Search Decisions

Decision Text

ARMY | BCMR | CY2011 | 20110000179
Original file (20110000179.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

		IN THE CASE OF:	  

		BOARD DATE:	  20 January 2011

		DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20110000179 


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, through his Member of Congress, award of the Combat Action Badge (CAB).

2.  The applicant states he and three other Soldiers were in close proximity to a rocket attack in Afghanistan in December 2003.  Despite repeated requests to their chain of command G-1 at the time, the applications were never acted upon. There was a period when the Chief, National Guard Bureau (CNGB) was given delegation authority to award the CAB but the NGB did not act on the requests for this award.  He and the other Soldiers were never given a definitive answer.  They were later told the NGB lost their requests and therefore their requests were never forwarded to the Commander, U.S. Army Human Resources Command, Alexandria (HRC-ALX) for processing.  When the CNGB's delegation of authority had expired, the requests were reconstructed and turned in to 
HRC-ALX but they were ultimately denied.  

3.  The applicant also states when the CAB was in its infancy, he and others received poor advice on their initial request for the CAB.  Additionally, had they photographed the area and obtained a serious incident report, their chances for receiving the CAB would have been much higher.  He also states that HRC officials appear to apply subjective criteria rather than the specific CAB eligibility criteria outlined in the governing regulation.  Inserting a criterion that the Soldier must demonstrate he could have been reasonably injured by an explosion is not a requirement for award of the CAB.  Such a criterion is arbitrary.  A better way to establish eligibility is the proximity of the Soldier to the attack coupled with the capabilities of the rocket.
4.  The applicant provides:

* Letter to his Member of Congress
* Letter from his Member of Congress to the Office of Legislative Affairs
* Self-authored synopsis
* Self-authored sworn statement
* Three sworn statements from three other Soldiers
* Declassified Blue Line (incidents report) for 18 December 2003
* Extract of Field Manual 3-01.60 (Counter-Rocket, Artillery, and Mortar Operations)
* Memorandum awarding him the Shoulder Sleeve Insignia for Former War Time Service
* DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty)
* DD Form 1610 (Request and Authorization for Temporary Duty (TDY) Travel of Department of Defense Personnel)
* DD Form 1351-2 (Travel Voucher or Sub-Voucher)
* January 2004 Leave and Earnings Statement
* Orders 089-006 (Amendment to TDY Order)
* HRC-ALX denial memorandum
* DA Form 4187 (Personnel Action), Request for Award of the CAB and chain of command endorsements
* Military Personnel Message Number 08-190, Revised Criteria for Awarding Combat Badges 

CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:

1.  The applicant's records show he was appointed as a Reserve commissioned officer in the rank of second lieutenant and he executed an oath of office on 
12 May 1989.  He completed various tours of active duty, in several staff and leadership positions, within and outside of the continental United States, and attained the rank of lieutenant colonel (LTC).  

2.  At the time of the incident, the applicant was serving as a major in the Maryland Army National Guard (MDARNG).  He was assigned in an Active Guard Reserve status as an assistant executive officer to the CNGB.

3.  In December 2003, the applicant and three other Soldiers were posted at Baghram Air Base in Afghanistan to conduct a visit to Reserve Components Soldiers supporting Joint Task Force 180 (CJTF-180).  In a synopsis of what occurred on 16 and 17 December 2003, the applicant states: 


	a.  In the early morning hours of 17 December 2003, subsequent to a lengthy town hall meeting with Soldiers, as the four Soldiers walked back to and arrived at their billets, located in a sparsely populated part of Baghram Air Base, they heard a whooshing sound overhead followed by a loud impact and explosion nearby.  The explosion was close enough to cause the ground to shake and debris to fly around.  Visibility was limited and they were new in the area so they were unaware of the need to seek cover in a bunker.  The applicant, being a major and having served in combat, recognized it was a missile attack.  He directed the others to go inside the billet building.  Seconds later, two more rockets flew overhead and exploded a little farther away.  They remained in place until the all clear signal was given.  The next morning, they could see the impact of the explosion in the form of debris and shrapnel scars around the area.  

	b.  Intelligence analysts determined the rockets to be most likely Soviet-made 107mm Katyusha rockets but did not rule out the larger 120mm.  This type of missile was abundant in Afghanistan and had a potential to kill personnel up to 133 yards away and it could injure at a distance beyond that.  They estimated they were 100 yards away.  Since the CAB had not existed at the time, there was no need to measure the distance or obtain eyewitness statements.  

	c.  After the Army created the CAB and believing they met the criteria of engaging or being engaged by the enemy, in the fall of 2005, the applicant obtained the required witness statements and submitted a request for award of the CAB on behalf of the four Soldiers.  Ultimately, the Army's delegation of authority to the NGB expired without their applications being processed.  They resubmitted their paperwork through their ARNG chain of command but they were turned down by HRC-ALX on 19 January 2007.  The applicant contacted officials at the HRC and he was told he was given poor guidance with respect to the CAB.  The applicant reconstructed the packet and obtained an endorsement from the first General Officer in the chain of command but the packet was turned down by HRC-ALX on 24 October 2007 due to no new evidence/information and there was no indication any of the Soldiers could reasonably have been injured by the explosion.  

4.  The applicant submitted three sworn statements from the three other Soldiers present at the scene.  The authors agree that all four Soldiers were present at Baghram Air Base when it was attacked by 107mm rockets on 17 December 2003.  They had just entered a building that was used for temporary lodging when they heard the distant sound of two 107mm rockets passing directly overhead in quick succession and then impacting very close by.  The impact shook their building and rattled the windows.  A third rocket could be heard at a 

distance.  They remained in place until they heard the all clear signal.  The next morning, they viewed the impact area and estimated the impact areas were approximately 100 meters from their building.  In addition to the two impact craters, there were marks caused by shrapnel and debris on the buildings and canned containers in the area surrounding their location.  The attack clearly had the potential to cause bodily harm to all personnel in the vicinity including all four Soldiers. 

5.  The applicant also submitted a declassified Blue Line, dated 18 December 2003, that confirms in the early hours of 17 December 2003 three 107mm rockets impacted Baghram Air Base.  One landed approximately 100 meters from an aircraft ramp and another landed near a tower.  No injuries or damage from these attacks were reported. 

6.  The applicant further submitted a DA Form 4187, dated 20 October 2006, wherein colonel (COL) (promotable) GLH, acting commander, Joint Force Headquarters, MDARNG recommended LTC DPS for award of the CAB.  The request was endorsed on 27 October 2006 and recommended for approval by The Adjutant General, MDARNG.  

7.  The original HRC-ALX denial memorandum, dated 19 January 2007, is not available for review.  However, a second memorandum, dated 24 October 2007, states the request for award of the CAB to LTC DPS for actions on 17 December 2003 was previously reviewed and disapproved on 19 January 2007.  The statements provided in support of the request indicate two rockets impacted 100 meters away from the applicant's location.  Although there was evidence of enemy action, there is no indication the applicant could have reasonably been injured by the explosion.  The incident did not meet the criteria for award of the CAB.

8.  Army Regulation 600-8-22 (Military Awards) states the requirements for award of the CAB 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 CAB 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 CAB 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.  In this case the four Soldiers heard an incoming missile.  Although they were unaware of the specific rules of engagement to seek cover in specific bunkers, they sought cover inside a building or a structure.  It is unclear how far the building was in relation to the impact area.  The Soldiers believe the distance to have been approximately 100 meters and saw debris and shrapnel the next morning.   

3.  None of the four Soldiers engaged or was engaged by the enemy.  Although the intent of the enemy appears to inflict maximum damage against personnel and/or equipment, the four Soldiers were not specifically targeted by the incoming rocket and there was no indication any of the four Soldiers could have reasonably been injured by the rocket explosion.  As such, the criteria for award of the CAB has not been met in this case.  

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)                                         AR20110000179



3


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1

ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont)                                         AR20110000179



2


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1

Similar Decisions

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2011 | 20110000176

    Original file (20110000176.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST, STATEMENT, AND EVIDENCE: 1. c. In the fall of 2005, after the Army created the CAB and believing they met the criteria of engaging or being engaged by the enemy, the applicant obtained the required witness statements and submitted a request for award of the CAB on behalf of the four Soldiers. The next morning they viewed the impact area and estimate the impact areas were approximately 100 meters from their building.

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2011 | 20110000170

    Original file (20110000170.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    The applicant states he and three other Soldiers were in close proximity to a rocket attack in Afghanistan in December 2003. c. After the Army created the CAB and believing they met the criteria of engaging or being engaged by the enemy, in the fall of 2005 the applicant obtained the required witness statements and submitted a request for award of the CAB on behalf of the four Soldiers. The next morning, they viewed the impact area and estimate the impact areas were approximately 100...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2010 | 20100028649

    Original file (20100028649.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    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,...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2010 | 20100021961

    Original file (20100021961.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    Application for correction of military records (with supporting documents provided, if any). Although this is not the standard for award of the CAB, the facts documented in the award packet meet even this higher HRC standard for award of the CAB. The authority stated: * under Army Regulation 600-8-22 (Military Awards), paragraph 8-8a, the CAB is awarded "to provide special recognition to Soldiers who personally engaged, or are engaged by the enemy" * the eyewitness statements submitted in...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2010 | 20100000521

    Original file (20100000521.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    The applicant requests he be awarded the Combat Action Badge (CAB). In a subsequent letter to the Board, the applicant stated that he believes that he was denied the CAB based on a misunderstanding of one of the requirements for award of the CAB: that the Soldier must be personally present and actively engaging or being engaged by the enemy. It is evident that HRC determined for award of the CAB, it must be established that a Soldier could have been wounded in the attack.

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2011 | 20110016205

    Original file (20110016205.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST, STATEMENT, AND EVIDENCE: 1. The applicant requests reconsideration of the Board's denial of his previous request for award of the Combat Action Badge (CAB). He states that All Army Activities (ALARACT) Message 193/2010 specifically discusses the management of concussions.

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2007 | 20070012870C080213

    Original file (20070012870C080213.TXT) Auto-classification: Denied

    The applicant requests, in two applications, that he be awarded the Combat Action Badge (CAB) and the Combat Medical Badge (CMB). The applicant provides a self-authored statement; a DA Form 4187 (Personnel Action) requesting award of the CAB with an attached award packet; a Combat Medical Badge Statement with three sworn statements, his deployment orders with an amendment, and his DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty) for the period ending 29 September 2005; two...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2014 | 20140015904

    Original file (20140015904.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    The applicant requests correction of a DA Form 2823 (Sworn Statement), dated 14 November 2013, to justify award of the Combat Action Badge (CAB). The applicant states he wants block 9 of his DA Form 2823, dated 14 November 2013, corrected to justify award of the CAB in accordance with paragraphs 2 and 3 of the memorandum from the U.S. Army Human Resources Command (HRC). In addition, Military Personnel Message 11-268 requires a stated distance in meters of the proximity of the Soldier to...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2012 | 20120021006

    Original file (20120021006.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST, STATEMENT, AND EVIDENCE: 1. The applicant requests correction of his records to show award of the Combat Action Badge (CAB). The request he now submits to the board contains two eyewitness statements prepared more than 2 years after the incident that place the applicant anywhere from 100 to 150 meters from the impact or blast.

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2010 | 20100009534

    Original file (20100009534.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST, STATEMENT, AND EVIDENCE: 1. The applicant states the following: a. cites, in part, the regulatory criteria for the approving the CAB as indicated in Army Regulation 600-8-22; b. on 3 June 2005, the Military Awards Branch (MAB) issued processing procedures for award of the CAB which indicates for those recommendations made for combat related incidents involving attacks by mortar, to state in the accompanying narrative, the proximity of the Soldier to the impacted...