ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 25 March 2019 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20180010068 APPLICANT REQUESTS: An upgrade of his Distinguished Service Cross (DSC) to the Medal of Honor (MOH). APPLICANT'S SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS CONSIDERED BY THE BOARD: * DD Form 149 (Application for Correction of Military Record) * self-authored statement, dated 31 July 2018 * letter (with enclosures), Lieutenant Colonel (Retired) X____ X____, dated 30 August 2004 * letter, U.S. Army Human Resources Command (HRC), Alexandria, VA, dated 6 October 2008 * memorandum, Commander, United States Central Command, MacDill Air Force Base, FL, dated 26 March 2018 * letter, General (Retired) XXXXX X. XXXXXX, dated 26 March 2018 * letter, U.S. Army HRC, Alexandria, VA, dated 20 April 2018 * letter, Honorable John McCain, United States Senator, Chairman, Committee on Armed Services, United States Senate, dated 23 April 2018 FACTS: 1. The applicant states, in effect: a. He appeals the HRC Awards and Decorations Branch (ADB) denial of his request for the reconsideration of his DSC to award of MOH. His appeal is based on a 2010 Department of Defense Review of the Medal of Honor, indicating the HRC decision was likely tainted by an unwritten but perceived award criteria of "loss of life" for MOH recipients. b. He was awarded the DSC under General Orders Number 119, Headquarters, Eighth U.S. Army, Korea, dated 5 March 1951, for his actions on 25 November 1950 through 26 November 1950, while leading his undermanned company of 57 Army Rangers against a force nearly ten times their size on Hill 205 deep within North Korea. c. The HRC ADB denied his application in 2018 based on a defective, faulty and flawed finding. Its denial was based on the administrative technicality that he had already exhausted his administrative remedy with his 2004 prior application, and did not consider his application based on its merits. The dates for the original DSC application (1951) and the first application for an upgrade to the MOH (2004) are critical to his request for a second reconsideration. d. From the start of the Korean conflict in June 1950 through December 1950, after which he was awarded the DSC, there were only 26 MOH awards made to Army Soldiers. Of those, 24 or 92 percent, were either killed in action or prisoners of war. Only 2 survived. His original DSC submission was during a time of extreme pressure for the Eighth Army as it was being routed by the enemy along with all other U.S. and United Nations forces. Many witnesses were either dead, seriously wounded, or missing in action. Awards were not a priority at the time as noted statistically that of 24 MOH awards, only five were awarded to Soldiers of the Eighth Army during its retreat. e. A steep decline in award of the MOH to a living serviceman after 11 September 2001 through 2010 led Congress to require the DOD to review its MOH criteria in 2009. The review findings noted, "...the Secretary of Defense determined that unusual MOH awards trends reported by the recent Military Decorations and Awards Review justified a review." The first seven medals after 11 September 2001 were posthumously awarded, prompting the DOD to issue clarifying guidance informing commanders that award criteria for the distinction included "risk to life," but did not require "loss of life." After the DOD clarification, all ten recipients of MOH have been living. Three of the seven most recent MOH awards (post 2010) were upgrades from lower award recommendations, while none of the awards before then were upgrades. f. His original upgrade application was submitted during the period the DOD acknowledged the apparent unwritten criteria for "loss of life." g. There is significant statistical and anecdotal evidence to indicate that there were periods when those who recommended and those who reviewed MOH nominations were over-cautious to reward bravery that did not also result in death. h. His actions on Hill 205 in 1950 speak for themselves. His actions during the Korean conflict contrast favorably with and in the same category as others who were awarded the MOH. There are exceptions in Army Regulation 600-8-22 (Military Awards) that a "one-time reconsideration by the award approval authority shall be conclusive" based on the ABCMR upgrade of First Lieutenant Garlin M. Connor's DSC to MOH. On 26 June 2018, the White House ceremony marked the formal end to the 22-year battle to see her husband's DSC from WWII upgraded to the MOH. i. His application is the unfortunate benefactor of the "perfect storm" of ill-fated timing. The first being from performing MOH-worthy actions during a time when an entire Army was being overrun and nearly all MOH recipients were killed in action, and the second during an upgrade review that took place during a time when MOH recipients statistically appeared to require loss of life. 2. Following prior service in the Regular Army, the applicant graduated from the U.S. Military Academy and was commissioned as a second lieutenant on 3 June 1949. 3. On 26 August 1950, he was deployed to Korea and served there until 26 November 1950. 4. General Orders Number 275, Headquarters, Osaka Army Hospital, dated 1 December 1950, awarded him the Purple Heart for wounds received as result of enemy action in Korea while attached to 8th army Ranger Company, on 26 November 1950. 5. Medical records dated 29 November 1950, show he was treated at 64th Field Hospital, Seoul, Korea, and evacuated to Osaka Army Hospital, Japan for mortar fragment wounds to both feet and buttocks which occurred at 0300 hours, 26 November 1950. 6. Memorandum, Eighth Army Ranger Company, 8213 Army Unit, Korea, 25th Infantry Division, dated 15 December 1950, subject: Casualty Report, shows he was wounded multiple times while defending Hill 205 in the vicinity of Unsan, North Korea, between 25 November 1950 and 26 November 1950. 7. General Orders Number 119, Headquarters, Eighth United States Army, Korea, dated 5 March 1951, awarded him the Distinguished Service Cross for extraordinary heroism in action against an armed enemy near Unsan, Korea on 25 and 26 November 1950. "[Applicant] while Commanding Officer, Eighth Army Ranger Company, 8213th Army Unit, displayed extraordinary heroism in action against an armed enemy near Unsan, Korea 25 and 26 November 1950. With completed disregard for his personal safety, [Applicant] led his company across eight hundred yards of open terrain under heavy enemy small arms fire and captured the company's objective. In this operation he deliberately exposed himself to enemy machine-gun fire in order that his men could spot locations of the machine guns. After capturing the objective, [Applicant] directed preparation of defensive positions against an expected enemy counterattack. At 2200 hours 25 November, while directing the defense of his position against a heavy counterattack by the enemy, he was wounded in the right shoulder. Refusing evacuation, he continued to direct his company through four more counterattacks by a numerically superior force who advanced to within hand grenade range before being driven back. During those attacks, [Applicant] left the safety of his foxhole in order to observe movements of the enemy and to direct artillery fire. In so doing he repeatedly exposed himself to heavy small-arms fire and mortar fire. In the sixth counterattack by the enemy at 0300 hours on the 26th of November, he was wounded again so seriously that he was unable to move. Detecting that his company was about to be overrun and forced to withdraw, [Applicant] ordered his men to leave him behind in order not to endanger their withdrawal. Despite his protests, he was dragged from the hill to a position of safety. His gallant actions throughout the period inspired his company to greater efforts in holding their objective despite high casualties and overwhelming enemy pressure." 8. Medical records dated 4 May 1951, show he was transferred to Travis AFB Hospital, Fairfield, CA, and treated for shell fragment wounds which occurred on 26 November 1950, to feet bilaterally, his gluteal region bilaterally, and a compound fracture to the head. Treatment further shows amputation of the 1st right toe, with skin grafts. 9. Letter Orders, Adjutant General, Headquarters, U.S. Army, dated 22 September 1952, awarded him the Purple Heart (First Oak Leaf Cluster) for wounds received in Korea on 25 November 1950. 10. Item 18 (Record of Assignments) of his DA Form 66 (Officer Qualification Record) shows he was a patient from 26 November 1950 through 13 May 1951 and was not returned to his unit. On 14 May 1951, he was assigned to Headquarters, Ranger Training Command, Fort Benning, GA. On 4 June 1951, 20 days later, he was again hospitalized for treatment of his wounds. 11. He was retired from active service on 30 June 1971. His DD Form 214 shows he was awarded the Distinguished Service Cross with First Oak Leaf Cluster. 12. He provided a letter from Lieutenant Colonel (Retired) X____ X___, addressed to Senator XXX XXXX, dated 30 August 2004, supporting his effort to upgrade his DSC to the MOH. He stated: a. "[Applicant] has had a long and exceptionally distinguished career in the United States Army. An infantry combat veteran of two conflicts, Korea and Vietnam, he has twice been awarded the DSC, twice been awarded the Silver Star, and has on five occasions been awarded the Purple Heart. b. "The fact that [Applicant] was not initially submitted for a Medal of Honor is not necessarily surprising given the circumstances at the time. The attack on Hill 205 that night was part of China’s entry into the Korean Conflict. Caught by surprise, the United States Eighth Army found itself reeling in disorder and retreat before the overwhelming onslaught. Furthermore, the Eighth Army Ranger Company had been badly mauled and needed to be reconstituted. He was never to see his men again during the war after that fateful morning for he was medically evacuated to the United States for wounds that took nearly a year from which to recover. c. "Upon review of the recommendation for award, Heroism War Department 639, submitted on 11 January 1951 for [Applicant's] Distinguished Service Cross is lacking a number of significant events that serve as relevant criteria for Medal of Honor consideration. Most egregious is the omission that he intentionally exposed himself to enemy fire on six separate occasions and ordered his men to leave him behind on the hill because of his wounds as it was being overrun by the Chinese." 13. He provided a letter from General XXXXX X. XXXXl, U.S. Central Command, dated 26 March 2018, supporting his application. General XXXX stated: a. "The [Applicant's] actions on Hill 205 in 1950 exemplified personal bravery beyond the call of duty, risking his own life as he drew enemy fire so his men could locate, engage, and destroy an enemy machinegun nest and kill a sniper. Though wounded, he refused to be evacuated, ordering his Rangers to leave him behind to ensure their safety. Once secure, a wounded he continued to direct heavy concentration of artillery fire on the enemy. b. "As you know, the Secretary of Defense directed reviews of Service Cross and Silver Star Awards in 2010 and 2016, to ensure appropriate award of combat valor. I feel strongly that (Applicant's) heroism in combat more than meets the heroism and risk of life criteria for award of the Congressional Medal of Honor." 14. He provided a letter from General (Retired) XXXX X. XXXXX, dated 26 March 2018, supporting his application. This letter referenced witness statements which were not included with his application. He stated: a. "The details of his bravery and self-sacrifice when repelling repeated enemy assaults (calling 'danger close' artillery support while grievously wounded, ordering his men to abandon him to preserve themselves) illustrate that his actions, in my view, are 'beyond the call of duty' and 'involved risk of life.' b. "I believe the historical circumstances of both Colonel XXXXXX action in 1950 are relevant. The vast majority of Army Medal of Honor recipients in the Korean Conflict were KIA. However, the Medal of Honor does not necessitate 'loss of life,' but only requires substantial 'risk of life;' it is undisputed that his life was at considerable risk on the night of November 25, 1950." 15. On 20 April 2018, U.S. Army HRC responded to Senator XXXX XXXX's inquiry regarding the applicant's application to upgrade his DSC to MOH, stating it took no action on his second application because of a previous request in 2009. 16. Army Regulation 600-8-22 (Military Awards) provides 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. 17. Army Regulation 600-8-22 states the Distinguished Service Cross is awarded to a person, who while serving in any capacity with the Army, distinguishes 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. BOARD DISCUSSION: After a thorough review of the application and all evidence, the Board unanimously determined that the evidence presented was sufficient to warrant a recommendation for relief. The Board found the applicant’s actions clearly demonstrated incontestable acts of personal bravery and self-sacrifice involving risk of life, and were so conspicuous they clearly distinguished his service, meeting criteria for the Medal of Honor. BOARD VOTE: Mbr 1 Mbr 2 Mbr 3 : : : GRANT FULL RELIEF :XXX :XXX :XXX GRANT PARTIAL RELIEF : : : GRANT FORMAL HEARING : : : DENY APPLICATION BOARD DETERMINATION/RECOMMENDATION: The Board determined the evidence presented is sufficient to warrant a recommendation for relief. As a result, in the interest of justice, it would be appropriate to refer all available documentation related to the applicant’s award of the Distinguished Service Cross to the Senior Army decorations Board for review and to make a recommendation as to whether the evidence supports an upgrade to the Medal of Honor. I certify that herein is recorded the true and complete record of the proceedings of the Army Board for Correction of Military Records in this case. ADMINISTRATIVE NOTE(S): Not Applicable REFERENCES: 1. Army Regulation 600-8-22 prescribes Army policy, criteria, and administrative instructions concerning individual and unit military awards. It 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. 2. Army Regulation 600-8-22 states the Distinguished Service Cross is awarded to a person, who while serving in any capacity with the Army, distinguishes 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. //NOTHING FOLLOWS// ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont) AR20180010068 0 5 1