RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 

AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 

 

IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2010-01883 

 COUNSEL: NONE 

 HEARING DESIRED: NO 

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: 

 

He be awarded the Prisoner of War (POW) Medal. 

 

_______________________________________________________________ 

 

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: 

 

He was imprisoned for attempting to escape. He is entitled to 
the POW Medal because of his illegal incarceration under harsh 
conditions in prison camp Wauwilermoos, Switzerland, during World 
War II. The treatment he received makes him eligible for 
consideration for the POW medal. 

 

In support of his appeal, the applicant provides copies of his DD 
Form 214, Record and Report of Separation – Honorable Discharge, 
and a POW Medal recommendation with attachments from the 
applicant’s counsel. 

 

The applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at 
Exhibit A. 

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

STATEMENT OF FACTS: 

 

The applicant’s original records were destroyed in the 1973 fire 
at the National Personnel Records Center (NPRC) in St. Louis, 
Missouri. Based on the available information, the applicant 
enlisted in the Army Air Corps on 19 September 1942 as a supply 
clerk. 

 

The information provided by the applicant states, on 13 April 
1944, during a flying mission to bomb a Folke-Wulf aircraft 
factory in Augsburg, Germany, the aircraft took direct hits from 
German anti-aircraft batteries just after dropping its bombs over 
the target. After crossing the Swiss border, the aircraft came 
under fire a second time and the aircraft was able to land at 
Dubendorf Airfield in Zurich, Switzerland, and the applicant was 
interned at Adelboden, Switzerland. 

 

On 17 September 1944, the applicant slipped out of Adelboden, 
Switzerland and purchased train tickets for him and three other 


internees. While travelling to a city near France, he was 
questioned and arrested by a Swiss soldier only miles from the 
French border. After a failed prison escape, he was interned at 
the Wauwilermoos Prison in Switzerland until he was transferred 
back to Adelboden, Switzerland. 

 

On 12 December 1944, he escaped a second time and managed to come 
under United States Military control. He was transported to 
Washington D.C, where he was debriefed by the POW-X Branch at the 
Pentagon. 

 

On 16 November 1945, he was honorably released from active duty 
in the grade of staff sergeant. He served 2 years, 13 months, 
and 28 days on active duty. 

 

The remaining relevant facts, extracted from the applicant’s 
available military service records, are contained in the Air 
Force evaluations at Exhibits C, D and the BCMR Legal Advisor’s 
evaluation at Exhibit G. 

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 

 

AFPC/DPWC recommends denial. DPWC states Department of Defense 
Joint Publication 1-02 (as amended through 22 March 2007), 
Attachment 1, defines prisoner of war “as a detained person as 
defined in Articles 4 and 5 of the Geneva Convention Relative to 
the Treatment of Prisoners of War of 12 August 1949. In 
particular, one who, while engaged in combat under orders of his 
or her government, is captured by the armed forces of the enemy.” 
In contrast, “interned” is defined as “the casualty is definitely 
known to have been taken into custody of a non belligerent 
foreign power as a result of and for reasons arising out of any 
armed conflict in which the Armed Forces of the United States are 
engaged.” Although Joint Publication 1-02 definitions are not 
necessarily intended to be statements of policy, the definitions 
nonetheless are consistent with the language of the 1919 Geneva 
Prisoner of War Convention and other law-of-war treaties. 

 

According to documents in the applicant’s official military 
personnel record and confirmed in the National Archives World War 
II database, he was detained in Switzerland as an internee until 
his return to military control. Moreover, as the Air Force did 
not become a separate branch of military service until September 
1947, DPWC coordinated with the United States Army and they have 
confirmed the applicant is not listed on the Army Repatriation 
and Family Affairs Division POW database. Some internees were 
mistreated at the Switzerland punishment camps; however, the 
mistreatment did not create a condition in which Switzerland lost 
its neutrality and became an opposing or foreign armed force 
hostile to the United States. 


 

Soldiers who endured a similar experience as a detainee or an 
internee at various camps in Switzerland by itself do not qualify 
for POW status. POW status to internees in Switzerland requires 
the Secretary of the Air Force to determine that Swiss officials 
were acting on behalf of a foreign armed force hostile to the 
United States during World War II, in accordance with (IAW) 
Department of Defense (DoD) 1348.33M (Manual of Military 
Decorations and Awards), paragraph C6.2 and Title 10 United 
States Code, Section 1128(a) (4) (Attachments 4 and 5 
respectively). 

 

The complete DPWC evaluation, with attachments, is at Exhibit C. 

 

AFPC/DPSIDRA recommends denial. DPSIDR states that after a 
review of the applicant’s available records, provided 
documentation, as well as the DPWC advisory, the applicant was 
never captured by a foreign armed enemy of the United States; 
therefore, he cannot be considered a POW. 

 

In accordance with DOD 1348.33M, the POW Medal shall be issued 
only to those taken prisoner by foreign armed forces that are 
hostile to the United States, under circumstances which the 
Secretary concerned finds to have been comparable to those under 
which persons have generally been held captive by enemy armed 
forces during periods of armed conflicts. 

 

The complete DPSIDRA evaluation is at Exhibit D. 

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

APPLICANT’S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATIONS: 

 

The applicant’s representative states it is not clear why the Air 
Force Board of Military Records (AFBCMR) would solicit advisory 
opinions from the Casualty Matters Division (AFPC/DPWC), the 
requirements for the medal are confused with repatriation 
definitions that are irrelevant to the award. The eligibility 
requirements of the POW Medal are not based on the definitions 
contained in Joint Publications 1-02, and they are also not 
comparable to status definitions in the Geneva Convention. Most 
of what is contained in the AFPC/DPWC advisory opinion is 
incorrect and should be discarded. 

 

The representative states AFPC/DPWC is not the appropriate office 
to address the issue of POW Medal eligibility in the applicant’s 
case or any other internee of Switzerland. This should fall 
under the purview of award policy officials at AFPC, who 
unfortunately are deferring this question to AFPC/DPWC officials. 
Relevant advisory opinions might include legal analyses of 
statutory criteria for the medal and historical testimony about 
the conditions of internment to substantiate or refute 


comparability to POWs throughout the history of US armed 
conflict. 

 

In the absence of relevant advisory opinions, he has provided to 
the AFBCMR ample historical and legal evidence which shows how 
internees at Wauwilermoos prison were treated, documents that the 
POW Medal was intended to be awarded to internees of neutral 
countries, and also demonstrated how the United States Air Force 
has awarded the medal to internees in the past. 

 

The AFPC/DPSIDR staff did not appropriately research the award 
criteria or correctly cite the actual law governing eligibility 
for the POW Medal. DPSIDR’s advisory stated “the applicant was 
never captured by a foreign armed enemy of the United States; 
therefore the applicant cannot be considered a POW.” This is a 
clear case where officials have misconstrued the amended 
requirement of 10 USC 1128 contained in the Fiscal Year 1900 
National Defense Authorization Act (PL 101-189). Only the 
original version of the POW Medal statute authorized by PL 99-145 
authorized the medal as an automatic entitlement for those held 
by a declared enemy state. In contrast, the PL 101-189 exception 
to captivity by a declared enemy only requires captivity by 
someone “hostile to the United States, under circumstances which 
the Secretary concerned finds to have been comparable to those 
under which persons have generally be held captive by enemy armed 
forces during periods of armed conflict. The DPSIDR memorandum 
has erroneously substituted the word “enemy” with the word 
“hostile.” 

 

The 1989 amendment was drafted for the sole purpose of allowing 
medal consideration for captives who were not held by enemy 
states, which is exactly what it did in the early 1900s. The 
current AFPC policy cannot be reconciled with this intent or the 
existing precedents. This policy is in direct violation of 
10 USC 1128(a) (4). 

 

The applicant’s complete rebuttals, with attachments, are at 
Exhibit E. 

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

ADDITIONAL AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 

 

The BCMR Legal Advisor recommends denial. The BCMR Legal Advisor 
states this application is another development in a long-running 
disagreement with an active duty Army officer who teaches history 
at West Point concerning the entitlement to the POW Medal for 
individuals who were interned by Swiss authorities during World 
War II. The officer has written in support of this application. 

 

In January 2010, the BCMR Legal Advisor wrote a comprehensive 
review of the issues the officer has repeatedly raised. The 


opinion was addressed to the AFBCMR Executive Director to advise 
him about a request for reconsideration of the officer’s own 
previously-submitted application on behalf of his grandfather. 
The Director denied that reconsideration request. 

 

Based on the officer’s direct communication with the Secretary of 
the Air Force General Counsel (SAF/GC), GC has reviewed the 
advisory and concurs that the officer’s analysis is wrong 
primarily because in accordance with the first rule of statutory 
construction, the plain language of the statue controls. SAF/GC 
recognizes the Air Force gave POW Medals to certain members held 
in Siberia, but it finds that situation distinguishable given the 
realities of the Cold War and not controlling as to this 
application in any event. 

 

The applicant’s representative has repeatedly been told that 
until the office of the General Counsel opines differently, 
panels will be advised to deny such applications as inconsistent 
with congressional intent in this area as reflected in plain 
language of the statue passed. 

 

The BCMR Legal Advisor provided his January 2010 legal opinion 
for the Board’s review. 

 

The complete BCMR Legal Advisor’s evaluation, with attachment, is 
at Exhibit G. 

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF ADDITIONAL AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 

 

The applicant’s representative disagrees with the BCMR Legal 
Advisor’s interpretation of this statue and states it really 
boils down to one simple question and that is who exactly can be 
considered under the 1989 amendment to the POW Medal statue. 

 

The representative has spoken with the BCMR Legal Advisor who is 
unable to answer the question concerning who is exactly 
considered under the statute. Applying the BCMR Legal Advisor’s 
criteria to all prior recipients under the amended provision 
would deny all of them the medal, including the crew of the USS 
Pueblo and the Iran hostages who were the genesis of the 
legislation. These prior recipients were all held by non-
belligerents, which is why the law was amended in order for them 
or any other type of detainees, internees, or hostage of 
terrorists to receive consideration. The BCMR Legal Advisor’s 
criteria effectively render this statutory unenforced and negate 
the very purpose of the amended statue. 

 

The representative states all outside experts he has discussed 
this matter with have disagreed with the BCMR Legal Advisor. 
Specifically, his analysis implies the former USAF General 


Counsel for International Affairs is unable to interpret his own 
1987 advisory opinion. Counsel has attached the opinion for the 
AFBCMR’s reference. 

 

The representative is concerned that the BCMR Legal Advisor is 
calling him a provider of an “expert opinion” in the applicant’s 
case rather than counsel. The applicant designated him as his 
attorney or proper representative to act on his behalf in this 
matter. The representative feels it is necessary to remind the 
AFBCMR that it is not a requirement that he be a member of the 
bar in order to represent the applicant, rather he must only be 
competent. 

 

Lastly, the representative has many years of graduate and 
doctoral research on internment in Switzerland that directly 
relates to the applicant’s AFBCMR case. He is currently working 
with the House Committee on Armed Services to correct 
deficiencies in the policy. 

 

The representative’s complete response, with attachments, is at 
Exhibit I. 

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT: 

 

1. The applicant has exhausted all remedies provided by existing 
law or regulations. 

 

2. The application was not timely filed; however, it is in the 
interest of justice to excuse the failure to timely file. 

 

3. Insufficient relevant evidence has been presented to 
demonstrate the existence of error or injustice. After a 
thorough and careful review of the evidence of record and the 
applicant's extensive submission, we are not persuaded that the 
member’s record should be corrected to reflect he was a Prisoner 
of War (POW) and entitled to the POW medal. Notwithstanding the 
fact that some internees were mistreated at the punishment camp 
and the commandant of Wauwilermoos was tried after the war for 
his misconduct in connection with the mistreatment, the 
mistreatment at the Wauwilermoos camp did not create a condition 
in which Switzerland lost its neutrality and became an opposing 
or foreign armed force hostile to the United States. We are 
aware that under U.S. foreign policy, Switzerland was recognized 
as a neutral country and not an enemy of the United States during 
World War II. Under long-standing customary international law, 
and provisions of the Swiss Constitution, Switzerland is a 
permanently neutralized country consistently and uniformly 
recognized as such by all nations. Furthermore, the pertinent 
provisions of the Geneva Convention do not support a conclusion 
that internees have the same status as prisoners of war under 


international law. Contrary to the applicant’s strong and 
convincing arguments and supported documentation of inappropriate 
treatment of internees while at Wauwilermoos and notwithstanding 
the previously approved POW medals to World War II internees of 
neutral countries and of the individual cited in the application, 
this Board is compelled to abide by the Articles of the Geneva 
Convention and international law pertaining to neutral nations, 
and established U.S. foreign policy. We are though, in agreement 
with the applicant’s plight to have these American airmen 
recognized who suffered imprisonment in service to their country. 
However, we believe this issue is a matter of policy that should 
be raised to the appropriate level for consideration and possible 
resolution. The personal sacrifice the former member endured for 
our country is noted; however, based on the rationale discussed 
above we do not believe that changing such matters of U.S. 
foreign policy and firmly established international practice is 
within our purview of authority. Therefore, we have no other 
recourse but to deny this request. 

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT: 

 

The applicant be notified that the evidence presented did not 
demonstrate the existence of material error or injustice; that 
the application was denied without a personal appearance; and the 
application will only be reconsidered upon the submission of 
newly discovered relevant evidence not considered with this 
application. 

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

The following members of the Board considered AFBCMR Docket 
Number BC-2010-01883 in Executive Session on 17 March 2011, under 
the provisions of AFI 36-2603: 

 

Panel Chair 

Member 

Member 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


The following documentary evidence pertaining to AFBCMR Docket 
Number BC-2010-01883 was considered: 

 

Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 1 Oct 09, w/atchs. 

Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records. 

Exhibit C. Letter, AFPC/ DPWC, dated 12 Aug 10, w/atchs. 

Exhibit D. Letter, AFPC/DPSIDRA, dated 1 Sep 10. 

Exhibit E. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 17 Sep 10. 

Exhibit F. Letter, Applicant, dated 22 Sep 10, w/atchs. 

Exhibit G. Letter, SAF/MRB Legal Advisor, dated 20 Oct 10, 
w/atchs. 

Exhibit H. Letter, AFBCMR, dated 15 Nov 10. 

Exhibit I. Letter, Applicant, dated 29 Nov 10, w/atchs. 

 

 

 

 

 

 Panel Chair