MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:   

	BOARD DATE:          13 November 2003
	DOCKET NUMBER:  AR2003088165 

	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	
	Ms. Carolyn Wade		Analyst	

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Mr. Arthur A. Omartian		Chairperson	
	Mr. Ronald E. Blakely		Member	
	Ms. Eloise C. Prendergast		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 application to have the Combat Infantryman Badge (CIB) added to his DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty).  

APPLICANT STATES:  In effect, that while he was on vacation, he was able to locate additional documents that may necessitate further action by the Board.  In support of his request for reconsideration, he submits a copy of Permanent Orders Number 96-44 listing his name as a recipient of the CIB.

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 (AR2002078583) on 6 February 2002.

The applicant submits a short statement in his own behalf referencing a copy of Permanent Orders Number 96-44, which lists his name as a recipient of the CIB.  The applicant’s submission is new evidence that requires Board consideration.

The applicant enlisted in the Regular Army on 18 July 1989.  Following completion of all required military training, he was awarded military occupational specialty (MOS) 11B (Light Weapons Infantryman).  

On 26 June 1992, the applicant was awarded the Army Achievement Medal for distinguishing himself by meritorious service as a 2 and 1/2 ton truck driver while assigned to 1st Battalion, 505th, Parachute Infantry Regiment from 12 August 1990 to 26 June 1992.

The applicant provided a poor quality, single page copy of what appears to be a multi-page Permanent Orders Number 96-44 listing his name as a recipient of the CIB.  However, it appears that some type of correction was made to his last name and, also, the social security number on the order does not match the applicant’s social security number (the last two digits of the social security number are incorrect).  The applicant’s social security number is XXX-XX-XX52 and the social security number on the order is XXX-XX-XX35.

Although, the applicant served in an infantry unit with an infantry MOS, there is no indication in his official record that he was involved in active ground combat.

Army Regulation 600-8-22 (Military Awards) prescribes Army policy and procedures concerning awards.  Paragraph 8-6 provides for award of the Combat Infantryman Badge (CIB), and paragraph 8-6k specifies that for the Persian Gulf War (Operation Desert Storm) individuals must have met the criteria in paragraphs 8-6b and c to be awarded the CIB during the period 17 January 1991 to 11 April 1991.  These paragraphs state 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 or special forces specialty, satisfactorily performed duty while assigned or attached as a member of an infantry, ranger or special forces 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 or special forces primary duty, in a unit actively engaged in ground combat with the enemy.

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 carefully reviewed the applicant’s submission and determined that, while his submitted copy of Permanent Orders Number 96-44 lists his name as a recipient of the CIB, the orders are of poor quality and appear to be flawed.  The applicant’s last name appears to have had some sort of type-over correction made to it and the social security is incorrect (last two digits are incorrect).

2.  The evidence of record indicates the applicant was serving as a truck driver the entire time of Desert Storm.  He was awarded an Army Achievement Medal for meritorious service as a 2 1/2 ton truck driver from 12 August 1990 to 26 June 1992.

3.  Although, the applicant’s DA Form 2-1 (Personnel Qualification Record) shows he was awarded an infantry MOS and served with an infantry unit while assigned to Southwest Asia, there is no evidence in the available records that the applicant was personally “present under hostile fire” while performing infantry duties.  Therefore, without more clear and defining evidence, there is no basis for awarding him the CIB.

4.  The Board concluded that 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

__aao___  __reb___  __ecp___  DENY APPLICATION

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

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2003088165	
SUFFIX		
RECON		
DATE BOARDED	20031113	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE		
DATE OF DISCHARGE		
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	 	
DISCHARGE REASON		
BOARD DECISION	DENY	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.	107.0111	
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.