CRANDALL, GREGORY STEPHEN
Remains returned, ID'd 06/93 according to USG - please see family note
Name: Gregory Stephen Crandall
Rank/Branch: W1/US Army
Unit: Troop C, 2nd Squadron, 17th Cavalry, 101st Airborne Division
Date of Birth: 18 July 1949 (Oakland CA)
Home City of Record: Tacoma WA
Date of Loss: 18 February 1971
Country of Loss: Laos
Loss Coordinates: 163910N 1062226E (XD465415)
Status (in 1973): Killed/Body Not Recovered
Category: 2
Aircraft/Vehicle/Ground: OH6A
Other Personnel in Incident: Robert J. Engen; Walter E. Lewellen (both missing)
Source: Compiled by Homecoming II Project 01 September 1990 from one or more
of the following: raw data from U.S. Government agency sources,
correspondence with POW/MIA families, published sources, interviews. Updated
by the P.O.W. NETWORK 2019
REMARKS: CRASH BURN - NO SURVIV OBS - J
SYNOPSIS: LAM SON 719 was a large offensive operation against NVA
communications lines in Laos. The operation called for ARVN troops to drive
west from Khe Sanh, cut the Ho Chi Minh Trail, seize Tchpone and return to
Vietnam. The ARVN would provide and command the ground forces, while U.S.
Army and Air Force would furnish aviation airlift and supporting firepower.
The 101st Airborne Division commanded all U.S. Army aviation units in direct
support of the operation. Most of the first part of the operation, which
began January 30, 1971, was called Operation DEWEY CANYON II, and was
conducted by U.S. ground forces in Vietnam.
On February 8, 1971, early into the operation, a U.S. Army OH6A helicopter
was shot down about 8 miles east of Tchpone. This aircraft, flown by W1
Gregory Crandall, pilot, SP4 Robert J. Engen, scout/observer, and Sgt.
Walter E. Lewellen, crew chief, was conducting an aerial reconnaissance
mission when Crandall radioed that he was under heavy enemy fire. As he
maneuvered to evade the fire, the aircraft was seen to crash and catch on
fire. There was one major and six secondary explosions. About March 7, an
ARVN unit spotted the wreckage, but was unable to reach it to thoroughly
investigate. It was never learned for certain that the crew perished.
Losses were heavy in Lam Son 719. The ARVN lost almost 50% of their force.
U.S. aviation units lost 168 helicopters; another 618 were damaged.
Fifty-five aircrewmen were killed, 178 wounded, and 34 missing in action in
the entire operation, lasting until April 6, 1971.
In all, nearly 600 Americans were lost in Laos, but because we did not
negotiate with the Pathet Lao, no Americans held in Laos were released.
Since that time, over 10,000 reports have been received relating to
Americans prisoner, missing or unaccounted for in Southeast Asia. Although
many authorities are convinced that hundreds remain alive, the U.S. has not
secured the release of a single man.
|
04/04/92 Regarding matters previous to November 1990. Our family was contacted in November of 1990 notifying us of an impending excavation of Greg's loss incident location the following February of 1991. Previous to this I tried four times to receive a copy of Greg's records. The excuses were as follows. 1. We're painting, files are all over the place, as soon as we find them. 2. We're updating our new computers, as soon as we've completed yours we'll send it. 3. We're moving. My fourth request for a complete set of records was made to Lt. Col. J.G. Cole. I expressed my disbelief that he would send the records due to the previous lack of response. I was assured the records would be forth coming from him. They did arrive, yet were not complete. When my sister and I compared our files, I had documents she did not and vise versa. We were lacking seven documents pertaining to the evidence of the change in Greg's status from Missing in Action to Killed in Action, Body not Recovered. Since, we have been able to secure six of these documents. Exhibit M is missing to this date. Upon discovery that our record files were incomplete and different from each others, another request for a complete copy of the records was made to Lt. Col. Cole. The second set of records is forty pages heavier than the first, it also included the missing documents pertaining to the change in status from MIA to KIA/BNR with the exception of Exhibit M. This second file was provided to all the family members requested with the exception of myself. Department of Defense was aware of my interest in a more complete set of records. To date I have not received this second set. I currently use my mothers copy. Regarding the presentation of the excavation results. On August 29, 1991, the proposed identification results were presented by Mr. Douglas Howard, Mortuary Program Specialist. Of the information that was presented, following are the most stunning factors. These are not the only discrepancies, simply the most disturbing. Department of Defense has claimed that they had a hard time reaching my mother to notify her of the survey and excavation. Not much of an effort could have been put forth, as my mother has the same telephone number to this date that she did when Greg enlisted. She did move two years ago, but remains in contact with the new owners of her home and her mail is still forwarded. We were told that DoD was having a difficult time locating Mrs. Lewellen, the mother of SP4 Walter Edward Lewellen, another known crew-member. Again not much of an effort could have been put forth. I contacted Mrs. Lewellen with three telephone calls including one to directory assistance. The following statements or discoveries were revealed. 1. The recovery identification for your family member is based on the findings of a single tooth. 2. The writing items in Greg's personal effects were destroyed, burned. Yet the disposition form of his possessions has nothing noted in the burned column. 3. A dog-tag, allegedly belonging to Greg was found during the initial site survey on May 20, 1990. We have alleged this dog-tag to be counterfeit. 4. A boot eyelet was also allegedly found during this one day site survey on May 20, 1990. We consider this find nothing short of miraculous. 5. The entire recovered human remains for three individuals is four teeth and/or portions of teeth. Our allegation is that one tooth does not a death make, anyone can lose a tooth. 6. An 1800 degree plus fire totally incinerated the craft and the members involved in this loss incident. Yet recovery of the following items was made. * a. A name tape bearing the name of Engen * b. The identifying data plate for the craft * c. A pair of headphones * d. A dog tag * e. six keys or sets of keys * f. A chain for a dog-tag * g. a watch without the inner mechanism * h. A private first class device * i. A 2/17 cavalry insignia * j. non human bone fragments * k. four teeth or portions of teeth. * l. portions of fiberglass paneling * m. a boot eyelet The asterisks above are recovered items without any noted locations, yet are being used as credible evidence confirming this as the crash site for REFNO 1705. a. The name tape bearing the name of Engen has minimal deterioration. It is our allegation that this name tape has not been buried for 20 years in the humid tropical environment in Laos. Due to the intense fire, this name tape should have been history. b. The identifying data plate is an aluminum blend, a metal that would not have endured an 1800 degree fire. c. We were originally told that there was not a photograph of the headphones. When further inquiry was made, a photograph was made available bearing the date of May 20, 1990. This is one of only two photographs to have an LED reading in the lower right hand corner of the photograph. There are over 400 photographs. The other photograph bearing the LED reading is the photo of the dog- tag. d. It has been alleged by my family that the recovered dog-tag is counterfeit. The reason being is that the tag does not have the blood RH factor listed on it. Dog-tags carried RH information during this era. During current times the RH factor is not always necessary. The reason for this is the an "O" plasma is used for battlefield transfusions now and is interchangeable with most blood types. This was not the case in 1971, the RH factor was relevant information and included into the processing of the dog tags during the Vietnam era. e. Six keys or sets of keys were recovered. These keys show little deterioration or calcification. The record keeping regarding the dates and locations of recovery is conflicting. f. The dog tag chain also lacks information regarding its discovery. I asked for possession of the dog-tag chain at the same time I requested possession of the dog tag and name tape but was refused possession as the identity of the owner of the chain could not be verified. Neither of the other families has shown interest in possession. g. A watch without the inner mechanism was recovered. Again, it's location is questionable. A location is noted, however the watch was presented to the team by an local villager who had the watch in his possession from an earlier find. h. A private first class device was recovered. The DoD has alleged that this device had to have been left on the craft by a previous occupant. No credibility is being given that a PFC may have been on the craft or on the ground at the time of the loss incident. i. A 2/17 device was recovered. DoD alleges this device is credible evidence that the site recovery location is that of the craft in question. j. Bone fragments were recovered. These fragments were concluded to be non-human even though human remains analysis was not performed. k. Four teeth or portions of teeth were recovered. One of these teeth and the tooth crown (the portion) were recovered on the soil surface. The locations for the remaining two teeth is questionable. The distribution of these teeth is disgusting and will be addressed further in this document. l. Fiberglass paneling was recovered. In documentation received after the initial presentation, this paneling can be associated with that of a UH1H not that of an OH6A, the type of craft in question. m. The boot eyelet that was recovered during the site survey in May of 1990 was found on the soil surface. This is a more phenomenal find than even the dog-tag. We are speaking of just the eyelet with minimal amount of the boot fabric still intact. The boot eyelet was found on the soil surface during the one day site survey, 20 May 1990. 7. We were told that there was no positive means of identification for Mr. Lewellen. Our question now is, then why has he been considered "accounted for" and buried? 8. Another curious point about the May survey is that the site had been cleared. Allegedly for dry land rice cultivation. However, in reviewing the photographs that have been supplied to the family, the area was never planted. The jungle regrowth was removed by the US/LPDR excavation team prior to excavation in February of 1991. 9. There was not any metal detectors used on the initial site survey to aid in the discovery of the dog tag and boot eyelet. After the presentation of the excavation results was complete and we had time to review the materials presented more discrepancies arose that warrant explanation. In order to better accommodate the families desire for immediate resolution, two of the family members, myself and Susan Muttart traveled to Washington. Regarding encounters with Department of Defense representatives. The reception that we received and the testimony we heard during the November hearings before the Senate Select Committee on POW/MIA affairs was startling. Upon my first meeting with Lt. Colonel Jim Cole, United States Army Chief, POW/MIA affairs, he was physically aggressive to the point that I considered pressing attempted assault charges. Mr. John Manning, Assistant Chief Mortuary Affairs and Casualty Support Division was witness to this confrontation. I did speak with Mr. Carl Ford, Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense (ISA) regarding Lt. Col. Coles behavior. This conversation was at his office and attended by myself, my sister Susan, Colonel Jordan, Deputy Director ISA POW/MIA, Lieutenant Thomas Doughty, USN and Charles Trowbridge. I reiterated my concern regarding this confrontation with Lt. Col. Cole to Mr. Ford during the November hearings. He assured me that he had spoken to Lt. Col. Cole regarding his behavior and that such would not occur again. I responded to Mr. Ford that I desired to direct my concerns elsewhere due to my inability to be comfortable in Lt. Col. Cole's presence. At this time Mr. Ford offered Colonel Jordan as an escort for any subsequent meetings. I agreed to his use but have yet to take advantage of Mr. Ford's offer. My second and last appointment with Lt. Col. Cole I was escorted by Mr. Russell Nomer, a personal friend. Lt. Col. Cole became angry at this encounter also, but was not physically aggressive. Mr. Manning and Sgt. Randy Brown were witness to this engagement. During this meeting Lt. Col. Cole refused to honor a legal power of attorney provided to him by myself. This power of attorney was signed by Mr. Bernard Engen and witnessed by three surviving sisters to SP4 Robert Joseph Engen, a known crew-member on the craft at the time of incident. The language of the POA provided by Mr. Engen allowed the same access as the POA provided to myself by my mother. The document signed by my mother was scrutinized by the Department of the Army legal advisors at Lt. Col. Coles request. It was concluded to be in proper legal order. I pointed this out to Lt. Col. Cole yet he refused to honor the legal document. This action was condoned by Colonel M.T. Spinello, United States Army Director, Casualty and Memorial Affairs. Colonel Spinello became further involved by telephoning Mr. Engen and requesting an order of rescission of the document. Four calls were placed to Mr. Engen. It is unknown to myself if Colonel Spinello is responsible for placing all these calls but is responsible for some and ultimately for any that were placed by his staff at his direction. If necessary Mr. Engen's daughters can provide emphasis regarding these calls. It is the daughters' request that Mr. Engen not be contacted unless absolutely necessary. Mr. Engen has been distressed over the events that have transpired to the point that he has sought medical assistance. For these reasons should you want to clarify this point please contact the surviving sisters (and witnesses to the signing of the document and the phone calls) first. Colonel Spinello has advised me that he has obtained a rescission order of the POA from Mr. Engen, yet when I asked him to provide me a copy of said rescission, he refused. To date, I do not have a copy of the rescission. If one does exist, I would still like a copy. Until one is provided to me it is my expectation that Colonel Spinello and those under his command are required to honor the legal document. Colonel Spinello and I did have one very lengthy telephone call of two hours. Mr. Manning and Lt. Col. Cole were available to Colonel Spinello to clarify situations for him. Colonel Spinello himself became confused regarding the conflicting factors involved with this case. This call was totally unproductive, regarding our inquiry, for resolution of conflicting factors in our case. A breach of confidentiality has also taken place. This occurred in a telephone conversation between Major Charles Gittins and Ms. Bonnie Stillwell. I have expressed my displeasure in written form to Major Gittins regarding his unprofessional behavior. I have further instructed him not to discuss our situation with anyone that does not have congressional or legal powers unless he has permission from my mother, myself, or my sister Susan Muttart. My mother is primary next of kin and my sister and I are attorneys in fact at my mothers request and by her signed Power of Attorney. Regarding matters associated with fingerprint records. After repeated verbal requests to Lt. Col. Cole for a copy of Greg's fingerprints from his government service jacket, I came to the conclusion that they did not exist or they were not going to be released if they did exist. So I went to the FBI myself on December 3, 1991 at which time I made written and verbal request for a copy of Greg's fingerprints from his government service record. After four and a half hours of searching I was told that they did not exist within their records for servicemen. This worried me. I knew that a print record had been taken, that Greg has been missing in action for twenty years, and there are no prints. I asked that the search continue to the civilian data base for prints. This request was complied with. Seven hours later I receive another call, this time stating that the prints have been found. Further stated was that they were someplace they should never have been, but when questioned where, disclosure was not forthcoming. These fingerprints were delivered by hand, to myself, plain brown wrapper and no cover letter. I found this unprofessional and curious. However, I am very thankful they were delivered without haste, as I was leaving town early the following morning. Keeping in mind that I had already previously requested fingerprints from the DoD, upon my arrival home, a copy of the same set of fingerprints that I had received from the FBI was very soon in forthcoming from the DoD. What is curious about this copy is; the face was uncensored, the back of the document was not copied, and the back was stamped. To summarize the stamp, the prints cannot be guaranteed by the FBI. Shortly after receiving the copy from the DoD, another letter came from the FBI, stating they have searched their indices and found no record responsive to my request. March 6, 1992 I contacted the FBI for clarification. I was informed that the fingerprints in Greg's service jacket had been purged and destroyed according to DoD policy, after seven years of inactivity. How could there have been any activity, as he was missing in action? The letter stating no information could be found regarding my request, was referred to the FOIA department. The FOIA department is entirely separate from the fingerprint division. For this reason, no information cold be found, as allegedly there isn't any information available. As a family, we haven't any reason to doubt this. Regarding the acquisition of photographs. The photographs that have been provided have been touched on earlier. More explanation is necessary. Originally when we knew that DoD was ready to present the excavation results, I phoned Mr. Manning and requested that a total of six complete recovery reports be brought with supporting photographs, not photocopies. I furthered my request by asking for copies of any dental films used in the identification process. This request was not complied with. What was brought to the family was a complete set of all materials for my mother, Primary next of kin. What was provided for the additional family members was a total of six pages. The document alone is 48 pages without the photographs. I expressed my displeasure at not being allowed a set of all the material provided to my mother and was told to inquire of Lt. Col Cole for additional materials. I made my request again for all material, photographs, and dental radiographs. I received photocopies of the photographs, I did not receive any radiographs, the documentation that was provided my mother was enclosed. I queried for photographs time and again. Finally they were forthcoming. It was expressed to myself the reason for the delay is that all the CILHI lab personnel were "in the field". During this time I had queried why a photograph had not been taken of the dog-tag in place, or the headphones, or some of the other items to have been recovered. Quite a bit of verbal pressure was applied. Shortly thereafter, two photographs appeared. One of the dog-tag on the soil surface, another of the headphones. Due to this release we has suspicions there might be more photographs that had not been provided. We made written FOIA request to the Central Identification Laboratory, Hawaii. In response to this FOIA request, an additional 450 photographs were made available. This after we had been previously told that no photographs existed except those that were provided during the excavation presentation. Remarkably though, of over 450 photographs that have been provided, two stand out. The photo of the dog-tag and the headphones are the only two photographs with an LED print on the lower right hand corner. There is one more issue relating to photographs. It has been written in two different pieces of correspondence that a demolition knife allegedly found by a local informant was not seen nor photographed by the JCRC team. Then how is it that we have a photograph of this item? The back is stamped CILHI photo. Regarding the inventory of artifacts. The inventory of artifacts is questionable. When this information was presented to the family in August of 1991, an inventory of artifacts was part of the documentation for the site survey and the February excavation. These documents were not signed by Peter S. Miller the assigned anthropologist. When questioned as to why the anthropologist did not sign the documents, the response was, his signature is not necessary. Then why provide a space for it? Yet, while I was reviewing the file held in John Mannings possession in his Mortuary Affairs office, I came across a signed version. At this time I alleged that Peter Miller did not sign the document on the 21st of June. Had this document been signed on this date, when the results were presented to my family in August, we would have been provided with a signed copy. However, a greater problem than this is involved with these two documents. The problem relates to a photograph of three items, the dog-tag, boot eyelet, and the dog-tag chain. These three items are all pictured in the same photograph as coming from the same site. However, they were found at different times. This makes the photograph misleading. The photograph states that only the tag was recovered during the survey in May 1990, and the eyelet and chain were recovered during the excavation in February 1991. The inventory of artifacts documents contradict this. The survey document states that the tag and the eyelet were recovered on the May survey and that only the chain was recovered during the February excavation. In written responses to questions posed by myself regarding the recovery of the boot eyelet, again two dates of discovery are noted. Regarding the recovery and distribution of the human remains. The total human remains recovered for three individuals is four teeth or portions of teeth. The dental summary has a very curious factor involved. This being the date of the document. It is dated the 27th of February. The summary refers to information that was received on March 6th of the same year. Our inquiry is, how did the DoD know on the 27th of February that their evidence would be arriving on the 6th of the following March? The date on this document has been explained by DoD to be a "simple word processing error". This "simple" error was performed on not only Greg's summary but also the Engen summary, which contain different information. The distribution of remains is the most disgusting factor of this entire matter. One tooth has been designated to be Greg's by a radiographic match. This being tooth number four. Tooth number four is a premolar. A premolar is attached by one root. A concussion alone can cause a premolar to dislodge. A lower left molar, allegedly number nineteen, was excluded to belong to Mr. Engen. Tooth number nineteen was unrestored. Greg's number nineteen was restored, thus it could not belong to him. Mr. Lewellen was missing number nineteen tooth according to his dental charts. Therefore, tooth number nineteen was excluded to belong to Mr. Engen as it could not belong to Greg or Mr. Lewellen and had to belong to someone, that one being Mr. Engen. There is not a scrap of scientific proof to support this, only supposition that these were the only three members involved with this loss incident. The remaining two teeth numbers 20 and 29 were commingled. Again they are unrestored. Greg had restoration on his teeth of those numbers, thus they are not his. However, Mr. Engen and Mr. Lewellen did not have restoration work on their teeth of those number, thus making it impossible for a positive identification to be made. For this reason the two teeth were commingled. Since these two teeth could not be separated by scientific means, they were buried together, in one casket, representing Mr. Engen and Mr. Lewellen. Two men in one casket is a disgusting practice. These men deserved their own casket. Furthermore, without any positive means of identification, how can it be ascertained that these teeth do represent these two men? Why was not any DNA testing done of these teeth to validate the supposition? Why was not any DNA testing done of the tooth alleged to be Greg's as the family has requested? Dental radiographs are not available for Mr. Engen or Mr. Lewellen. Dental charts were used. Radiographs for Greg are limited. Of further interest, the restoration work on the recovered tooth #4, is actually charted on Gregs dental charts on tooth #5. This has been documented as an original simple charting error also. Regarding locations of REFNO 1705 and Ban Houay Kasan Village 2/91 1705 467417 Kasan 463411 2/91 1705 465415 1705 300 Meters NW of Kasan 1705 Located on East side of ridge 5/90 1705 467417 Kasan 463411 5/90 1705 467417 1705 Located on South slope of low ridge Kasan 363441 4/89 1705 465415 Stream 467413 Approx. 300 meters Southeast of 1705 loss 3/89 1705 465415 1705 467413 Actual loss location for REFNO 1705 1/89 1705 465415 15 1/2 Kilometers East/Southeast of Xepon, Savannakhet Province Laos (JCRC narrative) Location 467417 used three (3) times---for REFNO 1705 Location 465415 used three (3) times---for REFNO 1705 Location 467413 used two (2) times---for REFNO 1705 Location 463411 used two (2) times---for Ban Houay Kasan Location 363441 used one (1) time ---for Ban Houay Kasan What are the actual locations for REFNO 1705 and Ban Houay Kasan village? Regarding eyewitness statements. A "heavy pink team" is comprised of four craft. 1. The OH6A in question, commonly known as a loach, is a light observation helicopter, used for visual reconnaissance and as a "sitting duck" to engage enemy fire. Artillery support is provided the Loach by two armed gunships, commonly known as Cobras. The final craft is known as the command and control, known as the C&C. 2. John Oldham accompanied James Newman as pilot of the C&C. Sworn statements were provided by Mr. Oldham. Certificates were provided by Mr. Newman, only one of which was signed by him. 3. Together in one Cobra were Wayne Baker and Charles Vehlow, both provided sworn statements. 4. We are not aware of who occupied the remaining Cobra. Statements are not provided by these occupants. We have requested disclosure of who these individuals were. This request has not been complied with. The discrepancies among the witness statements are: 1. Contacting the side of a hill vs. falling into a bomb crater. 2. Explosion in mid-air vs. Explosion on impact or just prior to impact vs. Approximately 15 seconds time elapsed before explosions occur. 3. Craft was in level attitude vs. Attitude of the craft could not be determined. 4. Aircraft was totally destroyed vs. Tail boom was intact. 5. The first set of statements make mention to fire and/or burning vs. No mention of fire or burning in the second set of statements 6. This discrepancy was revealed during the excavation presentation. 7. After the fire subsided a craft hovered at ten feet vs. The attitude of the craft could not be determined. In common with the statements is: 1. There was not any sign of survivors or bodies. Additionally; An ARVN unit passed through the area "on or about" the 7th of March. The wreckage was seen but no investigation was attempted. Again stated was that there was not any sign of survivors or bodies. The following suppositions are made by this family. The craft had already been stripped by the North Vietnamese Regiment controlling the area, this is why the wreckage was not investigated by the ARVN unit that passed through. If a craft could have hovered at ten feet it would have set down or at the very least someone would have jumped out and investigated the wreckage for human remains and jumped back on. If the anti-aircraft fire was so intense so as not to allow a touchdown of the hovering craft, then the craft would have been blown out of the air while hovering. An 1800+ fire, has been alleged, is a very intense fire and not likely to be forgotten and should have been included in the second set of statements. Finally, due to the general withdrawal from Laos, all search efforts were abandoned. Regarding located wreckage by dates. March 1989 Exterior panel strips ceramic fragments metal insulating strips panel section plastic connector stamped metal band The only item that can be associated with any particular craft was the stamped metal band. The band can be associated with the UH1H. This band is associated with the honeycomb paneling on the UH-1 according to the Beech Aircraft corporation, the manufacturer of the paneling. A company representative stated the paneling was not used on the OH-6 helicopter. April 1989 honeycomb paneling teflon bearing stamped metal band May 1990 items with part numbers printed labels engine components identification tag Crandall May 1990 Vietnamese were led to craft by Lao villager and found small helicopter working watch pocket knife unburned boot wreckage was dismantled and hauled away by Vietnamese who had been in the area to pave Route 9 and asked about any crash sites in that area, and were led to this site by the Lao villager. February 1991 Shown to the JCRC crew by Lao villager are the following. "Seiko" watch-- provided by the villager to the team Dismantled knife-- retained by Lao villager Recovered by joint US/LPDR excavation team four teeth--one restored three bone fragments-- too small to make a human/non-human determination name tape--bearing the name of "Engen". PFC insignia Cavalry branch insignia 2/17 six keys or sets of keys Hughes tool data plate CBU bomblets--destroyed on site 40 mm rounds--destroyed on site grenade--destroyed on site February of 1991 Stated by local Lao villager was the recovery of the following items previous to the US/LPDR excavation. These items were found by the villagers while looking for aluminum to sell to Lao vendors who sold the metal in Mukdahan, Thailand. The first time the villager had gone to the site was in 1985 after the village had been established. saw small helicopter-- six or seven years ago by Lao villager "Seiko" watch--Lao villager-- missing inner mechanism. Two military knives--One of these knives had been sold the other was retained by the Lao villager. One unburned military boot-- villager does not know the whereabouts of this boot Pieces of shredded "green" uniform, found in the bottom of the crater by the villagers. helicopters propeller-- nine inches wide and fifteen feet long. Lao villager believes that the craft had been subsequently hit by an American bombing raid due to the lack of any large pieces of wreckage in the area. statue--this was so heavy it took two villagers to carry it to village-- two feet tall and one foot square-- when asked by team to view it, the response was it had been stolen. This statue resembled a man, according to the villager, of a man with no head, arms down to the elbows, legs down to the knees. Denial is made at this time of having previously stated that the Vietnamese had been through the area and that only Lao villagers had been to the wreckage. Further stated is that no remains have been found and that he has not heard of any remains having been found by other villagers. Regarding additional matters. A very important question is.....Why was not Greg's file pulled in 1982 at the same time that Robert J. Engen's file was requested. The purpose of the request was to identify remains. These men have been alleged to be on the same manifest. So, if such is so, would it not stand to reason that if Mr. Engen's file was pulled to verify identity of remains that there is the possibility that the remains in question may have been Greg's? Yet there is not any documentation in Greg's file requesting his records be sent for identification process of remains. Another curious factor is.... there is only one date in the flight records for Greg having flown the Cobra's. Yet his letters home speak to such, this is also the craft he was flying when he was awarded an air medal with valor. Additionally, we have asked numerous times to be put into contact with surviving troop members. To date, we have been provided with means to contact two men. If the same effort is being put forth to contact the rest of the troop members, that was put forth to locate my mother, it is no wonder that they cannot be located. Further, we would like some type of verification that an effort has been put forth. We are trying our best, given our resources and time, to come to resolution regarding this loss and the factors involved. Some of the enclosed material may not make a whole lot of sense to some. It doesn't make a whole lot of sense to us either. We are however, doing our very best to make sense out of it. This is being done without the cooperation of the Department of the Army or the Department of Defense or any of the other various agencies involved with the POW/MIA issue. I have found it very troublesome to have to go to the bother of obtaining Congressional support for situations that should be handled directly with the parties involved. I have tried to be cooperative with the individuals associated with the Department of the Army. Even this has been difficult. There have been times that I have been a bother to these men, and for that, I offer, my most sincere apologies. It would be nice if those involved could understand that this is not any easier now that it was twenty one years ago, only more so difficult, as the evidence does not flow properly. As you know this is a highly emotional issue. If someone would have worked with us, instead of consistently against us, this may have been able to have been resolved by now, but this was not the case. Thus far, resolution has been difficult, financially, physically and emotionally. There isn't anyone who wants understanding and resolution more than this family, regarding the loss of Greg. Again, we beg your forbearance for additional time, to resolve this and to accept our loss. The information enclosed is not inclusive of all the factors concerning this family, it has been compiled and completed by Nancy Gourley and Susan Muttart, attorneys in fact, for Harriet Henricksen, primary next of kin, to Gregory S. Crandall, 499-52-6352. The opinions, suppositions, and allegations are supported by all the immediate surviving family members to Mr. Crandall. We are united in our feelings, with the way our beloved son and brother, the POW/MIA issue, and the way Susan and myself have been treated by the Department of the Army and the Department of Defense in general. Due to the enclosed material, we respectfully request at this time, for minimum of an additional year to investigate this loss incident and to come to peaceful resolution as a family. There really shouldn't be any big hurry about "finalizing" this matter, as no harm is being done to the Department of the Army or the Department of Defense, yet further emotional duress will be brought upon the family in the event that the finalization of this loss is rushed through "process". Granted, "process" may deem such to happen, but process needs revision. This is not the feeling of just this family, but is a common thread among POW/MIA families. So please, we beg your forbearance for additional time, to accept our loss, given all the factors, extenuating and otherwise. On behalf of the entire family of Warrant Officer Gregory Stephen Crandall, Respectfully submitted by, Nancy Gourley xxxxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxxxx |
|
Msg #: 4984 Date: 08-23-93 (12:49) From: NANCY GOURLEY To: ALL Subj: BURIAL |
|
The family of
|
|
As stated, Greg Crandall will be buried on Sept 17 of this year. My family is being railroaded into this funeral. We object to it adamantly. However it appears that there is not a way to stop the DoD from continuing. My family does not and has not contested the identity of the single tooth (#4). What our major objection is is that a single tooth does not a death make and we want validation that a death did in fact occur. As of yet DoD cannot provide with any factual information regarding this. What we do know is that 1. Men that were known POW were not returned during Operation Homecoming and have not been subsequently accounted for and 2. that men that were listed as KIA did come home during Operation Homecoming. For these reasons my family has a valid reason to question the validity of the report that Greg was killed. If there is anyone out there in activist land that can give us a way out of this please respond by calling Nancy Gourley at 1802 fourth avenue, Kenai, Alaska 99611 or phone at (907) 283-2208. Meanwhile, while though we may not have won this battle, we continue to survive and fight in the war. My most heartfelt appreciation again to all those that have given of their hearts minds souls and pocketbooks for the accounting of those that are loved and missed so much. |
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
01/2020
https://dpaa.secure.force.com/dpaaProfile?id=a0Jt000000rXJ8nEAG
On June 9, 1993, Joint Task Force–Full Accounting (JTF-FA, now
DPAA) identified the remains of Warrant Officer Gregory Stephen
Crandall, missing from the Vietnam War.
Warrant Officer Crandall entered the U.S. Army from Washington
and was a member of Troop C, 2nd Squadron, 17th Cavalry
Regiment, 101st Airborne Division. On February 18, 1971, he
piloted an OH-6A Cayuse (tail number 67-16528, call sign "Grip
11") on a visual reconnaissance mission over Savannakhet
Province, Laos. During the mission, the aircraft came under
heavy enemy fire, crashed, and exploded, killing WO Crandall.
The wreckage landed northwest of Ban Houay Kasan village in an
area that remained under enemy control, which prevented efforts
to recover WO Crandall's remains at the time. However, in 1990,
a joint U.S./Laotian investigation team traveled to the crash
site and recovered aircraft wreckage, personal artifacts, and
human remains, and in 1993, WO Crandall was identified from
these remains.
Warrant Officer Crandall is memorialized in the Courts of the
Missing at the National Memorial Cemetery of the Pacific.
If you are a family member of this serviceman, you may contact your casualty office representative to learn more about your service member.