IN THE CASE OF:	  

	BOARD DATE:	  10 July 2008

	DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20080006750 


THE BOARD CONSIDERED THE FOLLOWING EVIDENCE:

1.  Application for correction of military records (with supporting documents provided, if any).

2.  Military Personnel Records and advisory opinions (if any).


THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST, STATEMENT, AND EVIDENCE:

1.  The applicant requests that his Combat Action Badge be revoked and that he be awarded the Combat Infantryman Badge (CIB).

2.  The applicant states that his military occupational specialty (MOS) was 11C (Indirect Fire Infantryman) when he was in the Texas Army National Guard.  While he was at the mobilization station, his MOS was changed to 11B (Infantryman).  While in Iraq, his unit, Troop A, 1st Squadron, 124th Cavalry, was attached to the 336th Military Police (MP) Battalion under the 1st Cavalry Division.  Their mission consisted of convoy security, area security, static security, cordon and search, traffic control points, protective service detail, and personnel and vehicle searches.  The unit did their cavalry mission as they were trained to do.  The MP unit did their job and maintained a temporary internment facility.  On 1 May 2004, his division was changed to the 36th Infantry Division.

3.  The applicant states that, on 11 June 2004, his squad was providing security for logistics vehicles leaving Logistics Support Area Anaconda.  During the mission, the movement was stopped because of a suspected IED (improvised explosive device).  While waiting for instructions, his unit was attacked with machine gun and small arms fire from a building to the right.  Fire was returned and the building was cleared.  Higher headquarters soon called to tell them to proceed back to their forward operating base.

4.  The applicant states that about a week after the incident their platoon sergeant put them in for the CIB.  The word came back from the battalion commander that the CIB was not to be given.  The battalion commander said they were attached to an MP unit so that made them MPs.  Their company commander tried to explain that they were a Calvary unit of the 36th Infantry Division, and that made them eligible for the CIB.  He was told it was a dead issue.

5.  The applicant states that he and another Soldier were sent out on a reconnaissance mission on 23 April 2004 to try to catch insurgents in their area of operations.  They were selected because they were 11B-trained and had experience in reconnaissance missions.  They captured two insurgents that night.  On 14 June 2004, he was wounded by an IED.  

6.  The applicant states that he believes he met the requirements for award of the CIB – an 11-series MOS; assigned to an infantry or cavalry unit; and actively engaged by the enemy using direct fire.

7.  The applicant provides his DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty) for the period ending 6 March 2005; amended Purple Heart orders; active duty orders; deployment orders; transfer orders; two memoranda, one dated 8 September 2006 and one dated 4 April 2007, from the U. S. Army Human Resources Command (USAHRC); a letter, dated 15 May 2007, from USAHRC to the applicant’s Representative in Congress; two letters of support from fellow Soldiers; and Combat Action Badge orders.

COUNSEL'S REQUEST, STATEMENT AND EVIDENCE:

1.  Counsel requests that the applicant be awarded the CIB for his service in Iraq from March 2004 to February 2005.

2.  Counsel states that the issues raised by the applicant amply advance his contentions and substantially reflect the probative facts needed for equitable review.

CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:

1.  After having had prior service, the applicant enlisted in the Army National Guard on 18 February 2003 in pay grade E-4 for training in MOS 11C.

2.  The applicant was ordered to active duty effective 20 January 2004.  He arrived in Iraq on 8 March 2004.

3.  The applicant provided supporting statements from two fellow Soldiers who substantiate the events of 11 June 2004 the applicant described above.
4.  Apparently on 14 June 2004, the applicant was wounded in action.  Purple Heart amendment orders, dated 16 May 2005, indicated his unit at the time was Company F, 336th MP Battalion, 124th Cavalry, 89th MP Brigade, 1st Cavalry Division, Multi-National Corps Iraq.

5.  The applicant departed Iraq on 4 February 2005.  On 6 March 2005, he was released from active duty.

6.  Texas Military Forces, Army National Guard Permanent Orders 350-02, dated 16 December 2005, awarded the applicant the Combat Action Badge for actively engaging or being engaged by the enemy on 22 March 2004.

7.  By memorandum dated 8 September 2006, the Military Awards Branch, USAHRC informed the applicant his request for award of the CIB while deployed in support of Operation Iraqi Freedom was returned without action.  

8.  By memorandum dated 4 April 2007, the Military Awards Branch, USAHRC informed the applicant that his request for the CIB for his service in support of Operation Joint Forge (sic) was disapproved.  The memorandum noted that the documentation he had provided indicated he was assigned to a Calvary Division, which did not meet the criteria for the CIB.  However, his actions qualified him for the Combat Action Badge, which he had been awarded.

9.  Army Regulation 600-8-22 (Military Awards) prescribes Army policy and criteria concerning individual military awards.  It states that, for award of the CIB on or after 18 September 2001, a Soldier must be an Army infantry or special forces officer in the grade of colonel or below or an Army enlisted Soldier or warrant officer with an infantry or special forces MOS who has satisfactorily performed duty while assigned or attached as a member of an infantry, ranger, or special forces unit of brigade, regimental, or smaller size during any period such unit was engaged in active ground combat, to close with and destroy the enemy with direct fires.

10.  Army Regulation 600-8-22 states the CIB was established during World War II to provide special recognition of the unique role of the Army infantryman, the only Soldier whose daily mission is to close with and destroy the enemy and to seize and hold terrain.  In developing the CIB, the War Department did not dismiss or ignore the contributions of other branches.  Their vital contributions to the overall war effort were noted, but it was decided that other awards and decorations were sufficient to recognize their contributions.  From the beginning, Army leadership have taken care to retain the badge for the unique purpose for which it was established.  

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  It is recognized that the applicant was an infantryman assigned to a cavalry unit and it is recognized that he had contact with the enemy.  However, he was attached to an MP unit.  More importantly, he acknowledges that his duties consisted of providing security to logistics convoys.  He did not perform the duties of an infantryman.

2.  The CIB was established during World War II to provide special recognition of the unique role of the Army infantryman, the only Soldier whose daily mission is to close with and destroy the enemy and to seize and hold terrain.  (emphasis added)  

3.  The applicant’s daily mission was not to close with and destroy the enemy.  If on 11 June 2004 the enemy had chosen to disappear into the desert instead of firing at the convoy from a nearby building, it would not have been the applicant’s mission to pursue, close with, and destroy the enemy.  That would have left the convoy unprotected.  The applicant’s daily mission was not to seize and hold terrain.  His daily mission was to provide security to the convoys.

4.  Even the applicant’s reconnaissance mission on 23 April 2004 would not have made him eligible for the CIB.  It appears that was an isolated mission and not a daily mission.

5.  Regrettably, the available evidence indicates that the applicant did not meet all of the eligibility criteria for award of the CIB.

BOARD VOTE:

________  ________  ________  GRANT FULL RELIEF 

________  ________  ________  GRANT PARTIAL RELIEF 

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

___xx___  ___xx___  ___xx___  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 and all others concerned 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.



	__________xxxx_________
      	CHAIRPERSON
      
I certify that herein is recorded the true and complete record of the proceedings of the Army Board for Correction of Military Records in this case.

ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont)                                         AR20080006750



3


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1

ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont)                                         AR20080006750



5


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1