MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:   

	BOARD DATE:            23 July 2002
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR2002072058

	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. Hubert S. Shaw, Jr.		Analyst	

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Ms. Jennifer L. Prater		Chairperson	
	Mr. Hubert O. Fry		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:  Award of the Combat Infantryman Badge (CIB).

APPLICANT STATES:  In effect, that he is entitled to award of the CIB for his service as a member of Advisory Team 50 in Vietnam from 10 February 1968 to 30 September 1968.  

In an addendum to his application, the applicant provides, as summarized, the following information and contentions:  

	1.  The applicant contends that he meets the three requirements outlined in paragraphs 2-6b and 2-6c of Army Regulation 600-8-22 (Military Awards).

	2.  While in Vietnam, the applicant submitted a request for award of the CIB through the U.S. Army Advisory Group, IV Corps Tactical Zone to Headquarters, United States Military Assistance Command, Vietnam, (MACV) where it was disapproved by the Adjutant General of MACV.  In disapproving award of the CIB, the Adjutant General of MACV cited the level of the newly activated 44th Special Tactical Zone (STZ) as being a division-level team, thus awards of the CIB were not authorized for members of this organization .  

	3.  The applicant contends that there was no historical data available at the time of activation of Team 50 on 1 January 1968 to determine the appropriate level of that team.  As a result, the applicant made a comparison of three division-level advisory teams in the IV Corps Tactical Zone, specifically the teams with the ARVN [Army of the Republic of Vietnam] 7th Infantry Division, ARVN 9th Infantry Division, ARVN 21st Infantry Division.  The applicant determined the strengths of those teams ranged between 110-118 while the assigned strength of the advisory team to which he was assigned (Advisory Team 50) was 37 men, officers and enlisted.  

	4.  The applicant further explained that the Adjutant General of MACV sent a team of three field grade officers to Advisory Team 50 to discuss the issue of the CIB.  However, the decision of the MACV Adjutant General was firm and the applicant and other members of Advisory Team 50 were not eligible for or authorized award of the CIB.  

	5.  The applicant contends that he later found that the CIB was awarded to personnel in Advisory Team 50 during the period 1970 to 1971.  He states that he learned by reading a book written by Colonel [name omitted, hereafter identified as Colonel DH] that Colonel DH had been the senior advisor for Advisory Team 50 during 1970 and 1971.  The applicant stated that he contacted Colonel DH via e-mail to ask if there had been any awards of the CIB during his tenure with Advisory Team 50.  Colonel DH replied that awards of the CIB had been made during his tenure and he put me in contact with [name omitted, hereafter identified as 1LT JH, who had served as S-1 [the Adjutant] for Colonel DH during the same period.  1LT JH confirmed that CIBs were awarded to members of Advisory Team 50 during the period 1970 and 1971.  The applicant concluded from this research that apparently there was a policy/regulatory change made for Advisory Team 50 between the time he applied for the CIB in 1968 and the time Colonel DH arrived in 1970.  He also concluded that the fact he was not awarded the CIB and it was later authorized creates an injustice against him.

	6.  The applicant parenthetically adds that it is also interesting to note that Colonel DH refers to 1LT JH as his "S-1 ", not "G-1" as was the case when the applicant was assigned to Advisory Team 50.  Such a downgrade of staff level would, in fact, facilitate the award of the CIB.  The applicant points out inclosures 1 and 2 which provide comments by Colonel [name omitted, hereafter identified as Colonel JG], a former Senior Advisor, in regard to Advisory Team 50 strength. 

In support of his application, the applicant submitted attachments A through I:

	Attachment A is a copy of Special Orders which directs the applicant to report for movement to Vietnam with a report date of 1 February 1968 in-country. 
 
	Attachment B is a copy of MACV Special Orders Number 37, dated 6 February 1968, which shows the applicant’s grade as Major, his branch as Infantry, his component as Regular Army, and his military occupational specialty as 71542 (infantry, parachutist qualified). 
 
	Attachment C is a copy of MACV Special Orders Number 53, dated 22 February 1968, which direct the applicant’s assignment as G-1 Advisor, 44th Special Tactical Zone, Advisory Team 50, U.S. Army Advisory Group,  IV Corps Tactical Zone.  The applicant noted that this attachment shows his primary MOS-Career Field -was Infantry, 71542, and that he was assigned an additional MOS as G2260 G-1 Advisor. 
 
	Attachment D is a copy of MACV Special Orders Number 57, dated 26 February 1968, which places the applicant on hazardous duty as a parachutist effective 1 February 1968.  These orders show the applicant’s rank as major and his branch as infantry.
 
	Attachment E is a copy of MACV General Orders Number 402, dated 28 January 1969, which awards the applicant the Bronze Star Medal for Meritorious Service in connection with military operations against a hostile force.  These orders shows the applicant’s name, service number and social security number,  he was a major of infantry, his rank as major, his branch as infantry and the dates of his meritorious service as February 1968 to January 1969. 
 
	Attachment F is a copy of DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty).  Item 13 (Decorations, Medals, Badges, Citations and Campaign Ribbons Awarded or Authorized) reflects the award of the Vietnam Cross of Gallantry with Palm in recognition of the applicant’s service to the South Vietnamese during hostilities. 
 
	Attachment G is Summary of E-mail to Colonel DH, who had been assigned to Advisory Team 50 during the period 1970-71. 

	Attachment H is Summary of Phone Conversation with 1LT JH, who had been assigned as S-1 with Colonel DH in Advisory Team 50.
 
	Attachment I is Summary of Service for the applicant while assigned to Advisory Team 50, February 1968-September 1968. 

EVIDENCE OF RECORD:  The applicant's military records show:

That the applicant entered active duty on 31 October 1961 as a commissioned officer and completed over 27 years of service.  He was separated from active duty in the rank of lieutenant colonel and was placed on the Retired List effective 1 September 1986.  

Records show that, effective 7 February 1968, the applicant was assigned to Military Assistance Command, Vietnam, (MACV) as the G-1 Advisor of the 44th Special Tactical Zone, IV Corps.  The applicant departed from Vietnam on or about 28 January 1969.

The applicant’s DA Form 67-6 (Officer Evaluation Report (OER)) for the rated period 30 November 1967 to 8 July 1968 shows the applicant’s “Duty Assignment for the Rated Period” as:

	“Is responsible for G-1/Admin advisory functions for ARVN and providing services for the advisory team assigned personnel within the Special Zone.  Advises the Senior Advisor on all personnel matter pertaining to US Military personnel and recommending policies.”

The applicant’s OER for the rated period 9 July 1968 to 27 January 1969 shows the applicant’s “Duty Assignment for the Rated Period” as:

	“Responsible for advising the ARVN Special Zone G-1 (Division Level Headquarters) in all areas of administration Personnel, awards and decorations, prevention of deserters, orders, promotions, morale and welfare.”

Army Regulation 600-8-22 prescribes Army policy and procedures concerning awards.  Paragraph 8-6 provides for award of the CIB.  That paragraph states that there are basically three requirements for award of the CIB.  The soldier must be an infantryman satisfactorily performing infantry duties, he must be assigned to an infantry unit during such time as the unit is engaged in active ground combat, and he must actively participate in such ground combat.  Specific requirements state, in effect, that an Army enlisted soldier must have an infantry specialty, satisfactorily performed duty while assigned or attached as a member of an infantry unit of brigade, regimental, or smaller size during any period such unit was engaged in active ground combat.  A recipient must be personally present and under hostile fire while serving in an assigned infantry primary duty, in a unit actively engaged in ground combat with the enemy.

Military Assistance Command Directive 672-1 (Awards and Decorations) provided, in pertinent part, for award of the CIB.  Appendix 3 to Annex A governed award of the CIB within MACV, and stated that the CIB was not a battle participation badge, “but is reserved for full time (30 or more days as a primary duty) advisors to infantry or infantry type units actively participating or engaged in infantry operations.”  The directive also stated:  “Personnel will not be assigned, detailed, or attached solely for the purpose of qualifying for this award.”  This directive listed those positions which were considered infantry positions and for which award of the CIB was authorized.  The position of G-1 Advisor is not among those positions authorized award of the CIB.

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 considered the applicant’s request for award of the CIB and all the matters and evidence presented by the applicant. 

2.  The Board also considered the applicant’s contention he met the three requirements for award of the CIB stated in paragraphs 2-6b and 2-6c.  Contrary to the applicant’s assertion, the current requirements for award of the CIB are stated in paragraph 8-6 of Army Regulation 600-8-22, effective 28 March 1995.  

3.  In regard to meeting the requirements of paragraph 8-6 for award of the CIB, evidence clearly shows that the applicant did not serve at infantry regimental level or below in Vietnam.  Records show that he served as a G-1 advisor. Furthermore, the applicant provided no evidence that he was a member of an infantry unit engaged in ground combat or was personally under fire during his service in Vietnam.

4.  Notwithstanding his contention that he met requirements for award of the CIB in Army Regulation 600-8-22, the Board also noted award of the CIB to applicant was governed by U.S. Army Vietnam and MACV regulations and directives and he did not meet the requirements of those locally established rules for award of the CIB which supplemented Army Regulation 600-8-22.

5.  The Board also noted that proper authority in Vietnam at the time in question denied award of the CIB to the applicant because his duty position was deemed equivalent to a division level assignment, not a regimental or lower level assignment as required by regulations in effect at that time.  The Board further noted that the MACV Adjutant General studied the issue of award of the CIB to members of Team 50 and concluded that they were not eligible for award of the CIB at that time. 

6.  In review of all matters presented, the Board noted the applicant did not serve in a duty position as a full time advisor “to infantry or infantry type units actively participating or engaged in infantry operations” as required by MACV directive governing award of the CIB.

7.  The Board also considered the statement by the former Senior Advisor of Advisory Team 50 and the 44th Special Tactical Zone during 1970 and 1971 that the CIB had been awarded during his tenure.  However, the Board determined the mission and composition of the advisory team could have changed between the time of the applicant’s assignment and Colonel DH’s assignment, thereby allowing for award of the CIB after the applicant departed.  

8.  Based on the foregoing, the Board determined:

	a.  The applicant’s duty position as a G-1 Advisor in Vietnam from February 1968 to January 1969 did not qualify for award of the CIB under MACV Directive 672-1 in effect at that time or Army Regulation 600-8-22 currently in effect.  

	b.  There is no evidence that the applicant was an advisor to infantry or similar units in Vietnam “actively participating or engaged in infantry operations” or that he was personally under fire as required by regulations or directives governing award of the CIB in Vietnam.

	c.  The applicant’s argument that it is an injustice for him not to be awarded the CIB since it was awarded to members Advisory Team 50  several years after his departure from Advisory Team 50 is without merit.  At the time in question, competent authority determined that the CIB should not be awarded to the applicant or other members of Advisory Team 50 consistent with the intent and bases for award of the CIB.  The fact that the mission and/or composition of that advisory team changed several years after the applicant’s departure from Vietnam, thereby permitting award of the CIB, does not create a hardship or injustice on the applicant and is not a basis for retroactive award of the CIB to him.
9.  In order to justify correction of a military record the applicant must show to the satisfaction of the Board, or it must otherwise satisfactorily appear, that the record is in error or unjust.  The applicant has failed to submit evidence that would satisfy either requirement.

10.  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

__HOF__  __GJW___  __JLP___  DENY APPLICATION

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

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2002072058	
SUFFIX		
RECON	YYYYMMDD	
DATE BOARDED	20020723	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	(HD, GD, UOTHC, UD, BCD, DD, UNCHAR)	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	YYYYMMDD	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR .  .  .  .  .  	
DISCHARGE REASON		
BOARD DECISION	DENY	
REVIEW AUTHORITY	MR CHUN	
ISSUES         1.	107.0000.0000	
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.