IN THE CASE OF:	  

		BOARD DATE:	  9 November 2010

		DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20100012174 


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 (Armed Forces of the United States Report of Transfer or Discharge) to show award of the:

* Armed Forces Expeditionary Medal
* Good Conduct Medal

2.  He states, in effect, he is entitled to award of the Armed Forces Expeditionary Medal as a result of his service while assigned to the 999th Signal Company (Support) based at Naha, Japan.  He attests that soon after his arrival in April 1963, they were put on alert to go to the Republic of Vietnam.  They boarded a plane dressed in full combat gear and sat on it for about 2 hours before they were told to exit the plane as there had been a change in plans.  Weeks later, they flew to Korat, Thailand, then drove to a point between Roi-et and the Laotian border and set up a communications relay back to Okinawa.  One month following their returned to Okinawa, the local branch of the Veterans of Foreign Wars (VFW) invited them to join the VFW.  They returned to Thailand for one month in 1964 and flew over the Republic of Vietnam and Laos four times between those two operations.  He states he has wondered for 45 years if he should have received an Armed Forces Expeditionary Medal for the 1963 operation and subsequent invitation from the VFW.

3.  He also contends he should have been awarded the Good Conduct Medal because he never got into trouble and always received "Excellent" conduct and efficiency ratings from his company commanders.

4.  He concludes by stating it has been an honor to serve his Country and he would never lower himself to circumvent the Stole Valor statute; if his Country does not want him to have these medals, he would not possess them at any price.

5.  He provides no additional evidence 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.  His record shows he enlisted in the Regular Army on 13 November 1962 and held military occupational specialty 36C (Lineman).  The highest rank/pay grade he attained while serving on active duty was sergeant/E-5.  On 27 August 1965, he was released from active duty and transferred to the U.S. Army Reserve Control Group (Reinforcement).

3.  His DA Form 24 (Service Record) contains the following pertinent information:

	a.  Section 5 (Service Outside Continental United States) shows he served an overseas tour of duty in Okinawa from 9 April 1963 through 6 September 1964.  

	b.  Section 2 (Chronological Record of Military Service) shows that during his tour of duty in Okinawa, he was assigned to the 999th Signal Company (Support).

	c.  Section 2 also shows he received conduct and efficiency ratings of "excellent" for each of his duty assignments.

	d.  Section 7 (Combat Record) is blank.

	e.  Section 9 (Medals, Decorations, and Citations) shows he was awarded the Sharpshooter Marksmanship Qualification Badge with Rifle Bar (M-14) by the authority of Special Order Number 85, dated 26 April 1965.

4.  Item 26 (Decorations, Medals, Badges, Commendations, Citations, and Campaign Ribbons Awarded or Authorized) of his DD Form 214 contains the entry "NONE."

5.  There is no evidence in the available record and he has not provided any evidence showing he was awarded or recommended for award of the Armed Forces Expeditionary Medal or the Good Conduct Medal.

6.  There is no evidence in the available record and he has not provided any evidence showing he served in Thailand or was aboard an aircraft that flew into the airspace over the Republic of Vietnam or Laos.

7.  A review of the Awards and Decorations Computer-Assisted Retrieval System (ADCARS), an index of general orders issued during the Vietnam era between 1965 and 1973 maintained by the Military Awards Branch of the U.S. Army Human Resources Command, failed to reveal any orders for awards pertaining to the applicant.

8.  A review of his service record shows no derogatory information in the form of lost time, nonjudicial punishment, or suspension of favorable personnel actions that would disqualify him for the first award of the Army Good Conduct Medal during the period 13 November 1962 through 27 August 1965.  There are also no entries in his record to indicate that his commanders denied him award of the Army Good Conduct Medal during this period of service.

9.  Army Regulation 672-5-1 (Awards), in effect at the time, stated 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; 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 years but more than 1 year.  The enlisted person must have had all "excellent" conduct and efficiency ratings.  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 not disqualifying.  There must have been no convictions by a court-martial.


10.  Army Regulation 600-8-22 (Military Awards) states the Armed Forces Expeditionary Medal is authorized for qualifying service after 1 July 1958 in military operations within a specific geographic area during a specified time period.  An individual, who was not engaged in actual combat or equally hazardous activity, must have been a bona fide member of a unit participating in, or be engaged in the direct support of, the operation for 30 consecutive or 60 nonconsecutive days provided this support involved entering the area of operations.  

11.  Army Regulation 600-8-22 defines “area of operation” as the foreign territory upon which troops have actually landed or are present and specifically deployed for the direct support of the designated military operation; adjacent water areas in which ships are operating, patrolling, or providing direct support of operations; and the airspace above and adjacent to the area in which operations are being conducted.  "Direct support" is defined as services being supplied to participating forces in the area of eligibility by ground units, ships, and aircraft provided it involves actually entering the designated area of eligibility.  This includes units, ships, and aircraft providing logistic, patrol, guard, reconnaissance, or other military support within the designated area of eligibility.  "Area of eligibility" is defined as the foreign territory on which troops have actually landed or are present and specifically deployed for the operation; adjacent water areas in which ships are operating, patrolling, or providing direct support of the operation; and the air space above and adjacent to the area in which operations are being conducted.

12.  Army Regulation 600-8-22 (Military Awards) states the National Defense Service Medal 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 date to be determined.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The applicant's contentions that his DD Form 214 should be corrected to show award of the Armed Forces Expeditionary Medal and the Good Conduct Medal were carefully considered.

2.  Special orders awarded him the Sharpshooter Marksmanship Qualification Badge with Rifle Bar (M-14); therefore, he is entitled to correction of his DD Form 214 to show award of this badge.


3.  The evidence of record confirms he served honorably on active duty during the period 13 November 1962 through 27 August 1965.  His record is void of any evidence that shows he had lost time or that he received nonjudicial punishment or court-martial action during that period of service.  There is no evidence of a suspension of favorable personnel actions or that his commander denied him award of the Army Good Conduct Medal that period of service.  Lacking any derogatory information on file that would have disqualified him, it would be appropriate to award him the Army Good Conduct Medal for the period 13 November 1962 through 27 August 1965 and to correct his records to show this award.

4.  Evidence shows he completed a qualifying period of service for award of the National Defense Service Medal; therefore, he is entitled to correction of his DD form 214 to show this service medal.

5.  Notwithstanding the applicant's self-authored statement, his record is void of any evidence and he has not provided sufficient evidence which shows he fulfilled the prerequisite service to qualify for award of the Armed Forces Expeditionary Medal.  Accordingly, based on the foregoing there is insufficient evidence to award him this service medal.

BOARD VOTE:

________  ________  ________  GRANT FULL RELIEF 

___X____  ____X___  ____X___  GRANT PARTIAL RELIEF 

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

________  ________  ________  DENY APPLICATION

BOARD DETERMINATION/RECOMMENDATION:

1.  The Board determined the evidence presented is 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.  awarding him the Army Good Conduct Medal (1st Award) for the period 13 November 1962 through 27 August 1965; and

	b.  adding the following to item 24 of his DD Form 214:

		(1)  the Army Good Conduct Medal (1st Award);

		(2)  the National Defense Service Medal; and

		(3)  the Sharpshooter Marksmanship Qualification Badge with Rifle Bar (M-14).

   c.  providing him a document to show these changes.

2.  The Board further determined 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 showing award of the Armed Forces Expeditionary Medal.

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 our Nation.  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)                                         AR20100012174





3


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1

ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont)                                         AR20100012174



6


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1