RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


      IN THE CASE OF:


      BOARD DATE:        14 February 2008
      DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20070012635


      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. John T. Meixell               |     |Chairperson          |
|     |Ms. Carmen Duncan                 |     |Member               |
|     |Ms. Rea M. Nuppenau               |     |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, that his military occupational
specialty (MOS) be changed from 12B (Combat Engineer) to 11B (Infantryman).


2.  The applicant states, in effect, that while serving in Dau Tieng,
Republic of Vietnam (RVN), he was attached to infantry units and acted in
that capacity.  He further states that the commander of Company A, 3rd
Battalion, 22nd Infantry Regiment, told them they had earned the CIB.

3.  The applicant provides a Congressional Inquiry and self-authored
statements in support of his application.

CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:

1.  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 also allows the
Army Board for Correction of Military Records (ABCMR) to excuse an
applicant’s failure to timely file within the 3-year statute of limitations
if the ABCMR determines it would be in the interest of justice to do so.
While it appears the applicant did not file within the time frame provided
in the statute of limitations, the ABCMR has elected to conduct a
substantive review of this case and, only to the extent relief, if any, is
granted, has determined it is in the interest of justice to excuse the
applicant’s failure to timely file.  In all other respects, there are
insufficient bases to waive the statute of limitations for timely filing.

2.  The applicant's record shows that he was inducted into the Army of the
United States and entered active duty on 2 December 1965.  His Enlisted
Qualification Record (DA Form 20) shows that he completed advanced
individual training (AIT) at Fort Lewis, Washington.

3.  Item 22 (Military Occupational Specialties) of the applicant's DA Form
20 shows that he was awarded the primary MOS of 12A (Pioneer) on 26 April
1966, and that upon his promotion to specialist four (SP4) on 22 October
1966, he was awarded the progression primary MOS of 12B (Combat Engineer).
Item 31 (Foreign Service) shows he served in the RVN from 7 July 1966
through 6 July 1967.

4.  Item 38 (Record of Assignments) of the applicant's DA Form 20 shows
that during his RVN tour, he was assigned to Company C, 4th Engineer
Battalion, performing duties in MOS 12B as a combat engineer.  Item 38
gives no indication that he was ever assigned duties in MOS 11B, as an
infantryman.  Item 41 (Awards and Decorations) does not include the CIB in
the list of awards it contains.

5.  The applicant's Military Personnel Records Jacket (MPRJ) is void of any
documents or orders that indicate the applicant was ever recommended for or
awarded the CIB by proper authority while serving in the RVN, or that shows
he was ever assigned or attached to an infantry unit of brigade, regimental
or smaller size.

6.  On 29 August 1967, the applicant was honorably released from active
duty (REFRAD) after completing 1 year, 8 months, and 28 days of active
military service.  Item 24 (Decorations, Medals, Badges, Commendations,
Citations and Campaign Ribbons Awarded or Authorized) of the separation
document (DD Form 214) he was issued at the time shows he earned the
following awards:  Army Good Conduct Medal; National Defense Service Medal;
Vietnam Service Medal; RVN Campaign Medal; Sharpshooter Marksmanship
Qualification Badge with Rifle Bar; and 2 Overseas Service Bars.  The CIB
was not included in the list of 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
REFRAD.

7.  On 24 April 2004, a correction (DD Form 215) to the applicant's DD Form
214 was issued that added the RVN Gallantry Cross with Palm Unit Citation
to the list of awards contained in Item 24 of the original DD Form 214.

8.  Army Regulation 600-8-22 (Military Awards) contains the Army's awards
policy.  Chapter 8 contains guidance on award of the CIB.  It states, in
pertinent part, that there are three basic requirements for award of the
CIB.  They are that the member hold and serve in an infantry MOS; that he
serve in an infantry unit of brigade, regimental or smaller size; and that
he be personally present and participate with his qualifying infantry unit
while it is actively engaged in ground combat with enemy forces.  The
Awards Branch of the United States Army Human Resources Command (formerly
known as the Total Army Personnel 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.

9.  United States Army Vietnam (USARV) Regulation Number 672-1 (Awards and
Decorations) specifically governed award of the CIB to Army forces
operating in the RVN.  It specifically stated that the criteria for award
of the CIB identified the man who trained, lived, and fought as an
infantryman and the CIB is the unique award established to recognize the
infantryman and only the infantryman for his service.  It further stated
that the CIB was not an award for being shot at or for undergoing the
hazards of day to day combat.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The applicant’s contention that his MOS should be changed from 12B
(Combat Engineer) to 11B (Infantryman) and that he is entitled to the CIB
because he served with infantry units in the RVN was carefully considered
and found to be without merit.

2.  The evidence of record shows that during the applicant's RVN tour, he
was assigned to an engineer battalion, performing duties in MOS 12B as a
combat demolition specialist.  There is no evidence indicating that he ever
held and or served in an infantry MOS during his active duty tenure.  Even
had the applicant been attached to an infantry unit, given he did not hold
an infantry MOS, he would not have been eligible to receive the CIB.

3.  The applicant’s MPRJ is void of any orders or other documents that show
he was ever recommended for or awarded the CIB by proper authority while
serving on active duty.  By regulation, in order to support award of the
CIB, there must be evidence confirming the member held and served in an
infantry MOS, was assigned/attached to an infantry unit of brigade,
regimental or smaller size, and that he was present and participated with
the qualifying infantry unit while it was actively engaged in ground combat
with enemy forces.

4.  During the Vietnam era, the USARV regulation defining the criteria for
award of the CIB in the RVN stated, in pertinent part, that the CIB is the
unique award established to recognize the infantryman and only the
infantryman for his service, and that it was not an award for being shot at
or for undergoing the hazards of day to day combat.

5.  Further, the CIB is not included in the list of awards contained in
Item 41 of his DA Form 20, nor is it included in Item 24 of his DD Form
214, which he authenticated with his signature on the date of his REFRAD.
In effect, his signature on the DD Form 214 was his verification that the
information contained on the separation document, to include the list of
awards in Item 24, was correct at the time the DD Form 214 was prepared and
issued.
6.  Absent any evidence indicating that the applicant held and served in an
infantry MOS in a qualifying infantry unit while serving in the RVN, the
regulatory burden of proof necessary to support award of the CIB has not
been satisfied in this case.  The applicant and all others concerned should
know that this action in no way diminishes the sacrifices made by the
applicant in service to our Nation.  The applicant and all Americans should
be justifiably proud of his service in arms.

7.  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.

BOARD VOTE:

________  ________  ________  GRANT FULL RELIEF

________  ________  ________  GRANT PARTIAL RELIEF

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

___JTM     __CD ___  __RMN__  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.




                                  _____John T. Meixell______
                                            CHAIRPERSON



                                    INDEX

|CASE ID                 |AR20070012635                           |
|SUFFIX                  |                                        |
|RECON                   |                                        |
|DATE BOARDED            |2008/02/DD                              |
|TYPE OF DISCHARGE       |HD                                      |
|DATE OF DISCHARGE       |1967/08/29                              |
|DISCHARGE AUTHORITY     |AR 635-200                              |
|DISCHARGE REASON        |Hardship                                |
|BOARD DECISION          |DENY                                    |
|REVIEW AUTHORITY        |                                        |
|ISSUES         1.  46   |107.0000                                |
|2.                      |                                        |
|3.                      |                                        |
|4.                      |                                        |
|5.                      |                                        |
|6.                      |                                        |


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