by law today to take into consideration the conduct of a man in private life.

Mr. BLANDFORD. Mr. Chairman, the Special Subcommittee on Military Discharges has had under consideration the bill H. R. 1108, which would amend section 207 of the Legislative Reorganization Act of 1946, now section 1552 of title 10, United States Code, as well as section 301 of the Servicemen's Readjustment Act of 1944. Both of these sections of law deal with boards established to correct or review military records or discharges.

The subcommittee developed three subcommittee prints and, at the direction of the chairman, introduced a new bill, H. R. 8772, which is before the committee today. This bill has the unanimous recommendation of the special subcommittee.

It should be made crystal clear at the outset that the primary purpose of H. R. 8772 is to authorize these boards to merely take into consideration postservice conduct when reviewing the discharges of individuals who have been separated from the service.

The proposed legislation does not require any board to grant a discharge under honorable conditions or to change a discharge based solely on exemplary postservice conduct.

The proposed legislation merely authorizes these boards to take postservice conduct into consideration along with other factors in determining whether a different type of discharge or separation should be awarded.

It should also be stated at the outset that the Department of Defense opposes this legislation because of their fear that it might have some possible affect upon the maintenance of discipline in our Armed Forces today.

At the same time, it should also be stated that the witnesses from the Department of Defense representing the Boards for the Correction of Military, Navy, and Air Force Records, as well as the Army, Navy, and Air Force Boards of Review, Discharges, and Dismissals, testified that they take postservice conduct into consideration today when reviewing the records of discharges of separated service personnel. Thus, in effect, the Department of Defense has indicated that they are opposed to legislation which would authorize them to take into consideration a factor which their own witnesses testify they are now considering.

Beyond that, the proposed legislation, as amended by the subcommittee, authorizes these boards to grant a new type of discharge certificate to be known as a "general discharge, limited."

This discharge certificate will not act as a substitute for the previous discharge for it will be dated as of the date it is issued by the board and will not be dated as of the date the individual was originally discharged. The new discharge, if granted by the board, will not entitle an individual to any benefits to which he was not otherwise entitled under his original discharge.

The net effect of the proposed legislation is that individuals will be give an opportunity to submit evidence of exemplary postservice conduct for a period of not less than 3 years after separation which, when taken into consideration with all other factors surrounding their original discharge, will authorize the respective boards to grant to such individuals a discharge which will be less onerous than an dis

honorable, bad conduct, or undesirable discharge, but at the same time will not in any way be the equivalent of a discharge under honorable conditions.

It is difficult to comprehend the objection of the Department of Defense to the proposed legislation. As previously stated, the objection is based upon the possible effects upon the maintenance of discipline in our armed services. Apparently, there are individuals who today refuse rehabilitation on the grounds that through some manner or means they can get their discharge changed at a later date. The statistics prove to the contrary, and certainly nothing in the proposed legislation should give an individual any cause for adopting the mistaken belief that at some later date his postservice conduct will wipe out the bad record that the individual may have established while serving on active duty.

If the Department of Defense's objection to the proposed legislation is sound, then certainly the Department of Defense should recommend the abolition of the Boards for the Correction of Military, Navy, and Air Force Records and the Boards of Review, Dicharges, and Dismissals. In fact, to be consistent, the Department of Defense would have to object to any review system because of its possible effect upon discipline.

The subcommittee, therefore, was not impressed with the Department of Defense's objection to the proposed legislation, nor were any of the Members of Congress who testified before the committee or who submitted statements in support of the proposed legislation.

The subcommittee is impressd, however, with the deleterious effect upon the future of any individual who receives a bad conduct, dishonorable, or undesirable discharge. Such discharges may be awarded for any number of reasons. Dishonorable discharges can only be awarded by general courts-martial. Bad conduct discharges can be awarded by general courts-martial, special courts-martial, and prior to the Uniform Code of Military Justice, by Navy and Marine Corps summary courts-martial.

Undesirable discharges, however, are awarded administratively and the procedures for awarding such administrative discharges vary considerably among the services.

It is interesting to note that during the fiscal years 1955 and 1956 96.1 percent of all individuals dicharged received discharges under honorable conditions or better. Only 1.5 percent received punitive discharges, that is, discharges issued pursuant to the sentence of a court-martial, but 2.4 percent received undesirable discharges through administrative procedures, without trial by a court.

As indicated, the administrative procedures for awarding an undesirable discharge vary among the services. In the Army, undesirable discharges may be given by any commander who has general courts-martial authority. At this level, the man may be required to appear with counsel before a board composed of not less than three officers. However, a personal appearance before a board is not required in the case of fraudulent enlistment, conviction by civil authority, cases where trial is barred by the statute of limitations, or when the individual has waived the right to trial. In certain cases which involve complex problems a final review may be made by the Secretary of the Army. The same procedure, for practical purposes, applies in the Air Force.

In the Navy, undesirable discharges are only authorized by the Chief of Naval Personnel. However, in the Navy, the individual is allowed to submit a statement on his own behalf which is forwarded along with the recommendation of the commanding officer to the Chief of Naval Personnel for final action. This recommendation, together with the man's record of service, is considered by a board composed of not less than three officers within the Bureau of Naval Personnel. And their findings and opinion, as well as recommendations, are reviewed by higher authority for approval.

In the Marine Corps, however, undesirable discharges may be given in the field by the commanding general of the major commands having court-martial jurisdiction with certain exceptions. The exceptions involve homosexuals, deserters whose trial is barred by the statute of limitations, and personnel who conceal juvenile delinquent records on enlistment. These cases are decided at headquarters, Marine Corps, after recommendation by field commanders. În cases involving personnel of lesser commands, where there is no major command with general courts-martial jurisdiction, the cases are submitted by the commanding officer to headquarters, Marine Corps, where a board, composed of three senior officers, examines the cases and recommends to the Director of Personnel that the man be discharged or retained. All cases are reviewed in headquarters, Marine Corps.

It is apparent that a uniform system for the processing of undesirable discharges is long overdue. An undesirable discharge carries with it a stigma that remains with an individual for the rest of his life. Certainly that individual should be entitled to the equivalent amount of protection that surrounds an individual who is finally awarded a punitive discharge pursuant to the action of a court-martial.

Insofar as punitive discharges are concerned, the review established by the Uniform Code of Military Justice appears to be entirely adequate. And statistically it appears that the judicial review of badconduct and dishonorable discharges has had its effect, for considerably less punitive discharges are issued by the armed services than undesirable discharges, which are issued by administrative means.

The special subcommittee is well aware of the strenuous efforts that have recently been instituted by the military services to rehabilitate servicemen involved in misconduct cases. The Air Force, in particular, with its so-called Amarillo plan, which envisions a rehabilitation program without a prison environment, has been highly successful. This program should not only be continued, but should be expanded.

On the other hand, the subcommittee is seriously concerned about the many thousands of individuals who must go through life with a dishonorable, bad-conduct, or undesirable discharge. Many of these individuals find it difficult to obtain employment because of the nature of their discharges.

Some of them entered the armed services at an early age. Some were immature and were rapidly exposed to a new way of life to which they are not able to immediately adjust. Some of them became involved in serious crimes; others in a series of petty offenses. Some are hardened criminals, but many are not. There should be some method by which an individual who has successfully rehabilitated himself in civilian life may at least be awarded a type of discharge.

which carries with it a connotation more acceptable to the general public that that of undesirable, bad conduct, or dishonorable.

The number involved is substantial. Since 1940 more than 189,000 servicemen have received bad-conduct or dishonorable discharges; more than 248,000 have received undesirable discharges. There can be little doubt that in most instances these individuals earned the type of discharge they received. The question to be decided is whether a punishment for life was justified by their acts.

Certainly the subcommittee does not desire to recommend any type of program that would in any way adversely affect discipline in the armed services or would in any way cheapen the honorable discharge, or the discharge under honorable conditions earned by so many millions of former American servicemen. But the subcommittee does question the soundness of a system which does not allow an individual to have his exemplary postservice conduct taken into consideration with a view toward awarding a new type of discharge in those cases where the original offenses were relatively minor contrasted with the lifetime punishment inflicted.

The Boards of Review of Discharges and Dismissals have reviewed many thousands of cases of individuals discharged from the armed services, except those discharged pursuant to the sentence of a general courts-martial. For example, the Army, from October of 1944 to February of 1957 reviewed 54,983 cases. Of this number, the Army Board changed 8,855 from under less than honorable conditions to a discharge under honorable conditions. From January of 1947 to March 31, 1957, the Army Board for the Correction of Military ords reviewed 8,927 discharge cases and changed 786, but of this number only 178 were changed from less than honorable to honorable conditions or better.

In the Navy and Marine Corps from January of 1946 to March of 1957 the Board of Review, Discharges, and Dismissals considered 41,699 cases and changed 9,337 discharge cases. But of this number, only 3,454 were changed from less than honorable conditions to honorable conditions or better. From April of 1947 to April of 1957 the Navy Board for the Correction of Naval Records reviewed 6,279 cases and changed 826 discharges, of which 733 were from less than honorable conditions to honorable conditions or better.

The Air Force Board of Review, Discharges, and Dismissals, from June 14, 1948, to April 17, 1957, reviewed 15,779 cases and changed 1,093 discharges, of which number 844 were changed from less than honorable conditions or better. The Air Force Board for the Correction of Air Force Records from July 1, 1950, to April 17, 1957, reviewed 1,374 cases and changed 102 discharges, of which number 87 were changed from less than honorable to under honorable conditions,

or better.

While this indicates that the Board of Review, Discharges, and Dismissals, have changed a reasonable number of discharges, it does not reflect the substantial number of individuals with less than honorable conditions discharges who have not even applied to the boards for the review of their discharges.

The proposed legislation, as recommended by the subcommittee, will make the following change in the law:

1. It will require the Boards of Review, Discharges, and Dismissals, and the Boards for the Correction of Military, Naval, and Air Force

Records to operate under uniform procedures established by the Secretary of Defense. That uniformity does not exist today.

2. It will require the boards to take into consideration the following factors in all cases that are being reviewed by the respective boards: (a) The conditions that prevailed at the time the incident, statement, attitude, or act which led to the original discharge or dismissal; (b) The age of the individual at the time of the incident, statement, attitude, or act which led to the original discharge or dismissal;

(c) The normal punishment that might have been adjudged had the act or incident been committed in civilian life;

(d) The moral turpitude, if any, involved in the incident, statement, attitude, or act which led to the discharge or dismissal.

These will be the minimum criteria for all future reviews.

The boards may establish other criteria. In addition to that, however, all boards will be authorized to award a "general discharge, limited," in those cases where the individual requesting a review of his discharge or dismissal introduces evidence of not less than 3 years of postservice conduct in justification of his request for a review of his discharge or dismissal. The same criteria will be applicable in these cases as in all other cases reviewed by the boards. But under the proposed legislation, the boards will be required to take into consideration, as a factor, postservice conduct indicating that the individual has rehabilitated himself, that his character is good, and that his conduct, activities, and habits since discharge have been exemplary for a period of not less than 3 years following discharge.

The subcommittee recognizes the fact that some individuals, fully entitled to a change in their discharge under existing procedures, might well submit evidence of postservice conduct in an effo convince the board of the inequity or error in their original discharge. To prevent an individual who otherwise would be entitled to a discharge under honorable conditions from being awarded a general discharge, limited, which is not considered a discharge under honorable conditions, the proposed legislation requires the board to make a specific finding in each case where a general discharge, limited, is awarded that the discharge has been issued pursuant to the provisions of the specific subsection which authorizes the general discharge, limited.

The subcommittee also recommends one additional change in existing law dealing with the Board of Review, Discharges, and Dismissals.

At present, these Boards do not have authority to review the sentences of general courts-martial since discharges issued pursuant to a general courts-martial can be reviewed by the Boards for the Correction of Military, Naval, or Air Force Records. However, an individual with a dishonorable, or bad conduct discharge issued pursuant to a general court-martial will, under the proposed legislation, be able to submit his case to the Boards of Review, Discharges, and Dismissals in order that that Board, composed entirely of military officers, may first review the case before it is again submitted for review by the Board for the Correction of Military, Naval, or Air Force Records, which is composed entirely of civilians.

It should be noted that the Boards for the Correction of Military, Naval, and Air Force Records exercise the right to assume jurisdiction, or to decline jurisdiction as they see fit. Nothing in the pro