RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


	IN THE CASE OF:	  


	BOARD DATE:	  10 April 2008
	DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20070018442 


	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.



	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 Item 12f (Foreign Service) and Item 13 (Decorations, Medals, Badges, Citations and Campaign Ribbons Awarded or Authorized) of his 11 January 2001 Separation Document (DD Form 214) be corrected.   

2.  The applicant states, in effect, that his DD Form 214 should be corrected by documenting his overseas service in Egypt and Saudi Arabia in Item 12f, and by adding the following awards to Item 13:  Multi-National Force and Observers (MFO) Service Medal; Superior Unit Citation; Army Achievement Medal (AAM); Expert Infantryman Badge (EIB); Air Assault Badge; Combat Infantryman Badge (CIB); National Defense Service Medal (NDSM); and Noncommissioned Officer Professional Development Ribbon (NCOPDR).  He states that he never needed help with his combat injuries until now.  He claims he now is enrolled in a 
Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) program and needs his DD Form 214 corrected in order to enter the treatment program of this condition. 

3.  The applicant provides an Army National Guard (ARNG) Separation Document (NGB Form 22), DD Form 214, and Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) PTSD Treatment Program Information Papers 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's record shows that after having served in the ARNG from 
30 November 1995 through 11 January 1998, he enlisted in the Regular Army and entered active duty on 12 January 1998.  He held and served in military occupational specialty (MOS) 11C (Infantry Indirect Fire Crewman), and specialist four (SP4) is the highest rank he attained while serving on active duty.  

3.  The applicant's Personnel Qualification Record (DA Form 2-1) shows that during his entire RA enlistment, he was assigned to Headquarters and Headquarters Company (HHC), 1st Battalion, 5th Infantry Regiment, Fort Lewis, Washington.  Item 5 (Overseas Service) is blank, and Item 9 shows that during his active duty tenure, he earned the ASR, and three marksmanship qualification badges for the rifle, mortar and hand grenade.  There are no other awards listed in Item 5.  

4.  The applicant's Official Military Personnel File (OMPF) is void of any orders or other documents that indicate he was ever assigned to an overseas area, or that confirms he served in combat either in Saudi Arabia or Egypt.  It is also void of any orders or other documents that indicate he ever received any of the awards in question.  

5.  On 11 January 2001, the applicant was honorably separated, in the rank of SPC, after completing 3 years of active military service during the period, and a total of 3 years, 3 months, and 10 days of active military service and 1 year, 
8 months, and 29 days of inactive military service.  Item 12f contains an entry indicating he completed no overseas service during the period covered by the DD Form 214, and Item 18 (Remarks) contains no entry regarding deployed service with his unit.  Item 13 shows he earned the ASR and Sharpshooter Marksmanship Qualification Badge with Rifle Bar during his active duty tenure.  The applicant authenticated the separation document with his signature in Item 21 (Signature of Member Being Separated) on the date of his separation.  

6.  The applicant provides a copy of an official Passport that contains a stamp indicating he entered Egypt as part of the MFO.  The Passport provides no indication that he entered Saudi Arabia.  

7.  During the processing of this case, a member of the Board staff reviewed the applicant's Defense Finance and Accounting Service (DFAS) pay record.  This record confirms he served in Egypt from 19 July 2000 through 1 January 2001.  

8.  Army Regulation 600-8-22 (Military Awards) prescribes the Army's awards policy.  Paragraph 2-10 provides guidance on award of the NDSM.  It states, in pertinent part, that it is authorized for active duty service between 27 June 1950 and 27 July 1954; between 1 January 1961 and 14 August 1974; between 
2 August 1990 and 30 November 1995; and from 11 September 2001, to a date to be determined.  The NDSM was not authorized during the period 12 January 1998 through 11 January 2001.  


9.  Paragraph 8-2 contains guidance on the CIB.  It states, in pertinent part, that in order to support award of the CIB there must be evidence that the member held and served in an infantry MOS; that he served in a qualifying infantry unit of brigade, regimental or smaller size; and that he was present and participated while his qualifying infantry unit was engaged in active ground combat with enemy forces.  Campaign service or service in a combat zone alone does not satisfy the combat requirement.  

10.  Paragraph 8-9 contains guidance on award of the EIB.  It states, in pertinent part, that in order to support award of the EIB, there must be evidence that the member participated in an authorized EIB program, met the prerequisites, and successfully completed the proficiency tests prescribed by U.S. Army Infantry Center with an infantry unit of at least battalion size.  

11.  Paragraph 9-12 of the awards regulation contains guidance on the MFO Medal.  It states, in pertinent part, that to qualify for the award on or after 
15 March 1985, a member must have served for 6 months (170 days minimum) with the MFO to qualify for the award.  

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The applicant's contention that Item 12f of his DD Form 214 should be corrected by adding his overseas service in Egypt and Saudi Arabia has been carefully considered and found to have partial merit.  The evidence of record confirms the applicant served in Egypt from 19 July 2000 through 1 January 2001, as evidenced by DFAS pay records.  However, there is no evidence of record or independent evidence submitted by the applicant that confirms he served in Saudi Arabia.  As a result, it would be appropriate correct Item 12f of his DD Form 214 to document his 5 months and 13 days of service in Egypt by deleting the current entry and replacing it with the entry "0000  05  13." 

2.  The applicant's contention that the MFO Medal based on his service in Egypt was also carefully considered.  However, by regulation, in order to qualify for the MFO Medal on or after 15 March 1985, a member must have served for a minimum of 6 months with the MFO.  Given the applicant completed only 
5 months and 13 days or 163 days in Egypt, he did not meet the minimum service requirement for this award.  In addition, the NDSM was not authorized during the period of the applicant's active duty service.  Therefore, there is an insufficient evidentiary basis to support adding this award to his DD Form 214. 


3.  The evidence of record also fails to provide any indication that the applicant served in combat or was recommended for or awarded the CIB by proper authority, or that he ever completed the requirements for the EIB.  Further, there is no indication that he was ever recommended for or awarded the AAM, NCOPDR, or Air Assault Badge, or that his unit received a superior unit award during his tenure of assignment.  Therefore, there is also an insufficient evidentiary basis to add any of these awards to Item 13 of his DD Form 214 at this time.  

BOARD VOTE:

________  ________  ________  GRANT FULL RELIEF 

__x __  __x__  __x __  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 amending Item 12f of his DD Form 214 by deleting the current entry and replacing it with the entry "0000  05  13"; and by providing him a correction to his 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 adding the Multi-National Force and Observers Medal, Superior Unit Citation, Army Achievement Medal, Expert Infantryman Badge, Air Assault Badge, Combat Infantryman Badge, National Defense Service Medal, or Noncommissioned Officer Professional Development Ribbon to Item 13 of his DD Form 214.  




_____x_____
          CHAIRPERSON