IN THE CASE OF:	  

		BOARD DATE:	    27 July 2010

		DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20100000521 


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 he be awarded the Combat Action Badge (CAB).

2.  The applicant states it was not fair and outside the intent of the badge to deny him the CAB.  He had seen the incoming rocket and took cover.  The rocket impacted within 20 meters of his location. 

3.  In a subsequent letter to the Board, the applicant stated that he believes that he was denied the CAB based on a misunderstanding of one of the requirements for award of the CAB:  that the Soldier must be personally present and actively engaging or being engaged by the enemy.  The applicant adds that he remains steadfast in his belief that he could have reasonably been injured in the attack, the requirement for award of the CAB remains solely to be engaged.

4.  The applicant provides documents pertaining to his request for the CAB.

CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:

1.  On 9 January 2007, a brigadier general recommended the applicant for the CAB.  Included in that recommendation were statements from the applicant and a captain.  In those statements the applicant and the captain said that four 107mm rockets and mortars were fired at their position.  The mortar fire landed southwest of their building and the rockets landed on or near their building.  The rocket which hit their building struck the building approximately 10 to 30 meters from the applicant's location.

2.  In an undated and unsigned DA Form 4187 (Personnel Action), a request was made to award the applicant the CAB.

3.  On 23 April 2007, the brigadier general's recommendation to award the applicant the CAB was disapproved by the Human Resources Command, Alexandria VA (HRC-A).

4.  On 24 October 2007, HRC-A again disapproved the applicant's request for the CAB.  HRC stated that a mortar round impacted the floor above and a room over from where the applicant was located.  Although there was evidence of enemy action, there was no indication that the applicant could have reasonably been injured by the attack.  As such, the incident did not meet the intent of the CAB.

5.  On 15 August 2009, the applicant again submitted a request for the CAB.  The disposition of that request is not a matter of record.

6.  On 2 May 2005, the Chief of Staff of the Army approved the creation of the Combat Action Badge to provide special recognition to Soldiers who personally engaged, or are engaged by, the enemy.  

7.  Army Regulation 600-8-22 (Military Awards) states the CAB is authorized from 18 September 2001 to a date to be determined.  The requirements for award of the CAB are branch and MOS immaterial.  Assignment to a combat arms unit or a unit organized to conduct close or offensive combat operations, or performing offensive combat operations is not required to qualify for the CAB.  However, it is not intended to award the CAB to all Soldiers who serve in a combat zone or imminent danger area.  The Soldier must be performing assigned duties in an area where hostile fire pay or imminent danger pay is authorized.  The Soldier must be personally present and actively engaging or being engaged by the enemy, and performing satisfactorily in accordance with the prescribed rules of engagement.  The Soldier must [not] be assigned or attached to a unit that would qualify the Soldier for the Combat Infantryman Badge or the Combat Medical Badge.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  At issue in this case appears to be the criteria for award of the CAB since the applicant's account of the enemy attack is not refuted.  In this case, the grounds of the applicant's compound sustained enemy fire and the building he was in was hit by rocket fire 20 meters away, and one level up, from his location.

2.  The applicant was denied the CAB because he could not have been injured in the attack.
3.  As with all badges, criteria must be established for entitlement to the badge.  In the case of the CAB, broad guidance has been issued.  Engaging or being engaged by the enemy.  

4.  Such a broad guideline must be further defined.  It is evident that HRC determined for award of the CAB, it must be established that a Soldier could have been wounded in the attack.  Such a guideline meets the common sense criteria.  If such a guideline did not exist, Soldiers could say they were entitled to the CAB because they were on the same compound that was attacked, even though they may have been 300 to 400 meters away from the attack.

5.  It would appear that the requirement for the CAB is that a Soldier must have to take cover to keep from being wounded during an attack.  This would appear reasonable.  Being engaged by the enemy means exactly that.  If a Soldier doesn't have to take cover to keep from being wounded, he is not being engaged.

6.  In view of the foregoing, there is no basis for granting the applicant's request.

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)                                         AR20100000521





3


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1

ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont)                                         AR20