IN THE CASE OF:	  

		BOARD DATE:	       10 MARCH 2009

		DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20080013151 


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 reconsideration of his earlier request for award of the Army Good Conduct Medal.  As new issues, he requests correction of his records to show:  a wound he sustained to his upper body, his military occupational specialty (MOS) as 245 (Heavy Truck Driver), and award of three "battle stars" (currently known as bronze service stars).  

2.  The applicant states, in effect, that there are discrepancies and significant errors on the part of military personnel responsible for preparation of his record.  He states that there is no record of a Purple Heart because he was not awarded it even though he was severely wounded in a Japanese attack which left him partially disabled for the rest of his life.  After 45 years, this oversight was corrected after considerable effort on his part and the help of a congressman.  His wounds in combat consisted of him being struck by shrapnel on his left elbow and piercing his body near the top of his shoulder.  He states that the official record lists this traumatic event as an "injury."  The applicant claims that his record omits any reference to the life-threatening wound on his upper body.  

3.  The applicant also states that his Army Specialty is listed as "chauffeur."  However, his military MOS was 245 (Heavy Truck Driver).  He claims that there is a vast difference between chauffeuring an officer in his car and the responsibility for carefully pulling a massive 155 millimeter howitzer over battle terrain.  He also claims that there is no mention of the three bronze service stars which he is qualified to receive.

4.  The applicant references pertinent factors in the previous Record of Proceedings which constituted the basis for his request for reconsideration.  He mentions that paragraph 2 of the Consideration of Evidence indicates his service the Asiatic-Pacific Theater was from 1 October 1942 to 31 July 1943, but his actual date of arrival back in the United States was 7 September 1943.  He refers to his award certificate for the Purple Heart.  Paragraph 5 of the Consideration of Evidence, states in part, "This award certificate was not prepared until 20 May 1988."  He claims that this is his fifth attempt to request the Army Good Conduct Medal and he hopes this request for reconsideration will be conducted with full respect for the criteria in Army Regulation 600-8-22 (Military Awards).  He also makes reference to paragraph 6 of the Consideration of Evidence which states "The facts and circumstances related to his reduction in rank are not available for review."  He alleges that the Board had nothing on which to base its conclusion of denial.  

5.  The applicant makes reference to each paragraph of the Discussion and Conclusions.  Under paragraph 1, he states that these statements are correct.  He was not awarded the Army Good Conduct Medal or the Purple Heart while he was on active duty.  He claims that his records were quite flawed at the time of his discharge.  He also agrees with paragraph 2.  He states there were no facts at all to be made available.  He feels that the Board was not justified in denying the award because there was a lack of evidence to conclude that there was anything wrong.  By the Board's admission they were unable to verify or explain alleged "turbulence" surrounding his performance in paragraph 3.  There is no evidence of serious infractions under Article of War 107 and no indication of courts-martial for any offense.  He finds paragraph 4 puzzling.  First, the Board has no evidence of an infraction and then declared him ineligible for the Army Good Conduct Medal "based upon available evidence."  

6.  The applicant cites paragraphs 4-6(c) and 4-11(a) of Army Regulation 
600-8-22, dated 25 February 1995.  He states he served 3 years, 10 months, and 16 days during World War II which is the period of service for a first award of the Army Good Conduct Medal (reference paragraph 4-5 of Army Regulation 600-8-22).  His character and efficiency were shown excellent at the time of his discharge.  He also cites paragraph 4-11(a) regarding retroactive awards of the Army Good Conduct Medal.  

7.  The applicant provides a copy of his Enlisted Record; and his letter, dated 5 August 2008, to the Chief, Case Management Division, Army Review Boards Agency, in support of his application.  



CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:

1.  Incorporated herein by reference are military records which were summarized in the previous consideration of the applicant's case by the Army Board for Correction of Military Records (ABCMR) in Docket Number AR20080001538 on 12 August 2008.

2.  The applicant has provided new issues that will be considered by the Board.

3.  The applicant's military records were lost or destroyed in the National Personnel Records Center fire of 1973.  Records available to the Board were obtained from alternate sources and show he enlisted in the Connecticut Army National Guard on 16 April 1940.  His WD AGO Form 53 (Report of Separation) shows he was trained in MOS 245 (Heavy Truck Driver).  His WD AGO Form 24 (Service Record) includes the entry "Chauffeur 1-5-42" under Army Specialty.  His Enlisted Record shows his Army Specialty as "Chauffeur."

4.  The applicant’s Enlisted Record shows he departed the United States on 
1 October 1942 and arrived in the Asiatic-Pacific Theater of Operations (APTO) on 22 October 1942.  He departed the APTO on 31 July 1943 and arrived in the United States on 7 September 1943.

5.  The applicant’s Enlisted Record shows he served as a Tec 5 [Technician 5th Grade] from 1 September 1942 to 14 May 1943.

6.  His Service Record shows he was reduced from Tech 5 to private on 14 May 1943.  The reason for his reduction is not shown.  

7.  A Casualty Message (Telegram), dated 2 August 1943, indicates the applicant was seriously wounded in action on 20 July [1943] in the Southwest Pacific area.  The telegram did not give details of his wounds.  

8.  His Service Record includes the entry "Soldier unfavorably recommended for Good Conduct Medal."

9.  A Clinical Record, dated 19 November 1943, shows he was diagnosed as having a simple comminuted fracture of left elbow which occurred on 21 July 1943.  

10.  The applicant was honorably separated on 3 March 1944 in the rank of private.  The date he was reduced to private is not shown available.  At the time of his discharge, he completed 3 years, 10 months, and 18 days of active military service with no days of lost time.  
11.  His Enlisted Record shows he was awarded the American Defense Service Medal and the Asiatic-Pacific Campaign Medal.  

12.  A Certificate of Disability for Discharge shows the applicant sustained an injury to his left elbow in July 1943 near New Georgia Island while the boat on which he was riding was being dive bombed.  This document does not indicate any other injuries he sustained to his upper body.  

13.  His Enlisted Record and WD AGO Form 53 show his character as "excellent" at the time he was separated on 3 March 1944.  

14.  The available evidence includes a DA Form 1577 (Authorization for Issuance of Awards), dated 20 May 1988, which shows the applicant was issued the Purple Heart, the American Defense Service Medal, the Asiatic-Pacific Campaign Medal with three bronze service stars, the World War II Victory Medal, and the Honorable Service Lapel Button (World War II).  

15.  Army Regulation 600-8-22 provides that the Good Conduct Medal is awarded to individuals who distinguish themselves by their conduct, efficiency, and fidelity during a qualifying period of active duty enlisted service.  The regulation states that, after 27 August 1940, three years of qualifying service was required for award of the Good Conduct Medal, but during the World War II era, the first award could be made based on one year of qualifying service provided that service occurred between 7 December 1941 and 2 March 1946.  The current standard for award of the Good Conduct Medal is 3 years of qualifying service, but as little as one year is required for the first award in those cases when the period of service ends with the termination of Federal military service.

16.  Army Regulation 600-68 (Good Conduct Medal), in effect at the time, provided policy and criteria concerning the Army Good Conduct Medal.  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, after 7 December 1941, completed 1 year or continuous active Federal military service while in the United States was at war.  The award would not be made to an enlisted man whose records, during the required period of service, disclosed a conviction by any court-martial, nor to one whose character or efficiency was rated below "excellent."

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The applicant's statements regarding his request for reconsideration for award of the Army Good Conduct Medal were carefully reviewed.  Although his Enlisted Record and WD AGO Form 53 show he received an "excellent" character rating at the time he was separated, his Service Record includes the entry "Soldier unfavorably recommended for Good Conduct Medal."

2.  It appears the applicant's chain of command disqualified him for the first award of the Army Good Conduct Medal.  The available evidence shows he was reduced from Tech 5 to private; however, the basis for this reduction is not available.  Based on the available evidence, it has been determined that the applicant is not eligible for award of the Army Good Conduct Medal.  

3.  The available evidence verifies the applicant sustained an injury to his left elbow on 21 July 1943 and he was awarded a Purple Heart on 20 May 1988 for this wound.  However, there is no evidence available which indicates he received an additional wound to his upper body.  Therefore, there is insufficient evidence on which to base correction his records to show he sustained a wound to his upper body.

4.  The applicant states that his Army Specialty is listed as "chauffeur" but his MOS was 245 (Heavy Truck Driver).  At the time of the applicant's discharge, his WD AGO Form 53 was prepared to reflect his specialty number and MOS as 245 (Heavy Truck Driver).  However, his Enlisted Record and Service Record show his Army Specialty as "Chauffeur."  Although the applicant may have served as a chauffeur at some point during his tenure on active duty, his Enlisted Record should be amended to show his MOS as 245 (Heavy Truck Driver) at the time of his discharge.  

5.  The applicant was issued a DA Form 1577 in May 1988 which shows he was awarded the Asiatic-Pacific Campaign Medal with three bronze service stars.  Therefore, it would be appropriate to amend his records to show three bronze service stars for wear on his Asiatic-Pacific Campaign Medal.  

BOARD VOTE:

________  ________  ________  GRANT FULL RELIEF 

____X____  ____X____  ____X____  GRANT PARTIAL RELIEF 

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

________  ________  ________  DENY APPLICATION



BOARD DETERMINATION/RECOMMENDATION:

1.  Regarding the applicant’s request for reconsideration of his request for award of the Army Good Conduct Medal, 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 to amend the decision of the ABCMR set forth in Docket Number AR20080001538, dated 12 August 2008.

2.  Regarding the applicant's requests for correction of his records to show a wound he sustained to his upper body, his MOS as 245 (Heavy Truck Driver), and three bronze service stars, the Board determined that the evidence presented was sufficient to warrant partial relief.  As a result, the Board recommends that all Department of the Army records of the individual concerned be corrected by showing his MOS as 245 (Heavy Truck Driver) and three bronze service stars for wear on his already-awarded Asiatic-Pacific Campaign Medal.

3.  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 correcting his records to show a wound sustained to his upper body.




      _______ _   XXX_______   ___
               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)                                         AR20080013151



3


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1

ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont)                                         AR20080013151



6


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1