IN THE CASE OF:	  

		BOARD DATE:	    19 November 2013

		DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20130005589 


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 his Sharpshooter Marksmanship Qualification Badge for the M-16 rifle and any additional medals.

2.  He states his DD Form 214 does not show any medals.  He would like a DD Form 215 (Correction to DD Form 214) indicating his qualification with the 
M-16 rifle.

3.  He provides his DD Form 214.

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 30 November 1965, the applicant was inducted into the Army of the United States.  After completing initial entry training, he was awarded military occupational specialty (MOS) 63A (Mechanical Maintenance Helper).  He later held MOS 63C (General Vehicle Repairman).

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

* item 31 (Foreign Service), he was credited with service in Vietnam from 12 December 1966 through 18 November 1967
* item 38 (Record of Assignments), he served in two units while in Vietnam –

* Headquarters and Headquarters Troop, 3rd Squadron, 5th Cavalry Regiment, 9th Infantry Division, from 12 December 1966 to 16 April 1967
* Headquarters and Headquarters Troop, 1st Squadron, 11th Armored Cavalry Regiment, from 17 April to 17 November 1967

* item 38, he received "excellent" conduct and efficiency ratings with the exception of one "good" efficiency rating during basic combat training
* item 41 (Awards and Decorations), he was awarded or authorized the –

* National Defense Service Medal (NDSM)
* Vietnam Service Medal (VSM)
* Republic of Vietnam (RVN) Campaign Medal with Device (1960)
* Sharpshooter Marksmanship Qualification Badge with Rifle Bar (M-14)

4.  On 19 November 1967, he was honorably released from active duty in the rank/grade of specialist five (SP5)/E-5 after completing 1 year, 11 months, and 20 days of total active service.

5.  His DD Form 214 shows he was awarded or authorized the:

* NDSM
* VSM
* RVN Campaign Medal with Device (1960)
* Sharpshooter Marksmanship Qualification Badge with Rifle Bar (M-14)

6.  His records are void of documentation showing he qualified with the M-16 rifle in a prescribed record course.

7.  His records are void of documentation showing he was the subject of disciplinary action during his service.  There is no evidence of a commander's disqualification that would have precluded him from being recommended for or awarded the first award of the Army Good Conduct Medal (AGCM).

8.  Army Regulation 672-5-1 (Awards), in effect at the time, stated the AGCM was awarded for each 3 years of continuous enlisted active Federal military service completed on or after 27 August 1940 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.  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.

9.  Army Regulation 600-8-22 (Military Awards) sets forth requirements for award of basic marksmanship qualification badges.  The qualification badge is awarded to indicate the degree – Expert, Sharpshooter, and Marksman – in which an individual has qualified in a prescribed record course.  An appropriate bar is furnished to denote each weapon with which the individual has qualified.

10.  Army Regulation 600-8-22 states a bronze service star is worn on the appropriate service ribbon for each credited campaign, including the VSM.  The Vietnam campaigns are listed in appendix B.  His service in Vietnam coincided with two campaigns:

* Vietnam Counteroffensive Phase II (1 July 1966-31 May 1967)
* Vietnam Counteroffensive Phase III (1 June 1967-29 January 1968)

11.  Department of the Army Pamphlet 672-3 (Unit Citation and Campaign Participation Credit Register) lists the awards received by units serving in Vietnam.

	a.  The 3rd Squadron, 5th Cavalry Regiment, was cited for award of the RVN Civil Actions Honor Medal First Class Unit Citation for the period 19 December 1966 to 15 February 1968 in Department of the Army General Orders (DAGO) Number 59, dated 1969, as amended by DAGO Number 43, dated 1970.

	b.  The 11th Armored Cavalry Regiment was cited for award of the RVN Gallantry Cross with Palm Unit Citation for the period 7 September 1966 to 10 August 1968 in DAGO Number 60, dated 1969.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The available records are void of evidence indicating the applicant qualified with the M-16 rifle in a prescribed record course.  In the absence of such evidence, there is no basis for awarding him a marksmanship qualification badge for this weapon or for adding such a badge to his DD Form 214.

2.  He received all "excellent" conduct and efficiency ratings throughout his service, except for a "good" efficiency rating during basic combat training, which is not disqualifying for award of the AGCM.  He was promoted to SP5/E-5 and there is no record of any disciplinary action taken against him.  There is also no evidence of a commander's disqualification for award of the AGCM.  Based on his overall record of service it appears an administrative error occurred resulting in the applicant not being recommended for or awarded the first award of the AGCM.  Therefore, it would be appropriate at this time to award him the AGCM (1st Award) for the period 30 November 1965 through 19 November 1967 and to correct his DD Form 214 to show this award.

3.  The evidence shows he participated in two campaigns during his service in Vietnam which entitles him to two bronze service stars for wear on his already-awarded VSM.  Therefore, his DD Form 214 should be corrected to show these bronze service stars.

4.  His assigned units were cited for award of the RVN Gallantry Cross with Palm Unit Citation and RVN Civil Actions Honor Medal First Class Unit Citation for periods that coincided with his period of service.  Therefore, his DD Form 214 should be corrected to show these unit awards.

BOARD VOTE:

________  ________  ________  GRANT FULL RELIEF 

___X____  ___X____  ___X____  GRANT PARTIAL RELIEF 

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

________  ________  ________  DENY APPLICATION

BOARD DETERMINATION/RECOMMENDATION:

1.  The Board determined the evidence presented is 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:

	a.  awarding him the AGCM (1st Award) for the period 30 November 1965 through 19 November 1967,

	b.  deleting award of the VSM from his DD Form 214, and

	c.  adding the following awards to his DD Form 214:

* AGCM (1st Award)
* VSM with two bronze service stars
* RVN Gallantry Cross with Palm Unit Citation 
* RVN Civil Actions Honor Medal First Class Unit Citation

2.  The Board further determined 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 a marksmanship qualification badge for the M-16 rifle.



      _______ _  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)                                         AR20130005589



3


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1

ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont)                                         AR20130005589



5


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1