What good is accomplished by changing one code, when there are correlated codes that can give a great deal of information about the veteran to employers who as a matter of course require to see the discharge papers. Why should anyone be able to ascertain from the discharge paper things about a veteran that he might not even know himself. We wish to reiterate that where legitimate information exists that the military needs for its own records, it can be retained in the confidential file on that former serviceman held by the military, but that it would not be made public. There is no reason they should be used to reward or by inference punish these veterans. We are not only now asking that the SPN numbers be removed but also these other codes which give the same information be eliminated. Does it make sense to place a former serviceman at a disadvantage with someone who was not in the military at all? That is what we are doing when we provide an employer information, sometimes adverse, to the veteran applying for a job. These men, now veterans, certainly deserve better from us. Sincerely, EDWARD I. KOCH, ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF DEFENSE, Hon. EDWARD I. KOCH, Washington, D.C. DEAR MR. KOCH: This is in further reply to your joint letters of April 12, 1973 and April 23, 1973, with Congressman Les Aspin, regarding Separation Program Numbers and other information on discharge documents. Former Secretary Richardson has deferred any decision on this matter to Secretary-designate Schlesinger, and directed that this matter be re-studied by his staff and by the Military Services. The results of this new study should be available about July 16, 1973. In my letter of March 23, 1973, I mentioned that a new set of SPN's was due to be published by June 1, 1973. We now expect to have these new codes approved and available to the Services by July 1, 1973. The total number of SPN's will be reduced from 530 to 126. We will inform you as significant events occur. Your interest in matters pertaining to the Military Services is appreciated. Sincerely, LEO E. BENADE, Lieutenant General, USA., Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense. COMMUNICATIONS RECEIVED The unnecessary and grievous harm to an individual resulting from unfortunately common knowledge as to what the code numbers designate, and the consequent invasion of privacy which may never end for a veteran with a prejudicial SPN is graphically illustrated by the following tragic letter I received: CONGRESSMAN EDWARD I. KOCH: Congressman Koch, I am writing to you for some help you being a Veteran of World War two you know what the services are like and you know what discharges can do to people and there life in this sick society. I received a general discharge under honorable conditions September 25, 1958. Reason SDN-363-AFR-39-16 from the Air Force. I was told there wasn't anything wrong with it. I came from Alabama out to Sandiego California in January 1966 and went to work at R- Corporation in Chula Vista, Calif. three weeks after Filling out Job applicant and Security Forms listing Jobs and type of discharges received my name has been drug thru Slimmy Filth by Foreman and worker and even to Where I live and When I go to town I am treated like I have the Plague. I have been to the Veteran Administration and asked them What Is Wrong With a General discharge Under Honorable Conditions and What a AFR-39-16 Reason SDN-363 mean't they said they did not know and that I should get the Red Cross are a lawyer to help me that they couldn't. I Went to the District Attorney In Chula Vista and asked what I could do about being Slandered and If I could see R-Corporation Security File own me. He said unless I could get a Witness to Swear he heard me being slandered that I had best forget It and that R- Corporation could have a Security File own me. I asked What Would happen if I beat Hell out of them he said I could get 6 months to ten year. Plus being Sued by them. I know we are living in a sick society with all the corruption all for a dollar that is worth 21 cents. Congressman Koch the only thing I am guilty of is letting boredom and disgust and bad food and whiskey break me after 14 months of 18 month tour in England where while drunk and depressed I tried to commit suicide and if anyone says different they are a dam liar. What I need is a complete copy of everything in my Air Force files including my medical records to clear my name if there is any justice in this country. If you can help me I would appreciate it. My old Air Force number was AF Rank A2/C C.M.G. Congressman Koch you are my last hope of getting help and justice. Thank you. U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, Lt. Gen. LEO E. BENADE, Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense, Washington, D.C. DEAR GENERAL BENADE: You have indicated in your previous letters a belief that the use of SPN's on discharge certificates was for "administrative and statutory purposes" only, and that such inclusion does not offset the privasion of privacy for the veteran. I include for your edification a photocopy of the latest in a series of communications from citizens who are considerably aggrieved by the rank injustice the inclusion of SPN's have caused. The present case being submitted is especially sad, and holds the potential for real tragedy, as I think you will agree. However, for every complaint received, there are surely thousands of people who are suffering silently as a result of Defense Department policy. I reiterate my point made in earlier communications and not fully spoken to by you; not only the codes and designations of the SPN's be kept confidential, they should not be entered on the discharge certificate at all. I would very much appreciate it if you could have the submitted case investigated and communicate to me its disposition. Sincerely, EDWARD I. KOCH. CONGRESS OF THE UNITED STATES, HOWARD H. CALLAWAY, Secretary of the Army, Department of the Army, The Pentagon, Washington, D.C. DEAR MR. SECRETARY: May I congratulate you on your new appointment and confirmation as Secretary of the Army. In your thoughtful letter of May 19, 1973 you mentioned the welcoming of suggestions as to how to make the Army better. As you may be aware, I have been engaged in trying to have Separation Discharge Numbers deleted from the discharge papers of all veterans, past and present, as well as forbidding the dissemination of the SPN designation to any private person or entity. At present, the widespread knowledge of these designations especially by employers, constitutes an invasion of privacy, as well as being tantamount to a denial of due process. I am seeking both through administrative and legislative means to rectify this totally unfair practice. I urge you to make a recommendation to Secretary Schlesinger against the continuation of this policy. In addition, would you kindly send the list of new Separation Program Numbers and the study on this issue that is scheduled to be made available about July 16, 1973 according to the enclosed letter of General Benade, Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Military Manpower Policy. I wish you success in your new post and hope that we may have an open and friendly working relationship. Sincerely, EDWARD I. KOCH. ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF DEFENSE, Hon. EDWARD I. KOCH, House of Representatives, Washington, D.O. DEAR MR. KOCH: This is an additional interim reply to your joint letters of April 12, 1973, and April 23, 1973, with Congressman Les Aspin, regarding Separation Program Numbers (SPN's) and other information on discharge documents. First, our review of Separation Program Numbers and Reenlistment Codes has not been completed. You can be assured that any decisions resulting from this review will be sent to you as soon as possible. Second, the Standardization of Data Elements and Codes has been approved. While it has been approved for publication within the Services, implementation and use by the Services will not be earlier than July 1, 1974. Even this projected date may not be firm for all of the Services. The essence of this standardization is the adaptation of 126 SPN's from 530 previous SPN's of all of the Services. We will continue to keep you informed. Sincerely, LEO E. BEN ADE, Lieutenant General, USA, Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense. JULY 31, 1973. Hon. EDWARD I. KOCH, House of Representatives, Washington, D.C. DEAR MR. KOCH: The Secretary of the Army has asked me to reply to your letter concerning the Separation Program Designators. Your continuing interest in the preservation of individual privacy is appreciated and the Army shares this concern. As you are aware, the recording of Separation Program Designators is the mechanism by which the military departments certify to other interested Government agencies the nature of a veteran's service. By this procedure, the Executive branch implements the statutes providing veterans preferences for a wide range of benefits. It also serves important statistical purposes in our continuing attempt to improve our personnel management practices. Thus, the objective of our recommendations to the Department of Defense has been to attempt to strike a balance between these governmental needs and the individual's right to privacy. As an initial action, you may be interested in knowing that we have designated our current listing of Separation Program Numbers as "For Official Use Only." This was done to assist in restricting knowledge of the specific basis for separation to the government agencies that may need this information. While the final position has not been determined by the Department of Defense, we understand that a new regulation listing Separation Program Designators will also be "For Official Use Only" and will be a joint service publication for which the Department of Navy has primary proponency. The new regulation has not yet been published, but when it is, you will be provided a copy. You may be assured that this area has our continuing interest and your comments and thoughts are appreciated. Sincerely, JOHN L. NALER, Chief, Investigations and Legislative Division. JOHN L. NALER, HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, Washington, D.C., September 7, 1973. Chief, Investigations and Legislative Division, Department of the Army, Washington, D.C. DEAR MR. NALER: I have your letter with regard to SPN numbers. So what's new? You continue to defend the use of the SPN designators and the defense is based on the fact they are to be used "For Official Use Only" when you know, or at least should know, that the code becomes available to private employers. I have already stated to you that whatever information you believe to be appropriate for your files in order to provide the interested government agencies with information they need regarding the nature of a veteran's service can be maintained in a confidential file, and does not require that it be placed on the veteran's discharge paper for all to see. If only you would read some of the letters I have received from individuals who have suffered as a result of the divulgence on their SPN numbers to unauthorized persons and the consequent embarrassment to them, even you would change your mind. Sincerely, EDWARD I. KOCH, ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF DEFENSE, Hon. EDWARD I. KOCH, Washington, D.C. DEAR MR. KOCH: This letter is in further reply to your inquiry regarding Separation Program Numbers (SPN's). During his confirmation hearings before the Senate Armed Services Committee on June 18, 1973, Mr. Schlesinger deferred a final judgment on the subject of SPN's until a second Department of Defense study was completed. We have just completed this thorough review, and we have again concluded that there is no total solution which will balance the competing interests of safeguarding the rights of those who served honorably and received a favorable discharge, and, at the same time, preventing or minimizing stigmatization of those who receive adverse discharges or codes. Critics have alleged that SPN's unduly stigmatize veterans who are discharged with honorable discharges but for adverse reasons. In such cases, the nature of their service is categorized as honorable, but the individual's potential for future service is limited by the reason for discharge (e.g., inaptitude). These ex-service members are normally released prior to completing their tour enlistment. Representing this view, several bills which would delete any coding of the reason for discharge from discharge certificates have been introduced in both Houses of Congress. As a result of the previous August 1972 study, no changes were made in the basic SPN policy, although the Secretary of Defense directed that three related actions be taken: 1. SPN's were made "For Official Use Only." 2. A small number of SPN's had been supplemented by narrative explanations. These narrative explanations were removed. 3. SPN's were examined to determine whether additional SPN's were needed in order to allow more differentiation of the reasons for discharge, especially in the areas of drug and alcohol abuse. The drug abuse discharge authority was identified as requiring more differentiation to provide for administrative discharge on the basis of unsuitability or unfitness. This change is in the final stages of coordination. In addition, we have standardized the 530 SPN's of the Military Services to 126 common identifiers. These will be implemented on July 1, 1974, at the beginning of the next Fiscal Year. The most recently completed study considered a wide range of alternatives to our present policy. We concluded that in no case would a change effectively remove the stigmatization of the relatively few who are adversely discharged without significantly depriving the vast majority of veterans who are favorably discharged of their right to a military document which would provide ready assistance to veterans' benefits, civilian employment or reenlistment. For instance, if SPN's were deleted from separation documents: 1. Those adversely discharged would gain little because the reason for discharge is fact and is documented in the personnel record. The Freedom of Information Act requires that upon application of the veteran, such information must be released to him. Thus, any employer may continue to require documentation from the individual of the reason for his discharge. 2. Those favorably discharged would not have ready access to Veterans Administration benefits nor to a readily available employment reference to assist them in their transition to civilian life. Once the individual realized that this information would be of value to him he would have to apply to the Services or to the National Personnel Records Center for the information. As noted above, the Freedom of Information Act requires that the information be released to the individual. Therefore, no gain would be made over the present system. Even if SPN or reenlistment coding were deleted from the Department of Defense Form 214, “Report of Separation From Active Duty," other personnel information on the form could contain adverse implications. For instance, low rank at discharge, AWOL or confinement time, total length of service less than full enlistment, or the lack of a good conduct medal—all provide clues to the reader who is knowledgeable of military service. We thus reaffirmed our position in favor of the veteran who serves honorably and who is discharged under favorable circumstances. The DoD Form 214, the summary of pertinent personnel information including SPN's and reenlistment codes, is necessary to protect his equity in the quality of his military service. Enclosed is a fact sheet that discusses this subject in more detail. As a matter of information, an identical letter has been forwarded to Chairman John C. Stennis of the Senate Armed Services Committee and F. Edward Hébert of the House Armed Services Committee, to Senator Hughes and Symington, and to Congressman Aspin, Conyers, and Drinan, in response to their previous inquiries. I trust that this information will be of assistance to you. Your interest in matters pertaining to the military services is appreciated. Sincerely, LEO E. BENADE, Lieutenant General, U.S. Army, Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense. FACT SHEET: USE OF SEPARATION PROGRAM NUMBERS (SPN's) ON DD FORM 214 1. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: TYPES OF DISCHARGES There are three types of administrative discharges-honorable, general or undesirable-and there are eleven general grounds upon which a member may be administratively discharged from the Armed Forces: An honorable or general discharge may be issued to an individual who is separated for any of the eleven reasons. An undesirable discharge may be issued only if an individual is separated for one of the last four listed grounds. Even in these cases, however, the individual may receive an honorable or general discharge; the issuance of an undesirable discharge is permissive, not mandatory. In addition to administrative discharges, punitive discharges (bad conduct and dishonorable) are issued only as a result of sentence by court-martial. Honorable and general discharges are considered under honorable conditions; undesirable, bad conduct dishonorable discharges are under less than honorable conditions. |