IN THE CASE OF:	  

	BOARD DATE:	  24 July 2008

	DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20080006029 


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 his record be corrected to show his entitlement to the Army Achievement Medal (AAM), Army Good Conduct Medal (AGCM), Multinational Force Observers (MFO) Medal, and any other awards to which he may be entitled.

2.  The applicant states, in effect, that he does not believe he received all of his awards and/or medals.

3.  The applicant provides no additional documentary evidence in support of his request.

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 he enlisted in the Regular Army and entered active duty 9 June 1997.  He completed basic training and advanced individual training (AIT) at Fort Benning, Georgia.  Upon completion of AIT, he was awarded military occupational specialty (MOS) 11B (Infantryman), and the highest rank he attained while serving on active duty was specialist (SPC).

3.  The applicant's Personnel Qualification Record (DA Form 2-1) lists only the Army Service Ribbon (ASR) in Item 9 (Awards, Decorations, and Campaigns).  Item 35 (Record of Assignments) shows that subsequent to training, he served only at Fort Lewis, Washington.  His record documents no overseas or deployed service.  The applicant last reviewed the DA Form 2-1 on 2 June 1997.

4.  The applicant’s Official Military Personnel File (OMPF) is void of any orders or documents that indicate he was ever awarded or recommended for the AAM, MFO Medal, AGCM, or any other awards.  It is also void any documents that indicate he ever served in an area or on an operation as a member of the MFO.

5.  On 8 June 2001, the applicant was honorably released from active duty service (REFRAD), by reason of completion of required service.  The DD Form 214 (separation document) he was issued at the time confirms he completed a total of 4 years of active military service.  The ASR is the only award listed on the DD Form 214, and the applicant authenticated the separation document with his signature on the date of his REFRAD.  

6.  Army Regulation 600-8-22 (Military Awards) prescribes Army policy and criteria concerning individual military awards.  Paragraph 3-17 provides, in pertinent part, that the AAM may be awarded to any member of the Armed Forces of the United States, who while serving in a non-combat area on or after 1 August 1981, distinguished themselves by meritorious service or achievement. A recommendation must be made for this award and approved by the appropriate approval authority.

7.  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.  The regulation stipulates that there is no automatic entitlement to the AGCM.  


8.  Paragraph 9-12 of the awards regulation prescribes the policy for award of the Multinational Force and Observers Medal.  It states, in pertinent part,  to qualify for this award, personnel must have served with the Multinational Force Observers (MFO) at least ninety cumulative days after 3 August 1981, and effective 15 March 1985, personnel must serve 6 months (170 days minimum) with the MFO.  Periods of service on behalf of the MFO outside of the Sinai, and periods of leave while a member is serving with the MFO, may be counted toward eligibility for the MFO medal. Qualifying time may be lost for disciplinary reasons.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The applicant’s contention that he should have received the the AAM, AGCM, MFO Medal, and other awards was carefully considered.  However, there is insufficient evidence to support this claim.  

2.  The applicant’s OMPF contains no orders or other documents that indicate he was ever recommended for or awarded any of the awards in question by proper authority while he was serving on active duty, and gives no indication that he ever served overseas or as a member of the MFO.  

3.  By regulation, the qualifying period of honorable service required for receipt of the AGCM is 3 years.  The applicant completed 4 years active duty service from 9 June 1997 to 8 June 2001, surpassing that qualifying period by 1 year without being awarded the AGCM.  The evidence of record provides no evidence that the applicant was ever awarded or recommended for the award of the AGCM while he served on active duty or any evidence to show he pursued this award during the one year period he remained on active duty beyond the qualifying three year period.

4.  In addition, the applicant's DD Form 214 lists only the ASR as an earned award, and the applicant authenticated this document with his signature on the date of his REFRAD.  In effect, his signature was his verification that the information contained on the separation document, to include the list of awards, was correct at the time the DD Form 214 was prepared and issued.  As a result, there is a presumption of regularity attached to this document.  Absent any evidence of record or independent evidence submitted by the applicant that would confirm his eligibility or entitlement to additional awards, there is an insufficient evidentiary basis to support granting the requested relief.  


5.  In order to justify correction of a military record the applicant must show to the satisfaction of the Board, or it must otherwise satisfactorily appear, that the record is in error or unjust.  The applicant has failed to submit evidence that would satisfy this requirement.

BOARD VOTE:

________  ________  ________  GRANT FULL RELIEF 

________  ________  ________  GRANT PARTIAL RELIEF 

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

____x___  ___x____  ___x____  DENY APPLICATION

BOARD DETERMINATION/RECOMMENDATION:

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.




       _    __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)                                         AR20080006029



3


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1

ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont)                                         AR20080006029



2


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1