IN THE CASE OF:	  

		BOARD DATE:	  30 June 2011

		DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20100028649 
	

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 Action Badge.

2.  The applicant states as a result of the final decision by Human Resources Command (HRC) he believes the disapproval is unjustified based on the criteria and his actions during the incident, as well as approval of others for the same incident.  Review and disapproval of his packet has been inconsistent and subjective from one submission to the next.

	a.  After reviewing his packet as well as others approved, it would appear the qualifying criteria for the award was subjective to the reviewer beyond the written regulatory requirements and appears to be based on different standards regarding personnel and rank.

	b.  While his disapproval states his position from inside the building indicated he could not have been reasonably injured, statements clearly indicate he was outside during the attack and nowhere does it state he had taken cover after initial impact.  Additionally, approval of the initial packets submitted and others in 2008 clearly state they in fact were in the same location at the time of impact and performing the same actions as he did during the attack.

	c.  Statements indicate small arms fire and tracer; however, he could not state where it was impacting, since his focus was not on personal safety or running for cover, but he was busy looking for possible injured at the impact site and pushing other Soldiers to the shelters.

	d.  After a review of the distances and locations of Soldiers given on the witness statements for the original and subsequent submissions approved by both the 81st Regional Readiness Command (RRC) and HRC as compared to his packets, distance is subjective to the perception of the witness with relevance to time and location and based on the memories of witnesses 4 years later, as there were no measurements taken at the time.  He was not only in the same location as those approved for the award but standing between their position and the impact.

	e.  He enclosed his inspector general (IG) action request with the intent to address specific details and issues addressed from the beginning as a result of inaction and indecisiveness by the commands.

	f.  He believes his actions, with reference to location and all information provided were in keeping with the regulatory criteria set down, based on the statements of witnesses, reports, and standards set for approval of the Combat Action Badge based on the incident stated.

3.  The applicant provides:

* his original 2006 submission packet for the Combat Action Badge
* a letter, dated 17 April 2007, from HRC
* his second submission, dated 31 July 2008, for the Combat Action Badge
* a letter, dated 30 July 2009, from HRC
* submission package for Major P____e and approval for the Combat Action Badge
* his IG complaint, dated 13 October 2009, and response, dated 7 January 2010
* a timeline of his submission for the award of the Combat Action Badge
* sworn statement, dated 16 October 2009, from Major P____e
* sworn statement, 17 April 2009, from Master Sergeant C_______h


CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:

1.  He is currently serving on active duty in the U.S. Army Reserve Active Guard Reserve (AGR) in the grade of sergeant major/pay grade E-9.  On 3 January 2004, he was assigned to Headquarters and Headquarters Company, 160th Military Police (MP) Battalion and deployed to Basra, Iraq.

2.  The following information was taken from a Narrative Summary that was submitted with the applicant's and Major P____e's submissions for the award of the Combat Action Badge.
	a.  On 27 October 2004, enemy forces using multiple rockets attacked the U.S. Armed Forces occupying Camp Bucca, Iraq.  Two 107mm rockets impacted and exploded approximately 300 meters outside of the West Main Gate.  One rocket did not ignite.  One 107mm rocket impacted within the perimeter of Camp Bucca within 50 meters and crossing over the top of the temporary living quarters of the entire 160th MP Battalion.  All Soldiers of the 160th MP Battalion were in or around their quarters at the time of the attack.  

	b.  The Soldiers were ordered to evacuate the living quarters and don their body armor and Kevlar helmets as long as they were within 200 meters of the impact area.  A roster of the Soldiers who were present during the attack was attached to the Summary.  Both the applicant and Major P____e are listed on the roster.

	c.  Danger still lay in the possible detonation of the unexploded rocket due to the possible association with a slow (30 minute timed fuse) or long (6 hour timed fuse) fuse that may have been in the rocket.  The rocket did not explode but if it had, according to the United Kingdom Explosive Ordnance Detachment, many if not all would have been wounded and some may have died due to the 50 meter kill radius and 75 meter wounding radius of the rocket.

3.  On 7 May 2006, the Commander, 160th MP Battalion, recommended him for the Combat Action Badge for personally being engaged by the enemy on 
27 October 2004.  The Commander, 641st Regional Support Group recommended approval on 2 June 2006 and forwarded the request to the Commander, 81st RRC.  No further endorsements are shown.

	a.  A Blue-3 Spot Report, dated 27 October 2004, reports that two rounds (mortars or possibly RPG's (rocket propelled grenade)) impacted outside the main gate at Camp Bucca 300-700 meters, 1 round impacted (unexploded) inside the perimeter.  Area Security Patrol observed tracer fire from an area northwest of the main gate and reported hearing rounds overhead.

	b.  A sworn statement, dated 3 January 2007, from a staff sergeant/pay grade E-6 indicated that on 27 October 2004 Camp Bucca came under enemy rocket attack.  He stated one of the rockets impacted within 50 meters of the living quarters of HHC, 160th MP Battalion.  He stated the applicant was in the kill zone and wound zone of the rocket due to the proximity of his quarters.

	c.  A sworn statement, dated 22 June 2006, from a sergeant first class/pay grade E-7 indicated that on 27 October 2004 Camp Bucca came under enemy rocket attack.  He stated one of the rockets impacted within 50 meters of the living quarters of HHC, 160th MP Battalion.  He stated all of the Soldiers listed on the attached battle roster were either in the kill zone or wound zone of the rocket due to the proximity of their quarters.  Both the applicant and 
Major P____e are listed on the roster.

4.  On 17 April 2007, HRC denied his request for award of the Combat Action Badge.  HRC stated the Combat Action Badge provides special recognition to Soldiers who are personally present and actively engaging or being engaged by the enemy.  Although, there was evidence of enemy action, the incident does not meet the intent of the badge.

5.  On 9 August 2008, the Commandant, U.S. Army NCO (noncommissioned officer) Academy Fort Lewis recommended him for the award of the Combat Action Badge for personally being engaged by the enemy on 27 October 2004.  This package contained the same documents previously submitted on 7 May 2006 and included a statement, dated 4 August 2008, from the applicant.

	a.  He stated he was standing in the doorway of his tent on the east side of Camp Bucca when the base came under attack and explosions were heard from an unknown location.  He donned his protective gear while directing Soldiers to take cover.  He and several other Soldiers ran from their tent at the time of the explosions to a tent 50 meters away where a 107mm rocket impacted within the killing zone of his location.

	b.  He stated the tent he was standing in at the time was approximately 
40-50 meters from the impact zone of the rocket.  During this time small arms fire was heard and tracer fire was observed from overhead, coming from an unknown location outside the wire.

6.  On 14 July 2008, the Commander, Headquarters, U.S. Central Command recommended Major P____e for the award of the Combat Action Badge for personally being engaged by the enemy on 27 October 2004.  With the exception of witness statements, Major P____e's package included the same documents as both of the applicant's packages for the Combat Action Badge.

	a.  In a sworn statement, dated 26 June 2008, a second lieutenant indicated he was working with Major P____e in the MWR (moral, welfare, and recreation) building on 27 October 2004 at the time of the attack on Camp Bucca.  He heard one of the 107mm rockets impact within 30 meters of him and the major.  They then retrieved their weapons and body armor and exited the living quarters where they noticed the hole and damage from the 107mm rocket that impacted within 30 meters of their location.

	b.  In a sworn statement, dated 9 July 2008, Master Sergeant C_______h indicated he was outside the Operations Trailer when the attack occurred at Camp Bucca.  He heard a "whooshing" sound overhead and saw what appeared to be an impact directly to the east near the MWR building.  The MWR building was serving as the temporary quarters for the 160th MP Battalion.  He saw that Major P____e had just exited the building and that a large rocket had impacted just south of the MWR building, missing it by about 15 meters.

	c.  In a sworn statement, dated 13 July 2008, a second lieutenant indicated both he and Major P____e were in the MWR tent when the attack occurred at Camp Bucca.  He stated they retrieved their weapons and body armor and upon exiting the tent he saw a hole and damage that was caused by the rocket 
30 meters from their location.  After the perimeter was secured they were informed the rockets used in the attack were Katusha rockets and they had a kill zone of 50 meters.

7.  On 7 November 2008, Major P____e was awarded the Combat Action Badge for action on 27 October 2004.

8.  On 30 July 2009, HRC again denied the applicant's request for the Combat Action Badge.  HRC stated the statement submitted in support of the request indicate that an enemy rocket impacted but did not exploded about 50 meters outside of the living quarters 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 impact from his position inside the building. Therefore he was not considered to have been personally engaged by the enemy.

9.  On 13 October 2009, the applicant submitted an inquiry to the HRC IG.  On 
7 January 2010, the HRC IG determined that the HRC Awards Branch had boarded his request for the Combat Action Badge on two occasions and determined that he did not meet the requirements of the award.  Once a board has concluded and made their recommendation an IG cannot speculate or question the voting members' determination.

10.  The applicant provided a key event timeline from 22 March 2006 to 
15 September 2009 showing the timelines of his submissions for the Combat Action Badge.

11.  The applicant submitted a sworn statement, dated 16 October 2009, from Major P____e.  The major stated he and the applicant were working in the MWR/living quarters tent in the middle of forward operating base Camp Bucca when they came under attack from direct small arms fire and indirect rocket fire.  He states the rockets impacted the area near the front main entry gate and next to their living quarters.  Upon exiting the tent, they both observed the hole and damage of a 107mm Katusha rocket within approximately 30 meters of their location.  The major stated the 107mm Katusha rocket has a kill zone of 
50 meters.  

12.  The applicant submitted a sworn statement, dated 17 April 2009, from Master Sergeant C_______h.  The master sergeant stated on 27 October 2004 rockets were launched from outside the camp perimeter, one of which impacted without exploding, near the temporary quarters of the 106th MP Battalion.  He observed the applicant moving Soldiers out of the building and getting them to cover.  He was within about 75 meters of the impact area while moving the Soldiers out.

13.  Army Regulation 600-8-22 (Military Awards) states the requirements for award of the Combat Action Badge 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 Combat Action Badge.  However, it is not intended to award the Combat Action Badge 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.  Award of the Combat Action Badge is authorized from 18 September 2001 to a date to be determined.  

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The criteria for award of the CAB requires the Soldier to be personally present and actively engaging or being engaged by the enemy and performing satisfactorily in accordance with the prescribed rules of engagement.  It is not intended for all Soldiers who serve in a combat zone.

2.  Such a broad guideline must be further defined.  It is evident that HRC determined for award of the Combat Action Badge, 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 Combat Action Badge because they were on the same compound that was attacked, even though they may have been 300 to 
400 meters away from the attack.
3.  HRC has denied his request for the Combat Action Badge twice.  HRC has determined that because there was no indication that he could have reasonably been injured by the impact from his position inside the building he is not considered to have been personally engaged by the enemy.

4.  The fact that another Soldier has been awarded the Combat Action Badge for the same incident is an insufficient basis to also award the applicant the same.

5.  In view of the above, there is an insufficient basis to award the applicant the Combat Action Badge.

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)                                         AR20100028649



3


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1

ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont)                                         AR20100028649



2


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1