Page images
PDF
EPUB

Mr. JOHNSON of California. Yes. Do you have any knowledge. that there was fraud in the Meyers case so far as retirement was concerned?

General DAHLQUIST. I have not. I have not looked at his personal case but I am positive that there was no fraud in his case.

There is no doubt that individuals claimed disease which did not exist or which if it did had no connection with military service. We caught a number of them. Some may have gotten by but not as the result of fraud.

Another statement made is that Regular officers pass on all aspects of retirement including the medical examination.

No one can grant retirement except a retiring board. The Secretary of the Army or his representatives can disapprove a retiring board but under the law no once can retire an officer unless a retiring board has so recommended.

It has been stated that the proportion of commissioned officers retired for disability is higher than the proportion of enlisted men.

The statement is true but the connotation that this was the fault of the War Department is false. The law prescribed that no enlisted man with less than 20 years' service could be retired for physical disability. The number of men with more than 20 years service was infinitesimal. Congress prescribed that all men disabled should be certified to the Veterans' Administration. Over a million and a half have been so certified and are drawing disability benefits, in many cases higher than would be payable to them under retirement.

It is claimed that the proportion of Regular officers retired for disability is higher than the proportion of non-Regular officers. This is another statement which is true but the connotation of which is completely false. These facts must be considered:

The cases for retirement-most retirements are for diseases of deterioration. These are more prevalent among older men than the younger men. The average age of the Regular officer retired for disability was 53 years. The average length of his service was 28 years. The average age of the non-Regular receiving retirement pay is 35 years and his average length of service is 21⁄2 years.

Furthermore, the disability must have occurred as an incident of the service. The Regular entered the Army years ago as youths in their twenties. Until 1941 each of them had an annual physical examination. Any disease or disability they had was an incident of the service, unless caused by indulgence, in which case the officer was wholly retired and removed entirely from the Army.

The older non-Regular had the same disabilities but in thousands of cases the disabilities had their inception years before entry into active service and were not an incident of or result of service and therefore they would not be retired.

It has been pointed out that many retiring board proceedings recommending retirement for Reserve officers were disapproved by the Surgeon General whereas few Regulars were turned down. In other words, we had many reconvened boards on the non-Regular but few on the Regulars.

Again we are faced by a true statement with a completely wrong implication. Hundreds of retiring board proceedings on non-Regulars were turned down by the Secretary of War's Personnel Board acting

for the Secretary upon recommendation of the Surgeon General. If these had not been refused there would now be in excess of 80,000 officers drawing retirement pay.

The proceedings were disapproved on these grounds-no evidence to support findings-because disabilities were not permanent-because definite evidence showed the disability to have existed prior to entry into service. The correctness of the Surgeon General's recommendations can be estimated from the fact that olny 2,400 officers have made an appeal to the Disability Board of Review under section 302 of the GI bill of rights and less than 700 reversals have been made.

The cause for many turn-downs lay in the procedure adopted. In any case of doubt, the non-Regular was placed before a retiring board in order to get a definite legal decision. He had to be separated and to avoid later claims every opportunity was given the non-Regular.

So far as the Regular was concerned a different situation existed. Complete clinical records from the first year of entry into service were available. There was no definite time when a Regular had to be separated. If the clinical examination and disposition board report indicated any question the Regular was not put before a retiring board but he was returned to duty. This happened in thousands of hospitalized cases. When a Regular was put before a retiring board the chances were he had a retireable defect. This was not the case with the non-Regular. Therefore, the number of disapprovals in retiring board cases of Regulars was far less proportionately than in the case of non-Regulars.

The higher the rank the greater the proportion of Regular officers retired for disability.

This is still another case of a true statement but an incorrect implication. I have already partially answered this. The causes for disability retirement were largely diseases of deterioration. These occur among old men, not the young. They do not occur in proportion to numbers in each grade but in proportion to age. A factor, apparently not realized, was the existence of World War I hump. When the war began almost one-third of the Regular officers were veterans of World War I and in their late forties and fifties.

Officers were promoted to high rank just prior to being retired for disability.

This was not true of the Regular. Lists of general officers retired for physical disability since 1940 have been furnished your committee. The average age of the regular was 57, average length of his service 33 years, average length of time in grade prior to retirement, 4%1⁄2 years. General officers of the National Guard, Reserve and AUS receiving retirement pay averaged 56 years old and their average length of time in grade prior to retirement was 3 years and 7 months--which was also the average length of time that they were in Federal service. Some non-Regulars below the grade of general officer were promoted prior to retirement.

Under the urgent requests of the Reserve Officers Association, General Marshall, in October, 1945, directed that officers who had not received a promotion for several years should be promoted prior to separation. It was the terminal leave promotion. Some of those so promoted were retired in that grade. Later the same policy was applied to Regulars also but few were affected. The Department has recommended legislation to require officers receiving retirement pay

in terminal leave promotion grades to give up the higher grade so far as compensation is concerned.

Different standards for retirement were applied to Regulars and Reserves.

A complete and exhaustive investigation was made by a board composed mainly of non-Regulars. They found no indication of different standards. A civilian special assistant of the Secretary made a similar report. No specific case of discrimination has ever been cited. During the time that the bulk of retirements were made, the doctors in the wards, the medical witnesses, the disposition boards, and the retiring boards were composed almost entirely of nonRegulars. Those people had no reason to discriminate against the non-Regulars.

The Surgeon General, the officers in charge of physical standards in his office during demobilization, and Mr. Tracy Voorhees, special assistant to the Secretary of the Army, who investigated retirements. in 1946, are all available as witnesses. Furthermore, every retiring board record is available. We have received some letters in the Department concerning individuals-we have had their cases briefed and they are available to the committee. I understand many such letters have been received by your committee. We have not received these letters but as soon as we do we will produce the pertinent files. In conclusion I wish to reiterate my opening statement. The Department of the Army welcomes this investigation. In justice to the retired Regular officers and non-Regular officers receiving retirement pay we are anxious that the whole story be heard. We make no claim that no mistakes were made but we do insist that there was no racket in retirement and that the laws were administered fairly and equitably.

Mr. ELSTON. General, the committee appreciates very much the very comprehensive statement that you have made. There is a quorum call in the House and we will probably have to recess at this time but we would like to have you come back at our next meeting. I am sure the members of the committee will want to ask you some questions. I have some I want to ask and I am sure the other members have, too.

Is it agreeable to the committee to meet Wednesday? We have our regular meeting tomorrow. The committee will recess until Wednesday morning at 10 o'clock.

(Thereupon, at 11:20 a. m., the committee recessed until Wednesday, February 4, 1948, at 10 a. m.)

INVESTIGATION OF DISABILITY RETIREMENT SYSTEMS

IN THE ARMED SERVICES

WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 4, 1948.

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,
COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES,
SUBCOMMITTEE No. 11, LEGAL,

Washington, D. C.

The subcommittee met, pursuant to adjournment, at 10 a. m., Hon. Charles H. Elston (chairman) presiding.

Mr. ELSTON. The committee will come to order.

We will hear first this morning from Admiral Sprague and will ask General Dahlquist to join him at the table so that at the conclusion of Admiral Sprague's statement questions may be directed to either of them by the committee.

You may proceed, Admiral.

STATEMENT OF REAR ADM. T. L. SPRAGUE, CHIEF OF NAVAL PERSONNEL, DEPARTMENT OF NAVY.

Admiral SPRAGUE. Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, I appreciate this opportunity to appear before your committee. As the Chief of Naval Personnel, I wish to assure you that I stand ready and most willing at all times to assist your investigation of this difficult problem in any way that I can. Since the procedure for retirements from the Navy by reason of physical disability must be strictly in accordance with law, I should like to briefly review these governing statutes and then explain the manner in which they have been administered by the Navy.

The laws governing the retirement of Regular Navy officers for physical disability have remained in force almost without change for the past 87 years. The act of August 3, 1861, now contained in the Revised Statutes, provides that whenever in the jugment of the President an officer is incapacitated to perform the duties of his office, the President in his discretion may direct the Secretary of the Navy to refer the case to a retiring board of not more than nine and not less than five commissioned officers, two-fifths of whom shall be medical officers. This law authorizes retiring boards to inquire into and determine the facts regarding the nature and occasion of the disability of any such officer, and to have the powers of a court martial and a court of inquiry as may be necessary.

It is further required that the retiring board determine whether or not an officer is incapacitated for active service, to find and report the cause which in its judgment produced the incapacity, and whether such cause is an incident of the service. A record of the proceedings

« PreviousContinue »