IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 29 August 2018 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20170000916 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: 29 August 2018 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20170000916 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. IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 29 August 2018 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20170000916 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 correction of his DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty) to show award of the Expert Infantryman Badge (EIB). 2. He states, in effect, that even though he passed all the required proficiency testing, he was still unjustly denied award of the EIB. It was his hope that this injustice would be discovered and corrected; however, with the passage of time, it has become apparent that this correction will not occur without his request. 3. He provides his personal statement, a witness statement, and Permanent Orders 77-1, dated 31 October 1984. 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 enlisted in the Illinois Army National Guard (ILARNG) on 15 February 1978 and he held military occupational specialty 11C (Indirect Fire Infantryman). 3. He provides Permanent Orders 77-1, issued by the Military and Naval Department, Springfield, IL, dated 31 October 1984. These orders awarded Sergeant (SGT) P___ and SGT S___ the EIB on 27 October 1984, upon successful completion of the EIB test. 4. He served in the Active Guard Reserve (AGR) from 20 August 1986 to 19 February 1987. The DD Form 214 he was issued for this period of active duty does not show he was awarded the EIB. 5. His records do not contain official orders awarding him the EIB. 6. On 20 August 1998, he was discharged from the ARNG and transferred to the Retired Reserve. 7. He provides his personal statement recounting the following information and circumstances: a. In September/October of 1984, he and other members of the ILARNG participated in EIB testing at Camp Lincoln located in Springfield, IL. He believes that he did meet all testing standards, and that he was not awarded the badge in error. He contends that one of the three individuals awarded the badge at the time, who later retired with the rank of lieutenant colonel (LTC), could corroborate his statement. Through his research he found references showing that some Soldiers were given train up time before the actual EIB test but he did not have a train up period. They all trained for this individually, and attended the test in a non-paid status. He further contends that he did pass all requirements, including the Army Physical Fitness Test (APFT), firing expert with the M16A1, 12-mile road march, and others. He passed all the testing requirements, either on the first attempt, or upon retesting, as provided for in regulations. b. His research further shows that the EIB pass rates normally range from 7-percent to 17-percent. Units with train up periods had a pass rate of 47-percent. He believes that the pass rate for the group he tested with was approximately 2-percent and this may be an indication of an overzealous enforcement of standards. He submits that he demonstrated a thorough knowledge of, and proficiency in, all required areas. He added that he achieved this level of proficiency through his own drive and initiative. It is his belief that with any official train up, and with the standards being the actual outcome in combat, and correct testing standards, he has no doubt that he would have been awarded the EIB. 8. The applicant provides a witness statement from retired LTC P___ (referenced above as SGT P___ in this Record of Proceedings). This individual stated that: a. He and the applicant served as noncommissioned officers (NCO) together from November 1980 to May 1990. In the summer and fall of 1984, they individually trained, on their own time, in a non-paid status for the annual EIB test. The testing was conducted at Camp Lincoln, Springfield State Headquarters and at the nearby Sangamon State Forest. The prequalification test (held in September 1984) began with approximately 150 infantrymen. Upon the completion of very rigorous sessions only four soldiers passed all prerequisites, fired expert, and completed the 12-mile rucksack march. Those four attended the final EIB round-robin testing format, held on 27 October 1984. The applicant was one of those four Soldiers, along with himself, Captain (CPT) V___, and SGT W___. b. He can personally attest that the overall EIB scoring criteria was very flawed and NOT to Army standards. The instructors/testers took on an antagonistic and confrontational approach to those Soldiers being tested. By regulation, all testers are mandated to be EIB recipients. In this case, they were not. In his observation, the testers went out of their way to fail fully qualified participants at both sessions, with minutia that should have not impacted the overall GO/NO GO criteria according to the Army Field Training Manuals and test guidelines. In summary, the witness contends that: * the overall pass rate was about 2-percent with only three Soldiers earning the award * the pass rate was certainly lower than records for previous and subsequent EIB tests * current Soldiers have full unit train up and support, which was unheard of in 1984 * the applicant was unjustly failed on the map reading test for illegitimate administrative reason * he witnessed the applicant complete the indirect fire exercise by accurately plotting all the required test answers and calling for indirect fire only to be inexplicably failed * upon retest, the applicant precisely ascertained the 10 digit grid coordinates but he was failed because he incorrectly filled out the score sheet * the applicant was failed even though his answers were correct and the test event performed to standard * the applicant passed all other tests on the first attempt c. The witness recommends retroactive award of the EIB in this case because he strongly feels the instructors/testers were intransigent and would not listen to reason. The testers were not EIB qualified and did everything they could to fail Soldiers both during the pretest and the final test. Although he passed, he fully believes the applicant did as well and that the applicant was not allowed proper recourse, duress, or the ability to protest the outcome. The applicant saluted and moved on with self-motivation, drive, and maturity. 9. On 17 August 2016, the applicant petitioned the U. S. Army Human Resources Command (HRC), Awards and Decorations Branch, for award of the EIB. 10. On 12 October 2016, the Chief, Awards and Decorations Branch, denied his request citing a lack of regulatory authority to award the EIB. REFERENCES: 1. Army Regulation (AR) 672-12 (Expert Infantryman Badge), in effect at the time, states: a. An award of the EIB requires that an individual must have satisfactorily completed the prescribed proficiency tests while assigned or attached to an infantry unit of brigade size or smaller. b. Because of differences in equipment, facilities, and training time available, some organizations may need to modify the policy stated in this regulation. Every effort will be made to preserve the integrity and continuity of the EIB test; but, when a local change is necessary, an exception to policy may be requested. 2. AR 15-185 (Army Board for Correction of Military Records) prescribes the policies and procedures for correction of military records by the Secretary of the Army, acting through the ABCMR. The regulation provides that the ABCMR begins its consideration of each case with the presumption of administrative regularity. The applicant has the burden of proving an error or injustice by a preponderance of the evidence. DISCUSSION: 1. The applicant requests award of the EIB. 2. The applicant, and his witness, contend that he successfully completed all requirements for award of the EIB; however, he was unjustly denied this badge because the testing process was flawed and not conducted in accordance with regulatory guidance. They cite the low pass rates in comparison to other tests, unqualified and unfair instructors/testers, and the lack of any unit train up time. 3. The sincerity of his witness statement is not in doubt but the regulation, in effect at the time, allowed for modifications to how the EIB testing was conducted based on differences in equipment, facilities, and training time available. 4. There is no evidence in his records and he did not provide evidence, other than his witness statement, to show he satisfactorily completed the prescribed EIB proficiency tests which is a requirement for award of the EIB. //NOTHING FOLLOWS// ABCMR Record of Proceedings AR20150000953 Enclosure 1 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont) AR20170000916 2 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Enclosure 1 ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont) AR20170000916 5 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Enclosure 2