[H.R. 7642 follows:] [H.R. 7642, 94th Cong., 1st sess.] A BILL To amend chapter 5, title 37, United States Code, to extend the special pay provisions for veterinarians, and optometrists Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That chapter 5 of title 37, United States Code, is amended as follows: (1) Section 302a is amended by striking out "July 1, 1975" wherever it appears therein and inserting in place thereof in each instance "October 1, 1977". (2) Section 303 is amended by striking out "July 1, 1975" wherever it appears therein and inserting in place thereof in each instance "October 1, 1977". SEC. 2. This Act shall become effective July 1, 1975. Mr. STRATTON. Our first witness this morning will be Mr. Vernon McKenzie, Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Health and Environment. We are happy to have you here. However, before you begin your statement, I would like to ask you a couple of questions in connection with a matter that was brought up in the subcommittee at the last meeting when Secretary McCullen was before us. That has to do with the disability retirement of General Anderson from the Marine Corps, Mr. McKenzie. Mr. MCKENZIE. Yes. Mr. STRATTON. Let me ask you first of all, this. It is my understanding that the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Health and Environment recommended against granting a disability retirement for General Anderson. Is that correct, Mr. McKenzie? Mr. MCKENZIE. Yes; that is correct. Mr. STRATTON. It is my understanding that there were several physicians that were called in on this particular case, that one of the three or one of the four, as such, there did not concur in the conclusion that General Anderson was qualified for disability retirement. Is that correct? Mr. MCKENZIE. That is correct, Mr. Chairman. Mr. STRATTON. It is also my understanding that General Anderson, following the preretirement physical, as such, that he had on June 12, that he was admitted to Bethesda Naval Hospital for treatment. Is that correct? Mr. MCKENZIE. He was admitted to the hospital 2 days following the performance of the retirement physical, on Saturday, the 14th of June. Mr. STRATTON. Do you know whether that admission was as a result of additional symptoms that were suffered since the preretirement physical, or was this for the treatment of the condition that the preretirement physical disclosed? Mr. MCKENZIE. The admission of General Anderson to Bethesda on the 14th was primarily in connection with his retirement physical. I am advised that he had not suffered any further discomfort in the intervening period. Mr. STRATTON. I don't want to complicate today's hearing because of this particular matter. The committee, I am sure, will go into this in further detail. However, I request you to give us any correspondence that transpired between your office, between the Assistant Secretary or the Secretary of the Navy on this matter containing your recommendation against the disability physical. I would like the name of this person and any report that he may have submitted concerning the physician that did not concur in this recommendation. I would also like a report of the treatment of General Anderson during his stay in the hospital. Could you please provide that information to the committee? Then we would be in a position to explore the matter further. Mr. MCKENZIE. I will provide the information. Mr. STRATTON. Thank you. Mr. MCKENZIE. Yes, sir. [The following information was received for the record:] Mr. McKenzie: Attached are copies of the correspondence between the Office of the Assistant Secretary of Defense (Health and Environment) and the Office of the Assistant Secretary of the Navy (Manpower and Reserve Affairs) on the General Anderson case. Colonel Edward J. Huycke, MC, USA, Special Assistant for Medical Affairs, OASD(H&E) was the member of the Health and Environment staff who disagreed with Dr. Cowan, the Assistant Secretary of Defense and Mr. McKenzie, the latter's principal deputy, regarding the fitness of General Anderson to perform the duties of his rank and office. Colonel Huycke reported that Colonel Dana G. King, USAF, MC, Consultant in Internal Medicine to the Air Force Surgeon General with whom he had consulted on the case, considered General Anderson to be unfit at present, but that he "could consider a waiver back to duty if angina appears stable during the next three-four months." ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF DEFENSE, MEMORANDUM FOR THE ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF THE NAVY (M&RA) Subject: Physical Fitness Determination (GEN Earl E. Anderson, JSMC, 232– 05-5151). References: (a) Asst Sec Navy memo, subject: GEN Earl E. Anderson, USMC, 232– 05-5751, physical disability retirement proceedings in the case of, dated 20 June 1975. (b) Dep Sec Def memo for the Secretaries of the Military Departments, subject as above, dated 1 March 1973. (c) Dep Sec Def memo for the Secretaries of the Military Departments, subject as above, dated 29 January 1973. The case of GEN Earl E. Anderson, USMC, forwarded to this office by reference (a), has been reviewed in accordance with references (b) and (e). Reference (c), paragraph 6, states that when a military member is being processed for separation for reasons other than physical disability, his continued performance of duty until he is scheduled for separation for other purposes creates a presumption that the member is fit for duty. The medical record of GEN Anderson submitted with reference (a) indicates an uninterrupted performance of duty. There is no medical evidence in this record that clearly demonstrates a deterioration in physical condition of sufficient magnitude that would overcome the presumption of continued fitness. We presume GEN Anderson continues to be fit for duty. Enclosure. VERNON MCKENZIE Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary. ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF DEFENSE, MEMORANDUM FOR THE ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF THE NAVY (M&RA) Subject: General Anderson's Physical Fitness. In accordance with the understanding reached in this office during our discussion with you on 24 June, we have given further consideration to the circumstances in the Anderson case. We have again concluded that guideline 6 (DepSec Def memorandum of 20 January 73) should govern in this case and that, therefore, General Anderson continues to be fit to perform the duties of his office and grade. Our conclusion in this case rests primarily on the following considerations: On 12 June General Anderson was evaluated by Captain W. P. Baker, MC, USN, as a part of his retirement processing "because of recurring exertional substernal discomfort in the past 8 months." Captain Baker recommended that General Anderson "abstain from efforts which provoke angina and on such occasions when angina does occur that he take sublingual nitroglycerin". "In the event of progression in the frequency or severity of the angina, he should be re-evaluated and consideration given to adding inderal therapy." We are advised that 2 days later (14 June) the hospital authorities at Bethesda decided to admit General Anderson to that hospital for 2 reasons: 1. To releave the stress of office work and to determine whether the angina was of a stable type; and 2. To accomplish a medical board and such other laboratory tests that might be necessary. On 17 June following completion of the evaluation, General Anderson was released from the hospital with the admonition of no exercises. General Anderson's medical records reflect that his most recent chest pains were experienced "this spring" after a mile run. The above considerations do not suggest to us the occurrence of an acute, grave illness. V. MCKENZIE, (For James R. Cowan, M.D.). [Additionally, material from the clinical record on General Anderson was received and is being retained in the committee files.] Mr. STRATTON. Now, having read a four-page letter from Secretary McCullen, a letter explaining the action that took place, and the Secretary of the Navy, he told me that he wanted me to read it. He said that if I had any questions, that I should let him know. He said that if I had no question they planned to award General Anderson a medal on the occasion of his retirement. Now, I read the letter last night. I was astounded to discover that the action of the Secretary of the Navy was taken in a case like this against the recommendation of the Assistant Secretary of Health, as such, or the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Health and Environment, on a matter that has been of great concern to the committee. I called the Navy liaison officer. I told him that I wanted action held up until the committee could review this matter further. This letter also contains a statement that the recommendtion of your office was based upon the first sentence of the guideline No. 6 of the Department of Defense policy in this matter. When a member is being processed for separation for reasons other than physical disability, his continued performance of duty, until he is scheduled for separation for other purposes creates a presumption that the member is fit for duty. That conforms with General Anderson's case. Is that the basis for your recommendation? Mr. MCKENZIE. Not entirely. The decision was made on the entire ocument that contains all the guidelines to determine whether a ember, under the circumstances, is fit or is unfit. While the first sentence of guideline 6 is the most important of all the sentences that relate to this case, all were considered. Mr. STRATTON. The Secretary said that he made his decision on the second sentence of the guideline, which says: Such member should not be referred to a physical evaluation board unless his physical defects raise substantial doubt that he is fit to continue to perform the duties of his office, rank, grade or rating. Mr. MCKENZIE. Yes: that sentence was considered fully in arriving at the decision. Mr. STRATTON. When we get into medical matters, I think that the action of the secretary of the Navy proceeding counter to the recommendation of the highest officer in the Defense Department regarding medical matters, that this should be explored more carefully. If you can, please give us the material that I requested, plus any other information that you have available that would bear on this. Mr. MCKENZIE. Yes, Mr. Chairman, I will do this for you. Mr. STRATTON. Thank you. Now, with that introduction, if the other members will bear with me, we will take up the matter that is before us. I will have to leave for the purpose of establishing a quorum at another subcommittee. Mr. Brinkley will then take over. You may proceed with your statement. Mr. MCKENZIE. Yes, sir. I will read my statement into the record at this point and make comments as I go along. Mr. STRATTON. Very well, please proceed. STATEMENT OF VERNON MCKENZIE, PRINCIPAL DEPUTY ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF DEFENSE (HEALTH AND ENVIRONMENT) Mr. MCKENZIE. Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee; I am Vernon McKenzie, Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Health and Environment. I have been designated to represent the Department of Defense in connection with these hearings on the extension of special pay for veterinarians and optometrists. I have a brief prepared statement which I would like to present to the subcommittee containing the Department of Defense's position on H.R. 7642. First, I want to apologize for the delay in submitting this bill to the Congress. I can assure you that the delay was not intentional. It resulted from an erroneous assumption on our part. Two years ago the bill to extend this special pay was submitted to the Congress as a part of a legislative package from the Department of Defense. We erroneously assumed that the same procedure would be followed this year. As soon as we were made aware of the fact that this bill was not to be a part of a legislative package, we took the necessary steps to get it to the Congress as soon as possible. As you know, special pay legislation for veterinarians was first provided in 1953 by Public Law 83-84. Optometrists were added to the special pay provisions of title 37 in 1971 by Public Law 92-129. The provisions of law authorizing the $100 per month special pay for veterinarians and optometrists expired on June 30, 1975, for officers entering active duty on or after July 1, 1975. Therefore, we strongly support the July 1, 1975, effective date of the bill to avoid loss for these young officers. There is no terminating date for those veterinary and optometry officers who entered on active duty on or before June 30, 1975. Consequently, under existing law such officers will remain eligible for special pay throughout their military careers. At the end of fiscal year 1975, the Department of Defense was authorized 779 veterinarians and 565 optometrists. The numbers actually assigned were 762 veterinarians and 497 optometrists. Despite our best recruiting efforts, we finished fiscal year 1975 short 17 veterinarians and 68 optometrists. In fiscal year 1976, the Department's authorized level of veterinarians will decline by 41 to 738. Optometry officer authorizations will decline by 18 to 547. Even with these declines, we estimate that the Department of Defense will be required to recruit 32 veterinarians and 90 optometrists during fiscal year 1976 if we are to reach our authorized strength levels. These recruiting objectives take into account all known gains from our accession programs as well as known and assumed losses due to retirement, resignation or discharge. If special pay authority is not extended, we would expect considerably more difficulty in meeting our recruitment goals. The American Veterinary Medical Association and the American Optometric Association have provided us with data on the earnings of civilian practitioners of the two health professions being considered. These data convince us that we will have great difficulty in our direct recruitment efforts if this special pay is not continued. During most of the years comprising a normal career, civilian veterinarians and optometrists earn substantially more than their military counterparts. For all of the foregoing reasons, the Department of Defense recommends that the subcommittee act favorably on H.R. 7642. This completes my statement. I will be pleased to answer any questions. Mr. BRINKLEY. Thank you for a concise and clear statement. I agree with your conclusions as enunciated and as outlined on page 3. This is important. We will consider this matter with dispatch. Now, on page 2, you note that the optometry officer authorizations will decline by 18 to a total strength of 547. Mr. MCKENZIE. Yes, sir. Mr. BRINKLEY. Why is that? Mr. MCKENZIE. That is due primarily to the fact that as the overall strength of the Armed Forces declines, adjustments have to be made in all of the officer corps strengths. The optometry group and the officer groups as a whole have been reduced in strength. Mr. O'BRIEN. Will you yield? Mr. BRINKLEY. Yes. Go ahead, Mr. O'Brien. Mr. O'BRIEN. Thank you. With reference to the comment regarding the delay in submitting the bill, are there any elements of the Department of Defense or OMB that indicated opposition to the bill? Mr. MCKENZIE. No, sir. We did not receive any expressions of opposition during the coordination process. Mr. O'BRIEN. You did not receive any? Mr, MCKENZIE. No, sir. Mr. O'BRIEN. Now, touching on something that may be covered later on, do you anticipate any special benefits for the podiatrists as you deal with the optometrists and with the veterinarians? |