RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


      IN THE CASE OF:


      BOARD DATE:        25 October 2007
      DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20070007463


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


      The following members, a quorum, were present:

|     |Ms. Linda D. Simmons              |     |Chairperson          |
|     |Mr. Scott W. Faught               |     |Member               |
|     |Mr. Roland S. Venable             |     |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 reconsideration of his earlier request for award
of the Combat Infantryman Badge (CIB).

2.  The applicant states that an examination of his DA Form 20 (Enlisted
Qualification Record) will show that he was a combat infantryman while in
Vietnam.  He was given the infantry military occupational specialty (MOS)
because he “had a class of IIIII profile” (apparently meaning he had a
“picket fence” 111111 physical profile with no assignment limitations)
“which means I was met (sic) for combat which I served in that compacity
(sic) until 14 June, 1967.”  He states he took his turn with 12 troops to a
hill in Vietnam with his M-14 rifle clean and loaded.  He went on patrols
and carried out his responsibilities as an infantryman at that time.

3.  The applicant provides a copy of item 38 (Record of Assignments) of his
DA Form 20; two pages from his DD Form 230 (Service Record); and the
original Board case.

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
AR20060013595 on 12 April 2007.

2.  After having had prior service, the applicant enlisted in the Regular
Army on 11 August 1961.

3.  It cannot be determined what primary MOS the applicant held when he was
assigned to Vietnam.  Item 22 (Military Occupational Specialties) of his DA
Form 20 shows only that he was awarded primary MOS 51P (Utility Foreman) on
      21 August 1967 and secondary MOS 31M (Radio Relay and Carrier
Attendant) (apparently later changed to MOS 76W) on 21 August 1967.

4.  The applicant arrived in Vietnam and was assigned to 1st Platoon,
Company B, 501st Signal Battalion, 101st Airborne Division on 28 March
1967.  His DA Form 20 shows he performed duties as an airborne-qualified
radio relay and carrier operator.  He departed Vietnam in May 1967 when he
was accidentally injured in the area of the signal maintenance command
post.


5.  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.

6.  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 based on the
fact that the regular infantryman lived, slept, ate, and fought as an
infantryman on a continuous and indefinite basis without regard to the
tactical situation.

7.  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 of brigade, regimental, or smaller
size during such time as the unit is engaged in active ground combat, and
must actively participate in such ground combat.  The Awards Branch of the
U. S. Army Human Resources Command has advised, in similar cases, that
during the Vietnam era the CIB was awarded only to enlisted individuals who
held and served in MOS 11B, 11C, 11F, 11G, or 11H.

8.  U.S. Army Vietnam Regulation Number 672-1 (Awards and Decorations) also
provided for award of the CIB.  Appendix 3 to Annex A of this regulation
listed positions which qualified for award of the CIB.  The regulation
authorized award of the CIB to radio operators provided their primary duty
was to accompany infantry or infantry-type units on tactical operations.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The applicant’s DA Form 20 does not show that he held an infantry MOS
or performed duties in an infantry MOS.  MOS 31M is a signal MOS.  In
addition, his DA Form 20 shows he was not assigned to an infantry unit of
brigade, regimental, or smaller size while he was in Vietnam.  He was
assigned to the 101st Airborne Division; however, that unit is larger than
a brigade or regiment.
He was assigned to the 501st Signal Battalion of the Division.  There is no
evidence to show the applicant was a radio operator whose primary duty was
to accompany infantry or infantry-type units on tactical operations.

2.  The applicant may very well have gone on patrols with his unit.
However, he was not an infantryman and it was not his daily mission to
close with and destroy the enemy and to seize and hold terrain.

3.  Regrettably, there is still insufficient evidence that would warrant
awarding the applicant the CIB.

BOARD VOTE:

________  ________  ________  GRANT FULL RELIEF

________  ________  ________  GRANT PARTIAL RELIEF

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

__lds___  __swf___  __rsv___  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 AR20060013595 dated 12 April 2007.




                                  __Linda D. Simmons____
                                            CHAIRPERSON



                                    INDEX

|CASE ID                 |AR20070007463                           |
|SUFFIX                  |                                        |
|RECON                   |                                        |
|DATE BOARDED            |20071025                                |
|TYPE OF DISCHARGE       |                                        |
|DATE OF DISCHARGE       |                                        |
|DISCHARGE AUTHORITY     |                                        |
|DISCHARGE REASON        |                                        |
|BOARD DECISION          |DENY                                    |
|REVIEW AUTHORITY        |Ms. Mitrano                             |
|ISSUES         1.       |107.0111                                |
|2.                      |                                        |
|3.                      |                                        |
|4.                      |                                        |
|5.                      |                                        |
|6.                      |                                        |


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