IN THE CASE OF:	  

		BOARD DATE:	  14 June 2011

		DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20110000027 


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, in effect, to be awarded the Combat Infantryman Badge (CIB) and military occupational specialty (MOS) 11B (Light Weapons Infantryman).

2.  He states, in effect, the unit in Vietnam did not have enough personnel to fill the M-60 Machinegun positions.  His primary MOS was 63C (Track Vehicle Mechanic) and because he qualified as an expert with his M-16 Rifle, he was assigned duties as an M-60 Machinegun gunner on an M113 (Armored Personnel Carrier); however, he was never awarded MOS 11B and his records should show this MOS.  

3.  He contends that he was hit by a rocket-propelled grenade and incurred a Traumatic Brain Injury (TBI) as a result.  He is currently being treated for TBI by the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) in Loma Linda, CA.  

4.  He provided:

* his DD Form 214 (Armed Forces of the United States Report of Transfer or Discharge)
* a state of California all-purpose acknowledgement document
* a letter to the VA
* a personal witness letter



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.  His record shows he enlisted in the Regular Army on 28 December 1967 for 3 years.  His record contains Headquarters (HQS), U.S. Army Artillery and Missile School Brigade, Special Orders (SO) Number 139, dated 10 June 1968, that show he completed advanced individual training (AIT) and was awarded MOS 63C.  

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

* Item 8 (Duty MOS) – 63C2O
* Item 22 (MOS):

* secondary MOS 63B2O (Wheeled Vehicle Mechanic) 26 April 1968
* primary MOS 63C2O (Tracked Vehicle Mechanic) 14 June 1968

* Item 27 (Military Education) – does not indicate he completed training for MOS 11B
* Item 29 (Qualification in Arms):

* Expert Marksmanship Qualification Badge with Rifle Bar (M-14)
* Expert Marksmanship Qualification Badge with Rifle Bar (M-16)

* Item 31 (Foreign Service) – he served in Vietnam from 21 July 1968 through 19 July 1969
* Item 38 (Record of Assignments) – he served in duty MOSs 63A (Mechanics Helper) and 63C during his assignment with L Troop, 3rd Squadron, 11th Armored Cavalry Regiment in Vietnam
* Item 41 (Awards and Decorations) – does not show award of the CIB

4.  His record contains HQS, 8th Infantry Division, SO Number 86, dated 27 March 1970.  These orders show he was promoted to the grade of specialist five/E-5, in MOS 63C, effective 4 March 1970. 

5.  His DD Form 214 shows he was honorably released from active duty and transferred to the U.S. Army Reserve Control Group (Reinforcement) on 18 December 1970.  Item 23a (Specialty Number and Title) shows 63C2O.  Item 24 (Decorations, Medals, Badges, Commendations, Citations and Campaign Ribbons Awarded or Authorized) does not show award of the CIB. 

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

7.  He provided a notarized California all-purpose acknowledgement letter and personal witness statement, both dated 15 July 2008.  These documents show that Mr. C______ C_____ stated, in pertinent part, that he and the applicant were both assigned to 3rd Squadron, 11th Armored Cavalry Regiment in Vietnam at the same time.  The applicant served as an M-60 Machinegun gunner on an M113 and was wounded in late September 1968.

8.  His letter to the VA is dated 17 July 2008 and shows he forwarded the personal witness statement and all-purpose acknowledgment letter from Mr. C_____ C______ to the VA in support of an appeal he apparently filed with their office. 

9.  Army Regulation 600-8-22 (Military Awards) states the CIB is awarded to infantry and warrant officers and enlisted personnel who have an infantry MOS.  Individuals must have served in active ground combat while assigned or attached to an infantry unit of brigade, regimental, or smaller size.  In addition, U.S. Army Vietnam Regulation Number 672-1 (Awards and Decorations), provided guidance for award of the CIB.  Appendix 3 to Annex A of this regulation listed positions which qualified for award of the CIB.  MOS 63C was not in the list of MOSs. 

10.  Army Regulation 635-5 (Separation Documents) prescribes the documents that must be prepared for Soldiers on retirement, discharge, release from active duty service, or control of the Active Army.  It also establishes standardized policy for preparing and distributing the DD Form 214. The version of the 
regulation in effect at the time of the applicant's separation stated, in pertinent part, item 23a would contain the primary MOS held on the date of separation from that period of service.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The evidence shows he served in and held the MOS 63C during his tour in Vietnam.  Regulatory guidance in effect at the time stated the DD Form 214 would contain the primary MOS held on the date of separation.  There is no evidence and he has not provided sufficient evidence to show he held MOS 11B as an MOS.  He is not entitled to add MOS 11B to item 23a of his DD Form 214. 

2.  The evidence of record is void of any orders or other documents that indicate he was ever recommended for or awarded the CIB by proper authority while serving in Vietnam.  His record is also void of any evidence to show he served in active ground combat while assigned or attached to an infantry unit of brigade, regimental or smaller size.  Even if his witness statement is accepted, the applicant was not in an infantry unit performing infantry duties.  He was in an armored cavalry unit performing duties as a machine gunner on an armored personnel carrier.  Therefore, there is insufficient basis for award of the CIB.

3.  Based on the foregoing, he is not entitled to 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)                                         AR20110000027





3


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1

ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont)                                         AR20110000027



4


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1