RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


      IN THE CASE OF:


      BOARD DATE:        13 December 2007
      DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20070010937


      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. Joseph A. Adriance            |     |Analyst              |

      The following members, a quorum, were present:

|     |Mr. Jeffrey C. Redmann            |     |Chairperson          |
|     |Mr. John G. Heck                  |     |Member               |
|     |Mr. Qawiy A. Sabree               |     |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 Joint Service
Commendation Medal (JSCM) and the Army Good Conduct Medal (AGCM).

2.  The applicant states, in effect, due to the awards policy in effect at
the time she was recommended for the JSCM; however, she was precluded from
receiving the award even though her commander felt she deserved it.  She
also states that she was never awarded the AGCM although her conduct and
performance were deserving.

3.  The applicant provides the following documents in support of her
application:  Recommendation for Award (DA Form 638), dated 3 September
1975; Letter of Appreciation, dated 20 August 1976; and Separation Document
(DD Form 214).

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's record shows she enlisted in the Regular Army and
entered active duty on 21 May 1974.  She was trained in and awarded
military occupational specialty (MOS) 91B (Medical Assistant), and
specialist four (SP4) is the highest rank she attained while serving on
active duty.

3.  The applicant's Military Personnel Records Jacket (MPRJ) contains a
DA Form 638 that recommended 44 Soldiers, including the applicant, for an
impact JSCM for their meritorious achievement during the period 22 May
through 22 August 2005, while participating in Task Force New Arrivals at
Fort Indiantown Gap, Pennsylvania.

4.  On 10 October 1975, a Headquarters, FORSCOM letter notified the
applicant's commander that the award recommendations submitted were
carefully evaluated on an individual basis and although the performance of
each of the Soldiers concerned was outstanding, it was not considered to be
of the magnitude to justify approval of an award.

5.  On 20 August 1976, the Commander, United States Army Health Services
Command (HSC), issued the applicant a letter of appreciation indicating
that the United States Army Forces Command (FORSCOM) and Department of the
Army (DA) Awards Boards completed their review of the recommendations for
award submitted on personnel who participated in Operation New Arrivals,
and although her services during this operation were extraordinary, the
current awards policy regrettably precluded favorable consideration of her
award.  The HSC commander further stated that she had his personal
commendation for a superlative performance of duty and his best wishes for
continued success in her future endeavors.

6.  The applicant's MPRJ is void of any derogatory information or a unit
commander disqualification that would have precluded her from receiving the
AGCM.

7.  On 20 May 1977, the applicant was honorably separated after completing
a total of 3 years and 26 days of active military service.  The DD Form 214
she was issued shows she earned the National Defense Service Medal during
her active duty tenure.

8.  Army Regulation 600-8-22 (Military Awards) contains the Army's awards
policy.  Paragraph 1-16 provides guidance on reconsideration/appeal of
disapproved or downgraded award recommendations.  It states, in pertinent
part, that a request for reconsideration or the appeal of a disapproved or
downgraded award will be accomplished only if new, substantive and material
information is furnished.

9.  Paragraph 2-6 of the awards regulation contains guidance on award of
the JSCM.  It states, in pertinent part, that it is awarded in the name of
the Secretary of Defense to members of the Armed Forces of the United
States who distinguished themselves by meritorious achievement or service.

10.  Chapter 4 of the awards regulation prescribes the policy for award of
the
AGCM.  It states, in pertinent part, that the AGCM is awarded to
individuals who distinguish themselves by their conduct, efficiency and
fidelity during a qualifying
period of active duty enlisted service.  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, in which case a period of more
than 1 year is a qualifying period.  Although there is no automatic
entitlement to the AGCM, disqualification must be justified.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The applicant's request to be awarded the AGCM was carefully considered
and found to have merit.  The applicant’s MPRJ is void of any derogatory
information or a unit commander disqualification that would have precluded
the applicant from receiving the AGCM.  Therefore, it would be appropriate
to award the applicant the AGCM for her period of qualifying honorable
active duty service from 21 May 1974 through 20 May 1977.

2.  The applicant's contention that she should be awarded the JSCM because
her commander thought she deserved it was also carefully considered.
However, by regulation, recommended awards must be properly processed
through channels and approved by the award approval authority, and
reconsideration/appeal of a disapproved award will only be accomplished if
new, substantive and material information is furnished.

3.  The evidence of record confirms the applicant was recommended for the
JSCM by her commander, and that this recommendation was properly processed
and considered by the award approval authority, who determined that while
the applicant's performance was outstanding, it was not of the magnitude to
justify approval of an award.  Given the applicant's award recommendation
was properly processed and considered, absent any new substantive evidence
that would support reconsideration/appeal of the disapproved award, there
is an insufficient evidentiary basis to support granting this portion of
the requested relief.

BOARD VOTE:

________  ________  ________  GRANT FULL RELIEF

__JCR __  __JGH __  __QAS__  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.  As a result, the Board
recommends that all Department of the Army records of the individual
concerned be corrected by awarding her the Army Good Conduct Medal for her
qualifying period of active duty service from 21 May 1974 through 20 May
1977; and by providing her a correction to her separation document that
includes this change.

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 Joint Service Commendation Medal.




                                  ______Jeffrey C. Redmann____
                                             CHAIRPERSON



                                    INDEX

|CASE ID                 |AR20070010937                           |
|SUFFIX                  |                                        |
|RECON                   |                                        |
|DATE BOARDED            |2007/12/DD                              |
|TYPE OF DISCHARGE       |HD                                      |
|DATE OF DISCHARGE       |1977/05/20                              |
|DISCHARGE AUTHORITY     |AR 635-200                              |
|DISCHARGE REASON        |ETS                                     |
|BOARD DECISION          |GRANT PARTIAL                           |
|REVIEW AUTHORITY        |                                        |
|ISSUES         1.  46   |107.0000                                |
|2.                      |                                        |
|3.                      |                                        |
|4.                      |                                        |
|5.                      |                                        |
|6.                      |                                        |


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