[No. 180] HEARING ON S. 397 FOR THE RELIEF OF LT. (JR. GR.) SVEND J. SKOU HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, SUBCOMMITTEE ON PRIVATE BILLS No. 1, COMMITTEE ON NAVAL AFFAIRS, Washington, D. C., Wednesday, February 16, 1944. The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:30 a. m., the Honorable Michael J. Bradley presiding, for consideration of S. 397, which is as follows: [S. 397, 78th Cong., 1st sess.] AN ACT For the relief of Lieutenant (Junior Grade) Svend J. Skou Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That the retired pay of Lieutenant (Junior Grade) Svend J. Skou, United States Navy, retired, shall be three-fourths of the highest pay of his grade: Provided, That no back pay or allowances shall be held to have accrued under the provisions of this Act prior to the date of its enactment. Passed the Senate May 20, 1943. Attest: EDWIN A. HALSEY, Secretary. Mr. BRADLEY. The next is S. 397, an act for the relief of Lt. (Jr. Gr.) Svend J. Skou. The report is as follows: Hon. CARL VINSON, Chairman of the Committee on Naval Affairs, MY DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: The bill (S. 397) for the relief of Lt. (Jr. Gr.) Svend J. Skou, was referred to the Navy Department by your committee with request for comment and recommendation. The purpose of the bill S. 397 is to provide that the retired pay of Lt. (Jr. Gr.) Svend J. Skou, United States Navy, retired, shall be three-fourths of the highest pay of his grade. The records of the Navy Department show that Chief Boatswain Svend J. Skou, United States Navy, retired, was retired on December 1, 1935, in accordance with the provision of the act of January 28, 1929, as amended by the act of April 23, 1930 (46 Stat. 253), having reached the statutory retirement age of 64 years. He was advanced to the rank of lieutenant (junior grade) on the same date, December 1, 1935, in accordance with the act of June 21, 1930 (46 Stat. 793). At the time of his retirement, Lieutenant Skou had completed more than 42 years of active service, but he had only 15 years' commissioned service to his credit for the purpose of computation of active-duty pay. He received retired pay at the rate of 75 percent of the active-duty pay he was receiving at the time of retirement, which amounted to $2,250 per year. If he had retired voluntarily before reaching the age of 64 years, in accordance with the provisions of the act of May 13, 1908 (35 Stat. 128), he would have received retired pay at the rate of 75 percent of the highest pay of his grade, or $2,700 per year. He, therefore, receives less retired pay than other chief warrant officers with much less service who were retired on their own application. In other words, because he continued to serve he is getting less money than if he had retired voluntarily. As a general policy, the Navy Department does not consider that any officer should receive greater retired pay than three-fourths of his active-duty pay at the time of his retirement. In order to eliminate the discrimination noted above, (1301) 94266-44-No. 180 the Navy Department requested the legislation provided in S. 1529, Seventyseventh Congress, which bill passed the Senate on June 15, 1941, but failed to pass the House during that Congress. In view of the fact that the Congress has recently enacted legislation to count all service, enlisted and commissioned, for pay purposes for practically all military and naval personnel (sec. 15, par. 4, of the Pay Act of 1942, approved June 16, 1942, Public Law 607), the Navy Department is of the opinion that a person who has completed 42 years' active service, which period has been characterized by efficiency, loyalty, and marked devotion to duty, should not receive less retired pay than other persons with much less service. The bill, S. 397, if enacted into law, would involve an additional cost to the Government of $450, the difference between $2,250 and $2,700. The Navy Department recommends enactment of the bill S. 397. The Navy Department has been advised by the Bureau of the Budget that there would be no objection to the submission of this recommendation. Sincerely yours, I think that is a very good bill. RALPH A. BARD, Acting. Mr. GRANT. I do, too, and I have a question I would like to ask the captain along that line. I have a bill pending which applies not only to the Navy, but to all branches of the service, and consequently it has been referred to the Military Affairs Committee, and it would have the effect of counting in some service for longevity that is not now counted in longevity. As I understand the law today the Reserve officer of many years standing who went to camp many years during the summertime intermittently while in civilian life, that all of that time counts in determining his longevity, does it not? Captain HEDERMAN. Yes, sir. Mr. GRANT. Is there any reason why you should not count the 4 years that a man spends at the Naval Academy? Captain HEDERMAN. No, sir. Mr. GRANT. You would be for my bill, then, Captain? Captain HEDERMAN. Yes, sir. Mr. BRADLEY. Off the record. (Discussion off the record.) Mr. BRADLEY. Captain, can you tell me this, is there any provision of law at the present time working to the disadvantage of chief warrant officers with respect to longevity pay? Captain HEDERMAN. Yes, sir. The present Pay Readjustment. Act, as amended, does work against chief warrant officers, and H. R. 1506, which has passed the House and is now pending in the Senate, will take care of that. Mr. BRADLEY. It will take care of the situation with respect to those officers on duty at the present time? Captain HEDERMAN. Yes, sir. Mr. BRADLEY. Well, I think we ought to do that very quickly. What is the pleasure of the committee as to S. 397? Mr. GRANT. I move that it be reported favorably. Mr. BRADLEY. Without objection, it will be reported favorably, and the clerk will draw up the report. (Thereupon, at 12:20 p. m., the committee adjourned until Friday, February 18, 1944, at 10 a. m.) о [No. 181) HEARING ON S. 391 FOR THE RELIEF OF JACK LECEL HAAS HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, SUBCOMMITTEE ON PRIVATE BILLS No. 1, COMMITTEE ON NAVAL AFFAIRS, Washington, D. C., Wednesday, February 16, 1944. (The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:30 a. m., the Honorable Michael J. Bradley presiding, for consideration of S. 391, which is as follows:) [S. 391, 78th Cong., 1st sess.] AN ACT For the relief of Jack Lecel Haas Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That in the administration of any laws conferring rights, privileges, or benefits upon persons honorably discharged from the United States Navy, their widows, children, and dependent relatives, Jack Lecel Haas shall be held and considered to have been discharged with a good discharge, under honorable conditions on April 27, 1928: Provided, That no pension, pay, bounty, or other benefit shall be held to have accrued prior to the enactment of this Act by reason of its enactment. Passed the Senate May 20, 1943. EDWIN A. HALSEY, Secretary. Mr. BRADLEY. We have next for consideration S. 391, an act for the relief of Jack Lecel Haas. The report is as follows: [No. 116] FOR THE RELIEF OF JACK LECEL HAAS (S. 391) Hon. CARL VINSON, NAVY DEPARTMENT, Chairman of the Committee on Naval Affairs, House of Representatives. MY DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: The bill (S. 391) for the relief of Jack Lecel Haas, was referred by your committee to the Navy Department with request for views and recommendation relative to this measure. The purpose of this bill is to consider Jack Lecel Haas to have been discharged with a good discharge, under honorable conditions on April 27, 1928. The records of the Navy Department show that Jack Lecel Haas was born on October 22, 1902, and first enlisted in the Navy on December 4, 1922, to serve for 4 years. His record shows the following: "April 22, 1923: Failing to stand watch. "May 21, 1923: Absent over liberty 18 hours and 20 minutes. by summary court martial. He was convicted by deck court. "February 12, 1926: Absent over liberty 4 hours and 30 minutes. He was convicted by deck court. "December 31, 1926: Honorably discharged." Haas reenlisted in the Navy on January 23, 1928, and at that time stated under oath he was a single man and executed a beneficiary slip to that effect. Approximately 1 week after Haas reenlisted his wife visited the Navy Department for the purpose of having him discharged from the Navy in order that he could take a civil-service position at the Navy Yard, Washington, D. C. Mrs. Haas was advised that the only grounds on which such discharge could be made was that of (1303) 94266-44-No. 181 urgent dependency. On March 19, 1928, Haas submitted a request for specialorder discharge based on the dependency of his wife. Because of this man's false statement regarding his marital status at the time of his reenlistment the Navy Department directed that he be discharged as undesirable because of fraudulent enlistment and he was issued such character of discharge on April 27, 1928, at Hampton Roads, Va. Inasmuch as Haas, when he reenlisted, held a second class petty officer's rating and could, therefore, have been reenlisted in spite of the fact that he was married, the Navy Department considers that his statements regarding his marital status were not intentionally false. Further, under the present policy, and the same conditions as obtained in this case, the Navy Department would not discharge Haas as undesirable. This bill, if enacted into law, would result in no cost to the Navy; however, it is probable that a charge under the Veterans' Administration would be involved now or in the future. The Navy Department interposes no opposition to the enactment of the bill S. 391. The Navy Department has been advised by the Bureau of the Budget that there would be no objection to the submission of this report. Sincerely yours, RALPH A. BARD, Acting. Mr. BRADLEY. If he was eligible to reenlist without regard to that statement I think we ought to give him the benefit of what the law gave him. Mr. BLACKNEY. I move that the bill be reported favorably. Mr. BRADLEY. The Department interposes no objection to this bill? Captain HEDERMAN. No, sir. As a matter of fact I go one step further and say that the Navy Department recommends its adoption. (Thereupon the committee proceeded to the consideration of other business.) о |