- DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
- OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY
- WASHINGTON, D.C. 2O35O-1OOO
-
21 August 1991
Mr. Edward R. Kimmel
25 Wood Road
Wilmington, Delaware 19806
Dear Mr. Kimmel:
This is in response to your letter of May 29 to the Secretary of
Defense concerning your father. I am answering on behalf of the
Secretary.
As you are aware, the possibility of promoting your father, Rear
Admiral Husband Kimmel, to the rank of admiral has been reviewed a
number of times in the decades since his retirement in 1942, and each
time the determination has been made not to proceed with such
action. Both Secretary Cheney and Secretary Garrett have personally reviewed
the additional information you provided in your letter and have again
concluded that the promotion process is not the way to address the
issue of your father's
place in history. Accordingly, the Secretary of Defense will not
recommend to the President that he initiate action to promote Rear
Admiral Kimmel posthumously at this time.
The desire of your family is understood and respected and I regret
that this response could not be favorable. A similar letter has been
sent to your brother, Captain Thomas K. Kimmel.
Sincerely,
==signature==
Dan Howard
Under Secretary of the Navy
- 15 Wood Road
- Wilmington, DE 19806
- October 16, 1991
-
- President George H.W. Bush
- The White House
- 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue
- Washington, D.C.
-
- Dear Mr. President:
-
- By the time you receive this letter you will have received a
multiple signature letter from Senators Alan K. Simpson, Strom
Thurmond, William V. Roth and Joseph Biden. Their letter urges you
to nominate our father, Rear Admiral Husband E. Kimmel USR (Retired)
(Deceased), who was the Commander-in-Chief of the United States and
Pacific Fleets at the time of the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor,
for promotion posthumously to the rank of Admiral on the retired
list of naval officers.
-
- The promotion process was chosen as an appropriate vehicle
to restore our father's
professional reputation and to negate the baseless and irresponsible
charge of the Roberts Commission, made in January 1942, after a
hurried investigation, that he had been "derelict in his duty". This charge was found to be without basis
by two subsequent full Investigations of the Pearl Harbor attack, the
Naval Court of Inquiry in 1944 (released to the public in 1945) and
the Joint Congressional investigation in 1946. Nevertheless the
initial Roberts Commission charge stuck and still sticks. When the
public thinks about the Pearl Harbor attack they think at the same
time about the "dereliction of duty" of Admiral Kimmel.
-
- Our father is eligible for such promotion under the Officer
Personnel Act of 1947. When that statute was implemented, the
Navy Department failed to submit his name to the President for
consideration to promotion to Admiral despite the findings of the
two aforementioned investigations. He was the only flag officer
eligible for promotion whose name was not submitted to the President
for the exercise of his discretion.
-
- For more than four years my brother, Captain Thomas K. Kimmel
USN
(Retired), and I have sought to have our father's
name placed before the President for him to exercise his discretion as
to whether to advance him to the rank of Admiral on the retired list
of naval officers. In 1988 Secretary of the Navy, William L. Ball III,
after an extensive investigation of the matter, recommended this
course to Secretary of Defense, Frank Carlucci, who rejected it.
Subsequently the matter of such a promotion, with detailed back-up
documentation, was placed before Secretary of Defense Richard B.
Cheney and as you can see from the attached letter of August 21, 1991,
he has concluded that he "will not recommend to the President
that he initiate action to promote Rear Admiral Kimmel posthumously at
this time". This, despite the fact that we supplied Secretary
Cheney with everything he suggested in a letter to a Wyoming
constituent in October 1989.
-
- We demonstrated widespread public and professional support for the
action we request. Resolutions urging his promotion were submitted
from the Pearl Harbor Survivors Association, the Naval Academy
Alumni Association, the Veterans of Foreign Wars, the Lexington, KY
Pearl Harbor Commemorative Committee and the Admiral Nimitz
Foundation together with letters recommending it from two former
Chiefs of Naval Operations, Arleigh Burke and Thomas Moorer.
-
- Mr. President, as is apparent, my brother and I have exhausted our
administrative remedies. We have been "stonewalled" at
every turn by the Departments of Defense and Navy. Each time no
reason is given for the rejection. Nor is any alternative course to
achieve our goal suggested. In desperation we are appealing to you
for assistance in our quest for justice.
-
- Surely, there must be a way to remedy the injustice and wrongs
done our father. As former President Harry Truman said "the
buck stops here" (with you!). Please let us hear from you. You
are our last hope!
-
- Thank you in advance for your consideration of this important
matter. Documentation for our position should be readily available
in the Department of Defense, but if you need any we stand ready to
furnish it on a moment's
notice.
-
-
What better time could there be to correct this injustice than the
year of the 50th anniversary of the Pearl Harbor attack?
-
-
Sincerely yours,
-
-
==signatures==
-
-
Edward R. Kimmel
-
15 Wood Road
-
Wilmington, DE 19806
-
302-655-5330
-
-
==signature==
-
-
Thomas K. Kimmel
-
1304 River Crescent Drive
-
Annapolis, MD 214101
-
301-573-0312
-
-
THE WHITE HOUSE
-
WASHINGTON
-
November 19, 1991
-
-
Dear Mr. Kimmel:
-
-
I have been requested to respond for the President to your
courteous and thoughtful letter concerning the possibility of
promoting Rear Admiral Husband E. Kimmel posthumously to the grade
of Admiral. Admiral Kimmel was serving in that grade at Pearl Harbor
on December 7, 1941.
-
-
There is no doubt about the availability of legal authority for such a
promotion if the President were to initiate one. Under authority of
Clause 2, Section 2, Article II of the Constitution, the President
is empowered, with the advice and sent of the Senate, to appoint all
officers of the United States. This broad constitutional authority
allows the posthumous promotion of deceased military officers on the
retired list.
-
-
A possible posthumous promotion of Admiral Kimmel has been
considered within the Department of Defense numerous times in the
past
and the suggestion has been rejected in each instance. The uniformed
Navy has, with the concurrence of the Secretaries of Navy and the
Department of Defense, repeatedly rejected any suggestion of
promotion. Basically, the Navy believes that in terms of
accountability, there is a great difference between a degree of
fault which does not warrant punitive action and a level of performance
that would warrant a bestowal of approbation. Admiral Kimmel was the
serving commander at the terrible tragedy that was Pearl Harbor.
-
-
It is understandable why the family and friends of Admiral Kimmel would want to have this esteemed Naval officer recognized by posthumous
promotion. This is a particularly poignant time in history where the
memories of December 7, 1941 are so vividly in mind.
Regretfully, for the President to initiate a promotion would be to
reverse the course of history, as adjudged by the contemporary
superiors of Admiral Kimmel, as well as their successors, to include
eight serving Presidents who elected to take no action.
-
-
Over the passage of time, however stark the tragedy, history has
been sympathetic to Admiral Kimmel. There is no question that
the Admiral was a loyal, dedicated, patriotic American who was
professionally competent and who served his country to the best of
his ability. To initiate an action for promotion in the light
of history would do no honor to the Admiral and might very well tear
the tapestry that time and history have so thoughtfully woven.
-
-
Sincerely,
-
-
==signature==
-
-
RICHARD G. TREFRY
-
Military Assistant to the President
-
-
Edward R. Kimmel
-
15 Wood Road
-
Wilmington, Delaware 19806
-
-
15 Wood Road
-
Wilmington. DE 19806
-
November 30, 1991
-
-
Lieutenant General Richard C. Trefry USA (Ret)
-
Military As assistant to the President
-
The White House
-
1600 Pennsylvania Avenue N. W.
-
Washington, D.C.
-
-
Dear General Trefry:
-
-
Thank you for your letter of November 19, responding for
the President, concerning the possible posthumous promotion of Rear
Admiral Husband E. Kimmel to the grade of Admiral, the grade in
which he was
serving at
Pearl Harbor on December 7, 1941.
-
-
Needless to say my brother, Captain Thomas K. Kimmel USN (Ret), and
I are greatly disappointed that the President has not seen fit to make
this promotion. However, at the same time we are gratified to learn
that Admiral Kimmel is
viewed by the President as an esteemed Naval officer" and further
that the President believes "there is no question that the Admiral
was a loyal, dedicated, patriotic
American who was professionally competent and who served his country to
the best of his ability". This opinion erases forever the irresponsible
"dereliction of duty" charge of the Robert's
commission made in January 1942.
-
-
However, in view of this opinion of Admiral Kimmel, held by the
President, we must say that it is extremely difficult to understand why
he is reluctant to nominate Admiral Kimmel for posthumous promotion
to the grade of Admiral.
-
-
Your letter points out that the "uniformed Navy. . . has
repeatedly rejected any suggestion of promotion" and that
"Basically, the Navy believes that in terms of accountability, there is a great difference between a
degree of fault which does not warrant punitive action and a level of
performance that would warrant a bestowal of approbation.".
Certainly the 37 navy flag officers who petitioned the President
in support of Admiral Kimmel's
posthumous promotion are part of the "uniformed Navy" and it
would seem that at least in the case of Admiral Kimmel they do not
subscribe to that view. These are no run of the mill flag officers.
Among them are five former Chiefs of Naval Operations two of whom were
former Chairmen of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, 28 other full admirals, 3
vice admirals and 1 rear admiral. In addition the Naval Academy Alumni
Association, also part of the uniformed Navy, strongly supports
posthumous promotion as evidenced by their resolution submitted to the
President and the Departments of Defense and Navy.
-
- Nor is there any basis for saying that such a posthumous promotion
would "reverse the course of history". No facts would be
changed. There never was any "demotion" of Admiral Kimmel.
He simply reverted to his permanent rank of Rear Admiral when
he left the position of Commander—in-Chief of the Pacific and
United States Fleets, in accord with the procedures then to place
for the Navy. This would simply be a reexamination of established
facts in light of insights gained since December 7, 1941.
-
- Moreover, the judgment of Admiral Kimmel's contemporaries, in
particular that of the Naval Court of Inquiry, was that he performed
appropriately in light of the information at his disposal.
Other superiors of Admiral Kimmel were Admiral Harold R. Stark and
President Franklin D. Roosevelt. Admiral Stark, who was severely
criticized by the Naval Court of Inquiry, had performed so poorly
himself in the hours immediately prior to the attack that he was in no
position to judge anyone else's
performance. President Roosevelt handled the removal of Admiral Kimmel
and General Short personally
and his
performance left a great deal to be desired, particularly when he
received the decoded Japanese diplomatic message the night of December
6 and exclaimed "This means war," and yet took no steps to
warn the Hawaiian military commanders.
-
- In so far as the eight serving Presidents "who elected to
take no action" Secretary of the Navy William Ball III. in
1988, in a memorandum to Secretary of Defense Frank Carlucci
recommending that the matter of Admiral Kimmel's
posthumous promotion be presented to the President for decision and
the exercise or his discretion, specifically pointed out that in his
investigation he had been unable to find any evidence that the
question had ever been submitted to any President for decision. So how
could these eight Presidents have "elected to take no
action" if the matter was never presented to them for decision ?
-
- Irrespective of your expressed concern that "To initiate an
action for promotion in the light of history would do no honor to
the Admiral and might very well tear the tapestry that time
and history have so thoughtfully woven" my brother and I are of
a contrary opinion and still urge the President to make the
posthumous nomination we have sought.
-
- Sincerely,
- ==signature==
- Edward R. Kimmel
-
Edward R. Kimmel
Memorandum re 1991 Correspondence Between Himself
And Spokesmen for
President George H. W. Bush and Secretary Richard B. Cheney
I direct attention to the November 19, 1991, letter of Richard G.
Trefry. your father's
Military Assistant, to me of November 19, 1991, where he wrote:
‘...The uniformed Navy has, with the concurrence of
the Secretaries of the Navy and the Department of Defense, repeatedly
rejected any suggestion of promotion. Basically' the Navy believes
that in terms of accountability, there is a great difference between a
degree of fault which does not warrant punitive action and a level of
performance that would warrant bestowal of approbation."
This was the first insight my bother, Captain Thomas K. Kimmel,
USN (Ret.) (Deceased-1997), and I had as to the thinking of the
uniformed Navy and the Secretaries of the Navy and the Department of
Defense and thus what was blocking the requested promotion.
Previously, then Secretary of Defense Cheney had merely turned
down our request with no explanation as to why. His only
observation at that time (see letter of August 21, 1991, from Under
Secretary of the Navy Dan Howard to me) was that the two secretaries
had "again concluded that the promotion process is not the way
to address the issue of your father's
place in history." However, they offered no suggestions as to how
to address that issue.
With respect to Mr.
Trefry's
explanatory statement of the position of the uniformed Navy, I direct
your attention to my reply to Mr. Trefry of November 20, 1991. where I
wrote:
"...Certainly the 37 navy flag officers who petitioned the
President [your father] in support of Admiral Kimmel's
posthumous promotion are part of the "uniformed navy" and it
would seem that at least in the case of Admiral Kimmel they do not
subscribe to that view. These are no run of the mill flag officers.
Among them are five former Chiefs of Naval Operations, two of whom
were former Chairmen of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, 26 other full
admirals, 3 vice admirals and 1 rear admiral. In addition, the Naval
Academy Alumni Association, also part of the "uniformed
navy," strongly supports posthumous promotion as evidenced by
their resolutions submitted to the President and the Departments of
Defense and Navy..."
Noteworthy is the paradoxical inconsistency between the
recalcitrant attitude of the uniformed Navy and the findings of the
Naval Court of Inquiry, constituents of which were three admirals of
great experience who found no fault with Admiral Kimmel's
military decisions, including his disposition of forces. The Court did
not in any way criticize his performance, rather it praised his
performance while criticizing that of Chief of Naval Operations,
Admiral Harold R. Stark.
Mr. President, the facts simply do not support the purported
position of the "uniformed navy," as stated by Mr. Trefry,
writing on behalf of your father.
Mr. Trefry also wrote:
"There is no question that the Admiral was a loyal,
dedicated, patriotic American, who was professionally competent and
who served his country to the best of his ability..."
With that observation I can certainly agree!
With respect to Mr.
Trefry's
expressed concern that "To initiate an action for promotion in
the light of history would do no honor to the Admiral and might very
well tear the tapestry that time and history have so thoughtfully
woven," I wrote Mr. Trefry that my brother and I were of a
contrary opinion. Certainly the Congressional action requesting the
President to nominate Admiral Kimmel and General Short to their
highest-held World War II ranks indicates that Mr. Trefry's
concern was unfounded.
|