IN THE CASE OF:	  

		BOARD DATE:	  20 December 2011

		DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20110011872 


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) for the period ending
14 December 1970 to show the Presidential Unit Citation (PUC), Meritorious Unit Commendation (MUC), Army Commendation Medal (ARCOM), Army Good Conduct Medal (AGCM), and the Royal Thai Army Parachutist Badge. 

2.  The applicant states:

* he received these awards in the line of duty while serving our country
* he believes the out-processing section failed to record them on his
DD Form 214
* he had a top secret clearance, he was Special Forces qualified, and he was assigned to classified projects

3.  The applicant provides no documentary evidence.

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 was inducted into the Army of the United States on 29 February 1968.  On 6 March 1968, he was honorably discharged for immediate enlistment in the Regular Army (RA).  He enlisted in the RA on 7 March 1968 for a period of 3 years.  He arrived in Thailand on 23 November 1969.  He served as a chief radio supervisor assigned to the 46th Special Forces (SF) Company in Thailand from 26 November 1969 to 13 December 1970.

3.  On 14 December 1970, he was released from active duty and he was transferred to the U.S. Army Reserve Control Group (Reinforcement) to complete his remaining service obligation.  Item 24 (Decorations, Medals, Badges, Commendations, Citations and Campaign Ribbons Awarded or Authorized) of his DD Form 214 for the period ending 14 December 1970 does not show the ARCOM, AGCM, PUC, MUC, or the Royal Thai Army Parachutist Badge as authorized awards.

4.  There are no orders for the ARCOM or the AGCM in the available records.

5.  Item 41 (Awards and Decorations) of his DA Form 20 (Enlisted Qualification Record) does not show entitlement to the ARCOM, AGCM, PUC, or the MUC.  However, it does show the Royal Thai Army Parachutist Badge.

6.  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 United States Army Human Resources Command, failed to reveal any orders for the ARCOM or the AGCM pertaining to the applicant.

7.  His DA Form 20 shows he received "Good" conduct and efficiency ratings during the period 7 March 1968 through 26 April 1968 while attending basic combat training.

8.  His service personnel records contain documentation, dated 23 January 1970, from the Commanding Officer, Special Warfare Center, Royal Thai Army, for award of the Thai Parachutist Badge.  Item 41 of his DA Form 20 shows entitlement to the Royal Thai Parachutist Badge and the issuing authority as Army Regulation 672-5-1 (Awards).  However, there is no U.S. document approving the acceptance and wear of this foreign badge.
9.  Department of the Army Pamphlet 672-3 (Unit Citation and Campaign Participation Credit Register) lists the awards received by units during the Vietnam conflict.  This pamphlet does not show the 46th SF Company was cited for award of the PUC or the MUC.

10.  Army Regulation 600-8-22 (Military Awards) states 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, 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.

11.  Army Regulation 672-5-1, 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.  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.

12.  Army Regulation 600-8-22 states the PUC is awarded for extraordinary heroism in action.  A unit must display such gallantry, determination, and esprit de corps in accomplishing its mission as would warrant award of the Distinguished Service Cross to an individual. 

13.  Army Regulation 600-8-22 states the MUC is awarded to units for exceptionally meritorious conduct in the performance of outstanding services for at least 6 continuous months during the period of military operations against an armed enemy occurring on or after 1 January 1944.  Units based in the continental United States are excluded from this award, as are other units outside the area of operations.  

14.  Army Regulation 600-8-22 states commanders serving in the rank of brigadier general or higher and colonel-level commanders who exercise general 
court-martial authority are delegated authority to approve the acceptance, retention, and permanent wear of foreign badges listed in appendix D of this regulation.  Foreign qualification and special skill badges may be accepted if awarded in recognition of meeting the criteria, as established by the foreign government concerned, for the specific award.  Only those badges which are awarded in recognition of military activities and by the military department of the host country are authorized for acceptance and permanent wear.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  There are no orders and the applicant did not provide any orders for the ARCOM in the available records.  Therefore, there is an insufficient evidentiary basis for correcting his DD Form 214 to show this award.

2.  There are no orders and the applicant did not provide any orders for the AGCM in the available records.  His military record shows he had conduct and efficiency ratings of “Good” from 7 March 1968 through 26 April 1968.  Although his "Good" rating for efficiency during basic combat training was not disqualifying, his "Good" rating for conduct was a disqualifying factor for award of the Good Conduct Medal.  As such, he did not meet the eligibility criteria for the first award of the Army Good Conduct Medal.  Therefore, there is no basis for granting this portion of his request.

3.  There is no evidence the PUC or MUC was awarded to the 46th SF Company in Thailand during his period of assignment.  Therefore, there is an insufficient evidentiary basis for correcting his DD Form 214 to show these unit awards.

4.  Notwithstanding the documentation that shows he was awarded the Royal Thai Army Parachutist Badge, there is no evidence he was approved for acceptance and wear of this foreign badge by the appropriate authority.  Therefore, there is an insufficient evidentiary basis for granting this portion of his request.

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)                                         AR20110011872



3


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1

ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont)                                         AR20110011872



2


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1