We believe that the above costs are maximums, and that the 45-day provision will seldom have to be invoked. Its mere presence on the statute books will do much to assure satisfactory participation.

There will, in addition, be substantial savings due to the changes in National Guard terms of enlistment. Savings will result from elimination of the indirect administrative cost of time spent in effecting discharges and reenlistments, and more directly in the reduction of the number of discharge certificates and forms now used in effecting reenlistment.

It has been a privilege to appear before this committee. If there are any questions which the chairman or members of the committee wish to ask at this time, I will be happy to give or provide the answers.

Chairman RUSSELL. General Fairbourn, has most of your statement been covered?

General FAIRBOURN. Yes, sir.

Chairman RUSSELL. We will have it printed in the record in the form in which it appears here.

(The prepared statement of General Fairbourn follows:)

PREPARED STATEMENT OF BRIG. GEN. WILLIAM T, FAIRBOURN, DIRECTOR, MARINE CORPS RESERVE

Mr. Chairman, gentlemen, I am Brigadier General Fairbourn, Director, Marine Corps Reserve. It is a pleasure to appear before you this morning in support of H.R. 5490. The Marine Corps has made very successful use of the 6-month training program and considers it to be the best thing that could have happened to our Reserve.

The Marine Corps, like the Army, has a Reserve procurement program for individuals 182 to 25, inclusive, which requires 6 months of active duty for training and participation thereafter for the remainder of a 6-year military obligation. We feel that all nonprior service personnel who enlist in a Reserve component should incur the same obligation, namely 8 years as is presently incurred by the 17-182-year-old group. We also feel that this 182-25-year-old group should receive the same statutory deferment now enjoyed by their younger contemporaries and be subject to the same priority induction vulnerability for unsatisfactory participation. In summary, Mr. Chairman, the Marines think this is a good bill and we recommend your favorable consideration. I will be pleased to answer any questions you, or the members of the committee, may have.

Chairman RUSSELL. If there are no further questions, the next witness is Maj. Gen. Carl L. Phinney, vice president of the National Guard Association of the United States, who desires to testify with respect to the bill.

General Phinney, you may proceed.

STATEMENT OF MAJ. GEN. CARL L. PHINNEY, VICE PRESIDENT, NATIONAL GUARD ASSOCIATION OF THE UNITED STATES

General PHINNEY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and members of the committee.

In the interests of time, rather than trespass upon the committee's time, may I file this report as my testimony. A lot of it is repetitious to what has been already said.

Chairman RUSSELL. Yes, sir; we will be glad for you to do that. General PHINNEY. I do not feel like taking any more of the committee's time. I will be glad to try to answer any questions if you have any.

Chairman RUSSELL. Does anybody have any questions of General Phinney? We are always glad to have you before the committee General.

General PHINNEY. Thank you so much.

(The prepared statement of Maj. Gen. Carl L. Phinney follows:)

Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, thank you for this opportunity, to appear in support of H.R. 5490, a bill to provide for more effective participation in the Reserve components of the Armed Forces, and for other purposes. It is interesting to note, Mr. Chairman, that this Department of Defense sponsored bill embraces the content of two legislative proposals introduced by the Honorable L. Mendel Rivers of South Carolina in behalf of the National Guard during the 86th Congress.

We favor the enactment of H.R. 5490. We believe that it will accomplish its purposes to a great extent.

As far as the National Guard is concerned, the bill

(1) Provides a much-needed and desirable flexible enlistment program for the National Guard in a manner similar to the Army Reserve and Air Force Reserve, thus doing away with the archaic and inefficient administrative system under which we have operated for so many years;

(2) Establishes equity of service, oblization, and deferment from Selective Service between and among those who enlist in the National Guard without prior military service between the ages of 17 and 181⁄2 and those between the ages 18 and 26;

(3) Places the two foregoing age groups of young men on an equal basis in respect to liability for priority induction;

(4) Extends the authority to order to active duty for a period of 45 days members of the National Guard who fail to perform satisfactory training, but only upon request of the State concerned; and

(5) Returns the authority to grant military leave to employees of the Federal civil service to a calendar year basis, the system under which we operated for so long and so successfully heretofore.

It is our understanding, Mr. Chairman, that the staff of this committee has suggested certain technical amendments to the language of the bill for the purpose of clarification. With these modifications we take no issue.

Accordingly, Mr. Chairman, we respectfully urge favorable and immediate action by this committee and the Congress.

Thank you.

Chairman RUSSELL. The Reserve Officers Association, with which all of us are familiar, and which has the support of so many of the Reserve officers of the armed services, supports this bill, and they have submitted a statement.

Colonel Carlton, do you desire to add to this statement?

STATEMENT OF COL. JOHN T. CARLTON, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, RESERVE OFFICERS ASSOCIATION OF THE UNITED STATES

Colonel CARLTON. No, sir. I merely wish to be recorded as representing a mandate from our association to support this bill, and I think that the committee fully understands our position on the bill. Chairman RUSSELL. We will have this prepared statement, on behalf of the Reserve Officers Association, printed in the record at this point.

(The prepared statement of Colonel Carlton follows:)

Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, we desire to thank you for the opportunity to appear before your committee and present our views on this most important piece of legislation.

In 1955, when the Armed Forces Reserve Act of 1955 was under consideration by Congress, we stated we thought instead of making the cutoff date at age 181⁄2 that this opportunity of fulfilling a military obligation should be extended to age 26.

We are pleased that your committee has seen fit to hold hearings on this bill and sincerely believe it will be helpful to our defense posture and will enable the Reserve Forces to secure the numbers required to maintain their full strength.

The Armed Forces Reserve Act of 1955 is one of the most constructive pieces of legislation Congress has enacted into law dealing with our Reserve Forces. Prior to the enactment of this law we had a procurement source for Reserve enlisted personnel.

By changing the age limitation it will enable our Reserve Forces to secure a more efficient and better educated enlisted personnel,

We strongly recommend favorable action on this bill.

It has been a pleasure to present our views and we thank you for the courtesies extended to us.

Chairman RUSSELL. Colonel Boyer, do you have anything to add? Colonel BOYER. No, sir.

Chairman RUSSELL. Very well, that concludes the testimony on that

bill.

(Subsequently, in executive session, the committee voted to report H.R. 5490, with an amendment, as covered by S. Rept. 498.)

H.R. 4324

Chairman RUSSELL. We have another bill upon which we wish to have a very brief hearing. It is a departmental bill, H.R. 4324, which is intended to eliminate the confusion and problems generated by use of the term "90 days" at one place in the law authorizing reenlistment allowance and the use of the term "3 months" in another section of these laws.

(The bill referred to follows:)

[H.R. 4324, 87th Cong., 1st sess.]

AN ACT To provide uniformity in certain conditions of entitlement to reenlistment bonuses under the Career Compensation Act of 1949, and for other purposes

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That sections 207 (e) and 208 of the Career Compensation Act of 1949, as amended (37 U.S.C. 238 (e), 239), are each amended by striking out the words "ninety days" wherever they appear therein and inserting the words "three months" in place thereof.

SEC. 2. Any individual who

(1) reenlisted in the regular component of the uniformed service concerned after July 15, 1954;

(2) reenlisted within three months but more than ninety days after the date of his discharge or release from active duty; and

(3) received no reenlistment bonus, or received an enlistment allowance, or a reenlistment bonus computed under the provisions of section 207 of the Career Compensation Act,

may be paid a reenlistment bonus under section 208 of such Act if he received no bonus, or may be paid the difference between the amount of the enlistment allowance or reenlistment bonus that he actually received and the amount that he would have received if his reenlistment bonus had been computed under the provisions of section 208 of such Act. To be eligible for payment under this section, an individual must apply for the payment within one year after the date of enactment of this Act.

SEC. 3. Retroactive payments shall be made from appropriations applicable at the date of reenlistment or from appropriations currently available for military pay and allowances.

Passed the House of Representatives May 15, 1961.
Attest:

RALPH R. ROBERTS, Clerk.

Chairman RUSSELL. The departmental witness is Capt. Arthur G. Esch, Bureau of Naval Personnel.

Captain Esch, be seated and tell us as succinctly as you can what this bill is all about. I think some of us are aware that it means a difference of 3 days.

STATEMENT OF CAPT. ARTHUR G. ESCH, DIRECTOR, POLICY DIVISION, BUREAU OF NAVAL PERSONNEL, DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY

Captain ESCH. Mr. Chairman, may I submit my short statement for the record and proceed in a few words to summarize our position? Chairman RUSSELL. We will be happy to have you do that.

Captain ESCH. The committee is most aware of this case.

In 1954 when the Department of Defense came here seeking a new, you might say, progressive reenlistment bonus scheme, we had not done our homework too well.

As you perceive, we used in what become section 208 of this Career Compensation Act the words "ninety days" as the time entitlement, whereas section 207 enacted in 1949, had the time based upon 3 months.

This caused immediately thereafter, sir, a certain amount of difficulty when the Comptroller General-it was very apparent that there was a difference when certain 31-day months fall in sequence-he enforced checkage, of course, and this caused us some difficulties.

We would like to clear this up in a prospective sense, of course, sir, and the bill, as written, would look backward to the period of nearly 7 years to take care of those small numbers of individuals who, by this difference of 1 or 2 days, lost the opportunity to reenlist with this progressive reenlistment bonus plan under the provisions of 208. That, I think, sir, is a fair statement of the case.

Chairman RUSSELL. I am glad to hear some witness concede that the Department once did not do its homework. I think it is very evident in this case. [Laughter.]

(The prepared statement of Capt. Arthur G. Esch follows:)

Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, the opportunity to appear before this committee in support of this bill is appreciated.

The purpose of the legislation under consideration is to make uniform certain language in sections 207 and 208 of the Career Compensation Act of 1949 relating to the period within which reenlistments must occur in order for a member to be entitled to reenlistment bonuses. It is intended to eliminate the confusion and problems generated by the differences in the terms "90 days" and "3 months."

From July 1, 1922, to July 15, 1954, inclusive, enlisted men of the military services with continuous service, i.e., those who reenlisted within 3 months after date of last discharge, have been entitled to either an enlistment allowance based upon years served in enlistment from which last discharged or a reenlistment bonus based upon the number of years for which reenlisted. However, in order to qualify for the increased reenlistment bonus authorized by section 208 of the Career Compensation Act an individual must have reenlisted (1) on or after July 16, 1954, and (2) within 90 days after the date of his last discharge.

Discharged enlisted men and even personnel of recruiting offices sometimes fail to grasp the fact that even if the reenlistment is entered into within 3 months after last discharge, the elapsed time from date of last discharge to date of reenlistment may be either 91 or 92 days, if one or more 31-day months are included in the interim break in service. Immediately following enactment of section 208 of the Career Compensation Act of 1949, an appreciable number of overpayments of reenlistment bonus was made by disbursing officers which resulted in checkage of the difference between the reenlistment bonus to which entitled under section 207 (by reason of reenlistment within 3 months) and the amount erroneously credited under section 208 where the member did not reenlist within 90 days. Overpayments of reenlistment bonuses in these cases have been minimized by the promulgation of specific regulations covering the matter; however, due to the differences in language of entitlement in sections 207 and 208 of the Career Compensation Act of 1949, it is undoubtedly true that some

members are being deprived of the higher reenlistment bonus by not reenlisting within 90 days from date of last discharge.

This situation is particularly confusing since a reenlistment in the Navy within 3 months from date of discharge is considered continuous service. In the case of the Army, Air Force, and Marine Corps, the period is 90 days. A member reenlisting under continuous service is entitled to be reenlisted in the rating held at discharge and is not entitled to an initial clothing allowance. Therefore, it is necessary to determine in each case at the time of reenlistment whether the reenlistment was within 3 months for purposes of reenlisting in the rating held at discharge and entitlement to an initial cash clothing allowances and whether the reenlistment was within 90 calendar days for the purpose of entitlement to the increased reenlistment bonus. If both periods of entitlement were the same, as proposed in this legislation, there would be much less chance of misunderstanding. Because of simplicity of computation, it is considered more desirable to use "3 months" for all purposes.

Section 208 was added to the Career Compensation Act of 1949 "to stimulate reenlistment of members serving in the first enlistment or reenlistment in the Regular service and to encourage members of Reserve components on active duty to enlist in the Regular component." It is not believed that it was the intent of the Congress to restrict the payment of the higher reenlistment bonus to only those members whe reenlisted within 90 days after the last discharge and to authorize a smaller payment in cases where the reenlistment was entered into within 3 months after such discharge, but on either the 91st or 92d day after such discharge. There being no authority to change the date of discharge or reenlistment in such cases, the only remedy available to such members is an application to a Board for Correction of Military Records.

The retroactive costs resulting from enactment of this legislation would be nominal and could be absorbed within current appropriations. The only members involved would be those who reenlisted within 3 months from date of discharge or release but more than 90 days from such date due to the fact the intervening period included 1 or more 31-day months, and who, as a result of their reenlistment occurring more 90 days after their last discharge, received no reenlistment bonus, or were paid a reenlistment bonus under section 207 of the Career Compensation Act of 1949.

We recommend your favorable consideration of H.R. 4324, and its enactment during the present session of Congress.

Chairman RUSSELL. Are there any questions of Captain Esch? We are very happy to have you here, Captain.

The committee will now go into executive session.

Captain ESCH. Thank you, sir.

(Whereupon, at 11:50 a.m., the committee proceeded in executive session.)

(Subsequently, in executive session, the committee voted to report H.R. 4324, without amendment, as covered by S. Rept. 499.)