ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 20 November 2020 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20200000473 APPLICANT REQUESTS: reversal of the decision by the U.S. Army Human Resources Command (HRC) to deny him award of the Combat Infantryman Badge (CIB). APPLICANT'S SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS CONSIDERED BY THE BOARD: * DD Form 149 (Application for Correction of Military Record), 19 December 2019 * Excerpt, Army Regulation (AR) 600-8-22 (Military Awards), 11 December 2006 and 5 March 2019 * Military Personnel Message Number 11-268, 2 September 2011 * Multiple Temporary Change of Station Orders, Headquarters, 101st Airborne Division (Air Assault), Fort Campbell, KY * Article, titled, "Suicide Bomber Hits U.S. Afghan Base; No One Killed," 17 October 2012 * Multiple DA Form 4187's (Personnel Action) * 3rd Brigade Combat Team, 101st Airborne Division, Permanent Orders Number October; and November * two DA Form 4980's, 24 November 2012 * Headquarters, Combined Joint Task Force-1, Permanent Orders November, and * Headquarters, 3rd Brigade Combat Team, Memorandum for Record, subject: Combat Badge Submission, 17 October 2012 Vehicle Born Improvised Explosive Device and Indirect Fire Attack, 8 December 2012 * Multiple DA Form 200's (Transmittal Record) * Multiple Enlisted Record Briefs * Multiple DD Form 214s (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty) * Multiple DA Form 2823's (Sworn Statement) * Headquarters, 3rd Brigade Combat Team, 101st Airborne Division (AASLT), Memorandum for Record (Combat Badge Submission 17 October 2012 Vehicle Born Improvised Explosive Device and Indirect Fire Attack), 14 May 2014 * Delta Company, 1st Battalion, 187th Infantry, 3rd Combat Team, 101st Airborne Division, Memorandum for Record (Assumption of Command, 5 August 2014) * Multiple Emails * Office of the Chief of Legislative Liaison, Memorandum for Record (Combat Badge Submission - 17 October 2012 VBIED Attack), 19 December 2014 * Headquarters and Headquarters Company, 1st Battalion, 187th Infantry, 101st Airborne Division, Memorandum for Record (VBIED and Indirect Fire Attack on COP Zormat occurring on 17 October 2012), 25 August 2015 * U.S. Army Human Resources Command, Memorandum (Request for award of the Combat Infantryman Badge), 20 January 2017 * Instagram Posting, 17 October 2017 * Fordham University Department of Military Science (Appeal Combat Infantryman Badge Disapproval), 13 December 2019 * C Company, 2nd Battalion, 82nd Aviation Regiment (Appeal Support for Combat Infantryman Badge), 23 December 2019 FACTS: 1. The applicant did not file within the three year time frame provided in Title 10, U.S. Code (USC), section 1552(b); however, the Army Board for Correction of Military Records (ABCMR) conducted a substantive review of this case and determined it is in the interest of justice to excuse the applicant's failure to timely file. 2. The applicant states: a. On 17 October 2012, he was assigned to D Company, 1st Battalion, 187th Infantry Regiment (1-187th), 3rd Brigade Combat Team (BCT), 101st Airborne Division, while deployed to Combat Outpost (COP) Zormat, Afghanistan. At approximately 0700, he was woken by an explosion that caused the light fixtures in his hut to fall over his head. The power of the explosion felt as though the hut was directly hit by mortar fire. He and Sergeant (SGT) J_ E_, SGT N_ J_, SGT Y_ A_, SGT A_ M_, Private First Class (PFC) T_ C_, PFC S_ P_, Specialist (SPC) D_ J_ yelled incoming. After the explosion they checked one another to ensure that no one was hurt. b. SGT N_ J_ yelled for help because his door was jammed shut due to the explosion. SGT Y_ A_ yelled at SGT N_ J_ to kick his door open. They began to yell at SGT N_ J_ to jump over the walls so that he may escape through another Soldier's room. c. He heard a voice yelling, "breach, breach!" he quickly opened his door and saw a mushroom cloud from the explosion and the persistent threat detection system was blown out of the sky from the later verified 8,000 – 10,000 pound Vehicle Born Improvised Explosive Device (VBIED). He grabbed his weapon and headed to his platoon's designated bunker for accountability. He saw his two Soldiers, PFC T__ C__ and PFC D__ I__, and provided accountability to his Squad Leader at the time, Staff Sergeant (SSG) J_ R_. d. After the personnel in the platoon were accounted for, SSG J_ R_ ordered him, SGT S_ B_, and SGT J_ E_ to get their fire teams and secure the wall for possible small arms engagement and another VBIED. He gave the appropriate guidance to his Soldiers, PFC T_ C_ and PFC D_ I_, to get their equipment and secure the western part of the wall. In about three minutes he had his gear on over his physical training uniform and ran to the western side of COP Zormat. He met up with his two Soldiers and assigned them their sectors of fire. e. Shortly after manning the wall SSG J_ R_ gave his squad an order to be on the lookout for a white Toyota Corolla. After about 30 minutes they had air support patrolling the area. After a couple of hours their Platoon Sergeant, Sergeant First Class (SFC) V_ requested a fire team to pull security while the local Explosive Ordnance Disposal unit analyzed the battle damage assessment. The remainder of the platoon pulled security until the order to stand down was given. f. The leadership within 2nd Platoon was apprehensive in recognizing their Soldiers for award of the CIB. After continuous assessment of the event and analysis of Army Regulation (AR) he decided to submit a packet for the retroactive award of the CIB. g. To ensure the process was completely supported a notification was sent to the wartime chain of command. The platoon leadership, company commander, battalion commander, and the brigade commander were notified and informed on the decision; they signed a DA Form 4187 (Personnel Action) recommending approval on the retroactive combat award of the CIB. h. The U.S. Army Human Resources Command (HRC) disapproved his request for award of the CIB. He believes his request should be re-considered and approved due to administrative processing errors. i. The incorrect administrative processing adversely affected the outcome of HRCs decision. His packet was often lost, he submitted his packet on six different occasions, which can be verified on the DA Form 200 (Transmittal Record) and several emails. Inconsistent requirements for a retroactive CIB submission were added by the S-1 that did not follow AR 600-8-22 (Military Awards) guidelines. j. HRC did not reference Military Personnel (MILPER) Message dated 2 September 2011. He provided additional guidance on AR 600-8-22, which has been updated and is the same as MILPER Message 11-268. 3. Review of the applicant's service records shows: a. On 16 August 2005, the applicant enlisted in the Regular Army. He completed training and he was awarded military occupational specialty (MOS) 52C (Utilities Equipment Repairer). b. He served in Afghanistan from 15 April 2006 to 26 January 2007 and in Iraq from 5 May 2008 to 9 May 2009. c. He was honorably released from active duty on 12 September 2009. His DD Form 214 for this period shows completion of 4 years and 27 days of active service. d. On 4 August 2010, he again enlisted in the Regular Army in the rank/grade of specialist/E-4. He completed training and he was awarded military occupational specialty (MOS) 11B (Infantryman). e. He served in Afghanistan from 17 September 2012 to 25 May 2013. He was assigned to D Company, 1-187th Infantry. f. On 26 March 2020, he was honorably discharged to accept a Reserve commission. Item 13 (Decorations, Medals, Badges, Commendations, Citations, and Campaign Ribbons Awarded or Authorized) of his DD Form 214 for this period of service does not show award of the CIB. 4. The applicant provides: a. Excerpt from AR 600-8-22, 11 December 2006, which shows, in part, as highlighted by the applicant: (1) Recommendation for awards will be submitted by memorandum or DA Form 4187 through command channels; (2) Award of badges to active Army personnel that cannot be resolved by local commanders will be forwarded through command channels to HRC, current and retroactive awards may be awarded by the HRC; (3) For award of the CIB a Soldier must meet the following three requirements: * the Soldier must be an infantryman satisfactorily performing infantry duties * the Soldier must be assigned to an infantry unit during such time as the unit is engaged in active ground combat * the Soldier must actively participate in such ground combat (4) On or after 18 September 2001 a Soldier must be personally present and under fire while serving in an assigned infantry or Special Forces primary duty, in a unit engaged in active ground combat, to close with and destroy the enemy with direct fires. b. MILPER Message Number 11-268 (Retroactive Wartime Awards and Decorations Processing Procedures (Up)), 2 September 2011, which shows, in part, and highlighted by the applicant, a CIB, paragraph 8-6B(5)B is changed to read: (1) Improvised Explosive Devices (IEDS), VBIEDS and the like are direct fire weapons, while no fixed, qualifying distance from an explosion of these devices can be established, commanders should consider the entirety of the combat situation when considering award of the CIB; (2) Summary of Change: While engagement by direct fire weapons, including IEDs and VBIEDs does not qualify alone for award of the CIB, it should be considered in recommendations for award of the CIB. c. an article, titled, "Suicide Bomber Hits U.S. Afghan Base; No One Killed," 17 October 2012, which shows, in part, a suicide car bomber blew up his vehicle near the gate of a U.S. Afghan COP in eastern Afghanistan. The explosion shattered windows on village homes three kilometers away, but it appeared that the bomber detonated his car before reaching the actual gate of the camp. NATO (North Atlantic Treaty Organization) forces spokesman Major A_ W_ said there were no casualties among international forces at COP Zormat, but the bombing was followed by indirect fire by mortars or rockets aimed at the base. d. DA Form 4187 (Personnel Action) which shows recommendations to PFC S_ K_ and SGT C_ S _ for award of the Purple Heart (PH), for their actions on 17 October 2012. e. Permanent Orders, issued by 3rd Brigade Combat Team, 101st Airborne Division (Air Assault), October 2012, Afghanistan, awarded PFC C_ M_ the Combat Medical Badge, for engaging or being engaged by the enemy, on 17 October 2012 while in COP Zormat. f. Permanent Orders issued by 3rd Brigade Combat Team, 101st Airborne Division (Air Assault), October awarded PFC S_ K_ the CIB, for engaging or being engaged by the enemy, on 17 October 2012 while in COP Zormat. g. Permanent Orders issued by 3rd Brigade Combat Team, 101st Airborne Division (Air Assault), November, awarded SPC E_ G_ the Combat Action Badge, for engaging or being engaged by the enemy, on 17 October 2012 while in COP Zormat. h. a DA Form 4980, which shows award of the Purple Heart (PH) to PFC S_ K_ and SGT C_ S_ for wounds received in action on 17 October 2012 in Afghanistan. i. Permanent Orders ssued by Headquarters, Combined Joint Task Force-, November, awarded PFC S_ K_ the PH, for wounds received in action on 17 October 2012 while in Afghanistan. j. Permanent Orders, issued by Headquarters, Combined Joint Task Force- November awarded SGT C_ S_ the PH, for wounds received in action on 17 October 2012 while in Afghanistan. k. a Memorandum for Record from Headquarters, 3rd Brigade Combat Team (Combat Badge Submission, 17 October 2012 VBIED and Indirect Fire Attack), 8 December 2012, which shows, a by name list of personnel affected by the blast. l. DA Form 200s (Transmittal Record), in reference to the CIB, 20 May 2014, 10 July 2014, 20 August 2014, and 27 August 2015. m. DA Form 2823's (Sworn Statement), from several Soldiers which show, in part: (1) On 12 October 2012, while stationed at COP Zormat, Afghanistan with D Company, 1-187th Infantry Regiment, 3rd BCT, 101st Airborne Division (Air Assault) the blast shook the COP, and partially collapsed the building they were living in. Many Soldiers were sleep and stated the blast threw them out of their beds. Soldiers were yelling inside of their huts to see if anyone was injured, once outside they witnessed the massive mushroom cloud above over the base. (2) SSG S_ B_ was in the bathroom trailer when the explosion occurred, he stated the stall doors were blown off the hinges and all of the mirrors exploded inward toward the center of the trailer, light fixtures fell from the ceiling and he was knocked to the floor. (3) They ran to their bunkers and once in their bunkers they were informed that a VBIED detonated on the eastern side of the base. The Soldiers were ordered to get their gear on and pull security by the wall of the COP to defend against a possible secondary attack. They pulled security for several hours until they were told to stand down. (4) SPC C_ M__ stated he had just gotten out of bed and moments later the explosion knocked him to the ground. When he recovered he saw that the aid station was damaged and could not be used for treatment. He and Private A_ B_ cleared debris from the treatment beds and were ordered by their senior line medic SGT B_ L_ to move litters and their supplies to a secondary operational status. Once the aid station was operational they began to treat casualties and assessing for traumatic brain injuries. n. Memorandum for Record from Headquarters, 3rd BCT (Combat Badge Submission 17 October 2012 VBIED and Indirect Fire Attack), 14 May 2014, which shows a by name list of personnel affected by the blast. o. DA Form 4187 (page 1 of 2) which shows, in part, a recommendation for the applicant to receive award of the CIB for his actions in combat, in COP Zormat, Afghanistan on 17 October 2012. p. Several emails from: (1) First Lieutenant T_ S_, Operations Officer of the 75th Ranger Regiment, 10 September 2014, that shows, in part, his approval in recommending the CIB for the applicant. He states that initially he did not feel that the event met the intent of the CIB, but having time to reflect on the event and actions of the Soldiers in 2nd platoon, he now feels they are deserving of the award, due to the significance of the attack and their reaction to contact immediately following. (2) Captain J_ H_, Commanding Officer, D Company, 1-187th Infantry Regiment, 3rd BCT, 10 September 2014, that shows, in part, a by name list of Soldiers that he is recommending for award of the CIB. He states, "It seems that some of the Soldiers that were in a comparable posture and location during the attack were awarded the CIB, while the above Soldiers were not. The paperwork was not submitted until two months after he took command (and was promptly lost in the S-1, May 2013)." q. a DA Form 2823, from CPT J_ C_, 19 September 2014 which shows, in part, he was the commander of D Company, 1-187th Infantry Regiment, 3rd BCT, 101st at COP Zormat, Afghanistan when they were attacked by a suicide bomber. He stated that the blast destroyed most of the buildings on the American and Afghan Army side of the base. Immediately after the blast all three platoons reacted, made contact and initiated the COP defense plan. SGT M_ M_ and other Soldiers assignment was to reinforce the Northern and Western perimeter. 2nd Platoon successfully consolidated from the rubble of their buildings, quickly accounted for personnel and equipment, and reinforced the perimeter. The platoon’s living quarters were within 200 meters of the blast crater. These Soldiers earned the CIB; this action was opposed by the platoon's chain of command. First Sergeant M_ and he decided to not submit these awards due to the lack of support from the leadership, this decision was made in error. These Soldiers earned the CIB. r. DA Form 2823, from CPT T_ S_, 8 October 2014 which shows, in part, 2nd platoon was not originally awarded the CIB at the discretion of their chain of command, which included himself, SFC J_ V_, and SSG J_ R_. At the time they did not believe that the event merited the award of the CIB. The remainder of D Company, 1-187th Infantry Regiment, was submitted for the award, they were not confident that the actions of 2nd Platoon met the intent of being "engaged in active ground combat." Their belief was that a Soldier must be involved in a direct fire engagement consisting of traditional fire and maneuver. At the present date, his understanding and perspective of the VBIED attack and of the regulation pertaining to the awarding of the CIB leads him to the conclusion that the Soldiers serving in 2nd platoon during the time of the attack are deserving of the CIB, based on the size of the VBIED, the physical impact that it caused to the entire COP, their proximity to the enemy action, and their reaction to contact immediately following. All Soldiers of 2nd platoon were personally present and under fire as defined by AR 600-8-22, while serving in an assigned infantry unit and engaged in active ground combat. s. DA Form 4187, 13 November 2014, shows, in part, a recommendation to the service members assigned to D Company, 1-187 Infantry, 3rd BCT, for award of the CIB, for their actions performed in combat, in COP Zormat, Afghanistan on 17 October 2012. t. Memorandum for Record from the Office of the Chief Legislative Liaison (Combat Badge Submission 17 October 2012 VBIED Attack), 19 December 2014, shows a by name list of personnel affected by the blast. u. Memorandum from HRC (Request for award of the Combat Infantryman Badge), 20 January 2017, which shows that the request was disapproved. HRC stated that in accordance with Army Regulation 600-8-22, paragraph 8-6b. (5) "A Soldier must be personally present and under fire while serving in an assigned Infantry or special forces primary duty, in a unit engaged in active ground combat to close with and destroy the enemy with direct fires." The narrative and eyewitness statements provided do not indicate that the applicant actively engaged the enemy. Although the statements provided confirm that he received fire from the enemy, this alone does not qualify for award of the CIB. v. Memorandum from C Company, 2nd Battalion, 82nd Aviation Regiment (Appeal Support for CIB), 23 December 2019, which shows, in part, 1LT J_ R_ was the squad leader assigned to 2nd Platoon, D Company, 1-187th Infantry Regiment on 17 October 2012. Due to a lack of understanding of Army Regulation 600-8-22 and being unaware of MILPER message 11-268 at the time he did not believe the soldiers of D Company earned the CIB. He earned the CIB on a previous deployment and under different circumstances, he had a different belief on what it required to earn the award. After thorough consideration and having a better understanding of AR 600-8-22 and the awarding criteria it is his belief that the soldiers of 2nd Platoon, D Company did earn the CIB along with the 11 soldiers of 3rd Platoon (that were already awarded). 5. By regulation (AR 600-8-22) there are three requirements for award of the Combat Infantryman Badge: * the Soldier must be an infantryman satisfactorily performing infantry duties * the Soldier must be assigned to an infantry unit during such time as the unit is engaged in active ground combat * the Soldier must actively participate in such ground combat A Soldier must be personally present and under fire while serving in an assigned infantry or SF primary duty, in a unit engaged in active ground combat to close with and destroy the enemy with direct fires. IEDs, VBIEDs, and the like are direct fire weapons. While no fixed, qualifying distance from an explosion of these devices can be established, commanders should consider the entirety of the combat situation when considering award of the CIB BOARD DISCUSSION: 1. The Board reviewed the applicant’s request, supporting documents, and his service record and determined relief is warranted. 2. The Board noted the chain of command’s initial hesitance to recommend the applicant and others for award of the CIB, but noted that the amended criteria for the CIB published in AR 600-8-22 do state that a VBIED will be considered a direct-fire weapon for the purpose of considering whether or not a Soldier actively participated in ground combat. The Board determined that, given the applicant’s proximity to the VBIED explosion and the damage VBIED caused to the quarters he was in at the time, he was, in fact, engaged by the enemy. The Board determined the applicant should be awarded the CIB based on the incident on 17 October 2012. BOARD VOTE: Mbr 1 Mbr 2 Mbr 3 :X :X :X GRANT FULL RELIEF : : : GRANT PARTIAL RELIEF : : : GRANT FORMAL HEARING : : : DENY APPLICATION BOARD DETERMINATION/RECOMMENDATION: The Board determined the evidence presented is sufficient to warrant a recommendation for relief. As a result, the Board recommends that all Department of the Army records of the individual concerned be corrected by awarding him the Combat Infantryman Badge effective 17 October 2012 and by adding the badge to his DD Form 214 for the period ending 26 March 2020. I certify that herein is recorded the true and complete record of the proceedings of the Army Board for Correction of Military Records in this case. REFERENCES: 1. Title 10, USC, section 1552(b), provides that applications for correction of military records must be filed within three years after discovery of the alleged error or injustice. This provision of law also allows the ABCMR to excuse an applicant's failure to timely file within the three-year statute of limitations if the ABCMR determines it would be in the interest of justice to do so. 2. Army Regulation 600-8-22 Military Awards, prescribes Army policy, criteria, and administrative instructions concerning individual and unit military awards. a. For award of the CIB a Soldier must meet the following three requirements: (1) Be an infantryman satisfactorily performing infantry duties. (2) Assigned to an infantry unit during such time as the unit is engaged in active ground combat. (3) Actively participate in such ground combat. Campaign or battle credit alone is not sufficient for award of the CIB. b. On or after 18 September 2001: (1) A Soldier must be an Army infantry or SF officer (SSI 11 or 18) in the grade of COL/O–6 or below, or an Army enlisted Soldier or warrant officer with an infantry or SF MOS, who has satisfactorily performed duty while assigned or attached as a member of an infantry, ranger, or SF unit of brigade, regimental, or smaller size during any period such unit was engaged in active ground combat, to close with and destroy the enemy with direct fires. (2) A Soldier must be personally present and under fire while serving in an assigned infantry or SF primary duty, in a unit engaged in active ground combat to close with and destroy the enemy with direct fires. Improvised explosive devices vehicle-borne improvised explosive devices, and the like are direct fire weapons. While no fixed, qualifying distance from an explosion of these devices can be established, commanders should consider the entirety of the combat situation when considering award of the CIB. (3) The definition of requirement to be "engaged in active ground combat" has generated much dialogue over the years as to the original intent of the CIB. The 1943 War Department Circular required infantrymen to demonstrate "satisfactory performance of duty in action against the enemy." The operative words "in action" connoted actual combat. A War Department determination in October 1944 specified that "action against the enemy" for purposes of award of the CIB was to be interpreted as "ground combat against enemy ground forces." (4) In 1948, the regulation governing badges stipulated that "battle participation credit is not sufficient; the unit must have been in contact with the enemy." This clearly indicated that an exchange of hostile fire or equivalent personal exposure was the intent of the Army leadership. (5) In 1963 and 1965, HQDA messages to the SAC in the Southeast Asia theater of operations authorized award of the CIB to otherwise qualified personnel "provided they are personally present and under fire." U.S. Army Vietnam regulations went so far as to require documentation of the type and intensity of enemy fire encountered by the Soldier. The intended requirement to be "personally present and under fire" has not changed. //NOTHING FOLLOWS// ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont) AR20200000473 10 1