Page images

Mr. RIVERS. And then you see, the reason they put that June 30:
Because that is the date which we assume it will take effect.
Mr. SLATINSHEK. That is right.

Mr. WAMPLER. That straightens it out.
Mr. RIVERS. Now let's go ahead.

Mr. SLATINSHEK. We are now on page 7, line 8, at the semicolon after the word "discharge."

At this point I would like to indicate that Defense, again, has recommended, and I heartily concur, a slight, in a sense typographical, change. The language that follows would seem to be part of subparagraph (3), when in fact it is intended to modify all three paragraphs. Therefore, they recommend, and I feel we should for clarity, move it over, so that it will in fact apply to all the subparagraphs. Just move it over, in other words.

Mr. RIVERS. Read it.

Mr. SLATINSHEK. "except that an officer covered by this sentence❞— and "this sentence" means all the three paragraphs-"may not be paid a total of more than two years' basic pay in the grade in which he is serving at the time of release and for an officer covered by clause (3) the first two years of his active"-strike out the words "commissioned service"-"may not be credited in computing his readjustment payment."

Mr. RIVERS. Because you are going to make everybody get over that probationary period to be considered?

Mr. SLATINSHEK. Yes, sir.

Mr. RIVERS. Because they have to do it anyway under the Draft Act.

Mr. SLATINSHEK. Yes, sir.

Mr. RIVERS. Isn't that right?

Mr. SLATINSHEK. Yes, sir.

Mr. RIVERS. It is like a boy going to the Academy, computing his time for longevity. It is the same theory.

Mr. SLATINSHEK. Yes, sir.

"(2) by amending subsection (b) (1) to read as follows:


(1) A person who is released from active duty at his own request, other than an officer"

At this point I would like to bring up Mr. Winstead's recommendation, that we limit the right of an officer who voluntarily goes to inactive duty to receive the bonuses provided by this bill if he has in fact, let's say, completed 14 years of active duty.

At this particular point, we assume--and I think properly—that he would be motivated toward going toward retirement.

However, Mr. Winstead raised the point he might conceivably be attempting to work both ends against the middle and decide here, at this point, "I have completed a contract. Now I can get out voluntarily and I will get a handsome amount of money, and then I will enlist in the Army and complete my 6 years of service there and also get retirement."

Mr. RIVERS. Is that called having the cake and eating it?

Mr. SLATINSHEK. Yes, sir.

Mr. RIVERS. A Philadelphia lawyer.

Mr. SLATINSHEK. And with that in mind-Mr. Chairman-
Mr. RIVERS. Go ahead.

Mr. SLATINSHEK. And in line with Mr. Winstead's recommendation, we could insert in this particular line, that is at line 18, this language: After the word “officer,” the words "who has less than 14 years of active service and", so as to read : “A person who is released from active duty at his own request other than an officer who has less than fourteen years of active service and who has at any time completed an agreement under section 679 of title 10.”

This means that all these other officers who voluntarily complete a contractual period of service may then pick up their bundle, if you will, and leave.

But anybody who has gotten to the 14-year point can't do that because at this point we assume that he should have been career motivated and the service intends to retain him and we won't permit him, notwithstanding the fact that he has satisfactorily completed a contract—won't let him go home.

In other words, he should continue on, unless he is involuntarily released, of course. That is another thing

Mr. RIVERS. That is right.

Mr. WINSTEAD. Now, let me say this: I have stressed that point all the way through.

Mr. RIVERS. Oh, yes.

Mr. WINSTEAD. I have done a lot of other talking all the way through. I am not married to anything. All in the world I wanted was to get the best bill we can get.

Mr. RIVERS. That is right.

Mr. WINSTEAD. I wanted to get a bill where we can explain to the man who doesn't know anything about it, that we are not setting up here as a pension board for the military services or the Reserve associations.

There won't be a handful of these, probably, but it won't sound good.

Mr. SLATINSHEK. They are the horror cases.
Mr. WINSTEAD. Really, it is not right if a man just walks out on his

Now, let me say this to the committee and all concerned. If it is not the proper thing to do, even with all the talk I have done about it, I am not personally too much concerned, except it just struck me that if a man had an opportunity to stay and wanted to stay, that really we shouldn't let him walk away with $15,000—if the service wanted him and offered him a contract and he refused to take it.

But what about the type of man, and not this type of man, where something occurs in his family setup, that would make it necessary for him or a convenience to him to get out of the service.

I would kind of wrap it up in the way that he can receive no consideration. Now I am kind of taking the other side of the argument.

Mr. RIVERS. This doesn't
Mr. WINSTEAD. Would that affect that type of man?

Mr. RIVERS. No. This wouldn't preclude the Department of Defense from taking affirmative action, because they have laws now for relieving people from active duty because of hardships.

Mr. SLATINSHEK. Yes, sir.

Actually, my spot opinion on this would be in that case, if he requested—if he refused to continue on at this point, he would probably


[ocr errors]

be considered a voluntary release and, therefore, would come under this provision and would be restricted in fact.

Mr. WINSTEAD. If he knew at the end of 14 years that this condition existed, which he would know. He would either sign a contract or not sign a contract.

I assume that he could be released from service with just cause and that would not bar him from compensation.

You can see the point I am making. It might work a hardship if protection was not given to a man who had some justification.

Mr. RIVERS. That is right.

Now, Mr. Bartimo, what do you have to say?

Mr. WINSTEAD. I don't want to confuse the issue any more than I already confused it, but I want to be certain we are right on what we are doing.

Mr. RIVERS. Now, what do you think about what Mr. Winstead has said, Mr. Bartimo?

Mr. BARTIMO. What Mr. Winstead has said under the language which Mr. Slatinshek has read would be true.

In other words, if a man must leave because his wife has died or he has suffered some other personal tragedy and he must leave to take care of his family though he would like to stay, such an officer would be penalized under this language.

However, if you want to make an exception for that type of case, we could add language to the effect, "except for an officer who under regulations of the Secretary of Defense," you see-in other words, if you would leave it

Mr. RIVERS. Had been relieved for hardship.

Mr. BARTIMO. Or leave it to regulations of the Secretary.

Mr. RIVERS. Yes, sir.

Mr. BARTIMO. Because they might have some type of hardship that is very difficult to define in law.

Mr. RIVERS. That is a fine observation.

Mr. WINSTEAD. If we can write the language. Certainly no one wants to take away from that individual his rights.

Mr. RIVERS. I think so, too.

Mr. WINSTEAD. And only a few volunteers that I am talking about would be involved. Certainly they would have a right to an explanation.

Mr. RIVERS. Mr. Slatinshek, you prepare that along with Mr. Bartimo.

Mr. SLATINSHEK. Yes, sir.

Mr. RIVERS. Is that understood by the committee?

Mr. MORRIS. Yes, sir, I agree fully on that whole thing. With that amendment, I agree.

Mr. RIVERS. That is a good observation.

Now, let's go ahead. We are doing pretty well.

Mr. MORRIS. As far as I am concerned.

Mr. SLATINSHEK. Line 18:

Who has at any time completed an agreement under section 679 of title 10, United States Code. ;

"(3) by amending the second sentence of subsection (b) (5) to read as follows: 'However, such a person is entitled

'(A) to receive readjustment pay under this section even though he is also entitled to be paid under section 680 of title 10, United States Code; and

'(B) with respect to severance pay to which he is entitled 'under any provi. sion of law other than section 680 of that title, to elect either to receive that severance pay or to receive readjustment pay under this section, but not both.';

"(4) by amending subsection (c) to read as follows: "'(c) Under regulations to be prescribed by the Secretary concerned or the Administrator of Veterans' Affairs, as the case may be, there shall be deducted

'(1) from the monthly retired pay of an officer who has received readjustment payments under the second sentence of subsection (a) and who qualifies for retired pay under any provision of title 10, United States Code, except"and at this point insert the exception relating to title 3 retirees, that is this language:

After the word "code" insert "except chapter 67 thereof."
Mr. ANDERSON. At what point does that go in?

Mr. SLATINSHEK. That goes in on line 17, after the words “United States Code,” insert the language "except chapter 67 thereof."

In other words, any retirement pay to which an individual would be entitled under title 10, which relates to the Armed Forces, would require recoupment of the readjustment pay, except in the instance of an individual retiring under title III of Public Law 810.

Mr. RIVERS. Very fine. We understand that completely.
Mr. ANDERSON. Chapter 67 is now title III?
Mr. SLATINSHEK. Yes, sir; it is the codified version of title III.
Mr. RIVERS. Go ahead.
Mr. SLATINSHEK (reading):

(2) from the monthly compensation of an officer who has received readjustment payments under the second sentence of subsection (a) and who qualifies for compensation under any law administered by the Veterans' Administration for a disability incurred during a period for which he has received that readjustment payment.

At this point we should again—a typographical error-move the remainder of line 24, beginning with the words "an amount sufficient to recover”—move that entire section over to the margin, so that it again applies to both (1) and (2). Mr. RIVERS. Yes. As we did in that other section.

Mr. SLATINSHEK. Yes, sir. an amount sufficient to recover, during the life expectancy of the officer, that part of the readjustment payment based on service performed after June 30, 1959. However, the deduction may not be more, in any 1 month, than 25 per centum of the officer's, monthly compensation. There shall be deducted from any severance pay to which an officer who has received readjustment payments under the second sentence of subsection (a) is entitled under section 1212, 3303 (d) (3), 3786(b), 6382(c), 6383 (f), 6384 (b), 8303 (d) (3), or 8786(b) of title 10, United States Code, an amount equal to that received as readjustment payments. However, in place of the deduction described above, a Reserve officer who has received readjustment payments under the second sentence of subsection (a) may elect to have deducted, from the years of service with which he would otherwise be credited in determining his eligibility for retired pay and in computing the amount of his retired pay, all periods for which he received readjustment payments under that sentence.

Mr. RIVERS. That helps them liquidate it.

Mr. SLATINSHEK. Yes, sir. That was designed originally to take care of these title III people who have an abundance of years and who could remove those active years from the computation. But it would also have an application, of course, theoretically at least in the case of voluntary retirement from active duty.

Am I correct?

Mr. MINOR. Yes.

Mr. Rivers. Now, where you refer to those sections of the code up there, be sure you comply with the Ramseyer and our explanation.

Mr. SLATINSHEK. Yes, sir.

Mr. RIVERS. Because we will be asked questions. They will say, "Rivers, what does that mean?"

I will say, “I don't know. I will have to ask Mr. Ramseyer Slatinshek."

Mr. SLATINSHEK. Yes, sir, I will be prepared.

Mr. BARTIMO. Would you like a short summary on what every one of them means? I have them written here in my notes.

Mr. RIVERS. Mr. Slatinshek can put that in the report.

Mr. Slatinshek, refer to the appropriate sections of this act to which we make an addition.

Now, if the committee wants to hear them, it is all right with me.

Mr. ANDERSON. Mr. Chairman, perhaps I am he only one in the committee who doesn't follow exactly what we are doing here in this subparagraph (2). We are forcing repayment from those who have disability under the Veterans Administration.

Now, what is the philosophy behind that? Mr. SLATINSHEK. Well, sirMr. Rivers. That is the overpayment, isn't it? Mr. CHAMBERLAIN. It is the cake and eat it" clause. Mr. SLATINSHEK. That is basically it. Mr. ANDERSON. It is what? Mr. SLATINSHEK. It is basically precluding the possibility that he will get both readjustment pay and retirement benefits. Theoretically, if a man incurs a disability while on active duty he will be either retired from the military-well, he will be retired from the military and will also be entitled to retirement benefits based either on his military situation or on schedules promulgated by the Veterans' Administration.

Mr. RIVERS. You see, General Anderson—as you know, we had a lot lot of contention about that after the war. Rather than taking a Reserve and retiring him under the disability status of the military, they said, “Well, you take your chances before the Veterans' Administration."

That is why they went to the Veterans' Administration. And in the case of an unjust recoupment or whatever you want to call it, this takes in the veterans. It is your "cake and eat it” thing.

Mr. ANDERSON. We are not working an undue hardship on Reserve officers under this section?

Mr. Rivers. No. That is not my understanding. That is where he has had

Mr. SLATINSHEK. Well, sir, let me be very clear. This is my opinion and I would like Mr. Bartimo to clarify this.

Mr. Rivers. Mr. Bartimo, that is not my understanding of it. Mr. BARTIMO. No. Mr. SLATINSHEK. It could be conceivably a hardship. I feel the committee should be aware of it. In this type of situation:

Let's assume we have a Reserve officer who has X number of years of service. He is about to be involuntarily released or he has completed a contract period. At this stage of the game he is given a physical

« PreviousContinue »