IN THE CASE OF:	  

		BOARD DATE:	  30 August 2011

		DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20100029758 


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:

	a.  award of the Overseas Service Ribbon (OSR), Army Good Conduct Medal (AGCM), Presidential Unit Citation (PUC), and Army Service Ribbon (ASR); and

	b. correction of Section 4 (Chronological Record of Military Service) of his DA Form 24 (Service Record).

2.  The applicant states:

	a.  he should receive the OSR and PUC for his service in Korea;

   b. he should receive the AGCM and ASR based on completing his 3 year enlistment;

   c.  Section 4 of his DA Form 24 is riddled with errors and guess work; and

   d.  as a matter of "information only", he was promised attendance at the "guided missile electronics school" and due to a family hardship, he was guaranteed he would never leave the United States, neither of which were true. 

3.  The applicant provides:

* self-authored statement (3 pages)
* DA Form 24 (pages 2 and 3)
* DD Form 214 (Armed Forces of the United States Report of Transfer or Discharge)
* DA Form 20 (Enlisted Qualification Record - page 1)

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's military records contain a statement authenticated with his signature completed during his enlistment processing on 27 June 1958.  It includes his acknowledgement of the following:

   a.  choice of service does not constitute any guarantee that his entire enlistment will be served in the branch of service, oversea command or specific assignment chosen;
   
   b.  military necessity may make it necessary for the Army to effect his reassignment at any time to any other assignment within the continental United States or an over sea command;
   
   c.  all promises made to him are listed in items 11, 13, and 37 of his enlistment record.

3.  The DD Form 4 (Enlistment Record-Armed Forces of the United States) completed during the enlistment process includes the following entries in the indicated items:

* item 11 (Grade) - "E-1"
* item 13 (Initial Assignment) - "548 AAA Msl Bn, Loring AFG, Limestone, Maine"
* item 37 (Remarks) - "Metropolitan area - Caribu [sic], Maine"

4.  The applicant's military record shows he enlisted in the Regular Army on 27 June 1958.  He completed basic combat training at Fort Benning, Georgia and was assigned to Loring AFB, Maine for advance individual training in military occupational specialty (MOS) 941.10 (Cook).

5.  Section 1 (Appointments, Promotions, or Reductions) of his DA Form 24 shows he was promoted to private first class (PFC/E-3) on 27 February 1959 and this was the highest rank he obtained while serving on active duty.  It also shows he was reduced to private (PVT/E-2) on 12 November 1960.

6.  Section 4 of his DA Form 24 contains fourteen entries detailing his dates of service with different Army units at different military installations and the duty MOS he served in during those times. It also shows the conduct and efficiency ratings he received throughout his military service which includes his rating of "Good" for the period 10 May through 30 November 1960.

7.  Section 5 of the DA Form 24 shows he served in Korea from on or about 3 May 1960 to 7 June 1961.  His record also shows he was assigned with 3rd Medium Tank Battalion, 40th Armor Regiment during his tour in Korea.

8.  On 8 June 1958, the applicant was honorably discharged from active duty having completed 2 years, 11 months, and 12 days of creditable active military service.  Item 26 (Decorations, Medals, Badges, Commendations, Citations, and Campaign Ribbons Awarded or Authorized) of his DD Form 214 shows he was awarded the Marksman Marksmanship Qualification Badge with Rifle Bar and Sharpshooter Marksmanship Qualification Badge with Carbine Bar.

9.  Army Regulation 672-5-1 (Awards) 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.  However, there was no right or entitlement to the medal until the immediate commander made a positive recommendation for its award and until the awarding authority announced the award in general orders.


10.  Paragraph 5-4 of the same regulation provides guidance on the OSR and paragraph 5-5 contains guidance on the ASR.  These paragraphs confirm both awards were effective 1 August 1981, and that there were no retroactive provisions that allowed their award to members who were not in an active Army status on or after the 1 August 1981 effective date.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The applicant contends he should be awarded the OSR, AGCM, PUC, and ASR and Section 4 of his DA Form 24 should be corrected.

2.  The applicant's contention that the OSR and ASR should be added to his 
DD Form 214 was carefully considered.  However, these awards were effective on 1 August 1981, and there were no retroactive provisions that allowed award of these ribbons to members who were not in an active status on or after the 1 August 1981, the effective date for the awards.  Therefore, there is an insufficient evidentiary basis to support granting this portion of the requested relief.

3.  The evidence of record confirms the applicant received a “Good” conduct and efficiency rating during the period 10 May through 30 November 1960, while serving in Korea.  It also shows he was reduced from PFC to PVT during this period on 12 November 1960; thereby confirming his less than "excellent" rating in both conduct and efficiency ratings was not based on academic proficiency.  Lacking evidence to confirm the applicant satisfied the regulatory criteria necessary for award of the AGCM, there is no basis upon which to grant this portion of relief.  

4.  There is no evidence of record and the applicant did not submit any evidence to show his unit was awarded the PUC during his service in Korea.  Accordingly, this portion of requested of relief is denied.

5.  In regards to the applicant's request for correction of Section 4 of his DA Form 24, indicating it is riddled with guess work, he is informed that this document is prepared and maintained for Active Army and U. S. Army Reserve enlisted personnel.  The evidence confirms he no longer has a military status.  Further he did not identify the specific errors or corrections sought on this document.  The DD Form 214 is the document used to record the military history of a separated individual.  Accordingly, there is no basis to consider this portion of requested relief.


6.  While the applicant indicates unfulfilled promises and guarantees made to him at time of his enlistment regarding his military schooling and geographical assignments, as a matter of information only, he acknowledged the only promise or guarantee he contractually agreed upon during his enlistment processing was his enlistment in the grade of E-1 and assignment to Loring AFB, Limestone, Maine or the Metropolitan area of Caribou, Maine, which were fulfilled.

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.




      ___________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)                                         AR20100029758



3


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1

ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont)                                         AR20100029758



5


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1