RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


	IN THE CASE OF:	  


	BOARD DATE:	  31 January 2008
	DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20070013150 


	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. Michael L. Engle

Analyst

The following members, a quorum, were present:


Mr. John Infante

Chairperson

Mr. Eric N. Andersen

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 award of the Army Good Conduct Medal. 

2.  The applicant states that he received an honorable discharge but was not awarded the Army Good Conduct Medal.  He further states that he set a radio code speed record; attained a high school equivalency; and attained proficiency in the Italian language.  He also states that if he had not been transferred from Verona, Italy to Vicenza, Italy, he would have also received a secret clearance.    

3.  The applicant provides no additional documentation.

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.  On 13 February 1961, the applicant enlisted in the Regular Army for 3 years.  He completed his initial training and was awarded military occupational specialty (MOS) 053.10 (Radio Teletype Operator).

3.  On 4 January 1962, the applicant was convicted by a summary court-martial for failing to go to his place of duty; failing to obey a lawful order from his superior warrant officer; and for breaking restriction.  His sentence consisted of reduction to private, pay grade E-1; forfeiture of $30.00 pay per month for 1 month; and confinement at hard labor for 45 days. 

4.  On 1 October 1963, the applicant accepted nonjudicial punishment (NJP) under the provisions of Article 15, Uniform Code of Military Justice, for being absent without leave for 1 day.  The punishment included an oral reprimand.


5.  On 28 January 1964, the applicant’s section chief made a statement wherein he said that the applicant had to be corrected many times about the appearance of his uniform.  He also stated that the applicant was an agitator and caused friction among the men at work.  All work assigned to the applicant had to be laid out for him.

6.  On 28 January 1964, the applicant’s commander made a statement wherein he said that the applicant lacked motivation, ability, and dependability to the point of requiring continuous supervision.  His performance and appearance was unsatisfactory and his attitude was at times obstinate in the face of authority.  He recommended that the applicant be barred to reenlistment.

7.  On 29 January 1964, the applicant’s first sergeant made a statement wherein he said that shortly after assuming his duties, he had counseled the applicant concerning his poor appearance.  He noted that the applicant’s attitude was very poor and he even became belligerent and argumentative on one occasion when counseled by the commander.  The applicant stated that he was being discharged in February and did not see why he should buy new uniforms.  During the period from October 1963 through January 1964, the applicant’s appearance left much to be desired.  Even after repeated counseling by the first sergeant and the applicant’s section chief, the applicant did not make an honest effort to improve.  The first sergeant further stated that the applicant had developed an attitude that was prejudicial to the good order and morale of the unit.  He recommended that the applicant be barred to reenlistment.    

8.  On 30 January 1964, the recommendation to bar the applicant to reenlistment was approved by the appropriate authority.  

9.  On 12 February 1964, the applicant was released from active duty and transferred to the United States Army Reserve Control Group (Reinforcement).  His active duty service was characterized as honorable.  He had completed 
3 years of creditable active service and had attained the rank of private first class, pay grade E-3.    

10.  Section 4, Chronological Record of Military Service, of the applicant’s Service Record (DA Form 24), shows that his conduct and efficiency ratings for the period from 25 April to 4 June 1963 were “good”, and from 20 August 1963 to 12 February 1964 were “fair.”  



11.  Item 26 (Decorations, Medals, Badges, Commendations, Citations and Campaign Ribbons Awarded or authorized) of the applicant’s Armed Forces of the United  States Report of  Transfer or Discharge (DD Form 214) lists the Marksman Marksmanship Qualification Badge with Rifle Bar.  It does not show award of the Army Good Conduct Medal.  

12.  Army Regulation 672-5-1, in effect at the time, provided that the Army Good Conduct Medal was awarded to individuals who had completed a qualified 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.  The enlisted person must have had all “excellent” conduct and efficiency ratings and no convictions by a court-martial.  Ratings of "Unknown" for 
portions of the period under consideration are not disqualifying.  Service and efficiency ratings based upon academic proficiency of at least "Good" rendered subsequent to 22 November 1955 are not disqualifying.  

13.  Army Regulation 600-8-22 (Military Awards) as amended provides that the National Defense Service Medal is awarded for honorable active service for any period between 27 July 1950 through 27 July 1954, 1 January 1961 through 14 August 1974, 2 August 1990 through 30 November 1995, and 11 September 2001 to a date to be determined.

14.  Evidence shows that the applicant’s records contain 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.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The evidence of record clearly shows that the applicant did not distinguish himself in the performance of his military service.  Therefore, his request for award of the Army Good Conduct Medal should be denied.    

2.  Records show that the applicant served during a qualifying period for award of the National Defense Service Medal.  Therefore, his records should be corrected to show this award.




BOARD VOTE:

________  ________  ________  GRANT FULL RELIEF 

________  ________  ________  GRANT PARTIAL RELIEF 

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

 __DKH__  __JI_____  __ENA      DENY APPLICATION

BOARD DETERMINATION/RECOMMENDATION:

1.  The Board determined that 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 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 showing that, in addition to the award shown on his DD Form 214, his authorized awards include the National Defense Service Medal.




___       John Infante   _____
          CHAIRPERSON




INDEX

CASE ID
AR
SUFFIX

RECON
YYYYMMDD
DATE BOARDED
20080131  
TYPE OF DISCHARGE
 
DATE OF DISCHARGE
 
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY
 
DISCHARGE REASON

BOARD DECISION
DENY
REVIEW AUTHORITY

ISSUES         1.
107
2.

3.

4.

5.

6.