Lieutenant Commander BARBER. We are promoted according to our running mates, and the running mate depends, of course, upon the date of precedence. I would have an earlier date of precedence if I had been credited for the service in question-I would have an earlier running mate. He was promoted about two years ago. If this bill had been enacted last year I would have been eligible for promotion immediately, which would have meant $50 a month increase in pay. I am now with a running mate of a later date, and under existing law my promotion would be with him.

The CHAIRMAN. Are you now eligible for promotion to the rank of commander?

Lieutenant Commander BARBER. I will be on February 14, or sooner, this

year.

The CHAIRMAN. If you are selected?

Lieutenant Commander BARBER. I have been selected.

The CHAIRMAN. You are just awaiting a vacancy above?
Lieutenant Commander BARBER. That is true.

The CHAIRMAN. And you are convinced that the passage of this proposed measure will not cost the United States Treasury any additional money?

Lieutenant Commander BARBER. There is a possible increase in 8 or 10 years from now, if I survive and should be selected for promotion to the rank of captain. This proposed act would make me eligible for selection to the rank of captain two years sooner than otherwise, and that would mean the difference between the pay of a commander and a captain for two years. However, you can see that such is circumscribed by many ifs.

Mr. BURDICK. You have spoken about others who outrank you. Lieutenant Commander BARBER. Yes, sir.

Mr. BURDICK. You commenced your active service in March, 1914? Lieutenant Commander BARBER. Yes, sir.

Mr. BURDICK. And when did those who outrank you enter the service?

Lieutenant Commander BARBER. In August, 1914.

Mr. BURDICK. Which is six months later?

Lieutenant Commander BARBER. Yes, sir; approximately.

Mr. BURDICK. And if this bill shall pass you would go ahead of those that were actually in the service five or six months later than you?

Lieutenant Commander BARBER. Yes, sir.

Mr. BURDICK. Mr. Newton, in his opening remarks, mentioned a mistake that had been made. What did he mean by that, if you know?

Lieutenant Commander BARBER. He possibly referred to what may be considered the vagueness of this particular passage of law, which is not sufficiently definite as to whether this group of dental surgeons was included therein.

Mr. BURDICK. You spoke of the laws of 1913 and 1914.

Lieutenant Commander Barber. The laws of 1912 and 1913. Mr. HOUSTON. How much of your service has not been credited? Lieutenant Commander BARBER. Four months and twenty days. Mr. HOUSTON. Can you cite the decision, a result of which you were not given credit for this 4 months and 20 days?

Lieutenant Commander BARBER. I have it here [indicating].

Mr. HOUSTON. I rather think it would be advantageous to the committee to have that.

Lieutenant Commander ROBINSON. The decision is dated October 30, 1918.

Mr. HOUSTON. What was the holding at that time?

Lieutenant Commander ROBINSON. That Lieutenant Commander Barber was not entitled to credit for service previously rendered in the Dental Corps reserve.

Mr. HOUSTON. On what score?

Lieutenant Commander ROBINSON. On the score that the act of 1918, which allowed former dental officers to count service, specifically mentioned the officers who came in under the act of 1912, and the act of 1916, but it did not mention those who came into the dental surgeon corps under the act of 1913. It was construed to be the intention of Congress that those who came in under the act of 1913 were not entitled to count their prior service.

The CHAIRMAN. Did those who came into the service in accordance with the act of 1913 from the reserve corps have actual, ordinary, active duty to their credit?

Lieutenant Commander ROBINSON. Some of them did; yes, sir. The CHAIRMAN. Did Lieutenant Commander Barber have such? Lieutenant Commander ROBINSON. Commander Wilkinson, of the Bureau of Navigation, can answer that question.

The CHAIRMAN. Will you answer that question Commander Wilkinson?

Commander WILKINSON. Yes, sir; two officers did. Commander! Barber had approximately 4 months, and the other officer had 21 days. The CHAIRMAN. Who was the other officer?

Commander WILKINSON. Doctor Fowler.

The CHAIRMAN. They had actual, active service during the time in question?

Commander WILKINSON. Yes. During that previous period the dental reserve was the only means of entering the regular service. There was a change of policy, and some dentists who were not members of the Dental Reserve Corps were commissioned in the regular service. Those who came in under the older law directly into the regular service a few days later than these officers, of course, received credit for their service, but these other officers did not get credit for their service in the dental reserve.

Mr. MILLER. I think they should have been given that credit. Commander WILKINSON. I, too, think so. I think the Judge Advocate General of the Navy was correct in his construction of the law, but the law itself was too exclusive. I think the department meant that these two officers of the dental corps should receive that credit, but the exact terms of the law were not written up definitely. The CHAIRMAN. That one law of 1913 was probably, through oversight, left out of the subsequent legislation.

Commander WILKINSON. Yes, sir. Two laws were cited and the third one was not cited. If no law had been cited, all laws would have been considered. However, when two were cited and the third was omitted, the third was treated as if not applicable.

Mr. ANDREW. This proposed measure, as I understand, affects only two officers?

Commander WILKINSON. Yes, sir.

Mr. ANDREW. One is affected by five months and the other by about 21 days, as I remember the statement.

Commander WILKINSON. It is a little short of five months.

Mr. HOUSTON. It applies to dental reserve existing law and to those who came in as assistant dental surgeons?

Commander WILKINSON. Yes. This bill would not change the status of the officer with 21 days' service. It would give Lieutenant Commander Barber a higher class for a running mate.

Mr. DARROW. Is there any difference in the character of service rendered by the two groups of officers?

Commander WILKINSON. No.

Mr. BURDICK. As I understand, the recommendation of the Bureau of the Budget does not now apply. Commander WILKINSON. That is true.

The Bureau of the Budget

has been informed about the item of cost, but has made no answer to that notice.

The CHAIRMAN. Has the department anything further to say? Commander WILKINSON. No, sir.

Mr. DARROW. I move that the bill be favorably reported.

Mr. BURDICK. I second the motion.

(The motion carried unanimously.)

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Burdick and Mr. Houston will please care for the bill on the floor of the House. Mr. Burdick will prepare the report. Let us now proceed to other business.

(Thereupon at 11 o'clock a. m., on Tuesday, January 15, 1929, the committee proceeded to other business.)

о

FOR RECOGNITION OF MERITORIOUS SERVICE PERFORMED BY CHIEF GUNNER CLARENCE L. TIBBALS

DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY,

OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY,

Washington, January 21, 1929.

The CHAIRMAN COMMITTEE ON NAVAL AFFAIRS,

House of Representatives, Washington, D. C.

MY DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: Replying further to the committee's letter of December 17, 1928, transmitting the bill (H. R. 15294) for recognition of meritorious service performed by Chief Gunner Clarence L. Tibbals, and requesting the views and recommendations of the Navy Department thereon, I have the honor to advise you as follows:

The purpose of the bill is to authorize the President to appoint Clarence L. Tibbals, now having the rank of chief gunner, United States Navy, a lieutenant in the United States Navy, in recognition of his services in submarine salvage work as a diver and diving expert, and as an inventor of submarine escape devices.

The records of the Navy Department show that the abovenamed officer served in the Navy as an enlisted man from January 2, 1902, until February 15, 1912, when he was appointed an acting gunner in the Navy. He was warranted from February 15, 1912, and on August 15, 1917, was given the temporary rank of ensign; on February 1, 1918, he was given the temporary rank of lieutenant (junior grade), and on August 15, 1918, was given the temporary rank of lieutenant. He was commissioned regular a chief gunner from February 15, 1918, and reverted to that status when his temporary appointment as lieutenant terminated on December 31, 1921.

The services of this officer in connection with the raising of the S-4 have been recognized by the award on May 17, 1928, of the Navy cross with the following citation:

His

For distinguished service to the Government in a duty of responsibility as chief diving supervisor throughout salvage operations of the U. S. S. S-4 sunk as a result of a collision off Provincetown, Mass., December 17, 1927. great experience in diving, his excellent judgment, zeal, energy, and untiring devotion to duty was an important factor in the final success of the operations. Although not wishing to deprecate the excellent work done by this officer, it is believed that it was merely another example of the varied, arduous, and productive labors carried out by the officers of the Navy in the regular line of their duty and it is considered that no further reward should properly be made to Chief Gunner Tibbals. Numerous instances occur annually wherein personnel of the Navy are engaged in as difficult and as dangerous work and do not receive any recognition whatsoever. Any special legislation for the benefit of this officer would react to the disadvantage of those who have shared in other dangerous and productive labors which have not received so much public notice.