The Selection Business

The title of this article is possibly a misnomer, for it deals with selection only from the standpoint of the “seven-year rule.” (By that we mean the system now in force whereby officers come up for selection approximately every seven years.) But before taking up the “Rule of Seven,” we should like to generalize just a little.

Probably the most striking feature of the whole selection business is the attitude of the officers concerned. The law providing for the extension of the selection system to lieutenant commanders and lieutenants was passed with rather devastating speed. Officers who had counted on seven, ten, twelve years more in the Navy were suddenly confronted with the prospect of possible retirement within a comparatively short time. And yet it seems to the writer that the officers, placed under unexpected fire, have stood up to it in accordance with the best naval traditions; have exhibited rather a splendid attitude.

Undoubtedly, with some there is regret that the law was passed. But, even so, their feeling seems to be more one of regret at the necessity for the law, rather than for the law itself. The general attitude seems to be that, while it is pretty tough on the individual, it is best for the Navy as a whole. The only real criticism heard in connection with the new selection bill is that it is unfortunate that it was not put in effect sooner.

For instance, to go back a few years, all of ’11 and about half of '12 made their numbers for lieutenant commander by June, 1922. Let us suppose selection to lieutenant commander to have been in effect at that time, and that all of '11 and the first half of '12 mentioned above had been selected by the board of the preceding February, that is, February, 1922. The “dead line” (14 years after graduation) for ’11 would have been 1925 and for ’12, 1926. Thus, the selection board would have been three and a half years ahead of the dead line in February, 1922. Some of that “velvet,” of course, would have been expended in the twelve years between 1922 and 1934, but had there been selection to lieutenant commander during those years, certainly the large number of retirements to be effected on June 30,1936,¹ and the retirement of approximately 52 per cent of each class for the next few years thereafter, would have been greatly reduced.

Whether or not the Navy as a whole would be better off had there been selection for lieutenant commander during the past thirteen years is a matter of opinion. However, such selection having become practically a necessity in 1934, it seems not illogical to assume that the Navy would have benefited had the selection been put into effect a number of years previously.²

The purpose of this paper, however, is not to attempt to saw sawdust. Its concern is not with the past but with the future. The only reason for mentioning the greater justice to individuals and the greater benefit to the Navy as a whole that would have resulted had selection been extended to the lower ranks some ten or twelve years ago, is to point out the importance of farsighted planning. If there be sufficient merit in the suggestions contained herein for them ever to be put into effect, it should be done as soon as possible.

The law passed last spring continues the “seven-year rule” already in operation for the higher grades. The new legislation works hardships in some cases, any selection system does, but, to repeat ourselves, we feel and we believe the service, including the officers concerned, consider that the law is a good one; that it is a great improvement over the conditions that existed prior to its passage. However, we believe that additional legislation is still necessary. But before going into that, we are going to spring a lot of figures on you. Figures can be awfully boring, we know, but as those used here have a definite bearing on the conclusion we reach, please bear with them.

The average age on graduation from the Naval Academy is generally taken as being 22 years. Under the present system of 7 years to a grade, the average graduate, selected all the way up would “make his number” for the various ranks as follows:

Rank	Age of Av. Grad, on Reaching Various Ranks
Ensign........................	22
Lieutenant (juniorgrade).. ..	25
Lieutenant..................	29
Lieutenant commander	36
Commander................	43
Captain.......................	50
Rear admiral...............	57

 

In our opinion, and this forms the “theme song” of this article, those ages are too great by several years. We shall first attempt to show that; then suggest a remedy.

Now this same system of 7 years to a grade (though allotting in a “lump sum” 21 years to the first three grades) has substantially been in effect for nearly 20 years. The original provisions, of course, specified age limits for the three grades to which selection was then applicable. Those provisions were modified to eliminate the advantages they gave to the younger officers of a class. For all practical purposes, however, it may be considered that the present system has been in effect during all the years of promotion by selection.

From the foregoing, we should expect the average age of rear admirals on date of commission to be about 57. Actually from the 1934 Register the average age of rear admirals on date of being commissioned was 54 years and 4 months. The main reason for the 2 year and 8 months difference is readily apparent. Each year for the past several years, selection has been made principally from one class, the dead line of which was two years away. Thus, it may be said that 1931 was ’99’s “year” (so was the year before for that matter in the case of this particular class); 1932 was '00s; 1933 was ’01’s; and 1934 was ’02’s year. But those in ’02 not selected do not have to retire until 1937; would not have to be selected until December, 1936. Thus, 2 years of the difference is easily accounted for.

The remaining 8 months is accounted for by the fact that the average age on graduation of the 61 rear admirals listed in the 1934 Register was not 22, but 21 years and 4 months. And now the entire difference is accounted for and, were it not for the 2-year jump on the dead line, the average age at date of commission of the admirals as given in the 1934 Register would have been 56 years and 4 months.

Group (All taken from 1934 Register)	Average Age on Graduation
	Years	Months
Flag officers......................	21	4
Rear admirals—select as shown
in 1934 Register (1933 and 1934
selections)....................	22	0
Class of’07 (total).............	22	1
Class ’07—captains and captains
—select........................	22	2
Class of 1911....................	22	4
Class of ’14 (total)............	22	5
Class of ’14, commanders—select	22	5 ½
Class of’23........................	22	5
Class of’31........................	22	7

 

This 8 months discrepancy between 57 years, the age one would expect from the generally accepted graduation age of 22, and the actual 56 years and 4 months is hardly enough to make any difference in the points we wish to bring out. However, after this article was practically written, we decided to determine the average age on graduation of various classes. Picking classes more or less at random, and checking them as to average age on graduation of each, some rather interesting results were obtained as shown by the preceding table.

From the foregoing, it will readily be seen that the average age on graduation decreases as time out of the Academy increases. One may form one of two conclusions from that: either there is greater attrition among older members of a class, from resignations, retirements, death, or other causes, or else the average age of midshipmen, hence the age of the average graduate, is actually increasing.

We set out to determine which. From a 1913 Register, we figured out the average age on graduation of ’07 and ’11, each class at that time being about twice its present number. The result was:

Class	1913 Register		1934 Register
	Years	Months	Years	Months
’07....	22	1	22	2
’11......	22	3	22	4

 

From that it is evident that there is slightly greater attrition among the younger members of a class. And it is equally evident that the discrepancies in the average ages on graduation between the senior classes and the junior classes are not due to any tendency for older members of a class to sever their relations with the Navy, but to the fact that older men are now entering the Academy. For the class of ’31, we could well add 6 months to the ages listed in our table, thus suggesting that the average age at which ’31 will make flag rank will be 57½ years, with but 6½ years remaining before retirement. However, as this article was started with the assumption that the age of the average graduate was 22, we shall continue to use that figure, merely pausing here to point out that the average of the ages of later classes, found to be 22 plus, but strengthens the arguments hereinafter presented.

So, then, for the purpose of arithmetical convenience and simplicity we shall use 22 flat, and with that “av. grad, ’’age, we shall have rear admirals making their numbers in the future at the average age of 55 as long as the selection boards keep two years ahead of the dead line. So far, those boards have been able to do that. How that has been done for the past 15 years can be seen from the following:

Year	Class FROM Which Selections Were Made	Dead-line Year of Last Class from which Selections Were Made (i.e., Dec. of Year Prior to June, 35 Years after Graduation	Dead- LINE Class*
1919...	’87	1921	’85
1920...	’88-’89	1923	’86
1921...	’89-’90	1924	’87
1922...	’90	1924	’88
1923...	’91	1925	’89
1924...	’91-’92	1926	’90
1925...	’92	1926	’91
1926...	’93-’94-’95	1929	’92
1927...	’96-’97	1931	’93
1928...	’97	1931	’94
1929...	’97-’98-’99	1933	’95
1930...	'98-’99	1933	’96
1931...	’99	1933	’97
1932...	’99-’00	1934	’98
1933...	’00-'01-’02	1936	’99
1934...	’01-’02-’03	1937	’00
* It is assumed for clarity in this column that the system of retirement after 35 years commissioned sendee was in operation during the entire period instead of the age in grade system in effect for part of the time.

 

Thus, it will be seen that in 1934 the selections made were in the same position with respect to the dead line as they were in 1919. At one time during the period shown above, the class selected was within one year of the dead line. Later, for several years, selections were three years ahead. Then, with two years devoted to ’99, the selections moved back to where they were at the start—two years ahead of the dead line—and that is the present situation. But what of the future? Will the selection boards advance the line, maintain the line, or retire the line?

At present, the various classes that make up the captain grade, including those in ’07 and ’08 selected, and excluding those retired in 1934 or to be retired in 1935, are distributed as follows:

Class	NO. IN Class (1934 Register)	No. Selected (for rear admiral)	Year of Selection (actual or probable)	Dead Line (year of selection, assuming board meets in Dec.)
’01...	183	10	1933	1935
’02...	22	8	1934	1936
’03...	23	2	1935	1937
’04...	22		1936	1938
’05...	46		1937-38	1939
’06...	46		1939	1940
’07...	74		1940-41	1941
’08...	424			1942
3 Includes one rear admiral who made his number prior Jan. 1,1944.
4 (Counting only those selected for captain.) There are 23 more in this class junior to last officer selected in December, 1934.

 

With the above table before us, and past selections in mind, it is reasonable to suppose that the 1919-34 average of a class a year can be maintained for the next 3 years. With the advent of ’05 into selection range, however, a slowing down must result. As that class has twice as many in it as the average of the classes immediately ahead of it, we have estimated that the board will require 2 years in which to go through it. That eliminates one of the 2 years of velvet and brings selection to within a year of the dead line. The next class, ’06, also has twice as many members as the classes immediately ahead of it, except, of course, ’05. Going by the average, 2 years should be assigned to ’06 also, but to allow for unusual and unexpected attrition in both ’05 and ’06 only a year is assigned to ’06. Or, it might be better to say that 3 years are estimated for ’05 and ’06 together.

That brings us to the huge class of ’07 with but 1 year of velvet, and needless to say that will be completely lost before the selections of ’07 have been completed. Consequently, the last of ’07 selections will be made by the dead-line board. (The matter of the retention list due to the limit placed on the number of retirements in any one year is likely to come up at that time, too. That, however, is of no particular concern in this discussion.) Classes subsequent to ’07 have the selection to captain hurdle to clear before they come up for selection to rear admiral (42 in ’08 have cleared the hurdle), but present indications are that the latter part of ’07 and classes subsequent to it will come up for flag selection in the December prior to retirement. In other words, beginning in 1934, the date of selection and the dead lines will coincide, and thenceforward the average age of rear admirals on commissioning will be 57.

Now, at this point, the question, “But what of it?” might be raised. Well, this “of it.” Fifty-seven seems to us to be too advanced an age for an officer to attain flag rank. Too advanced not so much because of the age itself, but because of the shortness of time left before his inevitable arrival at the age of 64. In a case where a captain is selected while at sea, and goes ashore about the time he makes his number, he will have a chance for only one tour of sea duty. He will have shore duty from 57 to 60; sea duty from 60 to 62; shore duty from 62 to retirement. Two years only in which he can fly his 2-starred flag at sea. And, as it is hardly likely that he will get anything but a rear admiral’s billet on his first flag cruise, he is effectually barred from even consideration for a 4-star or even a 3-star assignment.

Group I
(To sea just after making number)
	(a)	(b)	(c)	(d)	(e)
Sea	55-57	56-58	57-50	58-60	59-61
Shore	57-60	58-61	59-62	60-63	61-64
Sea	60-62	61-63	62-64	63-64	—
Shore	62-64	63-64	—	—	—
At sea	4	At sea 4	At sea 4	At sea 3	At sea 2
Ashore	5	Ashore 4	Ashore 3	Ashore 3	Ashore 3
Total	9	8	7	6	5

 

Group Total
At sea	17
Ashore	18
Total	35

 

Group II
(To sea just after making number)
	(a)	(b)	(c)	(d)	(e)
Shore	55-58	56-59	57-60	58-61	59-62
Sea	58-60	59-61	60-62	61-63	62-64
Shore	60-63	61-64	62-64	63-64	—
Sea	63-64	—	—	—	—
At sea	3	At sea 2	At sea 2	At sea 2	At sea 2
Ashore	6	Ashore 6	Ashore 5	Ashore 4	Ashore 3
Total	9	8	7	6	5

 

Group Total
At sea	11
Ashore	24
Total	35

 

Group Total (Sea)
Group I	17
Group II	11
Total	28

 

Group Total (Ashore)
Group I	18
Group II	24
Total	42

(40 per cent of total of 70 years for two groups)

If the contrary is the case, if he is selected while ashore and goes to sea before the time of making his number, the situation is not much better. At sea from 57 to 59; on shore from 59 to 62; at sea from 62 to 64. From officers so fortunately situated must come the higher commands. It would be fine if the second case could be made possible for all, that is, by extension of sea cruises of those due to go ashore at the time of- making their numbers. That would mean 4 years at sea and 3 ashore, which, manifestly, is an impossibility, since there are only 23 sea billets for the allowed 55 flag officers. In terms of percentage, only 42 per cent of the allowed flag officers can be at sea. From that, it is evident that in 7 years, only 3, or slightly less, can be spent in sea duty.

So far, we have considered only the average officer selected for rear admiral. Let us look into the matter further; let us look at the situation in tabulated form, taking in the 5 ages at which a rear admiral can possibly be commissioned 35 years after graduation.

In the two groups we have followed the usual flag officer routine—2 years at sea; 3 years ashore. That gives a total of 28 years at sea, or 40 per cent of the total of 70 years, which corresponds closely to the percentage of flag officers at sea, i.e., 42 per cent. Applying the latter percentage, 29½ (29.4) years at sea of a total of 70 is found to be the exact number of years the combined groups would spend at sea. The error of a year and half distributed through the ten subgroups will not materially change the picture.

Of course, rear admirals-select do not necessarily make their numbers exactly at the end of a shore or sea cruise, but may make their numbers at any stage of either. In general, however, those who make their numbers while ashore get their first billet at sea, and vice versa.

It is also true that the “two at sea, three ashore,” schedule is not strictly adhered to. But we are dealing with averages and totals. There are only so many flag jobs open. Consequently, for any extra time spent at sea by one flag officer, a corresponding amount of extra time must be spent ashore by some other flag officer. Therefore we feel that the preceding group table gives a fairly accurate picture of the situation soon to be. From that table we see that the chances of getting a high command are practically limited to subgroups (a), (b), and (c), of Group I, and possibly subgroup (a) of Group II—a tremendous advantage enjoyed by the younger members of a class.

So far, this has dealt principally with flag officers, but truly it is with that group that the unfortunate features of the “rule of seven” reach their apex. Conceivably, the oldest and youngest members of a class on graduation—the one about 24, the other about 20—may be selected all the way along to rear admiral. Now up to the time that the two make their numbers for rear admiral, their lives have been parallel; even coincident, within certain limits. But when they reach flag rank, their lives begin to diverge, not actually, for each is doing a rear admiral’s job, but in effect, for one has 9 years left in the active Navy and the other has only 5.

Under the present laws, that cannot be helped. As long as there is a 4-year range in the entrance ages to the Naval Academy and no range at all to the plucking board of which Father Time is senior and only member, a younger graduate will always have a longer tour of active duty than an older classmate, assuming both to be selected all the way along. That advantage, however, can be greatly minimized by reducing the time spent in the lower grades. It can also be minimized by lowering the entrance age. The second possibility, though, is not very practicable, and might just as well not have been mentioned. We but bring it up to dispose of it. Certainly the entrance age limits could not be lowered enough to make any difference without greatly reducing the entrance requirements, with a consequent lowering of the academic standards of the Academy itself. The first possibility, however, is not only practicable but highly desirable.

Let us look abroad for a moment to Britain. In so doing, we are not in the least impressed by the fact that the British Navy has been “in business” longer than ours. There is as much that they can learn from us as we can learn from them. On the other hand, just because a system is foreign is no reason for condemning it ipso facto.

In the Proceedings for January, 1934, there appeared in the Professional Notes a quotation from a British service periodical. On the subject of “Older Admirals,” the British Army, Navy and Air Force Gazette of October 19, 1933, had the following to say:

The further changes on the flag list announced in our last issue again emphasize the lesson which we have sought to point out on past occasions. Unless everything possible is done to stimulate promotion and to ensure an adequate flow of younger officers to the list, the future commanders of our fleet will be much older than they were during the war. This is shown by a comparison even of the cases of Admiral R. M. Burmester, who retires at his own request, and Rear Admiral J. F. Somerville, who is promoted. Burmester became a rear admiral in September, 1924, or well after the war, but before the stagnation had set in quite as much as since 1930. He was 48 years 10 months on promotion to flag rank and served 10½ years as captain. Somerville is 51½ years on promotion to flag rank, and has served only 2 months short of 12 years as a captain. The aim should be to keep promotion to rear admiral so that officers reach this rank before 50, at least. All the principal war leaders got their flags before 50—Beatty at 39, Keyes at 44, Wemyss and Jellicoe at 47, Madden at 48, and Tyrwhitt, Sturdee, and De Robeck at 49. Promotion even at 50 is nothing to get unduly enthusiastic about, for a further 7 or 8 years must elapse before a new rear admiral gets to that position on the list at which he is selected for a chief command, so that he is within sight of 60 by the time he is called upon to shoulder the heavy responsibilities of such a post. Before long the Admiralty may have to consider whether the time-honored practice of promotion from captain to rear admiral by seniority will have to be modified, and advancement made by selection, tempered by seniority, as it is in the Royal Air Force.

Referring to the quotation from the Gazette, one is inclined to exclaim, “An admiral before 50! Unthinkable.” And, of course, it is under our present system. Why 50, within a few years, will be the average age at which an officer receives his fourth stripe!

Under the British system, one might expect that since their flag officers are commissioned at a much younger age than ours, their final retirement would be at an age younger than our 64. Such is not true. It is older! The retirement age for rear admirals and vice admirals is 60. That is, one must become an admiral before he is 60, or else he retires. But retirement of admirals is 65. Thus, a particularly able officer of CinC caliber is available to his country in flag rank for about 15 years.

From conversations with numerous British naval officers, we have gathered that the British Navy takes an attitude something like this:

(1) That a flag officer should be selected as young as possible so that experience in several lesser commands may be had before he assumes a high command.
(2) While a flag officer naturally has a greater responsibility than a captain, the latter’s responsibilities are of a more arduous nature; make a greater demand on physical resources; and hence should be performed by officers as young as possible.

The desirability of conforming to the first is self-evident; the desirability of “condition two,” however, is not necessarily beyond question. It is obvious that a flag officer should have experience in several subordinate commands before he moves on to a full admiral’s job. Hence, so that he will have sufficient time for those “several subordinate commands,” it is also obvious that he should attain flag rank at as early an age as possible.

As regards the second statement, there might be in our service some who would dispute it. We think all will agree that an officer should reach each rank as “young as possible.” The question as to how young is “as young as possible,” however, is another matter. There are undoubtedly those who think that the age of 50 is as young as it is possible for the av. grad, to reach captain, for that is the condition that will soon be brought about by present laws. And, in support of that opinion, they might question whether a captain’s duties can be performed any better at 45 than at 50. It is undoubtedly true that the duties of a captain of a battleship or cruiser are physically more arduous than the duties of any flag officer. But it might be open to question whether the more physically exacting duties of a captain can be performed any better at 45 than at 50.

It is our opinion, however, that of two officers, one making captain at say 45, the other at 50, the former will have the edge on the latter, provided each has had about the same amount of experience in the grades immediately junior to captain. We are dealing, of course, with average officers. The case of a particular officer is another matter entirely.

Certainly a man is not necessarily old at 50 or even at 60. There really is no age at which the individual becomes old. Some men are old at 40; others at 70. Wilbur Hall in Burbank the Philosopher quotes the famous “wizard of plant life” as saying:

Folks wonder how I’ve kept so young, I’m almost 77 and I can still go over a gate or run a foot-race or kick the chandelier. That’s because my body is no older than my mind—and my mind is adolescent. It has never grown up.

A few years ago we saw an admiral of 60, bareheaded, playing a good and hard-hitting game of tennis in Washington on a July day that broke the heat record for a quarter of a century. We know of another officer, a well above average tennis player, who at 30 gave up tennis for golf, because the former “took too much out of him.” No, there is no rule by which one can say of an individual that he will be middle-aged here; old-aged there.

But in dealing with averages, as we are here, it is possible to define various periods of life and to assign rather definite limits to them.

Captain Kaufman of the Medical Corps in his excellent article, “Advice to Fellow-Middle-Agers,” in the January, 1934, Proceedings, defines middle-age as:

“That time of life when one realizes the initial appearance of those maladies which influence an individual’s length of life and bear upon the efficiency and well-being of old age.”

He then bounds middle-age by saying, “Numerically we shall make the fortieth year the beginning of middle age and the sixtieth year the end.”

Now, let us apply those limits to naval officers and admitting that the answer might well be a matter of opinion, it seems that from a purely physical standpoint, whatever advantage there is, lies with having officers reach the grade of rear admiral in mid-middle age rather than late middle age; of having them reach the grade of captain at early rather than midmiddle age.

But that officers reach those grades as early as possible is even more important from the standpoint already outlined, so as to give admirals as much time as possible in which to fly their starry flags.

But here let us cease our star gazing for the moment and descend the ladder of rank to a point whence we may survey the lower grades. In so doing, let us once more consider the British Navy and see at what ages its officers reach the various grades. Then, let us compare them with the average ages at which our own officers reach those grades or will reach them very shortly. (The British have only a very slight variation from the average for there is only a four months difference between the upper and lower limits for Dartmouth entrance—13 years 8 months, and 13 years 4 months, respectively. There are a few exceptions, other sources of officers, etc., but not enough materially to affect the average.

Now, the purpose of the comparison below is not to suggest that lieutenants be commissioned at 22. Under the present system of training officers, such would not be very feasible. It would mean, of course, that Midshipman Joe Gish, on graduation, would have his June Week drag pin on shoulder marks of two stripes instead of one. Ardent advocates of such a plan could doubtless be found in wholesale lots in the Regiment of Midshipmen, but practically, we may dismiss the idea.

Average Age on Reaching Grade of	American	British
Naval cadet..........		13—6mos.
Midshipman.........	18	17—2 mos.
Ensign.................	22	19—4 mos.
Lieutenant (junior
grade)..............	25	—
Lieutenant...........	29	22
Lieutenant commander.	36	30
Commander.........	43	36
Captain................	50	43
Rear admiral........	57	50
Vice admiral.........	62	55
Admiral................	63	59

 

If, however, 22 is too young, 29 is certainly too old, and there is one item in the above table that gives strength to that contention. The British naval cadet enters the British service at 13½ years. Eight and a half years later he is a lieutenant. The American midshipman enters the Navy at 18 and is not a lieutenant until eleven years later. It might be pointed out that our Navy has an extra rank, lieutenant, junior grade, between ensign and lieutenant that the British Navy has not. True, but from entrance to lieutenant the British Navy has three steps: naval cadet, midshipman, and sublieutenant, and so have we: midshipman, ensign, and “j.g.” The duties of each of those first three steps in one service do not exactly coincide with the corresponding steps in the other, though to a certain extent they do. By the time, however, in each service the rank of lieutenant is reached, the duties do coincide rather closely. Consequently, we raise the question as to why it takes longer to produce a lieutenant in our service than it does in the British. Is the material from which American naval officers are molded of such inferiority that 2| additional years are required to produce a lieutenant than are required in the British Navy? Decidedly not. On the contrary, with many midshipmen having had a year or more at college prior to entrance, with other midshipmen in competition with those, with the present high Naval Academy academic and military standards, with midshipmen becoming ensigns at a more mature age, it seems rather obvious that less time should be required.

We shall not attempt here to find out how much less time should be required in our service. Maybe a year. Maybe 2 years. And in war time, of course, 2 stripers will be made in considerably less than 8½  years in both American and British navies. We are speaking of times of peace, however, not emergencies, and all we want less than the 8½ years is one half a year.

Suppose we cut just a half year off the British 8½ years. The result would be a lieutenant 8 years after entrance and 4 years after graduation; a lieutenant at the average age of 26. (How to apportion those years between ensign and “j.g.” is a matter of no great importance. Probably it would be best to eliminate the somewhat awkward title of lieutenant [junior grade] altogether.) That would make lieutenants 3 years younger than at present, and the average age of commissioning rear admirals would be 53. That, then, is our first suggestion. Commission lieutenant 3 years earlier and 3 additional and tremendously important years are added to the available time in which flag officers can serve. But that is not quite all we have to bring out.

We further suggest that in the “three at sea, two ashore” ranks of lieutenant and lieutenant commander the period in each be reduced from 7 to 6 years. And finally that in the captain grade, the period be increased from 7 to 8 to provide for greater command opportunity in that grade. Getting back on the table again, we would have the following:

Rank	Age on Reaching Various Grades	Difference Between Ages of Proposed and Present Systems	Years after Graduation
Ensign....	22	Same	0
Lieutenant...	26	3	4
Lieutenant
commander.	32	4	10
Commander..	38	5	16
Captain..	45	5	23
Rear admiral.	53	4	31

 

Surely that schedule has greater merit than the present one. It calls for placing the two junior officer grades within the age limits of youth, where they belong. It calls for putting the middle grade of lieutenant commander definitely on the sunny side of middle-age. It calls for completing the commander grade in early middle-age. It calls for entering the captain grade at early middle-age and gives an additional year where it is greatly needed. (With a system of “two at sea, three ashore,” selection boards are called upon, or will be within a very short time, to select for rear admiral officers who have spent at sea only 2.8 years out of 7 in the grade of captain.) And, finally, it provides for 11 years in flag rank. Even if a rear admiral has graduated from the Academy at the maximum age, and is not made a rear admiral until he is 55, he will still have 9 years left, 2 more than the average graduate has under the present system.

That the suggestions made here are subject to criticism goes without saying. Some that readily come to mind are: “How are you going to rearrange the percentages of the various grades?” “How will you assign duties?” “Is not 26 too early an age for the average graduate to reach the grade of lieutenant, etc.?”

Well, first the matter of rearranging percentages in the various grades. If the general idea advanced here is sufficiently worth while, then any necessary rearrangement in percentages would hardly prove a stumbling block.

As for the assignment of duties, no great problem is presented there. The jobs now held by senior “j.g.’s” could be given to lieutenants. In fact, many duties now performed by “j.g.’s” were performed by lieutenants not so very long ago.

Now, the question of making lieutenants at 26. So far, the greatest stress has been placed on the importance of having captains become rear admirals at a younger age. So far, the most important reason advanced for commissioning lieutenants earlier, for reducing the time in the lieutenant and lieutenant commander grades, is that such changes will result in officers gaining flag rank earlier. That is probably the most important reason. At the same time, however, that does not necessarily mean there are no other reasons. There are other reasons.

We believe that few, if any, will dispute the statement that an officer should reach each grade as young as possible. The argument starts over that phrase “as young as possible.” Because of present laws, “as young as possible” now means 29 for lieutenant, 36 for lieutenant commander, etc. Surely that is not because it is thought officers are not capable of holding down a senior lieutenant’s job until they have had 7 years commissioned service, or a lieutenant commander’s job until they have had 14 years commissioned service. Why, less than 20 years ago we had 26-year-old lieutenant commanders and lieutenants at 22. And even in 1925, 1926, 85 per cent of ’20 and 40 per cent of ’21-A became lieutenants 6 years after graduation. That means that due to the 3-year course of those classes, practically all of one and nearly half of the other attained the grade of lieutenant only 9 years after entrance— but one year longer than the time suggested here. It can hardly be, then, that an officer is considered unable to take over lieutenant responsibilities sooner than 11 years after his advent into the service.

There is a question of morale. Not that the morale is low. On the contrary, it is high, and, considering the many unfortunate aspects of the pay situation— the enormous increase in pay for other federal activities compared to that for armed forces, and the many strange and disconcerting features of the distribution of “Pay, Navy”—the wardroom morale is exceedingly high.

Just the same, make your destroyer execs, your mine-sweeper skippers, your big-ship division officers under 30; your destroyer captains around 35; your battleship heads of departments under 40; your executive officers of capital ships around 44, and your captains of those ships around and just under 50 and there’ll be such enthusiasm and energy turned loose that it will be amazing. Give a job to a youngster and does he not try doubly, trebly hard to prove himself worthy of the confidence? Officers reaching ranks at earlier ages will be all the more keen and alert, will put even more of themselves into their jobs just to show the high ranking officers, the Navy in general, Congress, and the whole country that they are capable of bearing the responsibilities given them. Nor will anything be lost in so doing, for the knowledge and experience of flag officers will still be available until they retire at 64.

Another argument against our suggestions that might be brought forward is the prospect of increasing the number of line officers at an early date. The general condition of world unrest has made it mandatory that America build her Navy up to treaty limits and be prepared to build it up even more if forced to do so. This has made it necessary for the Navy Department to request an increase in the number of officers, and a bill that calls for over a thousand additional line officers has already been introduced in Congress. If that bill goes through, it will permit a more rapid flow of promotion and hence classes will be reached by the selection board ahead of the dead line. True, indeed. But if the situation mentioned here is not in effect by 1941, then it will be not many years later, for approximately 1,000 additional officers, distributed through the various grades, do not constitute as large an increase as appears at first thought. The Navy cannot keep on expanding forever, and even if the present increase goes through, 1954³ seems to be the absolutely final date in which conceivably a class can come up for selection to rear admiral prior to the dead line; 1947⁴ the final date for captain; 1941 the final date for commander; a couple of years in the past the final date for lieutenant commander, and several years in the past for final date for lieutenant. That, because it is in the years mentioned above that the tremendous ’20 group must be selected for the various ranks or else retire; and it is hardly likely that the ’20 group, already a year or more behind the dead line, will ever get ahead of it. Nor, is there anything that would indicate that classes subsequent to ’20 will ever get ahead of the dead line. The classes due to be lieutenants now are several years behind schedule, though when the large number of 1936 retirements are effected, they will partially catch up. But they are all, except ’28 (115 members) large classes, and the smallness of ’28 is offset by the unusually large class of '27 (400 members) just ahead of it.

No, under the present system, we can see no possibility of any of the classes subsequent to ’19 ever being selected for any of the ranks before them ahead of the oft mentioned dead line. In fact, while selection boards will “go through” those classes prior to the limiting June 30—that must be, of course—it seems rather likely that the present lag between selection and time of last “selecte” making his number cannot be materially reduced. Thus, the average age on reaching the various ranks will be even greater than we have outlined.

The Navy is a huge organization, and changes perforce come slowly. It took the Navy many years to reach the present system which, regardless of its faults, is much, much better than the system of promotion by seniority, or that of the plucking board. But the writer believes that the Navy can profitably take another step on the stairway leading to Infinity which is the home of Perfect Selection. And now is the time for it to be done.

If the proposed increase goes through, a golden opportunity will be presented to start putting into effect at once the proposal made herein and to use the increase so as gradually to bring about a system that will take advantage of the energy and enthusiasm of youth without losing in any way the experience and wisdom of age.