IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 16 February 2017 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20150015323 BOARD VOTE: _________ _______ ________ GRANT FULL RELIEF ________ ________ ________ GRANT PARTIAL RELIEF ________ ________ ________ GRANT FORMAL HEARING ___x____ ___x____ ___x____ DENY APPLICATION 2 Enclosures 1. Board Determination/Recommendation 2. Evidence and Consideration IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 16 February 2017 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20150015323 BOARD DETERMINATION/RECOMMENDATION: 1. The evidence presented does not demonstrate the existence of a probable error or injustice. Therefore, the Board determined the overall merits of this case are insufficient as a basis for correction of the records of the individual concerned. 2. The Board wants the applicant and all others concerned to know that this action in no way diminishes the sacrifices made by the applicant in service to our Nation. The applicant and all Americans should be justifiably proud of his service in arms. ___________x______________ CHAIRPERSON I certify that herein is recorded the true and complete record of the proceedings of the Army Board for Correction of Military Records in this case. IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 16 February 2017 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20150015323 THE BOARD CONSIDERED THE FOLLOWING EVIDENCE: 1. Application for correction of military records (with supporting documents provided, if any). 2. Military Personnel Records and advisory opinions (if any). THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST, STATEMENT, AND EVIDENCE: 1. The applicant requests award of the Combat Infantryman Badge (CIB). 2. The applicant states: a. He was denied award of the CIB. The attached documentation confirms his unit was under hostile fire and actively engaged in destroying the enemy. They were also assigned to the 1st Army in Normandy. The CIB was ordered for the group by their commanding officer following the war, but the unit never received the award. Army Regulation 600-8-22 (Military Awards), paragraph 8-6, states the requirements for the CIB and notes that infantry "does not necessarily have to be a Soldier's primary specialty, as long as the Soldier has been properly trained and is serving in that specialty when engaged in active ground combat." b. Although his unit was technically classified as an engineer battalion, the 246th Engineer Combat Battalion fought side-by-side with the 29th Infantry at Normandy during the invasion as well as engaging in aggressive combat action during subsequent campaigns in Northern France, Rhineland, Ardennes, and Central Europe. He requests that it be considered his unit acted as an infantry unit. They initially believed they would receive the CIB. His unit was a highly efficient combat unit suffering 25 killed in action and 149 wounded in action. They were actively engaged in day-to-day fighting of the enemy as the enclosed documentation verifies. 3. The applicant provides: * commendation memorandum * Headquarters, XIX Corps, Office of the Commanding General, General Orders (GO) Number 212 * WD AGO Form 53-55 (Enlisted Record and Report of Separation – Honorable Discharge) * Honorable Discharge Certificate * photographs and a newspaper article * letter to a Member of Congress (MOC) * letter to the National Personnel Records Center (NPRC) CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE: 1. 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 also allows the Army Board for Correction of Military Records (ABCMR) to excuse an applicant's failure to timely file within the 3-year statute of limitations if the ABCMR determines it would be in the interest of justice to do so. While it appears the applicant did not file within the time frame provide in the statute of limitations, the ABCMR has elected to conduct a substantive review of the cases and, only to the extent relief, if any, is granted, has determined it is in the interest of justice to excuse the applicant's failure to timely file. In all other respects, there are sufficient bases to waive the statute of limitations. 2. The applicant's complete military records are not available to the Board for review. A fire destroyed approximately 16 million service members’ records at the NPRC Center in 1973. It is believed his records were destroyed in that fire. However, there was sufficient documentation contained in a reconstructed record and those provided by the applicant for the Board to conduct a fair and impartial review of this case. 3. The available records show he was inducted into the Army of the United States on 31 March 1943 and entered active duty on 7 April 1943. At the time of separation he held military occupational specialty (MOS) 509 (Construction Foreman). He served in the European Theater of Operations from 31 January 1944 to 15 July 1945. He was assigned to Company A, 246th Engineer Combat Battalion. 4. The available records contain and he provided the following: a. A commendation memorandum, issued by Headquarters, XIX Corps, Office of the Engineer, on 21 May 1945, commending the 246th Engineer Combat Battalion for overall excellence in their performance in 11 months of continual combat in France, Belgium, Holland, and Germany. They had taken their full share of casualties, earned many decorations, and had been recommended for a Presidential Unit Citation. b. GO Number 212, issued by Headquarters, XIX Corps, Office of the Commanding General, dated 24 July 1945, citing the 246th Engineer Combat Battalion for outstanding performance of duty in action against the enemy for the period 23 to 25 February 1945 in the immediate vicinity of Julich, Germany. 5. He was honorably discharged on 16 November 1945. His WD AGO Form 53-55 shows he was credited with completing 1 year, 12 months, and 5 days of continental service and 1 year, 6 months, and 12 days of foreign service. This form lists in: * Item 33 (Decorations and Citations) – the: * Army Good Conduct Medal * American Theater Ribbon * Presidential Unit Citation * European-African-Middle Eastern Campaign Medal with five bronze service stars * Item 55 (Remarks) – Honorable Service Lapel Button 6. He provided: a. Photographs of combat action taken in Germany. b. A newspaper article (246th Engr. Combat Bn. Active Since Normandy) pertaining to the unit's combat service in Normandy. c. Letters dated: (1) 19 July 2015 – wherein the applicant's son-in-law requested assistance from a MOC in obtaining the CIB for the applicant. (2) 4 August 2015 – wherein the NPRC advised an MOC of the authorization and shipment of all awards listed on the applicant's WD AGO Form 53-55. The letter also advised of the eligibility criteria for award of the CIB and that no orders were found for the award; therefore, it could not be authorized. REFERENCES: 1. War Department Circular 269-1943 established the CIB and the Expert Infantryman Badge (EIB) to recognize and provide an incentive to infantrymen. The CIB was awarded for exemplary conduct in action against the enemy. War Department Circular 186-1944 further provided that the CIB was to be awarded only to infantrymen serving with infantry units of brigade, regimental or smaller size. Additionally, World War II holders of the CIB received a monthly pay supplement known as combat infantry. Soldiers had economic as well as intangible reasons to ensure that their records were correct; therefore, pay records are frequently the best available source to verify entitlement to this award. The Military Awards Branch of the U.S. Army Human Resources Command has advised in similar cases that, during World War II, the CIB was normally awarded only to enlisted individuals who served in the following positions: * Light machine gunner (604) * Heavy machine gunner (605) * Platoon sergeant (651) * Squad leader (653) * Rifleman (745) * Automatic rifleman (746) * Heavy weapons NCO (812) * Gun crewman (864) 2. War Department Circular Number 408, dated 17 October 1944 and effective 1 November 1944, restricted award of the CIB to officers, warrant officers, and enlisted men assigned to infantry regiments, infantry battalions, and elements thereof designated as infantry. Personnel whose eligibility was thus established could qualify for award of the CIB by satisfactory performance of duty in ground combat against the enemy. Announcement of the award of the CIB would be made in regimental or unit orders. 3. War Department Circular Number 93, dated 24 March 1945 and effective 1 November 1944, restricted award of the CIB to officers, warrant officers, and enlisted men assigned to infantry regiments, infantry battalions, and elements thereof designated as infantry. In addition, infantry officers, warrant officers, and enlisted men who were attached to infantry regiments, infantry battalions, and elements thereof designated as infantry of the U.S. forces or of any of the Allied Nations’ military forces were eligible for the CIB. In those cases where the individual concerned was not assigned to an infantry regiment or smaller infantry unit, the award would be made by such commanders and in such orders as the theater commander designated. 4. Army Regulation 600-70 (Badges), dated 15 April 1948, stated the CIB was authorized for award to an infantry officer, warrant officer, or enlisted man who satisfactorily performed duty while assigned as a member of an infantry regiment or infantry battalion during any period such unit was engaged in active ground combat. Commanding officers of infantry regiments and separate infantry battalions were the award authorities. DISCUSSION: 1. The applicant contends he was denied award of the CIB. 2. In accordance with guidance in effect at the time and currently in effect, there are three basic 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. Campaign or battle credit alone is not sufficient for award of the CIB. 3. The available evidence shows the applicant was assigned to an engineer combat battalion and performed duties in MOS 509. His unit's outstanding performance of duty in action against the enemy is not in question. Soldiers serving in engineer units are not eligible for the CIB. //NOTHING FOLLOWS// ABCMR Record of Proceedings AR20150000953 Enclosure 1 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont) AR20150015323 2 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Enclosure 1 ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont) AR20150015323 5 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Enclosure 2