The Stars and Stripes-The National Tribune, Volume 100, Number 36, September 8, 1977 Page: 2 of 16
16 p. : ill. (some col.) ; 41 cm.View a full description of this newspaper.
Extracted Text
The following text was automatically extracted from the image on this page using optical character recognition software:
2 THE STARS AND STRIPES-THE NATIONAL TRIBUNE Thursday, September 8, 1977
M NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF CONCERNED VETERANS
Veterans -
Separate & UnequalOTTO LUKERT
Director At Large
Veterans and their dependents,
the only group of citizens of this
country to be denied access to the
courts, may finally be accorded
due process of law. The Senate
Veterans' Affairs Committee is
holding hearings on S. 364, which is
yet another of a long list of bills to
extend to veterans and their de-
pendents the same constitutional
safeguards long enjoyed by the
general public. S. 364 provides for
the judicial review of VA deter-
minations and will permit claim-
ants before the VA to have an
attorney of their choice.
As with previous legislation to
extend constitutional safeguards to
veterans and their dependents,
there is organized opposition which
purports to oppose the bill in the
best interest of veterans and their
dependents. Not uncharacter-
istically, the opposition is com-
posed of organizations such as the
American Legion and VFW who
believe that their own interests
would be adversely affected by this
legislation. Also, not uncharacter-
istically, many of these groups are
defending their positions with a
combination of hoaxes, half-truths,
and misconceptions.
S. 364 will eliminate 38 U.S.C.
211(a), which prohibits the review
of VA determinations by any offi-
cial or court of the United States
and bestows upon the administra-
tor of the VA the sole power to
decide any question of fact or law
administered by him. This unique
authority endows the administra-
tor with virtual omnipotence. Com-
pounding the problem is the fact
that the administrator has the
authority to extend his powers to
whomever he deems appropriate.
Presumably, these lieutenants all
possess a different idea of what it
takes to receive VA benefits. The
end result is a chaotic system of
decision-making that is devoid of
rational consistency and prone to
partisanship and discrimination.
S. 364 will place the VA in the
same position of every other agen-
cy in the federal government. That
is to say, that the VA will have to
comply with the law. Also, clai-
mants before the VA will have the
right to an attorney of their choice
which is now denied to them by a
ridiculous, out-dated statute limit-
ing attorneys fees to $10.
S. 364 will not do a number of
things which opponents of the bill
insist will lead to catastrophy for
veterans and their dependents. The
following is a list of arguments
which have been raised against
this legislation and the truth re-
garding each argument:
ARGUMENT: S.364 will elimin-
ate the informality of VA hearings
and proceedings and will force the
VA to adopt strict rules of evi-
dence.
FACT: The Administrative Pro-
cedures Act, which will control VA
hearings if S.364 passes, specifi-
cally provides for the admission of
hearsay evidence. Furthermore,
the Supreme Court in Richardson
v. Perales,,402 U.S. 389 (1971) has
endorsed the utilization of hearsay
evidence in administrative pro-
ceedings. Furthermore, it is a
sound principle of administrative
law that hearings should be con-
ducted in an informal manner so as
to allow for maximum develop-ment of the case. There is absolute-
ly no reason to believe that the
structure of VA hearings would be
altered except that adverse wit-
nesses could be cross-examined
which is a very important right
now denied to VA claimants.
ARGUMENT: S.364 will extend
to VA proceedings the doctrine of
res judicata which dictates that
once a claim is decided by the
court, the decision is final. This
doctrine would prohibit the recon-
sideration and reopening of claims.
FACT: Once again, this is a total
mis-statement of the facts. The
doctrine of res judicata already
applies to VA determinations in
that decisions of the Board of
Veterans Appeals are final. An
appeal to court would actually
provide claimants with an addi-
tional step in the appeals process.
Re-opened claims will be allowed
as long as the law provides for
them, as it currently does.
Common law doctrines such as res
judicata do not take precedence
over laws enacted by Congress.
ARGUMENT: S.364 will cause
the Federal Courts to be flooded
with litigants appealing VA deter-
minations, creating great expense
and jamming already back-logged
court dockets.
FACT: It is true that initially
there will probably be a significant
number of lawsuits brought
against the VA. This is due to the
fact that the VA does not apply its
laws and regulations uniformly
and in some instances, does not
comply with its laws and regula-
tions. This effect should taper off.
A true indication of the number of
lawsuits which will be brought may
be derived from the fact that the
Board of VeteransAppeals con-
ducts only about 1,000 personal
hearings a year. Assuming that
this number represents the total
number of claimants who have
demonstrated sufficient interest in
their cases to complete the appeals
process, and given the fact that
the Board of Veterans Appeals
reverses or remands approximate-
ly one-third of all cases before it,
this yields approximately 600-700
claims annually that show any
strong likelihood of being brought
to court.
ARGUMENT: S.364 will necessi-
tate the elimination of the Board of
Veterans Appeals in favor of the
establishment of Administrative
Law Judges.
FACT: There is absolutely no
basis for this statement. The Ad-
ministrative Procedures Act pro-
vides several alternatives for the
conduct of administrative hear-
ings. One alternative calls for
having an Administrative Law
Judge preside at the hearing as in
the case of the Social Security
Administration hearings. Another
alternative calls for having a panel
preside at the hearings as in the
case of VA hearings.
ARGUMENT: S.364 will subject
VA claimants to hoards of un-
scrupulous attorneys seeking to
deprive them of their benefits.
FACT: Very few attorneys en-
gage in the practice of administra-
tive law. It is difficult and some-
times impossible to find an attorn-
ey who will accept a social security
See LUKERT Pg. 129 9
A 9
The Senate met on Monday,
February 21, 1977, and was
9 called to order by Hon. Paul S. 9
Sarbanes, a Senator from the
9 State of Maryland.Y
A The Chaplain, Rev. Edward L.1
y R. Elson, D.D., offered the
9 following prayer: 9
"For the things which are
r seen are temporal; but theY
things which are not seen are 9
eternal."--II Corinthians 4:18.
Lord of all life, Giver of all 9
A wisdom, we do not ask for
1 special favors above others, or
9 exemption from the stress, or 9
sickness or the temptations
9 which confront other men. But 9
A we ask Thee to take us as we,
are, indwell us by Thy spirit,
and use us for Thy kingdom's 9
sake. While we are laboring in
9 the fields of the temporal and
A the visible, keep us loyal to the
~values which are eternal and
9 invisible. And what we pray for
the Members of this body we
pray also for the President and
9 all others in the service of this
Nation, that we may ever re-
main a people whose God is the
Lord of Creation, our Redeemer
9 and Judge, Father of our Lord
Jesus Christ, in whose name we
pray. Amen.
(. . . . .71 iGrace Minnix
Grace MinnixHeads VFW
Natl Auxiliary
At the close of the National
Convention of the Veterans of
Foreign Wars and its Ladies Auxil-
iary, recently held in Minneapolis,
Minnesota, the new 1977-78 Nation-
al slate of Auxiliary officers is as
follows:
President, Mrs. Clarence
(Grace) Minnix, Belle, West Vir-
ginia; Sr. Vice Pres., Mrs. Robert
(Arlene) McDermott, Penacook,
New Hampshire; Jr. Vice Pres.,
Mrs. Vona Houtz, Roosevelt, Utah;
Secy-Treas., Miss Erline May-
berry, Kansas City, Missouri;
Chaplain, Mrs. Jeanette Frank,
Two Rivers, Wisconsin; and Con-
ductress, Mrs. Marian Watson,
Louisville, Kentucky.
Representing the New Jersey
delegation was newly-elected State
President, Mrs. Howard (Mar-
guerite) Losey, Newton, N.J., her
staff of officers and committee-
men, who pledged to President
Minnix full cooperation and sup-
port of all the National programs.Unionization:
Not The Answer
REP. G. V. [SONNY] MON
[Dem.-Third District-Mississ
The Congress is once again be-
ginning to take a hard look at the
possibility an effort will be mount-
ed to unionize the Armed Forces.
Earlier this year, legislation was
introduced in the House by Rep.
Robin Beard of Tennessee and
myself to prohibit labor unions
among military personnel. We now
have some 75 co-sponsors of this
legislation.
It was only a couple of weeks ago
that the Senate Armed Services
Committee reported out a bill
which would ban military unions
and strike several thousand civil-
ian technicians from present rolls.
All 18 committee members were
recorded in favor of the bill, which
would bar members of the Armed
Forces from joining a union and
would also forbid labor organiza-
tions from trying to recruit mili-
tary personnel.
The Senate bill has not been
scheduled for floor action, but the
Committee's approval means the
measure will be ready for consid-
eration in the near future.
We on the House Armed Services
Committee have not held any
hearings directly on the subject of
military unions or my bill. How-
ever, the Military Personnel Sub-
committee on which I serve has
been holding extensive hearings on
the grievance procedures in the
Armed Forces.
The preliminary opinion of the
subcommittee is that the grievance
procedures are more than ade-
quate to provide a remedy to
servicemen or servicewomen who
fell they have been wronged.
Members of the Armed Forces,
both officers and enlisted person-
nel, appear to be more concernedN ATIONAL ASSN. OF VETERANS
A DOL Proposes
v Indicators Of SP
ATOM WIN
Chairman
NAVPAOne of the continuing areas of
concern for programs and admini-
strators dealing with CETA prime
sponsors in their localities has
been an accurate method for delin-
eating the level of services provid-
ed to veterans.
Progress in that direction ap-
pears to be underway and BYLINE
would like to share some back-
ground information on a proposed
system for veterans' accountabil-
ity being discussed within the
Employment and Training Admin-
istration of DOL.
The Labor Department has pro-
posed indicators of compliance to
measure the level of preference
given to veterans by local offices of
the public employment service.
Assistant Secretary of Labor Er-
nest Green set forth the numerical
levels for those indicators of com-
pliance in the Federal register on
August 26th, seeking comments
before they become official rules
and regulations.
The indicators of compliance
consist of minimum levels of ser-
vice and preference to veterans.
These would take effect October 1,
1977.
If a state agency does not meetPROGRAM ADMINISTRATOR
ervice
CEK
the compliance indicators estab-
lished by the DOL's Employment
and Training Administration
(ETA), it would be considered out
of compliance and would then be
required to provide documentary
evidence to the ETA that its failure
is based on good cause.
If the agency is unable to prove
its case, it will then be required to
submit a corrective action plan for
the following fiscal year, or the
ETA may take other action, de-
pending on the circumstances.
These agencies will be identified
and their corrective action plans
included in the Secretary's annual
report to Congress.
Minimum levels of service to
veterans have been established for
counseling, enrollment or training,
job development, placement and
termination with some service.
Veterans preference indicators
have been established through
numerical values for compliance
on the basis of :
a. Veterans vs. non-veterans
b. Vietnam era veterans vs. non-
veterans
c. Disabled veterans vs. non-
See WINCEK Pg. 5T
TGOMERY
sippi]
over the erosion of their deserved
benefits than they are in grievance
procedures. They have a legiti-
mate concern in this area.
The last few years, Department
of Defense civilian officials and
some Members of Congress have
tried to reduce military benefits.
They are attempting to reduce or
eliminate commissary privileges,
medical benefits and the military
retirement system. Unlike private
business where benefits are con-
tinually being improved in both
non-union and union situations, the
military is experiencing an erosion
of its benefits. This is one reason
some servicemen and service-
women feel unionization is the only
alternative open to them.
I personally feel unionization is
not the answer. Labor unions with-
in the military would weaken the
effectiveness of our Armed Forces
and destroy the command struc-
ture which is so vitally important,
especially in combat situations.
However, at the same time I am
equally firm in my belief that we
must preserve the present benefits
available to members of the mili-
tary. That is why I have joined with
others on the Armed Services
Committee to defeat efforts to
reduce military benefits. We can
do no less if we expect to maintain
sufficient strength levels under the
all volunteer concept.
I will continue to strongly oppose
unionization of the military, but I
also continue to support legislative
efforts to insure that our service-
men and servicewomen do not
have their present benefits further
eroded simply because they are
members of the Armed Forces.;' .
Upcoming Pages
Here’s what’s next.
Search Inside
This issue can be searched. Note: Results may vary based on the legibility of text within the document.
Tools / Downloads
Get a copy of this page or view the extracted text.
Citing and Sharing
Basic information for referencing this web page. We also provide extended guidance on usage rights, references, copying or embedding.
Reference the current page of this Newspaper.
Smith, John Lewis, III. The Stars and Stripes-The National Tribune, Volume 100, Number 36, September 8, 1977, newspaper, September 8, 1977; Washington D.C.. (https://texashistory.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metapth887912/m1/2/: accessed July 16, 2024), University of North Texas Libraries, The Portal to Texas History, https://texashistory.unt.edu; crediting National WASP WWII Museum.