RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


	IN THE CASE OF:	  


	BOARD DATE:	  22 January 2008
	DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20070011795 


	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

Ms. Jeanne Marie Rowan

Analyst


The following members, a quorum, were present:


Mr. James E. Vick

Chairperson

Mr. Thomas M. Ray

Member

Mr. Jeffrey C. Redmann

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, in effect, that his company and squadron commanders favorably recommended him for award of the CIB during Operation Iraqi Freedom.  His regimental commander denied the request for award of the CIB and wrote on the DA Form 4187 (Personnel Action) in the comments section the initials "CAB", the acronym for the Combat Action Badge.  The applicant states the CAB is for non-infantry personnel; that he is an Infantryman; and that he was assigned to 3/278 Regimental Combat Team, Mortar Platoon.  

3.  The applicant provides a copy of the DA Form 4187 and related supporting documents, dated 14 July 2005, which shows the company commander's recommendation to award the applicant the CIB.  He also provides a self-authored chronological outline of his tour of duty in Iraq, supporting witness statements, and personnel documents to include a copy of his DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty) with a separation date of 26 November 2005.  

CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:

1.  The applicant's record shows that he enlisted in the State of Tennessee Army National Guard (ARNG) on 7 September 2000 for a period of 6 years.  He completed basic combat training and advanced individual training.  Upon completion of advanced individual training, he was awarded the military occupational specialty (MOS) 11C (Indirect Fire Infantryman).   

2.  The applicant's record shows that as a member of the Tennessee ARNG he was ordered to active duty on 14 June 2004 in support of Operation Iraqi Freedom.  The applicant served a tour of duty as an 11C with the Mortar Platoon of the 3/278th Regimental Combat Team, 42d Infantry Division (Mechanized).  Records show he was released from active duty upon completion of required active service on 26 November 2005 with an honorable characterization of service.  The highest rank he attained while serving during this period was specialist/pay grade E-4.

3.  The applicant was issued a DD Form 214 upon his release from active duty that shows he was deployed to Iraq in support of Operation Iraqi Freedom for a continuous period of eleven months spanning from 23 November 2004 through 26 October 2005.

4.  Item 13 (Decorations, Medals, Badges, Citations and Campaign Ribbons Awarded or Authorized) of the applicant's DD Form 214 does not show award of the CIB.

5.  As supporting evidence, the applicant provided a copy of DA Form 4187, dated 14 July 2005, which shows that his company and squadron commanders recommended him for award of the CIB.  Section IV (Remarks) contains the following entry, "On 28 June 2005, a 107 MM rocket exploded that was targeting the mortar gunline landed at NC 13450 87979 approximately 50 meters from the SM and the mortar FDC."  

6.  The applicant's self-authored statement that was attached to the DA Form 4187 states, in pertinent part, that the applicant was a mortar crewmember who held the positions of gunner, assistant gunner, and ammunition bearer.  The statement shows that from 27 January 2005 through 27 September 2005 on eight different dates he performed his assigned duties by firing illumination rounds, and on two of these dates, he fired illumination rounds in response to indirect mortar attacks on the Forward Operation Base (FOB). 

7.  In support of his application, the applicant provided the following witness statements and a Green Spot Report.

     a.  The first witness stated, in effect, that during a platoon briefing on 28 June 2005, a 107 mm enemy rocket impacted and detonated within 50 meters of the platoon's position.  The witness states he established personnel and equipment accountability, and then manned the gun line to return fire.  The DA Form 2823 (Sworn Statement) was signed by the witness and dated 28 July 2005.

     b.  The second witness stated, in effect, that on 28 June 2005, a 106 mm Chinese rocket landed and exploded a few yards from the Soldiers in the company in the northwest sector of FOB Cobra.  He states that the fragmentary shells from the explosion affected the mortar platoon, the engineer platoon, and part of Bravo Company, 128th Infantry.  Explosive ordinance (EOD) teams confirmed that it was an enemy artillery shell.  The DA Form 2823 was signed by the second witness and dated 9 July 2005.

     c.  The third witness, a first lieutenant stated, in effect, that on 28 June 2005, a 106 mm Chinese rocket landed and exploded in the FOB near the living quarters of the mortar platoon, Bravo Company, and the engineer platoon.  He 

states in pertinent part, that he was in a Containerized Housing Unit (CHU) with another Soldier when he felt the physical impact of the incoming artillery shell and fell to the ground.  He waited until the debris had stopped falling on the roof of the CHU and then he initiated personnel and equipment accountability checks. He had the impact area secured for EOD inspectors.  The DA Form 2823 is signed by the first lieutenant and dated 9 July 2005.

     d.  A Green Spot Report, dated 2025 hours, 28 June 2005, shows that one 107 mm rocket impacted and exploded inside the wire at FOB Cobra with no damages or injuries reported.

8.  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.  That 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 or special forces specialty, satisfactorily performed duty while assigned or attached as a member of an infantry, ranger or special forces unit of brigade, regimental, or smaller size during any period such unit was engaged in active ground combat.  

9.  Army Regulation 600-8-22 (Military Awards) states the requirements for award of the Combat Action Badge are branch and MOS immaterial.  Assignment to a combat arms unit or a unit organized to conduct close or offensive combat operations, or performing offensive combat operations is not required to qualify for the Combat Action Badge.  However, it is not intended to award the Combat Action Badge to all Soldiers who serve in a combat zone or imminent danger area.  The Soldier must be performing assigned duties in an area where hostile fire pay or imminent danger pay is authorized.  The Soldier must be personally present and actively engaging or being engaged by the enemy, and performing satisfactorily in accordance with the prescribed rules of engagement.  The Soldier must not be assigned or attached to a unit that would qualify the Soldier for the Combat Infantryman Badge or the Combat Medical Badge.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The applicant contends that he should be awarded the CIB based on the recommendations of his company and squadron commanders. 

2.  The evidence presented by the applicant shows that he was an Infantryman assigned to a mortar platoon that was part of a combined arms regimental military unit during Operation Iraqi Freedom.  The witness statements show that the FOB where the unit was stationed in Iraq received one indirect artillery shell inside the perimeter of the FOB on the evening of 28 June 2005.  Additionally, the applicant's chronological statement shows that on eight separate dates he was part of a mortar crew that fired illumination rounds on suspected enemy targets.

3.  The applicant was an Infantryman (MOS 11C), but he was not assigned to an infantry unit of regimental size or smaller.  The applicant was assigned to a mortar platoon and this platoon was part of a combined arms combat regiment.  Therefore, the applicant is not entitled to award of the CIB.

4.  The regimental commander disapproved award of the CIB and wrote in the award recommendation comments section "CAB."  There is no evidence to show that the applicant was awarded the CAB.  The applicant was present in an imminent danger zone and he states he performed his assigned duties as a mortar crewmember to include gunner where he fired illumination rounds at suspected enemy positions or in response to insurgent artillery attacks.  The witness statements report that on 28 June 2005, an enemy artillery shell impacted inside the FOB.  These same witnesses do not state where the applicant was located or if he fired in response to the enemy attack or that he performed duties satisfactorily within the prescribed rules of engagement.  Therefore, there is insufficient evidence upon which to base award of the CAB.

BOARD VOTE:

________  ________  ________  GRANT FULL RELIEF 

________  ________  ________  GRANT PARTIAL RELIEF 

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

__JEV__  __TMR__  __JCR___  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 for correction of the records of the individual concerned.




   ___James E. Vick     __
          CHAIRPERSON




INDEX

CASE ID
AR
SUFFIX

RECON

DATE BOARDED
20080122
TYPE OF DISCHARGE

DATE OF DISCHARGE

DISCHARGE AUTHORITY

DISCHARGE REASON

BOARD DECISION
DENY
REVIEW AUTHORITY

ISSUES         1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.