RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


	IN THE CASE OF:	  


	BOARD DATE:	  1 March 2007
	DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20060009026 


	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.




Director



Analyst

The following members, a quorum, were present:



Chairperson


Member


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, the award of the Army Commendation Medal for service from October 1988 to February 1992 be added to her DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty) with a separation date of 29 April 1992.

2.  The applicant states, in effect, the Army Commendation Medal is not listed in Item 13 (Decorations, Medals, Badges, Commendations, Citations and Campaign Ribbons Awarded or Authorized) of her DD Form 214.

3.  The applicant provides a copy of a DA Form 638-1 (Recommendation for Award (For Other Than Valor) of Army Achievement Medal (AAM), Army Commendation Medal (ARCOM), and Meritorious Service Medal (MSM)) and a Department of the Army Certificate, dated 11 February 1992, for award of the Army Commendation Medal.

CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:

1.  The applicant is requesting correction of an alleged error which occurred on 29 April 1992, the date of her release from active duty.  The application submitted in this case is dated 19 June 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 military records show she enlisted on 10 February 1988 for a period of 4 years.  She successfully completed basic combat and advanced individual training and was awarded the military occupational specialty 91P (x-ray specialist).

4.  On 14 October 1988, the applicant was assigned to the U.S. Army Medical Department Activity, at Fort Benning, Georgia.


5.  The DD Form 638-1, dated 24 December 1991, submitted by the applicant, shows she was recommended by her supervisor, a staff sergeant, for award 
of the Army Commendation Medal for the period from 21 October 1988 to 
9 February 1992.  The Chief, Radiology Department, a major, recommended approval of the award.

6.  The DA Form 638-1 is not signed by the approval authority and Part D (Orders Data) of the form does not show the award of the Army Commendation as approved.

7.  The certificate for award of the Army Commendation Medal, dated 
11 February 1992, submitted by the applicant, does not show a permanent order number or the rank of the commander signing the certificate.

8.   Item 9 (Awards, Decorations & Campaigns) of the applicant’s DA Form 2-1 (Personnel Qualification Record) does not show the award of the Army Commendation Medal.

9.  On 29 April 1992, the applicant was released from active duty due to the expiration of the term of her service.  She had completed 4 years, 2 months, and 20 days of active service that was characterized as honorable.  The highest rank held by the applicant was specialist four/pay grade E-4.

10.  Item 13 (Decorations, Medals, Badges, Commendations, Citations and Campaign Ribbons Awarded or Authorized) of the applicant’s DD Form 214 does not contain an entry for award of the Army Commendation Medal.

11.  The applicant's military service records do not contain orders for the award of the Army Commendation Medal.

12.  Army Regulation 600-8-22 (Military Awards) provides that the Army Commendation Medal may be awarded to any member of the Armed Forces 
of the United States who, while serving in any capacity with the Army after 
6 December 1941, distinguished himself or herself by heroism, meritorious achievement or meritorious service.  As with all personal decorations, formal recommendations, approval through the chain of command, and announcement in orders are required.

13.  Table 3-5 (Delegation of award approval authority-peacetime criteria) of Army Regulation 600-8-22 shows that the approval level for the Army Commendation Medal is colonel.


14.  Army Regulation 600-8-104 (Military Personnel Information Management/Records) prescribes the policies governing the Official Military Personnel File, the Military Personnel Records Jacket, the Career Management Individual File, and Army Personnel Qualification Records.  In pertinent part, this regulation states that for U.S. military decorations the only acceptable source documentation is the order, letter, or memorandum which awards the decoration. Award certificates, citations, or separation certificates alone will not be the basis for entry of a decoration.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  There is no evidence of the award of the Army Commendation other than the certificate submitted by the applicant.  Army regulations states that award certificates alone will not be used as a basis for entering a decoration on the applicant’s DD Form 214.  Therefore, there is insufficient evidence to show award of the Army Commendation Medal was approved by the applicant’s commander in the rank of colonel or above.  

2.  Records show the applicant should have discovered the alleged error or injustice now under consideration on 29 April 1992; therefore, the time for the applicant to file a request for correction of any error or injustice expired on 
28 April 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

___jcr___  ____jrh__  ____tmr__  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.




_________Thomas M. Ray__________
          CHAIRPERSON




INDEX

CASE ID
AR20060009026
SUFFIX

RECON
YYYYMMDD
DATE BOARDED
2007/03/01
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.