ncluded that the
close social contact necessary aboard ship had been a factor in the
Navy's slower progress.[21-34] Whatever the reason, the Navy and
Marine Corps fell statistically short of the other services in every
category measured by the Gesell group.

[Footnote 21-31: Memo, Dep for Manpower, Personnel, &
Organization, USAF, for SecAF, 25 Jan 63, sub:
Meeting With President's Committee on Equal
Opportunity in the Armed Forces, SecAF files.]

[Footnote 21-32: Ltr, Chief of NavPers to CONUS
District Cmdrs et al., 22 Apr 63, attached to Memo,
Chief of NavPers for Distribution List, 24 Apr 63,
sub: President's Committee on Equal Opportunity in
the Armed Forces, GenRecsNav 5420.]

[Footnote 21-33: Ltr, Under SecNav to Gesell, 8 Feb
63, SecNav file 5420 (1179), GenRecsNav. For
examples of this exchange between the committee and
the Navy, see Ltrs, Gesell to Fay, 6 Feb 63, and
Fay to Gesell, 3 May and 5 Jun 63, all in SecNav
file 5350, GenRecsNav.]

[Footnote 21-34: Interv, author with Gesell, 3 Nov
74.]

The "sex thing," as Gesell referred to the interracial problems
arising from off-duty social activities, also proved to be important,
especially for noncommissioned officer and service clubs and
base-sponsored activities in the community. The committee itself had
persuaded the National United Services Organization to integrate its
facilities, and it wanted local commanders to follow up by inviting black
civilians to participate in USO dances and entertainments.[21-35] (p. 540)
The committee also discussed discrimination in military police
assignments, segregation in local transport and on school buses, and
the commander's attitude toward interracial associations both on and
off the military reservation.

[Footnote 21-35: For an example of how an individual
service was handling the USO and other on-base
social problems, see Memo, Maj Gen John K. Hester,
Asst VCofS, USAF, for SecAF, 26 Feb 63, sub:
Antidiscrimination Policies, SecAF files. See also
"Initial Rpt," pp. 73-74.]

Despite