RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


      IN THE CASE OF:


      BOARD DATE:        20 December 2005
      DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20050009660


      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. John J. Wendland, Jr.         |     |Analyst              |


      The following members, a quorum, were present:

|     |Mr. James C. Hise                 |     |Chairperson          |
|     |Mr. Ronald E. Blakely             |     |Member               |
|     |Ms. Jeanette R. McCants           |     |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, removal of two orders from his
Official Military Personnel File (OMPF).

2.  The applicant states, in effect, that a duplicate order awarding him
the Good Conduct Medal (Fourth Award) and the corresponding order revoking
that order are filed in the performance section of his OMPF and this may
give members of a future Command Sergeants Major promotion selection board
a false impression that the award was actually taken away from the
applicant.

3.  The applicant provides no documentary evidence in support of his
application.

CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:

1.  The applicant is currently serving on active duty in the rank of
sergeant first class/pay grade E-7 in military occupational specialty (MOS)
15K (Aircraft Component Repairer) at the Aviation Center Logistics Command,
Fort Rucker, Alabama.

2.  The applicant's military personnel records show that he enlisted in the
U.S. Army Reserve on 24 November 1987, entered active duty in the Regular
Army on
4 August 1988, and has served on active duty continuously since that date.
The applicant has also served overseas in support of Operation Iraqi
Freedom.

3.  The applicant's records contain a DA Form 4950 (The Good Conduct Medal
Certificate), which shows he was awarded the Good Conduct Medal for the
period 4 August 1988 to 3 August 1991.

4.  The applicant's records contain Headquarters, 101st Airborne Division
(Air Assault) and Fort Campbell, Fort Campbell, Kentucky, Permanent Orders
236-00018, dated 24 August 1994, which show he was awarded the Good Conduct
Medal Clasp (Second Award) for the period 4 August 1991 to 3 August 1994.

5.  The applicant's records contain Headquarters, 101st Airborne Division
(Air Assault) and Fort Campbell, Fort Campbell, Kentucky, Permanent Orders
192-00114, dated 11 July 1997, which show he was awarded the Good Conduct
Medal Clasp (Third Award) for the period 4 August 1994 to 3 August 1997.



6.  The applicant's records contain Headquarters, 101st Airborne Division
(Air Assault) and Fort Campbell, Fort Campbell, Kentucky, Permanent Orders
170-00001, dated 18 June 2000, which show he was awarded the Good Conduct
Medal Clasp (Fourth Award) for the period 4 August 1997 to 3 August 2000.

7.  The applicant's records contain Headquarters, Detachment A, 55th
Personnel Services Battalion, Order 270-036, dated 27 September 2001, which
shows he was awarded the Good Conduct Medal (Fourth Award) for the period 4
August 1997 to 3 August 2000.

8.  The applicant's records contain Headquarters, Detachment A, 55th
Personnel Services Battalion, Order 022-0103, dated 22 January 2003, which
shows that it revoked Headquarters, Detachment A, 55th Personnel Services
Battalion, Order 270-036, dated 27 September 2001, because it was a
duplicate award of the Good Conduct Medal (Fourth Award) to the applicant
for the period 4 August 1997 to
3 August 2000.

9.  Army Regulation 600-8-22 (Military Awards) provides, in pertinent part,
that the Good Conduct Medal is awarded to individuals who distinguish
themselves by their exemplary conduct, efficiency, and fidelity during a
qualifying period of active duty enlisted service.  After 27 June 1950 to
the present time, the current standard for award of the Good Conduct Medal
is 3 years of qualifying service.  Although there is no automatic
entitlement to the Good Conduct Medal, disqualification must be justified.
A clasp is authorized for wear on the Good Conduct Medal to denote second
and subsequent awards.  In addition, this document states that awards of
the Good Conduct Medal will made according to delegated authority and will
be announced in permanent orders by the commanders authorized to make the
awards.

10.  Army Regulation 600-8-22, paragraph 1-18 (Duplication of Awards),
provides, in pertinent part, that only one decoration will be awarded to an
individual for the same act, achievement or period of meritorious service.
This document also states, in pertinent part, that, where necessary to
correct conflicting or duplicate awards, previous permanent orders may be
revoked and will be announced in permanent orders.

11.  Army Regulation 600-8-104 (Military Personnel Information Management/
Records) provides policies, operating tasks, and steps governing the OMPF.
This Arm regulation states that only those documents listed in Table 2-1
(Composition of the OMPF) and Table 2-2 (Obsolete or No Longer Used
Documents) are authorized for filing in the OMPF.  Depending on the
purpose, documents will be filed in the OMPF in one of three sections:
performance, service, or restricted.  In addition, Table 2-1 of this Army
regulation shows that award orders are filed in the performance
(commendatory) section of the OMPF.

12.  Army Regulation 600-8-104 also provides guidance concerning the
restricted section of the OMPF.  It states, in pertinent part, that the
restricted section is used for historical data that may normally be
improper for viewing by selection boards or career managers.  The release
of the information in the restricted section is controlled and not
routinely released to promotion selection boards.  This Army regulation
also states that documents authorized for filing in the restricted section
are those that must be permanently kept to maintain an unbroken, historical
record of a Soldier's service, conduct, duty performance, and evaluation
periods; and corrections to other parts of the OMPF (emphasis added).  It
also serves to protect the interest of the Soldier and the Army.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The applicant contends, in effect, that having a duplicate order that
awarded him the Good Conduct Medal (Fourth Award) and the corresponding
order that revoked that award order filed in the performance section of his
OMPF may give members of a future promotion selection board a false
impression that the award was actually taken away from the applicant.
However, the applicant provides no documentary evidence or a convincing
reason in support of his claim to have the orders removed from his OMPF.

2.  The evidence of record confirms that the applicant was properly awarded
the Good Conduct Medal (Fourth Award) by permanent orders on 18 June 2000.

3.  The evidence of record also shows that orders were issued on 27
September 2001 that constituted a duplicate award of the Good Conduct Medal
(Fourth Award) to the applicant for the same period.  The evidence of
record further shows that this award order was subsequently revoked under
proper authority by orders issued on 22 January 2003.

4.  A review of the applicant's OMPF confirmed that all three of these
orders are filed in the performance (commendatory) section of his OMPF.  In
addition, the governing Army regulation does not authorize the custodian of
the OMPF to transfer or remove the duplicate copy of the Good Conduct Medal
(Fourth Award) order or the order revoking that award from the performance
(commendatory) section of the OMPF.  Therefore, the orders are properly
filed in the applicant's OMPF.

5.  The evidence of record in this case does not reveal an injury to the
applicant at this point in his Army career.  However, the applicant offers
a viable reason for transferring the duplicate award order and
corresponding revocation order to the restricted section of his OMPF.  The
revocation order negates the validity of the duplicate award of the Good
Conduct Medal (Fourth Award) to the applicant and together the two orders
offer no relevant information regarding the applicant's service, conduct,
or duty performance.  Moreover, transferring the two orders to the
restricted section of the applicant's OMPF would eliminate the potential
for confusion to officials authorized to review the performance section of
the applicant's OMPF, particularly with regard to his Good Conduct Medals.
At the same time, the documents filed in the restricted section of the OMPF
would not be routinely released to Department of the Army promotion
selection boards.  In addition, these two orders, issued due to
administrative error, would then be retained in the applicant's OMPF for
historical purposes.  Therefore, the two orders should be transferred to
the restricted section of the applicant's Official Military Personnel File,
in this case.

BOARD VOTE:

________  ________  ________  GRANT FULL RELIEF

__JCH __  __REB __  __JRM __  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.  As a result, the Board
recommends that all Department of the Army records of the individual
concerned be corrected by transferring Headquarters, Detachment A, 55th
Personnel Services Battalion, Order 270-036, dated 27 September 2001 (which
awards the applicant the Good Conduct Medal (Fourth Award) for the period 4
August 1997 to 3 August 2000), and Headquarters, Detachment A, 55th
Personnel Services Battalion, Order
022-0103, dated 22 January 2003 (which revokes that order) from the
permanent (commendatory) section to the restricted section of the
applicant's Official Military Personnel File.

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
removing the two orders from the applicant's Official Military Personnel
File.




                                  _____JAMES C. HISE________
                                            CHAIRPERSON



                                    INDEX

|CASE ID                 |AR20050009660                           |
|SUFFIX                  |                                        |
|RECON                   |YYYYMMDD                                |
|DATE BOARDED            |20051220                                |
|TYPE OF DISCHARGE       |(HD, GD, UOTHC, UD, BCD, DD, UNCHAR)    |
|DATE OF DISCHARGE       |YYYYMMDD                                |
|DISCHARGE AUTHORITY     |AR . . . . .                            |
|DISCHARGE REASON        |                                        |
|BOARD DECISION          |GRANT - PARTIAL                         |
|REVIEW AUTHORITY        |Mr. Chun                                |
|ISSUES         1.       |134.0000.0000                           |
|2.                      |                                        |
|3.                      |                                        |
|4.                      |                                        |
|5.                      |                                        |
|6.                      |                                        |


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