Foreword.—One year ago the writer made a study of our promotion and retirement laws which was published in the April, 1924, issue of the Naval Institute Proceedings.
The first conclusion reached was that: “It is now within the power of the Selection Board to insure to every officer who is in his normal place on the list a fair opportunity for promotion.”
The next conclusions were: 1. That some form of selection is essential for the efficiency of the naval service.
2. That for the upper grades selection up is better than selection out.
3. That age-in-grade retirement is better than length-of-service-in-grade retirement.
As the present law provides for all three of these, a further analysis was made to find out, if possible, what really is the matter with the law in its effects on future retirements and promotions. It developed from this analysis that as soon as normal conditions are reached, which will be shortly after the full authorized strength of 5,499 line officers is attained, the present law will be found to be unsatisfactory in the following respects:
- Large numbers of officers must be retired for age in the grades of captain, commander, and lieutenant commander, the annual average numbers being twenty-five, thirty and sixty-one respectively.
- The average ages of officers on attaining the various grades will be considerably higher than is conducive to best efficiency.
- The numbers of years required for officers to pass through the various grades will be so irregular as to reduce efficiency and to make administration difficult.
- The numbers of officers in the various grades will not conform to service requirements.
It then became evident that these approaching unsatisfactory conditions were due to:
- The percentages authorized in the various grades are not correct in all cases.
- The ages fixed for retirement in the grades of commander and lieutenant commander are not correct, resulting eventually in officers reaching these grades at too advanced an age for the best efficiency, and resulting eventually in the time spent in these grades being too short for all officers to get in the necessary sea service requirement for promotion.
- There is no provision for elimination in the lower grades.
In endeavoring to find the remedies for the approaching unsatisfactory conditions, the more deeply the subject was gone into the more intricacies were found, and the more involved it became. This led to the making of two curves—one showing the line of the Navy today, and the other showing what the present law would actually accomplish when normal conditions are reached. This latter curve shows that eventually the flow of promotion under the present law will be anything but smooth and satisfactory. In searching for the remedies it was found practicable, while still using the basic elements of our law, to make a much more satisfactory curve of promotion simply by ascertaining the proper ratio between the numbers in the various grades, together with the proper ages in these grades and the length of time that should be spent in each grade.
Not thinking of the feasibility of working out the mathematical formulas for obtaining such curves as has since been done by Captain Roy C. Smith, U. S. Navy, and published in the October, 1924, Proceedings of the Naval Institute, my figures were obtained through the application of the method of trial and error. They differed materially from the mathematically-worked-out result only in one respect—the number of new ensigns required each year to insure the line of the Navy being maintained at its full authorized strength.
The future working of the present law and its workings under the changes proposed as a result of my study have since been worked out in accordance with the formulas deduced by Captain Smith. These results, together with the situation as it is today, are shown in the following table:
The only changes in the present law necessary to produce the proposed conditions shown in this table are:
- Increase the authorized percentage in the grade of commander from seven to eight per cent.
- Increase the authorized percentage in the grade of lieutenant commander from fourteen to eighteen per cent.
- Lump the authorized percentages in the three lower grades and decrease their total by five per cent.
- Reduce the age for retiring commanders from fifty to forty-eight years.
- Reduce the age for retiring lieutenant commanders from forty-five years to forty-one years.
- Promote lieutenants (jg) to lieutenant after serving three years in grade.
- Provide for some eliminations in the three lower grades.
My final conclusions were that these slight changes in law would result in:
- Increased efficiency throughout the naval service.
- Fairer and more just treatment for the individuals involved, both for those who remain on the active list and for those who are retired or discharged.
- Considerable financial saving to the government.
These are the three big factors that must be considered in any scheme that may be proposed.
In reaching all of the foregoing conclusions, “length-of-service-in-grade” retirement was analyzed as a practical substitute for age-in-grade retirement, but no consideration was given to the question of “total-length-of-service” retirement. This method of elimination had not been thought of, nor was it heard of until some time after the published study had been completed. This new method of retirement having been proposed, and being favorably considered in many quarters as the best substitute for age-in-grade retirement, it becomes necessary to supplement the previous study in order to ascertain whether the conclusions reached therein still hold.
TheNewStudy.—As a basis for comparison with the present law, the following lengths of service, based on date of graduation from the Naval Academy, are used for forced retirements, these corresponding to those which have been proposed: captains after thirty-five years’ service; commanders after twenty-eight years’ service, and lieutenant commanders after twenty-three years’ service.
The first thing noted is that the lengths of service here proposed for retirement in the various grades correspond exactly, for the officers of average age, to the present lengths of service which they will have completed when they retire for age-in-grade under the present law. Therefore, whatever effect this change in law might have on certain individuals, it leaves the line of the Navy as a whole in exactly the same unsatisfactory condition as does the present law. In other words, this proposed change does not reduce the very large numbers of officers that must each year be forced out in the grades of captain, commander, and lieutenant commander. This is because these totals are absolutely fixed by three factors: (1) the percentages in grade; (2) the lengths of service in grade, and (3) the average ages in grade: none of which are altered in the proposed change.
Therefore, by making this change the line of the Navy will eventually reach the same condition as it will under the present law, which condition will be far from satisfactory, as can be seen by a perusal of the foregoing table.
The only difference found between the results of the working of the present law and the effects of the law with the proposed change, is in the possible effect on certain individuals. By a change to total-length-of-service retirement a few of the comparatively older officers would be given additional opportunities for consideration by the Selection Board as eligible for promotion, while a greater number of their younger contemporaries would have fewer opportunities for consideration by the board than they have at present. While this would bring about a partial reversal in the relative number of opportunities afforded various officers who are contemporaries, it would seem that there would be very little change in the actual chances of promotion of these various officers. The oath of the members of the Selection Board requires selections to be made, “Having in view solely the special fitness of officers and the efficiency of the naval service.” Now that the time is approaching when large numbers of captains, commanders, and lieutenant commanders must be retired, it is believed the board will select the most efficient and the most valuable for the naval service from a block of officers in each grade which includes all those who if not promoted will retire without an additional opportunity for selection.
It is apparent that a change to length-of-service retirement will give to a few captains who are now old for their position on the list additional opportunities for consideration for promotion, and that therefore, the change may appear more fair to them. On the other hand, it is also apparent that this same change will give to a larger number of captains who are of the average age or below the average age of their contemporaries fewer opportunities for consideration for promotion, and that therefore to them the change may appear unfair. It would seem, then, that this question should not be decided simply by the effect on a few individuals. The effect on the service as a whole should control.
It has been pointed out that insofar as total forced retirements are concerned, the contemplated change in law will not remedy the unsatisfactory situation which is approaching. That is, the adoption of length-of-service retirement does not eventually prevent the annual forcing out on an average of twenty-five captains, thirty commanders, and sixty-one lieutenant commanders. It does not prevent the approaching condition where commanders and lieutenant commanders will serve only five years in each grade, thereby making it impracticable for all of them to meet the requirement of two years sea service. It does not prevent the approaching condition where the average ages of officers on reaching the grades of lieutenant will be thirty; lieutenant commander, thirty-nine; commander, forty-four, and captain, forty-nine. We are, under the present law, approaching a situation where, in a comparatively few years, the youngest lieutenant commander on the list will be older than the oldest lieutenant commander on the list now. The proposed change in the law does not prevent this situation, nor does it prevent other similar unsatisfactory situations which can be pointed out as approaching. In fact the change from age-in-grade retirement to length-of-service retirement does not remedy in any way the real defects in the promotion and retirement laws as they at present exist.
The remedy for these approaching unsatisfactory conditions in the line of the Navy can be found only by making adjustments in the percentages of officers allowed in the various grades and by changing the ages for forced retirement in the various grades so that there will be a more satisfactory adjustment of the lengths of service to be spent in each rank and of the number of eliminations that must take place. This necessitates, (1) an increase in the numbers of commanders and lieutenant commanders over those now authorized with a corresponding decrease in the lower grades; (2) a decrease in the ages now prescribed for forced retirements in the grades of commander and lieutenant commander, and (3) the providing for eliminations in the lower grades.
The increases in the percentages of officers in the grades of lieutenant commander and commander are necessary not only in order to smooth out the promotion and retirement curve, but they are primarily essential to a correct distribution of officers in accordance with the actual duties to be performed. It is evident that the easiest way to relieve the pressure all along the line would be to make an increase in the percentages now authorized in the grades of captain and rear admiral. However, no increases have been recommended in these grades because it is believed impracticable of accomplishment.
A decrease in the ages now prescribed for forced retirements in the grades of commander and lieutenant commander will insure the officers reaching these grades at the proper ages for best efficiency and, at the same time, insure the average age throughout the grades being that best for efficiency. The present retiring age for captains who are not promoted insures officers reaching the grade of rear admiral at the proper age. Furthermore, by reducing this retiring age, the length of service in the grade of rear admiral would be increased to nine or more years, so long as the law is retained which retires rear admirals at the age of sixty-four. However desirable it may be that flag officers serve long periods in that grade this can only be accomplished by making sacrifices lower down the list. This, it is believed, the efficiency of the service as a whole would not warrant. Therefore no change is recommended for the present retiring age for captains who are not promoted.
Insofar as the promotion of captains is concerned, one of the chief sources of inequality of opportunity is due to the irregularity in the annual number of retirements in the grade of rear admiral. With a maximum strength of fifty-five rear admirals, with captains retired on reaching fifty-six years of age, and with rear admirals retiring at sixty-four years of age, the average length of service for rear admirals will be eight years, and the average number of vacancies created for captains will be seven. This situation will be the same even should the change be made to length-of-service retirement. But, owing to the variation in age of the rear admirals, there will be some years where only two or three will retire, thereby placing the officers who happen to be at the top of the captains’ list in those years at a very decided disadvantage.
There is only one way that this situation can be remedied. That is to make some provision of law by which there will be assured that not less than the average number of seven captains will be promoted each year. This will mean that, in any year when seven vacancies are not naturally created in the rear admirals’ grade, sufficient rear admirals must be eliminated to create the vacancies. The question as to how to make the eliminations is a difficult one which does not come within the scope of this paper. However, it is perfectly feasible, and can be done, it is believed, in a way that would not do violence to the individuals concerned, and would result in benefit to the service as a whole.
Eliminations in some form must be adopted in the lower grades in order to prevent the coming situation where all officers of these grades excepting those who are removed from the list by reason of disability or resignation, will become lieutenant commanders, and then ruthlessly retired at a pay too low for a proper livelihood, and at ages too far advanced for good chances of other employment.
It is hardly necessary to point out the great advantage the present senior captains have over those who are following them. For illustration take the past calendar year. Not a single captain retired for age during the year, while in 1933, twenty-five captains must retire for age. In comparison with the chances for promotion of all captains lower down the list, the chances of the senior captains are extremely favorable even with the present law of age-in-grade retirement. It therefore seems that the captains who are disadvantageously placed on account of age will have to accept this handicap, especially as a change to length-of-service retirement will result in the placing of a large number of officers throughout the list in a much more disadvantageous position than they are under the present law.
Unless we revert to promotion by seniority, and unless the unlikely event occurs of an increase in the authorized number of rear admirals, the Navy must come to look on the rank of captain as the top grade for the majority of officers, just as the Army now looks on the grade of colonel as the top rank for a large majority of the officers of that service. So long as only one per cent of the officers are rear admirals and four per cent are captains, and so long as approximately the same length of time is spent in each of the grades, only twenty-five per cent of the captains can become rear admirals, and seventy-five per cent of them must be eliminated. This condition is not remedied by simply changing the method of retirement from age-in-grade to length-of-service. In fact as this situation becomes inevitable and it becomes normal to be retired rather than to be promoted, there will be removed most of the sting which now goes with failure to be selected for promotion.
If the change from age-in-grade retirement to length-of-service retirement remedied the situation for abnormally old officers and at the same time bettered the situation for the Navy as a whole; and if it did not make conditions worse for a larger number of other individuals and even for entire classes in some cases, there could be no objection to its adoption.
But there are a number of considerations besides the effect on the officers who are older than the average of their contemporaries in their grade that should be studied before deciding whether the change is good for the service as a whole.
Take, for example, the abnormally large class of 1907. Many of its members must be eliminated at some time or another. Under age-in-grade retirement these eliminations will take place over a period of four years, and the disruption to the service as a whole will be at a minimum. Under length-of-service retirement these eliminations will take place all at once with the maximum disruption to the service. Any year that there is an abnormally large number of separations from the active list there is a curtailment in promotion. As a result if we shift from age-in-grade retirement to length-of-service retirement we find that in the year the class of 1907 retires as commanders, the class which happens to be at the top of the captains’ list loses one promotion to rear admiral, and the class of 1907 itself will lose four promotions to captain, due to the decrease in the total number of commissioned officers. This inequality of chances for promotion by members of the different classes will be carried on throughout the service and year after year with the adoption of length-of-service retirement. Large classes will always be unfairly placed while other classes, especially the abnormally small ones and those which follow immediately after these small ones, will be more or less favorably situated.
In further consideration of the effect of length-of-service retirement on the class of 1907, it must not be overlooked that this class was graduated in three separate sections and therefore another complication enters which must be provided for if the law is changed.
If we consider the present list of lieutenants and lieutenants (jg) (ignoring for the present non-graduates of the Naval Academy) to ascertain the effect on the change from age-in-grade to length-of-service retirement it is seen that more complications enter. For example: the graduates in the year 1917, of whom there are now 275 on the list, are from two classes. One of these classes graduated after four years, and one graduated after three years. The entire four year class is senior to the entire three year class. The average age of members of the four year class is one year greater than the average of the three year class. These two classes reach the top of the lieutenant commanders’ list together, so it will be necessary under length-of-service retirement to eliminate an abnormally large number of them at one and the same time. It can readily be seen that members of the three year class being at the bottom of the list, will, as a class, have little chance for promotion; and, when they are forced out, they retire at an age which, on the average, will be one year younger than normal. That is, by changing from age-in-grade retirement to length-of-service retirement this entire class suffers by reason of its having graduated in three years instead of four.
We can also take as an example one of the classes which was divided into two parts, one of which was commissioned a year in advance of the other. Those who stood highest in the class were first commissioned. Under length-of-service retirement all the lower half of this class remain eligible for promotion for a year after all those of the upper half, who have not been promoted, are retired.
These examples are only a few of the intricacies that will enter with the adoption of length-of-service retirement. However, there is one more point which seems worthy of attention. This is the fact that in the present grades of captain and commander the clear cut lines between classes has been partially obliterated by the workings of the selection law. This has resulted in a number of officers being passed over and later promoted, it then being necessary for them to be assigned dates of precedence with classes which graduated later. Under the present law those officers who have thus been passed over and later promoted will have a chance for future promotion provided they are not too old. Under the proposed change all of these officers will be retired with their respective Naval Academy classes, the members of which are considerably higher on the list, and therefore the opportunity for further promotion of any of them becomes reduced and their chance of selection practically vanishes.
Age has the great advantage over length-of-service in that it is a positive thing for each individual. There is no question when a man reaches fifty-six or forty-five or whatever age may be designated. Service is not so easily determined. In many cases resort must be had to constructive and comparative service and this always introduces complications which are impracticable of satisfactory adjustment.
With age-in-grade retirement the retirements of the members of a class are spread over a period of about four years, and are interspersed with the retirements from other classes. This avoids serious disruptions of the list. With length-of-service retirement large numbers of officers will annually go out on the same day, causing great disruption. This will inevitably produce problems of administration difficult to handle.
Non-Graduates of the Naval Academy.—The question of how best eventually to eliminate the abnormal hump made in the line of the Navy due to the non-graduates of the Naval Academy who were commissioned as an aftermath of the war, is one of importance.
There are approximately 875 of these officers. In actual naval service, commissioned and otherwise, they cover periods of from a few years to forty years. In commissioned service in the regular line they cover a period of only four years. In age they vary from sixty-three years to twenty-five years, while their Naval Academy contemporaries vary in age only from twenty-nine years to twenty-four years.
The acquiring of these non-graduates as a part of the regular line of the Navy has stimulated promotion in all of the grades and will continue to do so until the time when the total authorized strength of 5,499 officers is reached.
This can best be illustrated by pointing out that if these officers had not been taken into the line, instead of forty-six rear admirals on the list today there would be only thirty-seven; instead of 182 captains there would be only 146; instead of 321 commanders there would be only 258, and so on through all the grades.
With the reduction of Naval Academy classes it now looks as if the full authorized strength will never be reached unless the size of the entering class is again increased or unless there is a marked decrease in the number of resignations in the lower grades. So there need be no hurry to eliminate the non-graduates, insofar as the effect on promotion and retirement is concerned.
But if these officers remain too long on the list as will be the case if that provision of the present law remains in force which exempts them from age-in-grade retirement until serving abnormally long periods in the grades of lieutenant commander, commander, and captain, they will eventually occupy to a large extent first the lieutenant commanders’ list, and later the commanders’ and captains’ lists. This will deny promotion to practically all the members of several Naval Academy classes immediately following them.
So there is no doubt but that the provision of law which exempts these officers from age-in-grade retirement until after ten years in the grade of lieutenant commander should be repealed for several reasons: viz.,
- Many of these officers who succeed in becoming lieutenant commanders and higher will be at ages in excess of that for efficiently performing the duties of the grade.
- They will prevent practically all the members of a number of Naval Academy classes immediately following them from getting into the lieutenant commanders’ grade, and those few who possibly do get in will be so near the retiring age that they cannot be further promoted.
- These officers form a special privilege class, and special privilege classes are unfair to the government, and always cause hardship to other members of the service.
The efficiency of the naval service as a whole requires that the special privileges now granted by law to the non-graduates of the Naval Academy who were commissioned immediately after the war be repealed and that for the purpose of promotion and retirement these officers be placed on the same status as Naval Academy graduates in corresponding positions on the Navy list, whatever system of elimination be in force.
If the provision of the law which exempts these officers from age-in-grade retirement is repealed, and in its place is substituted a provision requiring them to retire for length-of-service at the same time as the Naval Academy graduates next following, the result obtained will depend largely on whether or not the length-of-service retirement requirement for lieutenant commanders remains at twenty-three years as proposed, or whether this is reduced by a number of years. In either case a number of these officers will be held in the service for a much longer time than they would be if they were subject to straight age-in-grade retirement, thereby denying promotion to younger officers more suitable for performing the duties required in the grade.
Finally, if we place these officers on a length-of-service retirement basis and put them with the Naval Academy classes next following them it can be seen that some such situation as the following will take place:
These officers are all in a four-year service block. With them in this block are the Naval Academy graduates from the classes which had greatly increased in size over those just ahead of them. We will therefore have an abnormally large number of forced retirements during these four years. These retirements, taken together with the fact that the size of the Naval Academy classes have been curtailed, will mean that during these four years there will be a great reduction in the number of promotions all along the line due to the shrinkage in the total number of officers in the Navy, and this reduction in promotion will cause an abnormal number of forced retirements during those years, making it decidedly unfair to many officers who should not be placed in such a situation.
Therefore the classes which happen to be at the top of the captains’ and commanders’ grades during the four years in which these length-of-service retirements are effective will practically be eliminated in toto.
On the other hand there is such wide variance in the ages of the officers in this abnormal block, it is evident that by sticking to age-in-grade retirement their elimination will be gradual, thereby placing no whole classes in the unfortunate position of greatly reduced opportunity for promotion, and avoiding the disruptive effect on the entire line personnel that will be caused by removing all of this excess in a very limited period.
- To Summarize.—1. Length-of-service retirement if substituted for age-in-grade retirement will give to a few officers abnormally old for their positions on the list additional opportunity for consideration by the Selection Boards as eligibles for promotion.
- It will reduce the number of opportunities for consideration by the board of a larger number of the relatively younger officers.
- In view of the approaching time when large numbers of officers will be forced to retire annually, it seems that the efficiency of the service will lead the Selection Boards to discontinue the practice of selecting only from the very top of the lists. Instead, they probably will select the most efficient from a block which at least includes all officers who are in their normal positions, and, if not promoted, would retire for age before the action of the next board takes effect.
- By changing from age-in-grade retirement to length-of-service retirement whole classes will be adversely affected to a much greater extent than under the present law. This is because under length-of-service retirement all the members of the larger classes who are not promoted are immediately eliminated, while under age-in-grade retirement at least the younger members of these classes would have additional opportunities for selection which would keep them nearer on a par with the members of the more fortunate smaller classes.
- By changing from age-in-grade retirement to length-of-service retirement there will be much more unevenness in the average numbers promoted and retired from the various classes than at present. This is because the ages of the members of each class cover a period of four years and overlap on both sides, thereby merging one with the other and smoothing out to a greater extent the discrepancies which would appear with length-of-service retirement.
- The workings of the Selection Boards have resulted in a number of officers being passed over and then later promoted. These officers now have dates of precedence different from the dates of their regular classes. With length-of-service retirement, none of these officers, whether young or old for their positions on the list, will reach near enough the tops of their respective grades to have a reasonable chance for promotion.
- By applying length-of-service retirement to the non-graduates of the Naval Academy there will be a period of four years during which time the large number of those who came in immediately after the war, augmented by large Naval Academy classes, are being eliminated. The members of the Naval Academy classes who happen to be at the tops of the commanders’ and captains’ lists during this four year period will have their promotion greatly diminished if not altogether prevented.
- Length-of-service retirement will make some of the officers in all the upper grades even older than is possible under the present law, which, when working under more normal conditions will force the ages higher than desirable. It will force the retirement of some captains when only fifty-four and fifty-five years of age. It takes away from individuals such advantage as has heretofore been considered as inherent in youth. It removes all advantages to be obtained by entering the Naval Academy at the younger ages. To some extent it even eliminates the advantages heretofore obtained by graduating high in the class.
The conclusions reached therefore are: (1) That the basic laws under which promotions and retirements are now being made are good, and the only changes necessary or desirable are adjustments similar to those recommended as a result of the exhaustive study previously made, and which are enumerated at the beginning of this paper.
(2) Length-of-service retirement will introduce a number of complications that will be difficult of adjustment and which eventually will cause to a larger number of officers more unfairness and dissatisfaction than is at present caused, or in the future will be caused, by the provisions of age-in-grade retirement.
(3) That a change from age-in-grade retirement to length-of-service retirement will in no way benefit the service as a whole, but on the other hand will have the opposite effect.