PROCEEDINGS

	IN THE CASE OF:  

	BOARD DATE:            20 September 2000
	DOCKET NUMBER:    AR1999025989

	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. Carl W. S. Chun		Director	
	Mr. Hubert S. Shaw, Jr.		Analyst	

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Mr. Samuel A. Crumpler		Chairperson	
	Ms. June Hajjar 		Member	
	Mr. John H. Kern		Member	
	Ms. Kathleen A. Newman		Member	
	Mr. Lester Echols		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 
	Exhibit C-Case Summary
	Exhibit D-Live testimony and evidence introduced at the hearing

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 award of the Silver Star be upgraded to award of the Medal of Honor.

3.  The applicant states that he believes the criteria concerning military awards were not followed in his case.  He contends that his actions were substantiated by three eye-witness statements and a statement from his former commanding officer.  The applicant also states that the recommendation of his former commanding officer was not given “enough consideration.”  In support of his application, the applicant submitted three attachments identified as Attachments A, B, and C, pages 1,2,4, and 6 of a 15 July 1991 polygraph examination regarding the events of 14-15 June 1953, a copy of a 3 July 1953 Morning Report for Company F, 7th Infantry Regiment, and a handwritten letter, dated 1 April 1999, in which the applicant writes:  “I was recommended recently for the Medal of Honor.  Monday 3/29/99 I was notified by my Congressman [name omitted] of Tennessee that the Army Awards Board awarded me the Silver Star medal, which I have respectfully refused.  This is why I am sending this form, DD 149 to your office.”

4.  The applicant’s military records were lost or destroyed in the National Personnel Records Center fire of 1973.  Records available to the Board were obtained from alternate sources and show he entered active duty on 12 September 1951.  The applicant completed infantry and airborne training and served overseas for over 16 months.  He was honorably discharged on 13 September 1954.

5.  The applicant’s DD Form 214 (Report of Separation from the Armed Forces of the United States), which was authenticated in his own hand at the time of his discharge, shows the Parachute Badge, the UN Service Medal, the Combat Infantryman Badge, the National Defense Service Medal, the Purple Heart and the Korean Service Medal with 3 bronze service stars as authorized awards.  There is no evidence that the applicant had been recommended for or received award of the Silver Star or Medal of Honor at the time of his discharge.

6.  On 30 January 1995, the applicant’s former company commander during the Korean War submitted a recommendation for award of the Bronze Star Medal with “V” Device to the applicant and another soldier for their actions during the period 14-15 June 1953.  In this recommendation, the company commander described the events which took place in the Boomerang sector in the vicinity of Chorwan, North Korea:  “[The applicant] was a Rifle squad leader whose position had suffered repeated hits from overwhelming CCF [Chinese Communist Forces] artillery rounds and then subjected to ground attacks.  In the initial CCF onslaught, his platoon leader was severely wounded as were two soldiers in his squad.  His immediate response saved the officer’s life.  And while under fire, rescued two other seriously wounded soldiers.  The wounded soldiers were still alive as the officer and the other wounded were evacuated through the trenches to a medical pick-up point at the base of the ridge.  This occurred in the darkness under heavy fire and confusion…  [The applicant] took immediate command of the situation, reacting without regard to his personal safety as he recovered the officer and the other wounded soldiers.  The CCF hit frontally and eventually succeeded in breaching the trenches.  [The applicant] with remanents (sic) of his squad held throughout the night, although repeatedly attacked.  Daylight revealed dead CCF in front of his position and in the trenches…  By the end of the day, following the battle of 14-15 June 1953, Company F was relieved, fell back to recoup in a blocking reserve position across the valley from the MLR [main line of resistance].”  The former company commander also stated that the brigade commander “dispatched” an administrative team to interview and write up recommendations for valorous acts performed and it is possible that a “write up of the battlefield performance was submitted and subsequently lost.”

7.  Based on premise that the original award recommendations in question were lost or never acted upon, the Secretary of the Army determined that they should be considered by the Army Decorations Board.  

8.  On 17 August 1995, the Army Decorations Board considered the recommendation for the Bronze Star Medal with “V” Device submitted by the former commander of Company F, 7th Infantry Regiment, of the 3d Infantry Division.  The Army Decorations Board approved the recommendation and the applicant was awarded the Bronze Star Medal with “V” Device based on U.S. Total Army Personnel Command (PERSCOM) Permanent Orders 243-7, dated 31 August 1995.

9.  On 8 August 1996, the applicant wrote to the Awards Branch of PERSCOM.  In that letter, the applicant stated that he risked his life on 14 and 15 June 1953 to the degree which warranted award of the Medal of Honor or the Distinguished Service Cross.  He also enclosed the results of a polygraph examination to reinforce the point that he was telling the truth about his actions on 14 and 15 June 1953.  The applicant also stated he “read that seven black soldiers from WW II are being upgraded to the Medal of Honor” and… that “this has set a precedent for [him] to follow.”

10.  On 21 November 1996, the Awards Branch of PERSCOM advised a Member of Congress that his recommendation for award of the Medal of Honor to the applicant had been accepted under Section 1130, Title 10, United States Code and would be forwarded to the Army Decorations Board for consideration.  On 16 December 1996, the Awards Branch notified the Member of Congress that the Army Decorations Board had carefully considered the recommendation for award of the Medal of Honor to the applicant and had determined that his actions did not meet the criteria for award of the Medal of Honor and that the Bronze Star Medal with “V” Device was appropriate recognition for his actions.

11.  On 5 January 1997, the applicant provided the same Member of Congress, cited above, with a statement from his former assistant squad leader at the time of the action on 14-15 June 1953.  In summary, this statement reaffirmed the information in the initial recommendation by the company commander.  The assistant squad leader also stated he observed a fire fight between the applicant and three CCF soldiers during the night and confirmed that three dead CCF soldiers were found the next morning.  The assistant squad leader concluded that the applicant deserves “the highest award possible for his heroism”.  This new evidence was forwarded by the Member of Congress with a request for reconsideration of the recommendation for award of the Medal of Honor.  

12.  On 27 March 1997, the Army Decorations Board again considered the recommendation for award of the Medal of Honor to the applicant with the new evidence (the statement by the assistant squad leader at the time in question).  The Army Decorations Board found that the additional evidence did not support award of the Medal of Honor in this case and that the award of the Bronze Star Medal with “V” Device was appropriate recognition.  The Member of Congress was so notified by letter, dated 28 March 1997.

13.  On 22 April 1998, a packet of information with a recommendation for award of the Medal of Honor to the applicant was submitted to a different Member of Congress with a request to forward it for consideration under Section 1130, Title 10, United States Code.  This Member of Congress forwarded the packet on 27 May 1998 to the Awards Branch.  However, upon review of this latest submission, it was determined that there was no new substantive evidence which would change the outcome of the previous decisions of the Army Decorations Board with regard to denial of award of the Medal of Honor or with regard to award of the Bronze Star Medal with “V” Device to the applicant.

14.  On 15 September 1998, the same Member of Congress, who made the 27 May 1998 submission, submitted new evidence provided by the applicant with a request to reconsider upgrading award of the Bronze Star Medal with “V” Device to the Medal of Honor.  This request was accepted by the Awards Branch under the provisions of Section 1130, Title 10, United States Code for review by the Army Decorations Board.  The new evidence consisted of an affidavit from the applicant’s platoon leader at the time of the action on 14-15 June 1953 and a newspaper article about the reunion of the applicant and his former platoon leader.  The affidavit essentially reaffirmed previous descriptions of the battle that night and added details of the enemy breaching the defensive line and the applicant inspiring his soldiers to repel the enemy which “resulted in hand to hand battle over the next 5 hours.”  The former platoon leader also stated that the “fighting became so intense and the enemy forces so overwhelming that artillery fire was called in over our positions while the defending force sought cover in the bunkers and trenches.”  He also stated that [the applicant] “exposed himself several times to direct men to advance to the main breach in our lines to block the enemy by fire and maneuver against overwhelming odds” and that the applicant fought hand to hand through the enemy in order to rescue his platoon leader from a collapsed bunker and killed five CCF soldiers with his deadly accurate fire.  The former platoon leader also recounts that the applicant also rescued an American soldier and a Republic of Korea soldier, that the applicant“ distinguished himself with several acts of heroism and bravery that were way above and beyond the call of duty ” and that there were over 1200 enemy dead counted in the Company F sector the next morning.

15.  On 8 October 1998, the Army Decorations Board reconsidered the request for upgrading the applicant’s award of the Bronze Star Medal with “V” Device to the Medal of Honor based on submission of new evidence.  This board determined that the applicant’s actions did not warrant award of the Medal of Honor, but did determine that the applicant’s actions merited award of the Silver Star.  The Silver Star was awarded to the applicant based on PERSCOM Permanent Orders 308-3, dated 5 November 1998.  The Member of Congress was notified of this action by PERSCOM letter, dated 3 December 1998.

16.  On 30 March 1999, the applicant notified the Awards Branch of PERSCOM that his Congressman had notified him of the award of the Silver Star.  The applicant stated: “After careful thought I have decided not to accept the Silver Star award offered me.  Although, I feel it is indeed an honor, I feel I am being denied the award that is called for in army regulations, mainly, the Medal of Honor.  I have today in writing notified Congressman [name omitted] that I will not accept the award.  I am requesting under the Freedom of Information Act any information of the meeting that was held to determine what award it was felt I deserved and why.  Also Major, I would like a chance to appear in front of the board in person to state my case.  Would you please let me know if this is possible?”

17.  On 23 September 1999, the same Member of Congress, who forwarded the 27 May 1998 and 15 September 1998 recommendations for award of the Medal of Honor, requested that the applicant’s award of the Silver Star be upgraded to the Medal of Honor.  Based on eyewitness accounts of actions on 14-15 June 1953 submitted by the applicant’s former company commander and former platoon leader, this request was accepted under Section 1130, Title 10, United States Code for review by the Army Decorations Board.  On 4 November 1999, the Army Decorations Board considered the applicant’s case and determined that his actions did not merit award of the Medal of Honor and that the Silver Star was the appropriate level of recognition for his actions.

18.  On 9 December 1999, the same Member of Congress, who was involved in the 27 May 1998 and 15 September 1998 and 23 September 1999 award actions on behalf of the applicant, forwarded documents to the Awards Branch and requested reconsideration of the recommendation for the Medal of Honor.  In a 29 December 1999 response by PERSCOM, the Congressman was advised that reconsideration of an award recommendation is allowed only if there is substantive new evidence presented and that the documents submitted on 9 December 1999 did not provide any new substantive evidence.  The Member of Congress was also advised in this letter that in-person presentations are not admitted to the Army Decorations Board.

19.  On 18 January 2000, the same Member of Congress submitted to Army Legislative Liaison a 12 January 2000 newspaper article concerning the applicant’s decision not to accept the Silver Star.  This newspaper article was forwarded to Army Board for Correction of Military Records (ABCMR).

20.  On 9 February 2000, the applicant submitted to the ABCMR a letter in support of his application for review of the recommendation for the Medal of Honor.  Attached to this letter is an unidentified article about the appearance of a U.S. Marine Corps colonel before “a board” which the applicant believes is the “Awards Board”.  The applicant then states that his former platoon leader requested “Sometime in 1998” to appear before the Army Decorations Board and that he never received an answer.  The applicant requests in this 9 February 2000 letter that he and his former platoon leader be allowed to appear before the Awards Board based on the precedent described in the attached article.

21.  On 25 May 2000, Army Legislative Liaison forwarded a packet of documents, which was assembled by the applicant and forwarded by a Member of Congress for consideration by the “Army Review Board”.  These documents consisted of five letters and articles from former soldiers recounting their experiences at the “Battle of Boomerang”; an article from a publication on the “Battle of Boomerang”; a 31 May 1999 newspaper article describing the effort by the applicant’s former platoon leader to obtain the Medal of Honor for the applicant; a 12 January 2000 newspaper article about the applicant’s quest for the Medal of Honor; a letter from the former battalion executive officer supporting a higher award than the Bronze Star Medal with “V” Device for the applicant; 50 pages of a petition containing over 1900 signatures in support of award of the Medal of Honor to the applicant; and 15 letters of support.

22.  On 26 April 2000, a three-member panel of the Army Board for Correction of Military Records reviewed the applicant’s case during an informal hearing.  The Board members voted unanimously to grant a formal hearing. 

23.  On 20 September 2000, a formal hearing was convened.  The applicant was present and was not represented by counsel.  The applicant presented three former soldiers, who served with him in the 7th Infantry Regiment, as witnesses during the hearing.

24.  The applicant addressed the Board first by recognizing his former fellow soldiers who were appearing on his behalf.  He then stated that he would not answer specific questions about his request for the Medal of Honor, but would defer to the statements by his witnesses.  

25.  The first witness (hereafter known as witness #1) was the applicant’s platoon leader in Company F of the 7th Infantry Regiment on 14-15 June 1953.  This witness spoke from a prepared statement which has been entered into the transcript of the Proceedings.  Essentially, witness #1 described the ground assault by a superior enemy force which overran the platoon position on the terrain feature known as “Boomerang”.  The witness testified that the applicant left the platoon trench and attacked a group of CCF soldiers near the company command post, thereby saving the life of the platoon runner.  Witness #1 testified that he had sustained a serious leg wound and a bunker had collapsed on him.  He also stated that the applicant killed at least five CCF soldiers, dragged him from the rubble of a collapsed bunker, administered first aid, and then, in the process of evacuating witness #1, killed or wounded 15 to 20 CCF soldiers.  Witness #1 also stated the applicant rescued another American soldier and one Republic of Korea soldier that same night. 

26.  The second witness (hereafter known as witness #2) was the unit supply clerk in Company F of the 7th Infantry Regiment at the time of the “Battle for Boomerang” on 14-15 June 1953.  This witness spoke from a prepared statement which has been entered into the record of the Proceedings.  Witness # 2 stated that he did not witness the applicant’s actions, but that he entered the battle area the next morning and overheard the few remaining survivors talking about the heroics of the applicant and how he single handedly held the enemy at bay.  This witness testified that, on or about 15 June 1953, he was told by the company commander to “write a draft request for award of the Medal of Honor for the applicant.”  Witness #2 stated that he typed the request and personally handed it to the company commander.  This witness concluded that the applicant has waited far too long for the recognition that he earned.

27.  The third witness (hereafter known as witness #3) made oral remarks.  In summary he described the battle area and his job in the regimental counter-fire platoon.  Witness #3 stated that he did not personally observe the applicant’s actions.  Witness #3 stated that he remained in the unit trench line during the enemy attack, but he knew that the applicant had to have acted bravely and was heroic because he left the trench line to attack the CCF soldiers and to help his fellow soldiers.

28.  Army Regulation 600-8-22 (Military Awards) provides, in pertinent part, that the Bronze Star Medal is awarded in time of war for heroism and for meritorious achievement or service.  Army Regulation 600-8-22 provides, in pertinent part, that the bronze “V” device indicates acts of heroism involving conflict with an armed enemy and authorizes the bronze “V” device in conjunction with awards of the Army Commendation Medal, the Air Medal and the Bronze Star Medal.  

29.  Army Regulation 600-8-22 (Military Awards) provides, in pertinent part, that the Silver Star is awarded for gallantry in action against the enemy.  The required gallantry (spirited and conspicuous acts of heroism and courage) must have been performed with marked distinction. 

30.  Army Regulation 600-8-22 (Military Awards) provides, in pertinent part, that the Distinguished Service Cross is awarded to a person, who while serving in any capacity with the Army, distinguished himself or herself by extraordinary heroism while engaged in action against an enemy of the United States not justifying award of the Medal of Honor.  The act or acts of heroism must have been so notable and have involved risk of life so extraordinary as to set the individual apart from his or her comrades.

31.  Army Regulation 600-45 (Decorations), dated 27 June 1950, governed award of military decorations at the time in question and specifically governed award of the Medal of Honor.  Paragraph 11 of this regulation states that the “Medal of Honor is awarded, in the name of Congress, to each person who, while an officer or enlisted person of the Army, shall have distinguished himself or herself conspicuously by gallantry and intrepidity at the risk of his or her life above and beyond the call of duty in action involving actual conflict with an enemy.” 

32.  Paragraph 11b of Army Regulation 600-45 (Decorations) stated the standards for award of the Medal of Honor.  The standards are:  The deed performed must have been one of personal bravery or self-sacrifice above and beyond the call of duty, so conspicuous as to clearly distinguish the individual for gallantry and intrepidity above his or her comrades and must have involved risk of life or performance of more than ordinarily hazardous service, the omission of which would not justly subject the person to censure for shortcoming or failure in the performance of duty.  Incontestable proof of the performance of the service will be extracted and each recommendation for the award of this decoration will be considered on the standard of extraordinary merit. 

33.  Army Regulation 600-8-22 (Military Awards), currently in effect, provides, in pertinent part, for award of the Medal of Honor.  The Medal of Honor is awarded by the President in the name of Congress to a person who while a member of the Army distinguishes himself or herself conspicuously by gallantry and intrepidity at the risk of his or her life above and beyond the call of duty while engaged in an action against an enemy of the United States.  The regulation provides that the deed performed must have been one of personal bravery or self sacrifice so conspicuous as to clearly distinguish the individual above his comrades and must have involved the risk of life.  Further, the regulation requires that “incontestable proof” of the performance of the service will be exacted and each recommendation for this decoration will be considered on the standard of extraordinary merit. 

34.  Section 1130, Title 10, United States Code provides that the Service concerned will review a proposal for the award of, or upgrading of, a decoration that would not otherwise be authorized to be awarded based upon time limitations previously established by law.  Requests for consideration of awards should be supported by sworn affidavits, eyewitness statements, certificates and related documents.  Corroborating evidence is best provided by commanders, leaders and fellow comrades who had personal knowledge of the circumstances and events relative to the request.  A request for award not previously submitted in a timely fashion will only be considered under this provision if the request has been referred to the Service Secretary from a Member of Congress.  The burden and costs for researching and assembling documentation to support approval of requested awards and decorations rests with the requester.

CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The Board noted the applicant’s contention that the criteria concerning military awards was not followed in his case.

2.  The Board reviewed the Case Summary and all of the documents submitted by the applicant.  The Board also considered the testimony of the applicant and three witnesses provided to the Board on 20 September 2000.

3.  There is no evidence of a recommendation (prepared at the time of the event) for award of the Medal of Honor to the applicant for his actions at the battle for “Boomerang” on 14-15 June 1953.  However, the Board noted the testimony of witness #2 who stated that he wrote and typed the recommendation for award of the Medal of Honor, handed it to the company commander, and the company commander signed it.

4.  There is no evidence of record and there is no testimony which confirms that the recommendation for the Medal of Honor was forwarded or acted upon by the battalion, regimental or division commander at the time in question.  The Board did note that the applicant’s company commander stated in his 30 January 1995 award recommendation that “the Regimental commander dispatched an administrative team to interview and write up recommendations for valorous acts performed.”  

5.  The Board noted that, on 30 January 1995, the officer in command of the applicant’s company during the battle of “Boomerang” recommended the applicant and another soldier for award of the Bronze Star Medal with “V” Device for their actions on 14-15 June 1953.  These awards were approved by the Commanding General of PERSCOM, on behalf of the Secretary of the Army, based on the recommendation of the Army Decorations Board.

6.  The Board also noted that, after submission of a statement by the applicant’s platoon leader during the battle of “Boomerang”, the Army Decorations Board, on 8 October 1998, recommended denial of award of the Medal of Honor and award of the Silver Star instead.  The Commanding General of PERSCOM, acting on behalf of the Secretary of the Army, denied award of the Medal of Honor, but approved award of the Silver Star to the applicant.  

7.  During the hearing, the applicant stated that his former company commander had submitted a letter which supported award of the Medal of Honor to the applicant.  However, this letter could not be found among the documents submitted by the applicant.  The letter in question was found in the response by the PERSCOM Awards Branch to the applicant’s Freedom of Information request.  The Board reviewed this letter, dated 14 October 1998, from the applicant’s company commander at the battle of “Boomerang” to the Awards Branch of PERSCOM which recommended that the applicant be awarded the Medal of Honor and that the award of the Bronze Star Medal with “V” Device to the other soldier be upgraded to award of the Silver Star.  It was noted that this new recommendation and draft citation for award of the Medal of Honor was considered on 4 November 1999 by the Army Decorations Board which found that the Silver Star was the appropriate award for the applicant’s actions and recommended denial of award of the Medal of Honor to the applicant.  The Commanding General of PERSCOM, acting on behalf of the Secretary of the Army, subsequently disapproved award of the Medal of Honor.

8.  The Board reviewed the criteria stated in Army Regulation 600-8-22 (Military Awards) pertaining to award of the Silver Star, the Distinguished Service Cross and the Medal of Honor.

9.  After reviewing all the facts related to consideration of the recommendations for award of the Medal of Honor to the applicant, the Board unanimously concluded his contention that criteria concerning military awards were not followed in his case is without merit.  The applicant presented no evidence that the deliberations of the Army Decorations Board or the decisions by the Commanding General of PERSCOM on behalf of the Secretary of the Army were flawed, inequitable, unjust or in contravention of Army regulations or policy. 

10.  After careful consideration of the records and testimony pertaining directly to the actions of the applicant at “Boomerang” on 14-15 June 1953, the Board unanimously determined there was insufficient evidence that his actions warranted award of either the Medal of Honor or the Distinguished Service Cross.  Therefore, the Board affirmed the decision of the Commanding General of PERSCOM, made on behalf of the Secretary of Army, that the Silver Star is the appropriate level of recognition for the actions of the applicant on 14-15 June 1953 in Korea.

11.  The Board wants the applicant and all others concerned to know that this action in no way diminishes the gallantry in action by the applicant in service to the United States.  His actions on 14-15 June 1953 were recognized with this Nation’s third highest decoration for heroism in action against an armed enemy and the applicant and all Americans should be justifiably proud of his service in arms and the recognition of his heroism.

RECOMMENDATION:

That the applicant’s request be denied. 

		___Samuel A. Crumpler
		        CHAIRPERSON

INDEX

CASE ID	AR1999025989	
SUFFIX		
RECON	YYYYMMDD	
DATE BOARDED	20000929	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	(HD, GD, UOTHC, UD, BCD, DD, UNCHAR)	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	19540913	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR 615-365. . . . .  	
DISCHARGE REASON	CONVENIENCE OF THE GOVERNMENT	
BOARD DECISION	DENY	
REVIEW AUTHORITY	MR SCHNEIDER	
ISSUES         1.	107.0001.0000	
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.