ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 19 October 2020 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20190010810 APPLICANT REQUESTS: award of the Combat Action Badge (CAB). APPLICANT'S SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS CONSIDERED BY THE BOARD: * DD Form 149 (Application for Correction of Military Record), dated 27 June 2019 * U.S. Army Installation Management Command Headquarters, U.S. Army, Orders , dated March * DA Forms 2823 (Sworn Statement), dated 17 May 2018 and 18 May 2018 * Officer Record Brief, dated 18 May 2018 * CAB Quality Control Checklist, Human Resources Actions Branch, dated 18 May 2018 * Medical Evaluation Board, , dated 8 June 2018 * DA Form 2823, dated and 13 June 2018 * DA Form 4187 (Personnel Action), dated 14 June 2018 * memorandum, Warrior Transition Battalion, Womack Army Medical Center, dated 9 September 2018, subject: Combat Action Badge (CAB) Request for Information (RFI) Memorandum * DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty), for the period ending 27 November 2018 FACTS: 1. The applicant stated he did not have the ability to process his CAB request through company administrative channels because his unit, 2nd Brigade Combat Team, 82nd Airborne Division was in Mosul. He was separated from the main unit in Al-Asad, West Iraq, and did not have the needed approval authority. 2. On 5 October 2010, he accepted an appointment and was ordered to active duty as a second lieutenant. 3. He served in Iraq from 19 March 2017 to 20 September 2017. He was assigned to 407th Brigade Support Battalion, 2nd Brigade Combat Team, 82nd Airborne Division. 4. He provided DA Forms 2823, outlining details of an incident which occurred on or about 1 July 2017: a. In a sworn statement, dated 17 May 2018, CPT C__ R__ stated, in effect, on 1 July 2017 at Al-Asad Airbase, indirect fire (IDF) from Islamic State militants resulted in four different 120 mm rocket points of impact (POI). The first POI was closest to their life support area (LSA), striking about 300 to 500 meters from our lodging. The order was given to seek cover. He, the applicant, and several other personnel ran to the nearest bunker with their weapons systems and sensitive items. Three additional POI occurred at 10 minute intervals. b. In a sworn statement, dated 18 May 2018, the applicant stated in effect, on 1 July 2017 at approximately 0315 hours, Al-Asad Airbase received IDF. The sound of the blast was extremely close and felt extremely close to the personnel in their immediate area. He personally felt the explosions in his containerized housing unit (CHU). He was woken by the blast thorough the sound and vibration of the CHU. He felt his LSA was in danger. He was given his weapon and rushed to cover as the blasts occurred. After the first blast he and other Soldiers rushed to the closest bunker with their weapons. During the engagement, the artillery unit immediately returned fire after the airbase was fired upon. He was told by field grade officers that only the artillery unit qualified for the CAB. His officer in charge told him only members of the artillery unit that returned fire after the airbase was fired on qualified for the CAB. But he believed he met the requirement for the CAB by being fired upon and being engaged by the enemy. c. In a sworn statement, dated 13 June 2018, CPT C__ J__ corroborated the incident, as detailed by CPT C__ R__ and the applicant. His statement included the details of a post incident meeting in which he stated, in effect, that the members of his detachment held a meeting to review the events of 1 July 2017 and raised the possibility of applying for the CAB. The detachment officer in charge, a U.S. Army MAJ (O-4) dismissed the possibility of the award of the CAB since he felt that although the members of the detachment successfully performed their duties during the incident, the first POI was not close enough for personnel to be actively engaged by the enemy. Additionally the members of the detachment had not been in a position from within the airbase to actively engage the enemy themselves. His view was that only the artillery unit stationed more than a kilometer away on the airbase could apply for the CAB since they had alone returned fire, and the issue was raised no further in the chain of command for consideration or review. d. DA Form 4187, dated 14 June 2018, an application for the CAB, in which he states he had previously submitted an application for the CAB. e. Medical Evaluation Board, Womack Army Medical Center, Fort Bragg, which shows he did not meet medical retention determination point (MRDP) for post-traumatic stress disorder/major depressive disorder. f. Warrior Transition Battalion, Womack Army Medical Center, letter, dated 9 September 2018, in which he sought to clarify information pertaining to his request for the CAB. He details the incident and how his unit's chain of command was not able to produce a chain of command endorsement. He stated in effect his unit was not able to approve the CAB on its own due to it being a very small team detached and remote from Task Force Falcon's area of operation (AOR). This prevented a chain of command endorsement which did not have a proper approval authority. 3. On 27 November 2018, he was honorably retired from active duty due to disability. His DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty) shows in item 13 (Decorations, Medals, Badges, Citations, and Campaign Ribbons Awarded or Authorized) – he was awarded or authorized: * Army Commendation Medal (2nd Award) * Army Achievement Medal (3rd Award) * Army Commendation Medal with "C" Device * Meritorious Unit Commendation (2nd Award) * National Defense Service Medal * Global War on Terrorism Service Medal * Afghanistan Campaign Medal with one campaign star * Army Service Ribbon * Overseas Service Ribbon * NATO Medal * Parachutist Badge * Air Assault Badge * Inherent Resolve Campaign Medal with campaign star 4. His records contain an undated U.S. Army Human Records Command (HRC), Fort Knox, KY, memorandum, which states the request for award of the Combat Action Badge (CAB) to [Applicant] for service performed in support of Operation Inherent Resolve is disapproved. a. "The CAB may be approved for both direct and indirect engagement; however in the case of indirect engagement, a Soldier's individual actions, their proximity to the activity and the risk to life (with associated severity) are all considerations that are taken into account when deciding whether or not to approve and award the CAB. While retroactive awards may be submitted to HRC for processing, such awards will not be made except where evidence of injustice is presented, as stipulated in Army Regulation 600-8-22 [Military Awards], para 8-8f(2). b. After review of the documentation that was provided, we concur with the chain of command that [Applicant] was not actively engaged by the enemy on 1 July 2017." 5. His records are void of orders showing he was awarded the CAB. BOARD DISCUSSION: After reviewing the application and all supporting evidence, the Board found insufficient evidence to grant relief. Per regulation, among the other requirements for award of the CAB, a Soldier must be performing in an offensive or defensive act while participating in combat operations, personally engaging, or being engaged by the enemy. The applicant’s leadership on the ground did not find the indirect fire conditions faced by the applicant merited award of the CAB. The Board agreed with the prior HRC determination that, in the case of indirect engagement, a Soldier's individual actions, their proximity to the activity and the risk to life (with associated severity) are all considerations that are taken into account when deciding whether or not to approve and award the CAB. The Board found insufficient evidence that the applicant was personally engaged by the enemy or that he personally engaged the enemy. Therefore the Board agreed that the applicant did not meet the regulatory requirements for award of the Combat Action Badge. 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. REFERENCES: Army Regulation 600-8-22 (Military Awards) prescribes Army policy, criteria, and administrative instructions concerning individual and unit military awards. The requirements for award of the Combat Action Badge (CAB) are branch and MOS immaterial. Assignment to a combat arms unit or a unit organized to conduct close or offensive combat operations, or performing offensive combat operations, is not required to qualify for the CAB. However, the CAB is not intended to recognize Soldiers who simply serve in a combat zone or imminent danger area. Battle participation credit alone is not sufficient; the unit must have engaged or been engaged by the enemy. A Soldier must be personally present and under hostile fire while performing satisfactorily in accordance with the prescribed rules of engagement, in an area where hostile fire pay or imminent danger pay is authorized. A Soldier must also be performing in an offensive or defensive act while participating in combat operations, engaging, or being engaged by the enemy. A Soldier must be performing their assigned duties associated with the unit’s combat mission in an area where hostile fire pay or imminent danger pay is authorized. The CAB will be announced in permanent orders. //NOTHING FOLLOWS// ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont) AR20190010810 6 1