^
muBM
7
Given By
5^RY prs. i-y^^t
'army personnel actions relating
TO IRVING PERESS
HEARINGS
BEFORE THE ..M
PERMANENT
SUBCOMMITTEE ON INVESTIGATIONS
OF THE
COMMITTEE ON
GOYERNMENT OPERATIONS
UNITED STATES SENATE
EIGHTY-FOUKTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
PART 1
MARCH 15, 1955
Printed for the use of the Committee on Government Operations
P L- B L I C
DNITBD STATES
GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
WASHINGTON : 1955
Boston Public Library
/jperintendent of Documents
-MAY 2 -1955""
COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT OPERATIONS
JOHN L. McCLELLAN, Arkansas, Chairman
HENRY M. JACKSON, Washington JOSEPH R. MCCARTHY, Wisconsin
JOHN F. KENNEDY, Massachusetts KARL E. MUNDT, South Dakota
STUART SYMINGTON, Missouri MARGARET CHASE SMITH, Maine
SAMUEL J. ERVIN, Jk., North Carolina NORRIS COTTON, New Hampshire
HUBERT H. HUMPHREY, Minnesota GEORGE H. BENDER, Ohio
STROM THURMOND, South Carolina THOMAS E. MARTIN, Iowa
Walter L. Reynolds, Chief Clerk
Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations
JOHN L. McCLELLAN, Arkansas, Chairman
HENRY M. JACKSON, Washington JOSEPH R. MCCARTHY, Wisconsin
STUART SYMINGTON, Missouri KARL E. MUNDT. South Dakota
SAMUEL J. ERVIN, Jr., North Carolina GEORGE H. BENDER, Ohio
Robert F. Kennedy, Chief Counsel
Donald F. O'Donnell, Assistant Chief Counsel
Jambs N. Jdllana, Chief Counsel to the Minoritif
n
CONTENTS
Appendix 33
Testimony of —
Van Sickle, Maj. Floyd E., Jr - -- 8
EXHIBITS Introduced Appears
on page on page
Exchange of correspondence between the chairman of the Senate
Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations and the Secretary
of the Armv, covering period of Februarv S, 1955, to February
28, 1955..;. 33 3-39
List of officers taking an active part in the personnel actions con-
cerning Irving Peress 3 40
Chronology of the militarv record of Dr. Irving Peress 3 40-59
1. Form bD-390, signed by Irving Peress on May 26, 1952 15 0)
2. Letter from Irving Peress to Adjutant General, Department
of the Army, September 9, 1953, with endorsements and
enclosures 20 59
3. Status card, Irving Peress, maintained in Surgeon's Office,
First Army 20 (')
4. List of individuals interviewed by the Inspector General in the
case of Irving Peress 25 . 61
88. Chart showing course of Army security action on Irving
Peress, October 1952 to February 1954 6 Facing62
89. Chart showing course of Army action on Irving Peress ap-
pointment to major 6 Facing62
1 May be found in the flies of the subcommittee.
AKMY PEESONNEL ACTIONS EELATING TO
lEVING PEEESS
TUESDAY, MARCH 15, 1955
United States Senate,
Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations
OF the Committee on Government Operations,
Washington^ JD. G.
The subcommittee met at 10 : 10 a. m., pursuant to call, in room 357
of the Senate Office Building, Senator John L. McClellan (chairman of
the subcommittee) presiding.
Present: Senators John L. McClellan (Democrat, Arkansas);
Henry M. Jackson (Democrat, Washington) ; Stuart Symington
(Democrat, Missouri) ; Sam J. Ervin, Jr. (Democrat, North Caro-
lina) ; Joseph R. McCarthy (Republican, Wisconsin) ; Karl E. Mundt
(Republican, South Dakota) ; George H. Bender (Republican, Ohio).
Present also : Robert F. Kennedy, chief counsel ; Donald F. O'Don-
nell, chief assistant counsel; James N. Juliana, chief counsel to the
minority ; J. Fred McClerkin, legal research analyst ; Paul J. Tierney,
investigator ; Ruth Y. Watt, chief clerk.
The Chairman. The committee will come to order.
The Chair wishes to make a brief introductory statement as we open
these hearings.
The series of public hearings that this subcommittee begins today
were scheduled by the chairman pursuant to action of approval taken
by the subcommittee in executive session on last Friday, March 11.
Senator Bender. I do not like to interrupt you, Mr. Chairman, but
since we are working under these conditions — that is, in this boiler-
shop environment, with the construction of the new building across
the street — I am wondering if we could not move to new quarters which
would be more satisfactory.
The Chairman. May I say to the distinguished Senator that we
will try to get better accommodations, but in view of the commitments
for other quarters of other committeies, we were unable to do so for
today. So we will have to proceed under these unfavorable condi-
tions today and we will undertake to find a more suitable committee
room for other hearings.
The purpose of these hearings is to inquire into all of the actions
and circumstances attending the Department of the Army's handling
of the induction, change in orders, promotion, and the honorable dis-
charge of Dr. Irving Peress. The subcommittee shall undertake by
proper evidence to establish for the record and for public informa-
tion all of the true facts relating to the Department of the Army's
action in these areas.
2 ARMY PERSONNEL ACTIONS RELATING TO IRVING PERESS
In preparation for these hearings, the staff of the subcommittee
has for the past 6 weeks conducted a preliminary investigation in the
course of which it has interviewed a large number of present and
former Army personnel, both civilian and military. In addition, many
hundreds of official documents have been reviewed by it.
The Peress case has been a matter of serious concern to this sub-
committee since January 1954, at which time Maj. Irving Peress
appeared before this subcommittee and took the fifth amenclment on
questions pertaining to his affiliation with the Communist Party.
Subsequent developments have revealed that the Department of the
Army had a considerable amount of derogatory information regard-
ing Dr. Peress during the entire period he was on active duty. Not-
withstanding such information and in disregard thereof, Peress was
promoted from the rank of captain to that of major and thereafter
was given an honorable discharge from the service.
The Secretary of the Army and the Secretary of Defense have
admitted there were serious administrative erroi's in the handling of
the Peress case, and following Peress' appearances before the subcom-
mittee in 1954, the Secretary of the Army, Mr. Stevens, promised to
have an investigation made by the Inspector General and agreed that
the names of those individuals responsible for sucli errors would be
made available to this subcommittee.
Under letter dated May 13, 1954, to the special Mundt subcommittee
after the completion of the Inspector General's report. Secretary
Stevens furnished a list of 28 names under the heading, "Listing of
Officers Taking an Active Part in the Personnel Actions Concerning
Irving Peress."
The subcommittee's preliminary investigation reveals that of those
28 names of the persons who took an active part in the personnel actions
concerning Irving Peress, only 8 of them were deemed of sufficient
importance by the Inspector General to be interviewed by him prior
to the filing of his report with the Secretary of the Army.
We have further discovered that 2 Army officers received letters of
admonition for their part in the handling of the Peress case, but the
names of these 2 officers were not included in the aforementioned list
submitted.
Some 7 months later, on January 7, 1955, a "chronology of the mili-
tary record of Dr. Irving Peress" was released by the Secretary of
the Army to Members of the United States Senate and to the public.
This report raised as many questions regarding the Army's handling
of Major Peress as it answered.
After the subcommittee's preliminary investigation commenced, the
Department of the Army gave assurances that it would cooperate with
the subcommittee in its investigation and would furnish all of the
pertinent information in its possession. Accordingly, the subcom-
mittee was interested in having the benefit of the investigation con-
ducted by the Inspector General and requested that the Inspector
General's report be made available to it for examination. This
request was first granted and the report submitted to members of
the staff of the subcommittee. Later, and before the staff could
conclude its examination of the Inspector General's report, it was
withdrawn from the staff, and a request for the return of it for
further examination was refused.
ARMY PERSONNEL ACTIONS RELATING TO IRVING PERESS 3
The information contained in the Inspector General's report, had
it been available to the subcommittee, in all probability would have
expedited the preliminary investigation conducted by the staff,
shortened the public hearings we now undertake to pursue, and obvi-
ated the necessity and expense of requiring the attendance of the
Army personnel witnesses now stationed overseas.
There followed an exchange of correspondence between the chair-
man of the subconnnittee and the Secretary of the Army with respect
to this action. Copies of the letters exchanged, the Chair now
orders, without objection, to be made a part of the printed record of
these hearings.
(The letters referred to above appear in the appendix on pp. 33-39.)
The Chairman". I felt then, and I still feel, that when the highest
military legal officer in the Anny, the Judge Advocate General, feels
the Inspector General's report on Irving Peress should be furnished to
this subcommittee and consents thereto, and when the Army furnished
the completed sections of the Inspector General's report on Pvt. G.
David Schine, which included the interrogations taken by the Inspec-
tor General, to the special Mundt subcommittee, that this subcommit-
tee is entitled to the Inspector General's report on Irving Peress.
I would be amiss however, if I did not state that except for the
foregoing, the Department of Defense and the Department of the
Army have been cooperative with the subcommittee in meeting their
requests and in making Army personnel and other documents
available.
In the light of the information now available to the subcommittee,
it may be necessary to hear some 20 to 25 witnesses during the course
of these hearings. As the hearings progress, the need for calling
additional witnesses may be indicated. However, we shall endeavor
to expedite the hearings to a conclusion.
The Congress and the public generally have evidenced marked
interest in this matter. They have a right to expect that through
the forum of this subcommittee and by its investigative processes
the facts and the truth can and shall be revealed. That we shall
undertake to do.
Without objection I should like to insert in the record at this point,
and I think it may be printed in the appendix, the list of the 28
names previously supplied by the Secretary of the Army. I believe
those names were submitted to the special Mundt subcommittee. I
would like to have them incorporated in the record.
I should like also at this time, and. the Chair will order it without
objection, that the chronology referred to in my statement, the chro-
nology of the Army's handling of Maj. Irving Peress, also be inserted
and printed in the record as a part of these proceedings.
(The documents referred to appear in the appendix on pp. 40-59.)
The Chairman. Senator McCarthy.
Senator McCarthy. This is not a point of order. I am not asking
the Chair to rule upon this at this time, but I would like to recommend
that if possible we call the people who were present at that January 21
meeting where they successfully conspired to call off the Peress
hearing.
^ At that time there was present a representative of the United Na-
tions, Henry Cabot Lodge; 2 representatives of the '\^'liite House,
4 ARMY PERSONNEL ACTIONS RELATING TO IRVING PERESS
Gerald Morgan and Sherman Adams; and 2 representatives of the
Justice Department, Mr. Brownell and Mr. Kogers; and the Army
counsel, Mr. Adams.
As the Chair may recall, the President signed a blackout order say-
ing they could not "tell why they conspired to call off the Peress hear-
ings, and why they tried to call on an investigation of McCarthy.
That Presidential order, I believe, would not apply to this committee ;
it would apply only to the Mundt committee.
Although I am not asking for any ruling at this time, I hope that
the Chair will consider calling those witnesses to find out why they
were so intent upon calling off the Peress investigation which they
successfully did.
Then, No. 2, Mr. Chairman, just to make this a matter of record, I
will not be able to be here from the 18th to the 22d. Necessarily I will
be absent. I had to cancel a number of important matters in order to
be here today. I hesitate asking the Chair to adjourn the hearings for
that period of time, but in view of my very, very deep interest in this
Peress case, I hope that the Chair can think of some other work that
we will do from the 18th to the 22d.
The Chairman. The Chair will state to the distinguished Senator
from Wisconsin that his first request is a matter that addresses itself
to the committee in executive hearings.
Senator McCarthy. That is right.
The Chairman. The Chair will hold and will call during the course
of these public hearings, such executive sessions of the committee as
may be requii-ed and deemed appropriate to properly entertain and
consider and act upon motions that should be discussed in executive
session with respect to the progress of anything relating to the present
public hearings.
On the second request, the Chair will undertake, insofar as it is pos-
sible to do so, to accommodate all members of the committee with
respect to holding public hearings in this particular case, and in all
others.
Senator McCarthy. Tliank you.
The Chairman. It is not always possible to accommodate all mem-
bers of the committee because of their commitments.
Senator McCarthy. I hope this is the last time that I will have to
ask the chairman to hold up a hearing. I mention this only because of
my deep interest in this and the fact that I have to be away. I am not
putting this in the form of a request, but I am just calling the chair-
man's attention to it. If he can do it, I woulcl appreciate it and, in
fact, I might even consent to go down to Arkansas and campaign for
the chairman.
The Chairman. I hope 6 years from now neitlier of us will have to
campaign.
We will take that into consideration, but it will not have any great
weight with the chairman in this proceeding.
Senator McCarthy. I might promise not to campaign, then.
The Chairman. Is there any other member of the committee that
wishes to make a statement?
Senator Symington. Mr. Chairman, at 10 : 30 there is a meeting of
the full committee of the Public Works Committee to consider niatters
of the Subcommittee on Public Buildings, of which subcommittee I
am chairman ; therefore, I just wanted to tell the Chair that it will be
ARMY PERSONNEL ACTIONS RELATING TO IRVING PERESS 5
necessary for me to be absent for a time this morning. Also, I have
some commitments tomorrow afternoon in Philadelphia, late, that I
cannot break, and I am in the same position on that as Senator Mc-
Carthy is. I will ask the Chair's consideration to also ask that he
understand why it is necessary for me to be absent at least part of
this morning.
The Chairman. If members have to be absent from any public
session, if they will advise the Chair in advance, I will be glad to make
any announcement for the record that the Senators desire.
Are there any other members of the committee who desire to make a
statement ?
Senator Bender. Regarding the request of Senator McCarthy for
the appearance of these prominent figures, I am wondering if there
is any inference to be taken from that that the President of the United
States is in any respect not wanting full information on every question
and certainly on this. It seems inconceivable to me that the adminis-
tration, which has done as mucli as this administration has in pursuing
Communists, and has a fine record in that respect, that there is no dis-
position on its part to withhold any information.
Senator IMcCarthy. May I say to the able Senator from Ohio that
the record is very clear in this. The President signed an order, a
blackout order, which provided that there could be no testimony given
about the meeting at which they successfully conspired, 2 representa-
tives of the Wliite House, 2 of the Justice Dej^artment, and 1 of the
Army, and 1 of the United Nations. And why the United Nations
was interested, I don't know. They conspired, on January 21, to call
off the Peress hearing and start the investigation of McCarthy.
We tried to find out what the background was. The President
signed an order saying you must not talk. So the record is very clear,
Senator.
There was a conspiracy to call off the Peress hearing. And I want
to congratulate the Senator from Arkansas for calling these hearings
back on, and I also want to congratulate him for being able to make
an arrangement, and how he did it, I don't know, to have the witnesses
talk here today. They could not talk before the Mundt committee.
Now to get the picture, the Army officers and former Army officers
must discuss conversations which they have had with each other in
regard to Peress. They could not do that before the J^Iundt
committee.
So I congratulate the Senator from Arkansas for being able to
unseal the lips of some witnesses, and I hope he can unseal the lips of
all of them. I know that is a big order.
The Chairman. Thank you, gentlemen, and I trust that we can
resume this discussion of what other witnesses we may have in execu-
tive session, proceed at this time, and have the opportunity in public
hearings to expedite the testimony we know we have available and
taken in public.
Senator Ervin, do you have any comment?
Senator Ervin. I heard one time, Mr. Chairman, that a man very
rarely regrets saying too little ; therefore, I will keep silent.
The Chairman. Before we proceed further, I wish to announce that
Gov. Wilbur M. Brucker, general counsel for the Department of De-
fense, is present, and he will be permitted during the course of these
60030— 55— pt. 1 2
6 ARMY PERSONNEL ACTIONS RELATING TO IRVING PERESS
hearings, without objection, to serve as counsel for any military wit-
ness who may appear. He will act as counsel, of course, under the rules
of this subcommittee, with which I am sure he is familiar. He can
only counsel the witness, or the witness can seek counsel from him
during the course of his testimony. And should Governor Brucker, as
counsel for the Army or the Department of Defense, desire any ques-
tions asked the witness, he will conform to the rules of this committee
and submit his questions to the Chair for the committee's consideration.
I believe it will help us to understand some testimony, much of the
testimony that will be given, if we follow or familiarize ourselves
with a chart or two charts that have been prepared by members of the
staff.
(Senator Symington left the room.)
The Chairman. For a brief explanation of the charts, before we
place a witness on the stand and hear sworn testimony, I am going to
ask counsel, Mr. Robert Kennedy, counsel for the committee, to make
a brief explanation of the charts.
Copies of these charts, prints of them, in miniature form, have been
placed before all members of the committee and have been made avail-
able to the press. I think an understanding of the charts will help
those who are interested to follow the testimony and understand it
better.
Senator Mundt. In that connection, Mr. Chairman, it would be wise
to explain for the benefit of the press and those who are following
the hearings that the committee decided that it would clarify this
issue best by taking it up on a chronological basis.
The Chairman. Yes ; the Chair may announce if that was not clear
in my statement that that is true. It is our purpose to take up tliis
Peress case from the time he entered the service and follow it chrono-
logically, as best we can, to the time he was dismissed or discharged
from the service.
Thus, these charts will aid us, I think, in pursuing it in that manner,
I thank the Senator from South Dakota for calling that to my
attention.
Mr. Kennedy, if you will make a brief explanation?
Senator McCarthy. You may prefer to have this done later, but
before Mr. Kennedy starts, I would like to say that I am curious to
know why Mr. Kennedy was handicapped, and I think he has done an
excellent job despite the handicap — why he was handicapped by hav-
ing the Inspector General's reports taken away from him, especially
in view of the fact that the Secretary of the Army agreed at a meeting
of the members of the subcommittee that such an Inspector General's
report would be available to this committee. I am curious to know
whether Mr. Brucker made the decision himself. Are we to be kept
in the dark on that or would the Chair like to take it up later?
The Chairman, May I say to the distinguished Senator from Wis-
consin, during the course of these hearings, sworn testimony will be
given with respect to the entire procedure and efforts of the staff and
the subcommittee to secure the Inspector General's report. I prefer
to have it on the record as sworn testimony, and I think that that is
the pioper way when we reach that stage in the proceeding.
Senator McCarthy, The reason I brouglit it up at this time, with
Mr. Kennedy giving a resume of the facts is that I realize the handicap
he will be under, even though he has done an excellent job. He is han-
ARMY PERSONNEL ACTIONS RELATING TO IRVING PERESS 7
dicapped by the order of Mr. Brncker, taking away from him some of
the information. But I don't want to press that at this time. We will
go into that later.
The Chairman. I referred to that in the course of my introductory
remarks, that we felt we were handicapped by reason of that.
All right, Mr. Kennedy, you may proceed.
Mr. Kennedy. Senator, this traces chronologically the derogatory
information that came to the attenuion of the Army starting on Octo-
ber 28, 1952, when Irving Peress first executed this form. Those forms
have to do with this security. This is not the first time that the Army
had information regarding Peress, because he had registered for the
Draft Act in January of 1952, but this traces the derogatory informa-
tion regarding Peress.
These forms were made available to the Army and were submitted
to the Army between October 28 and November 14 of 1952. This chart
then traces the course taken by the Army, after Irving Peress had
taken the fifth amendment on these forms, and it traces what occurred
in the Army tln-ough 1953, until he was finally honorably discharged
upon February 2, 1954. It gives the key dates, these broken lines here.
These straight lines mean there was a passage of papers, and these
broken lines mean that there was a passage of information.
For instance, here, on February 5, this broken line up here at the
medical section and the broken line to the reserve section means that
the G-2, in the intelligence branch here, gave information to the medi-
cal section and to the reserve section that they were instituting an
investigation of Irving Peress.
Simihirly, over here, we have the file being returned to Camp Kil-
mer, and we have a straight line here, on May 21. It was sent up to
Camp Kilmer through the First Army, the First Army being
these three sections in here, and the Department of the Army is here.
Camp Kilmer is here. The file was sent up from the Department of
the Army by G-2, up through G-2 of the First Army, up to G-2 in
Camp Kilmer. These are the key dates regarding this intelligence
information, this derogatory information, that existed on Irving
Peress.
The Chairman. You have another chart here and would you explain
that?
Mr. Kennedy. This is also broken down into three sections. This
has to do with the promotion of Peress from a captain to a major.
We have here the events dealing with Irving Peress' request for a
promotion up here, at Camp Kilmer, and what occurred.
The G-2 officer, for instance, stated that Peress should not receive
a promotion, and what divisions or sections they went through, and
how it was forwarded down here to the First Army, and forwarded
by the First Army here down to the Department of the Army, with
a recommendation that he should receive the promotion.
It went back to the First Army, and then came back to the Depart-
ment of the Army and died there. But, in the meantime, there were
these events here, this dark-black color shows this here [indicating].
These events were occurring at the same time. They were the result
of a law which was passed during June of 1953, which stated that
these doctors and dentists and veterinarians should receive a reap-
pointment or readjustment in rank. That is traced down through
S ARMY PERSONNEL ACTIONS RELATING TO IRVING PERESS
here, Mr. Chairman, and the events where he requested the promotion
are traced down here in the lighter color [indicating].
The Chairman. Thanli you you, Mr. Kennedy.
(At this point Senator Jackson entered the room.)
The Chairman. The first witness scheduled to testify this morning
is Maj. Floyd E. Van Sickle, Jr. Major Van Sickle, will you come
around, please ? Hold up your right hand.
You do solemnly swear that the testimony you shall give before
this investigating subcommittee shall be the truth, the whole truth,
and nothing but the truth, so help you God ?
Major Van Sickle. I do, sir.
The Chairman. Have a seat.
TESTIMONY OF MAJ. FLOYD E. VAN SICKLE, JK.
Mr. Brucker. Mr. Chairman, I would like the pleasure of intro-
ducing my associate, if I may, at this time.
The Chairman. All right. For the record, you may give his name.
Mr. Brucker. I would like like to introduce the new General Coun-
sel of the Army, Mr. Frank G. Millard.
Will you rise so they can see you, please ?
The Chairman. All right ; Mr. Millard, we are very glad to have
you present.
Mr. Brucker. I would like to formally introduce, if I may, my asso-
ciate, Fred Coughlin, who is known to members of the staff and the
committee here.
The Chairman. We are very glad to have him presented.
Mr. Brucker. Also Major Ivan, who is the Military Judge Advo-
cate General's assistant. So these men are here.
The Chairman. We trust with your presence here we can get a lot
of help and expedite this hearing.
Counsel, you may proceed to examine the witness.
Let us have order, please.
Mr. Kennedy. Major Van Sickle, where are you stationed now ?
Major Van Sickle. In Germany, sir.
Mr. Kennedy. You have just returned from Germany, have you?
Major Van Sickle. Yes, sir ; about -2 weeks ago.
Mr. Kennedy. Would you tell us how long you have been in the
Army?
Major Van Sickle. I came on active duty in January of 1941 with
the Wisconsin National Guard, and I have been on active duty ever
since.
Mr. Kennedy. I cannot hear you very well.
The Chairsian. Speak a little louder, if you can. Major.
Major Van Sickle. I came on active duty in 1941, and I have been
on active duty ever since.
Mr. Kennedy. You are a Regular Army officer?
Major Van Sickle. Yes, sir.
Mr. Kennedy. From the period of January of 1951 until November
of 1953, you were stationed with the First Army in New York City ?
Major Van Sickle. That is right, sir.
Mr. Kennedy. And your position there was Assistant Chief, Office
of Procurement Branch, First Army, of the Surgeon General, and
ARMY PERSONNEL ACTIONS RELATING TO IRVING PERESS 9
you also had some responsibilities as Acting Adjutant General ; is that
correct? .
Major A^AN Sickle. I was Chief, Office of Procurement Branch, m
the First Army Surgeon's Office. I had an additional designation as
Acting Assistant Adjutant General.
Mr. Kennedy. In that capacity, Major Van Sickle, you handled the
papers of applicants under the Doctors Draft Act ?
Major Van Sickle. Yes, sir.
Mr. Kennedy. That was an act which had been passed shortly after
the Korean war started, to bring in veterinarians, doctors, and dentista
into the Army ; is that correct ?
Major Van Sickle. Yes, sir.
jNIr. Kennedy. Under the provisions of that act, an applicant who
received notification from the draft board would get in touch with
you to see if he was eligible for a commission ; is that correct?
Major Van Sickle. That is right, sir.
Mr. Kennedy. Among those who applied for a commission was Maj,
Irving Peress; is that correct?
Major Van Sickle. According to the official records, the Peress
case was one of approximately 2,000 cases, an average of 2,000 cases
we were processing each month during the last half of 1952. I have
no independent recollection of the Peress case, but I have here a status
card from my office, which I believe will help me to reconstruct the
facts surrounding our processing of the case as they probably
happened.
Senator McCarthy. Could I inteirupt at this point i In view of
the fact that we have counsel for the Department of Defense and
counsel for the Army present here today, and we may not have them
tomorrow or the next day, I should like, if I may, Mr. Chairman, to
clear up one question which is bothering me a great deal.
While the Mundt committee was in session, the President sent down
an order saying that employees of the executive branch — -which would
include Army officers — could not testify to finy conversations they had
among themselves.
Do I now understand that during this hearing that order will be
disregarded, and that we can have the officers freely testify as to
conversations which they had about the Peress matter?
Mr. Brucker. Is that question directed at me ?
Senator McCarthy. I think it should be. You are the counsel for
the Army.
The Chairman. The Chair will request you to answer it and give us
any information you can at this time,^ Governor.
Mr. Brucker. The order of jNIay IT, 1954, Senator, is still in full
force and effect. The chronology that was filed in this matter was
deemed, to that extent, information to the Senate and to the commit-
tees with respect to that matter.
I am making no objection to the testimony on matters which have
to do Avith the clironology. Does that answer the question, Mr. Chair-
man?
Senator JNIcCartity. That does not answer my question.
The Chairman. State your question again.
Senator McCarthy. Do I understand that as of now you are telling
the committee that all of the officers who are called can freely testify
about any conversations they had about the Peress case?
10 ARMY PERSONNEL ACTIONS RELATING TO IRVING PERESS
Mr. Brucker. All of the officers here, and those that have been sub-
penaed, can freely testify with respect to this matter, the Peress mat-
ter; yes.
Senator McCarthy. Let me ask yon this. I have before me the
President's order, and so there is no possibility of the curtain being
lowered halfway through the hearing, have you received some clear-
ance from the President ? Here is the language used in his order :
Because it is essential to efBcient and effective administration that employees
of the executive branch be in a position to be completely candid in advising vpith
each other on official matters, and because it is not in the public interest that any
of their conversations or communications or any documents or reproductions
concerning such advice be disclosed, you will instruct the employees —
and so on.
Now, do you have clearance from the President so that we will know
the curtain will not be again lowered halfway through this hearing?
Mr. Brucker. There is no curtain lowered, and the inference that
you have on that subject, I know not the source of, that is, except to
say to you
Senator McCarthy. The President is the source.
Mr. Brucker. Except to say to you, sir, that the President's letter
of May 17, 1954, is still in full force and effect, and will be respected.
If what you are trying to get at is the Inspector General's report,
I will be glad to take that up as the chairman indicated
Senator McCarthy. I am not trying to get to that.
Mr. Brucker. At an appropriate time or now, but I am not in any
sense at this time changing what I have said with respect to the right
of the committee to interrogate these gentlemen who are subpenaed as
witnesses with respect to the Peress matter.
I do not include with that any carte blanche with respect to the In-
spector General's report, if that is what you have in your question, and
if it is loaded, then I will make that exception and say to you that we
will come to that in due time.
Senator McCarthy. Just a minute. Governor. This is not a loaded
question. I am just asking you this very simple question. Have you
gotten any clearance from the President so that we know that these
witnesses can freely testify as to conversations they had among them-
selves, about the Peress matter ? I am not talking about the Inspector
General's report. You understand that, do you not ?
Mr. Brucker. I understand that.
Senator McCarthy. Have you gotten clearance from the President,
or are you just violating his order ?
Mr. Brucker. This is no violation of the presidential order to do
what we are doing, to present these witnesses for very free interroga-
tion here. They have been presented to the staff of the committee, and
to the committee now. You may proceed upon that assumption.
Senator McCarthy. As far as you know, if we call on Mr. Kogers
and Mr. Lodge and the others who discussed the present case, they
should be in the same position as the Army officers ?
INIr. Brucker. I will pass upon that when the time comes. I do not
have that question raised. I will be very glad to consider it and let
you know.
Senator McCarthy. The time has come. You say you will pass
upon it when the time comes. The time has come, and I want to know
Avhether or not, under your interpretation of the order, you feel that
ARMY PERSONNEL ACTIONS RELATING TO IRVING PERESS 11
Mr. Lodge and Mr. Adams and the others who discussed the Peress
case and successfully conspired to call off the Peress hearing, will have
their lips unsealed the same as these other witnesses you are calling,
if you know.
Mr. Brucker. I know nothing about that, Senator.
Senator McCarthy. Thank you.
The Chairman. As I understand, witnesses of the military whom
this committee will call before it regarding the Peress case are free to
testify. They are instructed that they are so free to testify to any
conversations they may have had with other military personnel re-
garding the Peress case.
I do not think we could have a thorough and complete investigation
except and unless they are free, to testify as to discussions between
them regarding it.
Mr. Brucker. That is right, Mr. Chairman, they are, and I have so
instructed them and I have so communicated to the staff' of the com-
mittee, and I now communicate that to the chairman. As a matter of
fact, we have urged that the witnesses be very frank and that they
state the facts with regard to the matter completely.
Senator McCarthy. A new day has dawned.
The Chairman. Proceed, Mr. Kennedy.
Mr. Kennedy. We were discussing. Major, the applicants that came
in under the Doctors' Draft Act, and the fact that Irving Peress,
Dr. Irving Peress, would be included among that group. You stated
that you have no firsthand remembrance of the case of Irving Peress,
and since you have returned from Germany you have looked over the
files and looked over the papers you have handled, and that has re-
freshed your memory, is that correct ?
Major Van Sickle. That is correct.
Mr. Kennedy. During this period of time, in 1952, there was a
regulation, as I understand it, that the applicants under the Doctors'
Draft Act did not have to complete all of their forms prior to the
time they were given their commission or called on active duty ; is that
correct ?
Major Van Sickle. That is correct.
Mr, Kennedy. One of the sets of forms that they did not have to
complete was form DD-98, and also form DD-398; is that correct?
Major Van Sickle. Yes, sir.
Mr. Kennedy. Forms DD-98 and 398 had questions on their secu-
rity ; is that correct ?
Major Van Sickle. Yes, sir.
Mr. Kennedy. Some of these individuals or these applicants would
complete the forms after they had received their commission, but
sometimes prior to the time they were called on active duty, is that
correct ?
Major Van Sickle. The applicants were required to complete the
loyalty oath, DD forms 98 and 98-A, and the personal history state-
ment, the 398 form, after the commissioning.
Mr. Kennedy. That sometimes occurred prior to the time they came
on active duty, and sometimes it occurred after they came on active
duty, is that correct?
Major Van Sickle. That is correct, sir, sometimes before they came
on active duty and sometimes after.
12 ARMY PERSONNEL ACTIONS RELATING TO IRVING PERESS
Mr. Kennedy. And in this particular case of Irving Peress, it liap-
pened that the forms I)D-98 and 398 were executed on October 28
of 1952, and furnished to the First Army between October 28 and No-
vember 14. Do you have any firsthand knowledge of that, or are
you aware of that?
Major Van Sickle. I have no firsthand knowledge of it ; only what
the record shows.
Mr, Kennedy. Major, in these cases in which a form 398 or 98
was executed after the applicant had received his commission but
prior to the time he came on active duty, were there any steps taken
by the Army to prevent him from being called to active duty until
a full field investigation had been made of him, if on these forms
he took the fifth amendment or resorted to the Federal constitutional
privilege ?
Major Van Sickle. I am not sure that I understand the question,
sir.
Mr. I\1ennedy. What was the policy of the Army toward these indi-
viduals who took the fifth amendment on their Forms DD-98 and
398 after they had received their commissioning but prior to the time
they were called on active duty ?
Major Van Sickle. I am not familiar with whatever policy was in
existence at the time. In our commissioning procedure, the man was
commissioned prior to the execution of these forms. There was no
requirement that the man be investigated or cleared prior to being
called to active duty.
Mr. Kennedy. Then the Army, as you understand it, had no policy
toward these individuals who executed the DI)-98 and 398, and tool^:
the fifth amendment on those forms, toward their being called to
active duty ; as far as you were concerned, the Army had no policy ?
Major Van Sickle. As far as I was concerned, if there was a policy,
I did not know it.
Mr. Kennedy. And you were in the position of the individual who
was responsible for processing the forms of these applicants and ulti-
mately giving the orders which led to their being called to active duty ?
Major Van Sickle. I processed the forms of the man with the ex-
ception of the DD Form 98 and the 98-A and 398, that were normally
completed after the commissioning. My office did not process those,
sir.
Mr. Kennedy. Your office had the responsibility for giving the
orders that would ultimately lead to the applicant being called to
active duty.
Major Van Sickle. That is right, sir.
Mr. Kennedy. Was there any discussion between you and the Re-
serve division or the Intelligence division regarding the calling to
active duty of individuals who had taken the fifth amendment on these
forms ?
Major Van Sickle. I do not recall any formal discussions or ar-
rangements.
Mr. Kennedy. Well, was there anybody that you knew disturbed
about the fact that these individuals were Ijeing called on active duty
as officers, who had taken the fifth amendment on these loyalty forms?
Major Van Sickle. None of the people that I had been dealing
with appeared to be.
ARMY PERSONNEL ACTIONS RELATING TO IRVING PERESS 13
Mr. Kennedy. Now, Major Van Sickle, maybe I sliould refresh
your memory, that Avhen we talked to you on March 1 you stated to us,
as I understand it — and possibly you have had your memory re-
freshed— that you had an understanding with Mr. Kirkland of the
Reserve section, who processed these Forms 98 and 398, whereby he
would inform you if an individual or an applicant had taken the fifth
amendment, and then you would take action to see that he was not
called to active duty, because you were disturbed about the fact that
the Army was calling these individuals. Now, is that con-ect ?
Major Van Sickle. As I recall, sir, when I was questioned on that
point, my recollection was vague, and it still is. I do not honestly
recall whether we had a formal procedure or arrangement whereby
this type of action could be controlled. To the best of my knowledge,
we had had no such cases.
Mr. Kennedy. As I understand it, it was not a formal procedure,
but you stated that you had this understanding with Mr. Kirkland
that he was to inform you regarding these cases. Did I misunder-
stand you?
Major Van Sickle. It was not my intention to give that impres-
sion, sir.
Mr. Kennedy. That is fine, Major.
Senator McCarthy. Could I interrupt there, Mr. Chairman.
Am I to understand that it is your testimony now that you were
not interested in the fifth amendment Communists, and you had no
concern about them, and you did not ask Captain Kirkland to inform
you when a case came through his office? That seems to be contrary
to what you told counsel previously.
Mr. Kennedy. We had an informal talk, and it is possible that
Major Van Sickle when he returned from Germany, and had not
been able to consult his papers — that is my understanding, and his
understanding is something different.
Senator INIcCarthy. Let me rephrase the question, then.
Did you have any concern about the fifth amendment Communist
cases which had been coming through your office?
Major Van Sickle. Our commissioning procedure, sir
Senator McCarthy. I am not asking you about the procedure. I
am asking you whether or not you were concerned about the fifth
amendment Communist cases that were being commissioned.
Major Van Sickle. Up until this point, I had never seen one, or I
never had knowledge of one.
Senator McCarthy. You never had knowledge of one ?
Major Van Sickle. No, sir.
Senator McCarthy. Up until when ?
Major Van Sickle. Up until the information was made available
concerning the Peress case.
Senator McCarthy. Your testimony is that Kirkland never told
you about any other fifth amendment cases ?
Major Van Sickle. Not at the time we processed the Peress case,
no, sir.
Senator McCarthy. I will desist for the time being.
Mr. Kennedy. Now, Major Van Sickle, were there 5 different cases
on which an applicant took the fifth amendment between the time
when they were given commissions and the time they were called on
60030— 55— pt. 1 3
14 ARMY PERSONNEL ACTIONS RELATING TO IRVING PERESS
active duty, and you started a series of events wliich brought the
Army to revoke the commissions of these 5 individuals ?
Major Van Sickle, That is correct, sir.
Mr. Kennedy. For what reason did you do that ?
Major Van Sickle. We had commissioned five individuals under
this procedure that did not require the execution of a loyalty oath,
and prior to the time these individuals were called into the active mil-
itary service, information was received to the effect that they had
invoked the fifth amendment in the execution of the loyalty oath.
We had received instructions from the Department of the Army
that these individuals, commissioned officers at that time, should be
called into the active military service.
In view of this additional information, we requested verification or
confirmation, or that information was made available to the Depart-
ment of the Army, and we requested further information as to
whether their call into the active military service was still desired.
Mr. Kennedy. These five individuals executed their loyalty oaths
during October or the early part of November of 1952, which is ap-
proximately the same time that Irving Peress executed his loyalty
oath, is that right?
Major Van Sickle. I have not reviewed the records of these five,
so I do not know.
Mr. Kennedy. What I am trying to get at. Major Van Sickle, is
why these five individuals were not brought on active duty. Was
that an exception to Army policy?
Major Van Sickle. The derogatory information that we had re-
ceived on these individuals was made available to the Department of
the Army, and the Department of the Army subsequently advised that
they would not be ordered into an active military service.
Mr. Kennedy. For what reason did you make this information
available to the Department of the Army, if it was the Army's policy
to bring these individuals on, and you had no understanding or you
were not disturbed about the fact that these individuals were being
called to active duty ? Wliy in this particular case of these five indi-
viduals did you make it available to the Department of the Army?
Did you not feel that they should be called to active duty ?
Major Van Sickle. Yes, sir.
Mr. Kennedy. So it was an exception, and ultimately you heard
an exception was being made by the I)epartment of the Army to calling
these five individuals.
The Chair]\ian. May I suggest that if we have the names of the
five individuals, asking the major specifically as to each one so that
we may identify them for the record.
Mr. Kennedy. We just have the initials, Senator. Security infor-
mation is such that we do not have the names. We have ajjplicable
information regarding the individuals, and we have everything but
their names.
The Chairman. That is all right. If that is the security informa-
tion, we will not insist upon it at this time. I thought perhaps we
had it at this time.
Proceed. I think this, Mr. Counsel : I think we should have this
witness identify forms DD390, and others, and I want to get those
forms in the record so that we will know what we are talking about.
ARMY PERSONNEL ACTIONS RELATING TO IRVING PERESS 15
Mr. Kennedy. Xow, just one step back on these five individuals.
The}^ all received honorable discharges from the Army at that time,
and later three of them were brought back in as enlisted men and all
of them received undesirable discharges as enlisted men.
Major Van Sickle. Those records have not been available to me
and I have no knowledge of those actions.
Mr. Kennedy. They are in the hands of the committee and I am
reading here from a memorandmn that has been furnished to this
subcommittee.
Now, Major Van Sickle, regarding Irving Peress, you are aware
that during January of 1952 Irving Peress registered with his draft
board, as he had not served in the Second World War, and he was
available for the draft ; is that correct?
Major Van Sickle. That is what the record indicates; yes, sir.
Mr. Kennedy. Then during the middle of July 1952 he took his
physical. Are you aware of that?
Major Van Sickle. That is indicated here on the card, sir.
Mr. Kennedy. Now, on May 26, just prior to that time, he executed
his form 390. Are you familiar with that ?
Major Van Sickle. Am I familiar with that?
Mr. Kennedy. The fact that he did execute his form 390, on May
26, 1952.
Major Van Sickle. I have no knowledge of the date, sir.
Mr. Kennedy. Well, the record shows that date. He did execute
his form 390 on May 26, 1952.
Now, are you familiar with the form 390, which gives the medical
experience of an applicant for a commission under the Doctors' Draft
Act?
Major Van Sickle. Yes, sir.
Mr. Kennedy. And question No. 32 of form 390 ; JNIajor, would you
look at this?
(A document was handed to the witness.)
Mr. Ivennedy. Would you first identify that document Major?
( Senator McCarthy left the room. )
Major Van Sickle. This document that I have in my hand here is a
photostat of form 390 containing information concerning Irving
Peress, which indicates it was signed by Irving Peress on the 26th of
May 1952.
Mr. Kennedy. Now, I ask, Mr. Chairman, if that could be made an
exhibit to the public record ?
The Chairman. It will be made an exhibit, and it will be exhibit
No. 1 of the record.
(Exhibit No. 1 may be found in the files of the subcommittee.)
Mr. Kennedy. Now, Major, would you read question number 32
on that form 390 ; and Maj. Irving Peress' answer to it ?
Major Van Sickle. Under item 32, it states :
I am not nor bave I been a conscientious objector. I am not now and I have
not been a member of any foreign or domestic organization, association, move-
ments, group, or combination of persons advocating a subversive policy or seek-
ing to alter the form of Government of the United States by unconstitutional
Mr. IGsNNEDY. On the 11th of August, was that sworn to. Major?
Major Van Sickle. I don't believe so ; it is not a sworn or witnessed
form.
16 ARMY PERSONNEL ACTIONS RELATING TO IRVING PERESS
Mr. Kennedy. Now, on the 11th of August, you received this form
DD-390, as well as other forms executed by Irving Peress; is that
correct ?
Major Van Sickle. On the 11th of August we received his Stand-
ard Form 88, Report of Physical Examination; Standard Form 89,
Report of Medical History ; and DD form 47, 62 and the DD form
390.
Mr. Kennedy. Then, on the 12th of September, you notified Dr.
Irving Peress that he had been found physically qualified, and you
asked him for the date that he wished to be called to active duty.
That was a letter sent out under your signature ?
Major Van Sickle. That is what the record shows ; yes, sir.
Mr. Kennedy. And then on the 25th of September, you sent a
notice to Irving Peress that he was found qualified for a commission,
and that he could have a commission if he so desired ?
Major Van Sickle. Yes, sir, that is what the record indicates here.
Mr! Kennedy. And during this period of time you had examined
the various forms submitted to you by Irving Peress and you reached
the determination that he could be commissioned a captain in the
Army ; is that correct ?
Major Van Sickle. Yes, sir, that was the eligibility given him at
the time, sir.
Mr. Kennedy. Now, we have since found out, or the Army has since
found out that he could have been commissioned initially as a major,
rather than a captain ; is that right?
Major Van Sickle. That is what the record indicates ; yes, sir._
Mr. Kennedy. Are you going to take any of the credit for making
him a captain rather than a major? That was just a mistake; it was
not on purpose, is that correct ?
Major Van Sickle. The basis for grade determination was changed
about this time. Commissions up through the grade of captain were
based solely upon years of experience. Commissions in the grade of
major and lieutenant colonel required a given number of years of pro-
fessional experience, but in addition extensive postgraduate training.
As I recall. Dr. Peress did not have that.
Mr. Kennedy. For some reason an error was made wherein he was
qualified to be appointed a major but he was actually appointed a
captain ; is that right ?
Mr. Bruckek. May he explain that to you ?
The Chairman. You may explain it.
Major Van Sickle. On the 25th of September 1952, the Depart-
ment of the Army sent instructions to the field advising that commis-
sions up through the grade of lieutenant colonel would be based solely
upon years of professional experience without regard for the formal
or specialized training requirement. Under that directive Peress was
eligible for a direct commission in the grade of major.
In the commissioning, his commissioning took place about the time
that this change was sent out and I just assume that it did not catch up
with his personnel action and his original grade of captain was held to.
Mr. Kennedy. On the 4th of October, Major Van Sickle, you sent
a notice to the Reserve section that Irving Peress should be appointed
as a captain; is that correct?
Major Van Sickle. Yes, sir.
ARMl^ PERSONNEL ACTIONS RELATING TO IRVING PERESS 17
Mr. Kennedy. Are you aware that on the 7th of October there was
a notice sent out to Peress that he had qualified as a captain, and that
was sent out by the Reserve section to wliom you had sent the fact
he was eligible to be appointed a captain, and at that time they sent
him the oath of office ; they sent him the forms DD 98 and 398 to be
executed ; is that correct ?
Major Van Sickle. On the 4tli of October, my office recommended
to the AG Reserve Forces Division at First Army that he be com-
missioned a captain. I believe AG Reserve Forces sent him on the
7th of October a letter of appointment, and oath of office for execution.
Mr. Kennedy. That is just what I said.
Major Van Sickle. Yes,
Mr. Kennedy, Now, at that time they sent you a notification and a
copy of this oath of office ; is that correct ?
Major Van Sickle. Yes ; we were subsequently advised that he had
accepted his commission.
Mr. Kennedy, And then on the 15th of October he executed his oath
of office, as a captain in the Army ; is that correct ?
Major Van Sickle, Yes, sir.
Mr. Kennedy, Now, on the 28th of October you notified the Office
of the Surgeon General that Peress, among a number of others, was
eligible to be called, and at that time, under your ordinary procedure,
you would have sent down this form 390 to the Department of the
Army ; is that correct ?
Major Van Sickle, Our normal procedure included the furnish-
ing of a 390 form.
(Senator Symington entered the room.)
Mr. Kennedy, Ordinarily that form, as you understand it, would
have gone into the Office of the Surgeon General ; is that correct?
Major Van Sickle, It would have gone to the Adjutant General,
attention AG-Med, which I understand was the Surgeon General,
Mr, Kennedy. Now, on this date, on the 28th of October, Peress
executed his forms 98 and 398, on which he took the fifth amendment.
Are you aware of that ?
Major Van Sickle. No, sir; I was not.
Mr, Kennedy, You were not?
Major Van Sickle, No,
Mr, Kennedy. But you have since learned that was a fact ?
Major Van Sickle, I have since learned of that.
Mr. Kennedy. And some time between October 28 and November
14, 1952, Peress submitted these forms, 98 and 398, to the First Army ;
is that correct ? You are again not personally aware of it, but you
have seen the records?
Major Van Sickle, That is a part of the proceeding I was not in-
volved in, but a review of the record indicates that that was the case ;
yes, sir,
jMr. Kennedy, On the 5th of November, the Department of the
Army notified the First Army, and notification came to you, that
Peress was to be called to active duty not later than January 7 ?
Major Van Sickle, Yes, sir,
(Those present are Senators Ervin, Jackson, Symington, Bender,
and McClellan.)
Mr, Kennedy, Did you, shortly after the 8th of November, write
up the orders to call Irving Peress to active duty ?
18 ARMY PERSONNEL ACTIONS RELATING TO IRVING PERESS
Major Van Sickle. My office, according to the record, requested
issuance of active duty orders on the 8th of November. That request
went to the AG Orders Branch at the First Army Headquarters.
Mr. Kennedy. Are you aware that the orders were issued by the
First Army, by that Branch, that he should be called on the 1st of
January 1953?
Major Van Sickle. Yes, sir, they were.
Mr. Kennedy. Then, on the 4th of December 1952, Irving Peress
got in touch with you and requested that there be a delay prior to his
being called, and he wanted to finish his business?
Major Van Sickle. Yes, sir.
Mr. Kennedy. And subsequently the Board met and considered
those types of requests and turned it down ; is that right ?
Major Van Sickle. His request for delay was disapproved by the
Delay Board, and I so notified him.
Mr. Kennedy. That was on tlie 8th of December?
Major Van Sickle. Yes, sir.
Mr. Kennedy. Now, on the 1st of January Irving Peress was called
to active duty, and you are aware of that?
Major Van Sickle. Yes, sir.
(Senator McCarthy entered the room.)
Mr. Kennedy. On" the 5th of February, Major Van Sickle, you
received notification from the Intelligence 'Branch of the First Army
that Capt. Irving Peress was being investigated by them because of
some derogatory information regarding him, and the purpose of this
was so that he would not be moved and he would not receive any
favorable promotion or change of duty orders ; is that correct ?
Major Van Sickle. We received notification on the 5th of Febru-
ary that a background investigation had been initiated in the Peress
case.
Mr. Kennedy. Now, the next matter that you had to do with Irving
Peress had to do with his request for a promotion; is that correct?
Major Van Sickle. According to the record, in September of 1953.
Mr. Kennedy. Can you just answer my questions and then we can
proceed. I just said is that correct, that the next thing had to do with
his promotion ?
Major Van Sickle. Yes, sir.
Mr.' Kennedy. On the 9th of September, after you had looked at
the record, you find over here on the chart— on the 9th of September
Irving Peress had written a letter requesting that he be promoted from
captain to major under the new law or new amendment to the law that
had just been passed by Congress ; is that correct ?
Major Van Sickle. Yes, sir.
Mr." Kennedy. Now, that letter was forwarded through channels at
Camp Kilmer to the First Army ; is that correct?
Major Van Sickle. Yes, sir.
Mr! Kennedy. At that time it came to your attention, and you had
a conference with Captain Kirkland in the First Army on the question
of whether Peress was eligible to receive this readjustment or promo-
tion to major ?
Major Van Sickle. I do not recall a conference as such. The record
shows that this letter was endorsed to the Department of the Army.
The letter was signed by one of the regular adjutant generals at the
ARMY PERSONNEL ACTIONS RELATING TO IRVING PERESS 19
Army headquarters. However, the endorsement does bear my office
symbols, which would indicate that I assisted the AG Section at
First Army in preparing tlie forwarding endorsement on this letter.
Mr. Kknnedy. You prepared this endorsement for Irving Peress;
is that correct ?
Major Van Sickle. The record indicates that it contained my office
symbols, and was perhai)s perpared in my office.
Mr. Kennedy. Would you identify this document, please?
(A document was handed to the witness.)
Major Van Sickle. It appears to be a photostat of the Peress letter
that you have referred to, sir.
Mr. Kennedy. Is your endorsement on there ?
Major Van Sickle. Yes, sir.
Mr. Kennedy. Would you read into the record your endorsement,
please ?
Major Van Sickle (reading) :
[Third endorsement]
Headquarters First Army,
Cioveinors Island, New York Jf, N. Y.
To The Adjutant General, Department of the Army, Washington 25, D. C.
Attention: AGPR-A.
Paragraph 1 : Attention is invited to the basic communication from Captain
Irving Peress, Service number indicated, who was commissioned in the
DCUSAR by letter this Headquarters dated 7 October, 1952, and was accepted
by him on 15 October, 1952.
2 : Available information indicates that Dr. Peress possessed the minimum
11 years of qualifying dental professional experience prescribed for appointment
in the grade of Major, and that his original appointment in the grade of Captain
was in error.
3 : Captain Peress was ordered in the active military service effective 1 Janu-
ary 1958, per paragraph 7, Special Orders 221, this Headquarters, dated 10
November 10r)2, and assigned to tlu? IVIedical Field Service School, Brooke Army
Medical Center, Fort Sam Houston, Texas.
4: Reconimeiid action be initiated to reappoint Captain Peress in the grade of
Major in accordance with eligibility requirements set forth in Special Regula-
tions 140-105-0, and 140-105-9. It is requested that this headquarters be advised
of the action taken in this case.
And that letter was authenticated by a Captain Dude, adjutant
general officer.
Mr. Kennedy. You can tell by the symbols at the top of the letter
that that was a letter that was executed in your office; is that correct?
Major Van Sickle. Well, tlie fact that my office symbols appear in
the upper left-hand corner would indicate that my office had prepared
either all or part of this reply.
Mr. Kennedy. Do you have any independent recollection of that
letter?
Major Van Sickle. No, sir ; I do not.
Mr. Kennedy. Now, during this period of time, to get back to the
5th of February. We see over here that you had been notified of the
fact that there w^as an investigation going on by Intelligence, G-2,
First Army, of Maj. Irving Peress ?
Major Van Sickle. Yes.
Mr. Kennedy. That information was available to you ?
Major Van Sickle. Yes, sir; it became available to my office on the
5th or 6th of February.
20 ARMY PERSONNEL ACTIONS RELATING TO IRVING PERESS
Mr. Kennedy, So at the time that you executed this endorsement
you had information in your office that there was a full investigation
being made of Irving Peress ^
Major Van Sickle. Yes, sir; that information was in our classified
files.
Mr. Kennedy. Would you identify this document here, please, sir '?
(A document was handed to the witness.)
Senator Bender. Would it be possible to have the air conditioning
turned on here ?
The Chairman. The Chair is not the janitor. I hope someone can
doit.
Major Van Sickle. This is a photostatic copy of a status card that
was maintained in my office, on each special registrant that we proc-
essed, and this document happens to be a photostat of the Peress
card.
Mr. Kennedy. Now, on that status card there is a notation that
there was this investigation being conducted of Irving Peress; is
that correct ?
Major Van Sickle. The entry that was made on the status card, on
the 6th of February 1953, was worded in terms that did not readily
identify it as a security entry. May I read it, sir ?
Mr. Kennedy. You may.
Major Van Sickle. This is an entry from the status card, dated
February 8, 1953 :
Comment No. 2, to AG Keserve forces, advising Captain Peress'
order to January class. Fort Sam. In parenthesis there is entry
"CONF-file." The entry was made — I can't tell from the photostat —
but in either pencil or ink. That is handwritten and it does not refer
to the fact that the February 5 notification was a notification con-
cerning a security case.
Mr. Kennedy. Was it your secretary who wrote that notation in
there?
Major Van Sickle. Our office procedure was for the secretary who
typed the communication or typed the action to post an appropriate
entry on our control card.
Mr. Kennedy. Could we have this made an exhibit to the record ?
The Chairman. The two documents may be made exhibits, one No. 2
and one No. 3.
(Exhibit No. 2 appears in the appendix on p. 59. Exhibit No. 3 may
be found in the files of the subcommittee. )
Mr. Kennedy. Did you have any procedure. Major; did you have
any instructions from your secretary as to how she would write in
your file, in the status card file, when an investigation was being con-
ducted of a particular individual ?
Major Van Sickle. No, sir, to my knowledge this was the first case
of its kind that we had ever had.
Mr. Kennedy. So she was not familiar as to how you wanted that
written, is tliat correct?
Major Van Sickle. That is right.
Mr. Kennedy. Now, in the ordinary course, you would go through
that status card, is that correct ?
Major Van Sickle. Yes, sir.
Mr. Kennedy. And would you give the committee your explanation
as to why you missed that information in this case ?
ARMY PERSONNEL ACTIONS RELATING TO IRVING PERESS 21
Major Van Sickle. First of all, the Peress case, or the information
concerning the manner in which Peress had executed his loyalty oath
did not become available to my office until approximately a month after
the man had been ordered into the active military service.
Mr. Kennedy. I understand that. But now on this particular
thing ?
Major Van Sickle. The particular entry on the card, as I indicated
before, wasn't worded in such a way that it identified the entry as a
security entry, or an entry concerning a security matter. It merely
referred to the fact that we had advised AG that Peress had been
ordered to the January class at the Medical Field Service School.
Mr. Kennedy. Did he have in parentheses there "in confidential
file"?
Major Van Sickle. Yes.
Mr. Kennedy. What did that mean ?
Major Van Sickle. That meant that the correspondence was not in
the open file, that it was a classified document. With the passage of
time, 8 months later, this entry was not sufficient to tab the case for me
when the September 1953 letter came through.
Senator McCarthy. May I interrupt?
You just got through telling counsel here that there was nothing in
the card to indicate that it was a security case. Now you tell him,
under his examination, that there was a notation on it saying "confi-
dential file." That would indicate to any ordinary person, I assume,
that there was something in the confidential file. I just can't follow
you at all.
Do you understand me ? In one breath you say there is nothing on
the card to show he was a security case and in the next breath, after
he questioned you, you said, "There was, it was marked 'confidential.' "
Why didn't you go to the confidential file to ascertain why such a
notation appeared on the card ?
Major Van Sickle. The card entry wasn't worded in such a man-
ner that it would clearly indicate that this was a security entry.
Senator McCarthy. What would "confidential file" indicate to
you?
Major Van Sickle. That the particular document was not in the
open file.
Senator McCarthy. Weren't you curious before approving a pro-
motion to check that confidential file ?
Major Van Sickle. In checking the case in September, I just missed
it.
Senator McCarthy. How did you miss it?
Major Van Sickle. I didn't identify the remark as a remark con-
cerning the security action that had come through 8 months previously.
Senator McCarthy. Try to listen to me carefully. The card said
"confidential file." Before approving his promotion did you check
the confidential file ?
Major Van Sickle. I did not, sir.
Senator McCarthy. Can you tell us why ?
Major Van Sickle. I missed the entry, the scrawled pencil entry on
the card,
Senator McCarthy. In other words, you didn't see the words "con-
fidential file"?
60030— 55— pt. 1 4
22 ARMY PERSONNEL ACTIONS RELATING TO IRVING PERESS
Major Van Sickle. No, sir, I did not.
The Chairman. May I ask you a question, Major?
Is the notation "confidential file" on the co])y a flac: or a signal to
those who read the document to go to the confidential file before taking
action, and review it and see what is in it ?
Major Van Sickle. It should have been, yes, sir.
The Chairman. Had you discovered that entry, it would have been
your duty and you would have, as you state, gone to that confidential
file and ascertained its contents?
Major Van Sickle. Yes, sir.
The Chairman. You would have ascertained the derogatory infor-
mation that it may have contained before you took action on it?
Major Van Sickle. Yes, sir.
The Chairman. Is that correct?
Major Van Sickle. Yes, sir.
The Chairman. Now, what you are telling us is that notwithstand-
ing the fact that there was an entry on the document, indicating there
was something in the confidential file, you simply overlooked it?
Major Van Sickle. That is right.
The Chairman. You didn't notice it?
Major Van Sickle. That is right.
The Chairman. It didn't come to your attention, is that right?
Major Van Sickle. That is correct, sir.
The CiLMRMAN. For that reason, you didn't check that information
before you passed on the document?
Major Van Sickle. That is absolutely correct.
The Chairman. Now, had you discovered it, and had you gone to
the file, at that time, is it quite probable that all of this trouble about
Major Peress would not have occurred?
Major Van Sickle. No, sir.
The Chairman. What would have been the result?
Major Van Sickle. The check of the official records shows that his
promotion or reappointment was not a result of this action. It was
an entirely separate action that came about as a result of the change in
the doctor draft law.
The Chairman. Let me ask you this. Would you have placed a dif-
ferent endorsement on the document before you sent it to channels?
Major Van Sickle. I would, sir.
The Chairman. Calling attention to the fact?
Major Van Sickle. Yes, sir.
The Chairman. Of the derogatory information. And had you had
that derogatory information, as you checked your files, would you have
recommended his promotion ?
Majot Van Sickle. No, sir, our forwarding endorsement merely
would liave referred to the fact that a background investigation had
been initiated on the man.
The Chairman. All right, Mr. Kennedy.
Senator McCarthy. Could I ask one question there?
I understand that some officers were reprimanded in connection
with the Peress case. Were you reprimanded ?
Major Van Sickle. Was I reprimanded ; no, sir.
Senator McCarthy. Were you interviewed by the IG?
Major Van Sickle. I was questioned by the IG; yes, sir.
ARMY PERSONNEL ACTIONS RELATING TO IRVING PERESS 23
Mr. Kennedy. Major, you were questioned by the Inspector General
of New York, First Army ?
Major Van Sickle. No, sir.
Mr. Kennedy. You were interrogated by the Inspector General of
Washington ?
Major Van Sickle. No, sir.
Mr. Kennedy. By whom were you investigated?
Major Van Sickle. In Munich, Germany.
Mr. Kennedy. On wliat date were you interrogated?
Major Van Sickle. I don't recall the date.
Mr. Kennedy. Was it after the Inspector General filed his report
with the Secretary of the Army, on April 16, 1954?
Major Van Sickle. Sir, I have no knowledge of the Inspector's
report.
Mr. Kennedy. The records will show that the names of those that
were interviewed by the Inspector General by the time he filed his
report, had been furnished to this committee, and Major Van Sickle's
name is not on there.
The Chairman. INIajor, state as near as you can recall the month
or the time when you were interrogated by the Inspector General.
You have some idea about the time. It was after you went to Germany.
Now when ?
Major Van Sickle. In the spring of 1954.
The Chairman. In the spring of 1954 ?
Major Van Sickle. Yes, sir.
The Chairman. But you can't identify any nearer than that?
Major Van Sickle. It was some time between March and July.
The Chairman. That gives us some latitude, doesn't it ? It narrows
it down some. Did you give a written statement?
Major Van Sickle. No, sir.
The Chairman. You didn't sign any statement ?
Major Van Sickle. No, sir, not to my knowledge.
The Chairman. Were you interrogated about this particular point?
Major Van Sickle. About the Peress case ?
The Chairman. Yes, about this particular point, and how you
happened to overlook that "Confidential" notation.
Major Van Sickle. No, sir, not to my knowledge.
The Chairman. Was that document discussed with you in the
course of the Inspector General's interrogation of you?
Major Van Sickle, Not to my knowledge, sir.
Senator Bender. Were you asked to cover up at any time on any
of this?
Major Van Sickle. No, sir.
Senator Bender, You made a mistake initially here of not complet-
ing the records, is that correct ?
Major Van Sickle. I don't believe
Senator Bender. You didn't make a complete record.
Major Van Sickle. Would you repeat the question?
Senator Bender. Several of these questions were not answered, or
you overlooked reading them, is that correct? Or if they were
answered, you didn't pay any attention to them ?
Major Van Sickle. I overlooked in September of 1953, the Feb-
ruary 5, 1953, entry on the status card advising that a background
24 ARMY PERSONNEL ACTIONS RELATING TO IRVING PERESS
investigation had been initiated on the man. I overlooked that entry
because the entry was worded on the card in such a way that it didn't
clearly indicate a security case, and in the press of work I just
overlooked it.
Senator Bender. You didn't know this man Peress personally?
Major Van Sickle. No, sir.
Senator Bender. You had no knowledge of his background, or
anything else?
Major Van Sickle. No, sir.
Senator Bender. No one has ever asked you at any time to go soft
on him, or to cover up ?
Major Van Sickle. No, sir. The only request that we had was his
own request for a delay in call to duty, which our office disapproved.
Mr. Juliana. Was that request made of you personally by Peress?
Major Van Sickle. It was submitted to me.
Mr. Juliana. When was that ?
Major Van Sickle. The card here contains an entry indicating that
that was in December, the 8th of December 1952.
Mr. Juliana. Then you did have personal contact with Peress
prior to the time that you sent this indorsement on his request for a
promotion ?
Major Van Sickle. No, sir, this was a letter request that he sent in.
Mr. Juliana. He did not speak with you personally about it ?
Major Van Sickle. I have no recollection of ever having spoken
to the man personally.
Senator McCarthy. I have just one question.
We had a list here of the officers interviewed by the Inspector Gen-
eral's Office, and your name is not on this list. Now, I wonder why
the Inspector General omitted your name from the list, if you would
know. Do you know why ?
Major Van Sickle. No, sir, I don't, sir.
Senator ^McCarthy. There is no question in your mind that you
were interviewed ?
Major Van Sickle. I was interviewed, yes, sir.
Senator McCarthy. So your name was left off the list either by
mistake or purposely ?
Major Van Sickle. I was interviewed by an inspector general in
Munich, Germany.
Senator McCarthy. So your name, having been left off the list
submitted to us, was left off either by mistake or purposely ?
Major Van SicitLE. I honestly don't know.
Senator McCarthy. You don't have to coach him, Mr. Brucker.
Mr. Brucker. I take exception to that. Senator, because I have not
coached any witness. I think that it is an unfair statement on your
part, because I have not at any time coached the witness.
The Chairman. The Chair will handle that situation.
Senator McCarthy. May I get the record straight?
Mr. Brucker, you did just tell the witness what to say, did you not?
Mr. Brucker. I did not. I just said to Mr. Coughlin, my associate
here, that at no time was there anything of that kind that occurred,
this witness knows nothing about it, and Fred agreed.
The Chairman. Let me say this to the counsel, that the counsel
does have a right to counsel the witness and, of course, he has no right,
ARMY PERSONNEL ACTIONS RELATING TO IRVING PERESS 25
as counsel knows, himself, to try to tell tlie witness what to say, or
not to say, in response to interrogations where he is testifying under
oath.
Mr. Brucker. Not only is that so, but I shall ask the witness, if
there is any question about it, to consult with me now personally.
And I don't want in any way to have a repetition of that statement.
The Chairman. We will try to proceed without it, but I am sure
that counsel wants to observe the rules of the committee and will
undertake to do so.
Senator McCarthy. Just so that there is no question about this,
I would like to have the record show that when I asked the witness
a question Mr. Brucker turned toward him and made a statement.
The witness waited until Mr. Brucker was through and then answered
the question. Whether that is coaching or what it is, the Chair can
decide. But I don't like to see it done. I think that counsel is there
only for the purpose of advising the witness on legal questions and
not for the purpose of telling him what to say.
The Chairman. The Chair didn't observe the particular incident at
the time. I am very sorry my attention was attracted to something
else. The Chair will try to be more alert and, if he observes any
misconduct on the part of witness or counsel, he will take appropriate
action to correct it. I think we can all understand that.
I would like for the record, and I don't think there is any question
about this document, and it will save us calling some witness to testify
to it, and I would like to place in the record at this point the list of
names that were furnished the subcommittee of those whom the In-
spector General interrogated regarding the Peress case. I will ask
that that be made an exhibit, exhibit No. 4 in the record at this time.
(Exhibit No. 4 appears in the appendix on p. 61.)
The Chair would like to ask you a few questions, bearing in mind
that we will have to conclude at 12 o'clock promptly because the
Senate is in session. The Chair would like to ask you just a few
questions.
Going back to the beginning of this Peress case, and I think that
I have very generally in mind the dates, and so forth, but, as I recall
the form DD 390 was the first form and that was submitted by Dr.
Peress at the time he applied for a commission. Is that correct ?
Major Van Sickle. Not quite, sir. That was part of the case as it
originally came to us from the Selective Service System.
The Chairman. That is the first form that Dr. Peress executed, is
that correct?
Major Van Sickle. Yes, sir.
The Chairman. That is DD 390?
Major Van Sickle. Yes, sir.
The Chairman. That is the form, I think it is exhibit 1, in which he
stated that he had not been a member of any group or any organiza-
tion that was subversive or advocated the overthrow of the Govern-
ment by unconstitutional processes, is that correct ?
Major Van Sickle. That is correct, sir.
The Chairman. Now, that is the only form that was in his file relat-
ing to any subversive activities, and that was the only form that was
in his file up to the time he was commissioned ?
Major Van Sickle. That is correct, sir.
26 ARMY PERSOiSTSrEL ACTIOXS RELATESTG TO IRVING PERESS
The Chair:>cax. Now, after lie was commissioned, what date was
that ? Get it in the record there.
Major Vax Sickle. He accepted his commission according to the
record on the 15th of October 1952.
The Chairman. On tlie 15th of October 1952?
INIajor Van Sickle. Yes, sir.
The Chairman-. And he was not called to active duty until what
time?
Major Van Sickle. January 1, 1953.
The Chairman. In 1953, a period of some 3 months ; is that correct?
Major Van Sickle. Yes, sir.
The Chairman. Durintr that time, knowinor he was Sfoins: to be
called into the service and that he had complied with regulations thus
far by submitting: form 390, was there not time and op]:>ortunity for
you to _o;et the other two forms, form DD 98 and form DD 398, before
he was called to active duty ?
Major Van Sickle. The processing: procedures at First Army were
such that that was not a part of the processing of his case, that I was
involved in, sir. The 98A and the 98 and the 398 never came into my
possession, not only on the Peress case, or any other case.
The Chairman. "Whose duty was it to procure those forms?
Major Van Sickle. The duty of AG, Reserve Forces Division. _
The Chairman. Then, you have no responsibility for procuring it?
Major Van Sickle. No, sir.
The Chairman. But a period of approximately 3 months elapsed
from the time that he had executed form 390, before he was called
into active duty ; is that correct ?
Major Van Sickle. That is correct, sir.
The Chairman, And he was called into active duty without having
been required to execute these loyalty forms prior thereto?
Major Van Sickle. Yes, sir.
The Chairman. From the time he was given a commission, some
3 months elapsed, during which time, I would think it would be ample
time for the proper responsible authority charged with that responsi-
bility in the Army to have procured these forms from him before be
was cfUed to octive duty ; is that correct?
JVIajor Van Sickle. I believe he did submit the forms, sir.
The Chairman. Prior to the time he was called to active duty?
INIajor Van Sickle. I believe so : yes, sir.
The Chairman. Are you sure of that ?
INIajor Van Sickle, t have reviewed the record, and I believe the
record does indicate that he submitted his 98 and 98A and 398 prior
to January 1, 1953, but those forms did not come to my office and I
have no knowledge of them.
The Chairman. I am talking about before he was called to active
duty.
Major Van Sickle. Yes, sir.
The Chairman. Then maybe I was incorrect. I understand these
forms were submitted within 2 weeks after he was commissioned, is
that correct, and before he was called to active duty?
Major Van Sickle. I believe that is what the record indicates;
yes, sir.
The Chairman. Then this knowledge, the Imowledge that these
forms reveal and the information that these forms reveal were within
ARMY PERSONNEL ACTIONS RELATING TO IRVING PERESS 27
the knowledge of the responsible authorities of the Army before he
was called into active service ?
Major Van Sickle. Yes, sir.
The Chairman. Is that correct ?
Major Van Sickle. Yes. sir.
The Chairman. And notwithstanding that information he was
called to active duty ?
Major Van Sickle. Yes, sir.
The Chairman, Now, what was the policy, so far as you knew,
at that time, with respect to calling to active duty doctors who had
been commissioned but who took the fifth amenchnent on questions
of loyalty to the country ? Did you have any policy and did you have
any instructions ?
Major Van Sickle. We had received or I know of no policy or
instructions that had been furnished us concerning those cases, sir.
The Chairman. How did it occur that some 5 others were detected
and were promptly discharged from the service, some 5 other doctors
who had taken the fifth amendment ?
jNIajor Vax Sickle. The information concerning the manner in
which they had executed their forms was made available to me prior
to the time they were actually called into the active military service.
That information was forwarded to the Department of the Army
for determination as to whether we should still continue with our
processing and call to active duty.
The Chairman. Then when that information came in on forms 98
and 398, when those came in those forms were referred to you to call
that to your attention, is that correct?
Major Van Sickle. The information on the five was called to my
attention; yes, sir.
The Chair3IAn. How did it occur that the information on Dr.
Peress was not called to your attention ?
Major Van Sickle. I have no way of knowing, sir.
The Chairman. You have no way of knowing ?
]Major Van Sickle. No, sir.
The Chairman. Is there anything that you know about in the
handling of his case to indicate to you that it was purposely with-
held from you?
Major Van Sickle. No, sir; I have no way of knowing.
The Chairman. Is there any way you can account for it having
been withheld from you?
]Major Van Sickle. No, sir.
The Chahoian. You can't account for it?
]\[a jor Van Sickle. No, sir ; I cannot.
The Chairman. In the proper processing of it, you should have
received it in that proper processing; is that correct?
Major Van Sickle. I would not have received the forms, sir.
The Chair3ian, What did you receive on the other five doctors
that were in ?
Major Van Sickle. Verbal information.
The Chairman. From whom?
Major Van Sickle. From the AG, Reserve Forces.
The Chairman. Wiere were they stationed ?
Major Van Sickle. First Army Headquarters.
28 ARMY PERSONNEL ACTIONS RELATING TO IRVING PERESS
The Chairman. They did call your attention to five others ?
Major Van Sickle. Yes, sir.
The Chairman. Along at the same time that Peress was being in-
ducted into the service, or being called to active duty ?
Major Van Sickle. Yes, sir.
The Chairman. Were they of the same general group being called
at that time?
Major Van Sickle. Sir, I don't believe I understand that question,
sir.
The Chairman. At that time I think that you said you were proc-
essing about 2,000?
Major Van Sickle, Yes, sir.
The Chairman. The call had gone out for about 2,000; is that
correct ?
Major Van Sickle. Yes, sir.
The Chairman. Well, the five that we have referred to here were
among that 2,000?
]Major Van Sickle. We were processing 2,000 and calling to duty
about 300 a month from the First Army area. These were among
that group.
The Chairman. And so was Peress ?
Major Van Sickle. Later events indicated that ; yes, sir.
The Chairman. So that somehow there was a slipup in the Peress
case, whereas you did detect five others in a similar status who had
taken the same position he had, relatively speaking, with respect to
loyalty. Five others were detected, and Peress was not detected, and,
therefore, he continued on active duty ?
Major Van Sickle. Yes, sir.
The Chairman. Now, whom did you have your conversations with
that alerted you as to those five? Can you name the party? You
said it was verbal.
Major Van Sickle. Yes, sir. I believe it was a Captain Kirkland.
The Chairman. Captain Kirkland?
Major Van Sickle. Yes, sir.
The Chairman. You had conversations with him regarding the five ?
Major Van Sickle. I couldn't swear that I did with all 5 with him,
but I received the information concerning the 5 either from him or
personnel in his office.
The Chairman. I have 1 or 2 other questions, and then Senator
Symington wishes to ask a question before we adjourn. Was it Cap-
tain Kirkland's duty under Army regulations, and under policies then
in effect, to inform you of those who were being called into the service
as Dr. Peress and the five to whom we have referred, to inform you
if there was derogatory information regarding them? Was it his
duty and responsibility to do that ?
Major Van Sickle. I do not know, sir.
The Chairman. Well, he did it in five cases, you sav, or his office
did?
Major Van Sickle. Yes, sir.
The Chairman. Do you know whether it was his duty to do it or
not?
Major Van Sickle. No, sir; I do not.
The Chairman. Do you know how he happened to inform you about
the five, then, and why he informed you, if he had no responsibility
to do it ?
ARMY PERSONNEL ACTIONS RELATING TO IRVING PERESS 29
Major Van Sickle. No, sir; I do not.
The Chairman. Did you inquire of him about them or did he vol-
untarily give you the information about them?
Major Van Sickle. The information came to me voluntarily, sir.
The Chairman. It came to you voluntarily from Captain Kirkland ?
Major Van Sickle. Yes, sir.
The Chairman. You do not know, as an Army officer, knowing the
regulations, you do not know whether under the procedures existing
at that time and the regulations then in effect, that it was his duty
to inform you ? You say that you do not know ?
Major Van Sickle. I don't know, sir.
The Chairman. Did you have a conversation with him, or did he
have a conversation with you at any time about Major Peress?
Major Van Sickle. To the best of my knowledge, no, sir.
The Chairman. Now, did you not state to members of the staff when
they first interrogated you about this, Major, that you had an ar-
rangement with Dr. Kirkland, or Captain Kirkland, in which he was
to inform you and had you not worked out such an arrangement ? Did
you state that to the staff when they first interrogated you ?
Major Van Sickle. Sir, when I was first interrogated by the staff,
it is my recollection that I indicated that we had a formal arrange-
ment established between my office, the AG Office, and the G-2 Sec-
tion, when the commissioning regulation was changed shortly^ — I
believe it was changed in November of 1952 — to require the execu-
tion of a loyalty oath prior to the commissioning. When that regula-
tion came out, we did — the three offices concerned established a pro-
cedure as to how we would handle these forms that came in,
Mr. Kennedy. That didn't answer his question.
Major Van Sickle. I have no recollection of any procedure that
w^as in existence prior to the changing of the regulations.
The Chairman. Major, I asked you if you had such a conversation
with the staff in which you advised them that you had an arrange-
ment with Captain Kirkland in these cases that he was to inform you
about them ?
Major Van Sickle. In my conversations with the staff, I recall
having referred to an arrangement that we had, but my arrangement
dealt, as I have indicated already, with the processing of cases after
the regulation was changed. My recollections prior to that are vague.
The Chairman. The Chair wishes to accommodate Senator Syming-
ton before we recess at 12 o'clock, and Senator Symington had a ques-
tion or two.
Senator Symington. Major, how was the 390 form distributed ?
Major Van Sickle. I believe, sir, that the 390 form was received
in triplicate. One copy of the 390 w^as returned to the Selective Serv-
ice System, after we had determined the man's physical and pro-
fessional eligibility. The other, the second copy — or rather the other
two copies — were retained in the man's case file in my office. After
the individual had been commissioned, at such time as we reported
the event of his commissioning to Washington, we were required to
furnish one copy of the 390 to the Adjutant General, attention AG-
Med. The third copy of the 390 normally stayed in the individual
case file and was a matter of permanent record.
-55— pt. 1 5
30 ARMY PERSONNEL ACTIONS RELATING TO IRVING PERESS
Senator Syjmington. Have you ever looked into the First Army
201 file, on Major Peress ?
Major Van Sickle. In the file that I had; yes, sir.
Senator Symington. Ilave you looked at it recently ?
Major Van Sickle. Yes, sir; I have reviewed the record during the
last several days.
Senator Symington. Was the 390 form in there at that time?
Major Van Sickle. There was, I believe; yes, sir.
Senator Symington. Had you looked at it previously to your review
in the last few days ?
Major Van Sickle. I hadn't looked at the file until during the last
week or 10 days, sir.
Senator Symington. I have one other question. You say that you
made a mistake, and that you did not notice the word "confidential."
Therefore, do you think that this matter from your standpoint is a
personal error on your part, or do you think that it is an error in
the procedure of the Army, or do you think it is both ?
Major Van Sickle. Well, it was a personal error on my part in
September of 1953 when I didn't recognize the February 5, 1953,
entry for what it was.
Senator Symington. Do you feel the procedure was wrong; and
if so, has there been anything done to correct it ?
Major Van Sickle. The commissioning procedure was changed
during the latter part of 1952 to require the execution of a loyalty
oath prior to the commissioning rather than after.
Senator Symington. I have no further questions.
Mr. Juliana. Major, referring back to form 390, Mr. Kennedy
asked you if it was sworn to, and I believe I am correct in saying
that 3^ou did not believe it was?
]Major Van Sickle. I don't believe it was, sir.
Mr. Juliana. I would like to read the next to the last line of this
form DD-390, and it states :
I certify that the information given above is true, accurate, and complete to
the best of my knovpledge.
And now I would like to read title 18, section 1001 of the United
States Code, Annotated, which states :
Whoever in any matter witliin the jurisdiction of any department or agency
of the United States knowingly and willfully falsifies, conceals, or covers up by
any trick, scheme, or devise, a material fact, or makes any false, fictitious, or
fraudulent statement or representation, or makes or uses any false writing or
document knowing the same to contain any false, fictitious, or fraudulent state-
ment or entry, shall be fined not more than $10,000 or imprisoned not more than
five years or both.
The Chairman. It is 12 o'clock, and the time of 12 o'clock having
arrived, the committee has no authority to continue in session after
that hour.
Mr. Brucker. Is that a question, Mr. Chairman ?
The Chairman. The Senate is presently in session.
Mr, Brucker. Was that a question of the witness or what was that ?
Mr. Juliana. The last part was not a question.
The Chairman. The last part was not a question and he just read
the statute. Of course, we know that is a problem for the Justice
Department, and this committee cannot prosecute him. All we can
do is try to develop facts, and that is what we are going to try to do.
ARMY PERSONNEL ACTIONS RELATING TO IRVING PERESS 31
Senator McCarthy would like to ask Governor Brucker a question,
and I will recess the committee so far as the committee hearings.
Governor Brucker is not under oath, and you may ask a question for
information.
Senator McCarthy. Governor Brucker, I have just one question.
You stated that the Army officers would be allowed to give us all of
the information that they have about any conversation which they had
in regard to Peress. Would that also apply to John Adams?
Mr. Brucker. It would also apply to John Adams with respect to
nil matters connected with the Peress matter here, and he, of course,
Avill be made available to the committee.
I would like to say in addition to that
Senator McCarthy. Before you do that
Mr. Bruckner. I would like to finish,, if I may.
I would like to say in addition that we have made John Adams
available to the committee repeatedly, and without any strings on it at
all, and lie has communicated with the committee upon at least one,
and I think more, occasions, and he will be ready to testify here.
Senator McCarthy. Now, can I get my question answered? The
question is this : Will Adams be allowed to testify as to any conversa-
tions about the Peress case, specifically at the meeting of January 21 ?
Mr. Brucker. Senator, I came here after that time and I Iniow
nothing about the matter, and I will counsel with John Adams and
find out, and I will let you know.
Senator McCarthy. Is there some cutoff date? I want to know
whether he can tell us about any conversation that he had regarding
the Peress case, regardless of whether it was before you came or after
3^ou came. We are not interested in when you came.
Mr. Brucker. I will counsel with him. Thank you very much.
Senator McCarthy. Now, will you counsel him to answer all of the
questions about any conversations that he had with
Mr. Brucker. I will tell you after I have counseled with him. I
will tell you after I have counseled with him.
Senator McCarthy. You cannot tell us now ?
Mr. Brucker. No; because I don't know about the circumstances.
The Chairman. The committee will stand in recess until 10 o^clock
in the morning, and I will have to indicate at that time, or earlier if
I can, whether we will have to continue the sessions in this room or
if some other committee room will be available.
Mr. Brucker. For our information, would it be fair to ask you
how long tomorrow will be?
The Chairman. I beg your pardon ?
Mr. Brucker. How long will we work tomorrow ? From 10 to 12,
or how long?
The Chairman. We have in mind to continue all day, and we have
permission from the Senate to continue in session for the whole hear-
ing during the time the Senate is in session after 12 o'clock today.
(The Senators present at the time of the adjournment were Senators
Symington, Jackson, Ervin, McCJellan, McCarthy, and Bender.)
( Wiereupon, the committee adjourned at 12 : 05 p. m., to reconvene
at 10 a. m., Wednesday, March 16, 1955.)
APPENDIX
Exchange of Correspondence Between Senator John L. McClellan, Chair-
man, Senate Permanent Sumcommittee on Investigations, and Hon. Robert
T. Stevens, Secretary, Department of the Army, During the Period Feb-
ruary 8, 1955 to February 28, 1955
February 8, 1955.
Hon. Robert T. Stevens,
The Secrctm-y of the Army,
The Department of Defense, Washington, 25, D. C.
My Dear Mr. Secretary : As you are aware, the Senate Permanent Sub-
committee on Investigations is conducting an investigation regarding the facts
surrounding the granting of a commission by the Army to Dr. Irving Peress,
the cancellation of Peress' overseas orders, his transfer to Camp Kilmer, and
his subsequent promotion and honorable discharge.
Pertinent information regarding the action taken by the Army on these matters
was furnished the Congress in the 10,000 word chronology which was released
on January 10, 1955. However, as I explained to you on January 19, at the
conference with you in my oflBce, there are still a number of other matters that
need to be clarified. At that time you stated to me that the Army intended to
cooperate fully and that all information this subcommittee felt was pertinent to
its investigation would be made available.
Subsequently, on Thursday, January 20, 1955, Maj. Gen. Eugene A. Caffey,
Judge Advocate General, telephoned Mr. Robert F. Kennedy, chief counsel of
the Investigations Subcommittee, that he wished to confer with him. An
appointment was arranged for 10 : 45 a. m., that morning. At that meeting.
General Caffey. who was accompanied by his aide, Col. Edward Johnson, advised
Mr. Kennedy he was handling the Peress matter for the Army and that it was
the intention of the Army to cooperate completely with the subcommittee. He
invited Mr. Kennedy to come to the Pentagon where he. General Caffey, would
not only make records available, but also would arrange a conference with
various individuals who would be in a position to furnish that information in
which the subcommittee was interested.
On the afternoon of January 20, 1955, Mr. Kennedy and Mr. Donald F. O'Don-
nell of the subcommittee staff, visited the Pentagon and participated in a con-
ference with the following officials : Maj. Gen. Eugene A. Caffey, Col. Ed wart
T. Johnson, Maj. Lawrence G. Sites, Maj. Gabriel Ivan, Capt. N. Tenhet, and
Mr. Charles Haskins. Because the individuals present did not have the in-
formation necessary to answer the questions asked, the conference terminated
after a short time.
On Friday, January 21, 1955, Major General Caffey, at the request of Mr.
Kennedy, visited with Mr. Kennedy and Mr. O'Donnell in the subcommittee
offices. General Caffey agreed that the conference the previous day was un-
successful, but stated that he, as head of a special ad hoc committee established
by the Army for the specific purpose of working with the subcommittee on the
Peress matter, desired to cooperate completely and that it was the intention
of the Army to furnish the subcommittee all the information and all documents
it requested.
Mr. Kennedy suggested to General Caffey that in view of the Army's stated
intentions, if the Inspector General's report on the Peress case was made avail-
able for review, many points in which the subcommittee had indicated an interest
would surely be clarified. The general, the top legal officer in the Army, agreed
and said he also felt this was the most feasible way to handle the problem now
facing both the Army and the subcommittee. He pointed out that it was against
Army policy to furnish Inspector General's reports under ordinary circumstances,
but he stated the instant situation was so unusual that it was certainly in the
33
34 ARMY PERSONNEL ACTIONS RELATING TO IRVING PERESS
interest of the Army, as well as the country, that all of the facts on this Peress
question he placed before the public. General Caffey said he would contact offi-
cials In the Pentagon with the view of making the Inspector General's report
available for review in the Pentagon, and he would advise on Saturday, January
22, 1955, whether such permission would be granted.
On Saturday morning. January 22, 1955, General Caffey telephonically advised
staff member Donald F. O'Donnell that the Inspector General's complete file on
the Peress case would be made available for review by this staff in his office. On
Monday, January 24, 1955, Mr. Kennedy and Mr. O'Donnell proceeded to the
Pentagon, and the Inspector General's file was made available to them by
Colonel Johnson of the general's immediate staff, in the office of General Caffey.
Approximately IV2 hours later, while the two staff members were reviewing the
report, it was taken from them by Colonel Johnson, who stated the report was
needed in the Inspector GeneraF's office. One hour and ten minutes later. Colonel
Johnson returned and advised the staff members that neither the particular file
copy of the Inspector General's report that had been made available, nor any
other file copy would be furnished this subcommittee for review. He said the
ruling had been made by Gov. Wither M. Brucker, the General Counsel for the
Department of Defense, and the report had been taken back at his instructions.
Thereafter, on the same day, the staff members conferred with former Governor
Brucker, who confirmed the decision that the Inspector General's report would
no longer be made available.
On Friday, January 28, 1955, as you recall, Mr. Secretary, at my invitation a
conference, was held in my office with you, Mr. Fred Seaton, Assistant Secretary
of Defense, Mr. Robert Kennedy and Mr. O'Donnell, of the subcommittee staff.
At that time I repeated my request for cooperation and briefly reviewed the
aforementioned difficulties which had been encountered. I specifically requested
that I be furnished the name of a responsible official in the Pentagon who would
be designated as the one person to whom requests could be made and from whom
firm decisions could he received. Mr. Seaton and you assured me the name of
such an individual would be supplied, and that furthermore, the Department
of the Army and the Department of Defense were interested in furnishing the
subcommittee complete cooperation in its efforts to obtain the facts regarding
Peress' Army career.
On Wednesday, February 2, 1955, I sent you and Secretary Seaton a copy of
my letter to Secretary Wilson, in which I acknowledged that I had been informed
the previous day by telephone that Mr. Robert T. Ross, Deputy to the Assistant
Secretary for Legislative and Public Affairs, had been appointed liaison for the
Department of Defense and the Department of the Army to this subcommittee.
On the above date a conference was held in the ofl[iee of Mr. Kennedy with
Mr. Robert T. Ross, Mr. Fred Coughlin, Office of the General Counsel, Depart-
ment of Defense ; Mr. Lewis B. Berry, Jr., Deputy Counsel of the Army ; and
Mr. O'Donnell, of the subcommittee staff. Mr. Kennedy requested that the
Inspector General's report be made available to the staff for the purposes of
review. He stated that if the names of any confidential informants appeared
in the report that they should be removed. Mr. Ross advised that the report
would not be made available to the subcommittee because of a decision made
by the Office of the General Counsel of the Department of Defense. INIr. Kennedy
then requested, but not as an alternative to supplying the Inspector General's
report, that the exhibits appearing in that report would be made available. He
further stated that the subcommittee would not be interested in the names of
confidential informants ; nor in those exhibits dealing with Irving Peress' medical
history ; nor with the confidential reports of G-2 and other agencies regarding
Peress' subversive affiliations. Rlr. Ross agreed to take this latter request under
consideration and let the subcommittee have the Army's decision at an early
date.
Thereafter, on Friday, February 4, 1955, Gen. C. C. Fenn. Mr. Fred Coughlin,
and Mr. Lewis B. Berry, Jr., visited the office of Mr. Kennedy and presented
photostats of certain exhibits appearing in the Inspector General's report. Mr.
Berry stated that there were a number of other exhibits that he hoped to be able
to give to the subcommittee, but they were presently classified. In addition, he
stated it was the position of the Department of the Army that all those exhibits
relating to interviews by the Inspector General would not be furnished to the
subcommittee. Mr. Kennedy explained that he felt it was of extreme importance
that the subcommittee have access to all the missing exhibits as soon as possible,
with the exception of Peress' medical report and the confidential reports from
G-2, etc., mentioned above.
ARMY PERSONNEL ACTIONS RELATING TO IRVING PERESS 35
The purpose of this letter, Mr. Secretary, is to request once again that the
subcommittee be furuished the Inspector General's report. The Army's handling
of Irving Peress — his induction, his promotion, and liis honorable discharge —
has become, as you know, a matter of great public interest and this subcommittee
is unquestionably entitled to the answers to questions that have been raised
regarding the Army's handling of the case. You, Mr. Secretary, on a number
of occasions have expressly promised this subcommittee your full cooperation
in this investigation. The regulations dealing with the Inspector General's
report state that it may be made available to other than authorized Army per-
sonnel by order of the Secretary of the Army. You can now manifest your spirit
of cooperation by making this report available to us.
The Inspector General's report having previously been made available to two
of the staff of this subcommittee, as stated above, and then peremptorily with-
drawn, can only confirm the impression many already have that the Department
of the Army is unwilling to disclose all the facts and circumstances associated
with tlie Peress case.
I trust you will accordingly reconsider and promptly advise that the Inspector
General's report will now be made available to the subcommittee for full inspec-
tion.
Sincerely yours,
John L. McClellan, Chairman.
Copies to :
Hon. Charles E. Wilson.
Mr. Robert T. Ross.
Department of the Akmy,
Washington, February 15, 1955.
Hon. John L. McClellan,
United States Senate, Washington, D. C.
My Dear Senator McClellan : Your letter of February 8, 1955, is acknowl-
edged with reference to the Peress investigation and I welcome the opportunity
it affords to make reply. I have repeatedly admitted that several administra-
tive errors occiirred in connection with the handling of the Peress matter
and I welcome suggestions in addition to the corrective measures which have
already been taken.
On January 10, 1955, I furnished the Senate Permanent Subcommittee on
Investigations with the 25-page Chronology of the Military Record of Irving
Peress which recorded events in connection with Peress from the time he was
called for induction until he was discharged from the military service. The
purpose of this document was to give all of the significant details of Peress'
connection with the Army in chronological order from May 26, 1952, to February
2, 1954.
You are entirely correct in stating that on January 19, 1955, at a conference
with you in your office I stated that the Army would cooperate fully in the
investigation by your subcommittee of all the facts and circumstances con-
nected with the Peress matter. I recall no mention of the Inspector General's
file. Following this conference, I immediately gave specific instructions to all
members of my staff to render active cooperation. I have been assured that
they are giving daily assistance in developing every part of the Peress record
in greater detail for the information of your staff. Likewise, I am informed
that these conferences have resulted in my staff furnishing answers for every
question which has been raised by your^ staff in connection with the Peress
chronology and the facts related to or connected with Peress' military service,
and that this information goes beyond the details of the chronology itself.
I am informed by my staff that no request for information will remain un-
answered. Under these circumstances, I believe you will agree that the Army
is cooperating with your committee and I assure you that this will continue.
Now, as for turning over the Inspector General's investigative file, let me
explain that this service is the same for the Army as the FBI investigative
files are for the Department of Justice. For decades it has been the function
of the Inspector General to conduct investigations to obtain information based
upon confidential communications obtained from anonymous informants. The
Inspector General's file contains information of investigative methods and
techniques which must be protected in order to preserve this important service.
Naturally, one of the chief inducements for getting this kind of information
36 ARMY PERSONNEL ACTIONS RELATING TO IRVING PERESS
by the Inspector General, as well as the FBI, is the mutual understanding that
the information will remain contidential and that the identity of the informant
will not be revealed. If this understanding were violated it might seriously
damage and adversely affect every other investigation conducted by the In-
spector General and might destroy the usefulness of this vast source of pro-
ductive information upon which the Army must continually depend. The Gen-
eral Counsel of the Department of Defense has advised as a matter of law against
turning over an Inspector General's file on this or any other matter on the
ground that such investigative files constitute confidential information and the
identity of informants which are privileged documents of the executive branch
of the Government under the Federal Constitution.
The fact that one part of the Inspector General's file of the Peress investiga-
tion, through misunderstanding, was made available to your subcommittee
staif for an hour and a half does not alter the principle with reference to the
constitutional privilege of Inspector General's files. In this connection, let me
say that your request is not the first time the Inspector General's files in the
Peress case have been requested and declined. I respectfully invite your atten-
tion to my testimony before the Senate Special Subcommittee on Investigations
on May 7, 1954, when this same request for Inspector General's investigative file
was made at a time when Senator Mundt was presiding. I then stated that the
Army would furnish the committee with pertinent information from the Inspector
General's file but that the file itself would not be submitted. For the Army ta
do differently now would amount to a discriminatory action in relation to the
Mundt committee.
However, so that there may be no misunderstanding, I have requested and
have been advised by the General Counsel that although the Inspector General's-
investigative file itself may not be turned over, the Army may give your com-
mittee all the substantive information therein providing it does not compromise
the informants or furnish confidential conclusions or advice by the Inspector
General. Accordingly, I innnediately instructed my staff to get together all such
substantive information and make it available to your staff forthwith, reserving^
only those portions which were absolutely imperative to preserve the constitu-
tional privilege. I am informed that this has been done.
To keep the record straight, I would like to summarize the extent of coopera-
tion which the Army has offered as follows :
(1) The Army has given or will .give the information concerning every
substantive fact which is contained in the Inspector General's file.
(2) The Army has given or will give the information regarding every-
substantive fact material to the Peress investigation even though it is not
contained in the Inspector General's file.
(3) The Army has made or will make available for interview or testimony
every person or witness mentioned in the Inspector General's file.
(4) The Army has made or will make available for interview or testimony
any person or witness material to the Peress investigation even though such,
person's name is not contained in the Inspector General's file.
(5) The Army has made available every staff paper included as an ex-
hibit to the Inspector General's file except thi-ee. Two of the three con-
cerning the preinduction medical examination and the report of investigative
agencies on Peress were adjudged not essential to your needs by your chief
counsel. The third is a transcript of sworn testimony of about 30 witnesses
taken by the Inspector General in the course of his investigation and is by
its very nature considered privileged. Of this exhibit the Army has already
made nine witnesses available and will make every witness personally avail-
able at the convenience of your committee. Your subcommittee staff has
also been furnished assistance in learning current addresses of individuals
not now on active duty who had some connection with the Peress papers.
On each occasion that your staff has met with either Defense or Army per-
sonnel these latter have asked whether other individuals are desired for
interrogation and when their appearance is wanted.
From the foregoing, I think you may fairly conclude that the Army is willing tO'
continue to cooperate to the limit to see that all of the material facts and circum-
stances associated with the Peress matter are being disclosed to your committee.
Yours sincerely,
Robert T. Stevens,
Secretary of the Army..
ARMY PERSONNEL ACTIONS RELATING TO IRVING PERESS 37
February 17, 1955.
Hon. Robert T. Stevens,
The Secretary of the Army,
The Deimrtment of Defense,
Washington, D. C.
Mt Dear Mr. Secretary : This acknowledges your letter of February 15, In
reply to iny letter of February 8, wherein I requested that the Inspector General's
report on the Peress case, exclusive of the medical history and the confidential
reports of G-2 and other agencies regarding Peress' subversive affiliation, be made
available to this subcommittee for review.
I fully appreciate the concern of your Department In wishing to protect its
confidential informants and investigative techniques. This subcommittee is not
interested in obtaining the names of any confidential informant nor in exposing
the investigative techniques of your Department. This has been made clear to
you from the beginning.
Because of the great public interest that has been aroused in the Peress case,
of which I am confident you must be aware, the duty has devolved upon this
subcommittee to make a thorough and full investigation to the end that all the
facts and circumstances attending the Peress case may be disclosed. The infor-
mation we requested of you from the Inspector General's report will greatly aid
the subcommittee in performing this duty.
Mr. Secretary, the request is not unreasonable nor would your compliance be
without precedent.
In your letter you refer to your testimony before the Senate Special Subcom-
mittee on Investigations ("Mundt committee") on May 7, 1954, but I must remind
you that the Peress case was not the special or direct subject of that investiga-
tion. It was a private in the Army, G. David Schine, who was involved in that
proceeding. Private Schine was investigated by the Inspector General, and the
Inspector General's report thereon was made available by the Department of
the Army to the special subcommittee.
I refer you to the testimony of Maj. Gen. Cornelius Edward Ryan, commanding
general of Fort Dix, N. J., given before that Senate Special Subcommittee on
Investigations on May 25, 1954, in connection with the Inspector General's report
of G. David Schine, as appears in part 38, page 1395, of the hearing :
"Senator McClefxan. Do you have that report?
"General Ryan. Yes, sir ; I do.
"Senator McClellan. Is it available for this committee?
"General Ryan. It has already been made available to the committee ; yes, sir
All the testimony taken in this report is now in the hands of the committee.
"Senator IMcClelt.an. It has been filed with the committee?
"General Ryan. Yes, sir."
The following additional testimony of General Ryan appears in part 38, on
page 1398 of the hearings :
"Senator Potter. Genertil, who was the inspector general who conducted the
investigation?
"General Ryan. Colonel Fogarty.
"Senator Potter. Is he on your staff?
"General Ryan. He is on my staff ; yes, sir. He is my inspector general.
"Senator Potter. You stated that a complete investigation has not been
concluded ?
"General Ryan. No, sir. All testimony is in, and is in the hands of the
committee."
I further invite your attention to the statements of Mr. Joseph N. Welch,
special counsel for the Army, and of Mr. Ray H. Jenkins, counsel for the Senate
Special Subcommittee on Investigations, made to the subcommittee in connection
with the Inspector General's report on Pvt. G. David Schine, which appears in
part 9, on page 356, as follows :
"Mr. Welch. It seems to me it would be appropriate for Mr. Jenkins to say
that the Army has made available to him and his staff such portions of that
report as are complete. Would you mind doing that for us. Mr. Jenkins?
"Mr. Jenkins. And from the data I gleaned my alleged facts upon which I am
now basing my cross-examination."
Mr. Thomas Prewitt, who was assistant counsel for the Senate Special Sub-
committee on Investigations, has informed Mr. Kennedy by letter as follows :
"This w^ill confirm my oral statement made on both occasions that the Army
and its counsel did make availalile to counsel for the Mundt committee, the In-
spector General's report on Pvt. G. David Schine. The report was not in com-
38 ARMY PERSONNEL ACTIONS RELATING TO IRVING PERESS
pleted form, but at the time it was fumislied to us all of the witnesses had been
interviewed by the Inspector General's office, and among other items that we
were furnished was all tlie testimony, in question and answer form, of these
witnesses. This testimony was used by counsel for the Mundt committee as a
basis for questions asked witnesses both on direct and cross-examination. Some
of the witnesses whose testimony was contained in the Inspector General's report
appeared and gave testimony before the Mundt committee."
It appears to me that if the Army had the authority and was willing to and
did make available to the Senate Special Subcommittee on Investigations the
testimony of witnesses in the Inspector General's report on an Army private,
then surely there can be no valid objection to furnishing this subcommittee the
testimony "of witnesses in the Inspector General's report in the case of Major
You say to make available to this subcommittee now the Inspector General's
report as we have requested "would amount to a discriminatory action in rela-
tion to the Mundt committee." With that, I wholly disagree. Quite to the
contrary, your refusal now to make available the Inspector General's report iu
the Major Peress case will obviously be "a discriminatory action" in relation to
this subcommittee. , , , ^ ^ 4. xt,
I regret, therefore, to advise that I shall not be able to regard or accept the
Department of the Armv's cooperation as being, as you state, "to the limit to see
that all of the material facts and circumstances associated with the Peress matter
are being disclosed" so long as the Department of the Army refuses to make
available to this subcommittee the information we have requested.
Sincerely yours,
John L. McCrJn^.LAN, Chairman.
Copies to :
Hon. Charles E. Wilson.
Mr. Robert T. Ross.
Department op the Army,
Washington, D. C, February 28, 1955.
Hon. John L. McCleixan,
United States Senate.
Dear Senator IMcCleixan : Your letter of February 17, 1955, is acknowledged
with further reference to the Peress investigation. You urge that "the Inspector
General's report on the Peress case, exclusive of the medical history and confi-
dential reports of G-2 and other agencies regarding Peress' subversive affilia-
tions, he made available to this subcommittee for review."
I want to assure you. Senator, that the degree of cooperation and assistance
being rendered by the Department of the Army to your subcommittee staff is
of a character that should warrant commendation. As a matter of fact, more
information is being vounteered than you have requested. It is being done
thoroughly, patiently, and as expeditiously as possible. Almost daily, confer-
ences are being conducted between your chief counsel and his assistants and
our legal staff. Our staff is under instructions to furnish you all substantive
facts and circumstances in connection with the Peress matter as quickly as
possible, and also to produce every officer or person whom your subcommittee
staff desires to interrogate. Hence, every substantive fact that you desire from
the Inspector General's report has been, is being, or will be furnished to you.
Of course, the conclusions and recommendations made to me in a confidential
manner by the Inspector General are highly privileged and are not being
furnished. , . .^ . j.- ^^
You have stated in your letter that you are not interested in the investigative
techniques. With the exception of the papers which your chief counsel has
stated that he does not wish to examine, the testimony elicited by the Inspector
General is the only exhibit in the file which has not been furnished. Over and
above all the foregoing material, you have been furnished access to facts in the
Peress matter which wore developed in connection with the preparation of the
Chronology of the Military Record of Irving Peress. Your subcommittee staff
has also been furnished numerous military personnel records for examination.
In addition, more than a score of officers have been made available for interro-
gation promptly— some coming from as far away as Europe on short notice.
Furthermore, additional personnel in Europe and Japan are now en route
ARMY PERSONNEL ACTIONS RELATING TO IRVING PERESS 39
and others have been alerted to return to Washington pursuant to the request
of your chief counsel.
You have made reference to the examination of a staff inspector general's
report of G. David Schine by the Mundt committee staff, and have indicated
that this is a precedent for your request in the present instance. However,
these two matters are not comparable. In the Schine matter, a staff inspector
general compiled the report at a local Army installation for the use of the
post commander in a nonsecurity matter, while the Inspector General's report
on Peress involves a loyalty-security investigation. Also, I have found that
there was a slight inaccuracy with respect to the quoted statement that the
Inspector General's file in the Schine matter was turned over to the Mundt
committee. While some papers in that tile were made available to the Mundt
committee, the complete report of investigation itself was never made available.
Hence, you can readily see that a prior instance wherein limited review of
a staff inspector general's report at a local installation of a nonsecurity case
was permitted, cannot be considered as a precedent for turning over a complete
Inspector General's file on a loyalty-security investigation. In this connection
I call your attention to my testimony before the Mundt committee concerning
the Inspector General's report on Peress (pt. 23, p. SS6) , as follows :
"Senator McCarthy. Mr. Stevens, the other day you were asked about the
Inspector General's report in the case of a fifth-amendment Communist called
Peress. Have you checked to see when that IG report would be available?
"Secretary Stevens. The IG report has now been finished, Senator McCarthy,
and the Inspector General is prepared to go over it with me at the first available
opportunity that I have.
"Senator McCarthy. And how soon will that be submitted to Mr. Jenkins or
the chair?
"Secretary Stevens. We don't submit the Inspector General reports. We
will give you the pertinent information that I mean to give you and that we
can give you, but we do not submit the report.
"Senator McCarthy. You say you do not submit Inspector General reports?
"Secretary Stevens. That is right. It is a general policy."
From the foregoing, it will be seen that my position has been completely con-
sistent, and that it is the same now as it was at the Mundt hearing.
In your letter you also state "surely there can be no valid objection to fur-
nishing this subcommittee with testimony of witnesses in the Inspector Gen-
eral's report in the case of Major Peress." I invite your attention to the
following exchange during the hearings before the Mundt committee (pt. 20,
p. 770), with reference to confidential investigations:
"Senator Mundt. The Chair is prepared to rule. He unhesitatingly and un-
equivocally rules that in his opinion, and this is sustained by an unbroken
precedent so far as he knows before Senate investigating committees, law-enforce-
ment officers, investigators, any of those engaged in the investigating field, who
come in contact with confidential information, are not required to disclose the
source of their information.
"The same rule has been followed by the FBI and in my opinion very appro-
priately so. It is difficult for the Chair to rule on a hypothetical question,
Senator McClellan, but I think if something analogous occurs, we can discuss
it at that time and certainly any Senator has the same rights to receive confiden-
tial information as does the chairman of the committee engaged in the same
work.
"Senator McClellan. Mr. Chairman, I point out to you one other thing. As
Secretary of the Army, it is the duty of the Secretary, I take it, also to try to
discover Communists and root them out of the organization. Then I assume
that the same rule would apply to him with respect to confidential documents
he may have in his possession.
"Senator Mundt. There isn't any question but that under similar sets of cir-
cumstances the Secretary of the Army, if engaged in similar investigative work,
should have the same consideration."
In conclusion, let me say that the Army will extend every bit of assistance
permissible under the law to you and your staff, so that you may investigate
any claim, contention, suspicion, or inference that there was any collusion,
conspiracy, or subversion by any Army personnel in the disposition of Peress.
Yours sincerely,
Robert T. Stevens.
40 ARMY PERSONNEL ACTIONS RELATING TO IRVENTG PERESS
Listing of Officers Taking an Active Part in the Peesonnel Actions
Concerning Irving Peress
call to active duty
Headquarters First Army :
Capt. F. E. Van Sickle, MSC
Capt. A. E. Moreda, AGC
Office of the Surgeon General :
Maj. A. E. Britt, MSC
cancellation of orders to the far east
Office of the Surgeon General :
Brig. Gen. Egbert W. Cowan, DC
Col. O. E. Ursin, MC
Maj. AV. O. Prettyman, Jr., MSC
Maj. A. E. Britt, MSC
Office of the Adjutant General :
Lt. Col. C. J. Crumm, AGC
Capt. Einar Berge, AGC
Capt. Howard Wagner, AGC
reappointment to the grade of major
Office of the Surgeon General :
Col. R. G. Prentiss, Jr., MC
Col. H. W. Glattly, MC
Maj. Vernon McKenzie, MSC
Maj. J. F.Dolson.MSC
Office of the Adjutant General :
Lt. Col. B. E. Babcock, AGO
Maj. James E. Harris, AGC
Office of the Assistant Chief of Staff, G-1 :
Col. W. P. Wansboro, GS
Col. S. A. Lewis, GS
Lt. Col. Emery E. Hyde, GS
separation and discharge
Headquarters, Department of the Army :
Maj. W. R. Buelow, Office of ACofS, G-2
Lt. Col. G. B. Moore, Office of ACof S, G-1
Lt. Col. L. L. Forbes, Recorder, APB
Col. R. G. Prentiss, OTSG
Col. S. W. Jones, OTJAG
Col. G. G. Eplev, Office of ACof S, G-1
Brig. Gen. H. B. Powell, Deputy ACof S, G-1
Brig. Gen. F. C. McConnell, Member, APB
Maj. Gen. D. B. Strickler, Member, APB
Maj. Gen. M. G. White, Chairman, APB
Gen. C. L. Bolte, Vice Chief of Staff, USA
Chronology of the Military Record of Dr. Irving Peress With Appendix
Containing Service History of Departjient of the Army Personnel Men-
tioned IN THE Chronology
According to his statements, Dr. Irving Peress was born in the Bronx, New-
York City, N. Y., on July 31, 1917. Irving Peress was graduated from the School
of Dentistry, New York University, in 1940 with a D. D. S. degree, was licensed
to practice "dentistry by the State of New York in August 1940, and subsequently
practiced dentistry' from September 1940 to January 1, 1953, when he entered
military service.
ARMY PERSONNEL ACTIONS RELATING TO IRVING PERESS 41
Since Dr. Peress was not a member of a Reserve component of the Armed
Forces, he was subject to the provisions of Public Law 779, 81st Congress, Sep-
tember 9, 19riO (Doctors Draft Act), which amended the Selective Service Act of
1948 to provide for special registration, classification, and induction of certain
medical, dental, and allied specialist categories. Dr. Peress had no prior service
in any of the Armed Forces, and had not received specialized training at Gov-
ernment expense during World War II, so he was classified in the third priority
for the purposes of induction.
Local board No. .59. Forest Hills. Long Island, N. Y., reported that Dr. Peress
registered with that board on .January 15, 1951. On May 26, 1952, he accom-
plishetl DD Form 390 (Initial Data for Classification and Commissioning in
Medical Services for Medical, Dental, and Veterinary Corps), in triplicate. The
box in item 30 of DD form 390 was checked to read :
"I do hereby apply for a commission."
Item 31, "Remarks," is completed in hand lettering as follows :
"I apply for a commission IF I am selected for military service."
Item 32 thereof, as completed, reads :
"I am not, nor have I been a conscientious objector, and I am not now and
have not been a member of any foreign or domestic organization, association,
movement, group, or combination of persons advocating a subversive policy, or
seeking to alter the form of Government of the United States by unconstitutional
means."
All copies of this form were later forwarded to Headquarters, First Army
(hereinafter referred to as "First Army") in New, York City.
On July 14, 1952, Dr. Peress accomplished Standard Form 89 (Report of
Medical History) and was medically examined at the New York City Recruit-
ing and Induction Main Station on the .same date. He was hospitalized at the
United States Army Hospital, Fort Hamilton, N. Y., on July 15, 1952, for further
examination. The results of these examinations were recorded on Standard
Form 88 (Report of Medical Examination). On August 11, 1952, the Report
of the Medical Examination and allied papers, including the DD form 390, in
triplicate, were received by First Army, from the New York Recruiting and
Induction Main Station, New York City. On August 12. 1952, Dr. Peress was
determined to be "physically qualified for general military service," by the
Medical Section, First Army.' On September 12. 1952, he was notified by letter
that he had been found to be physically qualified and information regarding
the date he preferred to be called to duty was requested. This letter w-as
signed by Capt. F. E. Van Sickle, Jr., MSC, Offiee of the Surgeon, First Army.
Maj. Vernon McKeuzie of the OflSce of the Surgeon General in Washington
drafted a message for dispatch by the Adjutant General on August 20, 1952,
notifying all major commanders of the October draft requirement for medical
doctors and dentists. The message was dispatched on the same day.
Since Dr. Peress had applied for a commission and had been selected for
induction by the Selective Service System, he was notified by letter of Septem-
ber 25, 19.52, that he was scheduled for induction and if he still desired a
commission to contact First Army. This letter was signed by a Capt. F. E.
Van Sickle, Jr., MSC, in the Office of the Surgeon, First Army. On the same
date Dr. Peress requested by telephone that he be commissioned in the Dental
Corps Reserve.
On October 4, 1952, Captain Van Sickle prepared a recommendation to the
Reserve Forces Division, First Army, that Dr. Peress be tendered an appoint-
ment in the Dental Corps Reserve in thQ grade of captain, stating that the
applicant was physically and professionally qualified. This recommendation
was signed by Lt. Col. G. H. Hage, Chief of the Personnel Division of the
Medical Section, First Army.
Based upon this recommendation, Capt. Curtis R. Kirkland, Assistant Adjutant
General. Reserve Forces Division, First Army, prepared and dispatched a letter
to Dr. Peress on October 10, 1952. This letter enclosed, among other material,
(1) a letter of appointment as captain, USAR, dated October 7, 19.52, (2) Oath of
Office, (3) WD AGO Form 170 (Application for Appointment and Statement of
Preferences for Reserve Officers), (4) DD Form 98 Loyalty Certificate, and (5)
two copies of DD Form 398 (Statement of Personal History). Instructions
directed completion and return of the Oath of Office within 72 hours of date of
receipt. The remaining forms were required to be completed and returned as
soon as possible but in any event not later than 15 days from date of receipt.
Dr. Peress executed his Oath of Office form before a notary public on October
15, 1952, thereby accepting the Reserve commission in this language :
42 ARMY PERSONNEL ACTIONS RELATING TO IRVING PERESS
"I, Irving Peress, 0-1893643, having l>een appointed a Ileserve commissioiied
officer in the grade of captain in the Army of the United States, do solemnly swear
(or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States
against all enemies, foreign or domestic, that I will bear true faith and allegiance
to the same ; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation
or purpose of evasion ; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties
of the office upon which I am about to enter ; so help me God."
The Oath of Office form was mailed to First Army as required.
Under date of October 27, 1952, Peress completed the WD AGO Form 170
(Application for Appointment) in which he indicated that he was not a conscien-
tious objector, that his application was submitte<l pursuant to regulations govern-
ing appointment of Reserve officers of medical, dental and veterinary specialties,
and that he had read and understood the regulations concerning the rejection for
military service of disloyal or subversive personnel.
On October 28, 1952, Peress completed DD Form 398 ( Statement of Personal
History), in duplicate, in which he claimed Federal constitutional privilege in
answering items pertaining to membership in Communist, Fascist, or other
organization, association, movements, group, or combination of persons which
advocates the overthrow of our constitutional form of government. He signed
these forms as the person completing them and also as witnessing officer.
On the same date, in completing DD Form 98, the loyalty certificate, he certified
that he had not engaged in any conduct specified therein as undesirable. How-
ever, he claimed Federal constitutional privilege in answering questions concern-
ing membership or association with cited organizations. This form was witnessed
by Capt. Charles A. Lyon, who was assigned at that time ns unit adviser, AGC-
USAR Postal Units, 30 West 44th Street, New York City. Captain Lyon wit-
nessed the execution of the form by Peress and returnetl it to him. Peress then
departed with the form.
The procedure followed by First Army in tendering an appointment to Peress
prior to execution by him of forms 170, 398, and 98 was in accordance with the
provisions of the then applicable regulations which were designed to expedite
appDintment of medical, dental, and veterinarian specialists as Reserve officers.
This procedure provided for the commissioning of these specialists prior to
completion of these forms, although personnel being commissioned in other
branches of the Army were requested to execute the forms prior to commissioning.
(This procedure was sulisequently changi=d on November 28, 1952, to require that
all applicants for a commission execute form 98 (loyalty certificate) before being
tendered an appointment.)
After receipt of the oath of office from Peress, and before his executed forms
170, 398, and 98 were returned. Captain Van Sickle of First Army notified the
Surgeon General, Department of the Army, in Washine-fon, that Peress and others,
as Dental Corps Reserve officers in priority III of the so-called Doctor Draft Act,
had received notice of induction for the period October 21-31, 1952, prior to
accepting a commission. This report indicated that Peress and others were
available for call to active duty.
Based on this information, Maj. Arthur E. Britt, MSC, Office of the Surgeon
General, Department of the Army, notified First Army on November 5, 1952,
to issue orders calling Peress, among others, to active duty. This notification
also included instructions to assign Peress to the Student Detachment Medical
Field Service School, Brooke Army Medical Center, Fort Sam Houston, Tex.,
for the purpose of attending the Associate Medical Service Company officers'
course, reporting thereat not later than .January 7, 1953. On November 10,
1952, First Army issued orders in compliance with these instructions. These
orders were authenticated by Capt. A. E. Moreda, Assistant Adjutant General,
First Army.
It cannot be definitely established whether DD Forms 398 and 98, executed
by Peress on October 28, 1952, had been received by First Army prior to the
issuance of these orders calling him to active duty. The presence or absence
of these forms, however, would have had no effect on the call to active duty
of Peress since the provisions of the then applicable regulations stated in effect
that Reserve personnel would not be deferred or rejected for nonvoluntary
active duty for disloyalty or subversion, unless the investigation of the case
had been comi)leted and the results thereof had been determined to warrant
removal action. It has been established, however, that on November 14, 1952,
Captain Kirkland returned both copies of DD Form 398 to Peress for the sig-
nature of a witness other than himself. Peress secured the signature of one
Henry Getzoff as witness, and on November 18, 1952, returned both copies of
ARMY PERSONNEL ACTIONS RELATING TO IRVING PERESS 43
the form to Headquarters, First Army. They were received on November 20,
1952.
At this point all forms sent to Captain Peress for completion had been re-
turned to First Army. Captain Kirkland's office examined the forms sub-
mitted by Peress for completeness only, no evaluation of the content was made,
and normally within 1 or 2 days after receipt, completed forms 398 and 98
were forwarded to the Intelligence Branch, First Army.
On December 1, 1952, the Intelligence Branch of First Army requested the
Reserve Division to obtain from Peress a fingerprint card and three additional
copies of DD Form 398. These were requested for use in the investigation of
Peress. After receiving these forms. Captain Kirkland in the Procurement
Branch, Reserve Division, sent them, together with the DD Form 98, to the
Intelligence Branch on January 5, 1953.
After receipt of his orders to active duty, Peress, on December 4, 1952, requested
a 15- to 20-day delay in reporting for duty. He desired this time to wind up some
personal and professional matters. This request was not favorably considered.
Peress was so advised by mail on December 8, 1052, by Capt. F. E. Van Sickle, Jr.
Peress entered on active duty on January 1, 1953, in New York, N. Y., and
reported as ordered to his assigned duty station, Brooke Army Medical Center,
Fort Sam Houston, in San Antonio, Tex., on January 3, 1953. He was to attend
an orientation course at the Medical Field Service School from January 7, 1953,
to March 7, 1953.
The Office of the Surgeon General in Washington determined that the need
for the services of medical and dental officers was greater than the benefits
derived from the course, and all such officers, 319 in number, were withdrawn
for duty assignments. Department of the Army special orders. No. 16, dated
January 26, 1953, effected this action by which Peress was ordered from the
Texas station on February 7, 19.53. He was to report to Fort Lewis, Wash.,
along with 27 others, not later than February 26, 1953, for shipment to, and
further assignment by, the United States Armed Forces Far East, Yokohama,
Japan.
Meanwhile, back at First Army in New York the Counterintelligence Division
directed an investigation of Peress on February 5, 1953, and, on the same day,
notified Captain Van Sickle in the Medical Section, and Captain Kirkland in
the Reserve Division, that such an investigation was being initiated because
of Peress' claim of "Federal constitutional privilege" in executing DD Form 98
and DD Form 398. By letter of February 5, 1953, signed by Capt. C. F. IVIaxwell
for Col. Wendell G. Johnson, the Intelligence Branch, First Army, notified the
Intelligence Branch at Fort Sam Houston, Tex., of the institution of and reasons
for the investigation. Peress, however, had departed from the Texas station
prior to receipt of this information.
Under date of February 12, 1953. the Chief of the Counterintelligence Division
at First Army in New York notified the Intelligence Division. Department of
the Army : the Office of the Surgeon General ; and Office of The Adjutant General
in Washington on the initiation of the investigation. This notice was filed in
the Personnel Information Branch of the latter office on February 27, 1953, and
in the Surgeon General's Security Branch between February 12 and March 11,
1953.
The official travel time by automobile from Fort Sam Houston, Tex., to Fort
Lewis. Wash., is 11 days. This, with the 7 days delav en route, permitted Peress
to report to Fort Lewis, Wash., on February 26, 1953. On February 18, 19.53,
while at his home in New York City, Peress wrote to the commanding officer.
Army Personnel Center. Fort Lewis, requesting cancellation of his overseas
orders and consideration for reassignment in the United States. He inclosed
letters from two psychiatrists. Dr. Edward M. Bernecker and Dr. Max Gruentbal,
to substantiate his request and to indicate reasons for granting it. The letter
from Dr. Bernecker stated that a daughter of Peress was then being treated for
character behavior disorders. The letter from Dr. Gruentbal stated that Mrs.
Elaine Peress, the wife, at one time was treated for severe anxiety neurosis, and
had suffered a relapse.
On February 24, 19.53, 1st Lt. Alfred M. Gade, acting for the commanding
officer of the Army Personnel Center, Fort Lewis, Wash., sent a wire message
to Peress in New York. This message notified Peress that the Personnel Center
M'as not authorized to reassign officers and referred him to The Adjutant General
in Washington. The message also directed him to complv with his orders and
report to Fort Lewis by February 26, 1953.
44 ARMY PERSONNEL ACTIONS RELATING TO IRVING PERESS
On February 26, 1953, Peress was at Fort Lewis when a message was received
at the headquarters from the New York chapter of the American Red Cross, New
York:, N. Y., summarizing the "complicated" home situation of Peress and stating
that Dr. Gruenthal recommended emergency leave as a temporary alleviation
measure. It was stated that this doctor had earlier strongly recommended
Peress' permanent assignment to stateside duty ; further that the "entire home
situation much better when wife constantly near officer." Based upon the
communication from the American Red Cross, and in accordance with regulations
providing for emergency leave, the commanding officer. Army Personnel Center,
Fort Lewis, granted Peress 15 days emergency leave. Peress was ordered to
report at Fort Lewis not later than midnight on March 15, 1953.
On February 27, 1953, Peress addressed a letter to The Adjutant General,
Department of the Army, requesting cancellation of his overseas orders and
consideration for reassignment in the United States. Inclosed were the same
documents previously used to substantiate his request to Fort Lewis and a copy
of the Red Cross telegram referred to above. His letter stated that he was
leaving for home immediately on emergency leave and that he would be there for
the duration of that leave. He further requested that his application be given
urgent attention.
On March 9, 1953, Capt. Einar Berge, AGC, Assignment Branch, Office of The
Adjutant General, Department of the Army, prepared a memorandum which was
subsequently signed by Lt. Col. C. J. Crumm, Office, The Adjutant General, re-
ferring this request and accompanying documents, without recommendation, to
the Chief, Medical Career Management Division, Office of the Surgeon General,
Department of the Army, for consideration. On this same day, the Surgeon
General referred the request to a board of officers (Brig. Gen. Egbert W. Cowan,
DC, and Col. O. Elliot Ursin, MC) appointed to consider requests of this nature.
Based on the statements of the doctors and the telegram from the American Red
Cross both officers recommended approval of the request. The board recom-
mendations were signed by Maj. W. O. Prettyman, Jr., Office of the Surgeon
General, acting in his capacity as recorder for the board.
The board handled the application in a routine fashion and was not aware of
the derogatory information which was of record elsewhere in the Office of the
Surgeon General. General Cowan personally determined that Peress should be
sent to Camp Kilmer, a station near his home, on the basis of the then current
needs. On March 11, 1953, the recommendation that Peress' application for
"deferment from overseas shipment" should be approved and that he should be
assigned to Camp Kilmer, N. J., was forwarded to The Adjutant General, DA,
by Maj. Arthur E. Biitt, MSC, Office of the Surgeon General.
On March 13, 19.13, by message authenticated by Capt. Howard Wagner, AGC,
Peress was informed that his overseas orders had been revoked and that he had
been assigned to Camp Kilmer. Information copies of this message were fur-
nished to the commanding general. First Army ; the commanding officer. Camp
Kilmer, N. J. ; and other headquarters concerned. Inasmuch as there was no
indication in Peress' files in Reserve Forces Division, First Army, that he was
subject to an investigation, that section failed to notify the Counterintelligence
Division, First Army, of Peress' reassignment to Camp Kilmer within the First
Army area. In compliance with the message referred to above, Peress reported
to Camp Kilmer March 13, 1953, whereupon he was assigned to duty as a dental
officer in the dental clinic at that station. He did not have access to classified
information. He remained at Camp Kilmer until separated from the service
on February 2, 1954.
The investigation of Peress at First Army was completed on April 15, 1953,
and the report filed with the Counterintelligence Division of First Army on
April 21, 1953. That office, under date of April 24, 1953, reported to the
Intelligence Division and the Surgeon General's Office, both in Washington,
that facts and circumstances disclosed during the investigation provided suffi-
cient evidence of disloyal and subversive tendencies to warrant removal of
Peress from the service, pursuant to the applicable security regulation, SR
600-220-1. This report was signed by Capt. Albert Robichaud for Col. Wendell
G. Johnson, Intelligence Chief at First Army.
On April 28, 1953, Lt. Col. Ronald F. Thomas signed a letter for Colonel John-
son, First Army Intelligence Chief, going to the Surgeon General and the Chief
of the Intelligence Division in Wa.shington. This letter had enclosed a com-
plete report of the investigation and recommended that action be initiated to
remove Peress from the service.
ARMY PERSONNEL ACTIONS RELATING TO IRVING PERESS 45
On April 30, 1953, Col. R. G. Prentiss, Jr., executive officer in the Office of the
Surgeon General, sent the file on the investigation to the Chief of the Intelli-
gence Division from the Office of the Surgeon General. He concurred in the
recommendation of Peress' elimination from the service and stated that Peress
would not be reassigned from Camp Kilmer prior to final action in the matter.
Since the completed investigation had not been reviewed by the commanding
general at Camp Kilmer, it was returned to First Army on May 21, 1953, from
the Intelligence Division in Washington, by Maj. James D. Anders, acting for Col.
W. A. Perry, Chief Security Division.
Lt. Col. Ronald F. Thomas, Chief, Coimterintelligence Division, at First Army,
sent the file to the Intelligence Branch of Camp Kilmer, N. J., with directions
to maintain a copy of the report in Peress' intelligence field file there. This
action was dated May 25, 19.53.
Lt. Col. C. T. Brown of the Intelligence Branch at Camp Kilmer, N. J., returned
the file to the Intelligence Branch at First Army in New York on June 15, 1953.
He reported that Peress was assigned to a nonsensitive position and recom-
mended that he be separated from the service.
On July 7, 1953, from First Army Counterintelligence Division, Lt. Col Ronald
F. Thomas sent the file to the Intelligence Division in Washington with an opin-
ion that retention of Peress as an officer in the military service was "not clearly
consistent with the interests of national security" and recommended that he be
separated from the service.
The pertinent Army regulation in such cases provides for the accomplishment
of an interrogatory by a member of the service who has been investigated prior to
final action, when considered appropriate by the Intelligence Division. Such an
interrogatory was prepared by the Intelligence Division in Washington. It was
sent on August 10, 1953, to the Counterintelligence Division at First Army in New
York by Lt. Col. W. P. Meridith for Col. W. A. Perry, Chief, Security Division.
Lt. Col. E. E. Winn, Counterintelligence Division, Fir.st Army, forwarded the
interrogatory to the Intelligence Branch at Camp Kilmer on August 20, 1953.
The interrogatory was accomplished by Peress at Camp Kilmer on August 25,
1953. Other than furnishing name, address, date and place of birth, names of
parents, and denial of use of any alias, Peress entei-ed "Federal constitutional
privilege is claimed" in response to all remaining questions.
The completed interrogatory was returned to Intelligence Division, First Army
in New York under date of August 26, 1953, by Lieiitenant Colonel Brown, Intel-
ligence Branch, Camp Kilmer. He recommended separation of Peress.
The Intelligence Division, First Army, sent the interrogatory from New York
on September 2, 19.53, reiterating the recommendation for removal of Peress from
the service. The file passed through the Office of the Surgeon General on Sep-
tember 8, 1953, where Col. R. G. Prentiss, Jr., repeated his recommendation that
Pei'ess be removed from the service.
The interrogatory, with accompanying recommendations of all echelons through
which it passed, was received in the Intelligence Division in Washington Septem-
ber 10, 1953.
On June 29, 1953, Public Law 84, S3d Congress, the amendment to the so-called
Doctor Draft Act, under which the rank of Peress was later adjusted, was enacted.
This law required that persons who had been ordered to active duty under the
Doctor Draft Act would be reappointed in the rank commensurate with their
professional education and experience.
By letter of September 9, 1953, Peress requested determination of his eligibility
for promotion to the grade of major in accordance with provision of the new
law referred to above. Col. Ruluff F. Leverich, dental surgeon, Camp Kilmer, on
the same date forwarded this request to the commanding general, Camp Kilmer,
for necessary action without comment. He also informed the Intelligence Officer,
Camp Kilmer, of this action. On September 10, 1953, at the direction of 1st Lt.
William L. Vinette, Personnel Branch, Camp Kilmer, C. W. O. J. T. La Marca,
Assistant Adjutant General, forwarded the request without further comment to
First Army for determination.
At First Army, Major Van Sickle and Major Kirkland conferred and prepared
a forwarding endorsement to this request, the pertinent portions of which are
quoted as follows :
"2. Available information indicates that Dr. Peress possessed the minimum
of 11 years of qualifying dental professional experience prescribed for appoint-
ment in the grade of major and that his original appointment in the grade of
captain was in error.
46 ARMY PERSONNEL ACTIONS RELATING TO IRVING PERESS
"5. Recommended action be initiated to reappoint Captain Peress in the grade
of maior in accordance with eligibility requirements set forth in SR 140-105-6
and SR 140-105-9."
No cognizance was taken by either Major Van Sickle or Major Kirkland of the
fact that Peress was under investigation.
This endorsement was signed by Capt. L. Dude, AGO, Assistant Adjutant Gen-
eral, First Army, and was dispatched to The Adjutant General, Department of
the Army, on September 23, 1953. (It has since been established that Peress was
entitled to have been appointed initially In the grade of major under the regu-
lations in effect at the time he was commissioned.)
On October 2, 1953, The Adjutant General, Department of the Army, returned
the request to First Army stating that no further examination of the case
could be made until the records incident to the initial appointment of Peress
were received. The request was again returned to The Adjutant General on
October 16, 1953, by First Army with the remark that appointment records of
Peress had been forwarded to the Department of the Army on October 10, 1953.
The records indicate that no further action was taken on Peress' request for
promotion due to the impending review of the records of all Reserve medical
personnel for possible automatic adjustment of rank in accordance with Public
Law 84, 83d Congress, and appropriate implementing directives.
Accordingly, it becomes necessary to consider the steps taken in connection
with the establishment of this procedure.
On May 21, 1953, the Department of Defense established an ad hoc committee
to (1) review DOD directives pertinent to the doctor draft and (2) submit a
proposed directive to consolidate current policies and procedures. This com-
mittee was made up of 2 representatives from each of the 3 military departments.
The Department of the Army representatives were Col. Coy L. Curtis, Personnel
Division, and Maj. Vernon McKenzie, Office of the Surgeon General. It was
necessary for this committee to consider the provisions of Public Law 84, 83(i
Congress, in preparing its report. The pertinent provision with lespect ta
adjustment of rank reads as follows :
"Notwithstanding subsection 217 (c) of the Armed Foi'ces Reserve Act of
1952 (66 Stat. 481) or any other provision of law, * * * (An individual) who
has been or shall be ordered to active duty * * * as a physician, dentist, or in an.
allied specialist category * * * shall, under regulations prescribed by the Presi-
dent, be appointed, reappointed, promoted to such grade or rank as may be-
commensurate with his professional education, experience, or ability." [Italic
added.]
On August 6, 1953, this ad hoc committee forwarded a draft of a proposed
directive to the Director of Personnel Policy, Office of the Assistant Secretary
of Defense, which read as follows concerning adjustment of rank :
"Any physician, dentist, or veterinarian now serving on active duty, whether
with or without his consent, who would have been entitled to a higher grade
than that in which he is now serving if the applicable provisions of this directive-
or of Public Lavp 84, 83d Congress, had been in effect the time of his current
appointment will, at the earliest practicable date, be reappointed or promoted
to such higher grade if a board of officers convened by the military department
concerned so recommends." [Italic added.]
This portion of the proposed directive was concurred in by all memliers of
the ad hoc committee.
On August 26, 1953, the Department of the Army's concurrence in the proposed
directive submitted by the ad hoc committee was requested. Concurrence was
given by the Department of the Army on September 4, 1953. The proposed
directive, concurred in by the Department of the Army, included the words^
underlined above which required board action prior to promotion or grade
adjustment.
On October 7, 19.53. the Department of Defense issued Directive No. 1205.1
in implementation of Public Law 84, 83d Congress, and the recommendations of"
the ad hoc committee. However, the wording of the directive was not the
same as that recommended by the ad hoc committee or concurred in by the three
services. The requirement for board action prior to effecting grade readjust-
ment of medical personnel was not included.
This requirement was deleted because such a requirement would be contrary
to Public Law 84, 83d Congress. When it was decided by Congress to change the-
law and make it mandatory that a person commissioned pursuant to the act
must be aiipointed or reappointed to a rank based upon his professional educa-
tion, experience, or ability. Congress realized that subsection 217 (c) of the-
ARMY PERSONNEL ACTIONS RELATING TO IRVING PERESS 47
Armed Forces Reserve Act of 1952 required, with certain limited exceptions,
tliat appointments to the grade of lieutenant colonel or commander, and up,
could only be effected through a board of officers, llierefore. Congress wrote
into the Public Law 84, "notwithstanding subsection 217 (c) of the Armed
Forces Reserve Act of 1952 (60 Stat. 481) or any other provision of law." The
express purpose of tins language was to remove the requirement for a hoard of
officers. Therefore, it was deemed to be contrary to the statute to require such
a board of officers. Accordingly the Department of Defense included in the
October 7, 1953, Directive No. 1205.1 the following which provides that if the
individual is otherwise qualified for appointment it will be done without board
action :
"Pursuant to subsection 4 (a), Pn))lic Law 779, 81st Congress, as amended,
any person who is otherwise qualified for appointment in a grade higher than
ma.ior or lieutenant commander will be appointed in such grade without referral
of iiis case to a board of officers convened by the Secretary of the service con-
cerned."
Also: "Any physician, dentist, or veterinarian now serving on active duty,
whether with or without his consent, who would have been entitled to a higher
grade than that in which he is now serving if the applicable provisions of this
directive or of Public Law 84, 83d Congress, had been in effect at the time of
his current appointment will, at the earliest practicable date, be reappointed or
promoted to such higher grade." [Italic added.]
Upon receipt of the Department of Defense directive of October 7, 1953, the
Department of the Army moved promptly to carry out its provisions. However,
the Office of the Surgeon General, as head of the medical service of the Army,
began screening the qualification records of all officers of the medical, dental,
and veterinary corps for medical professional qualifications only.
On October 8, 1953, Maj. Vernon McKenzie prepared a memorandum for the
Chief, Personnel Division, Department of the Army, indicating the changes the
Department of Defense directive made in the criteria for grade determination
of persons being inducted under the provisions of the Doctor Draft Act and
requesting dissemination of this information to all commands. It was signed
by Col. R. G. Prentiss. This request was approved and forwarded to the Adju-
tant General for execution by memorandum prepared by Lt. Col. Emery E. Hyde,
and signed by Col. Samuel R. Lewis, Personnel Division, for Col. William P.
Wansboro.
By a second memorandum, also dated October 8, 1953, prepared by Major Mc-
Kenzie and signed by Colonel Prentiss, the Surgeon General informed the Chief,
Personnel Division, Department of the Army, that his office was reviewing the
qualification records of officers already commissioned under the provisions of
the Doctor Draft Act, as directed liy the Department of Defense, and requested
that the Adjutant General be directed to reappoint tho.se eligible for reappoint-
ment under the changed criteria as determined by the Surgeon General, and to
inform all commands of the changes occasioned by Public Law 84, 83d Congress,
as implemented by the Department of Defense. This second memorandum per-
tained to the reappointment of officers already commissioned, whereas the first
of the same date pertained only to initial commissioning. However, the same
proposed message was enclosed with both. Apparently, assuming that both
memoranda concerned the same subject and that the latter was, therefore, un-
necessary, this second memorandum was returned without action to the Surgeon
General on October 13, 1953, by memorandum prepared by Lieutenant Colonel
Hyde and signed by Colonel Wansboro. However, reappointment action by the
Adjutant General, as proposed liy this second memorandum, was authorized by
Lieutenant Colonel Hyde in conversation with Lt. Col. B. E. Babcock, Office of
the Adjutant General, at the time the initial list of persons eligible for reappoint-
ment was received from the Surgeon General by the Adjutant General.
From their qualification records, Maj. James F. Dolson, MSC, Special Projects
Branch, Personnel Division, Office of the Surgeon General, prepared a list of
538 medical officers, 125 dental officers, and 18 veterinary officers considered to
be entitled to reappointment under criteria as changed by Public Law 84, 83d
Congress, and the Department of Defense directive referred to above. Upon
completion of this list, applicable portions were transmitted to the medical,
dental, and veterinary corps career management sections. Office of the Surgeon
General, for verification. On October 14, 1953, the reassembled list was trans-
mitted to the Adjutant General by memorandum prepared by Major McKenzie
and signed by Col. H. W. Glattley. Medical Corps, Chief, Personnel Division,
Office of the Surgeon General, recommending reappointment of the officers listed
thereon to the grades indicated. The name of Peress was on that list.
48 ARMY PERSONNEL ACTIONS RELATING TO IRVING PERESS
All plans to screen personnel records for material other than that relating to
medical professional qualifications, which is a primary responsibility of a promo-
tion board, and to coordinate lists through security channels were abandoned in
the Department of the Army following rec'eipt of the DOD directive which was
interpreted by Army ofiicials to preclKdc consideration of anything other than
medical professional qualifications. Neither Major Dolson nor anyone else in
the Special Projects Branch, Personnel Division, Office of the Surgeon General,
had knowledge of the derogatory information which had been developed on Peress.
This inf(n-niation was. however, available in another branch of the Office of the
Surgeon General and would undoubtedly have been discovered had normal promo-
tion screening procedures and safeguards been employed in this group readjust-
ment of rank.
Meanwhile, at the Intelligence Bi-anch at Camp Kilmer, Lt. Col. C. T. Brown
addressed a memorandum to the Commanding General, Brig Gen. Ralph W.
Zwicker, concerning the case. This memorandum dated October 21, 19.53, related
that Peress was denied access to classified material ; that the post dental surgeon
had been advised ; that Peress had requested that a determination be made of
his leigibility under Public Law 84, 8od (Congress, for promotion to major ; that
the post adjutant general had been advised of this request; and it included a
recommendation that a letter be sent to First Army requesting immediate action
to relieve Peress from active duty.
On October 21, 1953, also. General Zwicker sent a letter to the Commanding
General, First Army, Lt. Gen. W. A. Burress. The letter contained a summary
of the derogatory information on Peress, related previous recommendations to
relieve Peress, and concluded that his retention was "clearly not consistent with
the interests of national security." The recommendatipn for relief was reiterated
by General Zwicker.
On October 23, 1953, the Adjutant General issued a letter of appointment in
the grade of major to Peress. This letter was addressed through the Com-
manding General, First Army, to Peress at Camp Kilmer, N. .7., and was signed
by Maj. James E. Harris for Maj. Gen. William E. Bergin, the Adjutant General.
The letter inclosed an oath of office form for execution and return by Peress.
First Army forwarded these dociunents by separate letter on October 29, 1953, to
the Commanding Officer, United States Army Hospital, Camp Kilmer, for
necessary action.
On October 27, 1953, in the Department of the Army in Washington, the inter-
rogatory completed by Peress on August 25, 1953, was incorporated in the file
of Peress in the Disposition Section of the Intelligence Division. Two days
later this section started action leading to preparation of a summary of the
Peress file to be used by the Personnel Division of the Army Staff.
Peress executed the oath of office as major on November 2, 1953. The oath
was administered by Maj. Herbert F. Bordeau. MSC, Chief, Personnel Division,
Headquarters United States Army Hospital, Camp Kilmer. This oath of oflSce
was returned to First Army through the Commanding General, Camp Kilmer,
that same date and forwarded to the Adjutant General by First Army on Novem-
ber 19, 1953. (It should be noted that Peress' reappointment to major was con-
tained in the group readjustment of rank and was completely independent of
his letter request of September 9, 1953, for such action.)
On November 3, 1953, General Burress visited Camp Kilmer where General
Zwicker again brought up the matter of Peress and informed him of Peress' re-
appointment to major on orders from Washington and opposed this action.
General Burress immediately telephoned his chief of staff, Maj. Gen. John B.
Murphy, requesting him to look into Peress' reappointment right away.
On the same day. General Murphy talked with Col. C. O. Brunner, chief of
staff at Camp Kilmer, to discuss the matter. General Murphy stated he would
draft a letter to Washington for signature by General Burress.
General Murphy also had Col. D. H. Smith, Personnel Division, First Army,
telephone the Personnel Division, Department of the Army on this matter on
November 3, 1953.
Colonel Smith asked the reasons for Peress' reappointment as major in the
face of three recommendations for separation and was advised by Lt. Col. B. E.
Babcock, Reserve Branch, Office of the Adjutant General, that the reappoint-
ment was authorized by the Department of Defense directive. Colonel Smith
was then referred to Major Dolson. Office of the Surgeon General, who informed
him that the reappointment was an administrative adjustment of rank based
solely on years of professional experience, but that other material on file would
ARMY PERSONNEL ACTIONS RELATING TO IRVING PERESS 49
have been considered had the Department of Defense permitted a board of officei-s
to pass on the reappointments.
Also, late on November 3, 11)53, General Zwicker again wrote General Burress
and discussed the Peress case among other things.
A personal letter dated November 6, 1953 was sent by General Burress to the
Vice Chief of Staff in Washington, Gen. Cliarles L. Bolte. An outline of the
actions taken in the case in First Army was set forth in the letter. This letter
noted that Fei'ess' grade readjustment had been handled in personnel channels
and without knowledge of intelligence personnel. Tlie following paragraph
taken from that letter expressed the views of General Burress in this matter:
'*I have taken the liberty of writing to you personally about this case, be-
lieving that you should know about it in view of its obvious implications. It
also seems to me that this order for adjustment of grade should be revoked if
it is possible to do so, and that Peress should be separated from the Army as
soon as this can be accomplished."
On November 10, 1953, General Bolte sent the letter from General Burress to
the Personnel Branch of the Army staff for necessary action in conjunction with
the Staff Intelligence Branch.
On November 13, 1953, a special summary of the case, which had been pre-
pared in the Intelligence Division of the Department of the Army, was sent to
the Personnel Division at request of the latter.
On November 18, 1953, the recommendations of the Intelligence Division for
elimination and termination of Peress' commission were sent to the Personnel
Division. In the latter branch on the same day the case was sent to The Adjutant
General for referral to the Army Personnel Board. The case as forwarded had
been prepared by Lt. Col. George B. Moore. It was sent over the signature of
Col. Gerald G. Epley, Chief, Personnel Action Branch.
The Army Personnel Board was established as an advisory board on personnel
matters within the Office of the Secretary of the Army. The membership is com-
posed of general officers with long experience in the handling of personnel
matters. The case was referred to this board for consideration and recom-
mendation as to whether :
1. Peress should be designated substandard and relieved from active duty
with the first increment of the involuntary release program, or
2. Released with later increments of the involuntary release program, or
3. Eliminated througli proceedings before a board of inquiry, or
4. Retained on active duty.
Attention of the board was invited to the fact that Peress was a possible
security risk and that First Army and The Surgeon General had recommended
his removal from the service.
On November 20, 1953, the recorder of the board, Lieut. Col. Lowell L. Forbes
presented the case to the board. The board members were Maj. Gen. Miller B.
White, president ; Maj. Gen. Daniel B. Strickler ; Brig. Gen. Frank 0. McConnell.
Colonel Forbes suggested the action numbered 1, above, as "best of alterna-
tive actions (gets him out soonest)" with his "commission automatically ter-
minated by law." It was his opinion that "in no event should he (Peress)
remain on active duty longer than necessary."
The Army Personel Board concurred with this suggestion. It considered
action by a board of inquiry to be time consuming and expensive. The Army
Personnel Board recommended "relief from active duty under the involuntary
release program with concurrent termination of Peress' Reserve commission
without board action." The case was retufned to the Personnel Division of the
Army Staff by Lieutenant Colonel Forbes on November 28, 1953.
On November 25, 1953, Lieutenant Colonel Moore of the Personnel Division
prepared a memorandum to the Chief of Staff of the Army on the case stating
that "determination was made to relieve Peress from active duty after comple-
tion of 12 months' service under the involuntary release program since after
that length of service his commission may be revoked as a special registrant
(doctor draft) under section 4, Universal Military Training and Service Act,
as amended." This memorandum had attached a reply to General Burress'
letter of November 6, 1953, for signature of General Bolte. The memorandum
was signed by Maj. Gen. Robert N. Young, Chief, Personnel Division, Army
General Staff."
On December 4, 1953, the Personnel Division was advised that the Deputy
Chief of Staff (Operations and Administration), Lieut. Gen. Walter L. Weible
desired that the following material be sent to him on the case :
50 ARMY PERSONNEL ACTIONS RELATING TO IRVING PERESS
"1. File of subject officer and the recommendations of the Army Personnel
Board be forwarded with this case.
"2. Include with the case copies and forms 98, 98a, and DD Form 398, and
mark the area that sul)ject officer claimed constitutional privileges.
"3. Include present DA policy and DD policy to cover cases of this sort."
On December 12, 1953, a memorandum forwarded the requested material to
General Weible. The memorandum repeated the recommendation in the Novem-
ber 2.0, 19.53, memorandum and was prepared by Lieutenant Colonel Moore of the
Personnel Division and signed by Brig. Gen. Herbert B. Powell, deputy to Maj.
Gen. Robert N. Young. This memorandum was concurred in by Maj. W. B.
Buelow, Intelligence Division, Department of the Army.
Upon reviewing the case once more General Weible was of the opinion that in
view of the nature of the case he required additional verification of the legality
of the proposed course of action as recommended. Accox'dingiy, the file was sent
by him to the Office of the Judge Advocate General on December 21, 1953, for
examination and return by December 23, 1953.
Under date of December 23, 1953, concurrence for the Judge Advocate General
was given by Col. Stanley W. Jones and the file was sent to General Weible for
the third time with no changes in the original recommendations of November 25,
1953.
Another review of the case and of the staff recommendations by General
Weible at this time caused him to pass the case with his approval of those
recommendations. On December 30, 1953 the action recommended was approved
by the Vice Chief of Staff, Gen. Charles L. Bolte. On the next day General Bolte
addressed a personal letter to Lieutenant General Burress, commanding general.
First Army, to inform him that Peress would be relieved from active duty under
the involuntary release program as "the most expeditious appropriate means of
returning Major Peress to civilian status."
DD Form 390, executed by Peress, was not in the file being reviewed by the
officials considering the most appropriate means of effectuating Peress' separa-
tion from the service. Having served their initial purpose in connection with
his appointment in October 1952, the three copies of the DD Form 390 were
distributed by First Army in accordance with applicable regulations — one copy
was returned to the local draft board, Forest Hills, Long Island, New York ; 1
copy was sent to the Adjutant General for transmittal to the Surgeon General;
and 1 copy was retained in First Army. In accordance with the then estab-
lished procedure the copy furnished to the Department of the Army was retained
in the Office of the Surgeon General and was not returned for inclusion in the
official personnel file of Peress, which was maintained by the Adjutant General
until after he was discharged. (On April 2, 1954, the procedures were changed
to require that, upon completion of review of the DD Form 390, the Surgeon
General would return the form to the Adjutant General for incorporation in the
official personnel file of the individual to whom it pertains. The procedures were
also subsequently changed on August 9, 1954, to eliminate the referral to the
Surgeon General for review. Upon receipt by the Department of the Army the
form is now placed immediately in the officer's official personnel file.)
By letter of January 6, 1954, which was signed by Capt. Albert Robichaud for
Lt. Col. Ronald F. Thomas, Counter Intelligence Division, First Army, Brigadier
General Zwicker was informed of the content of General Bolte's letter of Decem-
ber 31, 1953, to General Burress.
In a memorandum dated January 11, 1954, which was prepared by Lt. CoL
G. B. Moore and signed by Lt. Col. Arthur W. Allen for Col. Gerald G. Eply of the
Personnel Division, the Adjutant General was directed to take necessary action
to:
(1) "Relieve from active duty Maj. Irving Peress, 01893643, DC, upon
completion of 12 months' active military service, granting officer up to 90
days' notice if he so desires" ;
(2) "Discharge Major Peress from his commission under the provisions
of section 4 (b), Public Law 84, 83d Congress, as amended"; and
(3) "Insure that Major Peress (a) is not permitted to retain his com-
mission at the transfer point at his request and (ft) that he is never
recommissioned."
These instructions were in accordance with the recommendations of the Army
Personnel Board and the December 30, 1953, decision of the Vice Chief of Staff,
General Bolte.
The authority for granting Peress up to 90 days' notice of his separation is
contained in a Department of the Army letter to all major commanders, dated
ARMY PERSONNEL ACTIONS RELATING TO IRVING PERESS 51
September 11, 1953, subject "Involuntary Relief from Active Duty of Non-Regular
Officers," which states in part :
"Orders dii-ecting separation will provide for relief from active duty 90 days
following notification unless the individual concerned requests an earlier re-
lease date."
In compliance with the foregoing instruction, the Adjutant General by letter
of January 18, 1954, signed by CWO R. C. McDaniel, directed First Army to re-
lieve I'eress from active duty and honorably dischar.iie him from the Army at
the earliest practicable date. Applicable portions of the letter are quoted as
follows :
"1. It is desired that Maj. Irving Peress, 01893643, DC, be relieved from active
duty and honorably discharged from the Army at the earliest practicable date
depending on officer's desires, but in any event not later than 90 days from date of
receipt of this letter. * * *
"4. All commissions held by him will be terminated on effective date of dis-
t'harge and he will not be tendered a reappointment in the USAR except by*
authority of the Department of the Army. * * *
"5. Officer will not be separated prior to determination that he is physically
qualified for separation by your headquarters. A prompt report will be made
to this office in the event action cainiot be taken without undue delay."
15y letter of January 21, 1954. signed by Lt. Col. J. G. Basbas, First Army,
directed Camp Kilmer to comply witli these instructions.
On January 21 or 22, 1954, Mr. Anastos, an investigator from the McCarthy
subcommittee staff called Brigadier General Zwicker and said that he under-
stood that there was a major at Camp Kilmer who was under investigation and
that he, Anastos, would like his name. General Zwicker returned the call and
contacting Mr. Anastos stated that he believed the name of the person to whom
Anastos referred in his call is Major Peress. On January 23, 1954, General
Zwicker again called Mr. Anastos and told him that he had just received a De-
partment of the Army order, dated January 18, 1954, directing the separation of
Major Peress.
Major Peress signed a statement on January 25, 1954, acknowledging receipt
of the notice of his release from active duty and electing to be released on March
31, 1954.
On January 28, 1954, Mr. John Adams, Department Counselor, Department of
the Army, received a request from a staff member of the Senate Sul)committee
on Investigations that he arrange for the appearance of Peress before that sub-
conunittee in New York on January 80, 1954. Mr. Adams states that he was
of the opinion at that time that Peress had already been discliarged until he
learned that day for the first time of the 90-day election period.
Mr. Adams states that he had been called at his home on January 3, 1954,
by Mr. Roy Cohn of the staff of the McCarthy subcommittee; that Mr. Cohn
informed Mr. Adams that the subcommittee had some derogatory information
on a doctor or dentist who was a major at Camp Kilmer and that the next
day Mr. Adams sent a memorandum concerning that call to the Chief of the In-
telligence Division, Maj. Gen. Arthur G. Trudeau. General Trudeau later that
day advised Mr. Adams that the officer undoubtedly was Peress whose dis-
charge had been directed and was about to be processed. Mr. Adams states
that he furnished this advice to Mr. Cohn within a few days without revealing
Peress' name.
Mr. Adams states that since he had been inl^ormed on January 4 that Peress was
to be discharged as a possible security risk he felt the Army should have been rid
of him as soon as possible. Accordingly, about noontime of January 28, 1954,
he requested G-2 to secure information as to whether Peress had been dis-
charged and, if not, whether he could be discharged by January 29, 1954. Mr.
Adams stated that it was his thought to have Peress in civilian status if possible
when appearing before the McCarthy subcommittee on January 30, 1954.
Mr. Adams stated that he learned that Peress had not been discharged. He
also stated that when he learned that day for the first time of the 90-day elec-
tion period granted by the September 11, 1953, Department of the Army letter,
upon being informed that Peress had selected March 31, 1954, as his discharge
date, he dropped his efforts to accomplish Peress' separation prior to Peress'
appearance before the subcommittee.
At 4 p. m. on January 28, 1954, Mr. Adams relayed the request for the ap-
pearance of Peress to General Zwicker at Camp Kilmer by telephone. General
Zwicker notified Peress at 8 : 15 a. m. on January 29 of the request. Also at
52 ARMY PERSONNEL ACTIONS RELATING TO IRVING PERESS
that time General Zwicker granted Peress permission to wear civilian clothe*
and be absent from duty on January 30, 1954. v , n-f^ ^v,.
Peress appeared before the McCarthy subcommittee m New York City on>
January 30, 1954, in accordance with the request made upon Mr Adams. ^
On February 1, 1954, during the morning Peress requested that the date oi his
election for relief from active duty be changed from March 31, 1954, to provide for
an immediate discharge. This was explicitly authorized by regulations.
General Zwicker at approximately 9 : 30 a. m. on February 1, 1954, telephoned
Maj. Gen. John P.. Murphy, Chief of Staff, First Army, in New York to inform lum.
of this request. He advised General Murphy that, in consonance with the de-
cision of the Department of the Army to release Peress as soon as possible, he-
had informed Peress that his discharge would be effected by 2 p. m., February
2 1954
' Lieutenant Colonel Moore, Personnel Division, Department of the Army, calle^
Col Donald H. Smith, Chief, Persomiel Division, First Army, m the morning or
February 1, 1954, to learn the status of Peress' discharge. Brig. Gen H. B,
Powell Deputy Chief, Personnel Division, Department of the Army, believes
that this call was directed by him, while General Powell is not certain it is^
his impression that this information was furnished to Mr. Adams.
Later that morning Colonel Smith called Lieutenant Colonel Moore in Wash-
ington to tell him that he had since learned that Peress had requested an im-
mediate release at Camp Kilmer and was scheduled for release by 2 p m. the-
next day February 2, 1954. Colonel Smith stated that General Zwicker had
called General ftlurphy at 9 : 30 that morning on the matter. He also told Lieu-
tenant Colonel IMoore that Peress' separation had been recommended by First
Army long before the grade ad.iustmeiit of Peress had been eftected.
In the afternoon of February 1, 1954, Col. C. O. Bruce, military assis^tant to-
the Secretary of the Army, received a telephone call from the office of Senator
Joseph R McCarthy. The colonel was informed that a letter to the Secretary
of the Army was being sent to his office by messenger and that the contents
of the letter were being released to the press services.
Some time after 4 p. m. Olonel Bruce received the letter. He to,.k it to the
office of Mr. Adams, the Department Counselor, between 4:30 and o : 10 p^ nu
At or about 5:10 p. m. Mr. Adams took the Senators letter to the Deputy
Chief of Staff for Operations and Administration, Lieutenant General Weible.
There were extended discussions between General Weible and Mr. Adams m the
evening of February 1 during which General Weible learned of the pending
discharge date of February 2, 1954, for Peress. , ^ . ^- <. .
Geneial Weible having handled the matter previously and having directed
staff action to insure that the recommended discharge was the proper course,
requested information that evening on—
( 1 ) whether there wa s any new evidence to be considered ; and
(2) whether there was any evidence available to support the inferences
contained in Senator McCarthy's letter as to possible subversive activities
bv Peress at Camp Kilmer.
Duiing a conference bet^veen General Weible and Mr. Adams a conclusion
was reached that the answers to both the.se i"q"i^-ieVH'''%'«P ^PnSu Weiltle'
cordinglv there existed no basis for reconsideration of the case. Geneial vVeibie,
Serefo re with Mr. Adams concurring, decided to adhere to the previous y
appio\^d staff course of action, i. e., get Peress out of the service as expeditiously
""'on'Sebruary 2. 1954, at 2 p. m. Peress was given an honorable discharge and
his commission in the Army Reserve was irrevocably terminated. The dis-
ciLge document given Dr. Peress at Camp Kilmer, N J in accordance with
Department of the Army instructions of January 18, 1954, was signed by Ma.i.
John J. McManus.
Errors in Typing in the Chronology of the Military Record of Dr. Irving
Peress Together With Pertinent Corrections
1. Page 4, line 10 ^—delete the word "requested" and substitute in lieu thereof
^""l.l^igVll^^Sagraph 3, line 1-delete the word "would"' and substitute in
lieu thereof the words "was considered to". c-nh^titntf in
3. Page 13, paragraph 3, line 9— delete the word "Amred ' and substitute lu
lieu thereof the word "Armed".
1 Refers to miineograplied copy.
ARMY PERSONNEL ACTIONS RELATING TO IRVING PERESS 53
4. Page 15, lines 2 and 3 — delete the sentence reading, "However, the same
(proposed message was enclosed with both."
5. Page 15. line 3 — delete the comma.
6. Page 15, line 17 — delete the word "verification" and substitute in lieu
thereof the word "information".
8. Page IS, line 16 — delete the last two words and substitute in lieu thereof
the words "Personnel Division".
8. Page 18, line 16— delete the last two words and substitute in lieu thereof
the words "Intelligence Division".
9. Page 19, lines 17 and 18 — delete the quotation marks.
10. In the Appendix, page viii, CC, in the history of Colonel Jones the word
"had" in the first line to be deleted and substitute in lieu thereof the word "has".
11. In the Appendix, page xi, WW, line 1 — delete the figure "13" and substitute
in lieu thereof "29" ; in line 2 after the words "Command and General Staff
College" add the words "and Army-Navy Staff College" ; lines 2 and 3, delete
"has been awarded the Bronze Star Medal and the Purple Heart"; line 3 —
delete the word "Mediterranean" and substitute the word "European" in lieu
thereof.
Appendix Containing Service History of Department of the Army Personnei,
Mentioned in the Chronology (Histories Current as of Nov. 22, 1954)
Index
Name
Page and Item in
appendix
Page(s) in
chronology
Iv— A
22, 23, 24, 25
Allen Arthur W Lt Col
iv— B
21
Aiulcrs, James D., Maj
Babcock Bernard E Lt Col
iv— C
9
iv— D
15, 17
Basbis Jamt's G Lt Col
iv— E
Borge, Einar, Capt
V— F
■J
V— G
10
Bolte Charles L Gen
V— H
18, 19, 20, 21
V— I
17
V— J
4,8
v-K
V— L
9, 10, 16
24
vi— M
Buelow Wallace R Maj
vi— N
20
vi— 0
16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21
vi— p:
8
<^rumm Clifton T Lt Col
vi— Q
7
vi— R
12
vi— S
15, 17
Dude Ludwig Capt
vii— T
11
vii— TJ
18,21
vii- V
19
vii—W - .
7
vii— X
15
vii— Y
16
Hai^e Guimar h' Lt Col
vii— Z - - -
2
Hyde, Emery E., Lt. Col
viii- AA
14, 15
viii— BB
6,9
Jones Stanley W Col
viii— CC
20
Kirkland Curtis R Capt
viii— DD
2, 5, 6, 11
viii— EE
11
Leverich Ruluff F Col
viii— FF
10
Xiewis Samuel R Col
viii— GG
14
Lyon Charles A , Capt
ix— HH
4
McConnell Frank C Brig Gen
ix— II
19
McPaniel, Robert C, CWO
ix— JJ
22
ix— KK
2, 12, 14, 15
ix— LL
25
ix— MM
6
Meredith, William P Lt Col
ix-NN
X— OO
10
Moore George B Lt Col
18, 19, 20, 21, 24
X— PP
4
Murphy John B Maj Gen
X— QQ .
17, 24
Perry Willis A Col
X— RR
9,10
X— SS
20,24
Prentiss, Roger G Jr , Col
X— TT
9, 10, 14
Prettyman William 0 Jr Maj
xi— UU
8
xi— VV
9,21
■Smith, Donald H., Col
xi-WW
17,24
54 ARMY PERSONNEL ACTIONS RELATING TO IRVING PERESS
Index — Continued
Name
Page and item in
appendix
Page(s) in
chronology
xi-XX
xi— YY-.
19
Thomas Ronald F Lt Col
9,21
xi— ZZ
23
Ursin, o! Elliot, CoL
xii-AAA
8
Van Sickle, Floyd E., Jr., Capt
Vinette William L 1st Lt
2, 4, 5, 6, 11
xii— CCC
11
xii— DDD
8
Wansboro William P Col
xii- EEE
14, 15
Weible, Walter L., Lt. Gen
xii-FFF.
xiii-GGG
xiii-HHH
xlli-m
xiii-JJJ
19,21,24,25
19
Winn, Eric E., Lt. Col
10
19,20
Zwicker, Ralph W., Brig. Gen
16, 17, 18, 21, 22, 23,
24
Service History of Department of the Armt Personnel Mentioned in
THE Chronology
A. John Adams: Mr. Adams has completed over 3 years of active military
service and 16 years of nonactive service; is a .graduate of the Command ami
General Staff School ; has been awarded the Bronze Star Medal ; served in
North Africa, the Mediterranean, and Europe during World War II ; was relieved
from active duty in January 194G as a major, and was promoted to the crade
of Lieutenant Colonel USAR in August of 1950; he was chief clerk of the Senate
Armed Services Committee during the 80th Congress and acted as Deputy Gen-
eral Counsel of the Department of Defense prior to assuming his current duties
as Department Counselor.
B. Lt. Col. Arthur Vv'. Allen : Lieutenant Colonel Allen has completed over 15
years of active military service, is a graduate of the United States Military
Academy, the Command and General Staff School, the Armored Officers' Ad-
vanced Course, and the Armed Forces Staff College ; has been awarded the Legion
of Merit and the Bronze Star Medal with one Oak Leaf Cluster; served in Eu-
rope during World War II ; and has a top secret security clearance.
C. Maj. James D. Anders : Major Anders has completed over 11 years of active
military service ; is a graduate of the Advanced Infantry Officers' Course and the
Strategic Intelligence School ; has been awarded the Silver Star Medal and the
Bronze Star Medal ; served in the Mediterranean theater during World AVar II ;
and has a top secret security clearance.
D. Lt. Col. Bernard E. Babcock: Lieutenant Colonel Babcock has completed
over 14 years of active military service; is a graduate of the Command and
General Staff College; has been awarded the Legion of Merit and the Bronze
Star Medal ; served in the Far East during World AVar II and the Korean emer-
gency ; and has a top secret security clearance.
E. Lieutenant Colonel James G. Basbas : Lieutenant Colonal Basbas has com-
pleted over 27 years of active military service ; has the educational equivalent to
the Adjutant General's School Advanced Course and to the Command and Gen-
eral Staff School ; has been awarded the Bronze Star Medal with one Oak Leaf
Cluster and the Commendation Ribbon with Metal Pendant ; served in the Mid-
dle East and in Europe during World War II and in Korea during the hostili-
ties there ; and has a top secret security clearance.
F. Capt. Einar Berge: Captain Berge has completed over 8 years of active
militai-y service ; has been awarded the Bronze Star Medal ; served in Korea
during the recent hostilities there; and has a top secret security clearance.
G. Maj. Gen. William E. Bergin : General Bergin had completed over 36 years
of active military service at the time of his retirement on May 31, 1954; is a
graduate of the Command and General Staff School and has the additional equiv-
alent to the National War College; has been awarded the Distinguished Service
Medal, the Legion of Merit, and the Commendation Ribbon with Metal Pendant;
served in the China-Burma-India theater during World War II ; and had a top
secret security clearance at the time of his retirement.
H. Gen. Charles L. Bolte : General Bolte has completed over 37 years of active
military service; is a graduate of the Command and General Staff School and
the Army War College; has been awarded the Distinguished Service Medal, the
Silver Star for gallantry in action near Bologna, Italy, on April 20, 1945, the
Legion of Merit, and the Pui-ple Heart ; commanded the 34th Infantry Division
ARMY PERSONNEL ACTIONS RELATING TO IRVING PERESS 55
In Italy, the unit which cracked the historic Gothic line of the German defense in
September 1944 ; and has a top secret security clearance.
I. Maj. Herbert F. Bordeau: Major Bordeau has completed over 15 years of
active military sen-ice and 10 years of nonactive service ; was promoted to the
grade of lieutenant colonel on November 16, 1954; served in Europe during
World War II and in the Far East during the first year of the Korean conflict;
and has a secret security clearance.
J. Maj. Arthur E. Britt : Major Britt has completed over 13 years of active
service ; is a gi'aduate of the Advanced Officers' Course, Medical Field Sen^ice
School ; has been awarded the Bronze Star Medal with Oak Leaf Cluster ; served
in the Euroi)ean theater during World War II ; and has a top secret security
clearance.
K. Lt. Col. Chester T. Brown : Lieutenant Colonel Brown has completed over
16 years of active military service and 14 years of nonactive service ; is a grad-
uate of the Coumiand and General Staff School ; has been awarded the Bronze
Star Medal ; served in Europe during World War II and in Korea during the
hostilities there ; and has a top secret security clearance.
L. Col. Charles O. Bruce : Colonel Bruce has completed over 18 years of active
military service ; is a graduate of the Medical Field Service School ; has been
awarded the Legion of Merit, and the Commendation Ribbon with Metal Pendant ;
served in the Mediterranean and European theaters of operations during World
War II ; and has a top secret security clearance.
M. Col. Clarence O. Brunner : Colonel Brunner has completed over 20 years
of active military service and 7 years of nonactive service; has been awarded the
Legion of Merit with Oak Leaf Cluster, the Bronze Star Medal with 2 Oak Leaf
Clusters, and the Commendation Ribbon with Metal Pendant ; served in Europe
during World War II and in Korea during the hostilities there ; and has a top
secret security clearance.
N. Maj. Wallace R. Buelow : Major Buelow has completed over 12 years of
active military service, is a graduate of the Command and General Staff College,
has been awarded the Bronze Star Medal, served in Europe during World War II,
and has a top secret security clearance.
O. Lt. Gen. Withers A. Burress : Lieutenant General Burress has completed
over 37 years of active military service ; is a graduate of the Command and
General Staff School and the Army War College; was awarded the Distinguished
Service Medal for service as commanding general of the 100th Infantry Division
in Europe during World War II, the Silver Star for gallantry in action near
Neckargartach, Germany, on April 5, 1945, the Legion of Merit, and the Bronze
Star IVIedal with Oak Leaf Cluster ; and has a top secret security clearance.
P. Brig. Gen. Egbert W. Cowan : Brigadier General Cowan had completed over
36 years of active military service at the time of his retirement in May of 1954 ;
he served in the Mediterranean and North African theaters during World War II ;
he had a top secret security clearance prior to his retirement.
Q. Lt. Col. Clifton Crumra : Lieutenant Colonel Crumm has completed over
27 years of active military service; is a graduate of the Command and General
Stfiff School ; and has a top secret security clearance.
R. Col. Coy L. Curtis : Colonel Curtis has completed over 17 years of active
military service ; is a graduate of the United States Military Academy, Command
and General Staff' College, and the Armed Forces Staff College ; has been awarded
the Silver Star, the Bronze Star Medal, and the Commendation Ribbon with
Metal Pendant ; served in the European theater of operations during World
War II ; and has a top-secret security clearance.
S. Maj. James F. Dolson : Major FJolson has completed over 7 years of active
military service and 4 years of nonactive service ; has been awarded the Bronze
Star Medal : served in the Pacific during World War II and in Korea during the
recent hostilities there ; and has a top-secret security cleai'ance.
T. Capt. Ludwig Dude : Captain Dude has completed over 14 years of active
military service ; is a graduate of the Counterintelligence Corps School ; and has
a top-secret security clearance.
U. Col. Gerald G. Epley : Colonel Epley has completed over 22 years of active
military service; is a graduate of the United States Military Academy, the
Infantry School, the Command and General Staff" School, and the Army War
College ; has been awarded the Legion of Merit, the Bronze Star Medal for valor,
and the Commendation Ribbon with Metal Pendant; served in the Far East
following World War II and in Korea during the hostilities there; and has a
top-secret security clearance.
56 ARMY PERSONNEL ACTIONS RELATING TO IRVING PERESS
V. Lt. Col. Lowell L. Forbes : Lieutenant Colonel Forbes had completed over
13 years of active military service and 9 years of nonactive service at the time
of his retirement on January 31, 1954 ; he served in the Southwest Pacific during
World War II ; and he had a top-secret security clearance up to the time of his
retirement. , , , r.
W. 1st Lt. Alfred M. Gade : First Lieutenant Gade has completed over 9 years
of active military service and 2 years of nonactive service, was promoted to the
grade of captain in September 1954, served in the CBI during World War II,
and has a secret security clearance.
X. CoL Harold W. Glattley : Colonel Glattley has completed over 28 years of
active military service : has the educational equivalent to .graduation from the
Armed Forces Staff College; has been awarded the Silver Star with one Oak Leaf
Cluster, the Legion of IMerit, the Bronze Star Medal, and the Commendation
Ribbon with Metal Pendant ; was surgeon of the United States forces on Bataan,
Philippine Islands, at the time of the fall of the Philippines ; was a prisoner of
war of the Japanese during which time he was a leading United States surgeon
in various prisoner-of-war camps : and has a top-secret security clearance.
Y Maj James E. Harris: Major Harris had completed over 25 years of
military service prior to his retirement on August 31, 1954 ; he had been awarded
the Commendation Ribbon with Metal Pendant; he served in the European
theater during World War II and in the Far East during tlie recent hostilities
in Korea ; and he had a top secret clearance prior to his retirement.
Z. Lt. Col. Gunnar H. Hage : Lieutenant Colonel Hage has completed over 14
years of active military service, is a graduate of the Ccmmuiud and General StafE
School and of the Armed Forces Staff College; has been awarded the Bronze
Star Medal and the Commendation Ribbon with Metal Pendant ; served in Korea
during the recent hostilities there ; and has a top secret security clearance.
AA. Lt. Col. Emery E. Hyde : Lieutenant Colonel Hyde has over 12 years of
active military service and 11 years of nonactive service; is a graduate of the
Armed Forces Staff College; served in the North African and Mediterranean
theater campaigns during World War II ; and has a top secret security clearance.
BB Col. Wendell G. Johnson : Colonel Johnson had completed over 31 years of
active military service at the time of his retirement on September 30, 1954;
he is a graduate of the United States Military Academy and the Command and
General Staff School ; he has been awarded the Legion of Merit with one Oak
Leaf Cluster- served as military attache in Chile and in Spain during World
War II; and' he had up until the time of his retirement a top secret security
p1 Pfl ffl HOP
CC Coi Stanley W. Jones : Colonel Jones had completed over 25 years of active
military service ; is a graduate of the United States Military Academy ; has been
awarded the Legion of Merit, the Bronze Star Medal, and the Commendation
Ribbon with Metal Pendant with Oak Leaf Cluster ; served as judge advocate of
the Ninth Army in Europe during World War II ; was promoted to brigadier
general on October 5, 1954 ; and has a top secret security clearance.
DD. Maj. Curtis R. Kirkland : Major Kirkland had completed over 16 years of
active military service at the time of his separation on April 2, 1954 ; served m
the Southwest Pacific during World War II ; has been awarded the Bronze Star
Medal with one Oak Leaf Cluster ; and had a top secret security clearance during
the time of his handling of the Peress case.
EE C W. O. Joseph T. LaMarca : Chief Warrant Officer LaMarca has com-
pleted over 14 vears of military service; served in North Africa and Europe
during World War II ; was relieved from active duty on August 31, 1954, and
reenlisted as a master sergeant on September 1, 1954; and has a top secret
security clearance. , , , no
FF. Col. Ruluff F. Leverich: Colonel Leverich has completed over 13 years
of active military service and 11 years on nonactive duty ; has been awarded
the Commendation Ribbon with Metal Pendant ; served in the Far East during
the Korean hostilities ; and has a secret security clearance.
GG Col. Samuel R. Lewis: Colonel Lewis has completed over 24 years of
active military service and has been awarded the Commendation Ribbon with
Metal Pendant, with one Oak Leaf Cluster; served in Europe during World
War II ; and has a top secret security clearance.
HH. Capt. Charles A. Lyon: Captain Lyon has completed over 26 years of
active military service, was promoted to the grade of major in April 1953. and
was released from active duty on February 1, 1954. He is now serving as a
master sergeant at the Presidio of San Francisco, Calif.; and has a secret
security clearance.
ARMY PERSONNEL ACTIONS RELATING TO IRVING PERESS 57
II. Brig. Gen. Frank C. McConnell : Brigadier General McConnell has com-
pleted over 32 years of active military service ; is a graduate of the Command
and General Staff School ; has been awarded the Legion of Merit with Oak Leaf
Cluster, the Bronze Star Medal, and the Air Medal; served in the Soutliwest
Pacific during AVorld War II and in the Far East during the Korean emergency ;
was designated as a principal delegate to the United Nations Command Armistice
Delegation in Korea in 1952 ; and has a top secret security clearance.
JJ. C. W. O. Robert C. McDaniel : Chief Warrant Officer McDaniel has com-
pleted over 13 years of active military service ; has been awarded the Com-
mendation Ribbon with Metal Pendant ; and lias a top secret security clearance.
KK. Maj. Vernon McKenzie : Major McKenzie has completed over 13 years
of active miiltary service ; served in the India Burma theater during World War
II ; and has a top secret security clearance.
LL. Ma.i. John J. McManus : Major McManus had completed over 11 years of
active military service and 14 years of nonactive duty at the time of his release
from active duty on November 4, 1954 ; has been awarded the Bronze Star
Medal; served in the Far East Command during World War II and in Korea
during the recent hostilities there; had a secret clearance up until the time
of liis relief from active duty.
MM. Capt. Charles F. Maxwell : Captain Maxwell has completed over 12 years
of active military service; is a graduate of the Counterintelligence Corps School
and the Pi'ovost Marshall General's School ; was promoted to the grade of major
on April 17, 1953 ; served in the India-Burma theater during World War II ;
and has a top secret security clearance.
NN. Lt. Col. William P. Meredith : Lieutenant Colonel Meredith has completed
over 10 years of active military service and 9 years of nonactive service ; is a
gradute of the Command and General Staff College and the Strategic Intelligence
School ; has been awarded the Bronze Star Medal ; served in the Far East during
World War II ; and has a top secret security clearance.
OO. Lt. Col. George B. Moore : Lieutenant Colonel Moore has completed over
12 years of active military service; is a graduate of the United States Military
Academy and the Command and General Staff School ; has been awarded the
Silver Star for gallantry in action in Tunisia during 1943, the Bronze Star Medal
with two Oak Leaf Clusters for valor, and the Purple Heart ; and has a top secret
security clearance.
PP. Capt. Armand E. Moreda : Captain Moreda has completed over 14 years
of active military service ; has been awarded the Bronze Star Medal ; and has a
top secret security clearance.
QQ. Maj. Gen. John B. Murphy : Major General Murphy has completed over
36 years of active military service ; is a graduate of the United States Military
Academy, the Command and General Staff School, and has the educational
equivalent to the National War College ; has been awarded the Silver Star for
gallantry in action at Bitche, France, on December 16, 1944, the Legion of Merit,
the Bronze Star Medal with Oak Leaf Cluster, and the Commendation Ribbon
with Metal Pendant ; was promoted to the grade of major general on November 6,
1953 ; and has a top secret security clearance.
RR. Col. Willis A. Perry : Colonel Perry has completed over 24 years of active
military service ; is a graduate of the United States Military Academy, the Com-
mand and General Staff School, the National War College ; and has the educa-
tional equivalent to the Armed Forces Staff College; has been awarded the
Le.crion of Merit ; and has a top secret security clearance.
SS. Brig. Gen. Herbert B. Powell: Brigadier General Powell has completed
over 28 years of active service ; is a graduate of the Command and General Staff
School and the National War College : has been aw^arded the Distinguished
Service Cross, the Silver Star, the Legicm of Merit with Oak Leaf Cluster, the
Bronze Star Medal with two Oak Leaf Clusters, the Air Medal, the Commenda-
tion Ribbon with Metal Pendant, and the Purple Heart ; served as Chief of Staff
of one of the Infantry divisions in the European theater during World War II
and commanded the 17th Infantry Regiment in Korea at the time that unit
spearheaded the advance to the Manchurian border, becoming the only United
States unit to reach the Yalu River ; and has a top secret security clearance.
He was promoted to major general on October 1, 1954.
TT. Col. Roger G. Prentiss, Jr. : Colonel Prentiss has completed over 26
years of active military service; has been awarded the Legion of Merit; and
has a top secret security clearance.
UU. Maj. William O. Prettyman, Jr. : Major Prettyman has completed over
13 years of active military service ; has the educational equivalent to the Med-
58 ARMY PERSONNEL ACTIONS RELATING TO IRVING PERESS
ical Field Service School ; served in Europe during World War II ; and has a
top secret security clearance.
W. Capt. Albert Robichaud : Captain Robichaud has completed over 12 years
of active military service ; is a graduate of the Counterintelligence Corps School ;
has been awai-ded the Bronze Star Medal with one Oak Leaf Cluster; served
both in Europe and in the China theater during World War II and in the Far
East during the Korean hostilities ; and has a top secret security clearance.
WW. Col. Donald H. Smith : Colonel Smith has completed over 13 years of
active military service; is a graduate of the Command and General Staff Col-
lege; has been awarded the Bronze Star Medal and the Purple Heart; served
in the Mediterranean Theater during World War II and in the Far East during
the Korean conflict ; and lias a top secret security clearance.
XX. Maj. Gen. Daniel B. Strickler : Major General Strickler has completed over
11 years of active military service and 26 years of nonactive service ; is a grad-
uate of the Command and General Staff School ; has been awarded the Silver
Star with oak-leaf cluster, the Legion of Merit, the Bronze Star Medal with oak-
leaf cluster for valor, and the Purple Heart ; served as a battalion and regimental
commander in Europe during World War II and later commanded an infantry
division in Europe ; and has a top secret security clearance.
YY. Lt. Col. Ronald F. Thomas : Lieutenant Colonel Thomas has completed
over 14 years of active military service and 12 years of nonactive service ; is a
graduate of the Command and General Staff School and the Counterintelligence
Corps School ; has been awarded the Bronze Star Medal ; was a battalion com-
mander in Europe during World War II ; and has a top secret security clearance.
ZZ. Maj. Gen. Arthur G. Trudeau : Major General Trudeau has completed over
30 years of active military service ; is a graduate of the United States Military
Academy, the Engineer School, the Command and General Staff School, and the
Army War College, and has the educational equivalent of the Command and
General Staff College, the Armed Forces Staff College, and the National War
College; has been awarded the Distinguished Service Medal with one oak-leaf
cluster, the Silver Star Medal with one oak-leaf cluster for gallantry in action on
April 12, 1953, and July 8, 1953, near Sokkagae, Korea, the Legion of Merit, the
Bronze Star Medal, the Air Medal, and the Commendation Ribbon with metal
pendant; has served in the western Pacific during World War II and as com-
manding general, 7th Infantry Division, in Korea during the recent hostilities
there ; and has a top secret security clearance.
AAA. Col. O. Elliot Ursin : Colonel Ursin has completed over 15 years of active
military service ; is a graduate of the Command and General Staff School ; has
been awarded the Bronze Star Medal and the Commendation Ribbon with metal
pendant ; served in the southwest Pacific during World War II ; and has a top
secret security clearance.
BBB. Capt. Floyd E. Van Sickle, Jr. : Captain Van Sickle has completed over
14 years of active military service, has been awarded the Commendation Ribbon
with metal pendant, served in the Pacific Ocean area during World War II, was
promoted to the grade of major in May of 1953, and has a top secret security
clearance.
CCC. 1st Lt. William L. Vinette : First Lieutenant Vinette has completed over
7 years of active military service and 1 year of nonactive service ; is a graduate
of the Adjutant General's advanced officers' course ; was promoted to the grade
of captain on September 16, 19.54 ; and has a secret security clearance.
DDD. Capt. Howard Wagner : Captain Wagner has completed over 15 years
of military service; has been awarded the Commendation Ribbon with metal
pendant ; served in Europe during World War II ; and has a top secret security
clearance.
EEE. Col. William P. Wansboro : Colonel Wansboro has completed over 16
years of active military service; is a graduate of the United States Military
Academy and the Army War College ; has been awarded the Commendation
Ribbon with metal pendant ; served in Europe during World War II ; and has a
top secret security clearance.
FFF. Lt. Gen. Walter L. Weible : General Weible has completed over 36 years
of active military service ; is a graduate of the Coast Artillery School, the Chemi-
cal Warfare School, the Command and General Staff School, the Army War
College, the Army Industrial College, and has the educational equivalent to the
National War College; has been awarded the Distinguished Service Medal with
one oak-leaf cluster, the Legion of Merit, the Bronze Star Medal, and the Com-
mendation Ribbon with metal pendant; served in the Pacific during the last
ARMY PERSONNEL ACTIONS RELATING TO IRVING PERESS 59
few months of World War II and in the Far East during the Korean conflict ;
and has a top secret security clearance.
GGG. Maj. Gen. Miller B. White : General White has completed over 18 years
of active military service and 1.5 years of nonactive service ; is a graduate of the
Command and General Staff School ; has been awarded the Distinguished Service
Medal with Oak Leaf Cluster and the Purple Heart ; served as director of per-
sonnel, War Department General Staff and also in the Mediterranean Theater
during World War II ; and has a top secret security clearance.
HHH. Lt. Col. Eric E. Winn : Lieutenant Colonel Winn had completed over
29 years of active military service at the time of his retirement on September
30, 1954 ; is a graduate of the Counterintelligence Corps School and the Strategic
Intelligence School ; served in Europe during World War II and in the Far East
during the latter part of the Korean conflict; and had a top secret security
clearance at the time of his retirement.
III. Maj. Gen. Robert N. Young: General Young has completed over 31 years
of active military service; is a graduate of the Command and General Staff
School and has the educational equivalent to the National War College; has
been awarded the Distinguished Service Medal with one Oak Leaf Cluster, the
Silver Star for gallantry in action in France on January 30, 1045, the Legion of
Merit, the Bronze Star Medal with one Oak Leaf Cluster, and the Purple Heart;
served in Europe during World War II and commanded the 2d Infantry Division
in Korea ; and has a top secret security clearance.
JJJ. Brig. Gen. Ralph W. Zwicker : General Zwicker has completed over 27
years of active military service ; he is a graduate of the United States Military
Academy, the Naval War College, and the National War College; he has been
awarded the Silver Star for gallantry in action on the coast of Normandy on
June 6, 1944, the Legion of Merit with Oak Leaf Cluster, the Bronze Star INIedal
with two Oak Leaf Clusters, and the Commendation Ribbon with metal pendant;
he commanded an infantry regiment in combat during World War II and was
later made chief of staff of one of the infantry divisions in Europe ; and he has a
top secret security clearance.
EXHIBITS
Exhibit No. 2
HEADQUAKTHnJS,
Office of the Dental Surgeon,
Camp Kilmer, New Jersey, 9 Srptemler 195S.
AHDSH.
Subject : Determination of Authorized Grade of Dental OflBcer.
To : Adjutant General, Department of the Army, Washington 25, D. C.
Thru: Channels.
1. In accordance with Sec. 3 of Public Law No. 84 of the 83d Congress, Depart-
ment of the Army Bulletin No. 8, dated July 1953, request determination of my
eligibility for promotion to the grade of Major.
2. My qualifications are as follows :
a. Graduate of New York University Dental School June 1940.
b. Licensed to practice in New York State, August 1940.
c. Private practice in New York September 1940 to 1 January 1953.
d. Entered Active Duty 1 January 1953 in Priority III under the Doctor
Draft Law for which group the cut-off date in determining experience is
1 July 1952.
e. Date of Rank as Captain : 7 October 1952.
Irving Peress,
Captain, DC, 0-18936^3.
AHDSH. Istlnd. Col. R. F. Leverich/gY/309
Hqs. Office of the Dental Surgeon, Camp Kilmer, New Jersey, 9 September 1953.
To : Commanding General, Camp Kilmer, New Brunswick, New Jersey.
Forwarded for necessary action.
RuLUFF F. Leverich,
Colonel, DC, Dental Surgeon.
60 ARMY PERSONNEL ACTIONS RELATING TO IRVING PERESS
AHDAG-MP-201-Peress, Irving (O) 2nd Ind CWO LaMarca/mms/2094
O 1893 643 (9 Sep)
Subject : Determination of Authorized Grade of Dental Officer
Headquarters Camp Kilmer, New Brunswick, New Jersey, 10 September 1953
To: Commanding General, First Army, Governors Island, New York 4, N. Y.
Forwarded for determination.
Foe the Commanding General :
J. T. La Mabca,
CWO, USA, Asst Adj Gen.
September 23, 1953.
AHFMS-PP 201 (9 Sep 53) 3rd Ind
Peress, Irving
Headquarters First Army, Governors Island, New York 4, N. Y.
To: The Adjutant General, Department of the Army, Washington 25, D. 0.
Attn: AGPR-A.
1. Attention is invited to the basic communication from Capt. Irving Peress,^
01893643, who was commissioned in the DC, USAR, by letter this headquarters,
dated 7 October 1952, and was accepted by him on 15 October 1952.
2. Available information indicates that Dr. Peress possessed the minimum
of 11 years of qualifying dental professional experience prescribed for appoint-
ment in the grade of major and that his original appointment in the grade of
captain was in error.
3. Capt. Peress was ordered into the active military service effective 1 January
1953 per paragraph 7, SO 221 this headquarters, dated 10 November 1952 and
assigned to the Medical Field Service School, Brooke Army Medical Center, Fort
Sam Houston, Texas.
4. Recommend action be initiated to reappoint Capt. Peress in the grade of
major in accordance with eligibility requirements set forth in SR 140-105-6 and
SR 140-105-9.
5. It is requested that this headquarters be advised of the action taken in this
case.
For the Commanding General :
1 Incl.
added :
Incl 1-DD Form 390.
L. Dude,
Captain, AGO, Asst AG.
Suspense
Date: 23 Oct. 53.
AGPR-A 201 Peress, Irving 4th Ind
0 1893 643 (9 Sep 53)
Subject : Determination of Authorized Grade of Dental Officer.
DA, TAGO, Washington 25, D. C, 2 October 1953.
To : Commanding General, First Army, Governors Island, New York 4, N. Y.
Prior to further evalution in this case, desire compliance with letter this office
dated 22 September 1953, copy inclosed.
By order of the Secretary op the Army :
2 Incls
Added 1 Incl
2. Cy Itr 22 Sep 53
W. James,
Adjutant General.
16 Oct. 1953.
AHFAG-RF (PR) 201-R Peress, Irving 5th Ind
9 Sep 53
Headquarters First Army, Governors Island, New York 4, N. Y.
To : The Adjutant General, Department of the Army, Washington 25, D. C.
Attn : AGPR-A. , ^ .
Letter referred to in preceding indorsement was forwarded to your office oy
1st Indorsement on 10 October 1953.
For the Commanding General :
Albert R. Sushko,
Captain, AGC, Asst. AG.
3 Incl
Added 1 Incl
3. Cy 1st Ind d/10 Oct 53
ARMl^ PERSONNEL ACTIONS RELATESTG TO IRVING PERESS 61
Exhibit No. 4
List of Individuals Interviewed by the Inspector General in the Case
OF Irving Peress
Anders, Lt. Col. James D., 033475, GS, Chief, Disposition Section, Personnel
Security Branch, Security Division, ACof S, G-2.
Babcock, Lt. Col. Bernard E., AGC, 044018, TAGO, Chief, Appointments and Pro-
motions Section, Reserve Branch, Personnel Division.
Barclay, Col. Gordon L., 02691, AGC, Chief, Reserve Branch, Personnel Division,
TAG.
Bennett, Col. Curtis Hargrave, 041821, AGC, Chief of AGRF Division, Hq. First
Army, Governors Island, New^ York.
Brown, Lt. Col. Chester T., 0231573, GS, ACofS, G-2 Camp Kilmer, N. J.
Clegg, Lt. Col. William J., Jr., 037542, MSC, Medical Section, Hq. First Army,
Governors Island, N. Y.
Dolson, Maj. James F., 02047972, Medical Service Corps., Special Projects
Branch, Personnel Division, OTSG, Department of the Army.
Glattly, Col. Harold W., 016C67, MC, Chief, Personnel Division, OTSG, Main
Navy Building, Department of the Army.
Hess, Lt. Col. Buie, 042379, Chief, Officers Separation Section, TAGO.
Huckins, Col. Joseph, 0183637, CO, 108th CIC Detachment, 42 Broadway, New
York City, N. Y.
Hyde, Lt. Col. Emery E., 051576, Chief, Management Branch, Reserve Compo-
nents Division, GS, ACof S, G-1, Department of the Army.
Kirkland, Maj. Curtis R., 01686256, AGC, Casual Patient, 1264th ASU, Camp
Kilmer, N. J.
LaMarka, CWO Joseph T., W-2105509, Asst. AG, Hq, Camp Kilmer, N. J.
Leverich, Col. Ruluff F., 0268528, DC, 1264th ASU, Camp Kilmer, N. J.
McKenzie, Maj. Vernon, 0164205, MSC, Asst. Chief, Special Projects Branch,
Personnel Division, OTSG, Main Navy Building, DA.
Moore, Lt. Col. George B., 023804, Action Officer, Personnel Actions Branch,
ACof S G-1, Department of the Army.
Perry, Col. Willis A., 018131, Arty. Office, ACofS, G-2, Department of the Army.
Pretty man, Maj. William O., Jr., 038549, Medical Service Corps, Personnel Ac-
tions Branch, Personnel Division, OTSG, DA.
Robichaud, Capt. Albert, 02045268, Personnel Actions Branch, Personnel Secu-
rity Division, G-2, Hq First Army, Governors Island, N. Y.
Roe, Col. William W., Jr., 019675, MC, OASD (Health and Medical), Pentagon.
Smith, Lt. Col. Robert Bruce, 046421, GS, Procurement Branch, G-1, Depart-
ment of the Army.
Stambaugh, Maj. Willard E., 01315.512, Inf., USAR, OTIG, Fitzsimons Army
Hospital, Denver, Colorado.
Stearns, Col. Joseph E., 018791, Inf. (Chief, Personnel Security Branch, Security
Division, Office, ACofS, G-2, DA.
Thomas, Lt. Col. Ronald F., 0256720, 5th Company, 1st Student Training Regi-
ment, Fort Benning, Georgia.
Thurston, Lt. Col. Clair H., 031453, GS, Action Officer, Personnel Actions Branch,
G-1. DA.
Wansboro, Col. William P., 021241, GS, Chief, Reserve Components Division,
Office, ACofS, G-1.
Woodman, Col. Ned H., 029622, Chief, Personnel Actions Branch, TAGO.
Zwicker, Brig. Gen. Ralph W., 016878, USA, CG, Camp Kilmer, N. J.
BOSTON PUBLIC LIBRARY
3 9999 05445 3921
COmSE Of ARMY SEO^R/TY ACTfON 0/\/ mm ^£R£$S
OCTOBER. 1952 TO FEBRUARY, 1954
OCT NOV DEC
1952
JAN FEB MAR APR AAAY JUM JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC JAN FEB
m3
'54
r
-r^in
Rr'
rc^-^ )^=^/
ARMY PERSONNEL ACTIONS RELATING
TO IRVING PERESS
HEARING
BEFORE THE
PERMANENT
SUBCOMMITTEE ON INVESTIGATIONS
OF THE
COMMITTEE ON
GOVERNMENT OPERATIONS
UNITED STATES SENATE
EIGHTY-FOURTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
PART 2
MARCH 16, 1955
Printed for the use of the Committee on Government Operations
UNITED STATES
GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
WASHINGTON : 1955
f
Boston Public Library "
iperintendent of Documents
MAY 1 8 1955
COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT OPERATIONS
JOHN L. McCLELLAN, Arkansas, Chairman
HENRY M. JACKSON, Washington
JOHN F. KENNEDY. Massachusetts
STUAUT SYMINGTON, Missouri
SAMUEL J. ERVIN, Jr., North Carolina
HUBERT H. HUMPHREY, Minnesota
STROM THURMOND, South Carolina
JOSEPH R. MCCARTHY, Wisconsin
KARL E. MUNDT. South Dakota
MARGARET CHASE SMITH, Maine
NORRIS COTTON. New Hampshire
GEORGE H. BENDER, Ohio
THOMAS E. MARTIN, Iowa
Walter L. Reynolds, Chief Clerk
Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations
JOHN L. McCLELLAN, Arkansas, Chairman
HENRY M. JACKSON, Washington JOSEPH R. MCCARTHY, Wisconsin
STUART SYMINGTON, Missouri KARL E. MUNDT, South Dakota
SAMUEL J. ERVIN, Jr., North Carolina GEORGE H. BENDER, Ohio
ROBERT P. Kennedy, Chief Counsel
Donald F. O'Donnell, Assistant Chief Counsel
James N. Juliana, Chief Counsel to the Minority
n
CONTENTS
Page
Appendix 151
Testimony of —
Anders, Lt. Col. James D 138
Kirkland, Curtis R 63
Prettvman, Maj. William O., Jr 86
Stambaugh, Willard B 96
Thomas, Lt. Col. Ronald F •_ 108
EXHIBITS Intro-
duced Appears
5. DA Form 71, Oath of Office, Military Personnel, signed by on page on page
Irving Peress, October 15, 1952 65 (*)
6. DD Form 398, Statement of Personal History, signed bv Irving
Peress, October 28, 1952 ■__! 67 (*)
7. DD Form 98, Loyalty Certificate for Personnel of the Armed
Forces, signed by Irving Peress, October 28, 1952. DD Form
98A, list of subversive organizations on Adjutant General's
list 68 (*)
8. Memorandum from Lt. Col. John F. T. Murray to Gen. C. C.
Fenn, March 4, 1955 75 151
9. Board summary sheet, concerning deferment from overseas as-
signment of Irving Peress, recorded by Maj. W. O. Pretty-
man, Jr., Office of the Surgeon General, March 9, 1953 88 151
10. Letter from Irving Peress to Adjutant General, February 27,
1953 88 152
11. Letter from Dr. Max Gruenthal, New York, N. Y., to whom it
may concern, January 24, 1953 88 152
12. Letter from Dr. Edward M. Bernecker, New York, N. Y., to
whom it may concern, February 17, 1953 89 153
13. Telegram from Lt. Alfred M. Gade, AGC, Assistant Adjutant
General, to American Field Division, American Red Cross,
Fort Lewis, Wash., February 26, 1953 89 (*)
14. Status card, Iving Peress, maintained in office of Surgeon Gen-
eral, Pentagon, Washington, D. C 90 (*)
15. Disposition form requesting that Irving Peress furnish 3
additional copies of form 398 and 1 copy of fingerprint card,
December 1, 1952 97 153
16. Memorandum from Captain Phelan, Personnel Actions Branch,
to Investigations Branch, Counter Intelligence Division,
February 5, 1953 113 153
17. Memorandum from G-2 to Medical Section, First Army, and to
AG-RF file, February 5, 1953, and reply from Medical Sec-
tion, First Army, to AG-RF, February 6, 1953 114 154
18. Letter from Headquarters, First Army, Office of Commanding
General to Lt. Col. Ronald F. Thomas, United States Army,
June 30, 1954; subject: Administrative Admonition; also
five additional pieces of correspondence on same subject,
dated respectively July 22, 1954; August 6, 1954, August 9,
1954; August 23,'l954, and October 26, 1954 120 155
19. Letter from Office of Adjutant General, Department of the
Army, to Commanding General, First Army, May 12, 1954- _ 121 357
20. Memorandum from Lt. Col. John F. T. Murray to Gen. C. C.
Fenn, March 11, 1955 130 158
♦May be found in the files of the subcommittee.
IV CONTENTS
Intro-
duced Appears
on page on page
'21. Documents pertaining to the transfers of Irving Peress, dated
respectively: February 5, 1953 (4 documents); March 9
1953; March 24, 1953; March 27, 1953 (2 documents) 137 (*)
22. Documents relating to report on investigation of Irving Peress,
dated respectively: April 28, 1953; April 30, 1953; May 25,
1953; June 15, 1953; July 7, 1953; July 15, 1953; August 10,
1953; August 20, 1953; September 2, 1953; September 10,
1953 139 (*)
23. Interrogatory, signed by Irving Peress, Camp Kilmer, N. J.,
August 25, 1953 145 (*)
• May be found in the files of the subcommittee.
AEMY PERSONNEL ACTIONS EELATING TO
IRVING PERESS
WEDNESDAY, MARCH 16, 1955
United States Senate,
Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations
OF the Committee on Go^^:RNMENT Operations,
Washington^ D. C.
The subcommittee met at 10 a. m., i)iirsuant to recess, in room 357
of the Senate Office Building, Senator John L. McClellan (chairman
of the subcommittee) presiding.
Present : Senators John L. McClellan (Democrat) , Arkansas, Henry
M. Jackson (Democrat), Washington, Stuart Symington (Democrat),
Missouri, Sam J. Ervin, Jr. (Democrat), North Carolina, Joseph K-.
McCarthy (Republican), Wisconsin, Karl E. Mundt (Republican),
South Dakota, George H. Bender (Republican), Ohio.
Present also : Robert F. Kennedy, chief counsel, Donald F. O'Don-
nell, chief assistant counsel, James N. Juliana, chief counsel to the
minority, J. Fred McClerkin, legal research analyst, Paul J. Tierney,
investigator, Ruth Y. Watt, chief clerk.
The Chairman. The committee will come to order.
(Senators McClellan and McCarthy are present.)
The Chairman. I believe yesterday we had Major Van Sickle who
returned today and it may be during the day that we will want to
recall him to the stand, but we will begin this morning by calling
Maj. Curtis R. Kirkland. Will you come around, please.
Hold up your right hand and be sworn. Do you solemnly swear
that the evidence you shall give before this investigating committee
shall be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so
help you God ?
Mr. Kirkland. I do.
TESTIMONY OF CURTIS R. KIRKLAND
The Chairman, Mr. Kirkland, you are no longer in the service,
and I understood that Governor Brucker was only representing those
who are in the service ; is that correct. Governor ?
Mr. Brucker. Yes, he is a committee witness, as I understand it,
Senator.
The Chairiman. I think all of them are committee witnesses.
Mr. Brucker. But I mean as such he is not Army personnel ; and
he is out of the Army completely.
The Chairman. Then you do not represent Mr. Kirkland ?
Mr. Brucker. I cannot represent him unless, of course, the com-
mittee would want me to. If you want me to I will.
63
64 ARMY PERSONNEL ACTIONS RELATING TO IRVING PERESS
The Chairman. I am not asking anyone to represent anyone.
Mr. Brucker. My answer is no.
The Chairman. I just wanted to know how to advise the witness,
that is all.
Mr. Brucker. I do not.
The Chairman. Mr. Kirkland, do you have an attorney to repre-
sent you ?
Mr, Kirkland. I do not, sir.
The Chairman. Do you desire counsel ?
Mr. Kirkland. No, sir ; I don't feel that I need counsel.
The Chairman. Then you are ready to proceed ?
Mr. Kirkland. Yes, sir.
The Chairman. All right, Mr. O'Donnell, you may proceed.
Mr. O'Donnell. Will you state your full name, Mr. Kirkland, and
your address, please ?
Mr. Kirkland. Curtis R. Kirkland, 8074 Oak wood Street, Jack-
sonville, Fla.
Mr. O^Donnell. Am I correct in stating that from March of 1952
until October of 1953 you were in the Army, with the rank of captain,
and you held the position of Chief of the Procurement Branch of the
Eeserve Forces Division of the AG Office at First Army, New York?
Mr, Kirkland. That is true; I was promoted during that period,
though, to grade of major,
Mr. O'Donnell. The responsibility of your office was to process
all applications for commissions from the Reserve and papers related
thereto ; is that correct ?
Mr, Kirkland, That is true, and I would like to clarify that a
little bit. The Medical Section did a great deal of processing on the
doctor-draft people before I saw certain papers. However, on all
other applicants I did all of the processing,
Mr, O'Donnell, You processed all applicants with regard to direct
commissions with the exception of doctors, where you only processed
part of the papers in connection therewith ; is that correct ?
Mr, Kirkland, That is true ; yes,
Mr, O'Donnell, Yesterday we had testimony from Major Van
Sickle, who was in the Medical Section at First Army. Your branch
was separate and distinct from his Medical Section; is that correct?
Mr, Kirkland, Yes, sir,
Mr, O'Donnell, His responsibility, or his section's responsibility,
insofar as those coming in under the doctors' draft, was processing up
to the point of the appointment and thereafter having called to active
duty the individuals ; is that correct ?
Mr, Kirkland, That is true,
(At this point Senator Ervin entered the room,)
Mr, O'Donnell, Up to the point of the appointment, did your
branch appear in the processing of any forms for those coming in
under the Doctors' Draft Act ?
Mr, Kirkland, Up to the point of appointment.
(At this point Senator Bender entered the room,)
Mr, O'Donnell, Did you, as a result of notification from Captain
Van Sickle in the Medical Section, issue a letter of appointment to
Irving Peress as captain ?
Mr. Kirkland. Yes, sir.
ARMY PERSONNEL ACTIONS RELATING TO IRVING PERESS 65
Mr. O'DoNNELL. Was the date of your letter of appointment Octo-
ber 7, 1952 ?
Mr. KiRKLAND. That is correct, sir.
Mr. O'DoNNELL. In your entire branch, how many people did you
have under your supervision handling all types of cases ?
Mr. KiRKLAND. About 15.
Mr. O'DoNNELL. Normally how many people in your unit were
assigned to processing papers relating only to the doctors' draft ?
Mr. KiRKLAND. Not more than two at one time — at any one time.
Mr. O'DoNNELL. Normally would there be only one?
Mr. KiRKLAND. Normally only one ; yes.
Mr. O'DoNNELL. After you issued the letter of appointment, did
Irving Peress become a captain and did he execute an oath in connec-
tion therewith, Mr. Kirkland?
Mr. KiRKi^^ND. He did, sir.
Mr. O'DoNNELL. I would like to hand you this document, Mr. Kirk-
land, and will you please identify that document?
(A document was handed to the witness.)
Mr. KiRKLAND. This is DA Form 71, oath of office, military per-
sonnel. This is executed by Irving Peress, at New York, on the 15th
day of October 1952, and notarized by Ella Keiner, notary public in
the State of New York.
Mr. O'DoNNELL. That was an oath of office for the rank of captain?
Mr. KiRKLAND. For the rank of captain ; yes, sir.
Mr. O'DoNNELL. Mr. Chairman, I would like to have that identified
and entered as an exhibit in the record.
The Chairman. It will be entered as exhibit No. 5.
(Exhibit No. 5 will be found in the files of the subcommittee.)
Mr. O'DoNNELL. Is it correct to say, Mr. Kirkland, that your branch
was primarily responsible for examining various forms for complete-
ness only?
Mr. Kirkland. That is true, sir.
Mr. O'DoNNELL. Did you have anything to do with making deci-
sions as to evaluating the forms?
Mr. Kirkland. No, sir.
Mr. O'DoNNELL. You were in effect merely a paper-transmittal
agency ; is that correct ?
Mr. Kirkland. That is true, sir.
Mr. O'DoNNELL. After Mr. Peress became commissioned, did you
handle other forms in connection with his entrance into the Army ?
Mr. KiRKL.\ND. After he was commissioned, you mean? Yes, sir.
Mr. O'DoNNELL. Did your branch have anything to do with calling
him on active duty ?
Mr. Kirkland. No, sir.
Mr. O'DoNNELL. Was that the responsibility and action of the medi-
cal section of which Captain Van Sickle was a member?
Mr. Kirkland. It was strictly between the medical section and the
AG orders branch.
Mr. O'DoNNELL. At the time that Irving Peress executed his oath
of office did he, in fact, execute his loyalty oath, which is form 98 and
98-A ; and did he, in fact, execute his personal security questionnaire,
which is form DD-398?
Mr. Kirkland. He did not.
66 ARMY PERSONNEL ACTIONS RELATING TO IRVING PERESS
Mr. O'DoNNELL. Wliy had he not executed those forms prior to
beino; commissioned?
Mr. KiRKLAND. The procedure outlined by the Army regulations
did not provide for executing those papers along at the same time
as the other.
Mr. O'DoNNELL. Then he could have executed those papers after
he, in fact, became commissioned a captain; is that true?
Mr. KiRKLAND. That is true, sir.
Mr. O'DoNNELL. That is what happened in this case?
Mr. KiRKLAND. Yes, sir.
Mr. O'DoNNELL. I would like to have you look at this document,
Mr. Kirkland.
(A document was handed to the witness.)
Mr. O'DoNNELL. Will you please identify that document you have
before you ?
Mr. KiRKLAND. This is DD Form 398, Statement of Personal His-
tory, in the case of Irving Peress, signed by Irving Peress, and wit-
nessed on October 28, 1952, by Henry Getzoff.
Mr. O'DoNNELL. Will you look at that page carefully ? It is wit-
nessed October 28, 1952, by whom ?
Mr. KiRiiLAND. It was originally witnessed by Irving Peress him-
self.
Mr. O'DoNNELL. He had witnessed his own signature on this par-
ticular statement. Is that correct?
Mr. KiRKLAND. That is right.
Senator McCarthy. "Wliat is that ?
Mr. O'DoNNELL. He had witnessed his own signature on a personal
security statement which he had submitted which contained security
information.
I call your attention to what would be page 3 of the photostat of the
document before you, Mr. Kirkland, and does this question appear
thereon :
Are you now or have you ever been a member of tbe Communist Party, USA,
or any Communist organization?
Mr. KiRKLiVND. It does appear.
Mr. O'DoNNELL. Will you kindly read the answer?
Mr. KiRKLAND (reading) :
Federal constitutional privileges claimed.
Mr. O'DoNNELL. Does the next question appear as follows :
Are you now or have you ever been a member of a Fascist organization?
Mr. KiRKLAND. The answer ?
Mr. O'DoNNELL. The answer, please. First excuse me. Does that
question appear thereon ?
Mr. KiRKLAND. It does.
]Mr. O'DoNNELL. Will you kindly read the answer ?
Mr. KiRKLAND (reading) :
Federal constitutional privileges claimed.
Mr. O'DoNNELL. Does this question next appear thereon :
Are you now or have you ever been a member of any organization, association,
movement, group, or combination of persons which advocates the overthrow of
our constitutional form of government or of any organization, association, move-
ARMY PERSONNEL ACTIONS RELATING TO IRVING PERESS 67
ment, group, or combination of persons which has adopted the policy of advo-
cating or approving the commission of acts of force or violence to deny other
persons their rights under the Constitution of the United States, or of seeking to
alter the form of government of the United States by unconstitutional means V
Mr. KiRKLAND. The answer is the same.
Mr. O'DoNNELL. Will you kindly read the answer?
Mr, KiKKLAND (reading) :
Federal constitutional privileges claimed.
Mr. O'DoNNELL. Mr. Chairman, may I have the docmnent, photo-
static copy of which has been identified, made a part of the record ?
The CiiAiRMAX. It will be made exhibit 6.
(Exhibit No. G may be found in the files of the subcommittee.)
Mr. O'DoxNELL. Mr. Kirkland, I am passing to you a photostatic
cojiy of another document.
(Document handed to the witness.)
Mr. O'DoxNEix. Will you please identify the photostat of the docu-
ment that you have in front of you ?
Mr. Kirkland. This is DD Form 98, Loyalty Certificate for Per-
sonnel of the Armed Forces.
Mr. O'DoNNELL. Consisting of how many photostatic pages?
Mr. Kirkland. There are two on the form 98.
Mr. O'DoNNELL. Is there another document there also?
Mr. Kirkland. The attached copy is DD Form 98-A, consisting of
one page.
Mr. O'DoNNELL. Will you identify both documents because they
relate to one another?
Mr. Kirkland. They are related; yes, sir.
Mr. O'DoNNELL. Will you identify them in detail ?
Mr. Kirkland. The form 98-A, I believe I identified as 98, that is
a Loyalty Certificate for Personnel of the Armed Forces. In the case
of Irving Peress, it was executed on the 28th of October 1952, by
C. F. Lyon, I believe it is.
Mr. O'DoNNELL. Executed by whom ?
Mr. Kirkland. I believe it is Lyon, C. F. Lyon, witnessed by Lyon.
Mr. O'DoNNELL. Witnessed by Lyon and executed by whom ?
Mr. Kirkland. Peress, Irving Peress.
Mr. O'DoNNELL. On page 2 of the document which has attached
thereto form 98-A, which is a list of various organizations, question
No. 4, if you will look at it please, states :
I have entered in the table below the names of the organizations shown on the
attached sheet list with which I am or have been associated in any of the
following aspects:
(a) I am or have been a member.
( & ) I am or have been employed.
(c) I have attended or been present at formal or informal meetings or
gatherings.
id) I have attended or been present at or engaged in organizational or social
activities or activities which they sponsor.
(e) I have sold, given away, or distributed written, printed, or otherwise
recorded matters published by them.
(/) I have been identified or associated in some other manner.
Will you read what appears as an answer under the name of organ-
ization ?
Mr. KliRKLAND (reading) :
Federal constitutional privilege is claimed.
68 ARMY PERSONNEL ACTIONS RELATING TO IRVING PERESS
Mr. O'DONNELL. Following down on that same page appears these
words :
Statement as to certification of membership in or association witla certain
organizations —
and in parenthesis :
(For eacli name entered in the table above, set forth a detailed account of the
nature and extent of association with and activities in connection with each
organization indicated, including dates, places, and precise description of cre-
dentials now or formerly held. Use the space provided below and attach as
many extra sheets as necessary for this purpose.)
Will you read what appears under that particular question?
Mr. IviRKLAND (reading) :
Federal constitutional privilege claimed.
Mr. O'DoNNELL. Mr. Chairman, I would like to have identified for
the record and submitted therewith, this which will be exhibit 7.
The Chairman. It may be submitted for the record as exhibit 7.
(Exhibit No. 7 may be found in the files of the subcommittee.)
The Chairman. May we clarify this a little. I understand the
first form that the doctor submitted, he witnessed himself. Is that
correct ?
Mr. KiRKLAND. Yes, sir.
The Chairman. That is Form 398, is that correct ?
Mr. KiRKLAND. Yes, sir.
The Chairman. You returned it to him and requested, or you sent
him another form, and requested that he fill it out and have it witnessed
by someone else ?
Mr. KiRKLAND. The same form was returned.
The Chairman. The same form was returned ?
Mr. KiRKLAND. Yes, sir.
The Chairman. With the request that he have it witnessed by some-
one else ?
Mr. KiRKLAND. Yes, sir.
The Chairman. Then it was returned witnessed by a Mr. Lyon.
It was witnessed by Mr. Getzoff. I thought it was on this one that
Mr. Lyon was the witness.
Mr. O'DoNNELL. On the Form 398 which was executed on October
28, 1952, could you tell us when that form was returned to Irving
Peress because he had self -witnessed it? Was that on November 14?
Mr. KiRKLAND. I believe it was on November 14. I do not have a
copy of that particular letter.
Mr. O'DoNNELL. What happened with the Form 398 between the
time it was executed on October 28, and the time it was returned to
Peress for correct execution on November 14?
Mr. KiRKLAND. Will you repeat that question again, please.
Mr. O'DoNNELL. Will the recorder please read that question again ?
(Question read by reporter.)
Mr. KiRKLAND. The October 28 date, I believe was the date he exe-
cuted it. Am I not right on that ?
Now, the date it was received into my place, I don't believe there
is a record on that : I cannot, therefore, explain just where the paper
was.
Mr. O'DoNNELL. Would November 14 be the first date it was
brought to your attention?
ARMY PERSONNEL ACTIONS RELATING TO IRVING PERESS 69
Mr. KiRKLAND. It is quite possibly so.
Mr. O'DoNNELL. So where this particular form was, or when it
came into your particular branch, cannot be determined. Is that
correct ?
Mr. KiRKLAND. That is right, sir.
Mr. O'DoNNELL. But we do know it was there on the 14th of No-
vember because it was returned to Peress?
Mr. KiRKLAND. Yes.
Mr. O'DoNNELL. Is that correct ?
Mr. KiRKLAND. Yes.
Mr. O'DoNNELL. That came back from Peress and it contained a
witness by one Henry Getzoff, dated November 19, 1952. Is that
correct ?
Mr. KiRKLAND. Eight, sir.
Mr. O'DoNNELL. This particular 398 bears a stamp appearing
thereon, dated November 20, 1952, showing receipt in the Reserve
Forces Division. Is that correct?
Mr. KiRKLAND. That is right.
Mr. O'DoNNELL. Normally what happens to Forms 398, 98, and
98-A, which arrive in your unit, and have been found to be correct
as to completeness ?
Mr. KiRKLAND. They are referred to G-2, that is the intelligence
branch, or intelligence section, for G-2 clearance.
Mr. O'DoNNELL. That is all forms 398, regardless of the answers
appearing thereon, are forwarded to G-2 ?
Mr. KiRKLAND. All three forms 98.
Mr. O'DoNNELL. All 98 and 98-A forms are likewise forwarded to
G-2 regardless of the answers appearing thereon ?
Mr. KiRKLAND. If I recall correctly, and after discussion in the
Pentagon yesterday, I believe that the 98 and 98-A forms were sent
over only in cases where there were discrepancies, or detrimental
entries, rather.
Mr. O'DoNNELL. Now, when the staff first interviewed you on Feb-
ruary 25, 1955, you were firm in a statement that as a matter of policy
in your office all forms 398, 98, and 98-A were forwarded to G-2
regardless of the answers appearing thereon. Is that right?
Mr. KiRKLAND. That is true ; but I was not under oath, and I wasn't
as sure as I might have sounded ; but I checked yesterday over in the
Pentagon in a conversation, and my memory was refreshed to the
extent that I believe they were only sent over in cases where there
were bad entries on them, or the fifth amendment was claimed.
Mr. O'DoNNELL. So your answer today is that the 98 and 98-A
forms were only sent over if there was unfavorable security informa-
tion such as the fifth amendment ?
Mr. KiRKLAND. That is true.
Mr. O'DoNNELL. Whereas 398 forms were sent over in every case?
Mr. KiRKLAND. In every case ; yes.
Mr. O'DoNNELL, Did your office maintain any type of flagging pro-
cedure for the benefit of G-2 in processing any of these forms which
were sent over ?
Mr. KiRKLAND. We had only a suspense file.
Mr. O'DoNNELL. Let me rephrase the question, Mr. Kirkland. Did
you transmit these 98 and/or 398 forms to G-2 individually by a trans-
mittal slip, or did you transmit them in groups?
70 ARMY PERSONNEL ACTIONS RELATING TO IRVING PERESS
Mr. KiRKLAND. We tried to send them over in groups, on a dispo-
sition form.
Mr, O'DoNNELL. This disposition form is, in effect, a memorandum
of transmittal. Is that correct ?
Mr. KiRKLAND. For interoffice communications ; yes.
Mr. O'DoNNELL. In the event a fifth amendment appeared on any
form, did you, as a matter of office policy, point out in this disposition
form or transmittal sheet the fact that one of the individuals had
security information of a form which G-2 should know about ?
Mr. KiRKLAND, I had instructed my clerks to do so.
Mr, O'DoNNELL. That was in every case where security information
appeared on the form ?
Mr. KiRKLAND. I made an effort to do so in every case.
Mr. O'DoNNELL. Do you have any recollection as to whether or not
it was done in the Peress case ?
Mr. KiRKLAND. I don't believe it was, sir.
Senator McCarthy. Why not ?
Mr. KiRKLAND. It was a fault in the beginning of the clerk, sir. I
had as many as 300 routine papers pass over my desk, and I just
couldn't screen every form and paper that passed over.
Senator McCarthy. How do you know now that that wasn't
flagged ?
Mr. KiRKLAND. Sir
Senator McCarthy. How do you know at this date that you did
not have a memo on that ? Did you see the memo, and how do you
know ?
Mr. KiRKLAND. I don't believe I have seen one, sir.
Senator McCarthy. How do you know then that it wasn't flagged?
Mr. KiRKLAND. I don't know, sir. I said I didn't believe there was
such a one.
Senator McCarthy. On what do you base that belief? You said
you didn't see the memo, and you do not know. You just got through
telling the counsel you did not think it was flagged.
Mr. KiRKLAND. That is why I don't believe there was one, and I
didn't see one. There doesn't seem to be one of record, sir.
Senator McCarthy. That is all.
Mr. O'DoNNELL. Normally, after these forms 398 and/or 98 are
found to be complete, how soon are they forwarded to G-2 ?
Mr. KiRKLAND. We operated on all incoming papers, and tried to
operate on a 24-hour basis. We didn't always live up to it, but we came
very close to it.
Mr. O'DoNNELL. In the case of the 398 that came back from Peress
on November 20 properly witnessed, that normally should have been
sent to G-2 within 1 or 2 days after receipt in your office ?
Mr. KiRKLAND. That is true, sir.
Mr. O'DoNNELL. So that G-2 would have received it about Novem-
ber 22 or November 23 ?
Mr, KiRKLAND. Yes.
Mr. O'DoNNELL. Isn't it a fact that on December 1, 1952, the form
398, which was executed by Peress was returned to you by G-2 by a
Major Stambaugh, with the request that 3 additional copies of it be
obtained, together with 1 copy of a fingerprint card ?
Mr. KiRKLAND. That is correct, sir.
ARMY PERSONNEL ACTIONS RELATING TO IRVING PERESS 71
Mr. O'DoNNELL. That would have meant the original 398 was no^
longer in the possession of G-2 but was sent back to your office. la.
that correct ?
Mr. KiRKLAND. That is right.
Mr. O'DoNNELL. Isn't it true that on January 5, 1953, you sent back
to G-2 four forms 398, which would have been the original, plus the
three additional copies, wdiich had been requested ?
Mr. KiRKLAND. That is true, sir.
Mr. O'DoNNELL. Did you also at that time send a completed finger-
print card to G-2 for their request ?
Mr. KiRKLAND. That is right, sir.
Mr. O'DoNNELL. Did you also at that time include forms 98, and
98-AtoG-2?
Mr. KiRKLAND. That is correct, sir.
Mr. O'DoNNELL. G-2 had not requested specifically 98 and 98-A, at
this time, had they ?
Mr. KiRKLAND. No, sir.
Mr. O'DoNNELL. 98 and 98-A, wliich was executed on October 28^
1952, by Irving Peress, contained the invocation of the Federal consti-
tutional privilege, and this we will recall is the loyalty oath. Why
hadn't the loyalty oath form been sent to G-2 prior to January 5, 1952,
it being noted that Peress was called to active duty on January 1 ?
Mr. KiRKLAND. Mr. O'Donnell, there is a possibility that G-2 had
these forms. There are two possibilities. There it is possible that
they had them and did not list them as inclosures when returned to
my office, and the second possibility is when the 398 came in, improp-
erly witnessed, there two forms being properly witnessed were prob-
ably put into his folder, and when the 398 came in witnessed, or re-
witnessed, the clerk in preparing or sending the 398 to G-2 probably
failed to go to this folder and take out the 98 and 98-A, and send them
over to G-2.
Senator McCarthy. Let me ask you this : You knew, and Van Sickle
Imew, that this was a fifth-amendment Communist before he was called
to active duty. Why did you or Major Van Sickle not take steps ta
have him removed ?
Mr. KiRKLAND. Sir, I won't say that I knew he was a Communist.
I don't recall definite information to the effect that he was a Com-
munist. Being related to me, sir.
Senator McCarthy. Well, the testimony is that all of that informa-
tion was in the file. The testimony of the police officer was that he
graduated from a Communist leadership school. General Zwicker
testified it was all in the file, so you must have known it, didn't you ?
Mr. KiRKLAND. I did not have access to the paper you are now re-
ferring to, sir.
Senator McCarthy. You knew he took the fifth amendment ?
Mr. KiRKLAND, As I said before, in handling so many papers, I
don't believe this particular case was brought to my attention. If I
may add in here, the five cases were handed to me, and I took imme-
diate steps to try to do something about it.
Senator McCarthy, How many fifth-amendment doctors passed
through your office ?
Mr. KiRKLAND. Well, just fifth-amendment cases you mean ?'
Senator McCarthy. Would 30 be the correct figure ?
72 ARMY PERSONNEL ACTIONS RELATING TO IRVING PERESS
Mr. KiRKLAND. That 30 — I believe I said 25 or 30 in my informal
testimony. Those cases were not restricted to fifth-amendment cases.
They were maybe a case where an applicant admitted having attended
a meeting, a Communist meeting, or having been at one time a member
of an organization. The fifth-amendment cases I don't recall exactly.
Senator McCarthy. Did you not tell the staff the other day you
estimated there were 25 or 30 fifth-amendment cases ?
Mr. KiRKLAND. I didn't mean fifth-amendment cases.
Senator McCarthy. Did you not say that, regardless of what you
meant ?
Mr. KiRKLAND. I don't have anything in front of me, and I don't
remember, sir.
Senator McCarthy. You don't remember whether you told the staff
that or not ?
Mr. KiRKLAND. Whether it was fifth amendment, I don't remember
that part of it, sir.
I meant to say 25 or 30 cases where there was some discrepancy in
the loyalty papers. That is what T meant to say.
Senator McCarthy. How many fifth-amendment cases do you say
today ? Plow many security cases ?
Mr. KiRKLAND. I believe six is all I am sure of.
Senator McCarthy. Did you not tell the staff the other day that
there were 25 or 30 security cases passed through your office that you
called to the attention of Van Sickle? Did you not tell them that?
Mr. KiRKLAND. Security — meaning, as I stated, sir — something was
wrong with the loyalty papers, and not just claiming the fifth-amend-
ment privilege.
Senator McCarthy. Had all of the fifth-amendment cases been
disposed of?
Mr. KiRKLAND. Yes, sir. Except the Peress case.
Senator McCarthy. Except the Peress case. One of them admitted
he was a Communist, did he not ?
Mr. KiRKLAND. One of the five, you mean ?
Senator McCarthy. Yes.
Mr. KiRKLAND. If I remember, they all claimed the fifth amend-
ment, and I don't remember
Senator McCarthy. Do you remember one by the name of Thomp-
son who admitted he was a Communist ?
Mr. KiRKLAND. The case you are referring to, sir, I wasn't sure of
the name when I gave that to Mr. O'Donnell, and Mr. Kennedy asked
as late as this morning that that name be withheld because I am not
sure of the name. Neither am I sure that he claimed fifth-amend-
ment privileges.
Senator McCarthy. I am asking you about a man who admittedly
was a Communist and was nevertheless commissioned; the case went
through your office.
Mr. KiRKLAND. There was such a case, sir.
Senator McCarthy. He was commissioned?
Mr. KiRKLAND. Yes, sir.
Senator McCarthy. Can you explain why an admitted Communist
was commissioned? Was it because there was no policy against
that?
ARMY PERSONNEL ACTIONS RELATING TO IRVING PERESS 73
Mr. KiRKLAND. Sir, he was commissioned before the admission.
Senator JMcCarthy. Was he removed as soon as he admitted he was
a Communist ?
Mr. KiRKLAND. To the best of my knowledge, he was not, sir.
Senator McCarthy. He was not. Bo you know why ?
Mr. KiRKLAND. No, sir.
Senator McCarthy. Was there any policy or any Army policy in
regard to these fifth amendment Communists ?
Mr. KiRKLAND. There was none established to my knowledge.
Senator McCarthy. Thank you.
Mr. O'DoNNELL. Mr. Kirkland, getting back for a moment to form
98 and 98-A, you mentioned two possibilities as to why it had not
been sent over to G-2 before January 5, the first being that G-3 may
have forwarded it back to you with this transmittal DF Form on De-
cember 1. If that is the case why did thev not specifically mention
it?
Mr. KiRKLAND. You mean as an enclosure?
Mr. O'DoNNELL. That is right.
Mr. KiRKLAND, Well, I don't know, but that would not eliminate
the possibility. I just mention that as a possibility, and I don't
know.
Mr. O'DoNNELL. Is it not more probable that your second possi-
bility
Mr. KiRKLAND. I will agree with that.
Mr. O'DoNNELL. That your second, namely that it had been in the
files when these forms 398 had come back from Peress on November 20,
and the clerk had failed to find it, and therefore failed to send it over
to G-2?
Mr. KiRKLAND. That is true, sir.
Mr. O'DoNNELL. How did you personally feel about fifth amend-
ments that were coming through on various forms?
Mr. KiRKLAND. Well, in the case the Senator just referred to a
while ago I took it up with some oflicer in G-2, and on that particular
case I expressed the feeling that that officer should not be called to
duty. The answer was that he had not been declared a cut and dried
Communist ; that we could not revoke his orders without sufficient rea-
sons beyond suspicion, and that for him to come on duty would be bet-
ter ; they would know where he is for sure and have him more avail-
able for investigation.
The Chairman. That was your opinion about it?
Mr. KiRKLAND. Yes, in that particular case.
The Chairman. Was that your position, or the position taken by
G-2?
Mr. KiRKLAND. That was my expression to G-2.
The Chairman. You thought it better to bring him on duty?
Mr. KiRKLAND. Oh, no, I am sorry, sir. That was G-2's answer to
me.
The Chairman. That is what I am trying to get.
Mr. KiRKLAND. Yes, sir.
The Chairman. You did take it up with them and that was G-2's
answer to you ; it was better to bring them on duty than it was not
to?
74 ARMY PERSONNEL ACTIONS RELATING TO IRVING PERESS
Mr. KiRKLAND. In other words it was none of my business, but I took
a point to take it up with G-2.
The Chairman. It was G-2's responsibility ?
Mr. KiRKLAND. Yes, sir.
Mr_ O'DoNNELL. In this particular case where the individual had
admitted membership in the Communist Party that you are discussing
right now ?
Mr. KiRKLAND. It was one of the two ; he had admitted it or he had
taken the fifth amendment.
Mr. O'DoNNELL. Do you recall that at any time you discussed with
any G-2 officer at First Army your objection to any fifth amendment
case being called to active duty ?
Mr. KiRKLAND. I referred to these five that were brought out in
yesterday's testimony, and of course the names have been withheld. I
again went beyond my responsibility and took that up with Major
Van Sickle first
Mr. O'DoNNELL. Mr. Kirkland, just a moment, you have not an-
swered my question. The question was did you discuss with any G-2
official at First Army the fact that you personally objected to any
fifth amendments coming on active duty?
Mr. IviRKLAND. I made it clear in the conversation to which I have
just referred ; in the one case, which Senator McCarthy brought out.
Mr. O'DoNNELL. Did the conversation that you had on the indi-
vidual who had admitted membership in the party also embrace those
who had taken the fifth amendment on these forms ?
Mr. KiRKLAND. Kepeat that ; I didn't quite understand it.
Mr. O'DoNNELL. Will the reporter please read it back ?
(Question read by the reporter as above recorded.)
Mr. KiRKLAND. I would say so.
Mr. O'DoNNELL. Could you tell us the name of the official in G-2
with whom you voiced these objections?
Mr. KiRKLAND. I cannot. I think the record will prove there was
a tremendous turnover of personnel in G-2.
Senator McCarthy. I understand it was not your responsibility or
duty to do anything about these cases ; all you could do was to recom-
mend to G-2, and if they did not take action there was nothing further
that you could personally do ?
Mr. KiRKLAND. That is true. And I would like to make clear here
in case there is any doubt or there may be someone that doesn't know,
that G-2 outranks an AG in an Army headquarters. All we can do
is recommend or ask.
Mr. O'DoNNELL. Mr. Kirkland, in effect G-2 told you that your
objections were none of your official business, but it was a matter of
G-2 handling because it was security information ?
Mr. KiRKLAND. That is true, sir.
Mr. O'DoNNELL. Subsequently did you run across any fifth amend-
ment cases on forms clearing through your office ? That is subsequent
to this policy stated to you by G-2 ?
Mr. KiRKLAND. These five cases I believe were after that.
Mr. O'DoNNELL. These are the same five cases that Major Van
Sickle referred to yesterday in his testimony ?
Mr. KiRKLAND. That is true ; yes, sir.
ARMY PERSONNEL ACTIONS RELATING TO IRVING PERESS 75
Mr. O'DoNNELL. I would like to hand you a photostatic copy of a
document that we received from the Army.
(A document was handed to the witness.)
Mr. O'DuxxELL. I will ask you to identify it.
Mr. KiRKLAND. It is an office memorandum to Gen. C. C. Fenn, dated
March 4, 1955.
The Chairman. A little louder, please.
Mr. KiRKLAND. It is an office memorandum, United States Govern-
ment, dated March 4, 1955, to Gen. C. C Fenn from Lt. Col. John
F. T. Murray ; subject : Request for Infoiination.
Mr. O'DoNNELL. Read the lirst part of that particular memo.
Mr. KiRKLAND (reading) :
Pursuant to the request of Mr. O'Donnell or Mr. Kennedy to Major Ivan on
March 2, 1955, the following information is herel)y furnished :
1. Concerning the live cases at First Army that were handled differently than
the Peress case:
and then it goes on to list those.
Mr. O'Donnell. Will you please read what is on that list?
Mr. KiRKLAND. All right. Instead of giving names, they seem to
refer to the officers by alphabetical symbol.
Mr. O'Donnell. Those are five individual officers, and could you
read over in the right-hand corner and tell us what type of discharges,
if any, each officer received ? Taking them in order, please.
Mr. KiRKLAND. The first 2 were honorable, and the other 3 "honor-
able discharge as officer, undesirable discharge from enlisted status."
Mr. O'Donnell. The other 2 are identical. There are 3 wlio re-
ceived honorable discharges, and then as enlisted men undesirable;
is that correct ?
Mr. KiRKLAND. That is right.
Mr. O'Donnell. Now, in column 2 will you kindly read the dates
when they executed their Form 398 ?
Mr. KiRKLAND. The first one was October. 22, 1952; and the second
one October 27, 1952; the next 2 were November 4, 1952; and the last
one, October 1, 1952.
Mr. O'Donnell. Mr. Chairman, may I have that identified as an
exhibit for the record ?
The Chairman. It will be admitted as exhibit 8.
(Exhibit No. 8 appears in the appendix on p. 151.)
Mr. O'Donnell. Now, Mr. Kirkland, the dates when these five exe-
cuted their Form 398 is very similar to the date when Peress exe-
cuted his, and he executed his on October 28 and these dates you have
read are very close to that time. When these five came to your
attention, what did you do ?
Mr. KiRKLAND. If I remember correctly I called Major Van Sickle
on the phone, first, and that was the first action I took. I told him
as much as I could on the telephone about it. We later got together
and recommended or initiated definite action to do something about
revoking their commissions, or having them discharged.
Mr. O'Donnell. You and Van Sickle actually drafted a communi-
cation recommending that these five have their commissions revoked?
]\Ir. KiRKLAND. We did, sir.
Mr. O'Donnell. Did that clear through your superior to AG'
"r. KiRKLAND.
60030— 55— pt. 2-
76 ARMY PERSONNEL ACTIONS RELATING TO IRVING PERESS
Mr. O'DoNNELL. Would, that have gone normally thereafter to
G-2?
Mr. KiRKLAND. G-2, and possibly G-1, too; but G-2 should have
been the first stop.
Mr. O'DoNNELL. Do you know, in fact, that these five did have
their commissions revoked, as a result of the action initiated by you
and Major Van Sickle?
Mr. KiRKLAND. I am confident of that ; yes, sir.
Mr. O'DoNNELL. At the time that Peress' forms came through your
office do you recall notifying Van Sickle in the Medical Section that
he had invoked the Federal constitutional privilege ?
Mr. KiRKLAND. This was on Peress, you mean?
Mr. O'DoNNELL. That is correct.
Mr. KiRKLAND. No, I did not. As I say, I believe that the clerks
did not bring that to my attention in this case. If it had been he would
have been given the same treatment as the other five.
Mr. O'DoNNELL. Now, at the time you talked to the staff on Feb-
ruary 24, it was your recollection that you had discussed the fact
that Peress had taken the fifth amendment with Major Van Sickle; is
that correct?
Mr. KiRKLAND. On what date was that?
Mr. O'DoNNELL. You talked to the staff on February 24?
(At this point Senator Jackson entered the room.)
Mr. KiRKLAND. I wasn't positive.
Mr. O'DoNNELL. Do you recall you told us that you probably did.
Mr. KiRKLAND. I recall that.
Mr. O'DoNNELL. It is now your recollection that you did not?
Mr. KiRKLAND. I am quite positive I did not. I have had oppor-
tunity to talk to Major Van Sickle briefly, and I have a lot of confi-
dence in him and his memory ; and he doesn't recall any such conver-
sation.
Mr. O'DoNNELL. Then your recollection has been refreshed by Major
Van Sickle who testified yesterday that you did not ?
Mr. KiRKLAND. That is right, sir.
(At this point Senator McCarthy left the room.)
Mr. O'DoNNELL. If in fact you had notified Major Van Sickle about
Peress, would he have had his commission revoked before he came on
active duty ?
Mr. KiRKLAND. I am positive action would have been taken to try
to revoke it.
Mr. O'DoNNELL. Now, you have stated that it was not the responsi-
bility of your office to evaluate or make policy decisions, and that G-2i
had in effect told you in cases of this nature that they would handle
it in the normal course of events ?
Mr. KiRKLAND. That is true, sir.
Mr. O'DoNNELL. Now, if you and Major Van Sickle initiated the
machinery on these five fifth-amendment cases resulting in their hay-
ing their commissions revoked, and since you have just stated that if
you had done so in the Peress case you are confident he would have
had his commission revoked before active duty, how come?
Mr. KiRKLAND. I could see no reason why he would be given fa-
voritism in the Department of the Army above the other five.
Mr. O'DoNNELL. Are you saying, Mr. Kirkland, that unless your
unit and/or the Medical Section specifically initiates a recommenda-
AEMY PERSONNEL ACTIONS RELATING TO IRVING PERESS 77
tion that fifth-amendment Communists coming through First Army
should not be commissioned, or their commissions should be revoked
before active duty, that that controls ?
Mr. KiRKLAND. Well
Mr. O'DoNNELL. In the absence of that, they would have come on
active duty ; is that what you are saying ?
Mr. KiRKLAND. These live you are referring to?
Mr. O'DoNNELL. I mean any of them.
Mr. KiRKLAND. Possibly, if we had not taken the action or similar
action in every case that we did in these five.
Mr. O'DoNNELL. Is it not true that G-2 is the responsible agency
with regard to policy, and implementing regulations controlling
security cases in the Army ?
Mr, KiRKLAND. That is true, sir.
Mr. O'DoNNELL. Is it not true that they were responsible in these
five cases ?
Mr. KiRKLAND. Yes, sir.
Mr. O'DoNNELL. And in the absence of you and Van Sickle making
a specific recommendation as to these five, is it your testimony that
G-2 would not have acted to revoke their commissions before they
came on active duty ?
Mr. KiRKLAND. I must say that is my feeling.
Mr. O'DoNNELL. And you feel that if you had initiated the ma-
chinery in the Peress case as you had done in the other five, Peress
also would have had his commission revoked before coming on active
duty?
Mr. KiRKLAND. If G-2 had approved the action we initiated.
Mr. O'DoNNELL. Did G-2 approve the action on these five?
Mr. KiRKLAND. They did approve it ; yes, sir.
The Chairman. You say G-2 did approve the action on the other
five?
Mr. KiRKLAND. Yes, sir.
The Chairman. And that they approved it, you think, because you
initiated it by calling it to their attention; is that correct?
Mr. KiRKLAND. That is true, sir.
The Chairman. Had you not initiated that action, have you any
reason to doubt what the other five, their cases would have pursued
about the same course the Peress case has ?
Mr. KiRKLAND. They possibly would have, sir.
The Chairman. Is there any reason why G-2 could not, and should
not have, having these papers in their files, should not have and could
not have taken the same action with respect to Peress they did to the
other five, without your having recommended it ?
Mr. KiRKLAND. There is no reason why they should not have.
The Chairman. So you may have made an error or an oversight
in failing to call their attention to the Peress case, and to his having
taken the fifth amendment, but notwithstanding you may have made
that oversight, there was no reason for G-2 not to observe these papers
and take the same action they took with respect to the other five in
the case of Peress ; is that correct ?
Mr. KiRKLAND. That is correct, sir.
Senator Bender. You did not have any orders from any higher-up
to protect Dr. Peress, did you ?
Mr. KiRKLAND. No, indeed, sir.
78 ARMY PERSONNEL ACTIONS RELATING TO IRVING PERESS
Senator Bender. Or give him special favor ?
Mr. KiEKLAND. No, sir.
Senator Bender. Wliatever mistake was made in this matter was
yours, and no one else's ; is that correct ?
Mr. KiRKLAND. Well, I will share the administrative error, but as
far as anyone putting pressure to bear in the Peress case to me, that
is out. I don't know Peress or any of his colleagues.
Senator Bender. This was in 1952, was it not ?
Mr. KiRKLAND. Yes, sir.
Senator Bender. President Truman did not give you any order,
did he?
Mr. KiRKLAND. No, sir.
Senator Bender. Or President Eisenhower sinc«?
Mr. KiRKLAND. No.
Mr. O'DoNNELL. On February 5, 1953, by a communication so dated
from G-2, were you not specifically informed that a complaint-type
investigation was being initiated on Peress because he claimed the
Federal constitutional privilege on Forms 98 and 398 ?
Mr. KiRKLAND. There was a disposition form to that effect, and I
believe it went to the Medical Section, the action section first of the
Medical Section.
Mr. O'DoNNELL. But it was not brought to your attention in the
Reserve Forces Division ; is that correct ?
Mr. KiRKLAND. As a second addressee ; yes, I believe.
Mr. O'DoNNELL. On Sepember 9, 1953, as an exhibit introduced
yesterday will show, Peress addressed a letter to the Adjutant General
for grade determination in order that he might be promoted to major.
On page 2 thereof, and I think that you have a copy of it in front of
you, there is a third endorsement dated September 23 recommending
that he be so reappointed to the grade of major. Did you concur in
that recommendation ?
Mr. KiRKLAND. I am quite positive I saw the recommendation and
at the time I concurred in the recommendation.
Mr, O'DoNNELL. At the time this was cleared you had not been
notified by G-2 in February of that year that a security investigation
was being initiated on Irving Peress. At the time you made this
endorsement, or favorable recommendation, did you have any specific
recollections of that security investigation ?
Mr. KiRKLAND. I did not, and I did not — what struck me in this
particular case, Peress was not actually promoted. He was given the
M'rong grade in the beginning. He should have been a major in the
first place.
Mr. O'DoNNELL. The question, Mr. Kirkland, was at the time that
you concurred were you aware of the notice of February 5 that there
was a security investigation pending on this individual?
Mr. KiRKLAND. I will say I was not aware of the fact.
Mr. O'DoNNELL. Had you been aware, would you have concurred
in his recommendation for the promotion ?
Mr. KiRKLAND. I would have put the problem to the Department of
the Army without recommendation, but with a resume of what
happened.
Mr. O'DoNNELL. Would you have called to the attention of the De-
partment of the Army the fact that there was a security case on this
individual ?
ARMY PERSONNEL ACTIONS RELATING TO IRVING PERESS 79
Mr. KiRKLAND. Yes, sir, I would.
Mr. O'DoNNELii. At the time you concurred in this recommendation
for promotion, did you examine any files in your office?
Mr. KiRKLAND. I did not.
Mr. O'DoNNELL. Why not?
Mr. KiRKLAND. Because once an officer is commissioned and placed
on active duty he is no longer — or I have no record whatsoever. I
dealt with Reserve people and he is then in active military service.
Mr. O'DoNNELL. That raises this question, Mr. Kirkland: The re-
sponsibilities of your office were to deal with processing individuals
from the Reserve among other things up to the time they reported
for active duty ; is that correct ?
Mr. KiRKLAND. That is the entire Reserve Forces Division, that is
true.
Mr. O'DoNNELL. Irving Peress reported for active duty on January
1, 1953. This request for promotion came through 9 months later in
September, and was concurred in by you and by Major Van Sickle.
Wliy did you, who were still in the Reserve Forces Division recom-
mend a promotion for an officer on active duty when your affiliation
in relation with him or any others ceased when he came on active
duty ?
Mr. KiRKLAND. I don't believe there is any actual — the word "con-
cur" or "approve" by me is not exactly fitting. I believe Major Van
Sickle consulted me on the format of the endorsement or the wording
of it, and I may be wrong, but my guess is that this particular en-
dorsement should not have even been signed in our place over there
now.
Mr. O'DoNNELL. That is why the question was asked, why was it
signed in your place and why did it clear through your office ?
Mr. KiRKLAND. I cannot answer that.
]\Ir. O'DoNNELL. Why did you take any action in connection with
it, if it should not have cleared through your office?
Mr. KiRKLAND. Only as a favor to Major Van Sickle in wording the
indorsement.
Mr. O'DoNNELL. As a favor to Major Van Sickle? Did Major Van
Sickle's duties or responsibilities extend beyond the time when anyone
came on active duty ?
Mr. KiRKLAND. I am not qualified. I think that is a question for
Major Van Sickle to answer.
Mr. O'DoNNELL. Would the Medical Reserve Forces Section have
the responsibility for an officer after he reported for active duty ?
Mr. KiRKLAND. In some cases I guess they would, but not in my
particular branch.
Mr. O'DoNNELL. I am not asking you about your branch, Mr. Kirk-
land. I am asking about the Medical Section in the Reserve function.
Would that division's responsibility cease when an individual came
on active duty ?
Mr. KiRKLAND. This being a Reserve promotion it could have, or
possibly should have been coordinated with the Personnel Actions
Branch of the Reserve Forces Division, in which branch it was signed
by Captain Dude.
Mr. O'DoNNELL. Are you saying that there is an interest by the
Reserve Forces Division after they came on active duty, or an individ-
ual came on active duty ?
80 ARMY PERSONNEL ACTIONS RELATING TO IRVING PERESS
Mr. KiRKLAND. For Reserve promotions, in the Reserve?
Mr. O'DoNNELL. Was this a Reserve promotion, or a promotion in
active duty status ?
Mr. KiRKLAND. He was recommended for a reserve promotion ; that
is possibly why the Reserve Forces Division got in on it. But it should
have been coordinated with the military personnel.
Mr, O'DoNNELL. Where did you tell me it states he was recom-
mended for a promotion in the Reserve ?
Mr. KiRKLAND. Sir?
Mr. O'DoNNELL. Where can you show me he was recommended for
a promotion in the Reserve ?
Mr. KiRKLAND. I have gotten off on the track of using the word
"promotion" myself. There actually is no such word as "USR" in the
recommendation. But it refers to two regulations that cover only
appointments in the Reserve Corps.
Mr. O'DoNNELL. That is initial appointments?
Mr. KiRKLAND. Yes, sir.
Mr. O'DoNNELL. Wouldn't it have been proper to have this par-
ticular request cleared through the Military Personnel Division, in-
stead of through your unit ?
Mr. KiRKLAND. It should have been coordinated between the two
of them.
Mr. O'DoNNELL. Then, is it not a fact that by your concurring or
forwarding this endorsement to recommend his promotion, it was in
error, since it was not your responsibility ?
Mr. KiRKLANDv I would like to point out, Mr. O'Donnell, I did not
sign it and my branch was the Procurement Branch of the Reserve
Forces Division, and this was signed by Capt. L. Dude, of the Person-
nel Action Branch of the same division that I am in. But I had no
direct responsibility in connection with this.
As I said before, I had a lot of experience in wording endorsements
for those who were not on active duty, who had been given improper
grades. That was quite a common administrative error.
Mr. O'Donnell. You are now disclaiming any responsibility with
regard to this recommendation for promotion, but you merely trans-
mitted the papers via the Personnel Action Branch as a favor to the
then Captain Van Sickle. Is that your statement ?
Mr. KiRKLAND. That is true, sir.
Mr. O'Donnell. Were you ever interviewed by the Inspector Gen-
eral in connection with the case of Irving Peress ?
Mr. KiRKLAND. I was, sir.
Mr. O'Donnell. Mr. Chairman, I Avould like to have the record
show that the exhibit introduced yesterday indicates Mr. Kirkland's
name is on the list of 28 names submitted by the Secretary of the
Army to the special Mundt committee.
The Chairman. The record reflects that.
Mr. O'Donnell. I have no further questions.
Senator Bender. Mr. Chairman, might I ask in this connection who
prepared this document here, the chronology? Is that a committee
document ?
The Chairman. Yes, it is. I do not know who prepared it. You
remember it was made public. It was sent to the members of the com-
mittee and otli«r Members of the Senate by the Department of the
Army, who prepared it.
ARMY PERSONNEL ACTIONS RELATING TO IRVING PERESS 81
Senator Bender. On page 15, 1 might call counsel's attention to one
paragra]:)h, which says that the qualification records, Maj. James F.
Dolson, MSC, Special Projects Branch, Personnel Division, Office of
the Surgeon General, prepared a list of 538 medical officers, 125 dental
officers, and 18 veterinary officers considered to be entitled to reap-
pointment under criteria changed by Public Law 84, 83d Congress,
and Department of Defense directive referred to above.
Upon completion of this list, applicable portions were transmitted to the
Medical, Dental, and Veterinary Corps Career Management Sections, Office of the
Surgeon General, for veritication. On October 14, lUoS, the reassembled list was
transmitted to the Adjutant General by memorandum prepared by Major Mc-
Kenzie and signed by Col. H. W. Glattley, Medical Corps, Chief, Personnel
Division, Office of The Surgeon General, recommending reappointment of the
officers listed thereon to the grades indicated. The name of Peress was on that
list
The Chairman. I may say to the Senator that we have the wit-
nesses here who will develop that aspect of the case.
Now, may I get this clear : You say that during the whole time that
you occupied the position that you have been testifying to, and these
papers were all coming through your department or through your
division, that you had no specific official instructions from the De-
partment of the Army or from your superiors with respect to the
handling of fifth amendment cases of officers being brought into the
service ?
Mr. KiRKLAND. I did not, sir.
The Chairman. At no time during this period did you receive any
instructions to deal with them specifically in any way as differentiated
from those cases where the applicant for a commission had not taKen
the fifth amendment ?
Mr. KiRKLAND. I don't recall any instructions ; no.
The Chairman. Then you were left entirely upon your own re-
sources and judgment as to what to do with them?
Mr. KiRKLAND. Yes.
The Chairman. Now, in the five cases did you have any responsi-
bility for calling those cases to the attention of G-2?
Mr. KiRKLAND. No, sir.
The Chairman. Did you have any instructions to call them to their
attention ?
Mr. KiRKLAND. Not in the manner in which I did ; no, sir.
The Chairman. In what manner, in any other manner, did you
have any instructions as to what you would do with cases of that
character ?
Mr. KiRKLAND. The only instructions that I had was to route them
to G-2. That is all cases. But the action I took
The Chairman. That is no different from any other case ?
Mr. KiRKLAND. No, sir.
The Chairman. You were not to flag them or call attention or any-
thing else, insofar as your orders were concerned?
Mr. KiRKLAND. That is true, sir.
The Chairman. So what you did in that respect, in calling G-2's
attention to the five cases that you discovered, was on your own ini-
tiative and not under orders or in the carrying out of instructions?
Mr. KiRKLAND. That is correct, sir.
82 ARMY PERSONNEL ACTIONS RELATING TO IRVING PERESS
The Chairman. Would you have called attention of G-2 to the
Peress case had it come to your attention ?
Mr. KiRKLAND. I certainly would have; yes, sir.
The Chairman. Now, I understand that the five cases that you
referred to there, those officers were commissioned just as Peress was?
Mr. KiRKLAND. Yes, sir.
The Chairman. They actually received commissions ?
Mr. KiRKLAND. Yes, sir.
The Chairman. Were any of the five ever called to active duty ?
Mr. KiRKLAND. No, sir ; to the best of my knowledge they were not.
The Chairman. They were discharged before ever being placed in
the service ?
Mr. KiRKLAND. That is true.
The Chairman. Other than having a commission, insofar as being
placed on active duty ?
Mr. KiRKLAND. That is correct, sir.
The Chairman. All of those five received honorable discharges with
respect to their commission; is that correct?
Mr. KiRKLAND. Yes.
The Chairman. With respect to their commission as officers in the
Army ?
Mr. KiRKLAND. Yes, sir.
The Chairman. Three of them were later drafted into the service
as enlisted men ; is that correct ?
Mr. KiRKLAND. According to the information that I have ; yes, sir.
The Chairman. According to the information on the exhibit ?
Mr. KiRKLAND. Yes, sir.
The Chairman. They were later discharged and given an honorable
discharge as being undesirable ; is that correct ?
Mr. KiRKLAND. Well, I
The Chairman. Were they given undesirable discharges ?
Mr. KiRKLAND. That action was taken in the Department of the
Army, and all of the information I have was on the office memorandum
which I had before me a few minutes ago.
The Chairman. What were your instructions, if any, with respect
to bringing these officers like Peress and the other five who had taken
the fifth amendment on their forms, personnel forms — what were your
instructions with reference to bringing them in and placing them on
active duty. Now, you performed that service ; did you not ?
(Senator McCarthy returned to the room.)
Mr. KiRKLAND. No, sir. The Medical Section initiated action to
put them on active duty.
The Chairman. It was the Medical Section that initiated that
action?
Mr. KiRKLAND. Yes, sir.
The Chairman. You worked closely with the Medical Section at
this time on these medical cases ; did you not ?
Mr. KiRKLAND. I did, sir.
The Chairman. Did you have any instructions at all with respect to
bringing them and placing them on duty prior to the time that they
filled out these forms ?
Mr. KiRKLAND. None whatsoever.
ARMY PERSONNEL ACTIONS RELATING TO IRVING PERESS 83
The CHAiR:\rAN. Did I understand that the one that was referred to
as a Communist, an admitted Communist, you did not get that form
until after he had been commissioned ; is that correct ?
Mr. KiRKLAND. That is right, sir.
Tlie Chairman. So that the procedure at that time was to give them
their commission and tlien hater have them fill out these forms that
would give the information with respect to whether they were Com-
munists or would take the fifth amendment?
Mr. KiRKLAND. That is true. I might add, and I am quite sure that
I am correct, that many officers were placed on duty before they sub-
mitted any forms.
The Chairman. ]\Iany of them were placed on duty before any
forms at all ?
]\Ir. KiRKLAND. We were just lucky they were not fifth amendment
cases, too.
The Chairman. I believe that is all.
Mr. Juliana. IVIr. Kirkland, you were interviewed by the staff a
few days ago ; is that correct ?
Mr. iviRKLAND. That is correct, sir.
My. Juliana. And your testimony here this morning was that as
a result of talking to someone in the Pentagon you have refreshed
your memory ; is that right?
Mr. KiRKLAND. Yes.
Mr. Juliana. With whom did you converse in the Pentagon?
Mr. KiRKLAND. Well, I talked to Colonel Murray, Col. John F. T.
Murray, in the Secretary of the Army's office, and I talked to Gov-
ernor Brucker here with me. I talked to Maj or Ivan.
Mr. Juliana. Did any of these gentlemen advise you that there
were certain things on which you could not testify?
Mr. KiRKLAND. They did not, sir.
Mr. Juliana. Now, when you were in the First Army, you testi-
fied that you had approximately 15 people in your branch; is that
right?
Mr. KiRKLAND. That is right.
Mr. Juliana. And I think that I understood you correctly, and
you said 1 or 2 of these 15 processed these forms such as the Peress
form ; is that right ?
Mr. KiRKLAND. That is correct, sir.
Mr. Juliana. Now, Major Van Sickle testified yesterday that ap-
proximately 2,000 officers were processed a month. Would you have
processed approximately the same number of officers each month ?
Mr. KiRKLAND, Not the doctor-draft cases. He would not recom-
mend all of those he received for appointment, you see.
Mr. Juliana. How many approximately did your branch process
per month ?
Mr. KiRKLAND. Well, if I remember correctly, the doctor draft
came out in periodical programs, which would average over 100 a
month.
Mr. Juliana. Over 100 a month ?
Mr. KiRKLAND. Well over 100 a month.
Mr. Juliana. So, therefore, in most cases one man would be as-
signed to process these forms and in some cases you would assign an
additional man. Is that true?
84 ARMY PERSONNEL ACTIONS RELATING TO IRVING PERESS
Mr. KiRKLAND. That is true, sir.
Mr. Juliana. Was that sufficient manpower to process these forms?
Mr. KiRKLAND. I would say at times it was not enough.
Mr. Juliana. It was not, and, therefore, you were overloaded with
work at times?
Mr. KiRKLAND. That is in writing, where I had asked for additional
help.
Mr. Juliana. Wliat rank or grade were these two individuals that
processed these forms? Were they officers, or clerks, or what?
JNIr. KiRKLAND. They were clerks.
Mr. Juliana. Enlisted men in the Army or civilian employees?
Mr. KiRKLAND. Civilian employees.
Mr. Juliana. Do you know whether or not they had any training
or experience in processing forms concerning loyalty information ?
Mr. KiRKLAND Well, I would like to make clear that the only ex-
perience that was necessary in our case was the completeness of the
items on the forms. If I make myself clear on that
Mr. Juliana. I think j^ou would agree with me that the person
processing the form would at least have to know what the Commu-
nist Party was, and we will agree with that, won't we ?
Mr. KiRKLAND. Not necessarily, sir. That was a G-2 function,
their responsibility.
Senator McCarthy. What did you say? Will you give me that
question and answer?
(The reporter read the question and answer.)
Mr. Juliana. That is very interesting, because it brings me up to
another point that I would like to ask you about. You previously
testified that G-2 outranks the AG. Is tliat right, in Army channels?
Mr. KiRKLAND. That is true ; yes, sir.
Mr. Juliana. Could you explain that just a little bit for us ? AVhat
do you mean by "outranks" ?
Mr. KiRKLAND. In the Army Headquarters, it is made up of two
separate stall's, the General Staff, which consists of four sections, and
the Chief of Staff's Office. While the Adjutant General's section is
in what they call the special staff, which on all charts, functional
charts, operates under one of the G sections.
Mr. JuxiANA. Well, under this chain of command, it is conceivable
that a fifth amendment Communist could be recognized by the AG,
and yet G-2 will not take any action. That is conceivable, is it not?
Mr. KiRKLAND. That is true ; yes, sir.
Mr. Juliana. Now, to go back to your testimony about these 5
cases, you said that you think that there might have been 6 of the
fifth amendment cases pass through your branch. Is that right?
Mr. KiRKLAND. That is positive cases ; yes.
Mr. Juliana. Positive cases?
Mr. KiRKLAND. Yes.
Mr. Juliana. Now, Senator McCarthy asked you a couple of
questions concerning your interview with the staff' in which you
mentioned 25 to 30 cases. Now, what type of information did these
25 to 30 cases embrace?
Mr. KiRKLAND. Sir, that would include — ^you see I handle EOTC
commission for the entire First Army Area, and that would include
some 2,000 ROTC graduates, and other direct commissions. They
ARMY PERSONNEL ACTIONS RELATENTG TO IRVING PERESS 85
might, or the type of cases they were, an applicant might in his ad-
mission of dechiration, he would say he attended a particular meeting
of a particular organization. In that case it would be referred to
G-2, and he would be investigated and eventually cleared.
Mr. Juliana. Would you consider such a case as a security case?
Mr. KiRKLAND. Yes, sir.
Mr. Juliana. You would ?
Mr. KiRKLAND. Yes.
Mr. Juliana. These 5 officers that applied for commissions and
were honorably discharged — the testimony here is that 3 of them,
and the document will bear me out, which is now an exhibit, 3 of
them received undesirable discharges as enlisted men. Therefore, we
have three men who were given honorable discharges as officers but
yet are given undesirable discharges as enlisted men. Is that correct?
The Chairman. Five were given honorable discharges as officers?
Mr. KiRKLAND. That is true.
Mr. Juliana. But three of them received undesirable discharges as
enlisted men.
The Chairman. You said three ?
Mr. Juliana. I am limiting it to three that got undesirable
discharges.
Mr. KiRKLAND. That is according to this paper.
Senator McCarthy. Is there any reason on God's earth why a
Communist should get an honorable discharge as an officer and an
undesirable discharge as an enlisted man ? Is there any possible rea-
son for that ?
Mr. KiRKLAND. I don't see an}^ reason why ; no, sir.
Senator McCarthy. Just a little more of the same thing we are
hearing about.
Mr. Juliana. I don't know whether I understood your answer to
Mr. O'Donnell, but in response to his question to this effect, if you
had become aware of this derogatory information on Peress, or the
fact that he took the constitutional privilege on these forms, I believe
you said he would have been taken to trial. Am I right on that?
Mr. KiRKLAND. No; I said if it had been discovered, along with
the other five, that he would have been included also.
Mr. Juliana. He would have been what ?
Mr. KiRKLAND. He would have been included in the same action
taken as to the five.
Mr. Juliana. Those five weren't taken to trial, were they?
Mr. KiRKLAND. I didn't say trial.
Mr. Juliana. Well, I must have misunderstood.
Mr. KiRKLAND. You probably did.
Senator McCarthy. I have just one question. I was absent from
the room for about 5 minutes and you may have answered this, I do
not know. When did you first learn that Peress was a fifth- amendment
case, if you recall ?
Mr. KiRKLAND. I don't recall, sir.
Senator McCarthy. But you did learn it before he was called to
active duty. Is that correct ?
Mr. KiRKLAND. No, sir; I wouldn't say that I did. I don't recall
that I did.
(Senator Jackson left the room.)
86 ARMY PERSONNEL ACTIONS RELATING TO IRVING PERESS
Senator McCarthy. How long were you in the military ?
Mr. KiRKLAND. Sixteen years.
Senator IMcCarthy. Sixteen years?
Mr. Ktrkland. Yes, sir.
Senator McCarthy. Could I ask you this : Do you think it is a
good policy to give honoroble discharges to members of the Communist
conspiracy ?
Mr. KiRKLAND. I do not, sir.
Senator McCarthy. Thank you.
The Chairman. All right, you are excused, Mr. Kirkland, for the
present.
The next witness is Maj. William O. Prettyman. Come aromid.
Major.
Do you solemnly swear that the evidence you shall give before this
investigating subcommittee shall be the truth, the whole truths and
nothing but the truth, so help you God ?
Major Prettyman. I do.
TESTIMONY OF MAJ. WILLIAM 0. PRETTYMAN
The Chairman. Have a seat.
The Chair wishes to announce that another officer in the Personnel
Section in the Intelligence Branch of the First Army would ordinarily
be tlie next witness, or be the witness that we would call at this time,
but he only arrived this morning, and the staff has not had an oppor-
tunity to interview him. Therefore, we will have to skip that link
for the present and proceed with Major Prettyman.
All right, Mr. Tierney, will you proceed.
Mr. Tierney. Mr. Chairman, in order to clear the record, the inter-
view with Major Prettyman stemmed from the fact that he was re-
corder to a board which approved a request of Irving Peress for can-
cellation of his overseas assignment.
Now Major, would you give your full name and your current as-
signment ?
Major Prettyman. My name is William O. Prettyman, Jr., and
I am presently Chief, Persomiel Actions Branch, of the Surgeon
General's Office. That is the Personnel Division.
Mr. Tierney. Major, in early March of 1953, you were, were you
not. Assistant Chief of the same Branch ?
Major Prettyman. That is correct.
Mr. Tierney. In addition to your normal duties, you acted as a
recorder for a board which usually considered requests for deferment,
compassionate leave, or cancellation of overseas assignment?
Major Prettyman. That is correct.
Mr. Tierney. In your position as recorder, what were your func-
tions ?
Major Prettyman. My functions in general were to cast a vote,
and also to complete the board's final action.
Mr. Tierney. Were you actually a member of the board as such?
Major Prettyman. t was a voting member of the board as such.
Mr. Tierney. Now, in cases such as this — first of all let me ask you,
do you specifically recall during this time the board for which you
were recorder considering the request for cancellation of overseas
assignment for Irving Peress?
ARRIY PERSONNEL ACTIONS RELATING TO IRVING PERESS 87
Major Prettyman. I have no independent recollection of that, sir.
Mr. Tlerney. But I assume that you have acquainted yourself with
the records dealing with that particular aspect of it?
Major Prettyman. That is true.
Mr. TiERNEY. Now, generally. Major, in considering requests of
this nature the material to be furnished the board for their con-
sideration
Major Prettyman. A clerk who was responsible for the processing
of such cases would secure a 66, which is the officer's qualification
record, and the status card.
Mr. TiERNEY. AVliat was the nature of the status card ?
Major Prettyman. The status card normally contained entries
pertaining to recommendations regarding assignment, and it also
would contain information if a flagging action was received.
Mr. TiERNEY. Wliat do you mean by a flagging action ?
Major Prettyman. A flagging action would be a form submitted
under appropriate Army regulations which would have been entered
on the status card, and would indicate whether or not certain other
actions should be taken.
Mr. TiERNEY. In this particular case, I would like to pass up to you
a photostatic copy of a record relating to the board.
(A document was handed to the witness.)
Mr. TiERNEY. Would you please identify that material ?
Major Prettyman. I would identify this as a photostatic copy of
a cover or board summary sheet concerning the deferment from over-
seas assignment in the case of Peress.
Mr. TiERNEY. What is the date of that, sir ?
Major Preti^-man. March 8, 1953, was the date that action was
started.
Mr. TiERNEY. You mean that was the date on wliich the board con-
vened to consider this matter?
Major Prettyman. The board did not convene, sir, as a group.
Mr. TiERNEY. Will you explain that, please ?
Major Prettyman. It was the policy in efl'ect that this case, as were
all cases of an overseas deferment nature, would be referred to the
board members independently. That is, they would be routed from
office to office of the respective member.
Mr. TiERNEY. From this paper, can you get the officers who were
members of the board, and who considered this request ?
Major Prettyman. This form will reflect
The Chairman. Let us get through with the pictures for a little
while. It is disconcerting, and you certainly have enough by now.
Proceed.
Major Prettyman. This form will reflect that Colonel Ursin, Med-
ical Corps, recommended approval of the request, and it will reflect
that a dental officer, initials E. W. C, approved the request, and it
will also indicate that I was in accord with that action.
Mr. TiERNEY. Now, the officer initials E. W. C, I think it has been
determined that that was Brig. Gen. Egbert W. Cowan; is that
correct ?
Major Prettyman. That is correct, sir.
Mr. TiERNEY. All members of the Board approved the action ?
Major Prettyman. Yes, sir.
88 ARMY PERSONNEL ACTIONS RELATING TO IRVING PERESS
Mr. TiERNEY. I will now pass for your identification, Major, this
document.
(A document was handed to the witness.)
Mr. TiERNEY. Would you please identify that document?
Major Prettyman. This is tlie letter or a photostat of a letter dated
February 27, 1953, and it indicates in the upper left-hand corner
"Peress, Irving," and there is a serial number and it has a hole punched
through it and I am not able to identify it ; and —
Captain, Dental Corps, 61-39 79th Street, Middle Village, 79, New York. Sub-
ject : Reassignment. To : The Adjutant General, Washington 25, D. C.
It contains 3 paragraphs and it is signed by a signature purportedly
that of Irving Peress, and it lists 10 enclosures.
Mr. TiERNEY. That letter is Irving Peress' request of the Adjutant
General for cancellation of his assignment overseas?
Major Prettyman. That would be my opinion; yes, sir.
Mr. TiERNEY. This was a normal case ; or this letter along with any
supporting documents which you may have submitted would be con-
sidered by the Board ?
Major Prettyman. That is right, sir.
Mr. TiERNEY. I now pass to you a second letter.
The Chairman. The two previous documents presented to the wit-
ness may be made exhibits and numbered accordingly 9, 10, and 11.
Likewise the one that he now is identifying. (Exhibits Nos. 9, 10, and
11 appear in the appendix on pp. 151, 152.)
Mr. TiERNEY. AVill you identify that letter, please.
Major Prettyman. This is a photostat of a letter dated January 24,
1953, and the letter heading is "Max Gruenthal, M. D., 25 West 81st
Street, New York 24, New York" and there was a telephone number —
I am sorry, I can't make out the rest of it.
Mr. TiERNEY. That is not necessary.
Major Prettyman. It is "To Whom It May Concern." The letter
contains three paragraphs and it contains a signature purportedly
that of Max Gruenthal, and it is signed as Max Gruenthal, M. D.,
qualified psychiatrist diploma, American Board of Psychiatry and
Neurology.
Mr. TiERNEY. This is a letter from Dr. Gruenthal, a psychiatrist,
supporting Major Peress, or Captain Peress at that time, request for
cancellation of his overseas assignment because of psychiatric dif-
ficulties which Mrs. Peress had at the time ?
Major Prettyman. Yes, sir.
Mr. TiERNEY. This, uncler normal circumstances, would have been
considered by your Board ?
Major Prettyman. Yes, sir.
Mr. TiERNEY. You do not specifically recall them ?
Major Prettyman. I don't specifically recall them.
Mr. TiERNEY. I will now pass a third letter.
(A document was handed to the witness.)
Mr. TiERNEY. Would you please identify that document ?
Major Prettyman. This is a letter under date of February 17, 1953,
and the heading is "New York University, Bellevue Medical Center,
of New York University" ; and "University Hospital, formerly New
York Postgraduate Hospital," with the address. It concerns Jill
Peress, 61-39 79th Street, Middle Village, N. Y. It is addressed "To
ARMY PERSONNEL ACTIONS RELATING TO IRVING PERESS 89
whom it may concern." It contains two paragi'aphs and it is signed
by a physician as achninistrator, Edward M. Bernecker; and the letter
further indicates that the contents was dictated by Rosa Lena, M. D.,
examining physician.
Mr. TiERNEY. That letter also is in support of Irving Peress' request
for cancellation of his overseas assignment ?
Major Prettyman. I presume it would have been, sir, and I have
no recollection of the letter itself.
Mr. TiERNEY. The nature, as you read the letter, the nature of the
letter is to the effect that Irving Peress' daughter was being treated at
this particular hospital ; is that correct ?
Major Prettyman. Yes, sir; they refer to it as the Child Guidance
Clinic.
The Chairman. May I inquire are these letters that you now have
the witness identifying, are they letters that were considered by this
Board at the time the overseas assignment was cancelled ? Is that a
part of the file and the record upon which you made your decision?
Major Prettyman. Based upon a review of the record, sir, these
letters would have been with the file.
The Chairman. Do you have any personal recollection of them?
Major Prettyman. I do not, sir.
The Chairjvian. All right, proceed. That may be made an exhibit,
No. 12.
(Exhibit No, 12 appears in the appendix on p. 153.)
Mr. TiERNEY. I will now pass another document to the witness.
(A document was handed to the witness.)
Mr. TiERNEY. Would you please identify that document?
Major Prettyman. This appears to be a telegram addressed to
AFD, ARC, North Fort Lewis, Wash., and it is a true copy signed by
Alfred M. Gade, first lieutenant, AGC, Assistant Adjutant General.
It has reference to the New York Chapter, American Red Cross,
New York, N. Y., and contains statements from Dr. Gruenthal regard-
ing Mrs. Peress.
The Chairman. That will be exhibit No. 13.
(Exhibit No. 13 may be found in the files of the subcommittee.)
Mr. TiERNEY. Now, this in effect is the result of the Red Cross in-
vestigation conducted for the benefit of Irving Peress in support of
his request for cancellation of overseas assignment ?
Major Prettyman. It would seem to me that is what it is; yes, sir.
Mr. TiERNEY. Now, this particular investigation was conducted at
the request of Irving Peress ; is that correct ?
Major Prettyman. I have no knowledge of that fact, sir.
Mr. TiERNEY. For the record we have been advised by the Army
that this particular investigation was actually at Irving Peress' re-
quest.
_ Now, this investigation is confined, am I correct. Major, to an inter-
view of Dr. Gruenthal ?
Major Prettyman. As I read this telegram, it is confined to Dr.
Gruenthal's statements.
Mr. TiERNEY. No other investigation was conducted by the Red
Cross? ^
Major Prettyman. Based upon this telegram, sir, it would appear
there was none.
90 ARMY PERSONNEL ACTIONS RELATING TO IRVING PERESS
Mr. TiERNEY. Wliat effect under ordinary circumstances is given
by the Board to investigations conducted by the Red Cross '?
Major Prettyman. Sir, I cannot speak for the other members of
the Board, since we act as individuals. In my opinion, I would place
a great deal of weight upon a Red Cross investigation.
Mr. Tlerney. As you recall these documents, which under normal
circumstances would have been presented to your Board, realizing you
have no independent recollection of them, but as you recall them now,
would you at the present time also give or approve a request based on
documents of that nature?
Major Prettyman. I as an individual would, sir.
Mr. TiERNEY. I now pass to you the photostatic copy of another
document.
(Document handed to witness.)
The Chairman. The clerk is numbering these documents as ex-
hibits, and this will be No. 14.
(Exhibit No. 14 may be found in the files of the subcommittee.)
We will proceed.
Mr. TiERNEY. Identify that document, will you please, Major?
Major Prettyman. I would identify this as a photostatic copy of a
status card. This particular card has reference to Irving Peress, and
it records his serial number, 01893643, indicates he is in the Dental
Corps. It further indicates his date of birth, home address, and indi-
cates he was a captain on January 1, 1953, and a major on November 2,
1953. It further indicates that his active-duty category would be 4,
with an expiration date of December 31, 1954, It contains several
entries concerning recommendations to the Adjutant General, orders
issued by First Army calling Peress to duty, and it contains an entry
regarding a recommendation, and subsequent orders relieving Peress
from assignment in Medical Field Service School with assignment
overseas, and it contains an entry referring to a DA, AGO Form 268,
not to be reassigned without consulting his 201 file (confidential).
Mr. TiERNEY. Wliat is the date of that entry ?
Major Prettyman. There is no entry, sir.
Mr. TiERNEY. Is there any date at all on that particular column
that you are reading ?
Major Prettyman. Not the date of any recommendation. There is
a date which would indicate the 268 is February 12, 1953.
Mr. Tierney. Now, we have been informed by the Army that as
close as they can determine, that entry was made between March 2 and
March 4 of 1953. If that be the case, under normal circumstances, this
would have been available to you, and the Board, for its consideration
when they were considering the request of Irving Peress ; is that
correct ?
Mr. Brucker. Just a moment, please. Do you understand there are
two questions involved, and do you understand the question?
Major Prettyman. There are two questions, sir, and we said under
normal circumstances.
Mr. Tierney. Under normal circumstances, the status card is con-
sidered by the Board when they review requests of this nature.
Major Prettyman. The status card should have accompanied under
normal circumstances.
Mr. Tierney. That is right, and to make the record perfectly clear,
we realize there is no record definitely indicating that this particular
ARMY PERSONNEL ACTIONS RELATING TO IRVING PERESS 91
status card was reviewed by the Board, but nevertheless, under normal
circumstances, it would be.
Major Prettyman. I would have to assume it; yes, sir.
Mr. TiERNEY. Is that correct?
Major Prettyman. Yes.
Mr. TiERNEY. Furthermore, if this status card were considered by
the Board, that entry, since it was made between March 2 and March 4
of 1953, would have come to the Board's attention inasmuch as the
Board considered this case on ISIarch 9.
Major Prettyman. It should have been there for the members of
the Board to have seen.
Mr. TiERNEY. Assuming that it was available, would this have made
any difference in the actual results reached as to this particular
request ?
Major Prettyman. Are you referring, sir, as to whether I as an
individual would have still recommended the deferment of Peress?
Mr. TiERNEY. That is right.
Major Prettyivian. I would still have recommended his deferment.
Mr. TiERNEY. Even though there existed tiie possibility of deroga-
tory security information in the file concerning this individual?
Major Prettyman. My action regarding the deferment from over-
seas would have been based upon the documentations, and the com-
passionate aspects.
Mr. TiERNEY. Are you able to state whether or not the same ap-
proach would be made by members of the board?
Major Prettyman. I cannot, sir.
Mr. TiERNEY. Wasn't there any procedure established as to what
documents would or would not be reviewed ?
Major Prettyman. Generally the request would have had with it at
least the 66, and the status card. Again, sir, I have no recollection
that this was with it, nor can I say it was not with it.
Mr. TiERNEY. Assuming this form was with it. Major, and you did
see that entry, would you have proceeded any further, or would you
have called for the file that relates to it ?
jNIajor Prettyman. I would have called for the file unless I would
liave acquired knowledge previously in the course of my business by
which I would have felt in my own mind that I was familiar with
what this particular entry was referring to.
Now, that would have meant within a reasonable span of time.
Mr. TiERNEY. In other words, you would not definitely recall this
file to determine what the nature of the information concerning the
man was ?
Major Prettyman. I would not definitely in all cases have called
for it, if I felt I was sure what that entry was. Let me put it this
way, sir: If within a brief span of time I had been apprised oi infor-
mation and I felt that I was fully aware of what that information
was, or what that particular entry referred to, I would not have
called for the file. Had I not been reasonably assured in my own
mind there as to what that entry was referring to, I would have
called for the file.
Mr. TiERNEY. You are saying that assuming you were aware of the
nature of that information through other sources, or previously
aware of its nature. Let us assume you were aware of its nature, and
60030— 55— pt. 2 3
92 ARMY PERSONNEL ACTIONS RELATING TO IRVING PERESS
that it was security information; would that have affected your
decision in any way ?
Major Pretttman. No, sir, in view of my understandmg of perti-
nent department policies regarding the handling of security cases,
subsequent to the individual's entry on active duty, I would not have
believed that the retention of Peress in the United States was in
conflict with those policies.
Mr. TiERNEY, Under the procedures which you were aware of,
could any officer who requested, say, compassionate leave, or cancella-
tion of overseas assignment, could any officer, or would any be granted
that request if they simply submitted the letters of two doctors?
Major Prettyman. No, sir, there were certain standards that had
to be met.
Mr. TiERNEY. A^Hiat were they ?
Major Prettyman. In general, that death would occur of an im-
mediate member of the officer's family, or the individual's family,
within a year, or that his departure would cause an adverse effect
upon the patient.
Another part would be that the illness or the disease was not in
existence at the time of the individual's enlistment or entry on active
duty, and there were some financial aspects, sir, which in effect would
indicate that the individual had to remain in the States in order to
solve those.
Mr. TiERNEY. Now, if an officer would really state some of those
reasons, which you have listed, in a letter, and attach to his letter ad-
ditional material from, say, two doctors, would that be sufficient?
(Senator Symington entered the room.)
Mr. TiERNEY. In other words, would j^ou give complete credence to
the letter of the applying officer and the doctors which he happens to
submit?
Major Prettyman. We normally gave credence to the statement
of the physicians, and we had no reason to question their statements.
]Mr. TiERNEY. As you recall this case, from your review of this ma-
terial, what was the nature of the information furnished in Peress^
letter, and the letter of the two doctors which would cause you to make
a recommendation that his request be granted ?
Major Prettyman. The statement of one physician, I believe Dr.
Gruenthal, would indicate that Mrs. Peress had been under his care
for a period of time. However, he further indicated that on Jan-
uary 19, 1953, which was subsequent to the date of Peress' call to
active duty, she came to him in a state of panic. The doctor further
indicated that there was a problem with one child who was under
psychiatric care, and there was an additional child in the family. Dr.
Gruenthal, as I recall his statement, further indicated that in his
opinion the presence of the officer, Peress in this instance, was neces-
sary in order to prevent the disintegration of the family as a unit, and
to maintain the whole equilibrium of that family.
Mr. TiERNEY. I have no further questions.
The Chairman. As I understood you, you do not recall the Peress
case specifically.
Major Pre'ityman. That is true, sir.
The Chairman, You are testifying only from records, from re-
freshing your memory from records that you have seen recently?
Major Prettyman. That is true, sir.
ARMY PERSONNEL ACTIONS RELATING TO IRVING PERESS 93
The Chairman. Some question has been asked you here with respect
to the status cards showing some derogatory information or indicating
that there was derogatory information in this file, is that correct ?
Major Prettyman. I am sorry, sir, I did not hear all of the ques-
tion.
The Chairman. I understood all of your testimony that the status
card that you referred to here indicates that there is some derogatory
material in his file.
Major Prettyman. That is true, sir.
The Chairman. Is that correct ?
Major Preityman. That is true.
The Chairman. You do not know whether you had this card be-
fore you at the time that you passed on this case or not?
Major Pretti^man. I do not, sir.
The Chairman. It is generally your custom to have the card ?
Alajor Prettyman. That is true.
The Chairman. Whether you had it in this instance, you do not
know.
Major Prettyman. That is true.
The Chairman. And if you did have it, you don't know whether
that entry has been made on the card prior to the time that you con-
sidered his application for cancellation of overseas orders.
Major Prettyman. I believe it has been established, sir, that the
entry was made somewhere between March 2 and 4.
The Chairman. If that is correct, would it has been on the card
at thetime you considered his application ?
Major Prettyman. I would say "Yes," sir.
The Chairman. ^Yliat effect would that have? You would not
want to send a fellow overseas that was regarded as a security risk •
would you ? . '
Major Prettyman. No, sir.
The Chairman. Was that the policy of the Army, to ship them
overseas ?
_ Major Prettyman. It was my understanding, sir, of pertinent pol-
icy of the Department that such individuals would not go overseas.
The Chairman. Well, assuming that a case had not been made,
due to the family situation, had that come to your attention, would
you have granted his request for cancellation of overseas orders?
Major Prettyman. Sir, it would have only come to my attention
by vn-tue of his request for compassionate reassignment. I did not
handle Dental Corps officer assignments.
The Chairman. You do not handle tliose ?
Major Prettyman. No, sir.
The Chairman. In other words, you had only consideration of the
condition of his family which he predicated his request on : is that
correct ?
Major Prettyman. His request was predicated on that; yes, sir.
The Chairman. But then even considering it, if you found this
additional information, that he was a security risk, you would be
more inclined to grant his request anyhow, rather than send him
overseas; would you not?
Major Prettyman. Possibly I would have, sir.
94 ARMY PERSONNEL ACTIONS RELATING TO IRVING PERESS
The Chairman. That was additional reason for not sending him
overseas, if he is a security risk, and if the Army was dealing with
him as such.
Major Prettyman. That is right, sir.
The Chairman. But you found that the compassionate justification
was there for his not being sent overseas, and that is what you based
your decision on ?
Major Prettyman. As an individual ; yes, sir.
The Chairman. 1 am speaking of you.
Major Prettyman. Yes, sir.
The Chairman. The Board, as I understand it, did not confer
about these cases, and the information just passed from one to the
other, and each took his own independent action on it.
Major Prettyman. That is true.
The Chairman. How many were on the board ?
Major Prettyman. There were several officers on the board, and
I don't recall by number, sir.
The Chairman. Anyway, the Peress request for cancellation of
overseas orders was handled in a routine way.
Major Prettyman. Yes, sir.
The Chairman. As far as you know.
Major Prettyman. Yes.
The Chairman. Are there any other questions?
Senator Bender. Major, did you get the impression from your
examination of the documents submitted by the doctor in New York,
and otherwise in the file, that Dr. Peress was eager to enter the serv-
ice, or he was very happy in the service ?
Major Prettyman. No, sir; I have no impression regarding that.
Senator Bender. You have no impression regarding that?
Major Prettyman. No.
Senator Bender. Whether he was reluctant or eager?
Major Prettyman. I can only answer that in this way, sir, that
the record would indicate that he was ordered to duty involuntarily.
The Chairman. Just one moment. Mr. Juliana, you may proceed.
Mr. Juliana. Major, in this particular case, do the records reflect
that the Red Cross did investigate the situation in the Peress family ?
Major Prettyman. The records would only indicate a telegram
purportedly from the Red Cross.
Mr. Juliana. Well, if they had investigated, would that informa-
tion be available to the board ?
Major Prettyman. The board would have only had the informa-
tion tiiat would have been furnished.
Mr. Juliana. And they furnish a telegram?
Major Prettyman. That is right.
Mr. Juliana. I^t us assume that they had a file with 15 memo-
randa in it; are those 15 memoranda available to the board, if you
request them?
Major Prettyman. I cannot answer that one, sir. I have only
seen Red Cross reports either in wire or in summary form. Wliether
or not it would be consistent with the policy of the Red Cross to fur-
nish the results of their investigations, sir, I don't know.
Mr. Juliana. In other words, you rely on either the telegram or
the memorandum in summary form furnished by the Red Cross.
Major Prettyman. That is right, sir.
ARAIY PERSONNEL ACTIONS RELATING TO IRVING PERESS 95
Mr. Juliana. That is all I have.
The Chairman. Major, so far as I Imow, that is the only testimony
that we will require from you, and you may be excused.
Mr. Brtjcker. Mr. Chairman, micht I make a suggestion, please?
I would like to suggest that in each of the cases of the witnesses, and
the only reason I make it now is because I have noticed it has been
asked twice before, but not this time, that the witness be interro-
fated as to whether he knows Peress, or ever knew him, or had any
ealings with him directly or indirectly, or any interest in the matter
outside of the fact that he handled papers, or something of that kind.
The Chairman. I think those questions have been asked.
Mr. Brucker. I simply suggest it to go to all of them.
The Chairman. I thank you very much for calling it to our atten-
tion.
Do you know Major Peress?
Major Prettyiman. No, sir.
The Chairman. Did you ever know him ?
Major Pretttman. No, sir.
The Chairman. Did you ever have anyone speak to you about him
or asking you to grant him any favors or any special consideration?
Major Pretttman. None whatsoever.
The Chairman. Did you ever receive any instructions to that effect
from any of your superiors ?
Major Pretttman. No, sir.
The Chairman. Or any request from any other member of the
service of lower rank than you?
Major Pretttman. No, sir.
The Chairman. So you know nothing about the case, and it was
examined in a routine way ?
Major Pretttman. Yes, sir.
The Chairman. He was granted no special privileges by your board,
or by you ?
Major Pretttiman. Not by me, and so far as I know, not by the
board in which I sat, sir.
The Chairman. Thank you very much, and you are excused.
Mr. TiERNET. May I state that Major Prettyman was interviewed
by the Inspector General prior to the Inspector General filing his
report with the Secretary of the Army.
Major Pretttman. Yes, sir.
The Chairman. You were interviewed by the Inspector General?
Major Pretttman. Yes, sir.
The Chairman. And his name appears on
Mr. Tiernet. His name appears on the list of 18 submitted by the
Inspector General of the Army.
The Chairman. That is stated for the record.
Thank you very much. Major.
The committee will stand in recess until 1 : 30.
(Thereupon at 12:10 p. m., a recess was taken until 1:30 p. m.)
after recess
(The Senators present at the opening of the afternoon session were
Senators McClellan and Symington.)
The Chairman. The subcommittee will come to order.
96 ARMY PERSONNEL ACTIONS RELATING TO IRVING PERESS
Mr. Stambaugh, will you come forward, please?
Hold up your right hand.
Do you solemnly swear that the evidence you shall give before this
investigating subcommittee shall be the truth, the whole truth, and
nothing but the truth, so help you God ?
Mr. Stambaugh. I do.
The Chairman. Have a seat, please.
Do you have an attorney, Mr. Stambaugh ?
TESTIMONY OF WILLAED B. STAMBAUGH
Mr. Stambaugh. I do not, sir.
The Chairman. Do you desire an attorney ?
Mr. Stambaugh. I do not, sir.
The Chairman. You have conferred with the stajff, I believe, have
you?
Mr. Stambaugh. I have conferred with Mr. Kennedy ; yes, sir.
The Chairman. You have general knowledge then of what you will
be interrogated about ?
Mr. Stambaugh. Yes, sir.
The Chairman. All right, Mr. Kennedy, you may proceed.
Mr. Kennedy. Will you give us your full name and address ?
Mr. Stambaugh. My name is Willard B. Stambaugh, 1496 South
Irving Street, Denver, Colo.
Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Stambaugh, during the end of 1952, you were
stationed with the First Army, is that right, in New York City ?
Mr. Stambaugh. That is correct.
Mr. Kennedy. And you were Chief of the Training Branch of G-2
in the Headquarters of the First Army in New York City ?
Mr. Stambaugh. Yes, sir. I was Chief of the Training Branch of
the Intelligence Division of G-2 Section.
Mr. Kennedy. In that capacity, Mr. Stambaugh, you handled the
security applications for reserve personnel, both enlisted and officers.
Is that correct ?
Mr. Stambaugh. Yes, sir.
Mr. Kennedy. Now, Mr. Stambuagh, there were certain regulations
in effect at that time dealing with the calling to active duty or the
commissioning of individuals who had filled out these security applica-
tions, namely, DD form 98, and 98-A, and 398. Is that correct?
Mr. Stambaugh. Yes, sir.
Mr. Kennedy. Now, before an applicant could receive a commis-
sion, it was necessary for the particular branch of the First Army
that was going to give him a commission to receive a check from you.
Is that correct ? Generally, is that correct ?
Mr. Stambaugh. Generally, yes, sir ; that is correct.
Mr. Kennedy. There was one exception to that. Is that right?
Mr. Stambaugh. That is correct.
Mr. Kennedy. The exception was not stated, but it was inferred
under the directives from the Army dealing with doctors and dentists
that came into the Army. Is that right ?
Mr. Stambaugh. That would be my interpretation of it ; yes, sir.
Mr. Kennedy. It was an inferred exception to this usual procedure ?
Mr. Stambaugh. Yes, sir.
ARMY PERSONNEL ACTIONS RELATING TO IRVING PERESS 97
Mr. IvEXNEDY. The exception arose from the fact that under the
regulations issued by the Department of the Army, they provided that
an applicant for a commission under the doctor or dentist or veteri-
narian did not have to fill out forms DD 98, 98-A or 398 until after
he had received his commission. Is that correct ?
Mr. Stambaugh. Yes, sir.
]\Ir. Kennedy. So, therefore, your check that would be ordinarily
sent up to the various branches of the First Army would not be ap-
plicable here because the applicant would already have been commis-
sioned prior to the time that you received these forms 98, and 98-A,
and 398?
Mr. Stambaugh. That is correct.
Mr. Kennedy. During this period of time the form 398 — during
the end of 1952 — form 398 for Irving Peress came to your attention.
Is that correct ? It came through your section.
Mr. Stambaugh. At what time was that?
Mr. Kennedy. This would be sometime between November 20 and
December 1 of 1952?
Mr. Sta3ibaugh. That is correct.
Mr. Kennedy. You have no definite recollection of that but you
have reviewed the files at the Department of the Army down here,
and you reviewed some of the files that we have and your recollection
has been refreshed ?
Mr. Stambaugh. Yes, sir ; it has.
Mr. Kennedy. Now, you know that form 398 on which Irving
Peress took the constitutional privilege arrived at least by December 1
because on that date you took certain action with that form?
Mr. Stambaugh. That is correct.
Mr. Kennedy. And you sent on December 1 this form 398 back to
the Keserve Section and requested that there be three more 398's sub-
mitted as well as a fingerprint card in order to complete the file?
Mr. Stambaugh. Yes, sir. That action took place.
Mr. Kennedy. Now, at that time, there wasn't anything on the form
that came to you, when the 398 was first sent to you — there was nothing
to indicate that this man was an exception to this general policy.
That is that he was a doctor, dentist, or veterinarian?
Mr. Stambaugh. There was nothing to indicate that he was other
than the normal Keserve personnel which was processed through the
office.
Mr. Kennedy. So there was no way for you to know, therefore,
that this man had already received. his commission?
Mr. Stambaugh. That is right.
Mr. Kennt:dy. Now, I would ask you to identify this document,
please. [Document handed to the witness.]
Mr. Stambaugh. This document is the paper which transmitted
the initial copy of the form 398 to the Adjutant General's Reserve
Forces of First Army requesting 3 additional copies of that form
398, and 1 copy of a fingerprint card for the purpose of a further
investigation.
Mr. Kennedy. May we have this, Mr. Chairman, made a part of
the public record ?
The Chairman. This form may be made an exhibit. No. 15.
(Exhibit No. 15 appears in the appendix on p. 153.)
98 ARMY PERSONlSrEL ACTIONS RELATING TO IRVING PERESS
Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Stambaugh, is there any symbol or anything
on that form that would indicate to you that at that time you did not
realize that Irving Peress had already received his commission?
Mr. Stambaugh. Yes, sir. This form indicates to me by the sub-
ject matter on the form, this being a copy of a disposition form of
the military, and it doesn't show the exact word "subject", but where
that position is on the disposition form the subject matter is "applica-
tion for direct appointment in ORG."
This would indicate to me this was a normal request for application
in the ORG.
Mr. Kennedy. What is the ORG ?
Mr. Stambaugh. That is the Organized Reserve Gorps. The ap-
plication for appointment would an appointment to the Officer
Reserve Gorps.
Mr. Kennedy. So at that period of time you did not realize that
this man had already received his commission and would possibly be
called to active duty. Is that right ?
Mr. Stambaugh. That is correct.
Mr. Kennedy. So at that period of time you did not take any steps
to prevent him from being called to active duty ?
Mr. Stambaugh. That is correct.
Mr. Kennedy. This information remained in the possession of
your section until the beginning of January. Now, you had evi-
dently some sort of tickler system in which these forms would be
brought to your attention after a period of a month or so. Is that
right?
Mr. Stambaugh. Yes, sir. When I sent out correspondence such as
this for additional information, it was made up in four copies, the
original and three copies. The original and two copies went with
the correspondence to the section intended for it, and a third copy
was ])ut in the chronological or log file of my branch section. The
fourth copy would go in my suspense file which I review daily to
see if there was anything that was holding lire too long.
Mr. Kennedy. Why didn't you just have these forms photostated
instead of this delay of a month in order to get three more forms
that were exactly the same ?
Mr. Stambaugh. It was the normal procedure to return the forms
and get the original copies. One purpose was during investigations
a good many times a specimen signature is needed. In addition,
there had to be a fingerprint card before any possible use could be
made of any forms w^e had in our possession on this man. Therefore,
it would take no longer to get tlie 398 forms completed than it would
to get the fingerprint card completed.
Mr. Kennedy. Then a delay of a period of at least a month would
elapse while these three forms or similar forms were received and a
fingerprint card was received. Is that right ?
Mr. Stambaugh^ That is approximately so, sir, and it would be
an approximate delay of about a month.
Mr. Kennedy. At that time, after you received these other forms,
the action that you would take then would be to send them over to
the Security Branch of the Intelligence Division. Is that right?
ARMY PERSONNEL ACTIONS RELATING TO IRVING PERESS 99
Mr. Stambaugh. Now, in this case it would be, and all cases were not
of the same nature as this. This indicated that an investigation had
to be conducted in order to determine the man's integrity to a point
of loyalty and so on. Therefore, when I would receive all of these
forms back, I would compile them into one package, and then take
them over to the other division of the G-2 Section and turn them over
to the Security Branch for a further action on them.
Mr. Kennedy. And it would be up to them, then, to initiate an
investigation. Is that right?
Mr. Stambaugh. That is correct. The}^ would initiate it.
Mr. Kennedy. Now, that occurred on January 5, is that right, that
you brought these forms over to the Security Section of the Intelli-
gence Division?
Mr. Stambaugh. Mr. Kennedy, sir, this paper indicates that the
forms were returned to my office dated January 5 with the request
I made complied with.
Now, it would depend upon if that was perhaps a Saturday that
that was made up, I might not get it before Monday. So I would
say that this was sent to me on the 5th, andT would get it within a
day or two, and I would compile it within a day or two and get it to
the Security Branch of the CI Division. But it would be in well less
than a week.
Mr. Kennedy. Do you know Irving Peress, Mr. Stambaugh?
Mr. Stambaugh. I do not.
Mr. Kennedy. Had anybody spoken to you regarding favorable
action during this period of time for Irving Peress ?
Mr. Stambaugh. They did not.
Mr. Kennedy. They did not ?
Mr. Stambaugh. No, sir.
Mr. Kennedy. Were you interviewed by the Inspector General
prior to April of 1954?
Mr. Stambaugh. I was, sir.
Mr. Kennedy. That is all.
The Chahiman. Mr. Stambaugh, I understood you to say something
about "inferred exceptions." What do you mean by inferred excep-
tions ?
Mr. Stambaugh. Sir, INIr. Chairman, I don't understand what you
mean.
The Chairman. Well, in the handling of doctors' applications, you
said there was an inferred exception to the general rule of processing.
Mr. Stambaugh. Yes, sir.
The Chairman. What do you mean by inferred exceptions ?
Mr. STAivnjAUGH. In the regulations, sir, the Army regulation itself
is the ruling factor. The special regulations are derived from, or an
interpretation of the Army regulation itself. I believe that that is
the case of the makeup of the Army regulations.
In one regulation it calls for this security check to be accomplished
prior to any action for appointment or enlistment into the Army
Reserve, or being brought into active duty.
In a portion of the SR, which is a ruling factor, it upholds that,
and tlien another SR which is a ruling factor pertaining to doctors
and dentists has this inferred exception which allows the commission-
ing of a doctor or dentist prior to him being sent the Forms 398, 98,
and 98-A for completion and return.
100 ARMY PERSONNEL ACTIONS RELATING TO IRVING PERESS
The Chairman. That is not a specific exception ? I am trying to
distinguish between a specific exception, one that is definitely covered
by regulations, and what you term an inferred exception ?
Mr. Stambaugh. Sir, Mr. Chairman, that regulations goes on to
state this, that with certain exceptions or language to that extent,
this regulation pertains, but it refers back to another or a third regu-
lation which ties it back down again. So that it makes it an inferred
exception, sir, I believe. That is a point I wouldn't want to argue.
But you have three regulations there in conflict with each other.
The Chairman. You have three conflicting regulations and so you
may infer from the conflict that you can do what one says you can't do,
and do what another one says you can do.
Mr. Stambaugh. Mr. Chairman, I believe the language is specific
with this exception, that when the doctor or dentist is tendered these
forms, it is after he has been commissioned.
Now, that is an exception. Specific or inferred is enough for me.
The Chairman. In other words, according to your interpretation
you were perfectly within your instructions and the regulations which
you had to guide you, in permitting these doctors and dentists to be
commissioned prior to the time that they had filled out these required
forms ?
Mr. Stambaugh. Pursuant to the regulations ; yes, sir.
The Chairman. According to your interpretation of the regula-
tions ?
Mr. Stambaugh. That is correct, sir.
The Chairman. That was the policy at the time, and it did not just
happen in the Peress case? It also happened in a number of other
cases with respect to doctors and dentists, did it not ?
Mr. Stambaugh. That they were commissioned before they received
the forms necessary to act on security matters ?
The Chairman. Yes.
Mr. Stambaugh. Yes, sir.
The Chairman. In other words, that was the policy of the Army at
that time, in the First Army at least ?
Mr. Stambaugh. Sir, that was the Army regulations and the special
regulations which were interpretations of the Army regulation policies.
The Chairman. So then the commissioning of Major Peress, or
Captain Peress at that time, the commissioning of him before he com-
pleted these security forms, was not contrary to the then policy and
existing regulations in the First Army. Is that correct?
Mr. Stambaugh. I don't believe it was contrary to that policy.
The Chairman. That is according to your interpretation ?
Mr. Stambaugh. Yes, sir.
The Chairman. And many others were commissioned prior to the
time that they had filled out these forms ?
Mr. Stambaugh. That is a possibility. I don't know specifically
of any at this moment.
The Chairman. I would like to know if we can determine whether
the Peress case was an exceptional case standing alone by itself, or if
that was the general practice and if others were commissioned accord-
ingly?
Mr. Stambaugh. Mr. Chairman, sir, on the 1st of December the
Peress case was not an exception case standing by itself.
ARMY PERSONNEL ACTIONS RELATING TO IRVING PERESS 101
The Chairman. In what respect did it later become an exception
case standing by itself?
Mr. Stambaugh. In this respect, sir, that on the 1st of December
there was no indication in rnnning a secnrity check that Irving Peress
was already commissioned, and in the Reserve.
The Chairman. Should that document you have already testified
to and identified, and I do not remember what identification you gave
it, but the document that caused you to send back for three additional
copies, and also a fingerprint caret — was that document in proper form
since it did not indicate that he had already been commissioned?
Mr. Stambaugh. Insofar as it pertained to our section and my work,
it was in proper form, sir. That is the way I received it.
The Chairman. You were not supposed to know when you handled
a case like that whether the fellow had already been commissioned
or was applying for a commission, and you weren't supposed to
know that ?
Mr. Stambaugh, I mean if regulations had been followed, the
regulations then in effect, should not that document have indicated
to you whether Peress had already been commissioned or whether he
had simply applied for a commission ?
Mr. Stambaugh. Mr. Chairman, it should have been indicated
one way or the other, either that he had been commissioned or applied
for a commission, or indicated that he was brought in under the
doctor and dentists draft.
The Chairman. But the particular document didn't indicate either
way?
Mr. Stambaugh. Not from the document I hold here, there was
no way of determining that.
The Chairman. If that is a correct photostatic copy of it?
Mr. Stambaugh. Yes, sir.
The Chairman. Then the document did not. indicate to you either
of those three situations ?
Mr. Stambaugh. That is correct.
The Chairman. Now, is that document in error by not indicating
that to you according to the regulations then in effect ?
Mr. Stambaugh. In accordance with the regulations, no, sir, this
is not in error.
The Chairman. You had no regulations to require that document
to indicate one of the three situations? What I am trying to de-
termine is simply that document is the usual procedures, and the
information was not required to be^ indicated on there whether he
had already been commissioned or not?
I do not know whether it is proper form or not. I do not know
whether it was all clone that loosely, or whether it is an exception
and was not in proper form. I am trying to find out from you.
You processed a good many of them.
Mr. Stambaugh. Yes, sir.
The Chairman. Is that the way they usually came to you ?
Mr. Stambaugh. Sir, perhaps I don't have the complete informa-
tion. This initiating document which I was handed was a document
from me to another section from where I had originally received
the forms. Now, if I could see that original document that trans-
102 ARMY PERSONNEL ACTIONS RELATING TO IRVING PERESS
mitted those forms to me, I could tell you and answer your ques-
tion as to whether the thing was in its proper form or not, sir.
The Chairman. Do you know where that original form is?
Mr. Stambaugh. I do not know.
The Chairman. Do you know it has been lost ?
Mr. Stambaugh. I don't know whether it has been lost or not, sir.
The Chairman. Counsel advises me that they tried to get it from
the Army and apparently it has been lost. Do you know anything
about that ?
Mr. Stambaugh. I do not, sir.
The Chairman. There was an original form though indicating to
you when you received it ?
Mr. Stambaugh. That would be my presumption of this matter.
The Chairman. That was the usual course?
Mr. Stambaugh. Yas, sir.
The Chairman. And you think certainly there was one that gave
that indication to jon ?
Mr. Stambaugh. I think certainly there was, sir.
The Chairman. Is it your custom to request fingerprint cards on
all applicants?
Mr. Stambaugh. No, sir; it isn't.
The Chairman. Why did you request a fingerprint card in this
case ?
Mr. Stambaugh. Because of the fact that Irving Peress' papers
indicated that there would have to be further investigation conducted.
The Chairman. Why did they indicate that?
Mr. Stambaugh, Sir, I have no way
The Chairman. What was there about his papers that indicated
there would have to be a further investigation of him ?
Mr. Stambaugh. I would have to be told or see the papers in order
to tell you that. It could only be a supposition for me to say
otherwise.
The Chairman. You mean you cannot recall?
Mr. Stambaugh. I have not seen that paper since January of 1953.
The Chairman. The form had on it a claim of the fifth amendment
privilege, if that was so would that indicate to you that there would
have to be a further investigation ?
Mr. Stambaugh, It certainly would, sir.
The Chairman. If that was on the form, that is probably the reason
why you requested fingerprint card on him ?
Mr. Stambaugh. Yes, sir.
The Chairman. And why you requested the other three copies, so
that G-2 investigation could be initiated ?
Mr. Stambaugh. That is correct, sir.
The Chairjvian. And it was your duty to assemble those papers and
then what did you do with them ?
Mr. STAMBAU(iTi. In this case it Avas assembled by myself sometime
after the 5tli of January upon my receipt of them. The records have
shown in my review of them this morning that I transmitted these by
hand carry to the Security Branch of the Counter Intelligence Divi-
sion, G-2 Section, First Army, and I turned it over to them in a
package, and requested a complaint-type investigation be conducted
on Irvins: Peress.
ARUIY PERSONNEL ACTIONS RELATING TO IRVING PERESS 103
The Chairman. So, then, within a few days, after January 5, the
Security Section of tlie First Army had knowledge of the Peress case,
and of the fact that he liad probably taken the fifth amendment?
Mr. Stambaugii. That is correct.
The Chair3Ian. They had knowledge of it from that time through
the rest of his military service?
Mr. Stambaugii. I believe so.
The Chairmax. If his form DD 398 showed that, you transmitted
that form to them showing that at the time, after you had procured
three extra copies of it, plus a fingerprint card; is that correct?
Mr. Stajibacgh. Yes, sir.
The Chairman. So they had full knowledge of it from shortly
after the 5th of January throughout the rest of Peress' career in the
service ?
Mr. Stambaugii. That he had stood on the fifth amendment ; yes,
sir.
The Chairman. That made him a security case; did it not?
Mr. Stambaugii. Yes, sir.
The Chairman. You knew that?
Mr. Stambaugii. Yes, sir.
The Chairman. Those to whom you delivered the papers in the
Security Division knew that, didn't they ?
Mr. Stambaugii. Yes, sir.
The Chairman. So then the G-2 Section of the First Army was
apprised of the fact that this Pere-^^s was a security case from the time
you delivered those papers sometime shortly after the 5th of January
1953?
Mr. Stambaugii. Yes, sir.
The Chairman. Senator Bender, do you have any questions?
Senator Bender. Mr. Kennedy asked the witness whether or not
you had any conversations previous to this regarding this case.
Mr. Stambaugii. Previous to when, sir ?
Senator Bender. Previous to when this occurred, in January of
1953. You were not instructed or M'ere you instructed to give this
matter any special consideration ?
Mr. Stambaugh. Previous to this date in 1953, you saj^?
Senator Bender. Previous to the time that this came to your atten-
tion, yes?
Mr. Stambaugii. No, sir.
Senator Bender. You had no conversation with anyone regarding
it?
Mr. Stambaugii. No, sir.
Senator Bender. Then you agree that mistakes will happen occa-
sionally, do you?
Mr. Stambaugh. Yes, sir.
Senator Bender. Why must you give them so much help ?
Mr. Stambaugii. I am sorry, sir, if I have given them any help.
Senator Bender. All sorts of things have been charged here, con-
spiracy, and people in important positions are involved, and all because
of a mistake or two on the part of subordinates. This whole matter
is achieving the attention it has received, the attention of the entire
Nation, and thousands of dollars have been spent in investigations,
and all because of a couple of mistakes.
Mr. Stambaugii. Yes, sir.
104 ARMY PERSONNEL ACTIONS RELATING TO IRVING PERESS
Senator Bender. Is that correct ? Is tliat a correct observation ?
Mr. Stambaugh. I believe that is a correct observation, sir.
Mr. Juliana. Mr. Stambaugh, what is the date of that disposition
sheet that has been made and exhibited here ?
Mr. Stambaugh. Mr. Senator, the initial date is December 1, 1952.
On the comment No. 2, the date is January 5, 1952, which evidently
is a typographical error, and it should have been 1953.
Mr. Juliana. My question is. What is the date of that particular
document, and when was that document prepared?
Mr. Stambaugh. The reproduction of it, sir?
Mr. Juliana. No ; the original.
Mr. Stambaugh. December 1, 1952, sir.
Mr. Juliana. Fine, thank you. Now, when you first learned of
Peress and you first received these loyalty forms on which he claimed
his Federal constitutional privileges, did you cause any checks to be
made with the Security Division within the Army, or any other gov-
ernmental agency to find out if they had any derogatory information
on Peress?
Mr. Stambaugh. Sir, at that time I do not believe so. No.
Mr. Juliana. Would it have been your job at that time to initiate an
FBI check on Peress ?
Mr. Stambaugh. No, sir, it would not. If the Senator does not mind,
the application came to me for direct appointment in the ORG. It
would have been handled as any other application would have been
handled at that time, and not knowing that this was a doctor or dentist
draft case, it would have been handled exactly the same as if you had
applied for a commission in the Officers Reserve Corps.
Mr. Juliana. To be very truthful with you, if I applied for a Re-
serve commission in my corps, I would want an FBI check done on me,
and I don't care where I am going to be assigned.
Now, you were with G-2 in New York City ?
Mr. Stambaugh. Yes, sir.
Mr. Juliana. Where was your office physically located ?
Mr. Stambaugh. It was on Governors Island, on the third floor.
Mr. Juliana. Now, at 39 ^Vhitehall Street, New York City, is the
CIC Corps of the First Army. Is that correct ?
Mr. Stambaugh. That is correct.
Mr. Juliana. Is that office the one to which you sent these forms
finally?
Mr. Stambaugh. No, sir.
Mr. Juliana, Where did you finally send the forms ?
Mr. Stambaugh. If the Senator pleases, in the G-2 Section of First
Army, there are 2 divisions, or there were 2 divisions. One was
the Intelligence Division. That is where the Training Branch was
situated in Intelligence Division, and I was the Chief of the Train-
ing Branch, responsible for the security check.
The other division of the G-2 Section was the Counter Intelligence
Division.
Now, don't confuse that with the CIC. There is very little to do
with that except coordination between the two divisions.
In the Counter Intelligence Division was the Security Section, and
they worked very closely with the CIC. My work was turned over
to the Security Section, from my division to their division.
ARMY PERSONNEL ACTIONS RELATING TO IRVING PERESS 105
Mr. Juliana. So we will have the record straight, my name is Mr.
Juliana, and I am not a Senator. I am counsel for the minority.
Mr. Stambaugh. Yes, sir.
Mr. Juliana. We haven't met before, so I thought I would tell you.
Now, who in First Armv while vou were there would initiate an
FBI name check on Irving Peress, or anybody coming into the Army ?
Mr. Stambaugh. That would be within the Counter Intelligence
Division, sir.
Mr. Juliana. That was not your Divisirin ?
Mr. Stambaugh. No, sir.
Mr. Juliana. Have you ever made any name checks of the FBI
in New York City ?
Mr. Stambaugh. No, sir.
Mr. Juliana. You had no authority to do that ?
Mr. Stambaugh. I had no authority to do such.
Mr. Juliana. That is fine. Thank you.
The Chairman. I have one other question, I believe. I understand
that you may have expressed some disapproval or opposition to bring-
ing these people into the Army before they had filled out these forms.
Is that correct ?
Mr. Stambaugh. The chairman doesn't mind my answering in a
little bit lengthy spiel here ?
The Chairman. Not too lengthy, but I want to get the facts, if you
had protested it, and if so to whom, and what was the circumstances
under which you objected to them being brought in without their
having filed their security forms.
Mr. Stambaugh. Sir, if the chairman pleases, may I ask the Army
counsel if he is present here, if I am authorized to talk on that point,
sir?
The Chairman. Are you still in the Army ?
Mr. Stambaugh. No, sir, I am not.
The Chairman. Well, you are authorized to talk about it.
Mr. Brucker. Sure, go right ahead.
The Chairman. You do not have to ask him, if you are a civilian.
You go ahead and talk, and talk under oath. We want to get the
facts.
Mr. Stambaugh. With the loophole, sir, of allowing the doctors
and dentists to become commissioned prior to them having obtained a
security check certificate which was required from all other reservists
appointed, then that allowed anyone to come in and be commissioned
in the service prior to a clearance of tliis security check. That is
prior to a security check.
Now, this security check was not a clearance in itself. It was
merely checking the local files available to the G-2 office and deter-
mining if there was any derogatory information which would in any
case make this man a security risk.
The Chairman. Well, whenever they filed a form like 398 and took
the constitutional privilege, that made them a security risk and that
would be derogatory information in your office ?
Mr. Stambaugh. Yes, sir.
The Chairman. And so that is what you objected to, bringing them
on in before that information was made available ?
Mr. Stambaugh. That is absolutely right.
106 ARMY PERSONNEL ACTIONS RELATING TO IRVING PERESS
The Chairman. To whom did you object?
Mr. Stambaugh. Sir, this is only remembrance on my part, and it
has been for some time, but I believe that I discussed it with persomiel
of the Adjutant General's Reserve forces, as well as personnel with
the Army Surgeon General's forces in Governors Island.
Tlie Chairman. Can you identify those parties ?
Mr. Stambaugh. Sir, I could name names as to whether they were
the specific ones. They would have to identify themselves.
The Chairman. Who was in charge of those offices at the time?
Mr. Stambaugh. In the Adjutant General's Section I had corre-
spondence through a Captain Kirkland, a Captain Dodd, and Colonel
Blum. Now, I believe a Lieutenant Delaney, and they were all in
the Reserve forces of the Adjutant General's Section.
The Chairman. According to your recollection, you discussed this
with them, or some of them ?
Mr. Stambaugh. Yes, sir.
The Chairman. And expressed your disapproval of that procedure ?
Mr. Stambaugh. Yes, sir. And also, in the Army Surgeon Gen-
eral's Section, Captain Van Sickle.
Now, whether I discussed it with him or not, I had dealings with
him on these matters, and perhaps I could have made my objections
known then.
The Chairman. Were any of them your superiors ?
Mr. Stambaugh. I worked under none of those.
The Chairman. Did you discuss it with any of your superiors?
Mr. Stambaugh. I believe that I probably had conversations with
Major Freeman in the G-2 Section, in the Counterintelligence Divi-
sion.
The Chairman. You recognized the danger of that procedure, did
you?
Mr. Stambaugh. Yes, sir ; I felt there was danger there.
The Chairman. And had your objection and disapproval of it been
recognized by those who had the responsibility, the Peress case would
have never happened ?
Mr. Stambaugh. I could not answer that, sir.
The Chairman. Well, it could have happened as it did, but they
could have done something about it ?
Mr. Stambaugh. Perhaps so.
The Chairman. Do you recall anything about 5 others who came
in the service under similar conditions to Peress, 5 other doctors
Mr. Stambaugh. Sir, I don't recall those.
The Chairman. Who were discharged? That is, who got their
commissions, but who were discharged before being called to active
service because their 398 and 98 forms revealed that they had taken
either the fifth amendment or that they had admitted some Com-
munist connections. Do you recall 5 other cases along about that
time?
Mr. Stambaugh. There were other cases and whether there were
five or how many, I don't know.
The Chairman. You do know that there were others but you don't
know the number ?
Mr. Stambaugh. That is correct.
The Chairman. They were never called to active duty?
Mr. Stambaugh. That is correct.
ARIMY PERSONNEL ACTIONS RELATESTG TO IRVESTG PERESS 107
The Chairman. They were dischar^-ed, and given honorable dis-
charges prior to the time the}^ were called to active duty?
^Ir. Stambaugh. Well, I couldn't say that tliey were even com-
missioned, or enlisted, really. I could only say that there were cases
where derogatory information was found to be present and the service
had no use for them.
The CHAiR:\rAN. Well, had these forms been in your file at the time
that they should have been there prior to the time that he was called
into active duty, and this had been detected, then he could have been
discharged and his connnission withdrawn prior to the time he was
called on active duty. That is the purpose of having the forms before
they were called to active duty ; was it not ?
Mr. Stambaugh. That is with the case of Major Peress; yes. If
this had been present at an earlier date, it is quite possible that he
could have been prevented from being called to active duty.
The Chaieaian. He would be given the same treatment as was
given the other five, or whatever the number was ?
Mr. Stambaugh. That is a possibility, sir.
The Chairman. All right. Thank you very much. IVIr. Kennedy-
has a question.
Mr. Kennedy. Did you ever have any arrangement with Captain
Kirkland or Captain Van Sickle to call their attention to any appli-
cant who had taken the fifth amendment on these forms, so that they
would keep them from being called to active duty ?
Mr. Stambaugh. It was not a general practice for my office to in-
form them directly that a man shouldn't be called to active duty.
But it was the general practice that as long as I held the forms for
the security check or that I had submitted to them correspondence
indicating that there would be further investigation necessary prior to
a security check being able to be accomplished, that there would be
no further action taken on that individual until such time as they
received information from our office which woidcl give them the go
ahead.
Mr. Kennedy. Because of the special problem under the directives
issued by the Department of the Army to call these people anyway,
did Captain Van Sickle, or Captain Kirkland come to you to make
any arrangements so that they would know about these individuals
prior to their being called to active duty ?
Mr. Stambaugh. Occasionally both Captain Van Sickle and Cap-
tain Kirkland visited my office.
Mr. Kennedy. What about this particular question ? Did you have
any arrangement whereby you would call their attention to these
particular individuals?
Mr. Stambaugh. No, sir.
Mr. Kennedy. Did you ever say to Captain Kirkland or to any-
body else that you felt that tliese people should be called to active
duty, and that thereupon you could watch over them or the intelligence
agencies or intelligence divisions could watch over them and that was
better than allowing them to run loose throughout the country ?
Mr. Stambaugh. I did not, sir. I feel if the chairman doesn't mind,
I feel that that would be like inviting some scoundrel into our house
to let you watch him murder him.
60030— 55— pt. 2 4
108 ARMY PERSONNEL ACTIONS RELATING TO IRVING PERESS
The Chairman-. You have a pretty good idea of it. Thank you very
much. That is all.
Colonel Thomas.
Do you solemnly swear that the evidence you shall give before this
investigating subcommittee shall be the truth, the whole truth, and
nothing but the truth, so help you God ?
Colonel Thomas. I do.
TESTIMONY OF COL. RONALD P. THOMAS
The Chairman. You may proceed.
Mr. Kennedy. Give us your full name, Colonel Thomas ?
Colonel Thomas. Konald F. Thomas, lieutenant colonel. Infantry.
Mr. Kennedy. Where are you stationed now ?
Colonel Thomas. Seventh Army Headquarters, Stuttgart, Ger-
many.
Mr. Kennedy. When the investigation was initiated of Irving
Peress on February 5, 1953, you were Chief of the Counterintelligence
Division, known as the Security Division of G-2. Is that coiTect?
Colonel Thomas. Yes, sir.
Mr. Kennedy. In that capacity you were responsible for the initia-
tion of the investigation of Irving Peress ?
Colonel Thomas. Yes, sir.
Mr. Kennedy. Now, if we can trace back on January 5, Mr. Stam-
baugh has stated on or about January 5 this information that the 398
and any other personnel information that he had on Irving Peress
was transferred over to the Security Section of the Intelligence Divi-
sion ; is that correct ?
Colonel Thomas. It is correct. But I would like to state at this
time that as Chief of the Counter Intelligence Division I had three
branches in my division that all had a part in this case.
Mr. Kennedy. Good.
Colonel Thomas. There were 29 different actions that were taken in
the Counterintelligence Division during the period from January 5
until approximately February 2 when he was separated. Of those
29 actions, I personally only had a part in 3 of them. So that if the
tounsel will permit me to refer to the records or my notes of the
records of my division, I will be glad to testify to what those records
contain, where I personally had taken the action or not.
Mr, Kennedy. You have some cards that you have taken notes from
these papers, and they will refresh your memory ?
Colonel Thomas. Yes, sir ; I have.
The Chairman. The Chair advises you that you are perfectly free
to refer to them for the purpose of refreshing your memory.
Colonel Thomas. Another reason why I would like to qualify my
(answer on February 5 was because I did not become Chief of the
Counterintelligence Division until February 27, 1953. Or January,
January 27, 1953.
Mr. Kennedy. From the examination you have made of the files
contained in the section of which you were Chief, you are able to give
us certain information?
Colonel Thomas. Yes, sir.
ARMY PERSONNEL ACTIONS RELATING TO IRVING PERESS 109
Mr. IvENNEDY. Prior to the time that you came on as Chief, on
January 5, Mr. Stambaugh had brought this information into the
Security Branch of the Intelligence Division. Is that right?
Colonel Thomas. That is correct.
Mr. IvENNEDY. Now, the file and information remained in the Secu-
rity Branch from January 14 of 1953 ?
Colonel Thomas. That is true.
Mr. Kennedy. What occurred in those 9 days ?
Colonel Thomas. I might state at this time that when I took over
as Chief of the Counterintelligence Division we had a backlog of
11,000 security cases.
The Chairman. How many ?
Colonel Thomas. Over 11,000.
The Chairman. In the First Army alone ?
Colonel Thomas. Yes; in the First Army alone, and we processed
an average of
Senator Jackson. How many are there in the First Army?
Colonel Thomas. How many what, sir?
Senator Jackson. How many people ? Wliat is the total personnel
in the First Army that he is responsible for ?
Colonel Thomas. All of the people in the States of New York,
New Jersey, and all of New England.
Senator Jackson. What is that total ?
Colonel Thomas. Military and civilian, all Department of Army
civilians and all defense contractor employees, who are working on
Government classified contracts, and all Department of the Army
civilians employed by the Army, and all military.
Senator Jackson. The bulk of it is civilian?
Colonel Thomas. And active-duty personnel.
The Chairman. We are not to infer that the 11,000 security cases
were all in the service ?
Colonel Thomas. They are all pertaining to the services; yes, sir.
Senator Jackson. Civilian and military and active and those not
on active duty ?
Colonel Thomas. Mostly civilian cases ; yes.
I would also like to bring out at this time that we were processing
an average of between 2,500 and 3,000 of these cases a month, and
that our personnel at this time amounted to 7 officers, 1 warrant
officer, and 12 civilians, when we were at full strength, and we were
never at full strength during all of this year that is in question here.
Senator Jackson. How many did you process a day ?
Colonel Thomas. At that rate it would average about 100 a day.
Senator Jackson. 100 a day ?
Colonel Thomas. In the CI Division ; yes, sir.
Senator Jackson. You could go through 100 cases and pass on them
with 7 officers ?
Colonel Thomas. Yes, sir.
Senator Jackson. You really went through them?
Colonel Thomas. We had toin order to keep ahead of the backlog.
Senator Jackson. Did you request — you had to what?
Colonel Thomas. We cut the backlog down during the 13 months
I was there from 11,000 to approximately 7,000.
Senator Jackson. You had some pretty fast file shufflers.
110 ARMY PERSONNEL ACTIONS RELATING TO IRVING PERESS
Colonel Thomas. Well, a lot of these individual actions were very
minor in themselves.
Senator Jackson. Did you request additional personnel ?
Colonel Thomas. I did on many occasions.
Senator Jackson. And you were turned down, I take it ?
Colonel Thomas. There was a freeze on military personnel in First
Army, from May of 1953 until approximately September of 1953.
Senator Jackson. In all categories?
Colonel Thomas. Civilian personnel, civilian help.
Senator Jackson. Did you ask for additional military personnel?
Colonel Thomas. Our table of distribution the on-strength did not
authorize us any additional military personnel, although they were
requested.
Senator Jackson. But your table of organization ought to be
adapted to a mission that has been assigned to you. You cannot take-
a platoon out and try to fight a division.
Colonel Thomas. Action has been taken on that, probably as a re-
sult of the requests initiated by us, and at the present time I under-
stand that section has some 81 personnel.
Senator Jackson. You mean 2 years later ?
Colonel Thomas. Within just a few months later.
Senator Jackson. Within a few months later ?
Colonel Thomas. Yes, sir.
Senator Jackson. You are referring back now to 1952 and 1953 ?
Colonel Thomas. January of 1953, and starting in September of
1953, we began getting additional personnel.
Senator Jackson. And you say additional personnel. What in-
crease did you get in 1953 in the fall. You went up from 7 to what,,
roughly ?
Colonel Thomas. I would not say. I don't recall the exact num-
bers, but there was probably 6 or 7 additional increases during 1953..
Senator Jackson. When did you get to 81 ?
Colonel Thomas. I understand that is what they have now.
Senator Jackson. That is what they have now, but that is 2 years
later?
Colonel Thomas. I left there in February of 1954. At the time I
left they were just beginning to get, and they had the authorization
for the increase, but they had not received all of the personnel.
Senator Jackson. You could not carefully process 100 security cases-
a day with a total of 7 officer personnel, could you really ?
Colonel Thomas. You are talking about processing one completed
case, and I said different action on them. Now, 1 case, and in this
particular case we had 29 different actions on it, and yet it was only
1 case. So each action may have been in some cases just a little
handwritten memorandum, or another case would be just a buckslip'
to the file section to make a file check, and things of that kind.
Senator Jackson. But someone had to look in the file to know what
to suggest?
Colonel Thomas. That is true.
Senator Jackson. You couldn't just throw in a form slip and say,
"Check such and such."
Colonel Thomas. If the file check slip came back there was no file;
that was the end of that one.
ARMY PERSONNEL ACTIONS RELATING TO IRVING PERESS 111
Senator Jackson. What kind of a file check are you talking about,
a security check ?
Colonel Thomas. G-2 file check.
Senator Jackson. But you could not go through 100 of them in a
day to get what you ought to look for?
Colonel Thomas. We didn't do the file check. The Administrative
Division of G-2 did the file cliecking. They had their own personnel.
Senator Jackson. AVhen these cases came to you, all you would do
was send their names, and address, and so on, and then have a file
check made ?
Colonel Thomas. Yes, sir.
That is the first thing the security branch did, was to request a file
check.
Senator Jackson. "What did you do beyond that ? Did you do any-
thing beyond that ?
Colonel Thomas. We reviewed the papers that may have come in
with the case at the time it came to us.
Senator Jackson. But every case that came in, you automatically
had a file check made of the individual ?
Colonel Thomas. Every what type of case ?
Senator Jackson. Every security case I am talking about.
Colonel Thomas. Wliat do you mean by security case ?
Senator Jackson. Well, I mean where there are allegations or de-
Togatory information as to security and/or loyalty?
Colonel Thomas. Yes, sir, in those cases we initiated a file check
in every case.
Senator Jackson. But nothing else?
Colonel Thomas. Well, after we saw the file check then we deter-
mined what would be the next step.
Senator Jackson, "Wliat if in a given case you had derogatory in-
formation but you got a file check back that was negative, and never-
theless based on the record prudence would indicate that you should
initiate a field check?
Colonel Thomas. We would initiate an investigation.
Senator Jackson. You would initiate an investigation?
Colonel Thomas. Yes, sir.
Senator Jackson. You did not rely on the file check alone ?
Colonel Thomas. The file check was only the first step to determine
whether we already had an investigation on this individual, and it
would be foolish to initiate one if we already had one in file completed.
Mr. Kennedy. Well, Colonel Thomas, you went into the security
section or branch around February 5 and it was brought over by
Mr. Stambaugh, and it remained there until February 14. Wliat oc-
curred between February 5 and February 14? And what was the
procedure ?
Colonel Thomas. I think you said February 5.
Mr. Kennedy. It was January 5 to
Colonel Thomas. On January 5 we received the papers in the CI
division.
Mr. Kennedy. What happened between January 5 and January 14 ?
Colonel Thomas. Our record indicates that Major Stambaugh hand-
carried these Forms 98 and 98-A and 398 to the CI division and, in
turn, to the security branch. There it was put in the pile of incoming
112 ARMY PERSONNEL ACTIONS RELATING TO IRVING PERESS
cases. Sometime between the 5th of January and the 14th of January-
Captain Carriage, who was a member of the security branch, must
have reviewed the file because on January 14 he made out a buck slip
or an interoffice notation from the security branch to the personnel
actions branch in effect saying "Here is a case that looks like it belongs
to you because it is a security risk and needs a complaint-type
investigation."
Mr. Kennedy. Why wasn't it sent to that branch originally, per-
sonnel ? Why did it go through security ?
Colonel Thomas. All cases, coming into CI, go to the security branch
initially. Only the derogatory cases are handled by the personnel
actions branch.
Mr. Kennedy. ^Vhat is the purpose of sending them there, if the
officer, like Mr. Stambaugh, realizes it is a derogatory case and why
doesn't he bring it to personnel instead of letting it stay there for
9 days to get to the top of the list ? Has that been changed ?
Colonel Thomas. Not that I know of. The security branch handles
all of them and then, after they are sorted out as to derogatory and
routine, they go to the PA branch. He probably could have taken
it to the PA branch initially and, if he had, it would have saved a
little time, but I don't know the answer to that. That was a matter
between Major Stambaugh and the security branch.
Mr. Kennedy. Now, on January 14 it was brought to personnel and
finally on February 3, between February 3 and February 4, the case
was brought to your attention. Now, what occurred in personnel be-
tween January 14 and February 3 ?
Colonel Thomas. On the 28th of January 1953, Captain Phelan
of the personnel actions branch sent a memorandum back to Major
Stambaugh "Request present whereabouts of Captain Peress," and the
reply by Major Stambaugh was as follows : "At Medical Field Service
School, Brooke General Hospital, Tex."
Mr. Kennedy. What happened then between January 14 and Janu-
ary 28, when there was an attempt to find out where he was? Was
there anything done or did it have to go to the bottom of the pile and
come to the top again ?
Colonel Thomas. To my personal knowledge I couldn't answer
that question, but as a general rule during that period of time would
be the time when the file check was being initiated and waiting for a
check of the G-2 files.
Mr. Kennedy. Looking over the papers that you reviewed, there is
nothing on them to indicate what was done during that period of
time.
Colonel Thomas. The file check was initiated by a very informal
hand-written slip that goes from CI Division to the Intelligence Divi-
sion, and those are not normally retained as a matter of permanent
record.
Mr. Kennedy. Is there any reason why that couldn't have been
done a month earlier, between the 1st of December and the 5th of
January when it come over to you people ?
Colonel Thomas. Only that file checks are normally initiated by
the CI Division and not by the Intelligence Division.
Mr. ICennedy. Has there been any change in that or is that still
the policy ?
ARMY PERSONNEL ACTIONS RELATING TO IRVING PERESS 113
Colonel Thomas. It was still in effect when I left there in February
of 1954.
Mr. Kennedy. Now, on January 28 there was an attempt to find
out where he was and on February 3 he was at that time reported
to have been out at Fort Sam Houston, Tex. ?
Colonel Thomas. That is right.
Mr. Kennedy. Now, on February 3 or February 4, it was brought
to your attention, is that right ?
Colonel Thomas. Yes, sir.
Mr. Kennedy. And on February 5 — perhaps you would identify
this document for me ?
(A document was handed to the witness.)
Colonel Thomas. That appears to be a photostat of what we call
a DF, or an interoffice memorandum, initiated by Captain Phelan,
of the Personnel Actions Branch, addressed to the Investigations
Branch, of the CI Division, Subject: Peress, Irving, Captain, Dental
Corps, Serial No., dated 5 February 1953, paragraph 1
Mr. Kennedy. You don't have to read it.
Colonel Thomas. It initiated an investigation from the Investiga-
tions Branch, which at this time was located as a part of the 108
CIC Detachment at 42 Broadway and not 39 Whitehall.
The Chairman. That will be made exhibit 16.
(Exhibit No. 16 appears in the appendix on p. 153.)
Mr. Kennedy. Would you look at this document, please?
(A document was handed to the witness.)
Mr. Ivennedy. Would you identify that document, please?
Colonel Thomas. The top one is another DF, signed by Captain
Maxwell, over my signature, blocked, from G-2 to the Medical Sec-
tion, First Army, and to the AG-RF file.
Mr. Kennedy. That notified the Office of The Surgeon General,
G-2, and G-2 Fourth Army, that this investigation was being ini-
tiated, is that correct ?
Colonel Thomas. Yes, sir, this notifies Captain Van Sickle and
Captain Kirkland, personally, that an investigation has been initiated
on Irving Peress.
The Chairman. Wliat is the date of that ?
Colonel Thomas. It isn't dated — yes, it is, February 5, 1953 is
written in ink, and that is the same date that appears on our record.
So I presume it was rubber-stamped on here and didn't show up in
the photographing process. The reply or notation from Captain
Van Sickle is dated February 6. So that confirms the approximate
date of February 5 that we sent it out.
Mr. Brucker. Just a moment, please.
Colonel Thomas. This did not go to the Fourth Army. That noti-
fied the Reserve Section and the Medical Section, within our own
headquarters, and this is an interoffice memorandum.
Mr. Kennedy. That the investigation was being initiated?
Colonel Thomas. That is right.
Mr. Kennedy. On that same day, on February 5, you sent a com-
munication out to the Fourth Army, to Fort Sam Houston, Tex. ?
Colonel Thomas. Yes, sir.
Mr. Kennedy. And stated that an investigation was being initiated
on Irving Peress ?
114 ARMY PERSONNEL ACTIONS RELATING TO IRVING PERESS
Colonel Thomas. That is ri^ht; also notifying them that Peress
had stated on his forms 98 and 98A's that he was invoking the Federal
constitutional privilege.
The Chairman. That is exhibit 17.
(Exhibit No. 17 appears in the appendix on p. 154.)
Mr. Kennedy. Now, on February 12 you notified the office of The
Surgeon General, G-2, and AG, Department of the Army, that this
investigation was being initiated?
Colonel Thomas. I would like to back up just a little bit. On
February 5 we also sent a copy of the letter to G-2, Department of
the Army, the same time we notified G-2, Fourth Army. Then on
February 12 we followed it up with the Department of the Army
form 268, which was sent to G-2, Department of the Army, The
Surgeon General's Office, 3 copies to The Adjutant General's Office,
and 1 copy to G-2, Fourth Army.
Mr. Kennedy. Mr. O'Donnell is pointing to that on the chart.
Colonel Thomas. I can't read your symbols from that. Will you
read them for me ?
Mr. O'Donnell. OSG, G-2, AG,
Colonel Thomas. Three copies to AG, that is right.
Mr. Kennedy. The next event that occurred, thereupon, Colonel,
investigation was initiated of Irving Peress ; is that right ?
Colonel Thomas. In our DF of February 5 we requested an investi-
gation to be initiated by our Investigations Branch, which was part
of the 108 CIC Detachment.
Mr. Kennedy. The answer is "Yes" ?
Colonel Thomas. Yes.
Now, I say "Yes," we requested it to be initiated, and I don't know
that they started it on that same day.
Mr. Kennedy. Between February 26 and March 9, you received a
communication from the Fourth Army that Irving Peress had never
been to Fort Sam Houston ; is that correct?
Colonel Thomas. Yes, sir.
Mr. Kennedy. So you checked to find out where he was and learned
that the last information that you could find about him was that he
had been sent to the Sixth Army out on the west coast?
Colonel Thomas. That is correct.
Mr. Kennedy. You learned that in fact Irving Peress had been
down to the Fourth Army and had been stationed there, and you
have learned jince that time ?
Colonel Thomas. All we know is that his orders ordered him there
and records indicate that he spent part of his tour of school there,
then the schooling was cut short, and he was sent out to the west coast
for overseas assignment.
Mr. Kennedy. The answer is "Yes" ?
Colonel Thomas. Yes.
Mr. Kennedy. Then, on INIarch 9, you sent this letter, this same
letter that you had sent out on February 5. And that letter was sent
then to the Sixth Army, where you had been informed by the then
Captain Van Sickle that Irving Peress was stationed at that time.
You sent this same February letter back out to notify them that an
investigation had been initiated ; is that right?
Colonel Thomas. It went through G-2, Department of the Army,
to G-2, Sixth Army.
AR]VIY PERSONNEL ACTIONS RELATING TO IRVING PERESS 115
Mr. Kennedy. On April 21, this investigation that you had in-
structed to be initiated on February 5 was completed by the Investiga-
tions Branch and you were informed of that, to that effect; is that
correct ?
Colonel Thomas. Yes, sir; we received the intelligence file from the
Intelligence Branch.
Mr. Kennedy. And that intelligence file was dated April 15 and
you received notification on April 21 ?
Colonel Thomas. That is right.
Mr. Kennedy. On April 24 you notified G-2, Department of the
Army, AG, and G-2 of the Sixth Army that this investigation had
been completed and that Peress had been found to be a security risk
and should be separated from the service ?
Colonel Thomas. Yes, sir.
Mr. Brucker. Just a second. I want you to go over this and follow
it.
Mr. KJENNEDY. That was on April 24 ; is that right ?
Colonel Thomas. On April 24 we sent out the section 2 of the form
268.
Mr. Kennedy. Wliich stated what ?
Colonel Thomas. Which states what you just covered.
Mr. Kennedy. Now, Colonel, from the study of the records, you
found that Irving Peress had in fact been sent to Camp Kilmer around
or on March 12 ?
Colonel Thomas. Would you repeat that, please ; I didn't hear all
of it.
Mr. Kennedy. From a review of the records, you have learned since
that time that Irving Peress was not out at the Sixth Army, that he
was, in fact, at Camp Kilmer, and had been there since March 12 ?
Colonel Thomas. Yes, sir ; that is correct.
Mr. I^nnedy. But you did not know that at the time?
Colonel Thomas. We didn't know that until May 14, 1953.
(Senators present at this time were Senators Jackson and
McClellan.)
Mr. Ivennedy. On April 28 you sent a letter to G-2, Sixth Army
again, via G-2, Department of the Army, the Office of the Surgeon
General of the Department of the Army, with a summary of the inves-
tigation ; is that right ?
Colonel Thomas. That is correct.
Mr. Kennedy. Then on May 14, you received notification from the
Department of the Army that Irving Peress was not out on the west
coast, but they had found that he was back at Camp Kilmer.
Colonel Thomas. Yes, sir. That is that original February 5 letter
coming back.
Mr. I^nnedy. So that is the first time that you have been able to
locate Irving Peress, and thereupon sent notification on the 14th of
May and told them that this investigation had been initiated ?
Colonel Thomas. That is right. We passed it on to the command-
ing general, Camp Kilmer, the same day we got it.
Mr. Kennedy. Then on May 19, you informed them that the investi-
gation at Camp Kilmer had been completed.
Colonel Thomas. Yes, sir.
Mr. Kennedy. I believe the next action was on May 21, Colonel,
when the investigation file which you had sent on the 28th of April
116 ARMY PERSONNEL ACTIONS RELATING TO IRVING PERESS
was returned to you with tlie notification that he was not at Sixth
Army but he was at Camp Kihiier, another notification, and that this
file, instead of going out to Sixth Army, should go instead to Camp
Kilmer.
Colonel Thomas. That is correct.
Mr. Kennedy, So on the 25th of May you forwarded the file on to
Camp Kilmer ?
Colonel Thomas. That is right.
Mr. Kennedy. This was with the summary of the derogatory in-
formation that had been found through the investigation that you
had initially initiated ?
Colonel Thomas. And three copies of the entire intelligence file.
The Chairman. May I ask if in that same notification instructions
were not given to take the necessary action in accordance with current
Army regulations relating to the removal of security risks? Did
those instructions go to Camp Kilmer ?
Colonel Thomas. In the May 25 letter ?
The Chairman. Yes.
Colonel Thomas. Yes, sir. The general information of the May 25
letter was informing the G-2 and the commanding general of Camp
Kilmer of the intelligence information pertaining to Peress and telling
them to take action under paragraph 3f SR 600-220-1 which is the
regulation which requires a man's commanding officer to initiate
action under security regulations to have him removed from the
service.
The Chairman. If I understand that correctly, the Inspector Gen-
eral's work had been completed.
Colonel Tpiomas. The Inspector General, sir, is not
The Chairman. G-2, Security, I am sorry.
Colonel Thomas. G-2's investigative action is completed at this time.
The Chairman. The investigation previously initiated had been
completed with the result that they found him to be a security risk,
and this information was sent to Camp Kilmer with instructions to
proceed for his removal from the services.
Colonel Thomas. Yes, sir.
The Chairman. May 25.
Colonel Thomas. May 25, 1953.
Mr. Kennedy. On June 15 that investigative file was returned to
you in the First Army with the recommendation for the commanding
general. First Army, Camp Kilmer, General Zwicker, that Peress be
removed from the service. That was signed by the G-2 officer there,
Colonel Brown; is that right?
Mr. Brucker. Just a minute. You used the name of Zwicker as
the commanding officer at that time ?
Mr. Kennedy. Is that incorrect ?
Mr. Brucker. Ask him that.
Colonel Thomas. I am not sure wlio the connnanding officer was. It
was never addressed to General Zwicker. It was addressed to the
commanding general. Camp Kilmer.
Mr. Kennedy. The commanding general. The file was returned
with the concurience of the commanding general?
Colonel Thomas. Of Camp Kilmer ; yes, sir.
Mr. Kennedy. Of Camp Kilmer. It was signed by the G-2 officer
up there; is that right? What I am trying to find out is if the con-
ARMY PERSONNEL ACTIONS RELATING TO IRVING PERESS 117
currence comes through the G-2 officer rather than the commanding
general himself.
Colonel Thomas. I don't have a notation in my record of who
signed the concurrence. If you will present it, I will tell you who
signed it.
Mr. Kennedy. It is not important. The fact was that it came back
on that date.
Colonel Thomas. It would normally come through G-2 channels.
Mr. Kennedy. You forwarded that on July 7 back to the Depart-
ment of the Army, is that right, in making the suggestion that Irving
Peress be removed from the service ?
Colonel Thomas. That is correct; through the Surgeon General's
Office.
Mr. Kennedy. Then, on August 20 an interrogatory had come back
from the Department of the Army through First Army for Irving
Peress, and you forwarded that on August 20 up to Camp Kilmer;
is that right?
Colonel Thomas. That is correct.
Mr. Kennedy. That interrogatory was filled out and returned on
August 26 and forwarded by you to the Department of the Army,
again repeating your recommendation that Irving Peress be separated
from the service as a security risk.
Colonel Thomas. On what date ?
Mr. Kennedy. August 26. Is that the date you have ?
Colonel Thomas. That is when G-2 at Camp Kilmer sent it to us.
Mr. Kennedy. What date do you have ?
Colonel Thomas. We sent it to G-2, Department of the Army, on
2 September.
Mr. Kennedy. The 2d of September ?
Colonel Thomas. Yes, sir.
Mr. Kennedy. On the 6th of January you prepared a letter for
General Zwicker, and then you had a conference on the 18th of Jan-
uary which I would like to cover in just a minute.
Prior to that time, I would like to ask you if you were interviewed
by the Inspector General.
Colonel Thomas. Excuse me, Mr. Kennedy, but you have asked sev-
eral questions there.
Mr. Kennedy. I say now the question is, Were you interviewed by
the Inspector General ?
Colonel Thomas. I was.
Mr. Kennedy. What was the date of the interview?
Colonel Thomas. During the month of March, probably about the
20th of March 1954.
Mr. Kennedy. That was prior to the time that thei Inspector Gen-
eral filed his report with the Secretary of the Army?
Colonel Thomas. I do not know when he filed his report with the
Secretary of the Army.
Mr. Kennedy. Have you received a letter of admonishment for
your handling of the Peress matter ?
Colonel Thomas. I did.
Mr. Kennedy. Can you identify this document, please?
(Document passed to the witness.)
Colonel Thomas. The basic document:
118 ARMY PERSONNEL ACTIONS RELATING TO IRVING PERESS
Headquarters First Army,
Office of the Commanding General,
Governors Island, New York, N. Y., SO June 1954.
AHFJA 201 Thomas, Ronald F., Lt. Col. 0256720.
Subject : Administrative admonition.
To : Lt. Col. Ronald F. Thomas. 0256720, U. S. Army.
1. Investigation has disclosed that during the period December 1, 1952, to
February 5, 1953, while you were Chief, Security Division, G-2 section, this
headquarters, unjustifiable delay occurred in your division respecting initiation
of a complaint type investigation concerning then Capt. Irving Peress, DO
01893643. Subsequently, from June 15, 1953, to July 7, 1953, similar delay
occurred in your division in the handling of correspondence enclosing the afore-
mentioned investigation.
2. You are hereby admonished for your negligent failure to exercise the atten-
tion to duties which the interests of the Government required under such
circumstances.
3. This administrative admonition is intended as a purely corrective measure
to improve your efficiency and to prevent future recurrences of this nature.
(Signed) W. A. Bueress,
Lieutenant General, United States Army,
Commanding.
The Chairman. Was that letter received after the Inspector Gen-
eral's interview with you ?
Colonel Thomas. I received this letter sometime in October 1954.
The Chairman. You had been interviewed in March 1953 ?
Colonel Thomas. In March of 1954, sir.
The Chairman. With respect to the first paragraph, which charged
you with undue delay, what Avere the circumstances?
Colonel Thomas. They are charging me with delay from December
1, 1952, to February 5, 1953, where, as a matter of fact, I did not take
over as Chief of the Security Division until January 27, 1953.
The Chairman. How long was it delayed after you were on duty
at that post ?
Colonel Thomas, Approximately 9 days.
Senator Jacks(^n. Mr. Chairman, I think whoever issued the repri-
mand in paragrapli 1 ought to receive admonishment for not being
sufficiently familiar with what was going on in that section and for
issuing such an admonishment.
The Chairman. That is what I was developing, the fact that he
received that in October, and he had been interviewed in March, and
during that period of time they did not find out the witness was not
on duty.
Senator Jackson. I say whoever issued that admonishment cer-
tainly ought to be admonished for having issued it.
The Chairman. Who issued that ?
Colonel Thomas. General Burress.
Senator Jackson. Colonel, did you call this to anj^one's attention
after you received it ?
Colonel Thomas. I made a reply to this letter of admonishment.
Senator Jackson. What has been done about it ?
Colonel Thomas. Do you want me to read the rest of the corre-
spondence ?
Senator Jackson. No. I mean, did they withdraw that part of the
admonishment, or are they conducting an IG investigation of that?
Colonel Thomas. I replied to this — I made a mistake when I said
I got it in October. I got it sometime in August 1954. I got it back
the final time in October of 1954.
ARMY PERSONNEL ACTIONS RELATING TO IRVING PERESS 119
In August of 1954, 1 replied to it and indicated that one error in the
facts, that I was not Chief from December, but not until January 27.
It came back to me in October 1954 with this notation :
1. Reference letter, this headquarters, subject: Administrative Admonition,
dated June 30, 1954, and your third endorsement thereto dated August 23, 1954.
2. You are advised that the complete correspondence in this case has been
placed in the informational 201 files of this headquarters and will after 1 year
be destroyed in accordance witli present directives governing the records man-
agement program.
Senator Jackson. But they still didn't correct the mistake.
Colonel Thomas. I beg your pardon. There is some reference to
that. Just a minute.
(Witness examining file.)
Senator Jackson. You mean there were mistakes on both sides, so
they agreed to destroy the whole business ?
Colonel Thomas. No, no. A letter of admonishment is merely a mat-
ter of record by a superior officer to a subordinate, calling things to his
attention that he felt should be brought up in writing in order to im-
prove his efficiency and to prevent recurrence of anything of that
sort.
Senator Jackson. I think in fairness to you, the record should have
been corrected.
Colonel Thomas. A letter of admonishment is not a punisliment,
and as a soldier it is not my duty to question the actions of my su-
periors, and I accept this admonishment because I was responsible for
everything that happened in the CI Division during the time I was
there.
Senator Jackson. It is not pmiishment, but it does not add to the tile
from the affirmative standpoint, does it ?
Colonel Thomas. This is not a part of any permanent file in my
case, and does not reflect against my record in the service in any way
at all.
(Senator Bender returned to the room.)
The Chairman. During the time of that correspondence, Peress
was still in the service, after repeated requests for his immediate dis-
charge; is that not true?
Colonel Thomas. Peress was separated on February 2, 1954, sir.
This letter didn't begin until June of 1954.
The Chairman. I see.
All right, how about the second time? What explanation is there
of that, from June 15 to July 7 ?
Colonel Thomas. The action would have been taken in the Per-
sonnel Actions Branch, which at that time consisted of Captain
Robichaud. In a discussion with him on Monday of this week, he
informed me that he was on leave from June 15 to July 5, and the
action was taken on July 7, so apparently he had it only 2 days in
his office before he took the necessary action.
The Chairman. When did that come to your attention? After
jou got the letter of admonition ?
Colonel Thomas. You mean that he was on leave ?
The Chairman. Yes.
Colonel Thomas. Not until Monday of this week.
The Chairman. Not until Monday of this week?
Colonel Thomas. Yes, sir.
120 ARMY PERSONNEL ACTIONS RELATING TO IRVING PERESS
The Chairman. Was he working under your direction at the time?
Colonel Thomas. Yes, sir. He was Chief of the Personnel Actions
Branch of the CI Division, and I was his immediate superior.
The Chairman. So you have to take some responsibility for that.
Colonel Thomas. I accept any responsibility for his actions.
The Chairman. Proceed.
The series of letters to which reference has just been made -will be
marked as exhibit No. 18.
(Exhibit No. 18 appears in the appendix on pp. 155-157.)
Mr. Kennedy. Were you there during this period of time yourself ?
Colonel Thomas. Which period are you speaking of?
Mr. Kennedy. The period of the second admonishment. Were you
there on duty at the First Army during that whole period of time?
Colonel Thomas. On June 15 I moved from Boston, Mass., or I
should say my family did, from Boston, Mass., to Governors Island,
N. Y., so I took 10 days' leave in order to effect my packing and mov-
ing and getting settled at Governors Island. So I was absent from
June 15 to June 20, inclusive.
Mr. KJENNEDY. Twenty-five ?
Colonel Thomas. I am sorry, June 15 to 25.
Captain Eobichaud brought it to my attention on July 6, and I
sent it out on July 6, and it left the G-2 section on July 7.
Mr. Kennedy. When it came to your attention
Colonel Thomas. The correspondence was prepared for my signa-
ture by Captain Robichaud.
Mr. Kennedy. It went out within 24 hours ?
Colonel Thomas. It went out of my branch within 2 or 3 hours
after it was prepared.
Senator Jackson. Mr. Chairman, if I might interrupt afc this
point.
Colonel, it seems to me you have a pretty good record in all this
to date. Maybe you are not concerned about the administrative
admonishment, but I think this committee is. If they conducted an
IG investigation and could not discover from — what was it, Decem-
ber 5 — December 1 to January 27 that you were not even on duty,
I do not know what kind of an IG investigation was conducted.
That is all I have to say.
The IG investigation ought to reveal that much, and certainly
somebody was not conducting much of an investigation if they could
not discover that you were not on duty during that period.
Colonel Thomas. I agree with you. General Burress was undoubt-
edly misinformed.
Senator Bender. General Burress had the right admonition, but
possibly it was intended for the office and not for the individual filling
the office.
Colonel Thomas. That is correct. It would be my responsibility
to pass on the corrective admonition to the proper individual.
The Chairman. It dealt with the efficiency of the administration
in that office, whether you were there or not. The letter of admonition
reached you for the purpose of calling it to your attention, and there-
fore to alert you to take corrective action to see that it did not recur ;,
is that correct?
Colonel Thomas. That is right.
ARMY PERSONNEL ACTIONS RELATING TO IRVING PERESS 121
Mr. Brucker. Mr. Chairman, tliere is anotlier matter in that same
connection which I think we should clear up. May I suggest it to you
to ask the question to clear it right at this time, or at the end ?
The Chairman. You may suggest to the chairman any question you
wish to have answered.
Mr. Brucker. I think it would come better at this time, because we
have been considering it.
I understand that something was said about the Inspector General's
report. This was not a DA matter. This was a First Army mat-
ter. I think if you will ask the witness, he will say something about
that which will* clear that up. It was not an Inspector General's
action, but a First iVrmy action.
Senator Jackson. "V'S^io conducted
Mr. Kennedy. Wasn't there a letter sent up from the Department
of the Army to the First Army after the Inspector General's report,
stating that certain corrective measures and certain disciplinary action
should be taken in certain fields which cover this particular area ?
Mi\ Brucker. I don't know about that, but I will find out about it»
If you have one there, I think it would be very proper to rea,d it.
The Chairman. Just a moment. Let's address that question to the
witness.
Does the witness know? Can he answer it?
Colonel Thomas. I do not know of my own knowledge. I was not
there at that time.
The Chairman. Let us pass it for the present.
Mr. Kennedy. There is a letter dated the 12th of May 1954, Mr.
Chairman, subject "Report of investigation," to Commanding Gen-
eral, First Army.
The Chairman. I suggest, then, Governor, that you may check this.
We will give you the letter. You may see it, and if there is any con-
troversy about it, the letter may be entered as a part of the record at
this point.
If there is any question about its accuracy we will get a witness
here to clear up the situation. If it is conceded that is a photostatic
copy of the original letter, that will not be necessary.
Mr. Brucker. Mr. Chairman, I think the letter is very proper and
should go in the record because it shows on its face that the general
statement was made to General Burress, and General Burress was told
to take such action as was warranted, but the action was taken by the
First Army. That is all I wanted to call to your attention.
The Chairman. That clears it up. That letter may be made exhibit
19.
(Exhibit No. 19 appears in the appendix on p. 157.)
Mr. Kennedy. This letter was based on the Inspector General's
report ?
Mr. Brucker. I think so.
Senator Jackson. It does not change at all the comment I made
earlier, which is that the letter of reprimand issued to Colonel Thomas
was based on the Inspector General's report.
Colonel Thomas. This is not a letter of reprimand. I don't mean to
correct you, but I want to make it clear that a letter of admonishment
is very different.
Mr. Kennedy. I beg your pardon. A letter of admonishment. I
am not trying to hurt you.
122 ARMY PERSONNEL ACTIONS RELATING TO IRVING PERESS
The Chairman. Let us move on to the next point.
Mr. Kennedy. Just one more point on this, Colonel. Even if you
had been there during this whole period of time, you were not respon-
sible for that section until you arrived there on January 5 ; is that
not correct ?
Colonel Thomas. That is correct.
Mr. Kennedy. Therefore, the delay from December 1 to January
5, even if you had been there, you would not have been responsible?
Colonel Thomas. That is correct.
Mr. Kennedy. Where were you at the time you received this letter
of admonition? Were you at the headquarters. First Army?
Colonel Thomas. No, sir. I was on duty in Germany, headquarters.
Seventh Army.
Mr. Kennedy, I have been advised to clear up your last statement. I
am sure it was an oversight, but you mentioned December 1 to Jan-
uary 5. It should have been December 1 to January 27.
Mr. Kennedy. That should not be straightened out. I said it was
in a section over which you had responsibility starting on January 5 ;
is that not correct ?
Colonel Thomas. No, sir. I didn't assume responsibility for that
section until January 27.
Mr. Kennedy. What I am saying is that if you had been there.
Colonel Thomas. The division got it on January 5.
Mr. Kennedy. That was my question. Even if he had been there
for the period December 1 through February 5 he would only have
had the responsibility after January 5?
Colonel Thomas. The C. I. Division had responsibility.
Mr. Kennedy. On January 18 you were informed by the AG that
Peress was to be separated and given an honorable discharge. Is that
right?
Colonel Thomas. I don't know that we were informed on that date,
but the records indicate that they ordered his separation as of that
date.
Mr. Kennedy. Knowing that derogatory information was con-
tained in Peress' file, was it a surprise to yon that he was to receive
an honorable discharge?
Colonel Thomas. No.
Mr. Kennedy. For what reason ?
Colonel Thomas. As is stated in the letter which came to First
Army, that was the most expeditious manner of getting him out of
the service. With that idea in mind, our first concern as security ad-
visers would be to get him out of the service and get him out of the
possibility of doing any harm to the Army from the standpoint of
being available or in the service where he could or may have access
to information.
Mr. Kennedy. Had there been a difficult time in getting rid of se-
curity risks ? Had you found difficulty in getting rid of security risks ?
Colonel Thomas. At what particular time, sir ?
Mr. Kennedy. During this period of time.
Colonel Thomas. During early 1953, up to the middle of 1953, yes.
Mr. Kennedy. This was at the end of 1953. This was the begin-
ning of 1954.
Colonel Thomas. Justwbout that time things were changing, but
they had not changed very much as of the end of 1953.
ARMY PERSONNEL ACTIONS RELATING TO IRVING PERESS 123
Mr. Kennedy. There Wiis a great deal of difficulty in your getting
rid of security risks from the xVrmy ; is that it 'i
Colonel Thomas. Under the previous security regulations out of say
approximately 100 cases, 90 of them would be returned by the Loyalty
Board as reinstated cases rather than getting them out of the service.
So that is why we were in favor of his being separated under any cir-
cumstances in order to get him out.
Mr. Kennedy. Even to the point of giving him an honorable dis-
charge despite this derogatory information?
Colonel THo:\rAS. That seemed to be the most expeditious way, so
for that reason we wouldn't approve of it, we wouldn't be in favor of
it, but we wouldn't object to it.
The CiiAiR^iAN. Colonel, if 1 understand correctly, it was on May
24, 1953, that you initiated the action to get him out of the service by
notifying the commanding officer at Camp Kilmer the results of the in-
vestigation which had been conducted, by also notifying the Surgeon
General and the Adjutant General of the Army; is that correct?
Colonel Thomas. I think, Mr. Chairman, that you have included
several actions in your statement. In our letter to the Commanding
General, Camp Kilmer, in j\Iay of 1953, we gave him our recommenda-
tion as G-2, First Army, pertaining to the information in his file.
The Chairman. That is the first official effort initiated to get him
out of the service. May 25 ?
Colonel Thomas. That is correct.
The Chairman. You also gave notice at that time to whom else be-
sides the commanding officer at Camp Kilmer ?
Colonel Thomas. That is true.
The Chairman. Who else besides Camp Kilmer did that recom-
mendation go to from G-2 ?
Colonel Thomas. Are you talking about the
The Chairman. The results of the G-2 report and the recommenda-
tion that he be removed from the service as a security risk.
Colonel Thomas. Are you talking about the.section 2 of the 268?
The Chairman. I am not sure about the numbers, but I know that
you testified that on May 25 you notified the commanding general of
Camp Kilmer that the results of the G-2 investigation revealed Peress
as a security risk, and you recommended that he be gotten out of the
service as such in accordance with current Army regulations.
Colonel Thomas. That is correct.
The Chairman. To whom else did you
Colonel Thojnias. On that date. May 25, we didn't notify anybody
else.
The CiiAiRiMAN. How soon after that did you notify someone else?
Colonel Thomas. We notified them long before that date. On April
24 we notified G-2 Department of the Army ; AG Section, Wasliing-
ton ; G-2, Sixth Army, that the investigation had been completed and
that Peress was a securitv risk.
The Chairman. That'is on the 28th of April ?
Colonel Thomas. On April 24.
The Chair JiAN. April 24?
Colonel Thomas. Yes, sir.
The Chairman. Then it took 9 months from the time that G-2
recommended that he get out before they got him out of the service;
is that correct ?
60030 — 55— pt. 2 5
124 ARMY PERSONNEL ACTIONS RELATING TO IRVING PERESS
Colonel Thomas. It took from that date- until February 2, 1954.
The Chairman. That is more than 9 months.
Colonel Thomas. Yes, sir.
The Chairmax. Has the procedure been improved any since then?
Colonel Thomas. Very definitely, sir.
The Chairman. How long does it take to get out now ?
Colonel Thomas. We had a case in the Seventh Army
The Chairman. I think the whole country is interested in this.
Colonel Thomas. We had a case in the Seventh Army in which we
got him out in 30 days.
The Chairman. You can now get them out within 80 days ?
Colonel Thomas. We have done it.
The CHAiR:\rAN. You have been able to do that?
Colonel Thomas. Yes, sir.
The Chairman. I think everbody would be very much interested in
that information because it seems that it was inexcusable that it took
9 months to get a security risk out of the service.
Senator Bender. May I make an observation here, Mr. Chairman.
Is it not a fact that Congress recognized the danger and passed a law
to make impossible repetition of this situation ?
The Chairman. I hope so.
Colonel Thomas. The change came about by Executive Order 10450
dated June 1953, in which the entire security program was revised.
Senator Jackson. Colonel, you cannot take care of the situation
by new regulations necessarily if people within the service who have
the administrative responsibility are not alert and on the ball. Is
that not right ?
Colonel Thomas. Certainly the implementation of the regulation
is very important.
Senator Jackson. I mean this whole matter could have been dis-
posed of and he never would have been called to active duty
Colonel Thomas. I beg your pardon, sir. The regulations at the
time he was called to active duty did not warrant his being separated
from the service.
Senator Jackson. But before you called him to active duty. He
was given his commission on October 15, 1952, and was called to active
duty on January 1, 1953.
Colonel Thomas. I would like to tell you
Senator Jackson. Is it not a fact, though, that it is not just a matter
of issuing regulations? If someone within the Department of the
Army is not on the ball to detect information in the file which obvious-
ly indicates that a given soldier, whether he is commissioned or non-
commissioned, is a security risk, then he is not necessarily going to be
detected just because there is a regulation on it.
Colonel Thomas. The implementation of the executive policies is
by our Army regulations.
Senator Jackson. I understand that, but you cannot implement
people necessarily to be alert and on the ball. You can try, but you
cannot pass a regulation making them automatically alert.
Colonel Thomas. The thing I am trying to point out is that the
policy at that time was that they would not be separated if they were
security risks.
Senator Jackson. I do not want to pursue it right now, but I am
merely suggesting that you could have avoided the technicalities of it
ARMY PERSONNEL ACTIONS RELATING TO IRVING PERESS 125
by not even calling him to active duty because right in his file was all
the information that would make it obvious
Colonel Thomas. I don't agree with you, sir. Dviring the time of
the Korean war we had many people who were trying to avoid haz-
ardous service by saying they were fifth amendment Communists as
they are now termed.
Senator Jackson. You are aware of the fact that in five other
cases they took care of them immediately i
Colonel Thomas. I am not aware of the five other cases and had
nothing to do with them.
Mr. Kennedy. There has been testimony in the last 2 days.
Colonel Thomas. I am aware of them now, yes.
Mr. Kennedy. You cannot say they could not have done it if they
did it in five cases.
Colonel Thomas. They did it as some special ruling over and above
the regulations. In other words
Mr, Kennedy. Senator Jackson was merely talking about some-
body being on the ball.
Colonel Thomas. That was the implementation at the beginning of
the change in the regulations.
Mr. Kennedy. No. It was prior to that time.
Colonel Thomas. The regulations are only a guide and the imple-
mentation of the regulations is changed as the conditions warrant it.
That was the first beginning of somebody recognizing the fact that the
regulations were not adequate and the change should be implemented
before the regulations were changed.
Senator Jackson. There was not any rule in effect at the time Peress
Avas called to active duty requiring, based on the file, that he be called
to active duty on January 1. That is a discretionary matter?
Colonel Thomas. Xo, sir. There was a regulation, a very specific
one.
Senator Jackson. In other words, within so many days after an
officer has been commissioned vou automatically call him to active
duty ?
Colonel Thomas. No. I thought you said he should be called
regardless of liis active duty.
Senator Jackson. Called to active duty. The point I am making
is that he was commissioned on October 15, 1952, when he had not even
completed his loyalty oath. That is ridiculous on its face. You
should not commission an officer when he has not even completed his
oath, because he has to take an oath .when he is commissioned; is that
not right ?
Colonel Thomas. Yes, sir. We objected to that.
Senator Jackson. In view of what he did after October 15 in filling
out his form, any officer who is on the ball, if he had seen what was in
the file would not have called him to active duty until he had specific
instructions in the light of what was in the file. Is that not the
heart of this whole business ?
Colonel Thomas. I don't agree with you, sir. The regulations were
very specific. Wliether he was a loyalty risk or not, he should have
been called to active duty, according to the regulations.
Senator Jackson. Is that in the regulations ?
Colonel Thomas. Yes, sir. I Avill quote it to you.
The Chairman. Let us have that quoted.
126 ARMY PERSONNEL ACTIONS RELATING TO IRVING PERESS
Colonel Thomas. SR 600-220-1, paragraph 6 (c), subparagraph
( 1 ) , change 2 dated March 20, 1951, which was in effect at the time this
Peress matter was initiated, states, I quote :
Resen'e personnel will not be deferred or rejected for nonvoluntary active duty
for reasons of disloyalty or subversion unless the investigation has been com-
pleted.
Ill this case the investigation was not completed until April 15, 1953.
The Chairman. According to those regulations, it was the duty of
the officers of lower rank having that responsibility to place him on
active duty according to your interpretation of it?
Colonel Thomas. Kot to place him on it, but not to keep him from
being placed
The Chairman. I mean to call him.
Colonel Thomas. That was another section, but that was the regu-
lation.
Tlie Chairman. Do you mean that under the regulations they had
the discretion not to call him or that it was their duty to call him?
That is what I am trying to determine. I thought you said under the
regTilations
Colonel Thomas. According to this regulation his being a security
risk would not prevent his being called.
The Chairman. It would not prevent him from being called, but it
was not mandatory that he should be called, was it?
Colonel Thomas. As I mentioned before, all regulations can be
altered according to the situation and if the situation warrants.
The Chairman. If the situations warrant it, they didn't have to
call him under that regulation. That is what you mean. They did
not have to call him under the regulation if the circumstances war-
ranted their not calling him ?
Colonel Thomas. We did not implement this particular section of
calling him to active duty. We did not do that.
The Chairman. I understand your division did not do that; G-2
did not do it. What I am saying is that you made the statement, as I
understood you, that it was their duty to call him to active duty under
that regulation notwithstanding the fact that the investigation of his
loyalty had not been completed ?
Colonel Thomas. It would appear to be that way.
The Chairman. What it appears to me, and I think you will agree,
is that they could do it and it would not be a violation of regulations
to do it ; but you have testified that they can also not do it if the cir-
cumstances warranted them not doing it; is that not correct?
Colonel Thomas. That is correct?
^ The Chairman. May I ask you if form 390, the one that Peress
signed making application for a commission, in which he denied any
connection with any subversive organizations, came to your attention
in the course of the investigation made by G-2?
Colonel Thomas. It did not.
The Chairman. Was it ever in the file of G-2 in the* course of its
investigation ?
Colonel Thomas. To the best of my knowledge, as Major Van Sickle
testified yesterday, that was in his file all during this time.
The Chairman. Has that been corrected now so that form 390 will
follow the file in a security investigation ?
ARMY PERSONNEL ACTIONS RELATING TO IRVING PERESS 127
Colonel Thomas. My understanding of the form 390 is that it has
an entirely different purpose than a security form.
The Chairman. It has as one purpose that he certifies to his loyalty
when under the circumstances he might be considered a security risk.
You know that, do you not ? He is asked whether
Colonel Thomas. I know it now, yes, sir.
The Chaieman. You did not know it then ?
Colonel Thomas. We had nothing to do with the form 390's during
that time.
The Chairman. I am simply asking, has that been corrected now ?
Does G-2 get that form?
Colonel Thomas. Not to my knowledge.
The Chairman. Then you would not know whether a fellow had
violated the law in making the application or not, would you, when
you consider his security?
Colonel Thomas. We wouldn't consider his security until he had
been brought on active duty.
The Chairman. I know. He is in the service, but he had to fill out
form 390 to get in the service, did he ?
Colonel Thomas. Yes.
The Chairman. That is a prerequisite for his getting in the service.
In that form he has to answer a question with respect to his associa-
tion and affiliation with organizations and persons who might be re-
garded as subversive. But that form never reaches G-2, or it did not
m the Peress case, and in other cases that were being processed at that
time ; is that correct ?
Colonel Thomas. To the best of my knowledge it is not intended to
go to G-2 and hasn't ever come to G-2.
The Chairman. You are a G-2 officer and experienced in this. It
seems to me it would be pretty important for G-2 to know whether the
applicant had misrepresented facts on the form in which he made
application for a commission in the Army. Would that not be im-
portant to G-2 to consider ?
Colonel Thomas. It might be important in the prosecution of a
security risk, but it isn't part of the investigative action.
The Chairman. Would it not have some impact upon your judg-
ment whether a man was a security risk if you found in his application
that he had certified falsely with respect to liis associations and affilia-
tions with organizations and people who might be regarded as sub-
versive ?
Colonel Thomas. Yes, sir. That is the purpose of the 398.
The Chairman. Yes ; but G-2 does not get it.
Colonel Thomas. 398, 1 said, sir.
The Chairman. I am talking about 390.
Colonel Thomas, The 390 in that paragraph is very similar to the
same information in the 398.
The Chairman. Yes ; but you do not know what he said in the fii'st
instance. You only know in 398 what he said after he got in the
service. You do not know what he said
Colonel Thomas. You are asking me a policy matter, sir, that I
have nothing to do with and don't know about.
The Chairman. It may be a policy matter ; that is what I am trying
to determine. The policy and tlie procedure during the case of
60030— 55— pt. 2 6
128 ARMY PERSONNEL ACTIONS RELATING TO IRVING PERESS
Peress was not to have that in the file of G-2. You did not have it-
no copy of it, no information about it. Is tliat not correct?
Colonel Thomas. That is correct.
The Chairman. I am trying to determine whether that policy has
been changed and whether that form 390, or a copy of it, now goes
into the files of G-2 so that G-2 may be informed as to what a man
certified to at the time he made application for a commission. Does
it go in there now ?
Colonel Thomas. All I can say is that I have never seen a form 390
in the intelligence file.
The Chairman. Do you not think it would be helpful to you?
Colonel Thomas. It would be ; yes, sir.
Mr. Kennedy. When you are making an investigation of an indi-
vidual, would you not ordinarily consult the forms that had to do with
the investigation?
Colonel Thomas. We do not make the investigations. They are
made by the investigative agency.
Mr. Kennedy. You didn't have any control over the investigative
agency ?
Colonel Thomas. I had staff supervision over them, but not com-
mand supervision.
Mr. Kennedy. They were not instructed to consult this form 390
to find out how the applicant had filled that out or how question No. 32
was answered?
Colonel Thomas. You are now getting into security policy— inves-
tigative policy — that I do not believe is a part of this investigation.
It is classified information and I don't think I am at liberty to give
the answer to that.
Mr. Kennedy. Is that correct, Governor ?
Mr. Brucker. Yes, Mr. Kennedy.
Mr. Kennedy. He cannot tell us whether the investigators would
have consulted the form 390 to see how the applicant had answered
question number 32 ?
Mr. Brucker. Let me counsel with him just a minute.
(Witness conferred with counsel.)
(At this point Senator McClellan left the room, and Senator Jack-
son assumed the chair.)
(Present at this time were Senators Jackson, Mundt, and Bender.)
Mr. Brucker. Mr. Chairman, the witness informs me that he
doesn't know on that subject, which perhaps would settle the ques-
tion. I am very much inclined to think that the question should be
asked generally, provided you don't pursue it into detail specifically,
because it is security information, the techniques of the investigation.
Mr. KJENNEDY. Governor, it is the very heart of this, if there was a
mistake made in this case.
Mr. Brucker. I say go ahead and ask him on this, and let us see.
Mr. Kennedy. I am going to pursue it in particular. It makes no
sense to pursue it in general.
Senator Jackson. Let us see where we go. Go ahead.
Mr. Kennedy. Did the investigative agents consult the 201 file
when they were making an investigation? Did they review the 201
file?
Colonel Thomas. Are you asking me generally or specifically ?
ARMY PERSONNEL ACTIONS RELATING TO IRVING PERESS 129
Mr. Kennedy. Is it a part of the routine that they review the 201
file?
Colonel Thomas. They review the man's record ; yes, sir.
Mr, Kennedy. They review the 201 file?
Colonel Thomas. Yes; they do.
Mr. IvENNEDY. Which contains the forms of the particular indi-
vidual ?
Colonel Thomas. Yes.
Mr. Kennedy. The answer to that is "Yes" ?
Colonel Thomas. Yes.
Mr. Kennedy. And form 390 would be in that file ?
Colonel Thomas. I don't think it would be.
Mr. Ivennedy. In this particular case it was in that file?
Colonel Thomas. It was in the file of the medical section, I under-
stand. I don't know.
Mr. Kennedy. You have no information on whether that file was
reviewed
Mr. Brucker. Just a moment. The witness added there "I don't
know." I think he ought not to have to testify to anything that he
guesses on, because if it is important enough to ask, it is important
enough for him either not guess on it and tell you that
Senator Jackson. I think he can testify whether it is the general
practice to check.
Mr. Brucker. Surely.
Colonel Thomas. I did that.
Senator Jackson. If he knows in connection with this case the
procedure followed.
Colonel Thomas. A records check is part of an investigation, yes.
Mr. Kennedy. In the case of a doctor would that include the records
of the medical section ?
Colonel Thomas. I don't know.
Mr. Kennedy. Why do you not know ?
Colonel Thomas. Because investigations are under the direct super-
vision of the commanding officer of the 108th CIC Detachment.
Mr. Kennedy. I think it is far better to say that in the beginning
than to say you can't tell us because it goes into the investigative
techniques.
Colonel Thomas. I used to be a counterintelligence agent.
Senator Jackson. There is not any great secret involved or any
kind of secret involved whether they do check with the medical section
on the 390.
Colonel Thomas. It is part of the investigative technique, and as
I understand that information has not been decided on as to whether
it is
Senator Jackson. Classified ?
Colonel Thomas. It is classified information, yes.
Senator Jackson. The information in the 390 is classified, but are
you suggesting that it is classified information to state whether or not
they do check the 390 in the medical section ?
Colonel Thomas. Yes, sir. Methods of investigation are classified
information.
Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Chairman, we have received a communication
from the Department of the Army in answer to a question : "Is the
130 ARMY PERSONNEL ACTIONS RELATING TO IRVING PERESS
form 390 mentioned in the investigative report?" The answer is
"No."
Should that be made a part of the record ?
Senator Jackson. It should be included in the record at this point.
Mr. Kennedy. It is a memorandum to Brig. Gen. C. C. Fenn from
Lt. Col. John F. Murray, dated March 11, and the subject is "Ques-
tions posed by Mr. O'Donnell."
Senator Jackson. The 390 was not included. That will be ad-
mitted and marked "Exhibit No. 20."
(Exhibit No. 20 appears in the appendix on p. 158.)
(At this point Senator McClellan entered the room and resumed
the chair.)
Mr. Juliana. Colonel, I would like to ask you a few questions.
Governor, if I should go into techniques of investigation, I am sure
you will take the liberty to stop me.
You were Chief of the Counterintelligence Division of G-2, First
Army, during the period that this investigation was conducted; is
that right?
Colonel Thomas. That is correct.
Mr. Juliana. In that position did you supervise the investigation?
Colonel Thomas. I did not.
Mr. Juliana. A¥liat did you do as far as the investigation was
concerned ?
Colonel Thomas. On February 5 my intelligence branch — I initi-
ated a DF to the intelligence branch of my division requesting that
the investigation be requested of the 108th CIC Detachment. From
then on it was entirely their responsibility until they returned it to
our office in April ; the exact date is April 21, 1953.
Mr. Juliana. What I am trying to reveal — I do not think you are
the man I want to ask these questions of. I want to ask questions
pertaining to what did the 108th do as far as investigating Peress?
Colonel Thomas. Then you should ask that of the commanding offi-
cer of the 108th CIC Detachment.
Mr. Juliana. You do not have firsthand knowledge of what went
on ; is that correct ?
(Ilolonel Thomas. I read the reports that were made ; yes.
Mr. Juliana. Then answer this question: Wlien did the First
Army contact the FBI concerning Peress ? I am not asking what the
FBI told First Army. When did you contact the FBI ?
Colonel Thomas. That is intelligence information. If I knew the
answer, I have not been given permission to give it.
Mr. Brucker. First of all, do you know the answer to that?
Colonel Thomas. Not of my own knowledge. I have read the file,
and it is in there, but I can't give you an answer.
Mr. Juliana. Did the First Army contact the FBI ?
Colonel Thomas. That has not been released as unclassified
information.
Mr. Juliana. Did the First Army contact the New York City
Police Department concerning Irving Peress ?
Colonel Thomas. That again, the intelligence file has not been re-
leased for publication.
Mr. Juliana. I might add that what was in the New York City
Police Department file has been made a public record, because photo-
static copies of their reports were discussed during public testimony.
ARMY PERSONNEL ACTIONS RELATING TO IRVING PERESS 131
(Witness conferred with counsel.)
Colonel Thomas. I have just been advised by Army counsel that I
can tell you that the FBI and the New York police records were
checked as part of the investigation.
Mr. Juliana. Can you tell me when?
Colonel Thomas. Not without referring to the file. It was some-
time between February 5 and April 15.
Mr. Juliana. That makes a big difference. Ordinarily, however,
the FBI file would not have been checked prior to the time that this
case came to G-2 ; is that not correct?
Colonel Thomas. We initiated the file checks. That is the purpose
of the 398's and the fingerprint cards. They couldn't make a check
without those, and nobody would make any until it came through my
division.
Mr. Juliana. Is there any procedure in your division in the Army,
or in the Army in general, whereby a memo coming in is automatically
block stamped to indicate what day it is received in a particular
division ?
Colonel Thomas. There are time stamps and date stamps on the
original correspondence and memos.
Mr. Juliana. Is that true throughout the Army, to your knowl-
edge ?
Colonel Thomas. Generally speaking, yes ; particularly of classified
information.
Mr. Juliana. You testified that you did not know that Peress was
stationed at Camp Kilmer until, I believe you said, May 14 ?
Colonel Thomas. May 14, 1953.
Mr. Juliana. Why was it that you did not know that Peress had
been stationed there since March of 1953 ?
Colonel Thomas. The orders ordering him from Fourth Army to
Sixth Army and back to First Army initiated in Washington, and
G-2 Section did not have copies or receive copies of those transfers.
Mr. Juliana. Is that normal procedure when a man is trans-
ferred from Texas to Washington to New Jersey?
Colonel Thomas. The purpose of the flagging action of the form 269
is to prevent a man from being transferred, and we notified Washing-
ton and Fourth Army and the AG Section of First Army that this
man was a flag case on February 5. Therefore, according to the exist-
ing regulations, he should not have been transferred.
Mr. Juliana. But he was transferred?
Colonel Thomas. That is right.
Mr. Juliana. I will ask the question again. It is the general rule
throughout the Army that it takes that long a period of time for the
records to catch up to a man when he is transferred from Texas to
Washington, the State of Washington, back to New Jersey? That
seems a very unreasonable amount of delay to me.
Colonel Thomas. Unless they would send us a copy of his orders
there would be no way of our knowing. We assumed he was out of
our jurisdiction.
Mr. Juliana. When a soldier leaves Fort Sam Houston, Tex., and
goes to a port of debarkation, in Seattle, does his 201 file, his personnel
file, accompany him ?
Colonel Thomas. Yes, sir.
132 ARMY PERSOJSTNEL ACTIONS RELATING TO IRVING PERESS
Mr. Juliana. Let us take Peress from Seattle to Camp Kilmer.
Would his 201, or personnel file, accompany him ?
Colonel Thomas. It would normally ; yes.
Mr. Juliana. In the Peress case, however, he was on leave for a
while, I believe ; was he not ?
Colonel Thomas. Yes, he was.
Mr. Juliana. We were talking a little while ago
Colonel Thomas. May I clear up one point there? His personal
201 file which you are speaking of does not go through G-2 channels.
It is a G-1 matter, and goes through AG.
Mr. Juliana. And G-1 is personnel ; is that right ?
Colonel Thomas. That is right. It goes through personnel chan-
nels.
Mr. Juliana. We were talking a while ago about the official ad-
monishment which you received, and I believe you said that it does
not affect your record, and so forth ; is that right?
Colonel Thomas. That is correct.
Mr. Juliana. What would happen if you received an additional
admonishment on top of the original one?
Colonel Thomas. An admonishment is not a form of punishment.
Normally if I had committed this same thing a second time or had been
responsible for delay a second time, there would be more serious action
taken.
Senator Bender. Mr. Chairman, as I understand it from the rec-
ord there was a delay from June 15 to July 7 the same year.
Colonel Thomas. They were all included in the same letter of ad-
monishment.
Mr. Juliana. What I am trying to develop here, Colonel, is whether
your official record can be harmed by an accumulation of admonish-
ments.
Colonel Thomas. Admonishments do not follow the officer from one
headquarters to another. They stay in the headquarters in which they
originated.
Mr. Juliana. Suppose you received 10 admonishments in First
Army ; would that affect your military record and status ?
Colonel Thomas. I would think it would ; yes.
Mr. Juliana. You would think it would. Therefore, receiving
one is and should be construed as serious, do you not think ?
Colonel Thomas. It is serious ; yes, sir.
Mr. Juliana. It is not a light matter ?
Colonel Thomas. If I conveyed that, I didn't intend to. I merely
conveyed the difference between it and a form of punishment.
Mr. Juliana. You mentioned some time ago that there was an in-
dividual under your supervision who went on leave, I believe, for 15
days. I didn't catch his name.
Colonel Thomas. Captain Robichaud, Chief of the Personnel Ac-
tions Branch.
Mr. Juliana. That is the one you were referring to ?
Colonel Thomas. Yes. .
Mr. Juliana. Was he replaced by another individual while he was
gone ?
Colonel Thomas. No, sir. We had no supernumeraries in the C. I.
Division. When one man is absent, the rest of the people in the divi-
sion had either to fill in or the work piled up until he came back.
ARMY PERSONNEL ACTIONS RELATING TO IRVING PERESS 133
Mr. Juliana. You also testified that you went on leave for a while,
is that ri^ht ?
Colonel Thomas. That is correct.
Mr. Juliana. Who took your place while you were on leave?
Colonel Thomas. Lieutenant Colonel Winn, my executive officer. ^
Mr. Juliana. Was Colonel Winn in any way admonished for his
participation in this?
Colonel Thomas. He was not. It is not normal that he would
be.
Mr. Juliana. Do you think that Peress deserved the same type of
discharge as an Army officer who served in World War II mider fire
or in the Korean war under fire ?
Colonel Thomas. In my personal opinion, he should not.
Mr. Juliana. He should not. I am glad you feel that way. Thank
you.
Senator Bender. Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask a couple of
questions.
According to our information here, when tlie investigative file was
returned from Kilmer on Peress, the statement was made that he was
not in a sensitive position. How do you interpret that ?
Colonel Thomas. A sensitive position generally is one where the
individual has access to classified security information.
Senator Bender. Wliat was the nature of Major Peress' service?
Colonel Thomas. As I understand it, he was dentist.
Senator Bender. Pulling teeth and fixing teeth?
Colonel Thomas. Yes, sir.
Senator Bender. Would he have access to any vital information?
Colonel Thomas. No, sir. From the time he was placed on^ the
flagged list, he would definitely not have access to any type of classified
information.
Senator Bender. How long was he on the flagged list ?
Colonel Thomas. At what location?
Senator Bender. All together.
Colonel Thomas. The flagging action was initiated on Februaiy 5,
1953.
Senator Bender. From that time until he was separated from the
service, he was on the flagged list ; is that correct ?
Colonel Thomas. Besides that, he did not have a security clearance,
which one must have to have access to classified information.
Senator Bender. So in your capacity as an Army officer, you were
active in accordance with the rules of the Army, entirely so, in your
relation to this particular matter ?
Colonel Thomas. To the best of my knowledge, we were.
Senator Bender. Mr. Chairman, for the record, I would like to say
that the Congress on June 11, 1954, took an action to refuse commis-
sions to drafted j)hysicians and dentists who prove to be security risks,
and this legislation, as I understand, was requested by the Defense
Department following a court ruling to the effect that men called for
the services under the so-called doctors draft law must be given officer
rank in keeping with their professional standing in private life. So
the Defense Department was encumbered or was handicapped because
of a court order which compelled them to give these doctors that rank.
Am I correct in that, Mr. Kennedy ?
134 ARMY PERSONNEL ACTIONS RELATING TO IRVING PERESS
Mr. Kennedy. Not under the act which, was in existence at that
time, Senator. There was a case which was appealed to the Supreme
Court under the act, the Orloff case, in which the Air Force took a
commission away from a fellow. They found that he had qualified his
398, took the commission away from him, and then drafted him in,
and he appealed. The Supreme Court upheld the Air Force in stat-
ing that he could be brought in as an enlisted man rather than as an
officer.
After the amendment to the Doctors Draft Act, passed in June of
1953, there was another case, and the Department of the Army pursued
that case and lost under that. But that was after this had occurred.
Senator Bender. They pursued it
Mr. IvENNEDY. And lost under the amendment to the Doctors Draft
Act which was passed in June 1953. But this was under the Doctors
Draft Act as it had been passed initially, and the Air Force had won
that case, bringing a doctor in as an enlisted man.
Senator Bender. I wanted to ask further, have you at any time had
instructions from any superior in the service, your immediate superiors
or anyone in the Defense Department, asking you to cover up on this
Peress matter ?
Colonel Thomas. Absolutely not.
Senator Bender. You have had no conversations at all with anyone ?
Colonel Thomas. Not to soft-pedal it. As a matter of fact, the
opposite was true. My superiors were informed of this as of February
5, and from then on were emphatically and vigorously pushing the
action to get him separated.
Senator Bender. That is all.
Senator Jackson. Mr. Chairman, I have just a short observation.
In connection with the statement I made earlier that this whole
thing could have been avoided if the people at First Army had been
on the ball and not called Major Peress to active duty, I think it is
pertinent at this point to read into the record paragraph 3 of an office
memorandum addressed to Gen, C. C. Fenn from Lt. Col. John F. T.
Murray, Subject: Request for additional information. I should like
to read from paragraph 3.
Mr. Brucker. What is the date of that, Senator ?
Senator Jackson. March 12, 1955. This has been furnished by the
Department of the Army as a result of information requested by the
staff.
The Chairman. This was furnished by the Army ?
Senator Jackson. It has been furnished by the Army.
The Chairman. You may read it into the record.
Senator Jackson. Paragraph 3 :
Reference is made to the request of Mr. Kennedy or Mr. O'Donnell for addi-
tional information concerning the five officers at First Army who were handled
differently from Peress. Upon being advised that certain medical and dental
corps officers were being ordered to active duty after qualifying their loyalty
certificates, the I'esponsible authorities at First Army notified the Department of
the Army. In the latter part of December 1952 a decision was made that such
officers should not be called to active duty. This decision originated in G-1 and
was concurred in by G-2 —
I hope you are listening to this. Colonel Thomas —
G-3 ; Office of the Chief of Army Reserve and ROTO Affairs ; Office of the Chief
of Infoi-mation ; Office of the Surgeon General ; and Office of the Judge Advocate
General. Accordingly, the authorities at First Army were directed by The
ARMY PERSONNEL ACTIONS RELATING TO IRVING PERESS 135
Adjutant General to revoke the active-duty orders of the oflBcers concerned and
to discharge them if they persisted in their refusal to properly execute the
required certificates. The five officers were honorably discharged on February
17, 1953. From the foregoing, it is apparent that Peress would not have entered
upon active duty had the responsible authorities at First Army been notified that
he had qualified his loyalty certificates.
I think you would like to have that information, because it com-
pletely contradicts what you volunteered, and I sugg:est that you
should not volunteer information that you are not sure about.
That is all.
The Chairman. Any further questions ? Senator Mundt ?
Senator Mundt. Colonel Thomas, did I understand correctly that
you stated that on February 5 your office initiated action on Peress
which resulted in his being known as what you call a flag case, and
that it was standard operating procedure that once a man was a flag
ciase he was not to be reassigned out of the area in which he was
presently serving?
Colonel Thomas. That was the existing instructions and policy, yes.
Senator Mundt. Existing regulations, I think.
_ You said further in regard to Peress that he was transferred in
violation of that regulation.
Colonel Thomas. I wouldn't say in violation of it. That is a
Department of Army regulation.
Senator Mundt. In spite of the regulation, he was transferred.
Colonel Thomas. The Department of the Army are the ones that
issued the orders on it. That was a Department of Army regulation,
and the Department of the Army was the agency which issued the
transfer order. Therefore, they amended their own order.
Senator Mundt. Put it this way. In conflict with that regulation,
Peress was transferred after being made a flag case.
Colonel Thomas. That is right.
Senator Mundt. Can you give us any information as to who was
responsible for that transfer or as to why it was made in conflict
with another regulation which seemed to make a lot of sense?
Colonel Thomas. I don't know. I have no idea, sir. That hap-
pened at higher headquarters.
Senator Mundt. How long after it happened were you ajDprised
of the fact that it had happened ?
Colonel Thomas. We were not aware of his transfer — well, there
were 2 transfers, 1 from Fourth Army to Sixth Army, and 1 from
Sixth Army back to First xA.riny. I will have to take each one sep-
arately.
Senator Mundt. The question is. When did you learn that he was
transferred and how did you learn it ?
Colonel Thomas. Will you read the last question again, please?
(The question w^as read by the reporter as follows :)
Senator Mundt. The question is, When did you learn that he was transferred
and how did you learn it?
Senator Mundt. I might add to that. Colonel, Wlien was the trans-
fer made and when did you learn of it ?
Colonel Thoimas. The first transfer from Fourth Army to Sixth
Army was brought to our attention
Senator Mundt. Let's go from First Army to Fourth Army and
get it chronologically.
136 AKMY PERSONNEL ACTIONS RELATING TO IRVING PERESS
Colonel Thomas. Peress came on active duty on January 1 in New
York City, and we knew on January 5 when we received the file —
we knew on January 14 when we had that buck slip to the Intelligence
Branch that he was on duty at Brooke General Hospital in Texas.
Senator Mundt. The Fourth Army ?
Colonel Thomas. Yes, sir.
Senator Mundt. Alll right. Proceed. Wlien did he transfer from
Fourth Army ?
Colonel Thomas. All right. The next transfer was from Fourth
Army to Sixth Army, and it was on March 9, our first indication of
knowledge of it, when our letter to Fourth Army dated February 5
was returned by Fourth Army indicating that Peress had been ordered
to Camp Stoneman.
Senator Mundt. Have you subsequently learned when he was
actually transferred? You learned about it on the 9th of March.
Have you subsequently learned when he was actually transferred ?
Colonel Thomas. I have heard it in the last few days, but I don't
recall the date. I believe — no, I would rather not. I don't know
exactly.
Senator Mundt. It was prior to March 9.
Colonel Thomas. Yes, sir.
Senator Mundt. When was he transferred from Sixth back to
First?
Colonel Thomas. We first learned about it on May 14, when the
file which we had sent out to Sixth Army came back through G-2,
Department of the Army, indicating that he was back in our own
Army area.
Senator Mundt. Have you subsequently learned what date he ac-
tually was transferred from Sixth Army to First?
Colonel Thomas. I have not of my own knowledge ; no.
Senator Mundt. Do we know those facts, Mr. Kennedy? I am
trying to establish if we now know the date the transfer occurred.
Mr, Kennedy. You mean as far as arriving at Camp Stoneman?
Senator Mundt. This leads up to my next question. I have to ask
the counsel because the colonel did not know the answer. Have we
been able to establish, Mr. Kennedy, who was responsible for moving
Peress these two times in violation of the Army regulations, or why
he was moved in violation of the regulations ?
Mr. Kennedy. Evidently the Army regulations, as I understand
it, never caught up to him until May 14. He had been moving all
around out on the west coast. The first communication went out to
the Fourth Army, to Fort Sam Houston, and they wrote back er-
roneously that Peress had never been stationed there. Then they
sent out to the Sixth Army to try to find him out there, since they
had received information that he was there. By that time he had
moved again. They kept about a month behind. He finally arrived
at Camp Kilmer around March 13 or 14, and it didn't catch up with
him at Camp Kilmer until a month later, and then that regulation
that he should not be moved went into effect.
Senator Mundt. It was an overall Army regulation, not written
just for Peress. It applied to all cases.
Colonel Thomas. It applied to all cases.
AEMY PERSONNEL ACTIONS RELATING TO IRVING PERESS 137
Senator Mundt. Whose responsibility was it, Colonel, to get this
flag case that you knew about brought to the attention of the people
in the Fourth Army ?
Colonel Thomas. It was ours, yes, sir, and we did it, on February 5.
Senator Mundt. You sent it out on February 5 ?
Colonel Thomas. Yes, sir.
Senator Mundt. Did you get any acknowledgment or receipt that
they got it ?
Colonel Thomas. We got it back from them eventually, yes, stating
that he wasn't there.
Senator Mundt. The Fourth Army got this before they transferred
him ? Do we know that ?
Mr. Kennedy. They got it after he had been transferred, but then
they checked, and you can see from the documents that they checked
their roster and then reported back that he had never been there. He
had left 5 days before. They didn't forward it. They sent it all the
way back to the Department of the Army, and then they started to
go out to him again in the Sixth Army, and by that time he was on his
way to Camp Kilmer.
Senator Mundt. Does this unconscionable confusion apply as far as
the Sixth Army is concerned?
Mr. Kennedy. These documents have all to do with what they did
out there in California and in Washington, trying to find him.
Senator Mundt. I ask the counsel for the Army to be sure that that
kind of thing does not happen again.
Mr. Brucker. Yes, Senator Mundt. You will hear about that later
in the testimony.
Colonel Thomas. Senator Mundt, I might call your attention to the
fact that there were three other agencies notified at the same time.
Each one of those agencies was notified that the man was flagged,
and they are the agencies that moved him.
Senator Mundt. After they received the notification ?
Colonel Thomas. Obviously.
The Chairman. The Chair has a series of documents pertaining to
his transfer from one place to another before the flagging caught up
with him, and without objection I will have them entered as exhibits
in the record at this point, as exhibit No. 21.
(Exhibit No. 21 may be found in the files of the subcommittee.)
Are there any other questions?
Colonel, for the record, for those reading the record, I may state
at this point that although you had a great deal to do with the Peress
case, your name was not one among the 28 submitted to the special
Mundt subcommittee by the Secretary of the Arm^^. It did appear
later and was submitted later on the chronology which was issued in
January 1955. But your name did not appear on the original list of
those having taken an active part in the personnel actions relating te
Captain Peress.
Thank you.
Senator Bender. Mr. Chairman, might I ask if it is correct that
Dr. Peress became a flag case about a month after he entered the
service ?
Colonel Thomas. That is correct.
Senator Bender. He was a flag case until the time of his release?
Colonel Thomas. That is correct.
138 ARMY PERSONNEL ACTIONS RELATING TO IRVING PERESS
The Chairman. Thank you very much, Colonel. You are excused.
Colonel Anders, will you come around, please, sir ?
Colonel, will you be sworn ? You do solemnly swear that the evi-
dence you shall give before this investigating subcommittee shall be
the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you
God?
Colonel Anders. I do, sir.
The Chairman. Have a seat.
You may proceed with the witness, Mr. O'Donnell.
TESTIMONY OF COL. JAMES D. ANDEES
Mr. O'DoNNELL. Colonel, will you state your full name, title, and
office of assignment?
Colonel Anders. James D. Anders, lieutenant colonel, 033475;
currently assigned to Headquarters, Security Division, Office of the
Assistant Chief of Staff, G-2, Intelligence, Department of the Army.
Mr. O'Donnell. That is presently known as the Policy Division
of G-2?
Colonel Anders. I am currently assigned to the Policy Section in
the Headquarters of the Security Division.
Mr. O'Donnell. When were you first assigned to the G-2 section of
the Pentagon, Colonel ?
Colonel Anders. I was picked up on the morning report of the 26th
of December 1951. I reported for duty the 6th of February, and went
to Strategic Intelligence School starting the 11th of February; re-
ported back in for duty the middle of March of 1952.
Mr. O'Donnell. When were you first assigned to the Disposition
Section of the Security Division of G-2 ?
Colonel Anders. On the 6th of February. I actually started duty
there the middle of March 1952.
Mr. O'Donnell. At that time the Disposition Section of the Secu-
rity Division consisted of four distinct units ?
Colonel Anders. Only three at that time.
Mr. O'Donnell. Three at that time. The Military Unit, the Civil-
ian Unit, and the Personnel Actions Unit ?
Colonel Anders. Special Actions Unit.
Mr. O'Donnell. Special Actions ?
Colonel Anders. Right.
Mr. O'Donnell. At that time you were assigned as Chief of the
Special Actions Unit ; is that correct ?
Colonel Anders. Yes.
Mr. O'Donnell. You were later reassigned within the Disposition
Section as Chief of the Civilian Unit in September 1952 ?
Colonel Anders. Right.
Mr. O'Donnell. In May of 1953 you became acting chief of the
Disposition Section, which controlled the three aforementioned units ;
is that correct ?
Colonel Anders. That is correct.
Mr. O'Donnell. Later, in July of 1953, you became Chief of that
Disposition Section ?
Colonel Anders. That is correct.
Mr. O'Donnell. Will you tell us briefly what the primary function
of the Disposition Section is, as to the Military Unit ?
ARMY PERSONNEL ACTIONS RELATING TO IRVING PERESS 139
Colonel Anders. The primary mission of the Military Unit is the
preparation of military security cases for disposition. That involves
both what we call favorable and unfavorable cases. It involves pre-
paring a G-2 action in closing a case favorably, or preparing a letter
of allegations and allied papers when we recommend removal from
the service.
Mr. O'DoNNELL. When a security case in the Military Unit arrives
from the Disposition Section for evaluation as to ultimate disposition,
is it a completed case ?
Colonel Anders. It is supposed to be a completed case. The regula-
tions require that it be complete enough for us to make an unequivocal
recommendation of termination in the case.
Mr. O'DoNNELL. Either negatively to close the case, or positively to
proceed toward elimination through whatever channels exist in the
Army ?
Colonel Anders. Eight.
Mr. O'DoNNELL. Prior to your entering Intelligence at the Pen-
tagon in 1951, I believe it was, were you ever assigned to any intelli-
gence work in the field while you were in the Army ?
Colonel Anders. Not as such. For a short time I was an intelli-
gence and reconnaissance platoon leader during World War II, which
is related but mostly on the positive intelligence side. And I was an
acting S-2 of an organization for just a short period of time.
Mr. O'DoNNELL. Colonel, I am going to pass down to you a docu-
ment which I would like to have you use and follow with me as we
proceed, which later I think will become an exhibit.
Will you identify that document or series of documents, photostats
of which are before you ?
Mr. Brucker. Give the dates on those when you do.
The Chairman. The documents may be marked "Exhibit No. 22."
(Exhibit No. 22 may be found in the files of the subcommittee.)
Colonel Anders. The basic letter in this case originated in Head-
quarters, First Army, and it is elated
Mr. O'DoNNELL. April 28.
Colonel Anders. April 28. The "8" is illegible.
Mr. Brucker. What year ?
Colonel Anders. 1953. The subject is "Irving Peress," and it is
directed through the Surgeon General, Department of the Army,
through the Assistant Chief of Staff G-2, Department of the Army,
to the commanding general. Sixth Army.
Mr. O'DoNNELL. "VVIiat does it purport to be, or what is it, rather?
Colonel Anders. This is the docuriient which forwarded the report
of investigation which was completed in April on Captain Peress.
Mr. O'DoNNELL. At the First Army ?
Colonel Anders. Yes.
Mr. O'DoNNELL. And the accompanying papern are the endorse-
ments showing the various transmittals of the security information,
is that correct ?
Colonel Anders. That is correct.
Mr. O'DoNNELL. In May of 1953, at which time you were Acting
Chief of the Disposition Section, did this report come to your atten-
tion?
140 ARMY PERSONNEL ACTIONS RELATING TO IRVING PERESS
Colonel Anders. It did. In fact, on the 21st of May I returned
this over my signature to First Army. I returned it because when the
case came from the Surgeon General — you remember it was directed
through the Surgeon General to G-2 — the Surgeon General indicated
that this man was currently assigned to Camp Kilmer. To comply
with our regulations, which required the recommendation of the com-
mander concerned, this case was forwarded back to First Army.
Mr. O'DoNNELL. My understanding, going back to the testimony of
Colonel Thomas, is that at the time this report or file emanated from
his office, they were under the impression that Peress was stationed
out at Sixth Army as a result of information they had.
Colonel Anders. That is indicated by this letter being addressed to
the Commanding General, Sixth Army.
Mr. O'DoNNELL. This letter is in consonance with that, and he was
sending the report to Sixth Army merely through your office, is that
correct ?
Colonel Anders. Yes.
Mr. O'DoNNELL. The first endorsement which appears thereon, un-
der date of 30 April 1953, is directed to Assistant Chief of Staff, G-2,
Chief of the Security Division, from the office of the Surgeon General
in Washington, and it relates that Peress was assigned to Camp Kil-
mer by orders of March 19, 1953. Is that the reason you sent it back to
Camp Kilmer on March 21, because of that notification ?
Colonel Anders. On 21 May.
Mr. O'DoNNELL. I am sorry, 21 May.
Colonel Anders. Yes. At this point there were two -things, actu-
ally. Wlien the letter originated, it was directed to Sixth Army.
We had a recommendation from G-2 of First Army to the G-2 of
Sixth Army saying, "You had better get rid of this man. He looks
like a security risk."
So we in effect had no recommendation to G-2, Department of the
Army. We didn't have an installation recommendation or an Army
recommendation for the disposition of the case.
Mr. O'DoNNELL. The reason this was sent back to Camp Kilmer,
as I understand it, was because the G-2 or the commanding officer at
Kilmer, where he was presently stationed, had not seen the report and
did not have a chance to make his own recommendation.
Colonel Anders. That is correct.
Mr. O'DoNNELL. Under Army regulations, did you have to send
it back to Kilmer where it was found that he was stationed at that
time?
Colonel Anders. Yes. The regulation required specifically that
the record contain a recommendation from the installation
commander.
Mr. O'DoNNELL. Can you cite that regulation ?
Colonel Anders. Paragraph 4c (1) SR-600-220-1.
Mr. O'DoNNELL. Which reads as follows :
Two copies of the completed report of investigation (or full field FBI investi-
gation) together with two copies of all supporting evidence will be forwarded
with recommendations by successive commanders through intelligence channels
to the commanding general of the major command.
Is that correct?
Colonel Anders. Yes.
ARMY PERSONNEL ACTIONS RELATING TO IRVING PERESS 141
Mr. O'DoNNELL. At the time you returned the file to Kilmer, did
you review it for evaluation purposes ?
Colonel Anders. I should for the record state here that I have no
personal recollection of this case prior to the middle of November
1953 ; that by reviewing the records I have reconstructed what I think
happened in the case.
Mr. O'DoNNELL. All right.
Colonel, do you have any recollection of reviewing the file for eval-
uation purposes before you forwarded it to Camp Kilmer?
Colonel Anders. I do not.
Mr. O'DONNELL. If you had reviewed the files on May 21 before
forwarding it to Camp Kilmer, and you ascertained there was a suf-
ficient amount of information to recommend elimination, would you
still have forwarded it to Camp Kilmer?
Colonel Anders. I think I would at that time, because the regula-
tion was very specific on that point.
I should add that that has since been changed, and that if G-2, De-
partment of the Army, received information from any source, no
matter whether there were any recommendations attached to it or
not, if we had the information that would support removal, we would
take immediate action to get it into the necessary channels for re-
moval. That was not the case at that time, unfortunately.
Mr. O'DoNNELL. In other words, regardless of your feelings in the
matter or your evaluation on a national level down here at G-2 in
Washington, under existing regulations you had to send that back to
Kilmer so that commanding officer would have an opportunity to make
recommendations ?
Colonel Anders That w^as our interpretation of the requirements
of the regulation at that time.
Mr. O'DoNNELL. That has been changed effective when?
Colonel Anders. Effective in June of 1954.
Mr. O'DoNNELL. Does a commanding officer of an installation have
to make recommendations?
Colonel Anders. They do not. As I said, we don't need the recom-
mendations of the commander, of the installation commander, the
Army commander, or anybody, until, if G-2, Department of the
Army, receives derogatory information from any source and it is
sufficiently derogatory to the point where we think it would warrant
removal, at that time we get it into the necessary channels. Specifi-
cally, we would forward it to the Adjutant General for appropriate
board action.
Mr. O'DoNNELL. Then as of May 1953, under the existing regula-
tions you could have started the processes toward ultimate elimina-
tion here at the national level ?
Colonel Anders. In May 1953, no; not under existing regulations.
Mr. O'DoNNELL. Under today's regulations?
Colonel Anders. Under today's regulations we could have; yes.
Mr. O'DoNNELL. That particular report arrived from the Surgeon
General in your office on May 2, and you forwarded it to Kilmer on
May 21, which is almost a 3-week period. Can you explain why a
3-week period had elapsed before it left your office ?
Colonel Anders. At that time, we were operating on about a 30-day
backlog. When a case came in, it was put at the bottom of the stack
and it worked up to the top.
142 ARMY PERSONNEL ACTIONS RELATESTG TO IRVING PERESS
Mr. O'DoNNELL. My understanding is that the Peress case was con-
sidered as routine.
Colonel Anders, It was.
Mr. O'DoNNELL. Any case that came in of this nature would be
placed at the bottom of the pile, and eventually it would reach the top,
at which time it would be handled ?
Colonel Anders. Yes. I should make the point here that we didn't
get any cases that there wasn't something wrong with. The Army
commander was authorized to close the cases in which there was just
minor derogatory information. All the cases that we got were more
or less of a serious nature.
Mr. O'DoNNELL. But there was no priority, as such, among cases
coming in to your office ?
Colonel A:nders. The only priority was a determination that the
cases of persons on active duty would receive priority over cases of
persons not on active duty.
Mr. O'DoNNELL. The case of a doctor on active duty would not re-
ceive priority over an enlisted man on active duty ?
Colonel Anders. It would not have.
Mr. O'DoNNELL. This eventually was cleared from your office back
to First Army, and it was re-returned, if I may use that phraseololgy,
from Camp Kilmer through First Army, again with recommendations
that Peress be eliminated from the service, is that correct?
Colonel Anders. That is correct.
Mr. O'DoNNELL. This arrived in your office at what time upon its
return ? It left First Army on July 7.
Colonel Anders. It left the Surgeon General on the 15th of July,
so somewhere between the 15th of July and the 10 of August. Nor-
mally it doesn't take long, 2 to 3 days at the most.
Mr. O'DoNNELL. It would be approximately the I7th or 18th of
July that it arrived back in your office ?
Colonel Anders. I can't determine that, but as a normal rule that
is what it would have been.
Mr. O'DoNNELL. The next step was the initiation of an interroga-
tory which was in fact prepared and dispatched from the Disposition
Section on August 10 to First Army for forwarding to Kilmer G-2 ;
is that correct ?
Colonel Anders. Eight.
Mr. O'DoNNELL. Could you tell me why the interrogatory was
prepared, Colonel ?
Colonel Anders. At that particular time we had a requirement —
the best I can determine the origin of the requirement, it came from
the Army Personnel Board to G-1, to G-2. The request was this:
That on all persons on active duty whose cases were being sent to
the Army Personnel Board, those cases be accompanied by a completed
interrogatory.
I have been unable to determine just when that went into effect.
I know it was discontinued right after the first of the year in 1954.
Mr. O'DoNNELL. Before we get into that. Colonel, wasn't there a
printed regulation which governed the preparation of interrogatories?
Colonel Anders. That is contained in Special Regulation 600-220-1,
a subparagraph which indicates that that is one of the actions that
the Assistant Chief of Staff, G-2, Department of tlie Army, can
take in connection with processing the case.
ARMY PERSONNEL ACTIONS RELATING TO IRVING PERESS 143
Mr. O'DoNNELL. 600-220-1, section 4c (3) :
Whenever the Assistant Chief of Staff, G-2, Department of the Army, deems
it appropriate, he will prepare a written interrogatory which will be delivered
to the individual. The interrogatory will be drawn up in such a way as to
obtain from the individual all possible information which may have a bearing
upon or refute the evidence in the possession of the Department of tlie Army.
That regulation is dated December 6, 1950. Is that the written
reguhition to which you refer ^
Colonel Anders. That is.
Mr. O'DoNNELL. This regulation would make it discretionary with
the Assistant Chief of Staff, G-2, in Washington; is that correct?
Colonel Anders. Right.
Mr. O'DoNNELL. You have stated that over and above this, there
were verbal instructions existing in the Disposition Section which
made the preparation of an interrogatory mandatory, and that you
believe these instructions came from the Personnel Board; is that
correct ?
Colonel Anders. I am sure they came from the Personnel Board,
but I don't know how" or from whom or when.
Mr. O'DoNNELL. These instructions supersede an existing printed
regulation. Were those instructions ever submitted to the Personnel
Board?
Colonel Anders. So far as I could determine, no. These instruc-
tions did not supersede. It works something like this. The Army
Personnel Board was the agency that considered these cases before
they went out for board action. If they felt that they needed ad-
ditional information in making their determination as to whether
or not to require an individual to show cause, we were charged with
securing that information. Their request for an interrogatory, I
presume that because of their constant working with these cases they
found that the interrogatories were quite helpful in making their
determinations, so they just informally put a sort of blanket request
for active-duty people to have an interrogatory on them.
Mr. O'DoNNELL. Would you classify these verbal instructions which
made interrogatories mandatory, as standing operating procedure
within your unit at this time ?
Colonel Anders. They were at that time.
Mr. O'DoNNELL. AVliy wasn't an interrogatory prepared at First
Army ?
Colonel Anders. An interrogatory involves a certain release of
classified information, information that has been developed as a result
of an investigation. The authority to release that information is
vested in the Assistant Chief of Staff, G-2, or higher authority. So
the interrogatory, because it of necessity has to release certain infor-
mation in connection with the case, could not have been prepared in
First Army under the existing regulations.
Senator Mundt. To whom was this interrogatory sent — the indi-
vidual who was under suspicion?
Colonel Anders. Yes.
Senator Mundt. The release of information is that you include in
the interrogatory some of the charges, the basis for those charges, and
ask him for his reaction ?
60030—55 — pt. 2-
144 ARMY PERSONNEL ACTIONS RELATING TO IRVING PERESS
Senator Mundt. That was sent to Peress following the decision
made by somebody for the second time that he be discharged, is that
correct ?
Colonel Anders. Yes, sir.
Senator Mundt. Why was it necessary, after the decision had twice
been made to discharge him, to send him an interrogatory ?
Colonel Anders. No, sir. The decision to discharge an individual
rests with what we now know as the Army Review Board. At that
time it was the Army Personnel Board, acting for the Secreta.ry of
the Army. So no decision had been made to separate the individual.
It was only a decision that the individual appeared to be a security
risk and as such should be separated, but the decision to separate him
had not been made.
Senator Mundt. In other words, the report you got back from
Camp Kilmer was not a recommendation to discharge_ him ; it was
simply a statement that they considered him a security risk ?
Colonel Anders. It was a recommendation that he be discharged,
but the final authority for discharge rests with the Secretary of the
Army, so we have got to get the whole case to his action agency before
the decision to discharge is made.
Senator Mundt. I understand.
Senator Jackson. Mr. Chairman, may I ask one question?
The Chairman. All right. Senator Jackson.
Senator Jackson. In the case of an officer who has been cleared
for classified information and it appears that there is substantial de-
rogatory information against him, can he be suspended immediately ?
Colonel Anders. There is no provision for suspending an officer,
sir. There is provision for revoking his security clearance and put-
ting him under surveillance, or whatever is necessary?
Senator Jackson. But he can be suspended insofar as security
clearance is concerned?
Colonel Anders. Yes, sir.
Senator Jackson. In the case of a civilian employee of the De-
partment of the Army
Colonel Anders. He can be suspended.
Senator Jackson. He is suspended completely ?
Colonel Anders. Yes, sir.
Senator Jackson. Why the distinction?
Colonel Anders. I am not in a position to answer that question,
sir.
Senator Jackson. I think it is one the committee ought to look
into in connection with this matter, Mr. Chairman. _ It seems to me
from what has been developed here so far, there is so much red
tape
The Chairman. This may be the reason for that : You do not sus-
pend an officer. You discharge him.
Senator Jackson. Not necessarily. An officer can be put in imme-
diate inactive status. Normally when an officer's time is up, he is still
a Reserve officer. He is put in inactive status.
The Chairman. That might be construed as a suspension, but I
never heard of the use of the word "suspending" an Army officer.
Senator Jackon. I think you are right about that. What I meant
to say was, remove him immediately from active duty. You use the
word "suspend" in connection with a civilian.
ARMY PERSONNEL ACTIONS RELATING TO IRVING PERESS 145
The Chairman. The usual action taken is to put them on a non-
security assignment ; is that not correct ? "Nonsensitive" is the word
I should use.
Colonel Ander. I am sure that is the fact. As far as the other
policy, that is not within the scope of my particular activities, sir.
The Chairman. All right, Mr. O'Donnell, you may proceed.
Mr. O'Donnell. Colonel, this interrogatory was prepared and dis-
patched August 10 to First Army, or Kilmer. Wliy wasn't the in-
terrogatory prepared and forwarded to Kilmer on May 21 when you
returned the reports so that the G-2 man at Kilmer could see them?
Colonel Anders. There are two reasons, actually, why it wasn't.
The first one was that at that time we did not consider a case com-
plete until we had the installation commander's recommendation in
the case, and no case was considered which was not complete.
The other reason, it may be the other reason, I am not sure that the
requirement existed as of May 21.
Mr. O'Donnell. What requirement ?
Colonel Anders. The requirement for the interrogatories.
Mr. O'Donnell. Making it mandatory ?
Colonel Anders. Yes.
Mr. O'Donnell. In any event, the interrogatory was in formal
preparation in your unit for several weeks under normal conditions?
Colonel Anders. Eight.
Mr. O'Donnell. That interrogatory was actually executed on
August 25 to Irving Peress at Camp Kilmer, is that correct?
Colonel Anders. It was forwarded from Camp Kilmer on the 26th.
I don't have a copy of the interrogatory.
Mr. O'Donnell. I would like to pass this photostat down to the
witness.
(Witness examining document.)
Colonel Anders. According to this — for identification, this is
headed "Interrogatory," and is dated August 25, 1953; the place,
Camp Kilmer, N. J.
The Chairman. That is the interrogatory signed by Peress?
Colonel Anders. This purports to be the signature of Captain
Peress ; yes, sir.
The Chairman. That may be made an exhibit to the testimony,
marked "Exhibit No. 23."
(Exhibit No. 23 may be found in the files of the subcommittee.)
Senator Mundt. Colonel, are those interrogatories sworn state-
ments ?
Colonel Anders. Yes, sir. This particular one was sworn to before,
I think it is, A. I. Barr, first lieutenant. Adjutant General's Corps,
Assistant Adjutant General.
Mr. O'Donnell. While you have that there. Colonel, on every ques-
tion other than base questions as to name and identification, did he
answer any securitj^ question or did he invoke the constitutional privi-
lege on every question on security measures?
Colonel Anders. In all cases, Federal constitutional privilege was
claimed.
Mr. O'Donnell. That left your office on August 10, and normally
the file with report would have arrived in your office around the 17th
or 18th of July. Can you explain the delay of a 3-weeks period be-
fore the interrogatory was prepared ?
146 ARMY PERSONNEL ACTIONS RELATING TO IRVING PERESS
Colonel Anders. Are you talking about from July 15, the date tliat
the Surgeon General forwarded it to G-2, until August 10 ?
Mr. O'DoNNELL. That is right.
Colonel Anders. That was not unusual. As I said, we had some
thirty-odd-day backlog.
Mr. O'DoNNELL. This would be considered routine, and it was
handled in routine fashion as the other cases, and because of the 30-
day backlog it would have been handled in that fashion ?
Colonel Anders. That is correct.
Mr. O'DoNNELL. That arrived back in your office as a completed
interrogatory on September 10; is that correct?
Colonel Anders. I am not sure that it arrived in my office on the
10th. It arrived in G-2 message center. There is a G-2 message
center stamp on it.
Mr. O'DoNNELL. In September.
Colonel Anders. Some time between there and October 27 it got to
my shop. I presume it was very close to the 10th.
JNIr. O'DoNNELL. On October 27, what happened ?
Colonel Anders. On the 27th of October, one of my case officers got
hold of the file and started working on it.
Tlie Chairman. You have referred to another delay there as ordi-
nary because of the backlog. This seems to have been delayed from
the time this interrogatory was received back in your office before
anybody started working on it again. How do you account for that?
Colonel Anders. There are 2 or 3 factors which were involved in
that.
In late August, there were committee hearings started up in
First Army. That involved my shop, since I also had the civilian
unit.
The Chairman. Is that the Fort Monmouth investigation ?
Colonel Anders. Yes, sir. Actually, the first ones were not Fort
Monmouth. I don't remember specifically what agency they were.
I believe it was the New York Quartermaster. There were 1 or 2
cases, and then Fort Monmouth started.
During the whole time of the Fort Monmouth hearings, my whole
unit devoted almost 100 percent of their time to certain phases of
that. Every time an individual was called before the committee, I was
required to get the file, if we had a file, and make a short summary
and furnish that information to the Chief of Staff or the Sec-
retary of the Army to keep them informed of the case. I frankly
don't know how many we made. My officers worked about 160 hours
overtime during this particular period here.
The Chairman. Are we now blaming the Congress and its inves-
tigative processes for the delay?
Colonel Anders. No. There is something else, too. Along in Au-
gust, the Chief of my military unit went to Strategic Intelligence
School, and on the 10th of September the only other officer I had
in that section got sick and went to the hospital. So actually, I had
no people there.
I was lent two from another section, but because of these other ac-
tions I was getting in the civilian progi'am, I had to put them to work
on it.
So we went for nearly a month there with no officer in that section.
ARMY PERSONNEL ACTIONS RELATING TO IRVING PERESS 147
The Chairman. Again, it is a combination of circumstances which
worked to favor Peress.
Colonel Anders. Yes, sir.
Mr. O'DoNNELL. Colonel, accordinor to a memorandum submitted
from your unit to the staff of the subcommittee, the officers in your
section during the latter part of September and continuing through
October worked 160 hours overtime as illustrative of the unusual de-
mands of projects which included requests of this subcommittee be-
cause of the Fort Monmouth hearings.
There were six officers in your unit at that time ; is that correct ?
Colonel Anders. Yes, sir.
Mr. O'DoNNELL. Breaking it down, 160 divided by 6 would amount
to 26.6 hours over a period of more than a month, which would
be less than an average of 5 hours' overtime a week. Ani I right?
Colonel Anders. That is right.
Mr. O'DONNELL. Which would be probably less or not more than 1
hour a day overtime, is that correct, on the average ?
Colonel Anders. Actually, this overtime was confined for the most
part to four officers. You are counting up at the top. You were fur-
nished, I presume, the same thing I prepared on it.
Mr. O'DoNNELL. That is right.
Colonel Anders. You wnll find that I say that the unit was com-
posed of that man;^ people. Subtract the two in the military unit,
oecause they weren't there.
Mr. O'DoNNELL. Colonel, could you tell me what time your officers
during this period of time reported for work in the morning?
Colonel Anders. Between a quarter to 8 and 8.
Mr. O'DoNNELL. And w^hat time would they leave at night ?
Colonel Anders. Normally about 6 to 6 : 30, unless we had some-
thing that required further action.
Mr. O'DoNNELL. "VVliat are your hours today ?
Colonel Anders. 8 : 15 to 4 : 45.
Mr. O'DoNNELL. Do you work any overtime at all ?
Colonel Anders. I do.
Mr. O'DoNNELL. What is the average amount of overtime worked
by the officers in your section ?
Colonel Anders. I can speak only for myself. I normally put in
anywhere from 10 to 15 hours a week overtime.
Mr. O'DoNNELL. Does your unit maintain records on overtime?
Colonel Anders. They do.
Mr. O'DoNNELL. You are in charge of the Disposition section?
Colonel Anders. I was at that time.
Mr. O'DoNNELL. I am sorry. I apologize. Wliat was the normal
amomit of overtime put in, per man, in your section while you were
chief of it?
Colonel Anders. I cannot answer that. I think records are avail-
able, though, which could be procured.
Mr. O'DoNNELL. I think you have just stated — maybe I am wrong —
that you were working on an average of 15 hours a week, normally,
overtime ; is that correct ?
Colonel Anders. No. Your question was now.
Mr. O'DoNNELL. Now. Wliat would you have been working
normally, yourself, during this period of time ?
148 ARMY PERSONNEL ACTIONS RELATING TO IRVING PERESS
Colonel Anders. About the same time, actually 10 to 15, sometimes
20 hours.
Mr. O'DoNNELL. A week ?
Colonel Anders. A week.
Mr. O'DoNNELL. You have listed here a figure which I assume you
have taken from the records, of 160 hours for the officers in your
section. You qualified that a few minutes ago by saying that would
involve four officers. If you are working an average of 10 or 15
or 20 hours' overtime yourself, that wouldn't leave too much overtime
for the other officers to work, out of the 160, would it ?
Colonel Anders. I frankly am not sure of the specific period. You
said a month. That 160 hours is during this general period. I
frankly am not sure what specific period that covers.
Mr. O'Donnell. Colonel, I would like to read into the record at
this time the memo you have in front of you, or a part thereof, which
starts out :
In September 1953 the Disposition Section was composed as follows :
Section Headquarters : 1 officer, 1 secretary
Civilian Unit : 1 officer, 2 civilian analysts, 5 clerk-typists
Military Unit : 2 officers, 1 clerk-typist
Special Actions Unit : 2 officers, 1 clerk-typist
RECAP-K Unit : 1 officer, 3 enlisted men
During the latter part of September and continuing through October the
section was required to prepare extensive data relative to the subcommittee
hearings at Fort Monmouth, N. J., and other Army installations. Much of
the work potential of the military and special actions units was diverted to
this project in order to meet the suspense dates imposed by the requesting
agencies. The 160 hours overtime worked by the officers of the disposition
section during this period is illustrative of the unusual demands of this project.
That was prepared by you, or was it not prepared by you ?
Colonel Anders. I submitted it. It was not physically prepared
by me.
Mr. O'Donnell,. But this is the basic data that you submitted before
it was finally drafted ?
Colonel Anders. That is right.
Mr. O'Donnell. And it is accurate?
Colonel Anders. So far as I Imow, it is accurate. It is taken from
the records that were available.
Mr. O'Donnell. During this period of time, the officers would have
been working no more than an average of an hour a day overtime at
the most, is that correct ?
Colonel Anders. No. The RECAP-K people, we will exclude this
one officer here in the RECAP-K unit, because he was not directly
involved in this. He was over in another building. He had prol>-
lems of his own.
As I pointed out, both of the officers who were in the military-
unit were absent during a portion of this time. I did get 2 addi-
tional officers, but they were inexperienced to the point where the bulk
of the overtime actually fell to the 2 officers in the special actions unit
and the 1 officer in the civilian unit and the officer in section head-
quarters, who was me.
Mr. O'Donnell. The 2 who replaced the 2 that you were tempo-
rarily without were not compelled to work as much overtime as
the others ?
Colonel Anders. That is correct. They were inexperienced in this
particular type of work. Normally when we worked overtime, we
ARMY PERSONNEL ACTIONS RELATING TO IRVING PERESS 149
had a requirement for something that could be gotten out in the least
amount of time. So there were actually four of us who did the bulk
of this work,
Mr. O'DoNNELL. Because of your backlog of work, did you ask for
additional help
Colonel Anders. I did. Sometime in late 1953 — I don't know the
date specifically. Of course, I discussed these problems and sub-
mitted weekly backlog reports to branch and on up to division. These
problems were discussed with the branch chief and the division chief.
Mr. O'DoNNELL. Did you specifically ask for extra help?
Colonel Anders. Yes.
Mr. O'DoNNELL. Did you receive it?
Colonel Anders. Not at that particular time.
Mr. O'DoNNELL. What was your backlog at this time?
Colonel Anders. Around a 60-day backlog.
Mr. O'DoNNELL. In other words, you had gone from an average
30-day backlog when you took over as acting chief of the section in
May of 1953, to a 60-day backlog in September of 1953 ; is that correct ?
Colonel Anders. That is correct. However, prior to that time we
did get part of our cases down to almost zero. Wlien I took over as
chief, the actual backlog in our civilian unit, which I had been chief
of, was almost down to zero.
Mr. O'DoNNELL. Colonel, getting back to another phase of this for
just a moment, we know that the initial report of completed investi-
gation which recommended elimination and separation of Peress
came down from the First Army under date of April 28, returned by
you May 21. That was returned from Kilmer again with a recom-
mendation concurring in the elimination, arriving in your unit about
July. Thereafter, an interrogatory was prepared and went out, and
the interrogatory came back with the same recommendation, the elim-
ination of Peress.
Was there any flagging procedure used, or was there any priority
placed on the interrogatory that went out so that it could be expedi-
tiously handled when it returned?
Colonel Anders. So far as I can determine, there was not.
Mr. O'DoNNELL. Again it was handled in a completely routine
fashion ?
Colonel Anders. Yes, sir.
Mr. O'DoNNELL. After its arrival in the message center on Septem-
ber 10, you have a 47-day delay before it is filed with the Disposition
Section; is that correct?
Colonel Anders. Yes.
Mr. O'DoNNELL. Is that a normal length of time ?
Colonel Anders. Let me back up. I don't believe that your state-
ment was quite correct, Mr. O'Donnell, because you stated that before
it was filed in the Disposition Section. I presume that the case arrived
in the Disposition Section sometime shortly after September 10.
The first actual record of it in the Disposition Section is the 27th
of October, but it is normal procedure when a case comes in that it is
received in the message center and within a day or two at the most it
would be at the action agency.
Mr. O'Donnell. The fact is that there was no action in this case
from September 10 to October 27.
150 ARMY PERSONNEL ACTIONS RELATING TO IRVING PERESS
Colonel Anders. That is correct.
Mr. O'DoNNELL. On October 29, a summary was started; is that
correct ?
Colonel Anders. The whole case file was referred to the Summary
Unit for the preparation of a summary of information. That sum-
mary basically was to be furnished to the individual along with a
letter of allegations to support the board action when it came up.
Mr. O'DoNNELL. When was that summary completed?
Colonel Anders. On the 6th of November.
Mr. O'DoNNELL. What action was taken after the summary was
completed on November 6?
Colonel Anders. I don't have any record of any action being taken
on the summary between the 6th and the 13th of November, at which
time G-1 called up and asked for a summary.
Mr. O'Donnell. I would like specifically to direct the attention
of the subcommittee to the fact that this first completed investigation
which left First Army April 28 is now in the process of having a sum-
mary completed November 6 in G-2 in Washington, and Peress had
been promoted on November 2, 4 days prior thereto.
The Chairman. At this point, I think I might again mention for
the record that Colonel Anders' name was not on the list of 28 orig-
inally submitted by the Secretary of the Army as those responsible
for the handling of the Peress case, but you were interviewed by the
Inspector General, were you not, Colonel ?
Colonel Anders. I was.
The Chairman. This committee has been in session now for more
than 5 hours today. We have a vote coming up probably any minute
now on the floor of the Senate. The committee will recess
Senator Mundt. May I ask one question. You said you were inter-
viewed by the Inspector General. Were you interviewed prior to the
time this list of 28 was submitted to us ?
Colonel Anders. That I cannot answer, sir. I don't remember the
specific date I was interviewed.
Senator Mundt. I received from the Department the list of 28 on
May 26. Were j^ou interviewed prior to May 26 ?
Colonel Anders. I am sure that I was, sir. However, I would have
to refresh my memory on that. I am reasonably sure that I was.
Mr. Brucker. Mr. Chairman, may I ask you one thing. You asked
Major Van Sickle to stay over until today. May he now be excused,
or do you want him still ?
The Chairman. I understand the staff has already advised him that
he may be excused.
Mr. Brucker. Thank you very much.
Colonel Thomas. Will you ask about my case, please ?
Mr. Brucker. Yes; I will ask.
Is it all right for Colonel Thomas to be excused ?
The Chairman. Colonel Thomas and what others?
Mr. Brucker. Major Pretty man.
The Chairman. All witnesses heard today we do not need further.
All of those who have been interrogated up to now may be excused
from further attendance unless again subpenaed — except Colonel
Anders, who will be back in the morning at 10 o'clock.
The committee will stand in recess until 10 o'clock tomorrow.
(Whereupon, at 5 p. m., the committee recessed until 10 a. m.,
Thursday, March 17, 1955.)
APPENDIX
Exhibit No. 8
United States Government,
Jf March 1955.
OFFICE MEMORANDUM
To : General C. C. Fenn.
From : Lt. Colonel John F. T. Murray.
Subject: Request for information.
Pursuant to the request of Mr. O'Donnell or Mr. Kennedy to Major Ivan on
2 March 1955 the following information is hereby furnished :
1. Concerning the 5 cases at First Army that were handled differently than
the Peress case :
Officer
Date Form
DD390
Executed
Date Form
DD 39S
Executed
Type of Discharge
A
19 Oct 1950
19 May 1952
21 Oct 1950
21 Oct 1950
18 Oct 1950
22 Oct 1952
27 Oct 1952
4 Nov 1952
4 Nov 1952
1 Oct 1952
B
Honorable.
c
Honorable Discharge as Officer. Undesirable Discharge
D
from Enlisted Status.
Honorable Discharge as Officer. Undesirable Discharge
E
from Enlisted Status.
from Enlisted Status.
2. Major Van Sickle was interrogated by an oflBcer of The Inspector General's
Department on or about 26 March 1954 in connection with an investigation con-
ducted by The Inspector General of the First Army. This investigation was
conducted to determine under what conditions a request recommending reappoint-
ment to a higher grade of Peress was forwarded to The Adjutant General from
First Army. This investigation embraced the handling of Peress' request for
reappointment and was initiated by the Chief of Staff, First Army, upon recom-
mendation of The Surgeon, First Army.
3. Attached hereto is a photostatic copy of the actual control card in Major
Van Sickle's office.
4. Information concerning the dates during which there was a requirement
for Board approval for initial appointments in the grade of major or higher, and
information concerning the inclosures and facts surrounding the 10 October letter
is being obtained and will be forwarded at a later date.
John F. T. Murray,
Lt. Colonel, G8,
Military Aide to the Secretary of the Army.
Exhibit No. 9
Department of the Army,
Office of the Surgeon Generax,
Washington 25, D. C.
1. Pursuant to Section II, Office Order No. 46, dated 22 August 1951, a Board
of Officers was convened on 9 March 53, to consider the request of Capt. Irving
Peress, 01893643, DC, for deferment from overseas assignment.
2. The Board consisted of:
Colonel O. Elliott Ursin, MC, Chairman
Colonel James Q. Simmons, MC
Colonel George L. Caldwell, VC
Colonel Charles W. Farber, DC
Lt. Colonel John K. Wallace II, MC
Lt. Colonel Clarence V. Frey, MSC
151
152 ARMY PERSONNEL ACTIONS RELATING TO IRVING PERESS
Lt. Colonel Inez Haynes, ANC
Major Joseph D. Dowless, Jr., MSC
Major William O. Prettyman, Jr., MSC, Recorder
3. Recommendation :
The Board recommended approval of subject oflScer's request.
4. Comment:
W. O. Prettyman, Jr.,
Major, MSC,
Recorder.
Exhibit No. 10
27 Febbuakt 1953.
SG Form Letter 141
(revised 16 Oct 52)
Peress, Irving, 0-1893643
Capt. DC
61-39 79th Street
Middle Village, 79, New York
Subject : Reassignment.
To : The Adjutant General, Washington, 25, D. C.
In reference to my orders to report to Ft. Lewis for shipment to Yokohama,
Japan, I request a cancellation of my overseas orders, and a consideration for
reassignment in the United States. I am enclosing letters from two psychiatrists
to substantiate this request, and to indicate the humanitarian reasons for grant-
ing this request.
I had previously directed this request to the Commanding Ofl5cer at the Person-
nel Center, Ft. Lewis, Washington, and was advised to make this request at the
Adjutant General's office. The Red Cross was employed to secure a verification
of the need for an emergency leave. This was accomplished, and the emergency
leave was grranted. I am leaving for home immediately, and will be there for the
duration of my leave. May I request that you give this application your urgent
attention, so that I may know your reply while I am home on leave.
I am enclosing copies of my correspondence with Ft. Lewis, and the letter
from the Red Cross, and copies of my emergency leave, and three (3) additional
copies of this letter.
Ibving Peress,
Captain, DC.
10 inclosures.
1. True copy of overseas orders.
2. Letter from Dr. Max Gruenthal.
3. Letter from Dr. Edward M. Bernecker.
4. True copy of SO for emergency leave.
5. Verified copy of Red Cross letter.
6. Original of request to Ft. Lewis for reassignment.
7. Reply from Ft. Lewis.
8. Three copies of this letter.
Exhibit No. 11
25 West 81st Street,
New York 24, N. Y., January 24, 1953.
To Whom It May Concern:
Mrs. Elaine Peress was under my care in the Fall of 1950. She was then suffer-
ing from a severe anxiety neurosis. At the same time she also brought to my
attention the fact that her little girl Jill was greatly disturbed emotionally.
Psychotherapy helped Mrs. Peress to some extent and made it easier for her to
handle the child.
She came to see me again in a state of panic on January 19, 1953. The child
had just been accepted for psychiatric treatment at a clinic. The child's be-
havioral problems had become a great deal worse since the father was called
into the Army. Mrs. Peress suffered a relapse as she felt unable to handle the
children, and particularly the younger one, without the assistance of her husband.
I do not believe that psychiatric treatment of Mrs. P. will in itself be sufficient
to prevent the family situation from disintegrating. The stabilizing influence of
the father is of utmost necessity in maintaining the equilibrium of the family
unit.
Max Gruenthal, M. D.,
Qualified Psychiatrist, Dipl. Amer. Board of Psychiatry and Neurology.
ARMY PERSONNEL ACTIONS RELATING TO IRVING PERESS 153
Exhibit No. 12
New York Univeesity-Bellevue Medical Center,
OF New York University,
Univeesitt Hospital,
New York 3, N. Y., February 17, 1953.
Re Jill Peress, 6139 79th Street, Middle Village, N. Y.
To Whom It May Concern:
Jill Peress, 4iA years of age, is currently being treated at our Child Guidance
Clinic for character behavior disorder which we feel is closely related to her
mother's emotional difficulties. Arrangements are being made for the treatment
of Mrs. Peress in group therapy.
The absence of the father from the family group has put additional strain on
both the child and the mother. We feel that his presence in the home would
be of great help to both mother and child.
Very truly yours,
Edward M. Bernecker, M. D.,
Administrator.
RL:gg
Dictated by : Rosa Lenz, M. D., Examining Physician,
Exhibit No. 15
Disposition Form
AHFKB-TR
AGRF
Application for direct appointment in ORG, G2TR, 1 Dec 52. Major Stam-
baugh/dt/7242
Request Peress, Irving, 61-39 79th Street, Middle Village. 79, New York, furnish
this office with three (3) additional copies of DD Form 398 and one (1) copy
of Fingerprint Card in order that an investigation may be conducted.
/s/ Willard B. Stambaugh,
Maj. G8,
for Wendell G. Johnson,
Colonel, OS, Assistant Chief of Staff, 02.
1 Incls :
DD Form 398
AHFAG-RF (PR) 201-Peress, Irving. Application for direct Apt in ORG
To : G2 TR
From : AG-RF
Date 5 Jan 52. Comment No. 2
Capt Kirkland/hs/23157
Complied with.
Milton R. Blum,
Col, AGC, Asst. AG.
3 Incls:
1. DD Form 398 (Quad)
2. DD Forms 98 & 98a
3. Fingerprint Card
Exhibit No. 16
5 Feb. 1953.
AHFKB-CI Peress, Irving, Capt., DC 0-1893643
Inv Br, 108th G2
Capt Phelan/abc/ 22132
1. It is requested that a complaint type investigation be initiated on Subject
for the following reasons :
a. Subject claimed "Federal Constitutional Privilege" in executing his DD
Form 98.
b. Subject, claimed "Federal Constitutional Privilege" in executing items 15
and 16 of DD Form 398.
154 ARMY PERSONNEL ACTIONS RELATING TO IRVING PERESS
2. Subject was ordered to active duty, 7 Jan 1953, per paragraph 7, SO 221,
Headquarters First Army, dated 10 November 1952. This office has been
notified that he is presently attending the Medical Field Service School at
Brooke Army Medical Center, Fort Sam Houston, Texas.
Ronald F. Thomas,
Lt. Colonel, OS,
Chief, Counter Intelligence Division.
3 Incls:
1-DD Form 398 (trip)
2-DD Form 98 & 98a
3-Fingerprint Card
Exhibit No. 17
AHFKB-OI Peress, Irving, Capt. DC 0-1893643
To (In Turn) :
1. Med Sec-Information, Attn : Capt VanSickle.
2. AG-RF-File, Attn : Capt Kirkland.
From : G2
Date : 5 Feb. 1953 Comment No. 1
Capt. Phelan/abQ/22132
1. A complaint type investigation is being initiated on Subject, because he
claimed "Federal Constitutional Privilege" in executing DD Form 98 and Items
15 & 16 on DD Form 398.
2. For your information.
/s/ C. F. Maxwell,
Capt. Inf.
for Ronald F. Thomas,
Lt. Colonel, OS.
Chief, Counter Intelligence Division.
AHFMS-PP 201 Peress, Irving, Capt. DC 0-1893643
To : AG RF.
From : Med. Sec.
Date : 6 Feb 53 Comment No. 2
Capt Van Sickle/gl/6286
1. Capt. Irving Peress was ordered into the active military service per par.
7, SO 221 this hqs, dtd 10 Nov 52 for the purpose of attending Class #15, Asso-
ciate Med Svc Co Officers' Course 8-0-2, Student Detachment, Medical Field
Service School, Brooke Army Medical Center, Ft Sam Houston, Texas, to report
not later than 7 Jan 53.
2. Recommend information contained in par 1 above be passed to G2 Section.
G. H. Hage,
Lt. Colonel, MSC,
Ch, AMED8 Pers Div.
AHFAG-RF (PR) 201 Subject : Peress, Irving, Capt, DC 0-1893643
To : G2.
From : AG-RF.
Date : 11 Feb 53 Comment No. 3.
Capt Kirkland/hs/23157.
Attention is invited to the fact that this officer was appointed under the old
SR 140-105-9 which did not require that he submit the loyalty forms prior to
appointment. He was, therefore, apiwinted by this division and ordered to duty
by the Medical Section as indicated in CN 2 above.
/s/ K.
for Milton R. Blum,
Col, AGC,
Asst. AG.
ARMY PERSONNEL ACTIONS RELATING TO IRVING PERESS 155
Exhibit No. 18
Headquaktees First Army,
Office op the Commanding General,
Governors Island, New York 4, N. Y., 30 June 195^.
AHFJA 201 Thomas, Ronald F.
Lt Col, 0256720
Subject : Administrative Admonition.
To : Lieutenant Colonel Ronald F. Thomas, 0256720, U. S. Army,
1. Investigation has disclosed that during the period 1 December 1952 to 5
February 1953, vphile you were Chief, Security Division, G-2 Section, this Head-
quarters, imjustiflable delay occurred in your division respecting initiation of
a complaint type investigation concerning then Captain Irving Peress, DC
01893643. Subsequently, from 15 June 1953 to 7 July 1953, similar delay oc-
curred in your division in the handling of correspondence inclosing the afore-
mentioned investigation.
2. You are hereby admonished for your negligent failure to exercise the atten-
tion to duties vphich the interests of the Government required under such cir-
cumstances.
3. This administrative admonition is intended as a purely corrective measure
to improve your eflBciency and to prevent future recurrences of this nature.
W. A. BURRESS,
Lieutenant General, U. 8. Army,
Commanding.
Department of the Army,
Office of the Adjutant General,
Washington 25, D. C, 22 July 1954.
AGPO-DC 201 Thomas, Ronald F.
0256720 (30Jun54)
Subject : Administrative Admonition.
To : Commander-in-Chief, United States Army, Europe, APO 403, % Postmaster,
New York. N. Y.
In compliance with request of the Commanding General, First Army, it is
requested that the inclosed administrative admonition be forwarded to Lt. Col.
Ronald F. Thomas, 0256720, U. S. Army, Europe, 7880th MI Det, APO 757,
% PM, New York, N. Y., through his present Commanding Officer.
By order of the Secretary of the Army :
John A. Klein,
Major General, C7/RA,
The Adjutant General.
Unci
Administrative Admonition
Lt. Col. Ronald F. Thomas
(Istlnd)
6 Aug. 1954.
AG 201— Thomas, Ronald F. (O)
02.56720 (22 Jul 54) AGP-M-1
Subject : Administrative Admonition.
Headquarters, United States Army, Europe, APO 403, U. S. Army
To : Commanding General, Seventh Army, APO 46, U. S. Army
1. For appropriate action.
2. Officer is presently assigned to your headquarters.
By command of General Hoge :
Roy C. Ulmer,
Colonel, AGC,
Asst. Adj. Gen.
1 Incl :
n/c
Tp: Held Mil 8472
BOSTON PUBLIC LIBRARY
156 ARMY PERSONNEL ACTIONS 3 QQQQ 05445 3533
(2d Ind)
9 Aug. 1954.
AG 201— Thomas, Ronald B. (O)
0256720 (22 Jul 54) ASEAG PU
Headquarters Seventh Army, APO 46, U. S. Army
To : Assistant Chief of Staff G2, Headquarters Seventh Army, APO 46, tJ. S.
Army
For necessary action.
By command of Lieutenant General McAulifCe :
L. D. LoTT,
Col., AGC,
Adjutant General.
1 IncI :
n/c
Tel : Seventh Army 8007
(3d Ind)
23 Aug. 1954.
AG 201— Thomas, Ronald F. (O)
0256720 (22 Jul 54) AGP-M-1
Subject : Administrative Admonition.
Headquarters Seventh Army, Office of the Assistant Chief of StafE, G-2, APO 46,
U. S. Army
Thru : Channels
To : Lieutenant General W. A. Burress, Commanding General, First Army, New
York 4, N. Y.
1. Receipt of your letter of Administrative Admonishment, dated 30 June 1954,
is hereby acknowledged.
2. It is not by desire, or intention to question your action in this matter
because I believe I understand fully the necessity for your writing this letter;
however, I feel it my duty to invite your attention to one serious error in the
letter of admonishment.
8. In paragraph one, basic letter, it is stated that I was Chief, Security Divi-
sion, G2 Section, First Army, "during the period 1 December 1952 to 5 February
1953," while as a matter of fact, I took over this assignment on 27 January 1953,
having been transferred from the New England Subarea in Boston, where I had
no prior knowledge of the Peress case.
4. Furthermore, my predecessor. Major Arthur Freeman, gave me less than a
thirty (30) minute briefing on this new assignment on 27 January 1953, then
left me in complete charge of this Division. The Peress case was not men-
tioned to me by Major Freeman during this thirty (30) minute briefing. Con-
sidering that the Security Division (then known as Counterintelligence Divi-
sion) had a backlog of some eleven thousand (11,000) cases pending when I
took command, the total time of sixty-five (65) days required to process this
case should not be considered unusual.
5. In all sincerity, I accept your admonishment and I will make every effort
to prevent a similar situation here at Seventh Army, where I hold the same
position I held in your command.
6. In the event basic communication has been made a part of my official 201
File, request that this indorsement be included as a part thereof.
Ronald F. Thomas,
Lt. Col, G8,
Chief, CI Division.
Unci
n/c
Telephone : Seventh Army 8237.
ARMY PERSONNEL ACTIONS RELATING TO IRVING PERESS 157
Headquartebs First Army,
Governors Island, New York 4, N. Y., 26 Oct. 1954.
AHFAG-MP 201 Thomas, Ronald F.
Subject : Disposition of Correspondence.
Thru : Commanding General, Seventh Army, APO 46, c/o Postmaster, San
Francisco, California
To: Lieutenant Colonel Ronald F. Thomas, 0256720, USA, G2 Section, Head-
quarters Seventh Army
1. Reference letter, this headquarters, subject: Administrative Admonition,
dated 30 June 1954 and your third indorsement thereto dated 23 August 1954.
2. You are advised that the complete correspondence in this case has been
placed in the informational 201 files of this headquarters and will after one (1)
year be destroyed in accordance with present directives governing the records
management program.
For the Commanding General :
F. A. Palmer,
Major, AGC,
Asst. AO.
Exhibit No. 19
Dep.'Uitment of the Army,
Office of The Adjutant General,
Washington 25, D. C, 12 May 1954.
AGFO-SC 333.5
Subject : Report of Investigation.
To : Commanding General, First Army.
1. Subject report of investigation was approved by the Chief of Staff on 27
April 1954. A copy of the report, less exhibits, is attached for your information
and return to The Inspector General, Washington 25, D, C, when it has served
its purpose.
2. It is realized that certain corrective action has been taken with respect to
procedures cited in the report. However, it is desired that this action be re-
viewed in relation to the actions recommended in par 90f (1) of subject report
and that a report as to the adequacy of such action taken in regard to par 90f
(2) of the report be forwarded to this office.
3. In regard to the above-mentioned recommendation, your attention is invited
to General Ridgway's letter of 8 April 1954 concerning the need for prompt
and accurate administrative actions.
4. The report of investigation indicates that the following undue administra-
tive delays concerning this case occuiTed in your headquarters and in Head-
quarters, Camp Kilmer, N. J.
a. Delay in initiating complaint-type investigation of Peress from 1 December
1952 until 5 February 1953.
b. Delay in forwarding to The Adjutant General papers pertaining to Peress'
initial appointment until 16 September 1953.
c. Delay in handling correspondence inclosing the complaint-type investigation
of Peress.
(1) At Headquarters, Camp Kilmer from on or about 25 May 1953 until 15
June 1953 in preparation of 4th indorsement.
(2) At Headquarters, First Army from on or about 15 June 1953 until 7 July
1953 in preparation of 5th indorsement.
5. It is desired that appropriate action be taken against the individuals re-
sponsible for the undue delays in processing this case and in handling corres-
pondence relative thereto and that positive corrective action be taken to prevent
similar occurrences in the future.
By order of the Secretary of the Army :
1 Incl
Cy No. 5, R/Inv, 16 Apr 54
A true copy.
John A. Klein,
Major General, USA,
Acting The Adjutant General.
Byron W. Schwartz,
Col, IG.
158 ARMY PERSONNEL ACTIONS RELATING TO IRVING PERESS
No. 20
office memorandum
United States Government,
11 March 1955.
333/201 Peress, Irving 11 Mar 55 F/W 11 Jan 55.
To: Brig. Gen. C. C. Fenn.
From : Lt. Col. John F. T. Murray.
Subject : Questions Posed by Mr. O'Donnell.
1. On March 9 Mr. O'Donnell requested answers to the following questions:
a. When did the Peress Interrogatory arrive back in G2?
b. Who was in charge of the Summary from 29 October to 7 November?
c. Is the Form 390 mentioned in the Investigative Report?
d. What are the responsibilities of the G2 in the field on keeping Com-
manding Officer advised? What regulations, if any, control the Commanding
Officer in the field as to requesting briefings from his G2?
2. The answers to the above questions have been furnished by Lt. Col. Anders
and are as follows :
a. The interrogatory was received in G2 Message Center on 10 September
1953. No date can be determined on which the interrogatory was actually
received in Disposition Section since, at that time correspondence was not
stamped with a time stamp in Disposition Section.
b. Mrs. Catherine Griffith, as chief of the summary unit at that time.
Mrs. Alma Shepherd prepared the Peress summary.
c. No.
d. One of the basic concepts in the functioning of a staff officer is that he
keeps his Commanding Officer advised at all times of matters which are of
command interest (See Incl 1). There is no specific regulation which
covers the Commanding Officer requesting briefings from his staff. This is
normally taken care of through staff conferences or personal visits to staff
agencies by commanders at which time they indicate specific requirements
for their staff agencies.
3. Your attention is invited to the classification of the inclosure which is not
a security classification but nevertheless should not be permitted to get into the
hands of unauthorized persons.
John F. T. Murray,
Lt. Colonel, OS,
Military Assistant to the Secretary of the Army.
Unci
Staff Functioning
X
ARMY PERSONNEL ACTIONS RELATING
TO IRVING PERESS
HEARINGS
BEFORE THE
PERMANENT
SUBCOMMITTEE ON INVESTIGATIONS
OF THE
COMMITTEE ON
GOVERNMENT OPERATIONS
UNITED STATES SENATE
EIGHTY-FOURTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
PART 3
MARCH 17 AND 18, 1955
Printed for the use of the Committee on Government Operations
UNITED STATES
GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
WASHINGTON : 1955
rf-
,y
Bocton Public Library
:perinte:iclent of Documents
MAY 1 8 1955
COMMITTEE O?^ GOVERNMENT -OPERATIONS
JOHN L. McCLELLAN, Arkansas, Chairman
HENRY M. JACKSON, Washington JOSEPH R. MCCARTHY, Wisconsin
JOHN F. KENNEDY, Massacliusetts KARL E. MUNDT, Soutii Dalcota
STUART SYMINGTON, Missouri MARGARET CHASE SMITH, Maine
SAMUEL J. ERVIN, JR., Nortli Carolina NORRIS COTTON, New Hampshire
HUBERT H. HUMPHREY, Minnesota GEORGE H. BENDER, Ohio
STROM THURMOND, South Carolina THOMAS E. MARTIN, Iowa
Walter L. Reynolds, Chief Clerk
Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations
JOHN L. McCLELLAN, Arkansas, Chairman
HENRY M. JACKSON, Washington JOSEPH R. MCCARTHY, Wisconsin
STUART SYMINGTON, Missouri KARL E. MUNDT, South Dakota
SAMUEL J. ERVIN, Jr., North Carolina GEORGE H. BENDER, Ohio
Robert F. Ke.\nedy, Chief Counsel
Donald F. O'Donnell, Assistant Chief Counsel
James N. Juliana, Chief Counsel to the Minority
II
CONTENTS
Page
Appendix 259
Testimony of —
Anders, Lt. Col. James D 159
Bourdeau, Lt. Col. Herbert F 251
Brown, Lt. Col. Chester T 180
Gordon, Lt. Col. Samuel A. (retired) 170
Jackson, Stephen S 207,225
Leverich, Col. Ruluff S 241
McKenzie, Maj. Vernon 200, 209
EXHIBITS Introduced Appears
on page on page
24. Letter from Headquarters, First Army, to commanding gen-
eral, Sixth Army, April 28, 1953, with 11 endorsements,
dated respectively: April 30, May 21 and 25, June 15,
July 7 and 15, August 10, 20, and 26, September 2 and 8,
1953 160 (*)
25. Special Regulations 600-220-1, Department of the Army 161 (*)
26. Disposition form from Reserve Components Division, Assist-
ant Chief of Staff, G-1, to The Adjutant General, Decem-
ber 30, 1952 163 (*)
27. Letter from Headquarters, First Army, to commanding gen-
eral. Camp Kilmer, N. J., February 5, 1953 171 (*)
28. Letter from Lt. Gen. W. A. Burress, commanding officer,
First Army, to Lt. Col. Samuel A. Gordon, United States
Army, June 30, 1954; receipt of said letter, signed by Lt.
Col. Samuel A. Gordon, November 19, 1954; and letter
order 1969 from Brig. Gen. Ralph C. Cooper to Capt.
Leroy W. Sweet, Headquarters, First Army, Finance Sec-
tion,'November 17, 1954 173 (*)
29. Letter from Irving Peress to The Adjutant General, Depart-
ment of the Army, September 9, 1953; comment of Lt. Col.
C. T. Brown to the Adjutant General, September 9, 1953;
comment No. 2 from The Adjutant General to Assistant
Chief of Staff, G-1, September 9, 1953; comment No. 3
from William L. Vinette, assistant G-1 to The Adjutant
General, September 9, 1953 191 (*)
30. Memorandum for record, signed by Col. WendeU G. John-
son, November 2, 1953 192 (*)
31. Extract from Special Regulations No. 380-320-10, Section
V, Investigative Reports, 43 194 259
32. Disposition form from Lt. Col. C. T. Brown to commanding
general. Camp Kilmer, October 21, 1953 196 259
33. Letter from Brig. Gen. Ralph W. Zwicker, commanding gen-
eral. Camp Kilmer, N. J., to commanding general, First
Army, October 21, 1953 196 260
34. Department of Defense ad hoc committee report to Director
of Personnel, OSD, Department of Defense, August 6, 1953_ 204 (*)
35. Department of Defense directive, October 7, 1953, re imple-
mentation of Public Law 779, 81st Congress, and related
laws -^ 205 (*)
36. Memorandum from Maj. Vernon McKenzie to Assistant
Chief of Staff, G-1, October 8, 1953 210 (*)
•May be found in the files of the subcommittee.
IV CONTENTS
Introduced Appears
on page on page
37. Memorandum from the Surgeon General to The Adjutant Gen-
eral, October 14, 1953 211 (*)
38. Memorandum from Maj, Vernon McKenzie for record, Octo-
ber 27, 1953 [212 212
39. Status card, Irving Pere3s, maintained in Office of the Surgeon
General, Pentagon, Washington, D. C. (duplicate of exhibit
No. 14) 219 (*)
40. Transcript of telephone con^ ersation between Major Dolson,
Office of the Surgeon General, and Colonel Smith, G-1,
Headquarters, First Army, November 3, 1953 220 260
41. Memorandum from Maj. Vernon McKenzie, Office of the Sur-
geon General, to Lt. Col. John F. T. Murray, General Staff,
February 24, 1955 224 261
42. Affidavit from Col. Francis W. Pruitt, Chief, Department of
Medicine, Walter Reed Army Hospital, re Col. Emory E.
Hyde 224 (*)
43. Memorandum for the record by Rear Adm. J. P. Womble,
Jr., United States Navv, Director of Personnel Policy,
September 22, 1953 1 226 262
44. Letter from Eol^ert F. Kennedy, chief counsel, Senate Per-
manent Subcommittee on Investigations, to Wilier
Brucker, General Counsel, Department of Defense, March
8,1955 231 264
45. Letter from Wilber Brucker, General Counsel, Department
of Defense, to Robert F. Kennedy, chief counsel, Senate
Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations, March 17,
1955 - 231 264
46. Affidavit, in form of interrogatorv, sworn to bv Capt. William
L. Viiiette, March 11, 1955---1 245 266
47. Letter from Lt. Col. M. M. Mendell, Headquarters, First
Army, to commanding officer, United States Army Hos-
pital", Camp Kilmer, N. J., October 29, 1953, with first,
second, and third endorsements 252 (*)
48. Letter from Department of the Army, through commanding
general, First Armv, to Maj. Irving Peress, October 25,
1953 253 (*)
49. DA Form 71, Oath of Office for Military Personnel, signed bv
Irving Peress, November 2, 1953 1 255 (*)
•May be found in the files of the subcommittee.
ARMY PERSONNEL ACTIONS RELATING TO
IRVING PERESS
THXJESDAY, MARCH 17, 1955
United States Senate,
Permanent Subcommittee on IN^^=:sTIGATIONS
OF THE Committee on Government Operations,
Washington, D. G.
The subcommittee met at 10 : 10 a. m., pursuant to recess, in room 357
of tlie Senate Office Building, Senator John L, McClellan (chairman
of the subcommittee) presiding.
Present: Senators John L. McClellan (Democrat), Arkansas;
Henry M. Jackson (Democrat), Washington; Stuart Symington
(Democrat), Missouri ; Samuel J. Ervin, Jr. (Democrat), North Caro-
lina; Joseph R. McCarthy (Republican), Wisconsin; Karl E. Mundt
(Republican), South Dakota; and George H. Bender (Republican),
Ohio.
Present also: Robert F. Kennedy, chief counsel; Donald F. O'Don-
nell, chief assistant counsel ; James N. Juliana, chief counsel to the
minority; J. Fred McClerkin, legal research analyst; Paul J. Tierney,
investigator; and Ruth Y. Watt, chief clerk.
The Chairman. The committee will come to order.;
Colonel Anders, will you resume the stand, please.
TESTIMONY OF IT. COL. JAMES D. ANDERS— Continued
The Chairman. All right, Mr. O'Donnell, you may proceed.
Mr. O'Donnell. Mr. Chairman, before we begin to question Colonel
Anders, let us turn to a point with regard to the testimony of Major
Van Sickle. There was some confusion as to what inspector general
may or may not have interviewed him in Munich, Germany, in the
spring of 1954.
The staff received the following communication from the Depart-
ment of the Army on March 4, 1955, which is an interoffice memo from
Lt. Col. John F. T. Murray to Gen. C. C. Fenn. Paragraph 2 reads
as follows :
Major Van Sickle was interrogated by an officer of the Inspector General's De-
partment on or about March 26, \%~A, in connection with an investigation con-
ducted by the inspector general of the First Army. This investigation was
conducted to determine under what conditions a request recommending reap-
pointment to a higher grade of Peress was forwarded to the Adjutant General
from First Army. This investigation emiiraced the handling of Peress' request
for reappointment, and was initiated by the Chief of Staff, First Army, upon
recommendation of the surgeon, First Army.
The Chairman. Does counsel wish this to be made an exhibit?
Mr. O'Donnell. Yes. That has been made an exhibit, Mr. Chair-
man.
159
160 ARMY PERSONNEL ACTIONS RELATING TO IRVING PERESS
The CHAiEMAisr. You were reading from a document previously
made an exhibit. All right, proceed.
Mr. O'DoNNELL. Mr. Chairman, yesterday we discussed at length
a letter of April 28, with 11 endorsements, which has been properly
identified by the witness. May I request that it be made part of the
record as an exhibit at this time ?
The Chairman. Has the witness identified this document? Let
him identify it.
State what the document is. Colonel.
Colonel Anders. It is a basic letter dated April 28, 1953, with
11 endorsements.
The Chairman. Regarding what?
Colonel Anders. Regarding the processing of the Irving Peress
case.
The Chairman. All right, it may be exhibit No. 24.
(Exhibit No. 24 may be found in the files of the subcommittee.)
Mr. O'DoNNELL. Colonel, j^esterday I believe we were up to the
point of the list or the summary prepared by the Summary Section and
lurnished to the Disposition Section, which is your section, on Novem-
ber 6; is that correct? Subsequently, on November 13, the Personnel
Division, G-1, called for a special summary of the Peress file ; is that
correct ?
Colonel Anders. That is correct.
Mr. O'DoNNELL. What did that summary embrace? Was it a new
summary ?
Colonel Anders. I am reasonably sure, although I can't state spe-
cifically— I am reasonably sure it was a copy of the summary that had
previously been prepared.
Mr. O'DoNNELL. Up until this time, had your section been spe-
cifically advised by any higher officials of any specific interest in the
Peress case?
Colonel Anders. Not as such; no.
Mr. O'DoNNELL. On November 18, 1953, your office, following regu-
lar channels, prepared a list of allegations to accompany the previ-
ously prepared summary to be presented to the Personnel Division for
the Board; is that correct?
Colonel Anders. Correction on the date of preparation. It was
signed out of G-2 on the 18th. In all probability it was prepared some
days earlier. I cannot ascertain the exact date, but it was actually
signed and dispatched on the 18th of November.
Mr. O'DoNNELL. That basically would have contained what I have
mentioned plus a recommendation from G-2 that Peress be considered
or be processed for elimination from the service; is that correct?
Colonel Anders. That is correct.
Mr. O'DoNNELL, That elimination would be based on security
grounds.
Colonel Anders. Right.
Mr. O'DoNNELL. Prior to this date, November 18, 1953, was there
any such recommendation made by Gr-2 in the Pentagon as distinct
from the field?
Colonel Anders. A recommendation that Peress be removed from
the service?
Mr. O'DoNNELL. Correct.
Colpnel Anders. No.
ARMY PERSONNEL ACTIONS RELATING TO IRVING PERESS 161
Mr, O'DoNNELL. On November 6, 1953, which was the approximate
date when the smnmary had been prepared, did G-2 communicate to
the Office of the Surgeon General a list of individuals irr whom they
were interested from the security standpoint ?
Colonel Anders. We did.
Mr. O 'Don NELL. Tell us why that was done.
Colonel Anders. At the request of the Surgeon General.
Mr. O'DoNNELL. That list involved only doctors, or did it involve
others ?
Colonel Anders. It involved members that the Surgeon General
was interested in. It could have been doctors, dentists, or veter-
inarians. I don't remember specifically that they were all involved,
but those pereons are the persons in which the Surgeon General had
an interest.
Mr. O'DoNNELL. This action was not initiated by G-2, but upon a
request made by the Office of the Surgeon General ?
Colonel Anders. I had no specific recollection of the thing at the
time, but according to the record and what persons have told me, it
was at the request or it came up during a conversation between mem-
bers of the Surgeon General and members of my office, and the list was
furnished initially ^by telephone and later in writing.
Mr. O'DoNNELL, Colonel, are you familiar with Security Regula-
tion 600-220-1 ?
Colonel Anders. I am.
Mr. O'DoNNELL. Would you tell us what was the Army policy in
existence during the time that Irving Peress was commissioned and
came on active duty, as to bringing fifth- amendment cases on to active
duty?
Colonel Anders. That particular point is not within the scope of
my activities. We are responsible from the time the investigation —
when I say "we," I am speaking of G-2— we are responsible from the
time the investigation is initiated until G-2 has taken an appropriate
action on the things. We have no responsibility except a staff re-
sponsibility with respect to calling persons on active duty. We do
not evolve that position, although G-1 would certainly get our rec-
ommendations in the case,
Mr, O'Donnell, Are you familiar with the regulations?
Colonel Anders, I am familiar with the regulations,
Mr, O'Donnell, I pass down to you a photostatic copy of the regu-
lations, SR 600-220-1,
(Document handed to the witness,)
Mr, O'Donnell, Will you tell us what regulation
The Chairman, The Chair will order that made an exhibit, if you
identify that as the regulation referred to.
Colonel Anders, This is a photostatic copv of Special Regulations
600-220-1.
The Chairman. The chairman will order it made exhibit No. 25,
so you may refer to it in that way.
I am hoping by doing so we can talk about it in substance rather
than reading the whole document, in order to expedite matters.
(Exhibit No. 25 may be found in the files of the subcommittee.)
Mr. O'Donnell. Will you state the date of the base regulation,
Colonel?
Colonel Anders. December 6, 1950.
162 ARMY PERSONNEL ACTIONS RELATING TO IRVING PERESS
Mr. O'DoNNELL. And the date of the change before you?
Colonel Anders. It is change 2 dated March 20, 1951.
Mr. O'DoNNELL. All right. I specifically call your attention to
change 6c (1) which became effective March 20, 1951. Was that the
controlling regulation showing Army policy at that time as to taking
people into the service who had invoked the fifth amendment in vari-
ous forms?
The Chairman. You said "at that time." Wliat time? Identify
the time.
Mr. O'DONNELL. March 20, 1951.
Colonel Anders. March 20, 1951, is the date of this. I do not know
that this is the controlling policy. I do know that this particular
change to the regulations specified that Reserve personnel would not
be deferred or directed or rejected for nonvoluntary active duty for
reasons of disloyalty or subversion unless the investigation in the
case had been completed.
The Chairman. Let me ask you, did you interpret that? Did you
then interpret that and do you now interpret it as being mandatory
upon the procurement agencies of the service to bring them on into
the service prior to the time an investigation had been made by G-2?
Colonel Anders, Yes, sir.
The Chairman. You so interpreted it then?
Colonel Anders. Yes, sir.
The Chairman. You think that is the proper interpretation of it
now?
Colonel Anders. I don't know that I can answer that in exactly the
way the question is posed, sir.
The Chairman. You thought that was a correct interpretation theni^
Colonel Anders. That was the correct interpretation and is the
correct interpretation today of a situation that existed then.
The Chairman. That is what I mean.
Colonel Anders. Yes, sir.
The Chairman. In other words, the procurement officers who
brought Peress into the service on the basis of his 390 Form were com-
plying with instructions?
Colonel Anders. Yes, sir.
The Chairman. They did not have to wait?
Colonel Anders. That is correct.
The Chairman. Under that regulation, according to your interpre-
tation of it, they should not have waited until the other forms had
been completed and an investigation made?
Colonel Anders. That is correct, sir.
(Present at this time were Senators McClellan, Ervin, and Bender.)
Mr. O'DoNNELL. Please retain those in front of you for a moment,
Colonel, and I will pass down to you a very poor photostat of an
original received from the Army with a copy which is more readable.
(A document was handed to the witness.)
Colonel Anders. I have previously looked at this document.
Mr. O'DoNNELL. Colonel, will you identify the photostatic docu-
ment which has just been handed down to you ?
Colonel Anders. This is a disposition form from Reserve Compo-
nents Division, Assistant Chief of Staff, G-1, to the Adjutant General,
dated December 30, 1952, with reference to — the subject is Discharge
of Reserve Commissioned Officers for Administrative Reasons.
ARMY PERSONNEL ACTIONS RELATING TO IRVING PERESS 163
Mr. O'DoNNELL. Will you tell us how many pages tliere are in that
document ?
Colonel Anders. There are 3 pages.
Mr. O'DoNNELL. Mr. Chairman, I move that this particular docu-
ment which has been identified be made an exhibit for the record.
The Chairman. It wall be made exhibit No. 26.
( ExhilDit No. 26 may be found in the files of the subcommittee. )
Mr. O'DoNNELL. I appreciate the fact that you did not draft this
document and that it is a policy document, but in the interest of time
I would lilve to get into it from an interpretation standpoint and with
the actual document in front of you. If you can merely state in an-
swer to my question what appears thereon I think it will save time
of the hearing.
According to this particular memo, which is dated December 30,
1952, which is after the time that Peress executed his loyalty form,
was 6 (c) 1 to which we referred a few minutes ago currently in effect?
Colonel Anders. It was.
Mr. O'DoNNELL. Under 6 (c) 1, if an individual had invoked the
fifth amendment on a loyalty form he would still have been commis-
sioned ; is that correct ?
Colonel Anders. No. The other regulations were changed on No-
vember 28, 1952, to require the prosecution of a loyalty certificate prior
to the time they were commissioned.
Mr. O'DoNNELL. All right. Would a person who executed the loy-
alty forms prior to November 1952 and invoked the fifth amendment
thereon be called to active duty on the basis of this existing regulation ?
Colonel Anders. That w\as my understanding; or this is my under-
standing that they would.
Mr. O'DoNNELL. There has been some discussion at these hearings
of the cases of five officers who were in that category who had their
commissions revoked before they were called to active duty, and all
of the loyalty oath forms were executed prior to November 14, 1952.
Calling your attention to the memo before you, page 2, paragraph 3, it
states that the —
controlling regulation is 6 (c) 1, but it is believed desirable and necessary to rid
the Armed Forces of all officer personnel who cannot voluntarily subscribe to
and make loyalty certificates in addition to their oaths of office as a matter of
conviction and forthrightness. For these reasons an exception is made in these
cases.
This particular series of memos actually was a policy decision made
in the Pentagon on these five officers .which was an exception to the ex-
isting Army policy ; is that correct ?
Colonel Anders. That is my understanding from reading this docu-
ment here ; yes.
Mr. O'DoNNELL. If the Peress case had been included as 1 of these 5,
the same determination would have been made ; namely, that his com-
mission would have been revoked before active duty ; is that correct ?
Colonel Anders. On the basis of this disposition form I would as-
sume that it would be, yes.
Mr. O'DoNNELL. Colonel, that raises this question: There was in
existence a policy in the Army of bringing these officers who had in-
voked the fifth amendment on to active duty. Here we have an in-
stance of an exception being made in the cases of five. The excep-
164 ARMY PERSONNEL ACTIONS RELATING TO IRVING PERESS
tion is made on December 30, 1952, with the instructions pui-suant
thereto going out for discharge purposes on December 29, 1952. Did
the Army have a policy that was subject only to exception in indi-
vidual cases which were brought to their attention down here in
Washington ?
Colonel Anders. I am not in a position to answer that.
Mr. O'DoNNELL. Would this memorandum so indicate?
Colonel Anders. It would indicate that there was an exception made
to the policy.
Mr. O'DoNNELL. And would it not also indicate that in any com-
mand area in the country, if an individual took the fifth amend-
ment as an officer, in the absence of having it specifically presented to
G-1 in Washington he would have been called to active duty ?
Colonel Anders. Yes.
Mr. O'DONNELL. The conclusion would be that there was no con-
sistent policy in the Army with regard to these cases, and Irving
Peress would have been called to active duty unless a specific ruling
had been made on his individual case in Washington ?
Colonel Anders. I don't think you can conclude that there was no
consistent policy m the Army, no. You can't use an exception as the
basis for forming a conclusion that there was no consistent policy.
Mr. O'DoNNELL. There was a consistent policy existing in the
Army to bring on active-duty commissioned officers who invoked the
fifth amendment after they were commissioned ; is that correct ?
Colonel Anders. Yes.
The Chairman. In other words. Colonel, the consistent policy you
speak of was to bring them on active duty irrespective of their loyalty
forms ?
Colonel Anders. That is right.
The Chairman. And what was stated on them?
Colonel Anders. Right.
The Chairman, The order which has been referred to here relating
to the five was the exception to the consistent policy ?
Colonel Anders. Yes, sir.
The CiiAiRWAN. That would be the way to interpret it ?
Colonel Anders. That would be the way I interpret it, sir. As I
pointed out before, I am not in this particular area of policy business.
The Chairman. I understand.
Mr. O'DoNNELL. All right. Colonel, just 1 or 2 more questions, I
think. This may or may not be in your area again, but what is the
responsibility of a G-2 officer in the field to acquaint his commanding
officer with cases existing in his office ?
Colonel Anders. I would just have to speak from my own general
knowledge of staff requirements. Specifically we have a field man-
ual which pretty well sets forth the duties of a staff officer in any
capacity, not specifically a G-2, but in essence one of the require-
ments of any staff officer is to keep his commander informed of any
matters which the commander needs to know about so he can make
proper decisions in any given case.
Mr. O'DoNNELL. You are referring to section 2 of Staff Field Man-
ual 79. caption
Colonel Anders. Specifically 79 of that particular field manual.
ARMY PERSONNEL ACTIONS RELATING TO IRVING PERESS 165
Mr. O'DoNNELL. It states briefly :
The staff presents to the commander that information which he requires in
order to lieep abreast of the current situation and to form the basis of sound
decisions.
Is that correct?
Colonel Anders. That is correct.
Mr. O'DoNNELL,. Then hypothetically if you were stationed out in
the field and you were G-2 in charge of a given installation, would
you keep your commanding officer advised of the security cases within
your division?
Colonel Anders. I would feel it incumbent on me as a staff officer
to keep my commander informed at all times of my particular area
of responsibility.
Mr. O'DoNNELL. I have no further questions, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. Senator Ervin ?
Senator Ervin. No questions.
The Chairman. Senator Bender?
Senator Bender. No questions.
The Chairman. Mr. Juliana?
Mr. Jn LIANA. Colonel, ordinarily how would letters in a case like
Peress' be sent from one command to the next ? In other words, how
would a letter or communication from First Army be sent to Fourth
Army ? Would that be by mail or just how ?
Colonel Anders. It would be by registered mail.
Mr. Juliana. If the Peress case was a priority case, would consid-
eration be given to using teletype communication ?
Colonel Anders. No.
Mr. Juliana. Not even in a priority case ?
Colonel Anders. What are we transmitting now ?
Mr. Juliana. I am thinking particularly about First Army decid-
ing that Peress was a security case. Or we will go back to February
when First Army opened the investigation or initiated the investi-
gation on Peress. They advised Fourth Army. They found out that
Peress was not there, in fact the Fourth Army said he was never in
their command. How would that communication from First Army
go to Fourth Army — by registered mail ?
Colonel Anders. The particular form that notified the Army would
go by registered mail. We do quite often use electrically transmitted
messages in notifying different commands.
Mr. Juliana. As far as you know, in the Peress case it was through
regular mail, registered?
Colonel Anders, If the letter was classified it would have been by
registered mail.
Mr. Coughlin. Mr. Juliana, you made a statement that Fourth
Army reported that he never was there. Would you like to correct
that, sir, to indicate that it was Brooke Army Medical Center who
made that statement ?
Mr. Juliana. I stand corrected if that is the situation.
Mr. Coughlin. Thank you.
Mr. Juliana. That is all.
Senator Bender. I would like to ask, Mr. Chairman, in this matter
of Dr. Peress do you say that you acted in good faith ; that is, that
there was nothing unusual in your conduct in the matter?
166 ARMY PERSONNEL ACTIONS RELATING TO IRVING PERESS
Colonel Anders. I am quite sure that I personally acted in good
faith, and the members of my particular section also acted in good
faith, as well as all of the persons in the office of the Assistant Chief
of Staff, G-2, who had anything to do with it.
Senator Bender. Colonel Anders, you had no special conversations
with anyone who was in higher authority than you regarding this
matter, or were you requested to give liim any particular or special
treatment ?
Colonel Anders. I was not, sir. I pointed out yesterday that I had
no specitic knowledge as such or remembered nothing about the Peress
case up until the 16th or 18th of November, 1953. Previous action in
reconstructing it — I could tell you I had something to do with it
previously.
Senator Bender. Except as Congress changed the law regarding the
handling of these matters, this was a routine case as far as you were
concerned ?
Colonel Anders. It was ; yes, sir.
Senator Bender. The only charge, if it is a charge, that you plead
guilty to is that possibly, as a result of the pressure of your work
during the summer season when you were called on to testify before
other committees, the delay that was had was perfectly normal?
Colonel Anders. The delay was perfectly normal, but I was not
called on to testify before any other committees, sir.
Senator Bender. Your department
The Chairman. The work he was doing.
Senator Bender. The work you were doing in connection with some
hearings which were held. You testified yesterday that members of
your staff and you, yourself, were occupied for some time; is that
correct ?
Colonel Anders. Yes, sir; during September and October.
Mr. Juliana. Colonel, fifth amendment cases during 1953 were not
considered priority cases ; is that correct ?
Colonel Anders. I am trying to establish
Mr. Juliana. Did there come a time when the policy was changed
or a new policy was initiated whereby fifth amendment cases became
priority cases ?
Colonel Anders. "What do you mean by priority cases, sir?
Mr. Juliana. I mean instead of being received by a particular
office, instead of being put at the bottom of the pile, they are put at
the top of the pile and are handled immediately. That is what I mean
by priority.
Colonel Anders. I think to answer that, let me tell you the system
we have now very briefly.
Fifth amendment cases, as you call them, are one of our top priority
cases. Our complaint investigations, which are required or which are
done under this particular program, receive our highest priority.
When they are received in G-2 Department of the Army they are
screened and priorities are set up there on which they will be worked,
and the fifth amendment cases are in the first priority.
Mr. Juliana. Thank you very much ; that is all.
The Chairman. May I ask you one question : Speaking about priori-
ties, how long would it take you now to process another Peress case
and dispose of it ? You say changes have been made and conditions
ARMY PERSONNEL ACTIONS RELATING TO IRVING PERESS 167
have been improved. I am very much interested in that and pleased
to hear it.
But I think what we want to know is what changes have been made
and what will the end result be now in a case similar to the Peress
case. How long would it take to get him out of the service?
Colonel Anders. From the time the case was initiated until final
discharge action was taken it would take between 7 and 9 months.
Tlie Chairman. Now?
Colonel Anders. Yes, sir.
The Chairman. Under present regulations?
Colonel Anders. Yes, sir.
The Chairman. It would still take from 7 to 9 months to get a man
discharged ?
Colonel Anders. Right.
The Chairman. Under the present system what kind of a discharge
would he get?
Colonel Anders. I can answer that only, sir, that I am not in the
discharge business.
The Chairman, I understand ; but you think under the present sys-
tem and the present regulations it would take from 7 to 9 months to
get a fifth amendment
Colonel Anders. We are not going to get those in now, sir, under
our present regulations. We will get them in some draftees.
The Chairman. Assuming you have 1 or 2 in there that you have
not gotten out yet, from the time the investigation started you tliink
it would take from 7 to 9 months to get them out ?
Colonel Anders. That is right.
The Chairman. Under the present regulations?
Colonel Anders. Yes, sir.
The Chairman. May I ask you one other thing : Is the regulation
still in force requiring you to send an interrogatory to him again ?
Colonel Anders. It is not, sir. It is only in those cases where an
unequivocal recommendation cannot be made, where there is certain
information lacking, or where an interrogatory might clear up cer-
tain points to the place where a favorable determination could be
made.
The Chairman. Yes; but would an interrogatory be sent now as
you did in the Peress case, where on the face of his form he has taken
the fifth amendment?
Colonel Anders. It would not, sir.
The Chairman. It would not.
Colonel Anders. No.
The Chairman. That in itself is prima facie evidence of his unde-
sirability?
Colonel Anders. That would be charge 1, so to speak, in our letter
of allegation.
The Chairman. It is prima facie evidence of his undesirability,
is it not ?
Colonel Anders. Yes, sir.
The Chairman. One other thing. Does form 390 now follow the
file and the record of those who enter the service?
Colonel Anders. I am not an authority on this particular subject
either.
The Chairman. Is a form 390 still required?
168 ARMY PERSONNEL ACTIONS RELATING TO IRVING PERESS
Colonel Anders. It is still required, and it does become a part of
The Adjutant General's file.
The Chairman. The change that you made, which you speak of,
is that you no longer bring them into the service until they are cleared?
Colonel Anders. That is correct, sir.
The Chairman. That is certainly to be commended.
Senator Bender. Mr. Chairman, might I ask another question?
The Chairman. Yes.
Senator Bender. In that connection, since the new law was passed
by the Congress, commissions to security risks, doctors and dentists,
are not permitted ?
Colonel Anders. That is correct, sir.
Senator Bender. So they do not get in unless you find that they
have gotten in as a result of their perjuring themselves ? This process
you speak of requires 7 or 8 months, as you indicated ?
Colonel Anders. Yes, sir.
The Chairman. The Chair will make this comment. The reason I
am particularly interested in the form 390 following the man's record
so it will be available to those who are making a discharge decision : it
certainly occurs to me that one who had signed the fomi 390 as Peress
did with the answers Peress gave on the form 390, and then iin-
mediately thereafter take the constitutional privilege — he gets his
commission on the basis of form 390, Peress got his commission on the
basis of what he said in form 390, and then immediately after he
is commissioned and called to active duty he exercises the constitu-
tional privilege — in my opinion an officer who does that is not entitled
to an honorable discharge. That is why I am concerned about it.
If he states on his initial application from start to finish that he
exercises the constitutional privilege and then the Army takes him in,
he probably is entitled to an honorable discharge because he has done
no wrong. He has deceived no one.
But if he tells a falsehood in his application and gets a commission
on that basis and then repudiates the application in effect by taking the
fifth amendment, in my opinion he is not entitled to an honorable
discharge.
Senator Bender. Mr. Chairman, might I ask Governor Brucker if
he has any comment to make on that?
Mr. Brucker. Senator, I think you will find as the testimony de-
velops here that that has been corrected. Wliile I was away from this
seat at the time when the witness said something about 7 or 8 months,
I think the witness is calculating that if the old method of having
nothing done in the interim or nothing taken up in the interim it would
take that route because of the number of steps that are required. But
that is not the manner in which the matter is being done.
If anybody is found now, I can say to you, sir, and all the gentlemen
here, that if a person were in for 30 days after that time I would be
amazed.
The Chairman. I want to say as one member of the committee, that
I sincerely hope that the evidence will disclose the fact that you are
accurate about that, Governor, but I though the witness clearly under-
stood me to say under the present system.
Mr.BRuCKER. I am not criticizing the witness. I am just saying
the normal procedure would not be followed.
ARMY PERSONNEL ACTIONS RELATING TO IRVING PERESS 169
The Chairman. May I ask the witness : Did you understand what
I asked you ?
Colonel Anders. I understood the question to be that if another
case like this came up and we had to pursue the whole procedure, if
we had to complete the investigation, then it would take from 7 to 9
months.
The Chairman. I was asking the question under present rules and
regulations, how long would it take to get one out.
Suppose you discovered another Peress case in 90 days. Someone
came in at the same time he did and you discovered today that he had
filed his form 390 with the same answers which Peress gave and on
subsequent forms he had given the same answers that Peress gave ; how
long would it take under present regulations and rules and procedures
and policies now in effect to get that man out of the service ? That is
the question.
Colonel Anders. I presume that you are speaking that you discover
this particular thing by investigation. From the date we have the
information
The Chairman. You have the information, whether by investiga-
tion or by accident, or purposely or however. You got it this morn-
ing. How long would it take to get him out under present regulations
and procedures ?
Mr. Brucker. You are talking about a doctor ; is that right ?
The Chairman. I am talking about an identical case to Peress from
beginning to end.
Colonel Anders. It wouldn't take very long, sir.
The Chairman. What do you mean by very long ?
Colonel Anders. I will go along with this 30 days. It probably will
take less than that.
The Chairman. We will try to clear it up as we go along.
Thank you very much.
Mr. O'DoNNELL. Were you interviewed by the Inspector General
prior to his report being filed with the Secretary of the Army ?
Colonel Anders. I pointed out I wasn't aware of when the report
was filed. I was interviewed by the Inspector General.
Mr. O'Donnell. I think the record will show, Mr. Chairman, on
the basis of an exhibit which has been submitted, that Colonel Anders'
name was not on the list of the 28 that was furnished to the special
Mundt committee by the Secretary of the Army.
The Chairman. I think we made a note of that yesterday.
Mr. O'Donnell. Fine. One more thing to be cleared up, Mr.
Chairman, and I think we will be through with this witness.
Yesterday, Colonel, I believe you said that at the time the report
was returned by you on May 21, or G-2, at Camp Kilmer you did not
know if the rule was in effect at that time making an interrogatory,
mandatory ; is that correct ?
Colonel Anders. That is correct.
Mr. O'Donnell. Can you tell us when that rule came into existence ?
Colonel Anders. As I pointed out, I don't have the least idea in the
world when it did come into existence.
Mr. O'Donnell. If you became active chief of that section in May
of 1953
Colonel Anders. Because the chief went on leave.
170 ARMY PERSONNEL ACTIONS RELATING TO IRVING PERESS
Mr. O'DoNNELL. And you do not know if that rule was in existence
before you came on or not ?
Colonel Anders. No ; I do not.
Mr. O'DoNNELL. Fine.
The Chairman. Thank you very much, Colonel. You may be
excused.
Affidavit
Before me, the undersigned, personally came and appeared James D. Anders,
lieutenant colonel, GS, who, after being by me first duly sworn, did depose and
say:
I wish to clarify certain testimony which I gave on March 17, 1955, before the
Senate subcommittee which is investigating the Irving Peress case.
I hereby certify that when I answered, '"I will go along with this 30 days. It
probably will take less than that," I was assuming that all of the information
necessary to make a final determination, including that developed by a field board
of inquiry, was available and that the only action still required was that of the
Department of the Army Review Board which would result in the issuance of
orders for the dispositicm of the individual involved.
Inasmuch as my assumption is not a part of the record, and since it appears
from the transcript that in one place I indicated that it would take from 7 to 9
months to remove a security risk and in another place I testified that it would
take 30 days or less, I feel that this statement should be made a matter of record
with the committee so that the point is clarified.
Further, it is still my testimony that if the Army has to develop information
by investigation, and if the adjudicative chain which is presently in existence
is followed, to include recommendations by the major commander and the Assist-
ant Chief of Staff, G~2, Department of the Army, action by the Department of
the Army Screening Board, field board of inquiry, and the Department of the
Army Review Board, it will take from 7 to 9 months to eflect the removal of a
security risk.
James D. Anders,
Lieutenant Colonel, 08.
Sworn to and subscribed before me this 22d day of March 1955.
James G. Duffy,
First Lieutenant, JAGC.
Lt. Col. Samuel A. Gordon. Come around, Colonel. You will be
sworn.
You do solemnly swear thac the evidence you shall give before tliis
investigating subcommittee shall be the truth, the whole truth and
nothing but the truth, so help you God?
Mr. Gordon. I do, sir.
The Chairman. Have a seat.
TESTIMONY OF SAMUEL A. GOEDON, LIEUTENANT COLONEL,
UNITED STATES ARMY, RETIRED
The Chairman. Colonel, you are not in the military service now.
You are retired?
Mr. Gordon. I have retired.
The Chairman. Have you discussed with members of the staff the
general subject of the inquiry and do you know about what you will
be interrogated?
Mr. Gordon. I have.
The Chairman. You have ?
Mr. Gordon. I have, yes.
The Chairman. The purpose of asking you this is to ascertain
whether you have counsel with you or desire counsel to be present while
you testify ?
ARMY PERSONNEL ACTIONS RELATING TO IRVING PERESS 171
Mr. Gordon. I do not desire counsel.
The Chairman. Thank you very much, Colonel.
All right, you may proceed.
Mr. Kennedy. Colonel, you were G-2 officer at Camp Kilmer for
a period of time ?
Mr. Gordon. I was.
Mr. Kennedy. And specifically you were G-2 officer at Camp Kil-
mer during- April, May, and the first part of June of 1953 as well as
prior to that time?
Mr. Gordon. That is correct.
Mr. Kennedy. First, do you remember specifically when you took
over as G-2 officer at Camp Kilmer ?
Mr. Gordon. I cannot.
Mr. Kennedy. Had you had any prior G-2 experience, intelligence
experience prior to that time ?
Mr. Gordon. I had not.
Mr. Kennedy. Did you have to go to any training school?
Mr. Gordon. I did not.
Mr. Kennedy. Will you identify this document?
(A document was handed to the witness.)
Mr. Gordon. Yes, I can.
Mr. Kennedy. Will you read some identifying •
Mr. Gordon. From headquarters of the First Army to the command-
ing general. Camp Kilmer, N. J.
The Chairman. Colonel, if you will just identify it in your own
language. What do you say that document is?
Mr. Gordon. It was a letter that I received from the commanding
general of the First Army in which I was advised to put one Capt.
Irving Peress on the list as a suspect.
The Chairman. All right.
That may be made an exhibit, exhibit No. 27, 1 believe. ("Exhibit
No. 27" may be found in the files of the subcommittee.) Counsel, you
may proceed.
Mr. Kennedy. Do you remember specifically the case of Dr. Irving
Peress now ?
Mr. Gordon. Yes, I do.
Mr. Kennedy. Do you remember his name being given to you ?
Mr. Gordon. I do.
Mr. Kennedy. Colonel, after you received this information regard-
ing Irving Peress, did you notify your commanding officer?
Mr. Gordon. I did not.
Mr. Kennedy. Will you tell us why you did not ?
Mr. Gordon. I considered that proper action was taken when I
carried through to the best of my knowledge to see that this captain,
now major, whenever he was discharged, that his name was on the
suspected list, which went into the First Army.
The Chairman. Will you help us a little?
Senator Bender. We can't hear.
The Chairman. We are unable to hear you. Colonel.
Mr. Brucker. He has to speak so you can hear him or he just won't
be heard.
60030— 55— pt. 3 2
172 ARMY PERSONNEL ACTIONS RELATING TO IRVING PERESS
The Chairman. Do your best. We appreciate your cooperation,
but we do have a little difficulty hearing you, and if you will try to
talk just a little louder.
All right.
Mr. Kennedt. What you were saying, Colonel, was that you felt
after you had taken the necessary action, that First Army had in-
structed you to take, and to the best of your recollection you did take
that action, it was not then necessary to inform your commanding
officer, is that right?
Mr. Gordon. That is correct.
Mr. Kennedy. That instruction dated May 14 instructed you to
put Irving Peress on the list of suspectees ?
Mr. Gordon. That is correct.
Mr. Kennedy. To the best of your recollection you followed out
that instruction ?
Mr. Gordon. I did.
Mr. Kennedy. Around the 27th of May, Colonel, you received a
report from the First Army containing the results of the investiga-
tion made by G-2 of the First Army of Irving Peress. Do you have
any independent recollection of that ?
Mr. Gordon. Meaning this same letter here?
Mr. Kennedy. No. There was a further report which came in on
the 27th of May.
Mr. Gordon. I do not.
Mr. Kennedy. I ask you if you will identify this document ?
(A document was handed to the witness.)
(Present: The Chairman, Senators Ervin and Bender.)
Mr. Gordon. Yes. This is an administrative admonition from Gen-
eral Burress, dated June 30, 1954, which I received at 7 : 15.
Mr. Kennedy. This is a letter of admonishment from General Bur-
ress, lieutenant general. United States Army, commanding officer at
First Army, to you, dated June 30, 1954 ?
Mr. Gordon. That is correct.
The Chairman. So that we may all hear it distinctly, I am going
to ask counsel to read the letter and you follow him to see if he makes
any errors. You have a copy of it before you.
All right, counsel, you may proceed.
Mr. Kennedy (reading) :
Gordon, Samuel A.
Subject : Administrative Admonition.
To : Lieutenant Colonel Samuel Gordon, U. S. Army
1. Investigation has disclosed that durinsi the period 25 May 1953 to 12 June
1953, while you were Assistant Chief of Staff, G-2, Camp Kilmer, New Jersey,
you failed to take necessary action to prevent undue delay in the processing
of correspondence inclosing a complaint type investigation of then Captain
Irving Peress, * * * Furthermore, when relieved from your assignment on
12 June 1953, you failed to bring this matter to the attention of your successor
as Assistant Cliief of Staff, G-2, or the Chief of Staff, Camp Kilmer, New Jersey.
2. You are hereby admonished for your negligent failure to exercise the
attention to duties which the interests of the Government required under such
circumstances.
3. This administrative admonition is intended as a purely corrective measure
to improve your efficiency and to prevent future recurrences of this nature.
Will you turn over the page there. Colonel. You receipted this
(reading) :
ARMY PERSONNEL ACTIONS RELATING TO IRVING PERESS 173
Subject: Receipt
To: Commanding General,
Headquarters First Army,
Governors Island,
New York 4, N. Y.
I the undersigned, hereby certify that I received, this date 19 Nov 1954, from
Capt Leroy W. Sweet, 0500512, Letter, * * *, Samuel A. Gordon, * * * dated
June 30, 1954, Subject : "Administrative Admonition."
And it is signed by your name. Is that right?
Mr. Gordon. That is correct.
Mr. Kennedy. The last document is the orders to Capt. Leroy W.
Sweet to proceed on temporary duty and to get in touch with you and
deliver this admonition, is that correct?
Mr. Gordon. That is correct.
Mr. Kennedy. May this document be made a part of the record ?
The Chairman. It may be made exhibit No. 28.
("Exhibit No. 28" may be found in the files of the subcommittee.)
Mr. Kennedy. Colonel, do you remember briefing your succeessor,
Colonel Brown, as to the duties and the cases then in existence at Camp
Kilmer ?
Mr. Gordon. I definitely do.
Mr. Kennedy. Were you ever interviewed by the Inspector General
prior to the time you received this letter of admonition?
Mr. Gordon. I was not.
Mr. Kennedy. I think the record should also show, Mr. Chairman,
that Colonel Gordon's name was not on the list of 28 which was fur-
nished the special Mundt subcommittee, and he a,nd Colonel Thomas
were the 2 officers wdio received any kind of disciplinary action dur-
ing the handling of the Peress case. His name is also not in the chro-
nology.
The Chairman. That has been stated for the record.
Mr. Brucker. I think we ought to have a little correction on that.
No disciplinary action, is that correct?
Mr. Kennedy. How would you phrase it?
Mr. Brucker. I don't know. But I wouldn't want to describe it
that way because the witness said, as I understood it, that it was not
disciplinary action.
Mr. Kennedy. If I got a letter of admonition I wouldn't think it
was a compliment.
The Chairman. Just withdraw the word "disciplinary" and let
the record speak for itself. The document speaks for itself.
Mr. Brucker. No criticism, Mr. Kennedy; I just wanted to call it
to your attention.
The Chairman. It is in the nature of a disciplinary action to im-
prove efficiency.
Mr. Brucker. I think we can agree it is corrective action, for cor-
rective purposes.
The Chairman. At any rate the document speaks for itself.
Mr. Kennedy. That is all, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. Colonel, you said you believed your successor — who
was you successor who relieved you from that post ?
Mr. Gordon. Lieutenat Colonel Brown. I have forgotten his
initials.
Mr. Kennedy. Lieutenant Colonel Brown?
Mr. Gordon. That is right.
174 ARMY PERSONNEL ACTIONS RELATING TO IRVING PERESS
The Chairman. Wliat do you mean by briefing him ?
Mr. Gordon. I went into the details of the action of the G-2 there
at Camp Kihner, also to go into the files and bring out the particular
file cases which we had tliere in the safe and which were under investi-
gation, people there on the post, the individual files.
The Chairman. Did you discuss the individual file of Irving Peress
with him?
Mr. Gordon. I can't say that there was a discussion. There was a
file on Irving Peress and I explained to him that it would be neces-
sary that he should have complete knowledge of it. After the case
was over he had no questions.
The Chairman. In other words, you alerted him ?
Mr. Gordon. I did.
The Chairman. To the necessity of his giving the Peress case
attention ?
Mr. Gordon. That is correct.
The Chairman. Were there other cases or other files that you
briefed him on accordingly?
Mr. Gordon. There were.
The Chairman. How many in number, if you recall ?
Mr. Gordon. I don't remember exactly, but somewhere in the neigh-
borhood of maybe 4 or 5, maybe 6.
The Chairman. There wasn't such a great volume of them that
any one particular case could have escaped his attention ?
Mr. Gordon. It could not have.
The Chairman. Maybe I didn't follow it closely. This letter of
admonition was because of some delay apparently from May 25 to
June 12, 1953. ^^^lat delay occurred?
Mr. Gordon. I have no "knowledge. The only knowledge I have
of it is the letter from General Burress.
The Chairman. Was there any delay on your part?
Mr. Gordon. I don't know.
The Chairman. You don't know ?
Mr. Gordon. I do not.
The Chairman. You have not reviewed the records since you left
there?
Mr. Gordon. I have not.
The Chairman. So you have not the benefit of a refreshed knowl-
edge?
Mr. Gordon. I have not had that benefit.
The Chairman. You don't know whether there was an undue delay
or whether there is some explanation of it, if there was, at the
present? You couldn't testify to that?
Mr. Gordon. That is correct.
Senator Bender. Colonel Gordon, when you were notified that this
man Peress was suspect, how did you handle him ? What did you do
when he was under your particular jurisdiction? As I understand
he was
Mr. Gordon. He was under investigation by another Government
organization.
Senator Bender. Wlien you know a man is a flag case, when you
knew that he was a flag case, did you give that matter special treat-
ment ? Did you have some special way of
ARMY PERSONNEL ACTIONS RELATING TO IRVING PERESS 175
Mr. Gordon. No; I did not, except I knew he was under another
Government agency and that they were looking in other — that they
were watching this particular person. I knew that.
Senator Bendee. Was he on the loose? Was he about just as any
other officer ?
Mr. Gordon. As I am concerned, he was ; yes.
Senator Bender. The only thing you did was to have in the files the
fact that he was suspect ?
Mr. Gordon. That is correct.
Senator Bender. You made no effort to pursue him?
Mr. Gordon. No, sir ; I did not.
Senator Bender. Or to watch him?
Mr. Gordon. No, sir.
Senator Bender. Or to detect anything that he did ?
Mr. Gordon. No, sir.
The Chairman. Let me ask you one question in that connection.
What action was indicated that you should take during that time?
Mr. Gordon. Kepeat that question.
The Chairman. What duty did you have to perform in connection
with it? You said some other agency. Do you mean some other
section — however you describe other parts of the Army ?
Mr. Gordon. That is correct.
The Chairman. Were conducting an investigation?
Mr. Gordon. That is correct.
The Chairman. The investigation was not being conducted under
your direction?
Mr. Gordon. It was not.
The Chairman. That was not your responsibility?
Mr. Gordon. It was not.
The Chairman. Wliat was your responsibility in connection with
the file?
Mr. Gordon. To keep the file active and to keep persons who should
know what was in that file who was a suspect and who was not a
suspect.
The Chairman. In fact, you had had no experience in this particu-
lar work before?
Mr. Gordon. I had not.
The Chairman. You hardly knew what you were supposed to do
with it, is that correct?
Mr. Gordon. Each case that would come up, we had a little manual
there that you would have to look through and find it.
The Chairman. You didn't know without going back to the
manual ?
Mr. Gordon. No, sir ; I did not.
The Chairman. After studying the manual there wasn't anything
indicated you should do until this other agency of the Army had
performed its function?
Mr. Gordon. That is correct.
The Chairman. Is that correct?
Mr. Gordon. Right.
Senator Bender. Another question, Colonel. Did you notify your
associates or the people who were your subordinates regarding this
particular case?
Mr. Gordon. Yes, sir.
176 ARMY PERSONNEL ACTIONS RELATING TO IRVING PERESS
Senatqr Bender. That he was a flag case ?
Mr. Gordon. Yes. They knew the circumstances.
Senator Bender. However, you personally don't know of any spe-
cial attention that was paid to him ?
Mr. Gordon. I do know from speaking to a certain member of
another organization, govermnental, whose job it is to trace people
and see what kind of characters, and so forth. I do know that it was
being worked on.
Senator Bender. You didn't work on him yourself?
Mr. Gordon. No, sir ; I did not.
Senator Bender. You didn't feel any responsibility yourself to
work on him ?
Mr. Gordon. No, sir, I did not.
Senator Bender. It was quite unusual, waJBn't it, for you to be
notified that someone under your command was a flag case ?
Mr. Gordon. No, sir, it was not unusual becavise on almost every
shipment of draftees into the Army we would have one or two cases
which would be brought to my office, and they would refuse to sign the
papers because of the fifth amendment.
Senator Bender. Did any one of your superiors ever ask you to cover
up for Major Peress?
Mr. Gordon. No, sir.
Senator Bender. You were never asked to give him any special
treatment or to go soft on him ?
Mr. Gordon. No, sir.
The Chairman. Senator Ervin, do you have a question ?
Senator Ervin. Colonel, as you understood it, there was no obliga-
tion or duty which rested on you when you received this notice that he
was suspect to do anything about it except to maintain the files and
bear that fact in mind until you received further information?
Mr. Gordon. T'lat is correct, and I followed it out to see that it got
over in the monthly report to the commanding general. First Army.
Senator Ervin. In other words, that notification — you mentioned
another agency was making or conducting an investigation ?
Mr. Gordon. That is correct.
Senator Ervin. That is all.
Senator Bender. One more question.
When this man was mider your jurisdiction what was his job?
What was his work?
Mr. Gordon, He was a dentist.
Senator Bender. You knew where he worked ?
Mr. Gordon. I did.
Senator Bender. You knew what he did ?
Mr. Gordon. He worked on teeth.
Senator Bender. Was he in a position to get any inside information
on his job that would be detrimental to the United States Govern-
ment?
Mr. Gordon. I suppose, yes, even at Camp Kilmer he might have
been in such a position to get information.
Senator Bender. How?
Mr. Gordon. The officers' club. That would be one place. I don't
know that any vital information passed through the dental office there.
Senator Bender. How about the officers' club? What kind of a
place is it ?
ARMY PERSONNEL ACTIONS RELATING TO IRVING PERESS 177
Mr, Gordon. It is a very nice club. [Laughter.]
Senator Bender. Colonel, what did they do there? How could
information be had, vital information detrimental to the Govern-
ment, at the officers' club ?
Mr. Gordon. I don't suppose any more so there, sir, than any other
club, any other place on the grounds, anywhere. Anywhere at Kilmer
there is a certain amount of information that probably he could have
gathered. I don't just point out mainly the officers' club.
The fact of the matter, I think it is one of the best clubs — they
spent enough money there — in this country.
The Chairman. Do you think they spent too much and we ought
to investigate that?
Mr. Gordon. I didn't say that, sir.
Mr. Juliana. Mv. Gordon, did you ever advise the Surgeon General
at Camp Kilmer that Peress was a security suspect?
Mr. Gordon. The Surgeon General ?
Mr. Juliana. Peress was a dentist?
Mr. Gordon. Correct.
Mr. Juliana. His immediate superior was the Surgeon General
at Camp Kilmer, is that correct ?
Mr. Gordon. When I was there there was no Surgeon General.
Mr. Juliana. Who was Peress' immediate superior, do you know?
Mr. Gordon. A colonel, but I have forgotten his name.
Mr. Juliana. He did have a superior?
Mr. Gordon. Right.
Mr. Juliana. Did you ever advise Peress' superior?
Mr. Gordon. I did not.
Mr. Juliana. Did you ever make the effort to go and find out what
Peress looked like ? Did you ever see Peress ?
Mr. Gordon. Yes ; I have seen him.
Mr. Juliana. Did you ever advise the Commanding General at
Camp Kilmer that Peress was a security suspect ?
Mr. Gordon. I did not, because Captain Connelley, whom I relieved
as the G-2 there
Mr. Juliana. You told who ? Whom did you tell ?
Mr. Gordon. I haven't said yet. Captain Connelly, whom I re-
lieved as G-2 there, had impressed on me that he had informed both
the Chief of Staff and the commanding general of the status of these
people.
Mr. Juliana. Did your predecessor know of the Peress case?
Mr. Gordon. Yes, he did.
Mr. Juliana. This letter from First Army advising you that Peress
was a security suspect was dated May 14, 1953, is that correct?
Mr. Gordon. I have seen the letter, but to pin me right down to
June 14 or May 14, whatever it is, I will say I don't know.
Mr. Juliana. When did you assume your duties as G-2 at Camp
Kilmer?
Mr. Gordon. I would have to refresh my memory by going through
the file.
Mr. Juliana. Your testimony here today is that your predecessor
knew about the Peress case ?
Mr. Gordon. He did.
Mr. Juliana. You submitted monthly reports on these security
eases ?
178 ARMY PERSONNEL ACTIONS RELATING TO IRVING PERESS
Mr. Gordon. That is correct.
Mr. Juliana. You have testified that there were 4 to 6 such cases
at Camp Kihner.
Mr. Gordon. About that many. I don't know right off, but ap-
proximately that number.
Mr. Juliana. To whom did you submit these monthly reports?
Mr. Gordon. The commanding general, First Army, G-2 Section.
Mr. Juliana. Commanding general, First Army, G-2 Section.
Mr. Gordon. That is right.
Mr. Juliana. Did those monthly reports go through the ofSce of
the commanding general of Camp Kilmer?
Mr. Gordon. They did not. They went through G-2 channels.
Mr. Juliana. Is it your testimony that something went out of Camp
Kilmer in the form of a report that the commanding general did
not know about ?
Mr. Gordon. That is my testimony.
Mr. Juliana. Is that normal Army procedure?
Mr. Gordon. That is.
Mr. Juliana. I would like to make an observation, but I won't.
The Chairman. Very well.
Mr. Juliana. That is all I have, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Ervin. Colonel, when did you relieve your predecessor in
the office of G-2 at Camp Kilmer ?
Mr. Gordon. The exact date I cannot say.
Senator Ervin. Can you give us the month ? To refresh your recol-
lection
Mr. Gordon. I beli eve it to be the month of July. I am not sure.
Senator Ervin. Your predecessor was Capt. William H. Connel-
ley, was it not?
Mr. Gordon. Yes, sir.
Senator Ervin. I will ask you if you did not relieve him in Decem-
ber 1952.
Mr. Gordon. That is correct. You are right.
Senator Ervin. When did you first hear of Capt. Irving Peress ?
Mr. Gordon. I believe it was in May. I don't know.
Senator Ervin. May of what year ?
Mr. Gordon. 1953, 1 believe.
Senator Ervin. Wlien you relieved Captain Connelley, where did
Captain Connelley go to ?
Mr. Gordon. He went back to civilian life as a life-insurance sales-
man, to the best of my knowledge.
Senator Ervin. Did you see Captain Connelley at any time after
you relieved him ?
Mr. Gordon. I don't think so.
Senator Ervin. That was in December 1952.
Mr. Gordon. Yes, 1 did. I saw him after that.
Senator Ervin. Wlien?
Mr. Gordon. I don't know the day that Captain Connelley left.
Senator Ervin. Anyway, you never heard of Irving Peress until
5 months or more after you relieved Captain Connelley?
Mr. Gordon. I don't remember the exact date that I heard of Cap-
tain Peress. I have not been allowed to refresh my memory on papers.
Senator Ervin. Suppose you look at this extract, and see if you
did not relieve him 6 months before you ever heard of Irving Peress.
ARMY PERSONNEL ACTIONS RELATING TO IRVING PERESS 179
(Document passed to the witness.)
Mr. Gordon. That is correct.
Senator Ervin. Colonel, if you never heard of Irving Peress until
5 or 6 months after you relieved Captain Connelley, were you not
mistaken awhile ago in testifying that Captain Connelley knew about
Irving Peress?
Mr. Gordon. That appears to be the fact.
Senator Ervin. You say it appears to be the fact that you were
mistaken in saying that ?
Mr. Gordon. Right. It does.
Senator Ervin. You haven't had a chance to look at that extract
or any other papers to refresh your memory up to the time you testified
awhile ago?
Mr. Gordon. I have had a chance to see this paper, and also three
other papers that I sent for from Anniston, Ala., in order that you
people might have a photostatic copy of it.
Senator Ervin. Would you like to correct your testimony at this
time. Colonel, so as to state that you were incorrect in stating that
Captain Connelley, your predecessor, knew of Irving Peress ?
Mr. Gordon. From the evidence there, that certainly is the truth.
Senator Ervin. It is the truth that you were mistaken ?
Mr. Gordon. Yes.
Senator Ervin. So far as you know, nobody at Camp Kilmer knew
anything about Irving Peress until about May 19, 1953, when you re-
ceived this notice from the First Army that he was suspect ?
Mr. Gordon. Yes, sir.
Mr. Brucker. Mr. Chairman, may I just add something here?
Major Ivan tells me that the Colonel came in town this morning and
has not, of course, had any opportunity — he is a civilian and hasn't
seen the papers, and we have not seen him. I just met him for the first
time. He talked with Mr. Kennedy, and then he is here. If there is
any question about any of these documents, we would be very glad to
have Major Ivan, who is here, with Mr. Kennedy or otherwise, give him
a fair opportunity to go over them so he can clear it up.
Major, is there something else about that ?
Major Ivan. Sir, I don't wish to imply any unfairness on the part
of Mr. Kennedy. I was down there with Mr. Kennedy. He asked him
the question, but he said that he would only ask 1 question of the
Colonel, and also go into the admonisliment, and also 1 question on
1 document.
Colonel Gordon has not had an opportunity to refresh his recollec-
tion on all of the documents.
The ChairMx\n. I think we can clear this up.
Colonel Gordon is testifying from memory. Let me ask you 1 or 2
questions. Colonel.
At the time you relieved Captain Connelley, were there some secu-
rity cases, security files, that he turned over to you ?
Mr. Gordon. There were.
The Chairman. As to those, at that time he did tell you that he had
ill formed the officers that you testified about awhile ago ?
Mr. Gordon. He certainly did.
The Chairman. You were laboring under the assumption that the
Peress case must have been one of them ?
Mr. Gordon. Right.
180 ARMY PERSONNEL ACTIONS RELATING TO IRVING PERESS
The Chairman. In view of what has been stated here by counsel for
the Defense Department, you are at liberty to check the records and
then, in view of what you have testified to, if you desire, come back
before the committee and make any corrections. You will be per-
mitted to do that.
Senator Ervin. Mr. Chairman, I should like to state that I didn't
mean to imply anything by my questions. I just thought the Colonel
liad made an honest error, because I have been impressed by his ex-
treme frankness about this. If I were asked questions about what
happened in 1952, 1 would make several mistakes, I am certain.
The Chairman. Certainly it is no reflection upon you, Colonel, at
all. We were simply trying to help get the record straight.
Senator Ervin. I thought he made a clear error, unintentionally
and inadvertently, and I wanted to give him an opportunity to cor-
rect it.
The Chairman. Before you leave the stand. Colonel, may I in-
<iuire — I do not think we did in the beginning — your present address ?
Just for the record, I would like to know your present address.
Mr. Gordon. 1720 Abbott Avenue, Box 1201, Anniston, Ala.
The Chairman. Thank you very much.
If there are no other questions. Colonel, you may be excused.
(Present at this time were Senators McClellan, Jackson, Ervin,
McCarthy, and Bender.)
The Chairman. Col. Chester T. Brown, come around, please.
You do solemnly swear that the evidence you shall give before this
investigating subcommittee will be the truth, the whole truth, and
nothing but the truth, so help you God ?
Colonel Brown. I do.
The Chairman. Have a seat. Colonel.
All right, Mr. O'Donnell, you may proceed.
TESTIMONY OF LT. COL. CHESTER T. BROWN
Senator McCarthy. Colonel Brown, you were before this commit-
tee last year. At that time you refused to testify on the ground that
the Presidential directive did not permit you to testify.
Colonel Brown. That is right.
Senator McCarthy. Are you going to testify freely today ?
Colonel Brown. I have permission to testify today.
Senator McCarthy. From whom did you get the permission ?
Colonel Brown. From the Office of the Secretary of the Army.
Senator McCarthy. I wonder if you could clear up this point which
disturbs me a bit : A man comes in one day and says, "I can't testify
because of a Presidential directive," and then he comes in the next
•day and says, "Now I can testify." Do you know what conditions
are different, or why the circumstances are such that you could not
testify then but you can testify now ?
Colonel Brown. I do not.
Senator Bender. I wonder, Mr. Chairman, if Governor Brucker has
any comment to make on that question.
Mr. Brucker. Yes, Senator.
The Chairman. Understand, this is just comment. Governor
Brucker is not a w^itness, so it will be accepted as comment, and you
may proceed. Governor.
ARMY PERSONNEL ACTIONS RELATING TO IRVING PERESS 181
Mr. Brucker. That is right. If I can answer it, I will be very glad
to.
The chronology which was filed here as a part of this record was
made available to the public on January 7, 1955, by the Secretary of
the Army, and in it is a list of events chronologically arranged from
the time of the induction of Peress until the conclusion of the matter.
In connection with the preparation and release of that list, there
was necessary permision required because it contained matters con-
cerning conversations and communications between members of the
executive department, the President having issued a letter on May
17, 1954, pointing out that the executive department, being separate,
should not at that time have conversations or documents based upon
matters of Executive decision or order released.
So it was necessary to clear the chronology in order to do that,
and that was cleared, and I can say to the Senator that everything
that is in the chronology and those things that relate to it and are
material to it and germane to it were thereby released, and I have
so informed the committee about that ; and that while Colonel Brown
prior to that time could not testify because of the Presidential letter
of May 17, subsequent to the release of the chronology, his name being
included in the material there, that was cleared and released for that
purpose.
So he comes here today fully free, as I announced the first day,
as a witness for all purposes, and is not only expected but urged to
tell everything that he knows about it.
Senator McCarthy. Let me correct you, Governor, if I may. He
was not relying upon the Presidential letter. I have his testimony
in my hand, on February 18, 1954, and he relied upon Regulation
380-320-10. I assume that regulation is still in effect, is it not?
Mr. Brucker. It is, and to the extent that I have explained here,
that has been waived by the issuance of the chronology.
Senator McCarthy. By whom ?
Mr. Brucker. By the Secretary of the Army.
Senator McCarthy. The Secretary of the Army cannot waive it.
The President must waive it.
Mr. Brucker. It has been cleared.
Senator McCarthy. It is a Presidential directive. Did the Presi-
dent give you permission to have these men testify ?
Mr. Brucker. Senator, I will say that the chief law officer of the
United States Government has released that, the Attorney General,
and he has informed me that the chronology may be released, and
that all witnesses may give full testimony and are expected to give
full testimony with regard to those matters.
Senator McCarthy. I would like to get this cleared up. You were
not prepared to answer it the other day. If the Chair will bear with
me for a minute — I am not concerned only with what you choose
to put in that chronology. I am interested in all the information
about Peress. Is it your statement today that Mr. Adams, for exam-
ple, can testify freely as to what conversation was had about Peress
on the 21st of January when they initiated the conspiracy, and I use
the word "conspiracy" advisedly, to call off the Fort Monmouth and
Peress investigation?
You may think it is funny.
182 ARMY PERSONNEL ACTIONS RELATING TO IRVING PERESS
Mr. Brucker. I do. I think it is very humorous, because I have
had a chance to look into it. I have looked into it since you asked
me. Are you going to let me get through, or are we going to have
a duel here ?
Senator McCarthy. Will you be quiet until I finish ?
Mr. Brucker. Yes. When you are finished — I will wait until you
are finished.
Senator McCarthy. You will wait?
Mr. Brucker. I will.
Senator McCarthy. Thank you very much.'
I may say there is nothing funny about this question. This Peress
case concerns not only me but the entire Nation. You may laugh
about it, but I am not laughing about it.
I ask you this simple question which I asked you the other day:
Will Mr. Adams be free to testify about what occurred at that January
21 meeting in regard to Peress when there was initiated a conspiracy
to call ofi' the Peress investigation, and to call off the Fort Monmouth
investigation, or it is your position that only those witnesses who may
be able to give something favorable to the military in the Peress case
will be allowed to testify freely?
Mr. Brucker. Are you through, Senator?
The Chairman. You make your answer or comment.
Mr. Brucker. I want to be sure he is through this time.
Senator McCarthy. If you understand the question, I am through.
Mr. Brucker. I certainly do, and I want to know whether you would
like me to answer it.
Senator McCarthy. I would like to have you answer it.
Mr. Brucker. Very good. I will.
The Chairman. You answer the question without being interrupted.
Proceed.
Mr. Brucker. Thank you very much, sir.
Since you made the interrogatory the other day, I have had oppor-
tunity to talk with John Adams, the general counsel of the Depart-
ment of the Army, and in connection
The Chairman. I think you misunderstood, if that is going to be
your answer. I think the Senator referred to Mr. Adams at the White
House ; Governor Adams. Is that correct.
Senator McCarthy. I really had reference to John.
The Chairman. I am sorry. I was mistaken. I misunderstood it.
You did understand, so proceed.
Mr. Brucker. All right. I will start again. We are talking about
the same person now.
Since the question came up first the other day, I have had an oppor-
tunity to talk with John Adams about this matter. As a matter of
fact, I took the trouble to find out whether John Adams had testified
to any such matter as a conspiracy regarding the Peress case on Janu-
ary 21, 1954, or at any other time, whether it was at the Attorney
General's office or any other place. I found the record showed in the
Mundt subcommittee hearing, on page 1059 of that hearing, on the date
of May 12, 1954, he testified with regard to that matter and said in
there that it had to do with other matters, but he did not mention at
any place that it had to do with anything connected with the Peress
matter.
ARMY PERSONNEL ACTIONS RELATING TO IRVING PERESS 183
I also then interrogated John Adams as to whether on January 21
he himself even knew
Senator McCartht. Mr. Chairman, if the witness is going to tell
what occurred
Mr. Brucker. May I finish, or is this to be another interruption?
The Chairman. Proceed. This is just comment. If we decide we
want your testimony we will ask for it later.
Senator McCarthy. Mr. Chairman, may I suggest if he is going to
tell what Adams said about the January 21 meeting
Mr. Brucker. No, I am not going to tell about it. I am going to
say with respect
The Chairman. We will get it all into evidence a little later, but
this is comment for the purpose of the moment. Let us have the com-
ment and let us proceed with the witness.
^Ir. Brucker. I would like to do that myself, and I would like to
finish.
So I found out that John Adams, who was going to testify here,
had previously gone on record in connection with the matter, and
that it had nothing to do with Peress on January 21, 1954.
I also found this : That that subject on May 17, 1954
Senator McCarthy. Mr. Chairman
Mr. Brucker. Together with the other subjects under the Presi-
dent's directive of May 17
Senator McCarthy. May I interrupt? This witness is testifying
to things that are not true, and if he is going to testify, I think he
should be sworn. I think he should be sworn if he is going to state
facts.
The Chairman. Do you want him to answer by way of comment?
Senator McCarthy. I would like to have him be sworn if he is going
to comment about facts.
The Chairman. He will not be sworn. We are going to proceed
with the witness we have here.
Senator McCarthy. If he is going to tell what Adams said. I
asked him the simple question whether Adams would be free to tes-
tify, and instead of answering that he is telling us what Adams would
testify to. He is telling us what Adams knew. He is telling us what
occurred previously. That is incorrect. I asked him the simple ques-
tion, and he should be able to answer that. But if he goes beyond
that, Mr. Chairman, if he goes beyond that and starts to testify, he
should be sworn.
The Chairman. Let me ask you one question, and then we will
move on.
Is Adams going to be permitted to testify at this hearing?
Mr. Brucker. Adams is going to be permitted to testify at this
hearing, Adams will testify to anything connected with the Peress
case.
The Chairman. Let me ask you this
Senator McCarthy. That is the answer.
The Chairman. Is there any order restricting his testimony in any
way when he comes before this committee to testify ?
Mr. Brucker. There is, and that is what I want to finish with, if
I may.
The Chairman. State what the restrictions are, as of now.
184 ARMY PERSONNEL ACTIONS RELATING TO IRVING PERESS
Mr. Brucker. The restrictions are these : With respect to any mat-
ter concerning the conference that was there mentioned, on Janu-
ary 21, 1954, that is privileged under the President's directive of
May 17, and Mr. Adams will be here and testify as to everything and
be permitted to testify as to everything with regard to Peress, and
I hope clearly.
The Chairmax. Let me ask you one other question. When Adams
testifies, the question is going to arise with respect to whether he
can be required to testify as to a conference that may have occurred
which has been referred to. In the meantime, while we proceed with
these hearings, since you are representing the Army and the Depart-
ment of Defense, the Chair will request you, and I trust you will agree
to do it, to get in contact with the higher authorities, whoever it may
be, and ascertain definitely whether there will be White House clear-
ance for Adams to testify regarding the conference on January 21,
and report back to the chairman of the committee about it. Will you
do that?
Mr. Brucker. I will, sir. I have already made clearances, but I will
do that specially now since the chairman has requested it.
The Chairman. I want it done specially, with a report that is au-
thentic and official from you, as counsel for the Department of De-
fense.
Mr. Brucker. I will be glad to do that.
The Chairman. Thank you very much.
I believe you have been sworn. Colonel.
Senator Bender. Mr. Chairman, I would like to make one ob-
servation as a member of this committee. I am sure that I cannot
speak for the President, but from my observation of him he is not dis-
posed to cover up any mistakes on the part of anyone in the Govern-
ment, and certainly there is no disposition on his part to enter into any
conspiracy, nor is he involved in any situation where facts could
not be known on every issue. In my experience with him and with
the executive branch during the past 2 years, as chairman of the
other committee in the other body, every information was made avail-
able on all occasions.
Senator McCarthy. Senator, may I comment on the fact that you
were not present during the Mundt hearings or you would not make
the statement you just made. During those hearings it developed that
there was a meeting in the Justice Department attended by 2 White
House representatives, 2 Justice Department representatives, a U. N.
representative, and an Army representative, and they succeeded at
that time in initiating the action which called off the Fort Monmouth-
Peress hearing. We tried to find out why and how they did that.
The President issued a special order saying that their lips must be
sealed ; that they must not tell what they did at that meeting, and made
it a crime for them to tell. If you had been present then, you would
not make that statement.
The Chairman. Gentlemen, let the Chair make this statement:
We can argue from now on until next Christmas on this point. That
is not expediting the hearing. There will come a time in the course
of these hearings when a final decision will be made upon that, but
we have witnesses here today scheduled to testify today. It is a
pretty heavy schedule, and the Chair, in the interest of expediting
this proceeding, wishes to get along with the testimony. And when
ARMY PERSONNEL ACTIONS RELATING TO IRVING PERESS 185
we arrive at this point where this becomes the issue, this committee
will undertake to settle it. I think that is all that needs to be said.
Proceed with the interrogation of the witness.
Mr. O'DoNNELL. Colonel, will you state your full name, rank, and
present place of assignment?
Colonel Brown. Chester T. Brown, lieutenant colonel. Headquar-
ters, Camp Kilmer, N. J.
Mr. O'DoNNELL. Are you presently the G-2 officer at Camp Kilmer ?
Colonel Brown. I am.
Mr. O'DoNNELL. Were you first assigned as G-2 at Camp Kilmer
on June 11, 1953?
Colonel Brown. I was.
Mr. O'DoNNELL. Within a few days tliereafter, was any security
information in G-2 concerning Major Peress or Captain Peress
brought to your attention ?
Colonel Brown. Yes. Within 48 hours, possibly earlier than that.
Mr. O'DoNNELL. That information consisted of two parts: (1) an
investigative report and file that had been forwarded to your office
from First Army, and (2) a monthly list of persons under investiga-
tion, which included the name of Irving Peress ?
Colonel Brown. It included the investigative file as one document.
The other document was a letter from First Army dated sometinie
about the middle of May, advising me that Peress was under investi-
gation, and directing our office to place him on our monthly list to be
forwarded to the First Army.
Mr. O'DoNNELL. At the time you assumed your duties, was his name
already on the list of monthly suspectees ?
Colonel Brown. It was. It was on list dated June 1953.
Mr. O'DoNNELL. Was it placed on that list by Lt. Col. Samuel
Gordon ?
Colonel Brown. It was.
Mr. O'DoNNELL. At this time in June, within 48 hours after you
assumed your new duties, did you review an investigative file on
Irving Peress ?
Colonel Brown, I did.
Mr. O'DoNNELL. Thereafter, did you make a recommendation to
First Army or the Department of the Army that he should be elimi-
nated from the service?
Colonel Brown. I did ; on June 15.
Mr. O'DoNNELL. 1953?
Colonel Brown. Eight.
Mr. O'DoNNELL. After this matter came to your attention shortly
after you assumed your duties, did you discuss this security case on
Peress with anyone at Camp Kilmer ?
Colonel Brown. I did. I discussed it with Peress' immediate
superior, Colonel Leverich.
Mr. O'DoNNELL. Colonel Leverich was in the office of the surgeon
general at Camp Kilmer ; is that correct ?
Colonel Brown. He was chief general surgeon at Camp Kilmer;
Mr. O'DoNNELL. Did you call Colonel Leverich to your office ?
Colonel Brown. I did.
Mr. O'DoNNELL. Did you inform Colonel Leverich of the detailed
information that you had concerning Peress ?
186 ARMY PERSONNEL ACTIONS RELATING TO IRVING PERESS
Colonel Brown. Not of the detailed information ; no. I informed
him that Peress was under investigation, suspected of being a sub-
versive. I informed Colonel Leverich that Peress was not to be given
any opportunity for access to classified matter or information. Colo-
nel Leverich and I agreed that he and Colonel Caldwell would keep
Peress under surveillance.
Mr. O'DoNNELL. Did you specifically request at this time that Peress
not be placed on any sensitive duties?
Colonel Brown. Not in so many words. As I said a moment ago,
I directed that he not be given opportunity for access to any classified
matter or information. I also suggested that he be placed in an
assignment where he would do the least possible harm, and Colonel
Leverich told me that he would put him down in medical processing.
The Chairman. Did I understand you to say he would be placed
in a position where he could do the least possible harm? Is that
the term you used ?
Colonel Brown. The least possible harm.
The Chairman. I couldn't quite hear you. All right.
Colonel Brown. Thereupon, Colonel Leverich told me he was put-
ting him down in medical processing, where his duties would be only
to check the teeth of casuals being processed for discharge.
Mr. Brucker. Keep your voice up so they can hear you. This is
not a loudspeaker.
Mr. O'DoNNELL. Speak up a little louder, if you can. That is a
dead mike so far as we are concerned up here.
Colonel, you say that you discussed a surveillance with Colonel
Leverich. Would you explain what you mean by surveillance, and
specifically what you instructed Colonel Leverich to do?
Colonel Brown. I didn't give Colonel Leverich any definite instruc-
tions on that. I said that I would like to know anything he did that
was out of the way, and by an informal agreement between the Colo-
nel and myself, Colonel Leverich did keep an eye on the man while he
was on duty on the post. From time to time he reported to me inci-
dents that he considered might be of G-2 interest.
May I say at this time that during the entire period from about
the middle of June until the date of Peress' discharge, there was never
any report of anything he had done on the post that could be con-
sidered disaffection or subversion.
Mr. O'DoNNELL. You are talking from all sources, no report from
any sources ?
Colonel Brown. No report from any sources.
Senator McCarthy. To what date are you referring now?
Mr. Brucker. From when and to when?
Colonel Brown. From about the middle of June 1953 to the date of
Peress' discharge.
Senator McCarthy. Could I interrupt, Mr. Chairman ?
You say there was no evidence of any wrongdoing on the post.
You understand that where a man refuses to testify and invokes the
fifth amendment, that is evidence, considered in any civil court.
Colonel Brown. That was not reported to me.
Senator McCarthy. He refused to testify whether he was organiz-
ing Communist cells on the post, whether he was inducting soldiers
into the Communist Party, whether he was being used as a mail drop
or information drop — will you let me finish, Mr. Brucker?
ARMY PERSONNEL ACTIONS RELATING TO IRVING PERESS 187
]Mr. Brucker. I am counseling; the witness, and I intend to, because
you are asking a legal question of him and I have the right, I assume,
to counsel him.
The Chairman. Let him finish his question. Governor, and then
you have a perfect right to counsel him.
Mr. Brucker. I thought he was through. I never can tell when he
is.
Senator jMcCarthy. Will the reporter read just the last part of my
question so I will know where I was?
(The reporter read as requested.)
Senator McCarthy. And whether he was holding meetings in his
home, that is, Communist meetings, attended by soldiers ; and he re-
fused to testify on the grounds of the fifth amendment, saying that if
he told the truth it would incriminate him.
That information was available before he left the post. Is it your
testimony now that you did not know of that ?
Colonel Brown. My testimony was that nothing had been reported
to me on the post. That is correct. I did read something in the news-
papers.
Senator McCarthy. So you knew of that. You knew of those facts
I just recited.
Colonel Brown. Yes.
Senator McCarthy. So when you say he did nothing at all of a
subversive nature, do you want to qualify that now and point out
Colonel Brown. I didn't say he didn't do anything of a subversive
nature. I said nothing was reported to me to that effect. We found
him doing nothing wrong on the post.
Senator McCarthy. You mean reported officially ?
Colonel Brown. Right.
Senator McCarthy. If you learned it from newspapers, you would
not consider that being reported to you ?
Colonel Brown. I saw no report in the newspapers that he had
committed any wrongful act at Camp Kilmer.
Senator McCarthy. Didn't you read in the papers that he took the
fifth amendment?
Colonel Brown. I read he had been accused of it, but I saw no proof
or evidence. None had been reported.
Senator McCarthy. Colonel, that is evidence. Let's not be puny
about this thing. You said it wasn't reported to you. You knew of
it. You know that taking the fifth amendment is evidence, so you did
know of evidence of wrongdoing.
(Mr. Brucker conferring with the witness.)
The Chairman. Let me clear this up. As I understand your testi-
mony, you said nothing was reported to you that he did on the post.
Colonel Brown. That is correct.
The Chairman. The testimony that Senator McCarthy refers to is
something which occurred off the post. Is that right?
Senator McCarthy. No.
The Chairman. Did it occur on the post?
Senator McCarthy. Yes; it occurred on the post. Recruiting men
into the Communist Party, three specifically, was done on the post.
The Chairman, May I ask, was this testimony taken on the post or
some other place ?
60030—55 — pt. 3 3
188 ARMY PERSONNEL ACTIONS RELATING TO IRVING PERESS
Senator McCarthy. The testimony was not taken on the post.
Tlie Chairman. But these questions were asked him under oath at
another pLace about whether he was doing these things on the post?
Senator McCarthy. That is right.
The Chairman. I just wanted you to understand the question,
Colonel.
Colonel Brown. I have no knowledge of that other than what I saw
in the paper.
The Chairman. You did have knowledge of what you saw in the
paper.
Colonel Brown. Yes ; and I can't remember what that was.
The Chairman. As to anything actually being reported to you of
an act or actions on the post, none was reported ?
Colonel Brown. That is right.
The Chairman. I think that clears it up.
All riglit, counsel.
Mr. O'DoNNELL. Colonel, did you have anything reported to you
concerning his activities while he was off the post ?
Colonel Brown. No.
Mr. O'DoNNELL. Other than your discussion w^ith Colonel Leverich,
did you take any other investigative or positive steps concerning
Irving Peress?
Colonel Brown. Not that I can recall. May I say that I had no
investigative personnel. I could not conduct investigations on the
post.
Mr. O'DoNNELL. None was assigned to your office ?
Colonel Brown. None.
Mr. O'DoNNELL. Was it your function or responsibility as G-2 to
conduct investigations at Camp Kilmer?
Colonel Brown. No.
Mr. O'DoNNELL. What were the functions of your office in G-2?
Colonel Brown. To process security clearances, to have staff super-
vision over the physical security of the post. At that time my other
major duty, which consumed about 30 percent of my time, was as a
member of courts and awards.
Mr. O'DoNNELL. Under your responsibility, then, did you have any
responsibility for advising Colonel Leverich to maintain surveillance
on Peress while he was at the post ?
Colonel Brown. Yes. I would say that would be a normal G-2
duty.
Mr. O'DoNNELL. Is that not an investigative function ?
Colonel Brown. You may call it that, a function performed without
personnel.
Mr. O'DoNNELL. Am I clear. Colonel : Was your office merely an
administrative office for processing papers as G-2 at Kilmer ?
Colonel Brown. Administrative and staff supervision. It was not
an operational agency.
Mr. O'DoNNELL. You had no investigative staff to assign ?
Colonel Brow^n. That is correct.
Senator McCarthy. Colonel, I want to make clear that my rather
vigorous examination of you does not mean that I am trying to
criticize you. All the information which we have indicates that you
did everything you personally could do to get rid of this Communist.
I w^ant to make that clear.
ARMY PERSONNEL ACTIONS RELATING TO IRVING PERESS 189
Mr. O'DoNNELL. As to the surveillance with Colonel Leverich, did
he thereafter report to you from time to time as to any activities of
Peress ?
Colonel Brown. He reported from time to time small items that
might possibly have an intelligence significance.
Mr. O'DoNXELL. Did they in fact have any significance?
Colonel Brown. To me, very little. However, I forwarded that
information to G-2, First Army, which does have an operational
agency under its control.
Mr. O'DoNNELL. Did Colonel Leverich ever inform you to what
extent he was keeping Peress under observation ?
Colonel Brown. No.
Mr. O'DoNNELL. Are you cognizant of the fact that an interroga-
tory w^as submitted to Irving Peress and was executed by him on.
August 25, 1953 ; is that correct?
Colonel Brown. That is correct.
Mr. O'DoNNELL. Thereafter you returned that completed interroga-
tory via First Army to Washington, again recommending that Peress
be eliminated from the service; is that correct?
Colonel Brown. I did.
Mr. O'DoNNELL. On September 9, 1953, Irving Peress submitted a
letter requesting a readjustment in grade and promotion to major
from his present grade of captain. Are you cognizant of such a
letter. Colonel ?
Colonel Brown. Yes; I was.
Mr. O'DoNNELL. I hand you this copy of certain papers and request
that you identify them. Colonel.
Colonel Brown. The paper on top here is a copy of Peress' letter
requesting readjustment of grade, and it contains the first endorse-
ment from Colonel Leverich to the commanding general. Camp Kil-
mer, stating simply "Forwarded for necessary action."
Mr. O'DoNNELL. That letter is dated September 9, 1953, the original
letter?
Colonel Brown. That is correct.
Mr. O'DoNNELL. When did you first see this letter or a copy thereof?
Colonel Brow^n. On September 9.
Mr. O'DoNNELL. Did Colonel Leverich, who endorsed it with the
first endorsement, specifically call your oiSce and advise that such a
letter had arrived in his unit?
Colonel Brown. He did, and shortly thereafter he brought me a
carbon copy of the letter.
Mr. O'DoNNELL. Was the carbon copy of that letter brought to you
at your request ?
Colonel Brown. It was.
Mr. O'DoNNELL. After receipt of the carbon copy of the letter on
the same day, September 9, did you attach a comment to it ?
Colonel Brown. I did, a comment from my office to The Adjutant
General at Camp Kilmer.
Mr. O'DoNNELL. Will you read that comment now, Colonel?
Colonel Brown (reading) :
To : AG from G-2, September 1953.
Comment number 1 : Attached copy of letter furnished G-2 by dental surgeon.
2. Captain Peress is under investigation (file may be seen in this office) ; sus-
pected of disaffection and membership in subversive organizations. Has refused
190 ARMY PERSONNEL ACTIONS RELATING TO IRVING PERESS
to answer questions citing fifth amendment. There is a possibility that Ms
commission will be revoked by DA.
3. Recommend that the application for promotion be disapproved at this time.
The Chairman, As I understand that, when Peress' letter reached
your office in wliich he was requesting a promotion to major, an ad-
justment in rank, whichever it may be determined militarily speak-
ing, you examined it and placed an endorsement on it giving
Colonel Brown. No, sir. I received only a carbon copy of the letter.
The Chairman. Well, on receipt of the carbon copy.
Colonel Brown. I attached a comment, not an endorsement, sir.
The Chairman. You made a comment on it ?
Colonel Brown. Yes, sir.
The Chairman. Not a regular military endorsement?
Colonel Brown. No, sir; I couldn't.
The Chairman. You had no authority to do that?
Colonel Brown. The letter didn't go through my office.
The Chairman. How did you happen, then, to make this comment?
Did you do that of your own initiative ?
Colonel Brown. I did.
The Chairman. Or as a part of a duty, particular duty of your
office?
Colonel Brown. I would say it was both. Since the matter had
come to my attention it was my duty to object to the promotion.
The Chairman. And you did object?
Colonel Brown. I did.
The CiiAiRiMAN. And sent it to your proper superior ?
Colonel Brown, I sent it to the other staff, the Adjutant General.
The Chairman. Proceed.
Mr. O'DoNNELL. Did you take any other action. Colonel, besides
this comment?
Colonel Brown. I did not.
Mr. O'DoNNELL. Why did you not take any other action?
Colonel Brown. There were two reasons. The first reason was
that by making my comment to the Adjutant General, who would
normally process the request, I had performed my duty. If any ques-
tion came up they normally would have been decided by a conference^
and possibly a final decision made by the Chief of Staff or the Com-
manding General.
However, I heard no more from it, and I assumed that my recom-
mendation had been accepted.
The second reason was: Knowing the case, knowing that the in-
formation concerning Peress was available both at First Army and
the Department of the Army, it seemed to me impossible that this
promotion could go through, and it also seemed that Peress if I may
say so was a silly fool for even requesting it.
Mr. O'DoNNELL.. Therefore, other than this action, you did not
notify G-2, First Army, and/or your commanding officer at Camp
Kilmer?
Colonel Brown. No; I did not.
Mr, O'DoNNELL. Will you turn to page 3 of the document in front
of you, Colonel ?
Colonel Brown. All right.
Mr, O'DoNNELL. Will you read comment No. 2?
ARMY PERSONNEL ACTIONS RELATING TO IRVING PERESS 191
Colonel Brown. Comment No. 2 is to Assistant Chief of Staff, G-1,
from the Adjutant General, dated September 9.
Original letter now being processed by Military Personnel, will be forwarded
to your office for decision.
That was signed by John J. Smith, Lieutenant Colonel, Adjutant
General.
Mr. O'DoNNELL. G-1 is known as the policy unit within the De-
partment of the Army ; is that correct ?
Colonel Brown. For personnel administration, yes.
Mr. O'DoNNELL. Will you read comment No. 3, which appears on
this document?
Colonel Brown. To Adjutant General from G-1, September 9.
Noted. Enclosure is not a recommendation for promotion, merely a request
for grade determination.
That is signed by WLV, Assistant G-1.
Mr. O'DoNNELL. That went from G-1 to whom ?
Colonel Brown. Back to the Adjutant General.
ISIr. O'DoNNELL. What is the primary responsibility of the Adju-
tant General in any installation?
Colonel Brown. To prepare correspondence and other documents
carrying out the policy of the command.
]Mr. O'DoNNELL. Are you cognizant of what happened to the origi-
nal letter after you had made this request in writing to the office of
the AG?
Colonel Brown. No; I was not cognizant of that until just a few
weeks ago.
Mr. O'DoNNELL. So it was your assumption as of this time that
your connnent, which you have just read into the record, was suffi-
ciently strong to stop any request for promotion of Irving Peress ? .
Colonel Brown. That is what I believe.
Mr. O'DoNNELL. Mr. Chairman, may I have the document which
has been identified and discussed by the colonel made a part of the
record ?
The Chairman. It may be made exhibit No. 29.
(Exhibit No. 29 may be found in the files of the subcommittee.)
Mr. O'DoNNELL. Colonel, were you notified at the time that Irving
Peress received his readjustment in grade or promotion?
Colonel Brown. Yes; I was.
Mr. O'Donnell. Will you tell us on what day and under what cir-
cumstances you were so notified?
Colonel Brown. To the best of my recollection it was about the 2d
of November of 1953. I received a telephone call, I believe, from
Colonel Leverich. It may have been Colonel Caldwell, stating that
he had jnst received a letter promoting Peress. On the same day in
a telephone conversation either with Colonel Leverich or Colonel
Caldwell, or with Captain Goodman, AG Personnel — I am not sure
which one — called me there, questioning the signing of the oath.
My reply was again that since the Department of the Armv had
all the information, the Department of the Army had made the de-
cision and had sent down a letter promoting Peress, there was nothing
more that we could do.
Mr. O'DoNNELL. Excuse me. Go ahead if I interrupted you.
192 ARMY PERSONNEL ACTIONS RELATING TO IRVING PERESS
Colonel Brown. Also on that same date, since my memory has been
refreshed, I put in a telephone call to Colonel Johnson, who was
G-2, First Army, and advised him that Peress had been promoted.
Mr. O'DoNNELL. That telephone call to First Army, Colonel, was
made at 4 : 15 in the afternoon on November 2, 1953 ; is that correct?
Colonel Brown, It probably was.
Mr. O'DoNNELL. Let me show you a photostatic copy of a docu-
ment I am handing to you, which we have received from the Army.
Will you please identify that document. Colonel?
(A document was handed to the witness.)
Colonel Brown. That is a "Memo for Record," dated the 2d of
November 1953 and signed by Wendell G. Johnson, Colonel, G-2,
Assistant Chief of Staff, G-2, First Army.
Mr. O'DoNNELL. In substance does that not reflect a telephone call
from you to Colonel Johnson at G-2, First Army, advising at 4 :15 in
the afternoon of November 2 that you had just received information
from Peress' commanding officer that he had been promoted to a
major?
Colonel Brown. That is correct.
Mr. O'DoNNELL. May we have that marked as an exhibit for the
record, Mr, Chairman?
The Chairman. Exhibit No. 30.
(Exhibit No. 30 may be found in the files of the subcommittee.)
Mr. O'DoNNELL. Did you at the time you were notified that the
promotion had arrived at Camp Kilmer, take any other action than
advising G-2, First Army ?
Colonel Brown. I notified either the Chief of Staff or the com-
manding general by telephone. I am not sure which one, and I am
not sure what time of day I notified him.
Mr. O'DoNNELL. Did you notify the Chief of Staff?
Colonel Brown. Colonel Clarence O, Brunner.
Mr, O'DoNNELL, B-r-u-n-n-e-r?
Colonel Brown, Yes.
Mr, O'DoNNELL. Will you identify the commanding general?
Colonel Brown. General Ralph F. Zwicker.
Mr. O'Donnell. Do you have any recollection what time of day
you notified either Colonel Brunner or General Zwicker?
• Colonel Brown. No ; I do not.
Mr, O'Donnell, Do you know at what time of day you were notified
by Colonel Leverich's office that the promotion had arrived?
Colonel Brown, No, I cannot recall.
Mr. O'Donnell. Do you have any recollection as to how soon after
you received notification from Colonel Leverich's office that you
notified either Colonel Brunner or General Zwicker?
Colonel Brown, No, I don't,
Mr, O'Donnell, Do you have any memos of record as to any tele-
phone call made to Colonel Brunner or General Zwicker?
Colonel Brown. No, I do not,
Mr, O'Donnell, Prior to this period of time had General Zwicker
been advised by you that there was a security case at Camp Kilmer on
Irving Peress ?
Colonel Brown, Yes, on about the 20th or 21st of October,
Mr. O'Donnell. You assumed your duties as G-2 at Camp Kilmer
on June 11, and the Peress case came to your attention within 48 hours?
ARMY PERS0N:NEL ACTIONS RELATING TO IRVING PERESS 193
Colonel Brown. That is correct,
Mr. O'DoNNELL. Between the time of Jnne 1953 and approximately
October 20, 195o, had you advised General Zwieker that there was a
security case on Irving Peress in Camp Kilmer?
Colonel Brown. Between the period of Jnne and October, no, I
did not.
The Chairman. Whom did you advise? Did you advise any of
your superiors ?
Colonel Brown. I advised only Colonel Leverich up until that
time. About the 20th of October, when it seemed that it was about
time to be getting some action, I mentioned the matter to the Chief
of Staff.
The Chairman. General Zwicker's Cliief of Staff?
Colonel Brown. General Zwicker's Chief of Staff', Colonel Brunner.
I can't recall exactly in what connection the thing came up, but
Colonel Brunner told me the general wanted to know about any
derogatory information that I might have on any of these people.
Colonel Brunner advised me to put it in writing. I also drafted a
letter for the general's signature.
That was brought to the general on the 20th or 21st of October.
Mr. Brucker. October?
Colonel Brown. Right.
The general signed the letter on the 21st of October, and dispatched
it to the First Army. That letter briefly outlined the case against
Peress and made the recommendation that he be relievel from active
duty without delay.
The Chairman. Colonel, the only thing that concerns me at the
moment is why, during that period from June until October, was
General Zwieker not notified? Is that ordinary procedure or
Colonel Brown. I might say it was an interpretation I made of
paragraph 43 of Special Regulations 380-210-10, I believe it is.
Mr. O'DoNNELL. May I help vou out on that? Was it Special
Regulations 380-320-10', dated June 21, 1951, section V, Investigative
Reports, 43 ?
Colonel Brown. Right. Which reads :
Intelligence reports are to remain in intelligence channels until a specific
command is required to take action as the action atrency, at which time the com-
mander concerned will be furnished an investigative report.
According to my interpretation of that, based on the Peress file.
Camp Kilmer was not yet an action agency. The action already had
been initiated and even at the Department of the Army level two rec-
ommendations had been made for liis separation. But there was
nothing at that time that General Zwieker could do. The case was
being processed in the normal manner and he would not feel required
to take action until a directive came down stating what action was
to be taken.
The Chairman. Then your reason for not having notified General
Zwieker sooner is because of this regulation to which you have
referred ?
Colonel Brown. Because of that regulation and because of the
manner in which the case had been processed to that date.
If I may say, it appeared to be in the mill and under control and
no action was required at that time by General Zwieker.
194 ARMY PERSONNEL ACTIONS RELATING TO IRVING PERESS
Tlie Chairman. Why did you notify him somewhere near the 20th
or 21st of October ? What changed the situation then Avhich caused
you to take it up with General Zwicker or to notify him ?
Colonel Brown. Two things. First, the general's desires were
transmitted to me by the Chief of Staff, which I mentioned a moment
ago, that the general wanted to know about any derogatory informa-
tion on his officers. Second, in my opinion, it was about time we were
getting some action on it. Please understand me, I am not making
any criticism of any higher headquarters. I had never seen a case
like that before. I didn't know how long it would take, but I
thought it was about time we w^ere getting something back on it.
The Chairman. I believe this order should be made an exhibit and
placed in the record at this point because it may have some bearing
upon the situation. That will be exhibit No. 31.
(Exhibit No. 31 appears in the appendix on p. 259.)
Because of that delay from June to October, that General Zwicker
apparently knew nothing about it, I thought it important to clear
that up. I don't know, but it seems to me that the commanding gen-
eral ought to know about it soon after anyone else knows about it.
I see you have an order there which may be susceptible of the in-
terpretation you placed upon it.
Senator McCarthy. May I interrupt, Mr. Chairman ?
I cannot reconcile the testimony of the colonel with the facts as
set forth by the staff committee. I find here, for example, that G-2
returned the file to G-2 First Army, forwarded to Kilmer for review
by the commanding general on May 21. On May 25, G-2 of the First
Army forwarded the file to G-2 at Camp Kilmer. This was reviewed
by the commanding general.
Have I correctly stated those facts. Colonel ?
Mr. Brucker. Do you Iniow? Do you want to take a look at this
chart ?
Senator McCarthy. In other w^ords, on May 25, according to the
chart, you received the file on Peress, which was reviewed by the com-
manding general, and the recommendation there was for separation ?
Colonel Broavn. I made that recommendation myself.
Senator McCarthy. Let us see if you follow me.
In G-2 there was a file in which separation was recommended. The
recommendation was dated April 30. Then on May 21, the file was
sent to G-2 of the First Army to be sent to the commanding general
for review?
Colonel Brown. Eight.
Senator McCarthy. On May 25 it was sent to you ?
Colonel Brown. Eight.
Senator McCarthy. To have General Zwicker review it?
Colonel Brown. No, I did not. It came down through intelligence
channels, and as I say
Senator McCarthy. The chart here shows that it was sent to "For
review by the commanding general." If this file recommending his
dismissal
Colonel Brown. That is what it does. According to my recollec-
tion, the endorsement said nothing about presenting it to the com-
manding general for review.
Senator McCarthy. I got the impression that you were trying to
get rid of this man. I have no criticism of you in all of this matter.
ARIVIY PERSONNEL ACTIONS RELATING TO IRVING PERESS 195
But I cannot understand wliy yon waited from May 25 to October
before you brou<2:ht this to Zwicker's attention.
Colonel Brown. I tlioufrht I just explained that.
I won't say that I was correct in doing it. I wouldn't say that I
would do it that way again. But at that time I thought I was doing
the right thing.
Senator McCarthy. In other- words, you got a file recommending
his dismissal. You felt that that would be taken care of in the usual
course of events?
Colonel Brown. Right.
Senator McCarthy. Who had the power to dismiss him ?
Colonel Brown. The Department of the Army.
Senator McCarthy. So the Department of the Army had this
information already?
Colonel Beown. Correct.
Senator McCarthy. And the commanding general himself could
not take action in this matter?
Colonel Brown. That is correct.
The Chairman. The committee will stand in recess until 2 o'clock
this afternoon.
(Thereupon, at 12:10 p. m., the committee recessed to reconvene
at 2 p. m., the same day.)
after recess
(The Senators present are McClellan and Ervin.)
TESTIMONY OF LT. COL. CHESTEE T. BROWN— Continued
The Chairman. The committee will come to order.
Counsel, you may proceed with your examination of Colonel Brown.
Mr. O'DoNNELL. Colonel Brown, as we paused this forenoon, you
were stating two basic reasons why you furnished a summary of
the information on Peress to General Zwicker. Those two reasons
were, one, that Colonel Brucker, the Assistant Chief of Staff, or the
Chief of Staff for General Zwicker indicated, I beg your pardon —
Colonel Brunner, I beg your pardon — had indicated that General
Zwicker wanted to know what security cases existed among officers,
and his second reason was, it was your opinion that you felt that a
sufficient time had elapsed for some type of positive action being taken
toward eliminating Peress. Am I correct in that ?
Colonel Brown. That is correct.
Mr. O'DoNNELL. On September 9, at which time you invoiced by
memo to the AG your disapproval of the Peress request for promo-
tion, did you at that time give any consideration to bringing it to
the attention of General Zwicker because a sufficient time had elapsed
for elimination of Peress?
Colonel Brown. No.
jNIr. O'DoNNELL. Colonel, I hand you a photostatic cop.y of a
communication which was received from the Army. Would you
please identify that as to date and type and form?
Colonel Brown. That is the DF on October 28, outlining the Peress
case, and informing him of it. I attached to this DF a draft of a
letter for the general's signature.
196 ARMY PERSONNEL ACTIONS RELATING TO IRVING PERESS
Mr, O'DoNNELL, In essence that letter contains a summary of the
derogatory security information available on Peress in your files at
Camp Kilmer. Is that correct ?
Colonel Brown. The original did ; yes.
Mr. O'DoNNELL. Mr. Chairman, may we have that marked as an
exhibit for the record ?
The Chairman. It is exhibit 32.
(Exhibit No. 32 appears in the appendix on p. 259.)
Mr. O'DoNNELL. I hand you a photostatic copy of a letter, a com-
munication which has been furnished to us. Will you please identify
it?
Colonel Brown. Yes. That is a copy of the letter which I drafted
for the general's signature on the 21st of October which the general
approved, which was written up in final form, and signed by General
Zwicker.
Mr. O'DoNNELL. That communication, referring to the last sentence
therein, Colonel, contains a recommendation to eliminate Peress from
the service. Is that correct ?
Colonel Brown. It recommends that immediate steps be taken to
effect his relief from active duty. There is a difference between that
and total elimination from the service.
. Mr. O'DoNNELL. Now, did you draft that letter pursuant to a specific
request from General Zwicker or did you draft it on your own at the
time you prepared your summary memo?
Colonel Brown. As I recall it, I drafted that in accordance with
instructions from Colonel Brunner, the Chief of Staff.
Mr. O'DoNNELL. But prior thereto you had no specific conversa-
tion with General Zwicker ?
Colonel Brown. Not before that, no.
Mr. O'DoNNELL. Mr. Chairman, may we introduce this as an ex-
hibit in the record, being No. 33.
(''Exhibit No. 33" appears in the appendix on p. 260.)
The Chairman. It is so ordered. Proceed.
Mr. O'DoNNELL. At the time you became G-2 at Kilmer, your im-
mediate predecessor was Lt. Col. Samuel Gordon?
Colonel Brown. That is right.
Mr. O'DoNNELL. Did Colonel Gordon brief you on the security cases
at Camp Kilmer when you arrived ?
Colonel Brown. Not to my recollection.
Mr. O'DoNNELL. Do you have any recollection either way, yes or no ?
Colonel Brown. No; I haven't. I will say that I inventoried and
signed for all classified matter in the office, and since that file was in
the office at the time I must have seen it and signed for it. But I do
not recall any specific briefing that was given me on it.
Mr. O'DoNNELL. Could he have briefed you and you have no recol-
lection as of today ?
Colonel Brown. It is quite possible.
Mr. O'DoNNELL. Colonel, on February 17, 1953, which was the day
before you appeared before this particular subcommittee, were you
visited by John Adams at Camp Kilmer ?
Colonel Brown. Mr. Adams was there, and I was called up to the
general's office and met him then.
Mr. O'DoNNELL. Would you relate in as few words as possible,
giving us the substance of what occurred ?
ARMY PERSONNEL ACTIONS RELATING TO IRVING PERESS 197
Colonel Brown. Mr. Adams informed us that General Zwicker and
I would appear before the committee on the following morning. The
question came up as to what questions would be asked, and, of course,
we didn't know all of the answers. Changes in Army Kegulation
380-10 were discussed, and the general and I agreed that according to
that regulation we were forbidden to give the committee any classified
information without prior approval of the Department of the Army.
We did not have that approval.
The Chairman. What part of the information was classified that
you weren't permitted to give. Let us identify the information.
Colonel Brown, I would say the entire file, sir.
The Chairman. The entire file ?
Colonel Brown. Yes, sir.
The Chairman. You were not permitted under the regulations you
speak of, according to your interpretation of it, to give any informa-
tion that was in the file?
Colonel Brown. That is correct.
The Chairman. All right.
Mr. O'DoNNELL. Was the regulation to which you refer, was it
your interpretation or was it the interpretion of John Adams ?
Colonel Brown. It was my interpretation, and it was the general's
interpretation, and the regulation was very clear and specific. It ap-
peared to me that any person who was able to read and comprehend
would so interpret it.
Mr. O'DoNNELL. That was AR 380-10. Do you know the date that
came into existence?
Colonel Brown. I don't recall the date, the original date. I know
there were two changes to it. I don't recall the dates of the changes.
Mr. O'DoNNELL. How long approximately did you spent in con-
versation with John Adams?
Colonel Brown. I guess approximately 20 minutes.
Mr. O'DoNNELL. Did he give you any specific advice as to any par-
ticular question other than these general questions that you would or
would not be able to answer?
Colonel Brown. Not that I recall.
Mr. O'DoNNELL. Did he in any way coach you as to what your testi-
money may or may not be ?
Colonel Brown. No ; he did not coach me at all.
Mr. O'DoNNELL. Could you tell us what the basic purpose of his
visit was?
Colonel Brown. As I understand it, to inform us that we were to
appear before the committee. I had no prior knowledge of it.
Air. O'DONNELL. Was anyone present besides General Zwicker,
John Adams, and yourself at this conference ?
Colonel Brown. Possibly Colonel Brunner, but I am not sure of
that.
Mr. O'DoNNELL. In addition to possibly Colonel Brunner, was
there anybody else?
Colonel Brown. Not that I can recall.
Mr. O'DONNELL. Was the entire time of your conference spent on a
discussion concerning your possible testimony the following day?_
Colonel Brown. No. I would say about the last half of that period
was spent in discussing trains and other transportation methods by
which Adams could return to Washington.
198 ARMY PERSONNEL ACTIONS RELATING TO IRVING PERESS
Mr. O'DoNNELL. Colonel, were you ever interviewed by the Inspec-
tor General prior to his filing his report with the Secretary of the
Army ?
Colonel Brown. I don't know what date that report was filed, but I
will say that on a couple of occasions, 2 or 3 occasions, yes, I have testi-
fied before the Inspector General.
Mr. O'DoNNELL. Mr. Chairman, may the record show that there is
an exhibit that has been introduced which reflects that the colonel's
name does not appear on the list of 28 furnished by the Secretary
of the Army to the special Mundt committee.
The Chairman. All right ; the record will so show.
Mr. O'DoNNELL. I have no further questions.
The Chairman. Colonel, try to clear up for us the questions that
were being asked about the time we recessed at noon with respect to
that period from the 21st of May when this first came to your atten-
tion that Peress was a security case. That is about having seen sent
to the commanding general of the First Army. Can you clear that up
for us?
Colonel Brown. As I say, I came in as G-2 on the 11th of June,
and very shortly thereafter, certainly within a period of 48 hours, my
secretary laid the case on my desk.
The Ciia'Rman. That was when, the 1st of June, you say?
Colonel Brown. No; between the 11th and 15th. On the 15th of
June I endorsed the papers back to First Army with a recommenda-
tion for separation from service.
The Chairman. If they had gone up to the commanding officer,
the commanding general of the 1st Army prior to that time, and you
had no knowledge of it?
Colonel Brown. No ; I had no prior knowledge prior to coming in.
The Chairman. You had not taken this post until what time in
June ?
Colonel Brown. I hit the post on the 1st of June, and I was as-
signed to G-2 on the 11th of June.
The Chairman. So it was a few days after that that the case first
came to your attention ?
Colonel Brown. I think we could safely say immediately after that.
The Chairman. Are there any questions ?
Senator Ervin. I have no questions.
(Senator Mundt entered the room.)
The Chairman. Mr. Juliana, do you have any questions?
Mr. Juliana. Colonel, at Camp Kilmer, is there a branch or an office
that does investigative work?
Colonel Brown. Not in intelligence, no.
Mr. Juliana. Not in intelligence?
Colonel BrOwn. No.
Mr. Juliana. And you have testified that as far as the Peress
case was concerned, you took no active investigative steps?
Colonel Brown. Other than having him put under surveillance,
no.
Mr. Juliana. By surveillance you mean his immediate superiors
watched him and they did not trail him home or anything like that?
Colonel Brown. That is correct.
ARMY PERSONNEL ACTIONS RELATING TO IRVING PERESS 199
Mr. Juliana. Did you submit monthly reports to the commanding
oeneral of First Army and inchide the name of Peress as one of
the security cases?
Colonel Brown. I submitted monthly reports to G-2 of First Army
listing our security cases.
MrTjrLL\NA. And that was your chain of command?
Colonel Brown. That is correct.
Mr. Juliana. Now, those reports
Colonel Brown. As you were. That was not a chain of command.
This was all in intelligence channels which is entirely different chan-
nels.
Mr. Juliana. That was proper intelligence channels?
Colonel Brown. That is correct.
]\Ir. Juliana. Now, those reports did not go to the commanding
general at Camp Kilmer ?
Colonel Brown. No.
Mr. Juliana. And from the procedure then in effect, that was the
proper routing of the material. Is that accurate ?
Colonel Brown. That is right.
Mr. Juliana. You mentioned in your testimony an officer by the
name of Johnson, who was G-2 at First Army ?
Colonel Brown. Yes.
My. Juliana. Did Johnson know that Peress had been promoted ?
Colonel Brown. I don't know whether he knew it or not, until I
telephoned him on November 2. xVpparently he had no prior knowl-
edge of it.
Mr. Juliana. Apparently he did not know about it ?
Colonel Brown. No.
JNIr. Juliana. You initiated that telephone call to Johnson ?
Colonel Brown. That is right.
]Mr. Ji^LiANA. To your knowledge, when was the first time that
General Zwicker knew of the security case ?
Colonel Brown. Repeat the question.
Mr. Juliana. When was the first time that General Zwicker knew of
the derogatory information or the security nature of the information
in Peress- file f
Colonel Brown. To my knowledge, October 21.
Mr. Juliana. October 21, 1953 ?
Colonel Brown. That is right.
Mr. Juliana. ^Mien did General Zwicker's chief of staff, Colonel
Brunner, I believe that is the name, when did he first know of the
derogatory information on Peress, to your knowledge ?
Colonel Brown. To my knowledge, on the 20th or 21st of October.
Mr. Juliana. Of October ?
Colonel Brown. Yes.
]\Ir. Juliana. And your testimony has been that you did not feel
that you should have called it to their attention any sooner ?
Colonel Brown. That was my opinion at the time, yes, sir.
ISIr. Juliana. Kow many other security cases did you have at Camp
Kilmer from June of 1953 lintil the end of 1953 ?
Colonel Brown. I cannot recall.
Mr. Juliana. Were there 5, 10, or 20?
Colonel Brown. I can't recall.
200 ARMY PERSONNEL ACTIONS RELATING TO IRVING PERESS
Mr. Juliana. Well, I think Mr. Gordon mentioned that there may
have been 4 to 6. Would that be an accurate recollection on his part?
Colonel Brown. That is probably reasonably accurate.
Mr. Juliana. But you have no recollection to make it more com-
plete or more accurate. Is that correct ?
Colonel Broavn. No.
Mr. Juliana. Would it be the normal procedure when one G-2
officer succeeds another, the normal procedure to go through every
case, every security case at the post ?
Colonel Brown. I would have to give you an opinion on that.
That would be based on two factors, the time available, and the num-
ber of cases, but I would say as far as I am concerned when the time
comes for me to turn over, I will give my successor all of the informa-
tion I can.
Mr. Juliana. You would like to see that he is as familiar as he
possibly can be with all of, or at least the important cases?
Colonel Brown. That is right.
Mr. Juliana. That is what I had in mind in asking the question,
because Mr. Gordon said he recalls there may have been 4 to 6 security
cases, and now that certainly is not an unreasonable number to sit
down with him and in an afternoon to discuss. I was just wondering
what the normal procedure would be, and I think that you have ade-
quately explained what part you would take if you were going to turn
it over to some other officer.
That is all I have, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. Colonel, I think that we have asked all of the other
witnesses this question and I will ask you.
In the course of your handling the Peress case, did anyone, any
superior officer or anyone else connected with the Army or from any
other source, undertake to influence your action or decision?
Colonel Brown. Certainly not.
The Chairman. Did you have any special instructions or any sug-
gestions from any source?
Colonel Brown. None.
The Chairman. That you give Peress any protection or show any
favors to him, or favored treatment toward his case?
Colonel Brown. No, absolutely not.
The Chairman. All right. Colonel, thank you very much, sir.
Major McKenzie, will you come around the table, please.
You do solemnly swear that the evidence you shall give before this
investigating subcommittee will be the truth, the whole truth, and
nothing but the truth, so help you God ?
Major McKenzie. I do.
TESTIMONY OF VERNON McKENZIE, MAJOR, UNITED STATES ARMY
The Chairman. Mr. Counsel, will you proceed ?
Mr. I^NNEDY. Give us your full name.
Major McKenzie. Major Vernon McKenzie.
Mr. Kennedy. And you are stationed here at the Pentagon, are
you ?
Major McKenzie. Not at the Pentagon; I am stationed in the
Office of the Surgeon General, which is in the main Navy building.
ARMY PERSONNEL ACTIONS RELATING TO IRVING PERESS 201
Mr. Kennedy. During the whole of the year 1953 you were chief
of the Special Projects Branch, Personnel Division, Office of the
Surgeon General ?
Major McKenzie. No, sir, during that particular period I %vas As-
sistant Chief, Special Projects Branch.
Mr. Kennedy. Back between the 20th and 30th of December, of
1952, Major, were there five cases referred to you from the First Army
Headquarters in New York concerning individuals, or dentists, who
had qualified their loyalty oaths?
Major JNIcKensie. The five cases referred to were not literally re-
ferred to my office. However, there were numerous conversations and
discussions of those cases between myself and officers in the Office
of the Assistant Chief of Staff, G-1.
Mr. Kennedy. So they were considered by your office?
Major McKenzie. Yes, sir.
Mr. Kennedy. In conversations with other departments?
Major McKenzie. Yes, sir.
Mr. Kennedy. And it was finally determined that those five in-
dividuals w^ould not be brought on active duty as officers ?
Major McKenzie. That is true.
Mr. Kennedy. And that action would be taken to dismiss them
from the service and take their commissions away from them ; is that
right ?
Major McKenzie. The action decided upon was to discharge them
from the Army Reserve, Avhich would then have the effect of throw-
ing them back upon the Selective Service System, so that they might
subsequently be inducted into the Armed Forces.
Mr. Kennedy. Those were the five cases that we have been dis-
cussing the last few days.
Major McKenzie. Yes, sir.
Mr. Kennedy. And they received honorable discharges, but three
of them were ultimately brought back into the Army as enlisted
personnel ?
Major McKenzie. That is true. They received honorable dis-
charges in order that they might continue to be subject to induction,
as enlisted men.
Mr. Kennedy. You had nothing to do with the discharge of these?
Major McKenzie. J^o, sir.
Mr. Kennedy. As Assistant Chief of the Special Projects Branch,
was there an ad hoc committee set up around the 23d of May, 1953,
to consider ways of implementing the Doctors Draft Act ?
Major McKenzie. Yes. On that particular date the Department of
Defense directed the establishment of a committee to consider the
dozen or so Department of Defense directives that were then in exist-
ence, relating to the operation of the Doctors Draft Act, from the
standpoint of modifying them, revising them, consolidating them,
and at the same time to give considerations to the pending bill to
extend the Doctors Draft Act.
Senator McCarthy. Could I interrupt you there for a moment,
please? We heard yesterday that 5 of the fifth amendment cases
were given honorable discharges, and that 3 of them were called back
and given less than honorable discharges as enlisted men. Could you
tell us what happened to the other 2 ?
202 ARMY PERSONNEL ACTIONS RELATING TO IRVING PERESS
Major JNIcKenzie. No, sir, I cannot. I am not aware of what rea-
sons the Selective Service System might have had in not inducting the
other two.
Senator McCarthy. Could you tell us why it was decided to give
an honorable discharge to a Communist? An honorable discharge
indicates something honorable.
JMajor McKenzie. I have no direct knowledge of the basis for the
decision, althougli it is my understanding that it was done on the basis
of permitting their subsequent induction under Selective Service as
enlisted men, so that they would not simply, by invoking the fifth
amendment, completely evade military service.
Senator McCarthy. You inducted them and promptly gave them
a dishonorable discharge, or less than an honorable discharge. You
mean — this seems impossible — but I gather your reasoning is that they
were given an honorable discharge so they could bs called back in so
they they could be given a dishonorable discharge?
JMajor McKenzie. As I previously stated
Senator McCarthy. It does not quite make sense.
Major JNIcKenzie. I have no direct knowledge of the discussions or
the basis for that particular action.
Senator McCarthy, I see ; so that when you say that they were given
an honorable discharge so that they could be called back in and given
a dishonorable discharge, you did not quite mean that, did you?
Major McKenzie. I meant that they were given the honorable dis-
charge according to my understanding, so that they could subsequently
be inducted ; and I did not make any supposition or offer any con-
jecture as to what might have gone beyond that point, or what the per-
sons wlio made that particular decision at that time had in mind as to
what might go bsyond that point.
Senator McCarthy. In other words, you do not know ?
Major McKenzie. That is right.
Senator McCaritiy. So that when you say you think they were
honorably discharged so that they could be inducted, you do not mean
to say that somebody in the Army some place decided they wanted
those men back in the Army ? You do not mean to tell us that, do you ?
Major McKenzie. I mean to say nothing more than it was my under-
standing that the honorable discharges were given so that the per-
sons concerned might remain vulnerable for military service and not
evade military service simply as a result of having "invoked the fifth
amendment.
Senator McCarthy. Is it your position then that Communists
should be in the military ?
Major McKenzie. That is not my position; no, sir.
Senator McCarthy. You do not think that that is sound policy, do
you, to take Communists into the military?
Major McKenzie. No, sir.
JNIr. Kennedy. I don't want to take you beyond the area with which
you are directly familiar, but on that particular point, as I understand
it, during this period of time it was the policy of the Army to give
officers honorable discharges even though they might be security rtsks,
as compared with enlisted men ; and the fact that they wanted them
back in as enlisted men, that possibly that policy was the reason that
iKp.v M "re given honorable dischariies.
ARMY PERSONNEL ACTIONS RELATING TO IRVING PERESS 203
Now, if you do not know that, tluit is fine ; but we Avill have testimony
on that at a hiter time. However, from testimony Me have received
from other Army officials we have learned that. Now, if that is beyond
your scope of understanding
Major McKenzie. That is beyond the scope of my understanding.
Mv. Kennedy. You do not have any firsthand knowledge as to the
reason these other three were brought back in ?
Major McKenzie. No, sir.
Mr. Kennedy. Now, to get back to the 23d of May, the Department
of Defense set up this ad hoc committee of the various services, two
members from each service ?
JMajor McKenzie. That is correct.
Mr. Kennedy. You were one of the two members from the Depart-
ment of the Army ?
Major McKenzie. That is correct.
Mr. Kennedy. Would you please identify this for us ?
(A document was handed to the witness. )
Mr. Kennedy. Are you familiar with the fact that on the 29th of
June, Public Law 84 was passed by the Congress and became an amend-
ment to the Doctors Draft Act ?
Major McKenzie. I am.
jSIr. Kennedy. Is that the document that you have in your hand ?
Major jMcKenzie. This is a copy of Public Law 84, 83d Congress.
Mr. Kennedy. Is there a section of that law that has to do with
readjustment in rank or promotion of doctors and dentists who are to
be brought in under the doctors draft ?
Major McKenzie. Yes; section 3 of this particular act amends sub-
section 4 (a) of the original act in that particular regard.
Mr. Kennedy. Would you read it, please?
Major McKenzie. Yes. [Reading :]
Section 4 of the act of September 9, 1950, is amended to read as follows :
"Sec. 4 (a). Notwithstanding subsection 217 (c) of the Armed Forces Reserve
Act of 1952 (66 Stat. 481), or any other provision of law, any person liable for
induction under the act of September 9, 1950, as amended, or any mt-mber of a
Reserve component who has been or shall be ordered to active duty on or l)efore
July 1, 1955, as a physician, dentist, or allied specialist category in the Armed
Forces, including the Public Health Service, of the United States, shall, under
regulations prescribed by the President be appointed, reappointed or promoted to
such grade or rank as may be commensurate with his professional education,
experience, or ability."
Mr. Kennedy. When this ad hoc committee was considering the
Doctors Draft Act, they also considered that amendment to the Doc-
tors Draft Act ?
Major McKenzie. That is correct.
Mr. Kennedy. On the 6th of August of 1953, did this ad hoc com-
mittee make their report to the Department of Defense ?
jNIajor McKenzie. Yes. On that particular date the draft of the
proposed directive formulated by the committee was transmitted to
the Department of Defense.
Mr. Kennedy. Would you identify that document?
(A document was handed to the witness.)
Major McKenzie. This appears to be a copy of that document.
Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Chairman, may we have this made a part of the
record ?
60030— 55— pt. 3 4
204 ARMY PERSONNEL ACTIONS RELATING TO IRVING PERESS
The Chairman. The document has not been identified.
Mr._ Kennedy. Would you read the identifying symbols on it?
Major McKenzie. Memorandum for Director of Personnel Policy,
Office of the Secretary of Defense; subject: Keview and consolidation
of Department of Defense Directive pertaining to personnel adminis-
tration of certain medical, dental and allied specialists, date
The Chairman. That is sufficiently identified. The document may
be made exhibit No. 34.
(Exhibit No. 34 may be found in the files of the subcommittee.)
Mr. Kennedy. Would you hold that in front of you for a moment,
please? Did that acl hoc committee consider whether there should
be a board of officers to determine whether a doctor or dentist of vet-
erinary could receive a readjustment or promotion?
Major McKenzie. The Board did so consider, and included in this
document language to that effect.
Mr. Kennedy. Would you read the pertinent sections, please ?
Major McKenzie (reading) :
Any physician, dentist, or veterinarian now serving on active duty, wliether
vidth or witliout his consent, who would have been entitled to a higher grade than
that in which he is now serving, if the applicable provisions of this directive or
of I'ublic Law 84, 83d Congress, had been in effect at the time of his current
appointment, will, at the earliest practicable date, be reappointed or promoted
to such higher grade if a board of officers convened by the military department
concerned so recommends.
Mr. Kennedy. When you made the determination, or your group
made the determination, that there should be a board of officers to
consider the promotion or readjustment in rank, did you consult with
your respective legal officers?
Major McKenzie. We did.
Mr. Kennedy. And they felt at that time that it was legal under
the law to have such a board of officers consider whether these indi-
viduals should be promoted or readjusted.
Major McKenzie. According to my recollection, the feeling was
that the language in the act that I read a few moments ago, that this
action would be done under regulations prescribed by the President,
was broad enough, and offered sufficient latitude to justify the inclusion
of this particular phrase regarding the board of officers in this di-
rective.
Although, subsequently in discussing this particular matter with
other persons, and as a result of having discussed it with them, I am
willing to concede that a case can be made, a good case, perhaps a
better case, that the language under such regulations as the President
may prescribe was perhaps related solely to prescribing regulations
regarding determining the individual's professional qualifications
which are the only qualifications referred to in the particular section
involved.
Mr. Kennedy. Ultimately, Major, the Department of the Army
consolidated a memorandum of various views, and that incorporated
this idea of a board of officers to consider the reappointment in rank of
any doctors or dentists ?
Major McKenzie. Perhaps more specifically the Department of
Defense referred copies of the committee's proposed directive formally
to each of the three military departments for coordination. The
document at that time still contained the language that this action,
ARMY PERSONNEL ACTIONS RELATING TO IRVING PERESS 205
readjustment of grade action, would be taken if a board of officers
convened by the Department concerned so recommended.
Mr. Kennedy. Then that was sent on to the Department of Defense
for its concurrence ?
Major McKenzie. No ; that w^as sent by the Department of Defense
to the Army, Navy, and Air Force.
Mr. Kennedy. After they had agreed to it, then it was sent back for
implementation by the Department of Defense ?
Major McKenzie. Yes. I cannot at this point speak for the other
two services, and the Army returned its copy of this particular pro-
posed directive, concurring among other things in this particular
language, regarding the board of officers.
Mr. Kennedy. Now, on the 7th of October, the Department of
Defense issued a directive implementing the laws governing the re-
appointment or promotion and the drafting of doctors and dentists,
and one of the provisions of that directive — or the provision that you
people had suggested about the board — was not contained in the De-
partment of Defense directive ; is that correct ?
Major McKenzie. That particular proviso had been deleted from
the finally published directive ?
Mr. Kennedy. Would you identify that document for us ?
Major McKenzie. This is a Department of Defense directive No.
1205.1, dated October 7, 1953, subject. Implementation of Public Law
779, 81st Congress, and Related Laws.
Mr. Kennedy. Was there any reference in there to the fact that
there should be no board of officers to consider the readjustment or re-
appointment in rank ?
The Chairman. This may be made exhibit 35.
(Exhibit No, 35 may be found in the files of the subcommittee.)
Major McKenzie. As I understand the question, it is: Is there a
reference here to the appointment of individuals without a board of
officers.
Mr. Kennedy. Yes.
Major McKenzie. There is.
Mr. Kennedy. Would you read that?
Major McKenzie (reading) :
Pursuant to subsection 4 (a), Public Law 779, 81st Congress as amended, any
person who is otherwise qualified for appointment at a higher grade than major
or lieutenant commander will be appointed in such grade without referral of his
case to a board of officers convened by the Secretary of the service concerned.
I might add, however, that this particular language is identical to
the language in the proposed directive submitted by the committee.
Mr. Kennedy. When this directive came to your attention on that
same day. Major, and there was no provision requiring a board, did
you then reach the conclusion that the doctor and dentist is to be re-
appointed, only if files containing their professional qualifications
should be considered ?
Major McKenzie. On the basis of the directive as it then read, that
is with the language regarding the board of officers deleted, and with-
out there having been substituted for the deleted language the phrase
"if otherwise qualified" or similar language, I did so interpret it.
Mr. Kennedy. When you made that interpretation, did you consult
with your superior officers in the Office of the Surgeon General ?
206 ARIVIY PERSONNEL ACTIONS RELATING TO IRVING PERESS
Major McKenzie. Yes, sir.
Mr. Kennedy. And they concurred in your finding that you could
not consider other than the professional qualifications of tlie in-
dividual when you were making a determination who should be re-
adjusted in rank?
Major McKenzie. That is correct.
Senator McCarthy. What did you think the phrase "if otherwise
(Qualified" meant?
Major McKenzie. In the particular portion of the directive that I
quoted here, you mean ?
Senator McCarthy. Yes.
Major McKenzie. In this particular instance I felt it meant that
any individual to be appointed must meet every possible requirement
that a service might im])ose in order to be entitled to appointment.
Senator McCarthy. Would you think that if a man were a Com-
munist that he was "otherwise qualified"?
Major McKenzie. I would not.
Senator McCarthy. So that you personally would not approve of
commissioning Communists ?
Major McKenzie. I believe there is a misunderstanding at this
point as to which subsection of this particular Department of Defense
we are referring to. One has the phrase "if otherwise qualified,"
and the other one which we have just been discussing does not have
that phrase in it.
Senator McCarthy. I want to get your thought on this : Do you
think it is a mistake to commission or promote Communists in the
military ?
Major McKenzie. Yes, sir.
Senator Mundt. I do not know whether this question is one that
you can answer or whether I should direct this to your distinguished
consultants in the Government; but I am wondering if you know of
any process by which a mistake can be corrected, if you did recom-
mend, as you did recommend without having all of the information
and facts, a promotion which you would not have made if you had
known all of the facts ?
Is there any way that you can undo a mistake of that kind and de-
commission or demote or withdraw a commission ?
Mr. Brucker. Is that a question to me ?
Senator Mundt. If he cannot answer it ; but I want to get that.
Major McKenzie. Wlien you mentioned Governor 1 didn't pay as
close attention ; I thought the question was referred to him. Would
you repeat it, please.
Senator Mundt. Will the reporter please read the question?
(Question read by the reporter as al30ve recorded.)
Major McKenzie. I cannot answer it.
Judge Jackson is here, and he will testify. He is under subpena
and I jirefer that he do it in conection with his testimony generally,
Senator.
Senator Mundt. Very well. If I should not be here, Mr. Kennedy,
will you make a note that that question be asked, and followed up
to determine whether or not, in fact, there is the power?
Mr. Kennedy. Would you like to question him right there?
Mr. Brucker. I will let him come over here and sit right here.
The Chairman. Will you be sworn, please, sir.
ARMY PERSONNEL ACTIONS RELATING TO IRVING PERESS 207
You do solemnly swear that the evidence you shall give before this
investigating subcommittee shall be the truth, the whole truth and
nothing but the truth, so help you God i
Mr. Jackson. I do.
Senator Mundt. Judge, do you want the question repeated ?
TESTIMONY OF STEPHEN S. JACKSON, AN ASSISTANT GENERAL
COUNSEL FOE MANPOWER AND PERSONNEL, OFFICE OF THE
SECRETARY OF DEFENSE, DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
Mr. Jackson. My name is Stephen S. Jackson, and I am Assistant
General Counsel for Manpower and Personnel, in the Office of the Sec-
retary of Defense.
Senator Mundt. I don't know whether you heard my question. Do
you want it repeated ?
The Chairman. Perhaps you had better repeat it since you have
been sworn now. And I suggest that you read the question.
Senator Mundt. Mr. Jackson, the question was whether or not there
is some procedure or authority in the Army for correcting a mistake
when it has been made by commissioning an officer in the absence of
certain facts which had they been available at the time would have
caused a board such as the Colonel belongs to not to have given him
the commission in the first instance?
Mr. Jackson. In my opinion the answer to that question is "Yes,"
Senator. Now I don't propose to be familiar with the detailed regu-
lations of the Army in this regard, but we have already had some of
these doctors who were given a commission and who were later in-
vestigated and found not to be suitable from a security standpoint,
let us say, for a commissioned officer, and their commissions were
withdrawn. They were then exposed to induction.
Senator Mundt. Can that commission be withdrawn after an officer
has been discharged?
Mr. Jackson. Well, his commission would be terminated upon dis-
charge.
Senator Mundt. He would have a certain retirement and Reserve
status ?
Mr. Jackson. Not under the doctor draft. lie would not. The act
specifically provided that at the termination of their tour of active
duty they were completely out of the service and they had no residual
inactive reserve obligation at all. It specifically provided that they
were separated.
Senator Mundt. Do I understand then that the position of Dr.
Peress is no different in any degree or in any respect with regard to
retirement privileges, or possible recall obligations, whether he was
retired as a major or as a captain or as a colonel ?
Mr. Jackson. Dr. Peress has absolutely no rights under retirement
whatsoever. As far as his present status is concerned, the doctor draft
law provided, and so provides now, that a person who was commis-
sioned, upon termination of his active service is completely out of the
service, and he is a civilian and out of the Armed Forces.
Senator Mundt. This could have no conceivable difference to him
at a later time concerning pension benefits or anything of that type ?
208 ARMY PERSONNEL ACTIONS RELATING TO IRVING PERESS
Mr. Jackson. Conceivably if he were to get back in the service and
there was a counting of active service during his past experience the-
oretically the 2 years, or whatever the time was, would count, con-
ceivably it could.
Senator Mundt. I think it is a pretty safe surmise that he will not
be called back into the service.
Mr. Jackson. I think that is a very safe statement to make.
Senator Mundt. So that we can determine whether as a major in
retirement he has any conceivable benefit that he would not have as
a captain in retirement, or just an ordinary retired person?
Mr. Jackson. Major Peress is not in retirement. He is completely
severed and has reverted to civilian life. Contrary to a person not
under the Doctor Draft Act who might be from active service to
inactive service and ultimately to retirement, the act specifically pro-
vides that he is completely separated, that is, he or anyone else
having been brought in by the Doctor Draft Act, unless he had pre-
viously held a commission when he was called up.
Senator Mundt. Actually he has no Reserve status of any kind ?
Mr. Jackson. Absolutely that is correct ; yes, eir.
Senator Mundt. I think that it is well to have that.
The Chairman. I don't think this part of the question was ever
answered. Suppose you promoted him to major, instead of dis-
charging him and you found out a mistake had been made. Could you
demote him back to a captain ? I think that was the original question.
Senator Mundt. That was included in the original question. The
reason I didn't follow it up was they had discharged him before they
could act on it.
Mr. Jackson. I believe, sir, if the basis on which he were promoted
was false information or information yhich would go to the very
essence of whether he should be in the service and it was not revealed
or was concealed that that promotion could be vitiated.
Senator Mundt. Suppose it was just an administrative mistake.
This doctor revealed everything and he had revealed that he wouldn't
answer questions relating to his security fitness. Suppose all of that
was revealed and through an administrative error he was promoted.
Could you then demote him back to captain ?
Mr. Jackson. Are you talking about under this law, or generally ?
The Chairman. Both of them. Let us clear it up once and for
all, if we can, that is, if you know.
Mr. Jackson. I believe if it were a purely administrative error
in which, let us say, his name was confused with someone else ■
The Chairman. Let us talk about this case. You Ivnow what the
facts are in this case. Under the circumstances, after he had received
his commission as a major, and you found that you didn't take into
account at the time he was a Federal constitutional privilege officer
and later you found that he was a Federal constitutional privilege
officer, as he is, could you then demote him back to captain, after the
commission had once been given him ?
Mr. Jackson. I don't believe in this particular case under this
particular law you could. Your alternative would have been to put
him out.
The Chairman. That of course is where he belongs, out. That is
what you finally did. But the question arose here as to whether if
you made an administrative mistake by not having in the file, or
ARMY PERSONNEL ACTIONS RELATING TO IRVING PERESS 209
having the file of the officer and given the adverse information about
him, which if you liad at tlie time wouki have shown he was not
entitled to the promotion, whether you could then demote him back
to his previous rank. In this particular case, of course, if he w\asn't
fit to be a major, because of having taken the fifth amendment, he
wasn't fit to be a captain and should have been gotten out of the service.
Senator Ervin. I want to suggest that the answer to Senator
Mundt's original question is the same answer as Omar Khayyam
made, "The moving finger writes, and having writ moves on, and
you cannot lure it back to change half a line of it nor can all of your
tears wipe out a word of it."
I believe that you will find if an officer can only be deprived of a
commission, under those circumstances, the only way he can be de-
prived of an honorable discharge is by a board acting on him and
recommending his dismissal from the Army on less than an honorable
discharge.
Senator McCarthy. You aren't suggesting Omar Khayyam really
promoted Peress.
Senator Ervin. Sometimes I think someone in the condition that
Omar Khayyam liked to get might have done it.
The Chairman. All right, Mr. Jackson, you may step aside.
Senator Mundt. That leads me back to the question I was going to
ask Major McKenzie, which makes it appear that you were really
acting in this board as a sort of supreme court. And there wasn't
much appeal from your final recommendation, was there ?
TESTIMONY OF VERNON McKENZIE, UNITED STATES ARMY—
Resumed
Major McKenzie. There was no board at this point. We were
discussing the very absence of a board a few minutes ago.
Senator Mundt. This ad hoc committee you wouldn't call a board?
Major McKenzie. No, sir.
Senator Mundt. I was trjang to find out if there was some appeal
from your decision.
Major McKenzie. The committee ceased to exist when it submitted
the report for which it was formed to the Department of Defense.
It was an ad hoc committee.
The Chairman. We will proceed.
Mr. Kennedy. Major McKenzie, you received this directive from
the Department of Defense, in which it dismisses the idea of a board,
and that was on the 7th of October. I ask you to identify this docu-
ment, please.
(A document w^as handed to the witness.)
Mr. Kennedy. During this period of time after you received this
notification from the Department of Defense, you had these conversa-
tions with your superiors and Colonel Hyde, I believe, in personnel,
as to what your next action should be as far as implementing the
Department of Defense directive. Now, on the 8th of October, did
you issue a memorandum to personnel with some suggestions on how
this program might be implemented ?
Major McKenzie. Yes, on October 8, 1953, 1 did initiate a memoran-
dum to the Assistant Chief of Staff, G-1. This is a copy of that
memorandum.
210 ARMY PERSONNEL ACTIONS RELATING TO IRVING PERESS
Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Chairman, may we have that made a part of the
record ?
The Chairman. It is exhibit No. 36.
(Exhibit No. 36 may be found in the files of the subcommittee.)
Mr. Kennedy. Now, would you read the paragraph 2 of that
memorandum ?
Major McKenzie (reading) :
This office is conducting a review of tlie records of the officers who may be
qnalifled for reappointment in accordance with the law and directive cited above.
In order to complete the implementation of this program it is recommended —
(a) That the Adjutant General be directed to reappoint in the Army
Reserve those Army Reserve officers who, as a result of the review referred
to above, are determined to be entitled to such reappointment.
(b) That the Chief. National Guard Bureau, be directed to take neces-
sary action to accomplish the reappointment in the National Guard and the
National Guard of the United States of those officers who, as a result of the
review referred to above, are determined to be entitled to such reappointment.
(c) That the new letters of appointment issued in connection with this
program specify that the officers concerned will continue on active duty in
the grades in which reappointed and remain assigned to their present or-
ganization and station.
Mr. Kennedy. That was sent by you to personnel as a suggestion of
what they might in turn pass on to the Adjutant General's Office?
Major McKenzie. These Avere our recommendations, as to how the
Defense directive in this particular regard should be implemented.
Mr. Kennedy. And on that date, the 8th of October-, you had started
to review the files of these various officers who might be qualified ; is
that correct ?
Major McKenzie. That is correct.
Mr, Kennedy. And you gave the orders that those files were to be
reviewed ?
Major McKenzie. That is correct.
Mr. Kennedy. Now, the review was to consider, as I understand it,
only the professional qualifications of the particular officer?
Major McKenzie. That is correct.
Mr. Kennedy. I will ask you to identify this document, please.
(A document was handed to the witness.)
Major McKenzie. This is another memorandum dated October 14,
1953, subject: Eeappointment in higher grades of certain MC, DC,
and VC officers, which was forwarded by the Surgeon General to the
Adjutant General.
Mr. Kennedy. This was the first list of officers to go up to the
Adjutant General to be processed through and the papers were pre-
pared and sent on to the particular installations ?
Major McKenzie. Yes, sir.
Mr. Kennedy. Would you turn over the page and read us the name
of one of the officers that was included in that first list of officers that
was forwarded ?
Major McKenzie. The name Avhich is extracted on this particular
enclosure of this copy of the original states "Peress, Irving, Captain,"
and the service number — do you wish the rest of it read?
Mr. Kennedy. No.
So on this 14th of October, although you have no firsthand informa-
tion about this yourself, this was sent on the 14th of October by the
ARMY PERSONNEL ACTIONS RELATING TO IRVING PERESS 211
Office of the Surgeon General to AG for the readjustment in rank of a
number of officers, inchided in which was Irving Peress?
Major McKenzie. Of the approximate!}' TuO officers listed on this
particular sheet of paper does appear the name of Irving Peress as
one of that group of TOO.
IMr. Kennedy. The Irving Peress case is slightly different from the
other officers who were being readjusted insofar as an original mis-
take had been made when he entered the service; is that right?
JNIajor McKenzie. That is correct. At the time that he was origi-
nally appointed in the Army Reserve, he then had a sufficient amount
of professional experience to have been entitled at that time to ap- ^
pointment in the grade of major.
Mr. Kennedy. And so the Department of Defense directive imple-
menting the law was not directed at his type of case ?
iNIajcu- McKenzie. No, it was not directed at his type of case, al-
though the fact remains that the directive did result in his particular
case, in his grade readjustment.
Mr. Kennedy. Now, he could have received a readjustment or pro-
motion under the law as it had stood prior to this time ?
Major McKenzie. That is correct.
Mr. Kennedy. And if Irving Peress had realized that he should
have been a major instead of a captain and had written a letter to
point that out to the Department of the Army, would there then have
been a board convened to consider his qualifications ?
Major McKenzie. That would have depended upon wdiat particu-
lar point of time the action you are describing might have occurred.
If it had occurred during the period starting approximately in Jan-
uary of 1953 and ending in approximately June of 1953, a board would
have considered his case.
]\Ir. Kennedy. If this letter had come through on September 9 of
1953, as being for a promotion to major, would that have been con-
sidered by a board?
Major JNIcKenzie. It would not. The previous board policy hav-
ing been discontinued in June, to the best of my recollection.
Mr. Kennedy. It is probably true that it would not have occurred
to him to write such a letter if it hadn't been for the passage of the law ;
is that correct?
INIajor ]McKenzie. It would appear that since he delayed submit-
ting his letter until after the law was passed that presumably he was
not aware before of the fact that he was entitled to the higher grade.
Presumably, if he had been, I would assume that he would have then
brought the matter to someone's attention.
The Chairman. That document, will you identify it for the pur-
poses of the record again ?
Major McKenzie. This is a memorandum prepared by the Surgeon
General and forwarded to the Adjutant General, dated October 14,
1953, subject: Reappointment in higher grades of certain MC, DC,
and VC officers.
The Chairman. That document will be made exhibit 37.
(Exhibit No. 37 may be found in the files of the subcommittee.)
]Mr. Kennedy. On the 26th of October — will you identify this docu-
ment and keep it before you ?
(A document was handed to the witness.)
212 ARMY PERSONNEL ACTIONS RELATING TO IRVING PERESS
Mr. Kennedy. On the 26th of October, Major, did you have a tele-
phone conversation with Colonel Hyde of Personnel in which you dis-
cussed with him about a dozen different cases that had come to your
attention of doctors and dentists who, in your opinion, possibly should
not be reappointed or readjusted in rank?
Major McKenzie. I didn't put it in the terms that there was a pos-
sibility that they should not. As I recall, I put it in the terms that
inasmuch as the Department of Defense directive presumably required
it and if we did comply with the directive this could result in some
embarrassment to the Army, if these particular cases were to come
to light.
ISIr. Kennedy. Did you write a memorandum on that conversation
on the 2Tth of October, the following day ?
Major McKenzie. Yes, the following day I prepared a memoran-
dum for the record regarding that phone conversation.
Mr. Kennedy. May we have that memorandum that he prepared
on that conversation made a part of the record ?
The Chairman. Do you have the memorandum before you?
Major McKenzie. I have a copy of it before me.
Tlie Chairman. A photostatic copy ?
Major McKenzie. Yes, sir.
The Chairman. You have identified it as such ?
Major McKenzie. Yes, sir.
The Ciiairiman. Then it may be made exhibit 38.
Will you read that memorandum? I believe I would like to have
it read for the record at this time.
Major McKenzie (reading) :
ISIemorandtjm for Rfx'ord
Subject : Higher Reserve Grades for Officers to be Eliminated.
1. On 26 October 1953 during a phone conversation with Lt. Col. Hyde, Chief,
Management Branch, Reserve Components Division. Gl. I brought to his attention
the far't that strict compliance with t'le Department of Defense directive imule-
menting Public Law 779 and related laws would result in the reappointment in
higher grades of ajiproximately a dozen AMEDS offi 'ers who are being released
from active duty in the near future under the Army's Involuntary Release
Program. I also pointed out to him that at least one MC officer entitled to
reappointment had been court-martialed in the past month. Colonel Hyde
indicated that he realized that the paradoxical situation referred to above might
result in unfavorable publicity for the Army in the event that any of these cases
should come to the attention of the press.
2. After considering the above matter. Colonel Hyde informed me that for the
time being we should not comply with that portion of the Department of Defense
directive that entails the reapiiointment of the persons referred to above. He
also stated that whether or not the Army would eventually comply with the
proviso in quesion would be dependent upon the amount and source of the
criticism resulting from our initial noncompliance.
3. Three cases of the type referred to above have already been processed by
TAGO. However, inasmuch as the letters of reapointment are being sent through
channels that office will cancel any concernecl.
Tliere follows a penciled entry on this particular copy, which I
don't believe appears on the original and which appears in the hand-
writing which I cannot identify at the moment and which is not mine.
The Chairman. That is not your handwriting?
Major McKenzie. No, sir.
The Chairman. You don't know when it was placed there ?
Major McKenzie. No, sir.
ARMY PERSONNEL ACTIONS RELATING TO IRVING PERESS 213
The Chairman. A^^iose initials are those, do you know the initials?
Major McKenzie. "TAG" stands for the Adjutant General,
The Chairman. That is "TAG" ?
Major McKenzie. Yes.
The Chairman. What does the notation say ?
Major McKenzie (reading) : 'These three letters were canceled by
TAG." That is the Adjutant General.
The Chairman. Now, first 1 want to revert back to your statement,
you said there was a list of some 700 officers. Is that correct?
Major McKenzie. Approximately 700.
The Chairman. Being- considered at that time for promotion or re-
adjustment at the same time Peress' promotion or readjustment was
before you ?
Major McKenzie. Yes, and as a matter of fact there were over
10,000 officers whose records had to be reviewed and it happened in
the first increment of those who were determined to have the profes-
sional qualifications there were approximately these 700.
The Chairman. Do you know whether it developed afterward that
there was any other officer in that 700, at that time, who was under
investigation for security ?
Major McKenzie. Yes, sir.
The Chairman. How many ?
Major McKenzie. To the best of my Imowledge, one.
The Chairman. One other?
Major McKenzie. Yes, sir.
The Chairman. Can you tell us what happened to his case ?
Major McKenzie. Yes, sir; after his particular case came to our
attention, we called the Adjutant General's Office to see in what stage
the processing of his particular case was at that time, and we found
that since his name appeared somewhat down on ilie list his readjust-
ment had not actually been effected as yet. Based upon our request,
the Adjutant General at that point canceled the action that was pend-
ing on this particular case temporarily.
The Chairman. Temporarily?
Major McKenzie. Yes.
The Chairman. What action was taken on it after that ?
Major McKenzie. He never did receive the grade readjustment, he
was separated from the service prior to the time that he might have
received it.
The Chairman, Was it known to you at that time that Peress was
under investigation?
Major McKenzie. At the time that we acted in this other case, you
mean ?
The Chairman. Yes.
Major McKenzie. Yes, sir; we received information on both cases
at the same time. However, Peress' grade readjustment already
occurred.
The Chairman. It had already occurred ?
Major McKenzie. Yes, sir.
The Chairman. But it just so happened it had not occurred in this
case ?
Major McKenzie. That is correct.
The Chairman. So it was immediately known to the Department
of the Army that under this procedure one man had been commis-
214 ARMY PERSONNEL ACTIONS RELATING TO IRVING PERESS
sioned or was readjusted to grade notwithstanding the fact that he
was tJien at that time under investigation for security reasons?
Major McKenzie. Yes, sir; by "immediately," it was some time
later ; it was the following month. Specifically, I believe, on Novem-
ber 3.
The Chairman. How did you happen to get information about
these two officers at that time?
Major McKenzie. On the first one, Dr. Peress, we received infor-
mation as a result of a phone call from Colonel Smith, G-1, Head-
quarters, First Army.
The Chairman. Was that before or after he had been given his
commission?
JNIajor McKenzie. It was after the fact, after he had been read-
justed in grade to major, and in fact the essence of the phone call was
to protest that action.
The Chairman. How soon was that telephone call protesting the
action after Peress had actually received his commission?
Major McKenzie. I have forgotten the exact date of Peress', the
effective date of his readjustment, but I believe it was November 2.
If it was, then this was the following day, November 3.
The Chairman. The next day after the commission had been de-
livered to him ?
Major McKenzie. Yes, sir.
The Chairman. You got a telephone call protesting?
Mnjor McKenzie. Yes, sir.
The Chairman. I have one other question or two on this memo-
randum of your telephone call.
Major McKenzie. To Colonel Hyde.
Tlie Chairman. Wliat was his position?
Major McKenzie. Chief, Management Branch, Reserve Compo-
nents Division, Office of the Assistant Chief of Staff, G-1.
The CiiAiR]\tAN. At the time you wrote that memorandum, had
Peress received a promotion or readjustment in grade?
Major INIcKenzie. He had not yet received it.
The Chairman. Had a letter ffone out ordering him to be promoted
or for his frrnde to be readjusted ?
Major McKenzie. I don't recall the exact date of Peress' letter of
reappointment, although I believe it was the 26th of October. If that
is correct, then, of course, that was the very same day.
The Chairman. Now, as I interpret your memorandum or as I
understand you, you made this memorandum immediately after your
telephone conversation with Colonel Hyde?
Major McKenzie. No, sir; it was the following day.
The Chairman. The following day, then?
Mnjor McKenzie. Yes.
The Chairman. So that you think it is quite accurate as to reflect-
ing v^liat occurred in that telephone conversation?
Major McKenzie. Yes, sir; I do.
The Chairman. At the time you gave that, or had the telephone
conversations, had your suggestions been followed — in other words,
after having been alerted, could this procedure have been stopped
and the commission withheld from Peress ?
ARMY PERSONNEL ACTIONS RELATING TO IRVING PERESS 215
Major McKenzie. That would depend upon what stage of proc-
essino; Peress' orade readjustment was at that time. I don't recall
«pecifically. If it had been early enough in the processing it could
have been stopped.
The Chairman. Well, your purpose in making the call was to alert
your superiors and those having the responsibility to what was likely
to occur if the Defense Department's directive was carried out strictly ?
Major McKenzie. Yes, sir; although this call related to a second
list, not the first list, that had gone over in which Peress' name was
included.
The Chairman. You don't know how far the first list had been
processed at that time ?
Major McKenzie. Not as far as Peress' particular case was con-
cerned.
The Chairman. I thought that your memorandum was dated Oc-
tober 27. Was that correct?
Major McKenzie. Yes, sir.
The Chairman. And you had the telephone conversation, then,
on October 26 ?
Major McKenzie. Yes, sir.
The Chairman. And I believe the record reflects that Peress did
not get his commission as a major, or readjustment as a major, until
November 2 ?
Major McKenzie. Yes, sir.
The Chairman. Then there was a lapse of some 5 days' time there in
which there was the opportunity to recall the commission before it was
actually delivered and before it went into eflect; was there not?
Major McKenzie. Yes, sir.
The Chairman. In other words, the Department had been alerted ?
Major McKenzie. No, sir; the alert on the Peress case, of course,
came on November 3.
The Chairman. I understand ■
Major McKenzie. In general ; yes.
The Chairman. In general there was. This had been called to
the attention of the authorities who were responsible. Was Colonel
Hyde not one of the authorities responsible for this action? I am
talking about your telephone call on the 26th of October; and you
are not confused about it, are you ? I am pointing out that you tele-
phoned Colonel Hyde on the 26th of October and then you wrote
your memorandum the following day, the 27th?
Major McKenzie. Yes, sir.
The Chairman. And Peress did not get his commission as a major
until the 2d of November, some 5 days after; is that correct?
Major McKenzie. That is correct, sir.
The Chairman. Well, that was sufficient to alert the authorities
in the Defense Department or in the Army
Major McKenzie. In the Army.
The Chairman. Of the Army — of what the likely consequence
would be of carrying out the provisions of Public Law 84, 8od Con-
gress if they were carried out under the directive then in effect. It
certainly alerted them to the possibility of these things occurring,
did it not?
Major McKenzie. Yes, sir.
216 ARMY PERSONNEL ACTIONS RELATING TO IRVING PERESS
The CiiAiEMAN. And had immediate action been taken, there was
time to have withdrawn the commissions that were then in process
of being consummated or completed; is that not correct? Certainly
it was as to Peress ; there was 5 days?
Major McKenzie. Yes, sir.
Senator Mundt. We have not established, and what is not clear
in my mind, is whether on October 26 the Department of the Army
knev/ tliat Peress was one of the cases involved.
Major McKenzie, No; as I mentioned before the Department of
the Army didn't receive that information, as far as the individual
Peress case was concerned, until November 3.
Senator Mundt. Peress was not on the list of 12 that they had on
October 27 ?
Major McKenzie, Peress' name had gone over a couple of weeks
prior to that, on October 14, This memorandum was not addressed
to that list, but rather related to the second list that w^as then in the
process of going over.
The Chairman. "VVliat I was undertaking to show was whether
they knew of Peress or anyone else, after this telephone conversation —
if they had never thought of it before, certainly your telephone con-
versation alerted them to the possibilities of what would occur under
the procedures that they were following?
Major McKenzie. Yes; I understand the question, I believe, al-
though there was no mention in my memorandum for record of cases
of the Peress type.
The Chairman. But you do refer to cases that are likely to cause
you embarrassment ?
Major McKenzie. Yes, sir.
The Chairman. You were contemplating that procedure was
whether there was a Peress case or not, and certainly the Peress case
was worse than the cases you had in mind; was it not?
Major McKenzie. That is true.
The Chairman, But cases of less concern to you, and you were
concerned about it and calling their attention to it, that if this pro-
cedure was followed it is likely to result in embarrassment?
Major McKenzie. Yes, sir.
The Chairman. And Colonel Hyde agreed with you that it would
do so if the press got ahold of it ?
Major McKenzie. Yes, sir.
The Chairman. Is that correct?
Major McKenzie. Yes, sir,
Mr, Brucker. On that subject may I make an observation if this
is the moment to make it? If counsel's attention will be called to the
date when the commission had gone, we could clear this up because
as I understand it, it w\as October 23 when it had gone from the
Pentagon ; and if I am wrong I can be corrected.
The Chairman. You mean the commission left the Pentagon ?
Mr. Brucker. Yes.
The Chairman, For the purpose of this, it does not matter if it
left 2 months before; they still had time to stop it if they had taken
action. They had 5 days to stop it.
Mr. Brucker. Mr. Chairman, I am not in any sense arguing that
point, but what I am trying to do is clear up at this time the date, if
we can, so that the whole facts may be in there.
ARMY PERSONNEL ACTIONS RELATING TO IRVING PERESS 217
It was not after October 26 or 27 that the commission was granted,
that it was sent. It had already been sent on the 23d, and sent up to
where the man was at the installation.
The Chairman. For the purpose of this conversation, we will agree
that it left on the 2d, but it had not been delivered on the 26th and it
had not been delivered on the 27th, and it was not delivered until the
2d of November; and with the means of communication we have to-
day every one of them that had not been delivered up to that time
could have been stopped until these procedures were reformed in such
a manner as to protect against the very thing that did occur.
Proceed.
Mr. Kennedy. On the 3d of November, Major McKenzie, Colonel
Smith, the G-1 First Army, called regarding Peress being readjusted
in rank ; is that right ?
Major McKenzie. That is correct.
Mr. Kennedy. Just before we get on to that, when you and Colonel
Hyde discussed holding up these 12, these dozen individuals, you were
going against the policy of the Department of the Army as given to
you by the Department of Defense ; is that right?
INIajor McKenzie. We were taking an action contrary to what we
felt to be our interpretation of what the Defense directive required;
and the law upon which the Defense directive in time was based.
]\[r. Brucker. Just a moment.
(The witness conferred with counsel.)
(Senators present at this time were McClellan, Ervin, and Mundt.)
Mr. Kennedy. Now when you took this action was there any dis-
cussion in the Department of the Army, or did you have any discus-
sions with your superiors or your colleagues regarding the possible
dangers of following out the Department of Defense directive?
Major McKenzie. Yes ; I did have.
Mr. Kennedy. Did anybody take any action to prevent the dangers
from arising?
Major McKenzie. On that particular date, November 3, to the best
of my recollection.
Mr. Kennedy. Let us go back to the S6th of October, after these
12 cases came to your attention and you called Colonel Hyde, was
there any other action taken by the Department of the Army to pre-
vent any of the future cases that were going to come through from
being these same types ? Was there any review made of all of the files
to determine whether there was any derogatory information in the
files regarding these individuals who could receive readjustment in
rank ?
Major McKenzie. Yes. Before the next list went over, we did
institute a procedure of checking files other than those relating purely
to the individual's professional qualifications. Although this, of
course, was a time-consuming proposition, which delayed somewhat
the submission of future lists, and it might be well to point out that,
of course, it would have been a time-consuming process to have
checked all 700 of the cases that we were referring to before
Mr. Kennedy. So that despite the Department of Defense directive
on that date you started to review the files of all of the individuals?
Major McKenzie. Of all of the individuals who were then being
considered for grade readjustment.
Mr. Kennedy. That was about how manv officers?
218 ARMY PERSONNEL ACTIONS RELATING TO IRVING PERESS
Major McKenzie. I can't state at this moment how many we were
reviewing at that particular time. In total we had approximately
10,000 to review, and in fact due to a subsequent amendment to the
Defense directive we had almost 20,000 to review since we had to re-
view over again all of those we had previously reviewed.
The Chairman. Do you mean that you reviewed their records for
derogatory information that might cause you to consider them unfit
for promotion, or do you mean that you just reviewed it from the
standpoint of the professional qualifications ?
Major McKenzie. From the very beginning, of course, we had been
reviewing them for professional qualifications, and the point we are
referring to here we started reviewing them for derogatory infor-
mation.
The Chairman. And you reviewed all of their files for that purpose ?
Major McKenzie. I am sorry.
The Chairman. Did you review their files for that purpose ?
Major McKenzie. Yes, sir.
The Chairman. At what time did that begin; on what date?
Major McKenzie. I can't fix the exact date, but it occurred I would
say within 1 to 2 days after this phone conversation with Colonel Hyde
when we started the next list.
The Chairiman. One or two days after which phone conversation
with Colonel Hyde?
Major McKenzie. The conversation on the 26th of October.
The Chairman. All right.
Mr. Kennedy. And that contravened your initial interpretation of
the Department of Defense directive ; is that right ?
Major McKenzie. Yes, that is correct.
Mr. Kennedy. Now, I will ask you if you will identify this
document.
(A document was handed to the witness.)
Major McKenzie. This is what we describe in our office as the status
card of Irving Peress.
Mr. Kennedy. And on that status card, Major, there is an entry,
is there not, that an investigation, confidential investigation was being
conducted by G-2 of Irving Peress ?
Major McKenzie. Not specifically. Wliat it literally states is "do
not transfer, see confidential file."
Mr. Kennedy. That would mean what ?
Major McKenzie. That would serve to alert an individual exam-
ining this particular document as to the existence of possible deroga-
tory information in the case.
Mr. Kennedy. If there had been a policy to search all of the files
prior to the 26th of October, when this policy went into effect, you
would have come across undoubtedly this status card and the entry
on it?
Major McKenzie. Yes, sir.
Mr. Kennedy. And that would have alerted you that Irving Peress
should not receive the readjustment; is that correct?
Major McKenzie. Well, it would have alerted us to the fact that we
should submit his name separately to higher authority pointing out
the circumstances in the case. And we should not submit it with a
large list direct to the Adjutant General.
ARMY PERSONNEL ACTIONS RELATING TO IRVING PERESS 219
Mr. Kennedy. Could we have that status card made a part of the
record ?
The Chairman. Exhibit 39.
(Exhibit No. 39 may be found in the files of the subcommittee.
Duplicate of exhibit No. 14.)
Mr. Kennedy. Would you identify that document, please? We
talked a moment ago about the conversation on the 3d of November,
Major, in which your office was notified of the fact that Irving Peress
had been promoted to major and that there was some derogatory in-
formation regarding him. Is that a transcript of the telephone call ?
Major McI^NziE. It purports to be. However, I have never seen
it before, and I am in no position to vouch for it.
Mr. Kj^nnedy. Mr. Chairman, may we have that transcript, which
has been furnished to us as a transcript of that telephone call, made a
part of the public record, with the understanding that Major Mc-
Kenzie has no information about it; it was a conversation between
Colonel Smith and Major Dolson, who I believe was in your division.
Major McI^nzie. I am familiar with the conversation, but I have
never seen this transcript of it before, and I can't vouch that this is an
accurate, or a transcript of it.
The Chairman. May I ask you to look at the memorandum and read
it, and see if the conversation, or telephone conversation is as you un-
derstood it?
Major McKJENziE. Yes, sir.
The Chairman. I am not asking you to do something that you can't
do or should not do, but it might save us from calling another witness.
I assume there is no question about the authenticity of the document
and it was procured from the Army ?
Major McKJENZiE. Actually this purports to be a phone conversa-
tion
Mr. CouGHLiN. He is not even on that phone conversation.
Mr. Kennedy. There is some problem about it; there are two tele-
phone conversations, October 26, and he wrote a memorandum on that
on October 27. Now, we are on the telephone conversation of Novem-
ber 3 in which the Office of the Surgeon General was notified that
Irving Peress had been reappointed or promoted to the rank of major.
That is the telephone conversation that we are now discussing, and it
yeas the first time, as I understand it, that anybody there had specif-
ically heard of the name of Irving Peress.
Mr. CouGHLiN. In the Surgeon General.
Mr. Kennedy. In Major McKenzie's office.
Now, we know that on the status card the office of the Surgeon
General had information regarding the investigation being made of
Irving Peress, but Major McKenzie, as I understood it, had no infor-
mation of that kind himself because under his interpretations and the
interpretation of his superiors of the Department of Defense directive
he did not consult those status cards.
Now, we are now on this conversation of November 3.
Mr. CouGHLiN. That is very well, sir ; I agi'ee with all you say. But
my point is that this officer was not in this conversation ; is that right ?
The Chairman. That is right, and in other words may I inquire:
Is that not an Army document ?
Mr. Kennedy. A document furnished us by the Army.
60030— 55— pt. 3 5
220 ARMY PERSONNEL ACTIONS RELATING TO IRVING PERESS
The Chairman. Now we can send out and get the other officers
and have them identify it.
Mr. Brucker. We are not anxious that that be done ; just a moment.
The Chairman. I know technically we would have to present it
that way, but if there is no question about it, let us let it be admitted
in the record.
Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Coughlin presented the document to us, why
could he not present it to us ? That document was presented by your
office.
Mr. Coughlin. I beg your pardon, sir.
Mr. Kennedy. All right, let us get along.
The Chairman. The document can be made for the present as
exhibit No. 40, unless there is some good reason shown to withdraw
it. But we can proceed.
(The witness conferred with counsel.)
(Exhibit No. 40 appears in the appendix on p. 260.)
Mr. Kennedy. May I ask if anybody in the Department of the
Army staff down there. Department of Defense, has ever seen that
transcript of that telephone conversation^ It is in the Inspector
General's files, I understand, and it was furnished us as one of the
first exhibits by Mr. Coughlin.
But the point is: Has anyone ever seen that document, or did we
make it up down here in the staff ?
Mr. Coughlin. May I say I have seen the document ; but when did
I give it to you?
Mr. Kennedy. Let us get it in, and let us go.
Mr. Coughlin. When did I give it to you ?
Mr. Kennedy. You did not give it to us ; someone else did.
Mr. Coughlin. Thank you.
The Chairman. Now we have that settled, we have the document
as an exhibit ; let us proceed.
Mr. Brucker. I keep saying "Your Honor," but Mr. Chairman
Mr. Kennedy. It is not absolutely important that we have the doc-
ument in, and let us say that was the date.
Mr. Brucker. It is two long pages and he is trying to read it and
I. am going to try to be as liberal as I can ; but he has to read it.
The Chairman. I will wait for him to complete reading it.
It has already been made an exhibit unless someone can show me it
has been withdrawn.
Major McKenzie. That portion of this document, Mr. Chairman,
which relates to the telephone conversation between Major Dolson of
my office and Colonel Smith, G-1, Headquarters, First Army, appears
to be in substantial agreement with my understanding from Major
Dolson of what transpired between the two of them.
The Chairman. On that basis the document remains as an exhibit.
Proceed.
Mr. Kennedy. On the 6th of November, Major McKenzie, did you
receive some information from G-2 of the Department of the Army
regarding other individuals who were under investigation by them?
Major McKenzie. On that I cannot state at the moment that we
received it on November 6. However, I recall a memorandum from
G-2 dated November 6, which we may have received on that date or
the following date, or perhaps one date later, which did contain a list
ARMY PERSONNEL ACTIONS RELATING TO IRVING PERESS 221
of Medical, Dental, and Veterinarian Corps officers who were consid-
ered by G-2 at that time to be security cases.
Mr. Kennedy. Request for that list was made by the Office of the
Surgeon General?
Major McKenzie. The request was made by the Office of the Sur-
geon Genera] after receiving Colonel Smith's call on the Peress case.
Mr. Kennedy. And what was the reason for the request?
Major McKenzie. The reason was to be absolutely up to date as
far as any possible security cases that might be pending in this grade
readjustment upon whom we had not received through normal chan-
nels, in the normal amount of time, information otherwise.
Mr. Kennedy. Would you look at this document, please.
Would you identify that document, please?
Major McKenzie. This document is a copy of a memorandum for
record, dated January 6, 1954, regarding another phone conversation
I had with Colonel Hyde.
The Chairman. Read it into the record.
Major McKenzie (reading) :
Memora]vdum fob Record
Subject : Higher Reserve Grades for Officers Involved in the Involuntary Release
Program.
1. Reference is made to memorandum for record, this office, subject: "Higher
Reserve Grades for Officers to be eliminated," dated 27 October 1953.
2. On 4 January IDol, 1 was informed by Lieutenant Colonel Hyde, Chief,
Management Branch, Reserve Components Division, Gl, that because of the
amount and source of the criticism regarding the policy referred to in the mem-
orandum cited above this office should now process for reappointment in higher
Reserve grades those officers who are entitled to such reappointments and who
had previously been denied them on the basis that they were recently court-
martialed or being sepai-ated under the Army's involuntary release program.
3. Three Medical Corps and seven Dental Corps officers are affected by the
decision referred to above.
Now, there follows on this again, handwriting, which is not mine,
and which I can't identify at the moment, but which does not appear
on the original.
The Chairman. You may read it.
Major McKenzie (reading) :
Security cases could have been included by inference.
The Chairman. What does that document refer to ?
Major McKenzie. This refers to the previous memorandum for
record that I made the day following my conversation with Colonel
Hyde on the 26th where I pointed out the existence of this type of case.
The Chairman. It is in that memorandum or in that telephone
conversation where they agreed to hold these up temporarily?
Major McIvenzie. Yes, sir.
The Chairman Now this telephone conversation where they ordered
you to process them
IMajor McKenzie. Yes, sir.
The Chairman. Notwithstanding the fact that they had been court-
martialed and notwithstanding the fact that they were being sei;aiated
from the Army on the involuntary release program ?
Major McKenzie. Yes, sir.
The Chairman. So the orders were changed then to process all of
them?
222 ARMY PERSONNEL ACTIONS RELATING TO IRVING PERESS
Major McKenzie. Yes, sir.
The Chairman. Without regard to security or anything else; is
til at correct?
Major McKenzie. The order was to proceed with all of those cases
that we had previously suspended action on.
The Chairman. How did you interpret to proceed with them?
What did you interpret it to mean? They had been flagged, and
stopped, temporarily; and now how did you interpret the telephone
conversation ?
Major MclvENZiE. To resume action on those cases that we had
previously suspended action on by resuming action, and I mean speci-
fically to forward the names of the individuals concerned to the Ad-
jutant General for reappointment action. .
The Chairman. In other words, it was to go on and reappoint them
and ^ive theni their adjustment in grade irrespective of what deroga-
tory information might be against them ?
Major McKenzie. Yes, sir.
The Chairman. That is the way you interpreted it ?
Major McKenzie. Yes.
The Chairman. And that order was given on the 5th of January
or the 6th of January ?
Major McKknzie, On the 4th of January.
The Chairman. Notwithstanding by that time they had full knowl-
edge of the Peress case ?
Major McKenzie. Yes, sir.
The Chairman. All right. You may proceed.
Mr. Kennedy. In fact. Major, two of those cases, the individuals
never received readjustments?
Major McKenzie. Yes; there were two individuals upon whom we
had information at that time that they were in the process of being
separated, and since from our previous experience such individuals
couldn't possibly have received their reappointments prior to being
separated, we didn't, in fact, forward their names.
Mr. Kennedy. I understand one was a security case and the other
was a case of court-martial ?
Major McKenzie. That is correct.
Mr. Kennedy. Are you aware that on one of the cases, the court-
martial case, the elimination proceedings against that individual
started on the 7th of December 1953, and that he finally had been
released from active duty on the 3d of May 1954 ?
Major McKenzie. I don't recall exactly; no, sir; but I was aware
that the separation action was in the process.
Mr. Kennedy. Would you identify that document ?
Major McKenzie. This is a memorandum for Lt. Col. John F.
T. Murray, dated February 24, 1955 ; Subject : Summary of two cases
whose reappointments, although authorized, were withheld after dis-
covery of Peress case.
Mr. Kennedy. Those are two individuals who, through your office,
their readjustment in ranks were held up permanently ; is that correct ?
Major McKenzie. On the basis that they were already in the process
of separation and presumably couldn't have received them had we even
sent them over.
ARMY PERSONNEL ACTIONS RELATING TO IRVING PERESS 223
Mr. Kennedy. And you had initially taken action to hold up 12
individuals that had come to your attention, and on the 4th of Jan-
uary you had been told to go ahead and process those individuals?
Major McKenzie. Yes, sir.
Mr. Kennedy. Now, just one point: Would you look at that docu-
ment on the individual who is a security case — and I think the record
might show that action, final action, was started against him on the
6th of November 1953, and that he was finally discharged from the
Army on the 9th of September 1954. I think it is down at the bottom
of the first page.
Major McKenzie. Yes; the action began on November 6, 1953, and
it indicates that the separation or discharge action on this particular
case occurred on September 8, 1954.
The Chairman. He also received a promotion ?
Major McKenzie. No, sir.
Mr. Kennedy. And he did not receive this promotion or readjust-
ment because of the action that had been taken by you and the indi-
viduals in your office ?
Major McKenzie. Yes, sir.
The Chairman. What happened to the other 10 that were given
their readjustment in grade ?
Major McKenzie. I cannot at the moment account for them as
individuals. I believe actually even 1 or 2 of that group might already
have been separated.
The Chairman. What I am trying to determine, were any of them
later discharged as was Peress for being undesirable ?
Major McKenzie, No, sir ; to the best of my knowledge none of these
cases were discharged as being undesirable.
The Chairman. I would like to have the record clear on that. May
I inquire of the Army who can testify with respect to that ?
Mr. Brucker. We will look that up.
Major Ivan. We will find out.
The Chairman. I want the record clear as to what happened to
the other 10, what happened to them after they were promoted.
Mr. Brucker. Very well.
Senator Ervin. Major McKenzie, is this a fair inference to be drawn
from your testimony : That Irving Peress was included in the list of
700 because of the interpretation of the Defense directive that such
directive required the automatic adjustment or promotion in rank of
ofiicers brought into the service under the doctors and dentists draft
law, to the end that their ranks might conform to their appropriate
professional qualifications regardless of their moral character or their
loyalty ?
Major McKenzie. That was our interpretation, that based upon
the Defense directive, and the law which it in turn was based upon,
that such action, the readjustment in grade, was mandatory if the indi-
vidual possessed the required professional qualifications.
Senator Ervin, That is all.
The Chairman. Major, you have been testifying regarding Col.
Emery Hyde, have you ?
Major McKenzie. Yes, sir.
The Chairman. The Chair wishes to announce that Colonel Hyde
was brought back, I believe, from Naples to be a witness at this hear-
ing. After his return here it became necessary for him to be hospital-
224 ARMY PERSONNEL ACTIONS RELATING TO IRVING PERESS
ized and he is now in Walter Keed Hospital and it may not be possible
to get his presence here for interrogation by the committee.
If we are unable to do so and if it is possible to get an affidavit from
him, an affidavit will be secured ; or interrogatories and answers upon
these important points.^
For the present so that the record may be clear at this point I wish
to submit an affidavit from Col. Francis W. Pruitt, Cliief of the De-
partment of Medicine of Walter Reed Hospital, so that the record
may reflect why we are not able to have today, or may not be able to
have at all, the personal presence of Colonel Hyde to testify at this
hearing.
That affidavit may be made exhibit No, 42.
(Exhibit No. 42 may be found in the files of the subcommittee.)
There is another document now in the possession of the witness
which he has previously identified. Will you identify it again for us ?
Major McKenzie. It is a memorandum for Mr. Murray, dated Feb-
ruary 24, 1955. Subject: Summary of two cases whose reappoint-
ments, although authorized, were withheld after discovery of Peress'
case. This is not Mister, but an officer.
The Chairman. That is exhibit 41.
(Exhibit No. 41 appears in the appendix on p. 261.)
I believe the record should show, Major-— we have been carrying
this through with all of the witnesses. I believe you were interveiwed
by the Inspector General regarding this case ?
" Major McKenzie. Yes, sir ; I was.
The Chairman. And your name did appear on the list of 28 that
was previously submitted to the Mundt special subcommittee i
Major McKenzie. To the best of my knowledge it did, sir.
The Chairman. Again I will ask you as we have the other witness :
Did you know Irving Peress personally ?
Major McKenzie. No, sir.
The Chairman. Did you have anyone, any of your superior offi-
cers or anyone else connected with the Army, or did it occur from any
other source to request you to show any special consideration to Irving
Peress ?
Major McKenzie. No one ever made any such request to me, sir.
The Chairman. You were never asked to treat his case any differ-
ent from any others ?
Major McKenzie. No, sir.
The Chairman. And you did undertake to treat it according to the
regulations as they were interpreted and understood by you and in
accordance with instructions given you by your superiors ?
Major McKenzie. Yes, sir.
The Chairman. Are there any questions. Senator McCarthy ?
Senator McCarthy. I think not.
The Chairman. Thank you very much. Major.
Mr. Brucker. I have sent up a question which I have phrased here,
and I would like to just ask, or have the chairman if he will ask that
one question to, I hope, clear up what I think would be on the 700
cases.
The Chairman. Let me read this memo, please.
Mr. Brucker. Surely.
(A document was handed to the chairman by Mr. Brucker.)
1 Affidavit of Col. Emery Hyde wiU be found on p. 532, pt. 7, appendix, under supple-
mental data.
ARMY PERSONNEL ACTIONS RELATING TO IRVING PERESS 225
(At this point Senator Ervin left the room and Senator McCarthy
entered the room.)
The Chairman. The Chair is willing to ask this question.
Major, this is a question that the counsel for the Defense Depart-
ment, Governor Brucker, has requested to be propounded to you.
The question is as follows :
If the grade readjustment of Peress was sent out by the Department
of the Army to become a major on October 23, 1953, and you wrote
the memorandum, exhibit 38, on October 27, 1953, how long would it
have taken Major McKenzie — that is you — after October 27, 1953, to
have reviewed the 700 cases as to security ?
Major McKenzie. As far as the files available in our own office
were concerned that would have taken, I would estimate, 4 or 5 days.
However, if th© files that were maintained by the Adjutant General
and G-2 were also to have been checked by those agencies, that would
have taken a considerable longer time and I am not prepared to make
an estimate as to how much. I am not that familiar with their
operations.
The Chairman. Even if it would have taken a longer time had
they been checked, then there would have been available the derog-
atory information on any member of the 700 or more ?
Major McKenzie. Yes, sir.
The Chairman. All right.
Senator McCarthy. I missed part of your testimony, but I under-
stand that you testified that you recommended against his promotion ;
is that right?
Major McKenzie. That I don't think clearly summarizes that por-
tion of my testimony.
Senator McCarthy. You did alert your superior officer to the
danger of this procedure ?
Major McKenzie. I did point out to them that that type of pro-
cedure could result in considerable embarrassment to the Army if such
cases were to reach the public.
Senator McCarthy. Which they did ?
Major McKenzie. Yes.
The Chairman. Thank you very much, Major.
The next witness is Mr. Jackson. Mr. Jackson, will you come
cround, please?
Mr. Jackson has been previously sworn, and Mr. Counsel, you may
proceed.
TESTIMONY OF STEPHEN S. JACKSON— Continued
Mr. Kennedy. Judge Jackson, you are Assistant General Counsel
of the Department of Defense ; is that correct ?
Mr. Jackson. Yes, sir ; Office of the Secretary of Defense.
Mr. Kennedy. During September of 1953, Judge Jackson, you were
asked for a legal opinion as to whether a board of officers could be
convened to consider whether doctors, dentists, and veterinarians
could be reappointed, readjusted in rank, or promoted, under the
amendment to the Doctors Draft Act ; is that correct ?
Mr. Jackson. I am not certain of the date, but I would accept it
as best I recall. I was asked the question as to whether or not in the
implementation of Public Law 84, of the 83d Congress, as it amended
226 ARMY PERSONNEL ACTIONS RELATING TO IRVING PERESS
Public Law 770, boards should be required. Yes, sir; I was asked
that question.
Mr. Kennedy. And you made a study of the law or the amendment
to the law and compared it to the law as it existed in the past ; that is
the amendment to the law ?
Mr. Jackson. I was familiar with the amendment; yes, sir.
Mr. Kennedy. I believe Major McKenzie has read that into the
record. Could you tell us what your decision was on the question
of whether a board of officers could be convened for such a purpose?
Mr. Jackson. My decision was that a board of officers should not
be convened in implementation of that law, and I so advised the
officers who requested it.
Mr. Kennedy. Did you advise them in writing ?
Mr. Jackson. No ; that was an oral opinion that I rendered.
Mr. Kennedy. Would you look at this document ?
(A document was handed to the witness.)
Mr. Kennedy. Would you identify that document. Judge Jackson?
Mr. Jackson. Yes, this is a photostatic copy of a memorandum of
Admiral Womble. It bears the date of September 22, 1953.
Mr. Kennedy. In that memorandum on the second page, I believe
there is a reference to the advice that you gave to the Defense De-
partment regarding a board of officers being convened to consider
the records of these individual doctors.
Mr. Jackson. That is correct.
The Chairman. It may be made exhibit No. 43 for the record.
(Exhibit No. 43 appears in the appendix on p. 262.)
Mr. Kennedy. Would you read that portion of the memorandum
that refers to your legal opinion ?
Mr. Jackson, (reading) :
OASD (M. & p.) legal adviser objects to the provision of paragraph d (2) sec-
tion VIII which required the recommendation of a board of officers convened by
the military department concerned in order for those who are now serving on
active duty who would have been entitled to a higher grade than that in which
he is now serving if the applicable provisions of the directive or Public Law 84,
83d Congress had been in effect at the time of his appointment. The law reads
that such individuals "shall under regulations prescribed by the President, be
appointed, reappointed, or promoted to such higher grade."
Mr. Jackson feels that the imposing of a mandatory requirement of a recom-
mendation by a board of officers is not consistent with this provision. The pro-
posed draft for tlie signature of the Assistant Secretary of Defense (M. & P.) has
this provision deleted.
Mr. Kennedy. Judge Jackson, did you understand when you made
that legal opinion, or gave that legal opinion, that the three depart-
ments. Army, Navy, and Air Force would not be able to consider other
than the professional qualifications of a particular individual?
Did you take that into consideration, or was it merely you were
asked for a legal opinion on the question of whether a board of officers
could be convened and you based your opinion merely on an interpre-
tation of the law ?
Mr. Jackson. My opinion as reflected here, went to the naked ques-
tion of whether or not boards would be mandatory in implementing
Public Law 84, and that is the extent to which it went. My answer
was that it should not provide for mandatory boards.
Mr. Kennedy. What was the basis for your decision ?
ARMY PERSONNEL ACTIONS RELATING TO IRVING PERESS 227
Mr. Jackson. The basis for this decision was in the language of the
statute which was motivated principally because of the fact that cer-
tain Reserve officers on inactive status who were practicing medicine
as civilians had been called into the .service according to the rank
that they held. A person who did not hold a Reserve commission, but
was a civilian who had practiced medicine as a civilian for the same
period of time in some instances received because of that a higher
grade than the officer who was called in in the commision which he
held. That was regarded as an inequity.
The Department of Defense in order to cure that inequity which
was an inequity on the part or directed toward, or effected toward the
person who held the commission, submitted this provision in order to
see to it that there would be a uniform assignment of grades; and
furthermore that where any inequities had occurred they would be
corrected for those who were on duty.
Apropos of this, if I may, I would like to refer to the comments of
the House in their report which deals with this.
The Chairman. You may refer to it.
Mr. Jackson. In Report No. 38 of the House of Representatives
which accompanied H. R. 4495, the following comment is found on
page 11 :
There is an additional factor to be taken into consideration in this matter
which also should be noted. Doctors are commissioned in accordance with their
age and experience, if they are commissioned as a result of the operation of the
doctor draft law. This gives some doctors higher grades than they would have
normally attained if they had gone into Reserve components voluntarily and
qualified for promotion as all other Reserve oflScers.
To permit these officers to retain a more or less inflated grade would be unfair
to the thousands of other Reserve officers who had just qualified for promotion
through a system of selection and length of service.
The report further states :
Such promotions have not been effected In the Navy, nor does the law require
a doctor who is ordered to active duty following his registration under the doctor
draft law, to be given a grade or rank commensurate with his age, education,
and ability.
Under the proposed amendment any member of a Reserve component who has
been called, or will be ordered to active duty before July 15, 1955, as a physician,
dentist or in an allied specialist category shall be appointed, reappointed, or
promoted to such grade or rank as may be commensurate with his profession,
education, experience, or abiity.
In drafting the law or in enacting the law I might call attention, if
I may, to the fact that the section in question, section 4 of Public Law
84 of the 83d Congress, states :
Notwithstanding section 217 (c) of the Armed Forces Reserve Act of 1952,
62d Stat. 481, or any other provision of law, any person liable for induction —
and so on —
shall under regulations prescribed be promoted or reappointed.
Now, section 217 (c) that the quoted section refers to provides
specifically for boards with certain limited exceptions of officers to
any one not holding a prior commission above the grade of major.
That was in the Armed Forces Reserve Act, recently enacted prior to
this. It further says : "or any other provision of law."
In the Navy it was under existing law, at that time, not possible
to promote these officers without a board ; and it was my interpreta-
228 ARMY PERSONNEL ACTIONS RELATING TO IRVING PERESS
tion of the section that in order to correct the inequity, particularly of
those who were in active service, with varying degrees of obligated
service to remain, should forthwith have the formula applied to them
which would designate their rank without a board since the law spe-
cifically said "notwithstanding 217 (c) , or any other provision of law."
Based on that I gave my decision that boards should not be required
to implement a law which Congress had just enacted specifically in-
dicating that boards were not to be used.
The Chairman. Mr. Jackson, in the ad hoc committee that was
appointed to review this act and make recommendations with respect
to how it should be implemented, did they recommend that the officers
go before a board
Mr. Jackson. Yes, sir.
The Chairman. So you overruled the committee that had been es-
tablished to make recommendations with respect to this ?
Mr. Jackson. I rendered an opinion to the Director of Personnel
Policy of the Department of Defense that such would not be consis-
tent with the law ; yes, sir.
The Chairman. Did the ad hoc committee also recommend that
there be taken into consideration whether they were otherwise quali-
fied before any readjustment in rank would be made?
Mr. Jackson. I think the regulations as promulgated had that pro-
vision in. I am not familiar w^ith what the ad hoc committee recom-
mended with regard to that particular phrase that you refer to. Sen-
ator.
The Chairman. You do not recall whether it recommended that
they be found to be otherwise qualified ?
Mr. Jackson. I have no recollection of it. That is in the directive
in one place ; it is so provided.
The Chairman. In other words, you regarded or you held in your
opinion that this law superseded the regulation then existing with re-
spect to their being otherwise qualified ?
Mr. Jackson. No, sir. I held that the law would be violated if
we mandated boards in the light of the fact that the enactment spe-
cifically indicated that boards were not to be used, and that is as far
as my opinion went.
The Chairman. As I recall, Major McKenzie, who was a member
of that ad hoc commission who preceded you on the witness stand,
testified that the ad hoc committee did recommend that the officers
before receiving an adjustment in rank be found to be otherwise quali-
fied. Did that recommendation come to you for your consideration
and for an opinion on it ?
Mr. Jackson. No, sir, I was asked merely an opinion as to boards.
The Chairman. If I am not mistaken, Major McKenzie testified
that that recommendation went to the Department of Defense, and
that instead of that being followed, the phrase "otherwise qualified"
was deleted from the order or instructions that came back and upon
which the action was taken.
Did that come to your attention as Assistant Chief Counsel of the
Department of Defense ?
Mr. Jackson. No, sir.
The Chairman. Do you know who deleted from their recommenda-
tions the phrase "otherwise qualified" or who deleted it in the Depart-
ment of Defense ?
ARMY PERSONNEL ACTIONS RELATING TO IRVING PERESS 229
Mr. Jackson-. I am assuming that it was deleted in the place you
refer to.
The Chairman. I am assuming that Major McKenzie's testimony
was true, and we can assume that for the present.
Mr. Jackson. I assume that for all time, so far as I am concerned.
Your question is : Do I know who deleted it ?
The Chairman. Yes. Or who authorized its deletion, or directed
that it be deleted ?
Mr. Brdcker. I didn't understand Major McKenzie's testimony to
say that it was deleted at any place. Perhaps I am in error but I
didn't hear it at any time. He is still here and I would like to inquire.
Mr. Kennedy. As I understand it, the Department of Defense
directive when it was issued, left out this provision regarding the
boards.
The Chairman. If I have used the wrong word in the word "de-
leted"— and I think that word was used — let me rephrase the question
then : Do you know who failed in the Department of Defense to follow
the recommendation of the ad hoc committee with respect to requiring
that the officers before receiving an adjustment in grade be found to
be "otherwise qualified" ?
(The witness conferred with counsel.)
Mr. Jackson. The only answer I can give to you, sir, is that the
final determination of what this directive would or would not have
would bs the Director of Personnel on his recommendations to the
Secretary.
Now, I have no knowledge of whether there was such a phrase
deleted or not. I had no participation in the committee.
Mr. Brucker. Can I interrupt to say I have talked to Major Mc-
Kenzie, and 1 think there is a misunderstanding, sir, on your part;
because he can clear that up as to what he said.
The Chairm^in. All right. Major, you are still under oath, and stand
up a minute and tell us what you did say, and if I misunderstand you.
Major McKenzee. My recollection is that I stated that the language
deleted referred to the board action, and that there was not substituted
therefor the language "if otherwise qualified."
The Chairman. I beg your pardon.
Major McKenzie. My testimony, as I recall it, was to the effect thatj
the language deleted related to the board action, and that when it was
deleted there was not substituted for it the language "if otherwise
qualified," which does appear in the portion of the Defense directive
dealing with original appointments. ,
The Chairman. Then perhaps I misunderstood you," not being
familiar with regulations; but the effect of your testimony was that
when the orders came out from the Defense Department instructing
you how to implement and carry out the provisions of Public Law 84,
83d Congress, that directive did not contain the words "otherwise
qualified," as were then contained in the regulations. Is that correct ?
Major McKenzie. No, sir, I am afraid it is rather complicated.
There are two particular subsections of the Defense directive I was
referring to. One has the language in it "if otherwise qualified," and
it relates to original appointments. The other subsection which deals
with reappointments which had originally contained the language "if
a board of officers so recommends," that particular language had been
230 ARMY PERSONNEL ACTIONS RELATING TO IRVING PERESS
deleted from that subsection and there had not been substituted for it,
parallel language to the other subsection, that the action would be
taken if the individual was otherwise qualified.
The Chairman. I think that you are getting a little confused.
Didn't you in your recommendations — wasn't this a part of your rec-
ommendations ? Lst me ask you two questions. Did the ad hoc com-
mittee of which you were a member recommend that he be processed
under a board of officers ?
Major McKenzie. Yes, sir.
The Chairman. Had they been so processed under a board of officers,
would the board of officers under existing regulations been required
to find that they were otherwise qualified ?
Major McKenzie. Yes, sir, they would have been required to find
that.
The Chairman. So then it was the holding that a board of officers
was not required that automatically deleted the requirement or re-
moved the requirement in these cases for the officers to be found other-
wise qualified before they had received an adjustment in grade, is that
your interpretation of it?
Major McKenzie. That is an extremely long question, and I won-
der, Mr. Chairman, if you would mind
The Chairman. How did it happen that they were not considered
otherwise qualified ? Can you tell me why that occurred ? Perhaps
we can shorten it that way.
Major McKenzie. If the board of officers' language had remained
in, the entire records of the individuals from the very inception of the
program would have been reviewed and I feel certain that in each case
where that review disclosed derogatory information no grade read-
justment action on such an individual would have been instituted.
The Chairman. Then we get down to this at least, that if the rec-
ommendation of the ad hoc committee had been carried out, then this
wouldn't have occurred ?
Major McKenzie. Yes, sir.
The Chairman. Are there any other questions ?
Mr. Kennedy. Judge Jackson, I have just one question. I think
it is one question.
When you made this suggestion or gave this legal opinion that there
would not be a board of officers, did you consider or did you discuss
with anybody the possibilities that might arise from that ruling ?
Now you have talked here about the fact that it was primarily aimed
at the personnel coming in under the Navy program. And that the
Department of Defense wished to cure certain inequities, and so that
your record was based on that as well as, as I understand it, an inter-
pretation of the law.
You stated that the Department of Defense wished to cure these
inequities. These inequities existed in the Nai-y Department program.
Was there any consideration at all of the possible difficulties that might
arise under this interpretation of the act? Was there any discussion
with you by any of your superiors as to how it could be done to keep
people from being reappointed who had derogatory information in
their files ?
Mr. Jackson. No.
Mr. Kennedy. That was never discussed with you ?
Mr. Jackson. No.
ARMY PERSONNEL ACTIONS RELATING TO IRVING PERESS 231
Mr. Kennedy. And you were never asked
Mr. Jackson. At that time ; this has come up recently.
Mr. Kennedy. You were never asked to give an interpretation of
how this derogatory information could be considered in the various
departments prior to the time they reappointed or readjusted them
in rank ?
Mr. Jackson. I was not so asked. It has recently come up, but the
answer is no as of that time.
Mr. Kennedy. So far as you know, there was never an awareness
in the Department of Defense that this danger might exist that you
were going to reappoint in rank individuals on whom there was some
derogatory information ?
Mr. Jackson. Not as of the time I gave the opinion. There was
no such cognizance on my part of any such awareness.
Mr. Kennedy. So the Department of the Army was making an
interpretation of this directive which had not ever been considered as
far as you know by the Department of Defense ?
Mr. Jackson. May I ask whether you mean the directive when the
interpretation was considered by the Department of Defense?
Mr. Kennedy. The directive as issued by the Department of
Defense.
Mr. Jackson. That was considered, certainly.
Mr. Kennedy. But the interpretation given to it by the Department
of the Army that derogatory information was not to be considered on
the reappointment of these individuals — was that ever discussed as
far as you know ?
Mr. Jackson. Not to my knowledge, I don't know.
Mr, Kennedy. Now, could you tell us what was the Department of
Defense's interpretation of this legal ruling by you or the interpreta-
tion that you gave ?
Mr. Jackson. Will you read that back ?
Mr. Kennedy. Perhaps I could clarify it.
The Chairman. Restate the question.
Mr. Kennedy. Well, we would be interested in finding out, and per-
haps. Governor Brucker, you can assist me here, but we would be
interested in finding out what the Department of Defense's own inter-
pretation was of their ruling concerning a board of officers.
Did the Department of Defense feel that individual officers should
be reappointed in rank without any reference to the files to determine
whether there was derogatory information in the files ?
Now what I want to find out, was the Department of Defense's inter-
pretation of its own directive the same as the Department of the
Army's interpretation ?
Mr. Brucker. Mr. Chairman, I have given a written opinion ad-
dressed from me to Mr. Kennedy, your chief counsel here, on that
subject. I stand on that written opinion on it.
The Chairman. For the present, then, in order to expedite this, it
may be entered as an exhibit, exhibit No. 44.
Mr. Kennedy. This is our letter to Governor Brucker of March 8,
and his answer to this committee arrived at 2 o'clock today.
(The letter received in reply was marked "Exhibit No. 45." Exhibit
Nos. 44 and 45 appear in the appendix on p. 264.)
And, Mr. Brucker, would you read question No. 3 that we asked
in the letter to you ?
232 ARMY PERSONNEL ACTIONS RELATING TO IRVING PERESS
Mr. Brucker. Do you want me to read it out loud ?
Mr. Kennedy. Yes.
The Chairman. The Governor has not been sworn. Is this just to
get his legal opinion in the record ?
Mr. Kennedy. Yes.
The Chairman. All right.
Mr. Brucker (reading) :
Should the armed services have considered only the professional qualifications
of officers falling within the purview of the directive or should all available
information on any given officer have been reviewed and considered prior to a
determination as to reappointment or promotion?
Mr. Kennedy. Governor, that is the question that we wanted an-
swered. And here is this letter that we also put in the record, and
the last three lines say :
Your Questions Nos. 2 and 3 involve matters of policy, and the answers to
these relate to the implementation of this directive within the individual mili-
tary departments.
Sincerely yours,
William Bbuckeb.
Mr. Brucker. Wilber M. Brucker.
Mr. Kennedy. I am sorry.
I think it would be important to find out whether the Department
of Defense had the same interpretation of its own directive as the
Department of tlie Army had, or whether the Department of Defense
felt that the individual departments should review all of the records.
Mr. Brucker. I have given you my opinion on the thing, that the
law is mandatory and not permissive. I have answered it succinctly in
3 pages.
The Chairman. You have held the same thing as Mr. Jackson has ?
Mr. Brucker. That is right.
If the man is going to be in the Army, he has to be promoted, or
else he has got to be discharged, one or the other, and it is mandatory.
The act of Congress was complete.
Mr. Kennedy. Before you decide whether he is going to be read-
justed or discharged, do you review the files ?
Mr. Brucker. That is a matter of policy.
Mr. Kennedy. That is the heart of it. It is the interpretation of
your directive.
Mr. Brucker. I know nothing about the directive at that time. I
am speaking as of now, because it all came before my time. But I can
say to you as of now that I have given you a legal opinion as to the
first question, that it is mandatory and not permissive. Now, that is
the legal question. As to what the Army should or shouldn't do with
respect to that, that is a matter of policy or their own determination
about it, or the Air Force, or the Navy.
Mr. Kennedy. Governor, the Department of Defense issued the di-
rective and we had nobody else to write to other than yourself. It
would seem to me that it was of extreme importance to find out wheth-
er the Department of Defense
Mr. Brucker. Did you write to the three Departments ?
Mr. Kennedy. I got in touch with the Nav}^ Department and we
had a conference with the Air Force. I will put the letter of
reply in from the Navy Department. But I want to find out from the
ARMY PERSONNEL ACTIONS RELATING TO IRVING PERESS 233
Department of Defense, as I didn't get this unless you are going to
send a supplementary letter.
Mr. BiiucKER. No, I am not.
]\Ir. Kennedy. What was the interpretation of the directive by the
Department of Defense ?
Mr. Bruckek. In the first place, the directive is self -expressive on
its face and says it is mandatory. But I have taken the time to say,
as of now, looking back then, that I say it was mandatory then and
not permissive, and they either had to do one or the other, get rid of
the man, get him out, or else they had to act in connection with what
Congress said, and the Department of Defense directive paralleled
exactly the language of Congress. It followed it out.
The Chairman. Now, Governor, may I ask you a question ?
There was nothing in the law to keep you from getting them out if
they are undesirable before they were promoted ; was there ?
Mr. Brucker. There was nothing in the law as far as that is con-
cerned one way or the other.
The Chairman. It would have been a matter of sound policy for
the Department of Defense and the Department of the Army to have
pursued that course ; would it not ?
Mr. Brucker. I would have been very happy to see it ; if I had it to
do now, I would be glad to do it. But I am not criticizing it.
The Chairman. We are talking about the Department of the Army
and the Department of Defense. There is nothing in the law to pro-
hibit you, if you were going to keep these men in the service, from
looking into the record and finding out whether there was any reason
to retain them or to get rid of them ?
Mr. Brucker. That is right, and that is what I say about it.
The Chairman. And your interpretation of the law may be cor-
rect, that if you were going to retain them in the service, it was man-
datory that they be promoted, but, if not, if there is any reason not
to retain them, you didn't have to promote them before you discharged
them.
Mr. Brucker. That is my conclusion, too. I see no reason why, but
I do say that from a legal standpoint, I have answered that, and the
rest of it is a matter of policy as to what they want to do.
The Chairman. May I ask you, Mr. Jackson — Governor Brucker
was not in the Department and you were — did it ever occur to you,
Mr. Jackson, that by the interpretation you placed on the statute, and
knowing how it would be implemented and carried out under that
interpretation of the statute, that you would probably connnit the very
thing that has happened here by retaining people in the service who
were in process of being discharged or being investigated and who
ought to be gotten out of the service instead of promoted? Did it
ever occur to you that that could be the result as it has resulted ?
Mr. Jackson. At the time I gave the opinion ; no, sir.
The Chairman. It never occurred to you that in giving that opin-
ion, that the result would have been or might have been, as it has
been, to retain in the service and promote people who were then under
investigation and who should have been gotten out of the service?
Mr. Jackson. That matter never crossed my mind, and it never
occurred to me, and I never entertained any such conclusion at the
time.
234 ARMY PERSONNEL ACTIONS RELATING TO IRVING PERESS
Senator McCarthy. I would like to ask the Governor 1 or 2 ques-
tions.
Governor, would you say that a fifth- amendment Communist was
"otherwise qualified" for promotion ?
Mr. Brucker. No, I wouldn't think he was qualified for promotion.
Senator McCarthy. So that you and I will agree that somebody
blundered or worse ?
Mr. Brucker. I don't want to pass judgment on people. There are
mistakes that occur, undoubtedly there were mistakes, and you will
find them ; yes.
Senator McCarthy. Do we agree it was a rather serious mistake?
Mr. Brucker. I think it was a mistake. I am passing on it with
hindsight — of course, now, to give the man a readjustment of any
kind.
Senator McCarthy. Well, your hindsight
Mr. Brucker. I think he ought to have been eliminated instead of
promoted. That was the short answer.
Senator McCarthy. You say you are passing on it by hindsight.
The only additional information that you have now that the promot-
ing officer didn't have was that this would be made public, ^e had
all of the information about this.
Mr. Brucker. There were a lot of other things, and I wouldn't want
to go into it and take the time. But there were a lot of other con-
siderations, and there are human frailties and other things involved.
And I don't want to be critical because I know mistakes occur.
Senator McCarthy. You say this was a mistake ?
Mr. Brucker. Oh, yes.
Senator McCarthy. In your opinion it was a mistake ?
Mr. Brucker. Indeed it was.
Senator McCarthy. You don't think there was any deliberate
wrongdoing ? In other words
Mr. Brucker. My answer is emphatically "No."
Senator McCarthy. Do you think it was just a result of a blunder
or do you think that somebody was purposely helping this fifth amend-
ment Communist out ?
Mr. Brucker. I have never seen the slightest bit in all of my exami-
nation and review of this file, and my talking with Judge Jackson and
with all of these witnesses, and I have never heard or seen the slightest
element of that in connection with this matter in the Army.
Senator McCarthy. You are the man who should know more about
it than anyone else here in the room. Could you tell us then why the
Army tried to cover up for so long and why, for example. Bob Stevens
gave us a list of 28 people and omitted the name of John Adams, and
omitted these names
Mr. Brucker. I would be glad to go into that.
Senator McCarthy. Don't start to talk until I finish.
Mr. Brucker. It was just the other way around before. I didn't
know when you were finished, and if you aren't
Senator McCarthy. When I am talking I haven't finished. Do you
understand that?
Mr. Brucker. That is rather elementary. The same with me, when
I start to talk, I get interrupted. But go ahead.
Senator McCarthy. We will try not to interrupt you.
ARMY PERSONNEL ACTIONS RELATING TO IRVING PERESS 235
The Chairman. Bear in mind this is just a conversation, gentlemen ;
chis is not testimony.
Mr. Brucker. Apparently it is interrogation here, so I want to hear
what it is.
The Chairman. Let us proceed.
Senator McCarthy. You can answer part of the question I have
asked now.
Mr. Brucker. I don't remember what it was.
Senator McCarthy. Will the reporter read it ?
(The record was read by the reporter.)
Mr. Brucker. That is like saying "when are you going to stop
beating your wife?"
There never was any covering up, Senator, and that word is misused
by you when you say it.
Senator McCarthy. We gain nothing by you and I
Mr. Brucker. As far as getting into the names of the testimony, I
can't testify of course about these matters of 28 names, or the rest.
Senator McCarthy. Governor, we will gain nothing by you and I
arguing this point. We do know that Bob Stevens gave us some 28 or
30 names and he omitted the names of Adams and Weible, and later he
said that Weible and Adams were the men responsible for the honor-
able discharge.
Mr. Brucker. I think that you are trying to anticipate — were you
through ?
Senator McCarthy. No.
Mr. Brucker. All right, go ahead.
Senator McCarthy. It will be a long time before I am through.
Mr. Brucker. That is what I found out.
Senator McCarthy. But we will say I am through with that part.
Mr. Chairman, I won't press for an answer.
Senator Bender. Governor, when did John Adams enter into this
thing, and when did he become first conscious of Dr. Peress, are you
aware of that ?
Mr. Brucker. I have interrogated him about it, and, while he is
going to be here, I am informed that John Adams first knew about
Peress as a person or a name on or about January 24, 1954, at or about
that date.
Senator Bender. Before that time, John Adams wasn't conscious,
according to your information, or your records, or your conversa-
tions with him, and he wasn't aware of there being such an individual
as Peress ?
Mr. Brucker. That is my understanding, and I think his testimony
will be here for that purpose.
Senator Bender. Judge Jackson, how long have you been with the
Defense Department, sir ?
Mr. Jackson. Four years last October, sir.
Senator Bender. So you are more or less of a career man ?
Mr. Jackson. No lawyers have too firm a career in the service, sir.
Senator Bender. But you didn't come in as a result of any change
in administration. You were there ?
Mr. Jackson. Yes, sir ; that is correct
60030— 55— pt. 3 6
236 ARMY PERSONNEL ACTIONS RELATING TO IRVING PERESS
Senator Bender. And as far as you were concerned, you were acting
in good faitli, in whatever recommendations or whatever principles
you rendered, is that correct ?
Mr. Jackson. Yes, sir.
Senator Bender. You had no disposition to protect or defend or to
conceal or create a situation other than it was ?
Mr. Jackson. Certainly not.
Senator I^ender. And you were interpreting the laws as passed by
Congress to the best of your ability ?
Mr. Jackson. That is correct ; yes, sir.
Senator Bender. And you sometimes have a difficult time interpret-
ing congressional enactments or are they clear, usually ?
Mr. Jackson. We do have some that are difficult, but I sat through
all of these hearings, sir, on this particular law and T had no difficulty
in my interpretation of this one ; it was very clear to me at the time
the question was asked. I had no hesitation in giving the opinion.
Senator Bender. Was any influence brought to bear, either by this
or the previous administration, in connection with your work as to
your rulings or as to your opinions ?
Mr. Jackson. Absolutely not.
Senator Bender. It was your own opinion?
Mr. Jackson. Certainly, sir.
Senator Bender. That you obtained as a result of your experience
as a lawyer, and as a jurist, is that correct ?
Mr. Jackson. Yes, sir.
The Chairman. Let me ask you one more question, please.
Was tliere anything in your ruling or o])inion that prevented the
Army from looking into his personnel records to determine whether
there was derogatory information or not before it proceeded to the
readjustment action ?
Mr. Jackson. My ruling as such would not prevent such action.
The Chairman. In fact, the truth is, a few days afterward they did
hold up some of them and review their personnel files, isn't that
correct ?
Mr. .Jackson. So I understand from Major McKenzie's testimony.
The Chairman. So there was never anything even in your ruling,
although you ruled that a board was not required, or, in other words,
the law was mandatory that the adjustments in grade be provided
without the action of a board, but there was nothing in that to prevent
in the ordinary course of sound administration, let us say, for them
•to look into personnel records of the officers before they were pro-
moted to determine whether there was anything in there derogatory or
of a subversive nature ?
Mr. Jackson. Nothing to prevent their looking into their records,
no, sir.
The Chairman. That could have been done and it wouldn't have
been a violation of either your ruling or any other directive of the
Department so far as you know ?
Mr. Jackson. That would not be in violation of my ruling or any
directive that I know of.
The Chairman. That is correct. All right.
Senator McCarthy. I have one other question. So that this phrase
"otherwise qualified" was not affected by your ruling. Your ruling
ARMY PERSONNEL ACTIONS RELATING TO IRVING PERESS 237
merely provided that a board would not pass upon the question of
whether he was otherwise qualified, but the promoting officer would
have that function ?
Mr, Jackson. My ruling provided that there would be no boards
in determining the question of the promotion ; yes, sir.
Senator McCarthy. Do you know who it was who was responsible
for the promotion of Peress, despite the fact he was — strike that.
You wouldn't say a fifth amendment Communist was "otherwise quali-
fied," would you ?
Mr, Jackson. No, sir.
Senator McCarthy, Do you know now who it was, or what indi-
vidual was responsible for the promotion of Peress even though all
of this information was available about his being a fifth amendment
Communist ?
Mr. Jackson, I wouldn't be prepared to give an answer, and I am
not familiar with the details of this complex case, and I am sorry I
couldn't tell you the answer. 1 just don't know, to pinpoint it.
Senator McCarthy. You and 1 would agree that whoever did it,
either made a serious mistake or worse ?
Mr, Jackson. Whoever did what?
Senator McCarthy. Whoever was responsible for the promotion
of this fifth amendment Communist made a serious mistake or worse,
is that right?
Mr. Jackson. I think it was a serious mistake or worse to have had
him promoted.
Senator McCarthy, Thank you.
Senator Bender. May 1 ask you another question ?
Is it your impression. Judge Jackson, or your opinion, or do you
believe, or do you know, that Major Peress was a Communist? Is he
a Communist? Or was he a Communist at the time he was in the
service ?
Senator McCarthy. Perhaps I could answer that better than the
judge could. The testimony taken before this committee, before you
were on the committee, Senator, was to the effect that he was a grad-
uate of the Inwood Victory School, if that is the correct name, a Com-
munist leadership school, and the testimony was that he was not just
a. rank-and-file Communist, but a very important member. Peress
took the fiftli amendment on everything concerning his (.ommunist
activities and his recruiting soldiers into the Communist Party right
up and down the line.
The Chairman. Do you want the witness to answer the question?
Senator Bender. Yes.
The Chairman. All right.
Mr. Jackson. I would certainly yield to Senator McCarthy in his
knowledge of these facts beyond mine. I have not been bound up with
the factual features of the Peress case, sir, and I would prefer not
to give an opinion other than what I have learned vicariously or un-
derstood. I have not been directly in the factual phases of this case.
Senator Bender. From your examination of the records, Judge,
would you say that he was an unmitigated liar? Did ho perjure him-
self in any way ?
Mr. Jackson. It is my understanding, and again I say I have very
limited knowledge, that he claimed the fifth amendment in answer to
238 ARMY PERSONNEL ACTIONS RELATING TO IRVING PERESS
many questions, and in his original form he made a statement which
J understand is alleged to be a falsehood.
Senator Bender. Is there any way under the law, under the law of
the land, where this man could be prosecuted for having signed a paper
in which obviously he had made certain false statements ?
Mr. Jackson. There is a provision of title 13, section 1000, that
makes that a crime.
Senator Bender. Has the law run out as far as he is concerned ?
Mr. Jackson . Title 18, 1 should say.
The Chairman. The Chair will endeavor to assist the Senator. The
matter was submitted previously, I think by Senator McCarthy, to
the Justice Department, and the Chair is in receipt of a letter from
the Justice Department, from the Attorney General, on this point.
And if it is agreeable with the Senators, I will have that letter inserted
as an exhibit at this point in the record.
Senator Bender. How recent is that letter, Mr. Chairman ?
The Chairman. Well, subsequent to my becoming chairman of the
committee. I don't recall the date.
I will insert u copy of it in the record.
Senator Bender. So the Justice Department obviously is alerted
to the fact that this man had violated the law ?
The Chairman. The Justice Department is alerted and, as I recall
the letter, the time has not run out.
Am I correct in that ?
Senator Bender. Do you have any comment to make on that, Gov-
ernor Brucker 1
Mr. Brucker. I would be very glad if the chairman would read
that or get it into the record.
The Chairman. If I had it presently I would place it there now.
Mr. Brucker. I am informed, in answer to your question, Senator
Bender, that even before I came aboard, my predecessor had written
a letter to the Attorney General asking for his opinion with respect to
the Peress matter and to institute prosecution if anything was indi-
cated there. I know that I have spoken to the Attorney General myself
about the matter a couple or three times. I was informed recently that
the chairman here had received a letter and so I think that is the last
word on it.
The Chairman. The Chair will have to make this announcement
and withdraw the statement he made about making this letter an
exhibit until I get, or until I have a conference with the Attorney
General. I see the letter is marked in confidence, and I will witlihold
it until I have a conversation with him at least.
The letter has been in the files of the committee of course and it is
made available to members of the committee. You may, of course,
have the opportunity of inspecting it, but the chairman withdraws
the announcement that is now made an exhibit and will consider that
further.
Is there anything else ?
The Chair would like to make an announcement when we recess that
we will resume tomorrow at 10: 30. We think we can conclude with
the witnesses wo will have here by noon tomorrow, by starting at that
hour.
ARMY PERSONNEL ACTIONS RELATING TO IRVING PERESS 239
After tomorrow's session, the committee will be recessed until Tues-
day morning at 10 o'clock. We are undertaking to accommodate some
parties at interest.
Mr. Brucker. Mr. Chairman
Senator McCarthy. I have been listening to witnesses for a long
time now and I never met Mr. Jackson before, but I might say that
he appears to be one of the most straightforward witnesses I have
ever listened to.
Mr. Jackson. Thank you.
Mr. Brucker. I want to thank you very much for that, also, because
that is quite the opinion of our Department, Senator McCarthy.
The Chairman. Did you have something else ?
Mr. Brucker. There are two witnesses, who have testified here this
afternoon, to be excused. And I would like to ask for them to be
excused. And the balance today, would you care to hold those over or
may they be excused ?
The Chairman. All who have testified may be excused.
We will recess until 10 : 30 in the morning.
(Thereupon, the subcommittee recessed at 4: 50 p. m., to reconvene
at 10: 30 a. m. Friday, March 18, 1955.)
AEMY PEKSONNEL ACTIONS KELATINrj TO
IKVING PERESS
FRIDAY, MARCH 18, 1955
United States Senate,
Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations
ON THE Committee on Government Operations,
Washington^ D. O.
The subcorarnittee met at 10 : 40 a. m., pursuant to recess, in Room
357 of the Senate Office Building, Senator Jolin L. McClellan (chair-
man of the subcommittee) presiding.
Present: Senators John L. McClellan (Democrat), Arkansas;
Stuart Symington (Democrat), Missouri; Sam J. Ervin, Jr. (Dem-
ocrat), North Carolina; and George H. Bender (Republican), Ohio.
Present also ; Robert F. Kennedy, chief counsel ; Donald F. O'Don-
nell, chief assistant counsel; James N. Juliana, chief counsel to the
minority; J. I' red McClerkin, legal research analyst; Paul J. Tierney,
investigator ; and Ruth Y. Watt, chief clerk.
The Chairman. The committee will come to order.
The first witjiess is Colonel Leverich.
Will you come around, please, sir ?
You do solemnly swear that the evidence you shall give before this
investigating subcommittee shall be the truth, the whole truth and
nothing but the truth, so help you God ?
Colonel Leverich. I do, sir.
The Chairman. Have a seat.
Mr. Tierney, you may proceed.
TESTIMONY OF COL. RULUFF S. LEVERICH, UNITED STATES ARMY
RESERVE
Mr. Tierney. Will you please state your full name and present
assignment ?
Colonel Le\^rich. Ruluff S. Leverich, Colonel, Dental Corps,
United States Army Reserve, Dental Surgeon, Camp Kilmer, N. J.
Mr. Tierney. Colonel, how long have you been Dental Surgeon at
Camp Kilmer ?
Colonel Leverich. About a little over 2 years. About 27 months,
sir. I reported there on the iTth of December, 1952.
Mr. Tierney. 1952?
Colonel Levi.ric;h. Yes, sir.
Mr. Tierney. Therefore, you were Dental Surgeon at the time
Irving Peress reported for duty at Camp Kilmer on March 13, 1953 ?
Colonel Leverich. Yes, sir, I was.
Mr. Tierney. And he in fact reported to you ?
241
242 ARMY PERSONNEL ACTIONS RELATING TO* IRVING PERESS
Colonel Leverich. No, he reported to Post Headquarters, first.
That was about the end of the week. After he was cleared through
personnel section, officers personnel, then he was sent to the Dental
Section for reassignment and he reported to me with his orders, and
I gave him the assignment in the dental clinic.
Mr. TiERNEY. What was the nature of the assignment given him?
Colonel Leverich. Just as a general dentist; that is, he operated
on a chair, put in fillings or any of the usual treatments outside of oral
surgery. He did none of that.
Mr. Tierney. Ordinarily, how many dental officers like Peress would
bo under your supervision during this period ?
Colonel Leverich. As a rule they averaged around 20. We are
authorized more than that, but it varies from time to time.
Mr. Tierney. Under the circumstances, you knew Peress, then ?
Colonel Levtsrich. Yes, sir.
Mr. Tierney. Was your acquaintanceship with him, Colonel, other
than the normal acquaintanceship a superior would have with a sub-
ordinate?
Colonel Leverich. That is all, just official.
Mr. Tierney. Colonel, from March 13 at the time Peress reported
to Camp Kilmer — and until June 13, 1953, when you conferred with
Lieutenant Colonel Brown, G-2, which we will get into in more detail
later, had anything come to your attention which would arouse your
suspicions as to Peress ?
Colonel Leverich. None whatever.
Mr. Tierney. Nobody had reported anything to you which would
arouse your suspicions ?
Colonel Leverich. Nothing.
Mr. Tierney. On June 13, 1953, you conferred with Lieutenant
Colonel Brown, G-2, at Camp Kilmer?
Colonel Leverich. That is right.
Mr. Tierney. During that time Colonel Brown indicated to you
that there was some questionable information concerning Peress ?
Colonel Leverich. Yes, he did.
Mr. Tierney. Did he discuss with you the nature of that infor-
mation ?
Colonel Leverich. Very briefly.
He merely said that he was under some question. First he wanted
to know if he held a sensitive position. I informed him, "No, he did
not." He said, "Well, fine, then don't ever assign him to one." Of
course, I assured Colonel Brown that my position and my assistant
were the only two who held a sensitive position and there was no dan-
ger of that happening.
Mr. Tierney. In other words, the only two sensitive positions were
those positions, one held by you as dental surgeon and your assistant,
who I believe was Colonel Caldwell ?
Colonel Leverich. That is right.
Mr. Tierney. The remaining dental officers did not have a sensitive
position ?
Colonel Leverich. None whatever.
Mr. Tierney. Did they have any access to any classified informa-
tion?
Colonel Leverich. No, they did not.
ARMY PERSONNEL ACTIONS RELATING TO IRVING PERESS 243
Mr. TiERNEY. Did Colonel Brown during the course of this con-
ference make any other request of you ?
Colonel Leverich. I can't recall a request, but we did discuss the
fact that he should be watched. I think Colonel Brown used the ex-
pression, as I remember it, "Watch him," and later on it was men-
tioned that he would be under surveillance by me. At that time I
stated that it would have to be also by Colonel Caldwell because there
were times when I would not be there.
Mr. TiERNEY. Insofar as his suggesting to you that he be watched
or be placed under observation, that was to be by you or Colonel
Caldwell?
Colonel Leverich. That is right.
Mr. TiERNEY. He gave you no further instructions ?
Colonel Leverich. Except to report everything we might see to
him, G-2, and to discuss it with no one else.
Mr. TiERNEY. But he did not instruct you in what detail the obser-
vations would be made ?
Colonel Leverich. No, he left that to me.
Mr. TiERNEY. AVhat was the extent of the actual surveillance that
you conducted ?
Colonel Leverich. I would watch and see how he was operating and
who he was associating with in the clinic. If he was in any conversa-
tion I would attempt to drift by and hear whatever I could of that
conversation, or if he was in a group where a discussion was going
on, like the dental laboratory or anywhere else in the clinic for that
matter, I would get near and attempt to get his reactions to it or see
if he entered into it.
Mr. TiERNEY. In other words, it was nothing more than a casual
spot check ?
Colonel Leverich. That is right ; yes, sir.
Mr. TiERNEY. Did you have any other facilities for conducting a
more thorough or complete surveillance?
Colonel Leverich. No ; I really did not.
Mr. TiERNEY. Had you ever had any previous experience in in-
vestigative work ?
Colonel Leverich. None whatever.
Mr. TiERNEY. Did the watch which you conducted develop any in-
formation which would indicate that Peress was a security suspect?
Colonel Leverich. No ; it did not.
Mr. TiERNEY. Did it develop any derogatory information of any
kind?
Colonel Leverich. None whatever.
Mr. Tierney. Colonel, as I understand, in late August or early
September 1953, you received numerous inquiries from your dental
officers under your supervision, which inquiries related to readjust-
ment under certain provisions of Public Law 84 ?
Colonel Leverich. Yes ; I did.
Mr. TiERNEY. And that you informed the officers who had made
inquiries that it would not be necessary for them to take any indi-
vidual action ?
Colonel Leverich. That is right.
Mr. Tierney. That all action would be taken in Washington at the
Department of the Army. The screening there would be done to de-
termine whether or not a man would be eligible for readjustment?
244 ARMY PERSONNEL ACTIONS RELATING TO IRVING PERESS
Colonel Leverich. That is correct.
Mr. TiERNEY. Despite this suggestion, Irving Peress actually wrote
a letter under date of September 9 to The Adjutant General in Wash-
ington, requesting a determination as to his eligibility for elevation
to the grade of major ?
Colonel Leverich. I think that date is correct.
Mr. TiERNEY. I will pass tliis document to you.
(A document was handed to the witness.)
Mr. TiERNEY. Mr. Chairman, this particular document has already
been entered as exhibit No, 2, so there will be no necessity to read it.
Colonel Leverich. That is the letter.
Mr. TiERNEY. This is the letter ?
Colonel Leverich. Yes, sir.
Mr. TiERNEY. You made an endorsement on this letter ?
Colonel Leverich. Yes, sir.
Mr. TiERNEY. Prior to your making that endorsement did you con-
sult with anyone or discuss it with anyone ?
Colonel Leverich, Of course, I discussed it with Colonel Caldwell
and then I made a call to G-2, Colonel Brown, told him what had been
presented and I told him how I thought this was the only way I could
endorse it, and he said, "Yes," and he thought that was all right, I
said, "When I endorse it, I am going to send you a carbon copy of
this at the same time that tlie original goes to The Adjutant General's
section." He said, "That will be fine."
So when this was typed and was ready to go, of course, we pulled a
copy for our own oiRce and also one for Colonel Brown, put it in an
envelope and it was hand-carried to G-2''s office. Of course, the orig-
inal was likewise taken to The Adjutant General's office.
Mr. TiERNEY. What was the nature of your endorsement?
Colonel Leverich. Forwarded for necessary action.
Mr. TiERNEY. And you made no recommendation ?
Colonel Leverich. None whatever.
Mr. TiERNEY. To wliat unit at Camp Kilmer would that have been
forwarded ? I am speaking of the original now.
Colonel Leverich. The Adjutant General's section.
Mr. TiERNEY. I will pass another document up to you, Colonel.
The Chairman. Will the counsel state for the record what exhibit
thisis?
Mr. TiERNEY. This has also been entered in the record as exhibit
No. 29,
(A document was handed to tlie witness.)
Mr. TiERNEY, Is that document that you have there. Colonel, the
copv of the September 9 letter of Peress which was forwarded to
Colonel Brown, G-2?
Colonel Leverich, It appears to be similar to the one we sent to
Colonel Brown.
The second copy I have never seen, of course. That was after G-2
had received my carbon copy. Is that the one you refer to, the second
one?
Mr. TiERNEY. The second one attached thereto, I believe, is the
endorsement of G-2 ?
Colonel Leverich. That is right. I never have seen this before,
though.
ARMY PERSONNEL ACTIONS RELATING TO IRVING PERESS 245
Mr. TiERNET. Your endorsement, Colonel, was on September 9 ?
Colonel Leverich. The same day ; yes, sir.
Mr. TiERNEY. Do you recall what time of the day that the copy was
carried to G-2 ?
Colonel Leverich. No. I have forgotten at what time of day thut
occurred. I haven't any recollection of what time, now.
The Chairman. There is a document here we think should go in the
record at this time. I will ask chief counsel, Mr. Kennedy, to make a
statement about it brief!}', just identifying it, what it is. It will become
a part of the record at this point.
Mr. Kennedy. Now as I understand it, you sent the letter on to AG,
is that correct ?
Colonel Leverich. That is correct.
Mr. Kennedy. And G-2 sent theirs on ultimately to AG and then
it was sent down to G-1 to make a determination as to whether the man
should receive the promotion or readjustment?
Colonel Leverich. I assume so.
The Chairman. G-1 is personnel ?
Colonel Leverich. That is right.
Mr. Kennedy. The officer in G-1 was a Lt. William Vinette, who is
now in Korea.
The Chairman. Do you know Lieutenant Vinette ?
Colonel Leverich. I am not sure. The name is familiar. I believe
I had no business with him at anytime.
The Chairman. You do not know what action he took on it ?
Colonel Leverich. No.
The Chairman. You do not even know whether it went to him ?
Colonel Leverich. That is right, I don't know.
The Chairman. According to the information we have had and he
passed on it. That is the purpose of this document.
Mr. Kennedy. When G-2 had made the recommendation that this
promotion not go through, Vinette then made a determination as the
chart shows that this was not a promotion but a readjustment. Rather
than bring him back from Korea, we got an interrogatory from him,
which I would like to have placed in the record, Mr, Chairman.
The Chairman. This appears to be an interrogatory or an affidavit
in the form of an interrogatory, sworn to by Captain Vinette who at
that time was Lieutenant Vinette, who apparently made the decision
and passed on the application for further action and held that it was
not a request for promotion or it did not come within that category
but was actually a request of adjustment in grade under the statute
passed by the Congress, Public Law 84, 83d Congress.
The Chair will order this made an exhibit at this point in the record.
We will not take time to read it, but it will be exhibit 46.
(Exhibit No. 46 appears in the appendix on p. 266.)
Mr. Tierney. Colonel, as I understand, at approximately 8 : 30 in
the morning of November 2, 1953, there was received on the desk of
your assistant. Colonel Caldwell, 4 letters of appointment which were
issued for reappointmnt or readjustment under this Public Law 84, 1
of which was a readjustment for Irving Peress to the grade of major.
Shortly thereafter, you discussed with Colonel Caldwell these four
letters of appointment ?
Colonel Leverich. That is right.
246 ARMY PERSONNEL ACTIONS RELATING TO IRVING PERESS
Mr. TiERNET. You were not certain as to whether or not they were
elevation in grade in reserve status or in an active duty status ?
Colonel Leverich. That is right.
Mr. TiERNEY. That you instructed Colonel Caldwell to get in touch
with the personnel section and determine exactly what they were ?
Colonel Leverich. I did.
Mr. Tierney. And what action should be taken ?
Colonel Leverich. That is right.
Mr. Tierney. You also called Lieutenant Colonel Brown, G-2, to
advise him that this letter of appointment had arrived concerning
Peress ?
Colonel Leverich. I did that immediately. That is the reason I
asked Caldwell to call the personnel section. I thought my getting in
touch with G-2 was more important than the other at the moment
because I wanted to get that started rapidly. He then contacted per-
sonnel. I don't know who. He said that they were trying to evaluate
the thing, he told me a few minutes later, and I told him as soon as he
found out to let me know so I could call Brown once more.
The Chairman. You are referring now to the letter of appointment
to the rank of major, are you ?
Colonel Leverich. Yes, sir.
The Chairman. It was not clear to you whether it was a promotion
or whether it was an adjustment in rank ?
Colonel Leverich. That is correct.
The Chairman. What is the difference between a promotion in
active duty status and a readjustment in a reserve status? What is
the difference? It is confusing to me. If you give a man the rank
of major he is promoted as far as I am concerned.
Colonel Leverich. If I understand your question correctly. Senator,
it amounts to this : I could be a full colonel in the Reserve and still
be called to active duty as a lieutenant colonel. That actually hap-
pened to me at one time.
The Chairman. He had been given the rank of captain when he
entered ?
Colonel Leverich. That is right.
The Chairman. All right, proceed.
Mr. Tierney. What I think you mean to say here, is it not true, that
at this time you were not aware of the fact that he should have actu-
ally been a major when he originally came in ?
Colonel Leverich. I didn't know that.
Mr. Tierney. You thought he actually should have been a captain
and this was either a readjustment of his reserve grade or a readjust-
ment of his active duty grade ?
Colonel Leverich. That is right.
Mr. Tierney. Is that correct ?
Colonel Leverich. That is the way I understand it.
Mr. Tierney. Can you fix the time in the morning when you dis-
cussed with Colonel Brown the fact that the appointment had arrived?
Colonel Leverich. Yes, I did. I called him immediately.
Mr. Tierney. Can you fix the time, approximately ?
Colonel Leverich. It was around 9 o'clock, to the best of my recol-
lection. Right now I am not too sure. I know that they came into
the office between 8 and 9. It certainly did not take very many min-
ARMY PERSONNEL ACTIONS RELATING TO IRVING PERESS 247
utes for me to get him on the telephone after I looked it over and de-
cided that I could not decide what type of promotion it was.
I called him to tell him that they were in. I said we hare four
here and I gave him the names. Then I said as soon as personnel could
evaluate those for us and decide whether they were one or the other,
I would call him back again.
The Chairman. That is on November 2, 1953 ?
Colonel Levertch. Yes, sir.
The Chairman. And there were three other promotions or read-
justments in rank that came to you at the same time, other than
Peress ?
Colonel Leverich. That is right.
The Chairman. At that time did you know of the derogatory in-
formation against Peress?
Colonel Leverich. I knew nothing derogatory until after the news-
print came out at the time of his separation. My information from
G-2 was that there was merely a little question there and they wanted
me to report anything I saw happening.
The Chairman. G-2 did not tell you everything. They only alerted
you to the fact that he was a suspect ?
Colonel Le\^erich. That is right.
The Chairman. And asked you to keep an eye on him, is that cor-
rect?
Colonel Leverich. That is right.
The Chairman. You did know that, at that time ?
Colonel Le^t:rich. I knew that at that time, yes, sir.
Mr. Tierney. Do you recall the time of the morning, or the day,
I should say, when Colonel Caldwell was advised by personnel as to
exactly what these appointments were and the time he advised you of
the information he had received from personnel ?
Colonel Leverich. There was a considerable time lapse there. It
possibly was in the middle of the forenoon. I could not place any
definite time on that.
Mr. Tierney. What decision had personnel reached as far as this
matter was concerned ?
Colonel Leverich. He reported to me that they had reported that
these were authentic active duty grades or readjustment grades and
that he should send them over to be sworn in.
Mr. Tierney. Send who over ?
Colonel Le\'^rich. These men who received the appointments.
Mr. Tierney. Send the four officers, including Irving Peress ?
Colonel Leverich. Yes, sir.
Mr. Tierney. And you did that ?
Colonel Leverich. I didn't do that. He told me he had already
sent them over.
Mr. Tierney. Colonel Caldwell had ?
Colonel Leverich. Colonel Caldwell had, yes sir.
The Chairman. At this point I think it might be well to clear up
ihis. This adjustment in rank or promotion was not the result of
the letter to which you have testified, exhibit 2, that Peress made?
Colonel Leverich. I never thought the letter would do any good or
have any bearing on it in the first place.
248 ARMY PERSONNEL ACTIONS RELATING TO IRVING PERESS
The Chairman. As a matter of fact, it was not as' a result of that
letter but as a result of action emanating from the enactment of the
Public Law 84 of the 83d Congress, is that not correct ?
Colonel Leverich. Yes, that is my understanding.
Mr. TiERNEY. I have no questions, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Ervin. I have no questions, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. Colonel, were you ever interviewed by the Inspector
General regarding your knowledge of this case ?
Colonel Leverich. Yes, sir.
The Chairman. When were you interviewed by him ?
Colonel Leverich. About a year ago.
The Chairman. About a year ago ?
Colonel Leverich. About a year ago, yes, sir.
The Chairman. I may state for the record that your name was on
the list of 28 officers that was submitted by the Secretary of the Army,
the list which has been made an exliibit. According to my informa-
tion, I may be in error, you had not been interviewed by the Inspector
General prior to the time the Inspector General filed his report. But
you say you had been ?
Colonel Leverich. I don't know the date of any interrogation.
The Chairman. You were interviewed by him regarding the Peress
case. Then I would assume maybe you were interviewed prior to the
time you filed his report if you said it was about a year ago.
I don't think the promotion was the result of the letter if I under-
stand the testimony thus far. The letter had no impact upon the pro-
motion or any influence on it whatsoever because that letter never did
reach the promoting authority. This was the result of action that
emanated from the passage of Public Law 84, of the 83d Congress.
Wliile the letter did come through your hands, would it have been
proper for you or would it have been one of your functions or your
responsibility to place an endorsement on it recommending promotion
or disapproving it?
Colonel Leverich. I thought at the time I had no such authority.
The Chairman. You thought at the time you had no such authority ?
Colonel Leverich. That is right.
The Chairman. Did you consult with others to ascertain whether
you did have such authority ?
Colonel Leverich. I did, yes, sir.
The Chairman. It was the consensus of opinion that you did not?
Colonel Leverich. Yes, sir.
The Chairman. For that reason you simply placed an endorsement
on it forwarding it for necessary action ?
Colonel Le\t>rich. Yes, sir.
The Chairman. You didn't know what the necessary action was?
Colonel Leverich. Whatever they wanted to do in the higher head-
quarters.
The Chairman. You had no authority to do anything but to get it
off your desk and get it in motion somewhere else ?
Colonel Leverich. That is correct.
The Chairman. You spoke of this surveillance and your conversa-
tion with G-2. They told you to watch liim. As I understand you,
G-2 did not give you any detailed information as to the derogatory
things in the file against Peress ?
Colonel Leverich. No, sir.
ARMY PERSONNEL ACTIONS RELATING TO IRVING PERESS 249
The Chaikmajnt. Apparently, in general terms, they advised you that
he was a suspected security risk ?
Colonel Leverich. Yes, sir.
The Chairman. And requested you to watch him. That was colonel
whom ?
Colonel Leverich. I didn't fi:et that.
The Chairman. Whom did you talk to in G-2 ?
Colonel Leverich. That was Colonel Brown.
The Chairman. Colonel Brown?
Colonel Leverich. Yes, sir.
The Chairman. And Colonel Brown also advised you at the time,
as I understand your testimony, not to talk to anybody else about it,
but simply to report to him if you observed anything ?
Colonel Leverich. That is correct; except I could inform Colonel
Caldwell.
The Chairman. ( olonel Caldwell was your superior?
Colonel Leverich. No, sir ; he was my assistant.
The Chairman. You were his superior ?
Colonel Leverich. That is right.
The Chairman. He was your assistant?
Colonel Leverich. Yes, sir.
The Chairman. And you got permission from G-2 to inform him
so he might assist you in keeping surveillance on Peress?
Colonel Leverich, Yes, sir ; because one or the other of us is there
all the time.
The Chairman. I think that is quite proper. I was just trying to
clear it up. So beyond that you had no duty to inform anyone else?
Colonel Leverich. No, sir.
The Chairman. Only to report back to the G-2 officer in your com-
mand and give him any information ?
Colonel Leverich. That is correct.
The Chairman. During that period of time you observed nothing,
you say, to indicate that you considered worthy of reporting?
Colonel Le\'t,rich. That is right, there was nothing.
The Chairman. Senator Symington, do you have any questions?
Senator Symington. No questions.
The Chairman. A staff member calls my attention to the memo-
randum that was submitted here for general information this morn-
ing. There was an error in it. You were interviewed, according to
the information w^e have and according to your statement, by the
Inspector General, but I was in error a moment ago in stating that
your name was on the list of 28 officers whereas your name was not
on the list of the 28 officers. They got the note on this memorandum in
the wrong place. So we have that smoothed out.
Mr. Juliana. Colonel, did Colonel Brown ever advise you that
Peress, on his loyalty forms, had claimed the Federal constitutional
privileges ?
Colonel Leverich. I think not ; no, sir.
Mr. Juliana. In reference to the letters which came to Colonel
Caldwell, advising that 4 officers were to be adjusted in rank, 1 of them
being Peress, was Colonel Caldwell the first officer at Camp Kilmer to
receive those letters to your knowledge ?
250 ARMY PERSONNEL ACTIONS RELATING TO IRVING PERESS
Colonel Leverich. I really cannot say who received them first be-
cause this envelope was already opened. So we don't know who
opened it.
Mr. Juliana. Had the commanding general at Camp Kilmer seen
these letters prior to the time that Colonel Caldwell received them ?
Colonel Leverich. That I do not know.
Mr. Juliana. "Wliere did they originate ?
Colonel Leverich. They were sent through First Army from the De-
partment of Army.
Mr. Juliana. From the Department of Army. Would that be the
Surgeon General's office, Department of Army ?
Colonel Leverich. J would not know that either.
Mr. Juliana. But in any event your office or Camp Kilmer received
them from First Army ?
Colonel Leverich. I think they did. They were actually addressed
to the commanding officer of the United States Army hospital. That
is as much as we know about it.
Mr. Juliana. They were addressed to the commanding officer,
United States Army hospital at Camp Kilmer?
Colonel Leverich. That is right.
Mr. Juliana. That would be you ?
Colonel Leverich. No, sir.
Mr. Juliana. Wlio would that be ?
Colonel Leverich. At the time that was Colonel Gayle who was
the commanding officer of the hospital.
Mr. Juliana. He was your superior ?
Colonel Leverich. Yes ; technically he was. But we operated sepa-
rately there. I took most everything up with post headquarters in-
stead of the hospital to relieve the hospital of that headache.
Mr. JuLL\NA. So according to the routing of those letters, they
would not necessarily have to go to General Zwicker's office first; is
that correct ?
Colonel Leverich. I would not know, except that as a rule those
promotions I have seen in the past did come through post headquarters.
Mr. Juliana. Wliat I am trying to develop is where did these letters
first arrive at Camp Kilmer and who was the first officer to see them ?
Colonel Leverich. We picked them up. That is, our driver picked
them up in the message center. And he put them on Colonel Cald-
well's desk, along with other papers and letters and whatnot. Then
he was the first to see them in my office.
Mr. Juliana. I don't know whether I should direct this to you, but
it was asked before : Am I to understand that Peress was a member
of the Reserves prior to the time that he applied for a commission!
Colonel Leverich. I understand so.
Mr. Brucker. No.
Mr. Juliana. He was not, was my understanding.
Mr. Brucker. That is right.
Mr. Juliana. But I thought the question was directed to him be-
fore and the answer was that he was a member of the Reserve. I
think we should have that clear on that.
Mr. CouGHLiN. If you will refer back, I am sure you will find that
the Senator from Arkansas was talking about was he a captain in
the Reserve and he was a captain in the Reserve before he came on
active duty.
ARMY PERSONNEL ACTIONS RELATING TO IRVING PERESS 251
The Chairman. But he was not a captain in the Reserve before he
made application for a commission?
Mr. CouGHLiN. No, sir.
The Chairman. That is what we want to clear up.
Mr. CouGHLiN. No, sir.
The Chairman. I got the impression that he was testifying that he
was in the Reserve before he made the application. He was in the
Reserve, he had already been commissioned in the Reserve as a captain
before he was called to active duty.
Colonel Leverich. That is the way I understood it ; yes, sir.
The Chairman. We have asked other witnesses these questions.
Has anyone ever talked to you about Peress — any superiors?
Colonel Leverich. No, sir.
The Chairman. Or anyone else in the military with respect to
according him any favors or any special treatment or covering up
any derogatory information against him?
Colonel Leverich. No, sir, they never did.
The Chairman. You have no such instructions and no such sug-
gestions from any source?
Colonel Leverich. No, sir.
The Chairman. Thank you very much. Colonel.
Colonel Bourdeau, will you come around, please ?
You do solemnly swear that the evidence you shall give before this
investigating subcommittee shall be the truth, the whole truth, and
nothing but the truth, so help you God?
Colonel Bourdeau. I do.
TESTIMONY OF HERBERT F. BOURDEAU, LIEUTENANT COLONEL,
MEDICAL SERVICE CORPS
The Chairman. Have a seat. Colonel.
xill right, Mr. O'Donnell you may proceed.
Mr. O'Donnell. Will you state your full name, rank, and assign-
ment?
Colonel Bourdeau. Herbert F. Bourdeau, lieutenant colonel, Med-
ical Service Corps, commanding officer, Fifth Field Hospital, Fort
Devens, Mass.
Mr. O'Donnell. During the period of November 1953, were you
assigned to Camp Kilmer?
Colonel Bourdeau. I was, sir.
Mr. O'Donnell. Will you tell us specifically your assignment at
Kilmer?
Colonel Bourdeau. I was the Chief of the Personnel Division of
the United States Army hospital at Camp Kilmer, N. J.
Mr. O'DoNNEi.L. The Army hospital at Kilmer is a distinct and
separate unit from the Surgeon's Office ?
Colonel Bourdeau. From the Surgeon's Office.
Mr. O'Donnell. From the Surgeon's Office?
Colonel Bourdeau. The commanding officer of the hospital is the
post surgeon in almost every camp.
Mr. O'Donnell. What relationship did your office have to post
headquarters military personnel ?
60030— 55— pt. 3 7
252 ARMY PERSONNEL ACTIONS RELATING TO IRVING PERESS
Colonel BouRDEAU. They were the next higher echelon in the chain
of command. They also retained all of the personnel records, such as
an officer's qualification card, form 66.
Mr. O'DoNNELL. Did your office maintain any personnel records on
any of the officers assigned to the hospital or to the Surgeon's Office ?
Colonel BouRDEAU. Nothing other than a status card to show the
officer's name, rank, serial number, address, and so forth.
Mr. O'DoNNELL. Colonel, I hand to you photostatic copies of several
documents. Will you kindly identify the documents by dates and
content ?
Colonel BouRDEAU. I can identify the first page of letter from Head-
quarters, First Army, dated October 29, 1953, with first endorsement.
This subject letter to the commanding officer. United States Army
hospital, was brought to me by Irving Peress and I prepared and
signed the first endorsement.
Mr. O'DoNNELL. Will you identify the other documents that accom-
panied that October 29 letter from First Army ?
Mr. Brucker. He is speaking about the second page of that docu-
ment. He cannot identify it.
Colonel BouRDEATj. I do not identify the second page.
Mr. O'DoNNELL. Can you identify that document as to content even
though you are not familiar with it at first hand ?
Colonel BouRDEAU. This is a normal further endorsement when a
letter is forwarded from one headquarters to another.
The Chairman. Just state what the endorsement is.
Colonel BouRDEAU. The second endorsement.
The Chairman. I understand you have no personal knowledge of it ?
Colonel BouRDEAU. That is right.
The Chairman. State what the document reflects.
Colonel BouRDEAU. The second endorsement is a forwarding en-
dorsement from Headquarters, Camp Kilmer, to commanding general,
First Army.
The third endorsement is a forwarding endorsement to The Adjutant
General, Department of the Army from Headquarters of First Army.
Mr. O'DoNNELL. Mr. Chairman, may we have those particular two
documents marked as exhibits for the record ?
The Chairman. They will be made exhibit 47. I think you referred
to endorsements ; let them be read.
Read the endorsement. I understand they are not your endorse-
ments but so we can follow you as you testify read those endorsements
for us.
Colonel BoiTRDEATJ. The first endorsement :
AHBSH (C) 201-R Peress, living; first endorsement: Major Ronrdeau—
secretary's initials and telephone number.
Headquarters,
United States Army Hospital,
Camp Kilmer, N. J., November 2, 1953.
To : Commanding General, Camp Kilmer, N. J.
Attention : Military Personnel Officer.
Necessary action completed.
For the commanding officer.
(Signed and typed) Herbert F. Bouedeau,
Major, AI8C, Chief, Personnel Division.
One enclosure, oath of oflSce ; withdrawn, letter of appointment.
ARMY PERSONNEL ACTIONS RELATING TO IRVING PERESS 253
The Chairman. What is the necessary action referred to there?
That is your own endorsement ?
Colonel BouRDEAU. That is right.
The Chairman. What is the necessary action there ?
Colonel BouRDEAU. I had administered the oath of office to Irving
Peress.
The Chairman. All right.
(Exhibit No. 47 will be found in the files of the subcommittee.)
Mr. O'DoNNELL. Will you refer to the other document that is now in
front of you, which is dated October 25. Will you please identify that
document ?
Colonel BouRDEAU. This is the letter from Department of Army
addressed through the commanding general, First Army, to Maj.
Irving Peress, and is the letter of appointment which prescribes that
he is forthwith commissioned in the grade of major.
Mr. O'DoNNELL. Mr. Chairman, may we have that marked as an
exhibit for the record ?
Tlie Chaik:man. It will be exhibit 48.
(Exhibit Xo. 48 may be found in the files of the subcommittee.)
Mr. O'DoNNELL. Colonel, referring back to exhibit 47, the October
29 letter, unfortunately the photostat that I have and the photostat
that you have does not reflect at the time it was stamped in at Camp
Kilmer. However, I understand that the original letter is here in
possession of the Army and they will be happy to show it to you so
that you can at least describe it for tlie record. Will you kindly advise
what the copy of the original document reflects as to the time that the
October 29 letter arrived at Camp Kilmer ?
Colonel Boltrdeau. Sir, the time date stamp indicates that this let-
ter was received at 12 : 15 on October 30, 1953, at the post headquarters,
Message Center, Camp Kilmer, N. J.
Mr. O'DoNNELL. Thank you. Colonel. On November 2, 1953, Irving
Peress and two other officers appeared in your office, handcarrying the
letter of appointment together with the oatli and other papers pursuant
thereto ; is that correct ?
Colonel BouRDEAU. Yes, sir.
Mr. O'DoNNELL. Will you fix the approximate time of day on No-
vember 2 that they appeared in your office ?
Colonel BouRDEAu. I believe the time was approximately 2 o'clock
in the afternoon.
Mr. O'DoNNELL. At that time did they specifically request that you
administer to them their new oaths based on their readjustment in
grade ?
Colonel BouRDEAU. They did, sir.
Mr. O'DoNNELL. Did you immediately administer the oath?
Colonel BouRDEAu. I did not, sir.
Mr. O'DoNNELL. Why did you not ?
Colonel BouRDEAiT. These officers explained to me that they had
already been to the post personnel officer and he would not administer
the oath to them because this particular officer thought these were not
actual adjustments of rank on active duty; but were reserve promo-
tions and would not affect their active-duty status.
Mr. O'DoNNELL. What was your interpretation. Colonel ?
Colonel BouRDEAU. I read these letters and could see no other inter-
pretation other than they were appointed in higher grade on active
duty.
254 ARMY PERSONNEL ACTIONS RELATING TO IRVING PERESS
Mr. O'DoNNELL. In other words, if they were reappointed on active
duty they would become major on active duty and would be entitled to
major appointment from the moment they were sworn in ?
Colonel BouRDEAU. That is correct.
Mr. O'DoNNELL. If they were readjusted in Reserve ranlc, in the
case of Peress he would still be a captain on active duty still receiving
captain's pay, but a major in the Eeserve ; is that correct ?
Colonel BouRDEAU. That is correct, sir.
Mr. O'DoNNELL. Did you seek a clarification of the interpretation
since you were at odds with somebody else on the post ?
Colonel BouRDEAu. Yes, sir.
Mr. O'DoNNELL. Did you call anybody for a clarification as to what
you should do ?
Colonel BouRDEAU. Yes, sir. I called Capt. Paul Goodman, the
post militai-y personnel officer.
Mr. O'DoNNELL. His interpretation differed with yours ?
Colonel BouRDEAU. Yes, sir.
Mr. O'DoNNELL. As a result of the difference of interpretation did
you request Capt. Paul Goodman of post personnel to obtain a clear-cut
decision ?
Colonel BouRDEAU. Yes, sir. I requested that he contact someone
in the First Army adjutant general's section and see if he could get
a determination by telephone.
Mr. O'DoNNELL. The First Army was the superior headquarters for
Camp Kilmer; is that correct?
Colonel BouRDEAU. Yes, sir.
Mr. O'DoNNELL. It is my understanding that you also telephoni-
cally communicated with your superiors at First Army relative to a
clarification as to interpretation ?
Colonel BouRDEAU. Yes, sir ; I did.
Mr. O'DoNNELL. The decision made by them conveyed to you by
phone was that this was a readjustment in active duty status and not
reserve ; is that correct ?
Colonel BouRDEAU. Yes, sir.
Mr. O'DoNNELL. How soon after the telephone call was made by
you to your superiors at First Army did you receive the orders as to
interpretation on active duty ?
Colonel BouRDEAU. I think within approximately 30 minutes I was
called back, sir.
Mr. O'DoNNELL. Did you then proceed to administer the oath to
Irving Peress and the other two officers ?
Colonel BouRDEAU. Yes, sir ; I did.
Mr. O'DoNNELL. Did you administer it to them individually or in
a group ?
Colonel BouRDEAU. I administered to all three together, sir.
Mr. O'DoNNELL. At that time was the name of Capt. Paul Goodman
typed in as the officer to execute the oath ?
Colonel BouRDEAU. It was, sir.
Mr. O'DoNNELL. Did you then have erased his typed name and
yours typed in its place ?
Colonel BouRDEAU. Yes, sir.
Mr. O'DoNNELL. At that time had you received from Captain Good-
man any clarification of his position as to what this promotion was,
an active or reserve status?
ARMY PERSONNEL ACTIONS RELATING TO IRVING PERESS 255
Colonel BoiTRDEAu. No, sir, I had not.
Mr. O'DoNNELL. "Wlien did you hear from Captain Goodman ?
Colonel BouRDEAU. He called me sometime the next morning and
informed me that my interpretation was correct.
Mr. O'DoNNELL. Of course, the oath had been administered prior
to that time?
Colonel BouRDEAU. Yes, sir.
Mr. O'DoNNELL. Can you fix as clo^elj^ :is you can the time of day
that the oath was actually administered to Irving Peress?
Colonel BouRDEAU. I think, sometime subsequent to 3 o'clock in the
afternoon, sir.
Mr. O'DoNNELL. You have in front of you a photostatic copy of tho
oath. Will you kindly identify it. Colonel ?
Colonel BouRDEAU. Yes, sir. This is Department of Army Form
No. 71, which is the oath of office for military personnel, and this one
is made out in the name of Irving Peress and signed by Irving Peress,
swearing the oath of office as a major and sworn to by me and signed
by me.
Mr. O'DoNNELL. Mr. Chairman, may we have that oath made an
exhibit for the record ?
The Chairman. That may be made Exhibit 49.
("Exhibit No. 49" may be found in the files of the subcommittee.)
Mr. O'DoNNELL. After the oath was properly executed, did you
then forward the papers through normal channels so that they could
be returned to First Army ?
Colonel BouRDEAu. Yes, sir.
Mr. O'DoNNELL. That would be pursuant to the endorsement which
you read before that necessary action had been completed; is that
correct ?
Colonel BouRDEAU. Yes, sir.
Mr. O'DoNNELL. Keferring back to exhibit No. 47, which is the let-
ter of October 29, I call your attention up in the right-hand corner
to the words "suspense date, 14 December 1953." AVill you clarify
that ? In other words, the meaning of the suspense date ?
Colonel BouRDEAU. A suspense date is affixed by the originating
headquarters normally, and is the final date on which action must be
taken on the correspondence by the headquarters to which it is di-
rected.
Mr. O'DoNNELL. In other words, in our language it is a deadline
date?
Colonel BouRDEAU. Yes, sir,
Mr. O'DoNNELL. So he could have been given the oath any time up
to December 14, 1953 ?
Colonel BouRDEAu. Sir, the suspense date in this case would mean
that it would be returned to Headquarters, First Army, by Decem-
ber 14.
Mr. O'DoNNELL. At the time that you administered the oath, did
you know that Irving Peress was under investigation for security
reasons ?
Colonel BouRDEAu. I did not, sir.
Mr. O'DoNNELL. Did you know that there was any security un-
favorable information on Irving Peress?
Colonel BouRDEAU. I had no knowledge of such, sir.
60030—55 — pt. 3 8
256 ARMY PERSONNEL ACTIONS RELATING TO IRVING PERESS
Mr, O'DoNNELL. Did you have any discussion with G-2 prior to
the administering of the oath?
Colonel BoTJRDEAu. I did not, sir.
Mr. O'DoNNELL. Did you have any discussion with Colonel
Leverich prior to administering the oath ?
Colonel BouRDEAu. No, sir.
Mr. O'DoNNELL. Did you consult any records before you admin-
istered the oath?
Colonel Bourdeau. No, sir.
Mr. O'DoNNELL. Was your administering of the oath normal pro-
cedure?
Colonel Bourdeau. Yes, sir.
Mr. O'DoNNELL. As you administered oaths in the past ?
Colonel Bourdeau. Yes, sir.
Mr. O'DoNNELL. No further questions, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. I ask you to refer to exhibit 48. Exhibit 48 is a
letter of October 28 ■
Colonel Bourdeau. Sir, it looks like 23 to me.
The Chairman. All right, October 23 perhaps. It is difficult to
tell. It is from William E. Bergin, Major General, USA, Adjutant
General ; addressed to the Commanding General of the First Army ?
Colonel Bourdeau. Yes, sir.
The Chairman. That is the letter authorizing and directing the
promotion, is it not?
Colonel Bourdeau. Yes, sir.
The Chairman. And that letter states it is by the direction of the
President; is that correct?
Colonel Bourdeau. Yes, sir.
The Chairman. That is in the usual form, is it not?
Colonel Bourdeau. Yes, sir.
The Chairman. Of all promotions in the Army ?
Colonel Bourdeau. No, sir.
The Chairman. It is not ? Wliat is the exception ?
Colonel Bourdeau. Active duty promotions come in the form of a
special order.
The Chairman. And this is a general order ?
Colonel Bourdeau. No, sir, this is a subject letter which was a
special readjustment of ^ade. It is not a routine procedure.
The Chairman. This is not a routine procedure?
Colonel Bourdeau. No, sir.
The Chairman. You administered the oath?
Colonel Bourdeau. I did, sir.
The Chairman. Was that your proper function in the position you
occupied at that Post ?
Colonel Bourdeau. Yes, sir.
The Chairman. You were the officer to administer oaths in cases
of promotion ?
Colonel Bourdeau. If the officer were someone from the United
States Army hospital or the medical service who came to me for
that purpose, sir.
The Chairman. You do not claim you promoted Peress, do you ?
Colonel Bourdeau. No, sir.
ARMY PERSONNEL ACTIONS RELATING TO IRVING PERESS 257
The Chairman. What you did was in the line of duty under orders
by direction of the President by instructions from the Adjutant Gen-
eral of the Army ; is that not true ?
Colonel BouRDEATJ. That is true, sir.
The Chairman. And you had no knowledge of Peress' status at that
time with "espect to being a suspected security risk or that there was
any derogatory information in his record ? You had no knowledge of
it whatsoever ?
Colonel BouRDEAu. None whatsoever, sir.
The Chairman. Were you interviewed by the Inspector General?
Colonel BotiRDEAu. No, sir ; I was not.
The Chairman. Although you administered the oath you were not
interviewed by the Inspector General before he made his report?
Colonel BouRDEAu. No, sir.
The Chairman. I may state for the record that your name does not
appear on the list of the 28 names furnished the Mundt special sub-
committee, which list has already been made an exhibit.
The other question I might ask is did anyone ever discuss the Peress
case with you or Peress with you during the time he was in the
service with regard to giving him any special consideration or favor-
ing him in any way in connection with his promotion or in any other
part of his duties ?
Colonel BouRDEAtr. No one did, sir.
The Chairman. No superior officer and no one else in the Army ?
Colonel BouRDEAu. No one whatsoever, sir.
The Chairman. No one from any other source ?
Colonel BouRDEAu. No, sir.
The Chairman. Did you know Major Peress personally?
Colonel Bourdeau. I did not, sir.
The Chairman. You never knew him until he came to you with his
orders for promotion?
Colonel Bourdeau. I knew him from one previous business
acquaintance.
The Chairman. I beg your pardon ?
Colonel Bourdeau. I knew him from one previous business ac-
quaintance, sir, in the normal line of work.
The Chairman. One previous official contact with him; is that
what you mean ?
Colonel Bourdeau. Yes, sir.
The Chairman. So you had no reason to favor him or hurry his
promotion or see that he was sworn in promptly ?
Colonel Bourdeau. I did not, sir. ^
The Chairman. Are there any questions ?
Senator Ervin. Colonel, any officer of the Army is authorized to
administer oaths to military personnel ; is he not ?
Colonel Bourdeau. Yes, sir.
Senator Ervin. And when an officer receives a promotion or an
adjustment in rank the normal procedure for him in taking his oath
of office is to take it before one of his superiors, is it not, in his par-
ticular field ? That is the normal thing, is it ?
Colonel Bourdeau. He should take it to a person authorized to
administer oaths as an adjutant, sir. I was also an adjutant of the
United States Army hospital.
258 ARMY PERSONNEL ACTIONS RELATING TO IRVING PERESS
Senator Ervin. Normally he goes to the person in his branch or his
particular field, of service ?
Colonel BouRDEAu. That would be the normal thing.
Senator Ervin. You had no information or knowledge at any time
that Major Peress was suspected of subversive tendencies, did youl
Colonel BouRDEAu. No knowledge whatsoever, sir.
Senator Ervin. That is all.
The Chairman. Senator Bender ?
Senator Bender, I have no questions.
The Chairman. Mr. Juliana?
Mr. Juliana. Colonel, could we place the time of day that the oath
was actually administered a little closer? You said subsequent to
3 p. m. Do you mean sometime between 3 p. m. and 4 p. m. or 3 p. m.
and 5 p. m. ?
Colonel BouRDEAU. I would try to put it between 3 and 4 because I
know the action was completed at least an hour before our normal
office closing time.
Mr. Juliana. You made some phone calls in between there and as
soon as the question was resolved you administered the oath. So we
can assume that it was sometime between 3 and 4 p. m. on November
2 ; is that correct ?
Colonel BouRDEAU. Yes, sir.
Mr. Juliana. Is that a pretty accurate assumption ?
Colonel BouRDEAU. Yes, sir.
Mr. Juliana. Thank you.
Mr. O'DoNNELL. Colonel, after you administered the oath did you
notify Colonel Leverich?
Colonel BouRDEAU. I did not, sir.
Mr. O'DoNNELL. Thank you.
The Chairman, If tliere are no other questions you may be excused,
Colonel.
Mr, Brucker. ISIr. Chairman, I assume that the committee will take
judicial notice of the calendar dates, but I would like to bring it to
your attention in connection with the testimony of the witness. The
day this paper was received was on Friday, October 30, and it lay
over the weekend until Monday, November 2.
The Chairman. Is that established by documents in the file?
Mr. Brucker, It is in the file. We have already had testimony on
it. This is simply the calendar and I am asking that you take judicial
notice of that in connection with the other questions so you won't
have to go into it.
The Chairman. I think the committee will be able to do that. I do
not think we need to insert the calendar in the record as an exhibit.
Mr. Brucker. My point is not to insert the calendar, but just call
your attention to the fact that it came in on that day and lay over
the weekend and was taken up in the normal course on Monday.
The Chairman. Thank you.
The committee is going to recess until next Tuesday morning at
10 o'clock. At that time it will resume the taking of testimony.
(Whereupon, at 11:40 a. m,, Friday, March 18, 1955, the hearing
was recessed to reconvene at 10 a. m,, Tuesday, March 22, 1955,)
APPENDIX
EXHIBITS
Exhibit No. 31
Extract From Speciai- Regulations No. 380-320-10, Dated June 21, 1951
Military Security Counterintelligence Investigations
SECTION V. investigative REPORTS
43. Security of Information. — Intelligence reports are to remain in intelligence
channels until a specific command is required to take action as the "action
agency," at which time the commander concerned will be furnished an investi-
gative report. Disclosures of the nature, sources, or even the existence of such
counterintelligence information to persons mentioned in such a report or to other
persons not normally entitled to such information may be made only when spe-
cifically authorized by the Assistant Chief of Staff, G-2, Department of the Army,
or higher authority. Unauthorized disclosure of such information will be con-
sidered to be a violation of AR 380-5. Every transmittal of an investigative
report will invite the attention of the recipient of the report to this paragraph
of these regulations in order to warn him of its provisions and avoid embarrass-
ment to him and to the reporting organization. This action is necessary since
there is frequently a tendency on the part of persons taking action on the basis
of such reports to' seek to shift responsibility from themselves by disclosing that
their action is dictated by an intelligence report.
Regraded unclassified by authority of Secretary of the Army by J. M.
John F. T. Murray,
Lt. Colonel, OS,
Military Assistant to the Secretary of the Army.
Exhibit No. 32
Disposition Form
File No. AHDGB.
Subject : Security Status of Capt. Irving Peress.
To : CG.
From : G-2.
Date : 21 Oct. 53. Comment No. 1.
1. Although I believe Gen. Craig had been notified of this case, do not believe
Gen. Zwicker has previously been informed. Following is brief on our only
oflicer suspect :
2. Capt. Irving Peress, 01893643, DC, entered EAD 7 Jan. 53, was asgnd to
1277 ASU 19 Mar. .53. Investigation was directed by CG First Army because
SUBJECT refused to sign loyalty certificate or answer questions on Personal
History Statelemnt in regard to membership in subversive organizations. Claimed
"Constitutional privilege." Background investigation revealed following derog-
atory information (copy of investigation report on file in G-2) :
[Substantive derogatory information deleted.]
By direction of G-2 First Army, was placed on list of Suspects and Restrictees
under Investigation 5 Feb. 53 (Post Dental Surgeon was informed), and has been
259
260 ARMY PERSONNEL ACTIONS RELATING TO IRVING PERESS
denied access to classified materiel. On 30 Apr. 53, Surgeon General recom-
mended his elimination from the Service. G-2 First Army made similar recom-
mendation to G-2 DA on 7 July 19.53. This office processed an Interrogatory 25^
Aug. 53, in which Peress refused to answer questions, claiming constitutional
privilege. The sworn interrogatory was forwarded to DA thru First Army on
the same day. No further developments have been reported to this office.
Last month, Peress forwarded a letter to this headquarters requesting promo-
tion to Major. Dental Surgeon furnished G-2 with a copy, and G-2 advised AG
of the situation.
Draft of Itr to CG First Army is atchd.
/s/ C. T. BuowN,
Lt. Col., G8,
AC/S G-2.
Regraded unclassified by authority of Sec. of Army :
J. Murray,
Lt. Col., G8, 10 FeT). 1955.
Certified a true copy :
C. T. Brown,
Lt. Col., GS.
ExuiBiT No. 33
Headquarters Camp Kilmer,
Office of the Commanding General,
Neiv Brunswick, New Jersey, 21 OctoVer 1953.
AHDGB.
Subject : Elimination of Security Risk.
To : Commanding General, First Army, Governors Island, New York.
1. Captain Irving Pei-ess, 01893643, Dental Corps, USAR, Category IV, ex-
piring 31 December 1954, was ordered to active duty from his home, Gl-SG*
79th Street, Middle Village 79, New York, by paragraph 7, Special Orders Num-
ber 221, Headquarters First Army, dated 10 November 1952.
2. This officer refused to sign a loyalty certificate, and refused to answer an
interrogatory concerning his affiliation with subversive organizations, claiming
federal constitutional privileges. A complaint-type investigation directed by
your headquarters, completed on J 5 April 1953, reveals [substantive derogatory
information deleted].
3. The field intelligence file shows that the Surgeon General, on 30 April 1953,
recommended to G2, Department of the Army, that the officer be eliminated from
the Service. A similar recommendations was made by the ACofS, G2, First
Army, on 7 July 1953.
4. The retention of Captain Peress is clearly not consistent with the interests
of the national security. It is requested that immediate steps be taken to effect
his relief from active duty.
/s/ Ralph W. Zwicker,
A/ Ralph W. Zwicker
Brigadier General, USA,
Commanding.
Exhibit No. 40
Important Telephone Conversation
3 November 1953.
Person Calling : Col. D. H. Smith.
Person Called: Lt. Col. B. E. Babcock, Apmt. & Prom. Sec, Res. Br., Pers.
Div., OTAG, Ext. 74071.
E^SUMfi OF CONVERSATION
Col S : We have a ticklish case and don't know what to do about it. Fellow's
name is Irving Peress, 01893643, DC. We have a letter dated 23 October through
CG First Army to him through CG Kilmer appointing the Reserve Officer as a
Major. He has been on duty as a Captain since January. The letter states:
"You are hereby continued on active duty etc." TAG and G-2 have a very com-
plete file with three recommendations for separation.
Col B : It is one of those cases where the Secretary of Defense authorized
promotion.
ARMY PERSONNEL ACTIONS RELATING TO IRVING PERESS 261
Col. S : In this particular case everybody has been jumping up and down trying
to get him off active duty and instead we promote him. I do not Icnow if we
can cancel this. He was sworn in.
Col B : That could not affect his being separated.
Col S : Our latest report to G-2 down there is dated 1 September.
Col B : The Surgeon telephoned me for anything on it.
Col S : Copy of the whole report went to his office.
Col B : I better call him to save him calling you back and wasting a lot of time.
Suppose I switch you to a Major in The Surgeon General's office, who made up
that list and it is very possible he may have something right there on it. Let
me get his number for you — Ext G3032.
Maj D : Major Dolan.
Col S : Col Babcock, Reserve Branch of TAG referred me to your office in the
case of a promotion of a Dental Officer by the name of Irving Peress. On 23
October we were sent a form letter announcing appointment in the Armed Forces
to grade of Major. He has been on duty since January as a Captain. We are
wondering how come. He has been subject of many reports and recommenda-
tions.
Maj D : Here's the way your Defense directive reads. They will be reap-
pointed in accordance with their Branch, rank and ability and gives the method
of determining it. Originally, it was requested that a Board be set up to deter-
mine which of them would be reappointed in accordance with the new public law
but that part pursuant to the Board was removed. There was no choice. This
was administrative; absolutely on records. Obviously, of course, this material
in the files would have been considered if Defense had permitted a Board of
Officers to pass on the reappointment of these officers but they didn't.
Col S : Can you see what steps can be taken to get him out?
Maj D : The Surgeon General was sent a copy l)ack in April and G-2 certainly
has a record of him. We will put in a request to get his file out and see what the
status is of recommendations for release from active duty.
Col S : You don't think there's a story behind this?
Maj D : No, sir ; I don't.
Col S : Of course, this is no explanation to give the CG at Camp Kilmer.
Maj D : No explanation except reappointment was determined by Defense to
be automatic and Defense disregarded Army's recommendations that a Board of
Officers pass on each one of these officers but recommended promotion on each one
of the officers. That is all I know that you can pass on to the CG.
Col S : The man refused to answer the questions, I believe, on the Loyalty
Form. First Army repeated the recommendations for relief from active duty and
the last report was dated 1 September, but the investigation and everything
started in February. There probably is an FBI and G-2 official report.
Maj D : We will inquire into it.
Col S : This is one of those cases that some Senator will grab hold of. Will
you let me know what the status is?
Maj D : Yes, sir. We will look into it and as soon as we find out something,
we will give you a call.
Exhibit No. 41
24 February 1955.
Memorandum for: Lt. Colonel John F. T. Murray, General Staff, room 3E 729,
the Pentagon.
Subject : Summary of Two Cases Whose Reappointments, Although Authorized,
were Withheld after Discovery of Peress Case.
1. On 14 October 1953 The Surgeon General forwarded the name of First
Lieutenant William Ruberman to The Adjutant General in accordance with the
procedures established to reappoint in higher grades all those officers eligible
for such action under the provisions of P. L. 779, 81st Congress as amended.
2. Sometime between 20 and 26 October 1953 a determination was made that
First Lieutenant Norman Ackerman, Medical Corps, was eligible for reappoint-
ment in a higlier gi-ade. On that date, however. Major McKenzie was informed
by Lieutenant Colonel Hyde, Gl, that individuals who were being involuntarily
relieved from active duty or who had been recently court-martialed would not
be reappointed at that time. (Ackerman was court-martialed in September
1953. He was found guilty of failure to obey a lawful order and sentenced to
be reprimanded and to forfeit $140.00 of his pay per month for six months. This
sentence was approved by the convening authority on 13 November 1953.)
262 ARMY PERSONNEL ACTIONS RELATING TO IRVING PERESS
3. On approximately 6 November 1953 the Office of The Surgeon General re-
ceived from G2 a list of names of individuals in v?bom G2 had interest. Ruber-
man was listed as an individual whose case had been processed by G2 and on
whom final action was pending. Inasmuch as final action could result in invol-
untary release from active duty, it was determined that Ruberman's reappoint-
ment should be withheld, if practicable, to comply with Colonel Hyde's instruc-
tions. Accordingly, Major Dolson verbally requested Lieutenant Colonel
Babcock, The Adjutant General's Office, to stop the reappointment if possible.
About 15 November 1953 Major Dolson was informed by Colonel Babcock that
Ruberman's reappointment had not been effected.
4. On 4 January 1954 Major McKenzie was notified by Colonel Hyde that
those reappointments which had previously been withheld would be tendered.
In preparing the list of names for submission to The Adjutant General for reap-
pointment. Major Dolson learned that elimination action had been initiated
against Ackerman on 7 December 1953 and could result in his release from active
duty prior to his reappointment. Major McKenzie again queried Colonel Hyde
and insofar as Major McKenzie and Major Dolson can recall, was told that
Ackerman's name would not be forwarded for reappointment action pending the
outcome of elimination action. As final action on Ruberman had been pending
since 6 November 1953, it was assumed by Major Dolson that he had been sep-
arated prior to 5 January 1954. Accordingly, his name was not included on
the list of those from whom reappointment had been withheld.
5. When the Peress matter was publicized. Major Dolson in examining the
actions that had been taken in that case noted Ruberman's name and decided
to reassure himself that he had been separated from the service. A check re-
vealed that Ruberman was still on active duty. At a conference held on or
about 15 February 1954, Major Dolson inquired of Lieutenant Colonel Allen, Gl,
the status of Ruberman's case. Colonel Allen informed Major Dolson that
Ruberman had tendered his resignation from the service and that his resignation
was at that tim^ on Colonel Allen's desk. (This resignation, however, was not
accepted as it would have resulted in an honorable discharge.)
6. From time to time subsequent to 15 February 1954, Major Dolson inquired
as to the status of Ackerman. On 19 April 1954, as a result of growing concern
that Ackerman was still on active duty and had not yet been reappointed, Major
Dolson prepared a Disposition Form to Gl indicating Ackerman's status and re-
questing decision as to whether his name should be forwarded for reappoint-
ment. By Comment No. 4 from Gl to The Surgeon General, dated 3 May 19.54,
it was indicated that the Secretary of the Army had determined that Ackerman
would be separated from the service and that consequently his name would not
be forwarded for reappointment. Ackerman was released from active duty on
10 May 1954.
7. About 15 May 1954 Major Dolson learned that Ruberman had not yet been
separated, and it was at once decided that the question of his reappointment
should be presented to higher authority. Accordingly, on 19 May 1954 a Dis-
position Form was prepared by Major Dolson and forwarded to The Adjutant
General and Bl setting forth the circumstances of Ruberman's case and request-
ing Gl's decision concerning whether The Surgeon General should initiate reap-
pointments action. On 10 June 1954 Colonel Babcock replied by stating that
Ruberman's case was then being considered by the Army Personnel Board and
tliat upon receiving the Army Personnel Board's decision a recommendation
would be forwarded to Gl. (On 8 September 1954 Ruberman was discharged
vnder other than honorable conditions pursuant to the approved recommenda-
tion of a board of officers. )
Vernon McKenzie,
Major, M80,
Personnel Division.
Exhibit No. 43
Office of the Assistant Secretary of Defense,
Washington 25, D. C, September 2S, 195S.
Memorandum for the Record
Subject: Implementation of Public Law 779 — Slst Congress and Related Laws.
An Ad Hoc Committee formed to review and consolidate Department of De-
fense directives pertaining to certain medical, dental, and allied specialists pre-
ARMY PERSONNEL ACTIONS RELATING TO IRVING PERESS 263
sented the proposed directive to the Director of Personnel Policy. The directive
includes certain provisions of the Doctor Draft Law, Public Law 779 — 81st Con-
gress, as amended by Public Law 84 — 83d Congress. The proposed directive
was coordinated with the Department of the Army (Tab A) ; Department of the
Navy (Tab B) ; Department of the Air Force (Tab C) ; Director of Selective
Service (Tab D) ; the Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare; and the
Chairman, National Advisory Committee, Selective Service System. The latter
two made no recommendations or comments. The points of nonconcurrence of
the Departments are :
1. Navy and Air Force nonconcur with the Department of Defense policy
regarding the commissioning of doctors who have graduated from other than
Class "A" medical schools. The Navy appealed the directive published by the
Department of Defense on 4 June 1953, which appeal has not been favorably
considered. Therefore, the present policy covering the commissioning of grad-
uates of other than Class "A" medical schools should be retained in this direc-
tive.
2. The Navy requested that the statement : "Nothing in this paragraph shall
be construed as requiring a Military Department to commission a special reg-
istrant who fails to meet the requirements for commissioning (moral and other-
wise) of the department concerned" be added to paragraph "VIII. This addi-
tional statement would, in effect, nullify any requirements established by the
Department of Defense which are in conflict with the requirements of the Mili-
tary Departments, and, therefore, should not be included.
8. The Army recommends that the policy of cut-off dates for professional
experience which will be given in computing years of experience for the purpose
of determining grade of appointment, be retained. The current policy is not to
grant qualifying experience gained for the purpose of determining grade of
appointment subsequent to the following dates :
Priority I and II Special Registrants : 6 December 1950
Priority III Special Registrants : 1 July 1952
However, the Ad Hoc Committee which drafted the proposed directive, deleted
the provisions for the cut-off dates, which action is concurred in by the Assist-
ant Secretary of Defense (H&M), the Director, Office of Manpower Require-
ments and this office. The Navy and the Air Force concur. It is recommended
that the cut-off dates in connection with professional experience for determining
grades for appointment not be included. The directive is written so as not to
include the cut-off dates.
The Director of the Selective Service System does not concur with the provision
of the directive which permits request for delay of a Reserve officer upon receipt
of orders on basis that though the Service appeal system the National Advisory
Committee in effect will become authorized to reverse a determination of avail-
ability made by a local board, ai appeal board of the Selective Service System,
or the National Selective Service Appeal Board which speaks in the name of
the President. The Selective Service System protests any reversal of their deci-
sions made by any agency outside of the Selective Service. It is believed that
the individual, when he accepts a reserve commission, should be covered by the
policy on delay in call to active duty which other members of the Reserve com-
ponents are entitled to. The appeal procedure opposed by the Director of the
Selective Service System has been in effect by the Department of Defense since
15 November 1951 and should be retained as part of the new directive.
OASD (M.&P) Legal Advisor objects to the provision of paragraph d (2),
section VIII, which required the recommendation of a board of oflScers convened
by the military department concerned in order for those who are now serving on
active duty who would have been entitled to a higher grade than that in which
he is now serving if the applicable provisions of the directive or Public Law 84 —
83d Congress had been in effect at the time of his appointment. The law reads
that such individuals "shall under regulations prescribed by the President, be
appointed, reappointed, or promoted to such higher grade." Mr. Jackson feels
that the imposing of a mandatory requirement of a recommendation by a board
of officers is not consistent with this provision. The proposed draft for the
signature of the Assistant Secretary of Defense (M«&;P) has this provision deleted.
Provisions have been added (paragraph a, 5, Section VIII) to control the com-
missioning by the Military Departments of special registrants who are also regu-
lar registrants.
264 ARMY PERSONNEL ACTIONS RELATING TO IRVING PERESS
The final directive has the concurrence of the Office of the Assistant Secretary
of Defense (H&M) and the Office of Manpower Requirements, OASD (M&P).
Recommend the proposed Department of Defense directive be signed.
J. P. WOMBLE, Jk.,
Rear Admiral, U. 8. N.,
Director of Personnel Policy.
Exhibit No. 44
MAficn 8, 1955.
Hon. WiLLAKD Bbuckee,
General Counsel, Department of Defense, Pentagon,
Washington 25, D. C.
Dear Governor Bbttckek: Reference is made to the Department of Defense
Directive No. 1205.1, dated October 7, 1953, entitled "Implementation of Public
Law 778, 81st Congi-ess, and Related Laws," and particularly to sections VIII
(d) (2), page 10; and IX (b), page IL
This subcommittee desires to ascertain the Defense Department's interpreta-
tion of its own directive embracing the following points :
1. Under the terms of the directive were the reappointments or promotions of
officers on active duty mandatory? If they were mandatory, could any of the
branches of the armed services intentionally refrain from making a readjustment
or promotion in any given case?
2. If the unfavorable information on Irving Peress in the Department of the
Army had been brought to the attention of the Surgeon General's Office and the
Personnel Division, should Peress have been readjusted in grade?
3. Should the armed services have considered only the professional qualifica-
tions of officers falling within the purview of the directive or should all available
information on any given officer have been reviewed and considered prior to a
determination as to reappointment or promotion?
Tour cooperation in furnishing the above as soon as possible will be appre-
ciated.
Sincerely,
Robert F. Kennedy,
Chief Counsel,
Senate Permanent 8ul)Committee on Investigations.
Exhibit No. 45
General Counsel of the Department of Defense,
Washington, D. C, March 17, 1955.
Mr. Robert F. Kennedy,
Chief Counsel, Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations,
United States Senate.
Dear Mr. Kennedy : This is in reply to your letter dated March 8, 1955. You
indicated in this letter that the subcommittee desires to ascertain the Depart-
ment of Defense interpretation of Department of Defense Directive 1205.1 dated
October 7, 1953, entitled "Implementation of P. L. 779, 81st Congress, and Related
Laws."
Your letter refers specifically to Sec. VIII d 2 (p. 10), and Sec. IX b (p. 11).
Section VIII d 2 provides as follows :
"2. Any physician, dentist, or veterinarian now serving on active duty, whether
with or without his consent, who would have been entitled to a higher grade than
that in which he is now serving if the applicable provisions of this directive or of
Public Law 84, 83d Congress, had been in effect at the time of his current appoint-
ment will, at the earliest practicable date, be reappointed or promoted to such
higher grade."
Section IX b provides as follows :
"b. Except for those persons who are assigned' to organized units in a high
priority for active duty as units, physicians, dentists, and veterinarians will be
ordered to active duty at the approximate time they would have been ordered
for induction by the Selective Service System had they not been members of a
Reserve component of the Armed Forces."
It should be noted that Department of Defense Directive 1205.1 of 7 October
1953, has been revised. The original Sec. VIII d 2 is now found in IX b with
ARMY PERSONNEL ACTIONS RELATING TO IRVING PERESS 265
a minor change. (The words "at the time of his current appointment" have been
changed to "at the time of his current entry on active duty.") Section IX b is
now X b.
Department of Defense Directive 1205.1 of 7 October 1953 was designed to im-
plement Public Law 779, as amended by Section 3 of Public Law 84 of the 83d
Congress, approved 29 June 1953, which provides as follows :
"Sec. 4. (a) Notwithstanding subsection 217 (c) of the Armed Forces Reserve
Act of 1952 (66 Stat. 481) or any other provision of law, any person liable for
induction under the Act of September 9, 1950, as amended, or any member of
a resei've component who has been or shall be ordered to active duty on or before
July 1, 1955, as a physician, dentist, or in an allied specialist category in the
Armed Forces (including the Public Health Service) of the United States shall,
under regulations prescribed by the President, be appointed, reappointed, or pro-
moted to such grade or rank as may be commensurate with his professional
education, experience, or ability."
A comparison of the above-cited sections (VIII d and IX b) of the Depart-
ment of Defense Directive 1205.1 with the above-cited section of the law indi-
cates on its face that the administrative action taken by the Department of
Defense merely parallels the provisions of the quoted section of P. L. 84, 83rd
Congress.
Section IX b is designed to bring to active duty (except for persons assigned
to organized units in a high priority) physicians, dentists, and veterinarians who
had already been commissioned in the reserves, at the same time that such
individuals would have been inducted, were they not members of a reserve com-
ponent.
It is of interest to note that Section 3 of Public Law 84, 83rd Congress, was
proposed to correct an inequity which had existed with respect to these phy-
sicians and dentists who held commissions in the reserve and were called into
active duty under the program prescribed in the doctor draft act. It was
learned that these reserve officers had been called to active duty in the rank they
held at the time of the call, whereas the civilian physicians, when called pur-
suant to the doctor draft act, received a higher rank, because of their years of
professional service, than the prior reserve officer, even though the latter had had
an equal number of years of professional service.
In Report No. 338 of the House of Representatives which accompanied H. R.
4495, the following comment is found (p. 11), "there is an additional factor
to be taken into consideration in this matter which also should be noted. Doctors
are commissioned in accordance with their age and experience if they are com-
missioned as a result of the operation of the doctor draft law. This gives some
doctors higher grades than they would have normally attained if they had gone
into reserve component voluntarily and qualified for promotion as all other
reserve officers. To permit these officers to retain a more or less inflated grade
would be unfair to the thousands of other reserve officers who just qualify for
promotion through a system of selection and length of service."
The report further states (p. 13) "such promotions have not been effected in
the Navy, nor does the law require a doctor, who is ordered to active duty follow-
ing his registration under the doctor draft law, to be given a grade or rank com-
mensurate with his age, education and ability. Under the proposed amendment
any member of a reserve component who has been called, or will be ordered to
active duty before July 15, 1955 as a physician, dentist or in an allied specialist
category shall be appointed, reappointed, or promoted to such grade or rank
as may be commensurate with his profession, education, experience or ability."
The same report further provides (p. 14) "It requires all reserve doctors to be
given a grade or rank commensurate with their age, experience and ability."
In the case of Nelson v. Peekham, 210 Fed. 2d 574, decided Febuary 9, 1954,
the United States Court of Ai)peals, 4th Circuit, in considering the effect of
Public Law 84, held that Courts cannot direct or control the rank or grade of
members of the Armed Services, but in view of such 1953 amendment to the
Doctors Draft Act, making mandatory the appointment or promotion of drafted
doctors to a ra:ik or grade commensurate with their professional education,
experience or ability, under regulations prescribed by the President, the Courts
can direct that a physician or dentist be released from the service when such
condition of the law is not complied with.
In commenting on the previous state of the law and the effect of Public Law 84,
the Court stated :
"In Orloff V. Willoughby, supra, the Supreme Court on March 9, 1953, held that,
under the statute as it then stood, a doctor drafted and held in the rank and pay
266 ARMY PERSONNEL ACTIONS RELATING TO IRVING PERESS
of a private was not entitled to discharge. This decision was presumably known
to Congress which in passing the statute of June 29, 1953, extending and amend-
ing the statute, made mandatory and not merely permissive, the appointment or
promotion of the drafted doctor to rank or grade commensurate with 'his profes-
sional education, experience, or ability' under regulations prescribed by the
President."
A later amendment to Public Law 779, which was Public Law 403 of the 83rd
Congress, approved June IS, 1954, provided as follows :
"Provided, that any person heretofore or hereafter inducted or ordered to
active duty under the authority of this Act, who fails to qualify for, or to accept,
a commission or whose commission is terminated, may be utilized in his profes-
sional capacity in an enlisted grade or rank."
Accordingly, in reply to your Question No. 1, it is my opinion that, prior to
the approval of Public Law 403 of the 83rd Congress, and subsequent to the
enactment of Public Law 84 of the 83rd Congress, the promotion of an officer,
serving as a physician, to a rank commensurate with his professional education,
experience, or ability, was mandatory if the officer was to be retained on active
duty ; and, conversely, a branch of the armed services could not intentionally
have refrained from making a readjustment or promotion in a given case, if the
individual involved were to be retained on active duty.
Your Questions Nos. 2 and 3 involve matters of policy, and the answers to these
relate to the implementation of this directive within the individual military
departments.
Sincerely yours,
WlLBEB M. BrUCKER,
General Counsel.
Exhibit No. 46
CS DA Washington, D. C. (prepared by TAGO per draft) 0S1C)00MAR55 un-
classified.
(Submitted by Maj. Ivan, OCS) Routine.
CGAFFE/Armyeight CP Zama, Japan.
From CS sgd. TAG.
Congressional committee is considering desirability of calling Caiitain William
L. Vinette 0973603 as a witness. Based on latest DA info, Capt. Vinette is cur-
rently assigned Korean Military Advisory Group, FECOM. Request following
facts be transmitted to Capt. Vinette: On 9 Sept. 53, while Lt. William L.
Vinette was Assistant G-1 at Cp Kilmer, he received from the AG at Cp Kilmer
a letter of the same date to TAG from Capt. Irving Peress requesting grade
determination. A comment No. 1 on the letter from G-2 at Cp Kilmer revealed
that Peress was under investigation for security reasons and recommended that
his application for adjustment in grade be delayed. Lt. Vinette returned the
letter to AG at Cp Kilmer on the same date with Comment No. 3 "Noted. This
is not a recommendation for promotion, merely a request for grade determina-
tion."
Request Capt. Vinette's answers to the following questions be relayed to DA
by TWX:
1. What action, if any, did Vinette take other than his Comment No. 3?
2. Did he consult superiors or confer with anyone on this matter?
3. Did he notify G-2, Cp Kilmer, of his actions?
4. Did he attempt to delay or did he consider delaying the Peress letter
in any way?
5. Why did he, in fact, indorse the Peress letter with the interpretation of
grade determination rather than request for promotion?
Distr. : CS, TAG.
Major G. A. Ivan, OCS, 30653 x 79340 AGPO 52864.
J. V. MiLANO,
Lcol, AOG,
Duty Officer TAOO.
ARMY PERSONNEL ACTIONS RELATING TO IRVING PERESS 267
[Unclassified]
Message
Department of the Army,
Staff Communications Office,
March 11, 1955.
Priority. Paraphrase not required — consult cryptoceuter before declassifying —
no unclass. reply or ref. if dtg. is quoted.
From: DEPACOM Army Eiffbt FWD KOREA.
To: CSUSA, Washington, D. C.
Info: CGAFFE/Army Eight CP Zama, Japan,
Nr : KIG 3-1.
Capt. William L. Vinette 0971306 testified under oath to an IG on 10 Mar. 1955
as follows :
Question. What action, if any, did you take other than his comment number 3?
Answer. Because I can't recall the instance I don't linow what other action I
might have taken. As far as I can remember, I took no other action.
Question 2. Did you consult superiors or confer with any one on this matter?
Answer. 1 probably did. If I did, it probably would be on the rough draft of
the comment back to AG. In my position as Assistant Gl, I didn't very often
take action on my own.
Question 3. Did you notify G2 at Camp Kilmer of your action?
Answer. I don't recall that either.
Question 4. Did you attempt to delay or did you consider delaying, the Peress
letter in any way?
Answer. I can't recall whether I did or not.
Question 5. Why did you in tact indorse the Peress letter with the interpreta-
tion of grade determination rather than request for promotion?
Answer. I still can't recall the specific letter, therefore I can't answer the
question about why I did one thing or another while the letter was on my desk.
Regraded unclassified.
per DA 594934 (14 Mar.).
Action: TAG.
Info : OCS, G2, JAG, OSA.
DA in 124343 (11 Mar. 55) rk/6
X
BOSTON PUBLIC LIBRARY
, lllilllllillilllilllllllllllllll
3 9999 05445 3632
BOSTON PUBLIC LIBRARY
3 9999 05445 3541
Live Music Archive
Librivox Free Audio
Metropolitan Museum
Cleveland Museum of Art
Internet Arcade
Console Living Room
Books to Borrow
Open Library
TV News
Understanding 9/11