Jump to content

Recipient of the DSC but not the CIB


Robersabel

Recommended Posts

DAVIS, ROBERT R. (MIA-KIA)
Synopsis:

The President of the United States takes pleasure in presenting the Distinguished Service Cross to Robert R. Davis (6569665), Private First Class, U.S. Army Air Forces, for extraordinary heroism in connection with military operations against an armed enemy while serving with the 21st Pursuit Squadron, 24th Pursuit Group, FAR EAST Air Force, in action against enemy forces on 8 December 1941 in the Southwest Pacific Area. Private First Class Davis' unquestionable valor is in keeping with the highest traditions of the military service and reflects great credit upon himself, the Far East Air Force, and the United States Army Air Forces.
Headquarters: South West Pacific Area, General Orders No. 37 (1942)
Home Town: Spokane, Washington

 

Discovered a document in a former POW's biography which instructs former members of the 21st PS among other units the process to receive the BSM [with] the CIB. After the USAR at St. Louis receives a request by letter, a DD Form 215 will be cut with Blocks 31 and 33 with the BSM and CIB identified.

 

However, today, the Army is denying all veterans of Bataan and Corregidor who do not meet circumstances listed in War Department Circulars dated 1944 and more recent.

 

The act in combat met circumstances listed in WDC's 269 and 105. WDC 105 amended 269 and was retroactive on or after 6 December 1941.

 

What is the answer to correct the injustice?

 

Robert

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm just grasping, but not being in an infantry unit would have a lot to do with the decision I would imagine.

Link to post
Share on other sites

>but not being in an infantry unit

 

Required to be assigned to an infantry unit 11 May 1944.

The battle of Bataan and Corregidor was 7 December 1941 to 10 May 1942. The requirement obviously did not apply to combat which was history in 1944.

 

Robert

Link to post
Share on other sites

>but not being in an infantry unit

 

Required to be assigned to an infantry unit 11 May 1944.

The battle of Bataan and Corregidor was 7 December 1941 to 10 May 1942. The requirement obviously did not apply to combat which was history in 1944.

 

Robert

 

 

How would anybody in the USAAF get the CIB when the badge was specifically created for the infantry specialty? This is why medics got the medics badge and tankers got nothing. The authorizing letter was simply invalid. They don't qualify.

 

-Ski

Link to post
Share on other sites
CHASEUSA11B

I respect that you are trying to do what you think is right however I don't think an award of a CIB is appropriate here. There have been countless arguments on whether non Infantry types who see ground combat (in many cases more than Infantryman) deserve a CIB but the bottom line is it is an Infantry award designed largely to inspire others to join the Infantry and take pride in their service as a grunt.

If this man was awarded a DSC for his service I don't think there is any intentional slighting. There are plenty of Army Medal Of Honor recipients who don't have CIB's and Id imagine they are all proud enough of their service and MOS.

As stated, the CIB was created after the Battles of Bataan and Corregidor and I think its going to be quite difficult to go back and argue an badge that has been awarded so inconsistently in the past. IE radio operators in Vietnam, Artillery fisters attached to Infantry units, general officers, etc. The awarding has been inconsistent to say the least but I think modern standards are finally pretty clear.

 

Do you have a copy of the document you mentioned with the instructions to receive the CIB? perhaps the document itself is incorrect or was later corrected.

 

Also, would a make a difference if the document didn't exist? If it did not- the man in questions service and sacrifice would not change and what he went through would still stand as a testament to the American fighting man in those terrible days.

Regardless of how much, how well, or how hard he fought the CIB would still not apply the same as it would not apply to all of the non-infantry types who have earned the Medal Of Honor.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Ski,

 

>and tankers got nothing.

 

I will let photographs displaying veterans of the 192nd and 194th Tank Battalions be evidence that the Combat Infantryman badge "may be awarded to any infantryman" No doubt there are others.

 

http://smg.photobucket.com/user/Robersabel/media/CIBToMembersOf192ndAnd194thTankBattalions0001_zpsf0702e57.jpg.html

 

I have hundreds of documents revealing award of the CIB to WWII veterans who possess various MOS’s and/or assigned to units other than infantry in the Pacific Theater of Operation and ETO.

 

http://smg.photobucket.com/user/Robersabel/media/CIB/AirmenAuthorizedCIB.jpg.html

 

Let's go all the way. Two guidelines apply to combatants involved in the battles of Bataan and Corregidor during the period of 7 December 1941 to 10 May 1942.

 

War Department Circular 269, date 27 October 1943 was initial guideline for the CIB. WDC 105, dated 13 March 1944 amended WDC 269 and retroactive on or after 6 December 1941.

 

Both guidelines do not require the combatant to be assigned to an infantry unit. The requirement was effective 13 May 1944. To make it simple, the CIB was earned during the period identified.

 

Both guidelines do not require the combatant to possess the MOS of an infantryman. The requirement was effective after WWII. Again, the CIB was earned during the period identified.

 

I would be happy to provide guidelines, documents and/or responses by the Army applying guidelines dated 1944, Vietnam era, and as recent as 1995 to acts performed during 1941 and early 1942.

 

 

Robert

Link to post
Share on other sites

To echo what Robersabel wrote, being an infantryman by MOS was not necessary. Below is a General Order awarding the CIB to Japanese-Americans serving with the 77th ID, these men were attached to an infantry unit to serve as interpreters.

Authorization for the award is listed in the first sentence.

 

CIB.jpg

Link to post
Share on other sites

Fair enough. Does this mean that a soldier had to be assigned or attached to an infantry unit to qualify? We should be seeing a lot more tankers and other MOS's with CIB's if the awarding criteria was so loosely adhered to.

 

Point taken though.

 

-Ski

Link to post
Share on other sites

Fair enough. Does this mean that a soldier had to be assigned or attached to an infantry unit to qualify? We should be seeing a lot more tankers and other MOS's with CIB's if the awarding criteria was so loosely adhered to.

 

Point taken though.

 

-Ski

 

That's a good question, Ski. I think the answer to your question lies in the Circulars and Radio RJ mentioned in the General Order, and possibly other War Department orders.

 

Kevin

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

That's a good question, Ski. I think the answer to your question lies in the Circulars and Radio RJ mentioned in the General Order, and possibly other War Department orders.

 

Kevin

 

 

And then again, how many CIB's were incorrectly awarded and subsequently cancelled by higher HQ....

 

-Ski

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

And then again, how many CIB's were incorrectly awarded and subsequently cancelled by higher HQ....

 

-Ski

 

Another good question. That would require a vast amount of hours to research, going thru thousands, possibly millions of General Orders to crack that nut.

 

Kevin

Link to post
Share on other sites

My Wife's Grandfather was a linesman by MOS, he was assigned to Company A, 59th Armored Infantry Battalion, 13th Armored Division and he received the CIB, which in turn qualified him for the Bronze Star. So, yes they did get awarded to non-infantry MOS holders.

Just to bring this full circle, I got one in Desert Storm as I was an 11b Infantryman. Then they rescinded it because I was assigned to a transportation unit. The Army does what the Army wants to do, its the only certainty. Scott.

Link to post
Share on other sites

To echo what Robersabel wrote, being an infantryman by MOS was not necessary. Below is a General Order awarding the CIB to Japanese-Americans serving with the 77th ID, these men were attached to an infantry unit to serve as interpreters.

Authorization for the award is listed in the first sentence.

 

CIB.jpg

Although they came from an intel unit, these men are listed as infantry branch. Also, there were many technically improper awards of the CIB in WWII. Technically, these should have been rescinded but w/ the end of the war nobody really cared. The PTO was especially loose w/ awards. Can you post the document mentioned in your first post? If you are seeking this award under the modern approval system, he doesn't qualify because he didn't belong to the infantry branch.

Link to post
Share on other sites

It seems that the common link is the attachment to an infantry unit for those not of the infantry MOS whether it was authorized or not.......

 

-Ski

Link to post
Share on other sites
Robersabel

The initial guideline identifying circumstances required to be met toards eligibilty for the CIB

post-2890-0-47802000-1372785781.jpg

Link to post
Share on other sites
Robersabel

WDC 105, page 2. Note para IV. Badge...Combat Infantryman badge may be awareded to any infantryman.

 

No requirement for MOS of an infantryman.

No requirement to be assigned to an infantry unit.

The two WDC's 269 and 105 solely apply to the time frame of the battles of Bataan and Corregidor.post-2890-0-01243400-1372786750.jpg

Link to post
Share on other sites
Robersabel

WDC 186 was the initial guideline to require combatant be assigned to infantry unit. Date effective: 11 May 1944.

 

Obviously battles of Bataan and Corregidor do not apply.

 

post-2890-0-08263100-1372787095.jpg

Link to post
Share on other sites
Robersabel

The initial guideline to require assigned to an infantry unit designated as infantry in tables of organization or tables of organization and equipment.

 

Does not apply to combatants of Bataan and Corregidor.

 

post-2890-0-44964800-1372787286.jpg

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 1 month later...

To echo what Robersabel wrote, being an infantryman by MOS was not necessary. Below is a General Order awarding the CIB to Japanese-Americans serving with the 77th ID, these men were attached to an infantry unit to serve as interpreters.

Authorization for the award is listed in the first sentence.

 

CIB.jpg

This is a tough one since the infantry MOS is present but the recipients were only attached and not assigned to an infantry unit. Technically, they did not qualify for the CIB. WD Cir 186 of 11 May 1944 clarifies that assignment to an infantry unit of regimental size or below was a requirement and the mention of a Tenth Army regulation dated 7 January 1945 clearly dates this document after then. This is a case that raises the questions of who, realistically, is going to make an issue of it. But as in so many situations in life, the exception or even mistake does not make the rule.

 

The initial guideline to require assigned to an infantry unit designated as infantry in tables of organization or tables of organization and equipment.

 

Does not apply to combatants of Bataan and Corregidor.

 

attachicon.gifCIB Circular 408.jpg

The only legitimate argument you may have that this circular does not apply to combatants of Bataan and Corregidor is a situation where orders were cut awarding the CIB to non-infantrymen prior to the adoption of WD Circular 408. Since the CIB did not exist when the Philippines fell, any orders awarding the badge to such individuals would necessarily have been issued after the end of the war. But at that point, the regulations had already been clarified to stipulate that the CIB was restricted to infantrymen serving in infantry units.

 

There has never been any automatic entitlement to the CIB. Therefore, any awards would have to be based on the regulations in effect when they were awarded, not "earned". That is why the boards of correction that have recently awarded CIB's to Bataan and Corregidor defenders from other than infantry units, while there motives may have been pure, were incorrect in their justification.

Link to post
Share on other sites
firefighter

Awards & Decorations – Combat Infantry Badge

More on awards and decorations posted by our resident expert Robert Johnson

*********************************************

An unknown number, perhaps thousands of combatants who fought the enemy during battles of Bataan and Corregidor were assigned to units not designated infantry before the war, and possessed the MOS other than infantry. The time period: 7 December 1941 to 10 May 1942.

Records reveal the U.S. Army and USAR approved the Combat Infantryman badge (CIB) to veterans who were assigned to AAF units, Provisional Air Corps organizations, tank battalions, coast artillery regiments, ordnance units, etc., post WWII to as recent as January 2003.

Justification for awarding the CIB was based on two War Department Circulars, 269 dated 27 October 1943 and 105 dated 13 March 1944. The latter amended the former WDC and made retroactive on or after 6 December 1941.

Circumstances did not include requirement(s) to be assigned to an infantry unit or possess the MOS of an infantryman. The former requirement was not listed until 11 May 1944. The latter circumstance was not required until after WWII.

Yet, for the past number of years, civilian employees representing three offices of the USA mirror their responses by justifying denials on guidelines after the fact. They are dated 1944, 1945, 1948 or as recent as the Vietnam era.

A document dated 10 March 1952 (in part) states: Eligibility of a veteran previously assigned to the 31st Infantry Regiment “caused a study to be made by a Board consisting of Air Force, Service Force, Ground Force, and a representative of the Adjutant General. The recommendation of General MacArthur were obtained. (It has been determined that General MacArthur did not say “No” to awarding the Combat Infantryman badge to this category of personnel. This office was mislead by part of a comment to this effect which has been placed in the policy file – see TAB B). Even though General MacArthur recommended that the Combat Infantryman badge be awarded to those that acted as Infantry in defense of the Philippines, the Board recommended and its recommendation were approved by Assistance Chief of Staff, G-1, that the award be confined to officers, warrant officers, and enlisted men assigned to Infantry Regiments, Infantry Battalions, and elements thereof designated as infantry in Table of Organization and Equipment.”

WDC 408, dated 17 October 1944,
“1. Eligibility.—Effective 1 November1944 the award of the expert Infantryman
badge and the combat Infantryman badge is restricted to officers, warrant officers,
and enlisted men assigned to infantry regiments, infantry battalions, and ele-
ments thereof designated as infantry in tables of organization or tables of organi-
zation and equipment.”

According to the wording of above two paragraphs, the Board consisting of Air Force, Service Force, Ground Force, a representative of the Adjutant General, and Assistance Chief of Staff, G-1 have violated the U.S. Constitution.

A local attorney (retired USAFR Colonel, former JAG Officer) provided a five page letter of legal opinion. He states (in part), application of later guideline(s) to facts surrounding the time frame of the event constitutes ex post facto application of law, specifically prohibited in the U.S. Constitution by the prohibitions in Article I, Section 9, Clause 3, against bills of attainder and ex post facto laws. Awards and decorations, like other rights, must be considered as of the date the benefit was earned. Application of different standards, arising out of different sensibilities in different wars, wreaks havoc on any sense of equal application of laws.

A letter dated 8 February 2013 responded to the NOK for the request of the CIB:
(in part) “As stated in our previous responses, we are unable to authorize award of the Combat
Infantryman Badge. In March of 1988 the Secretaries of the Army and Air Force agreed the
members of provisional Infantry units were not entitled to award of the Combat Infantryman Badge for their service during the defense of the Philippine Islands.”
(No justification presented for their decisions).

A letter dated 10 April 2012 responded to the NOK for the request of the CIB:
“In reference to awards of the Bronze Star Medal with one Bronze Oak Leaf Cluster and
Combat Infantryman Badge, we are unable to verify Technician Forth Class Bruntmyer’s
entitlement to the Combat Infantryman Badge and are therefore unable to verify his entitlement to an
additional award if the Bronze Star Medal. We note that in your request you state that the 7th
Material Squadron became part of both the 1st Provisional Air Corps Regiment and 2nd Provisional
Infantry Regiment. However, without documentation indicating your brother was assigned to
these units and performing these duties, we are unable to award the Combat Infantry Badge or
additional award of the Bronze Star Medal.”

(Have all recipients of the CIB provided evidence they performed “these duties”?)

The above responses are examples of how members and /or employees of the U.S. Army have provided an unbalance scale of recognition towards WWII combat veterans. It is common to locate a decision by the Army Board for Correction of Military Records denying veterans the Purple Heart and/or CIB based on guidelines after the fact.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 2 months later...

Perhaps I can clarify, because there is a lot of misinterpretation here about the War Department Circulars, the Combat Infantryman's Badge and the current regulation.

 

To begin with, the US Army does not retroactively award medals based on regulations at the time. They award them based on current regulations. That is the Army's policy, that's what it has been for decades. If you wish the US Army to change their awards policy, write them and ask. Good luck.

 

The current regulation is the AR 600-22-8 and it has a section on requesting a retroactive award of CIBs to anyone eligible. This regulation also establishes the eligibility requirements. In order to be awarded a CIB, you must have been a qualified, trained infantryman in an infantry unit. It has always been this way, since the creation of the CIB in 1943, by the already mentions War Department Circulars. The original WDC was a little vague, and so some CIBs were erroneously awarded. Later, it was rescinded and clarified. Many of those CIBs were also rescinded, but there were too many, and some of those erroneously awarded CIBs kept them. But they should never have been awarded them. So said the Secretary of the Army at the time. So, those non-infantry people that wave around their erroneously awarded CIBs should be careful (or those on their behalf) as someone might question that, and then correctly have them rescinded. They simply fell through the cracks.

 

The CIB was created for infantryman at the request of GEN Marshall to GEN McNair to recognize the sacrifices that infantryman were sustaining. At the time of the creation, not just the battle of the Philippinnes had taken place, infantry units had begun invasions at actions in the pacific islands and North Africa. So the first WDC does not particularly pertain to the Philippines or Bataan. Being attached to an infantry unit does not necessarily make one an infantryman. It is the same today as it was then. An infantryman serving in a non-infantry unit is not authorized a CIB either. And to clarify, the CIB is not an award, it is a qualification badge, as specified by AR 670-1. Incidentally, one of the reasons the CIB was created was because the Army had previously created the Air medal to recognize aviation personnel. So this idea that anyone who "fought as infantryman" is just not following the intent or the actual writing of the WDCs or regulations. None of them specify "any soldier that fights as infantryman" are awarded a CIB. All of them specify infantry personnel serving in infantry units. The highest ranking person authorized the CIB is a infantry brigade commander. An infantry commander of a soldier must make the recommendation for the award, so some general officer that thinks a someone should get a CIB is not a valid recommendation source, general or not. Generals are not branch specific, if you didn't know. For instance, General Patton, and a 2nd Armored Division commander, had engineers, infantry, cavalry, signal, etc, etc, personnel in his division. But I think everyone knows he was a famous cavalryman turned armor leader. He would not have been authorized a CIB or to even recommend the award of one. That's the way the WDCs are worded, and the current regulation is. Displaying images of incorrectly awarded CIB recipients does not change the regulation or policy. In fact, those awards would be in violation of the Stolen Valor Act, which of course, we know the current administration would never enforce. However, incorrectly awarded medals or qualification badges can easily be removed.

 

As an example, currently, in the Army, if your records are reviewed by any authority and they determine that you are not eligible for something you have, such as an allowance, your rank, a medal or almost anything, it can be rescinded immediately. If it is determined you knowingly had anything to do with that incorrectness, you can be considered for punishment under UCMJ. So if those veterans that have CIBs that wish to keep them and weren't authorized them, they really ought to keep that info to themselves.

 

I contacted the awards branch about two years ago. The above answer about the CIB was given to me by them.

 

For the record, I was in infantryman for 24 years. I have the qualification badge of Expert Infantryman Badge and Combat Infantryman Badge, 2nd Award. I am a member of the National Infantry Association and Combat Infantryman Association. My grandfather commanded an infantry regiment on Bataan in 1942 (57th IN REG, PS) and he was awarded a CIB. There were not many infantryman on Bataan in 1942, only three regiments. They sustained the highest casualties and performed the majority of the fighting during that conflict. That is why the CIB was created. One can debate or interpret it any way they want. They did not use the term "MOS" in 1942, but they certainly used the term and concept of branch, and so the end of the story is that only infantryman (a trained, infantry branch soldier) in a infantry unit (created and organized in the US Army and designated "Infantry") can be awarded a CIB. Interestingly, it's the same for the EIB, and I don't see any none infantry personnel lining up for that one. Maybe because to earn that qualification badge, one must go through about three weeks of intensive physical testing, road marches and infantry skill tasks, and many fail that testing; many infantryman never earn an EIB. Yet the EIB is mentioned even in the WDC. I personally think that one should not be awarded a CIB, unless they have earned an EIB first. By regulation, the EIB is a level of the CIB award; if you have a CIB, you cannot even wear your EIB as the CIB is considered the higher level.

 

Only infantryman in infantry units may be awarded the CIB. That's been the policy since 1943. I don't see any reason to change it, or not adhere to it.

Link to post
Share on other sites
I personally think that one should not be awarded a CIB, unless they have earned an EIB first. By regulation, the EIB is a level of the CIB award; if you have a CIB, you cannot even wear your EIB as the CIB is considered the higher level.

I agree with 99% of what you have posted and especially the suggestion that some of those seeking to stir this issue up for non-infantrymen who were awarded the CIB uner questionable circumstances should probably keep quiet for fear of having their badges revoked if they attract too much attention to themselves through proper military channels. Despite some admittedly ambiguous language in the early CIB regs that unfortunately opened the door to the awarding of the badge to some who were never meant to receive it, I don't think anyone can legitimately argue that the CIB was ever intended to be awarded to anyone other than an infantry trained soldier serving in combat with an infantry unit. Your post staes all of that correctly.

 

 

That being said, I have to respectfully disagree with your opinion stated above that a soldier should not be eligible for the CIB if he didn't first earn the EIB. While I completely understand where you are coming from, I just don't think in many instances that would have been practical or, dare I use one of my least favorite terms, "fair". While I don't have any statistical data to support this assertion, my guess is that a very high percentage of recipients of the CIB over the years never served in an infantry unit prior to being deployed into the combat zone where they ultimately earned the CIB. I'll give you two examples in my own family. My grandfather was drafted into the Army in late 1944. After completing basic training, he was immediately deployed to Europe in early 1945 as a replacement or "reinforcement" where he was assigned to an infantry company already on the front line. He was in combat just a few days after first being assigned to his unit. I don't think he was technically awarded an infantry MOS until after completion of basic.

 

My father served during Vietnam and his experience was fairly similar. Basic training followed by AIT then the NCO Candidate Course before being sent directly to Vietnam where he was assigned to an infantry company that was already in-country.

 

Unless you consider basic training units infantry units for the purpose of qualifying for the EIB, neither my father nor grandfather ever served in a line infantry unit where they would have been eligible to test for the EIB before being assigned to their infantry companies in a combat zone where each ultimately earned the CIB.

 

On a different topic, I am still trying to find any reference to anyone having been awarded an EIB for "satisfactory" as opposed to "exemplary" performance in ground combat operations as originally prescribed in the WWII regs. Note the attached orders awarding the CIB to members of the 4th Ranger Battalion reflect the award was for "exemplary conduct in action against the enemy" for soldiers serving in the North African, Tunisian and Italian campaigns. I wonder if any commanders ever chose to make the distinction and any EIB was in fact ever awarded under those circumstances to soldiers deemed to have only served satisfactorily in combat.

post-1761-0-88204500-1382535560.jpg

Link to post
Share on other sites

I understand on Bataan USAAC personnel were formed into a Provisional infantry unit as were sailors without ships to fight as infantry ! Both fought on bataan and corrigador !

They held the line ! the deserve this honor ! If not for them holding up the enemy the war would have been lost !

 

Also many infantrymen died in the war before 1943 I feel they deserve the CIB

Link to post
Share on other sites

I understand on Bataan USAAC personnel were formed into a Provisional infantry unit as were sailors without ships to fight as infantry ! Both fought on bataan and corrigador !

They held the line ! the deserve this honor ! If not for them holding up the enemy the war would have been lost !

 

Also many infantrymen died in the war before 1943 I feel they deserve the CIB

 

Since the Bataan defenders were all either killed, taken prisoner or melted away into the jungles to fight on as guerrillas by the middle of 1942, I'm curious as to when and under what circumstances any official orders would have been cut awarding them CIB's since the badge wasn't even created until 1943 and, IIRC, was not made retroactive to December 7, 1941 for anyone until sometime in 1944. I doubt if any orders for them, if they existed at all, would have been issued until 1945 or later. Does anyone have copies of any such orders? Or are those who claim they were entitled to the CIB for actions in a provisional infantry unit in the Philippines simply basing that claim on language in correspondence from the National Personnel Records Center when they applied for their awards after the war?

 

Those infantrymen who fought in such places as Guadalcanal, New Guinea, North Africa and Sicily in 1942 and 1943 technically weren't eligible for the badge until it was made retroactive to the beginning of the war. However, that did ultimately occur and I believe the badge could be awarded posthumously during WWII. I have orders awarding it to infantrymen in Vietnam who were killed before the orders were cut.

 

In reference to all of the regulations pertaining to the award of the CIB from 1943 on, note that while the eligibility period was later extended back to the beginning of the war, in my view to correct an obvious oversight in the original regulations that did not make it retroactive for action before the date of its creation, other changes narrowed the definition of who and under what circumstances were eligible to, again in my opinion, clarify the rules to reflect the original intention of the badge.

 

The stories of the Bataan defenders is brought up a lot in these discussions. However, the CIB was never officially authorized, retroactive or otherwise, to anyone other than infantrymen, meaning infantry trained soldiers assigned to an infantry unit who participated in actual combat against an armed enemy. If I wanted to argue against the injustice of restricting the CIB to infantrymen, I think a stronger case could be made that tankers were the ones who were truly slighted since a lot of them lived and fought side by side with the infantrymen.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.