RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


      IN THE CASE OF:


      BOARD DATE:         5 October 2006
      DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20060001844


      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. Joseph A. Adriance            |     |Analyst              |

      The following members, a quorum, were present:

|     |Mr. James B. Gunlicks             |     |Chairperson          |
|     |Mr. Michael J. Flynn              |     |Member               |
|     |Mr. Scott W. Faught               |     |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 a unit award.

2.  The applicant states, in effect, that her unit was awarded a unit
citation while she was assigned and she should have received this award.
She claims she was a member of Company F, 4th Support Battalion, Fort
Stewart, Georgia, and during her assignment to this unit, it completed a
six month tour in Egypt.  She states that after the unit returned from
Egypt, it received an award.  She indicates that she was found to be with
child before the unit left for Egypt and as a result she did not go.
However, given she served with the unit and provided support related to the
mission in Egypt, she should receive the award.  She concludes by
commenting that the award would look good on her resume, and an
acknowledgement of appreciation for her service.

3.  The applicant provides a self-authored statement and her separation
document (DD Form 214) in support of the application.

CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:

1.  The applicant is requesting correction of an alleged error or injustice
that occurred on 9 June 1987.  The application submitted in this case is
dated 26 January 2006.

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's record shows she enlisted in the Regular Army and
entered active duty on 27 September 1980.  She was trained in, awarded, and
served in military occupational specialty (MOS) 91A (Medical Specialist),
and the highest rank she attained while serving on active duty was
specialist four (SP4).

4.  The applicant's Personnel Qualification Record shows, in Item 5
(Overseas Service), that she served in Germany from 3 March 1981 through 28
October 1983, and that this is the only overseas service she performed
while serving on active duty.
5.  Item 9 (Awards, Decorations & Campaigns) of the applicant's DA Form 2-1
 shows that during her active duty tenure, she earned the following awards:
 Army Good Conduct Medal (AGCM); Army Service Ribbon (ASR); Overseas
Service Ribbon (OSR); Expert Qualification Badge with Rifle Bar; and
Marksman Qualification Badge with Grenade Bar.  There are no unit awards
included in the list of awards contained in Item 9.

6.   Item 35 (Record of Assignments) of the applicant's DA Form 2-1 shows
that she served with Company F, 4th Combat Support Battalion, Fort Stewart,
Georgia, from 1 September 1985 through 9 June 1987.

7.  On 9 June 1987, the applicant was honorably separated after completing
a total of 6 years, 8 months, and 11 days of active military service.  Item
13 (Decorations, Medals, Badges, Citations and Campaign Ribbons Awarded or
Authorized) shows she earned the following awards during her active duty
tenure: AGCM; ASR; OSR; Expert Qualification Badge with Rifle Bar; and
Third Class (Marksman) Qualification Badge with Grenade Bar.

8.  Army Regulation 600-8-22 (Military Awards) prescribes the Army's awards
policy. Paragraph 9-18 contains guidance on the Multinational Force and
Observers (MFO) Medal.  It states that the Multinational Force and
Observers Medal was established by the Director General, Multinational
Force and Observers (MFO), 24 March 1982.  Presidential acceptance for the
United States Armed Forces and DOD civilian personnel is announced by
Department of Defense on 28 July 1982.  It further indicates that to
qualify for the award personnel must have served with the MFO at least
ninety (90) cumulative days after 3 August 1981. Effective 15 March 1985,
personnel must serve 6 months (170 days minimum) with the MFO to qualify
for the award.  Periods of service on behalf of the MFO outside of the
Sinai, and periods of leave while a member is serving with the MFO, may be
counted toward eligibility for the MFO medal.  Qualifying time may be lost
for disciplinary reasons.

9.  Department of the Army Pamphlet 672-3 (Unit Citation and Campaign
Participation Credit Register) was published to assist commanders and
personnel officers in determining or establishing the eligibility of
individual members for campaign participation credit, assault landing
credit, and unit citation badges awarded during the Vietnam Conflict, the
Grenada Operation, and the period of service subsequent to the Vietnam
Conflict up to September 1987.  A review of this register reveals that the
applicant's unit (Company F,
4th Combat Support Battalion) earned no unit awards during the applicant's
tenure of assignment.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The applicant's contention that she should have received a unit award
received by the rest of her unit for service in Egypt, and the supporting
documents she submitted, were carefully considered.  However, there is
insufficient evidence to support her claim.

2.  The evidence of record confirms the applicant's unit received no unit
awards that would have entitled every member serving in the unit the award,
such as the Meritorious Unit Commendation, Superior Unit Award, or
Presidential Unit Citation.  Further, the award the members of her unit
received upon their return from Egypt was most likely the Multinational
Force and Observers Medal, which was only authorized for members who
actually served in Egypt with the MFO for six or more months.  By the
applicant's own admission, she did not deploy to or serve in Egypt with her
unit.  Therefore, there is an insufficient evidentiary basis to support
granting the requested relief in this case.

3.  In order to justify correction of a military record the applicant must
show to the satisfaction of the Board, or it must otherwise satisfactorily
appear, that the record is in error or unjust.  The applicant has failed to
submit evidence that would satisfy this requirement.

4.  Records show the applicant should have discovered the alleged error or
injustice now under consideration on 9 June 1987, the date of her
separation from active duty.  Therefore, the time for her file a request
for correction of any error or injustice expired on 8 June 1990.  She
failed to 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

__JBG   _  __MJF __  __SWF __  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.




                                  _____James B. Gunlicks   __
                                            CHAIRPERSON



                                    INDEX

|CASE ID                 |AR20060001844                           |
|SUFFIX                  |                                        |
|RECON                   |                                        |
|DATE BOARDED            |2006/10/05                              |
|TYPE OF DISCHARGE       |HD                                      |
|DATE OF DISCHARGE       |1987/06/09                              |
|DISCHARGE AUTHORITY     |AR 635-200                              |
|DISCHARGE REASON        |Reduction in Str                        |
|BOARD DECISION          |DENY                                    |
|REVIEW AUTHORITY        |Mr. Chun                                |
|ISSUES         1.  46   |107.0000                                |
|2.                      |                                        |
|3.                      |                                        |
|4.                      |                                        |
|5.                      |                                        |
|6.                      |                                        |


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