RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


      IN THE CASE OF:    .


      BOARD DATE:         2 March 2006
      DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20050010792


      I certify that hereinafter is recorded the true and complete record
of the proceedings of the Army Board for Correction of Military Records in
the case of the above-named individual.

|     |Mr. Carl W. S. Chun               |     |Director             |
|     |Mr. Joseph A. Adriance            |     |Analyst              |

      The following members, a quorum, were present:

|     |Mr. William D. Powers             |     |Chairperson          |
|     |Mr. Jerome L. Pionk               |     |Member               |
|     |Ms. Peguine M. Taylor             |     |Member               |

      The Board considered the following evidence:

      Exhibit A - Application for correction of military records.

      Exhibit B - Military Personnel Records (including advisory opinion,
if any).

THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST, STATEMENT, AND EVIDENCE:

1.  The applicant requests, in effect award of the Combat Infantryman Badge
(CIB).

2.  The applicant states, in effect, that he was initially trained in
military occupational specialty 11B (Infantryman), and that he performed
duties in that MOS while serving in the Republic of Vietnam (RVN).  He
further states that his mission in the RVN was to go out when a helicopter
went down and to pull guard duty.  He also claims that he was told he would
get his wings (Parachutist Badge) when he left the RVN because he was sent
to an airborne training unit where everybody had wings and he was in
training for those wings.

3.  The applicant provides no documentary evidence in support of his
application.

CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:

1.  The applicant is requesting correction of an alleged error or injustice
that occurred on 2 October 1970.  The application submitted in this case is
dated
18 July 2005.

2.  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 allows the Army
Board for Correction of Military Records (ABCMR) to excuse failure to file
within the 3-year statute of limitations if the ABCMR determines that it
would be in the interest of justice to do so.  In this case, the ABCMR will
conduct a review of the merits of the case to determine if it would be in
the interest of justice to excuse the applicant’s failure to timely file.

3.  The applicant's record shows he was inducted into the Army and entered
active duty on 27 September 1968.  He was initially trained in and awarded
MOS 11B on 14 February 1969, and he was reclassified into MOS 76Y (Supply
Specialist) on 9 September 1969.

4.  The applicant's Enlisted Qualification Record (DA Form 20) shows that
he served in the RVN from 14 March 1969 through 6 March 1970.  During his
RVN tour, he was serving in Headquarters and Headquarters Detachment, 19th
Cavalry Regiment, 1st Cavalry Division, performing duties in MOS 11B.  Item
27 (Military Education) contains no entry indicating the applicant ever
attended or completed airborne training, and Item 41 (Awards and
Decorations) does not include the Parachutist Badge or CIB in the list of
authorized awards entered.
5.  The applicant's Military Personnel Records Jacket (MPRJ) does not
include orders, or other documents indicating that he was ever recommended
for or awarded either the CIB or Parachutist Badge by proper authority.

6.  On 2 October 1970, the applicant was honorably released from active
duty at the expiration of his term of service (ETS).  The separation
document (DD Form 214) he was issued, as amended by a 14 July 2005
correction to the separation document (DD Form 215), shows that during his
active duty tenure, he earned the following awards:  National Defense
Service Medal; Air Medal; Vietnam Service Medal with 2 bronze service
stars; RVN Campaign Medal with 1960 Device; RVN Gallantry Cross with Palm
Unit Citation; Marksman Qualification Badge with Rifle Bar; and 2 Overseas
Bars.

7.  Army Regulation 600-8-22 (Military Awards) contains the Army’s awards
policy.  Paragraph 8-6 contains guidance on award of the CIB.  It states,
in pertinent part, that there are basically three requirements for award of
the CIB.  The Soldier must be an infantryman satisfactorily performing
infantry duties, must be assigned to an infantry unit during such time as
the unit is engaged in active ground combat, and must actively participate
in such ground combat.  Campaign or battle credit alone is not sufficient
for award of the CIB.

8.  Paragraph 8-6b of the awards regulation further states, in pertinent
part, that the definition or requirement to be "engaged in active ground
combat" has generated much dialogue over the years as to the original
intent of the CIB.  In 1963 and 1965 Department of the Army (DA) messages
to the senior Army commander in the Southeast Asia theater of operations
authorized award of the CIB to otherwise qualified personnel "provided they
are personally present and under fire."  United States Army Vietnam
regulations went so far as to require documentation of the type and
intensity of enemy fire encountered by the Soldier. The intended
requirement to be "personally present and under fire" has not changed.

9.  Paragraph 8-11 of the awards regulation contains guidance on the
Parachutist Badge.  It states that to be eligible for award of the basic
Parachutist Badge, an individual must have satisfactorily completed the
prescribed proficiency tests while assigned or attached to an airborne unit
or the Airborne Department of the Infantry School, or have participated in
at least one combat parachute jump.
DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The applicant's contention that he is entitled to the CIB and
Parachutist Badge was carefully considered.  However, there is insufficient
evidence to support this claim.

2.  By regulation, in order to qualify for the CIB, a member must not only
hold an infantry MOS and serve with a qualifying infantry unit, there must
also be evidence that he was personally present with the qualifying
infantry unit when it was engaged in active ground combat, and that that he
actively participated in such ground combat.  Holding an infantry MOS,
being assigned to qualifying unit, and receiving campaign or battle credit
alone are not sufficient to support award of the CIB.

3.  In this case, the evidence of record shows the applicant held an
infantry MOS and was assigned to a Cavalry Regiment, which while not a
traditional qualifying infantry unit, could have been considered a
qualifying unit in Vietnam.  However, there is no evidence showing that the
applicant and/or this unit performed traditional infantry duties and/or
actively engaged the enemy in ground combat.  By his own admission, he
performed non-traditional infantry duties in the unit, which included
responding to downed aircraft and guard duty.  Therefore, given his record
is void of any documentary evidence showing he was ever awarded the CIB by
proper authority, the regulatory burden of proof necessary to support award
of the CIB has not been satisfied in this case.

4.  By regulation, in order to support award of the Parachutist Badge, an
individual must have satisfactorily completed the prescribed proficiency
tests while assigned or attached to an airborne unit or the Airborne
Department of the Infantry School, or have participated in at least one
combat parachute jump.

5.  The applicant's DA Form 20 does not contain an entry in Item 27 that
indicates the applicant ever completed a basic airborne course that would
have authorized him the Parachutist Badge.  Further, his record gives no
indication that he completed airborne training with his unit, or that he
completed a combat jump while serving in the RVN.  As a result, there is an
insufficient evidentiary basis to support granting this requested relief at
this late date.

6.  In order to justify correction of a military record the applicant must
show to the satisfaction of the Board, or it must otherwise satisfactorily
appear, that the record is in error or unjust.  The applicant has failed to
submit evidence that would satisfy this requirement.

7.  Records show the applicant should have discovered the alleged error or
injustice now under consideration on 2 October 1970, the date of his
separation.  Therefore, the time for him to file a request for correction
of any error or injustice expired on 1 October 1973.  He failed to file
within the 3-year statute of limitations and has not provided a compelling
explanation or evidence to show that it would be in the interest of justice
to excuse failure to timely file in this case.

BOARD VOTE:

________  ________  ________  GRANT FULL RELIEF

________  ________  ________  GRANT PARTIAL RELIEF

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

___WDP_  __JLP __  ___PMT__  DENY APPLICATION

BOARD DETERMINATION/RECOMMENDATION:

1.  The Board determined that 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.

2.  As a result, the Board further determined that there is no evidence
provided which shows that it would be in the interest of justice to excuse
the applicant's failure to timely file this application within the 3-year
statute of limitations prescribed by law.  Therefore, there is insufficient
basis to waive the statute of limitations for timely filing or for
correction of the records of the individual concerned.




                                  _____William D. Powers____
                                            CHAIRPERSON



                                    INDEX

|CASE ID                 |AR20050010792                           |
|SUFFIX                  |                                        |
|RECON                   |YYYYMMDD                                |
|DATE BOARDED            |2006/03/02                              |
|TYPE OF DISCHARGE       |HD                                      |
|DATE OF DISCHARGE       |1970/10/02                              |
|DISCHARGE AUTHORITY     |AR 635-200                              |
|DISCHARGE REASON        |ETS                                     |
|BOARD DECISION          |DENY                                    |
|REVIEW AUTHORITY        |Mr. Chun                                |
|ISSUES         1.  46   |107.0000                                |
|2.                      |                                        |
|3.                      |                                        |
|4.                      |                                        |
|5.                      |                                        |
|6.                      |                                        |


-----------------------
[pic]