IN THE CASE OF:	  

	BOARD DATE:	  15 May 2008

	DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20080003620 


THE BOARD CONSIDERED THE FOLLOWING EVIDENCE:

1.  Application for correction of military records (with supporting documents provided, if any).

2.  Military Personnel Records and advisory opinions (if any).


THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST, STATEMENT, AND EVIDENCE:

1.  The applicant requests, in effect, that Item 27 (Decorations, Medals, Badges, Commendations, Citations and Campaign Ribbons Authorized or Awarded) of his 30 June 1952 separation document (DD Form 214) be corrected by adding the Army Good Conduct Medal, Korean Conflict Medal, Certificate of Achievement, and the Infantry 645th Engineer 5th Army Medal.  

2.  The applicant states, in effect, the awards in question, which he earned, were erroneously omitted from his DD Form 214 and he would like them added at this time.  

3.  The applicant provides his DD Form 214 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 Army National Guard (ARNG) from 23 July 1947 through 23 October 1950, he enlisted in the Regular Army and entered active duty in that status on 24 October 1950.

3.  Section 2 (Appointments, Promotions, or Reductions) of the applicant's Service Record (DD Form 230) shows he was promoted to private first class (PFC) on 3 May 1951, and that this is the highest rank he attained while serving on active duty.  Section 3 (Organizations to Which Assigned and Attached) shows that during his active duty tenure, he served at the following locations:  Fort Leonard Wood, Missouri; Fort Custer, Michigan; Battle Creek, Michigan; Washington, DC; Fort Sheridan, Illinois; Camp McCoy, Wisconsin; and Camp Atterbury, Indiana.  

4.  Section 4 (Service Outside the Continental United States), Section 7 (Combat Service), and Section 9 (Medals, Decorations and Citations) of the applicant's DD Form 230 are blank.  Section 17 (Indorsements) shows he received "Excellent" character [conduct] and efficiency ratings and a favorable AGCM recommendation at Fort Leonard Wood, Missouri.  He also received a favorable AGCM recommendation at Ft Custer, Michigan; however, the corresponding conduct and efficiency ratings are listed as unknown.  Further, AGCM, conduct, and efficiency entries for all other assignments contained on the DA Form 230 are either blank for annotated as unknown.  

5.  The applicant's Official Military Personnel File (OMPF) is void of any derogatory information or a unit commander disqualification that would have precluded the applicant from receiving the AGCM.  

6.  On 5 May 1952, a Physical Evaluation Board (PEB) conducted at Percy Jones Army Hospital, Battle Creek, Michigan, determined the applicant was unfit for further service based on the loss of his right eye, and recommended his permanent retirement.  On 30 June 1952, the applicant was honorably retired, in the rank of PFC, accordingly.  The DD Form 214 he was issued shows he completed 1 year, 8 months, and 6 days of active military service during the period, and that he accrued no time lost during his enlistment.  Item 27 contains the entry "None."  



7.  Army Regulation 600-8-22 (Military Awards) contains the Army's awards policy.  Paragraph 1-41 contains the order of precedence for awards and decorations.  Certificates of Appreciation, Commendation and/or Achievement, and local unit medals, are not included in the order of precedence of authorized awards or decorations. 

8.  Paragraph 2-10 contains guidance on the National Defense Service Medal (NDSM).  It states, in pertinent part, that it is authorized for honorable service for any period between the following dates:  27 June 1950 and 27 July 1954; 
1 January 1961 and 14 August 1974; 2 August 1990 and 30 November 1995; and from 11 September 2001 to a date to be determined.  

9.  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.  

10.  Paragraph 5-9 of the awards regulation contains guidance on the Korean Service Medal (KSM).  It states, in pertinent part, that it is authorized for service in the territorial limits of Korea between 27 June 1950 and 27 July 1954.  

11. Army Regulation 635-5 (Separation Documents) prescribes the separation documents that must be prepared for Soldiers on retirement, discharge, release from active duty service, or control of the Active Army.  It also establishes standardized policy for preparing and distributing the DD Form 214.  Chapter 2 contains guidance on the preparation of the DD Form 214.  

12.  The separation documents regulation instructions for entering awards states to enter all decorations, medals, badges, citations, and campaign ribbons awarded or authorized in the order of merit they are listed in the Army’s awards regulation.  Certificates of Achievement, Appreciation or Commendation, and locally issued medals, which would include the Infantry 645th Engineer 5th Army Medal referred to by the applicant, are not included in the awards regulation order of precedence and as a result there are no provisions of adding them to the awards listed on the DD Form 214.  


DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The applicant's contention that the AGCM should be added to his DD Form 214 was carefully considered and found to have merit.  The applicant's record 
confirms the only conduct and efficiency ratings the applicant received were either "Excellent" or unknown, and the only AGCM recommendations submitted by his commanders were favorable or left blank.  Further, his record is void of any derogatory information or a unit commander disqualification that would have precluded him from receiving the AGCM.  Therefore, it would be appropriate to award the applicant the AGCM for his qualifying honorable active duty service from 24 October 1950 through 30 June 1952. 

2.  The record also shows that based on his honorable active duty service, the applicant is also entitled to the NDSM.  Thus, it would also be appropriate to add this award to his record and separation document at this time.  

3.  The applicant's contention that a Certificate of Achievement and the Infantry 645th Engineer 5th Army Medal should also be added to his DD Form 214 was also carefully considered.  However, by regulation, Certificates of Appreciation, Commendation, and/or Achievement, and locally issued medals, are not included in the awards regulation order of precedence of awards and decorations, and there are no regulatory provisions that allow for their inclusion on the DD Form 214.  As a result, there is an insufficient evidentiary basis to support granting this portion of the requested relief.  

4.  In addition, there is no authorized Army award identified as the Korean Conflict Medal, and the KSM was authorized only to those Soldiers who actually served within the territorial limits of Korea.  The evidence of record confirms the applicant did not serve in Korea, or in any other overseas locations during his active duty tenure.  As a result, there is an insufficient evidentiary basis to support awarding him an award based on service in Korea he did not perform.  

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 
awarding him the Army Good Conduct Medal, for his qualifying honorable active duty service between 24 October 1950 and 30 June 1952; by showing his entitlement to the National Defense Service Medal; and by providing him a correction to his separation document that includes these awards.  

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 a Certificate of Achievement, the Infantry 645th Engineer 5th Army Medal, and a Korean Conflict Medal to his DD Form 214.




      __________x_____________
      	CHAIRPERSON
      
I certify that herein is recorded the true and complete record of the proceedings of the Army Board for Correction of Military Records in this case.

ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont)                                         AR20080003620



3


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS



1

ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont)                                         AR20080003620



2


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1