RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


      IN THE CASE OF:


      BOARD DATE:        19 October 2006
      DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20060004351


      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. Edmund P. Mercanti            |     |Analyst              |

      The following members, a quorum, were present:

|     |Ms. Melinda M. Darby              |     |Chairperson          |
|     |Mr. Jeffrey C. Redmann            |     |Member               |
|     |Mr. Ronald D. Gant                |     |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 an infantryman in Vietnam and was
wounded three times.

3.  The applicant provides his separation document.

CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:

1.  The applicant is requesting correction of an alleged error which
occurred on 30 October 1970.  The application submitted in this case is
dated 9 March 2006.

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’s military records show that he enlisted in the Regular
Army on 6 October 1967, was awarded the military occupational specialty of
light weapons infantryman, and was assigned to Vietnam on 23 April 1968.

4.  The applicant was assigned to an infantry unit where he served as an
infantryman.  He was awarded the Purple Heart with oak leaf cluster for
twice being wounded.

5.  On 24 December 1968, the applicant’s commander recommended that the
applicant be separated for unfitness.  In that recommendation the
applicant’s commander stated that since the applicant’s assignment as a
rifleman, “his behavior and performance have been unsatisfactory . . . [and
the applicant] has made every effort to avoid field duty.  His most common
method was to feign some manner of physical ailment minor or imagined and
thereby escape combat operations . . . on 20 November 1968, he attempted,
or pretended to attempt, strangling himself with his own dog tags, probably
to get out of the field.  At any rate, he was sent to BMB to prevent
serious impairment of his squad’s combat efficiency and given a job in the
S-4 rear section.”  The applicant’s commander also noted that the applicant
had twice accepted nonjudicial punishment under Article 15, Uniformed Code
of Military Justice while assigned to the unit, once for sleeping on guard
duty, and once for larceny.

6.  A board of officers considered the applicant for separation due to
unfitness.  The board of officers said that the applicant’s first platoon
leader, who gave him a conduct and efficiency rating of unsatisfactory,
indicated that he had performed admirably under fire and that during a
period of almost eight months the applicant had served as point man and the
platoon and squad radio and teletype operator.  Testimony given during the
hearing indicated that the applicant had served in the field for over 8
months as a rifleman, he participated in numerous search and destroy
operations, he went on patrols, he acted as a security guard, and he
performed various other duties incumbent on a rifleman.  The applicant’s
second platoon leader testified “that [the applicant] is one of his best
riflemen, often acting as ‘bunker commander’ and squad leader.”  The board
of officers recommended the applicant be retained in the service.

7.  The applicant completed his tour of duty in Vietnam on 21 April 1969
and was returned to the Continental United States to complete his
enlistment.  His DA Form 20, Enlisted Qualification Record, shows that his
conduct and efficiency was rated as unsatisfactory for the time he was
assigned to Vietnam.

8.  The applicant was assigned to an armored cavalry unit at Fort Meade,
Maryland, and was awarded the MOS of armored reconnaissance specialist.
The applicant was discharged at the expiration of his term of service on 30
October 1970.  His service was characterized as under honorable conditions.

9.  Army Regulation 600-8-22 (Military Awards) prescribes Army policy and
procedures concerning awards.  Paragraph 8-6 provides for award of the
Combat Infantryman Badge.  This paragraph states that there are basically
three requirements for award of the Combat Infantryman Badge.  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 have an infantry specialty, satisfactorily performed duty
while assigned or attached as a member of an infantry unit of brigade,
regimental, or smaller size during any period such unit was engaged in
active ground combat.  A recipient must be personally present and under
hostile fire while serving in an assigned infantry primary duty, in a unit
actively engaged in ground combat with the enemy.

10.  Based on his dates of the applicant’s service in Vietnam, Table B-1 of
Army Regulation 600-8-22 shows he served in the Counteroffensive Phase IV
Campaign which started 1 April 1968; the Counteroffensive Phase V Campaign
which started 1 July 1968; the Counteroffensive, Phase VI Campaign which
started on 2 November 1968; and the Tet 69 Counteroffensive Campaign which
started on 23 February 1969.

11.  Army Regulation 600-8-22, in pertinent part, authorizes award of the
bronze service star, based on qualifying service, for each campaign listed
in Appendix B of this regulation.  A silver service star is worn instead of
five bronze service stars.  The regulations state that authorized bronze
service stars will be worn on the appropriate service medal, which in this
case is the Vietnam Service Medal.

12.  .  Department of the Army Pamphlet 672-3 (Unit Citation and Campaign
Participation Credit Register) lists the unit awards received by units
serving in Vietnam.  This document shows that, at the time of the
applicant’s assignment to the 2nd Battalion, 3rd Infantry, the unit
received the Republic of Vietnam Gallantry Cross with Palm Unit Citation
and the Republic of Vietnam Civil Actions Honor Medal First Class Unit
Citation.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The applicant was assigned to an infantry unit in Vietnam and he
performed duties as an infantry when the unit was engaged in active ground
combat.  These facts are clearly supported by the applicant’s records.

2.  The only debatable point is whether the applicant satisfactorily
performed duty while engaged in active ground combat.  If the applicant did
not satisfactorily perform duties as an infantryman while engaged in active
ground combat, he is not entitled to the CIB.

3.  In this regard, the only evidence which would indicate the applicant
did not perform his duties satisfactorily while engaged in active ground
combat is the rating by his first platoon leader on his DA Form 20, and his
commander’s recommendation to separate him for unfitness.  Of these two
documents, only the commander’s recommendation mentions anything about the
applicant’s performance in combat.

4.  His commander stated that the applicant was known to feign an illness
to escape combat operations and once attempted, or pretended to attempt,
strangling himself with his own dog tags.  His commander opined that the
strangulation was probably attempted by the applicant to get out of the
field.

5.  In the findings of the board convened to consider the applicant for
separation due to unfitness it was stated that the applicant’s platoon
leader, who gave him the conduct and efficiency rating of unsatisfactory,
indicated that the applicant had performed admirably under fire and that
during a period of almost eight months, the applicant had served as point
man and the platoon and squad radio and teletype operator.  Other testimony
taken by the unfitness board indicated that the applicant had served in the
field for over 8 months as a rifleman, he participated in numerous search
and destroy operations, he went on patrols, he acted as a security guard,
and he performed various other duties incumbent on a rifleman.  The
applicant’s second platoon leader stated that the applicant was one of his
best riflemen, often acting as bunker commander and squad leader.

6.  It would appear that the applicant’s disciplinary problems occurred
while he was in garrison.  The only exception is the incident of the
applicant strangling himself with his dog tag chain, and the details of
that incident are not a matter of record.  There is no other evidence or
indication that the applicant didn’t satisfactorily perform duty while
engaged in active ground combat.  To the contrary, the evidence shows that
the applicant was given positions of responsibility and trust while he was
engaged in combat.  The fact that the applicant was twice awarded the
Purple Heart is clearly indicative that he did not shirk his duties as an
infantryman while in combat.

7.  After evaluating the facts of this case, the clear weight of evidence
shows that the applicant satisfactorily performed duty while engaged in
active ground combat and is entitled to the CIB.

8.  In addition, the applicant was serving with 2nd Battalion, 3rd Infantry
during the period the unit was cited for award of Republic of Vietnam
Gallantry Cross with Palm Unit Citation and the Republic of Vietnam Civil
Actions Honor Medal First Class Unit Citation.  Therefore the applicant is
entitled to have these awards added to his separation document.

9.  The applicant participated in four campaigns during his service in
Vietnam.  Therefore, he is entitled to four bronze service stars to be worn
on his Vietnam Service Medal.

10.  Records show the applicant should have discovered the alleged error or
injustice now under consideration on 30 October 1970; therefore, the time
for the applicant to file a request for correction of any error or
injustice expired on 29 October 1973.  The applicant did not file within
the 3-year statute of limitations; however, based on the available
evidence, it would be in the interest of justice to excuse failure to
timely file in this case.
BOARD VOTE:

___rdg___  ___jcr___  ___mmd_  GRANT FULL RELIEF

________  ________  ________  GRANT PARTIAL RELIEF

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

________  ________  ________  DENY APPLICATION

BOARD DETERMINATION/RECOMMENDATION:

The Board determined that the evidence presented was sufficient to warrant
a recommendation for relief and to excuse failure to timely file.  As a
result, the Board recommends that all Department of the Army records of the
individual concerned be corrected by showing that he was awarded the CIB,
the Republic of Vietnam Gallantry Cross with Palm Unit Citation, the
Republic of Vietnam Civil Actions Honor Medal First Class Unit Citation,
and 4 bronze service stars to be worn on his Vietnam Service Medal.




                            _________Melinda M. Darby___________
                                      CHAIRPERSON



                                    INDEX

|CASE ID                 |AR20060004351                           |
|SUFFIX                  |                                        |
|RECON                   |YYYYMMDD                                |
|DATE BOARDED            |YYYYMMDD                                |
|TYPE OF DISCHARGE       |(HD, GD, UOTHC, UD, BCD, DD, UNCHAR)    |
|DATE OF DISCHARGE       |YYYYMMDD                                |
|DISCHARGE AUTHORITY     |AR . . . . .                            |
|DISCHARGE REASON        |                                        |
|BOARD DECISION          |GRANT                                   |
|REVIEW AUTHORITY        |                                        |
|ISSUES         1.       |                                        |
|2.                      |                                        |
|3.                      |                                        |
|4.                      |                                        |
|5.                      |                                        |
|6.                      |                                        |


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