PROCEEDINGS

	IN THE CASE OF:  

	BOARD                       20 December 2001 
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR2001060485

	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. Joseph A. Adriance 		Analyst	

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Mr. Luther L. Santiful		Chairperson	
	Mr. Roger Able		Member	
	Mr. Terry L. Placek		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 reconsideration of his request for a Prisoner of War (POW) medal for the period 27 April to 23 May 1943.

3.  The applicant states, in effect, that notwithstanding the original decision of the Board to deny his request for a second POW medal, a review of the correspondence and his request for reconsideration with his presentation of new evidence will substantiate his entitlement to this award and justify his resubmission.  In his enclosed statement, the applicant addresses the questions pertaining to the inconsistencies in his records that were pointed to in the original Board record of proceedings as the basis for denying his request for a second POW medal.  He also provides a third party statement from an individual he claims to be the replacement unit commander who debriefed him upon his recovery from his second period as a POW in May 1943.  

4.  The applicant’s military records were not available to the Board for review.  It is believed that his records were lost or destroyed in a 1973 fire at the National Personnel Records Center.  However, incorporated herein by reference are reconstructed military records and documents that were summarized in the enclosed record of proceedings (Docket Number AC89-07044A) that reflects the Board's original consideration of his case on 21 September 1994.

5.  The available evidence confirms that the applicant was inducted into the Army of the United States on 2 September 1941 and that he continuously served on active duty until 17 July 1945, at which time he was honorably discharged by reason of demobilization.  

6.  The applicant served in the European Theater of Operations (ETO) during World War II from 11 June 1942 until 22 July 1944.  During his tenure in the ETO, he was awarded the Purple Heart on 19 January 1943 and the Silver Star on 14 April 1943, for his gallantry in action on 8 November 1942 against an armed hostile force at Oran, Algeria.  In addition, on 12 July 1943, he was awarded the Good Conduct Medal and on 7 April 1944, the Combat Infantryman’s Badge (CIB), which resulted in his subsequently being awarded the Bronze Star Medal based on his having earned the CIB during World War II.  

7.  The original evidence reviewed by this Board in its original consideration included a casualty report that showed the applicant was reported missing in action (MIA) on 27 April 1943, while serving with Company H, 3rd Battalion, 
6th Armored Infantry Regiment in North Africa, and a subsequent casualty report that showed his status changed to recovered.  A telegram that notified his mother that he had been missing in action in North Africa since 27 April 1943 and a second telegram from the applicant, dated 23 May 1943, in which he advised his mother that he was safe and well. 

8.  The Board in its original case summary also alluded to the fact that the applicant’s service record did in fact contain an entry that confirmed that he had, “Left Italy on 22 July 1944, having escaped enemy territory, and returned to the United States under Section II, Paragraph 4. War Department Circular 58, dated 9 February 1944.”  

9.  On the advice of the POW/MIA Affairs Branch of the Total Army Personnel Command (PERSCOM), the Board concluded during its original deliberation that, while the applicant was officially listed as MIA during the period 27 April to 
23 May 1943, and that he officially returned to military control after having escaped from enemy territory, the evidence of record and that provided by the applicant was not sufficient to show he was a POW during this period. 

10.  The applicant provided the enclosed third party statement from an individual whom he claims was the replacement unit commander that debriefed him upon his return to military control at the conclusion of his second period as a POW in May 1943.  In this statement, the third party confirms that he recalls discussions with the applicant in regard to his capture during this period, and he remembers other conversations with another officer who was also captured with the applicant.  The third party also indicates that he would attest to the Army if contacted that he remembered the events and would support the applicant’s claim of entitlement to a POW medal for this period. 

11.  War Department Circular 58, section II, paragraph 4a, dated 9 February 1944, provided for the rotation of personnel not requiring hospitalization, but whose morale or health had been adversely affected by prolonged periods of duty under severe conditions.  This was commonly used as the authority for rotating members who had been recovered after having been held as a POW.  

12.  Army Regulation 600-8-22 prescribes the policy and procedures for the Army awards system.  Paragraph 2-21 provides guidance on processing requests for the POW medal, which is authorized for any member held captive after 5 April 1917.  The regulation indicates, in pertinent part, that supporting documentation for the POW medal can include casualty reports, telegrams, and third party statements.  It specifies that not more than one POW medal will be awarded and for subsequent awards a silver star will be awarded that may be worn on the suspension and service ribbon of the medal.  

CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The Board notes the applicant’s contention that he is entitled to a second POW medal and it finds this claim has merit. 

2.  Based on the applicant’s outstanding combat service record, as evidenced by his having earned the Silver Star, CIB, and Purple Heart, coupled with the fact he was already awarded a POW medal for an earlier period of captivity, the Board finds he would derive no tangible gain for receiving a second POW medal.  As a result, the Board finds it is extremely unlikely he has an ulterior motive in making this request and that there is absolutely no reason to doubt the validity of his claim of entitlement to this award. 

3.  Notwithstanding the original decision of this Board and the position taken in the PERSCOM advisory opinion upon which it was based, the Board finds the available evidence is convincing and supports a conclusion that the applicant was in fact a POW during the period in question.  

4.  This evidence which includes official confirmation that the applicant was officially placed in a MIA status, while serving with Company H, 3rd Battalion, 
6th Armored Infantry Regiment in North Africa, during the period 27 April to 
23 May 1943, a service record entry that verifies he left Italy and returned to the United States after escaping from enemy territory, and a third party statement that attests to the fact he was captured during this period.  The Board finds this evidence lends credibility to the applicant’s version of events and that it is sufficient to conclude that he was in fact a POW during the period he was listed as MIA.

5.  In the opinion of the Board, the only alternative to the applicant being a POW during the period in question is that he was lost in enemy territory and unable to return for almost a month while he was officially listed as MIA.  When this alternative is compared to the applicant’s version of events, the Board finds his version much more credible and convincing.  

6.  The Board places great credibility in the applicant’s statement of facts given his stellar combat service record and the lack of any basis for his having an ulterior motive in requesting this award.  Therefore, it is convinced that it would be appropriate to award him a silver star denoting the second award of the POW medal for the period 27 April to 23 May 1943 and to add this award to his record at this time. 

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

RECOMMENDATION:

That all of the Department of the Army records related to this case be corrected by awarding the individual concerned a silver star denoting his second award of the Prisoner of War Medal; correcting his records to show the entry “Prisoner of War”, Company H, 3rd Battalion, 6th Armored Infantry Regiment, North Africa, 430427-430523; and by providing him a corrected separation document that reflects these changes. 

BOARD VOTE:  

__LLS___  ___RA__  __TLP___  GRANT AS STATED IN RECOMMENDATION

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

________  ________  ________  DENY APPLICATION

		___Luther L. Santiful __
		        CHAIRPERSON

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2001060485	
SUFFIX		
RECON	1994/09/21	
DATE BOARDED	2001/12/20	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	HD	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	1945/07/17	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	WD Cir 58	
DISCHARGE REASON	Demobilization	
BOARD DECISION	GRANT	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.  75	107.0029	
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.