The act approved March 3, 1931, (S550) “to regulate the distribution and promotion of commissioned officers of the line of the Navy, and for other purposes” is usually called the Britten Bill. Line officers below the grade of rear admiral are interested or should be interested in the Britten Bill, for it probably will exercise a powerful influence in their careers.
Unfortunately, the Britten Bill is not easy to understand. Its language is detailed, precise, and formal, as is necessary for legislation, but even a full understanding of its language does not ensure an understanding of the working of the bill. The writer has therefore not only prepared an informal exposition of the bill but has prepared two graphs or charts to illustrate its operation.
The charts are based upon the numbers of officers in Naval Academy classes down to 1912, comprising the top of the active list of the line on June 30, 1932. Thereafter the charts become an adventure in speculation; but the speculator is on firmer ground than the stock market. He can point out some fairly probable developments adversely affecting certain Naval Academy classes. These are discussed in a concluding analysis, in hopes that if foreseen they may be preventable.
In explaining the bill it will be considered section by section, but for greater clarity the sections will be taken up in a more logical order than that of their numerical sequence. This order is as follows:
- Sec. 1. Percentages in grades.
- Sec. 3. Eligibility requirements for selection.
- Sec. 4. The promotion list.
- Sec. 2. Numbers to be selected annually in each grade.
- Sec. 5. Service-in-grade retirement; retirement for failure in professional examination; retirement privileges for non-Naval Academy lieutenants.
- Sec. 6. Rate of retired pay; counting length of service for computing retired pay.
- Sec. 7. Limits to forced retirements; the retention list; provision for officers who have been passed over and subsequently promoted.
- Sec. 8. Excluding “extra numbers” from computations; fraction of one-half or larger to be considered as a whole number.
- Sec. 9. Abolishing age-in-grade retirement.
- Sec. 10. Special provision for retirement of officers specially commended for war service.
- Repeals prior conflicting bills.
Section 1.—This section establishes new percentages in grades, which are tabulated below, together with the old percentages and the old and new numbers of officers in each grade. These numbers are computed on the present authorized line strength of 5,499, exclusive of extra numbers.
A further provision of section 1, is that no officer shall lose pay or rank because of changes in numbers in grades. This safe-guarded 27 lieutenants who became automatically in excess when the bill became law. The total apparent excess was 137, as noted in the tabulation, but 110 of these became immediately eligible for extra vacancies in the lieutenant commander’s grade, due to the creation by the bill of 55 new commander’s billets and 55 new lieutenant commander’s billets. The final excess of 27 had to be absorbed by subsequent vacancies before any new promotions could be made into the grade of lieutenant. This has already taken place.
Section 3.—This section establishes an upper and a lower limit of service for eligibility for selection. The lower limit is 4 years’ service in grade—no officer with less can be considered for selection. The upper limit is total commissioned service—no officer having more commissioned service than indicated below can be considered for selection unless he be on the retention list described in section 7.
The evident intention underlying this series is that officers shall spend 7 years in each grade, totaling 42 years. With an average age of 22 years upon graduation, this completes the total of 64 years which is the retirement age of rear admirals. In practice there will be some departures from this intention, because of temporary congestion in some grades caused by certain large classes, but in the long run the Britten Bill probably will succeed remarkably well in causing a regular flow of promotion.
Section 3 provides that service in grade shall be reckoned from June 30 of the calendar year of the convening of the selection board. That is, officers with less than 4 years’ service in grade on June 30 are not eligible for consideration by a selection board meeting in the same calendar year.
A further proviso of section 3 is that total commissioned service shall be computed from June 30 of one’s graduating year at the Naval Academy. Members of a class or part of a class that graduated early will have their total commissioned service computed from June 30 of the year in which the class would have completed a 4-year course. Non-Naval Academy graduates are considered as though they had graduated with the Naval Academy class next junior to them when they were first permanently commissioned.
Section 4.—This section provides for a promotion list for each selective grade. Officers recommended by a selection board and approved for promotion by the President are placed on the promotion list. The important things about a promotion list are these:
- Those on a promotion list are safeguarded from service-in-grade retirement.
- They remain on the list until they successively make their numbers through vacancies and are promoted, even if another selection board were to be convened in the interval; in other words, they do not have to be reselected.
- Names added to a promotion list by one board come below any placed there by the preceding board regardless of previous relative seniorities in the grade from which selected; thus, an officer passed over by one board and picked up by the next would lose numbers, depending on how many officers previously below him were selected by the board that passed him over.
- The only way an officer can be removed from a promotion list, except by such causes as death or retirement, is for the Secretary of the Navy, with the President’s approval, to remove him, but in that case his name must be submitted to the next selection board and if it should reselect him he goes back to his original place in the promotion list.
It is evident that the secretary might remove an officer just before he made his number for promotion. The bill is not clear whether his number would be left vacant pending the decision of the next selection board in his case, or would be filled by the next man on the list. It is clear that, if the next board reselected him, he would regain the seniority in the higher grade to which his original position in the promotion list entitled him. If the vacancy had been left open he would be promoted as soon as the next board’s report had been approved, and would get back pay as well as precedence. If the vacancy had been filled it seems probable that he would not be promoted until a new vacancy occurred (he would get the first one). He would then regain his precedence, but he might have difficulty in obtaining back pay.
The proviso of section 4 that covers the above removal of an officer from the selection list states that if such officer be not reselected he reverts to the category of one who had never been placed upon the selection list. In other words he would again become subject to service-in-grade retirement.
Section 4 further provides that if an officer be removed from a promotion list and resubmitted to the next selection board, the number of selections to be made by that board shall be increased by one. If he is not reselected, someone else will be selected in his place.
Section 2.—This section establishes the numbers to be selected each year for each selective grade. The number to be selected for a certain grade consists of the number of known vacancies that will exist in that grade up to and including June 30, next, plus 10 per cent of the authorized number in that grade. In other words, known vacancies plus—for commander, 44; for captain, 22; for rear admiral, 6.
If there be no known vacancies, then the numbers given above would be selected. This would be true even if a number of previously selected officers remained on the promotion list on June 30, unless this excess itself equaled or exceeded 10 per cent of the next grade. The bill provides, in that case, that the numbers selected shall be only 8 per cent of the next grade, or—for commander, 35; for captain, 18; for rear admiral, 4.
This provision of section 2, reducing the numbers to be selected, is intended to slow down selections when vacancies are slow in developing. As will be seen later, the chart indicates that such a condition probably will not develop at all unless natural attrition (deaths, retirements for ill health, voluntary retirements after 30 years’ service, etc.) is abnormally low.
A final provision of section 2 is that the Secretary of the Navy may convene extra selection boards to meet unexpected vacancies arising in large numbers. The passage of the Britten Bill caused such a condition, since it automatically provided vacancies for 55 commanders, and a special selection board was convened accordingly. No other causes for convening special boards are in prospect, but a possible cause is legislation increasing the authorized strength of the line.
Section 5.—This section provides for the retirement of officers not on promotion lists who complete the service in grade as lieutenant commander, commander, or captain prescribed in section 3. The retention lists provided by section 7 will, in certain circumstances, save some officers from retirement or will delay their retirement, as will appear.
It also provides that an officer on a promotion list who fails to pass his professional examination for promotion shall be retired. He will not be entitled to another chance, and, to judge from the wording of the bill, his retirement will immediately follow his failure, regardless of his length of service in grade. Failure in the professional examination means failure before a statutory board. An officer failing before a supervisory board will always be given his chance before a statutory board before being retired.
Two important provisions of this section relate to all lieutenants:
- who are 45 or more years of age, or
- who have completed 20 or more years of service, counting all service for which they would be entitled to credit for voluntary retirement, and
- who undergo the required examination for promotion to lieutenant commander, and
- [who] are found not professionally qualified ....
One provision is that, if such a lieutenant held permanent warrant or permanent commissioned warrant rank at the time he was first permanently appointed as ensign or above in the permanent line of the Navy, he may choose whether to retire as a lieutenant of the line or to revert to his previous warrant or commissioned warrant status and remain on active duty. An officer who thus reverts will resume the lineal position to which he would have been entitled if he had never left the warrant status. If he had been a warrant officer, and the warrant officer next below him had become a chief warrant officer, the reverting lieutenant apparently would become a chief warrant officer.
The other provision relates to lieutenants of the above age or length of service who had not been warrant officers and who had failed professionally. These would be retired immediately.
The Britten Bill does not affect lieutenants or others who fail physically for promotion. They would retire for ill health, at three-quarters of their active-duty pay, as provided by existing law. Nor does the Britten Bill make special provision for lieutenants who are younger than 45 and have served less than 20 years when they fail professionally. These unfortunates, whether they be Naval Academy graduates or appointees from civil life or the enlisted ranks, are governed by previous laws. They will get another chance in 6 months, meanwhile losing numbers equal to the average rate of promotion in a 6-months’ period during the preceding 5 fiscal years (existing law). If they should again fail they would be dropped from the line of the Navy with not more than one year’s pay.
Section 6.—This section provides that officers retired under the Britten Bill shall receive retired pay at the rate of 2.5 per cent of their active-duty pay multiplied by each year of service for which they were entitled to credit in computing their longevity pay on the active list, but not to exceed a total of 75 per cent. The officers affected are those: (a) who are retired for service in grade; or (b) who are lieutenants of 45 or more, or who have served 20 or more years, and who fail professionally. (Sec. 5.)
In computing service for retirement pay officers who graduated from the Naval Academy with or prior to the class of 1916 are entitled to include their service as midshipmen. For these classes the Britten Bill specially provides that a fractional year of nine months or more shall count as a full year. This provision is intended to smooth out the irregularities due to differing dates of entry as midshipmen. It puts on the same footing for retired pay all classmates who entered and graduated with the same class.
Officers not graduates of the Naval Academy in computing their service for retirement pay may include prior service in the enlisted, warrant, or commissioned warrant grades of the Army, Navy, Marine Corps, Coast Guard, and Coast and Geodetic Survey.
Section 7.—This section limits the number of officers who can involuntarily be transferred “to the retired list pursuant to this act” in any fiscal year. It probably is the intention that this section shall relate only to lieutenant commanders and above who fail of selection and are overtaken by service-in-grade retirement.
The number that can be involuntarily retired in any one fiscal year equals one-seventh of the grade in which serving minus one-seventh of the next higher grade. These numbers are: captains, 23; commanders, 32; lieutenant commanders, 55.
When the pending retirements would exceed these numbers, the excess must be retained on the active list for another year without any loss of right to selection and promotion. Designation of those to be held over is to be made by the selection board. The board’s procedure can be best illustrated by a case: suppose 40 captains were in their thirty-fifth year of commissioned service (as computed in section 3) and there were only 6 selections to be made to the grade of rear admiral. The board would select 6 of the 40 captains for promotion, leaving 34. Of these only 23 could be involuntarily retired, therefore the board would select 11 of the 34 to be retained for another year. It is convenient to refer to these as comprising a “retention list,” but this list should not be confused with the promotion list. Those on a retention list are merely held over for a year, and must then retire unless the next selection board shall select them either for promotion or for retention for still another year.
Section 7 has three special provisions.
The first reads:
The selection board may in any fiscal year designate for retention on the active list until the end of the next fiscal year any officer who has lost numbers or precedence and has been promoted after suffering such loss.
This provision will safeguard any officer who has lost enough numbers to throw him into the class below the one with which he graduated, provided that the selection board considers that his record warrants his retention. After being held over, if the next selection board did not get down to such an officer it could hold him over for consideration by the next board, and so on. Officers in the situation covered by this provision of the bill might be well advised to request the Bureau of Navigation to invite the selection board’s attention to their status.
It seems a reasonable conclusion that officers retained under this provision would be in addition to those retained under the basic provision of section 7, if the selection board so desired.
The second special provision of section 7 is that all service-in-grade retirements become effective on June 30 and that resulting vacancies occur on that date.
The third special provision of section 7 applies to future Naval Academy classes that may contain more graduates than the available number of vacancies in the grade of ensign. The bill authorizes the Secretary of the Navy to commission as ensigns such number of the excess graduates as in his opinion may be necessary to fill vacancies which will occur prior to July 1 of the same year. In other words, a class can graduate early in June but its members can fill vacancies (notably the pending service-in-grade retirement vacancies) occurring as late as June 30.
Section 8.—This section provides that, in making any computation “required or authorized by or pursuant to” the Britten Bill, officers who are “extra numbers” shall be excluded from consideration. This wording evidently means that each grade may contain the full number of officers authorized by section 1 plus any extra numbers that may be in it. Extra numbers obviously are entitled to promotion to the selective grades if the selection board considers them worthy, and the wording would appear to permit selecting them in addition to the number to be selected as “required” by section 2.
This section also provides that, in making any computation, a final fraction of one-half or more shall be regarded as a whole number. This provision has already been mentioned and has been used several times in computing figures given in this paper.
Section 9.—This section abolishes age-in-grade retirement.
Section 10.—This section is a special provision relating only to:
Officers of the Navy . . . who have been specially commended for their performance of duty in actual combat with the enemy during the World War, by the head of the executive department under whose jurisdiction such duty was performed. . ..
The provision for these officers is that if retired for service in grade they shall be retired in the next higher grade, but with three-quarters of the pay they would have had if not thus advanced in rank.
Section 11.—This section concludes the Britten Bill and repeals all prior acts or parts of acts that conflict with it.
The charts comprise an attempt to illustrate the probable working of the bill with respect to: selections and promotion lists; vacancies and promotions; service-in-grade retirements; retention lists.
Each heavy vertical line of the cross-section background represents June 30 of a different year, starting at the left with June 30, 1932.
Along the June 30, 1932, line are marked off the numbers of officers comprising each Naval Academy class that should be on the active list on July 1, 1932. These numbers represent all graduates, including those who have dropped down below their class, except that extra numbers are eliminated; those who will become extra numbers when next promoted are eliminated; non-Naval Academy graduates are counted as though members of the class just below them.
The scale used is 20 numbers between successive heavy horizontal cross-section lines. Additional heavy lines are cut in, so spaced below the top of the chart as to mark off the grades of rear admiral, captain, and commander. About 100 numbers at the top of the lieutenant commander’s grade also appear in the principal chart.
Since the normal retirement dates of existing rear admirals are known, those remaining each July 1 in all classes down to 1897 have been computed and cut in along the appropriate vertical lines. In this way the series of inclined lines in the admiral’s grade, running from lower left to upper right, were generated. These enable the probable vacancies in the admiral’s grade from year to year to be approximated. The final membership in the admiral’s grade of the classes of 1898 and 1899 is yet to be determined; therefore for these and subsequent classes the chart has been developed upon the assumption that retirements for age in the admiral’s grade will take place in each class in a uniform manner over a period of 4 years.
In addition to retirements for age, an arbitrary allowance has been included for natural attrition (deaths, retirements for ill health, retirements upon own request after 30 years’ service, etc.). In the admirals’ grade this allowance is 1.5 per year, shown as 2 numbers in odd years and 1 number in even years. These have been applied arbitrarily to the larger classes, as shown by figures inclosed in small circles.
Natural attrition has been applied according to figures obtained in the Bureau of Navigation. These cover the 5-year period ending with June 30, 1927, and are as follows:
Graphic representation of promotion list and selections for rear admiral.—On June 30, 1932, there probably will be 6 officers, all of 1899, on the promotion list for rear admiral. By June 30, 1932, 7 to 9 vacancies in the admiral’s grade will have accrued. The chart shows 9, due to an assumed natural attrition of 2. If these 9 vacancies accrue, they will absorb all 6 officers on the promotion list and still leave 3 vacancies on June 30, 1933. The 1932-33 selection board may, then, select 6 plus 3, or 9 captains, for rear admiral.
This situation is shown on the chart by an inclined line extending from a point on the June 30, 1932, line 6 numbers below the admiral’s grade, to a point of June 30, 1933, line 9 numbers higher—that is, 3 numbers above the captain’s grade. This line represents the flow of promotion into the admiral’s grade due to age retirements plus natural attrition during the indicated 12 months’ period.
From the middle of this inclined line, representing approximately the date of convening of the 1932-33 selection board, is dropped a vertical line 9 numbers in length. This represents the expected 9 selections to be made by the board. From its lower end an inclined line parallel to the other is drawn, intersecting June 30, 1932, line. The vertical distance between this intersection and the top of the captain’s grade represents the probable number of captains on the selection list on July 1, 1933—that is, 6 captains.
During the next 12 months 9 more vacancies (counting natural attrition) should occur in the admiral’s grade. A new inclined line is drawn in from the above intersection to cut the June 30, 1934, line 9 numbers higher, thus representing the flow of promotion, as before. A new vertical line is dropped to indicate the selections of the 1933-34 board, and so on. In this way a saw-toothed line is constructed across the chart running generally just below the top of the captain’s grade. The area between this line and the top of the captain’s grade graphically represents the selection list for rear admiral and shows the expected annual selections. This area is shaded with lines extending from upper left to lower right.
Service-in-grade retirement of captains.—Between June 30, 1932, line and June 30, 1933, line, below the inclined line demarking the selection list, are two parallelograms marked ’98 and two marked ’99. These represent captains not yet selected for rear admiral. Unless the ’98 captains are selected by the 1932-33 board they will retire on June 30, 1933, for service in grade. This retirement is indicated by a heavy vertical line at the right end of the second ’98 parallelogram. The two ’99 parallelograms are carried along another 12 months and are then similarly terminated. In like manner, the retirements of unselected captains of following classes are successively shown. The retirements plus the selections equal the total number in the class when it comes up for final action by the selection board.
The retention list for captains.—The number of service-in-grade retirements will fall well below the 23 allowed by the Britten Bill (section 7) until the class of 1905 comes up. That class probably will reach the selection point with about 39 members and may lose 3 more by natural attrition prior to completing 35 years of commissioned service, leaving about 36 members. If these obtain 10 selections to rear admiral, as shown by the principal chart, there will be about 26 left, of whom only 23 can be retired on June 30, 1940. The remainder must be selected for retention. They are represented by the two narrow parallelograms between the June 30, 1940, line, and the June 30, 1941, line, and below the selection list. These are marked ’05 and are shaded from upper right to lower left.
All other areas thus shaded represent retention lists. It will be observed that a large one builds up for the class of 1907, which will have the effect of holding most of 1908 and several subsequent classes in retention lists a year before they will receive much consideration for selection for rear admiral. These retention lists apparently will disappear with the class of 1913, but will reappear later when the large classes now in the lieutenant’s grade come along.
The captain's grade.—Progress in the captain’s grade is indicated by a series of gentle rises during 12 months, representing promotion to rear admiral plus natural attrition, and a series of sharp rises on successive June 30ths, representing expected service-in-grade retirements. Figures above upper ends of inclined lines represent assumed remaining members of classes on successive June 30ths. Figures in small circles represent assumed natural attrition.
Lower grades.—The same system has been followed in developing the selection lists and retention lists in lower grades and in illustrating selections, service-in-grade retirements and the flow of promotion. Retention lists will be noted at the top of the commander’s grade, commencing with 1907 and ending with 1913. None should develop in the grade of lieutenant commander until after 1918 has been selected.
Some inferences from the chart—The outstanding lesson from the chart is that the Britten Bill will not work properly of itself. It is an ingenious device, but is semi-automatic rather than fully automatic, and requires a guiding hand.
Proper working of the Britten Bill is a term that requires explaining. The writer considers that the Britten Bill will be working properly only when the percentage selected to a given grade is the same for each Naval Academy class, regardless of its size. In dealing with officer personnel the only reasonable and tenable assumption is that classes are equal in quality, therefore the same percentage of each should be selected, not only in fairness, but in order to obtain a uniformly high quality of selectees.
The following outline describes what seems a sound method of determining the proper fixed percentages to each grade.
The theory of the Britten Bill is 7 years in each grade. If all classes were of the same size, the middle class of the seven classes in a grade should have a membership of exactly one-seventh of the grade. When it entered the grade it would have been larger and upon leaving it it would be smaller, the difference equaling the natural attrition. Then, one-seventh of the grade plus half the natural attrition in the grade would, roughly, represent its size upon entering the grade; and one-seventh of the grade minus half the natural attrition in the grade would, similarly, represent its size upon leaving the grade. These approximations figure out as follows, using the same rates of natural attrition mentioned in describing the charts—
The significance of these figures may be stated in the following way:
127 lieutenant commanders start out together, and
110 of them come up for selection, to fill
66 vacancies in the commander’s grade, which is a
60 per cent selection to commander;
66 commanders thus result, of whom
61 come up for selection, to fill
35 vacancies in the captain’s grade, which is a
57.4 per cent selection to captain;
35 captains thus result, of whom
29 come up for selection, but the probable average vacancies in the admiral’s grade is only
8.5 which gives about a
30 per cent selection to rear admiral.
The writer, therefore, concludes that, with the assumed rates of attrition, the fixed percentages that should be selected are:
60 per cent to commander,
57 per cent to captain,
30 per cent to rear admiral.
Change in rates of natural attrition would change these percentages slightly. They are hereafter referred to as the proper percentages of selection.
Guiding the Britten Bill.—Under the law, the selection boards are the only means of guiding the Britten Bill. The Bureau of Navigation presumably can offer the selection boards advice as to the proper percentages of selection, and it is generally understood that something of the sort has been done with recent boards. But the selection board procedure that was out-lined in a recent Bureau of Navigation bulletin does not seem well adapted to produce a predetermined percentage of selections. Revision of the initial list of selectees, to prune it or to build it up, usually would become necessary. As the writer understands the law governing selection boards, this amendment of its procedure would be entirely within the power of each board.
Recognizing the natural tendency toward pick-ups, and also their value, it would be desirable that the initial selections from a given class be kept below the proper percentage. The pick-ups could then complete the percentage. Probably through pure coincidence, the selections of the last board from the class of 1912 provide a good illustration. The board selected 57 members of that class for commander. The previous board selected 1 member, totaling 58. There were 101 members on the active list, including those who since have dropped down with junior classes. This is a percentage of 57. Three pick-ups by the next board would raise the percentage to 60, which is the percentage previously indicated as proper.
To illustrate the importance of starting now to select the proper percentages in each grade, rather than waiting until forced by service-in-grade retirement to be even more drastic at the expense of certain classes, the writer has developed an auxiliary chart to supplement the principal chart. The auxiliary chart illustrates selections into the captain’s and rear admiral’s grades, commencing at once to use the proper percentages. The principal chart illustrates percentages such as might well result if the selection boards refuse to be drastic until conditions force them to be.
The auxiliary chart does not show selections into the commander’s grade. Selections into that grade on the principal chart are on the basis of 60 per cent, which is the proper percentage. This was regarded as justified by the action of the last board in selecting from 1912, together with probable pick-ups by the next board, as has been described.
The tabulation following is a comparison of the selections shown on the principal chart with those of the auxiliary chart.
The tabulation omits consideration of the class of 1919 because of the unpredictable future of the approximately 200 non Naval Academy officers now placed just above that class. The working of the Britten Bill with respect to these and other such groups, and to the classes of 1919 and below, cannot be intelligently predicted.
The tabulation under the caption “auxiliary chart” shows that all classes can receive very close to the proper percentages of selections into each grade. A marked exception is the selections of 1912 for captain. That class would be entitled to about 32 captains whereas the auxiliary chart shows it receiving only 29.
To see the apparent cause, refer to the lower part of the auxiliary chart. The class of 1912 is due for service-in-grade retirement as captains on June 30, 1940. The 1938-39 selection board will have selected about 18 members of 1911 for retention and these would be entitled to 13 of the 35 selections by the 1939-40 board to fill 1911’s quota of 38 captains. This would reduce the 1911 retention list to 5. Meanwhile, selection of 22 of 1912 would reduce those unselected to about 34. These plus the 1911 retention list would total only about 39, of whom 32 must be retired. Thus the 1912 retention list for the succeeding year would total only 7—too few to fill the 10 more selections that 1912 should receive.
In practice this situation probably would be met by paring one or two from 1911’s quota, bringing both slightly below the 57 per cent of selections. This would be only just, because the real cause of failure of 1912 to get its quota would be the failure of the first selection board that met under the Britten Bill to be as drastic as they should have been with 1911. That board selected 40 members of 1911, and the next board picked up 3 more, totaling 43, from among the 64 members of 1911 remaining unselected. This was 5 selections over the 60 per cent that should have been selected. These 5, minus 1 for natural attrition before reaching the captain’s grade, would, under the conditions illustrated by the auxiliary chart, enable 1912 to reach its full quota of captains with a margin of 1.
Numerous other examples of possible unfavorable reactions against certain classes, caused by failures of selection boards to be sufficiently drastic, can be observed in the principal chart. The case of 1913, going into both the captain’s and the rear admiral’s grades, is a good example. As a general proposition, the classes most likely to be hurt are the small ones, particularly when they follow big classes. Members of these small classes who ask for retirement after 30 years’ service should consider the effect on their classmates, and refrain. For example, if 1913 should actually come up for admiral under the conditions shown by the principal chart, each such voluntary retirement would cost the class one rear admiral. Three voluntary retirements, and all the rest of the class would unavoidably be retired for service in grade as captains.
In spite of the good arguments favoring drastic selections to all grades, there are also good reasons to believe that the next few selection boards will not be sufficiently drastic, in selecting admirals and captains, to satisfy those farther down the list. Four reasons which occur to the writer are as follows:
- Because of the slack in the grades of commander and captain which must be absorbed before service-in-grade retirement and selection can affect the same class in the same year. There is, therefore, no pressure as yet in these grades to force drastic selection.
- Because all captains have survived two selections and commanders one selection, and consequently they are generally excellent men.
- Because members of selection boards will personally know most captains and many of the commanders eligible for selection, making it exceptionally difficult to skip men they know to be good in order to provide future vacancies for juniors of less known abilities.
- Because of the uncertainties of the future: The Navy may expand, creating additional vacancies for present juniors.
It is well to remember, also, that the figures in the charts are pure guess work except those along the left margin lines. Too much weight, therefore, must not be given to their indications.