PROCEEDINGS

	IN THE CASE OF:  

	BOARD DATE:           2 August 2001
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR2001057950

	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. Raymond J. Wagner		Chairperson	
	Ms. Barbara J. Ellis		Member	
	Mr. John P. Infante		Member	

	The applicant and counsel if any, did not appear before the Board.

	The Board considered the following evidence:

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

FINDINGS:

1.  The applicant has exhausted or the Board has waived the requirement for exhaustion of all administrative remedies afforded by existing law or regulations.

2.  The applicant requests, in effect, that the Combat Infantryman Badge (CIB) , Combat Patch, Army Commendation Medal (ARCOM) and Army Good Conduct Medal (AGCM) be added to his separation document (DD Form 214). 

3.  The applicant states, in effect, that he served in all three campaigns of the Persian Gulf War and served in military occupational specialty (MOS) 11M
(Bradley Fighting Vehicle Infantryman) during that combat service.  He further comments that all infantry members of his unit were awarded the CIB but his was not included in his separation document.  He also states that an ARCOM he was awarded is missing from separation document and although he was recommended for the AGCM by his unit commander, he never received the award. 

4.  The applicant’s military records show that he served on active duty for 4 years and 20 days, from 24 August 1989 until 13 September 1993, at which time he was honorably discharged under the provisions of chapter 4, Army Regulation 635-200, by reason of expiration of term of service (ETS).  

5.  The DD Form 214 issued to the applicant on the date of his separation confirms that he held the rank of specialist/E-4 and that he was serving in MOS 11M.  It also shows that during his active duty tenure he earned the following awards:  Army Achievement Medal 1st Oak Leaf Cluster (OLC); Army Lapel Button; Army Service Ribbon; Kuwait Liberation Medal-Saudi Arabia (KLM-SA); Driver & Mechanic Badge; Sharpshooter Marksmanship Badge-Rifle & Grenade; and Southwest Asia Service Medal with 3 bronze service stars, denoting his participation in the Defense of Saudi Arabia, Liberation and Defense of Kuwait, and Southwest Asia Cease Fire campaigns of the Persian Gulf War.  

6.  The applicant’s Official Military Personnel File (OMPF) confirms that during his Persian Gulf service he was assigned to C Company, 5th Battalion, 
18th Infantry Regiment, and performed duties in MOS 11M as a Bradley Fighting Vehicle Infantryman.  Department of the Army General Order (DAGO) Number 14, published on 11 April 1997, awarded the Valorous Unit Award (VUA) to this unit for the period 5 January to 18 May 1991.

7.  The applicant provides the enclosed copy of an ARCOM Certificate, dated 
1 June 1991, signed by a colonel commander, which indicates he was awarded the ARCOM for exceptionally meritorious service from 17 January to 28 February 1991.

8.  Army Regulation 600-8-22 (Military Awards) prescribes Army policy and criteria concerning individual military awards.  Paragraph 3-16 contains guidance on awarding the ARCOM.  It states, in pertinent part, that the ARCOM is awarded to any member who distinguishes himself or herself by heroism, meritorious achievement or meritorious service upon recommendation and approval by an appropriate authority.  Table 3-2 confirms that commanders in the rank of colonel may approve the award of the ARCOM for members of their command. 

9.  Paragraph 4-5 of the regulation defines periods of service which qualify for award of the AGCM.  It states, in pertinent part, that a member is entitled to receive the AGCM for each 3 years completed.  The available evidence contains no indication that the applicant committed any infractions that would have disqualified him from receiving the AGCM or that he was ever disqualified for the award by any of his immediate commanders.

10.  Chapter 7 outlines the criteria for award of the VUA.  It states, in pertinent part, that the VUA may be awarded to units of the Armed Forces of the United States for extraordinary heroism in action against an armed enemy of the United States while engaged in military operations involving conflict with an opposing foreign force.

11.  Chapter 8 contains guidance on awarding Badges and Tabs and paragraph 
8-6 contains the criteria for awarding 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.  It also provides, in pertinent part, that the unit in question can be of any size smaller than brigade, for example, personnel possessing an infantry MOS in a rifle squad of a cavalry platoon in a cavalry troop would be eligible for award of the CIB. 

12.  Chapter 9 contains provisions for Foreign and International Decorations and Awards granted to United States personnel.  For service in Southwest Asia the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia and the Government of Kuwait issued foreign unit awards.  The Kuwait Liberation Medal awarded by the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia (KLM-SA) is authorized to military personnel who participated in the Persian Gulf War between 17 January and 28 February 1991.  The Kuwait Liberation Medal awarded by the government of Kuwait (KLM-K) is authorized to military personnel who participated in the Persian Gulf War between 2 August 1990 and 31 August 1993.  

CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The Board notes the applicant’s contention that he should be awarded the CIB for his combat service as an infantryman during Operation Desert Storm and it concludes this claim has merit.  In addition, the Board finds the applicant’s claim that he is entitled to other awards that were erroneously omitted from his
DD Form 214 also has merit. 

2.  By regulation, 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. 

3.  While the specific dates of the applicant’s service in Southwest Asia are not on file, it is clear that at a minimum he served there with the 18th Infantry Regiment between January and May 1991, as evidenced by documents on file and his having received the Southwest Asia Service Medal with 3 bronze service stars, denoting his participation in all three campaigns of the Persian Gulf War. 

4.  The record also shows that, during his tenure in Southwest Asia, the applicant was assigned to C Company, 5th Battalion, 18th Infantry Regiment and performed duties in MOS 11M as a Bradley Fighting Vehicle Infantryman.  Also, the record shows this unit was awarded the VUA for extraordinary heroism in action against an armed enemy, as evidenced by DAGO Number 14, published on 11 April 1997.

5.  In the opinion of the Board, the applicant meets the regulatory criteria necessary to be awarded the CIB.  He was performing duties in an infantry MOS, 11M; in an infantry unit, 18th Infantry Regiment; and was personally present with that unit while it was actively engaged in ground combat, as evidenced by the unit earning the VUA during his assignment tenure.  Thus, the Board concludes there is a sufficient evidentiary basis to conclude he is entitled to the CIB.

6.  The Board also finds no reason to question the validity of the ARCOM Certificate provided by the applicant and thus, finds it would be appropriate to add this award to his record at this time. 

7.  The records also makes clear the fact that the applicant completed a total of 
4 years and 20 days of honorable active military service, which more that satisfies the 3 year qualifying period of service criteria necessary to be awarded the AGCM.  There is no suggestion of a disciplinary history in the record that would disqualify him from receiving the award.  Therefore, the Board concludes that it would be appropriate to award him the AGCM for his honorable active duty service from 24 August 1989 to 23 August 1992.  
8.  The Board also finds it would be appropriate to add the VUA to the applicant’s record given his unit earned it during his assignment tenure.  Further, although authorized subsequent to his separation, based on his service in Southwest Asia the applicant is clearly entitled to both the KLM-SA and KLM-K.

9.  Finally, the applicant is advised combat patches, braids, and insignia are unit wear items and not designated awards or decorations that require military record entries.  Therefore, any relief requested in regard to these type items is not within the purview of nor was it addressed by the Board. 

10.  In view of the foregoing, the applicant’s records should be corrected as recommended below.

RECOMMENDATION:

1.  That all of the Department of the Army records related to this case be corrected by showing that the individual concerned was awarded the Combat Infantryman Badge, Army Commendation Medal, Army Good Conduct Medal, Valorous Unit Award, Kuwait Liberation Medal-Saudi Arabia, and Kuwait Liberation Medal-Kuwait; and by providing him a corrected separation document that reflects these changes.

2.  That so much of the application as is in excess of the foregoing be denied.

BOARD VOTE:  

__RJW   _  __BJE __  __JPI___  GRANT AS STATED IN RECOMMENDATION

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

________  ________  ________  DENY APPLICATION

		__Raymond J. Wagner__
		      CHAIRPERSON

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2001057950	
SUFFIX		
RECON		
DATE BOARDED	2001/08/02	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	HD	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	1993/09/13	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR 635-200 C4	
DISCHARGE REASON	ETS	
BOARD DECISION	GRANT	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.  157	107.0111	
2.  46	107.0000	
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.