Many recent articles and discussions dealing with the selection problem cite the fitness report as a cause for dissatisfaction, and other objections to the present operation of the selective process may be traced to the same source. However, few suggestions have been advanced which offer concrete recommendations for changes in the fitness report form which would tend to attain the end desired.
Some brief recapitulation may be in order before suggesting a method whereby, it is believed, many of the present objections to the workings of selection may be overcome. The scheme is not entirely original, in that it was evolved in an effort to combine the desirable features of many other proposed methods, as well as avoid as many as possible of the aspects of the present system which have been criticized.
Regarding selection in general, the following points are submitted:
(a) On account of statutory limits on the number of officers in the various grades; from a desire to maintain an even and equitable flow of promotion; and because normal attrition is insufficient to provide this, some form of elimination of officer personnel is necessary.
(b) A selective method is the most desirable means of accomplishing such elimination, since it reduces the stigma attached to officers leaving the service under so-called “plucking” methods, and should, under proper operation, insure that the best available officers reach the higher ranks.
Legal limits on the number of officers may best be illustrated by the following numerical example, based on the distribution under the latest law. Consider a group of 400 newly commissioned graduates of the Naval Academy. The average rate of attrition, over their entire career, is 2| per cent per year, due to such causes as death, dismissal, resignations, and retirements by reason of physical disability. At the time of commissioning, this group forms a part of the 42 per cent of all line officers in the lowest grade. After seven years’ service, the normal time for promotion to lieutenant, with a loss of approximately 65 of the group, 335 would be eligible for selection. However, these members will form, after promotion, a proportionate part of the 30 per cent of officers allowed in the grade of lieutenant, and this proportionate part is only 286 officers. Therefore, 335 — 286, or 49 of this group, cannot legally be selected and must be retired.
During their service of seven years as lieutenants, normal attrition reduces their number by 46, bringing 240 up for selection, of which only 143 may be chosen, since only 15 per cent of all line officers may be in the grade of lieutenant commander. Attrition reduces these 143 to 120 by the time they reach 21 years’ service, and 76 of these may be promoted to commander. Of these, 64 will remain upon reaching selection for captain, and 38 will be selected. During the next 7 years attrition will cause the loss of 6; and 9 or 10 of the remaining 32 can be selected for admiral.
Thus, of every 400 newly commissioned ensigns, in 35 years of service, 152 will be separated from the Navy by normal attrition and 9 or 10 will reach the grade of admiral, leaving 238 or 239 who must be retired at various stages of their careers in order to insure to others behind them a reasonable chance at normal promotion.
Under the selective system, therefore, it becomes the duty of the various boards annually to choose, from the number eligible, a certain proportion to be promoted. Assuming a total line officer personnel of 6,000, exclusive of extra numbers, which should be the average for the period between July 1, 1936, and the date the new limit of 6,531 officers is reached, the line officer distribution on June 1 of any year would be about that indicated in the following table. The proportions hereinafter derived on a basis of 6,000 would hold for any other number with the present distribution, with the exception that officers in excess of statutory limits in the three higher grades would remain in the grade of lieutenant commander until vacancies occurred. These figures assume Naval Academy classes of a size to permit the commissioning of 397 ensigns in the line on the 2d or 3d of each June, which would be the number required under the operation of the law to maintain the officer strength at this figure.
Number in grade of:
Years in Grade | En sign | Lieut. (J.G.) | Lieut. | Lieut. Comir. | Comdr. | Capt. | Adm’l. |
| ||||
1 | 388 | 360 | 277 | 139 | 74 | 37 | 9 |
| ||||
2 | 378 | 351 | 270 | 135 | 72 | 36 | 9 |
| ||||
3 | 368 | 341 | 263 | 131 | 70 | 35 | 9 |
| ||||
4 |
| 334 | 257 | 128 | 69 | 34 | 9 |
| ||||
5 |
|
| 251 | 125 | 67 | 33 | 8 |
| ||||
6 |
|
| 244 | 122 | 65 | 33 | 8 |
| ||||
7 |
|
| 238 | 120 | 63 | 32 | 8 |
| ||||
Totals | 1134 | 1386 | 1800 | 900 | 480 | 240 | 60 |
| ||||
No. eligible |
|
|
|
|
|
| ||||||
for selection | 675 | 990 | 495 | 264 | 142 |
| ||||||
Vacancies in |
|
|
|
|
|
| ||||||
grade | on 1 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| ||||
July |
|
| 238 | 120 | 63 | 32 | 8 |
| ||||
Vacancies in |
|
|
|
|
|
| ||||||
grade due to |
|
|
|
|
|
| ||||||
attrition |
|
|
|
|
|
| ||||||
during next |
|
|
|
|
|
| ||||||
year |
|
| 45 | 23 | 12 | 6 | 1 |
| ||||
No. to be se- |
|
|
|
|
|
| ||||||
lected | from |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| ||||
next | lower |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| ||||
rank | to fill |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| ||||
vacancies |
|
|
|
|
|
| ||||||
during year |
| 283 | 143 | 75 | 38 | 9 | ||||||
Returning to our first example, that of a class of 400 newly commissioned ensigns, we find that, in order to prevent a “pile-up” of the following classes, when any class which started with this size comes up for its first selection not more than 286 may be selected. So if more than this number are to be selected, in increasing the number of officers to the new limit, the board should select only 286 from the senior class and the remainder from the lower classes. If this proportion is not followed fairly closely, it means that after a few years there will be a “retention list” composed of an entire class or more who have reached 14 years’ service without ever having been considered for selection, and who will thus delay promotion of classes behind them for a year; and this process, if followed, becomes cumulative, eventually defeating the purpose of selection, and requiring a drastic clearing process to restore normalcy, with the consequent unfairness to those who happen to be “under the gun” at the time this process takes effect.
The following table gives the figures corresponding to those in the preceding paragraph for all grades:
Grade to which selected | Number can be selected | Number in senior class | Per cent selected |
Lieutenant | 286 | 334 | 85.7 |
Lieut, comdr. | 143 | 238 | 60.0 |
Comdr. | 76 | 120 | 63.3 |
Captain | 38 | 63 | 60.3 |
Admiral | 9 | 32 | 28.1 |
Figures in the first table show that the junior selection board, in considering only selection to lieutenant commander, must examine the records of 990 eligible lieutenants, and from these select 325 for promotion.
In analyzing their problem, the following points must be considered:
(a) Only a certain percentage of those eligible can be selected.
(b) A much greater percentage of those eligible than can be selected are fully qualified for promotion to the next higher rank.
(c) Each member of the selection board knows personally very few of the officers being considered.
(d) Therefore, selection must be made on the basis of the officers’ records, which must be compared in order to insure the selection of those who are best qualified for promotion.
The selection problem, then, is not one of choosing those officers who are qualified for promotion; there are normally many more of those than can be promoted. Rather, it is to arrange these officers in order of their value, and to choose those who are most valuable.
To what extent does the present fitness report, on which this process must depend, aid in doing this fairly and accurately? Very little. If the problem were that of choosing qualified officers, the present form of fitness report would answer the purpose. It is an attempt to make a qualitative analysis of each officer; to state to what extent that officer, in the opinion of his marking senior, exhibits certain abstract qualities. It is a means of comparing the officer in question with an imaginary officer, the average officer as conceived by the marking senior. But where can be found any unanimity of opinion concerning the extent to which this “average” officer exhibits any given quality? Not only does each marking officer have a different standard, but any one officer’s standard will vary with time and conditions affecting that officer.
The only way that present fitness reports on two officers can justly be compared is to convert each from an arbitrary scale (that of the marking officer) to an absolute scale. And only by requiring every marking officer to observe and mark the same group of juniors could a set of constants be obtained for such conversion. This is manifestly impracticable.
In the following paragraphs is described a method of marking which has been evolved in an effort to eliminate these difficulties. It is believed that the proposed method would involve little additional time or effort on the part of reporting seniors over the present method, and that it would result in far more satisfactory results.
This plan contemplates two types of report. The first would be an “Officer’s Record Report,” to be submitted by commanding officers annually on April 1, and on any change of commanding officers. This report, for each officer under his command, would consist essentially of the information now found on the fitness report, less any marks or table of “check-offs” for indicating proficiency. It would include a resume of the duty performed during the period since the last report; copies of any letters or other official comments on the officer’s performance of duty; and the brief resume of the officer’s fitness called for on the present form. With the annual report would be forwarded a statement from the medical examining board concerning the results of that officer’s last annual physical examination. Nothing would be filed in an officer’s record until he had seen and signed it, and any statement regarding any such matter which he might desire to make would likewise be filed therewith.
In addition to this report, each commanding officer would submit annually, to reach the department by January 1, two lists, one concerning ensigns and one lieutenants (j.g.). Each list would contain the names of all line officers in the respective grade who had served under his command for at least three months of the past year, and the names would be arranged in the order which the commanding officer considered most representative of their comparative abilities, that is, the name of the officer of the group considered most capable and most highly recommended for promotion at the top of the list, and the one least recommended at the foot. Each list would be further subdivided into three parts: (1) Names of those officers specifically recommended for promotion; (2) those officers for whom no recommendation is made; (3) those officers for whom promotion is not recommended.
Similar lists of officers of higher ranks would be submitted as follows: Every line officer on the active list of the rank of commander and above would submit lists as noted in the following paragraphs, to reach the department by January 1 of each year.
Commanders: (1) From the list of officers who would, on the following July 1, be eligible for promotion to lieutenant commander (that is, the four senior classes of lieutenants) the names of all of those officers who, at any time while they were in the grade of lieutenant, junior grade, served under the reporting officer for at least three months in any of the following categories:
Junior officer in division of which reporting officer was division officer.
Officer in a department of a ship or shore station of which reporting officer was head or assistant head.
Officer of a ship of which reporting officer was executive or commanding officer.
Commanding officer of a ship, unit, or detachment under the command of the reporting officer.
Officer on the staff of the reporting officer, or on a staff on which the reporting officer was chief of staff or senior aide, if no chief of staff was attached.
Any other officer on the eligible list whom the reporting officer feels able to include.
(2) From the same list of officers, a similar list including all who served under the reporting officer in any category mentioned while they were lieutenants.
Captains: Similar lists, made up from officers eligible for selection to commander, who served under the reporting officer in any category above mentioned, (a) while lieutenants and (b) while lieutenant commanders.
Admirals: Similar lists, made up from:
(1) Officers eligible for captain, who served under reporting officer as lieutenant commanders.
(2) Officers eligible for captain, who served under reporting officer as commanders.
(3) Officers eligible for rear admiral, who served under reporting officer as commanders.
(4) Officers eligible for rear admiral, who served under reporting officer as captains.
Each of the above lists would be arranged and subdivided in the same manner as those for ensign and junior lieutenant. Thus, the selection boards would have available not only the records of each officer up for consideration, but also a number of lists, containing the names of all these officers, and graded comparatively, not qualitatively.
However, it is recommended that this process be carried one step further. By a suitable method of correlation, the lists for any grade may be compared, and the names of all officers to be considered arranged in a single list in the order of comparative desirability for promotion.
One method of accomplishing this is outlined. The department, in calling for these lists each year, would state the inclusive signal numbers of officers eligible for selection to each grade, and the number of officers of that grade to be placed on the promotion list, that is, the number to be selected.
Then, after receipt of all lists on January 1, two marks would be assigned to each name on each list. The first would be a qualitative mark, tending to compensate for discrepancies between a list which might, by chance, be composed of preponderantly outstanding officers and another which included almost exclusively mediocre officers. This would be done by assigning an arbitrary mark to each name on a list as follows: those in the section recommended for promotion, 1.8; no specific recommendation, 1.5; not recommended, 1.3.
The second mark assigned to each name on a list would depend upon its position on the list, and would be obtained by the formula m = 2.0 — (p/n), where p = the position on the list, and n= the total number of names on the list. Where there are less than 20 names on a list, the value of n should be taken as 20, in order not to penalize a man whose name appears only on a short list.
The final list mark for each name would be the sum of the two marks.
These list marks would then be transferred to a master list, or a card index, and the total number of marks after each name on the master list averaged, giving double weight to the marks which concern the officer while in the higher of the two grades in which he has been marked. The names would then be rearranged in the order determined by the average weighted marks.
In preparing the list for selection to lieutenant, the marks of officers would be averaged for the total service as junior lieutenants. For all higher grades, a new list would be made out annually, using only lists submitted on January 1 of that year.
The selection board would then review the records of the topmost names on each list, including a number equal to the number to be selected, and might, for due cause, remove any name on that list by a majority vote, with a statement signed by the board giving the reasons for such removal, such statement to be transmitted with the proceedings to the Secretary of the Navy and the President and, if approved by them, a copy sent to the officer concerned. The approved final list would then be published, and officers promoted to the next higher grade in the order in which their names appeared on the lists.
Ensigns would be rearranged after their probationary period or upon promotion to junior lieutenant on the basis of competitive examination marks combined with their average comparative fitness marks during their service as ensigns.
Advantages claimed for this method are:
(1) Permits a comparison of officers with one another rather than with an arbitrary, nonstandard ideal officer.
(2) Obtains a maximum number of opinions on each officer from sources best qualified to judge and compare him with others in his grade.
(3) Reduces the inequalities due to “high” and “low” marking officers.
(4) Permits the selection board to act as a reviewing board and correct any known injustices, should they occur, without publishing the fact to the service that any officer’s name has been removed, and yet giving that officer an opportunity to know why.
(5) Creates a greater satisfaction within the service with results, with the feeling that they are the consensus of opinion of officers who know the officers whom they marked.
(6) Offers an opportunity for the advancement of an exceptionally brilliant and outstanding officer more rapidly than is now practicable, permitting a possible advancement to flag rank at a younger age than at present, if his abilities so warrant.
The first qualification in a General-in-Chief is a cool head—that is, a head which receives just impressions and estimates things and objects at their real value. He must not allow himself to be elated by good news, nor depressed by bad. The impressions he receives either successively or simultaneously, in the course of the day, should be so classed as to occupy only the exact place in his mind which they deserve: since it is upon a just comparison and consideration of the weight due to different impressions that the power of reasoning and right judgment depends.— Napoleon, Military Maxims.