The National tribune., 1890-12-11
HONORABLE DISCHARGE
Absolutely Necessary to Secure a Pension Under
the New Law

Tue view Law.
Awhile ago Secretary Noble referred to Assist.
ant Secretary Bussey, for his consideration and
decision, the following communication from
Commissioner Of Pensions Raum in regard 10
claims that arose under the act Of June %,
1890:
The law requires, among other things a
minimum service Of 80 days and seems 10
require also an honorable discharge there
from. Where it is shown that the soldier
served over 90 days and was honorably dis
charged, Ie-enlsts in the same or other organ
ization, and was dishonorably discharged or
deserted therefrom, would he have status to
apply for pension under the act Of June %,
1892"
In answering the inquiry Gen. Bussey dis
cusses very fully the intent aud scope of the
act OF June q, 1890, and, in conclusion, says
q" Ii is clear that the least period Of pension
able service under the act Of June q, 1890,
must embrace 80 days, aud that the claimant
mast prove an honorable discharge thereirOm
but you ask substantially, if claimant shall
show an honorable discharge from the mini
mum service OF 90 days, and yet it appears he
rc-enlistcd in the same or other organization,
and was dishOnOrably discharged or deserted
theTefrOm would he have status 10 apply for a
pension under the act Of June y, ls9O:' The
answer to this portion Of your inquiry IS SIM
pie one.
II u tNlueuL Lidtf II the SDlQleF, 1IlcE re-
ceiylng an honorable discharge from the Origi-
nal service Of 80 days, had never re-eulisted,
no would occupy peusiOnable status; he might
become dependent pensiOner. under the act
OF June "a, 1879, by reason Of his service but
the fact that he re-enlistcd put him back in
the service aud rendered him non pensiouable
during his second term Of enlistment. The re-
enlistment is construed as Il continuation Of the
soldier in the same service from which, accord
70 fEa 1uFrr .fg D..
an honorable discharge as 4 prerequisite to
pensiOnable dependence.
eff the soldier were q claimant for invalid
pension under the general law, his dishOnOr-
able discharge so far from being a bar. would
not impair his claim if based upon a disability
incurred in the line Of duty; he might, upon
competent evidence, be pensiOued under the
ruling in the ease Of Daniel Kaufman. But the
act Of June %. 1890 is not an act for pension
ing claimants for pensiOEable disabilities which
originated in the line Of duty 1t is an act
providing pensions for present dependence
without reference to cause due 10 the service
and a final and honorable discharge in such
cases is an essential matter of proof
IAN honorable discharge from the service
under the soldiers first enlistment did not nor
could il, alone, establish his title to a pen
sion on account of that enlistment; and it
would be absurd 10 hold that the dishonorable
discharge from the second enlistment was cured
or neutralized by the honorable discharge from
the first.
"A soldier cannot be pensioned at all under
any statue without final discharge from the
service; and the act Of June p, 1890, requires
that such final discharge shall be an 'h0nora-
Bile one as condition OF pension under its pro-
visions. In the of desertiou, it is held that
n dcserter Is not discharged, but is, construct
lively in the service, and therefore in order that
soldier charged with desertion, whether
guilty or not may acquire pensionable status
under this or any other act, it is necessary that
he procure an expuTgatiOn of the charge from
the records Of the War Department and there
| upon an honorable discharge from the serv-
ice, or that he shall have returned TO the serv-
ice subsequent to the record OF the desertion
and been thereafter houOrably discharged.
| The discharge would of course terminate his
| status as a deserter, and to that extent render
him eligible under the act OF June q, 1890 or
under any other statute, upon proof Of pen
siOnable cause"