RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


      IN THE CASE OF:


      BOARD DATE:        23 JANUARY 2007
      DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20060013644


      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             |
|     |Ms. Rene’ R. Parker               |     |Analyst              |


      The following members, a quorum, were present:

|     |Mr. Kenneth Wright                |     |Chairperson          |
|     |Mr. Larry Racster                 |     |Member               |
|     |Ms. Ernestine Fields              |     |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 the Army Good Conduct Medal
(4th Award) for the period 16 March 2003 to 15 March 2006.

2.  The applicant states that his commander disqualified him for the award
of the Army Good Conduct Medal (AGCM) after only supervising him from
September 2005 to November 2005, 2 months, during the entire 3 year
qualification period.  The applicant explains that he arrived in the unit
in September 2005 and deployed with the unit the following month.  In
November 2005, he was detailed to Qatar, away from the unit, until April
2006 when he returned to camp Taji, Iraq. Upon his arrival to Taji, he was
detached to the 4th Sustainment Brigade where he performed duties as a
platoon sergeant.  The applicant recalls that he was only contacted once by
the commander while in Qatar and Taji.  Therefore, he does not know why the
commander concluded that he (applicant) could not perform the duties of his
military occupational specialty for his current grade.  He argues that he
was never placed in a position to be evaluated.  The applicant concludes
that his Noncommissioned Officer Evaluation Report (NCOER) shows that he
was rated “Success” by his rater in the performance of his duties.

3.  The applicant provides his self-authored statement, disqualification
memorandum, rebuttal, NCOER, statement of service, DA Forms 4856
(Developmental Counseling Form), DA Form 4187 (Personnel Action), DA Form
638 (Recommendation for Award) with Certificate, and four supporting
statements.

CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:

1.  The applicant’s records show he enlisted in the Regular Army for 3
years on   23 September 1992.  He was awarded MOS 62B (Construction
Equipment Repairer) and was honorably released from active duty on 22 July
1995.  On
16 January 1997 the applicant reentered the Regular Army and was awarded
MOS 75B (Personnel Administrative Specialist).  He is currently on active
duty in the Regular Army as a staff sergeant with a date of rank of 1
November 2002.

2.  The applicant’s record shows that he was awarded the AGCM (3rd Award)
for the period 16 March 2000 to 15 March 2003.

3.  The applicant’s Enlisted Record Brief shows on 29 September 2005 he was
assigned to the 15th Adjutant General Battalion, Detachment E, Fort Riley
Kansas, as the Personnel Service Sergeant Noncommissioned Officer in
Charge.

4.  On 28 October 2005, the applicant was counseled by his first sergeant
concerning a lack of professionalism as a Noncommissioned Officer.  It
appears that the applicant stated “I am still a f------ squad leader.”  The
first sergeant said that since the applicant’s arrival in Iraq he has
demonstrated a power struggle to be in charge instead of learning how the
Detachment works.  The applicant was instructed to write a 500 word essay
on professionalism in the Army as a plan of action.  The applicant
disagreed with the counseling statement and said that he did not feel that
he was being unprofessional and that his peers left him behind by not
involving him in their daily actions.  Additionally, the applicant stated
that he did not believe that writing a 500 word essay would help but, he
would write the essay anyway.

5.  On 5 December 2005, the applicant was counseled by his first sergeant
concerning e-mail traffic.  The first sergeant also stated that the reason
the applicant was not the Personnel Service Support Noncommissioned Officer
was based upon a lack of experience, “that he will make-up over time.”  The
applicant signed the counseling statement indicating he agreed with the
first sergeant.

6.  DA Form 4187 dated 31 March 2006, shows that the applicant was assigned
from E, Detachment 15th Personnel Service Branch and attached to
Company G, 4th Sustainment Brigade.

7.  On 10 July 2006, the detachment commander referred his memorandum of
disqualification of the award of the AGCM to the applicant for
acknowledgement and/or rebuttal.  The commander stated that it was his
opinion that the applicant did not meet all the requirements and
expectations for his grade, MOS, and experience.  The commander said it was
his professional opinion that the applicant had not made any effort to
improve his knowledge and abilities to serve as a personnel sergeant in his
current grade.  The commander admitted that the applicant’s knowledge of
personnel support services procedures and regulations was seriously lacking
for a Soldier of his grade.

8.  Additionally, the commander said that despite the applicant being
assigned to the unit as a Personnel Service Support (PSS) Noncommissioned
Officer in Charge (NCOIC), he was unable to perform his duties in that
capacity and therefore, was given other missions to accomplish.  The
commander continued by expounding on his opinion concerning the applicant’s
“questionable” attitude towards the command, support of the chain of
command, and support of the goals of the organization.  He also said that
the applicant’s attempts to sow discord and disrespect in his fellow
Soldiers were indicative of a poor personal

character.  The commander concluded that he believed that the applicant
possessed the capability and mental capacity to succeed in the military and
to perform in his MOS; however, his past performance in the unit does not
support the award of the AGCM at this time.

9.  In the applicant’s rebuttal dated 13 July 2006, he recapped the
information contained in his self-authored statement to the Board.  The
applicant argued that the commander did not supervise him for the entire
qualification period, and in effect, supervised him for only 2 months.  The
applicant concluded that the commander’s decision not to recommend him for
award of the AGCM was not based on personal knowledge, official records, or
rationale but, the commander’s “opinion” which was cited throughout his
memorandum.

10.  On 1 August 2006, the commander considered the applicant’s rebuttal to
his referred memorandum of disqualification of the AGCM and denied his
request.

11.  A statement of service memorandum dated 18 August 2006, signed by the
commander, shows that the applicant performed duties in support of Iraqi
Freedom at Qatar from 6 November 2005 to 16 April 2006.

12.  A supporting memorandum from the Rest and Recuperation Pass Program
(RRPP) Director explained the applicant’s responsibilities while deployed
to Camp As Sayliyah, Qatar from November 2005 to February 2006.  The
director stated that the applicant’s efforts directly contributed to the
success of the program.  The NCOIC of the RRPP mimicked the director’s
sentiments.  Additionally, he stated that the applicant had a high level of
professionalism and a strong dedication to the mission.

13.  The commander of Golf Company, 4th Sustainment Brigade provided a
supporting memorandum that stated the applicant had been loyal and obedient
to superiors while assigned to his organization.  The commander said that
the applicant had not been convicted of a court-martial or subject to
nonjudicial punishment and therefore, his commander had no rationale to
disqualify him from receiving the award of the AGCM.

14.  The operations sergeant stated that the applicant was assigned as
platoon sergeant of the first platoon in Golf Company.  During this time,
the operations sergeant said he observed the applicant’s performance and
found him to be well organized, very conscientious, and efficient.



15.  The applicant’s NCOER from the period August 2005 through March 2006
rated his performance for 7 months as the PPS NCOIC.  The NCOER lists his
rater as the Chief, Military Personnel Operations and his senior rater as
the detachment commander.  The NCOER shows that the applicant received his
initial counseling on 5 November 2005 and the statement of “Soldier unable
to be properly counseled due to emergency leave” is listed as justification
for the absence of the later counseling dates.  The applicant was rated
“Success” by his rater in competence, physical fitness and military
bearing, leadership, training, and “Excellence” in responsibility and
accountability with supporting bullet comments.  He was also assessed as
“Fully Capable” in overall potential for promotion and/or service in
positions of greater responsibility.

16.  The senior rater/detachment commander assessed the applicant’s overall
performance and overall potential for promotion and/or service in positions
of greater responsibility as “2-Successful/2-Superior” respectively.  The
applicant received bullet comments of “promote with peers,” “send to ANCOC
with peers,” and “has capability to succeed at positions of greater
responsibility.”

17.  The certificate dated 5 July 2006 shows that the applicant was awarded
the Army Commendation Medal (ARCOM) for the period 5 October 2005 to
       3 September 2006 for exceptional service while deployed in support
of Iraqi Freedom.  The DA Form 638 verifies that the applicant’s detachment
commander approved the recommendation for the award on 15 May 2006 and made
the comments of “Good job.  Well deserving of this award.”

18.  The applicant’s NCOER for the period November 2004 to July 2005 lists
his senior rater as the company commander for a medical company.

19.  The applicant’s records prior to the rendering of the disqualification
memorandum and during the 3 year qualification period of the award of the
AGCM, 16 March 2003 through 15 March 2006, were impeccable.  He received
the Recruiter Incentive Awards, Recruiter’s Gold Badge, and several
Certificates of Achievement.  Additionally, his NCOERs evaluated his
performance as either “Success” or “Among the Best” with 1, 2, or 3 ratings
of “Successful/Superior” in overall performance and overall potential.

20.  Army Regulation 600-8-22 (Military Awards) provides guidelines for the
award of the AGCM.  The regulation states that the AGCM is awarded on a
selective basis to each Soldier who distinguishes himself or herself from
among his or her fellow Soldiers by their exemplary conduct, efficiency,
and fidelity throughout a specified period of continuous enlisted active
Federal military service.  There is no right or entitlement to the medal
until the immediate commander has approved the award and the award has been
announced in permanent orders.

21.  Additionally, the regulation states that the immediate unit
commander's decision to award the AGCM will be based on his or her personal
knowledge and of the individual's official records for periods of service
under previous commanders during the period for which the award is to be
made.  In terms of job performance, the Soldier's efficiency must be
evaluated and must meet all requirements and expectations for that
Soldier's grade, MOS, and experience.

22.  Paragraph 4-6 of Army Regulation 600-8-22, character of service,
states that while any record of nonjudicial punishment could be in conflict
with recognizing the Soldier's service as exemplary; such record should not
be viewed as automatically disqualifying.  The commander analyzes the
record, giving consideration to the nature of the infraction, the
circumstances under which it occurred and when.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The applicant's records show that he would have been eligible for the
fourth award of the AGCM from the period 16 March 2003 to 15 March 2006;
however, he was disqualified four months after the through date of the
award.  The rationale cited by the commander was the applicant did not meet
“all the requirements and expectations for his grade, MOS, and experience.”

2.  The applicant's records show that he was rated as “Fully Capable” by
his rater and “2-Successful/2-Superior” by his senior rater on his NCOER.
There is no mention of the applicant’s “substandard performance” that was
used as the basis for the commander to disqualify him for award of the
AGCM.  Further, the records show a different commander during the
applicant’s previous rating period.  This provides credence to the
applicant’s claim that the commander supervised him for a short time during
the 3 year qualification period.

3.  Evidence of record shows that the commander recommended the applicant
for the award of the ARCOM, during the period in question, with supporting
comments of “Good job.  Well deserving of this award.”  It appears that the
commander was inconsistent in determining whether the applicant should be
rewarded or reprimanded.  On one hand he denies the applicant the award of
the AGCM based on his job performance, recommends him for the award of the
ARCOM, and then rates him as successful indicating that he met the
standards on his evaluation report.
4.  There is no adverse information contained in the applicant’s Official
Military Personnel File.  Although the applicant may not have met all the
requirements specified of his MOS and grade, his failure to meet those
requirements, in the absence of any adverse action is not a sufficient
reason to disqualify him from award of the AGCM.  Therefore, in the
interest of equity and justice, it would be appropriate to correct the
applicant’s records to show that he is entitled to the award of the AGCM
for the period 16 March 2003 to 15 March 2006.

BOARD VOTE:

__KW___  ___LR___  __EF ___  GRANT FULL RELIEF

________  ________  ________  GRANT PARTIAL RELIEF

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

________  ________  ________  DENY APPLICATION

BOARD DETERMINATION/RECOMMENDATION:

The Board determined that the evidence presented was sufficient to warrant
a recommendation for relief.  As a result, the Board recommends that all
Department of the Army records of the individual concerned be corrected by
awarding him the AGCM (4th Award) for the period 16 March 2003 to 15 March
2006.




                                  _____ Kenneth Wright_______
                                            CHAIRPERSON



                                    INDEX

|CASE ID                 |AR20060013644                           |
|SUFFIX                  |                                        |
|RECON                   |YYYYMMDD                                |
|DATE BOARDED            |20070123                                |
|TYPE OF DISCHARGE       |(HD, GD, UOTHC, UD, BCD, DD, UNCHAR)    |
|DATE OF DISCHARGE       |YYYYMMDD                                |
|DISCHARGE AUTHORITY     |AR . . . . .                            |
|DISCHARGE REASON        |                                        |
|BOARD DECISION          |GRANT                                   |
|REVIEW AUTHORITY        |                                        |
|ISSUES         1.       |107.00                                  |
|2.                      |                                        |
|3.                      |                                        |
|4.                      |                                        |
|5.                      |                                        |
|6.                      |                                        |


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