IN THE CASE OF:	  

		BOARD DATE:	  30 March 2010

		DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20090015055 


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 the Board's denial of his request for award of the Combat Infantryman Badge (CIB).  The applicant additionally requests award of the Presidential Unit Citation. 

2.  The applicant refutes the Board's findings, showing he must provide the "Burden of Proof" or provide substantial evidence for award of the CIB.  He questions how is it possible for him or other members of the 765th Security Platoon to provide evidence of participation in active ground combat when the "National Achieves and Records, or the National Personnel Records Center" were unable to find any records of personnel or activities of the 765th Security Platoon.  From his research on the World Wide Web, he says he failed to find any facts or information concerning his unit of assignment when stationed in the Republic of Vietnam.  He states he did find information on the 765th Transportation Battalion and its subordinate unit, the Security Platoon.

	a.  He states, in effect, that the 765th Transportation Battalion and its subordinate unit, the Security Platoon, received the Presidential Unit Citation in 1967.  He states that he did not receive orders for this award, if published.  He further states that the Board failed to list this award on its Record of Proceedings, as one that was earned by him and members of the Security Platoon.  He presumes that the Board's impression was that this unit's responsibility was just "security."  However, he states the objectives of the platoon were to provide protection of all facilities, personnel, and aircraft on the airfield.  Additionally, his unit provided stationary and mobile patrols within the city protecting all military property and facilities.  The Security Platoon also had responsibility to conduct reconnaissance patrols east and north of the airfield to prevent enemy troops from infiltrating the perimeter of the airfield.  He states, "The platoon performed activities and objectives . . . of an Infantry Platoon."
	
	b.  He states, that while performing his infantry duties with the Security Platoon, he and members of the unit frequently were under small arms fire, mortar and rocket attacks.  He asks the Board, if during its research of his initial application, did it find that a Republic of Vietnam infantry company was attached to the security platoon? 

	c.  He continues his statement by saying he also performed aerial reconnaissance missions over the airfield performing the duties of a door gunner often under small arms fire from enemy forces.  He states he was denied the Air Medal because he did not have the military occupational specialty (MOS) of a flight crew chief.  

	d.  The applicant continues his statement providing details of how the airfield came under frequent mortar attacks, repeated small-arms fire, and rocket propelled grenade attacks with his platoon often conducting patrols outside the perimeter in search of enemy forces.  This was during the Tet Offensive Campaign of 1967 and 1968.  In addition, the 9th Infantry Division provided an engineer company to the area to build a base camp and quarters for combat units.  He states that he was selected to assist the engineer unit with their perimeter security plans.  He states his transfer to this unit, part of the 9th Infantry Division, was verbally ordered with no transfer orders published.  While assisting this engineer unit, he came under mortar attacks on a nightly basis.  

	e.  The applicant transitions his argument to the Liberation of Kuwait conflict. He states that many infantry Soldiers received the CIB without being subjected to enemy fire.  He further asserts that female helicopter pilots wore "crossed rifles" of the Infantry and received the CIB without being assigned to infantry units. 

	f.  He concludes his statement by saying that if he had been injured as a result of ground combat or aerial enemy fire that he conclusively would have been qualified for award of the CIB. 

3.  The applicant provides a personal letter of rebuttal and two additional letters in support of his application.  



CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:

1.  Incorporated herein by reference are military records that were summarized in the previous consideration of the applicant's case by the Army Board for Correction of Military Records (ABCMR) in Docket Number AR20090001280, on 30 June 2009.

2.  The applicant's new argument is that he was an infantryman performing the duties of an infantry MOS under indirect and direct fire from enemy forces.  His new evidence is the two letters, which require the Board to reconsider his request.  

3.  In the original finding, the ABCMR did not find evidence of record to support award of the Combat Infantryman Badge and the Expert Infantryman Badge.  The Board did award the applicant the Army Good Conduct Medal (First Award), the Republic of Vietnam Gallantry Cross with Palm Unit citation, and one silver service star to be affixed to his already awarded Vietnam Service Medal.

4.  As new evidence for the Board's consideration, the applicant provides the following documents:

	a.  by letter, the National Archives and Records Administration informed the applicant that it did not locate substantive information for the 765th Security Platoon.  Records did show that the Security Platoon was separated from the 765th Transportation Battalion on 10 February 1966 and attached to the 1st Logistical Command.

	b.  by letter, the National Personnel Records Center stated it could not provide a search of the applicant's unit morning reports without him specifically identifing a three month period to be searched.  The Center further clarified that it did not maintain nor could it provide records such as Staff Duty Journals, After Action Reports, and Operational Reports-Lessons Learned.   

5.  The applicant enlisted in the Regular Army on 5 May 1964 for a 3-year period.  He completed his basic combat and advanced training meeting qualifications for award of MOS 11B (Light Weapons Infantryman).  

6.  The applicant was honorably discharged, on 12 December 1965, for the purpose of reenlistment for assignment to Vietnam.  He reenlisted on 13 December 1965 for 3 years in the Regular Army.  Records show he served in the Republic of Vietnam from 25 February 1966 to 5 April 1968.  He was assigned to the 765th Security Platoon serving initially as a Security Guard and then as Sergeant of the Guard in duty MOS 11B.
7.  The applicant was honorably released from active duty at the expiration of his term of service, in pay grade E-5, on 12 December 1968 and transferred to the United States Army Reserve Control Group (Standby).

8.  References:

	a.  Army Regulation 600-8-22 (Military Awards) prescribes Army policy and procedures concerning awards.  Paragraph 8-6 provides for award of the Combat Infantryman Badge.  That paragraph states that there are basically three requirements for award of the Combat Infantryman Badge.  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, 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.

	b.  Army Regulation 600-8-22 states that the Presidential Unit Citation is awarded for extraordinary heroism in action.  A unit must display such gallantry, determination and esprit de corps in accomplishing its mission as would warrant award of the Distinguished Service Cross to an individual. 

	c.  Army Regulation 600-8-22 states that the Meritorious Unit Commendation is awarded to units for exceptionally meritorious conduct in the performance of outstanding services for at least six continuous months during the period of military operations against an armed enemy occurring on or after 1 January 1944.  Service in a combat zone is not required, but must be directly related to the combat effort.  The unit must display such outstanding devotion and superior performance of exceptionally difficult tasks as to set it apart and above other units with similar missions.  The degree of achievement required is the same as that which would warrant award of the Legion of Merit to an individual.  Only in rare cases will a unit larger than a battalion qualify for award of this decoration.  

	d.  Army Regulation 600-8-22 states that awards made by the President, the Secretary of Defense, and the Secretary of the Army will be announced in Department of the Army General Orders.  Service medals and service ribbons are administratively awarded to individuals who meet the qualifying criteria.  Orders  are not required.  Permanent awards of badges will be announced by permanent orders by commanders authorized to make the award or by permanent orders issued by Headquarters, Department of the Army (HQDA).  Awards made to organizations when heroism is displayed or meritorious service performed is a result of group effort will be approved by HQDA and announced and confirmed by HQDA General Orders (DAGO).  All verified entitlements will be administratively entered into personnel records of individuals concerned.  

	e.  Army Regulation 600-8-104 (Military Personnel Information Management/Records) provides that when a Soldier is authorized to wear the unit award emblems as a permanent part of the uniform, a separate entry will be made for initial and subsequent unit awards to include the Presidential Unit Citation and the Meritorious Unit Commendation. 

	f.  Department of the Army Pamphlet 672-3 (Unit Citation and Campaign Participation Credit Register) is published to assist commanders and personnel officers in determining or establishing the eligibility of individual member for campaign participation credit, assault landing credit, and unit citation badges awarded during the Vietnam conflict.  This pamphlet shows that the Security Platoon of the 765th Transportation Battalion received the Meritorious Unit Commendation for exceptional meritorious service from October 1964 to December 1967 by publication of DAGO Number 3, dated 1967 that amended DAGO Number 40, dated 1966.  This pamphlet does not show this unit was awarded the Presidential Unit Citation. 

	g.  Army Regulation 15-185 (Army Board for Correction of Military Records) prescribes the policies and procedures for correction of military records by the Secretary of the Army, acting through the ABCMR.  This regulation provides that the ABCMR consider applications properly brought before it based on the evidence of record.  The ABMCR is not an investigative body.  In addition, the ABMCR begins its consideration of each case with the presumption of administrative regularity.  The applicant has the burden of proving an error or injustice by a preponderance of the evidence.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The applicant makes a strong argument that while assigned to the 765th Security Platoon, 765th Transportation Battalion in the Republic of Vietnam, he performed the duties of an infantryman.   He further asserts that while performing the specified duties of an infantryman, he and his platoon came under frequent enemy attacks from small arms weapons fire, mortar attacks, and artillery fire.  

2.  The fact that the applicant is an infantryman, awarded MOS 11B, is not disputed.  However, it also cannot be disputed that the applicant was not assigned to a unit that was identified by name as an infantry platoon, infantry company, or infantry battalion.  The record shows that the applicant was assigned to the 765th Security Platoon, not a named infantry unit. 

3.  The specific criteria for award of the Combat Infantryman Badge are 

	a.  award of an infantry MOS with satisfactory performance of infantry duties;

	b.  assignment to an infantry unit at the time the unit is engaged in active ground combat; and 

	c.  active participation in ground combat and under hostile fire.

4.  The applicant was not assigned to an infantry unit.  Therefore, he did not meet one of three mandatory criteria for award of the CIB.  Without a specific assignment to an infantry unit engaged in active ground combat with enemy forces, the applicant is not entitled to award of the CIB. 

5.  In regard to the initial Record of Proceedings, the applicant disputes the fact that he is responsible for submitting evidence to support his application and show he is entitled to award of the CIB.  The ABMCR is not an investigative body and only considers applications properly brought before it based on the evidence of record.  The evidence of record shows the applicant was not assigned to an infantry unit.  Therefore, he is not entitled to award of the CIB.    

6.  The applicant contends that the Board omitted the Presidential Unit Citation from its initial Record of Proceedings.  The evidence of record found in Department of the Army Pamphlet 672-3 does not show his unit was awarded the Presidential Unit Citation.   This regulation shows the applicant's unit received the Meritorious Unit Commendation for the period October 1964 to October 1965.  The applicant was assigned to 765th Security Platoon on 25 February 1966, after the ending period for award of the Meritorious Unit Commendation.  Therefore, he is not entitled to the Presidential Unit Citation or the Meritorious Unit Commendation.  

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 AR20090001280, dated 30 June 2009.



      
      _______ _   _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)                                         AR20090015055





3


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1

ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont)                                         AR20090015055



2


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1