IN THE CASE OF:	  

		BOARD DATE:	  3 February 2011

		DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20100018485 


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 reconsideration of his previous application for award of the Combat Infantryman Badge (CIB) and the Presidential Unit Citation (PUC) and to have these awards added to his DD Form 214 (Armed Forces of the United States Report of Transfer or Discharge) through his Member of Congress.

2.  He states:

	a.  He believes the Board's previous decision not to award him the PUC is in error.  He was awarded the PUC in 1964 while assigned to Company (CO) A, 1st Battalion (BN), 39th Infantry Regiment (INF REGT), 7th U.S. Army, in Germany.  He contends the photographs of him wearing this award are proof.

	b.  He also believes the Board's decision not to award him the CIB is in error.  He was assigned to CO A, 3rd BN, 39th INF REGT, 9th Infantry Division (ID), while serving in Vietnam.

	c.  While serving in Vietnam, he received notification through the Red Cross that his youngest brother had been killed in a hunting accident.  He departed Vietnam in such a hurry, the unit probably overlooked awarding him the CIB.

	d.  He was present in Vietnam when several officers in his unit were killed during a mortar attack on the first night of the Tet Offensive.

	e.  He was under mortar fire on a weekly basis while serving at the unit's home base near Rach Cat and Bear Cat.  He contends he and five Soldiers accompanied three infantry platoons on a mission.  He set up positions on the circular line along with the infantry and engaged in active ground combat.

3.  He provided new evidence through his Member of Congress.  It appears that this documentation was sent via facsimile.  Some of the evidence he claims he provides was not received with his application:

* a letter he wrote to his fiancée, dated 25 January 1968
* an email from Staff Sergeant (SSG) H____, dated 20 May 2000
* a letter from SSG H____, dated 21 August 2000
* a letter from Captain (CPT) W____, dated 3 January 1969
* a photograph of himself and one of his mortar squads [not received]
* a photograph of himself flying into a combat zone under enemy fire [not received]
* a photograph of himself next to one of his platoon's 81 millimeter mortars [not received]
* a photograph of himself with a Kalashnikov Automatic Rifle 1947 (AK-47) which was captured by one his mortar squads [not received]
* a newspaper article pertaining to his brother's death during a hunting accident [not received]
* a church program for his brother's funeral [not received]
 
CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:

1.  Incorporated herein by reference are military records which were summarized in the previous consideration of the applicant's case by the Army Board for Correction of Military Records (ABCMR) in Docket Number AR20090017367 on 29 April 2010.

2.  He enlisted in the Regular Army on 20 February 1964.  Upon completion of basic combat and advanced individual training, he was awarded military occupational specialty (MOS) 112.00 (Heavy Weapons Infantryman) which was later converted to MOS 11C (Indirect Fire Infantryman).

3.  His DA Form 20 (Enlisted Qualification Record) shows:

	a.  item 31 (Foreign Service) –

* 1964 to 1966 – U.S. Army Europe (USAREUR), Germany
* 1967 to 1968  – U.S. Army Pacific, Vietnam



	b.  item 38 (Record of Assignments) –
   
* 20 February 1964 to 20 May 1966 – CO A, 1st BN, 39th INF REGT, USAREUR
* 16 June 1966 to 7 September 1967 – Training Support BN, Fort Benning, GA
* 3 to 25 October 1967 – CO B, 3rd BN, 39th INF REGT, 9th ID
* 26 October 1967 to 15 April 1968 – CO A, 3rd BN, 39th INF REGT, 9th ID

	c.  item 41 (Awards and Decorations) – does not indicate he was awarded the CIB or PUC.

4.  The newspaper article allegedly from the Stars and Stripes shows that on Wednesday, 8 November [year not shown], a call for assistance brought a reactionary platoon from CO A, 3rd BN, 39th INF REGT, to Rach Kien.  As the afternoon progressed, the remaining forces of CO's A and B were integrated into the battle while artillery gunships and an Air Force Dragon ship ripped at the enemy position.

5.  He provided a copy of the letter he wrote to his fiancée, dated 25 January 1968.  In this letter, he stated he volunteered to go to the Vam Co Dong River to check to see how much damage was done.  It turned out to be a drastic mistake on his part because he was almost killed.  At last count 16 Soldiers were killed and if he had gone with them, he would not be alive.  That night [date unknown] turned out to be an unforgettable experience, knowing there were Soldiers out there bleeding to death.

6.  On 17 May 1968, he was honorably released from active duty.

7.  The DD Form 214 (Armed Forces of the United Report of Transfer or Discharge) for the period ending 17 May 1968 shows:

	a.  item 23 (Statement of Service) –

* 23a(1) (Net Service This Period) – 3 years, 0 months, 0 days
* 23a(2) (Other Service) – 2 years, 3 months, 5 days
* 23a(3) (Total) – 5 years, 3 months, 5 days
* 23b (Total Active Service) – 4 years, 8 months, 28 days
* 23c (Foreign Service) – 1 year, 6 months, 21 days (Vietnam)

	b.  item 24 (Decorations, Medals, Badges, Commendations, Citations, and Campaign Ribbons Awarded or Authorized) does not show the CIB or PUC.
8.  His record is void of evidence which shows he served in active ground combat and is also void of any orders or other documents indicating he was ever recommended for or awarded the CIB by proper authority while serving in Vietnam.

9.  The letter from CPT W____ was also provided as new evidence.  The letter states that shortly after the applicant departed the unit, they moved to Rach Kien, Vietnam.  His personal property may have been lost during the move.  In May 1968, the unit was involved in heavy fighting and suffered numerous casualties and many Soldiers' property was placed in storage.

10.  A review of the Awards and Decorations Computer-Assisted Retrieval System, an index of general orders issued during the Vietnam era between 1965 and 1973 maintained by the Military Awards Branch of the U.S. Army Human Resources Command, failed to reveal any orders for the CIB.

11.  He also provided a copy of an email and a letter from SSG H____, dated 20 May 2000 and 21 August 2000, respectively.  These documents show an investigative panel was formed at the request of a widow of one of the officers killed on that night [date unknown].  The panel was composed of experienced mortar Soldiers and Soldiers proficient in plotting artillery and mortar fire.  The panel concluded the point of impact which killed the four officers could not have possibly come from the applicant's defensive position on the circular line.  As a matter of official record, friendly fire was not mentioned as a possible cause for their deaths.

12.  Army Regulation 600-8-22 (Military Awards) prescribes Army policy and procedures concerning awards.  It states there is no automatic entitlement to an award upon departure either from an assignment or from the service.  This regulation describes the necessary criteria for award of the PUC and the CIB.

	a.  The PUC was also known as the Distinguished Unit Citation until 3 November 1966.  It was awarded for extraordinary heroism in action.  A unit must have displayed such gallantry, determination, and esprit de corps in accomplishing its mission as would warrant award of the Distinguished Service Cross to an individual.

	b.  The CIB was awarded to infantry officers and to enlisted and warrant officer persons who had 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.

13.  Department of the Army Pamphlet 672-1 (Unit Citation and Campaign Participation Credit Register), dated 6 July 1961 and 29 January 1988, respectively, does not indicate 1st BN, 39th INF REGT, was awarded the PUC at anytime during his assignment to this unit.  The version of the regulation dated 6 July 1961 cites the last award of the PUC to this unit was during World War II.

14.  U.S. Army Vietnam Regulation 672-1 (Awards and Decorations) governed award of the CIB to Army forces operating in South Vietnam.  This regulation specifically stated that criteria for award of the CIB identified the Soldier who trained, lived, and fought as an infantryman and the CIB is the unique award established to recognize the infantryman and only the infantryman for his service.  Further, "the CIB was 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 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.

15.  Army Regulation 670-1 (Wear and Appearance of Army Uniforms and Insignia) provides guidance for the permanent and temporary wear of unit awards.

	a.  Permanent – A Soldier may wear a unit award (PUC) permanently if he/she was assigned or attached and present for duty with the unit at any time during the period cited.

	b.  Temporary – A Soldier may wear a unit award (PUC) temporarily if he/she was not present with a unit during the period cited for permanent wear of a unit award.  He/she may only wear this award for the duration of assignment to the unit.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The available evidence does not show he was assigned, attached or served with 1st BN, 39th INF REGT, USAREUR, during a period in which award of the PUC was cited.  The PUC was awarded to this unit during World War II which would allow the temporary wear of the award to any Soldier assigned or attached subsequent to that period.  Therefore, he is not entitled to permanent award of the PUC.

2.  Although the available evidence shows he was assigned to a qualifying infantry unit and served in MOS 11C while in Vietnam, he has not provided sufficient evidence to show he was engaged in active ground combat.
3.  The personal letters, email, and newspaper article are not considered official source documents and is insufficient to be used as evidence for awarding the CIB.

4.  The letter he provided from his company commander is considered to be an official document of record; however, it refers to the unit engaging in ground combat after the applicant's departure from the unit.  The ABCMR is not an investigative body and operates on the evidence of record presented.  Therefore, there is insufficient evidence for 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 the overall merits of this case are insufficient as a basis to amend the decision of the ABCMR set forth in Docket Number AR20090017367, dated 29 April 2010.



      _____________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)                                         AR20100018485



3


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1

ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont)                                         AR20100018485



2


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1