IN THE CASE OF:	  

		BOARD DATE:	  13 January 2011

		DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20100017374 


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.  He states he was assigned duties as a senior advisor with the U.S. Military Assistance Command, Vietnam (USMACV), with duty with the 4th Battalion,
49th Infantry, 25th Army of the Republic of Vietnam (ARVN) Division.

3.  In a lengthy summary, he provides numerous accounts of his unit’s experience of heavy enemy fire, resulting in numerous casualties between the period August 1966 and February 1967.  He also notes his primary mission and his duties as an advisor to the ARVN. 

4.  He provided copies of:

* a DD Form 95 (Memo Routing Slip)
* several battalion commendation letters from USMACV
* a letter from the U.S. Army Human Resources Command (HRC), Awards and Decorations Branch, dated 28 April 2010
 
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 applicant’s 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 applicant’s failure to timely file.  In all other respects, there are insufficient bases to waive the statute of limitations for timely filing.

2.  After having had prior enlisted service, the applicant was commissioned and he entered active duty on 14 April 1959.  He was subsequently awarded specialty 1542 (Infantry Unit Commander).

3.  Item 17 (Foreign Service) of his DA Form 66 (Officer Qualification Record) shows the following:

* 19 November 1953 through 5 January 1955 - U.S. Army Europe
* 19 August 1961 through 6 August 1964 - U.S. Army Pacific Command (USARPAC) (Hawaii)
* 16 August 1966 through 6 April 1967 - USARPAC (Vietnam)

4.  Item 18 (Record of Assignments) of his DA Form 66 indicates that on 
21 August 1966, he was assigned as a Battalion Advisor with the 5th Infantry Division (ARVN), III Corps Advisory Group, Counterinsurgency (CI).  On 
22 August 1966, he was further assigned duties as an S-4 Advisor with the Regional Forces (RF)/Popular Forces (PF), III Corps Advisory Group (CI).

5.  By letter, dated 9 December 1966, the Commander, USMACV sent a letter of commendation thru the Deputy Senior Advisor, III Corps Advisory Team 95, to the Senior Advisor, 25th Division, Advisory Team 99 (the applicant) which states, in pertinent part:

The end of Training Report indicates that the qualities of leadership exhibited at all levels of command were outstanding.  Further, the aggressive effort displayed by the battalion during each phase of training resulted in maximum benefit being gained from the training time allotted.  The 4th Battalion, 49th Regiment, 25th Division has achieved some the best results of any unit trained under the new program and should perform its combat mission in an outstanding manner.

6.  He provided a copy of three endorsements to the USMACV letter which congratulated him on a job well done.


7.  His military personnel record contains a DA Form 67-5 (U.S. Army Officer Efficiency Report (OER)) for the period 13 July 1966 through 3 January 1967.  Item 11 (Principal Duty) of the OER contains the following entry:  “Battalion Advisor, 4th Battalion, 49th Regiment, 25th Infantry Division (ARVN), III Corps.  This duty directly involves the planning and conduct of CI operations and training.”

8.  Part III (Manner of Performance), item 15 (Rater) of his OER, contains the following comments:

	a.  His battalion returned from the Lam Son Training Center on 10 November 1966 and the next day was immediately placed on a combat operation in which his battalion commander was seriously wounded.

	b.  On 18 November 1966, his battalion was detached from regional control and placed under the 25th ARVN Division control in a static defense.  On 
10 December 1966, the battalion perimeter was attacked by two Vietcong (VC) companies and sustained a number of casualties.

	c.  It seemed that after the initial combat action on 11 November captain (CPT) B------ was extremely skeptical of the capability of the battalion.  He had lost confidence in the unit's ability to fight.

	d.  He, however, did try to integrate the battalion into the division defensive perimeter but seemed reluctant to generate any enthusiasm in the advisory effort.  He seemed to become complacent.

	e.  On 10 December the battalion perimeter was attacked by an estimate of  two VA companies and sustained a number of casualties.  Shortly after this attack CPT B------ submitted a letter requesting that his advisory unit be authorized to live in a U.S. compound nearby instead of remaining at this battalion command post.  

	f.  Shortly after the first attack, CPT B------ moved his advisory team into the U.S. compound without advising anyone of this fact.  He based his actions on an intelligence report that the VC again planned to attack the 4th Battalion.  

	g.  Here he exercised poor judgment because if the report proved valid his proper place was with the battalion. 

9.  Item 24 of his DD Form 214 for the period ending 8 April 1967, as corrected by a DD Form 215 (Correction to DD Form 214), dated 23 November 2009, 


shows he was awarded the National Defense Service Medal, Vietnam Service Medal with one bronze service star, Republic of Vietnam Campaign Medal with Device (1960), Army Commendation Medal, Army of Occupation Medal, Republic of Vietnam Gallantry Cross with Palm Unit Citation, and one Overseas Service Bar.  He served a total of 10 years, 9 months, and 26 days of total active service.

10.  He provided a copy of a letter of recommendation from the Assistant Deputy Senior Advisor, U.S. Army Advisory Group, III Corps.  This letter states, in pertinent part, the Corps satisfaction with the service provided by the applicant and their support for his voluntary resignation.  His background in the Army as a noncommissioned officer and as a combat arms officer has provided him with valuable leadership experience with men of all ages and from all environments. 

11.  He also provided a copy of a letter from HRC, Awards and Decorations Branch, denying his request for the CIB.  The letter stated an individual must have been assigned as an advisor to an infantry unit, ranger unit, or an infantry-type unit of the Vietnamese government during any period such unit was engaged in actual ground combat.  Regardless of the type of unit, the Soldier must have been personally present and under hostile fire while serving as a member of the tactical advisory team.  

12.  U.S. Army Vietnam Regulation Number 672-1 (Awards and Decorations) specifically governed award of the Combat Infantryman Badge 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.  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 have an infantry military occupational specialty (MOS) and required that they must have served in active ground combat while assigned or attached to an infantry unit of brigade, regimental or smaller size.

13.  Army Regulation 600-8-22 (Military Awards) subsequent to 1 March 1961, states that during the Vietnam Conflict, any officer assigned as advisor to an Infantry unit, Ranger unit, Infantry-type unit of the civil guard of regimental or smaller size, and/or Infantry-type unit of the self-defense corps unit of regimental or smaller size of the Vietnamese government during any period the unit was engaged in actual ground combat, must have been personally present and under fire to be eligible to receive the CIB.


DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  U.S. Army Vietnam Regulation Number 672-1 specifically stated that criteria for award of the CIB identified the man who trained, lived, and fought as an infantryman.   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."  

2.  Although the available evidence shows he was infantry officer and performed duties as an RF/PF Battalion Advisor; his OER for that period indicates he did not perform his duties in a satisfactory manner.  Shortly after the first attack, he moved his advisory team to a U.S. compound without advising anyone of this fact.  His rater noted that he exercised poor judgment because if the report proved valid, his proper place was with the battalion. 

3.  In view of the foregoing, his actions do not warrant award of the CIB.  Therefore, there is no basis to grant the requested relief.

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)                                         AR20100017374



3


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1

ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont)                                         AR20100017374



2


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1