TO AMEND SECTION 5 OF PUBLIC LAW NO. 264, SEVENTY-THIRD CONGRESS, APPROVED MAY 29, 1934, RELATIVE TO THE APPOINTMENT OF NAVAL ACADEMY GRADUATES AS ENSIGNS IN THE NAVY (H. R. 10100). MR. BOYLAN

NAVY DEPARTMENT, Washington, February 10, 1936.

The CHAIRMAN, COMMITTEE ON NAVAL AFFAIRS,

House of Representatives, Washington, D. O.

MY DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: The bill (H. R. 10100) to amend section 5 of Public Law No. 264, Seventy-third Congress, approved May 29, 1934, relative to the appointment of Naval Academy graduates as ensigns in the Navy was referred to the Navy Department by your committee with a request for report and recommendation.

The purpose of the bill is to authorize the President to appoint as ensigns in the line of the Navy all midshipmen of the class of 1934 who received a certificate of graduation, an honorable discharge, or who resigned, provided they are physically qualified. The bill specifies that these former midshipmen may, upon application and under such regulations as the Secretary of the Navy may prescribe, be appointed ensigns prior to May 1, 1936, to take rank next after the junior ensign then in the service and among themselves in accordance with their proficiency as shown in order of merit at date of graduation. It also waives the existing requirement that they be unmarried.

This bill, if enacted into law, would benefit certain members of the Naval Academy class of 1934 who were eligible for commissions upon graduation but who, for reasons of their own, voluntarily resigned from the naval service. It would further benefit certain other members of that Naval Academy class who were found not physically qualified for appointment upon graduation. There would be 103 members of the class of 1934 involved, 43 of whom resigned voluntarily upon graduation and the remaining 60 failed physically.

It is true that similar legislation was enacted for the benefit of the members of the Naval Academy class of 1933 who resigned upon graduation, but their status was somewhat different in that there existed considerable uncertainty until just before graduation as to whether commissions could be granted to all qualified graduates. In view of that uncertainty some members of the class of 1933 had accepted offers of positions in civil life and had tendered their resignations from the Navy to become effective upon graduation. This condition did not obtain for the class of 1934, since those qualified for commissions had, for a period of more than 1 year prior to gradua tion, every assurance that they would be commissioned upon gradua tion.

If legislation of this character were enacted into law, similar requests would probably be received from members of each subsequent class who had resigned voluntarily upon graduation and after a trial in civil life then decided that the Navy offers possibly more congenial employment. It is not this class of officers that the Navy desires to induct into the service, but rather those who earnestly hope to make the naval service a career.

The enactment of the bill (H. R. 10100) would result in an immediate additional cost to the Government of approximately $154,500 per annum.

The bill (H. R. 10100) is not in accord with the financial program of the President.

The Navy Department recommends against the enactment of the bill H. R. 10100.

Sincerely yours,

H. L. ROOSEVELT, Acting.

о

FOR THE RELIEF OF JOSEPH NICHOLAS LUSSON (H. R. 10290).

MR. KELLY

NAVY DEPARTMENT, Washington, February 10, 1936.

The CHAIRMAN, COMMITTEE ON NAVAL AFFAIRS,

House of Representatives, Washington, D. C. MY DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: The bill (H. R. 10290) for the relief of Joseph Nicholas Lusson was referred to the Navy Department by your committee with a request for report and recommendation.

The purpose of this bill is to consider Joseph Nicholas Lusson as having been honorably discharged from the naval service of the United States on July 31, 1919.

The records of the Navy Department show that Joseph Nicholas Lusson was born on October 24, 1899, and enlisted in the Navy on June 20, 1917, to serve until October 23, 1920. His record shows the following offenses:

November 10, 1917: Absent without liberty about 12 hours; convicted by summary court martial.

December 16, 1917: Absent over liberty 24 hours.

December 19, 1917: Absent without leave 15 days and 9 hours; convicted by summary court martial.

March 18, 1918: Absent without leave 9 days and 8 hours; convicted by summary court martial.

July 24, 1918: Outside of limits of station.

September 27, 1918: Absent without leave 15 minutes and brought back by corporal of the guard; convicted by deck court.

October 21, 1918: After being warned 3 times for being absent over liberty, he was absent over liberty 1 hour and 15 minutes.

January 29, 1919: Absent over liberty 7 days; convicted by summary court martial and the sentence included a bad-conduct discharge which was remitted subject to Lusson maintaining a record which, in the opinion of his commanding officer, would warrant his further retention in the Navy. The sentence, as mitigated, was approved on March 7, 1919.

April 28, 1919: Deserted from Pelham Bay Park, N. Y.

July 1, 1919: Surrendered to the Naval Training Station, Great Lakes, Ill.

Inasmuch as Lusson violated his probation, the probationary period was terminated and he was given a bad conduct discharge from the Navy on July 31, 1919, at the Naval Training Station, Great Lakes, Ill.

This bill, if enacted into law, would result in no cost to the Navy; however, it is probable that a charge under the Veterans' Administration would be involved now or in the future.

The Navy Department recommends against the enactment of the bill H. R. 10290.

Sincerely yours,

H. L. ROOSEVELT, Acting.

23697-36-No. 480

(2263)

о