Mr. QUIGLEY. If you are going to get the short end of the stick, what consolation is it to the veteran to be able to say "They did me wrong but they did me wrong on my pension rather than on my insurance policy?"

This is not a very consoling thought for the veteran, is it, Mr. Stover?

Mr. STOVER. It is not, but it represents the facts of the present situation.

Mr. QUIGLEY. Again, I do not want to take this thing away from my colleague, but really, as I expressed to the earlier witnesses, I am not clear in my own mind on the thinking, and of the logic of the Congress itself, when it decided, as a matter of policy, that in this particular type of case, almost alone, there should be a final decision at the administrative level rather than the usual, normal right of appeal which seems to be fundamental to the whole American system.

Mr. JONES. I think I should comment on Mr. Saylor's remarks on dissenting opinions.

As I mentioned, we are concerned with the lack of dissenting opinions. However, I would want to say a few things about that:

Usually, if two of the three members of the section of the Board agree to allow a case, the Chairman approves the majority opinion and allows it. If they are inclined to disallow it, he usually augments the Board by another section for further consideration.

So many of the things that start out as informal dissents in consideration of a case are resolved now to the formal decision. Nevertheless, we do feel that there should be a greater number of final dissenting opinions.

However, the fact there is no dissenting opinion recorded in the formal decision does not necessarily mean a decision was unjust or incorrect. We have purposely laid before the committee today, some of the things we have been negotiating with the VA about, as to improvements of the Board of Veteran Appeals. The fact we have been negotiating with them on this does not mean we think there is a large number of incorrect decisions issued by the Board. It just means that notwithstanding reasonable satisfaction with the Board of Veterans Appeals, we believe we can gain further improvement, and with resulting greater justice and equity, by persuading the VA to adopt these recommendations.

Mr. SAYLOR. Right there, you have yourself pretty far out in left field by that statement.

Do you mean to tell this committee that in 1954, that of 4,424 cases in which the Veterans of Foreign Wars saw fit to be interested, that they were satisfied that in only 439 cases they were right?

I want to tell you if that is true we had better take a better look at our organization.

Mr. JONES. That is not, of course, the full story. That is the rate of allowances at the initial determination of the Board of Veterans Appeals. That usually runs from 9 to 11 percent a year. In addition to the allowances, they usually remand 9 to 10 percent for further development and consideration by field stations, with later appeal, if necessary. A good many of those are allowed, the total allowance rate is greater than that.

Then, of course, we have the privilege of requesting reconsideration, and during the period from July 31, 1954 to March 31, 1960, in selected cases presented for reconsideration-and of course they must them for reconsideration, we have won 19 percent, with 21 percent rebe selected cases-in which we are dissatisfied to the extent we present manded for further development and consideration, and at a disallowance rate of 60 percent. So we have selected, from the cases disallowed, some of those in which we disagreed rather strongly, and presented them for reconsideration.

Mr. SAYLOR. So then actually, the figure of 439 which you report here as favorable were not decided favorably in the first instance, but they are the ones that you decided as favorable and felt so keenly about them that you asked for a rehearing?

Mr. JONES. No. I have not made myself clear. The 439 are original allowances by the Board of Veterans Appeals on the first presentation, and that usually runs about 11 percent there.

Mr. SAYLOR. If that is the case, you are not presenting your case in a very good light here, because the three figures that you have across the bottom here in 1959, namely, favorable, 439; unfavorable 3,633; and remanded 352, making a total of 4,424 that is the total number of cases that you have been involved in?

Mr. JONES. That is correct.

Mr. SAYLOR. You say you only got a favorable decision in 439 cases; is that right?

Mr. JONES. Yes, on the initial determination by the Board. A good many of the 352 remanded were later determined favorably, a lot of the times by field stations, upon remand.

Mr. SAYLOR. We are not talking about those, but about the ones you felt so deeply about that you asked for a rehearing. Where are those?

Mr. JONES. Those are not shown in those figures. These are the original decisions of the Board itself.

Mr. SAYLOR. Wait a minute. That is one of the things we are getting around to in this hearing.

On this Board you do not ask for a rehearing before anybody else; you have to go back to the same board?

Mr. JONES. I understand that.

Mr. SAYLOR. Now, where do you show, or where do you give us the figures?

Mr. JONES. The figures presented to you this morning were at the request of the committee's staff. I did bring with me additional figures on reconsideration requests and actions, which I will present for in the record.

Percentagewise, for the period, July 1, 1954, to March 31, 1960, we have won 19 percent of the reconsideration cases, 21 percent were remanded for further development, with of course some such later being allowed, and 60 percent denied.

That is the record from July 1954 to date, on reconsideration requests.

Mr. QUIGLEY. On that particular point, would you be able to furnish to the committee that type of information on these years, on a year-by-year basis? It may be difficult for you, I appreciate, because of the overlapping, but we would appreciate it if you could break it. down that way.

1955

1956. 1957.

Mr. JONES. I have it here to present today.

Mr. QUIGLEY. All right, we will make that part of the record. (The table referred to follows:)

1958.

1959.

Year

1960-January-March..

Total..

Allowed..
Denied..

Remanded

21

Mr. SAYLOR. Now, Mr. Stover, the members of this committee have heard certain rumors, so I would like to ask these questions to determine whether or not there is any fact in the rumors. It has been re

ported to our committee that at the VFW convention in New York City, August 17 to 22, 1958, at which Resolution 280 was adopted, the Chairman of the Board of Veterans Appeals was present, spoke, and was interviewed by the resolutions committee, took part in the committee discussions, and I want to know whether or not that is or is not a fact.

Mr. STOVER. Mr. Saylor, I wasn't on the floor or in the committee room which considered this Resolution 280. I believe Mr. Jones may have been there.

Mr. JONES. Yes.

Mr. STOVER. I do not have any personal knowledge of this.

Mr. JONES. Of course, you can understand I work closely with this committee at convention time on all subjects it considers, not just this. Actually, we have some VA central office officials at our service officers' conference preceding the convention and during part of the convention, and often ask them to sit with certain subcommittees for technical information. This resolution was written by a special subcommittee after a decision as to the nature of the resolution. Mr. Stancil purposely abstained from appearing before them until they had it prepared.

Mr. SAYLOR. But he was at the convention?

Mr. JONES. Yes.

Mr. SAYLOR. Did he address the convention at any time?

Mr. JONES. He addressed the service officers' conference. Usually only the Administrator addresses the convention.

Mr. SAYLOR. It seems rather strange that if the Chairman of the Board of Veterans Appeals is going to be a disinterested party and is doing a good job, it would not seem to be necessary for him to go before any veterans organization and plead his own case to try to prevent anybody from taking a look at how his own organization is working.

Mr. JONES. I would like to agree with you, Mr. Saylor, but I wish to assure you he did not come to our convention as a proponent of his own ideas.

Mr. SAYLOR. No; but if he was there you would not expect him to be anything but human, would you, and to do a little lobbying for his own ideas and his own organization?

Mr. JONES. At least he has not directed his attention in that respect to me in any way, to date.

Mr. SAYLOR. Now, to go a little further, on page 2, Mr. Jones, the bottom of the page, you state:

However, disagreement with a relatively limited number of decisions at a certain appellate stage does not of itself justify recommendation for the establishment of a further appeal privilege.

I want you to tell my why not.

Mr. JONES. The viewpoint of our group is that, in the first place, you are never going to win every last case in which you believe there is merit, at any level, even if you have 20 successive appeal stages. We believe that if we establish another one, through judicial review, because of a denial of some of these cases, and follow argument, we should argue for appeal steps later because we still have some denied cases. We do not believe this should be carried to the nth degree.

Mr. QUIGLEY. If I may comment, I think it is completely logical— and this is one of the questions I raised with the earlier witnesses-that if the present Board is the final Board, has the final word, by what logic do you say a Court of Veterans Appeals should be the final word. In other words, I do not think they are going to be any more or any less infallible than the present Board, and, frankly, I feel, if there is an unjust, unfair decision, involving a decision on a claim against the U.S. Government, that the person ought to have a right to go all the way.

Now, this might only happen once in a million times, but if we are sincerely interested in justice and seeing that the right thing is done, I think the decision ought to be made by the Congress of the United States, to take care of this one-millionth case.

Mr. JONES. Since we are not advocating judicial review, we are not saying if you establish a special court there should not be a further appeal, but simply saying that somewhere along the line there must be a limit on the number of times cases are going to be appealed.

Mr. SAYLOR. Let us go back to the Board of Veterans Appeals. Do you recall when the Board of Veterans Appeals was established? Mr. JONES. About 1930, as I recall.

Mr. SAYLOR. Yes.

Mr. JONES. At that time what was the Board of Veterans Appeals composed of?

Mr. STOVER. I believe it had the same structure that it has now. In other words, it provided for a maximum of so many associate members 50 associate members, I believe, came later-but it established what was considered to be an adequate number for that time.

Mr. SAYLOR. Now, these Boards composed of three men have a Chairman; is that correct?

Mr. JONES. Yes; one of the three acts as chairman.

Mr. SAYLOR. But over the entire group of Board members there is a Chairman of the Board of Veterans Appeals?

Mr. JONES. Right.

Mr. SAYLOR. Now, first, let me ask you this: Where is the Board of Veterans Appeals housed?

Mr. JONES. The VA central office.

Mr. SAYLOR. The central office. Is the present Chairman of the Board of Veterans Appeals a member of the policy committee of the Veterans' Administration?

Mr. JONES. I do not know that I can answer the question exactly as presented, but I am sure he sits in conferences sometimes and probably voices opinions as to proper interpretations of law. Now, whether that is part of any official so-called policy committee, I would not say. Mr. SAYLOR. Well, do you not think it is rather strange that your organization would come here and say that they believe in perpetuating a policy which allows a man to, first, determine, or rather, to sit in on meetings and determine, what the policy is, and then sit as Chairman of the Board and tell the judges how they are to decide that policy?

Mr. JONES. I might agree with you insofar as any voting rights of the Chairman on those matters is concerned, but certainly as Chairman of that Board, he gains knowledge and information through his associate members that other VA officials should have when such policy matters are determined. Now, the matter of the separation line is, perhaps, a problem.

Mr. SAYLOR. Well, it seems to me this thing has grown up down in the Veterans' Administration with the situation that the man who decides the case is making the policy or helping to make the policy, and in many instances I feel that because of the type of cases that he handles he is a major force in making the policy because, regardless of who the Administrator is, the Chairman of the Board is a pretty permanent fixture; is that not right?

Mr. JONES. Yes.

Mr. SAYLOR. You have not had too many of them.

Mr. JONES. I would not want to express an opinion as to who are the major forces over in the VA.

Mr. SAYLOR. I am not going to ask you who are the major forces or who are not, but this is just looking at this matter coldly. Now, let me ask you a rather facetious question, yet with a purpose: Is there anything in the constitution and bylaws and charter of the Veterans of Foreign Wars that they only believe in a republic with two branches of government; namely, the legislative and the executive? Mr. JONES. No; certainly not.

Mr. SAYLOR. Then why would any committee of members of the Veterans of Foreign Wars, unless there was some undue pressure placed upon them, ever adopt a resolution which said they were so satisfied with things in status quo that they would want to deny one of their members, or a man or a woman who went out and was willing to lay down his or her life in peacetime, of one-third of our Government, because that is what resolution 280 does?

Mr. JONES. Let me first say, of course, that I think our organization-and I think I can say the same thing about the convention committee, too-does a pretty good job of resisting pressure.

I think if VA officials should pressure, that might be the very reason the delegates would take a stand opposing the views of those exerting the pressure.

The second thing I would like to say is that our organization through the years, as you know, has been conscientiously working