Army-Navy E Award
War Department Circular, 1942: Army-Navy Production Award
Press Release, 1945: Army-Navy E Award Termination
Sample E Award Letter: 1942 letter from Secretary of the Navy Frank Knox to American Brass Company
Minneapolis, Minnesota. 1941.
CIRCULAR NO. 228, 1942
Army-Navy Production Award.
1.a. The War Department and the Navy Department have agreed to make a single award to individual plants which have achieved outstanding performance on war production, to be known as the Army-Navy Production Award.
b. Hereafter the Army-Navy Production Award will be presented plants doing outstanding war production work, and awards of the Navy E, the Army A, and the Army-Navy Star will be discontinued.
2.a. The award will consist of a pennant for the plant and emblems for all employees in the plant at the time the award is made. These will be paid for by the Department making the award.
b. The pennant will be swallowtailed, will have a white border, and will have a white capital letter E within a yellow wreath of oak and laurel leaves on a vertical divided blue and red background. ARMY will be on the red background and NAVY on the blue.
c. The emblems will have a capital letter E within a wreath of all silver oak and laurel leaves, and horizontal swallowtail wings divided in five - red, white, blue, white, red.
3. The Under Secretary of War has designated an Army Board for Production Awards to serve under the Director, Procurement and Distribution Division, Services of Supply, the duty of which is to formulate policies and rules governing nominations and awards, and to make final selections of award recipients from nominations submitted by the supply services and by the Matériel Command, Army Air Forces, and other production agencies.
4. All plants engaged in War production and construction work are eligible for the Army-Navy Production Award. There will be dqual opportunity for Government as well as private plants, small as well as large, those engaged partly on war work as well as those engaged wholly on war work, subcontractors as well as prime contractors.
5. Quality and quantity of production in the light of available facilities are the factors which will be given the greatest weight in selecting recipients of the award. Other factors to be weighed may include-
a. Overcoming of production obstacles.
b. Avoicance of stoppages.
c. Maintenance of fair labor standards.
d. Training of additional labor forces.
e. Effective management.
f. Record on accidents, health sanitation, and plant protection.
g. Utilization of subcontrating facilities.
6. Nominations for plants doing War Department work will be handled in the following manner:
a. District procurement officers with the approval of the chief of the district will recommend the names of plants which in their opinion merit such awards. They will forward their nominations to the chief of their respective supply service or to the Commanding General, Matériel Command, in the case of Army Air Forces, together with sufficient data to justify their choices, including the reports of the local Army inspector.
b. The chiefs of the supply services and the Commanding General, Matériel Command, Army Air Forces, will study the nominations and will forward their recommendations to the Award Board for final action. The chiefs of the supply services or the Commanding General, Matériel Command, Army Air Forces, may also make initial nominations which they will forward with supporting data to the Award Board.
c. Recommendations for awards may be made directly to the Award Board by agencies concerned with production. Any awards granted to such nominees will consist of the Army-Navy pennant and emblems.
d. In the exercise of its discretion, the Award Board may prescribe other methods by which nominations and recommendations may be submitted to it.
e. The Award Board will consider the recommendations made to it and make the final selections.
7. The Award Board, upon reaching a decision to make an award and having cleared the award wtih the Incentive Division, Office of the Under Secretary of the Navy, which is similarly charged, will forward the name of the recipient, together with any special instructions which it may deep appropriate, to the Public Relations Branch, Services of Supply, which will be charged with all publicity and arrangements in connection with the award.
[A. G. 201.4 (7-8-42).]
Source: United States. War Department. Compilation of War Department General Orders, Bulletins, and Circulars. Washington, DC: US Government Printing Office, 1943.
Bureau of Public Relations
Tel. RE 6700
Brs. 3425 and 4860
For Release to P.M.’s of December 5, 1945
Joint Army Navy Release
Army-Navy “E” Award Termination Sees Award Granted to 5% of Eligible Plants
War workers in 4283 of the nation’s top-flight war production facilities earned the Army-Navy “E” Award for their part in the defeat of the Axis Powers, it was announced today by the War and Navy Departments. This number includes the Navy “E” Awards made prior to July 1942 when the Navy “E”, the Army “A” and the Army-Navy Munitions Board “Star” Awards were merged and became known as the Army-Navy “E” Award.
Representing only 5% of the estimated war plants in the nation, those plants meeting the stringent eligibility requirements ranged in size from a one-man plant to large corporations and included facilities that converted from peace to war production, as well as new plants built especially for war purposes. Both prime and subcontractors were eligible for and received the award. Approximately 50% of the Awards went to plants having less than 500 employees, generally considered as “smaller war plants”.
The Army-Navy “E” Award was granted only to facilities which were particularly outstanding in production for the War and Navy Departments. Excellence in quality and quantity of production were two of the determining factors in granting Awards. Others included: (a) overcoming of production obstacles; (b) low rate of absenteeism; (c) Avoidance of work stoppages; (d) maintenance of fair labor standards; (e) training of additional labor forces; (f) effective management; (g) record on accidents, health, sanitation, and plant protection: (h) utilization of sub-contracting facilities; (i) cooperation between management and labor as it affected production; and (j) conservation of critical and strategic materials.
Nominations for the Army-Navy “E” Award were the responsibility of the Technical Services of Army Service Forces, the Army Air Forces, the Bureaus of the Navy Department, the Coast Guard, or the Marine Corps, whichever had the largest contractual interest in the plant. Thus, if the Army had the largest volume of business in the plant, it nominated the plant. If the Navy had the largest interest, it nominated the plant.
For the Army, the nomination originated with the field procurement officer in closest touch with the plant. Thus, the field procurement officer of the service having the largest contractual interest in the plant, such as the Ordnance Department, Chemical Warfare Service, or other technical service of the Army, or the Army Air Forces, recommended a plant for the Award. From the local inspector or District Office, this recommendation was forwarded to the Office of the Chief of the Service for review prior to submission to the Army Board for Production Awards.
The Navy followed a similar procedure. The cognizant inspector or supervisor, such as the inspector of Naval Aircraft, the Inspector of Naval Material, the Naval Inspector of Ordnance, or the Supervisor of Shipbuilding, initiated the recommendation which was forwarded to the appropriate Bureau of the Navy Department for further review prior to submission to the Navy Board for Production Awards. The action of either Board had to be concurred in by the other Board before an Award was granted.
The members of the Navy Board for Production Awards at the time of the termination of the Award program were: Admiral C.C. Bloch, USN (Retired), Chairman; Rear Admiral W.T. Cluverius, USN (retired); Rear Admiral George H. Rock, (CC) USN (Retired); and Lieutenant James S. Copley, USNR, Secretary. The members of the Army Board for Production Awards were: Major General William H.Harrison, Chairman; Major General Edward M. Powers; Brigadier General Hugh C. Minton; Brigadier General Alexander G. Gillespie; Colonel Ralph F. Gow; Mr. Edward F. McGrady; and Lt. Colonel Robert B. Clark, Jr., Recorder.
Plants which maintained an outstanding record of performance for six months after receiving the original Army-Navy “E” Award were granted a Star Award, indicated by a white star on their “E” flag. Additional stars could be won by continued outstanding performance for succeeding six-month periods until the flag carried four stars, after which the interval was increased to one year.
Of the 4283 plants which were granted the Award, eight had won six Star Awards when the program ended. Four of these had retained their original Navy “E” Awards and were as follows: Cameron Iron Works, Houston, Texas; General Motors Corporation, Fisher Body Division, Die & Machine Unit, Detroit Michigan; Midvale Company, Nicetown, (Philadelphia), Pennsylvania; and Northern Ordnance, Inc., Minneapolis, Minnesota. The other four, which had converted from the Navy “E” Award to the Army-Navy “E” Award, were as follows: Arma Corporation, Brooklyn, New York; Ford Instrument Company, Inc., Buildings 1, 2, 3, and 4, Long Island City, New York; Keuffel & Esser Company, Hoboken, New Jersey; and Miehle Printing Press and Manufacturing Company, Chicago, Illinois.
Of the remaining Awards, 763 had been granted one Star Award, 723 had been granted two Star Awards, 776 had been granted three Star Awards, 820 had been granted four Star Awards, and 206 had been granted five Star Awards.
The final Awards were granted at the August meetings of the Army and Navy Boards for Production Awards and both Boards have subsequently been dissolved,
Plant which have won the Award are at liberty to continue flying the Army-Navy “E” Award flag, and to make use of the Award insignia in their publicity and advertising, while their employees, entitled to receive Army-Navy “E” Award pins, may continue to wear them.
Distribution: Aa, Af, B, D (Except Do), K, La, M, N, A&NPA.
Source: "Navy E Awards" file, Navy Department Library. [This is a small reference file and does not contain comprehensive lists of facilities receiving this award. More detailed information is located in the "records of the Awards Branch relating to Army-Navy production award programs, 1942-45," located in Record Group (RG) 107.10.3, "Records of the Industrial Services Division," at: Modern Military Records (NWDT2) National Archives and Records Administration, 8601 Adelphi Road, College Park, MD 20740-6001.].
Navy 'E' Award Letter from Secretary of the Navy Frank Knox
to Mr. Clark S. Judd, President of the American Brass Company, April 7, 1942.
THE SECRETARY OF THE NAVY
April 7, 1942
Dear Mr. Judd:
It is a privilege for me to be able to advise you that the Navy Board of Production Awards has designated the Ansonia, Torrington, and Waterbury Plants of The American Brass Company as recipients of the Navy 'E' Award for production achievement.
Since nineteen hundred six the 'E' has been the traditional Navy symbol for excellence - for a job 'Well Done.'
This is an honor not lightly bestowed, and one to be cherished by you and your associates.
As the Secretary of the Navy, and as a fellow American, I congratulate you upon the achievement of this honor. And in so doing, let me remind you that your company's contribution, together with that of other of our patriotic countrymen, is only the beginning! This production, increased manyfold, must and will become the tide of victory!
Frank Knox [signature]
Mr. Clark S. Judd, President
The American Brass Company
Source: Autographed signed letter dated 7 April 1942, from Secretary of the Navy Frank Knox to Mr. Clark S. Judd, President of the American Brass Company, Waterbury, Connecticut. Letter is in a scrapbook titled "Navy 'E' Award: Torrington, Waterbury and Ansonia Plants, The American Brass Company, May 6, 1942." Scrapbook located in Navy Department Library.