« PreviousContinue »
MILITARY PAY INCREASE
SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE
UNITED STATES SENATE
TO AMEND TITLE 37, UNITED STATES CODE, TO INCREASE THE
SERVICES, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES
JULY 16, 17, AND 18, 1963
Printed for the use of the Committee on Armed Services
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
WASHINGTON : 1963
COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES
RICHARD B. RUSSELL, Georgia, Chairman JOHN STENNIS, Mississippi
LEVERETT SALTONSTALL, Massachusetts. HARRY FLOOD BYRD, Virginia
MARGARET CHASE SMITH, Maine STUART SYMINGTON, Missouri
J. GLENN BEALL, Maryland HENRY M. JACKSON, Washington
BARRY GOLDWATER, Arizona
CLIFFORD P. CASE, New Jersey
HARRY L. WINGATE, Jr., Chief Clerk
SPECIAL SUBCOMMITTEE ON H.R. 5555
HOWARD W. CANNON, Nevada, Chairman SAM J. ERVIN, JR., North Carolina
LEVERETT SALTONSTALL, Massachusetts CLAIR ENGLE, California
J. GLENN BEALL, Maryland
T. EDWARD BRASWELL, Professional Stafi
studying the present compensation system that there was not a consistent basis for distinguishing rates of officer pay on the basis of prior enlisted service.
As soon as a man moves out of the 0-3 grade and moves to the grade of 0-4, he is immediately able to count certain inactive service that he was not permitted to count when he was in the lower officer grades. We believe it would be better to have a single pay table which embodies the same rules for all officers and treats them all alike for basic pay purposes.
Senator SALTONSTALL. Will the Senator yield?
Senator SALTONSTALL. As a member of the subcommittee that considered that bill, and recalling from what you have said, is it not true that action was taken by the Congress at that time because we considered that the typical junior grade officers, second lieutenant, lieutenant, and captain who did not get their increased rank within a certain period of time should not continue to receive longevity increases. The special table for 0-1 through 0-3, with over 4 years of prior active enlisted service, was to give special longevity increases to this particular group whose career pattern was somewhat different than the typical officer.
Colonel BENADE. I think that is true, sir, but again I would have to say that if there had been only one table retained, it would lend a great deal more weight to that rationale. But since a different table was instituted for officers with more than 4 years of active enlisted service, that is where the difficulty sets in.
Senator SALTONSTALL. But the effort at that time throughout the whole 1958
act was to provide incentives for the active duty force. Colonel BENADE. Yes, sir.
Senator SALTONSTALL. To keep them in the service. That was why that distinction was made, am I not correct?
Colonel BENADE. Yes, sir; but I don't think it changes the essence of what I have just said.
Senator SALTONSTALL. Now you are swinging away from the incentive, aren't you?
Colonel BENADE. I don't believe so, sir, no. All we are doing is eliminating the difference in treatment between an officer who had more than 4 years of active enlisted service as opposed to one who had less than 4 years of active enlisted service.
It is true that it would provide the increases that you have mentioned, Senator Cannon. That is because some of these officers did not receive any pay increase in 1958 and had to go on a “save pay” status.
Senator Cannon. Would the Department object to keeping the tables separate as provided in existing law?
Mr. Paul. Senator, I think there are good arguments on both sides of this point. We would certainly accept whatever the Congress decides should be done on this matter.
Senator BEALL. Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Secretary, under ordinary times how many years does a man serve between a lieutenant and a major, provided he gets the regular grade promotions? How many years are involved in which he must live in the lower grades?
Mr. Paul. Between a second lieutenant and
Senator BEALL. Second lieutenant and major, under ordinary circumstances.
Mr. Paul. The figures that I have with me reflect total service for pay purposes, which includes enlisted service. At time of promotion to first lieutenant, the overall average is 3 years of service for pay purposes. From first lieutenant to captain the average is 6.8 years of service for pay purposes.
Senator BEALL. Additional ?
Mr. Paul. That is cumulative, so that upon promotion to major the average is 16.8 years of service for pay purposes. .
Senator BEALL. Thank you.
Senator ENGLE. What about these 14 years you are talking about? Did that apply to first or second lieutenants!
Senator CANNON. The example I gave for the first lieutenant was over 14 years of service for pay purposes, this is under the House bill, this is a first lieutenant, who receives a 39.5 increase, going from $380 to $530 a month, and under the Department of Defense's revised recommendation, he would receive a greater increase, going to 47.4 percent, going from $380 to $550 a month by this consolidation.
Senator ENGLE. Did you say first lieutenant !
Senator ENGLE. Any fellow who is a first lieutenant for 14 years ought to quit.
Mr. Paul. Mr. Chairman, I believe my statement was correct as an average statement, but I am now looking over another chart which indicates to me that that may have been slightly misleading:
I answered Senator Beall that the average was 16.8 years of service for pay purposes at time of promotion to major. If you
look at the actual numbers who achieve the rank of major, you will find that the largest number of them attain that rank at the 19-year point. That is, 19 years' service for pay purposes, but there are substantial numbers beginning with the 10th year.
Senator CANNON. The bulk of them fall in the 10th to the 13th year.
Mr. PAUL. Many do, sir.
Senator CANNON. Mr. Secretary, it is our understanding that the Department of Defense is confronted with a particularly critical situation regarding the retention of medical and dental officers.
Since 1950 the Department of Defense has relied almost completely on the doctor draft laws for the input of these officers. The retention rate among medical officers completing their 2 years of obligated service is less than 5 percent, and for the specialists who complete residency training the resignation rate is well
over 50 percent. It is understood that the Department of Defense would support and urge an amendment which would increase the special pay for physicians and dentists at the 6-year active duty point from the present $200 to $300 per month, and at the 10-year point from the present $250 to $350 per month. Would you comment on this problem and give the subcommittee your views?
Mr. Paul. Yes, Mr. Chairman. The analysis you have just given of the problem is entirely accurate. This is a very serious problem indeed.
Ageton, Rear Adm. Arthur A., U.S. Navy, retired.---.
Air Force Association, Gov. Joe Foss, of Wyoming, chairman of the
American Optometric Association, Dr. Gideon L. Lang, of Concord,
American Veterans Committee, District of Columbia chapter, Gerald
Association of Regular Army Sergeants, M. Sgt. William M. Rein,
U.S. Army, retired, national executive secretary -
Office, Secretary of Defense_-
Public Health Service-
*Vinson, Carl, Chairman. House Armed Services Committee..