For story regarding the findings on LinkedIn. http://www.slideshare.net/VicenteJurado/a-young-mans-fight-to-get-wilmington-veteran-the-medal-of-honor-wilmington-wire-article-56304423 This is a Summary of the research I conducted into the Serrano Case on behalf of the Serrano family and VFW members in Wilmington. This was submitted to Congresswoman's Hahn's office to be sent with 50 plus pages worth of documents in Nov of 2015. The case has the potential to become 2nd time Navy Cross is upgraded to Medal Of Honor through review. Please do not use my research summary without permission.

1. Wilmington Historical Society
Summary Of The Strengths of the Roberto Serrano Case Regarding MOH Upgrade
I wrote this summary for caseworkers or government officials to put together how all this
evidence comes together to build a case for a reopening on the Serrano Matter. This paper is not
meant as a replacement to all my work. This case through the very difficult research that I
conducted I have found to have merit in being reinvestigated on the following basis. I base my
strengths from the reading of SECNAV INSTRUCTION 1650.1H and Defense Department
Manual of Military Decorations and Award. The criteria in these manuals for errors are met by
errors in the Summary of Action. These errors make no mention of a minefield or mined area
that the Combat Award Recommendation and Captain Robert Hendrickson filled on September
12, 1951. So details that should be included were not in the other documents that followed such
as the Summary Of Action, and it affected the rest of the award process.
According to the SECNAV INSTRUCTION 1650.1H regarding Summary of Action, there
must be accuracy in the document for it to come accurately to a correct conclusion of a proper
award. “Since each award recommendation is evaluated on the merits of the justification, the
Summary of Action is critical.”1As this specifies, the Summary of Action must be accurate due
to the role that it plays in the award procedure. Mr. Serrano’s Summary of Action is not accurate,
and it also affected his actions as written in his Navy Cross Citation. Furthermore, the
1.) Department of the Navy, SECNAV INSTRUCTION 1650.1H, (WASHINGTON,DC,NDBDM,AUG 22, 2006) P.
2-12

2. Department of Defense in Manual of Military Decorations and Award furthers a position to
reopen a case on Mr. Serrano’s award: “an additional basis for reconsideration is the instance
where a Secretary of a Military Department or the Secretary of Defense determines there is
evidence of material error Examples of such an instance might be the loss of accompanying
and/or substantiating documents to the recommendation or proven gender, religious, or racial
discrimination.”2 The guidelines set forth lead to the conclusion that Mr. Serrano’s case must be
reviewed due to an error in the documents, and the cause of these errors must be determined and
why there is one missing witness testimony in his files. Another issue that this case has is that
among the 22 Navy Corpsman recognized for the Medal Of Honor there is not one minority
since the first Medal Of Honor was awarded for valor in 1901. This issue of no minorities could
be compared to the same issues that the Army Medics faced when they had no minorities until a
study was conducted and the first Medal Of Honor was awarded to James K Okubo of the Nisei
442nd Regimental Combat Team in 2000.
Furthermore in the history of the Navy Cross there has only been one upgrade in 1980 to the
Medal Of Honor to Anthony Casamento. “In 1964, a Navy Board of Decorations recommended
that Casamento get the coveted medal but, in the following year, ranking Navy officials reversed
the decision because they said it would set a bad precedent to award the medal after so long a
period of time.”3 Even though two witnesses had come forward, Mr. Casamento was awarded the
Navy Cross instead of the Medal of Honor in 1965 because of their testimonies.45 In the end, Mr.
2 .) Department Of Defense, Manual of Military Decorations and Awards: General Information, Medal of Honor,
and Defense/Joint Decorationsand Awards, (USD(P&R,November 23, 2010 ; edition., Change 3, July 10, 2014)
P.29
3.) Bruce Drake, Medal of Honor: Anthony Casamento Continues His Long Battle For The Award, New York Daily
News, Dec 22,1978
http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=7mFQAAAAIBAJ&sjid=31gDAAAAIBAJ&pg=6411%2C1359051
4.) CORPORAL ANTHONY CASAMENTO, USMC (DECEASED), United States Marine Corps History Division
http://www.mcu.usmc.mil/historydivision/Pages/Who's%20Who/A-C/Casemento_A.aspx

3. Casamento was awarded the Medal of Honor in 1980 and became the only Navy Cross recipient
to have their award upgraded after the original review had been completed.
The last point is that the 5 Corpsman recognized for their actions in the Korean War with the
Medal Of Honor only one survived their acts. This man’s name was William Charette. For Mr.
Charette, though nominated for the Navy Cross in 1953, the documents related to him were
complete in detailing the events, and it allowed a conclusion that merited a reconsideration to
upgrade his award. Mr. Serrano did not have the same opportunity due to missing details in
1951. In the actions of Army Medics and Corpsman, I found 1 Medic and 1 Corpsman that were
similar to Mr. Serrano’s actions and who were awarded the Medal of Honor. The Corpsman was
William Charette, and the Medic was William D. McGee. For the complete findings regarding
external information connected to the Serrano refer to my Report To LA County Veterans
Commission.
Sincerely Yours, Vicente Jurado
Researcher and Advocate On The Roberto Serrano Case
5.) Anthony Casamento Is Dead; Received the Medal of Honor, New York Times, July 22,1987,
http://www.nytimes.com/1987/07/22/obituaries/anthony-casamento-is-dead-received-the-medal-of-honor.html