Page images
PDF
EPUB

(USGLI) they later made retroactive to the first day I set foot in a VA office in 1927 and that certifies I am an unemployable, though my intelligence has remained intact and belies my rating in a way. Just have a brain operation to see how easy it is to get screened out automatically anyway you look. Let's not forget there are many who cannot speak up, too "beat," too untrained, too proud, to ask for help and who don't know about the tenets of the courts as to lostpotential damages.

As to the 75-percent disabled being discriminated against, which Chairman Rivers referred to in the debate in the House, as a reason for rejecting the suggested amendment, there is no 75-percent rating in VA schedules, only even 10percent classifications-30, 40, 50, 60, 70, 80, 90, and 100 percent for officers. It is a bit beyond belief that the services would ever rate a man 70 percent to get 70 percent basic pay.

You see the 80-percent man gets "docked" 5 percent to get 75 percent of basic pay maximum by law; and the 90-percent man docked 15 percent with the 100 percent docked 25 percent. So, as a practical matter there wouldn't be any 70percent ratings in fairness and 60 percent would be the next lowest usable rating and does imply employability and not hardship.

In fact, the statistics are that only 20 percent of the 30-to-100-percent officer disabled group rate 60 to 100 percent disability. Of that 20 percent, nearly 70 percent rate 80- to 100-percent disability, leaving 30 percent patently employable. These ratios are derived from VA figures on page 1924, House hearings on Career Compensation Act of 1949 showing totals for each 10-percent classification of service-incurred disability.

There is no objection to including any future wartime disabled officers of any degree, but it works out that the lesser disabled at VA get no dependency allowances for under-50-percent disability and also less raises proportionately than the 100-percent case because of known employability among the lesser disabled. Hence there is no advantage to electing VA pay for the same degree of disability benefits, as "more," under proposed H.R. 5555 pay rates, except in the 100percent cases.

The following table refers to the 100-percent VA-rated cases only, and many times VA cuts down services ratings severely such as the case I told you about100 percent down to 40 percent. Also, as most men are married the VA rates shown reflect one dependent. Services rates are House-passed H.R. 5555 rates:

[blocks in formation]

For 70-, 60-, 50-percent rated cases VA would have an advantage only in the case of second lieutenants, married and under 2 years, which computes out like this:

[blocks in formation]

It is obvious the problem, therefore, is in the company-grade officer who rates 100 percent at VA and also services maximum 75 percent basic pay when he was retired for 80 to 100 percent disability. The across-the-board percentage raises does not change the relationship, carries it along.

To curb the disparagement now for those heavily disabled "short service" unemployables, discharged under the stresses of wartime instead of being kept in as in peacetime for humanitarian and morale reasons as well as to help the man build up pay advantage beyond hardship, my suggestion, if granting 5 years' additional longevity credits for retired disability computation purposes is the "only" solution and it should surprise no one as that is exactly what the courts have developed over the years to compute "lost longevity," life expectancy, years to go, so that the damaged is fairly recompensed for loss of his future. Only this: I ask for but a small 5-year portion of the 40 to 50 years' expectancy junior officers would have coming to them if full court justice was rendered them. After all, there is no sensible reason why military justice should be different from court, democracy, justice. This "early disability" thing is an all-time, forever-and-ever problem unless something is done now. Asking the beginner officer to take all the chances of training and wartime especially in the first few years is just being too, too gougy and unrealistic of young men with derring-do, inexperience, and false pride to handicap them. Expecting the man to be satisfied with the desserts of the 90-day recruit at VA just because it is more money certainly builds up a big discount for a commission in the eyes of prospects.

It is hideous to think of avaricious older men taking this undue advantage of green young men taught in colleges the finer attributes of mankind. There is nothing paternalistic about it, no chivalry relationship that blossoms to utterly willing loyalty essential to efficiency. The more you ponder over this the more you get startled to action as I was and am, to know the facts behind this strange phenomena in a maze of figures, facts, and traditions. The complexity is artificial, manmade, not the result of normal, equitable, logical processes.

So long as the principle of my suggestion is preserved, I am not averse to changes to overcome some technicality I may have missed somehow in my studies the past 10 or more years. This is about "how" the amendment could read: "Provided, however, That notwithstanding any provision of law to the contrary, any officer now or hereafter rated 80, 90, or 100 percent wartime disabled and entitled to 75 percent basic pay when he was retired, shall have his retired disability pay computed from a pay bracket 5 years additionally higher than his actual length of service if he has less than 15 years of active-duty service, using the basic pay schedules in effect prior to 1958 for the now retired and basic pay schedules in effect currently, for those to become retired, with future changes for all retired according to Consumer Price Index as provided for in this Act." This gives a "token" gesture of damages for lost future to both "career" and civilian patriot minutemen officers heavily disabled in wartime and now in relatively hardship status compared to their counterparts in civil life, "blessed" by our court system in measurement of damages.

It aims to help the career men, but off short of his goal, or 20-year retirement, and the Reserve officer casualty, both of whom never "planned" to get cut off by disability any more than a civilian plans a car accident yet gets full recompense for his lack of "luck" by our courts.

The military "as is" provides only for "how far did this man get up the longevity ladder?" when the big issue is, rather: "How much longevity (future) does he stand to lose, according to his degree of unemployability arising from his workincurred, wartime military disability?"

It is noteworthy that I do not have enlisted controlled veteran organization support, largely because of prejudice against officer benefits and the fact "rank" is out of the concept of veterandom to the point of criminal "cop-hater" manias. Ignorance of the facts enters into it, too. There are only a handful of men I have been able to correspond with who understand what I am talking about with any degree of sincerity; no one, literally, takes the time to study up about minority problems.

My predicament is that of all worthy minorities. Generalities to a politician mean as little to him as he knows they mean to an electorate in a campaign. Cold, brutal facts is what wins people and makes enemies, too.

Pardon the length of this statement, and thank you for reading it to the end, and for any assistance you can make to achieve the goal I set as the solution to a nasty development I don't think anyone wants to see continue unabated.

LETTER FROM COMDR. HUGH H. HOWELL, JR., USNR, NATIONAL VICE PRESIDENT FOR LEGISLATION, NAVAL RESERVE ASSOCIATION OF WASHINGTON, D.C.

Senator RICHARD B. RUSSELL,
U.S. Senate, Washington, D.C.

JULY 8, 1963.

DEAR SENATOR RUSSELL: I hope this letter finds you in continued good health and happiness.

As you know, I am legislative vice president of the Naval Reserve Association, which is composed of some 4,500 Naval Reserve officers scattered throughout the United States in various walks of life. We have organized in an effort to aid our Regular and Reserve components of the Navy.

Our organization tries to keep a pretty close eye on pending legislation, and we express our views to Congress from time to time on important legislation affecting the Navy and national defense.

We are quite concerned about early hearings and passage of the military pay bill. We know this bill passed the House of Representatives on May 8, 1963, and that you have scheduled hearings beginning July 16.

The recommendations of the Naval Reserve Association are:

(1) Early action by the Senate following the completion of the subcommittee hearings starting on July 16.

(2) Retention of sea pay now authorized in the House bill for enlisted men. (3) Retention of the family-separation allowance now in the House bill. (4) Provision for a significant increase for officers and petty officers with less than 2 years' service. There has been no increase in the base pay of this group since 1952. There is no increase in the House bill for people with less than 2 years' service.

(5) Provision of a realistic increase in base pay for officers and petty officers. It is our belief that if we adjust military pay scales only each 5 years the increase should be significant.

(6) Retention of the recomputation of retired pay now in the House bill.

(7) Provision for an effective date of the first of the month following enactment. The House bill now provides for the new scales to be effective on October 1. In the past pay raises for Government employees have been effective on the first of the month following enactment of the legislation.

We feel that all of the services are having difficulty in attracting and retaining skilled personnel today. The so-called fringe benefits which have been referred to so much in the past, have been whittled away over the years.

The members of the Naval Reserve Association would appreciate your support in our views. Further, we ask that you communicate our views to the members of the Senate Armed Forces Committee and that you have this letter included in the report of the committee hearings. With warmest personal regards, I remain, Yours very truly,

HUGH HOWELL, Jr.

STATEMENT OF BRIG. GEN. JAMES D. HITTLE, U.S. MARINE CORPS, RETIRED, DIRECTOR, NATIONAL SECURITY AND FOREIGN AFFAIRS, VETERANS OF FOREIGN WARS OF THE UNITED STATES

JULY 18, 1963.

General HITTLE. Mr. Chairman, this statement is in response to your kind invitation for the Veterans of Foreign Wars of the United Statse to apprise this committee of its views with respect to the proposed Armed Forces pay legislation (H.R. 5555), which is now under consideration by your committee.

The views expressed in this statement are based upon resolutions adopted by the delegates to the VFW 1962 National Convention, and reflect the long standing interest of the VFW in matters pertaining to Armed Forces personnel. Additionally, I would like to point out that this statement is submitted on behalf of Mr. Byron B. Gentry, commander-in-chief of the Veterans of Foreign Wars of the United States, and with his approval.

The VFW comprising a membership of 1,300,000 oversea combat veterans, has throughout its existence, vigorously supported adequate and fair pay scales for military personnel. Becasue of the broad military experience reflected within its membership, the VFW believes its views in matters pertaining to pay, as well

as other conditions of military service, are based upon a background of mature, knowledgeable, and varied military experience.

The following are observation of a general nature as to proposed legislation: A pay increase is long overdue for military personnel. This is demonstrated, the VFW believes, through any authoritative comparison with the trend of pay scales in business and the civilian element of Government. The VFW strongly supports an increase in Armed Forces pay.

There is a basic observation which the VFW considers pertinent to the overall subject of military pay. It is our firm conviction that too much emphasis can be placed upon detailed comparisons between military and civilian-business or Government-pay scales. Such comparisons must of necessity be arbitrary and artificial and hence can be very misleading. There is, the VFW firmly believes, no sound and detailed measure of comparison between military and civilian scales of remuneration. The reason is simple: There is no business or civilian pursuit similar to that of the Armed Forces. Accordingly, there is no measure by which a man can be fully paid in money for assuming the responsibilities and trust, and risks inherent in military service.

One cannot devise a pay scale for prolonged separation from family. Nor, does the nature of military service admit an 8-hour, 5-day week. The business of national security goes on around the clock. There is no civilian pay scale applicable to crews on the long underwater voyages of a Polaris submarine; for flying the China coast surveillance patrols; for flying high- and low-level photographic missions over the Russian military forces in Cuba, or for night flying from the darkened decks of carriers in a pitching sea. Even the risks of peacetime maneuvers and training exercises, routine to the military man, have no counterpart in civilian life. Also, the responsibilities entrusted to noncommissioned and commissioned officers, both in terms of the value of materiel, as well as responsibility for command in combat are not paralleled elsewhere. While detailed comparison of military-civilian pay scales is not practical, due to the basically different requirements of civilian and military duty, it is appropriate to recognize that the basic relationship existing between military and civilian remuneration has been, and is continuing to be, seriously altered. What has happened, and the proposed military pay scales do not rectify the matter, is a growing unbalance due to disproportionate pay increases over the past several years to civilian employees, Government and non-Government. The demonstrably slower rate of increase of military pay remuneration is both unfair, unnecessary, and potentially disastrous to the security of the United States.

As a general observation regarding the pay scales proposed by H.R. 5555, the VFW believes that while the raises are a step in the right direction, they are not adequate. The effect of having permitted the long-standing basic relationship between military and civilian remuneration to get out of balance is that it creates the strong suggestion, simply in terms of what the Government appears to believe that his services are worth, that the man in uniform is a second-class employee of the Government.

Never before has the need been greater for attracting and retaining the highest type of military personnel. The military profession should not be so demonstrably downgraded in relation to other lines of endeavor.

Following are specific comments:

Retired pay: The VFW believes in the continuation of the long-standingprinciple of basing retired pay upon active duty pay scales. This is fair and equitable, and it is the system which those in the service have come to expect will be applied to them when retired. However, from the practicable standpoint it must be recognized that the problem involves sharply increasing costs and it would be less than realistic to contend that Congress is not genuinely concerned about this matter. While supporting the principle of basing retired pay on active-duty pay, the provisions of H.R. 5555 with respect to equalization of retired pay constitute a major and necessary rectification of existing discrepancies in retired pay scales. Therefore, the VFW urges the retention by the Senate of the provisions of H.R. 5555 concerning retired pay.

Pay scales: The principle of proper pay for responsibility is not adequately reflected in the proposed scales. This becomes increasingly serious in the higher ranks. Remuneration should be secured those in positions of trust and responsibility. This is not only possible from a standpoint of those now in service, but it is necessary to attract able personnel to those positions in the future. It is recommended that the pending bill be rectified in this respect and that the matter of adequate pay for positions of high trust and responsibility be thoroughly considered by the President's Committee on Executive Pay.

Family separation allowance: The provisions of H.R. 5555 pertaining to family separation allowance are critically important features of the proopsed legislation. The provision corrects one of the major deficiencies in our Nation's militarypay system. Such a family overseas allowance has long been overdue.

One of the inescapable expenses, from the standpoint of the serviceman, is his added expenses necessitated by separation from his family. As anyone who has served under such conditions well knows, there are additional expenses incurred as a direct result of such separate duty. It should be emphasized that these extra expenses are experienced by all military personnel with families, and for that reason such allowances should go to all ranks. The VFW strongly supports the family separation allowance as an indispensable feature of the proposed legislation and vigorously urges the rejection of reported proposals that would modify the pertinent provisions in such a way as to restrict or eliminate the family separation allowance.

Combat pay: The VFW vigorously supports provisions for special pay for those subject to hostile fire. This, also, is a move toward correcting a long existing deficiency in our concepts of military pay. It has been paradoxical with the increasing special entitlements to additional pay for special duty, that those actually engaged in combat have not been authorized a similar special pay. By way of explanation as to the VFW's strong support of the principle of combat pay, I would like to point out that obtaining such legislation authorizing combat pay was adopted as one of the key VFW objectives for 1962-63 by VFW Commander in Chief Byron B. Gentry. Inclusion of combat pay as a key VFW objective indicates the VFW's opinion as to its importance.

Effective date of increase: There is no sound reason why the pending pay increases should lag behind pay increases for civilian governmental employees. A lag in according a pay increase to military personnel leads to the conclusion that civilian pay increases are, in part, being paid by the servicemen through continued lower pay scales for the military.

It is pertinent to point out that the record of pay increases for the civilian elements of Government has generally been one of making the increases effective promptly, usually the first of the month following the enactment of the bill. To delay the effective date of the military pay increase cannot help but lead to the conclusion that military service is less important than other types of governmental service.

Confronted, as our Nation is, with the perils of Communist aggression, outright subversion, and active conflict in various parts of the world, with a Communist base established in Cuba, less than a hundred miles from the United States, our reliance upon those in the military professsion has never been more fundamental to our Nation's survival. Wherever their duty has called them our Armed Forces have discharged their duty in a superlative manner. There is nothing second class about the personnel in our armed services, or the manner in which they discharge the responsibilities entrusted to them. Consequently, in the opinion of the VFW, there should be nothing second class about the pay scale, nor the timing of its effectiveness for those in military service. The only excuse, and it is not a valid one, for delaying the effective date for increased military pay, is that such postponement would result in a saving from a budgetary standpoint. It is submitted that such postponement in the effective date did not apply to the recent civilian pay increase. There may be instances in which postponement is appropriate, but it is certainly not appropriate for the Armed Forces. For example: There is nothing about military duty that permits procrastination or postponement. There was not postponement of duty for the crew of the U.S.S. Thresher that sailed on time April 10, 1963.

The VFW urges, Mr. Chairman, that the effective date of the new military pay scale be made retroactive to coincide with the effective date of the recent pay raise for civilian employees of the Federal Government. This would be a meaningful means for Congress, and the U.S. Government as a whole, to indicate to those serving in the Armed Forces that military service is not considered to be of a second-class priority.

In conclusion, I take this opportunity to express the VFW's admiration and appreciation for the many things you, your committee, and the extremely able staff have done in the interest of the personnel of our Armed Forces. We thank you for the opportunity to submit this statement, containing some of the views of the Veterans of Foreign Wars of the United States in the matters before you.

« PreviousContinue »