This Air Force witness claimed that he was caught by surprise by the questions asked at that 1957 hearing. Yet practically all of the questions asked of him had previously been submitted in writing to the Air Force as far in advance of the hearing as 2 months. The same procedure was followed then as has been followed in this 1969 hearing in the submission of written questions to the Air Force far in advance of the hearing.

I trust that the spokesman for the Air Force at this hearing will not repeat the performance of the spokesman for the Air Force at the 1957 hearing.

I am disturbed with what appears to be a continuing attitude of Air Force Reserve general selection boards to downgrade participation in training and completion of senior service school courses, and instead to place an inordinate premium on the civilian prominence of the reservist, particularly on his status.

Too many selectees have performed little more than the minimum training, and met the minimum requirements on qualifications. Too many selectees appear to have gained their stars by civilian prominence rather than by outstanding Reserve records. This pattern is destructive to the morale of the Reserve and the Reserve must be built on military proficiency gained by more than minimum participation, and proved by outstanding Reserve performance and achievement, rather than being based on civilian prominence.

I understand that the Air Force has designated Lieut. Gen. John W. Carpenter III, until recently the Deputy Chief of Staff for Personnel and now the Assistant Vice Chief of Staff, to represent it at this hearing.

General Carpenter, the subcommittee would appreciate a statement from you, and I would appreciate a full response from you to the observations that I have just made in opening this hearing. Do you have a statement, General?

STATEMENT OF LIEUT. GEN. JOHN W. CARPENTER III, ASSISTANT VICE CHIEF OF STAFF, ACCOMPANIED BY DR. THEODORE C. MARRS, DEPUTY ASSISTANT SECRETARY FOR RESERVE AFFAIRS; COL. H. G. CHARLES, LEGISLATIVE LIAISON OFFICE OF SECRETARY OF THE AIR FORCE; AND MAJ. MONTE E. NASH, DEPUTY CHIEF, REGULAR AND RESERVE DIVISION, DEPUTY CHIEF OF STAFF FOR PERSONNEL, HEADQUARTERS, USAF

General CARPENTER. Yes, I do, Madam Chairman.

Madam Chairman, members of the subcommittee, I am pleased to have the opportunity to appear before this subcommittee. I can assure you that the subject at hand is one of continuing interest both to the committee and to the Air Force.

On May 16, 1969, the Department of the Air Force responded to questions submitted by the chairman relating to the current list of nominees pending confirmation by the Senate for Reserve of the Air Force general-officer promotion. The review and studies undertaken in preparing the response to the questions indicated several areas where improvements in the program could be effected. These were

outlined in the Secretary's response to the chairman's letter; however, I would like to briefly indicate the substance of these changes.

The first deals with military educational qualifications. Simply stated, completion of the Air War College or the Industrial College of the Armed Forces, by residence or correspondence, is being made a mandatory criterion for promotion to brigadier general or major general in the Reserve of the Air Force. The only exception is for tenure-of-office appointments in the Air National Guard. This requirement was phased in beginning July 1 of this year, at which time enrollment in one of these courses constitutes eligibility.

However, by July 1, 1971, completion of the course is required to be considered by a selection or Federal recognition board. The 2-year period is based on the time authorized for completion of the Air War College correspondence course. In the past, the Air Force has considered establishing similar qualifications as mandatory criteria, but stopped short with a view that increased emphasis, including instructions to the promotion boards, would provide the desired results. This has not proved to be the case; therefore, completion of one of these courses has been made mandatory.

Although this change in eligibility does not affect those Air Force Reserve nominees under consideration by this subcommittee, it is considered pertinent to report the status of the nominees with respect to participation in military education. Nominees Hart, Robinson, and Perego have completed service schools either in residence or by correspondence. Nominees Bauer, Pritchett, and Verhulst had enrolled in, but not completed, service school correspondence courses prior to nomination. These three nominees have been advised of the subcommittee's concern, and that the Air Force interprets their enrollment in these courses as a commitment to complete the course in the time allocated.

In response to this nomination, these nominees have given their personal assurance in writing that, barring circumstances beyond their control, they will complete the course. In addition, I am pleased to advise the subcommittee that, since nomination, nominees Hoxie, Stembler, Valimont, Jackson, and Kilgore have enrolled in, or applied for, enrollment in service school correspondence courses.

These nominees have also given their personal assurance they will complete these courses, barring circumstances beyond their control. While the Air Force considers these assurances adequate safeguards to insure completion by any nominee confirmed, Headquarters, USAF, will monitor the progress of completion by the nominee with the appropriate service school.

To summarize the status with respect to military education programs, all nominees selected by the January 1969 board have credit for service schools, or are now enrolled in service school correspondence courses. Nominees who have not completed courses have given personal assurances of their intent to complete them.

The second change in eligibility criteria further tightens restrictions on waivers of participation requirements. Effective July 1 of this year, to be eligible for consideration for promotion to brigadier general or major general in the Air Force Reserve at least 4 of the preceding 5 years before promotion consideration must be satisfactory training years, without waiver, and the 2 training years immediately

preceding promotion consideration must be satisfactory, and without waiver. This new eligibility criteria with respect to training participation should further discourage requests for waivers, even for those not in general-officer positions.

The third change denies to those officers in general-officer positions the excusal provision included in Air Force Manual 35-3. This provision permits excused absences without requiring waiver action not to exceed four periods for training category A, and two periods for training category B. Effective July 1, of this year, Air Force Reserve officers in general-officer positions are expected to meet the full requirement for their training category.

Requests for a waiver in those cases involving extraordinary circumstances may be approved only by Headquarters, USAF. This change further impresses on the Reserve generals, and those seeking Reserve general-officer promotion, the necessity to meet the training require

ments.

A message was dispatched on May 16, 1969, to all major commands announcing the changes I have outlined, with instructions to disseminate the new criteria to all Air Force Reserve generals and colonels occupying Air Force Reserve general-officer positions.

These actions I have outlined indicate that the Air Force recognizes the importance of participation in training and military educational programs. In addition, the Deputy Chief of Staff for Personnel briefing to the 1969 Air Force Reserve general-officer selection board, an extract of which was provided to the subcommittee, stressed this.

However, a number of other factors play a significant part in determining who should be selected for promotion. The subcommittee will be aware of these, but it may be pertinent to express them here. In addition to training participation and military educational qualification records, board members review effectiveness reports, both active and inactive, recommendations for colonels by their generalofficer supervisors relative to promotion potential to general officer, favorable communications, awards and decorations, civilian academic achievements, level of performance both military and civilian, and, of particular significance, recommendations by major air commanders and Headquarters, USAF, staff chiefs of those eligible in their commands considered best qualified for promotion. The board uses these records and recommendations, along with supporting data, to evaluate each eligible in terms of what we often refer to as the "whole man concept."

So, while these data reflect varying degrees of excellence for the different factors, the selection procedure demands that the board balance all factors to determine those best qualified for promotion.

The actions outlined in our submission of May 16, 1969, and reiterated in this statement, are intended as an expression of the continuing interest of the Air Force to improve the Reserve program.

This completes the formal Air Force statement that we have prepared for the subcommittee.

The subjects of training participation and military educational qualifications have been covered in considerable depth in both the chairman's statement and the Air Force statement.

While acknowledging problems in the past in these areas, the Air Force considers that the actions taken will emphasize their importance.

To assure the subcommittee that the Air Force does take this matter seriously, the changes described in these areas are in the process of being incorporated in the regulation and the manual. Selection boards will be briefed on the areas of concern which we share.

With respect to nominee X, it appears that the selection board gave more weight to other factors in his record than his participation in the inactive-duty training. The Air Force has provided detailed records and comments covering nominee X. The chairman's comment is valid, that the waiver for retention year 1964-65 was a violation of the Air Force manual, which provides that no member may be excused from earning the minimum of 15 points for retention of active status. Since that time, waiver authority has been exclusively with Headquarters, Air Force, for those officers assigned to general-officer positions. This has insured that violations of this nature do not recur.

In conclusion, in our judgment, the Air Force Reserve general-office promotion system, as it now stands, meets the objectives which we

share.

I will now be pleased to address any questions the subcommittee may have.

Senator SMITH. Thank you very much, General Carpenter. What you are doing is making these educational courses mandatory and I think that will be a very very great help. Senator Inouye?

Senator INOUYE. Thank you, Madam Chairman. General, I refer to page 3 of your statement, wherein you use the phrase "barring circumstances beyond their control" on two occasions. I am just wondering if nominee X, or the other nominee, in failing to meet his training requirements, came under that situation, because this would give any candidate a huge door, a loophole, for one can always say "because of my important position in civilian life, I was not able to attend training sessions," and, according to your statement here, it is obvious that the selection board gave more weight to other factors-which I presume are civilian activities-than his participation in duty training. Isn't it possible just to close this a little tighter?

I, too, concur with the chairman.

I assume all along, Madam Chairman, that the Reserve nominees would meet the minimum requirements that the Senate has set forth on several occasions in the past, and I must say that I was quite surprised that this list would come forth with so many violations-not just one or two, but, if I recall, 6 out of 8 in one category. I would like to have your thoughts on this "barring circumstances beyond their

control."

General CARPENTER. Yes, sir. I certainly recognize, Senator, the point you make about the large hole that could be used in any wording such as this, and actually, in recognizing that, we have moved the approval of such waivers to Headquarters, U.S. Air Force.

It might be appropriate to point out that in many of the cases that the chairman has pointed out here, they occurred back in the time when Headquarters USAF was not the approving authority for the waivers. At that time as a matter of fact the major commands were the approving authority, and so recognizing the problem, just the one that you mentioned, we have done two things.

We have asked an officer for his word that he will do it, barring circumstances beyond his control, secondly, we propose to follow this

with the schools concerned to insure that it is done. Actually in the Air Force we feel that this is sufficient and particularly in view of the fact that the following authority is now in the office of the Deputy Chief of Staff Personnel Headquarters Air Force.

We are certainly well aware of the committee's concern and I can assure you that we will follow up on this.

Senator INOUYE. On page 4 you have set forth your new regulations relating to waivers of participation requirements, wherein you say that "at least 4 of these preceding 5 years before promotion consideration must be satisfactory training years."

Now would these requirements apply to the nominees?

General CARPENTER. No, sir. This is not true, and this was not in effect at that time. At the time of the board, the requirement was that they have 3 good, what we call good retirement years, is that correct?

Major NASH. Yes, sir.

General CARPENTER. And it did not specify which 3 years, or that it was required that any of them be in the immediate past. The reason for the change, sir, was twofold. One was to insure that 4 out of the preceding 5 years are good years. In so doing, we recognized as a possibility 1 year out of 5 a man might not be able to meet all of his requirements, and secondly, to insure that anyone who is being considered for general officer for the past 2 years had for sure met the training requirements.

Senator INOUYE. According to the very extensive study carried on by our chairman, more than half of the nominees would not meet the requirements set forth here, is that correct?

General CARPENTER. I would have to check that. I did not work that point specifically, Senator. But I certainly will say that there are many of the people on this list who do not meet the more stringent requirements that we have set up here.

Senator INOUYE. And you are requesting that those who do not meet the stringent requirements which will be applicable from now on be considered favorably by this subcommittee?

General CARPENTER. Yes, sir, we are indeed.

Senator, may I make one additional point?
Senator SMITH. Yes, General.

General CARPENTER. The point I would like to make is that actually by the rules that we were operating under, every one of these gentlemen were eligible for consideration by the board at the time the board considered them, save nominee X, who unbeknownst to us at the time had been given an illegal waiver, but based on the criteria at the time, they were all eligible for consideration.

Senator INOUYE. And I gather that you want this subcommittee to consider nominee X with favor also?

General CARPENTER. Yes, sir, we would indeed.

Senator INOUYE. I must say, Madam Chairman, that I find it rather difficult. I do not feel that the Department has submitted testimony which would indicate that the fact that these nominees had not met the minimum requirements of training and other specialized courses were made up by other activities.

General CARPENTER. Again, they had met the requirements, the criteria known by the board at that time, save nominee X, which as I