RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


      IN THE CASE OF:


      BOARD DATE:        8 September 2005
      DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20040008009


      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             |
|     |Mr. Hubert S. Shaw, Jr.           |     |Analyst              |

      The following members, a quorum, were present:

|     |Mr. William D. Powers             |     |Chairperson          |
|     |Mr. John T. Meixell               |     |Member               |
|     |Mr. Larry J. Olsen                |     |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, in effect, correction of his military records
to show all awards and decorations to which he is entitled and to consider
upgrading his award of the Meritorious Service Medal to award of the Legion
of Merit.

2.  The applicant states, in effect, that he is entitled to correction of
his records to show a Presidential Unit Emblem [now correctly known as the
Presidential Unit Citation], the United Nations Service Medal, the Armed
Forces Expeditionary Medal, a bronze loop indicating a second award of the
Army Good Conduct Medal, the Noncommissioned Officer Professional
Development Ribbon, the Army Service Ribbon, a personal award of the
Republic of Vietnam Gallantry Cross, the Korean War Service Medal and the
Legion of Merit.

3.  The applicant provided the following documentary evidence in support of
his application:

      a.  A copy of a Constituent Service Form addressed to a Member of
Congress, dated 26 August 2004.

      b.  A copy of a two-page letter from the applicant to the Chief of
the Army Awards Branch, dated 12 April 2003.

      c.  A copy of a page entitled "Discussion" regarding award of the
Good Conduct Medal, the United Nations Service Medal, the National Defense
Service Medal, and the Presidential Unit Citation.

      d.  A copy of his DD Form 214 (Report of Separation from the Armed
Forces of the United States) with a separation date of 16 June 1952.

      e.  A copy of a page entitled "Discussion" regarding completion of
the Engineer Combat Construction Foreman School and the Engineer Storage
School and "consideration" for the Noncommissioned Officer Professional
Development Ribbon and the Army Service Ribbon, and award of the National
Defense Service Medal and the Army Commendation Medal.

      f.  A copy of his DD Form 214 (Report of Separation from the Armed
Forces of the United States) with a separation date of 23 August 1955.

      g.  One page which is incomplete and not legible.

      h.  A copy of a page entitled "Discussion" regarding awards received
during his two prior enlistments; regarding award of the Armed Forces
Expeditionary Medal not being shown on his DA Form 1577 (Authorization for
Issuance of Awards), dated 28 July 1987; and regarding his post-service
college education and his post service employment and achievements.

      i.  A copy of his DD Form 214 (Armed Forces of the United States
Report of Transfer or Discharge) with an effective date of 29 February
1972.

      j.  A copy of a page entitled "Discussion" which describes his combat
service in Vietnam in 1962 and 1963 and states his contention that he
should have been awarded the Republic of Vietnam Gallantry Cross for a
particular combat action in June 1962 and should have received the Republic
of Vietnam Armed Forces Honor Medal.

      k.  A copy of a DA Form 1577 (Authorization for Issuance of Awards),
dated 28 July 1987.

      l.  A copy of 12 pages of documents related to reconsideration of
award of the Legion of Merit.

CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:

1.  The applicant is requesting correction of alleged error and injustice
which occurred on 29 February 1972, the date of his retirement.  However,
the Military Awards Branch completed consideration of the applicant's
request for awards on 3 December 2004.  The application submitted in this
case is dated 26 August 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.  The applicant's records show that he entered active duty in an enlisted
status on 13 September 1949 and served until 23 August 1955 when he was
separated for the purpose of accepting a commission.  On 24 August 1955,
the applicant accepted a commission and served until he was separated from
the Army in the rank of lieutenant colonel by reason of permanent
disability on 29 February 1972.

4.  The applicant contends that his DD Form 214 covering his service from
13 September 1949 through 16 June 1952 does not show award of the Good
Conduct Medal, the United Nations Service Medal, the National Defense
Service Medal, or Presidential Unit Citation.

5.  The applicant's records contain a copy of a DD Form 215 (Correction of
a DA Form 214), dated 20 September 2004.  This document corrects the
applicant's DD Form 214 with an effective date of 29 February 1972 [issued
at the time of his retirement] to show the addition of the following
awards:  the Good Conduct Medal; the Meritorious Unit Commendation; the
Korean Service Medal with one silver service star; the Army of Occupation
Medal with Japan Clasp; the United Nations Service Medal; the Republic of
Korea Presidential Unit Citation; the Republic of Korea War Service Medal;
and the Republic of Vietnam Gallantry Cross with Palm Unit Citation.

6.  The applicant's records also contain a copy of a DD Form 215, dated
3 December 2004.  This DD Form 215 deletes award of the Armed Forces
Expeditionary Medal and adds the award of the Vietnam Service Medal with
one silver service star.

7.  The applicant submitted a copy of a page entitled "Discussion"
regarding award of the Good Conduct Medal, the United Nations Service
Medal, the National Defense Service Medal, and the Presidential Unit
Citation.  This document addressed corrections to his DD Form 214 with a
separation date of 16 June 1952.

8.  The DD Form 215, dated 20 September 2004, amended the applicant's DD
Form 214 with an effective date of 29 February 1979 to show award of the
Good Conduct Medal and the United Nations Service Medal.

9.  The applicant's DD Form 215, dated 20 September 2004, does not show a
second award of the Good Conduct Medal.




10. 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.  The regulation states that, after 27 August 1940, three
years of qualifying service was required for award of the Good Conduct
Medal.  The current standard for award of the Good Conduct Medal is 3 years
of qualifying service, but as little as one year is required for the first
award in those cases when the period of service ends with the termination
of Federal military service.

11.  The applicant's records show that he entered active on 13 September
1949 and was separated for the purpose of reenlistment on 16 June 1952, a
period of service of 2 years, 9 months and 4 days.  Records show that he
reenlisted on 26 August 1952 and served until 23 August 1955 at which time
he was separated for the purpose of accepting a commission.  This period of
service was 2 years, 11 months and 28 days.

12.  The applicant's DD Forms 214 with a separation dates of 16 June 1952
and 23 August 1955 do not show award of the United Nations Service Medal.

13.  Army Regulation 600-8-22 provides for award of the United Nations
Service Medal.  In pertinent part, the regulation states that the period of
eligibility for the United Nations Service Medal was between 27 June 1950
and 27 July 1954.  The regulation provides that this service medal was
awarded to members of the Armed Forces of the United States dispatched to
Korea or adjacent areas on behalf of the United Nations.  Award of the
Korean Service Medal automatically establishes eligibility for award of the
United Nations Service Medal.

14.  The DD Form 215, dated 20 September 2004, amended the applicant's DD
Form 214 with an effective date of 29 February 1972 to show award of the
United Nations Service Medal.

15.  The applicant's DD Form 214 with a separation date of 16 June 1952
does not show award of the National Defense Service Medal.

16.  Army Regulation 600-8-22  provides, in pertinent part, that the
National Defense Service Medal is awarded for honorable active service for
any period between 27 July 1950 through 27 July 1954, 1 January 1961
through 14 August 1974, 2 August 1990 through 30 November 1995 and 11
September 2001 to a date to be determined.


17.  The applicant's DD Form 214 with a separation date of 23 August 1955
shows award of the National Defense Service Medal.  The applicant's DD Form
214 with an effective date of 29 February 1972 shows the National Defense
Service Medal with Oak Leaf Cluster indicating the applicant's entitlement
to a second award of the National Defense Service Medal.

18.  The applicant wrote in his "Discussion" that he was a member of the
76th Engineer Construction Battalion when it was awarded the Presidential
Unit Citation for actions at the "Naktong River" in Korea on 12 August
1950.

19.  Department of the Army Pamphlet 672-1 (Unit Citation and Campaign
Participation Credit Register), dated 6 July 1961, shows, among other
information, unit awards and citations authorized for units which served
during World War II and the Korean War.  This document shows the unit to
which the applicant was assigned, the 76th Engineer Construction Battalion,
did not receive an award of the Presidential Unit Citation during the
Korean War.  However, Department of the Army Pamphlet 672-1 shows that the
76th Engineer Construction Battalion received the Meritorious Unit
Commendation for actions during the period 29 July 1950 through 31 December
1951 based on Department of Army General Orders Number 7, dated 1952.

20.  The DD Form 215, dated 20 September 2004, amended the applicant's DD
Form 214 with an effective date of 29 February 1972 to show award of the
Meritorious Unit Commendation.

21.  The applicant submitted a copy of a page entitled "Discussion"
regarding completion of the Engineer Combat Construction Foreman School,
the Engineer Storage School, award of a bronze loop indicating a second
award of the Good Conduct Medal, award of the Noncommissioned Officer
Professional Development Ribbon, and award of the Army Service Ribbon.
This document addressed corrections to his DD Form 214 with a separation
date of 23 August 1955.

22.  The applicant stated in his "Discussion" that he sent copies of the
certificates regarding completion of the Engineer Combat Construction
Foreman School and the Engineer Storage School.  However, there were no
certificates of training attached to his application.

23.  The applicant wrote that his records should be corrected to show a
bonze loop indicating a second award of the Good Conduct Medal.  The facts
pertaining to this portion of the applicant's request have previously been
addressed in paragraphs 8 through 11, above.
24.  None of the applicant's DD Forms 214 or DD Forms 215 show award of the
Noncommissioned Officer Professional Development Ribbon.

25.  Army Regulation 600-8-22 shows that the Noncommissioned Officer
Professional Development Ribbon was established by the Secretary of the
Army on 10 April 1981.  The regulation governing this award provides that
graduates of Noncommissioned Officer Academy Courses conducted prior to
1976 for the Active Army and conducted prior to 1980 for Reserve Components
will be given credit for the Primary Level only.

26.  The records available in this case do not contain any evidence that
the applicant completed noncommissioned officer professional development
courses at the primary, basic, advanced, or senior level required to
qualify for award of the Noncommissioned Officer Professional Development
Ribbon.

27.  None of the applicant's DD Forms 214 or DD Forms 215 show award of the
Army Service Ribbon.

28.  Army Regulation 600-8-22 shows that the Army Service Ribbon was
established by the Secretary of the Army on 10 April 1981.  The regulation
states, in pertinent part, that effective 1 August 1981, all members of the
Active Army, Army National Guard, and Army Reserve in an active Reserve
status are eligible for the award upon successful completion of initial
entry training.  The award may be awarded retroactively to those personnel
who completed the required training before 1 August 1981 provided they had
an Active Army status on or after 1 August 1981.

29.  The records available in this case do not contain any evidence that
the applicant had an Active Army status on or after 1 August 1981.

30.  The applicant submitted a copy of a page entitled "Discussion" which
addressed his DD Form 214 issued at the time of his retirement from active
duty on 29 February 1972.  He wrote that his discharge documents covering
his enlisted service do not show all of his awards.  The facts pertaining
to those awards have been addressed previously in paragraphs 4 through 29,
above.






31.  The applicant further stated that his DD Form 214 with an effective
date of 29 February 1972 shows an award of the Armed Forces Expeditionary
Medal for his Vietnam service in 1962 and 1963 and the Vietnam Service
Medal received for his service in Vietnam in 1967 and 1968.  He wrote that
he understands both service medals are authorized based on his two tours of
duty in Vietnam.  He also indicated that his award of the Armed Forces
Expeditionary Medal was not shown on his DA Form 1577 (Authorization for
Issuance of Awards).

32.  Army Regulation 600-8-22 (Military Awards), provides, in pertinent
part, that the Armed Forces Expeditionary Medal is authorized for
participants in military operations within a specific geographic area
during a specified time period.  Paragraph 2-13d specifically provides that
individuals qualified for the Armed Forces Expeditionary Medal for service
in Vietnam from 1 July 1958 to 3 July 1965 (inclusive) shall remain
qualified for that medal.  Upon request, a unit personnel officer may award
the Vietnam Service Medal in lieu of the Armed Forces Expeditionary Medal,
but the regulation requires that the Armed Forces Expeditionary Medal be
removed from the records of the individual.  The regulation specifically
states that no person will be entitled to both awards for Vietnam Service.

33.  A letter from the Chief of the Military Awards Branch to the
applicant, dated 20 September 2004, states that, per the telephonic request
of the applicant, the Vietnam Service Medal with one silver service star
has been added his DD Form 214 and the Armed Forces Expeditionary Medal has
been deleted.  The DD Form 215, dated 3 December 2004, shows that the Armed
Forces Expeditionary Medal was deleted from his DD From 214 with an
effective date of 29 February 1972.  This DD Form 215 also shows that the
Vietnam Service Medal with one silver service star was added to this DD
Form 214.

34.  The applicant submitted a copy of a page entitled "Discussion" which
addressed his DA Form 1577 (Authorization for Issuance of Awards).  He
contends that it does not contain all of the awards to which he is entitled
based on his DD Forms 214.

35.  The applicant continues that he was a battalion advisor to a Republic
of South Vietnam Infantry Battalion in June 1962 when it engaged an enemy
force.  He states that it was understood no "American medals would be
awarded for any combat action at that time."  However, he states the belief
that he should have received a personal award of the Republic of Vietnam
Gallantry Cross for his actions in this battle.

36.  U.S. Army Vietnam Regulation Number 672-2 (Foreign Awards and
Decorations) provided for processing of foreign awards and decorations
presented to individuals and units.  This regulation, in pertinent part,
governed award of the Republic of Vietnam Gallantry Cross as a personal
decoration.  This decoration is awarded by the Government of the Republic
of South Vietnam to personnel who have conducted themselves with heroic
action and have displayed deeds of valor while fighting the enemy.  The
more gallant and noteworthy the act, the higher the level of the award.
This decoration was awarded in four degrees: with Palm, with Gold Star,
with Silver Star and with Bronze Star.  Approval to accept and to wear a
personal award of the Republic of Vietnam Gallantry Cross required approval
by the Commanding General of United States Army Vietnam.  As with all
foreign awards, each recipient of an approved foreign award was provided a
copy of the original citation from the foreign government, a translation of
the citation if necessary, and a letter authorizing the recipient to
receive and wear the decoration.

37.  The records in this case do not contain evidence which shows that the
applicant was recommended for or was authorized to receive and wear the
Republic of Vietnam Gallantry Cross as a personal decoration.

38.  The applicant also describes his role as the advisor to a Republic of
South Vietnam military training school, identified as the "CCI School" at
Can Tho, South Vietnam.  He also described his actions at the site of an
engagement between class number 24 and 25 of the CCI School with enemy
forces.  He concluded that the Republic of Vietnam Armed Forces Honor Medal
should have been awarded to him and other personnel who served as the
advisor to the CCI School.

39.  Appendix 1 of U.S. Army Vietnam Regulation Number 672-2 provided the
criteria for the various for award of the various foreign awards and
decorations authorized by the Government of the Republic of South Vietnam.
This appendix states that the Armed Forces Honor Medal is awarded in the
degrees of "First Class" and "Second Class" and is awarded to those
personnel "who displayed outstanding achievements and meritorious service
in contributing toward the development of the Armed Forces, Republic of
Vietnam."

40.  The records in this case do not contain evidence which shows that the
applicant was recommended for or was authorized to receive and wear the
Armed Forces Honor Medal as a personal decoration.


41.  The applicant also submitted 12 pages of documents related to his
request for reconsideration of his award of the Legion of Merit which was
downgraded to an award of the Meritorious Service Medal.  In the available
records in this case, there is a letter from the Chief of the Military
Awards Branch to the applicant, dated 20 September 2004.  Essentially, this
letter advises the applicant there is insufficient information to allow the
Army Decorations Board to consider this request and he must, therefore,
submit a request to upgrade his Meritorious Service Medal to the Legion of
Merit under the provisions of Title 10, United States Code, section 1130.

42.  Title 10, United States Code, section 1130  provides that the Service
concerned will review a proposal for the award of, or upgrading of, a
decoration that would not otherwise be authorized to be awarded based upon
time limitations previously established by law.  Requests for consideration
of awards should be supported by sworn affidavits, eyewitness statements,
certificates and related documents.  Corroborating evidence is best
provided by commanders, leaders and fellow comrades who had personal
knowledge of the circumstances and events relative to the request.  A
request for award not previously submitted in a timely fashion will only be
considered under this provision if the request has been referred to the
Service Secretary from a Member of Congress.  The burden and costs for
researching and assembling documentation to support approval of requested
awards and decorations rests with the requester.

43.  Army Regulation 15-185 governs operations of the Army Board for
Correction of Military Records (ABCMR).  Paragraph 2-5 of this regulation
states that the ABCMR will not consider an application until the applicant
has exhausted all administrative remedies to correct the alleged error or
injustice.

44.  Army Regulation 635-5 (Separation Documents) governs the preparation
of the DD Form 214.  Army Regulation 635-5, in effect at the time of the
applicant's separation from active duty, provided that all decorations,
medals, badges, citations and campaign ribbons awarded or authorized
throughout the soldier's would be entered in item 24 of the DD Form 214.

45.  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.  The U.S. Court of Appeals, observing
that applicants to the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) are by statute
allowed 15 years to apply there, and that this Board's exhaustion
requirement (Army Regulation 15-185, paragraph 2-8), effectively shortens
that filing period, has determined that the 3 year limit on filing to the
Army Board for Correction of Military Records (ABCMR) should commence on
the date of final action by the ADRB.  In complying with this decision, the
ABCMR has adopted the broader policy of calculating the 3-year time limit
from the date of exhaustion in any case where a lower level administrative
remedy is utilized.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The applicant requested that his records be corrected to show award of
the Good Conduct Medal.

      a.  The DD Form 215, dated 20 September 2004, corrected the
applicant's DD Form 214 with an effective date of 29 February 1972 to show
an award of the Good Conduct Medal.  This first award of the Good Conduct
Medal was based on the applicant's active duty from 13 September 1949 [the
date of his entry on active duty] to 16 June 1952 [the date of his
separation from active duty] based on completion of a period of qualifying
service ending with the termination of a period of Federal military
service.

      b.  The applicant's second period of enlisted service began on 26
August 1952 when he reenlisted for a period of six years and ended on 23
August 1955 when he was separated for the purpose of accepting a
commission.  Since this period of service for the second award of the Good
Conduct Medal does not meet the regulatory requirement of three years, the
applicant is not entitled to a second award of the Good Conduct Medal.

2.  The applicant requested correction of his records to show award of the
United Nations Service Medal.  The DD Form 215, dated 20 September 2004,
amended the applicant's DD Form 214 with an effective date of 29 February
1972 to show award of the United Nations Service Medal.  Therefore, the
applicant's records correctly show award of the United Nations Service
Medal and there is no basis for further correction.

3.  The applicant requested that his record be corrected to show award of
the National Defense Service Medal.

      a.  The applicant's DD Form 214 with a separation date of 23 August
1955 shows award of the National Defense Service Medal.

      b.  The applicant's DD Form 214 with an effective date of 29 February
1972 shows the National Defense Service Medal with Oak Leaf Cluster
indicating a second award of the National Defense Service Medal.

      c.  There is no evidence that the applicant performed active duty
which qualified him for an additional award of the National Defense Service
Medal.

      d.  Based on the foregoing, the applicant's authorized awards of the
National Defense Service Medal are correctly shown on his DD From 214 with
an effective date of 29 February 1972 and there is no basis for further
correction.

4.  The applicant requests correction of his records to show award of the
Presidential Unit Citation based on the fact that he was a member of the
76th Engineer Construction Battalion when it was cited for award of the
Presidential Unit Citation during the Korean War.

      a.  Department of the Army Pamphlet 672-1 shows that the 76th
Engineer Construction Battalion did not receive award of the Presidential
Unit Citation during the Korean War.  There also is no other evidence of
record which shows that the applicant was assigned to a unit when it was
cited for award of the Presidential Unit Citation.  Therefore, the
applicant is not entitled to correction of his records to show award of the
Presidential Unit Citation.

      b.  Department of the Army Pamphlet 672-1 shows that the applicant
was assigned to the 76th Engineer Construction Battalion when it was cited
for award of the Meritorious Unit Commendation.  Therefore, he is entitled
to award of the Meritorious Unit Commendation.

      c.  The DD Form 215, dated 20 September 2004, corrected the
applicant's DD Form 214 with an effective date of 29 February 1972 to show
an award of the Meritorious Unit Commendation.  Therefore, the applicant's
records are correct in regard to award of the Meritorious Unit Commendation
and there is no basis for further correction.

5.  The applicant requested correction of his records to show completion of
the Engineer Combat Construction Foreman School and the Engineer Storage
School.  There is no evidence which shows the applicant completed these
schools; therefore, there is no basis to amend his records to show
completion of the Engineer Combat Construction Foreman School and the
Engineer Storage School.





6.  The applicant requested award of the Noncommissioned Officers
Professional Development Ribbon.  There is no evidence the applicant
completed the required professional development schools to qualify for
award of the Noncommissioned Officer Professional Development Ribbon.
Therefore, there is no basis for correction of the applicant's records to
show award of the Noncommissioned Officer Professional Development Ribbon.

7.  The applicant requested award of the Army Service Ribbon.  There is no
evidence the applicant had an Active Army status on or after 1 August 1981
which is required by Army regulation for award of the Army Service Ribbon.
Therefore, there is no basis for correction of the applicant's records to
show award of the Army Service Ribbon.

8.  The applicant contends that award of the Armed Forces Expeditionary
Medal and award of the Vietnam Service Medal are authorized in his case
because he served two different tours of duty in Vietnam.

      a.  Army regulation specifically prohibits award of both the Armed
Forces Expeditionary Medal and the Vietnam Service Medal for service in
Vietnam.

      b.  Evidence of record shows that the applicant opted for award of
the Vietnam Service Medal instead of the Armed Forces Expeditionary Medal.

      c.  The DD Form 215, dated 3 December 2004, corrected the applicant's
DD Form 214 with an effective date of 29 February 1972 to show award of the
Vietnam Service Medal with one silver service star.

      d.  Based on the foregoing, the applicant's records correctly show
the Vietnam Service Medal with one silver service star as recognition for
his service in Vietnam and his records have been correctly amended by
deletion of the Armed Forces Expeditionary Medal.  As a result, there is no
further basis for correction of the applicant's records or the DA Form
1577, dated 28 July 1987, in regard to either the Vietnam Service Medal or
the Armed Forces Expeditionary Medal.

9.  The applicant contends that he should have been awarded the award of
the Republic of Vietnam Gallantry Cross and the Republic of Vietnam Armed
Forces Honor Medal as personal decorations for his actions and service
during his tour of duty as an advisor in Vietnam.


      a.  The Republic of Vietnam Gallantry Cross and the Republic of
Vietnam Armed Forces Honor Medal are foreign decorations which, at the time
of the Vietnam War, were awarded by the Government of the Republic of South
Vietnam.

      b.  Since both of the Republic of Vietnam Gallantry Cross and the
Republic of Vietnam Armed Forces Honor Medal are foreign decorations
authorized by the Government of the Republic of South Vietnam, the ABCMR
has no jurisdiction over personal award of these foreign decorations.

      c.  Therefore, the ABCMR cannot authorize correction of records to
show a personal award of the Republic of Vietnam Gallantry Cross or the
Republic of Vietnam Armed Forces Honor Medal without orders or other
approval issued by the Government of the Republic of South Vietnam.

11.  The applicant requested that his award of the Meritorious Service
Medal be upgraded to award of the Legion of Merit.

      a.  The applicant is entitled by law to request upgrade of his
Meritorious Service Medal by the Army Decorations Board under the
provisions of Title 10, United States Code, section 1130 and he has been
advised in writing by the Chief of the Military Awards Branch on how to do
this.

      b.  Under law governing the operations of the ABCMR, an application
will not be considered until an applicant has exhausted all other
administrative remedies.

      c.  Since the applicant has an available administrative remedy
available under section 1130 of Title 10, it is inappropriate for the ABCMR
to consider upgrading the applicant's Meritorious Service Medal to award of
the Legion of Merit at this time.

12.  Records show the applicant should have discovered the alleged error or
injustice now under consideration on 29 February 1972, the date of his
separation from active duty; therefore, the time for the applicant to file
a request for correction of any error or injustice expired on 28 February
1975.  However, the applicant filed a request for certain military awards
with the Army Military Awards Branch.  The Army Military Awards Branch
completed its actions on the applicant's case on 3 December 2004.
Therefore, the application in this case has been filed within the ABCMR's
three-year statute of limitations.


BOARD VOTE:

________  ________  ________  GRANT FULL RELIEF

_JTM____  _WDP__  __LJO___  GRANT PARTIAL RELIEF

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

________  ________  ________  DENY APPLICATION

BOARD DETERMINATION/RECOMMENDATION:

1.  Notwithstanding the conclusion that individual concerned in this case
is not entitled to a second award of the Good Conduct Medal, the Board has
determined as a matter of fairness he should be granted partial relief in
the form of a second award of Good Conduct Medal.  Therefore, the Board
recommends that the records of the individual concerned be corrected to
show award of the Good Conduct Medal (Second Award) for the period of
service from 26 August 1952 through 23 August 1955 as an exception to
regulation.

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
the Presidential Unit Citation, the United Nations Service Medal, the
National Defense Service Medal, completion of the Engineer Combat
Construction Foreman School and the Engineer Storage School, the Armed
Forces Expeditionary Medal, the Noncommissioned Officer Professional
Development Ribbon, the Army Service Ribbon, a personal award of the
Republic of Vietnam Gallantry Cross, the Republic of Vietnam Armed Forces
Honor Medal, the Korean War Service Medal and the Legion of Merit.







                                         _William D. Powers__
                                            CHAIRPERSON



                                    INDEX

|CASE ID                 |AR2004008009                            |
|SUFFIX                  |                                        |
|RECON                   |                                        |
|DATE BOARDED            |20050908                                |
|TYPE OF DISCHARGE       |                                        |
|DATE OF DISCHARGE       |                                        |
|DISCHARGE AUTHORITY     |                                        |
|DISCHARGE REASON        |                                        |
|BOARD DECISION          |                                        |
|REVIEW AUTHORITY        |                                        |
|ISSUES         1.       |                                        |
|2.                      |                                        |
|3.                      |                                        |
|4.                      |                                        |
|5.                      |                                        |
|6.                      |                                        |


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