PROCEEDINGS

	IN THE CASE OF:       

	BOARD DATE:            6 June 2002
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR2002069627

	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. Jessie B. Strickland		Analyst	

The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Mr. Stanley Kelley		Chairperson	
	Mr. John T. Meixell		Member	
	Mr. Thomas E. O’Shaughnessy, Jr.		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 that his records be corrected to show his award of the Expert Infantryman Badge (EIB) and that he be awarded the Combat Infantryman Badge (CIB).

3.  The applicant states, in effect, that he was awarded the EIB and it was previously recorded on his report of separation (DD Form 214).  However, in a previous Board action in which his DD Form 214 was re-issued, the EIB was omitted.  He further states that he believes that he should be awarded the CIB because his fellow soldiers in which he served with in Operation Desert Storm all received their CIB. 

4.  The applicant’s military records show that he previously applied to the Board in 1992 to have his DD Form 214, dated 15 June 1991, corrected to reflect his correct awards, military occupational specialty, education and to award him the CIB.  The applicant’s previous case is memorialized in Board proceedings (AC95-07524) submitted herein. 

5.  At the time the Board previously reviewed his case, his DD Form 214 indicated that he was awarded the EIB.  This is further documented by orders contained in his Official Military Personnel File (OMPF).  The Board granted some relief in this case that resulted in his DD Form 214 being re-issued, but denied his award of the CIB. 

6.  In finalizing the case, a new DD Form 214 was issued to reflect the changes directed by the Board.  However, in doing so, the EIB was omitted from his DD Form 214.  

7.  In regards to the award of the CIB, the applicant has presented no new evidence that would serve as a basis for the Board to reverse its previous decision to deny him that award.

8.  Army Regulation 600-8-22 provides the criteria for award of the CIB.  It states, in pertinent part, that to be eligible for the CIB, an individual must be an infantryman with an infantry military occupational specialty (MOS) and must perform duty as an infantryman, as a member of an infantry unit of brigade or smaller size, during any period in which that unit was engaged in ground combat.  Battle participation credit alone is not sufficient.

CONCLUSIONS:

1.  At the time the Board directed the re-issuance of a DD Form 214 to reflect all of the correct information pertaining to the applicant at the time of separation, the applicant was authorized the award of the EIB.  However, in the preparation of a new DD Form 214, the EIB was erroneously omitted.  Therefore, the Board finds that it would be in the interest of justice to correct his records at this time to show the award of the EIB. 

2.  The Board has noted the applicant’s contention that he should be awarded the CIB.  However, he has failed to show through the evidence submitted with his application or the evidence of record, that such is the case.  Accordingly, the Board finds no basis to reverse its previous decision in this matter.

3.  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 EIB.

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

BOARD VOTE:  

___sk ___  __jm____  __teo ___  GRANT AS STATED IN RECOMMENDATION

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

________  ________  ________  DENY APPLICATION

		____Stanley Kelley  _____
		        CHAIRPERSON

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2002069627	
SUFFIX		
RECON	YYYYMMDD	
DATE BOARDED	2002/06/06	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE		
DATE OF DISCHARGE		
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY		
DISCHARGE REASON		
BOARD DECISION	GRANT	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.  189	110.0000/CORR 214	
2.  157	107.0110/CIB	
3.  158	107.0111/EIB	
4.		
5.		
6.