RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


      IN THE CASE OF:


      BOARD DATE:          23 September 2004
      DOCKET NUMBER:  AR2004101651


      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. Luis Almodova                 |     |Analyst              |

      The following members, a quorum, were present:

|     |Mr. Raymond J. Wagner             |     |Chairperson          |
|     |Mr. Roger Able                    |     |Member               |
|     |Ms. Eloise C. Prendergast         |     |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, that the Army Commendation Medal be
added to her DD Form 214, Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active
Duty.

2.  The applicant states, that she was awarded the Army Commendation Medal
at the end of her service.  This award was not noted on her DD Form 214.
She would like to receive this award and to have it added to her records.

3.  The applicant provides a copy of a DA Form 638, Recommendation for
Award, and a proposed citation, in support of her request.

CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:

1.  The applicant is requesting correction of an error or injustice, that
occurred on 24 February 1989.  The application submitted in this case is
dated 1 December 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 enlisted for 6 years in the US Army Reserve on 25 July
1978.  On 26 June 1979, the applicant enlisted in the Regular Army for a
period of 4 years.

4.  On 3 June 1983, the applicant reenlisted for 3 years.  On 21 May 1984,
the applicant voluntarily extended her 3 June 1983 enlistment for a period
of 15 months.  On 2 December 1985, the applicant again extended her
enlistment of 3 June 1983 for a period of 9 months and volunteered for a
foreign service tour of duty.  She served her overseas tour of duty as a
Military Police in the Netherlands.

5.  On 9 November 1987, the applicant reenlisted for a CONUS (Continental
United States) Station of Choice Reenlistment Option for assignment to Fort
Monroe, Virginia.

6.  In April 1988, the applicant was recommended for promotion to the rank
and pay grade, Staff Sergeant, E-6.  The applicant appeared before a
promotion selection panel and was recommended for promotion by a majority
of the board members.  The applicant's name appears on an AAC-C10,
Recommended List for Promotion of Enlisted Personnel, dated 3 May 1988, in
the military occupational specialty code, 95B3, Military Police, with 619
points.

7.  The applicant's last available enlisted evaluation report, in Part III
(Evaluation of Professionalism and Performance).c. shows that on her
departure from her overseas duty station, in May 1988, the applicant was 68
inches tall and weighed 167 pounds and was in compliance with the height
and weight standards of Army Regulation (AR) 600-9.

8.  There is no evidence in the applicant's records that she was integrated
into the recommended list for promotion of enlisted personnel on her
arrival and assignment at Fort Monroe, Virginia.  The applicants' enlisted
qualification records, DA Forms 2 and 2-1, are not available to determine
the exact date of her arrival at Fort Monroe, Virginia; however, a DA Form
4188, Military Personnel Office/Finance Office Verification of MPRJ and
PFRF, shows that her basic service data was verified on 11 July 1988.

9.  A DA Form 2496, Disposition Form, Subject:  Update ERUP Transaction,
dated 10 November 1988, was submitted to update the enlisted data base and
to update the applicant's DA Form 2A, Enlisted Qualification Record, Part
I.  The disposition forms shows that Item 33, of the DA Form 2A, should
reflect the code "9Z" due to the applicant's being overweight.

10.  There is no indication in the applicant's record that the code was
removed from the enlisted records database.

11.  On 3 February 1989, while at Fort Monroe, the applicant requested
separation from the Army under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200,
chapter 9, for sole parenthood.

12.  The applicant was released from active duty on 24 February 1989 in the
rank and pay grade, Sergeant, E-5, under the provisions of Army Regulation
(AR) 635-200, paragraph 6-3b(2).  The narrative reason for the applicant's
separation was "Sole Parent."  On her separation date, the applicant had
9 years, 7 months, and 29 days active military service, with no lost time.

13.  Item 13 (Decorations, Medals, Badges, Citations and Campaign Ribbons
Awarded or Authorized (all periods of service)), of the applicant's DD Form
214, shows she was awarded the Joint Service Commendation Medal; the Army
Achievement Medal; the Good Conduct Medal (3 awards); NCO Professional
Development Ribbon; the Army Service Ribbon; the Overseas Service Ribbon,
with numeral 1; the M-16 Marksman Marksmanship Qualification Badge; the 9mm
Pistol Sharpshooter Marksmanship Qualification Badge; and the 36 Caliber
Pistol Marksman Marksmanship Qualification Badge.

14.  In an earlier application to the Army Board for the Correction of
Military Records, dated 10 October 1990, the applicant requested that the
entry, "36 Caliber Pistol Marksman Marksmanship Qualification Badge" be
corrected to read, "38 Caliber Pistol Marksman Marksmanship Qualification
Badge."  In this earlier application for correction of her records, the
applicant did not request addition of the Army Commendation Medal to her DD
Form 214.

15.  AR 680-29, shows that the code ERUP is translated to mean,
"Eligibility for immediate enlistment/reenlistment – the individual's
eligibility for immediate enlistment or reenlistment."

16. AR 680-29, paragraph 1-25.1 Code Number 22.1, immediate reenlistment
prohibitions data code 9Z, is translated to mean, "Weight.  Does not meet
acceptable weight standards."

17.  AR 600-9, paragraph 21.b., which was in effect at the time she was
recommended for award of the Army Commendation Medal, in pertinent part,
states that routine weigh-ins will be accomplished at the unit level.
Active and Reserve Component soldiers exceeding the body fat standards will
be provided weight reduction counseling by health care personnel, entered
in a Weight Control Program by unit commanders, and flagged under the
provisions of AR 600-31 by the unit commander.

18.  AR 600-9, Table 1, shows that the screening table weight for height
for a female, 27 years and 8 months of age, is 154 pounds.

19.  AR 600-9, paragraph 22.a, which was in effect at the time the
applicant was recommended for award of the Army Commendation Medal, in
pertinent part, states that personnel who exceed the screening table weight
at table 1 and the body fat standard for their current age group will not
be allowed to reenlist or extend their enlistment.

20.  AR 600-8-2, with an effective date of 30 November 1987, which
superseded AR 600-31 and which was in effect at the time the applicant was
recommended for award of the Army Commendation Medal, states, in paragraph
1-14e (Actions prohibited by a flag), in pertinent part, that the following
personnel actions are prohibited – awards and decorations.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The evidence of record shows that the applicant exceeded the body fat
standards of AR 600-9.

2.  On 10 November 1988 an ERUP Transaction was submitted to update the
enlisted data base and to update the applicant's personnel qualification
record.  The code 9Z was submitted.  The code 9Z is translated to mean,
"Weight.  Does not meet acceptable weight standards."

3.  A suspension of all favorable personnel actions, to include awards and
decorations, was required to be imposed on Soldiers who were overweight.

4.  Although recommended for award of the Army Commendation Medal by her
unit commander, the processing to completion of the recommendation was
prohibited by regulations in force at the time due to her being overweight.
 Since the award was not approved, she is ineligible to have it added to
her DD Form 214.

5.  Records show the applicant should have discovered the alleged error or
injustice now under consideration on 24 February 1989; therefore, the time
for the applicant to file a request for correction of any error or
injustice expired on 23 February 1992.  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 timely file in this case.

BOARD VOTE:

________  ________  ________  GRANT FULL RELIEF

________  ________  ________  GRANT PARTIAL RELIEF

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

__rjw___  ___ra___  __ecp___  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.




                                  Raymond J. Wagner
            ______________________
                    CHAIRPERSON


                                    INDEX

|CASE ID                 |AR2004101651                            |
|SUFFIX                  |                                        |
|RECON                   |                                        |
|DATE BOARDED            |20040923                                |
|TYPE OF DISCHARGE       |                                        |
|DATE OF DISCHARGE       |                                        |
|                        |                                        |
|DISCHARGE REASON        |                                        |
|BOARD DECISION          |DENY                                    |
|REVIEW AUTHORITY        |                                        |
|ISSUES         1.  46   |107.0000                                |
|2.  66                  |107.0020                                |
|3.                      |                                        |
|4.                      |                                        |
|5.                      |                                        |
|6.                      |                                        |



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