RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


      IN THE CASE OF:


      BOARD DATE:        28 August 2007
      DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20070006472


      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.

|     |Ms. Catherine C. Mitrano          |     |Director             |
|     |Mr. Joseph A. Adriance            |     |Analyst              |


      The following members, a quorum, were present:

|     |Mr. Paul M. Smith                 |     |Chairperson          |
|     |Mr. Rodney E. Barber              |     |Member               |
|     |Mr. Rowland C. Heflin             |     |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, in effect, reconsideration of his earlier
application requesting to be awarded the Combat Infantryman Badge (CIB).

2.  The applicant states, in effect, he should have received the CIB based
on his service in the Republic of Vietnam (RVN) under many combat
conditions, while holding an infantry military occupational specialty
(MOS).

3.  The applicant provides a self-authored statement in support of his
reconsideration request.

CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:

1.  Incorporated herein by reference are military records which were
summarized in the previous consideration of the applicant's case by the
Army Board for Correction of Military Records (ABCMR) in Docket Number
AR2000043672 on
1 February 2001.

2.  During its original review of the case, the Board concluded there was
insufficient evidence to support awarding the CIB to the applicant.

3.  The applicant's record shows he enlisted in the Regular Army and
entered active duty on 27 June 1968.  He was initially trained in MOS 11B
(Light Weapons Infantryman), and was later awarded MOS 12B (Combat
Engineer).

4.  The applicant's Enlisted Qualification Record (DA Form 20) shows he
served in the RVN from 2 July 1969 through 30 June 1970.  Item 38 (Record
of Assignments) shows that during his RVN tour, he was assigned to the
173rd Engineer Company, 173rd Airborne Brigade, performing duties in MOS
12A (Pioneer) and in MOS 12B (Combat Construction Specialist).  Item 41
(Awards and Decorations) does not include the CIB.  Item 44 (Time Lost)
shows he accrued 103 days of time lost due to being absent without leave
(AWOL) on six separate occasions between 20 December 1968 and 30 November
1970.  The applicant last audited the DA Form 20 on 12 April 1971.

5.  On 7 October 1971, the applicant was honorably released from active
duty (REFRAD) after completing 3 years of creditable active military
service and accruing 103 days of time lost due to AWOL.

6.  Item 24 (Decorations, Medals, Badges, Commendations, Citations and
Campaign Ribbons Awarded or Authorized) of the applicant's 7 October 1971
DD Form 214, as amended by a correction to the DD Form 214 (DD Form 214)
issued on 26 March 2001, shows he earned the following awards during his
active duty tenure:  National Defense Service Medal; Army Commendation
Medal; Vietnam Service Medal; RVN Campaign Medal with 60 Device; and
2 Overseas Service Bars.  The CIB is not included in the list of authorized
awards contained in Item 24 and the applicant authenticated the DD Form 214
with his signature in Item 32 (Signature of Person Being Transferred or
Discharged) on the date of his separation.

7.  Army Regulation 600-8-22 (Military Awards) prescribes Army policy and
criteria concerning awards.  Paragraph 8-6 provides the policy and
procedure for award of the CIB.  It states, in pertinent part, that there
are basically three requirements for award of the CIB.  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, 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.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The applicant's claim of entitlement to the CIB was carefully
considered.  However, by regulation, in order to support award of the CIB
there must be evidence that the member was serving in an infantry MOS
satisfactorily performing infantryman duties, that the member was assigned
to an infantry unit and that he was 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.

2.  The evidence of record confirms that although the applicant was
initially trained in and awarded an infantry MOS, during his RVN tour he
was assigned to an engineer unit and served in an engineer MOS, as evidence
by entries in Item 38 of his DA Form 20.  The CIB is not included in Item
41 of his DA Form 20 and he last audited this record on 12 April 1971,
almost a year after he left the RVN.  In effect, his audit was his
verification that the information contained on the record, to include the
Item 38 and Item 41 entries, was correct at that time.

3.  Further, there are no orders or other documents on file in his MPRJ
that show he was ever recommended for or awarded the CIB by proper
authority while serving in the RVN, and the CIB is not included in the list
of awards contained in Item 41 of his DA Form 20, which he last audited on
12 April 1971, almost a year after he left the RVN.  As a result, the
regulatory burden of proof necessary to support award of the CIB has not
been satisfied in this case.

4.  In order to justify correction of a military record the applicant must
show to the satisfaction of the Board, or it must otherwise satisfactorily
appear, that the record is in error or unjust.  The applicant has failed to
submit evidence that would satisfy this requirement or that would amendment
of the original decision in this case.

BOARD VOTE:

________  ________  ________  GRANT FULL RELIEF

________  ________  ________  GRANT PARTIAL RELIEF

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

__PMS__  __REB __  __RCH __  DENY APPLICATION

BOARD DETERMINATION/RECOMMENDATION:

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 to amend the decision of
the ABCMR set forth in Docket Number AR2000043672, dated 1 February 2001.




                                  _____Paul M. Smith______
                                            CHAIRPERSON



                                    INDEX

|CASE ID                 |AR20070006472                           |
|SUFFIX                  |                                        |
|RECON                   |AR2000043672 - 2001/02/01               |
|DATE BOARDED            |2007/08/28                              |
|TYPE OF DISCHARGE       |HD                                      |
|DATE OF DISCHARGE       |1971/10/07                              |
|DISCHARGE AUTHORITY     |AR 635-200                              |
|DISCHARGE REASON        |ETS                                     |
|BOARD DECISION          |DENY                                    |
|REVIEW AUTHORITY        |Ms. Mitrano                             |
|ISSUES         1.  46   |107.0000                                |
|2.                      |                                        |
|3.                      |                                        |
|4.                      |                                        |
|5.                      |                                        |
|6.                      |                                        |


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