RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


      IN THE CASE OF:


      BOARD DATE:           26 February 2004
      DOCKET NUMBER:   AR2003091143


      I certify that hereinafter is recorded the true and complete record
of the proceedings of the Army Board for Correction of Military Records in
the case of the above-named individual.

|     |Mr. Carl W. S. Chun               |     |Director             |
|     |Ms. Rosa M. Chandler              |     |Analyst              |


  The following members, a quorum, were present:

|     |Mr. Arthur A. Omartian            |     |Chairperson          |
|     |Mr. John T. Meixell               |     |Member               |
|     |Ms. Mae M. Bullock                |     |Member               |

      The applicant and counsel if any, did not appear before the Board.

      The Board considered the following evidence:

      Exhibit A - Application for correction of military records.

      Exhibit B - Military Personnel Records (including advisory opinion,
if any).

THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST, STATEMENT, AND EVIDENCE:

1.  The applicant requests that his records be corrected to show award of a
second Good Conduct Medal.

2.  The applicant states he believes an administrative error may have
contributed to his record not showing the second award of the Good Conduct
Medal.

3.  The applicant provides in support of his request a copy of his DD Form
214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty).

CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:

1.  The applicant is requesting correction of an error or injustice which
occurred on 7 April 1993.  The application submitted in this case is dated
1 May 2003.

2.  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 allows the Army
Board for Correction of Military Records (ABCMR) to excuse failure to file
within the 3-year statute of limitation if the ABCMR determines that it
would be in the interest of justice to do so.  In this case, the ABCMR will
conduct a review of the merits of the case to determine if it would be in
the interest of justice to excuse the applicant’s failure to timely file.

3.  The applicant’s military records show that he enlisted in the Regular
Army on 22 September 1987 and served until he was separated on 1 May 1990
for the purpose of immediate reenlistment.  He reenlisted on 2 May 1990 and
served until he was honorably discharged on 7 April 1993.

4.  The applicant's DD Form 214 shows that he was honorably separated on
7 April 1993 and that he was awarded the Army Achievement Medal with 1 Oak
Leaf Cluster, Good Conduct Medal, National Defense Service Medal, Army
Service Ribbon, Overseas Service Ribbon, Noncommissioned Officer
Professional Development Ribbon, Army Lapel Button, Southwest Asia Service
Medal with three bronze service stars, and the Saudi Arabia Kuwait
Liberation Medal.  There is no evidence the applicant was awarded a clasp
to denote the second award of the Good Conduct Medal.

5.  Army Regulation 600-8-22 (Military Awards) provides that the Good
Conduct Medal (GCMDL) 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.  Current practice requires that
the commander provide written notice of nonfavorable consideration and
permits the individual to respond.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The applicant’s first period of service was from 22 September 1987 to 1
May 1990.  He is entitled to a Good Conduct Medal for this period of
service.

2.  The applicant’s second period of service was from 2 May 1990 to 7 April
1993.  In order to qualify for a second award of the Good Conduct Medal,
the applicant was required to serve 3 full years from 2 May 1990 to 1 May
1993.  Because he separated on 7 April 1993, he did not qualify for a
second award of the Good Conduct Medal.

3.  Records show the applicant should have discovered the alleged error or
injustice now under consideration on 7 April 1993; therefore, the time for
the applicant to file a request for correction of any error or injustice
expired on (enter date).  However, the applicant did not file within the 3-
year statute of limitations and has not provided a compelling explanation
or evidence to show that it would be in the interest of justice to excuse
failure to file in this case.

BOARD VOTE:

________  ________  ________  GRANT RELIEF

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

__aao___  __jtm___  __mmb___  DENY APPLICATION

BOARD DETERMINATION/RECOMMENDATION:

1.  The Board determined that the evidence presented does not demonstrate
the existence of a probable error or injustice.  Therefore, the Board
determined that the overall merits of this case are insufficient as a basis
for correction of the records of the individual concerned.

2.  As a result, the Board further determined that there is no evidence
provided which shows that it would be in the interest of justice to excuse
the applicant's failure to timely file this application within the 3-year
statute of limitations prescribed by law.  Therefore, there is insufficient
basis to waive the statute of limitations for timely filing or for
correction of the records of the individual concerned.



                 Arthur A. Omartian
            ______________________
                    CHAIRPERSON




                                    INDEX

|CASE ID                 |AR2003091143                            |
|SUFFIX                  |                                        |
|RECON                   |                                        |
|DATE BOARDED            |20040226                                |
|TYPE OF DISCHARGE       |(HD)                                    |
|DATE OF DISCHARGE       |19930407                                |
|DISCHARGE AUTHORITY     |AR635-200, Chap 4                       |
|DISCHARGE REASON        |                                        |
|BOARD DECISION          |(DENY)                                  |
|REVIEW AUTHORITY        |                                        |
|ISSUES         1.       |107.0056                                |
|2.                      |                                        |
|3.                      |                                        |
|4.                      |                                        |
|5.                      |                                        |
|6.                      |                                        |