Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1919-12-24
ADMIRAL SIMS LETTER.

ADMIRAL SIMS LIE u En-
From: Rear Admiral William S.
Sims. L. S. Navy.
To: The Secretary of the Navy.
Subject: Award of Decorations.
]. As the former commanding Of
ficer of the United States naval
forces in European waters. it be-
comes my duty to invite your at
tention to certain features of the
list of awards to naval officers.
published in the annual report of
the Secretary OF the Navy, Appen-
dix |. in so TAR as concerns the Of
ficers whom ! had the honor to
command during the great war.
2. This becomes my duty because
this list contains a number of in
stances of injustice to distinguish
ed officers. the effect of which upon
the morale of the service cannot
fail to be very detrimental. The in
justice lies not in the number of
awards made. but in the fact that
the awards as issued to officers in
number of instances are not In &C
cord with the relative merit to the
services performed by them as indl-
Gated by my recommendations. Or
ficers who were recommended Tor
the highest awards appear on the
awards and vice-versa.
5. This must necessarily result in
serious discomfort and sense OF
injustice. because there can neces-
sarily be no better judge of the
relative merits of the services of a
number of officers than the respon-
sible commanding officer of the or
ganiZation in which they are Serv-
ing.
T. In fact. il must always he i'm
possible for "a board or any other
outside authority so to modify the
estimate of relative merit OF the
services of officers in an organiZa-
ton. as made by their Immediate
and active superior in command.
without infjicting actual injustice
and this necessarily defeats the
whole object of instituting a sys-
tenn of awards for merit in time OF
war.
cites Own Recommendations
D An example of the injustice
resulting from a failure to be
guided by such recommendations
is shown by the action taken upon
the citations for awards of the Of
ncers of my staff abroad that were
made in my letter to the depart
ment of November I. 1919. In
explanation of the Importance of
the services of these officers. l
stated as follows: "All individual
duties afioat are necessarily of
secondary Importance in comparl-
son with the vital Importance OF
directing all operations. both
ashore and afiost. in such man.
ner as to insure the success of the
whole. This success as whole
was due to the work of these men.
To each was given the responsible
ity and authority in his own de-
partment essential to success in
any large organization, and they
exercised this responsibility with
practically no direction from me
and to them belongs the credit.
g. OF the nineteen officers recon-
mended in that letter for the dis
tinguiShed service medal only six
were accorded this decoration. and
the remainder were accorded the
Navy cross.
T. Not only were the recon-
mendations not complied with in
thirteen of these cases, but-and
this is the gist of the matter-a
number of officers in the command
whose services were relatively of
less Importance. and much less in
responsibility. were accorded the
highest award
S. This seems to be due to an
erroneous opinion as to the rela-
certain vitaIly important positions
ashore-an opinion that duty in
the latter positions must neces-
sarily be the least distinguished.
Planning Most Important.
g. This is so serious a misappre-
hension that the action of the de-
partment in awarding distinctions
should be such as to have the effect
of clearly impressing upon the serv-
ice, without possibility of misunder-
standing. that the most important
duty in time of war is that of PLAN
ming and directing the military OPP
erations of the whole force-that is.
the function of superior leadership.
The vital importance of successful
leadership. and the recognitions
which should follow. have no logical
relation to the positions. ashore or
af1oat. from which such leadership
must be exercised.
10. In this connection. 1T may be
we'll to cite, as an illustration, per-
haps the most fragrant of all the
cases of mistakes as to relative
merit During the four most critical
months of the submarine campaign
that is, from April to August. 1917
I was allowed by the Navy Depart
ment the assistance of but one COM
missioned officer. who necessarily
performed the duties of chief OF Stan,
secretary. aid. communication ofncer.
intelligence officer and all the other
numerous duties of a staff during
that period.
II. In reports now on file at the
department I have stated that this
one officer drew up the convoy plan
under which our troops were trans
ported safely to Europe: that he ini-
tiated many of the most important
tactical and strategical measures
governing the operations of our
forces in Europe. and that his very
resnonsible services were all of the
highest possible importance in as
surfing our success.
Own Aid Refused ID. $. NJ.
12. l accordingly recommended
him for the distinguished service
medal The published list shows
that he was awarded the Navy
cross. while a number of officers I'M
der my command in positions of