By Donna Downes Knox

North Korea unilaterally returned 208 sets of remains between 1990 and 1994. To date, eight of those men have been identified and returned to their families for burial. What we didn’t know until recently was that, along with the 208 remains, the North Koreans also returned a number of dog tags, and a list of locations from which the remains had been retrieved. We have been asking DPMO and CILHI about these remains over the past several months and have learned information that should be passed on to the families.

According to the CILHI analyst assigned to this project, when the remains were returned, they were accompanied by 38 dog tags. Previously we had been told by the DPMO Special Projects unit that there were 20 tags, but Steve Thompson, head of the Korea section at CILHI, tells us that there were actually 38. According to Thompson, two of the men whose tags were returned had been identified after the war ended. Another five were identified during the 90s. The remaining 31 dog tags were incorrectly associated by the North Koreans with some of the 200 remains that still lie at CILHI as unknowns.

Thomas said that anthropologists were able to determine that the 31 remains with which dog tags were associated were not those of the men whose names were on the tags. This was done by comparing the dental records of the 31 named men to the teeth of the remains. What happened to the 31 men whose dog tags were sent back and incorrectly associated?

One possibility is that the men’s remains are indeed among the 200, just not the specific ones with which the dog tags had been associated. Thompson said the dental records of the 31 named men have now been checked against the dental database for the rest of the 200 unidentified remains that have teeth, and none of them match. The remains that lack teeth will have to be tested and compared using DNA technology.

It’s not clear why DNA was not recovered from these remains years ago and submitted to AFDIL for sequencing, but CILHI has now assigned two anthropologists to that project. DNA has now been recovered from about 40 percent of the 200 unidentified remains, and we’re told that completion of this project is a high priority at CILHI.

At the same time, the families of the 31 named men must be located and family reference samples of DNA obtained, so comparisons can be made with the DNA recovered from the 200 unidentified remains. Some of these families have been located; some have not. We were also told that Army Casualty has not notified those of the 31 families, with whom they have contact, that their loved ones’ dog tags have been returned by the North Koreans. Mr. Thompson reports that, unless there is a positive identification, the Army does not intend to inform anyone about the dog tags that came back. We think this is unacceptable.

Families that are in touch with the government in search of answers would certainly want to know that their loved one’s dog tags had been found and returned by the North Koreans. Although no definite conclusions can be drawn from this single piece of information, the families have a right to be informed and the government does not have the right to keep that information from them.

On the practical side, a family that knows its loved one’s dog tags have been returned, could focus on finding out the circumstances under which his tags made their way back. Who turned them over? Where were they found? Are his remains at CILHI? If not, where did the North Koreans get the tags? Did the Communists have him in their custody in order to get the tags? The questions to ask, and the issues to pursue, are many. If the family doesn’t know the tags have been returned, they are deprived of the right to ask those questions and pursue those issues.

On the emotional side, the Army apparently does not appreciate the significance of something like getting back the dog tags. These men just disappeared. All we were left with were photographs and belongings they left behind. Any concrete connection to North Korea and their experiences there, feels like a lifeline to them. We cherish even scant information. Something like the dog tags they had around their necks, at the time they were lost, carries indescribable significance to those who love them. We believe the families must be told about the tags and we will continue to press for that to happen.

One important reason to continue this pursuit is that we don’t yet know that the men whose tags came back are indeed among the remains that lie at CILHI. So far, the only definite information we have on this is that the names were incorrectly associated with remains and no match has been made to any others.

For all we know, these men’s remains are not at CILHI. If they are not, then how did the North Koreans get their tags? We can speculate on many possible answers to this question. The point is, the families of these men have a right to be a part of the process, if for no other reason than to make sure the questions are asked and answered.

The North Koreans also sent a list of the locations in which the 208 remains were found. This list is being called the Green Tacks List. (See the List below.) The Green Tacks List identifies 20 locations in which 197 of the 208 unidentified remains were found. There is a 21st line that contains no information. Presumably, it would reference the location in which the other 11 remains (208 minus 197) were found.

The 20 lines each designate a village, a county, and a province, in that order, across the page. Line #18 is associated with remains that have already been identified. The other locations are reported as those where the 200 remains, that still lie as unknowns in Hawaii, were found.