At the same time I don't think all of them should be changed, but there are a very large number that should be. JAMES STARK, Hamilton County Veterans' Service Officer. P. S. I'm also writing my Congresswoman, Cecil Hardin, of the Sixth District of Indiana, on this article. FEBRUARY 21, 1957. JOHN T. ALSTROM, Jr., Major, USAR, Retired, Veterans Service Center, Los Angeles, Calif. MY VERY DEAR FRIEND: Thank you for taking time and trouble to write me about H. R. 1108. I noted all of it very carefully. I am presently swamped or else I would discuss it more fully now. You will be pleased to know that Hon. Carl Vinson, chairman, House Armed Services Committee, has appointed a special subcommittee to study this bill. The committee members are as follows: The undersigned, chairman; William G. Bray, Indiana; George Huddleston, Jr., Alabama; Charles S. Gubser, California; and A. Paul Kitchin, North Carolina. Also, I appeared a short time ago before the American Legion national legislative committee here in Washington. They were very cordial toward my bill. Our beloved Nation deserves the best of whatever we are. Cordially, Hon. CLYDE DOYLE, CLYDE DOYLE, Member of Congress. LOS ANGELES AREA VETERANS SERVICE CENTER, New House Office Building, Washington, D. C. DEAR CONGRESSMAN DOYLE: I would like to add another thought to my letter of February 18, 1957, in reference to proposed bill H. R. 1108. Many administrative and disciplinary discharges that were given to young men were a result of immaturity and a lack of responsibility on the part of the individuals concerned. Approximately 50 percent of the young men who come to me for review of discharges want this review in order to reenlist in the service. They acknowledge their mistakes, feel that they have matured since they were discharged, and they want to show themselves and the community that they can serve their country honorably and well if given another chance. I would say, from observation of these cases, that 10 percent of this 50 percent would be qualified for reenlistment, if given the opportunity, after their discharge was changed under H. R. 1108. I suggest that these young men who have shown evidence of good faith and stability by having their discharges changed under H. R. 1108 be allowed to reenlist in the service providing they meet the mental and physical qualifications. Their service records could be so coded that they would be on probation for a period of time after reenlisting, say a year, and any mistakes made by them would result in an immediate undesirable discharge not subject to review. This action would not only permit sincere young men to reestablish themselves in the military or naval forces but would also reclaim some of the public funds originally spent on their training which would then not go to waste. The responsibility for this program could be placed with the retraining commands now in existence in all the services and would require no additional administrative expenditures. Yours sincerely, JOHN T. ALSTROM, Jr., Special Representative. MARCH 30, 1957. Re H. R. 1108. Mr. ROBERT K. SALYERS, Director, Bureau of Veterans' Reemployment Rights, United States Department of Labor, Washington, D. C. DEAR FRIEND: Thank thank you very much for your informative and helpful letter of March 22 in regard to the above-entitled bill. In this connection you will be pleased to know the Doyle special subcommittee has held both executive and informal conferences preparatory to the opening of the public hearings which are set to begin the very first days of May. We believe we are going to change the original text to great benefit of the worthy objectives originally intended and hoped for. I thank you for sending copy of my letter to Mr. Edward L. Omohundro, Chief of the Veterans' Employment Service, and also for sending me the copy of Reemployment Rights Handbook. I am sure it will be of great value if you could plan to participate in the public hearings before the subcommittee and thus give the benefit of your experiences and observations about H. R. 1108. Thanking you, I have the honor to be, Cordially, Hon. CLYDE DOYLE, CLYDE DOYLE, Member of Congress. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR, BUREAU OF VETERANS' REEMPLOYMENT RIGHTS, Chairman, Special Subcommittee on Military Discharges, Committee on Armed Services, House of Representatives, Washington, D. C. DEAR CONGRESSMAN DOYLE: Thank you for your letter of March 15, 1957. enclosing a copy of H. R. 1108 on which hearings are to be held before your subcommittee. The reemployment statutes now in effect provide that the ex-serviceman must have a discharge or release under honorable conditions to be eligible for reemployment rights. Thus, the employer has no legal obligation to reinstate a person separated under other than honorable conditions. He is not prevented from doing so if he wishes, however, and in some instances this has been done. There is a problem where a person is discharged under other than honorable conditions and where the character of the discharge is subsequently changed. The Solicitor of Labor has held that the ex-serviceman must apply within the prescribed time limit (60 or 90 days, as the case may be). It is obviously imprac ticable for him to obtain a change in the character of his discharge within this time, so that the original discharge for all practical purposes is controlling so far as eligibility for reemployment rights is concerned. I enclose a copy of chapter V of our Reemployment Rights Handbook, which includes in section A questions on completion of service. This Bureau is responsible for administering the reemployment statutes. Obtaining new employment for veterans is the function of the Bureau of Employ ment Security and its Veterans' Employment Service, I am taking the liberty of sending a copy of your letter and the bill to Mr. Edward L. Omohundro, Chief of the Veterans' Employment Service, asking that he write you as to any experience this Service has had in the placement of persons with. releases under other than honorable conditions. If we can be of further service or supply any additional information in connection with the reemployment rights aspects, please let me know. Sincerely yours, ROBERT K. SALYERS, Director. APRIL 1, 1957. Mr. H. V. HIGLEY, Administrator, Veterans' Administration, Washington, D. C. MY DEAR MR. HIGLEY: I just want to thank you for your very informative and prompt supply of data contained in your letter of March 29. I am sure it will add to a more constructive approach to this major problem of military discharges. Thank you again, and with high regards, I have the honor to be, Hon. CLYDE DOYLE, CLYDE DOYLE, Member of Congress. VETERANS' ADMINISTRATION, OFFICE OF THE ADMINISTRATOR OF VETERANS' AFFAIRS, Chairman, Special Subcommittee on Military Discharges, Committee on Armed Services, House of Representatives, Washington, D. C. DEAR MR. DOYLE: Further reference is made to your letter of March 15, 1957, requesting information as to the effect of the various types of discharges from the Armed Forces upon veterans' benefits authorized under laws administered by the Veterans' Administration. Generally, with the exception of certain insurance and indemnity benefits, a discharge or release from active service under conditions other than dishonorable is a prerequisite for benefits under laws administered by the Veterans' Administration. Section 1503, Public Law 346, 78th Congress (Servicemen's Readjustment Act of 1944 (38 U. S. C. 697c)), provides: "A discharge or release from active service under conditions other than dishonorable shall be a prerequisite to entitlement to veterans' benefits provided by this act or Public Law 2, 73d Congress, as amended." [Emphasis supplied.] Public Law 2, as amended, provides for hospitalization and domiciliary care, medical and dental treatment, compensation and pension, specially adapted housing, prosthetic appliances, and burial benefits. Public Law 346 provides for education and training, loan, and other readjustment benefits for World War II veterans. Additionally, Public Law 550, 82d Congress (Veterans' Readjustment Assistance Act of 1952), provides with respect to the education or training, unemployment compensation, and loan benefits under that act for veterans with service on or after June 27, 1950, and prior to February 1, 1955 (Korean conflict), that the discharge or release from active service be "under conditions other than dishonorable." The same type of discharge is required for vocational rehabilitation purposes under Public Law 16, 78th Congress, as amended, and Public Law 894, 81st Congress, as amended; and, in all situations where discharge is a factor, for educational assistance under the War Orphans' Educational Assistance Act of 1956, and dependency and indemnity compensation under the Servicemen's and Veterans' Survivor Benefits Act. The following are the types and character of discharges currently authorized for the Army (AR 635-200), Navy (BuPers Manual, Art. C-10301), and Air Force (AFR 39-10): Briefly, it may be stated that a dishonorable discharge disqualifies one for any of the benefits under the mentioned laws and, of course, an honorable discharge meets the requirement. A general discharge is considered by the Army to be granted under honorable conditions (AR 635-200) and such discharge may be considered by the Veterans' Administration as "under conditions other than dishonorable." However, with respect to the other types of discharges which are neither dishonorable nor honorable, certain of these are granted for reasons which may definitely classify them as being under dishonorable conditions, and others for reasons which may classify them as under conditions other than dishonorable. In this class fall the undesirable and bad-conduct discharges. In interpreting section 1503 of Public Law 346, supra, "dishonorable conditions" are deemed by the Veterans' Administration to exist when the discharge or separation from active military or naval service was for mutiny, spying, for an offense involving moral turpitude, or willful and persistent misconduct. However, where service was otherwise honest, faithful, and meritorious a discharge or separation other than dishonorable because of the commission of a minor offense will not be deemed to constitute discharge or separation under dishonorable conditions. Under the requirement contained in section 1503 a discharge which is neither specifically honorable nor specifically dishonorable must be evaluated on an individual basis to determine in the light of all the circumstances whether the discharge is given "under conditions other than dishonorable." It should also be borne in mind that under section 300 of Public Law 346, 78th Congress (38 U. S. C. 693g), a discharge or dismissal by reason of the sentence of a general court-martial bars all right based upon the period of service from which the person is so discharged. Therefore, a bad-conduct discharge issued by reason of the sentence of a general court-martial is a bar to benefits based upon the period of service from which the person is so discharged. Insurance benefits which are payable because of death or disability under United States Government life and national service life insurance are rights based on contracts. All insurance issued, reinstated, or converted becomes incontestable from date of issue, reinstatement, or conversion except for fraud, nonpayment of premiums, or on the ground that the applicant was not a member of the military or naval forces of the United States. Under the terms of the insurance contracts any rights which accrue cannot be denied except for the specific offenses set forth by statute and the contracts as basis for forfeiture of the insurance. Under both United States Government life and national service life insurance no insurance shall be payable for death inflicted as a lawful punishment for crime or military offense except when inflicted by the enemy. In addition, under national service life insurance any person guilty of mutiny, treason, spying, or desertion, or who because of conscientious objections refuses to perform service in the land or naval forces of the United States or refuses to wear the uniform of such forces, shall forfeit all rights to insurance. Any change which would provide any cause for forfeiture other than those specified would constitute an impairment of the contracts and would be improper. Sincerely yours, H. V. HIGLEY, Administrator. . RESOLUTION ENDORSING H. R. 1108 Whereas during the stress of war members of the Armed Forces had committed acts prohibited by articles of war, resulting in disciplinary proceedings other than by a general court-martial; and Whereas the service records of such members of the Armed Forces recorded the results of conviction on the service records of such members of the Armed Forces; and Whereas the said members, as a result of the said notations on the service records, upon discharge received a discharge other than dishonorable; and Whereas, upon the separation from the service, the veteran engaged in civilian pursuits and became a satisfactory member of his community and had become fully rehabilitated; and Whereas there is presently pending in the House of Representatives a bill designated as H. R. 1108, to wit, to amend section 207 of the Legislative Reorganization Act of 1946 to provide that the boards for the correction of military or naval records shall give consideration to satisfactory evidence relating to good character and conduct in civilian life after discharge or dismissal in determining whether or not to correct certain discharges and dismissals, and for other purposes: Now, therefore, be it Resolved by the council of administration, Veterans of Foreign Wars of the United States, Department of California, in session duly assembled, That it endorse the said bill; and be it further Resolved, That this resolution be forwarded to Congressman Clyde Doyle, of California, for presentation to the Committee on Armed Services, Congress of the United States. Submitted by Albert Anix, department judge advocate, Veterans of Foreign Wars of the United States, Department of California, March 30, 1957. Bakersfield, Calif., March 30, 1957. ALBERT ANIX. Unanimously approved by the council of administration, Department of California, Veterans of Foreign Wars of the United States, in regular session at Bakersfield, Calif., on March 30, 1957. BYRON B. GENTRY, Department Commander. ROBERT J. NUTT, Department of California. SIX MONTHS' TRAINEES-ANALYSIS (a) Unfit UNDESIRABLE DISCHARGES Habitual shirker. (1) September 26, 1956.-An 18-year-old trainee. (2) July 9, 1956.-A 19-year-old trainee. Undesirable habits and traits. Special court-martial, articles 86 (a. w. o. 1.) and 134 (breach of restriction). Sentence: Forfeiture $30 per month for 5 months. Confinement: 5 months; sentence remitted after 3 months. (3) September 14, 1956.-An 18-year-old trainee. Undesirable habits and traits. (4) November 21, 1956.-A 17-year-old trainee. Adjudicated youthful offender. (5) August 8, 1956.-An 18-year-old trainee. Homosexual. Summary courtmartial, article 92 (failure to obey lawful order). Sentence: Forfeiture $50. Confinement: 30 days. Undesirable habits and (6) November 16, 1956.-An 18-year-old trainee. traits. Summary court-martial, article 86 (a. w. o. 1.). Sentence: Forfeiture $30 per month for 6 months. Confinement: 6 months. (7) November 26, 1956.--An 18-year-old trainee. Undesirable habits and traits. Special court-martial, article 86 (a. w. o. l.). Sentence: Forfeiture $55 per month for 6 months. Confinement: 6 months (served 3 months). (8) August 29, 1956.-A 19-year-old trainee. Undesirable habits and traits. Summary court-martial, article 86 (a. w. o. l.). Sentence: Forfeiture $33. Confinement: 1 month (suspended). Summary court-martial, articles 86 (a. w. o. l.) and 91 (disobedience to orders). Sentence: Forfeiture $33. Confinement: None (30 days' hard labor). Special court-martial, article 86 (a. w. o. l.). Sentence: Forfeiture $52 per month for 6 months. Confinement : 6 months (served 45 days). (9) July 20, 1956.-A 17-year-old trainee. Undesirable habits and traits. Summary court-martial, article 86 (a. w. o. 1.). Sentence: Forfeiture $30. One month hard labor without confinement. Special court-martial, article 86 (a. w. o 1.). Sentence: Forfeiture $25 per month for 6 months. Confinement: 3 months (suspended) and 3 months hard labor without confinement. Special court-martial, article 86 (a. w. o. 1.). Sentence: Forfeiture $52 per month for 6 months. Confinement: 6 months (served 16 days; sentence remitted). (10) November 29, 1956.-A 17-year-old trainee. Undesirable habits and traits. Summary court-martial, article 134 (breach of restriction). Sentence: Forfeiture $30. Confinement: 30 days. (11) November 14, 1956.-A 17-year-old trainee. Undesirable habits and traits. Summary court-martial, article 86 (a. w. o. 1.). Sentence: Forfeiture $50. Confinement: 20 days' restriction. Special court-martial, article 86 (a. w. o. l.). Sentence: Forfeiture $50 per month for 2 months. Confinement: 2 months. (12) July 20, 1956.-A 19-year-old trainee. Undesirable habits and traits. Special court-martial, article 86 (a. w. o. 1.). Sentence: Forfeiture $33 per month for 6 months. Confinement: 6 months. (13) December 21, 1956.-A 19-year-old trainee. Undesirable habits and traits. Special court-martial, article 86 (a. w. o. 1.). Sentence: Forfeiture $50. Confinement: 30 days (served 1 month). Summary court-martial, article 86 (a. w. o. l.). Sentence: 22 days' hard labor without confinement and 30 days' restriction to post. Special court-martial, articles 86 (a. w. o. 1.) and 134 (breach of restriction). Sentence: Forfeiture $50 per month for 5 months. Confinement: 4 months (served 3 months). (14) December 28, 1956.-A 17-year-old trainee. (b) Misconduct Homosexual. (1) October 12, 1956.-A 17-year-old trainee. Misconduct. Special court martial, article 128 (assault). Sentence: Forfeiture $50 per month for 6 months. Confinement: 6 months (served 1 month; sentence remitted). |