Mr. BLANDFORD. I mention it only because we gave these people 5 years in which to make their election. Mr. STEVENSON. On the basis of the rates in effect at that time. Mr. BLANDFORD. And it seemed to be pretty definite that once they made an election that would be a final election. Mr. STEVENSON. You say it seemed to be pretty definite? Mr. BLANDFORD. It seemed to be pretty apparent. Mr. WILSON. Do we have a copy of the form that they were required to fill out? Mr. BLANDFORD. I don't have a copy of it. Mr. WILSON. Could it be submitted to the committee? Mr. KILDAY. They were notified what percentage would be at present pay and what it would be under the Career Compensation Act. Is that right? Mr. STEVENSON. That is right. Mr. KILDAY. It was rather simple. Mr. WILSON. But it stated it was a permanent election, if I remember the form. Mr. KILDAY. I don't remember. Anyway, Mr. Stevenson construes it as being a precedent on that occasion that you anticipated would be carried forward. Mr. STEVENSON. It would be tied in with this fixed percentage of active-duty pay. Of course, that was changed, the 4 percent increase is not in existence now and you are proposing in your marked bill to change it. Mr. KILDAY. I think we understand your position. Go ahead with your statement. Mr. STEVENSON. Yes, sir. It is our belief that even if some sort of cost-of-living increase is awarded to this particular group they still should have an opportunity to elect now under the amended Career Compensation Act. It seems that the cost of administering this part of the act should not be too high. The percentage of disability existing at the time of retirement has already been determined. Therefore, the only additional work necessary would be to apply that known percentage of disability to the new basic pay rate and to inform the individual accordingly. Certainly if dollars and cents are involved in such an election every individual concerned should have the renewed opportunity to make an election. And now, gentlemen, I feel I express the thought of our entire group, even though the question of incentive pay has never come before them in that particular phrase, in saying that we approve everything included in this proposal that you are now considering-overall active pay increase, extra pay for hazardous duty, a substantial realinement in the pay of technical personnel at the time when they must decide whether to stay with it or to get out, and the very substantial, and well-deserved increase in the pay of our high-ranking officers-all of these have our approval, but we say again that they do not go quite far enough in detail to really solve the present problem. And in the very nature of the group that we are, I say this particularly with respect to those who have been-and more specifically with respect to those who may be-no, some day who will be faced with the prospect of retirement for physical disability. They cannot speak for themselves, for no one of them really believes that he will be disabled to that extent. This is the group for which you gentlemen must legislate, even without their knowing about it in detail, or in advance. And their eventual thoughts on this particular phase of this problem will be influenced as much by what has been done for those disabled in the past as by what the law offers them for the future. In brief review, then, we ask specifically that those persons receiving disability retirement pay under laws in effect prior to October 1949 be given a cost-of-living increase; secondly, that added benefits be provided for the so-called short-service personnel who may be subject to disability retirement during the early years of their service; thirdly, that your committee, even if not in connection with this proposal, give consideration at some future time to going back to the principle of 75 percent of active service pay as the basis of disability retirement pay; and finally that, by all means, there be retained in the measure the provision for "reelection." And now, Mr. Chairman and committee members, just a few added words that are not included in our prepared statement just submitted. This statement as I mentioned was based on and its recommendations have to do with the Career Incentive Act as originally introduced on January 20, the original H. R. 2607. The provision in the original bill under which persons retired because of disability would have been given the right of reelection was stricken out and there was added provision for 6 percent increase in the retired pay for all those receiving pay under laws in effect prior to 1949. Before closing then, I would like to emphasize that the right of reelection be retained in the measure. I would like to return to the two cases I mentioned. There was the first lieutenant with 60-percent disability with over 3 but under 4 years of service. Under the old law he was paid $157.50 a month. In the Career Compensation Act he was offered $158.18 a month. This meant an increase of only 68 cents a month and the man did not elect to change and so continued at $157.50 but not under the Career Compensation Act. Then, of course, in 1952 he received the 4-percent increase. So at the present time he is drawing $163.80. Under the terms of the Career Incentive Act, as originally drawn, wherein he was given a chance to make an election of his benefits, he would be entitled to 60 percent of $345.40, that is the new activeduty rate for his rank and length of service, which would mean $201.24, an increase of $37.44 a month. Now, if his right to elect is removed, as has been proposed, and he is given an increase of 6 percent, this increase would amount to $9.82 a month; $37.44 if he could elect, $9.82 since he cannot elect, a minus figure for him of $27.62 a month. Case No. 2 did not elect under the Career Compensation Act, because the amount offered was less by $2.55 a month than he was drawing at that time. Including the 1952 increase of 4 percent, this present retired pay, a second lieutenant, 60-percent disabled, with over 8 but less than 10 years service, considerable precommission service, of course, his present pay is $171.60. Under the terms of the Career Incentive Act, as originally drawn, wherein he was given a chance to make an election of its benefits, he would be entitled to 60 percent of $327.60, which would be $196.50 a month, an increase for him of $24.96; if his right of election is removed as has been proposed and he is given the proposed 6-percent increase, his new rate of pay will be $181.70, an increase of only $10.27; $24.96 if he could elect, $10.27 since he cannot elect, a minus figure to him of $14.69. Now, I say again, gentlemen, that it seems only fair that with this change of retirement pay brought about by the new active-duty rates in this bill, these borderline cases that did not elect to be paid under the original Career Compensation Act now be given the opportunity through election to receive the same benefits being awarded to those who did elect earlier to be paid under the original Career Compensation Act. Certainly our organization, and all veteran organizations, I am sure, in advising individuals on these cases suggested that they not elect to be paid under the then Career Compensation Act, if it meant a financial loss to them. This advice was based on the assumption that under the new principle of disability retired pay, established in the Career Compensation Act, where retired pay was based on a certain percentage of activeduty pay, that percentage being the individual's percentage of disability, these individuals would naturally be given a chance to make a new election, if and when the active-duty scale was changed. It is being changed by this measure. We believe that everyone affected should have an opportunity to elect or not to elect under its new active-duty provisions. Only those with substantial disabilities, 60 percent or more, could possibly benefit if given the right to elect. It is our opinion that their number is comparatively few. But, even so, their cases are very, very worthy of your sympathetic consideration. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and gentlemen, for this opportunity to present the thoughts of our association on this subject. Should there be any questions, Lieutenant Tilghman, national adjutant, and I will be glad to answer them. Mr. KILDAY. Thank you. You do recognize the fact that prior to the Career Compensation Act all retirement was on the basis of 75 percent? Mr. STEVENSON. Yes, sir. Mr. KILDAY. And in that act we changed it to the percentage of disability at the time of retirement? Mr. STEVENSON. Yes. Mr. KILDAY. So that the distinction between the Career Compensation Act and the present proposal lies in the fact that at that time we were adopting a new retirement system, and this time we are not, isn't that correct? Mr. STEVENSON. No. You are modifying Mr. KILDAY. Active-duty pay. Mr. STEVENSON. Modifying active-duty pay. You are modifying retirement pay under the amended bill, also. Mr. KILDAY. By granting the 6 percent. Mr. STEVENSON. Yes. Mr. KILDAY. We are not modifying it, we are increasing it. Mr. KILDAY. On the other occasion we changed the system where a can would possibly get more or less. But this time he can only get more. Mr. STEVENSON. It is our feeling that the passage of this bill without including in it the right to election does change in very substantial nature the basic principles of retirement pay as established in the original Career Compensation Act, Mr. Kilday. Mr. KILDAY. I understand your position. Now, you have recommended-whether you agree with what we propose or not, I want to develop those areas which you recommend and which the committee print proposes. Mr. STEVENSON. Yes, sir. Mr. KILDAY. You recommended that something be done for those retired under laws in existence prior to 1949. Whether adequate or not we have taken action on that. Mr. STEVENSON. Yes, sir. Mr. KILDAY. As to the short-service personnel that you recommended be taken care of, we have made a provision for that, whether you regard it as adequate or not. Mr. STEVENSON. Six percent; yes, sir. Mr. KILDAY. Now, you also recommend we go back to 75 percent either here or at subsequent legislation. That we have not done and we have not provided for reelection. So out of the 4, we have 2; that is right? Mr. STEVENSON. Not to the extent we recommend, but to some extent. Mr. KILDAY. I understand. Mr. STEVENSON. I repeat again it is very important in my opinion, that right of election. Mr. KILDAY. I understand. Mr. GAVIN. Mr. Chairman. How many cases such as you illustrated there do you think there are? Mr. STEVENSON. I have no idea of knowing positively. But not very Mr. TILGHMAN. I wouldn't venture a guess, but I think it is safe to say that the number would be comparatively small. Because the only people who could positively benefit would be those with a 60-percentdisability rating, 50 percent wouldn't have done them any good under the Career Compensation Act, and it wouldn't do them any good under this act. They would still on this act on a 50-percent rating receive less than they were receiving under laws in effect prior to 1949. So it would be only those borderline cases where the rating brought the new Career Compensation Act brought the pay to within a few dollars or a few cents of what the man was receiving before. Mr. KILDAY. They would all have to be notified? Mr. TILGHMAN. I can see no administrative problem. The determination as to the percentage of disability has been made. The departments would merely check their record, and where the man had not made an election, send him a new form letter with the percentage of disability which has already been determined, back in 1949, 1950, 1951, applied to the new rate. It would involve no real readjudication of the claim. Mr. KILDAY. But a recomputation in each instance with a letter stating the present and what it would be in the future and requiring an election to be made? Mr. TILGHMAN. That is right. Mr. STEVENSON. Only in the case of those who did not accept their payment under the Career Compensation Act, however. Mr. BATES. That is right. Mr. KILDAY. Suppose somebody wants to go back to the laws prior to 1949? Mr. STEVENSON. He can do that now. Mr. TILGHMAN. No, not if he has elected under the Career Compensation Act. But I can't think of any one wanting to go back. Mr. KILDAY. Thank you. Mr. BENNETT. Prior to your testimony I hadn't fully realized that there are people in existence who did not elect back yonder, but if this law, that we now enact, becomes law, would not get as much money as if the election was being made today. Mr. STEVENSON. Yes. Mr. BENNETT. That is true? Mr. STEVENSON. Yes, indeed. Mr. BENNETT. It is true some people, if we don't put an election clause in this bill, some people will get less money? Mr. STEVENSON. That is right. Mr. BENNETT. Do you feel we could bring this thing to an end sometime; in other words, do you feel this would cut it off for the future? Mr. STEVENSON. Here is the point: Has Congress established as its new principle of retirement a certain-for disability-a certain percentage of the active-duty pay as the active-duty pay changes from time to time, or has Congress established as its new principle of retirement that percentage of active-duty pay at the time that it passed that particular law. That is for you gentlemen to determine. In other words, if you wanted to tie retired pay in with active-duty pay as it changes from day to day or week to week or year to year, that is one thing. But if you want to say that a man shall be entitled to a certain fixed dollar-and-cents amount based on the percentage of active-duty pay was at the date he was retired, that is a different principle. Mr. BENNETT. Personally, I think you made a very strong case which I hadn't appreciated before your talk. Mr. STEVENSON. Yes; I am talking about one of them, I don't know how many there may be, even if there are only a few, it is still the principle. Mr. KILDAY. Are there any other questions from the committee? (No response.) Mr. STEVENSON. The gentleman I am talking about walks around here everyday. Mr. BATES. Captain Martineau? Mr. KILDAY. Do you have those figures? Captain MARTINEAU. I have some of those numbers, Mr. Chairman; yes, sir. Our statistics indicate that the numbers of these short service personnel |