cedure by its specific terms clearly encompasses them. The fact that the legislative history does not show that such cases were considered by the Congress, in the amendment to Public No. 196, 76th Congress, does not, in my opinion, affect the issue.

HELD: Assuming that the soldier would have been entitled to service-connection under ** # the laws or interpretations

66

governing this class of cases prior to March 20, 1933, *

his dependents are entitled to the benefits accorded by section 7, Public No. 866, 76th Congress, despite the fact that he may have died prior to June 7, 1924, or March 4, 1925, the dates upon which the law was amended to permit payments of compensation in misconduct cases under certain conditions. (Opinion of the Solicitor, Veterans' Administration, dated Oct. 29, 1941, approved by the Administrator on Oct. 29, 1941, XC-1,038,718.)

The foregoing decision is hereby promulgated for observance by all officers and employees of the Veterans' Administration. FRANK T. HINES,

Administrator of Veterans' Affairs.

ADMINISTRATOR'S DECISION, VETERANS' ADMINISTRATION, NO. 485 JANUARY 7, 1942.

*Subject: Section 1 (c), Public No. 198, Seventy-sixth Congress. Entitlement of child where widow is off the rolls by virtue of income.

ADMINISTRATOR'S DECISION, VETERANS' ADMINISTRATION, NO. 486 JANUARY 22, 1942.

Subject: Effect of Public No. 182, Seventy-seventh Congress, on service in the Coast Guard subsequent to August 28, 1919.

QUESTION PRESENTED: In view of Public No. 182, 77th Congress, is service in the U. S. Coast Guard after August 28, 1919, considered as World War service.

FACTS: The service person enlisted on December 1, 1895, and served continuously from that date until March 25, 1925, the date of his death. He was treated from December 21, 1920, to January 4, 1921, for a certain condition. If the period of treatment is to be held as having occurred during his World War service, his widow may be entitled to benefits under Public No. 484, 73d Congress, as amended, in lieu of benefits under part II, Veterans' Regulation No. 1 (a), as amended.

COMMENT: Public No. 182, 77th Congress, provides:

That the provisions of the laws administered by the Veterans' Administration granting pension and other benefits to veterans and their dependents

are hereby extended to the officers and enlisted men of the United States Coast Guard and their dependents for disability resulting from personal injury or disease contracted in line of duty, or for aggravation of a preexisting injury or disease contracted or suffered in line of duty, when such disability was incurred in or aggravated by active service in the U. S. Coast Guard on or after January 28, 1915, and before July 2, 1930, and for death resulting from such injury or disease, under the same regulations and restrictions as provided by law for officers and enlisted men of the U. S. Coast Guard who incurred disability in line of duty on and after July 2, 1930, or who died as the result of such disability.

SEC. 2. The administrative, penal and forfeiture provisions governing the granting of benefits, including accrued pension, under Public Law No. 2, Seventy-third Congress, approved March 20, 1933, as amended, and the Veterans' Regulations promulgated thereunder, as amended, are hereby made applicable to the benefits granted under this act: Provided, That in no event shall the benefits herein provided be awarded for any period prior to the date of enactment of this act and the date of commencement of pension granted hereunder shall be from the date of filing application in the Veterans' Administration under such regulations as the Administrator of Veterans' Affairs may prescribe.

SEC. 3. This act shall not be construed to reduce any pension or compensation under any act, public or private.

Examination of the legislative history shows that in Report No. 397, 77th Congress, 1st sess., House of Representatives, the Committee on Invalid Pensions stated that:

This bill is designed to make uniformity and to remove the discrimination that now exists relative to the granting of pensions and other benefits to the officers and enlisted men of the Coast Guard and their dependents for peacetime line of duty disability or death based upon service on and after January 28, 1915, and prior to July 2, 1930. If this bill is enacted into law in its present form, it will remove the necessity of the introduction and consideration by your committee of private bills based upon peacetime service-connected death or disability incurred in line of duty in the U. S. Coast Guard between January 28, 1915, and July 2, 1930. (Italics supplied.) In report of February 4, 1941, to the Chairman, Committee on Invalid Pensions, this Administration said:

* Since section 1 of the Act of January 28, 1915, quoted above, provides that the Coast Guard shall operate as a part of the Navy in time of war, officers and enlisted men of the Coast Guard who served as a part of the Navy during the World War from April 6, 1917 to August 28, 1919, (the effective date of the transfer back under the jurisdiction of the Treasury Department) are covered by legislation providing disability and death compensation benefits for World War veterans.

The pertinent provision of Public No. 182, 77th Congress, so far as concerns this question, is found in the language therein reading:

That the provisions of the laws administered by the Veterans' Administration granting pension and other benefits to veterans and their dependents * * under the same regulations and restrictions as provided by law for officers and enlisted men of the U. S. Coast Guard who incurred disability in line of duty on and after July 2, 1930, or who died as the result of such disability.

Service in the Coast Guard has been held to be service in the World War period during such time as the Coast Guard was under the jurisdiction of the Navy Department during the first World

War, that is, from April 6, 1917, to August 28, 1919, on which date the Coast Guard was returned to the jurisdiction of the Treasury Department.

In Administrator's Decision No. 200, the questions considered were (1) whether the Act of July 2, 1930, was retroactive and (2), whether it was repealed by Public No. 2, 73d Congress.

It was held, predicated on decisions of the Bureau of Pensions, rendered under the general pension law, that members of the Coast Guard were not in the military or naval service for pension purposes while serving under the Treasury Department. This opinion also showed by the history of the Act of July 2, 1930, that it was not retroactive. It was held that the Act of July 2, 1930, did not bring the members of the Coast Guard into the military or naval service for pension purposes, but extended the general pension laws and amendments thereto to members of the Coast Guard while serving under the Treasury Department. The Act of July 2, 1930, was not repealed by Public No. 2, 73d Congress, but the general pension law, which was the substantive law made applicable to members of the Coast Guard for disabilities incurred on or after the date thereof by the Act of July 2, 1930, was repealed by Public No. 2, 73d Congress, and the said Public No. 2, and the regulations issued pursuant thereto were substituted for the general pension law.

It follows, therefore, that Public No. 182, 77th Congress, which in effect makes the Act of July 2, 1930, retroactive to January 28, 1915, does not have any greater effect than did the Act of July 2, 1930, insofar as making service with the Treasury Department service with the military or naval forces for pension purposes. In other words, these acts do not create any military or naval status, but merely provide for payments at the rates payable under the pension laws.

HELD: That the service of persons in the Coast Guard after August 28, 1919, the date of the return of the Coast Guard to the jurisdiction of the Treasury Department, is not to be considered as World War service within the meaning of the pension. and compensation statutes. (Opinion of the Solicitor, Veterans' Administration, dated Dec. 26, 1941, approved by the Administrator Dec. 27, 1941. XC-646,123.)

The foregoing decision is hereby promulgated for observance by all officers and employees of the Veterans' Administration. FRANK T. HINES,

Administrator of Veterans' Affairs.

ADMINISTRATOR'S DECISION, VETERANS' ADMINISTRATION, NO. 487 JANUARY 29, 1942.

Subject: Entitlement under section 9, Public No. 866, Seventy-sixth Congress, where veteran married after forfeiture was declared.

QUESTION: Are the provisions of section 9, Public No. 866, 76th Congress, applicable to a wife who married the veteran after the forfeiture had been declared?

FACTS: A forfeiture of rights was declared on June 19, 1936, by reason of a violation of section 15, title I, Public No. 2, 73d Congress. The veteran who had served in the World War only was married on July 2, 1936.

COMMENT: Section 9, Public No. 866, 76th Congress, provides, in part:

* *

*

*

That when disability compensation or pension based upon service-connected disability has been forfeited by a veteran under section 504 of the World War Veterans' Act, 1924, as amended or section 15 of Public Law No. 2, Seventy-third Congress compensation or pension payable except for the forfeiture, from and after the date of suspension of payments to the veteran, shall be paid to his wife, child or children, and/or dependent parents, such payments not to exceed the amount payable in case such veteran had died from such service-connected disability:

*

Examination of the legislative history shows that in the Hearing before a subcommittee of the Committee on Finance, U. S. Senate, 76th Congress, 3d sess. on S. 3833, S. 3834, S. 3835, S. 3981, H. R. 8930 and H. R. 9000, on May 20, 1940, the Administrator of Veterans' Affairs said apropos this section that The intention apparently is to provide death benefits notwithstanding forfeiture of benefits by the veteran as distinguished from forfeiture by claimants for benefits based upon the death of the veteran.

*

*

In report No. 1814, 76th Congress, 3d sess., House of Representatives, Mr. Rankin, from the Committee on World War Veterans' Legislation, said:

Section 9 will permit the payment of compensation or pension based upon service-connected disability, to the wife, children, and dependent parents of a veteran who has forfeited the right to such benefits under the provisions of section 504 of the World War Veterans' Act, 1924, as amended, or section 15 of Public No. 2, Seventy-third Congress. Payments to the dependents would be limited to the amount payable to the veteran except for the forfeiture and so as not to exceed the amount payable in case the veteran has died from service-connected disability.

*

*

There is no reference in the legislative history to the applicaton of the section in the event the veteran is unmarried at the time of the forfeiture. To impose the requirement that the section will not be operative except that the veteran be a married man, or have the dependents named at the time of the forfeiture,

would be to impose, by interpretation, a restriction not contained in the law.

HELD: That section 9, Public No. 866, 76th Congress, is applicable without question in a case such as the present where the wife was married to the veteran before May 13, 1938, the date of Public No. 514, 75th Congress. (Opinion of Solicitor, Veterans' Administration, dated Jan. 9, 1942, approved Jan. 10, 1942, C299, 790.)

The foregoing decision is hereby promulgated for observance by all officers and employees of the Veterans' Administration. FRANK T. HINES,

Administrator of Veterans' Affairs.

ADMINISTRATOR'S DECISION, VETERANS' ADMINISTRATION, NO. 488 MARCH 25, 1942.

Subject: Effect of section 10, Public No. 360, Seventy-seventh Congress, on applications executed under Public No. 801, Seventy-sixth Congress, where health requirements have not yet been met.

QUESTION: What is the effect of Section 10, Public No. 360, 77th Congress on those cases in which applications for life insurance were executed under Public No. 801, 76th Congress, by persons in the service on October 8, 1940, and the evidence has not, as yet, been held to show that they met the health requirements of that act?

FACTS: The veterans named in the submission, five in number, were each in the service on October 8, 1940; each executed an application for National Service Life Insurance within 120 days following the enactment of Public No. 801, 76th Congress. As each veteran had entered the service prior to October 8, 1940, it was necessary that the test of "good health" be met prior to the approval of the application. Requests were made for the submission of the necessary evidence. Three of the veterans are on duty in the Philippine Islands, one is on foreign duty with the address not clear, and the fifth is on board a vessel which is apparently at sea. The question, accordingly, is whether, since it is not possible in any of the cases to advise the veteran of his right to apply for insurance under section 602 (d) (1) of the National Service Life Insurance Act, as amended, and as the veterans probably have no means of knowing that the original application, executed under Public No. 801, 76th Congress, is incomplete, may it be held that the application executed under Public No. 801, is an application within the purview of Public No. 360, 77th Congress.

710225m 46 -46