RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


      IN THE CASE OF:


      BOARD DATE:        3 MAY 2005
      DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20040005804


      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.

|     |Mr. Carl W. S. Chun               |     |Director             |
|     |Mr. Kenneth H. Aucock             |     |Analyst              |

      The following members, a quorum, were present:

|     |Ms. Shirley Powell                |     |Chairperson          |
|     |Mr. Patrick McGann                |     |Member               |
|     |Ms. Diane Armstrong               |     |Member               |

      The Board considered the following evidence:

      Exhibit A - Application for correction of military records.

      Exhibit B - Military Personnel Records (including advisory opinion,
if any).

THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST, STATEMENT, AND EVIDENCE:

1.  The applicant requests award of the Combat Infantryman Badge (CIB).

2.  The applicant states that on two occasions he was nominated for the CIB
while in Vietnam, but denied because of his MOS (military occupational
specialty).  He was an advisor with Advisory Team 51, went on numerous
patrols, and engaged in combat.  The pertinent Army regulation states that
advisors are eligible for award of the CIB regardless of their MOS.  He
only recently became aware that he could apply for the CIB.  He has been in
treatment for two years and has been told that he has a great deal of
resentment over the way advisors were treated while in-country and upon
their return from Vietnam.

3.  The applicant provides a copy of excerpts from Army Regulation 600-8-22
regarding the Combat Infantryman Badge, a copy of a citation showing award
of the Army Commendation Medal, a copy of letter on his behalf from a
former officer of Advisory Team 51, a copy of a Department of Veterans
Affairs rating decision, and a copy of his DD Form 214 (Report of Transfer
or Discharge).

CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:

1.  The applicant is requesting correction of an alleged error or injustice
which occurred on 25 September 1969.  The application submitted in this
case is dated 11 August 2004.

2.  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 allows the Army
Board for Correction of Military Records (ABCMR) to excuse failure to file
within the 3-year statute of limitations if the ABCMR determines that it
would be in the interest of justice to do so.  In this case, the ABCMR will
conduct a review of the merits of the case to determine if it would be in
the interest of justice to excuse the applicant’s failure to timely file.

3.  The applicant enlisted in the Army for 3 years on 26 September 1966,
trained as an intelligence analyst (MOS 96B), and thereafter completed 12
weeks of training in the Vietnamese language at Fort Bliss, Texas.  In
December 1967 he was assigned as an intelligence analyst with the 525th
Military Intelligence Group in Vietnam.  In June 1968 he was assigned as an
order of battle specialist with Advisory Team 51, IV Corps Advisory Group.

4.  The applicant completed his tour of duty in Vietnam and returned to the
United States in December 1968, and was assigned to Fort Bragg, North
Carolina.  He participated in five campaigns during his tour of duty in
Vietnam, and the 525th Military Intelligence Group was awarded the
Meritorious Unit Commendation and the Republic of Vietnam Gallantry Cross
Unit Citation with Palm for its actions during the applicant’s assignment
to that organization.

5.  The applicant was released from active duty on 25 September 1969.  His
   DD Form 214 shows award of the National Defense Service Medal, Vietnam
Campaign Medal, Good Conduct Medal, and Army Commendation Medal.  It shows
award of the Vietnam Service Medal, but that award does not reflect the
number of campaigns in which he participated.

5.  The applicant was awarded the Army Commendation Medal for meritorious
achievement for the period 31 January 1968 to 25 February 1968.  The award
citation reads in part, “Specialist Four [the applicant] distinguished
himself … while serving as an Intelligence Analyst, Targeting Section,
Office of the G-2 Advisor, 21st Infantry Division Advisory Detachment,
Advisory Team 51,        525th Military Intelligence Group. … was
responsible for compiling and plotting order of battle and aerial
surveillance information into readily usable formats and overlays. … In
addition, Specialist [the applicant] coordinated and submitted numerous
aerial surveillance requests during temporary absences of his superiors. …
Specialist [the applicant] also served as part of the security force for
the defense of the compound, and on several occasions, with no regard for
personal safety, he performed his duties despite the threat of enemy small
arms fire.”

6.  On 19 December 1968 the applicant was awarded the Bronze Star Medal for
meritorious service for the period December 1967 to December 1968.  That
award is not reflected on his DD Form 214.

7.  On 30 January 1969 the Senior Advisor, 21st Infantry Division Advisory
Detachment recommended the applicant for award of the Staff Service Medal,
2nd Class, a decoration awarded by the Republic of Vietnam, for the period
      22 December 1967 to 12 December 1968.  The narrative description of
his service reads:  “As an enlisted advisor to G-2 section, 21st Infantry
Division,     SP5 [the applicant] closely coordinated with Vietnamese
personnel in collecting and double checking reliable sources.  He also
advised his Vietnamese counterparts on administrative matters so
expeditiously that bright successes were obtained.”  The recommendation was
approved and on 12 February 1969 Headquarters, Military Assistance Command,
Vietnam (MACV) authorized the applicant to accept the award and wear the
medal.  That award is not shown on his DD Form 214.

8.  In a 19 December 2003 letter to the Department of Veteran Affairs
disability rating board, a former first lieutenant stated that he was with
MACV Advisory Team 51, 21st ARVN (Republic of Vietnam Army) Infantry
Division G-2 [section] and served with the applicant from December 1967
until October 1968.  He stated that the applicant accompanied him on
“Dagger Teams,” missions where they were inserted by helicopter on the edge
of division operations where they could join Vietnamese companies and
patrol in an effort to capture Viet Cong fleeing the operational area in
order to interrogate prisoners and gather intelligence information.  He
stated that he did not know the exact number of teams they went on
together, but that contact with the enemy was quite frequent and it was not
uncommon to be inserted or extracted from a hot landing zone.  He stated
that the applicant was nominated on two occasions for award of the CIB but
was turned down because he did not have an infantry MOS.  He stated that
shortly after TET began several of the officers and enlisted men in the G-2
section were sent into the field to assist the ARVN where they were exposed
to frequent and heavy combat.  He stated that he received the Bronze Star
Medal with “V” device and that the applicant was nominated for a Bronze
Star Medal and received the Army Commendation Medal.

9.  On 3 June 2004 the Department of Veterans Affairs awarded the applicant
a 50 percent service connected disability rating for post traumatic stress
disorder.

10.  The Combat Infantryman Badge was established by the War Department on
27 October 1943. Lieutenant General Lesley J. McNair, then the Army Ground
Forces commanding general, was instrumental in its creation. He originally
recommended that it be called the “fighter badge.”  The CIB was designed to
enhance morale and the prestige of the “Queen of Battle.”  Originally, the
Regimental Commander was the lowest level at which the CIB could be
approved and its award was retroactive to 7 December 1941.  Several factors
led to the creation of the CIB, some of the most prominent factors are as
follows     (a) the need for large numbers of well-trained infantry to
bring about a successful conclusion to the war and the already critical
shortage of infantrymen, (b) of all Soldiers, it was recognized that the
infantryman continuously operated under the worst conditions and performed
a mission which was not assigned to any other Soldier or unit, (c) the
infantry, a small portion of the total Armed Forces, was suffering the most
casualties while receiving the least public recognition, and     (d)
General Marshall’s well known affinity for the ground forces Soldier and,
in particular, the infantryman.

11.  There are basically three requirements for award of the CIB.  The
Soldier must be an infantryman satisfactorily performing infantry duties,
must be assigned to an infantry unit during such time as the unit is
engaged in active ground combat, and must actively participate in such
ground combat. Campaign or battle credit alone is not sufficient for award
of the CIB.  The definition or requirement to be “engaged in active ground
combat” has generated much dialogue over the years as to the original
intent of the CIB.  The 1943 War Department Circular required infantrymen
to demonstrate “satisfactory performance of duty in action against the
enemy.” The operative words “in action” connoted actual combat.  A War
Department determination in October 1944 specified that “action against the
enemy” for purposes of award of the CIB
was to be interpreted as “ground combat against enemy ground forces.”  In
1948 the regulation stipulated that “battle participation credit is not
sufficient; the unit must have been in contact with the enemy.”  This
clearly indicated that an exchange of hostile fire or equivalent personal
exposure was the intent of the
Army leadership.  In 1963 and 1965 HQDA messages to the senior Army
commander in the Southeast Asia theater of operations authorized award
of the CIB to otherwise qualified personnel “provided they are personally
present and under fire.”  U.S. Army Vietnam regulations went so far as to
require documentation of the type and intensity of enemy fire encountered
by the Soldier. The intended requirement to be “personally present and
under fire” has not changed.

12.  The regulation provides special provision for award of the CIB for
service in the Republic of Vietnam, and states in pertinent part that an
enlisted man whose branch [MOS] is other than infantry, who under
appropriate orders was assigned to advise a unit is eligible for award of
the CIB - subsequent to 1 March 1961 and assigned as an advisor to an
infantry unit, ranger unit, infantry-type unit of the civil guard of
regimental or smaller size, and/or infantry-type unit of the self defense
corps unit of regimental or smaller size of the Vietnamese government,
during any period such unit was engaged in actual ground combat; assigned
as advisor of an irregular force comparable to the above infantry units
under similar conditions; personally present and under fire while serving
in an assigned primary duty as a member of a tactical advisory team while
the unit participated in ground combat.  Subsequent to 24 May 1965, to
qualify for award of the CIB, [enlisted] personnel serving in United States
units must be have an infantry or special forces MOS, satisfactorily
performed duty while assigned 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.

13.  Army Regulation 600-8-22 states in pertinent part that service stars
are worn on campaign and service ribbons to denote an additional award.
The service star is a bronze or silver five pointed star.  A silver service
star is worn instead of five bronze service starts.  Service stars are
authorized for wear on the Vietnam Service Medal.  One bronze service star
is authorized for each campaign.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The evidence shows that the applicant was assigned to United States
military units, e.g. 525th Military Intelligence Group and MACV Advisor
Team 51, first as an intelligence analyst and later as an order of battle
specialist in a G-2 Section of the 21st ARVN Infantry Division.  The
applicant’s Army Commendation Medal citation reflects that his duties were
with the Office of the G-2 with the 21st ARVN Infantry Division.  The
recommendation for the Vietnamese award that he received shows that he was
an enlisted advisor to the G-2 Section.  Notwithstanding the 19 December
2003 letter provided by a former officer to the Department of Veterans
Affairs, there is no evidence and the applicant has not provided any, to
show that he participated in active ground combat while acting as an
advisor to an infantry unit while such unit was engaged in active ground
combat.

2.  Consequently, the applicant’s request for award of the Combat
Infantryman Badge is not warranted.

3.  Records show the applicant should have discovered the alleged error or
injustice now under consideration on 25 September 1969; therefore, the time
for the applicant to file a request for correction of any error or
injustice expired on (enter date).  However, the applicant did not file
within the 3-year statute of limitations and has not provided a compelling
explanation or evidence to show that it would be in the interest of justice
to excuse failure to timely file in this case.

4.  The evidence shows that the applicant’s record contains administrative
error that does not require action by the Board.  The necessary corrections
will be accomplished administratively by the Case Management Support
Division (CMSD), St. Louis, Missouri, as outlined in paragraph 3 of the
Determination/Recommendation section below.

BOARD VOTE:

________  ________  ________  GRANT FULL RELIEF

________  ________  ________  GRANT PARTIAL RELIEF

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

___SP __  ___PM __  ___DA __  DENY APPLICATION

BOARD DETERMINATION/RECOMMENDATION:

1.  The Board determined that 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.

2.  As a result, the Board further determined that there is no evidence
provided which shows that it would be in the interest of justice to excuse
the applicant's failure to timely file this application within the 3-year
statute of limitations prescribed by law.  Therefore, there is insufficient
basis to waive the statute of limitations for timely filing or for
correction of the records of the individual concerned.

3.  The Case Management Support Division in St. Louis is requested to
correct the applicant’s records to show award of the Bronze Star Medal,
Meritorious Unit Commendation, Republic of Vietnam Gallantry Cross Unit
Citation with Palm,  Vietnam Service Medal with one silver service star,
and the Vietnamese Staff Service Medal, 2nd Class.



                                  ____  Shirley L. Powell______
                                            CHAIRPERSON



                                    INDEX

|CASE ID                 |AR20040005804                           |
|SUFFIX                  |                                        |
|RECON                   |YYYYMMDD                                |
|DATE BOARDED            |20050503                                |
|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.       |107.00                                  |
|2.                      |                                        |
|3.                      |                                        |
|4.                      |                                        |
|5.                      |                                        |
|6.                      |                                        |


-----------------------
[pic]