MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:  

	BOARD DATE:  20 November 2001
	DOCKET NUMBER:  AR2001060212

	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. Vic Whitney		Analyst	

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Ms. Jennifer L. Prater		Chairperson	
	Ms. Regan K. Smith		Member	
	Mr. Melvin H. Meyer		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 Combat Infantryman Badge (CIB).

APPLICANT STATES:  Other soldiers assigned to the same unit received this award in accordance with regulations.  He submits copies of his military records and a letter from the former commander of all armor in Vietnam in support of his application.

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

He was serving on active duty as an armor noncommissioned officer (NCO) in the pay grade of E-7 when he was assigned to Vietnam on 18 July 1969.  On 12 August 1969, he was wounded in action and awarded the Purple Heart.  The award order shows that he was assigned to the Military Assistance Command Vietnam (MACV), Advisory Team 95.  His record of medical treatment shows that his military occupational specialty (MOS) was 11E40 (Armor NCO).  He was medically evacuated and returned to the U. S. on 17 September 1969.

The applicant’s DD Form 214 (Report of Separation), issued on his retirement, does not show the CIB as an authorized award.  The applicant’s DA Form 20 (Qualification Record) fails to show that he was ever trained as or served as an infantryman.

Army Regulation 672-5-1, in effect at the time, prescribed Army policy and procedures concerning awards.  The regulation stated that there were basically three requirements for award of the CIB.  The soldier must have been an infantryman satisfactorily performing infantry duties, he must have been assigned to an infantry unit during such time as the unit was engaged in active ground combat, and he must have actively participated in such ground combat.  Specific requirements state, in effect, that an Army enlisted soldier must have an infantry or special forces specialty, satisfactorily performed duty while assigned or attached as a member of an infantry, ranger or special forces unit of brigade, regimental, or smaller size during any period such unit was engaged in active ground combat.

MACV Directive 672-1 provided additional guidance for award of the CIB to advisor personnel.  The directive stated that the CIB was for full time advisors to infantry or infantry-type units engaged in infantry operations.  The duty positions listed as not authorized the CIB included armor operations/intelligence advisor, regimental/squadron advisor, and troop advisor.

A letter provided by the applicant, who he identifies as the commander of all armor in Vietnam at the time, states that he received the CIB in 1965 and cited AR 672-5-1 and a Department of the Army (DA) message 96002 as the authority.

Information provided by the Awards Branch, Total Army Personnel Command, revealed that the cited DA message could not be identified but the MACV regulation was the governing authority in 1969 and specifically precluded the award in the applicant’s circumstances.

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.  There is no evidence of record, or credible evidence provided by the applicant, to show that he is entitled to an award of the CIB.  He was specifically precluded from eligibility for the CIB based on his assignment by appropriate regulations.

2.  In order to justify correction of a military record, the applicant must show to the satisfaction of the Board, or it must otherwise satisfactorily appear, that the record is in error or unjust.  The applicant has failed to submit evidence that would satisfy this requirement.

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

__jp____  __rs___  __mm______  DENY APPLICATION

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

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2001060212	
SUFFIX		
RECON		
DATE BOARDED	20011120	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE		
DATE OF DISCHARGE		
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY		
DISCHARGE REASON		
BOARD DECISION	DENY	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.	107.00	
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.