IN THE CASE OF:	  

		BOARD DATE:  29 October 2013

		DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20130004450 


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 show the third award of the Meritorious Unit Commendation (MUC).

2.  He states he was assigned with the 379th Signal Battalion in Thailand during the award period of April 1965 to April 1966.  He offers that Department of the Army General Orders (DAGO) 20 were published in 1967 and were never listed in his record.

3.  He provides:

* excerpt from Department of the Army Pamphlet 672-3 (Unit Citation and Campaign Participation Credit Register)
* DA Form 137 (Installation Clearance Record)
* DAGO 20
* Special Orders (SO) 195, dated 1 December 1964
* SO 14, dated 14 January 1965
* SO 149, dated 30 June 1965
* SO 244, dated 23 October 1965
* SO 106, dated 8 December 1965
* SO 120, dated 27 December 1965


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 (RA) on 13 June 1960.  He was honorably released from active duty on 3 June 1963 and transferred to the U.S. Army Reserve.  On 31 January 1964, he again enlisted in the RA and remained there until he was honorably retired on 28 February 1991 and credited with completing over 30 years of active duty service.

3.  Item 5 (Overseas Service) of his DA Form 2-1 (Personnel Qualification Record - Part II) shows he served in Thailand from 17 January 1965 to 1 January 1966 and the Republic of Vietnam from 13 December 1966 to 12 December 1967.  He was assigned to Company C, 125th Signal Battalion during his service in Vietnam.  However, his unit of assignment during his service in Thailand is not listed.

4.  Headquarters, 2d Logistical Command, Fort Lee, VA, SO Number 195, dated 
1 December 1964, reassigned the applicant to the 207th Signal Company, Thailand, with a will proceed date of 1 December 1964.  Additionally orders show the following:

   a.  U.S. Army Personnel Center, Oakland, CA, SO Number 14, dated
14 January 1965, released the applicant from the Replacement Center and reassigned him to the 207th Signal Company.

   b.  Headquarters, 9th Logistical Command, SO Number 149, dated 30 June 1965, released the applicant from the 207th Signal Company and reassigned him to the 55th Signal Company, effective 1 July 1965.
   
   c.  Headquarters, 9th Logistical Command, SO Number 244, dated               23 October 1965, lists his unit of assignment as the 55th Signal Company in the standard name line.
   d.  Headquarters, 379th Signal Battalion, SO Number 106, dated 8 December 1965, reassigned the applicant from the 55th Signal Company to Fort Bliss, TX.  His date scheduled to return to the Continental United States was listed as 
16 January 1966.
   
5.  His Installation Clearance Record shows that on 5 January 1966 the applicant cleared his organization, 55th Signal Company.  His S-4 is shows as being with the 379th Signal Battalion.

6.  A review of the 55th Signal Company's lineage and honors history from the U.S. Army Center for Military History shows the company was awarded the MUC only for Operation Iraqi Freedom operations.

7.  DAGO Number 20 shows that the 379th Signal Battalion was awarded the MUC for exceptionally meritorious conduct in the performance of outstanding service during the period April 1965 to April 1966 in support of combat operations and the Military Assistance Program in Thailand.  The orders do not state that its subordinate units were also awarded the MUC.

8.  Item 13 of his DD Form 214 for the period ending on 28 February 1991, shows he was awarded the MUC (1st Oak Leaf Cluster).

9.  Department of the Army Pamphlet 672-3 lists the awards received by units serving in Vietnam.  This pamphlet shows the 379th Signal Battalion was awarded the MUC for the period April 1965 through April 1966 by DAGO Number 20, dated 1967.

10.  This pamphlet also shows the 125th Signal Battalion, to which the applicant was assigned, was cited for two awards of the MUC for the periods 8 November 1966 through 30 June 1967 and 1 July 1967 through 31 December 1968 by DAGO Number 17, dated 1968 and DAGO Number 36, dated 1970, respectively. 

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The evidence of record confirms that the 379th Signal Battalion was awarded the MUC during the period April 1965 through April 1966; however, the orders do not include the battalion’s subordinate units.  In addition, the U.S. Army Center for Military History shows the 55th Signal Company was awarded only one MUC, during Operation Iraqi Freedom.  

2.  In view of the foregoing, 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)                                         AR20130004450





3


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1

ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont)                                         AR20130004450



2


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1