IN THE CASE OF:	  

		BOARD DATE:  22 January 2013

		DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20120012831 


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 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty) to add the Combat Action Badge (CAB) and to remove the Army Commendation Medal (ARCOM) (2nd Award).

2.  The applicant states he was awarded the ARCOM after the period of active duty covered by his DD Form 214 for the period ending 12 April 2005.

3.  The applicant provides:

* Orders 310-153, issued by the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, Department of Military and Veterans Affairs, dated 6 November 2003
* DD Form 214 for the period ending 12 April 2005
* DA Form 2-1 (Personnel Qualification Record), prepared on 18 April 2005
* Permanent Orders 008-0033, issued by Headquarters, 28th Signal Battalion, Pennsylvania Army National Guard (PAARNG), dated
28 November 2005
* National Guard Bureau (NGB) Form 22 (Report of Separation and Record of Service), for the period ending 4 August 2008
* DA Form 638 (Recommendation for Award), dated 26 August 2008
* NGB Form 22A (Correction to NGB Form 22), dated 15 June 2012

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.  After having had prior service in the U.S. Coast Guard, the applicant enlisted in the PAARNG on 22 May 1993.

3.  Orders 310-153, dated 6 November 2003, ordered to applicant to active duty effective duty 14 November 2003 in support of Operation Iraqi Freedom (OIF).

4.  On 12 April 2005, he was honorably released from active duty at the completion of required active service.  The DD Form 214 he was issued at the time shows award of the:

* Overseas Service Bar (2nd award)
* ARCOM (2nd award)
* Army Achievement Medal
* Coast Guard Meritorious Unit Commendation
* Coast Guard Good Conduct Medal
* National Defense Service Medal
* Noncommissioned Officer Professional Development Ribbon
* Armed Forces Reserve Medal with "M" Device
* Global War on Terrorism Service Medal
* Global War on Terrorism Expeditionary Medal

5.  His DA Form 2-1, prepared on 18 April 2005, shows in block 9 (Awards, Decorations, and Campaigns), among other awards, the ARCOM (2nd Award).

6.  Permanent Orders 008-0033, dated 28 November 2005, awarded him the CAB for actively engaging or being engaged by the enemy on 5 May 2004.

7.  His record contains a copy of Permanent Orders 007-0030, issued by Headquarters, 28th Signal Battalion, dated 30 September 2005, awarding him the first award of the Army Good Conduct Medal (AGCM) for the period
14 November 2003 through 12 April 2005.

8.  On 4 August 2008, he was honorably separated from the PAARNG and he was transferred to the Retired Reserve.  The NGB Form 22 he was issued shows in block 15 (Decorations, Medals, Badges, Commendations, Citations and Campaign Ribbons Awarded), among other awards, ARCOM (2nd Award).

9.  A DA Form 638, dated 26 August 2008, shows he was recommended for award of the Meritorious Service Medal for the period 21 May 1987 through
4 August 2008 by reason of retirement.  However, the approval authority downgraded the recommended award to an ARCOM.  As such, Permanent Orders Number 294-001, issued by Headquarters, 28th Infantry Division, dated 20 October 2008, awarded him the ARCOM (2nd oak leaf cluster), indicating
3rd award of the ARCOM.  Block 8 (Previous Awards) of the DA Form 638 shows he was previously awarded two awards of the ARCOM.

10.  On 15 June 2012, the applicant was issued an NGB Form 22A that corrected his NGB Form 22 by deleting the ARCOM (2nd award) and by adding the ARCOM (3rd award) and the CAB.

11.  Army Regulation 635-5 (Separations Documents) prescribes the separation documents prepared for Soldiers upon retirement, discharge, or release from active military service or control of the Army.  It establishes standardized policy for the preparation of the DD Form 214.  It states the DD Form 214 is a synopsis of the Soldier's most recent period of continuous active duty.  It provides a brief, clear-cut record of active Army service at the time of release from active duty, retirement, or discharge.  The regulation states that for block 13, list awards and decorations for all periods of service in the priority sequence specified in
Army Regulation 600-8-22 (Military Awards).

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The applicant's contention that his DD Form 214 should be corrected by deleting the ARCOM (2nd award) and adding the CAB has been carefully reviewed.

2.  Permanent orders show he was awarded the CAB and the AGCM for service during the period covered by his DD Form 214 for the period ending 12 April 2005.  Therefore, his DD Form 214 should be corrected to show these awards.

3.  Evidence shows he was awarded the ARCOM (2nd award) prior to being awarded the ARCOM (3rd Award) as evidenced by his NGB Form 22A,
DA Form 638, and DA Form 2-1.  Therefore, it appears the entry that shows the ARCOM (2nd Award) on his DD Form 214 for the period ending 12 April 2005 is correct and he has not shown through the evidence provided that this entry is incorrect.  Therefore, there is no basis for granting this portion of his request.

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 adding to his DD Form 214 for the period ending 12 April 2005 the:

* Army Good Conduct Medal (1st Award)
* Combat Action Badge

2.  The Board further determined that the evidence presented was 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 removing the Army Commendation Medal (2nd award) from his DD Form 214 for the period ending 12 April 2005.



      _______ _  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)                                         AR20120012831



3


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1

ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont)                                         AR20120012831



2


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1