RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


	IN THE CASE OF:	    


	BOARD DATE:	  7 June 2007
	DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20070000331 


	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

Mr. Michael L. Engle

Analyst

The following members, a quorum, were present:


Ms. Carmen Duncan

Chairperson

Mr. Michael J. Flynn

Member

Mr. Jeffrey C. Redmann

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 correction of his military records to show award of the Army Good Conduct Medal, Army Service Ribbon, and the Army Overseas Service Ribbon. 

2.  The applicant states that he served honorably and exemplarily on active duty from 1 February 1977 to 31 January 1980 and his Army Good Conduct Medal was just forgotten.  He also served overseas in Germany and is entitled to award of the Army Overseas Service Ribbon and the Army Service Ribbon since they are authorized retroactively. 

3.  The applicant provides a copy of his Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty (DD Form 214), and information sheets for the Army Good Conduct Medal, Army Service Ribbon, and the Army Overseas Service Ribbon.

CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:

1.  The applicant is requesting correction of an alleged error or injustice which occurred on 31 January 1980, the date he was released from active duty.  The application submitted in this case is dated 21 December 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.  On 1 February 1977, the applicant enlisted in the Regular Army for 3 years.  He completed his initial training and was awarded military occupational specialty 64C1O (Motor Transport Operator).

4.  On 20 July 1977, the applicant was assigned as a heavy vehicle driver with the 3rd Battalion, 35th Armored Regiment, 1st Armored Division, in the Republic of Germany.

5.  On 1 October 1978, the applicant was promoted to the rank of specialist, pay grade E4.

6.  On 27 December 1979, the applicant was returned to the United States for separation.

7.  Permanent Orders 1-1, 1st Armored Division, dated 2 January 1980, awarded the applicant the Army Commendation Medal for meritorious service during the period from 19 July 1977 to 1 December 1979.

8.  On 31 January 1980, the applicant was honorably released from active duty. He had completed 3 years of creditable active duty.

9.  Item 13 (Decorations, Medals, Badges, Citations and Campaign Ribbons Awarded or Authorized) of the applicant’s DD Form 214 lists the Marksman Marksmanship Qualification Badge with Rifle and Grenade Bars.  It does not show the Army Commendation Medal, Army Good Conduct Medal, Army Service Ribbon, or the Army Overseas Service Ribbon.

10.  Army Regulation 600-8-22 (Military Awards) provides, in pertinent part, that the Army Good Conduct Medal is awarded to individuals who distinguish themselves by their conduct, efficiency, and fidelity during a qualifying period of active duty enlisted service.  The current standard for award of the Army Good Conduct Medal is 3 years of qualifying service, but as little as one year is required for the first award in those cases when the period of service ends with the termination of active Federal military service.  Denial requires the commander’s disqualifying comments. 

11.   Army Regulation 600-8-22 further provides, in pertinent part, that the Army Service Ribbon is awarded to members of the Army, Army Reserve, and Army National Guard for successful completion of initial-entry training.  The Army Service Ribbon may be awarded retroactively to those personnel who completed the required training before 1 August 1981 provided they had an active Army status on or after 1 August 1981.  Only one award is authorized.

12.  Army Regulation 600-8-22 further provides, in pertinent part, that the Army Overseas Service Ribbon is awarded to members of the United States Army for successful completion of overseas tours.  Effective 1 August 1981, all members of the Active Army, Army National Guard, and the Army Reserve in an active Reserve status are eligible for this award.  The ribbon may be awarded retroactively to those personnel who were credited with a normal overseas tour completion before 1 August 1981, provided they had an Active Army status on or after 1 August 1981.


DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The evidence of record clearly shows that the applicant served a qualifying period of time for an initial award of the Army Good Conduct Medal.  Furthermore, there is no evidence showing that his commander took any action to deny him this award.  Therefore, he should be awarded the Army Good Conduct Medal.

2.  The evidence of record shows that the applicant was awarded the Army Commendation Medal for meritorious service during his overseas tour in the Republic of Germany.  Therefore, his records should be corrected to show this award.

3.  While the applicant did successfully complete his initial-entry training, he accomplished it prior to the establishment of the Army Service Ribbon.  Furthermore, there is no evidence showing that he served on active duty on or after 1 August 1981.  Therefore, his request for award of the Army Service Ribbon should not be granted.

4.  While the applicant did complete a successful overseas tour of duty in the Republic of Germany, he did it prior to the establishment of the Army Overseas Service Ribbon.  Furthermore, there is no evidence showing that he served on active duty on or after 1 August 1981.  Therefore, his request for award of the Army Overseas Service Ribbon should not be granted.  

5.  Records show the applicant should have discovered the alleged error or injustice now under consideration on 31 January 1981; therefore, the time for the applicant to file a request for correction of any error or injustice expired on 
30 January 1984.  The applicant did not file within the 3-year statute of limitations; however, based on the available evidence or argument, it would be in the interest of justice to excuse failure to timely file in this case.

BOARD VOTE:

________  ________  ________  GRANT FULL RELIEF 

__MJF __  __cd____   __JCR__  GRANT PARTIAL RELIEF 

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

________  ________  ________  DENY APPLICATION

BOARD DETERMINATION/RECOMMENDATION:

1.  The Board determined that the evidence presented was sufficient to warrant a recommendation for partial relief and to excuse failure to timely file.  As a result, the Board recommends that all Department of the Army records of the individual concerned be corrected by:

a.   awarding him the Army Good Conduct Medal for the period from
1 February 1977 to 31 January 1980; and

b.  showing that, in addition to the awards shown on his DD Form 214, his authorized awards include the Army Commendation Medal and the Army Good Conduct Medal.

2.  The Board further determined that the evidence presented is insufficient to warrant a portion of the requested relief.  As a result, the Board recommends denial of so much of the application that pertains to award of the Army Service Ribbon and the Army Overseas Service Ribbon.




___   Carmen Duncan________
          CHAIRPERSON




INDEX

CASE ID
AR20070000331
SUFFIX

RECON
 
DATE BOARDED
20070607   
TYPE OF DISCHARGE
 
DATE OF DISCHARGE
 
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY
 
DISCHARGE REASON

BOARD DECISION
GRANT
REVIEW AUTHORITY

ISSUES         1.
107
2.

3.

4.

5.

6.