(2) Several have plans to upgrade this facet of their operations immediately. FROM THE MAIL BAG *** 1. Local Board Memorandum No. 93, as amended, dated 18 February 1971, re: Furnishing Information to Regular and Reserve Components for Enlistment Purposes. 2. The Selective Service Newspaper (April 1971). 3. Letter To All State Directors (AP-19), dated 5 April 1971, re: Administrative Bulletin No. 2.101. 4. Letter Orders No. 1-71, dated 7 April 1971, re: Assignments. 5. Letter To All State Directors (Unnumbered), dated 7 April 1971, re: Manpower Utilization (AP-12). 6. Administrative Bulletin No. 2.18, as amended, dated 8 April 1971, re: Classification of General Schedule (GS) Positions. 7. (Advance Copy) Local Board Memorandum No. 116, as amended, dated 9 April 1971, re: Induction of Registrants Distant From Their Own Local Board. 8. Letter To All State Directors (00-21), dated 12 April 1971, re: Special Call No. 46-Dentists. 9. Letter To All State Directors (00-22), dated 12 April 1971, re: Reserve Appointments For Doctors, et al. 10. SSS News selease No. 71-8, dated 12 April 1971. 11. Administrative Bulletin No. 2.77, dated 15 April 1971, re: Rotation of Assignment. 12. Letter To All State Directors (OP-3), dated 16 April 1971, re: Collocation. 13. Letter Orders No. 2-71, dated 16 April 1971, re: Assignments. 14. Letter To All State Directors (AA-15), dated 16 April 1971, re: Sales of Excess Typewriters. 15. (Advance Copy) Local Board Memorandum No. 111, as amended, dated 23 April 1971, re: Reopening of Registrant's Classification. 16. Letter To All State Directors (AA-16), dated 23 April 1971, re: Administrative Control of Long Distance Telephone Calls. 17. Letter To All State Directors (00-23), dated 26 April 1971, re: Advice of National Security Council, et al. 18. (Advance Copy) Local Board Memorandum No. 99, as amended, dated 27 April 1971, re: Procedures to Implement Random Selection Lottery System. 19. Letter To All State Directors and Regional Service Centers (AP-25), dated 29 April 1971, re: Civil Service Retirement. 20. Memorandum To All State Directors, dated 30 April 1971, re: Conscientious Objector Claims After the Order To Report for Induction. 21. SSS News Release No. 71-9, dated 3 May 1971. 22. Letter To All State Directors and Regional Service Centers (AP-24), dated 3 May 1971, re: Executive Secretaries-Personnel Actions. 23. Memorandum To All State Directors (GC-3), dated 6 May 1971, re: Organization of the Office of the General Counsel. 24. SSS News Release No. 71-10, dated 6 May 1971. SPECIAL REQUEST ! ! ! The present printing and mailing plans call for the distribution of three copies of this bulletin to each state headquarters. However, in recent weeks several state directors have written, requesting additional copies. Our request to state directors-please write in and tell us: (1) To whom in your state would you like to give copies of the Inspection Services Bulletin? (2) How many copies of the Inspection Services Bulletin would you need to meet this distribution request? (3) (a) Do you presently reproduce this bulletin for further distribution? (b) Do you circulate extracts from this bulletin? (4) Do you issue a version of your own for state-wide distribution? Thank you for your cooperation in this matter. 80-620-72- -25 Attachment 2 SECTION 625.2.-REOPENING OF CLASSIFICATION The local board shall reopen and consider anew the classification of a registrant: (1) upon the written request of the Director of Selective Service or the State Director of Selective Service and upon receipt of such request shall immediately cancel any Order to Report for Induction, Selection for Alternate Service, or Order to Report for Alternate Service which may have been issued to the registrant; (2) who is in Class 1-H and becomes subject to processing for induction; (3) in any classification for the purpose of classifying him in Class 1-H when he becomes eligible for that classification; (4) upon its own motion if such action is based upon facts not considered when the registrant was classified which, in the opinion of the board, would justify a change in the registrant's classification; or (5) upon the written request of the registrant that is accompanied by writ ten information presenting facts not considered when the registrant was classified which, if true in the opinion of the board, would justify a change in the registrant's classification. For purposes of reopening, the local board will consider the facts presented by the registrant to be true unless there is evidence in the registrant's file to the contrary, or the registrant's claim is plainly unbelievable. A registrant who makes false statements to his local board is subject to criminal penalties. Provided, That in the event of (4) or (5) the classification of a registrant shall not be reopened after the local board has mailed to such registrant an order for induction or alternate service or in the event the order to report for induction or alternate service was postponed and a subsequent letter from the local board establishes the date for induction or for reporting for alternative service, unless the local board, in its judgment, first specifically finds there has been a change in the registrant's status resulting from circumstances over which the registrant had no control. SECTION 625.3.-REFUSAL TO REOPEN AND CONSIDER ANEW REGISTRANT'S CLASSIFICATION 1. When a registrant files with the local board a written request for reclassification and the local board is of the opinion that the information accompanying the request fails to present any facts not considered when the registrant was classified or, even if new facts are presented, the local board is of the opinion that the new facts, if true, would not justify a change in his classification, it shall not reopen the classification. 2. In any case where the local board refuses to reopen, it shall (1) place in the registrant's file a written statement of the reasons for its decision not to reopen his classification, and (2) advise the registrant by letter of its decision and the reasons therefor. SECTION 625.4.-CLASSIFICATION CONSIDERED ANEW WHEN REOPENED When the local board reopens the registrant's classification, 2. DEFENSE DEPARTMENT RESPONSES TO QUESTIONS FROM SUBCOMMITTEE ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF DEFENSE, Washington, D.C., April 26, 1972. Hon. EDWARD M. KENNEDY, Washington, D.C. DEAR SENATOR KENNEDY: This is in response to your letter of April 11, 1972, requesting supplemental information on military absentees as it relates to the recent hearings on draft procedures and administrative possibilities for amnesty. Enclosed are the responses to the 16 questions referenced in your letter. Discharge statistics for 1941-1945 (Question 11) are not maintained by this office; however, the Military Departments have been requested to provide such data. Upon receipt of their responses, we will immediately furnish this information to your office. I trust the above information will be of assistance to you. Your interest in matters pertaining to Armed Forces personnel is appreciated. Sincerely, Enclosure. LEO E. BENADE, RESPONSES TO QUESTIONS Question No. 1.-During the testimony, you used the figure 2,323 to indicate the number of deserters in foreign countries. Yet it could well be possible that a substantial number of the more than 27,000 others you state have deserted could also be in foreign countries? You cannot say with any assurance whether those 27,000 are in the United States or not in the United States, is that not correct? Answer. The Miltary Service through their Deserter Information Points (DIPS) submit a report to the Assistant Secretary of Defense (Manpower and Reserve Affairs) on each military absentee who goes to (or attempts to go) to a foreign country. A format of the report is enclosed as Attachment A. These reports are submitted as soon as it is ascertained that the absentee has gone or has attempted to go to a foreign country. The DIPS receive their information on these absentees from a variety of sources, such as: (1) the Federal Bureau of Investigation, (2) the Department of State, (3) friends (civilian and military) and family of the absentee, (4) commanding officer of the absentee, (5) foreign and United States news media, (6) letters from the absentee to the President, Senators, Congressmen, and the Office of the Secretary of Defense, (7) Military Investigate agencies, and (8) civil (foreign and United States) law enforcement authorities. Experience indicates that such absentees are very vocal and often acknowledge their presence in a foreign country and their alleged reason(s) for their absence. In addition, unless the absentee is financially solvent, he must obtain a job soon after he arrives in the foreign country. In most foreign countries, this involves the procurement of a "government work permit" for aliens which requires an application for landed immigrant status. This information is furnished to the DIPS by one or more of the aforementioned sources. Any appraisal of the accuracy of DoD's system of reporting and accounting for military absentees must consider the following factors: (1) The Military Services are large organizations involving 2.6 million men and women, assigned throughout the world. (2) Every day, a number of service members are transferred from one unit to another, both within and without the United States. (3) Every day a number of service members go absent without leave (AWOL) or desert, or return from an AWOL or deserter status. Thus, there is continuous change in the AWOL/deserter population. (4) In any personnel-accounting system involving human determinations and record-keeping, the possibility of human error always exists. However, despite these complexities, we believe that our AWOL and deserter information, particularly as to those in foreign countries, is reasonably accurate and as free from error as is possible. Question No. 2.-Also, the deserter profile and the estimated causes of desertion, they are derived from a study of the 600 or so individuals who have been returned to military control, is that not correct? Have you attempted to discover the deserter profile and the suspected causes of desertion of those individuals who are still at large? Answer. The typical absentee-deserter profile and causes for desertion which were discussed during the hearings were not derived solely from an analysis of 600 absentees returned to military control. The profile and the identification of causes for absenteeism were based on an analysis of relevant data on all individuals who absented themselves without authority during fiscal year 1971 and on those who went AWOL prior to fiscal year 1971 and were still absent at the end of fiscal year 1971. The annual report reflecting the causes for absenteeism/desertion and typical absentee/deserter profiles (Reports Control Symbol: DD-M(A)1039), as prescribed by Section VII A 2, Department of Defense Directive 1325.2, "Desertion and Unauthorized Absenteeism," served as the basic scource for this information. Question No. 3.-You indicate, General, in the Summary of Administrative Discharges Issued under DOD Directive 1332.14 that a total of 73,000 have been issued by the various services. Has any effort been made to determine whether opposition to the war in Vietnam was a factor in determining whether an individual received an honorable, general or undesirable discharge! Answer. The conditions warranting administrative separations are reflected in Attachment B. "Opposition to the war in Vietnam" is not a reason for administrative separation. If an individual's opposition to the war in Vietnam results in specific actions warranting administrative separation for either unsuitability, unfitness, or misconduct, his separation will be recommended based on a specific condition. The character of the discharge certificate issued to the individual, i.e., Honorable, General (under honorable conditions), or Undesirable (under other than honorable conditions), will be determined solely by the individual's military record during that enlistment or period of service covered by the discharge. This includes the individual's behavior and performance of duty; it does not include his personal opinion regarding the war in Vietnam. If the question implies the possibility that the discharge authority or board of officers involved, or both, may consider information about the individual not a part of the record, it would be impossible to inquire into the minds of the individuals involved to identify the reasons for their decisions. Question No. 4.—Is it possible that opposition to the war in Vietnam produced actions which then resulted in general or undesirable discharges for individuals who otherwise had acceptable military records? Answer. As indicated in question 3 above, it is possible that an individual's "opposition to the war in Vietnam" could result in specific actions that warranted his administrative separation. It is emphasized that the individual's entire record of military service for the period covered by the discharge, including his behavior and performance of duty, is considered in determining whether he should be discharged, and if so, the character of his discharge certificate. Question No. 5.-How many individuals filed conscientious objector claims between 1966 and the present? How many were granted? How many individuals who filed conscientious objector claims were given honorable, general or dishonorable discharges prior to their normal completion of service date? Answer.-Attachment C reflects the status of in-service conscientious objector applications for discharge (class 1-0) and non-combatant service (class 1-0-A) for calendar year 1965 through calendar year 1971. In regard to a further break-out of conscientious objector-oriented discharge information, statistics are not maintained which identify individuals who filed conscientious objector claims and were issued either an honorable, general, undesirable, bad conduct or dishonorable discharge prior to the completion of obligated service. The identification of such individuals would require a manual review of all records of servicemen discharged during a specified time frame. For example, during the last three and a half years, 3.5 million enlisted personnel have been discharged from the military services. Included in this total are approximately 7,000 conscientious objector claimants who remained in service after a determination was made on their conscientious objector application (1-A-0 approvals and disapprovals and 1-0 disapprovals). Therefore, these 7,000 individuals would have to be initially identified with an additional case-by-case analysis to determine if the individual was discharged prior to his expiration of term of service. This would be a very time-consuming and diffi cult task. As a general statement, those discharged for conscientious objection (1-0 approvals) undoubtedly were discharged prior to their expiration of term of service. Question No. 6.—If discharges in absentia are given, how are the individuals notified? Answer.-Where an absentee is beyond military control by reason of a continuous prolonged unauthorized absence and it is determined that he be recommended for discharge in absentia under other than honorable conditions, the absentee is advised in writing and by registered mail (see Section VIII, paragraph D 4, Department of Defense Directive 1332.14, "Administrative Discharges"). This notification is sent to the absentee's current home of record or current address, or to the current address of his next of kin as reflected in the member's service record, as appropriate. Question No. 7.-Under Department of Defense Directive 1332.14, VII D4(a)(2), it states: “A member beyond military control by reason of unauthorized absence may be issued an undesirable discharge in absentia only under the following circumstances (one of which is) when the Secretary of the Military Department concerned determines that the issuance of such discharge would serve the national interests." Whether used or not, doesn't that provide the authority for discharges to be given to deserters without requiring them to return to military control? Answer. We believe your Department of Defense Directive reference should have been Section VIII D 4 a (2). Basically, Section VIII D 4 provides the authority for discharges in absentia to be issued to deserters without requiring them to return to military control. However, as a result of the 1968 Armed Services Subcommittee Hearings on the problem of deserters in the Armed Forces, the Committee recommended that discharges in absentia be discontinued in the case of deserters (see Attachment D). As a result, Department of Defense policies and procedures concerning the issuance of discharges in absentia were revised to place narrower limits on the authority to issue such discharges. Accordingly, the current provisions of Section VIII D 4 are being used with great discretion as thse discharge in absentia statistics indicate (see our response to question 8). Question No. 8.-How many times have honorable, general or dishonorable discharges been given in absentia since 1965? For what reasons were they given? Answer. Since July 1. 1966, only 17 discharges in absentia have been issued to deserters residing in foreign countries. All were undesirable discharges and were issued to deserters who were aliens and who had returned to their countries of origin. The discharges were based on the criteria outlined in Section VIII D 4, Department of Defense Directive 1332.14. Question No. 9.-How do you explain the statement under Section V: "Policy (2)" no member shall be discharged except that, if appropriate, an undesirable discharge may be issued without board action if the member is beyond military control by reason of prolonged unauthorized absence." Does that indicate again, the possibility for discharge while an individual is in Canada? Answer.-Section V reflects general policy statements regarding the individual's rights in administrative discharge proceedings. Section V A 2 addresses those situations where an undesirable discharge may be issued without administrative board action. One of the situations is when a member is beyond military control by reason of prolonged unauthorized absence. Section VIII D 4 reflects the pertinent criteria for determining the issuance of a discharge in absentia. The two sections are compatible. Question No. 10.-Under 1325.2 identified causes of absenteeism and desertions and descriptions or profiles of the typical absentee or deserter, etc., are to be sent 90 days after the end of each fiscal year to ASD (M&RA). Could you furnish us with the past five years reports required under 1325.2, Section VII? |