A savings bond drive had just been initiated on the base, and our Squadron CO made it known that he was going to have a good record. The NCO's under th CO's command felt the Squadron out one afternoon and asked to see a show o hands for those who wished to sign up for a bond. Not a hand was raised. Conse quently, we were marched to the athletic field, told that we would have all passe cancelled, we would be placed on K.P. and other Squadron details that they sav fit. Next we were subjected to some of the most rigorous physical training fo unconditioned men that I've ever witnessed. Afterwards, five men went on sic call, one man was hospitalized.

Needless to say, the "Old Man" succeeded in obtaining 100% participatio from the Regulars.

At the time, I was an Air National Guardsman on active duty for training ANG's, and AF Reservist were prohibited from taking bonds because of the shor duration of tour of duty. If this had not been the case, I can assure you that we would have been "happy" to sign up for the bonds.

I always felt like the Regulars got a raw deal in this case, and am therefore very much in support of your bill.

At the present time, I'm in the Army National Guard going through the State OCS program. I hope to God up above that when I'm commissioned, no enlisted man can ever say I've tried to pressure him into buying bonds, or “donating” to charity.

Many thanks for the support you have given the serviceman. It is men, such as yourself, for which we can be duly appreciative.

Respectfully,

SHAW AFB,

South Carolina, March 6, 1967.

DEAR SENATOR ERVIN: An article in the Air Force Times, March 8, 1967 stated that you had introduced a bill to discourage military commanders from using coercive methods to promote U.S. Savings Bond and charity drives.

If this is true, then I wish to express my gratitude for the initiative you're taken in submitting this bill. Most GI's contribute without reluctance to various charities, but we do not like mandatory donations drives with a pre-set fee. Aren't we doing enough for our fellow man as it is?

In reference to the coercive methods used by commanders to promote U.S. Savings Bond drives, my supervisor selected the weekend duty crew from those who did not hold them. A show of hands discriminated against those airmen who did not invest their money as the commander saw "fit."

If we members of the U.S. Armed Forces are mature, responsible adults as depicted on recruiting posters, then we should be quite able to manage and spend our money as we please.

DEAR SENATOR ERVIN: I want to thank you for your efforts to pass a law against pressuring military and civilian employees of the government into buying bonds or contributing to charity drives. I have read how the Defense Department has assured you that such a law is unnecessary because there are already rules against these practices.

Sir, I'm sure you know that such a law is needed and as quickly as possible. I'd rather see this law passed than the pay raise bill. I would like to add another example to your files of why this law is needed. Yesterday, November 4th, I had to report to a Major along with my Commanding Officer to explain why I won't give to the United Fund Campaign. I explained why: I won't give to any charity drive that is run by the military and especially not to one in which I am told how much to give! When I wish to donate I do so privately and directly to the charity of my choice. This answer wasn't satisfactory. I was told that I am disloyal to my C.O., to my unit, and to the Army, and that this "disloyalty" would be held against me if I came up for promotion.

Now the Defense Department claims that there is a policy against this sort of pressure to extract donations. What action can I take against this Major? None.

Why? Because he is only doing what he is being pressured into doing by his ecommander. In fact, I was told that the entire Ordnance Group would "train" on of Veteran's Day rather than observe the holiday if contributions to the United Fund don't substantially increase.

Senator Ervin, Sir, we certainly do need the protection of the law that you have wproposed and I do hope that it will include adequate machinery to enforce it Sincerely yours,

DEAR SENATOR ERVIN: I understand that you plan to introduce legislation in Congress next year to make the use of coercion in bond drives and charity campaigns conducted by various government agencies illegal. I fully support this proposal.

From my own experiences I know that the junior officer who wants to have a successful career in the armed services finds it extremely difficult to resist pressure from superiors who want him to "display his leadership ability" and obtain 100% participation in the drive from the members of his unit. In my own case, I have had pressure of varying degrees applied during the past seven years and have finally adopted a policy of contributing from my own pocket for any of my subordinates who do not wish to participate in a drive so that I can meet the goals sset for me and still live with my conscience.

However, I do feel that to be effective such a bill must have an absolute prohibition on setting participation or contribution goals, making awards for performance in the drive, or keeping any participation records other than those absolutely essential for accounting purposes. Otherwise the over-zealous commander or staff officer will figure out some way to circumvent your bill and continue present policies. You might also consider prohibiting pressure to join post youth councils and the Association of the United States Army and to subscribe to various publications.

Sincerely yours,

Captain, U.S. Army.

WASHINGTON, D.C., March 5, 1967.

DEAR SENATOR ERVIN: I understand you are sponsoring a bill to insure that soldiers are not coerced into making contributions or buying bonds. I wholeheartedly agree with your effort and earnestly hope you are successful. In over 20 years of Army service as an Officer, I have resisted the immense pressures that are brought to bear on the relatively defenseless soldier to part with some of his meager pay for one or another fund-raising campaign. I have never been very successful and have made myself quite unpopular because of this stand. The fund raisers are very shrewd and very clever. I would guess they'll find a way to beat you. They always have beat me. Hardly a payday goes by that the solidier is not asked to contribute to some fund or another. Even in areas where they have a united community fund drive advertised as a once-per-year event, they make it last over three paydays at least, and then there is always another, separate drive for some special organization such as the March of Dimes, Red Cross, Army Emergency Relief, etc.

I've known many commanders who just automatically put an extra can at the end of the pay line every month to which each man is expected to contribute. Then when the fund drives come along, he has a slush fund from which to kick in his quota and does not have to hit the men so hard on a particular payday. Don't let anyone tell you they don't set quotas and then put the pressure on through the chain of command. By devious means the word gets out as to what the quota is and by when it must be met. Then it gets to be a contest between the various commanders to demonstrate their "leadership" ability to be the first to meet the quota. Really, it's just a demonstration of their extortion capability, except that some enterprising units conduct candy sales, bake sales, or chop and sell wood, or the whole company goes and picks beans for a farmer to make money-all on government time, of course.

Most insidious are the special gift drives-for someone who is departing or for some special event. For these, often the officers only are asked to donate, or perhaps all officers and NCO's.

Of course, the bond drives are notorious. It doesn't matter that the men cas in the bonds as fast as they buy them. The big thing is to be able to report 1009 are buying bonds. My efficiency report for one period of command contains th derogatory statement that I couldn't get my command up to 90% bond buyer This is the only derogatory statement in many ratings, but it probably cost me promotion. The fact is, I deliberately refused to push bond sales. My comman was in the 60% bracket on an entirely volunteer basis which I thought was prett good anyway.

Your bill will have to be pretty good to do what you want. The soldier ha always been a soft touch for the money grabbers, and they'll find ways to g his money every time.

Best of luck, anyway.
Sincerely,

Lieutenant Colonel, U.S. Ármy.

SEPTEMBER 4, 1967.

Senator ERVIN,

Senate Office Building,
Washington, D.C.

SENATOR: I was very happy to learn several months ago that you are trying t pass a bill that would make it a criminal offense, subject to court martial, for military commander to coerce a subordinate into donating money to any caus not prescribed by law. I want to tell you that there is a very great need for such law. I think that the proposed law should also include compulsory membershi in private organizations, such as the Association of the United States Army Officer and NCO clubs. Just today NCO's were telling me that membership i these organizations is a requirement for promotion. The people who need th protection most are the new draftees and the young lieutenants. Let no one tel you that the cases offered as proof of this abuse are isolated. Do not let the Dol tell you that it will handle the problem without further legislation. They won't d it. The evil will be reduced for a while, but after congressional concern and clamo dies down, there will be a return to the old custom of making everyone join and everyone donate or buy. Indeed, the higher ranks are the worst offenders. Let no one tell you that the motive is to teach the soldier to save or to assure him good association. The motive is very clear. The motive is to advance the career of the commanders in the eyes of senior commanders. Every commander has to hav 100% participation and it is difficult for the soldier to get through the pay lin without being robbed. Interrogate the next soldier you meet. Visit a company pay line at one of the Washington area posts next pay day. But don't tell anyone you are coming. I tell soldiers that under our law they have no obligation to donate, buy or join and they have no obligation to explain to any officer of the U.S. governmen their refusal. I think that all collectors, vendors and recruiters should be kept fa from the pay line.

This abuse is widespread in the Armed Forces. It is pushed by the higher ranks It is resented by the vast majority of servicemen. But very few are in a good posi tion to fight, because they all want to get along with their bosses, they all wan promotions and good efficiency reports. So they submit to the injustice. The morale and the career of their bosses is thereby improved.

I have remonstrated about this with my Division Commander and Brigade Commander. I don't want you to investigate anyone, I don't want anyone to be punished. I just want you to pass the bill. I would prefer that you do not write to my military commanders. This wastes too much time and besides the ones who were guilty of this have been changed. I want the practice stopped and passing the bill might do it.

Sincerely,

Rev.
Chaplain (Major), U.S. Army.

JANUARY 9, 1967.

Hon. SAM J. ERVIN, Jr.,
Senate Office Building,

Washington, D.C.

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.

Coincidentally, I am in the process of applying to the Board for the Correction clof Military Records for the voiding of my latest Officer Effectiveness Report on the ground that it contains unfair remarks concerning my refusal to participate in the most recent bond drive. A copy of this application is enclosed for your information. I think you will find it interesting.

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 been-with 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 on 19 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 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) 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.

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 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 Air Training Command Headquarters at Randolph Air Force Base, Texas, 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 and 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 applied 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.

-it's

Please do something about this intolerable situation, Senator, not for me— 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.

Sincerely yours,

Hon. SAM ERVIN,

Chairman, Senate Constitutional Rights Subcommittee,
Washington, D.C.

MARCH 6, 1967.

DEAR SENATOR ERVIN: I read with much interest the Army Times (March 8) article concerning your introduction of a bill to stop the intimidation of servicemen who do not wish to purchase a U.S. Savings Bond or contribute to a charity fund drive.

As you may have become aware from other letters, the major pressure is applied to servicemen while they are undergoing basic training. Commanders capitalize on the newly inducted man's lack of knowledge as to his civil rights while in the military service. Most individuals give in to the coercion, either for fear of punishment or because they simply do not want to put up with any more harassment than they have to.

I was the only one in my Basic Combat Training company (and moreover, the battalion) who refused to buy a bond. While the only pressure applied on me was

verbal harassment and false threats, this method seemed sufficient to convince all others. In the pay line there, we were told, not asked, to contribute to the United Fund and were not allowed out of the room until we did so.

Such a law is long overdue and I commend you and your committee for bringing this serious concern to the attention of the Congress.

Sincerely yours,

Pfc.

NORTH CAROLINA, February 22, 1967.

DEAR SENATOR ERVIN: I have just read in the newspaper that legislation has been introduced by you to prevent coercion being used in forcing our enlisted men to use a part of their meager funds to purchase Savings Bonds and to donate to charity drives. As the father of a son drafted last September, may I state that this is long overdue and so badly needed, provided enough teeth can be put into it, to stop the overeager officers from continuing their same old habits, whether permitted or not.

Also as the father of a son in the Armed Forces, I would appreciate your not using my name in any public manner in connection with this as I am sure it would be reflected somewhere in the treatment of my son, and at this point he has been treated as well as or better than expected, except for this one detail.

After all, what a man buys and what he gives should be a free choice. This is supposed to be a free country and without a freedom of choice in this connection, what we are supposed to be fighting for has already been lost, and all our casualties and expense are already in vain.

As a little background information may I say my son was drafted from a job at more than $400 per month to the usual $85 per for the services. His car payments were $85 per month and after the lien holder reduced this to the bare minimum of $40 per month, plus insurance, savings bond, United Fund contribution, not to mention certain items of equipment which were supposed to have been furnished by the Army, but which were only available for a price at the PX, and for the lack of which penalties were invoked, pretty well uses up his entire stipend. At this rate he has had to draw on what little savings he had managed to accumulate as a civilian to keep his head above water and his car from being repossessed. I believe a man should be prepared to make a sacrifice at times but enough is enough.

The only salvation now, financially, is that undoubtedly he will be sent overseas soon, which will automatically give an increase in pay. Or maybe the Armed Forces plan it this way so the man will enlist in the more hazardous units, such as paratroopers, just to get a decent wage. If we are going to have minimum wages for industry, commerce, and even farmers, why not our servicemen?

I am sure I reflect the feelings of many fathers on this subject, and I remain Sincerely yours,

SAM J. ERVIN, Jr.,

U.S. Senator.

FREMONT, CALIF., May 3, 1967.

DEAR SIR: We were shocked to learn of the condition existing in regards to our servicemen; practically being compelled or forced to purchase U.S. Savings Bonds and contributing to various charities. This is outrageous and disgusting. Since when must our servicemen be subjected to such a demand by superior officers? If such is really occurring, then the officers must be suspended or demoted. It's sufficient that the servicemen must go through enough hardship, let alone be taxed in such a manner.

We are thankful to such men as yourself for bringing this matter out in the open and preparing and submitting a bill to prevent this from further occurrence. We urge you to pursue this matter to its full extent.

Good luck, and keep up the fine work.

Sincerely,

Mr. and Mrs.