Изображения страниц
PDF
EPUB

limited in comparison to male officers and a best-qualified promotion system, wherein they would directly compete with male officers, would be highly inequitable.

Question. Will this legislation, if enacted, solve your problems in Reserve promotions? Answer. In general, yes, as it will provide a means to alleviate the major problem area with which our current promotion system was not designed to deal. We currently have a larger number of officers elegible for promotion to captain, commander, and lieutenant commander than there are vacancies in these grades. This hump situation evolved because large numbers of officers who entered the Reserve during World War II and the Korean Emergency have remained active in the Reserve program. In addition, it is compounded by differences in promotion opportunity and in authorized grade strengths between the Regular service and the Reserve.

Question. What reaction do you believe the Reserve officer corps has to the problem area of the hump?

Answer. Because of the deceleration of promotion and the extension of times in grade before selection, we believe it has had serious effects upon the morale of the Reserve officer corps. For example, promotions to the grade of captain have been slowed to the point where a Reserve officer can not expect promotion until nearly four years after his Regular contemporaries.

Question. If a best qualified promotion system were enacted, what do you believe would be the reaction of the Reserve officers corps?

Answer. A best qualified promotion system has the support of most of the Reserve officer corps.

Question. Will a best qualified promotion system affect the incentives for junior officers to enter the Reserve program?

Answer. It is believed a best qualified promotion system would enhance the attractiveness of the program to junior officers through the incentive of accelerating promotion to the same rate used by the regular service.

Question. How would you utilize the best-qualified promotion system to eliminate the hump?

Answer. We would plan to administer a best qualified promotion system in conjunction with continuation boards authorized by 14 USC 787a in order to gradually phase out the hump.

Question. Do you plan to temporarily exceed grade strengths to ease the implementation of this legislation in accordance with the recommendations of the House Committee report?

Answer. We would use it to eliminate the hump more rapidly. However, we would plan to use it in such a manner as to not be disruptive to the unit training program. If this congressional assent provision is authorized we could eliminate the hump in two years versus the five, otherwise planned.

Question. Will there not be other additional costs for your Reserve Training appropriation, if you are permitted to exceed authorized grade strengths for a five-year period? Answer. Our estimates indicate minimal additional costs. In a majority of cases, the officers who would comprise these excess numbers would not be performing training with pay, hence the cost to the training appropriation itself would be minimal. Correspondence courses, participation in Volunteer Training Units and appropriate duty without pay are examples of such non-paid training. It is also noted that the greatest portion of our training pay is received by officers in the grades of lieutenant commander and below, and the excess number provision would therefore, have little affect.

Question. Of what use, then, is the new system to individual officers other than those in the hump situation?

Answer. Over the very short run, this new system would have minimal effect upon junior officers promotions. However, as previously noted, the long term benefit for the best qualified system is in its attractiveness to the most highly qualified officer. Obviously, this is the individual we seek to attract and retain. Question. Assuming that the Selected Reserve were continued, what effect would this promotion system have upon your Reserve units?

Answer. Any action we would take that results in acceleration of the flow of promotion will increase turnover in our Reserve units. However, the disruptive effects of adoption of a best qualified promotion system can be minimized by an orderly implementation of the system. We believe such effects will be compensated for through the incentive to remain active in the program afforded by the opportunity for a more attractive rate of promotion. To provide minimal disruption to the units, it is emphasize that this system must be implemented in an orderly fashion. We expect this can be accomplished by eliminating the hump over a two year period.

Question. If this legislation were not enacted into law, would it be possible for you to eliminate the hump through use of continuation boards only?

Answer. Although this method of resolving the problem of the hump is possible, it is not considered feasible because of the adverse effects continuation boards have on the officer corps morale as it denies them the opportunity for competitive selection for promotion among their contemporaries.

Question. Why is a dual promotion system undesirable?

Answer. Under current law, a Reserve officer on active duty receives duplicate appointments on the active duty promotion list and the inactive list. Since this overlap is unnecessary, we propose that the promotion of a Reserve officer while on active duty would continue and be recognized when he was released to inactive duty.

Senator LONG. Our next witness is Col. John T. Carlton of the Reserve Officers Association.

Colonel Carlton, we are pleased to see you here. You have been around the Hill for quite a long time, it seems to me; almost as long as I have, maybe longer.

STATEMENT OF COL. JOHN T. CARLTON, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, RESERVE OFFICERS ASSOCIATION OF THE UNITED STATES

Colonel CARLTON, Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. CHAIRMAN. I have a very brief statement here, and if it would please you, I will merely submit it for the record. We, of course, support the bill as passed by the House, and we think it is long overdue, and I believe the Senate bill substantially seeks the same purpose. I would like to comment, if you don't mind, Mr. Chairman, on a question you asked Admiral McCubbin.

Senator LONG. We will print your statement in the record at this point.

(The statement in full follows:)

STATEMENT OF COL. JOHN T. CARLTON, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, RESERVE OFFICERS ASSOCIATION OF THE UNITED STATES

Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee, We deeply appreciate the opportunity of appearing before your Committee to give our views on this most important legislative proposal.

This Bill, HR 13716 as passed by the House of Representatives, is long overdue. Over five years ago the Coast Guard developed and had enacted into legislation a Bill placing the Regular Coast Guard Officer Corps on a best qualified basis and established a promotion system for the Regular Coast Guard which is quite similar to the Navy Promotion System under the Officer Personnel Act (OPA). At the time of enactment of this legislation the Reserve Officer Personnel Act (ROPA) affecting the Coast Guard Reserve promotions was left unchanged and the Coast Guard Reserve even now, over five years later, is being promoted on the antiquated fully qualified system.

The Commandant of the Coast Guard convened a Study Group shortly after the passage of the new regular promotion legislation. This Study Group recommended proposed legislation some five years ago which is the basis of the Bill which you are now considering.

HR 13716 as now written and passed by the House is an excellent Bill and we strongly recommend its adoption in all areas.

Since the Regulars and the Reserves have been operating on two separate systems for the past five years certain disparities will occur in the process of transition from the present "fully qualified system" to the "best qualified system." It is therefore requested that the Committee in its report give Congressional assent for the Secretary of Transportation to exceed grade limitations for a period of five years in order to insure that each year group is provided equality of treatment.

We feel that one additional technical change would be appropriate in this Bill. As you know, the Reserve Officer Personnel Act (ROPA) included the Coast Guard Reserve when it provided for the protection of the vested interest in paid retirement earned by Reserve officers having in excess of 18 but less than 20 satisfactory years of service, who, under some other law, would be involuntarily transferred from an active status. However, the Coast Guard Reserve was inadvertently omitted in the codification of that section of ROPA in Title 10. While the Coast Guard Reservist is guaranteed the same rights and benefits as are lawful for the Naval Reservist under the assimilation provisions of 14 USC 755, it would be well to correct this oversight with a clarifying, technical amendment to Sections 1006 (a) and (b) of Title 10. We have been assured that the Coast Guard has no objection. Therefore, we submit the following amendments by adding the words "or section 787 or 787a of Title 14" after the words "or 863 of this title" in both paragraph (a) and paragraph (b) of Section 1006 of Title 10. Paragraphs (a) and (b) would then read in accordance with the enclosure to this statement with the proposed change underlined.

Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee, we appreciate the opportunity of appearing before you on this important legislative proposal.

AMENDMENTS TO SECTIONS 1005 (a) AND (b) OF TITLE 10, U.S. CODE,

PROPOSED BY ROA

Add the words "or section 787 or 787a of Title 14" after the words "or 863 of this title" in paragraph (a) of Section 1006 of Title 10.

Add the words "or section 787 or 787a of Title 14" after the words "or 863 of this title" in paragraph (b) of Section 1006 of Title 10.

So that Section 1006, Title 10, reads as follows:

"(a) If on the date prescribed for the discharge or transfer from an active status of a reserve commissioned officer he is entitled to be credited with at least 18, but less than 19, years of service computed under section 1332 of this title, he may not be discharged or transferred from an active status under chapter 337, 361, 363, 573, 837, 861, or 863 of this title, or section 787 or 787a of title 14, without his consent before the earlier of the following dates ***.

"(b) If on the date prescribed for the discharge or transfer from an active status of a reserve commissioned officer he is entitled to be credited with at least 19, but less than 20, years of service computed under section 1332 of this title, he may not be discharged or transferred from an active status under chapter 337, 361, 363, 573, 837, 861, or 863 of this title, or section 787 or 787a of title 14, without his consent before the earlier of the following dates ***”

Senator LONG. I suggest you get to the points you particularly wnat to discuss.

Colonel CARLTON. You have a letter from me and my national president about the proposal to phase out the Coast Guard Reserve, and we think this is a very poorly conceived idea, and I would like to solicit your support and help for our campaign to retain the Coast Guard Reserve.

I know you, Mr. Chairman, have had service in the Navy, and as a citizen officer in wartime you rendered a very vital and important service.

The Coast Guard Reserve is just as important as the Naval Reserve to that service. I wanted to call your attention to the fact so that there will be no implication in the record that you are supporting the phaseout of the Coast Guard Reserve next year. I hope you are not. Senator LONG. I simply have taken no position on it, I am listening to what people have to say about it, and we will certainly consider the position of your association when we get around to voting on this matter, Colonel Carlton.

I believe I have a question or two for you.

Would the technical amendment that you recommend in your statement have any substantive effect at all?

Colonel CARLTON. This would merely clarify what the principal purpose of the bill is and the technical amendment which is attached to page 2 there as an enclosure would clarify a system under which an officer cannot be retired prior to his obtaining 20 years of service just in order to prevent him from attaining 20 years of service.

This is the same as the other services. They cannot be retired or removed if they have 18 years without having the opportunity of getting a minimum of 20 years.

While it is not the policy or the practice or desire to keep an Officer merely to permit him to qualify for retirement, at the same time it should not be permissible to retire an officer to prevent him from becoming qualified if in other ways he is a qualified officer.

Senator LONG. You said in your statement that the Commandant Study Group recommended this legislation 5 years ago. Why do you think it took so long to get here?

Colonel CARLTON. We can't explain that. In Government it takes a long time. Government is very slow and ponderous, particularly in a democracy, and it takes a long time for a bureaucracy to move. Senator LONG. Why do you feel it is necessary to exceed limitations for 5 years if this bill is enacted?

Colonel CARLTON. Merely in an adjustment period, if you went into this system cold turkey you would create a lot of inequities and this gives you some flexibility. It would give the Coast Guard some flexibility.

Senator LONG. Thank you very much.

That concludes this hearing.

(Whereupon, at 10:30 a.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.)

« ПредыдущаяПродолжить »