IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 31 July 2014 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20140011505 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 that he be awarded the Combat Infantryman Badge (CIB). 2. The applicant states he served in Iraq from 16 October 2006 through 13 January 2008 and he was engaged with improvised explosive devices (IED), vehicle borne IEDs (VBIEDs), and small arms contact while serving with Bravo Company, 2nd Battalion, 5th Cavalry Regiment, 1st Cavalry Division. He was awarded the CIB but never received orders for the award. 3. The applicant provides a two-page memorandum from his counsel, copies of his denial for award of the CIB by the U.S. Army Human Resources Command (HRC), eight sworn statements, and a copy of his Enlisted Record Brief (ERB). CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE: 1. The applicant enlisted in the Regular Army on 14 June 2005 for a period of 3 years and 16 weeks and training as an infantryman. He completed his one-station unit training and was transferred to Fort Hood, Texas for assignment to Bravo Company, 2nd Battalion, 5th Cavalry Regiment, 1st Cavalry Division. He deployed to Iraq with his unit during the period 16 October 2008 – 13 January 2008. 2. He has remained on active duty through continuous reenlistments and was promoted to the rank of sergeant on 1 April 2013. 3. On 6 August 2013, HRC disapproved his request for award of the CIB and cited as the basis for disapproval that while the applicant had been engaged by direct fire weapons, the applicant’s unit was not engaged in active ground combat and because the sworn statements he submitted contained conflicting dates and cited conflicting injuries. 4. The applicant has submitted sworn statements from his platoon sergeant and battalion commander at the time. The battalion commander confirms that the applicant did engage the enemy, was within the bursting radius of IEDs, and was in imminent danger. He also cites engagements that occurred on 10 December 2006 and 28 May 2007. 5. The sworn statement from his platoon sergeant confirms the 10 December 2006 engagement and provides a list of members on that patrol, which includes the applicant. 6. A search of records of the names provided by the platoon sergeant indicates that at least seven of the members of the patrol received either the CIB or the Combat Medical Badge (CMB) for the 10 December 2006 engagement. One of the CIBs was awarded posthumously. All of the names could not be searched due to lack of specific identifying data such as a social security number. 7. Army Regulation 600-8-22 (Military Awards), as amended by Military Personnel Message 08-190, states the CIB may be awarded to an infantryman satisfactorily performing infantry duties, assigned to an infantry unit during such time as the unit is engaged in active ground combat, and actively participating in such ground combat. Specific requirements state, in effect, that an Army Soldier must have an infantry or special forces specialty/military occupational specialty and must have satisfactorily performed duty while assigned or attached as a member of an infantry, ranger, or special forces unit of brigade, regimental, or smaller size during any period such unit was engaged in active ground combat. A Soldier must be personally present and under hostile fire while serving in an assigned infantry or special forces primary duty, in a unit actively engaged in ground combat with the enemy, to close with and destroy the enemy with direct fires. 8. Army Regulation 600-8-22 also states that IEDs, VBIEDs, and the like are direct fire weapons. While no fixed, qualifying distance from an explosion of these devices can be established, commanders should consider the entirety of the combat situation when considering award of the CIB. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS: 1. The applicant’s contention and supporting documents have been carefully considered and it appears that the applicant did qualify for award of the CIB. 2. Given the battalion commander’s statement and the fact that many of the members of the applicant’s patrol received the CIB and CMB, it is reasonable to presume that the applicant should have been awarded the CIB as well. 3. The applicant contends that he was awarded the CIB but he never received orders. Therefore, it would be in the interest of equity that orders be published awarding him the CIB effective 10 December 2006, while the applicant was serving in the rank of Private First Class (PFC) with Bravo Company, 2nd Battalion, 5th Cavalry Regiment, 1st Cavalry Division. BOARD VOTE: ____X___ ___X____ ____X___ GRANT FULL RELIEF ________ ________ ________ GRANT PARTIAL RELIEF ________ ________ ________ GRANT FORMAL HEARING ________ ________ ________ DENY APPLICATION BOARD DETERMINATION/RECOMMENDATION: The Board determined that the evidence presented was sufficient to warrant a recommendation for relief. As a result, the Board recommends that all Department of the Army records of the individual concerned be corrected by issuing the applicant orders awarding him the CIB effective 10 December 2006, while the applicant was serving in the rank of PFC with Bravo Company, 2nd Battalion, 5th Cavalry Regiment, 1st Cavalry Division. _______ _ 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) AR20140011505 3 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 1 ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont) AR20140011505 2 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 1