IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 2 February 2023 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20220005235 APPLICANT REQUESTS: in effect, award of the Combat Infantryman Badge (CIB). APPLICANT'S SUPPORTING DOCUMENT(S) CONSIDERED BY THE BOARD: * DD Form 149 (Application for Correction of Military Record) * MILPER Message Number 08-190, 22 July 2008 * Improvised Explosive Device (IED) Narrative, 28 October 2008 * IED Detonation Diagram, 28 October 2008 * Army Human Resources Command (AHRC) memorandum, 22 December 2021 FACTS: 1. The applicant did not file within the 3-year time frame provided in Title 10, U.S. Code, section 1552(b); however, the Army Board for Correction of Military Records (ABCMR) conducted a substantive review of this case and determined it is in the interest of justice to excuse the applicant's failure to timely file. 2. The applicant states, in effect, in 2007 he was a second lieutenant (2LT) attending Basic Officer Leadership Course (BOLC) II and BOLC III. After spending the previous 19 years as an enlisted Soldier who rose to the rank of sergeant first class, he made the leap to the Officer Corps. BOLC II was a 7-week combat preparation course for recently commissioned officers. The course concentrated on the Army’s seven battle drills. Upon completion of BOLC II, he attended BOLC III which, for him, was the U.S. Army Infantry Officer Basic Course (IOBC). Upon completion, he returned to his Army National Guard (ARNG) unit to prepare for pre-deployment training at Camp Atterbury, Indiana and Fort Stewart, Georgia. After branch qualification he was assigned as the Executive Officer, Company B, 1st Battalion, 151st Infantry. He further states: a. From September 2007 to July 2008, he maintained the Executive Officer assignment until he transitioned into Company B, 2nd Battalion, 151st Infantry as their platoon leader. He deployed to Iraq in support of Operation Iraqi Freedom from January 2008 to November 2008. During deployment, their infantry company received a non- standard mission of Convoy Logistics Patrol (CLP) where they escorted and protected large convoys of supply trucks from Forward Operating Base (FOB) Q-West to various locations in Northern Iraq to include FOB Warrior, Speicher, Marez, Taji, and Bernstein. In all, his unit conducted 68 CLPs using Enhanced Armament Carriers, Mine-Resistant Ambush Protected Vehicles, Armored Security Vehicles, and a Combat Wrecker. The company logged over 100,000 miles and 5300 hours of CLP mission time. His unit found, secured, coordinated and controlled detonation of IEDs numerous times throughout the deployment. Their platoon was only hit by one IED which occurred on 28 October 2008. On this date, their platoon met the same criteria outlined in MILPER Message 08-190 as their sister platoon, Company B, 1st Battalion, 152nd Infantry Regiment, who was awarded the CIB. Of all the mission destinations, FOB Warrior was where his platoon traveled the most. In all, they traveled there over 40 times. Five times they received indirect fire while on FOB Warrior. FOB Warrior was a contentious place for them because it was where they experienced incoming indirect fire on occasion plus, it was where they experience their only IED detonation. b. The applicant contends that the reasons his unit was not awarded the CIB were: (1) The company commander communicated, early in their deployment, that a letter of concurrence for the CIB award submissions would be very hard to get from him. Th applicant asks whether it was it presumptuous of his company commander to maintain this posture and insert his own criteria which might have overstretched his authority. Without a letter of concurrence, CIB award requests were not allowed to move up the chain of command for consideration. (2) Some, but not all CIB packets submitted in Iraq received a letter of concurrence from the company commander. In Iraq, 16 of 19 CIB packets did not receive a letter of concurrence; therefore, CIB award requests were returned without consideration. Two of two CAB packets were returned for the same reason. (3) Due to the unit commander’s stance on the CIB he made light of any instance of indirect fire or rocket attacks on the FOBs they experienced during pauses in their CLPs. On several occasions, indirect fire and rocket attacks forced them to take cover in concrete bunkers until the “all clear” message was given. (4) During one instance where the company commander conducted a ride-along with their CLP and they received indirect fire at FOB Warrior. One of their noncommissioned officers took cover in a concrete bunker with the commander. The commander stated that the blast was close enough to qualify for the CIB but, later shrugged off the notion when approached. c. According to the applicant, his company commander showed a level unfairness when: (1) Their sister platoon, Company B, 1st Battalion, 151st Infantry, was awarded the CIB while his unit remained overnight at FOB Warrior during a mortar attack. Without hesitation and equal scrutiny, the company commander endorsed a letter of concurrence for other unit's award of the CIB. (2) The commander failed to take into consideration that the applicant's platoon was conducting a combat mission when they were attacked by an IED. At the time, the applicant's platoon was arrayed tightly as they tried to depart FOB Warrior. The blast was within 300 meters of all gun trucks. (3) The applicant contends that two similar incidents occurred with two separate outcomes. d. Below is a list of indirect fire incidents that occurred at FOB Warrior, Iraq, while he was acting as the platoon leader; however, he did not report these incidents. * 15 July 2008, indirect fire * 13 August 2008, mortar attack * 22 August 2008, indirect fire * 15 September 2008, rocket attack * 3 October 2008, rocket attack e. The applicant asks the board to review and consider the entirety of this deployment. He asks the board to also consider whether it was fair for his company commander to hold stricter criteria for CIB awards. At the time of his deployment, IEDs were considered indirect fire and anyone within a certain radius met the award criteria for the CAB or CIB. The commander had always maintained that their unit met equal criteria of others in the organization who were awarded the CIB. The applicant realizes there are two opposite ends of the spectrum with regards to combat action related to the CIB. The applicant believes that his unit was at the lower end of the spectrum but still high enough to be considered for the CIB. During this period, he approached his company commander numerous times in a professional manner with the intent to change his mind. He asked, respectfully, why he would not consider a letter of concurrence? However, his commander never gave him an answer. This subject reached their peacetime battalion commander who summoned him to his office for a discussion. The battalion commander stated that if he was the applicant's company commander, he would have endorsed a letter of concurrence without hesitation. However, he would not overturn a decision made by one of his company commanders. This subject never reached the wartime commander. 3. A review of the record shows that on 23 December 1987, the applicant enlisted in the Indiana Army National Guard. 4. He accepted an appointment as a Reserve Commissioned Officer on 19 June 2007 and he was assigned to the Infantry Branch. 5. He was awarded the Bronze Star Medal for his exceptionally meritorious service during OIF for the period 15 March 2008 to 20 November 2008. The applicant's achievements are not listed on the form and the award citation is not available for review in his Army Military Human Resource Record. 6. He was retired on 23 December 2012 due to physical disability and placed on the Temporary Disability Retired List on 24 December 2012. He was permanently retired on 13 May 2015. 7. The applicant provides: a. A memorandum from the Awards and Decorations Branch, AHRC, 22 December 2021. This memorandum informed the applicant that after careful review of the documentation he provided, the incidents listed in his narrative did not meet the regulatory criteria for award of the CIB in accordance with Army Regulation (AR) 600-8-22 (Military Awards). b. MILPER Message 08-190 (Revised Criteria for Awarding Combat Badges (CIB, Combat Medical Badge, Combat Action Badge), 22 July 2008. The message made the following changes to AR 600-8-22 in regard to the requirements for award of the CIB: (1) While not qualifying by themselves, engagement by direct fire weapons, including IEDs, VBIEDs, and the like, should be considered in recommendations for award of the CIB. (2) CIB approval authority may be delegated to Army commanders, COL and above. c. An IED narrative, 28 October 2008, author unknown. This narrative describes the tactical responses and battle drills the applicant and other Soldiers in his unit took after an IED exploded near their patrol location at FOB Warrior. d. An IED Detonation Diagram of FOB Warrior, 28 October 2008, which shows the applicant was located at point "GT5" when the device exploded. The diagram indicates that "GT5" was less than 200 meters from the point of impact. The second page of the diagram states that "upon enemy engagement, members of Company B, 1st Battalion, 151st Infantry reacted to enemy contact by conducting battle drills, security and cordon operations, enemy searches, air support coordination, ground support requesting, 9 line reporting, and maintained an offensive posture throughout the engagement." 8. Regulatory guidance, states for award of the CIB a 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. BOARD DISCUSSION: After reviewing the application and all supporting documents, the Board determined relief was not warranted. The applicant’s contentions, the military record, and regulatory guidance were carefully considered. Based upon the available documentation, the Board concurred with HRC’s previous finding that the evidence does not support the applicant did not qualify for the CIB as outlined in the terms of AR 600-8-22, because evidence lacks showing he engaged in ground combat with the enemy. 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: 1. Title 10, United States 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. 2. Army Regulation (AR) 600-8-22 (Military Awards), in effect at the time, states: a. There are basically three requirements for award of the Combat Infantryman Badge. 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. 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. b. Permanent awards of badges, except basic marksmanship qualification badges, identification badges, and the Physical Fitness Badge will be announced in permanent order by commanders authorized to make the award or permanent orders of badges.y 3. AR 15-185 (ABCMR) states 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. The board is not an investigative body. //NOTHING FOLLOWS// ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont) AR20220005235 1 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 1