(i) If and while the disability is rated 90 per centum the monthly pension shall be $40.00.

(j) If and while the disability is rated as total the monthly pension shall be $45.00.

(k) If the disabled person, as the result of service-incurred disability, has suffered the anatomical loss or the loss of the use of only one foot, or one hand, or one eye, the rate of pension provided in part II, paragraph II, (a) to (j) shall be increased by $12.00 per month.

(1) If the disabled person, as the result of service-incurred disability, has suffered the anatomical loss or loss of use of both hands, or of both feet, or of one hand and one foot, or is so helpless as to be in need of regular aid and attendance, the monthly pension shall be $75.00.

(m) If the disabled person, as the result of service-incurred disability, has suffered the anatomical loss or loss of use of both hands and one foot, or of both feet and one hand, or if the disabled person, as the result of service-incurred disability, is blind in both eyes, having only light perception, the monthly pension shall be $87.00.

(n) If the disabled person, as the result of service-incurred disability, is blind in both eyes, having only light perception, and has suffered the anatomical loss or loss of use of one hand or of one foot, the monthly pension shall be $100.00.

(0) If the disabled person, as the result of service incurred disability, has suffered the anatomical loss or loss of use as provided in subparagraphs (1) to (n), inclusive, of part I, paragraph II, of this regulation, and/or blindness in both eyes, having only light perception, which conditions under subparagraphs (1) to (n), inclusive, entitle him to two or more of the rates provided in those subparagraphs, no specified condition being considered twice in the determination the monthly pension shall be $125.

III. The surviving widow, child or children, and/or dependent mother or father of any deceased person who died as a result of injury or disease incurred in or aggravated by active military or naval service as provided for in part II, paragraph I hereof shall be entitled to receive pension at the monthly rates specified next below:

Widow but no child.

Widow and one child (with $4 for each additional child).

No widow but one child..

No widow but two children (equally divided).

$22

30

15

22

30

15

11

Where

No widow but three children (with $3 for each additional child; total amount to be equally divided) (equally divided).

Dependent mother or father__

(or both, each)____

The total pension payable under this paragraph shall not exceed $56.00. such benefits would otherwise exceed $56.00 the amount of $56.00 may be apportioned as the Administrator of Veterans' Affairs may prescribe.

The report from the Administrator of Veterans' Affairs is as follows: VETERANS' ADMINISTRATION, Washington, March 24, 1937.

Hon. A. H. GASQUE,

Chairman, Committee on Pensions,

House of Representatives, Washington, D. C.

MY DEAR MR. GASQUE: Further reference is made to your letters of January 14 and 22, 1937, requesting a report on H. R. 2887, Seventy-fifth Congress, bill to amend the provisions of the pension laws for peacetime service to include Reserve officers and members of the Enlisted Reserves.

This bill if enacted into law would have the effect of including within the terms of Veterans' Regulations No. 1 (a), as amended, part II, paragraph I, officers and enlisted men of the Reserve Corps of the United States Army, Navy, and Marine Corps, thus providing pensions for such persons based upon disability from personal injury or disease contracted in line of duty or for aggravation of a preexisting injury or disease contracted or suffered in line of duty during service other than in time of war, and for the dependents of any such persons who die as a result of such disability. The primary purpose of the amendment appears to be to include training duty within the same category as active service.

Before commenting upon the merits of H. R. 2887, it will be well to consider the historical background of benefits afforded Army and Navy reservists and their dependents for disability or death as a result of injury incurred while undergoing training.

Prior to June 15, 1933, pension was payable under the general pension law on Account of disability or death incurred as a result of injury or disease suffered by a member of the Reserve Corps of the Army while on active duty, including training duty. However, by the terms of an amendment of that date to section 112 of the National Defense Act (32 U. S. C. 160), such benefits were no longer authorized. This condition arose by reason of insertion in the amendment of 1933 of the phrase "except for training" as applied to members of the Army Reserve which precluded payment of pension benefits in these cases. Section 112 of the National Defense Act, as amended by the 1933 act, reads as follows: "When any officer, warrant officer, or enlisted man of the National Guard or the National Guard of the United States called or ordered into the active service of the United States, or when any officer of the Officers' Reserve Corps or any person in the Enlisted Reserve Corps ordered into active service 'except for training', is disabled by reason of wounds or disability received or incurred while in the active service of the United States, he shall be entitled to all the benefits of the pension laws existing at the time of his active service, and in case such officer or enlisted man dies in the active service of the United States or in returning to his place of residence after being mustered out of active service, or at any other time in consequence of wounds or disabilities received in such active service, his widow and children, if any, shall be entitled to all the benefits of such pension laws."

In order to correct this discrimination the War Department sought remedial legislation during the Seventy-fourth Congress, which was introduced in the form of S. 4026, Seventy-fourth Congress, a bill to amend the National Defense Act of June 3, 1916, as amended. This bill sought to amend section 112 of the National Defense Act, quoted above, by striking out the phrase "except for training." The bill passed both Houses of Congress and was submitted to the President for his approval. However, as it passed the House of Representatives an amendment was added covering a subject not here pertinent but on account of which the bill was disapproved by the President.

In the memorandum of disapproval the President under date of June 23, 1936, indicated that "the bill in its original form as passed in the Senate on March 26, 1936, and as reported out by the committee of the House of Representatives on June 12, 1936, would have restored those pension benefits to members of the Officers' Reserve Corps, and the Enlisted Reserve Corps which Corps which were withdrawn from them by the act of June 15, 1933 (48 Stat. 161). Thus, it provided appropriate benefits to a deserving group of the Federal military forces at a nominal expense to the Government." He then gave the reasons why the object sought to be accomplished by the amendment impelled him to withhold his approval of the bill as submitted.

With reference to the members of the Naval Reserve, provision was made in section 14 of the act of February 28, 1925 (34 U. S. C. 762), for granting to them and their dependents the benefits of the Employees' Compensation Act on account of injury or death incurred while performing active duty. This section of law reads as follows:

"That if in time of peace any officer or enlisted man of the Naval Reserve is physically injured in the line of duty while performing active duty, authorized training duty with or without pay, or when employed in authorized travel to and from such duty, or dies as the result of such physical injury, he or his beneficiary shall be entitled to all the benefits prescribed by law for civil employees of the United States who are physically injured in the line of duty or who dies as the result thereof, and the United States Employees' Compensation Commission shall have jurisdiction in such cases and shall perform the same duties with reference thereto as in the cases of civil employees of the United States so injured: Provided, That in no case shall sickness or disease be regarded as an injury within the meaning of this section relating to the Naval Reserve."

It will thus be seen that prior to June 15, 1933, benefits were payable to Army reservists and their dependents on account of disability or death as a result of training duty but that such benefits have been denied since the amendment of that date to section 112, National Defense Act; that in an effort to overcome what was considered to be an inequality, the War Department sought legislative relief In the form of S. 4026, Seventy-fourth Congress, which failed of enactment for the reason stated. It is also noted that benefits now denied Army reservists are available to Navy reservists, in the form of employees' compensation, limited, however, to disability or death due to injury as distinguished from disease.

Considering this background, and in view of the existing law providing relief in the case of naval reservists, it might be deemed appropriate to seek restoration of the benefits to Army reservists by an amendment to the National Defense Act as

outlined in S. 4026, Seventy-fourth Congress, i. e., by the removal from section 112 of that act of the phrase "except for training.' If this procedure is adopted, however, it is recommended that the amendment be made to apply (prospectively) to cases of injury or death incurred while undergcing training at any time between June 15, 1933, and the date of the enactment of the proposed amendment. Should this plan be carried out the following language is suggested:

"Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That section 112 of the National Defense Act, as amended by the act of June 15, 1933 (48 Stat. 161; 32 U. S. C. 160), be, and the same is hereby, amended by striking out the phrase 'except for training.'

"SEC. 2. This act shall be effective June 15, 1933: Provided, That payments of pension under this amendatory act shall be effective from date of application therefor or the date of enactment of this act, whichever is the later."

However, if it is deemed advisable by the committee to accomplish the purpose by means of an amendment to the Veterans' Regulations, the following suggestions are offered: (1) The present language of H. R. 2887 obviating the necessity of honorable discharge would make it possible for a reservist who at one time may have been dishonorably discharged from a period of active service to obtain benefits, whereas the intention of the bill is merely to overcome the present regulatory requirement of an honorable discharge as a prerequisite to pension entitlement which a Reserve officer cannot meet unless he happened to have served at one time in the active service and received such a discharge. (2) A limitation should be inserted so as to preclude concurrent payment of active-duty pay and pension, or, in the case of naval reservists, benefits under the Employees' Compensation Act. (3) The previous suggestion that the proposed benefits should be made retrospective in operation for the purpose of providing (prospectively) benefits for injuries or death occurring between June 15, 1933 (the date of the amendment to section 112, National Defense Act), to the effective date of the proposed act, also applies. The following draft is, therefore, suggested to meet the above observations, and is submitted to the committee for its use:

"Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That Veterans' Regulation No. 1 (a), part II, paragraph I (a), be amended to read as follows:

"I. (a) For disability resulting from personal injury or disease contracted in line of duty or for aggravation of a preexisting injury or disease contracted or suffered in line of duty when such disability was incurred in or aggravated by active military or naval service other than in a period of war service as provided in part I, the United States will pay to any person thus disabled and who was honorably discharged from such period of service in which such injury or disease was incurred, or preexisting injury or disease was aggravated, a pension as hereinafter provided, but no pension shall be paid if the disability is the result of the person's own misconduct: Provided, That active service, including service for training purposes, performed by a Reserve officer or member of the Enlisted Reserves of the United States Army, Navy, or Marine Corps, shall be considered as active military or naval service for the purpose of granting benefits under part II hereof, and it shall not be required that such Reserve officer or enlisted man shall have been discharged from the service. Pension under this paragraph shall not be paid concurrently with active-duty pay or employees' compensation. Where a person who is eligible for pension hereunder is also eligible for the benefits of the Employees' Compensation Act he shall elect which benefit he shall receive. This amendment shall be effective June 15, 1933, but payment of pension hereunder shall be effective from the date of receipt in the Veterans' Administration of application therefor or the date of enactment of this amendment, whichever is the later.''

It will be noted that the foregoing draft requires the performance of active duty, including training duty, before a reservist would be eligible for the benefits of the proviso. The language of the proviso in H. R. 2887 is broader and might be interpreted to apply to the case of a reservist performing de facto training duty although not under training-duty orders. If this be the intent of H. R. 2887 the Veterans' Administration is unable to make a favorable report as to this phase of the bill since it is a departure from the long-established policy of the Government that an obligation on account of injury does not arise until a member of the armed forces is placed, under competent orders, in an active-duty

status.

In view of the possible interpretation of the language employed in H. R. 2887, as pointed out in the preceding paragraph, the bill in its present form is such as to require the interposition of an objection to its passage by the Veterans

Administration. It is also believed that the comments of the War and Navy Departments should be secured relative to this feature of the proposed measure. With regard to the matter of cost, since Navy cases are already provided for under existing legislation, except those based on disease rather than injury, the only additional cost of a bill similar to that suggested would be with respect to War Department cases and the Navy cases just mentioned, for which no provision is now made. No figures are available in the Veterans' Administration upon which to base an estimate of cost as to these cases. However, attention is invited to the statement of the War Department as contained in Senate Report No. 1600, and House of Representatives Report No. 2616 (copies enclosed). In conclusion, the bill cannot be favorably reported upon in its present form for the reasons heretofore set forth. However, if amended so as to overcome these objections, favorable action would be recommended.

Very truly yours,

О

FRANK T. HINES, Administrator.