RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


      IN THE CASE OF:


      BOARD DATE:          25 October 2005
      DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20050001821


      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. Richard P. Nelson             |     |Analyst              |


      The following members, a quorum, were present:

|     |Mr. James E. Anderholm            |     |Chairperson          |
|     |Mr. Jose A. Martinez              |     |Member               |
|     |Ms. LaVerne M. Douglas            |     |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 award of the Good Conduct Medal, the Armed
Forces Expeditionary Medal, and “Meritorious and Achievement Medals and
Ribbons.”

2.  The applicant states that his record is “spotless,” that he fully
fulfilled his enlistment obligation, and feels he is entitled to these
awards.  He states that he is entitled to the Armed Forces Expeditionary
Medal for his service as a member of the “NATO Peace Keeping Mission.”

3.  The applicant provides copies of: his DD Form 214 (Armed Forces of the
United States Report of Transfer or Discharge); two Enlisted Efficiency
Reports (EER), dated 14 June and 7 October 1973, respectively; an Honorable
Discharge Certificate; orders announcing his discharge from the standby
reserve; and, a Certificate of Appreciation for Service in the Armed Forces
of the United States.

CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:

1.  The applicant is requesting correction of an alleged error that
occurred on 9 October 1973.  The application submitted in this case is
dated 26 January 2005.

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’s records show he enlisted in the Regular Army on
15 October 1970 and trained in Military Occupational Specialty 62B10
(Engineer Equipment Repairman).  He was then assigned to Germany, where he
served a total of 29 months with Headquarters and Headquarters Company, 9th
Engineer Battalion.  He returned to the United States and was honorably
separated in pay grade E-5 on 9 October 1973.

4.  Item 24 of the applicant’s DD Form 214 (Decorations, Medals, Badges,
Commendations, Citations, and Campaign Ribbons Awarded or Authorized) shows
he is entitled to the National Defense Service Medal and the Sharpshooter
Marksmanship Badge with Rifle Bar.  No other awards and decorations are
listed.
5.  The applicant requested correction of his records to show award of
“Meritorious and Achievement Medals and Ribbons.”  There are no orders, or
other evidence, authorizing any meritorious or achievement decorations to
the applicant.  In the absence of a proper award authority for such
decorations, the applicant may request award of “Meritorious and
Achievement Medals and Ribbons” under the provisions of Section 1130 of
Title 10, United States Code.  The applicant has been notified by separate
correspondence of the procedures for applying for these decorations under
Section 1130 and, as a result, they will not be discussed further in this
Record of Proceedings.

6.  There is no indication in the applicant’s personnel records that he was
awarded the Good Conduct Medal.  There also is no evidence the applicant
was disqualified by his unit commander for award of the Good Conduct Medal.
 Records show the applicant’s conduct and efficiency were rated as “good”
while attending advanced individual training (based upon academic
efficiency) and “excellent” throughout his first period of qualifying
service and there is no indication of indiscipline in his service personnel
records.

7.  Army Regulation 672-5-1 (Awards), in effect at the time, 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.  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.  Although there is no automatic entitlement to
the Good Conduct Medal, disqualification must be justified.  A record of
punishment is not automatically disqualifying.  At that time, a single
efficiency rating of less than excellent was disqualifying.  However,
service school efficiency ratings based on academic proficiency of at least
“good” rendered subsequent to 22 November 1955 are not disqualifying.

8.  There are no entries, or other form of evidence, in the applicant’s
records that show he is entitled to the Armed Forces Expeditionary Medal.
There is no evidence, and the applicant has not provided any evidence, that
shows he served as a member of a NATO Peace Keeping Force.

9.  Army Regulation 600-8-22 (Military Awards) provides, in pertinent part,
for award of the Armed Forces Expeditionary Medal for qualifying service
after 1 July 1958 in U.S. military operations, U.S. operations in direct
support of the United Nations, and U.S. operations of assistance to
friendly foreign nations.  Qualifications for this award includes the
requirement to be a bona fide member in a unit engaged in the operation or
to serve in the area of operations for 30 days, or to be engaged in direct
support of the operation for 30 consecutive or 60 nonconsecutive days
provided this support involves entering the area of operations.  The
regulation also provides that the AFEM may be awarded if the individual
served the full period in cases when the operation is less than 30 days in
duration, if the individual is engaged in actual combat with armed
opposition regardless of the period of service, if the individual
participates as a member of an aircraft flying in support of the operation,
or if the individual is recommended (or attached to a unit recommended) for
award of the medal if the above criteria have not been met.  The designated
military operations and dates of eligibility for this award are specified
in Army Regulation 600-8-22.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  Since the applicant was not disqualified for award of the Good Conduct
Medal, and his records show that his conduct and efficiency were rated as
“excellent” throughout his first period of qualifying service, the
applicant is entitled to the first award of the Good Conduct Medal based on
completion of a period of qualifying service from 15 October 1970 to 9
October 1973, and correction of his records to show this award.

2.  Since there is no evidence of record that shows the applicant is
entitled to the Armed Forces Expeditionary Medal, or that he served as a
member of a NATO Peace Keeping Force or other qualifying operation, he is
not entitled to correction of his records to show this service medal.

BOARD VOTE:

________  ________  ________  GRANT RELIEF

____jea__  ____jam_  ____lmd_  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 by showing award of the
First Award of the Good Conduct Medal for the period 15 October 1970 to 9
October 1973.
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
award of the Armed Forces Expeditionary Medal.




            _________James E. Anderholm________
                    CHAIRPERSON




                                    INDEX

|CASE ID                 |AR20050001821                           |
|SUFFIX                  |                                        |
|RECON                   |YYYYMMDD                                |
|DATE BOARDED            |20051025                                |
|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.       |                                        |
|2.                      |                                        |
|3.                      |                                        |
|4.                      |                                        |
|5.                      |                                        |
|6.                      |                                        |


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