Vets fight to add names of 74 sailors to the Vietnam Memorial. Is adding their names appropriate?

GySgt Wayne A. Ekblad — Mon, 22 Jun 2015 03:26:13 -0400

A group of Navy veterans is trying to persuade the U.S. military to add the names of 74 sailors to the Vietnam Veterans Memorial in Washington, D.C.

The sailors were killed when their destroyer, the USS Frank E. Evans, was cut in half in a collision with an Australian aircraft carrier during naval exercises in the South China Sea in June 1969. The Department of Defense has refused to add the names to the wall because the accident happened outside the Vietnam combat zone.

Among those trying to reverse the decision is Stephen Kraus of California, who was among the 199 Evans crew members to survive the collision.

Kraus says getting the backing of U.S. Sen. Charles Schumer of New York gives the Evans veterans their best opportunity yet at getting their shipmates' names added to the Vietnam Memorial.

http://www.militarytimes.com/story/military/2015/06/21/vets-fight-to-add-names-of-74-sailors-to-vietnam-memorial/29069377/

Response by PO1 John Miller made Jun 22 at 2015 3:32 AM

PO1 John Miller — Mon, 22 Jun 2015 03:32:12 -0400

As much as I love my Navy, this is not appropriate. They weren't in the combat zone and the accident wasn't a result of combat action.

Response by GySgt Wayne A. Ekblad made Jun 22 at 2015 3:42 AM

GySgt Wayne A. Ekblad — Mon, 22 Jun 2015 03:42:39 -0400

http://www.ussfee.org/

Official Site for the USS Frank E. Evans DD 754 Association, Inc.

Dedicated to the men who served aboard the USS Frank E Evans DD 754, including those who were lost on June 3, 1969, and to the family and friends of these sailors.

Response by SCPO David Lockwood made Jun 22 at 2015 6:33 AM

SCPO David Lockwood — Mon, 22 Jun 2015 06:33:47 -0400

First, what is the requirement used to place the names on the Vietnam Memorial?
Second, did those Sailors meet those requirements?
Third, if they meet those requirements I see no problem adding their names, if not sorry,

Response by LTC Stephen F. made Jun 22 at 2015 9:02 AM

LTC Stephen F. — Mon, 22 Jun 2015 09:02:20 -0400

GySgt Wayne A. Ekblad, if the USS Frank E. Evans was diverted from wartime duties off Vietnam to participate in the exercise then I think that adding the names of the 74 sailors killed during the collision in the exercise would be worth pursuing.
If the USS Frank E. Evans had not been performing wartime duties in support of Vietnam then this effort is not worth pursuing.

Response by MSG Brad Sand made Jun 22 at 2015 9:49 AM

MSG Brad Sand — Mon, 22 Jun 2015 09:49:08 -0400

While tragic to the families, and generally in the same part of the World, I do not see how these death are connected to the Vietnam War?

Sailors die when their ships sink. I see no reason why their names would be add or why anyone would think they should be added?

Response by SFC Rollie Hubbard made Jun 22 at 2015 10:12 AM

SFC Rollie Hubbard — Mon, 22 Jun 2015 10:12:14 -0400

Even though they gave their lives my answer will always be NO, I say this because the ship was not in the combat zone. I feel bad that they died but the wall is for the soldiers and marines, airmen and navy personnel that gave the ultimate sacrifice for their country in combat.

Response by SFC William Swartz Jr made Jun 22 at 2015 10:20 AM

SFC William Swartz Jr — Mon, 22 Jun 2015 10:20:48 -0400

As they were not killed in an active combat zone I do no feel that their names should be added. While it was a tragedy that these Sailors lost their lives, they did so in a training exercise, not while engaging or being engaged by the enemy.

Response by CPT Jack Durish made Jun 22 at 2015 10:52 AM

CPT Jack Durish — Mon, 22 Jun 2015 10:52:11 -0400

I'm not going to pile on. Others have responded quite adequately to the question. Either they qualify as combat casualties or they don't. There are rules. Follow them.

However, I will add that all who served during the war in Vietnam suffered the same discrimination when they returned home regardless of where in the world they served and regardless of their duty. Vietnam-era veterans were all baby-killers and beneath contempt in the eyes of the antiwar activists of that age. We were all targets of their hate and vile regardless of the branch in which we served. Thus, I tend to understand the desire to include them among the honored dead of that war.

Response by CAPT Kevin B. made Jun 22 at 2015 12:23 PM

CAPT Kevin B. — Mon, 22 Jun 2015 12:23:20 -0400

If you get enough heavy hitters to whine loud enough, you too can be put on the Wall or buried in Arlington. I do understand the passion of the surviving crew as the loss of your brothers right next to you rips your heart off. But lines must be drawn somewhere and I'm not an expert on where. My sense is in both cases, it's pretty close to where it should be.

Memories. I went to boot and A School in '71. Pictures were in the "slide deck" of the incident. The hardware is similar to the Gearing FRAM conversions I sailed. The aft section had a DASH hangar and EW antennas on the mast. As an OS/EW type, I got to maintain that section. DASH was a remote controlled counter rotating helo that had two torpedoes which could be visually flown out and dropped. Problem was when one was dropped, the center of mass shifted well off center which made flying around with one impossible with any significant wind. That system was dumped with the hangar becoming the crew's lounge.

On my ships, a piece of the aft structure held the ASROC (Anti Submarine Rocket) ammo. Since we had two nuclear depth bombs, we had a Marine guard contingent. They were 10kT warheads about 1 ft by 2 ft. We spent a lot of money carrying two of these around with no real use for them. The likelihood of having a tactical need to use one was remote. Even then the MK-48 was highly effective conventional torpedo. Our DECON wash down system would be used in the aftermath of using one of these. When I went Reserve along with the ship, that stuff got appropriately yanked.

Response by Maj Mike Sciales made Jun 22 at 2015 4:46 PM

Maj Mike Sciales — Mon, 22 Jun 2015 16:46:25 -0400

Tragic. There is nothing to prevent the creation of a privately funded Memorial if the National park Service permits.

It can also go in the history museum in the US Navy Yard in DC, I'm certain they'd be glad to have it. Is the function of this effort to honor the dead or get some kind of declaration of "died in the line of fire?" I say this because this was a tragic training accidents (non-combat) and those happen world wide. http://www.history.navy.mil/museums/NationalMuseum/org8-1.htm

Response by LTC Private RallyPoint Member made Dec 9 at 2015 1:15 PM

LTC Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 09 Dec 2015 13:15:09 -0500

If this ship had any mission of supporting the mission/troops in Vietnam it should count. Ships are travel everywhere globally in support of operations. Our US Navy shipmates deserve it. Its a no-brainer to me! As a Navy League member and a Naval Sea Cadet adult leader, I stand proudly saluting our brave US Navy sailors. They deserve this honor!