OT - Interpreting a WWII Marine's Professional and Conduct Record

[Canoerebel]

Gents,

In a shameless effort to draw on the excellent collective knowledge and wisdom of the Forum, I turn to you once again. See below the excerpted portion of a Marine private's Professional and Conduct Record from 1944-45, which includes my two appended comments/questions.

This particular marine was a private killed in action on Iwo Jima. I'm writing a story about him and want to make sure I'm getting small details correct. I have zero experience with a Record like this, so any informed insight would be much appreciated.

Dan Roper

[pmelheck1]

Each line should be a separate evaluation. To me it looked like he improved and then backslid a little including a little drinking. I would need to see more of the record and not just the numbers I would need to see the entire page. And records and how we were graded would have been VERY different. In the line with all 5's he had 2 more inspections afterwords so the all 5 numbers should not have been posthumous. Are these daily, weekly or monthly inspections? Also of note is that he was never promoted in wartime when promotions come like candy in some cases so I would have a question about that. Intelligence on the form may have nothing to do with his personal intelligence but rather can he how well he can follow directions both verbal and written. His nickname may have come from how bright he was where intelligence on the form may reflect he was good at understanding and following his orders. It looks like he was in service roughly a year (or somewhat less)before the end. It looks like he would have been a green Marine killed in his first action. His final numbers as a Marine however would have been very low for dieing without permission.

[Canoerebel]

Thanks, Mulk.  Here's some additional information that will answer some of your questions.
 
This marine was indeed green and it was his first combat  He graduated high school in early June 1944; inducted into marines on June 28; boot camp at Parris Island; training at Camp Lejeune; assigned there to Replacement Depot 30; to Hawaii for additional training; then aboard ship to Saipan via Eniwetok January 1945; embarks invasion fleet for Iwo Jima; comes ashore and assigned to A Co., 1st Battaliion, 25th Marines, on D plus 6; KIA March 6, 1945 in combat near Turkey Knob.
 
The "row of fives" grades on his evaluation were given the day he died.  The two entries after that are averaging of some sort.  I'm pretty sure (playing the solid hunches we AE players sometimes get) that the "row of fives" is a nice post-mortem tip of the CAP that he had given the last full measure of devotion and therefore could not achieve any higher scores (assuming, that is, that a 5 is indeed the highest score).
 
Why do you think he might have been drinking?

[Bullwinkle58]

Hey, CR! Miss us yet? [:'(]

[zuluhour]

Just sounds like a "Gomer", simple guy and not the most coordinated. Probably never did well in athletics. I believe the 5 is for not touching the stuff, more of a "malted" kind of customer. I bet he had trouble keeping in step during drills and never looked very good in uniform, except to his parents. Not to condemn the fellow, but I think he should have been an ammo bearer or the like.

Brings up the question of the scale being used, what were the parameters? My dad lied at 16 and scored well when he enlisted in '44 in the navy. He was sent to signal school. He still knows Morse and flag. By the time the error was discovered, he was in Leyte Gulf. By then he had reached 17. My uncle, by marriage, George on the other hand was sent straight to the "pools" as your young private, where he was apparently disciplined frequently. He was in the Marines from 1943 through Korea as a rifleman and never made E4. [:D]

[Feltan]

Some observations:
- The rated personnel are all privates. Odd. I am going to initially guess that this is some 1SG form for promotion to lance corporal (E-2/3?). I suspect that promotion wasn't automatic back then.
- Some personnel have no rating, one has a partial rating.
- Some entries look like a stamp, most look handwritten.
- Some are struck through, one has the comment "no active service." Did this form accompany the Marines from basic training?
- In the handwritten note at the bottom, I can read "6 Mar 45," "4th Marine Div." and "cemetery." Final account for graves registration?

Just a hunch, but to me this looks like "NCO business," as we used to say.

Regards,
Feltan

[Canoerebel]

The report excerpted is for a single marine, Private Harris Steele of Brunswick, Georgia. The typed and stamped entres were made at bases in the states. The later, handwritten entries were made in the field. Periodically Steele was graded by an officer in each of the five categories. I'm pretty sure the scale is 1 to 5, though I'm still awaiting and hoping for confirmation from a knowledgeable forumite.

Feltan, the final notation regarding March 6, 1945 is his date of death. He was buried shortly thereafter in the 4th Marine Div. cemetery on Iwo. His remains were returned to his hometown in Georgia in 1948.

What is "NCO business"?

Moose, I'm still sporadically around the Forums. Haven't left entirely and probably won't. Too much good information around these parts and lots of nice folks who lend a hand when called on.

As for me, I done with AE. Best game ever, but I accidentally allowed myself to go about 16 miles beyond the point of burnout. Since moderation isn't my strong suit, I've just given up gaming entirely. (Nothing could compete with AE, so I'm not gonna try.) To my utter surprise (and delight), I haven't missed the game or gaming at all. I don't know how that's possible, but there you have it.

[CT Grognard]

1. The ratings are from 1 to 5, with 1 being poorest and 5 being best.
2. IIRC 1 is "poor", "2" is "below-average", 3 is "average", 4 is "good" and 5 is "excellent".
3. Pvt Steele maintained perfect ratings for Obedience and Sobriety throughout his service record, which means he had a perfect disciplinary record.
4. Criteria for the award of the Good Conduct Medal were average ratings of 4 and above for Military Efficiency, Neatness and Military Efficiency, and Intelligence; as well as average ratings of 4.8 and above for Obedience and Sobriety.
5. Prior to his death, Pvt Steele's average ratings were: 3.86 for Military Efficiency, 3.9 for Neatness and Military Bearing, 4.16 for Intelligence, 5 for Obedience, and 5 for Sobriety.
6. The perfect score at his death pulls the average ratings to: 4.05, 4.08, 4.3, 5 and 5 respectively.
7. The final averaging seems odd. 4.65 for Military Efficiency is arrived at through the two scores of 4.3, as well as two scores of 5 (18.6/4). The same with Neatness (4.4+4.4+5+5/4 = 4.7), Intelligence (4.4+4.4+5+5/4 = 4.7). The second line after his death therefore appears to include a second 5 across all ratings.

[Canoerebel]

Thanks, CT!  Very helpful.
 
Any thoughts then about the sudden increase to "Fives across the board"?  Could this have been in an effort to qualify him for a Good Conduct Medal?  Or is it possibly - as I had surmised above - a nice gesture recognizing that a soldier's "military bearing" etc. can't get any higher than in giving his life for his country?  Or both?
 

[CT Grognard]

Hi Canoerebel,

I think your initial thesis is probably correct (re the "symbolic and very nice gesture"). Private Steele would not have qualified for the Good Conduct Medal, anyway - he died too soon (I believe it required four years' service back then). I merely used the criteria for the GCM as a comparison.

It strikes me as a sentimental gesture to improve the deceased young private's average career rating - call it a "nice gesture". The same officer who gave him the posthumous rating probably wrote a letter to his next-of-kin describing the young private as an "excellent Marine", or something to that tune.

Out of interest, the novelist Leon Uris, who served with the USMC from 1942 to 1945, scored the following ratings at his first assessment: 3.5, 3.5, 4, 5 and 5.

[Symon]

Hey. Shoulda sent this private, but I already dumped it on the thread, so ...

Asked one of my friends at Pendleton about this. There is a manual (there is always a manual) that defines the qualities and attributes that are addressed by the Proficiency and Conduct marks. Today, it’s called the IRAM (Individual Records Administration Manual) but doubt if it was much different back in War-II. Jeremy says it’s comprehensive and pretty objective, but has lots of room for subjectivity in terms of “the whole Marine concept”, particularly “[p]ositive contributions to unit and Corps .. and participation in unit activities not directly related to unit mission.”

The contemporary IRAM marks are the same as the Army marking system I used for enlisted evals in 1970 and 71. These are the MC IRAM Proficiency and Conduct mark ranges. They should be good for the War-II period.

0.0 To 1.9 Unacceptable
2.0 To 2.9 Unsatisfactory
3.0 To 3.9 Below Average
4.0 To 4.4 Average
4.5 To 4.8 Excellent
4.9 To 5.0 Outstanding

Jeremy says Private Steele looks like a normal Marine. A Marine gets P&C marks semi-annually (at a minimum) and whenever he changes status or duty assignment (so long as his last duty assignment was 30 days or more), and “Due allowance shall be made for the Marine’s grade and billet.”

Looks to me like he was a nice clean boy. Your pics don’t show the duty rating organization, so I can only assume the early ones are from the training schools after he ‘graduated’ and was assigned to active duty. It’s significant that his later marks were ‘penned’ instead of stamped. This means his officers thought more of him as an individual than the school/admin types. It all depends on his duty assignment and who was doing the rating.

Back in those days there was no ‘grade point creep’. Peopled tried to be as objective and honest as they could. Given his scores, I would certainly rate him as acceptable for consideration for promotion or an advanced school, within his duty assignment. But then, I’m just an Army puke. Marines have different standards, but they weren’t that different.

As always, I am looking forward to your article. If I can help in any way, I would be pleased. You know where to find me.

Ciao. John

[Canoerebel]

Amazing at just how helpful this dadgum Forum can be.  Plenty of good information here.  CTGrognard gave me some very good insight and JWE just really gives me exactly what I'm looking for.  Thanks, guys (all of you) for taking time to help me with details that it would be easly to overlook or get wrong.
 
The main story is about the marine - his graduation from high school and what happened at Iwo Jima just eight months later.  But I'm considering doing a sidebar.  I think it might be a nice touch to address his nickname, Moron, in light of his military evaluation, focusing mainly on the "courtesy" nudge to all fives in recognition of his death in battle.  JWE, I'll be in touch. 
 
A post by another person above included an observation that the private might not have been atheltic based upon his early ratings.  I wanted to add that his high school class voted him "most athletic."  He was captain of the 1944 Glynn Academy basketball team and played center on the football team.

[CT Grognard]

Clearly my source got the ratings ranges wrong, unless the USMC IRAM changed the ranges from those used in WWII.

[Symon]

ORIGINAL: CT Grognard
Clearly my source got the ratings ranges wrong, unless the USMC IRAM changed the ranges from those used in WWII.

Those are the contemporary IRAM ranges. Your source is probably not wrong. Things changed after War-II. Lots of room.

[pmelheck1]

My bad I thought that one of the scores for sobriety changed - my old eyeballs at work. The line through below some numbers can mean either he was not graded for that period or that the ratings are identical to the line above, it would depend on the current method of logging the scores. I am a retired NCO from the Air Force. We had to learn our system of grading inside and out from day one... and while the areas and grades can be different their are similarities. With averages sometimes odd things are done like throwing out some scores sometimes low sometimes low & high.

[Panjack]

Absent direct or indirect evidence for the motive behind the final ratings, I'd be reluctant to assert that the final ratings (5s) were merely a nice gesture. If other similar documents show the same post-death increases in ratings (by the same rater), then it might be reasonable to suggest the final 5's were a nice gesture applied to all those who were killed in combat. Alternatively, perhaps this man proved, in actual battle, to have been a exemplary soldier worthy of 5's and this is what these final ratings indicate.

[pmelheck1]

For the final score I would also ask who signed them. Sometimes a final score has to be given by ones supervisor and a couple of signatures above them and the numbers don't always agree sometimes for the better sometimes for the worst.

[Canoerebel]

Panjack, you're right.  If I do delve into this in the story, I'll couch it as a possibility.
 
As for the CO, the reports are signed by a Capt. Shaw.  It's likely, but I haven't yet confirmed, that Shaw would have been in command of Company A, 1st Battalion, 25th Marines.  That's the outfit Steele joined when he came ashore at Iwo on D plus 6 (prior to that, he was part of Replacement Draft 30).

[jcjordan]

A thought form an outsider to finding out what led to the 5's, would be how did he die. Did he die charging a bunker or what? While he may have been avg GI Joe during training he might have been different in combat & those who saw him die/served w/ him passed that info on to the Capt who then gave the 5's based on those circumstances as a final gesture

[Canoerebel]

You can imagine that reports of how individual privates died would be rare.  I've read the 1st Battalion, 25th Marine daily reports from D-Day to D+17 and have seen mention of just one man individually - a lieutenant who volunteered to lead a platoon on a flanking effort near Turkey Knob.  He was KIA.  (Well, I think there is also mention of Lt. Col. Mustain, who was KIA while checking the front line of the battalion.)