MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:   

	BOARD DATE:           15 August 2000                  
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR2000037327

	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. Carl W. S. Chun		Director	
	Mr. W. W. Osborn, Jr.		Analyst	

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Mr. Thomas D. Howard, Jr.		Chairperson	
	Mr. Arthur A. Omartian		Member	
	Ms. Gail J. Wire		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 appeal to correct his records by awarding him the Combat Infantryman Badge (CIB). 

APPLICANT STATES:  In effect,  that the Department of Veteran Affairs (VA) rating decision and the statement of a fellow Vietnam veteran demonstrate that he earned the CIB.

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  2 September 1998 (COPY ATTACHED).

The applicant’s submissions are new evidence that require Board consideration.

The fellow Vietnam veteran, a sailor, writes that he was part of the Navy’s Mobile Riverine Force and his unit shared the base with the applicant’s unit.  He describes the damage done and the casualties inflicted when the Viet Cong floated a mine into the galley barge where they ate and watched movies.  He also relates an incident in which his unit had to man their boats, get underway and provide supporting fire for the base.  He writes that, at that time, he felt compassion for his friend, the applicant, because he was in danger of being killed or captured if the base was overrun.  The writer does not mention that the applicant served in the field as an infantryman.

The VA rating decision awarded the applicant a service connected disability compensation award of 100 percent for post traumatic stress disorder.  It makes no mention of the applicant having served in the field as an infantryman with an infantry unit.

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.  There is no evidence to corroborate the applicant’s contention that he qualified for award of the CIB.

2.  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.

3.  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

__TDH__  ___AAO _  __GJW__  DENY APPLICATION

        Carl W. S. Chun
      Director, Army Board for Correction 
      of Military Records

INDEX

CASE ID	2000037327	
SUFFIX		
RECON		
DATE BOARDED	20000815	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE		
DATE OF DISCHARGE		
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY		
DISCHARGE REASON		
BOARD DECISION	DENY	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.	107.00	
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.