GOVERNMENT

Storage

ARMY GENERAL OFFICER

.Ar

Of 2110

PROMOTION POLICY

HEARING

BEFORE A

SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE

COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES

UNITED STATES SENATE

EIGHTY-EIGHTH CONGRESS

FIRST SESSION

ON

ARMY GENERAL OFFICER PROMOTION POLICY

MARCH 28, 1963

Printed for the use of the Committee on Armed Services

U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

98680 WASHINGTON : 1963
. ;11.1

\

COMMITTEE

RICHARD B.

JOHN STENNIS, Mississippi

HARRY FLOOD BYRD, Virginia

STUART SYMINGTON, Missouri

HENRY M. JACKSON, Washington

SAM J. ERVIN, Jr., North Carolina

STROM THURMOND, South Carolina

CLAIR ENGLE, California

HOWARD W. CANNON, Nevada

ROBERT C. BYRD, West Virginia

STEPHEN M. YOUNG, Ohio

DANIEL K. INOUYE, Hawaii

ON ARMED SERVICES

RUSSELL, Georgia, Chairman

LEVERETT SALTONSTALL, Massachusetts

MARGARET CHASE SMITH, Maine

J. GLENN BEALL, Maryland

BARRY GOLDWATER, Arizona

CLIFFORD P. CASE, New Jersey

HARRY L. WINGATE, Jr., Chief Clerk

, _SXJ,BOOMMITTEE oi OFFICER GRADE LIMITATIONS

JOHN STENNIS, Mississippi, Chairman

SAM J. ERVIN, JE., North Carob= MARGARET CHASE SMITH, Maine

II
ARMY GENERAL OFFICER PROMOTION POLICY

THURSDAY, MARCH 28, 1963

U.S. SENATE,

SUBCOMMITTEE ON OFFICER GRADE LIMITATIONS

OF THE COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES,

Washington, D.C.

The subcommittee (composed of Senators Stennis, Ervin, and

Smith) met, pursuant to notice, at 2:30 p.m., in room 212, Old

Senate Office Building.

Present: Senators Stennis (presiding) and Smith.

Also present: T. Edward Braswell, Jr., professional member;

Herbert S. Atkinson, assistant chief clerk.

Senator STENNIS. The subcommittee extends a special welcome to

the Secretary of the Army, Mr. Vance.

As you know, Mr. Secretary, there is now pending before the

committee nomination reference No. 41 which is made a part of the

record at this point, which would promote 49 Army colonels to the

grade of temporary brigadier general and 11 brigadier generals to the

grade of major general.

41]

NOMINATION REFERENCE AND REPORT

IN EXECUTIVE SESSION,

SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES,

January 21 (legislative day, January 15), 1963.

Ordered, That the following nominations be referred to the Committee on

Armed Services:

The following-named officers for temporary appointment in the Army of the

United States, to the grades indicated, under the provisions of title 10, united

States Code, sections 3442 and 3447:

To be major general

Brigadier General John. Edward Kelly, Army of the United States

(colonel, United States Army).

Brigadier General Louis Alfred Walsh, United States Army.

Brigadier General Elmer John Gibson, States Army.

Brigadier General Edwin Hess Burba Army of the United States

(colonel, United, States Army).

Brigadier General Alexander Day Surles, Junior, Army of the United

States (colonel, United States Army).

Brigadier General Benjamin Henry Pochy United States Army.

Brigadier General Joe Stallings Lawrie, my of the United States

(colonel, United States Army).

Brigadier General William Roberts Calho United States Army.

Brigadier General Walter August Jensen, ed States Army.

Brigadier General George Thomas United States Army.

Brigadier General Jackson Graham A e United States (colonel,

United States Army).

1

xxxxxx

xxxxxx

xxxxxx

xxxxxx

xxxxxx

xxxxxx

xxxxxx

xxxxxx

xxxxxx

xxxxxx

xxxxxx
2 ARMY GENERAL OFFICER PROMOTION POLICY

To be brigadier general

Colonel Julian Johnson Ewell, Army of the United States (lieutenant

colonel, United States Army).

Colonel Howard Wilson Penney, Army of the United States (lieutenant

colonel, United States Army).

Colonel Peter Clarke Hyzer, ited States Army.

Colonel Walter Evans Brink Army of the United States (lieutenant

colonel, United States Army).

Colonel Richard Thomas Cassidy, Army of the United States (lieutenant colonel, United States Ar

Colonel Emil Paul Eschenburg, Army of the United States (lieutenant

colonel, United States A

Colonel John Norton, Army of the United States (lieutenant colonel,

United States Army).

Colonel Leland George Cagwin, Army of the United States (lieutenant

colonel, United' States Army).

Colonel Albin Felix Irzyk, Army of the United States (lieutenant

colonel, United States Army).

Colonel Walter Philip Leber, Army of the United States (lieutenant

colonel, United States Army).

Colonel William Charles Gribble, Junior, Army of the United States

(lieutenant colonel, United Stat .

Colonel Harry Jarvis Engel, Judge Advocate General Corps, United

States Army.

Colonel Richard Pressly Scott, Army of the United States (lieutenant

colonel, United States Army).

Colonel Robert Clinton Taber, Army of the United States (lieutenant

colonel, United States Army).

Colonel Charles Pershing Brown, Army of the United States (lieutenant

colonel, United States Army).

Colonel Keith Lincoln Ware, Army of the United States (lieutenant

colonel, United States Army).

Colonel George Lafayette Mabry, Junior, Army of the United States

(lieutenant colonel, United States Arm

Colonel Woodrow Wilson Vaughan, Army of the United States (lieutenant colonel, United States Arm

Colonel Ralph Longwell Poster, Army of the United States (lieutenant

colonel, United States Army).

Colonel George Parker Warner, Army of the United States (lieutenant

colonel, United States Army).

Colonel Raymond Leroy Shoemaker, Junior, Army of the United

States (lieutenant colonel, United States Army).

Colonel Clarence William Clapsaddle, Junior, Army of the United

States (lieutenant colonel*, tates Army).

Colonel Willard Pearson, Army of the United States (lieutenant colonel,

United States Army).

Colonel William Eugene DePuy Army of the United States (lieutenant

colonel, United States Army).

Colonel William Joseph McCaffrey, Army of the United States (lieutenant colonel, United States A

Colonel Edward Paul Smith, Army of the United States (lieutenant

colonel, United States Army).

Colonel Joseph Alexander McChristian, Army of the United States

(lieutenant colonel, United Stat .

Colonel Fred Wilbur Collins, Army of the United States "(lieutenant

colonel, United States Army).

Colonel Herron Nichols Maples, Army of the United States (lieutenant

colonel, United States Army).

Colonel Robert Bruce Smith, Army of the United 'States (lieutenant

colonel, United States Army).

Colonel Kenneth Howard Bayer Army of the United States (lieutenant

colonel, United States Army).

Colonel George I. Forsythe, Army of the United States (lieutenant

colonel, United States Army).

Colonel Richard Joe Seitz, Army of the United States (lieutenant

colonel, AJnited States Army).

Colonel Arthur Lorenzo West, Junior, Army of the United States

(lieutenant colonel, United States Army).

xxxxxx

xxxxxx

xxxxxx

xxxxxx

xxxxxx

xxxxxx

xxxxxx

xxxxxx

xxxxxx

xxxxxx

xxxxxx

xxxxxx

xxxxxx

xxxxxx

xxxxxx

xxxxxx

xxxxxx

xxxxxx

xxxxxx

xxxxxx

xxxx

xxxxxx

xxxxxx

xxxxxx

xxxxxx

xxxxxx

xxxxxx

xxxxxx

xxxxxx

xxxxxx

xxxxxx

xxxxxx

xxxxxx

xxxxxx
ARMY GENERAL OFFICER PROMOTION POLICY 3

Colonel Ellis Warner Williamson, Army of the United States (lieutenant

colonel, United States Army).

Colonel Robert Edmondston Coffin, Army of the United States

(lieutenant colonel, United State

Colonel Dayton Willis Eddy, Army of the United States (lieutenant

colonel, United States Army).

Colonel George Gray O'Connor, Army of the United States (lieutenant

colonel, United States Army).

Colonel Thomas Mull Crawford, Army of the United States (lieutenant

colonel, United States Army).

Colonel Thomas Augustine Kenan, Army of the United States (lieutenant colonel, United States Arm

Colonel Elias Carter Townsend, tates Army.

Colonel Henry Augustine Miley Army of the United States

(lieutenant colonel, United States Army

Colonel Joseph Miller Heiser, Junior, Army of the United States (lieutenant colonel, United States Arm

Colonel Charles William Eifler, Army of the United States (lieutenant

colonel, United States Army).

Colonel Austin James Montgomery, ited States Army.

Colonel Raymond Chandler Conro Army of the United States

(lieutenant colonel, United States Army).

Colonel Bryan Coleman Thomas Fenton, Medical Corps, United

States Army.

Colonel Conn Lewis Milburn, Junior, Medical Corps, United States

Army.

7°14

Colonel Joe Morris Blumberg, Medical Corps, United States

,463.

Reported by Mr. Swith the

recommendation that the nominations be confirmed.

Senator STENNIS. The Chair would like to emphasize th he

committee does not challenge the fitness of any particula officer on

this list. The purpose of this hearing is to discuss the ages hich

officers are being selected to the grade of brigadier general. rr N *

has been raised that the pending list represents a change in

policy with the emphasis on the selection of younger officers. The

consequence is that senior officers with vast experience feel that they

have little promotion opportunity, and therefore less of an incentive

for the remainder of their careers as colonels.

As you know, Mr. Secretary, the rank of colonel in some respects

is the most important in the Army, since the Army depends on officers

in this grade for much of its staff, experience, and leadership.

The Chair would like to emphasize that the subcommittee has

certainly reached no conclusion on this matter. It is hoped that this

hearing will serve to clarify the problem.

By way of background information, the Chair might set forth the

following for the record:

(1) For those selected on the pending list the average age at the

expected time of promotion to brigadier general will be about 46%

years. The average age for promotion during 1961 and 1962 was

between 48 and 49 years of age. This list does, therefore, represent

a drop in the average.

(2) Speaking in terms of years of service before promotion, the

following might be in order. During the selections in 1961, 55 out

of 64, or 86 percent, of the officers promoted to brigadier general had

completed at least 24 years of service at the time of their selection.

In 1962, 79 out of 88 officers, or 89 percent, of the officers on the list

had completed 24 years of service. In 1963, however, out of 51 officers,

18 will complete only 21 years of service, 12 will complete 22 years,

xxxxxx

xxxxxx

xxxxxx

xxxxxx

xxxxxx

xxxxxx

xxxxxx

xxxxxx

xxxxxx

xxxxxx

xxxxxx

xxxxxx

xxxxxx

xxxxxx

xxxxxx
4 ARMY GENERAL OFFICER PROMOTION POLICY

and only 19, or 37 percent, will complete 24 or more years. These

statistics indicate that the trend is definitely toward the selection of

younger officers.

We are not so much concerned about their being a little younger,

the various differences in the age, but it is the leaving out of these

who feel they wouldn't have a chance; even though there is a narrow

margin, their chances are greatly lessened.

Now with this factual background, and we will have some questions

prepared for later, will you proceed with your statement. You have

been apprised of the situation that we have in mind.

STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE CYRUS R. VANCE, SECRETARY

OF THE ARMY

Secretary VANCE. Yes, indeed, Mr. Chairman.

Senator SMITH. May I ask one question. Is that average age in

the Army or in the overall military?

Senator STENNIS. This is the Army.

Senator SMITH. Thank you.

Senator STENNIS. I just brought the focal point right on the proposition, because with this shift, we want to know about these colonels

that are apparently being left out, not on the merits of consideration

but on age.

Secretary VANCE. Mr. Chairman and Senator Smith, I appreciate

the opportunity to testify today and to provide you with information

concerning our procedure and criteria for temporary promotion to

brigadier general. My comments pertain to the Army promotion list

nominations and are not applicable to the promotion of officers in the

Army Medical Service and chaplains.

Basically, our procedures and criteria stem from statute. As you

will recall, section 3442, title 10, specifies that these appointments

shall be made on a fair and equitable basis and shall be based upon

ability and efficiency, with regard being given to seniority and age.

Individuals nominated for these promotions are recommended by a

selection board composed of senior general officers—the same procedure which is prescribed by statute for permanent promotions.

Naturally, the Army seeks the best qualified officers for advancement to general officer grade. In order to comply with the "fair and

equitable" and "seniority and age" provisions of the law, one of the

prime factors used in determining whether an individual will or will

not be considered by a selection board is the individual's length of

service. For this purpose, all individuals are placed in a so-called

year group. All persons in such a year group have relatively the

same amount of service for promotion and retirement purposes.

By considering officers for promotion to brigadier general, based

upon their year groups, it is possible to manage promotion in such

a way as to relate it closely to mandatory retirement. This system

also insures that each individual is given fair and impartial consideration along with all of his contemporaries.

The selection board which recommended the current nominees was

provided the following guidance in their elevation of approximately

2,700 colonels who were in the zone:

All temporary colonels with date of rank on or before December 31,

1959, and all permanent (Regular Army) colonels were to be considered.
ARMY GENERAL OFFICER PROMOTION POLICY 5

The primary zone of consideration included year groups 1936

through 1941. Up to 10 percent of the selections could come from

year groups 1942 and later. Unless they should later be selected for

permanent brigadier general, individuals in year groups 1935 or

earlier have limited service remaining before statutory retirement.

Accordingly, officers in these year groups were to be recommended

only if their records were particularly outstanding.

There was no maximum age beyond which promotion was precluded

however, the board was required to support selections of individuals

• who would be past age 51 at the time of promotion. No more than

10 percent of the board's selections could be in this category.

Within these guidelines, the best qualified officers were to be selected.

based on their future potential and past performance; selection was not

to be considered solely as a reward for past service.

I understand that there have been rumors that 47 is the Army's

maximum age for promotion to brigadier general. This is false. The

current nonnnation list has 20 individuals who will be past age 47 at the

time of promotion. With respect to age, it is interesting to note the

variation at the time of promotion to brigadier general. Since 1952,

the average age has fluctuated from 46 years 10 months in 1956—

which approximates the average age of the current nominees (46 years

3 months)—to 50 years 1 month in 1959.

Age, like education, type of assignments, and quality of performance,

is one of many factors considered by a selection board in recommending

the best qualified individuals. In connection with the requirement to

support selections of individuals who would be past age 51 at the time

of promotion, it is noteworthy that in addition to Colonel Engel, whose

basic branch is Judge Advocate General's Corps, two other nominees

on the current list are in this category, thus demonstrating that the

selection board exercised this latitude in picking the best qualified

officers.

Had we followed the practice of the past several years, basic year

group 1939 would have been the youngest year group in the primary

zone for the list now before you. Our departure from the practice

of the immediately preceding years was that of including year groups

1940 and 1941 in the primary zone.

Senator STENNIS. Let me interrupt you. You put it right on those

two groups now?

Secretary VANCE. That is correct, sir.

Senator STENNIS. And you are going to explain that?

Secretary VANCE. I am.

Senator STENNIS. All right.

Secretary VANCE. The conditions which caused these two groups

to be included are a direct result of the Regular Army integration

program of 1946-47. This program saw much of the cream of World

War II non-Regular officers appointed in the Regular Army. Large

numbers of these individuals were placed in year groups 1940, 1941,

and 1942 with 1941 being the peak or hump year. Many of these

highly qualified combat seasoned officers achieved the grade of

lieutenant colonel during World War II. Many were combat battalion

commanders. Some served in even higher positions. In view of the

large numbers of such officers who have now completed several years

in the grade of colonel and the even larger numbers who will be eligible

for promotion in the next several years, it appeared necessary to me

SI
6 ARMY GENERAL OFFICER PROMOTION POLICY

to start promoting these officers now at the possible expense of some

officers from earlier year groups. Only by such action could these

larger year groups receive even a reasonably fair share of general

officer promotions.

Let me give you some statistics which will indicate the magnitude

of this problem. Generally speaking, the date of promotion to

permanent colonel represents the latest date on which an officer

would establish eligibility for promotion to brigadier general. This

occurs at 25 years' service. Using this fact as a basis for arriving at

specific numbers, from year group 1930, there were 304 individuals

who became eligible for promotion to brigadier general. In the

succeeding year groups there was a gradual increase in this figure to

627 for year group 1937; for year group 1939 the potential number is

837; for 1940, 862; and for 1941 it soars to 1,663.

As a result of • these considerations, year groups 1940 and 1941

were included in the primary zone at the direction of the Chief of

Staff and me to insure that individuals in these year groups would

have a reasonably equitable opportunity to compete for promotion

to general officer grade and at the same time insure that the Army

was selecting the best qualified individuals for its highest leadership

and management positions. The fact that 30 of the present nominees

are from year groups 1940 and 1941 evidences the quality of these

year groups.

From my awareness of the records and quality of the officers in the

year groups in the late 1930's and early 1940's, I expect the majority

of our brigadier general nominees in the next few years to come

from these year groups.

I know that there has also been an expression of concern to the effect

that what appears to be the early promotion of officers for year groups

1940 and 1941 will result in blocking promotions for officers of later

year groups. I find no justification for this concern. It will be 1966

before substantial numbers of officers from year groups 1943 and later

become eligible for promotion to brigadier general. By 1968 when

these officers have 25 years' service we will have had an opportunity

to make promotions within year groups 1939 through 1942 up to about

6 percent of the eligibles as I mentioned previously. At that time,

we will be able to concentrate heavily on year groups 1943 and later,

and I think that there is every reason to believe that these year groups

will have at least the 6-percent opportunity which was accorded the

officers immediately preceding them.

In summary I consider the Army's procedure and criteria for temporary promotion to brigadier general to be sound and in harmony

with the provisions of law which prescribe that these promotions shall

be made on a fair and equitable basis and shall be based upon ability

and efficiency with regard being given to seniority and age.

We now have vacancies against which we desire to promote individuals who are on the lists currently before this committee. I hope

that this explanation of the manner in which the brigadier generals'

list was developed will lead to your early confirmation of these nominations.

Thank you.

Senator STENNIS. Senator Smith, I am going to ask one question

here for the committee and then yield to you.

Senator SMITH. I would prefer, Mr. Chairman, that you ask the

questions, because I think you are better informed on this.
ARMY GENERAL OFFICER PROMOTION POLICY 7

Senator STENNIS. I have been over it a little. Thank you.

Near the bottom of page 5, Mr. Secretary, you make this statement:

The fact that 30 of the present nominees are from year groups 1940 and 1941

evidences the quality of these year groups.

So that you did take 30 out of the year groups that would not have

ordinarily been considered?

Secretary VANCE. That is essentially correct, sir. However, I am

sure that some of these officers would have been selected even had we

not extended the primary zone.

Senator STENNIS. SO to that extent, and regardless now of the merits

of that, it cost these other years 30 officers.

Secretary VANCE. That is approximately correct.

Senator STENNIS. That is just a fact to start with. Now we can

consider the justification of that later. And you base the reason now

solely on this large buildup for those critical years there in World

War II?

Secretary VANCE. That is the reason we took this step.

Senator STENNIS. That is what brought it about, and now you are

reaching into these years a little ahead and letting them compete.

And that is the only reason you are doing it?

Secretary VANCE. Yes, sir. This is the reason, and I think that it

is only fair and equitable that these people, many of whom as I said

were battalion commanders in World War II, and have been rendering distinguished service for many, many years since that time, should

be given an equitable opportunity to compete for promotion.

Senator STENNIS. Now here are some questions that may not fit in

just exactly right. They were prepared before your statement.

Secretary VANCE. Yes, sir.

Senator STENNIS. I will put it this way. Mr. Secretary, the subcommittee will appreciate your elaborating on just what will be the

Army's policy in the next 5 years with respect to the age and years of

service for officers selected to be brigadier general.

Will you continue to place emphasis about the 20 to 23 years or do

you expect some of those in the older groups will receive a larger percentage of selections?

Now you have answered that in part, but that brings in the question:

Are you going to continue to do this as long as you have this larger

number in these classes?

Secretary VANCE. As I stated, Mr. Chairman, during the next 3 or

4 years I would expect the bulk to come from the year groups which

we have just discussed. We expect that the bulk of the selections

through 1967 will come from this group. The average years' service

for the persons selected and nominated for promotion will increase

accordingly.

Senator STENNIS. You consider that that is the fairest and the

most equitable consideration of these matters for all the men that

are involved?

Secretary VANCE. I certainly do, sir.

Senator STENNIS. You consider if you don't depa

lar schedule, that you will be doing an injustice?

Secretary VANCE. I do, sir.

98680---63 2

-x•

MAR ,)

‘964

r

—44fTAti
8 ARMY GENERAL OFFICER PROMOTION POLICY

Senator STENNIS. You would not be giving the proper chance, as

I understand you, to these men of World War II experience that

stayed in.

Secretary VANCE. That is correct, sir.

Senator STENNIS. The burden of that does fall upon these classes,

these years just prior to the war.

Secretary VANCE. It does only as far as the last selection board and

our nominations this year are concerned.

Senator STENN Is. Nevertheless as I understood it, you apply the

same quality and merit test to them as you apply to the others?

Secretary VANCE. Absolutely, sir. The best qualified are to be

selected.

Senator STENNIS. These being a few years younger, does that give

them any advantage, any further advantage over the other men?

In other words, as I understand your rule, it would not give them

that, just because they were younger in years

'

these colonels, say, that

you take out of the 41-year group. Just because they are 2 years

younger than the 39-year group, that doesn't give them any advantage

in the scoring, does it?

Secretary VANCE. No, sir.

Senator STENNIS. I have some other questions here. This enumerating of figures that I believe you have already given, the question

then is this: It would be correct, would it not, to say that the center

of gravity has shifted into certain years, and the 1939 and 1940 groups

have not received the number of promotions which they would have

been expecting?

You would have already answered that. Mr. Braswell, have you

read over Mr. Vance's statement?

Mr. BRASWELL. We just received it this morning. There is the

complaint which we still receive from senior colonels.

Senator STENNIS. Let me take this up now, a question on the senior

colonels. I believe we have gotten the factual matters now basically

in here. Would you comment on this question from one of the outstanding senior colonels now on active duty in the Army?

The question naturally arises as to what incentive intelligent and

imaginative officers will have if there is no substantial chance for

promotion after 22 years of service.

Certainly officers with 25 to 27 years' service are serving in highly

responsible positions which require their experience and background.

They are working 12 to 14 hours a day while many of the younger

officers who are now being promoted neither have had such positions

nor worked as long.

How long can the older officers maintain a desire to fill such positions

and willingness to work these hours, without this additional incentive?

What will the Army do with its officers for almost the last third of their careers?

Good men don't aspire to shelving so early.

I would like for you to comment on that. This calls for coming

right down to coping with the problem.

One thing that concerns us, we think that these men retire mighty

early' even at best. I mean much of your talent goes on out so early.

Secretary VANCE. Mr. Chairman, let me say first that I think

service in the rank of colonel is a very important service.

Senator STENNIS. I agree.
ARMY GENERAL OFFICER PROMOTION POLICY 9

Secretary VANCE. And that one who has risen to the rank of colonel

has risen very high, and that he can render distinguished service to

this country in that position. Only a few people, and it is really a

very few people, can eventually hope to aspire to general officer rank.

As I mentioned before 

Senator STENNIS. Pardon me now. They all aspire, but only a few

can reach it.

Secretary VANCE. You are correct, sir; can reach general officer

rank.

As we indicated, the approximation is that between now and 1967

only 247 slots will become available for promotion to general officer

rank.

Therefore I feel that we must treat this on the fairest and most

equitable basis, so that everybody is given a fair opportunity.

As I have previously stated, I think that the only way to give fair

consid6ration to these year ,aroups in the early 1940's and the late

1930's is to include them so that they may have a fair opportunity to

get a chance to be promoted in competition with others to a general

officer spot.

Senator STENNIS. You talk about these men in the years 1941-42,

and their records of service, and I know it is very good, but these

same men back in the years 1938, 1939, and 1940 went through the

same war, didn't they?

Secretary VANCE. Yes, sir.

Senator STENNIS. Most of them were in at that time; I know they

were.

Secretary VANCE. They were indeed, sir, but if you take a look at

the percentages, there are 7.1 percent of those in year group 1938

who have already been promoted to brigadier general rank.

As I pointed out, the most we can hope for is about 6.2 percent for

the group which we have been discussing.

Therefore, insofar as year group 1938 is concerned, it would seem

to me that they have been equitably treated.

Now with respect to the year group of 1939, I feel that the burden

would probably fall more severely there than anywhere else. But

I would hope that this would end up with approximately 6 percent

of year group 1939 as well as year groups 1940 and 1941 being promoted to the rank of brigadier general.

Senator STENNIS. You mean before it is over?

Secretary VANCE. Before it is over.

Senator STENNIS. You think you are going to get 6 percent of them?

Secretary VANCE. That is correct, sir.

Senator STENNIS. How does that compare with how it has been

running up until you met this problem? That is a little higher than

6 percent.

Secretary VANCE. Yes; it has been higher than 6 percent, sir. I can

give you those figures.

In 1930 the figure was 18.1 percent. In 1931 it was 16.5 percent

and in 1932, 13.1 percent; in 1933, 16.7 percent; in 1934, 8.6 percent;

in 1935, 10 percent; in 1936, 7.7 percent; in 1937, 7.4 percent, and in

1938, 7.1 percent.

Senator STENNIS. SO it has more or less stabilized itself.

Secretary VANCE. At about 7 percent; that is correct, sir.

Senator STENNIS. You expect this to total and finally work out

that they will get about 6 percent?
10 ARMY GENERAL OFFICER PROMOTION POLICY

Secretary VANCE. About 6 percent, sir.

Senator STENNIS. So they are losing not much; 1 percent.

Secretary VANCE. Yes; but this same factor will apply to year

groups of 1940 and 1941. They probably will not exceed 6 percent.

But if we do not include them at this point, then they would not

even reach 6 percent.

Senator STENNIS. It would drop to less than 5.

Secretary VANCE. That is right; and this is a result of the hump

that we find at this particular point.

Senator STENNIS. When will you go back to 7? That is what I

was trying to ask a while ago. I don't know as I asked it in the

proper way.

Secretary VANCE. Sir, at this time I can't give you any specific

date on which it may approximate 7 percent.

Senator STENNIS. This appealed to me because it just lessened their

chances, and also picking these men earlier. It seems to me that it

was creating an unfairness to these older classes. You have this

officer hump, and you have been getting rid of that, but there were

still a lot left there, too, in those particular year groups.

Secretary VANCE. Yes, sir. We have this hump, and I think the

only way we can be fair to these year groups is to bring them in at

this point so that they can have a fair opportunity.

Senator STENNIS. They have been eligible under the law. You

just expanded this under your guidelines and your regulations.

Secretary VANCE. Under my authority, sir.

Senator STENNIS. You understand that you and the Army were

not accused of any wrongdoing.

Secretary VANCE. Oh yes • I realize that.

Senator STENNIS. But a change of the rules in the game in a way.

Mr. Braswell, do you have anything else now? We ought to thresh

this out thoroughly.

Mr. BRASWELL. You have alluded to it, Mr. Chairman, but you

might raise this question whether the earlier selection will have an

effect on early retirement, because of course the earlier the people

are selected, the more pressures there will be to retire them earlier.

Senator Smith had one or two questions along that line.

Senator STENNIS. We will wait here until she gets back to let her

ask those questions.

Mr. BRASWELL. Mr. Chairman, this is a related matter here which

you may wish to bring before the Secretary. The Joint Chiefs have

decided that officers in the grade of colonel assigned to it should not

be above age 45, at least should be very restricted in number, this

raises a number of issues, and it is related to this age question as to

what the Army is going to do with these people beyond age 45, if

this type of assignment is not available, since colonels normally

complete 30 years at about age 53, assuming they go in at age 23,

and the Secretary may have some comment on this question, though

I don't know.

Senator STENNIS. Let me see now. If a man becomes a general

officer in 1963, suppose he is on this list here. Take it up from there

and give us the record from here on as to what will happen to him

about his retirement and so forth.

Secretary VANCE. Let me sketch it this way, sir. With respect to

permanent colonels, they shall be retired upon completion of 30 years
ARMY GENERAL OFFICER PROMOTION POLICY 11

of service or 5 years as a permanent colonel, whichever occurs the

earlier.

With respect to permanent brigadier generals, they are to be retired

upon completion of 5 years in the permanent grade of brigadier general

or 30 years' service, whichever occurs the later.

However, permanent brigadier generals who reach age 60 before

completing 5 and 30 must be retired upon attaining the age of 60,

and this is by statute.

Senator STENNIS. Yes.

Secretary VANCE. Now with respect to permanent major generals,

they shall be retired upon completion of 5 years in the permanent

grade of major general or 35 years service, whichever is the later.

Again there is another factor playing upon that. Permanent major

generals who reach 62 before they complete 5 and 35 must be retired

upon reaching the age of 62. In general, sir those are the mandatory

provisions we apply.

Senator STENNIS. As a general situation too that would make these

men retire early as a general proposition.

If they become general earlier than they otherwise would under this

new procedure that will bring the average one of them to retirement

earlier just traveling along that road.

Secretary VANCE. Not necessarily, sir, because when you get to the

question of, let's say, permanent brigadier generals, retirement is

governed by 5 years of service as a permanent brigadier general or 30

years of service whichever is later. Consequently, 30 years would be

the minimum possible period of service; this is true also if the officer

were not promoted to permanent brigadier general. Promotion to

permanent brigadier general now occurs after an officer's 26th year of

service, so that these individuals would serve a minimum of over 31

years.

Senator STENNIS. That means you would keep him longer then as

a general and that would keep somebody else back that much longer.

Secretary VANCE. That is true, sir, but as I explained earlier, this

is something which we have to do our best to manage, and it is incumbent upon us to handle this in such a way as to give everybody a fair

opportunity, and this I think we can do by approaching it as we are

at this particular period in time.

I might add one other fact. On the other side of this hump you

will see a valley come and this I think is going to be helpful in meeting the problem which is caused by the hump and the possible blocking

action that might occur, were it not for this valley which follows after

the hump.

Senator STENNIS. You can bring that average out of those war year

groups up, because of the valley. You can finally work that average

up as you said a while ago.

Secretary VANCE. And do justice to those that come after.

Senator STENNIS. Yes, but you can't do anything about these men

who were in the earlier year groups.

Secretary VANCE. Yes. As we pointed out previously, however,

year group 1938 and all prior year groups have had 7.1 percent or

more which have been promoted to brigadier general. Now, these

year groups that we are talking about now and who are being affected

by the action that I have taken are only going to be able to approximate about 6 percent. So it is only fair to them that they have
12 ARMY GENERAL OFFICER PROMOTION POLICY

the opportunity to compete now so that they can approximate this

percent.

Senator STENNIS. You are talking about this dip after the war

which is going to help you pull that average up, but my point is

you can't reach back and get those that are left now. Now what

about this memo from the Joint Chiefs? Are you familiar with that?

Secretary VANCE. No, sir; I am not.

Senator STENNIS. Well, look at it.

Secretary. VANCE. I have read about it.

Senator STENNIS. Well, look at it here a minute.

Secretary VANCE. Yes, sir; I now have read it.

Senator STENNIS. Is that going to complicate the matter or affect it?

Secretary VANCE. I would not think that this would affect our

situation, sir.

As I see this, this is merely a memorandum from General Taylor

to the Chiefs of Staff suggesting that they discuss in executive session

certain proposed actions. Whether they have in fact acted upon

this at this time I do not know. The provision of this memorandum

which I gather you are referring to is the one which is marked No. B.

Senator STENNIS. Yes.

Secretary VANCE. It says:

The number of colonels/captains above age 45 should be restricted. The

average age of officers in this grade should be kept close to or below that figure.

Now I think what you may be alluding to is this: one of the instructions which I included to the selection board which met on the group

of brigadier generals which is before you indicated that consideration

should be given to experience on the Joint Staff or in the Office of the

Secretary of Defense.

However, I also stated that equal consideration should be given to

those who have had service on the Army staff, so that I would not

think that this would affect in any substantial way the process for

selecting general officers which the Army has and which we are

following at this time.

Senator STENNIS. Why did you mention those two points in your

general instructions? Why did you point that out?

Secretary VANCE. I think that they are important, sir.

Senator STENNIS. Do you feel like it has been neglected in the past?

That is my thought on it, that they have been overlooked because

they did not have as much field records.

Secretary VANCE. No, sir. This has been a consideration to which

I think previous Secretaries have referred, and I felt that this was

important, -so I included it in my statement.

Senator STENNIS. I thought maybe they had been overlooked

before.

Secretary VANCE. No, sir.

Senator STENNIS. If they worked there for several years, that denies

them the chance to have a field record during that period.

Secretary VANCE. It does that., sir.

Senator STENNIS. I think we had that up once before.

Mr. BRASWELL. Mr. Gates instituted the directive that Joint Staff

experience would be required as a prerequisite for promotion to brigadier general. Mr. Chairman, Secretary Vance is unfamiliar with

General Taylor's directive. They have advised from the Secretary of
ARMY GENERAL OFFICER PROMOTION POLICY 13

Defense's Office that the Joint Chiefs have approved this directive.

No reason was given for the age 45 limitation.

Senator STENNIS. Let me ask you this question for the record concerning this selection policy, and the effect of the selection policy on

retirement.

Mr. Secretary, whenever officers are selected for promotion rather

early, there is always a pressure to retire them early in order to avoid

humps and to provide promotion option for the junior officers. Many

of us feel that general officers are retired too early today. I have expressed myself on that already.

If you in effect lower the point of selection, I would like to ask you

does the Army intend to keep brigadier generals on duty for at least

30 years, and the major generals on duty for 35 years? Otherwise

many officers will be forced into retirement in their early fifties.

What is your comment on that, sir?

Secretary VANCE. Yes, sir; we do intend to keep them on 30 years

and 35 years, subject to the two qualifications which I indicated before.

If the brigadier generals reach 60 before they have rendered 30 years

of service, then they would be forced to retire, and in the case of major

generals if they reach 62 prior to having completed 35 years of service,

that they would retire.

Senator STENNIS. That is under the law.

Secretary VANCE. That is under the law; yes, sir.

Senator STENNIS. On the general question of age of selection to

brigadier general, one of the publications states that General Marshall

became brigadier general at 56, General Eisenhower at 51, General

Patton at 55, General Lear at 56, General Stilwell at 56, and with

other World War II leaders at about these ages.

Do you have any comment to make on this matter, and could you

confirm for the record, Mr. Secretary, the accuracy of these ages?

Secretary VANCE. No, sir; I cannot confirm the accuracy of those

figures. I assume they are correct.

Senator STENNIS. What is your comment then as to this variance

between the ages of these men and the ages that you are picking them

now?

Secretary VANCE. I do not know what the situation was that

obtained at that time, but it may have something to do with the

size of the Army at the time that these people were promoted, and

also the fact that this was, I believe, at the outbreak of World War II,

sir.

Senator STENNIS. Most of them.

Secretary VANCE. And I would venture a guess that the size of the

Army at that time was probably the factor which bore very heavily

upon the age at which they were selected.

Senator STENNIS. These men like General Marshall, at least his age

group had traveled under different circumstances and ground rules,

I am sure.

Secretary VANCE. That is right, sir.

Senator STENNIS. I read somewhere that General Scott was 82 or

83 years of age, wasn't he, when he was Chief of the Army Staff?

You know General Scott, the old general of the Civil War?

Secretary VANCE. Yes, sir, I know of him.

Senator STENNIS. Wasn't he 82 and still Chief of Staff?

Secretary VANCE. I believe he was, sir, well along.

Senator STENNIS. That is a great story. They couldn't get him out.
14 ARMY GENERAL OFFICER PROMOTION POLICY

Senator Slum'. Mr. Secretary, under present law an officer who

becomes a permanent major general may remain on active ,duty until

he has completed 35 years of service and 5 years in grade. Thereafter the Secretary may extend his service until age 62. Under the

so-called Bolte legislation, the retirement point is reduced since the

Secretaries could screen such officers for retirement when they had

completed only 30 years and 5 years in grade.

What is the relationship between sharpening the retirement points

for such officers and the policy of selecting officers to general-officer

grade at a somewhat earlier point in their careers?

Secretary VANCE. I am not sure I understand the question.

Senator SMITH. That is a long question.

Senator STENNIS. That is on the Bolte report. Does it take legislation to implement that?

Secretary VANCE. Yes; it does, sir. With respect to your question,

Senator Smith, I am not sufficiently familiar at this point with the

Bolte legislation to comment intelligently in response to this question.

I would appreciate it if I !could have the opportunity to supply the

answer to this question for the record.

Senator SMITH. That will be very satisfactory. Thank you very

much.

(The following information was subsequently supplied:)

As I indicated earlier, statute provides presently that a brigadier general who

is not promoted to permanent (Regular Army) brigadier general grade must be

retired after 30 years' service; permanent brigadier generals, who are appointed

normally to that grade between their 26th and 29th year of service, accrue 5

years' tenure in this permanent grade, thus projecting retirement in these cases

between the 31st and 34th year of service; permanent major generals are subject

to retirement upon completion of 5 years as a permanent major general or 35

years' service, whichever is later, so that retirement in these instances occurs

normally upon completion of 35 or 36 years of service.

The Bolte legislation as submitted to the Congress visualizes a promotion

pattern by which an officer would be promoted to colonel at 22 years of service

as an average. Thereafter the officer must serve 3 years in grade before promotion to brigadier general, and 2 years in that grade before promotion to major

general. With respect to retirement, the Bolte legislation provides for mandatory

tenure of 5 years as a brigadier general and 30 years' service, whichever is later,

and in the case of a major general for 5 years' service as a major general and

30 years' service, whichever is later. For both grades, based upon the expected

time of promotion, service would extend past 30 years as a minimum. Under the

Bolte provisions, the point of promotion and retirement could evolve as follows:

Promotion to— At years of service Retire at—

Colonel Brigadier general Major general 

22-23

25-29 27-33

30 years. 30 to 34 years. 32 to 38 years.
AMY GENERAL OFFICER PROMOTION POLICY 15

In the instance of major generals, the Bolte legislation provides further for

the Secretary of each service to consider each major general for continuation on

active duty beyond 5 years in grade and until age 62. The effect of this authority

is to provide a basis for additional tenure not permitted under present statute.

As can be discerned, the relative effect of Bolte is to approximate and possibly

extend the tenure provided by present law. Consequently, there is no immediate

or long-range effect anticipated as a result of the current selections.

Senator SMITH. As a part of the information furnished to the subcommittee, the Army states as follows:

We are fortunately at this time in a position to proceed with a systematic

program consistent with the provisions of the Bolte legislation to advance the

most outstanding of our officers to senior ranks earlier in their careers than has

been the case in the past.

Mr. Secretary, can you explain just what this statement means?

Secretary VANCE. Yes, I can. What is meant by that statement is

as follows: That there are a large number of people available in the

group which I have previously described—namely, the group in the

year groups 1939 through 1943—and we will be able to be selective

within this group, and it will provide for us, we believe, a very high

quality of officer. Also, we can do this in a systematic fashion, and.

will be better able to advance outstanding officers to the rank of brigadier general.

Senator SMITH. Could you either outline or provide for the record

a statement indicating the point at which an officer can be expected

to be promoted to each grade, second lieutenant to major general, and

at what ages? Didn't you cover some of that in your statement?

Secretary VANCE. Yes, I did cover some of that. I would be happy

to amplify that for the record.

Senator SMITH. One reason for the confusion is the feeling that an

officer will be only able to serve 2 or 3 years in the grade of colonel

before he is considered for brigadier general, and also be able to serve

on the Joint Staff, and an outline might clarify this position, if you

will add to what you have said.

Secretary VANCE. I will be very happy to.

Senator SMITH. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. That takes care of that.

(The following information was subsequently submitted)

The following diagram indicates the normal length of service and average age,

when an officer would be eligible for promotion under the proposed Bolte

legislation.

11111004y7),

MAR 19

1964

4nrom,0
BOLTE PROVISIONS AS TO PROMOTION

* *

flu

Yrs of Svc 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30 32 34 36 38

Age 22 24 26 28 30 32 34 36 38 40 42 44 46 48 50 52 54 56 58 60 62

GENERAL OFFICER PROMOTION POLICY 
igNIP

ARMY GENERAL OFFICER PROMOTION POLICY 17

Currently the time of promotion relates to that shown in the above diagram

except that due to the number of individuals who have received temporary promotion to the grade of colonel with less service—as result of World War II and

Korea—the point of eligibility for brigadier general extends from about the 21st

year of service and to the grade of major general from about the 22d year of

service.

This indicates what can be considered as a "normal" pattern for the person

becoming a major general. In the instance of individuals destined for three- and

four-star grade, the pattern would vary by earlier promotion to grades above

captain and to general officer grade. This would evolve through early selection

below the zone.

With respect to the requirement for duty with the joint staff to qualify for

promotion to general officer grade, it should be recognized that this duty can occur

in any grade and that the Defense directive for this qualifying duty includes

service with a combined or allied staff and the Office of Secretary of Defense

staff as well.

Senator STENNIS. Mr. Secretary, is there anything else you want

to say about this?

Secretary VANCE. No, sir; I don't think I have anything else to

add, and I thank you for permitting me the opportunity to come

before you and testify.

Senator STENNIS. Thank you. And you feel that you are acting

under the rules of necessity when you dipped in here and brought in

these new years.

Secretary VANCE. I do indeed, sir, and I think any other action

would not have been fair and equitable.

Senator STENNIS. What can we do about it here; that is, the

committee? We can't initiate the list and don't want to. We can

just keep this one here, couldn't we? If we don't approve of this, we

will just have to keep it here until they send in another list?

Secretary VANCE. I think that would be most unfair, sir. I can't

stress enough the importance of acting promptly on this list.

Senator STENNIS. I was not suggesting that we were going to do

that, but that is the power that we have. I thought that you might

want to argue against our having such power as that.

I had always thought though, very seriously, that the class that

came in had certain vested though not absolute rights if they stayed

in. No one has the right to be promoted, but a chance to be considered

for promotion.

This group as they come on up, you know, find that they have to

share it with these classes that are younger than they are.

Senator SMITH. Would this mean then, Mr. Secretary, that there

would be a large group of people who were carrying the rank of colonel

who would not be able to see the time when they would be made a

brigadier general, if they are over 50 or over the age limit?

Secretary VANCE. No; I believe, as I tried to point out, Senator

Smith, that the only fair way- to do this is as we have done it, and for

the various reasons I have given.

As I reviewed the situation with Senator Stennis, the percentage of

those eligible from the early 1930's on up to the present time indicates

that 7 percent or more in each of the year groups from .1938 back,

have been promoted.

Now with the year groups that we are dealing with here, even by

including them at this early stage, we are only going to be able to

approximate about 6 percent. Therefore anything other than bringing them into the picture at this period of time would be most unfair

to this group.
18 ARMY GENERAL OFFICER PROMOTION POLICY

Now the reason that we have this problem is because of the hump

that arises at this particular time.

Senator SMITH. But other than being unfair to the group, are you

getting better service from these people? In addition to helping the

group, do you expect to get more from this group than you would

if the older people were in or considered?

Secretary VANCE. Not necessarily better service.

Senator SMITH. You are thinking more especially about the people

and I am thinking more about the qualifications of this group.

Secretary VANCE. I think the qualifications of this group are extraordinarily good because you have in this group, as I said in my statement, the cream of the non-Regulars who were integrated into the

Army. These people are in the year groups in the late thirties and

early 1940's.

Senator SMITH. Is this going to encourage that group over the age

to retire?

Secretary VANCE. I would not think it would.

Senator SMITH. I was talking with you personally, rather than for

the record.

Secretary VANCE. I would not think it would.

Senator SMITH. I wondered if they would continue to stay in or if

this would be a way to get rid of the number of people.

Secretary VANCE. Certainly it was not our intention to get rid of

people.

Senator SMITH. These humps are bad.

Secretary VANCE. They are bad. On the other hand, you take a,

look at these people, and as I said, they served as battalion commanders in World War II, and some of them in even higher positions.

They have had a tremendous amount of experience and responsibility,

and in fairness to them they ought to have an opportunity to get a

fair shake along with the others.

Senator STENNIS. Here is the summary right here at the top of

page 4 of your statement:

Our departure from the practice of the immediately preceding years was that of

including year groups 1940 and 1941 in the primary zone.

That is what you did.

Secretary VANCE. That is right.

Senator STENNIS. You put them in and started picking up some of

them now.

Secretary VANCE. That is right, sir.

Senator STENNIS. There wasn't any way for you to do that without

it being partly at the expense of these classes that were a little older.

Secretary VANCE. That is correct, sir.

Senator SMITH. But what is it going to do to the morale of the

older people?

Senator STENNIS. That is it. You have touched the soft point

there.

Senator SMITH. Is it going to discourage them?

Senator STENNIS. It leaves them behind.

Senator SMITH. And is it going to be a discouraging factor to the

younger people as they come on?

I remember when I interviewed so many of the Air Force people

when I went out with Secretary Douglas, the one thing that the boys

stressed when I asked why they were leaving the service was they
ARMY GENERAL OFFICER PROMOTION POLICY 19

wanted the security. It came above pay raise even. They wanted

security.

They wanted to be sure when the time came that they would get

the promotions and be able to live like they thought they ought to in

that position, and I wondered would this have any effect on that group?

Secretary VANCE. It undoubtedly will affect some of the people

in the older groups; it will affect their morale.

On the other hand, I don't think it is going to have an adverse

effect at all on the morale in the younger groups, because I think they

will look upon this as the hump group being given fair consideration.

If we had not done what we have done they would not have been

treated fairly, so I think this would encourage rather than discourage

them.

Senator SMITH. How does this compare with the Air Force and the

Navy average ages?

Secretary VANCE. I don't know what their figures are, Senator

Smith.

Senator STENNIS. Do you have anything on that?

Mr. BRASWELL. The Air Force is roughly comparable to these

ages. The Navy is about 5 years older, and has been for some time.

The Navy zone for the lower half is not until the 29th year of service.

They do pick up some below the zone.

Senator STENNIS. The Secretary has been very frank and clear with

us. Referring to the group years of 1940 and 1941 he said:

It appeared necessary to me to start promoting these officers now at the possible

expense of some officers from earlier year groups.

I commend you for just putting it right on the line as the picture you

saw.

Secretary VANCE. Yes, sir.

Senator STENNIS. And you acted accordingly. You could have

roughed it alone, and the older ones, more of them would have been

promoted, but a lower percentage of this 1940 and 1941 year group

would have been promoted.

Secretary VANCE. That is correct, sir, and I felt that the only fair

thing to do was to take the action which I took.

Senator SMITH. Is there any way that we can have these people

continue in service longer if they get this promotion at a young age?

Secretary VANCE. You would have to extend certain statutory

requirements which now exist in terms of 30 years for brigadier generals

and 35 years for major generals.

Senator SMITH. We are losing some pretty good people at a young

age.

Secretary VANCE. That is correct; we are, indeed.

Senator STENNIS. Well, I am certainly in favor of increasing that

age anyway. Maybe we will have to do it because of these actions

here, Senator Smith.

This has made it very clear, and we can get this digested a little

better and pass on it.

Senator SMITH. This hearing is on these nominations.

Senator STENNIS. That is right—all of those that have been sent

in this year. It is No. 41, I believe.

Mr. BRASWELL. Yes, sir; that is the reference number.

Senator STENNIS. How many are involved?
20 ARMY GENERAL OFFICER PROMOTION POLICY

Mr. BRASWELL. Forty-nine names to brigadier general, eleven to

major general.

Senator STENNIS. And when these are filled, that will bring the

Army up to the ceiling, the statutory ceiling?

Mr. BRASWELL. Yes. As a matter of fact, they have only nine

vacancies at the moment. As the vacancies occur, they will appoint

additional people. I think it will be about August before the Army

can promote all these people.

Secretary VANCE. About August.

Senator SMITH. You will take care of the whole 49 by August?

Secretary VANCE. About August.

Mr. BRASWELL. They can take care of nine immediately, and the

remainder by the first of August as the vacancies occur.

Senator STENNIS. There is no legislation pending this year that will

affect this situation any?

Mr. BRASWELL. No, sir; the so-called Bolte proposal has been

submitted to both Houses. It has not been introduced in either body.

At the moment it does not look as if a hearing will be held on either

side, due to other business, and the fact that it is such a major item.

That proposal does not affect the Army very much in terms of numbers. It does, however, lower the retirement point for major generals

in its present form.

Senator STENNIS. On this matter of age, I don't have anyone in

mind, the age retirement, but it is just tragic to me to see them lose

the talent.

Senator SMITH. That is what I was referring to.

Senator STENNIS. So much of the good talent is going out under

that age limit.

Senator SMITH. That is what I was trying to point up, were we

getting talent along with these promotions, better talent than we

would have if we stayed with the old policy.

Secretary VANCE. This is very hard to judge, but certainly I don't

think you get any better talent.

I have worked with a lot of the people who are on the promotion

list, and I know they have great ability.

Senator STENNIS. Except for the answers to the questions that the

Secretary may send in, that will close the record. We have a few

more questions here, and we shall give them to you to send back for

the record, please.

(The questions set forth below were raised to the subcommittee by

one of the most able senior colonels now on active duty in the Army.

Official comments by the Army, subsequently submitted, follow each

of the numbered questions.)

Question 1.—The center of gravity for the Army promotion list in 1962 was

somewhere between the classes of 1937-38. (Class herein is used to indicate

the base date of receipt of commission in the Regular Army of the officers under

discussion.) The 1963 promotion list contained 18 officers who were in the class

of 1941. Hence, the center of gravity shifted approximately 3 years ahead of

what could normally have been expected. On the 1962 list there were relatively

few from the class of 1939; only 6 were picked up while normal distribution in

the past would have been a minimum of 10 to 12. Only one was included from

the class of 1937, normally five to eight would have been included.

Answer.—As I stated earlier, the conditions which caused the inclusion of basic

year groups 1940 and 1941 in the primary zone for the 1962 selection board stem

directly from the Regular Army integration program of 1946-47. Large numbers

of our outstanding World War II non-Regular officer corps were integrated into

the Regular Army in 1946 and 1947 with resultant placement in year groups
ARMY GENERAL OFFICER PROMOTION POLICY 21

1940 and 1941, with 1941 being a "peak" or "hump" year. Because of the large

number of officers from these year groups now eligible for promotion and the

even larger number who will become eligible for promotion in the next several

years, I considered it necessary to include these year groups in the primary zone

at this time in order to provide these officers a reasonably equitable opportunity

to compete for promotion to general officer grade and at the same time insure

that the Army would be selecting the best qualified individuals for its highest

leadership and mangement positions. To this end, the selection board was charged

with the responsibility of selecting the best qualified individuals from among those

in the zone of consideration. On this basis, the officers from the respective year

groups were selected by the board and nominated for promotion.

Question 2.—It is obvious that the Army has changed its policy suddenly,

without announcing this change to its many loyal and experienced officers. It

is equally obvious that experience has been discarded for youth. Some of the

members on the new promotion list have never served on the Department of

the Army General Staff (minimum average tour, 2 years); some have never

served on the Joint Staff (normal tour now 3 years); a few have not attended

a war college (1 year); others have never had command duty as a colonel (average

tour 13 years); some have had no experience in counterinsurgency operations

or planning. All of these criteria were formerly considered necessary for promotion. But it is difficult to acquire such experience without adequate service.

(It is to be noted that two individuals on the attached list have had only 3 years

as a colonel; many only 4.)

Answer.—(a) There was no literal change in Army policy beyond the inclusion

of the 2 additional year groups-1940 and 1941—in the primary zone. As I

indicated in my formal statement, the selection board was provided the following

guidance in their evaluation of approximately 2,700 colonels who were in the

zone of consideration:

(1) All temporary colonels with date of rank on or before December 31,

1959, and all permanent (Regular Army) colonels were to be considered.

(2) The primary zone of consideration included year groups 1936 through

1941. Up to 10 percent of the selections could come from year groups 1942

and later. Officers in year groups 1935 and earlier were to be recommended

only if their records were particularly outstanding.

(3) There was no maximum age beyond which promotion was precluded.

However, the board was required to support selections of individuals who

would be past age 51 at the time of promotion. Not more than 10 percent

of the board's selections could be in this category.

(4) Within the above parameters, the best qualified officers were to be

selected based upon their future potential and past performance; selection

was not to be solely a reward for past service.

(b) In consonance with statute, the Army's selection system is based upon the

considered judgment of senior Army general officers who are the members of the

selection board. Assignments, including duty with the Joint Staff, Office, Secretary of Defense, etc., quality of performance, education, age, and seniority remain

as factors weighed by the board in selecting and recommending the best qualified

officers.

Question 8—It is difficult to understand why the Army must vacillate policywise and dip even lower than the class of 1941 while the Navy and the Marines

are promoting from the classes of 1935 and 1937, respectively, have vigorous

leadership, and maintain a constant personnel promotion policy. There should

be some thread of uniformity between the services in an era marked by a continued increase in jointly manned staffs. Why should a youthful Army brigadier

supervise a more experienced Navy captain?

Answer.—As manifest in my earlier comments, there was no vacillation in the

Army's policy. Currently, there are no Army general officers nor are any of the

individuals on the present nomination list, from a year group later than 1941.

The selection board was permitted to select up to, but not more than, 10 percent

of the individuals from year groups 1942 and later. This authorization is not a

change in policy, but is comparable to that given to previous selection boards.

There has long been variance among the services with repsect to promotion

criteria due to the requirements of the respective services. However, as you are

aware, the proposed Bolte legislation is designed to provide uniformity through

comparable promotion criteria and procedures for each of the services.

Question 4. —The attached list indicates that a man who is 47 or 48 years old

can no longer be considered mentally at his prime nor physically well preserved.

This is not the conclusion of industry nor of educational institutions. Eisenhower

would never have been promoted had this been a criterion for promotion in his

day.
22 ARMY GENERAL OFFICER PROMOTION POLICY

Answer.—The rumor that 47 is the Army's maximum age for promotion to brigadier general is false. The current nomination list contains 19 officers who will have passed their 47th birthday at the time of promotion; 2 of these will have reached age 51. As indicated earlier, there was no literal age beyond which pro- motion was precluded, although the selection board was required to support individuals who would be age 51 at the time of promotion. The analogy of General Eisenhower's promotion is considered inappropriate since the circum- stances which pertain today are not the same as existed when General Eisenhower

was promoted to biigadier general. In this regard the size of the pre-World War II Army was substantially less than today's Army. This factor bore heavily

upon the age and years service when individuals were then promoted to general officer grade.

Question 5.—There are strong rumors to the effect that the considered judgment of the board of senior general officers composing the promotion board was set aside at secretarial level in order to produce this list of more youthful managers of the Army's future. Perhaps this action explains the failure of the selectees to meet previously established criteria which officers in the past have used to estab- lish their career patterns.

Answer.—These rumors are unfounded. The recommendations of the selection board were approved by me and the current nominations are in consonance with the board's selections.

Question 6.—There are many officers who recently have indicated their willingness to serve an additional 4 years in exchange for 3 months' attendance at the advanced management program at Harvard or at the University of Pittsburgh. This education has, in the past, only been offered to those who were generally in line for promotion. With this opportunity now lost, it would seem only just that these officers should be released from their contracts so that they might be entitled to retire from the service and accept challenging and lucrative positions in civilian life, thereby reestablishing for themselves some degree of stability and security for their future.

Answer.—The advanced management training program for officers at Harvard University and the University of Pittsburgh is not inferred or intended as a

guarantee of ultimate promotion to general officer grade. As the governing Army regulations indicate, this training is designed for officers occupying or scheduled to fill key positions in the Department of the Army agencies and the headquarters of major continental and oversea commands. Individuals who pursue this training do so voluntarily with the awareness of the above circumstances. It is important that the matter of promotion to general officer grade be put into proper perspec- tive. As I stated before, service in the grade of colonel is a most important and challenging responsibility for an officer in the U.S. Army. This is the basic apex for our outstanding officers who have successfully performed and competed for promotion to this significant grade. Only a few people—and, as I indicated before, only a very few people—can reach general officer grade. Failure of pro- motion to general officer grade should not—and is not—considered as a stigma

or reflection upon the performance of any individual.

Letter from the Secretary of the Army, dated March 27, containing certain information requested in connection with general officer

promotion policy.

DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY,

Washington, D.C., March 27, 1963. Hon. JOHN STENNIS,

U.S. Senate.

DEAR SENATOR STENNIS: I am happy to have the opportunity to appear before

your subcommittee in connection with the pending list of Army general officer nominations.

The information you requested in your letter of March 25, 1963, is enclosed.

In consonance with the informal advice to Mr. Braswell of your staff, it should be noted that the data regarding ages for the period 1952-63 is based upon age at the time of promotion; this correlates to other data furnished.

Sincerely yours,

CYRUS R. VANCE,

Secretary of the Army. Enclosures:

1. Ages at time promotion, 1952-63.

2. Year groups of promotees, 1952- 63.

3. Primary zone consideration, 1952-68.

4. Information regarding selection requirements.

5. Extract statement, January 14, 1963.
Promotion to glade of brigadier general, AU S (A PL) during calendar years 1952-68 (excluding J AGC)

Promotion year

Age at promotion

Total

Average

age at

promotion

58 57 56 55 54 53 52 51 50 49 48 47 46 45 44 43 42 41 40 38

Yrs. M08,

1952 1 2 4 1 4 2 3 6 8 7 8 10 6 4 4 1 1 72 48 3

1053 2 2 2 3 6 6 5 5 1 7 9 7 3 2 60 47 11

1954 1 5 2 9 15 9 11 18 22 15 10 6 4 5 1 2 135 49 11

1955 4 2 4 15 13 7 14 9 3 2 1 74 48 4

1956 1 4 1 5 8 10 15 11 11 8 3 1 1 79 46 10

1.957 1 2 2 7 8 5 10 6 5 2 2 2 52 47 5

1958 1 1 3 4 3 2 4 2 2 1 1 24 48 9

1959 1 1 5 6 8 6 4 4 2 37 50 1

1060 1 4 7 6 13 15 7 5 3 2 1 64 48 11

1061 1 1 2 7 12 16 11 6 3 3 2 64 48 4

1962 1 2 8 6 7 22 13 15 5 5 3 1 88 48 6

1963 3 2 3 8 8 8 12 5 2 51 46 6

Total 1 3 9 6 15 30 41 54 91 123 107 107 77 63 42 18 7 4 1 1 800 48 3

N0TE.-1963 includes 6 individuals promoted on Jan. 1 from last year's nominations. Average age of current nominees (45 excluding JAG) is 46 years 3 months.

ARMY GENERAL OFFICER PROMOTION POLICY 
Year group spread, in promotion years 19 2-63 (excluding JAGC)

Promotion

Year

Basic date (year group)

Total

1917 19181 1920 1921 1922 1923 1924 1925 1926 1927 1928 1929 1930 1931 1932 1933 1934 1935 1936 1937 1938 1939 1940 1941

1952 2 1 5 3 8 2 8 8 8 8 8 6 1 1 1 72 1953 2 3 4 4 2 4 7 2 9 5 8 4 4 60 1954 4 6 1 6 21 16 11 15 23 13 5 3 2 135 1955 

1956 

1957 

1958 

1959 

1960 

1961 

5 10 5

3

12

6

3

1

14

4

5

2

3

1

21

14

7

2

5

4

17

8

2

7

3

3 

26

18

8

9

12

2

4

1

6 

11 

11

5

2

4

23

10

1

4 

2

1 

7

15

1 

2 

4

23

1

1

3

1 

4

74

79

52

24

37

64

64 1962 

1963 

1 1 4 12

1

14

1

13

4

34

4

5

11

3

12 18

88

51

Total 2 7 14 3 3 8 18 25 33 36 33 62 55 68 54 87 44 52 46 47 43 23 16 21 800

1 1919 no promotions; demobilization. N0TE.-1963 ncludes 6 individuals promoted on Jan. 1 from last year's nominations. These 6 are reflected in year groups as follows: 1 in 1935, 1 in 1936, 1 in 1937, and 3 in 1938.

4=,

ARMY GENERAL OFFICER PROMOTION POLICY 
ARMY GENERAL OFFICER PROMOTION POLICY 25

Primary zones, brigadier general promotion, 1952-68

Promotion year: Primary zone year groups

1952 All eligibles irrespective of year group.

1953 Do.

1954 Do.

1955 1926-32.

1956 1928-34.

1957 1930-33.

1958 1930-33.

1959 1931-34.

1960 1932-36.

1961 1934-37.

1962 1935-38.

1963 1936-41.

1964 1937-41.

1965 1938-42.

1966 1 1939-42.

1967 l 1939-42.

1968 1 1940-43.

Projected (and subject to change).

SUMMARY OF REQUIREMENTS FOR SELECTION TO GRADE OF BRIGADIER GENERAL

1. Eligibility: All temporary (Army of the United States) colonels with 3 years

in such grade as of the last day of the year in which selection board is convened

and all permanent (Regular Army) colonels.

2. Selection is on best qualified basis.

3. Selection board is instructed to give—

a) Full consideration to successful tours of duty on Joint (including MAAG),

Combined, Allied, and Office of the Secretary of Defense Staffs.

(b) Optimum consideration to counterinsurgency qualifications and performance

in this field.

4. Selection board is given primary zone, based upon specified year groups,

from which to make selections. Officers in year groups earlier than the designated

primary zone may be selected in exceptional cases where qualifications outweigh

the relatively short tenure remaining. A percentage of the selections, normally

up to 10 percent, may come from year groups later than those in the primary zone.

5. For last year's selection board the selection board was required to support

their selections of officers who would be past age 51 at the time of promotion.

Not more than 10 percent of the selections were to be in this category.

EXTRACT OF STATEMENT DATED JANUARY 14, 1963, CONCERNING ARMY

OBJECTIVES FOR CALENDAR YEAR 1963

Every possible step must be taken to maintain and improve the already high

quality of the senior officers of the Army.

In this regard, "we are fortunately at this time in a position to proceed with a

systematic program, consistent with the provisions of the Bolte legislation, to

advance the most outstanding of our officers to senior ranks earlier in their

careers than has been the case in the past."

This current opportunity results from the large number Of experienced officers

of the year groups of the latter 1930's and very early 1940's who are now reaching

a period of prime effectiveness and the fact that this base of experience and ability

provides much larger numbers from which we can select than do the preceding

year groups. We can reap the benefits of this experience and quality by insuring

that the best qualified officers in these year groups are assigned rapidly to increasingly responsible positions. In addition, selection criteria for promotion

to general officer must incorporate appropriate measures to promote on an

accelerated basis the most qualified officers in these year groups.

The recent selection board for temporary brigadier generals has given a desirable

emphasis to moving ahead officers from these later year groups. The selection

boards to senior field grade rank (lieutenant colonel and colonel) should work

toward the same goal.

It should be possible for our most outstanding officers to be within the primary

zone for selection to temporary brigadier general on or before their 21st year of

service, and for the best of our major generals to be considered for three-star
26 ARMY GENERAL OFFICER PROMOTION POLICY

rank well before their 30th year of service. The objective would be to have a

reservoir of highly qualified and experienced three-star officers for promotion to four-star rank in their early fifties.

The composition of our future colonels—servicewise, agewise, and qualitywise—

must be examined in the light of current policies and the effect of the Bolte legis- lation, to insure that our promotion system is geared to satisfy the goals outlined above, and at the same time provide an equitable opportunity for advancement

for all of our outstanding officers.

Regarding retirement of permanent major generals, in principle no officer should be named to permanent major general after 30 years' service and, except in in- dividual cases where retention is considered to be in the best interests of the Army and Department of Defense, no permanent major general not selected for higher

rank should remain on active duty beyond completion of 5 years in the grade of

permanent major general and 35 years' service. The selection board for permanent major generals has already moved in this direction by selection of officers in

the year groups 1933, 1934, and 1935.

In addition to the foregoing considerations

'

it must be emphasized that the traditional attributes of the officer corps of the Army remain paramount. Among

other attributes, we are looking for a rocklike integrity of character—men who influence their environment more than they are influenced by it. This quality

must be accompanied by dedication to the highest standards of performance.

Second, we are looking for men who are innovators. In the rapidly moving

environment of the next few years, the quality of mental alertness and eagerness

to grasp new opportunities is absolutely necessary among the leaders of,the officer

corps.

Ages at time of promotion for those nominated for temporary brigadier general

on nomination reference No. 41, January 1963:

Number, by age of officers nominated for promotion to brigadier general, January 1963

Age at promotion: Number Age at promotion—Continued Number

58 11 45 11

54 1 2 2 44 10

52 11 43 3

50 2 42 1

48 7

49 47 Total 

46 4

I Medical Corps.

2 JAGC.

Number, by year groups

Year group: Number Year group—Continued Numbir

1933 2 1 1938 1

1934 1 1 1939 11

1935 1 1 1940 12

1936 11 1941 18

1937 3

Medical Corps.

I JAGC.

(Whereupon, at 3:30 p.m., the committee adjourned, subject to the

call of the Chair.)

0

tr,, 4