IN THE CASE OF: 

		BOARD DATE: 6 November 2012

		DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20120007996 


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 correction of his records to show award of Combat Infantryman Badge.

2.  The applicant states he was issued orders assigning him to Vietnam.  The special instructions of his orders indicated that his "primary duties include(s) performance of duties as tactical advisor to ARVN/GVN [Army of the Republic of Vietnam/Government of Vietnam] Infantry type military or paramilitary units in the district areas of responsibility to include frequent participation in ground combat operations."

	a.  He states that while acting as an infantry tactical advisor to local Regional Forces (RF) and ARVN infantry units engaging in combat operations, he came under hostile fire while performing his assigned primary duties.

	b.  He was recommended for the Combat Infantryman Badge, the special instructions on his orders were disregarded, and his request was unjustly denied. He adds that his request for reconsideration was also denied.

3.  The applicant provides a copy of the front page of his assignment orders, a recommendation for award of the Combat Infantryman Badge, a foreign award, and his DD Form 214 (Armed Forces of the United States Report of Transfer or Discharge).



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.  On 5 June 1966, the applicant was appointed as a Reserve commissioned officer in the rank of second lieutenant in the Ordnance Corps.

3.  He was ordered to active duty on 24 February 1968 for a period of 2 years.

4.  Headquarters, U.S. Military Assistance Command, Vietnam (MACV), Special Orders Number 7, dated 7 January 1969, reassigned the applicant to the U.S. Army Advisory Group (ADGRU), I Corps, with a reporting date of 10 January 1969.  The special instructions show, in part, "Primary duties includes performance of duties as tactical advisor to ARVN/GVN Infantry type military or paramilitary units in the district area of responsibility to include frequent participation in ground combat operations."

5.  Headquarters, MACV, Special Orders Number 98, dated 8 April 1969, revoked so much of Headquarters, MACV, Special Orders Number 7, dated 7 January 1969, pertaining to the applicant that reads, "Special instructions…Primary duties include performance of duties as tactical advisor to ARVN/GVN infantry type military or paramilitary units in the district area of responsibility to include frequent participation in ground combat operations."

6.  The applicant's DA Form 66 (Officer Qualification Record) shows in:

	a.  item 9 (Military Occupational Specialties (MOS)):

* 2136 (Non-Tactical Unit Officer), 26 April 1968
* 4201 (Supply Management Officer), 9 July 1968
* 7300 (Chemical Engineer), 27 December 1968
* 9301 (Combat Intelligence Staff Officer), 20 December 1968

	b.  item 17 (Foreign Service):  Vietnam from 4 January through 4 September 1969;

	c.  item 38 (Record of Assignments):

		(1)  MACV in duty MOS 9301 (Intelligence Officer, I Corps Combat Zone (I CTZ), Counter Intelligence (CI)) from 10 January through 15 June 1969, and

		(2)  U.S. Army Hospital, Camp Zama, Japan, from 16 June through 1 September 1969; and

	d.  item 21 (Awards and Decorations):  no entry for the Combat Infantryman Badge.

7.  Headquarters, MACV letter, dated 8 October 1969, subject:  Authorization for Individual Foreign Award, with enclosure shows the applicant was awarded the Republic of Vietnam Gallantry Cross with Bronze Star for outstanding performance of duty on 28 February 1969.

8.  A DA Form 2496 (Disposition Form), dated 27 August 1969, shows the Administrative Officer, Advisory Team 15, recommended the applicant for award of the Combat Infantryman Badge for the period 10 January to 9 June 1969 based on three incidents that occurred on 26 March, 28 March, and 17 April 1969 while on operations with RF units and he was subjected to hostile fire.

	a.  On 20 September 1969 in reviewing the recommendation, the Adjutant General, MACV, noted, "In considering a recommendation for its award, this headquarters is fully cognizant that other factors besides position occupancy must be considered.  Therefore, the basic premise is whether the individual is performing duty as an infantry tactical advisor to an infantry or infantry-type unit actively engaged in ground combat.  In view of the above, favorable consideration of this request is precluded."

	b.  On 30 October 1969, the Assistant Adjutant, U.S. Army ADGRU, I CTZ, requested reconsideration of the recommendation for award of the Combat Infantryman Badge to the applicant.  He referenced a MACV ADGRU letter, dated 12 August 1969, that provided guidance, as follows:  "When considering the criteria for award of the Combat Infantryman Badge, eligibility should not be determined exclusively on the basis of position occupied.  The basic premise must be performance of primary duty as an infantry tactical advisor to an infantry or infantry-type unit actively engaged in ground combat…the sole exception being those radio/telephone operators whose duties require them to accompany regularly, infantry or infantry-type units as radio/telephone operators."

	c.  On 27 October 1970, the Chief, Military Personnel Branch, U.S. Army Natick Laboratories, Natick, Massachusetts, requested a determination as to the applicant's eligibility for award of the Combat Infantryman Badge while he was assigned to Advisory Team 15 during the period January to June 1969.

	d.  On 13 January 1971 in reviewing the request for reconsideration of the Combat Infantryman Badge, the Assistant Adjutant General, MACV, referenced the Army regulation governing military awards.  He noted, "Army Regulation 
672-5-1 (Awards) determines the eligibility criteria for award of the Combat Infantryman Badge for service in the Republic of Vietnam and requires (1) assignment as an advisor to an infantry type unit of regimental or smaller size and (2) that the individual recommended must have been personally present and under fire while serving in an assigned primary duty as a member of a tactical advisory team while the unit participated in ground combat."  He added, "It has been determined that the primary duty assignment of DIOCC [Defense Intelligence Operations Coordination Center] Advisor does not meet the above stated criteria" and "award of the Combat Infantry Badge to (the applicant) is therefore precluded."

9.  The applicant's DD Form 214 shows he was honorably released from active duty on 23 February 1970 at the expiration of his active duty commitment and transferred to the U.S. Army Reserve Control Group to complete his remaining Reserve obligation.

	a.  He completed 2 years of active service that included 8 months and 1 day of foreign service.

	b.  Item 24 (Decorations, Medals, Badges, Commendations, Citations, and Campaign Ribbons Awarded or Authorized) does not list the Combat Infantryman Badge.

10.  A review of the applicant's military personnel record failed to reveal any evidence that shows he was awarded the Combat Infantryman Badge.

11.  Army Regulation 600-8-22 (Military Awards) states that during the Vietnam Conflict, subsequent to 1 March 1961, any officer, warrant officer, or enlisted Soldier whose branch was other than infantry will be eligible for award of the Combat Infantryman Badge provided all the below listed requirements have been met:

	a.  assigned as advisor to an infantry unit, ranger unit, infantry-type unit of the civil guard of regimental or smaller size, and/or infantry-type unit of the self-defense corps unit of regimental or smaller size of the Vietnamese government during any period such unit was engaged in actual ground combat;

	b.  assigned as advisor of an irregular force comparable to the above Infantry units under similar conditions; and

	c.  personally present and under fire while serving in an assigned primary duty as a member of a tactical advisory team while the unit participated in ground combat.

12.  U.S. Army Vietnam Regulation 672-1 (Decorations and Awards) and MACV Directive 672-1 (Decorations, Awards, and Honors), in effect at the time, provided additional guidance for award of the Combat Infantryman Badge.  Neither publication authorized award of the Combat Infantryman Badge to personnel in the duty position of intelligence officer.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The applicant contends that he should be awarded the Combat Infantryman Badge because:

	a.  the orders assigning him to Vietnam directed that his primary duties included performance of duties as tactical advisor to ARVN/GVN infantry-type military or paramilitary units;

	b.  he served as an infantry tactical advisor to local RF and ARVN infantry units and was subjected to hostile fire; and

	c.  he was recommended for the Combat Infantryman Badge, but his request was unjustly denied.

2.  The applicant's request for award of the Combat Infantryman Badge was carefully considered and repeatedly reconsidered.

3.  The evidence of record shows the orders that assigned the applicant to ADGRU, I Corps, contained special instructions that indicated his primary duties included performance of duties as tactical advisor to ARVN/GVN infantry-type military or paramilitary units in the district area of responsibility to include frequent participation in ground combat operations.  However, the evidence of record also shows those special instructions were revoked.

4.  The evidence of record shows the applicant was assigned as a DIOCC Advisor from 10 January through 15 June 1969.  His Officer Qualification Record shows his duty position title during this period was recorded as Intelligence Officer.

	a.  There is no evidence that he was serving in an assigned primary duty as an advisor to accompany infantry or infantry-type units on tactical operations.

	b.  Based on the evidence of record, he was not eligible for the Combat Infantryman Badge.

5.  In view of the foregoing, there is an insufficient evidentiary basis for granting 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 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)                                         AR20120001598



3


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1

ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont)                                         AR20120007996



2


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1