STATEMENT OF CHARLES W. STEVENS, ASSISTANT DIRECTOR, NATIONAL REHABILITATION COMMISSION, THE AMERICAN LEGION Mr. STEVENS. Mr. Chairman, the American Legion appreciates this opportunity to inform the members of this committee of its views on H. R. 1181, which would amend section 207 of the Legislative Reorganization Act of 1946– Public Law 601, Seventy-ninth Congress, approved August 2, 1946—so as to authorize payment of claims arising from the correction of military or naval records. The existing law would be amended substantially in the best interest of all concerned. It fixes a time limit for filing applications for corrective action, namely, 10 years from date of the enactment or 3 years after discovery by the person concerned of the error or injustice, which ever is later. It is a reasonable limitation, for the bill further provides that failure to file within the three years may be excused by the board when it finds this would be in the interest of justice. This bill, as passed by the House of Representatives on July 2, 1951, is remedial in that it empowers the secretaries of the executive departments to authorize settlements and payments of benefits which become due as records are corrected. It also provides that corrections made are final and conclusive except where procured by fraud. The civilian boards created by the act of August 2, 1946, have done a good job. They have been painstaking in their reviews of the records of the individuals who have appealed to them for redress. The American Legion has furnished counsel without fee to a large number of veterans in the past 5 years when appointed by the applicants as their representative. We have first-hand knowledge of the type of cases reviewed by these boards in the Army, Navy, Air Force, and Coast Guard. No one is infallible. Certainly, with a large Military Establishment, there are bound to be errors made and injustices done. The establishment of boards for the correction of military or naval records has proved a boon to many. It is our belief that equitable decisions are made in those cases in which these boards assume jurisdiction. There is no question, in our minds, but that the Congress intended that wrongs would be righted completely when a finding is made that there was an error committed or an injustice done which should be rectified. However, up to now all the boards could do was to inform the Secretary that an error required correction. His approval of the finding, in the case for example where a veteran was entitled to an honorable discharge, although mistakenly convicted by a general court martial and separated dishonorably from the service, permitted the issuance of the certificate attesting honorable termination of service. In such a case, there was no authority conferred on the Secretary to authorize restitution where monteary benefits were involved. It has been found in some of these cases that fines were levied and that there was incarceration of extended duration which were unjustified in the light of the evidence subsequently developed. As a matter of fact, the person in active service would have continued to perform service had he not been erroneously convicted. He should be entitled to recover the monies seized and to payment for service while under military or naval control. It is money due him that cannot be paid under interpretations of existing law. The Comptroller General held that section 207 of the Legislative Reorganization Act of 1946 does not vest in the department heads, or in his office, any authority to order or direct the allowance or payment of any claim for money, based on corrections made in the military or naval records. The Attorney General has held that such payments cannot be made. What this bill seeks to do is to provide a remedy and, I must say, there is an urgent need for its early enactment. The money that will be paid from appropriations, following approval of this enactment, will be that which would have been paid except for a miscarriage of justice initially. It can be said then that there is in reality no cost involved except such minor administrative costs as are made necessary in righting the wrongs. It is our firm belief that when a Secretary approves the findings of a board that there was a mistake made then such monetary benefits as would have been otherwise payable, except for the error, should be awarded. It is believed that Congress wanted this done, as section 131 of the act in question provided that no private bill or resolution bearing on this matter should be received or considered in either the Senate or House. The Congress wanted to rid itself of the task of inquiring into the merits of the individual cases and so created, in section 207, a vehicle to accomplish the purpose. It will be recalled that when the Congress would direct the correction of an erroneous record it would also authorize and direct the payment of such moneys as were involved. I want to mention particularly a most appealing type of case. There have been instances in which belatedly entitlement to retirement pay is admitted, although originally faulty records or human error has caused a denial of the benefit to which there was an unquestionable entitlement. Men have been disabled in combat and the tardy assembly of their records due to situations existing at the time of their separation from service, over which neither they nor the services had control, or a lack of knowledge of the rights of the individual on the part of one or more officials, caused them to be released for some reason other than disability when honorable separation for disability would have meant the award of retirement pay. When it is eventually determined by a properly constituted board that there was an entitlement to retirement pay by virtue of disability resulting directly from active service, the question arises as to whether the benefit may actually be awarded and paid either prospectively or retroactively. It is our fixed opinion that, when such a finding is made, there should be full authority granted the Secretary to authorize the award and to fix a date from which it should commence. This is certainly equitable and it is our sincere hope that the committee in its thorough study of H. R. 1181 will make certain that the intent of the Congress is clearly expressed. It is indubitably the will of the Congress that errors be corrected and that no one be deprived unjustly of that which is his due. Thank you. AUTHORIZING PAYMENT OF CLAIMS 11 Senator HUNT. Thank you. STATEMENT OF ADIN M. DOWNER, ASSISTANT LEGISLATIVE COUNSEL FOR THE VETERANS OF FOREIGN WARS Mr. DoWNER. Mr. Chairman, I am sorry I do not have a prepared statement. I would like to inform you that at the Fifty-seventh Annual Encampment of the Veterans of Foreign Wars, held in New York City last month, our encampment unanimously endorsed H. R. 1181. I might cite to you an example of a case that was handled by our claims service under section 207, which brings out how flagrantly justice has been violated at times during the stress of war. We had the case of an Army major bound up, lying dead in his quarters with a .45-caliber slug through the middle of his forehead, and two .45-caliber slugs through the heart. During wartime the finding was made by the Army that death was suicide and misconduct. I have an example contained in a statement I made before the House committee considering the bill, which I think is apropos. Assume that A and B each died while in service. In the case of A it was determined he died in the line of duty and not as a result of misconduct. In the case of B it was determined that death was not in line of duty and resulted from the misconduct of B. The Government paid to the widow of A the 6 months' death gratuity; to the widow of B the Government paid nothing. Assume that the appropriate board under section 207 has now determined the death of B was in line of duty and not the result of misconduct. This amounts to a determination that the Government has withheld from the widow of B a sum of money which was justly and properly due her many years before. It is also a determination that the widow of A and the widow of B are in the same position. The Government has paid the widow of A, but will not pay the widow of B. This is not only refusal by the Government to meet a just and binding obligation, it is also a discrimination between persons, and revolting to our sense of justice. I have no hesitancy in informing you that the Veterans of Foreign Wars unqualifiedly endorse the bill. Senator HUNT. I thank you. Senator HUNT. Mr. Tausig. MOWER Mr. TAUSIG. I represent here Col. Clarence Mower. I come to testify in support of the bill and particularly with regard to an amendment which the House made in considering this bill. That amendment is found on page 3 of H. R. 1181, where the House struck out, beginning on line 7 through line 10. The proviso so struck read as follows: Provided further, That where the amount so found is in excess of $1,000, no payment in any amount shall be made unless specifically authorized in our appropriation act. I represented Colonel Mower before the Air Force Board for the Correction of Military Records. Without going into the details of the case, let me say that the Board has corrected his records and restored him to rank. He was, as the evidence before the Board shows, I believe, as the Board found, (1) he was deprived of due process of law in that when he was charged with the offense for which he was reduced in rank, he asked for counsel and was denied counsel; he asked for a court martial, and he was denied a court martial; he asked for a board of officers to be convened at the place where his offense was alleged to have occurred, and that was denied. He was summarily reduced in rank. I think the Board was satisfied with the evidence we produced at that time and found that the offenses charged were erroneous and had no merit. In any event, Colonel Mower was reduced from the rank of full colonel, temporary colonel, to the rank of captain and then subsequently promoted to the rank of lieutenant colonel, temporary grade. It took from 1944, at the time he was reduced in rank, to gather evidence to support his claim that he was treated unjustly, until 1949— in other words, 5 years. The Board then finally corrected his records and restored him to rank. Now, he should have been drawing pay of a full colonel during that time. The House has, as I said, struck this provision which would prevent him from getting the payment due him except by private bill, and we feel justice to him is the same as justice to any others affected hereby, and even though his claim is for more than a thousand dollars, he should be paid administratively and not be forced to come back to Congress with a special bill. There are other officers in the same situation, and we believe they are entitled to the same treatment. Senator HUNT. Thank you, Mr. Tausig. Senator HUNT. That completes the list of witnesses, unless we have some other witnesses whose names do not appear on the list here. D'd you want to discuss this particular bill, sir? Senator Hunt. All right, we will hear you. STATES NAVY (RETIRED) Mr. RAWLINS. Mr. Chairman, I appear in connection with this bill to request a committee amendment to it. That committee amendment would have the effect of compelling the rectification of two proven injustices of nonpromotion in the Navy under the wartime hurry-up panel system of promotion. Those two cases of nonpromotion are Commander Edward K. Shanahan, United States Navy, retired, of Charlevoix, Mich., and of myself. Commander Shannahan proved his case before the Board for the Correction of Naval Records in a protracted hearing that started in December 1947, and ended in June of 1949, some 18 months. AUTHORIZING PAYMENT OF CLAIMS 13 · I proved my case beforethe Armed Services Committee of the Senate and the Armed Services Committee of the House of Representatives in the Eighty-third Congress. In my case, legislation as a private bill was introduced by the chairman of the Armed Services Committee in February 1949, which culminated in a hearing before a subcommittee composed of Senator Lyndon Johnson, and the passage of my bill as a general bill in July 1949, and favorable action by the House Armed Services Committee on that bill, with improving amendments, in August 1950. That bill was objected to on the House Calendar in December of 1949, by five members who were not members of the Armed Service Committee, had attended none of the hearings, and who were motivated in their objection by what circumstances can only be surmised. It appears, however, that the Bureau of Personnel, having been defeated by its opposition before the Senate Armed Services Committee in my case and, again, before the House Armed Services Committee, evidently must have taken some means to endeavor to defeat on the floor of the House what they could not defeat before open hearings of two fair-minded and impartial committees. Legislation to correct these two cases has the support now of six United States Senators, two from Maryland, two from Michigan, and two from Arkansas. In addition, I have a letter signed by the present chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, Senator Russell, in which he says that if legislation for me is introduced, he will support it again as he did support it before. In addition, the administrative assistant to Senator Bridges has informed me that Senator Bridges will likewise support this legislation to correct two proven injustices of nonpromotion, I have had in the course of the hearings before the Senate and House Armed Services Committee officers of the highest rank of the Navy testify in support of legislation for my long-overdue promotion to captain. They include Admiral Robert B. Carney, United States Navy, at present Commander in Chief, Allied Forces, Southern Europe, who appeared in person before the House Armed Services Committee, who desired to appear before the Senate Armed Services Committee but a meeting of the Joint Chiefs of Staff prevented him from doing so. Consequently a letter was substituted for his personal appearance. It includes a letter from Admiral Thomas C. Hart, former Commander in Chief, Asiatic Fleet, in my behalf. The House received a letter from Admiral Louis Denfeld, former Chief of Naval Personnel, former Commander in Chief, Pacific Fleet, former Chief, Naval Operations, who recommended my promotion by legislation. It includes the personal testimony of Rear Admiral Denebrink, Frances C. Denebrink; Rear Adm. Earl E. Stone, United States Navy; Rear Adm. Warren Sherman Parr, United States Navy, retired; Rear Adm. Ralph Wilson, United States Navy, and Hanson W. Baldwin of the New York Times. Including in the Senate hearing record appears a letter by Admiral Carney which specifically says that incompleteness of my record of the wartime panel promotions very definitely could have and probably |