IN THE CASE OF:	  

		BOARD DATE:  1 November 2012

		DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20120008160 


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 award of the Army Good Conduct Medal (AGCM), Meritorious Unit Commendation (MUC) (2nd award), and the Republic of Vietnam Gallantry Cross with Palm Unit Citation and that his campaign participation be reflected on his DD Form 214 (Armed Forces of the United States Report of Transfer or Discharge).

2.  The applicant states that both of the units he served with in Vietnam were awarded the MUC and all units that served in Vietnam were awarded the Republic of Vietnam Gallantry Cross with Palm Unit Citation.  He goes on to state that he had two honorable discharges and was not awarded the AGCM and his campaign participation is not reflected on his DD Form 214.

3.  The applicant provides copies of his DD Forms 214, his record of assignments from his DA Form 20 (Enlisted Qualification Record), two pages from Department of the Army Pamphlet 672-3 (Unit Citation and Campaign Participation Credit Register), and a copy of General Order Number 18.

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 30 June 1966 for a period of    4 years.  He completed his basic training and advanced individual training as a cook at Fort Dix, New Jersey and was transferred to Germany on 11 November 1966.  He was advanced to the pay grade of E-4 on 18 August 1967.

3.  On 12 November 1967, he was honorably discharged for the purpose of immediate reenlistment.  He had served 1 year, 4 months and 13 days of active service.

4.  On 13 November 1967, he reenlisted in Bueren, Germany for a period of        3 years and his present duty assignment.  He departed Germany on 28 June 1968 for assignment to Fort Leavenworth, Kansas.

5.  He was transferred to Vietnam on 19 December 1968 and was assigned to Headquarters and Headquarters Company, 63rd Signal Battalion and on            28 February 1969 he was assigned to the 588th Signal Company.  On 7 July 1969, he was reassigned back to Headquarters and Headquarters Company, 63rd Signal Battalion.  He received "unsatisfactory" conduct and efficiency ratings from the 588th Signal Company commander.

6.  He served in four campaigns and departed Vietnam on 18 December 1969 for assignment to an artillery battery at Fort Hancock, New Jersey.

7.  On 12 November 1970 he was honorably released from active duty in the pay grade of E-2 due to the expiration of his term of service.  His DD Form 214 issued at the time of his discharge shows that he was awarded the National Defense Service Medal, the Republic of Vietnam Campaign Medal with Device (1960), the Vietnam Service Medal, the Sharpshooter Marksmanship Qualification Badge with Rifle Bar, and two overseas service bars.

8.  A review of his official record shows he received a "Good" efficiency rating during the period 1 July - 27 November 1968.  He received "Fair" conduct and efficiency ratings from his last duty assignment.  He also received an Enlisted Evaluation Report (EER) that contained "unsatisfactory" ratings in all areas.  His DA Form 20 also contains an entry indicating that he was not favorably considered for the AGCM.  His records also show that nonjudicial punishment was imposed against him on four occasions.
9.  Department of the Army Pamphlet 672-3 (Unit Citation and Campaign Participation Credit Register) was published to assist commanders and personnel officers in determining or establishing the eligibility of Soldiers for campaign participation credit, assault landing credit, and unit citation badges awarded during the Vietnam Conflict.  It shows that the applicant's units were both awarded the MUC and the Republic of Vietnam Gallantry Cross with Palm Unit Citation during the period he served with the unit. 

10.  Army Regulation 600-8-22 (Military Awards) states a bronze service star based on qualifying service for each campaign listed in appendix B will be worn on the appropriate service medal.  

11.  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.  Additionally, paragraph 3-3e provides that discharge for immediate reenlistment is not deemed termination of service.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The applicant served in four campaigns in Vietnam and thus is entitled to wear four bronze service stars on his already-awarded Vietnam Service Medal and to have them added to his DD Form 214.

2.  His two units in Vietnam were both awarded the MUC and the Republic of Vietnam Gallantry Cross with Palm Unit Citation which entitles him to have the MUC (2nd award) and the Republic of Vietnam Gallantry Cross with Palm Unit Citation (2nd award) added to his DD Form 214.

3.  However, the applicant's contention that he should be awarded the AGCM has been considered and appears to lack merit.  His official records indicate that his commander considered him for the AGCM and elected not to favorably consider him for the award.  The applicant had "unsatisfactory" and "fair" conduct and efficiency ratings and a "good" efficiency rating during his service and NJP was imposed on at least four occasions.

4.  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.  It appears that the applicant's service did not meet those standards and there appears to be no basis to award him the AGCM. 

BOARD VOTE:

________  ________  ________  GRANT FULL RELIEF 

___X____  ____X __  ____X___  GRANT PARTIAL RELIEF 

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

________  ________  ________  DENY APPLICATION

BOARD DETERMINATION/RECOMMENDATION:

1.  The Board determined that the evidence presented was sufficient to warrant a recommendation for partial relief.  As a result, the Board recommends that all Department of the Army records of the individual concerned be corrected by:

* Deleting the award of the Vietnam Service Medal from his DD Form 214 dated 12 November 1970
* Adding the awards of the Vietnam Service Medal with four bronze service stars, MUC (2nd award), and the Republic of Vietnam Gallantry Cross with Palm Unit Citation (2nd award) to his DD Form 214

2.  The Board further determined that the evidence presented is insufficient to warrant a portion of the requested relief.  As a result, the Board recommends denial of so much of the application that pertains to awarding him the AGCM.



      _______ _   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)                                         AR20120008160





3


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1

ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont)                                         AR20120008160



2


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1