RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


	IN THE CASE OF:  			
	 

	BOARD DATE:			19 OCTOBER 2005
	DOCKET NUMBER:  		AR20050001280


	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. Jessie B. Strickland

Analyst

The following members, a quorum, were present:


Ms. Barbara Ellis

Chairperson

Mr. Hubert Fry

Member

Mr. Robert Rogers

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 that he be awarded the combat infantryman badge (CIB).

2.  The applicant states that he believes that he should have been awarded the CIB for his service in Vietnam.

3.  The applicant provides copies of documents obtained from his records, a  Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) Questionaire administered by the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) and information from the internet recording a combat action of his unit, to include an after-action battle report.

CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE: 

1.  The applicant is requesting correction of an alleged error which occurred on 18 February 1970.  The application submitted in this case is dated 29 December 2004 and was received on 27 January 2005.  

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.  He was inducted on 7 February 1968 and underwent his training at Fort Ord, California, before being transferred to Germany on 1 July 1968 for duty as an infantry indirect fire crewman.  He remained in Germany for 6 months before being transferred to Vietnam on 6 February 1969.

4.  He was assigned to Company A, 1st Battalion, 61st Infantry Regiment, 5th Infantry Division for duty as an ammo bearer.  He was advanced to the pay grade of E-4 on 10 March 1969.

5.  His records also show that he was awarded the Army Commendation Medal (ARCOM) for meritorious achievement during the period of 6 February to 6 August 1969.  The orders show his unit of assignment as Headquarters, 1st Brigade, 5th Infantry Division.  That award is not contained on his DD Form 214.

6.  His records also show that he was absent without leave (AWOL) from 24 October to 9 November 1969 and that he was reduced to the pay grade of E-3 on 29 November 1969.

7.  He remained in Vietnam until 18 February 1970, when he was transferred to Fort Lewis, Washington for separation.  He was honorably released from active duty (REFRAD) on 18 February 1970 as an overseas returnee.  He had served 1 year, 11 months and 25 days of total active service and his DD Form 214, issued at the time of his REFRAD shows that he was awarded the National Defense Service Medal, the Vietnam Service Medal (VSM), the Republic of Vietnam Campaign Medal, the Air Medal and the Republic of Vietnam Gallantry Cross with Palm Unit Citation.

8.  A review of the available records fails to show that he was awarded the CIB or that he was entitled to award of the CIB by virtue of his involvement in combat with the enemy.

9.  The documents submitted by the applicant include a PTSD Questionaire in which the applicant answers questions relating to his experiences in Vietnam and claims his unit was involved in a 3-day battle with North Vietnamese Forces, that one of his officers received the Distinguished Service Cross for his actions and the company commander was killed.  He makes reference to the internet data he provides as evidence to support his claim.  When asked to provide names of witnesses to his involvement, he indicated that he did not remember any names.

10.  A review of the combat after action report for the period of 11 thru 13 November 1969 shows that the applicant’s unit was involved in the operation titled “Fulton Square.”  The documents provided by the applicant make no mention of him individually or of his participation in the operation. 

11.  Army Regulation 600-8-22 establishes 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.

12.  Department of the 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.  Table 1 (Army Units in Numerical Order) of the pamphlet indicates that subsequent to the applicant’s departure from Vietnam, his unit was awarded the Valorous Unit Award (VUA) for the period of 11 to 15 November 1969.  Additionally, he participated in four campaigns while assigned to Vietnam and is authorized to wear four bronze service stars on his VSM.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  While the applicant was assigned as an infantryman with infantry units in Vietnam, that in itself is not sufficient to warrant the award of the CIB.  Not all infantrymen who served in Vietnam were awarded the CIB and in the applicant's case, there is no evidence to show that he engaged the enemy in combat or that he was eligible to be awarded the CIB.  Therefore, absent such evidence, there is no basis to award him the CIB at this time.

2.  However, there is evidence to show that he was awarded the ARCOM, which was omitted from his DD Form 214 at the time of his REFRAD and that subsequent to his REFRAD, his unit was awarded the VUA for the period he served in Vietnam and that he participated in four campaigns.  Accordingly, he is entitled to be awarded the VUA and four bronze service stars for wear on his already awarded VSM and to have his ARCOM added to his DD Form 214.

3.  The supporting documents submitted by the applicant have been considered. However, they are not sufficient to establish his presence during the operation listed in those documents.

4.  Evidence shows that the applicant’s records contain administrative error which does not require action by the Board.  Therefore, administrative correction of the applicant's records will be accomplished by the Case Management Support Division (CMSD), St. Louis, Missouri, as outlined by the Board in paragraph 3 of the BOARD DETERMINATION/RECOMMENDATION section below.

5.  Records show the applicant should have discovered the alleged error or injustice now under consideration on 18 February 1970; therefore, the time for the applicant to file a request for correction of any error or injustice expired on 17 February 1973.  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.


BOARD VOTE:

________  ________  ________  GRANT FULL RELIEF 

________  ________  ________  GRANT PARTIAL RELIEF 

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

___BE __  ___HF  __  ___RR __  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 Board determined that administrative error in the records of the individual should be corrected.  Therefore, the Board requests that the CMSD-St. Louis administratively correct the records of the individual concerned to show his award of the ARCOM and by awarding him the VUA and four bronze service stars for wear on his already awarded VSM.


		_____Barbara Ellis___________
		        CHAIRPERSON





INDEX

CASE ID
AR20050001280
SUFFIX

RECON
YYYYMMDD
DATE BOARDED
20051019
TYPE OF DISCHARGE
(HD)
DATE OF DISCHARGE
YYYYMMDD
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY
AR . . . . .  
DISCHARGE REASON

BOARD DECISION
(DENY W/NOTE)
REVIEW AUTHORITY

ISSUES         1.107.0111
157/CIB
2.107.0033
79/VUA
3.

4.

5.

6.