RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


      IN THE CASE OF:


      BOARD DATE:           10 August 2004
      DOCKET NUMBER:  AR2004101422


      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             |
|     |Mrs. Nancy L. Amos                |     |Analyst              |

      The following members, a quorum, were present:

|     |Ms. Gail J. Wire                  |     |Chairperson          |
|     |Ms. Karen A. Heinz                |     |Member               |
|     |Mr. Paul M. Smith                 |     |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 he was awarded the Expert Infantryman Badge
(EIB).  The EIB was issued to most of their group at the time of their
discharge.  The EIB was not issued to non-infantry personnel.

3.  The applicant states that his records would not contain any data or
information on the Office of Strategic Services (OSS).  No members of the
Armed Forces were aware their unit, the 2671st Reconnaissance Battalion,
Operational Group, OSS, existed.

4.  The applicant provides no supporting evidence.

CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:

1.  The applicant is requesting correction of an alleged error which
occurred on 25 October 1945.  The application submitted in this case was
received on         29 January 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 limitation 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's records, though damaged in the National Personnel
Records Center fire in 1973, are primarily intact and available to the
Board.

4.  The applicant enlisted in the Army National Guard on 7 December 1939
and entered active service that date.

5.  The applicant's WD AGO Form 24 (Service Record) and WD AGO Form      20
(Soldier Qualification Record) show he was assigned to a field artillery
unit until August 1943.  At that time, he was assigned to Headquarters and
Headquarters Detachment, OSS, Washington, DC.  He was assigned to 2677th
Headquarters Company Experimental (Provisional) in February 1944.

6.  The applicant arrived in the North African theater of operations on 1
February 1944.  His WD AGO Form 20 shows he was assigned to Company B,
2671st Special Reconnaissance Battalion on 4 August 1944.  He departed the
theater on 9 December 1944 and arrived in the States on 21 December 1944.
He was assigned to Headquarters and Headquarters Detachment, OSS,
Washington, DC on 22 December 1944.  He departed the States on 23 March
1945.  He arrived in the China-Burma-India theater of operations on 4 May
1945 and was assigned to Headquarters and Headquarters Detachment, OSS,
China Theater that date.  He departed that theater on 10 September 1945 and
separated on 25 October 1945.

7.  The applicant's WD AGO Form 53-55 (Report of Separation) shows he was
awarded the Parachutist Badge, the Marksman Marksmanship Qualification
Badge .45 caliber pistol, the American Defense Service Ribbon, the European-
African-Middle Eastern Ribbon with two bronze service stars, the Army Good
Conduct Medal, a bronze arrowhead, and five overseas service bars.

8.  The applicant's WD AGO Form 24 shows that he was paid parachutist pay
but never expert or combat infantryman pay.

9.  Army Regulation 600-8-22 (Military Awards) prescribes Army policy and
criteria concerning individual military awards.  In pertinent part, it
states that the CIB was established during World War II to provide special
recognition of the unique role of the Army infantryman, the only soldier
whose daily mission is to close with and destroy the enemy and to seize and
hold terrain.  The badge was intended as an inducement for individuals to
join the infantry while serving as a morale booster for infantrymen.

10.  In developing the CIB, the War Department did not dismiss or ignore
the contributions of other branches.  Their vital contributions to the
overall war effort were noted, but it was decided that other awards and
decorations were sufficient to recognize their contributions.  From the
beginning, Army leadership have taken care to retain the badge for the
unique purpose for which it was established.  The War Department received
requests to award the CIB to non-infantry individuals and units employed as
infantry during tactical emergencies.  All of those requests were
disapproved.

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.

12.  Army Regulation 600-8-22 prescribes Army policy and procedures for
awards, and Paragraph 8-8 provides for award of the EIB.  Award of the EIB
requires that an individual must have satisfactorily completed the
prescribed proficiency tests while assigned or attached to an infantry unit
of at least battalion size.  To be eligible for testing and award of the
EIB, a soldier must be in an active Army status and must have an infantry
or special forces specialty.

13.  War Department Circular Number 408, Expert and Combat Infantryman
Badges, Award, and Additional Pay, dated 17 October 1944 cited Public Law
393, 78th Congress, approved 30 June 1944 which provided that during the
war and for 6 months thereafter any enlisted man of the combat ground
forces of the Army who was entitled to wear the EIB or the CIB would be
paid additional compensation at the rate of $5 per month when he was
entitled to wear the EIB and at the rate of $10 per month when he was
entitled to wear the CIB.

14.  Information obtained from the Central Intelligence Agency's Internet
site revealed that significant parts of OSS’s paramilitary and
psychological capabilities worked outside of the Special Operations Branch.
 In late 1942, the Joint Chiefs of Staff authorized OSS to run American
commando units behind enemy lines.  OSS promptly formed several
“Operational Groups” to conduct these missions.  These were small
formations of specially trained U. S. Army soldiers—many recruited from
ethnic communities in America—who fought in uniform and had no obvious
connection to OSS (so they would be less likely to be shot as spies if
captured).  Designated the 2671st Special Reconnaissance Battalion,
Separate (Provisional) in 1944, Operational Groups fought in France, Italy,
Greece, Yugoslavia, Burma, Malaya, and China, usually alongside partisan
formations.

15.  Webster's Third New International Dictionary defines "partisan," in
part, as (1) a member of a light troop engaged in making forays and
harassing an enemy and (2) a member of a guerilla band operating within
enemy lines and engaged chiefly in demolition, incendiarism, sabotage, and
diversionary attacks.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The applicant's records, although damaged by fire, are comparatively
complete.  There is no evidence in those records to show he was an
infantryman serving with an infantry unit.

2.  After initial assignment as a field artilleryman, the applicant
received extensive training and an assignment to the Office of Strategic
Services.  There is no question about the applicant performing combat
duties; he was awarded a bronze arrowhead for an assault landing.

3.  However, OSS was not an infantry unit.  It was primarily an
intelligence organization of which one of its units, the 2761st Special
Reconnaissance Battalion, fought in uniform usually alongside partisan
formations.  By definition, partisans did not perform the same duties as
the infantryman, whose daily mission is to close with and destroy the enemy
and to seize and hold terrain.  Partisans make forays and harass the enemy
or engage chiefly in demolition, incendiarism, sabotage, and diversionary
attacks.

4.  There is no evidence in the applicant's records to show he was ever
paid expert infantryman or combat infantryman pay.  The eligibility
criteria for award of the EIB are not the same as the criteria for award of
the CIB.  In addition, the applicant states he was awarded the EIB upon his
discharge, not at any time before he separated.  It is presumed he and
other members of his group were awarded the EIB as an honorary award;
however, that does not make award of the CIB a logical, or authorized,
corollary.

5.  Records show the applicant should have discovered the error or
injustice now under consideration on 25 October 1945, the date of his
separation from active duty.  However, the ABCMR was not established until
2 January 1947.  Therefore, the time for the applicant to file a request
for correction of any error or injustice expired on 1 January 1950.  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.

BOARD VOTE:

________  ________  ________  GRANT FULL RELIEF

________  ________  ________  GRANT PARTIAL RELIEF

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

__gjw___  __kah___  __pms___  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.




            _  Gail J. Wire_______
                    CHAIRPERSON




                                    INDEX

|CASE ID                 |AR2004101422                            |
|SUFFIX                  |                                        |
|RECON                   |                                        |
|DATE BOARDED            |20040810                                |
|TYPE OF DISCHARGE       |                                        |
|DATE OF DISCHARGE       |                                        |
|DISCHARGE AUTHORITY     |                                        |
|DISCHARGE REASON        |                                        |
|BOARD DECISION          |DENY                                    |
|REVIEW AUTHORITY        |Mr. Chun                                |
|ISSUES         1.       |107.0111                                |
|2.                      |                                        |
|3.                      |                                        |
|4.                      |                                        |
|5.                      |                                        |
|6.                      |                                        |


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