RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


	IN THE CASE OF:	  


	BOARD DATE:	  10 January 2008
	DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20070011306 


	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. Jerome L. Pionk

Member

Mr. Donald W. Steenfott

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, that he be awarded the Army Good Conduct Medal and that his DD Form 214 (Armed Forces of the United States Report of Transfer or Discharge) be corrected to add the Valorous Unit Award (VUA).

2.  The applicant states that his DD Form 214 does not show the Army Good Conduct Medal or the VUA.

3.  The applicant provides extracts from the October 1994 issue of the “19th Combat Engineer Bn (Battalion) Vietnam Association News” newsletter; extracts from the 2007 issue of the “Newsletter of the 19th Combat Engineer Battalion”; a VUA citation; a letter, dated 24 August 2006, from a Member of Congress to the U. S. Army Human Resources Command (USAHRC); and a partially illegible DA Form 305-3 (title unknown).

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 16 November 1965.  He completed basic combat training and advanced individual training and was awarded military occupational specialty 12B (Combat Engineer).

3.  The applicant arrived in Vietnam and was assigned to Company A, 19th Engineer Battalion on 2 May 1966.  He departed Vietnam on 12 November 1967 after being credited with participation in three campaigns.

4.  The applicant was honorably released from active duty, in the rank and grade of Sergeant, E-5, on 20 August 1968 after completing 2 years, 9 months, and      5 days of creditable active service with no lost time.  His DD Form 214 shows he was awarded the National Defense Service Medal, the Vietnam Service Medal with two bronze service stars, and the Republic of Vietnam Campaign Medal.
5.  The applicant’s records contain no derogatory information and his DA Form 20 (Enlisted Qualification Record) shows his conduct and efficiency were rated as “excellent” throughout his enlistment.  There is no evidence of record to show that his commander disqualified him from award of the Army Good Conduct Medal.

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

7.  Department of the Army Pamphlet 672-3 (Unit Citation and Campaign Participation Credit Register) lists the unit awards received by units serving in Vietnam.  This document does not show that Company A, 19th Engineer Battalion was awarded any unit award.  It shows only that Headquarters and Headquarters Company, 19th Engineer Battalion was awarded a unit award (not the VUA).

8.  On 24 August 2006, a Member of Congress recommended that the 19th Engineer Battalion be awarded the VUA.  As of 26 December 2007, the recommendation was still pending at USAHRC.

9.  Department of the Army General Orders Number 8, 1974, announced     award of the Republic of Vietnam Gallantry Cross with Palm Unit Citation to Headquarters, U. S. Military Assistance Command and its subordinate units during the period 8 February 1962 to 28 March 1973 and to Headquarters,        U. S. Army Vietnam and its subordinate units during the period 20 July 1965 to 28 March 1973.

10.  Army Regulation 600-8-22 authorizes award of a bronze service star, based on qualifying service, for each campaign listed in Appendix B of this regulation.  Authorized bronze service stars will be worn on the appropriate campaign or service medal, including the Vietnam Service Medal.  


DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The applicant was honorably released from active duty after completing over 33 months of creditable active service with no lost time.  His records contain no derogatory information, his DA Form 20 shows his conduct and efficiency were rated as “excellent” throughout his enlistment, and there is no evidence of record to show that his commander disqualified him from award of the Army Good Conduct Medal.  It appears he met the eligibility criteria for award of the Army Good Conduct Medal.

2.  Except for Headquarters and Headquarters Company, 19th Engineer Battalion, this battalion was not awarded any unit awards.  The recommendation that it be awarded the VUA is still pending.  At this time, there is no evidence that would warrant adding the VUA to the applicant’s DD Form 214.

3.  All units assigned to Vietnam were later awarded the Republic of Vietnam Gallantry Cross with Palm Unit Citation.  Therefore, this unit award should be added to his DD Form 214 at this time.

4.  The applicant was credited with participation in three campaigns.  Therefore, his DD Form 214 should be corrected to show he is eligible to wear three bronze service stars on his Vietnam Service Medal instead of the two bronze service stars now reflected on his DD Form 214.

BOARD VOTE:

________  ________  ________  GRANT FULL RELIEF 

__wdp___  __jlp___   __dws___  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:

     a.  awarding him the first award of the Army Good Conduct Medal for the period 16 November 1965 through 20 August 1968; and

     b.  amending his DD Form 214 to add the Army Good Conduct Medal and the Republic of Vietnam Gallantry Cross with Palm Unit Citation and to show he is eligible to wear three bronze service stars on his Vietnam Service Medal instead of the two bronze service stars now reflected on his DD Form 214.

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 adding the Valorous Unit Award to his DD Form 214 at this time. 




__William D. Powers________
          CHAIRPERSON




INDEX

CASE ID
AR20070011306
SUFFIX

RECON

DATE BOARDED
20080110
TYPE OF DISCHARGE

DATE OF DISCHARGE

DISCHARGE AUTHORITY

DISCHARGE REASON

BOARD DECISION
GRANT 
REVIEW AUTHORITY
Ms. Mitrano
ISSUES         1.
107.0056
2.
107.0033
3.

4.

5.

6.