RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


      IN THE CASE OF:


      BOARD DATE:        13 March 2008
      DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20070015622


      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. Mark D. Manning               |     |Chairperson          |
|     |Mr. Jeffrey C. Redmann            |     |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 request to be
awarded the Combat Infantryman Badge (CIB).

2.  The applicant states, in effect, that his previous request for the CIB
was denied because he held the military occupational specialty (MOS) 11D
(Armor Intelligence Specialist), but he is requesting to receive the CIB
because he earned it.

3.  The applicant provides a self-authored letter as new evidence in
support of his 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
AR20050000006, on 25 August 2005.

2.  During its original review of the applicant's case, the Board
determined the CIB was not authorized to be issued during the period the
applicant served in Korea.  It further found that he held and served in a
armor MOS while assigned to Korea and as a result, even had the CIB been
authorized for Korea at the time, he was not eligible to receive the award.


3.  In his letter, the applicant argues that although his separation
document (DD Form 214) showed he held the MOS 11D, he was totally an
infantry reconnaissance (Recon) Scout (a foot Soldier) during the 13 months
he served on the Demilitarized Zone (DMZ) in Korea.  He states that he was
a bona fide infantry Recon Scout and spent 6 months in advanced individual
training at
Fort Carson, Colorado.  He states that did 13 months as a foot Recon Scout
north of the Freedom Bridge and was assigned to an infantry regiment.  He
states that he received numerous certificates showing he was a DMZ scout
and was awarded this insignia.  He indicates that subsequent to his service
in Korea, he was assigned to Fort Hood, Texas, where he served in MOS 11D
for the remainder of his career.

4.  The applicant's record shows that he was inducted into the Army and
entered active duty on 29 September 1966.  He successfully completed basic
combat training and advanced individual training (AIT) at Fort Carson,
Colorado.  Upon completion of AIT, he was awarded MOS 11B (Light Weapons
Infantryman), and served in that MOS at his first permanent assignment at
Fort Carson.
5.  Item 22 (Military Occupational Specialties) of the applicant's DA Form
20 confirms he was reclassified into MOS 11D (Armor Intelligence
Specialist) on
22 December 1967.  Item 38 (Record of Assignments) shows that he was
departed Fort Carson for Korea on 24 April 1967, and arrived there on 27
April 1967.  It also shows that on 3 May 1967, he was assigned to
Headquarters and Headquarters Company, 3rd Battalion, 23rd Infantry
Regiment, and was assigned the duty MOS 11D and principle duty of Scout
Driver.  Item 41 (Awards and Decorations) does not include the CIB in the
list of awards entered and Item 48 (Date of Audit) shows the applicant last
audited the DA Form 20 on 9 July 1968.

6.  The applicant's Military Personnel Records Jacket (MPRJ) is void of any
documents or orders that indicate he was ever recommended for or awarded
the CIB by proper authority while serving in Korea, or that shows he was
present and participated with his unit in Korea while it was engaged in
active ground combat with enemy forces.

7.  On 4 September 1968, the applicant was honorably separated after
completing 1 year, 11 months, and 6 days of active military service.  Item
23a (Specialty Number and Title) of the DD Form 214 he was issued at the
time shows he held the MOS 11D (Armor Intelligence Specialist) and the list
of awards contained in Item 24 (Decorations, Medals, Badges, Commendations,
Citations and Campaign Ribbons Awarded or Authorized) does not include the
CIB.  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.

8.  Army Regulation 600-8-22 (Military Awards) contains the Army's awards
policy.  Section II, Chapter 8 contains guidance on the award of Combat and
Special Skill Badges, and Paragraph 8-6 contains guidance on award of the
CIB. It states, in pertinent part, that in order to support award of the
CIB there must be evidence confirming the member held and served in an
infantry MOS; that the member served in an infantry unit of brigade,
regimental, or smaller size; and that he was present and participated with
his qualifying infantry unit while it was engaged in active ground combat
with a hostile force.

9.  Paragraph 8-6c of the awards regulation identifies the qualifying wars,
conflicts, and operations for which the CIB is authorized.  The only period
for which the CIB was authorized for service on the DMZ in Korea was from
4 January 1969 through 31 March 1994.  It was not authorized for DMZ
service during the period the applicant served in Korea between 1967 and
1968.


DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The applicant's request for reconsideration of his earlier petition to
be awarded the CIB was carefully considered.  However, by regulation, in
order to support award of the CIB, there must be evidence that the member
held and served in a qualifying infantry MOS; that he served in a
qualifying infantry unit; and that he was present and participated with his
qualifying infantry unit while it was engaged in active ground combat with
hostile forces.  Further, the regulation identifies specific qualifying
wars, conflicts and operations for which the CIB may be awarded.

2.  The evidence of record confirms the CIB was not authorized for service
on the DMZ in Korea during the period between 1967 and 1968, which is the
period of the applicant during which the applicant served in Korea.
Therefore, even had the applicant met the three basic regulatory
requirements, he would not have been authorized the CIB for his service in
Korea.

3.  Further, Item 38 of the applicant's DA Form 20 confirms that during his
tenure of assignment in Korea, he was assigned to the duty MOS 11D and the
principle duty of Scout Driver.  Item 41 does not include the CIB in the
list of awards entered, and the applicant last audited this record on 9
July 1968, over two months after he left Korea.  In effect, his audit was
his verification that the information on the record, to include the Item 38
and Item 41 entries, was correct at the time of the audit.

4.  In addition, the CIB is not included in the list of awards contained in
Item 24 of the applicant's DD Form 214, which he authenticated with his
signature on the date of his separation.  In effect, his signature was his
verification that the information contained on the separation document, to
include the list of awards contained in Item 24, was correct at the time
the document was prepared and issued.  Finally, the applicant's MPRJ is
void of any orders or other documents that indicate he was ever recommended
for or awarded the CIB by proper authority while serving on active duty.
As a result, the regulatory criteria for award of the CIB still has not
been met in this case.

5.  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 support
amendment of the original Board decision in this case.



BOARD VOTE:

________  ________  ________  GRANT FULL RELIEF

________  ________  ________  GRANT PARTIAL RELIEF

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

__MDM__  __JCR __  __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 AR20050000006, dated 25 August 2005.




                                  _____Mark D. Manning___
                                            CHAIRPERSON



                                    INDEX

|CASE ID                 |AR20070015622                           |
|SUFFIX                  |                                        |
|RECON                   |AR20050000006-2005/08/25                |
|DATE BOARDED            |2008/03DD                               |
|TYPE OF DISCHARGE       |HD                                      |
|DATE OF DISCHARGE       |1968/09/04                              |
|DISCHARGE AUTHORITY     |AR 635-200                              |
|DISCHARGE REASON        |Early Out                               |
|BOARD DECISION          |DENY                                    |
|REVIEW AUTHORITY        |                                        |
|ISSUES         1.  46   |107.0000                                |
|2.                      |                                        |
|3.                      |                                        |
|4.                      |                                        |
|5.                      |                                        |
|6.                      |                                        |


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