RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 15 March 2007 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20060006816 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. Gerard W. Schwartz Acting Director Mr. G. E. Vandenberg Analyst The following members, a quorum, were present: Ms. Margaret K. Patterson Chairperson Mr. Larry W. Racster Member Mr. Rodney E. Barber Member 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 reconsideration of his previous application to correct his records to show entitlement to the Combat Infantryman Badge. 2. The applicant states he is disappointed with the earlier decision. He served in two different line units as a radio-telephone operator and was involved in dozens of intense firefights. He was pulled from his duties at Fire Support Base (FSB) Pace to participate in a special Veteran's Day ceremony in his home town which may be the reason his records do not reflect award of the Combat Infantryman Badge. 3. The applicant provides copies of his Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Rating Decision, 2 pages titled "Vietnam Alert from Internet", and four newspaper articles. CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE: 1. Incorporated herein by reference are military records which were summarized in the previous consideration of the applicant's case by the Army Board for Correction of Military Records (ABCMR) in Docket Number AR20050012207, on 2 March 2006. 2. The records show the applicant was inducted into the Army and entered active duty on 2 June 1970. He was initially trained in and awarded military occupational specialty (MOS) 11C (Infantry Indirect Fire Crewman), and the highest rank he attained while serving on active duty was sergeant. 3. His DA Form 20 (Enlisted Qualification Record) indicates he served in Vietnam with Company B, 1st Battalion, 12th Cavalry Regiment from 9 December 1970 through 7 July 1971 and with Company E of the same organization from 9 July through 22 October 1971. His duty MOS during this period is listed as MOS 11B1O (Light Weapons Infantryman) with a duty position of Radio Telephone Operator. 4. The applicant's awards and decorations are listed as the National Defense Service Medal, the Vietnam Service Medal with two bronze service stars, the Air Medal, the Republic of Vietnam Campaign Medal with "1960" device, the Valorous Unit Award, the Republic of Vietnam Gallantry Cross with Palm Unit Citation, and the Sharpshooter Marksmanship Qualification Badge with Rifle Bar. 5. The internet reference provides some history and lists some statistics for FSB Pace. It lists the number of casualties incurred, ordinance expended and the number of missions preformed. It indicates that 350 missions were performed in September 1971, 564 missions were performed during October 1971, and reports that the FSB came under fire on a daily basis. (The web site is http://proudamericans.homestead.com). 6. The newspaper articles indicate the applicant was lifted out of FSB Pace under heavy mortar fire specifically to participate as a representative of the Army in the 1971 Veteran's Day Ceremony in his home town of Roseburg, Oregon. 7. The VA Rating Decision indicates the applicant suffers from Post Traumatic Stress Disorder and is rated at a 30 percent disability. 8. Army Regulation 600-8-22 (Military Awards), paragraph 8-6 sets forth the Army policy and procedures for award of the Combat Infantryman Badge. In effect, that paragraph states that there are three basic requirements for award of the Combat Infantryman Badge. The enlisted Soldier must have an infantry specialty, he must be satisfactorily performing infantry duties while assigned or attached to an infantry unit of brigade, regimental, or smaller size during any period such unit was engaged in active ground combat, and he must be personally present and under hostile fire while serving in that unit. 9. Paragraph 8-6b of the awards regulation further states, in pertinent part, that the definition or requirement to be "engaged in active ground combat" has generated much dialogue over the years as to the original intent of the CIB. In 1963 and 1965 Department of the Army (DA) messages to the senior Army commander in the Southeast Asia theater of operations authorized award of the CIB to otherwise qualified personnel "provided they are personally present and under fire." United States Army Vietnam regulations went so far as to require documentation of the type and intensity of enemy fire encountered by the Soldier. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS: 1. While the information provided by the applicant indicates the fire base he was at come under hostile fire, it does not demonstrate that he was personally present and under fire or that he engaged in active ground combat. 2. Records show the applicant should have discovered the alleged error or injustice now under consideration on 4 March 1972; therefore, the time for the applicant to file a request for correction of any error or injustice expired on 3 March 1975. The applicant did not file within the 3-year statute of limitations; however, based on the available (evidence or argument), it would be in the interest of justice to excuse failure to timely file in this case. BOARD VOTE: ________ ________ ________ GRANT FULL RELIEF ________ ________ ________ GRANT PARTIAL RELIEF ________ ________ ________ GRANT FORMAL HEARING __LWR__ _MKP ___ _REB ___ DENY APPLICATION BOARD DETERMINATION/RECOMMENDATION: The evidence presented does not demonstrate the existence of a probable error or injustice. Therefore, the Board determined that the overall merits of this case are insufficient as a basis to amend the decision of the ABCMR set forth in Docket Number AR20050012207, on 2 March 2006. __ Margaret K. Patterson_____ CHAIRPERSON INDEX CASE ID AR20060006816 SUFFIX RECON DATE BOARDED 20070315 TYPE OF DISCHARGE DATE OF DISCHARGE DISCHARGE AUTHORITY . . . . . DISCHARGE REASON BOARD DECISION DENY, GRANT PLUS) REVIEW AUTHORITY ISSUES 1. 107 2. 3. 4. 5. 6.