| Mr. Carl W. S. Chun | Director | |
| Ms. Wanda L. Waller | Analyst |
| Mr. Raymond V. O’Connor | Chairperson | |
| Mr. Roger W. Able | Member | |
| Mr. John T. Meixell | Member |
2. The applicant requests correction of his military records to show the sixth award of the Good Conduct Medal.
3. The applicant states that he had been in the Army for 18 years and 6 months and was told that he could not get his sixth award of the Good Conduct Medal because he was overweight. In support of his application, he submits a copy of his retirement DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty) and his retirement orders.
4. The applicant’s military records show that he completed over 20 years of active duty on 31 May 1987 when he retired in the rank of staff sergeant.
5. The applicant’s retirement DD Form 214 shows five awards of the Good Conduct Medal as authorized awards.
6. The applicant’s service personnel records contain documentation, dated
10 November 1983, which shows that he was placed in the weight reduction program. His records also contain documentation, dated 11 April 1984, which shows he was removed from the weight reduction program effective 11 April 1984. On 29 August 1985, the applicant acknowledged receipt of the disapproval of award of the Good Conduct Medal and elected not to submit a statement on his behalf.
7. The applicant’s service personnel records contain a letter of disapproval, dated 29 August 1985, for award of the Good Conduct Medal for the period
3 November 1982 to 2 November 1985. This letter states, “During the period of your eligibility for award of the GCMDL [Good Conduct Medal], you have been on the overweight program.”
8. There is no evidence in the available records which shows the applicant had a weight problem subsequent to 11 April 1984.
9. 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. 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. Although there is no automatic entitlement to the Good Conduct Medal, disqualification must be justified.
CONCLUSIONS:
1. Evidence of record shows that the applicant was placed in the weight reduction program on 10 November 1983.
2. Evidence of record also shows that the applicant was removed from the weight reduction program on 11 April 1984.
3. The applicant’s sixth award of the Good Conduct Medal for the period
3 November 1982 to 2 November 1985 was disapproved because he had been on the overweight program during this period of eligibility.
4. Based on the applicant’s success in the weight reduction program, the Board finds that the commander’s decision to disqualify the applicant from receiving a sixth award of the Good Conduct Medal for being overweight is inequitable.
5. Based on the foregoing, the Board determined that, as a matter of equity, the applicant be awarded the sixth award of the Good Conduct Medal for the period 3 November 1982 to 2 November 1985. Therefore, the applicant’s records should be corrected to show this award.
6. 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 showing that the individual concerned was awarded the sixth award of the Good Conduct Medal for the period 3 November 1982 to 2 November 1985.
BOARD VOTE:
RVO____ RWA___ JTM_____ GRANT AS STATED IN RECOMMENDATION
________ ________ ________ GRANT FORMAL HEARING
________ ________ ________ DENY APPLICATION
_Raymond V. O’Connor
CHAIRPERSON
| CASE ID | AR2002070310 |
| SUFFIX | |
| RECON | |
| DATE BOARDED | 20020620 |
| TYPE OF DISCHARGE | |
| DATE OF DISCHARGE | |
| DISCHARGE AUTHORITY | |
| DISCHARGE REASON | |
| BOARD DECISION | (GRANT) |
| REVIEW AUTHORITY | |
| ISSUES 1. | 107.0056 |
| 2. | |
| 3. | |
| 4. | |
| 5. | |
| 6. |
ARMY | BCMR | CY2003 | 2003085590C070212
The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein. Disqualification for an award of the Army Good Conduct Medal can occur at any time during a qualifying period, requiring a new "beginning date" to be established. Despite his otherwise good record, it appears the applicant was properly denied the opportunity to be awarded an AAM or the Army Good Conduct Medal.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2003 | 2003090647C070212
He was denied extension of his enlistment at his expiration term of service (ETS) but the underlying reason was a suspension of favorable personnel actions for being on the Army's weight control program. The 24 January 2002 letter from The Office of the Adjutant General, State of California indicates the applicant's unit requested a one-time waiver, not to exceed 12 months, in order for him to extend to qualify towards attaining 20 qualifying years for retirement. Since he was 48 years old...
ARMY | BCMR | CY1990-1993 | 9108000
Also, he now requests, in effect, placement on the permanent disability retired list, removal of the enlisted evaluation report (EER) covering the period September 1977-August 1978 as a partial basis for the HQDA bar to reenlistment, and the award of the Good Conduct Medal (6th Award). On 3 April 1989, the Board of Veterans Appeals, indicated that the applicant had active service from May 1970 to April 1972 and from December 1972 to March 1986; that the applicant had a transitory psychotic...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002080913C070215
The applicant states that he was denied his second award of the Good Conduct Medal because he was 10 pounds overweight. The applicant's DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty) shows entitlement to the first award of the Good Conduct Medal. There is no evidence of record which shows the applicant received the second award of the Good Conduct Medal.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2011 | 20110011896
IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 12 January 2012 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20110011896 THE BOARD CONSIDERED THE FOLLOWING EVIDENCE: 1. THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST, STATEMENT, AND EVIDENCE: 1. __________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.
NAVY | BCNR | CY2006 | 11234-06
Documentary material considered by the Board consisted of your application, together with all material submitted in support thereof, your naval record and applicable statutes, regulations and policies.After careful and conscientious consideration of the entire record, the Board found that the evidence submitted was insufficient to establish the existence of probable material error or injustice.You reenlisted in the Navy on 5 February 1982 for six years. However, the next two evaluations...
ARMY | BCMR | CY1995 | 9506078C070209
He states that he was illegally denied reenlistment which was later corrected by his being authorized an antedated reenlistment. In support of his application he submits a letter from his commander who confirms that the applicant was occupying an E-8 position, that he had forwarded promotion packets for the applicant, and that the applicant was separated under the QMP without being issued a 20 year letter. The USARC recommended that the Board validate the revocation of his 1986 discharge...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2010 | 20100025142
His records show he underwent several unit weigh-ins during 1982 and 1983 and in each case he exceeded the weight and height table of Army Regulation 600-9 (The Army Weight Control Program). On 7 February 1984, the applicants immediate commander notified the applicant of his intent to initiate separation action against him in accordance with chapter 13 of Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations) by reason of unsatisfactory performance. The evidence of record shows the applicant...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2007 | 20070017781
On 8 February 1987, by endorsement, the applicants immediate commander notified the applicant that he was determined to have exceeded body fat standards of Army Regulation 600-9 (Army Weight Control Program) and that a goal of 3 to 8 pounds of weight loss per month was considered to be satisfactory progress. On 1 August 1987, by memorandum, the applicants immediate commander notified the applicant of his (the commanders) intent to initiate separation action against him (the applicant) in...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2013 | 20130013174
This memorandum informed the FSM that he was 22 to 27 pounds over the weight standards prescribed in Army Regulation 600-9 (The Army Weight Control Program). (3) ARPC 600-E which shows he served in the: (a) Regular Army from 1 February 1967 to 30 April 1971 and was credited with 5 good years for retirement (50 or more retirement points per year). * 1 May 1971 to 30 April 1972: 15 points * 1 May 1972 to 2 October 1972: 6 points (c) ARNG from 9 December 1972 to 4 March 1978 and was credited...