Mr. BROWN. I would say, Mr. Congressman, that that particular group had less difficulty than any other group because we do have a record of it. There is a record of it in the service department. Mr. VOORHIS. Do they always prove it?

Mr. BROWN. I would say in far more than 90 percent of the cases. Mr. VOORHIS. Do you not think there is any argument to be made for recognizing in some special way the fact that a man who was in the zone of hostilities was wounded or gassed?

Mr. BROWN. I do not.

Mr. VOORHIS. You do not?

Mr. BROWN. No, sir.

General HINES. Mr. Chairman, I might say that this bill or a similar bill, passed the House of Representatives during the first session of this Congress

Mr. VOORHIS. Yes,

General HINES. And it was taken out in the Senate. We have a large number of men with a great variety of injuries; some as you know might be due to slight gassing and others to some slight injury by way of barbed wire or just a grazing shot or shrapnel or piece of shell; and if the Congress intends to legislate on a new principle, that is, a principle which we heretofore have not followed, to compensate for the character of the service, it would not fit into the rating policy of the World War Veterans' Act. Now, if the Congress feels that men who were in the combat zone and had wounds (and that covers a broad field under the definition of both the Army and the Navy) then that is proceeding on a new principle. And I believe when you consider we do reward men after a certain age, it is true, for the Congressional Medal of Honor, you may have these in the same category. In other words, it is the type of service record rather than the disability incurred in the service. I believe it could be considered on that basis. Mr. Brown has expressed his personal view that it would create a little different treatment as between groups of men who served. The men served where they were told to go. They had no choice. I think most of them would have asked to be sent overseas. Only half got overseas or less than half.

So, if you feel that we must make a distinction as to the type of service, then certainly this merits your consideration. But heretofore we have not emphasized in the law the place where service was rendered. Where he served and whether he got in combat or not was immaterial. Manifestly, looking at the sacrifice made by men, I would say it would be fair to say that the men who were put under the stress and strain of combat rendered the highest type of service. I think that can be said not only of the World War but as to all wars.

Mr. VAN ZANDT. General, is it not true that the type of service is having an effect on the man's body today?

General HINES. I think it is in some cases. To what extent, of course, depends on the character of the man and his make-up. The Congress has not, except as I said, except for the Congressional Medal of Honor, awarded for character of service. They have awarded medals and citations but monetary benefits for disability, they have not.

Mr. VOORHIS. Without taking too much time, may I approach this problem from another angle. If you propose to close this approach to it, what about the approach which says that in determining the service connections for a man that his service record shall be taken into account and if the type of service rendered in the place where it was rendered can in sound medical judgment be regarded as the reasonable cause of the disability, then the burden of proving it shall be on the Government to prove it is not service connected.

General HINES. I think we try to do that now. But if there is anything we can do to try to bring that about I should think that is well worth considering. Now, Mr. Congressman, do not get the impression that I am opposed to awarding men for the character of service. All I am trying to present to you and the committee is the fact that this is a new principle, and not that we are opposed to it. It is costly because of the large numbers which would be eligible unless we changed the language and narrowed it down.

Mr. VOORHIS. But this last approach I mentioned would not necessarily be a new principle.

General HINES. No.

Mr. VOORHIS. It would simply be making it somewhat easier for a man who had been in the zone of combat to establish service connection.

General HINES. When this issue was before the Senate committee I indicated to them, as has been stated here to the committee by the representatives of the service organizations, I think Captain Watson Miller so stated, that we would review the less than 10 percent cases with the view, even though we felt we had been generous, of determining if there was any possible way of giving them 10 percent. An issue following the hearings by that committee was brought out on August 8, 1939, to review all the combat injured cases rated less than 10 percent. Quite a number have gone on the rolls as a result of the review, some 1,600, I believe, or over 1,600. That issue is quite a long paper, Congressman. It practically tells the rating authorities that if they find a disability remaining from combat injury requiring treatment such as a scratch by a barbed wire or a penetration by a bullet, or a scratch by a piece of shrapnel or some residuals of gas, to give them a rating. That is the sum and substance of it. What the result will finally be, I am not sure. But there were something over 226,000 cases which had to be reviewed, as I remember. It was quite an undertaking.

Now, if you by law say that every man who had an indication of a wound or was injured in some way, whether it resulted in a disability or not, gets $10, that makes it not only a costly thing but I am wondering if it would not also bring some resentment from other veterans who had actually a disability as a result of service and who probably served maybe in the same unit or nearby.

Mr. Brown, what are those numbers? Shall we put them in the record?

Mr. BROWN. The preliminary review we made to ascertain whether the individual had a combat injury required a review of 226,553 cases. Out of 140,000 it was determined that 20,441 were combat injuries. The total number paid up to date is 1,674. I beg pardon, that is not up to date, it is as of December 31, 1939. So there are quite a few more now on the rolls.

Mr. VOORHIS. Would you not feel there was some justice in this? General HINES. I think it would indicate that. Naturally one might jump to the assumption we were wholly to blame for that. Mr. VOORHIS. No.

General HINES. No; I do not mean critically but I mean that we in some way had overlooked these men. It is rather unusual that the men who had done the best type of service and had been carrying on have been the ones who have probably pressed their claims the least. In our efforts to find these men, we have had many letters returned. In other words, some of these men left the service with an indication that they were 10 or 15 percent disabled but they never filed a claim and they have not pressed it ever since. We are unable to tell the number. There is a total of 192,000 that had records in either the Army, Navy, or the Marine Corps, of some form of wound which would entitle them to a chevron, a wound chevron, many of those probably had a gas burn that gave them a rating of a wound for gassing but they had no disability. Some may have had a scratch from barbed wire which was noted as the surgeon examined him and the doctors put on the records. He, too, would be indicated in this 192,000. Many of those men, I feel, even if you gave them the $10, would not claim it. They would not claim it because of the same reason they have not pressed the claim, possibly feeling they have no disability due to service or having no desire to claim compensation. That is the factor there.

But I have somewhat a sympathy for your approach as to the character of service. We should do it without creating inequality in the treatment of veterans.

Mr. PETERSON. Mr. Chairman, may I ask a question?

The CHAIRMAN. Yes.

Mr. PETERSON. General, in connection with this, I run into a problem on the question of rating for the purpose of written veterans' examinations. In some instances they have an injury but not of a ratable degree. Those men take the written examination, the civil service examination.

General HINES. The 10 per cent.

Mr. PETERSON. One provision of this bill proposes we rate them at 1 per cent for that purpose.

General HINES. Yes. Personally I would feel that the approach should be through the civil-service laws rather than rating. In other words, I believe that veterans who have had honorable service should have a right to preference under the civil service and I believe in a definite purpose, and I believe in it being given to them but whether it would be good law to give a man a 1-percent rating for disability when he has not a 1-per cent disability is questionable. Mr. PETERSON. I think the present law says "to a ratable degree." General HINES. "A ratable degree?"

Mr. PETERSON. Yes.

General HINES. We have tried to be generous because of our interest in veterans getting civil-service preference. It would strike me that the approach should be through amendment, if they are not sufficient, of the civil-service regulations or laws.

Mrs. ROGERS. May I ask a question?

The CHAIRMAN. Mrs. Rogers.

Mrs. ROGERS. Do you not find, General Hines, that while the Civil Service gives the veterans a preference for disability when it comes to employment of them, they say they have a disability and that they cannot be employed?

I think there is great injustice done to the veterans and the veteran laws in the civil service.

General HINES. That is not the Civil Service Commission's fault. The Civil Service gives the veteran a preference and puts him at the head of the list according to the law. But I have felt that sometimes the fact that a veteran has indicated in his record that he has a disability, when it goes to the appointing officer he may state "I want a man that is not disabled" and it is questionable whether, after all, giving these men the preference helps them to get employment.

Mrs. ROGERS. I think it does not help them, as the law is operated by the Commission.

General HINES. I have often thought that probably when we take the badly disabled veteran, one say who is about 50 percent disabled, that it might be a good thing if we could designate in the Government establishment, certain positions that might be filled by these men. In other words, I can see where a disabled veteran with the loss of an arm or a leg might make an excellent man as a guide or as a guard in such places, or even an elevator operator. Those positions in France, for instance, are reserved for veterans who are badly disabled. I have approached the problem once or twice with the civil service and I think they are sympathetic, but it requires legislation and there is not a general approval of that plan.

Mrs. ROGERS. You have appeared before the Civil Service Committee?

General HINES. Yes, I have.

Mrs. ROGERS. That ought to be helpful.

General HINES. There is another feature of it that is important. Even if we gave all of the positions in the turnover in the Federal Government in a year to veterans it would not solve the unemployment problem of the veterans.

We have a very distinct problem of these veterans in that many of them went into the war with no vocation. They were in school or they came from the farm. If they were all skilled mechanics today, everyone of them could be employed. Their average age now is 47. Another thing is that industry when they have two men applying for a position, one 29 and one 47, and sometimes even though the employer may be a veteran himself, between the two, the 29-year-old man will get the job. The reason for that is very apparent. Industry is in competition, very keen competition, they have industrial insurance, that is a factor. The older man's insurance rates are higher and if he is disabled they are still higher. So it is not an easy problem to solve.

Mrs. ROGERS. You feel that we ought to give him more in compensation because of his practical non-employability?

General HINES. I feel that as their unemployability increases, we should help. But how much we should give them is going to be a problem and how far we can go no matter how sympathetic we are.

Mrs. ROGERS. General Hines, in giving the men the benefit of the doubt regarding gassing, for instance, when there is no gassing on their record or no record of their having been gassed in the service, yet they were with an outfit or an organization which was under gas attack all the time, I think you should be a little more lenient on it. General HINES. I think we have done that. Before I get through I am going to ask Mr. Jarnagin, the chairman of the Veterans' Board of Appeals, to testify on two items. Not all of the members of the committee were present when I asked the chairman's permission for some of my assistants to testify. I want you to get better acquainted with them. I want you to see the men heading up the various services and give them an opportunity of expressing their views. Probably they can analyze it better than I can. And at the same time you can get acquainted with them and realize pretty much their point of

view.

Mrs. ROGERS. I think most of them are quite well known. I know I go to them constantly for assistance in helping veterans with their claims. They are very helpful. I think it is a splendid plan to have them appear before our committee.

The CHAIRMAN. I think that is a good suggestion myself.

General HINES. I thought it might be helpful. I am perfectly willing to do all the talking, but I would not want it to be a one-man show.

Mr. BROWN. Congressman Voorhis, in connection with the point you made about giving the proper weight to the character of a man's service on August 10, 1938, the Administrator approved an issue stressing that very point. In our review of the less than 10-percent gunshot cases, it was authorized in the issue of August 8, 1939, we stressed the point that we want those cases dealt with as liberally as it was possible to deal with them. Even to go so far in order to take care of them that if they could not find any rating schedule or compensable rating for the wound that the case, in any case where it is not possible to find a compensable disability as indicated above, the file will promptly be referred under R. & P. R. 1142 without the occupational information to the central office. I do not know how much further any one could go in attempting to put over the idea that these cases are to be dealt with as liberally as it is possible to deal with them.

General HINES. Even with all that, we are still willing to try to get some approach that will meet what I know you have in mind, that is, to make sure these men who have had combat service have received every consideration. I think that is the sum and substance of it, no matter how you approach it.

Mr. BROWN. I am just giving you a few excerpts of the letter of August 10, 1939.

Information has been received by this office to the effect that rating agencies are not according the character of the veteran's service the consideration to which it is entitled and that in some instances rating specialists are not discharging their full responsibility. It is deemed advisable therefore to remind the members of the rating boards again of the duties and responsibilities attendant upon their positions and to discuss the part played by the character of the veteran's service in the matter of the service connection of his disabilities.

Each rating specialist is undoubtedly fully aware of the announced, oft repeated, and consistently applied policy of the Veterans' Administration to