RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


	IN THE CASE OF:	  


	BOARD DATE:	   5 April 2006
	DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20060012564 


	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.




	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, that his military records be corrected to show the award of the Good Conduct Medal.

2.  The applicant essentially states that he requested that the Good Conduct Medal be sent to him, and that he included records of his service showing his excellent service.  He also states, in effect, that the engraved medal was sent to him shortly after, but that his DD Form 214 (Armed Forces of the United States Report of Transfer or Discharge) does not show this award. 

3.  The applicant provides his DD Form 214, a DA Form 1577 (Authorization for Issuance of Awards), and a letter, dated 4 September 2006, from the National Personnel Records Center in support of this application.

CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:

1.  The applicant is requesting correction of an alleged error which occurred on 12 April 1970, the date of his release from active duty.  The application submitted in this case is dated 27 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 essentially stated that he requested the Good Conduct Medal be sent to him, and that he included records of his service showing his excellent service.  His military records show that he served on active duty in an enlisted status from 6 September 1967 to 12 April 1970.  However, the applicant’s military records do not show that he was awarded the Good Conduct Medal.  Additionally, item 38 (Record of Assignments) of his DA Form 20 (Enlisted Qualification Record) shows that his conduct and efficiency ratings from 
16 October 1968 to 15 February 1970 were only rated as “good.”



4.  The applicant provided a DA Form 1577, dated 4 December 2001, that was prepared by the National Personnel Records Center in St. Louis, Missouri which essentially stated that the applicant was entitled to award of the Good Conduct Medal.  

5.  Army Regulation 672-5-1 (Military Awards), in effect at the time, provided policy and criteria concerning individual military decorations.  It stated that the 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 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.  Additionally, 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.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The applicant contends that his military records should be corrected to show the award of the Good Conduct Medal.

2.  Although the National Personnel Records Center essentially indicated that the applicant was entitled to award of the Good Conduct Medal, the regulation governing the award of the Good Conduct Medal in effect at the time of the applicant’s active duty service stated that a Soldier's conduct and efficiency ratings must have been rated as "excellent" for the entire period of qualifying service.  This regulation also stated that 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.

3.  Notwithstanding the National Personnel Records Center document, evidence of record shows that the applicant’s conduct and efficiency ratings from 
16 October 1968 to 15 February 1970 were only rated as “good.”  There is also no evidence that his immediate commander made a positive recommendation for award of the Good Conduct Medal to the applicant, and there are no orders in his military records authorizing him the Good Conduct Medal.  In view of the foregoing, there is insufficient basis for awarding the Good Conduct Medal to the applicant in this case.

4.  Records show the applicant should have discovered the alleged error or injustice now under consideration on 12 April 1970; therefore, the time for the applicant to file a request for correction of any error or injustice expired on 
11 April 1973.  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

___LS___  __JR____  ___SF __  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.




_____ Linda Simmons________
          CHAIRPERSON




INDEX

CASE ID
AR20060012564
SUFFIX

RECON
YYYYMMDD
DATE BOARDED
20070405
TYPE OF DISCHARGE
(HD, GD, UOTHC, UD, BCD, DD, UNCHAR)
DATE OF DISCHARGE
YYYYMMDD
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY
AR . . . . .  
DISCHARGE REASON

BOARD DECISION
DENY
REVIEW AUTHORITY
AR 15-185
ISSUES         1.
107.0056.0000
2.

3.

4.

5.

6.