Deep Draft and Major Command Selection

How does the Navy select the officers who command the “deep draft” and “major command” ships? The answer to this question is an important one to the ambitious, career- motivated officer who aspires to flag rank—- for few line officers achieve flag rank without having commanded a large ship of the Navy. It is equally important to all ranks and reaches of the Navy since the certain knowledge of the fairness, objectivity, and justice of the system will build confidence that the Navy’s selection system is truly one of integrity and strength.

Before describing the system, let us define what is meant by the terms “deep draft” and “major command.” “Deep draft” is a ship in the amphibious, auxiliary or service category—AE, AF, AFS, AGC, AKA, AKS, AO, AOE, APA, LPO, LSD—not a combatant. “Major command” includes the Navy’s major ships, such as carriers, cruisers, LPHs, plus 21 naval air stations, and certain major fleet commands, such as destroyer squadrons, and fleet air wings.

In a fairly recent issue of the U. S. Naval Institute Proceedings,¹ the administrative and procedural methods of the selection for promotion and voting process were accurately and interestingly described. Some of the information in that article is repeated here for understanding of the selection process for deep draft and major command.

Deep draft/major command selection starts with instructions and broad guidance from the Chief of Naval Personnel to the nine members of the board—admirals and senior captains who have themselves had a major command—indicating which year groups are eligible for major and deep draft commands. Deep draft and major command boards generally sit once per year, and each year group is “screened” four, five, and even six times by these boards. The numbers of ships/ commands available for assignment is a matter of the size of the Navy, the length of a commanding officer’s tour and many other factors that change from year to year. (Incidentally, the line officer’s board includes an aviation captain, and the aviation line selection board includes an 1100 officer—a balanced and foresighted arrangement.)

Let us take a hypothetical case for illustrative purposes. Suppose that year group ’46 has 150 candidates for selection for 25 deep draft commands. (Each year group is considered separately from other year groups which allows the board to evaluate and select from officers who have had the same opportunity and years in service.)

First, the individual records are trucked into the board room and distributed to the board members “by luck of the draw.” In other words, it is an unwritten rule that no board member may ask to monitor or review any particular candidate’s record at this stage of the process.

Within each officer’s selection jacket is a summary form that condenses and capsulates the officer’s record on four or five pages, using various symbols and abbreviations. This form is prepared and kept current in the Bureau of Naval Personnel. Use of these sheets is a convenience for the reviewing officer to make additional marks and remarks as he reviews the record. It is also a necessity when records are later projected in the large theater projection room.

On these summary sheets the selection board member adds a series of notes and comments—notations reflecting these critical check points in a career:

(1) What are his educational accomplishments? Does he have an advanced degree or is he studying for one? Has he been to a senior service college? What was his relative class standing in each instance?

(2) Has he sought and had challenging and career-enhancing shore duty assignments as indicated in his Officer Preference and Personal Information Card? (NAVPERS 1301/1)

(3) Has he done duty in Washington in OpNav, one of the systems commands, BuPers, or JCS?

(4) Has he had any joint or combined duty with other services that forecasts his capacity for working with other services, foreign and/ or domestic?

(5) Has the officer had combat duty in World War II, Korea, and Vietnam? What awards, if any, has he received?

(6) Does his over-all career pattern indicate a desire to get ahead and improve himself? Does it reflect an eagerness for tough, demanding duty?

If the board is considering aviators, these additional questions are pertinent:

(1) Has he had previous aviation commands—such as a squadron C.O., air wing commander? What was his record?

(2) How many flight hours does he have? How many carrier landings, day and night?

(3) What sort of shipboard duty has he had—as a ship’s officer and department head? Has he qualified as OOD underway? As CDO? Does his record show he can handle a ship?

The entire record is thus reviewed—the subject’s fitness reports for ensign as well as for captain—although, admittedly, far greater weight is given to the reports of the senior years. Excerpts from key fitness reports, phrases that seem typical of the officer’s career, are extracted and noted on the form. Finally, the reviewer will assign the contender a numerical grade.

This first review is followed by a second review, with individual records again being dealt out on a luck of the draw basis. The second reviewer will examine the record independently, repeating the process, and assign his grade. In the vast majority of cases, the two grades will be quite close. In those cases where they are not, the two reviewers will discuss the officer’s record, often with the selection board president, until a near common mark can be agreed upon. Or perhaps a third reviewer will go over the record and assign his grade. In case of any doubt or disagreement, the officer’s record will be taken into “the tank,” there to be seen and discussed by the entire board.

Once this laborious, time-consuming record review process is completed (to review a single record may take an hour or more), the 150 records will be stacked in several numerical groupings as determined by the president. In the lower groupings will be those who have failed to “touch a base”—perhaps an officer with one or more mediocre fitness reports; perhaps a record that shows no combat performance; in the case of an aviator, one with low flight time, or with no record as a squadron C.O. Also it is quite easy to spot the officer who has chosen the easy path and the soft jobs, the contented performer, the officer who returns to the same location, perhaps because he owns a house there, or has plans to retire there—the individual who chooses self-convenient assignments instead of the career-enhancing and challenging jobs.

After this record grouping-by-grade process, the president will then invite any member to examine any record—low grade or high—known personally or professionally to him. The few rare cases of medical problems, and special or disciplinary problems will also be given intensive review. Thus, at least two and often three, four or more board members will individually review each officer’s record.

The group-by-grade process may eliminate about one half to two-thirds of the original 150 from competition—-leaving 50 to 75 records to be subjected to the second level of review, whereby 25 deep draft or major command selectees are to be chosen. This second level of review is accomplished by the theater- display system.

In the review theater, the individual’s capsuled record is projected onto five large screens, preceded by a showing of the officer’s latest photograph (therefore, make sure the photograph in your record is up-to-date). The first reviewer then recaps the individual’s record, calling attention to its outstanding features and its soft areas. He explains excerpts he has made from the remarks section. All this is done in some detail; he ends by giving his reasons for the assigned grade. In essence this “briefing of the record” amounts to a brief speech in behalf of the officer.

The second reviewer repeats the process, inviting attention to important and meaningful areas he has noted and to the marks and comments the first briefer may have missed. Questions and answers are appropriate throughout both reviews. “Why did Admiral So-and-So mark Jones down in force, do you suppose?” “Why did Jones stay so long in that soft job?” “Why didn’t Jones get into combat?” “Couldn’t Jones have gotten his college degree, or at least worked toward it, during that tour?”

Not only will one or more members of the Board know the officer being discussed personally. but the officers who marked him will also be known and noted where appropriate. “Don’t pay too much attention to that low mark—old Smitty is a hard marker,” is a common observation. In any uncertain or questionable area, the proceedings can be suspended to permit a long distance telephone call to clarify a mark or remark; in some cases dispatches are sent to obtain amplifying or clarifying data. In short, everything possible is done to obtain the most complete and meaningful picture of the officer whose 15-to- 20-year record is condensed on five large screens. As one board member remarked, “It’s comparable to the candidates being marched stark naked onto a crowded, darkened theater stage, with the spotlight turned full on, and with the candidate being told to turn around, bend over, and touch his toes.”

One by one, the contenders’ records arc thus carefully and painstakingly reviewed, late hours and week-end work being the common lot of every selection board. At the end of each record, the president announces those cryptic, career-deciding words: “Stand-by to vote! Vote!”—and the individual vote buttons located at each seat are punched, or not punched, as each member’s conscience dictates. Except for zero votes or nine votes, all votes are secret since no member has any way knowing whose light is being illuminated on the scoring box screen.

This analysis and voting process is repeated again and again and again, to winnow and whittle the list—from 75 candidates, to 50, to 40, to 35, and, finally, to the 25 selected.

At this point, the process starts all over again for the next year group under consideration. Thus, a selection board will review the records of officers, from five years back through those recently selected for captain, the latter group being considered for the first time for deep draft command.

Tips for markers. Much has been written on this subject, including a 25-page BuPers Instruction (1611.12), and Article 1701 in the U. S. Navy Regulations, all of which caution those who fill out fitness reports to do so carefully, completely, and objectively. After one has been a selection board member, the need for doing so becomes more vivid and meaningful, for fitness reports are indeed living documents. Ten, 15, or 20 years after the reporting senior writes the golden words, he may be retired or no longer among the quick —but his judgment, his perception, and his analysis of the officer being reported on will be reviewed again and again, and a single comment in a single report might be crucial in those hair-splitting moments of selection decision.

One lesson that comes from selection board duty is that not only is the contender for selection being judged, but his reporting seniors are also judged—although in a very different sense. The lazy marker of fitness reports stands out vividly, as does the marker who consistently marks high, or the one who consistently marks low. The reporting senior who voices the same high praise, uses the same stereotyped and resounding adjectives, or who makes no effort to distinguish between his juniors, degrades the whole selection and promotion system and does no favor to the truly outstanding officer who is being sought. Everyone he marks looks alike.

As the BuPers Instruction says so pun- gently: “The failure of a reporting senior to appraise and record either outstanding performance or the shortcoming of any officer under his command not only is a grave failure to meet a public trust, it is an unjustice to the careers and opportunities of the able and competent.”

Here are some other tips for the reporting seniors:

(1) Brief, terse comments. While not necessarily so, brief, terse comments can be harmful. It is better to use more words and be explicit, especially in Section 21.

(2) Reserved, cool comments are faithfully noted. You can damn with faint praise, and you can damage not only by what you say but also by what you do not say.

(3) The fatal drop-off. If you are reporting on the same officer for the second or third fitness report, any reduction made in marks is very significant and can be harmful—for the board can only assume that you marked the officer lower the second or third time because you then knew him better and that his performance had dropped since your first report. Conversely, consistent improvement noted in successive fitness reports is equally significant. The BuPers Instruction requires that “any large shift” of marks be commented on in Section 21.

(4) Inconsistency between marks and remarks. One of the most glaring yet common weaknesses noted in the preparation of fitness reports is the inconsistency between the marks given in Section 20 and the remarks of Section 21. When such inconsistencies are evident, doubt is cast upon the whole report.

(5) Recommendations for Deep Draft. Section 18 should be carefully prepared and should be consistent with any recommendations for deep draft in the remarks section (Section 21). For example, “highly recommended for deep draft (or major command)” or “strongly recommended” is more impressive to a Board than a simple “recommended for deep draft.” “Now” is an important addition—such as “strongly recommended for deep draft now." Similarly, phrases such as “recommended for positions of higher authority” or “higher responsibility” are much less desirable than a specific recommendation for deep draft or major command. Another uncertain recommendation is “highly recommended for deep draft when due." The “highly” and “when due” are inconsistent. The phrase “when due” was in fairly common use in World War II during the periods of large numbers of promotions, a usage which, unfortunately, seems to have persisted to the present day. In no case should the recommendation section be marked “recommended as requested;” this is considered to be a lazy and haphazard recommendation. If there are no recommendations whatsoever for deep draft or major command, when such a recommendation is appropriate, the omission is significant and can be harmful.

(6) Section 14(a). Insofar as marks are concerned, the mark in Section 14(a)—performance in present assignment^-—is a key mark, certainly the most important mark in Section 14. Be careful how you give this mark.

(7) Section 15. This is one of the most misunderstood sections of a fitness report—but a section which can be most important to a Selection Board. If, for example, you have ten commanders, and only one is rated in the “highly outstanding” section, it might look like Figure 1. This, of course, is a stronger, better mark for that same officer than if five of the ten are rated in the top bracket as in Figure 2. In either case, be careful to show exactly what you mean.

(8) Shipboard Qualifications. Especially for an aviator, comments should be included in Section 21 regarding the officer’s qualifications and capability for shiphandling—as an OOD, as a CDO, and whether or not he has handled the ship in approaches to a formation, an anchorage, or similar experience.

(9) Length of remarks and sincerity of language. Where there are lengthy, sincere, substantiated remarks about an officer that reflect truly superior performance, such extra efforts normally have an effect on a board. To repeat, however, the sincerity and conviction of the writer must come through—not just the number of words.

(10) “Jewels.” Section 20 has 14 different parts. Any mark in the left-hand (1 out of 100-outstanding) column is called a “jewel.” The BuPers Instruction, in fact, states that a mark in this column shows the officer reported on to be “the rarest of jewels.” Boards usually count up these “jewels”—a 14-jewel report (two-blocked) is considered the very best report one can get or give.

Tips for those under the gun. Now for a few tips for those being marked:

(1) Review your record. Never neglect the opportunity to review your record in BuPers. This is especially true since very few reporting seniors mark the “Yes” block in Section 21 (b) which reads “Has officer seen this report?” When reviewing your record, and you note an obvious omission, error or inconsistency that might degrade your fitness report, it is perfectly proper to write and ask the reporting senior who originated it to correct or clarify it.

(2) Higher Education. If you are taking courses leading to a higher degree, let that fact be known in the correspondence section of your jacket. In other words, don’t wait until you actually get your Master’s or Doctor’s degree for your record to reflect the fact that you are working on it. It is apparent that the more education an officer has, the greater is his opportunity for both promotion and command.

(3) Soft, Dead-End, Non-Challenging Jobs. In most careers at some point, one gets assigned to a non-challenging job. One is enough—if you get two, try to get the orders changed or at least get the tour cut short if you possibly can. Let the record show this fact.

(4) Non-Navy Assignments. If you are in a job in another service, or one where a civilian will sign your fitness report, diplomatically ensure that that person gets briefed on the niceties of the Navy’s fitness report system, and those things that should be said. The BuPers Instruction provides in such cases that the officer reported on can request the appropriate major U. S. Naval Command or the Chief of Naval Personnel to review such a report.

(5) War College Standing. You may consider that your war college standing is of little consequence. This is not entirely correct. Some service schools use Section 15(a) and (b) to show the relative standing of a student within his class, and where this is the case, it can be significant.

(6) Seniority of Signature. It is axiomatic that the more senior the person who signs your report, the more weight it carries. In most cases, you have no control over this point. The BuPers Instruction forbids delegation of the signature to lower echelons, but the reporting senior on certain staff jobs can enhance an officer’s chances by having the senior admiral sign it.

Other comments. Here are a few other general comments pertinent to the selection process:

(1) Special Letters to Board President. While such letters are never solicited, every board receives a few. In some few cases, they may help, in a few cases they can have a ricochet effect. In most cases, they are of no value. Once again, it depends on the tone of the letter, its sincerity and the reason for its submission. Normally, the officer’s record should need no amplification or special pleading, and those who write special letters to selection boards must avoid any tinge of pressure—for that is clearly impossible. As one selection board member remarked, “Even if this officer had saved my life three times and I owed him $50,000, I couldn’t influence the other members of the board to vote my way.”

(2) Husband/Wife comments. While comments about an officer’s wife are not normally required, and in most cases are not appropriate, the fact remains that for senior commands and jobs of higher responsibility—particularly in foreign countries—the officer’s wife can be a very great asset. If comments are made, they are inevitably noted.

Throughout the selection process, the procedure of choosing deep draft and major command skippers is certain to produce future leaders of the Navy. This knowledge is never far from the surface of every selection Board member’s thoughts. In fact, it is so significant that it lends great seriousness and solemnity to the selection process. Another factor constantly before a board is that in a professional organization such as the Navy, which is experiencing extremely high attrition, it must be borne in mind that non-selection should not be regarded as a punishment, any more than should selection be regarded as a reward. Quite simply, the board is seeking qualified individuals whose records give promise of potential, not only for the ship command but to the future of the Navy.

As has been described, the Navy’s selection system has built-in safeguards to forestall any bias, influence or individual persuasion Knowing that the future leaders of our Navy are being chosen lends impetus to the exercise of complete objectivity. Prejudice, pressure, and personal bias simply lose out in the Navy’s selection system.

Let it be said in closing, that, prior to participation on a recent selection board, the thoroughness, exactitude, and honesty of the Navy’s selection system were only legendary to the author. Having seen and experienced the procedure, it is my conviction, and that of my fellow board members, that the system is eminently fair, and objective.

According to the BuPers authorities who, with pardonable pride, supervise it, our Navy Selection System is known to be the envy of our Army and Air Force comrades in arms. No doubt the system can and should be improved still further—and no doubt it can make mistakes, since it is administered by human beings who write fallible reports and serve as selection board members. But until one knows the system thoroughly, sees it in operation, and realizes that it has been honed to its present fine state of effectiveness by experience and validated by its results, extreme care should be exercised by any who would attempt to alter it.