RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


      IN THE CASE OF:


      BOARD DATE:        27 September 2007
      DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20070011924


      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. Deyon D. Battle               |     |Analyst              |


      The following members, a quorum, were present:

|     |Mr. Richard T. Dunbar             |     |Chairperson          |
|     |Mr. Chester A. Damian             |     |Member               |
|     |Mr. Edward E. Montgomery          |     |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 Action Badge (CAB).

2.  The applicant states that he is an Active Guard Reserve (AGR) member of
the United States Army Reserve (USAR) and that he is currently stationed in
Vancouver, Washington with the 369th Combat Support Hospital.  He states
that he was assigned to the 452nd Combat Support Hospital out of Milwaukee,
Wisconsin and was deployed to Bagram, Afghanistan from May 2003 to April
2004.  He states that he is requesting assistance in redressing a wrong
that has occurred in awarding a combat award for himself, a lieutenant
colonel, and
19 other Soldiers that were assigned to the unit at the time of the
incident.  He states that he submitted a request for award of the CAB to
the Human Resources Command in October 2005 and that the request "sat" for
over a year.  He states that the criteria for award of the CAB changed
since he submitted his request and that the Human Resources Command,
Alexandria, has denied his request based on their interpretation of the
revision of the regulation currently in place that omits the phrase "For
the purposes of awarding the CAB, attacks by mortars, rockets, rocket
propelled grenades, improvised explosive devices, suicide bombers, or other
projectiles qualify for the badge."

3.  The applicant states that the aforementioned quote was from an
electronic mail (email) message from the Department of the Army to the
Theater commanders and the Army at large in 2005 and 2006 delegating the
authority for awarding the CAB and clarifying the criteria in which to
award the badge.  He states that the only argument that the Department of
the Army may have would be in the number of rockets and mortars that were
fired on his unit during that particular attack.  He states that the number
of rounds that the unit sustained was not mentioned in the eyewitness
statements and that the message to the field was "direction and location in
meters of where rounds hit; probability of injury due to location of the
individual to where the round landed."  He states that approximately three
to five rounds/rockets and no more than seven landed in and around the
location of his assigned unit.  He states that the fact that aircrafts were
in the proximity of the rocket/mortar round hits and that going into a
bunker for cover after the first rounds impacted the unit was not enough in
the eyes of the reviewers as "being engaged by the enemy.”

4.  The applicant goes on to state that had he or one of his follow
Soldiers been wounded by the same mortar/rocket attack, there would have
been no question of awarding the CAB.  He concludes by stating that if the
requests for award of the CAB had been submitted in a timely manner it
would have been awarded
under the criteria that was in place during the period of the incident.  He
states that the format for award of the CAB has changed several times and
that each command seems to have a different way of having the requested
information formatted and submitted.  He states that neither he nor the
other Soldiers that he is referencing are award hounds; that they just want
recognition for what they endured.

5.  The applicant provides in support of his application, an Army Reserve
Medical Command Working Awards Log; a copy of an email from the military
awards branch regarding the delegation of the CAB Approval Authority; a
copy of a message dated 30 June 2005 regarding the delegation of the Combat
Action Badge; a portion of Army Regulation 600-8-22 regarding the CAB; a
statement from the Senior Medical Operations Noncommissioned Officer (NCO)
providing his written testimony on the incidents in question; a copy of the
memorandum from the United States Army Human Resource Command (AHRC) dated
8 May 2007, disapproving the request made by the applicant's unit for award
of the Combat Action Badge; and a copy of a letter from the Military Awards
Branch dated 6 June 2007, addressed to a Representative in Congress
informing him of the basis behind the denial of the CAB.

6.  The applicant also provides a letter from the AHRC dated 1 August 2007,
addressed to a Senator informing him of the basis behind the denial of the
Combat Action Badge; eleven emails between the applicant and fellow
Soldiers regarding the CAB packets; a copy of the Personnel Action (DA Form
4187) dated 21 October 2005 and the checklist that was submitted requesting
award of the CAB; a copy of a DA Form 4187 dated 21 May 2006, requesting
award of the CAB; a copy of a DA Form 4187 dated 14 October 2006; a copy of
a statement made by the applicant regarding an attack made on his unit; and
copies of maps in which the applicant indicates threat ranges in
conjunction with the location of his unit.

CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:

1.  The applicant is currently a member of the USAR on AGR status and at
the time of the incidents in question, he was assigned to Company B,
Detachment 1, 452nd Combat Support Hospital (CSH) performing duties as a
health care specialist.

2.  It appears that on 21 October 2005, the Commander, Company B,
Detachment 1, 452nd Combat Support Hospital (CSH) submitted a DA Form 4187
to the Commander, Army Reserve Medical Command requesting that the
applicant be awarded the CAB.  The commander indicated that the applicant
was at Bagram Air Field, Afghanistan in support of Operation Enduring
Freedom and that he was personally engaged by the enemy.  The Commander
submitted a statement in which he indicated that on 3 June 2003, the air
base came under rocket attack with one round impacting approximately no
fewer than 60 meters, southeast corner from the 452nd CSH LSA (sic).  The
commander stated that the applicant assumed a fighting position next to his
Intensive Care Unit and assessed that there were no injuries sustained at
his location.  He stated that the applicant directed Soldiers in his area
to take cover at the nearest bunker adjacent to their current location and
secure their patients.

3.  In the statement, the commander stated that the medical security team
did not sustain any injuries nor damage to equipment; however, the unit did
treat those who were injured as a result of this incident.  The commander
stated that it was the enemy's intention to engage and destroy the Air
Force's A-10 Aircraft that was adjacent to the hospital and to disrupt the
452nd CSH's ability to provide combat health service support.  He stated
that the aircraft was located approximately 60 to 70 meters from the
hospital compound and that the rocket was fired from an unknown location.
The commander stated that if the rocket would have landed short of the A-
10's instead of overshooting, the rocket would have directly impacted
within the 452nd CSH compound.  In his statement, the commander provided
three additional incidents of the air base and village of Bagram,
Afghanistan, being under attack in close proximity to the 452nd CSH.  The
command submitted supporting statements from members of Task Force 44
Medical Operations

4.  The available records indicate that a DA Form 4187 was resubmitted on
21 June 2006 and submitted again on 14 October 2006.

5.  The emails that were forwarded and received by the applicant pertain to
the status of the CAB being awarded.

6.  On 8 May 2007, the applicant's commander was notified by the Chief,
Military Awards Branch, AHRC that the request for award of the CAB was
disapproved.  The Chief, Military Awards Branch stated that the CAB
provides special recognition to Soldiers that are personally present and
actively engaging or being engaged by the enemy.  The Chief, Military
Awards Branch stated that although there was evidence of enemy action the
incident did not meet the intent of the badge.


7.  Apparently the applicant contacted his Representative in Congress
regarding this matter as on 6 June 2007, the Chief, Military Awards Branch,
AHRC responded to a letter from a Representative in Congress in which he
stated that on 18 April 2007, his office received a request for award of
the CAB from the applicant.  The Chief, Military Awards Branch stated that
on 8 may 2007, the request for the CAB was disapproved and that based on
the eyewitness statements that he provided, the applicant sought cover in a
bunker from an incoming rocket attack.  He states that although there was
evidence of enemy action, the incident did not meet the intent of the
badge.

8.  Approximately the same response was forwarded to a United States
Senator on 1 August 2007, in regard to the applicant's request for the CAB.

9.  For the purpose of this review the applicant submits a copy of a
message from the Military Awards Branch, addressed to the Army Staff dated
28 June 2005, regarding CAB processing procedures dated 3 June 2005.  In
this message the applicant highlights that portion which reads "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.  (For the purpose of awarding the CAB, attacks by mortars,
rockets, rocket-propelled grenades, improvised explosive devices, suicide
bomber, or other projectiles qualify for the badge.)"

10.  On 2 May 2005, the Chief of Staff of the Army approved the creation of
the Combat Action Badge to provide special recognition to Soldiers who
personally engaged, or are engaged by, the enemy.

11.  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.  Based on a review of the available records, the applicant is not
entitled to the CAB.

2.  While there is no doubt that what the applicant contends is true, his
actions do not amount to actively engaging or being engaged by the enemy.
There is no evidence nor has he submitted any evidence that indicates that
he was fighting against enemy forces during any of the incidents in
question.

3.  The records do show that he sought cover in a bunker and that he
directed his unit to their safety as well as assuring that the patients
were safe during these incidents.  While his actions are commendable, in
accordance with the applicable regulation, he is not entitled to award of
the CAB.

4.  The contentions made by the applicant regarding the message dated 28
June 2005 have also been noted.  However, that message also indicates that
an individual must be actively engaging or being engaged by the enemy and
performing satisfactorily in accordance with the prescribed rules of
engagement.  The applicant was performing his duties as a health care
specialist and he has provided no evidence that indicates he was engaged or
was being engaged by the enemy.  The fact that the unit to which he was
assigned was nearly hit on a number of occasions does not constitute being
engaged by the enemy.

5.  In order to justify correction of a military record the applicant must
show 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.

6.  In view of the foregoing, there is no basis for granting the
applicant's request.

BOARD VOTE:

________  ________  ________  GRANT FULL RELIEF

________  ________  ________  GRANT PARTIAL RELIEF

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

__RTD___  __CAD__  __EEM__  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.




                                  ___Richard T. Dunbar____
                                            CHAIRPERSON



                                    INDEX

|CASE ID                 |AR20070011924                           |
|SUFFIX                  |                                        |
|RECON                   |                                        |
|DATE BOARDED            |20070927                                |
|TYPE OF DISCHARGE       |                                        |
|DATE OF DISCHARGE       |                                        |
|DISCHARGE AUTHORITY     |                                        |
|DISCHARGE REASON        |                                        |
|BOARD DECISION          |DENY                                    |
|REVIEW AUTHORITY        |                                        |
|ISSUES         1.  46   |107.0000/AWARDS AND DECORATIONS         |
|2.  1060                |107.0143/COMBAT ACTION BADGE            |
|3.                      |                                        |
|4.                      |                                        |
|5.                      |                                        |
|6.                      |                                        |


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