News-Info-Alerts

To: ALL

From: Andi Wolos & Bob Necci

(POW-MIA InterNetwork)

Re: DPMO Position Brief - Pursuit Status Categories

Date: March 08, 2001

"What are the different pursuit status categories and how do they pertain to the accounting process?

Background:  In 1994-95, members of the Defense POW/Missing Personnel Office (DPMO), Joint Task Force – Full Accounting (JTF-FA), and Central Identification Laboratory, Hawaii (CILHI) conducted a comprehensive review of Southeast Asia MIA cases to identify the best “next steps” in the investigation of each case.  As part of that process, they divided the cases into three groups:  further pursuit, investigation deferred, and no further pursuit.  Here are the definitions listed in the 1995 report, some further description and examples, and a short discussion of the reason behind dividing the cases into different groups.

Further pursuit:  “Those where we have specific next steps to pursue in the investigation process.  For some of these, the lead is a single action; in others, several different approaches are necessary.”  These next steps might include interviews, research in archives, or crash-site excavations.

Investigation deferred:  “Cases where we have exhausted all current leads.  We must defer investigation of these cases until additional leads are developed.”  We know the least about these cases.  Specifically, we do not know what happened to the individual at the time he or she went missing or, in some cases, we do not know what happened to the remains after the incident.  In either case, we have run out of leads to follow.  Examples include service members whose aircraft were off United States radarscopes, failed to report to their destinations, and presumably crashed en route.  It also includes some cases where a unit had to leave a service member’s body on the battlefield for later recovery, only to have it disappear before friendly forces returned to the area.  It is important to note that we are always looking for new information that may pertain to any of the unresolved cases, and if we develop new leads on a “deferred” case during this process, we will certainly follow them.  Therefore, we view “deferred” as a transition status.

No further pursuit:  “Those cases where we judge no actions by any government will result in the recovery of remains.”  In these cases, we have enough information to conclude the individual perished, but all the evidence indicates his or her remains are unrecoverable.  For example, this category includes service members who perished at sea and those killed by explosions that destroyed their remains.

The purpose for these categories:  Categorizing these cases “allows us to (1) focus our understanding of individual cases, (2) provide the basis for a sound investigative strategy, and (3) define next steps for achieving the fullest possible accounting of Americans missing in Southeast Asia.”  Categorizing allows the government to focus its resources and analytic efforts on those cases in which further work might reasonably result in the repatriation of a service member or his or her remains.  Secondly, it provides an update on the status of the investigation and clearly identifies those cases for which remains are unrecoverable and no further investigation will occur.

Closing thoughts:  Although the comprehensive case review may be though of as a study published in 1995, it is more accurately viewed as a dynamic process which began with the intensive study that resulted in the 1995 report and has continued up to the present.  We expect this process to continue to be an active part of the full accounting effort as analysts come together several times a year to coordinate the status of cases and plan next steps toward individual case resolution.

For more information, you can refer to Department of Defense Instruction 1300.18 (Military Personnel Casualty Matters, Policies, and Procedures) and 10 United States Code section 1513(5) (Missing Persons Act). Back to Family Liaison Questions

Defense POW/Missing Personnel Office"