scribed in a letter to me from Admiral Hearn, Judge Advocate General of the Navy and for the convenience of the Committee, I would like to insert the letter at th point in the record. Hon. SAM J. ERVIN, Jr., DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY, OFFICE OF THE JUDGE ADVOCATE GENERAL, U.S. Senate, Washington, D.C. DEAR SENATOR ERVIN: I want to thank you for the opportunity to discuss wit you the legislation pending the Senate to establish a Judge Advocate General Corps in the Navy-particularly the bill which you introduced (S. 2009) and th bill H.R. 12910 which has passed the House and been referred to the Senat Armed Services Committee. I am especially grateful for your willingness to see an early hearing in the interests of receiving final Senate action on this legislatio during the current session of the Congress. As I think you are aware, the earl establishment of a Judge Advocate General's Corps is considered highly importar in meeting our current critical problem of recruiting career lawyers to replace ou more senior experienced legal officers who are retiring from active duty. As I indicated, we prefer H.R. 12910, which contains certain technical refine ments and because it has passed the House and may offer the best chance having the legislation enacted by the Congress at the earliest date. Set forth in this paragraph is a listing of the differences between H.R. 1291 and S. 2009. Of these differences there is only one which I consider to be of par ticular consequence. S. 2009 provides for one Assistant Judge Advocate Genera who would be either a rear admiral of the lower half or a brigadier general. Th House bill provided for two Assistant Judge Advocages General-one would b a flag officer of the lower half and the other a brigadier general. The followin differences I consider to be primarily of a technical nature: H.R. 12910 Marine Corps lawyers are designated "judge advocates" with same powers as judge advocates of other services. "Judge advocate" is defined to mean a member of Army or Navy JAG Corps or an Air Force or Marine Corps officer designated as a judge advocate. Duty assignment of Marine Corps judge advocates shall be made by direction of Commandant of Marine Corps. Original appointments in JAG Corps in Regular Navy may be made from persons who (1) are between 21 and 35 years of age, (2) are graduates of an accredited law school or are members of Federal or State bar, and (3) have physical, mental, and moral qualifications satisfactory to Secretary of the Navy. Persons appointed in Regular Marine Corps with a view to designation as a judge advocate shall be credited with not more than 3 years of service for determining grade and lineal position. (Marine Corps prefers this.) (No change in present law: for determining grade and lineal position a person appointed as an office of Marine Corps Reserve may be credited with service reflecting his experience, education, and other qualifications prescribed by regulations of Secretary of the Navy. (10 USC 5600(a))) S. 2009 Marine Corps lawyers are designate "law specialists" with same powers a judge advocates of other services. (No definition of “judge advocate.” (No such provision.) Same as Column 1 except that ba membership is an alternative qualifica tion. Persons appointed in Regular Marin Corps with a view to designation as judge advocate shall be credited wit not less than 3 years of service fo determining grade and lineal position. Persons appointed in Marine Corp Reserve with view to designation t perform legal duties shall be credited with at least 3 years of service for determining grade and lineal position (10 USC 5600(b)) H.R. 12910 Secretary of the Navy shall furnish to a selection board, as the number of JAG Corps officers that may be recommended for promotion to grade of Lieutenant commander or lieutenant, the umber of JAG Corps officers in the promotion zone. (10 USC 5672(d)) Secretary of the Navy shall furnish to a selection board as the number of JAG Corps officers that may be recommended for promotion to grade of captain and commander, not less than the number derived by multiplying the number of officers in the promotion zone by a fraction (the so-called "line fraction") epresenting the promotional opporunity of the unrestricted line officers in the same grade in the same fiscal year. 10 USC 5762(f)) (This conforms to existing law.) Laws applicable to a male officer in Navy JAG Corps are applicable to a woman officer in that corps. (No express provision regarding effecive date. Act will be effective on date of nactment.) S. 2009 (Medical Corps assimilation provision would have same effect as in column (1). Sec. 208, S. 2009; 10 USC 5672(d)) (By Medical Corps assimilation provision, the number furnished in the situations described in column (1) would be equal to a number derived by multiplying the number of officers in the promotion zone by a fraction (the socalled "line fraction") representing the promotional opportunity of unrestricted line officers in the same grade in the same fiscal year. Sec. 208, S. 2009; 10 USC 5762(a)) (No such provision.) Title II, S. 2009, relating to JAG Corps, becomes effective on first day of third month following month in which enacted. (Sec. 211, S. 2009) I am prepared to be of any assistance you may desire in this matter. WILFRED HEARN, S. 1036, a bill to protect members of the Armed Forces by prohibiting coercion in the solicitation of charitable contributions and the purchase of government securities, is also the product of preparatory work done by the Constitutional Rights Subcommittee. I introduced it in February of this year as the second of a wo-part package designed to protect civilian and military employees of the government from some of the most shocking types of coercion. The first bill, S. 1035, was passed overwhelmingly by the Senate two months ago, to protect civil servants from such invasions of their privacy in their personal expenditures and donations. The military anti-coercion bill is a direct result of the hundreds of letters received from servicemen and their families describing the official and quasiofficial pressure to extract contributions from them or to get them to invest in savings bonds. These pressures affect every rank, officers as well as enlisted men, and complaints have been received from Colonels as well as privates. Neither I nor any serviceman who has written to me objects to charitable contributions or to participation in the savings bond program. But these programs are voluntary and must be kept so. If they are not, Congress should pass a law requiring equal participation from all citizens. Strong-arm tactics that have been used to transform these programs into forms of coercive taxation, taxation imposed upon those who sacrifice more than any other group and who are underpaid by any standard. Certainly no citizen in a free society should be subjected to official economic penalties or threats of such penalties because he exercises his right to spend his money as he sees fit. And if a soldier chooses to buy shoes for his children or a hat for his wife instead of another bond, that is his business, not his employer's. If a sailor prefers to contribute $3 instead of $5 to a fund-raising campaign, and spends the difference on groceries, whose business is it? Not his employer's. Why then are these coercions taking place: The denials of leave to servicemen departing for Viet Nam; the refusal of weekend passes, the rendering of detrimental reports which mar a serviceman's record for the rest of his career and often impede his advancement; the outright official threats of denial of promotion; the assignments to K. P., unpleasant duties, or undesirable working hours? Thes are only a few examples of the more standard reprisals which are threatened o which actually occur. The extent of the reprisals vary with the ingenuity and imagination of the individuals responsible for filling the quotas. S. 1036 is based on the theory that in our country, a serviceman is first a citizer with certain basic constitutional rights and privileges. Congress has reaffirmed this truth in various statutes and in the Uniform Code of Military Justice. Civiliar and military courts have illustrated it in the concepts of due process developed in decisions affecting the rights of the serviceman. This bill is striking at a problem which besets modern man in an age of biş organizations, whether they are governmental or private. It does not matter whether he is a soldier, sailor, marine, coast guardsman civil servant, or a machine operator in a large factory. The individual is subject to all of the psychological pressures, threats, and economic sanctions which a large organization can bring to bear on him. Where administrators, supervisors and commanding officers show common sense, basic fairness and consideration for the welfare of those under them as human beings, there is no problem. But where the heavy hand of the governmental organization which employs him is brought down upon him to compel thim to surrender his freedom of action in his personal affairs, then the employee suffers, the organization suffers, and our society suffers. This is especially true of the thousands of servicemen who surrender so much of their personal lives to fulfill their legal military obligations. It is senseless to say, as some have said, that this is the natural result of big government, of large organizations; that nothing can be done to protect the individual, especially the serviceman, from the arbitrary acts of officials who threaten privacy and basic freedoms. This is not true. Congress has both the duty and the means to protect the liberties of Federal employees, whether they are military or civilian. I hope that it will do so in this case by enacting S. 1036 to protect the American serviceman. To illustrate the importance of this legislation, I would like to have included in the record a sampling of the letters I have received in support of the bill. The names of the servicemen have been deleted at the request of the writer. While I am convinced that this bill is carefully drafted to meet the problem, I should state that I am not wedded to the exact language of the enforcement provisions. I will emphasize, however, that effective enforcement is necessary if these improper pressures are to be stopped. The largely futile efforts of the Department of Defense to end coercion by means of exhortatory pronouncements have demonstrated this conclusively. If the Committee proposes more effective provisions that will be all to the better. PROPOSED PLAN FOR CONTINUATION OF SAVINGS BOND CAMPAIGN I. Reopen the campaign with a bond rally at messhalls and other areas where people are congregated, using the Center Band. Company Savings Bond NCO's and civilian employee bond representatives, when appropriate, would be available at the site of the rally to sign up those who desire to do so. However, the rallies are intended to serve primarily as preliminary advertising. Gunnery Sergeant Marshall, the Center Bandmaster, has had experience with this type event and has agreed to advise and assist me in the planning and execution of the rallies, if approved. Also, I recommended that the Prospector carry a prominent candid article announcing the reopening of the campaign on the date to be determined and stating the Marine Corps' and command policy on Savings Bond Program participation and that the goal is 75% participation. II. PLAN FOR MILITARY PERSONNEL A. Officers and Staff Noncommissioned Officers 1. Investment in Savings Bonds at the request of the President has been put on a "duty" basis by the Commandant. He has gone further to say that our participation in the Savings Bond Program is directly indicative of our devotion to our country. It appears to me that this is all that is necessary to make participation by officers and staff NCO's mandatory except under the most unusual circumstances. I believe that there are no officers and very few staff NCO's who are financially unable to participate in at least the minimum amount. We may hear the argument that where a person invests his money or whether or not he invests at all is strictly a personal matter. We may also hear resentment expressed because we dare to press them on a matter they consider personal. I think that officers and taff NCO's should be reminded that when our President, Commandant, Commanding General, Battalion Commander, or other senior officer desires that we do omething, it is no longer a personal matter. It falls into the same category as any other expressed desire or prescribed policy-we comply unless it is impossible to do do; and we offer a valid explanation when we cannot comply. This is no more a personal matter than the military's requirement that we get our hair cut more ften than civilians usually do or that we spend more of our money on shoe polish. These things we have accepted as part of the military life we have chosen. When our seniors policies include participation in the Savings Bond Program, this, as fficers and staff NCO's, we must accept, whether or not we agree wholeheartedly ith the policy. A clear understanding of this point should be the end of the Savings Bond Campaign for officers and staff NCO's. But, if this doesn't work, we may be able to strike a chord of patriotism or we may ask them how they can ask a Private to invest in Savings Bonds in compliance with the policy of our seniors hen they themselves are not complying. Although the savings may be more eneficial to the Private than to the Sergeant Major, the Private would never elieve this; and he is just as convinced as the Sergeant Major that it may not be the best investment in the world and that his investing is his own affair. Should an unexpected emergency arise, your Savings Bonds can be turned into ash at any bank or post office. There President has made a personal appeal to members of the Armed Forces to pport our country through participation in the Savings Bond program. Our Commandant, in turn, has interpreted our obligation to comply with the Presient's request as being inseparable from our duty to support our country. He has xpressed his confidence that we would answer the President with traditional Marine enthusiasm. I want to emphasize that participation in the Savings Bond program is a policy of this Command. It is expected that all Marines will particibate to the fullest extent possible and that our staff noncommissioned officers will provide the example and leadership necessary for a successful program at this Center. Each American shares the responsibility of keeping our nation strong. You can help through your purchase of Savings Bonds. If you desire further information before taking out a bond allotment, I will be pleased to discuss the matter at a ime convenient to you. Sincerely yours, D. D. FINNE, Jr., SELECTED COMPLAINTS FROM SERVICEMEN [From the Overseas Weekly, Nov. 6, 1966] SELLING BONDS STAYS THE SAME DA NANG, VIETNAM. Nothing stops a gung-ho savings bond salesman, not even war, and when a little gentle persuasion is needed to peddle Uncle Sam's promissory notes, the Marines are willing to get shot at just to ring up a sale. In a letter to the Third Marine Division's Third Regiment leatherneck boss, Lt. Gen. Lewis W. Walt patted the unit leaders on the back for topping 75% participation in a recent bond drive, according to the Third Marine Amphibious Force newspaper, Sea Tiger, "with the different units conducting daily patrols," quoted the papers, "Marines were away for days and sometimes weeks. However, this did not discourage the battalion Sergeant Major, Company First Sergeants and platoon commander who were the key personnel in the drive. They went to forward positions and interviewed Marines in fighting holes and kept track of the patrols so that every individual had an opportunity to learn how he could invest his money in a worthwhile savings program." You can't get away from it, even in Vietnam. DEAR SENATOR ERVIN: My name is Mrs. I have a burden on my heart and this morning when I saw this article in the Charlotte paper I had to write you. I have a son in the U.S. Army. He is a draftee and is 19 years of age. He ha a wife who is living with him in Fort Gordon, Georgia, where he is statione at the present. They are expecting a child January 26. He has been forced t buy U.S. Savings bonds on what little he makes a month. I think it is outrageous They can hardly live! They have a diet of beans and potatoes! I wish you could do something about the way things are going for our boys in service. It's a dis grace to a country that has plenty. The Lord has blessed us but how much longe will he? These two young people were also due a food allowance two months ago bu haven't received it yet! Please help us & many more people like us. Thank you for speaking out on this issue. Sincerely yours, P.S.-If this letter would get to the President of U.S. I would also send it Thank you for reading this. CLAUDE, TEX., January 8, 1967. Senator SAM J. ERVIN, Jr., Washington, D.C. SENATOR ERVIN: Congratulations on your stand and present bill to bar coerIcion in the federal services. This is one of the unpleasant memories of 4 years with the Air Force (Military) and 10 years with Air Force Civil Service until November, 1965. During my military service it is hard to remember a payday that some senior NCO or Officer was not at the end of payline with his hand out for some contribution. In Federal Service the fund drives decreased somewhat but the amount of money requested consistently increased. Actual coercion is seldom used but more in the form of hidden threats. Some examples that come to my mind are: 1. Airman Form 75, Proficiency Report May reflect lack of cooperation. (Military) 2. Time off or other favors given for completion of drive. (Military) 3. Supervisors usually collect money making it hard to refuse. (Military and Civilian). 4. More recent drives have sealed envelopes with name or assigned number on outside. These are opened by individuals, usually 1st or 2nd line superiors of people contributing, defeating the original purpose of sealed envelopes. 5. Chairman of drives are usually chosen by superiors if they are close to promotions. 6. Drives such as United Fund, etc., start with Base Commander impressing on each level of command that the goal must be met or someone may suffer. This is more of a hidden thing. 7. In a few cases where an individual refused to give quota the individuals' supervisor has offered to give in the man's place, thereby he belittles the employee forcing him to give. 8. Employees may be singled out for not giving. 9. Bonds sold encouraging employee to buy them, then cancelled in 90 days. I personally think it would be good to stop all drives for money in Military and Federal Civil Service. This would be an excellent way to increase their pay. Again, may I express my appreciation for your concern and work in this area. Sincerely, DETROIT, MICH., January 11, 1967. Senator SAM J. ERVIN, Jr., Subcommittee Chairman, Senate Constitutional Rights Subcommittee, Washington, D.C. DEAR SENATOR ERVIN: The enclosed article appeared in the Detroit News the first week of January. I could understand a possible over-enthusiastic effort to get men to buy savings bonds, in many cases, doing young men a favor by getting them to save systematically. If it were done with the atmosphere of salesmanship and enthusiasm, I doubt that there would be too many objections. |