| OCR Text |
Show Middy's Hazing Makes Pension Needed 1NJUUIKS Inllicted by huzers while he was a midshipman ut the United States Naval academy ut Annapolis, have brought a life pension pen-sion for Willlum H. McGregor of I Johnstown, Pa. On an appeal from a ruling of the pension bureau. Secretary Secre-tary of the Interior Work decided that the Injuries were received - "in the line of duty and, therefore, entitled the victim to federal pension. McGregor was appointed to Annapolis Annap-olis on June 15, 11)2, and shortly afterward, aft-erward, while on duty, was hazed. He was taken to sick quarters and was susbsequently transferred to the naval hospital on a stretcher, where he remained re-mained In bed for almost five months as a result of Injuries to bis left hip and a stomach affection. The victim did not know of the serious seri-ous extent of his Injuries at the time and refused to disclose the Identities of his assnllants or to reveal the manner man-ner In which he was Injured. Ills silence, his pension application said, was due to a custom that exists at the naval academy of not tolerating "squealers" and. "yellow streaks," toward whom the classmates assume a repellant attitude of aloofness. The severity of bis Injuries, however, how-ever, forced en Investigation and an exposure of the h axing. Smarting un der the Insh of his classmates and believing be-lieving his career In the navy had been destroyed. McGregor resigned, and his resignation was accepted on September 15, 1U23. The Navy department held he was entitled to a pension, but the pension bureau tooU the view his injuries ere not received In line of duty but were due to "conditions to which he voluntarily volun-tarily submitted." In reversing this decision, the secretary sec-retary of the Interior states: "Hazing Is In vlolution of the rules of the academy and the laws of the 1'nlted Stutes, and the claimant was entitled to such protection as would prevent the act, which was not afforded, afford-ed, him. To hold that the victim was out of line of duty when the fact Is that It was the hazers who were not In line of duty Is a paradox. The most that can be said adversely to the appellant's ap-pellant's claim la that he did not promptly complain against these np-! per clnssmen; but that failure con-not con-not be held so to read as to put hiiu out of line of duty at the time of the Inlllctton of the Injuries. "The department, therefore, concludes. con-cludes. In harmony with the h.Ming of the Navy department, that the claimant's Injuries as a renwlt or Unt ',, ing, were Incurred In line of duty." I |
