GENERAL OFFICERS SERVING ON ACTIVE DUTY BETWEEN 1941 AND 1948

(Whereupon, at 11:30 the committee recessed until 10 a. m. Monday,

March 8, 1948.)

1

INVESTIGATION OF DISABILITY RETIREMENT SYSTEMS

IN THE ARMED SERVICES

MONDAY, MARCH 8, 1948

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,

COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES,
COMMITTEE No. 11, LEGAL,

Washington, D. C.

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

Mr. ELSTON. The committee will come to order.

Commander Martineau, I believe you had some statement you wanted to make before we closed these hearings.

Commander MARTINEAU. Mr. Chairman, I do not have any formal statement to make at this time. I am prepared, however, to answer any questions, that the committee might have.

Mr. ELSTON. Very well.

STATEMENT OF COMMANDER DAVID L. MARTINEAU, REPRESENTING THE CHIEF OF NAVAL PERSONNEL, DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY.

Mr. ELSTON. Commander, it has previously been stated before our committee that on a percentage basis the Navy has retired Regular Navy officers on a ratio of about 8 to 1 over non-Regular officers, whereas the same ratio in the Army is approximately 4 to 1. Most of the complaints which this committee has received have been against the Army system; however, these statistics show a rather wide disparity which apparently reflect against the Navy system on the subject of discrimination between Regular officers as against non-Regular officers. The committee would like to have your comments on this situation.

Commander MARTINEAU. Yes, sir.

I would like to offer a few comments on that, Mr. Chairman.

I feel that that apparent disparity can be justified to at least some extent and I would like to use as an example for my discussion the age groups in both services of 40 and above.

I have assumed there that the 40-age group is the one where the socalled degenerative diseases commence. The heart trouble, the stomach trouble, and all.

I find that, on the basis of the statistics that General Dahliqust submitted to the committee on Friday, 12 percent of the total Army officer strength was in the age group of 40 and above; the distribution of Regulars and Reserves in the Army, in that age group, 8 percent

of those officers were Regular officers; 92 percent were non-Regular officers in the Army.

Of the retirements for physical disability granted to officers in the Army of age 40 and above, I find that 21 percent of those retirements were Regular officers, whereas the remaining 79 percent were nonRegular officers.

The corresponding picture in the Navy, for the same age group, I find that of the officers of age 40 and above, it also constituted 12 percent of the total Navy officer strength, which is exactly the same as the Army's, but the distribution as to Regular and Reserve was considerably different.

In the Navy of that group, one-third of them were Regulars, whereas only two-thirds were non-Regulars. That means then that in the Navy in that age group one out of three officers were Regulars whereas in the Army approximately 1 out of 10 were Regulars.

Boiled down and to express it in another way, that means that in the age group of which we are speaking, in the Army 8 percent of the Regulars got 21 percent of the retirements and 92 percent of the nonRegulars got 79 percent or the retirements.

Speaking for the Navy, 33 percent of the Regulars got 61 percent of the retirements in that group and the 67 percent Reserve and temporary officers received 39 percent of the retirements.

Using those statistics as a basis, the Regular officers in the Army in that age group were retired for physical disability in a proportion 13 percent greater than the Army non-Regular officers. In the Navy the Regular officers were retired in a proportion 28 percent greater than the Navy non-Regulars.

That leaves an apparent differential of 15 percent, meaning that the Army non-Regulars in that age group, were retired for physical disability in a proportion that is 15 percent higher than the non-Regular naval officer in the same age group. There was a more favorable proportion of Army non-Regulars who were retired in that age group, and according to my calculations the amount is 15 percent.

Now, why should there be even that differential? I feel there are factors regarding the different conditions of service in the Army and the Navy that point that up in a very interesting manner.

Referring now to battle casualties, the percentage of officers killed in action or dying as a result of wounds in the Navy was 4.4 percent, in the Army 4.1 percent-very much the same; whereas the Reserve components in the Navy, only eight-tenths of 1 percent of the Reserve officers were killed in action or died as the result of wounds, whereas in the Army of the United States other than the Regular Army 3.4 percent of those officers were killed in action.

Now, as to those officers who were wounded in action, which has a more direct bearing on this matter of physical disability retirement, 3.3 percent of the Regular Navy officers were wounded in action: 6.3 percent of the Regular Army officers were wounded in action. That indicates approximately twice as many Regular Army; but the actual numbers involved in those two components were relatively small.

Now, as to the Reserve components, the Reserve naval officers, only six-tenths of 1 percent of their strength were wounded in action, whereas in the Army of the United States other than the Regular Army 5.7 percent of those officers were wounded in action.

That means that a far greater proportion of Army Reserves were wounded in action than Naval Reserves. We should also consider

the factor of war conditions in the Army and the Navy. Normally, Army personnel are subjected to disease and exposure to a greater degree than is the case in the Navy.

Even in wartime, for the most part, naval officers are living on ships where living conditions are more favorable than conditions in the field for the Army, which means that a much smaller proportion of naval officers are subjected to the dangers of disease and degeneration coming from exposure of field conditions.

The Navy casualties result largely from those of violence in battle. Now, I should like to bring in one more set of figures here that I feel is very interesting and, in my opinion, points up one of the inherent difficulties that all the evidence before this committee has emphasized.

In the Navy, of all the officers retired for physical disability the proportion of Regular officers who were retired for combat-incurred disability to those in the Reserve, the proportion is 1 to 4.9; 1 regular to 4.9 Reserve officers were retired for combat-incurred disability. In the Marine Corps the proportion of Regular Marine Corps officers to Reserve Marine Corps officers retired for combat-incurred disability was 1 to 4.1.

In the Army the proportion of Regular officers retired for combatincurred disability to non-Regular officers retired for combat disability was 1 to 5.3.

I was very much impressed myself with the great similarity of that proportion. In other words, it is a proportion that is very close to being 1 to 5 in all of the armed services. In my opinion, that points up the fact that the Regular officer is in the service as a career. When he incurs a combat disability, the same kind of combat disability that the Reserve officer incurred, he remains in the hospital. There is no decision forced in that officer's case. He can stay under treatment as long as necessary, and is not retired for physical disability, unless it is clearly apparent that he cannot be of any further possible use to the service. The condition for the non-Regular in all the services is quite different.

That officer is not in the service as a career. When the war is over he is going out anyway. If he has a combat-incurred disability that means, in most cases, the tendency is that a decision is more or less a forced one, at least a forced decision must be made to a far greater extent than for the Regular officer-and in my opinion that is more or less borne out by this proportion of 1 to 5.

I should like to pause there, Mr. Chairman, in case you have any questions on that part of the testimony that I have given. There is another subject that I would like to go into when you have finished questioning me.

Mr. ELSTON. Are there any questions?

Mr. CLASON. On these Reserve officers, do you have the same situation that develops in connection with the Army: A Reserve officer who is up for retirement before a retirement board, his retirement was ordered, it goes to the Surgeon General's Office, and the Surgeon General reverses it.

Now, he, at one time-at any rate, the Reserve officer would lose his pay during this period, from the time that he is separated from the service until at a later date when he may be retired by another board, but if he is retired by another board at a subsequent time he

loses all of his pay, and he may have been laid up for a year without pay, and without ability to earn money.

Now, as I understand it, in the Army, if he goes to a review board, the Surgeon General's review board, and they reverse the Surgeon General's finding, then the date he gets his money starts from the initial date of his leaving active duty. They date it back, apparently on the theory that it is unfair to keep this man from his pay during this period.

However, if he goes to a second retirement board and ultimately gets his retirement pay it is dated then as of his separation from the service, after the finding of the second retirement board, and he loses, perhaps, a year's pay.

Do you have that same difficulty in the Navy for the Reserve officers?

Commander MARTINEAU. While the administrative procedure on retiring boards in the Army and the Navy is considerably different, the principal question that I believe you have in mind, Mr. Clason, the answer to it is yes, we do have the same difficulty as to the difference between the action of the retiring boards and review boards.

Mr. CLASON. In other words, a Regular officer always gets his pay right up to the time he goes on to retirement pay for disability, because if he is found to be capable of active service he continues to receive his money. A Reserve officer, having been found entitled to retirement by one board and having it reversed by the Surgeon General's Office loses all of his pay under this until such time as the second board finds favorably to him, unless the review board is acting on the first retirement case.

It seems to me that that has been a rather unfair situation.
Is it still possible for that to happen in the Navy?

Commander MARTINEAU. Well, sir, I would like to say at that point, Mr. Clason, that the Surgeon General of the Navy does not reverse the findings of a naval retiring board. The proceedings and findings of a naval retiring board do go to the Surgeon General, or the Bureau of Medicine and Surgery-the same thing and he makes a recommendation.

It may be recommending approval or recommending disapproval, but that does not amount to a reversal. Whichever kind of a recommendation the Bureau of Medicine and Surgery makes, that finding still must go up to the Secretary of the Navy and to the President for final action.

Mr. CLASON. But is the Reserve officer likely to receive worse treatment than the Regular in reference to the handling of retirement disability cases insofar as money is concerned?

Commander MARTINEAU. The Regular officer who went before the retirement board, and assuming that the retirement board recommended that he not be retired, in their opinion he is still physically qualified, he will return to active duty.

However, let me say that a Regular officer could go before a retirement board and they could find him physically disqualified but the disqualification, in their opinion, is not the result of an incident of the service. He cannot carry on any longer in the active service, due to his physical disability, but the disability has not been caused by an incident of service. That officer then may be discharged from the Regular service with not more than 1 year's pay or he may be placed on furlough pay, which means half pay.