IN THE CASE OF:
BOARD DATE: 2 July 2014
DOCKET NUMBER: AR20130017824
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, through his Member of Congress, requests award of the Army Good Conduct Medal and correction of his DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty) to show this award.
2. The applicant states he served in the Army from May 1979 to May 1983. He never received any disciplinary actions, passed all required training and the Army Physical Fitness Tests, and received an honorable discharge. However, he never received an Army Good Conduct Medal. His understanding is with a good service record you are eligible for an Army Good Conduct Medal for every 3 years served. He recalls that other Soldiers he served with who had received Article 15s also received an Army Good Conduct Medal. He served proudly and he deserves this medal.
3. The applicant provides his DD Form 214, DD Form 215 (Correction to DD Form 214), and a letter.
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 10 May 1979 for a period of 4 years and he held military occupational specialty 63H (Track Vehicle Repairman). On 2 October 1979, he was assigned to the 703rd Maintenance Battalion, Germany.
3. On 16 March 1981, a Bar to Reenlistment Certificate was placed against him. His immediate commander had recommended a Bar to Reenlistment be placed against him as he (the applicant) had been in the Army Weight Control Program for a period of 12 months and was still 24 pounds overweight.
4. On 3 November 1981, he was assigned to the 1st Maintenance Battalion, Fort Riley, KS.
5. On 15 February and 9 August 1982, his immediate commander reviewed the Bar to Reenlistment Certificate and determined it would stay in place as he was still in the weight control program and had not made satisfactory progress.
6. On 8 February and 24 March 1983, his immediate commander reviewed the Bar to Reenlistment Certificate and determined it would stay in place as he was still in the weight control program and had not made satisfactory progress.
7. He was honorably released from active duty on 9 May 1983 by reason of expiration of his term of service and he was transferred to the U.S. Army Reserve. He completed 4 years of creditable active service.
8. The DD Form 214 he was issued does not show the Army Good Conduct Medal (1st Award).
9. Item 27 (Remarks) of his DA Form 2-1 (Personnel Qualification Record) contains an entry that shows he was not recommended for the Army Good Conduct on 24 March 1983.
10. Army Regulation 600-31 (Suspension of Favorable Personnel Actions (Flag)), the version in effect at the time, prescribed policies and procedures to prevent favorable personnel actions from being initiated or completed when such actions would not serve the best interests of the Army. It stated, in part, such actions included promotion, awards and decorations, and attendance at service
schools. Favorable actions would be suspended when administrative separation or court-martial had been initiated, nonjudicial punishment had been initiated, and when a member was entered in a weight control program under Army Regulation 600-9 (Army Weight Control Program).
DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:
The evidence of record confirms the applicant was in the Army Weight Control Program from on or about May 1980 until his release from active duty on 9 May 1983. In accordance with governing regulations, a flag would have been placed against him upon his enrollment in the weight control program and stayed in place while he was in the program. While the flag was in place, he was ineligible for any favorable actions to include award of the Army Good Conduct Medal. Therefore, he is not entitled to 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 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) AR20130017824
3
ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
1
ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont) AR20130017824
2
ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
1
ARMY | BCMR | CY2012 | 20120019478
The applicant requests that his records be corrected to show he was promoted to the pay grade of E-5. Army Regulation 600-200 (Enlisted Promotions) in effect at the time served as the authority for enlisted promotions. The applicants contention that he would have been promoted to the pay grade of E-5 had he been able to reenlist has been noted; however, he has failed to show through the evidence of record and the evidence submitted with his application that he was ever eligible for...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2013 | 20130013174
This memorandum informed the FSM that he was 22 to 27 pounds over the weight standards prescribed in Army Regulation 600-9 (The Army Weight Control Program). (3) ARPC 600-E which shows he served in the: (a) Regular Army from 1 February 1967 to 30 April 1971 and was credited with 5 good years for retirement (50 or more retirement points per year). * 1 May 1971 to 30 April 1972: 15 points * 1 May 1972 to 2 October 1972: 6 points (c) ARNG from 9 December 1972 to 4 March 1978 and was credited...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2003 | 2003090647C070212
He was denied extension of his enlistment at his expiration term of service (ETS) but the underlying reason was a suspension of favorable personnel actions for being on the Army's weight control program. The 24 January 2002 letter from The Office of the Adjutant General, State of California indicates the applicant's unit requested a one-time waiver, not to exceed 12 months, in order for him to extend to qualify towards attaining 20 qualifying years for retirement. Since he was 48 years old...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2003 | 2003086698C070212
It also states that such requests for bars to reenlistment will be forwarded to Commander, U.S. Army Enlistment Eligibility Activity in St. Louis, Missouri and will contain a statement that it is the intent of the commander(s) concerned to deny the soldier the opportunity to attain retirement eligibility. Army Regulation 600-8-22 (Military Awards) provides in paragraph 4-8(b) that an individual whose retention is not warranted under standards prescribed in Army Regulation 604-10, paragraph...
ARMY | BCMR | CY1990-1993 | 9108000
Also, he now requests, in effect, placement on the permanent disability retired list, removal of the enlisted evaluation report (EER) covering the period September 1977-August 1978 as a partial basis for the HQDA bar to reenlistment, and the award of the Good Conduct Medal (6th Award). On 3 April 1989, the Board of Veterans Appeals, indicated that the applicant had active service from May 1970 to April 1972 and from December 1972 to March 1986; that the applicant had a transitory psychotic...
ARMY | DRB | CY2005 | 20050005497
Certificates of Achievement, Letters of Appreciation, and similar documents are not authorized for entry on a Soldier's DD Form 214. The military medal of gold and green the applicant described is not an authorized medal awarded by the Army or by the Department of Defense to Army personnel. From the description of the medal given by the applicant, the description of the event – a world wide event, his geographical assignment at the time, and the evidence – that he received a certificate of...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2004 | 2004101651C070208
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. In this earlier application for correction of her records, the applicant did not request addition of the Army Commendation Medal to her DD Form 214. AR 600-9, paragraph 22.a, which was in effect at the time the applicant was recommended for award of the Army Commendation Medal, in pertinent part, states that...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2011 | 20110017724
Application for correction of military records (with supporting documents provided, if any). He further states he was denied promotion to the rank of SGT at the time of his medical retirement due to a DA Form 268 (Report to Suspend Favorable Personnel Actions (Flag)) for being overweight while he had a physical profile for a back injury which was placed on his records on 5 August 2009. The applicant provides a DA Form 4856, dated 10 June 2010, which shows he was not recommended for...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2006 | 20060001059C070205
On 27 February 2005, the applicant was administered a "for record APFT" in which he passed the push-ups and sit-ups and failed the 2-mile run and was not within body fat standards. The applicant was administered a for record APFT in which he passed the push-ups and sit-ups but was not within body fat standards and he failed the 2-mile run. The advisory opinion restates that the applicant's contention that he was not allowed due process in appealing his bar to reenlistment carries...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2014 | 20140016105
The applicant states she was barred from reenlistment on 30 November 1982 for weight control. On 30 November 1982, her commander initiated a Bar to Reenlistment Certificate due to her NJP on 26 January 1981 for being AWOL. There is no evidence her varicose veins or possible asthma prevented her from performing the duties of her rank and MOS.