APPLICANT REQUESTS:  That he be awarded the Combat Infantryman Badge (CIB) and promoted to Sergeant E-5.

APPLICANT STATES:  That his commander told him promotion orders to sergeant on him were sent to the Americal Division.  Also, he engaged the enemy in hostile fire just like any infantry and armor men did.

EVIDENCE OF RECORD:  The applicant was inducted into the Army on 14 April 1967.  He served in Vietnam from 28 October 1967 - 22 October 1968 and was separated on 11 April 1969.  He reenlisted in the Regular Army on 30 June 1970 and served again in Vietnam from 5 August 1970 - 4 August 1971.  His DA Form 20, Personnel Qualification Record, shows he served as a welder; the applicant states he served as an M-88 recovery track operator.  He separated on            11 February 1972 in pay grade E-4.

There is no evidence in the records that the applicant was ever promoted to or recommended for promotion to sergeant E-5.

Army Regulation 600-8-22 provides for the award of the Combat Infantryman Badge to a soldier who is an infantryman satisfactorily performing infantry duties, who is assigned to an infantry unit of brigade, regimental or smaller size 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.  The CIB was established to provide special recognition of the unique role of the Army infantryman, the only soldier whose daily mission is to close with and destroy the enemy, to seize and hold terrain and who continuously operates under the worst conditions and performs a mission which is not assigned to any other soldier or unit..

DISCUSSION:

1.  The applicant does not meet the eligibility requirements for award of the CIB.  He was not an infantryman performing infantry duties.

2.  The processing of this case has been hampered by the staleness of the claim.  In this regard, it would have been more appropriate for the applicant to have questioned his rank at the time he departed Vietnam and no later than upon his separation in 1972 when key personnel were available.

3.  In view of the foregoing, there appears to be no basis for granting the applicant’s request.
DETERMINATION:  The applicant has failed to submit sufficient relevant evidence to demonstrate the existence of probably error or injustice.

BOARD VOTE:

                       GRANT 

                       GRANT FORMAL HEARING

                       DENY APPLICATION

						Loren G. Harrell
						Director