that the United States Army Forces Command (FORSCOM) and Department of the Army (DA) Awards Boards completed their review of the recommendations for award submitted on personnel who participated in Operation New Arrivals, and although her services during this operation were extraordinary, the current awards policy regrettably precluded favorable...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2004 | 2004101893C070208
Two DA Forms 1577 (Authorization for Issuance of Awards) on file, dated 30 August 1991 and 6 May 2002, confirm the responsible Department of the Army agency authorized the issue of the following awards to the applicant based on a review of his record: Expert Qualification Badge with Machine Gun and Carbine Bars; Sharpshooter Qualification Badge with Rifle Bar; and NDSM. The Board determined that the evidence presented was sufficient to warrant a recommendation for partial relief and to...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2001 | 2001060372C070421
As with all personal decorations, to support awarding the BSM and adding it to a member’s service record, a formal recommendation must have been made for the award, it must have been approved by the proper authority, and the award must have been announced in orders. The Board notes the applicant’s contention that he is entitled to the PH and the BSM. Lacking a specific disqualifying action from any of his unit commanders, the Board finds the evidence of record confirms that the applicant...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2001 | 2001056843C070420
As with all personal decorations, to support awarding the BSM and adding it to a member’s service record, a formal recommendation must have been made for the award, it must have been approved by the proper authority, and the award must have been announced in orders. The Board notes the applicant’s contention that he is entitled to the PH and the BSM. Lacking a specific disqualifying action from any of his unit commanders, the Board finds the evidence of record confirms that the applicant...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2003 | 2003091151C070212
After carefully examining the applicant’s record of service, the Board has determined that the applicant should have received the AGCM for his service from 31 July 1968 through 22 July 1971. BOARD DETERMINATION/RECOMMENDATION: As a result, the Board recommends that all Department of the Army records of the individual concerned be corrected by awarding him the AGCM for the period of 31 July 1968 through 22 July 1971, the RVNGC w/Palm Unit Citation, the MUC and one silver service star for...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2003 | 2003083822C070212
The regulation also states, in pertinent part, that for first award only, upon termination of service on or after 27 June 1950, a period of service of less than 3 years but more than 1 year qualifies for award of the AGCM. The evidence of record clearly shows that the applicant served in Thailand for a period of 18 months with the USAMACTHAI, a unit which provided direct support to operations in Vietnam. After carefully examining the applicant’s record of service, the Board has determined...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2003 | 2003084288C070212
The regulation in effect at the time provided, in pertinent part, that item 12 of the DD Form 214 would be prepared to reflect the individual's unit of assignment and major command. However, after carefully examining the applicant’s record of service, the Board has determined that the applicant should have received the AGCM for his service from 7 December 1961 through 6 December 1963. In view of the foregoing, the applicant’s records should be corrected as recommended below.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2001 | 2001061857C070421
The applicant’s Military Personnel Records Jacket (MPRJ) contains no derogatory information that would have disqualified him from receiving the Army Good Conduct Medal and there is no evidence that he was ever disqualified from receiving the award by any of the unit commanders for which he served. Paragraph 2-13 of Army Regulation 600-8-22 provides guidance on awarding the Vietnam Service Medal and it states, in pertinent part, that one bronze service star is authorized with this award for...