| Mr. Carl W. S. Chun | Director | |
| Mr. Hubert S. Shaw, Jr. | Analyst |
| Mr. Ted S. Kanamine | Chairperson | |
| Mr. William D. Powers | Member | |
| Mr. Frank C. Jones | Member |
2. Reconsideration of his earlier appeal to correct the military records of his late father [hereafter identified as the former service member (FSM)], by correcting his military records to show reinstatement of the bronze arrowhead device to be worn on the FSM's European-African-Middle Eastern Service Medal, award of the Distinguished Unit Citation [now referred to as the Presidential Unit Citation], award of a second Presidential Unit Citation [correctly known as the Presidential Unit Citation with First Oak Leaf Cluster], and award of a bronze service star based on participation in the Ardennes-Alsace Campaign to be worn on the FSM's European-African-Middle Eastern Service Medal.
3. The applicant states that he has new evidence. The applicant sent a letter, dated 11 September 2002, to the Military Awards Branch of the U.S. Total Army Personnel Command (PERSCOM) in which he contends that the FSM was entitled to the bronze arrowhead device for participation in the D-Day assault at Normandy, France, on 6-7 June 1944. In this same letter, the applicant contends that the FSM is entitled to correction of his records to show the Presidential Unit Citation which was awarded to members of the 6th Engineer Special Brigade and to show a second award of the Presidential Unit Citation authorized to members of the 4th Armored Division for actions during the Battle of the Bulge.
4. In a letter, dated 9 October 2002, the applicant again requested reinstatement of the bronze arrowhead device, award of a Presidential Unit Citation based on War Department General Order 4-45, correction of the FSM's WD AGO Form 53-55 (Enlisted Record and Report of Separation-Honorable Discharge) to show campaign credit for the Ardennes-Alsace Campaign, award of a bronze service star based on participation in the Ardennes-Alsace Campaign, and a second award of the Presidential Unit Citation.
5. In an undated letter received by the Army Board for Correction of Military Records (ABCMR) on 29 January 2003, the applicant in effect requested reconsideration of the matter regarding the bronze arrowhead device. The applicant wrote that he has turned up more information in regard to award of the "Naval Unit Commendation" [correctly known as the Navy Unit Commendation] to the 517th Port Battalion, the 6th Engineer Special Brigade and the 7th Naval Beach Battalion. He provided a picture of a memorial to the 6th Engineer Special Brigade which he contends proves that the FSM's unit [the 284th Port Company] assaulted Omaha Beach on 6 June 1944, not on June 8, 1944, because the 6th Engineer Special Brigade, the 517th Port Battalion and the 7th Naval Beach Battalion are listed on the memorial which is dated 6 June 1944.
6. Incorporated herein by reference are military records which were summarized in a memorandum prepared to reflect the decision of the ABCMR in Docket Number AR2001066174 on 2 July 2002.
7. The FSM's records contain a 9 August 2002 letter from the applicant to a Member of Congress with 41 pages of documents and pictures attached. In this letter, the applicant contends that the FSM is entitled to a "Bronze Arrowhead" and that the attached documents are a duplicate of the package he sent to the ABCMR "a few days ago." Also attached to this letter are copies of DD Forms 215 (Correction to a DD Form 214), prepared by the Military Awards Branch of PERSCOM and dated 8 March 2002 and 24 June 2002.
8. The DD Form 215, dated 8 March 2002 shows that PERSCOM authorized deletion of the European-African-Middle Eastern Service Medal from the FSM WD AGO Form 53-55 and authorized the addition of the European-African-Middle Eastern Service Medal with 4 bronze service stars and the bronze arrowhead device.
9. The DD Form 215, dated 24 June 2002, shows that PERSCOM authorized addition of the Army of Occupation Medal with Germany Clasp, the French Croix de Guerre with Palm Unit Citation and the Citation in the Order of Day of the Belgian Army to the FSM's WD AGO Form 53-55.
10. The FSM's records also contain a letter, dated 11 September 2002, from the applicant to the Chief of the Military Awards Branch of PERSCOM. In this letter, the applicant contends that an attached DD Form 215 (Correction to a DD Form 214), prepared by the Military Awards Branch and dated 8 March 2002, needs to show the "Bronze Arrowhead" and two Presidential Unit Citations. The DD Form 215 in question shows the applicant's handwritten annotations essentially stating "re-instate this" [the bronze arrowhead device], "add DUC [Distinguished Unit Citation now known as the Presidential Unit Citation] with Bronze Oak Leaf Cluster!" and "ammend to 1 silver service star" [change the entry 4 Bronze Service Stars to read one silver service star].
11. With the letter received from the applicant on 24 January 2003 was a photograph, labeled as NARA80G59422, which has been annotated by the applicant purportedly to show a former "buddy" of the FSM and the FSM on a landing craft headed to Omaha Beach on 6 June 1944. Also attached is a photograph of a monument to the units of the 6th Engineer Special Brigade. Among the units identified on this monument is the 517th Port Battalion. Also attached is a two-page article on U.S. Navy Beach Battalions.
12. The ABCMR voted unanimously on 2 July 2002 in Docket Number 2001066174 to correct the FSM's records to show award of 4 bronze service stars to be worn on the European-African-Middle Eastern Service Medal, award of the Army of Occupation Medal with Germany clasp, and the entries "French Croix de Guerre – unit citation – no emblem authorized," and "Belgian Citation in the Order of the Day – unit citation – no emblem authorized." The ABCMR also voted unanimously not to correct the FSM's records to show award of the bronze arrowhead device, award of the Navy Unit Commendation, or the highest marksmanship qualification badge.
13. The applicant has presented new evidence and argument in support of his request for reconsideration. Also, this Board has noted the two DD Forms 215 issued by the Military Awards Branch of PERSCOM just prior to consideration of Docket Number AR201066174 on 2 July 2002. In view of the request for reconsideration with some new evidence and arguments and the DD Forms 215 which were not considered by the ABCMR on 2 July 2002, this Board has determined that it is appropriate to review this current case "de novo" in order to set forth a decision based on all information, records, and arguments now before this Board of the ABCMR.
14. The FSM's records have been lost or destroyed. This case is being considered based on reconstructed records which consist primarily of the FSM's WD AGO Form 53-55 (Enlisted Record and Report of Separation-Honorable Discharge).
15. The FSM's WD AGO Form 53-55 shows he served as a "longshoreman" in the European Theater of Operations from 16 November 1943 until 11 December 1945. This document also shows that he was assigned to the 284th Port Company at the time of his honorable discharge from the Army on 4 January 1946. There is no evidence in the records available to the Board that the FSM served in any other units during his service in Europe.
16. Item 31 (Military Qualification and Date) shows that the FSM qualified as a marksman with the M-1 Rifle on 9 August 1943. There is no evidence that he ever qualified as an expert with a weapon during his service.
17. Item 32 (Battles and Campaigns) of the FSM's WD AGO Form 53-55 lists four World War II campaigns: Central Europe; Normandy; Northern France and Rhineland.
18. Item 33 (Decorations and Citations) shows that the FSM was awarded the European-African-Middle Eastern Service Medal, the Good Conduct Medal, and the World War II Victory Medal.
19. The FSM's WD AGO Form 53-55 does not show entitlement to award of the bronze arrowhead device to be worn on the European-African-Middle Eastern Service Medal, award of the Presidential Unit Citation or the Navy Unit Commendation.
20. The primary reference in this case is Department of the Army Pamphlet
672-1 (Unit Citation and Campaign Participation Credit Register), dated 6 July 1961. This military publication shows applicable entries, for campaign credit, award of the Distinguished Unit Citation [now known as the Presidential Unit Citation], award of the Meritorious Unit Commendation, award of assault landing credit, authority to receive foreign unit awards, award of Navy unit awards to Army units, and award of occupation credit for all Army units participating in World War II.
21. There is no evidence in the limited records available to the Board which shows that the FSM was authorized the bronze arrowhead device to be worn on his European-African-Middle Eastern Service Medal. The listing for the 284th Port Company in Department of the Army Pamphlet 672-1 does not show award of assault landing credit for any operation during World War II.
22. Military records at the National Archives in College Park, Maryland, and the Unit History Branch of the U. S. Army Center of Military History in Washington, D. C., list the 284th Port Company as a subordinate unit of the 517th Port Battalion. These records further show that the 517th Port Battalion was attached to the 6th Engineer Special Brigade during the Normandy landing operation, but that the 284th Port Company and the 517th Port Battalion landed on Omaha Beach on D-day plus 2 days (8 June 1944), not on D-day which was 6 June 1944. The listing for the 517th Port Battalion in Department of the Army Pamphlet 672-1 does not show award of assault landing credit for any operation during World War II.
23. War Department General Orders 70-45, awarded assault landing credit for all assault landings on beaches at Normandy, France, during the period 6 and 7 June 1944. The 284th Port Company is not listed on these General Orders.
24. War Department General Orders 70-45 show the 6th Engineer Special Brigade was awarded assault landing credit for landings during 6 and 7 June 1944, but the 517th Port Battalion and the 284th Port Company were not given assault landing credit since they did not land until 8 June 1944. Historical records show that the beaches used for the assault landings had been secured by 8 June 1944; therefore units arriving on 8 June 1944 and thereafter, including the 284th Port Company did not have to conduct an amphibious assault to land on Omaha Beach. This information was available to the Board of the ABCMR considering Docket Number AR2001066174 on 2 July 2002.
25. After announcement of the decision in Docket Number AR2001066174, the applicant argued in his letter, dated 9 October 2002, that the 284th Port Company must have been attached to the 487th Port Battalion, instead of the 517th Port Battalion, because the FSM did participate in the D-day assault and the 487th Port Battalion receive assault landing credit for D-day.
26. The applicant also argues in his 9 Ocotber 2002 letter that the picture identified as NARA80G59422 proves the FSM participated in the assault landing on D-day. The picture is captioned "Looking down at a large group of U.S. Army troops on board LCI [U.S. Navy Landing Craft] ready to ride to their rendezvous for France invasion." The applicant has annotated this picture to indicate the FSM in a group of soldiers and that the FSM is participating in the D-day assault landing. This picture was among records considered by the ABCMR in Docket Number AR2001066174 on 2 July 2002.
27. The applicant also provided a copy of a still photograph from the National Archives which he labeled as "War and Conflict #1041." The picture is captioned "Landing on the coast of France under heavy Nazi machine gun fire are these American soldiers, shown just as they left the ramp of a Coast Guard landing boat." The applicant has annotated this picture to indicate the FSM is on Omaha Beach on D-day, 6 June, not D+2, the soldiers are assaulting Omaha Beach under fire, and the beach is not secure so they had to assault.
28. The applicant also provided a page of handwritten notes. He states the following note was written by the FSM: "The special brigade troops were unable to clear the obstacles on the beach due to the rising tide, where the wounded drowned and we were suffering 40% casualties due to the heavy fire coming down upon us."
29. On the page of handwritten notes, the applicant made reference to "box 32" [item 32 (Battles and Campaigns] of the FSM's WD AGO Form 53-55 and requested a check to see if the FSM is entitled to the French Fourragere based on participation in two campaigns in France, specifically Normandy and Northern France.
30. On the page of handwritten notes, the applicant also makes reference to item 22 [the block labeled Meritorious Unit Emblem] on the DA Form 1577 (Authorization for Issuance of Awards). The applicant requested review of the FSM's entitlement to the Meritorious Unit Commendation and the Distinguished Unit Citation. He writes further that, in accordance with War Department General Order Number 4-45, the 6th Engineer Special Brigade and attached elements of which the FSM was a member "did in fact participate in Omaha Beach landings on June 6,1944 and NOT D+2."
31. On the page with handwritten notes, the applicant states that item 53 [the block labeled Bronze Arrowhead] of the DA Form 1577 authorizes the bronze arrowhead. The applicant also refers to the two pictures already cited, handwritten notes by the FSM, authority for award of the French Fourragere, and citation from the City of Antwerp and NARA 111-SC-364310 for the FSM's participation in the Battle of the Bulge and all awards for the 4th Armored Division December 1944 to January 1944, and award of the Belgian Fourragere based on the FSM's participation in two Belgian campaigns.
32. In relation to these handwritten notes, the applicant provided a copy of a 19 September 2002 letter from the U.S. Army Military History Institute, one page of historical data on the 487th Port Battalion which shows that this unit participated in the amphibious assault landing on Normandy per War Department General Orders Number 70, a history of the 4th Armored Division, a picture labeled by the applicant as NARA111SC 364310 and annotated to indicate the soldier in the picture is the FSM at the Battle of the Bulge as a member of the 4th Armored Division. Also annotated on this picture are statements to the effect that the FSM needs to be credited with the "Ardennes-Alsace" Campaign, a fifth bronze service star recognizing credit for the Ardennes-Alsace Campaign, and a second Distinguished Unit Citation. The applicant also provided a copy of the reverse side of the photograph which identifies the soldier as a machine gunner in the 4th Armored Division in the Bastogne Sector of Belgium on 6 January 1945.
33. The applicant also provided one page from a book he identified as Spearheading D-Day. This page addresses the role of the 6th Engineer Special Brigade at the start of December 1944 and states in part that "the three engineer bns. [battalions of the 6th Engineer Special Brigade] were rapidly shipped to assist in the defense against the Germans in the Ardennes."
34. In the undated request for reconsideration received by the ABCMR on 24 January 2003, the applicant addressed, in part, award of the Navy Unit Commendation and, in part, addressed assault landing credit for the 284th Port Company. He provided a photograph of a monument to the units of the 6th Engineer Special Brigade. Among the units identified on this monument is the 517th Port Battalion. The inscription on the monument is: "To all members of this command who lived, fought and died for the cause of freedom. D-DAY. 6 JUNE 1944." Also attached is a two-page article on U.S. Navy Beach Battalions. The applicant asserts that "whether you put the FSM in the 487 Port Bn [battalion] or 517 Port Bn, he (FSM) still in fact assaulted Omaha Beach on June 6, 1944 (Not June 8). I already sent pictures and hand written notes left by FSM. You need to credit both with assault credit! Re-instate bronze arrowhead!"
35. The applicant continues in his request for reconsideration that he has identified Naval personnel by their helmet insignia in the picture labeled as NARA#80G59422. He contends that this "signifies a member of the NBB (Naval Beach Battalion). This proves joint operations Army/Navy on June 6, 1944 (Not D+2 June 8)." The applicant also attached three reproduced pages from the book Spearheading D-Day which provides a history of the Naval Beach Battalions and states that the 7th Naval Beach Battalion was under the 6th Engineer Special Brigade during the Normandy invasion.
36. There is no evidence in the limited records available to the Board which shows that the FSM was a member of a unit cited for award of the Presidential Unit Citation. Department of the Army Pamphlet 672-1 does not show the 284th Port Company received award of the Presidential Unit Citation.
37. The applicant contends that the 6th Engineer Special Brigade was awarded the Presidential Unit Citation. Department of the Army Pamphlet 672-1 shows that the 6th Engineer Special Brigade was awarded the Presidential Unit Citation for actions on 6 June 1944 by War Department General Orders 4-45.
38. The applicant also contends that the subordinate units of the 6th Engineer Special Brigade, including the 284th Port Company, were eligible for award of the Presidential Unit Citation based on its award to the 6th Engineer Special Brigade. However, Department of the Army Pamphlet 672-1 shows the 517th Port Battalion and the 487th Port Battalion were not awarded the Presidential Unit Citation separately or based on War Department General Orders 4-45.
39. In regard to the award of the Presidential Unit Citation to the 6th Engineer Special Brigade, Department of the Army Pamphlet 672-1 contains the remark "DUC [Distinguished Unit Citation], number of personnel 59" which means that only 59 personnel of the 6th Engineer Special Brigade Headquarters were awarded the Presidential Unit Citation, not all personnel in units assigned or attached to the 6th Engineer Special Brigade.
40. There is no evidence the FSM was assigned to the 4th Armored Division during World War II. There also no evidence that the FSM's unit, the 284th Port Company, was a subordinate unit of the 4th Armored Division during the period 22 December 1944 to 27 March 1945 when the 4th Armored Division was cited for award of the Presidential Unit Citation based on War Department General Orders Number 54-45.
41. There is no evidence in the limited records available to the Board which shows that the FSM was a member of a unit cited for award of the Meritorious Unit Commendation. Department of the Army Pamphlet 672-1 does not show the 284th Port Company received award of the Meritorious Unit Commendation.
42. The 487th Port Battalion received the Meritorious Unit Commendation for actions during the period 1 June 1944 to 1 August 1944. Historical records show the 284th Port Company was not assigned to the 487th Port Battalion at Bremerhaven, Germany, until 30 June 1945.
43. There is no evidence in the limited records available to the Board which shows that the FSM was a member of a unit cited for award of the Navy Unit Commendation. Department of the Army Pamphlet 672-1 does not show the 284th Port Company received award of the Navy Unit Commendation. Letters from the Military Awards Branch and the applicant and Members of Congress who had inquired on behalf of the applicant were advised that there was no evidence that the FSM was in a unit cited for award of the Navy Unit Commendation and that the Department of the Navy had inquired into this matter and found no record of the 284th Port Company or the 487th Port Battalion receiving a Navy Unit Commendation.
44. Department of the Army Pamphlet 672-1 shows the unit to which the FSM was assigned, the 284th Port Company, received campaign credit for the Normandy Campaign (6 June 1944-24 July 1944), the Northern France Campaign (25 July 1944-14 September 1944), the Rhineland Campaign (15 September 1944-21 March 1945), and the Ardennes-Alsace Campaign (16 December 1944-25 January 1945).
45. Although the FSM's WD AGO Form 53-55 shows credit for the Central Europe Campaign, Department of the Army Pamphlet 672-1 does not show that the 284th Port Company received campaign credit for the Central Europe Campaign (22 March 1945-11 May 1945). Conversely, Department of the Army Pamphlet 672-1 shows the 284th Port Company received campaign credit for the Ardennes-Alsace Campaign which is not shown on the FSM's WD AGO Form 53-55.
46. There is no evidence that the FSM was awarded the French Fourragere. Two citations for award of the French Croix de Guerre are required for award of the French Fourragere. The unit to which the FSM was assigned in World War II, the 284th Port Company was cited by the French Government once for the French Croix de Guerre. Department of the Army Pamphlet 672-1 shows the 284th Port Company, was cited for the French Croix de Guerre based on Department of the Army General Order 43-50.
47. There is no evidence in available records which shows that the FSM was awarded the Belgian Fourragere. Two citations in the Order of the Day of the Belgian Army are required for award of the Belgian Fourragere. Department of the Army Pamphlet 672-1 shows that the 284th Port Company was cited once in the Order of the Day of the Belgian Army based on Department of the Army General Orders Number 43-50.
48. There is no evidence the FSM or the unit to which he was assigned was awarded the Navy Unit Commendation. Department of the Army Pamphlet
672-1 does not show the 284th Port Company received any Navy unit awards. Further, in a 7 March 2002 letter to the applicant, the Chief of the Military Awards Branch of PERSCOM, advised that the Department of the Navy Awards and Decorations office found no record of the 284th Port Company or the 487th Port Battalion receiving the Navy Unit Commendation.
49. Department of the Army Pamphlet 672-1 shows the 284th Port Company received occupation credit from 15 August to 31 October 1945 for Germany.
50. Army Regulation 600-8-22 (Military Awards) provides, in pertinent part, for the bronze arrowhead device to be worn on the appropriate service medal to denote participation in a combat parachute jump, helicopter assault landing, combat glider landing, or amphibious assault landing while assigned or attached as a member of an organized force carrying out an assigned tactical mission. The regulation specifies that individual assault credit is tied directly to the combat assault credit decision for the unit to which the soldier is assigned. The regulation requires that the unit must be credited with a combat assault in order for the soldiers to receive credit for a combat assault and the soldier must physically exit the aircraft or the watercraft as appropriate. Units are awarded combat assault credit by War Department or Department of the Army General Orders. The regulation also specifies that the arrowhead is authorized for wear on the Asiatic-Pacific Campaign Medal, the European-African-Middle Eastern Campaign Medal, the Korean Service Medal, the Vietnam Service Medal, and the Armed Forces Expeditionary Medal.
51. Army Regulation 600-8-22 provides, in pertinent part, that the Presidential Unit Citation (known as the Distinguished Unit Citation until 3 November 1966) is awarded for extraordinary heroism in action. A unit must display such gallantry, determination and esprit de corps in accomplishing its mission as would warrant award of the Distinguished Service Cross to an individual. Department of the Army Pamphlet 672-1 (Unit Citation and Campaign Participation Credit Register) indicates the units in World War II which received the Presidential Unit Citation and the General Orders authorizing the award.
52. The Navy Unit Commendation was established by the Secretary of the Navy on December 18, 1944, and awarded by the Secretary, with the approval of the President, to any ship, aircraft, detachment, or other unit of the U.S. Navy or Marine Corps which, subsequent to December 6, 1941, distinguished itself by outstanding heroism in action against the enemy, but not sufficient to warrant award of the Presidential Unit Citation.
53. Army Regulation 600-8-22, in pertinent part, sets forth requirements for award of basic marksmanship qualification badges. The qualification badge is awarded to indicate the degree in which an individual has qualified in a prescribed record course, and an appropriate bar is furnished to denote each weapon with which the individual has qualified. The qualification badges are in three classes [from highest to lowest]: Expert, Sharpshooter, and Marksman.
54. Army Regulation 600-8-22, in pertinent part, authorizes award of a bronze service star, based on qualifying service, for each campaign listed in Appendix B of this regulation or in item 32 (Battles and Campaigns) of the WD AGO Form 53-55 (Enlisted Record and Report of Separation-Honorable Discharge). The regulation also states that authorized bronze service stars will be worn on the appropriate service medal and that a silver service star is authorized in lieu of five bronze service stars.
55. Army Regulation 600-8-22 provides for award of the French Fourragere as an approved foreign unit award. The French Fourragere may be awarded by the French Government when a unit has been cited twice for award of the French Croix de Guerre. When a unit is cited twice for the Croix de Guerre, then the colors of the fourragere are red and green. When a unit is cited four times, the colors of the fourragere are yellow and green. Award of the fourragere is not automatic and requires a decree by the French Government, and persons who were only in one action are not authorized to wear the fourragere. When a unit was cited only one time for award of the French Croix de Guerre there was no individual device, medal or ribbon authorized for wear by members of the unit.
56. Army Regulation 600-8-22 provides for award of the Belgian Fourragere. The regulation states that it may be awarded by the Belgian Government when a unit has been cited twice in the Order of the Day of the Belgian Army. The award of the Belgian Fourragere is not automatic but must be by special decree of the Belgian Government. Persons who were present in only one action are not authorized to wear the Fourragere.
57. In a 28 March 1983 letter, the U.S. Army Military Personnel Center published the policy regarding awards of the French Croix de Guerre to U.S. Army veterans who had served in World War I and World War II. Essentially, this guidance states that there is no individual emblem presented to or worn by Army soldiers who were in a unit cited by the French Government for the Croix de Guerre. Thus, former members of any American units which appear in Department of the Army Pamphlet 672-1 (Unit Citation and Campaign Credit Register) are not authorized an individual device. This is also true of the Belgian Citation in the Order of the Day and the Netherlands Military Order of William.
58. Army Regulation 600-8-22 provides, in pertinent part, that the Army of Occupation Medal is awarded for service of thirty consecutive days at a normal post of duty in a qualifying location. Personnel at a qualifying location as an inspector, courier, escort, temporary or detached duty are precluded from eligibility. For award of the Army of Occupation Medal with Germany Clasp, qualifying service must have occurred between 9 May 1945 and 5 May 1955 and the European-African-Middle Eastern Campaign Medal must have been awarded prior to 9 May 1945. During World War II, occupation credit was awarded by War Department General Orders and those units receiving occupation credit for World War II are listed in Department of the Army Pamphlet 672-1 (Unit Citation and Campaign Participation Credit Register), dated 6 July 1961.
59. Army Regulation 15-185 (Army Board for Correction of Military Records) sets forth the policy and procedures for the ABCMR. It provides that, if a request for a reconsideration is received within one year of the prior consideration and the case has not been previously reconsidered, it will be resubmitted to the Board if there is evidence (including but not limited to any facts or arguments as to why relief should be granted) that was not in the record at the time of the Board’s prior consideration. The staff of the Board is authorized to determine whether or not such evidence has been submitted.
CONCLUSIONS:
1. The Board considered the applicant's contention that the FSM is entitled to correction of his records to show award of the bronze arrowhead device for participation in the amphibious assault on Omaha Beach on D-day, 6 June 1944.
a. There is no evidence of record which shows that the FSM or his unit participated in an amphibious assault within the period of eligibility [D-day, 6 June 1944, or D+1, 7 June 1944] for award of the bronze arrowhead device.
b. Department of the Army Pamphlet 672-1 does not show that the 284th Port Company or its higher headquarters, the 517th Port Battalion, received assault landing credit for D-day or D+1[6 and 7 June 1944, respectively].
c. Official historical records show that the unit to which the FSM was assigned arrived in France on D+2, 8 June 1944.
d. The Board reviewed the pictures and the arguments presented by the applicant and found them insufficient as evidence that the FSM or his unit participated in the amphibious assault on the Normandy Beaches on 6 or 7 June 1944, particularly in view of the official records which show the FSM's unit did not arrive in France until D+2, 8 June 1944.
e. The regulatory requirements are quite clear regarding award of assault landing credit and the bronze arrowhead device. In the absence of War Department General Orders awarding assault landing credit to the 284th Port Company, there is insufficient basis for correction of the FSM's records to show award of the bronze arrowhead device.
2. The Board considered the applicant's contentions regarding correction of the FSM's records to show award of two Presidential Unit Citations.
a. Department of the Army Pamphlet 672-1 does not show that the 284th Port Company was awarded the Presidential Unit Citation.
b. The applicant's argument that the Presidential Unit Citation awarded to the 6th Engineer Special Brigade entitled members of the 284th Port Company to award of the Presidential Unit Citation is without merit. The General Order authorizing the Presidential Unit Citation to the 6th Engineer Special Brigade awarded it only to 59 members of the 6th Engineer Special Brigade.
c. The applicant's contention that the FSM was entitled to an award of the Presidential Unit Citation authorized for the 4th Armored Division is without merit. There is no evidence the 284th Port Company was assigned or attached to the 4th Armored Division or was listed on the General Order awarding the Presidential Unit Citation to the 4th Armored Division. The Board noted the reference to the engineer battalions of the 6th Engineer Special Brigade being moved to participate in the Battle of the Bulge; however, there is no evidence the 284th Port Company was reassigned with these engineer battalions to fight in the Battle of the Bulge.
d. Based on the foregoing, there is insufficient evidence upon which to base correction of the FSM's records to show award of the Presidential Unit Citation in this case.
3. The Board considered the applicant's contention that the FSM's records should be corrected to show award of the Meritorious Unit Commendation.
a. Department of the Army Pamphlet 672-1 does not show that the 284th Port Company was authorized award of the Meritorious Unit Commendation.
b. The Board noted that the 487th Port Battalion received the Meritorious Unit Commendation and that the 284th Port Company was a subordinate unit of the 487th Port Battalion. However, historical records show that the period of service for which the 487th Port Battalion received the Meritorious Unit Commendation was 1 June 1944 to 1 August 1944. Historical records show that the 284th Port Company did not join the 487th Port Battalion until 30 June 1945.
c. Based on the foregoing, there is insufficient information upon which to base correction of the FSM's records to show award of the Meritorious Unit Commendation.
4. The Board noted the applicant's request regarding award of the Navy Unit Commendation. Department of the Army Pamphlet 672-1 does not show the 284th Port Company, the 517th Port Battalion or the 487th Port Battalion was awarded the Navy Unit Commendation. The Board also noted that the Department of the Navy reviewed their records and found no authority for award of the Navy Unit Commendation to the 284th Port Company. Thus, there is insufficient evidence upon which to base correction of the FSM's records to show award of the Navy Unit Commendation.
5. The Board considered the applicant's request to award the FSM the highest marksmanship qualification badge. However, the FSM's WD AGO Form 53-55 shows that he qualified with the rifle as a "Marksman." In the absence of evidence that the FSM qualified as an "Expert," there is no basis to correct the FSM's records to show that he received the Expert Marksmanship Badge with Rifle Bar.
6. The Board considered the applicant's request to correct the FSM's records to show credit for the Ardennes-Alsace Campaign and award one additional bronze service star [for a total of five] for this campaign.
a. The Board noted the FSM's WD AGO Form 53-55 shows campaign credit for the Normandy Campaign, the Northern France Campaign, the Rhineland Campaign, and the Central Europe Campaign,
b. The Board also noted that Department of the Army Pamphlet 672-1 shows the 284th Port Company, received campaign credit for the Normandy Campaign, the Northern France Campaign, the Rhineland Campaign, and the Ardennes-Alsace Campaign, but not the Central Europe Campaign.
c. Based on the facts in Paragraph 5a and b, above, the Board determined that item 32 (Battles and Campaigns) should be corrected to show only the Normandy Campaign , the Northern France Campaign, the Rhineland Campaign, and the Ardennes-Alsace Campaign.
d. As a result of this correction deleting the Central Europe Campaign, award of the European-African-Middle Eastern Service Medal with four bronze service stars as directed by the ABCMR in Docket Number AR2001066174 on 2 July 2002 remains valid.
7. The Board considered the applicant's request for award of the French Fourragere. Contrary to the applicant's belief that the French Fourragere is awarded for participation in two campaigns in France, it is awarded for two citations for award of the French Croix de Guerre. Department of the Army Pamphlet 672-1 shows the 284th Port Company was cited only once by the French Government for award of the Croix de Guerre. As a result, the unit, therefore the FSM, was not entitled to the French Fourragere.
8. The Board considered the applicant's request for award of the Belgian Fourragere. Contrary to the applicant's belief that credit for two campaigns in Belgium is the basis for award of the Belgian Fourragere, it is awarded for two citations in the Order of the Day of the Belgian Army. Department of the Army Pamphlet 672-1 shows the 284th Port Company was cited only once in the Order of the Day of the Belgian Army. As a result, the unit, therefore the FSM, was not entitled to the Belgian Fourragere.
9. Department of the Army Pamphlet 672-1 shows the 284th Port Company was awarded occupation credit in Germany for the period 15 August 1945 to 31 October 1945. Therefore the decision of the ABCMR in Docket Number AR2001066174 on 2 July 2002 to correct the records of the FSM to show the Army of Occupation Medal with Germany Clasp was correct.
10. Based on all of the foregoing, this Board has determined that the following actions are essential in the interest of clarity and as a result of the "de novo" consideration of this case:
a. The DD Forms 215, dated 8 March 2002 and 24 June 2002 and published by the Military Awards Branch of PERSCOM, should be voided because they contain errors and duplicate actions of the ABCMR in Docket Number AR2001066174, dated 2 July 2002.
b. The recommendations in the Proceedings of the ABCMR in Docket Number AR2001066174, dated 2 July 2002, should be voided.
c. The FSM's records should be corrected to show the Normandy Campaign, the Northern France Campaign, the Rhineland Campaign, and the Ardennes-Alsace Campaign, but not the Central Europe Campaign.
d. The FSM's records should be corrected to show four bronze service stars to be worn on the European-African-Middle Eastern Service Medal.
e. The FSM's records should be corrected to show award of the Army of Occupation Medal with Germany clasp.
f. The FSM's records should be corrected to show the entries "French Croix de Guerre – unit citation – no emblem authorized," and "Belgian Citation in the Order of the Day – unit citation – no emblem authorized."
11. In view of the foregoing findings and conclusions, correcting the FSM's records as recommended below would correct an error or rectify an injustice.
12. In arriving at these conclusions and the following recommendations which do not grant all of the recognition requested, the Board wants the applicant to know that the decisions of the Board in this case in no way diminish the quality of the FSM's service to our Army and our Nation. The FSM's entry into the Army and his performance in a time of great personal peril demonstrated the finest traditions selfless service and should be a source of pride to the applicant and all who knew the FSM.
RECOMMENDATION:
1. That all of the Department of the Army records related to this case be corrected:
a. by voiding the DD Forms 215, dated 8 March 2002 and 24 June 2002 and published by the Military Awards Branch of PERSCOM, which pertain to the FSM; and
b. by voiding the Proceedings of the ABCMR in Docket Number AR2001066174, dated 2 July 2002;
c. by correcting item 32 (Battles and Campaigns) of the WD AGO Form 53-55 of the FSM to show the Normandy Campaign , the Northern France Campaign, the Rhineland Campaign, and the Ardennes-Alsace Campaign, but not the Central Europe Campaign;
d. by correcting item 33 (Decorations and Citations) of the WD AGO Form 53-55 of the FSM to show four bronze service stars to be worn on the European-African-Middle Eastern Service Medal;
e. by correcting item 33 (Decorations and Citations) of the WD AGO Form 53-55 of the FSM to show award of the Army of Occupation Medal with Germany clasp; and
f. by correcting item 33 (Decorations and Citations) of the WD AGO Form 53-55 of the FSM to show the entries "French Croix de Guerre – unit citation – no emblem authorized," and "Belgian Citation in the Order of the Day – unit citation – no emblem authorized."
2. That so much of the applicant's request for reconsideration as pertains to award of the bronze arrowhead device, award of the Presidential Unit Citation, award of the Meritorious Unit Commendation, award of the Navy Unit Commendation, award of the Expert Marksmanship Badge with Rifle Bar, credit for five campaigns, award of a silver service star, award of the French Fourragere, and award of the Belgian Fourragere be denied.
BOARD VOTE:
__TSK__ __WDP__ __FCJ___ GRANT AS STATED IN RECOMMENDATION
________ ________ ________ GRANT FORMAL HEARING
________ ________ ________ DENY APPLICATION
__Mr. Ted S. Kanamine_
CHAIRPERSON
INDEX
| CASE ID | AR2002079886 |
| SUFFIX | |
| RECON | |
| DATE BOARDED | 20030812 |
| TYPE OF DISCHARGE | |
| DATE OF DISCHARGE | |
| DISCHARGE AUTHORITY | |
| DISCHARGE REASON | |
| BOARD DECISION | Grant |
| REVIEW AUTHORITY | MR SCHNEIDER |
| ISSUES 1. | 107.0000.0000 |
| 2. | |
| 3. | |
| 4. | |
| 5. | |
| 6. |
ARMY | BCMR | CY2001 | 2001066174C070421
He also provides a copy of a DA Form 1577 (Authorization for Issuance of Awards) issued on 18 January 2001 by the National Personnel Records Center in St. Louis showing that the FSM was issued the following awards: the Good Conduct Medal, the European-African-Middle Eastern Service Medal with 4 bronze service stars and an arrowhead, the World War II Victory Medal, the Army of Occupation Medal with Germany clasp, the Honorable Service Lapel Button WWII, and the Marksman Marksmanship...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2011 | 20110010894
Based upon his application, the evidence of record, and accompanying supporting documents that he submitted, it does not appear the FSM was recommended for or awarded the Legion of Merit. There is no evidence the FSM was assigned to either unit of the 28th Regiment. Therefore, the Board determined that the overall merits of this case are insufficient as a basis for correction of the records of the individual concerned.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2008 | 20080006011
Evidence does show that prior to the FSM becoming a prisoner of war he was assigned to the 168th Engineer Combat Battalion during a period of time the unit was awarded the Presidential Unit Citation and the Citation in the Order of the Day of the Belgian Army. Records show the FSM was returned to military control on 28 April 1945; his WD AGO Form 53-55 shows he departed the European theater of operations on 15 May 1945. As a result, the Board recommends that all Department of the Army...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2010 | 20100026002
The applicant, the son of a former service member (FSM), requests correction of the FSM's records to show award of the French Fourragere. The applicant provides copies of the FSM's death certificate, his birth certificate, a personnel roster and congratulatory message, the FSM's Army Separation Qualification Record and discharge document, and a document on American units awarded the fourragere during World Wars I and II. The applicant contends that the FSM's records should be corrected to...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2013 | 20130017918
The applicant requests correction of his WD AGO Form 53-55 (Enlisted Record and Report of Separation Honorable Discharge Certificate) to show awards of the: * Presidential Distinguished Unit Citation (currently known as the Presidential Unit Citation) * French Croix de Guerre with Silver Star * Belgian Croix de Guerre 2. The applicant provides copies of the following: * WD AGO Form 53-55 * Honorable Discharge Certificate * Information sheet show the 517th Parachute Infantry Regiment was...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2006 | 20060000762C070205
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 15 August 2006 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20060000762 I certify that hereinafter is recorded the true and complete record of the proceedings of the Army Board for Correction of Military Records in the case of the above-named individual. In pertinent part, it provided that one overseas service bar is authorized for each 6-month period of active Federal service as a member of the U.S. Service outside of the continental United States from 7 December 1941...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2009 | 20090003191
The FSM's military service records are not available to the Board for review. The evidence of record also shows that an award of the Combat Infantryman Badge is considered to be a citation in orders for the Bronze Star Medal for service during World War II. As a result, the Board recommends that all Department of the Army records of the individual concerned be corrected by: a. awarding the FSM the Bronze Star Medal for meritorious achievement for exemplary conduct in ground combat during...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2013 | 20130004730
The applicant requests, in effect, correction of his WD AGO Form 53-55 (Enlisted Record and Report of Separation - Honorable Discharge) to show the: * French Croix de Guerre * French Fourragere * Netherlands Orange Lanyard * Belgian Fourragere * Belgian Croix de Guerre (properly known as the Order of the Day of the Belgian Army) 2. The applicant's military records are not available for review. As a result, the Board recommends that all Department of the Army records of the individual...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2006 | 20060014552
The applicant states, in effect, that the organization shown on his discharge document is incorrect and should be corrected to show that he served with Company B, 299th Engineer Combat Battalion during World War II. The applicant's military service records are not available to the Board for review. Therefore, the Board requests that the CMSD-St. Louis administratively correct the records of the individual concerned to show award of the Arrowhead Device, Army of Occupation Medal with...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2009 | 20090011365
The FSM's military records are not available to the Board for review. Based on the evidence of record that shows the FSM made two combat jumps and that his unit was credited with two assault landings, the FSM is entitled to award of the Parachutist Badge with two bronze service stars. As a result, the Board recommends that all Department of the Army records of the individual concerned be corrected by: a. awarding the FSM the Bronze Star Medal based on award of the Combat Infantryman Badge...