Military Forensic Archaeology: The Process and Recovery of U.S. Missing-in-Action (MIA) Service Personnel

Authors

William Belcher, University of Nebraska-LincolnFollow
LuAnn Wandsnider, University of Nebraska-LincolnFollow
Ella N. Axelrod, University of Nebraska-LincolnFollow
Finn Kennison, University of Nebraska-LincolnFollow
Alicia Lawson, University of Nebraska-LincolnFollow

ORCID IDs

Belcher https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7558-0762

Wandsnider https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9178-7109

Axelrod https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4206-8463

Kennison https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6824-9430

Lawson https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2354-2561

Document Type

Article

Date of this Version

2025

Citation

Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Forensic Science (December 2025) 7(4): e70017

doi: 10.1002/wfs2.70017

Editor: Leslie E. Eisenberg

Comments

Open access

License: CC BY 4.0

Abstract

The United States (U.S.) Department of Defense's (DoD) Defense POW/MIA Accounting Agency (DPAA) is the largest skeletal identification laboratory in the world and receives several hundred cases per year for identification related to Missing-in- Action (MIA) U.S. service members. While there are various sources for these accessions, by far the largest source is through unilateral or bilateral (done in cooperation with another governmental entity or nongovernmental organization) as well as public-private partnership excavations. While the DPAA-style military forensic archaeology follows archaeological principles and recording standards, the work is goal-oriented, evidence/trace-driven, and time-constrained— a common occurrence with cultural resource management sites or salvage/heritage archaeology throughout the world. The focus herein is to present the basic tenets and principles that guide the DPAA military forensic archaeologist in decision-making regarding items of relevance that assist the excavation process as well as guide the individual identification process once the field operations cease. DPAA forensic archaeologists use a mindset of flexibility of standard archaeological methods and principles. This flexibility is focused on these ideals, such that a large amount of surface area must be excavated in an extremely limited time. The forensic concepts of trace relevance and trace value at various levels (a “nested” approach) of site formation, time asymmetry, and biological identification are tied to these archaeological principles and context to support the goal of forensic identification of individual missing U.S. service personnel.