ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


	IN THE CASE OF:

	BOARD DATE:  25 March 2019

	DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20190000576


APPLICANT REQUESTS:  the Combat Infantryman Badge (CIB).

APPLICANT'S SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS CONSIDERED BY THE BOARD: 

* DD Form 149 (Application for Correction of Military Record)
* Oath of Office Military Personnel Military Personnel, dated 31 May 2008
* Orders BN-335-0091, dated 1 December 2010
* DA Form 67-9 (Officer Evaluation Report (OER))
* DA Form 4187 (Personnel Action)
* Narrative to Accompany the Award of the CIB
* Witness Combat Action Badge Award Criteria Checklist
* Witness Statement, dated 2 December 2015
* Witness Combat Action Badge Certificate
* Witness Sworn Statement
* Memorandum, Human Resources Command (HRC), dated 2 October 2018, subject:  Request for the Award of the CIB

FACTS:

1.  The applicant states:

* AR 600-8-22 (Military Awards) does not state a Soldier must actively engage the enemy
* narrative and eyewitness statements indicate he was present under fire
* by regulation, he is not required to fire his weapon to qualify for the CIB
* it is the commander's discretion when considering the award of the CIB
* narratives and eyewitness statements indicate he was in a kill zone radius of the improvised explosive device
* his current and time of incident chains of command agree with approval of the CIB

2.  The applicant's OER for the period 2 February 2009 to 1 February 2010 shows he was a Signal Corps officer who was detailed to an Infantry Branch position in area of concentration (AOC) 11A (Infantry Officer) and performed duty as a Reconnaissance Platoon Leader in AOC 19C (Armor Officer) while serving in Iraq.  He was assigned to C Troop, 3rd Battalion, 1st Cavalry.  The OER states he successfully deployed his platoon to combat operations in support of Operation Iraqi Freedom VII.  During the deployment he conducted 40 combined combat patrols with Iraqi Army counterparts.

3.  He provided a witness memorandum, dated 2 December 2015, stating the applicant was on patrol in the second vehicle when they were attacked by anti-Iraqi forces.  He states that the applicant and another Soldier who was in the fourth vehicle were engaged by a direct fire improvised explosive device (IED) attack.  He states that the applicant and the other Soldier could have been injured during the attack and they performed their duties satisfactorily by established rules of engagement.  His witness states he was physically on patrol in the fourth vehicle.  The first vehicle was impacted by the IED and he received the Combat Action Badge incident on 4 January 2010, while on patrol in Al Kut, Iraq.

4.  He provided a sworn statement from a second witness, dated 6 April 2016.  The witness verified that on 4 January 2010, while on patrol in Al Kut, the applicant was engaged by a direct fire IED attack.  He states that the applicant was on patrol in the second vehicle when he was attacked by anti-Iraqi forces.  He states that the applicant could have been injured during the attack and he performed his duties satisfactorily by established rules of engagement.

5.  Headquarters and Headquarters Company, 1st Special Forces Group (Airborne), Joint Base Lewis-McChord, submitted a DA Form 4187, dated 17 January 2018, to HRC to request the CIB for the applicant.  The narrative statement states that on 4 January 2010 the applicant's platoon began a routine mission to their counterpart Iraqi Army Headquarters compound.  The applicant was in the second vehicle when they came under direct fire.  The applicant, the fire team, and the Iraqi Army counterparts continued their mission and located a command detonate wire.  As the Iraqi Army proceeded into the community, the applicant and his platoon maneuvered to provide an outer cordon on the community.  After the search, no enemy was found, but all of the items involved in the composition of the IED were recovered, and the platoon continued their mission to the Iraqi Army Headquarters compound, where the platoon medic continued to provide medical assistance to the Soldiers in the lead vehicle.

6.  HRC denied the request, stating that although the first vehicle was struck, the narrative and eyewitness statement did not show that the applicant actively engaged with the enemy.

7.  Army Regulation 600-8-22 (Military Awards) provides the criteria for the CIB.  To be eligible for the CIB on or after 18 September 2001:

     a.  A Soldier must be an Army infantry or Special Forces (SF) officer (specialty skill identifier 11 or 18) in the grade of colonel/O–6 or below, or an Army enlisted Soldier or warrant officer with an infantry or SF military occupational specialty, who has satisfactorily performed duty while assigned or attached as a member of an infantry, ranger, or SF 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 fires.

     b.  A Soldier must be personally present and under fire while serving in an assigned infantry or SF primary duty, in a unit engaged in active ground combat to close with and destroy the enemy with direct fires. IEDs, vehicle-borne IEDs, and the like are direct fire weapons. While no fixed, qualifying distance from an explosion of these devices can be established, commanders should consider the entirety of the combat situation when considering award of the CIB.

BOARD DISCUSSION:

After review of the application and all evidence, the Board determined there is insufficient evidence to grant relief.  The applicant’s contentions and witness statements were carefully considered.  The applicant states it is the commander’s discretion to award the CIB.  He is requesting a retroactive CIB.  In this case, commander’s discretion (approval authority discretion) began with receiving endorsements from his chain of command through the first general officer before submission to HRC.  The first general officer in the chain of command has disapproval authority for retroactive awards of the CIB.  The evidence provided does not show a general officer in his chain of command recommended approval of the retroactive award.  Furthermore, an IED appears to have struck a vehicle in front of the vehicle in which the applicant was riding.  Regulatory guidance provides while no fixed, qualifying distance from an explosion of these devices can be established, commanders should consider the entirety of the combat situation when considering award of the CIB.  When considering the entirety of this case, the Board agreed the applicant did not qualify for award of the CIB.

BOARD VOTE:

Mbr 1	Mbr 2	Mbr 3

:	:	:	GRANT FULL RELIEF

:	:	:	GRANT PARTIAL RELIEF

:	:	:	GRANT FORMAL HEARING

:X	:X	:X	DENY APPLICATION



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.


	 
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.


ADMINISTRATIVE NOTE(S):  Not applicable.


REFERENCES:

Army Regulation 600-8-22 provides the criteria for the CIB.  To be eligible for the CIB on or after 18 September 2001:

     a.  A Soldier must be an Army infantry or Special Forces (SF) officer (specialty skill identifier 11 or 18) in the grade of colonel/O–6 or below, or an Army enlisted Soldier or warrant officer with an infantry or SF military occupational specialty, who has satisfactorily performed duty while assigned or attached as a member of an infantry, ranger, or SF 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 fires.

     b.  A Soldier must be personally present and under fire while serving in an assigned infantry or SF primary duty, in a unit engaged in active ground combat to close with and destroy the enemy with direct fires. IEDs, vehicle-borne IEDs, and the like are direct fire weapons. While no fixed, qualifying distance from an explosion of these devices can be established, commanders should consider the entirety of the combat situation when considering award of the CIB.
//NOTHING FOLLOWS//

ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont)	 AR20190000576
0

4


1