MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:   

	BOARD DATE:          2 April 2002     
	DOCKET NUMBER:  AR2001065360    

	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	
	Ms. Wanda L. Waller		Analyst	

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Mr. Arthur A. Omartian		Chairperson	
	Mr. Roger W. Able		Member	
	Ms. Karen Y. Fletcher		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:  Reconsideration of his earlier appeal to correct his military records by awarding him the Expert Infantryman Badge (EIB). 

APPLICANT STATES:  In effect, that he underwent EIB training and testing during his tenure with the 101st Airborne Division. 

NEW EVIDENCE OR INFORMATION:  Incorporated herein by reference are military records which were summarized in the decisional document prepared to reflect the Board's previous consideration of the case (AR2001058972) on 
25 September 2001.

The applicant submits four excerpts from the recently published 2nd Edition of the Turner Publishing Company history of the 101st Airborne Division.  He contends that three of the four pages speak to his service record and give credence to material sent in his original application.  The fourth page (p.95) is a synopsis of major activity within the division during 1965 and clearly indicates the entire division underwent EIB training and testing during the applicant’s tenure with the 101st Airborne Division.

The applicant’s submissions are new evidence that require Board consideration.

Army Regulation 600-8-22 prescribes Army policy and procedures for awards, and Paragraph 8-8 provides for award of the Expert Infantryman Badge.  Award of the Expert Infantryman Badge requires that an individual must have satisfactorily completed the prescribed proficiency tests while assigned or attached to an infantry unit of at least battalion size.  To be eligible for testing and award of the Expert Infantryman Badge, a soldier must be in an active Army status and must have an infantry or special forces specialty.

Army Regulation 15-185 sets forth the policy and procedures for the ABCMR.  It provides that, if a request for reconsideration is received within one year of the prior consideration and the case has not been previously reconsidered, it will be resubmitted to the Board if there is evidence that was not in the record at the time of the Board’s prior consideration.  This includes but is not limited to any facts or arguments as to why relief should be granted.  The staff of the Board is authorized to determine whether or not such evidence has been submitted.

The regulation provides further guidance for reconsideration requests that are received more than one year after the Board’s original consideration or after the Board has already reconsidered the case.  In such cases, the staff of the Board will review the request to determine if substantial relevant evidence has been submitted that shows fraud, mistake in law, mathematical miscalculation, manifest error, or if there exists substantial relevant new evidence discovered contemporaneously with or within a short time after the Board’s original decision.  If the staff finds such evidence, the case will be resubmitted to the Board.  If no such evidence is found, the application will be returned without action.

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 Board noted the applicant’s contention that he underwent EIB training and testing during his tenure with the 101st Airborne Division.  The Board also noted the documentation provided by the applicant which states that “The Division also made a major training move with a division wide push to get as many qualified as possible for the Expert Infantry Badge (EIB).”  However, there is no evidence of record available to the Board which shows that the applicant participated in the EIB program or that he satisfactorily completed the prescribed proficiency tests.  Therefore, the Board determined that there is insufficient evidence on which to base award of the EIB in this case.

2.  The overall merits of the case, including the latest submissions and arguments, are insufficient as a basis for the Board to reverse its previous decision.

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

AAO____  RWA____  KYF_____  DENY APPLICATION

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

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2001065360	
SUFFIX		
RECON	Yes	
DATE BOARDED	20020402	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE		
DATE OF DISCHARGE		
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	 	
DISCHARGE REASON		
BOARD DECISION	Deny	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.	107.0112	
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.