(navigation image)
Home American Libraries | Canadian Libraries | Universal Library | Community Texts | Project Gutenberg | Children's Library | Biodiversity Heritage Library | Additional Collections
Search: Advanced Search
Anonymous User (login or join us)
Upload
See other formats

Full text of "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"

^ 



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— 


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 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 
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