RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


	IN THE CASE OF:	  


	BOARD DATE:	  8 March 2007
	DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20060009827 


	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.


X
	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 he be awarded the Good Conduct Medal (GCMDL). 

2.  The applicant states that he was not awarded the GCMDL during his first enlistment.  He also states that his first enlistment was during war time and he had no problems with his conduct.  

3.  The applicant provides a copy of his report of separation (DD Form 214). 

CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:

1.  The applicant is requesting correction of an alleged injustice which occurred on 20 January 1967.  The application submitted in this case is dated 5 July 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 enlisted in Minneapolis, Minnesota on 31 July 1964 for a period of 3 years and assignment to Europe.  He completed his basic combat training at Fort Leonard Wood, Missouri and his advanced individual training (AIT) at Fort Sill, Oklahoma.  Upon completion of his AIT he was transferred to Babenhausen, Germany for duty as a cannoneer.  He was advanced to the pay grade of E-3 on 5 April 1965.   

4.  On 1 March 1966, he was honorably discharged for the purpose of immediate reenlistment.  

5.  On 2 March 1966, he reenlisted for a period of 4 years and training as a track vehicle mechanic.  He attended his training in Germany and was reclassified to military occupational specialty (MOS) 63C on 4 June 1966 and was advanced to the pay grade of E-4 on the same date.    

6.  On 22 August 1966, nonjudicial punishment (NJP) was imposed against him for operating a motor vehicle in a careless manner and losing control of the vehicle, which resulted in damage.  His punishment consisted of a forfeiture of pay and extra duty.       

7.   On 20 October 1966, the applicant’s commander initiated action to separate the applicant from the service under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-212 for unsuitability.  He indicated that the applicant’s behavior and efficiency had dropped to completely unsatisfactory and opined that further rehabilitation would prove futile.  

8.  On 5 January 1967, NJP was imposed against him for failure to make bed check.  His punishment consisted of a forfeiture of pay, extra duty, and restriction.

9.  On 20 January 1967, he was discharged under honorable conditions under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-212 for unsuitability.  He had served 2 years, 5 months, and 20 days of total active service.

10.  A review of the applicant’s records shows that he received conduct and efficiency ratings of “Excellent”, “Fair”, and “Good.”   

11.  Army Regulation 672-5-1, in effect at the time, provided policy and criteria concerning individual military decorations.  It stated that the Army Good Conduct Medal was awarded for each 3 years of continuous enlisted active Federal military service completed on or after 27 August 1940 and, for the first award only, upon termination of obligated service on or after 27 June 1950 of less than 3 years but more than 1 year.  At the time, a Soldier's conduct and efficiency ratings must have been rated as "excellent" for the entire period of qualifying service except that a service school efficiency rating based upon academic proficiency of at least "good" rendered subsequent to 11 November 1956 was not disqualifying.  However, there was no right or entitlement to the medal until the immediate commander made a positive recommendation for its award and until the awarding authority announced the award in General Orders.  Discharge for immediate reenlistment is not considered a termination of service for purposes of award of the GCMDL for a period of less than 3 years.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  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.     

2.  The applicant initially enlisted for a period of 3 years and while he reenlisted after serving 1 year and 7 months of service, his discharge for the purpose of immediate reenlistment did not terminate his period of qualification for award of the GCMDL.  

3.  Inasmuch as the applicant was administratively discharged from the service due to unsuitability prior to completing 3 years of active service, the applicant was ineligible to be awarded the GCMDL.  

4.  The applicant’s contentions have been noted.  However, the applicant has failed to show through the evidence submitted with his application and the evidence of record sufficient evidence to show that he is entitled to award of the GCMDL. 

5.  Records show the applicant should have discovered the alleged error or injustice now under consideration on 20 January 1967; therefore, the time for the applicant to file a request for correction of any error or injustice expired on
19 January 1970.  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

__X__  ___X_  __X__  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.




_____X_______
          CHAIRPERSON




INDEX

CASE ID
AR20060009827
SUFFIX

RECON
YYYYMMDD
DATE BOARDED
20070308
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         1.107.0015
61/PH
2.

3.

4.

5.

6.