of War. It had been established by the Congress to insure that the veteran got a chance to appeal if a mistake had been made.

The significance I draw is that out of the many, many thousands who were not certified for retirement benefits, that the number who have appealed is relatively small, and actually the number, where they have overturned the action of the War Department, is still smaller. As I stated in my opening statement, we handled 140,000 cases in a year and a half, I believe that is a pretty good record.

But we have no control over that Board. That is General Danforth's Board. It operates directly under the Secretary.

Mr. SMART. How many members are on the Board?

General DAHLQUIST. I believe five. I do not know. I have never seen the Board. I have had no contact with it.

Mr. SMART. Do you know anything as to their rank?

General DAHLQUIST. I believe they are colonels with Danforth a brigadier general.

Mr. SMART. Do you know anything of the composition of the Board as to number, as to being Regular or non-Regular officers?

General DAHLQUIST. I do not know. Danforth is the only man I know on the Board.

Mr. SMART. General, the only way that a non-Regular officer could get before that Board was to have been discharged with a disability for which he received no compensation?

General DAHLQUIST. That is right.

Mr. SMART. Therefore, every person who came before the Secretary of the Army's Disability Review Board had been denied retirement by the Army?

General DAHLQUIST. That is right.

Mr. SMART. So that out of 2,400 cases, 677 of those men did get retirement as a result of going before this Board on an appeal? General DAHLQUIST. That is right.

Mr. SMART. That is all.

General BLISS. There is a new law that came in there.

General DAHLQUIST. Incidentally, both Departments have recognized the belief that there is an error in it. Both Departments have asked that new legislation be put in to let anybody appeal. That was done not as the result of this hearing but was done many, many months ago.

General BLISS. I think Colonel Farnham could elaborate on that, as to the particular number that came before the Board.

General DAHLQUIST. I believe Colonel Nylen has a paper which is germane to the question.

Mr. ELSTON. Colonel Nylen, will you state your name for the record? Colonel NYLEN. Arthur F. Nylen.

Mr. ELSTON. And your position?

Colonel NYLEN. Chief, Physical Standards Division, Surgeon

General's Office.

Mr. ELSTON. You may proceed, Colonel.

Colonel NYLEN. On the 27th of September 1944 the War Department issued a letter directing that a board of officers be appointed. The board was composed of two regular medical officers and two Reserve medical officers. They were appointed to review all cases of officers released from active duty for physical disability not incident to the service during the period of June 30, 1940 to May 15, 1944, to

be reviewed in the light of revised policy as provided in the War Department Circular 205, subject, Determination of Line of Duty, dated May 24, 1944.

Doubtful cases will be referred to the War Department Army retiring board for action. In all other cases the Surgeon General's Review Board will indicate the date on which the Board reviews the case and include the statement that the Surgeon General's Review Board adheres to the previous War Department action in the case.

That board reviewed 7,045 cases and of that number they referred 722 to the Review Board that they considered doubtful. From that 722 they probably obtained a fairly considerable number of those that appear on that list that you have.

General DAHLQUIST. May I point out the significance of that, that it was the War Department which was attempting to make sure that where there was a possibility of a mistake we put it to the Disability Review Board.

Mr. ELSTON. Colonel Farnham I believe you had something you wanted to add, did you?

Colonel FARNHAM. Yes, sir.

Mr. ELSTON. Will you identify yourself for the record, please? Colonel FARNHAM. Raymond K. Farnham, doctor, former colonel in the Medical Corps, Chief of the Retiring Branch, Surgeon General's Office.

Mr. ELSTON. And what is your present address, Colonel?
Colonel FARNHAM. 9 Ennis Road, Scarsdale, N. Y.

Mr. ELSTON. And your present occupation?

Colonel FARNHAM. Assistant medical director, Metropolitan Life Insurance Co.

Mr. ELSTON. Colonel, during the time you were in the military service were you connected with the Surgeon General's Office? Colonel FARNHAM. For the entire period of 4 years. Mr. ELSTON. And what did you say your title was there?

Colonel FARNHAM. Originally I was in charge of the appointment branch of the Standards Division. From November 1943 until June 1946, I was chief of the Retirement Branch, disposition and retiring board branch.

Mr. ELSTON. Did you want to add something to the subject we were discussing?

Colonel FARNHAM. You spoke of the Army's Personnel Board. I have the number of officers on that board and the work they do. I talked to them yesterday afternoon.

They informed me that prior to December 5, 1947, they reviewed only controversial cases, where the Surgeon General did not agree with the retiring board findings. Since June 1947, they review all retiring board cases.

At the present time they have four major generals on the board, three Regular Army, one Reserve, and there is another major general due to report. Major General Kenner is a Medical Corps officer. They have two Medical Corps Regular Army officers who study and present cases to the Board. That was formerly the Craig, Bryden, Haislif board.

On your Army Disability Review Board, which was formerly the Secretary of War's Disability Review Board, under section 302 of the GI bill of rights, they have 21 officers on the Board, mostly colonels

and lieutenant colonels. There is a general officer in charge. They have four Medical Corps officers. The Board panel consists of five men, two-fifths of which must be Medical Corps officers. On that board there is usually one Regular Army, three Reserve officers, and one retired Regular Army officer.

That was yesterday's report from the chiefs of these boards.

Mr. ELSTON. All right, Colonel. We will call on you later on for additional testimony if it is needed.

General Bliss, there has been something said about the percentage of noncombatant retirements and those who retired because of combat disabilities. I think you furnished some statistics to this committee and I will ask you if these figures are correct: The Regular Army, in 1945 there were 178 noncombat and 5 combat retirements; is that correct?

General BLISS. I don't know.

Mr. ELSTON. General Dahlquist.

These are figures you furnished to the committee, General.

General DAHLQUIST. If they are excerpts from the report they are true.

Mr. ELSTON. Would you read those figures for the record, General? General DAHLQUIST. Regular Army, total noncombat, 1,694; combat, 106.

Mr. ELSTON. Would you read them by years?

General DAHLQUIST. 1945, 178 and 5; 1946, 1,038 and 67; 1947, 478 and 34.

The Officers Reserve Corps: 1945, 745 noncombat and 310 combat; 1946, 1,995 noncombat and 773 combat; 1947, 588 noncombat, 185 combat.

The totals: 3,328 noncombat; 1,268 combat.

National Guard, 1945, noncombat, 141, combat, 121; 1946, noncombat, 468, combat, 103; 1947, noncombat, 126, combat, 24. Totals 735 noncombat; 148 combat.

AUS officers, 1945, noncombat 2,031, combat 1,118; 1946, 4,015 noncombat, 2,086 combat; 1947, 1,869 noncombat, 1,095 combat. Totals, 7,915 noncombat and 4,199 combat.

I think the percentages are very pertinent.

Mr. ELSTON. Yes. I wish you would explain why there is a lower percentage in respect to Regular officers.

General DAHLQUIST. I am very glad this has come up. The approximate total of Regulars combat-wounded is 5.8 percent; of the Officers Reserve Corps, 27 percent; of the National Guard, 16 percent; and of the AUS officers, 34 percent.

We have compiled figures but unfortunately I did not bring them. with me this morning. I can remember some of them. I will introduce them into the record. This figure wouldn't tell you the true story. What does tell you the true story is to take averages. In other words, the men 66 years old, what were they retired for, and so on down to the man 18 or 19.

The figure I remember is that of officers 24 years old and under, 67 percent of the Regular Army officers were retired for combat wounds, a larger percentage than any other component. The reason that the percentages of retirement because of wounds are low for the Regular Army is that the bulk of our people retired were those who retired because of diseases and infirmities and they are old men.

Our average age, I will remind you, was 53. The National Guard was the next lower. They were the next younger. The Reserve Corps was the next younger.

That is why their percentage was larger. The young Regular didn't have disease but he had plenty of wounds. 67 percent of them 24 years old and younger who were disabled were retired for combat wounds.

I will put into the record the complete figures.
Mr. ELSTON. I wish you would.

Mr. JOHNSON of California. Sixty-seven percent of all Army officers under 24 were retired for combat wounds?

General DAHLQUIST. No; of those retired for disability.

Mr. JOHNSON of California. That is a big percentage at that.
Mr. ELSTON. How many were retired for disability?

General DAHLQUIST. I am sorry I don't remember the figures but it is a matter of a couple of hundred, something like that. I broke it down by branch.

I picked up the same thing that Mr. Smart picked up and I wondered why.

Mr. SMART. General Dahlquist, among other things this document proves and this not a reflection upon the Regular Army-is the fact that most retirements are not as a direct result of combat, be it World War II or World War I, or whatever other war we have been in, but the predominant cause is for other than combat wounds; isn't that true?

General DAHLQUIST. That is right. The hearings on the acts of 1861 are very, very plain on the fact that Congress was trying to get rid of the infirm officer.

Mr. SMART. Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, other numerical summaries have been presented to the committee by General Dahlquist's office.

This may be somewhat the same figure that you referred to, General. You have given, in part 1, the Regular Army commissioned male officers and warrant officers, a total of 1,800 in the Regular Army who were retired for physical disability.

General DAHLQUIST. That is since some certain date.

Mr. SMART. Since the 2d of September 1945, to October 31, 1947. So since VJ-day, as between the Regulars, from the grade of second lieutenant through the grade of general of the Army, there are 1,664 who have been retired for physical disability; of that number there are 1,491 or 89 percent who are in the grade of colonel and above; 1 second lieutenant, 8 first lieutenants, 25 daptains, 51 majors, and 88 lieutenant colonels.

From the non-Regular officers, and that means Officers Reserve Corps, AUS, and National Guard, from the grade of second lieutenant through the grade of major general, there were 17,081 retired for physical disability since VJ-day; 922 of those are in the grade of colonel and above.

I attach no significance to those figures, General. Would you state to the committee, General, what significance you attach to those figures?

General DAHLQUIST. I think the significance is this: A third of our Regular Army officers were World War I veterans. I am one of the youngest of them. I am 52. I was 21 years old when I was commissioned. So everyone in World War I is older than I am.

So that we have a large number of men who were in their forties and in their fifties, and those men were in the grade of colonel, and those are the men that have diseases of deterioration.

Now, the Army of the United States, that is, the citizen army, are relatively young men. That is, the Army of the United States was composed of young men because we didn't draft them-we did initially take them in older but we finally forced the ages down and our officers were in their twenties. In my division my battalion commanders, none of whom were Regulars, were 25, 26, 27 years old.

The only significance I can place on it is that it again brings out the fact that I have iterated and reiterated since the very first day, that retirement under the law falls on the man with disease; that the man who has wounds and accidents, a great number of them recover. Mr. CLASON. May I ask a question, Mr. Chairman?

Mr. ELSTON. Yes. Mr. Clason.

Mr. CLASON. If I understand the testimony I have heard here, General, it is to the effect that most of the Regular Army officers who are securing retirement for disability and therefore are tax exempt are those among the older officers who are being retired for infirmities, such as kidney trouble, and other symptoms that older persons are likely to have, whether they are in the Army or not?

General DAHLQUIST. Yes, sir. Mr. Clason, I don't like the term "securing". The Regular Ármy officer who was retired was retired in many cases against his will. The average of all Regular officers retired since 1945, and that includes the second lieutenants, is 53 years. His average length of service was 28 years. For generals the average age was 57 and the average years of service were 33, and the average number of years in the grade of general was 41⁄2.

Mr. NORBLAD. Does that include Air Corps generals?

General DAHLQUIST. Yes. If we took them out the average would be a little higher.

Mr. CLASON. As one who is 57 I dislike to think the mere fact of that age results in a person being entitled to retirement on the ground of infirmities if at the same time we can go back to the practice of some other profession or go into some other kind of work. But regardless of the form of my question, which I certainly didn't intend to have any unusual meaning, as I get the proposition a person who follows the profession of a Regular Army officer is likely, when he gets to the age of 53 to 57, and is retiring, he is likely to find himself in the position of being better off than any other class of Government employee.

General DAHLQUIST. No, I believe that that is not at all correct, Mr. Clason. I believe the obverse is correct. If two men started working for the Government on the same day and they were of the same age, if their pay was exactly the same, and all promotions, the Regular Army officer draws in his lifetime very, very much less money.

Retirement, I can assure you, is not a boon to the Regular officer. It is something that we have to have for the benefit of the Nation. To go out in your fifties, having had an occupation which has no counterpart in civil life, and have your pay reduced to 57 percent is not as good as being able to serve at full pay to 70 and then get a retirement which is somewhat less.

The fact of the matter is that retirement bears very, very heavily upon the Regular Army officer and they resist it. The necessity for it is that we must sacrifice the individual for the good of the Nation.