MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:      

	BOARD DATE:           25 September 2001                   
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR2001058972

	I certify that hereinafter is recorded the record of consideration of the Army Board for Correction of Military Records in the case of the above-named individual.

	Mr. Carl W. S. Chun		Director	
	Mr. W. E. Schnupp		Analyst	

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Mr. John N. Slone		Chairperson	
	Mr. Lester Echols		Member	
	Mr. Ronald E. Blakely		Member	

	The Board, established pursuant to authority contained in 10 U.S.C. 1552, convened at the call of the Chairperson on the above date.  In accordance with Army Regulation 15-185, the application and the available military records pertinent to the corrective action requested were reviewed to determine whether to authorize a formal hearing, recommend that the records be corrected without a formal hearing, or to deny the application without a formal hearing if it is determined that insufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate the existence of probable material error or injustice.

	The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein.

	The Board considered the following evidence:

	Exhibit A - Application for correction of military 
                records
	Exhibit B - Military Personnel Records (including
	            advisory opinion, if any)

APPLICANT REQUESTS:  That he be awarded the Expert Rifleman’s Badge (review of his request indicates that what he is actually requesting award of the Expert Infantryman Badge (EIB)).

APPLICANT STATES:  That while he doubts any of the testing information for the EIB during 1964 – 1965 is available, his recollection of the test is quite clear.  He says that he was disqualified for and protested the test involving land mines.  He contends that in addition to probing for land mines, the test required that the mine be disarmed.  He protested to test personnel that this was incorrect procedure, that mines were only identified and marked not disarmed.  He claims that although supported by the field manual regarding mine clearing and his commander, his protest would have contradicted all of the training and testing others had gone through so the testing would not change.  When he continued to contest the procedure, it cost him the EIB.  He says that while the testing records may not be available, based on his record it is likely that he was capable of passing the test.  He believes that his service record of commendations and completion of leadership schools and his selection as Division Soldier of the Month and Soldier of the Year support his contention.

In support of his request, he submits 18 enclosures, enumerated on the addendum to his application, which include many commendatory letters and honors received during his career and an extract of Field Manual 7-8 regarding the breaching and clearing of obstacles.

EVIDENCE OF RECORD:  The applicant's military records show:

He enlisted in the Regular Army on 11 July 1962 for 3 years and received training as a light weapons infantryman.  He completed basic airborne training and was assigned to the 101st Airborne Division.  He was honorably separated to the US Army Reserve upon expiration of his term of service on 9 July 1965 in the grade of sergeant.

His awards include the Good Conduct Medal, the Parachute Badge, the Expert Badge with Rifle Bar and the Marksman Badge with Pistol Bar.

The applicant’s record contains numerous accolades and reference to his selection as 101st Airborne Division Soldier of the Month.  There is no information regarding participation in EIB qualification testing.

Army Regulation 600-8-22, Military Awards, provides, in pertinent part, that to be eligible for the EIB, an enlisted person must have a primary military occupational specialty within CMF 11, must meet the prerequisites and must take the test with an infantry unit of at least battalion size.

DISCUSSION:  Considering all the evidence, allegations, and information presented by the applicant, together with the evidence of record, applicable law and regulations, it is concluded:

1.  The available records contain no evidence and the applicant has provided none to show that he participated in EIB testing.

2.  Although the applicant amassed an excellent record during his active duty service, that record by itself is not sufficient to warrant award of the EIB.  Neither does the issue as to whether he was right or wrong regarding the procedures for clearing land mines have any bearing on the Board’s determination.  Either the record or the applicant must show that he completed EIB qualification testing. In the absence of such information, there are no grounds for the Board to award the EIB.

3.  In view of the foregoing, there is no basis for granting the applicant's request.

DETERMINATION:  The applicant has failed to submit sufficient relevant evidence to demonstrate the existence of probable error or injustice.

BOARD VOTE:

________  ________  ________  GRANT

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

___jns___  __reb___  _le____ _  DENY APPLICATION

		    Carl W. S. Chun
		    Director, Army Board for Correction
    of Military Records

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2001058972	
SUFFIX		
RECON	YYYYMMDD	
DATE BOARDED	20010925	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	(HD, GD, UOTHC, UD, BCD, DD, UNCHAR)	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	YYYYMMDD	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR .  .  .  .  .  	
DISCHARGE REASON		
BOARD DECISION	(DENY)	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.  107.00		
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.