BOARD DATE:	  3 June 2014

		DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20130015836 


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 reconsideration of his earlier request for award of the:

* Army Good Conduct Medal
* National Defense Service Medal
* Cold War Certificate
* Army Commendation Medal

2.  The applicant states:

* his mother was diagnosed with cancer in 1977 when he was processed through the Expeditious Discharge Program (EPD)
* his mother needed him to take care of her
* he made a deal with the Army to transfer to the National Guard in his home state and advised them that he wanted to go back to school
* in 1987, he was going through a divorce and his brother was killed at work
* his record shows he has served in the Army to the best of his abilities
* he was a member of the Junior Reserve Officers' Training Corps prior to joining the Regular Army

3.  The applicant provides:

* self-authored statements
* copies of two envelopes
* membership card for The American Legion
* DD Form 214 (Report of Separation from Active Duty)
* National Guard Bureau (NGB) Form 22 (Report of Separation and Record of Service)
* Letter from the Deputy Chief of Staff, Information Management, Illinois Army and Air National Guard, Springfield, IL, dated 2 April 2001
* NGB Form 23 (Retirement Credits Record)

CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:

1.  Incorporated herein by reference are military records which were summarized in the previous consideration of the applicant's case by the Army Board for Correction of Military Records (ABCMR) in Docket Number AR20120014031, on 19 February 2013.

2.  The applicant provides new arguments not previously considered by the Board and as such warrant reconsideration.

3.  The applicant enlisted in the Regular Army on 31 August 1976.  

4.  On 3 October 1977, the applicant’s commander notified him that he was initiating action to discharge him from the service under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations – Enlisted Personnel), chapter 5 and the Expeditious Discharge Program (EDP).  He cited as the basis for his recommendation the applicant’s:

* inability to adapt socially and emotionally
* inability to accept instructions and directions
* substandard performance
* demonstrated lack of cooperation with peers and superiors

The applicant's commander also advised him that he had the right to decline the discharge.

5.  The applicant consented to the discharge and elected not to submit a statement in his own behalf.

6.  The separation authority interviewed the applicant before he approved the discharge and directed that he be furnished an Honorable Discharge Certificate.

7.  On 22 November 1977, the applicant was honorably discharged under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 5-37, due to failure to maintain acceptable standards for retention and the EDP.  He completed 1 year, 2 months, and 22 days of creditable active service.  The DD Form 214 he was issued shows he was awarded only marksmanship badges.
8.  The applicant has requested award of the Cold War Recognition Certificate.  This certificate is not governed by the provisions of Army Regulation 600-8-22 (Military Awards) and, as a result, is not shown on a discharge document.  The Secretary of Defense approved awarding the Cold War Recognition Certificate to all members of the armed forces and qualified federal government civilian personnel who faithfully and honorably served the United States anytime during the Cold War era, which is defined as 2 September 1945 to 26 December 1991.  The applicant was previously advised to submit a request in writing to Commander, U.S. Army Human Resources Command, Cold War Recognition, ATTN: AHRC-CWRS, 1600 Spearhead Division Avenue, Fort Knox, KY  40122.  Based on this information, the applicant’s request for the Cold War Recognition Certificate will not be discussed any further in this Record of Proceedings.

9.  The Department of the Army began testing the EDP in October 1973.  In a message dated 8 November 1974 the Deputy Chief of Staff for Personnel announced the expansion of the EDP.  The program provided for the separation of Soldiers whose acceptability, performance of duty, and/or potential for continued effective service fall below the standards required for retention in the Army.  Soldiers may be separated under this program when subjective evaluation of their commanders identifies them as lacking qualities for continued military service because of attitude, motivation, self-discipline, inability to adapt socially or emotionally, or failure to demonstrate promotion potential.  Soldiers considered for separation under this expanded program had to agree to separation under this program.  Soldiers who did not agree to separation under this provision were not exempt from separation under another provision of the regulation.

10.  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.  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.

11.  Army Regulation 600-8-22 (Military Awards) states the National Defense Service Medal is awarded for honorable active service for any period between  27 July 1950 and 27 July 1954, 1 January 1961 and 14 August 1974, 2 August 1990 and 30 November 1995, and 11 September 2001 and a date to be determined.  
12.  Army Regulation 600-8-22 states the Army Commendation Medal may be awarded to any member of the Armed Forces of the United States who, while serving in any capacity with the Army after 6 December 1941, distinguishes himself or herself by heroism, meritorious achievement, or meritorious service.  As with all personal decorations, formal recommendations, approval through the chain of command, and announcement in orders are required.

13.  Title 10, U.S. Code, section 1130, provides the legal authority for consideration of proposals for decorations not previously submitted in a timely fashion.  Upon the request of a Member of Congress, the Secretary concerned shall review a proposal for the award of or upgrading of a decoration.  Based upon such review, the Secretary shall determine the merits of approving the award.

14.  The request, with a DA Form 638 (Recommendation for Award), must be submitted through a Member of Congress to:  Commander, U.S. Army Human Resources Command, ATTN:  AHRC-PDP-A, 1600 Spearhead Division Avenue, Fort Knox, KY  40122.  The unit must be clearly identified, along with the period of assignment and the recommended award.  A narrative of the actions or period for which recognition is being requested must accompany the DA Form 638.  Requests should be supported by sworn affidavits, eyewitness statements, certificates, and related documents.  Supporting evidence is best provided by commanders, leaders, and fellow Soldiers who had personal knowledge of the facts relative to the request.  The burden and costs for researching and assembling supporting documentation rest with the applicant.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The applicant's request for award of the Army Good Conduct Medal, National Defense Service Medal, and Army Commendation Medal was carefully considered.

2.  The applicant's substandard performance and lack of cooperation with superiors and peers appears to have rendered him ineligible for award of the Army Good Conduct Medal.  Further, he fails to provide evidence to the contrary.

3.  There is no evidence indicating he was recommended for or awarded the Army Commendation Medal.

4.  Absent orders awarding him the Army Commendation Medal or official documentation confirming that such orders were published, there is an insufficient basis upon which to correct his DD Form 214 to show this award.
5.  While the available evidence is insufficient for awarding the applicant the Army Commendation Medal, this in no way affects his/ right to pursue his claim for award of the Army Commendation Medal by submitting a request through his Member of Congress under the provisions of Title 10, U.S. Code, section 1130.

6.  The applicant did not serve during a qualifying period of service for award of the National Defense Service Medal; therefore, he is not entitled to this award.

7.  In view of the above, there is an insufficient evidentiary basis for granting the requested relief.

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 to amend the decision of the ABCMR set forth in Docket Number AR20120014031, dated 19 February 2013.




      _______ _   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)                                         AR20130015836



3


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1

ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont)                                         AR20130015836



2


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1