Page images
PDF
EPUB

ROTC class, who were not qualified for flying training, could be commissioned and ordered to active duty.

The remaining graduates were given certificates of completion of the ROTC course and were offered the following options:

1. Appointment as an officer in the District of Columbia's Air National Guard followed by active duty for training in State status, under section 99 of the National Defense Act.

2. Enlistment in the Air Force in the grade of airman, third class, for 2 years, with subsequent commissioning in the Air Force Reserve on completion of such enlistment.

3. Remain in civilian status and await possible selective service induction.

Those graduates who selected enlistment in the Air Force or who remained in a civilian status would not be affected by S. 2235.

The other major category, namely, those 3,500 who accepted appointment in the Air National Guard of the District of Columbia, fall into two groups: the first group, which numbers approximately 1,500, were ordered to duty for training under section 99 of the National Defense Act before February 1, 1955; the remaining 2,000 were ordered to duty for training under that section on or after February 1, 1955. Since eligibility for benefits under the Korean GI bill could not be accrued after January 31, 1955, only those 1,500 ordered to duty on or before that date would be affected by S. 2235.

The Air Force position in opposition to S. 2235 is based on the fact that there is a fundamental distinction between normal active Federal military service and training duty. The ROTC graduates in question were ordered to training duty as members of the Air National Guard. When such persons are ordered to such duty they

are

(a) Not subject to the Uniform Code of Military Justice;
(6) Not subject to overseas assignment;

(c) Not subject to being designated as accountable or disbursing officers, certifying officers, adjutants, or members of courts-martial:

(d) Not authorized to exercise any command function.

It is the view of the Air Force that the service of these individuals differs in no major respect from the service of any other individual who served on active duty for for training during the Korean emergency.

The Congress, in enacting the Korean GI bill of rights, provided the benefits in question to persons who served in the "active service" during the emergency. As I previously pointed out, the 1954 ROTC graduates in question were not subject to many of the normal hazards and responsibilities associated with active service nor to many of the wartime risks, such as family dislocation or separation and death or injury in combat, which the GI bill was intended to alleviate. Further, they were advised that their duty status under section 99 precluded them from becoming eligible for veterans' benefits which were available to others called to active military service and, presumably, this advice was taken into consideration by them in deciding which option to select. Accordingly, it is the Department of Defense view that the benefits in question should not be extended to them. Further, the extension of these benefits to these individuals would immediately

give rise to claims for similar treatment for other trainees of the Army and Air National Guard, and to other categories of persons who performed service which may be similar in some respects to active Federal military service. Therefore, enactment of this bill will serve as a basis for claims for comparable treatment by these other groups whose service is not recognized as qualifying under the definition of active Federal military service.

Finally, Mr. Chairman, we must consider the impact of this legislation upon the classmates of these individuals who chose to fulfill their military obligation by enlisting in the Air Force as airmen, third class, in order to accrue eligibility for these benefits. These individuals gave up the pay, emoluments, and privileges associated with the grade of second lieutenant and suffered a permanent loss of seniority and promotion precedence in the Air Force Reserve.

In summary, the problem involved here is not one of correcting an inequity in law affecting a small number of people, but is rather an attempt at this late date to revise carefully developed plans and alternatives which were entered into in good faith by all parties and to disturb the equity of treatment created at that time. In view of the combinations of advantages and disadvantages which accrued to each individual involved as a result of his own personal selection, it is the opinion of the Department of Defense that the present situation represents equity of treatment for all concerned and should not be disturbed.

This concludes my statement, Mr. Chairman.
Senator YARBOROUGH. Do you have any questions?
Senator GOLDWATER. Yes, just a few here, Colonel.
There were 3,500 altogether; is that correct?

Colonel BERG. Yes.

Senator GOLDWATER. Is that in the entire country?
Colonel BERG. That is right, sir.

Senator GOLDWATER. How could they be taken into the Air National Guard of the District of Columbia?

Colonel BERG. And utilized in the Air National Guard?

Senator GOLDWATER. No. How could they, under any training table that you have, take care of that many men in a guard unit? Or were they merely assigned for training?

Colonel BERG. They were merely assigned for training.

Senator GOLDWATER. Did they come here from all over the country? Mr. MINOR. Sir, they were never brought here. This was a legal device. They were appointed in the Air National Guard of the District of Columbia because there was no residence requirement. Then they were ordered for training from wherever they were. Senator GOLDWATER. I see.

How long a time were they in service?

Colonel BERG. Normally, for 3 years.

Senator GOLDWATER. Do you still use the same procedure to take care of men around the country, assigning them to the Air National Guard here for training?

Colonel BERG. No, sir. This was a one-time affair, Senator Goldwater. We have never had this same thing occur since then.

Senator GOLDWATER. Did any of these men go through pilot train

ing?

it is my under

Colonel BERG. The ones we were speaking about, standing that none of them did, sir.

Senator GOLDWATER. It is the Air Force's feeling, then, that if it is done for these men, it would have to be done for all other similar reservists who have gone on duty after the expiration date of the Korean G.I. bill; is that correct?

Colonel BERG. No, sir. It is our opinion that we would have to do it for all people who went on duty during the time that eligibility could be accrued who were in a similar status with these people on active duty for training.

Senator GOLDWATER. But it could also logically be applied to any others who have gone on duty since. If we say that we can do it for this group, then the other groups could logically expect the same treatment.

Colonel BERG. I think other groups could expect the same treatment, but with regard to the Korean GI bill, the time that it expires has a definite bearing on this problem, sir.

Senator GOLDWATER. That is true. But if we extend it for this particular group, would it not be logical to think that the other groups who have gone on duty since that time would expect the same reatment?

Colonel BERG. Yes, that could be.

Senator GOLDWATER. In other words, if we pass this bill, we are establishing a precedent.

Colonel BERG. That is correct; yes, sir.

Senator GOLDWATER. And I think that completely negates the idea of the termination of the GI bill.

Colonel BERG. That is correct, sir.

Senator GOLDWATER. Mr. Chairman, that is all I have. I think the Air Force has taken the proper position in this matter. I do not like to see these bills come up here for special treatment for peacetime service, where the peacetime veteran is extended the same benefits as the wartime veteran. We have had quite a rash of these bills, and I would like to see the day come when we have our young men recognize that service to their country does not necessarily carry a lifetime pay check with it. I am speaking of peacetime service.

Senator YARBOROUGH. This group, Colonel, were appointed at a time when, had they been eligible, there were veterans' benefits applicable?

Colonel BERG. That is right.

Senator YARBOROUGH. The Presidential proclamation did not terminate veterans' training for the Korean conflict except for those who entered service after February 1, 1955; is that not correct?

Colonel BERG. That is right, sir.

Senator YARBOROUGH. S. 1138, that passed the Senate last year and is pending in the House, the post-Korean cold war GI bill, would not apply to this type of training, anyway, would it? It does not apply to the 6 months' trainees, the present pending cold war GI bill? Colonel BERG. No.

Senator GOLDWATER. These are not 6 months' trainees.
Mr. MINOR. It is the nearest thing comparable to this.
Senator GOLDWATER. They are 3-year trainees.

Senator YARBOROUGH. But these were on active duty only for training, not for general service.

Colonel BERG. That is correct.

Senator YARBOROUGH. And they would not be covered by S. 1138, the cold war GI bill?

Colonel BERG. To the best of my knowledge, that is correct.

Senator YARBOROUGH. S. 1138 covers men on active duty; the bill under consideration here, S. 2235, concerns a group of men, all of whom were on "active duty for training," and therefore not covered by S. 1138.

Colonel BERG. That is correct.

Senator YARBOROUGH. Colonel, on page 2 you deal with the three categories of those who finished this ROTC course in 1954, and category 2 is those who, despite the fact that they graduated from the ROTC course, enlisted in the Air Force in the grade of airman third class for 2 years, with subsequent commissioning in the Air Force Reserve upon completion of that enlistment.

Those that enlisted went out for full duty, to whatever post they might be assigned?

Colonel BERG. That is right.

Senator YARBOROUGH. You point out in this statement that they would be eligible for veterans' benefits under the Korean GI bill; and that is one reason they took an enlisted status, rather than to take an Air National Guard commission.

Colonel BERG. That is very correct.

Senator YARBOROUGH. How many were there in that category 2? Colonel BERG. There were about 400, sir.

Senator YARBOROUGH. And your position is that since they took an enlisted status, while their classmates took the training status to get their commissions directly, they would be prejudiced if this bill were passed?

Colonel BERG. That is correct, sir.

Senator YARBOROUGH. I have no further questions.

Senator GOLDWATER. I just want to make it clear that the men who did not take the alternative of enlisting as an airman third class knew full well that they would not come under the GI bill. Am I correct in that?

Colonel BERG. They were told that at the time they so elected; yes, sir.

Senator GOLDWATER. I have no further questions.

Senator YARBOROUGH. I have no further questions.

Thank you, gentlemen, for your clarification of this matter.

The next witness listed is Mr. Ray P. Bland, Director of the Legislative Projects Service II of the Veterans' Administration.

Mr. Bland, if you will, just introduce your staff; you are appearing on all three bills; are you not?

Mr. BLAND. That is correct, Mr. Chaiman.

STATEMENT OF RAY P. BLAND, DIRECTOR, LEGISLATIVE PROJECTS SERVICE II, VETERANS' ADMINISTRATION, ACCOMPANIED BY W. B. GUNDLACH, ASSISTANT DIRECTOR, VOCATIONAL REHABILITATION SERVICE, DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS' BENEFITS; A. T. BRONAUGH, ASSISTANT DIRECTOR, LEGISLATIVE PROJECTS SERVICE II; AND MARLIN W. BOWERS, ACTING DIRECTOR, MEDICAL ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICE, DEPARTMENT OF MEDICINE AND SURGERY

Senator YARBOROUGH. You may proceed in your own way.

Mr. BLAND. Mr. Chairman and Senator Goldwater may name is R. P. Bland. I am Director of a legislative service in the Office of the General Counsel of Veterans' Administration. I am accompanied here this morning by two representatives of the program departments affected by the bills. Mr. W. B. Gundlach, immediately to my left, who is the Assistant Director of the Vocational Rehabilitation Service of the Department of Veterans' Benefits; to my right, Mr. M. W. Bowers of the Department of Medicine and Surgery; to my extreme left, Mr. A. T. Bronaugh, who is an Assistant Director of a legislative service in the Office of the General Counsel.

Mr. Chairman, we appreciate the opportunity to appear here today and present our views on the bills which you are now considering. I shall discuss each of these bills briefly-indicating their principal effects and summarizing the Administrator's views as contained in the formal reports to the committee. We assume these reports will be made a part of the record. Representatives of the program departments will then be glad to furnish any additional information you may desire.

The first bill, Mr. Chairman, is S. 299, a bill for the relief of Dalworth C. Ebner.

This is a private bill for the relief of Dalworth C. Ebner. This bill would afford Mr. Ebner, a World War II veteran, additional time to pursue vocational rehabilitation training. The deadline for pursuit of such training has expired in his case. If the bill is enacted, however, it would enable him to train for a period of approximately 28 months.

Mr. Ebner was discharged from service in 1945, but did not make himself available for vocational training until the summer of 1953. Since under the law his training had to be completed by July 25, 1956, it was necessary that he carry a full load of courses. On March 8, 1954, without the knowledge or consent of his training officer, Mr. Ebner discontinued a portion of the curriculum, although he had previously been counseled that deviation from the agreed schedule would jeopardize his training. After Mr. Ebner declined to resume the dropped courses and devote full time to his schooling, his training was discontinued on March 20, 1954.

On June 14, 1954, he reentered training for another occupation, which training could have been completed prior to July 25, 1956. He voluntarily withdrew in December 1954 to enter full-time employment.

« PreviousContinue »