Roger-- One of the difficulties in doing the type of research you are working on is the time-set of reporting dates.Depending on the nature of the combat, the ability of rear eschelon units to follow up, and when a casualty was recovered, you may get any number of varying dates. I have a regular correspondence with an Airborne vet who has steadfastly maintained that he was wounded on 8 June.All other supporting "official" material states that he was wounded on the 11th.I recently located the family of the man he was with when he was wounded and the official records they have state that their kin was wounded on the 8th.Recently on a trip to Normandy I met the farmer whose farm the action occurred on and he verified that the mortar barrage which wounded both of these men occurred on the 8th. So the official records show that these men were wounded on the 10th and the 11th respectively.I now know that these were the dates they were recovered by rear eschelon teams.My friend was actually left for dead in a ditch, and can recount verbatim the conversation of the medics who first looked at him, and then administered plasma after they realized he was no dead, but in shock. In order to narrow the scope of your search you have to acquire the IDPF which will hopefully contain information relative to the place where the body was recovered.After that you have to do "micro-history" to determine the movements of the unit and how your subject arrived at the place where he was found.This gives a certain degree of credibility to the time frame you are attempting to focus on.And then you will be able to make an historical determination exclusive of "official" reports. If we rely only on official documents we can often be led astray.One of my correspondents is officially noted as being a member of the 89th Airborne Division.Another as having served in the 503rd PIR (a Pacific outfit) in Sicily, Rome-Arno, Normandy.He was actually in the 504th of the 82nd---but the number 503rd is carved on his grave stone. Just because it is written down (or carved in stone) does not make it true.It is the job of the responsible historian to keep asking questions until you CAN'T disprove the point--then it becomes a fact.