USS Frank E. Evans DD-754

[Old Salt]

Whilst UK and the Commonwealth celebrates the Queen's birthday this weekend. there will be memories and commemoration in the USA, Australia and myself for the 74 souls of USS Frank E. Evans (DD 754).

On 3 June 1969 the destroyer collided with the carrier HMAS Melbourne. The after half of the ship was secured to Melbourne and survivors were brought inboard, The bow section rolled over and sank in about two minutes, taking 74 fine young men to a watery grave. Among those lost were the three Sage brothers, a terrible blow for their mother.

Although it is now 43 years later, the Evans Survivors Association are still petitioning the US government to put the names of those lost on the Roll of Honor for the Vietnam War. The ship was temporarily diverted from Vietnam to take part in the exercise and was to return there. The government takes the stance that they were not killed in action and are not entitled to have their names on the Wall.

The website is a great tribute and well worth a visit.
http://www.ussfrankeevansassociationdd754.org/news.html

In the spirit of the brotherhood of seamen I am sure some members will want to add their best wishes to mine for the survivors and the families of the lost.

I will forward your messages to the Association on Saturday 2 June

Brian

[brian james]

A very tragic episode in our lives Brian,as we have said before...Every Anniversary of this woeful experience brings it all flooding back...I have several Photos of the aftermath but will post only one,as I think it says it all ...Regards Brian...R I P...

[Don Boyer]

The navy has a valid point in stating that the lost crew of the Evans don't qualify for the Roll of Honor. The incident in which these men were killed took place outside the combat zone and not in action against enemy forces. The fact that the Evans had been in the combat zone and was going to return to the combat zone is irrelevant. Some might cast that as rather a harsh view, but unfortunately it is also correct, regardless of the supposed emotional impact on the families involved. Were it me, I would spend the time finding a way to do something for our naval veterans in need of aid and assistance in their old age or infimity in the name of the destroyer and her lost crew members rather than fighting the naval bureaucracy over an issue that is quite clearly defined and not in favor of inclusion.

[cadillac811]

Originally Posted by Old Salt

Whilst UK and the Commonwealth celebrates the Queen's birthday this weekend. there will be memories and commemoration in the USA, Australia and myself for the 74 souls of USS Frank E. Evans (DD 754).

On 3 June 1969 the destroyer collided with the carrier HMAS Melbourne. The after half of the ship was secured to Melbourne and survivors were brought inboard, The bow section rolled over and sank in about two minutes, taking 74 fine young men to a watery grave. Among those lost were the three Sage brothers, a terrible blow for their mother.

Although it is now 43 years later, the Evans Survivors Association are still petitioning the US government to put the names of those lost on the Roll of Honor for the Vietnam War. The ship was temporarily diverted from Vietnam to take part in the exercise and was to return there. The government takes the stance that they were not killed in action and are not entitled to have their names on the Wall.

The website is a great tribute and well worth a visit.
http://www.ussfrankeevansassociationdd754.org/news.html

In the spirit of the brotherhood of seamen I am sure some members will want to add their best wishes to mine for the survivors and the families of the lost.

I will forward your messages to the Association on Saturday 2 June

Brian

I can't believe the Navy Department is stonewalling this for 43 years. Of course they were at war, just as much as those LST's were during the famous nighttime rehearsal for D-day in the channel in March of 44. The men of the USS Evans deserve the honor of going on the wall. Tell me, Vietman was in Asia, right? So was Australia and New Zeland. The crew was on active duty, having been ordered by the Navy Department thru CINPAC to divert to the exercise area. They weren't on leave and they weren't at Pearl. Give them the honor they are due. I didn't realise the Navy Department's view on this. I'm really incensed and that takes some doing. I can't do much but I WILL contact the Navy Department with my view. I think we all should. Cadillac811

[Old Salt]

Understood Don. I recognise that this is a national issue for the USA and I should not comment. But I do realise that those of us who were there that night will no doubt disagree. They died an honourable death in the service of their country who apparently values a bureaucratic rule more than recognising some gave their all.

Brian

[cadillac811]

Originally Posted by Don Boyer

The navy has a valid point in stating that the lost crew of the Evans don't qualify for the Roll of Honor. The incident in which these men were killed took place outside the combat zone and not in action against enemy forces. The fact that the Evans had been in the combat zone and was going to return to the combat zone is irrelevant. Some might cast that as rather a harsh view, but unfortunately it is also correct, regardless of the supposed emotional impact on the families involved. Were it me, I would spend the time finding a way to do something for our naval veterans in need of aid and assistance in their old age or infimity in the name of the destroyer and her lost crew members rather than fighting the naval bureaucracy over an issue that is quite clearly defined and not in favor of inclusion.

Don, you are of course right. If I had the decision to make 43 yrs ago I would say the same thing. But in this time of "finding" reasons to upgrade or decorate people for photo ops and of bending rules for press purposes couldn't we find a way to include these men in the wall. I know it's streching a point but I always get sentimental and overly reflective during Memorial Day. We owe our service personell so much. I think about the families and what they lost, and how they ever went on with their lives. It's what happened to the families after, that always grabbed my attention. The so called "vacant chair" at the table. Also I thought the Navy Department discourages family members on the same ship since the loss of the Sullivans in WWII. How did the 3 Sage brothers get on the same ship. Cadillac811

[Don Boyer]

I could see a memorial specific to the Evans and her crew. I cannot support their inclusion on the Vietnam Memorial Wall, which has at least 8 friends and classmates of mine on it, for the same reason the navy has used all these years. They simply were not in the combat zone, were not on combat operations and were not killed due to "enemy action". Sentiment nothwithstanding, I just cannot support inclusion of non-combat casualties on that list.

[designeraccd]

As tragic as the loss of the lives were, I must agree with Don. Many (most) of my MCRD recruit platoon ended up on the wall, killed in combat with the enemy. DFO

[brian james]

I must agree with Don and DFO on the matter of adding of names from USS Evans to the Wall ....but what I think would be appropriate is their own Memorial...Regards Brian...

[Old Salt]

i understand what you are saying about the Wall. But they are just as dead as those killed by enemy or friendly fire

The US has had 43 years to come up with an alternative which would give some degree of recognition to these men who gave their lives in the service of their country. Don't tell me 74 lives do not merit that.

Eunice Sage died last year having outlived her three sons by 42 years , a great lady. Too late for her to see the boys honoured.

Brian

[Don Boyer]

I agree completely, Brian -- live lost in operational accidents are worthy of recognition and should not be forgotten, but not in the same list as combat casualities. Would be nice to see a memorialization for the Evans and her crew. What bothers me is that people have apparently been "fighting" all these years with the navy to include these personnel on a combat casualty list when they could have better directed their time toward a separate memorial once they were aware the navy wasn't going to cooperate. Seem like a lot of frustration and anger was created to no good purpose and something could have been done by those involved long before now. I would fully support, and contribute to, a separate memorial for these sailors anytime.

[Old Salt]

Thanks Don.

I understand what you are saying. I have only the barest knowledge of this issue, I am sure there is the real story on the website:
http://www.ussfrankeevansassociationdd754.org/news.html

We were berthed alongside Evans in Manila before the exercise started and had got to know some of them. For myself, I was OOW of HMNZS Blackpool that night and attended the Board of Inquiry and the Courts Martial .

The survivors were smartly posted to all points of the compass, never hearing any more about the incident. . Some years later I was able to recount to some of them what happened that night.

Hence my interest Don

Regards
Brian

[cadillac811]

Originally Posted by Don Boyer

I agree completely, Brian -- live lost in operational accidents are worthy of recognition and should not be forgotten, but not in the same list as combat casualities. Would be nice to see a memorialization for the Evans and her crew. What bothers me is that people have apparently been "fighting" all these years with the navy to include these personnel on a combat casualty list when they could have better directed their time toward a separate memorial once they were aware the navy wasn't going to cooperate. Seem like a lot of frustration and anger was created to no good purpose and something could have been done by those involved long before now. I would fully support, and contribute to, a separate memorial for these sailors anytime.

I must tell you Don, that your logic has a way of always bringing me around. I was stunned to hear you say that at least 8 of your classmates and friends are on the wall. If it is not to personal where did you serve during Vietman and what branch were your friends and classmates in. 8 people lost is a stiff amount for one friend to lose. All my best this Memoral Day week to you and to their memories. Cadillac811

[Don Boyer]

Cadillac, I was navy, on board an aircraft carrier, so wasn't where the hot lead was flying, but we lost pilots and crew I knew while in the combat zone. Most of what I know came years later from friends and relatives as to those killed, and when visiting the Wall, I looked up some names. One distant cousin was the only actual family member I know of, the rest came from the high school reunion committees and such over time which accounted for three people I knew.

I think there are many who have experienced more losses -- see DFO's post for example. My father served in combat in WWII and Korea as a bomber pilot and I'm sure his list would be far larger.

And I have to blush with embarrassment -- the number should have been six, not eight, and I did not catch that until you posted .

But, regardless, my point was simply that the navy is adamant that if it was not a combat loss, they should not be included in any memorialization, be it the Vietnam Wall or any other such combat listing, and I am fully in agreeement with that and think those family members who have fought this issue should have thought a bit more about what they were doing and rallied around a more sensible approach of creating a memorial of some kind specific to the Evans as soon as it bacame apparent the navy was not going to budge. Had they done so, there would be a memorial by now instead of only the bitterness of having fueded and argued with the navy administration and brass to no good effect.