Editor’s Note: The views expressed in this article represent the opinions of the author and should not be taken as official or even as semi-official.
IN PROVIDING for the selection for promotion of line officers of the Navy we are confronted with two requisites. First, we must provide for the elimination of the unfit, and the promotion of only the fit, and of those the fittest, and second, we must strive to adjust the increase in rank and responsibility of the officer to the natural development of his capacity and ability so that they will mutually react to the best advantage of the officer and the naval service.
It can be readily seen that the second requisite may operate to prevent the promotion of all the fit. Plowever, it is believed that service opinion supports the limitations imposed by the present personnel laws that the limiting age for lieutenant commanders should be from forty-one to forty-five, that of commanders from forty-eight to fifty- two, and that of captain from fifty-five to fifty-nine. These are the maximum ages at which officers may become commanders, captains, and rear admirals, or put on the promotion list therefor. It is believed that the average age of promotion into these ranks should be lower than these maxima. Future prospects indicate, however, that they will be the actual ages of promotion. Certainly they should be no higher.
And yet, when we operate selection to properly provide for these limitations, having due regard for “the fitness of the officer and for the efficiency of the naval service,” officers will be passed over whom the service regards as fit for promotion. It should be our effort to provide a selection machinery which will insure, to the greatest degree practicable, that those passed over are the least fit of those in the block of selection.
Subsequent to the passage of the selection law in 1916, our expanding strength of regular line officers obviated for many years the necessity for drastic elimination in the grades of lieutenant commander and commander. In 1930, we became immediately confronted with the necessity for drastic elimination in the grade of lieutenant commander. Within a few years this condition will also apply to the other upper grades.
Selection boards are enjoined and take oath to base their selections on the comparative fitness of the eligible officers and the efficiency of the naval service. That this has been done with the highest degree of industry, ability, and integrity of which selection board members are capable cannot be doubted. That the selection machinery has been of vast benefit to the service, and will so continue, even if not improved, is equally obvious. But it is not so much selection boards themselves with which we are here concerned. It is the tools with which they have to work—officers’ fitness records.
Fitness reports are made out at least twice each year. Each report contains a comparative (as by a numerical mark), or absolute (as by the use of descriptive adjectives), estimate by the reporting officer on each of about twenty characteristics of the individual. During the period of the report the reporting officer may have had an opportunity to closely and extensively observe some or all of these characteristics, he may have had opportunity to observe them only at a distance, or he may have had opportunity to observe not more than a few of them. If he has marked them before, in many cases he will forget the mark given. In uncertain cases he will tend to favor the officer.
As the officer is a shipmate, a friend, and will probably, sooner or later, see the report, in most cases he is favored anyhow. In the case of a subordinate shipmate, it not infrequently happens that senior subordinates perform their duties with that modicum of efficiency and zeal which neither completely satisfies nor dissatisfies, which does not warrant an unsatisfactory report nor a request for detachment. Many commanding officers feel that low fitness reports in such cases will have an adverse effect on the efficiency of the officer and the ship, and they tend to give good reports with a view to obtaining the best local results possible.
The examination of many hundred fitness reports taken at random shows that the average fitness report reports qualifications much above average. It seems highly probable that this will continue to be the case. Reporting officers are in general well aware that fitness reports are marked high by others, and they gauge their marks accordingly. Many feel that, if they do not, they will be subjecting their own officers to a comparative disadvantage. And so they will.
Reporting officers are also reluctant to make out unsatisfactory reports, especially on senior subordinate officers, involving as it does, the disagreeable task of referring the report to the officer, and in some cases the possible boomerang on the reporting officer. The attitude, character, personality, shortcomings, etc., of the reporting officer inevitably enter to a greater or lesser degree in the report, but the point to be considered here is that there exists a strong tendency and pressure to force marks from “unsatisfactory” to “average” or above, and to force “average” marks to “above average.”
Fitness reports have been improved in the last few years, both in form of the report, and in the care and discrimination with which they are made out. But even now there is a preponderant tendency to give to officers who have rendered satisfactory duty a mark about two-thirds the way from unsatisfactory to perfect. In other words, much nearer to “perfect” than to “satisfactory.”
This leaves small range for differentiation by selection boards (and for that matter by detail officers). Decidedly unsatisfactory officers are clearly marked and stand out. To some extent, also (but to a less degree than for the unsatisfactory) decidedly superior officers stand out. Fitness reports of the majority, however, do not, taken as a whole, indicate comparative fitness.
And yet any reporting officer who has reported on a number of officers eligible for selection should be, and is, in a good position to draw comparisons between them. If it becomes his duty to draw such a comparison between those who have performed duty under him, he will then be reporting on a relative fitness of these officers as between themselves, and the disturbing factors of high marking by others, of the difficult mathematical and absolute estimates of an officer’s ability, are eliminated. If ten officers marked by him are being considered by the selection board this board endeavors to partially determine the relative fitness of the ten on fitness reports made out by him, some or most of which may show slight differentiation. Why should not the selection board have available for its consideration his estimate of the relative fitness of the ten ? Each of these ten would appear on the lists of forty (more or less) other reporting officers compared with other officers also in the block of selection.
There is another aspect of fitness reports, involving an inherent deficiency which is partially unavoidable. This is the restricted point of view of the reporting officer. Generally speaking the brightest sides of objects and persons are turned upward. A look from the side, or bottom, may reveal quite different characteristics. Topside of the ship may look fine, and the bottom rotten. A rug may not look so good from the bottom as from the top. Before buying either, the purchaser would have a look all around.
Reports on officers by juniors seem, however, to be impracticable. It is probable that the detrimental effect on a military organization would be greater than possible benefits to selection for promotion. But the nearer reporting officers are to those reported on the better their position for looking around under him, as it were. It would be beneficial therefore to extend somewhat the list of those qualified to report on the comparative fitness of officers for promotion to certain senior officers who have served with and over them but not as commanding officer, for instance an executive officer over heads of departments, a gunnery officer over division officers.
The selection law directs that selection board members shall take oath to base their selection solely on the relative fitness of all those eligible and the efficiency of naval service. The first of these requirements necessitates that the records of hundreds of those eligible be investigated. The second operates to restrict the selection to a “block of selection” at the top. If this were not done, and the very best officers in all of the three to six Naval Academy classes eligible were taken, it would be necessary, the following year, to select officers previously passed over, and, obviously, results extremely detrimental to the efficiency of the naval service would be produced.
If we call on captains and senior commanders to compare the relative fitness for promotion of officers who have served with and under them, it will be necessary to indicate a restricted block of selection. The size of this block depends on conditions that will obtain in the grades for a number of years in the future. Perhaps this should be on the basis of seven years. Its size should probably not exceed one-seventh of the grade under consideration, and should perhaps be somewhat under that.
Let us say that a proper “block of selection” of lieutenant commanders to be selected for commander is found to be one hundred below the junior lieutenant commander already on the promotion list. An alphabetical list of the officers in this block together with those previously passed over would be sent to each captain in the Navy, and to each commander of a Naval Academy class for four or more years senior to the junior lieutenant commander already on the promotion list.
Each of these commanders and captains would indicate the officers on the list who had served with and under him on board ship or in a unit of forces afloat, and under him on shore, as a lieutenant or lieutenant commander (namely as an experienced officer), further indicating in each case the duty being performed by the reporting officer and the duty by the officer reported on (name of ship should be included in this). Of the officers in the selection block who have thus been shown to have served under and with him, and only those, he would indicate by numbers their relative fitness for promotion, number one being considered of the highest relative fitness. If a reporting officer were reporting on ten of the one hundred in the selection block, he would mark them one to ten regardless of seniority (the seniority is provided for by the restrictions of the selection block, and later by the selection board itself).
The number of reporting seniors (for lieutenant commanders) would be about 220 captains plus a varying number of commanders of 100 to 160, say a total of 360. If each of these reporting seniors finds that he should report on an average of twelve in the selection block of 100, then each officer in the selection block will have 360 x 12 -T- 100 = 43 as the average number reporting on his comparative fitness for promotion. This forty-three would be senior officers, who had previously submitted upon him fitness reports or had assisted the commanding officer in doing so and they would include all under whom he had served during the preceding twelve years or so, except those who had been separated from the service or had been promoted to rear admiral.
It may happen that certain reporting officers find that the entire number that have served under them are of high caliber, and that, even though differentiations can be made on the basis of their fitness for promotion, they are all believed to be relatively high in the 100. But the low man on such a list will appear on forty other lists, and if, in the first case, he has been compared with very efficient men, on some of the other lists he will find himself compared with officers of a correspondingly lower efficiency, with the resulting improvement in standing that would counterbalance the first instance.
It may be said that certain officers who have continued for many years on the same type of duty will not be susceptible to a widespread comparison. This is true, but it is also true of the fitness reports.
Right here it must be emphasized that this procedure is not designed to replace fitness reports, nor to discard in any part the present selective process. It is designed to reenforce the present process so that adequate and properly considered differentiations can be available for the use of the selection board. Without such a reenforcement, the fitness reports are considered to be an inadequate basis upon which to determine (in selections to commander and captain) upon whom a forced, and inevitable, attrition must fall.
The need for some such reenforcement was recognized in 1919 when General Order 494 of August 7, 1919, was issued for obtaining data for the selection board meeting in October of that year. The first two paragraphs of that order are quoted herewith:
While the department is convinced that selection for promotion is now of great value to the Navy and has brought about a continuously increasing efficiency in the naval service, it is earnestly desired to improve, if practicable, the present method, and to eliminate as far as is humanly possible whatever may appear at fault. Criticism has been leveled at the written records of officers, in that the marks and remarks thereon in general are of high average; that it is difficult to establish a preference; that officers known to a member or members of the board may have an advantage of those who have not that acquaintance; that the written record is sometimes at variance with the service reputation; and that neither one nor all of the selection board may have a sufficient knowledge of all officers eligible.
In fact the greatest need of the board in the discharge of its duties is an accurate, comprehensive service opinion on all eligible officers. In an effort to obtain this opinion a consensus of opinion will be obtained for the information of the board which will be convened to recommend captains and commanders in October. Considered with and as a part of the records of officers, such opinions cannot fail to be of assistance to the selection board.
This general order provided that all captains and commanders (in the case of selecting of lieutenant commanders) should arrange insofar as practicable in their order of comparative fitness for promotion all those eligible for selection for promotion, and submit these lists direct to the selection board.
Apparently the procedure outlined in this order was not considered to be practical in operation, since it was allowed to lapse for succeeding boards. Three reasons for this failure are discernible.
First: The need for drastic elimination in the junior selections was not pressing at that time.
Second: Reporting seniors were called on to rate officers who had not served with and under them.
Third and most important: Reporting seniors were called on to rate all officers eligible on the sole basis of their comparative fitness. This procedure does not give due weight to the “efficiency of the naval service,” which, as has been explained previously, necessitates “blocks of selection.” Further, with the large number eligible (in the case of lieutenant commanders perhaps 600) the actual rating and utilization of reports obtained would be too bulky and cumbersome for successful results.
In the procedure advocated in this article, there would be (in the case of selecting lieutenant commanders) about 360 reporting seniors. Each of these would report on from eight to twenty in the “block of selection.” Each officer in the block of selection so reported on would have his name appear on about forty lists submitted by reporting seniors. If his average rating is high, the selection board will have good reason to include him in their selection. If it is low, close to the bottom on the forty lists, the selection board will have a rather authoritative basis for his elimination.
Various means suggest themselves for the summarized consideration of the reports, none of them perfect. For instance, one reporting officer might have eight on his list and another one twelve. Both lists could be readjusted on a percentage basis so that number eight of the first list would become 100 and number twelve of the second would become 100. This would cause number two of the first list to have his number raised and number two on the second list would be lowered. It is probable, however, that these differences would be adjusted when all reports were considered.
Whatever method is used, the selection board would have available for its use the integrated service opinion of most of the seniors who had reported on the officer under consideration (reporting seniors who were or who had become rear admirals are not included, because nine of them will compose the judicial body that will consider the reports. This reason is not important, however, and they could be included. If a board of captains is instituted as recommended hereafter the nine members of the board could be specifically excluded).
These reports of comparative fitness should be regarded as confidential, should be made out by the reporting officer without reference to any other officer, should be forwarded to the Bureau of Navigation and delivered to the custody of the recorder of the selection board to be convened. (It is desirable that this recorder be the officer in charge of records in the Bureau of Navigation.) The reports should be entirely for the use of the selection board and should be sent in about one month before the meeting of the board.
One objection that may be advanced against the procedure outlined above, is that reporting seniors are drawing comparisons on officers for performance some distance in the past, whereas fitness reports are made out at the time. The answer is that if they do not remember well enough to have definite ideas as to the relative fitness of the individual concerned the latter may be properly omitted from the list, or a number may be grouped together. However, they are apt to remember very well, and especially those of mediocre or unsatisfactory performance on the one hand, and those with excellent performance on the other hand.
Another objection that may be raised is in regard to the size of the “block of selection.” Objectors will say that no one can accurately forecast the future need for elimination, and that if drastic selection blocks are indicated the future continuance in the Navy of individuals may be prejudiced to an extent later found to be unnecessary. The answer is that it is necessary to plan for the future in the light of the best knowledge available. We find it necessary to build fighting craft for a possible future war which may bring conditions that we cannot now foresee, but we cannot stop planning and building because of this uncertainty.
Furthermore, we soon again face the fact, recently temporarily postponed by the passage of the personnel bill, where Naval Academy classes come up for consideration for selection by one board only, a percentage to be selected and the remainder retired. We will then be faced with “blocks of selection” whether or not in accordance with well considered plans.
Finally, the selection board is not obligated to base their selections on this predetermined block of selection. They may exceed it, or they may not cover it. But if they do desire to cover it they will have more and better data than is now possible for doing so.
This procedure does not contravene either the spirit or the letter of the selection law. And its successful operation should serve to better carry it out. An opportune time to test its operation will be by the coming selection board which meets in May (this is being written March 16, 1931), and which will consider for selection at this time only lieutenant commanders, for a period of ten days.
This brings us back to the selection board itself. It is required to make its report of selections not sooner than ten days after its first convening. As a rule, if its work has not been interrupted by other duties, the report is made at the end of ten days. During this period, ten days or longer, the work is very arduous. Anyone who has forced his eyes to travel over voluminous records for days, perusing extraneous and pertinent matters, knows that at the end of about three days it is difficult to keep the eyes on the job of sorting and appraising.
In this connection, it is probably feasible to eliminate some of the extraneous matter. But individual fitness reports cannot well be integrated. If the qualities reported on are needed anywhere in detail, and in the original, it is by the selection board.
The law, as it stands, requires that the board be composed of nine rear admirals. It is essential that this should be the case for selection to the grade of rear admiral. It is desirable that the same board select to the grade of captain. It is essential furthermore, that the present authoritative prestige, as provided by a selection board for these higher grades, composed solely of rear admirals, should be maintained.
This necessity is not so apparent, however, in selecting for the grade of commander, and it is desirable that the work of the board as now constituted should be divided. Furthermore, a board of captains would probably be more familiar with the lieutenant commanders under consideration than would a board of admirals. It would be desirable that the law should be so altered as to permit the convening of a board of captains, concurrently or shortly after the convening of the admirals board, for the selection of officers to the grade of commander.
As I see it, the selection board is a non- continuous judicial body. It meets for a short period, makes a report which is invariably approved without change by the department, and is dissolved never to meet again as such. It is a non-administrative body, and is not responsible, as a board, for the utilization of the officers it is responsible for promoting. The writer of this article is not aware to what extent the administrative agencies of foreign navies are empowered to select officers for promotion, but believes that it is to a much greater degree than obtains in our own Navy. It seems probable that an administrative selection agency in our own case would be subjected to such a flood of importunities and aggressive activities both in and out of the Navy as to make it too difficult and disagreeable to operate successfully in practice.
On the other hand, can a board of even our most experienced and capable officers meeting briefly, buried under the voluminous records of a thousand eligible officers, give adequate consideration to policies and problems obtaining over a period of years? If officers specially selected for important duties by the responsible personnel bureau, or other high authority, are passed over, and officers denied such assignment, because of unfitness, are selected for promotion, we would seem to have deficiencies in our procedure that need remedy. Of course, such cases are the exception, and they could not be wholly obviated by any process.
It does seem desirable, however, that the selection process should be brought into as close touch as practicable with the responsible administrative agency of personnel. This can probably best be done by the inclusion, as an ex officio member of the selection board, of the chief of the Bureau of Navigation, and in the event of a captain’s board of selection, of the director of officer personnel.
It may be objected that the chief of the Bureau of Navigation would be a prejudiced judge, that in the first instance he would keep the officer from important assignments at sea, and in the second instance he would vote against his promotion for the lack of such assignment. The same objection might, however, be extended to other admirals, former chiefs of the Bureau of Navigation, and others in high command afloat and ashore who may have been in positions having to do in some degree with assignments of the officers under consideration.
As against these objections, well founded or not, the chief of the Bureau of Navigation, as an ex officio member of the selection board, is put in a position to bring to the attention of the board the policies and considerations that have guided and is guiding the department, to protect the interests of those who have conformed zealously to their part in the execution of these policies, and finally to better assist the board to a consistent judicious adjustment of the problems of promotion to the best efficiency of the naval service.