I represented Colonel Mower before the Air Force Board for the Correction of Military Records. Without going into the details of the case, let me say that the Board has corrected his records and restored him to rank. He was, as the evidence before the Board shows, I believe, as the Board found, (1) he was deprived of due process of law in that when he was charged with the offense for which he was reduced in rank, he asked for counsel and was denied counsel; he asked for a court martial, and he was denied a court martial; he asked for a board of officers to be convened at the place where his offense was alleged to have occurred, and that was denied.

He was summarily reduced in rank. I think the Board was satisfied with the evidence we produced at that time and found that the offenses charged were erroneous and had no merit.

In any event, Colonel Mower was reduced from the rank of full colonel, temporary colonel, to the rank of captain and then subsequently promoted to the rank of lieutenant colonel, temporary grade. It took from 1944, at the time he was reduced in rank, to gather evidence to support his claim that he was treated unjustly, until 1949in other words, 5 years.

The Board then finally corrected his records and restored him to rank. Now, he should have been drawing pay of a full colonel during that time.

The House has, as I said, struck this provision which would prevent him from getting the payment due him except by private bill, and we feel justice to him is the same as justice to any others affected hereby, and even though his claim is for more than a thousand dollars, he should be paid administratively and not be forced to come back to Congress with a special bill.

There are other officers in the same situation, and we believe they are entitled to the same treatment.

Senator HUNT. Thank you, Mr. Tausig.

Are there any questions?

Senator FLANDERS. No.

Senator HUNT. That completes the list of witnesses, unless we have some other witnesses whose names do not appear on the list here. Did you want to discuss this particular bill, sir?

Mr. RAWLINS. Yes, sir; and a subject relating closely thereto.
Senator HUNT. How much time do you want?

Mr. RAWLINS. I think 15 minutes, sir.

Senator HUNT. All right, we will hear you.

STATEMENT OF EDWARD WHITE RAWLINGS, COMMANDER, UNITED STATES NAVY (RETIRED)

Mr. RAWLINS. Mr. Chairman, I appear in connection with this bill to request a committee amendment to it. That committee amendment would have the effect of compelling the rectification of two proven injustices of nonpromotion in the Navy under the wartime hurry-up panel system of promotion.

Those two cases of nonpromotion are Commander Edward K. Shanahan, United States Navy, retired, of Charlevoix, Mich., and of myself. Commander Shannahan proved his case before the Board for the Correction of Naval Records in a protracted hearing that started in December 1947, and ended in June of 1949, some 18 months.

I proved my case before the Armed Services Committee of the Senate and the Armed Services Committee of the House of Representatives in the Eighty-third Congress. In my case, legislation as a private bill was introduced by the chairman of the Armed Services Committee in February 1949, which culminated in a hearing before a subcommittee composed of Senator Lyndon Johnson, and the passage of my bill as a general bill in July 1949, and favorable action by the House Armed Services Committee on that bill, with improving amendments, in August 1950.

That bill was objected to on the House Calendar in December of 1949, by five members who were not members of the Armed Service Committee, had attended none of the hearings, and who were motivated in their objection by what circumstances can only be surmised. It appears, however, that the Bureau of Personnel, having been defeated by its opposition before the Senate Armed Services Committee in my case and, again, before the House Armed Services Committee, evidently must have taken some means to endeavor to defeat on the floor of the House what they could not defeat before open hearings of two fair-minded and impartial committees.

Legislation to correct these two cases has the support now of six United States Senators, two from Maryland, two from Michigan, and two from Arkansas.

In addition, I have a letter signed by the present chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, Senator Russell, in which he says that if legislation for me is introduced, he will support it again as he did support it before.

In addition, the administrative assistant to Senator Bridges has informed me that Senator Bridges will likewise support this legislation to correct two proven injustices of nonpromotion.

I have had in the course of the hearings before the Senate and House Armed Services Committee officers of the highest rank of the Navy testify in support of legislation for my long-overdue promotion to captain.

They include Admiral Robert B. Carney, United States Navy, at present Commander in Chief, Allied Forces, Southern Europe, who appeared in person before the House Armed Services Committee, who desired to appear before the Senate Armed Services Committee but a meeting of the Joint Chiefs of Staff prevented him from doing so. Consequently a letter was substituted for his personal appearance.

It includes a letter from Admiral Thomas C. Hart, former Commander in Chief, Asiatic Fleet, in my behalf.

The House received a letter from Admiral Louis Denfeld, former Chief of Naval Personnel, former Commander in Chief, Pacific Fleet, former Chief, Naval Operations, who recommended my promotion by legislation.

It includes the personal testimony of Rear Admiral Denebrink, Frances C. Denebrink; Rear Adm. Earl E. Stone, United States Navy; Rear Adm. Warren Sherman Parr, United States Navy, retired; Rear Adm. Ralph Wilson, United States Navy, and Hanson W. Baldwin of the New York Times.

Including in the Senate hearing record appears a letter by Admiral Carney which specifically says that incompleteness of my record of the wartime panel promotions very definitely could have and probably

did contribute to being detrimental and prejudicial to my chances for promotion.

In the case of Commander Shanahan, I introduced a copy of the papers of the Board for Correction of Naval Records in his case, which caused a member of the House subcommittee hearing my legislation to characterize the Navy Department's position as inconsistent and absurd.

The other members of the subcommittee obviously gave silent concurrence to that characterization.

As a result of the testimony that I have given before two committees of Congress, and as a result of testimony by my witnesses, including officers who have reached the highest rank in the Navy, as a result of the documents I have introduced, both committees of Congress acted favorably over the strong opposition of the Navy Department.

In the case of Shanahan, the Board recommended that he be promoted to captain by Executive order of the President or by act of Congress, in either case so to be recommended by the Secretary of the Navy.

At the time that recommendation was made by the Board for the Correction of Naval Records the Senate was acting on my legislation and passed it as a general bill. The Navy Department used the general bill in my case to state that it would be inappropriate to take the action recommended by the BCR in the Shanahan case because the passage of this legislation would afford Shanahan an opportunity for hearing and presumably relief.

Then on the 2d of February 1950 the Navy Department's representative appeared before the House Armed Services Committee and recommended against the enactment of the very legislation which 4 months before they had said would afford Shanahan an opportunity for relief.

That was the circumstance which caused the Department's position to be characterized by Congressman Cole of New York as inconsistent and absurd.

In my own case there is a letter written by Mr. John Nicholas Brown, who was then Assistant Secretary of the Navy for Air, acting for the Secretary, in which there is the unequivocal statement that my record has no blemish.

Officers of my own class and classes junior to me have signed letters in which they have said that they would have no objection to my promotion and restoration to my original lineal position, but in a number of these letters they strongly urged and desired that that be effected.

I am prepared to show to the committee the letter from Senator Russell, the record of the hearings or extracts therefrom before the two committees of the Eighty-first Congress, and reports by those committees. I particularly would like to read an extract from the Senate committee report in my case.

This is Report No. 562, Eighty-first Congress, first session, Calendar No. 559, June 23, legislative date June 2, 1949. The report is by Mr. Johnson of Texas from the Committee on Armed Services, submitting the following report. I read extracts there from under the heading, "Explanation of the bill":

As originally introduced

this is the bill which Senator Tydings introduced as a private bill for my relief

As originally introduced this bill would have provided for the promotion of Commander Edward White Rawlins, United States Navy, to the permanent rank of captain due to an alleged injustice brought about by the so-called promotion panel system. During the course of the committee's hearings on this bill it was developed during the period July 24, 1941, to August 7, 1947, the socalled selection board procedures of the Navy were not in operation due to the urgencies of the war situation. In lieu thereof the panel system was adopted for promotions up to and including the rank of captain.

Skipping down:

In the specific case of Commander Rawlins there was evidence that he was an officer of excellent ability with a long and favorable record in the Navy. Skipping down further:

Evidence was submitted to the committee, both in verbal testimony and in the form of letters to the committee by highly placed officials of the Navy Department, including many former superiors of Rawlins, to the effect that they felt an injustice had been done. The record shows that with the exception of this one fitness report he had an excellent record within the Navy Department, and in fact was decorated for his performance of duty during the period in question. The Navy Department officially opposes approval of the bill as introduced. On the other hand, there was complete unanimity among even the official representatives of the Navy Department that Commander Rawlins was and is qualified to perform the duties of captain.

It goes on further, but that is the salient facts in my case, sir. Senator HUNT. Let me ask you this. How long have you been separated?

Mr. RAWLINS. I retired on the 1st of July 1951, 2 months ago as the result of the failure of the legislation to pass the House of Representatives last December. Had that gone through, I would presumably be on active duty as a captain, United States Navy, today.

Senator HUNT. You retired voluntarily?

Mr. RAWLINS. I retired voluntarily, but with the alternative that had I not requested retirement on the 1st of July, I would have been retired involuntarily on the 30th of June.

Senator HUNT. How old are you?

Mr. RAWLINS. I will be 49 on October 11 coming.

Senator HUNT. How many years' service did you have?

Mr. RAWLINS. I have had 27 years' consecutive commissioned service in the Regular Army since graduating from the Naval Academy in June 1924, standing No. 50 in a class of 525.

Senator HUNT. You are 49 now?

Mr. RAWLINS. Yes, sir.

Senator HUNT. And no physical disabilities?
Mr. RAWLINS. No, sir.

Senator HUNT. That is what I want to determine. This thing of men getting out of service when they are 45, 47, 49, after we have spent thousands and thousands and thousands of dollars on their education, right when they get to the point where they have some value to this United States, then they separate themselves from the service. You should still be in the Navy and you should still be serving there, to my way of thinking.

Mr. RAWLINS. To the best of my knowledge, I am the only unrestricted line commander of the Navy who was in effect compelled to retire this fiscal year.

Senator HUNT. That is by law that you retired?

Mr. RAWLINS. Yes, sir.

Senator HUNT. Because of lack of being selected, you had to retire? Mr. RAWLINS. That is correct, sir.

Senator HUNT. That is not right.

Senator Flanders?

Senator FLANDERS. I take it, sir, from what you have been saying that your situation has to be taken care of by a private bill.

Mr. RAWLINS. No, sir; it can be taken care of by a general bill, and I have an amendment that can be attached to this legislation which will have the effect of correcting, compelling correction of the proven cases of injustices. I wish to emphasize "proven." These are Shanahan's case and mine. They are not simply asserted and claimed. They have been proven.

Shanahan's was proven before the Board for the Correction of Naval Records, whose decision was unequivocal in his case, and my case was proven before two committee of Congress.

In my own case, sir, the Chief of Naval Personnel, then Rear Adm. John W. Roper, on the 13th of October 1949, told me in person in the presence of a classmate captain of mine that he would go along with the principle of a bill that passed the Senate. That is the one that passed the Senate in my case. But his words were:

Will go along with the principle of the bill that passed the Senate.

On the 2d of February 1950, the first day of the hearing before the House Armed Services Committee on this legislation, Admiral John W. Roper appeared before that committee and failed to honor that definite, unequivocal commitment, and opposed the enactment of this legislation, thereby preventing rectification for myself and rectification of a proven injustice in the case of Commander Edward K. Shanahan.

Senator HUNT. Now, your 15 minutes have expired. We have some other work to get to this morning.

Senator Flanders, do you have any questions?

Senator FLANDERS. Not this time.

Senator HUNT. Senator Cain?

Senator CAIN. May I ask a question?

If Commander Rawlins had not retired voluntarily, would he have been forced to retire because he was over the age in grade?

Mr. RAWLINS. No, sir.

Senator CAIN. Or because he had been twice passed over by a selection board?

Mr, RAWLINS. Twice passed over by a selection board, sir. I wish to amplify that, because that statement standing alone could be misunderstood.

My record was incomplete before every one of the wartime promotion panels, and as Admiral Carney said, it was incomplete in a respect detrimental to my chances for promotion. It was incomplete before all those wartime panels; and the first wartime promotion board also.

Now when an officer has failed promotion before a series like that, he obviously is prejudiced before a postwar statutory board, his position is that of coming before them as having been passed over by a series of boards, and there must be something wrong with such an officer because of failure to be selected or failure to be promoted. I want that very clearly understood.

Senator HUNT. That is now in the record.