IN THE CASE OF:	

		BOARD DATE:	  29 July 2010

		DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20100018431 


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 (Report of Separation from Active Duty) to reflect award of the Army Commendation Medal (ARCOM). 

2.  The applicant states:

	a.  He received the ARCOM in November 1975 and was discharged from his unit in December 1975.  

	b.  His DD Form 214 does not reflect receipt of the award.  

	c.  Records or orders were not received by the personnel office in time to reflect the ARCOM in his discharge records.

	d.  The actual medal and orders were lost in 2009.  

3.  The applicant provides a photograph of him receiving the ARCOM on 
21 November 1975 and a copy of his DD Form 214.

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 18 January 1973.  After completing training for military occupational specialty (MOS) 71B (Clerk) and MOS 73D (Accounting Specialist), he was assigned to Headquarters, 2d Region, U.S. Army Criminal Investigation Command (USACIDC), U.S. Army Europe, and served with that unit until he was transferred to Fort Dix, NJ, for separation processing in December 1975.  He was released from active duty on 16 January 1976 after completing 2 years, 11 months, and 29 days of active military service.

3.  The applicant's record is void of documentation showing he was awarded the ARCOM.  

4.  The applicant's record includes three DA Forms 2166-4 (Enlisted Efficiency Report) documenting his performance during the period August 1973 through November 1974.  

	a.  Part IIB (Characteristics) of the DA Form 2166-4 provides blocks for rating Soldiers on their adaptability, attitude, initiative, leadership, responsibility, and duty performance.  The highest rating is "O," which is defined as "outstanding - performs better than any Soldier you know."  All three DA Forms 2166-4 in the applicant's record show his rater, a major, gave him "O" ratings for each characteristic.

	b.  The applicant's rater provided the following comments in Part IIE (Comments of Rater) of the DA Forms 2166-4:

* [The applicant] is an extremely capable, self-motivated soldier.  He frequently seeks out duties and responsibilities over and above those required of his position.  He can be depended upon to make sound judgemental (sic) decisions within the scope of his authority.  His character and attitude are above reproach

* During this rating period [the applicant] has contributed significantly to the efficiency of Second Region, USACIDC through his dedication to control over [temporary duty].  He is truly an outstanding soldier

* [The applicant] is a truely (sic) exceptional soldier.  He maintains a positive attitude in the face of an ever increasing workload.  His conduct, morals and integrity are above reproach.  During this period he has performed his duties with a minimum of supervision displaying sound judgement (sic) and maximum efficiency

5.  On or about 15 August 1975, the applicant's rater gave him a letter of appreciation citing his "conscientious approach to each task assigned" and the "determination with which you applied your high capability to your duties and responsibilities."

6.  The applicant's DA Form 2-1 (Personnel Qualification Record) shows in item 18 (Appointments and Reductions) he was promoted to private first class/E-3 on 3 January 1974, specialist four/E-4 on 3 April 1974, and specialist five/E-5 on 
23 September 1974.

7.  The applicant's record includes his photograph attached to a DA Form 428 (Application for Identification Card).  The form indicates the photograph was taken on or about 22 March 1974.  In this photograph, the applicant was wearing eyeglasses and did not have facial hair.  

8.  The photograph provided by the applicant is the type of photograph customarily taken immediately following the presentation of an award.  It shows an Army officer presenting an award certificate to a Soldier.  A note on the back of the photograph indicates it was taken on 21 November 1975.  The Soldier was wearing the rank insignia of a specialist five/E-5, the shoulder sleeve insignia of the USACIDC, and the ARCOM on his left breast pocket.  He was not wearing eyeglasses and had a mustache.  The officer and the Soldier were standing in front of a USACIDC flag.   

9.  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.

10.  Review of the applicant's records indicates entitlement to an additional award not shown on his DD Form 214.

11.  The version of Army Regulation 672-5-1 (Military Awards) in effect at the time of the applicant's service 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 immediate commander was to evaluate the Soldier's character as above reproach, and the Soldier's record of service must have indicated that he had willingly complied with the demands of the military environment, had been loyal and obedient to superiors, had faithfully supported the goals of his organization and the Army, and had conducted himself in such an exemplary manner as to distinguish him from his fellow Soldiers.  In terms of job performance, the Soldier's efficiency must have been evaluated as meeting all requirements and expectations for one of that Soldier's grade, MOS, and experience.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The evidence of record supports the applicant's request for correction of his DD Form 214 to reflect award of the ARCOM.

2.  After he was assigned to Headquarters, 2d Region, USACIDC, the applicant was advanced rapidly to the rank/grade of specialist five/E-5, received outstanding ratings, and received a letter of appreciation from a field grade officer.  It would have been appropriate and customary for the applicant's chain of command to recognize his outstanding performance with award of a military decoration such as the ARCOM for meritorious service or achievement shortly before his departure from his unit in December 1975.  

3.  The details of the photograph the applicant provided, specifically his rank insignia, USACIDC shoulder sleeve insignia, and the USACIDC flag, are corroborated by his record, and the photograph clearly shows him receiving an award of the ARCOM.  Although there are minor changes in appearance, the same individual appears in the photograph in his record, which was taken more than 18 months earlier.  

4.  Careful review of the evidence of record leaves no doubt that the applicant was awarded the ARCOM.  Unfortunately, the specific reasons he was given the award cannot be reconstructed based on the available information.  However, as a matter of equity, he is entitled to correction of his DD Form 214 to show he was awarded the ARCOM.  

5.  The applicant's record shows he was rapidly promoted and given outstanding ratings for his adaptability, attitude, initiative, leadership, responsibility, and duty performance.  He is entitled to correction of his record to show he was awarded the Army Good Conduct Medal.  
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.  awarding him the Army Good Conduct Medal (1st Award) for the period 
18 January 1973 through 16 January 1976, and

	b.  adding the following to his DD Form 214:

* Army Commendation Medal
* Army Good Conduct Medal (1st Award)



      _______ _  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)                                         AR20100018431





3


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1

ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont)                                         AR20100018431



2


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1