RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


	IN THE CASE OF:	  


	BOARD DATE:	  8 April 2008
	DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20080000811 


	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.

x

	The Board considered the following evidence:

	Exhibit A - Application for correction of military records.

	Exhibit B - Military Personnel Records (including advisory opinion, if any).


ATHE APPLICANT'S REQUEST, STATEMENT, AND EVIDENCE:

1.  Through a Member of Congress, the applicant requests, in effect, reconsideration of his earlier petition to be awarded the Combat Infantryman Badge (CIB).  

2.  The applicant states, in effect, that he did a tour in the Republic of Vietnam (RVN) and served in a forward command center on the Mekong River.  He states that he exchanged fire with the enemy 3 or 4 times per week for months and their command told them they would receive the CIB; however, he never received his. 

3.  The applicant provides a Congressional Inquiry with accompanying statements as new evidence in support of his reconsideration 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 AR200600012378, on 8 August 2006.  

2.  During its original review of the case, the Board found no evidence or record that showed the applicant accompanied an infantry line unit on tactical operations while serving in the RVN.  As a result, it concluded there was insufficient evidence upon which to base award of the CIB.  

3.  The applicant provides two self-authored letters with his Congressional Inquiry as new evidence.  In one of the letters, he claims that he served in a forward communications center in the RVN and that they exchanged fire with the enemy at least 2 or 3 times a week for months.  He further states that the command informed members of his unit that they would receive the CIB; however, he never did.   

4.  The applicant's record shows that the applicant was inducted into the Army of the United States on 23 September 1966, and that he was awarded and served in military occupational specialties (MOSs) 11B (Light Weapons Infantryman) and 
11F (Infantry Operations and Intelligence Specialist).  

5.  The applicant's record shows he served in the RVN from 12 December 1967 through 13 September 1968, and that he was assigned to Headquarters and Headquarters Company (HHC), 9th Infantry Division, performing duties in MOS 11F.  
6.  The applicant's record 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.  

7.  On 14 September 1968, the applicant was honorably released from active duty (REFRAD) after completing 1 year, 11 months, and 22 days of active military service.  The separation document (DD Form 214) he was issued at the time shows he earned the following awards during his active duty tenure:  National Defense Service Medal; Army Commendation Medal; Army Good Conduct Medal; Vietnam Service Medal; and RVN Campaign Medal.  The CIB was not included in the list of awards contained on the DD Form 214, and the applicant authenticated this document with his signature in Item 32 (Signature of Person Being Transferred or Discharge) on the date of his REFRAD.  

8.  As a result of the 8 August 2006 recommendation of this Board, a correction (DD Form 215) was issued to the applicant's original DD Form 214 that added the RVN Gallantry Cross with Palm Unit Citation, RVN Civil Actions Honor Medal First Class Unit Citation, Expert Marksmanship Qualification Badge with Rifle Bar, Sharpshooter Marksmanship Qualification Badge with Automatic Rifle Bar, and 4 bronze service stars for wear on his Vietnam Service Medal to the list of awards contained on the original DD Form 214.  

9.  Army Regulation 600-8-22 (Military Awards) prescribes the Army's awards policy.  Chapter 8 contains guidance on award of combat and skill badges.  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 that the member held and served in an infantry MOS; that he 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 enemy forces.  

10.  United States Army Vietnam (USARV) Regulation Number 672-1 (Awards and Decorations) specifically governed award of the CIB to Army forces operating in South Vietnam.  This regulation specifically stated that 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.  Further, “the CIB is not an award for being shot at or for undergoing the hazards of day to day combat.”  This regulation also stated the CIB was authorized for award to infantry officers and to enlisted and warrant officer persons who have an infantry military occupational specialty (MOS) and required that they must have served in active ground combat while assigned or attached to an infantry unit of brigade, regimental or smaller size.
DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The applicant's request for reconsideration of his earlier petition to be awarded the CIB was again carefully considered.  However, by regulation, in order to support award of the CIB there must be evidence not only that the member held and served in an infantry MOS in a qualifying infantry unit, but also that he was present and participated with his qualifying infantry unit while it was engaged in active ground combat with enemy forces.  

2.  The evidence of record in this case confirms that the applicant was assigned to a headquarters element, and not a traditional line infantry unit that actively closed with and engaged enemy forces.  There is no indication that he or his unit ever participated in combat missions requiring closure with and engagement with enemy forces.  Further, his record is void of any orders or other documents indicating that he was ever recommended for or awarded the CIB by proper authority while serving on active duty. 

3.  In addition, the CIB is not included on the list of awards contained on 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, was correct at the time the separation document was prepared and issued.  As a result, absent any evidence that the applicant served in a line infantry unit and was present and participated with the unit while it was engaged in active ground combat with enemy forces, the regulatory burden of proof necessary to support award of the CIB has not been satisfied and it would not be appropriate or serve the interest of all those who served in the RVN and who faced similar circumstances to grant the requested relief in this case. 

4.  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.  

5.  The applicant and all others concerned should know that this decision 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.  


BOARD VOTE:

________  ________  ________  GRANT FULL RELIEF 

________  ________  ________  GRANT PARTIAL RELIEF 

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

___x _  __x __  __x_  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 AR200600012378, dated 8 August 2006.




_____x____
          CHAIRPERSON