| Mr. Carl W. S. Chun | Director | |
| Mr. W. W. Osborn, Jr. | Analyst |
| Mr. Raymond V. O'Connor, Jr. | Chairperson | |
| Ms. Terry L. Placek | Member | |
| Mr. Robert L. Duecaster | Member |
APPLICANT REQUESTS: Reconsideration of his earlier appeal to correct his military records by awarding him the Combat Infantryman Badge (CIB).
APPLICANT STATES: In effect, that an examination of the table of organization of his unit, Security Platoon, Headquarters and Headquarters Company, 3rd Ordnance Battalion, would reveal that it was an infantry unit of platoon size. The Security Platoon was equipped with infantry weapons and performed only infantry type duties. He performed only infantry duties in Vietnam and did not serve in an artillery military occupational specialty (MOS) at all. He contends that the ABCMR did not adequately research his original request.
NEW EVIDENCE OR INFORMATION: Incorporated herein by reference are military records which were summarized in a memorandum prepared to reflect the Board's previous consideration of the case (AR2002068509) on 4 June 2002.
The applicant’s contentions are new argument that requires Board consideration.
Army Regulation 600-8-22 prescribes Army policy and procedures concerning awards. Paragraph 8-6 provides for award of the CIB. That paragraph states that there are basically three requirements for award of the CIB. The soldier must be an infantryman satisfactorily performing infantry duties, he must be assigned to an infantry unit during such time as the unit is engaged in active ground combat, and he must actively participate in such ground combat. Specific requirements state, in effect, that an Army enlisted soldier must be have an infantry or special forces specialty, 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. Eligibility for special forces personnel (less the special forces medical sergeant) accrues from 20 December 1989.
Army Regulation 15-185 sets forth the policy and procedures for the ABCMR. It provides that, if a request for a reconsideration is received within one year of the prior consideration and the case has not been previously reconsidered, it will be resubmitted to the Board if there is evidence (including but not limited to any facts or arguments as to why relief should be granted) that was not in the record at the time of the Board’s prior consideration. The staff of the Board is authorized to determine whether or not such evidence has been submitted.
The regulation provides further guidance for reconsideration requests that are received more than 1 year after the Board’s original consideration or after the Board has already reconsidered the case. In such cases, the staff of the Board will review the request to determine if substantial relevant evidence has been submitted that shows fraud, mistake in law, mathematical miscalculation,
manifest error, or if there exists substantial relevant new evidence discovered contemporaneously with or within a short time after the Board’s original decision. If the staff finds such evidence, the case will be resubmitted to the Board. If no such evidence is found, the application will be returned without action.
DISCUSSION: Considering all the evidence, allegations, and information presented by the applicant, together with the evidence of record, applicable law and regulations, it is concluded:
1. The governing regulation provides that award of the CIB must be predicated upon both having an infantry MOS and membership in an infantry unit during active ground combat. Several security units in Vietnam were trained in and employed infantry tactics. Some were even called infantry companies, but they were not organic infantry units and their personnel were not eligible for award of the CIB.
2. In order to justify correction of a military record the applicant must show to the satisfaction of the Board, or it must otherwise satisfactorily appear, that the record is in error or unjust. The applicant has failed to submit evidence that would satisfy this requirement.
3. The overall merits of the case, including the latest submissions and arguments are insufficient as a basis for the Board to reverse its previous decision.
4. In view of the foregoing, there is no basis for granting the applicant's request.
DETERMINATION: The applicant has failed to submit sufficient relevant evidence to demonstrate the existence of probable error or injustice.
BOARD VOTE:
________ ________ ________ GRANT
________ ________ ________ GRANT FORMAL HEARING
__RVO__ __TLP __ ___RLD__ DENY APPLICATION
Carl W. S. Chun
| CASE ID | AR2002078075 |
| SUFFIX | |
| RECON | |
| DATE BOARDED | 20020424 |
| TYPE OF DISCHARGE | |
| DATE OF DISCHARGE | |
| DISCHARGE AUTHORITY | |
| DISCHARGE REASON | |
| BOARD DECISION | |
| REVIEW AUTHORITY | |
| ISSUES 1. | 107.00 |
| 2. | |
| 3. | |
| 4. | |
| 5. | |
| 6. |
ARMY | BCMR | CY2001 | 2001054785C070420
APPLICANT STATES : In effect, that he qualified for the award by having commanded an infantry company in direct combat. The applicant’s submissions are new evidence that requires Board consideration. e. Special provisions - Republic of Vietnam (1) Any officer whose basic branch is other than infantry who, under appropriate orders, has commanded a line infantry (other than a headquarters unit) unit of brigade, regimental, or smaller size for at least 30 consecutive days is deemed to have...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2007 | 20070017540
Specifically, counsel presents the following arguments: a. the Board erred in denying the applicant his CMB based on a determination that he was not assigned or attached to a medical unit of company or smaller size that was organic to an infantry unit of brigade, regiment, or smaller size and that the word or is a mutually exclusive criterion that does not require the unit of attachment or assignment to be organic to an infantry unit; b. the medical officers statement and evidence that...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2003 | 2003088165C070403
The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein. Army Regulation 600-8-22 (Military Awards) prescribes Army policy and procedures concerning awards. Although, the applicant’s DA Form 2-1 (Personnel Qualification Record) shows he was awarded an infantry MOS and served with an infantry unit while assigned to Southwest Asia, there is no evidence in the available records that the applicant was personally “present under...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2014 | 20140018662
He states, in effect, that the Board should not have denied his previous request on the basis that his unit did not have the word "infantry" in its title or that he failed to provide evidence that he was in direct combat with the enemy while in Vietnam. f. The 765th Security Platoon was the only such unit in Vietnam. He has not provided evidence showing that this Soldier was awarded the CIB for his service with the platoon.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2001 | 2001058976C070421
APPLICANT STATES : In effect, that a 28 March 1952 letter from the FSM’s division commander substantiates that he was entitled to the Combat Infantryman Badge. The submitted letter is new evidence that requires Board consideration. DISCUSSION: Considering all the evidence, allegations, and information presented by the applicant, together with the evidence of record, applicable law and regulations, it is concluded:
ARMY | BCMR | CY2009 | 20090015055
He questions how is it possible for him or other members of the 765th Security Platoon to provide evidence of participation in active ground combat when the "National Achieves and Records, or the National Personnel Records Center" were unable to find any records of personnel or activities of the 765th Security Platoon. The record shows that the applicant was assigned to the 765th Security Platoon, not a named infantry unit. The evidence of record shows the applicant was not assigned to an...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002082390C070215
I certify that hereinafter is recorded the record of consideration of the Army Board for Correction of Military Records in the case of the above-named individual. The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein. The new evidence and argument submitted by the applicant in support of his request for award of the CIB is inconclusive.
ARMY | DRB | CY2005 | 20050001226
During its original review of the applicant's case, the Board found that the evidence of record showed the applicant served in the Pennsylvania Army National Guard (PAARNG), and was trained in, awarded and served in military occupational specialty (MOS) 88M (Motor Transport Operator), and that he served with the 253rd Transportation Company during his assignment in Southwest Asia (SWA). However, by regulation, assignment to a qualifying infantry unit alone is not sufficient to support award...
ARMY | DRB | CY2005 | 20050012261
During its original review of the applicant's case, the Board found that the evidence of record showed the applicant served in the Pennsylvania Army National Guard (PAARNG), and was trained in, awarded and served in military occupational specialty (MOS) 88M (Motor Transport Operator), and that he served with the 253rd Transportation Company during his assignment in Southwest Asia (SWA). However, by regulation, assignment to a qualifying infantry unit alone is not sufficient to support award...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2008 | 20080015687
Item 41 (Awards and Decorations) of this same document had an entry which showed that he was awarded the CIB, but this entry, which did not contain an authority for awarding the CIB, was also struck through. There is no evidence that he performed duties in MOS 11 on his DA Form 20. Further, although he provides pictures from his service in the RVN, these pictures do not conclusively show that he was performing infantryman duties or that he was actively engaged in combat against the enemy.