AMEDD Corps History > U.S. Army Dental Corps > United States Army Dental Service in World War II
Development of the United States Army DentalService
ORGANIZATION OF THE ARMY DENTAL CORPS PRIOR
TO WORLD WAR II
Dentistry, during the pioneer days of the profession in the United States,had no military status; and there exist only a few unofficial referencesto dental treatment in the accounts of the first wars in which the countrywas engaged. A notable exception, however, was the dental treatment accomplishedfor General George Washington, who experienced dental difficulties duringthe time he served as Commander in Chief of the Colonial Army and laterduring his terms as President. Records reveal that Washington had severaldentures made by civilian dentists and that he was very much pleased withhis dental service.1
Almost one hundred years passed after the Revolutionary War before therewas any official Army recognition of dentistry or legislative action toinitiate the organization of an Army Dental Corps. During these hundredyears the profession continued to develop and to broaden its scope.
The first organized effort to secure dentists for an army was the conscriptionof these to serve in the Confederate Army in 1864.2 The soldiersof the Confederate armies could not pay for dental treatment in the depreciatedcurrency of the Confederacy since the fee for one gold filling was morethan 6 months' pay of a private. Consequently, the Confederate States Congresspassed a law for the conscription of dentists who were to have the rank,pay, and allowances to which their position in the Army entitled them,and in addition extra duty pay for extraordinary skill as allowed by TheSurgeon General. The rank and pay offered the Confederate dental officersis not recorded. Each dentist furnished his own instruments, but otherequipment and supplies were purchased from hospital funds.
After the Civil War, a. number of years passed before there developedanother wave of concerted interest in making dental service available tothe Armed Forces. Members of the dental profession and the National DentalAssociation initiated and sponsored legislative measures to provide forthe appointment of dental surgeons for service in the United States, Army.The
1Robinson, J. B. : The foundations of professionaldentistry. In Maryland State Dental Assoc., and Am. Dent. A.: ProceedingsDental Centenary Celebration, 1840-1940. Baltimore, Waverly Press, Inc.,1940.
2Burton, W. Leigh: Dental surgery as applied in the armies oflate Confederate States. Am. J. Dent. Sc. vol. I, 3d series, No. 4. Baltimore,Snowden and Cowman, August 1867, p. 180-189. SG: 39611.
2
first such legislation approved by The Surgeon General and the War Departmentwas enacted 2 February 1901. This bill authorized the employment of a maximumof 30 dental surgeons, on a contract basis, to serve the officers and enlistedmen of the Regular and Volunteer Army.3
One of the first dentists so appointed was Dr. John S. Marshall whoformulated the plans for the organization of the dental service.4Dr. Marshall, who was one of the most active, versatile, and forward-lookingmen in the new service, served as senior dentist until 1911. His continualefforts to promote a better dental service for the Army and to effect amore favorable status for the contract dental surgeon are reflected inthe legislative acts and Army regulations which have appeared in the yearssince 1901. These are tributes to Dr. Marshall and the small group of originaldental surgeons who were willing to sacrifice position, pride, and incometo demonstrate the real value of dentistry to the military service.
Initially, the contract dental surgeons were attached to theMedical Department and assigned to duty by The Surgeon General or chiefsurgeon of a military department. In 1908, they were authorized by lawto become a part of the Medical Department5 and finally, in1911, a bill which included a provision for the commissioning of dentistswas enacted into law. That part of the act of 3 March 1911 (36 Stat. 1054),pertaining to dentistry, reads:6
Hereafter there shall be attached to the Medical Departmenta dental corps, which shall be composed of dental surgeons and acting dentalsurgeons, the total number of which shall not exceed the proportion ofone to each thousand of actual enlisted strength of the Army; the numberof dental surgeons shall not exceed sixty, and the number of acting dentalsurgeons shall be such as may, from time to time, be authorized by law.All original appointments to the dental corps shall be as acting dentalSurgeons, who shall have the same official status, pay, and allowancesas the contract dental surgeons now authorized by law. Acting dental surgeonswho have served three years in a manner satisfactory to the Secretary ofWar shall be eligible for appointment as dental surgeons, and, after passingin a satisfactory manner an examination which may be prescribed by theSecretary of War, may be commissioned with the rank of first lieutenantin the dental corps to fill the vacancies existing therein. Officers ofthe dental corps shall have rank in such corps according to date of theircommissions therein and shall rank next below officers of the Medical ReserveCorps. Their right to command shall be limited to the dental corps. Thepay and allowances of dental surgeons shall be those of first lieutenants,including the right to retirement on account of age or disability, as inthe case of other officers: Provided, That the time served by dentalsurgeons as acting dental or contract dental surgeons shall be reckonedin computing the increased service pay of such as are commissioned underthis Act. The appointees as acting dental surgeons must be citizens ofthe United States between twenty-one and twenty-seven years of age, graduatesof a standard
3GOs and Cirs. 1901, Hq of the Army, GO 9,6 Feb 1901, sec 18, p. 8. SG: 1027.
4Marshall, John S. : Organization of the Dental Corps of theU. S. Army, with suggestions upon the educational requirements for militarydental practice. In Transactions of the National Dental Association,Dental Digest. Chicago, J. N.. Crouse, 1902, p. 32-46.
5G0s and Cirs 1908, vol I, WD, GO, 67, 2 May 1908, Washington,Government Printing Office, 1909, p. 1. SG: 1036.
6U. S. Statutes at Large, 61st Congress, Washington, GovernmentPrinting Office, 1911, Pt I, 26: 1054-1055.
3
dental college, of good moral character and good professionaleducation, and they shall be required to pass the usual physical examinationrequired for appointment in the Medical Corps, and a professional examinationwhich shall include tests of skill in practical dentistry and of proficiencyin the usual subjects of a standard dental college course: Provided,That the contract dental surgeons attached to the Medical Department atthe time of the passage of this Act may be eligible for appointment asfirst lieutenants, dental corps, without limitation as to age: and providedfurther, That the professional examination for such appointment maybe waived in the case of contract dental surgeons in the service at thetime of the passage of this Act whose efficiency reports and entrance examinationsare satisfactory. The Secretary of War is authorized to appoint boardsof three examiners to conduct the examinations herein prescribed, one ofwhom shall be a surgeon in the Army and two of whom shall be selected bythe Secretary of War from the commissioned dental surgeons.
The following were appointed dental surgeons with the rank of firstlieutenant, after the act of 3 March 1911: 7
1. John R. Ames 2. Julien R. Bernheim 3. Siebert D. Boak 4. Alden Carpenter 5. George H. Casaday 6. William H. Chambers 7. George D. Graham 8. George I. Gunckel 9. John H. Hess 10. Raymond E. Ingalls 11. Frank K. Laflamme 12. Clarence E. Lauderdale 13. Samuel H. Leslie 14. Charles J. Long 15. John A. McAlister | 16. John S. Marshall 17. George L. Mason 18. Robert H. Mills8 19. Robert T. Oliver9 20. Robert F. Patterson 21. Rex H. Rhoades 22. Edward P. R. Ryan 23. Harold O. Scott 24. Minot E. Scott 25. George E. Stallman 26. Frank P. Stone 27. Edwin P. Tignor 28. Hugh G. Voorhies 29. Franklin F. Wing 30. Frank H. Wolven |
A number of the men among this group played important roles in the furtherdevelopment of the Corps and participated actively in both the First andSecond World Wars.
Forty-seven dental surgeons entered into contract with The Surgeon Generalduring the period from 1901 to 1911. Contracts of 3 were terminated asa result of death and 15 were annulled, 10 at the dentists' own requestand 5 for miscellaneous reasons.10
7Memo, SG for CofS, 8 Feb 11, Dental surgeonsin the U. S. Army, with list of dental surgeons, and their years of service,attached. Natl Archives, SG: 106047.
8Lt Robert H. Mills was destined to become the first major generalin the Army Dental Corps some 30 years later. WD SOs, 1943, vol IV, Nos.276-363, WD SO 280, 7 Oct 43, sec 1.
9In 1942 the general hospital located at Augusta, Ga., was designatedas the Oliver General Hospital in honor of Col Robert T. Oliver, DentalCorps, U. S. Army. WD GO 64, 24 Nov 42.
10The Dental Corps. The Dental Bulletin Supplement to The ArmyMedical Bulletin 6: 18, Jan 1935.
4
Early in 1915, the Association of Military Dental Surgeons submittedto The Surgeon General a "Bill to Increase the Efficiency of the DentalCorps, U. S. Army."11 The Adjutant General informed TheSurgeon General 5 February 1915 that the Secretary of War did not approveof any legislation for the Dental Corps.
However, the Legislative Committee, National Dental Association, whosechairman was Dr. Homer C. Brown, continued to initiate and support legislativemeasures which would increase the efficiency of the Dental Corps. Latein 1915, recommendations which provided for the organization of a DentalReserve Corps, and for the increase in rank in the Dental Corps to captains,majors, and one chief with the rank of colonel, were submitted to The Secretaryof War and to The Surgeon General.
The Surgeon General, in response to the recommendations made by theLegislative Committee, directed a memorandum to the Chief of Staff in whichhe declared that the Dental Corps as organized then did not attract thebest men graduating from the various dental colleges, and that he was infavor of the various grades with the exception of colonel. The SurgeonGeneral believed that the grade of colonel and a chief of the Dental Corpswas unnecessary. The organization of a Dental Reserve Corps, however, wasdeemed advisable.
The next development was the receipt by The Surgeon General on 20 February1916 of the following telegram:12
The National Dental Association of nearly 20,000 membersand an equal number in other dental organizations must vigorously opposethe contract status and the relative rank for dental corps as proposedin your recently published bill. We consider this discrimination as unnecessaryand humiliating and must insist that our representatives in Army be accordeddignified recognition and actual rank in keeping with importance of servicerendered. We prefer to cooperate with you and will greatly appreciate yoursupport but under herein-mentioned conditions we have no choice. Wire collectif your attitude is misunderstood or any change in situation.
In his reply to Dr. Brown, The Surgeon General stated that: "Mydesire is to increase the efficiency of the Dental Corps and provide aproper flow of promotion. The question of titles given to the various gradesis, I believe, a matter of secondary importance. There is no objectionupon my part to the same provision regarding rank as is now authorizedfor the Medical Corps."13
Finally, after much activity on the part of the National Dental Associationthe Association of Military Dental Surgeons, state, and city societies,legislation was enacted on 3 June 191614 which provided forthe organization
11Ltr, Pres, Assoc of Mil Dent Surgs, to SG,12 Jan 15. Natl Archives, SG : 90384-I.
12Telegram, Dr. Homer C. Brown, Chairman, Legislative Committee,Natl Dent Assoc, to SG. 20 Feb 16. Natl Archives, SG: 106047, Pt II-65.
13Telegram, SG to Dr. Homer C. Brown, Chairman, LegislativeCommittee, Natl Dent Assoc, 21 Feb 16. Natl Archives, SG: 106047, Pt II-65.
14H. R. 12766, National Defense Act approved 3 Jun 16, sec 10.
5
of a Dental Corps in the National Guard, and for the establishment ofan Officers' Reserve Corps. Included in this legislation was the followingsection which gave further advantages to the Army Dental Corps:
The President is hereby authorized to appoint and commission,by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, dental surgeons, whoare citizens of the United States between the ages of 21 and 27 years,at the rate of one for each 1,000 enlisted men of the line of the Army.Dental surgeons shall have the rank, pay, and allowances of first lieutenantsuntil they have completed 8 years' service. Dental surgeons of more than8 but less than 24 years' service shall, subject to such examinations asthe President may prescribe, have the rank, pay, and allowances of captains.Dental surgeons of more than 24 years' service shall, subject to such examinationsas the President may prescribe, have the rank, pay and allowances of major;Provided, That the total number of dental surgeons with rank, pay,and allowances of major shall not at any time exceed 15: and providedfurther, That all laws relating to the examination of officers of theMedical Corps for promotion shall be applicable to dental surgeons.
The act of 3 June 1916 authorized the President through the governorsof States and Territories and the Commanding General of the District ofColumbia to appoint and commission dental surgeons as first lieutenantsat the rate of one for each thousand enlisted men of the line of the NationalGuard. However, only the President was authorized to appoint and commissionreserve officers in the various sections of the Officers' Reserve Corps.The act provided that the proportion of officers in any section of theOfficers' Reserve Corps should not exceed the proportion for the same gradein the corresponding army, corps, or department of the Regular Army, exceptthat the number commissioned in the lowest authorized grade in any sectionwas not to be limited.
According to The Surgeon General's annual report to the Secretary ofWar, 30 June 1918, the National Guard included 249 dental officers on 5August 1917. By 30 June 1918 the number had increased only to 253, of whom251 were first lieutenants. There were only two who were promoted to therank of captain, and this was not accomplished until March 1918.15
The same report indicated that by 31 July 1917 there were 598 commissionedin the Reserve Corps, while on 30 June 1918 there were 5,372. The distributionof rank in the total number of dental reserve officers commissioned andon duty on the latter date was as follows: majors-36, captains-244, andfirst lieutenants-5,092.16
With the advent of World War I,17 the rapid mobilizationof the Army and with it the Dental Corps led to many additional responsibilitiesfor the dental surgeons. The National Dental Association, various statedental societies, as well as individual officers of the Dental Corps maderequests for increased rank
15Annual Report of The Surgeon General, U.S. Army, 1918, Washington, Government Printing Office, 1918 (cited hereafteras Annual Report ... Surgeon General).
16Ibid.
17Annual Report ... Surgeon General, 1917.
6
and privileges commensurate with these responsibilities.1819 The Surgeon General was favorable to the request that theDental Corps be given equal status with that of the Medical Corps, andthis status was achieved by the passage of H. R. 4897, the act of 6 October1917, which provided that:
Hereafter the Dental Corps of the Army shall consist ofcommissioned officers of the same grade and proportionally distributedamong such grades as are now or may be hereafter provided by law for theMedical Corps, who shall have the rank, pay, promotion, and allowancesof officers of corresponding grades in the Medical Corps, including theright to retirement as in the case of other officers, and there shall beone dental officer for every thousand of the total strength of the RegularArmy authorized from time to time by law: Provided further, Thatdental examining and review boards shall consist of one officer of theMedical Corps and two officers of the Dental Corps: Provided further,That immediately following the approval of this Act all dental surgeonsthen in active service shall be recommissioned in the Dental Corps in thegrades herein authorized in the order of their seniority and without lossof pay or allowances or of relative rank in the Army: Provided further,That no dental Surgeon shall be recommissioned who has not been confirmedby the Senate.
Much credit for the passage of this bill was reflected upon Dr. HomerC. Brown, chairman of the Legislative Committee of the National DentalAssociation20 for his untiring efforts to place dentistry ona plane equal to that of medicine in public service. The Journal of theAssociation of Military Dental Surgeons of the United States in commentingon the splendid work of Dr. Brown said:
In regard to credit, much credit for wholehearted, unselfish,untiring devotion to this cause is due to several of a small coterie ofmen. Some of these have been laboring to this end for years; others formonths only, but for once in the history of dental politics all had a holdon the same end of the rope in the final tug of war, and by pulling togetherachieved the result.21
In the period between the two World Wars, enactment of various legislativemeasures22 did not significantly change the status of the DentalCorps. It was not until the United States was actively engaged in the hostilitiesof World War II that attempts were again initiated to enact legislationspecifically designed to accomplish this. The primary basis for such actionwas the increasingly frequent charge that the morale of dental officersand the efficiency of the Dental Service suffered from the so-called "domination"of the Dental
18Ltr, Hon Ambrose Kennedy, Cong f rom R. I.to SecWar, 12 Apr 17 with incl R. I. Dental Society Resolutions. Natl Archives,SG: 106047, Pt II-84.
19Telegram, Dr. Homer C. Brown, Chairman, Legislative Committee,Natl Dent Assoc, to SecWar, 30 Jul 17. Natl Archives, SG: 106047. Pt. II-85.
20Hereinafter referred to as the American Dental Association,ADA.
21Our new status. J. A. Mil. Dent. Surgs. of the United States2: 10-13, January 1918.
22Act of 4 June 1920 authorized a quota of 298 dental afficerswhich allowed 1 dental officer for every 1,000 strength of the RegularArmy Establishment; established exact peacetime promotion schedule. Actsof 30 June 1921 and 20 June 1922, reduced strength of Dental Corps to 180and 158, respectively. Acts of May 1936, through 29 Jan 1938, and 3 April1939 increased Dental Corps strength to 183, 208, 258, and finally 316.Act of 29 January 1938 also credited to the officers of the Dental Corps,for the purposes of retirement, any service as Contract Dental Surgeonand Acting Dental Surgeon.
7
Corps by medical officers.23 24 Since such chargeswere made by responsible persons, and since they received wide publicity,a discussion of medicodental relations, as reflected in the subsequentlegislative proposals, is necessary in spite of its highly controversialnature.
MEDICODENTAL RELATIONS25
A certain amount of friction between the professions concerned withhealth care is, of course, nothing new. By nature the professional manis usually independent, and the long years of training necessary to masterhis subject fosters the attitude that no outsider can understand his particularproblems or be competent to exercise control over his treatment of patients.Historically, both medicine and dentistry were originally practiced bypersons of low standing in the community, but medicine attained professionalstatus much earlier than dentistry, which remained largely a mechanicalart to the end of the 19th century. As the health implications of dentistrywere recognized, and as the educational background of dentists improved,the latter began a rapid climb toward professional, social, and economicequality. Nevertheless, relations with medicine were occasionally marredby the physician's conservative tendency to regard dentists as upstartsin the health field, and by the dentist, as a member of a profession fightingfor recognition, to suspect discrimination where none was intended. Also,the physician irritated the dentist by telling his patients that they shouldhave their teeth extracted, and the dentist reciprocated by advising thatdental treatment would cure general medical conditions.
As both professions gained experience they realized that their patientswould receive, better care if the physician and the dentist cooperatedto use their special skills to the utmost, and such teamwork has becomeroutine. But in the process of adjustment dentistry has rigidly maintainedits independence and has fully shared medicine's traditional objectionto control from outside the profession. As late as 1945 the Committee onDental Education of the American Dental Association (ADA) withdrew itsapproval of a large and respected dental school because it had been integratedwith a. medical school and placed under the general supervision of a medicaleducator, justifying
23Articles on this subject appeared in thedental press almost continuously after 1943. The following were typical:(1) Rank without authority. Oral Hyg. 33: 932-937, July 1943; (2) Freedomfor the Dental Corps. Ibid. 33: 960-961, July 1943 ; (3) The score of discrimination.Ibid. 33: 1230, September 1943.
24(1) The Army Dental Corps. J. Am. Dent. A. 32: 487-488, April1, 1945. (2) The right to gripe. Ibid 33: 118-122, January 1, 1946.
25By the very nature of the subject, documentation of this discussionmust be very imperfect. Dentists who felt that the dental service sufferedfrom the unwise interference of medical officers were naturally slow toput their complaints in official reports which had to pass through thehands of those same officers. They wrote instead to the American DentalAssociation, to their congressmen, or to the editors of professional journals.In the absence of official sources, the author has had to rely heavilyon information gleaned personally from dental officers in three foreigntheaters and in several major installations in the U. S., realizing fullythe difficulties of an attempt to evaluate opinions, which were by no meansunanimous, on such a controversial matter.
8
this action with the statement that any interference by medicine inthe field of dental education was considered dangerous.26
In the Armed Forces the position of both the professional services hasnecessarily been less independent than in civilian practice. All activitiesof a military organization must be directed toward a common objective andsubject to the orders of a commander responsible for the results achieved.At some level both medicine and dentistry must come under lay control sincethe highest staff positions must be filled by combat officers. So far asthe dental service was concerned, therefore, the question at issue wasnot: "Were dental officers tinder the supervision of nondentists?"but: "Was the nature of the supervision such as to hamper their activitiesunnecessarily?"
On the basis of Army regulations and directives alone, the dental officercertainly exercised less control over the dental service than officersof most other branches did over their respective activities. This situationresulted from the two following circumstances: (1) As a staff officer thedental surgeon did not enjoy the usual privilege of presenting his viewsand recommendations directly to the executive authority; (2) while allmedical treatment was given in installations under the direct command ofmedical officers, dentists did not command dental installations.27
As a subordinate of the surgeon, the dental surgeon was limited to submittingrecommendations only to that officer; if they were approved they were submittedto the commander secondhand by an officer who might be neither completelyfamiliar with the matter under discussion nor personally interested insupporting the dentist's views against opposition from other staff members.If the surgeon did not approve the dentist's proposals they could be droppedwithout formality, and if he chose to substitute his own recommendationsthe lay commander did not necessarily know that they were not the viewsof the dental surgeon.
The practical effect of this situation of course depended upon the attitudeof the surgeon. Many surgeons with long experience as staff officers gaveloyal and effective support to their dental surgeons, and in some casestheir reputation and standing even enabled them to get more considerationfor the dental service than the dental surgeon could have himself obtained,especially when the latter was a junior officer. It was also held by somethat the medical officer would generally show more understanding and sympathytoward dental problems than would a line officer. On the other hand, itcould not be denied that the dentist was one step removed from the authoritywhich made decisions, and this fact inevitably resulted in some delay evenwhen action was favorable; the dental surgeon's proposals had to be approvedby two officials rather than one. The more severe critics of the dentalsurgeon's status held
26Dental Education at Columbia University.J. Am. Dent. A. 32: 1150, 1 Sep 45.
27In the latter part of the war certain minor units, such asthe mobile prosthetic teams, were commanded by dental officers, but thesewere a negligible exception to the general rule that dental officers didnot command.
9
that medical officers could not have a full understanding of dentalproblems and requirements, and that at times they were actually in competitionwith the dental service for personnel and funds. The fact that lack ofdirect staff representation did entail some disadvantage was pointed outby The Surgeon General in 1943 when he protested that service command surgeonswere being hampered in their duties by the necessity for presenting theirrecommendations to the commanding general through a subordinate staff officer.At that time he noted that:28
... the Medical Department has continued to function inthe service commands and to produce excellent results as a whole. I feel,however, that these results have been obtained from extra efforts and personalcontacts rather than from that at which we are aiming; namely, simplifiedprocedure and efficiency.
Officially, the dental surgeon was an adviser to the surgeon, withoutformal authority even within the dental clinic. Here again, the actualstatus of the dental surgeon depended upon the attitude of the surgeon.Many medical officers routinely consulted the dentist on matters concerningthe dental service and accepted his advice in the absence of importantreasons to the contrary. On the other hand, it cannot be denied that adetermined surgeon could, by invoking his authority to make out efficiencyreports, completely dominate the dental service, even in respect to determiningtreatment or assigning personnel within the dental clinic, matters whichwere specifically reserved to the dental officer by regulation.29The dentist was not inclined to demand even his legal .rights if he couldexpect, as a result, to receive a poor efficiency rating and be transferredto an undesirable post because he was "uncooperative."
The mere fact that the dental service functioned with reasonable efficiencyduring the war is strong evidence that medical officers generally showedconsiderable restraint and good judgment in their supervision of dentalactivities. The editor of Oral Hygiene, who was a constant critic of thestatus of the Army and Navy Dental Corps, conceded this when he wrote:
It is true that the relationship between many individualdental officers and medical officers is characterized by cordiality, understanding,and faithful cooperation in caring for the soldiers and sailors of theUnited States,. It is the exceptional case in which the medical officeractually attempts to dominate or exert authority over the dental officer.30
However, it was too much to expect that all of the 45,000 medical officersin the Army would have the necessary experience and judgment to administerthe dental service wisely. Some of them were junior officers who had beenpromoted rapidly to important positions in connection with the expansionof the defense forces; others were former civilian physicians who did notunderstand that staff supervision did not imply detailed interference inroutine matters of internal administration. When medical officers of thesetypes felt
28Rpt. Conference of CGs, SvCs, ASF, 22-24Jul 43. HD: 337.
29AR 40-510, par 1, 31 Jul 42.
30See footnote 23 (1), p. 7.
10
called upon to "run" the dental service the results couldonly be unhappy. The Surgeon General himself pointed out that "specialproblems related to the professional dental service as well as to the specialskills and techniques common only to dentistry are best understood andadministered by those trained in that field."31
Some of the more specific aspects of the problem of medicodental relationsare discussed in the following paragraphs.
Effect of the Administrative Status of the Dental Service on Morale
The fact that the morale of dental officers at the end of the war leftmuch to be desired is discussed in chapter IV. This situation is significanthere because it was widely blamed on unsatisfactory relations with medicalofficers. This subject covers a wide field, however, and it is necessaryto consider complaints on a more specific basis.
One of the common causes of criticism was lack of opportunity for promotionin the Dental Corps compared with the Medical Corps. In April 1945 theproportion of medical and dental officers in each grade was as follows:32
Grade | Percentage Distribution | |
| Medical Corps | Dental Corp |
Colonel | 2.3 | 0.8 |
Lieutenant Colonel | 7.3 | 2.7 |
Major | 21.6 | 10.4 |
Captain | 56.6 | 67.3 |
Lieutenant | 12.2 | 18.8 |
It is clear that the dental officer had much less chance to reach fieldgrades, but the extent to which this was the fault of the Medical Departmentis not so clear. The Surgeon General had only advisory authority over theallotment of grades within the service commands, in the Air Force, in tacticalunits, or in theaters, leaving a negligible part of the Army in which hisinfluence was decisive. Also, the War Department itself was slow to approveincreases in ratings for dental officers in table-of-organization unitsdue to the tradition that high grades should go only with the command oflarge numbers of troops. Common sense had of course forced many modificationsof this principle; the chief of staff of an army was at least a major generalthough he did not command any soldiers, and the chief of the surgical serviceof a large hospital was likewise a colonel, while the commander of a collectingcompany, with a hundred men, was only a captain. Obviously, responsibilityshould be the criterion for the allotment of grades, not mere numbers oftroops commanded. Nevertheless, this attitude cropped up whenever advancedrank
31Ltr, Col Robert J. Carpenter to CG ASF, 12Apr 45, sub: Revision of AR 40-15. SG: 300.3.
32Strength of the Army, 1 May 45.
11
for staff positions was mentioned. The Surgeon General supported successfulefforts to speed the promotion of dental lieutenants in tactical outfits;he recommended the promotion of the chief of the Dental Division to thegrade of major general; and he made a sincere and fairly successful effortto obtain the same grades for the chiefs of hospital dental services aswere held by the corresponding chiefs of the medical or surgical services.33Occasionally, however, the Medical Department appeared to foster the viewthat dental officers had no responsibilities beyond the rendering of treatmentat the chair on an individual basis. Thus, when a representative of theSurgeon General's Office testified against legislation to provide additionalgeneral officers in the Dental Corps by stating that so far as he knewno dentist ever commanded more than one man (his dental assistant) , heignored the fact that a colonel of the Dental Corps would have been helddirectly responsible for any defects of the dental treatment rendered bymore than 4,000 dental officers in Europe alone.34 It is pertinentto note, in this connection, that the Medical Corps had itself carriedon a similar fight for increased rank for medical officers during WorldWar I, claiming that line officers ignored the advice of junior medicalofficers, and that such increases had been opposed by line officers onthe ground that physicians had no command responsibilities!35
Dental officers also complained of discrimination when they were heldfor 36 months of total service following the war, while medical officerswere released after only 30 months. The president of the ADA wrote:36
From time to time during the war period, there has beenconsiderable resentment from the dental officers due to the present Armyregulations. These complaints were. minor and few compared to the proteststhat are arriving now. These men have developed a bitterness toward theAmerican Dental Association, threatening to resign and form a new association.They are also bitter in their condemnation of the Government and the severalbranches of the service.
Basically, the need to hold dentists arose from a single action: thetermination of the dental Army Specialized Training Program (ASTP) in July1944. The War Department decided to discontinue the dental ASTP in spiteof opposition by The Surgeon General who had supported the recommendationof the Dental Division that the ASTP be continued and that sufficient olderofficers be released to create the necessary vacancies for younger graduates.37Nor does this decision indicate any conscious discrimination on the partof the War Department itself. At the time it was taken the Dental Corpswas at maximum authorized strength, while the Medical Corps was desperatelyscrambling for manpower. The General Staff felt that in view of the criticalneed
33Final Rpt for ASF, Logistics in World WarII. HD: 319.1-2 (Dental Division).
34Testimony Brig Gen Guy B. Denit on the Army Promotion Bill,H. R. 2536. J. Am. Dent. A. 35: 447, 15 Sep 47.
35Army Medical Corps Legislation. J. Am. Dent. A. 5: 635, June1918; also Authority and Rank for Surgeons. Ibid. 5: 323, March 1918.
36Ltr, Dr. W. H. Scherer, Pres ADA to SG, 17 May 46. SG: 210.8.
37See discussion of the Dental ASTP in the chapter on Personneland Training.
12
for men to carry the war to an end, the dental ASTP could no longerbe justified, while the need for the continuance of the medical ASTP wasobvious. It may or may not be held that a mistake was made, but there isno evidence of any intent to treat the Dental Corps unfairly in this instance.
Evidence is more definite that, justifiably or not, the morale of thedental officers suffered from the belief that the Dental Service was unnecessarilysubordinate to the will of medical officers. A senior dental officer whoconducted an official investigation of the Dental Service in Europe reportedthat:38
With the exception of one or two dental officers interviewed,all were either Reserve or AUS. The majority of these officers were verybitter as to the treatment or discrimination towards the Dental Corps bymedical officers. Most of them stated that they would take action throughtheir local dental societies on return to. the states. As one officer expressedit, they were "damned sick of being kicked around by medical officers."
The editor of Oral Hygiene reported that the number of dentists whoblamed the ADA for not taking more vigorous corrective action was so largethat it threatened the future of that organization.39 The deanof one of the larger dental schools warned that returning officers wereadvising young dentists to stay out of the armed services Dental Corps,40and the ADA charged that personnel troubles encountered after the war werelargely due to the resentment of dentists at their status during hostilities.41This latter claim appears exaggerated since the unusually large incometo be made in private practice during the period of postwar inflation wasalso an important factor, but it is significant that such a charge shouldbe made by a reputable organization.
It is difficult to determine the exact extent to which this widespreadfeeling of resentment was justified. Wartime conditions inevitably ledto some confusion and injustices, and even the ADA admitted that some ofthe instances of failure to assign officers to duty for which they feltthey were fitted, or of failure to provide warranted promotions, were probablyunavoidable.42
Presumably some dentists failed to understand the need for more supervisionin the Army than in private practice and suspected discrimination whereit did not exist. It is further possible that many criticisms arose overrelatively minor incidents. Such was the case when a captain of the DentalCorps and a lieutenant of the Medical Corps started for a supply centerin a jeep; the captain climbed into the front seat and was promptly orderedinto the back seat by the lieutenant because the latter, as surgeon, wasthe dentist's commanding officer.43 Such instances were merelyexhibitions of bad judgment on the
38Pers ltr, Col James B. Mockbee to Lt ColGeorge F. Jeffcott, 8 Sep 46.
39They cannot speak for themselves. Oral Hyg. 33: 1244-1245,September 1943.
40Pers ltr, Dr. Charles W. Freeman, Dean, Northwestern UnivDent Sch to Maj Maurice E. Washburn, 21 May 46. SG: 322.0531.
41Dental officers pay again. J. Am. Dent. A. 33: 755, 1 Jun46.
42Present status of dentistry in the Armed Forces: A reportfrom the Committee on Legislation. J. Am. Dent. A. 31: 270-277, 1 Feb 44.
43See footnote 38.
13
part of inexperienced officers but they inevitably received considerablepublicity and tended to create resentment even on the part of officerswho had never known such treatment personally.
But after discounting many claims of arbitrary treatment at the handsof medical officers, it must be admitted that Surgeons possessed the authorityto dominate the dental service if they so desired, and it seems probablethat this authority was exercised unwisely in some cases. Responsible membersof the organized dental profession denied categorically that the lettersthey received came from any minority group of malcontents.44The fact that both the Director of the Dental Division, SGO, and The SurgeonGeneral recommended certain administrative changes designed to give dentalofficers increased authority supports the belief that discontent was basedon something more than emotional and groundless resentment.
Effect of the Status of the Dental Service on Efficiency
Failure to Consult Dental Surgeons on Matters Affecting Their DentalService. In December 1944 the Director of the Dental Division reportedthe following situation to The Surgeon General: 45
Information continues to reach this office that thereare some stations where the Post Surgeon does not give proper considerationto the Dental Service and, instead of coordinating the Dental Service withthe Medical Service, he places it in a subordinate position and in manyinstances ignores the chief of the Dental Service and his recommendations,even to the extent of recommending dental officers for promotion withoutconsulting the Camp Dental Surgeon. Such conditions as this should notand would not exist if the Service Command Surgeons concerned would notcondone such action by their Post or Station Surgeons.
The Dental Corps is an integral part of the Medical Departmentand should always remain as such. It is unfortunate that there are stillsome medical officers, who, apparently, do not realize this and that theDental Corps desires to assist in every way possible and assume its shareof the responsibility in carrying out the mission of the Medical Department.
The attitude of some few medical officers, who apparentlyare determined to subordinate the Dental Corps, tends to offset the wonderfulattitude of comradeship and friendliness exhibited by the majority of MedicalCorps officers. These acts of subordinating the Dental Corps by the fewofficers reach the civilian profession through dental officers on duty,and have caused much agitation by a certain group for a complete separationfrom the Medical Department. I am entirely opposed to any such action asit would lessen the efficiency of both the Medical and Dental Corps.
I am sure The Surgeon General desires that Service CommandSurgeons correct any subordinated status of the Dental Corps which mayexist at their headquarters, and in their taking steps to pass this ondown to the lower echelons.
The Surgeon General's disapproval of this undesirable situation whichdid exist in some cases was confirmed by the Director of the Dental Division
44See footnote 24 (2), p. 7.
45Memo, Maj Gen R. H. Mills for Exec Off SGO, 5 Dec 44, sub:Agenda for the Service Command Surgeons' Conference, 11 December through15 December. SG:337.
14
in his remark that "General Kirk is fully cognizant of the administrativeproblems in some of the lower echelons of command and accordingly plansfor a change in Army regulations are now under Way."46He also stated that The Surgeon General had "offered every assistanceand approval for more administrative control of dental affairs by dentalofficers in the lower echelons,"47 and further, that "GeneralKirk . . . has given the Dental Division a free hand in the direction ofits policies and personnel. . . . If a comparable relationship could beobtained throughout all the channels of command, the primary objectionsnow raised by many. . . would be erased . . . . "48
Lack of Effective Control of Dental Personnel. One of the mostfrequent causes of complaint by dental officers was their inability tocontrol dental personnel. Under unfavorable conditions the surgeon could,and did, take the following actions detrimental to the morale and efficiencyof dental officers:
1. Failed to allot sufficient dental officers to the dental clinic.49
2. Failed to provide adequate grades for the dental service so as tomake possible reasonable promotion.50
3. Used dental officers in unimportant nonprofessional duties.51At times this latter abuse was carried to fantastic lengths. Thus whenthe surgeon of a service command was directed to send 12 Medical Departmentofficers to the Medical Field Service School he sent 12 dental officersbecause he held that medical officers could not be spared, and on theirreturn these dentists were used in administrative functions because theyalone had the necessary training.52 Even worse, the same dentistwas occasionally sent to the Medical Field Service School twice to avoidlosing the services of a medical officer.53 These were, admittedly,extreme examples, and the misuse of dental officers was largely eliminatedin the United States by the determined efforts of The Surgeon General.Overseas, however, it continued to exist to some degree until the end ofhostilities.
4. Granted leaves of absence to dental personnel without consultingthe dental surgeon.
5. Promoted dental personnel against the advice of the dental surgeon.54
6. Rendered efficiency reports on dental officers without consultingthe dental surgeon.55
46Major General Mills prefers changes in regulationsto legislation to correct inequalities in the Dental Corps. J. Am. Dent.A. 32: 489, 1 Apr 45.
47Ltr, Maj Gen R. H. Mills to Dr. Edward J. Ryan, 17 Mar 45.[D]
48See footnote 46.
49See discussion in the chapter of this history on Personneland Training.
50Ibid.
51See discussion in the chapter of this history on The Procurementof Dental Officers.
52Proceedings of The Surgeon General's Conference with CorpsArea and Army Dental Surgeons, 8-9 Jul 42. HD: 337.
53Ibid.
54Testimony before the House Naval Affairs Committee on billto improve the efficiency of the Dental Corps. J. Am. Dent. A. 32: 364:374,1 Mar 45.
55Ibid.
15
7. Failed to assign enlisted assistants in sufficient numbers and inappropriate grades. Dental enlisted assistants were assigned to the dentalclinic by the surgeon, they were promoted by the surgeon, and they couldbe withdrawn at any time. Lack of a permanent corps of enlisted men, withadequate ratings, was one of the most serious deficiencies noted by theDirector of the Dental Division after the war.56
8. Removed enlisted assistants from the dental clinic for outside dutieson short notice. This situation was of course unavoidable in an emergency,but practically paralyzed the dental service when it occurred.57
Professional Interference. It was reported that surgeons sometimesprohibited dental surgeons from committing patients to the hospital, usinggeneral anesthetics, or prescribing certain drugs legally used by dentists.58It is believed, however, that this difficulty was more commonly encounteredin the Navy; it appears to have been a matter of minor concern to Armydentists.
Extent of Medical Interference in Dental Administration
The extent to which the efficiency of the Dental Service actually sufferedfrom medical supervision, if at all, is extremely hard to determine. Wartimeconditions varied so much from camp to camp that it is impossible to comparethe actual output of clinics operating under different degrees of medicalcontrol, and neither medical nor dental officers were impartial enoughto render completely unbiased opinions in the, matter. Editorials in thedental press would indicate that medical interference was almost universal,but closer contact with individual dentists revealed that many of themwere angry at injustices they had heard about rather than experienced.Further, while almost every dental officer felt that some interferencehad occurred, some of them were not sure that they would not have encounteredequal restrictions under line officers. It is certain, however, that mostdental officers, from the Chief of the Dental Division down, felt thata clearer definition of the responsibilities and rights of dental officerswas imperative.59 60 61
LEGISLATIVE AND ADMINISTRATIVE ACTION REGARDING
THE ARMY DENTAL CORPS
One of the first moves to improve the status of the Dental Service wasthe campaign of the ADA to get advanced rank for the Director of the Dental
56See footnote 33, p. 11.
57Ibid.
58Ibid.
59See footnotes 31, p. 10, 45, p. 13, 46, p. 14.
60Ltr, Maj Gen R. H. Mills to Ed, J. Am. Dent. A., 23 May 47,quoted in "General Mills Expresses His Opinion Regarding Army DentalCorps Regulations." J. Am. Dent. A. 35: 231-232, 1 Aug 47.
61Report of Activities to Change the Status of the Army DentalCorps. J. Am. Dent. A. 33: 1030-1040, 1 Aug 46.
16
Division who was then (April 1943) a brigadier general. When The SurgeonGeneral of that period stated that "the Dental Corps had all the representationin the higher brackets to which it was entitled"62 billswere introduced in Congress to provide that the Director of the DentalDivision should have the grade of major general and that the Dental Corpsshould be allotted brigadier generals in the same ratio as the MedicalCorps.63 Before these bills could be acted upon a new SurgeonGeneral had taken office and the ADA made new efforts to get action informally,without legislation. The new Surgeon General was apparently somewhat lukewarmto certain aspects of the idea, but he agreed to make the Director of theDental Division a major general and to consider the possibility of appointingone or more brigadier generals in the Dental Corps.64 Attemptsto pass legislation were then dropped. The promotion of the Director ofthe Dental Division was announced shortly, but no brigadier generals wereappointed until 4 January 1945, and the single officer so promoted wasagain reduced to the grade of colonel on 1 December 1945. (A bill to providefor a rear admiral in the Dental Corps of the Navy had become law in December1942.)65
About the same time The Surgeon General personally initiated effortsto get more administrative authority for dental officers within the frameworkof the existing Medical Department organization. In July 1943 he sent thefollowing letter to the commanding generals of all service commands:66
1. The Dental Corps is an integral part of the MedicalDepartment, and must function as such. But dentistry, being a specialtyof which few medical officers have ample knowledge, can function more efficientlyif members of the Dental Corps are consulted and their advice sought onall matters pertaining to the Dental Service.
2. The chief of the medical branch of a service command is responsibleto the service commander for the efficient functioning of all branchesof the Medical Department, but due to the increased responsibility it hasbeen considered advisable and necessary, for obvious reasons, in orderto maintain a highly efficient dental service to assign an experienceddental officer as an assistant to the chief of the medical branch. Hisduties are clearly defined in par. 5, AR 40-15, December 28, 1942. ThisRegulation will be complied with, and the duties prescribed therein willnot be delegated to any other assistant. By so doing a more efficient servicewill be maintained and dissatisfaction and misunderstanding obviated.
3. An efficient medical service requires the complete cooperation of everybranch of the Medical Department. The efficiency of any one branch reflectscredit on the entire department.
Results of this action were not too encouraging. Protests in the dentalpress grew in volume and the Director of the Dental Division reported atthe end of 1944 that conditions in the field were far from satisfactory.67
62See footnote 42, p. 12.
63H. R. 2442, 78th Cong. introduced by Mr. Sparkman on 8 Apr43 ; S. 1007, introduced by Mr. Hill on 16 Apr 43.
64See footnote 42, p. 12.
65FIagstad, C. O.: Wartime Legislation. J. Am. Dent. A. 33:63-65,1 Jan 46.
66Ltr, SG to CG 3d SvC, 14 Jul 43, sub: Dental Service. SG:703-1.
67See footnote 45, p. 13.
17
Early in 1944 the ADA began to consider seriously the introduction oflegislation to change the status of the, Dental Service. Its Committeeon Legislation finally advised against such action, however, for the followingreasons:
1. It was believed that the new Surgeon General should be given a chanceto bring about the desired changes through administrative procedures.68
2. The Director of the Dental Division advised against legislative actionbecause he felt that administrative correction was preferable and possible,and because he felt that the introduction of permanent legislation in themiddle of the war was neither appropriate nor likely to receive favorableaction.69
The attitude of the Committee was expressed as follows in February 1944:70
He [The Surgeon General] has been very cooperative withthe members of the Dental Corps and [he has] stated that beneficial changeswill be made.
With such cooperation, the Committee on Legislation willgrant every opportunity for the correction of inadequacies by the departmentitself before seeking correction by legislation. The Surgeon General ofthe Army and the chief of the Army Dental Corps are in agreement that nolegislation should be sought at the present time. This Committee is satisfiedto place this responsibility for adjustment in their hands.
The aims of the ADA at this time were stated in very general terms,but they appear to have included two principal objectives:
1. The right of the dental surgeon to take his problems and recommendationsdirectly to the commander of any installation. It was desired that:
. . . dental officers be permitted to present their casesand problems, without lesser intervention, to the officer generally responsiblefor the activity. In a hospital, this would be the medical officer in charge.In a line organization, this would be the commanding officer. These officers,by virtue of their position and wider responsibility, would bring to theirdecisions the impartial viewpoint that now does not always characterizesuch decisions.71
2. "Autonomy" for the Dental Service. This word was of courseopen to many interpretations and it undoubtedly meant different thingsto different persons. It was defined by the Committee on Legislation ofthe ADA as "the power, right or condition of self-government, or,in its secondary meaning, as practical independence with nominal subordination."72
The condition of "practical independence with nominal subordination"was the one already envisaged in Army regulations. The surgeon of an installationhad "nominal" authority, but it was hopefully expected that hewould use it principally to arbitrate in matters where the interests ofthe Dental Service touched those of other activities, leaving the dentalsurgeon free to handle all routine administration. The fault in this conceptionwas expressed
68See footnote 42, p. 12.
69See footnote 60, p. 15.
70See footnote 42, p. 12.
71Medicodental relations in the armed services. J. Am. Dent.A. 31: 696-697, 1 May 44.
72See footnote 42, p. 12.
18
by the chef who said "there is no such thing as a little garlic."In view of the accepted military tradition that responsibility must bematched by authority there is no such thing as "nominal subordination"in the Army. As long as the surgeon was in command of dental activitiesand responsible for their success the War Department rightly objected toany efforts to diminish his final control over those activities. It mightrecommend very strongly that the surgeon consult the dental officer, butit could not logically direct him to accept the latter's advice; nor couldthe surgeon excuse his errors by stating that he had taken the dentist'srecommendations, for if be felt that the dental surgeon's views were faultyhe was not only allowed, but expected, to reject them. Even the authorityto go directly to the commanding officer when the surgeon disapproved theproposals of the dental officer would have been a precedent-shatteringdeparture from accepted staff procedure. On the other hand, to give theoccasional authoritarian type of officer "nominal authority"is to give him a powerful weapon with instructions not to use it; sooneror later the temptation to "show who is boss" becomes overpowering.It would seem, therefore, that attempts to give the Dental Service actualindependence while keeping it under nominal supervision could not be expectedto prove uniformly successful.
The "power of self-government" was more definite, althoughfurther qualification was needed even here. The Committee on Legislation,ADA, generally agreed, as did the Director of the Dental Division and TheSurgeon General, that a completely independent Dental Corps was not necessaryor desirable. It was stated that "The profession of dentistry, asa unit, has no hesitation in serving under a surgeon general who is a,member of the profession of medicine. This plan, dictated by the closeassociation of dentistry and medicine in the interests of general health,is satisfactory."73 Again, "From some quarters, thereis an insistent demand for a separate Dental Corps. Since the work of theMedical Corps and that of the Dental Corps is so closely allied it is feltby those who have made a close study of the problem that a complete separationof the Dental Corps from the Medical Department in both the Army and theNavy would hinder the effectiveness of both corps."74 Onthe other hand, the Committee on Legislation did not agree with those whofelt that authority to go to the commanding officer with dental problemswould be sufficient.75 It also wanted to be assured that localsurgeons would not in-tervene in purely dental affairs. This attitude wasexpressed as follows by the head of the Canadian Dental Service, whichwas completely independent, under the Adjutant General of the CanadianDefense Forces:76
We all admire the Medical Service for what it knows andwhat it does, but there are two great reasons why it is difficult to understandwhy it should retain control
73Ibid.
74Ibid.
75See footnote 61, p. 15.
76Lott, F. M. : Wartime functioning of the Canadian Dental Corps.Oral Hyg. 33: 1388-1391, Oct 1943.
19
of the Dental Service. First, it has a tremendous job on its handsto deal efficiently with the great number of medical problems of the Forces.For this reason alone it is imperative that the Dental Service should carryits own burdens. Second, most Medical Officers admit that they are nottrained as Dental Officers and are not qualified to "run the dentalshow" as is often stated.
Probably the clearest statement of the objective of the ADA was thefollowing:77
We can agree that The Surgeon General must be the finaland overall authority in regard to all matters having to do with the healthof the soldier. However, as regards dentistry, once certain fundamentalpolicies have been agreed upon, the Dental Corps, under its own chief,should be free to carry out those policies. This is our conception of autonomyin, the Dental Corps.
Apparently the aim of the ADA was subordination to The Surgeon Generalat the major policy-making level, with administrative independence at alllower echelons. The application of such a plan involved some administrativedifficulties since the dentist had to commit patients to the hospital,he used clinic space which was generally within the area controlled bythe surgeon, and his activities could not altogether be divorced from thoseof the Medical Corps in the operating installations. Also, the dental surgeonmight find him-self responsible for personnel administration, the procurementof supplies, and other matters which had previously been handled by thesurgeon and his assistants. Such separation of functions was administrativelypossible, however, and it was later actually carried out in the Navy.
Efforts to secure changes in Army regulations progressed slowly. InApril 1945 the ADA stated that unless action was soon taken it would sponsorlegislation to bring about the desired modifications.78 At aboutthe same time he Surgeon General submitted the draft of a revised Armyregulation which represented his views on the matter of increased responsibilityfor dental surgeons.79 This draft was amended several timesbefore it was submitted, apparently on the basis of informal consultationswith ASF, and it is possible hat it already represented some compromisebetween what The Surgeon General wanted and what he thought he could get.As submitted by The Surgeon General this tentative regulation providedthat matters affecting the Dental Service as a whole would be administeredby The Surgeon General, with the assistance of the Director of the DentalDivision. In lower echelons, however, dental affairs were to be administeredby the dental surgeon, though the latter was bound to consult the surgeonand seek his concurrence before action was en. Any matter on which an agreementcould not be reached was to be referred to The Surgeon General, thoughthis provision was changed in subsequent drafts to allow settlement ofconflicts by the local commanding officer.
77See footnote 42, p. 12.
78See footnote 24 (1), p. 7.
79See footnote 31, p. 10.
20
The War Department, in turn, eliminated some desired features80before the regulation was finally published in August 1945.81
In its published form the regulation provided that "matters relatingto the dental service as a whole are administered by the Director, DentalDivision, an assistant to The Surgeon General, through The Surgeon General,"giving at least the appearance of greater authority for the Director ofthe Dental Division than had been implied in the original phrase "byThe Surgeon General with the assistance of the Director of the Dental Division."Similar wording was used to describe the authority of subordinate dentalsurgeons, as follows: "In a theater, service command, or any otherheadquarters, matters relating to the dental service are administered bythe dental surgeon, through the surgeon." All recommendations initiatedby the dental surgeon were to be routed through the surgeon, who was requiredto forward them to the commanding officer with his comments. The dentalsurgeon was also given authority to render efficiency reports on his ownpersonnel.
The ADA claimed that the new regulation did not make any substantialchange in existing relations, asserting that "the causes of frequentcomplaints by dental officers have been wrapped up with new words but considerablecare has been exercised not to remove them. The domination of the DentalCorps by the Medical Corps may have been gently disturbed but, by and large,it remains complete and unshaken."82 General Mills admittedthat he had "had to make some concessions,"83 buthe maintained that the new regulations were a great improvement over theold and that they provided "more for our Corps than we could get ifwe were a small, separate branch." It would appear that there wassome truth in each of these statements. The new regulations gave officialapproval to a general principle for which the ADA was working, but theirpractical effect was likely to be negligible. The right to present dentalproblems to the commanding officer, for instance, meant little as longas the surgeon had to be consulted and as long as the latter initiatedefficiency reports on the dental surgeon. (The dental surgeon made outthe reports for his officers, but his own efficiency report was made outby his immediate superior, the surgeon.) Only a very intrepid dental surgeonwould insist on taking a recommendation to the post commander against theexpressed opposition of the surgeon when the latter would subsequentlyreport on the dental surgeon's efficiency, including his "cooperativeness,"during the year.
At the end of hostilities it appeared that the ADA and the Army wouldnot be able to come to a voluntary agreement concerning changes to be madein the status of the Dental Corps, and the former went ahead with its earlierplan to attain the desired objective through legislation.84
80See footnote 60, p. 15.
81AR 40-15,8 Aug 45.
82Editorial: New regulations for the Army Dental Corps. J. Am.Dent. A. 32: 1290-1291, 1 Oct 45.
83See footnote 61, p. 15.
84The legislation sponsored by the ADA in the postwar yearsof 1946-48 designed to change the status of the Dental Service failed ofenactment. On 27 September 1948, however, a revision of AR
21
During the above period, however, other legislation which proposed theremoval of the command restriction provision of the law of 1911,85a limitation. which had not been placed on the Medical Administrative,Pharmacy, Veterinary, or Sanitary Corps, was approved by The Surgeon Generaland The Adjutant General. On 29 June 1945, an act was passed to grant dentalofficers the same command privileges enjoyed by other officers of the MedicalDepartment.86 While passage of this legislation did not affectthe provision of Army regulations that only Medical Corps officers mightcommand organizations dealing with the treatment, hospitalization, or transportationof the sick or wounded87 it did make dental officers eligiblefor administrative positions which had previously been closed to them forwhat seemed to be inadequate reasons.
40-15 authorized many of the modifications which had beenrecommended by the ADA and by dental officers. This revision promised muchfor long-term improvement in the operation of the Dental Service.-Ed.
85See footnote 6, p. 2.
86Public Law 94, 79th Cong., 29 June 1945.
87AR 40-10, par 2, 17 Nov 41.
