Search Decisions

Decision Text

ARMY | BCMR | CY2008 | 20080018983
Original file (20080018983.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

		IN THE CASE OF:	

		BOARD DATE:	  26 March 2009

		DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20080018983 


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, award of the Army Good Conduct Medal (AGCM).  

2.  The applicant states, in effect, that he was informed in Turkey that he would receive the AGCM when he arrived at Fort Dix, New Jersey; however, when he arrived, he was informed he should have received it in Turkey and no follow-up was done.   

3.  The applicant provides his DD Form 214 (Armed Forces of the United States Report of Transfer or Discharge) 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 he enlisted in the Regular Army and entered active duty on 20 July 1959, and was trained in and awarded military occupational specialty (MOS) 059.10 (Radio Operator).  His DA Form 24 (Service Record) shows that he was promoted to specialist five (SP5)/E-5 on 
13 December 1961, and that this is the highest rank he attained while serving on active duty.

3.  Section 4 (Chronological Record of Military Service) of his DA Form 24 shows that he received less than "Excellent" conduct ratings during three of his assignments, which included the period between 28 July and 24 September 1959; 20 June and 27 July 1960; and 28 July and 14 October 1960.  It further shows that during the periods between 28 July and 24 September 1959 and between 20 June and 27 July 1960, he also received less than "Excellent" efficiency ratings.  Section 9 (Medals, Decorations and Citations) shows that during the period of his enlistment, he earned the Sharpshooter Marksmanship Qualification Badge with Rifle Bar.  No other awards, to include the AGCM, are listed in Section 9.  

4.  On 6 June 1962, the applicant was honorably released from active duty (REFRAD) after completing 2 years, 10 months, and 17 days of active military service.  The DD Form 214 he was issued at the time shows he earned no individual awards or decorations during the period of his enlistment.

5.  Army Regulation 672-5-1 (Awards) provided the Army's awards policy at the time of the applicant's REFRAD.  The policy in effect at the time required that a member meet all the following criteria in order to be eligible for the AGCM:  

   a.  all conduct and efficiency ratings must be recorded as "Excellent" except that rating of "Unknown" for portions of the period under consideration were not disqualifying and service school efficiency ratings based upon academic proficiency of at least "Good" rendered subsequent to 22 November 1955 were not disqualifying; and
   
    b.  no conviction by court-martial during the period. 

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The applicant's contention that he was eligible for and should have been awarded the AGCM upon his REFRAD in 1962 was carefully considered.  However, there is insufficient evidence to support this claim.  



2.  The governing regulation, in effect at the time, required that a member meet all specified regulatory criteria in order to be awarded the AGCM, which included that he receive all "Excellent" conduct and efficiency ratings during all assignment periods.  Two specific exceptions to these criteria were identified in the regulation, which included "Unknown" ratings and "Good" efficiency ratings at schools that were based solely on academic proficiency.

3.  The evidence of record confirms that the applicant received less than "Excellent" conduct ratings during three separate assignment periods and less than "Excellent" efficiency ratings during two assignment periods.  As a result, he did not satisfy the regulatory criteria necessary to be eligible to be awarded the AGCM at the time of his REFRAD.  Therefore, absent any error or injustice related to award of the AGCM, there is an insufficient evidentiary basis to support granting the requested relief.  

4.  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)                                         AR20080018983



3


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1

ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont)                                         AR20080018983


2


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1

Similar Decisions

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2010 | 20100010979

    Original file (20100010979.txt) Auto-classification: Approved

    The applicant's DA Form 24 (Service Record) shows in Section 4 (Chronological Record of Military Service) that he received a “Good” efficiency rating while attending his initial entry training during the period 18 November 1959 to 29 January 1960. Therefore, it would also be appropriate to add these badges to his DD Form 214 at this time. As a result, the Board recommends that all Department of the Army records of the individual concerned be corrected by: a. awarding him the Army Good...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2013 | 20130013989.

    Original file (20130013989..txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    BOARD DATE: 22 April 2014 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20130013989 THE BOARD CONSIDERED THE FOLLOWING EVIDENCE: 1. Army Regulation 672-5-1 (Awards), in effect at the time, stated the AGCM was awarded for each 3 years of continuous enlisted active Federal military service completed on or after 27 August 1940; for the first award only, 1 year served entirely during the period 7 December 1941 to 2 March 1946; and, for the first award only, upon termination of service on or after 27 June 1950 of less than...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2013 | 20130012129

    Original file (20130012129.txt) Auto-classification: Approved

    Item 29 (Foreign Service) of his DA Form 20 (Enlisted Qualification Record) shows he served in Germany from 20 July 1961 through 3 July 1962. According to Table 2-2, Soldiers assigned to Berlin during the period 14 August 1961 through 1 June 1963 qualified for award of the AFEM. His record does not show he was stationed in Berlin; therefore, barring evidence to the contrary, there is an insufficient basis to award him either the AOM or AFEM.

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2014 | 20140014310

    Original file (20140014310.txt) Auto-classification: Approved

    The applicant requests correction of his DD Form 214 (Armed Forces of the United States Report of Transfer or Discharge) to show the Army Good Conduct Medal (AGCM), National Defense Service Medal (NDSM), and Army Overseas Service Ribbon (OSR). Army Regulation 600-8-22 (Military Awards) states the NDSM is awarded for honorable active service for any period between 27 July 1950 and 27 July 1954, 1 January 1961 and 14 August 1974, 2 August 1990 and 30 November 1995, and 11 September 2001 and a...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2010 | 20100017981

    Original file (20100017981.txt) Auto-classification: Approved

    His military record shows he enlisted in the Regular Army for a period of 3 years and entered active on 21 May 1956. Based on his overall record of service for that period, it would be appropriate to award him the first award of the AGCM and to correct his DD Form 214 for the period ending 14 June 1965 to show this award. Therefore, he is entitled to show award of the AFEM and correction of his DD Form 214 for the period ending 13 May 1959 to show this award.

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2009 | 20090017191

    Original file (20090017191.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    The applicant requests, in effect, award of the Army Good Conduct Medal (AGCM). The DD Form 214 he was issued at the time shows he had completed 2 years, 2 months, and 20 days of active military service during the period covered by the DD Form 214 (30 March 1962-19 June 1964). The evidence of record in this case confirms the applicant was convicted by an SCM on 15 August 1963, and that he received less than "excellent" conduct and efficiency ratings during the qualifying period.

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2006 | 20060009163

    Original file (20060009163.txt) Auto-classification: Approved

    However, the records show that the applicant is entitled to the award of the Korea Defense Service Medal. Records show that the applicant is entitled to the award of the National Defense Service Medal. As a result, the Board recommends that all Department of the Army records of the individual concerned be corrected as follows: by showing he is entitled to the award of the Army Good Conduct Medal for the period 16 March 1959 through 15 March 1962; b. by awarding him the Korea Defense...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2015 | 20150001345

    Original file (20150001345.txt) Auto-classification: Approved

    The applicant served during a qualifying period for award of the NDSM and it should be added to his records at this time. However, the applicant has failed to show through the evidence of record and the evidence submitted with his application that he meets the criteria for award of the AFEM. As a result, the Board recommends that all Department of the Army records of the individual concerned be corrected by: * Awarding him the AGCM (1st Award) for the period 28 June 1960 through 27 June...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2013 | 20130001832

    Original file (20130001832.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    The applicant requests correction of his records to show award of the Army Good Conduct Medal (AGCM). Army Regulation 600-65 (Awards), in effect at the time, stated the AGCM was awarded for each 3 years of continuous enlisted active Federal military service completed on or after 27 August 1940; for first award only, 1 year served entirely during the period 7 December 1941 to 2 March 1946; and, for the first award only, upon termination of service on or after 27 June 1950 of less than 3...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2004 | 2004104250C070208

    Original file (2004104250C070208.doc) Auto-classification: Approved

    The applicant states, in effect, that his separation document (DD Form 214) does not include awards and decorations to which he is entitled such as the Army Good Conduct Medal, National Defense Service Medal and Germany campaign medal. The evidence of record confirms the applicant served a qualifying period of active duty service that entitles him to the National Defense Service Medal. As a result, the Board recommends that all Department of the Army records of the individual concerned be...