PROCEEDINGS

	IN THE CASE OF

	BOARD DATE:           02 December 1998                   
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AC98-08164

	I certify that hereinafter is recorded the true and complete record of the proceedings of the Army Board for Correction of Military Records in the case of the above-named individual.  

	Mr. Loren G. Harrell		Director	
	Mr. Michael L. Engle.		Analyst	

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Mr. Raymond V. O’Connor, Jr.		Chairperson	
	Mr. George D. Paxson		Member	
	Mr. John H. Kern		Member	

	The applicant and counsel if any, did not appear before the Board.

	The Board considered the following evidence:

	Exhibit A - Application for correction of military 
                records
	Exhibit B - Military Personnel Records (including
	            advisory opinion, if any)

FINDINGS:

1.  The applicant has exhausted or the Board has waived the requirement for exhaustion of all administrative remedies afforded by existing law or regulations.

2.  The applicant requests, in effect, that his military record be corrected to show he was permitted to remain on active duty as a commissioned officer on 12 August 1954 until his retirement for length of service on 1 January 1968; that he was promoted to the rank of lieutenant colonel and retired in that grade; and that he receive appropriate pay and allowances for this service.

3.  The applicant states that his dossier was mixed up with the dossier of another POW resulting in derogatory information about the other person being filed by mistake in his records.  This caused the Army to consider him for court-martial and elimination from the Army.  Instead, the Army released him from active duty as a commissioned officer by denial of category renewal, which had already been approved by the Infantry Board and allowed him to reenlist  if he chose.  In doing so, the Army tagged him as a security risk, which followed him into retirement and civilian employment.  He questioned this action through his senator, who told him that he was released from active duty because of a reduction-in-force due to his not being as highly qualified as his peers

4.  The applicant submits in support of his application a copy of his dossier as provided to him by the Army and several statements from former POW’s.

5.  The applicant’s military records show that he was inducted into the Army on 24 June 1943, completed his basic training, and served as a wire chief until his attendance at Officer Candidate School from September 1944 to January 1945.  He was honorably discharged from enlisted status on 2 January 1945 to accept a commission as a second lieutenant, USAR, with immediate call to active duty.  He served as a transportation officer until his release from active duty on 20 August 1946.  He attained the rank of first lieutenant on 11 January 1946.

6.  The applicant served with the Army National Guard (ARNG) as a communications officer from 1 to 21 June 1948.  He was recalled to active duty on 3 October 1948 and was assigned to Fort Ord, California.

7.  On 15 April 1949 the applicant was assigned overseas to Japan with the    24th Infantry Division and went with his unit to Korea on 3 July 1950 as an infantry platoon leader.  The applicant was captured by the enemy on 11 July 1950 and was detained until his repatriation on 4 September 1953.  He was promoted to captain on 10 November 1952 while still a POW.  Upon his return to United Nations control he was hospitalized until 7 January 1954.

8.  On 25 February 1954 a letter from the assistant chief of staff, G-2, intelligence, requested a copy of the applicant’s dossier.  This letter indicated that the applicant’s application for renewal of category was recommended for approval pending receipt of the dossier.
9.  On 4 May 1954 a memorandum from a special counsel involved with the return of POW’s indicated that four individuals had furnished derogatory comments about the applicant and made allegations that he had collaborated with the enemy while a POW.  The memorandum went on to say that the evidence available to support these allegations was inconclusive to sustain action by court-martial.

10.  On 10 June 1954 the G-2, intelligence, recommended that the applicant be separated from the service and his commission in the USAR be terminated.  This recommendation was based upon the statements of former fellow prisoners who alleged that while a POW the applicant was a progressive and had communists leanings; was friendly with the Chinese and learned to speak Chinese in order to get along better with the camp officials; attempted to influence other prisoners to follow and accept the theories of communism; voluntarily made pro-communist speeches; was used by the Chinese to orient newly captured POW’s; and made recordings and broadcasts for the Chinese.

11.  On 17 June 1954 the Army Personnel Board recommended that the applicant be retained in the service inasmuch as the evidence was insufficient to establish a security risk.

12.  On 29 June 1954 the Army Personnel Board’s recommendation for retention in the service was approved.  However, his category renewal, which had been held up pending finalization of security risk, was not renewed.  This document stated that, “No action will be taken to terminate his commission in the United States Army Reserve.  It will be noted that subject has received neither a letter of allegations nor an interrogatory concerning security risk considerations, therefore, he need be informed only concerning category denial action.”

13.  On 12 August 1954 the applicant was honorably released from active duty as a commissioned officer.  On 13 August 1954 he enlisted in the Idaho ARNG as a sergeant first class and was ordered to active duty initially as a unit advisor and later as a radio repairman.  He continued to hold a commission in the USAR and on 9 November 1959 he was promoted to the rank of major.

14.  On 11 January 1962 the applicant resigned his USAR commission as a major, and was discharged from the USAR for the purpose of accepting an appointment as a warrant officer in the USAR.  On 12 January 1962 the applicant was appointed as a chief warrant officer two, USAR and was immediately ordered to active duty.  He completed his training as a signal corps warrant officer and served in a series of assignments both in the United States and overseas.  He attained the rank of chief warrant officer three (CW3) on 17 August 1964.
15.  On 31 December 1967 the applicant voluntarily retired for length of service in the rank of CW3 with 22 years, 5 months and 16 days of creditable active service.  On 15 July 1975 he was advanced on the Retired List to the rank of captain, the highest grade he satisfactorily held on active duty.

16.  The evidence submitted by the applicant shows that upon initial return from POW status, four POW’s gave statements to Army intelligence about a certain individual who had allegedly collaborated with the enemy.  They did not specifically identify the applicant.  In more recent statements clarifying their earlier statements, three of the former POW’s contend that their original statements were not directed at the applicant but rather towards an enlisted soldier whose name was very similar to the applicant’s.  Two of them contend that they could not have been referring to the applicant because they had not been detained in the same prison camp as the applicant.

17.  In June 1998 three other POW’s (one a retired lieutenant colonel Air Force chaplain, another a retired colonel Army medical corps) who were detained with the applicant strongly contended in statements provided to the Board that the applicant was not a collaborator but rather was a fine officer whose name and reputation got mixed up with another man’s.

18.	Perusal of the applicant’s dossier (C8052581E) by the staff of the Board revealed documents that contained information which was derogatory in nature that pertained to an individual other than the applicant.  Sheets numbered 112, 113, 114, and 115, clearly show that there was confusion as to exactly whom the witnesses were referring to in their statements.  It appears that the interrogator, or other official, concluded that each statement was directed at the applicant.  Sheet number 130 is a statement by an individual saying that the above named individual joined his unit at Camp number 1, from an unknown location because of reactionary tendencies.  This sheet shows two similar names at the top, again indicating confusion as to whom the witness was referring.

19.	Army Regulation 135-55 sets forth the normal criteria for promotion in the USAR.  The version of the regulation in effect at the time provided that promotion from major to lieutenant colonel required 7 years in grade as a major and 17 years of commissioned service.  Promotion from Lieutenant colonel to colonel required 5 years in grade as a lieutenant colonel and 19 years of commissioned service. 

CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The evidence of record shows that on the basis of statements made by former POW’s, the applicant was identified as a possible security risk.  Three of these former POW’s now contend that their original statements were misunderstood, resulting in the applicant being wrongly identified as a collaborator.

2.  Three other former POW’s who were detained with the applicant in captivity, attest to the applicant’s loyalty and honorable conduct while a prisoner and state that he did not collaborate with the enemy.

3.  Therefore, the applicant’s contention that he was denied continuation on active duty as a commissioned officer, not because of a normal reduction in force, but rather due to false and derogatory information provided to the personnel branch by Army security personnel, is plausible.

4.  The Board notes that despite not being allowed to remain on active duty as a commissioned officer, the applicant continued to serve his country first as an enlisted soldier and later as a warrant officer for 13 ½ more years, and eventually retired for length of service.

5.  Although he continued to serve on active duty in enlisted and warrant officer status for 13 more years, attaining the rank of CW-3, there is no guarantee, given the competitive nature of promotions, the changing needs of the Army and the contingencies of military service, itself, that the applicant would have continued on active duty in commissioned officer status, attaining the rank of lieutenant colonel, prior to retiring.  

6.  The Board notes, however, that the applicant attained the grade of major in the USAR on 9 November 1959 prior to resigning his commission to accept appointment as a warrant officer, USAR, with immediate call to active duty.  Had he retained his USAR commission instead of accepting the warrant, he would have attained promotion eligibility to lieutenant colonel, USAR, on 9 November 1966, upon completion of 7 years time in grade as a major. 

7.  Had he been promoted to lieutenant colonel, USAR, on 9 November 1966, he would not, however, have completed sufficient time-in-grade for promotion to colonel  (5 years) prior to his length of service retirement on 31 December 1967. 

8.  Considering all the facts of this case and in the interest of justice, the applicant’s records should be corrected in such a manner that will show he was promoted to the rank of lieutenant colonel, served on active duty in that rank and was retired in that rank on 31 December 1967.  

9.  Additionally, the United States Army Intelligence and Security Command, Fort George G. Meade, Maryland, should be the requested to review the applicant’s dossier, number C8052581E, and, if appropriate, purge it of all derogatory data/information pertaining to another individual with similar name who was alleged to have collaborated with the enemy while a POW.

10.  In view of the foregoing, the applicant’s records should be corrected as recommended below.

RECOMMENDATION:

1.	That all of the Department of the Army records related to this case be corrected:

a.  by voiding the warrant officer, USAR, appointment of the individual concerned on 12 January 1962, and by showing that he continued to serve in the USAR in the commissioned officer rank of captain until his promotion to major on 9 November 1959;

b.  by voiding his service on active duty in warrant officer status from 12 January 1962 through 31 December 1967 and by showing that he continued to serve in the rank of specialist seventh class (E-7);

c.  by showing that he was promoted to lieutenant colonel, USAR, on 9 November 1966, was recalled to active duty on 10 November 1966, and continued to serve on active duty until his length of service retirement on 31 December 1967;

d.  by showing that he was placed on the Retired List on 1 January 1968 in the rank of lieutenant colonel; and

e.  by voiding his advancement on the Retired List on 15 July 1975 to the grade of captain.

2.  That the Army Intelligence and Security Command, Fort George G. Meade, Maryland, review the dossier, number C8052581E, maintained by that command pertaining to the individual concerned and, if appropriate, purge it of all derogatory data/information pertaining to another individual with a similar name who was alleged to have collaborated with the enemy while a POW.

3.  That so much of the application as is in excess of the foregoing be denied.
BOARD VOTE:  

__RVO___  __GDP___  _JHK_  GRANT AS STATED IN RECOMMENDATION

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

________  ________  ________  DENY APPLICATION

		______________________
		        CHAIRPERSON