Images de page
PDF
ePub

rolls of the Army. As noted above, the bill is amended so as to provide that no back pay or allowances shall accrue by reason of its passage.

Report of the War Department, recommending favorable action on S. 363, follows:

MARCH 4, 1935. Hon. MORRIS SHEPPARD, Chairman Committee on Military Affairs,

United States Senate. DEAR SENATOR SHEPPARD: Careful consideration has been given to the bil! S. 363, a bill to increase the efficiency of the Veterinary Corps of the Regular Army, which you transmitted to the War Department under date of January 10, 1935, with a request for information and the views of the Department relative thereto.

The more important provisions of existing law that would be affected by the passage of the bill are as follows:

(a) Section 16 of the act of June 3, 1916 (39 Stat. 176-177), which established the Veterinary Corps as a part of the Medical Department of the Army and provided for appointing therein the existing veterinarians of Cavalry and Field Artillery and those employed in the Quartermaster Corps. It required that such appointments be subject to passing a satisfactory professional and physical examination and further provided that these veterinarians who failed to pass the prescribed physical examination because of disability incident to the service should be placed on the retired list of the Army with 75 percent of the pay to which they would have been entitled if appointed in the Veterinary Corps.

(b) The sixth paragraph of section 127a, act of June 4, 1920 (41 Stat. 785), which provides that:

“In determining relative rank and increase of pay for length of service, and, in the case of officers of the Regular Army, in determining rights of retirement, active duty performed while under appointment from the United States Government, whether in the Regular, provisional, or temporary forces, shall be credited to the same extent as service under a Regular Army commission.”

(c) Section 1 of the act of June 28, 1930 (46 Stat. 829), which provides:

" That for purposes of promotion, longevity pay, and retirement there shall be credited to officers of the Veterinary Corps all full-time service rendered by them as veterinarians in the Quartermaster Department, Cavalry, or Field Artillery prior to June 3, 1916."

The legislation proposed in S. 363 would amend the last of the laws quoted by inserting after the words “Veterinary Corps” the words, "and former officers of the Veterinary Corps now on the retired list”, and by striking out the words, "prior to June 3, 1916.”

The sequence of events which brought about the condition that S. 363 is apparently designed to change, is somewhat complicated. The steps are stated chronologically below:

(a) In determining the right of officers of the Veterinary Corps to increases in pay for length of service under section 127a of the act of June 4, 1920 (see above), the former veterinarians of the Cavalry and Field Artillery were allowed credit for their service as such. However, the Comptroller General held (2 C. G. 350) that service as a veterinarian in the Quartermaster Corps could not be counted for longevity pay purposes.

(b) Subsequently, the act of June 28, 1930, was enacted for the apparent purpose of placing service as a veterinarian in the Quartermaster Corps on a parity with such service in the Cavalry and Field Artillery.

(c) In construing the provisions of the act of June 28, 1930, the Comptroller General has rendered two decisions which deny credit, for purposes of longevity pay, for certain services as veterinarians in the Quartermaster Corps. Such credit is denied by the decision of May 2, 1931, to former veterinarians of the Quartermaster Corps who had been placed on the retired list of the Army prior to June 28, 1930, and, by the decision of December 21, 1931, to those active officers of the Veterinary Corps who served as veterinarians in the Quartermaster Corps subsequent to June 3, 1916, and were later commissioned in the Army.

The foregoing decisions affect 6 officers of the Veterinary Corps, on the active list, and 9 officers on the retired list.

S. 363 would permit the 15 officers affected to receive credit for the service mentii ved in the bill for longevity pay purposes. The credit for the service menti ned for promotion and retirement purposes applies only to the 6 officers

on the active list. The retirement provision pertains chiefly to the Federal statute permitting retirement, under certain conditions, after 30 years of active service. The promotion provision would advance the dates on which the six officers will be promoted. Promotion in the Veterinary Corps to the various grades is made upon the completion of a fixed number of years of commissioned service. The advancement of the dates of promotion would be slight, for these officers have service for which they might take credit varying in length from 34 days to 1 year.

Congress, by the act of June 28, 1930, apparently intended to establish the principle that service as a veterinarian in the Quartermaster Corps should be placed upon a parity for all purposes with service as a veterinarian in the Cavalry and Field Artillery. Due to the rulings of the Comptroller General, this was not accomplished. The enactment of S. 363 would carry out the original purpose; therefore the proposal is meritorious.

The estimated cost of the bill, if enacted, would be $967 for the fiscal year 1936. As additional officers can no longer acquire credit for the types of service mentioned in the bill, the cost in future years would diminish as the officers affected leave the active and retired rolls of the Army.

It has been ascertained that the enactment of this legislation would be in accord with the financial program of the President if it is amended to provide that no back pay or allowances shall accrue by reason of its passage.

Accordingly, the War Department recommends that the following proviso be added to S. 363:

Provided, That no back pay or allowances shall be held to have accrued prior to the passage of this Act. Amended as above proposed, the enactment of the bill is recommended. Sincerely yours,

Geo. H. DERN, Secretary of War. Senate Report No. 69, Seventy-third Congress, second session, to accompany S. 1286, submitted by your committee to the Senate on May 12, 1933, follows:

The Committee on Military Affairs, to which was referred the bill (S. 1286) to increase the efficiency of the Veterinary Corps of the Regular Army, having considered the same, reports favorably thereon with the recommendation that it do pass.

A similar bill was reported favorably by your committee in the Seventy-second Congress and was passed by the Senate but failed to receive action in the House. A copy of the committee's report on that bill, explaining its features, is made a part of this report and reads as follows:

The Committee on Military Affairs, to which was referred the bill (S. 2774) to amend an act to increase the efficiency of the Veterinary Corps of the Regular Army, approved June 28, 1930, having considered the same, reports favorably thereon with the recommendation that it do pass, amended as follows:

Change the title so as to read:
“To increase the efficiency of the Veterinary Corps of the Regular Army.'

“The purpose of this bill is to permit certain officers of the Veterinary Corps to count, for purposes of promotion, longevity pay, and retirement, periods served by them in the Quartermaster Department of the Army.

The report of the Secretary of War to the chairman of the Senate Committee on Military Affairs, giving the status of these officers and the effect of the bill, if enacted, is made a part of this report, and reads as follows:

WAR DEPARTMENT,

Washington, D. C., March 4, 1932. Hon. DAVID A. REED,

Chairman Committee on Military Affairs, United States Senate. DEAR SENATOR REED: Careful consideration has been given to the bill S. 2774, Jeventy-second Congress, “To amend an act to increase the efficiency of the Veterinary Corps of the Regular Army, approved June 28, 1930,” which you transmitted to the War Department under date of January 16, 1932, with a request for information and the views of the Department relative thereto.

The more important provisions of existing law that would be affected by the passage of the bill are as follows:

(a) Section 16 of the act of June 3, 1916 (39 Stat. 176-177), which established the Veterinary Corps as a part of the Medical Department of the Army and

provided for appointing therein the existing veterinarians of Cavalry and Field Artillery and those employed in the Quartermaster Corps. It required that such appointments be subject to passing a satisfactory professional and physical examination and further provided that those veterinarians who failed to pass the prescribed physical examination because of disability incident to the service should be placed on the retired list of the Army with 75 percent of the pay to which they would have been entitled if appointed in the Veterinary Corps.

(b) The sixth paragraph of section 127a, act of June 4, 1920 (41 Stat. 785), which provides that,

“In determining relative rank and increase of pay for length of service, and, in the case of officers of the Regular Army, in determining rights of retirement, active duty performed while under appointment from the United States Government, whether in the Regular, provisional, or temporary forces, shall be credited to the same extent as service under a Regular Army commission."

(c) Section 1 of the act of June 28, 1930 (46 Stat. 829) which provides:

"That for purposes of promotion, longevity pay, and retirement there shall be credited to officers of the Veterinary Corps all full-time service rendered by them as veterinarians in the Quartermaster Department, Cavalry, or Field Artillery prior to June 3, 1916."

The legislation proposed in S. 2774 would amend the last of the laws quoted above by inserting after the words “Veterinary Corps”, the words “ and former officers of the Veterinary Corps now on the retired list”, and by striking out the words “prior to June 3, 1916.”

The sequence of events which brought about the condition that S. 2774 is apparently designed to change is somewhat complicated. The steps are stated chronologically below:

(a) In determining the right of officers of the Veterinary Corps to increases in pay for length of service under section 127a of the act of June 4, 1920 (see above), the former veterinarians of the Cavalry and Field Artillery were allowed credit for their service as such. However, the Comptroller General held (2 C. G. 350) that service as a veterinarian in the Quartermaster Corps could not be counted for longevity-pay purposes.

(b) Subsequently, the act of June 28, 1930, was enacted for the apparent pur. pose of placing service as a veterinarian in the Quartermaster Corps on a parity with such service in the Cavalry and Field Artillery.

(c) In construing the provisions of the act of June 28, 1930, the Comptroller General has rendered two decisions which deny credit, for purposes of longevity pay, for certain service as veterinarians in the Quartermaster Corps. Such credit is denied by the decision of May 2, 1931, to former veterinarians of the Quartermaster Corps who had been placed on the retired list of the Army prior to June 28, 1930, and, by the decision of December 21, 1931, to those active officers of the Veterinary Corps who served as veterinarians in the Quartermaster Corps subsequent to June 3, 1916, and were later commissioned in the Army.

The foregoing decisions affected two groups of officers, one retired and one active. So far as can be determined from the records of the War Department, these groups include 13 officers, as follows:

(a) Two retired lieutenant colonels, one retired major, and three retired captains who are receiving no credit for periods of service varying from a minimum of 1 year 1 month and 27 days, to a maximum of 7 years 2 months and 27 days.

(6) Seven majors on the active list of the Veterinary Corps who are receiving no credit for periods of service varying from a minimum of 1 month and 4 days to a maximum of 1 year.

The effect of the enactment of S. 2774 would be to credit the above service, for purposes of longevity pay, to the 13 officers comprising the two groups described. The estimated increase in annual cost for the fiscal year 1933 in the case of the retired officers is $573.60 and in the case of the active officers is $1,050, a total of $1,623.60.

Insofar as the seven majors on the active list are concerned, the enactment of S. 2774 would have the further effect of advancing the date of their promotion into the grade of lieutenant colonel. This promotion occurs automatically under existing law upon the completion of 20 years of commissioned service. As a result of their accelerated promotion, the relative rank of these officers in the grade of lieutenant colonel, and subsequently in the grade of colonel, would be above certain other officers or the Veterinary Corps who now rank them in the grade of major.

It is not certain that the proposed legislation, in its present form, will accomplish the result that is evidently desired. In the first place, the title of S. 2774

describes it as an amendatory act, but the language which follows the enacting clause does not specifically make any amendments. It might therefore be construed that S. 2774, if enacted into law as drawn, was legislation additional to that contained in the act of June 28, 1930, which might involve complications in its application. Secondly, the Comptroller General in his decision of May 2, 1931, previously referred to, stated that the former veterinarians of the Quartermaster Corps, who were placed on the retired list for physical disability when examined for commissions, had never been officers of the Veterinary Corps. It might therefore be held that they would not be covered by the present phraseology of S. 2774.

Congress, by the enactment of the act of June 28, 1930, apparently intended to establish the principle that service as a veterinarian in the Quartermaster Corps should be placed on a parity for all purposes with service as a veterinarian in the Cavalry and Field Artillery. Due to the rulings of the Comptroller General, this was not accomplished. The enactment of S. 2774, if clarified in accordance with the comments contained in the preceding paragraph, would carry out the original purpose. To this extent the proposal is meritorious. However, the proposed legislation has been submitted to the Director of the Bureau of the Budget and he advises that it is not in accord with the financial program of the President. Accordingly, the War Department is constrained to recommend against its passage at this time.

A similar report on an identical measure, H. R. 8231, is being submitted under even date to the chairman Committee on Military Affairs, House of Representatives. Sincerely yours,

PATRICK J. HURLEY,

Secretary of War.

« PrécédentContinuer »