The story

Neuenzer DE-150 - History

Neuenzer DE-150 - History



We are searching data for your request:

Forums and discussions:
Manuals and reference books:
Data from registers:
Wait the end of the search in all databases.
Upon completion, a link will appear to access the found materials.

Neunzer
(DE-150: dp. 1,200; 1. 306', b. 36'7", dr. 8'7", s. 21 k., cpl. 186; a. 3 3", 2 40mm., 8 20mm., 2 act., 1 dcp. (h.h.); cl. Edsall)

Neunzer (DE-150) was laid down by the Consolidated Steel Corp., Orange, Tex., 29 January 1943, launched 1 June 1943; sponsored by Mrs. Weimar E. Neunzer, widow of Machinist Neunzer; and commissioned 27 September 1943, Lt. John E. Greenbacker in command.

Designed to take the place of fleet destroyers on convoy duty, the destroyer escorts proved their worth in long miles of steaming on escort and antisubmarine duties. Their efforts played a major role in defeating German submarine depredations at a time when the U-boats were threatening to eut Allied supply lines.

Neunzer steamed to Galveston, Tex., and then to New Orleans, La., for fitting out. During October and November 1943 she went through shakedown off Bermuda. The new destroyer escort next visited Charleston, S.C., enroute Quonset Point, R.I. For 4 weeks she operated with an Atlantic Fleet research group, developing new equipment for antisubmarine warfare.

After escorting a group of troop transports from Boston to join a large convoy bound for England from New York Neunzer proceeded to Norfolk, joining TF 62 on 1 January 1944. With this group she escorted a large convoy to the Mediterranean, spending 8 days at Gibraltar before sailing for home.

On her homeward voyage, she shepherded five Italian submarines to Bermuda for training purposes. During this trip, Neunzer carried out an operation which is believed to be unique for a destroyer escort. She refueled two Italian subs at sea, pumping 12,000 gallons of fuel through a fire plug and 200 feet of fire hose to the submarine.

After two more voyages escorting convoys to the Mediterranean, Neunzer was detached from TF 62 to join escort aircraft carrier Guadalcanal (CVE 60) in a hunter-killer group. Following training at Caseo Bay, Maine, and Bermuda, the task group made two search patrols for submarines in the Middle Atlantic, refueling in Bermuda. Neither of these patrols uncovered any submarines, and Neunzer returned to New York in late August.

During October the group put to sea again, this time searching for submarines in the North Atlantic. Although no submarines were discovered, the force ran through a very severe storm which damaged some of the ships. The patrol was finally broken off; the task group refueled at Ponta Delgada, Azores, before returning home early in November.

The antisubmarine group sailed from Norfolk 1 December for brief training in Bermuda en route Jacksonville, Fla., where for 5 weeks the carrier trained student pilots. The group proceeded to Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, late in January 1945 for 2 weeks of exercises; then Neunzer returned to New York for a brief overhaul.

After returning to Cuba for exercises in early March, the destroyer escort went to Miami for 3 weeks as training ship for student officers of the Naval Training Center there.

But now the Germans were ready for their final push, sending their new snorkel-equipped subs across the Atlantic to attack the east coast. Neunzer suddenly received a message at midnight 8 April to get underway 6 hours later for Newfoundland. After refueling and provisioning in Argentia, she left on the 19th and rendezvoused in mid-ocean with one of several carrier task groups strung out across the Atlantic between St. John's, Newfoundland, and Fayal in the Azores as a net to trap the snorkels.

Frederick C. Davis (DE-136) made eontset with U-646 on 24 April and was proceeding to attack when the submarine fired a stern shot which tore the DE apart and sent her down with heavy loss of life.

Eight destroyer escorts immediately joined the action. Neunzer and Hayter (DE 212) conducted a search while Pill$bury (DE-133) circled the area and Flaherty (DE-135) picked up survivors. Flaherty made eontaet in less than an hour and with Pillsbury proceeded to attack. Tho U-boat went to 600 feet. Contset was lost from 1045 until 1201 when Varian (DE-798), Janssen (DE-396), and Jos. C. Hubbard (DE-211) began another attack.

Neunzer got into the fight after several attacks by the other DE's, delivering a creeping attack with Varian and Hubbard while Chatelain (DE 149) directed. Contaet was lost onee more at about 1600, and Chatelain and Neunzer were ordered to return to the scouting line.

The line was expanded, and the ships began a sweep through the area, determined to prevent the submarine's escape. Varian made eontset onee more at 1731 and Flaherty was ordered to attack. She fired at 1810. Four minutes later a small oil slick began coming to the surface. Flaherty made another hedge-hog attack at 1828, and at 1838 the U-boat broke surface.

Every ship in the line within range began firing. At 1844 after more than ten and a half hours of attacks, U-546 rolled under for her last dive. Thirty-three of her crew, including the captain, were taken prisoner.

After V-E Day, Neunzer returned to New York for 2 weel~ and left on 25 May to escort the last Atlantic convoy of World War II from New York to Southampton, England. She returned without a convoy, and remained in New York harbor from 15 June until 6 July.

In July the ship trained at Caseo Bay, Maine, and served as target for the Motor Torpedo Boat Training Center, Melville, R.I. On 1 August she sailed to New London, Conn., to escort German submarine U-505, captured by Guadalcanal's task group in June of 1944. The sub was exhibited along the east coast and the Gulf throughout the end of 1945 in a drive to sell War Bonds.

After operations along the Atlantic coast, Neunzer decommissioned in January 1947 and entered the Atlantic Reserve Fleet. Into 1970 she remains berthed at Philadelphia.

Neunzer received one battle star for World War II service.


USS Neunzer (DE-150)

USS Neunzer (DE-150) was an Edsall-class destroyer escort built for the U.S. Navy during World War II. She served in the Atlantic Ocean and provided destroyer escort protection against submarine and air attack for Navy vessels and convoys.

She was named in honor of Machinist Weimar Edmund Neunzer, who was killed in action 2 July 1942 during the Aleutian Islands Campaign and was posthumously awarded the Air Medal. She was laid down by the Consolidated Steel Corp., Orange, Texas, 29 January 1943 launched 1 June 1943 sponsored by Mrs. Weimar E. Neunzer, widow of Machinist Neunzer and commissioned 27 September 1943, Lt. John E. Greenbacker in command.

Designed to take the place of fleet destroyers on convoy duty, the destroyer escorts proved their worth in long miles of steaming on escort and antisubmarine duties. Their efforts played a major role in defeating German submarine depredations at a time when the U-boats were threatening to cut Allied supply lines.


USS Weeden (DE-797) was a Buckley-class destroyer escort in the United States Navy. She was named for Ensign Carl A. Weeden (1916�), who was killed during the attack on Pearl Harbor.

USS Ira Jeffery (DE-63/APD-44), a Buckley-class destroyer escort of the United States Navy, was named in honor of Ensign Ira Weil Jeffery (1918-1941) who was killed in action during the Japanese attack on the Hawaiian Islands while serving aboard the battleship California .

USS William T. Powell (DE/DER-213), a Buckley-class destroyer escort of the United States Navy, was named in honor of Gunner's Mate William T. Powell (1918-1942), who was killed in action, aboard the heavy cruiser USS San Francisco off Guadalcanal on 12 November 1942.

USS Scott (DE-214), a Buckley-class destroyer escort of the United States Navy, was named in honor of Machinist's Mate First Class Robert R. Scott (1915�, who was killed in action during the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor on 7 December 1941, while serving aboard the battleship USS California . He was posthumously awarded the Medal of Honor for his heroism.

USS Solar (DE-221), a Buckley-class destroyer escort of the United States Navy, was named in honor of Boatswain's Mate First Class Adolfo Solar (1900�), who was killed in action during the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor on 7 December 1941.

USS Spangenberg (DE/DER-223), a Buckley-class destroyer escort of the United States Navy, was named in honor of Gunner's Mate Kenneth J. Spangenberg (1922-1942), who died as a result of wounds suffered during the Naval Battle of Guadalcanal, while serving aboard the heavy cruiser San Francisco  (CA-38) . He was posthumously awarded the Navy Cross.

USS Alexander J. Luke (DE/DER-577), a Buckley-class destroyer escort of the United States Navy, was named in honor of Sergeant Alexander J. Luke (1916�), who was killed in action during the attack on Tulagi on 6 August 1942. He was posthumously awarded the Silver Star.

USS Major (DE-796) was a Buckley-class destroyer escort acquired by the U.S. Navy during the latter part of World War II. She served as an escort vessel, protecting Allied ships, both in the Atlantic Ocean, and later in the Pacific Ocean. When the war with Japan ended, Major witnessed the Japanese surrender from her berth in Tokyo Bay.

USS Roche (DE-197) was a Cannon-class destroyer escort in service United States Navy from 1944 to 1945. She hit a mine in late September 1945. As it was uneconomical to repair her, she was scuttled in March 1946.

USS Andres (DE-45) was an Evarts-class destroyer escort constructed for the United States Navy during World War II. Sent off to the dangerous waters of the North Atlantic Ocean during the Battle of the Atlantic to protect convoys and other ships from Nazi Germany's Kriegsmarine U-boats and fighter aircraft, Andres performed escort and anti-submarine operations.

USS Smartt (DE-257) was an Evarts-class destroyer escort of the United States Navy during World War II. She was sent off into dangerous North Atlantic Ocean waters to protect convoys and other ships from German submarines and fighter aircraft. She performed escort and antisubmarine operations in battle areas before sailing home victorious at the end of the conflict.

USS Amick (DE-168) was a Cannon-class destroyer escort built for the United States Navy during World War II. She served in the Atlantic Ocean and then the Pacific Ocean and provided escort service against submarine and air attack for Navy vessels and convoys.

USS Straub (DE-181) was a Cannon-class destroyer escort in service with the United States Navy from 1943 to 1947. She was sold for scrap in 1974.

USS Garfield Thomas (DE-193) was a Cannon-class destroyer escort built for the United States Navy during World War II. She served in the Atlantic Ocean and Pacific Ocean and provided escort service against submarine and air attack for Navy vessels and convoys.

USS Sturtevant (DE-239) was an Edsall class destroyer escort in service with the United States Navy from 1943 to 1946 and from 1951 to 1960. She was scrapped in 1973.

USS Tomich (DE-242) was an Edsall-class destroyer escort in service with the United States Navy from 1943 to 1946. She was scrapped in 1974.

USS Stanton (DE-247) was an Edsall-class destroyer escort built for the U.S. Navy during World War II. She served in the Atlantic Ocean the Pacific Ocean and provided destroyer escort protection against submarine and air attack for Navy vessels and convoys.

USS Cockrill (DE-398) was an Edsall-class destroyer escortin service with the United States Navy from 1943 to 1946. After spending decades in reserve, she was sunk as a target in November 1974.

USS Neunzer (DE-150) was an Edsall-class destroyer escort in service with the United States Navy from 1943 to 1947. After spending several decades in reserve, she was sold for scrap in 1973.

USS Varian (DE-798) was a Buckley-class destroyer escort of the United States Navy.


Neuenzer DE-150 - History

Strictly speaking, in the eyes of the FAA, all Cessna 150s and 152s are derived from, and are essentially the same airplane. Cessna made numerous changes to the airplane over its 27 year history, and like other aircraft manufacturers, they assigned different model designations to most years of production.

Unfortunately, Cessna did not use a logical progression of either serial numbers or model designations. It is difficult to match up model years and serial numbers without a cheat sheet. See Cessna Production Trivia for more information about this than you likely care to know.

There were changes to the airplanes every model year, although many of them were cosmetic. We can divide the model differences into three categories: designation changes, cosmetic changes, and design changes.

FAA "Year" vs Cessna "Year"

Before we start, there could be a difference in the "year" designation of your Cessna 150. The FAA determines the aircraft's "year" for all paperwork and regulation as the year the airplane was built. Cessna on the other hand, used "model year" like your favorite car. For example, if the airplane rolled off the assembly line in November 1973, the FAA says it's a '73, but in Cessna's eyes, it's a '74.

Designation Changes

Over the airplane's 27 year production history there were exactly 31 different model designations.

The first model was simply called the Cessna 150. That model ran from the first airplane in 1959 through model year 1960. Beginning with the 1961 model year letters were added each year, '61 150A, '62 150B, '63 150C, '64 150D, '65 150E, '66 150F, '67 150G, and '68 150H.

In 1969 Cessna skipped a letter, there is no "150I," the 1969 airplane is the 150J. They continued on with 150K in 1970, then used 150L from 1971 through 1974, and 150M 1975 through 1977.

In 1970 Cessna introduced the 150 Aerobat, and designated these models with a leading "A", with the remainder the same as each model's designation, A150K, A150L, A150M.

Starting in 1966 Cessna began assembly and manufacturing in France, for the most part these airplanes were the same models as in the US, but French built models lead with an "F", F150F, F150G, F150H, F150J, F150K, F150L, F150M. French Aerobats were designated FA150 and the model letter. One model unique to France was the 130 HP Rolls Royce/Continental equipped Aerobat, which was designated the FRA150L, and FRA150M. The list is rounded out by two 1972-1973 models manufactured in France but assembled in Argentina (a total of 47 airplanes) These were called the A-150L and A-A150L.

When Cessna introduced the 152, they stopped re-designating models by year. There are only 4 designations for all 8 model years of 152s (1978 - 1985). They are 152, A152 for the Aerobat, and F152 and FA152 for the airplanes built in France.

Cosmetic Changes

The paint schemes and interior appointments of the airplanes were changed every model year. Like Car makers, Cessna offered standard and deluxe models, and even special editions. Upgraded models were called "Commuters" and upgraded 152's were designated 152II's. Special editions were offered that promoted flying, included the "Discover Flying" model (popularly known as HoJo because it used 1970's era Howard Johnson's colors), and the 1977 patriotic themed "TakeOff" models. Airplanes built in France or exported had different paint schemes as well. All told there was a bewildering array of more than 60 different paint schemes. The Cessna 150-152 club has been gathering data on the original colors, layouts and model choices for several years now. We expect to eventually have a complete set of paint scheme drawings available here on the website.

Design Changes

Though there were dozens of individual design changes model year by model year, some operational, others cosmetic, (members can see an exact list of year by year changes.) there were only three instantly recognizable visual design changes .


The Cruel Business of Accountability

This html article is produced from an uncorrected text file through optical character recognition. Prior to 1940 articles all text has been corrected, but from 1940 to the present most still remain uncorrected. Artifacts of the scans are misspellings, out-of-context footnotes and sidebars, and other inconsistencies. Adjacent to each text file is a PDF of the article, which accurately and fully conveys the content as it appeared in the issue. The uncorrected text files have been included to enhance the searchability of our content, on our site and in search engines, for our membership, the research community and media organizations. We are working now to provide clean text files for the entire collection.

“One night past, some 30,000 tons of ships went hurtling at each other through the darkness. When they had met, 2000 tons of ship and 176 men lay at the bottom of the sea in a far-off place.

“Now comes the cruel business of accountability. Those who were there, those who are left from those who were there, must answer how it happened and whose was the error that made it happen.

“. . .on the sea there is a tradition older even than the traditions of the country itself. . . . It is the tradition that with responsibility goes authority d na with them both goes accountability.

“This accountability is not for the intentions, bn 1 for the deed. The captain of a ship, like the captain °1 a state, is given honor and privileges and trust beyond other men. But let him set the wrong course, let h'" 1 touch ground, let him bring disaster to his ship or $ his men, and he must answer for what he has don 1 ' No matter what, he cannot escape . . .“

reads in part the celebrated and widely re­printed editorial which appeared in The Wall Street Journal following the collision of the USS Wasp (CV- 18) and USS Hobson (DMS-26) on the night of 26 April 1952. Its authorship is generally attributed to Jour­nal editor Vermont C. Royster, himself a World War II destroyer escort skipper. The Navy’s tradi­tional ultimate vehicle for enforcing the accountabil­ity to which the editorial referred has been the court-martial. In the case of the Hobson there was an investigation but no court-martial her captain was one of the 176.

Getting in the way of an aircraft carrier can have a devastating effect on a smaller ship, as these photos vividly demonstrate. At the top is the USS Belknap (CG-26) after her 1975 collision with the USS John F. Kennedy. The USS Frank E. Evans (DD-754) was cut in two by the Australian carrier Melbourne in 1969.

The most publicized recent instance of a collision between a maneuvering aircraft carrier and her plane guard ship occurred the evening of 22 November 1975 when the USS Belknap (CG-26) collided with the flight deck overhang of the USS John F. Kennedy (CV-67). Eight crew members died, and 48 others were injured. In this case general courts-martial did follow for the captain and the officer of the deck of the Belknap, but with what many considered to be bizarre results. Neither appeared before a general court-martial made up of his professional peers. Each, in accordance with his legal right, was tried before a military judge only. In the case of the com­manding officer, who was watching a movie in the Belknap's wardroom until the final, inevitable mo­ments before the collision, the issue was narrowed to the question of whether he had left the ship in r ^ e hands of a properly qualified set of watchstanders. He was found not guilty on the determination by th e military judge that the prosecution had not even es tablished a prima facie case. The officer of the dec was found guilty, but no punishment was assign^ > on the military judge’s determination that the very conviction by a general court-martial was by itself an adequate and appropriate punishment.

These amazing judicial resolutions naturally created a considerable amount of heartburn among many old and not-so-old sea dogs. One can fairl) conjecture that the Navy will not again, in like c,r cumstances, attempt to use the court-martial as a ve ^ hide for enforcing the professional accountability 0 those in charge of its ships at sea.

The demise of the court-martial as an appropr ,at ^ vehicle for the disposition of purely profession* dereliction—in other than the rarest of cases invob ing willfulness or recklessness—might have beef foreseen in 1951 with the substitution of the H nl form Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) for the vener able Articles for the Government of the Navy. F° lowing World War II, public concern over alleg e abuses of disciplinary authority, undue command > n fluence over the outcome of courts-martial, and in consistencies of treatment among the services led the enactment of the UCMJ and its greatly increase protection of the rights of an accused. The previous code was designed to ensure the maintenance of d |S cipline and standards of performance and to prevent and punish purely criminal acts. The new UCMJ g ave major emphasis to the criminal acts. Subsequent enactments and judicial interpretations intensin this characteristic to such an extent that there today little difference between a prosecution ’ court-martial and trial in a federal district court Over the years, the law officer of a general court martial has gradually assumed greater and greater control over the proceedings. By now, the function of the members of a general court-martial is essen bally that of a jury. Furthermore, a court-martial de­fendant enjoys a right greater than that provided by federal district courts. He is entitled to the right of trial by military judge alone, unfettered by the limi­tation in the federal courts of prosecution concur­rence. It is significant that this right was also exer­cised by the commanding officer of the USS Frank E. Evans (DD-754) after that ship’s 1969 collision with the Australian aircraft carrier Melbourne. He was found guilty and sentenced to a reprimand on charges of negligence and dereliction of duty. While the long-range wisdom of chosing a one-man court roay be questionable from a career viewpoint, it is obviously considered by defendants in such cases to offer an advantage at trial.

The practical result of all this is that, except in cases of criminal negligence or willful misconduct, courts-martial will no longer effectively deal with e rrors in the judgment of well-intentioned men re­sponsible for the safety of the Navy’s ships and their crews. This was illustrated in the trial of the Eelknap's captain. The alleged violation of a Navy regulation making the commanding officer responsi­ble for the safety and efficiency of his command was dismissed by the military judge on the basis that the regulation in question constituted a guideline for performance only and could not be enforced by crim- ‘oal sanctions.

Supporting this approach is the concept of crimi­nal intent. Such intent must be present under our system of criminal justice, in actuality or by pre­sumption, before a finding of guilty may be reached. In the case of criminal negligence, the degree of neg­ligence is such as to be deemed to provide the requi­site criminal intent. This contrasts with that level of negligence for which redress is normally had by the a ggrieved party through civil action. The distinction ntay be slight in many cases, but it is neverthelsss lr nportant in the current applications of the Uniform Code of Military Justice.

It has not always been so. In perhaps the Navy’s n>ost spectacular peacetime disaster, a squadron c ommander led seven of his fourteen destroyers onto Che rocks near Point Arguello, California, on 8 Sep­tember 1923- He was found guilty of “culpable inef­ficiency in the performance of duty” and of “negli­gently permitting vessels of the Navy to run upon r °cks or shoals.” The first charge related only to st andards of professional performance, containing the Protective word “culpable” to convey the require­ment for a serious level of inefficiency before court- martial charges could be found proved. Gone from the Uniform Code of Military Justice is this offense, together with the more colorful language of the Arti­cles for the Government of the Navy, such as “rocks or shoals.”

There were other courts-martial associated with the Point Arguello disaster, and two of them illus­trate a feature of the old system which is absent from the new. This is the concept of exoneration, an essen­tial tool in any set of procedures for the regulation of professional conduct and the maintenance of stan­dards of professional performance. Of the 11 officers tried for the loss of the seven destroyers, two division commanders and six of the commanding officers were found not guilty. There was, however, a significant distinction in the acquittal of charges. The six com­manding officers were simply “acquitted.” The two division commanders were “fully and honorably ac­quitted.” The meaning of this distinction was that while the charges against the commanding officers were not proved beyond a reasonable doubt, those against the division commanders not only were not proved beyond a reasonable doubt but their actions with respect to the charges were found by the court to be blameless. This was exoneration of these two officers. Criminal codes in this country, including the Uniform Code of Military Justice, do not provide for exoneration. Other than dismissal of charges for technical legal reasons, acquittal comes only because guilt cannot be established beyond a reasonable doubt. Nothing more can be inferred from such an acquittal. Even a preponderance of the evidence, suf­ficient for liability in civil cases, does not meet the more rigorous standard of proof in criminal cases. The innocent accused, civilian or military, may well be deserving of exoneration, but neither the federal and state criminal codes nor the Uniform Code of Military Justice can give it to him.

All eight not guilty findings in the Point Arguello cases were disapproved by the Secretary of the Navy on the recommendation of the Judge Advocate Gen­eral. This was a meaningless disagreement with the results. But it is significant that although Washing­ton did not like the verdicts, the eight were found not guilty by a panel of their professional peers, two of them fully exonerated. The subsequent careers of these officers bore out the judgment of the general court-martial. Exoneration could then, of course, and can now come in other ways. An investigation or court of inquiry can recommend exoneration, but it can recommend only. If the convening authority does not agree, he can still take disciplinary action or in­stitute judicial proceedings. The court-martial under the Articles for the Government of the Navy could exonerate with finality.

The expression of departmental disapproval in the

The Belknap cases make it apparent that the gene:

ity given to the happening. This, while real an

tions in cases of major dereliction and may by i tse be imposed for less serious breaches of standards- Examples would be unreasonable demands mad e upon his crew by an overzealous captain, or perhaps even a topless go-go dancer performing on the sail 0 a submarine. In the formal disciplinary area, th e punitive letter of reprimand is undoubtedly strongest action that can be taken short of th e court-martial. When issued in conjunction with af propriate administrative sanctions, it is certainly sU '

Point Arguello cases was not unusual in such cases and perhaps reflects too narrow a range of sanctions available to courts-martial, even under the old Arti­cles for the Government of the Navy. When the courts-martial which resulted from the 1950 ground­ing of the USS Missouri (BB-63) were in process, the convening authority, searching the precedents, examined every major grounding case which had oc­curred in the Navy over the preceding 30 years. In almost all such cases, the punishments imposed were viewed by the Navy Department as inadequate, al­though none of these endorsements offered any guid­ance as to what an adequate sentence might be. Typ­ically, they involved loss of numbers on the Navy’s lineal list, admittedly not much of a tangible punishment if its only practical effect is to delay in­voluntary retirement for years of service beyond that point at which it would otherwise have occurred. Reduction in rank was available, but seldom used, and it suffered from the same shortcoming as loss of numbers in grade. Although dismissal from the ser­vice was a permitted sanction, the loss of pay and benefits to a retirement-eligible officer would have been severe. Perhaps if immediate involuntary re­tirement or separation with severance pay had been available these punishments might have been ordered in some cases. In the case of the Missouri, the cap­tain, operations officer, and navigator were found guilty and sentenced to loss of numbers.

Whatever the shortcomings of the old Articles for the Government of the Navy, they still provided workable methods for dealing with professional error.

court-martial under the Uniform Code of Mil> tar y Justice no longer offers a vehicle serving this purpo se except in those almost nonexistent cases of willf u ^ ness or negligence so gross as to amount to reckless disregard. It must be kept in mind, of course, that there is still available a variety of lesser sanctions, some of them falling under the Uniform Code an some of them administrative. The essential question is whether this narrowed range is sufficient. If not, a substitute for the court-martial must be found.

Regardless of the answer to this question, the e fectiveness of those sanctions still available shorn not be minimized. At the lowest level is the disgra ce and loss of professional esteem inherent in the pubh c '

sometimes personally catastrophic, is more of a sub' conscious restraint than sanction. Next is the recor of performance accumulated in an officer’s fitness r e port file. It may ultimately result in failure of P r °' motion and earlier separation from active duty, bu £ its impact is usually widely separated from the event in time. Furthermore, in periods when the overa* promotion opportunity is low, failure of selection will hit those with spotless records as well as thos e with unsatisfactory or unfavorable fitness reports- There, are, however, more immediate administratis sanctions, of which the most drastic is the summary removal from command. While an undeniably eff eC tive action, it almost always accompanies other san c ' ficient to deal with the vast majority of untowat

incidents that can befall a ship, such as dragging aground while anchored in bad weather, minor colli­sions, and various internal casualties.

But if the absolute responsibility of the captain for his ship is to be upheld, in cases of culpable ineffi­ciency leading to major incidents, this lesser range of sanctions is not sufficient. A substitute for the gen­eral court-martial must be found. In the first place, all of the other actions may be taken against officers guilty of errors of judgment leading to less serious results. There seems to be little difference in the treatment of the commanding officer whose ship is severely damaged or lost and one whose ship is tem­porarily grounded or suffers a relatively minor colli­sion. Perhaps as important is the loss of the collective lodgment of a panel of disinterested professional Peers. Although a letter of censure can be appealed °ne level, it is still essentially the action of a single senior in the chain of command. By the same token, exoneration by such a senior will have less impact r han that by such a panel.

In the most serious cases the reaction outside the service must also be considered. It is questionable Whether the public will accept what is primarily an administrative disposition in cases involving substan­ t ial loss of life or the loss of a major unit of the fleet. Removal from command and issuance of a letter of r eprimand may be as devastating to the individual Concerned as anything else that might conceivably be done to him, but the import of such actions is not Understood by the public and is often perceived as a slap on the wrist.” Finally, where there is pressure for more drastic action, the Navy will probably be 'Ocreasingly hesitant to resort to the court-martial, in v iew of the increasing emphasis being given to the concept of criminality in the evolution of the law applicable to court-martial proceedings. The Navy should properly be reluctant to stigmatize as a crimi­nal an officer of the deck who was doing his level best to stay out of the way of a maneuvering aircraft carrier while attempting to perform the evolution in a manner consistent with what he understood to be the desires of his commanding officer. In this con­nection it should be noted that among the charges recommended by the investigating command to be brought against the Belknap’s officer of the deck was that of manslaughter. Fortunately, this charge was not included among those actually preferred.

An adequate substitute for the now practically un­available court-martial in cases of errors in profes­sional judgment need not have all the powers of such a court. It would not need the power to fine or im­prison, and it certainly should not be deemed to have the power to impose criminal sanctions. It should, however, be empowered to exonerate and to impose sanctions with finality, subject to mitigation through appeal. Such appeal should extend to court review in the case of the most severe sanctions. The powers of such a tribunal should include the imposition of sev­eral levels of censure such as, possibly, a letter of caution, letter of admonition, and letter of rep­rimand—and extend in the most serious cases to the loss of the privilege of continuing in the profession. Separation from active duty, with or without sever­ance pay, should certainly be included among the ac­tions permitted. Dismissal of a retirement-eligible officer, while not entirely indefensible, is perhaps too drastic a power to give an administrative body. Less­er disqualifications should include revocation of formal designation of qualification in a warfare spe­cialty or for command at sea.

None of the various techniques currently available to the Navy, administrative or judicial, can fulfill the requirements outlined above. A regular officer’s right to tenure on the active list of the Navy is closely prescribed by statute, and therefore legislative authority would have to be obtained to establish any administrative body empowered to remove such an officer from active duty. It is certain that any ap­proach which smacked of an attempted return to the general court-martial as it existed under the Articles for the Government of the Navy would never be ac­ceptable to the Congress. However, there are other precedents, still in good standing, which have not only been established by legislative authority but have also been found constitutionally acceptable to the courts. Probably the professional licensing pro­cess, including revocation authority, as it exists under the regulation of various federal and state agencies, most closely parallels the administrative powers needed by the Navy as its chief method for the enforcement of professional standards through the use of sanctions. The Coast Guard regulates the licensing of merchant marine personnel. In cases of casualties involving merchant shipping, a Coast Guard board investigates, fixes blame, and can ini­tiate action to suspend or revoke licenses.

At the state level, a similar function is provided for in various professional fields. All, or virtually all, states regulate the practice of professions within their respective borders by prescribing licensing require­ments, establishing administrative bodies to super­vise the licensing process, and by providing for the policing of licensed practitioners. Typically, an ap­pointed board made up of members of the profession involved is responsible for the execution of both the licensing and policing functions, controlling those who would practice that profession within the boun­daries of the state. The governing statute may pro­vide, either generally or in detail, those standards the breach of which can lead to suspension or revocation of licenses. Procedures may include the right to a hearing, to be represented by counsel, and ultimate appeal to the courts. Highlighting the contrast be­tween the administrative licensing procedure and the stricter constitutional requirements pertaining to a criminal statute, the list of professional derelictions may include “other unprofessional conduct.” The key similarities between this proposal and the instrument the Navy once had, are in the general charges of “culpable inefficiency” and “conduct unbecoming,” and the fact that these professionals must account to a body of their peers.

There also exists a useful precedent closer at hand. The Army and the Air Force have possessed in recent years statutory authority to convene a hierarchy of boards to determine whether an officer shall be re­quired to show cause for his retention on active duty. This can come about either because his performance of duty has fallen below standards required or be­cause of moral dereliction, professional dereliction, or because his retention is clearly not consistent with the interests of national security. In the development of a uniform officer personnel act beginning in I960, a concept still awaiting enactment under the title o Defense Officer Personnel Management Act, this au­thority would have been extended to the Secretary o the Navy. While this provision would not fit the needs of the Navy for a board empowered to act with the required broad range of options following its in­vestigation of a specific incident, it does include the parallel of “professional dereliction” and has the value of relatively recent (1950s) congressional ap­proval .

The foregoing examples in no way represent an exhaustive search of all the possible precedents. Such a thorough study should, of course, be a preliminary to the actual task of formulating a legislative propo­sal. What these few examples do make clear is that there are in existence comparable systems which p r0 ' vide for portions of what is needed and which have proved acceptable to the legislative bodies which enacted them and to the courts which reviewed then operation. It should not be difficult to adapt a distil­lation of these approaches to the needs of the Navy-

Whatever the precise details of such a system f° r assigning responsibility and enforcing professional accountability in specific cases, its essential elements are clear. Judgment should be by a panel of p r0 ' fessional peers, enabled to act with finality, except for mitigation. The maximum sanctions available should be stern, including dismissal from the service- Finally, and just as important as the power to con­demn, it must have the power to exonerate, to “fully and honorably acquit.”

A graduate of the U. S. Naval Academy with c ^ e Class of 1940, Captain Greenbacker’s first assignment C was t0 tbe CSS Yorktown (CV-5), in which he serve

until her loss at the Battle of Midway. During his sub sequent career, his commands have included the sub marine chaser SC

1472, the USS Neunzer (DE-150), USS Lloyd E. Acne (DE-356), the USSCotry (DD-81?)- the USS Fremont (APA-44), Destroyer Division 262, and Destroy er Squadron Six. Ashore, he served on the staff of the Military Sea Trans portation Service, two tours in the Bureau of Naval Personnel and as Operations and Readiness Officer on the staff of CinCLantFIt. He at tended the Naval War College and has an M. A. degree in Internationa Relations from George Washington University. He received his Bachel 0 of Laws and Master of Laws degrees from Georgetown University- bf retired from active duty in 1969 and is currently engaged in the practR of law in Halifax, Virginia.


Execution 150 Years Ago Spurs Calls for Pardon

MANKATO, Minn. — On Dec. 26, 1862, thirty-eight doomed Dakota Indians wailed and danced atop the gallows, waiting for the trapdoors to drop beneath them. The square scaffold, built here to accommodate the largest mass execution in United States history, swayed under their weight.

“It seemed that the purpose of the singing and dancing was only to sustain each other in their last ordeal,” a witness observed. “As the last moment rapidly approached, they each called out their name and shouted in their native language: ‘I’m here! I’m here!’ ”

Thirty-seven of the men were among the “most ferocious” followers of the Dakota leader Little Crow, according to the federal government. They stood accused of killing approximately 490 settlers, including women and children, in raids along the Minnesota frontier.

But one man, historians say, did not belong there. A captured Dakota named We-Chank-Wash-ta-don-pee, often called Chaska, had had his sentence commuted by President Abraham Lincoln days earlier. Yet on the day after Christmas 1862, Chaska died with the others.

It was a case of wrongful execution, Gary C. Anderson, a history professor at the University of Oklahoma and Little Crow biographer, said last week in an interview. “These soldiers just grabbed the wrong guy,” he said.

Although the story of the mass execution in Mankato is well-known locally, scholars say the case of Chaska — spared by Lincoln, then wrongfully executed — has been long overlooked by the federal government and all but forgotten even by the Dakota.

Now, an effort to keep the story alive is taking root on campuses and even on Capitol Hill as the 150th anniversary of the execution, in 2012, approaches. Commemorative events will include symposiums, museum exhibits, monument re-dedications, book publications and an original symphony and choral production.

“It’s time to talk about it and time for people to know about it,” said Gwen Westerman, a professor of English at Minnesota State University at Mankato and a member of the Dakota who is planning to investigate Chaska’s case and the cultural context of the conflict with a class. She says she is hoping her students can “put together some more pieces of the puzzle.”

“Because there is a historical record” for Chaska’s commutation, Ms. Westerman said, “that’s a good place to start.”

A move to award Chaska (pronounced chas-KAY) a posthumous pardon has drawn some initial support. Before his defeat in November, Representative James L. Oberstar, Democrat of Minnesota, said a federal pardon would be “a grand gesture and one I think our Congressional delegation should support.”

“A wrong should be righted,” he added.

Senator Al Franken, a Minnesota Democrat who sits on the Committee on Indian Affairs, issued a statement last week signaling that he might move the issue forward.

“Senator Franken recognizes that this is a tragic period in history,” said his press secretary, Ed Shelleby. “The senator will continue to look into this incident in the next Congress.”

Tension between the Dakota, historically called the Sioux, and the influx of settlers had been mounting for years before the Civil War, which further strained United States resources, disrupting food and supplies promised to the Dakota in a series of broken peace treaties. One local trader, Andrew Myrick, said of the Indians’ plight, “If they are hungry, let them eat grass.”

Enraged and starving, the tribe attacked and plundered the new state’s settlements. Of the 400-plus Dakota and “mixed blood” men detained by Brig. Gen. Henry Hastings Sibley, 303 were sentenced by a military court to death. But Lincoln found a lack of evidence at most of the tribunals, and he reduced the number of the condemned to 38.

Image

We-Chank-Wash-ta-don-pee’s case was No. 3 and not listed in the execution order handwritten by Lincoln, but his fate may have been the result of mistaken identity. The man he died for was No. 121, identified by Lincoln as Chaskey-don or Chaskey-etay, who had been condemned for murdering a pregnant woman.

But historians say something far more complex may have been responsible for Chaska’s death: rumor. During the raids, Chaska took a white woman, Sarah Wakefield, and her children prisoner — not an uncommon occurrence during the Dakota War.

What was uncommon, however, was Wakefield’s defense of her captor at his military tribunal. Chaska defended her and her children, she said, and kept them from certain death and abuse at the hands of his fellow tribesmen. “If it had not been for Chaska,” Wakefield said, “my bones would now be bleaching on the prairie, and my children with Little Crow.”

One prison chaplain wrote to her after the hanging: “Dear Madam: In regard to the mistake by which Chaska was hung instead of another, I doubt whether I can satisfactorily explain it.”

Wakefield firmly believed that Chaska was executed on purpose, in retaliation for her testimony and in reaction to rumors that she and Chaska were lovers. General Sibley, who appointed the tribunal that convicted Chaska, privately referred to him as Wakefield’s “dusky paramour.”

Wakefield denied any sexual relationship in the booklet she wrote the year after his death, titled “Six Weeks in the Sioux Teepees.” She wrote, “I loved not the man, but his kindly acts."

Some details of the conflict have been willfully buried or forgotten, by both sides of the war. The Dakota conflict came in 1862, which historians have described as Lincoln’s “darkest year” during the Civil War. It was the year the president lost his 11-year-old son, Willie, to typhoid fever. Thousands died on the battlefields at the Battle of Bull Run and at Fredericksburg, as Lincoln fought with his own generals. In large part, the narrative of mass execution in Mankato was lost in the United States’ struggle to preserve the union.

Lincoln himself was distressed at the speed of the military tribunals that condemned 303 men, and his decision to commute most of the sentences was politically dangerous. But he said, “I could not afford to hang men for votes.” The 265 Dakota Indians Lincoln spared from the gallows were either fully pardoned or died in prison.

Modern Mankato, once a prairie outpost, is now a city of 37,000, where a modest downtown struggles for survival, competing against outlying strip malls and chain stores.

The only reminders that 38 Indians died here is a Dakota warrior statue and plaque outside the local library. The location of the actual scaffold is now called Reconciliation Park.

Glenn Wasicunna, a Dakota language teacher and husband of Ms. Westerman, said that for decades, his people would not even drive through Mankato during the day. The place carried too many memories, too much cultural trauma, he said.

“These were our family,” Ms. Westerman added. “These were people my great-grandparents knew. They have a direct effect on who we are.”

Each year on Dec. 26, the annual Mankato memorial run acknowledges those who died in the mass execution. But Wayne Wells, a Dakota language teacher on the nearby Prairie Island reservation, said there would be a range of response to a pardon just for Chaska. Many Dakota, he said, “consider all of them to be innocent martyrs — people who stood up and died for us.”

However, Leonard Wabasha, a local Dakota leader, said a federal pardon for Chaska would “shine a light.”

“It would cause people to read and research into it a little deeper,” Mr. Wabasha said. “It would be a step in the right direction.”


Contents

It's amazing, what lengths pro-military types on Wikipedia will go to deny past crimes of Western imperialism. Even 'small' ones, like here. The firebombing of german and japanese cites -- and the atomic warcrime, of course -- etc., are something else again entirely, huh? Still -- someone had to just come out and say it finally, in this article, if for no other reason but that it is incontrovertible fact. Yet still attempt to justify it.

We're still not quite out of the Dark Ages yet, are we.

I think this article remains a tad distant from any 'final' state of objectivity.

Pazouzou (talk) 01:04, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

None of the references I consulted labeled the treatment of the German POWs 'torture' the strongest wording is that it was a "singular atrocity", and that's been included in the article. Intererstingly enough, the historian who used this term (Philip K. Lundeberg) was actually a survivor of the ship which the submarine sank. Nick-D (talk) 06:56, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

I felt that the language describing the treatment of prisoners was weaselly. They were tortured.Keith-264 (talk) 20:05, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

If you can find a source which calls it 'torture' then by all means change the wording. I tend to agree, but am constrained by what the sources I've been able to find say. Nick-D (talk) 21:28, 8 November 2009 (UTC) I agree. I think the use of euphemisms is a reflection of the time the action took place. Morrison, for example, states that the crew would not talk until they "enjoyed a little "hospitality" in the Marine Corps brig". --4wajzkd02 (talk) 22:19, 8 November 2009 (UTC) Western imperialism? You do realize Germany is considered part of the "West", yes? These were all Western powers fighting each other, not noble little brown people of bon sauvage mythology. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.67.11.162 (talk) 19:31, 19 July 2012 (UTC) Your point? Xyl 54 (talk) 22:40, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

It seems the article of this ship USS Varian (DE-798) claims it disabled and forced the U-boat to surface.--Operation Teardrop (talk) 05:52, 8 September 2009 (UTC) It seems that five destroyers engaged the U-boat at the same time, Varian, USS Pillsbury (DE-133), USS Chatelain (DE-149), USS Neunzer (DE-150) and USS Flaherty (DE-135), the combat being described in this article, but. not one reference!--Operation Teardrop (talk) 06:33, 8 September 2009 (UTC) Ok, that entire combat description was lifted from here [1] --Operation Teardrop (talk) 06:35, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

The Background section says the information came from the interrogation of a spy named Oscar Mantel. The Operation Elster page says those spies, Gimpel and Colepaugh, gave this information. Was Mantel one of these people, or was he a different captive giving the same story. Anybody know? Xyl 54 (talk) 23:21, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

I believe this is wrong. See Actions of 5/6 May 1945 and U-853. I believe the above statement should be amended to mention that these subs were the last two sunk in US waters. It is not clear which was the last one sunk as the events happened at about the same time, and nobody knows which shot sank U-853 during the lenthy attack it was subjected to. Jehochman Talk 04:53, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

There has been some mention of carriers and destroyers in the article, which I've corrected. Escort carriers (CVE) are much smaller than the ships usually called carriers, fleet carriers and destroyer escorts (DE) are smaller and slower than (fleet) destroyers (the Royal Navy classified them as frigates rather than any sort of destroyer). Cheap, expendable, ships produced in huge quantities. Pol098 (talk) 08:39, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

I have just modified one external link on Operation Teardrop. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

As of February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot . No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template <> (last update: 15 July 2018).


Precautions

Before taking irbesartan, tell your doctor or pharmacist if you are allergic to it or if you have any other allergies. This product may contain inactive ingredients, which can cause allergic reactions or other problems. Talk to your pharmacist for more details.

Before using this medication, tell your doctor or pharmacist your medical history, especially of: liver disease, severe loss of body water and minerals (dehydration).

This drug may make you dizzy. Alcohol or marijuana (cannabis) can make you more dizzy. Do not drive, use machinery, or do anything that needs alertness until you can do it safely. Limit alcoholic beverages. Talk to your doctor if you are using marijuana (cannabis).

This medication may increase your potassium levels. Before using potassium supplements or salt substitutes that contain potassium, consult your doctor or pharmacist.

Before having surgery, tell your doctor or dentist about all the products you use (including prescription drugs, nonprescription drugs, and herbal products).

This medication is not recommended for use during pregnancy due to the risk for harm to an unborn baby. Consult your doctor for more details. (See also Warning section.)

It is unknown if this drug passes into breast milk. Consult your doctor before breast-feeding.

Consult your pharmacist or physician.


How We Juneteenth

Gov. Andrew Cuomo of New York signed an executive order on Wednesday making Juneteenth a holiday for state employees the same goes for tech companies like Twitter, and even where I work, at The New York Times. This year, Juneteenth, a holiday that celebrates the arrival of the news of emancipation from slavery, seems to be a bigger deal across the nation.

But there’s a conversation I’ve been having with my friends: Is celebrating this holiday enough to begin to fix all that’s so very broken? And, one tick further, is the national embrace of what has been known as the African-American Independence Day a dangerous idea? Some people wonder — if we sip on our traditional red drinks as we socially distance on screens and porches — will we be lulled into feeling more free than we really are?

Saidiya Hartman, the author of “Wayward Lives, Beautiful Experiments” and a 2019 MacArthur “genius” grant winner whose work explores the “afterlife of slavery in modern American society,” said: “How to live a free life, how one can live, is the pressing question for black folks in the wake of slavery’s formal end.” Ms. Hartman said that imagining a freer life and a more just society has been the purpose of generations of black people since the days of Reconstruction.

“Recently, I heard Angela Davis talk about the radical imagination,” Ms. Hartman said. “And a fundamental requirement is believing that the world you want to come into existence can happen. I think that that is how black folks have engaged with and invested in and articulated freedom, as an ideal and as an everyday practice.”

I couldn’t agree more. As someone who has celebrated Juneteenth for a long time, I think we need it now — not in lieu of the freedom, justice and equality we are still fighting for — but in addition, because we have been fighting for so very long.

The elemental sermon embedded into the history and lore of Juneteenth has always been one of hope. The gifts of the holiday are the moments of connection, renewal and joy for a people who have had to endure so much, for so long.

To me, Juneteenth matters because it says: Keep going, the future you want is coming. — Veronica Chambers

“Words of Emancipation didn’t arrive until the middle of June so they called it Juneteenth. So that was it, the night of Juneteenth celebration, his mind went on. The celebration of a gaudy illusion.” — Ralph Ellison, “Juneteenth”


Neuenzer DE-150 - History

Hart Island

For over 150 years, it has been the New York City Department of Correction&rsquos solemn duty to manage burials on Hart Island. The Island serves as the City&rsquos public cemetery and is the final resting place of over one million individuals. The NYC Department of Correction is committed to ensuring that the public has access to the island and has several services available to help the individuals find and visit their loved ones on Hart Island.

To contact the Department about Hart Island, please call the Hart Island Information Line at (718) 546-0911 or [email protected] This line is staffed by a dedicated member of the Office of Constituent and Grievance Services Monday through Friday, 9 a.m. &ndash 5 p.m. If you call outside of these hours, please leave a message and your call will be returned the following business day. All emails will receive a response within 24 to 48 hours, absent any extenuating circumstances.

Information on Hart Island

Visiting Hart Island

The Department of Correction welcomes the public to visit Hart Island, pay their respects, and maintain vital connections to those that have passed away. The island can be accessed by scheduling either a public gazebo visit or a private gravesite visit. Visits to Hart Island are provided solely by the Department of Correction and are free of charge to visitors.

Gravesite visits are reserved for those with close personal ties to a decedent, including family members, chosen family members, close friends, and partners. Gravesite visits are intended to provide an opportunity for loved ones to spend peaceful time at the final resting place of the decedent. Gazebo visits can be accessed by the general public, as well as family and friends of a decedent.

Type of Visits

For individuals wishing to visit the final resting place of a loved one, the Department offers gravesite visits to Hart Island twice a month, on weekends. A visitor who requests a gravesite visit is permitted to be accompanied by up to four (4) additional guests. Anyone wishing to visit a gravesite with more than four (4) additional guests should contact the Hart Island Information Line. The Department will make reasonable efforts to accommodate any such requests.

Gravesite visits are reserved for individuals with close ties to a specific decedent.

The Department offers gazebo visits on the third Thursday of every month at 9 a.m. Reservations for gazebo visits may be scheduled by anyone, regardless of whether they have a loved one interred on the Island. During a gazebo visit, visitors are escorted to a designated location at the gazebo and remain there for the entirety of the visit, with time to reflect on the memories of those buried on the Island. Many of the Island burial sites and monuments can be viewed from the gazebo and there is also a question and answer session with knowledgeable staff who work on the Island.

Scheduling and Preparation

Reservations to Visit Hart Island

Reservations to visit Hart Island may be scheduled by calling (718) 546-0911 via email at [email protected] or by submitting a Visit Request Form online .
All visits must be scheduled at least five (5) business days in advance, but the Department will work to accommodate special requests when possible. If you need more information or assistance with schedule a visit to Hart Island, please contact the Department&rsquos Hart Island Information Line at (718) 546-0911.

Availability for Gazebo Visits

In an effort to limit the spread of COVID-19, the Department is not scheduling gazebo visits at this time.

Availability for Gravesite Visits

Two (2) gravesite visit opportunities are available each scheduled day, one beginning at 9 a.m. and one beginning at 12 p.m. Each gravesite visit lasts approximately two (2) hours and can accommodate up to 10 visitors.

By submitting the visit request form for a gravesite visit, a requestor will affirm a close personal relationship with a decedent. Documentation of a requestor&rsquos relationship to the deceased is not required unless there is a reasonable basis for concluding that no relationship exists between the requestor and the deceased, in which case the Department may require documentation if it has been unable to confirm the relationship through other credible means.

How to Prepare for Your Visit

Prior to visiting, each family member or guest should sign and submit a liability waiver by emailing a signed copy to [email protected], or mailing it to:

NYC Department of Correction
Office of Constituent and Grievance Services
75-20 Astoria Boulevard
East Elmhurst, New York 11370

A visitor may also provide a signed copy in person on the day of visitation, and blank copies of the liability waiver will also be available at the City Island dock on the day of visitation.

What to Expect on the Day of Your Visit

The Department is committed to providing a safe and respectful visit experience and is following all recommended public health guidelines for the City of New York, and requires that visitors do the same.

Upon arrival at the City Island dock, all visitors are required to present valid photo identification and sign the Hart Island Visitor Book. The Department reserves the right to search visitors consistent with its security policy and works diligently to maintain a peaceful and respectful environment during visits to Hart Island.

Department staff and visitors are required to wear appropriate face coverings and maintain safe social distance throughout the visit. If visitors do not have a mask, one will be provided. If a guest refuses to wear a mask, they will not be permitted to participate in a gravesite visit that day.

All visitors will be screened prior to boarding the bus that will transport them onto the ferry. Visitors will review a COVID-19 symptom screening questionnaire and sign an affirmation form stating that they are cleared to proceed with their visit based on their review of the questionnaire. If a visitor answers yes to any of the screening questions, they will not be permitted to participate in a gravesite visit that day.

During your visit, the Department will not ask you to social distance from the person(s) in your visitor group and may not be able to afford visitors in the same group with six feet of distance from each other. We encourage you to visit with member of your household only. The Department will require that each visitor group maintain social distance from the next closest visitor group.

All vehicles used for transportation have social distancing cues to note appropriate distance, a filtration system, and will be sanitized between each visit. For the safety of staff and visitors, all visitors will be required to board the bus on the City Island dock and remain on the bus for the duration of the ferry trip to Hart Island visitors will also be required to board the bus to depart from Hart Island and remain on the bus for the duration of the ferry trip to return to the City Island dock.
When visiting Hart Island, please consider any inclement weather conditions, especially during the summer and winter seasons, and dress appropriately. The island is accessed by a brief ferry ride from a dock on City Island, and all transportation on Hart Island is provided by the Department. Uniformed Correction Officers will escort all groups and individuals to their designated visit sites, but will maintain a respectful distance in order to allow for a peaceful visit.

Visit Availability and Limitations

Visits will be scheduled for the requested date unless accommodation for a request is not feasible due to inclement weather, no availability on the date requested because maximum capacity has been reached, and any other factors beyond the Department&rsquos control. In such cases, the Department will make reasonable efforts to reschedule the visit for the next date requested.

If space is unavailable on the preferred visit day, the Department will contact the individual who submitted the request within three (3) business days of a request for a visit to modify the request or seek to reschedule the request. In the event that demand for visits exceeds capacity, visits for family members, chosen family members, and partners will be prioritized. Any other visitor whose visit needs to be rescheduled in order to afford a visit opportunity for a family member, chosen family member, or partner will receive at least three (3) business days notice.

If a deceased person&rsquos specific gravesite is either unidentifiable or inaccessible for reasons that cannot be remedied before the date of the visit, the requestor will be notified in advance of the visit and may be asked to reschedule. Alternatively, the requestor is permitted to visit an alternate gravesite or other location reasonably proximate to the requested gravesite.

Directions and Transportation

The ferry to Hart Island departs from a dock in City Island located at the east end of Fordham Street.

There is no parking on the City Island dock and parking near the dock is extremely limited. All visitors are strongly encouraged to take public transportation or carpool if possible. The Bx29 bus stops at the intersection City Island Ave and Fordham Street, which is a ten (10) minute walk to the dock. All visitors are reminded to follow local parking regulations.

How to Find a Loved One Buried on Hart Island

The Department has created a searchable database of Hart Island burial records dating back to 1977, which enables members of the public to determine if a loved is buried on the island. Records dated before 1977 are preserved by the New York City Municipal Archives, a division of the New York City Department of Records and Information Services. Some records were destroyed in a fire in the 1970s, and location information cannot be determined for these interments. The searchable database is available for public access to search for individuals by name, age, birth date, date of death, or by the assigned Medical Examiner number. The Medical Examiner number may be obtained through the Office of the Chief Medical Examiner of New York City.

Please click the following link to access the Hart Island searchable database to determine if your loved one has been interred on Hart Island. If you know the plot number of your loved one, you can locate them on the Island by referencing a Map of Hart Island burial locations (Hart Island Map 1, Hart Island Map 2).

If you need more information about an individual record or assistance locating a record, please call the Hart Island Information Line at (718) 546-0911 or email [email protected] The Department has redacted personally identifying information from records of fetal remains in order to protect the personal privacy of family members. Any family member seeking information on fetal remains that may have been buried on Hart Island should call the Hart Island Information Line.

Disinterment

Upon confirming that a loved one is buried on Hart Island, families may request a disinterment and reburial elsewhere, such as in a private cemetery. The Department does not charge for locating and disinterring remains of the deceased.

To arrange for relocation and reburial of your loved one, you must contact a licensed funeral director, who will charge a fee for services. The funeral director will help with obtaining a disinterment permit from the Department of Health and Mental Hygiene&rsquos Office of Vital Records. Once a permit is granted, the funeral director must mail the following documents to the Department of Correction:

  1. The original Disinterment Permit
  2. A formal request for disinterment on letterhead from a licensed funeral home.

The address to mail these two (2) documents is:

NYC Department of Correction
Facility Maintenance and Repair Division
75-20 Astoria Boulevard
Elmhurst, NY 11370

The Department of Correction will schedule the disinterment and coordinate with the funeral home for transfer of the remains. For more information, please contact the Office of Constituent and Grievance Services via the Hart Island information Line by calling (718) 546-0911 or by email at [email protected]

Burial assistance is available to help pay for funeral expenses/burials/cremations of eligible low-income New Yorkers through the HRA&rsquos Office of Burial Services. A burial allowance application can be made for funeral costs related to the disinterment and reburial of a decent buried on Hart Island. To learn more about burial assistance, visit HRA&rsquos Office of Burial Services website, email [email protected], or call (929) 252-7731 during regular business hours. If you call outside of regular business hours, please leave a message and your call will be returned the next business day. You may also visit the Office of Burial Services in person on Wednesdays between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m. at:

HRA Office of Burial Services
33-28 Northern Blvd., 3rd Floor
Long Island City, NY 11101

Frequently Asked Questions

Q: Who is buried on Hart Island?

Individuals are buried on Hart Island because their identity is unknown at the time of their death and a next of kin could not be located to arrange for burial services, because the individual&rsquos family could not afford burial costs, or because the individual&rsquos family preferred that their loved one be buried on Hart Island. The internment location of each individual is recorded and maintained by the Department.

Q: Can I get help paying for a burial or cremation of a loved one who passed away ?

Yes. Burial assistance is available to help pay for funeral expenses/burials/cremations of eligible low-income New Yorkers. Applications, along with our documents, will be reviewed by the HRA Office of Burial Services to see if eligibility criteria for a burial allowance are met. To learn more about burial assistance and apply for a burial allowance, visit HRA's Office of Burial Services, website, email [email protected], or call (929) 252-7731 during regular business hours. If you call outside of regular business hours, please leave a message and your call will be returned the next business day. You may also visit the Office of Burial Services in person on Wednesdays between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m. at:

HRA Office of Burial Services
33-28 Northern Blvd., 3rd Floor
Long Island City, NY 11101

Q: Who are considered chosen family members? Does the Department allow chosen family to visit?

Chosen families are non-biological kinship bonds, whether legally recognized or not, deliberately chosen for the purpose of mutual support and love. Chosen family members have the same access to Hart Island as biological family members.

Q: I am not a relative but would like to visit the gravesite of a close friend or co-worker. Am I eligible for a gravesite visit?

Individuals with close personal ties to a specific decedent are eligible for gravesite visits, however, visits for family members, chosen family members, and partners are prioritized. To discuss individual visits, please contact the Hart Island Information Line.

Q: How may visitors sign up to visit Hart Island?

Reservations to visit Hart Island may be scheduled by calling (718) 546-0911, or via email at [email protected] , or by submitting a Visit Request Form online .

Q: How many people can visit Hart Island during a visitation period?

The Department works to accommodate each request submitted for a visit to Hart Island. In order to allow for safe social distancing, a maximum of 10 visitors can be accommodated for each gravesite visitation period.

Q: Can I take personal items on a gravesite visit?

Visitors are permitted to leave the following mementos at gravesites: flowers without vases, small stuffed animals, photographs, prayer cards, small flags, and blankets. The Department may require visitors to surrender electronic devices, which will be safeguarded and returned to visitors at the conclusion of the visit. When requesting a visit, requestors may seek permission to bring other mementos, which will be considered on a case-by-case basis.

Q: Can I take pictures while I&rsquom on Hart Island?

Film and photography while on Hart Island are prohibited without the express permission of the NYC Department of Correction. The Department offers two (2) Media Day visits to the Island per year for members of the media. For more information about Media Day visits, please contact the Department&rsquos Office of Public Information at [email protected]

Q: I&rsquom having trouble determining whether my loved one is buried on Hart Island, who can I contact for help?

You can contact the Hart Island Information Line by calling (718) 546-0911 or emailing [email protected]

Q: What happens if my preferred visit day is unavailable?

Visits to Hart Island are scheduled on a first-come-first-served basis. When a visitation period reaches capacity, a waitlist is created for that visitation period. As scheduled visitors notify the Department of a cancellation, the Department reaches out to visitors on the waitlist to notify them that a scheduled visit has become available on their preferred day and add them to the schedule accordingly. Alternately, the Department will offer to schedule the visitors on a later date.

Q: Does the Department charge a fee for visits to Hart Island?

All visits to Hart Island are free of charge and are authorized solely and entirely by the Department. The Department does not work with third-party vendors or outside organizations to schedule or provide visits to Hart Island. All visits to Hart Island should be scheduled directly with the Department.

Q: What is the Department doing to reduce the spread of COVID-19 during visits?

The safety of our staff and visitors is the Department&rsquos top priority and several policies have been put in place to ensure visits are safe and respectful. In order to facilitate safe social distancing, each visit is limited to a maximum of 10 guests. Prior to departing on the visit, all guests are required undergo a COVID-19 screening by answering several questions related to COVID-19 symptoms. All staff and guests are required to wear a face covering and maintain safe social distance for the duration of the visit, and transportation vehicles will have social distancing cues and will be sanitized between each visit. If you have any questions or concerns related to the health and safety measures in place for gravesite visits, please reach out to the Hart Island Information Line by calling (718) 546-0911 or emailing [email protected] .

For the Media

Twice a year, accredited members of the media may attend a two-hour tour of Hart Island. The tour can accommodate approximately five media outlets, with no more than two people per outlet. Participants on the tour are determined on a first-come, first-serve basis, and must complete the following forms beforehand:


Watch the video: DJ P7 - Tava de 150 ft. MC Gude Lyric Video (August 2022).