IN THE CASE OF:	 

		BOARD DATE:	  06 May 2010

		DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20090018492 


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 correction of his DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty) to reflect his awards of the Armed Forces Expeditionary Medal (AFEM), Humanitarian Service Medal (HSM), and the second award of the Army Commendation Medal (ARCOM 1OLC).  He also requests his DD Form 214 show his service in Haiti.

2.  The applicant states he was awarded the AFEM on 10 January 1995, the HSM on 25 March 1993, and the ARCOM 1OLC on 24 January 1995; however, they are not included on his DD Form 214, nor is his service in Haiti from 26 September 1994 to 25 October 1994.

3.  The applicant provides a copy of his DD Form 214, the front page of a DA Form 638 (Recommendation for Award) recommending him for award of the ARCOM by reason of expiration of term of service (ETS), a copy of a memorandum pertaining to award of the HSM, a copy of a memorandum for record listing persons eligible for award of the AFEM, and a copy of a message authorizing award of the AFEM.

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 8 January 1991 for a period of 4 years, airborne training, and training as a cavalry scout.  He successfully completed his training and was assigned to A Company, 3d Battalion, 73d Armor Regiment at Fort Bragg, NC, which was his first and only duty assignment.  He was promoted to the pay grade of E-5 on 1 October 1992 and served until he was honorably released from active duty (REFRAD) on 7 January 1995, due to completion of required service.  Item 13 (Decorations, Medals, Badges, Citations and Campaign Ribbons Awarded or Authorized) of his DD Form 214 issued at the time of his REFRAD reflects that he was awarded the Army Service Ribbon, Army Lapel Button, National Defense Service Medal, Expert Marksmanship Qualification Badge with Rifle Bar (M-16), Army Good Conduct Medal, Army Achievement Medal (1OLC), Noncommissioned Officer Professional Development Ribbon, Senior Parachutist Badge, and the Australian Parachutist Badge.  Item 12f (Record of Service - Foreign Service) does not show any foreign service.

3.  The DA Form 638 submitted by the applicant indicates that the applicant was recommended for award of the ARCOM (2OLC).  However, there is no evidence that the award recommendation was approved.  Item 13 (Previous Awards) of the DA Form 638 also indicates he received two prior awards of the ARCOM.

4.  The applicant’s records contain a DA Form 3355 (Promotion Points Worksheet), dated 18 July 1994, recommending him for promotion to the pay grade of E-6.  Item 3 (Awards and Decorations) of this form does not list any awards of the ARCOM or the HSM.

5.  The memorandum provided by the applicant shows that he was awarded the AFEM for his service in Haiti from 26 September to 25 October 1994.

6.  The memorandum provided by the applicant regarding the award of the HSM indicates that a by-name listing would be provided to determine who was authorized award of the HSM for participation in the Hurricane Andrew Disaster 
Relief Operation in Florida.  There is no by-name listing associated with this memorandum in the applicant’s records; however, the incomplete 


recommendation for award of the ARCOM indicates that he deployed to Florida 
in 1992, where he provided food, comfort, health and medical assistance to the citizens of Florida following the devastation of Hurricane Andrew.  Additionally, the applicant’s DA Form 2-1 (Personnel Qualification Record - Part II) contains a permanent entry indicating that the applicant was awarded the HSM for Hurricane Andrew during the period of August - October 1992.

7.  Army Regulation 600-8-22 (Military Awards) provides that the Army Commendation Medal may be awarded to any member of the Armed Forces of the United States who, while serving in any capacity with the Army after 6 December 1941, distinguished himself or herself by heroism, meritorious achievement or meritorious service.  As with all personal decorations, formal recommendations, approval through the chain of command, and announcement in orders are required.

8.  Army Regulation 635-5 (Personnel Separations - Separation Documents), in effect at the time, prescribed the separation documents prepared for Soldiers upon retirement, discharge, or release from active military service or control of the Army.  It established standardized policy for the preparation of the DD Form 214.  It stated that for item 12f, enter the total amount of foreign service completed during the period covered in the report.

9.  Army Regulation 635-5, currently in effect, states that for an active duty Soldier deployed with his or her unit during their continuous period of active service, the statement "SERVICE IN (NAME OF COUNTRY DEPLOYED) FROM (inclusive dates for example, YYYYMMDD - YYYYMMDD)" will be entered in item 18 (Remarks).

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The applicant has provided sufficient evidence to show that he was awarded the AFEM for his service in Haiti during the period of 26 September to
25 October 1994.  Accordingly, the AFEM should be added to his records.  Although at the time of his release from active duty there was no provision to enter a Soldier's deployment on his/her DD Form 214, current standards require such entry.  There is no harm in entering his service in Haiti on his DD Form 214 at this time.  Item 12f should also be corrected to show one month of foreign service.


2.  The incomplete DA Form 638 provided by the applicant regarding the recommendation for award of the ARCOM has been noted; however, it is insufficient to establish that the award recommendation was ever entered into proper command channels or processed to completion.  Therefore, in the absence of evidence to show that the DA Form 638 was officially entered into 
proper channels, approved, and orders issued, there appears to be no basis to add the ARCOM at this time.

3.  The DA Form 638 also indicates in item 13 the applicant was awarded two ARCOMs.  However, there are no previous awards of the ARCOM on his DD Form 214 and none are listed on his DA Form 3355 or DA Form 2-1.  Therefore, there is no basis to add any previous awards of the ARCOM to his records.

4.  Although the applicant has provided a memorandum regarding the award of the HSM for relief assistance during Hurricane Andrew, the memorandum specifies that individuals must be on the by-name list that was published at the time.  The applicant’s records do not contain a copy of the list awarding him the HSM.  However, given the comments in the award recommendation provided by the applicant regarding his participation in the Hurricane Andrew Relief Operation and the permanent entry on his DA Form 2-1 showing that he was awarded the HSM for Hurricane Andrew during August - October 1992, it is reasonable to presume that he was in fact awarded the HSM.  Accordingly, it would be in the interest of justice to add it to his records at this time.

BOARD VOTE:

________  ________  ________  GRANT FULL RELIEF 

___X____  ___X____  ___X___  GRANT PARTIAL RELIEF 

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

________  ________  ________  DENY APPLICATION

BOARD DETERMINATION/RECOMMENDATION:

1.  The Board determined that the evidence presented was sufficient to warrant a recommendation for partial 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 12f of his DD Form 214 the entry "00  00  00" and replacing it with the entry "00  01  00";

   b.  adding to item 13 of his DD Form 214 the Humanitarian Service Medal and the Armed Forces Expeditionary Medal; and

   c.  adding to item 18 of his DD Form 214 the entry "SERVICE IN HAITI FROM 19940926 - 19941025."

2.  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 adding an award of the Army Commendation Medal to his records.

3.  The Board wants the applicant and all others concerned to know that this action in no way diminishes the sacrifices made by the applicant in service to the United States.  The applicant and all Americans should be justifiably proud of his service in arms.



      __________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)                                         AR20090018492



3


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1

ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont)                                         AR20090018492



2


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1