IN THE CASE OF:	  

		BOARD DATE:	  19 October 2011

		DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20110006655 


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 Armed Forces Expeditionary Medal (AFEM) and Combat Infantryman Badge (CIB).

2.  He also requests, in effect, correction to Item 35 (Record of Assignments) on his DA Form 2-1 (Personnel Qualification Record – Part II).  Item 35 of his DA Form 2-1 lists Okinawa and it should list Field Artillery, Taiwan.  

3.  He states that he is seeking the AFEM for his 1958 Taiwan service with the 2nd Missile Battalion, 71st Artillery.  Every member of the battalion received the AFEM for their 1958 service.  He just found out that he did not receive this award.  He is also seeking award of the CIB for his Vietnam service.  He overlooked these awards.  

4.  He also states he reenlisted and was assigned to Battery A, 2nd Missile Battalion, 71st Artillery, in Fort Bliss, TX in August 1958.  His entire artillery unit was sent to Taiwan.  He was reassigned from Battery D, 2nd Missile Battalion, 65th Artillery, to complete his tour.  From the date of his reenlistment to early 1959 he was assigned to Battery A, 2nd Battalion, 71st Artillery.  The 2nd Missile Battalion, 71st Artillery Newsletter shows he and his wife attended the reunion in Taiwan.





5.  He provides:

* DA Form 2-1
* DD Form 214 (Armed Forces of the United States Report of Transfer or Discharge) ending on 26 April 1958
* 2nd Missile Battalion, 71st Artillery (Taiwan) Association 2006 Rapid City Reunion Attendees list and article titled “Eisenhower’s strategy in the Taiwan Strait drove a wedge between the Soviet Union and China”
* 2nd Missile Battalion, 71st Artillery Newsletter, dated May 2008

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 military records show he enlisted in the U.S. Army Reserve (USAR) in April 1956 and entered active duty on 27 April 1956.  He was honorably released from active duty (REFRAD) on 26 April 1958 and he was transferred to a Reserve unit.  He was issued a DD Form 214 crediting him with completion of 2 years of net active service.

3.  He enlisted in the Regular Army (RA) on 26 June 1958 for 6 years.  He completed training and he was awarded military occupational specialty (MOS) 52D (Power Generation Equipment Repairman).  

4.  Item 5 (Overseas Service) of his DA Form 2-1 shows he served in Okinawa from 23 September 1958 through 27 January 1960 and from 28 August 1961 through 28 August 1964.

5.  Item 35 of his DA Form 2-1 shows the following assignment and dates:

* 26 June 1958 through 5 June 1959 - Battery A, 2nd Missile Battalion, Okinawa
* 6 June through 21 June 1959 - Battery D, 2nd Missile Battalion, 65th Artillery, Okinawa
* 22 June 1959 through 8 March 1960 – Battery D, 1st Missile Battalion, 65th Artillery, Okinawa

6.  He was honorably discharged on 25 October 1964 for the purpose of immediate reenlistment.  He reenlisted in the RA on 26 October 1964.  He held MOS 62C (Engineer Missile Equipment Specialist).  He served in Germany from 24 August 1966 through 18 June 1968 and in Vietnam from 31 July 1969 through 26 July 1970.

7.  Item 35 of his DA Form 2-1 shows he served in Vietnam in MOS 62B (Platoon Sergeant) and he was assigned to Headquarters and Headquarters Company, 18th Engineer Brigade; 61st Heavy Equipment Maintenance Company; and 79th Maintenance Company.

8.  He was honorably discharged for the purpose of immediate reenlistment on 6 December 1970.  Item 24 (Decorations, Medals, Badges, Commendations, Citations, and Campaign Ribbons Awarded or Authorized) of his DD Form 214 does not lists the AFEM and CIB.

9.  Item 9 (Awards, Decorations, and Campaigns) of his DA Form 2-1 does not list the AFEM and CIB.  

10.  He reenlisted in the Regular Army on 7 December 1970 and served continuously until he was honorably retired on 31 January 1980.  Item 13 (Decorations, Medals, Badges, Citations, and Campaign Ribbons Awarded or Authorized) of his DD Form 214 does not list the AFEM and CIB.

11.  Army Regulation 600-8-22 (Military Awards) states the AFEM is awarded for qualifying service after 1 July 1958 in military operations within a specific geographic area during a specified time period.  It stated individuals qualified for the AFEM for service in the Taiwan Straits from 23 August 1958 to 1 January 1959.  

12.  Army Regulation 600-8-22 also states the CIB is awarded to infantry officers and to enlisted and warrant officer persons who have 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.  Additionally, Appendix V of U.S. Army Vietnam (USARV) Regulation 672-1 states that during the Vietnam era the CIB was awarded only to enlisted individuals who held and served in MOS 11B, 11C, 11D, 11F, 11G, or 11H.

13.  U.S. Army Vietnam Regulation 672-1 (Awards and Decorations) governed award of the CIB to Army forces operating in South Vietnam.  This regulation stated that criteria for award of the CIB identified the man who trained, lived, and fought as an infantryman and that the CIB was 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, to enlisted personnel, and to warrant officers who had an infantry specialty/military occupational specialty 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.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The evidence of record does not show the applicant served in the Taiwan Straits anytime during his period of active service, and he provided no corroborating evidence to show he served in Taiwan.  In accordance with regulatory guidance individuals qualified for the AFEM must have served in the Taiwan Straits between 23 August 1958 and 1 January 1959.  Therefore, he is not entitled to this award and its addition to his DD Form 214.

2.  To be entitled to award of the CIB, the evidence must show that an individual held and served in an infantry MOS while assigned or attached to an infantry unit of brigade, regimental, or smaller size and must have been personally present and actively engaged in ground combat with the unit.

3.  The available evidence shows the applicant completed the training requirements and he held MOSs 62C and 62B during his period of service in Vietnam.  He was assigned to engineer or maintenance units, not infantry units, during his period of service in Vietnam.  There is no evidence available to confirm that he participated in active ground combat as an infantryman with an infantry unit during this period of service.

4.  All Soldiers were provided basic combat skills training after they entered the Army.  This was provided to ensure that all Soldiers had the survival skills to perform basic infantry missions when the need arose.  Therefore, the exigencies of combat required non-infantry Soldiers to temporarily perform the basic infantry duties that all Soldiers were trained to do; however, it is not a basis for award of the CIB.  Based on the available evidence, he is not entitled to award of the CIB.

5.  He also contends Item 35 of his DA Form 2-1 should be corrected to show he was assigned to Battery A, 2nd Missile Battalion, 71st Artillery, Taiwan.  However, there is no evidence of record and he has provided insufficient evidence to show he served in Taiwan.  

6.  Even if he served in Taiwan, the DA Form 2-1 was prepared and maintained for active Army personnel during their active service.  As he no longer has an active military status, his DA Form 2-1 is no longer updated or maintained. 

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)                                         AR20110006655



3


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1

ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont)                                         AR20110006655



2


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1