IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 30 August 2023 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20230001439 APPLICANT REQUESTS: * Reversal of the U.S. Army Human Resources Command (AHRC) denial to be awarded the Combat Action Badge * personal appearance before the Board APPLICANT'S SUPPORTING DOCUMENT(S) CONSIDERED BY THE BOARD: * DD Form 149 (Application for Correction of Military Record) * Exhibit List * Tab A - Memorandum to the Board from the Applicant * Tab B - Enclosure 1 - DA Form 4187 (Personnel Action), 14 July 2020 * Memorandum for AHRC Request for Combat Action Badge * Tab B - Enclosure 2 - DA Form 4187, 21 December 2019 * Tab C - Enclosure 1 – Memorandum, Subject: 244th Engineer Vertical Construction Company Combat Action Badge Review * Memorandum for Record (MFR), Subject: 253rd Engineer Battalion (En Bn) Over the Horizon (OTH) * DA Form 2823 (Sworn Statement) Commander * DA Form 4187, 21 December 2019 * Attack Imagery Pictures * Memorandum, Subject: Delegation of Wartime Awards Approval Authority * Tab C - Enclosure 2 – MFR, Subject: 253rd En Bn OTH * Tab C - Enclosure 3 – Memorandum, Subject: Retroactive Combat Action Badge * Tab C Enclosure 4 - Letter from Army Board for Correction of Military Record (ABCMR) letter * Tab D - Narrative of Combat Engagement * Tab E - Enclosure 1 - Notary Copy Certification * DA Form 2823, Applicant * Tab E - Enclosure 2 - Notary Copy Certification * DA Form 2823, Commander * Tab E - Enclosure 3 - Notary Copy Certification * DA Form 2823, Sergeant First Class (SFC) - * Tab F - Orders Number BL-091-0216 Temporary Change of Station (TCS) Orders * Orders Number BL-091-0216 (A1) Amendment one to TCS Orders * Orders Number BL-091-0216 (A2) Amendment two to TCS Orders * Tab G - DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty) * Enlisted Record Brief (ERB) FACTS: 1. The applicant did not file within the 3-year time frame provided in Title 10, U.S. Code (USC), 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 respectfully requests award of the Combat Action Badge and that it be added to his military record for an attack that occurred at Bagram Airfield (BAF), Afghanistan, on 11 December 2019, while he was present and performing his duties as a medic assigned to the 244th Engineer Company (En Co). He believes he is eligible for the Combat Action Badge because he has met the eligibility requirements outlined in Army Regulation (AR) 600-8-22 (Military Awards) paragraph 8- 8d(2). He respectfully requests that the supporting documents be reviewed, and his record be amended for the sake of correctness. 3. The applicant's service record contains the following documents for the Board's consideration: a. DD Form 4 (Enlistment/Reenlistment Document Armed Forces of the United States) shows the applicant enlisted in the Army National Guard (ARNG) on 10 February 2012 for a period of 8 years. He continued his service in the ARNG through extensions of his enlistment. b. Orders Number 22-034-0100, published by the State of Maryland, Military Department, Fifth Regiment Armory, dated 3 February 2019, the applicant was ordered to active duty in support of Operation Enduring Freedom (Spartan Shield) for a period of 368 days with a report date to the mobilization station on 3 March 2019. c. Orders Number BL-091-0216, published by Headquarters, United States Army Garrison, Fort Bliss, dated 1 April 2019 deployed the applicant in a TCS status in support of Operation Enduring Freedom (Spartan Shield) for a period of 333 days with a proceed date on or about 4 April 2019. d. MFR, Subject: Shoulder Sleeve Insignia - Former Wartime Service (SSI-FWTS) for 225th Engineer Brigade (En Bde), dated 23 August 2019 entitled the applicant to wear the 225th En Bde SSI-FWTS. e. MFR, Subject: Statement of Wartime Service and Authorization to Wear Awards and Decorations, dated 9 November 2019 certified the applicant completed wartime service in support of Operation Freedom's Sentinel in Kabul, Afghanistan, from July 2019 to December 2019 with the United States Forces - Afghanistan (USFOR-A). f. North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) Medal Certificate showing the applicant was awarded the NATO Medal for service with NATO in relation to the Resolute Support Mission in Afghanistan from 11 July 2019 through 15 December 2019. g. DD Form 214 shows the applicant, as a member of the ARNG, entered active duty on 28 February 2019 as a 68W (Health Care Specialist) and was honorably released from active duty on 20 February 2020. He completed 11 months and 23 days of active duty service. He had service in Kuwait from 10 April 2019 through 10 July 2019 and from 23 December 2019 through 1 January 2020. He had service in Afghanistan from 11 July 2019 through 22 December 2019. His DD Form 214, item 13 (Decorations, Medals, Badges, Citations and Campaign Ribbons Awarded or Authorized) was void of award of the Combat Action Badge. h. The applicant's service record is void of permanent orders showing he was awarded the Combat Action Badge. 4. The applicant provides the following documents for the Board's consideration: a. Memorandum to the Board from the applicant, dated 14 November 2022, which states, in effect: (1) The purpose of the memorandum is to explain the applicant's application for correction of his military record to add the Combat Action Badge award. First, he will describe the events of the attack in which he was present (assigned to the 244th En Co as a medic) and reference the enclosed supporting documentation. Second, he will explain the routing of the Combat Action Badge packet and why he is applying to the Board for correction. Lastly, he will expand on his behalf on why the record should be amended for correctness. (2) On 11 December 2019, a complex attack occurred at BAF when the applicant was present and performing his duties as a medic. Tab D of his supporting documents narrates the events of the attack. The narration is supported by his personal sworn statement, at Tab E, and the two eyewitness statements of Soldiers who witnessed the applicant in the performance of his duties that day. The Unit Commander, Captain (CPT) - and a Platoon Sergeant SFC both indicated in their statements that they witnessed the applicant: * move to the company Area of Operation (AO) during the enemy engagement immediately after the first Vehicle Borne Improvised Explosive Device (VBIED) impacted the outer perimeter wall in the morning * set up a hasty Casualty Collection Point (CCP) within 100 to 150 meters of the ongoing enemy small arms fire, in which he was within the line of sight of fire * moved to an injured Soldier and treated him for an injury to his face within 70 meters of the ongoing enemy small arms fire within direct line of sight of enemy fire * moved back to his hasty CCP once again within 100 to 150 meters of the enemy (3) Further supporting documents are found in Tab C - Enclosure 2 - MFR by the commander of (USFOR-A), Colonel (COL) where he described accounts from his perspective, while on the ground. Tab C - Enclosure 1 - written by CPT also includes picture evidence in the enclosures of the memorandum of the destruction to their AO due to the engagement with Taliban insurgents. (4) He has submitted requests for consideration of the Combat Action Badge to all lower levels, exhausting every option before applying to the Board. A timeline of his submissions are as follows: * 21 December 2019, original submission incorrectly routed through 225th En Bde (Louisiana ARNG) Commander through S-1 in Kuwait * 14 July 2020, submitted again to Maryland ARNG (MDARNG) Commander of 581st Troop Command (TC) S-1, to MDARNG G-1 * 18 November 2020, submitted to AHRC through the National Guard Bureau (NGB), originally interpreted as a denial * 15 March 2021, submitted to the ABCMR through ACTS online * 10 January 2022, ABCMR application returned without action, stating the email correspondence from AHRC did not constitute a denial of the Combat Action Badge * 31 January 2022, resubmitted to AHRC from MDARNG G-1 through the NGB * 18 April 2022, AHRC officially denied the retroactive award of the Combat Action Badge, stating the forwarded packet did not indicate he met the requirements for awarding of the Combat Action Badge (5) According to AR 600-8-22, paragraph 8-8d(2), the enclosed evidence supports his claim that he has met the eligibility requirements for award of the Combat Action Badge. To quote the regulation and tie his supporting evidence, "must be personally present and under hostile fire while performing satisfactorily in accordance with the prescribed rules of engagement." (6) Tab C - Enclosure 2 [1] - Memorandum for Brigadier General (BG) B- shows picture evidence of the destruction in their immediate area as the Taliban insurgent's small arms and mortar fire was indiscriminate. (7) Tab C - Enclosure 2 - MFR paragraph 4 supports his claim that members of his unit and he were present and under hostile fire and within effective range of Taliban small arms fire as it was their unit that staged the Military Heavy Equipment and flatbed vehicles around their Tactical Operations Center (TOC), along with his hasty CCP. (8) Tab E - Enclosures 2 and 3, CPT - and SFC 's sworn eyewitness statements describe accounts of witnessing the applicant performing his actions satisfactorily for his company commander and most senior enlisted leader on the ground. (9) AR 600-8-22 states, "in an area where hostile fire pay or imminent danger pay is authorized", which is support by Tab F, his deployment orders. (10) AR 600-8-22 states, "a Soldier must be performing in an offensive or defensive act, while participating in combat operations, engaging, or being engaged by the enemy." (11) Tab E - Enclosure 1 - the applicant's personal statement describes more than one defensive act he conducted while participating in combat operations and being engaged by the enemy. To highlight one, the 21st line down the paragraph states, "I made it to the gun pit, I was approximately 70 meters from the enemy combatants who continued to administer small arms fire down to the post. I moved the injured Soldier to the cover of Hesco barriers, which ran parallel to the complex that the enemy occupied." Moving the injured Soldier is a defensive act in accordance with standard guidelines of Tactical Combat Casualty Care. (12) Tab E - Enclosures 2 and 3 - CPT -and SFC -'s eyewitness statements corroborate the applicant's actions performed that day. To quote CPT "I directed SFC - to help set up a defense position using our Mine Resistant Ambush Protected (MRAP) system....I directed the applicant to set up a hasty CCP under the cover of the MRAP...without hesitation, the applicant set up a hasty CCP and informed me and the Quick Reaction Force (QRF) when he was ready to take any injuries." Once again, performing in a defensive act as ordered by his company commander. (13) AR 600-8-22 states, "A Soldier must be performing their assigned duties associated with the unit's combat mission." (14) Both CPT - and SFC describe in their eyewitness statements that the applicant was no further than 150 meters from the enemy and as close as 70 meters, within direct line of sight of fire in multiple instances. To quote SFC -, "The applicant performed his duties as the company medic establishing the CCP and treating injured Soldiers, during stressful hostile actions where enemy combatants could have injured or killed him. " (15) For the reasons noted above, the applicant respectfully requests his record be amended awarding him the Combat Action Badge based on the actions described above along with the provided supporting documentation. b. Tab B - Enclosure 1 - DA Form 4187, dated 14 July 2020, thru 58th TC, to AHRC, requesting the applicant be awarded the Combat Action Badge for personally being engaged by the enemy on 11 December 2019 in Bagram, Afghanistan. The applicant was within 100 to 150 meters of small arms fire and performed duties as the company medic, during engagement. His unit was ordered to perform engineer operations, during a complex attack in Bagram, Afghanistan. The applicant's chain of command recommended approval of the award. There was no data in the approval authority section of the document. c. Memorandum for AHRC, from BG -, the commander of the MDARNG, dated 24 November 2020, Subject: Request for Award of the Combat Action Badge (Retroactive), which states, in effect: (1) The BG recommended the retroactive award of the Combat Action Badge for the applicant as requested on the DA Form 4187 and supporting documentation for being involved in a direct and indirect fire incident in Afghanistan in December 2019. (2) The applicant's unit commander, during the deployment, had asserted the original request for the Combat Action Badge was incorrectly disapproved based on the original DA Form 4187 being incorrect, the routing used for review of the original packet was incorrect, the disapproval of the packet at the COL level without a delegation of authority was incorrect. (3) Based on the claims, the BG was satisfied the applicant did properly follow the rules of engagement and his Combat Action Badge request should be reevaluated and given a fair review. d. Tab B - Enclosure 2 - DA Form 4187, dated 21 December 2019, thru Commander, 253rd En Bn, to Commander, 255th En Bde, requesting the Combat Action Badge for the applicant. It states, following the initial blast at 0605 on 11 December 2019, members of the Engineer Companies made their way to the TOC location situated next to the Korean Hospital where the medics set up a hasty CCP, wile other members started to bring heavy earth moving equipment over in preparation for emergent engineer operations. Members prepared all equipment, while coalition bombing was taking place. The applicant's intermediate commander recommended approval and his Brigade Commander recommended disapproval stating "disapproved due to Soldier not performing their assigned duties associated with the unit's combat mission in accordance with AR 600-8-22. "Engineer operations did not begin until after threat was eliminated." There was no data in the approval authority section of the document. e. Tab C - Enclosure 1 - Memorandum from the applicant's commander Subject: 244th Engineer Vertical Construction Company (EVCC), 11 December 2019 Combat Action Badge Review, dated 9 September 2020, which states, in effect: (1) The memorandum was to discuss the validity of both administrative routing and approval and contextual disapproval of the Combat Action Badge packets of the Soldiers of the 244th EVCC for the events that occurred on 11 December 2019 at BAF, Afghanistan. The evidence and statements below are to prove the following: * the reason for disapproval on every DA Form 1487 for the event was incorrect * the disapproval of the Combat Action Badge packets at the COL level without a delegation of authority was incorrect (2) A summary of the events that occurred from 0605, 11 December 2019 to 0900, 12 December 2019 provides evidence that the Soldiers were, in fact, conducting engineer operations and their assigned duties as ordered by COL - and Lieutenant Colonel (LTC) -. (3) On 11 December 2019, at 0605, a Suicide VBIED (SVBIED) detonated on the north wall of BAF, directly adjacent to the building known as the "Korean Hospital" starting a complex attack that was supported by up to 12 enemy with small arms suicide vests. (4) The SVBIED destroyed roughly 150 feet of outer concrete protective walls known as T-walls and did significant damage to other structures across the entire post. After the initial explosion, the enemy, on foot, infiltrated the Korean Hospital compound and occupied several of the buildings. In particular, they occupied a building that looked over the interior wall towards Bagram and gave them direct line of site to the area directly in front of the commander's company command post. (5) As commander of the 244th EVCC, he spoke with Mr. -, Physical Security Director, and COL - about the situation. COL - tasked the commander to lead the Engineer efforts to replace the damaged wall. (6) LTC - was at BAF, on 11 December 2019, and was aware of the actions taking place. She additionally authorized the movement and position of the commander's Soldiers as part of the Engineer efforts. As the leader of the engineer team throughout the day, the commander briefed COL -, LTC -, LTC -, the force protection command team, and the BAF command team on the current engineer situation and plan to resecure Bagram through Engineer operations. In each briefing, the commander's plans were approved, and he was told to continue with his plan. (7) Because of the proximity of the VBIED and subsequent small arms attack on Bagram to the Company Command Post and staging area, from roughly 0730 to 2100, the Soldiers of the 244th EVCC were satisfactorily conducting their assigned Engineer Operations in a defensive act, while directly under threat of enemy action through small arms fire. (8) At roughly 2100, 11 December 2019, 244th EVCC in coordination with Force Protection Elements, Route Clearance, and Explosive Ordinance Disposal breached the outer wall of Bagram and created a new path to the outer wall of the Korean Hospital, as shown in the photographs (enclosure 4). (9) From 2100, 11 December 2019, to 0900, 12 December 2019, the 244th EVCC worked with other supporting elements to clear the affected area and replace the damaged defenses. In that repair process, several Unexploded Ordnances, including at least one undetonated suicide vest, were identified in the AO. (10) The 244th EVCC was deployed to Kuwait under the 255th En Bde and 253rd En Bn in April 2019. In July 2019, the 244th EVCC was placed under operational control to Joint Engineers Afghanistan (JENG-A) based out of Bagram, Afghanistan. After completion of the mission on 11-12 December 2019, we communicated with LTC - about the submittal of Combat Action Badge packets. He stated that he would read the packets and most likely recommend approval to submit through the J 1 in accordance with General -'s, Commander of USFOR-A, Delegation of Wartime Awards Approval Authority. (11) LTC G- then simultaneously communicated with S-1 at the 255th En Bn. LTC - ordered the commander to submit the requests for award of the Combat Action Badge through her at the 253rd En Bn to the 255th En Bde because the unit remained Administrative Control (ADCON) to those units and needed to process the unit's administrative actions through those units. (12) The commander complied with the order and submitted their Combat Action Badge packets on 21 December 2019 through the 253rd En Bn and 255th En Bde, where the unit was ADCON, instead of through JENG-A and USFOR-A where they were Operational Control (OPCON). LTC - recommended approval on each DA Form 4187. On 21 December 2019, CPT -, S-1 of the 253rd En Bn, emailed the commander stated all the Combat Action Badge packets were submitted to the 255th En Bde. (13) On 2 January 2020, the commander received an email from CPT - stating all of the DA Forms 4187 were returned disapproved by COL -. Based on AR 600-8-22, the commander is uncertain if COL - had the Delegation of Authority to disapprove the DA Forms 4187. The delegation of authority was not provided to the commander as part of the returned packets. This point, however, may be moot considering the packets were processed through the incorrect chain of command as discussed previously. (14) Since the DA Forms 4187 were processed through the incorrect chain of command for the event, each of them was invalid. Thus, the commander requested the Combat Action Badge packets be reprocessed in accordance with AR 600-8-22 through the 244th EVCC's current chain of command to Commander, AHRC for evaluation. f. MFR from COL D- -, dated 4 February 2020, which states, in effect: (1) Soldiers of the 253rd En Bn (OTH) at BAF undertook action on 11 December 2019, at the direction of the COL, the Area Support Group-Afghanistan (ASG-A) Commander, which put them in close proximity to the enemy. (2) Approximately one hour and 30 minutes after the beginning of the complex attack, BG -, BAF Commander, directed the COL to plan an operation to close the Korean Hospital compound outer wall breech. Operations would begin shortly after the elimination of the 6 to 9 remaining insurgents trapped within the compound. (3) The COL immediately issued a warning order to his Operation and Maintenance (O&M) Engineer Team Chief, Mr. -, to gather requirements including the Materials Handling Equipment (MHE) and T-walls, to replace the wall. Mr. - responded that OTH Engineers would be required to accomplish the mission. The COL approved him for direct line of authority with OTH leadership to set conditions. Subsequently, ASG-A O&M and OTH Soldiers gathered and staged MHE and flatbed mounted T-walls outside the OTH Company Headquarters. (4) The COL coordinated with the Battalion Assault Force protection battalion S-3, Major -, on a general scheme to maneuver and force protection plan, then moved via foot to the OTH Company Headquarters to provide more specific planning directives to OTH and O&M leadership. He noticed that OTH Company Headquarters was only 250 to 200 meters from the VBIED explosion site and 100 to 150 meters from the outer wall of the Korean Hospital complex, over which Taliban insurgents were still firing. A number of armed MHE vehicles and flatbeds were staged next to it, indicating that Soldiers who staged the equipment there had been in the line of fire of the enemy. (5) The COL provided imagery depicting the planned axis of advance of the reconstruction team, general maneuver guidance, and appointed CPT -, OTH En Co Commander, as the officer in charge of the reconstruction effort. He subsequently completed planning with force protection elements and led the reconstruction effort, which began the evening of 11 December 2019 and was completed on or about 1200, 12 December 2019. g. DA Form 2823 for CPT -, dated 14 July 2020, which reiterates the details of the VBIED and small arms fire at BAF on 11 December 2019 and the actions they took subsequent to the VBIED and small arms fire. The sworn statement does not specifically detail the actions of the applicant. h. DA Form 4187 for CPT requesting award of the Combat Action Badge, dated 21 December 2019, thru the Commander, 253rd En Bn, to Commander, 255th En Bde. The Bn Commander approved the award, and the Bde Commander disapproved the award. i. Photos of the attack imagery of the attack on BAF. j. Memorandum for USFOR-A dated 1 March 2019, Subject: Delegation of Wartime Awards Approval Authority, which delegated the authority to U.S. Army Lieutenant General Commanders and U.S. Army Major General Commanders to approve combat badges to U.S. Military assigned, attached, or OPCON to their units. k. Tab C - Enclosure 2 - A duplicate of the MFR from COL - , dated 4 February 2020. l. Tab C - Enclosure 3 - Memorandum from AHRC, dated 18 April 2022, Subject: Retroactive Combat Action Badge For the applicant, which states in effect: (1) The request for retroactive award of the Combat Action Badge to the applicant was disapproved. The documentation submitted in support of the request did not provide sufficient justification to warrant retroactive approval for the incident in question. (2) The Army Combat Action Badge was created in 2005 by the Chief of Staff, Army to provide special recognition to Soldiers who personally engage or are engaged by the enemy. The Combat Action Badge is intended to serve as a companion to the Combat Infantryman Badge and Combat Medical Badge to recognize the greatly expanded role of non-infantry Soldiers in active, ground combat. The Combat Action Badge is designed to recognize the non-infantry Soldier, whose daily mission, similar to Infantry, is to close with and destroy the enemy. (3) Per AR 600-8-22, paragraph 8-8, a Soldier must be personally present and under hostile fire, while performing satisfactorily in accordance with the prescribed rules of engagement. Further, for all conflicts on or after 5 March 2019, Soldiers must be performing an offensive or defensive act while participating in combat operations, engaging, or being engaged by the enemy. The forwarded packet did not indicate the applicant met these requirements. (4) AHRC, advised the applicant could go to the Board to appeal their decision. Although AHRC's response was not favorable, the determination in no way reflected negatively on the applicant's service on behalf of our Nation. m. Tab C - Enclosure 4 - Letter from the ABCMR, dated 10 January 2022, a review of the applicant's records indicated he had not formally applied to the AHRC. The information he provided did not constitute a formal denial from AHRC. He needed to request retroactive award of the Combat Action Badge through his chain of command to AHRC prior to the Board taking action in his case. The application was returned without prejudice or action by the Board. n. Tab D - Narrative of Combat Engagement 244th En Co, OTH, which reiterates the attack at BAF on 11 December 2019. It specifically states, "During this incident, the applicant, of the 244th En Co OTH was attached to the USFOR-A Joint Engineering Division, 253rd En Bn, 244th En Co OTH and on duty in Bagram, Afghanistan. The applicant was acting as the company medic and under OPCON of the Commander of Bagram Air Base, during this battle. o. Tab E - Enclosure 1 - Notary Copy Certification stating the DA Form 2823 of the applicant was a true, correct, complete, and unaltered copy. DA Form 2823 of the applicant, dated 12 July 2020, states, in effect: (1) The applicant was assigned as the company medic of the 244th En Co while deployed to Afghanistan supporting OTH Engineer Operations in Bagram. On 11 December 2019, a VBIED struct the outer perimeter of BAF at approximately 0605. (2) The applicant linked up with his Company Commander immediately following the blast who directed and ordered the applicant and a couple of other Soldiers to grab their equipment and move to the Company TOC to secure their AO and to prepare for a potential engineer mission to close the wall breach. (3) The applicant moved to the TOC on foot from his barracks in a tactical column with CPT - and five other Soldiers. Once they made it to the building across from their TOC, they used a couple of connect containers for cover as there was an ongoing gunfight between QRF and enemy combatants that held a rooftop position shooting small arms fire into the post approximately 150 meters from them. (4) CPT - peaked around the cover, then turned back to the column and ordered them to bound in pairs from the cover of the containers to the threshold of their TOC with one of the Soldiers providing overwatch. The applicant paired with CPT - A and they sprinted into the TOC with small arms fire coming down from the enemy who held the rooftop roughly 100 to 150 meters from them. They made it into the TOC around 0805. (5) Once every Soldier from their column made it into the TOC, CPT - gave them multiple simultaneous orders. He ordered the applicant to set up a hasty CCP outside in front of their TOC. The applicant grabbed his aid bag and a patient litter and moved outside in front of the TOC to set up. (6) SFC - was ordered to set up an MRAP vehicle and parked it directly in front of the applicant and the TOC threshold where the front door had been blown off and destroyed by the initial blast to provide the applicant with cover as the small arms fire came down. (7) The applicant held in his hasty CCP behind the MRAP with small arms fire coming down until roughly 1000. It was about this time that a first lieutenant (1LT) from the Field Artillery unit, located next to their TOC, came up to them asking for CPT -. The 1LT requested medical aid for one of the Soldiers at the Field Artillery pit for an injury sustained from the blast as they had no medical personnel with them. (8) CPT ordered the applicant to grab his aid bag and move to the Field Artillery gun pit. Once he made it to into the gun pit, he was approximately 70 meters from the enemy combatants who continued to administer small arms fire down to the post. (9) The applicant moved the injured Soldier to cover of the Hesco barriers, which ran parallel to the complex that the enemy occupied. The applicant treated the Soldier for a laceration above his right eye. He cleaned and bandaged the wound, provided pain medication, and performed a Military Acute Concussion Examination (MACE) test. He then returned to the TOC carefully from cover to cover to return to his hasty CCP approximately 100 to 150 meters from the enemy combatants still firing down. (10) At approximately 1130, the applicant witnessed the majority of 244th En Co OTH Soldiers were all present at the TOC, prepping for emergent engineer operations by staging a multitude of vehicles and equipment around their TOC. (11) The applicant remained present at the TOC within 100 to 150 meters from the attack until the engagement concluded at approximately 2100, only leaving for a brief hour in the afternoon with the battalion commander down Disney Road to the Morale Welfare and Recreation building to perform MACE tests for Headquarters and Headquarters Company Soldiers that were sheltering in place. (12) Once the company was given the green light to move out to the breach sight, the applicant moved with SFC - using his MRAP as a casualty evacuation vehicle out to the sight where the applicant remained for medical coverage of the engineers until 0700 the next morning when he was relieved by another medic. At the breach sight he noticed one enemy killed in action on the ground and multiple shell casing of 7.62mm rounds. p. Tab E - Enclosure 2 - Notary Copy Certification stating the DA Form 2823 of CPT - was a true, correct, complete, and unaltered copy. DA Form 2823 of CPT , dated 14 July 2020, which reiterates the statement provided in the applicant's DA Form 2823. q. Tab E - Enclosure 3 - Notary Copy Certification stating the DA Form 2823 of SFC - was a true, correct, complete, and unaltered copy. DA Form 2823 of SFC -, dated 12 July 2020, which reiterates the statement provided in the applicant's DA Form 2823. r. Tab F - Orders Number BL-091-0216, dated 1 April 2019, the applicant's TCS orders, which were present in his service record. These orders were amended by Orders Number BL-091-0216 (A1), published by Headquarters, United States Garrison, Fort Bliss, dated 31 July 2019 by adding the accounting code, and by Orders Number BL-091-0216 (A2), same Headquarters, dated 1 August 2019, adding the comment "Soldier will also perform duty at Afghanistan." s. The applicant's ERB, dated 12 October 2020, which shows his service in Afghanistan but is void of the Combat Action Badge. BOARD DISCUSSION: 1. After reviewing the application, all supporting documents, and the evidence found within the military record, the Board found that partial relief was warranted. The Board carefully considered the applicant's record of service, documents submitted in support of the petition and executed a comprehensive and standard review based on law, policy and regulation. Upon review of the applicant’s petition, available military records, Recruiting and Retention Battalion memorandum and U.S. Human Resources Command (HRC) denial letter, the Board agreed with the HRC recommendation finding the applicant did not meet the criteria for award of the combat action badge based on his personal statements in addition to the witness statements provide as supporting evidence. However, the Board determined the applicant served as a health care specialist on a dedicated medical team and provided lifesaving care to patient under enemy fire. The Board agreed evidence supports awarding the Combat Medical Badge for performing duties under fire. Based on governing regulation the applicant met the criteria to be awarded the Combat Medical Badge. Therefore, the Board granted partial relief 2. 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. BOARD VOTE: Mbr 1 Mbr 2 Mbr 3 : : : GRANT FULL RELIEF :X :X :X GRANT PARTIAL RELIEF : : : GRANT FORMAL HEARING : : : DENY APPLICATION ? BOARD DETERMINATION/RECOMMENDATION: 1. The Board determined the evidence presented is sufficient to warrant a recommendation for partial relief. As a result, the Board recommends that all Department of the Army records of the individual concerned be corrected by adding in item 24 (Decorations, Medals, Badges, Citations and Campaign Ribbons Awarded or Authorized): Combat Medical Badge. 2. The Board further determined the evidence presented is insufficient to warrant a portion of the requested relief. As a result, the Board recommends denial of so much of the application that pertains to award of the Combat Action Badge. 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. AR 600-8-22 (Military Awards), prescribes Department of the Army (DA) policy, criteria, and administrative instructions concerning individual and unit military awards. Paragraph 8–8 (Combat Action Badge), on 2 May 2005, the Chief of Staff of the Army approved the creation of the Combat Action Badge to provide special recognition to Soldiers who personally engaged, or are engaged by, the enemy. The Combat Action Badge is intended to serve as a companion to the Combat Infantryman Badge and Combat Medical Badge to recognize the greatly expanded role of non-infantry Soldiers in active, ground combat. The requirement for award of the Combat Action Badge are branch and military occupational specialty immaterial. Assignment to a combat arms unit or a unit organized to conduct close or offensive operations or performing offense combat operations is not required to qualify for the Combat Action Badge. The Combat Action Badge 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. The requirements for award of the Combat Action Badge are: * may be awarded to any Soldier * 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 * Soldier must also be performing in an offensive or defensive act while participating in combat operations, engaging, or being engaged by the enemy * 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 * Soldier must not be assigned or attached to a unit that would qualify the Soldier for the Combat Infantryman Badge and/or Combat Medical Badge (1) Retroactive awards of the Combat Action Badge are not authorized prior to 18 September 2001. Award of the Combat Action Badge is authorized for the following operations (award for qualifying service in any previous conflict is not authorized): * Afghanistan (Operation Enduring Freedom, 18 September 2001 to 31 December 2014; Operation Freedom Sentinel, 1 January 2015 to a date to be determined) * Iraq (Operation Iraqi Freedom, 19 March 2003 to 31 August 2010; Operation New Dawn, 1 September 2010 to 31 December 2011) * Operation Inherent Resolve, 15 June 2014 to a date to be determined The CAB may be awarded as follows: * Wartime awards approval authority; When delegated wartime awards approval authority by the Secretary of the Army (or his or her designee), the following authorities apply: * Brigade commander level for Soldiers assigned to, attached to, or under the operational control of brigade-level or smaller units * first general officer in the chain of command for Soldiers assigned to units at echelons above brigade * next higher general officer in the chain for award to a general officer when no authority applies or has not been delegated, recommendations will be submitted through command channels to HRC, Awards and Decoration Branch for processing. (2) Retroactive award of the Combat Action Badge is authorized for time periods specified above for fully qualified individuals. (a) The wartime command retains wartime awards approval authority for 12-months after re-deployment and can approve award of the Combat Action Badge for Soldiers who deployed with their command, and qualified for, but did not receive the Combat Action Badge during the deployment. (b) Soldiers redeployed more than 12-months or reassigned to a command other than their wartime command and qualified for the Combat Action Badge while deployed may request award through command channels to HRC. The DA Form 4187 with endorsement by the first general officer is not required. All other criteria must be met. Requests for retroactive award of the Combat Action Badge will not be made except where evidence of injustice is presented. For requests submitted must include justification explaining why the Combat Action Badge was not awarded in theater. 2. AR 15-185 (ABCMR) prescribes the policies and procedures for correction of military records by the Secretary of the Army, acting through the ABCMR. 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. //NOTHING FOLLOWS// ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont) AR20230001439 1 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 1