(B) When the wife is living separate and apart from the disabled person, and the child or children are living with her and the wife is entitled to an apportioned share of disability compensation, service pension, or emergency officers retirement pay, both on account of herself and the child or children, the benefit as provided in subparagraph (A) above will be paid to the wife in one monthly amount on account of herself and such child or children in her custody. (Mar. 4, 1947)

(C) Where the evidence of record shows that the veteran and his wife are separated, the whereabouts of the wife is unknown, and all reasonable means to locate the wife have been unsuccessful or where she states in writing that she desires no share of the award, or fails for 90 days or more to respond to correspondence from the VA informing her of her rights, which is not returned -unclaimed, there will be no apportionment on her account except that amount authorized by Public Law 877, 80th Congress, as amended by section 4, Public Law 339, 81st Congress, to be paid on her account at such time as her whereabouts may be ascertained. If there are children not in the veteran's custody, the award will be apportioned according to the table provided in subparagraph (A) of this paragraph on the basis of the disabled person and child or children until such time as the whereabouts of the wife may be ascertained or she expresses a desire to claim her share of the award. In such event, the award will be reapportioned on the basis of the disabled person, wife, and child or children. (Nov. 13, 1952)

(D) That part of the benefit which is payable to a veteran under Public Law 877, 80th Congress, as amended by section 4, Public Law 339, 81st Congress, by virtue of his having a dependent father or mother, or both, will be apportioned and paid directly to the dependent when it appears that the claimant has neglected or refused to contribute to his, her, or their support in substantially the amount which he, she, or they would receive if apportionment were made: Provided, That no apportionment will be made where the duly appointed guardian under orders of the court of appointment makes or has made like contribution for the support of the parent or parents (sec. 1 (B), PL 662, 79th Cong.). (Nov. 13, 1952)

1312. Apportionment not authorized,

No apportionment will be authorized:

(A) Where the life of a disabled person has been found guilty of conjugal infidelity by a court of competent jurisdiction, except the additional amounts specifically authorized by Public Law 877, 80th Congress, as amended by section 4, Public Law 339, 81st Congress, to be paid on her account. (Nov. 13, 1952)

(B) (1) Where the child of the disabled person has been legally adopted other than by the disabled person, except the additional amount specifically authorized by Public Law 877, 80 Congress, as amended by section 4, Public Law 339, 81st Congress, to be paid on account of the child. This provision is not applicable to death benefits. (Nov. 13, 1952)

(2) Where the child is not in the custody of the disabled person by reason of the child's entry into the active military or naval service, even though by reason of his minority the veteran's compensation is still payable at a higher rate, and irrespective of whether compensation was apportioned for the child prior to his entry into the active military or naval service. (Aug. 20, 1941)

(C) Unless and until relationship and dependency is established in accordance with the requirements of the particular law and regulations and instructions issued pursuant thereto, under which the monetary benefit is payable. (Jan. 25, 1936)

(D) Where the disabled person or his guardian is rendering support which, in view of the circumstances present in the individual case, is considered fair and reasonable. (June 16, 1945)

(E) Under VA Regulation 1310, where the [amount payable is not in excess of the monetary equivalent payable for a 20-percent service-connected disability]. (October 19, 1955)

(F) Under VA Regulation 1310, where the monetary benefit is payable under part III of the Veterans Regulation No. 1 series, except as provided in VA Regulation 1310 (D). (May 22, 1940)

(G) Of the additional amount authorized by the last paragraph of section 202 (3) or section 202 (5), World War Veterans' Act, 1924, as amended, or the additional amount payable under paragraph II (k), part I, Veterans Regulation No. 1 (a), as amended, or the corresponding peacetime rate; or in those cases where an amount in excess of that provided for total disability is payable, of any amount in excess of the rate prescribed for total disability. (Oct. 19, 1955)

(H) Where the wife, child, father, or mother of the disabled veteran is shown by evidence satisfactory to the Administrator of Veterans Affairs to be guilty of mutiny, treason, sabotage, or rendering assistance to an enemy of the United States or of its allies. (See VA Regulation 1069 (D).) (Oct. 28, 1954)

(I) For the purported wife of the veteran if it has been determined that she is living with another man in the reputed relationship of husband and wife. In such case, payment of the monetary benefit will be made to the veteran as though he had no wife. (Sept. 7, 1951)

1314. Action to be taken where payments have not been made under apportionments.

In apportioning disability pension, service pension, disability compensation, or emergency officers' retirement pay, the provisions of VA Regulations 1310 to 1317 will be applicable to all cases coming within the purview thereof where apportionments or division of pensions have been made but in which payments have not been made to the dependents for all periods affected. In the case of a division of pension, the act of March 3, 1899, will be applicable for all periods prior to October 17, 1940. (Feb. 24, 1941)

1315. Special apportionments.

Where it is clearly shown by competent evidence that the application of the provisions of VA Regulations 1276, 1310, and 1311, or the fact that no apportionment is authorized under VA Regulation 1312 will result in undue hardship upon the disabled person or any one of his dependents and relief can be afforded without undue hardship to the other persons in interest, the complete case file will be forwarded by the authorization officer or the attorney-reviewer with appropriate recommendation as to the exact manner of the proposed relief, to the Adjudication Officer, Assistant Adjudication Officer, or the Chief, [ Veterans Claims Division, Veterans Benefits Office, D. C., who will determine without regard to the provisions of Va Regulations 1276, 1310, 1311, and 1312, the disability pension, service pension, disability compensation, or emergency officers' retirement pay, which will be apportioned and the exact amount to be apportioned to each individual in interest. Should an appeal from such apportionment be received, the claims folder will be referred to the Adjudication Officer, Assistant Adjudication Officer, or the Chief, [ ] Veterans Claims Division, Veterans Benefits Office, in order that the special apportionment from which the appeal is taken may be reconsidered in the light of any additional evidence developed in connection with the appeal. When it is found that no change is warranted, VA Form 8, properly prepared, will be approved. Thereafter, regular appellate procedure will be for application (VA Manual M1-1, Revised). (Dec. 14, 1956)

1316. Effective dates of apportionments.

The effective date of an appointment will be the first day of the month next succeeding that in which the notice of estrangement, that the child or children are not in custody of the disabled person, or that the disabled person is not contributing to the support of a dependent parent, is received in the VA, and the disabled person's award wil be immediately adjusted in order to make payable to him or her only the apportioned amount to which he or she would be entitled under VA Regulations 1310 and 1311: Provided, that in initial awards benefits or apportionments will be granted over the entire period covered by the initial awards in accordance with the facts found. The effective date of an apportionment under VA Regulation 1310 (C) and (D) will be the date on which the veteran's award is suspended or the date from which an institutional award in his behalf is made: Provided, That in initial awards apportionments as authorized herein will be granted over the entire period covered by the initial awards in accordance with the facts found. (Jan. 26, 1949)

1317. Discontinuance of apportionments; effective dates.

Where disability pension, disability compensation, service pension, or emergency officers' retirement pay is apportioned between the veteran and his dependents and payments have been or are being made to the dependents subsequent to the date of cessation of the condition on which it is predicated, the effective date of discontinuance of the apportioned benefit to the dependent shall be the date of last payment and the award to the veteran will be adjusted accordingly; except that in the event of death, the date of death (upon the death of an apportionee, all or any part of the unpaid apportioned disability pension, compensation, or retirement pay will be paid to the veteran or to any other

dependent or dependents as may be determined by the Administrator of Veterans Affairs-sec. 12, PL 144, 78th Cong.); divorce, the date preceding the date of divorce; in the case of a child, the date preceding the 18th or 21st birthday, or cessation of school attendance (see VA Regulations 1287 and 2598), or the date preceding the date of marriage; in the case of a dependent parent, the date on which dependency ceases, will be the effective date. Where a minor child of a disabled person being paid apportioned disability compensation, pension, or emergency officers' retirement pay enters the active military or naval service, such apportioned award will be discontinued as of the date of last payment and, effective as of the next day, such child's apportioned share will be added to the disability compensation, pension, or emergency officers' retirement pay otherwise payable to the veteran. Where the estranged wife of a disabled veteran is receiving apportioned disability compensation, pension, or emergency officers' retirement pay in behalf of herself and a minor child and such minor child enters the active military or naval service, the apportioned share for the estranged wife will be continued in the same amount as was payable prior to the child's entry into active service, such increased amount to continue during the child's minority, or until the cessation of the condition upon which the apportionment was made. (Oct. 28, 1954)

"(E) Where no fiduciary has been or is to be appointed or when payments to an unsatisfactory fiduciary have been stopped or suspended, as indicated in subparagraph (A) of this paragraph, apportionment to dependents will be under VA Regulation 1315."

AMVETS NATIONAL HEADQUARTERS,
OFFICE OF THE LEGISLATIVE DIRECTOR,
Washington, D. C., July 22, 1957.

Hon. OLIN E. TEAGUE,

House of Representatives,

Washington, D. C.

DEAR MR. TEAGUE: In response to your invitation to testify on H. R. 72, scheduled for hearings on July 25, 1957, I regret that I will be unable to appear before your committee because previous commitments make it necessary for me to travel to the west coast.

On March 11, 1957, I testified before your special subcommittee and expressed the views of AMVETS on H. R. 72. My statements and other remarks are contained on pages 1365 through 1368 of the hearings.

Since that date we have reviewed our stand on this bill and have had an opportunity to listen to arguments by those opposing this measure and, in spite of this, our views have not been altered. We, therefore, urge your committee to report this bill as previously reported. Also, it would be very much appreciated if you would make this letter a part of the hearings on H. R. 72.

I again express my regret that my schedule will not permit me to appear before your committee.

Very sincerely yours,

JOHN R. HOLDEN, National Legislative Director.

DISABLED AMERICAN VETERANS,
NATIONAL SERVICE HEADQUARTERS,
Washington, D. C., July 18, 1957.

Hon. OLIN E. TEAGUE,

Chairman, Committee on Veterans' Affairs,
House of Representatives, Washington, D. C.

DEAR MR. TEAGUE: This is to thank you for the opportunity afforded the Disabled American Veterans to appear before your committee on July 25, 1957, at which time the recommitted bill, H. R. 72, will be made the subject of hearings. The reports of the debate held in the House on July 12, 1957, on this proposed legislation, have been studied with much interest. We do not feel qualified to discuss the question raised with regard to the constitutionality of the proposals

embodied in the bill, but nevertheless discern that they do raise serious issues which amply justify the reconsideration your committee is to accord the whole subject.

We do not plan to be present at the new hearings as witnesses as it is believed this letter will suffice to state the DAV position relative to those matters of concern mentioned in previous correspondence. It is our firm conviction that the bill should omit the requirement of dependency as to father and mother and we are also of the opinion that brothers and sisters should be placed in the permitted class and without qualification. Perhaps there are some siblings who have been far too aloof and indifferent but there are also many other instances where brothers and sisters have undergone great worry and disruption of their own home lives because of an incompetent brother even though they might not be able to show very substantial or regular monetary contributions to his support. With these objections to the present bill overcome we would not continue to oppose the attainment of such a worthy objective. Sincerely yours,

OMER W. CLARK,

National Director of Legislation.

Mr. OMER W. CLARK,

National Director of Legislation,

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, COMMITTEE ON VETERANS' AFFAIRS, Washington, D. C., July 22, 1957.

Disabled American Veterans, Washington, D. C.

DEAR MR. CLARK: I have your letter of July 18, 1957, in which you express the views of your organization concerning H. R. 72, and advise that you will not be represented at the hearing which starts Thursday, July 25.

Your reply raises some rather basic questions in my mind, the answers to which I would appreciate receiving from you: First, as you know, Public Law 881 passed both Houses of Congress without a single dissenting vote. As I recall, it was passed with the complete support of the Disabled American Veterans. That law, among other things, says that parents, with incomes of more than $2,400 per year, who lose a son in the field of battle, will not be entitled to any compensation. How do you make your position in favor of such legislation jibe with your letter of July 18, in which you ask that the funds of an incompetent veteran, who had the good fortune to live but lost his mind, be distributed to parents without qualification when, in all likelihood, the veteran has been cared for at Government expense ever since he suffered the disability?

You underscore your objection to the disqualification of the right of brothers and sisters to obtain the estate of an incompetent beneficiary. From your long experience in the Veterans' Administration, as well as your experience with the DAV, I am sure that you know that brothers and sisters are not within the permitted class in either the compensation or pension laws as they exist today or as they have existed in the past. Am I to infer from your statement that the DAV is now embarked on a campaign to obtain compensation benefits for brothers and sisters of deceased veterans? Do you advocate that Public Law 877 of the 80th Congress should be amended to provide additional compensation for veterans who have brothers and sisters?

I would appreciate hearing from you on these points and if possible prior to the hearing scheduled for July 25, 1957. Sincerely yours,

Hon. OLIN E. TEAGUE,

OLIN E. TEAGUE, Chairman.

DISABLED AMERICAN VETERANS,
NATIONAL SERVICE HEADQUARTERS,
Washington, D. C., July 24, 1957.

Chairman, Committee on Veterans' Affairs,
House of Representatives, Washington, D. C.

DEAR MR. TEAGUE: This will acknowledge the receipt of your letter dated July 22, 1957, which referred to my letter of July 18, 1957, commenting on H. R. 72 which bill was recommitted and is now being made the subject of new hearings before your committee.

In my opinion, the instances you cite for the purposes of comparison are not at all similar. The Disabled American Veterans does not advocate the broadening of existing compensation and pension legislation to bring in parents who are not dependent, and brothers and sisters. H. R. 72, as we understand it, has a laudable objective but goes too far in certain respects in restricting the descent and distribution of estates of incompetent veterans who die without leaving a widow or child. No distinction is made in the bill between moneys that are held by the VA in personal funds of patients and moneys that have actually been paid to guardians or other legal fiduciaries. In the latter category we do not believe that the Government has any right to reach out and take back the funds so paid, to which title has passed, simply because parents cannot show actual dependency on the veteran, or where the only remaining closeheirs are brothers and sisters. As the moneys held in the personal funds of patients it will be appreciated that some of these funds probably contain moneys that under former VA procedure were "awarded" into what was then known as the funds due incompetent beneficiaries (FDIB) and there may be some question raised as to whether title passed in these instances. However, the DAV is not making that an issue. No doubt the courts will review the whole situation in its various aspects should H. R. 72 or a modification thereof be enacted. Sincerely yours,

OMER W. CLARK,

National Director of Legislation.

[Excerpt from the April 1957, issue of the American Legion magazine] WOULD RESTRICT INHERITANCE OF ACCUMULATED GOVERNMENT BENEFITS OF INCOMPETENT VETERANS

Another Teague bill (H. R. 72) proposes that unspent Government vet benefits held in trust for incompetent vets must go to a restricted class of immediate dependents, on the death of the veteran. *** Lacking such close relatives, they'd revert to the Government. *** If nothing else, this is an interesting and complicated subject. *** Such benefit checks at present go to the estate of the deceased vet, finally passing on, in some instances, to heirs who neither fendered the service to the Government for which the benefits were paid, nor were ever remotely dependent upon the deceased vet. *** Sometimes accumulated thousands of dollars in compensation payments pass on to 11th cousins from Timbuctoo by this process, and it is Teague's reasonable view that this is an unintended use of vet benefit appropriations.

Rep. Teague anticipates that control of such sums already in trust, having been paid out under existing law, might be contested in court battles with the outcome questionable. *** He is more confident that future payments, if H. R. 72 were enacted, could be so controlled. *** Total vet benefit payments held in trust for incompetents or minors is nearly half a billion dollars, not all of which would be affected by H. R. 72. * * * American Legion National Rehabilitation Committee has approved H. R. 72.

Mr. HARVEY V. HIGLEY,

Administrator of Veterans' Affairs,

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, COMMITTEE ON VETERANS' AFFAIRS, Washington, D. C., July 16, 1957.

Veterans' Administration, Washington, D. C.

DEAR MR. HIGLEY: Your attention is invited to pages 4207 and 4230 of the hearings held by a subcommittee of this committee on July 12, 1956, involving the bill, H. R. 10478, which sought to regulate the disposition of certain Veterans' Administration benefits which are unpaid at the time of death.

H. R. 10478 passed the House but failed of enactment in the Senate. H. R. 72 of the 85th Congress, a bill substantially similar to H. R. 10478, was reported by the committee and was recommitted for further study on July 12, 1957.

It is my understanding that approximately $60 million is in the person funds of patients and under the control of the Veterans' Administration. As a representative of the Veterans' Administration made clear in the hearings cited above,