Arlington Cemetery struggles with old reservations

But the cemetery hasn’t always told families that their reservations may no longer be valid.

‘Very upsetting’

The letter, dated Feb. 1, 1954, declared that based on his five years of service, Carl Bauersfeld and his wife were eligible for burial in a national cemetery; the superintendent of Arlington would be advised to set aside two graves near those of Bauersfeld’s parents — 602-4 and 602-5 in Section 34.

The Bauersfelds kept the letter for decades, and when Carl died in 2009, his son, who is also named Carl, presented it to the cemetery.

But the cemetery declined to honor the reservation, even though the plot was still available. Although the elder Bauersfeld had been eligible in 1954 for burial, the rules had changed, and he did not meet the current requirements. That came as a shock to family members, who said they were never notified that the reservation was no longer valid. Now, in addition to dealing with his grief, the younger Bauersfeld found himself unable to fulfill his father’s wish.

“My father asked me to handle his burial at Arlington,” he said. “This whole thing is very upsetting to me, because I have not been able to do what I have been asked to do.”

Ultimately, the cemetery agreed that Carl Bauersfeld could be buried there, but not in his own grave. He was interred in the same plot that held his father’s remains.

“They say they changed the rules, but they never contacted him during his life,” the younger Bauersfeld said. “Only in death do we find out. . . . This is a clear case of not honoring their commitments.”

John Britton feels the same way about how his family was treated.

In 1960, the Britton family was granted reservations for 10 contiguous burial plots by the Army’s quartermaster general. They were in a choice section so close to the Tomb of the Unknowns that you can hear the clicking of the soldiers’ heels during the changing of the guard.

For years afterward, the cemetery honored those reservations, burying Brittons in their set-aside graves. But in 2001, John Britton visited his family’s grave sites and discovered that the cemetery had buried other people in five of the remaining plots.

“I was madder than a hoot owl,” the 79-year-old Fauquier County man said.

Eventually, the cemetery admitted the error, which Metzler wrote was “due to an administrative oversight.” The Brittons were offered several other plots nearby.

But according to a map of the section, three of those new graves had been reserved for other people, and one was marked as obstructed. Not wanting to take spaces that had been promised to others, the Brittons refused.

Late last year, the cemetery’s new administration offered the Brittons several other grave sites, but all of them are marked on the maps as obstructed.

The cemetery declined to discuss the specifics of the offer but said that obstructed graves can be reviewed over time and deemed available. The Brittons still want their original plots, but most of the families of those buried there don’t want their loved ones to be moved, and without their consent, the cemetery will not disinter them.