| Mr. Carl W. S. Chun | Director | |
| Mr. William Blakely | Analyst |
| Mr. Samuel A. Crumpler | Chairperson | ||
| Mr. Ted S. Kanamine | Member | ||
| Ms. Shirley L. Powell | Member |
APPLICANT REQUESTS: In effect, that his military records be corrected to show the Combat Infantryman Badge (CIB), his correct military occupational specialty (MOS), the Presidential Unit Citation (PUC), and the Imgim Scott Patch.
APPLICANT STATES: In effect, that his separation document (DD Form 214 ) does not show award of the CIB, his correct MOS, the PUC, and the Imgim Scott Patch.
EVIDENCE OF RECORD: The applicant's military records show:
On 25 October 1967, the applicant entered the Army for a period of 3 years. It also shows that he completed training and was awarded military occupational specialty (MOS) 51B (Carpenter).
The applicant’s Enlisted Qualification Record (DA Form 20) confirms that he served in the Republic of Korea (ROK) from 27 March 1968 to 26 April 1969, and that he was assigned to Company E, 2ND Engineer Battalion. Item 41 (Awards and Decorations) shows that during his active duty tenure, he earned the
Armed Forces Expeditionary Medal and National Defense Service Medal. No other awards are listed in the record.
On 23 January 1968, the applicant was honorably released from active duty in the rank and pay grade of specialist/ E-4 (SPC/E-4). The DD Form 214 issued to and signed by him on the date of his separation also confirms that he completed a total of 2 years, 11 months, and 28 days of creditable active military service and that he accrued 20 days of time lost due to being absent without leave (AWOL).
The applicant’s Military Personnel Records Jacket (MPRJ) contains no orders or other documents indicating that his MOS was ever changed or that he was recommended for or awarded a CIB, or that the unit he served with earned a PUC.
Army Regulation 600-8-22 (Military Awards) sets forth the Army criteria, policy and instructions concerning individual military awards. It contains no reference to an Imgim Scott Patch nor does it include it in the list of authorized Army awards.
Paragraph 7-13 contains the policy and procedure for awarding the PUC. It states, in pertinent part, that is awarded for extraordinary heroism in action. A unit must display such gallantry, determination and esprit de corps in accomplishing its mission as would warrant award of the Distinguished Service Cross to an individual. Army Unit Citation and Campaign Participation Credit Registers that provide lists of units that have been awarded the PUC does not include the applicant’s unit, Company E, 2ND Engineer Battalion, for the period
27 March 1968 to 26 April 1969.
Chapter 8 contains the policy and procedures for awarding the CIB. It states, in pertinent part, that the CIB is awarded to members with an infantry MOS who have served in active ground combat while assigned or attached to an infantry unit of brigade, regimental, or smaller size.
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 Board notes the applicant’s contention that his separation document should be corrected to show his correct MOS, and to include the CIB, PUC, and Imgim Scott Patch in the list of authorized awards. However, it finds insufficient evidence to support these claims.
2. By regulation, in order to qualify for the CIB, a member must hold an infantry MOS, serve in an infantry unit, and be personally present with the unit while it is engaged in action against the enemy. The record confirms that the applicant held the MOS 51B, a non-infantry MOS, that he served in an engineer unit, and there is no indication that he ever participated in ground combat with an infantry unit. Therefore, the Board finds no evidentiary basis for awarding him the CIB.
3. The evidence of record also clearly shows that the only MOS the applicant held during his active duty tenure was 51B (Carpenter). Thus, the Board finds insufficient evidence to support changing the MOS currently listed in his separation document or in his record.
4. In addition, Army Unit Citation and Campaign Participation Credit Registers that contain the list of units that have been awarded the PUC do not list the applicant’s unit among those units that earned the PUC during the period he served on active duty. Therefore, the Board finds no basis to support adding the PUC to his record at this time.
5. Finally, in regard to the applicant’s claim that he was authorized to wear the Imgim Scott Patch, the Board finds no listing of this patch in the governing Army regulations or other publications that list authorized Army awards, and it concludes that it is not an authorized Army award. Thus, the Board finds no effective relief is available in regard to this issue.
6. 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
__SAC__ __TSK _ __ SLP__ DENY APPLICATION
| CASE ID | AR2002079972 |
| SUFFIX | |
| RECON | YYYYMMDD |
| DATE BOARDED | 2003/03/11 |
| TYPE OF DISCHARGE | (HD, GD, UOTHC, UD, BCD, DD, UNCHAR) |
| DATE OF DISCHARGE | YYYYMMDD |
| DISCHARGE AUTHORITY | AR . . . . . |
| DISCHARGE REASON | |
| BOARD DECISION | DENY |
| REVIEW AUTHORITY | |
| ISSUES 1. | 100.500 |
| 2. | 107.0110 |
| 3. | 107.0092 |
| 4. | |
| 5. | |
| 6. |
ARMY | BCMR | CY2011 | 20110005070
Additionally, Appendix V of U.S. Army Vietnam Regulation 672-1 (Awards and Decorations) states 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. In the absence of official orders or other documentary evidence such as operation reports, after action reports, valor awards, witness statements, or any other evidence that conclusively shows he held an infantry MOS and he actively...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2012 | 20120000523
The applicant's military record shows he was inducted into the Army of the United States (AUS), in pay grade E-1, on 11 May 1966. Therefore, he is not entitled to correction to Item 19 on his DD Form 214 to show pay grade E-4. As a result, the Board recommends denial of so much of the application that pertains to correcting his DD Form 214 by adding to: * Item 19 the pay grade of E-4 * Item 24 the CIB _______ _ __X_____ ___ CHAIRPERSON I certify that herein is recorded the true and...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002078850C070215
He states that his military record will support his entitlement to the CIB by showing that he served as an infantryman in the Republic of Vietnam (RVN). The applicant’s military records show that he was inducted into the Army of the United States on 14 October 1966. However, by regulation, in order to support award of the CIB, there must be evidence confirming that the individual receiving the award held an infantry MOS (11B, 11C, 11F, 11G, or 11H), and served in active ground combat while...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2010 | 20100012275
He states he was wounded when his unit came under attack while serving in the Republic of Vietnam. There is no evidence in the available record showing he was awarded the Purple Heart. Substantiating evidence must be provided to verify the wound was the result of hostile action, the wound must have been treated by medical personnel, and the medical treatment must have been made a matter of official record.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2013 | 20130000988
The applicant, the widow of a deceased former service member (FSM), requests the correction of the FSMs DD Form 214 (Armed Forces of the United States Report of Transfer or Discharge) to show his service in Vietnam. The FSM's records show he was inducted into the Army of the United States on 30 March 1967. There is no evidence in the FSM's records that shows he ever served in Vietnam.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2009 | 20090015287
The evidence of record shows the applicant served in the RVN from 27 July 1967 to 4 June 1968. His DD Form 214 only reflects one overseas service bar; therefore, his records should be corrected accordingly. As a result, the Board recommends that all Department of the Army records of the individual concerned be corrected by: a. deleting from item 24 of his DD Form 214 the Vietnam Service Medal and one overseas service bar; b. adding to item 24 of his DD Form 214 the Army Good Conduct Medal...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2001 | 2001053032C070420
I certify that hereinafter is recorded the true and complete record of the proceedings of the Army Board for Correction of Military Records in the case of the above-named individual. In addition, his Military Personnel Records Jacket (MPRJ) contains no documents or orders that suggest he was ever recommended for or received any individual awards or decorations during his tour in Vietnam, this includes the CIB and PH. Further, there is no evidence of record that would confirm that he ever...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002067488C070402
The applicant’s Military Personnel Records Jacket (MPRJ) contains a copy of General Order (GO) Number (#) 2823, dated 25 June 1968, issued by the 4 th Infantry Division, RVN, which shows that the applicant’s ARCOM was awarded with a “V” Device, for heroism in connection with military operations against an armed hostile force in the RVN on 26 March 1968. By regulation, a member must hold an infantry MOS, serve in an infantry unit, and be personally present with this unit while it is engaged...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2009 | 20090016410
His DA Form 20 (Enlisted Qualification Record) shows he served in the RVN from 19 September 1967 through 28 November 1968. As a result, the evidence does not support award of the PH. The applicant and all others concerned should know this action related to award of the PH and CIB in no way diminishes the sacrifices made by the applicant in service to our Nation.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2011 | 20110025130
Application for correction of military records (with supporting documents provided, if any). His military service records do not contain any orders awarding him the CIB. Therefore, there is insufficient evidence to support addition of this award to his DD Form 214.