Evening star., 1926-05-30

1
of age, is gaining considerable head
| way out of the service. In the naval
service, however, 1t can be safely said
that the commissioned personnel is
satisfied with the present retirement
age of 64 years. In discussion on
this subject this week, those in favor
of increasing the retirement age two
years seemed to be Of the opinion that
it was mistake to allow active, virile
officers to be placed on the inactive
list simply because they were not Sc
lected for promotion within a specified
| time. Officers were eliminated Oh the
| theory, it was pointed out by Rear
Admiral w. r. Shoemaker. chief of
the Bureau of Navigation, that the
entire naval service should be corn
posed of a live organization Of young.
energetic officers in all grades.
Those holding to the belief that the
retirement age in the Navy should
be increased to the age of Sc years
held to the opinion that the Navy
and the Government should get long
er service from officers in the different
grades, this group insisting that the
retirement of an officer simply be-
cause he has reached a certain age
in grade was viewed with disfavor.
The reminder was made that to
lengthen the service would bring Of
ficers to the grade Of rear admiral
with but four years to serve before
retirement, but this had little effect
on those holding opposite views on
this subject, the latter group being
quite positive that the efficiency and
morale of the service would not be
impaired by requiring this additional
service in view of the fact that the
physically unfit would be eliminated
through the yearly medical examina-
tions. AS the discussion waxed warm.
it was found that Admiral Shoe
maker had served II years in the
grades of ensign and lieutenant
Ounior grade), whereas under the pro-
posal he would have served but seven.
It was contended by Admiral Shoe.
maker that such service unquestion-
ably impaired the naval service in
that it brought an officer into the
higher grades at too great an age.
Those holding opposite views did not
agree with the admirafs conclusions,
this group being satisfied that the
Navy and the officer had prof1ted by
this service.
In addition to those announced
previously in this column, the follow
ing officers Of the Navy have been Sc
lected to attend the course Of instruc-
London, Conn.,, beginning July /:
Lieuts. A. D. Clark, E. B. Arroyo.
X. R. Hall, j. B. Mcvey and r. H.
Tuttle; Ensigns w. D. Brown. v. r.
Roane, M. c. Stormes. N. K. Roberts,
r. ]. Bourke, NJ. Smellow, c. H. Ben
nett, NJ. A. Sawyer, r. A. Casson.
H. c. Doan, J. w. Smith, w. l.. Hoff-
helms, J. K. Hodgkiss. F. r. Davis.
A. J. Freels and E. w. Abdill. With
the possible exception Of one or two
other officers, this will complete the
next class at New London.
Selection has been made Of the next
class which will undergo instruction
in aviation at the naval air station
at Pensacola, Fla, beginning about
August Is. It Is expected that this
class will number at least 70 naval
officers. The following have been Sc
lected: Lieuts. E. B. Curtis, p. P.
Thompson, P. r. Coffin and H. H.
Goodwin; Ensigns E. F. Grove, r.
Goldthwaite, H. L. Hopping. w. D.
Leach, A. H. Oswald. E. P. Creehan.
G. A. Fines, H. H. Harrison, Sidney
King, c. c. Mcdonald and j. j.
Waldron.
Flyers of the Navy were thrown
into another furor last week over the
determined stand made by Rear Ad
miral w. r. Shoemaker, chief Of the
Bureau of Navigation, against the pro-
posal that when the selection board
for promotion due solely to his long
specialization in aviation. it shall so
inform the Secretary. The proposal
further states that an officer will be
promoted to the next higher grade
and carried as an extra number until
he again comes up for selection, pro-
vided thai when he comes up for Sc
lection to the next higher grade he
shall be judged in the same manner
as all other officers who come up at
the same time for selection.
The proposal affects 109 former Re-
serve officers, now naval aviators, who
groups: The first group, numbering
SO, on appointment as lieutenant, took
precedence next after those former
temporary officers who were per-
manently appointed in the grade Of
lieutenant, who, in turn took prec-
edence next after the Naval Academy
class of 1918. This group has not
been examined for promotion. The
second group, numbering SO, on ap-
pointment as lieutenant Ounior
grade), took precedence ahead Of the
Naval Academy class Of 1920. The
members of this group have all been
examined for promotion to lieutenant
and none have lost numbers by rea-
son Of failure on examination. The
third group, numbering 81. upon
appointment as ensign took prec-
edence ahead of the Naval Academy
class of 1921. The members of this
group, the admiral pointed out, have
all been promoted to lieutenant
Ounior grade). One member failed
on examination for promotion to that
grade and was dropped from the
service. The remaining members
will become due for promotion on
June 4, 1926. for which examina-
tions are now under way.
Admiral Shoemaker pointed out
that the creation Of extra numbers
in a speciality corps for any profes-
sional reason was unsound personnel
policy, and. he insisted that this pro-
posal would benefit those officers
specializing in aviation activities to
the exclusion of other general duties.
That this proposal has in it the
nucleus of separate corps, starting
now with body Of about $50 Off
GERS who are not obliged to broaden
their naval activities beyond avia-
ton, was declared by the admiral.
OF these 109 officers, the first group
will be promoted or separated by
1888. the second group by 1884 and
the last group by 1895. In summing
up his objections to the proposal,
Admiral Shoemaker said:
''The department is endeavoring
, to increase the knowledge Of aviation
in the Navy, to give every line off,
Ger a knowledge of flying. both as to
personnel requirements and opera
ton, and also to cover the field Of
material requirements. This with a