Was an AAF CIB possible?

[ReverendJake]

If I recall correctly there were several AAF units that fought as infantry in the Philippines during the war. Is it possible that any of the men in these units were with officially or unofficially awarded CIB's?

[BigJohn#3RD]

Jake,

I have seen in the past that AAF veterans who in the Philippine Defense in 1942 received the CIB, it is just a matter of giving them rating of OJT (On The Job Training). But in the army's infinite wisdom they often revoked the CIB. But I am sure that many of the veterans continued to war the CIB and who would have the gonads to tell them to take it off. This was often the situation during the period of the Battle of the Bulge where the army in their knee jerk fashion cleared out all the replacement battalions and made them instant infantrymen. Also many African American/Black soldier volunteered to fight as infantrymen and were integrated into army units as individual replacements, it was amazing that they were greeted with open arms buy the units and preformed admirably. Though in the case of Europe they did not have their CIB later revoked. This was the case in Vietnam as well. I think the Combat Action Badge (CAB) was long overdue for non-infantry, SF and Ranger types. It is interesting to note that none infantry officer have always be allowed to keep their CIB when they served as Infantry Platoon Leaders since the authorization of the CIB. I know I have gone on quite a bit but I have always felt that folks who serve in the infantry type capacity in combat should get proper recognition for their meeting of the enemy close up on the battlefield as it is no picnic being on the two firing range of combat.

John

[ReverendJake]

Thanks. Now I've got to try to find some pictures!

[patches]

There a big topic on this somewhere, a recent one at that.

[ReverendJake]

I'm surprised I didn't come across it. I'll have to take a look. Thanks!

[ScottG]

Jake,

I have seen in the past that AAF veterans who in the Philippine Defense in 1942 received the CIB, it is just a matter of giving them rating of OJT (On The Job Training). But in the army's infinite wisdom they often revoked the CIB. But I am sure that many of the veterans continued to war the CIB and who would have the gonads to tell them to take it off. This was often the situation during the period of the Battle of the Bulge where the army in their knee jerk fashion cleared out all the replacement battalions and made them instant infantrymen. Also many African American/Black soldier volunteered to fight as infantrymen and were integrated into army units as individual replacements, it was amazing that they were greeted with open arms buy the units and preformed admirably. Though in the case of Europe they did not have their CIB later revoked. This was the case in Vietnam as well. I think the Combat Action Badge (CAB) was long overdue for non-infantry, SF and Ranger types. It is interesting to note that none infantry officer have always be allowed to keep their CIB when they served as Infantry Platoon Leaders since the authorization of the CIB. I know I have gone on quite a bit but I have always felt that folks who serve in the infantry type capacity in combat should get proper recognition for their meeting of the enemy close up on the battlefield as it is no picnic being on the two firing range of combat.

John

SF and Rangers do receive the CIB. The current regulation is that a soldier must be in an infantry MOS in an infantry unit to receive the award. I received one in Desert Storm but it was later rescinded as I had the MOS but was not assigned to an infantry unit... Its just how it goes sometimes. Scott

[BigJohn#3RD]

Scott et al,

I concur but my point was that 1SSF, and Ranger, which in WW2 were not considered infantry along with the infantry received the CIB, By the time Korea came around the Rangers and UNKFA Partisan were identiifed as Infantry and received the CIB. SF soldiers received the CIB in Vietnam but many of the Engineers and Signal guys had theirs revoked in the 80's because they did not have an 11B skill military occupation skill identifier as a secondary MOS. Buy the time the 18 series became a separate branch all SF MOS personnel were eligible for the CIB. I hope this clarifies my point.

John

[SFMike]

I went thru Infantry AIT in 1967.

When I went through SFTG I was awarded 05B2S and 11B2P was withdrawn.

 

I got a CIB in 1968 as an O5B4S and nobody ever attempted to withdraw it.

I was on an A Team and we conducted infantry type operations as well as working within MOS when in camp.

I went fom E4 to E6 during 2 tours in that camp.

I know a 05C who served 2 tours as a squad leader in 173rd Infantry-no CIB. Not part of his job description.

Guys need to leave "shoulds and oughts" out of military discussions. They don't apply,

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

b

[BigJohn#3RD]

I went thru Infantry AIT in 1967.

When I went through SFTG I was awarded 05B2S and 11B2P was withdrawn.

 

I got a CIB in 1968 as an O5B4S and nobody ever attempted to withdraw it.

I was on an A Team and we conducted infantry type operations as well as working within MOS when in camp.

I went fom E4 to E6 during 2 tours in that camp.

I know a 05C who served 2 tours as a squad leader in 173rd Infantry-no CIB. Not part of his job description.

Guys need to leave "shoulds and oughts" out of military discussions. They don't apply,

 

Mike,

The fact that you had an Infantry MOS even as a secondary you would have been eligible. The only thing I remember is that quite a few non 11 Series NCOs in 10th SFG at Devens in 80-81 time frame but they had theirs revoked from Vietnam and they were rightfully POedl I am not saying it is right or they did not get them back when we became a enlisted branch in 1983 but it did happen there. I know the guys serving in El Salvador during the 80s did not get their CIB until the mid 90s and the guys who served as trainers and advisors in Lebanon did not even get the right to wear a combat patch for their service but all the army support folks did KFC! By the time Just Because in Panama, and Desert Storm came about there where no more problems, I still think the Vietnam Veterans got shafted on the second award for the CIB because Grenada, Panama, Desert Storm and Somalia where cover as Vietnam era awards by the army. But us GWOT folks got our awards of CIB with Star (aka 2nd Award) for our service in the 80's and 90's. Again to me the Vietnam Vets who mentored and trained us are still being shafted to this day buy our government! Well I will put away my soap box for today, I have again moved this thread down another rabbit trail Good Night.

John

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

b

 

[B229]

Scott et al,

I concur but my point was that 1SSF, and Ranger, which in WW2 were not considered infantry along with the infantry received the CIB....

John

 

Not true with regard to Rangers. Although initially designated as just "Ranger Battalions", the 1st through 5th were officially redesignated as Ranger Infantry Battalions on 1 AUG 1943. When the 98th FA Bn was reorganized it was similarly redesignated on 26 SEP 1944 as 6th Ranger Infantry Battalion.

[Jack's Son]

I realize that this topic is best answered by members with a military background. With that said, would someone put the definitive answer is plain English for we non Army members?

[firefighter]

Ok I didn't want to say anything till I had the unit history in front of me.

 

I have the history of the 1982nd QM Truck Co(AVN), AAF.

 

In the awards section it list the usual medals along with the award of the CIB.There are 10 soldiers listed that were awarded the CIB.One S/Sgt was awarded the CIB, PH,GCM, 2 battle stars & Mechanic's badge.So I'm thinking that INF must have been his primary MOS? One PVT was awarded the CIB & Arrowhead for Sicily.The pictures show the men wearing the AAF patch.

 

There is one award of a Silver Star and the citation says, 'formerly of the 30th INF DIV..'.So on the other hand some of these men could have been transfers?

[ReverendJake]

Could I see these pictures?

[Linedoggie]

A Fellow NCO from my old Bn was in Grenada with the 82ns in a FA bn and was awarded the CIB. He said the Gunbunny's were stunned about it and would not wear it, and within a month they were rescinded.

[scottiques]

Jake,

I have seen in the past that AAF veterans who in the Philippine Defense in 1942 received the CIB, it is just a matter of giving them rating of OJT (On The Job Training). But in the army's infinite wisdom they often revoked the CIB. But I am sure that many of the veterans continued to war the CIB and who would have the gonads to tell them to take it off. This was often the situation during the period of the Battle of the Bulge where the army in their knee jerk fashion cleared out all the replacement battalions and made them instant infantrymen. Also many African American/Black soldier volunteered to fight as infantrymen and were integrated into army units as individual replacements, it was amazing that they were greeted with open arms buy the units and preformed admirably. Though in the case of Europe they did not have their CIB later revoked. This was the case in Vietnam as well. I think the Combat Action Badge (CAB) was long overdue for non-infantry, SF and Ranger types. It is interesting to note that none infantry officer have always be allowed to keep their CIB when they served as Infantry Platoon Leaders since the authorization of the CIB. I know I have gone on quite a bit but I have always felt that folks who serve in the infantry type capacity in combat should get proper recognition for their meeting of the enemy close up on the battlefield as it is no picnic being on the two firing range of combat.

John

 

John-- my 2 cents as a "new" guy on the forum and former infantryman:

 

Most MODERN infantrymen were not a fan of the CAB or non 11 series MOS receiving the CIB. In addition the LEVEL of award for the CAB is silly. A GO was eligible, not restricted to BDE level service!

 

The CAB diminishes the CIB and part of the ORIGINAL INTENT of the award of the CIB.

 

Also, Not sure what this part of your comment was getting at:

 

 

"It is interesting to note that none infantry officer have always be allowed to keep their CIB when they served as Infantry Platoon Leaders since the authorization of the CIB."

 

 

 

Scott

US Army (Ret)

[Robersabel]

The guidelines provided were effective to all Army personnel who participated in combat between 6 December 1941 to 11 May 1944. Please note WDC 105 amended WDC 269 and retroactive on or after 6 December 1941. Circumstances did not require the combatant to be assigned to an Infantry unit or possess the MOS of an Infantryman. WDC 105, page 2, para IV Badge. The Combat Infantryman badge may be awarded to any infantryman.

 

That is the reason why substantial numbers of veterans of Bataan, Corregidor, and Battle of the Bulge are recipients of the CIB. Included are members of the AAF, tank units, ordnance units, coast artillery units, and a host of various units and MOS’s. The guidelines were followed.

 

Today, civilian employees of the U.S. Army are violating the U.S. Constitution by denying such veterans the CIB by applying guidelines effective after the fact.

 

WWII veterans and family members of veterans have prepared a letter (pending endorcements) for Secretary of Defense Hagel exposing the U.S. Army's violations and active duty personnel's failure to follow the Uniform Code of Military Justice, Article 92. Failure to obey order or regulation.

 

 

 

 

Robert

[Robersabel]

If I recall correctly there were several AAF units that fought as infantry in the Philippines during the war. Is it possible that any of the men in these units were with officially or unofficially awarded CIB's?

 

According to guidelines substantial numbers of AAF veterans are recipients of the CIB.

 

Robert

[Robersabel]

WDC 105

[Robersabel]

WDC 105 page 2

[scottiques]

Today, civilian employees of the U.S. Army are violating the U.S. Constitution by denying such veterans the CIB by applying guidelines effective after the fact.

 

 

 

Robert

 

I commend your efforts.

 

But let's not get carried away-- No one is "violating the US Constitution".

 

Changes to awards/ badges and award/ badge criteria is a habitual process within all services and well within the rights of each service,

 

Scott

[Robersabel]

According to a local attorney (retired USAFR Colonel, former JAG Officer) who provided a 5 page letter of legal opinion regarding the military applying a guideline dated 1951 to a 1945 event states such action is a violation of the U.S. Constitution. There is no difference when the U.S. Army applies guidelines dated 1944, 1945, 1948, and during the Vietnam era denying an Army combatant the CIB for action performed from 1941 to 1945. He is a recipient of the DSC for ground combat but not qualified for the CIB.

 

I will provide the attorney's POC if you wish to tell him 'But let's not get carried away-- No one is "violating the US Constitution".'

 

Robert

[scottiques]

The Constitution addresses ex post facto LAWS and their application in CRIMINAL cases.

 

Are you just as adamant that all Purple Hearts for wounds prior to 1932 be rescinded? Or were the civilians doing right by applying that one ex post facto?

 

Scott

[Robersabel]

The Constitution addresses ex post facto LAWS and their application in CRIMINAL cases.

 

Are you just as adamant that all Purple Hearts for wounds prior to 1932 be rescinded? Or were the civilians doing right by applying that one ex post facto?

 

Scott

I do not know how you compare the two since guidelines are clear, wounds occurred after 5 April 1917 are entitled the Purple Heart today.

 

 

 

AR 600-8-22 / 25 February 1995

d. Upon written application to Commander, ARPERCEN, ATIN.- DAR-P-VSEA, 9700 Page Boulevard, St. Louis, MO 63132-5200, award may be made to any member of the Army, who during World War 1, was awarded a Meritorious Service Citation Certificate signed by the Commander in Chief, American Expeditionary Forces, or who was authorized to wear wound chevrons. Posthumous awards to personnel who were killed or died of wounds after 5 April 1917 will be made to the appropriate next of kin upon application to the Commanding General, PERSCOM.

 

 

Executive Order 10409 - Award of the Purle Heart to Persons Serving with the Navy, Marine Corps, or Coast Guard of the United States

November 12, 1952

 

 

2. The Secretary of the Navy shall award the Purple Heart posthumously, in the name of the President of the United States, to any person who while serving in any capacity with the Navy, Marine Corps, or Coast Guard of the United States after April 5, 1917, has been, or may hereafter be, killed, or who has died or may hereafter die subsequent to being wounded, (a) in any action against an enemy of the United States, ( in any action with an opposing armed force of a foreign country in which the armed forces of the United States are engaged, or © as the result of an act of any such enemy or opposing armed force.

 

I believe the Purple Heart is awarded to those entitled by incurring wounds (including severe frostbite) caused by the enemy. This is completely a different subject.

 

Robert

[scottiques]

The PH was a change after the fact.

 

There was NO PH during WW1.

 

Later, in 1932, when the PH was created soldiers with wounds PRIOR to 1932 were awarded the PH!

 

Using YOUR constitutional (or unconstitutional) argument, wasn't it just as unconstitutional for the Army or DOD (War Dept) to go back and apply a later standard and award soldiers a medal that didn't even exist when they were wounded?

 

Both are retroactive actions-- one awarding the other rescinding.

 

Scott

[scottiques]

Robert,

 

Don't get me wrong-- I understand what you are trying to do.

 

I imagine there is frustration with these older veterans. I have had an award and a device that were both later rescinded and it was frustrating.

 

DOD and the Army are trying to protect the integrity of the awards and the awards systems-- sometimes the decisions and applications don't really seem to pass muster, but it is completely within DOD (or Army) perogative to make these decisions.

 

I do not think the "unconstitutional" argument is a valid.

 

Good luck with your efforts.