BOARD DATE: 24 April 2018 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20160007323 BOARD VOTE: Mbr 1 Mbr 2 Mbr 3 : : : GRANT FULL RELIEF : : : GRANT PARTIAL RELIEF : : : GRANT FORMAL HEARING :X :X :X DENY APPLICATION 2 Enclosures 1. Board Determination/Recommendation 2. Evidence and Consideration I BOARD DATE: 24 April 2018 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20160007323 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 reconsideration of his earlier request for the award of the Combat Infantryman Badge for his service in Vietnam. 2. The applicant states: a. Insufficient weight was given to one of the two letters he submitted as evidence (he references paragraph 8 of the Record of Proceedings (ROP) for his initial Army Board for Correction of Military Records (ABCMR) decision (ABCMR Docket Number AR20140016549, dated 28 May 2015). (1) The writer, Mr. J__ Q. P__, is currently the head of a Veterans' Center, but in 1969, he was the S-1 Personnel Officer for the 1st Brigade, 101st Airborne Division (the 1st Brigade was the applicant's higher headquarters during his Vietnam Service). Mr. J__ Q. P__ affirmed he personally prepared the order awarding the applicant the Combat Infantryman Badge, and stated the Brigade Executive Officer (Lieutenant Colonel (LTC) B__ A. L__) signed the order. (2) Mr. J__ Q. P__ further asserted, per brigade policy, the applicant met this award's criteria. Mr. J__ Q. P__ indicated he had no doubt the orders were lost or misplaced somewhere between the unit's temporary field headquarters, and the headquarters for the 101st Airborne Division. Mr. J__ Q. P__ believes the applicant should be awarded the Combat Infantryman Badge. b. In the mid-1980s, the applicant requested copies of some records and was informed they could not be found; he was told they were presumed to have been destroyed in the 1973 fire at the National Personnel Records Center (NPRC). If the orders were lost, as Mr. J__ Q. P__ suggested, perhaps they burned in the fire. (NPRC was able to provide the applicant's military service record for the Board's review.) c. Paragraph 9 of his initial petition's ROP spoke of non-infantry Soldiers needing to temporarily perform infantry duties when required by the situation. While this is a true statement, it does not fit his situation. He contends this because he was told to go where the fighting was happening; he was "attached" (emphasis added by applicant) to maneuver units while they were in the field so he (and his team) could document combat actions (the applicant was initially assigned as an Assistant Public Information Officer for the 101st Airborne Division on 12 October 1968; he was then designated as the commander of a Public Information Detachment, effective 2 November 1968). He was never looked upon as being a "non-infantry Soldier" by either the brigade chain of command or the infantry field commanders. He flew into landing zones on a continuing basis for almost a year. He "humped" equipment, ate, slept, and fought alongside the Soldiers of the units he accompanied during that entire period. d. He arrived in Vietnam on or about 30 September 1968 with orders to report to a psychological operations (PSYOPs) group. During his inprocessing, he was told the PSYOPs unit no longer needed him, so he was sent instead to the 101st Airborne Division. (1) He was transported to a location that was coming under almost nightly small caliber mortar attacks; the 101st was providing the perimeter defense. He remained in this location for 6 to 7 days and, for most of the time he was there, he was assigned to lead a platoon on night ambush patrols. He would take his patrol out at dusk, set up ambush sites, and return with his platoon in the morning. He does not know how to classify this time, but he was being utilized as an infantry officer during this period. (2) Also, while at this location, he underwent infantry-type training, which included rappelling from helicopters and walls and calling in live artillery fire missions. He felt it was clear he was being treated as an infantry officer. (3) Near the end of the week, someone noticed he had completed DINFOS (Defense Information School) training. He was told there were two information officer positions becoming vacant; he was subsequently reassigned as an information officer within Division headquarters. Soon after that, he was designated as the commander of a Public Information Detachment. e. He requests the Board gives full weight to the detailed statement made by Mr. J__ Q. P__, and that it reevaluate its earlier decision. He is now 70 years old and, though he is not sure why, receiving this award is very important to him. 3. The applicant provides: * letter, dated 8 September 2014 (already included as evidence in his initial petition) * annotated copy of the ROP for his initial ABCMR case (ABCMR Docket Number AR20140016549, dated 28 May 2015) * three pages of his DA Form 20 (Enlisted Qualification Record) * DA Form 66 (Officer Qualification Record), signed 26 October 1968 * DD Form 214 (Armed Forces of the United States Report of Transfer or Discharge) for the period ending 25 October 1967 * DD Form 214 for the period ending 22 September 1969 CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE: 1. Incorporated herein by reference are military records which were summarized in the previous consideration of the applicant's case by the ABCMR in Docket Number AR20140016549 on 28 May 2015. 2. The applicant filed his initial petition on 11 September 2014; the Board denied his request. In his request for reconsideration, he submits new arguments which warrant consideration. 3. Having been inducted into the Army of the United States as an enlisted Soldier, and upon successful completion of infantry officer candidate school (OCS), the applicant was appointed as a U.S. Army Reserve commissioned officer and executed his oath of office on 26 October 1967. 4. He completed DINFOS training in or around July 1968. 5. The applicant was transferred to Vietnam and began his tour on 30 September 1968. He was first assigned as an Assistant Public Information Officer (PIO), 101st Airborne Division, on 12 October 1968, and then as a detachment commander for a PIO detachment, effective 2 November 1968. He departed Vietnam on or about 19 September 1969. 6. He was honorably released from active duty on 22 September 1969 due to expiration of his active duty commitment. His DD Form 214 shows he completed 1 year, 10 months, and 27 days of net active service for the period of this report. He was awarded or authorized the following: * National Defense Service Medal * Vietnam Service Medal * Republic of Vietnam Campaign Medal with Device (1960) * Army Commendation Medal * Bronze Star Medal * two overseas service bars 7. The applicant's available service record contains the following documents: a. DA Form 67-6 (U.S. Army Officer Efficiency Report) addressing the rating period 28 June 1968 through 27 June 1969. He was listed as being assigned to a PIO detachment; his branch was infantry. His rater was the Division Information Officer and his indorser was the Brigade Executive Officer (LTC B__ A. L__). The reviewer was the brigade commander. His principal duty was shown as detachment commander. The comments in the report essentially laud his outstanding performance as a PIO detachment commander. There is no mention of being assigned to infantry duties or being attached for infantry duties to a unit within the 101st Airborne Division. b. Two DA Forms 66 showing the applicant's signature and with audit dates of 26 October 1967 and 26 October 1968, respectively. On both forms, item 9 (Military Occupational Specialties (MOS)) showed 1542 (Infantry Unit Commander). Neither list the Combat Infantryman Badge in item 21 (Awards and Decorations). In addition, neither form reflects attachments to infantry units of brigade, regimental, or smaller size during his Vietnam service. They only show his assignments as an assistant PIO and as a PIO detachment commander. c. His available service record is void of any orders awarding him the Combat Infantryman Badge. There are also no orders indicating he was attached to any infantry units of brigade, regimental, or smaller size while he served in Vietnam. d. Letter, dated 26 September 1989, from the applicant's U.S. Senator and addressed to NPRC, wherein the U.S. Senator transmitted the applicant's request to be reissued medals that were lost upon his departure from Vietnam. (1) The U.S. Army Personnel Center (ARPERCEN), St. Louis, MO, responded by letter stating they had authorized the U.S. Army Troop Support Command to send the medals listed on an attached DA Form 1577 (Authorization for Issuance of Awards). (2) DA Form 1577 showed he was authorized the following awards and decorations: * Bronze Star Medal * Army Commendation Medal * National Defense Service Medal * Vietnam Service Medal with four bronze service stars * Republic of Vietnam Campaign Medal with Device (1960) * Expert Marksmanship Qualification Badge with Rifle Bar 8. The applicant provides: a. Letter, dated 8 September 2014, from Mr. J__ Q. P__ that states: * he was the Adjutant/S-1 for the 1st Brigade, 101st Airborne Division, and he knew the applicant * the applicant's duties required him to travel to the field and participate in operations against the enemy; to perform his duties, he would be attached to one of the line companies that was participating in offensive operations * to qualify for the Combat Infantryman Badge under brigade policy, a recipient had to carry an infantry MOS and had to participate in a combat assault, firefight, or be present during a rocket or mortar attack * the applicant's work frequently involved direct contact with the enemy and exposure to hostile fire while accompanying one of the infantry companies * he contends the applicant is eligible for the Combat Infantryman Badge because he possessed an infantry MOS and was exposed to fire on numerous occasions; he was also involved in firefights while attached to maneuver units and received hostile fire pay b. Letter, date 9 September 2014, from a former infantry captain, who stated, in effect: * he met the applicant while they were in basic combat training and they entered OCS together; their paths crossed again in Vietnam * while he served as an infantry platoon leader, the applicant was the PIO detachment commander * the applicant and his men would be embedded with infantry ground units; as a result, they frequently became involved in firefights with the enemy * on at least four occasions, the applicant was attached to elements in the writer's unit while they were in the field or at remote fire bases REFERENCES: 1. Army Regulation 600-8-22 (Military Awards) prescribes policies and procedures for military awards and decorations. Regarding the Combat Infantryman Badge, it states: a. Combat Infantryman Badge is awarded to Soldiers who meet three requirements: * be an infantryman satisfactorily performing infantry duties * assigned to an infantry unit during such time as the unit is engaged in active ground combat * active participated in such ground combat; campaign or battle credit alone is not sufficient b. Specific eligibility criteria include: * the Soldier must be an Army infantry officer in the grade of colonel or below who has satisfactorily performed duty while assigned or attached as a member of an infantry unit of brigade or smaller size during a period when the unit was engaged in active ground combat * the recipient must have been personally present and under hostile fire while serving in an assigned infantry primary duty in a unit actively engaged in ground combat with the enemy 2. U.S. Army, Republic of Vietnam (USARV) Regulation 672-1 (Decorations and Awards), in effect at the time, gave the following guidance with regard to the Combat Infantryman Badge: * the criteria for this award were based on the principle that the infantry MOS identified a man who was trained, lived, and fought as an infantryman; the Combat Infantryman Badge was meant to recognize the infantryman, and only the infantryman * the Combat Infantryman Badge was not an award for being shot at, or for undergoing the hazards of day-to-day combat 3. Military Assistance Command Vietnam (MACV) Directive 672-1 (Decorations, Awards, and Honors), in effect at the time, stated the following concerning the Combat Infantryman Badge: a. Personnel recommending the Combat Infantryman Badge should be aware this award is not a battle participation badge, rather it is reserved for full time duty (30 days or more as a primary duty) in infantry or infantry-type units that are actively participating or engaged in infantry operations. b. The directive listed primary duties that were not eligible for the Combat Infantryman Badge; included was the position of detachment commander, as well as various advisors. DISCUSSION: 1. The evidence of record confirms the applicant held an infantry MOS and, while in Vietnam, served in locations where he was exposed to hostile fire; he additionally claims he returned fire on numerous occasions. a. The foregoing notwithstanding, his primary duties entailed PIO operations, as well as any duties associated with commanding a PIO detachment. His primary duties did not include his assignment as an infantry officer who was in charge of a unit actively engaged in ground combat. Instead, by virtue of his mission, he embedded in infantry units for the purpose of recording what occurred. Inevitably, the performance of such duties caused him to be exposed to enemy fire. b. The two statements he provides essentially corroborate he performed PIO duties under hazardous conditions. However, neither witness stated they personally saw him actively engaged in ground combat; nor did they confirm he held an infantry position or that he performed primarily infantry duties. c. A review of his available service record failed to reveal any orders awarding him the Combat Infantryman Badge. In addition, based on an inquiry from his U.S. Senator in 1989, the list of authorized awards provided by ARPERCEN did not include the Combat Infantryman Badge. 2. The applicant's sincerity is not in question; rather, all criteria for the award of the Combat Infantryman Badge must be met for a correction to be warranted. BOARD DATE: 24 April 2018 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20160007323 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 to warrant amendment of the Board's decision in Docket Number AR20140016549, dated 28 May 2015, for correction of the records of the individual concerned. 2. The Board wants the applicant and all others concerned to know this action in no way diminishes the sacrifices he made in the service to our Nation. The applicant and all Americans can be justifiably proud of his service in arms. 4/24/2018 X 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. //NOTHING FOLLOWS// ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont) AR20160007323 2 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont) AR20160007323 3 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Enclosure 2