In the opinion of the Commission, the reasons for issuing undesirable discharges are such as to warrant depriving the person so discharged of any veterans' benefits. Furthermore, the procedures followed by the services in connection with the issuance of such discharges appear to be fair and have been designed to prevent injustices. Moreover, the statutory provisions for the review of discharges by discharge review board affords ample appellate review. A survey of action taken by the Veterans' Administration in 415 cases of veterans given undesirable discharges during the period of July 1, 1953-June 30, 1954, discloses that 32 were found eligible for veterans' benefits. In each of the cases in which favorable action was taken it appears that the result might have been different if the case had been considered in some other regional office. Recommendation No. 63 An undesirable discharge for an enlisted man and discharge under other than honorable conditions for an officer should render the veteran ineligible for benefits based upon the period of service from which he was so discharged, except for transportation to his home or place of entry into military service. If, however, he has suffered a service-connected disability under circumstances unrelated to the discharge, the obligation of the Government should include necessary hospitalization by the Veterans' Administration and disability compensation. Bad Conduct Discharge When the Servicemen's Readjustment Act was passed in 1944, summary court-martial in the Navy could impose bad conduct discharges but no such discharges were then authorized in the Army, which at that time included the Air Force. When the Uniform Code of Military Justice became effective in 1951, it authorized in all services a punitive discharge called a bad conduct discharge, which could be imposed by either a general or a special court-martial. While there are differences in trial procedure between general and special courts-martial, the appellate procedure for a case involving a bad conduct discharge is essentially the same in either case. This appellate procedure includes a review by a board of review in the service department concerned and the right to petition the United States Court of Military Appeals. There is a difference, however, in the effect a bad conduct discharge has on veterans' benefits, depending upon the type of court-martial. If the discharge is imposed by a general courtmartial, the person so discharged is ineligible for veterans' benefits under the provisions of section 300 of the Servicemen's Readjustment Act of 1944. On the other hand, if the discharge is imposed by a special court-martial, the veteran's eligibility is subject to adjudication by the Veterans' Administration under the provisions of section 1503. If the discharge is held by the Veterans' Administration to have been under conditions other than dishonorable, the veteran is entitled to benefits. This inequality respecting veterans' benefits is emphasized by the practice of the Army in using general courts-martial almost exclusively for the trial of cases likely to result in sentences involving a bad conduct discharge. The Commission feels that a person who is given a bad conduct discharge does not deserve veterans' benefits regardless of whether such discharge is imposed by a general or a special court-martial. In either case, the safeguards thrown around an accused by the Uniform Code of Military Justice are adequate to prevent a miscarriage of justice, and no further review by the Veterans' Administration is warranted. A survey of action taken by the Veterans' Administration in 184 cases of veterans given bad conduct discharges during the period July 1, 1952-June 30, 1954, disclosed that only 5 were found by the Veterans' Administration to have been separated under conditions other than dishonorable and therefore eligible for benefits. Recommendation No. 64 (a) A bad conduct discharge, whether imposed by a general or a special court-martial, should render a veteran ineligible for any benefits based upon the period of service from which so discharged. (b) A veteran receiving either an undesirable or a bad conduct discharge should be furnished transportation in kind to his home or place of entry into the military service. VETERANS IN PENAL INSTITUTIONS During consideration of discharge requirements for veterans' benefits, it has come to the attention of the Commission that under existing law there is no authority to reduce compensation or other benefits payable to a veteran who is confined in a State or Federal prison or other similar institutions not under the jurisdiction of the Veterans' Administration. There would appear to be strong public policy grounds against making such payments except perhaps for dependents. The argument is especially strong with respect to non-service-connected pensions which are based on need. The Commission has not had facilities to make a study of this problem. Recommendation No. 65 A thorough study should be made with respect to what, if any, compensation, pension, or similar payments should be made to veterans while receiving hospital or domiciliary care at public expense or while incarcerated in penal institutions. Chapter XIII ADMINISTRATION Veterans will receive the full benefit of programs adopted in their behalf by the Congress only if the efficiency and sense of mission of the Veterans' Administration are adequate to the responsibilities placed on it. In the matter of administrative efficiency, the Commission has nothing to add to the numerous surveys and investigations made of the Veterans' Administration in recent years. On the whole, a reasonably effective--if not always economical-job has been done furnishing veterans with the benefits intended by the Congress. The Commission, however, believes a positive contribution to the welfare of veterans can be achieved by broadening and modernizing the Veterans' Administration's concept of mission. At present, the Veterans' Administration is imbued with a tradition which limits its functions largely to administration of existing laws. This falls short of what is required by the expanding role of the veteran in our changing society. The Commission further believes that the importance of veterans' affairs in the Government as a whole deserves more across-the-board consideration than it presently receives. Likewise, that fundamental changes should be made in the scope of the authority Congress has placed in the hands of the Administrator of Veterans' Affairs. In Executive Order 10588 establishing this Commission, and in subsequent communications to the chairman, the President directed special attention to administrative aspects of veterans' affairs. Such issues have direct impact on the everyday welfare of many million veterans and their dependents as well as on our society as a whole. In the view of the Commission both a broadening of the basic administrative philosophy as well as changes of an organizational nature are of utmost importance. THE ROLE OF THE ADMINISTRATOR In examining the role of the Administrator of Veterans' Affairs the Commission has been mindful of the scope of his assignment. Under the Administrator's direction, the Veterans' Administration spends more than $5 billion a year in budget and trust funds. He directs 178,000 employees in a central office and in a nationwide network of over 500 field stations, including 170 hospitals. Through this network many programs affecting 22 million veterans and their dependents are administered. Disability compensation and pensions are paid to more than 2.6 million beneficiaries at an annual cost of $2.0 billion. Over a million dependents of deceased veterans receive more than $650 million a year. Approximately 800,000 veterans are now receiving $700 million in educational and training benefits annually. The Veterans' Administration insurance and hospital programs are the biggest in the United States, if not in the world. In carrying out the duties thrust on him by these programs, the Administrator deals with some of the most powerful and most complex forces influencing society as a whole: 1. The effect on the national economy of the tremendous sums of money disbursed for veterans' benefits. 2. The effect of fluctuations in the national economy on the needs of veterans. 3. The impact of technological progress on such factors as health, length of life, employability of the handicapped, educational needs, and public psychology—all of which affect the needs of veterans for special benefits. 4. "Cold war," international police actions, civil defense and civilian exposure to risk in case of atomic war, as these new factors relate to the growing number of veterans and their changing status. 5. Great problems in developing consistency and common purpose in the many large and interrelated programs which the Veterans' Administration operates through its three departments and their various services. |