IN THE CASE OF:  

		BOARD DATE:  13 June 2013

		DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20120019901


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 earlier request for correction of his military records to show he was awarded the Combat Infantryman Badge (CIB).

2.  The applicant states he was an infantryman assigned to an infantry unit and participated in combat in the Republic of Vietnam (RVN) as a squad leader.

3.  The applicant provides copies of:

* May/June 2012 issue of the Vietnam Veterans of America Magazine, page 41
* 1st Cavalry Division Vietnam Combat Certificate
* letter from the applicant to this Board, dated 15 August 2011
* DD Form 214 (Armed Forces of the United States Report of Transfer or Discharge)
* DA Form 20 (Enlisted Qualification Record), pages 2, 3, and 4
* Operational Report, 1st Cavalry Division, for the period ending 30 April 1970, dated 12 November 1970
* 5th Battalion, 7th Cavalry Association, Reunion IX Report, undated
* witness statement, dated 12 June 2012, with copies of the witness's DD Form 214 and DD Form 215 (Correction to DD Form 214)



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 AR20110017097 on 16 February 2012.

2.  Except for the applicant's DD Form 214 and his 1st Cavalry Division Vietnam Combat Certificate, all of the enclosures submitted with this request for reconsideration are new evidence which warrant consideration by the Board.

3.  The original Record of Proceedings states:

	a.  The applicant was trained as a light weapons infantryman at Fort Lewis, Washington.  He was transferred to Fort Benning, Georgia, where he completed the Noncommissioned Officers Course and was promoted to sergeant/pay grade E-5 on 18 November 1969.

	b.  The applicant was assigned to the RVN on 5 March 1970 and was subsequently assigned to Company A, 5th Battalion, 7th Cavalry.  On 5 April 1970, he was assigned to the 8th Engineer Battalion.  On 13 April 1970, he was transferred to Japan as a patient.  The available records were silent as to the reason for his transfer.  The Board determined the applicant's Vietnam Combat Certificate simply showed he had been assigned to a unit of the 1st Cavalry Division from 5 March to 13 April 1970.  The applicant had not provided orders awarding him the CIB or any other evidence that clearly showed he met the requirements for award of the CIB during his brief 38 days in the RVN.

4.  A review of the applicant's records shows he arrived in the RVN on 5 March 1970.  His assignments in the RVN consisted of:

	a.  15 to 18 March 1970 as a squad leader, Company A, 5th Battalion, 7th Cavalry, 1st Cavalry Division;

	b.  19 March to 4 April 1970 as a squad leader, Company D, 5th Battalion, 7th Cavalry, 1st Cavalry Division; and

	c.  5 April to 12 April 1970 in an unidentified status, Headquarters and Headquarters Company, 8th Engineer Battalion, 1st Cavalry Division.

5.  The applicant provided the following new evidence:

	a.  Page 41 of the May/June 2012 issue of the Vietnam Veterans of America Magazine shows what appears to be an advertisement placed by the applicant for the purpose of locating anyone who might remember a tree falling incident that injured several people in the RVN.

	b.  A letter from the applicant to this Board, dated 15 August 2011, written in response to the Army Review Boards Agency's error in addressing a response to him on 18 July 2011 concerning his Vietnam Combat Certificate.

	c.  Section 38 (Record of Assignments) of his DA Form 20 shows a handwritten notation stating he had been assigned to Company D until his hospitalization to refute the entry on the form that shows he had been reassigned to "HHC 8th Engr Bn, 1st Cav Div" on 5 April 1970, just prior to his reassignment to the Medical Holding Company on 13 April 1970.

	d.  The 1st Cavalry Division Operational Report for the period ending 30 April 1970, dated 12 November 1970, shows his unit, the 5th Battalion, 7th Cavalry, 1st Brigade, continued to interdict enemy resupply and lines of communications during April offensive operations.  There was an increase in enemy activities, to include attacks on fire support bases.

	e.  The Reunion IX Report, undated, describes the 5th Battalion, 7th Cavalry, Association reunion held in Jacksonville, Florida, from 29 June to 5 July 2008.  There is no mention of the applicant in this report.

	f.  A witness statement, dated 12 June 2012, with copies of the witness's DD Form 214 and DD Form 215, identifies the author as a former sergeant/pay grade E-5 who was assigned to Company D, 5th Battalion, 7th Cavalry, in 1969 and 1970.  He states he was awarded the Bronze Star Medal, Air Medal, Army Commendation Medal with "V" Device, and CIB.  He contends that most Soldiers assigned to his company were awarded these medals and badge.  The author remembers the applicant was ordered to set out claymore mines with trip wires to provide for an automatic ambush.  The applicant taught his troops the new skills needed for the new ambush method.  The author contends that the applicant had confirmed a hostile kill when he returned to the ambush site.  The applicant was again ordered to the ambush site to look for additional activity when his platoon was engaged by (emphasis added) "trail watchers," leading to a hostile kill in action.  The author further states he served as a radio operator which allowed him to monitor the actions of the company, making him aware of the ambush details and the later medical evacuation of the applicant.  He also states that records for 1970 would be difficult to track because of the unusual mobility of the 1st Cavalry Division.  He assures that the applicant served honorably, selflessly, and with distinction as a combat infantry noncommissioned officer.
6.  Army Regulation 600-8-22 (Military Awards) provides that the CIB is awarded to infantry officers and to enlisted and warrant officer persons who have an infantry military occupational specialty (MOS).  They must have served in active ground combat while assigned or attached to an infantry unit of brigade, regimental, or smaller size.

7.  U.S. Army Vietnam Regulation 672-1 (Awards and Decorations), in effect at the time, specifically 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 the CIB was the unique award established to recognize the infantryman and only the infantryman for his service.  Further, "the Combat Infantryman Badge is not an award for being shot at or for undergoing the hazards of day-to-day combat."  

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The applicant contends that his military records should be corrected to show he was awarded the CIB because he served in combat in the RVN as an infantry squad leader.

2.  The available evidence clearly shows the applicant was awarded an infantry MOS and was assigned to an infantry unit of brigade, regimental, or smaller size in the RVN, for less than one month.

3.  The available evidence of record clearly shows the applicant was assigned to two different infantry units and an engineer unit during his 38 days of duty in the 1st Cavalry Division.

4.  The witness statement provided by the applicant states the applicant trained troops on setting out claymore mines and had confirmed enemy casualties when he returned to the ambush sites to check the traps.  While the witness was assigned to the same unit as the applicant (less than 15 days), there is no evidence that they were ever together on any combat mission.  The witness statement does not specifically state that the applicant engaged, or was engaged by the enemy, only that his platoon was so engaged.  The witness states that "most" Soldiers in his unit were awarded the CIB and that it could be a case of "lost records" that caused a Soldier to not receive the badge.

5.  Given the very short time the applicant served in the RVN (53 days), and in particular, in Company D, and the vagueness of the witness statement itself, 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 the overall merits of this case are insufficient as a basis to amend the decision of the ABCMR set forth in Docket Number AR20110017097, dated 16 February 2012.



      _______ _    _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)                                         AR20120019901



3


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1

ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont)                                         AR20120019901



2


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1