RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


      IN THE CASE OF:


      BOARD DATE:        15 NOVEMBER 2005
      DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20050002831


      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. Stanley Kelley                |     |Chairperson          |
|     |Mr. John Meixell                  |     |Member               |
|     |Mr. Robert Duecaster              |     |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, award of two Overseas Service
Ribbons.

2.  The applicant states he believes he is entitled to one or two awards of
the Overseas Service Ribbon.  He states he was in Panama in 1989 and in
Germany after being called to active duty in support of Operation Desert
Storm in 1991.

3.  The applicant provides a copy of a certificate confirming his
deployment to Panama between May and September 1989, and a certificate
showing his support of Operation Desert Storm in 1991 as a member of the
Individual Ready Reserve.

CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:

1.  The applicant is requesting correction of an alleged error or injustice
which occurred on 11 February 1992 when his 1991 separation document was
corrected to reflect additional information, including entitlement to one
Overseas Service Ribbon.  The application submitted in this case is dated
14 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.  Records available to the Board indicate the applicant entered active
duty as a member of the Regular Army on 30 July 1987.  Based on the
certificate provided by the applicant it appears he was deployed to Panama
for approximately 4 months in 1989 while assigned to an infantry unit at
Fort Polk, Louisiana.  There is no indication the applicant was actually
reassigned to the area, or that he completed a normal overseas tour in
Panama.

4.  The applicant was released from active duty on 27 July 1990 at the
conclusion of his enlistment contract and transferred to the United States
Army Reserve.

5.  In January 1991 the applicant was ordered to active duty in support of
Operation Desert Storm.  During his period of activation he served in
Germany for approximately 1 month between February and March 1991.  He was
released from active duty on 17 March 1991.

6.  In February 1992 a Department of Defense Form 215 (Correction to DD
Form 214, Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty) was issued
correcting the applicant's 1991 separation document to show entitlement to
one Overseas Service Ribbon.  The basis for that addition was not in
records available to the Board.

7.  Army Regulation 600-8-22 (Military Awards) shows that the Overseas
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 for successful
completion of overseas tours.  The award may be awarded retroactively to
those personnel who were credited with a normal overseas tour completion
before 1 August 1981 provided they had an Active Army status on or after 1
August 1981 and the overseas service is not recognized with another U.S.
service medal.  Numerals are used to denote the second and subsequent
awards of the Overseas Service Ribbon.

8.  Army Regulation 614-30, in effect, at the time, stated a normal
overseas tour for Soldiers with family members in Germany and Panama was 36
months and for those without family members was 24 months.  It also stated
that Soldiers who completed a minimum of 11 cumulative months in a TDY
(temporary duty) status during any 24 month period in isolated areas where
tour lengths had not been established by Department of Defense were be
credited with completion of a normal tour of duty.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  While the applicant may have been deployed to Panama during his initial
period of active duty, he did not complete a normal overseas tour and as
such, would not have been entitled to the Overseas Service Ribbon based on
that deployment.

2.  Although the applicant may not have been aware that he was already
awarded one Overseas Service Ribbon by an action to amend his 1991
separation document in 1992, that award would not serve as evidence that he
should be awarded a second ribbon.  The applicant's award of the Overseas
Service Ribbon in 1992 appears to have been based on his deployment to
Germany as part of his active service in support of Operation Desert Storm.
 Although the basis for adding that decoration to his 1991 separation
document is unclear, the fact that he was awarded the decoration based on
an overseas deployment of less than 1 month and not as a result of
completion of a normal overseas tour is not evidence that he should be
awarded a second ribbon as a result of his deployment to Panama in 1989.

3.  Records show the applicant should have discovered the alleged error or
injustice now under consideration on 11 February 1992; therefore, the time
for the applicant to file a request for correction of any error or
injustice expired on
10 February 1995.  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

__SK ___  __JM____  __RD ___  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.



                                  ______Stanley Kelley_______
                                            CHAIRPERSON

                                    INDEX

|CASE ID                 |AR20050002831                           |
|SUFFIX                  |                                        |
|RECON                   |YYYYMMDD                                |
|DATE BOARDED            |20051115                                |
|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.       |107.00                                  |
|2.                      |                                        |
|3.                      |                                        |
|4.                      |                                        |
|5.                      |                                        |
|6.                      |                                        |


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