However, in the case of my own son, and those I met when we were visiting ort Knox last November, we were told fantastic stories of men being threatened, ade to walk 5 miles back to camp, and ordered to contribute or be put on extra tails-particularly for contributions on certain "causes."

Our son entered basic training; rose to platoon leader in three weeks; was urged go into officers training; was made Soldier of the Week; and won both trophys ven for proficiency and outstanding trainee.

These coercion tactics soured him quickly, and were instrumental in his decision ainst officer training. He will make the best of the situation and will be a good ldier, but it's a shame that this situation exists.

Please add this letter to your others in "protest" over such a condition.
Sincerely,

MATTOON, ILL., January 12, 1967.

DEAR SENATOR ERVIN: I just read with great interest the article on servicemen ing forced to buy bonds and contribute to charity. I wrote to several people out this..., but no one so far, except you, has had the courage to voice an inion.

My son enlisted in the Navy last summer after graduating from High School d was sent to San Diego, California, Recruiter Training Center. He was coerced o signing an allotment of $5.00 each payday for the San Diego Community best and for another allotment, a War Bond. All this out of $97.00 a month. I do not feel this is right; these boys were afraid to say No to anything. He has en raised decent and honest and to give to his fellowman, but for right now his ther and I can take care of this for him. How can anyone ask more of a young by than 3 or 4 years of his life, or maybe all of his life. Bless you for your honesty and courage.

Sincerely,

WILMINGTON, DEL., January 10, 1967.

nator SAM J. ERVIN, Jr.,

hairman, Senate Constitutional Rights Subcommittee, ashington, D.C.

DEAR SENATOR ERVIN: I just read a newspaper article about the Senate onstitutional Rights Subcommittee's bill to protect government employees d servicemen against compulsion to buy bonds and contribute to charity. is bill, if passed, will be a great aid in releasing a lot of pressure on servicemen, pecially the men in the enlisted ranks.

Three months ago I got out of the Army as a staff Sgt. E6 after completing 9 ars, 2 months, and 11 days of active service.

The very thing this bill will protect the serviceman from has been a thorn in y side during my tour of duty and is the biggest contributor for my getting out the Army. I not only speak for myself but also for a couple of men that got t the same time I did, one a Staff Sgt. with 15 years service and the other a t. First Class E7 who left after 17 years of service.

We have all found (supposedly) Commanders stoop so low and do the most manly things just to try and put a feather in their caps to obtain 100% paripation in the savings program or charity drives by means of high pressuring threats.

I won't take up any more of your time but would like you to know I'm behind ou and so are many men in uniform. Most men can't let us know for fear of opardizing their positions by having more pressure applied; and then, of course, ere is this thing of the big red stamp saying Political Influence being stamped their records jacket.

If I may be of assistance to you for examples of incidents of this malpractice, el free to call upon me.

I thank you and your subcommittee for the outstanding job you are doing for ur servicemen and in doing so, I remain.

Yours truly,

FAIR LAWN, N.J., January 9, 1967.

Senator SAM J. ERVIN, JR.,
U.S. Senate,

Washington, D.C.

DEAR SENATOR ERVIN: Reference a recent AP article printed in the Newar N.J., "Star-Ledger", 8 Jan 67 stating that you have introduced "*** a bi that would * * * protect government employees against any form of compulsic to buy bond or contribute to charity."

Your bill, sir, commands my greatest respect and admiration.

I was recently (8 Oct 66) honorably discharged from the U.S. Army with rank of Captain. I originally enlisted on 5 Feb 63 as a private E-1. Having bee on "both sides of the fence" I can but affirm the truth of your allegations. If I may, realizing that you are not my Senator, I would like to list some con ments for your consideration.

(2) You are quoted as saying, upon being asked by the Pentagon to releas names of persons who have complained, that "The risk of reprisals is not wort such an exercise in futility."

It has been my experience that the pressure to contribute has varied accordin to the person of the post commander. Said pressures, in most cases, cannot b documented owing to their subtlety. Add to this the fact that commander frequently change, and the difficulties of proving unethical conduct are magnified (3) In conjuction with the above might I recommend that military and civilia personnel close to or recently retired could supply you with further informatio with little fear of reprisal.

(4) My final comment relates to your bill to the extent that I feel that it worthy of your attention. It has to do with The Association of the United State Army (AUSA). The pressures brought to bear upon career officers and non commissioned officers (in the top three grades) to join this organization greatl surpass bond drives and united fund campaigns.

There are no veiled hints or subtile pressures to join the AUSA. The officer o senior NCO is plainly told that not to join is to invite a poor Officer Efficiency Report (OER) or Conduct and Efficiency Report (CEB).

While most junior officers who are career-minded join the AUSA-som admittedly want to join and do not have to be coerced many of the caree NCOS are far enough along in their careers and close enough to retirement tha they are resisting pressures put upon them to join the AUSA.

Please do not think that my motivation stems from a sense of "sour grapes. I liked the U.S. Army enough to take a one year voluntary extension, and have in the past few months, given more than passing thought to putting in for recall to active duty. Further, I thought that my Commanding Officer was fine soldier and officer. Unfortunately, he was pressured by his commander, wh in turn was pressured by the next commander up the line, and so forth.

Be advised that I plan to write to my Senators (Clifford Case and Harrison Williams) urging them to support your bill.

In closing, allow me to thank you on behalf of the officers and men who ar not in a position to speak out.

Sincerely yours,

FORT BRAGG, N.C., January 8, 1967.

DEAR SENATOR ERVIN: I noted in the Fayetteville Observer an article concerning coercion by military commanders to cause their troops to participate in bond savings programs and in charity drives. While the means used to "sell" soldiers on these matters are less than proper in many cases, it is usually not the junio commander who is at fault. Indeed, the fault lies, apparently, all the way at the top when Generals "imply" that subordinates' efficiency would be reflected in the amount of participants in the savings bond program or in the percentage of troops contributing to charity drives.

The bond savings program and charity drives are, however, to some degree worthy causes. In the case of the bonds, for instance, the soldier loses nothing. We in the Army do, however, have one drive that is particularly aggravating, and that is the drive for "membership" in the "Association of the U.S. Army.' Perhaps you are familiar with this organization already. It is staffed by virtually 100% retired Army officers. Apparently it does conduct lobbying activities in Washington. For whom it lobbies, I don't know, but I have a hunch for the people

who advertise in its monthly publication "Army." Among these advertisers are some of the biggest defense contractors in the country, including Lockheed, Grumman, Bell Aircraft, etc. The association claims its goals are for a bigger, better Army which is very high sounding and are, in fact, just what the Department of the Army's goals are. Too, those goals would be good for Lockheed, Gumman, Bell, etc., as all would profit from goals like "increased airlift capability," etc.

I don't mind at all seeing the A. U.S.A. working toward these high and mighty goals, but I don't like being coerced into contributing to it, and that is just what is happening here. We are told, of course, that the $6.00 yearly dues is just that— dues not a contribution and just to prove it, a "member" gets the monthly "Army" magazine and a membership card. We are told that we should support the A.U.S.A. because it lobbies for us and is our "voice" in legislative matters. We are told that, if the A. U.S.A. achieves its goals, we are bound to benefit. True, but that's simply because the goals are so high sounding.

What the A. U.S.A. really means to us enlisted men and most junior officers is "taxation without representation." While we are called up to "join," we have no voice in the decisions made by the A.U.S.A., these being made by the "General Staff," just like "the old days" in the Army.

Why the insistence that enlisted men join? I don't know. Maybe the battle of statistics is being waged in this area, too. Probably, though, they just need the money. You know, a retired general or colonel gets on the phone and calls one of his "active" friends, mentions that membership in the A. U.S.A. is sagging and a "drive" for fresh members would help. I'm sure you get the picture. Just the other month General Bruce Palmer boasted that the "Braxton Bragg" chapter of Fort Bragg would be the "biggest in the Army." Now we are going through the usual pressures here. "Interviews" by senior noncoms, lists prepared for the commanders information," etc. I'll let the two enclosures (rescued from a trash can) illustrate further.

Please do not use my name as I now have 171⁄2 years service and would like to retire at my present grade. I'm only sending you this information because I noted that you are interested in these activities.

Sincerely,

DISPOSITION FORM: (AR 340-15)

Reference or office symbol:

Subject: SMaj's Meeting Notes.

To Assigned Personnel, T&T Committee.

From: NCOIC, T&T Committee * * *.

1. A meeting was held by the Gp SMaj following is the information which was put out:

j. Those who are not members of the AUSA, contact MSG *** for necessary application blanks.

2. The above notes WILL be compiled with by all members of the committee. NCOIC. DA Form 2496, 1 Feb. 62. Replaces DD form 96, existing supplies of which will be issued and used until 1 Feb 63 unless sooner exhausted.

JANUARY 9, 1967.

DEAR SENATOR ERVIN: I listened with great interest yesterday morning to a news account of your proposal to outlaw the coercion which is presently connected with the U.S. Savings Bond program.

Perhaps, if you have the time to read on, you will find the whole story of interest.

I am a 43-year-old lawyer with 19 years service, 4 of it as an enlisted man in World War II with 49 combat missions and 4 Air Medals. I have never received so much as a verbal admonition and my effectiveness reports have all beenwith the exception of the last one-in the "Very Fine Officer" category, at least. My career was progressing at a normal rate, with a promotion to Major January 1961, and a prospective promotion to Lieutenant Colonel in March 1966. Then came the Bond drive of 1963. Unbelievable pressure was applied, with the 86-625-67-3

usual threats of loss of promotion and other dire consequences. My Group commander even gave me a written order to participate. I refused. (See enclosure 2.) [Not included in RECORD.]

The drive of 1964 caused me no trouble because I was blessed with a different, more fair-minded commander. During the 1965 drive I was in transit to . . Pakistan.

In March 1966 I learned that I had been passed over for promotion to Lieutenant Colonel. While I was extremely reluctant to believe it, I was forced to conclude that my failure of promotion was a direct consequence of my failure to buy bonds.

In the latter part of June 1966 my commander at . . . announced a crash program to gain 100 percent participation in the Bond program by 30 June. The enclosed file relates the outcome of that Bond drive as far as I was concerned. Upon my return to the United States in September 1966 I made a trip to for the purpose of reviewing my Effectiveness Reports. I found that although Colonel (my 1963 commander) had rated me in the “Very Fine"category and had made glowing comments about my honesty and integrity, he had also included a disclosure that I had refused to participate in the Bond drive. His successor had given me an outstanding rating, and my first rating in (March 1966) bordered on the outstanding. Then came the real shock: Lt. Col. who had known me but three months rated me in the mediocre category and commented that I had failed to support the commander in his programs, specifically, the Bond drive.

.

As you can see from the enclosures, I replied for relief. .. and was denied. In November 1966 I learned that I had been passed over for promotion a second time and would no longer be eligible for temporary promotion.

I'm telling you all this, Senator, to give you assurance that the letters you've been receiving informing you of coercion in connection with the Bond drives are not merely the result of the usual GI griping. In my own case, as you can see, they carried out their threats; they've even ruined my career.

Please do something about this intolerable situation, Senator, not for me—it's too late but for my associates in the Service.

I'd appreciate it if you didn't refer this letter to Air Force L&L; I've had enough ostracism to last me for a while. If you need more information though, let me know and I'll do what I can.

MY DEAR SIR: My son, who is a G.I. stationed in Germany, has sent me a clipping from the November 26, 1966, edition of Overseas Weekly which telis of your efforts to have the pressure on the G.I.'s to buy bonds removed.

I would like to quote a few lines written by my son last April— "While I am not a martyr, I do take a little pride in pulling extra details sometimes because I feel I am right and it's a lot harder than taking the easy way out by compliance with the ridiculous. Case in point-they are having a big savings bond drive here and only about 10 people in the whole battery have not taken one out. I don't want the savings bonds. Well, a Lt. called me over today and told me to take one out and I could cancel it in 60 days and get my money back. This would have been very easy to do all they were interested in was reporting a high percentage of sales to higher command. Well, I can't do something like this!"

This practice should be stopped. I know many people feel as I do, and are behind your efforts to get a bill passed to safeguard G.I. rights.

Very truly yours,

MOUNT STERLING KY.,
January 13, 1967.

DEAR SENATOR ERVIN: I read the attached article from my hometown newspaper, Arkansas Democrat, with much interest.

I completed my military service obligation as an Air Force Officer, and requested release to the inactive reserves in June 1966. During my four years of active duty I served as "Collection Officer," as most Lieutenants do, on many fund drives.

As I recall, these carried a quota which was set somewhere at a higher echelon of command. This quota was vigorously pursued by the Wing Commander, and it meant hounding young airmen and NCO's time and time again for their "fair share." I always passed off the collection to other officers and took only the task of keeping records. I frequently encouraged the men who complained to write their Senators or Representatives. Most of them were reluctant to do so as they were career men or were considering a career and didn't want to cause any trouble that they felt would reflect back on them.

With regard to the annual Savings Bond Drive, this was the most ruthlessly pursued campaign of the year. Commanders did everything to fulfill their imposed quotas. The end result was an increase of government expense as a lot of men who were persuaded to purchase bonds on the payroll savings plan cancelled the allotment after the drive, cashed the bond(s) in 60 days and returned to their previous savings plan.

I was told by my Commanders that I was unpatriotic for not buying the bonds, and that my not buying bonds reflected against me as an Officer. This Lt. Colonel was primarily interested in being the first Commander on base to achieve 100± participation. Many young airmen, NCO's, and Officers who had never thought about buying bonds came across with this sort of persuasion.

I sincerely believe that legislation is needed to protect the enlisted men from overzealous commanders at "Fund/Bond Drive time." Giving should not be based on a quota system. Savings Bonds should not be pushed on servicemen because they are a captive group. I know of two NCO's who were financially insolvent who were persuaded to spread their salary even thinner by buying bonds. I happened to be assisting each at the time and was able to intercept and destroy the allotments for them.

I hope you and your colleagues are successful in presenting your proposed bill to the Congress. I would like to have any printed information your Subcommittee has on this subject (Committee Hearing Reports, Bulletins, etc.)

Very truly yours,

Hon. SAM ERVIN.

JANUARY 11, 1967.

DEAR SIR: I have read with interest your concern over the pressuring of Armed Forces personnel to participate in the Savings Bond Program. Since I have just recently left the military I would like to bring another facet to your attention which you may or may not be aware of. During the period that LTC Lester 0. Styve commanded the 205th Trans. Bn AM&S here in Europe this was the method he directed for anyone to follow to cancel a Savings Bond. Each individual in the individual's chain of command had to interview the person concerned and then all personnel concerned had to appear before the Bn CO, i.e., the individual, the squad leader, the platoon sergeant, the platoon leader, the 1st SGT, and finally the Company Commander. The fact that all had to travel at other than government expense, except possibly the soldier concerned, and the fact that we were required to travel 90 to 100 miles did not seem to daunt the Bn CO at all. This and other malpractices on this officer's and many other of our so-called leaders' part is the main reason that young intelligent soldiers become disenchanted with the Army. I trust that you will see to it that these young men can at least exercise their right to cancel an allotment at their own discretion rather than be subjected to humilities such as this. When I have time I would like to discuss the methods used to collect money for various type drives at the pay table. This is much worse than the bond program.

Sincerely,

DUBUQUE, IOWA, January 9, 1967.

SIR: Thank you for doing something about the service men buying savings bonds under pressure. I have one son in Viet Nam and another one who just returned from there so I know about it. When these boys risk their lives they should not be forced to pay the expenses too.

Thank you again.