IN THE CASE OF:	  

		BOARD DATE:	  26 October 2010

		DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20100014012 


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 her DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty) to show the Army Commendation Medal (ARCOM), Army Achievement Medal (AAM), Army Good Conduct Medal (AGCM), and any other awards she may be entitled to based on her participation in various military campaigns, exercises, and attachment to a Reserve unit.

2.  The applicant states she was awarded the ARCOM and AAM, but the awards are not listed on her DD Form 214.  She contends that she worked various military campaigns and exercises from 1993 to 1997 in the Personnel Contingency Cell such as Operation Restore Hope, Operation Vigilant Watch, the Persian Gulf, and Bosnia.

3.  The applicant provides a DD Form 214 and a DA Form 2-1 (Personnel Qualification Record) in support of this 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 enlisted in the Regular Army on 25 September 1992 for 4 years. 
She completed initial entry training and was awarded military occupational specialty 71L (Administrative Specialist).  She was assigned to the Office of the Deputy Chief of Staff for Personnel, Pentagon.  On 3 September 1996, she extended her enlistment for 2 months and on 11 November 1996, she extended her enlistment for an additional 3 months.

3.  Item 18 (Appointments and Reductions) of her DA Form 2-1 shows she was promoted to the rank of specialist/E-4 effective 1 November 1993.

4.  There are no orders or any other evidence in her official military personnel file (OMPF) that indicate she was awarded or recommended for the ARCOM, AAM, AGCM or that she was ordered to and served in a contingency operation or was attached to a Reserve unit and earned additional awards as a result of this service.

5.  Her OMPF is also void of any derogatory information or a commander's disqualification statement that would have precluded award of the Army Good Conduct Medal.

6.  On 24 February 1997, she was honorably released from active duty in the rank of specialist/E-4 after completing 4 years and 5 months of active military service.  Item 24 (Decorations, Medals, Badges, Commendations, Citations, and Campaign Ribbons Awarded or Authorized) of her DD Form 214 shows the National Defense Service Medal and the Army Service Ribbon.

7.  Records at the Defense Finance and Accounting Service do not indicate she received hazardous duty/imminent danger pay for service in any contingency operation.

8.  Army Regulation 600-8-22 (Military Awards) states the ARCOM 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, distinguishes 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.

9.  Army Regulation 600-8-22 states the AAM is awarded to members of the Armed Forces of the United States, who while serving in a noncombat area on or after 1 August 1981, distinguished themselves by meritorious service or achievement.  As with all personal decorations, formal recommendations, approval through the chain of command, and announcement in orders are required.

10.  Army Regulation 600-8-22 states the Army Good Conduct Medal is awarded to individuals who distinguish themselves by their conduct, efficiency, and fidelity during a qualifying 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.  Although there is no automatic entitlement to the Army Good Conduct Medal, disqualification must be justified.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The applicant's contention that her DD Form 214 should be corrected by adding the ARCOM, AAM, AGCM, and any other award to which she may be entitled based on her participation in various military campaigns and exercises from the Personnel Contingency Cell and from her attachment to a Reserve unit has been carefully reviewed.

2.  She was honorably released from active duty in the rank of specialist/E-4 after completing 4 years and 5 months of active military service and her OMPF is void of any derogatory information or a commander's disqualification statement that would have precluded award of the Army Good Conduct Medal.  Therefore, it would be appropriate to award her the first award of the Army Good Conduct Medal for her qualifying period of honorable active duty service from 25 September 1992 to 24 September 1995 and to add this award to her DD Form 214.

3.  There are no orders or any other evidence in her OMPF that indicates she was awarded or recommended for the ARCOM or AAM, and she did not provide any orders or other evidence to show she was awarded the ARCOM or AAM.  As it appears she never deployed, there is no evidence to show that she earned any additional awards as a result of her participation in contingency operations and attachment to a Reserve unit.  Therefore, there is insufficient evidence on which to base granting this portion of her request.


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 awarding her the Army Good Conduct Medal for her qualifying period of honorable active duty service from 25 September 1992 through 24 September 1995 and adding this award to her DD Form 214.

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 the Army Commendation Medal, Army Achievement Medal, and any additional awards.



      ____________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)                                         AR20100014012



3


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1

ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont)                                         AR20100014012



2


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1