Mr. MORSE. I think, Mr. Saylor, that what you allude to is analogous to the distinction between the weight of authority, if you will, and the volume of authority, or the weight of the evidence and the volume of the evidence.

The rules of evidence which a court respects, as the Congressman knows, relate only to the admissibility of the evidence. The credibility of any particular evidence is something for the court, or in our case the Board, to resolve.

It would be impossible to make any precise statement as to what particular volume converts itself into more credible evidence than the initial bit. But the mere accumulation of volume does not necessarily add credibility to the initial allegation.

Mr. SAYLOR. No; but if from half a dozen different exmembers of the service, in as many divergent sections of the country, you get affidavits to verify something which has been the basis for the Board turning down a decision, because the man could not prove it, or because it was not in his record, what evidence is necessary? If six is not enough, will seven do it?

Mr. MORSE. I will have to just rely on the general response which I made and perhaps ask Mr. Stancil if he can answer with greater specificity.

Mr. STANCIL. Cases have been and are paid on the basis of affidavit evidence. The test, thinking out loud, will be largely consistency with the established facts of record and the establishing of a factual picture falling within the realm of reasonable probability. But I can assure you that affidavit evidence is considered, the decisions are based thereon, and the decision has to based on the compilation of the record as a whole. The affidavit records, the official records, the VA examinations, and all of the facts. If the affidavit evidence were consistent with the official facts of record, the case would be allowed.

Mr. SAYLOR. I understand that this is a rule. Of course, I have a man trying to establish World War I service-connected disability, and the first evidence that he can produce, by affidavit or otherwise, starts in 1930. He forgot the fact that there happened to be an 11year period. He had got an excellent record from 1930 to 1960. And in that type of case I have always maintained the Board is justified: but when you get a half a dozen men to testify that when they were in the service a certain event did happen to the claimant, it seems to me that that is something which should be of tremendous importance to the Board, rather than to just say that this is cumulative.

It has been my experience that that is all that these affidavits amount to. They say that they are cumulative.

All right. The next question is: Does the Board at all try to develop evidence in behalf of a veteran, if they feel that there is some justification? Or is that dependent entirely upon the veteran and his representative to make out his case?

Mr. MORSE. Let me answer generally that the Board does, sir, and I will ask Mr. Stancil to define the procedure.

Mr. STANCIL. Yes, the most obvious means is through the medium of the remand decision that is shown in the statistics, and the number of cases that we remand. There would be some smaller number involved where we do regularly develop evidence from the service department records. And speaking of your World War I cases, for

example, we have had considerable luck in cases involving combat entries, even at this late date, going back and getting clinical records from the service department to amplify the skeleton records that were furnished to us in earlier years, resulting in favorable actions in that particular category.

We make every attempt, sir, not to leave a case undeveloped if we discover leads that would furnish us some avenue of development of facts and there is some reasonable likelihood that development would result in benefit to the appellant.

Mr. SAYLOR. The next question I have is whether or not a rating schedule which was made in 1945 is still the one that you are using. Mr. STANCIL. Yes, sir. It has been changed from time to time as medical advances occur by the issuance first of extensions to the schedule, and now that it is a form where a substitution of page method can be used, the changes are made in this form from time to time.

Mr. SAYLOR. Is the Board of Veterans Appeals in the process of compiling a new schedule?

Mr. MORSE. This, sir, is not the responsibility of the Board of Veterans Appeals. It is the responsibility of the Department of Veterans Benefits. Mr. Stratton, who is here, can give you the detail on it. I can answer you affirmatively yes. We have undertaken preliminary work which ultimately we hope will result in the development of a new schedule.

Mr. SAYLOR. You think as a result of this new schedule, the veteran will be treated more equitably than he has under the old schedule?

Mr. MORSE. Justice is not something that can be compared. Justice is justice. And I would hope that we would be just as just as we have been just in the past.

Mr. SAYLOR. Well, let me put it this way. I hope that you will be more just than you have been in the past. Mr. MITCHELL. Mr. Patterson?

It

Mr. PATTERSON. Mr. Morse, I think you inadvertently gave Mr. Saylor the wrong impression in one question that he asked you. is true, is it not, that Mr. Stancil, as Chairman of the Board of Veterans Appeals, participates in the regular conferences which the Administrator has?

Mr. MORSE. Oh, yes, indeed.

Mr. COUNSEL. It is also true that in appropriate cases such as in this particular piece of legislation, Mr. Rhodes, as General Counsel, through Mr. Daley, will circulate legislative reports for comments by Mr. Stancil in his capacity as Chairman of the Board?

Mr. MORSE. I believe that is correct, but let me ask Mr. Rhodes to answer it. I am sure it is, sir.

Mr. MITCHELL. I do not know whether Mr. Stancil has been identified, in his official capacity, and, Mr. Morse, there is another gentleman that I think should be identified for the record as to what his position is.

Mr. MORSE. Mr. James W. Stancil is Chairman of the Board of Veterans Appeals. Mr. A. W. Stratton also responded to a question from the subcommittee, and he is Director of the Compensation and Pension Service in the Department of Veterans Benefits of the Veterans' Administration.

Mr. MITCHELL. Of course, I think we should identify for the record, too, the presence of Mr. Al Monk. Mr. Al Monk, Assistant Deputy Administrator, is present, as is Mr. Fred B. Rhodes, General Counsel. Thank you very much, Mr. Morse and gentlemen, and we will see you at 10 o'clock Monday morning.

And the subcommittee will be in recess until that time.

(Whereupon, at 12:25 p.m., the subcommittee recessed until 10 a.m., Monday, April 11, 1960.)

JUDICIAL REVIEW OF VETERANS' CLAIMS

MONDAY, APRIL 11, 1960

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,

SPECIAL SUBCOMMITTEE ON PENDING JUDICIAL REVIEW

LEGISLATION OF THE COMMITTEE ON VETERANS' AFFAIRS,

Washington, D.C.

The subcommittee met at 10 a.m., pursuant to recess, in room 356, Old House Office Building, Hon. Erwin Mitchell (chairman of the subcommittee) presiding.

Mr. MITCHELL. The subcommittee will be in order.

Mr. Morse, do you have any additional personnel of the Veterans' Administration with you this morning that you would like to identify for the record?

STATEMENT OF BRADFORD MORSE, DEPUTY ADMINISTRATOR, VETERANS' ADMINISTRATION; ACCOMPANIED BY A. H. MONK, ASSISTANT DEPUTY ADMINISTRATOR; JAMES W. STANCIL, CHAIRMAN OF THE BOARD OF VETERANS APPEALS; A. W. STRATTON, DIRECTOR, COMPENATION AND PENSION SERVICE, DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS BENEFITS; AND FRED B. RHODES, GENERAL COUNSEL Continued

Mr. MORSE. Just those who were here with me last week, Mr. Chairman.

There is Mr. Monk, Assistant Deputy Administrator; Mr. Stancil, Chairman of the Board of Veterans Appeals; Mr. Stratton, Director, Compensation and Pension Service, Department of Veterans Benefits; and Mr. Rhodes, General Counsel.

There are many others of our people with me, including Mr. Daley, Mr. Baumgardner, and four or five others, who may be called upon for specific bits of information.

Mr. MITCHELL. I will ask this of you, Mr. Morse. If they are called upon but are not identified as to their official capacity, will you take it upon yourself to see that the record is taken care of in that respect? Mr. MORSE. I will, sir.

Mr. MITCHELL. I would like to have Mr. Stancil come around and join you to the right, because I am sure there will be some questions that will be directed to him in the course of the hearing.

Of course, gentlemen, as you all know, the primary question is whether or not a court should be established to review the administrative decisions of the Veterans' Administration, acting by and through the Board of Appeals. That being the case, I think it would cer

tainly be in order that we have the background and experience of those who are participating in behalf of the Veterans' Administration.

I know you are a lawyer, Mr. Morse. I would like for you to give us your legal training and experience from the time that you first entered law school up to today.

Mr. MORSE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I am a graduate, an honor graduate, of Boston University School of Law. I received my law degree in June of 1949. I was admitted to the bar, however, under provisions that were then permissible, prior to my receiving my degree I was admitted in October of 1948 to the bar of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts.

Upon graduation from law school, I was appointed law clerk to the chief justice of the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts. I served in that capacity for the space of a year, until August 31,

1949.

I then entered private practice in my own establishment, and had my own shingle, in the city of Lowell, Mass., and simultaneously was invited to join and did in fact join the faculty of Boston University Law School.

I continued private practice in Lowell, Mass., and subsequently in Boston, Mass., until June of 1953. During that same period, I served as a member of the faculty of Boston University School of Law, being primarily responsible for the instruction in evidence, sales, bills, and notes, and one or two relatively minor electives, which I taught for one session. I taught agency, for example, and domestic relations, for one term.

I resigned from the faculty in June 1953, and at that time joined the staff of the Senate armed services preparedness staff of the Senate Armed Services Committee, serving as attorney and assistant chief counsel on that staff until December 1954.

In January 1955, I joined the staff of the U.S. Senator from Massachusetts, Hon. Leverett Saltonstall, and served with him, first as executive secretary and then as chief assistant until November 1958.

On November 10, 1958, I was sworn in as Deputy Administrator of Veterans Affairs and have served in that capacity since, Mr. Chariman.

Mr. MITCHELL. You say in 1958?

Mr. MORSE. Yes, sir.

While in law school I served as one of the editors of the Boston University Law Review. From 1953 through 1955, I served as an associate editor of the Federal Bar Journal, and I am a member of the Massachusetts Bar Association, the American Bar Association, the Federal Bar Association, and now serve as a member of the National Council of the Federal Bar Association.

I have not been engaged, as you understand, in the practice of law either governmental or privately since December of 1954.

Mr. MITCHELL. Now, as Deputy Administrator, what are your duties, and specifically as they pertain to the operation of the Board of Appeals?

Mr. MORSE. Under the statute, Mr. Chairman, I serve as a full Deputy to the Administrator of Veterans' Affairs, with the responsibility for whatever duties may be assigned to me by the Administrator.