Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: $Revision: 1.6.2.16 $; site haddock.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!gamma!epsilon!zeta!sabre!petrus!bellcore!decvax!cca!haddock!jimc
From: jimc@haddock.UUCP
Newsgroups: net.startrek
Subject: Re: commodores and admirals
Message-ID: <95300014@haddock.UUCP>
Date: Mon, 18-Nov-85 21:16:00 EST
Article-I.D.: haddock.95300014
Posted: Mon Nov 18 21:16:00 1985
Date-Received: Sat, 23-Nov-85 02:05:49 EST
References: <3168@hplabsb.UUCP>
Lines: 25
Nf-ID: #R:hplabsb:-316800:haddock:95300014:000:1226
Nf-From: haddock!jimc    Nov 18 21:16:00 1985


> >It's official, the navy has dropped the rank of commodore.  Those officers
> >who used to be commodores (one star) will now be known as "rear admiral
> >lower half".  Officers with two stars will now be known as "rear admiral
> >upper half".  I kid you not!
>
> Care to cite your source?  I just got out of the Navy, and about
> 3-4 yrs ago they reinstituted the rank of Commodore.  It seems
> that the other one-star officers (Brigadier General) were upset
> that the Navy one-stars got a free ride to two stars.

You are right -- the rank "Commodore" was re-installed in 1981.
However, the author of the first quotation cited above is right,
too; on NBC News about a week ago, I heard that the Navy had
dropped the rank "Commodore" and replaced it with "Rear Admiral,
Lower Half." There must have been some powerful political and
economic motives for this decision, since they certainly did not
do this because the new ranking has a better name!

______________________________
Jim Campbell
{decvax ! cca | yale | ihnp4 | cbosgd}!ima!jimc
{bbncca | harvard | zurton | cfib | mit-ems | wjh12 }!ima!jimc
{uscvax | ucla-vax | vortex}!ism780!jimc
INTERACTIVE Systems, 7th floor, 441 Stuart St, Boston, MA 02116; 617-247-1155