BOARD DATE: 9 May 2017 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20150017031 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 BOARD DATE: 9 May 2017 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20150017031 BOARD DETERMINATION/RECOMMENDATION: 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. ______________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. BOARD DATE: 9 May 2017 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20150017031 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, in effect, correction of his DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty) for the period ending 24 September 2005 by removing the Combat Action Badge (CAB) and adding the Combat Infantryman Badge (CIB). 2. The applicant states: a. He is requesting that the Army Board for Correction of Military Records (ABCMR) review his packet, and redact his CAB and award him the CIB. He was originally awarded the CAB in 2005. b. The HRC Awards Department redacted the applicant’s CAB and instead awarded him the CIB. In 2013, during his promotion packet submission, his Career Manager told him that he was not authorized to wear the CIB. The U.S. Army Human Resources Command (HRC) contacted the U.S. Southern Command (USSOCOM) and they initiated an Army Regulation 15-6 investigation. c. After the completion of the investigation, it was determined that the applicant did nothing wrong. The 15-6 investigation concluded that he was not authorized to wear the CIB, recommended that the CIB be redacted, and that he subsequently be awarded the CAB. He does not concur with the investigator’s conclusion. d. He has more than enough documentation to clearly prove that he was awarded the military occupational specialty (MOS) 11A (Infantryman), that he trained and fought in combat as an Infantryman during his deployments to Afghanistan, and the HRC Awards Branch concurred with his documentation and awarded him the CIB.; e. He is requesting that the ABCMR review the attached documentation, redact his CAB, and once again award him the CIB. He was officially trained, and conducted an Infantry Advisory role in Afghanistan. He was awarded the 11A designation by the Alabama Army National Guard (ALARNG), which was backdated to August 2004. f. The HRC Awards Department conducted a thorough investigation to include interviews with key members that witnessed the applicant’s performance under hostile fire. The regulation for the awarding of the CIB, pursuant to Army Regulation 600-8-22 (Military Awards), only states that: (1) On or after 18 September 2001, a Soldier must be an Army Infantryman or Special Forces Officer (SSI or 18) in the grade of colonel (COL) or below, or an Army enlisted Soldier or warrant Officer with an Infantryman or Special Forces MOS, who has satisfactorily performed duties while assigned or attached as a member of an Infantryman, Ranger or in a Special Forces unit of brigade, regimental, or smaller size during any period such unit was engaged in active ground combat, to close with and destroy the enemy with direct fire. (2) A Soldier must be personally present and under file while servicing in an assigned Infantryman or Special Forces primary duty, in an active ground combat, to close with and destroy the enemy with direct fires. (3) Soldiers possessing MOS of 18D (Special Forces Medical Sergeant) who satisfactorily performs Special Forces duties while assigned or attached to a Special Forces unit of brigade, regimental, or smaller size during any period such unit was engaged in active ground combat may be awarded the CIB. These Soldiers must have been personally present and engaged in active ground combat, to close with and destroy the enemy with direct fires. Retroactive awards under these criteria are not authorized for service prior to 18 September 2001. g. He has met the criteria set forth by the Army. 3. The applicant provides: * Department of the Army (DA) Task Force Headquarters, 76th, Infantry Brigade, Camp Phoenix, Afghanistan, dated 18 December 2004 * South Carolina Army National Guard (SCARNG), Anderson, SC, dated 30 April 2006 * email from applicant to COL S______ D___, U.S. Army Special Operations Command (USASOC), dated 10 December 2008 * email from ARNG to the applicant, dated 11 March 2009 * Personnel Qualification Record – Officers/Warrant Officers, dated 25 March 2009 * email from HRC to the ARNG, dated 6 May 2006 * email from the ARNG to HRC, dated 14 May 2009 * Permanent Orders (PO) 148-05, issued by the DA, HRC, dated 28 May 2009 * email from U.S. Army Reserve (USAR) Component (USARC) to the applicant, dated 23 February 2010 * email from USSOCOM Headquarters to HRC, dated 16 December 2013 * email from HRC to the applicant, dated 16 March 2013 * Orders C-03-004213, issued by HRC, dated 18 March 2010 * Orders B-03-001564, issued by HRC, dated 23 March 2010 * Orders A-04-012605, issued by HRC, dated 27 April 2010 * PO 259-25, issued by HRC, dated 16 September 2009 * DA Form 67-9 (Officer Evaluation Report (OER)) for the period 22 June 2004 to 21 February 2005 * five memorandums for record, subject: Record of Hostile Fire * a self-authored letter, dated 28 October 2015 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 provided in the statute of limitations, the ABCMR has elected to conduct a substantive review of this case 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 insufficient bases to waive the statute of limitations for timely filing. 2. The applicant had prior enlisted service in the SCARNG from 18 October 1985 to 1 April 1986. He held MOS 67N (Utility Helicopter Repairer). 3. On 1 August 1987, the applicant executed his oath of office in the SCARNG in the rank of second lieutenant (2LT)/O-1. 4. On 1 August 1987, the applicant was appointed as a Reserve Commissioned Officer of the Army in the rank of 2LT/O-1. 5. A DD Form 214 shows he attended active duty for training (ADT) on 12 August 1987 and was awarded area of concentration (AOC) 12B (Armor Unit Officer). He was honorably released from ADT on 14 December 1988. 6. The evidence of record shows the applicant received five memorandums for record, subject: Record of Hostile Fire, issued by the Task Force Headquarters, 76th Infantry Brigade, Embedded Tactical Trainer (ETT), Afghanistan, dated 4 September 2004 29 September 2004, 2 October 2004, 8 October 2004, and 4 November 2004. 8. The applicant provides a memorandum, subject: Request for Branch Transfer to Infantry per Army Regulation 614-100 (Officer Assignment Policies, Details, and Transfers) and National Guard Regulation (NGR) 600-100 (Commissioned Officers – Federal Recognition and Related Personnel Actions), issued by Task Force Headquarters, 76th Infantry Brigade, dated 18 December 2004, which states, “During the past five months, I have been placed into a primary MOS of Infantry, trained as an Infantry Combat Advisor to the Afghan National Army [ANA], ordered to Operation Enduring Freedom (OEF) in Afghanistan, assigned to a mechanized infantry company, and fought in combat while training the AFA. It is because of these tasks that I formerly request to be branch transferred to Infantry based on skill and knowledge per Army Regulation 614-100 and NGR 600-100.” 9. The applicant provides an OER for the period ending on 21 February 2005, which shows his designated specialty and primary AOC as 12A (Engineer Officer)/12B (Combat Engineer), and that his primary duty was as an ETT for an AFA Infantry Company as part of OEF. 10. His record contains a DA Form 2-1 (Personnel Qualification Record) which shows the following: a. Section I (Identification Data), item 5 (Overseas Service) – he served in Afghanistan from 5 August 2004 through 25 July 2005. b. Section II (Classification and Assignment Data): * item 6 (MOS) – primary 19B (Armor Officer) and secondary 92A (Automated Logistics Specialist) * item 9 (Awards, Decorations, and Campaigns) – no CIB entry * item 17 (Civilian Education and Military Schools), in pertinent part: * Officer Candidate School – 1 year, completion date – 1987 * Armor (AR) Officer Basic Course (OBC) – 16 weeks, completion date 1987 * 19K (Armor Crewman) Training Course – 1 week, completion date 1988 * Army Officer Advanced Course (OAC) – 19 weeks, completion date 1991 * Quartermaster (QM) OAC, Phase II – 3 weeks, completion date 2003 * Command and General Staff College (CGSC) – completion date 2006 c. Section VII (Current and Previous Assignments) – no MOS or Infantry specialty for AOC 11A is listed. 11. The applicant provides a letter he sent to ABCMR, dated 30 April 2006, requesting to have his records corrected to reflect a branch qualification of Infantryman based on his assignment as an Infantry Officer, his training during mobilization, and his primary duty assignment while deployed to Afghanistan. However, no application is on file with the ABCMR relating to this request. 12. The applicant provides various emails wherein he requested to receive an 11A AOC via USSOCOM and the ARNG. 13. The applicant provides an email from the ARNG to HRC, dated 14 May 2009, stating, “after further review of [applicant’s] paperwork, he was qualified/validated as a 11A on 4 August 2004 in order to deploy on a 11A slot as an ETT. [Applicant] submitted the paperwork to his unit at that time and no action was taken.” 14. PO 148-05, issued by HRC, dated 28 May 2009, awarded the applicant the CIB based on actions on 1 October 2004, for satisfactory performance of duty while under hostile fire. 15. PO 259-25, issued by HRC, dated 16 September 2009, awarded the applicant the CIB on 1 October 2004 for satisfactory performance of duty while under hostile fire. 16. A National Guard Bureau (NGB) Form 22 (Report of Separation and Record of Service) for service in the ALARNG for the period ending 17 February 2010 shows the following information: a. Item 10a (Net Service This Period) - 2 years, 9 months, and 25 days. b. Item 12 (Military Education), in pertinent part: * Armor OBC * CGSC Phase I * Training Course * Armor OAC * QM OAC Phase II c. Item 13 (Primary Specialty Number, Title and Date Awarded): * 19B – 23 January 2004 * 11A – 23 January 2004 * 92A (QM) – 23 January 2004 d. Item 15 (Decorations, Medals, Badges, Commendations, Citations and Campaign Ribbons Awarded) – he was awarded the CIB. 17. The applicant provides: a. Orders C-03-004213, issued by HRC, dated 18 March 2010, showing the applicant was voluntarily released from the U.S. Army Reserve Control Group and assigned as a Senior Historian to the USASOC. b. Orders B-03-001564, issued by HRC, dated 23 March 2010, promoting the applicant to the rank of lieutenant colonel (LTC) effective 18 March 2010. c. Orders A-04-012605, issued by HRC, dated 27 April 2010, ordering the applicant to active duty in support of OEF. 18. A memorandum for the record, subject: Decision with Respect to Army Regulation 15-6 – Allegations of Unauthorized Wear of Infantry Branch Insignia and CIB, undated, shows an investigating officer determined the following: a. the applicant did wear, without authorization, Infantry Branch Insignia, but the wear was not wrongful; b. he was authorized to wear the CIB and the wear was not wrongful; c. he is branched Armor, not Infantry; and d. he should meet the requisite qualifications for a CAB if his CIB is rescinded or revoked. 19. A memorandum for record, subject: Branch of Applicant, issued by the Director, Officer of the Chief of Infantry, Headquarters, U.S. Army Infantry School, dated 12 January 2014, states the following: a. The Office of the Chief of Infantry has no record of any formal staff action in reference to the branch transfer of applicant into the AOC 11A . The information provided indicated that the action to award the applicant AOC 11A was done outside established procedures. b. A cursory review of his records provided by HRC does not support a recommendation from the branch to award AOC 11A. c. In reference to the DA Form 4187, dated 3 February 2009, provided by HRC, Section IV (Remarks) states, pursuant to a phone conversation with the Director, Office of the Chief of Infantry, the applicant is eligible to be awarded AOC 11A based on his completion of the Armor Officer Advance Course, the CGSC Course, and the two OERs covering a 13-month period in which he was rated as a 11A; however, although this office does not deny the phone conversation occurred, the Infantry proponent does not provide branch qualification decisions for members of the ARNG without staffing through the NGB. 20. PO 132-03, issued by the HRC, dated 12 May 2014, shows PO 259-25, dated 16 September 2009, awarding the applicant the CIB was revoked. 21. PO 135-09, issued by HRC, dated 15 May 2014, awarded the applicant the CAB for the period 1 October 2004, for actively engaging or being engaged by the enemy. 22. Orders 15-276-00030, issued by USARC, dated 3 October 2015, released the applicant from his current assignment due to maximum authorized years of service and transferred him to the Retired Reserve effective 1 December 2015. 23. The applicant provides a self-authored statement, which states the following information: a. He is officially now assigned to the Armor Branch in the USAR, although he carries the primary AOC of 11A for Infantry. Based on his current primary AOC, he believed he was considered an Infantry Officer. b. When he was in the ARNG, he was qualified and served both as an Armor Officer, Infantry Officer, and a QM Officer. When he transferred into the USAR in March 2010, he was assigned to the Infantry Branch at his request because he would be at USSOCOM and he had been awarded AOC 11A from the ARNG. He emailed the USAR Career Manager for Infantry a copy of his Officer Personnel Classification Record, dated 3 February 2009, which shows the 11A AOC on his record. With that documentation, it was his understanding that his Career Manager put him in the Infantry Branch. c. Prior to transferring to the USAR, he did make several attempts to get recognition in his permanent records for the Infantry duties he performed (although he was an Armor Officer) in Afghanistan from August 2004 through August 2005. In that time, he often served as the Infantryman in training, living with and fighting alongside a company-sized Afghan infantry unit. He also led a twelve-man U.S. Infantry Combat Advisory Team and “stood-up” a 600 man Afghan Infantry Battalion, which validated his position as the infantry battalion-level Combat Infantry Advisor. He was “boots-on-the-ground” day in and day out, and performed infantry missions with the Afghans, including engaging in combat. d. He first requested a branch transfer to Infantry in December 2004, as documented by his 18 December 2004 email, based on the skills and knowledge he obtained while serving in the infantry unit, pursuant to the guidelines Army Regulation 614-100 and National Guard Regulation 600-100. His team chief while deployed wrote a statement of endorsement supporting his request. e. His second request for a branch transfer went to Airborne Training at Fort Benning in June 2008. Since the Infantry School is at Fort Benning, he went there and was directed to a Master Sergeant (MSG) F___. The applicant laid out his documentation and situation to him. The MSG told him to request from the ALARNG (his current unit) the AOC 11A designator to be added to his permanent records. f. Upon graduation from Airborne School and returning to the 20th Special Forces Group, he submitted his 11A package to the ALARNG, with all the information MSG F____ told him to provide. However, the ALARNG initially did not want to process his package, although they finally did once they understood it was for the duties he performed in Afghanistan back in 2004-2005, and not while he was currently assigned to the 20th Special Forces Group. Even then, the Group Commander said he would non-concur, but would still push his request forward. g. He received an email from a warrant officer (WO1) in March 2009 showing the award of the 11A as a secondary AOC, and an Officer Personnel Classification Board printout dated 3 February 2009 shows 11A (secondary); however, what he did not recognize at the time was that his Federal Recognition request that he submitted with his package was never properly submitted so that he would be federally recognized as an Infantryman. h. Later, he had worked with HRC to try and get his CIB due to his newly acquired MOS 11A. He ultimately was awarded his CIB on 28 May 2009; however, it was later rescinded by HRC after a AR 15-6 Investigation . 24. During the processing of this case, an advisory opinion was obtained from HRC, which stated: a. Based on a review of the documentation provided and our internal case management system, the applicant is ineligible to receive the CIB for the incident of 1 October 2004, as he did not possess a qualifying AOC at the time. b. In 2009, our office awarded the CIB based on information provided by the ALARNG that the applicant was branched Infantry, per DA Form 4187 (Personnel Action), effective 3 February 2009. However, based on a memorandum from the U. S. Army Infantry School, dated 12 January 2014, no formal staff action was taken in reference to a branch transfer to Infantry for the applicant. c. In addition, the Office of the Chief of Staff, USASOC, confirmed that the applicant was not branched Infantry and directed that the award of the CIB be rescinded. d. Based on this information, our office rescinded the CIB authorized by PO 259-25, dated 16 September 2009, and authorized award of the CAB per PO 135-09, dated 15 May 2014, for the events of 1 October 200[sic][4]. 25. The applicant was provided a copy of the advisory opinion for an opportunity to respond; however, he did not. REFERENCES: Army Regulation 600-8-22 (Military Awards) states the CIB is awarded to infantry officers and to enlisted Soldiers and warrant officers who have an Infantry or Special Forces specialty, satisfactorily performed duty while assigned or attached as a member of an Infantry, Ranger or Special Forces unit of brigade, regimental, or smaller size during any period such unit was engaged in active ground combat, to close with and destroy the enemy with direct fire. A recipient must be personally present and under hostile fire while serving in an assigned Infantry or Special Forces primary duty, in a unit actively engaged in ground combat, to close with and destroy the enemy with direct fire. DISCUSSION: 1. The applicant contends he is entitled to the CIB instead of the CAB. 2. By regulation, in order to qualify for award of the CIB there must be evidence not only that the member was present and personally participated with a qualifying Infantry unit while it was engaged in active ground combat with enemy forces, but it should also show he held and served in an Infantry specialty with a qualifying Infantry unit. 3. The available evidence shows the applicant was assigned to an Infantry unit in Afghanistan in 2004 and was personally engaged in active ground combat; however, the Office of the Chief of Staff, USASOC, confirmed that the applicant was not branched as an Infantry officer, as required by the criteria for award of 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) AR20150017031 2 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Enclosure 1 ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont) AR20150017031 2 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Enclosure 2