tary pay legislation. I would appreciate having this introduced in the committee hearings at the appropriate time. Sincerely, PETER H. DOMINICK, LETTER FROM COL. BEN F. MARISKA, U.S. AIR FORCE, AURORA, COLO. APRIL 1, 1963. Hon. PETER H. DOMINICK, DEAR SENATOR DOMINICK: 1. As a matter of introduction, I am a Regular colonel in the Air Force with almost 29 years' service dating back to 1929. Throughout this period I have served in the CMTC, National Guard, ROTC, and on active duty as a Reserve officer under the Thomason Act, in the CCC, and with the Air Force through World War II. Since World War II I have been a Regular officer. My current assignment is Director of Reserve Personnel, Air Reserve Records Center, with approximately 400 people under my supervision, handling all types of personnel actions relating to the records and welfare of air reservists. In fact you, Senator Goldwater, and many other distinguished Senators, Congressmen, and leaders in business, industry, and Government are Air Reserve officers to whom I have an obligation for service. 2. This letter is not intended to be a gripe but a statement of my feelings, affecting myself and those of my subordinates whom I must counsel and motivate. 3. Some time ago civil service employees were given a pay raise which we, in the military, did not resent or begrudge, as it was felt we would also be taken care of without undue delay. Now it appears our hopes have been too optimistic. There is no need to repeat the story of the proposed military pay legislation, as I am sure you are well aware of the details from its inception to the present. 4. The bulk of my employees are civilians with labor union affiliation-civil service rights to protect their interests-and a reasonably effective lobby to back up their demands. We of the military, on the contrary, stand alone. My airmen and officers have years of service; hold responsible jobs; put in considerable extra time, and are constantly pressed to do more-as overtime money is normally not available to utilize the civilians beyond regular duty hours. I have civilians who are paid much higher salaries than the officers or airmen they work for. This certainly is not conducive to promote good management. 5. In the "fire department" type of service to our country, over the years, we have had many separations from family, dual households to maintain, constant moves at considerable extra expense, and a number of very difficult personal readjustments for our children in school (not to exclude the difficult readjustments the adults went through also). We also purchased and sold homes, usually at a loss, and had other irritations and demands on our income or personal time. Military service to this wonderful country has been our life and, in the spirit of making a vitally necessary and significant contribution to maintaining the freedoms and way of life this country stands for, we have taken the good with the bad. Now, as I approach the twilight of my career, I am observing many danger signals among my subordinates and associates. The dedication, loyalty and will to continue, regardless of conditions, is rapidly deteriorating to a point where our best people today look for two outs-out after serving a minimum service obligation, or out after the minimum of 20 years of creditable service for retirement. To be honest, Senator Dominick, it scares me to think of the effect on the Nations security in terms of the declining future of the individual military man when we cannot retain the quality and professionalism we so desperately need to cope with our professional needs and the use and management of our modern equipment and complicated electronic systems. 6. I feel that you, as well as the majority of the Members of Congress, are in favor of a military pay increase. It is hoped that every effort will be made to insure speedy passage of an adequate pay bill and that the effective date be made retroactive to January 1, 1963, regardless of the date of enactment. This would be in keeping with the civilian pay raise and remove some of the inequities as pointed out in studies comparing military and civilian personnel pay. 7. Now, let me say this in support of an adequate military pay bill: Over the years we have given away or loaned to many foreign countries almost $100 billion, resulting in crippling unfavorable international balance of payments. We have condoned union pay raises without an increase in production; civil servants, postal employees, and other Government workers have had pay hikes. Programs of every sort have been and are being enacted to subsidize many segments of our industry and population. All this contributes to our huge national debt, an unhealthy economic position and less defense for each dollar spent. As long as the fundamental laws of economics and money management are being thrown overboard to favor political objectives; and it is being done in a way to unfairly and wrongly discriminate against the only real insurance the Nation has against Communist domination; i.e., against your faithful fire department in military uniform-then, for the sake of us who stand forever ready to defend the system, and for the sake of trying to maintain the devotion, experience, and skills we require, I say: Present your soldiers, sailors, and airmen with a really meaningful pay increase. 8. Since my retirement home will be in Denver, I hope that I may have the pleasure of personally meeting you at some future date. 9. No reply is necessary, as I know your time is valuable. If you deem it appropriate, a copy of this letter may be forwarded to the Armed Services Committee for their consideration. Respectfully yours, BEN F. MARISKA, Colonel, USAF. STATEMENT OF LT. HOWARD L. McLEOD, EMERGENCY OFFICERS RETIRED LIST, ARMY, BEMIDJI, MINN. Re wartime, heavily disabled officers forced to demote themselves to recruit basis. Make no mistake about it as to the title of this statement; it is not a solo, "exception" situation to be remedied, for it involves many officers of the past, present, and future no one wants to see "crucified" after all the facts are out in the open to vote upon. Truth takes a long time to disseminate in such matters. Chairman Rivers in the recent House debate on H.R. 5555 quoted that great orator, William Jennings Bryan, as saying: "The humblest citizen of the land clad in the armor of right can prevail against a whole host of error." To which I would add by saying "a host of error in understanding," and hope that the hard working chairman of the House Subcommittee on Military Pay meant my "solo" efforts lo these many, many years. This is not an appeal for a recomputation from 1958 scales plus 5 percent, just a modest 5 years out of 30 to 50 years actually lost out on, added to a computation from 1955 scales only, as 1955 was when the abuse really got bad. There is no "gravy" aspect to granting a token gesture of what the courts pass out freely, in full measure, to our citizenry disabled from other causes: than war "Constructive" longevity stigma is a misnomer here, as that deals with the ablebodied employables, not wartime disabled victims who public policy should cherish instead of crucify in the manner I have been treated since World War I. Many, many heavily disabled retired officers will benefit from proposed recomputation plus 5 percent, or the plus 5 percent even, only because they have considerably more longevity than the "short service" officers, whereas disability of unemployable proportion is the "big" factor that affects a man's future. "When" or "where" or "how" disability occurs are not factual evidence of damage like "how much disability" and "life expectancy" are, but rather "sob sister" sentimental appeals to open the cash drawer and puts a real "price tag" on patriotism-like getting paid for liking, loving your mother. My suggested amendment has as much "place" in a pay bill as the recomputation from 1958 scales plus 5 percent proposed has. "Retired" also means "disabled retired" in the bill and they will be cared for according to plan even if not specified openly. It would be discrimination to neglect a person in my disabled category. The effective date of H.R. 5555, as amended in the House, is set at "October 1, 1963, or date of enactment, whichever is later." This would indicate there is ample time to provide for the wartime "short service" heavily disabled officers at least, since it may not be deemed advisable to delve into nonwartime disabilities at this time, upon which so many get retired, mainly for "tax free" purposes, after 8 years service, where the legal specification: "that such disability was the proximate result of performance of duty" is eliminated to the benefit of career men. For the benefit of disabled civilian patriots like myself, the legal specification is: "Any disability shown to have been incurred in line of duty during a period of active service in time of war or national emergency shall be considered to be the proximate result of the performance of active duty." The 8-year deal thus becomes a sort of "constructive" proximate cause substitute no more worthy than my suggested 5 years additional longevity grant backed by court experience fundamental in every lawyer's education as to measurement of damages. As a matter of record, the specifications by regulation and instructions there. under of the 1933 Economy Act, were far stiffer than "proximate cause" of present laws as any military legislation student, and the "victims" know. They cut the Emerigency Officers Retired List from 7,000 to about 2,000. I survived those specifications set higher than for any officers before or since. Remember: Definite causative factor, clearly shown to have been incurred in actual performance of military duty without presumptions of any kind. All 15 years after the war, to boot. From long study, so far as I know, other than this "wartime" factor, there is no real "complication" to worry over in discussing the amendment I suggested in my circular with tables I sent to members of both Armed Services Committees and which was published in the Appendix of the Congressional Record on April 4, 1963, on pages 2012-2013 as I could not afford to circularize the whole Congress so they could know the truth in figures and history. I showed how heavily disabled company grade officers are being forced to demote themselves to the desserts of the 90-day recruit on compensation of the Veterans' Administration on 100-percent disability VA ratings compared to maximum three-quarter pay basis (once upon a time) of retired disability pay and some across the board percentage increases in lieu of the usual former formula. It makes no difference what committee handles the matter or what agency of Government has it on its budget, the sum and substance of it is: The U.S. Government is doing it by an act of Congress, and disability retired pay "complications" is no excuse for delaying ironing out a long overdue responsibility that results in a hardship to men of the United States wanted very badly back in 1917, and 1941, too, as officers of "minuteman" caliber not as career men. My suggestion does not affect subaltern active duty basic pay rates at all, and the retired of the past hereafter will not refer to basic pay for computation. I merely use the 1955 pay scales to catch up partly and then go along with the price index idea, without any retroactive feature at all. I am bending over backward to be fair to get the token justice asked for in the proved righteous methods of the courts. Chairman Rivers, in the House debate, said, page 7613 Congressional Record, May 8, 1963, referring to the suggested amendment offered by Congressman Langen of my home district: "I would have to be for this amendment, but I am compelled to oppose it for these reasons." And he goes on to say it would change the disability retirement system; that the bill, H.R. 5555, has to do with compensation and that disability retirement "has no place" in a pay bill; that it discriminates against the lesser disabled; and he asked that the amendment be defeated. I agree that Chairman Rivers was apparently faced with the horns of a dilemma, but I was not there to coach Congressman Langen in rebuttal as was Counsel Blandford, to help Chairman Rivers. Congressman Langen is not versed in military affairs, and I had expected those who knew the score to successfully challenge Chairman Rivers' inferences. The suggested amendment naturally could not stand "alone" so got in the discard under what many would call unfair procedure. Congressman Langen had not promised to go to bat for me although one member of the House Armed Services Committee had promised to "act and vote" according to my suggestion but did not. Perhaps he had another solution to my troubles; I have not heard from him. The procedure was not only unfair to me but to Congress which should know the whole story from both sides and did not have that opportunity. As to the merit of my cause and the need for the suggested amendment and my qualifications to edify you, I need only refer you to House Armed Services Committee pay subcommittee's counsel's remarks in hearings on H.R. 3006, pages 1573-1574 wherein the Disabled Officers Association National Adjutant Lovci (deceased suddenly thereafter) was testifying for the organization's controlling majority, those on three-fourths pay of old laws because of minor disabilities, leaving my category of heavily disabled officers out entirely, by intent, till Counsel Blandford brought the subject up of "short service" retired disability pay inequities. The record is indisputable. It was brought out by Counsel Blandford that I am a "very able member (of DOA) from the viewpoint of being able to present the facts and do tremendous statistical studies on this matter" and "Now their case is valid from their viewpoint because in many cases these people must go to the Veterans' Administration, where actually the amount of compensation they can draw from the VA is higher than their retirement pay. There isn't any question about it." Colonel Blandford also said across-the-board percent raises "at least keep them where they are," and that is exactly where my complaint comes in: No attempt is made to correct the basic anomalous situation, just carries it along from pay raise to pay raise. I get no commitments that some method will be found to right matters, though I am grateful to Counsel Blandford for elucidating as he did in the hearings, almost against opposition. My own organization, the Disabled Officers Association, certainly did not help my "cause celebre" any; they even inferred that their majority is heavily disabled when only 20 percent are in that category. Lieutenant Lovci is dead but the record will have to stand.' Permit me to quote further from what Colonel Blandford said about the inequity. He said I have "been complaining that the disabled man, disabled early in his career, must for practical purposes go to VA and be treated as an enlisted man, even though he assumed the responsibilities of an officer." I do not know what consideration prompted Chairman Rivers to say, "Let's confine ourselves. Let's not get too far off the things we are talking about." To which Counsel Blandford replied, "Well, this is a very important part of it. What I am indicating here, is the reason for the inequality they are telling us about here today, for the disabled officers. There isn't any real solution to it unless you decide to set up a separate retirement system for people retired in short years of service." I say no separate system is called for, simply that the principle of justice courts use be introduced to offset the crucifixion now existing by doing the very thing "policy" says is OK to do: grant some longevity to the heavily disabled by keeping the man on in service at full pay till he reaches a pay bracket out of hardship before discharge or "above board" as the courts do it, grant damages for lost longevity, life expectancy, years to go, potential with a token 5-year stipend as my suggested amendment provides. But, as you know, the whole subject was suddenly dropped cold in the hearings and in the "debate" back into its former insignificance. I subsequently heard from Counsel Blandford and he stated that, "Nevertheless Congress has not seen fit to make the changes" I asked for. Actually, Congress has never been formally and officially apprised of the facts, or permitted to vote fully informed on the subject of the predicament of "demotion to get more." I do not call the debate of May 8, 1963, on the House floor anything but an effort to again put off a solution to the discrimination that has existed for years and years and needs correction, now or never, since there are many months to go now before the new bill becomes effective unless the old stampede is again generated to squelch opposing or new thought as is inferred in military news organs I just now got in the mail. My disability recomputation deal is just as worthy a retirement matter as the one that got top billing and a preferred place in a pay bill, and most of the longevity retirements do have some tax-free disability portion in them, but I have never seen the statistics on how many of them are nonwartime disabilities. Almost seems like someone is trying to hide something from public discussion on disability retirements, like the old deal of three-fourths pay for minor disability. In any event I eliminate this aspect by specifying "wartime” as an essential factor to my 5-year grant to stimulate court justice principles the military follows in other respects. These fine, deserved, laudatory words were said by Chairman Rivers on page 7614 of the Congressional Record of May 8, 1963, about Col. John R. Blandford, USMCR: "My able assistant on my right here, our distinguished clerk of the committee, Mr. Blandford, who is familiar with all this and who has forgotten more than any Defense Department official ever learned, advises me the man is wrong." No, no; not me-some Pentagon official. My point is this: Such a capable man as Colonel Blandford is, says in the testimony in the hearings on H.R. 3006 that I am also quite capable and my complaint is legitimate. Why then, continue to slough me off? I've been on the doorstep through several pay raises, watching and waiting and learning to be patient, for the truth will out someday. May I now direct your attention to what I consider is the crux of this matter, stated in a few words on page 2153 of the House hearings on the Career Compensation Act of 1949 by the military affairs expert of the Disabled American Veterans, Pat Carroll, now deceased: "As a result of their disbelief in physical disability retirement for non-Regular officers, the armed services in their administration of retirement procedures have gone to great lengths to set up regulations and policies which discriminate against non-Regular officers. "The armed services have always confused length of service with physical disability. Length of service and physical disability are separate and distinct entities. "Until the armed services realize that physical disability is a separate and distinct factor from length of service, there can be no improvement in the present retirement system, nor can their policy or their regulations be made to conform with what I believe was the intent of Congress." The foregoing quotation shows the exact excuse, not the reason, for continuing this farce and contradiction, of "demotion to get more." I brought this out in my tables and showed how it even applies to master sergeants and below with 20 years career service. They, too, get more at VA for 100 percent disability rating by VA. My solution for the noncoms was for VA to grant them an "overage" above 100-percent compensation commensurate with rank like widows get. That could apply to officers, too, if you care to buck the prejudice of enlisted controlled veteran organizations have for rank and officers, in their literally Socialist-Communist concept of equality in all things for members. They refuse to recognize what Colonel Blanford saw in my cause celebrefostering and cherishing ability that made USA. It sure is cockeyed incentive to tell a man he should become a noncom officer for when he gets heavily disabled early (or late, too, in case of noncoms) he'd have been just as well off, even far better financially to have stayed E-1 in diffidence. Does that encourage efficiency and a desire to get in or stay in service? More often than not, the services rate their disabled higher than VA does using the same rating schedule VA does. In such cases the practice is to take "reduced to 40 percent" from VA and 60 percent from the services retirement on 20 for noncoms, in a 100 percent services' rated case. I know of such a case-postal employee--no fiction about it. As I have been saying they keep their disabled on in service to build up longevity pay bracket advantage-and I suspect that the real reason is that there is no short-service provision such as a advocate. So, make one. What the services are doing by under-the-table methods is what I want to do above board by my suggested amendment, which, after all is copy catted from what is the tried and found true practices of the courts of this land in the measurement of damages which every lawyer knows and will not quibble over. As I am not greedy to have all four feet and snout in the public trough, I am willing to shoulder the most of the loss from the loss of my potential, on a patriotism basis and only ask enough of Congress to save my self-respect and to prevent desecration of my commissions I held with honor and sacrifice financially and physically, in the same manner I would not want my University of Minnesota pre-World War I degree desecrated by demotion to a grade school diploma by trickery and design. I have carefully studied over the years as a beneficiary and as a service officer on claims all the facets of this matter, as to justice for all and favoritism to none, but like Congress did in the last two VA compensation raises, I conclude it is the heavily disabled, unemployables who are being especially discriminated against while the lesser disabled are employable at up-to-date wages, building up pensions, social security, and savings advantages all denied to the heavily disabled unemployables. My 100-percent VA rating dates way back before social security was on the books when they were deducting $22.30 per month to keep up my insurance |