Page images
PDF
EPUB
[graphic]

non-Regulars are gainfully employed, with salary or earnings ranging from less than $2,000 to $125,000, with 50 percent of both Regulars and non-Regulars earning in excess of $4,000 per year.

Now, a break-down of all of the questionnaires has been typed and is being made a part of the record. I will not at this time specifically refer to all of the items in that report. The members of the committee have copies of the report and I think copies have also been furnished to the press.

(The break-down above referred to is as follows:)

JANUARY 31, 1948.

The following results have been obtained from the questionnaires forwarded to Army and Navy officers by the Legal Subcommittee of the House Armed Services Committee investigating the disability retirement system of the Army and Navy Departments:

Total questionnaires.
Forwarded to Regulars...

Army

2,158

Forwarded to non-Regulars...

[blocks in formation]

Total forwarded..

2, 168

Total returned (total terminal leave promotions, 305) _____ 1, 835

Regular Army officers, 1,163.

(1) 476 (40 percent received no medical examination or treatment since being retired for physical disability.

(2) Seven have been accepted for life insurance.

(3) 125 (10.7 percent) have appeared before two or more retiring boards before being retired.

Of the total 1,163 Regular Army officers, 324 (28 percent) are gainfully employed Their salary brackets are as follows:

No amount stated.
Less than $2,000-
$2,000 to $4,000.
$4,000 to $6,000-
$6,000 to $10,000.

$10,000 to $15,000.
$15,000 to $20,000.
$20,000 to $30,000.

Total.

Nec in each

26

8

2

324

It should be noted that, under existing law, officers who are drawing disability retirement pay are not prohibited from engaging in any occupation which they may desire.

Non-Regular Army officers, 672.

(1) 171 (28 percent) received no medical examination or treatment since being retired for physical disability.

(2) 11 have been accepted for life insurance.

(3) 215 (32 percent) have appeared before two or more retiring boards before being retired.

On the basis of these comparative statistics, three times as many non-Regular officers had to appear twice or more before Army retiring boards before being retired as did Regular officers.'

Of the total of 672 non-Regular officers, 303 (45 percent) are gainfully employed. Their salary brackets are as follows:

[merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][ocr errors][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small]

1) 156 (37 percent) received no medical treatment since being retired for sical disability.

2) 1 has been accepted for life insurance.

3) 28 (.07 percent) have appeared before two or more retiring boards before ng retired.

Of the total of 415 Regular Navy officers, 135 (32 percent) are gainfully emyed. Their salary brackets are as follows:

[blocks in formation]

1) 20 (24 percent) received no medical examination or treatment since being red for physical disability.

2) None have been accepted for insurance.

3) 12 (14 percent) have appeared before two or more retiring boards before ng retired.

Of the 85 non-Regular officers, 30 (35 percent) are gainfully employed. Their ary brackets are as follows:

[blocks in formation]

Mr. ELSTON. For the past 2 months this committee and certain rsonnel of the Army and Navy Departments have been almost

constantly engaged in making separate studies of the disability retirement system of the armed services. Voluminous statistical data have been gathered and evaluated, and literally hundreds of letters and reports on the subject have been directed to the committee. In addition, a large number of people have been interviewed in an effort to obtain material evidence on the subject. A number of those witnesses have been subpenaed and will appear before this committee at the appropriate time."

During the course of our preparation, it has become evident that many misconceptions exist in the minds of the general public on the subject of disability retirement in the Army and the Navy. This has been made abundantly clear through the letters which the committee has received. Many people have the opinion that the General Meyers case is a typical case of disability retirement. While we are of the feeling that many inequities exist within the system, we do not feel that the General Meyers case is representative. On the contrary, we feel that most cases of disability retirement are legitimate under existing law.

This brings us to a consideration of the allegations which have been made in criticism of the existing system. They may be summarized as follows:

1. That inequities exist between the retirement system of the Navy and that of the Army.

2. That disability retirement has been granted in some cases as a direct result of fraud.

3. That both the Army and the Navy has been overly generous in the granting of disability retirement, with a resulting increased burden on the taxpayers.

4. That there has been an unlawful and calculated effort on the part of officers of the Regular Army to obtain disability retirement benefits.

5. That a definite pattern of discrimination has been practiced by the officers of the Regular Establishment as against non-Regular officers, not only from the standpoint of the comparative manner in which disability retirement was granted but also on the basis of additional benefits which Regular officers receive and which non-Regular officers do not receive.

The foregoing points represent the major allegations which have been made. Should additional pertinent matters arise during the course of our hearings, they will be promptly considered.

In order that there be a clear understanding of the matters involved in the subject which is before this committee, it is considered advisable to open our hearings with a general explanation of existing procedures under which disability retirement pay is granted in the Army and Navy Departments. These matters will be presented by the G-1 of the Army or his representatives, and the Chief of the Bureau of Personnel of the Navy or his representatives. Under the conclusion of this testimony, the Surgeons General of the Army and the Navy Departments, respectively, will explain the exact procedure through which a disabled officer passes before receiving or being denied disability retirement pay. Having received a thorough explanation of the law and procedure of disability retirement, the committee will hear a number of witnesses, both as individuals and representatives of organizations, who have alleged the existence of the fraud and

[ocr errors]
[merged small][merged small][ocr errors]

inequities hereinbefore mentioned. The committee has subpenaed a number of non-Regular officers, most of whom are combat-wounded veterans of World War II, who have experienced an abnormal amount of difficulty in obtaining disability retirement in spite of injuries which are apparently sufficiently disabiling to warrant retirement.

At the close of our hearings, this committee may wish to make certain recommendations relative to the revision of the laws governing disability compensation; however, it should be borne in mind that the primary functions of this committee is to investigate, not legislate. Mr. Johnson of California, who is a member of this committee, is also the chairman of the Retirement Subcommittee, and any legislation or recommendations for legislation, which may result from this investigation, will properly come within the jurisdiction of his committee. It is evident that before we can make any legislative recommendations, we must first determine what is wrong with existing law. Until the committee is ready to receive recommendations for legislative corrections, it is requested that the witnesses likewise confine themselves to matters pertaining to existing law.

Now, at this time we would like to call Gen. John E. Dahlquist, head of G-1 of the Army. I might say that since some questions may be propounded to the general which may more properly be answered by the Navy, since some questions involve both the Army and the Navy, we would like to invite Admiral Sprague to sit at the table with General Dahlquist. While we do not want to preclude you, Admiral, from making your statement later, you might be helpful to the committee if we could also ask you questions while we are propounding questions to General Dahlquist.

STATEMENT OF MAJ. GEN. JOHN E. DAHLQUIST, DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF PERSONNEL AND ADMINISTRATION, GENERAL STAFF, DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY

Mr. ELSTON. General, you have a general statement which you wish to make first?

General DAHLQUIST. Yes, sir; I have a general statement in which I will deal with the law covering disability retirement compensation and the procedures that have been followed by the Army.

The Department of the Army welcomes this investigation. It gives an opportunity to tell the entire story about physical disability retirement laws and the problem of administering those laws during the demobilization of 800,000 officers and 8,000,000 enlisted men. Furthermore, it will permit an airing of allegations and charges concerning the administration of the retirement laws. Finally and most important, it should produce the facts upon which remedial and corrective legislation can be based. I will cover three main subjects; first, the retirement laws; second, the procedures followed; and, finally, the problems connected therewith.

The first Retirement Act for Regular Army officers was enacted in August 1861, just as the Civil War was breaking. Practically all field officers of the small Regular Army were at that time unfit to exercise command in the field, being of advanced age, diseased, and having infirmities. It was clear that something had to be done to remove such men so that those younger and more vigorous individuals

who, in fact, exercised command could be advanced to appropriate rank.

That law prescribed that

when any officer has become incapable of performing the duties of his office, be shall be either retired from active duty or wholly retired by the President. Reenacted in 1882, that law is still the law which authorizes retirement of Regular Army officers.

Mr. JOHNSON of California. May I ask a question there?

Mr. ELSTON. Mr. Johnson.

Mr. JOHNSON of California. Does the law of 1882 use that same phraseology? So far as the purpose of the law is concerned, is it exactly the same wording?

General DAHLQUIST. Yes, sir; in addition there is set forth the manner of retirement, and I will deal with that shortly.

The purpose of all mandatory retirement laws including retirement for physical disability, so far as the Regular Army is concerned, is to keep the active list a live one, composed of men fit for duty in any emergency, in any part of the world, under any conditions. Prior to enactment of the law of 1861, officers appointed in the Regualr Army stayed on the active list until they were cashiered, resigned, or died. Physical disability retirement was not enacted for the benefit of the individual but to give the Nation a vital, fit, Regular officer corps.

The standard for determination as to whether an officer should or should not retire for disability therefore has been "fitness for full military service." There is nothing in the law concerning fitness for civilian pursuits. The prime cause disability retirement when the law was enacted was physical and mental disease, not accidents or wounds. That has been true throughout the years, and it is still true. The disabilities which render most men ineffective for full military service are diseases of deterioration. They occur for the most part among the older officers.

Retirement compensation is 75 percent of pay, less allowances—it varies from approximately 47 percent of total pay of second lieutenants to 57 percent of the total pay of officers with over 30 years' service. As clearly evidenced by the debates which preceded the enactment of the law the compensation was designed to provide for officers who had engaged in military service as a life work. The amount of retirement pay varies according to the grade and length of service, not according to the severity of the disability.

The general procedure for accomplishing retirements because of physical disability are contained in Revised Statutes 1246-1252. It is very clear from the language of those statutes that the intent was to set up a procedure to protect the individual's right to his appointment as a Regular commissioned officer. He cannot be removed from the active list by medical officers alone. He cannot be removed solely by action of the retiring board. Only after a retiring board, consisting of both line officers and medical officers, having held a full and fair hearing, has found an officer incapacitated for active service can such officer be recommended for retirement. Approval of the findings of that board by the President or someone exercising his delegated: powers is necessary before removal of the officer from the active list can be effected.

Up until World War II, administration of the physical retirement ¦ law was easy. The number of officers retired was small. Usually

« PreviousContinue »