RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


	IN THE CASE OF:	  


	BOARD DATE:	  6 March 2008
	DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20070015279 


	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.


x
	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 the DA Form 2627-1 (Record of Proceedings under Article 15, Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ)), dated 8 May 1965, be removed from his records.  He also requests award of the Good Conduct Medal. 

2.  The applicant states, in effect, that his Article 15 should be removed from his records and that he should be reviewed for a Good Conduct Medal.  

3.  The applicant provides no additional documents in support of his application.  

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 26 September 1962 for a period of three years.  (His DD Form 214 (Armed Forces of the United States Report of Transfer or Discharge) reflects his date of entry as 24 September 1962).  He completed basic combat training and advanced individual training and was awarded military occupational specialty number 111.00 (light weapons infantryman).  He was promoted to specialist four on 22 December 1964.

3.  On 8 May 1965, the applicant accepted nonjudicial punishment (NJP) under Article 15, UCMJ for disobeying a lawful order from a commissioned officer.  

4.  The commanding officer imposed the punishment of restriction for 14 days, extra duty for 14 days, and a reduction to private first class (PFC), E-3.  The applicant did not demand trial by court-martial and elected not to present matters in his defense.  The applicant declined to appeal the punishment.  


5.  The applicant was honorably released from active duty on 21 September 1965 in the rank of PFC.  He completed 2 years, 11 months and 26 days of active military service.  His DD Form 214 shows the Expert Marksmanship Qualification Badge and the Parachutist Badge as authorized awards.  

6.  The applicant’s DA Form 24 (Service Record) shows his conduct and efficiency ratings as “excellent” and “excellent”; “excellent” and “excellent”; “excellent” and “no rating”; “excellent” and “good”; “excellent” and “no rating”; and “excellent” and “excellent.”

7.  Army Regulation 22-15 (Military Justice Nonjudicial Punishment), in effect at the time, provided the applicable policies for administration of nonjudicial punishment.  The regulation stated that DA Form 2627, 2627-1, and 2627-2 would initially be prepared in an original and three copies.  A fourth copy would be prepared for all cases involving reduction in grade, detention, or forfeiture of pay.  The first copy would be filed in the individual’s field 201 File Divider.  

8.  Army Regulation 22-15, Section VI, paragraph 14d(1) stated that the copies of DA Form 2627, 2627-1, or 2627-2 retained in the Field 201 file were withdrawn and destroyed upon transfer of the individual from the organization or upon the expiration of 2 years from imposition of the punishment, whichever occurred first, provided that at the time of transfer, a period of one year had elapsed since imposition of the punishment and that all punishment imposed had been executed.

9.  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.

10.  Army Regulation 600-8-22 (Military Awards) 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.  

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The applicant received NJP imposed under Article 15 on 8 May 1965 for disobeying a lawful order from a commissioned officer.  Based on the governing regulation in effect at that time, a copy of the DA Form 2627-1 was properly filed in the applicant’s Field 201 file.  Since the applicant was released from active duty approximately four months subsequent to the imposition of the punishment, the copy of the DA Form 2627-1 was properly not withdrawn or destroyed.  Therefore, there is no basis for removing the DA Form 2627-1, dated 8 May 1965, from his records. 

2.  The applicant’s request for a review for award of the Good Conduct Medal is noted.  Based on his receipt of NJP under Article 15 and the fact that he did not receive conduct and efficiency ratings of “excellent” throughout the entire period of qualifying service, he has not met the eligibility requirements for the first award of the Good Conduct Medal.  

3.  The applicant served a period of qualifying service for award of the National Defense Service Medal.  Therefore, 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

x_____x_____x____  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 to show award of the National Defense Service Medal on his DD Form 214. 



x_______
          CHAIRPERSON




INDEX

CASE ID
AR
SUFFIX

RECON
YYYYMMDD
DATE BOARDED
YYYYMMDD
TYPE OF DISCHARGE
(HD, GD, UOTHC, UD, BCD, DD, UNCHAR)
DATE OF DISCHARGE
YYYYMMDD
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY
AR . . . . .  
DISCHARGE REASON

BOARD DECISION
(NC, GRANT , DENY, GRANT PLUS)
REVIEW AUTHORITY

ISSUES         1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.