IN THE CASE OF:  

		BOARD DATE   22 May 2012

		DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20110022611 


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 the second award of the Presidential Unit Citation.

2.  The applicant states he fought in both Operation Gibraltar (An Ninh-September 1965) and Operation Hawthorne (Dak To-June 1966) in Vietnam, with Company A, 2nd Battalion, 502nd Infantry.  He served in that unit from September 1964-June 1966.  The only time he was out of the company was part of March/April 1966 because he was in various hospitals in Vietnam, suffering from Malaria.  One of those operations was omitted on his updated DD Form 215 (Correction to DD Form 214), dated 4 April 1989, he believes as a result of clerical error.

3.  The applicant provides copies of:

* his DD Form 214
* two DD Forms 215 
* 27 May 1965 orders showing his name listed as part of a 101st Airborne Division Brigade Task Force

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 13 March 1964.  He completed training, to include basic airborne, and was awarded military occupational specialty (MOS) 11B (Light Weapons Infantryman).  

3.  His DA Form 20 (Enlisted Qualification Record) shows in:

	a.  item 31 (Foreign Service) he served in Vietnam from 8 July 1965 through 25 June 1966; 

	b.  item 38 (Record of Assignments) he was assigned to:

		(1) Company A, 2nd Battalion, 502nd Infantry, Fort Campbell, KY, from 
5 September 1964 through on or about 7 July 1965; 

		(2)  Company A, 2nd Battalion, 502nd Infantry (Vietnam) from 8 July 1965 through 16 June 1966; 

		(3)  Company C, 2nd Battalion, 505th Infantry, Fort Bragg, NC, from 
4 August 1966 through 9 March 1967; and 

		(4)  all his Conduct and Efficiency ratings are "Excellent"

	c.  item 41(Awards and Decorations) the:

* Parachutist Badge
* Combat Infantryman Badge
* Vietnam Service Medal
* National Defense Service Medal.

4.  On 10 March 1967, the applicant was honorably released from active duty as a specialist four/E-4.  He had completed 2 years, 11 months, and 28 days of total active service.  His DD Form 214 and DD Forms 215 show in item 24 


(Decorations, Medals, Badges, Commendations, Citations and Campaign Ribbons Awarded or Authorized) the:

* Silver Star
* Army Commendation Medal
* National Defense Service Medal
* Vietnam Service Medal with two bronze service stars
* Presidential Unit Citation
* Valorous Unit Award
* Meritorious Unit Commendation
* Republic of Vietnam Campaign Medal with Device (1960)
* Republic of Vietnam Gallantry Cross with Palm Unit Citation
* Combat Infantryman Badge
* Parachutist Badge

5.  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 the Army Good Conduct Medal pertaining to the applicant.

6.  There is no evidence of a commander's disqualification for the first award of the Army Good Conduct Medal.  He received all "excellent" conduct and efficiency ratings.

7.  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.  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.

8.  Department of the Army Pamphlet 672-3 (Unit Citation and Campaign Participation Credit Register) lists the awards received by units serving in the Republic of Vietnam.  This pamphlet shows the 2nd Battalion, 502nd Infantry was cited for award of the Presidential Unit Commendation for the period 18 and 
19 September 1965 by Department of the Army General Orders (DAGO) Number 20, dated 1967, and for the period 2-20 June 1966 by DAGO Number 59, dated 1968.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The available evidence clearly shows he distinguished himself in the performance of his military service as evidenced by his receipt of a personal decoration.  There is no evidence of a commander's disqualification for the first award of the Army Good Conduct Medal.  It is presumed that his not receiving the first award of the Army Good Conduct Medal for his service was an oversight.  Therefore, he should be awarded the first award of the Army Good Conduct Medal.

2.  During the applicant's assignment in Vietnam, his unit was cited for 2 awards of the Presidential Unit Citation. His DD Form 214 lists only one of these unit awards.

3.  His DD Form 214 should be corrected to show the above awards

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 
13 March 1964 through 10 March 1967 and



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

* Army Good Conduct Medal (1st Award)
* PUC (2nd Award)



      _____________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)                                         AR20100026573



3


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1

ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont)                                    AR20110022611 



2


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1