RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


      IN THE CASE OF:


      BOARD DATE:        12 JANUARY 2006
      DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20050006136


      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:

|     |Ms. Linda Simmons                 |     |Chairperson          |
|     |Mr. Rodney Barber                 |     |Member               |
|     |Ms. Rea Nuppenau                  |     |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 1968 separation document be corrected
to reflect qualification as a marksman with the 45 caliber pistol.  He also
asks that his place of birth be corrected to show West Virginia vice
Virginia.

2.  The applicant states, in effect, the error in his place of birth was
likely a typographical error and the omission of his qualification with the
pistol an oversight.

3.  The applicant provides a copy of his separation document.

CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:

1.  The applicant is requesting correction of an alleged error or injustice
which occurred on 13 September 1968.  The application submitted in this
case is dated
15 April 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 was inducted and
entered active duty on 14 September 1966.  His statement of personal
history and his induction document both confirm the applicant was born in
West Virginia, not Virginia as currently reflected on his 1968 separation
document.

4.  The applicant's records contain orders confirming his qualification as
an expert with the M-14 rifle, a sharpshooter with the M-16 rifle, and a
marksman with the M-60 machine gun.  Those badges are reflected on his
separation document.

5.  The applicant served one tour of duty in Vietnam between March 1967 and
March 1968.  He was assigned as a rifleman with the 3rd Battalion, 39th
Infantry Regiment.

6.  On 13 September 1968 the applicant was released from active duty with
an honorable characterization of service in pay grade E-4.

7.  A review of Department of the Army Pamphlet 672-3 (Unit Citation and
Campaign Participation Credit Register) notes the applicant’s unit was
credited with participating in three designated campaigns (Vietnam
Counteroffensive Phases II and III, and TET Counteroffensive) during the
applicant’s period of assignment.  Three bronze service stars on the
Vietnam Service Medal, which is recorded on his separation document, should
reflect his campaign participation.  The unit was also awarded the Republic
of Vietnam Gallantry Cross Unit Citation with Palm and the Republic of
Vietnam Civil Actions Honor Medal First Class Unit Citation during his
tenure with the organization.  The unit awards were 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.  There is no evidence, and the applicant has not provided any, which
confirms that he qualified as a marksman with the 45 caliber pistol.  In
the absence of such evidence, there is no basis to correct his separation
document to reflect that badge.

2.  The evidence does, however, confirm that the applicant was born in West
Virginia not Virginia as reflected on his separation document.  It would be
appropriate to correct his 1968 separation document accordingly.

3.  The evidence also shows that the applicant is entitled to three bronze
service stars on the Vietnam Service Medal, the Republic of Vietnam
Gallantry Cross Unit Citation with Palm and the Republic of Vietnam Civil
Actions Honor Medal First Class Unit Citation.

4.  The applicant completed a qualifying period of service for award of the
Army Good Conduct Medal on 13 September 1968.  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 14 September 1966 through 13 September 1968.

BOARD VOTE:

________  ________  ________  GRANT FULL RELIEF

__LS ___  __RB ___  ___RN __  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:

      a.  by showing on his separation document that he was born in West
Virginia, vice Virginia;


      b.  by showing that he is entitled to three bronze service stars on
the Vietnam Service Medal, the Republic of Vietnam Gallantry Cross Unit
Citation with Palm and the Republic of Vietnam Civil Actions Honor Medal
First Class Unit Citation; and
      c.  by awarding him the Army Good Conduct Medal for the period
14 September 1966 through 13 September 1968.

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
qualification as a marksman with the 45 caliber pistol.




                            _____ Linda Simmons_______
                                      CHAIRPERSON



                                    INDEX

|CASE ID                 |AR20050006136                           |
|SUFFIX                  |                                        |
|RECON                   |YYYYMMDD                                |
|DATE BOARDED            |20060112                                |
|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.       |107.00                                  |
|2.                      |                                        |
|3.                      |                                        |
|4.                      |                                        |
|5.                      |                                        |
|6.                      |                                        |


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