Evening star., 1926-05-14
COOLIDGE VETOES
RE|NSTAT|NG ACT
First This Session Refuses
Reappointment in Army to
Capt. C. A. RothWeIl.

President Coolidge exercised the
veto power of his office today for the
first time during this session of Con-
gress. when he returned to the Sem
ate an act passed by Congress au-
thorizing him to reappoint Chester
A. Rothwell, formerly a captain of
Engineers of the Army.
Accompanying this act was the
statement from the President in
which he stated that he deemed it
necessary for the discipline of the
military forces that the judgment of
the efficiency board of the Army,
upon whose recommendation Capt.
RothwelI was discharged. should be
accepted by the President and Con-
Cress as final. unless some lnforma- =
ton developed that was not known
at the time of the boards act, and
which might have caused II to reach
a different conclusion. Nothing in
the Rothwell record indicates that
such is the case and therefore the
President acted adversely.
Discharged in Class B.
This officer. in the regular course
of dealing with the personnel of the
Army, was discharged by reason of
being placed in class B. which, ac-
cording to the Presidents statement.
meant that his work was below
average. His case was acted on by
board consisting of Maj. Gems.
Willard. Shanks. Bundy. Ely and w.
r. Smith. and Brig. Gen. Graves.
The President. in his statement,
added that Capt. Rothwell's record
shows that he was reported absent
without leave from November q to
December /. 1919. He was relieved
from duty a the University of Ten
nessee at the request of the COM
mandinc general of the southeastern
depa because of a. letter. dated
April s. 1920, in which 1t was stated
he does not give the profession of
military science and tactics loyal
support.
Mai Anderson. Corps of Engineers
made an efficiency report covering the
period MAY 3 to July 80, 1920, in
which he states that Capt. Rothwell
tends to reach decisions before fully
informing himself The efficiency re.
port of Maj Sullivan. covering the
period July l. 1922. to May II. 1928
gives his general estimate as a below
average officer The efficiency report
of Mai. Sturtevant. Corps of En-
gineers, states he requires super
vision in administrative details in
volving paper work or compliance
with written instructions The re-
port of Maj. Schley. Corps of En-
gineers. contains adverse comment on
the personal action of the officer,
stating that At one time he was
reprimanded orally by the com
mandant
Once Confined to Post.
The War Department states that
there is correspondence on file in
subjects record which shows that he
has not always given careful atten-
ton to prompt payment of legal
obligations. An abbreviated efficiency
report by Col. Fischer. Coast Artillery
Corps, the War Department states.
contains an inclosure with this re-
port showing that subject was
reprimanded and confined to his post
for absence without authority from
pm. October to pm. October
S, 1924.
This officer apparently served ac-
ceptably in France and was recon.
ever. was not given. A final classifca.
ton board. consisting of Mai. Gems.
Summerall and Sturgis and Brig.
Gems. Bowley. Callan, Upton and Col
Inns. on April 10. 1925. finally classified
this officer in class B by unanimous
action, the basis of this action by the
board being lacking in attention to
duty, initiative and administrative and
executive ability; careless: Indifferent:
fails to take advantage of his oppor-
tunities for Improvement
Record Justified Action.
THE adjutant general found that
the placing Of Capt. Rothwe1l finally
in class B was justified by the entire
record and recommended that the
findings of the classification board be
approved. This was done by the War
Department. and the officer was hon.
orably discharged with one years pay
June 90. 1926"
The President called attention to
the fact that 1t must be borne in mind
that should Capt. Rothwell be rein
stated he would deprive some first
lieutenant on the active list of the
Regular Army of the chance of pro-
motion to the grade Of captain. to
which he is justly entitled. He added
that only one case had occurred in
which an officer had been restored to
the Army after having been dis
charged through class B proceedings,
and that was because it was discov-
cred that he should have been retired
for physical disability incident to the
service.