RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


	IN THE CASE OF:	


	BOARD DATE:	  18 July 2007
	DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20070001346 


	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.


Ms. Catherine C. Mitrano

Director

Mr. Dean L. Turnbull

Analyst

The following members, a quorum, were present:


Mr. John N. Slone

Chairperson

Mr. William Blakely

Member

Mr. David K. Haasenritter

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 that item 24 (Character of Service) of his DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty) that shows uncharacterized be corrected to show honorable.  Also, he requests that his records be corrected to show the award of the Army Good Conduct Medal (AGCM) and recognition for the Cold War.

2.  The applicant states, in effect, that he was never awarded the AGCM for his good conduct or received recognition for the Cold War Era.

3.  The applicant provides two copies of his DD Form 214 for the periods ending 12 October 1990 and 12 March 1991.

CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:

1.  The applicant is requesting correction of an alleged error which occurred on 12 March 1991.  The application submitted in this case is dated 19 December 2006; however, it was received on 25 January 2007.

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 has requested award of the Cold War Recognition Certificate.  The Award of the Cold War Recognition Certificate is not governed by the provisions of Army Regulation 600-8-22 (Military Awards) and, as a result, is not shown on a discharge document.  In accordance with section 1084 of the Fiscal Year 1998 National Defense Authorization Act, the Secretary of Defense approved awarding the Cold War Recognition Certificate to all members of the armed forces and qualified federal government civilian personnel who faithfully and honorably served the United States anytime during the Cold War era, which is defined as 2 September 1945 to 26 December 1991.  The applicant may submit a request in writing to CDR, AHRC, Cold War Recognition, Hoffman II, Attn: AHRC-CWRS, 3N45, 200 Stovall Street, Alexandria, VA 22332-0473.  Based on this information, the applicant’s request for the Cold War Recognition Certificate is not discussed any further.

4.  The applicant's records show that he initially entered active duty on  
13 October 1987.  He completed basic combat training and advanced individual training and was awarded the military occupational specialty 12B1P (Combat Engineer).  He was honorably released from active duty and was transferred to the U.S. Army Reserve (USAR) Control Group (Reinforcement), St. Louis, Missouri on 12 October 1990.  He had completed 3 years of active service.

5.  His records show that he was ordered to active duty as a Reservist in support of Operation Desert Storm on 31 January 1991.  He was then honorably released from active duty and transferred to the USAR Control Group (Reinforcement), St. Louis, Missouri on 12 March 1991.  The DD Form 214 he signed and was issued shows in item 24, Character of Service, as "uncharacterized."

6.  His military records show that the DD Form 214 for the period ending  
12 March 1991 was administratively issued/reissued on 7 January 1992 without the applicant's signature.  It shows, in item 24, his Character of Service as "honorable."  A copy of this DD Form 214 will be forwarded to the applicant with this Board's proceedings.

7.  Item 13 (Decorations, Medals, Badges, Citations and Campaign Ribbons Awarded or Authorized) of the applicant's DD Form 214 with the period ending 
12 October 1990 shows the Army Service Ribbon, Army Lapel Button, Sharpshooter Marksmanship Qualification Badge with Rifle Bar (M16), Parachutist Badge, Hand Grenade Marksmanship Badge, Army Achievement Medal, and Multinational Forces and Observers Medal.  However, it does not show the award of the AGCM.

8.  Army Regulation 672-5-1 (Military Awards), in effect at the time when the service member was discharged, required that throughout a qualifying period of service for award of the Good Conduct Medal the enlisted person must have had all “excellent” conduct and efficiency ratings and no convictions by a court-martial.  This period is 3 years except in those cases when the period for the first award ends with the termination of a period of Federal military service.  With the publication of the new Army Regulation 672-5-1, in 1974, the requirement for all excellent conduct and efficiency ratings was dropped and an individual was required to show that he/she willingly complied with the demands of the military environment, had been loyal and obedient, and faithfully supported the goals of his organization and the Army.  Today, Army Regulation 600-8-22, which replaced Army Regulation 672-5-1, notes that there is no automatic entitlement to the Army Good Conduct Medal and disqualification must be justified.  Current practice requires that the commander provide written notice of nonfavorable consideration and permits the individual to respond.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The applicant requests that item 24, Character of Service, of his DD Form  
214 be corrected to show "honorable."  He also requests award of the AGCM.

2.  Evidence of records show that the DD Form 214 for the period ending  
12 March 1991 was administratively issued/reissued on 7 January 1992, without the applicant's signature.  Item 24, Character of Service, is properly recorded as honorable.  The applicant will receive a copy of this DD Form 214 with this Board's proceedings.

3.  Records show he is entitled to the first award of the AGCM for the period  
13 October 1987 to 12 October 1990 based on completion of a period of qualifying service of three years ending with the termination of a period of Federal military service.  His records do not contain any adverse information.  Therefore, he is entitled to correction of his records to show this award.

4.  Records show the applicant should have discovered the alleged error or injustice now under consideration on 12 March 1991, the date of his release from active duty; therefore, the time for the applicant to file a request for correction of any error or injustice expired on 11 March 1994.  The applicant did not file within the 3-year statute of limitations; however, based on the available evidence, it would be in the interest of justice to excuse failure to timely file in this case.

BOARD VOTE:

____jns__  ___dkh__  ___wb __  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 and to waive failure to timely file.  As a result, the Board recommends that all Department of the Army records of the individual concerned be corrected to show award of the AGCM for the period 13 October  
1987 to 12 October 1990.




_________John N. Slone___________
          CHAIRPERSON




INDEX

CASE ID
AR20070001346
SUFFIX

RECON
YYYYMMDD
DATE BOARDED
20070718
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.

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.