RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


	IN THE CASE OF:	  


	BOARD DATE:	  10 April 2007
	DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20060014100 


	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.

x
	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) and that his award of the Bronze Star Medal (BSM) be added to his report of separation (DD Form 214).

2.  The applicant states, in effect, that he thought he had been awarded the CIB but has been unable to find any evidence that such was the case.  He goes on to state that he served as an infantry advisor in Vietnam and believes that there were several instances in which he qualified for award of the CIB and his team leader assured him that the district commander was putting him in for the award. He further states that he was also awarded the BSM and that award was also omitted from his DD Form 214.   

3.  The applicant provides a two-page letter explaining why he believes he should be awarded the CIB, notes from his notebook, and copies of his BSM orders and citation.

CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:

1.  The applicant is requesting correction of an alleged error which occurred on 31 January 1971.  The application submitted in this case is dated 20 September 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 was inducted in Los Angeles, California on 5 March 1968 and was transferred to Fort Ord, California to undergo his training.  He completed his basic and advanced individual training as an infantryman at Fort Ord and was transferred to Fort Benning, Georgia to attend Officer Candidate School (OCS).

4.  He successfully completed OCS and was honorably discharged on 31 January 1969 for the purpose of accepting a commission as a United States Army Reserve (USAR) second lieutenant (2LT).

5.  On 1 February 1969, he was commissioned as a USAR 2LT.  He remained at Fort Benning as an instructor until 28 July 1969, when he was transferred to Fort Sherman, Canal Zone to attend jungle training in a temporary duty (TDY) status. He completed his jungle training and was transferred to Vietnam on 17 September 1969, where he was assigned as a student to the United States Army – Vietnam Advisory School.

6.  On 8 October 1969, he was assigned as the assistant advisor of Military Assistance Team II, Military Assistance Command – Vietnam (MACV).  He was promoted to the rank of first lieutenant on 1 February 1970 and on 27 July 1970, he was awarded the BSM for meritorious service in connection with military operations against a hostile force during the period of October 1969 to July 1970.

7.  He departed Vietnam on 29 August 1970 and was transferred to Fort Ord, where he remained until he was honorably released from active duty (REFRAD) on 31 January 1971, due to the expiration of his active duty commitment.  He had served 2 years of active duty as a commissioned officer for a total of 2 years, 10 months, and 27 days of total active service and his DD Form 214 issued at the time of his REFRAD shows he was awarded the National Defense Service Medal, the Vietnam Service Medal (VSM), and the Republic of Vietnam Campaign Medal.

8.  A review of his records shows the presence of his BSM orders and citation; however, there is no evidence to show he was recommended for or awarded the CIB.  A review of the officer efficiency report he received for his time spent in Vietnam also fails to indicate that his duties in Vietnam qualified him for award of the CIB.

9.  The pages from a notebook have miscellaneous entries which the applicant attempts to clarify; however, there are no identifying entries showing that they were made by the applicant at the time or the date the entries were authenticated.  

10.  U.S. Army Vietnam Regulation Number 672-1 (Awards and Decorations) specifically governed award of the Combat Infantryman Badge to Army forces operating in South Vietnam.  This regulation specifically stated that criteria for award of the Combat Infantryman Badge identified the man who trained, lived, and fought as an infantryman and the Combat Infantryman Badge is the unique award established to recognize the infantryman and only the infantryman for his service.  Further, “the Combat Infantryman Badge is not an award for being shot at or for undergoing the hazards of day to day combat.”  This regulation also stated the Combat Infantryman Badge was authorized for award to infantry officers and to enlisted and warrant officer persons who have an infantry military occupational specialty (MOS) and required that they must have served in active ground combat while assigned or attached to an infantry unit of brigade, regimental or smaller size.

11.  U.S. Military Assistance Command, Vietnam, (MACV) Directive 672-1 (Awards and Decorations) provided, in pertinent part, for award of the Combat Infantryman Badge.  Appendix 3 to Annex A of this regulation listed advisor positions in MACV, which were considered infantry positions and for which award of the Combat Infantryman Badge was authorized.  Among these positions, “Senior Advisor, Mobile Advisory Team (includes assistant or deputy)” was listed.

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 Republic of Vietnam Gallantry Cross with Palm (RVNGC w/Palm) Unit Citation for the period he served with the unit.  Additionally, he participated in five campaigns while assigned to Vietnam and thus is authorized to wear one silver service star on his already-awarded VSM (one silver service star is worn in lieu of five bronze service stars to denote campaign participation).     

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The applicant’s contention that his award of the BSM was omitted from his records has been noted and found to have merit.  His records also contain the same orders and citation as that provided by the applicant.  Accordingly, it would be in the interest of justice to correct his records to show the award of the BSM.  

2.  The evidence of record also shows that the applicant is entitled to have his records corrected to show awards of the RVNGC w/Palm Unit Citation and one silver service star for wear on his already-awarded VSM.   

3.  However, the applicant has failed to show through the evidence submitted and the evidence of record, sufficient evidence to establish that he should have been awarded the CIB.

4.  While the Board does not doubt the veracity of his claim, the absence of substantiating evidence coupled with the passage of time makes it difficult at best to determine exactly what occurred during the applicant’s assignment in Vietnam. Therefore, absent sufficient evidence to establish his claim to entitlement to award of the CIB, there appears to be no basis to award him the CIB at this time.  
5.  Records show the applicant should have discovered the alleged error or injustice now under consideration on 31 January 1971; therefore, the time for the applicant to file a request for correction of any error or injustice expired on 30 January 1974.  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:

________  ________  ________  GRANT FULL RELIEF 

_x___  __x____  __x ___  GRANT PARTIAL RELIEF 

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

________  ________  ________  DENY APPLICATION

BOARD DETERMINATION/RECOMMENDATION:

1.  The Board determined that the evidence presented was sufficient to warrant a recommendation for partial 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 BSM, the RVNGC w/Palm Unit Citation, and one silver service star for wear on his already-awarded VSM. 

2.  The Board further determined that the evidence presented is insufficient to warrant a portion of the requested relief.  As a result, the Board recommends denial of so much of the application that pertains to award of the CIB.  




_____x_______
          CHAIRPERSON




INDEX

CASE ID
AR20060014100
SUFFIX

RECON
YYYYMMDD
DATE BOARDED
20070410
TYPE OF DISCHARGE
(HD, GD, UOTHC, UD, BCD, DD, UNCHAR)
DATE OF DISCHARGE
YYYYMMDD
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY
AR . . . . .  
DISCHARGE REASON

BOARD DECISION
(partial GRANT)
REVIEW AUTHORITY

ISSUES         1.107.0014
60/bsm
2.107.0111
157/cib
3.

4.

5.

6.