lieutenant, junior grade, and the Naval Academy boy a the end of that period also becomes a lieutenant, junior grade, would they both have the same qualifications at that time?

Admiral DENFELD. I think that when we select those boys they will both have qualifications to be good naval officers.

Mr. HESS. As I understand it, Admiral Johnson, you propose to select about 500 if the academy is expanded, about 500 out of the NROTC when they have completed 7 years, I believe, 4 years in the NROTC and 3 years in active service?

Admiral JOHNSON. During that last year; yes, sir.

Mr. HESS. What assurance have we, in the event Congress refuses to maintain a Navy of the size that you think we need, that when the time comes to select your officer personnel you will not cut down on those NROTC boys about a hundred and pick up Naval Academy graduates?

Admiral JOHNSON. There is no assurance.

Mr. HESS. So you would not necessarily maintain that balance? Admiral JoHNSON. I think if such should come to pass we should reduce the input into the Naval Academy.

The CHAIRMAN. Congress would have to pass on that. I am inclined to think the cut would come from colleges.

Do you want to ask any questions now, Mr. Grant, or in the morning? Mr. GRANT. I have just a couple of questions, and that will be all. Admiral Denfeld, what would be the required capacity of the Academy if all the officers that you plan for, for a Navy of 500,000 men and 58,000 officers, were to go to the Naval Academy for 2 years? Admiral DENFELD. Approximately 10,000.

Mr. GRANT. I understood Admiral Johnson to say earlier that under the Jacobs-Barker plan they would go for 3 years, and the required capacity would be 7,500.

Admiral JOHNSON. May I try to answer that? If we did not use the short-term system on which this plan is based, we would require a Naval Academy capacity of 15,000 to furnish the required input each year into the Navy.

Mr. GRANT. On the assumption they go there how many years?
Admiral JOHNSON. Four years.

The CHAIRMAN. To get back to Mr. Grant's first question, if they went to college 2 years and then to the Naval Academy for 2 years, and all Congressmen get the same five appointments that we make now, what would be the total number at the Naval Academy?

Mr. GRANT. If they went to the Naval Academy for 3 years?
The CHAIRMAN. Yes.

Admiral JOHNSON. It would be about 7,500 to 8,000, assuming that that was the only source for entry into the career Navy.

Mr. GRANT. What would be the required capacity if they were to go there for 2 years?

Admiral JOHNSON. If they went there 2 years it would be about 5,000.

Admiral DENFELD. But that would be doing away with the congressional appointments.

The CHAIRMAN. Let us forget that. If a boy went to a university for 2 years and at the end of 2 years went to the Naval Academy for 2 years, plus the number that Congressmen send there, what would be

the total number at the Naval Academy in 1 year? You can figure Congressmen all the time in this picture.

Mr. GRANT. Your practical requirements are going to be the same regardless of the source from which they come.

Admiral DENFELD. If you have congressional appointments there would be 3,200 that would be there for the 4-year course.

The CHAIRMAN. You are going to send them to universities for 2 years, and then after the 2 years a man goes to the Naval Academy for 2 years, and you have the NROTC coming in.

Admiral JOHNSON. I think I would have to do some figuring on

that.

Mr. GRANT. I wanted to know just what would be the required capacity if it were limited to an input from those who had done 2 years at civilian colleges.

Admiral JOHNSON. And stayed 2 years at the Naval Academy? Mr. GRANT. Yes.

Admiral JOHNSON. It would be about 5,000, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. That eliminates congressional appointees?
Admiral JOHNSON. Yes, sir.

Mr. GRANT. Your plan proposes an academy with a capacity of 6,000 which would cost $70,000,000?

Admiral JOHNSON. Yes.

Mr. GRANT. Can you give us an estimate of what it would cost to provide for a capacity of 5,000?

Admiral JoHNSON. No, sir.

Mr. GRANT. What would be the required capacity of the Academy if all of the officers for a projected Navy of 500,000 men and 58,000 officers went to the Academy for 1 year only?

Admiral JOHNSON. About 2,500.

Mr. GRANT. That would not require any expansion of the Academy at all?

Admiral JOHNSON. No, sir.

Mr. GRANT. Just one other question.

Admiral Denfeld, who appointed Dr. Barker to make this study? Admiral DENFELD. I do not know, sir. I was not here at the time. Mr. GRANT. I would like to say this, Mr. Chairman, and then I will be through. I have been very much impressed by the statement that Mr. Towe made, not only because of my respect for his good judgment as a man and as a member of this committee, but because of his previous service at the Naval Academy. But the thing that has been in my mind is this, that there seems to be a contention that if a compromise were to be made, and part of the schooling were had at civilian colleges and postgraduate work at the Academy, it would in effect dilute the quality of the men we get from the Academy who have spent their entire collegiate training there. The more that contention is adhered to the more I am convinced that what Mr. Towe has said is true, that it is inevitable that there is going to be a feeling in the service as between those who secured training at the Academy and those who received their instruction at civilian colleges. So that I do not think that this plan that has been proposed by the Holloway Board is going to solve that difficulty.

The CHAIRMAN. It is not going to solve that difficulty because that is going to exist always.

Mr. Towe. You might be wrong. Perhaps Admiral Denfeld and Admiral Johnson will make it work.

Admiral JOHNSON. I am strongly impressed that that is a problem that we must face now with the transfer of these officers to the Navy. We have got to overcome it.

The CHAIRMAN. We helped to face it when we wrote that declaration of policy in the bill. As long as you have men coming from different sections of the country you are going to have different viewpoints, and complaints will at times be coming before the committee that favoritism is being given to a Naval Academy graduate in preference to a man who comes from some other source.

Mr. BATES. I have asked, Mr. Chairman, for a break-down of the line and staff officers in the Regular Navy in order to give the members of the committee some idea of how many non-Academy officers we have in the Regular Navy. We have a total of about 15,000 officers in the Navy, line, staff, and aviation. Of that number, 3,813 are what we call staff officers, Medical Corps, Dental Corps, Supply Corps, Chaplain Corps, and civil engineering. Of that number about 2 percent of the 3,813 on the staff corps are what we call Naval Academy graduates. That means that out of 3,813 who are staff officers, about 3,737 of them are non-Academy graduates. In addition to that, we have 11,181 line officers, including 2,937 aviation officers. Of the 2,937 aviation officers, 900, roughly, are non-Academy graduates. Add those to the 3,737 staff officers who are non-Academy graduates, and it gives you a grand total of 4,637 non-Academy officers in the United States Navy; and that is about 30 percent of the entire officers in the United States Navy.

Mr. HESS. You must bear in mind that doctors and chaplains and dentists are not graduates of the Naval Academy.

Mr. BATES. But they have to live together. This committee has done more to agitate this problem than any other source I have heard of. I have not heard this criticism outside.

The CHAIRMAN. There has been an immense amount of criticism all through the service, that distinctions have been made; and that is going to continue to exist as long as you have different sources from which to obtain your officer personnel.

Mr. BATES. Do not forget that there were 4,000,000 men in the naval service, including the Coast Guard, and there was bound to be criticism in an organization of that size.

The CHAIRMAN. Of course, the happy way would be to have every officer come through the Naval Academy, but that is clearly out of the question because we will have about 40,000 officers in the Navy, and we cannot expand the Naval Academy to take care of all the officer personnel. We have got to be a little realistic about it.

The second proposition would be, knowing that we cannot get them all that way, What is the best method to get them, bearing in mind that after we get them into the Navy, coming from different sources, there are bound to be complaints that because they did not all come from one source they do not get the same consideration?

We have accomplished a good deal this morning, I think, by a discussion of the question. Come back tomorrow morning, Admiral, and we will take up other plans.

Mr. HEFFERNAN. Why can we not expand the Naval Academy?

The CHAIRMAN. We are going to take that up tomorrow. We will take a recess until 10 o'clock tomorrow morning.

(Whereupon, at 12 m., after informal discussion off the record, a recess was taken until tomorrow, Wednesday, April 3, 1946, at 10 a. m.)

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, COMMITTEE ON NAVAL AFFAIRS, Washington, D. C., Wednesday, April 3, 1946.

The committee met at 11:15 a. m., Hon. Carl Vinson (chairman) presiding.

The CHAIRMAN. Let the committee come to order. This is a continuation of the hearings on H. R. 5426.

STATEMENTS OF REAR. ADM. FELIX JOHNSON, UNITED STATES NAVY, AND CAPT. ARTHUR S. ADAMS, UNITED STATES NAVY, RETIRED-Resumed

The CHAIRMAN. Yesterday we asked you to bring up the report of the Holloway Board.

Admiral JOHNSON. I have that here, sir. I have only one copy with me, Mr. Chairman.

The CHAIRMAN. Did you also bring up the Jacobs-Barker report? Admiral JOHNSON. Yes, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. We would like to have the copy that you have, put into the record so that we can all have the benefit of reading it.

Admiral JOHNSON. This [exhibiting] is the report of the Holloway Board, the first part, which has to do with the subject under discussion, sir. I have parts 2 and 3 also.

The CHAIRMAN. We will have some copies printed. Put it into the record.

Mr. COLE. Also the Jacobs report?

The CHAIRMAN. Yes.

(The document referred to is as follows:)

REPORT OF THE HOLLOWAY BOARD ON STUDY OF PROPER FORM, SYSTEM, AND METHOD OF EDUCATION OF UNITED STATES NAVAL OFFICERS OF THE POSTWAR UNITED STATES NAVY

To: Secretary of the Navy.

SEPTEMBER 15, 1945.

Via: Chief of Naval Personnel.
Subject: Study of proper form, system, and method of education of United
States Naval Officers of the Postwar United States Navy.

1. The Board conceives it should confine itself to recommendations concerning policy. There exist suitable administrative echelons of the Department to organize plans to implement such recommended policy as may be approved. The Board is convinced that overemphasis of detail in its report can serve only as a deterrent to decision and a hindrance to vigorous implementation. For the same reason no marshalling of arguments is included.

2. This preliminary report is limited primarily to the problem of procurement and undergraduate education of officer candidates.

3. During its deliberations the Board gave detailed consideration, not only to the Jacobs-Barker plan, but also to alternative plans.

4. In rendering this preliminary report the Board has attained unanimity.

AIMS OF A PROPER SYSTEM OF EDUCATING NAVAL OFFICERS

5. Insure the highest quality of naval officer candidates by the improve ment of selection methods and by application of broad democratic principles in connection therewith.

6. Provide such officer candidates in sufficient numbers to meet the needs of the naval service without causing material reduction in the output to civil life from the Nation's colleges and universities.

7. Develop these candidates into effective junior officers and combat aviators having the character and breadth of fundamental knowledge essential to professional growth as naval officers,

8. Eliminate sources of intraservice friction so that each officer may have a sense of equal opportunity and of "belonging."

9. Provide an adequate number and flow of effective Reserve officers.

RECOMMENDATIONS

10. Select officer candidates as follows:

(a) Retain congressional nominations to the Naval Academy, modified to permit four or more nominations without priority for each vacancy, with Navy selection of the best candidate from among those nominated.

(b) Provide that the number of appointments to the Naval Academy by the President and from the Regular and Reserve enlisted ranks and from NROTC be established as a proportion of total appointments instead of as a fixed number. (c) Four conditions should be required of a student who enters NROTC: 1. Qualify in a Navy-administered Nation-wide examination.

2. Be selected by a State board established by the Navy for that purpose. 3. Satisfy all of the entrance requirements of some NROTC college of his choice.

4. Be accepted by that college as a regular student.

(d) Procure aviation candidates from those high-school graduates or equivalent who qualify by the special-selection processes of aviation candidate-selection boards, involving determination of flight aptitude and physical fitness, and who are accepted as regular students in satisfaction of all of the entrance requirements of accredited civilian colleges of their choice.

(e) Make possible the entry of selected students from any accredited college into the flight-training program after two academic years of college education. (f) Provide an opportunity for selected graduates of any accredited college to be commissioned in the Navy.

11. The Board considers it desirable to provide maximum democratic opportunity, to become a naval officer, to insure the broadest possible base for selection, and to establish benefits for such candidate approximating those received by, midshipmen at the Naval Academy. Hence, the Board recommends the payment by the Navy of tuition and adequate support to entrants into the NROTC and aviation college programs. In consideration of this support, each student should be required to serve on active duty. The maximum obligated service envisioned for NROTC graduates is 15 months. Longer service should be compensated for by increased terminal bonus. The period of 15 months of obligated service is recommended in order to permit a man to undertake graduate work after missing only one academic year.

12. Retain the well-tried pattern of the uninterrupted 4-year college program except in the case of the prospective combat aviator, where age at time of flight training is a compelling reason to break this pattern. Give the combat aviator who goes to inactive service after 3 years of duty involving flying a strong incentive to complete his college course by offering him a scholarship for 2 years rather than a cash bonus.

13. Limit the requirements of the naval science subjects in the NROTC colleges as necessary to insure that the student will attain an acceptable breadth of fundamental knowledge.

14. Revise the academic curriculum at the Naval Academy to give a stronger emphasis to basic and general education, rendering more fundamental and less detailed the instruction in strictly naval material and techniques.

15. It has been proposed that the cleavages between groups of officers be avoided by insuring that all have a common educational experience. In view of the already planned transfer of many thousand Reserve officers to regular