HISTORY of the OFFICER EFFICIENCY REPORT SYSTEM UNITED STATES ARMY 1775-1917

By MALIN CRAIG, Jr. Colonel.FA

DRAFT

WOV 24 1953

OFFICE.CHIEF OF MILITARY HISTORY DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY fto

HISTORY OF THE 4OCX. OFFICER EFFICIENCY REPORT SYSTEM

UNITED STATES AJJMY

1775 - 1917

DRAFT

BY

MAUN CRAIG, JR .

Colonel, Field Artillery

Office of the Chief of Military History Department of the Army PREFACE

When this study was initiated, it was intended to present a complete

history of the efforts to increase the efficiency of the officers of the

United States Army. In that respect,, it would go beyond the development

of the efficiency report and the evaluation thereof. It was planned that

the study would cover the selection of officers, promotions, special as­

signments, physical fitness tests, and, in a negative way, the influence

of patronage and political influence. The study was intended primarily

for officers of the Department of the Army Qeneral Staff who are respon­

sible for the development of future efficiency report forms and methods

and for kindred personnel matters. It was also hoped that this work would

provide basic information for military students interested in these sub­

jects in service schools and in civilian institutions.

This study was begun in the Special Studies Division, OCMH, by Col.

Malin Craig, Jr., who wrote chapters I and II and a rough draft of chap­

ter III before being transferred to another assignment. Miss Lucy

IVeidman, who edited and prepared the manuscript for publication, made

extensive revisions in chapter III. No attempt, however, was made to do

additional research, other than minor checks.

This Office feels that the manuscript is of value to staff officers

and students even in its present draft form. It is expected that at a

future date the project will again be resumed and the study brought up

to date. P. M. ROBINETT Brig. Gen., USA-Ret. Washington, D. C. Chief, Special Studies Division August, 1953 iii CONTENTS

CHAPTER Page

I INTRODUCTION 1

.II EARLY DEVELOPMENTS 1 Revolutionary War 1 The War of 1812 6 The 1815 Reduction of the Army 13 The War With Mexico 25 Thq Civil far 25 Post-Civil War Period 30 Patronage and Influence 35

III THE TRANSITIONAL PERIOD 1 Development of the System, 1890-1917 1 The First Report Forms 1 Reaction in the Field 7 The System in Operation 14­ The 1911 Report Form 22 Modifications of the System 29 The Relative Organization Efficiency Experiment, 1907 34­ Civilian Components 39 Assignments and Promotions 4-2 Appointments 4-8 Physical Fitness Tests 51 CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION

The foundation of the efficiency evaluation system is the efficiency report. It is important that its function, or mission, be understood and aj-plied by those concerned in designing or using it. Properly, it is an accurate exposition of the capabilities, limitations, and other pertinent characteristics of an officer presented in such a manner as to admit of a fair and impartial contrast with any officer /ri.th whom a comparison may be required, for purposes of competitive selection cr assignment. Too often v/e find the report regarded as a means of educating officers, or rewarding them, of punishing them, or of holding a club over their heads. Such con­ ceptions contribute to tne failure of the whole system.

The efficiency report is not a new idea, nor is it peculiar to the United Strtes Army. The German Army has had an efficiency report system of some kind since the 17th century.* Napoleon is said to have v/ritten

-«- General der Infanterie Rudolf flofmann, Hist Div, USAREUR, L"3 j'i P-134-, "German Efficiency Report System" (Heidelberg, 1952), ch. I, n.3. Copy in Foreign Studies Br., Special Studies Div., OCL'H.

"is he lucky?" in the margins of letter reports covering the qualifica­ tions of generals recommended for the baton of a marshal. Our Navy and Marine Corps, as well as the armies and navies of all modern countries, have independently developed efficiency-reporting systems of one sort or another- iv.any large industrial enterprises have similar systems of keeping track of the abilities and capabilities of their employees.

The shortcomings of the report are attributable to the frailties of human nature. Among the foremost obstacles to the perfect efficiency re­ port is the very human characteristic of favoritism. It is almost impos­ sible for a person to produce a completely unprejudiced report of a friend or of a subordinate whom he dislikes. The ingratiating personality has the advantage over the more distant one, whatever their relative capabilities. Another failing is leniency. The reporting officer, having a commendable loyalty toward his subordinates,, errs on the generous side. In time he must raise his carefully considered grades by a factor to bring the subject officer to his rightful relative position among his contem­ poraries. Average officers become excellent and those slightly better are in the superior bracket. The end result is that all but a few hopeless misfits are at the top of the list, and the system is rendered entirely ineffective.

In the peacetime army prior to the //ar with Spain, and to a lessening extent in the period preceding ViTorld //ar I, the large proportion of officers were with regiments, or were members of service corps much smaller than today and of much simpler function. The. officer with troops served in the same regiment and with the same fellow officers for years. His duties changed but little over long periods. Ke might be detailed on special assignments, but he was merely detached. Ke remained a member of his organization and returned to it. In his regiment he was among people who knew him from long association and who had no need for written records, •S3 filed many days ' journey away, to help them form their opinions of his accomplishments and his shortcomings.

Similarly, the small staff corps consisted of officers who had long served together and who had a reasonably accurate idea of what might be expected of each other. And the interrelations of the line and staff organizations were close enough so that an officer's reputation soon spread throughout the service, small as i t then was. 3y the time an officer had been commissioned for 10 years he probably knew half of the officers of the Army, and his "service reputation" was established and widely known.

With the increase of the Army after the Spanish-American far, this condition began to decline. An officer not fortunate enough to be asso­ ciated with future leaders was apt to be overlooked when the great need for able men came in 1917. The efficiency report system, then in use for

27 years, was of considerable value in overcoming this condition, but the long-ingrained conceptions of the service reputation and selection by patronage, together -with the fact that officers still remain in one regi­ ment for very long periods, combined to the decided disadvantage of the able officer unfortunate enough to have served in a regiment whose senior officers were not of a caliber to advance to high command.

Prior to Vforld :var I the details and assignments for which officers had to be selected v;ere far more limited than today. They consisted of relatively few staff assignments, details with civilian sctoools and Lili­ tia, engineer river and harbor detail, duty at the Military Academy or on the faculty of a service shool, or attache duty. Before about 1890 the list was even narrower, comprising an even smaller number of officers on staff duty. Military Academy service, and a few Engineer Corps officers on rivers and harbors work. Little difficulty was experienced in making the few selections for special assignment in those simple days. Selections for promotions were even less difficult. Officers below the grade of colonel were promoted automatically when their turns came, 'within organi­ zations prior to about 1890 and within branches thereafter. Selections for promotion to the grade of brigadier general and above were usually political matters, influenced in varying degrees by military requirements and personnel. In fact, many officers were, and to a limited extent still are (as in the appointment of cadets to the Military and Naval Academies), political appointees, and for many years any infringement upon their rights such as the present efficiency system would have been exceedingly repugnant to them. Furthermore, the separation of an officer from the service v/as legal only as a result of the sentence of a general court martial, and any conception of discharge for incompetence lay far in the future.

Very different is the Army of today. Officers are with organiza­ tions but seldom, ;..nd then for limited periods. So large is the officer corps th-it the individual may be completely lost, unless he has a friend in an influential position. V/ere the old system in effect today, an out­ standing man might go unrecognized for years, or an indifferent one pass undetected for his whole career, and the service would suffer accordingly. "Jhen the Army expanded beyond the point where the officer corps v/as a close-knit group, the efficiency report and the system that goes with it became a requirement. In addition, the multiplicity and complexity of the positions now to be filled by officers of the Army calls for an elaborate

system of identification and evaluation unthought of in the easier times. The service reputation is not entirely a thing of the past5 it . still plays some part in the selection of officers for positions of im­ portance and trust, and mil no doubt continue to do so. As Gen. Malin Craig told the graduates at West Point:

Your professional reputation is yet to be made. The com­ posite estimate of your ability by your fellow officers is not apt to be wrong. Gradually and steadily your reputation for good or for ill becomes known throughout the Service. No young officer can be unconscious of the impression he is making on others. And yet he would be wrong to govern his conduct solely by the opinions of others. First of all he must to himself be true. Fortunately, by a happy paradox of human nature we best serve ourselves when we think only of serving others. An of­ ficer should- undertake e-sery task, groat or small, with a sin­ cere pride in its accomplishment. Ho should make it a cardinal principle of life that by no act of commission or omission on his part will he permit his immediate superior to make a mis­ take. Once an officer establishes such a professional reputa­ tion his future is assured. His service will bo eagerly sought and his assignment to duties of the highest importance is certain.*

*- Address, CofS, at the Graduation Exercises of USMA, 12 Jun 37. Author's file.

A process or method as complicated and as important as the measure of the relative merit of officers of our Army can not be conceived and perfected in a brief period. It must be developed in the course of time by a continuous process of discarding faulty procedures and introducing better ones. In the present day, when a large and highly efficient army is vital to the life of our Nation, we have no alternative but to con­ tinually improve this system. The purpose of this study is to trace the development of this system from its simple beginnings to the complicated procedure that it is today, as a necessary adjunct to its continued im­ provement. CHAPTER II EARLY DEVELOPMENTS

The peacetime army supported by this Nation from the close of the Revolutionary "Jar until the period in which the pacification of the western Indian tribes was concluded, about 1890, was a very simple affair in contrast to the large and highly intricate organization of todayi The efficiency report system was not a necessity, and so was not developed. On the few occasions when the Army expanded during national emergencies, a simple means of differentiating between officers was adopted, to fall into disuse when the requirement lapsed v/ith the return of peace. The efficiency report system did not really begin until the introduction of the periodic report form at the conclusion of this era.

Revolutionary War

The first efforts to measure the relative value of officers appear as far back as the Revolutionary ./ar. YiThen 'Washington was given command of the Continental forces, he found a collection of undisciplined soldiery, commanded largely by uneducated and inept officers. There being an excess of the latter, he easily perceived the advantage to be gained by thinning out the officer corps and raising the standards. This could be accom­ plished by the removal or reduction to the ranks of the undesirables, but that in itself presented difficulties to the newly arrived commander. Small though Washington»s command was at that time, he could hardly have been expected to know more than a small fraction of his officers. At a IM. council meeting early in November 1775 he told his generals that he would have to depend upon thorn to holp weed out the misfits.*

* Douglas Southall Freeman, George Tashington; a Biography (Mew York,

1951), III, p.569.

The evaluations Washington received on his officers were a far cry from the scientific forms of today, but from them he managed to select officers who contributed their considerable part to the final victory. Some of the brief evaluations carried a good deal of information; others made up in candor and directness of purpose what they may have lacked in extent of coverage and scientific approach.-"- Capt. Ames Hutchins was

States * Win.A. Ganoe, History of the United/Army, (New York, 1924), p. 18,

described as "of a low-turn and had bettor be dismissed the service," Y-hich left nothing more to be said: it apparently was sufficient to the needs of "Washington, as vras "First Lieut Joseph Youngs, a very low-lived follow.'1 Neither of these names appear on the rolls of the Continental Army.-»- On the other hand, 2d Lt. Elihu Marshall, "a good officer, will

* Francis B. Heitman, Historical Register of the Officers of the

Continental Army (Washington D.C, 1914-).

IL-2. make a good adjutant," was considered a good risk. He served as adjutant

of the 2d New York Infantry and of Brig. Gen. Enoch Poor's Brigade until his retirement on the 1st of January 1781.*

* Ibid, I, p.690.

Similar efforts to classify officers, to establish seniority, and

to end squabbling were still going on two..years later. The following

general order emanated from General Washington's headquarters at Morris­

town, N. J., on 20 May 1777:

That the great and necessary purpose, of adjusting the rank, of all the officers, in the American Army, may be affected with expedition, His Excellency the Commander in Chief, is pleased to order, that the Field Officers of each Continental Battalion, do immediately examine, into the present rank, and hear the pretentions thereof, of all their captains and Subalterns, settle them, where they can, to the satisfaction of all the Gentlemen concerned; and make a full, and fair report, of all their proceedings to the Brigadier commanding their brigade: And that the Brigadiers, with the assistance of the Field Officers, in their brigade, do, upon the receipt of such reports, proceed to adjust the rank of all the officers in their separate brigades, and make a full, and fair report of their proceedings, to the Major Genl. commanding their division: That should there be any instance of dissatisfaction in the officers, with the deter­ mination of their Field Officers, they be immediately enumerated, by such Field Officers, and parties complaining, with all their attendant circumstances, and reported to their respective Brigadiers3 who shall call before them all the parties interested, inquire into their claims, and (if they cannot be settled to general satisfaction) make a special, and particular report, to their Lajor Generals. Upon re­ ceipt of which several reports, a board of officers will take a dispassionate, comparative view of the whole, and determine the rank in the army: Until which time, it is

II-3 expected, the service will not be injured by disputes about rank, but that every officer will, by an emulous discharge of his duty, recommend himself to his Country, and to the promotion he thinks himself entitled to.-*

* John C. Fitzpatrick (ed.), The Writings of George Washington from the Original Manuscript Sources, 1745^1799 ( /ashington, 1931-44), VIII, pp. 93-94.

A study of the remainder of the Revolutionary War and the years pre­ ceding the Jar of 1812 provide little in the development of the officers• efficiency system, except perhaps in a negative way. General orders is­ sued at Now Windsor on 5 June 1781 quoted "The Honorable the Congress" as being pleased to pass "Resolves" hardly calculated to insure the greatest efficiency in the higher brackets.* In this, the stress appears

*• Orderly Book, LI (26 Apr to 1 Jul 1781), pp. 139-43, Revolutionary Wa r Re c or d s. Nati onal Ar chive s.

to have been placed on disregard of states' rights and on protection of

the promotion list, rather than on the selection of the most promising

leaders. In regiments of infantry not belonging to any particular state, promotions' to the rank of commanding officer were to be within the

regiment. The same held true with promotions in the cavalry and artil­

lery regiments. This fitted in with the customs of the times and might be undesirable only if the groat proportion of the good officers were

concentrated in a few regimentsi But the promotion of battalion officers

to the rank of brigadier was to "be confined to the following districts,

in each of which, Brigadiers when necessary shall be made from the senior

officer of that district without regard to any particular state" or" to

any particular officer's ability. Again durability was the prime require­

ment for elevated rank.

Following the list of the states, each with the names of from one

to four brigadiers as district commanders, the order went on to direct

that" whenever--a brigadier..should be lacking for any of those districts,

one was to be made from the senior battalion officer, without regard to

the state from which.he came. Again there was no provision for selec­

tion of the best candidate. Similarly, in cavalry and artillery units,

brigadiers were to "....be made from the oldest Regimental Officer in

the Corps respectively." Following this procedure, major generals were

to be made from the oldest brigadiers in the Army, whether belonging to

the Infantry, Cavalry, or Artillery. And finally, ".., all Brigadiers

hereafter to be made, shall have relative rank respecting each other,

agreeable to the date of their last Battalion Commissions] priority of

appointment notwithstanding." It is fortunate that the Continental Con­

gress had selected George "Tashington as its commander in chief before

initiating this plan for command by "Straldbrugs."-*

-»- According to /ebster, a Struldbrug was one of a class among the

inhabitants .of Luggnagg in Swift's Gulliver's Travels that never died.

At the age of 80, they were declared dead bylaw.

II-5 The War of 1812

Few examples remain of the efforts to record the efficiency of offi­ cers of the Army in the period prior to the Var of 1812. Such efforts as may have been made during expansions of the Army for the Indian cam­ paigns in 1790-96 and during the period when feeling ran high against France in 1798-99 were apparently lost in the great fire which destroyed practically all /ar Department records during the night of 8 November 1800.*

* Heitnian, o£. cit. p. 5.

But with the return of hostilities and the expansion of the officer corps the necessity to distinguish between the competent and the inept was a^ain felt. Resulting evaluations may be divided generally into two categories^ namely: letter reports to the Secretary of 17ar or The Adju­ tant General; The Inspector General's reports. An early example of the letter report to the Secretary of Tar is the following, in part, written by Brig. Gen. Lewis Cass under d?t© of 24. Karen 1813, apparently in reply to a request for information:

• •• ()we] should communicate to you our opinions respecting the persons best qualified for Field Officers. From my knowledge of Lieut. Col. Lucas I think it would be most de­ sirable to transfer him to the Regiment of Rangers. His habits and pursuits have been those of an enterprising woods man, and he is particularly qualified for a corps destined to protect our frontiers. I have no hesitation in saying,

11-6 that ViTilliam A. Trimble and Jeremiah R. Munson are better calculated for the command of Regiments than any Gentle­ men within my knowledge. Robert Morrison late a Major in the Volunteers would ably discharge the same duties in this corps. There is a Major Whittlesey, late a brigade Major to Gen. Perkins, who I think is well qualified for a Major. These Gentlemen live in the Eastern section of the state and would bring with them a portion of that influence which is all important,*­

*- Ltr, Brig Gen Lewis Cass to Secretary of Tar, 24. Mar 1813, sub:

Selection of Field Officers. Letters Received. Records of the Secre­ tary of War. National Archives.

Lewis Cass was a man of many parts. He had been a lawyer, rose to brigadier general in the Regular Army, and subsequently was, in turn, the governor of. Michigan Territory; Secretary of Vifar under President

Jackson; minister to France; Democratic nominee for the presidency in

184-8; senator; and Secretary of State under Buchanan. He was a man of strong personal convictions and fluent style.

Since the officers assembled in the newer regiments were not ar­ ranged in order of rank within grades, it v/as decided to arrange them by rank within their own grades and in their own regiments, without re­ spect to officers of other organizations. No provision appears to have been contemplated for the transfer of an officer from one unit to another within grade, although this occasionally happened. As a result of this decision, the following form letter, dated 5 May 1813, was sent from the combined Adjutant and Inspector General's Office to 13 rw^ne-nts and to from one to four field officers in each regiment, depending, apparently, on how scattered the organizations happened to be at the time:

Sir You are requested to communicate to this Office, as speedily as possible, such an arrangement, as in your judge­ ment the interest of the service and the claims of merit re­ quire, of the relative rank of the Officers of your regiment, who are placed on the same footing, in that respect, by the Department. Your report — which may be confidential — will dis­ tinguish those, whom you know to be meritorious, and, of whom you know nothing meritorious — 2nd. of whom you have a knowledge, and of whom you know nothing — 3rd what of your own knowledge, and that by repute.#

# Ltr, A-IGO, 5 May 1813. Letters Sent. Records of the AGO. A copy went to four field officers each of the 2d Light Dragoons, 2d Arty, & 19th Infj three field officers each of the 9th, 11th, 16th, &, 17th Inf 5 to two field officers each of the 13th, 14th, 21st, 24-th, and 25th Inf', and to one field officer in the 23rd Inf; also one to Brig Gen George Izard, "of your late regiment," which turned out to be the 2d Arty.

Brig. Gen. George Izard responded with "... the following informa­ tion relative to such of the officers of the 2nd Regt. U.S. Artillery as I am personally acquainted with. The majority of those not mentioned by me I have no knowledge of even by report." Following were lists of troop officers by rank, with ages, statement of prior service, and re­ marks. These were brief: "none before the war," "recruiting at Pitts­

11-d burg," and in one instance "a brave officer, but not liked in the

Regt." The letter was concluded with a paragraph stating that from the author's knowledge of the officers named, most of whom he regarded as promising and well-educated young men, he recommended their being placed in the order he designated; and thst most of the captains were

"•••* capable of commanding a Battalion with Credit to-the Service."-*

-»- Ltr, Brig Gen George Izard to TAG, 18 May 1813, sub: Informa­ I tion of Officers. Letters Received. Records of the AGO. National Archives.

Lt. Col. Francis K. Kuger provided a summary of officers of the same regiment stationed at another post. He commented more on the ex­ tent of his acquaintanceship with each officer than on his qualifications; for example:

Major Forney — I have but a slight personal acquaint­ ance with this Gentleman, but that confirmed the opinion his correspondence to me to form of his being a man of solid and outstanding, sterling merit, desirous of improvement, and anxious to serve his Country.

Capt. Jacob B. I'on — I know from a personal acquaint­ ance of many years to be a man of merit, sound and under­ standing, considerable improvement, highest integrity, pru­ dent & firm.

Capt. Saunders Donoho — A very slight personal acquaint­ ance and no other knowledge of him, that acquaintance has made an impression altogether in his favor.-*

-x- Ltr, Lt Col Francis K. Huger to TAG, 12 Jun 1813, sub: Informa­ tion of Officers, Letters Received. Records of AGO. National Archives. The remaining 13 officers were treated with briefer observations, such as: "Mo knowledge at all of this Gentleman," "Merely know him by sights" M... there is a general impression in favor of this Gentleman inakirig a very good officer, but I cannot say anything of my own knowl­ edge/' or ''... a steady well informed respectable young man."

Inclosed in Colonel Huger's letter was a "paper" forwarded to him by one of the other field officers of the same regiment and dealing with the same officers. In general the inclosure agreed with the vie-tfs ex­ pressed in his letter. In but one instance was there a derogatory re­ mark: 2d Lt. Thomas Jinn,, -whom Huger had shrugged off with "Merely know him by cirht" was more specifically described "... /yri 11/ not /d"o/ at all."*

-x- Incl, ltr Huger to T'-iG. Ibid.

In a letter to the Secretary of ,Jar, dr. ted 27 April, Col. Simeon Larned of the 9th Infantry had anticipated the request of The adjutant General. He sent a list of his officers, including ten resigned and one deceased, but stated:* "... I cannot decide the Rank of the Lieuts except thr.t 1st Lieut Sdmund Foster novv .Adjutant of the Regt who wore a Commission in the 4th U.S. Regiment a few years time end a reputed good officer." He added that his officers would do well in any order of rank or in any advanced .grade in which they might find themselves.-x­

•--- Ltr, Col Simeon L'arned to the 37, 27 Apr 1313> sub: Information of officers. Letters.Received. Records of tie AGO. National Archives.

- IS- 10 In his subsequent reply to The Adjutant General, the sane regimental commander inclosed a list of his officers arranged according to his eval­ uation of their order of merit and expressed a hope that his cormTiunica­ tion might remain confidential in order to avoid unpleasant feeling. Ke went on to make a correction in his inclosed list: "... that Ensn. Edward Norton, v/ho I stated I had no knowledge of, is a low dirty and abandoned Drunkard in common barrooms, & has actually /here writing became illegible/ ..." Most of his officers he g?ve a high rating on his personal knowledge or by repute, or else dismissed as being unknown to him,-«­

# Ltr, Col Simeon Larned to 1AG, 14 May 1813. Letters Received. Records of the AGO. National Archives.

On 28 July 1813 the Office of the Adjutant and Inspector Generals sought information of a similar nature from the 26th and 27th Infantry Regiments, which had not previously been approached. But the requests were to 3rig. Gen. Duncan McArthur at Ghillicothe and Brig. Gen. Lewis Cass at Ganesville, former commanding officers of the respective regi­ ments, instead of the current commanders.-* Apparently more confidence

-x- Ltr, TAG to Brig Gens Duncan McArthur & Lewis Cass, 28 Jul 1813, sub: Information of Officers. Letters Sent. Records of the AGO. Na­ tional .archives. was placed in their judgment than in that of the present commanding officers of these regiments.

General LaoArthur's response, for the 26th infantry, v/as merely a list of officers in his recommended order of rank, "dth only such remarks as: "recruiting"; "prisoner of war1''5 "not appointed"5 and, in one case,

"to be struck off the rolls." He concluded "/ith the observation that if the President did "... not think proper to commission all the above named officers, in consequence of there being no probability of filling up the

26th Regt in the louver end of Ohio, those to be commissioned will be taken from the first of the list in each grade."-*

# Ltr, Brig Gen Duncan McArthur to T.'.G, 7 Aug 1813, sub: Informa­ tion of Officers. Letters Received. Records of the AGO. national

Archives.

General Cass in classifying the officers of the 27th Infantry devot­ ed more effort to the "•. . suggestions of your own .. . as you may think necessary" suggested by The adjutant General than had General McArthur-

His vignettes of his officers leave little doubt as to his estimation of their relative value to the service. From the easy-going, ineffectual

Liajor Denniston, portrayed as "A good-natured man," to Ensign Behan, "The very dregs of the earth. Unfit for anything under heaven. God only knows how the poor thing got an appointment," he succinctly painted the salient characteristics of each.-x­

-"- Ltr, Brig Gen Lev/is Cass to T.'.G, 15 Aug 1313, sub: Information of Officers. Letters Received, records of the AGO. National Archives.

-ir-12 The 1815 Reduction of the Army

With the end of the .far of 1812 and the usual postwar reduction of the Army, it became necessary to weed out the less efficient officers and to offer the acceptable officers permanent commissions. In March 1815 the acting Secretary of /far, A. J. Dallas, sent a confidential letter to the commanding officers of 4.6 regiments of infantry, 3 artillery corps, 4- rifle regiments, and a few miscellaneous organizations scattered from Maine to Louisiana.* This letter explained that the Army was to be re­

-«L Ltr, SW to regimental commanders, 14 ^ar 1815, Confidential. Letters Sent, I, p. 62. Records of the Secretary of Vifar. National Archives. duced to "ten thousand men," with "Aproportunate" number of officers. He further stated that in selecting the officers to remain, it would "... be'proper that the officers of great merit, who intended to remain in the service, be reported to this department, with a notice of their respective merits, however painful it might be, to discriminate between men who have served their country at a very interesting crisis, yet justice to them, as well as to the public requires, that those who have most merit, should be retained." He requested without delay a confiden­ tial listing of the officers of the organizations divided into three classes: 1st Officers of the highest merit, distinguishing those who are unable to render service by wouiids, or otherwise. 2nd ditto, good, with like distinctions. 3rd ditto, moderate.

The letter closed with an appeal for fairness and secrecy: "... without giving offense to the parties concerned, even should the report be known to them. It is intended, however, that it shall not be known: to secure this, you will mark 'confidential' on the back of the first cover, and then inclose it under another to this department.-*

-* Even at that time the present system for double sealing of con­ fidential documents v/as already in vogue, although not apparently covered by regulations,

A letter was also sent to Brig. Gen. Joseph G. Swift, commanding phe Corps of Engineers and ex officio Superintendent of the Military Academy, -«­

-* George W Cullum, Biographical Register of the Officers and of the United States Military Academy, (3d ed.; Boston 1891), I, p. 52. stating that: "As the period for the reduction of the army is approach­ ing, when a selection of the officers for the peace establishment must be made, it would be desirable to have a list of all the officers now in service who have been educated at the military academy, designating their rank, and if you would do it confidentially, their merits."-* But either

*- Ltr, 0S¥ to Brig Gen Joseph G. Swift, 6 Apr 1815, sub: List of Officers Educated at the UST1A. Confidential and Unofficial Letters Sent (26 Nov 1PM - 17 Apr 1847), I, p.68. National Archives.

II-U General Swift was too busy to comply with this request, or his letter has been lost.

The replies of the regimental commanders varied with the writers, as did those in reply to the request of-May 1813.- Colonel Daniel Dana, 31st Infantry, listed the captains, first lieutenants, and second lieutenants in turn, under "1st Best"; "2 Ditto"; and "3rd Ditto." Following this was a list of meritorious officers who elected to leave the service with the coming of peace. In the remaining two paragraphs, he covered the case of Lt. Amos ViT. Brown, whose name had been struck from the rolls "... for having suffered himself to be taken prisoner ..." If the action that had been taken to restore him to the rolls and to remove the stigna adhering to his character met with success, he was recommended as a suit­ able one to retain in the service.-*

-* Ltr, CO 31st Inf to SW, 28 Jar 1815, sub: Selection of Officers. Letters Received. Records of the Secretary of far. National Archives.

Liaj. Joseph Delafield of the 46th Infantry, also followed the request to the letter, when he finally got to the subject. As an introduction, however, he devoted three paragraphs to the difficulties of discriminat­ ing between his officers and to a glowing picture of his absent and great­ ly admired regimental commander. Then he listed the names of the officers in columns headed "highest merit"; "Good"] and "moderate."-*

* Ltr, CO 46th Inf to Srf, 2 Apr 1815, sub: Selection of Officers. Letters Received. Records of the Secretary of War. National Archives.

II­ This letter bears minor interest in that his signature was preceded by none of the customary flourish of the day. Probably not until 102 years later was an official letter to end simply with the name of the of­ ficer, his rank, and the unit he commanded.

The letter of Gapt. tf.S. Henshaw, 5th Infantry, failed to comply with the Secretary's plan to divide the personnel into three catagories of merit. After disclaiming his unworthiness to pass on the relative merits of his brother officers, some of his own grade, he afforded such information as he had personal knowledge of, together with that which he could "... correctly obtain from others, leaving to the department of war to discriminate, those whose services & merits shall have the great­ est claimo" He then gave a short outline of the military experience of each officer or a brief statement of his characteristics. Occasionally he added the expression "Officer of Merit." The letter concluded with a short history of his own military service and a statement that he would continue with pleasure to serve in the profession of arms should the gov­ ernment find him worthy.*

Ltr, CO 5th Inf to S'Y, 2 Apr 1815, sub: Selection of Officers. Letters Receive^. Records of the Secretary of ,7ar. National Archives. According to Heitman, Henshaw was honorably discharged on 15 Jun . See Heitman, op. cit., I, p. 524.

The next reply was from M?j. James Dorman, commanding the 34-th Infantry. He wrote: 11-16 I have the honor of receiving your communication addressed to the comg offr of the 34th. There are at this post but the following offrs. of the Regt. Capts Kendal, Poland, & Carter, Lieuts ,/ilson, Dearborn, Crocker, Simons, Springer, Taylor, Mor­ rell, Sedjely, & Surgeon's Mate Loring. I have lately been pro­ moted in the Regt and am not acquainted with any of its offs. ex­ cept those I have named L with them but a short time. From the opportunity I have had of judging of them, I am under the neces­ sity of placing them'under the head of your third class — moder-^.. ate,*

* Ltr, CO 34th Inf to SY, 8 Apr 1815, sub: Selection of Officers.

Letters Received. Office of the Secretary of War- National Archives.

Such a letter from.an officer who made no effort to acquaint himself with the facts for a fair report showed the necessity for a dependable effi­ ciency evaluation system even then.

The first third of the report from Lt. Col. Alexander Dennis ton of the 27th Infantry, General Cass' old regiment, was devoted to the tardiness of the writer in complying with the request of the Secretary of Vfer and to an energetic expression of his own grievances. After dis­ cussing at length certain injustices meted out to him, he turned to the requested report. His brief remarks on the officers discussed were per­ haps of some value in the projected evaluation of personnel, but left wide latitude for improvement: "Captain Maxwell is a young man of most excellent Character and will make a Valuable officer"; "Captain Earle is also a good officer he has distinguished himself at Oswego /Fort

Oswego, N.Y-7 under Colonel Mitchell he has a large family and would wish to continue ..."5 and "Lieut. Ross will also make a valuable of­ ficer." On only one does he dwell at any length, covering his touching

11-17 if not convincing qualifications for permanent commission with compara­ tive care and thoroughness: "Lieut John G. Schlotz has always b^en on the Recruiting Service and conducted himself to the satisfaction of every person who had any acquaintance with him he has been very unfortunate lately by being robbed in this city at about 9 oClock P.M. of fifteen hundred dollars he is anxious to continue in the service in the hopes of being able to repay the Government, and[if] on no other account I know he will make a most excellent officer."•*

* Ltr, CO 27th Inf to ST, 12 Apr 1815, sub: Selection of Officers. Letters Received. Records of the Secretary of Jar. National Archives.

If the Secretary of "far had referred to General Cass' report of 20 months before,-* he might have found some modification of Colonel

*• Ltr, Brig Gen Lewis Cass to TJ,G, 15 Aug 1813, sub: Information of Officers. Letters Received. Records of the AGO. National Archives.

Denniston's over«eharitable evaluations. Major Crolius, "••• highly esteemed /by Denniston/ as a man of the Strictest Integrity a most ex­ cellent officer and a Gentleman in his Manners and Conduct" was to Cass "A good man, but no officer." Of Lieutenants Ryan and McKeon, Denniston said that he "... need not say anything more in their behalf, as the characters of recommendations in Washington for them fully establishes their Character." This implied compliment conflicts with the earlier ob­ servations of the blunt and candid Cass. Of a group of four or five of­

11-18 ficsrs including Ryan, Cass had written: "... low vulgar men ... Irish,

and from the meanest walks of life — possessing nothing of the charac­

ter of officers or gentlemen." He had similarly covered McKeon in another

group: "... without any one qualification to recommend them, more fit

to carry the hod than the epaulette." And Lieutenant Ross, Denniston's

potentially "... valuable officer" was to Cass "... willing enough, has

much to learn, with small capacity." It should have become increasingly

apparent to the Secretary of War that more than one viewpoint or opinion

is necessary in the determination of the value of an officer.

At the same time measures were being taken for the second step in

the selection of officers for integration in the permanent establishment.

While replies from regimental commanders were arriving in the Office of

the Secretary of V/ar, a letter was dispatched to Maj. Gens. Jacob Brown,

Alexander Macomb, and linfield Scott, the three senior officers of the

Army.* This letter was in effect a directive, expressing the desire of

# Ltr, S".'V to Maj Gens Jacob Brown, Alexander Ma comb, and Winfield

Scott, 8 Apr 1815, sub: Board of Officers to Plan Military Peace Estab­

lishment. Confidential and Unofficial Letters Sent (26 Nov 1814-17 Apr

1847) I, pp.68-71. Records of the Secretary of ¥ar. National Archives.

the President for attendance of the addressees in Washington to form a board to consider three points, viz: the organization of the Army, the selection of officers, and military stations. Half of the four-page

•letter was devoted to the second subject — the selection of officers.

It went carefully into the difficulty and unpleasantness of differen­

11-19 tiating among officers, all of whom had been loyal and efficient, but it established the necessity for so doing. It stated that the -^rmy was to be reduced from 216 field officers to 39, and from 2055 "regimental" officers to,about 450. And it ended with the following appeal:

Great pains have been taken to collect and preserve the testimonials of military merit$ and these, with all the other documents of the department which can assist your inquiries, will be confidentially placed before you. It is not doubted, therefore, that your report will be as advantageous to the government, as it will be just to the army. A result at once impartial and effective, will not only correspond with the President's views, but must command the approbation of every honorable mind; and it is, in particular, believed, that an appeal may be confidentially made in the performance of so arduous a duty, to the candor of your military brethren, what­ ever may be their personal disappointment, or regret. A few words of advice were included to assist in the conduct of this onerous task:

Where, in these respects, the claims of officers are equal, length of service, a capacity for civil pursuits, and the pecu­ niary situation of the parties, may justly furnish consideration to settle the question. And where neither direct nor collateral circumstances exist, by which your judgement can be fixed, you vri.ll find a reasonable satisfaction, perhaps, in referring the decision in this case, as is done in many similar cases, to the chance of a lottery; or you may submit a recommendatory list, leaving the selection entirely to the Executive.

Reports of the relative efficiency of officers by their commanders were not again to be seen in the Army for many years, although until about 1820, many lists of officers with descriptive and at times very illuminating remarks were submitted. These were apparently consigned to the files with no further action. Bat The Inspector General and his assistants continued to gather much valuable information on the character and ability of officers through their routine inspection reports, how­

11-20 ever little the information may have been used in the embryonic per­ sonnel section of the infant :tfar Department. One such report r^ -i:

. Corps of Artillery. Colonel i/iitchell, the senior officer of artillery at this post has long been esteemed as a valuable officer.

The 29th Regiment of Infantry under the Command of Major Sizer destitute of discipline in general and particularly in the evolutions prescribed for the practice of the Troops. In habits of obedience and personal appearance and indeed in everything which related particularly to Military affairs the same remark will apply, with exception of one Company Commanded by Captain Rochester who merits the attention of his superiors for his industry and application and for the benefit his com­ pany has derived therefrom. As to the merits or claims of Major Sizer he in my opinion possesses none. I think him des­ titute of the qualifications for an officer and I therefore recommend him to the immediate attention of the Tar department. Likewise 1st Lieutenant A.P. Spencer of the same Regiment who now commands a Company which is in the most shocking state. The rank and file almost to a man are lousy. The rooms are in a filthy state the doors and floors are surrounded and covered with filth. The men extremely sick and becoming more so daily and his neglects toward his company are almost numberless, and I therefore recommend him to the immediate attention of the War Department, and I trust this officer will meet the reward due to his services. My remarks in relation to the other company officers of this Regiment will be found in the company inspec­ tion returns to which they respectively belong. ...

The 1st Rifle Regiment under kajor Morgan is well skilled in the evolutions oarticularly adapted to that service. ... Major Morgan has long been esteemed as a valuable officer.*

* Rpt, Capt Nathaniel Nye Hall, Asst IG, undated /about 1 Jun 1814/ sub: Confidential Report of the State of Sackett's Harbour Now under the

Command of Brig Gen Gaines. Inspection Reports (1814-1824), I. Records of the I GO. National Archives. Spencer remained in the Army after the reduction and integration of 1815. He transferred to the 2d Infantry in v:ay 1815 *nd resigned from 11-21 the service in June 1816. Sizer and the more valuable Rochester ;/ere honorably discharged in June 1815, although there is no record -whether this was by choice or by action of the selection board. See: Heitman, op. cit., i, pp. 840, 890, 910.

In a report jated 29 July 1814, listing all the officers of the 2d Indantry, the following entry was made with reference to the command­ ing officer: Richard Sparks — Colonel.— 2nd Infantry — Fort Charlotte — Colonel Sparks of 2nd Infantry is rendered inadequate to the duties of his command by reason of a Paralytic affection of the left side, depriving him of the free use of the leg, arm, and otherwise affect ing him, his mind is considerably impaired. This officer has de­ voted his life to the service, and from his zealous exertions in the execution of his duty from the beginning of our North '-iTe stern Indian "i/arfare to this day may be attributed his present melancholy situation. He is a good man, esteemed and respected by all who know

*- Rpt, Maj Daniel hughes, 2d Inf, Asst IG, 29 Jul 1814, sub: Con­ fidential Report of Officers of the 7th Military District. Confidential Inspection Reports, 1812-26. Records of the AGO. National Archives.

A later report, from the Southern Division, included among many other matters a long list of officers, arranged in no recognizable se­ quence, but in columnar form ?/ith headings for name, rank, corps, station, and remarks. The latter were chatty but sincere. In some instances, several names were lumped together, as:

Being personally acquainted with these sixteen Gentlemen, I am able to pronounce them valuable officers — They are well acquainted with their duty, and willing to teach it to others

11-22 under their command — they /sic/ are also unexceptionable in character and conduct; obedient and respectful to their Superiors; neat in their dress, and conform strictl^ to the prescribed uniform — In a word, they are each of them com­ pletely the officer and the Gentleman.

Generally, however, there was a remark for each individual:

... Although I have long acquainted /sic/ with this officer, I am able to say very little about him — so far as I do know, or ever heard, he has been more the man of pleasure than of duty.

... Is a good seeming innocent raan, attentive to his personal appearance, of good Character 7— a good police officer — not very well calculated for active service rather slow, and not very systematic.

.1. This officer (unfortunately for him) has been laboring under an arrest for several months past, on charges that appears more of a personal nature than from the good of the service — In justice to this officer I am induced to say that should the sentence of the court have cashiered him, the service would lose a valuable and spirited officer.*

# Confidential report of the Southern Division of the Army,'

30 Apr - 31 Dec 1817. Inspection Reports (1814-24) I, pp. 26-36. Record

of the IGO. National Archives.

This particular report concludes with the observation; "There are several officers of the corps of artillery, in this section left out of this report, of whom I have no personal knowledge — as well as several of the Infantry, who have never joined their Regts. Consequently I an unable to say anything of them."

In a similar report made on the Southern TUvision of the Army in

1819, observations included:

Edmund P. Gaines, M. G. Brvt. An Officer of Distinction and possessed of an amiable disposition — but wants energy.

11-23 M. Arbuckle, Lt Col 7th Infy — An officer of correct de­ portment, but not calculated for the Array.*

-* He became colonel on 16 Mar 1820 and commanded the 7th Inf from that day ion til his death, 11 Jun 1851, a record for longevity of regi­ mental command in any army. See: Heitman, o_p_. cit., I, p.94-.

J. S. Allison, Capt. 7th Infy — A good officer. George Birch, Capt. 7th Infy — The same as the last.

Trueman Gross, Capt. 1st Infy — A highly meritorious Officer, of capacity, intelligence, and correct Deportment. Js. Scallan, 1st Lieut. 1st Infy — The same as the last.*

# Confidential Report of the Southern Division of the Army, Oct

1819. Inspection Reports (1814-24), I 6 -Records of the IGO. National Archives.

Aft?r about 1820, the- subject of the relative efficiency of offi­ cers was allowed to laps? in the? ViTar Department. Even The Inspector General's reports ceased to touch on the subject and confined thornselves to living conditions, administrative matters, and state of training, with no mention of the officers responsible.

11-24 The War With Mexico

The Mexican War period furnishes practically no examples of effi­ ciency reports, or cf kindred subjects. Even The Inspector General's reports were almost entirely free from the personal observations ^vhich made up such a large part of these reports during and for some time after the War of 1812. The reason for the lack of interest in efficioncy reports is not hard to find. The Regular Army was scarcely expanded during the war; consequently there was no reduction afterward in the number of officers. The old system of regimental commission and promotion was still in effect ( and continued so for more than 4-0 years to come), and officers needed no files to tell them what they wanted to know of the officers with whom they had to deal. The Army was still a relatively simple organization with small staffs and few special details for specially qualified officers Hence., the matter of selection among large numbers of officers unknown to the selecting boards or individuals never came up. No efficiency re­ porting and recording system was necessaryj therefore none T*jas developed.

The Civil War

The Civil War was not unlike the Mexican War, as far as the Regular

Army was concerned. It did not expand into a great national army, as

it was to do in the wars of the 20th century, but remained a small, well-

trained force substantially the same as it had been prior to the war.

11-25 The bulk of the fighting forces came from the Volunteers, who learned the art of war as best they might and with little help from the professional soldiers and officers. After the war, the Volunteers were mustered out and the Regular Army remained much as it had been before. Consequently, there was little need for an evaluation system. Airing the entire period, and for many years before and after, the files show numerous recommenda­ tions for promotion, both regular and brevet, but with little evidence of the efficiency of the officer except an occasional reference to heroic action. Generally, claims for promotion rested entirely upon the cur­ rent rank of the officer.*­

-/'- See: Letters Sent Relating to Nominations in the Army, 1837-76. Records of the AGO. National Archives.

During the Civil Tifar the main effort expended on the efficiency of officers was directed toward the elimination of the unfit. The first step in this direction appeared in "An Act to Authorize the Employment of Volunteers to Aid in Enforcing the Laws and Protecting Public Property," passed in July 1861.* Among its several provisions, this act authorized

* Act of July 22, 1861, 37th Cong., 1st Sess., sec. 10. Copy in War of the Rebellion: A Compilation of the Official Records of the Union and Confederate Armies (hereafter referred to as Official Records), (Washington, 1880-1901), ser. Ill, vol I, pp. 382-83.

the commanding general of a separate department or detached army to appoint a military board of three to five officers to "... examine the 11-26 capacity, qualifications, propriety of conduct, and efficiency of any officer of volunteers within his department or array who may be reported to the board/' and to annul the officer's commission if it saw fit. In­ cluded also was a provision that no officer would sit on the board whose rank or promotion would in any way be affected by its proceedings and that two members at least, if practicable, were to be of equal rank to the officer being examined.

The boards authorized by this act were a step in the right direc­ tion and contributed their share toward the eventual success of the Union armies. Appreciation of such boards was manifested in one instance in a letter from Governor Tod of Ohio to Secretary of War Staton in Septem­ ber 1862,# in"which he stated that his efforts to popularize volunteering

Official Records, ser. Ill, vol. II, p. 538.

had compelled him to appoint many unfit officers, a difficulty that could be cured only by an examining bosrd. Stcton replied that he held pretty much the same opinion and that he would try to provide the board.*

* Ibid.

In an act approved in October 1862, the Confederate Congress went somewhat further,* but still limited the scope of officer efficiency to

•* Ibid., ser. LV, vol. II, pp. 206-07. relieving the army of disqualified, disabled, and incompetent officers. This authorized the department commander to appoint boards similar to 11-27 those of the Union Army, but with all officers on the board of a rank at least as high as the officer being examined. The officer was to be suspended upon approval of the findings of the board by the commanding general, pending action by the Secretary of War and the President. The result might be either the officer's honorable retirement without pay or allowance or his being dropped from the Army, as the circumstances might warrant and the good of the service require. The act then provided for a monthly report on all of his officers by the commanding officer of each regiment or smaller separate organization, setting forth the number of days of absence from the command, absence during difficult or hazardous duty, acts of merit, and incidents of negligence and inattention to duty. Printed blank forms were' to be furnished officers from whom such reports were required.

In a final section, the act provided for the filling of vacancies with the next highest ranking officer if adjudged competent as provided in the act, or the next ranking one found competent. If no worthy officer were found in the organization, one was to be provided by the President "by and with the advice and consent of the Senate" from the state that had furnished the organization, except that nothing that was contained in the act was to be construed as limiting the power previously conferred upon the President to fill any vacancy by the promotion of officers or the appointment of privates distinguished in the service by the exhibition of extraordinary valor or skill.

The section of this act providing for a periodic report on all combat officers represented an important step in the development of the 11-28 efficiency report and record system. But, like many valuable innovations, it soon fell into disuse, not to reappear until long after the Con^ederpte Army had ceased to exist, "l/hile it had .serious defects, such as the re­ quirement of too frequent submission arid""the limited information called for, it was certainly a step in the right direction.

In certain technical fields, the search for efficient personnel be­ gan to get under way. During the Civil .'ar extensive use was made of telegraphic communication for the first time and the Signal Corps was the result. Those interested soon realized the importance of seeking reliable personnel with which to develop this important new activity. Provisions were published in April 1863 for the formation of a board, composed of The Signal Officer and a medical officer, to meet in "Tashington "for examina­ tion of Officers now on signal duty" in the vicinity, "and thereafter such persons as may be candidates for commission in the Corps. Also to examine enlisted men of the Signal parties on duty in the Dept of Washington, and others that might be brought before it." The colonel and two majors Dro­ vided for in the Act of March 3, 1863 were to be appointed as soon as pos­ sible. Following their appointments auxiliary examining boards were to be appointed, each consisting of a major and a medical officer, to examine, candidates for the new Signal Corps in more distant localities. Other boards consisting of two Signal Corps officers and one medical officer were to be appointed to examine enlisted personnel. Examinations in various courses were prescribed for candidates for commission in the Signal Corps. Thus was assured a Corps whose personnel would be selected on surer grounds

11-29 than those of political expediency.

7iID GO 106, 28 Apr 1863.

As was true during the v/ar of 1812, the reports of The Inspector General contained valuable information as to the efficiency and capabil­ ities of countless officers, but no evidence has been found that this information was ever used in selection or promotion.*­

*• See: Register of Inspection Reports, 1864-65. Records of the I GO, National Archives. In particular see entries for 25 Apr 64 and 8 May 64.

Post Civil War Period

At the conclusion of the Civil Tar, as in 1815, an attempt was made to evaluate temporary officers for possible integration into the Regular Army.-* Lists were to be made immediately of all Volunteer officers, sepa­

* W GO 86, 9 May 1865. rately for each arm of the service and each branch of the staff. Lists were to be arranged in order of merit by boards of officers to be appoint­ ed by commanders of corps and smaller independent commands. Absent of­ ficers were to be judged on the best data available. Lists of officers below the grade of colonel were to be consolidated as they progressed up II- 30 through brigades, divisions, and corps. For colonels, generals, and staff- officers the lists were to be consolidated in army, department, or ,iilitary division headquarters. Chiefs of staff branches in 7asbington were to con­ solidate similar lists furnished by their subordinates. And all were" to be forwarded to the War Department.

But there were no instructions for the procedure by which "division and corps headquarters were to evaluate officers of different subordinate organizations in the consolidation- of the lists, and with no periodic ef­ ficiency reports to go by the process must have been largely by guess. However, it is improbable that the resulting lists were ever used, if, indeed, they were ever compiled. Appointments in the Army continued to be obtained through military and political influence.

The Inspector General continued to amass data on officers, but as in the past it was stored away without being used.* As time went on, the

* See: Register of Inspect!on"Reports, I864-65. Records of the I GO. National Archives.

names of commanders continued to be noted, even down to companies, but decreasing effort appears to have been made to hold them responsible for unfavorable conditions.* Regulations continued to call for reports on the

* See: Extracts of Inspection Reports, 1864-68. Records of the I GO.

National Archives. characters and weaknesses of officers, as in the following, but nothing

11-31 seems to have been done with the information. "Inspectors will report those officers who from habitual interference or immoral or visious habits are disqualified from performing their Mili­ tary Duties properly, .ilhether the Officers appear to have been properly instructed and are qualified to discharge their duties with zeal and ability"*

* Regulations for the Government of the Inspector General's Dept., 31 Aug 1870. Letters Sent, I, p.383. Records of the I GO. National Archives.

At that time commissions were still regimental and promotions were made within the regiment. The officer was recognized as having more rights, and less obligation, than is the case today.

The records of the 25 years following the Civil War provide little evidence of efforts to determine and record the relative efficiency or professional value of officers, once commissioned. However, some effort was made to provide for the intelligent -selection of new officers. An act approved in June 1878* provided for the selection of suitable officer

* Implemented in WD GO 37, 19 Jun 1878. material from- among recommendations for commission. Company, troop, or battery commanders were directed to submit to regimental commanders the names of noncommissioned officers of over two years service meriting such advancement, including a description of the candidate, his character as

II-3.2 to fidelity arid sobriety, his physical and mental qualifications, the extent to which his talents had been cultivated, and his general fitness for advancement to commissioned officer status. If the recommendation was the result of meritorious service, the service was to be described in detail. Such recommendations were to be forwarded with suitable comments to the department commander for action by a board of five officers of highest available rank. The board made a preliminary examination into the quali­ fications of each candidate, and on the first of the following June submit­ ted a full statement in each case to the "Jeerstary of "ar. Names of can­ didates from the staff corps were to be submitted through the corps chiefs in a similar manner. Further conditions and provisions were later imposedj candidates were to be between 21 and 30 years "as a rule"3 written exami­ nations covering grammar, arithmetic, geography, astronomy, history, and the Constitution and principles of United States government were to be given3 promotions were to be within the regiment of the candidate as far as pos­ sible 5 candidates were to be investigated as to their moral qualifications and could be dropped for misconductj and candidates would wear "... on the sleeve of their coat a single stripe of gilt lace, similar to that worn by commissioned officers."*­

* ~VD GO 62, 26 Aug 1878,

The act was further implemented in 1889. New second lieutenants were to be selected first from graduating classes of the Military Academy, second from qualified noncommissioned officers of over two years service, and third from civilian appointment. It was reiterated that the chiefs of 11-33 staff corps y/ould act independently for noncommissioned officers of their own corpsj that candidates would be between 21 and 30 years of age, that boards would be appointed by department commanders to process recommenda­ tions , and that candidates would receive written examinations in the pre­ viously specified subjects.*

* wD GO 79, 30 Oct 1889.

A few scattered indications of the trend toward the efficiency record system that was to be definitely launched in 1890 were evident during the preceding 10 years. In 1880 regimental and post commanders (usually synony­ mous in those days) were directed to submit annual reports on such of their officers as indicated by special study or ability that they were particular­ ly well-fitted for any activity, either military or civil.* These reports

• , - ' J * * • . • . - * ». * WD GO 49, 10 Jun 1880. were to give full particulars of such qualifications and personal prepara­ tion. The reason given for this novel requirement was: "This information will be useful to the General of the Army in making details and selections for duty." Two years later, the new Artillery School at Fort Monroe pub­ lished a list of the graduates for that year, arranged as to their special qualifications in the event of war.* Thus a small officers' efficiency

* W GO 66, 20 Jun 1882. record system began to form.

11-34 Patronage and Influence

Prior to the inauguration of the formal efficiency report system, selection of officers for promotion -2nd desirable assignment depended

even more than today upon patronage, or the influence of persons in posi­

tions of power. Such influence was less often extended by service indi­

viduals, who might have been expected to some extent to observe the best interests of the Army, than by civilians with either little knowledge of

or interest in the service.

As an illustration of this practice, the career of Mai. Gen. 0. 0.

Howard may be cited. ViTith seven years of commissioned service at the time

the Civil Tar opened, he resigned from the Regular Army in order to enhance

his opportunities.*- Returning to Kaine he was able to obtain a re pi™ tint

-*, Heitman, op. cit. I, pp. 5-4^-4-7. and a commission as colonel of Volunteers, and i--as advanced to brigadier

general in September 1861. In Julj 1862, Governor Jashburn of Maine wrotJd

to the Secretary of dar requesting that General Howard be placed in command

of a"brigade to be composed of four infantry regiments then being recruited in kaine. He ended v/ith the candid observation: "This is earnestly de­ sired alike by Genl. Howard & all the Colonels of the Regiments. "-*

-»- Ltr, Gov Jashburn of Maine to ST, 11 Jul 1862, sub: Assignment of

Gen. Howard. .File 638 ACT- 72.v Records of the AGO. National Archives.

II-35 This request was apparently not granted, and in September of the same year the following letter was sent to Maj. Gen. George B. McClellan, commanding the Army of the Potomac and the defenses of Washington:

The undersigned officers of the Brigade lately commanded by Brig. Genl. Howard, do cordially recommend the appointment of that officer to the command of a Division, believing that if true merit be any qualification Genl. Howard possesses it in an eminent degree. During the long period of our service with Genl. Howard, he exhibited in the Camp and in the field, all the characteris­ tics of a true Soldier and a gentleman, & we do not believe any officer in the Service has gained a firmer hold upon the respect & confidence of those under his command. At the Battle of Fair Oaks Genl. Howard was one of the few Brigadier Generals who fought with his command & while bravely leading his brigade was severely wounded. In seeking this appointment we only express the universal sentiment of our Brigade and Division & we feel, that in this day of our Country1s trial when so many fail to do their duty when much is expected, the deeds and character of a Christian gentleman should be encouraged and remembered.

Edward E. Cross Chas T. Johnson Col. 5th N. H. V Col. 81st Reg. Pa. Vol Francis C. Barlow E. C. Brooks Maj 6ol. 6lst Regt. N.Y. Vols 64th Regt W.Y.. Vol /and 34. other officers' signatures/*

* Ltr, brigade officers to CG, Army of the Potomac, 2 Sep 1862.

File 638 ACT 72. Records of the AGO. National Archives.

Three months later, the following letter from the Maine Congressional

Delegation of which Hannibal Haralin, then Vice President of the United

States, was a member, was dispatched to the President of the United States:

We learn that Brigadier Generals Hiram G. Berry, and 0. 0. Howard, have been recommended to you for appointment as Major Generals...... _ ...... -We desire to say that they~'are eminently fit for promotions. They have proved themselves efficient military men in all re­

11-36 spects, and have distinguished themselves by most gallant conduct in the field, in various battles. They may cer­ tainly be ranked among our very best officers, being es­ sentially fighting Generals, and are both for prosecuting the war with vigor, and for sustaining the Administration.

Very respectfully lours A. P. Morrill John H. Rice ..'. John TJ. Goodwin T. A. D. Fes sen den H. Hamlin Fred A. Pike Lot M. Morrell Saml. C. Fessenden -x-

# Ltr, Maine Cong. Delg.t6,-the President, 22 Dec 1862, sub: Recom­ mendation of Brig Gens Berry L Howard. File 638 ACT 72. Records of the AGO. National Archives.

Just how much influence these particular letters had on the •.veil­ merited success of General Howard is difficult'to determine, but they are illustrative of the practices of the times, and one step in the develop­ ment of the officers1 efficiency report system. What may be regarded as a variation of the efficiencjr report, al­ though written with an entirely different motive, was a telegram to The Adjutant General in 1867 from the regimental commander of the 6th Cavalry protesting the resignation of a second lieutenant. "I beg to recommend that /the acceptance of the resignation/ be revoked and /the officer/ be retained in the service. He is too valuable an officer to lose and his place cannot well be filled. I ask this v/ith his consent further by mail, If necessary please answer by tele graph. "#

* Ltr, CO 6th Cav to TAG, 12 Mar 1867, sub: Request for reconsidera­ tion of acceptance of Resignation. File 2118 ACT 94-. Records of the AGO. National Archives. : , 11-37 As a final example of appointment by patronage at this time, as well as an exemplification of the military merits of the Army officer through the eyes of the politician, the following letter to the Secretary of War may be quoted:

We desire to present the name ... for promotion and ap­ pointment in the Quarter Master's Department USA, and to indorse him fully and without reserve as eminently qualified for such position and worthy of and deserving such promotion and recognition. We refer—with pardonable pride as Missou­ rians—to his Military record and faithful and efficient ser­ vice in various positions in the Army. He is a Young Officer of high personal Character - integ­ rity - and efficiency and excellent habits & most excellent family. His father was for years a Representative in Congress from Mo and a Brigadier General in the late war—and is most widely known and respected. We believe that Missouri is in right entitled to have one of her worthy and efficient officers in the Army appointed to this position. We therefore earnestly urge the appointment of /this of- Cicer/ as an act of simple justice to a meritorious & deserving officer—to the State that gave him birth and as a personel favor to

Your Obdt Servants I 6oncur F. M. Cockrell Jno T. Heard T. A. Hendricks _ G. G. Vest S. S. Cox /Vice President/ James N. Burnes D. H. Armstrong^ /All Congressmen except Armstrong/*

* Ltr to SW, 16 Mar 1885, sub: Special Assignment of an Officer.

File 4990 ACT 83- Records of the AGO. National Archives.

The patronage system did not die out completely until 1905 when

President Roosevelt, feeling that the efficiency recording system had been long enough in effect and that the attitude toward patronage had changed sufficiently to justify' firm steps toward stamping out the old evil, is­ sued an executive order that promotion and assignment would henceforward

11*38 be based upon efficiency records, both in the Army and in the Navy. Un­ official matter would be considered for inclusion in an officer's record. Any officer seeking assignment or promotion through other agencies or means than those prescribed was to be "denied the assignment or promotion, and the fact that he had made such attempt would be noted in his record.-«­

* W GO 112, 13 Jul 1905.

This y;as amplified by a similar executive order four years later, as follows: Supplementing orders heretofore issued, it is directed that hereafter all requests and recommendations, either written or verbal, received by the iar Department from or on behalf of Army officers, of ^whatever nature — other than those received through regular military channels — shall be filed vdth or noted on their records. Officers vho do not desire such notations on their records should take such action as may be necessary to prevent such requests or com­ munications being made.-*

* ID GO 38, 3 Mar 1909; W Bui 6, 13 Feb 1915.

11-39 CHAPTER III

THE TRANSITIONAL PERIOD

Development of the System, 1890-1917

The period from the final pacification of the hostile Indians in the West, about 1890, to World War I saw a decided change in American thinking. !iife had reached our "manifest destiny" and, led by men like

Theodore Roosevelt, Alfred Thayer Mahan, and Henry Cabot Lodge, now turned to world-power politics, the end result being, of course, that the U.S. emerged from World tfar I as one of the foremost world powers.

At the same time the Army had undergone a complete reorganization.

In 1903 the General Staff had been established. But even before that a new system had been set up to weed out the inept, the inefficient, and the incompetent. Qn7April 1890 General Orders 41 was issued by the

'.'iar Department, stating the principles and aims of the new efficiency report system:

A record will be kept in the ¥ar Department of the services, efficiency, and special qualifications of officers of the Army, including the condition of their commands and the percentages of desertions therefrom, and from further reports made for that pur­ pose as follows • . • •

The First Report Forms

The report called for by that general order differed greatly from the one in existence today. In the first place, it was in two parts, the first part to be made out by the officer himself, if below the grade of colonel, and the second part to be completed by his post or regimental

III- 1 commander. The former, or "individual report" form, consisted of a statement as to the officer's professional study, reading, or other individual activity, and any business training or experience. The latter, or ''commanding officer's report," covered the professional ability and practical efficiency of the officer; whether attentive to duty and of exemplary conduct and temperate habits; the conditions and state of discipline of his men and his care and attention to their wel­ fare; peculiar fitness for college, recruiting, or other detail; and any special duty performed by the officer and the manner of its perform­ ance. Both were to be submitted to The Adjutant General through channels on the first of May of that year.

The required reports were to be submitted on blanks furnished for the purpose. The individual reports were to cover the full period of the subject's service in the Army, and those submitted by commanding officers to cover the time during which the subject served under their commands.

Department and division commanders were to make reports on officers in their commands not included in reports of subordinate commanders; chiefs of War Department bureaus were to make reports on officers in their -re­ spective staff corps. Unfavorable reports were to be shown to the officer concerned, and an opportunity was to be given him to explain in writing, to be forwarded with the report. If he declined to make such explanation, the fact was to be noted on the report.

By way of general explanation or apology for this innovation, the final paragraph of the order explained .that in making details for special

III-2 duty or detached service, consideration was to be given to the efficiency, zeal, and reliability of officers as evidenced by this record. In parti­ cular, the desire of the Department was expressed to detail officers for recruiting duty who had rendered the most efficient service " in care and improvement of their commends."

Just who actually conceived the plan of the annual efficiency re­ port is unknown. The Secretary of vVar, however, was not adverse to tak­ ing the credit. In his report for 1891 he stated:

The Department should have ... correct information as to the capacity, habits, and professional attainments of each officer of the Army. This information is required by the Secretary and by the superior military authorities in selecting officers for the * varied, important, and oft-times delicate duties to which they are frequently assigned. I found in the Department no system for pro­ curing or preserving such knowledge for use. The personal ac­ quaintance possessed by a few in the Department and at headquarters regarding a limited number of army officers constituted practically --•- the sole information upon which officers had to be detailed for special duty. The just claims of every officer are entitled to and should receive consideration. In order to meet this necessity each offi­ cer has been required, by general orders, to report upon any stud­ ies which he has pursued in the immediate line of his profession or otherwise, and any special work which he has done; and command­ ing officers have likewise been required to furnish full reports upon each officer under their command. The information thus obtain­ ed constitutes what is known as the efficiency rocord of officers. A personal acquaintance with the officers of the Army justi­ fies me in saying that the reports have been made with fairness and great accuracy. The records have been of much assistance in the selection of officers for detached service. The effect upon the officers, also, has been salutary, and must be increased by the knowledge that selection for special service will depend upon their records and not upon influonce. If the system thus inaugurated be continued it can not fail to do much good for the service.*

* Report of the Secretary of '-Tar, 1891, I, pp. 21-22.

III-3 The Secretary was not alone in his appreciation of the system. Let­ ters from the field began to arrive in the Adjutant General's Office, com­ menting on the new device for evaluation of officer personnel. It was pointed out that the value of the efficiency report was very great, con­ sidered "either as a means of information to superior authorities or as an incentive to individual improvement among" the officers, and that "the incentive would be greater, and the information more complete, if such reports were required .«• annually,"-«- so that the progress of the

* Ltr, 1st Lt L. W. V. Kennon, 6th Inf, to Col Robt Williams, Asst AG USA, 17 Apr 1891, sub: Notes on the Use of the Efficiency Report. Files 2557 ACP 1890; 2/6300 ACP 1891. Records of the AGO. National Archives.

Officer would bo muds a matter of record. Recommendation was made that the officer in charge of the efficiency record section bo of ivido personal and official acquaintance in order that he might give proper weights to the reports in keeping with the characters of the grading officers.

The success of the venture resulted in a second effort along the same lines in the fall of 1891. This second report form was accompanied by a letter to commanding officers, expressing satisfaction with the re­ port of a year and a half before, and requesting "... the desired infor­ mation regarding each officer of your command with the utmost accuracy

III-4 and without favor or prejudice as soon as possible after 1 January 1892."* The individual form vvas unchanged from the preceding one,

* Ltr, AGO to CO's, 22 Oct 91, sub: Submission of Officers' Efficiency Reports. Files 2557 ACP 1890 ^ 6300 ACP 1891. Records of AGO. National Archives. but the commanding officer's form was expanded to some extent. /See Appendix kj Two years later a third report was required, both forms unchanged from the preceding ones. By 1895 the efficiency report was considered to have graduated from the trial stage and was accepted as a permanent feature.-"- Both forms,

* W GO 33, H May 1895.

ind*i;yidual and commanding officers', were to be submitted by 30 June annually. Unfavorable reports were to be returned to the officers re­ ported upon for their remarks, which were to be filed with the-reports. Officers.making out efficiency reports were enjoined to "exercise great care to set forth all facts to aid the Department in making a true es­ timate." The Adjutant General and chiefs of staff corps were to go over reports finally for correctness and any further contributions, and transmit them to the office of the Secretary to be filed.-"- This dis­

* Ibid.,• Memo, Actng AG, 29 Aug 1895, sub: Filing of Efficiency

Reports. AG 25119. National Archives.

III-5 position of the reports in time led to the assumption by the Secretary of War that they were practically for his personal use only, A mis­

* Memo, Chief Clerk to TAG, U Nov 1896, sub: Use of Efficiency

Reports, AG 4.6003. National Archives, as follows:

The Secretary desires that, until further instructions from him, the efficiency reports of officers be held for the confidential information of the War Department and not com­ municated, in whole or in part, either to retiring boards or to boards for examination of officers for promotion.

conception that was temporary, however, and straightened itself out with

the growing understanding of the system.

In 19O4-, a larger, 4-page form for the commanding officer's effi­

ciency report was brought out. /See Appendix A/ Generally, it carried

the same questions as before, but in more detail. The first page was

designed to be filled out by the company commander on the subaltern's

efficiency report, and to be left blank for higher ranking officers;

the remaining pages were to be completed by the regimental commander.

The entry by the company commander apparently was not considered de­

sirable and was discontinued the following year. Also, in 1905, the

separate form for artillery and ordnance officers was discontinued, although special questions for them were added to the universal form.

A suggestion was made by G-l to combine the individual form with the commanding officer's, but this was not adopted until six years later.*

* Memo Rpt, G-l WD, 18 Apr 1-905, sub: New Efficiency Report Form.

AG 1006097. National Archives.

III-6 In 1907, separate questions were introduced for field and coast artillery officers (ths two branches being separated that year) as well as for ord­ nance officers, but those for field artillerymen were dropped the follow­ ing year. No further changes occurred in the form until 1911.

Reaction in the Field

Through these years of experimentation, trial, and error in the de­ velopment of the early efficiency report form, there were of course a succession of incorrectly compiled reports, questions and answers, and recommendations from the field with varying reactions and comments from the far Department. All those contributed to the evolution of the system, For example, a department commander wrote The Adjutant General -*

# Ltr, CG Dept of the Plat to to TAG, 9 Jul 1896, sub? Routing of Efficiency Reports. AG 40443, 465940, 500204. National Archives. expressing some confusion of mind as to the wording of paragraph 80& of the Army Regulations which seemed to imply that reports were to be sent direct rather than through channels, as he believed was intended. A reassuring reply informed him that he was correct, and inclosed a copy of General Orders 33, 1895, demonstrating that a misplaced comma in the Army Regulations had caused the misunderstanding. A regimental commander wrote inviting attention to paragraphs 847, 899, and 901 of the Army Regulations, as amended by General Orders 119, year ommitted. Individual reports were sent direct, per Paragraph 899.

III-7 He assumed that Paragraph 901 directed the same for commanding officers' reports and felt that inasmuch as reports v/ere confidential they should have been sent direct to protect the officers "from the eyes of irre­ sponsible clerks." The reply was terse: " I have the honor to inform you that the Secretary of 7ar decides that the reports referred to should be sent through Department Headquarters."#

* Ltr, CO 20th Inf to TAG, 12 Dec 1902, sub: Routing of Efficiency Reports. AG, 465940 and 500204. National Archives.

The commanding officer at Fort Riloy, who also commanded the 4th Cavalry, pointed out that the post consisted of two subposts, cavalry and artillery, and recommended that each subpost commander make out efficiency reports for the officers of his own subpost.-* The Adjutant

* Ltr, CO 4th Cav to T-\G, 7 May 1903, sub: Efficiency Reports of Officers Stationed at Fort Riley. AG 483099- National Archives.

General replied that the matter was already covered for the artillery subpost by paragraph 900, Army Regulations, as amended by General Orders 119, 1902, and authorized the same procedure for the cavalry subpost. A difference of opinion developed between the commanding officer of Fort Lcavi'nworth, and the commanding general of the Department of the Missouri. Efficiency reports from Fort Lavcnworth had been sent direct to the Adjutant General's Office, and were subsequently called for by the Department Headquarters. Paragraph 208, Army Regulations,

III-8 amended by General Orders 121, provided that "In all that relates to organization, administration, and instruction, the Gcnl. S:rvico and

Staff College shall be under the direct supervision of the Chief of

Staff" but in matters of discipline the officers were under the depart­ ment commander. The question therefore v/as, should the reports be re­ ferred to the Department of the Missouri. The decision returned was that "... Efficiency Reports of officers under instruction corne direct to Washington. Officers on duty with troops thro' Dept Comd'r, "-* which

* Memo, R. J. Donnelly for Col Hall, 17 Aug 1903, sub: Request for

Decision on Routing of Efficiency Reports. AG 4-04-4-3, 4-65940, and 500204..

Na ti onal Ar chive s. doubtless left some question as to how to handle the instructors' ef­ ficiency reports.

The General Service and Staff College also found the efficiency re­ port form poorly adapted to its use and recommended that a special form, to be printed at the school, be substituted,* The changes consisted of

* Ltr, Comd'-fc Gen Sv & Staff Col to TAG, 11 Apr 1904, sub? Request for Slight'Change in Efficiency Report Form for use at the School. AG

524036. National Archives. deletion of the company commander's certificate and signature, and the substitution of certain recommended questions for those not applicable to students. The request was favorably considered.

III-9 The commander of a small post presented his problem, namely that of submitting efficiency reports on five officers, of vrtiom two ranked him and the other three had been under his command but two days,*

*- Ltr, Capt R.W Butner to CG, Dept of the Gulf, 13 Jul 1905, sub: Officer to make out Certain Efficiency Reports. AG 1040194. National Archives,

The question finally was decided by the Tar Department G-l, who placed the error on the rewording of paragraph 901 in the 1904 edition of Army Regulations. In an effort to save paper work the provision requiring the commanding officer to make out an efficiency report on a departing officer for the new commander's use in compiling the report at the end of the year had been withdrawn. In a later edition the omission was in corrected, and/this particular case, it was recommended that Captain Butner's predecessors make out the reports on the various officers. A regimental commander pointed out that with regiments scattered at several posts, the regimental commander had no opportunity of seeing the efficiency reports of many of his officers, inasmuch as the channel through which they passed led direct from the post commander to the de­ partment, he invited attention to a paragraph of Army Regulations which directed that a regimental commander should continually labor for the instruction and efficiency of his regiment, and inferred that he could do so much better if he had access to the efficiency reports of all his officers. His views were concurred in by his commanding general but no 111-10 immediate change resuited.-«­

* Ltr, CO 6th Inf to the Mil Secy, 24 Jul 1905, sub: Recommenda­ tion that Regimental Comn.anders be included in the Channel for Efficiency

Reports. AG 104-8663. National Archives.

In August 1905 Brig. Gen. J. Franklin Bell Commandant, General Ser­ vice and Staff College, called the attention of Maj. Gen. Fred C. Ainsworth, the Military Secretary, to the fact that an officer leaving his command prior to the end of June was to receive no efficiency report for the 11 months that the officer had served under him. In the case cited, it made no difference, according to General Bell, inasmuch as.he had.reported on

the same officer in previous years, but another officer serving-under his comuiand for a similar period might have no report to cover the 11 months.

General Ain.?worth's reply, couched in his customarjr lofty style, was that ".•• it may be of interest to you to know that the existing regula­

tions with reference to efficiency reports were prepared by a committee of the General Staff, and that the point to which you make reference is now being considered by the General Staff with a view to amending the regulations."-*

-x- Ltr, Brig Gen J Franklin Bell to Maj Gen Ainsworth, Mil Secy,

4 Aug 1905, sub: Deficiency in ..cegulations Affecting Efficiency Reports.

AG 1042709. National Archives.

III-ll Throughout these early years of the efficiency report system, there was a good deal of informality in its compilation and administration, as well as reluctant acceptance and even hostility to the whole idea. The high ranking old-timers, in particular, attached only casual importance to the report. In the reports on Brig. Gen. Adna Chaffee, submitted by different division commanders for two successive years, the first ignored all entries until the final one, and there entered "remarks" as follows: "There seems to be no necessity to speak of this officer particularly, his reputation is too well established to require this report — Suffice it to say that the Army has no better example of efficiency.1'* The follow—

* See 2118 ACT 94-. Records of the AGO. National Archives. ing year's report contains but one word under each entry until the final one, and there declares, "Remarks about Gen Chaffee are superfluous. His record in Cuba is one of excellent work loyally performed, "-x- Thus, the

* Ibid» old "service reputation" concept stil l stood. The report submitted on Capt. J. J. Pershing for 1902 by his regi­ mental commander states under "remarks": "I have not seen this excellent officer since he was in the 6th Cavalry with me at Fort /ingate H.M. in 1889."* As the entire report was filled in, it must be assumed that the

* See 384.9 ACT 86. Records of the AGO. National Archives.

111-12 regimental commander relied either upon his recollections of the subject some 13 years before, or upon hearsay. And a letter from the Adjutant

General's Office to a department commander states that all efficiency re­ ports had been received from the department except for those on one as­

sistant surgeon, one commissary officer, two cavalrymen, and one artillery­ man* an^ requests "... that you will cause the same to be furnished if_

practicable'^Italics authors/. "*­

* Ltr, Asst AG to CG Dept of the Missouri, 28 Aug 1903, sub; Mis­

sing Efficiency Reports. AG 495264. Rational Archives.

With the establishment of the General Staff in 1903,* an increase

* WD GO 15, 18 Feb 1903.

in interest in the efficiency report and the officers' efficiency re­

cording system is noticeable, although very gradual'at first. Reports

began to be returned for correction and closer adherence to regulations

governing their preparation,* staff studies for the improvement of the

-* Ltr, ,11 Secy to Div CG, 30 Aug 1904, sub: Return of 10 Officers'

3fficiency Reports for Correction. AGO 904-002. National Archives. system became increasingly frequent^ and War Department general orders dealing with "the subject made their appearance in increasing numbers.

111-13 The System in Operation

During this early period, the responsibility for submission of the report became ever more complicated. By 19.01, efficiency reports were to be made out at the close of each year by:

1. The commanding general of each department on each officer of his staff and on each officer who commanded a post or "important camp or supply depot"] and by each officer of the Corps of Engineers in charge of an engineering division "respecting each officer under his orders."

2. The chief of each bureau on each Army officer not otherwise re­ ported upon under the regulations, but reported directly to the bureau chief.

3. By the commanding officer of each post, "important camp, arsenal, or armory"] the commanding officer of each depot, engineer in charge of local works, commandant of each service school, and the superintendent of the Military Academy on each officer serving at any such post, camp, station, school, etc, during the year.

4. By each officer making an annual inspection of civilian schools on each officer on duty with the institution, but not by the P.M.S.&T. on each of the officers serving under him.*

* AR, para 900-04, 1901.

Two years later the list was considerably expanded.*­

* TO GO 105, 18 Jul 1903.

III-U Company commanders were to make out reports on subaltern on the first page of the new 4-page form to be submitted by post commanders; recruiting officers submitted reports on their subordinates5 the commanding general of the Philippine Department made out reports on officers with the civil

government; ?nd many others. A s a further innovation, when an officer changed station after at least three months service during the year, his commanding officer was to make out an efficiency report and send it to his new commanding officer for his assistance in making out an efficiency report at the end of the year. And in addition, the commander of each military division or department3 the chief of each stiff department, corps, or bureauj the superintendent of the Military Academy and the commandant of each service school were directed to forward to The Adjutant General at the end. of each quarter, copies of "... such reports, letters, indorse­ ments, orders, telegrams, or other papers, either of a commendatory or derogatory nature, as bear on the efficiency, capacity, qualifications, conduct, habits, or manner of performance of duty of officers serving under them." LS was to be expected, a good deal of perplexity resulted throughout the service as to who made out reports on whom, and many dup­ lications are to be found of the' post or regimental commander's report on an officer by the brigade, division, or department commander.•*

*- See files 3849 ACT 86, 2 Apr 1903] 19853 PR1} 91, 30 Jun 1903. Records of the AGO. National Archives.

111-15 As late as 1911, the matter of responsibility for submission of re­ ports on officers in the increasing numbers of special'assignments con­ tinued to be a matter of vexation. Individual reports of officers on duty as inspector-instructors with the Organized Militia were to be for­ warded direct to the office of the chief of the Division of Militia Affairs, and the more knotty question of efficiency reports for those officers was overlooked.* A department commander inquired as to who should render

* Kemo, CofS to TriG, 7 Dec 11 and Itr, TAG to officers on Militia duty, 13 Dec 11, sub: Individual Service Reports. AG 1856361. National Archives. efficiency reports on officers on duty at colleges in his department and was informed that efficiency reports were prepared under the provisions of paragraph 8475 Army Regulations, 1910.* In reply to questions by a

* Telg, CG Dept of Texas to TAG, 11 Jan 12, sub: Submission of Efficiency Reports. AG 1867350. National Archives. division commander,* The Adjutant General informed him that efficiency

* Ltr, TAG to CG Eastern Div, 25 Oct 12, sub: efficiency Reports on Detached Officers. AG 1962514.. National Archives. reports of certain officers would be prepared as follows: military attaches by the chief of the War College Division of the General Staff; officers with the Organized Militia by the chief of Militia Affairs; 111-16 instructors with civilian institutions of learning by officers of the

General Staff as required by paragraph 8-47, Army Regulations3 and that

officers serving on detached service other than those enumerated rarely

served under the command of superior officers, in consequence of which

efficiency reports for them were procurable in but few instances.* Not

* Ltr, TAG to CG, Eastern.Div, 25 Oct 12, sub: Efficiency Reports

of Detached Officers. AG 19625U. National Archives.

until 1916 was it decided to be proper for the senior officer at a

civilian institution of learning, instead of visiting staff officers, to

submit efficiency reports on the officers serving under

* Ltr, PMS&T, Univ of Minn to TAG, 26 Dec 16, sub: Submission of

Efficiency Reports for Officers with Colleges. AG 2511428. National"

Archives.

Increasing in complexity also was the subject matter to be submit­

ted in addition to annual efficiency reports, for inclusion in officers'

efficiency records. By as early as 1903,* requirements included all

-x- WD GO 1, 6 Jan 1903.

types of commendatory indorsements, orders, letters, and telegrams from superiors, indicating efficiency and capacity in both military and civil work; information on campaigns and engagements participated in; infor­ mation affecting the officer's character as an officer and a gentleman, such as reprimands, letters, or indorsements of admonition from superiors

111-17 or inspectors relative to the officer's character or the manner in which he had performed his duties3 results of trials by military or civil courts or investigations by courts of inquiry and boards3 reports of officers evading their just debts and obligations, not in isolated or accidental cases, but as a regular or planned neglect.of .their-obliga­ tions,"- and of officers inclined to excessive use of intoxicants or

# AG memo, 23 Jul 14, sub: Notations of Efficiency Reports Regard­ ing Bad Debts. AG 2188931. National Archives. drugs. Officers were also invited to forward to The Adjutant General any authenticated information relative to the general matter-of-their efficiency which might be suitable for inclusion in their efficiency re­ cords.* All of the above information was to be' forwarded to The Adjutant

-«- As a rather pathetic example of this, one lieutenant inclosed ­ in a short note to The Adjutant General a "... newspaper clipping for file with my efficiency record" which described the annual inspection of the Delaware College Caiet Corps, giving the lieutenant credit for a good show­ ing. See Ltr, 1st Lt Francis B. Bastman to TAG, 4 Jun 12, sub? Inclosure for Efficiency Record. AG 1920772. National Archives.

General quarterly. In 1907 it was decided that in the cases of officers temporarily absent on duty from the commands on 30 June of each year, the reports were to be made out at their permanent stations, referred direct to their

111-18 temporary commanding officers for remark, and returned to commanding of­ ficers of permanent stations to be forwarded through military channels.*

* Memo, Asst CofS to Asst 3$, 7 May 1907, sub: Efficiency Reports of Officers Temporarily Absent. AG 124-2109. 'National Archives.

The same year saw a change in the reporting on subalterns; the company commander made out the. reports on each subaltern in his company, and the post commander on every officer of his command not otherwise reported on.*

*- WD-GO 106, 13 May 1907.

And in 1910 it became necessary to admonish against the inclusion of un­ necessary personal remarks in the efficiency report: No entry or remarks that has relation solely to the habits or individual peculiarities of an officer will be made on an ef­ ficiency report, unless those habits or peculiarities are of such a nature as to effect his professional character or the perform­ ance of his official duties, When such entry or remark is made, its bearing on his professional character or on the performance of his official duties will be specifically stated.*

* Telg, TAG to all chiefs of depts and divs, 15 Apr 10, subs Change in Efficiency Report Form.' AG 1619139. National Archives.

Throughout this entire trial period, questions and suggestions from the field continued to result in changes in the system, usually for the better.

The question of efficiency reports for medical officers was at first a perplexing one for the planners. In 1903 it was announced that para­ graphs 838-39 of the Army Regulations, calling for the submission of an­ nual efficiency reports, were construed to apply to officers of the Med­

111-19 ical Reserve Corps on active duty.* Next, paragraph 839 was extended

# W GO 152J, 23 Sep 1908.

and chief surgeons of territorial divisions or departments were to make out efficiency reports on officers of the Medical Department.* This

-x- WD GO 104, 22 May 1909.

responsibility appears to have been disregarded, for the following year an altercation arose in the Department of Mindanao as to whether a junior medical officer should be reported upon by the post commander or the post surgeon. After being referred to the "Tar Department and making the rounds there, the question was returned to the commanding general of the Philippine Division by the 10th Indorsement, inclosing a copy of General Orders 84* 1910, amending paragraph 839 of the Army Regulations to the effect that efficiency reports were to be made out ";.. by each post surgeon respecting any officer of the Medical Department serving ..under his direction."-« This information apparently was still not entirely clear,

*- Ltr, AG Hq Dept of Mindanao to Post Comd'r, Malabang, Mindanao, 6 May 10, sub: Reporting Officers for Junior Surgeons. AG 16024.09. Na­ tional Archives,

for the following cable was sent to 7ashington: Reference War Department General Order No. 84, 1910, is it intended surgeons serving at posts will be reported upon separate blanks by post surgeon, Department chief surgeon and Division chief surgeon?

111-20 In reply, the commanding general of the Philippines Division was in­ formed:

With reference to telegram from your office of 27th instant intentions General Order 84 is to have senior medical officer at posts report on their assistants, Chief Surgeons departments re­ port on all medical officers in their respective departments and division and chief surgeon report on department chief surgeons and all medical officers not assigned to departments.*

*Cable, CG Philippines Div to TAG (and reply), 27 Jun 10, sub:

Origins of Medical Officers' Efficiency Reports. AG 1668999. National

Archives.

The matter required further clarification after the introduction of the new combined individual and efficiency report form in 1911. The Ad­ jutant General was referred to paragraph 84.6 of the Army Regulations and

Form 429 (the new efficiency report form) and requested to reply as to whether the Chief Surgeon would make his report by indorsement or by a

separate report. After referring the matter to the divisions, including

the Eastern, Western, and Philippines Divisions, the decision was reached

that the report would be made out by the head of each staff department or

corps at the headquarters of a territorial division respecting each of­

ficer attached to his office or serving under his immediate direction, and that, in addition, the Chief Surgeon would indorse on the report his opinion as to the standing, ability, and special fitness of each officer

of- the Medical Department serving within the division but not attached

111-21 to his office nor serving under his immediate direction.*

* Ltr, Chief Surgeon, Eastern Div to AG Eastern Div (and subsequent indorsements), 29 Nov 11, sub: Medical Officers' Efficiency Reports. AG 1854762. National Archives.

And in 1915? in reply to a question as to the efficiency reports for veterinarians, the following decision was received: Returned .., with the information that inasmuch as vet-1 erinarians arc not commissioned officers, the rendition of a regular efficiency report respecting them is not necessary. In view of the fact, however, that they exercise some of the functions of commissioned officers, commanding officers should furnish letter-form reports on their efficiency, conduct, and performance of duty.-*

* Ltr Comdt Mounted Service School to TAG, 13 Jan 15, sub: Effi­ ciency Reports of Veterinarians. AG 2246432. National Archives.

The 1911 Report Form

The year 1911 started with one of the periodic drives to reduce Army paper work. This was a particularly vigorous effort with letters from The Adjutant General to commanders of departments, organizations, posts, and stations. Replies received generally recommended the elimination of the individual report* which -no doubt resulted in its being combined with

* Ltr CG Dept of the iLast to TV-G, 17 Feb 11, sub: Reduction of Paper Work. AG 1749060. National Archives.

111-22 thG efficiency report at the end of the year. Relatively few advocated the elimination or reduction of the efficiency report; however, there were exceptions. Brig. Gen. Frederick Punston felt that such reports, depending ss they must-on "... the personal equation of the officer making them, are of little value, and could be dispensed with." Col. James A. Irons of the 20th Infantry argued that the efficiency report should be replaced by an "inefficiency report," and that inasmuch as there were few inefficient officers there would be few reports. He con­ tinued " ... in case no efficiency report was made against an officer, its absence would mean that nothing detrimental to an officer was known,"*

-* Ltr, TRG to comdrs of organizations, posts, & stations, 3 Jan 11, sub: Reduction of Paper fork. AG 17864-26. National Archives.

And Col. E. T. Brown of the 5th Field Artillery advocated the elimination of individual reports on the grounds that they were misleading, and ef­ ficiency reports because "... they cannot accurately represent an officer's general character3 "are, unsafe guid^S' to follow in selecting officers for special workj ?.nd are opposed to that soldierly frankness that should characterize the military-service."-«

*- Ltr, CO 5th FA to AG Dept of the Lakes, 16 Jan 11, sub: Reduction pf Paper Work. AG 174-0815. National Archives.

This letter made the rounds of the "7ar Department, being referred for comment to the JAG, QMG, CSO, CofO, Cof3, SGS, and TAG. The latter seemed a little hurt by 'the views expressed} the rest gave it little heed.

111-23 Most replies were entirely favorable to retaining the efficiency report, but with various suggestions for reducing paper work and im­ proving the efficiency report system. The commanding officer of the recruit depot at Fort Slocum recommended that the question, " What is the nature of your personal and your official relations with the of­ ficer?" should, "for obvious reasons," be added to the report^ that most of the instructions could be omittedj and that the report should not be shown to the officer reported upon, in that the practice encourages en­ mities and makes the reporting officer soften an otherwise true expres­ sion of the officer's faults.-"- A department commander recommended instruc­

* Memo, AGO to Recruit Depot, Ft Slocum, 3 Jan 11 (with reply), sub: Reduction of Army Paper 7/ork. AG 1749671. National Archives. tion of officers in the principles enunciated in regulations, and "In addition notations should be made on the efficiency reports of officers in every case where their correspondence exhibited 'ignorance or careless­ ness, with the understanding that continued ignorance or chronic care­ lessness would not only lead to trial for neglect of duty but also pre­ vent selection for important details and constitute a factor for con­ sideration by boards of examination for promotion."* This to a certain

-* Ltr, CG Philippines Dept to TAG, 17 Apr 11, sub: Reduction of Army Paper Tork. AG 17864-26. National Archives.

extent is an example of using efficiency report as a -club to hold over

111-24 officersj it is certainly true, however, that an officer who does not

know his paper work is less efficient than one who does.

By 1911, therefore, the efficiency reporting and recording system

was firmly established and its acceptance by most of the service was

assured. As has been pointed out, it was, to a large extent, replacing

the assignment by patronage of former years and contributing to a better

officer corps and Army. In that year a new efficiency report form was

brought out, embodying the experience gained during the 21 years that

a report had been used, /See Appendix k^J This report was of a new

format, a folder of 16 pages, 4 x 8j inches, opening vertically after'

the manner of the enlisted man's service record. The most important in­ novation was the combining of the two forms, the individual and the com­ manding officer's reports, into one report submitted by the commanding

officer.-^- The date of submission was changed from June to December.*

* Memo CofS to T£G, 8 Nov 11, sub: Efficiency Report Form, AG

1847058; telg, AGO to all interested agencies, 24 Nov 11, sub; Efficiency

Report Forms, AG 184-7058. National Archives.

* WD GO 84, 21 Jun 11.

The subject matter contained was practically unchanged, although in somewhat more detail. Copies of unfavorable entries of fact were to be furnished the subject officer, but not unfavorable entries of opinion.#

•x- Telg, AGO to all interested agencies, 24 Nov 11, sub: Efficiency

Report Form, AG 1847058. National Archives.

111-25 A division commander objected to this because he felt unable to cor­ rect an officer's efficiency shortcomings without giving him some idea of his own opinion. He stated that he frequently found it necessary to do so, but believed that such action was not inconsistent with the real purpose of the far Department. His letter was returned with an indorse­ ment to the effect that his actions were approved and his interpretation correct. See ltr, CG 2d Div to TAG, 23 Feb 15, sub: Information of Un­ favorable Entry on Efficiency Report to Officer Concerned. AG 2263157. National Archives.

In 1912 a further refinement was incorporated. Each question had space for three entries, lettered "a", lfbu, and "c", for the use of suc­ cessive commanding officers in the event of transfer of the officer re­ ported upon.-»- At the end of the report were places for three signatures,

-* Memo CofS to S¥, 30 Jan 12, sub; Change in Efficiency Report Form. AWC 6485-253 Telg, TAG toCG's of divisions, departments, etc, 18 Jul 12, sub: Change in Method of Rendering Efficiency Reports. AG 1927957* Na­ tional Archives. similarly lettered, with notations of dates during which the respective reports were effective. The procedure to be followed in the event that an officer had more than three commanders during one year was vague, but in those days such an occurrence was quite rare. The report form was enlarged to 20 pages in orde'r to accommodate the additional remarks, but

111-26 otherwise unchanged. In June 1914- the form was further enlarged to 24 pages, but about the only added subject matter was a statement as to the

•efficiency of the officer as judged by the economy with which his unit had been maintained,*­

* WD GO 52, 8 Sep 15.

A report was also required in December 191-4 (as it had been each

December"since 1911, and was to be through 1917), incorporating three

changes., The officer's physical condition was subdivided into height, weight, activity, horsemanship or marching ability, aptitude for field

service, marksmanship, ^nd swordsmanship. For the first time, questions were labelled as to ^vhethar they were fact or opinion. And also for the

first time, tho controversial forced choice made its appearance, to be

immediately withdrawn.-* The directions for this entry left much to be

-* Memo, Actng CofS for TAG, 2 Dec U. AG 2234489 and A",7C 7509-16;

ltr, Dept Adj, Southern Dept to TAG, 24 Dec 14, AG 2242071; memo, TAG to

President AWC, 31 Dec 14. AWC 7509-17; ltr, QMG to TAG, 13 Jun 14. WCD

7509-12. National Archives. desired for"~clarity: "... officers having under them more than one of­

ficer in the same grade and arm, will arrange officers of each particu­ lar rank in order of merit ... in each grade, and on each efficiency re­ port it will be stated that the officer is ..." Here the author meant

that the officer was to be designated as having a given standing among

the stated number of officers currently being graded, as "first of three"

111-27 or "second of two." The early renunciation of this effort at graduating officers within a unit or post was occasioned in part by a letter point­ ing out that a certain major would number varyingly of 19, 22, 5, °r 2 being currently graded, depending on whether consideration was given to the number of majors in the department when he was post commander, the majors of Infantry, the majors of infantry commanding posts, or the majors of the Adjutant General's Department.*

* Ltr, Dept Adj, Southern Department to TAG, 24 Dec 14-, sub: List­ ing of Officers. AG 2242071. National Archives.

In the 1916 form,-«- a question on the loyalty of the officer was

* Memo, TAG to CofS and return, 13 Jul 15, sub: Changes in Efficiency Report Form. AG 2305471 (filed with AG 1830581). National Archives. added: "Proper authority having decided on the methods and procedure to accomplish a desirable end, state whether he impresses you as being an officer who will cooperate energetically and loyally in accomplishing this end regardless of his personal views in the matter." Also a general es­ timate of the officer was required, thus introducing the "Vague. Generality.11*

* Ltr, TAG to Dept CG's, 24 Sep 15, sub: Surveillance of Efficiency Reports. AG 2344121. National Archives.

In 1917 the form was shortened to 12 pages, incorporating most features of the previous form, but in a more abbreviated style. Ques­ tions were transposed with an eye to efficiency, the following subjects 111-28 being grouped for ease in consulting the report? performance of duty; conduct, habits, and physical condition; fitness for special details* and general efficiency. Certain questions were omitted, for the reasons listed: swordsmanship, " most answers perfunctory," "maybe entered under 'special knowledge' if outstanding"5 field service aptitude,

"covered elsewhere"* fitness for promotion," answers generally perfunc­ tory, " "may be gathered from general tenor of report"; questions concern­ ing the efficiency and economy with which the officer's unit have been run were consolidated.-*

* Memo, TAG to CofS, 12 Nov 16, sub: Revision of Efficiency Report

Form. AG 198022A. National Archives.

Modification of the System

Although the System was firmly established by 1911 it ^as not until

World War I that the principle became firmly rooted that every day of every officer's military life was to be covered by an efficiency report, to be submitted by his immediate superior. Even as late as 1914, the commanding general of the Hawaiian Department took the following viewi

Due to the brief interval of time remaining before my departure pursuant to telegraphic instruction from the War Department of this date, efficiency reports will not be rendered by me for the period January 1 to January 23, 1914, on the officers, .enumerated in Section a_, paragraph 846, Army Regulations. My views concerning these officers as expres­ sed in efficiency reports for the period ending December 31, 1913, have undergone no change. There have been no changes

111-29 in the commissioned personnel concerned during this brief period.-*

* Ltr, CG Hawaiian Dept to TAG, 17 Jsn 14., sub: Submission of Efficiency Reports, AG 2122713. National Archives.

In order to clarify to some extent in the minds of the users the fundamental purpose of the efficiency report, The Adjutant General had found it necessary in 1912 to send the following telegram to all officers and headquarters concerned:

It having been observed that some efficiency reports reach­ ing this office contain recommendations for action by the De­ partment with respect to matters reported therein, the Secretary of War directs that you be instructed as follows: As the sole purpose of efficiency reports is to enable the Department to form a true estimate of the standing, ability and special fitness of officers, and as the information contained in them is intended for entry on the compiled efficiency records of officers, thos"e reports should not be used to convey recommenda­ tions for action by the Department on matters reported in them, and no action ordinarily will be taken by the Department on such recommendations. If any matter referred to in an efficiency re­ port is of such nature as to require that it be brought to the attention of the Department for its action thereon, the facts, with proper recommendations, will be made the subject of a separate communication.#

* Telg, TAG to all interested authorities, 27 Feb 12, sub.' Recom­ mendations in Efficiency Reports. AG 1884-321. National Archives.

Late in 1912, the Acting Chief of Staff requested a reconsideration of the efficiency report system by The Adjutant General,* including a

* Memo, Actng CofS to TAG, 29 Nov 12, sub: Reconsideration of Efficiency Report System, AG 1980224; Memo, Misc Div, AGO for TAG, 16 Dec 12, sub: History of and Remarks concerning Efficiency Report System. AG 1980224,. National Archives. 111-30 study of the systems used in the Navy, particularly the fact that Naval

officers were permitted to examine their own reports. Thus cuod, The

Adjutant General responded with recommendations incorporating most of

the features of the Navy report system, including: inspection of records

by officers concerned at all times; elimination of reports by company

commanders and return to reports by regimental and post commanders only;

submission of reports to officers reported on, and his reply to unsatis­

factory statements of fact; and elimination of complimentary?- letters from

outside sources.* A study of the efficiency system of the Navy and Marine

* Memo, TAG to CofS, 17 Dec 12, sub: Efficiency Reports of Officers.

AG 1980224- National Archives.

Corps, as well as those of various foreign armies, 'vas subsequently re­

quested of the Army War College.-*

# Memo, Actng.CofS to Pros AWC, 14 May 13, sub: Efficiency Methods

in Foreign Armies. 'AWC 7509-2. Records of WDGS. National Archives.

The results of this study were submitted to the Chief of Staff after

eight months,*- in the form of a 13 page report whose main recommendations

*- Memo, Ch WCD to CofS, 22 Jan 14, sub: Efficiency Records of

Officers. AWC 7509-9, AG 1980224. National Archives. were , as briefly, as-follows: that the current form was generally satisfactory; that replies be labelled as to whether fact or opinion;

111-31 that wording of certain questions and instructions be changed for greater clarity; that no further question be added concerning performance on maneuvers but that an addition bo made to the Regulations to cover ef­ ficiency reports during temporary command of a brigade or division; that subalterns continue to be reported on by company commanders3 that officers be not permitted to see their reports, but that they be supplied with copies of any commendatory or derogatory matter appended thereto3 that official matter only be appended to the report3 and that no attempt bo made to express the efficiency of an officer by "... a system of ratings."

The Chief of Staff transmitted the,.study to The Adjutant General, with instructions to call on chiefs of staff corps and departments for suggestions for improvements in the report form and in the disposition and handling of it.*- In reply, the Judge Advocate General suggested:

# Memo, CofS to TAG, 26 Jan 1/+, subr Officers' Efficiency Reports. AG 2121277 (filed with AG 1830581). National Archives.

... in view of the fact that examining boards have here­ tofore largely based their findings upon the spurt that an officer would naturally make in passing an examination, that the considera­ tion of the Committee at the War College be given to attaching great weight to the general efficiency of the officer as deter­ mined by the official efficiency reports and efficiency record furnished the board by the War Department. He states that he con­ sidered that this should count at least 75 percent of the total value of the examination.*

*- Memo, Secy GS to CofS, 4- Feb 14, sub: Efficiency Reports versus

Examinations-for Promotion. AWC 8213-29. Records of WDGS. National

Archives,

111-32 The final results of -the study were the rewording of the for^i to

s'how which questions were fact and which were opinion, and the more spe­

cific rewording of a few questions and remarks.* In addition, it was

* Memo, CofS to TAG , 12 Mar 14, sub: Change in AGO Form 429 (Of­

ficers1 Efficiency Report). AG 1980224. National Archives.

decreed that entries were to be initialled by officers; reports and letters

concerning the efficiency of the officer were to be attached to efficiency

reports,- and copies of all except matters of opinion were to be furnished

the officer; notations of requests from other than official sources were not to be entered in efficiency records; officers might see their effi­

ciency records, but would not communicate theron except to correct a misstatement of fact or clerical error; an officer of the highest character

and discrimination was to be placed in charge of efficiency reports by

The Adjutant General; officers not living in Washington -would no longer

be furnished with extracts of their records upon application; and finally

that The Adjutant General was charged with the compilation and custody

of efficiency records of officers of the Army, and all such records were

to bo transmitted to his office.*

* Memo, CofS to TAG, 12 Mar 14. AG 1980224, AIC 7509-9; memo, CofS

to TAG, 21 Mar 14. AG 1980224; memo, CofS to TAG, 10 Apr 14. AG

1980224-D; all sub: Officers' Efficiency Reports. National Archives,

See also: W Bui 15, 14.

111-33 Entry under heading "f", concerning the special knowledge of any particular line of work that the officer might have, apparently was ignored by most reporting officers. The Adjutant General pointed out to all comruanders that this entry was important in enabling the War De­ partment to form an estimate of the officer for various duties, and en­ joined all reporting officers to take particular pains to inform them­ selves of their officers' capabilities in such matters. He further in­ structed the commanders of higher echelons to examine reports to ascer­ tain if these instructions were being complied with and to add any fur­ ther information that they might have on the subject.*

-x- Ltr, TiG to dept comd'rs, 5 Dec 14-, sub: Entries under heading "f" of Efficiency Reports. AG 2234450, AWC 8027-6. National Archives.

During this period, an independent study of the efficiency system was being conducted as one of many activities by special agents of the President.* Resulting recommendations included the substitution of

* H. Doc. 1252, 62d Cong., 3d Sess., "Report of the U.S. President's Commission on Economy and Efficiency," 8 Jan 13, pp. 203-06.

8 x 11 in. cards for the current efficiency report forms, with a compli­ cated and vaguely described system of symbols, flags, and colors. The end result would have been elimination of selection of officers as in­ fluenced by the personal acquaintanceship of members of boards and the substitution of impersonal reference to the cards; also, it was designed to reduce the required number of clerks from nine to two, with a result­ ing saving of 78 hundred dollars a year. No action appears to have been taken on these recommendations. III-33a The assembling of a division at Texas City in 1914 for possible border service brought with it some problems concerning efficiency re­ ports. The first concerned a brigade commander \vho made a practice of entering on officers' efficiency reports his c-stimates of their wives.

The division commander recommended "... that he be advised in future to confine his reports to the officers themselves."* Shortly after, the

* Ltr, CG 2d Div to TAG, 17 Jan 1-4, sub: Mention of Wives on

Officers' Efficiency Reports. AG 2118555. National Archives. division commander requested advice as to whether efficiency reports on brigade commanders were expected,* The Chief of Staff decided that,

* Telg, CG 2d Div to T-G, 18 Jan 14, sub: Efficiency Reports on

Brigade Commanders, AG 2117357. National Archives. although not previously .'required, they should be thereafter.*

* Ibid. See also: AR, par 829, 1913, corrected to 25 Apr 17.

The Relative Organizational Efficiency Experiment, 1907

'At the- same time that the efficiency report system was being tried, the Assistant-Chief of Staff devised a plan whereby the relative effi­ ciency of organizations of the line might be determined, as a means of increasing the general combat level of organizations through competition.*

* Memo Asst CofS to Actng SW, 11 Sep 1907, sub: Relative Efficiency of Organizations, AG 1288414. National Archives.

111-34 Comparisons were to be made on special forms of the relative merits of companies within battalions, battalions within regiments, and regiments within departments, divisions, or brigades. Comparative ratings were to be given in various categories, enabling the subordinate commander to observe, through the eyes of his immediate superior, not only where his organization stood with relation to the similar organizations with which his was associated, but- also in what subjects his unit might be deficient. A majority of officers consulted in the matter recommended filing such reports in department headquarters; a minority preferred that they be filed in Washington; the Chief of Staff agreed with the latter.

A company commander who also commanded the battalion was not to report on his own company; and similarly with a battalion commander in temporary command of a regiment or a regimental commander acting as department, division, or brigade commander. Units were to be listed in order of merit, and grades of "excellent,"'Very good," and below were to be entered in each of the various categories in which organizations were rated. Competitive drills or exercises were authorized for the benefit of the commander making the report."- Categories to be graded

* ID GO 232, 15 Nov 1907. were: garrison training, field training, discipline, clothing, barracks, equipment, stables and horses, mosses, and numbers of desertions. There were also columns for the designation of the organizations, names of com­ manders, and-remarks.. Reports were to be rendered quarterly on companies, troops, and batteries] semiannually on battalions and' Coast Artillery

111-35 posts; and annually on regiments and artillery districts.-*

-* Report Form 331, submitted for period ending 31 Mar 1909. AG

1442982. National Archives.

The venture was not an unqualified success. Efforts were made by individual officers through private studies to improve the plan, but with little result. The commanding officer of the 6th Cavalry submitted suggested changes almost immediately.*- Shortly after, another cavalry

-* Ltr, Actng CO 6th Cav to TAG, 4 Dec 1907, sub: Changes in Com­ parative Unit Reporting. AG 1313095 (filed with AG 1288414). National

Archives.

The four points made by Maj John H Boacom were (1) A numerical value

should be given to each subject in which the units ware graded. Four units could be rated in any order by giving slightly different weights

to the different subjects, and, as a result, personal preference of the rater would invariably influence the ratings; (2) He deplored the "forced

choice" principle, without calling it by that name, in which units wore

listed from best to worst, when they might be very near each other in excellence; (3) In case of detached units, the rater was not in a posi­

tion to compare absent ones with those under his daily supervision; (4)

No provision existed to clear the commander of blame for a low rating if the clothing and equipment wore unsatisfactory through no fault of his own, nor to differentiate between one unit having high-caliber noncom­ missioned officers with another not so favored.

111-36 regimental commander recommended that instead of making a comparative listing in the first column, followed by adjectival ratings in succeed­ ing columns, it would be better to arrive at the relative listing from some prescribed evaluation of the ratings.* Shortly after, the follow­

* Ltr, CO 11th Cav to AG, Army of Cuban Pacification, 15 Feb 1908, sub: Improvements in Comparative Rating of Units. AG 1355764 (filod with AG 1288^14). National Archives. Tho lottor was filod by TAG, W for later consideration, together with an obscure discussion in an indorsement by the Army of Pacification which entirely missed tho point and counselled against 'fnumorical markings upon organizations," ing indorsement was received from the Commanding General of the Department of Luzon? ",.. a careful examination of tho report in general convinces me they are far less valuable than the report of inspection by the Inspector General's Department as a basis for judging the relative efficiency of or gani za ti ons •" *

•* Comparative unit report, CO, 1st Sqn, 1st Cav, 31 Mar 1908. AG 1386015. National Archives.

By July 1908 the War Department v:as distinctly on the defensive in tho matter* In a letter to a department commander, The Adjutant General explained at some length that the whole thing was an experiment and that all reports on its operations wore being filad for future reference.*

* Ltr, CG, Dept Colo to TAG & reply, 23 Jul 1908, sub: Revocation of GO 232, 1907. AG 1406341 (filed with AG 1288414). National Archives. 111-37 As tin»o vjent on, the reports grew more and more perfunctory and careless, with decreasing effort on the part of the raters to differentiate between units or the subjects in which they were rated.#

# See AG 1442982] AG 1288414\ AG 1386015. National Archives.

In July 1910 the Acting Chief of Staff made the following appraisal

of the matter:

General Orders No. 232, War Department, November 15,1907, which requires reports as to the comparative efficiency of Army organizations, has now been in operation three years. While the reports on this order are not ver.y numerous, none of them favor a continuance of the order as it now stands. During the three years of its operation, the Acting Chief of Staff has commanded several departments, and has never known of any commanding officer to approve it or find any practi­ cable way of making reports with justice to all, These re­ ports are put to no use whatever at the War Department, and if they have any tendency whatever it would be one to create an unwholesome rivalry •«• It is believed that the reports of Inspectors General and Department Commanders on the ab­ solute efficiency of commands would answer all the purposes. It is recommended that this order be revoked.#

* Memo, Actng CofS for Actng SW, 1 Jul 10, sub: Revocation of W GO

232, 1907. AG 1288414. National Archives.

Upon the concurrence of the Acting Secretary of

a week later. »­

•* WD GO.130, .9_Jul-.10j AG 12884H; AG 1675561. National Archives.

-•• Six months later an effort was made by the 7ar Department, to insure

the proficiency of field artillery batteries prior to firing by a

thorough inspection in all matters pertaining to the conduct of fire by

111-38 a competent officer not connected with the battery. The battery was not to fire if not considered proficient, and responsibility for poor conditions was to be noted in the efficiency reports of the officers concerned.-* This directive carried no hint of the forced choice and

-x- Ltrs, TAG to dept comdrs, 20 Feb 11, sub: Inspection of FA batteries. AG 1750625. National /Archives. only inferentially of comparison with other units. It was received without comment by units affected.

Civilian Components

Applications of Volunteer officers for commissions in the Regular Army in 1899 contained but scant information: name,, rank, Volunteer or­ ganization, record ('excellent," or other adjectival rating), disability at muster out (if any), residence, recommended by (usually a congressman or governor).* Efforts were made within the War Department in 1900

•* See: Applications for Commissions, 1899* Records of the AGO.

National Archives. to locate efficiency reports on Volunteer officers supposed to have been made during the Spanish War, «- but without success.**­

* Memo, Asst AG to Chief Clerk, 14 Feb 1900, sub: Efficiency Reports of Volunteer Officers. AG 310392. National Archives, ±__ -**- Memo, Record & Pension Office /probably to TAG/, 19 Jul 1902, sub: Efficiency Reports of Volunteer Officers, jVar.-with Spain. General Infor­ mation and Precedent File 1890-1907. .Records of the AGO.""'tfatl'&nal Archives.

iii-39 By 1903 carded records had been collected for staff officers of Volunteers, bearing hardly more information than the applications for commissions four-years earlier. These had entries for name, rank, branch, date of appointment, place and date of acceptance, date confirmed, AGO file number, source, date and place of birth, residence, and date and authority of discharge. There appeared no mention of efficiency or man­ ner of performance of duty,*

*- Carded Records Relating to Staff Officers of Volunteers; Spanish- AmericarTWar and Philippine Insurrection 1898-1903. Records of the AGO. National Archives.

Nothing appears again in the matter until 1910 when Maj. Gen. F. D. Grant recommended that efficiency reports be rendered on Militia officers after the Pine Camp maneuvers of that year. The matter was allowed to lapse, and was reintroduced again in 1914- by Col. E. S. Greble of the General Staff. The plan was turned down on the grounds that the Militia Bureau had on file adequate information respecting its officers•*

* Memo, Ch WCD to CofS, 20 Jan 14, sub: Reports on Efficiency of

Regular and Militia Officers at I.Ianuevers. AYfC 7509-8, AWC 7509-7,

A7TCJ 7509-9. Records of WDGS. National Archives. r From 1914 to 1917, records were kept of prospective officer material discovered in the colleges. The form contained more information than those so far examined, but was still far from informative by present-day standards. It contained space for the following entries: name, home and

111-40 business addresses, college attended, year of graduation, age at graduation, number of years under military instruction, highest rank held, branch of service best fitted for, rank for which recommended, whether willing to serve as a reserve officer, name of reporting officer, date of preceding report, and remarks (under which usually appeared an adjectival efficiency rating),*

* Record of "Distinguished" Cadets 1914-1917. Records of the AGO. fational Archives.

Efficiency reports for National Guard officers were finally inaugurat­ ed in 1916, with a special form to be used by inspectors, inspector-instruc­ tors, and other Regular officers on duty with the Guard.*

* Ltr, Ch Militia Bureau to T.AG, 7 Aug 16, sub: Special Efficiency Report Form for National Guard Officers. AG 2431663 (filed with AG 2450735). National Archives.

By the middle of 1916 it had become apparent that something had to be done to furnish officers for the coming emergency. Section 53 of the National Defense Act, approved on 3 June, directed that The Adjutant General secure and maintain information of individuals qualified for ap­ pointment as officers, by virtue of former military service. Reports were to be made semiannually by Regular ^rmy commanders,. National Guard connnanders when federalized, department commanders, Army officers on duty with colleges, and camp commanders of training camps. Eligibility was limited to citizens of good moral character, sufficient education and military training, physical fitness, and age exceeding 21 years,

111-41 Eligibility terminated for succeeding ranks at graduated ages of from 32 for second lieutenants to 45 for majors in the line, the Adjutant Gen­ eral's Department, and the Inspector General's Department, but no age limit for the other staff branches „ Veterans of the Spanish-American '.'far of captain's rank might be listed for the grade of major. Amount of service in the Regular Army, National Guard, educational institutions under Regular officers, or training camps, with various grades attained therein, were specified for eligibility to the different grades.*

* W GO 37, 24 Aug 16.

YiTith this information as a basis for its commissioned expansion, the Army faced World ?Jar I..

Assignments and Promotions

The introduction of the efficiency report in 1890 was made necessary by the conditions which also brought about a change from regimental to branch promotions. General Orders 116 stated:

o.o hereafter promotion to every grade in the Army below the rank of brigadier general, throughout each arm, corps, or department of the service shall, subject to the examination hereinafter provided for, be made according to seniority in the next lower grade of that arm, corps, or department: pro­ vided, That in the line of the Army all officers now above the grade of second lieutenant shall, subject to such examination, be entitled to promotion in accordance with existing laws and regulations.*

WD GO 116, 7 Oct 1890.

111-42 The order further explained that officers were to be assigned to regiments and transferred from one regiment to another as the needs of the service might require, and that thereafter all appointments in the line of the Army- were to be by commission in an arm of the service and not in any particular regiment. The President was to prescribe a system of examination for all officers below the rank of major to determine their fitness for promotion. Examina­ tions y/ere to be waived for officers who had passed a satisfactory examina­ tion prior to the passage of the act. If an officer failed to pass the ex­ amination, the officer below him in rank, if qualified, would receive the promotion. An officer failing his examination by reason of physical dis­ ability in line of duty was to be retired with rank'11"... to which his senior­ ity entitled him," which probably meant the grade to which he sought promo­ tion. Having failed for any other reason, he was to be suspended from pro­ motion for one year, then reexamined, and in case of failure again was to be honorably discharged with one year's pay. Officers who had been appoint­ ed to the Army from civil life, or who had been "„.. officers of volunteers only," or officers of Militia in the United States service, or who had been enlisted men in regular or volunteer service in the Army, Navy, or Marine Corps during the Civil War v*rere to be examined by boards composed only of similar officers, and for fitness for practical service rather than scien­ tific or technical knowledge. In case of failure in the reexamination, they were to be retired.

According to the. Secretary of War, " Thf> necessary preparation for ex­ amination has stimulated professional study throughout the Army0 From the progressive improvement apparent in the records of examining boards, it is

.. -Ill-4-3 believed that the investigations necessary to qualify under the new require­ ments will result in the most gratifying'proficiency, especially in the com­ batant arms of the service."*

* Report of the Secretary of War. 1891, I, p. 20.

For some years after the inauguration of the system, its"operation was rather vague and haphazard.* Theoretical written examinations covered guard

* For record of examination for promotion, s*e 38851 PRD 92 and AG 13890. National Archives.

duty, military law, signalling, drill regulations, hippology, fire disci­ pline, exterior ballistics, minor tactics, topography and Army regulations.*

* 7JD GO 41, 24 Jun 1897.

Oral and practical examinations were held in drill, signalling, small arms firing, administration, and for the artillery "mechanical maneuver," Diplo­ mas from the' Infantry and Cavalry Schools resulted in the waiving of some portions of the examination, which-altogether usually took two days. A typical' board might consist of three field officers of various branches, two captains of the Medical Corps, and a lieutenant recorder. A hospital record was appended, but apparently did not always play a very important role in determining the fitness of the officer for promotion. One., proceed­ ings shows an entry as follows: ' We •«-.' find him afflicted with no permanent physical dis­ ability which would in any way incapacitate him D,« This' officer is suffering from temporary physical depression the result of al­ coholic excess, but no organic or permanent lesion can be discovered.*

* Record of examination for promotion, 5 Oct 1903. AG 504740. Fa^ional Archives.

111-44 In this particular case, the board completely overlooked the examination in minor tactics and was roundly censored for it by the Chief of Staff.*

* Ibid.

The requirement for examinations soon spread to fields other than promotions. In 1899 it was provided that vacancies in the grade of major in the Adjutant General's and Inspector General's Departments were to be filled from captains in the line of the Army, and that captains who had evidenced marked aptitude in the command of troops were to be recommended by their regimental commanders for such assignment and promotion, Those recommended were to be selected through competitive examinations* An officer standing below 30 in an examination was not to be eligible a second time.-* From time to time competitive examinations were held for

* WD GO 154, 22 Aug 1899.

* TO GO 66, 22 Doc 1903.

By the year 1903, the system had been long enough in effect to ad­ mit of reasonable codification, long, comprehensive orders appeared on the subject, including detailed instructions for conducting examinations, the composition of boards, subject matter to be covered for different branches and grades, wording of findings, moral and physical fitness re~

: IH-45 quired of officers to be promoted, and other pertinent matter.* Within

* W GO 17, 20 Fob 1903; WD GO 81, 4 May 1904. a few years the system had become much more uniform, and the examinations much more difficult. By 1907, a typical examination to 1st lieutenant took 68 hours.*

-><• The examination was broken down as follcws:

arithmetic - 8 hrs

algebra - 8.hrs

plane and solid geometry - 8 hrs

trigonometry and logarithms - 4 hrs

spherical trigonometry - 4 hrs

mechanics - 8 hrs

electricity - 8 hrs

optics - 4 hrs

chemistry - 8 hrs

surveying.- 8 hrs

See: Record of examination for promotion, 22 Mar 1907, AG 1260756. Nation­ al' Archives,

Although from this time until immediately prior to Tor Id War I the personnel within an organization shifted much less frequently than in subsequent years, the increasing stress on the branch rather than on the regiment and the resultant competing with larger numbers of fellow officers made the efficiency report and record systems immediate and permanent ne­ cessities. At this time, however, the relative importance of the examina­

111-46 tion and the record of the officer as evidenced by his efficiency record were apparently in proper balance. We find such records as one in which the Chief of Staff requests that the Adjutant General "Please send me the efficiency records of the following named officers as soon as practicable for ... selection ... in the General Staff Corps" with the names of 34 field officers and 55 captains.-'"- But after several more years, the exami­

* Memo Asst CofS to TAG, 16 Mar 1907, sub: Request for Efficiency Reports for Selection, AG 1305788. 7ar Records Div, Nat'l Archives. nation had assumed too much importance, resulting in the following admoni­ tion: •«. In making details for detached service and for duty in the several staff corps and departments in which vacancies are filled by details from the line, consideration will be given to long service with troops and to the efficiency and peculiar fitness of an officer as evidenced by the record of his service. In order that suitable data may be available, particular care will be taken in preparing efficiency reports . ..*

-A- T.TO GO 60, 8 May 11. See also ltr, TAG to dept & div comdrs, 20 May 11, sub: Use of the Efficiency Report in Selection of Officers. AG 1784334. National Archives,

111-47 In 1914 it was further directed that as an additional feature of the examination for promotion, "... any officer under whom the officer to be examined has served within the last five years, may be called upon by the board for a statement covering ... (1) the use an officer has made of his opportunities, (2) his ability to apply practically his pro­ fessional knowledge, (3) his general trustworthiness and ability in per­ formance of his official duties, and (4) his ability to command troops or control men."*

* Memo, CofS to TAG, 9 Feb 14. AWC 8213-30. Records of WDGS.

National Archives.

Appointments

While not of primary importance in the study of the efficiency re­ port and recording system of the army, the appointment of the officers into the service is of at least contributory interest, and should be briefly discussed.

Three means of entering the service as an officer existed in the years between 1890 and 1917.* Vacancies existing after the graduation

* WD GO 37, 19 Jun 1878.

of the yearly class from the Military Academy.were filled from among qualified enlisted men^ and any remaining vacancies by civilian appointees. For many years the West Point classes more than filled the vacancies, necessitating that the lower graduates in each branch be

111-48 carried as "additonal second lieutenants" until vacancies occurred, thereby leaving no room for appointments from the ranks and from civilian life. Military Academy graduates were distributed among the branches ac­ cording to the current needs, and chose their branches in order of class standing. The new officers were assigned to regiments annually in War Department general orders, with either the name of the officer he was replacing in the organization, or a statement that he was an additional officer. During this period, new officers were customarily commissioned in the Engineer Corps, the Artillery (Field or Coast after 1907), the Cavalry, or the Infantry.* Until 191-4, the new officer arrived at his

* Ltr, CSO to T&G, 9 May 1903, sub: Appointment of 1st Its in Signal Corps. AG 476992. National Archives. first organization with nothing to distinguish him from his fellows ex­ cept his class standing, from vtfhich his relative rank was determined. Thereafter, he was accompanied by an efficiency report giving his first commanding officer some idea of his relative professional value as de- i termined at the Military Academy.* ^ .^

-»- Memo, CofS to TAG 12 Mar 14, sub: Efficiency Reports of Graduat­ ing Cadets. AG 2137216. National Archivesj AR. par 133J.

Enlisted aspirants to commission had to be under 30 years of age, citizens of the United States, physically sound, of proven good char­ acter, and of at least two years service. Boards were periodically

III-49 formed and sworn for the examination of candidates. Those recommended wore a distinguishing insignia and were given minor rights and privi­ leges pending their appointment. Their certificate of eligibility might be vacated by reason of sentence of court martial, but holders of the certificate were not to be tried by garrison, regimental, or summary court. The preliminary examination was physical, moral, and a prelimi­ nary oral one. The competitive examination, which established the rank of the applicant, covered English grammar, mathematics, geography, his­ tory, law, regulations, military record, physique, moral character, and antecedents, all of which carried various weights for arriving at the final mark.-x

* 1© GO 70, 8 Jul 1902.

Civilian appointments were made from recommendations on file in the

War Department. These recommendations for the most part were the names of promising students submitted by Army instructors at colleges at which military instruction v/as given. Such candidates were given rigid physi­ cal and mental examinations, and the vacancies filled according to re­ lative standing in the examinations.*

* Report of the Secretary of War, 1891, I, p. 22; WD GO 55, 2/, Mar

1904.

111-50 Physical Fitness Tests

Prior to World War I, and to some extent during the period follow­ ing, it was considered important to maintain a high state of physical proficiency among officers during peacetime. Various measures were taken during the period from 1890 to 1917 to maintain health and physique at a high state of perfection. Not long after the introduction of the ef­ ficiency report, instructions were promulgated as follows:

In order that the "iVar Department may be fully informed in respect to the physical fitness of officers of the Army for active service in the field, medical officers will prepare and forward to the Adjutant General of the Army, through military channels, a statement setting forth to the best of their know­ ledge, as obtained in the ordinary line of professional duty, their opinion as to the physical condition of all officers who are at the post or in any other command with which they may be serving, together with such comments or suggestions as may be considered appropriate cr suitable in each case. In case any officer is not thought fit for active field service, the report will state the facts in respect to his fitness for garrison duty. In forwarding these reports post and department commanders will indorse thereon their opinions, with such official infor­ mation as they may be able to give,-*

# '-'ID GO 3, 13 Jan 1891.

Little change in the physical fitness program for officers appear­ ed until 1907, when President Roosevelt took action. In his opinion Army officers should be a vigorous outdoor man, and he undertook to make them so. In a letter to the Secretary of War he outlined his de­

III-51 sires, which were shortly put into effect.* Regulations-were issued for

TO GO 240, 4 Dec 1907; W GO 79, U May 1908. the annual physical examinations of officers, to be followed by a three- day ride for mounted officers or a march for officers of other than the mounted branches, both to be of prescribed distance and duration. A physical examination of each officer within three hours of the completion

of each day's ride was to be made and reported upon. Officers of over

30 years service might apply for retirement in lieu of taking the ride.

Permanent staff officers might apply for waiver, but such application was to be accepted also as a waiver of all rights for future promotion in the event of expansion of the Army in an emergency. Infantry captains were encouraged in proficiency in horsemanship.

The report form for the physical examination was not as searching as the one in effect today. It was in the same form as the enlisted man's service record, 4 x 8-g- inches, and of four and later six pages. The main

feature was the fitness of the officer for field service,-"- with such

* AG 13890; AG 38851 PRD 92, 23 Sep 1908; 5323 ACT 86, 27 Jan 1911.

Records of the AGO. National Archives. contributing.information as his age; years of service; weight, height, condition of nervous system, chest measurement, vericose veins, hernia, genito-urinary system, and, immediately following the test march, his pulse, respiration, and any ill effects suffered.*

-* AGO Form 377, reprint Jul 09 in 5323 ACT 86, 27 Jan 11. Records of the AGO. National Archives. _ 111-52 A special report was also made by the post surgeon of officers failing to complete the prescribed rides or marches. In one example,*

* Report by Post Surgeon, Ft Myer, 26 Sep 1908, sub: Officers Unable to Complete Prescribed Rides. AG 14310195 ltr from TAG, 17 Oct 1916, sub: Annual Riding Tests. 38851 PRD 92. Records of the AGO. Na­ tional Archives. the names of three officers were submitted, two failures from heat ex­ haustion and one from a broken ankle suffered in a fall. In the case of one of the officers, the probable permanence of the effect of his heat prostration was not stated, resulting in a return memorandum from the Adjutant General requesting a complete report.

In 1911 the Chief of Staff found it desirable to enjoin ...field officers and captains of the mounted branches that it is incumbent uoon them, and especially upon captains, to thoroughly qualify themselves in equitation and by personal example to set a high standard in bold and skilful riding. Those officers who are incapable of so doing vvi.ll have the fact noted on their efficiency reports as indicative of their lack of an essential qualification for the mounted service. *

* Memo CofS for TAG, 10 May 11, sub: Mounted Officer Proficiency, AG 1780860. National Archives.

In 1912 a jumping course was also prescribed for all mounted of­ ficers.* This test became celebrated as the "Russian Ride," and was a

* WD GO 19; 24 Jun 12, par IV,

111-53 severe strain on many of the less fit. Commanders of cavalry and field artillery regiments or smaller detached units were ordered to conduct their officers annually over a course three miles in length, over rolling country if practicable, with an average of three obstacles per mile, in eleven minutes. Six obstacles were to be log or brush fences or stone walls of not under three feet in height, and three were to be ditches at least six feet wide and two and a half feet deep. Reports were to be submitted through channels to The Adjutant General, including the names of officers failing to complete the test in within fifteen seconds of the prescribed time and those not riding their own mounts. Commanding of­ ficers were ordered to submit sketches of available jumping courses, and to build courses if not available.-"- Failures of field artillery and

* Ltr, TAG to division comdrs, 9 Feb 12J rpt, CO, Camp Overton to

TAG, 5 A;:T 12, both sub: Officers' Jumping Course. AG 1878280. Nation­ al Archives, cavalry officers to take the prescribed obstacle rides were to be enter­ ed on their efficiency reports.-*

*- W GO 4-8, 22 Jul 13.

Both the rides and marches and the obstacle courses fell into dis­ use with World War I, never again to be revived by the War Department. Occasionally a vigorous post or division commander reinstututed one or the other or both in their own commands for brief periods, but the peace

111-54 time over-all stress on the military physique has been lacking with the

coming of the machine and resulting departure of the horse that began in the First World War.

111-55 APPENDIX A

EFFICIENCY REPORT FORMS 1890-1917

Individual C 0 >s

1890 (May)

Professional improve- Efficiency — attention to duty — ment — foreign languages conduct and habits — condition and — other special self-im- discipline of subordinates — fitness provement activities — for special assignment — special business training duties and how performed — efforts at self-improvement (Derogatory en­ tries to be replied to in writing)

1891 (Dec)

No change Added to 1890 form: health — eyesight — fitness for active service — marital status — professional zeal — capacity for command — scientific attainments — talents, characteristics, and acquire­ ments

189-4 (Jan)

Mo change No change

1895 (Jun)

Added to 1890 form: station Added: statement of service — arrest, and duties — days present, court martials, etc,— present and absent, and detached — absent — routine and special duties family status — books and performed — fitness for staff duties essays prepared and speeches — discretion and judgement — cita­ made tions in official reports — qualifi­ cation for present position

1896 (Jun)

No change No change 1897 (Jun)

No change No change

111-57 Individual CO's 1899 (Jun)

Added; account of services No change since last report

1900 (Jun)

No change No change

1901 (Jun)

No change No change

1902 (Jun)

No change Little change

1903 (Jun)

Expands requirements for No change. (Additional reports by account of service of past brigade and department commanders are year — requires inclo- submitted in some cases,) sure giving all combat participation since entry into the service. Special form for Artillery officers. 1904- (Jun)

No change New -4-page form. For subalterns, 1st page to be made out by company comdr, the remainder by the regtl comdr. Generally the same information, but in more detail, -fitness for detail in each staff corps, etc.

1905 (Jun)

New form, period Jun 04-- Changes: special technical questions Jun 06. Statement of duty for artillery & ordnance officers — performed — family status — discontinues entries by company com­ nearest relative — profes- manders . sional or scientific non-mil­ itary study — any special knowledge — foreign languages — books, essays, speeches, etc produced — remarks

111*58 Individual C 0 «s

1906 (Jun)

No change No change

1907 (Jun)

No change Little change. Different questions for field artillery, coast artillery,, and ordnance officers

1908 (Jun)

No change Little change. Special questions for field artillerymen dropped

1909 (Jun)

No change No change

1910 (Jun)

No change No change

1911 (Dec)

New 16-page .form, 4- x'S^-inch vertical, combining'individual and com­ manding'officer Ts reports. Approximately the same subject matter, as follows: name, etc., of reported and reporting officers — station and date —- present and absent data — family status — nearest relative — non-military study — any special knowledge — books, essays, lectures, etc., produced — statement of service for past year, or if the first time, for entire service — remarks — performance of duty — attention to duty — professional zeal — bearing and appearance — intelligence & judgement in dealings with enlisted men (for ordnance officers, ability in handling employees and in shop administration) — special questions for ordnance officers — peculiar fitness for staff corps, ,to be listed in order of fitness if more than one — fitness for recruiting, college, Militia duty •— special knowledge — evidences of self-improvement — any disciplinary measures — fitness for command of troops (line officers) — mental, moral-, and physical qualifications — discretion and judge­ ment for his rank and age — do you desire him, peace or war? —. for what class of duty fitted — citation in orders — efficiency as judged by the state of his command.

1912 (Dec)

Generally the same questions. Places for three reporting officers'' remarks under each entry. 20 pages. 111-59 1913 (Dec) No change

19U (Jun) New 24-page form, for all but ordnance officers. Added: efficiency as judged by the economy with which unit equipment has been maintained.

1914- (Dec) Changes: (1) physical condition expanded to: height, weight, activity, horsemanship or marching ability, aptitude for field service, marksmanship, and swordsmanship, (2) first appearance of the forced choice (immediate­ ly withdrawn), as follows: "... officers having under them more than one officer in the same grade and arm, will arrange officers of each particu­ lar rank in order of merit ... in each grade, and on each efficiency re­ port it v/ill be stated that the officer is ..." The intention was that the officer be designated as having a certain standing among the given number of officers currently being graded, as "first of three" or "second of two"3 (3) On this form for the first time questions were labelled as to whether they were fact or opinion,

1915 (Dec) No change 1916 (Dec) Additions: "Proper authority having decided on the methods and pro­ cedure to accomplish a certain desirable end, state whether he impresses you as being an officer who will cooperate energetically and loyally in accomplishing this end regardless of his personal views in the matter J{ A general estimate of the officer to be given by the reporting officer (inaugurating the "vague generality").

1917 (Jun) New 12-page form, simplified and shortened to the following: name, rank, and unit of reported officer and 3 reporting officers — station, period, and duties — attention to duty — professional zeal — intel­ ligence and judgment with enlisted men — efficiency as judged by his command — efficiency and limitations as judged by field service — cita­ tions in official reports — disciplinary measures — use of intoxicants or drugs to the impairment of efficiency — physical fitness — activity — horsemanship — bearing and appearance — fitness for General Staff — fitness for detail in staff corps — for recruiting, college, Militia, or

111-60 attache duty — for duty at USMA or service schools — particular know­ ledge — mental and moral qualification — trusty discretion^ & judgement — do you desire him, peace or war? loyal cooperation regardless of personal views — suited for what wartime detail? — capabilities for leadership (for .staff officers) — general estimate (all questions still labelled "fact"'or "opinion").

111-61