RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


      IN THE CASE OF:


      BOARD DATE:        6 December 2005
      DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20050002332


      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. Prevolia A. Harper            |     |Analyst              |

      The following members, a quorum, were present:

|     |Mr. Bernard P. Ingold             |     |Chairperson          |
|     |Mr. Donald W. Steenfott           |     |Member               |
|     |Mr. Edward E. Montgomery          |     |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 correction of her records to show the Army
Superior Unit Citation (correctly known as the Army Superior Unit Award).

2.  The applicant states that when the Pershing Missile was retired from
service, the 56th Field Artillery Command and subordinate units were
awarded the Army Superior Unit Award (ASUA) for a mission with difficult
objectives.

3.  The applicant provides a copy of her DD Form 214 (Certificate of
Release or Discharge from Active Duty) in support of her application.

CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:

1.  The applicant is requesting correction of an alleged error which
occurred on 21 February 1986.  The application submitted in this case is
dated 3 February 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 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 enlisted in the Regular Army on 10 November 1983 for a
period of 4 years.  She completed the required training and was awarded the
military occupational specialty (MOS) 21G (Pershing Electronics Materiel
Specialist).

4.  The applicant’s DA Form 2-1 (Personnel Qualification Record) confirms
that she held and worked in the MOS 21G, Pershing Electronics Materiel
Specialist.  It also shows that she served in Germany during the period 12
July 1984 to 21 February 1986 and was assigned to D Company, 4th Battalion,
9th Field Artillery

5.  Item 9 (Awards, Decorations, and Campaigns) shows she was awarded the
Marksmanship Qualification Badge with Rifle Bar, the Sharpshooter
Qualification Badge with Grenade Bar, and the Army Service Ribbon.

6.  A DD Form 215 (Correction to DD Form 214), dated 7 December 2004, shows
that item 13 (Decorations, Medals, Badges, Commendations, Citations and
Campaign Ribbons Awarded or Authorized) of applicant’s DD Form 214 was
corrected to show the Overseas Service Ribbon.

7.  There are no orders in the applicant’s available military records nor
did the applicant provide any evidence that her unit received or was
entitled to the Army Superior Unit Award.

8.  Based on information obtained on the Internet, recognition of Pershing
Command Soldiers and unit activities during the fielding of Pershing II
took place on July 1, 1987.  During a special ceremony, the 56th Field
Artillery Command received the Army Superior Unit Award for outstanding
meritorious service.

9.  Army Regulation 600-8-22 provides, in pertinent part, for award of the
Army Superior Unit Award (ASUA).  It is awarded for outstanding meritorious
performance of a difficult and challenging mission under extraordinary
circumstances during peacetime.  The criteria for award also requires that
the unit display such outstanding devotion and superior performance so as
to set it apart and above other units with similar missions, defines
peacetime as any period where wartime awards were not authorized in the
geographic area in which the mission was executed, precludes award for
purely humanitarian operations, and precludes award if the act has been
recognized by another unit award.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The applicant’s claim to entitlement to the ASUA has been carefully
considered.  However, the applicant has failed to provide sufficient
evidence to support her claim.

2.  Evidence of record shows the applicant was assigned to the 4th
Battalion, 9th Field Artillery, a subordinate command of the 56th Field
Artillery Command.
However, there is insufficient evidence that the Superior Unit Award was
authorized for all the subordinate commands.  Additionally, according to
the Internet website, the 56th Field Artillery Command received this award
in 1987, after the applicant was discharged and there is no evidence this
award was retroactive to the time period in which the applicant served.
Therefore, there is insufficient evidence upon which to base this award.


3.  Records show the applicant should have discovered an alleged error or
injustice now under consideration on 21 February 1986; therefore, the time
for the applicant to file a request for correction of any error or
injustice expired on 20 February 1989.  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

__BPI___  __DWS__  __EEM__  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.




                                  ___ _Bernard P. Ingold ____
                                            CHAIRPERSON



                                    INDEX

|CASE ID                 |AR20050002332                           |
|SUFFIX                  |                                        |
|RECON                   |YYYYMMDD                                |
|DATE BOARDED            |20051206                                |
|TYPE OF DISCHARGE       |(HD, GD, UOTHC, UD, BCD, DD, UNCHAR)    |
|DATE OF DISCHARGE       |YYYYMMDD                                |
|DISCHARGE AUTHORITY     |AR . . . . .                            |
|DISCHARGE REASON        |                                        |
|BOARD DECISION          |( DENY)                                 |
|REVIEW AUTHORITY        |                                        |
|ISSUES         1.       |                                        |
|2.                      |                                        |
|3.                      |                                        |
|4.                      |                                        |
|5.                      |                                        |
|6.                      |                                        |


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