Inasmuch as Public Law 210 was enacted by the Congress at the specific request of the Department of Defense, I do not see how the Department of Defense can now ask you to withhold from Reserve officers filling similar billets and doing exactly the same work, the benefits given by Public Law 210 to Regulars. Senator LONG. Public Law 210 has a very familiar ring to me. Which one is that? Commander AKERMAN. It is of the Eighty-first Congress, and that was the law whereby the constructive service was granted to the Regular officers for their legal education. Senator LONG. Right. Commander AKERMAN. One of the first arguments advanced by the opposition is that this section merits little consideration because it affects only a handful of Reserve lawyers. It is true in its immediate application the only ones affected would be certain specialists in the Armed Forces, but the over-all and farreaching effect of this section goes beyond that. It would assure for all time that never again could there be unjust discrimination between Regulars and Reserves, as was done by Public Law 210. But, turning to the immediate effect and the legal specialist, we find that since World War II there has not been a sufficient number of Regular legal specialists to fill the legal billets in the Navy, and it has been necessary to continue on active duty Reserve legal specialists. At the present time, of the approximately 410 legal billets in the Navy, approximately 245 are filled by Regular legal specialists, and approximately 155 by Reserve legal specialists. So we have this situation: That two-thirds of the officers administering the legal program for the Navy receive the benefit of constructive service, while approximately one-third do not do so. I would like to call to your attention the example set forth on page 22 of the Committee Print No. 4 which is given to illustrate the deleterious effect of this section. I submit that whoever proposed this example was both uninformed as to the fact and also in error as to the application of the law. It refers there to the junior grade legal specialist Reserve, who is appointed at 24 years of age. I made a careful search and have yet to find a single officer appointed at a legal specialist position in the Naval Reserve at the age of 24 years. Searching through I found that Lt. Comdr. Woodrow Morris, who received his LL. B. degree in 1936, was appointed an ensign in the Naval Reserve at the age of 28. He is on active duty now. I also found that Lt. Comdr. Fred Suss, who is on active duty now, and received his LL. B. degree in 1942, was appointed an ensign in the Naval Reserve at the age of 28, after serving 1 year as an enlisted man, in an enlisted status, and so forth on down the line. But I have yet to find this mythical Reserve legal specialist who was appointed a lieutenant (j. g.) at the age of 24 years. It is true, that while a majority of the legal specialists in the Reserve were appointed as ensigns, a few were appointed in the grade of lieutenant, junior grade, but every instance Senator LONG. What page on the committee print did you refer to? Commander AKERMAN. But in every instance where they were appointed to the grade of lieutenant, junior grade, they were from 32 to 36 years of age, and had practiced law 9 to 12 years before receiving their appointment. It is interesting to note that many of the Regular specialists were originally appointed in the Reserve at the rank of junior grade and above, but no question was raised as to this at the time of Public Law 210, and everyone of them received the benefit of constructive service. Then, the comments on page 22 seem to infer that we would have some kind of double constructive service here, 3 years upon 3 years. I submit this is an erroneous construction of the law. The section provides that the same adjustment shall be made for the Reserve that was given the Regular. If the Reserve should receive equivalent credit for his legal education at the time of his original commissioning, then, of course, there would be no same adjustment to be made. It has already been made, and I think any construction of that section would do away with the idea of any question of double constructive service. Another argument that has been advanced is that to give this constructive service would put the Reserve legal officers and the others affected thereby ahead of other naval officers of comparable age and experience. The facts do not substantiate this charge. An examination will reveal that even when we are credited with constructive service for the law school, none of us will be ahead of our contemporaries in the Regular Navy. Using my own case as an example, at the present time my position is with the Naval Academy class of 1941. If given constructive service, I will be with the class of 1938; but taking into consideration age, and the time of completion of college, I should be with the class of 1931; so even if given constructive service I would still be 7 years behind with officers of comparable age and experience in the Navy. Another argument that is made is that in this constructive service it presupposes an automatic promotion. That is definitely not true. If the constructive credit should advance the Reserve into a promotion zone, still he must be considered by the selection board, and will only be promoted if selected and found qualified. Another argument that is being made against it is that we Reserves who came on active duty volunteered to come here. I am very proud of the fact that insofar as I know every Reserve lawyer on active duty did volunteer for this duty, but the mere fact that we volunteered to come on duty at the time when the United States was in hostilities, is the first time I have ever heard that argument urged as something to be punished about. Most of us who are on active duty—— Senator LONG. Probably if you had been drafted they would have argued just the other way around. Commander AKERMAN. Most of us would like to stay on just as long as our services were needed, but we do feel that we cannot be expected to serve under officers many years our junior in age and experience, and to have the positions to which we are better fitted foreclosed to us because of rank. Grant to us the same constructive service that was given to the Regular officers, and we will gladly stay on active duty just as long as there is a job to be done. I wish to point out that this was incorporated in the bill after careful study by the Committee of the House Armed Services, and I certainly hope that you gentlemen will see fit to retain it in the bill. Senator LONG. Of course, you are speaking of constructive service, Commander, during the time that an officer is a Reserve you mean that when an officer has been appointed a reservist, he then spends time in training, in law school or in legal duties or legal work, he could REQUEST EQUALITY OF TREATMENT WITH REGULARS Commander AKERMAN. What we are asking for in constructive service in legal training is a great majority of it would be for men who had their education before the war. In other words, what section 210 did, it took the special-duty officers and put back not 3 years—I have used the words "3 years," but that is inaccurate. Actually, it gave them approximately 27 months-that was put prior to their original commission, and they were advanced on the lineal list accordingly. All we are asking for is for them to do the same thing, apply the same rules, the same time, everything else, that was applied to the Regulars, and we will be satisfied. We are not asking for any special privileges for ourselves. All we want is equality of treatment. Senator LONG. I see what you mean. It has given me some cause for concern, that extremely well-qualified attorneys would have to start in at a very low rank when called to do legal work, for which they are very well qualified. At the present time, as an example, the Navy has a General Counsel's Office, which was established at a time the Navy did not have the legal talent to do the same work. If there was a Reserve officer serving as a civilian as a member of the General Counsel's Office doing work that many other legal officers in the Navy are not qualified to do by the experience they have had, at least presumably they might not be qualified to do, based on their experience, this same officer could not receive any credit for the service that he had performed during the time he was doing the Navy's legal work when he came in. Commander AKERMAN. That is right. Senator LONG. And you might find other situations that might be just as anomalous. You present a very good statement, and we will certainly take that into consideration, Commander, when we come to mark up this bill. Commander AKERMAN. Thank you, sir. Senator LONG. Our next witness is Commander Robert Schwab. Admiral Russell is accompanying you. STATEMENT OF REAR ADM. GEORGE L. RUSSELL, JUDGE ADVOCATE GENERAL, DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY Admiral RUSSELL. Commander Schwab is the principal witness, and I thought I would like to make some introductory remarks, and have myself available for questioning. Senator LONG. Fine, Admiral; if you would care to lead off. Senator LONG. Will you identify yourself for the record? 20261-52-4 Admiral RUSSELL. I am Rear Adm. George L. Russell, United States Navy, Judge Advocate General of the Navy, and this is Commander Herbert S. Schwab, on duty in my office. NATURE OF OPPOSITION TO 217 (C) We are here in opposition to the position just taken by Commander Akerman, and it was our thought that this is kind of a complicated law we are dealing with here and a rather complicated situation, and it was our thought that if we could get it pro and con right now it would be helpful to you, sir. Senator LONG. Yes, sir. Admiral RUSSELL. We have been through a considerable period of transition in the postwar years, and I have personally been on duty in the Office of the Judge Advocate General practically ever since the end of the war. I came there in November 1945, as the Assistant Judge Advocate General, and in June 1948 I became Judge Advocate General. The problem we were confronted with was what to do about furnishing the Navy with the legal services that they found they required. I would like to say in passing that Commander Akerman is now on duty in my office, and I had something to do with his being given permission to come up here and speak his piece. I do not agree with him, but I believe he should be heard. I might say on or off the record that he is not going to suffer from me for this kind of lawyers' disagreement. I take the view that no law office can function properly if everybody is in complete agreement all the time. It just cannot be healthy. The gist of this particular part of the bill, as presented by Commander Akerman, seems to be that the Reserve officers feel that there is a discrimination against them. I do not believe that. I supported the measure which gave constructive service to the fresh caught law specialist. They had only been in the Navy figuratively about 5 minutes when this question came up, and they advanced the argument that a great many of them were too old for the grade they held. Furthermore, they pointed to the fact that we took in doctors, recognizing the time they had spent in medical school, by commissioning them originally as lieutenants, junior grade. We found the Army was doing that, and it was my thought, right or wrong, that this constructive service would be appropriate for them. Subsequently, the Reserves thought they saw discrimination against them, and my analysis of this is that in an effort to correct what is the one seeming inequity, we are likely to create a lot worse. Specifically, we have about 800 Naval Reserve lawyers on active duty right now. Of that number about 170 are performing law duties, and the rest of them are doing something else. I do not think it is right to give constructive service to the lawyers who are working at the law and not giving it to the lawyer who is not working at the law. I think, perhaps, your own case would be a good illustration. If you would be recalled back to active duty, and you were not assigned a law billet, you would not get it, and if you are to do law duty, you would. Our situation is not the happiest in the world, but I do not know whether there will ever be a solution to it. It has been my experience that discrimination is kind of a magic word in the halls of Congress. If you can show it, you have made out a pretty good case. But, as I say, I do not think that in an effort to correct what is one apparent seeming inequity we ought to go ahead and create another one a lot worse, and I think you will find that the Reserve Officer Association is against the proposition. REQUIREMENTS FOR JUDGE ADVOCATE GENERAL OF NAVY Senator LONG. Inasmuch as you are here, of course, I would be interested in your comment on this subject. It is my theory that all the services, including the Navy, should attempt to make the best possible use in time of war particularly, of the civilian talent that is available to them, and that the structure of the service should be such that that would be possible. I personally do not feel that the qualifications to be the Judge Advocate General of the Navy should be such that he should have the qualifications to take a squadron of battleships to sea. to me that those are two different kinds of services. It seems Now, I object to the requirement that the Judge Advocate General of the Navy must have had 8 years' experience in legal duties as an officer. He might have acquired even more experience as a legal man in civilian practice, as a judge or as a district attorney or as a practitioner of the law, and I was amazed to find when we conducted hearings on your successor, Admiral Russell, that there are only two officers in the Navy who were qualified to take the position of Judge Advocate General to succeed you. Admiral RUSSELL. That is not correct, sir. Senator LONG. Well, that would require 8 years of service. Admiral RUSSELL. No, sir. During the hearings I was called on the telephone to supply the names, and we had the dope on those who were law specialists. We did not have the information on the others, and we had to take time out to look it up, and I think that Admiral Nunn inserted the corrected list in the record. Senator LONG. To my knowledge it was my impression that only about one or two officers have had the 8 years of service. That is all we had before the committee when it was reported. I know that. That is all we had when we acted upon it. There were only about three officers in the Navy to be the Judge Advocate General of the Navy by the law, and that amazed us. Admiral RUSSELL. It so happened that 3 law specialists in the grade of captain-there are about 11 law specialists in the grade of commander, and there were 2 marine officers. How many were unrestricted? Commander SCHWAB. There were three unrestricted line, including Admiral Nunn. Senator LONG. How many had 8 years of duty? Admiral RUSSELL. All of them. Commander SCHWAB. All of them. Senator LONG. I would be interested in seeing that corrected list, because that is not the list we have available when the committee acted, and the committee might have taken a different view if they |