The American people, through their elected representatives in the Congress of the United States, have provided well and generously for members of the Uniformed Services during the past two years. The 84th Congress will probably be remembered as one of the most productive Congresses in many years with respect to Service legislation.
In the October, 1955 Proceedings legislation of interest to Service personnel was reviewed with regard to the first session of the 84th Congress. Thus, it is unnecessary to repeat in detail the legislative enactments during the first session. It will be sufficient merely to recall that during the first session the Career Incentive Act became law, and for the first time in the history of the Armed Forces, a dislocation allowance was authorized in connection with a permanent change of station. Likewise, for the first time, monetary allowances were provided for moves by or in house trailers. The regular draft Act was extended for four years. The Doctors Draft Act was extended for two years. The National Reserve Plan was adopted. The Dependents Assistance Act was extended for four years. Certain retirement benefits for temporary commissioned officers of the Navy and Marine Corps were authorized which placed them on the same basis as regular or reserve officers. And finally, a two-year integration authority for the Navy and Marine Corps was enacted. This brief summary covers just a few of the more important items enacted in the first session.
The second session of the 84th Congress rounded out the legislative program, particularly in those fields dealing with career personnel.
The highlights of the second session of the 84th Congress included the right granted to Army and Air Force personnel to retire in the highest grade satisfactorily served (previously authorized for Navy and Marine Corps personnel in the first session), readjustment pay for reservists, increased survivor benefits, dependent medical care, regular officer augmentation, an incentive act for physicians and dentists, a substantial public works authorization, and many other items of particular interest to smaller groups of service personnel.
Dependent Medical Care
One of the most significant legislative accomplishments of the second session was the enactment of the Dependent Medical Care Act. Hearings began on this important matter before Subcommittee No. 2 of the House Armed Services Committee, the Honorable Paul J. Kilday presiding, on January 23, 1956, and lasted until February 7, 1956. Hearings were conducted by the Senate Armed Services Committee, and on May 14, 1956, the Senate passed the House bill, amended. Conferees met and agreed on a conference report on May 21, 1956. On June 7, 1956, the Dependents Medical Care Act became Public Law 569.
For the first time in the history of the Armed Services the dependents of members of the Uniformed Services, that is the Army, Navy, Air Force, Marine Corps, Coast Guard, Public Health Service and the Coast and Geodetic Survey, are under a uniform law with regard to medical care in Service facilities. Until the enactment of Public Law 569 Navy dependents with contagious diseases were not authorized hospitalization in naval facilities. Under previous law dependent parents-in-law of Navy and Marine Corps personnel were not entitled to hospitalization in Service facilities. Under the new law, dependent parents and parents-in- law of all Service members will be entitled to medical care in Service facilities if they actually reside in the household of the Service member, or retired Service member.
Another outstanding discrimination which was eliminated by the passage of the Dependents Medical Care Act was the prohibition against treating dependents of Coast Guard personnel in Service facilities of the Army, Navy, or Air Force.
Likewise, it will come as a surprise to many retired personnel to learn that prior to the enactment of the Dependents Medical Care Act there was no statutory authority for providing medical care to retired personnel and their dependents in Service facilities. This statutory authority now exists subject only to regulations and the availability of space and facilities.
Under the new act, the Secretary of Defense is authorized to establish minimal charges for outpatient care if he makes a special finding that such charges are necessary. Charges, if put into effect, will probably not exceed 50 cents or $1.
There were several major differences between the House bill and the Senate amendments, which necessitated the conference previously referred to. Under the House bill, reservists retired under Title III of Public Law 810 of the 80th Congress were excluded from the term “retired member.” Thus Title III retired reservists and their dependents would have been excluded from medical care in Service facilities. The Senate amendment included Title III reservists as well as their dependents. Under the new law, agreed to in conference between the House and Senate Managers, retired reservists under Title III of Public Law 810, as well as their dependents, will be entitled to medical care on a “space and facilities basis’ provided such reservists have completed not less than 8 years of active service.
Another important difference between the House bill and the Senate amendment dealt with hospitalization for domiciliary care, chronic diseases, nervous and mental disorders, and elective medical and surgical treatment. The House bill excluded this type of treatment “except under regulations prescribed by the Secretary of Defense.” The Senate amendment precluded hospitalization for dependents for domiciliary care or elective medical and surgical treatment, but permitted hospitalization of dependents for nervous and mental disorders or chronic diseases under regulations prescribed by the Secretary of Defense, although such hospitalization was limited not to exceed 12 months. The new law excludes hospitalization for domiciliary care but permits hospitalization for elective medical and surgical treatment as well as for nervous and mental disorders and chronic diseases under regulations prescribed by the Secretary of Defense in special and unusual cases, but such hospitalization may not exceed 12 months.
Under the House bill, the Secretary of Defense would have been directed to contract for medical care for the wives and children of active duty personnel under an insurance medical service or health plan or plans. The plan or plans were to include but not be restricted to, hospitalization in semiprivate accommodations up to 365 days for each admission for medical and surgical care incident to a period of hospitalization; complete obstetrical and maternity service; required services of a physician or surgeon prior to and following hospitalization for a bodily injury or for a surgical operation; and diagnostic tests and procedures including laboratory and x-ray examinations, accomplished or recommended by a physician incident to hospitalization. In addition, under the House bill the patient would have been required to pay the first $25 of hospital expenses incurred for each admission.
The Senate amendment directed the Secretary of Defense to establish an insurance medical service, or health plan for the spouses and children of active duty members of the uniformed services, but provided that such plan or plans could not include more than the items previously listed which were identical with the House bill, except that under the Senate amendment the patient admitted to a civilian hospital would pay either the first $25 of expenses or the service charge established by the Secretary (at present $1.75 per day) for dependents hospitalized in service facilities, multiplied by the number of days for which hospitalized, whichever was the greater amount.
The law finally enacted provides that the Secretary of Defense will be required to contract for an insurance, medical service, or health plan or plans for the spouses and children of active duty personnel which plan or plans shall include the items previously listed. In addition, the patient must pay either $25 for each admission or the service charge, multiplied by the number of days for which hospitalized, whichever is greater.
Of significant importance, however, is a provision that was contained in the original House bill, and agreed to by the conferees, which permits the Secretary of Defense to provide limitations, additions, exclusions, definitions, and related provisions in such insurance, medical service, or health plan or plans. The conferees also agreed to the Senate provision which makes clear that the insurance or medical service plan may not provide for what is normally conceived to be out-patient care.
Thus, the Secretary is directed to contract for an insurance, medical service, or health plan which, for example, will authorize surgery to be performed in a physician’s office, or X-rays or laboratory tests to be taken in clinics or laboratories other than in hospitals, but the Secretary may not enter into a type of health, medical service or insurance plan which would permit dependents to go to private doctors for normal treatments that would not, under ordinary circumstances require hospitalization.
Another significant difference between the House bill and the Senate amendment dealt with the extent of “insurance” coverage. The House bill required coverage for wives and children of active duty personnel and granted the Secretary of Defense discretionary authority to contract for an insurance, medical service or health plan or plans to provide medical care for retired members of a uniformed service as well as their dependents, and other dependents. The Senate amendment contained no similar language with respect to the discretionary authority. The House managers agreed to the exclusion of this discretionary authority with the knowledge that after the insurance medical service, or health plan has been in operation for spouses and children for a period of time it may be possible to later extend the plan by law to the other groups that would have been included under the House bill under the discretionary authority provided in the House bill for the Secretary.
The new law will go into effect on December 7, 1956. The program for providing medical care in civilian facilities is expected to cost $76,000,000 annually.
Special Pay for Physicians and Dentists
Another important item dealing with medical care was the law which increased the special pay for physicians and dentists, in formally referred to as the “Doctors’ Career Incentive Act.”
Under this new law, Public Law 497, 84th Congress, physicians are granted five years of constructive credit for promotion purposes (previously they received four years), and in addition this credit may be used for longevity pay purposes. Dentists are credited with four years of constructive credit (previously three years) which may also be used for longevity pay purposes. This constructive credit may not be used in establishing eligibility for voluntary or involuntary separation, but it may be used as a multiplier in determining retired pay after otherwise qualifying for retirement. It is not applicable to those retired prior to May 1, 1956. In addition to the constructive credit for promotion purposes and longevity pay purposes, the new Act also increases the special pay for physicians and dentists from $100 to $150 per month, after completing 2 years of active duty; $200 per month after completing 6 years of active duty; and $250 per month after completing 10 years of active duty.
Armed Forces Regular Officers Augmentation Act of 1956
Another extremely important measure which became law in the second session of the 84th Congress, authorizes the transfer of many reserve officers to a regular status in the Army and Air Force. Under this new law, the regular authorized commissioned strength of the Army has been increased from 30,600 to 49,500. The regular commissioned officer strength of the Air Force has been increased from 27,500 to 69,425. At present, only 26% of the commissioned officers in the Army and 17% of the commissioned officers in the Air Force are regular officers. The objective of the new law, for both the Army and the Air Force, is a regular officer strength of approximately 40% by 1963.
The first step toward attaining this objective will result in the transfer of approximately 7,000 reserve officers in the Army to the status of regular officers by July of 1958. By January of 1958 the Air Force will select some 24,000 active duty reserve officers for transfer to a regular status.
Formulas for transfer to the regular Army and regular Air Force are established under the new Act. Under the Army title, no person will be commissioned as a regular who is more than 27 years of age, except that this age may be exceeded by the total number of years of active commissioned service an officer has performed since December 6, 1941, plus the number of years of inactive commissioned service creditable to him for pay purposes but not to exceed 8 years. Some officers who exceed the age of 27 may also be transferred to the regular Army by being granted a constructive service credit of not to exceed two years.
In the Air Force the age limit for transfer as a regular is 30. This may be waived in exceptional cases up to the age of 35. An individual may exceed the age of 30 however, by not more than the number of years of active commissioned service performed since attaining the age of 21, plus two years of constructive credit where necessary to qualify for appointment.
In both the Army and the Air Force titles there is a provision prohibiting the integration of any person who cannot complete 20 years of active service before attaining the age of 55. There are also provisions allowing a very limited number of civilians to be integrated into the regular Army and Air Force with not to exceed 8 years of constructive credit.
The Navy and Marine Corps integration authority, which would have terminated on August 9, 1957, is extended indefinitely. In the Navy and Marine Corps no officer may be integrated above the grade of lieutenant (captain in the Marine Corps). In this connection, it should be noted that approximately 45% of the officers serving on active duty in the Navy are regular officers and approximately 50% serving on active duty in the Marine Corps are regular officers.
Readjustment Pay for Members of the Reserve Components Involuntarily Released from Active Duty
Another first in legislative benefits for service personnel was enacted during the second session of the 84th Congress for reservists who are required to leave active duty involuntarily after completing five years of active duty. Under the new law, officers and enlisted personnel who have completed five years of continuous active duty and who are involuntarily released will be given one-half of one month’s basic pay in the grade in which serving at the time of release from active duty for each year of active duty, not to exceed 18 years. Thus, for example, individuals will receive sums ranging from $266.50 for a private involuntarily released after five years of active duty to $5,569.20 for a colonel involuntarily released after 17 years of active duty. However, mustering out pay will be deducted. Five full years of continuous active duty is required to qualify. Thereafter, any part of a year over six months will be counted as a full year in determining the amount of readjustment pay to which the individual is entitled.
Retirement in the Highest Grade Satisfactorily Served
Another extremely significant legislative accomplishment was the enactment of Public Law 547 which permitted Army and the Air Force officers to retire in the highest temporary grade in which they serve satisfactorily for six months or more. Without this law, officers in the Army and Air Force could only have retired in their permanent grades after January 1, 1957, unless retired for disability.
In the first session of the 84th Congress, Navy and Marine Corps personnel had already been granted this benefit.
This new law also corrected an injustice which affected a number of enlisted men and warrant officers who retired between June 29, 1948, and August 1, 1953, and who, because they had completed more than 30 years of service, were ineligible to retire as reserve officers even though they had served 10 years or more as reserve officers.
A relatively small number of Navy and Marine Corps officers also benefitted under the new law by eliminating the previous limitation on retirement to the highest grade attained prior to July 1, 1946.
Survivor Benefits
As a result of studies and hearings which began in the 83rd Congress under a select committee, and which extended to the 84th Congress also under a select committee, a new law with respect to survivor benefits has been enacted. It would be difficult to overestimate the importance of this new legislation. Free insurance, as such, will be eliminated after January 1, 1957. Likewise, Federal Employee Compensation Act benefits for reservists serving on active duty will be eliminated. Death gratuity benefits have been increased for the lower grades and reduced for the higher grades. At present, death gratuity benefits provide a minimum payment of $468 and a maximum payment of $7,656. After January 1, 1957, death gratuity benefits will involve a minimum of $800 and a maximum of $3,000
But of much greater significance is the fact that a new basis has been established for computing monthly compensation to wives of service personnel who die on active duty or from a service-connected disability following retirement or separation. At present, widows receive $70 per month, or $87 per month from the Veterans Administration, depending upon whether the injury or disease which caused the death occurred in peacetime or in time of war. After January 1, 1957, widows will receive $112 per month, plus 12% of the basic pay received by the member at the time of his death or separation. In addition, service members will contribute toward Social Security based upon a maximum of $350 a month of basic pay. This will provide monthly payments to a widow and minor children up to $200 a month in addition to the compensation received from the Veterans Administration. Likewise service members will be able to qualify for old age and survivor benefits upon attaining the age of 65 based upon their wage credits earned under the new system to be established after January 1, 1957. While in some instances individuals will receive a smaller amount than they would previously have received under the free insurance program or under Federal Employees Compensation Act benefits nervertheless the large majority of survivors of service personnel will receive considerably higher Veterans Administration benefits over an extended period of time. This is particularly significant with regard to payments under the Old Age and Survivor Benefits Act after minor children attain the age of 18 for in that case Social Security benefits are eliminated until the widow attains the age of 62.
Dual Compensation, Dual Employment
During the 84th Congress hearings were held on the Dual Employment and Dual Compensation Statutes. In the first session of the 84th Congress the Dual Compensation Act limitation was increased from $3,000 to $10,000. Likewise, the Senate passed legislation increasing the limitation under the Dual Employment Statute of 1894 from $2,500 to $5,000. The Senate bill was referred to the House Post Office and Civil Service Committee but was not acted upon by that Committee.
The House Armed Services Committee conducted hearings on the over-all problem but no legislation was enacted following the hearings.
Because of many conflicting articles and statements that have appeared on the Dual Employment and Dual Compensation Act statutes, some clarification appears advisable. The Dual Employment Act of 1894, insofar as Service personnel are concerned, is applicable only to retired regular officers, including all warrant officers, commissioned or otherwise. Under this statute no retired regular officer may hold an office in the Federal government if he is entitled to retired pay in excess of $2,500 a year, or if the compensation of the civilian position pays $2,500 a year or more. The 1894 statute does not apply to reserve officers, nor does it apply to any commissioned or warrant officer retired for disability. Likewise, it does not apply to retired officers elected to public office or appointed to public office by the President by and with the advice and consent of the Senate. The 1894 statute does not apply to retired enlisted men retired for any reason. Likewise, the 1894 statute does not apply to temporary employment, consultants paid on a fee basis, physicians hired under contract on a competitive basis, employees of the Panama Canal Company, employees of government-owned corporations, employees of the Veterans Administration, retired officers whose retired pay is less than $2,500 annually and whose federal civilian pay is also less than $2,500 annually, the Director and Assistant Director of the Bureau of the Budget, certain individuals employed for river and harbor improvements, certain board members and consultants employed under the Mutual Security Act of 1954, and a limited number of retired officers who may be employed by the Central Intelligence Agency without regard to the 1894 statute
Likewise, specific acts of Congress have exempted certain retired officers from the operation of the 1894 Dual Employment Act.
It should be borne in mind, however, that the 1894 Dual Employment Statute applies only to regular officers, commissioned and warrant. It does not apply to reserve officers.
After passing this hurdle, a retired regular officer seeking employment in the Federal government also faces the restrictions of the Dual Compensation Act of 1932. Under this act, if an officer can be employed by the Federal government he is prohibited from receiving that part of his retired pay which, when added to his federal civilian pay, totals more than $10,000 annually. This act applies to any individual who receives retired pay “for or on account of service as a commissioned officer.” Thus, it does not apply to Army and Air Force warrant officers since they are not commissioned. Likewise, it does not apply to warrant officers of the Navy, Marine Corps, and Coast Guard, who have not attained commissioned warrant grade. In addition, as a result of a decision of the Court of Claims, the 1932 Dual Compensation Act does not apply to reserve retired officers of the Army and Air Force (Tanner versus US 125 Fed. S. 240). Likewise, because of Section 804(a) of the Armed Forces Reserve Act of 1952, it would appear that reserve officers of the Navy, Marine Corps and Coast Guard, who are retired, are likewise exempt from the Dual Compensation Act of 1932. In this connection, however, it should be noted that the decision only applies to reserve officers who are retired and who at the time of retirement were in a reserve status. The exemption does not apply to an individual who was not in a reserve status at the time of retirement but who nevertheless qualifies for retirement pay under Title III of Public Law 810, 80th Congress.
In addition, the 1932 law does not apply to employees of the Soldier’s Home, or employees of the Panama Canal Company, officers retired due to a disability incurred in combat or from an instrumentality of war in time of war, certain boards and consultants employed under the Mutual Security Act of 1954, Selective Service employees, and consultants employed on a fee basis.
There are other relatively minor exceptions to the 1932 Dual Compensation Act.
Retired enlisted personnel who are entitled to the retired pay of an officer are subject to the 1932 Dual Compensation Act, but are not subject to the 1894 Dual Employment Statute. Retired regular officers retired for disability incurred in combat, or as a result of a disability incurred by an instrumentality of war in time of war, are exempt from the 1932 Dual Compensation Act. Having been retired for disability, they are not prohibited from employment by the 1894 Dual Employment Statute.
A new law was passed in the 82nd Congress which waived claims against those employed in violation of the Dual Compensation Act which had not been reported to the General Accounting Office for collection “within six years from the last date of any period of dual compensation.” While this legislation was intended to ease the situation, it has not been particularly successful since it has been held that the six years begins to run from the time of last employment.
One of the difficulties surrounding the problem is that it involves the jurisdiction of at least three standing committees: the Armed Services Committee, the Post Office and Civil Service Committee, and the Veterans Affairs Committee. Nevertheless, it appears quite likely that some remedial legislation will be forthcoming in the next session of the Congress. Hearings on the subject were held by a special subcommittee of the House Armed Services Committee during the second session, but no definite legislative recommendations were made.
Academy and R.O.T.C. Service
Hearings were held on the Cole Bill (Honorable W. Sterling Cole, H. R. 10212), to credit Academy and R.O.T.C. service, but only after the completion of four years of active duty. This bill, had it been enacted, would have permitted Academy and R.O.T.C. service to be counted for pay purposes, but not as a multiplier in determining retired pay.
While the Subcommittee met twice and arguments were presented by Defense witnesses and others in support of the bill, no action was taken.
There are strong arguments on both sides of the question—and undoubtedly they will be heard again in the next Congress, as they have in past sessions.
Substandard Housing
A casualty of the 84th Congress was a bill that passed the House which would have permitted Service personnel to occupy approximately 36,000 substandard housing units on a rental basis without being checked for the full amount of quarters allowance. The House bill granted the authority to occupy these quarters, on a fair rental basis, for a maximum of two years with the intent that such houses should be repaired or replaced.
The Department of Defense, in effect, wanted much broader authority, particularly in the field of exceptions and the termination date.
The Senate adopted the Department of Defense position, but the House and Senate could not agree. As a result, no final action was taken and the bill did not become law.
Miscellaneous Items
Among other items of interest to smaller groups which were enacted are:
Public Law 581, which eliminated certain inequities in the assignment of line running mates to lieutenants (jg) in the staff corps of the Navy. In effect, the new law altered the so-called “fanning process” which had previously been in existence.
Public Law 585, which amended the Women’s Armed Services Integration Act so as to provide flexibility in the distribution of women officers in the grades of commander and lieutenant commander. Under the new law when the authorized number of line WAVE commanders is less than the maximum permitted by law, the difference may be applied to increase the authorized number of line WAVE lieutenant commanders. In addition, the new legislation authorizes, for a 4-year period, the selective retention of women officers in the grade of lieutenant until they have completed 15 years of active commissioned service instead of the 13 years of active commissioned service to which they would otherwise have been limited.
Another law established a date of rank for pay purposes for 2,880 Naval Reserve officers promoted to the grades of lieutenant and lieutenant commander during the Korean emergency. In effect, this legislation relieved these officers from repaying various sums of money they had received on the basis of promotions which the Comptroller General determined were improper in so far as date of rank was concerned.
Public Law 770 amended the Armed Forces Leave Act of 1946 so as to authorize payments to survivors of former members for unused leave credit.
And legislation was enacted providing for the promotion and appointment of a Director and two Assistant Directors of the United States Marine Corps Band.
Resume
On April 12, 1956, a communication from the President of the United States was referred to the Committee on Armed Services. The letter from the President reviewed the major legislative proposals which the Administration had presented to the Congress as a means of improving military career incentives. These incentives were:
1. Servicemen’s and veterans’ survivor benefits.
2. Dependent medical care.
3. Regular officer augmentation.
4. Career incentives for medical and dental officers and nurses.
5. Substandard housing.
6. Preservation of retirement rights.
It is significant to note that all of the recommendations of the President were enacted except for career incentives for nurses and substandard housing. Even the latter was approved in principle by both Houses.
Servicemen—active, retired, and reserve —have reason to remember, gratefully, the 84th Congress.
* Mr. Blandford is Counsel for the House Armed Services Committee.