IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 8 October 2021 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20200009471 APPLICANT REQUESTS: a personal hearing for reconsideration of his previous case to correct his DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty) for the period 11 January 2010 to 4 January 2011, to show: * in Item 11 (Primary Specialty), his primary military occupational specialty (MOS) was 11B (Infantryman), instead of 21K (Plumber) * in item 13 (Decorations, Medals, Badges, Citations and Campaign Ribbons Awarded or Authorized), award of the Combat Infantryman Badge (CIB), instead of the Combat Action Badge (CAB) APPLICANT'S SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS CONSIDERED BY THE BOARD: * DD Form 149 (Application for Correction of Military Record) * Self-authored Statement * U.S. Marine Corps School of Infantry Marine Combat Training Certificate of Completion * Sailor/Marine American Council on Education Registry Transcript * Orders 010-013 * DA Form 2166-8 (Noncommissioned Officer Evaluation Report) * Page 1, DA Form 2166-8 * Certificate of Training, Combat Life Savers Course * Certificate of Promotion * DA Form 638 (Recommendation for Award), page 1 * Permanent Order 290-003 * Permanent Order Number 235-046 * DD Form 214 * DA Form 705 (Army Physical Fitness Test Scorecard) * Page 4, DA Form 2-1 (Personnel Qualification Record) * Reserve Career Management System (RCMS) Automated Record Brief FACTS: 1. Incorporated herein by reference are military records which were summarized in the previous consideration of the applicant's case by the Army Board for Correction of Military Records (ABCMR) in Docket Number AR2010030062 on 28 April 2011. 2. The applicant provides new evidence or argument, which warrants consideration by the Board. The applicant states, in effect: a. The Board's 2011 decision to deny him the CIB and 11B MOS should be reevaluated based on a precedence that has been set, the recognition by previous Board members that he was in fact trained as an infantryman, and the overwhelming evidence to grant relief. b. When he enlisted in the Army National Guard (ARNG) in 2007, he did not have to complete basic training because he was a prior service Marine. In the Marines he held a combat arms MOS and graduated Marine Infantry School. c. In January 2010, he was selected to augment a Maine ARNG Engineer unit during their deployment to Afghanistan. He received orders assigning him to the unit as an 11B. He was not offered to serve in any other MOS nor was he offered to reclassify prior to deploying to Afghanistan. He was assured his Marine Corps Infantry training would qualify him for the 11B MOS. d. In April 2010, he was promoted to the rank/grade of Sergeant (SGT)/E-5 and was removed from his position as the squad designated marksman and made the Infantry Fire Team Leader. He replaced another SGT who was apparently inadequate for the position. During the deployment, his unit manning records indicated his primary MOS was 11B qualified. e. He was involved in direct combat with the enemy, while serving as an infantryman fire team leader during infantry missions. He led his Fire Team through enemy ambushes, and is so noted on his NCOER for the deployment. He did not lose any of his men or equipment during combat with the enemy and he received the Army Commendation Medal which also lists him as an 11B. f. In addition to those documents the certificate of Marine Corps Infantry School Completion demonstrates he was formally trained as an Infantryman and therefore should have been awarded the 11B MOS as soon as he was assigned to the Army infantry unit. There were two other Soldiers in his unit who attended Marine Corps Infantry School and were administratively awarded the MOS. He came to the unit late which is why he believes his paperwork was not processed as theirs was. g. It is an injustice that he was not administratively awarded the 11B MOS prior to his deployment despite the evidence which was available to the ARNG. Therefore, he received the CAB instead of the CIB. Further, the DD Form 214 he was issued is not accurate based on the facts and circumstances of his training and deployment and misleads people reading the document. 3. The applicant is currently serving as a staff sergeant in the Maine (ME) ARNG. 4. Having prior service in the U.S. Marine Corps, the applicant enlisted in the MEARNG on 8 September 2007. He contracted for and was awarded upon completion of training, MOS 21K (Plummer). 5. Orders 010-013 issued by the Department of Defense, Veterans and Emergency Management, Military Bureau, Joint Forces Headquarters, MEARNG on 10 January 2010, Vinvoluntarily transferred him from his unit of assignment as a plumber/pipefitter to Company B, 3rd Battalion, 172nd Infantry Regiment as an automatic rifleman. 6. The applicant was promoted to the rank/grade of Sergeant/E-5 and awarded MOS 21K2O. 7. On 19 October 2010, he received his first DA Form 2166-8 covering the rated period from 12 March 2010 through 31 October 2010. He affirmed this form by affixing his digital signature to it on 19 October 2010. This form shows: a. Part 1e (Administrative Data – Primary MOSC) shows his primary MOS during the rated period was 21K; b. Part IIIa (Duty Description – Principal Duty Title) shows his principal duty during the rated period was "Fire Team Leader;" c. Part IIIa (Duty Description – Duty MOSC) shows his duty MOS during the rated period was 11B; and d. Part IVf (Rater – Values/NCO Responsibilities – Responsibility and Accountability) shows the comment "assumed the duties and responsibilities of an infantry fire team leader three months into his unit's deployment to Afghanistan with no prior formal infantry training." 8. The applicant was honorably released from active duty (REFRAD) upon the completion of his active duty service and transferred back to the MEARNG effective 4 January 2011. The DD Form 214 he was issued shows he completed 11 months and 24 days of net active service during this period. Item 11 of the form shows his primary MOS during this period of active duty was 21K. The form further shows he was awarded the CAB. 9. His Official Military Personnel File (OMPF) does not contain orders awarding him primary MOS 11B or the CIB. 10. The applicant provides no evidence to corroborate his claim that two other Soldiers in his unit who attended Marine Corps Infantry School were administratively awarded the 11B MOS. 11. The applicant provides: a. Orders 010-013, Joint Forces Headquarters, Maine National Guard, dated 10 January 2010, which shows he was involuntarily reassigned, for mobilization, in MOS 11B. b. Permanent Orders 235-046, Headquarters, 3rd Brigade Combat Team, 101st Airborne Division (Air Assault), dated 23 August 2010, which awarded him the Army Commendation Medal (ARCOM) for exceptionally meritorious service while assigned as an infantry rifleman in support of OEF X-XI, from 3 March 2010 to 15 November 2010. c. Page 1 of DA Form 638, dated 23 August 2010, which serves as the recommendation for the ARCOM awarded under Permanent Orders 235-046. This form shows he was assigned to an infantry battalion, and his duty position was "Infantry Rifleman." d. Permanent Orders 290-003, Headquarters, 3rd Brigade Combat Team, 101st Airborne Division (Air Assault), dated 17 October 2010, which awarded him the CAB. e. Excerpts from his Sailor/Marine American Council on Education Registry Transcript, which shows he completed the Marine Combat Infantry School at Camp Lejeune, NC, from 17 November 1999 through 10 December 1999 and the Marine Combat Training Certificate of Completion. f. Page 4 of DA Form 2-1 which shows his duty MOS as an 11B from 12 March 2010 to 15 March 2011. g. RCMS Automated Record Brief dated 14 May 2020, which shows in Section II – Career Field Data, the secondary MOS of 11B. Section X – Assignment Information, shows he served in duty MOS 11B from 11 January 2010 to 30 September 2006. h. ABCMR Docket Number AR2002068627, dated 27 June 2002, which is a past case involving the Board's decision to correct an applicant's DD Form 214 to show MOS 11B instead of 11C (Indirect Fire Crewman) and award of the CIB to a non-MOS qualified Soldier based on recognition of his longest period of continuous service as a combat infantryman. 12. The regulation in effect at the time of the applicant's release from active duty contained item-by-item instructions for completing the DD Form 214. The instructions stated to enter the titles of all MOS served for at least 1 year and include for each MOS the number of years and months served from the Enlisted Record Brief (ERB). Although it appears he served in duty MOS 11B, he held primary MOS 21K at the time of his REFRAD which is properly shown on his DD Form 214. 13. Army Regulation 15-185 (ABCMR) states an applicant is not entitled to a hearing before the ABCMR. Hearings may be authorized by a panel of the ABCMR or by the Director of the ABCMR. BOARD DISCUSSION: 1. The applicant's request for a personal appearance hearing was carefully considered. In this case, the evidence of record was sufficient to render a fair and equitable decision. As a result, a personal appearance hearing is not necessary to serve the interest of equity and justice in this case. 2. After reviewing the application and all supporting documents, the Board found that relief was not warranted. Board members reviewed the applicant's statement, evidence and service record. a. A majority of the Board found Board members noted that there is no evidence the applicant was formally trained by the Army in MOS 11B or awarded this MOS. There is also no evidence he enlisted in MOS 11B or was promoted in MOS 11B. Board members also considered the past case involving the Board's decision to correct an applicant's DD Form 214 to show MOS 11B instead of 11C. However, each case is considered on its own merits. Based on a preponderance of evidence, the Board determined that the MOS listed on his DD Form 214 for the period 11 January 2010 to 4 January 2011 was not in error or unjust. b. The member in the minority noted that he previously served in the USMC as an infantryman after he completed the Marine Combat Infantry School at Camp Lejeune, NC, from 17 November 1999 through 10 December 1999. He also served in duty MOS 11B. Board members felt he satisfied the requirements to have this MOS added to his DD Form 214 as a secondary MOS. BOARD VOTE: Mbr 1 Mbr 2 Mbr 3 : : : GRANT FULL RELIEF X: : : GRANT PARTIAL RELIEF : : : GRANT FORMAL HEARING : 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 to amend the decision of the ABCMR set forth in Docket Number AR2010030062 on 28 April 2011. 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: 1. Army Regulation 635-5 (Separation Documents) prescribed the separation documents that were prepared for individuals upon retirement, discharge, or release from active military service or control of the Army. It also establishes standardized policy for preparing and distributing the DD Form 214. The DD Form 214 is a summary of a Soldier's most recent period of continuous active duty. It provides a brief, clear-cut record of active duty service at the time of release from active duty, retirement, or discharge. The regulation in effect at the time of the applicant's release from active duty contained item-by-item instructions for completing the DD Form 214. These instructions stated for enlisted Soldiers in item 11: a. From the ERB, enter the titles of all MOS served for at least 1 year and include for each MOS the number of years and months served. For time determination, 16 days or more count as a month. Do not count basic training and advanced individual training. b. Also specify the first 5 characters of the primary MOS code (MOSC), which includes the 3 characters of the MOS, the fourth character of skill and grade level in the MOS, and the fifth character of a special qualification identifier (SQI), if applicable. Enter "O" when not applicable. When MOSC merge at the skill level 5, make separate entries for the highest skill level in each MOSC below the skill level 5. 2. Army Regulation 600-8-22 (Military Awards) states there are basically three requirements for award of the CIB. The Soldier must be an infantryman satisfactorily performing infantry duties, he must be assigned to an infantry unit during such time as the unit is engaged in active ground combat, and he must actively participate in such ground combat. Specific requirements state, in effect, that an Army enlisted Soldier must have an infantry or special forces specialty and must have 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. 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 with the enemy. 3. Army Regulation 15-185 prescribes the policies and procedures for correction of military records by the Secretary of the Army, acting through the ABCMR. a. The ABCMR may, in its discretion, hold a hearing or request additional evidence or opinions. Additionally, it states in paragraph 2-11 that applicants do not have a right to a hearing before the ABCMR. The Director or the ABCMR may grant a formal hearing whenever justice requires. b. The ABCMR considers individual applications that are properly brought before it. The ABCMR will decide cases on the evidence of record. It is not an investigative body. 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. //NOTHING FOLLOWS// ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont) AR20200009471 1 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 1