IN THE CASE OF:
BOARD DATE: 29 December 2010
DOCKET NUMBER: AR20100016528
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 he was in combat and under fire many times.
3. The applicant provides the award citation for his Army Commendation Medal (ARCOM).
CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:
1. Title 10, U.S. Code, section 1552(b), provides that applications for correction of military records must be filed within 3 years after discovery of the alleged error or injustice. This provision of law also allows the Army Board for Correction of Military Records (ABCMR) to excuse an applicants failure to timely file within the 3-year statute of limitations if the ABCMR determines it would be in the interest of justice to do so. While it appears the applicant did not file within the time frame provided in the statute of limitations, the ABCMR has elected to conduct a substantive review of this case and, only to the extent relief, if any, is granted, has determined it is in the interest of justice to excuse the applicants failure to timely file. In all other respects, there are insufficient bases to waive the statute of limitations for timely filing.
2. The applicants military records show that he was inducted in the Army on 4 October 1967, was awarded the military occupational specialty (MOS) of light weapons infantryman (11B), served in Vietnam from 11 August 1968 to 7 August 1969, and was promoted to pay grade E-4.
3. While in Vietnam the applicant was assigned as a security guard with Advisory Team 75, Delta Military Assistance Command.
4. He was honorably released from active duty on 8 August 1969.
5. The ARCOM award citation provided by the applicant states the applicant was responsible for providing security for the unit, and would go on reconnaissance patrols around the compound and he volunteered to accompany infantry battalions and reconnaissance companies as a radio/telephone operator. The applicant controlled gunships, airstrikes, and directed medical evacuations under enemy fire.
6. Army Regulation 600-8-22 (Military Awards) provides, in pertinent part, that the Combat Infantryman Badge is awarded to infantry officers and to enlisted and warrant officer persons who have an infantry MOS. They must have served in active ground combat while assigned or attached to an infantry unit of brigade, regimental or smaller size. Additionally, Appendix V of USARV 672-1 provides that during the Vietnam era the Combat Infantryman Badge was awarded only to enlisted individuals who held and served in MOS 11B, 11C, 11D, 11F, 11G, or 11H.
7. Army Regulation 600-8-22 states the Combat Infantryman Badge was established during World War II to provide special recognition of the unique role of the Army infantryman, the only Soldier whose daily mission is to close with and destroy the enemy and to seize and hold terrain.
DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:
1. The applicant held an infantryman MOS but served as a security guard.
2. While the applicant performed reconnaissance patrols around the compound, there is no indication that he was in active ground combat while conducting these patrols.
3. The ARCOM award citation also states that the applicant accompanied infantry and reconnaissance units as a radio/telephone operator. However, his primary duty was a security guard. It appears that it was not his daily mission to close with and destroy the enemy.
4. The applicant's ARCOM award citation states that the applicant controlled gunships, airstrikes, and directed medical evacuations under enemy fire. Upon close examination, this does not say that the applicant was engaged with the enemy in combat. Directing gunships and airstrikes can be accomplished while in garrison based on radio or telephone communications from units in the field. The comment concerning the applicant directing medical evacuations under enemy fire is a bit harder to decipher. While it could mean that the applicant was under fire while directing medical evacuations, it would appear that stronger wording would have been utilized if that had been the case. In the lack of stronger wording, it would appear that the applicant was directing medical evacuations of personnel whose units were under fire.
5. Without evidence to show the applicant served in active ground combat (engaging the enemy or was engaged by the enemy), there is insufficient evidence in which to grant 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) AR20100016528
3
ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
1
ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont) AR20100016528
2
ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
1
ARMY | BCMR | CY2013 | 20130006725
(2) During the period 12 to 15 April 1972, at Fire Support Base "Charlie," the applicant had been wounded five times during the battle, he refused medical evacuation two times, exposed himself continuously to enemy fire directed at him, for four days. f. A statement from the unit's advisor, wherein the individual stated he witnessed the acts of extraordinary heroism by the applicant in the performance of his duties to the 11th Airborne Battalion. A letter, dated 17 January 2013, from the...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2014 | 20140019521
The applicant states, in effect: * both the applicant and Captain (CPT) Sxxx, his superior, were assigned to an advisory team for the purpose of coordinating artillery fire from nearby artillery units * CPT Sxxx and the applicant would sometimes accompany their counterparts in the Army of the Republic of Vietnam (ARVN) while on patrol * CPT Sxxx would act as a forward observer and the applicant was his radio operator (RTO) * on the morning of 31 December 1966, an ARVN Ranger Reconnaissance...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2008 | 20080017294
Item 7 (Last Duty Assignment and Major Command) of the applicant's DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty) shows he was assigned to D Company, 2nd Battalion, 36th Infantry, U.S. Army, Europe. Army Regulation 600-8-22 states that the Korea Defense Service Medal is authorized for award to members of the Armed Forces of the United States who have served on active duty in support of the defense of the Republic of Korea. Therefore, there is insufficient evidence to...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2015 | 20150005433
By that time the enemy force had moved within 100 meters and despite helicopter gun ship support, the helicopters were raked by crew served automatic weapons fire and small arms as they landed. The commander ordered that aircraft to pick him up, with his aircraft following in support. [Applicant's] fire kept the enemy away from them.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2014 | 20140018662
He states, in effect, that the Board should not have denied his previous request on the basis that his unit did not have the word "infantry" in its title or that he failed to provide evidence that he was in direct combat with the enemy while in Vietnam. f. The 765th Security Platoon was the only such unit in Vietnam. He has not provided evidence showing that this Soldier was awarded the CIB for his service with the platoon.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002073599C070403
He was initially assigned to the A Battery, 6 th Battalion, 29 th Artillery , 4 th Infantry Division as a cannoneer. Although the applicable regulation provides that the CIB is only awarded to personnel who possess an infantry military occupational specialty who are assigned to an infantry unit that engages in ground combat against an enemy; there were exceptions made through a published supplement which clearly indicates that radio operators who served as advisors in infantry or infantry...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2009 | 20090012600
Application for correction of military records (with supporting documents provided, if any). Additionally, evidence shows that the applicant participated in four campaigns during his service in Vietnam. As a result, the Board recommends that all Department of the Army records of the individual concerned be corrected by: a. deleting from item 24 of his DD Form 214 the Vietnam Service Medal; b. awarding him the Army Good Conduct Medal for the period 27 January 1967 to 3 November 1968; c....
ARMY | BCMR | CY2004 | 20040004355C070208
Powers | |Member | The Board considered the following evidence: Exhibit A - Application for correction of military records. The applicant and another man volunteered to accompany him to the landing zone where they saw to his extraction and then returned to the team's position. Given the facts of the case, the Board has determined that the applicant's actions were not quite at the required degree of gallantry that earned Specialist W___ the Distinguished Service Cross and thus do...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2013 | 20130010541
The applicant requests, in effect, reversal of the U.S. Army Human Resources Command's (HRC) decision denying him award of the Combat Infantryman Badge (CIB) and a personal appearance before the Army Board for Correction of Military Records (ABCMR). The evidence shows his dismounted unit received six mortar rounds 75-100 meters from their position. By all accounts, there is insufficient evidence the applicant and his unit actually engaged the enemy in combat fire.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2006 | 20060012860
Throughout the day, Company A took intense fire. The applicant provided sufficient new evidence to show he was awarded the CIB. The applicant failed to provide sufficient evidence that shows he was wounded as a result of hostile action or that he was treated for these wounds.