STATEMENT OF OMAR B. KETCHUM, LEGISLATIVE REPRESENTATIVE, VETERANS OF FOREIGN WARS OF THE UNITED STATES Mr. KETCHUM. Mr. Chairman and gentlemen of the committee. my name is Omar B. Ketchum and I am the national legislative representative for the Veterans of Foreign Wars of the United States. No doubt most of you are familiar with the Veterans of Foreign Wars, an organization composed of men who have served on foreign soil or in hostile waters during some war campaign or expedition in which this country has been engaged. We believe the Veterans of Foreign Wars have a right to speak for men who have or are serving in the armed forces, due to the wide extent of our membership. I appear here this morning in behalf of the bill identified as S. 760 which is before your subcommittee. The bill relates to officers of the Regular Army who were retired for other than physical disability and their restoration to active duty, and I am here to support the bill because, in my opinion, it has merit and should be enacted into law. It would make available to the War Department in this critical moment when the full use of manpower is essential to the winning of the war, the valuable and irreplaceable services of retired officers having from 15 to 19 years' experience in the Army of the United States through peacetime and wartime periods; men who, through no fault of their own, were retired by a limitation placed on the number of commissioned officers at a time when the country was at peace and the need for a great number of officers was not apparent. That condition does not obtain at this time; in fact, in addition to the promotion of men in the ranks and to the commissioning of graduates of officer training schools and members of the R. O. T. C., thousands of civilians, without previous military training, are now being commissioned. It is obvious that such civilians cannot possibly have the high qualifications of these retired officers of specialized experience, and it is inconceivable why such officers were not given preference over untrained civilians when the need for additional commissioned officers was recognized by the War Department. The It would be in the interest of economy to pass this bill. retired officers of whom I speak now receive 75 percent of the pay which they would receive if on active duty. By restoration to active duty, their services would be obtained by the Government at an outlay of only 25 percent of the cost occasioned by the commissioning of civilians, at full pay, to perform with questionable efficiency, because of unfamiliarity with military operations and procedure, the same duties these retired officers would ably perform. These officers were retired through accidents of hasty and inadequate legislation: they were physically fit-some of them had received war medals and they were professional soldiers with all the training and experience the term implies. In justice to these capable men, in the interest of economy, for the good of the War Department, and with the recognized need for the full use of the ability and experience of every soldier skilled in warfare so that this war may be brought to a victorious conclusion at the earliest possible moment, this bill S. 760 may well be favorably reported by your committee, and I am hopeful that will be done. The Veterans of Foreign Wars in recent national encampments have gone on record in the adoption of unanimous resolutions calling upon the War and Navy Departments to fully utilize men who have had previous military and naval experience, and it is rather difficult for us to understand why this large number of officers, who have not reached the retirement age, who were not retired because of physical disabilities, and against whom there are no particular charges pending should not be utilized when we are crying for manpower all over the Nation. We are all familiar with the problem that the War Manpower Commission is up against in obtaining men in essential industries and the problem confronting the Selective Service System and the various military groups to round out and to bring their plans to complete fruition, and, therefore, it seems to me that the War Department could reasonably take advantage of these men. They are already being paid 75 percent retirement pay and the bringing of them back into active service would only require, approximately, a 25 percent additional outlay to take advantage of their services. And I am sure all of us can agree that these men, who have had from 15 to 19 years of experience in the military service, and many of whom have had even war service, certainly would be more valuable to the military effort than would the men who are commissioned directly from civilian life without benefit of previous military training. For those reasons, Mr. Chairman, the Veterans of Foreign Wars most certainly believe that the War Department should take advantage of these men's services. It Now, I am not qualified, perhaps, to comment on why the War Department has not done this heretofore. Maybe they have a good reason. If so, I have not been able to discover that reason. seems to me that this is one instance where the Congress can well take the initiative and direct the War Department to utilize these men, regardless if there were some petty jealousies or reasons why they were retired in the first place, and they do not want them back in the service again. If they can prove that these men are incompetent, and that they were released from duty because they did not know their stuff, that is a different matter, but until such time as they will charge these men with being incompetent, then I think, in justice to the war effort, they should restore them to active duty and permit them to give their all, if necessary, in the war effort. I might say that most of the men that will be affected by this, if returned to active service, will really make a personal sacrifice, because these men today are doing much better in civilian life than they could if returned to their commissions in the Army, which is not true of many of the Reserve officers and men who have been commissioned directly from civilian life, who have actually had an economic advantage by reason of their military service. For those reasons Veterans of Foreign Wars believe that action should be had on this bill. Senator HILL. Mr. Ketchum, do you know how many officers are involved? Mr. KETCHUM. I don't know exactly, sir. Mr. KETCHUM. I think I have some figures here. I prepared a lot of briefs on this, but I have not had time to go over them. Mr. JACKSON. I think it is, in round numbers, around a thousand. Mr. KETCHUM. I had that figure in mind, but I wanted to verify it. Yes, that is what I see here. Approximately 1,000 officers are involved. Senator HILL. Now, do you know about the average length of time these officers have been out of the service? Mr. KETCHUM. Have been out of the service? Senator HILL. Yes. Mr. KETCHUM. No, I would not know the average length of time they have been out, except that practically all of them have had between 15 and 19 years of military service. How long they have been out, I think that varies. Senator HILL. Good morning, Senator Capper. Mr. Ketchum, of the Veterans of Foreign Wars, was just testifying on your bill. He has just concluded his statement. Would you like to make a statement at this time, Senator? Senator CAPPER. Why, these boys know more about it than I do. I am for the bill. I am glad to see it up for consideration here. Do you have that statement here? Senator HILL. Yes, I have it here. Senator CAPPER. That, I thought, summed it up pretty well. It is from a man who knows what he is talking about. Senator HILL. Yes. It is a good statement. Senator CAPPER. Yes, it is. That will appear in the record, will it? Senator HILL. Yes, sir. Mr. KETCHUM. Senator Capper, I had just told the chairman here, in quite a lengthy statement, that, summed up in a few words, we believe the War Department would do well to utilize the services of these men who have had so many years of experience in the military service and who are already being paid approximately 75 percent of their active-duty pay. Senator CAPPER. Yes. Mr. KETCHUM. And it would only entail a small additional expenditure on the part of the Government to put them back into active service and utilize them. Senator CAPPER. Yes. Mr. KETCHUM. And certainly when the Nation is crying for additional manpower and skilled persons in essential industry, and also in the military service, these men should be utilized. To me it would be a shame to let these men continue to be idle and pay them 75 percent when they can be used in the military service. Senator CAPPER. I think you have a strong argument there. Mr. KETCHUM. I also stated that I don't know the reason that the War Department has not taken advantage of their services. Undoubtedly they have some reason. So far as I know, they haven't charged these men with being incompetent and unfit. Senator CAPPER. Yes. Mr. KETCHUM. They are not physically disabled and they haven't reached the retirement age and we believe they should utilize their services. Senator CAPPER. Yes. Mr. KETCHUM. I also said it will be a personal sacrifice for many of them to go back and take their commissions again. Senator ČAPPER. Yes, it will. Mr. KETCHUM. One of them is right in this room, and undoubtedly if this becomes law, he would go back to active duty and it would probably cost him a few thousand dollars a year, but he wants to go back. These men want to serve their country. They want to give the benefit of their experience to the Government. Senator CAPPER. Yes. I think it is a good measure, Senator. A good program. Senator HILL. Is there anything else you would like to add, Senator? Senator CAPPER. No, I believe not. Senator HILL. Is there anything else you would like to add, Mr. Ketchum? Mr. KETCHUM. I believe that is about all, Senator Hill. Mr. KETCHUM. I might, for the record, and for the benefit of the committee, introduce the commander of the Veterans of Foreign Wars of the United States, Robert T. Merrill, who happened to be in the city today and came up with me. Senator HILL. I am very happy to have you here, Commander. Mr. MERRILL. Thank you. Senator HILL. I take it you join in Mr. Ketchum's endorsement and argument for this bill? Mr. MERRILL. Yes, sir, Senator. Senator HILL. All right. Senator CAPPER. Senator, if you will excuse me, I will leave now. Senator HILL. I know you have other committee meetings, Senator. Senator CAPPER. Yes. This bill is in good hands here. Senator HILL. Awfully nice to have had you here, Senator. Senator CAPPER. Thank you. I appreciate the time you have given. Senator HILL. Thank you; sir. Colonel, are you prepared to testify on S. 760? Colonel PARTLOW. Yes. Senator HILL. Suppose you come around here, please, Colonel, and identify yourself for the record. STATEMENT OF LT. COL. W. D. PARTLOW, JR., MILITARY PERSONNEL DIVISION, ARMY SERVICE FORCES Colonel PARTLOW. Lt. Col. W. D. Partlow, Military Personnel Division, Army Services Forces. Senator HILL. Colonel, we will be very happy for you to make any statement you see fit on the bill. Colonel PARTLOw. Yes, sir. I presume that the purpose of the bill has already been stated by the witnesses who have preceded me. Briefly, the purpose of it is to restore to the active list a number of retired officers who were retired during the period from 1918 to January 1, 1942. Senator HILL. I don't believe the bill would take in those who were retired for physical disability. It says: * Unless such retirement was on account of physical disability, * so I don't believe that the bill would take in those who were retired for physical disability. It is line 7, page 1. Colonel PARTLOW. Yes; you are right, sir. The War Department thinks that the enactment of such a measure as S. 760 would be inadvisable for several reasons. One, of course, is that these retired officers may be recalled to active duty and may be promoted, during time of war or national emergency, to the grade in which they are utilized on active duty, and I don't know of any retired officer now on active duty who is not holding a higher grade under section 127 A of the National Defense Act which authorizes those promotions. A disturbing effect of the bill, as far as the War Department is concerned, is that it would be a departure from a long-established policy of the Congress of vesting in the War Department the determination of the professional and physical qualifications of the officers to serve in individual ranks. Enactment of the bill would be an arbitrary determination of the qualifications of those officers without regard to their actual professional and physical fitness. Many of these officers have been out of the service a number of years, and although it is appreciated that, as American citizens, they want to serve their country and are anxious to serve their country, nevertheless, under existing law they can be ordered to active duty and promoted to the ranks they can best fill and most proficiently discharge while they are on active duty in the performance of that service. Senator HILL. Frankly, this is the thing that disturbs me: Any such officer so restored to the active list of the Army and to active duty, shall, for the purposes of promotion, rank, pay, grade, and allowances and all future pay, rank, retirement, retirement rank, and other benefits, shall be held and considered to have been on the active list of the army, and on active duty during the entire period he was on the retired list, and each such officer in the grade and rank carried on the promotion list is hereby restored to his former relative place on the promotion list of the Army where he would now be had he never been retired; * * Now, do I understand that language to mean that a lieutenant, say, retired in 1920, would be called back into active service at the rank of lieutenant colonel or colonel? Colonel PARTLOW. Yes. I did not object on that point, sir, because the War Department has objected on other grounds. Senator HILL. I realize that the War Department's main objection, as I understand it, really is this, that they have the authority today to call each and every one of these officers back under the law. Colonel PARTLOW. Yes. Senator HILL. They have the authority to do it preemptorily; they do not even have to have the consent of the officer. Colonel PARTLOW. Yes, sir. Senator HILL. But they do not want the Congress to undertake by blanket legislation, so to speak, to pass on whether or not all these officers, as this would do, should preemptorily, by act of Congress or by law, be put back on the active list; is that correct? Colonel PARTLOW. Yes, sir. Since you have mentioned the point, Senator, the bill would actually be a discrimination against those officers who have remained on the active list through all these years. |