e discrimination preached by the Gesell Committee and endorsed
by the Secretary of Defense.[22-19] The plans also revealed the
services' essential satisfaction with their current on-base programs,
although each outlined further reforms within the military community.
The Navy, for example, announced reforms in recruitment methods, and
the Army planned the development of more racially equitable training
programs and job assignments. All three services discussed new (p. 561)
provisions for monitoring their equal opportunity programs, with the
Army including explicit provisions for the processing of servicemen's
racial complaints. And to insure the coordination of equal opportunity
matters in future staff decisions, each service also announced (the
Navy in a separate staff action) the formation of an equal opportunity
organization in its military staff: an Equal Rights Branch in the
office of the Army's Deputy Chief of Staff for Personnel, an Equal
Opportunity Group in the Air Force's Directorate of Personnel Planning
to work in conjunction with its Secretary's Committee on Equal
Opportunity, and an Ad Hoc Committee in the Navy's Bureau of
Personnel.

[Footnote 22-19: Memos: Dep to SecAF for Manpower,
Personnel, and Organization for ASD (M), 15 Aug 63,
sub: Implementation of DOD Directive 5120.36; SA
for ASD (M), 15 Aug 63, sub: Equal Opportunity in
the Armed Forces; Under SecNav for ASD (M), 15 Aug
63, sub: Outline Plan for Implementing Department
of Defense Directive 5120.36, "Equal Opportunity in
the Armed Forces," dated 26 Jul 63. All in ASD (M)
291.2.]

The outline plans revealed that the services entertained differing
interpretations of the McNamara call for command responsibility in
equal opportunity matters. The Gesell Committee had considered this
responsibility of fundamental importance and wanted the local
commander held accountable and his activities in this area made part
of his performance rating. There was some disagreement among manpower
experts on this point. How, one critic asked, could the services set
up standards against which a commander's performance might be fairly
judged? How could they insure that an overzealous commander might
not, in the interest of a higher efficiency report, upset
anti-discrimination programs that called