Upon appeal the Board of Veterans Appeals determined on May 11, 1944, that the servicemen's death may not be regarded as having been incurred in line of duty, and accordingly service connection may not be established therefor. In basing its decision on the quoted applicable law and its implementing regulations the Board stated:

"It is definitely shown by War Department records that the decedent at the time of his death was confined under guard and relieved from the performance of all active duty as a result of the intemperate use of alcoholic liquor. The evidence is inadequate to show that confinement was caused or precipitated by factors other than alcoholism."

Subsequent to the action of the Board of Veterans Appeals, the mentioned paragraph VIII of Veterans Regulation No. 10 was amended by the act of September 27, 1944 (58 Stat. 752) to provide in pertinent part:

"PAR. VIII. An injury or disease incurred during military or naval service will be deemed to have been incurred in line of duty and not the result of the veteran's own misconduct when the person on whose account benefits are claimed was at the time the injury was suffered or disease contracted, in active service in the military or naval forces, whether on active duty or on authorized leave, unless such injury or disease was the result of his own willful misconduct. ***".

A new claim filed by Mrs. St. Marie on August 31, 1945, was considered under this amendment and denied on the gound that death of the serviceman was due to his own willful misconduct. In making this determination on November 23, 1945, the Dependents Pension Board reviewing the case stated:

"As indicated, the motivating factor in the soldier's suicide was his condition arising from overindulgence in alcoholic liquors. The evidence is inadequate to show that his excessive drinking was the result of a mental disturbance in the first instance. Except for his drunkenness he was otherwise sane and normal as far as the testimony and his record in the service would indicate."

By letter dated December 12, 1945, Mrs. St. Marie was informed of the denial of that claim, and of her right to appeal or submit additional evidence within 1 year from the date of that letter. The records do not indicate that an appeal was filed or additional evidence submitted within the specified period.

However, under date of August 12, 1949, the Veterans' Administration was requested by the claimant's representative to reconsider the case on the basis of a statement by the Department of the Army (successor agency to the War Department), furnished August 9, 1949, to the effect that the official records of that Department indicated that the serviceman's death was in line of duty and not the result of his own misconduct. Although the line of duty determination of the War Department had been considered by the Veterans' Administration in all prior actions of denial of Mrs. St. Marie's clams, the case was nevertheless again reviewed by the Central Dependents Pension Board and it was determined on September 14, 1949, that such evidence did not warrant any change in the prior rating decisions, which were thereby confirmed and continued. Upon the request of Mrs. St. Marie another review of the case was made on June 7, 1951, and it was determined that section 5 of the act of October 10, 1949 (63 Stat. 733), which section amended the mentioned paragraph VIII (Veterans Regulation No. 10), had no applicability to this case and that no revision of the prior rating decisions was in order. Upon the request of Mrs. St. Marie and her representative, further consideration was given the case under the provisions of Veterans' Administration Regulation 2519.1, promulgated June 19, 1953, relating to administrative standards to be used in determining willful misconduct in suicide cases for purposes of laws administered by the Veterans' Administration. It was determined on July 13, 1953, that the criteria set forth in Veterans' Administration Technical Bulletin 8-132, promulgated September 6, 1949, was incorporated in the mentioned Veterans' Administration Regulation 2519.1, that such criteria had been considered when the case was last reviewed and that, therefore, review under the regulation was not warranted.

The Board of Veterans Appeals again considered the case upon appeal by Mrs. St. Marie from the determination of July 13, 1953, and in its decision of October 30, 1953, denying the appeal stated:

"It is shown that prior to his death he was a chronic and excessive user of alcoholic beverages and at the time of suicide was incarcerated because of his alcoholic excesses. The evidence in this case, when considered as a whole, does not establish that at the time of death by suicide the deceased was of unsound mind by reason of a neuropsychiatric disorder related to service. Under the governing law and regulations alcoholism may not be accepted as a basis for the award of monetary benefits. In view of the foregoing, it is the decision of the Board that the veteran's death did not occur in line of duty but was the result

of his own willful misconduct. Accordingly, service connection is not warranted for the cause of death."

It has been asserted, in effect, that a determination of the Department of the Army that death of the serviceman was in line of duty and not due to his own misconduct, should be accepted by the Veterans' Administration in determining Mrs. St. Marie's eligibility for benefits under laws administered by the Veterans' Administration. Line-of-duty determinations, for purposes of laws administered by the Veterans' Administration, are made by the Veterans' Administration based upon the mentioned statutory standards and implementing regulations, and not by the military departments. While the findings of the military departments are not binding upon the Veterans' Administration, they are considered in weighing the entire evidentiary showing. In the present case, while the basis of the mentioned investigating officer's determination has been noted, the report of investigation by the military department contains direct testimony of service associates of the late Private St. Marie to the effect that prior to the time he began excessive indulgence in alcoholic beverages several weeks before his death, he was entirely normal and poised, and nothing in his actions suggested mental unsoundness; that his actions were entirely normal when he was not drinking; and that during the hour preceding the time of his suicide he appeared entirely normal. There is additional testimony that Private St. Marie had stated he knew liquor was ruining him both physically and as a soldier and that he knew he should not drink but could not help it. One fellow serviceman testified, "He always appeared very sensible to me and the morning before he was placed in confinement we talked in my hut a long time and he was very sensible then," while another of his associates testified, "On Saturday morning, [March 6, 1943], I was talking with Private St. Marie in my hutment, and during the conversation he remarked to me in French: You know R---, I ought to stick an M-1 to my head and get it all over with. Everyone is against me. He had been drinking beer all Friday night." Thus, although the finding of the military department in reference to line-of-duty merits and is accorded serious consideration, careful analysis of all evidence of record clearly establishes the basis for the conclusion reached by the Veterans Administration.

H. R. 6452, if enacted, would be a conclusive determination by legislative action that, in the application of all laws relating to benefits payable on account of death in the United States Army, the late Frank P. St. Marie shall be held and considered to have died in line of duty. It is not known what effect, if any, the enactment of this bill would have with respect to the claimant's eligibility for benefits under laws administered by Federal agencies other than the Veterans' Administration. Insofar as the laws administered by the Veterans' Administration are concerned it appears that enactment of the bill would render Mrs. St. Marie potentially eligible upon application to prospective payment of service-connected death compensation in the amount of $60 per month. Before any payment could be authorized, of course, it would be necessary for the Veterans' Adininistration to determine whether the claim meets all requirements of governing laws other than the requirement that the servicemen's death be service-connected, which requirement would be satisfied by H. R. 6452, if enacted. It is assumed, in this connection, that if such requirements are met, the bill is not designed to require payment for any period prior to the date of filing of the mentioned application.

Attention is invited to section 131 of the Legislative Reorganization Act of 1946 (60 Stat. 831), which provides in pertinent part as follows:

"No private bill or resolution (including so-called omnibus claims or pension bills), and no amendment to any bill or resolution, authorizing or directing (1) the payment of money ***for a pension *** shall be received or considered in either the Senate or House of Representatives."

There appears to be for consideration the question as to whether H. R. 6452 is consistent with the congressional policy expressed in the quoted section.

The circumstances of the case have been carefully considered. No reason is apparent why it should be singled out for special legislative treatment To grant such preferential treatment in this case would be discriminatory against others in the same or similar circumstances, and might form a precedent for similar legislation in other cases.

The Veterans' Administration does not believe that private bills of this nature should receive favorable consideration.

Advice has been received from the Bureau of the Budget that there would be no objection to the submission of this report to your committee.

い

MAY 17 (legislative day, MAY 13), 1954.—Ordered to be printed

Mr. LANGER, from the Committee on the Judiciary, submitted the

following

REPORT

[To accompany H. J. Res. 455]

The Committee on the Judiciary, to which was referred the joint resolution (H. J. Res. 455) which provides that the Congress favors the granting of the status of permanent residence to certain aliens, having considered the same, reports favorably thereon with an amend ment and recommends that the joint resolution, as amended, do pass.

AMENDMENT

1. On page 4, after line 15, insert the following names:

A-6948174, Castillo, Zenoma Martinez do or Zenona Martinez or Zenona Martinez-Camejallis.

A-7046218, Rothstein, Rebecca.

A-0901104, Tsien, Hsue Chu.

A-6624888, Tsien, Mrs. Yi Ying nee Li.

A-6253121, Liman, Kerupe Herant.

A-6384103, Liman, Violet nee Haki.

A-5886859, Ryynanen, Eino Olave.

PURPOSE OF THE JOINT RESOLUTION

The purpose of the joint resolution is to grant permanent residence in the United States to 64 aliens, upon payment of a fee of $18, in accordance with the provisions of section 244 (d) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (66 Stat. 216-217; 8 U. S. C. 1254 (d)).

The purpose of the amendment is to include the names of certain aliens whose names did not appear in the joint resolution as it passed the House of Representatives.

STATEMENT OF THE FACTS

Fifteen of the aliens named in House Joint Resolution 455 applied for and were granted suspension of deportation under the provisions of section 19 (c) of the act of February 5, 1917, as amended (54 Stat. 671; 56 Stat. 1044; 62 Stat. 1206), while the remaining 46 aliens named therein were determined by the Attorney General to be eligible for permanent residence in the United States under the provisions of section 4 of the Displaced Persons Act of 1948, as amended (62 Stat. 1011; 64 Stat. 219).

Section 19 (c) of the 1917 law, supra, provided in substance that the Attorney General may suspend deportation and adjust the immigration status in the United States of certain deportable aliens. Under this provision of the law, aliens subject to deportation on the so-called technical charges may have their deportation suspended for 6 months if they are persons of good moral character and if their deportation would result in a serious economic detriment to a citizen of the United States or legally resident alien, who is the spouse, parent, or minor child of such deportable aliens. This privilege does not run in favor of persons subject to deportation for the serious causes such as on the ground of being a political undesirable, a narcotic law violator, a criminal, an immoral persons, etc.

Section 4 of the 1948 law, as amended in 1950, supra, has authorized the granting of the status of permanent residence in the United States to a limited number (15,000) of "displaced persons residing in the United States" who establish that they meet several specific requirements such as (1) lawful entry into this country as a nonimmigrant under section 3, or as a student under subsection 4 (e) of the Immigration Act of 1924, as amended, and (2) displacement from the country of their birth or nationality or of their last residence as the result of events subsequent to the outbreak of World War II, and (3) inability to return to any of such countries because of persecution or fear of persecution on account of race, religion, or political opinion.

Under both statutes summarized above, the Attorney General's adjudication in the cases of aliens applying for relief thereunder is not final. A record of the alien applicant's entry for permanent residence in the United States may not be created unless, pursuant to the Attorney General's report on all the pertinent facts involved in each case, the Congress passes a concurrent resolution stating in substance that it favors the granting of relief to the alien.

Again under both statutes, the Congress may pass such concurrent resolution either during the session of Congress at which the case was reported by the Attorney General, or during the session next following. The payment by the alien of a fee of $18 is an additional statutory requirement to be complied with before a record of his entry for permanent residence in the United States is created.

In the course of the years 1951 and 1952, the Attorney General referred to the Congress several cases of aliens which, in the opinion of the Committees on the Judiciary of the House and of the Senate, required the submission of additional evidence and the holding of hearings before a determination could be made as to whether or not the case merits congressional approval. In each case included in this joint resolution an additional check has been made to determine whether or not the alien (a) has met the requirements of the law,