IN THE CASE OF: 

		BOARD DATE:	   8 November 2012

		DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20120000856 


THE BOARD CONSIDERED THE FOLLOWING EVIDENCE:

1.  Application for correction of military records (with supporting documents provided, if any).

2.  Military Personnel Records and advisory opinions (if any).


THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST, STATEMENT, AND EVIDENCE:

1.  The applicant requests an upgrade of his award of the Silver Star to the Medal of Honor with the support of Members of Congress.

2.  The applicant states he was unaware that his request to the Army Decorations Board was denied and that he had the right to appeal its decision.  Over the years many individuals have encouraged him to request to have the Army review his actions of 9 September 1944 for award of the Medal of Honor.  He further states he was in charge of an assault boat delivering supplies to our infantry troops on the enemy shore and evacuating the wounded during a night assault crossing of the Moselle River on 8 or 9 September 1944.  The boat he was directing was the first to reach the shore successfully even though harassed by enemy machine gun and pistol fire.  Due to the high casualties suffered by our infantry troops, further crossings were imperative.  The applicant made four trips carrying supplies and evacuated 20 wounded infantrymen.  On the fifth trip, at 0230 hours, the enemy fired flares over the river and machine-gunned the boat crew, wounding the applicant's two crew members and further wounding the infantrymen at the bottom of the boat.  After gaining control of the boat and with great perseverance and determination, he was able to bring the boat to the near shore.  After the enemy illuminated the river, it was impossible to use a narrow strip of land to evacuate the wounded infantrymen and bring up supplies.  A small lake behind this narrow island afforded some protection, though it was subjected to direct enemy machine gun and mortar fire.  The applicant moved the wounded infantrymen to a boat located in the lake about 25 yards from where he landed.  He then stripped himself and by swimming and pushing the boat, evacuated the wounded infantrymen and administered first aid until the medics arrived.  Once the wounded infantrymen were evacuated, the applicant made two more trips across the lake to bring more wounded infantrymen to safety.

3.  The applicant provides the following documentary evidence in support of his application:

	a.  a reconstructed DA Form 638 (Recommendation for Award), dated 5 September 2003;

	b.  two third-party statements, dated 27 May 2001 and 18 February 2002, respectively, rendered by comrades in arms;

	c.  a letter of support, dated 5 December 2011, rendered by the Director, Bureau of Veterans Services, Camp Keyes, Augusta, ME;

	d.  a recommended Medal of Honor Citation;

	e.  a narrative of events/actions of the Moselle River Crossing at Dornot, France, on 8-9 September 1944;

	f.  two aerial pictures diagramming the Dornot River crossing site and significant landmarks identified in historical reports;

	g.  a diagram of the applicant's actions during five resupply missions;

	h.  a photograph of the M2 Assault Boat with specifications;

	i.  his WD AGO Form 53-55 (Enlisted Record and Report of Separation – Honorable Discharge);

	j.  his DD Form 214 (Report of Separation from the Armed Forces of the United States);

	k.  his photograph with military biography;

	l.  a Silver Star Citation reprinted from General Orders Number 35 issued by Headquarters, XII Corps, dated 20 November 1944;

	m.  General Orders Number 35 issued by Headquarters, XII Corps, dated 20 November 1944;

	n.  a citation and correspondence awarding the applicant the British Military Medal;
	o.  letters of support from the Governor of Maine; The Adjutant General (Retired), Maine National Guard; Secretary of State of Maine; Town of Turner Board of Selectman; Commander, Turner Memorial Post Number 111; President and Treasurer, Turner American Legion Auxiliary Unit 111; Mayor of Lewiston; and Squadron Commander, Turner Sons of the American Legion Squadron 111;

	p.  150th Engineer Combat Battalion Journal, dated September 1944;

	q.  Headquarters, 150th Engineer Combat Battalion, After Action Report, dated 19 October 1944;

	r.  draft copy of Headquarters, 150th Engineer Combat Battalion, Unit History;

	s.  U.S. Army in World War II Special Studies historical reference paper titled, "River Crossing at Arnaville," by Charles B. MacDonald;

	t.  A660 Advanced Battle Analysis, dated 20 May 1983, for the Moselle River Crossing, 5th Infantry Division, September 1944;

	u.  three maps of the Dornot River Crossing; and

	v.  Congressional Medal of Honor Citation for Private H____ A. G____.

CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:

1.  Title 10, U.S. Code, section 1552(b), provides that applications for correction of military records must be filed within 3 years after discovery of the alleged error or injustice.  This provision of law also allows the Army Board for Correction of Military Records (ABCMR) to excuse an applicant's failure to timely file within the 3-year statute of limitations if the ABCMR determines it would be in the interest of justice to do so.  While it appears the applicant did not file within the time frame provided in the statute of limitations, the ABCMR has elected to conduct a substantive review of this case and, only to the extent relief, if any, is granted, has determined it is in the interest of justice to excuse the applicant's failure to timely file.  In all other respects, there are insufficient bases to waive the statute of limitations for timely filing.

2.  The applicant's WD AGO Form 53-55 shows he was inducted into the Army of the United States and he entered active duty in Portland, Maine, on 11 March 1943.  His military occupational specialty was 059 (Unit Foreman).  This form also shows he was assigned to Company C, 150th Engineer Combat Battalion, and he held the rank of sergeant on the date of his separation.

3.  His WD AGO Form 53-55 also shows he departed the continental United States on 23 December 1943 and arrived in the European theater of operations on 29 December 1943.  He departed the European theater of operations on 18 October 1945 and arrived in the continental United States on 28 October 1945.

4.  He completed 9 months and 17 days of continental service and 1 year, 10 months, and 6 days of foreign service.  He was honorably released from active duty on 3 November 1945 by reason of demobilization with a certificate of eligibility.

5.  Item 31 (Military Qualifications and Date) of his WD AGO Form 53-55 shows he was awarded the Marksman Marksmanship Qualification Badge with Rifle Bar and Sharpshooter Marksmanship Qualification Badge with Carbine Bar.

6.  Item 32 (Battles and Campaigns) of his WD AGO Form 53-55 shows during his service in World War II he participated in the Normandy, Northern France, Ardennes, Rhineland, and Central Europe campaigns.

7.  Item 33 (Decorations and Citations) of his WD AGO Form 53-55 shows he was awarded or authorized the:

* European-African-Middle Eastern Service Medal with five service stars
* Army Good Conduct Medal
* Bronze Star Medal
* Army Lapel Button
* World War II Victory Medal
* Silver Star
* Distinguished Unit Badge (now known as the Presidential Unit Citation)
* World War II Victory Medal
* British Military Medal

8.  Item 34 (Wounds Received in Action) of his WD AGO Form 53-55 contains the entry "None."

9.  The applicant was awarded the Silver Star for gallantry in action in France on 9 September 1944.  General Orders Number 35 issued by Headquarters, XII Corps, dated 20 November 1944, cited the following reason:

…During a night assault crossing of the Moselle River, [Applicant] was in charge of an assault boat delivering supplies to our Infantry troops on the enemy shore and to evacuate the wounded.  The boat he was directing was the first to reach the shore successfully even though harassed by enemy machine gun and machine pistol fire.  [Applicant] made four trips and evacuated 20 wounded Infantrymen.  On the fifth trip at 0230 hours the enemy shot two flares over the river thus illuminating the river and machine gunned the boat filled with wounded and succeeded in wounding two of [Applicant's] crew and further wounding Infantrymen in the bottom of the boat.  [Applicant] succeeded in keeping the boat under control and reached the friendly shore only by reason of his sheer courage and splendid leadership.  The courage, leadership, and devotion to duty of [Applicant] reflect the highest credit on his character as a soldier and upon the military service.  Entered the service from Maine.

10.  In July 2003 in a letter to the Chief, Military Awards Branch, U.S. Total Army Personnel Command, Alexandria, Virginia, a U.S. Senator, requested that the applicant be awarded the Medal of Honor.  In August 2003, the Senator requested information about the applicant's military service and his award of the Silver Star from the National Archives and Records Administration, College Park, Maryland.  Thereafter it appears she began a campaign to have the applicant's Silver Star upgraded to the Medal of Honor.  On 5 September 2003, a former comrade-in-arms completed a DA Form 638 recommending the applicant for the Medal of Honor.

11.  In a letter to a Member of Congress, dated 16 February 2010, the Chief, Military Awards Branch, U.S. Army Human Resources Command, Alexandria, Virginia, stated a recommendation to upgrade the applicant's award of the Silver Star to the Medal of Honor had been forwarded to the Army Decorations Board for consideration in 2005.  The Army Decorations Board determined the degree of action and service rendered did not meet the strict criteria for the proposed award.  The Commanding General, U.S. Army Human Resources Command, acting on behalf of the Secretary of the Army, concurred with the Army Decorations Board's decision, disapproving award of the Medal of Honor and reaffirming that the Silver Star was the appropriate award to recognize the applicant's actions.  The letter further stated the decision in no way reflected negatively on the applicant's service and sacrifice to our Nation and that he had the right to appeal the decision to the ABCMR.

12.  On 10 November 2011, the applicant submitted a DD Form 149 (Application for Correction of Military Record under the Provisions of Title 10, U.S. Code, Section 1552) to the ABCMR requesting to have his Silver Star upgraded to the Medal of Honor.  The application contained the following supporting documents:

	a.  A reconstructed DA Form 638 signed by a former comrade in arms, dated 5 September 2003, recommends the applicant for award of the Medal of Honor along with a proposed citation.
	b.  Numerous letters from Members of Congress, the Governor of Maine, and State and local officials lend their voices in support of the applicant's request based on evidence omitted from his Silver Star citation as well as favorable comparisons to the level of awards earned for similar actions.

	c.  A letter from a former comrade in arms, dated 27 May 2001, states that while working in an aid station within 100 yards of the river during the assault crossing of the Moselle River on 9 September 1944, some of the wounded relayed the story of a sergeant who brought them to safety under intense enemy fire.  The following day they learned it was the applicant who performed these heroic actions;

	d.  A letter from a former comrade in arms, dated 18 February 2002, states the applicant assisted in placing an injured man in a boat on 9 September 1944.  Due to machine gun fire, the applicant entered the water and pushed the boat to the other side of the lake and administered first aid.  The letter states the applicant performed this heroic deed a number of times throughout the night.

	e.  A letter from the Director, Veterans and Emergency Management, Bureau of Veterans Services, Camp Keyes, Augusta, ME, dated 5 December 2011, states that while the events cited in the Silver Star and British Military Medal are similar, the Silver Star Citation does not mention that the applicant stripped his clothes off, swam, and pushed the boat load of wounded Soldiers across the lake.  He presents the argument that the applicant was attached to the 1103rd Engineer Combat Group in support of XX Corps and 5th Infantry Division's river crossing operations in Dornot; therefore, the commander of XII Corps (who recommended the applicant for the Silver Star) may not have had all of the pertinent information relating to the applicant's heroic actions, hence the difference in the Silver Star Citation versus the British Military Medal.  In addition, he provides an example of a Soldier who was awarded the Medal of Honor for actions similar to the applicant's and further states the applicant was the only individual from his unit to receive the British Military Medal for heroism during the Moselle River crossing operation on 8-9 September 1944.

	f.  A narrative of events reconstructed from historical documents, letters supporting DA Form 638, citations for the Silver Star and British Military Medal, and interviews with the applicant seek to further outline the conditions, geography, and actions of the applicant throughout the assault river crossing of the Moselle River at Dornot.  Maps, aerial photographs, pictures, diagrams, journals, after action reports, and historical writings are included to enhance and support the narrative.

13.  The Medal of Honor was established by Joint Resolution of Congress, dated 12 July 1862.  Army Regulation 600-8-22 (Military Awards) provides 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 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; while engaged in military operations involving conflict with an opposing foreign force; or while serving with friendly foreign forces engaged in an armed conflict against an opposing armed force in which the United States is not a belligerent party.  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 risk of life.  Incontestable proof of the performance of the service will be exacted and each recommendation for the award of this decoration will be considered on the standard of extraordinary merit.

14.  Army Regulation 600-8-22 provides that the Distinguished Service Cross is awarded to a person who, while serving in any capacity with the Army, distinguished 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.

15.  Army Regulation 600-8-22 provides that the Silver Star is awarded for gallantry in action against the enemy.  The required gallantry (spirited and conspicuous acts of heroism and courage) must have been performed with marked distinction.  As with all personal decorations, formal recommendations, approval through the chain of command, and announcement in orders are required.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The applicant contends that he is entitled to an upgrade of his Silver Star to the Medal of Honor.  His original request for the Medal of Honor was submitted to the Army through a Member of Congress by a former comrade in arms.  The request was disapproved by the Army Decorations Board.  The reason cited was that the degree of action and service rendered did not meet the strict criteria for the proposed award.

2.  The decision of whether to award an individual a decoration and which decoration to award is a judgment call made by the commander having award approval authority.  Commanders at the time of the act, or shortly thereafter, determined the applicant's actions were so extraordinary and so noteworthy as to warrant award of the Silver Star.  Over 60 years have passed since the events of 9 September 1944 and the ABCMR is not privy to the commander's decision-making process used that time.

3.  The Army awards system recognizes and reacts to distinguishing acts of valor and bravery for Soldiers and it is the commander on the ground who is the steward to ensure proper recognition of our brave men and women.  The Army has always been fully committed to the responsibility to properly recognize Soldiers for their valor, heroism, and meritorious service through a fair and consistent decorations and awards policy and process.

	a.  Awards and decorations are very important to Soldiers.  Equally important is the governance of the awards program.  For the awards program to be credible to the Soldiers and the American people, it must ensure that it recognizes the right individuals for the proper award.  It must ensure the integrity of the award is maintained through strict procedures and proper justifications.  Finally, it must place trust and confidence in commanders to execute the program.

	b.  The criteria for military awards are set forth in statutes, executive orders, and appropriate regulations.  Established by law, the criteria for the three highest valor awards have not changed from what they were in past conflicts.  Army regulations and policies establish the standards by which those awards are processed, approved, and presented.  This consistency upholds the heritage of the awards and the legacy of the heroes who have earned them.

	c.  Army policy allows any Soldier to recommend another Soldier for an award.  The Army's awards program relies on those with first-hand knowledge of a Soldier's heroic or valorous action to recommend the Soldier for the appropriate award.  Award recommendations are sent through the Soldier's chain of command to company, battalion, brigade, and division commanders. Commanders at every level of review can recommend approval or upgrade of the award based upon their authority.  Commanders with authority to approve awards also have the authority to downgrade or disapprove awards based on their judgment, knowledge, and the criteria established for the award.  Command involvement is critical for program success.

4.  The highest awards for valor in descending order are the Medal of Honor, the Distinguished Service Cross, and Silver Star.

	a.  The Medal of Honor requires conspicuous gallantry and intrepidity as a member of the Army at the risk of 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 his/her comrades and must have involved risk of life.  Incontestable proof of the performance of the service will be exacted and each recommendation for the award of this decoration will be considered on the standard of extraordinary merit.

	b.  The Distinguished Service Cross requires displaying extraordinary heroism not justifying the award of a Medal of Honor while serving in any capacity with the Army while engaged in an action against an enemy of the United States.  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.

	c.  The Silver Star requires gallantry in action against the enemy.  The gallantry (spirited and conspicuous acts of heroism and courage) must have been performed with marked distinction.

5.  The applicant's record shows he was clearly cited for gallantry in action in France on 9 September 1944.  A decision was made to award him the Silver Star.  However, at this late date, it is not known whether the applicant's immediate commander recommended a higher award and the recommendation was disapproved in favor of a Silver Star.  Conversely, it is not known whether the applicant was originally recommended for a Bronze Star Medal for Valor, but was upgraded to a Silver Star by the approving authority.

6.  While it appears the applicant and his supporters believe his actions were similar to those of other Soldiers who were awarded the Medal of Honor, each case stands on its own merits.  In this case, the applicant's actions were acknowledged and he was awarded the Silver Star.  Upon further review in 2005, the Army Decorations Board opined that the applicant's act did not rise to the level of "conspicuous gallantry and intrepidity" in action necessary to merit an upgrade to the Medal of Honor.  That board was able to evaluate the applicant's act of heroism against other acts of heroism from the World War II era which resulted in award of the Medal of Honor and held that award of the Silver Star was the appropriate recognition.

7.  The applicant's valor and courage on 9 September 1944 under extremely hazardous conditions are acknowledged; he is truly an American hero.  His selfless acts of bravery and devotion to duty were in keeping with the highest traditions of military service.  However, when his contemporaneous commanders compared his actions directly to the heroic actions of other Soldiers at the time, it was determined that his actions were not conspicuously gallant or intrepid as were the actions of the Soldiers who were awarded the Medal of Honor.  The applicant has not submitted sufficient evidence to warrant overturning this determination and upgrading his Silver Star.

BOARD VOTE:

________  ________  ________  GRANT FULL RELIEF 

________  ________  ________  GRANT PARTIAL RELIEF 

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

___X____  ___X___  ___X____  DENY APPLICATION

BOARD DETERMINATION/RECOMMENDATION:

1.  The evidence presented does not demonstrate the existence of a probable error or injustice.  Therefore, the Board determined the overall merits of this case are insufficient as a basis for correction of the records of the individual concerned.

2.  The applicant and all others concerned should know this action in no way diminishes the sacrifices made by him in service to our Nation.  The applicant and all Americans should be justifiably proud of his service in arms.



      _______ _  X _______   ___
               CHAIRPERSON
      
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.
ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont)                                         AR20120000856



3


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1

ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont)                                         AR20120000856



2


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1