MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:   

	BOARD DATE:           21 February 2002  
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR2001060330    

	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. George D. Paxson		Chairperson	
	Mr. Thomas A. Pagan		Member	
	Mr. Melvin H. Meyer		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 military records by awarding him the Combat Infantryman Badge (CIB). 

APPLICANT STATES:  In effect, he believes that he may not have received the CIB because of the timing of the award of 11B as his secondary military occupational specialty (MOS).  He relates that this came at a time when the 1st Infantry Division was being withdrawn and he was transferred to the 11th Armored Cavalry Regiment (ACR).  He states that he worked in his MOS of 11B40 up until that transfer.  He cites his personal decorations and an article in a Pacific Stars and Stripes and a local newsletter to substantiate his case.  He resents the Board saying he was a security guard with the 11th ACR.  He relates that he actually escorted, under arms, American prisoners who sought legal counsel for various offenses.  

NEW EVIDENCE OR INFORMATION:  Incorporated herein by reference are military records which were summarized in the decisional document prepared to reflect the Board's previous consideration of the case (AR1999027698) on 19 January 2000.

The applicant’s DA Form 20 (Enlisted Qualification Record) shows that he served in MOS 63B20 as a mechanic with Headquarters and Headquarters Company (HHC), 1st Battalion, 26th Infantry, 1st Infantry Division from July 1968 until his transfer on 29 March 1969, to Headquarters and Headquarters Troop, 11th ACR as a security guard in MOS 11B40.

The Pacific Stars and Stripes article reports that the applicant and his twin brother, a Marine, teamed–up on a night patrol.  “The Leatherneck rode shotgun for his brother (the applicant), who commanded a gun jeep in the night patrol along Highway 13 Northwest of Lai Khe.”

The local newsletter reports that the applicant and noncommissioned officers (NCOs) participated in a four-day operation.  It noted “The usually mobile unit was without its jeeps and the men ‘humped’ as regular infantrymen on the operation.”

Army Regulation 15-185 sets forth the policy and procedures for the ABCMR.  It provides that, if a request for reconsideration is received within one year of the prior consideration and the case has not been previously reconsidered, it will be resubmitted to the Board if there is evidence that was not in the record at the time of the Board’s prior consideration.  This includes but is not limited to any facts or arguments as to why relief should be granted.  The staff of the Board is authorized to determine whether or not such evidence has been submitted.

The regulation provides further guidance for reconsideration requests that are received more than one year after the Board’s original consideration or after the Board has already reconsidered the case.  In such cases, the staff of the Board will review the request to determine if substantial relevant evidence has been submitted that shows fraud, mistake in law, mathematical miscalculation, manifest error, or if there exists substantial relevant new evidence discovered contemporaneously with or within a short time after the Board’s original decision.  If the staff finds such evidence, the case will be resubmitted to the Board.  If no such evidence is found, the application will be returned without action.

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 Board notes the extraordinary quality of the applicant’s service, as evidenced by his personal decorations, and it commends him on his contributions and accomplishments.  However, he served in a headquarters unit and was not eligible for the CIB.  The fact that he was awarded a secondary infantry MOS has no bearing on the case.  Neither, does the fact that he occasionally had to walk or that he participated in actual combat.

2.  Furthermore, his exploits would have made him highly visible to the leadership of the battalion, the regiment and perhaps the division.  Had those officers and senior NCOs thought it proper to recommend him for the CIB, they could (and would) have done so.  There is no evidence that they did, nor does the applicant claim this to have been the case.  

3.  Given the total circumstance of this case, the Board concludes that the applicant was “too near the flagpole” to have simply been overlooked.  It will not recommend, in contravention of the regulatory requirements, that he be awarded the CIB at this late date. 

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

__GDP __  __TAP__  ___MHM_  DENY APPLICATION

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

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2001060330	
SUFFIX		
RECON	This applies only to ADRB	
DATE BOARDED		
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	20020221	
DATE OF DISCHARGE		
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	 	
DISCHARGE REASON		
BOARD DECISION		
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.	107.00	
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.