PROCEEDINGS

	IN THE CASE OF:       

	BOARD DATE:            16 April 2002
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR2001066255

	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.  

	Mr. Carl W. S. Chun		Director	
	Mr. Jessie B. Strickland		Analyst	

The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Ms. Irene N. Wheelwright		Chairperson	
	Ms. Melinda M. Darby		Member	
	Mr. John T. Meixell		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, in effect, that he be awarded the Combat Infantryman Badge (CIB) and the Expert Marksmanship Qualification Badge with Bayonet bar.

3.  The applicant states, in effect, that he was a forward observer in an infantry unit in Vietnam from 1968 to 1969 and encountered hostile fire, but was never awarded the CIB.  He also states that he qualified as expert with the bayonet in basic training and desires to receive the qualification badge associated with that qualification.

4.  The applicant’s military records show that he was inducted in Los Angeles, California on 13 June 1967.  He underwent basic combat training at Fort Ord, California, and was transferred to Fort Polk, Louisiana, to undergo his advanced individual training (AIT) as an infantry indirect fire crewman.  He successfully completed his training and was transferred to Hawaii, where he was assigned as a forward observer with Company B, 4th Battalion, 21st Infantry Regiment, 11th  Infantry Brigade.  On 12 April 1968, he was transferred with his unit to Vietnam.  On 20 June 1968, he was slotted as a radio telephone operator and was advanced to the pay grade of E-4 on 17 August 1968.

5.  He departed Vietnam on 22 January 1969 for Fort Lewis, Washington, where he was honorably released from active duty (REFRAD) on 23 January 1969, as an early overseas returnee.  He had served 1 year, 7 months and 11 days of total active service and his report of separation shows he was awarded the National Defense Service, the Vietnam Service Medal, the Republic of Vietnam Campaign Medal and marksmanship qualification badges for the M-14 Rifle, M-16 Rifle, 45 Caliber pistol and 81MM Mortar.  

6.  A review of his Official Military Personnel File shows that he had excellent conduct and efficiency ratings throughout his service and there is no indication of any derogatory information or disciplinary action being taken against him while in the service.  His records also show that on 29 January 1969, a week after his REFRAD, orders were published in Vietnam, which awarded him the Army Commendation Medal (ARCOM) for meritorious service in Vietnam.  However, there is no indication that the award was ever entered on his report of separation (DD Form 214).  His records also failed to show that he ever qualified for award of the Expert Marksmanship Qualification Badge with Bayonet bar. 

7.  Army Regulation 672-5-1, in effect at the time, established the criteria for award of the CIB.  It states, in pertinent part, that to be eligible for the CIB, an individual must be an infantryman with an infantry military occupational specialty (MOS) and must perform duty as an infantryman, as a member of an infantry unit of brigade or smaller size, during any period in which that unit was engaged in ground combat.  Battle participation credit alone is not sufficient.
8.  Army Regulation 672-5-1 also prescribed Army policy, criteria, and administrative instructions concerning award of the Army Good Conduct Medal (AGCM).  It states, in pertinent part, that the AGCM was established by Executive Order 8809, 28 June 1941 and was amended by Executive Order 9323, 1943 and by Executive Order 10444, 10 April 1953 and is awarded for exemplary behavior, efficiency, and fidelity in active Federal military service.  The regulation also states, in pertinent part, that for first award only, upon termination of service on or after 27 June 1950, a period of service of less than 3 years but more than 1 year qualifies for award of the AGCM.

9.  Army Pamphlet 672-3 (Unit Citation and Campaign Participation Credit Register-Vietnam Era) was published to assist commanders and personnel officers in determining or establishing the eligibility of individual members for campaign participation credit, assault landing credit, and unit citation badges awarded during the Vietnam Conflict.  

10.  Table 1 (Army Units in Numerical Order) of the pamphlet indicates that the applicant’s unit was authorized the Republic of Vietnam Gallantry Cross with Palm (RVNGC w/palm) Unit Citation for service in Vietnam during the period in which the applicant served in the unit.

CONCLUSIONS:

1.  While the applicant was an infantryman assigned to an infantry unit in Vietnam, there is no evidence in the available records to show that he engaged the enemy in combat.  Accordingly, there appears to be no basis to award him the CIB.

2.  However, his unit was awarded the RVNGC w/Palm Unit Citation for the period he served with the unit and is entitled to be awarded it at this time. 

3.  After carefully examining the applicant’s record of service, the Board has determined that the applicant should have received the AGCM for his service from 13 June 1967 to 23 January 1969.  This conclusion is based on the fact that the record is void of any derogatory information, which would preclude the applicant from being awarded the AGCM, and the lack of any specific action by the applicant’s unit commander to disqualify him from receiving the award.  The Board found that the applicant not receiving the AGCM was likely the result of an administrative error as opposed to it being the result of a conscious disqualification by any of the unit commanders for which he served.  Therefore, in the interest of justice, the Board determined that this error should be corrected and the applicant should receive the AGCM at this time.
4.  Additionally, the applicant was awarded the ARCOM and it appears that an administrative oversight resulted in the award not being entered on his DD Form 214.  Therefore, it would be in the interest of justice to do so at this time.

5.  Although the applicant may have received training with the bayonet during basic training, there is no indication in the available records to show that he actually qualified with that weapon.  This is further supported by the fact that his records contain qualification orders for the weapons qualifications indicated on his DD Form 214 and records.  Accordingly, there appears to be no basis to grant that portion of his request.

6.  In view of the foregoing, the applicant’s records should be corrected as recommended below.

RECOMMENDATION:

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

a.  by awarding the individual concerned the AGCM for the period of 13 June 1967 to 23 January 1969.

	b.  by awarding him the RVNGC w/Palm Unit Citation and by showing that he was awarded the ARCOM.

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

BOARD VOTE:  

__jm____  __md ___  ___inw __  GRANT AS STATED IN RECOMMENDATION

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

________  ________  ________  DENY APPLICATION

		___Irene N. Wheelwright___
		        CHAIRPERSON

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2001066255	
SUFFIX		
RECON	YYYYMMDD	
DATE BOARDED	2002/04/16	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE		
DATE OF DISCHARGE		
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY		
DISCHARGE REASON		
BOARD DECISION	GRANT	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.  107.0020	66/ARCOM	
2.  107.0056	102/AGCM	
3.  107.0111	157/CIB	
4.  107.0094	140/RVNGC	
5.  107.0108	154/EXP MM BAD	
6.