each military service has been permitted to monitor the hearings. On occasion, when very sensitive matters are being discussed, even these representatives have been ordered to leave the committee hearing room. The press, of course, may not attend. This does not mean that the public is denied all information, for unclassified versions of witness statements and of the proceedings are usually released. Over the years the list of witnesses has developed a pattern. The lead-off witness has always been the Secretary of Defense. He has almost regularly been accompanied by the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. With much of the research and development appropriations now being subject to authorization, the Director of Defense Research and Engineering has also been appearing for the Office of the Secretary of Defense. Upon completion of these appearances, the Departments of Army, Navy, and Air Force are next represented in that order. The overall Navy presentations are made by the Secretary, the Chief of Naval Operations, and the Commandant of the Marine Corps. Particular authorization requests are then presented by the Deputy Chiefs of Naval Operations for Air, for Fleet Operations and Readiness, and for Development; and the Chief of Naval Research. The DCNO (Air) has sometimes been assisted by the Chief of the Bureau of Naval Weapons, while the DCNO (FltOps & Readiness) has been accompanied by the Chief of the Bureau of Ships who is also the Navy's Coordinator of Shipbuilding, Conversion & Repair. Additional elaborations may be presented if the Committee desires detailed clarification of certain programs, such as Polaris, ASW, or command and control. Secretary of Defense McNamara has brought to the 412 hearings the innovation which has characterized his participation in all other Defense matters. His prepared statements have not been merely long-some 200 pages-they have been extremely comprehensive and factually detailed. The Secretary has presented all of the Department of Defense programs and their estimated cost, progress, and status. If alternative programs were proposed, the Secretary has explained the reasons on which his decision was based. Although he has provided budgetary data in terms of the tradition appropriations structure, his mode of presentation has also grouped programs by function. This is the so-called "functional budget" or "program package" concept. Thus, under the heading of Strategic Retaliatory Forces the Secretary combines the Strategic Air Command, Polaris sub marines, and other programs which are related because of their common strategic retaliatory mission. It has been facetiously remarked that when Mr. McNamara finishes testifying there is not much left for anyone else to say. This is not true, of course, as departmental and program representatives elaborate within their own areas of responsibility. One unique feature of the 412 hearings is the extensive utilization of graphic aids. Most Congressional hearings receive oral testimony only, but the Armed Services Committees are used to the military propensity for graphically portraying statistical tabulations, maps, organization charts, photographs and drawings, and action photography. Since the 412 presentations are not unlike selling a product or teaching a subject, the increased understanding that is obtained from using graphic aids can be expected to result in a better informed Committee. The student of the military appropriations authorization process cannot really appreciate the significance of what is happening unless he has observed the strong leadership exercised by the Chairmen of the Armed Services Committees, Senator Russell and Representative Vinson. Both of these men have profound insights into military affairs and tremendous influence in the Congress. Consequently their committees reflect a degree of disciplined unity and militant dedication that is not always found in the Congress. For example, once started, the 412 hearings run day-in day-out morning and afternoon until completed, with but few exceptions. The Chairmen tolerate few irrelevant discussions or politically partisan speeches. Messrs. Russell and Vinson expect the same attention and interest of their freshmen members as they themselves devote to an impressively technical and weighty amount of information. While awareness of the responsibility of the Congress for the national security is also a motivating force to each Committee Member, the fact that the military authorization legislation is enacted promptly each year is a personal tribute to these two Chairmen. In order to prepare later witnesses for probable questions and to inform responsible officials in the Navy Department of the progress, an officer from OLA monitors each of the hearings. His reports, appropriately classified, are rapidly disseminated within the Department. A month or so after the respective hearings are completed, the Senate and House of Representatives publish transcripts of the hearings, with all classified information deleted, thus providing a permanent public record. When all the witnesses have been heard, the Committee acts on the bill. The adoption by the Committee of amendments is called marking up the bill. Sometimes, if changes are extensive, a clean bill is introduced as a substitution for the original bill. The Committee then reports its recommendations to its parent body. Printed as a public record, the report often embodies arguments or statements of facts, as well as minority views. The Senate usually acts on the bill soon after it is reported. The rules of the House of Representatives require that in order for the bill to be taken up ahead of pending legislation on the calendar, the Committee on Rules must grant a special order providing times and methods for consideration. This Committee, for example, may approve a four-hour open rule for the authorization bill. Assuming that the Rules Committee's rule is agreed to by the House, this means that the authorization bill may be debated on the floor of the House for four hours and that amendments may be offered from the floor. But before the Rules Committee issues an order, it conducts a brief hearing on the legislation in question. At this hearing, the Chairman of the Armed Services Committee, who is usually accompanied by the ranking minority member of his committee, argues in favor of early consideration for his bill. Spec Floor debate on the military appropriations authorization bill is not materially different than debate on any other major legislation. tators in the galleries are frequently surprised by the intimate familiarity of the debators with the subject matter. In recent years the most controversial aspects have been the RS-70, the total amount of money authorized, and the adequacy of the shipbuilding program. Most of these issues were considered quite thoroughly in committee so that the bill sponsors were seldom if ever caught by surprise. Differences may exist in the versions of the authorization bills passed by the Senate and by the House of Representatives. Theoretically the first chamber to pass a bill is given the opportunity to accept the changes made by the other body. But if differences are significant, which has always been the case with the 412 bills, a conference is held by managers from each House who attempt to bring the sense of the two Houses together. Upon approval of the joint conference report on both sides of the Congress, the bill is enrolled and transmitted to the President for approval as a public law. One may ask what is the necessity and value of this entire process of authorizing appropria tions for aircraft, missiles, naval vessels, and R. D. T. & E. It has already been noted that this legislative review permits the Armed Services Committees to participate in the annual review of the fundamental decisions affecting the development and procurement of weapons systems. There appears to be ample parallel of legislative review in other fields as well. Certain annual appropriations for the National Aeronautics and Space Administration, for example, are subject to authorization by the Senate Committee on Aeronautical and Space Sciences and by the House Committee on Science and Astronautics. Some Atomic Energy Commission appropriations are likewise first reviewed by the Joint Committee on Atomic Energy. And foreign aid must be authorized by the Foreign Relations and Foreign Affairs Committees. Not to be overlooked is the bonus educational effect of the authorization process. Collectively the 412 presentations comprise the finest annual synthesis of the philosophy underlying the equipping of the armed forces. At this time, members of the Armed Services Committees and the staffs of these Committees have the opportunity to be informed by the highest officials of the Department of Defense of the reasons for procuring and developing every system of aircraft, missiles, and naval vessels. During the rest of the year these Committees are confronted by a great number of legislative and investigatory items relating to the armed forces, ranging from military pay and allowances to the delineation of military areas and zones. It would appear that the responsibilities of the Committees can be better discharged if their Members and staffs are knowledgeable in military equipment. This is just as true of the veteran legislator, who welcomes a refresher course, as it is of the freshman with little previous military experience. When the military appropriations reach the floor, each Senator and Representative must learn enough to vote wisely. Certainly he is helped if he has had to previously vote on an authorization bill. In addition to the Congress, the public is also informed of military issues by the authorization legislation. Matters of vital importance to the country's security, such as the rate of phasing out of manned aircraft, are frequently subject to varying views and thus widely publicized in the press. Public interest insures a more representative legislature as well as greater support of the armed forces in times of need. An incidental but nonetheless very useful consequence of the 412 hearings is the dissemina tion throughout the military establishment of the policies of high DOD officials on many matters. The scope of the testimony is so farranging, that officers, civilians, and men are able to conveniently learn how the Secretary of Defense feels about Army tactical airlift, why a nuclear-powered aircraft carrier is desired at this time, and the reasons for the suspension of the Skybolt missile program. While this type of information is officially available to persons who need to know, someone not working in the particular area would be hard-pressed to obtain it. A well-informed military is just as important as a well-informed public. Another result of the 412 hearings arises from the airing of problems. In the 1961 hearings. before the House Armed Services Committee, as an illustration, the Navy argued that the rate of replacement of naval vessels was so low that much of the fleet was falling behind technologically. A special subcommittee was accordingly directed to determine the extent of bloc obsolescence. This subcommittee conducted extensive hearings and reported its views of the seriousness of the situation and of the corrective measures needed. The creation of the Defense Agencies, such as the Defense Supply Agency and the Defense Communications Agency, also led to a Congressional inquiry as a result of testimony during the 412 hearings. Due to the differences of opinions between officers of the Air Force and the Secretary of Defense, which were publicly manifested during the authorization hearings, the House Armed Services Committee added language to the military procurement authorization for the 1963 and 1964 fiscal years which authorized particular amounts of money for the development of the RS-70. In summary, the annual legislative authorization of the appropriations for the procurement of aircraft, missiles, and naval vessels and for research, development, test, and evaluation provides a comprehensive review for the Committees on Armed Services and for the Congress. Both the civilian and military presenters and the members of the Armed Services Committees view the authorization process with great seriousness. The resulting law and its legislative history furnish some valuable guidance to the Committees on Appropriations and to the Congress in acting on the military budget requests. Worthwhile by-products accrue from the public disclosure of releasable information on our present and future weapons systems. time the evidence of misconduct is admitted will be considered. If, as in the case of United States v. Hoy," this discussion leaves it clear to the defense and the trial court that the evidence of misconduct is admitted only for consideration on a limited issue, it is likely that no prejudice will be found to flow from the failure to give a formal limiting instruction.42 41. United States v. Hoy, supra note 4. 42. United States v. Hoy, supra note 5; see also Chief Judge Quinn's dissenting opinion in United States v. Back, supra note 39, and United States v. Williams, 13 USCMA 208, 32 CMR 208 (1962). may compromise or settle claims in favor of the United States for medical care in amounts not to exceed $2,500. If the claim for medical care exceeds $2,500, it also may be compromised or settled, but only with prior approval of the Department of Justice. Commandants may compromise and settle claims for medical care not to exceed $1,000. There are two situations in which no claim for medical care may be compromised or settled. They are: 1) If the claim has been referred to the Department of Justice, or 2) If a suit by a third party has been instituted against the United States or against the individual who received the care. WAIVER OF CLAIMS Claims for medical care shall be waived only by the Judge Advocate General or such other officers as may be specifically designated by him. The grounds for waiver are twofold: 1) That it be in the interest of the United States to waive the claim, or 2) That collection of the Government's claim would create undue hardship for the injured party. In cases where the Commandant feels that waiver would be appropriate, the record together with his recommendations shall be forwarded to the Judge Advocate General. Quarterly statements are required, commencing not later than 30 April 1963, setting forth the number in dollar amounts of medical expense claims asserted against and recoveries from third persons. RECENT DECISIONS OF THE COMPTROLLER GENERAL BASIC ALLOWANCE FOR QUARTERS-Court decree absolving The question as to whether a member who has been relieved of the responsibility for making payments for temporary alimony and child support by order of court, but who is willing to make such payments upon the return of the child to his custody, may be credited with the basic allowance for quarters as a member with dependents on behalf of his legitimate son, was submitted to the Comptroller General for his decision. The Comptroller held that the fact that the member in question was willing to take custody of the child and make the alimony payments did not alter the well established rule that in the absence of a showing of contributions by the officer to the support of his wife or children, entitlement to increased quarters allowance as for an officer with dependents is not authorized where the member is separated from his wife and has been absolved of responsibility to support her. (Comp. Gen. Dec. B-151278 of 17 May 1963) CONTINGENCY OPTION ACT-Annuity payments-Remarriage of widow and subsequent annulment The Comptroller General has held that the widow of a member who remarries and thereby terminates her annuity payments under the Contingency Option Act, 67 Stat. 501 (now Retired Serviceman's Family Protection Plan, 10 USC 1431-1446) is not entitled to renewal of such annuity payments upon the subsequent annulment of her marriage. While Congress has made specific provision for reviving widows' benefits under laws administered by the Veterans Administration in certain cases upon annulment of a remarriage, no legislation has been enacted to authorize reinstatement of an annuity under the Contingency Option Act upon annulment of a remarriage. Courts have held that under New York law a voidable marriage on grounds of fraud is not void ab initio. The Comptroller held that in view of the conflict in the court decisions concerning the effect of the annulment of a second marriage with respect to the revival of benefits which were terminated when that marriage was entered into, and in the absence of evidence of Congressional intent to revive an annuity under the Contingency Option Act upon annulment of a remarriage, there was no basis for the reinstatement of the annuity. (Comp. Gen. Dec. B-141945 of 21 March 1963) JOINT TRAVEL REGULATIONS—Dependent acquired while on leave On 7 January 1963 the Comptroller General considered the entitlement of a member to a travel allowance for a wife to whom he was wed while on leave, the member having been ordered to his new permanent station before the marriage. The member in question was transferred from the 3d Marine Division, Okinawa, to the Marine Barracks, Naval Missile Facility, Point Arguello, Lompoc, Calif., as a permanent change of station. Paragraph 7060-3 of the Joint Travel Regulations provides that a member detached from an overseas permanent station and not assigned a new permanent station, such station being assigned upon his arrival at a temporary duty station in the United States for processing and disposition, and who marries prior to the expiration of leave granted after arrival at the temporary duty station and on or before the effective date of orders directing a new permanent station is entitled to transportation of his dependent at Government expense. In the case in question, however, the member's new permanent station was assigned in his original orders and hence paragraph 7060-3 is not applicable. The Comptroller noted that while the member's orders did not direct him to report to the Marine Corps Recruit Depot at San Diego for any temporary duty, he was required to report at that depot under the provisions of paragraph 5015.1d, Marine Corps Personnel Manual, for endorsement of orders to establish the effective date of proceed, delay and travel, address on leave and reporting date at the new station. It would not appear unreasonable to regard the duty performed at San Diego in compliance with such requirement as temporary duty. On that basis San Diego was, in effect, a temporary duty station. Paragraph 7060-2 of the Joint Travel Regulations provides that a member under orders to make a permanent change of station who was granted leave from his old station and was married on or before the effective date of the orders directing the permanent change of station is entitled to transportation of his dependents at Government expense. The Comptroller held that such provisions were applicable in the case and, considering the temporary duty performed at San Diego, the effective date of the orders for purposes of those provisions is to be determined under paragraph 3003-1b2 of the Joint Travel Regulations. This paragraph provides that when orders involve temporary duty en route to a permanent duty station in a nonrestricted area, the effective date of the orders for transportation of dependents is the date of relief (detachment) from last temporary duty station, plus leave, delay, or additional travel time authorized to be taken after such detachment. Since it appears that the amount of leave, delay, proceed and additional travel time actually utilized by the member, when added to 21 July 1961, the date of reporting at San Diego, extends beyond the date of his marriage, it is concluded that he had acquired a dependent before the effective date of his permanent change of station orders. On that basis he is entitled under paragraph 7060-2, above, to transportation of his dependent from the place of marriage to the new station, such entitlement not to exceed the constructive cost to the Government had transportation been provided from the old to the new station. (Comp. Gen. Dec. B-148459 of 7 January 1963) "NO-SHOW" PENALTY-Not overpayment to service member and not collectable from current pay ● The Comptroller General has held that "no-show" penalty charges imposed by airlines upon Government personnel who fail to use or cancel confirmed reserved space on airline flights may not be considered erroneous payments under the authority of 5 USC 46d, and may not be deducted from the current pay of the person concerned when the Government has paid the penalty to the airline. The indebtedness to the United States of members of the Armed Forces which are subject to collection pursuant to the authority contained in section 46d of Title 5, United States Code, are confined by specific terms of that section to those debts which resulted from erroneous payments, made by the Department concerned, to or on behalf of such members. Nothing in the legislative history of the statute indicates that the term "erroneous payment" as contained therein was used in other than its ordinary sense—that is, to denote payments which are incorrect, contain error or otherwise deviate from the law or regulation involved. While it is apparent that by reason of the authorized deduction of penalty charges by the airlines from ticket refunds, the Government would incur an expense for which the member is liable unless the failure to cancel the unused reservation was unavoidable in the conduct of official business or for reasons acceptable to the Department as being beyond his control, it seems clear that the member's indebtedness to the United States would be as a direct result of his own negligence or misconduct and not as the result of any amounts having been paid in error on behalf of the member by the Department concerned. (Comp. Gen. Dec. B-148879 of 7 May 1963) NAVAL RESERVE MIDSHIPMEN-Periods of service creditable for retirement purposes under 10 U.S.C. 6323 The Assistant Secretary of the Navy (Financial Management) requested a decision from the Comptroller General as to whether those members who were appointed midshipmen in the Naval Reserve under the provisions of section 3 of the Act of 13 August 1946 (Public Law 729, 79th Congress), Ch. 962, 60 Stat. 1057, could count such "non-Naval Academy" midshipmen service as periods of active service in the Armed Forces within the meaning of the provisions of 10 USC 6323, which authorize the retirement of an officer of the Navy after completing more than 20 years of active service. In his letter requesting a decision the Assistant Secretary acknowledged the fact that service as a midshipman at the U.S. Naval Academy is not creditable as active service in the case of any officer of the Navy applying for retirement under section 6323, because section 6116 of Title 10 denies this credit for any purpose if such officer was appointed as a midshipman after March 4, 1913, but he also noted that the restrictions imposed by section 6116 are not, by its literal terms, applicable to midshipman service of the "nonNaval Academy" category. The Assistant Secretary was also aware of the fact that the midshipman service in question is not creditable for the purpose of computJAG JOURNAL 260 ing basic pay under section 205, Title 37, United States Code. The Comptroller General held that those periods for which the members appointed midshipmen in the Naval Reserve, under the provisions of section 2 of the Act in question, were entitled to receive active duty pay could properly be considered as periods of active service in the Armed Forces within the meaning of the provisions of 10 USC 6323. Those periods while such members were in receipt of retainer pay only, however, were periods of inactive duty within the meaning of those statutory provisions. (Comp. Gen. Dec. B-150780 of 7 June 1963) FIRING SQUAD-Authorized to receive only one meal; reimbursement for supper denied The cause of Government economy was furthered by the Comptroller General in his recent decision B-152047 of December 17, 1963, which disallowed reimbursement of $20.31 for meals purchased for an Army burial detail made up of ROTC members from Murray State College. Upon denial of a request for Regular Army personnel to serve in a military funeral for an Army private ia Paducah, Kentucky, a detail of 14 volunteers on the college was organized to act as pallbearers, firing quad, and bugler. The squad left the college at 8: a.m. in order to provide rehearsal time at the funeral site, concluded their duties at 5:00 p.m. and returned to the college at 8:00 p.m., after the school cafeteria had closed. It was necessary, therefore, to purchase two meals for the members during the day, whereas paragraph 31 (b), Army Regulations 600-25, provides that a volunteer ROTC firing squad may obligate the Government for meal tickets only for the noon or evening meal. Comptroller found the regulations perfectly clear in their entitlement, discovered no provision in the regulation requiring a detail to rehearse at the burial site, and further noted that there had been no showing as to why a rehearsal could not have been conducted at the college and lunch taken at the school cafeteria. bursement for supper was accordingly denied. Gen. decision B-152047 of 17 December 1963) The Reim(Comp. PAY AND ALLOWANCES—Single pay check may be issued to bank for deposit to several members In Submitted by the Military Pay and Allowance Committee was the question whether the Army might initiate a procedure for issuing a single Government salary check to a bank for deposit to the individual accounts of members upon their request, during the pendency of legislation specifically authorizing such procedure. Decision B-141025 of December 2, 1963, the Comptroller General ruled that pursuant to the authority of 37 USC 701 (d) the Secretary of the Army may permit a member to make allotments from his pay for any purpose the Secretary considers proper. Should the Secretary make such a determination, the Comptroller concluded, the proposed procedure for issuing collective checks would be without objection. (Comp. Gen. decision B-141025 of 2 December 1963) U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE 1964 |