Mr. KILDAY. We got enough to pray over here. [Laughter.] Captain WILIAMS. I should say the second subparagraph of section 6.

Mr. BLANDFORD. What does paragraph 1—why is that absolutely necessary?

Captain WILLIAMS. That will be necessary, particularly necessary for the Marine Corps, because the majors who are selected ahead of some officer not selected in a zone of consideration will gain numbers and thereby might pick up his years of commissioned service, which would be in advance of the years of commissioned service he previously had.

Mr. BLANDFORD. Oh, I see.

Mr. KITCHIN. Why the necessity for the language "is", then? Captain WILLIAMS. Sir?

Mr. KITCHIN. "Is, or at any time has at any time been"?

Captain WILLIAMS. Yes, sir.

Mr. KITCHIN. Why the necessity for the "is"?

Captain WILLIAMS. That is the present language in the law, Mr. Kitchin. We, in effect, say that it will hereafter be an officer who has been continuously passed over.

Mr. KITCHIN. Oh, yes.

Mr. HARDY. This, then, would have the effect of limiting the constructive credit that this particular officer could have because he was passed over a bunch of others?

Captain WILLIAMS. That is correct. It would keep him from gaining constructive credit by reason of being accelerated.

Mr. HARDY. He probably will have some constructive credit from the position that he now occupies, but it would keep him from getting any more, is that right?

Captain WILLIAMS. Yes, sir, that is correct.

Mr. BLANDFORD. I thought we didn't have any of these people in the Marine Corps?

Major LEROND. What this does, sir, very simply is; If we take a major with 18 years or 17 years of service and select him to lieutenant colonel with another major who has 20 years of service, he then picks up the 20 years of service characteristics for voluntary retirement purposes, although he only has 17.

Now one of the other advantageous features in this is we in the distant future are going to have a rapid turnover in the grade of colonel. Well if this officer who has been moved up is forced to retire 3 years prior to completing, actually completing service because he is now attached to this officer ahead of him, we will lose that advantage, plus this officer would be given 3 years of constructive credit for his retirement.

Mr. BLANDFORD. Which officers are these, major? I didn't know the Marine Corps had any of these people.

Major LEROND. Excuse me. We don't have any officers that have constructive service.

Mr. BLANDFORD. Well, this is applicable only to the Marine Corps. It doesn't apply to the Navy.

General WELLER. That is right.

Mr. BLANDFORD. You don't have any officers who are in this category. Why is the section necessary!

Major LEROND. We need this to prevent the officer who is selected from within a zone of consideration from being retired earlier than he normally would have been had he not been selected under the zone of consideration.

Mr. HARDY. You mean he doesn't now have the constructive credit? General WELLER. That is correct.

Major LEROND. That is corect.

Mr. HARDY. But if you jump him over a bunch of these people, he would acquire some.

Major LEROND. He would acquire some.

Mr. HARDY. Under present law.

Major LEROND. Yes, sir, under present law.

Mr. KILDAY. Then, of course, the termination date of June 30, 1970. This will conclude the open hearings on the bill.

I want the members to stay for just a few minutes. I will ask Admiral Smith and your staff to remain and we will go into executive session at this time. This will only take a few minutes. We are in executive session.

(Whereupon, at 11:43 a.m., the subcommittee proceeded in executive session.)

EXECUTIVE SESSION

Mr. KILDAY. Admiral, I wanted to discuss just a couple of topics with you in this executive session before we go into executive session to write the bill.

I am just wondering why we shouldn't put a provision in here to make sure that your medical officers are not going to be subject to this legislation.

We don't want a law here which would permit the elimination of doctors, dentists, and so forth, at the same time that we are attempting to continue the draft of them. If you are not going to use it, why shouldn't we have a proviso that it will not apply to them, and the nurses also?

Admiral SMITH. Mr. Chairman, I can perceive of no reason why that shouldn't be included in the language.

Mr. KILDAY. I think that will help the proposition a great deal. Admiral SMITH. I can't perceive the situation over the next 10 years that would occur that would require it.

Mr. KILDAY. Well, it could be worded, of course, for that matter, that it would not apply so long as the Doctors Draft Act is in effect. Admiral SMITH. Yes, sir.

Mr. KILDAY. Possibly that way. But any way to make it sure from the bill, itself, that we are not proceeding in one bill to draft and in another bill to eliminate people you already have.

Admiral SMITH. Yes, sir.

Mr. KILDAY. You don't see any real objection to it?

Admiral SMITH. I see nothing in my future plans, sir.

Mr. KILDAY. Now there is another thing.

I know I feel, and I think that the committee feels, that we want to approach this group to be eliminated with a good deal of consideration, people who felt that they had the security of tenure which we are now going to interrupt.

I personally would like to make sure that insofar as possible, hereafter in years to come, this man won't be labeled as the fellow who was

eliminated as the twice-passed over and so on, by something that would appear in whatever you call it-the list of retired or Navy "Register." That is what the Army calls it, anyway.

Couldn't we put something in here so that the fellow who is selected now and who is going to be one of those eliminated-couldn't we then have it in such a way that he could have his record hereafter show that he was retired upon his own application, after so many years of service, rather than having it appear retired in accordance with public law No. so-and-so, which will label him for all times as having been selected out, perhaps the least qualified, under this particular legislation?

Now there is one practical difficulty that I see. If the committee should include a separation allowance, you are of course, going to have to retire him under the provisions of this law. But we could word any such provision, if we decide to include it, that it would be payable to those persons who are retired under the law or upon his own application after having been through this selection. So that hereafter his record would just show that he was retired on his own application, retired after a certain number of years of service.

Admiral SMITH. Do you see any difficulty there, Jack?

Captain WILLIAMS. Did you intend to put that provision in the law, Mr. Kilday, or were you suggesting

Mr. KILDAY. Either put it in the law or make sure it would be so administered that hereafter in the list he wouldn't forever be labeled. Because it is a situation not entirely of his own making.

Captain WILLIAMS. I think something along that line could be done.

Mr. BLANDFORD. Mr. Chairman, in view of the fact that they are going to have 6 months as a minimum with respect to the continuation boards, certainly there could be no problem there to allowing that individual after having been notified that he has failed of being selected for continuation, in permitting him to apply for retirement at any time he wants prior to that date, and still be entitled to whatever separation allowance he might otherwise be entitled to.

Mr. KILDAY. That is what I have in mind. Here we may make available to him an amount of money. And you have in the file that he actually retired on his own application.

Admiral SMITH. Mr. Chairman, may I answer, not completely, but in this fashion. We do permit that now-rather it is done by the rear admirals who fail of continuation after the 5 and 35 years of service. A few say they don't care, it doesn't make any difference, in what appears after their name, in the way of which public law they retired. But I would like to say-I would like to have that done if it is possible and feasible under legislative language.

Mr. KILDAY. We will attempt to develop something along that line.

Now I want something placed in the record as to costs on any allowance, separation allowance, that you might include. I believe we developed it would be $10 million for each month of the unserved balance of the tour.

Then I think that we would need to put a maximum on that.

Mr. Blandford has some figures here. If the Department agrees to those, we can just place them in the records of the open hearings, and that would suffice, I think.

Have you been over those figures?

Admiral SMITH. We have seen those figures, sir. We do agree that that would be a very useful step.

Mr. BLANDFORD. I can summarize it at the moment.

If the subcommittee decided to put a separation allowance in the bill which would permit 2 months' base pay for each year a man was retired short of the 26- and 30-year normal period of service, but also insert a $6,000 limitation on the total amount that any one person could receive, it would involve a grand total of $14,957,273.

Now this is on the assumption that this is a one-shot proposition. And I want to explain that very carefully.

This would apply only to the captain or colonel now serving in that grade who is either twice failed of selection in the Marine Corps or who is selected not to be continued in the continuation board.

It would not apply to a commander who is hereafter promoted to the grade of captain and thereafter not selected for continuation or who is selected to colonel hereafter and then twice fails of selection to brigadier general.

And this same reasoning applies to the commander, that this would apply only to those commanders now serving as commanders who have twice failed of selection or who twice failed of selection while serving as commanders.

It would not apply to any future commanders who are now serving as lieutenant commanders.

The theory is that without this legislation their opportunity to be promoted to the next higher grade would have been greatly reduced and, therefore, it is a strictly one-shot proposition.

You are not changing the rules for those now serving in the grade. You are only changing the rules for those serving below that grade, but in changing the rules you have made it possible for them to be selected where the chances were they might not have been selected.

Mr. HÉBERT. Yes, but the fact that you have the extension to 1970 shows that you need the time, which is going to affect everybody who is now in those ranks.

Mr. BLANDFORD. This would apply to those now in those ranks.

The point, Mr. Hébert, is this. Your present captains and your present colonels have now planned on a 30-year career. Now we are terminating that career with less than 30 years of service, and I believe it is the feeling of the subcommittee that they should receive some form of readjustment pay. The same reasoning applies to the commanders.

On the other hand, a commander today who has not yet been promoted to captain has no right to expect a 30-year career at this point because he hasn't been selected to captain yet.

Mr. HÉBERT. Yes, but the individual who went-I think the calendar date has more to do with it than anything else.

Mr. BLANDFORD. No, it is the grade he is now serving in.

Mr. HÉBERT. I know, but the lieutenant commander and the senior lieutenant and lieutenant (jg.)-they all had this thought.

Mr. BLANDFORD. No, sir; they have no right to expect anything except promotion to the next higher grade with attrition. And if the present attrition rate continues, that is if we do nothing, the attrition

rate will be 75 percent. But by passing this law we greatly reduce the attrition rate, thus greatly increasing his chances for promotion. Now nobody who is today a lieutenant can in all sincerity say to himself, "I know positively I am going to be a lieutenant commander."

Mr. HÉBERT. Because he can be the victim of attrition by the time he gets to commander.

Mr. BLANDFORD. That is right.

Mr. HÉBERT. He recognizes that.

Mr. BLANDFORD. That is exactly right.

Mr. BATES. On the other hand, there is always going to be a percentage of them, even though it might be a small percentage. There is always going to be a percentage of those going to the higher ranks. Mr. BLANDFORD. They are not going to be affected.

Mr. KILDAY. Does this cover everything eliminated from active duty by reason of this law?

Mr. BLANDFORD. Yes, sir. You see, the reason the figure is not very startling is that while there are going to be 1,500 captains eventually eliminated short of their 30 years, there are only 867 who are going to be eliminated while they are now serving as captains, and the same figures go down for commander and colonel.

In other words, the figure of $14,957,000 is spread over a 7-year period. That is what it would cost over a 7-year period. And when you stop and think of the fact that if we don't pass the legislation it is going to cost us $11 million more, you can say in effect that you have brought about as much equity as possible in this situation for a total cost of $3 million. Now that is not a bad figure.

Mr. KILDAY. We will meet tomorrow in executive session to read the bill for amendment. Thank you, gentlemen.

(Whereupon, at 11:55 a.m., the subcommittee adjourned to reconvene at 10 a.m. in executive session on Thursday, February 19, 1959.)

О