Lapas attēli
PDF
ePub
[ocr errors]

IV

2599
2604
2613

2430

2934
2281

2903

2919

Letters, statements, memoranda, etc., submitted for the record—Con.

Burke, Lt. Col. Mark J., Directorate of Manpower and Organization,

USAF

Air Force Establishment, chart .

Air Staff, immediate headquarters, chart.

Typical major air command, chart..

Cooper, Capt. William G., Assistant Chief of Plans:

Breakdown of billets by categories --

Career mortality under Officer Personnel Act of 1947, chart.

Functions of commanding officer of a naval air station.-

Naval Aerological Service, responsibilities.

Officer strength nearly doubled between June 1950 and February

1953.

Department of the Army, supplemental statement to questions

asked on August 3, 1953-
Four general questions submitted to Admiral Houser-
Lee, Maj. Gen. Morris J., Director of Personnel Planning, United

States Air Force, information on staff officers.
Minter, R. O., Office of the Chief of Naval Operations, March 17, 1953,

memo, with enclosures: (1) list of aerological units; and (2) state-

ment on nonduplication of weather activities..
Officers who served in the Regular Army, April 6, 1917, to November

11, 1918, also emergency grades attained
Smoot, Rear Adm. R. N., lists submitted by:

Continental United States shore
Flag officers in other than naval billets.-
Fleet-type billets, pay officers ..
Overseas United States naval billets.

Retired and Reserve officers on active duty

Wensinger, Maj. Gen. W. W., representing the Commandant of the

Marine Corps, statement.

Wetzel, Maj. Gen. E. S., Deputy Chief of Staff, Personnel, USAF:

Air Force chaplains, Chief and Deputy Chief
Air provost marshal...
Breakdowns of typical training command stations, that is, Samp-

son, Keesler, Williams, and Nellis

Director of Statistical Services, DC S/C...

Directorate of legislation and liaison, Office of the Secretary

Flight Safety Research, Office of the Director.

Industrial Resources, Director, etc.-

Inspector General, Norton Air Force Base, Calif.

Judge Advocate General, appellate services and training, assistant.

Judge Advocate General (Civil Law), assistant...

Judge Advocate General (Military Justice), assistant.

Manpower and Organization Director---

Mutual security, assistant and deputy assistant-

Personnel Planning, Director.---

Public Information Office...

Research and Development, Director.

Secretary of the Air Force Personnel, Council..
Transportation functions.

2323
2387
2316
2377
2410

REVIEW OF PROMOTIONS OF OFFICERS IN THE

ARMED SERVICES

THURSDAY, MAROH 5, 1953

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,

SUBCOMMITTEE No. 2 OF THE
COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES,

Washington, D. C. The subcommittee met at 10 a. m., Hon. Leslie C. Arends (chairman of the subcommittee) presiding.

Mr. ARENDS. The committee will come to order.

In preparation for these hearings, I would like to read this short statement, for the record.

I would like to make a statement before we hear from the Navy witnesses, who will begin these hearings.

First, let me say that these hearings will be in executive session, although they will be recorded. Obviously, we will be discussing security material throughout most of the hearings, particularly when the various billets occupied by colonels and generals, or their equivalent, are explained to the subcommittee.

Thus, I must ask all persons who are not directly connected with these hearings in an official capacity to please leave the room at this time.

As you all know, it is the intent of this subcommittee to thoroughly review the present promotion policies for officers in our Armed Forces, We are, of course, particularly concerned with temporary promotions, although in some instances we will discuss permanent promotions.

I want to say at the outset that we have not prejudged this case. I don't think any of us have made up our minds one way or the other as to whether or not there have been too many promotions and whether or not there are too many persons holding high grades in the Armed Forces. At the same time, I think it must be apparent to everyone that there is growing concern in the Congress with respect to temporary promotions and the number of officers holding high grades compared with the number that were in existence during World War II.

I don't think it is possible for us or for the Congress to say whether or not there has been any abuse of promotions, or whether there are too many or too few general or flag officers, or too many or too few colonels, until we know what all of you officers in those grades are doing. 'I want to make it clear that one of the principal things this committee will inquire into is whether the rank should go with the job, or whether the rank should go with length of service and experience. In other words, it will be up to you people to convince us as to the reasonable length of service that should be required of an officer before he occupies a higher rank.

You will have to justify not only the billets that are now established in your table of organization, but also the reason for giving that billet a high grade.

And I also want to say that throughout these hearings we will constantly be comparing the billets of one service with the billets of another service to determine whether there are cases in which officers of one service are occupying a billet in a higher grade than that of a sister service.

We are also going to look carefully into any bootstrap operation whereby other services increase the rank of a billet because another service has placed an officer of higher grade in a comparable billet.

We have given you four questions to answer. They are general questions and we will develop further questions as we go along.

We will also want to know, because it very definitely enters into this problem, what effect any limitations will have upon the promotion of Reserve officers, not only those on active duty, but those in inactive duty.

I want to repeat that we have not prejudged this problem. This is your opportunity to explain and justify your present grade distribution and the grade distribution that you think is necessary to properly man our Armed Forces. But I want to emphasize this: We are dealing with a very sensitive problem, sensitive insofar as the officers in our Armed Forces are concerned, and sensitive insofar as Members of the Congress and the taxpayers are concerned. We want a full and complete disclosure of all promotion policies and plans because it is obvious to me that if we do not receive complete cooperation from all the services, and thus are unable to come up with a proper legislative solution, then someone else will do it for us.

The House is very much aware of this whole program, and are very much interested, and we must be completely and fully informed. I think we will receive that cooperation. In other words, it is up to the services to set their own house in order, or to explain fully its present grade distribution, or someone else not so familiar with the problem as members of this committee will do it for you.

I would like to say this, gentlemen and members of this committee, very frankly, that I am not too conversant with all the phases and angles of this particular problem that faces this subcommittee. I know there are men on this committee who have spent hours and weeks in the study of this problem, and are better qualified than I. However, let me assure you that in the weeks immediately ahead I expect to devote the best of my attention to this problem, as I know you will, and let me express the hope that all of us together, working with the Armed Forces and their representatives, can come up with some sort of a solution to this problem which will be what the Congress is looking for.

I ask of each and every one of you members on the subcommittee your wholehearted cooperation in our preparation for this problem.

Mr. Blandford, you have a statement you want to read into the record this morning?

Mr. BLANDFORD. Yes, sir; I would like to read into the record and to familiarize the members of the subcommittee with the four questions that were submitted to Admiral Houser and in turn transmitted to the other departments. These will be the four general questions, and from these questions will come countless other questions. The letter states:

We will expect the representatives from each of the services to be prepared to submit the following information to the subcommittee:

(a) A billet justification, naming the job and the officer for each billet occupied by a flag officer or a general officer. Include the officer's name, age, length of service, his permanent grade, and present temporary grade.

(b) The billet justification for each colonel in the Army, Air Force, and Marine Corps and captain in the Navy, together with a service breakdown of the permanent grades of the officers serving in the temporary grade of colonel or equivalent. The breakdown by colonel need not be by name in each instance. In other words, where there are a group of colonels performing identical jobs, the number may be mentioned, that is, regimental commanders, captains of cruisers, or battleships, etc.

(c) The number of officers, from ensign to admiral, and second lieutenant to general of the Army, now serving in each grade, and the number that each service desires to be serving in each grade, and the number now permitted under existing law, that is, section 634 of the Defense Appropriation Act, and the number permitted under H. R. 2332.

The subcommittee desires this information not only by number, but by percentage in comparison to the total number of officers serving on active duty in each service.

(d) Each service is to be prepared to submit to the subcommittee a suggested percentage distribution of officers, based on the total number of officers on active duty graduated downward as the total number of officers on active duty increases; using as the original basis the total number of regular officers authorized for each service, even though the service has not attained the authorized number of Regular officers.

I would like to say parenthetically in connection with temporary promotions: We have no limitation in the Army and Air Force on temporary promotions by law. We do have a percentage distribution for naval officers, but those percentage distributions are identical with their distribution for permanent grade.

So, throughout these hearings the subcommittee, I am sure, will want to consider a sliding-scale basis for distribution of officers as the number of officers on active duty increase over and above the authorized regular strength, the theory being that as your base increases, the apex of the triangle decreases, or at least the number in proportion decreases. You don't need the same number of general officers in proportion for an armed force of 50,000 as you do for, say, an armed force of 100,000.

Thus, as the base expands, the percentage of general officers should decrease, compared to the total.

Mr. KILDAY. That is right.
Mr. Miller. Percentagewise.

Mr. BLANDFORD. Yes, sir. I think I have confused that sufficiently.

Admiral Holloway is the first witness.

Mr. ARENDS. As the first witness this morning we have Admiral Holloway of the Navy.

Will you come forward, Admiral?

Mr. KILDAY. Before we get to that, just to refresh my memory, I would like to ask Mr. Blandford if it is correct there is a percentage limitation for temporary officers of the Navy?

Mr. BLANDFORD. Yes, sir; the Navy for its officers

Mr. Kilday. There is not, I know, for the Army and the Air Force, How did that distinction get in there? Was this in the Officer Personnel Act?

Mr. BLANDFORD. That is definitely in the Officer Personnel Act.
Mr. KILDAY. Do you remember why we did that?
Mr. BLANDFORD. No, sir; I didn't handle the bill at that time.

TESTIMONY OF VICE ADM. J. L. HOLLOWAY, JR., CHIEF OF NAVAL

PERSONNEL; ACCOMPANIED BY COMDR. R. V. WHEELER, JR., HEAD, CURRENT PLAN SECTION

Admiral Holloway. We did it, Mr. Kilday, because in the 1947 act, as you remember, the Navy led off with the evolution from the 1916 law, and the only guidance we had for temporary promotion was a percentage of the permanent promotion structure.

So the Congress and committee adopted that for the Navy.

Mr. GAVIN. How is it you didn't adopt the same basic principle for the Army and the Air Corps?

Mr. KILDAY. I don't know.
Mr. ARENDS. Maybe we can find that out.
All right, Admiral Holloway, do you have a prepared statement?
Admiral HOLLOWAY. Yes; Mr. Chairman. If I may read it, sir
Mr. ARENDS. Yes; fine.

Admiral HOLLOWAY. I first want to thank the chairman and the committee for their kindness in seeing us this morning, and the very helpful statement from the chairman and the very helpful directive we got from counsel, because without those leads, sir, we would have been delayed. I think with those leads we can come forward with helpful material for the committee, sir.

If I may read my formal statement?
Mr. ARENDS. Surely.
Admiral HOLLOWAY. It will not take too long.

Mr. Chairman and gentlemen, the Navy Department welcomes an opportunity to review the Navy's portion of the Officer Personnel Act of 1947 and to reiterate its strong support. In the involved hearings which led to the formulation of H. R. 2537 of the 80th Congress, and its subsequent enactment as the Officer Personnel Act of 1947, the Congress recognized that the basis upon which the officers in the Navy are promoted has a vital effect on the character, morale, and general performance of their duties, together with its close relation to the efficiency and general welfare of the entire Navy.

For the benefit of the new members and perhaps others where more recent business has displaced tbeir recollection of the hearings which led to the Officer Personnel Act, I would like to briefly review the history of the Navy officer personnel promotion legislation.

For many years promotions in the Navy were made on a straight seniority basis. This was unsatisfactory in many respects. While it assured ultimate promotion it required only that one keep one's health and stay out of trouble. It permitted no recognition of either outstanding ability or mediocre performance and resulted in stagnation in all the grades. Efforts to correct this situation were made frequently, but with little success until just after the Spanish-American War in 1899. The Navy Personnel Act of that year provided for selection boards to designate certain numbers of the senior officers for retirement. These boards were known as "Plucking Boards," and by their very name brought dissatisfaction both in the Navy and in the Congress.

In 1916 a Navy Personnel Act was the first to include the principle of selection of the best fitted officers for promotion. Originally it was applied to promotion to the grade of commander and above. Then in

« iepriekšējāTurpināt »