RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


      IN THE CASE OF:


      BOARD DATE:        26 APRIL 2005
      DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20040002551


      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. Melvin Meyer                  |     |Chairperson          |
|     |Ms. Karen Heinz                   |     |Member               |
|     |Mr. Lawrence Foster               |     |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 records be corrected to reflect award
of the Army Commendation Medal.

2.  The applicant states, in effect, that the award was omitted from his
separation document.

3.  The applicant provides a copy of the award certificate and award
citation in support of his request.  He also provides a copy of a "home
town news" report announcing his award of the Army Commendation Medal.

CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:

1.  The applicant is requesting correction of an alleged error or injustice
which occurred on 24 February 1972.  The application submitted in this case
is dated
9 June 2004.

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 limitations 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 was inducted
and entered active duty on 17 July 1969.  He was initially trained as an
infantryman and assigned to the 3rd Battalion, 1st Infantry in Vietnam in
December 1969.  In April 1970 he was reassigned as a vehicle mechanic with
the 23rd Administration Company, part of the 23rd Infantry Division.

4.  On 21 April 1970 he was discharged for the purpose of immediate
reenlistment.  He departed Vietnam in November 1970 and completed his
service at Fort Benning, Georgia.  On 24 February 1972 he was released from
active duty with an honorable characterization of service, in pay grade E-
5, under an early release program for individuals who wished to join a
National Guard unit.




5.  The award certificate, provided by the applicant in support of his
request, indicates that he was awarded an Army Commendation Medal for
meritorious service during the period December 1969 to November 1970.  The
certificate was authenticated by Major General James L. Baldwin, commander
of the 23rd Infantry Division, and reflected the imprinted signature of
Stanley R. Resor, who was Secretary of the Army, at the time.  His award
citation is consistent with the information reflected on the award
certificate and the "home town news" release document indicates the
applicant was awarded an Army Commendation Medal while serving with the
"Americal Division" in Vietnam.

6.  A review of Department of the Army Pamphlet 672-3 (Unit Citation and
Campaign Participation Credit Register) notes the applicant is entitled to
a Meritorious Unit Commendation and the Republic of Vietnam Gallantry Cross
Unit Citation with Palm, which were awarded during his tenure with the 23rd
Administration Company.

7.  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.

8.  The applicant’s conduct and efficiency ratings throughout his military
service were excellent, and he had no record of any disciplinary actions or
incidents of misconduct.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The Board notes that there are no orders in the applicant's available
records awarding him the Army Commendation Medal, however, his award
certificate was signed by the appropriate commander and reflects the
imprinted signature of the appropriate Secretary of the Army.  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 departed 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 Army Commendation Medal and in the
interest of justice concludes it would be appropriate to add the award to
his separation document.

2.  The evidence also confirms that the applicant is entitled to a
Meritorious Unit Award and the Republic of Vietnam Gallantry Cross Unit
Citation with Palm.

3.  The applicant completed a qualifying period of service for award of the
Army Good Conduct Medal on 24 February 1972.  There is no evidence his
commander ever disqualified him from receiving the award and no evidence of
any misconduct which would justify denying him the award.  In view the
foregoing, the Board concludes that the applicant met the basic
qualifications for award of the Army Good Conduct Medal and it would be
appropriate and in the interest of equity to award him that decoration for
the period 17 July 1969 through 24 February 1972.

BOARD VOTE:

__MM___  ___KH __  ___LF___  GRANT FULL RELIEF

________  ________  ________  GRANT PARTIAL RELIEF

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

________  ________  ________  DENY APPLICATION

BOARD DETERMINATION/RECOMMENDATION:

The Board determined that the evidence presented was sufficient to warrant
a recommendation for 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 that he was awarded the Army Commendation Medal;


      b.  by showing that he is entitled to a Meritorious Unit Award and the
Republic of Vietnam Gallantry Cross Unit Citation with Palm; and


      c.  by awarding him the Army Good Conduct Medal for the period 17 July
1969 to 24 February 1972.




                            ______Melvin Meyer________
                                      CHAIRPERSON

                                    INDEX

|CASE ID                 |AR20040002551                           |
|SUFFIX                  |                                        |
|RECON                   |YYYYMMDD                                |
|DATE BOARDED            |20050426                                |
|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.                      |                                        |


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