At present the alternatives and opportunities listed above (which spell out our meaning of a full and complete amnesty) do not exist for our Vietnam generation. Again: it is up to you, the Congress.

If universal and unconditional amnesty is not granted, the facts show that only those with resources will benefit. Current statistics show that those veterans attempting to upgrade their discharges with legal help, and those who appear before the review board, have a clear advantage in obtaining an upgraded discharge. Since two out of three people with bad papers are lower class and nonwhite, and since these are precisely the people who have neither the money nor the ability to obtain legal help necessary to effective discharge upgrading, it is clear that the present upgrading process manifests the racism and economic prejudice of our society and the military.

In the final analysis, for veterans and others who would benefit from a blanket amnesty, your refusal to act on the amnesty issue will continue to leave them as "wasted people" or "third-class citizens."

For veterans from previous wars, war was hell. And returning home was a time for healing and local and national celebration of unity. For America's Vietnam era victims, war was hell-but many cannot return home; and even for those who are physically home, the hell continues. In an address to the Nation, on March 24, 1973, President Nixon said of the Vietnam era veterans:

We must demonstrate the gratitude we feel by the actions we take. We must honor them with the respect they have earned and the affection they deserve. Clearly, neither Mr. Nixon nor the American public are living up to this injunction.

I say to you the price of Vietnam is too high a price to continue paying. The war is not over-America's war is still raging in Vietnam and in our society. And unless full and complete amnesty is granted, the injustices of the Vietnam era will continue to be borne, in this country, by the young and disadvantaged.

Ms. YOUNG. Wayne Spencer from East St. Louis, Ill. will give the

next statement.

Mr. SPENCER. First of all I have been listening to this question of amnesty

Mr. KASTEN MEIER. You have a 3-page statement?

Mr. SPENCER. Yes, I have a short statement, concerning what led up to my bad discharge.

Mr. KASTEN MEIER. You may proceed, Mr. Spencer.

Mr. SPENCER. First of all, I would like to say, I am from a black minority group. Where I live we are affected by poor income, low income, inadequate housing, inadequate medicare, and undereducated people.

First of all, I think the military should consider the fact that people from these minority areas are not really for military war, especially the Vietnam war. And when this fact is considered, then we can recognize that Vietnam era veterans shouldn't have these undesirable discharges thrown upon them.

At this point I would like to present a brief statement of how I was affected by the Vietnam war, and what led up to my bad discharge. First of all, my name is Wayne Spencer. I am a 25-year-old Vietnam era veteran living in East St. Louis, Ill. I hold a less-than-honorable (general) discharge. I was raised in a family of five, and I went to grade school and finally finished the 12th grade of high school.

My social-economic class was middle-class poor. I helped support my family along with my brother and my father. My mother did not work. From time to time we were on general assistance aid.

After I graduated from high school, at the age of 18, I enlisted in the U.S. Navy for three reasons:

(1) To avoid being drafted because I did not take to the idea of fighting in Vietnam and perhaps losing my life. I am not a coward, but three of my close friends were killed just before I entered service, and I just could not see any justifiable reason for fighting.

(2) I was to be married soon, and the lady I was going to marry was carrying my son. I thought being in service would help me develop the skills I needed to support my family.

(3) I wanted to get away from home and perhaps find another place in the United States to live.

I really didn't want any part of the military. But after talking it over with my recruiter, my morale was boosted and my hopes were high. The next thing I knew, I had become a tool for the U.S. Government.

My first duty station was horrible. I didn't get the duty station of my choice, like my recruiter had promised me in his bouquet of fantacism. They stationed me in Pearl Harbor, Hawaii, aboard a World War II destroyer which was about ready to fall apart. They gave me a chipping hammer and broom, a paint brush, and a can of paint every day for 6 months. I did not come in the service to become a painter. I wanted to become an electrician. After making a number of determined attempts to pursue my intentions of what I had come in for, I finally came to the conclusion that my recruiter had sold me down the river and that the military wasn't interested in what I wanted but only in what they wanted me to do.

By then I had become discouraged, disillusioned, and had no one to turn to but my loved ones at home. By this time my wife had given birth to my first son. Unfortunately, I couldn't be there when my son was born. This is when I decided I would send for my family to live with me in Hawaii.

But we had come back from a 6-month west Pacific cruise, and I had managed to save enough money to go home first on leave. Sending for my family only presented more problems. I could not support my family on the income I was receiving from the Navy.

My second son was born in Hawaii. Since I had missed my first son's birth, I was determined that I wasn't going to miss this one. So I put in a request to get leave, since my ship was going out on a 10day cruise. My request was denied, and I missed ship's movement deliberately. My CO had told me that the Navy comes first and my family second. As a result, I suffered a forfeit in pay and 14 days' restriction. I had no choice but to send my family home.

I was told by my superior CO that I could get a change in duty station after 2 years, with hopes of getting stationed closer to home. But instead they transferred me to another ship very much like the one I was on. This, too, was in Pearl Harbor. All this happened after I had consulted a chaplain and told him of my problems.

Things weren't looking up for me at all. My attitude about the military was way below standards. I only wanted out. I began drinking, smoking dope, and dropping pills. I was constantly reporting late for

duty. I wasn't properly counseled, and my problems were steadily getting worse and steadily getting ignored. Later, I was busted with two joints and processed for a general discharge after 3 years and 9 months of service (that was almost my 4 years' enlistment).

Adjusting back into society wasn't easy. I couldn't find a job. (I had "bad papers.") This caused financial problems for my family and later resulted in a divorce. I am separated from my wife, now, and have two children to support.

I am one of the many Vietnam era veterans in America who suffers from a bad discharge. In my opinion, the mistreatment I received in the military is directly connected with the reasons for and the ways in which America conducted its Vietnam war. I was in the Vietnam era military which was not fighting for anything I could believe in and was not in any way seeing or dealing with me and my needs. My response to the Vietnam war and to the military which fought that war is what caused me to get bad papers.

An amnesty that is just (universal and unconditional) must include people like me who were trapped into needing and volunteering for the Vietnam era military for survival and then trapped by what we experienced in the military. An amnesty must also deal with people who are suffering from additional, permanent social prejudice and disadvantage as a result of the bad papers we received.

This concludes my statement.

Mr. KASTEN MEIER. Thank you, Mr. Spencer and Mr. Credle, for statements of your own personal involvement in the matters which you feel should be affected by some form of amnesty.

Do either of my colleagues have any questions?

Mr. SMITH. Yes. I would like to ask Mr. Spencer and Mr. Credle, you have talked about the fact that any amnesty that might be adopted ought to also cover people who had a bad discharge or a discharge on less-than-honorable conditions.

Do you approve also, or are you for a general amnesty-you both enlisted in the armed services did you approve of an amnesty for those who decided that they didn't want to serve in the Armed Forces and took off?

Mr. CREDLE. I will answer for myself. I was drafted into the service. I did not enlist. I approve it, because otherwise basically-I have this written in my statement-the reason why I approve unconditional amnesty to include other than honorable discharges and all people affected by the war is because to do it any other way would just continue what has already gone on in the first place.

I am sure you are aware of the fact that in our judicial proceedings, if you can't get legal aid, if you don't have someone with you, if you don't have the proper kind of resources or the proper types of resources in order to at least be equal to your counterpart, then you are at a disadvantage in terms of appearing, and the chances of your adjudication being worked out favorably are greatly reduced.

And, of course, you always have the issue in terms of black and minority people, the issue of racism always creeps up in any kind of proceeding. If it is not done this way, it is just going to continue what has already gone on in this country. And I don't know how better to deal with it. Once you begin to say, this is bad on this point, and this is bad on this point, you are just dividing the country. And it is sad

when I sit here and listen to so many making that point. It is not just the Vietnam veterans. The young people in this country are still affected. So it is just not 500,000, it is more like 5 to 6 million. People don't seem to realize that, and I can't understand that. Because when you say one person is affected, you are not only dealing with that person, you are dealing with everyone who comes in contact with him. Mr. SMITH. Did you have an honorable discharge?

Mr. CREDLE. I was honorably discharged from the Army.

Mr. SMITH. And were you not?

Mr. SPENCER. No; I received a General discharge.

Mr. SMITH. Thank you very much.

Mr. KASTEN MEIER. Thank you very much for your appearance today. Mr. CREDLE. May I say something?

There is an important paper on other than honorable discharges which has been released by the Vietnam era veterans national resource project. And I think it is an important document.

Mr. DRINAN. May I just say that I want to thank you and Ms. Young for these extraordinary documents. And it will be very helpful. And I want to thank you for the testimony.

Mr. KASTEN MEIER. You are referring to a paper entitled "Background: Other Than Honorable Discharge"?

Mr. CREDLE. Yes, sir, released by the area veterans national research project.

Mr. KASTEN MEIER. Without objection that will be received as part of the record.

[The document entitled "Backgrounds: Other-than-Honorable Discharges Problems, and Prospects for Change" follows:]

BACKGROUNDS: OTHER-THAN-HONORABLE DISCHARGES-PROBLEMS, AND PROSPECTS

FOR CHANGE

[Released by Vietnam Era Veterans' National Resource Project, Emergency Ministries Concerning the War (National Council of Churches)]

(NOTE. This is a preliminary survey of the problems and prospects associated with other than Honorable discharges. It is not a comprehensive study, and is being circulated only to provide a general sketch of the situation. Contact us with any additional information that you may have, and let us know if this paper includes any major factual errors.)

OVERVIEW

Roughly 5.7% of the 7,490,088 Vietnam era veterans have other-than-Honorable discharges:

STATISTICAL SUMMARY: OTHER-THAN-HONORABLE DISCHARGES FOR VIETNAM ERA VETERANS, FISCAL YEARS

A disproportionate percentage of the veterans holding these discharges are minority group veterans and veterans with less than high school educations. These discharges substantially increase the problems many of these veterans already face in finding employment, adequate housing, and adequate medical care. In adding this additional burden to the lives of people who already face welldocumented discrimination, other-than-Honorable discharges often reinforce cycles of unemployment, disease, despair, drug addiction, crime, and imprisonment.

A movement of Vietnam era veterans' self-help projects, conceived, staffed, and directed by Vietnam era veterans themselves has arisen over the past several years to cope with the unique difficulties veterans have brought home from this century's most unique and disillusioning war.

Many of these projects are initiating programs to counsel veterans with otherthan-Honorable discharges on the procedures by which they may appeal to have those discharges upgraded. Along with several groups who have been involved with various forms of draft and/or military counseling in the past, some of these programs have begun to tie into projects in St. Louis and Washington, D.C. which provide legal research, analysis, and/or representation for individual appeals. These local programs and national projects are forming the nucleus of an evolving network of discharge upgrade counselors which may be able to offer a substantial alleviation of the penalties which veterans with other-than-Honorable discharges are suffering.

Ultimately, however effective this discharge upgrade counseling may become, the problems revolving around other-than-Honorable discharges need systemic solutions. Although a handful of Senators and Congresspersons are interested in the issue and have recently submitted some potentially far-reaching bills, general interest is low in Congress at this time, and the prospects for new laws or policies are distant. However, some veterans self-help projects and some coalitions of civil rights groups are beginning to discuss ways in which they might begin to generate grass roots pressure for new legislation. Some of these groups are also trying to establish programs for bringing precedent-setting challenges to armed forces' discharging and discharge-reviewing policies into Federal Court.

I. BACKGROUND OF THE PROBLEM

A. The Meaning of Discharges

1. Administrative.-The Honorable, General, and Undesirable discharges are given by administrative hearings convened by enlisted persons' commanding officers. The armed forces consider the General Discharge to be "under honorable conditions", and the Undesirable Discharge to be "under conditions other than honorable." Enlisted persons are not presented, and often are not present, at such administrative hearings. They have no opportunity to confront and crossexamine witnesses or to challenge written evidence, and no verbatim records of the hearings are kept.

2. Punitive.-The Bad Conduct and Dishonorable discharges are issued as punishments by courts-martial. The Bad Conduct Discharge is issued by Special courts-martial, the Dishonorable by General courts-marital. The Bad Conduct Discharge is considered to be "under conditions other than Honorable"; the Dishonorable Discharge is considered to be the only totally "dishonorable" kind of discharge.

Although there are many valid criticisms to be made of court-martial procedures, they do provide an order of due process which is not present in administrative hearings. Enlisted persons are represented by counsel, do have an opportunity to confront and cross examine witnesses, and have access to a verbatim record of the hearing. There are also provisions for appealing courts-martial decisions and courts-martial sentences, while there are no such provisions for appeal within the military courts for administrative hearings.

3. Separation Codes.-All discharge papers (DD Form 214's) include separation codes (called "Separation Program Numbers" by the Army and Navy, "Separation Designation Numbers" by the Air Force.) Essentially, these codes state the reasons for the discharges. In theory, these codes are confidential. But, until this year, they have been readily available in published armed forces regulations-and widely distributed, often in partial listings, in papers, manuals, and articles continued in everything from Red Cross and V.F.W. service manuals to