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.
What is the answer to correct such injustice? Court action would be one avenue, but who has $40,000 (quoted) to pay an attorney?
Robert
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.
What is the answer to correct such injustice? Court action would be one avenue, but who has $40,000 (quoted) to pay an attorney?
Robert