IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 3 February 2023 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20220008163 APPLICANT REQUESTS: retroactive award of the Combat Infantryman Badge and a personal appearance before the Board. APPLICANT'S SUPPORTING DOCUMENT(S) CONSIDERED BY THE BOARD: * DD Form 149 (Application for Correction of Military Record) * signature page * Significant Activity (SIGACT) report/picture, 17 December 2012 * 4 DA Forms 2823 (Sworn Statement) - * applicant, 17 December 2019 * Major , 30 January 2020 * Major , 4 February 2020 * Master Sergeant , 6 July 2020 * DA Form 4187 (Personnel Action), 27 October 2020 * memorandum, U.S. Army Human Resources Command (HRC), Subject: Request for award of the Combat Infantryman Badge for applicant, 25 February 2021 * email traffic, 14 May 2021 * memorandum, 5th Security Force Assistance Brigade, Subject: Legal Review of Combat Infantryman Badge Requirements of AR 600-8-22, 29 June 2021 * Officer Record Brief (ORB), 26 April 2022 * memorandum, 5th Security Force Assistance Brigade, Subject: Statement of Support Regarding HRC Denial of Retroactive Combat Infantryman Badge Submission for applicant, 23 May 2022 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, he met the requirements for retroactive award of the Combat Infantryman Badge. He states the supporting documents show the four conditions required for award of the Combat Infantryman Badge. HRC disapproved the retroactive request based on the fact he did not personally engage the enemy with direct fires. He contends with Army Regulation (AR) 600-8-22 (Military Awards) stating that paragraph 8-6f requires that he satisfactorily performed duty while assigned to a Special Forces unit during a period when the unit engaged in active ground combat, to close with and destroy the enemy with direct fires. He is a Special Forces Officer in Career Management Field 18, Special Forces, in the rank of Major, he satisfactorily performed his duties assigned as a member of a Special Forces unit, and he was personally present and under fire from the Vehicle-Borne Improvised Explosive Device (VBIED) and Indirect Fire (IDF) received through the day. 3. The applicant was appointed as a Reserve Commissioned Officer in the Infantry Branch, on 5 January 2006. 4. He served in Afghanistan from 14 August 2012 to 21 January 2013 with B Company, 1st Battalion, 10th Special Forces Group (Airborne). 5. A SIGACT report/picture shows on 17 December 2012 a semi-truck loaded with homemade explosive (HME) detonated less than 100 meters from the perimeter of Camp Phoenix. The VBIED detonated on a contracting office between the Camp Phoenix main entry-control point and the Special Forces gate destroying five buildings and breaching the perimeter in several areas. It references the applicant’s location of room to the destroyed buildings and states Soldier’s responded to defend the Camp Phoenix, Camp Vose, and damaged areas of the Camp. 6. He provides four DA Forms 2823 (Sworn Statement) which state the following: a. Applicant states, in effect, in Sworn Statement dated 17 December 2019, on 17 December 2012 a loud boom rattled the containerized housing unit and cracked his window. He put on his body armor, helmet, and gun belt on and grabbed his M4 and holstered his Glock 19 and went outside in athletic shorts and no shoes or a shirt. He ran to the entry control point while other support Soldiers and Green Berets rallied to their designated base defense responsibilities. Once the entry control point was secured, he put his fatigues on and grabbed a radio to report in. At this point there had been three or four IDF mortar attacks on Camp Phoenix that forced everyone to take cover in defensive positions. He took a fighting position on the roof to monitor the Camp and outside the wall. While in the fighting position the roof, they monitored Military Aged Males due to suspicious activity, however the Military Aged Males did not make hostile acts and eventually dispersed after three to four hours. Several more rounds of IDF forced everyone on Camp Phoenix and Camp Vose to take cover throughout the rest of the morning until the “all-clear” was given in late afternoon. The blast was a VBIED, a semi-truck laden with around 9000 pounds of homemade explosives, it was one of the largest VBIED’s detonated in the Afghan war to date, as it destroyed five buildings and several sections of the 18-inch-thick wall. Several IDF hits caused minor damage to the base to which the Taliban claimed responsibility for the attack. He says he never requested award of the Combat Infantryman Badge until reading the requirements for the award. He was a qualified Special Forces officer assigned to the 1st Battalion, 10th Special Forces Group (Airborne) while the unit was engaged in ground combat in Afghanistan, and he was personally present and under hostile fire while serving in an assigned infantry or Special Forces primary duty. b. Major states, in effect, in Sworn Statement dated 30 January 2020, on 17 December 2012 a VBIED exploded at the front gate of Camp Phoenix. The unit prepared for follow on enemy attacks. The applicant and himself took fighting position on the roof and proceeded to monitor Camp Vose and Camp Phoenix’s gate. Due to IDF landing nearby, personnel were ordered to take cover inside hardened structures, fighting positions which were essential were told to remain in place and continue to monitor the area/sectors for fire. Once the “all clear” was given we maintained normal operations. c. Major states, in effect, in Sworn Statement dated 4 February 2020, on 17 December 2012 there was a large VBIEB explosion, where he ordered Soldier’s to retrieve their weapons and equipment to be prepared to defend Camp Vose/Camp Phoenix. The applicant took a position on the roof to dissuade further attacks and reported enemy IDF’s throughout the day around the Camp Phoenix complex. The “all clear” was issued and allowed personnel to stand down from their security positions. d. Master Sergeant states, in effect, in Sworn Statement dated 6 July 2020, two weeks prior to attack on Camp Phoenix, his base, ODA 0116 came under IDF and VBIED attack in Logar Province, Afghanistan and he was subsequently awarded the Combat Infantry Badge for this action. Multiple personnel assigned to Camp Vose during the time of the VBIEB attack on Camp Phoenix who responded to the same attached the applicant did, were awarded the Combat Infantryman Badge and Combat Action Badge. 7. A DA 4187 (Personnel Action), dated 27 October 2020 was submitted by 5th Security Force Assistance Brigade to HRC requesting award of the Combat Infantryman Badge for the applicant. It states the date of engagement was 17 December 2012, location was Camp Phoenix, Kabul, Afghanistan, and the circumstance was Soldier was within 150 meters of VBIED attack and IDF. Soldier performed response duties under fire with the Combined Special Operations Task Force – 10. Commander, Brigadier General T, approved action on 11 December 2020 and commented “I have reviewed the facts in this case and believe that the applicants actions warrant the award of the Combat Infantryman Badge in accordance with AR 600-8-22.” 8. A memorandum from Chief of Awards and Decorations Branch, HRC, to 5th Security Force Assistance Brigade, dated 25 February 2021, states HRC denied the request for award of the Combat Infantryman Badge. HRC states “In accordance with AR 600-8-22, paragraph 8-6f.(1) 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.” 9. Email traffic from 5th Security Force Assistance Brigade Senior Human Resources Non-Commissioned Officer questions the denial of the Combat Infantryman Badge. To which HRC Policy Chief for Awards and Decorations Branch states the applicants request for Combat Infantryman Badge didn’t meet the intent or qualification for the award. Based off the supporting documents provided, HRC states the applicant, or his unit did not engage the enemy in active ground combat, they took up a defensive position to secure the Forward Operating Base. 10. A memorandum from Brigade Judge Advocate, Major , assigned to 5th Security Force Assistance Brigade, dated 29 June 2021, provides a legal review for requirement of award of the Combat Infantryman Badge in accordance with AR 600-8-22. He states, in effect, the following: a. He determined that an individual service member need not have discharged his personal weapon while engaged in active ground combat to qualify for award of the Combat Infantryman Badge. b. AR 600-8-22, paragraph 8-6f, references criteria for award of the Combat Infantryman Badge, and he references the applicant meeting the criteria of being a Special Forces officer, assigned to combined special operation task force, and engaged in active ground combat, while present and performing Special Forces primary duty when his task force was attacked by the enemy with a VBIED and IDF. c. He states that nothing in AR 600-8-22 paragraph 8-6 requires a Soldier to fire his personal weapon, nor does it require an individual Soldier to destroy an enemy with direct fires. 11. A memorandum for record from 5th Security Force Assistance Brigade, from Colonel C, Commanding, dated 23 May 2022 states he believes the disapproval does not correct a clear injustice of not awarding the Combat Infantryman Badge to the applicant while he engaged in combat in Afghanistan in 2012. Due to supporting documentation sent, he finds no reason the Army Board for Correction of Military Records should not immediately correct the applicants record. 12. Regulatory guidance states 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. BOARD DISCUSSION: After reviewing the application, all supporting documents, and the evidence found within the military record, the Board determined that relief was not warranted. The Board carefully considered the applicant’s contentions, the military record, and regulatory guidance. The Board recognized that based on witness accounts, the applicant experienced a Vehicle-Borne Improvised Explosive Device and indirect fire. The Board also recognized that indirect and direct fire are different. Generally, direct fire is more pertinent to the award of the CIB as there is more clear involvement of a Soldier engaging with the enemy. The indirect fire experience clearly demonstrates that the applicant took cover; however, the Board concurred with the Human Resource Command finding insufficient evidence of direct fire to warrant a recommendation for relief. 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 Board determined 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, 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 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 15-185 (Army Board for Correction of Military Records), paragraph 2-11, states applicants do not have a right to a formal hearing before the ABCMR. The Director of the ABCMR may grant a formal hearing whenever justice requires. 3. Army Regulation 600-8-22 (Military Awards), prescribes Army policy, criteria, and administrative instructions concerning individual and unit military awards. Paragraph 8-6 (Combat Infantryman Badge) of this regulation provides, in part, a Soldier must meet the following three requirements to be eligible for award of the Combat Infantryman Badge: * be an Army infantry officer in the grade of Colonel/O–6 or below, or an Army enlisted Soldier or warrant officer with an infantry MOS * be assigned to an infantry unit of either a brigade, regimental, or smaller size during such time as the unit is engaged in active ground combat * must actively participate in such ground combat; campaign or battle credit alone is not sufficient for award of the Combat Infantryman Badge //NOTHING FOLLOWS// ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont) AR20220008163 1 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 1