RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS

	IN THE CASE OF:      

	BOARD DATE:           18 December 2003                   
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR2003090814

	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. Klaus P. Schumann		Analyst	

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Mr. Raymond V. O’Connor		Chairperson	
	Mr. James E. Anderholm		Member	
	Ms. Yolanda Maldonado		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).

THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST, STATEMENT, AND EVIDENCE:  

1.  The applicant requests, in effect, correction of his record and separation document (DD Form 214) to show that he served in military occupational specialty (MOS) 91B (Medical Specialist) and that he is entitled to receive the 
Combat Medical Badge (CMB).  

2.  The applicant states, in effect, that his separation document shows his MOS as 44E (Machinist); however, he believes it should show MOS 91B because of the on-the-job training he received in this specialty.  He further states, that his combat service as a 91B entitles him to the CMB.

3.  In support of his application, he provides a copy of his separation document (DD Form 214), a Department of Veterans Affairs letter, dated 22 March 2003, which shows an increase in his service connected compensation for a 
Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD), and an undated Certificate of Achievement from the 168th Engineer Battalion.  

CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE: 

1.  The applicant is requesting correction of error which occurred on 17 December 1967.  The application submitted in this case is dated 29 April 2003.

2.  Title 10, U.S. Code, Section 1552(b), provides that applications for correction of military records must be filed within 3 years after discovery of the alleged error or injustice.  This provision of law allows the Army Board for Correction of Military Records (ABCMR) to excuse failure to file within the 3-year statute of limitation if the ABCMR determines that it would be in the interest of justice to do so.  In this case, the ABCMR will conduct a review of the merits of the case to determine if it would be in the interest of justice to excuse the applicant’s failure to timely file.

3.  The applicant's records show that he was inducted into the Regular Army on 21 June 1966.  His Enlisted Qualification Record (DA Form 20) shows that he completed advanced individual training and was awarded MOS 44E (Machinist) on 20 August 1966.  It further shows that he was awarded a secondary MOS of 71B (Clerk Typist) on 7 December 1966.  

4.  The applicant’s DA Form 20 further shows that he served in the Republic of Vietnam (RVN) from 2 April through 14 December 1967.  Item 38 (Record of Assignments) shows that during his tour in the RVN, he was assigned to the 169th Engineer Company, from 5 April through 24 May 1967, performing duties in MOS 44E.  It also shows that he was assigned to the 168th Engineer Battalion, from 25 May through 14 December 1967, performing duties in MOS 71B.  

5.  The applicant provides a copy of Certificate of Achievement from 
the Commander, 168th Engineer Battalion.  This certificate recognizes 
his "outstanding contribution” to the medical care of the 27th Land Clearing Team."  This document is undated and does not specify for which period of service it is being given.  

7.  The applicant's military records contain a personnel data sheet (USARV Form 137R), dated 29 October 1967, which shows in Item 37 (Resume of Duty Assignment Last Five Years) that the applicant was assigned to a company "aidman" duty position for a one month period.

8.  The applicant's separation document shows in Item 24 (Decorations, Medals, Badges, Commendations, Citations and Campaign Ribbons Awarded or Authorized) that he was awarded the National Defense Service Medal, Vietnam Service Medal, Vietnam Campaign Medal, and the Good Conduct Medal.

9.  The applicant's military records do not contain orders or documents that indicate that he was ever recommended for or awarded the Combat Medical Badge (CMB).

10.  On 17 December 1967, the applicant was honorably separated, by reason of hardship, after completing a total of 1 year, 5 months, and 27 days of active military service.  

11.  Army Regulation 600-200 provides, in pertinent part, that a soldier who can perform duties required of any 3 character MOS may be awarded that MOS.  However, he or she must be qualified in accordance with the specifications and qualifications required for a particular MOS.  A new MOS will be awarded on qualification in any MOS (including prior military service), successful completion of MOS producing training, successful completion of on-the-job training for not less than 60 days, change in MOS structure, identifying civilian acquired skills having a direct MOS counterpart, and withdrawal of a PMOS.

12.  Army Regulation 611-201 provides, in pertinent part, that the qualifications for MOS 91B (Medical Specialist) include formal training by completion of the Medical Specialist course under the auspices of the Academy of Health Sciences.

13.  Chapter 8 of Army Regulation 600-8-22, the awards regulation, contains guidance on awarding Badges and Tabs of United States origin.  Paragraph 8-7 contains guidance on the CMB.  It states that the CMB was created as a "companion" badge to the CIB with criteria for its award intended to parallel that of the CIB.  It was designed to provide recognition to the field medic who accompanies the infantryman into battle and shares with him the experiences unique to the infantry in combat.  It further states that there was never any intention to award the CMB to all medical personnel who serve in a combat zone or imminent danger area.  

14.  The awards regulation further states, in pertinent part, that the CMB is awarded to medical department personnel who are assigned or attached to a medical unit of company or smaller size that is organic to an infantry unit of brigade, regimental or smaller size which is engaged in active ground combat.  Battle participation credit is not sufficient; the infantry unit must have been in contact with the enemy and the soldier must have been personally present and under fire during such ground combat.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The applicant contends that he is entitled to award of MOS 91B (Medical Specialist) for on-the-job training he received while on active duty and that this should be reflected on his separation document instead of MOS 44E.  However, by regulation, in order to receive MOS 91B as a primary MOS, mandatory formal school training is required.  The personnel data sheet and Certificate of Achievement provided by the applicant establish only that he preformed medical aidman duties for a one month period and do not establish a sufficient evidentiary basis to support awarding MOS 91B to the applicant as a primary MOS.  

2.  Further, the supporting documents, while showing the applicant may have served or contributed in some capacity as an "aidman" in the 168th Engineer Battalion, he was never formally awarded a medical department specialty or assigned or attached to a qualifying infantry unit of brigade, regimental, or smaller size, or a medical detachment that was organic to a qualifying infantry unit.  As a result, the evidence of record fails to substantiate his eligibility to receive the CMB.  

3.  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 this requirement.

4.  Records show the applicant should have discovered the error or injustice now under consideration on 17 December 1967; therefore, the time for the applicant to file a request for correction of any error or injustice expired on 16 December 1970.  However, the applicant did not file within the 3-year statute of limitations and has not provided a compelling explanation or evidence to show that it would be in the interest of justice to excuse failure to file in this case.

BOARD VOTE:

________  ________  ______GRANT RELIEF 

________  ________  _____  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

_JA___  __YM__  __RO___  DENY APPLICATION

BOARD DETERMINATION/RECOMMENDATION:

The Board determined that the evidence presented and the merits of this case are insufficient to warrant the relief requested, and therefore, it would not be in the interest of justice to excuse the applicant's failure to timely file this application within the 3-year statute of limitations prescribed by law.  

_____
		Raymond V. O’Connor
		   CHAIRPERSON

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2003090814	
SUFFIX		
RECON		
DATE BOARDED	2003/12/18	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	HD	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	1967/12/17	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR 635-200  Chapter 6	
DISCHARGE REASON		
BOARD DECISION	(DENY)	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.CMB	107.0113.0000	
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.