IN THE CASE OF:	

		BOARD DATE:	  25 November 2008

		DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20080015687 


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 reconsideration of his request that his records be corrected to show award of the Combat Infantryman Badge (CIB).

2.  The applicant expands his original request by asking that his record be corrected to show award of military occupational specialty (MOS) 11B (Light Weapons Infantryman).

2.  The applicant states that he is enclosing a letter to his Congressman requesting his assistance in his efforts to be awarded the CIB.  He also states that he is enclosing 14 pages of pictures that were taken of him and other Soldiers in his unit from May 1966 through April 1967.   He also enclosed a "Certificate of Public Service" from the 82nd Airborne Division issued to him for his participation in the riots in Detroit, Michigan in 1968.  He contends that these pictures show him wearing the CIB, as well as his jump wings, and the 173rd Airborne combat patch.  He also contends that he received "on the job training" in MOS 11B and that the pictures show that he performed infantryman duties.  

3.  The applicant provides 14 pages of pictures; a copy of his letter to his Congressman; a "Certificate of Public Service;" and a letter from a major (retired) who commanded the Communications Platoon, 2nd Battalion, 503rd Infantry Battalion (Airborne).






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 AR20070006824, on 30 October 2007.  This decision denied the applicant the CIB and awarded him the National Defense Service Medal, the Meritorious Unit Commendation, Republic of Vietnam Gallantry Cross with Palm Unit Citation, 1 bronze service star to be affixed to his already-awarded basic Parachutist Badge, and 2 bronze service stars to be affixed to his already-awarded Vietnam Service Medal. 

2.  The applicant’s military records are not available to the Board for review.  A fire destroyed approximately 18 million service members’ records at the National Personnel Records Center in 1973.  It is believed that the applicant’s records were lost or destroyed in that fire.  The previous decision was based upon the evidence submitted by the applicant.  He was notified of this in the previous decision. 

3.  The applicant served in the Regular Army from 5 April 1965 through 4 April 1968.  He was trained in, awarded, and served in military occupational specialty (MOS) 36K (Wireman).

4.  The applicant served in the Republic of Vietnam (RVN) from 18 May 1966 through 12 May 1967.  The applicant's DA Form 20 (Enlisted Qualification Record) shows he was assigned as a rifleman in MOS 11B on 4 November 1966.  However, as previously stated, this entry was struck through, and a new entry with the same effective date shows that he was assigned as a wireman in MOS 36K.  Item 41 (Awards and Decorations) of this same document had an entry which showed that he was awarded the CIB, but this entry, which did not contain an authority for awarding the CIB, was also struck through.  

5.  The applicant's DA Form 20 shows that on 20 May 1966, he was assigned to Headquarters and Headquarters Company, 2nd Battalion (Airborne), 503rd Infantry as a message clerk.  On 13 September 1966, he was assigned as a field communications crewman to Company B, 2nd Battalion (Airborne), 503rd Infantry.  On 10 September 1966, he was admitted as a hospital patient, and on 4 November 1966, he was again assigned to Company B, 2nd Battalion Airborne, 503rd Infantry as a wireman.  There is no evidence that he performed duties in MOS 11 on his DA Form 20.  There are no orders showing he was awarded MOS 11B.  

6.  The applicant's DA Form 20 shows his MOS as 36K.  His DD Form 214 shows his MOS as 36K.  The applicant authenticated this document with his signature.

7.  The applicant provided 14 pages of pictures of himself and fellow Soldiers in the RVN.  He contends that these pictures show that he was performing 11B duties in the field.  The picture he purports shows him wearing the CIB on his uniform was taken at such a distance that all patches on the uniform are indistinguishable.  This evidence was not reviewed in the previous decision.

8.  The applicant provided a letter from a major (retired) who commanded the Communications Platoon, 2nd Battalion, 503rd Infantry Battalion (Airborne), the unit to which the applicant was assigned as a wireman in 1967.  He states that he wants to confirm that every member of his Communications Platoon was awarded the CIB for performing additional duties on the battalion perimeter, listening post, outpost and ambush positions while assigned to the Communications Platoon and in such additional duties came under hostile fire on any number of occasions.  He contends that the regulation at that time allowed issue of the CIB to those enlisted members who, even though not MOS 11B, performed infantry duties under hostile fire.  He was awarded the CIB as a Signal officer for commanding numerous fire support bases as well as the Headquarters Company, 2nd Battalion, 173rd Airborne Brigade.  Whoever removed the CIB from the applicant's DA Form 20 did so without authority.  He respectfully requests the applicant's request be reconsidered.  This evidence was not reviewed in the previous decision.

9.  The applicant provided a copy of an 82nd Airborne Division "Certificate of Public Service" stating that the applicant served with distinction as a member of Task Force Detroit during the period 24 July – 2 August 1967.  This evidence was not reviewed in the previous decision.

10.  The applicant provided a copy of a letter he sent his Congressman, dated
1 July 2008, indicating that he resubmitted his request for reconsideration of his denial for award of the CIB to the ABCMR.  He indicates that the ABCMR's decision was inconsistent and that some of the medical forms have him assigned to the wrong unit.

11.  Paragraph 8-6 of Army Regulation 600-8-22 (Military Awards) provides for award of the CIB.  This paragraph states that there are basically three requirements for award of the CIB.  The Soldier must be an infantryman satisfactorily performing infantry duties, he must be assigned to an infantry unit during such time as the unit is engaged in active ground combat, and he must actively participate in such ground combat.  Specific requirements state, in effect, that an Army enlisted soldier must have an infantry specialty and satisfactorily performed duty while assigned or attached as a member of an infantry unit of brigade, regimental, or smaller size during any period such unit was engaged in active ground combat.  A recipient must be personally present and under hostile fire while serving in an assigned infantry primary duty, in a unit actively engaged in ground combat with the enemy.  Commanders were not allowed to make any exceptions to this policy.

12.  The Awards Branch of the U.S. Army Human Resources Command (formerly known as the Total Army Personnel Command) has advised, in similar cases that during the Vietnam era the CIB was awarded only to enlisted individuals who held and served in MOS 11B, 11C, 11F, 11G, or 11H.  

13.  U.S. Army Vietnam 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.”  Other awards and decorations are designed to accommodate these situations.  This regulation also stated the CIB was authorized for award to infantry officers and to enlisted and warrant officer persons who have an infantry 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.  Although entries were made on the applicant's DA Form 20 suggesting that he served in MOS 11B and was awarded the CIB, these entries were deleted from his records.  The applicant has failed to explain why these items were deleted from his official record if he were in fact entitled to award of MOS 11B and the CIB.  Further, although he provides pictures from his service in the RVN, these pictures do not conclusively show that he was performing infantryman duties or that he was actively engaged in combat against the enemy.  

2.  The letter the applicant provided from the former commander of the Communications Platoon, 2nd Battalion, 503rd Infantry Battalion (Airborne) was carefully considered.  However, as noted above in the governing regulations at the time, award of the CIB was not authorized for those enlisted members who held MOS 36K in a Communications Battalion, who were not performing infantry duties under hostile fire, and who were not actively engaging the enemy in combat.  Further, even if the applicant was assigned additional duties on the battalion perimeter, etc., “the CIB is not an award for being shot at or for undergoing the hazards of day to day combat” as stipulated in U.S. Army Vietnam Regulation Number 672-1 since other awards and decorations were designed for those situations. 

3.  Given the above, the applicant has provided insufficient evidence which would warrant a change in the Board's previous decision.  Further, he has not shown that he was awarded MOS 11B.  The letter from the applicant's former commander states that he was assigned to the unit as a wireman and performed some extra duties as all Soldiers in his unit did.  However, he was not assigned as an infantryman and there is no evidence he was ever awarded the MOS, or that he received "on the job training" in MOS 11B.  Therefore, there is no basis upon which to change the applicant's MOS to 11B. 

BOARD VOTE:

________  ________  ________  GRANT FULL RELIEF 

________  ________  ________  GRANT PARTIAL RELIEF 

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

__X_____  ___X____  ___X___  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 to amend the decision of the ABCMR set forth in Docket Number AR20070006824, dated 30 October 2007.

2.    The Board wants the applicant and all others concerned to know that this action 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.



      __________X____________
               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)                                         AR20080015687





3


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1

ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont)                                         AR20080015687



2


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1