IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 29 December 2010 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20100016528 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 award of the Combat Infantryman Badge (CIB). 2. The applicant states he was in combat and under fire many times. 3. The applicant provides the award citation for his Army Commendation Medal (ARCOM). 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’s military records show that he was inducted in the Army on 4 October 1967, was awarded the military occupational specialty (MOS) of light weapons infantryman (11B), served in Vietnam from 11 August 1968 to 7 August 1969, and was promoted to pay grade E-4. 3. While in Vietnam the applicant was assigned as a security guard with Advisory Team 75, Delta Military Assistance Command. 4. He was honorably released from active duty on 8 August 1969. 5. The ARCOM award citation provided by the applicant states the applicant was responsible for providing security for the unit, and would go on reconnaissance patrols around the compound and he volunteered to accompany infantry battalions and reconnaissance companies as a radio/telephone operator. The applicant controlled gunships, airstrikes, and directed medical evacuations under enemy fire. 6. Army Regulation 600-8-22 (Military Awards) provides, in pertinent part, that the Combat Infantryman Badge is awarded to infantry officers and to enlisted and warrant officer persons who have an infantry MOS. They must have served in active ground combat while assigned or attached to an infantry unit of brigade, regimental or smaller size. Additionally, Appendix V of USARV 672-1 provides that during the Vietnam era the Combat Infantryman Badge was awarded only to enlisted individuals who held and served in MOS 11B, 11C, 11D, 11F, 11G, or 11H. 7. Army Regulation 600-8-22 states the Combat Infantryman Badge was established during World War II to provide special recognition of the unique role of the Army infantryman, the only Soldier whose daily mission is to close with and destroy the enemy and to seize and hold terrain. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS: 1. The applicant held an infantryman MOS but served as a security guard. 2. While the applicant performed reconnaissance patrols around the compound, there is no indication that he was in active ground combat while conducting these patrols. 3. The ARCOM award citation also states that the applicant accompanied infantry and reconnaissance units as a radio/telephone operator. However, his primary duty was a security guard. It appears that it was not his daily mission to close with and destroy the enemy. 4. The applicant's ARCOM award citation states that the applicant controlled gunships, airstrikes, and directed medical evacuations under enemy fire. Upon close examination, this does not say that the applicant was engaged with the enemy in combat. Directing gunships and airstrikes can be accomplished while in garrison based on radio or telephone communications from units in the field. The comment concerning the applicant directing medical evacuations under enemy fire is a bit harder to decipher. While it could mean that the applicant was under fire while directing medical evacuations, it would appear that stronger wording would have been utilized if that had been the case. In the lack of stronger wording, it would appear that the applicant was directing medical evacuations of personnel whose units were under fire. 5. Without evidence to show the applicant served in active ground combat (engaging the enemy or was engaged by the enemy), there is insufficient evidence in which to grant the applicant's request. 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) AR20100016528 3 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 1 ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont) AR20100016528 2 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 1