IN THE CASE OF:	  

		BOARD DATE:	  19 November 2009

		DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20090016458 


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 award of the Combat Infantryman Badge (CIB).  

2.  The applicant states that the U.S. Army Human Resources Command (USAHRC), Alexandria, VA., denied his request for award of the CIB because his squad did not "close with and destroy the enemy by direct fires."  He continues to state, in effect, that the regulation states that (b) a Soldier must be personally present and under fire while serving in an assigned Infantry or Special Forces primary duty, in a unit engaged in active ground combat to close with and destroy the enemy with direct fires.  He further states, in effect, that an improvised explosive device (IED) is a direct fire weapon and commanders should consider that when awarding the CIB.  While no fixed, qualifying distance from an explosion of these devices can be established, commanders should consider the entirety of the combat situation when awarding the CIB.  He states that "clearly, given that the provisions above were added for infantry Soldiers involved in IED strikes, the intent is clear that the Army considers IED strikes to be direct combat."  The applicant further states that his vehicle, since it was disabled, was in no position to pursue a triggerman and the 1st Battalion, 34th Brigade Combat Team's mission certainly included "closing with and destroying the enemy with direct fires."  He also states, in effect, that while his unit was not successful that instance, he was certainly in a unit whose efforts were to "close with and destroy the enemy with direct fires."  He also states, in effect, that according to the logic of his disapproval letter, a Soldier killed by a sniper would be ineligible for award 


of CIB, which is a flaw in the logic.  The applicant states that he believes the intent of the CIB is to recognize those infantry Soldiers who have engaged or been engaged by the enemy and since the IED disabled his vehicle, he believed that the proximity was close enough to warrant award of the CIB.

3.  The applicant provides a copy of his DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty); a DA Form 4187 (Personnel Action); five witness statements; a memorandum to USAHRC, Alexandria; and an email from USAHRC, Alexandria in support of his application.  

CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:

1.  The applicant's record shows that he was ordered to active duty in support of Operation Iraqi Freedom on 2 October 2005.  He completed basic combat and advanced individual training and was awarded military occupational specialty (MOS) 11B (Infantryman).

2.  On 16 August 2007, the applicant was honorably released from active duty and transferred to the U.S. Army Reserve (USAR) Control Group (Reinforcement) after completing a total of 1 year, 10 months, and 15 days of active military service.

3.  Item 13 (Decorations, Medals, Badges, Citations, and Campaign Ribbon Awarded or Authorized) does not show award of the CIB.

4.  Item 18 (Remarks) shows that the applicant was deployed to Iraq in support of Operation Iraqi Freedom from 3 April 2006 to 10 July 2007.

5.  The applicant submitted a copy of a DA Form 4187 (Personnel Action), dated 8 December 2007, that was submitted by his battalion commander, through the chain of command, to USAHRC, Alexandria, which shows in Section III - Request for Personnel Action, that the applicant was recommended for award of the CIB.

6.  The applicant submitted five witness statements that state that on 7 January 2007, while conducting a routine clearance, their vehicle was struck by an IED.

7.  The applicant submitted a memorandum from USAHRC, Alexandria, dated    1 June 2009, which disapproved the applicant's command's request for award of the CIB because "there was no evidence that the unit engaged in active ground combat to close with and destroy the enemy with ground fire."

8.  The applicant submitted a copy of an email, dated 30 June 2009, from USAHRC, Military Award Branch, Authorizations Team Leader, who explained to him that the CIB and the Combat Action Badge have different qualifications which can be found in Army Regulation 600-8-22 (Military Awards).

9.  Army Regulation 600-8-22 contains the Army's awards policy.  Chapter 8 of the awards regulation contains guidance on award of combat and special skill badges.  Paragraph 8-6b (5) (a) contains guidance on award of the CIB.  It states, in pertinent part, that on or after 18 September 2001, a Soldier must be an Army infantry or special forces (SSI 11 or 18) 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.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  Evidence of record shows that USAHRC, Awards Branch, Alexandria, disapproved the applicant's request for award of the CIB because even though he submitted witness statements that his vehicle had been hit by an IED there was no evidence that his unit was engaged in active ground combat, to close with and destroy the enemy with direct fires.

2.  Evidence of record shows that he served in an infantry MOS in an infantry unit.  However, evidence of record does not show that during any period such unit was engaged in active ground combat, to close with and destroy the enemy with direct fires.  Therefore, he is not entitled to award of the CIB.

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 for correction of the records of the individual concerned.



      __________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)                                         AR20090016458



2


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1