[Skip to Content]
[Skip to Content Landing]
February 8, 1947


JAMA. 1947;133(6):401. doi:10.1001/jama.1947.02880060043012

This article is only available in the PDF format. Download the PDF to view the article, as well as its associated figures and tables.


Last year both the Reserve Officers Association and the National Guard Association criticized the machinery of retirement of army officers, claiming discrimination against the civilians who had served with the Army. Resolutions were passed by both organizations charging unfairness and favoritism; indeed, charges were made that laws and regulations were being purposely misinterpreted.

Retirement procedure in the Army is largely a medical function. The officer to be retired is first given a physical survey in a hospital; he then appears before a disposition board, all the members except the recorder being physicians. Finally he appears before a retiring board, with at least two medical members. Medical witnesses familiar with the case are called to testify, and the board proceedings are reviewed by physicians in the War Department. Because of this method of procedure, the censure of the resolutions passed by the two associations would seem to fall on medical shoulders

First Page Preview View Large
First page PDF preview
First page PDF preview