MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:   

	BOARD DATE:           20 December 2001
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR2001062180

	I certify that hereinafter is recorded the record of consideration 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. John N. Slone		Chairperson	
	Mr. Thomas B. Redfern 		Member	
	Mr. Lester Echols		Member	

	The Board, established pursuant to authority contained in 10 U.S.C. 1552, convened at the call of the Chairperson on the above date.  In accordance with Army Regulation 15-185, the application and the available military records pertinent to the corrective action requested were reviewed to determine whether to authorize a formal hearing, recommend that the records be corrected without a formal hearing, or to deny the application without a formal hearing if it is determined that insufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate the existence of probable material error or injustice.

	The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein.

	The Board considered the following evidence:

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

APPLICANT REQUESTS:  That his fourth award of the Silver Star be upgraded to award of the Medal of Honor or in the alternative to award of the Distinguished Service Cross.

APPLICANT STATES:  That representatives of the Maryland National Guard and several Members of Congress believe that the applicant’s actions are worthy of an upgrade.  He also states:  “I only ask this for my children and grandchildren.”  

A 10 August 2001 letter from a Member of Congress to the Army Review Boards Agency contains an “OFFICIAL RELEASE STATEMENT” signed by the applicant which states in pertinent part:  “I further agree to allow upgrade of one of my Silver Stars to a Distinguished Service Cross in the event the Medal of Honor is denied.”

In support of his application, the applicant submits a copy of an undated letter from the applicant’s counsel to a member of the Army Review Boards Agency Screening Team, a copy of a 20 August 2001 letter from the applicant’s counsel to the Army Board for Correction of Military Records (ABCMR) requesting a personal appearance before the ABCMR, a 17 August 2001 memorandum from the Commanding General of the 29th Infantry Division to the ABCMR supporting the request for a personal appearance before the ABCMR, a copy of a 10 August 2001 letter from a Member of Congress appealing the decision of the Army Decorations Board and requesting a “thorough review of the enclosures and request to upgrade [the applicant’s name and rank omitted] fourth Silver Star to the Medal of Honor or the Distinguished Service Cross”, copies of 3 April 2001 and 26 July 2001 letters from the U.S. Total Army Personnel Command (PERSCOM) to Members of Congress advising that the applicant’s request for the Medal of Honor was disapproved, and a copy of a 26 page military document, entitled “JOURNAL OF LATITUDE ADVANCE”, dated 26 November 1944. 

By letter dated 10 September 2001, counsel for the applicant also submitted a notebook which is entitled:  “REPORT OF INQUIRY ON WHETHER MR. [applicant’s name omitted] OF FINKSBURG, MARYLAND MERITS CONSIDERATION FOR THE MEDAL OF HONOR FOR ACTIONS PERFORMED AT BOURHEIM, GERMANY WITH THE 175TH INFANTRY REGIMENT 29 INFANTRY DIVISION 26 NOVEMBER 1944.”  This document is hereafter referred to as the report of inquiry.

The notebook contains Tabs A through E which provide background information on the Medal of Honor, information on the applicant, justification for upgrade of an award of the Silver Star to the Medal of Honor, a historical overview of the operations of the 175th Infantry Regiment in Germany during the period 21 through 26 November 1944 and other supporting documentation.  This letter was addressed to the Congressional Coordinator in the Office of the Assistant Secretary of the Army for Manpower and Reserve Affairs.
Documents submitted to the Army Decorations Board have also been provided to the ABCMR.

COUNSEL CONTENDS:  In effect, that the applicant is entitled to award of the Medal of Honor.  

Counsel for the applicant is a major in the 29th Infantry Division of the Army National Guard who is currently serving as a Public Affairs Officer with an element of the 29th Infantry Division deployed to Bosnia.  This officer compiled the report of inquiry which covers the actions of the applicant as a member of the 29th Infantry Division during World War II and which recommends that the applicant’s fourth award of the Silver Star be upgraded to an award of the Medal of Honor.

In his letter to the official in the Office of the Assistant Secretary of the Army for Manpower and Reserve Affairs, counsel stated that this packet has been recently “rejected” by PERSCOM which concluded that award of the Silver Star to the applicant for actions at Bourheim, Germany, on 26 November 1944 was appropriate.  He stated that this is particularly disappointing, since it appears that “no credence whatsoever was given to the fact that there are errors in the narrative of his original citation, which dramatically understate his heroic actions of that day.”  Counsel also wrote that it was disappointing that the applicant was not considered for an upgrade to the Distinguished Service Cross and that it appears that, due to some Congressional confusion, the Army Decorations Board may not have considered all of the evidence.

Counsel contended in his 1 September 2001 letter that a member of the House Armed Services Committee believes that the applicant is entitled to at least an upgrade to the Distinguished Service Cross.  He stated that he has worked with this Member of Congress to appeal to the ABCMR and has requested an opportunity to make a personal appearance before the ABCMR.  Counsel also contends that the applicant and the Member of Congress both feel that counsel should argue the appeal, but a contact in the Review Boards Agency informed him that the chances of gaining a personal appearance were slim.  Counsel maintained, however, that he would very much like the opportunity to present his case before the ABCMR, explain his methods of research and answer questions since it is a complex case.  Counsel also believes that the applicant should appear to make a statement and answer questions.  Counsel stated that it is the least the Army can do for someone who so gallantly served his country.

The report of inquiry provided by counsel essentially contains the background information and presents the arguments in support of the application to upgrade the applicant’s fourth award of the Silver Star to the Medal of Honor.  

Counsel begins with the premise that there were inequities and inconsistencies in the awarding of the Medal of Honor during World War II.  He asserts that modern scholars have identified eight criteria which have consistently provided a basis for awards of the Medal of Honor since 1862.  He listed these criteria:

	“1.  Setting a personal example under fire that has inspired other men.

	2.  Devotion to duty under fire.

	3.  Accepting danger.

	4.  Saving life.

	5.  Overcoming one’s injuries.

	6.  Defeating great odds.

	7.  Taking command.

	8.  Seizing an opportunity to strike a blow at the enemy.”

Counsel contends that a “Medal of Honor recommendation had to negotiate an obstacle course that was a reflection of the huge bureaucracy that the Army had become.”  He also states that the recommendations had to go from a division level board, to a corps level board, to an army level board and finally to a theater level board, all of which were much further removed from the action and composed primarily of staff officers.  Counsel contends that there was a lack of uniform standards in that not all boards looked for the same thing and “not all recommendations were written in a way that truly portrayed the enormity of the deed in question.”

Counsel then describes the tactical situation of the applicant’s unit, the 3rd Battalion of the 175th Infantry Regiment, on 26 November 1944:

	“On November 26, 1944, [the applicant ], an antitank platoon sergeant with Headquarters and Headquarters Company, 3rd Battalion, 175th Infantry, played a key role in his Regiment's defense of the town of Bourheim, Germany.  This section of this report focuses only on [the applicant] and his contribution to the defense of the town on November 26.  To completely understand the campaign of the 175th Infantry in Bourheim and the context in which [the applicant] contributed, one must first read the report contained in TAB D, outlining the 175th Infantry's November campaign, its seizure of Bourheim and ultimately its successful defense of the town.

	As the 175th Infantry was defending against multiple counterattacks by German forces trying to recapture Bourheim on November 26, [the applicant’s] antitank platoon, with three 57-millimeter towed antitank guns, was in a defensive position on the northwestern edge of the town (see Map 1).  [The applicant], who was acting as the platoon leader in place of Lieutenant [name omitted], who was at the battalion command post, was charged with organizing his platoon in a sector of the town's defense that was going to be within the primary axis of attack of one last desperate German attempt to retake it.

	The German attack began at approximately 6:l0 AM with a heavy and prolonged artillery preparation, which [the applicant] and his soldiers had to endure.  29th Division after action reports state that it was the worst artillery barrage suffered by any unit of the division during the entire war.  As the artillery came pounding down, German infantry and armor was observed massing north and west of Bourheim in preparation of attacking the town (see Photo 1).  At approximately 8:25 AM, the 175th Infantry called for its final defensive artillery fires, but soon reported that tanks were too close to the 1st and 3rd Battalion lines to continue using those fires in which rounds often impact fewer than 500 meters from friendly positions.

	Sometime between 8:25 and 9:40 AM, the German armor and infantry began their attack, attempting to move on the positions of [the applicant’s] antitank platoon.  This action, according to [the applicant’s] Silver Star citation trigged (sic) the following:

	Realizing the gravity of the situation, [the applicant] ordered his antitank platoon to remain in position where they delivered such devastating fire upon the enemy that they were forced to divert their attack to another sector of the town. Then, finding all communication severed by enemy artillery fire, [the applicant], despite suffering from a broken leg, asked to be placed in a vehicle which he drove under fire to the command post to inform the staff of the situation." 

Counsel then argues:

	“It can be factually concluded that the portrayal of the events described in the citation, although in part accurate, contains several factual errors; errors that downplay the courage and tenacity displayed by [the applicant] during this encounter with the enemy.  These errors likely had a tremendous impact on whether he received at that time proper consideration for the Medal of Honor or the Distinguished Service Cross.  This section of the report will demonstrate that although it is now 57 years after the fact, that the applicant deserves prompt consideration for the Medal of Honor for his actions at Bourheim, Germany on November 26, 1944.  In doing so the following will be outlined: 

	1.  The errors in the original citation and the supporting facts and documents demonstrating that there are inaccuracies. 
	2.  What likely actually happened, based upon [the applicant’s] statement and a review of Division, Regimental and Battalion after action reports and other documents. 

	3.  [The applicant’s] three other Silver Star citations, which demonstrate a pattern of continued valorous conduct in the face of danger. 

	4.  Wartime and post-war letters, which demonstrate the very high regard with which [the applicant] was held by his superiors, peers and subordinates. Some of these letters refer to specific actions of heroism, including the events at Bourheim, Germany on November 26, 1944. 

	5.  Factors that have hindered this investigation. 

	6.  Conclusions of the researcher. 

	7.  General observations of the researcher.”

Counsel then addresses what he asserts to be the three major errors in the Silver Star citation for the applicant’s actions on 26 November 1944.  He contends that these errors are most important in considering that they would have hindered personnel officers at every level from accurately accessing the scope of [the applicant’s] critical actions in the successful defense of Bourheim and the valor demonstrated in doing so. 

Counsel contends that the first error is:  

	“The citation makes no mention of the fact that one of [the applicant’s] gun crews had been knocked out of action by enemy fire.  [The applicant] personally manned the gun, fired at an oncoming German Tiger tank and successfully scored a mobility kill, rendering the tank immobile.  This is the action that appears to have caused the other enemy tanks and the infantry they were supporting to delay as they attempted to divert their attack to another sector of the town.  The time it would take the German forces to reorganize would buy the leaders of the 175th Infantry critical minutes that allowed them to call for badly needed close air support.” 

Counsel contends that the second error is:

	“The citation mentions that the [the applicant] suffered from a broken leg, which is a negligent understatement of the wounds that he actually experienced. When [the applicant] achieved a mobility kill on the German Tiger tank, it did not render its weapons systems inoperable.  The tank's crew immediately returned fire and in the process severely wounded [the applicant].

	According to a January 6, 1992 statement made by [the applicant] in a Veterans Administration Report of Medical Examination for Disability Evaluation: "My gunner was badly wounded and I took over firing the gun and hit a German Tiger tank but did not knock out its guns.  The German turret machine gunner hit me and my gun approximately 20 times with armor piercing bullets that went through the gun shield [an armored plating affording minimal protection from small arms only] striking me with both bullets and shrapnel.  I was severely wounded about my body.

	The report also quotes a 3rd Battalion 175th Infantry medical report from the field hospital in Bourheim, Germany in which the 3rd Battalion Surgeon Captain [name omitted], “notes that [the applicant] received Bullet, shrapnel and shell fragment wounds: upper and lower right arm; right rib cage; upper and lower right leg; nose; right knee, right foot; upper left leg, left back teeth and right 
ear.”

	According to Dr. [name omitted], a general surgeon who examined [the applicant] on October 8, 1991, at least one of his wounds still causes him tremendous trouble to this day.  In the engagement with the German Tiger tank a bullet shattered [the applicant’s] right tibia. In an effort to save [the applicant’s] leg, military doctors elected over a two-year period not to amputate, but as a result he has had to suffer with an open wound for the last 57 years.  Dr. [name omitted] notes in the 1991 report that the wound remains "open and draining," a condition causing [the applicant] to have to wear a bandage on his wound to this day.  The bandage is changed twice daily.  Dr. [name omitted] further points out that as [the applicant] ages the condition will remain degenerative as he has persistent osteomyelitis (a bone infection) in his right tibia.

	This documentation, located in TAB E, clearly demonstrates that [the applicant] suffered much greater injuries than merely a broken leg.  The extent of his injuries makes obvious the fact that with an almost reckless disregard for his own personal safety, he engaged an enemy with superior equipment and numbers and was critically wounded in the process.  The injuries will remain with [the applicant] for the rest of his life.” 

Counsel contends that the third error is:  

	“The citation states that [the applicant] asked to be placed in a vehicle, which he drove to the battalion command post to warn leaders of the direction of the oncoming attack.  According to [the applicant], this is not an accurate portrayal of what occurred.

	Although no eyewitnesses can be located to support this, [the applicant] says that upon first being wounded and still under fire, his first instinct was to run to one of the platoon jeeps, so that he could warn the battalion's leaders of the direction of the attack.  To do this, he would have to drive to the battalion command post, as the enemy artillery fire from earlier had knocked out all communications.  Not realizing at first how badly his right leg was injured, he attempted to run, but immediately fell down.  He then began crawling, still under fire, toward the back door of a house near which one of the platoon jeeps was parked.  He stood up, entered the door, and limped through the house making his way to a window, which he dove out of and crawled to where the jeep was parked.  He placed himself in the jeep and drove under fire to the battalion command post.  Upon approaching the battalion command post and severely weakened by his wounds, he was unable to operate both the clutch and brake pedals and was forced to crash the jeep into the building in order bring it to a halt.  Hearing the noise of the crash soldiers inside rushed out to see what had happened.  After refusing immediate first aid, [the applicant] informed battalion leaders of the disposition of the approaching enemy.  It was only after he was content that he had provided adequate warning to the battalion staff that he received his first medical treatment (see Map 2).  Although no eyewitnesses can be located to corroborate all of this, portions of this account, however, are confirmed in the original citation; which when combined with [the applicant’s] statement indicates this is likely an accurate portrayal of what occurred.”

Counsel then stated what he believes happened on 26 November 1944 in Bourheim, Germany:

	“As the enemy approached the northern edge of Bourheim on November 26, at least one axis of attack came directly toward [the applicant’s] platoon. Sometime between approximately 8:25 and 9:45 AM, members of his platoon engaged enemy tanks and infantry using their 57 millimeter antitank guns in an attempt to halt them.  Soldiers of one of [the applicant’s] crews were badly wounded in the initial engagement, leaving the gun without the manpower needed to operate it.  Knowing that the attack had to be halted, [the applicant] personally manned the antitank gun and brought one German Tiger tank to a halt with a mobility kill. 

	A crewmember of that same Tiger tank returned fire and struck both [the applicant] and the 57-millimeter gun he was operating multiple times.  [The applicant] was severely wounded in the process.  Knowing that all communications with the command post was severed and virtually alone at this point, as the others that were with him also were wounded, [the applicant] knew that he had to get word of the attack to the battalion staff.  He first tried to run to a platoon jeep parked at house nearby, but fell due to the fact that a bullet had shattered his right leg.  Still under fire, he then began crawling toward the back door of the house. He stood, entered the house, limped to a window in the front, dove through that window and crawled to the jeep. 

	[The applicant] started the jeep and while in reverse gear drove out of the area under fire.  He backed into a side road, placed the jeep in first gear and drove toward the 3rd Battalion command post.  Weakened by his wounds and unable at this point to effectively work both the clutch and brake pedals, he was forced to crash the jeep into the building containing the command post in order to bring it to a stop.  Upon hearing the noise of the jeep crashing into the building, the soldiers inside ran out to find [the applicant] behind the wheel.  He relayed word of the attack and was taken to the battalion aid station for treatment. 

	[The applicant] says this action occurred sometime in the mid-morning daylight hours of November 26.  Without knowing it, his statement appears corroborated by radio messages contained in the 175th Infantry Headquarters War Journal, which indicates that the timing of his actions appears to be responsible for the 9:40 AM radio communication between Major [name omitted] of the 175 Infantry regimental command post and Colonel [name omitted], the division operations officer (G3).  In that radio call, it is logged that 3rd Battalion was reporting that Tiger tanks had penetrated their position and that German infantry was on the outskirts of town.  That spot report prompted Major General [name omitted], the division commander, to call a General [name omitted] of the XXIX Tactical Air Command and personally appeal for an air strike just three minutes later at 9:43 AM. 

	The air strike occurred at 10:30 AM, when six P-47 Thunderbolts flew over Bourheim and dropped their bomb loads over the German tanks and troops on the outskirts of town.  Before leaving the area completely, the planes made another pass, this time firing their machine guns on the now scattered German troops.  The bombing and strafing run of the six planes proved to be decisive in the defense of Bourheim. 

	In analyzing the information from the 29th Division G3 War Journal, the 175th Regiment After Action Report for November 1944, the 175th Infantry Headquarters War Journal a written history of the division and [the applicant’s] statement, it appears very likely that his spot report made at the 3rd Battalion command post, was in fact the catalyst for the air strike, thus enabling the 175th Infantry to successfully defend the town once and for all. 

	[The applicant’s] decisive actions were of critical importance and performed with remarkable courage and devotion to duty.  In Bourheim, [the applicant’s] measures appear to have met at least five of the eight Medal of Honor criteria as outlined below. 

1.  Devotion to Duty.  [The applicant], in directly exposing himself to grave danger, displayed tremendous devotion to duty under fire.  His willingness to do so made it possible for his unit to successfully defend Bourheim in the face of one massive and desperate final German attack. 

2.  Accepting Danger.  In facing down a German Tiger tank with a 57-millimeter antitank gun and then driving while wounded to the battalion command post, he showed, as he had throughout his entire wartime service, a rarely paralleled willingness to accept danger. 

3.  Overcoming One's Injuries.  With some 20 plus separate wounds to his body, to include his right tibia having been shattered by a German machine gun bullet, [the applicant] had to overcome tremendous injuries to make it back to the command post; providing the necessary alert that enabled leaders to assess the situation and call for the close air support that eventually led to the successful defense of Bourheim. 

4.  Defeating Great Odds.  The final attack, according to the 175th Infantry Regimental G2 After Action Report, estimates that as many as a dozen enemy tanks and 400-500 infantrymen were used in the final attempt to retake Bourheim.  That illustrates the great odds [the applicant] had to overcome, as an attacking force with that composition would almost always have the initiative in the face of a thinly defended battalion line that had suffered six previous counterattacks and almost constant artillery shelling. 

5.  Seizing an Opportunity to Strike a Blow at the Enemy.  [The applicant’s] initiative appears to have caused the enemy to come to an initial halt and then divert their attack to another sector of the town.  From this point, the Germans never regained their momentum after they were forced to reorganize to attempt attacking another sector.  In the minutes that it took them to reorganize, a flight of six P-47 Thunderbolts bombed and strafed the Germans, effectively ending their attack.  I believe this final decisive action occurred due to [the applicant’s] spot report issued at the battalion command post.”

Counsel then describes the events after 26 November 1944:

	“For [the applicant]. November 26, 1944 was the end of the war.  He was treated for his wounds and eventually evacuated from Bourheim all the way to the United States, where he would spend nearly two years in the hospital rehabilitating from his injuries.  His Platoon Leader, Lt. [name omitted], who submitted him for the Silver Star, was located at the battalion headquarters during the attack and was not an eyewitness to [the applicant’s] incredible act of bravery.  Three days later, on November 29, 1944, Lt. [name omitted] himself was evacuated to the rear with a severe case of trench foot.  With most of the platoon wounded, [the applicant] on his way home and Lt. [name omitted] evacuated to the rear, nearly everyone involved in incident had left the division.

	It was in this vacuum that a personnel soldier in the division G1 section had to recreate in a citation [the applicant’s] remarkable deed.  Obviously, his efforts fell dramatically short of capturing what actually occurred.  [The applicant] received the medal months later at the Woodrow Wilson General Hospital in Staunton, Virginia.  He says he immediately knew that the citation was not completely accurate as written, but chose to do nothing about it.  For [the applicant] the war was over, he had met and eventually married his sweetheart, [name omitted], and he simply wanted to get on with life.  He was happy with his four Silver Star medals.”

Counsel then discusses each award of the applicant’s three Silver Stars which were earned prior to the events in Bourheim, Germany on 26 November 1944.  He also provides comments by the applicant on the events surrounding these awards.  This portion of counsel’s submission is not cited verbatim at this point because it is available to the Board in the report of inquiry provided by counsel and these award citations are a matter of record which will be discussed later in this Memorandum of Consideration.  

In discussing these awards of the Silver Star, the applicant and/or his counsel assert that the citation for the applicant’s first award of the Silver Star is accurate and that the citation for the second award of the Silver Star is “extremely inaccurate”.  The applicant and counsel make no comment on the accuracy of the citation for the applicant’s third award of the Silver Star.  In completing his discussion of these three awards of the Silver Star, Counsel concludes:  

	“In earning these three Silver Stars, [the applicant] displayed seven of the eight Medal of Honor criteria.  In reading these citations one can easily see that over the period of time in which they were earned, he set a personal example under fire that inspired other men; displayed a remarkable devotion to duty under fire; accepted danger willingly; saved life; defeated great odds; took command and seized the opportunity to strike a blow at the enemy.  He had done all of it in a remarkable three-month period.”

At this point in counsel’s presentation, he describes the respect with which the applicant was held by his peers and superiors.  Counsel contends that, by the time the applicant arrived in Bourheim, “he held a reputation as one of the finest soldiers in his regiment.”  In support of this assertion, counsel cites letters from the applicant’s former platoon sergeant and his former platoon leader.

Counsel then describes factors which have hindered his efforts to obtain award of the Medal of Honor for the applicant:  

	“1.  The foremost factor that has hindered this investigation is that no living eyewitnesses to this event have to date been located. Over the course of five months, attempts have been made in vain to locate witnesses from a list of several platoon members who were present at Bourheim.  In each instance the platoon member cannot be located or has passed away.  I was able to locate two medical personnel who treated [the applicant].  [The former battalion surgeon who treated the applicant on 26 November 1944], however, is now 85 years old and cannot remember treating [the applicant] specifically.  He says that he treated many casualties in Bourheim and as the 3rd Battalion surgeon would have treated [the applicant].  [Soldier’s name omitted], who lives in Thurmont, Maryland, was the medic who evacuated [the applicant] from Bourheim.  [Former medical aidman’s name omitted] first met [the applicant] at Tidworth Barracks in England and knew him.  He remembers [the applicant] being very badly wounded, but cannot attest to any of the events that occurred prior to his driving him out of Bourheim.

	2.  [The applicant’s] military service records were destroyed in the 1973 fire at the National Personnel Records Center in St. Louis. These records certainly would have contained proposed citations for decorations, medical records and other documentation that would likely have made this effort much easier.”

In concluding his justification for upgrade of the applicant’s fourth award of the Silver Star, counsel contends:

	“1.  It is factually demonstrated that [the applicant’s] Silver Star citation for actions conducted at Bourheim, Germany on November 26, 1944 contains errors that dramatically understate what actually happened that day. 

	2.  Through interviewing [the applicant], and in comparing statements made with 29th Division historical documents, it is reasonable to conclude that [the applicant’s] actions on that day were extremely important to his Regiment's triumphant defense of Bourheim.  He, in fact, may have been the single most important reason the 175th Infantry Regiment was ultimately successful in defending Bourheim. 

	3.  [The applicant] performed these actions at great risk to his own life and was critically wounded in the process.  57 years later, his physical wounds have not completely healed and they remain with him. 

	4.  It is concluded that poor work in the Division G1 section denied [the applicant] the opportunity to be properly recognized with a decoration equal to the valorous feat he performed-especially when it is considered that he had already earned three Silver Stars. 

	5.  [The applicant’s] actions when compared to other Medal of Honor citations posted on the Army Center for Military History web page are consistent with those qualifying for the award of the Medal of Honor. 

	6. The subsequent action in the Battle of the Bulge, beginning just three weeks later, may have taken attention away from the actions of the 21st Army Group and U.S. Ninth Army, which were largely unengaged in the German counteroffensive.”

Counsel asserts that the applicant “deserves” the Medal of Honor with the following proposed citation: 

	“Rank and Organization: Technical Sergeant, US Army, Headquarters and Headquarters Company, 3rd Battalion, 175th Infantry, 29th Infantry Division. Place and date: Bourheim, Germany, 26 November 1944.  Entered service at: Baltimore, Maryland. Born 17 July 1922, Catonsville, Maryland.” 

	“Citation:  On 26 November 1944 the 3rd Battalion, 175th Infantry, along with the 1st and 2nd Battalions, was defending Bourheim, Germany against strong and repeated German attacks on the town.  At approximately 9:30 AM, a column of German Tiger tanks, supported by infantry, and on an axis of attack toward the northwestern edge of Bourheim, approached the location of the antitank platoon commanded by T/Sgt. [applicant’s name omitted].  In an attempt to penetrate the 3rd Battalion's defenses, the lead German tank fired upon one of the platoon's gun positions wounding several men and leaving the 57-millimeter antitank gun unmanned.  Realizing the gravity of the situation, T/Sgt. [applicant’s name omitted] under his own initiative manned the gun and engaged the lead tank scoring a mobility kill, which temporarily halted the German advance.  The tank's weapons systems were still operable and the crew commenced firing its machine gun at T/Sgt. [applicant’s name omitted], hitting both him and his antitank gun several times.  In this exchange, T/Sgt. [applicant’s name omitted] suffered in excess of 20 separate wounds to his body, to include having the tibia in his right leg completely shattered.  With all of his men in the immediate vicinity wounded, and himself severely hurt, but knowing that all communications with the battalion command post had been severed, T/Sgt. [applicant’s name omitted] crawled while still under fire to the rear of a nearby house, entered it and dove through the front window making his way to a jeep parked nearby.  Despite his wounds, he placed himself in the driver's position and drove the jeep while still under fire toward the battalion command post.  Nearing the command post and now severely weakened by his wounds, he crashed the jeep into the building housing the command post, as it was the only way in which he could bring it to a stop.  The crash brought several soldiers out of the building and upon seeing T/Sgt. [applicant’s name omitted] condition they attempted to provide him medical treatment, but he refused first aid until he could be given the opportunity to brief the battalion's leaders on the direction and strength of the main German attack.  The result of T/Sgt. [applicant’s name omitted] courageous act was a call for close air support from P-47 Thunderbolts, which successfully scattered the German attackers and destroyed several more tanks before they could reorganize to assault another sector of the town.  After this final attempt, German forces abandoned all practical efforts to retake Bourheim.  The extraordinary gallantry, aggressiveness and situational awareness displayed by T/Sgt. [applicant’s name omitted] while severely wounded reflect great credit on himself and are exemplary of the highest traditions of the United States Army.“

Counsel also provided his general observations based on his research in support of the request to upgrade the applicant’s fourth award of the Silver Star to the Medal of Honor.  These observations are:

	“First, it is very important to point out that [the applicant] did not initiate this Medal of Honor investigation through any personal request of his own.  The Adjutant General of Maryland, Major General [name omitted], initiated this investigation only after he had received several requests from [the applicant’s] fellow veterans, who believe he should have the Medal of Honor.

	There is tremendous grass roots support for this effort from both [the applicant’s] fellow veterans of the 29th Infantry Division, other civic leaders and interested citizens.  This is in no way the result of any self-serving interest of [the applicant].  To the contrary, he is justifiably proud of the likely distinction that he is the only World War II service member to have won four Silver Star medals.  Upgrading the Silver Star he earned in Bourheim would jeopardize that distinction.  In reality, when we asked him to sign a waiver authorizing this investigation and possible upgrade, he did so with hesitation.  It was only at the urging of his many friends that he agreed to sign.

	I've had over the course of the past half-year opportunities to have several long sessions with [the applicant].  I find him to be a truly genuine human being. He is quick to credit others for his successes during the war and often proudly proclaims that he has never met a bad person.  Like the vast majority of veterans, he simply believes he did his duty and nothing more.  He doesn't like to brag.

	I find him to be remarkably compassionate as he demonstrates in telling of a young soldier, who under his supervision had shot himself in the foot to avoid combat.  An unforgiving leader would have charged the soldier with a crime under the Uniform Code of Military Justice.  Rather than do that, however, [the applicant] actually went to bat for him, helping to find him suitable rear echelon duty.  [The applicant] says his only offense was that he simply wasn't cut out for front line infantry duty.  Many veterans wouldn't be able to find forgiveness in their hearts for such a transgression-especially in the heat of combat.  [The applicant] not only finds it in his heart to forgive, he refuses to label the soldier a coward.

	I think the key to his overcoming, and to this day managing the wounds he received in Bourheim, has been pro-activity.  He has demonstrated a life-long pattern of refusing to let his injuries slow him down or get the best of him.  Among other things, he ran a family farm, service station, owned a semi-pro football team and earned his private pilot's license.  He led as many as three Boy Scout troops at one time and founded and organized the first four Maryland chapters of the Military Order of the Purple Heart.  He says he's simply applying the excellent organizational skills the National Guard and Army taught him during his military service.

	He remains very active, primarily with veterans' organizations, but he also spends a tremendous amount of time talking to school children and young soldiers about his wartime experiences.  He is still an organizer and is one who his fellow veterans turn to for help.  Many of them often call or stop by his home to ask for assistance, often with tasks so simple that [the applicant] can't believe that they cannot do them for themselves.  Yet, he never turns one away or says a harsh word.  He maintains a stack of envelopes and stamps to mail their correspondence, dues for veterans' organizations or RSVPs for events.  Even at the age of 78, when most would be intimidated by such technology, he maintains in his home: a computer, fax machine and copier, with all of it dedicated to helping veterans or veterans' organizations.  I suspect that many of these men who supposedly can't do these simple things for themselves in reality can. They're just looking for any excuse to call or stop by to visit with their friend Joe, for whom they obviously have much love, respect and admiration.

	Due to his wounds, [the applicant] can move around his home and take only short walks without crutches, but anything more than that and must use them.  When he ventures out on longer journeys, he takes with him a scooter that helps propel him around shopping malls, hotels or wherever he and his wife Reds may be.  Despite his obvious limitations, he shows remarkable resilience by not allowing himself to be denied the opportunity to live life to its fullest.  On June 6, 1999, the 55th anniversary of D-Day, for example, he crutched out to the pitchers mound at Oriole Park at Camden Yards and after receiving a standing ovation from 46,000 fans, threw out the first pitch before that day's game.  It was a well-deserved honor.

	I first met [the applicant] at the 29th Division Association's annual conference and reunion in October 2000.  Prior to that, I had not met him, but knew of him.  Shortly afterwards, when Maj. Gen. [name of the Adjutant General of the Maryland National Guard omitted] was looking to investigate whether or not [the applicant] deserved consideration for the Medal of Honor, I volunteered to look into it.  Along with a tour in Bosnia, multiple deployments to Central America, commands as an Armor officer, having a medal pinned on my by the Secretary of Defense and being honored in a speech by the President of the United States, this has been a highlight of my military career.  It has been an honor to meet and work with a man from whom all of us who serve as military leaders can learn.

	In researching and writing this report, I have worked hard to remain mindful of the necessity to be factually correct.  I realize fully the importance of this with consideration of our nation's highest military honor hanging in the balance.  In recognition of that, great effort has been made to be factually correct.  That given, with a lack of eyewitnesses, there are areas in this report where there is some speculation as to what happened. 

	Most of that speculation centers on the regiment's defense of Bourheim and the importance of [the applicant’s] actions to that defense.  I firmly believe that after careful consideration of the division and regimental after action reports, the radio traffic as logged in the division and regimental war journals, the division's written history, the original citations and the interview with [the applicant] that this report builds an accurate and reliable reconstruction of the events of November 26, 1944.  If there are errors, the errors are my own.”

EVIDENCE OF RECORD:  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 that the applicant entered active duty on 2 August 1940.  He completed infantry training and served in the European-African-Middle Eastern Theater of Operations for approximately 29 months.  The applicant was honorably discharged on 25 January 1946.

The applicant’s WD AGO Form 53-55 (Enlisted Record and Report of Separation) shows in item 33 (Decorations and Citations) entitlement to the Combat Infantryman Badge, the Expert Infantryman Badge, the World War II Victory Medal, Silver Star with Three Oak Leaf Clusters, the European-African-Middle Eastern Campaign Medal with four bronze service stars, the Good Conduct Medal, the American Defense Ribbon, the Purple Heart, four Overseas Bars and the American Theater of Operations Ribbon.

There is no indication in the service records available to the Board that the applicant was recommended for or awarded the Medal of Honor or the Distinguished Service Cross.

A citation for award of the Silver Star shows that the applicant was awarded the Silver Star for gallantry in action in Normandy, France, on 13 July 1944.  This citation is signed by the Major General in command of the 29th Infantry Division. 

A citation for award of the Silver Star (First Oak Leaf Cluster) shows that the applicant was awarded the Silver Star for gallantry in action in Normandy, France, on 18 July 1944.  This citation is signed by the Major General in command of the 29th Infantry Division. 
A citation for award of the Silver Star (Second Oak Leaf Cluster) shows that the applicant was awarded the Silver Star for gallantry in action in Germany on 13 October 1944.  This citation is signed by the Major General in command of the 29th Infantry Division. 

A citation for award of the Silver Star (Third Oak Leaf Cluster) shows that the applicant was awarded the Silver Star for gallantry in action in Germany on 26 November 1944.  This citation is signed by the Major General in command of the 29th Infantry Division who signed all previous awards of the Silver Star to the applicant.  The citation states:

	“T SGT [applicant’s name and service number omitted], 175th Inf, U S Army, for gallantry in action against the enemy in Germany.  On 26 November 1944, while the 3rd Battalion, 175th Infantry, was defending the town of Bourheim, enemy infantrymen, supported by tanks, entered the town and advanced against the battalion’s thinly held line.  Realizing the gravity of the situation, T Sgt [applicant’s name omitted] ordered his antitank platoon to remain in position where they delivered such devastating fire upon the enemy that they were forced to divert their attack to another sector of the town.  Then, finding all communications severed by enemy artillery fire, T Sgt [applicant’s name omitted], despite suffering from a broken leg, asked to be placed in a vehicle which he drove under fire to the command post to inform the Staff of the situation.  Such courageous actions reflect great credit upon himself and the Military Service.  Entered Military Service from Maryland.” 

Records show that, on 22 March 2001, a Member of Congress from the Commonwealth of Virginia forwarded a recommendation to the Department of the Army for an award of the Medal of Honor to applicant.  This recommendation was accepted under the provisions of Title 10, United States Code, Section 1130. Three other Members of Congress from Maryland also provided letters of support and additional documentation.

Records show that, the Army Decorations Board considered the recommendation for award of the Medal of Honor and additional input provided by Members of Congress in July 2001.  The Army Decorations Board unanimously determined that the applicant’s degree of action and service did not meet the criteria for award of the Medal of Honor.  Based on the recommendation by the Army Decorations Board, the Commanding General of the U. S. Total Army Personnel Command, acting on behalf of the Secretary of the Army, disapproved the award of the Medal of Honor and affirmed that the previously approved award of the Silver Star (Third Oak Leaf Cluster) was the appropriate award for the applicant’s actions on 26 November 1944.  

Title 10, United States Code, Section 1130, 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.

Army Regulation 600-45 (Decorations), dated 22 September 1943, with changes, governed award of military decorations at the time of the applicant’s actions on 26 November 1944 specifically governed award of the Medal of Honor.  

Paragraph 9a of Army Regulation 600-45 stated that the “Medal of Honor is awarded, in the name of Congress, to each person who, while an officer, noncommissioned officer, or private of the Army, in action involving actual conflict with an enemy, distinguishes himself conspicuously by gallantry and intrepidity at the risk of his life above and beyond the call of duty.”

Paragraph 9b of Army Regulation 600-45 further stated the standards for award of the Medal of Honor.  The standards are:  “In order to justify an award of the Medal of Honor, the individual must perform in action a deed of personal bravery or self-sacrifice above and beyond the call of duty, so conspicuous as to clearly distinguish him for gallantry and intrepidity above his comrades involving risk of life or the 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 his duty. The recommendations for the decoration will be judged by this standard of extraordinary merit and incontestable proof of the performance of the service will be extracted.”

Paragraph 10a of Army Regulation 600-45 governed award of the Distinguished Service Cross during World War II and stated:  “The Distinguished Service Cross is awarded to persons who, while serving in any capacity with the Army, distinguish themselves by extraordinary heroism in connection with military operations against an armed enemy.”

Paragraph 10b of Army Regulation 600-45 stated:  “To warrant award of the Distinguished Service Cross a person must perform an act or acts of heroism so notable and involving risk of life so extraordinary as to set him apart from his comrades.”

Paragraph 18 of Army Regulation 600-45 stated:  The Silver Star is awarded to persons who, while serving in any capacity with the Army, distinguish themselves by gallantry in action not warranting award of the Medal of Honor or the Distinguished Service Cross.

Paragraph 8 of Army Regulation 600-45 governed who could make awards.  
This provision of regulation specifically stated that in any case where the commander is not authorized to make an award, recommendations will be forwarded to the War Department.  Paragraph 8b (1) stated that the “Medal of Honor and the Distinguished Service Medal may be awarded by the War Department only.” 

Army Regulation 600-8-22 (Military Awards) currently 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.

Army Regulation 600-8-22 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.

Army Regulation 600-8-22 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.  As with all personal decorations, formal recommendations, approval through the chain of command, and announcement in orders are required.

Army Regulation 600-8-22 provides, in paragraph 3-1c, that the decision to award an individual a decoration and the decision as to which award is appropriate are both subjective decisions made by the commander having award approval authority.

Army Regulation 15-185 governs operations of the ABCMR.  Paragraph 2-11 of this regulation states that applicants do not have a right to a hearing before the ABCMR.  The regulation provides that the Director of the ABCMR or the ABCMR may grant a formal hearing before which the applicant, counsel and witnesses may appear whenever justice requires.

DISCUSSION:  Considering all the evidence, allegations, and information presented by the applicant, together with the evidence of record, applicable law and regulations, it is concluded:

1.  The Board reviewed the application and attached documents, the report of inquiry prepared by the applicant’s counsel, the documents submitted to the Army Decorations Board and the applicant’s reconstructed records.

2.  Evidence of record shows that the applicant was awarded the Silver Star (Third Oak Leaf Cluster) for gallantry in action on 26 November 1944 in Bourheim, Germany.

3.  There is no evidence, and the applicant and his counsel have provided no evidence, that the applicant was recommended for or awarded the Medal of Honor or the Distinguished Service Cross for his actions on 26 November 1944 in Bourheim, Germany.

4.  There is no evidence of record, and the applicant and his counsel have provided no evidence, to show that the applicant’s fourth award of the Silver Star acted upon by the Commanding General of the 29th Infantry Division was contrary to the recommendation of the battalion and regimental commanders, was not properly acted upon by the chain of command, or was otherwise flawed or not in accordance with regulations and criteria in effect at that time. 

5.  The Board also noted that the same division commander who approved the fourth award of the Silver Star to the applicant also approved the three previous awards of the Silver Star to the applicant.

6.  The Board noted that on 22 March 2001, a Member of Congress forwarded a recommendation to the Department of the Army for an award of the Medal of Honor to the applicant and that this recommendation was accepted under the provisions of Title 10, United States Code, Section 1130.  This recommendation was properly considered by the Army Decorations Board in exercising authority delegated by the Secretary of the Army to consider requests for awards submitted under this provision of law.  In July 2001, the Army Decorations Board considered the recommendation for award of the Medal of Honor to the applicant and determined that the “degree of action displayed did not meet the criteria for the proposed award.”  After considering the recommendation of the Army Decorations Board, the Commanding General of the United States Total Army Personnel Command, acting on behalf of the Secretary of the Army, disapproved the recommendation for award of the Medal of Honor and affirmed that the previously approved award of the Silver Star (Third Oak Leaf Cluster) was the appropriate award for the applicant’s actions on 26 November 1944.  

7.  The Board noted the contentions by counsel that recommendations of the Medal of Honor had to “negotiate an obstacle course”, that there was no “applied uniform standard” by all boards, and that all “recommendations were not written in a way that truly portrayed the enormity of the deed in question.”  These contentions demonstrate lack of understanding of the authorities for award of the Medal of Honor and the award processes in effect at the time of the applicant’s actions on 26 November 1944.  Approval of award of the Medal of Honor was at the time and still remains exclusively an authority of the President of the United States.  Therefore, appropriate Army regulations were promulgated then and still exist today to provide proper review of all recommendations for the Medal of Honor prior to Presidential approval, not as a result of bureaucracy and certainly not to present an “obstacle” for every Medal of Honor recommendation. 

8.  The Board considered counsel’s contention that the applicant’s award citation contains several factual errors which downplay his courage and tenacity and that these errors likely had a tremendous impact on whether he received at that time proper consideration for the Medal of Honor or the Distinguished Service Cross.  This contention is not supported by evidence of record and ignores the facts related to award processing in effect during World War II.  First, award recommendations for heroism required detailed information regarding the military situation, weather and terrain conditions, the specific actions of the individual, corroborating eyewitness statements and a proposed citation.  Secondly, the chain of command, which included the battalion commander and the regimental commander, were required to submit recommendations for awards of the Bronze Star and higher with their comments to the division commander for consideration. Finally the division commander, as the award approval authority for the Silver Star, reviewed all of the information submitted, not just the proposed award citation.  The Board noted that, while the actual award citation does not contain the level of detail recommended by the applicant’s counsel, there is no evidence presented to show that the award recommendation downplayed the applicant’s courage and tenacity, that it did not accurately describe the events from the chain of command’s perspective, or that it did not represent the chain of command’s decision on the level of recognition appropriate for the applicant’s actions.  

9.  The Board noted counsel’s extensive research of the events that occurred at Bourheim, Germany, on 26 November 1944.  However, as already noted, the applicant’s chain of command was present in Bourheim and participated in and observed the battle as it progressed.  Notwithstanding counsel’s research which resulted in the conclusion that the applicant’s actions were the catalyst for the air strike which allowed the regiment to successfully defend Bourheim, the chain of command on the scene at the time was aware of the applicant’s contribution to the defense of Bourheim, but their recommendation for award of the Silver Star was in recognition of his heroism in action as evidenced by the award citation. The chain of command may or may not have considered the importance of the applicant’s actions to the defense of Bourheim; however, counsel’s speculation regarding the importance of the applicant’s role in the defense of Bourheim is not a basis to rewrite an historical document, such as an award recommendation or citation, in order to justify upgrading an award recommended and approved by the chain of command at the scene at the time in question.

10.  The Board noted counsel’s contention that the applicant met at least five of the eight criteria for award of the Medal of Honor.  The Board finds, however, that there was only one criterion for award of the Medal of Honor in effect at the time in question and that criterion was clearly stated in Army Regulation 600-45.  The Board does not deny that the applicant may have performed many of the actions commonly attributed to Medal of Honor recipients; however, there is no checklist of eight criteria, which if met, mandate awards of the Medal of Honor or the Distinguished Service Cross.

11.  The Board noted counsel’s contention that, in earning his first three awards of the Silver Star, the applicant displayed seven of the eight Medal of Honor criteria.  In this matter, the Board reiterates that there is only one regulatory criterion for award of the Medal of Honor.  However, the Board further finds that the previous awards of the Silver Star to the applicant are not relevant to the request at hand because they were based on actions which were unrelated to his actions on 26 November 1944.

12.  The Board noted the letters provided by counsel as proof of the high regard with which the applicant was held by his peers and superiors.  The Board does not contest the applicant’s reputation “as one of the finest soldiers in his regiment.”  However, this reputation is not a basis for award of the Medal of Honor or the Distinguished Service Cross.

13.  The Board noted counsel’s statement that the applicant performed actions on 26 November 1944 at great risk to his own life, was “critically wounded in the process”, and his “physical wounds have not completely healed”.  The Board does not dispute the facts that the applicant risked his life and was wounded at Bourheim, Germany, on 26 November 1944.  However, the applicant’s chain of command knew that he was wounded and considered these facts when they recommended him for the Silver Star.  Further, the facts that the applicant risked his life and was wounded does not warrant upgrading his award of the Silver Star to the Medal of Honor or the Distinguished Service Cross.

14.  The Board noted counsel’s conclusion that “poor work in the Division G-1 section denied [the applicant] the opportunity to be properly recognized with a decoration equal to the valorous feat he performed-especially when it is considered that he had already earned three Silver Stars.”  The Board disagrees with counsel on his assessment.  The facts are that the applicant was not recommended for the Medal of Honor or the Distinguished Service Cross by the chain of command and the Commanding General of the 29th Infantry Division, who was the award approval authority and who considered all recommendations for award of the Bronze Star Medal and higher, determined that the Silver Star was proper recognition for the applicant’s actions.

15.  The Board noted counsel’s assertion that the applicant’s actions are consistent with the actions in the citations for those awards of the Medal of Honor posted on the Army Center for Military history web page.  However, this Board considers each case individually and on its own merit.  As a result, awards received by others or considered and awarded by other boards and commissions are not a basis for the ABCMR to grant an award, particularly an award of the Medal of Honor or the Distinguished Service Cross.

16.  The Board noted counsel’s inference that actions in the Battle of the Bulge, which began three weeks after the applicant’s actions, may have taken attention away from the actions of the 29th Infantry Division and/or the applicant’s heroism.  The Board finds that there is no evidence to support this contention and such speculation is not a basis for upgrading the applicant’s award of the Silver Star. 

17.  Based on all of the foregoing the Board determined:

	a.  In the absence of evidence which shows the applicant was originally recommended at the time of the event in question for the Medal of Honor or the Distinguished Service Cross, the Board concluded that his chain of command determined that the appropriate recognition for the applicant’s actions at Bourheim, Germany, on 26 November 1944 was award of the Silver Star. Notwithstanding the contentions that the applicant met most or all of the criteria required for award of the Medal of Honor, the Board determined there is no evidence that the award process or the decisions by the chain of command, on or about 26 November 1944, or by the appropriate award approval authority were unjust, in error or otherwise flawed.

	b.  Evidence of record shows the proper award approval authority for the Silver Star authorized award of the Silver Star (Third Oak Leaf Cluster) to the applicant for his actions on 26 November 1944.  It is also noted that the award approval authority for the Silver Star was present in the theater of operations at the time of the applicant’s actions and had access to the applicant’s chain of command and all information concerning the applicant’s actions.  Finally, the Commanding General of the 29th Infantry Division had authority to forward a recommendation for award of the Medal of Honor or the Distinguished Service Cross to the next higher commander instead of approving award of the Silver Star, but chose not to do so based on the facts available to him.
	c.  The Board noted in detail the actions of the applicant as described in the citation for award of the Silver Star to the applicant and all the documents submitted by the applicant, his counsel as well as Members of Congress.  The Board did not find “incontestable proof” in these documents that the applicant distinguished himself conspicuously by gallantry and intrepidity at the risk of his life above and beyond the call of duty while engaged in an action against an enemy of the United States or that he demonstrated personal bravery or self sacrifice so conspicuous as to clearly distinguish himself above his comrades. 

	d.  This Board considered the decision of the Army Decoration Board and the determinations by the Commanding General of PERSCOM on the request by the applicant and his counsel for award of the Medal of Honor.  This Board concluded that all the information provided by Members of Congress was available for review by the Army Decorations Board during its deliberations.  This Board further concluded that neither the applicant or his counsel presented 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.
	e.  This Board considered all information submitted and all available evidence of record in this case and found the actions of the applicant were indeed heroic.  However, the Board found no compelling evidence, error or injustice which warranted upgrading the applicant’s fourth award of the Silver Star to the Medal of Honor or to the Distinguished Service Cross under award criteria in effect on or about 26 November 1944 or currently in effect.
18.  In order to justify correction of a military record the applicant must show to the satisfaction of the Board, or it must otherwise satisfactorily appear, that the record is in error or unjust.  The applicant has failed to submit evidence that would satisfy either requirement.

19.  In view of the foregoing, there is no basis for granting the applicant's request.

20.  While the decision of the Board is not favorable in this case, the Board wants the applicant, his fellow veterans and all others concerned to know that this action in no way diminishes the heroism and sacrifice by the applicant in service to the United States of America.  On three occasions during World War II, he demonstrated gallantry in action against enemy forces in France and Germany and was recognized for his actions with three awards of the Silver Star, this Nation’s third highest award for heroism in action.  The applicant distinguished himself by gallantry in action again at Bourheim, Germany, on 26 November 1944, for which he received a fourth award of the Silver Star.  Unquestionably, the applicant is a brave, heroic and highly decorated soldier and he and all Americans should be tremendously proud of his service in arms and the recognition accorded to him for his several acts of heroism.
DETERMINATION:  The applicant has failed to submit sufficient relevant evidence to demonstrate the existence of probable error or injustice.

BOARD VOTE:

________  ________  ________  GRANT

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

__JNS__  ___LE___  __JBF___  DENY APPLICATION

		    Carl W. S. Chun
		    Director, Army Board for Correction
    of Military Records

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2001062180	
SUFFIX		
RECON	YYYYMMDD	
DATE BOARDED	20011220	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	(HD, GD, UOTHC, UD, BCD, DD, UNCHAR)	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	YYYYMMDD	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR .  .  .  .  .  	
DISCHARGE REASON		
BOARD DECISION	(NC, GRANT , DENY, GRANT PLUS)	
REVIEW AUTHORITY	MR CHUN	
ISSUES         1.	107.0001.0000	
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.