RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


      IN THE CASE OF:


      BOARD DATE:        02 AUGUST 2005
      DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20040010168


      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. William Powers                |     |Chairperson          |
|     |Mr. Robert Duecaster              |     |Member               |
|     |Ms. Jeanette McCants              |     |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 1971 separation document be corrected
to reflect award of the Bronze Star Medal.

2.  The applicant states he has the award certificate and would like the
award reflected on his separation document.

3.  The applicant provides a copy of the Bronze Star Medal certificate.

CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:

1.  The applicant is requesting correction of an alleged error or injustice
which occurred on 2 March 1971.  The application submitted in this case is
dated
12 November 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 entered
active duty on 12 June 1969.

4.  While undergoing training, he qualified as a sharpshooter with the M-14
rifle and the hand grenade and was awarded the associated badge and
component bars.  Orders issued at Fort Leonard Wood, Missouri confirmed the
badges.  He also qualified as an expert with the M-16 automatic rifle while
at Fort Gordon, Georgia and was awarded the associated badge and component
bar.  Orders issued at Fort Gordon confirmed the badge.  That information
was omitted from the applicant’s separation document.

5.  The applicant arrived in Vietnam in March 1970.  Prior to departing
Vietnam, in January 1971, he was awarded two awards of the Army
Commendation Medal and a Bronze Star Medal.  Orders issued by the 23rd
Infantry Division confirmed his award of the Bronze Star Medal.  Although
his separation document does reflect his two awards of the Army
Commendation Medal, it does not reflect his award of the Bronze Star Medal.
6.  On 2 March 1971 the applicant was honorably discharged, in pay grade E-
5, as a result of hardship.

7.  A review of Department of the Army Pamphlet 672-3 (Unit Citation and
Campaign Participation Credit Register) notes the applicant would have
participated in three designated campaigns (Vietnam Winter-Spring 1970,
Sanctuary Counteroffensive, and Vietnam Counteroffensive Phase VII) during
the applicant’s period of assignment in Vietnam.  Three bronze service
stars on the Vietnam Service Medal, which is recorded on his separation
document, should reflect his campaign participation.  The applicant would
also be entitled to the Republic of Vietnam Gallantry Cross Unit Citation
with Palm awarded to all units subordinate to Headquarters, United States
Army Vietnam between 20 July 1965 and 28 March 1973.  The unit award was
also omitted from his separation document.

8.  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.

9.  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 evidence confirms that the applicant was awarded the Bronze Star
Medal.  His records should be corrected accordingly.

2.  The evidence also shows that the applicant qualified as a sharpshooter
with the M-14 rifle and the hand grenade and as an expert with the M-16
automatic rifle and that he was awarded the associated badges and component
bars.  His records should be corrected to reflect that information.

3.  The applicant’s records confirm he is entitled to three bronze service
stars on his Vietnam Service Medal and an award of the Republic of Vietnam
Gallantry Cross Unit Citation with Palm.

4.  The applicant completed a qualifying period of service for award of the
Army Good Conduct Medal on 2 March 1971.  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 of 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 12 June 1969 through
2 March 1971.

BOARD VOTE:

__WP        ___RD __  ___JM __  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 a Bronze Star Medal;


      b.  by showing that he qualified a sharpshooter with the M-14 rifle
and the hand grenade and as an expert with the M-16 automatic rifle and
that he was awarded the associated badges and component bars;


      c.  by showing that he is entitled three bronze service stars on his
Vietnam Service Medal and an award of the Republic of Vietnam Gallantry
Cross Unit Citation with Palm; and
      d.  by awarding him the Army Good Conduct Medal for the period 17 June
1969 through 2 March 1971.





                            _____ William Powers_________
                                      CHAIRPERSON



                                    INDEX

|CASE ID                 |AR20040010168                           |
|SUFFIX                  |                                        |
|RECON                   |YYYYMMDD                                |
|DATE BOARDED            |20050802                                |
|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]