IN THE CASE OF:	  

		BOARD DATE:	  10 March 2009

		DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20080016028 


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, in effect, reconsideration of his request for the award of the Combat Infantryman Badge (CIB) and Bronze Star Medal (BSM) with "V" Device.

2.  The applicant states, in effect, he was unaware of the three year limitation in which he had to file an application to the Army Board for Correction of Military Records (ABCMR).  He indicates that he was previously informed that he was not entitled to the CIB ant that he requested to have his military occupational specialty (MOS) changed to “11B” (Infantryman).  He states that, although he was never notified, that he was awarded the infantryman MOS through on the job training as a secondary MOS (SMOS).  He also states that he was informed by a brigadier general that he is entitled to the BSM and questions who is this Board to say otherwise.  He further states that according to a book that he read, everyone who participated in the AK Valley Campaign is entitled to an award for their act of bravery.

3.  The applicant provides a document extract taken from the book titled “Death Valley” in support of his application.

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 AR20080010157 on 17 September 2008.
2.  During its original review of the case, the Board determined that although the applicant’s record confirmed he performed the duties of a scout observer while assigned to an infantry regiment in the Republic of Vietnam (RVN), and that a brigadier general attests that the applicant experienced various types of enemy fire, his MOS was 05B (Radio Operator).  He did not hold an infantry MOS at that time.  The Board further determined that the applicant was not awarded SMOS 11F until 13 October 1969, subsequent to his RVN service, and that his record failed to show he was ever recommended for or awarded the CIB or BSM with “V” Device for Valor.  As a result, the Board recommended denial of the applicant's request for the CIB and BSM with “V” Device.  He was informed of his right to pursue his claim for the BSM with "V" Device under the provisions of Title 10, U. S. Code, section 1130.

3.  The applicant's record shows that he was inducted into the Army of the United States (AUS) and entered active on 23 January 1968.  He completed basic combat training at Fort Gordon, Georgia and advanced individual training (AIT) at Fort Jackson, South Carolina.  Upon completion of AIT he was awarded MOS 05B. 

4.  The DA Form 20 (Enlisted Qualification Record) shows he served in the RVN from 9 July 1968 to 8 July 1969, and that he performed the duties, in duty MOS 05B, of a scout observer.  It also shows he was assigned duty with Headquarters and Headquarters Company and in Company C, 3rd Battalion, 21st Infantry Regiment, 196th Infantry Brigade during his service in the RVN.

5.  On 22 January 1970, the applicant was honorably released from active duty (REFRAD).  The DD Form 214 (Armed Forces of the United States Report of Transfer or Discharge) issued him at that time shows he completed 2 years of military service.

6.  Item 13 of the applicant’s DD Form 214 shows that he earned the following awards during his active duty tenure:  National Defense Service Medal (NDSM), RVN Campaign Medal (RVNCM), Army Commendation Medal (ARCOM), two Overseas Service Bars, "ARCOMS," and the Expert Marksmanship Qualification Badge with M-14 Rifle Bar.

7.  The applicant’s military record contains a Correction to the DD Form 214 (DD Form 215) dated 24 October 2008, prepared as a result of the ABCMR’s previous action.  It shows that corrective action was taken to delete the entries 

ARCOM and ARCOMS and to replace it with the entry “ARCOM (2nd Award)."  It also shows he earned the following additional awards:  Army Good Conduct Medal, RVN Gallantry Cross with Palm Unit Citation, Vietnam Service Medal with 4 bronze service stars, Valorous Unit Award, and the Sharpshooter Marksmanship Qualification Badge with Automatic Rifle Badge.

8.  The applicant's record is void of any orders or other documents that indicate he was ever recommended for or awarded the CIB or BSM by proper authority while serving on active duty.

9.  The applicant provides a document extract that was taken from the book titled “Death Valley.”  It provides the author's details or his recollection of the Vietnam War from his perspective.  However, this book is not an official Army document. 

10.  Army Regulation 600-8-22 (Military Awards) prescribes the Army's awards policy.  Paragraph 3-14 of the awards regulation contains guidance on the BSM.  It states, in pertinent part, that it may be awarded for acts of heroism or for meritorious achievement or meritorious service.  Paragraph 6-5 contains guidance on the "V" Device and states, in pertinent part, that a "V" Device is awarded with a BSM to denote an award made for heroism (valor). 

11.  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.

12.  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 held an infantry MOS and 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 and BSM was again carefully considered.  There is insufficient evidence to support this claim.

2.  By regulation, in order to support award of the CIB there must be evidence that the member held and served in an infantry MOS in a qualifying infantry unit, and be present and participated with his qualifying infantry unit while it was engaged in active ground combat with enemy forces.

3.  The evidence of record in this case continues to confirm that although the applicant performed duties in an infantry MOS while assigned to an infantry unit he did not hold an infantry MOS at that time and there is no evidence to show that he participated with his qualifying infantry unit while it was engaged in active ground combat with enemy forces.  The Item 22 of the applicant’s DA Form 20 confirms that was not awarded SMOS “11F” until after his RVN service, on 13 October 1969.  As a result, absent evidence that the applicant held an infantry MOS while he served in an infantry unit and was present and participated with that 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.

4.  The evidence of record is void of any orders or other documents that indicate the applicant was ever recommended for or awarded the BSM by proper authority while serving on active duty.  Absent any evidence that he was recommended for or awarded the BSM by proper authority, there is an insufficient evidentiary basis to support granting the requested relief to correct his record to show the BSM with “V” Device.  However, he still has the right to request this award under the provisions of Title 10, U. S. Code, section 1130.

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.  

6.  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 AR20080010157 dated 17 September 2008.




      _______ _   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)                                         AR20080016028



3


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1

ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont)                                         AR20080016028



2


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1