Was he guilty of four or five bad offenses in the military so that they finally said, "Let's get rid of him"?

Mr. ROUSH. Counsel may want to respond to this, but is it not a fact that the VA could, by the promulgation of its own rules and regutions, give drug abuse treatment to the category which I referred a moment ago?

Mr. CORCORAN. No. On the other hand, Congress could make that possible by changing 38 U.S.C. 101 to exclude from eligibility as veterans only those who received a "dishonorable discharge.

Congress has not written the law that way.

Mr. ROUSH. Would you repeat that, Counsel?

Mr. CORCORAN. When Mr. Taaffe described our problem—and incidentally, it relates not only to persons who are separated because of drug abuse, but for many, many years a lot of other veterans who were separated for a lot of other reasons and received a bad conduct discharge or an undesirable discharge.

Mr. ROUSH. I understand.

Mr. CORCORAN. We do not believe under existing law we have the authority to regulate so as to automatically find eligible a person who received an undesirable or bad conduct discharge. We feel that under the law we have to examine the circumstances under which the man was separated and determine whether or not they were under dishonorable circumstances.

I point out that although we do not have that authority, Congress certainly could change the law so as to exclude from eligibility only those who received "a dishonorable discharge." That is not the law at present.

Mr. ROUSH. What you are saying is that when you deny this treatment, you are saying that an individual who holds an undesirable or bad conduct discharge, although the terminology is "undesirable" or "bad conduct discharge." in fact it is a dishonorable discharge?

Mr. CORCORAN. No, sir. He was separated under dishonorable conditions. Because that is the criterion that the law sets up for us to make a determination on.

ADMINISTRATIVE DETERMINATION OF DISCHARGE

Mr. ROUSH. This still bothers me that we have a category entitled "dishonorable discharge" and I can readily understand why this man, under present law, would not receive access to this treatment. But we have two other categories, undesirable and bad conduct. How the VA gets into this picture of making the determination that one of these might be under dishonorable conditions, I do not know. Mr. CORCORAN. May I read the statute?

Mr. ROUSH. Yes, would you?

Mr. CORCORAN. It is very short. Before I do, let me point out that the law says if we find the man was separated under dishonorable conditions, he is not even a veteran.

38 U.S.C. 101 says "The term 'veteran' means a person who served in the active military, naval, or air service, and who was discharged or released there from under conditions other than dishonorable."

And of course Congress has been aware of how we have interpreted and implemented that law for decades. If the Congress disagreed with the way we interpreted that language, I think it would have long since changed that to say "You are a veteran if you got a discharge which was not a dishonorable discharge."

Mr. ROUSH. I will not pursue it further.

DRUG ABUSE DISCHARGE

Mr. BOLAND. I think you raise a good question.

Those who are drug users, I presume some who were discharged because of bad conduct, probably need this treatment the most.

Mr. JOHNSON. Yes. It should be pointed out that there may be some in that category, but the Secretary of Defense months ago announced an order, a review of such discharges, and in fact, the review of discharges has been going on now for some time, where it is solely based upon drug usage or drug abuse.

Mr. BOLAND. Are they changing the discharge to honorable if they find the circumstances warrant it?

Mr. JOHNSON. I think to general, under those conditions.

Many of those that may be drug-related did involve some kind of act which in the civilian world would be a felonious act.

REASONS FOR UNDESIRABLE DISCHARGES

Mr. TALCOTT. Mr. Chairman, I think there is one other area that is even worse or at least more heinous so far as I look at things. This is a discharge of some sort which is general but not honorable. It is given to one who may have experimented, but who is not an addict. This person has the stigma for life because of his discharge even though he may have experimented just momentarily, off duty with no violation of any rule or anything, voluntarily went to his commanding officer at the commanding officer's suggestion that if you turn yourself in you will get good treatment.

The volunteer, says "yes, I have experimented with drugs," and is given a discharge which says "drug user" on it. He is entitled to benefits, but he has this stigma. He is not an addict but still has the stigma. I think this is terrible unless you do it with alcoholics.

One of these days I am going to find a colonel or a general that has been more abusive of alcohol than this 19-year-old kid who has been discharged for drugs, and I am going to try to get him discharged dishonorably for alcohol abuse, which I think is more heinous than is this situation.

Mr. JOHNSON. I would point out that this individual which you mention could also ask for a review.

Mr. TALCOTT. He cannot do a thing, because the review board just listens to the evidence that they gave to the commanding officer. The review board is perfunctory.

Mr. JOHNSON. Has this been pursued

Mr. TALCOTT. It says in the law that the Secretary will make a review, but the Secretary does not make a review.

Mr. JOHNSON. Has this been pursued by one of the veterans' organizations, to your knowledge?

Mr. TALCOTT. No, I do not know.

Mr. JOHNSON. I understand that the veterans' organizations geared up for an avalanche, of character discharge reviews and they have not materialized. I happen to know from personal experience that the veterans' organizations are very aggressive in their presentations before the review board and that they do have expertise available there.

Mr. TALCOTT. But this is a veteran that does not have a veterans association.

Mr. JOHNSON. He does not need one to ask any one of the major veterans organizations.

Mr. TALCOTT. This is just an ordinary kid that experimented and got kicked out.

Mr. JOHNSON. I certainly would explore the expertise that is available within the veterans organizations.

Mr. TALCOTT. I have no further questions.

GENERAL OPERATING EXPENSES

Mr. BOLAND. We will turn to the "Budget, general operating

expenses.

You are requesting $315 million for fiscal year 1974 as opposed to $320,821,000 for fiscal year 1973. This is a decrease of $5,821,000.

Your permanent positions are 20,942 for 1973 and 19,763 is requested for 1974. This is a reduction of 1,179.

We will place the summary tables and pages 1-1 through 1-98 into the record at this point.

[The material follows:]

1 Includes capital outlay as follows: 1972. $3,893 thousand; 1973, $9,151 thousand; 1974, $1,054 thousand.

? Selected resources as of June 30 are as follows: Unpaid undelivered orders, 1971, $1,325 thousand (1972 adjustments. -$124 thousand): 1972, $2.586 thousand; 1973. $2.287 thousand: 1974, $2,287 thousand.