A-17816, APRIL 18, 1927, 6 COMP. GEN. 679

A-17816: Apr 18, 1927

Additional Materials:

Contact:

Edda Emmanuelli Perez
(202) 512-2853
EmmanuelliPerezE@gao.gov

 

Office of Public Affairs
(202) 512-4800
youngc1@gao.gov

DISABILITY COMPENSATION IS PAYABLE FOR A DISABILITY OTHERWISE COMPENSABLE. YOU STATE IN PART AS FOLLOWS: THE QUESTION PRESENTED IN THIS CASE IS WHETHER THE ABOVE-NAMED PERSON MAY BE CONSIDERED AS HAVING BEEN INDUCTED BY THE LOCAL DRAFT BOARD WITHIN THE MEANING OF SECTION 24 OF THE WORLD WAR VETERANS' ACT AS AMENDED. A QUESTIONNAIRE WAS MAILED TO HIM ON JANUARY 4. WHICH WAS RETURNED MARKED . " THE CLAIMANT WAS CERTIFIED BY THE LOCAL DRAFT BOARD ON APRIL 18. THE CLAIMANT FAILED TO REPORT AND HE WAS SUBSEQUENTLY APPREHENDED AND DELIVERED TO MILITARY CONTROL AT FT. THE CLAIMANT AFTER HAVING BEEN DELIVERED TO MILITARY CONTROL WAS ADMITTED TO THE POST HOSPITAL FOR AN OPERATION. THIS OPERATION WAS UNSUCCESSFUL AND IT RESULTED IN THE CLAIMANT'S PRESENT DISABILITY.

A-17816, APRIL 18, 1927, 6 COMP. GEN. 679

VETERANS' BUREAU - DISABILITY COMPENSATION - DRAFTEES IN SECTION 24 OF THE WORLD WAR VETERANS' ACT DATED JUNE 7, 1924, 43 STAT. 614, EXTENDING THE COMPENSATION AND INSURANCE BENEFITS OF THE STATUTE TO DRAFTEES, THE PHRASE "AFTER INDUCTION BY THE LOCAL DRAFT BOARD" INCLUDES DELINQUENTS REPORTED BY THE LOCAL DRAFT BOARDS TO A STATE ADJUTANT GENERAL WHO, PLACED THEM UNDER MILITARY CONTROL, AND WHERE THE DELINQUENCY HAS BEEN EXCUSED, AND THE CHARGE OF DESERTION REMOVED, DISABILITY COMPENSATION IS PAYABLE FOR A DISABILITY OTHERWISE COMPENSABLE.

COMPTROLLER GENERAL MCCARL TO THE DIRECTOR, UNITED STATES VETERANS' BUREAU, APRIL 18, 1927:

CONSIDERATION HAS BEEN GIVEN TO YOUR LETTER OF MARCH 18, 1927, REQUESTING ADVICE WHETHER DISABILITY COMPENSATION MAY LAWFULLY BE PAID TO MIKE MANOS, C-251383, DRAFTEE, WHO HAS BEEN FOUND TO BE PERMANENTLY AND TOTALLY DISABLED AS THE RESULT OF MILITARY SERVICE.

YOU STATE IN PART AS FOLLOWS:

THE QUESTION PRESENTED IN THIS CASE IS WHETHER THE ABOVE-NAMED PERSON MAY BE CONSIDERED AS HAVING BEEN INDUCTED BY THE LOCAL DRAFT BOARD WITHIN THE MEANING OF SECTION 24 OF THE WORLD WAR VETERANS' ACT AS AMENDED, WHICH READS AS FOLLOWS:

"THAT IF AFTER INDUCTION BY THE LOCAL DRAFT BOARD, OR AFTER BEING CALLED INTO FEDERAL SERVICE AS A MEMBER OF THE NATIONAL GUARD, BUT BEFORE BEING ACCEPTED AND ENROLLED FOR ACTIVE SERVICE, THE PERSON DIED OR BECAME DISABLED AS A RESULT OF DISEASE CONTRACTED OR INJURY SUFFERED IN THE LINE OF DUTY AND NOT DUE TO HIS OWN WILFUL MISCONDUCT INVOLVING MORAL TURPITUDE, OR AS A RESULT OF THE AGGRAVATION, IN THE LINE OF DUTY AND NOT BECAUSE OF HIS OWN WILLFUL MISCONDUCT INVOLVING MORAL TURPITUDE, OF AN EXISTING DISEASE OR INJURY, HE OR THOSE ENTITLED THERETO SHALL RECEIVE THE BENEFITS OF COMPENSATION PAYABLE UNDER TITLE II AND ANY INSURANCE APPLICATION MADE BY SUCH PERSON AFTER INDUCTION BY THE LOCAL DRAFT BOARD BUT BEFORE BEING ACCEPTED AND ENROLLED FOR ACTIVE SERVICE SHALL BE DEEMED VALID.'

THE CLAIMANT REGISTERED WITH THE LOCAL DRAFT BOARD FOR DIVISION NO. 2, DAVENPORT, IOWA, JUNE 5, 1917, AND A QUESTIONNAIRE WAS MAILED TO HIM ON JANUARY 4, 1918, WHICH WAS RETURNED MARKED ,UNDELIVERED," THE CLAIMANT WAS CERTIFIED BY THE LOCAL DRAFT BOARD ON APRIL 18, 1918, TO THE ADJUTANT GENERAL OF THE STATE AS A DELINQUENT. PURSUANT TO SUCH CERTIFICATION THE ADJUTANT GENERAL OF THE STATE IN ACCORDANCE WITH SECTION 159 "E" OF THE SELECTIVE SERVICE REGULATIONS (SECTION 123) DIRECTED THE CLAIMANT TO REPORT ON APRIL 29, 1918. THE CLAIMANT FAILED TO REPORT AND HE WAS SUBSEQUENTLY APPREHENDED AND DELIVERED TO MILITARY CONTROL AT FT. SHERIDAN, ILLINOIS, ON OR ABOUT AUGUST 6, 1918. THE CLAIMANT AFTER HAVING BEEN DELIVERED TO MILITARY CONTROL WAS ADMITTED TO THE POST HOSPITAL FOR AN OPERATION. THIS OPERATION WAS UNSUCCESSFUL AND IT RESULTED IN THE CLAIMANT'S PRESENT DISABILITY. THE CLAIMANT'S DELINQUENCY IN THE CASE WAS EXCUSED AND THE COMMANDING GENERAL AT CAMP GRANT, ILLINOIS, ISSUED AN ORDER SETTING ASIDE THE CHARGE OF DESERTION AS HAVING BEEN ERRONEOUSLY MADE.

ON OCTOBER 25, 1918, THE COMMANDING OFFICER OF THE CLAIMANT'S MILITARY ORGANIZATION CORRESPONDED WITH HIS LOCAL DRAFT BOARD STATING THAT THE SAID CLAIMANT HAD BEEN DELIVERED TO THAT CAMP AND REQUESTING INDUCTION PAPERS, WHICH INDUCTION PAPERS WERE FORWARDED BY THE LOCAL BOARD ON OCTOBER 29, 1918. THESE PAPERS, HOWEVER, WERE NOT COMPLETELY EXECUTED. THE CLAIMANT WAS DISCHARGED FROM THE DRAFT ON FEBRUARY 8, 1919.

IN THIS CONNECTION THE FOLLOWING STATEMENT MAY BE QUOTED FROM THE LETTER ADDRESSED TO THE DIRECTOR BY HONORABLE HANFORD MACNIDER, ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF WAR, UNDER DATE OF AUGUST 12, 1926:

"THERE WAS THUS NO DIFFERENCE, MORALLY SPEAKING, BETWEEN THE DELINQUENCY OF A MAN INDUCTED AS A DELINQUENT BY THE ADJUTANT GENERAL OF A STATE AND ONE INDUCTED AS A DELINQUENT BY THE LOCAL BOARD. IN OTHER WORDS, IF THE REGISTRANT INDUCTED AS A DELINQUENT BY THE LOCAL BOARD MAY CLAIM CREDIT FOR HAVING OBEYED THE LOCAL BOARD'S INSTRUCTIONS GIVEN IN PURSUANCE OF ITS PRELIMINARY FUNCTIONS, HE, NEVERTHELESS, FAILED IN COMPLYING WITH ITS MOST ESSENTIAL DIRECTION--- TO REPORT FOR MILITARY DUTY AS ORDERED.'

ATTENTION MAY FURTHER BE INVITED TO THE FOLLOWING STATEMENTS OUTLINED IN A COMMUNICATION FROM THE ADJUTANT GENERAL OF THE ARMY TO SENATOR HENRIK SHIPSTEAD, UNDER DATE OF JANUARY 11, 1927:

"THE DISCHARGE FROM DRAFT CERTIFICATE WAS ADOPTED BY THE DEPARTMENT FOR USE IN CASES WHERE AN INDUCTED MAN WAS NOT ACCEPTED FOR MILITARY SERVICE AFTER PHYSICAL EXAMINATION AT A MOBILIZATION CAMP. IT IS REGARDED AS A SEPARATION FROM THE MILITARY SERVICE UNDER HONORABLE CONDITIONS. MIKE MANOS, THEREFORE, HAVING BEEN REJECTED AND DISCHARGED FROM DRAFT, IS REGARDED AS HAVING BEEN SEPARATED FROM THE SERVICE UNDER HONORABLE CONDITIONS, BUT HE IS NOT ENTITLED TO AN HONORABLE DISCHARGE CERTIFICATE, THE FORM FURNISHED AT DISCHARGE TO MEN WHO WERE ACCEPTED UPON PHYSICAL EXAMINATION AT THE PLACE OF MOBILIZATION.

"WITH REFERENCE TO YOUR QUESTION AS TO HOW IT WAS POSSIBLE FOR THIS MAN TO BE KEPT IN THE ARMY FROM AUGUST 6, 1918, TO FEBRUARY 8, 1919,WITHOUT BEING ACCEPTED FOR MILITARY SERVICE, THERE IS NO RECORD EVIDENCE WHICH WOULD ENABLE ME TO GIVE YOU A DEFINITE ANSWER. HOWEVER, IN VIEW OF THE EXTENSIVE MEDICAL TREATMENT ADMINISTERED IN THE CASE IT WOULD APPEAR THAT HE WAS RETAINED IN THE SERVICE WITH A VIEW TO ELIMINATING HIS PHYSICAL DEFECTS, OR, AT LEAST, IMPROVING HIS PHYSICAL CONDITION.

"WITH REFERENCE TO THE QUESTION OF DIFFERENTIATION BETWEEN INDUCTION BY A LOCAL BOARD AND INDUCTION BY A STATE ADJUTANT GENERAL, IN NORMAL CASES INDUCTION WAS ACCOMPLISHED BY AN ORDER ISSUED BY THE LOCAL BOARD. CASES OF DELINQUENCY, I.E., WHERE THE REGISTRANT FAILED TO RETURN HIS QUESTIONNAIRE PROPERLY EXECUTED WITHIN THE PRESCRIBED TIME, OR FAILED TO REPORT FOR PHYSICAL EXAMINATION AS ORDERED, INDUCTION WAS ACCOMPLISHED ON AN ORDER ISSUED BY THE ADJUTANT GENERAL OF THE STATE. IN ALL MATTERS FALLING UNDER ITS JURISDICTION, THE WAR DEPARTMENT DOES NOT DIFFERENTIATE BETWEEN THESE CLASSES OF INDUCTION.'

THE CLEAR INTENT OF SECTION 24 OF THE WORLD WAR VETERANS' ACT DATED JUNE 7, 1924, 43 STAT. 614, QUOTED IN YOUR SUBMISSION, WAS TO GRANT THE COMPENSATION AND INSURANCE BENEFITS OF THE STATUTE TO THOSE BROUGHT UNDER MILITARY CONTROL THROUGH THE PROCESSES OF THE DRAFT LAW. NO STRAINED OR RESTRICTED MEANING WAS INTENDED TO BE GIVEN TO THE PHRASE "AFTER INDUCTION BY THE LOCAL DRAFT BOARD.' THE CONGRESS UNDOUBTEDLY USED THE PHRASE SIMPLY AS REPRESENTING USUAL AND ORDINARY PROCESSES ADOPTED UNDER THE DRAFT LAW, WITH NO INTENTION OF DISTINGUISHING BETWEEN INDUCTION DIRECTLY BY THE LOCAL DRAFT BOARD AND ACTION BY A STATE ADJUTANT GENERAL, PURSUANT TO ESTABLISHED PROCEDURE, FOR BRINGING UNDER MILITARY CONTROL DELINQUENT REGISTRANTS REPORTED TO HIM BY THE LOCAL DRAFT BOARD. THE REPORT OF THE WAR DEPARTMENT ABOVE QUOTED SUPPORTS THIS CONCLUSION. THE PRIMARY ESSENTIALS TO AUTHORIZE APPLICATION OF THE STATUTE IS THAT THE PERSON WAS LAWFULLY BROUGHT UNDER MILITARY CONTROL AND THAT THE DISEASE OR DISABILITY WAS A RESULT OF SERVICE WHILE UNDER MILITARY CONTROL.

THE DELINQUENCY OF MIKE MANOS WAS EXCUSED AND THE CHARGE OF DESERTION AGAINST HIM HAS BEEN REMOVED. HIS STATUS MUST, THEREFORE, BE CONSIDERED AS THOUGH HE WAS NOT A DELINQUENT OR A DESERTER. THE FACTS STATED IN YOUR LETTER BRING HIS CASE WITHIN THE TERMS OF THE STATUTE AUTHORIZING COMPENSATION, IF IT BE FOUND THAT HIS DISABILITY RESULTED FROM DISEASE CONTRACTED OR INJURY SUFFERED IN LINE OF DUTY OR FROM AN AGGRAVATION, IN THE LINE OF DUTY, OF AN EXISTING DISEASE OR INJURY.