RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


      IN THE CASE OF:


      BOARD DATE:        1 August 2006
      DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20050016361


      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             |
|     |Mr. G. E. Vandenberg              |     |Analyst              |

      The following members, a quorum, were present:

|     |Ms. Kathleen A. Newman            |     |Chairperson          |
|     |Mr. Conrad V. Meyer               |     |Member               |
|     |Ms. Yolanda Maldonado             |     |Member               |

      The Board considered the following evidence:

      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 that his Silver Star be further upgraded to the
Medal of Honor and that the 16 – 17 June 1952 Company B, 224th Infantry
Regiment, 40th Infantry Division after action report be corrected to
reflect the true facts surrounding the ambush.

2.  He further requests that the words "Forming a contact force of
approximately ten men" be deleted from his Silver Star citation since he
and he alone made the assault.

3.  The applicant states that after he retired, in 2002, he petitioned the
United States (U.S.) Total Army Personnel Command, Military Awards Branch,
Alexandria, Virginia to investigate the 16 – 17 June 1952 incident for the
purpose of upgrading his Bronze Star Medal with "V" Device.  The Military
Awards Branch did this and upgraded this award to the Silver Star based
solely on the wording of the Bronze Star citation.  He contends that
removing the incorrect fact that others assisted in the assault that ended
the ambush will show that his actions warrant a further upgrade to the
Medal of Honor.

4.  He states that the official after action report covers up the true
facts of an ill fated raid and denies the true heroism of those who
preformed deeds warranting recognition.  He implies that the after action
report was doctored in order to hide the fact that several officers, who
later were promoted to high ranking positions, messed up.  He contends that
the report was written to the specifications of the Pentagon to put a good
face on a failed operation and deny the errors of several officers.

5.  He says that the reason he did not work harder to correct the after
action report, at the time it was compiled, was that he had only been with
the unit for a very short period prior to the raid and was not known to
most of the personnel.  He says that he was told to hush when he did speak
up.  Since he was officially serving only as an observer and he had called
down artillery fire on his unit's location, he felt that he would be
criticized and his comments and career discredited.  He cites the fact that
he did not receive the Bronze Star Medal until just before he left Korea,
nine months after the incident, as a further indication of the cover up.

6.  He states he was raised in Maine in a strong church environment where
he was taught to always tell the truth and this was reinforced by the high
honor code impressed on him during his attendance at the Military Academy.
He contends that because of the nature of his upbringing his statements
should be given greater weight especially in light of the loss of his
personnel records in the 1973 St. Louis fire.

7.  The applicant provides 41 pages of a personal accounting of his
personal history prior to his assignment to Korea, his actions of 16 – 17
June 1952, a recounting of the official after action report, his analysis
of the "misrepresentation" of the facts in the after actions report, nine
repetitious submissions of his own personal letters and statements, and
five eyewitness statements.

CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:

1.  The applicant’s military records are not available to the Board for
review.  A fire destroyed approximately 18 million service members’ records
at the National Personnel Records Center in 1973.  It is believed that the
applicant’s personnel records were lost or destroyed in that fire.

2.  The applicant served on active duty for the period 28 April 1945
through 24 November 1946 and again from 1 June 1951 through 18 October
1954.

3.  During his second period of service, while assigned duty in Korea, he
was awarded the Bronze Star Medal for Valor for his actions on 16 – 17 June
1952 when he was attached as an observer to the 1st Platoon, Headquarters
Company, 224th Infantry Regiment.

4.  The citation for the Bronze Star Medal states that the applicant was a
volunteer member of a company size raid that was ambushed by a lager enemy
force.  It indicates that the applicant, with complete and total disregard
for his own safety, exposed himself to heavy automatic weapon, small arms,
hand grenade, and mortar fire, and assumed command of the platoon.  He
formed a contact force of approximately ten men and attacked the enemy held
hill, successfully driving the enemy from their position.

5.  The applicant applied to the Military Awards Branch for an upgrade of
his Bronze Star Medal in early 2002.

6.  The Military Awards Branch reviewed the applicant's request to have his
Bronze Star Medal with "V" Device upgraded.  On 25 October 2002 his request
was granted and permanent orders revoking the Bronze Star Medal with "V"
Device and awarding him the Silver Star were issued.

7.  In the applicant's personal recounting of the ambush of 16 – 17 June
1952, he states that after the initial attack seriously wounded the company
commander and 1st platoon leader he attempted to rally the unwounded in a
defensive position and to subsequently attack the enemy position.  He
states that he ordered the men forward only to realize after he rushed the
enemy trench that none of the men had followed his lead and that he and he
alone was the one to take the enemy position.  He indicates because he was
officially only an observer, he was overly cautious during the debriefing
sessions and did not try to contradict some of the "mistruths" that were
put into the after action report.

8.  The details of the platoon's actions are limited in the after action
report and it does not mention the applicant's involvement in the final
assault.  The major difference between the applicant's recounting of the
incident and the official documents is that he states that he and he alone
attacked the enemy trench not that he organized a group of ten men to
assault the enemy.

9.  The eyewitness' statements do not differ significantly from the
official documents although they do provide additional insight and details
related to the incident.  None of these Soldiers' statements reflect that
they have any first hand knowledge of the applicant's actions.

10.  The only statement that even provides second hand information on the
applicant's personal action is provided by F____ M_____.  That Soldier
indicates he was told to hold his fire since the applicant, the 1st
sergeant, and a squad of Soldiers had gone up the hill to charge the enemy.

11.  Army Regulation 600-8-22 provides, in pertinent part, that 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 themselves conspicuously by
gallantry and intrepidity at the risk of their life above and beyond the
call of duty while engaged in an action against an enemy of the United
States.  The deed performed must have been one of personal bravery or self-
sacrifice so conspicuous as to clearly distinguish the individual above
their comrades and must have involved risk of life. Incontestable proof of
the performance of the service is required.

12.  Army Regulation 600-8-22 also states it is the responsibility of any
individual having personal knowledge of an act, achievement, or service
believed to warrant the award of a decoration to submit a formal
recommendation into military command channels for consideration within 2
years of the act,
achievement, or service to be honored.  The Army discourages self-
aggrandizement and does not condone self-recognition; therefore, a Soldier
may not recommend himself/herself for award of a decoration.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The information provided by the applicant was, by his own admission,
essentially the same as that which was presented to the Military Awards
Branch at the time of their consideration of the case and subsequent
upgrading of his Bronze Star Medal to the Silver Star.

2.  While the eyewitness' statements provide additional insight and details
related to the incident, none of them state that they personally witnessed
the applicant's actions.  The differences in their statements and the
official documents can be attributed to the different location, duties, and
perspective of the writers.  Specifically, none of them offer any direct
support for the applicant's contention that he and he alone charged the
enemy.  In fact the only one that mentions the applicant's actions, at all,
is based on second hand information, not personal knowledge.

3.  In the absence of incontestable proof, the regulatory requirements for
award of the Medal of Honor have not been met.

4.  Therefore, no correction of the official records or further upgrading
of his award from a Silver Star to the Medal of Honor is warranted.

5.  In order to justify correction of a military record the applicant must
show to the satisfaction of the Board, or it must otherwise satisfactorily
appear, that the record is in error or unjust.  The applicant has failed to
submit evidence that would satisfy this requirement.


BOARD VOTE:

________  ________  ________  GRANT FULL RELIEF

________  ________  ________  GRANT PARTIAL RELIEF

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

__CVM__  __YM__ _  __KAN__  DENY APPLICATION


BOARD DETERMINATION/RECOMMENDATION:

1.  The Board determined that the evidence presented does not demonstrate
the existence of a probable error or injustice.  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.

2.  As a result, the Board further determined that there is no evidence
provided which shows that it would be in the interest of justice to excuse
the applicant's failure to timely file this application within the 3-year
statute of limitations prescribed by law.  Therefore, there is insufficient
basis to waive the statute of limitations for timely filing or for
correction of the records of the individual concerned.




                                  __Kathleen A. Newman____
                                            CHAIRPERSON

                                    INDEX

|CASE ID                 |AR20050016361                           |
|SUFFIX                  |                                        |
|RECON                   |                                        |
|DATE BOARDED            |20060801                                |
|TYPE OF DISCHARGE       |                                        |
|DATE OF DISCHARGE       |                                        |
|DISCHARGE AUTHORITY     |                                        |
|DISCHARGE REASON        |                                        |
|BOARD DECISION          |DENY                                    |
|REVIEW AUTHORITY        |                                        |
|ISSUES         1.       |107                                     |
|2.                      |                                        |
|3.                      |                                        |
|4.                      |                                        |
|5.                      |                                        |
|6.                      |                                        |


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