Korean War MIA Working Group Meeting
26 October 2017
Venue – Russell Offices Canberra
Summary of Key Outcomes
This document is a summary of the key outcomes to facilitate working group members’ ability to communicate with constituents and stakeholders. It does not cover all items discussed, nor does it replace the minutes which are distributed for members’ purposes. It deliberately does not document the full nature of discussions as it is considered that to do this would stifle open and honest working group discussion over time and is not in the common interest of working group members or their constituents.
Attendance
RAAF – AIRCDRE John Meier, SQNLDR Greg Williams
AHQ - COL Ashley Collingburn
UWC-A – Andrew Bernie, LCDR Russell Lain (via teleconference), MAJ David Wilson, FLTLT Kirsty Wright
RAR Association – COL Roger Wainwright (Rtd)
RAAF Association – WGCDR Lance Halvorsen (Rtd)
77 Squadron Association – GPCAPT Milton Cottee (Rtd)
Australian Council of Korean Veterans Associations - RADM Ian Crawford AO AM (Rtd)
Korean Veterans Association of Australia – ACT Representative Colin
Berryman OAM
Family of MIAs – Julie Dorrington and Derek Luxford (via teleconference), Ian Saunders OAM
Apologies - Jill Talty
- Passing of the late AVM Brent Espeland
RADM Crawford acknowledged the significant contributions of RAAF Association National President, and fellow working group member, the late AVM Brent Espeland, who passed away on 29 September 2017. WGCDR Halvorson undertook to ensure that the sentiments of the working group were passed on to AVM Espeland’s family.
- DPAA dental record comparison
MAJ Wilson explained the methodology for the short-listing process that was undertaken to identify dental records from the DPAA database of Korean War remains interred in the Punchbowl, to be compared against relevant dental records of Australia’s Korean War MIA.
The information is contained in an Access database, and discriminators such as: completeness of dental record, race, recovery location, presence of skull and clavicle, estimated date of death and age at death, hair colour, height, presence of healed fractures and whether the remains had been burned, are available for use as short-listing criteria.
The primary discriminator used to short-list was recovery location, so, for example, the fiveremains recovered from Kapyong were compared against CPL Murphy’s dental record, and the 13 records identified as recovered from Pyongyang were compared against the dental records of PLTOFFs Ellis and Armit, whose aircraft were reported as being lost in the vicinity of Pyongyang. Records short-listed by recovery location were generally excluded if the record was less than 75% complete or on the basis of incompatible ethnicity.
The ADF specialist forensic odontologists indicated they would be able to compare approximately 50 records against those of Australian MIA in the time available, and it transpired that 54 records were identified from the short-listing process. Comparison of the DPAA record was only undertaken against the specific Australian MIA relevant to that record so, for example, the remains recovered from the vicinity of the DMZ were compared against all soldiers missing from the DMZ, and remains recovered from remote locations near the last known location of Australian pilots were only compared against the dental records of the relevant pilot(s).
A total of 458 comparisons were undertaken, with the result being 268 exclusions, 80 probable exclusions and 110 cases of insufficient data for a definitive conclusion. Significantly, no matches were detected.
In response to a question regarding whether the records were ante or post-mortem, LCDR Lain advised that the DPAA records were post-mortem and the Australian records were ante-mortem. In response to a question about the level of confidence LCDR Lain had regarding the records, he advised that with the exception of the wisdom teeth issue (they are not recorded on the DPAA dental records) he was confident that the DPAA records were accurate, as they were recorded and transcribed by specialist dental personnel.
Ian Crawford advised that he had visited the ADF specialist forensic odontologists while they were undertaking the dental comparison and had been impressed by the records and techniques he had witnessed and the professionalism of the personnel involved.
MAJ Wilson advised that through the short-listing process, he was confident that all records that could be Australian, based on recovery location, had been compared against the records of the relevant Australian servicemen. With the exception of doing a final comparison against the Records of Interment for the Kapyong recoveries when they are received from DPAA, this process has therefore been concluded. A final update will be provided to the next working group meeting.
In response to a question regarding access to the dental records of other Korean War remains held by DPAA (for example, those held “on shelves”) to compare against those of Australian servicemen, UWC-A undertook to approach DPAA regarding the matter.
- Update on progress of the exchange of letterswith DPAA
Andrew Bernie advised that the VCDF wrote to the Interim Director of DPAA initiating the proposed exchange of letters in late August 2017. Since that time a new Director of DPAA has been appointed, and the preference for formalising bilateral relationships is now via Memoranda of Arrangement (MOA). DPAA has undertaken to revise the current document to their preferred new format and send a draft to UWC-A for consideration.
At the request of DPAA, the scope of the MOA has been broadened to include WWII, as Australia shares some common interests regarding our MIA in WWII, particularly on the north coast of PNG. Defence agreed to this request, as it was considered there would be no detriment to the Korean War cooperative arrangements as a result of broadening the scope to include WWII. No objections were raised to this inclusion and it was broadly noted that such an inclusion demonstrates increased opportunity for engagement with DPAA.
Derek Luxford expressed his concern about the drawn out process involving the exchange of letters arrangement favoured by the Australian Government, against his recommendations and based on his legal experience that a more formal arrangement would be preferable, a position vindicated by the DPAA change in preference to the very type of document Derek had recommended in the first place. Unfortunately, this change and the resulting delay is the result of a change in leadership at DPAA.
RADM Crawford asked whether there was any reason to believe that Australian activities would not be treated the same as for American. Mr Bernie assured the meeting that in relation to remains, all are treated with the same respect and dignity. In relation to FRS, DPAA has assured the working group, via the letter from Dr Byrd, that Australian FRS are included in all relevant databases and are treated no differently from American FRS.
- Videoconference with DPAA
Andrew Bernie advised that the first videoconference with DPAA had occurred on
5 October 2017 and was very productive. Issues discussed included the proposed MOA, the UWC-A visit to MAKRI,the proposed comparison of a short-list of the Punchbowl dental records against those of Australian MIA, the Australian investigation into the 4 Allied unknowns at UNMCK, the criteria to be met for disinterment from the Punchbowl, increasing success with mitochondrial DNA extraction from treated remains and FRS comparisons against DNA sequences obtained from remains (noting that all Korean, US and Australian FRS are included in a single database and there is no difference in treatment regardless of source of the FRS). A proposed joint DPAA/UWC-A activity in PNG in 2018was also discussed.
- Possible locations of Australian MIA
Ian Saunders spoke regarding the document he commissioned “Location of Recoverable Remains of 39 Australian MIA servicemen from the Korean War”. In relation to the “Location 1 - CIL, Hawaii” including both the 220 sets of remains recovered from joint field activities in North Korea between 1996 and 2005 and the over 400 sets of remains from the “K208” hand-over of remains by China between 1990 and 1994, Australian FRS have been compared to DNA profiles recovered from these remains, as advised by Dr Byrd from DPAA in his letter to Australian Korean War MIA working group members dated 18 April 2017.
In relation to “Location 2 - UNMC, Punchbowl, Hawaii” Australian FRS have also been compared to DNA profiles recovered from the remains that have been exhumed, as advised by Dr Byrd. Ian’s observation that approximately 744 of the 867 sets of remains have not been exhumed is correct, since exhumation is the last stage of an investigation process and DPAA must be satisfied that they have a better than 50% probability of identifying the remains, based on other investigation results, before exhumationwill be considered.
In relation to “Location 3 – UNCMK, Pusan, South Korea” Ian has observed there are 104 unidentified remains of servicemenin the Commonwealth section of the cemetery. UNMCK records indicate 85 unknown servicemen are present and all their Records of Interment (ROI) are available online. The great majority of these servicemen are identified as British by specific unit, or “believed to be British”.
UWC-A examination of the ROI for these individuals does not support the proposition that any are Australian, based on dental records, recovery location, date of death, age at death, height and hair colour. Ian’s observation that there have been no exhumations and no DNA recovered from the UNMCK unknowns is correct.
In relation to “Location 4 – Unknown location of 568 Allied Remains from Operation Glory, last known location Kokura, Japan” UWC-A has exhausted all avenues regarding the possible whereabouts of these remains. US, South Korean and Australian authorities have no information regarding this matter. It is possible that these remains were cremated by South Korean authorities after the US closed the Kokura facility (as this is how South Korean remains were generally treated). Regardless, the incomplete and unclearly provenanced document which refers to these remains does not indicate how or where to take this line of enquiry, nor is it clear how it could lead to finding an Australian.
In relation to “Location 5 – North Korea” Ian’s observation that any Australian MIA not recovered and now located in Locations 1-4 must still be in North Korea, is logical. The contention regarding the whereabouts of 9 Australian potential POWs is more open to interpretation. There is no evidence to confirm the proposition that the three RAAF and six Army personnel mentioned were POWs,other than the extract from the declassified document that Ian has provided. These names, broadcast by the Chinese, could have simply been obtained from the identity discs of the servicemen involved, and is not evidence that the servicemen were alive and in enemy custody at any time. Admittedly, it is also not proof they were not ever POWs. Investigations regarding the fate of these individuals are inconclusive, however, RAAF inquiries indicate their personnel are unlikely to have been POWs and Army Courts of Inquiry indicate that it is possible two of the six named MIA personnel (PTEs Griffiths and Kunkel), who were known to be wounded at the time they became MIA, could possibly have become POWs.
The meeting discussed the information available relating to recovery and transfer of remains from Korea and Japan to Hawaii and the apparent gaps in historical information and records. RADM Crawford suggested that a review of material received to date on the search for and recovery of Australia’s Korean War MIA be undertaken.
- Proposed MAKRI MOU
The latest draft of the MAKRI MOU was also circulated to members to facilitate discussion at the meeting. Ian Crawford advised that he had sent an email with two suggestions regarding the document – the sharing of technical DNA information and a reference to informing the other party to the MOU where third party arrangements may impact aspects of the MOU. Julie Dorrington queried the proposed less frequent teleconferences than with DPAA – it was suggested that “..as required but not less than annually…” may be a suitable frequency to include in the MOU. Derek Luxford queried the reference to “may” rather than “will” in regard to cooperation between the agencies, and UWC-A agreed to reconsider the drafting. In relation to the “unknowns” at UNMCK, it was noted that this was not a responsibility of MAKRI and was instead within the jurisdiction of the UN Military Armistice Commission.
- DNA presentation and question and answer
FLTLT Wright presented a range of DNA related material to the meeting, including details of the US agencies involved in DNA testing for DPAA, their reporting structures, quality assurance processes and the national and international standards to which they subscribe. Other information presented included the techniques involved in turning a DNA strand into a sequence of numbers (to facilitate comparison) and details of the chemical treatment of remains undertaken at Kokura and the effect this had on bones and the capacity to obtain DNA from those treated bones. FLTLT Wright then fielded questions from working group members, including in relation to next generation DNA sequencing, which enabled determination of hair and eye colour. Such techniques could be particularly useful in distinguishing between caucasoid and mongoloid remains, where such remains are collocated in historic battlefields, and is of particular relevance for some of the UWC-A work in PNG.
- PLTOFF Don Armit - potential POW status
WGCDR Williams advised the meeting that he had been in correspondence with DPAA regarding the speculation that PLTOFF Armit may at some stage have been a POW in Russian custody. He received an almost immediate email reply from a Russian linguist who has worked at DPAA since the mid-1990s and was aware of the situation regarding PLTOFF Armit, but had at no stage come across information to suggest that he had been a POW in Russian custody, nor had the opportunity to visit any of the last known locations of missing Australian pilots. This officer has worked in this field for over 20 years and had access to Russian archival records, but had not encountered any information to corroborate the POW theory in relation to PLTOFF Armit.
WGCDR Williams was also provided with a copy of a letter from 1994 from the Head of the Australian Defence Staff in Washington to the then US Director of POW/MIA Affairs, which provided details of the complete list of RAAF and Army MIA, as the US DOD was at that stage undertaking a search of Soviet records relating to the Korean conflict. US authorities have therefore been aware or our MIA since that date but have not encountered any references to any of the Australian MIA in Soviet records. US Authorities confirmed their commitment to passing on any information they may encounter of relevance to Australia.
- Feedback from Minister for Defence regarding MAKRI visit – UWC-A
Andrew Bernie advised that the Australian Minister for Defence, Foreign Minister, Secretary of theDepartment of Defence and CDF had recently visited South Korea. Minister Payne had specifically requested a meeting with MAKRI during the visit, highlighting the importance the Australian Government places on work being undertaken to attempt to recover our MIA from the Korean War.
Images of the Ministers, Secretary and the CDF at meetings with their South Korean counterparts, at commemorative occasions (including the CDF laying a wreath at the Australian section of UNMCK, Pusan) and at meetings with MAKRI officials were published on the social media accounts of the Minister for Defence and CDF and were projected for working group members during the meeting.
The next Korean War MIW working group meeting is proposed for 5 or 6 March 2018.