| Mr. Carl W. S. Chun | Director | |
| Mr. Jessie B. Strickland | Analyst |
| Ms. Irene N. Wheelwright | Chairperson | |
| Ms. Melinda M. Darby | Member | |
| Mr. John T. Meixell | Member |
2. The applicant requests, in effect, that he be awarded the Combat Infantryman Badge (CIB) and the Expert Marksmanship Qualification Badge with Bayonet bar.
3. The applicant states, in effect, that he was a forward observer in an infantry unit in Vietnam from 1968 to 1969 and encountered hostile fire, but was never awarded the CIB. He also states that he qualified as expert with the bayonet in basic training and desires to receive the qualification badge associated with that qualification.
4. The applicant’s military records show that he was inducted in Los Angeles, California on 13 June 1967. He underwent basic combat training at Fort Ord, California, and was transferred to Fort Polk, Louisiana, to undergo his advanced individual training (AIT) as an infantry indirect fire crewman. He successfully completed his training and was transferred to Hawaii, where he was assigned as a forward observer with Company B, 4th Battalion, 21st Infantry Regiment, 11th Infantry Brigade. On 12 April 1968, he was transferred with his unit to Vietnam. On 20 June 1968, he was slotted as a radio telephone operator and was advanced to the pay grade of E-4 on 17 August 1968.
5. He departed Vietnam on 22 January 1969 for Fort Lewis, Washington, where he was honorably released from active duty (REFRAD) on 23 January 1969, as an early overseas returnee. He had served 1 year, 7 months and 11 days of total active service and his report of separation shows he was awarded the National Defense Service, the Vietnam Service Medal, the Republic of Vietnam Campaign Medal and marksmanship qualification badges for the M-14 Rifle, M-16 Rifle, 45 Caliber pistol and 81MM Mortar.
6. A review of his Official Military Personnel File shows that he had excellent conduct and efficiency ratings throughout his service and there is no indication of any derogatory information or disciplinary action being taken against him while in the service. His records also show that on 29 January 1969, a week after his REFRAD, orders were published in Vietnam, which awarded him the Army Commendation Medal (ARCOM) for meritorious service in Vietnam. However, there is no indication that the award was ever entered on his report of separation (DD Form 214). His records also failed to show that he ever qualified for award of the Expert Marksmanship Qualification Badge with Bayonet bar.
7. Army Regulation 672-5-1, in effect at the time, established the criteria for award of the CIB. It states, in pertinent part, that to be eligible for the CIB, an individual must be an infantryman with an infantry military occupational specialty (MOS) and must perform duty as an infantryman, as a member of an infantry unit of brigade or smaller size, during any period in which that unit was engaged in ground combat. Battle participation credit alone is not sufficient.
8. Army Regulation 672-5-1 also prescribed Army policy, criteria, and administrative instructions concerning award of the Army Good Conduct Medal (AGCM). It states, in pertinent part, that the AGCM was established by Executive Order 8809, 28 June 1941 and was amended by Executive Order 9323, 1943 and by Executive Order 10444, 10 April 1953 and is awarded for exemplary behavior, efficiency, and fidelity in active Federal military service. The regulation also states, in pertinent part, that for first award only, upon termination of service on or after 27 June 1950, a period of service of less than 3 years but more than 1 year qualifies for award of the AGCM.
9. Army Pamphlet 672-3 (Unit Citation and Campaign Participation Credit Register-Vietnam Era) was published to assist commanders and personnel officers in determining or establishing the eligibility of individual members for campaign participation credit, assault landing credit, and unit citation badges awarded during the Vietnam Conflict.
10. Table 1 (Army Units in Numerical Order) of the pamphlet indicates that the applicant’s unit was authorized the Republic of Vietnam Gallantry Cross with Palm (RVNGC w/palm) Unit Citation for service in Vietnam during the period in which the applicant served in the unit.
CONCLUSIONS:
1. While the applicant was an infantryman assigned to an infantry unit in Vietnam, there is no evidence in the available records to show that he engaged the enemy in combat. Accordingly, there appears to be no basis to award him the CIB.
2. However, his unit was awarded the RVNGC w/Palm Unit Citation for the period he served with the unit and is entitled to be awarded it at this time.
3. After carefully examining the applicant’s record of service, the Board has determined that the applicant should have received the AGCM for his service from 13 June 1967 to 23 January 1969. This conclusion is based on the fact that the record is void of any derogatory information, which would preclude the applicant from being awarded the AGCM, and the lack of any specific action by the applicant’s unit commander to disqualify him from receiving the award. The Board found that the applicant not receiving the AGCM was likely the result of an administrative error as opposed to it being the result of a conscious disqualification by any of the unit commanders for which he served. Therefore, in the interest of justice, the Board determined that this error should be corrected and the applicant should receive the AGCM at this time.
4. Additionally, the applicant was awarded the ARCOM and it appears that an administrative oversight resulted in the award not being entered on his DD Form 214. Therefore, it would be in the interest of justice to do so at this time.
5. Although the applicant may have received training with the bayonet during basic training, there is no indication in the available records to show that he actually qualified with that weapon. This is further supported by the fact that his records contain qualification orders for the weapons qualifications indicated on his DD Form 214 and records. Accordingly, there appears to be no basis to grant that portion of his request.
6. In view of the foregoing, the applicant’s records should be corrected as recommended below.
RECOMMENDATION:
1. That all of the Department of the Army records related to this case be corrected:
a. by awarding the individual concerned the AGCM for the period of 13 June 1967 to 23 January 1969.
b. by awarding him the RVNGC w/Palm Unit Citation and by showing that he was awarded the ARCOM.
2. That so much of the application as is in excess of the foregoing be denied.
BOARD VOTE:
__jm____ __md ___ ___inw __ GRANT AS STATED IN RECOMMENDATION
________ ________ ________ GRANT FORMAL HEARING
________ ________ ________ DENY APPLICATION
___Irene N. Wheelwright___
CHAIRPERSON
| CASE ID | AR2001066255 |
| SUFFIX | |
| RECON | YYYYMMDD |
| DATE BOARDED | 2002/04/16 |
| TYPE OF DISCHARGE | |
| DATE OF DISCHARGE | |
| DISCHARGE AUTHORITY | |
| DISCHARGE REASON | |
| BOARD DECISION | GRANT |
| REVIEW AUTHORITY | |
| ISSUES 1. 107.0020 | 66/ARCOM |
| 2. 107.0056 | 102/AGCM |
| 3. 107.0111 | 157/CIB |
| 4. 107.0094 | 140/RVNGC |
| 5. 107.0108 | 154/EXP MM BAD |
| 6. |
ARMY | BCMR | CY2003 | 2003091562C070212
The Board considered the following evidence: Exhibit A - Application for correction of military records. However, his record does show that he earned the PH, for being wounded in action while serving in the RVN and that he received the Parachutist Badge based on his completion of the Airborne Course. As a result, the Board recommends that all Department of the Army records of the individual concerned be corrected by: a. awarding him the Army Good Conduct Medal, for his qualifying period of...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2003 | 2003091450C070212
After carefully examining the applicant’s record of service, the Board has determined that the applicant should have received the AGCM for his service from 16 November 1967 through 19 October 1969. Therefore, in the interest of justice, the Board determined that this error should be corrected and the applicant should receive the AGCM at this time. The Board determined that the evidence presented was sufficient to warrant a recommendation for partial relief and to excuse failure to timely file.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2012 | 20120002427
Therefore, it would be appropriate and serve the interest of justice and equity to award him the first award of the AGCM for his qualifying period of honorable active duty service from 9 July 1968 through 20 April 1970, and to add this award to his record and DD Form 214. Notwithstanding the staff DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS above, the Board believed that the evidence concerning the Army Commendation Medal, i.e., the award certificate, was insufficient without corroborating orders to support...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2014 | 20140013315
The applicant provides: * orders for the 1st Class Gunner Badge with Machine Gun Bar, ARCOM with "V" Device, BSM with "V" Device, BSM with 1st Oak Leaf Cluster, and Purple Heart * DA Form 1577 (Authorization for Issuance of Awards) * certificate of training * official statement of award of AGCM * DD Form 214 CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE: 1. 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...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2010 | 20100021990
The evidence of record confirms the applicant was awarded the AGCM (1st Award) for his qualifying period of honorable service from 28 May 1965 to 27 May 1968. The evidence of record in this case confirms that although the applicant served in duty MOS 11B during his RVN tour, he never held an infantry MOS. As a result, the Board recommends that all Department of the Army records of the individual concerned be corrected by: a. awarding him the Army Good Conduct Medal (2nd Award) for his...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2011 | 20110019345
It shows that during the applicant's tenure of assignment in the RVN, his unit, 3rd Battalion, 39th Infantry Regiment, was cited for award of the RVN Gallantry Cross with Palm Unit Citation for the period 1 July-13 November 1968 by Department of the Army GO (DAGO) 31, dated 1969 and the RVN Civil Actions Honor Medal First Class Unit Citation for the period 19 December 1968-28 June 1969 by DAGO 43, dated 1970. In this case, the evidence of record clearly shows the applicant was assigned to...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2015 | 20150003391
His DA Form 20 shows in: * item 31 (Foreign Service), he served a tour of duty in the Republic of Vietnam (RVN) beginning on 2 December 1967 * item 38 (Record of Assignments), he was assigned to * Company C, 3rd Battalion (Airborne), 187th Infantry from 4 December 1967 to 19 December 1967 * Headquarters and Headquarters Company, 3rd Battalion, 187th Infantry, from 20 December 1967 to 26 December 1968 * item 41 (Awards and Decorations) * National Defense Service Medal (NDSM) * Vietnam...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2009 | 20090004174
Paragraph 2-13 of the awards regulation contains guidance on award of the VSM and states, in pertinent part, that a bronze service star is authorized with this award for each campaign a member is credited with participating in while serving in the RVN. As a result, it would be appropriate to award the applicant the PH 1st Oak Leaf Cluster (2nd Award) for being wounded in action in the RVN on 28 March 1968 and to add the entry PH 1st Oak Leaf Cluster (2nd Award) to item 24 of his DD Form...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2003 | 2003087598C070212
The applicant requests that his records be corrected to reflect awards of the Purple Heart and the Combat Infantryman Badge (CIB). The regulation also states, in pertinent part, that for first award only, upon termination of service on or after 27 June 1950, a period of service of less than 3 years, but more than 1 year, qualifies for award of the AGCM. After carefully examining the applicant’s record of service, the Board has determined that the applicant should have received the AGCM for...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2011 | 20110003349
Department of the Army Pamphlet 672-3 (Unit Citation and Campaign Participation Credit Register) lists the awards received by units serving in Vietnam. Although the applicant's record is void of specific evidence of his personal participation in active ground combat with his unit in the RVN, it does confirm he served as an infantryman in MOS 11C with a qualifying infantry unit during his tour of duty in the RVN. As a result, the Board recommends that all Department of the Army records of...