RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS

	IN THE CASE OF:       

	BOARD DATE:            JANUARY 22, 2004
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR2003091450

	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:

	Ms. Joann Langston		Chairperson	
	Mr. Ronald J. Weaver		Member	
	Mr. Arthur a. Omartian		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 that he be awarded the Combat Infantryman Badge (CIB).

2.  The applicant states that his company clerk failed to put in the necessary paperwork for him to receive the CIB and he would like to have it because it means a lot to him.

3.  The applicant provides a photocopy of a citation for the Army Commendation Medal (ARCOM).

CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE: 

1.  The applicant is requesting correction of an error which occurred on 19 October 1969.  The application submitted in this case is dated 15 May 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.  He was inducted in Cincinnati, Ohio, on 16 November 1967.  He completed his basic combat training at Fort Benning, Georgia, and his advanced individual training (AIT) at Fort Gordon, Georgia.  Upon completion of his AIT, he was transferred to Fort Polk, Louisiana, and was promoted to the pay grade of E-5.  

4.  He remained at Fort Polk until he was transferred to Vietnam on 21 October 1968, where he was assigned to B Troop, 2nd Squadron, 1st Cavalry Regiment for duty as a light weapons infantryman and squad leader.  

5.  He remained in Vietnam until 19 October 1969, when he was transferred to Oakland Army Base, California, for release from active duty (REFRAD) as an overseas returnee.  He had served 1 year, 11 months and 4 days of total active service and his report of separation (DD Form 214) issued at the time of his REFRAD indicates that he was awarded the National Defense Service Medal, the Vietnam Service Medal (VSM) and the Republic of Vietnam Campaign.  He also had excellent conduct and efficiency ratings throughout his service. 

6.  A review of the photo-copied ARCOM citation provided by the applicant indicates that the applicant was awarded the ARCOM for meritorious service as a track commander during the period of October 1968 to September 1969.  The citation does not contain any authentication or orders to verify its authenticity.  The award is also not documented in his records.

7.  Army Regulation 672-5-1, in effect at the time, established 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.

8.  That regulation also established the criteria for award of the Army Good Conduct Medal (AGCM).  It states, in pertinent part, that the AGCM was established by Executive Order 8809, 28 June 1941 and was amended by Executive Order 9323, 1943 and by Executive Order 10444, 10 April 1953 and is awarded for exemplary behavior, efficiency, and fidelity in active Federal military service.  The regulation also states, in pertinent part, that for first award only, upon termination of service on or after 27 June 1950, a period of service of less than 3 years but more than 1 year qualifies for award of the AGCM.

9.  Army Pamphlet 672-3 (Unit Citation and Campaign Participation Credit Register-Vietnam Era) was published to assist commanders and personnel officers in determining or establishing the eligibility of individual members for campaign participation credit, assault landing credit, and unit citation badges awarded during the Vietnam Conflict.  Table 1 (Army Units in Numerical Order) of the pamphlet indicates that the applicant’s units were subsequently awarded the Republic of Vietnam Gallantry Cross with Palm (RVNGC w/Palm) Unit Citation and the Republic of Vietnam Civil Actions Honor Medal – First Class (RVNCAHM-FC) Unit Citation during the period he was assigned to the units.  It also shows that the applicant participated in four campaigns during his assignments in Vietnam and is authorized four bronze service stars for wear on his already awarded VSM.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The applicant’s contentions have been noted by the Board; however, the evidence of record fails to show that during his assignment in Vietnam he performed the duties of an infantryman in an infantry unit that engaged in ground combat against the enemy. Therefore, in accordance with the applicable regulations governing award of the CIB, he is not entitled to be awarded that badge.

2.  Additionally, the Board cannot determine the authenticity of the ARCOM certificate provided by the applicant.  Therefore, absent orders authorizing that award, there is no basis to add that award to his DD Form 214.

3.  However, the applicant was entitled to be awarded the RVNGC w/Palm Unit Citation, the RVNCAHM-FC Unit Citation and four bronze service stars for wear on his already awarded VSM.  Accordingly, it would be in the interest of justice to do so at this time. 

4.  After carefully examining the applicant’s record of service, the Board has determined that the applicant should have received the AGCM for his service from 16 November 1967 through 19 October 1969.  This conclusion is based on the fact that the record is void of any derogatory information, which would preclude the applicant from being awarded the AGCM, and the lack of any specific action by the applicant’s unit commander to disqualify him from receiving the award.  

5.  The Board found that the applicant not receiving the AGCM was likely the result of an administrative error as opposed to it being the result of a conscious disqualification by any of the unit commanders for which he served.  Therefore, in the interest of justice, the Board determined that this error should be corrected and the applicant should receive the AGCM at this time.

BOARD VOTE:

Jl    _____  aao_____  rjw_____  GRANT RELIEF 

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

________  ________  ________  DENY APPLICATION

BOARD DETERMINATION/RECOMMENDATION:

1.  The Board determined that the evidence presented was sufficient to warrant a recommendation for partial relief and to excuse failure to timely file.  As a result, the Board recommends that all Department of the Army records of the individual concerned be corrected by awarding him the AGCM for the period of 16 November 1967 to 19 October 1969, the RVNGC w/Palm Unit Citation, the RVNCAHM-FC Unit Citation, and four bronze service stars for wear on his already awarded VSM. 

2.  The Board further determined that the evidence presented is insufficient to warrant a portion of the requested relief.  As a result, the Board recommends denial of so much of the application that pertains to award of the CIB and adding the award of the ARCOM to his records.  

		____Joann Langston____
		        CHAIRPERSON

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2003091450	
SUFFIX		
RECON	YYYYMMDD	
DATE BOARDED	20040122	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	(HD, GD, UOTHC, UD, BCD, DD, UNCHAR)	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	YYYYMMDD	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR . . . . .  	
DISCHARGE REASON		
BOARD DECISION	(GRANT)	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.  107.0111	157/CIB	
2.  107.0094	140/RVNGC	
3.  107.0095	141/RVNCAHM	
4.  107.0056	102/AGCM	
5.		
6.