|
![]() |
Involved in the same incidents as individuals reported in Category One, or, |
![]() |
Lost in areas or under such conditions that they may reasonably be expected to be known by the enemy, or, |
![]() |
Connected with an incident that was discussed but not identified by name in the enemy news media, or, |
![]() |
Probable identification through analysis of all-source intelligence. |
![]() |
This category includes personnel whose loss incident is such that it is doubtful that the enemy would have knowledge of the specific individuals. |
![]() |
Individuals whose time and place of loss are unknown. |
![]() |
Individuals who do not meet the criteria of Categories one through three. |
READ THIS:
The critical point to remember about the categories is that they are an
ATTEMPT TO ASSESS ENEMY KNOWLEDGEABLITY. That is, we were trying to assess what the enemy would know about a man.
The categories ARE NOT AN INDICATION THAT A MAN WAS CONFIRMED, OR SUSPECTED, AS BEING HELD PRISONER.
For example, a Radio Hanoi broadcast might state that a U. S. aircraft was shot down and the "pilots" (a normal Vietnamese usage) both died in the shoot-down. The broadcast would then name the "pilots." These men would be in category one -- confirmed knowledge -- because they had been mentioned by name in a Radio Hanoi broadcast, suggesting that the Vietnamese knew their fate. There is no reason to believe they are POWs and their placement in category one does not mean that they were confirmed to be POWs.
Again, the categories are an attempt to assess Vietnamese knowledgeability. The categories do not mean that a man was a confirmed POW, suspect POW, possible POW, etc.
Most folks have never heard about these categories.
However, the categories are substantially misrepresented in the MIA activist community. The normal verbiage appearing on the MIA websites, in the newsletters, on the radio shows, whenever some "MIA expert" speaks publicly, etc., is that such-and-such a missing man is a "category one confirmed POW," or, "a category two probable POW." Some families even talk about their missing man as being a "category one confirmed POW."
It simply is not so.
When the categorization process was conducted, it was run by the military services. DIA then reviewed the results. That is, the Army, Navy, Air Force and Marine Corps missing persons offices were provided with the categories and with an explanation of what they meant. They were provided with some examples. Then, they were requested to categorize all their missing men.
The services each formed task groups to do the categorization. The task groups would have individuals review a man's file and place him in a category, then pass the file around for review by other task force members. Several folks assessed each file. No one knew what category the others had placed on a missing man. When this process was finished, the results were passed to DIA.
In most cases, the categorizations by the services were fairly consistent and reasonable. But, there were some serious problems in other cases.
![]() |
In some cases, men in the same loss incident were placed in different categories. Why would the guy in the front seat be Cat 1 while the back-seater was Cat 3? |
![]() |
Guys who had been named in radio broadcasts as having been killed in their shoot-down were placed in categories other than Cat 1. Yet, if they were named as killed in a shoot down, this means that the enemy knows their fate, thereby making them Cat 1. |
In the end, the categories were considered as a place to start -- an interesting exercise. They were never used by DIA or the services as a definitive measure of enemy knowledgeability. And, they were not designed to be nor were they used as a measure of "confirmed POW," "probable POW," "possible POW," etc.
So, the next time you hear someone talking about a "category one confirmed POW," "confirmed by DIA as a category one POW," call their hand on it. I have found that when reasonable people hear the facts about the categories, they turn away from the nonsense.
|