He was advised that he was not entitled to an increase in retirement pay but that he had an election to receive either a lump-sum amount of severance pay or to continue to receive emergency officers' retirement pay computed on the pay of a second lieutenant with over 10 years of service. Mr. Westphal then was receiving retirement pay based on the pay of a second lieutenant with less than 2 years of service. The reason for the difference was that the Army was including all of Mr. Westphal's Army and Navy service, both active and inactive. as creditable in computing his retirement pay while the payments which he was receiving were based on his active Army service during World War I. He chose to continue to receive his emergency officers' retirement pay and based on the 10-year service period certified by the Army, his retirement pay was adjusted to a higher rate. Well, several pages on over here it says that was wrong, to do that. Mr. KILDAY. There couldn't be another case like this, because there is nobody who could get his business in that shape but me and I have never been in the service. [Laughter.] Mr. BATES. All I am trying to find out- Mr. BATES. Was he in a position to know he was getting that much extra? Mr. BLANDFORD. No-everybody thinks you can count all of your service. Mr. BATES. Yes; but they figure that down pretty closely. Mr. BLANDFORD. He had Army service and Navy service. I will read on. Under the provisions of section 202 (a) of the Career Compensation Act (63 Stat. 807), as amended, specifying the service creditable in determining basic pay, all of this former officer's active and inactive service would be creditable for computing his basic pay as a member of the uniformed services after October 1, 1949, and the proviso in section 202 (b) of the act saying that, except for active service as prescribed in section 202 (a), the service credit authorized in section 202 shall not be included to increase retired pay, etc., "while on a retired list" appears to be an implicit recognition by Congress that active service after retirement is creditable for increasing the retired pay of members on a retired list. Mr. Westphal is on a retired list and apparently the Army authorities are of the opinion that such proviso is authority for crediting him with service other than his World War I active service. This view, however, overlooks the fact that he is not a member of the uniformed services and seems to conflict with the decision of the Court of Claims in the Perkins case that in the absence of specific provision otherwise, an emergency retired officer [Laughter.] Mr. BENNETT. We understand, Mr. Chairman. Mr. KILDAY. Off the record. (Further statement off the record.) Mr. HARDY. Mr. Chairman, if we could limit this bill to apply to this one case, I would like it better. Mr. BATES. Does counsel have a recommendation he wishes to make? Mr. BLANDFORD. Well, I would just pass it, because it has to go back to the Senate anyway. We have to amend it. They only know one case that has come to their attention. It is general legislation. Why it wasn't made a private bill, I don't know. Mr. HARDY. Why shouldn't we make it private? Mr. BLANDFORD. It already passed the Senate. Mr. BATES. If he stayed in the Army there would have been no problem. Mr. BLANDFORD. That is right. But I am not sure what his status would have been if he came back on active duty in the Army. That raises an interesting question. [Laughter.] Mr. KILDAY. I would suggest-off the record. (Further statement off the record.) Mr. BLANDFORD. I am satisfied after five pages of this Mr. HARDY. I would suggest that we add an amendment that this legislation shall apply only to so and so. [Laughter.] Mr. KILDAY. I think Mr. BLANDFORD. It is possible that you are going to have-you may run into another case where you had an emergency retired officer in World War I who served in the Army who came back on active duty in the Navy and he is going to be in the same boat as this chap. They are probably going to dig it out 10 years from now and this will cover it and we won't have to go through this again. That is why it is general. Mr. HARDY. I don't think we ought to deny ourselves of this privilege. Mr. BATES. How much active duty did he have when he came back? Mr. BLANDFORD. I haven't any idea. Mr. BATES. Over six months? Lieutenant HICKEY. It indicates 30 months and 9 days of active duty as a Reserve officer during World War II, sir. Mr. BLANDFORD. We saved this bill for last, because I have never seen one like this, frankly. Mr. KILDAY. There will never be another one like this. Thank you, Lieutenant. Mr. BLANDFORD. That is all. Mr. KILDAY. Now we are going to meet tomorrow. So I would prefer to take these up in executive session tomorrow. We don't have time today. I must be on the floor when we convene. So we will adjourn until 10 o'clock tomorrow morning. Mr. BLANDFORD. All right, sir. (Whereupon, at 11:45 p. m., the subcommittee adjourned until 10 a. m. Friday June 27, 1958.) HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES, SUBCOMMITTEE No. 2, Washington, D. C., Friday, June 27, 1958. The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 10 a. m., Hon. Paul J. Kilday, chairman of the subcommittee, presiding. Mr. KILDAY. The first bill this morning will be H. R. 471, a bill relating to the retired pay of certain retired officers of the Armed Forces. (The bill is as follows:) [H. R. 471, 85th Cong., 1st sess.] A BILL Relating to the retired pay of certain retired officers of the Armed Forces Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That commissioned officers of the Army, Navy, Marine Corps, Coast Guard or Air Force, who have heretofore been advanced on the retired list to a higher commissioned rank under the Act of June 21, 1930, as amended (10 U. S. C. 1028a; 34 U. S. C. 399c), shall be entitled to retired pay based upon the rank in which retired unless entitled to higher retired pay under some other provision of law. SEC. 2. This Act shall apply with respect to retired pay for periods after September 30, 1949. Mr. KILDAY. I have a statement with reference to it. The purpose of the proposed legislation is to authorize a small number of retired commissioned officers who were advanced on the retired list to their highest World War I grade under the act of June 21, 1930, to receive retired pay based on the pay of the grade in which they retired instead of on the pay of the grade to which they were advanced. The proposed legislation affects commissioned warrant officers of the Navy, Marine Corps, and Coast Guard who were advanced to higher commissioned grades on the retired list under the act of June 21, 1930. Prior to October 1, 1949, these individuals received the retired pay of their commissioned warrant grade. After the effective date of the Career Compensation Act, October 1, 1949, if they elected to compute their retired pay on the basis of the Career Compensation Act it was necessary for their pay to be based upon the highest grade satisfactorily held since the pay of the lower commissioned grade is in some cases less than the commissioned warrant grades. As a result, certain officers have actually received less retired pay than they otherwise would have been entitled had they been entitled to compute their retired pay based upon the grade in which originally retired. One of the provisions of the Career Compensation Act permitted warrant officers who had been advanced to higher commissioned rank to request restoration of their former warrant status if the request was made within 1 year after the enactment of that law. There probably were a variety of reasons why some of these individuals did not elect to exercise this option. Some felt that reversion to the warrant grade would be misunderstood, while others were not aware of the privilege. Since the election that they were permitted to make was that of retaining their former warrant-officer status, or that of the highest grade to which advanced, it is obvious that those who elected to retain their highest commissioned-officer grade did not do so because of any advantages with respect to the Dual Compensation Act or the Dual Employment Statute. It appears, furthermore, that the legislation will be applicable to approximately 10 or fewer officers, so that the cost to the Government would be nominal. The Department of the Navy on behalf of the Department of Defense favors enactment of the proposed legislation with amendments and the Bureau of the Budget interposes no objection. The amendments proposed by the Navy are that the citation to the Statutes at Large (46 Stat. 793) be inserted in lieu of the reference to the United States Code since the act of June 21, 1930, was repealed by the act of August 10, 1956, the act which codified and enacted into positive law titles 10 and 32 of the United States Code, and that the retroactive features be eliminated, and that section 2 be amended to read as follows: SEC. 2. No person is entitled to an increase in retired or retirement pay because of this Act for any period before the effective date of this Act. We will at this point receive the statement of our colleague from California, the author of the bill, Mr. Teague. Mr. TEAGUE. Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, the purpose of this bill, H. R. 471, is to give a fair break to certain retired officers of the Armed Forces who heretofore have been unjustly denied the pay of the rank in which they served. For instance, I know of one who served as a warrant officer and later was advanced to the rank of lieutenant shortly before retirement. Retirement pay in his case as a lieutentant is less than retirement pay as a warrant officer. Men in such a category would not be inclined to revert to lower rank by choice to get the better retirement pay, for the simple reason that their wives would rather be "Mrs. Lieutenant" than "Mrs. Chief Boatswain," or that neighbors might wrongly think they were demoted if mail came addressed in a lower rank. Loss of social prestige through loss of rank, whatever the reason may be, can be a serious thing. Only a very small number of service people would be affected by enactment of this bill, so therefore the cost would be virtually negligible in the overall military budget, as I understand it. The bill would correct an inequity. The Defense Department report suggests an amendment to this bill to avoid retroactivity in pay entitlement, probably for budgetary reasons, a position which is entirely understandable and acceptable to me. I respectfully request and urge favorable consideration of this bill Mr. KILDAY. Lt. Hugh St. Clair Sease, Bureau of Naval Personnel, Retirement Division. Come around, Lieutenant Sease. Lieutenant, we will be glad to have your statement. Lieutenant SEASE. Mr. Kilday, I do not have a statement to make. I will be glad to answer any questions that you may have. Mr. KILDAY. Mr. Blandford, do you have anything to develop in addition to the statement Mr. BLANDFORD. Is there anything in the statement which the chairman read with which you disagree? Lieutenant SEASE. No, sir. Mr. BLANDFORD. You do agree that this will be applicable to 10 or fewer officers? Lieutenant SEASE. The actual numbers I am not positive of Lieutenant SEASE. Excuse me. The actual numbers I am not posi tive of, but I believe that that is approximately correct. Mr. BLANDFORD. And your only recommendation is with regard to an amendment to the citation and that it not be retroactive? Lieutenant SEASE. Definitely. Mr. BLANDFORD. I have no further questions. Mr. KILDAY. Any questions by members of the committee? Mr. BATES. Were there any advantages to them not to revert back to their warrant rank? Lieutenant SEASE. I cannot think of any, sir. Mr. BLANDFORD. Other than prestige. Lieutenant SEASE. Prestige would be the only thing that would keep a man for reverting back, say, from lieutenant to warrant officer. Mr. BATES. Don't we have any saving clause in that type of legislation which would permit them to hold the rank but get the highest pay to which they may be entitled? Lieutenant SEASE. Not under that law. Mr. BLANDFORD. We now have a provision in the law which we put in in 1955, when this situation became very apparent. This actually developed, when we started upgrading the warrant officer structure and we created the four warrant grades, we reached a point where warrant officers were drawing considerably more pay, particularly the W-3 or W-4 pay than a lieutenant (j. g.) or lieutenant and possibly lieutenant commander, depending upon length of service. That is what really brought this problem about. You actually have a case of say an individual who was entitled to the highest warrant grade retired pay, but because he had been advanced to the highest grade, the law said he had to draw the pay of the highest grade. Mr. KILDAY. Of course, the question comes up because of the election period contained in the Career Compensation Act of 1949. There were several groups in various services who had held commissioned status and enlisted status or warrant status. They were faced with the necessity of electing whether they would prefer more money, perhaps, under the Career Compensation Act or more prestige under previously existing laws. The only thing involved actually is the period of 1 year in which they had to make the election, because subsequent to the Career Compensation Act there were laws which made it to their advantage to change. I realize there is some feeling once he has elected, he ought not to be permitted to elect again. But that is pretty technical when the man is faced with more money or more prestige and he makes that decision. Mr. GAVIN. I move the bill be reported favorably. Mr. KILDAY. Thank you, Lieutenant. The next bill is H. R. 7902, a bill to authorize travel and transportation allowances in the case of certain members of the uniformed services. (The bill is as follows:) [H. R. 7902, 85th Cong., 1st sess.] A BILL To authorize travel and transportation allowances in the case of certain members of the uniformed services Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That section 3 of the Act of August 11, 1955 (69 Stat. 691), is amended by amending the second sentence to read as follows: "No additional amount may be paid as a result of the enactment of this section to a member of a uniformed service who was retired, discharged, or placed on the temporary disability retired list before August 11, 1955, unless travel to a home selected by that member was performed (1) before April 29, 1953; (2) within one year after that retirement, discharge, or placement on the temporary disability retired list; or (3) within one year after a period of hospitalization or medical treat ment which prevents qualification under clauses (1) or (2).” Mr. KILDAY. Mr. Gubser of California is the author of the bill. Mr. GUBSER. Mr. Blandford will explain it. Mr. KILDAY. We will include this statement in the record. (The statement is as follows:) The purpose of the proposed legislation is to authorize travel and transportation allowance in the case of certain members of the uniformed services. |