Backgrounder - A Review Committee Established by the Government to Consider the Circumstances of Veterans Given a Dishonourable Discharge Indicates a Strong Miscarriage of Justice
14,000 DISQUALIFIED VETERANS WHO SERVED AS VOLUNTEERS IN WWII WERE DEEMED AS "NEVER TO HAVE SERVED" BY THE GOVERNMENT
In the days during which World War II veterans were being released from service, the Government found itself in an embarrassing position in regard to re-establishment benefits.
It is believed that approximately 14,000 service personnel were facing a dishonourable discharge.
This meant disqualification for the re-establishment credit (and all other rehabilitation benefits) which were paid to ex-service persons who had been honourably discharged.
A wide disparity occurred in the ranks of those who could not qualify for honourable discharge. The military infractions of some amount to a few days of absence without leave, often due to a mix up in train schedules or other reasonable explanation. On the other hand, some had spent time in military prisons for extremely serious offences.
The Government's answer was to establish a committee to review the circumstances and declare a discharge as honourable should the facts warrant it. The power of the review committee was limited to that of recommending that the discharge be declared as honourable.
Where the committee was unable to locate, or find in favour of the ex-service person, it was apparently granted the power to declare such person as "never having served." This automatically destroyed any grounds for rehabilitation benefits.
The committee was established under the authority of the War Service Grants Act of 1944 (see section 12 subsection 7). Mr. Percy Philpott of the Canadian Legion was named as a member representing veterans. The date of promulgation was January 1, 1945. The Committee of Review was disestablished on June 3, 1948. Its duties were transferred to a committee of three officials of the Department of Veterans Affairs. The authority for the committee was renewed by an amendment to the War Service Grants Act dated September 1, 1984.
The authority of the committee which had been transferred to DVA officials, was clarified by Sections 18 and 19 of the amending legislation under Part III General.
The clarification, in section 18, stated that no benefits would be paid if a member had been cashiered, dismissed with disgrace, deprived of a commission or a warrant by reason of misconduct, and/or resigned by reason of misconduct.
Further clarification appears in Section 19 which states that no benefits are payable under the War Service Grants Act if the ex-service person had been sentenced to be discharged with ignominy; had been convicted by a civil court or by court martial during service or for misconduct.
It is understood that if a person facing dishonourable discharge did not apply for a review, the committee would report to the Minister of Veterans Affairs, to the effect that the person had been deemed "not to have served."
It has been generally accepted that the decision to declare a former member of the Armed Forces as never to have served was taken without legislative authority. It would appear, therefore, that the eventual responsibility for ensuring that the circumstances surrounding the veterans discharge were just was that of the Minister of Veterans Affairs.
According to information given by the Honourable Albina Guarnieri, current Minister of Veterans Affairs, in the House of Commons on October 7, 2005, it is believed that some 14,000 service personnel were deprived of benefits. Their files would show:
- Their cases were reviewed and the dishonourable discharge remained in effect; or
- The Review Committee took no action except to close the file stating that the former member of the Forces is deemed "never to have served."
Cliff Chadderton, who was serving as Secretary of the Interdepartmental Committee on Veterans Affairs from 1946 to 1948, states that this decision must have been known to the Minister of Veterans Affairs, to whom the committee was required to report.
Chadderton has stated that, in 1948, advice was considered by the Interdepartmental Committee on Veterans Affairs concerning the reasons why entitled veterans did not apply for a review. Generally, there were a number of circumstances which mitigated against such application, as follows:
- Due to the lapse of time (often as long as 3-4 years) the whereabouts of the veteran could not be traced; or
- A number of veterans interviewed for the purpose of consideration by the Interdepartmental Committee stated that they had no interest in having their files reviewed, in that they were apprehensive that the circumstances would be misinterpreted; or
- In many cases, under the 'misconduct' definition of the legislation, the crime of being absent without leave when the person's unit was not in a combat situation was considered as a minor offense, particularly if such person had given good or even exemplary service and was a volunteer enlistment (irrespective, records show such veteran's service could be expunged).
Chadderton stated further that if the person had been given a dishonourable discharge or alternatively had been deemed never to have served, such person would be deprived of any benefits under the Veterans Charter.
The facts regarding the treatment of such veterans often failed to convey the accurate story in that the reasons for the decisions were not made public. This led in many instances to the veteran adopting the attitude that it was pointless to pursue an application which would have called for a revision of the terms of his discharge. Historically, it would appear that a considerable attitude of distrust was exhibited by those whose dishonourable discharge stood or alternatively were deemed never to have served.
This memorandum prepared by H. Clifford Chadderton dated at Ottawa, Ontario on October 18, 2005.