General WELLER. That is correct. Mr. BLANDFORD. So there is that one difference. In the promotion zone, a selection board can select an officer out and a consideration board can't select an officer out. General WELLER. Right. Mr. BLANDFORD. Let's get this straight. This can be very important. The general says they can and you say they can't. Now, as I understand, a continuation board, a zone of consideration board, could not select out an officer. Captain WILLIAMS. Yes, sir. Secretary JACKSON. Yes, sir. Mr. BLANDFORD. Yes they can, or yes they can't? Captain WILLIAMS. They are a selection board and a selection board can select out any eligible officer with less than 20 years service. General WELLER. We are talking about unsatisfactory performance. That is what you are talking about. Captain WILLIAMS. Yes." Mr. BLANDFORD. I don't see the authority here to do that. It may not ever be applied, but I think we ought to make it clear. General WELLER. Well, this would be governed by the precept anyway. It would have to be. Mr. BLANDFORD. There is authority for selection boards to do it in the law. General WELLER. That is right. Captain WILLIAMS. That is right. Mr. BLANDFORD. I don't see the authority in here. Captain WILLIAMS. This will be a selection board, Mr. Chairman. This provides only for a zone and has nothing to do with the selection board as a selection board. General WELLER. Well, this board, I mean this zone of consideration will not constitute a pass-over. Therefore, it is not the same as a promotion zone at all, because if you establish a legal promotion zone and you fail to select an officer-if you select someone junior to somebody, then it is not in fact a board. Major LEROND. It is a selection board. General WELLER. It is not a promotion board in the full sense. Mr. STRATTON. Mr. Chairman, could I ask a couple of questions, just to clarify my own thought. In the first place this differs from the Navy in that you are taking in majors whereas the Navy goes only to commander; is that correct? Captain WILLIAMS. No, sir, Mr. Stratton, this has no application to the Navy. Mr. STRATTON. No, what I am saying is with regard to the Marine Corps you are asking this special legislation to dip down into the rank of major, whereas the Navy is solving its hump problem only by using this procedure with regard to commanders, I mean a similar continuation procedure. General WELLER. No, the Navy is not using this procedure at all. Mr. STRATTON. I understand. General WELLER. In any aspects. Mr. STRATTON. I understand they are not using exactly the similar procedure. But I am saying that you are asking special consideration to solve the hump problem to deal with majors. General WELLER. Exactly. Mr. STRATTON. Whereas the Navy is not asking any legislation with regard to lieutenant commanders. Mr. BLANDFORD. That is right. Mr. STRATTON. Now my question is why can't the Marine Corps solve its hump problem in the same way that the Navy is solving it, by creating vacancies in the grade of captain and commander, and then moving the lieutenant commanders up? Is it because you just don't have enough vacancies that will be created by using the general provisions, so you have to create additional vacancies in the grade of major? General WELLER. This group of majors has had already the attrition which the OPA, that is the Officer Personnel Act, visualized. That is somewhat of a difference right there between the Navy and the Marine Corps. Point 2, the Navy's problem is different, significantly different from ours in this grade. So you don't for that reason, because the two characteristics of the lieutenant commander-major group are different. A different solution is indicated. Now going back to the fact that they have had attrition equal to the OPA norm-we could solve all of this by upping the attrition. But if we hold at 30 percent attrition, we will retard the promotion of these people beyond the 18th year point. The tail end of it will be in their 19th and some of them in their 20th year. Now you can deal with that because this matter is a formula. You can deal with attrition up here or—we don't think we should take any more attrition. This will permit us to defer some of the officers in this group to their 20th year and permit us to take others at their 17th year, as well as keep the normal average at the 18th year point, and, therefore, will allow us to hold the attrition that we feel is right for this group. Mr. STRATTON. What I am saying is: In other words, your hump is a slightly lower hump gradewise than the Navy; is that correct? General WELLER. The characteristics of the two humps are different. Mr. STRATTON. Yes. O.K. General WELLER. And this is the reason why we have this feature and the Navy doesn't. Mr. STRATTON. My second point, General, is with regard to this. As I understand it, these zones of consideration-the only thing that they are considering is promotion, is that right? These are zones of consideration for promotion, in the way that we have discussed? General WELLER. The board who meets will consider officers, X number of officers in the zone of consideration, and will select from that group the numbers specified by the Secretary of the Navy. Mr. STRATTON. They aren't going to consider the question of continuation, though? General WELLER. No. Mr. STRATTON. Now, how do you distinguish your last sentence in this section says that an officer who is included within the zone of consideration but is not within a promotion zone is not considered as having been passed over. Now, how do you define the promotion zone as distinct from the consideration zone? General WELLER. The Secretary of the Navy would promulgate à precept which said the zone of consideration was here to here and the promotion zone was from here to here [indicating by hands]. Mr. STRATTON. That isn't spelled out, but that is within the Secretary's province. Mr. BLANDFORD. That is spelled out in the Officer Personnel Act, which is referred to. Mr. STRATTON. And the third question, which I think you discussed before, but I am not sure that I understood it, is that as far as this particular subsection is concerned there is no attrition, is there, no authority for dropping anybody? General WELLER. There is no pass-over feature in this, which is the first point. Now, as to the authority Mr. BLANDFORD. I think the next section would clarify this situa tion. General WELLER. I frankly am not sure about this point, as to whether this zone of consideration could remove officers for unsatisfactory performance. That is the point we are talking about. Mr. BLANDFORD. Well, (b), Mr. Chairman, the next section- Mr. BLANDFORD. Can supply this. [Reading:] (b) Whenever a zone of consideration is established for the grade of major pursuant to this section, the term "promotion zone" as used in section 5759 (b) of title 10, United States Code, is synonymous with the term "zone of consideration." Now, the question would be appropriate, Mr. Stratton, as to whether that is sufficient language to let a continuation board select out an individual. Personally, I don't think it is, but Mr. STRATTON. This would seem to contradict what the general has just said, that you have a consideration zone that is this big but a promotion zone that is that big. Major LEROND. I think the point at issue, sir, is whether a selection board convened for the purposes of selecting officers from within a zone of consideration has the authority to remove officers for unsatisfactory performance of duty who have less than 20 years' service. This section specifies that the provisions of a promotion zone in reference to those type matters are also equally applicable to the provisions of a zone of consideration. In other words, this is a selection board formed under the existing provisions of title 10. The only thing they do not do is pass officers over when they have failed of selection within the zone of consideration. Mr. STRATTON. Now, in answer to my previous question, General Weller said that the Secretary would have the right to define a promotion zone as being less extensive than a zone of consideration. Then you have two types-as this section applies, you have two types of promotion zone. One is a promotion zone defined by the Secretary of the Navy and one the promotion as used in section 5759 (b), is that correct? Major LEROND. That is in connection with the selection board to be established. Mr. STRATTON. I see. OK. Mr. KILDAY. Proceed. Mr. BLANDFORD (reading) : (c) Notwithstanding the last sentence of section 5765 (b) of title 10, United States Code, the Secretary shall, until December 31, 1964, determine the number of officers of the Marine Corps in a promotion zone for promotion to lieutenant colonel on the basis of a consideration of the number of vacancies estimated for the grade of lieutenant colonel in the next 5 years, the required number of vacancies in the grade of major, and the age and service characteristics of the officers in the grade of major. The Secretary may, until December 31, 1964, specify the maximum number of officers who may be recommended for promotion to the grade of lieutenant colonel from within and above a promotion zone established under section 5765 of title 10, United States Code, which reads "in order to maintain a flow of promotion consistent with the terms of service set out in section 5768 of this title and" is suspended until December 31, 1964, for the grade of major. Major LEROND. Mr. Chairman, this portion simply states that the Secretary of the Navy determines when majors shall be placed in a promotion zone for a different purpose. Currently it says that majors should be placed in a promotion zone to create vacancies within that grade for promotion up. With a zone of consideration it needs a different aspect since if there are too many majors in a grade or the age of the majors within that grade becomes too great, then he should set a promotion zone in there to remove these majors to allow the flow to continue and to correct those age and numbers deficiencies. General WELLER. It simply really implements the previous prescription of the zone of consideration. Mr. KILDAY. Mr. Huddleston. Mr. HUDDLESTON. General, the terminal date of the Navy part of this act is 1970, June 30, 1970, but the terminal date on the Marine Corps part of the act is December 31, 1964. Mr. BLANDFORD. That is just that zone of consideration. Mr. KILDAY. For majors. Mr. KITCHIN. For majors only? Mr. BLANDFORD. That is for majors only. Mr. HUDDLESTON. The Navy cutoff is still 1970 for the zone of consideration in the bill. Why that difference in dates? General WELLER. This date of a 5-year period applies only to this feature which we have just been discussing, namely, the zone of consideration to be applied to the majors in the Marine Corps. The other features of this bill, such as the continuation board, and so forth: The Marine Corps would use them just as the Navy, or essentially in the same manner as the Navy up through 1970, and we would visualize the requirements. In other words, we don't need the zone of consideration beyond this 5-year period, and it applies solely to the Marine Corps and why it is specified there. Mr. HUDDLESTON. It would not apply to lieutenant colonels and colonels. Mr. KILDAY. Read the next section. Mr. BLANDFORD (reading): Section 5. The President may suspend any provision of section 1 or 4 of this act during a war or national emergency hereafter declared. Such a suspension may not continue beyond June 30 of the fiscal year following that in which the war or national emergency ends. Captain WILLIAMS. Since this act involves the separation of officers, it might conceivably, particularly in the mandatory provisions for noncontinuation or a consideration for continuation of twice-failed officers be completely out of place in war or national emergency. Therefore, there is authority to suspend the provisions during any such periods. Mr. HÉBERT. May I point this out? We are all in a national emergency now. Captain WILLIAMS. This is a national emergency hereafter declared, Mr. Hébert. Mr. KILDAY. The next section. Mr. BLANDFORD (reading): Section 6. Title 10, United States Code, is amended as follows: (1) Section 6387 (b)(2) is amended by striking out the words "is, or at any time has been," and inserting the words “has been continuously" in place thereof. (2) Section 5707(a) (6) and 5708 (e) are each amended by inserting the following before the period at the end thereof: "in the next higher grade." Captain WILLIAMS. The first subsection goes back to this question of constructive service and deals with a technicality which has affected the Navy to some extent, very minor, so far, but will affect the Marine Corps very vitally in the case of this zone of consideration. Because these officers who were appointed in the regular service from Reserve status or otherwise take their years of commissioned service from a contemporary, it is possible that if they mave up by early selection, as they will in the case of the Marine Corps zone of consideration, or straight accelerated promotion, where they gain numbers on an officer who has not been passed over, that they will then be picking up additional commissioned service simply by reason of being selected early. This would relieve that and say that they will take their guide from an officer who always has been junior to them, rather than an officer who in his new status is now junior to him. Mr. HARDY. I don't understand that, either. Mr. KILDAY. Then the only other provision is the termination date of June 30, 1970. Captain WILLIAMS. The second subparagraph of section 6, Mr. Chairman, is a rectification of an omission in the original enactment of OPA, where we set the criteria for selection of Reserve officers and temporary officers for promotion to be qualified for continued active duty. The Judge Advocate General has taken the position that that obviously means qualified for active duty in the higher grade. This would merely supply the language that the Judge Advocate General Mr. BLANDFORD. What has that to do with this bill? Captain WILLIAMS. Nothing. Mr. BLANDFORD. Why not strike section 6 from the bill entirely? Captain WILLIAMS. It has nothing to do with the purposes of the bill. |