IN THE CASE OF:

		BOARD DATE: 21 September 2011

		DOCKET NUMBER:  AR 20110015587


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 request for award of the Combat Action Badge (CAB).

2.  The applicant states he disagrees with the Board's denial of his request.  The Army has given commanders wide latitude in determining the merits of the award and many Soldiers have received the badge for simply being within 300 to 400 meters of an incident which is counter to the stated denial by the Board.

3.  The applicant provides copies of:

* All Army Activities (ALARACT) Message 193/2010, subject:  HQDA Executive Order 253-10, Management of Concussion/Mild Traumatic Brain Injury (MTBI) in the Deployed Setting, dated 260416Z June 2010
* letter of support from Colonel T____ S____, dated 7 August 2011
* previous Record of Proceedings and denial letter

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 AR20100000521 on 27 July 2010.

2.  Army Regulation 15-185 sets forth procedures for processing requests for correction of military records.  Paragraph 2-15b governs requests for reconsideration.  This provision of the regulation allows an applicant to request reconsideration of an earlier ABCMR decision if the request is received within 1 year of the ABCMR's original decision and it has not previously been reconsidered.  This request for reconsideration is being considered as an exception to policy.

3.  The applicant has presented a new argument concerning his request for award of the CAB which requires that his case be reconsidered by the ABCMR.

4.  The previous Record of Proceedings noted:

	a.  On 9 January 2007, a brigadier general recommended the applicant for the CAB for an incident that occurred on 19 September 2003.  Included in that recommendation were statements from the applicant and a captain.  In those statements the applicant and the captain said that four 107-milimeter rockets and mortars were fired at their position.  The mortar fire landed southwest of their building and the rockets landed on or near their building.  The rocket which hit their building struck the building approximately 10 to 30 meters from the applicant's location.

	b.  On 23 April 2007, the recommendation to award the applicant the CAB was disapproved by the U.S. Army Human Resources Command (HRC), Alexandria, VA.

	c.  On 24 October 2007, HRC again disapproved the applicant's request for the CAB.  HRC stated that a mortar round impacted the floor above and a room over from where the applicant was located.  Although there was evidence of enemy action, there was no indication the applicant could have reasonably been injured by the attack.  As such, the incident did not meet the intent of the CAB.

	d.  On 15 August 2009, the applicant again submitted a request for the CAB.  The disposition of that request is not a matter of record.

5.  The applicant provides:

	a.  ALARACT Message 193/2010, which provides the Department of Defense (DOD) guidance that must be followed concerning management of concussions/MTBI.  The message states that MTBI is a prevalent injury among deployed Soldiers and provides the requirement that any service member within 50 meters of a blast, including those without apparent injuries, must be referred for a medical evaluation.

	b.  A letter of support from COL T____ S____, dated 7 August 2011, states he was the applicant's battalion commander during Operation Iraqi Freedom I.  He further states that during that time he witnessed frequent instances of his Soldiers performing bravely under terrible circumstances.  As the applicant's commander at the time he would have approved award of the CAB.

6.  A review of the Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ) section of the HRC web page provides the following question and answer:

Question:  How far must a Soldier be from an incident in order to be considered in reasonable danger and eligible for a CAB?  Answer:  There is no written guidance on proximity, which varies for different weapons, for the award of the CAB.  It is the decision of the approval authority whether the Soldier met the prescribed criteria.

7.  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 CAB.  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 applicant requests reconsideration of his request for award of the CAB.  He contends his situation merits the award.

2.  The applicant was recommended for award of the CAB in 2007.  The recommendation(s) were denied in 2007 by HRC.

3.  DOD published mandatory evaluation for MTBI guidance in 2010.  DOD announced that any Soldier within 50 meters of a blast must be evaluated due to MTBI.  This policy pertains to screening for MTBI, not individual awards for combat action.


4.  The evidence shows the rocket struck a floor above, and approximately 
10-30 meters from the applicant’s location.  The applicant was shielded by the floor above and walls separating the rooms.  

5.  The letter of support from Colonel T ____ S____, was noted; however, the letter did not include sufficient evidence to change the previous recommendation.

6.  In view of the above, the applicant's request should be denied.

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 to amend the decision of the ABCMR set forth in Docket Number` AR20100000521, dated 27 July 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)                                         AR20100027392



3


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1

ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont)                                         AR20110015587



2


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1