Posted on Apr 30, 2014
Is it appropriate to receive a CAB for indirect fire?
55.8K
85
68
5
5
0
I didn't learn until after leaving Afghanistan that some units were being awarded CABs for indirect rocket attacks if the rocket landed within 300ft of them. I was even told that a COL got CABs for just bout everyone in barracks at Bagram because a rocket landed outside. I had at least 1 rocket land very close to me - close enough to feel the concussive wave - but I never felt it would be appropriate to put in for a CAB for simply being at the wrong place at the wrong time. Seems to me that the point of the CAB/CIB is that you were directly engaged with the enemy.
Combat
Awards
Badges
Posted >1 y ago
Responses: 23
0
0
0
On my first deployment they were handing CABs out like candy. At first it burned me to learn how some in my unit got CABs for being on the roof setting up an antenna as the mortar flies over the COP/FOB. I don't even remember how many IDFs I was in while being attached to the FAR of the BDE, but in no way shape or form was I ever close to an incoming. I might have been in view of where the mortars were landing but I was never in any physically danger. Even with that being said, I would have thought to ask to put in for CAB because as a young soldier in was my understanding that if I earned a CAB, I was steadily engaged sending rounds down range. However, that was not the case for some in my unit and I was BSTB soldier. The sad part which I got over was when we redeployed and back in garrison mode, I devalued the CAB on those MOS specific soldiers I knew. Not to take away from them in any way as a soldier, but I deployed to the same place and my unit at the time was BDE HHC. So painting the picture, you could imagine how pissed you could get being the MI soldier from BDE S2 attached to the FAR out in the suck but somehow the all of BDE S1 or S6 for that matter has CABs, crazy right?
(0)
(0)
SSG (Join to see)
That's a failure of leadership. They tightened up the rules at the higher level as time went on, but it all boils down to the command.
(0)
(0)
0
0
0
When the CAB came out I was in Iraq at Balad and our battalion commander pointed to the aviation wings on our chests and stated that our wings indicate that we have an expectation to engage the enemy and to in turn be engaged by them both in the air and on the ground as such we were not authorized a CAB. No big deal to me as the only place it is worth money is at a local pawn shop and even than it isn't enough to get me a cup of coffee.
(0)
(0)
0
0
0
Direct fire is not a requirement Sir. Some of the "qualified" scenarios I have heard of are far fetched, but if you feel you are deserving, then it can be submitted after the fact. You will need sworn statements and dates.
(0)
(0)
1SG (Join to see)
I will do more research when I have some more time. I bet there is an updated one out there somewhere.
(0)
(0)
1SG (Join to see)
MAJ Caldwell, can we agree that indirect fire is still being engaged by the enemy? If so then straight from 600-8-22 says "Soldier must be personally present and actively engaging or being engaged by the enemy" the term to note here is "actively" and not "directly"
(0)
(0)
COL (Join to see)
Per AR 600-8-22 (March 2019), the intent of the CAB is to recognize "the greatly expanded role of non-infantry Soldiers in active, ground combat". The AR further defines Active, Ground Combat as "personally present, under fire, and engaging in action against the enemy in ground forces combat. It is not awarded for battle participation credit" and the AR further specifies that the "Soldier must also be performing in an offensive or defensive act while participating in combat operations, engaging, or being engaged by the enemy". In my opinion sitting in your office, sitting in a bunker, sleeping in your B-hut, etc are not the intent or the definition of performing "offensive or defensive act(s)" "in combat operations".
In my understanding of the above definitions, IDF alone wouldn't qualify as "active, ground combat" where "personally engaging the enemy" in an "offensive or defensive act" "while participating in combat operations".
Section 8-8 CAB of AR 600-8-22 has changed its wording a couple times since 2005, however, it ALWAYS mentioned the Soldier being "personally present" and "actively engaged" or "engaging" the enemy. Again, in my interpretation, this means IDF isn't sufficient.
In my understanding of the above definitions, IDF alone wouldn't qualify as "active, ground combat" where "personally engaging the enemy" in an "offensive or defensive act" "while participating in combat operations".
Section 8-8 CAB of AR 600-8-22 has changed its wording a couple times since 2005, however, it ALWAYS mentioned the Soldier being "personally present" and "actively engaged" or "engaging" the enemy. Again, in my interpretation, this means IDF isn't sufficient.
(0)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google