RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


	IN THE CASE OF:	  


	BOARD DATE:	  27 November 2007
	DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20070012870 


	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:


Mr. William D. Powers

Chairperson

Mr. Gerald J. Purcell

Member

Mr. John G. Heck

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 two applications, that he be awarded the Combat Action Badge (CAB) and the Combat Medical Badge (CMB).

2.  The applicant states that the submission for the CAB was not processed on time.  His chain of command recommended approval, but the U. S. Army Human Resources Command (USAHRC) denied the award without a valid reason.  They stated that he was in a fortified position when he was really in a tent taking care of the Soldiers.  They also denied the CMB, again without a valid reason.  They stated he was under indirect fire.  He was with his medical platoon as a battalion surgeon under rocket and mortar fire not more than 100 yards from the explosion.  Also, he was exposed several times to improvised explosive device (IED) explosions and sniper attacks.

3.  The applicant provides a self-authored statement; a DA Form 4187 (Personnel Action) requesting award of the CAB with an attached award packet; a Combat Medical Badge Statement with three sworn statements, his deployment orders with an amendment, and his DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty) for the period ending 29 September 2005; two memoranda from the Military Awards Branch, USAHRC; and an email, dated 26 September 2007.

CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:

1.  The applicant was commissioned as a U. S. Army Reserve Captain, Medical Corps on 22 February 2002.

2.  The applicant was ordered to active duty on 25 February 2003, served in Southwest Asia from 1 June through 31 August 2003, and was released from active duty on 26 September 2003.

3.  On 5 July 2006, the applicant requested the CAB.  His chain of command recommended approval on a DA Form 4187-1 (Personnel Action Form Addendum).  He provided a statement (it cannot be determined if he or someone else prepared the statement), along with two supporting statements, that indicated that on 2 June 2003 he was at the 452d Combat Support Hospital at Bagram Air Base, Afghanistan when it came under rocket fire.  One round impacted no fewer than 60 meters away.  “TF 44 MED did not sustain any injuries nor damage to equipment.”  If the rockets had landed short of the A-10 aircraft they were intended to destroy, the rockets would have directly impacted within the hospital compound.  The statements also indicated that on 12 July 2003 Bagram Air Base came under rocket attack with three rounds impacting about 50 to 100 meters from the corner of the hospital.  No injury or damage to equipment was reported during this attack.  If the rockets had landed short of the A-10s instead of overshooting, they would have directly impacted within the hospital compound.

4.  The applicant was ordered to active duty on 24 May 2005, served in Iraq    from 5 June through 9 September 2005, and was released from active duty on  29 September 2005.

5.  On or about 3 November 2006, the applicant requested the CMB for himself and several other Soldiers.  He provided a statement, along with three sworn statements, that indicated that on 29 June 2005, while assigned to the 3d Squadron, 116th Armored Cavalry, he and several others came under enemy fire as a 107mm enemy rocket impacted within 100 meters of his position in the aid station while he was performing his duties.  All of them grabbed aid bags and prepared to assist possible casualties resulting from the rocket attack after the perimeter was secured.   

6.  On 8 May 2007, the Military Awards Branch, USAHRC disapproved the applicant’s request for the CAB.  USAHRC stated that although there was evidence of enemy action, the incident did not meet the intent of the CAB.

7.  On 17 July 2007, the Military Awards Branch, USAHRC disapproved the applicant’s request for the CMB.  USAHRC stated that the documentation provided indicated that medical duties were performed after security was established and not while the unit was under direct fire.  Furthermore, there was no evidence that the unit engaged the enemy in active ground combat.

8.  When the applicant provided USAHRC’s denials to the Board, he stated that he was under enemy action several times, and his medics and fellow Soldiers received the award under the same situation.

9.  Army Regulation 600-8-22 (Military Awards) states the requirements for award of the CAB 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 CAB.  However, it is not intended to award the CAB 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 CMB.

10.  Headquarters, Department of the Army message, dated 3 June 2005, subject:  Combat Action Badge (CAB) Processing Procedures, provided processing procedures for award of the CAB.  The message stated that, for the purpose of awarding the CAB, attacks by mortars, rockets, rocket-propelled grenades, IEDs, and suicide bombers qualify for the badge.  If application is made based on any of these incidents, the narrative must include the proximity of the Soldier to the impact and the likelihood that the Soldier could have reasonably been injured by the blast, detonation, or explosion.

11.  Army Regulation 600-8-22 provides for award of the CMB to medical department personnel (colonel and below) who are assigned or attached to a medical unit of company or smaller size that is organic to an infantry unit of brigade, regimental or smaller size which is engaged in active ground combat.  On or after 18 September 2001, medical personnel assigned or attached to or under operational control of any ground Combat Arms units (not to include members assigned or attached to Aviation units) of brigade or smaller size, who satisfactorily perform medical duties while the unit is engaged in active ground combat, provided they are personally present and under fire, are eligible for award of the CMB.  

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The applicant requested award of the CAB.  He stated that on 2 June 2003 he was at the 452d Combat Support Hospital at Bagram Air Base when it came under rocket fire, and one round impacted no fewer than 60 meters away.  On  12 July 2003 Bagram Air Base came under rocket attack with three rounds impacting about 50 to 100 meters from the corner of the hospital.  

2.  Attacks by mortars, rockets, rocket-propelled grenades, IEDs, and suicide bombers qualify for the CAB.  However, one of the criteria for award of the CAB is the likelihood that the Soldier could have reasonably been injured by the blast, detonation, or explosion.  

3.  It is acknowledged that anyone at the hospital could have been injured as a result of these attacks.  However, no one was injured and it appears that there was not even any equipment damage.  Therefore, it appears that the applicant did not meet the eligibility criterion for award of the CAB requiring that he could have reasonably been injured by the explosions.  Therefore, there is insufficient evidence to warrant award of the CAB.

4.  The applicant requested award of the CMB.  He provided a statement that indicated that on 29 June 2005, while assigned to the 3d Squadron, 116th Armored Cavalry, he and several others came under enemy fire as a 107mm enemy rocket impacted within 100 meters of his position in the aid station while he was performing his duties.  He stated that all of them grabbed aid bags and prepared to assist possible casualties resulting from the rocket attack after the perimeter was secured.   

5.  One of the eligibility criteria for award of the CMB on or after 18 September 2001 is that medical personnel assigned or attached to any ground Combat Arms units of brigade or smaller size satisfactorily perform medical duties while the unit is engaged in active ground combat and be personally present and under fire.  The applicant’s own statement indicated he performed his medical duties after the perimeter was secured, indicating the unit was not engaged in active ground combat at the time (i.e., there is no evidence to show he attended to casualties of the rocket attack while the attack was going on).  Even in his application to the Board, he acknowledged that he was in the aid station, not with his unit as it was engaged in active ground combat.

6.  The applicant’s statement that his medics and fellow Soldiers received the award (it cannot be determined if he meant the CAB or the CMB or both) under the same situation.  However, the award recommendations for those Soldiers are not available for comparison.  Even if those Soldiers were awarded these badges for the identical situations that would be insufficient justification to warrant compounding the error by awarding the badges to the applicant.

BOARD VOTE:

________  ________  ________  GRANT FULL RELIEF 

________  ________  ________  GRANT PARTIAL RELIEF 

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

__wdp___  __gjp___  __jgh___  DENY APPLICATION

BOARD DETERMINATION/RECOMMENDATION:

1.  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.

2.  The Board wants the applicant to know that this action in no way diminishes the sacrifices made by him in service to our Nation.  The applicant and all Americans should be justifiably proud of his service in arms.  




__William D. Powers
          CHAIRPERSON




INDEX

CASE ID
AR20070012870
SUFFIX

RECON

DATE BOARDED
20071127
TYPE OF DISCHARGE

DATE OF DISCHARGE

DISCHARGE AUTHORITY

DISCHARGE REASON

BOARD DECISION
DENY
REVIEW AUTHORITY
Ms. Mitrano
ISSUES         1.
107.0112
2.
107.0143
3.

4.

5.

6.