Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1958-09-02
A GOOD QUESTION:
WhotPrice GIoryfor Old Soldiers?
Maybe He Cont Reed English!

objective is to attract and re-
tain in the armed forces
scientific and professional per-
sonnet needed in this highly
technical age. Such argyll
ment is largely specious and
must have been given with
tongue in cheek. For, in the
case Of enlisted personnel. the
increased pay differential for
these technicians is still far
from comparable with cor
responding pay scales in civil
life. In the case Of officers,
the very fair and justifable
increases, particularly in gen.
eral officer grades, will have
little effect in retaining tech
meal corps personnel (scien-
fists. engineers, doctors, etc.)
until the three services them
selves make available to such
professional officers q much
larger proportion of general
officer grades and higher
commands than accorded
them now or during the last
decade. Compared to the
high percentage of Zine" Of
ficers promoted to general or
flag rank, the number Of such
grades and command posi-
tons that these technical Of
ficers now hold is so absurdly
low that the higher pay con-
stitutes comparatively little
additional attraction for the
technical and professional
personnel for whom. such wit
nesses affirm, the new pay
schedule will provide incen-
tive. 1t is only necessary to
cite the case of Admiral Rick
over of the Navy and Mai.
Gen. Medaris of the Army
Guided Missile Agency to
demonstrate this fact. In
spite of their distinguished
services (Nautilis and Ex-
plorer), neither has ever been
accorded three-star rank.
Thus it comes down to the
fact that the principal pur-
pose and effect Of the new
pay schedule is a more fair
and accurate comparative
measure of value Of military
services with corresponding
civilian remuneration, partic-
ularly in the higher grades,
and does not, due to service
promotion policies, constitute
an effective means Of retain
ing professional, scientific
and technical personnel.
n ~
In sum, it can, therefore,
be asked in the case of re-
tired personnel, how can the
Budget Bureau or the De-
partment of Defense. in their
recommendations to Con-
gress, ascertain in dollars the
difference in the measure OF
value of officers retired be-
fore and after June /. 1858?
What is so significant about
the date? Can they be sc
penuriouS and unapprecia-
tive of patriotism as to ask
what future contributions
can be made by officers OF
enlisted men who have fought
three wars, but retired?
For example, take Maj
Gen. William Dean, whose
exploits in command of the
oath Division during the
early days in Korea against
overwhelming enemy force:
won him the esteem anC
gratitude of the entire Nation
as well as the award of the
Medal of Honor upon his re-
turn from captivity. What
possible reasoning could the
Bureau of the Budget or De.
partment of Defense employ
to evaluate this gallant off,
GERS worth in terms of re-
tired pay at $848 per month
as against a Is per cent
greater retired pay of $1.014i
That, under the new pay bill
will be paid to any run-of-
the-mill major general who
retires on or after the mystic
date of June /, 1858.
1t is hoped that this gross
injustice and unreasonable
provision of the new service
pay bill, as applied to all per-
sonnet retired prior to June l
1858, will be kept well in mino
by members of Congress, anc
corrected early during it
next session at the average
annual cost of less than three
one-hundredthS of l per cent
of the current annual budget
Of the Department Of Defense
SomueI D. Stureis,
1t. Gen., U.S.A. Ret.