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, sirMr. 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 their 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

1934 the principle was extended to promotion to lieutenant and above. Like other large operational policies, both civil and military, the Navy requires fewer officers at the top than are needed at the base. Thus, at each point in the management ladder there are vacancies in the next higher grade. Selection boards have as their duty the necessity of giving careful consideration to the records of the eligible officers and to select for promotion those whom the board judges best fitted, to carry out the broader duties and responsibilities of higher grade. Those not selected are to be separated either through involuntary retirement or discharge with severance pay, depending upon their grade. Promotion laws are necessarily very complex in order to set forth the various requirements and processes to insure continuity of policy and equitable treatment for all.

The Officer Personnel Act of 1947 contains the latest operating instructions as to administration of officer personnel with regard to promotion and its concomitant separation.

This act maintains the fundamental principle of promotion of the best fitted to meet the needs of the Navy.

Under this, a selection system, there are three main features to insure continuity of policy and equality of treatment. These are (1) a grade distribution which will provide an adequate number of officers in appropriate grades under à considerable range of conditions and also to provide reasonable career security to the optimum degree compatible with the foregoing; (2) minimum and normal terms of total commissioned service and service in grade to assure experience of officers appropriate to the grade held and to provide for reasonable promotional progress; and (3) the promotion zone and the 5-year comparison of vacancies against eligible officers to assure, insofar as practicable, equality of opportunity for promotion of adjacent year groups. In addition, this act contains a number of procedures which, when followed, develop the features and accomplish the principle while safeguarding the rights of the individuals. Each feature of this act is so interrelated to each other feature, and the implementing procedures are so geared to each other, that a change in one will produce manifestations in many other, occasionally unlikely, places.

The principle of selection of the best fitted has proven itself sound over a period of more than a generation. There are very few naval officers still on active duty who were first commissioned prior to its introduction. It is important to note, however, that the selection of an officer for promotion is not a reward for past performance. Mr. KILDAY. Would you repeat that, Admiral?

Admiral HOLLOWAY. It is important to note, however, that the selection of an officer for promotion is not a reward for past performance. It is a prediction that the officer selected is among the best fitted to perform the duties and assume the increased responsibilities of the next higher grade. However, past performance is undoubtedly the major factor in arriving at the prediction as to what the future capacity of the officer will be.

Prior to 1900, as today, when international tension waxed and waned, the Congress provided for more or less ships, which required varying, but proportional, numbers of officers to man them. From earliest times until comparatively recent dates, the Navy Officers Corps was composed, with few exceptions, exclusively of Regular officers. Regular officers are difficult to dispose of, once obtained.

They can only be removed by retirement or by death. Promotions also were generally permanent, and officers once promoted could not administratively be reduced in grade. For these reasons the Navy has never been able to use the complements, or tables of organization, of ships and stations to determine officer-grade distribution.

The Congress early recognized this difficulty and authorized from time to time distribution of officers in the various grades by finite numbers. Whenever the authorized number in any grade was reduced below the number actually serving in that grade, the excess would be authorized as extra numbers, but no promotions were permitted until the total in that grade was reduced below the authorized number.

In the Navy Personnel Act of 1916, the maximum number of line officers was established as a percentage of the enlisted strength, and the maximum number of staff corps officers were set either as percentages of the line officer strength or in the case of Medical, Dental, and Chaplain Corps officers as a percentage of total strength of officers and enlisted men of the Navy and Marine Corps.

That act also set up the proportion of officers to be in each grade as percentages of the total strength of officers in the line or in each staff corps as appropriate. Provision was made for the Secretary of the Navy to distribute officers in these proportions at least once annually.

With two major modifications this distribution feature of the Navy Personnel Act of 1916 was included almost intact in the Officer Personnel Act of 1947, and constitutes the first feature of this latter act.

The 2 chief modifications that I mentioned are (1) because of the increasing technical complexity of the modern Navy, the growing demand for officers in joint and combined staffs, lessons learned during the war, and experience with promotional attrition prior to 1941, the percentages of officers in the grades of captain, commander and lieutenant commander are increased while those of other grades are lowered; and (2) provision is made for 2 grade distributions, permanent regular and temporary active, to operate concurrently. These are, one, based only upon Regular officer strength and another upon active duty officer strength. This latter modification is occasioned by the necessity of employing numbers of Reserve officers on active duty to operate the ships and stations under the emergency conditions that have existed for several years and will probably continue for some time.

However, like any other living document, the Officer Personnel Act needs to be reviewed from time to time, as conditions change both in and out of the service.

There are some minor modifications to the Officer Personnel Act that we would like to see made; and the Department of Defense legislative program for this fiscal year contains some recommended amendments. These amendments are, however, minor in nature and technical ones which do not affect the principle in any respedt. In statements on the floor of the House, the chairman, Mr. Short, and Mr. Vinson both expressed the opinion that with regard to temporary promotions, perhaps the limits contained in the Officer Personnel Act, as far as the Navy was concerned, were too generous. That certainly is an opinion which these gentlemen and the Armed Forces Com