IN THE CASE OF:	  

		BOARD DATE:	  31 May 2012

		DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20110022889 


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 the following corrections of her military records:

* Correct her last name on her DD Form 256A (Honorable Discharge Certificate)
* Issue her a DD Form 256A for her active duty service
* Award her the Army Good Conduct Medal
* Add her certificates of achievement, letters of appreciation and distinguished service to her DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty)
* Add all other awards she is authorized based on her service

2.  The applicant states she wants the errors and injustices in her records corrected.

3.  The applicant provides copies of:

* Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Form 21-4138 (Statement in Support of Claim)
* DD Form 214 effective 13 April 1979
* DD Form 256A dated 18 March 1982
* Distinguished Graduate Certificate, Fort Dix, New Jersey, undated
* Certificate of Appreciation, National Safety Council Defensive Driving Campaign, dated 18 August 1976
* Certificate of Achievement, 3rd Infantry Division, dated 28 April 1978
* Personnel News Letter, undated, alerting commanders regarding the processing of Good Conduct Medals

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.  On 14 April 1976, the applicant enlisted in the Regular Army.  She completed her initial training and was awarded military occupational specialty 64C (Motor Transport Operator).

3.  During the period from on or about 6 August 1976 to 23 February 1979, the applicant was assigned to Company B, 3rd Supply and Transport Battalion, 3rd Infantry Division, located in the Federal Republic of Germany.

	a.  On 6 October 1977, she was advanced to specialist four, pay grade E-4.

	b.  On 9 November 1978, she was convicted by a summary court-martial of willfully disobeying a lawful order to do the two-mile run.

	c.  On 13 November 1978, she was barred to reenlistment based on her attitude and personal standards which were far below expectations.

4.  On 13 April 1979, the applicant was released from active duty (REFRAD) due to completion of required active duty service.  Her separation program designator (SPD) code of LBK indicates she was denied reenlistment.  Her characterization of service was honorable.  She had completed 3 years of creditable active duty service and was transferred to the U.S. Army Reserve (USAR) Control Group (Reinforcement) to complete her military service obligation.

5.  The applicant's DD Form 214 indicates that she did not receive any decorations, medals, badges or other awards.  A review of her available personnel records failed to show she was authorized or awarded any such items.
6.  A DA Form 3725 (Army Reserve Status and Address Verification), dated 
5 February 1981, shows the applicant's last name was corrected from B _ _ _ _ to C _ _ _ _.  She signed this form using the corrected version of her last name.

7.  Orders 4-2, 663rd Engineer Company, dated 2 August 1981 reduced the applicant from specialist four, pay grade E-4 to private, pay grade E-2.

8.  A DA Form 2-1 (Personnel Qualification Record - Part II) prepared on 
21 February 1981:

	a.  shows the applicant's last name as C _ _ _ _; and

	b.  shows that her term of service expired on 18 March 1982.

9.  The DD Form 256A dated 18 March 1982, as provided by the applicant, is not contained in the available military records.  The form shows her last name as 
C _ _ _ _.

10.  Army Regulation 635-5 (Separation Documents) as then in effect, provided detailed instructions for completing separation documents, including the 
DD Form 214 and DD Form 256A. 

	a.  This regulation provided that the DD Form 214 was a summary of a Soldier's most recent period of continuous active duty.  It provided a brief, clear-cut record of active duty service at the time of release from active duty, retirement, or discharge.  It further provided for the entry of decorations, medals, badges, commendations, citations and campaign ribbons awarded or authorized.

	b.  This regulation also provided for the issuance of a DD Form 256A to Soldiers who were honorably discharged.

11.  Army Regulation 600-8-22 (Military Awards) 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.  Conviction by court-martial terminates a period of qualifying service; a new period begins the following day after completion of the sentence.



DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The applicant contends that the following corrections should be made to her military records:

* Correct her last name on her DD Form 256A
* Issue her a DD Form 256A for her active duty service
* Award her the Army Good Conduct Medal
* Add her certificates of achievement, letters of appreciation and distinguished service to her DD Form 214
* Add all other awards to which she is authorized based on her service

2.  The evidence of record clearly shows that the applicant was REFRAD on 
13 April 1979 and transferred to the USAR.  Accordingly, she is not authorized a DD Form 256A for her period of active duty service in the Regular Army because she was not discharged at that time.

3.  The evidence of record shows that the applicant had received a summary court-martial and had been barred to reenlistment based on her substandard attitude and personal standards while still on active duty.  Based on the November 1978 court-martial, she have next completed a 3-year period of service for award of the Army Good Conduct Medal in November 1981.  However, she was REFRAD in April 1979.  Therefore, her request for this medal should be denied.

4.  The last name she used while in the Regular Army differs from that used by her while in the USAR.  The last name she used in the USAR is the same name shown on the DD Form 256A issued when she was discharged from the USAR.  Accordingly, there is no error or injustice concerning this issue.

5.  The governing regulation, as then in effect, and as in effect today, does not authorize entries on the DD Form 214 for certificates of achievement, letters of appreciation or distinguished service.  Accordingly, this portion of her request should be denied.

6.  A review of her military records failed to show any other awards that she may be authorized based on her active and Reserve military service.

7.  In view of the above, the applicant's request should be denied.



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)                                         AR20110022889





3


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1

ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont)                                         AR20110022889



2


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1