Navy Personnel Command Casualty Assistance Branch PERS-621 P 5720 Integrity Drive Millington, TN 38055-6210 To whom this may concern, I am writing on behalf of the survivors and families of the men killed on the USS Frank E. Evans on June 3, 1969. A countless number of families of these men, veterans, and lawmakers alike have made numerous requests to have these men’s names included on the Vietnam Wall and have been told that the accident that took these young men’s lives occurred outside of the “combat zone” and therefore not eligible for inclusion. I am hoping that, provided this new information, this judgment can be reversed. Through numerous trips to the National Archives, the Naval History and Heritage Command, the Nixon Library, and more, I uncovered information and evidence that shows how these men died within the perimeters of that war, albeit not within the physical boundaries, as declared in a 1965 executive order dictating the combat tax-free zone for the Internal Revenue Service. (The combat zone was not strategic.) The 74 men qualify for the Vietnam Wall much in the same way as other, recent additions, including that of the “Lost Back End Crew” of four Navy personnel lost in 1966 off the Philippines Islands. I also invite you to refer to the names of 68 military personnel killed in a C-130 crash in Hong Kong Bay in 1965 and added to the Vietnam Wall in 1983. I have much information, boxes of it, but for simplicity, I am providing several key documents including the USS Frank E. Evans’ unit awards record, which highlights a unit Vietnam Service Medal (campaign: Tet 69 Counteroffensive) dated 2 “Jan” 1969-(blank). It is vital to note that the “Jan” is a typo—it should read “Jun”—as these records are in chronological order and the Evans (DD-754) had just come off the gun line near Da Nang in May 1969 (see the previous entry). Furthermore, the ship was in Long Beach in January of 1969, according to Deck Logs available at the National Archives. I am also including the similar records for the USS James Kyes, a destroyer that was in the same squadron on the same 1969 WestPac deployment and was within several hundred yards of the Evans when the 74 crewmen were lost; that of the USS Kearsarge, one of the Evans escort carriers on the scene; and the records of the USS Tawasa, which arrived on the scene at noon on June 3,1969 to secure and tow the aft section of the Evans All of these ships and other American vessels were awarded Vietnam Service Medals for their actions during and after the “exercise” that took the lives of 74 young Americans. If this Vietnam Service Medal does not count for service in the Vietnam War then why give the medal to these ships and men? Is this not the check in the box needed for inclusion? I welcome dialogue on this matter and invite any and all questions. For your back ground, I am also including parts of the OPORD, for SEATO exercise Sea Spirit, highlighting the directive that American ships provide enemy surveillance and “jam” Sino-Soviet radio traffic during the exhibition of naval force off the coast of Vietnam that late spring. A complete report in these findings are unavailable, as the “exercise” was canceled immediately following the accident and one-third of the joint board of inquiry into this tragedy was held in closed session, supposedly for national security purposes, and remains classified—45 years later. That 611-page document does note, in testimony of the CMDR Albert McLemore, that the Evans at the time had on board a “full war allowance” of ammunition—for an “exercise?” Logs for all the U.S. destroyers working with the Evans shows that all of them went back to the gun line or the Tonkin Gulf immediately following this “exercise.” I am also including a Stars and Stripes article on the Sea Spirit; please pay attention to Admiral Rapp’s quotes at the end (highlighted). It is too large to send, but the CINCPAC Command History for 1966 includes languages requiring ships participating in SEATO operations be on call for gunfire support and carrier operations in Vietnam. As I stated before,the research is overwhelming. I, inquiring on behalf of the families and survivors of the USS Frank E. Evans, look forward to a reconsideration in adding the names of these 74 fallen Americans to the Vietnam Veterans Memorial in Washington, D.C. Providing this same information, the names of the 21 fallen Californians in this group are to be added to the California Vietnam Veterans memorial in Sacramento, California on March 29, 2015. That was no small feat for this group that has fought for decades for recognition. Also provided this same information, numerous groups have endorsed this inclusion on the Vietnam Wall, including several cities and states and organizations such as the National Veterans of Foreign Wars, which originally rejected a resolution but in the summer of 2014 approved one. I am also attaching a letter from the Department of the Navy stating that “Secretary (of the Navy) Mabus wholeheartedly agrees.” I do hope that your office reopens this case and reconsiders this, not as an exception to the rules for adding names to the Vietnam Wall but in accordance with your own guidelines in that the 74 Evans sailors met their fate while serving her country in the Vietnam War, earning the ship a unit citation for combat-related operations, not limited to enemy surveillance and radio jamming, as documented in the attached paperwork. It is unfortunate that recent congressional efforts among lawmakers in Washington have been bogged down with political inertia. It is important to note that both the U.S. House of Representatives and the Senate both agree that the names should be added, per a joint explanatory statement attached to the Defense Authorization Act for 2015. The House included this “Sense of Congress”amendment in its version of the spending bill, passed in May 2014. The upcoming departure of the secretary of defense has complicated matters. I am hoping your office can help clear some of the red tape by simply reviewing the provided documents and information—something I am sure has been lost in the beltway efforts. That said, there is a sense of urgency in this request, as the names are added each Mothers Day and there are but three mothers of the 74 fallen crewmen still alive to see this happen. I am writing on their behalf. A World War II and Vietnam veteran and retired Navy chief who survived the tragedy only to learn his son did not turned 90 this year. I believe it is time for these parents, among others, to see their loved ones remembered finally. I urge your office to do the right thing and reopen this case for consideration. I invite you to contact me for any information. Thank you for your time in handling this matter. I look forward to hearing from your office. Respectfully, Kathleen Bloschichak
Posted on: Sun, 25 Jan 2015 00:14:19 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015