RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


      IN THE CASE OF:


      BOARD DATE:        2 JUNE 2005
      DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20040006611


      I certify that hereinafter is recorded the true and complete record
of the proceedings of the Army Board for Correction of Military Records in
the case of the above-named individual.

|     |Mr. Carl W. S. Chun               |     |Director             |
|     |Ms. Deborah L. Brantley           |     |Senior Analyst       |


      The following members, a quorum, were present:

|     |Mr. Fred Eichorn                  |     |Chairperson          |
|     |Mr. Thomas O'Shaughnessy          |     |Member               |
|     |Ms. Marla Troup                   |     |Member               |

      Exhibit A - Application for correction of military records.

      Exhibit B - Military Personnel Records (including advisory opinion,
if any).

THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST, STATEMENT, AND EVIDENCE:

1.  The applicant requests reconsideration of his previous request to have
his uncle, a decease former civilian national of the United States who was
serving under competent authority with the United States Armed Forces
during World War II, awarded the Purple Heart.  The deceased uncle was the
brother of the applicant’s father.

2.  The applicant states that he was disappointed in the Board’s decision
to reject his original application and that the Board apparently
disregarded selected documents.  He states he has since obtained additional
evidence which shows that the decision was incorrect and asks that the
evidence submitted with his original applicant be more fully addressed.

3.  He notes that the Board considered documentation “from outside official
Government files as the corner stone of its rejection” and that as such,
the Board should now consider several documents which he submits that are
not from official government files.  He states that the Department of the
Army, Military Awards Branch reversed its initial rejection of an award of
the Purple Heart for his uncle, although the Board did not address that
fact.

4.  The applicant discusses at length, several statements, he submits that
document the recollections of tales told to various individuals by
survivors of the USAT (United States Army Transport) Oneida sinking.  In
particular he discusses the suspected source of an unsigned “interview” of
the commander of the USAT Oneida, which he believes may have been conducted
by another uncle who was an FBI (Federal Bureau of Investigation) agent who
was living in New York at the time the 1943 interview was to have taken
place.

5.  The applicant asks that the Board address a 1945 letter from the
Secretary of War to the Comptroller General, which addressed the sinking of
the USAT Oneida.  He notes that the letter was included in the original
application but “the Board appears to have not considered this letter.”

6.  In addition to documents provided with the applicant’s original
application, including a 1943 casualty message, an undated telegram to the
applicant’s grandparents, the 1947 report of death, an undated “Summary of
Official Record of Civilian Employee,” and the 1945 letter from the
Secretary of War to the Comptroller General, the applicant now submits two
versions of an undated letter (written and typed) from an individual who
recounts his recollection of events leading up to the sinking of the USAT
Oneida, the unsigned 1943 interview statement of an individual identified
as the commander of the USAT Oneida, and several e-mails to the applicant,
some of which discuss the source of the undated, handwritten letter, and
others from an individual who relates what his father had told her about
the sinking of the USAT Oneida.

7.  The applicant also submits copies of correspondence to and from the
Army’s Military Awards Branch regarding award of the Purple Heart to the
applicant’s uncle.  He includes a copy of the 18 December 2003 letter from
the Awards Branch which notes that “upon further review, we have determined
that the late Mr. M….. would have been entitled to an award of the Purple
Heart” but that because the applicant was not a “primary next of kin” they
could not issue him the decoration.  That same letter was also included
with the original application to the Board.

CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:

1.  Incorporated herein by reference are military records which were
summarized in the previous consideration of the applicant's case by the
Army Board for Correction of Military Records (ABCMR) in Docket Number
AR2003094897 on 10 June 2004.

2.  A War Department Summary of Official Record of Civilian Employment
notes that the applicant’s uncle, hereinafter referred to as Mr. M, assumed
the position of Ship’s Transportation Clerk aboard the USAT Siboney on 1
August 1942.  In December 1942 he moved to the USAT Meteor where he
performed the same duties.  On 15 January 1943 he resigned those duties
“without prejudice” and the following day assumed duties as the Ship’s
Transportation Agent for the USAT Oneida under the provisions of Executive
Order 9063.  A War Department Report of Field Personnel Action identified
the Oneida as an “Inter-island transport” rather than as a USAT.
Nonetheless the ship was under the direction of the Transportation Corps,
Army Transportation Service (ATS), and Mr. M resided on board the
transport.

3.  Executive Order 9063 was signed by President Roosevelt on 16 February
1942 and authorized the Civil Service Commission to adopt special
procedures relating to the recruitment, placement, and changes in status of
personnel for the Federal Service.

4.  Information from the Center of Military History notes that the Army
Transportation Service was originally organized in 1898 and with the
beginning of World War II was absorbed into the Army’s Transportation
Corps.


5.  As noted in the Board’s original proceedings, an undated Postal
Telegraph, addressed to Mr. M’s father, informed the addressee that his son
was “reported missing since May Four in North America Area” and that if
further details or information of Mr. M’s status were received the
addressee would be notified.  Another Telegram, dated 29 May 1943, also
addressed to Mr. M’s father, contained the same information.  However, the
29 May 1943 telegram contains the typed entry “NON-BATTLE” at the bottom of
the document.

6.  On 19 July 1943 a War Department Report of Field Personnel Action was
issued noting that Mr. M had been reported missing approximately 4 May 1943
when the Oneida was “lost by act of war.”  The form reflects the initials
of an Army Transportation Corps second lieutenant who was signing “for the
Chief, Civilian Personnel Branch.”

7.  A 24 July 1943 “Official Superior’s Report of Injury” notes that Mr. M
was reported missing at sea on 4 May 1943 and that the “cause of accident
is unknown.  Ship was lost at Sea.”

8.  An undated “War Department Summary of Official Record of Civilian
Employee” which reflects each of Mr. M’s Army Transportation Service
positions concludes by noting that he was “reported missing (ship lost by
“Act of War”)” from the Oneida “approximately May 4, 1943.”

9.  A 19 March 1945 letter from the Secretary of War to the Comptroller
General of the United States reported that funds under the control of Mr. M
were “lost when the ship on which [Mr. M] was serving as Special Disbursing
Agent was sunk through enemy action.”

10.  A “non-battle casualty report” was issued by Department of the Army in
September 1947 confirming Mr. M’s death “as the result of drowning when the
ship to which he was assigned sank.”  The date of death was reported as 4
May 1943.  In October 1947 the Department of the Army issued a second
“report of death” amending the date of death to 5 May 1943.  That document,
as noted in the Board’s original proceedings, also showed an “X” in the
“non battle” box. However, neither document detailed the events surrounding
the sinking of the USAT Oneida on which Mr. M had been serving.

11.  In March 2003 the applicant contacted the Army’s Military Awards
Branch regarding award of the Purple Heart to his uncle.  The Awards Branch
responded in July 2003 that the applicant did not meet the regulatory
requirements for issuance of posthumous military awards because he did not
fall within the definition of a “primary next-of-kin.”  They also noted,
however, that the documentation provided by the applicant to them “gives
conflicting accounts on whether the transport ship sank due to enemy
action” and recommended that an “eligible next of kin” make application to
this Board.

12.  In July of 2003 the applicant submitted his original application to
this Board.  Apparently, in the processing of that application, it was
returned to the Army’s Military Awards Branch.  An 18 December 2003 letter
from the Awards Branch notes that his “request was returned to this office,
the proponent for the Army’s Awards and Decorations Program, for reply.”
In that correspondence, the Awards Branch noted that “upon further review,
we have determined that the late [Mr. M] would have been entitled to an
award of the Purple Heart.”  However, the Awards Branch reiterated that by
regulation posthumous awards could only be issued to a primary next of kin
(spouse, eldest child, father or mother, eldest brother or sister, or
eldest grandchild).  The Awards Branch suggested that the applicant
purchase the decoration from a civilian dealer.  However, there is no
indication that any orders or certificates were awarded confirming Mr. M’s
entitlement to the Purple Heart.

13.  The applicant indicated in correspondence contained in his previous
application to the Board that his uncle never married, and that his parents
(the applicant’s grandparents) and brothers and sisters (the applicant’s
father and other aunts and uncles) were all deceased, the last dying in
1999.

14.  The documents provided by the applicant with his request for
reconsideration, which he identifies as from “unofficial” government
sources, essentially are recollections of various individuals who were
either on board the USAT Oneida when she sunk or the recollections of tales
told to others by those who were on board.  Those documents essentially
indicate that those individuals who were on board recalled seeing red
lights in the distance, hearing thuds before the ship broke apart, and the
belief that while the ship may have taken on water because of the stormy
seas, an enemy torpedo was the real cause of the ship sinking.

15.  The Dictionary of American Naval Fighting Ship, cited in the Board
original proceedings as a primary basis for denying the applicant’s
previous application, is an officially recognized source of ship
information by the Department of Navy and is maintained in the Naval
Historical Center at the Washington Navy Yard in Washington, D.C.




16.  President John F. Kennedy issued Executive Order 11016 on April 25,
1962, extending eligibility for the Purple Heart to "any civilian national
of the United States, who while serving under competent authority in any
capacity with an armed force…, has been, or may hereafter be, wounded."

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  While the documents certifying the death of Mr. M are certainly
contradictive, the fact remains that other than the 29 May 1943 telegram
containing the typed word “NON BATTLE” a 19 July 1943 War Department Report
of Field Personnel Action indicated the Oneida was “lost by act of war” as
did a subsequent undated War Department Summary of Official Record of
Civilian Employee.  Clearly those earliest documents should carry more
weight in determining eligibility for award of the Purple Heart than
casualty reports issued in 1947, more than 5 years after Mr. M’s death.

2.  Additionally, the 1945 letter from the Secretary of War to the
Comptroller General in 1945 attesting to the fact that funds under the
control of Mr. M were lost when the ship “was sunk through enemy action”
should serve as compelling evidence of entitlement to the Purple Heart.
The fact that the Secretary of War was satisfied that the money on board
the ship was lost through enemy action should also be sufficient to satisfy
the requirement for entitlement to the Purple Heart.

3.  While it is unclear if the applicant believes that the Board’s use of
information, contained in the Dictionary of American Naval Fighting Ships,
to deny his previous request constitutes an unofficial source, the fact
remains that the information in that document is part of the files of the
Department of the Navy’s Naval Historical Center.  However, notwithstanding
the fact that the listing would be considered an official source, it is
noted that the information contained on that listing was about another ship
(Andres) that came to the rescue of the survivors of the Oneida several
hours after the ship had sunk and was not specifically about the Oneida.
The source of the information, which is recounted in the Andres’ ship
information about the reason the Oneida sunk, is not cited in that summary.

4.  It is noted, that regardless of the conflicting information about the
sinking of the USAT Oneida, the evidence now clearly shows that in December
2003, the Army’s Military Awards Branch was ultimately convinced, based on
their review of the evidence, that Mr. M “would have been entitled to an
award of the Purple Heart.”  It would be inappropriate, at this point, for
the Board to conclude otherwise.

5.  While the Army’s Military Awards Branch may be bound by regulatory
guidance which precludes issuance of the Purple Heart to the applicant on
behalf of his uncle, the Board is not bound by such guidance.  In this
particular instance, because entitlement to the Purple Heart for civilian
nationals of the United States was not permitted until 1962, nearly 20
years after Mr. M died, it was unlikely that any of his primary next-of-kin
would have known about his eligibility in order to make an application on
his behalf.  As such, it would be appropriate, and in the interest of
justice, equity, and compassion to confirm Mr. M’s entitlement to the
Purple Heart and correct his records accordingly by the publication of
appropriate orders and an award certificate.

BOARD VOTE:

___FE __  ___TO __  __MT ___  GRANT FULL RELIEF

________  ________  ________  GRANT PARTIAL RELIEF

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

________  ________  ________  DENY APPLICATION

BOARD DETERMINATION/RECOMMENDATION:

The Board determined that the evidence presented was sufficient to warrant
amendment of the ABCMR’s decision in Docket Number AR2003094897, dated 10
June 2004.  As a result, the Board recommends that all Department of the
Army records of the individual concerned be corrected:

      a.  by awarding him the Purple Heart; and


      b.  by confirming that award in an appropriate order and award
certificate.




                                  _____ _Fred Eichorn______
                                            CHAIRPERSON



                                    INDEX

|CASE ID                 |AR20040006611                           |
|SUFFIX                  |                                        |
|RECON                   |YYYYMMDD                                |
|DATE BOARDED            |20050602                                |
|TYPE OF DISCHARGE       |(HD, GD, UOTHC, UD, BCD, DD, UNCHAR)    |
|DATE OF DISCHARGE       |YYYYMMDD                                |
|DISCHARGE AUTHORITY     |AR . . . . .                            |
|DISCHARGE REASON        |                                        |
|BOARD DECISION          |GRANT                                   |
|REVIEW AUTHORITY        |                                        |
|ISSUES         1.       |107.0015                                |
|2.                      |                                        |
|3.                      |                                        |
|4.                      |                                        |
|5.                      |                                        |
|6.                      |                                        |


-----------------------
[pic]