RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


      IN THE CASE OF:


      BOARD DATE:        26 April 2007
      DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20060015006


      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. Gerard W. Schwartz            |     |Acting Director      |
|     |Mrs. Nancy L. Amos                |     |Analyst              |

      The following members, a quorum, were present:

|     |Mr. William D. Powers             |     |Chairperson          |
|     |Mr. William F. Crain              |     |Member               |
|     |Mr. Dale E. DeBruler              |     |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 award of the Army Good Conduct Medal.

2.  The applicant states he feels he should have received the Army Good
Conduct Medal.

3.  The applicant provides his DD Form 214 (Armed Forces of the United
States Report of Transfer or Discharge).

CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:

1.  The applicant is requesting correction of an alleged error or injustice
which occurred on 8 April 1964.  The application submitted in this case is
dated          10 October 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 the Regular Army on 20 April 1961.  He
completed basic combat training and advanced individual training and was
awarded military occupational specialty 671.4O (Single Engine Airplane
Mechanic).

4.  The applicant’s DA Form 24 (Service Record) shows he received an
academic “good” efficiency rating for the period 7 July through 17 October
1961. He received “good” conduct and efficiency ratings for the period 1
March through 17 August 1962.

5.  On 8 April 1964, the applicant was honorably released from active duty
after completing 2 years, 11 months, and 19 days of creditable active
service.  His DD Form 214 shows he was awarded the Expert Marksmanship
Qualification Badge (Rifle M-14).

6.  Army Regulation 672-5-1, in effect at the time, provided policy and
criteria concerning individual military decorations.  It stated 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 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.

7.  Army Regulation 600-8-22 is the current regulation that provides policy
and criteria concerning individual military decorations.  It provides for
award of the National Defense Service Medal for honorable active service
for any period between 27 June 1950 and 27 July 1954, both dates inclusive,
between              1 January 1961 and 24 August 1974, both dates
inclusive, between 2 August 1990 and 30 November 1995, both dates
inclusive, and between 11 September 2001 to a date to be determined.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The evidence of record shows the applicant received “good” conduct and
efficiency ratings for the period 1 March through 17 August 1962.  Since
his conduct and efficiency ratings were not rated as “excellent” (or as an
academic “good” efficiency rating) for his entire period of qualifying
service, he did not meet the eligibility criteria for award of the Army
Good Conduct Medal.

2.  The applicant met the eligibility criteria for award of the National
Defense Service Medal.  His DD Form 214 should be amended to add this
award.

3.  Evidence shows that the applicant’s records contain an administrative
error which does not require action by the Board.  Therefore,
administrative correction of the applicant’s records will be accomplished
by the Case Management Support Division (CMSD), St. Louis, Missouri, as
outlined by the Board in paragraph 3 of the BOARD
DETERMINATION/RECOMMENDATION section below.

4.  Records show the applicant should have discovered the alleged error or
injustice now under consideration on 8 April 1964; therefore, the time for
the applicant to file a request for correction of any error or injustice
expired on 7 April 1967.  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

__wdp___  __wfc___  __ded___  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.

3.  The Board determined that an administrative error in the records of the
individual concerned should be corrected.  Therefore, the Board requests
that the CMSD-St. Louis administratively correct the records of the
individual concerned to add the National Defense Service Medal to his DD
Form 214.




                                  __William D. Powers_
                                            CHAIRPERSON



                                    INDEX

|CASE ID                 |AR20060015006                           |
|SUFFIX                  |                                        |
|RECON                   |                                        |
|DATE BOARDED            |20070426                                |
|TYPE OF DISCHARGE       |                                        |
|DATE OF DISCHARGE       |                                        |
|DISCHARGE AUTHORITY     |                                        |
|DISCHARGE REASON        |                                        |
|BOARD DECISION          |DENY                                    |
|REVIEW AUTHORITY        |Mr. Schwartz                            |
|ISSUES         1.       |107.0056                                |
|2.                      |                                        |
|3.                      |                                        |
|4.                      |                                        |
|5.                      |                                        |
|6.                      |                                        |


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