. Ar 613

N 221/ EXTENSION OF NAVY-MARINE CORPS

AUTHORITY AND TRAILER ALLOWANCE

t.,\4

"HUMP"

INCREASE

GOVERNMENT

Storage

HEARING

BEFORE THE

COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES

UNITED STATES SENATE

EIGHTY-EIGHTH CONGRESS

SECOND SESSION

ON

H.R. 10322

PROVIDING IMPROVED OPPORTUNITY FOR PROMOTION FOR

CERTAIN OFFICERS IN THE NAVAL SERVICE)

H.R. 8954

AUTHORIZING THE TRANSPORTATION OF HOUSE TRAILERS

AND MOBILE DWELLINGS OF MEMBERS OF THE UNIFORMED

SERVICES WITHIN THE CONTINENTAL UNITED STATES,

WITHIN ALASKA, OR BETWEEN THE CONTINENTAL UNITED

STATES AND ALASKA

JULY 9, 1964

rU

Printed for the use of the Committee on Armed Services

rg

w= N

cc 

ar-R

r-R

U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

35-791 WASHINGTON : 1964
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

II

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

CHARLES B. KIRBOW, Chief Clerk
CONTENTS

Statements:

Corcoran, Lt. Col. J. B., Directorate of Personnel Planning, Office of Page

Deputy Chief of Staff, Personnel, Headquarters, U.S. Air Force__ 21

Semmes, Vice Adm. B. J., Jr., Chief of Naval Personnel, U.S. Navy__ 2

Simpson, Brig. Gen. Ormond R., U.S. Marine Corps, Assistant Chief

of Staff, G-1, Headquarters, U.S. Marine Corps 7

UI

-AUG 9 0

1964

EXTENSION OF NAVY-MARINE CORPS "HUMP" AUTHORITY AND TRAILER ALLOWANCE INCREASE

H.R. 10322, To Provide Improved Opportunity for Promotion

for Certain Officers in the Naval Service

THURSDAY, JULY 9, 1964

U.S. SENATE,

COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES,

Washington, D.C.

The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:30 a.m. in room 212„

Old Senate Office Building.

Present: Senators Russell (chairman), Stennis, Symington, Thurmond, Young of Ohio, Inouye, Saltonstall, Smith, and Beall.

Also present: Charles B. Kirbow, chief clerk; Herbert S. Atkinson,

assistant chief clerk; T. Edward Braswell and Gordon A. Nease,

professional staff.

Chairman RUSSELL. The first item for this meeting is H.R. 10322,

which would extend from June 30, 1965, to June 30, 1970, the so-called

Navy-Marine Corps "hump" authority.

As the committee may recall, this legislation, enacted in 1959,

provides for the retirement of Regular officers in the grade of commander and captain, and Marine Corps equivalents, prior to their

normal retirement point in order to create vacancies and provide for

reasonable promotion opportunities for the younger officers in and

behind the World War II hump in the Navy and Marine Corps.

Both the Navy and Marine Corps do not plan to use the authority

for the grade of commander/lieutenant colonel and will apply it only to

the grade of 0-6, captain and colonel, between now and 1970. The

Navy is desirous of extending the legislation during this Congress,

rather than 1965, since promotion plans will be based in part on the

extension.

(H.R. 10322 follows:)

[H.R. 10322, 88th Cong., 2d sess.]

AN ACT To extend the provisions of the Act of August 11, 1959, Public Law 86-155, as amended (74 Stat.

396) to provide improved opportunity for promotion for certain officers in the naval service

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of

America in Congress assembled, That section 8 of the Act of August 11, 1959,

Public Law 86-155, as amended (74 Stat. 396), is amended by striking out "June

30, 1965" and inserting in place thereof "June 30, 1970".

Suc. 2. Section 3 of the Act of August 11, 1959, Public Law 86-155, as amended

(74 Stat. 396), is amended to read as follows: "Notwithstanding section 1431

of title 10, United States Code, a change or revocation of an election, an original

election, or a new election after a revocation of an election made under that

section by—

"(1) an officer who is retired under this Act; or

1

44
•

2 EXTENSION OF NAVY-MARINE CORPS "HUMP" AUTHORITY

"(2) an officer who has been considered but not recommended for continuation on the active list under this Act and who retires voluntarily before the

date specified for his retirement under this Act;

is effective if made at such a time that it would have been effective had he been

retired on the date prescribed by section 6376 or 6377 of title 10, United States

Code. However, an original election or a new election made after a revocation

is not effective unless made before the convening date of the board that considered

the officer for continuation."

Passed the House of Representatives June 22, 1964.

Attest: RALPH R. ROBERTS, Clerk.

Chairman RUSSELL. We have with us Vice Adm. B. J. Semmes,

Jr., Chief of Naval Personnel and Brig. Gen. 0. R. Simpson,

Assistant Chief of Staff, G-1, Marine Corps.

Admiral Semmes, will you have a seat, sir, and explain this bill to

us.

You may proceed, sir.

STATEMENT OF VICE ADM. B. J. SEMMES, JR., CHIEF, NAVAL

PERSONNEL, U.S. NAVY

Admiral SEMMES. Mr. Chairman and members of the committee,

I appreciate the opportunity of appearing before you today to discuss

the extension of the authority contained in Public Law 86-155,

which is providing improved opportunity for promotion for certain

officers in the naval service.

Although the problem for which continued relief is being sought is

of common origin for both the Navy and the Marine Corps, there are

factors such as differences in grade structure which require that we

take different approaches to the problem. I will address only the

Navy portion and General Simpson will speak for the Marine Corps.

The foundation for the "hump" problem was laid in the relatively

small pre-World War II Navy. In 1945 we had about 7,000 regular

officers on board, most of whom were commissioned in the years

preceding the war. The requirement was for about 25,000 Regular

officers to man our postwar fleet.

There were no officers to be had in any significant numbers senior

to the officers procured during the war years 1942-45 and none

junior. The manning of the fleet was an immediate problem. The

only solution was to retain relatively large numbers of these combat

trained officers. They have been our experienced backbone during

Korea and the cold war that has followed.

This group of officers came to be known as the "hump" because of

its disproportionate size relative to the officers ahead of and behind

them in our structure.

In order to illustrate the magnitude of this situation, in 1959 the

"hump" group officers were serving in the grades of commander and

lieutenant commander At this time we had a total of about 14,300

unrestricted line officers serving in the grades of captain, commander,

and lieutenant commander combined; this was our total inventory of

officers with 10 or more years of commissioned service.

Of this number about 9,700 or 68 percent were officers procured

during the 4-year period 1942-45.

In 1959 the progress of the "hump" through the grade structure

had stalled. The attrition points established by law provided no

reasonable combination of administratively decelerating the promotion
EXTENSION OF NAVY-MARINE CORPS "HUMP" AUTHORITY 3

flow or reducing the promotion opportunity that would permit the

"hump" to move further through the structure.

Based on an extensive study of the problem, the Navy developed a

10-year plan to spread the effects of the "hump" in a way that would

best meet the needs of the Navy and provide the most equitable

treatment to all the individuals concerned. The objectives of this

plan were to1. Provide an opportunity of about 45 percent to Regular

officers for promotion to the grade of captain.

2. Provide a flow rate such that the selection point to captain

would not move beyond the 22d year.

3. Not unduly penalize the year groups behind the "hump."

To realize these objectives, a combination of administrative actions within the law and legislative relief was required. Administratively, the selection points were retarded.

In the case of captain the selection point moved from the 18th to

the 22d year and the opportunity was lowered sharply for the "hump"

year groups. The authority contained in Public Law 86-155 enabled

us to noncontinue Regular officers in the grade of captain after they

had served 5 years in the grade and to noncontinue Regular officers

in the grade of commander at the point of their second failure of selection to the grade of captain.

The increased number of vacancies obtained in this manner was

the vehicle that has enabled the "hump" to move forward through the

structure. Year groups senior to the "hump" have provided these

vacancies in the grade of captain to date.

In 1966, and beyond, the "bump" groups themselves will be in the

continuation zone in the grade of captain. Through the use of noncontinuation authority we have made good progress toward our

planned goal. We have not reached it. We need renewal of the

authority to noncontinue officers for the full year period envisioned

in the original plan to achieve more than a partial solution to our

problem.

The need to noncontinue officers is under continuing review. It will

be used only so long and to the degree that there is a genuine need,

regardless of permissive authority.

The need to create vacancies by noncontinuing officers in the grade

of commander ceased in 1962 as the "hump" year groups had completely phased into this grade.

In the 3 years, 1960-62, there was a total of 897 commanders

noncontinued.

Chairman RUSSELL. Admiral, where did you get this word "noncontinued"?

Admiral SEMMES. The wording of the law, sir, is that we will continue a number of officers-65 percent.

Chairman RUSSELL. I hope this committee did not report out any

bill that used "noncontinued" for retire or dismiss. Is there a word

"noncontinue"?

Admiral SEMMES. No, sir; I am using that word as an expression to

describe the 35 percent that we were unable to continue.

Chairman RUSSELL. It makes it sound like the action was more

general, I suppose, than one of these other words.

Admiral SEMMES. We would hope for that.

Chairman RUSSELL. All right.
4 EXTENSION OF NAVY-MARINE CORPS "HUMP" AUTHORITY

Admiral SEMMES. In 1963 and 1964, although no commanders

were noncontinued to create vacancies, a very few were noncontinued

under the provision of law which provides for the separation of those

officers whose performance of duty would not warrant their retention

under any circumstances.

In the grade of captain we have noncontinued officers at a rate of

35 percent. This year we are reducing the percentage at 30 percent

as this will do the job. The Navy could stop noncontinuing officers

in the grade of captain now by increasing the number of captains on

board by a number that is equal to the number of captains that we

plan to noncontinue, a maximum of 448.

Although there is room under the legal ceiling, this would be

needlessly expensive in that we would be promoting and paying

officers for whom there is not a valid need.

Additionally, in abandoning our policy of promoting only that

number of officers who are required to fill service needs, we feel that

we would damage the prestige of the grade and lead to a poor progression of responsibility. With additional senior captains on board,

these officers would fill the more responsible jobs.

Without the noncontinuation authority approximately 40 percent

of our captains will be required to retire between June 1972 and

June 1973. Turnover of this magnitude is militarily unsound. The

officers who will be subjected to noncontinuation during the period

1966-69 are from year groups 1942 and 1943 who would normally

retire in 1972 and 1973. The early loss of these officers will permit

their replacement by younger officers who can gain experience and

minimize the disruptive effect of the turnover in the grade between

1972 and 1975.

Assuming our requirements do not rise, we presently foresee a need

to noncontinue officers in the grade of captain through fiscal year 1967,

in order to create sufficient vacancies to select the last of the "hump"

year groups, year group 1945, to the grade of captain in 1967 during

their 22d year of service.

Nonccintinuation will be necessary for 2 additional years, through

fiscal year 1969, to maintain the selection point to the grade of captain

at 22 years of commissioned service and to maintain the selection

opportunity at 44 percent. Selection at the 22d year and 44-percent

selection opportunity are considered minimal. If the authority is not

renewed we will be required to reduce the selection opportunity to

about 29 percent or to retard the selection point to the 24th year,

neither of which will alleviate the heavy turnover problem.

In summary, the Navy is requesting extension of the noncontinuation authority to manage officer personnel in furtherance of the plan

envisioned in the original request for legislative relief. This was and

is a 10-year plan. This authority will enable the Navy to maintain

a ceiling based on needs and significantly reduce the impact of the

loss of the "hump" year groups from the grade. Termination of the

authority in fiscal year 1965 will leave the Navy with our problem only

partially solved and require an inequitable distribution of the remainder of the problem. We vitally need noncontinuation authority

extended to effectively and equitably manage our captain grade.

The utilization of this legislative authority has been monitored very

closely to date. Let me assure you that we will continue to use it

only so long and to the degree that there is a genuine need.
EXTENSION OF NAVY-MARINE CORPS "HUMP" AUTHORITY 5

Finally, I would like to speak for the Navy in expressing our

gratitude to the Congress for the authority given to us in 1959 and

my sincere hope that in your wisdom you will see fit to extend this

authority.

Again, thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today

to present the Navy's position.

Chairman RUSSELL. Now, in 1959 you thought you could possibly

eliminate this hump in 5 years, did you not?

Admiral SEMMES. Mr. Chairman, I believe we thought we were

going to take 10 years but it was so far down the pike we didn't

really know how many voluntary retirements would come. It has

turned out to be a few but not enough, sir.

Chairman RUSSELL. All of these men will have had more than 20

years of active duty, will they not?

Admiral SEMMES. Yes, sir.

Chairman RUSSELL. Senator Saltonstall?

Senator SA LTONSTALL. The only question I have, Admiral, is what

would happen if we didn't extend it to 1970 but, say, had another

look-see at this in another 3 or 4 years.

Would it fail of its purpose?

Admiral SEMMES. Under the conditions which we are having

another look-see now, Senator Saltonstall, I believe this would be

acceptable to us. We honestly believe it is going to take until 1969,

but we would have no objection whatsoever, sir, if you thought

another look was necessary.

Senator SALTONSTALL. Thank you, sir.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Chairman RUSSELL. Senator Stennis?

Senator STENNIS. I have no questions.

Chairman RUSSELL. Senator Symington?

Senator SYMINGTON. How many officers were involved in the

beginning, Admiral?

Admiral SEMMES. Total officers, Senator Symington, were: 4,627

officers in the grade of captain who will come before these boards in

the 10-year run, of whom 1,495 will be retired, and 1,779 officers in

the grade of commander, of whom 910 will be retired.

Senator SYMINGTON. SO it is 1,400 and 900 or roughly 2,400?

Admiral SEMMES. That is correct, sir.

Senator SYMINGTON. How many are still involved?

Admiral SEMMES. Still involved after this year will be 1,493 captains, of whom about 448 will be retired, and no more commanders;

we have ceased noncontinuing commanders, we have cleaned that up.

Senator SYMINGTON. So you have, since 1959, reduced it from 2,400

to 347, is that correct?

Admiral SEMMES. Yes; to be retired. This is unrestricted line,

Senator, not staff corps. The total is 448.

Senator SYMINGTON. But the figures are comparable, are they?

Admiral SEMMES. Yes, sir.

Senator SYMINGTON. I have no further questions, Mr. Chairman.

Chairman RUSSELL. Senator Thurmond?

Senator THURMOND. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Admiral, the Navy has given this matter careful consideration and

they feel this is the only wise course to pursue?

815-791.-642
6 EXTENSION OF NAVY-MARINE CORPS "HUMP" AUTHORITY

Admiral SEMMES. Yes, sir. I think all the Naval officers support

Senator THURMOND. There is no objection to what you are asking

for?

Admiral SEMMES. I think those officers who have been noncontinued have been gravely disappointed, but I believe, as we went

forth with the proposal, that they supported it.

Senator THURMOND. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Chairman RUSSELL. Senator Beall?

Senator BEALL. I have no questions.

Chairman RUSSELL. Senator Young?

Senator YOUNG. I have no questions, Mr. Chairman.

Chairman RUSSELL. Senator Inouye?

Senator INOUYE. Nothing, sir.

Chairman RUSSELL. Admiral Semmes, as I recall during the critical

shortage of medical officers they were excluded from the bill.

Admiral SEMMES. That is correct, sir. Those are the health services.

Chairman RUSSELL. In 1959 the Navy announced that medical

officers would be given a 90 percent promotion opportunity to the

grade of commander and captain during the 5-year period of the bill.

Do we understand that the Navy is to continue that policy during

the life of this bill if it is enacted?

Admiral SEMMES. We intend to do that, yes, sir.

Chairman RUSSELL. This hump authority is a somewhat harsh application to personnel in the Navy and Marine Corps, the only services which have been willing to make this approach to carry over the

hump from year to year, but I believe over a 10-year period the

Marine Corps will retire about 935 officers; is that about right, General?

General SIMPSON. Yes, sir.

Chairman RUSSELL. And the Navy about 2,400?

Admiral SEMMES. That is correct, sir. The figures I gave to Senator Symington were the total problem, and it looks as though, well,

in our forecast, we will have to retire a total of 2,405, sir.

Chairman RUSSELL. Mandatory discontinuation?

Admiral SEMMES. That is right, sir.

Chairman RUSSELL. Of course, that has been necessary to keep an

equal number of young officers from being retired during nonselection.

They could not be selected because the billet just was not there, they

were filled by men in the hump. You only had the alternative of

pursuing this course or else of inflating the number of officers in this

grade..

Admiral SEMMES. That is correct, sir.

Chairman RUSSELL. If there is nothing further, General Simpson

is here to make a statement.

General, you may proceed to make your statement.

US
EXTENSION OF NAVY-MARINE CORPS "HUMP" AUTHORITY 7

STATEMENT OF BRIG. GEN. ORMOND R. SIMPSON, U.S. MARINE

CORPS, ASSISTANT CHIEF OF STAFF, G-1, HEADQUARTERS, U.S.

MARINE CORPS

General SIMPSON. Mr. Chairman, the Marine Corps appreciates

this opportunity to express our views to the Congress.

In 1959, we appeared before this committee to require legislation

to permit the Marine Corps to manage its officer strength.

The problem arose from the large number of officers commissioned

during the war years 1941-45 and who remained in the regular establishment in response to the needs of the country and the Corps

during the cold war years that have followed.

As a result, the Congress passed Public Law 86-155 which provided

us with the necessary tools to do our job.

At the time of our original appearance here, we asked for the legislation to be effective from 1960 through 1970. Our studies at the

time indicated that it would take 10 years to move this group of

officers, known as the "hump," through the officer structure.

This committee, while fully appreciative of the problems we were

attempting to solve, considered that the number of variables involved

precluded an accurate determination of the personnel situation

beyond a 6-year period.

In addition, the committee felt that the problem, as it related to

the grades of lieutenant colonel/commander would be solved by 1965.

Thus, a June 30, 1965, terminal date was established based on the

belief that this would provide a reasonable time for us to review our

situation and to request extension of the law if conditions warranted.

The original legislation gave the Marine Corps the authority to

involuntarily retire both lieutenant colonels and colonels who had

failed twice of selection. This was necessary to respond to the urgent

need for vacancies in the structure to allow a reasonable promotion

flow from below.

Had we not gained this authority, we would have had almost

complete stagnation in the officer promotion structure, and it would

have been necessary to impose attrition on officers whose worth to

the country had been proven in two wars.

The tools provided by the Congress have been effective over the

past years. Through the use of these and every administrative device

available to us, such as slowing promotions and increasing attrition,

we have been able to move the "hump" from the grade of major into

the grade of senior lieutenant colonel.

As anticipated by the committee, the problem has largely been

solved as far as promotion to lieutenant colonel is concerned. We do

not now anticipate that, in future years, it will be necessary to retire

lieutenant colonels short of the 26 years of service provided by the

Officer Personnel Act.

However, the problem still remains in moving lieutenant colonels to

the grade of colonel. During the next 5 years, we estimate that, in

order to have a reasonable promotion flow from below, it will be

necessary to move 500 lieutenant colonels through the promotion

point to colonel. Our studies indicate that during this period of

time we can anticipate some 200 vacancies from normal attrition.

Thus, we must have an additional 300 vacancies.
8 EXTENSION OF NAVY-MARINE CORPS "HUMP" AUTHORITY

The only possible source is to retire those colonels who have twice

failed of selection to brigadier general at the end of the year following

their second failure of selection. This progressive retirement action

will provide us with the needed 300 vacancies. It is this authority

which we are requesting today.

Given this authority, we can manage our officer structure in a

manner that will give reasonable career opportunities to these highly

motivated and highly talented officers. It will provide reasonable

promotion flow and thus adequate motivation for the officers coming

up the ladder. We propose to continue to use all the administrative

devices available to us.

The promotion point to brigadier general, for example, will during

this 5-year period, move from the current 24-to-25-year point up to

27 to 28.

Attrition in the selection of colonel to brigadier general will increase

from its current 87 percent to about 92 percent. These and other

actions within our administrative authority will be taken. But, in

themselves, they are not sufficient to solve the problem. This

proposed legislation is absolutely essential to any reasonable solution.

If this existing legislation is not extended, the Marine Corps will

face a serious and difficult problem. The two elements which almost

defy rational solution are these:

First, we will accumulate a very large number of twice passed over

colonels. This, in itself, is not a critical problem. But this group

will normally serve for a full 30 years.

Since they all came in at approximately the same time they will

complete their 30 years' service and leave the corps in approximately

1 year, in 1972.

At this point in time, over half of our colonels will leave the Marine

Corps. This is a management problem of the most critical dimensions.

It can be avoided by phasing them out progressively over this 5-year

period, 1966-70.

Of equal importance is the fact that, if these colonels remain on

duty, as most will, until they reach 30 years, promotion from below

will be almost completely blocked.

This fine group of lieutenant colonels now approaching and reaching

the promotion point will be assessed prohibitive attrition of at least

70 percent. These officers, I point out, have already been carefully

screened for several years through the zone of consideration process.

They represent the very finest talent available.

Even with the "hump" extension, 40 percent attrition will be

necessary. If, however, we assess 70 percent attrition on this group,

we cannot but believe that the combat efficiency of the Marine Corps

will be seriously affected.

The proposal before you is to extend the effective date of the

existing legislation for 5 years. Our current studies indicate that we

will not have to employ the provisions of the law as it affects the

early retirement of lieutenant colonels.

The Speaker letter contains estimates of the budget data of this

proposed extension. It is impossible to cost the alternative. We

believe, however, that, if the leOslation is not extended and stagnation

of promotion results, as it will; and if extremely high attrition is

placed on lieutenant colonels, as it must, there may be a very large

number of voluntary retirements among lieutenant colonels.
EXTENSION 014 NAVY-MARINE CORPS "HUMP" AUTHORITY 9

These, unfortunately, will be the people we can least afford to

lose because they will be the most able of our officers who, in desperation, turn away to some form of civilian pursuit to insure that they

can meet normal family obligations and educate their children.

There is, of course, no way of knowing what number will do this,

and, correspondingly no way of knowing the cost, just as there is no

way of putting a price tag on combat effectiveness of our corps.

So, while finite figures cannot be specified, it is entirely possible

that the overall long-term cost to the United States would be far

greater if the legislation is not extended than the costs which have

been estimated in the Speaker letter.

In summary, Mr. Chairman, we ask that this legislation be extended

for two primary purposes. They are:

(a) To avoid a circumstance in which half of our colonels will retire

in 1 year: and

(b) To avoid stagnation in promotions in the lower ranks and unacceptable attrition in the grade of lieutenant colonel.

Our request is to extend the effective date of Public Law 86-155

from the currently written June 30, 1965, to June 30, 1970. This,

in my judgment, is the most urgent current need of the Marine Corps

in the personnel field today.

We are grateful for the opportunity to explain our position and to

solicit your help. I will be glad to attempt to answer any questions

that you and members of the committee may have, Mr. Chairman.

Chairman RUSSELL. General, if a colonel is separated from active

duty service, is he eligible under the law to go into a Reserve unit?

General SIMPSON. A Regular officer, retired, sir?

Chairman RUSSELJ. Yes.

Suppose your boards discontinue him, and he is released from active

duty. Is he eligible to serve in the Reserve, Marine Corps Reserve?

General SIMPSON. No, sir. He can affiliate and operate with a

Reserve unit, sir, but if he is drawing retired pay, as are all of the

officers in question here who have 20 years of service, there isn't any

way that we could put him into the Reserve. We do have some

retired officers who as a matter of choice have chosen to affiliate with

the Reserve organizations in their community and to help, but he is

not a member of the Reserve. He is on the retired rolls of the Regular

Establishment. But we do have some people who do that.

Chairman RUSSELL. It would seem to me we should be able to

devise some means of keeping this reservoir of talent and ability

current by some kind of Reserve affiliation. I hadn't thought it

through, but it just occurred to me a minute ago.

It would require amendments, of course, to existing law if they

draw their retirement and are also in the Reserves, if they were in

the Active Reserves they would be building more retirement with

their service.

General SIMPSON. Yes, sir.

If they were doing it that would add additional years onto their

retirement.

Chairman RUSSELL. Senator Symington?

Senator SYMINGTON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

What number of officers did you have, General, when you asked

for this in the beginning?
10 EXTENSION OF NAVY-MARINE CORPS "HUMP" AUTHORITY

General SIMPSON. We had 3,069 in the hump, Senator Symington,

at the time we asked for this in 1959.

Senator SYMINGTON. 3,069. How many do you have now?

General SIMPSON. On the 1st of January of this year, of this same

group there were 2,321 left.

Senator SYMINGTON. Why has it been so much more difficult for

you to reduce them than it has been for the Navy. I am not just

asking in criticism, but I am trying to get the feeling 

General SIMPSON. I don't believe our figures are comparable because

I think the Admiral was giving you solely the figures for the grade of

captain.

Senator SYMINGTON. Captain and commanders.

General SIMPSON. Yes, sir. The totals I have here, are the hump

in 1959. This was in the grade largely of major and lieutenant

colonel, and as we move over to now, it is up in the grade of lieutenant

colonel and some in the area of colonel.

We have solved it, Senator Symington, as far as lieutenant colonel

is concerned; we are in good shape there. But it is in the area of

colonel that we have difficulty.

Senator SYMINGTON. If this law is approved by the committee—I

must say your presentation makes sense to me—how long do you think

it would take to appreciably reduce it?

General SIMPSON. Five years.

Senator SYMINGTON. You can do it in the next 5 years?

General SIMPSON. Yes, sir; by 1970 we will have it in good shape.

Senator SYMINGTON. I have no further questions, Mr. Chairman.

Chairman RUSSELL. Senator Young?

Senator YOUNG. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Just one question. General, on page 3 of your statement you say:

At this point in time over half of our colonels will leave the Marine Corps. This is

a management problem of the most critical dimensions.

That is a little unclear to me, can you just very briefly orient me.?

General SIMPSON. Yes, sir.

If this legislation were not extended we would have in the Marine

Corps, at this point in time about 620 colonels.

Now, of that number, 330, or over half of them, will be twice failing

and in 1 year's time that 330 will all retire. They will all reach their

30 years of service and they will all retire. What this would mean

would be that we lost half of our total colonel population in 1 year.

By saying management I mean we would have to replace these people

all over the world, where they were. We would have to bring lieutenant colonels up and we would not have been training them progressively to take over these new responsibilities.

In other words, you lose half of your people in 1 year. That is

what I meant by a management problem.

Senator YOUNG. I was just wondering whether it was a slight

exaggeration to use the term that this would be a problem of critical

dimensions. You Marines handle a lot worse problems than that.

General SIMPSON. Yes, sir; and we can handle this one, too.

Senator YOUNG. That is all I have, thank you.

Chairman RUSSELL. Thank you, gentlemen, very much.
EXTENSION OF NAVY-MARINE CORPS "HUMP" AUTHORITY 11

(Subsequently, in executive session, the committee voted to report

H.R. 10322, without amendment, as covered by S. Rept. 1190.)

INFORMATION FURNISHED BY THE NAVY WITH RESPECT TO THE

USE OF THE HUMP AUTHORITY FOR PROMOTION PLANS TO 1970

A. Statement on need for extension of Public Law 86-155 during 88th Congress.

B. Accumulation of commanders in the unrestricted line of the Navy in twicefailed status.

C. Promotion plan summary to the grade of captain.

D. Promotion plan summary to the grade of commander.

E. Number of additional vacancies created by the legislation.

F. Captain, noncontinuation summary.

G. Commander, noncontinuation summary.

H. Final selection opportunity of year groups.

I. Distribution by grade of naval officers on active duty.

J. Comparison of temporary rank to regular strength.

A. STATEMENT OF THE NAVY'S NEED FOR RENEWAL OF PUBLIC LAW 86-155 DURING

THE 88TH SESSION OF CONGRESS

The Navy's need for renewal of the noncontinuation authority during the

current session of Congress stems from both service and individual considerations.

From the service point of view, the continuation boards convened in July 1964

are the last ones that can be convened under the current authority. Assignment

patterns are keyed to the promotion plans and require long lead planning. Failure

to have the noncontinuation authority renewed will require major revisions to our

assignment plans concurrently with the reduction in selection opportunity and

retardation of the selection point. Timely assurance that the authority will be

renewed is vital to effective planning. Consideration by the next Congress would

not provide the desired leadtime.

We are currently preparing the budget estimates for fiscal year 1966. In that

the promotion plans are reflected in the budget estimate, a valid budget estimate

depends on valid assumptions in the continuation area.

From the individuals point of view, personal planning for these officers who will

be eligible for noncontinuation during the period of the proposed extension hinge

on the future of the authority. We feel that it is very important to these officers

to advise them at the earliest practicable time so that they can accordingly adjust

their personal lives.

B. ACCUMULATION OF COMMANDERS IN THE UNRESTRICTED LINE OF THE NAVY IN

TWICE-FAILED STATUS

Estimated Estimated

total number total twice- Percent of

of U.S. Navy failed of selec- total

Begin fiscal year— commanders tion U.S. U.S. Navy

on active Navy twice-failed

duty beginning fiscal

year

commanders

beginning

fiscal year

of selection

1960 1 4, 359 '231 1 5. 3

1961 14

'

155 1 229 1 5, 5

1962 '4317 1 399 1 9. 3

1963 1 4, 280 '433 1 10. 1

1964 1 4, 419 1 573 1 13. 0

1965 4, 586 759 16.6

1966 4,648 945 20.3

1967 4, 721 1,168 24.7

1968 4,751 1,155 24.3

1969 4, 767 883 18.5

1970 4,721 782 16.6

Actual.
C. PROMOTION PLAN SUMMARY TO THE GRADE OF CAPTAIN (URL)

(a) Fiscal year _ 

(b) Year group 

(c) Years service total (at selection promotion) (d) Years service in fiscal year actually promoted _ _ (ei) Years service in grade Overall selection opportunity, percent (q) USN selection (predicted), percent (h) USNR selection (predicted), precent (i) USNT selection (predicted), percent (j) USN in zone 

Naval Academy 

Other, USN 

(k) USNR in zone 

(I) USNT in zone 

(m) Total predicted selections 

1959 1960 1961 1962 1963 1964 1965 1966 1967 1968 1969 1970

44-1 44-2 45-2 40-2, 41 42-1 42-2 42-3 43-1 43-2 44-2

1

45-1 46 } 46, 47 47, 48 48, 49

45-2

18-19 18 19 20 20 21 21 21 21-22 21-22 21-22 20-22 18-19 18 19 20 20 21 21 21 21-22 21-22 21-22 20-22 6-8 6-7 7 7-8 6-8 6-7 5-6 6 5-6 5-6 5-6 5-6

1 45. 7 1 42. 4 1 42. 2 1 40. 5 1 39. 6 1 44. 0 2 44. 0 2 44. 0 2 44. 0 2440 2440 2 44. 0

1 46. 5 '44. 6 '44. 7 1 43. 7 1 44. 0 '46. 9 46. 9 45. 7 44. 7 45. 1 45. 1 44. 1 '18. 8 1 10. 0 1 5. 1 1 23. 5 '8. 6 1 18. 6 14 14 14 14 14 14

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

1 707 1 644 1 633 1 607 1 586 1 588 799 481 533 618 617 408

1 357 1 17 1 254 1 220 1 51 1 278 137 135 211 166 144 180 '350 1 627 1 379 '387 1 535 '310 662 346 322 452 473 228

'16 1 40 1 39 '34 '70 '43 12 8 6 9 17 2 14 '2 '3 133 1 11 '15 46 13 4 10 3 0

1 332 '291 1 285 1 273 '264 1 284 377 221 239 280 280 180

I Actual.

2 Predicted maximum. NOTE.—The 45 percent opportunity for the Regulars is contingent upon renewal of H.R. 4413. Without this legislation, the maximum opportunity for the USN Regulars to make the grade of captain will be about 29 percent.

EXTENSION OF NAVY-MARINE CORPS "HUMP" AUTHORITY 
D. PROMOTION PLAN SUMMARY TO THE GRADE OF COMMANDER (URL)

(a) Fiscal year 

(b) Year group 

(c) Years service total (at selection promotion) 

(d) Years service in fiscal year actually promoted 

(e) Years service in grade 

(f) Overall selection opportunity, percent 

(g) USN selection (predicted), percent 

(h) USNR selection (predicted), percent 

(i) USNT selection (predicted), percent 

(j) USN in zone 

Naval Academy 

Other USN 

(k) USNR in zone 

(I) USNT in zone 

(m) Total predicted selections 

1960 1961 1962 1963 1964 1965 1966 1967 1968 1969 1970

{ 5411 13 45-2 1 46 47 48, 49 49, 50 50, 51, 52 52 52, 53, 54 54 54, 55

15-16 16 16 16 15-16 15-16 14-16 15 14-16 15 15-16

15-16 16 16 16 15-16 15-16 14-16 15 14-16 15 15-16

4-5 4-5 5 5 5 5-6 5-6 5 5-6 5 5-6

1 43. 9 1 58. 2 1 70. 0 1 75. 0 1 75 2 75 2 75 2 75 2 75 2 75 2 75

1 58. 6 1 67. 1 1 81. 8 1 74. 2 1 75. 4 75 75 75 75 75 75

1 3. 5 1 12. 8 1 8.5 1 84.6 1 57. 1 75 75 75 75 75 75

1 4. 1 1 14. 6 1 18. 2 1 94. 6 57. 1 75 75 75 75 75 75

1 1, 020 1 916 1 781 1 761 1 904 868 777 725 1, 075 951 736

1 367 1 328 1 227 1 148 1 293 240 301 254 429 246 152

1 653 1 588 1 554 1 613 1 611 628 476 471 646 705 584

1 205 1 102 1 94 1 26 1 7 13 16 5 12 68 42

1 173 1 82 1 66 1 17 1 14 15 2 2 1 24 1

1 613 1 640 1 659 1 603 1 694 672 596 549 816 782 584

I Actual. Predicted maximum.
14 EXTENSION OF NAVY-MARINE CORPS "HUMP" Au 1.H.ORITY

E. FOR THE NAVY, THE BILL IF EXTENDED AN ADDITIONAL 5 YEARS UNTIL FISCAL YEAR

1970 WOULD PERMIT IN THE UNRESTRICTED LINE A TOTAL OF 1792 VACANCIES

DURING THE LIFE OF THE BILL

Fiscal year 1960-65 1 1966-70 2 Total

Grade of captain 756 347 1, 103 Grade of commander 3 664 0 664

Total 1,420 347 1, 767

1 Actual.

2 Projected.

Noncontinuation discontinued in fiscal year 1963 and for the foreseeable future in the grade of commander

except for those officers whose performance of duty would not warrant retention on the active list under

any circumstances.

F. CAPTAIN NONCONTINUATION SUMMARY

Fiscal year Year

group

Total cornmissioned

service at

retirement

All groups,

percent

noncontinued

'URL numher noncontinued

Total

URL

All other Grand

total

1960 1931 29 35 1 59

1932 28 35 1 57

1933 27 35 1 50

1934 26 35 1 70

1 236 1 60 '296 1961 1935 26 35 1 63

1936 25 35 1 42

'105 '40 '145 1962 1937 25 35 1 40

1938 24 35 1 113

1 153 '38 '191 1963 1939 24 35 1 90

190 '67 '157 1965 2 1939 26 30 '4

1940 25 30 3 43

1941 24 30 '37

'84 '50 '134

1965 1941 24 30 8 3

1942-1 23 30 3 85

'88 252 '140

1966 1942-2 24 30 $ 92 '92 3 19 '111

1967 1942-3 25 30 386 '86 $ 25 3 111

1968 1943-1 25 30 382 '82 $ 30 $ 112

1969 1943-2 26 30 '87 '87 '27 3 114

Total 1, 103 '1, 103 '408 3 1, 511

'Actual.

2 Fiscal year 1964 group whose continuation was postponed until 1965.

Predicted maximum.
EXTENSION OF NAVY-MARINE CORPS "HUMP" AUTHORITY 15

G. COMMANDER NONCONTINUATION SUMMARY'

Total All groups

Fiscal year Year group commissioned

service at

retirement

(percent)

noncontinued

URL number

noncontinued

All other Grand total

1960 1935-39 3 23 188 123 311

1940 20 71. 6 94 8 102

1941 19 114 56 170

1961 1942-1 19 33.4 143 45 188

1962 1942-2 20 31. 1 112 14 126

1963 2 1942-3 21 1.4 5 0 5

1964.. 1943-1 21 1.8 8 0 8

1 Actual.

Noncontinuation discontinued this year and for the foreseeable future except for those officers whose

performance of duty would not warrant retention on the active list under any circumstances.

Average.

H. NAVY (PERCENT)

Year group To

captain

To

commander

Year group To

captain

To

commander

1930 99. 5 (I) 1938 83.8 ()1

1931 99.0 (9 1939 68. 1 98.0

1932 96. 2 (I) 1940 56. 1 94.0

1933 96. 0 (9 1941 2 56. 1 90.0

1934 93. 0 (1) 1942 2 45. 0 85. 1

1935 91.7 (9 1943 2 37.9 89.6

1936 95.9 (9 1944 65.6

1937 90.0 (9 1945 2593

I No statistics available. Promotion by ALNAV, no less than 98 percent of officers were promoted to

commander.

2 Total selections to date.
I. DISTRIBUTION BY GRADE OF NAVAL OFFICERS ON ACTIVE DUTY

Unrestricted line (Jan. 1, 1964) Total restricted line and staff corps (Jan. 1, 1964)

Total by

status

Percent of

grade by

status

Total by

grade

Percent of

total by

grade

Number

allowed by

OGLA

OGLA

percent of

total

Total by

status

Percent of

grade by

status

Total of

grade

Percent of

total by

grade

Overall

total in

grade

Overall

percent

tear admiral 217 0.42 230 0. 44 70 0. 37 287 0. 41 3aptain 2,257 4.34 2,835 5.45 1,877 9.91 4,134 5.82 USN 2,230 98. 8 1, 793 95. 5 

USNR 27 1.2 84 4.5 

USNT 0 0 0 0 

Dommander ' 

USN 4,620 93.4 

4, 943 9. 50 5,359 10. 30 

2, 121 90. 1 

2,354 12. 43 7,297 10. 28

USNR 206 4.2 221 9.4 

USNT 117 2.4 12 .5 Lieutenant commander' 7,359 14. 14 8,951 17.21 3,884 20. 50 11,243 15.84 USN 6,347 86.2 3,314 85.3 

USNR 674 9.2 568 14.6 

USNT 338 4.6 2 .1 

Lieutenant 12,929 24. 84 6,478 34. 20 19,407 27. 34 USN 7, 707 59. 6 3,402 52. 5 USNR 2,617 20.2 2, 801 43.2 USNT 2,605 20. 2 275 4.3 

Lieutenant junior grade and

ensign' 24,337 46.76 4, 280 22. 59 28,617 40.31 USN 5,822 23.9 884 20.7 

USNR 14,812 60.9 2,865 66. 9 USNT 3,703 15.2 531 12. 4 

Total, USN' 26,943 51.8 11, 584 61. 2 38,527 54.3 Total, USNR 18,336 35. 2 6, 539 34. 5 24,875 35.0 Total, USNT' 6,768 13.0 820 4.3 7,583 10. 7

Grand total 52,042 100. 0 18, 943 100. 0 70,985 100.0

'Limited duty officers part of count.
EXTENSION OF NAVY-MARINE CORPS "HUMP" AUTHORITY 17

J. REGULAR NAVAL OFFICERS—COMPARISON OF TEMPORARY RANK TO REGULAR

STRENGTH (JAN. 1, 1964)

Grade

Rear admiral 

Captain 

Commander 

Lieutenant commander 

Lieutenant 

Lieutenant (junior grade) and

ensign 

Total 

URL RL and staff corps Total lineal list

Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent

USN 1 USN

In grade

USN 1 USN

in grade

USN 1 USN

in grade

217 0.80 70 0.60 287 0.74

2,230 8. 28 1,793 15.48 4,023 10.44

4,620 17. 15 2, 121 18.31 6,741 17.50

6,347 23.56 3,314 28.61 9,661 25.08

7,707 28.60 3. 402 29.37 11, 109 28.83

5,822 21.61 884 7.63 6, 706 17.41

26,943 100.00 11, 584 100.00 38, 527 100.00

1 Limited duty officer count mcluded in totals.

INFORMATION FURNISHED BY THE MARINE CORPS WITH RESPECT

TO THE USE OF THE HUMP AUTHORITY FOR PROMOTION PLANS

TO 1970

A. Promotion plan summary to grade of colonel.

B. Colonel, noncontinuation summary.

C. Lieutenant colonel, noncontinuation summary.

D. Distribution by grade of Marine Corps officers on active duty, January 1,

1964, parts I and II.

E. Comparison of temporary rank to regular strength, January 1, 1964.

A. PROMOTION PLAN SUMMARY TO THE GRADE OF COLONEL (MARINE CORPS)

Fiscal year

1965 1966 1967 1968 1969 1970

Year group 1943 1943-44 1943-44 1943-45 1944-46 1946-48

Total commissioned service (years) 22 22-23 23-24 23-25 23-25 22-24

Time in grade 7 6 5.5 5 5 5

Percent opportunity 52 59 59 59 59 59

Predicted vacancies 120 108 122 115 115 93

Zone 230 183 206 195 195 157

TO LIEUTENANT COLONEL

Year group 1946-48 1949-50 1951 1952 1952-53 1953

Total commissioned service (years) 17-19 16-17 16 16 16-17 17

Time in grade 7. 5 6 6 6 6 6

Percent opportunity 75 75 75 75 75 75

Predicted vacancies 188 255 227 223 377 271

Zone 250 340 303 297 503 361
18 EXTENSION OF NAVY-MARINE CORPS "HUMP" Au itiORITY

B. COLONEL, NONCONTINUATION SUMMARY

End of fiscal year

1960' 

1961 3 

1962 

1963' 

1964 2 

1963 2 

1966 3 

1967 1 

1988'

1969 3

1970 3

Total 

Year group

Total

commissioned

service at

retirement

Percent

of noncontinued

Number

of noncontinued 1

Total per

fiscal year

31 29 83 10 60

32 28 88 14 

33 27 60 3 

34 26 100 11 

35 25 82 9 

36 24 57 13 

36 25 83 19 26

37 24 78 7 

37 25 81 26 26

37 26 100 21 30

38 25 100 9 

38 28 100 21 30

39 25 100 9 

39 26 100 19 68

40 25 100 49 

41 25 100 54 54

41 26 100 17 54

42 25 100 37 

42 26 100 73 73

42 27 100 83 83

42 28 100 50 62

43 27 100 12 

566

I All officers retired will have twice failed of selection.

2 Actual.

3 Estimated.

C. LIEUTENANT COLONEL, NONCONTINUATION SUMMARY

End of fiscal year Year group

Total

commissioned

service at

retirement

Percent

of noncontinued

Number

of noncontinued 1

Total per

fiscal year

1960 2 36 24 100 7 130

37 23 100 6 

38 22 100 3 

39 21 100 9 

40 20 100 20 

41 20 100 43 

42 20 100 42 

1961' 42 20 100 89 89

1962 2 42 20 91 31 31

1963' 42 21 100 45 45

1964 2 42 22 100 74 74

1965' 43 26 0 0 0

1966' 43 26 0 0 0

1967' 43 26 0 0 0

44 26 0 0 0

1968' 43 26 0 0 0

44 26 0 0 0

1969 3 43 26 0 0 0

44 26 0 0 0

45 26 0 0 0

46 26 0 0 0

1970' 44 26 0 0 0

45 26 0 0 0

46 26 0 0 0

Total 369

1 All officers retired will have twice failed selection.

'Actual.

'Estimated.
4

EXTENSION OF NAVY-MARINE CORPS "HUMP" AUTHORITY 19

D. DISTRIBUTION BY GRADE OF MARINE CORPS OFFICERS ON ACTIVE DUTY

Pt. I. Unrestricted and limited duty officers (Jan. 1, 1964)

Brigadier general and above

Colonel 

USMC 

USMCR 

USMCT 

Lieutenant colonel 

USMC 

USMCR 

USMCT 

Major 

USMC 

USMCR 

USMCT 

Captain 

USMC 

USMCR 

USMCT 

Lieutenant 

USMC 

USMCR 

USMOT 

Total:

USMC 

USMCR 

USMCT _ 

Total

Total by

status

Percentage

of grade

by status

Total by

grade

Percentage

of total

by grade

Number

allowed

by 0 GLA

0 GLA

percentage

of total

60 0.38 60 0.38

597 3.83 680 4.36

594 99.5 

3 0.5 

0 0 

1,381 8.86 1,398 8.97

1,377 99.7 

4 0.3 

0 0 

2, 489 15. 97 2, 738 17. 56

2,119 85.1 

345 13.9 

25 1.0 

3,969 25.46 

2,833 71.4 

1,062 26.7 

74 L9 

7,092 45.50 

2,308 32.8 

4,782 67.4 

2 o 

9,231 59.4 

6, 196 39. 9 

101 0.7 

15,528 100.0 15,588 

Pt. II. Women officers and Reserves women Reserve program

Total by

status

Percentage

of grade

by status

Total by

grade

Percentage

of total

by grade

Overall

total in

grade

Overall

percentage

Brigadier general and above_ 0 60 0.38

Colonel 6 3. 51 603 3.83

USMC 1 16.7 

USMCR 5 83.3 

USMCT 0 0 

Lieutenant colonel_ 43 25. 15 1,424 9.04

USMC 8 18.6 

USMCR 35 81.4 

USMCT 0 0 

Major 22 12.87 2,511 15.93

USMC 17 77.3 

USMCR 5 22.7 

USMCT 0 0 

Captain 24 14.03 3,993 25.34

USMC 23 95.8 

USMCR 1 4.2 

USMCT _ 0 0 

Lieutenant 76 44.44 7, 168 45.48

USMC 33 43.4 

USMCR 43 56.6 

USMCT o o 

Total:

USMC 82 

USMCR 89 

USMCT _ 0 

Total 171 

Grand total 15, 759 
20 TRAILER ALLOWANCE INCREASE

E. REGULAR MARINE CORPS OFFICERS—COMPARISON OF TEMPORARY RANK TO

REGULAR STRENGTH (JAN. I, 1964)

Grade

Brigadier general and above

Colonel 

Lieutenant colonel 

Major 

Captain 

Lieutenant 

Total 

Unrestricted and limited

duty officer

Women marines Total

USMC Percentage

in grade

USMC Percentage

in grade

USMC Percentage

in grade

60 0.65 60 0.64

594 6.39 1 1.22 595 6.35

1,377 14.82 8 9.76 1,385 14.78

2,119 22.81 17 20.73 2,136 22.79

2,833 30.49 23 28.05 2,856 30.47

2,308 24.84 33 40.24 2,341 24.97

9,291 100.00 82 100.00 9,373 100.00

H.R. 8954, Authorizing the Transportation of House Trailers

and Mobile Dwellings of Members of the Uniformed Services

Within the Continental United States, Within Alaska, or

Between the Continental United States and Alaska

Chairman RUSSELL. We will not proceed to consideration of H.R.

8954. This bill has to do with the allowances made to reimburse

traveling expenses where travel is made by trailers. The House bill

provides the only ceiling would be that which the military person

would receive for the movement of his household effects. In addition,

this bill provides for reimbursement for trailer movements to Alaska.

Existing law provides for movements within the continental United

States.

(H.R. 8954 follows:)

[H.R. 8954, 88th Cong., 2d sess.]

AN ACT To amend section 409 of title 37, United States Code, to authorize the transportation of house

trailers and mobile dwellings of members of the uniformed services within the continental United States,

within Alaska, or between the continental United States and Alaska, and for other purposes

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of

America in Congress assembled, That section 409 of title 37, United States Code, is

amended to read as follows:

"§ 409. Travel and transportation allowances: trailers

"Under regulations prescribed by the Secretaries concerned and in place of the

transportation of baggage and household effects or payment of a dislocation

Allowance, a member, or in the case of his death his dependent, who would otherwise be entitled to transportation of baggage and household effects under section

406 of this title, may transport a house trailer or mobile dwelling within the

continental United States, within Alaska, or between the continental United

States and Alaska, for use as a residence by one of the following means—

"(1) transport the trailer or dwelling and receive a monetary allowance

in place of transportation at a rate to be prescribed by the Secretaries concerned, but not more than 20 cents a mile;

"(2) deliver the trailer or dwelling to an agent of the United States for

transportation by the United States or by commercial means; or

"(3) transport the trailer or dwelling by commercial means and be reimbursed by the United States, including the payment of necessary tolls,

charges, and permit fees.

However, the cost of transportation under clause (2), or the reimbursement

under clause (3), may not exceed the cost of transporting the maximum weight

allowance of baggage and household effects prescribed by the Secretaries concerned for a member of his pay grade, or the cost of transporting the baggage

and household effects of his dependent, plus an amount equal to the dislocation

allowance authorized in section 407 of this title. Any payment authorized by
TRAILER ALLOWANCE INCREASE 21

this section may be made in advance of the transportation concerned. For the

purposes of this section 'continental United States' means the 48 contiguous

States and the District of Columbia."

Passed the House of Representatives June 22, 1964.

Attest: RALPH R. ROBERTS, Clerk.

Senator RUSSELL. The officer testifying in behalf of this bill will be

Lt. Col. J. B. Corcoran, Director of Personnel Planning, Office Deputy

Chief of Staff.

You may proceed.

STATEMENT OF LT. COL. J. B. CORCORAN, DIRECTORATE OF

PERSONNEL PLANNING, OFFICE, DEPUTY CHIEF OF STAFF,

PERSONNEL, HEADQUARTERS, U.S. AIR FORCE

Colonel CORCORAN. Thank you.

Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, I am Lt. Col. J. B.

Corcoran, of the Directorate of Personnel Planning, Headquarters,

U.S. Air Force. It is a privilege for me to appear before you today to

express the support of the Department of Defense for the provisions

of H.R. 8954.

This bill would expand present authority for shipment of trailers

by members of the uniformed services. The specific changes would

allow payment for movement of a trailer not to exceed the cost of

shipping the member's authorized weight allowance; authorize shipment from the contiguous 48 States to Alaska and within Alaska;

and allow the use of Government transportation to ship trailers as

required.

Under current law reimbursement is limited to current average costs

for commercial movement or the cost of moving household goods plus

the dislocation allowance of 36 cents per mile.

This has the practical effect of limiting the payment to 36 cents per

mile. This amount is quite inadequate for transportation of all but

the very small trailers. The changes proposed in this bill would

provide adequate reimbursement and equal treatment with the member who has his household goods shipped (within prescribed limits)

at Government expense.

There is no present authority for movement of trailers to Alaska

or within Alaska. However, because of the critical housing shortage

near bases in Alaska, many members turn to trailers as the only

means to obtain suitable housing. Many trailer owners who are

transferred to Alaska move the trailer at great personal expense to

keep their families together in the only suitable housing available.

There is considerable inequity in the reimbursement allowed to

trailer owners under present legislation. The inequity is highlighted

when civilian employees and military personnel serve in the same

locations since civilian employees are authorized actual cost of

commercial transportation not to exceed the cost of moving household

goods. This authority also applies to moves to Alaska and within

Alaska.

A change is also included in this bill which would authorize shipment

by the Government as well as by commercial means. This will

permit movement by Government vessel to places which are inaccessible by highway, such as Adak and Kodiak, Alaska.

A
•

22 TRAILER ALLOWANCE INCREASE

The Department of Defense fully supports this legislation in the

interests of equity to those who either prefer to or must live in trailers.

If this legislation is enacted, it is estimated that it will result in

additional annual cost of: Air Force $561,000; Army, $435,000;

Navy, $250,000; and Marine Corps, negligible.

No provision has been made for this sum in the budget for fiscal

year 1965 and it cannot be absorbed with available appropriations.

This completes my prepared statement. I shall be happy to attempt to answer any questions the committee may have.

Chairman RUSSELL. Colonel, who made the study that resulted in

the finding that this amount of $250,000 couldn't be absorbed in the

Navy's appropriation of several billion dollars?

Colonel CORCORAN. Sir, that figure to the best of my lmowledgeand

belief came from the budget when preparing the legislation.

Chairman RUSSELL. It came from the budget?

Colonel CORCORAN. Yes, sir.

In other words we had. not included that in the budget, sir, to the

best of my knowledge and information.

Chairman RUSSELL. We hear every day that they save $3 and $4

billion down there at the Department of Defense. It seems to me

they ought to be able to absorb these very small sums in these vast

appropriations. They just announced a saving of $2% billion the day

before yesterday.

Colonel CORCORAN. Yes, sir; I read that in the paper.

Senator SYMINGTON. As against an estimate of 1% billion.

Chairman RUSSELL. This is less than $1,200,000. Well, that is the

old, I will say Army game, inasmuch as you are the Air Force.

[Laughter.] Save it whenever they want to, but they can't find a

nickel anywhere on earth when they don't want to.

In 1961 this same legislation passed the House. Both times this

legislation came over from the other body without any effective

ceiling. I don't like to have an unlimited item here with no ceiling

whatever and there is a ceiling under the present law.

Colonel CORCORAN. Yes, sir; in practical effect of 36 cents, sir.

Chairman RUSSELL. Have you made a study to arrive at a new

average in view of the increasing costs?

Colonel CORCORAN. Sir, the Transportation and Per Diem Committee of the Department of Defense did make a study, and the

average of the number of vouchers they had which were 1956 vouchers

for transportation of house trailers and Government bills of lading

between September 1963 and January 1964 was approximately 50

cents.

This was the average they came out with in the study they made, sir..

Chairman RUSSELL. 51 cents average?

Colonel CORCORAN. Yes, sir.

Chairman RUSSELL. Senator Saltonstall?

Senator SALTONSTALL. I have no questions.

Chairman RUSSELL. Senator Symington?

Senator SYMINGTON. I have no questions, Mr. Chairman.

Chairman RUSSELL. Senator Smith?

Senator SMITH. No questions.

Chairman RUSSELL. Senator Young?

Senator YOUNG. No questions.

Chairman RUSSELL. Thank you, Colonel.

Just one moment.
TRAILER ALLOWANCE INCREASE 23

Colonel CORCORAN. Yes, sir.

Chairman RUSSELL. You referred to the very high transportation

costs on moving a trailer to Alaska. I have some information on a

notation before me that it costs about 81,189 to move a trailer from

Anchorage to Seattle and from San Antonio 82,045, and from Fort

Bragg 82,166. These are very high one-way costs.

Would it be cheaper, or would it be feasible, for the Government

to purchase trailers and leave them there rather than to pay this

cost of hauling them back and forth?

Colonel CORCORAN. Well, sir, it has been a DOD policy that all

trailers will be considered inadequate housing, and as such they would

prefer not to buy any trailers at all, sir.

They do have trailers sir. They have about 2,000 overseas.

Chairman RUSSELL. 'Yes, sir.

Colonel CORCORAN. However, these trailers are all considered inadequate, sir, and as such the individual gets his BOQ and pays a fair

rental for it, sir.

Chairman RUSSELL. In other words, a man who is living in a trailer

in Avion, France—I believe they have a large number in the Air base

there—gets a payment for quarters even though he is living in a

trailer?

Colonel CORCORAN. Yes, sir, he does, but he is required to pay a

fair rental on the trailers because the trailers have been declared

inadequate.

Chairman RUSSELL. They didn't think they were inadequate when

they first got them there. They were nearly jumping up and down

and cheering when they brought the first one in there. I happened

to be over there at that time.

Colonel CORCORAN. Yes, sir, it was my understanding it did help

out quite a bit in places like down at Wheelus in Libya.

Chairman RUSSELL. I think we bought them in Belgium and the

Belgians fabricated these particular trailers.

Senator SALTONSTALL. Mr. Chairman, may I ask one question?

Chairman RUSSELL. Yes.

Senator SALTONSTALL. Colonel, you say this additional cost cannot be absorbed within the available appropriations.

On what do you base that?

Chairman RUSSELL. I asked him that.

Senator SALTONSTALL. I beg your pardon. I understand that the

chairman in his own inimitable way asked you the question.

Chairman RUSSELL. I don't know whether I enjoyed that compliment or not. [Laughter.]

Any further questions?

Thank you Colonel.

Colonel CORCORAN. Mr. Chairman, I would like to make a statement in reference to your question concerning the average cost of

the trailer. The Per Diem Committee also made a study of these

approximately 1,924, and the average cost of 51 cents would have

taken care of 1,234 of these people.

In other words, roughly 64 percent.

Chairman RUSSELL. It would have also assisted all the others

very substantially, would it not?

Colonel CORCORAN. Well, not to the extent of them saving money,

sir. In other words, they get the actual—
24 TRAILER ALLOWANCE INCREASE

Chairman RUSSELL. I don't mean they would save money, but they

would at least save the difference between the 36 cents and the 51

cents.

Colonel CORCORAN. Yes, sir.

Chairman RUSSELL. In other words, their losses would be lessened

by that much.

Colonel CORCORAN. Yes, sir.

The survey also showed that approximately 93 percent of these

1,900 plus people had out-of-pocket costs under the 36 cents.

Chairman RUSSELL. If we did not have some the bill wouldn't

be here increasing it to 51 cents. If they were getting along all right

on 36 cents I assume this bill would not have been sent up here.

Colonel CORCORAN. NO, Sir.

Chairman RUSSELL. Any further questions?

If not, the committee will now go into executive session and we will

have to ask our guests to leave the rocm.

(Whereupon, at 11:10 a.m., the committee recessed to go into

executive session.)

(Subsequently, in executive session, the committee voted to report

H.R. 8954, with an amendment, as covered by S. Rept. 1189.)

0-