IN THE CASE OF:	

		BOARD DATE:	  7 May 2009

		DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20090000262 


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, correction to his DD Form 214 (Armed Forces of the United States Report of Transfer or Discharge) to show the already-awarded Army Commendation Medal (ARCOM).   

2.  The applicant states, in effect, that the recommendation for award of the ARCOM was submitted after his discharge and it should be added to his DD Form 214.  He would also like to receive a DD Form 215 (Correction to DD Form 214).

3.  In support of his application, the applicant provides copies of his DD Form 214, a Transmittal of Award memorandum, and his citation and certificate for the ARCOM.  

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 military records show that he was inducted into the Army of the United States, in pay grade E-1, on 10 August 1967.  He completed basic combat and advanced individual training and was assigned military occupational specialty (MOS) 67N (UH-1 Helicopter Repairman).  He served in the Republic of Vietnam from 7 March 1968 to 10 March 1969 with the 610th Transportation Company (Air Mobile).

3.  The applicant was honorably released from active duty, in pay grade E-5, on 14 March 1969, as an overseas returnee.  He was transferred to the U.S. Army Reserve (USAR) Control Group (Annual Training) to complete his remaining Reserve obligation.

4.  There are no orders in the applicant's military personnel records awarding him the ARCOM; however, the applicant submits a copy of a Transmittal of Award memorandum, dated 10 April 1969, from Headquarters, United States Army Vietnam addressed to Commanding Officer, 34th General Support Group, APO 96309.  The memorandum states a certificate, citation, and general orders pertaining to the award of the ARCOM to the applicant were being forwarded for appropriate presentation.  The memorandum also states that copies of the citation and general orders for his military personnel records were included.  The applicant also submits copies of the citation and certificate for award of the ARCOM for exceptionally meritorious service in the Republic of Vietnam during the period from March 1968 to March 1969.

5.  Item 24 (Decorations, Medals, Badges, Commendations, Citations and Campaign Ribbons Awarded or Authorized) of the applicant's DD Form 214 lists the following awards:  the National Defense Service Medal; Vietnam Service Medal; Republic of Vietnam Campaign Medal; Sharpshooter Marksmanship Qualification Badge with Rifle Bar (M-14); Expert Marksmanship Qualification Badge with Rifle Bar (M-16); and two Overseas Service Bars.  The ARCOM is not shown among his authorized awards.

6.  A review of the Awards and Decorations Computer Assisted Retrieval System (ADCARS) records of the applicant's units for the timeframe the applicant served in Vietnam was conducted.  This review failed to show that any orders were published awarding the first award of the ARCOM.  Even though a copy of the appropriate general orders were not found in the ADCARS, the memorandum of transmittal of award shows the applicant was awarded the ARCOM on orders published by Headquarters, United States Army Vietnam.



7.  Army Regulation 600-8-22 (Military Awards), in pertinent part, provided for the award of the ARCOM to any member of the Army after 6 December 1941, who distinguished himself/herself by heroism, meritorious achievement, or meritorious service.  Award of the ARCOM may be made for acts of valor which were of a lesser degree than required for award of the Bronze Star Medal.  As with all personal decorations, formal recommendations, approval through the chain of command, and announcement in orders are required.  

8.  Review of the applicant's records indicates entitlement to additional awards and decorations that are not shown on his DD Form 214.

9.  Item 38 (Record of Assignments), of the applicant's DA Form 20, shows that the applicant consistently received "excellent" conduct and efficiency ratings.  There is no evidence of any breach of good order or discipline in his service personnel record that would preclude award of the Good Conduct Medal.

10.  The applicant’s DD Form 214 shows that he was awarded the Vietnam Service Medal, but it does not show that he was awarded any bronze service stars to signify campaign participation credit.  Paragraph 2-13 of Army Regulation 600-8-22 contains the regulatory guidance on the Vietnam Service Medal.  It states, in pertinent part, that a bronze service star is authorized with this award for each Vietnam campaign a member is credited with participating in.  The regulation further provides that one silver service star will be worn in lieu of five bronze service stars.  Appendix B, Table B-1 contains a list of Vietnam campaigns, and it shows that during the applicant's tour in Vietnam, he participated in the following campaigns:   Tet Counteroffensive (30 January 1968 - 1 April 1968); Vietnam Counteroffensive, Phase IV (2 April 1968 - 30 June 1968); Vietnam Counteroffensive, Phase V (1 July 1968 - 1 November 1968); Vietnam Counteroffensive, Phase VI (2 November 1968 - 22 February 1969); and Tet 69, Counteroffensive, 1969 (23 February 1969 - 8 June 1969).

11.  DA Pamphlet 672-3 (Unit Citation and Campaign Participation Credit Register) shows the applicant's unit, the 610th Transportation Company, was cited for award of the Meritorious Unit Commendation, for the period 1 November 1967 to 31 October 1968, by Department of the Army General Orders Number 39, dated 1970; and the Meritorious Unit Commendation, for the period
1 November 1968 to 31 January 1970, by Department of the Army General Orders Number 51, dated 1971.  These unit awards are not shown on the applicant's DD Form 214.


12.  Army Regulation 672-5-1 (Awards), in effect at the time of the applicant's separation, provided that the Good Conduct Medal was awarded to individuals who distinguished themselves by their conduct, efficiency and fidelity during a qualifying period of active duty enlisted service.  This period was 3 years except in those cases when the period for the first award ended with the termination of a period of Federal military service.  Although there was no automatic entitlement to the Good Conduct Medal, disqualification had to be justified.  To be eligible for award of the Good Conduct Medal, Soldiers were required to meet all of the following criteria:  all conduct (character) and efficiency ratings were required to be recorded as "Excellent" except that ratings of "Unknown" for portions of the period under consideration were not disqualifying.  Service school efficiency ratings based upon academic proficiency of at least "Good" rendered subsequent to 22 November 1955 were also not disqualifying.

13.  Army Regulation 600-8-22 states, in pertinent part, that an oak leaf cluster is awarded to denote the second and succeeding awards of certain decorations, among which is the Meritorious Unit Commendation.

14.  DA Pamphlet 672-3 also shows that the applicant's unit, a subordinate unit of the United States Army, Vietnam, was awarded the Republic of Vietnam Gallantry Cross with Palm Unit Citation, for the period 20 July 1965 through 28 March 1973, by Department of the Army General Orders Number 8, dated 1974.  This unit award is also not shown on the applicant's DD Form 214.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  Despite the lack of appropriate general orders, the evidence of record shows the applicant was awarded the ARCOM by appropriate general orders published by Headquarters, United States Army Vietnam, on 10 April 1969.  Therefore, he is entitled to have this award added to his DD Form 214.

2.  The applicant had "excellent" conduct and efficiency ratings throughout his time in the Army.  There is no evidence of indiscipline while he served on active duty.  The record shows the applicant was inducted into the Army of the United States in the rank and pay grade of Private (PV1)/E-1, and was promoted rapidly through the ranks in a short period of time.  He was released from active duty in the rank and pay grade of Specialist Five (SP5)/E-5.  The applicant was awarded the Army Commendation Medal at the end of his tour of duty in Vietnam for his meritorious service.  The applicant was not awarded the Good Conduct Medal, it appears, more as a result of an administrative oversight rather than something 
he did to disqualify himself from this award.  He is therefore eligible for award of the Good Conduct Medal for the period 10 August 1967 through 14 March 1969 and to have it added to his DD Form 214.

3.  The evidence of record also confirms that the applicant participated in five campaigns during his tenure in Vietnam.  Therefore, he is entitled to one silver service star for wear on his already-awarded Vietnam Service Medal.

4.  General Orders awarded the applicant's unit two Meritorious Unit Commendations and the Republic of Vietnam Gallantry Cross with Palm Unit Citation.  Therefore, it would be appropriate to correct his records to show these unit awards on his DD Form 214.

5.  In view of the foregoing, the applicant’s records should be corrected as recommended below.

BOARD VOTE:

___x____  ___x____  ___x____  GRANT FULL RELIEF 

________  ________  ________  GRANT PARTIAL RELIEF 

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

________  ________  ________  DENY APPLICATION

BOARD DETERMINATION/RECOMMENDATION:

The Board determined that the evidence presented was sufficient to warrant a recommendation for relief.  As a result, the Board recommends that all Department of the Army records of the individual concerned be corrected by:

   a.  deleting from item 24 of the applicant's DD Form 214 the Vietnam Service Medal;
   
   b.  awarding the applicant the Good Conduct Medal for the period from 
10 August 1967 to 14 March 1969;
   
   c.  adding to item 24 of the applicant's DD Form 214 the Army Commendation Medal; Good Conduct Medal, Vietnam Service Medal with one silver service star; Meritorious Unit Commendation with one oak leaf cluster; and the Republic of Vietnam Gallantry Cross with Palm Unit Citation; and
   d.  providing him a corrected separation document that includes these changes.



      ____________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)                                         AR20090000262



3


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1


ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont)                                         AR20090000262



2


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1