IN THE CASE OF:  	  

		BOARD DATE:  18 December 2014  	  

		DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20140018662 


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 Infantryman Badge (CIB).

2.  He states, in effect, that the Board should not have denied his previous request on the basis that his unit did not have the word "infantry" in its title or that he failed to provide evidence that he was in direct combat with the enemy while in Vietnam.  He states:

	a.  The Record of Proceedings for his previous case stated he was assigned to the 765th Security Platoon under the command and control of the 765th Transportation Battalion.  It should also be mentioned that official orders received for the unit were from U.S. Army, Vietnam; the 34th General Support Group; and the 53rd General Support Group.  Research of those organizations failed to show the 765th Security Platoon within their chains of command.  

	b.  The Board failed to determine the full extent of his duties while serving with the 765th Security Platoon during the period in question.  There are few, if any, records pertaining to the platoon and its personnel during its service dates from approximately September 1964 to December 1970.  The Board relied on documents in his Official Military Personnel File and could not find any reason to deny his claim for the CIB other than the fact that the unit failed to have the word "infantry" in its title.  

	c.  He knows that he has no documentation to prove he was present during any firefights or other confrontations with the enemy.  He could acquire statements from other Soldiers who were present, but they also have nothing other than their word, which the Board does not consider sufficient.

	d.  The Record of Proceedings for his previous case stated he had described the platoon as one that performed security duties, not infantry duties.  Nowhere did he state this.  He notes, however, that he and the rest of the infantry Soldiers did not let the enemy breach the perimeter of the airfield, and asks if this is not an infantry Soldier's duty (i.e., to close with and destroy the enemy and to seize and hold terrain).

	e.  Members of units other than infantry units have been authorized the CIB and there were provisions during the Vietnam War to award the CIB to the Special Forces, Rangers, advisory units, aerial assault helicopter units, long range reconnaissance patrols, and many others.  

	f.  The 765th Security Platoon was the only such unit in Vietnam.  It was composed of infantry personnel and charged with establishing and providing an "offensive and defensive defense" for the perimeter of an Army airfield.  A former lieutenant in the platoon states he is not surprised that records cannot be located due to the nature of operations at the time.  Other than combat units in an adjacent zone, the platoon was the only infantry unit in the immediate vicinity.  The platoon's primary responsibility was the defense of the airfield perimeter.  The platoon was not charged with providing personnel as guards for aircraft or structures inside the base compound.  

	g.  The unit frequently conducted reconnaissance and ambush patrols in a region east of the airfield in conjunction with an Army of the Republic of Vietnam infantry company.  The primary purpose of these patrols was to find and eliminate enemy forces, as the airfield could be attacked from this area and small arms could be fired at aircraft as they took off and landed.  He was present when the airfield was the target of mortar, rocket, and small arms fire.  On other occasions, Soldiers conducting patrols outside the perimeter came in contact with the enemy that resulted in firefights.  Only two mortar/rocket attacks, in March 1966 and April 1968, made the headlines of the Stars and Stripes or the Saigon Post.  Shamefully all of the other attacks cannot be proven as there are no after-action reports or other official records.  

	h.  It is with extreme prejudice and discrimination that the Board rejected his claim based simply on the fact that his unit's name did not include the word "infantry" or that there was no documentation proving that he and other Soldiers in the unit were present and in direct combat with the enemy.  The member of the unit held the required infantry military occupational specialty (MOS) and performed the duties of infantrymen.  Others who did not serve in units designated as infantry received the CIB, including Specialist Four (SP4) EW, a member of the 765th Security Platoon who received the CIB posthumously as a result of a non-hostile action.  

	i.  He has no confidence that the Board will alter its denial of award of the CIB for any individual who served with the 765th Security Platoon.  It is apparent that only the members of Vietnam veterans' families and their close associates are acquainted with the harsh realities of any war.  Those making decisions on claims submitted by those deserving of awards are separated from the facts of those who are submitting the claims.  

	j.  He has collected the information he has provided from Soldiers of the 765th Security Platoon over several months due to the denial of his previous claim.  

3.  He provides:

* letter from Lieutenant General (LTG) (Retired) PEB
* LTG PEB's U.S. Army Officer Efficiency Report (OER) for the period ending 25 August 1966
* photograph from an Australian War Memorial web page
* orders
* excerpt from United States Army Combat Units in the Republic of Vietnam, 1966-1973

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 AR20120012066, on 24 January 2013.

2.  The applicant has provided new evidence and argument that requires consideration by the Board.

3.  On 2 August 1965, he was inducted into the Army of the United States.  After completing initial entry training, he was awarded MOS 11B (Light Weapons Infantryman). 

4.  During his service in Vietnam, he was assigned to the 765th Security Platoon from 29 December 1965 to 28 December 1966.  Orders in his record show the unit was under the command and control of the 765th Transportation Battalion.  

5.  He was honorably released from active duty on 1 August 1967.  His DD Form 214 (Armed Forces of the United States Report of Transfer or Discharge) shows the National Defense Service Medal and the Vietnam Service Medal with bronze service star

6.  His records do not contain orders awarding him the CIB.  Additionally, item 41 (Awards and Decorations) of his DA Form 20 (Enlisted Qualification Record) does not show the CIB.  

7.  On 2 April 2012, by letter to his Member of Congress, the Chief, Awards and Decorations Branch, U.S. Army Human Resources Command, stated:

	a.  The Awards and Decorations Branch was unable to act upon the applicant's request for the CIB.  The ABCMR had previously determined that, although Soldiers of the 765th Security Platoon may have held an infantry MOS, the unit was not an infantry unit and its members were not eligible for the CIB.   

	b.  The CIB is awarded to those who were infantrymen, assigned or attached to an infantry, Ranger, or Special Forces unit of brigade or smaller size, and who satisfactorily participated while the unit was actively engaged in ground combat with the enemy. 

8.  In support of his previous application, he provided, in part, a copy of a web page from The Virtual Wall Vietnam Veterans Memorial showing SP4 EW was assigned to the 765th Security Platoon and was awarded the CIB.  

9.  He provides the following:

	a.  In a letter, dated 23 January 2014, LTG PEB states he was the commander of the 765th Transportation Battalion Security Platoon during the applicant's time in Vietnam.  LTG PEB states he is aware of the Board's previous decision, and he does not disagree with the interpretation of the applicable regulations and policies in force at the time.  

		(1)  Regarding the lack of evidence that the applicant was assigned to the unit while it was engaged in ground combat, he states a review of annual reports and lessons learned prepared by the 765th Transportation Battalion for the years 1965 to 1972 found no mention of the security platoon.  It is common knowledge that Vung Tau was attacked by both indirect and direct fire during this period, and damage from the attacks is documented in official and unofficial resources.  He can state authoritatively that the unit reported all contacts and had an aggressive patrol posture.  

		(2)  Regarding qualification for award of the CIB, he speculates that the 765th Security Platoon may have been given its designation when the battalion first arrived in Vung Tau and used military policemen to secure the perimeter.  When he and the applicant were there, it was an infantry platoon led by an infantry officer, and it performed routine infantry missions.  What the platoon was called was the responsibility of the 765th Transportation Battalion, which failed to change the designation of the platoon to reflect the changed composition of the unit and its expanded role as hostilities increased over time.  He notes that the 5307th Composite Unit (Provisional) which served with distinction in the China Burma India Theater during World War II never had the title of infantry, but one cannot deny that they were infantry.  There is a precedent for infantry units not bearing that designation for reasons other than a failure by the chain of command.  

		(3)  He has provided an OER the specifically addressed the unit's operations at the time.  The unit's function was not passive security, and the platoon received two unit awards for valor:  the Meritorious Unit Commendation (MUC) (Department of the Army General Order (DAGO) Number 40, dated 1966, as amended by DAGO 3, dated 1967) and the Republic of Vietnam Gallantry Cross with Palm Unit Citation (DAGO 8, dated 1974).  While it is true that any Soldier can be brave, it underscores the combat role of a platoon of infantrymen, not security guards passively manning guard towers.  

	b.  LTG PEB's OER for the period ending 25 August 1966 shows that during the rating period LTG PEB was a first lieutenant assigned to principal duty as the executive officer of an airfield operations detachment and as the platoon leader of a security platoon.  The OER shows, in part:

* he took command of the security platoon for Vung Tau Army Airfield and personally planned the security of the airfield perimeter
* he led his platoon on patrols outside the perimeter of the airfield in order to give his men the opportunity to actively participate in infantry tactics
* he had been present at the scene of every exchange of fire that occurred from time to time around the perimeter

	c.  A photograph from an Australian War Memorial web page depicts 765th Security Platoon Soldiers talking to members of the Royal Australian Air Force (RAAF).  A description of the photograph indicates member of the 765th Security Platoon had volunteered their services as door gunners.  


	d.  An excerpt from United States Army Combat Units in the Republic of Vietnam, 1966-1973 lists the 765th Security Platoon and shows that, as of 20 October 1966, the platoon's next higher headquarters was the U.S. Army Support Command, Vung Tau.  

10.  Army Regulation 600-8-22 (Military Awards) 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.  

11.  U.S. Army Vietnam Regulation 672-1 (Awards and Decorations) governed award of the CIB to Army forces operating in Vietnam.  This regulation stated the 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 Combat Infantryman Badge 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/MOS 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.

12.  Special provisions in effect during the Vietnam conflict authorized award of the CIB to Soldiers performing duties as advisors with infantry-type units whether or not their basic branch was infantry if they met all other criteria for the badge.  

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  While the 765th Transportation Battalion Security Platoon was manned by infantryman and performed some duties that were similar to those performed by infantry units, this does not mean the unit was an infantry unit in the sense intended by the criteria for the CIB.  

2.  Contrary to the applicant's contention, the fact that the word "infantry" is not included in the unit's title is not the basis for denying his request.  The basis for denying his request is that the platoon was subordinate to a transportation battalion and existed to provide security for an airfield.  Although he believes otherwise, the unit's purpose is simply not comparable to that of an infantry unit serving in Vietnam at the time.  



3.  The applicant notes that a member of the platoon was awarded the CIB.  He has not provided evidence showing that this Soldier was awarded the CIB for his service with the platoon.  It is possible that the Soldier was awarded the CIB prior to being assigned to the platoon.  Even if this Soldier did receive the CIB for service with the platoon, an error made in his case would not be a basis for granting relief in the applicant's case.  Any infantryman serving under similar circumstances was not then and would not now be eligible for the CIB.  

4.  A determination that the applicant is not eligible for the CIB in no way diminishes his honorable service to our nation.  

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 AR20120012066, dated 24 January 2013.



      _______ _   _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)                                         AR20140018662



3


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1

ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont)                                         AR20140018662



2


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1