RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 13 September 2005 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20050001823 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. Joseph A. Adriance Analyst The following members, a quorum, were present: Ms. Shirley L. Powell Chairperson Mr. Robert L. Duecaster Member Ms. Jeanette R. McCants Member The Board considered the following evidence: Exhibit A - Application for correction of military records. Exhibit B - Military Personnel Records (including advisory opinion, if any). THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST, STATEMENT, AND EVIDENCE: 1. The applicant requests, in effect, award of the Combat Infantryman Badge (CIB). 2. The applicant states, in effect, he served in the Republic of Vietnam (RVN) and was told by his commander that he would receive the CIB. 3. The applicant provides no documentary evidence in support of his application. CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE: 1. The applicant is requesting correction of an alleged error or injustice that occurred on 26 June 1970. The application submitted in this case was received 4 February 2005. 2. Title 10, U.S. Code, Section 1552(b), provides that applications for correction of military records must be filed within 3 years after discovery of the alleged error or injustice. This provision of law allows the Army Board for Correction of Military Records (ABCMR) to excuse failure to file within the 3-year statute of limitations if the ABCMR determines that it would be in the interest of justice to do so. In this case, the ABCMR will conduct a review of the merits of the case to determine if it would be in the interest of justice to excuse the applicant’s failure to timely file. 3. The applicant’s record shows he was initially inducted into the Army and entered active duty on 9 June 1967. He was honorably discharged on 15 June 1967 for the purpose of enlistment in the Regular Army (RA). On 16 June 1967, he enlisted in the RA for 3 years. He was trained in, awarded and served in military occupational specialty (MOS) 76P (Supply Stock and Accounting Clerk), and the highest rank he attained while serving on active duty was specialist five (SP5). 4. The applicant’s Enlisted Qualification Record (DA Form 20) shows he served in the RVN from 7 September 1968 through 24 August 1969. During his RVN tour, he was assigned to Headquarters and Headquarters Company (HHC), 15th Engineer Battalion, 9th Infantry Division, performing duties in MOS 76P, as a supply clerk and stock and accounting specialist. 5. Item 41 (Awards and Decorations) of the applicant’s DA Form 20 shows he earned the following awards during his active duty tenure: National Defense Service Medal (NDSM), Vietnam Service Medal (VSM) with 4 bronze service stars, RVN Campaign Medal with 1960 Device, Army Commendation Medal (ARCOM), and Marksman Qualification Badge with Rifle Bar. Item 48 (Date of Audit) shows the applicant last audited his DA Form 20 on 25 September 1968. 6. On 26 June 1970, the applicant was honorably separated after completing 2 years, 11 months and 28 days of active military service. Item 24 (Decorations, Medals, Badges, Commendations, Citations and Campaign Ribbons Awarded or Authorized) of his separation document (DD Form 214) shows he earned the NDSM, VSM with 4 bronze service stars, RVN Campaign Medal with 1960 Device, ARCOM and Marksman Qualification Badge with Rifle Bar during his active duty tenure. The applicant authenticated this document with his signature in Item 32 (Signature of Person Being Transferred or Discharged). 7. Army Regulation 600-8-22 (Military Awards) contains the Army’s awards policy. Chapter 8 of the award regulations contains guidance on award of combat badges. It states, in pertinent part, that the CIB is awarded to infantry officers and to enlisted and warrant officer personnel who have an infantry MOS. They must have served in active ground combat while assigned or attached to an infantry unit of brigade, regimental or smaller size. In similar cases, the Awards Branch of the Human Resources Command (HRC) has advised that during the Vietnam era the CIB was awarded only to enlisted individuals who held and served in MOS 11B, 11C, 11F, 11G, or 11H. 8. Army Pamphlet 672-3 (Unit Citation and Campaign Participation Credit Register) establishes the eligibility of individual members for campaign participation credit, assault-landing credit, and unit citation badges awarded during the Vietnam Conflict. It confirms that during his tenure of assignment in the RVN, the applicant’s unit (15th Engineer Battalion) earned the Valorous Unit Award and RVN Gallantry Cross with Palm Unit Citation. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS: 1. The applicant’s contention that he is entitled to the CIB was carefully considered. However, as confirmed by the HRC Awards Branch, during the Vietnam era, award of the CIB was only authorized for enlisted individuals who held and served in MOS 11B, 11C, 11F, 11G, or 11H. 2. The evidence of record in this case confirms the applicant held the MOS 76P, and that he served in this MOS as a supply stock and accounting specialist during his RVN tour. Thus, the regulatory criteria necessary to support award of the CIB has not been satisfied in this case. 3. Records show the applicant should have discovered the alleged error or injustice now under consideration related to award of the CIB on 26 June 1970. Thus, the time for his to file a request for correction of any error or injustice expired on 25 June 1973. He failed to file within the 3-year statute of limitations and has not provided a compelling explanation or evidence to show that it would be in the interest of justice to excuse failure to timely file in this case. 4. The evidence shows the applicant is entitled to the Valorous Unit Award and RVN Gallantry Cross with Palm Unit Citation. The omission of these awards from his record is an administrative matter that does not require Board action. Thus, his record will be corrected by the Case Management Support Division (CMSD), St. Louis, Missouri, as outlined by the Board in paragraph 3 of the BOARD DETERMINATION/RECOMMENDATION section below. BOARD VOTE: ________ ________ ________ GRANT FULL RELIEF ________ ________ ________ GRANT PARTIAL RELIEF ________ ________ ________ GRANT FORMAL HEARING ___SLP _ __RLD___ ___JRM_ DENY APPLICATION BOARD DETERMINATION/RECOMMENDATION: 1. The Board determined that the evidence presented does not demonstrate the existence of a probable error or injustice. Therefore, the Board determined that the overall merits of this case are insufficient as a basis for correction of the records of the individual concerned. 2. As a result, the Board further determined that there is no evidence provided which shows that it would be in the interest of justice to excuse the applicant's failure to timely file this application within the 3-year statute of limitations prescribed by law. Therefore, there is insufficient basis to waive the statute of limitations for timely filing or for correction of the records of the individual concerned. 3. The Board determined that administrative error in the records of the individual should be corrected. Therefore, the Board requests that the CMSD-St. Louis administratively correct the records of the individual concerned to show his entitlement to the Valorous Unit Award and Republic of Vietnam Gallantry Cross with Palm Unit Citation; and by providing him a corrected separation document that includes these awards. ___Shirley L. Powell_____ CHAIRPERSON INDEX CASE ID AR20050001823 SUFFIX RECON DATE BOARDED 2005/09/13 TYPE OF DISCHARGE HD DATE OF DISCHARGE 1970/06/26 DISCHARGE AUTHORITY AR 635-200 DISCHARGE REASON ETS BOARD DECISION DENY with Admin Note REVIEW AUTHORITY Mr. Chun ISSUES 1. 46 107.0000 2. 3. 4. 5. 6.