MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

           IN THE CASE OF:      

	BOARD DATE:           26 June 2003
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR2002082390    

	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. Antoinette Farley		Analyst	

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Mr. Walter T. Morrison		Chairperson	
	Mr. Lester Echols		Member	
	Mr. Lawrence Foster		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 issuing him the Combat Infantryman Badge (CIB).

APPLICANT STATES:  That he was not issued the CIB even though, he was in a combat infantry position for well over 30 days.  In support of his claim he submits a copy of his DD Form 214, dated 3 June 1992 and a letter response sent to the U.S. Armed Services Center for Unit Records Research Springfield, Virginia, from the Department of Veterans Affairs (DVA), Regional Office, North Little Rock, Arkansas, in behalf of the applicant dated 17 October 2002.  He dates the discovery of the alleged error or injustice as October 2001.  He states, in effect, that he avoided all reminders of his RVN experience for years.  He further states that he did not notice the omission of the CIB award until he applied for benefits at the DVA, Regional Office and Veterans Hospital. 

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 (AR2002070269) on
20 June 2002.

The response letter sent to the DVA dated 17 October 2002, from the U.S. Armed Services Center for Unit Records Research, Springfield, VA, in behalf of the applicant’s Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) claim is accepted as new evidence that requires Board consideration.

The DVA initially submitted a letter of inquiry to the U.S. Armed Services Center For Unit Records Research, Springfield, VA, to conduct a specific search of the applicant’s 1971, unit history.  The applicant’s assignment to the 3rd Battalion, 187th Infantry, revealed that two 3rd Battalion, 187th Infantry, personnel were killed in action (KIA) during his tour of duty.  The first individual was Sergeant I____, assigned to Company E was KIA on October 14, 1971, as a result of small arms fire.  The second individual was Captain B____, the Commanding Officer of Company B, who was KIA on 17 October 1971, as a result of a
booby trap.  The letter also points out that their office does not maintain the
1971 morning reports for his unit.  However, he could request to receive them by submitting a DA Form 1 (morning reports) to the Director, National Personnel Records Center NPRC, St. Louis, MO.  The reports which apply to the 3rd Battalion, 187th Infantry, could be used to verify daily personnel actions such as wounded in action, killed in action, missing in action, illness, assignments, attachments, or transfers, during the applicant’s tour of duty.  

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.

Army Regulation 600-8-22 provides, in pertinent part, that the Combat Infantryman Badge is awarded to infantry officers and to enlisted and warrant officer persons who have an infantry MOS.  They must have served in active ground combat while assigned or attached to an infantry unit or brigade, regimental or smaller size.  The Awards Branch of the Total Army Personnel Command has advised, in similar cases, that during the Vietnam era the Combat Infantryman Badge was awarded only to enlisted individuals who held and served in MOS 11B, 11C, 11F, 11G, or 11H.  
 
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 new evidence and argument submitted by the applicant in support of his request for award of the CIB is inconclusive.  The information provided failed to 
add any new facts or clarity about his unit’s history, his assigned duties and/or his participation during that time period.  Therefore, the applicant’s record remains unchanged, since he does not meet the eligibility criteria for award of the CIB.     

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.  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.

4.  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

__WTM__  ___LE __  __LF____  DENY APPLICATION

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

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2002082390	
SUFFIX		
RECON		
DATE BOARDED	20030626	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE		
DATE OF DISCHARGE		
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	 	
DISCHARGE REASON		
BOARD DECISION	DENY	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.	A107.0111	
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.