RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


      IN THE CASE OF:


      BOARD DATE:         14 SEPTEMBER 2004
      DOCKET NUMBER:  AR2004101680


      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. Deborah L. Brantley           |     |Senior Analyst       |

      The following members, a quorum, were present:

|     |Mr. Mark Manning                  |     |Chairperson          |
|     |Ms. Karen Heinz                   |     |Member               |
|     |Mr. Robert Duecaster              |     |Member               |

      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 separation document be corrected to
show that he was born in Kohala, Hawaii vice Hohala, that he was awarded a
Bronze Star Medal, Air Medal, and the Army Good Conduct Medal, and that he
completed infantry training and training as a Food Service Apprentice.

2.  The applicant states he recently discovered the errors on his 1969
separation document.

3.  The applicant provides a copy of his 1969 separation document and a
copy of his Bronze Star Medal and Air Medal award certificates.

CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:

1.  The applicant is requesting correction of an alleged error or injustice
which occurred on 12 December 1969.  The application submitted in this case
is dated 5 November 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.  Records available to the Board indicate that the applicant enlisted in
the Hawaii Army National Guard on 15 June 1967.  His enlistment contracts
confirm that he was born in Kohala, not Hohala, Hawaii.

4.  In July 1967 the applicant was ordered to active duty to undergoing
training.  He successfully completed basic combat training at Fort Benning,
Georgia and the Food Service Apprentice course at Fort McClellan, Alabama.
As a result of his training he was awarded a cook’s (94B) MOS (military
occupational specialty) in November 1967, just prior to be released from
active duty on 21 November 1967.

5.  On 13 May 1968 the applicant was ordered to active duty with his
National Guard Unit (2nd Battalion, 229th Infantry).  His original MOS,
94B, was withdrawn in July 1968 and he was awarded specialty 11B
(infantry).  There is no indication that he underwent a formal training
course prior to being awarded specialty 11B.
6.  In January 1969 the applicant deployed to Vietnam.  He was initially
assigned to the United States Army Depot at Long Binh but was reassigned to
the 28th Infantry, 1st Infantry Division in May 1969.

7.  In October 1969 he was awarded an Air Medal for meritorious achievement
during the period 1 May to 12 September 1969.  Orders issued by the 1st
Infantry Division confirmed the award but the award was omitted from his
separation document.

8.  In November 1969 the applicant departed Vietnam and rejoined his Army
National Guard unit in Hawaii.

9.  A Bronze Star Medal award certificate indicates that the applicant was
awarded the Bronze Star Medal on 1 December 1969 for meritorious
achievement during the period May 1969 to December 1969.  The award
certificate was authenticated by Major General A.E. Milloy and reflects the
imprinted signature of Stanley R. Resor, Secretary of the Army at the time.
 According to information from the Center for Military History, General
Milloy was commander of the 1st Infantry Division between August 1969 and
February 1970. There are no orders in available records which confirmed
award of the Bronze Star Medal and it is not reflected on the applicant’s
separation document.

10.  On 12 December 1969 the applicant was released from active duty, with
an honorable characterization of service in pay grade E-4, and reverted to
his Army National Guard status.  He was released from the Army National
Guard in January 1970.  His National Guard Bureau Form 22 (Report of
Separation and Record of Service in the Army National Guard) reflects
completion of his 1967 Food Service Apprentice course.

11.  Army Regulation 672-5-1, in effect at the time when the service member
was discharged, required that throughout a qualifying period of service for
award of the Good Conduct Medal the enlisted person must have had all
“excellent” conduct and efficiency ratings and no convictions by a court-
martial.  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.  With the publication of the new Army Regulation 672-5-1, in 1974,
the requirement for all excellent conduct and efficiency ratings was
dropped and an individual was required to show that he/she willingly
complied with the demands of the military environment, had been loyal and
obedient, and faithfully supported the goals of his organization and the
Army.  Today, Army Regulation 600-8-22, which replaced Army Regulation 672-
5-1, notes that there is no automatic entitlement to the Army Good Conduct
Medal and disqualification must be justified.  Current practice requires
that the commander provide written notice of nonfavorable consideration and
permits the individual to respond.

12.  The applicant’s Department of the Army Form 20 (Enlisted Qualification
Record) indicates that he received “good” conduct and efficiency ratings
after being ordered to active duty in May 1968 and prior to deploying to
Vietnam.  His unit commander, however, recommended that he be awarded the
Army Good Conduct Medal in November 1969 as part of his reassignment
processing prior to departing Vietnam.  There is no indication that the
applicant had any incidents of misconduct during his period of active duty
between May 1968 and December 1969.

13.  Army Regulation 635-5 establishes the policies and procedures for
completion and distribution of the Department of the Army Form 214 (Armed
Forces of the United States Report of Transfer or Discharge).  In pertinent
part it states that military education information will list formal in
service training courses successfully completed during the period of
service covered by title, length in weeks, and month and year completed.
This information is to assist the Soldier after separation in job placement
and counseling; therefore, training courses for combat skills are not
listed.

14.  A review of Department of the Army Pamphlet 672-3 (Unit Citation and
Campaign Participation Credit Register) notes the applicant would have been
credited with participating in four designated campaigns (Vietnam
Counteroffensive Phases VI, TET 69 Counteroffensive, Vietnam Summer-Fall
1969 and Vietnam Winter-Spring 1970) during the applicant’s period of
assignment.  Four bronze service stars on the Vietnam Service Medal, which
is recorded on his separation document, should reflect his campaign
participation.  The United States Army Depot at Long Binh was awarded a
Meritorious Unit Commendation while the applicant was assigned and the 28th
Infantry was awarded the Republic of Vietnam Gallantry Cross Unit Citation
with Palm and one Republic of Vietnam Civil Actions Honor Medal First Class
Unit Citation during his tenure with that organization.  The unit awards
were also omitted from his separation document.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The evidence confirms that the applicant was born in Kohala, Hawaii and
not Hohala.  The error was likely typographical and should be corrected
accordingly.

2.  The evidence also confirms that the applicant was awarded an Air Medal
which should be reflected on his separation document.
3.  While there are no orders in the applicant's available records awarding
him the Bronze Star Medal, his award certificate is signed by the
appropriate commander and contains the imprinted signature of the Secretary
of the Army at the time.  The period of service covered by the award
coincides with the applicant's dates of service in Vietnam.  The fact that
the certificate was issued after the applicant’s departure from Vietnam
could explain the absence of the award on his separation document.  In the
absence of orders, or evidence to the contrary, the Board accepts the
applicant’s award certificate as authentication of entitlement to the
Bronze Star Medal and in the interest of justice concludes it would be
appropriate to add the award to his separation document.

4.  While the evidence does show that the former service member received a
single rating of “good” for his conduct, it is also noted that he completed
the period for which he was called to active duty, received an honorable
characterization of service upon separation, and was recommended for the
award by his commander prior to departure from Vietnam.  Although he may
have not met the “requirements” in effect at the time, he would have been
eligible as a result of subsequent changes to the qualifications for award
of the Good Conduct Medal.  As such, in the interest of compassion and
equity, the former service member’s single “good” conduct rating should be
excused and he should be awarded the Army Good Conduct Medal for the period
13 May 1968 through 12 December 1969.

5.  The evidence shows that the applicant is also entitled to four bronze
service stars on the Vietnam Service Medal, a Meritorious Unit
Commendation, the Republic of Vietnam Gallantry Cross Unit Citation with
Palm, and one Republic of Vietnam Civil Actions Honor Medal First Class
Unit Citation.

6.  There is no evidence that the applicant completed an infantry training
course of at least 1 week’s duration which resulted in his award of his
infantry specialty. In the absence of such evidence, there is no basis to
enter such a course on his separation document.

7.  Because his Food Service Apprentice course was completed prior to the
period of active duty captured by his December 1969 separation document,
the course would not have been recorded on that document.  The fact that
the course is recorded on his National Guard separation document is
sufficient to confirm, for employment purposes, that he completed that
training.  In view of the fact that the information is contained on the
National Guard separation document, no error or injustice is created by the
absence of that information on the separation document completed at the
time he was released from active duty in 1967 when he completed his initial
entry training.
BOARD VOTE:

________  ________  ________  GRANT FULL RELIEF

__MM___  ___KH___  ___RD__  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 and to excuse failure to timely
file.  As a result, the Board recommends that all Department of the Army
records of the individual concerned be corrected:

      a.  by showing he was born in Kohala, Hawaii vice Hohala;


      b.  by showing that he was awarded the Air Medal and Bronze Star
Medal;


      c.  by showing that he is entitled to four bronze service stars on the
Vietnam Service Medal, a Meritorious Unit Commendation, the Republic of
Vietnam Gallantry Cross Unit Citation with Palm, and one Republic of
Vietnam Civil Actions Honor Medal First Class Unit Citation; and


      d.  by awarding him the Army Good Conduct Medal for the period 13 May
1968 to 12 December 1969.


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
an entry on his separation document showing that he completed an infantry
training course and the Food Service Apprentice course.







                            _____ Mark Manning________
                                      CHAIRPERSON



                                    INDEX

|CASE ID                 |AR2004101680                            |
|SUFFIX                  |                                        |
|RECON                   |YYYYMMDD                                |
|DATE BOARDED            |20040914                                |
|TYPE OF DISCHARGE       |(HD, GD, UOTHC, UD, BCD, DD, UNCHAR)    |
|DATE OF DISCHARGE       |YYYYMMDD                                |
|DISCHARGE AUTHORITY     |AR . . . . .                            |
|DISCHARGE REASON        |                                        |
|BOARD DECISION          |PARTIAL GRANT                           |
|REVIEW AUTHORITY        |                                        |
|ISSUES         1.       |107.00                                  |
|2.                      |110.00                                  |
|3.                      |                                        |
|4.                      |                                        |
|5.                      |                                        |
|6.                      |                                        |


-----------------------
[pic]