lieutenant commander or commander there is going to be a block, a hump, in front of them for him, many years to come. Mr. KILDAY. I don't quite follow you on that, because should they be reduced to permanent rank, should they be, I say, wouldn't the promotion system then take hold and new selection boards? Mr. BLANDFORD. No, sir. By law, they are permanently selected. Mr. KILDAY. I don't know that I follow that. Why did we do that? The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Norblad. Mr. NORBLAD. Mr. Davis, you said if the plans of the Army and Air Force combined went through, they would have as much full colonels and generals as they had in 1945, is that correct, approximately? Mr. DAVIS. Full colonels: they would have more. Mr. NORBLAD. Yes. Mr. DAVIS. Major generals, and above: they would have 451 as compared to 459 at the height of World War II. Mr. NORBLAD. In other words, they would have approximately the same, if not a few more. Mr. DAVIS. Yes. Mr. NORBLAD. In the colonel and above bracket? Mr. DAVIS. No, about half as many brigadier generals. Mr. NORBLAD. Yes. At that time, in 1945, the strength of the Army and Air Corps was 8 million plus. The 1953 strength of the Army and Air Corps is 2 million plus. In other words, it is about 4 to 1 ratio of the high-ranking officers in the Army and Air Corps. now as against 1945, when there was a lot of complaint that we had altogether too much brass then. Mr. DAVIS. Let's see. What were those figures you gave me? A little over 8 million? Mr. NORBLAD. It is 2 million plus. And yet, you have as many generals and colonels on a ratio of almost 4 to 1. In other words, you have approximately 3 or 4 times as many colonels Mr. DAVIS. It is somewhere around, probably 31⁄2 to 1, yes. Mr. NORBLAD. I also notice as far as the Regular Air Force is concerned, on some figures that were given to me by the Air Force, that there are more colonels in the Regular Air Force than there are first and second lieutenants combined. Is that correct? Do you know, Mr. Davis? Mr. DAVIS. I am not able to state that of my own knowledge. Mr. NORBLAD. There are also five times as many lieutenant colonels in the Regular Air Force as there are second lieutenants. The ratio of generals to second lieutenants is about 2 to 1. There are about 2 second lieutenants for every general in the Air Forceabout 2%, is right. I have the figures given to me by the Air Force. The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Johnson. Mr. JOHNSON. As I understand your view, Mr. Davis, when they made that suspension in it, that is what caused all the trouble, and you were trying to find a way to have or prevent that rapid expansion, especially in the higher grade. You would like to see a law that would, after hearings, maintain some regulation, some limit, even though we are still in an emergency, that follows along the gen Mr. DAVIS. That is generally correct. I recognize need for some revisions in the Davis rider, immediately, but I believe that some sort of a stopgap of this kind should remain in effect until this committee has had a chance to thoroughly reconsider the Officer Personnel Act of 1947 as applied to temporary promotions. Mr. JOHNSON. I think you ought to be complimented for spending all that time, personally, to get up those exhibits. The services have dozens and hundreds of men over there to make those things up. You spend all your time alone to do that. And I appreciate it, very much. Mr. DAVIS. With the help of the very competent staff in my office, I might say. The CHAIRMAN. General Devereux. Mr. DEVEREUX. Mr. Davis, do you have any figures as to the number or requirement for additional officers in the armed services. since unification and since we have had these worldwide commitments such as NATO, and our military and naval missions? Mr. DAVIS. I do not have any figures on that, and that is one of the extenuating circumstances here that would make an absolute comparison with World War II not a completely sound comparison. But I hope we haven't reached the point, either in an extra layer at the overall defense level or in our so-called military advisement groups and military attachés, that would justify the kind of increased highranking officer level that we have at this time. The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Rivers. Mr. RIVERS. Now, in your opening statement, didn't you tell the committee that there is no provision of law, including the Davis amendment notwithstanding, that would prohibit either the Air Force or the Army from making everybody general? Mr. DAVIS. Technically, I believe that is correct. You see, the Davis amendment doesn't take effect until the 1st of April. Mr. RIVERS. I see. Now, if we repeal it, it wouldn't affect the Air Force and the Army any way at this time, until April 1. Mr. DAVIS. Right. Mr. RIVERS. And during that interim, the provisions of this investigation here by our committee will bring up some sort of a recommendation and maybe we will reinstitute part of your philosophy. Why wouldn't the proper approach be for this committee to repeal your amendment, since it only affects the Navy, and then forthwithMr. DAVIS. No. Mr. RIVERS. I am talking about for the time being. Mr. DAVIS. It doesn't affect the Navy for the time being. Mr. RIVERS. They are cutting down now, and getting prepared for April 1. Mr. BLANDFORD. Mr. Rivers, it is in effect right now for practical purposes. Mr. RIVERS. Sure, they are cutting down. They are getting ready. Mr. BLANDFORD. They have to get ready for the April 1 date. Mr. RIVERS. I appreciate that. Mr. BLANDFORD. On April 1, these limitations do apply. Mr. RIVERS. Have to be in effect. Mr. BLANDFORD. That is correct. Of course, their personnel plan Mr. RIVERS. Right. Mr. BLANDFORD. Since the first of the year. Mr. RIVERS. Therefore, if we repeal it and let them stop that planning for the time being, they will get up here, and give us some figures. Mr. DAVIS. Well, in the meantime Mr. RIVERS. Then you have an opportunity to cooperate with the committee, which I am sure you will do, and give us the benefit of some of your fine suggestions. Mr. DAVIS. In the meantime, however, you have opened the door to unlimited promotions, at least, in the Army and Air Force, and then you are going to be faced with this: Any attempt to cut down the officer level is going to be faced with the necessity for demoting a lot of people. Mr. RIVERS. I doubt that they will do that in face of an investigation by this committee, it wouldn't be very good judgment. Mr. NORBLAD. Would the gentleman yield? Isn't it a fact, Mr. Davis, that this fall after your rider had been put on that the Air Force promoted 25 generals in 1 crack. Mr. DAVIS. All you have to do is look at any issue of the Army and Navy Journal or the rest of them Mr. NORBLAD. Yes; I sent you that issue of the Army and Navy Journal that had that promotion list in it, isn't that correct? That was October. Mr. DAVIS. In several instances, there have been a number of lists put out; yes, sir. The CHAIRMAN. Have you completed your statement? Mr. DAVIS. I have completed my statement, Mr. Chairman. The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Wickersham. Mr. WICKERSHAM. In view of the fact there are quite a few reliable columnists, would you say who is the columnist, irresponsible columnist, who issued the statement? Mr. DAVIS. I think everybody here knows, and he is not the only one, I might say. The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Gavin. Mr. GAVIN. Mr. Davis, your particular objective is putting a stopgap on the colonels and the generals or those in the upper echelon above the rank of colonel; is that right? Mr. DAVIS. Well, generally speaking, in the overall upper brackets, yes. Mr. NORBLAD. You think we should allow two temporary promotions? Mr. DAVIS. There may be individual cases where that is necessary, but as I understand it, the Navy seems to get along pretty well without it, and by and large the Army does. I don't know how the Air Force can justify having more than a thousand of them. The CHAIRMAN. If the figures as quoted by Mr. Norblad are trueand he no doubt got them from a reliable source-I think it is a situation which requires prompt action. We are indebted to you, Mr. Davis, for coming before our committee and giving us your time and the benefit of your intense study of this whole matter. Unless there are other questions, I will ask Admiral DuBose of the Navy to take the chair. Thank you very much. Mr. DAVIS. You are welcome. The CHAIRMAN. Admiral DuBose, if we will just remain quiet and listen attentively to you, that you can clear some of the mist and fog from our eyes. You can proceed to tell us the effect that this so-called Davis amendment has had or will have upon particularly the naval forces for which you are responsible. Admiral DuBOSE. Aye, aye, sir. By way of identification, I am Vice Admiral DuBose. I was relieved as Chief of Naval Personnel on Monday, and I have been asked to come up here for this hearing. May I make my statement, sir? The CHAIRMAN. I might say that Admiral DuBose is succeeded by Admiral Holloway, who asked to be excused to appear before the Appropriations Committee, but I see you are back, Admiral. Admiral HOLLOWAY. Mr. Chairman, they won't get to me today, so I will remain here today, sir. The CHAIRMAN. Fine. We are glad to have you, Admiral Holloway. Proceed, Admiral DuBose. I am glad you came up to see us before you leave us. Admiral DuBOSE. Thank you, sir. Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, as you know, section 635 of the Department of Defense Appropriation Act, for fiscal year 1953, sets limitations on the numbers of commissioned officers in each of several grades who may be paid during the last quarter of fiscal 1953. I regret to report that the effect of section 634 on the Navy will be far more drastic than the apparent intent of the Congress. During the floor debate in April 1952 on various versions of what became section 634, the sponsor described the objective as a slowdown in the rates of promotion in commissioned ranks in the armed services, but not to cause widespread demotions. To provide a guide in attainment of this objective the Bureau of Naval Personnel was asked to furnish estimates of the number of officers in each grade expected to be on active duty on June 30, 1953. We furnished estimates based on personnel plans for fiscal year 1953, prepared in the summer of 1951. It since has become clear that they were greatly in error. Computations and plans affecting officers of the Regular Navy only are exact because we can predict accurately when and how changes will occur. At present, when we are releasing Reserve officers as they complete their required service and recalling other Reserve officers to meet the needs of the service, we are in a process of simultaneous mobilization and demobilization. Predictions as of a date in the future of the numbers of officers in each of the grades in this very fluid population are subject to great variation because of the many uncertainties in the field of recalls, releases, and seniority of Reserve officers. In addition, these rapid and unpredictable variations introduce errors in the statistics produced by our personnel accounting procedures, which are cleared only by careful audit sometime after the fact. The net result is that the actual numbers of officers in the grades affected by section 634 will be much greater than our early estimates. If you desire a more detailed analysis of the foregoing In all, the rank status of 10,091 officers is affected. 4,691 of these officers will not receive the promotions which they would have attained in the normal course of events, and 5,400 other officers will be reduced in rank from lieutenant to lieutenant, junior grade. By ranks, the effects can be summarized as follows: (a) There will be no change in the previously planned promotions to flag rank. (b) The limitations do not materially affect planned promotions to captain. (c) We had planned to promote 1,972 officers to commander. Section 634 permits only 522 promotions, or a net decrease of 1,450. (d) Instead of the planned 2,598 promotions to lieutenant commander, the limitations allow 936, a decrease of 1,662. (e) Plans contemplated 1,582 promotions from lieutenant, junior grade, to lieutenant. These promotions cannot be fade, and 5,400 present lieutenants must be demoted to lieutenants, junior grade, which is a total of 6,982 officers affected. The immediate effect on morale of these restrictions on promotions and of the impending demotions is obvious of course. An important but less obvious result is the impact on the young Reserve officers and officer candidates who are considering career opportunities in the Navy. Currently, the small number of applications from those who are eligible for commissions in the Regular Navy is a matter of very serious concern. Promotions in the Navy and the resulting numbers of officers in the various grades have been governed by the specific directives of Congress contained in the Officer Personnel Act. I have described briefly the administrative difficulties which made our estimates inaccurate. These same difficulties apply to actual compliance with section 634-the application of rigid ceilings to a population which includes large numbers of Reserve officers reporting for and being released from active duty requires much more precision in control that is feasible. I have here a chart which shows how we have operated under the Officer Personnel Act, and how we planned to operate. This chart compares our ceilings under the Officer Personnel Act, our actual and planned numbers in the various grades, and the limitations imposed by section 634. In just a moment I will ask Commander Wheeler to show you that chart. In conclusion, I urgently request that early and favorable action be taken on the bill H. R. 2332 and repeal of section 634 of the Department of Defense Appropriation Act for fiscal year 1953. Mr. VINSON. Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask him one question. Have you any suggestion to the committee about any amendments to the Officer Personnel Act? Admiral DUBOSE. Mr. Vinson, the Officer Personnel Act was, I believe, one of the most thoroughly considered pieces of legislation that ever came out of this committee and as far as the Navy goes, we can live with it, we can abide with it. It has many restrictions which protect the individual, and protect the Navy. I have no suggestion. I would like to operate under the Officer Personnel Act, sir. Mr. VINSON. Well, in view of the tables submitted by Mr. Davis, |