Airborne In Normandy   FAQs   Links    Homepage     Contact  Us     About Us    WWII Research
The Army Review Boards Agency
(The Izumi Fiasco)


The Army Review Boards Agency (ARBA) is assigned to the Assistant Secretary of the Army for Manpower and Reserve Affairs (ASA (M&RA))

 

The ARBA serves as the highest administrative level for review of personnel actions taken by lower levels of the Army and administers a number of boards including Army Board for Correction of Military Records (ABCMR).

 

The ARBA has a chance to correct their errors in the Izumi case.  If that is left alone or worse, then anyone can petition the ARBA to have their records changed even when there is no evidence or there is false documentation.

 

Three years ago Izumiís daughter Rachael Izumi requested that his records be changed.  A response was sent to the ARBA with documentation showing that Izumi was not in Bastogne in 1944/45.  In February 2020 all of Izumiís Army Service Records were sent to the ARBA Analyst Paul Petty via email.  Mr. Petty confirmed that the records had arrived and were put into Izumiís file.

 

Fast forward to October of 2022 and the decision from the ABCMR that Rachael Izumi posted on Social Media.  The ABCMR reputation has been tarnished. HR Specialist Yvonne J. Foskey GS12 of the ABCMR name is on the "corrected" Form DD215 so it seems Ms. Foskey was the Analyst for this case.  

 

Analyst's gathers all of the facts and presents them to the Board to make a decision (Here is an example).  It seems the ABCMR used something sent from Rachael Izumi instead of Official Army Service Records.  What Rachael Izumi used was Air Force (AF) Form 7 and hearsay evidence.  It looks like the ABCMR didnít use any of the Izumiís Army Service Records. 

 

Why would the ABCMR use an unsubstantiated AF record and not the Army Service Records?  The ABCMR had all of Izumiís Army Service Records back in February 2020 and didnít use them.  It took over 2 years to come to the Decision (5/5/2022) and the ABCMR could have ordered up all of Izumiís records but didnít it seems.

 

What's more concerning is that Rachael Izumi said in her letter to the ABCMR that prior to sending in the letter and unsubstantiated records that she in fact had all of the Army Service Records and didn't send that to the ABCMR.  Why would Izumi not have sent the Records?  Because she knew that it would show what the world already knew, that Izumi left April 5, 1945.

 

The resulting decision was odd to say the least (Attached is DD Form 215, AUG 2009).  The ABCMR added on Line 32 the following Campaigns to Izumiís DD 214 (Form 53-55); Normandy, Rhineland, Ardennes and Central Germany.  The ABCMR also changed the date that Izumi left the USA from 4 April 1945 to December 1944.

 

The original Form 53-55 was perfect back in 1946 when Izumi left the Army.  The ABCMR has done the following mistakes; first is that gave Izumi credit for the Normandy Campaign.  Izumi wasnít even in the active Service until August 3, 1944.  The second mistake says that he was in the Central Germany Campaign.  The only problem with that is there is no such thing as Central Germany Campaign.  Izumi had already been credited with the Central Europe Campaign in the original Form 53-55.  How the ABCMR came up with Central Germany I have not a clue.

AF Form 7 shouldnít have been used at all as the Army Records were complete for Izumi.  Even if the ABCMR used the unsubstantiated AF Form 7 from 1963 the ABCMR made mistakes on that form as well. 

 

Nowhere on the unsubstantiated AF Form 7 did it say that Izumi was in the Ardennes Campaign.  The only two Campaigns listed on his AF Form 7 Line 14 were the one for Central Europe (which was correct) and the Rhineland Campaign (which he wasnít entitled to as that Campaign ended March 21, 1945 and the ABCMR still had Izumi arriving in Europe April 18, 1945.  To reiterate on the unsubstantiated AF Form 7 the Ardennes was not listed as that is a separate Campaign.

 

AF Form 7 can be disproved by Izumiís own Army Service Records.  Izumi has the Belgian Croix de Guerre listed on Page 2 Line 10.  You would have had to have been in the battle to receive that award.  Izumi was still in the USA during that time period. 

 

Now here is a little lesson on the French Croix de Guerre, Dutch Militaire Willems Order and the Belgian Croix de Guerre Awards (along with the Presidential Unit Citation (PUC).  If you come into a unit even after the war you had to wear it if you had to wear Dress Uniform. 

 

Izumi was in the 508th Parachute Infantry starting in October of 1945 so he had to wear all 4 Awards.  Once he left the Regiment he was no longer allowed to wear any of the four listed in the paragraph above. 

 

The only people who can wear those Awards even after they leave the 508th in this case were Soldiers who were in the Battles listed on the Awards.  Izumi should not have listed that on AF Form 7.  If you reference back to his correct 1946 Form 53-55 it wasnít listed there either for that reason.

 

On AF Form 7 Line 2 it says Date Departed and then Dec 44 (and not when he arrived) and under Foreign Service Summary it says the same Dec44.  If you look at a Soldiers records they never will say just the month and year.  There will always be a day to go along with that.  Look at the rest of the Izumi dates and they all have the day as well.  You will see just a year because that is what is asked for.

 

Both Dec 44 listed on AF From 7 are disproved by not just Izumiís Service Records but also by his 1949 Iowa Application for WWII Compensation.  It shows that he went overseas 4 April 1945.       

 

Please look at Foreign Service Summary once again.  It shows Isolated Tours Rhine Main which is Frankfort, Belgium, France and Austria.  That matches up with the attached Form from his Army Service Records when he arrived overseas April 18, 1945 and where he was day to day in Europe. 

 

When looking through past decisions the first one I looked at tells the story about the ABCMR.  This from Line 4 where it states ďIt is reasonable to assume that the applicant participated in combat parachute jumps with his unitĒ is a red flag. 

 

You can never use ďreasonable to assumeĒ when it comes to Army Records.  You need to have documentation.  In this case from 6 May 1999 they never used the 504th Parachute Regiment Orders for the Combat Infantryman Badge to prove this Soldier was in fact in the 504th for the Sicily Campaign. 

 

The ARBA does list the Soldierís first name and that he was in Company A.  After looking at the Orders for Company A 504th Parachute for Sicily he is nowhere listed.  This calls into question even back in May 6, 1999 what kind of documentation that the ARBA uses to this day.

 

 

Brian N. Siddall

November 11, 2022

 


Contact BN Siddall @
Tel: (315) 567-4542
Airborne In Normandy Research
PO Box 3897
Ithaca, NY 14852
Send an e-mail at researcher@airborneinnormandy.com  
 
Copyright © 2002-2022 Airborne In Normandy Research - All rights reserved.
Website design by airborneinnormandy