IN THE CASE OF:	  

		BOARD DATE:	        30 APRIL 2009

		DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20090001504 


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 award of the Army Good Conduct Medal.  In addition, he requests that the rank on his DD Form 214 (Armed Forces of the United States Report of Transfer or Discharge) for the period ending 9 October 1969 be changed from specialist five(SP5)/E-5 to sergeant (SGT)/E-5.

2.  The applicant states that a mistake was made on his DD Form 214 and that his rank should be SGT instead of SP5.  

3.  The applicant provides his DD Form 214; Office of the Adjutant General Reserve Components Personnel Administration Center Letter Orders Number 
09-1368021, dated 20 September 1972; and a DD Form 215 (Correction to DD Form 214, Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty), dated 
2 December 2008.

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 enlisted in the Regular Army on 10 October 1966 and successfully completed basic training and advanced individual training.  He was awarded military occupational specialty 94D (Bread Baker).  

3.  Headquarters, U.S. Army Support Command, Saigon Special Orders Number 64, dated 4 March 1968, show the applicant was promoted to the rank and pay grade of Specialist Five (SP5)/E-5.

4.  On 9 October 1969, the applicant was honorably released from active duty and transferred to the U.S. Army Reserve (USAR) Control Group after completing 3 years of creditable active with no lost time.

5.  The applicant's DD Form 214 with the ending period 9 October 1969 does not show award of the Army Good Conduct Medal.  Item 5a (Grade, Rate or Rank) shows the entry  "SP5 (P)" and item 5b (Pay Grade) shows the entry "E5."  Item 6 (Date of Rank) shows his date of rank as 4 March 1968.

6.  There are no special orders in the applicant's available records that show he was laterally appointed to sergeant.

7.  Item 38 (Record of Assignments) of the applicant's DA Form 20 shows he received all "Excellent" efficiency rating throughout his military service accept for one "Good" conduct and efficiency rating for the period 15 March 1969 through   9 October 1969.  

8.  Office of the Adjutant General Reserve Components Personnel Administration Center Letter Orders Number 09-1368021, dated 20 September 1972, shows the applicant was honorably discharged at the rank of sergeant.

9.  Army Regulation 672-5-1 (Military Awards), in effect at the time, provides that the Good Conduct Medal is awarded to individuals who have completed a qualified 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.  The enlisted person must have had all “excellent” conduct and efficiency ratings and no convictions by a court-martial.  Ratings of "Unknown" for portions of the period under consideration are not disqualifying.  Service and efficiency ratings based upon academic proficiency of at least "Good" rendered subsequent to 22 November 1955 are not disqualifying.

10.  Army Regulation 635-5 prescribes the separation documents prepared for Soldiers upon retirement, discharge, or release from active military service or control of the Army.  It establishes standardized policy for the preparation of the DD Form 214.  In pertinent part, it states the DD Form 214 is a synopsis of the Soldier’s most recent period of continuous active duty.  It provides a brief, clear-cut record of active Army service at the time of release from active duty, retirement or discharge.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  Evidence of records shows the applicant enlisted in the Regular Army on
10 October 1966 and was honorably released from active duty on 9 October 1969 after completing 3 years of creditable active service.

2.  Army Regulation 672-5-1, in effect at the time, specifically stated that the Army Good Conduct Medal was awarded for each 3 years of continuous enlisted active Federal military service completed and that a Soldier's conduct and efficiency ratings must have been rated as "excellent" for the entire period of qualifying service and there must have been no convictions by court-martial.  Unfortunately, the applicant's records shows that he received a good efficiency rating (i.e. other than "excellent") during the period 15 March 1969 through          9 October 1969 which make him ineligible for award of the Army Good Conduct Medal.

3.  The applicant contends that a mistake was made on his DD Form 214 and his rank should be changed from SP5 to SGT.  Special orders and his DD Form 214 show he was promoted to the rank and pay grade of SP5/E-5.  He provided Office of the Adjutant General Reserve Components Personnel Administration Center Letter Orders that show his rank as SGT.  However, the letter order is well outside the time frame he served on active duty and alone it is not enough to verify he was promoted to the rank of SGT prior to his separation from active duty.

4.  There is no evidence in his records and the applicant has not provided evidence (i.e., leave and earnings statements, special orders, Noncommissioned Officer Evaluation Reports, etc.) to substantiate his contention. Therefore, his DD Form 214 for the ending period of 9 October 1969, which shows he was promoted to the rank of SP5/E-5, appears to be correct.


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.




      _______ _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)                                         AR20090001504





3


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1

ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont)                                         AR20090001504



4


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1