Report on the Reconsideration of the Gold Area Unit, Free Luzon Echelon

1. On 9 Oct 47, 1^st Lt Marion C Allbright made a thorough and complete study of the unit file of the subject unit. A field investigation was not deemed necessary.

Recapitulation:

a. The initial investigation of the subject unit was made by 2^nd Lt B R Bromley on 25 March 47. The result of his investigation was an unfavorable recommendation for recognition (See Tab 1).

b. A letter from this headquarters, dated 17 April 47, to Mr Mariano Tibay, commanding officer of the subject unit, notified him of the unfavorable decision regarding his request for recognition (See Tab 2).

c. A letter from Mr Tibay, dated 10 May 47, to this headquarters, requested that subject unit be granted reconsideration (See Tab 3).

d. A letter from this headquarters, dated 20 May 47, to Mr Tibay, granted subject unit reconsideration and requested that he forward to this headquarters all pertinent documentary evidence concerning his unit to this office as soon as possible (See Tab 4).

e. On or about 15 July 47, 2^nd Lt B R Bromley reported on the potential revision of recognition dates of the recognized portion of the subject unit known as the Gold Company, Gold Area Unit, Free Luzon, 6^th MD, with a total of 96 members recognized (See Tab 5).

f. A letter to Mr Tibay, dated 21 July 47, from this headquarters, notified him of the unfavorable decision with regards to the revision of present recognition dates of the recognized members (See Tab 6).

2. HISTORY (Alleged):

See unit file.

3. FINDINGS:

In the letter granting reconsideration to subject unit, Mr Tibay was requested to forward all pertinent documentary evidence to this office as soon as possible. (See Tab 4). More than four (4) months have passed since this request was made and no additional evidence has been forthcoming. It is concluded that there is no additional evidence to be submitted.

a. Certificate by one Henry Becker as to the activities of the subject unit. (See Tab 7).

Comment: This comment is incorrect in several of the statements that it contains. Becker implied that he has been an intelligence agent since 1935, yet Maj D C Murray met him in Feb 46, when he was seeking employment with the G-2 Section. Becker states that he knows of certain induction dates of [the] subject unit into the 43^rd Div, IV Philippine Corps, yet these dates are incorrect. The activities mentioned by Becker are general in nature and do not specify the number of men used nor any actual accomplishments. See comments by Maj Murray on the certificate by Becker. (Tab 7).

b. A joint affidavit by Hugo A Retaga and Mariano A Tolentino stating that they know Tibay commanded two companies of fully armed men and more than two companies that were armed with bolos. (See Tab 8).

Comment: This affidavit does not refer to any activities nor to any period of time. The manner in which it was worded indicates that they saw a certain number of men at a given time, but no mention is made as to the accomplishments of this group of men. (See Tab 8).

c. A document signed by William J Schloth, Maj, Hqs 11^th Airborne Div, that authorized “Capt Tibay” to collect arms from civilians to arm his men “who are to become attached” to the 11^th Airborne Div. (See Tab 9).

Comment: The men that were attached have been recognized for their services and this document has no value concerning the men that were not attached.

d. There are some fourteen copies of “attachment papers” of individuals that are actually passes for individuals. These indicate that these persons were attached to the 11^th Airborne Div. No period of time is indicated on these passes and the only value they have is for the individuals concerned. If accepted as attachment papers, they would only support recognition for one day as there is a date on the passes.

This is another attempt to build a unit around the activities of a few men. The 96 previously recognized are just a representation of the service rendered by the unit to the United States Armed Forces.

The letter requesting reconsideration attempts to refute each statement made in the NFC letter sent to Mr Tibay. No definite claims are made and to attempt to refute each statement made by Mr Tibay would be the equivalent of copying the report of the initial investigation. (See Tab 3 and 1).

The Report of Revision on [the] subject unit recommends that the unit be not favorably considered for recognition if the unit is reconsidered. (See Tab 5).

It is evident that the recognition previously granted is adequate recognition for service rendered by the subject unit to the Liberating Forces.

4. POLITICAL ASPECTS

This unit has no apparent political affiliations or aspirations.

5. RECOMMENDATIONS:

1. That the original decision of this headquarters, dated 17 April 47, not favorably considering for recognition the Gold Area Unit, 6^th MD, be sustained.

2. No casualty roster has been submitted and it is recommended that no casualties be favorably considered.

3. There are no individuals deserving individual recognition in a non-casualty status.

4. That this report constitute the final action by this headquarters on the Gold Area Unit, 6^th MD.

[Sgd.] MARION C ALLBRIGHT

Notes and references: