MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:      

	BOARD DATE:           3 February 2000                  
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR2000035217

	I certify that hereinafter is recorded the record of consideration of the Army Board for Correction of Military Records in the case of the above-named individual.
 				
	Mr. W. W. Osborn, Jr.		Analyst	

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Ms. Margaret K. Patterson		Chairperson	
	Ms. Barbara J. Ellis		Member	
	Mr. Ernest W. Lutz, Jr.		Member	

	The Board, established pursuant to authority contained in 10 U.S.C. 1552, convened at the call of the Chairperson on the above date.  In accordance with Army Regulation 15-185, the application and the available military records pertinent to the corrective action requested were reviewed to determine whether to authorize a formal hearing, recommend that the records be corrected without a formal hearing, or to deny the application without a formal hearing if it is determined that insufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate the existence of probable material error or injustice.

	The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein.

	The Board considered the following evidence:

	Exhibit A - Application for correction of military 
                records
	Exhibit B - Military Personnel Records (including
	            advisory opinion, if any)

APPLICANT REQUESTS: Reconsideration of his earlier application to correct his records by awarding him the Combat Infantryman Badge (CIB) and the Bronze Star Medal, apparently to be based upon the CIB.

APPLICANT STATES: In effect, that the letter notifying him of the Board’s 1998 Reconsideration Project stated that his case should have been sent to the Board.  He also contends that an extract from a book on General Patton’s leadership style constituted new evidence in his case because it provides some of his insights on the ill-fated mission.

COUNSEL CONTENDS: That if the applicant’s records had to be reconstructed, then he should be given the benefit of doubt.
 
NEW EVIDENCE OR INFORMATION: Incorporated herein by reference are military records which were summarized in a memorandum prepared to reflect the Board's previous consideration of the case on 21 June 1995 (COPY ATTACHED).

Counsel’s contention constitutes new argument that requires Board consideration.

War Department Circular 269-1943 established the Combat Infantryman Badge and the Expert Infantryman Badge to recognize and provide an incentive to infantrymen.  The Expert Infantryman Badge was to be awarded for attainment of certain proficiency standards or by satisfactory performance of duty in action against the enemy.  The Combat Infantryman Badge was awarded for exemplary conduct in action against the enemy.  War Department Circular 186-1944 further provided that the Combat Infantryman Badge was to be awarded only to infantrymen serving with infantry units of brigade, regimental or smaller size.  
 
DISCUSSION:  Considering all the evidence, allegations, and information presented by the applicant, together with the evidence of record, applicable law and regulations, it is concluded:

1.  The record shows that the applicant was serving in Europe as a member of the Third Army staff. That he was trained as an infantry office and might have been fighting on foot at the time he was captured is irrelevant.  He was not serving in an infantry unit of brigade, regimental or smaller size and was not eligible for the CIB.  There is no doubt to be resolved in his favor.  Furthermore, in the absence of convincing evidence to the contrary this board is required to presume regularity. 

2.  The cited book is irrelevant to the issue.  The applicant did not meet the regulatory requirements for award of the CIB. 

3.  The 1 May 1988 letter concerning the Board’s Reconsideration Project did not identify any particular case as requiring Board consideration.

4.  The overall merits of the case, including the latest submissions and arguments are insufficient as a basis for the Board to reverse its previous decision.

5.  In view of the foregoing, there is no basis for granting the applicant's request.

DETERMINATION:  The applicant has failed to submit sufficient relevant evidence to demonstrate the existence of probable error or injustice.

BOARD VOTE:

________  ________  ________  GRANT

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

__MKP__  ____BJE_  __EWL__  DENY APPLICATION 

						 	Karl F. Schneider
						Director, Army Review Boards Agency

						

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2000035217	
SUFFIX		
RECON		
DATE BOARDED	20000203	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE		
DATE OF DISCHARGE		
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY		
DISCHARGE REASON		
BOARD DECISION	DENY	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.	107.00	
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.