view raw text
: 4 , Rejecf Billy Martins Claim Of Unfair Treatment by Army Former Yankee Star Told 4 Complaint Is Unjustified By House Probe Committee WASHINGTON, D. C, June ll UP. The House Armed Services Subcommittee, which recently investigated alleged Army preferential treatment of big-name athletes, today rejected baseball star Billy Martins claim that he wasnt "coddled" enough at Fort Ord, Calif. Chairman William E. Hess R.-Ohio, wrote Martin at Camp Carson, Colo, that the subcommittee had studied an Army report on Martins treatment. "We find your complaint to be without justification," Hess told the former New York Yankee inf ielder. Martin, star of the 1953 World Series, raised the discrimination issue in a letter to the committee denying he ever got special treatment. He said he wasnt griping but his treatment during basic training at F o rt Ord appeared in some ways more severe than, that of his fellow trainees. Martin said other soldiers in training with him got more passes than he did and were allowed to try out for post baseball while he was not. Reverses Inquiry The subcommittee reversed its inquiry into alleged "coddling" of well-known athletes to look into possible "discrimination" against Martin. It based its rejection of his contention on a report from Brig. Gen. Herbert B. Powell, the Armys deputy personnel chief. Powell told the subcommittee that no soldiers in training at Fort Ord are permitted to try out for post athletic teams. "Those teams are for permanent party soldiers only," he said. He said other sports were available to trainees, including Martin. Powell said week-end passes normally were granted at Fort Ord at the end, of the fourth, fifth, sixth and seventh weeks of training. Martin had only six weeks training since he had been in service before. However, he got week-end passes at the end of his fourth, fifth and sixth weeks. "In addition, Martin was granted a day pass before training started and he was granted a one and one-half day pass during his last week of training," Powell said. "The evidence fails to substantiate Martins feeling that he was treated more severely than other trainees." Hess wrote Martin: "If the information contained in the departments letter is correct and we do not doubt that it is we find your" complaint to be without justification."
