PROCEEDINGS

	IN THE CASE OF:  

	BOARD DATE:           4 May 2000                  
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR1999030513

	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.  

	Mrs. Nancy Amos		Analyst	

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Mr. Luther L. Santiful		Chairperson	
	Mr. James P. Stueve		Member	
	Ms. Carol Jo Suiter		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)

FINDINGS:

1.  The applicant has exhausted or the Board has waived the requirement for exhaustion of all administrative remedies afforded by existing law or regulations.

2.  The applicant requests that his DD Form 214 be corrected to show his service in Vietnam and that he be awarded the Combat Infantryman Badge (CIB).

3.  The applicant states that he served two tours in Vietnam.  Also, he should have been awarded the CIB while with the 1st Infantry Division, 8/6th Artillery.  They came under fire for 4 days and 4 nights.  They returned fire with all the ammunition they had in all directions outside their perimeter. 

4.  The applicant’s military records show that he enlisted in the Regular Army on 27 May 1966.  He completed basic combat training and advanced individual training and was awarded military occupational specialty 13B (Field Artillery Crewman).  

5.  The applicant first served in Vietnam from 24 January 1967 – 7 January 1968 where he served as a cannoneer and assistant gunner with Batteries A and B,  8th Battalion, 6th Artillery, 1st Infantry Division.  He next served in Vietnam from  13 February 1969 – 15 January 1970 where he served as a firing sergeant advisor with Advisory Team 60, IV Corps Advisory Group, U. S. Military Assistance Command, Vietnam.

6.  The applicant was released from active duty on 17 January 1970.  He had completed 3 years, 7 months and 21 days of creditable active federal service and had no lost time.  His Personnel Qualification Record shows he received “excellent” conduct and efficiency ratings throughout his enlistment.  His           DD Form 214 for this period does not identify his service in Vietnam in either item 22c or item 30.

7.  The applicant reenlisted on 10 April 1970 and was honorably discharged on   8 April 1977.  He was awarded the Army Good Conduct Medal 1st and 2d awards during this time period.

8.  On 31 December 1991, the applicant was authorized issuance of the Republic of Vietnam Gallantry Cross with Palm and the Republic of Vietnam Civil Actions Honor Medal First class.

9.  Army Regulation 600-8-22 prescribes Army policy and criteria concerning individual military awards.  In pertinent part, it states that the CIB was established during World War II to provide special recognition of the unique role of the Army infantryman, the only soldier whose daily mission is to close with and destroy the enemy and to seize and hold terrain.  The badge was intended as an inducement for individuals to join the infantry while serving as a morale booster for infantrymen.  In developing the CIB, the War Department did not dismiss or ignore the contributions of other branches.  Their vital contributions to the overall war effort were noted, but it was decided that other awards and decorations were sufficient to recognize their contributions.  From the beginning, Army leadership have taken care to retain the badge for the unique purpose for which it was established.  There are basically three requirements for award of the CIB.  The soldier must be an infantryman satisfactorily performing infantry duties, must be assigned to an infantry unit during such time as the unit is engaged in active ground combat, and must actively participate in such ground combat.  

10.  Army Regulation 600-8-22 also provides that the Army Good Conduct Medal is awarded for each 3 years of continuous enlisted active Federal military service completed on or after 27 August 1940.  At the time, a soldier’s conduct and efficiency ratings must have been rated as “excellent” for the entire period of qualifying service.

11. Army Regulation 635-5 prescribes the separation documents prepared for soldiers upon retirement, discharge or release from active military service or control of the Amy.  It establishes standardized policy for the preparation and distribution of DD Form 214.  The regulation in effect at the time provided that item 22c would contain the total overseas active duty for the period covered by the DD Form 214 and the last overseas theater in which service was performed.  That version of the regulation had also been amended on 2 January 1970 to provide that item 30 would contain the inclusive dates of service in Vietnam during the current period of service.

CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The evidence of record shows that while the applicant held a combat MOS, it was not an infantry MOS.  While he certainly performed combat duties and may have supported the infantry to the extent of being involved in an extended firefight while in Vietnam, those duties do not qualify him for award of the CIB. The Board does not downgrade the valuable services he performed during such combat situations.  Many individuals are probably not aware of the strict requirements for award of the CIB.

2.  The applicant is entitled to correction of his DD Form 214 for the period ending 17 January 1970 to show his service in Vietnam.

3.  The applicant is also entitled to have the Republic of Vietnam Gallantry Cross with Palm and the Republic of Vietnam Civil Actions Honor Medal First Class added to his DD Form 214 for the period ending 17 January 1970 and to have the Vietnam Civil Actions Honor Medal First Class added to his DD Form 214 for the period ending 8 April 1977.

4.  The applicant also met the criteria for award of the Army Good Conduct Medal for his first period of service.  This would require that the orders for the Army Good Conduct Medals he was awarded during his subsequent reenlistments be revoked and re-awarded as the second and third awards.
5.  In view of the foregoing, it would be in the interest of justice to correct the applicant’s records as recommended below.

RECOMMENDATION:

1.  That all of the Department of the Army records related to this case be corrected by:

     a.  revoking General Orders 180, U. S. Army Transportation Center and Fort Eustis, dated 18 July 1973 and General Orders 97, U. S. Army Transportation Center and Fort Eustis, dated 30 June 1976 as pertains to the applicant;

     b.  awarding the applicant the Army Good Conduct Medal (basic) for the period 26 May 1966 – 25 May 1969; the Army Good Conduct Medal (2d award) for the period 10 April 1970 – 9 April 1973; and the Army Good Conduct Medal (3d award) for the period 10 April 1973 – 9 April 1976;

     c.  amending the applicant’s DD Form 214 for the period ending 17 January 1970, item 24 by adding the Army Good Conduct Medal, the Republic of Vietnam Gallantry Cross with Palm and the Republic of Vietnam Civil Actions Honor Medal First Class; item 22c by adding “USARPAC;” and item 30 by adding “service in Vietnam from 24 Jan 67 – 7 Jan 68 and from 13 Feb 69 – 15 Jan 70, inclusive;” and

     d.  amending the applicant’s DD Form 214 for the period ending 8 April 1970, item 26 to delete the Army Good Conduct Medal (Second Award) and to add the Army Good Conduct Medal (Third Award) and the Republic of Vietnam Civil Actions Honor Medal First Class.

2.  That so much of the application as is in excess of the foregoing be denied.

BOARD VOTE:  

__lls___  __jps___  __cjs___  GRANT AS STATED IN RECOMMENDATION

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

________  ________  ________  DENY APPLICATION

			Luther L. Santiful
		______________________
		        CHAIRPERSON

INDEX

CASE ID	AR1999030513	
SUFFIX		
RECON		
DATE BOARDED	20000504	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE		
DATE OF DISCHARGE		
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY		
DISCHARGE REASON		
BOARD DECISION	(GRANT)	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.	110.04	
2.	107.0111	
3.	100.00	
4.		
5.		
6.