TO AMEND SECTION 1505 OF THE REVISED STATUTES OF THE UNITED STATES, The CHAIRMAN COMMITTEE ON NAVAL AFFAIRS, House of Representatives, Washington, D. C. MY DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: There is inclosed herewith a copy of a letter, together with a copy of a proposed bill to amend section 1505 of the Revised Statutes of the United States, as amended, relating to loss of numbers by officers of the Navy who are found not professionally qualified for promotion, this day forwarded to the Speaker of the House of Representatives. Sincerely yours, CURTIS D. WILBUR, Secretary of the Navy. NAVY DEPARTMENT, Washington, November 26, 1928. The SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, Washington, D. C. MY DEAR MR. SPEAKER: I have the honor to transmit herewith a draft of a proposed bill to amend section 1505 of the Revised Statutes of the United States. as amended, relating to loss of numbers by officers of the Navy who are found not professionally qualified for promotion. The purpose of the proposed amendment is to amend section 1505, Revised Statutes, as amended, so as to provide a more equitable loss of numbers to such officers as fail upon examination for promotion, except for officers of the ranks of commander and above, whose promotion is governed by the act of August 29 1916 (39 Stat., 578, 579). Section 1505, Revised Statutes, as amended by the act of March 11, 1912 (37 Stat. 73), provides as follows: "SEC. 1505. Any officer of the Navy, on the active list below the rank of com- Į mander, who, upon examination for promotion, is found not professionally qualified, shall be suspended from promotion for a period of six months from the date of approval of said examination and shall suffer loss of numbers equal to the average six months' rate of promotion to the grade for which said officer is undergoing examination during the five fiscal years next preceding the date of approval of said examination, and upon the termination of said suspension from promotion he shall be reexamined, and in case of his failure upon such reexamination he shall be dropped from the service with not more than one year's pay: Provided, That the provisions of this act shall be effective from and after January first, nineteen hundred and eleven." (U. S. Code, Title 34, sec. 283.) Under the operation of existing law, an officer who fails upon examination for promotion, in the first instance, suffers a loss of numbers equal to the average six months' rate of promotion to the grade to which the officer is undergoing examination during the five years next preceding the date of approval of said examination. The result of this law is that the losses of numbers vary considerably and an officer in one rank frequently loses a larger or smaller number than other officers of the same rank who fail upon promotion. In order to place all officers who fail upon examination for promotion on a parity as regards loss of numbers, the Navy Department recommends that the present law be amended as set forth in the inclosure, so that all officers will suffer a more definite loss of numbers than occurs under existing law. Under the proposed law the loss of numbers for line officers will be as follows: Ensign to lieutenant (junior grade), 50 numbers; lieutenant (junior grade) to lieutenant, 25 numbers; lieutenant to lieutenant commander, 12 numbers. Staff officers under the proposed legislation will suffer a loss of numbers proportional to the losses of numbers of line officers in similar ranks in the same ratio as the total number of commissioned officers in all ranks of the particular staff corps, exclusive of commissioned warrant officers, bears to the total number of commissioned officers in the line in all the corresponding ranks on January 1 of the year in which occurs the failure of the officer upon professional examination. The proposed law will remove the disparity in loss of rank due to the application of the present law. The present losses of numbers upon failure of an officer to pass the required examination for promotion are disproportionate to the sentences awarded by courts-martial for military offenses. Failure to establish the question of fitness upon examination is not to be condoned in itself, but it is, particularly when accompanied by extenuating circumstances, less serious than many offenses for which the offenders receive court-martial sentences of losses of numbers. Such sentences are frequently less than the loss of numbers suffered by an officer who failed in examination for promotion. In view of the foregoing, the Navy Department recommends the enactment of the legislation proposed in the inclosed draft of bill. Sincerely yours, CURTIS D. WILBUR, The CHAIRMAN. Who will explain this bill? The CHAIRMAN. As I understand this proposed legislation, under existing law an officer may remain one year in one of the lower grades, lose 70 numbers for failure to pass a professional examination, and the next year an officer may lose only 42 numbers, depending upon the size of the classes and his position therein. Under this bill the department would fix a specific number of losses in each grade irrespective of the size of the classes. For example, if a lieutenant, senior grade, fails, he will be penalized 12 numbers whether the class is large or small. A lieutenant, junior grade, for failure would be penalized 50 numbers whether the class is large or small. This legislation now proposed aims to base the loss upon the grade. Where a lieutenant fails he should be demoted so many numbers, he should know in advance that he is to lose those numbers, and his demotion should not depend upon the size of the class to which he belongs. Is that right? Admiral CAMPBELL. Yes, sir. Commander Wilkinson will tell you about this bill. The CHAIRMAN. Commander, what have you to say about it? Commander WILKINSON. That is correct. The purpose of the proposed legislation is to establish a fixed rather than a varying loss of numbers. That is important when according to the old law they took the average promotions of the last five years, which have been rapid, and give those who fail a loss of six months on that average. Now, the promotions are slow and losses in accordance with the other law represent 15 or 16 months' promotion. The definite number for loss will cure the present condition and establish a standard for the future. The second clause of the bill would adapt the old law to the present system of running mates for the Staff Corps-the equalization bill. Under the old law the Staff Corps officers lost so many numbers in their grades, which might mean no running mates or 300 running mates. The CHAIRMAN. If a demotion of 50 numbers in the grade of lieutenant, junior grade, was not excessive, how does it compare with a like condition in the past four or five years? Commander WILKINSON. It is slightly less than six months' promotion. The CHAIRMAN. What do you mean by saying "it is less than six months"? Commander WILKINSON. The average promotion of the last four or five years has been running over 100, so that 50 numbers would represent a little less than six months. Mr. VINSON. He would come up again in about six months? Mr. VINSON. And that would give him time to study? Commander WILKINSON. He can not come up within six months. He is suspended for six months anyway. His loss of numbers amounts to about six months. Mr. DARROW. This act would apply only to the officers in grades where the operation of selection and elimination boards does not apply? Commander WILKINSON. Yes. There is a special law for those officers who fail after selection. Mr. DARROW. Where the selection board operates it was felt desirable to have them maintain their numbers so that they would be reached for elimination. Commander WILKINSON. After being selected, if they fail on examination, they have no further chance. They must retire. Mr. VINSON. Referring to all this piecemeal legislation affecting personnel matters, if the Navy Department has legislation of this sort that it wants considered, let it put everything in one bill and bring that bill here for consideration by the committee. It should not come here with recommendation for changes in personnel legislation every session of Congress. Only a little while ago, comparatively speaking, we passed the so-called equalization bill, which the department then said would eliminate all the injustice. However, ever since the enactment of that legislation the department has been coming back here with exceptions and amendments to that bill and asking us to pass some remedial personnel legislation. If the department now has in mind one or several changes in personnel legislation, let it embody them all in one bill; let us have a thorough hearing on that bill and, if necessary, let us have another personnel bill, a new one. Mr. DARROW. Why were not all these matters included in the so-called Britten bill? Mr. VINSON. Exactly. We had hardly finished it when the department came back at us with the Marine Corps personnel legislation. Personally, I do not think this is a good way to legislation, and we all know it is difficult indeed to get such through the House. Members of the House will recall, if we take this bill to the floor, that they just dealt with a personnel bill affecting the Navy and the Marine Corps. I say, let us go slow in considering such legislation; let us legislate in an orderly manner, and carefully. It will be remembered that it takes unanimous consent to pass one of these bills now. Mr. DARROW. Where there is any dissent we will not be able to pass a bill this session of the Congress. Mr. VINSON. I say, let the department bring its proposed legislation here in an orderly manner. Mr. HOUSTON. If the principle you would apply to the line and the staff of the Navy is sound, why not apply it to the Marine Corps as a matter of principle? Commander WILKINSON. The Marine Corps has the same principle. The officers of the Marine Corps lose 1, 2, or 3 numbers in the grade. The original personnel bill, as submitted in the Budget, extended selection to all grades, and there would have been no necessity for any question of loss of numbers on examination. The CHAIRMAN. There appears to be some objection to this bill, and we will therefore lay it upon the table for the time being. (Thereupon, at 11.30 o'clock a. m., Thursday, January 10, 1929, the committee proceeded to other business.) HEARING ON THE BILL (H. R. 15530) TO PROVIDE THAT CER- HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, The committee this day met at 11 o'clock a. m., Hon. Fred A. Britten, chairman, presiding. The CHAIRMAN. We have with us this morning Rear Admiral Edward H. Campbell, United States Navy, Judge Advocate General of the Navy, and Commander Wilkinson, United States Navy, a representative of the Bureau of Navigation. Which is the next bill for consideration, Admiral Campbell? Admiral CAMPBELL. H. R. 15530, to provide that certain staff officers of the United States Navy shall come under the operation of section 16 of the act of June 10, 1926. The CHAIRMAN. The bill in question and a report thereon by the Navy Department read as follows: A BILL To provide that certain staff officers of the United States Navy shall come under the operation of section 16 of the act of June 10, 1926 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That in the operation of section 16 of the act of June 10, 1926, Statutes at Large, volume 44, page 723, the number of staff officers to which the fraction therein prescribed shall be applied for the first selections in each corps after the date of this act shall include, in addition to those allowed by said act, all staff officers who have been considered by a previous board but have neither been selected nor passed over, as defined in said act: Provided, That selection boards to consider the promotion of such staff officers shall be convened within one year from the date of this act. TO PROVIDE THAT CERTAIN STAFF OFFICERS OF THE UNITED STATES NAVY SHALL COME UNDER THE OPERATION OF SECTION 16 OF THE ACT OF JUNE 10, 1926 The CHAIRMAN COMMITTEE ON NAVAL AFFAIRS, NAVY DEPARTMENT, Washington, June 6, 1928. House of Representatives, Washington, D. C. MY DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: There is inclosed herewith a copy of a letter, together with a copy of a draft of a proposed bill, to provide that certain staff officers of the United States Navy shall come under the operation of section 16 of the act of June 10, 1926, this day forwarded to the Speaker of the House of Representatives. Sincerely yours, The SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, CURTIS D. WILBUR, NAVY DEPARTMENT, Washington, June 6, 1928. Washington, D. C. MY DEAR MR. SPEAKER: I have the honor to transmit herewith a draft of a proposed bill to provide that certain staff officers of the United States Navy shall come under the operation of section 16 of the act of June 10, 1926. The purpose of this proposed legislation is to provide that in the operation of section 16 of the act of June 10, 1926, the number of staff officers to which the fraction therein prescribed shall be applied, for the first selections in each corps after the date of this proposed bill shall include, in addition to those allowed by the act of June 10, 1926, all staff officers who have been considered by a previous board but have been neither selected nor passed over, as defined in that act, provided that selection boards to consider the promotion of such staff officers shall be convened within one year from the date of this proposed bill. A special board convened by and within the Navy Department to consider legislation for the elimination of Staff Corps officers who have been passed over has invited attention to a certain inequity in the operation of the equalization act approved June 10, 1926 (44 Stat. 717), and recommended remedial legislation. This inequity is in brief the delay of promotion for several years after that of their running mates, to those officers who, although eligible under the terms of the act, have not been selected or passed over by the selection boards meeting since the act; in other words, those who have not been "rejected" by the boards. The fundamental principle of the equalization act is the assurance to officers of the Staff Corps of an opportunity of promotion at approximately the same period as their running mates of the line, provided that the selective process in the Staff Corps is as rigorous as in the line. It is not believed that the equalization act was designed to force a more rigorous selection in the Staff Corps than in the line. Shortly after the passage of the act, and in accordance with its provisions, so-called "squaring away boards were convened to select a number of staff officers for promotion whose running mates had been promoted but who, owing to the previous limitation in numbers in the upper ranks of the Staff Corps, had not been promoted. The equalization act in revoking the previous allotment of numbers, or rather percentages in these upper grades, allowed the promotion to those grades of sufficient officers to fill up such grades to a number somewhat comparable to the same grades as the line. The captains' list, however, was blocked at the top by two causes which do not apply to the line (1) the smaller number of officers of the rank of rear admiral in the corps than proportionately in the line, and (2) the absence of age-in-grade or service-in-grade retirement for captains not promoted. Without unduly rigorous selection it has not been entirely possible for the Staff Corps, in selecting officers for promotion to these expanded grantees, to plumb the list of eligibles; that is, officers with running mates already promoted or selected. In the Construction Corps, particularly, a larger percentage and consequently a proportionately larger number of captains had been previously authorized than in the other corps, and consequently this corps was under the new system not allowed any additional officers in the rank of captain, although there were a number of commanders, six in all, who had running mates who had been promoted to captain or selected therefor. Since the squaring away boards, opportunity has been afforded under the equalization act for the promotion of six officers of the Construction Corps to the rank of captain but seven new eligibles additional to the six first noted have appeared, and to plumb the list of eligibles would have required the unduly rigorous selection of less than 50 per cent. Other corps have nearly but not completely reached, by their selections, the bottom of the list of eligibles. At present there are five commanders of the Construction Corps whose running mates have been promoted to captain (originally seven but two have retired). Assuming an 80 per cent selection, the last of these officers can not be promoted, even without according promotion to juniors as their own running mates are promoted, until 1934. In fact it will be some years after that before. with a normal severity of selection, officers in the Construction Corps can be assured of promotion to the rank of captain approximately parallel to their running mates of the line. Similar conditions exist, though in a less aggravated degree, in the Medical Corps, Supply Corps, and Civil Engineer Corps. To remedy this situation, the accompanying draft provides for legislation that will in effect authorize new staff-selection boards to select additional officers on the basis of considering the present eligibles, provided they have not been passed over, as new eligibles. This legislation will result in the following maximum number of promotions: |