IN THE CASE OF:  	  

		BOARD DATE:  13 January 2015  	  

		DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20140009825 


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 Combat Infantryman Badge (CIB) for service in the Demilitarized Zone (DMZ) of Korea during the period 20 May 
1977 through 22 May 1978.

2.  The applicant states he meets the regulatory requirements for the award of the CIB.

3.  The applicant provides:

* self-authored statement
* 7 letters
* email correspondence
* Officer Record Brief
* Permanent Orders (PO)
* letter of support
* DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty)
* Extract from Army Regulation 600-8-22 (Military Awards)
* 3 articles about the DMZ
* map of the DMZ

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.  The applicant was appointed as a second lieutenant in the Infantry, U.S. Army Reserve, on 18 December 1970, and entered active duty on 3 January 1971.  He served in a variety of positions, to include tours in Panama and Korea.  He retired from active duty on 31 January 1991 in the rank/grade of major/O4.

3.  On 12 May 1977, he completed the Supply Management Officer course and was awarded the specialty skill identifier (SSI) of 92B (Supply Management Officer).

4.  On or about 25 May 1977, he was assigned to the U.S. Army Support Group, Joint Security Area, at the DMZ, Panmunjom, Korea.  His duty position was Logistics Officer.  On his departure, on or about 22 May 1978, in addition to being awarded a Joint Service Commendation Medal, he received a Letter of Merit in Korea Service which cited the applicant's personal management of an overall budget of $1,000,000 for the U.S. Army Support Group, Joint Security Area.  Additionally, the citation notes his effective and efficient management of a Korean labor force and excellence as a Unit Motor Officer.  No mention is made of any involvement in ground combat operations.

5.  On or about 13 May 1978, he received an annual Officer Evaluation Report (OER) wherein his principal duty title is Logistics Officer.  In the OER he is described as being the epitome of a commander's logistician.  He is cited for outstanding logistical support not only to his unit, but also the Swiss/Swedish delegations of the Neutral Nations Supervisory Commission.  No mention is made of any role played in ground combat operations.

6.  The applicant provides:

	a.  A self-authored statement which essentially states:

* in an ABCMR response to his initial application he was re-directed to the U.S. Army Human Resources Command (HRC) for review of his request for the CIB
* he states he had already sent a request to HRC but it was denied
* denial was based on his assigned unit not qualifying as an infantry brigade-sized or smaller unit; this is inaccurate as the unit is and always has been infantry
* he states he served in this unit as a combat arms officer
* based upon his conversations with HRC, it was suggested he submit his request for the CIB to the ABCMR

	b.  Email traffic between the applicant and the HRC Inspector General's Office, which essentially states the applicant has put together reasonable logic for his request for a CIB and his request should be submitted to the ABCMR.

	c.  Letter by the applicant to HRC, dated 5 September 2012, requesting the award of the CIB.

	d.  Letter from HRC, dated 1 November 2012, addressing the applicant's request for awards and, regarding the CIB, stating he must provide additional documentation to support his request.  This documentation should include notarized eyewitness statements citing his satisfactory participation in combat.

	e.  Letter from the applicant to HRC, dated 7 February 2013, which discusses his efforts to obtain the CIB and other awards.  He also outlines his contentions as to why he should be awarded the CIB, which include, in part, that he patrolled along the Military Demarcation Line (MDL) checking for North Korean penetrations.

	f.  Letter from the applicant to HRC, dated 19 Jun 2013, which essentially provides further detail to support his contention he should be awarded the CIB.  Included in this letter, he states:

* he was housed at Camp Kitty Hawk which was adjacent to the DMZ
* in response to the ax murders of two American officers (1976), the Commanding General, United Nations Command placed the unit on alert for many months
* in 1977 his unit recovered the bodies of the helicopter crewmen who had been shot down by North Korea
* his unit provided security and supplies for a major tunnel discovery operation
* throughout the year of his assignment, there were many firefights between U.S. forces and those of North Korea
* he crossed the DMZ and MDL daily to enter Panmunjom so that he could perform his duties
* he was branched infantry

	g.  Letter from HRC, dated 31 July 2013, which essentially states they could not verify the applicant's qualification for the CIB.  Specifically, while he held an infantry SSI during a qualifying period, HRC did not recognize his unit of assignment as an infantry unit.

	h.  PO 45-5, Headquarters, United Nations Command, dated 31 March 
1978, showing the award of the Joint Service Commendation Medal for the period 24 May 1977 to 17 May 1978.

	i.  Letter of support, dated 31 January 2013, which essentially states:

* the writer has known the applicant since they were lieutenants in the 193rd Infantry Brigade, Panama (1972-1973)
* he was assigned to the 2nd Battalion, 9th Infantry during the same time the applicant served at the DMZ 
* the conditions were extremely hostile, as evidenced by incidents such as the unprovoked attack of a U.S. Army major, the shooting down of a U.S. Army helicopter, and never-ending tunneling being done by the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea (DPRK)
* regardless of one's assignment, all who were in the DMZ were in a very hostile zone where then, as now, we are still considered to be at war
* the letter does not appear to be notarized, and does not include any eyewitness information stating the applicant performed satisfactorily while participating with his unit in ground combat

	j.  News article from the March 2010 issue of Army magazine titled "United Nations Command Joint Security Area."  The article essentially addresses the history and role of the United Nations Command Security Battalion-Joint Security Area.

	k.  News article, from October 2012, Veterans of Foreign Wars (VFW), titled "Korea's DMZ" which essentially provides a history of the DMZ.  It provides a list of incidents between 1945 and 1994.  It notes the U.S. Army major was attacked in 1974 and, during 1977, 3 crewmembers of a U.S. Army helicopter were killed when their aircraft was shot down.

		l.  Extract from a document titled "Secret Tunnel Under Panmunjom" which gives information on tunnels dug by the DPRK under the DMZ.

		m.  A map of the DMZ showing Panmunjom and other significant military locations.

7.  Army Regulation 600-8-22 (Military Awards) states there are basically three requirements for award of the CIB.

	a.  The Soldier must be an infantryman satisfactorily performing infantry duties, he must be assigned to an infantry unit during such time as the unit is engaged in active ground combat, and he must actively participate in such ground combat.  Specific requirements state, in effect, that an Army infantry or special forces officer (SSI 11 or 18) in the grade of Colonel or below may be awarded the CIB.

   b.  A Soldier must have satisfactorily performed duty while assigned or attached as a member of an infantry, ranger, or special forces unit of brigade, regimental, or smaller size during any period such unit was engaged in active ground combat.

	c.  A recipient must be personally present and under hostile fire while serving in an assigned infantry or special forces primary duty, in a unit actively engaged in ground combat with the enemy.

	d.  The CIB is authorized for award for Korea on the DMZ between 4 January 1969 and 31 March 1994.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  Army Regulation 600-8-22 lays out specific requirements for the award of the CIB.  They are:

	a.  The recipient must be an infantry officer (SSI 11), assigned to a brigade-sized, or smaller, infantry unit.  The applicant was an infantry officer assigned to a joint security force responsible for maintaining security at Panmunjom.  His assigned duties, however, were as a logistics officer, not that of an infantry officer.

	b.  The unit must have been involved in ground combat with the enemy.  While technically still at war with the DPRK and although insurgencies of various types by the DPRK have been ongoing since the armistice was declared, there is no clear and specific cite found which shows the applicant's unit was involved in ground combat during his time of assignment.

	c.  The recipient must have been personally present and under hostile fire. There is no evidence, either in the record or provided by the applicant, which shows he met this requirement.

2.  Based upon the foregoing, the applicant does not qualify for the CIB and is not entitled to 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 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)                                         AR20140009825





3


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1

ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont)                                         AR20140009825



2


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1