RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


	IN THE CASE OF:	  


	BOARD DATE:	  11 December 2007
	DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20070010145 


	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

Mrs. Nancy L. Amos

Analyst

The following members, a quorum, were present:


Mr. William D. Powers

Chairperson

Mr. Michael J. Flynn

Member

Ms. Sherry J. Stone

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 and the Army of Occupation Medal with Berlin clasp.

2.  The applicant stated, in a letter provided with an earlier application to the Board (that requested additional awards but was later withdrawn), that he received an honorable discharge.  He also stated that he was assigned to Germany for over 31 months, and his unit was required to operate in close proximity to the borders around Berlin and the East/West German border.

3.  The applicant provides a copy of his DD Form 214 (Armed Forces of the United States Report of Transfer or Discharge); a letter, dated 13 July 2006, from the National Personnel Records Center; his Honorable Discharge Certificate, dated 30 September 1966; a certificate of training; a certificate from the 2d Armored Cavalry (Regiment); and extracts from his service personnel records.

CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:

1.  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 also allows the Army Board for Correction of Military Records (ABCMR) to excuse an applicant’s failure to timely file within the 3-year statute of limitations if the ABCMR determines it would be in the interest of justice to do so.  While it appears the applicant did not file within the time frame provided in the statute of limitations, the ABCMR has elected to conduct a substantive review of this case and, only to the extent relief, if any, is granted, has determined it is in the interest of justice to excuse the applicant’s failure to timely file.  In all other respects, there are insufficient bases to waive the statute of limitations for timely filing.

2.  The applicant enlisted in the Regular Army on 13 October 1960.  He completed basic combat training and advanced individual training (AIT) at the Combat Surveillance and Target Acquisition Training Command (CS&TATC), Fort Huachuca, AZ and was awarded military occupational specialty 156.10 (Field Artillery Radar Crewman).

3.  The applicant arrived in Germany and was assigned to Headquarters and Headquarters Battery, 4th Armored Division Artillery.  He apparently completed a tour of border patrol duty with the 2d Armored Cavalry Regiment.  He departed Germany on 17 September 1963.

4.  The applicant was honorably released from active duty on 26 September 1963, in pay grade E-4, after completing 2 years, 11 months, and 14 days of creditable active service with no lost time, and transferred to the U. S. Army Reserve.  His DD Form 214 shows he was awarded the Sharpshooter Marksmanship Qualification Badge (Rifle M-1).

5.  The applicant’s records contain no derogatory information.  Section                4 (Chronological Record of Military Service) of his DA Form 24 (Service Record) shows his conduct and efficiency were rated as “excellent” throughout his enlistment except for one “good” efficiency rating while he was in AIT.

6.  Army Regulation 600-8-22 (Military Awards) provides for award of the Army of Occupation Medal for service of 30 consecutive days at a normal post of duty in a qualifying location.  Personnel at a qualifying location as an inspector, courier, and escort on temporary or detached duty are precluded from eligibility. 

7.  Army Regulation 600-8-22 states award of the Army of Occupation Medal with Berlin Airlift Device is based on service which must have occurred entirely within the period 26 June 1948 to 30 September 1949. 

8.  Army Regulation 600-8-22 states the Army of Occupation Medal with Germany clasp is for authorized for service in the Army of Occupation of Berlin between 9 May 1945 and 2 October 1990.  

9.  Army Regulation 600-8-22 states the National Defense Service Medal is awarded 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 and to a date to be determined.

10.  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.  However, 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 evidence of record shows that the applicant was assigned to Germany; however, since he did not even enlist until 1960 he does not meet the eligibility criteria for award of the Army of Occupation Medal with Berlin Airlift Device.  Since there is no evidence of record to show he was assigned to Berlin for service in the Army of Occupation of Berlin, he does not meet the eligibility criteria for award of the Army of Occupation Medal with Germany clasp.  

2.  The evidence of record shows that the applicant was given one efficiency rating of “good.”  Although this rating was given while he was in AIT, there is no indication that the rating was based on academic proficiency.  Other criteria, such as how well a Soldier recognizes and performs military courtesies/customs, can determine a student’s efficiency rating.  Therefore, there is insufficient evidence that would warrant awarding the applicant the Army Good Conduct Medal.

3.  The applicant met the eligibility criteria for award of the National Defense Service Medal.  This award should be added to his DD Form 214.

4.  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 2 of the BOARD DETERMINATION/RECOMMENDATION section below.

BOARD VOTE:

________  ________  ________  GRANT FULL RELIEF 

________  ________  ________  GRANT PARTIAL RELIEF 

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

__wdp___  __mjf___  __sjs___  DENY APPLICATION

BOARD DETERMINATION/RECOMMENDATION:

1.  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.  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 by adding the National Defense Service Medal to his DD Form 214.




__William D. Powers___
          CHAIRPERSON




INDEX

CASE ID
AR20070010145
SUFFIX

RECON

DATE BOARDED
20071211
TYPE OF DISCHARGE

DATE OF DISCHARGE

DISCHARGE AUTHORITY

DISCHARGE REASON

BOARD DECISION
DENY
REVIEW AUTHORITY
Ms. Mitrano
ISSUES         1.
107.0067
2.
107.0056
3.

4.

5.

6.