(navigation image)
Home American Libraries | Canadian Libraries | Universal Library | Community Texts | Project Gutenberg | Children's Library | Biodiversity Heritage Library | Additional Collections
Search: Advanced Search
Anonymous User (login or join us)
Upload
See other formats

Full text of "Department of Defense authorization for appropriations for fiscal year 1996 and the future years defense program : hearings before the Committee on Armed Services, United States Senate, One Hundred Fourth Congress, first session, on S. 1026, authorizing appropriations for fiscal year 1996 for military activities of the Department of Defense, for military construction, and for defense activities of the Department of Energy, to prescribe personnel strengths for such fiscal year for the Armed Forces, and for other purposes"

S. HRG. 104-387, Pr. 6 

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION FOR 
APPROPRIATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR 1996 AND 
THE FUTURE YEARS DEFENSE PROGRAM 



Y 4. AR 5/3: S. HRG. 104-387/ 
PT.6 

Departnent of Defense Authorization. . . iT1VT/ ^ c1 

x ij-jx ii vlIN VjrO 

BEFORE THE 

COMMITTEE ON AKMED SERVICES 
UNITED STATES SENATE 

ONE HUNDRED FOURTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 
ON 

S. 1026 

AUTHORIZING APPROPRIATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR 1996 FOR MILITARY 
ACTIVITIES OF THE DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE, FOR MILITARY CON- 
STRUCTION, AND FOR DEFENSE ACTIVITIES OF THE DEPARTMENT OF 
ENERGY, TO PRESCRIBE PERSONNEL STRENGTHS FOR SUCH FISCAL 
YEAR FOR THE ARMED FORCES, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES 



PART 6 
PERSONNEL 



MARCH 16, 23, 30; APRIL 5|1995 fQ^y 







Printed for the use of the Committee on Armed Services 



S. HRG. 104-387, Pr. 6 

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION FOR 
APPROPRIATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR 1996 AND 
THE FUTURE YEARS DEFENSE PROGRAM 



HEARINGS 

BEFORE THE 

COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES 
UNITED STATES SENATE 

ONE HUNDRED FOURTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 
ON 

S. 1026 

AUTHORIZING APPROPRIATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR 1996 FOR MILITARY 
ACTIVITIES OF THE DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE, FOR MILITARY CON- 
STRUCTION, AND FOR DEFENSE ACTIVITIES OF THE DEPARTMENT OF 
ENERGY, TO PRESCRIBE PERSONNEL STRENGTHS FOR SUCH FISCAL 
YEAR FOR THE ARMED FORCES, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES 



PART 6 
PERSONNEL 

MARCH 16, 23, 30; APRIL 5, 1995 




Printed for the use of the Committee on Armed Services 



U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE 
90-165 CC WASHINGTON : 1996 



For sale by the U.S. Government Printing Office 

Superintendent of Documents, Congressional Sales Office, Washington, DC 20402 

ISBN 0-16-052796-1 



COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES 

STROM THURMOND, South Carolina, Chairman 
JOHN W. WARNER, Virginia SAM NUNN, Georgia 

WILLIAM S. COHEN, Maine J. JAMES EXON, Nebraska 

JOHN MCCAIN, Arizona CARL LEVIN, Michigan 

TRENT LOTT, Mississippi EDWARD M. KENNEDY, Massachusetts 

DAN COATS, Indiana JEFF BINGAMAN, New Mexico 

BOB SMITH, New Hampshire JOHN GLENN, Ohio 

DIRK KEMPTHORNE, Idaho ROBERT C. BYRD, West Virginia 

KAY BAILEY HUTCHISON, Texas CHARLES S. ROBB, Virginia 

JAMES M. INHOFE, Oklahoma JOSEPH I. LIEBERMAN, Connecticut 

RICK SANTORUM, Pennsylvania RICHARD H. BRYAN, Nevada 

Richard L. Reynard, Staff Director 

ARNOLD L. Punaro, Staff Director for the Minority 



Subcommittee on Personnel 

DAN COATS, Indiana, Chairman 
JOHN MCCAIN, Arizona ROBERT C. BYRD, West Virginia 

TRENT LOTT, Mississippi EDWARD M. KENNEDY, Massachusetts 

RICK SANTORUM, Pennsylvania CHARLES S. ROBB, Virginia 

(II) 



CONTENTS 



CHRONOLOGICAL LIST OF WITNESSES 
Department of Defense Manpower, Personnel and Compensation Programs 

MARCH 16, 1995 

Page 

Boxer, Hon. Barbara, a U.S. Senator from the State of California 3 

Pang, Hon. Frederick F.Y., Assistant Secretary of Defense for Force Manage- 
ment Policy 8 

Stroup, Lt. Gen. Theodore, Jr., U.S. Army Deputy Chief of Staff for Person- 
nel 23 

Bowman, Vice Adm. Frank L., U.S. Navy Chief of Naval Personnel 28 

Boles, Lt. Gen. Billy J., U.S. Air Force Deputy Chief of Staff, Personnel 43 

Christmas, Lt. Gen. George R., U.S. Marine Corps Deputy Chief of Staff 

for Manpower and Reserve Affairs 53 

Williams, Dr. Cindy, Assistant Director, National Security Division, Congres- 
sional Budget Office 90 

DOD Medical Program and Related Health Care Issues 

MARCH 23, 1995 

Joseph, Hon. Stephen C, Assistant Secretary of Defense for Health Affairs .... 235 

LaNoue, Lt. Gen. Alcide M., Surgeon General, Department of the Army 246 

Anderson, Lt. Gen. Edgar R., Jr., Surgeon General, Department of the Air 

Force 250 

Hagen, Vice Adm. Donald F., Surgeon General, Department of the Navy 261 

Department of Defense Reserve Component Programs 

MARCH 30, 1995 

Lee, Deborah Roche, Assistant Secretary of Defense for Reserve Affairs 340 

D'Araujo, Maj. Gen. John, Director, Army National Guard 360 

Baratz, Mai. Gen. Max, USA, Chief, Army Reserve 394 

Shepperd, Maj. Gen. Donald, USAF, Director, Air National Guard 397 

Baca, Lt. Gen. Edward D., USA, Chief, National Guard Bureau 402 

Mcintosh, Maj. Gen. Robert A., USAF, Chief Air Force Reserve 413 

Hall, Rear Adm. Thomas F., USN, Chief, Naval Reserve 420 

Richard, Brig. Gen. Ronald G., Assistant Deputy Chief of Staff for Manpower 

and Reserve Affairs, for Reserve Affairs, Headquarters, U.S. Marine Corps . 427 
Larrabee, Rear Adm. Richard M., USCG, Chief, Office of Readiness and 

Reserve, Coast Guard 443 

Sandler, Maj. Gen. Roger W., USA (Ret.), Reserve Officers Association 448 

Ensslin, Maj. Gen. Robert, representing the National Guard Association 477 

Stroud, Maj. Gen. Ansel M., Jr., President, The Adjutants General Associa- 
tion 480 

Smith, Rear Adm. Philip, representing The Naval Reserve Association 483 

MacDonald, Col. Bradley, Marine Corps Reserve Officers Association 491 

Cline, Master Sergeant Mike, representing The Enlisted Association of the 

National Guard of the United States 500 



(III) 



IV 

Department of Defense Quality of Life Programs 

APRIL 5, 1996 

Page 

Pang, Hon. Frederick F.Y., Assistant Secretary of Defense for Force Manage- 
ment Policy 543 

Tilelli, Gen. John H., USA, Vice Chief of Staff, U.S. Army 554 

Hearney, Gen. Richard D., USMC, Assistant Commandant, U.S. Marine 

Corps 562 

Arthur, Adm. Stanley R., USN, Vice Chief of Naval Operations 567 

Boles, Gen. Billy J., Jr., USAF, Deputy Chief of Staff 572 

Ouellette, Sergeant Major Michael F., USA (Retired) Deputy Director of Leg- 
islative Affairs, The Non-Commissioned Officers Association 590 

Arcari, Col. Paul W., USAF (Retired) Director of Government Relations, The 
Retired Officers Association; accompanied by Lt. Comd. Virginia M. Torsch, 
USNR, Assistant Director of Government Relations, The Retired Officers 

Association 591 

Hickey, Sydney T., Association Director of Government Relations, National 
Military Family Association 612 



DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION 
FOR APPROPRIATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR 
1996 AND THE FUTURE YEARS DEFENSE 
PROGRAM 



THURSDAY, MARCH 16, 1995 

U.S. Senate, 
Subcommittee on Manpower and Personnel, 

Committee on Armed Services, 

Washington, DC. 

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE MANPOWER, PERSONNEL 
AND COMPENSATION PROGRAMS 

The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 2:02 p.m., in room 
SR-222, Russell Senate Office Building, Senator Dan Coats (chair- 
man of the subcommittee) presiding. 

Committee members present: Senators Coats, Thurmond, Glenn, 
Byrd, and Robb. 

Also present: Senator Boxer. 

Committee staff members present: Richard L. Reynard, staff di- 
rector; George W. Lauffer, deputy staff director. 

Professional staff members present: Charles S. Abell. 

Minority staff members present: Patrick T. Henry and Frank 
Norton, professional staff members. 

Staff assistants present: Menge Crawford and Shelley G. Lauffer. 

Committee members' assistants present: Richard F. Schwab and 
David J. Gribbin, assistants to Senator Coats; Christopher J. Paul, 
assistant to Senator McCain; Samuel D. Adcock, assistant to Sen- 
ator Lott; Patricia L. Stolnacker, assistant to Senator Santorum; 
Steven A. Wolfe, assistant to Senator Kennedy; John P. Stevens, 
assistant to Senator Glenn; and C. Richard D'Amato, assistant to 
Senator Byrd. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR DAN COATS, CHAIRMAN 

Senator Coats. The meeting will come to order. Today we meet 
to begin a series of hearings on the Department of Defense person- 
nel, medical and quality of life programs related to the Defense Au- 
thorization Request for fiscal year 1996. 

As we start our work in the 104th Congress, I would like to ac- 
knowledge the outstanding leadership of my predecessor, Senator 
Shelby, for guiding the work of this subcommittee over the past 2 
years. 

(l) 



I have looked forward to taking up where he left off in assuring 
that we provide for the personnel, medical, readiness and quality 
of life of our military personnel. 

This subcommittee has traditionally worked on a bipartisan 
basis, because there is no political party agenda as far as providing 
for the readiness, welfare and quality of life for our men and 
women in uniform and for their families. I look forward to continu- 
ing this tradition. 

I would like to acknowledge the membership of the subcommit- 
tee. I am particularly pleased that Senator Byrd, ranking member, 
is here with us today. Senator Robb has been a valuable member 
of the subcommittee and the full committee. 

As for my colleagues, some of whom may not be able to join us 
today, I look forward to working with them on a bipartisan basis 
as we address these issues. 

Within the committee's priorities, as outlined by the committee 
and as I intend to stress, I want to concentrate on improving the 
readiness and quality of life for our military personnel and their 
families. I mean this in the broadest of terms. 

You may see this subcommittee discussing issues which impact 
the quality of life but perhaps have not been associated with this 
particular subcommittee in past years. I am confident that the sub- 
committee, working in concert with the full committee and the De- 
partment of Defense, will make measurable improvements in per- 
sonnel, readiness and quality of life. 

Before we hear from the Department of Defense witnesses, I 
would like to ask the ranking member, Senator Byrd, if he has any 
statement he would like to make, and then follow with Senator 
Robb, if he so chooses. Senator Byrd. 

Senator Byrd. No, thank you, Mr. Chairman. I will just wait and 
go when it is my turn. 

Senator Coats. All right. Senator Robb. 

Senator Robb. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have no opening 
statement, but I look forward to the testimony of our witnesses, 
and I am pleased one of our colleagues will lead off the hearing. 

Senator Coats. I am also pleased and want to welcome Senator 
Boxer. Senator Boxer has taken the lead in developing legislation 
which will correct a situation in which military personnel convicted 
of major crimes and sentenced to confinement are permitted to re- 
ceive full pay and allowances. We all agree that this loophole must 
be closed. 

Before we hear from Senator Boxer, I would like to express my 
appreciation to our witnesses today. We will be hearing from indi- 
viduals who have committed a great deal of time and a great deal 
of energy to the most important part of our armed services, the 
people who serve in uniform. 

Their commitment has not gone unnoticed. It is very, very much 
appreciated, not only by those men and women in uniform and 
their families but by members of this committee. We look forward 
to this hearing today. 

Senator Boxer, thank you for coming before us. We look forward 
to your testimony. 



STATEMENT OF HON. BARBARA BOXER, A U.S. SENATOR FROM 
THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 

Senator Boxer. Thank you so much, Mr. Chairman. I would ask 
unanimous consent that my entire statement be placed in the 
record, and I will summarize it very quickly. 

Senator Coats. We would appreciate it, and it will be inserted 
in its entirety. 

Senator Boxer. Mr. Chairman, this is an issue that really cries 
out for redress, and I am very hopeful that with your support and 
the support of your subcommittee, we will be able to move very 
quickly to resolve this problem. 

I want to thank you and Senator Byrd for inviting me here to 
testify. I appreciate it so very much. 

Late last year, the Ohio Dayton Daily News ran what I consider 
to be an expose on a situation that has existed for too long. 

And that is that military personnel convicted of heinous crimes 
continue to be paid while tney appeal their convictions through the 
military court system, a process that often takes years, sometimes 
as many as 8 years. 

During that time, these violent criminals sit back in prison, and 
this is truly a direct quote from one of them, read The Wall Street 
Journal, invest the money paid to them by the military and watch 
their taxpayer-funded nest eggs grow. 

This kind of situation does not exist as far as we can find out 
anywhere in the private sector or anywhere else in the public sec- 
tor, and we need to change it. 

The first thing I did was to see if we could just work administra- 
tively, so we did not have to rework pieces of legislation on this 
matter. We were told that it took legislation to correct this prob- 
lem. 

So I put together a bill and worked very, very closely with Sen- 
ator Nunn on it. He has been extremely helpful to me. I also 
worked with the armed services people. Although they have yet to 
come up with their report, we are very hopeful they will in fact en- 
dorse this bill. 

What the bill does, is really quite simple, it just ends this proce- 
dure. Period. And it has a part that I think is very important. 

It says that in the interim, for a period of a year, we will make 
sure that those funds that would be going to the criminal, go to 
that criminal's family for at least a period of a year of transition. 
So I think we have answered all the problems. 

Parenthetically, we found out something else, and I want to com- 
pliment the Defense Department for ending this. We found out, Mr. 
Chairman, that some of these people who have been convicted of 
these heinous crimes not only were getting their full pay and cost- 
of-living adjustments, but some of them were out on parole with an 
additional job. 

They were double dipping. We realized that that could be ended 
by the military, and we brought it to the military's attention. They 
did end that process. So, no longer can you have the double dip- 
ping. I want to thank the Defense Department for taking that ac- 
tion. 

We must complete this. We must end this process. 



I just want to quickly show you the two charts. This shows you 
just some of the California cases and the approximate monthly pay 
that some of these people are getting. Rape. Murder. Indecent Acts. 
Assault. Cocaine use. Drug distribution. Child abuse. It goes on 
and on. 

The second chart gives you a sense of what is happening nation- 
wide. This shows you how much money these people save while 
they are in jail. There was one person in the Army. 

He was sentenced on the 14th of July 1992. He is sitting on 
$32,000. And I guess the highest one there is $148,616 collected by 
someone in the Air Force. 

This is an outrage, and it really is quite simple, I believe, for us 
to resolve this problem. 

In closing, let me tell you a story that is just incredible and will 
always be in my mind. This is someone in the military — a marine 
who murdered his child. The gentleman was convicted of murder- 
ing his child. The surviving child lives with his grandmother. 

This man has collected thousands of dollars so far. He is appeal- 
ing this. And the grandmother, when I called her, said she was to- 
tally stunned, did not know he was getting any money and had not 
gotten one penny of support from him for the surviving child. 

This is not a partisan issue. Mr. Chairman, I have worked with 
you in the House on Select Committee of Children, Youth and Fam- 
ilies. This is abomination. I hope that you will in fact fix this prob- 
lem. I think you can do it swiftly. I have given you some legisla- 
tion. 

By the way the legislation states that, if on appeal, a case is 
overturned and an innocent person has been convicted, we make 
the full restitution. So I think we have taken care of the issue here 
completely. 

I look forward to working with you in the subcommittee and the 
full committee so we can resolve tnis. 

Thank you very much. 

[The prepared statement of Senator Boxer follows:] 

Prepared Statement by Senator Barbara Boxer 

Thank you Mr. Chairman and Senator Byrd for inviting me to testify today about 
a very important problem: violent criminals receiving full pay while serving time in 
military prisons. 

Late last year, I learned from a series of articles in the Ohio Dayton Daily News 
that military personnel convicted of heinous crimes continue to be paid while they 
appeal their convictions through the military court system — a process that often 
takes years. During that time, these violent criminals sit back in prison, read the 
Wall Street Journal, invest the money paid to them by the military, and watch their 
taxpayer-funded nest eggs grow. 

According to data provided by the Defense Finance and Accounting Service, the 
Department of Defense spent more than $1 million on the salaries of 680 convicts 
in the month of June 1994. In that month, the Pentagon payroll included 58 incar- 
cerated rapists, 164 child molesters, and 7 murderers. 

Just this morning, the Pentagon confirmed to me that in the month of December, 
at least 633 military convicts continued to receive full pay, costing the government 
more than $900,000. 

I cannot think of a more reprehensible way to spend taxpayer dollars. No expla- 
nation could ever make me understand why the military should reward rapists, 
murderers and child molesters — the lowest of the low — with the hard earned tax 
dollars of law-abiding citizens. This policy thumbs its nose at taxpayers, slaps the 
faces of crime victims and is one of the worst examples of government waste I have 
seen in my 20 years of public service. 



The individual stories of military criminals continuing to receive full pay are 
shocking. In California, a marine Lance Corporal who beat his 13-month old daugh- 
ter to death almost 2 years ago still receives $1,105 each month. 

An Air Force Lt. Colonel who raped young girls in a church basement has been 
paid more than $150,000 since his conviction. 

An Air Force Sergeant who tried to kill his wife with a kitchen knife is still paid 
$1,100 each month. From inside his prison cell, that Sergeant is trying to parlay 
his military pay into a financial empire. He told the Dayton Daily News, "I follow 
the stock market and buy Double E Bonds." 

In January, I introduced legislation, S. 205, which would terminate pay to mem- 
bers of the Armed Forces under confinement pending dishonorable discharge. This 
bill generated significant bipartisan support and was cosponsored by 10 Senators. 

Following the introduction of S. 205, several Senators, the DOD's Office of Legal 
Counsel, and the Under Secretary for Personnel and Readiness, offered suggestions 
for improvements. Many of these suggestions have been incorporated into the bill 
I introduced this morning. That bill, which is not yet numberea, has 15 original co- 
sponsors, including one member of this subcommittee, Senator Robb. Senators co- 
sponsoring my bill include Democrats and Republicans; liberals and conservatives. 
This is truly an issue that transcends political and ideological boundaries. 

My bill would terminate pay to any member of the Armed Forces sentenced by 
a court martial to confinement and dishonorable discharge, bad-conduct discharge, 
or dismissal. Pay would terminate immediately upon sentencing. If at any point in 
the appeals process the conviction were reversed or the sentence were otherwise set 
aside, full back pay would be awarded. 

This bill also authorizes the Secretary of Defense to establish a program to pay 
transitional compensation to the families of military personnel who lose their pay 
as a result of this pay termination. This compensation could be paid for a maximum 
of 1-year at a level not to exceed the amount that the servicemember would have 
received had he or she been in pay status. 

This morning, the Senate unanimously adopted a sense of the Senate amendment 
urging the Congress to correct this problem quickly. 

The Department of Defense strongly supports changing the current policy. Shortly 
after I first wrote Secretary Perry about this issue late last year, a working group 
was established to study the issue and report to the Secretary no later than Feb- 
ruary 28. That date has passed, but we have still received no official word from the 
Department. 

It has now been nearly 3 months since I first brought this issue to light. I believe 
strongly that we must act immediately to fix this problem. Each month that goes 
by, $1 million is wasted. That money could be used to improve the quality of life 
for military personnel. It could be used to enhance the readiness of our forces. It 
could even be used to reduce the budget deficit. But instead, the Pentagon is paying 
$1 million each month to vile, violent criminals. 

This is simply wrong, and I urge this subcommittee to do all within its power to 
stop it. 



Department of Defense, 
The Secretary of Defense, 
Washington, DC, February 23, 1995. 
Hon. Barbara Boxer, 
U.S. Senate, 
Washingon, DC. 

Dear Senator Boxer: Thank you for your recent letter concerning pay to con- 
victed military personnel in a parole status. We have solved the problem through 
a regulatory change to the financial management regulation. 

In the past, applicants for parole were required to waive entitlement to pay as 
a condition of parole. This waiver requirement was challenged in June 1994 by an 
officer in a parole status. The Defense Finance and Accounting Service (DFAS) cen- 
ter responsible for the officer's pay agreed with the officer's contention that a mem- 
ber cannot waive a statutory entitlement, and determined that members should be 
paid while on parole. 

As a result of a subsequent review of pertinent Comptroller General decisions, 
DFAS Headquarters determined that a parole period must be treated as a period 
of leave without pay. Thus, a member (officer or enlisted) in a parole status is not 
entitled to pay and allowances except to the extent that the member has unused 
leave accrued prior to confinement. 



Consequently, DFAS Headquarters has initiated a change to the Department of 
Defense Financial Management Regulation (DODFMR), volume 7A, to provide that 
a member in a parole status is entitled to pay and allowances only to the extent 
of the member's unused accrued leave. Accordingly, DFAS is stopping the pay of all 
military personnel identified in a parole status. 

Regarding the issue of military pay to prisoners, a report is due to me from the 
Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness by February 28, 1995. 
After reviewing this report, we will provide you with our views. 
Sincerely, 

William J. Perry. 

Senator Coats. Senator, we appreciate you bringing this to our 
attention. We have been working with you and your staff with the 
Department of Defense on this issue. 

We thank you for your input, for highlighting the issue before us. 
I think I can say with some degree of confidence that this will be 
addressed with legislation in this next fiscal year's authorization 
bill. We appreciate that. 

You answered the one question I had; that is, how do we respond 
in terms of an overturned conviction on appeal. 

Senator Boxer. Right. 

Senator Coats. And you have accorded for that in your legisla- 
tion. 

Senator Boxer. Mr. Chairman, because of your help and the help 
of others on the committee and the DOD, I think we have a good 
bill. Our first bill was not the best bill, and we reworked it to an- 
swer all the problems. 

I can say to you, after months of working on this, I think we 
have a good answer. If you find a better answer, we will support 
you. 

The main thing is that we all know this is a problem, and we 
should not drag our feet on it. I might say happily that there was 
unanimous consent to agree to my sense of the Senate Amendment 
on this military supplemental bill, this emergency bill, which urges 
us to fix the problem. 

I can report back to the Senate that you are in fact doing that, 
and I greatly appreciate all your help. 

Thank you very much. 

Senator Coats. Thank you. 

Let me ask Senator Byrd if he has any questions. 

Senator Byrd. I compliment Senator Boxer for her idea here and 
her testimony. I think she has made an excellent case. 

And I am glad to hear the Chairman indicate that it is his plan 
to have some action taken on this measure. I am fully supportive 
of it, and I hope that we can act promptly to send a bill to the floor. 

I thank you, Senator Boxer. 

Senator Boxer. Thank you. 

Senator Coats. Senator Robb. 

Senator Robb. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I would just say that I, too, commend our colleague, Senator 
Boxer, for the action she has taken. I was pleased when she first 
brought this matter to my attention and I agreed to be a co-sponsor 
and to work with her. But all of the leadership that has been pro- 
vided has been hers. 

I think all of us who recognize the injustice of the status quo 
with are indebted to you. 

I have no additional questions at this time, but I thank you. 



Senator Boxer. Thank you all very, very much. 

Senator Coats. Thank you. 

I would like to call now to the witness table the following individ- 
uals: Mr. Fred Pang, who is Assistant Secretary of Defense for 
Force Management Policy, an old friend of ours and former profes- 
sional staff member on this subcommittee. 

Our uniformed witnesses today are Lt. Gen. Ted Stroup, Deputy 
Chief of Staff for Personnel for the Army; Vice Adm. Skip Bowman, 
Chief of Naval Personnel; Lt. Gen. Billy Boles, Deputy Chief of 
Staff for Personnel for the Air Force; and Lt. Gen. George Christ- 
mas, Deputy Chief of Staff for Manpower and Reserve Affairs for 
the Marine Corps. 

General Stroup, Admiral Bowman, and General Christmas, this 
is your first appearance before the subcommittee. We want to wel- 
come you, ana we look forward to working with you for the next 
several years during your assignments. 

General Boles, I think we have a couple nominations before the 
committee for new positions pending for you. You have been a 
faithful testifier on this and other subjects before the committee. 

We appreciate your fine service in this capacity and certainly 
congratulate you on the confidence that Secretary Widnall and Sec- 
retary Perry nave in your potential for further service and further 
responsibilities. We wish you nothing but success. 

General Boles. Thank you, sir. 

Senator Coats. We will miss your expertise on this area, but we 
know you are going forward to more responsibilities and additional 
assignments. 

Without objection, I will put your written statements, as well as 
the answers to advance questions, in the record. I want to thank 
you, Secretary Pang, and all our witnesses this morning for being 
so prompt in returning those questions. 

We have a notebook full of questions and answers. That is very 
helpful to the subcommittee, and particularly the staff, as we work 
through a good deal of the technical details of how we put together 
the authorization bill for the next fiscal year. 

It allows us then to get into some areas of particular concern 
during the questioning, knowing that we have some answers here 
to many of the more technical questions. I thank each of you for 
that. 

Seeing that Senator Thurmond has arrived, the Chairman of the 
committee, I would like to turn to him at this point to see if he has 
any opening comments which he wishes to make. Senator Thur- 
mond. 

Chairman Thurmond. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to con- 
gratulate you people on the service you are rendering your country. 
I know the hardships you and your families undergo. 

And sometimes I know you feel like you are not appreciated. I 
want you to know you have a lot of people in this Congress that 
do appreciate what you are doing. We thank you for your good 
service. Be assured that any way we can cooperate and help, we 
are glad to do it. 

We have an excellent chairman of this subcommittee, and I am 
sure he is going to look after your interests well. And if he does 
not, I will. [Laughter.] 



8 

Thank you very much for coming here. 

And, Mr. Chairman, I want to commend you for your good work. 

Senator Coats. I want to assure you, Mr. Chairman, particularly 
with that injunction, I am going to do my very best to look after 
the wishes of this committee. I am sure your remarks echo the sen- 
timents of everyone of us on the committee. 

Secretary Pang, we will start with you. If you can summarize 
your statement and leave time for questions, we would appreciate 
it. Then we will just go right down the line. 

STATEMENT OF HON. FREDERICK F.Y. PANG, ASSISTANT 
SECRETARY OF DEFENSE FOR FORCE MANAGEMENT POLICY 

Mr. Pang. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of the com- 
mittee. I welcome the opportunity to appear before you with my 
colleagues today to give you testimony on defense personnel poli- 
cies and programs. 

My prepared statement covers four broad areas. First, force man- 
agement, including the drawdown and stabilization of our forces; 
second, our quality of life initiatives; third, civilian personnel man- 
agement; and fourth, our commitment and progress on equal oppor- 
tunity. 

With your permission, Mr. Chairman, I would like to orally sum- 
marize my statement, which has been included in the record. 

Mr. Chairman, I believe that there is a consensus that the build 
down and restructuring of our forces following the Cold War was 
not only prudent but necessary. 

I am pleased to report that its execution has been extraordinarily 
successful because the Congress and two administrations worked 
together to make it so. 

Many of the critically important new authorities that we have, 
that have been critical to our success, and the funding for their 
execution were congressional initiatives. 

Much of the credit also goes to our uniformed personnel chiefs, 
who use the tools provided by the Congress to reduce our forces in 
a balanced and humane way. And I want to publicly recognize 
them. 

They are Admiral Boorda, Admiral Zlatoper and now Admiral 
Bowman of the Navy; General Reno, General Carney and General 
Stroup for the Army; General Boles for the Air Force; and General 
Johnston and now General Christmas for the Marine Corps. 

These gentlemen had the tough task of managing the personnel 
rightsizing of their respective services, and they did their work su- 
perbly. 

Here is the result. Our active duty military forces have been 
downsized by 24 percent since 1987, from 2.1 million to 1.6 million 
today. This is 80 percent of the way toward our ultimate goal of 
a force of 1.45 million. 

We have preserved a ready force. Compared to the force we had 
at the beginning of the build down, the quality of our personnel is 
up. 

For example, enlisted personnel with high school diplomas, who 
also scored in the upper aptitude categories, has climbed to 64 per- 
cent, up from 56 percent in 1985. 



The experience level of our personnel is up also. For example, the 
average age of the force has increased to 28.6 years in 1994 from 
27.3 years in 1987. 

We are getting better recruits. For example, last year was our 
third most successful recruiting year in history. Ninety-six percent 
of our recruits had high school diplomas, and 72 percent scored in 
the upper half of the Armed Services Vocational Aptitude Test. 

The bottom line is that today we have a high quality, highly mo- 
tivated force because of the way that Congress and two administra- 
tions worked together to bring this about. 

But we cannot and will not rest on our laurels, because we have 
much work to do to bring more stability back into the way we man- 
age and treat our most important resource, our people. 

In this regard, we have embarked on an ambitious program fo- 
cused on improving the quality of life of our men and women in 
uniform and their families in the areas of compensation, housing, 
and community support. 

The specific initiatives we propose in our fiscal year 1996 budget 
are covered in my written statement. Secretary Perry discussed our 
approach on quality of life with you, Mr. Chairman, and your staff 
at breakfast yesterday, and we are enthusiastic about working with 
you on a bipartisan basis on this very important effort. 

Assistant Secretary Josh Gotbaum and I look forward to discuss- 
ing specifics with you when we testify before this subcommittee on 
April 5. 

Mr. Chairman, I would like to now turn to a life blood issue in 
sustaining a ready force, recruiting, and give you a report on how 
we are doing. 

At about this time last year, we received warning signals from 
the military services that they were running into difficulty in meet- 
ing their recruiting goals. 

In response, Deputy Secretary of Defense John Deutch formed a 
senior panel on recruiting to focus on the problem. The panel con- 
sists of the Secretaries of the military departments and the Chair- 
man of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. We took action to reprogram $41 
million into recruiting to get ourselves out of the fix that we were 
in at the time. 

At the same time, we alerted the Congress to potential shortfalls 
in recruiting, and the Congress responded by increasing our re- 
cruiting budget by $89 million in fiscal year 1995. 

These two actions helped us turn around the situation, and fiscal 
year 1994 turned out to be our third most successful year in re- 
cruiting history. 

That is the good news. The bad news is that the propensity of 
American youth to serve in the military continues to fall. 

For example, only 11 percent of 16- to 21-year-old males — and 
this is our prime recruiting pool — indicated a positive propensity to 
serve in the Army. And this is down from 17 percent just 4 years 
ago. 

Also, our recruits are telling us, through a recent survey, that 
they are working extraordinarily hard to make their goals, and 
they are concerned that they may not succeed. So we need to con- 
tinue to keep our eyes on the situation. 



10 

We believe that the increased resources that were provided to us 
by the Congress, and which we have continued in the fiscal year 
1996 budget, will be adequate for now. 

We are on course to meeting our fiscal year 1995 recruiting 
goals, but I think it is fair to say that we are operating in a very 
shaky market. 

I have focused up until now on the management of military per- 
sonnel. The other vital component of our total force is our civilian 
work force. As with the military, we have also reduced our civilian 
work force. 

Our regular employment has fallen from 1.1 million at the end 
of fiscal year 1989 to 887,000 in November 1994. We are headed 
to a strength of 779,000 by the end of fiscal year 1997, a 28-percent 
reduction from the 1989 level. 

Like the military drawdown, our drawdown of civilian personnel 
strength is a success story, and we could not have achieved this 
without the tools provided to us by the Congress. 

Mr. Chairman, I want to conclude by underscoring the commit- 
ment of the Department in ensuring the right of all military mem- 
bers and civilian employees to perform their jobs and pursue their 
careers without discrimination and harassment. This commitment 
is fundamental to the personnel management in the Department of 
Defense. 

In my prepared statement, I outlined significant initiatives that 
the Department's leadership has taken in fulfilling this commit- 
ment. It bears repeating again that the rightsizing of our military 
and civilian force has proceeded without a negative effect on 
women and minorities. 

Thank you again, Mr. Chairman, for this opportunity to address 
the committee. I stand ready to respond to any questions you may 
have. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Pang follows:] 

Prepared Statement by Hon. Frederick F.Y. Pang, Assistant Secretary of 
Defense for Force Management Policy 

Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, I appreciate the opportunity to ap- 
pear before you today to present testimony on Manpower, Personnel, and Com- 
pensation Programs of the Department of Defense. 

I will be covering four broad areas in my testimony: Force Management, including 
the drawdown and stabilization of the force; Military Personnel Support and Sec- 
retary Perry's Quality of Life initiatives; Civilian Personnel Issues; and our commit- 
ment to and progress on equal opportunity. 

OVERVIEW 

In our fiscal year 1996 budget, Secretary Perry established three priorities for the 
Department of Defense: 

• Managing the use of military force in the post-Cold War era; 

• Preventing the reemergence of a nuclear threat; and 

• Managing the drawdown of our forces. 

My office holds primary responsibility for managing the drawdown, and I am 
pleased to present a status report on our progress. 

The management of our military downsizing has been a resounding success be- 
cause we have learned the lessons of history. The cycle of war, drawdown, mobiliza- 
tion and war repeated throughout this century has taught us that: 

• It is difficult to accurately foresee emerging threats to our national security. 

• Our military must always be ready to fight and win the next war, and therefore 
deter it. 



11 

• Our people are our most important resource and, if we support them in peace- 
time, as we nave in wartime, they will perform with excellence and valor when 
called to protect our national interest. 

The downsizing of our military force following the Cold War was not only prudent, 
but necessary. We knew, however, that if we did not proceed carefully, we would 
invite conflicts in which servicemen and women could die needlessly. 

Our downsizing of the Active component is now over 80 percent complete. The re- 
ductions we plan for fiscal year 1996 will essentially complete the drawdown of our 
Active forces. I can report that, despite the unprecedented challenge of shrinking 
an All-Volunteer Force, we have met or exceeded our national security objectives 
with respect to the size and capabilities of the Armed Forces. Because our military 
personnel leaders were skillful m executing this drawdown, our force is more experi- 
enced, of higher quality, is more diverse, and has the right mix of skills to meet 
current and future challenges. 

Importantly, we have achieved this while treating our people fairly, whether they 
stayed in service or separated. Even though the number of active duty personnel 
has already been reduced by more than 600,000, the number of service members 
who have been involuntarily separated has been quite small and most of those who 
have separated have been successful in finding a civilian job. A great deal of the 
credit for our success belongs to the Congress, including this subcommittee, which 
provided the separation incentives and transition tools we needed to ensure that we 
kept faith with those who served our Nation. 

Our focus is now shifting to the task of stabilizing the force. Any drawdown of 
this size, even one carefully and successfully managed, will cause turbulence — it is 
an inevitable by-product of change. Therefore, we are now taking steps to secure a 
greater sense of stability in our forces. 

For the 1.5 million men and women who on remain on active duty, this adminis- 
tration has established and funded an extraordinary program to support them and 
their families. First, President Clinton added $7.7 billion to the defense program to 
fund the maximum necessary to see that servicemembers get the pay raise allowed 
by law for military personnel through the end of the century. Second, Secretary 
Perry increased spending Quality of Life by $2.7 billion over the next 5 years to im- 
prove housing, expand child care, supplement the income of servicemembers as- 
signed to high cost areas in the United States, narrow the housing cost gap, improve 
morale and recreation services, and provide other benefits for service members and 
their families. Our fiscal year 1996 budget contains an initial investment of $450 
million for these initiatives, and we have set aside funding to add the same amount 
each year for the following 5 years. By taking these two actions, we ensure basic 
fairness to the people who defend our Nation; and at the same time improve the 
readiness and effectiveness of our forces. 

Our test in making personnel policy and program decisions will be: will this im- 
prove life for the Army captain at Fort Bragg? Can the staff sergeant at MacDill 
support his family at a decent level and focus on maintaining fighter aircraft? Is 
the high school graduate with a dream of going to Parris Island still interested 
when he hears the details of military pay and benefits? And, will the daughter of 
a petty officer on the Eisenhower feel good enough about military life to study hard 
and work toward going to the Naval Academy? 

MANAGING THE DRAWDOWN OF OUR ACTIVE FORCES 

When the current reductions began, we had nearly 2.2 million men and women 
in uniform on active duty; by the end of fiscal year 1995 we will have slightly more 
than 1.5 million; and by the end of the drawdown in fiscal year 1999, we'll have 
approximately 1.45 million. Overall that's a drop of nearly three-quarter's of a mil- 
lion — one-third of the Active force. 

ACTIVE MILITARY END STRENGTH 

Fiscal years 



1994 1995 19% 1997 

(Actual) (Program) (Budget) (Budget) 



Army 541,343 510,000 495,000 495,000 

Navy 468,662 439,200 428,000 409,400 

Air Force 426,327 400,051 388,200 385,400 

Marine Corps 174,158 174,000 174.000 174.000 

Total 1,610,490 1.523,251 1,485,200 1,463,800 



12 

THE NEED TO SHAPE THE DRAWDOWN 

Our drawdown objectives continue to be straightforward: take care of people — 
both those who are leaving and those who are staying — while maintaining readiness 
to accomplish the missions that the military is called upon to undertake. In accom- 
plishing these objectives, we carefully evaluate the ways in which today's decisions 
will affect tomorrow's force. Our ability to achieve these objectives was greatly en- 
hanced by the tools Congress provided to help us manage the reductions fairly and 
effectively. 

Prior to fiscal year 1991, we had inadequate personnel management tools avail- 
able to help us accomplish the unprecedented large scale reduction of our All-Vol- 
untary Force. The Fiscal Year 1991 Authorization Act provided, for the first time, 
involuntary separation pay for enlisted members and established programs of sepa- 
ration counseling and employment assistance, which brought together the skills and 
resources of the Departments of Defense, Labor and Veterans Affairs. 

The Persian Gulf conflict gave us a short respite and the opportunity to develop 
incentives to stimulate voluntary losses from the career force. Absent such incen- 
tives, we were severely limited in our ability to accomplish reductions while main- 
taining faith with the more senior members of the All-Volunteer Force and continu- 
ing to access the men and women who would help provide a balanced and effective 
force in future years. 

Initially, therefore, most of the reductions came from junior service members — 
those with fewer than 6 years of service. We reduced accessions and released people 
short of completion of their service obligation. 

This approach could not be sustained for an extended period without creating fu- 
ture problems — specifically, a future seniority deficit brought on by too few acces- 
sions during the drawdown. Thus, we worked with the Congress to develop tools to 
encourage people in the career force to voluntarily separate short of 20 years of 
service. These programs allowed us to begin downsizing in a way that allowed us 
to pursue a robust recruiting program and allow a strong flow of high quality acces- 
sions that would provide the leaders for the next century. 

EFFECTIVE PERSONNEL MANAGEMENT AUTHORITIES 

A well-informed and supportive Congress provided the tools we needed to manage 
the drawdown. We have used the personnel management authorities provided by 
Congress to carefully tailor the downsizing to meet our needs. We sought to create 
a healthy flow through the system, from recruitment to retirement — allowing for 
consistent promotion rates and a balance of experience throughout the force. 

Beginning in fiscal year 1992, the Voluntary Separation Incentive (VSI)/Special 
Separation Benefit (SSB) initiative was authorized and funded. Also, more flexible 
Selective Early Retirement Board (SERB) authority removed some of the statutory 
restrictions that limited the number and type of officers who could be considered 
for early retirement; thus the services could manage the retirement-eligible portion 
of the force more vigorously. The Temporary Early Retirement Authority (TERA) 
program providing for a retirement after 15 years of service was enacted in fiscal 
year 1993. 

After calibrating accession requirements, we used the more flexible SERB author- 
ity to increase the retirement rate of those members already eligible. We then fo- 
cused on mid- and late-career servicemembers. The TERA program was used to 
shape and size the force for those close to retirement. For those in mid-career, the 
VSI and SSB programs helped us make necessary reductions through voluntary sep- 
aration. 

At the end of fiscal year 1995, the Active force drawdown will be about 90 percent 
complete. The success of the force reduction authorities is demonstrated by an im- 
portant fact — about 138,000 career members will have departed under voluntary au- 
thorities by the end of this fiscal year, and less than 2,000 involuntary separations 
through reduction in force actions have been required to date. This is an ordinary 
accomplishment. Today, the Marine Corps is virtually complete in its reductions. By 
the end of fiscal year 1995, the Army and the Air Force will be about 95 percent 
done. The Navy started its reduction later, but will be about 75 percent complete 
by the end of this fiscal year. One further evidence of the success of this carefully 
crafted process: promotion flows have remained relatively consistent throughout the 
drawdown period. 

A HIGHER QUALITY, MORE EXPERIENCED FORCE 

The most important aspect of our efforts to right size the Armed Forces is that 
quality, experience and diversity have actually increased substantially since the 



13 

drawdown began, producing a higher quality and more effective force. The propor- 
tion of active duty enlisted personnel in the upper aptitude categories has increased 
from 56 percent in 1987, when the drawdown Degan, to 64 percent in 1994. Those 
in the lowest acceptable aptitude category dropped from 11 percent of the force in 
1987 to just 6 percent in 1994. 

The Active force has become richer in experience, as measured by age and length 
of service. For example, the average age increased 1.3 years from 1987 to 1994 (to 
28.6). 

Finally, the percentage of women in active service has increased from 10 percent 
to 12 percent over the same period. There was widespread concern that the 
drawdown would impact more heavily on minority members of the Armed Forces. 
This has not proved to be the case. Total minority representation in the force has 
increased from 27.4 percent to 29.9 percent. Minority officers in pay grades 04 
through 06 showed an even larger increase-from 7 percent of the total to 1 1 percent 
over the period. 

RECRUITING 

The increase in age and experience in the force that we have experienced is 
healthy in a smaller force. Effective recruiting, however, remains the key to the 
strength of tomorrow's personnel force. Each service must sustain its flow of sea- 
soned leaders for the future — tomorrow's tank commander is being recruited today. 
Over the next several years, the Department will recruit about 200,000 young peo- 
ple each year to join the full-time, active duty Armed Forces, along with an addi- 
tional 150,000 for the Selected Reserve, more than 50,000 of whom will be non-prior 
service entrants. 

During the drawdown, we have done well in attracting high-quality recruits. For 
example, over the last 2 years, approximately 95 percent of all active-duty recruits 



held a high school diploma. Only about 75 percent of American youth, ages 18 to 
23, hold that credential. In addition, about 70 percent of new recruits have top-half 
aptitude scores, compared to 50 percent of our Nation's youth population. Higher 



quality recruits reduce attrition while increasing hands-on job performance. Well- 
educated, high-aptitude recruits are essential components of the individual and unit 
fierformance that is so instrumental to readiness-particularly in the high technology 
brce of today and tomorrow. 

Today, our principal concern in recruiting centers on a reduced propensity among 
American youth to enlist. By "propensity" we mean the percentage of the 10,000 na- 
tionally-representative survey respondents who indicate that they "definitely" or 
"probably" plan to enlist. Reported interest dropped from 1991 through 1993, and 
our 1994 survey shows a continuing decline in propensity for 16-21 year-old men, 
especially blacks. We have focus groups planned to help us understand this situa- 
tion better. Propensity for 16-21 year-old women, and 22-24 year-old men and 
women, now appears to have stabilized. 

TABLE 1A. POSITIVE PROPENSITY TO SERVE ON ACTIVE DUTY 
(FOR 16 - 21 YEAR-OLD MALES) 



YEAR OF YATS 


1987 


1988 


1989 


1990 


1991 


1992 


1993 


1994 


SURVEY -> 


















ARMY 


16* 


16* 


IT 


16* 


17* 


13* 


13* 


11 


NAVY 


12* 


12« 


13' 


ll« 


12* 


11* 


10 


9 


AIR FORCE 


18* 


16" 


17* 


15« 


16* 


14 


14 


12 


MARINE CORPS 


11 


12 


13 


11 


13 


13 


11 


11 


ANT SERVICE 


31 • 


31* 


33* 


32* 


34* 


»• 


29* 


26 



' 1 HE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THIS STATISTIC AND THE 1994 PROPENSITY IS STATISTICALLY SIGNIFICANT 

TABLE IB. POSITIVE PROPENSITY TO SERVE ON ACTIVE DUTY 
(FOR 16 - 21 YEAR-OLD MALES - ANY SERVICE) 



YEAR OF YATS 


1987 


1988 


1989 


1990 


1991 


1992 


1993 


1994 


SURVEY -> 


















WHITE 


25* 


25* 


26' 


27* 


29* 


25 


25 


22 


BLACK 


49* 


48* 


54* 


42* 


49* 


36 


37 


32 


HISPANIC 


45 


41 


47 


47 


46 


45 


42 


39 



• THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THIS STATISTIC AND THE 1994 PROPENSITY IS STATISTICALLY SIGNIFICANT 

In addition, recent surveys suggest that recruiters are being pushed hard. Re- 
cruiting is a difficult assignment few servicemembers relish and, as noted above, 



14 

they are working in a tough market. They work long hours and, while 75 percent 
say their goals are achievable, the balance are less optimistic. 

To strengthen recruiting efforts in fiscal year 1994, we reprogrammed $41 million 
into recruiting. This helped us to get out the message that the Armed Forces were 
still hiring and that military service was an excellent choice for talented young men 
and women. For fiscal year 1995, Congress increased the recruiting budget by $89 
million. Our total recruiting investments are steady at about $1.4 billion (Active) 
plus $0.6 billion (Reserve), for a total of about $2 billion. 

Advertising is cost-effective and central to reversing the downward trend in enlist- 
ment propensity. Recognizing this, Congress and DOD have acted to expand funding 
in that area. We increased from an investment of $145 million in fiscal year 1994 
to the fiscal years 1995-1996 level of about $185 million. 

TABLE 2. DOD RECRUITING AND ADVERTISING RESOURCES EOR FISCAL YEARS 1995-1997 

[Current dollars in millions] 

Fiscal years 



1995 1996 



Active: 

Army $578.6 $577.4 $594.3 

Navy 367.7 375.9 387.6 

Marine Corps 190.9 188.5 192.6 

Air Force 147.7 145.0 145.7 

Joint 126.2 128.4 131.5 



Active Force Totals $1,411.1 $1,415.2 $1,451.7 



Reserve: 

Army National Guard $251.0 $259.2 $245.6 

Army Reserve 169.7 178.6 182.6 

Naval Reserve 67.0 65.0 65.4 

Marine Corps Reserve 28.5 26.7 27.0 

Air National Guard 39.6 41.5 42.2 

Air Force Reserve 31.4 32.3 34.3 



Reserve/Guard Totals $5,872 $603.3 $597.1 



DOD Totals $1,998.3 $2,018.5 $2,048.8 

DOD Constant Fiscal Year 1995 Dollars ($1,998.3) ($1,967.3) ($1,946.2) 

We are optimistic that fiscal year 1995 will be another successful year. However, 
we are concerned about fiscal years 1996 and 1997. Resource levels for those years 
are steady; yet numerical goals are rising while propensity has slipped. The Depart- 
ment's senior panel on recruiting, established by Deputy Secretary Deutch about a 
year ago, meets quarterly — and more frequently if required — to monitor progress in 
recruiting. This panel includes the Secretaries of the military departments and the 
Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. Any emerging problems in this area will con- 
tinue to receive quick, high-level attention. 

During each of fiscal years 1995-1997, about 19,000 new junior officers will enter 
the forces; roughly two-thirds will go initially to the Active components, with the 
rest going to the Reserves (which also are fed by officers leaving active duty). Ap- 
proximate contributions from each source to this cohort are shown in figure 1. 




15 

FIGURE 1. DOD OFFICER ACCESSIONS BY SOURCE 
FISCAL YEARS 1995-1997 



Direct Appointment* 

U% ^Sl£&£^ ^1 ^ ^^^"s ^ ROTCScbolOTDip 

29* 



OCX-Type PpBfPJm i 
13% 



TRANSITION SUPPORT AND SERVICES 

Just as we take great care bringing people into the military, we help them as they 
transition back to civilian life. The assistance given to more than 300,000 
servicemembers and their families who separate each year remains a high priority 
for the Department. These veterans form a tremendously talented resource pool for 
America; 99 percent have high school diplomas, 22 percent have some college credit, 
and approximately 57,000 have at least one college degree. Operation transition's 
goal is to prepare servicemembers and their families to make a successful transition 
to civilian life. 

Each military service, in conjunction with DOD, the Departments of Labor (DOL), 
Veterans Affairs (VA), and Federal/State Employment Service Agencies, has initi- 
ated innovative transition programs. During fiscal year 1994, servicemembers made 
nearly 725,000 visits to transition offices for preseparation counseling and employ- 
ment assistance. Within the United States, the DOL and VA also provide employ- 
ment assistance workshops at 204 selected bases. In fiscal year 1994, more than 
163,000 servicemembers and spouses participated in 3,686 workshops. In an exam- 
ple of good government coordination, DOD, DOL, and VA implemented the 
servicemembers' Occupational Conversion and Training Act to address the needs of 
unemployed veterans, particularly those whose military skills do not readily trans- 
late to civilian iobs. As of November 1994, VA processed 58,235 training applications 
and 8,388 eligible veterans have been placed in job training under this program. A 
new program, to be administered jointly by the DOD and Department of Justice in 
1995, will promote the entry of qualified servicemembers into law enforcement — the 
Troops to Cops Program. 

Automated systems are a vital part of DOD transition programs. The Defense 
Outplacement Referral System (DORS) is a resume database referral system linking 
private sector employers to departing servicemembers and spouses. In fiscal year 
1994, there were 7,980 employers and over 60,000 personnel registered in DORS. 
Since December 1991, 730,078 resumes have been sent to employers. The Transition 
Bulletin Board (TBB) allows employers to list job openings at military installations 
worldwide. In September 1994, TBB listed 9,693 want ads, business opportunities, 
and Federal jobs. The Verification Document (DD form 2586) translates 
servicemembers' military skills and training into civilian terms. The Public and 
Community Service Registry, established in June 1994, contains information on or- 
ganizations desiring to hire veterans. So far, 125 organizations have registered, with 
hundreds being researched for inclusion. Since June 1994, nearly 70,000 separating 
personnel have registered. 

Finally, we provide additional benefits, such as extended health care and ex- 
tended commissary and exchange privileges to the relatively small number of invol- 
untarily separated military members and their families, and to certain people sepa- 
rated voluntarily. 

SECRETARY PERRY'S QUALITY OF LIFE INITIATIVE 

I would like to turn now to one of the most dramatic and important elements of 
our military personnel plans, Secretary Perry's Quality of Life initiative. 



16 

The President and Secretary Perry are determined to give military personnel and 
their families the kind of support they deserve and have earned by their service to 
the Nation. It is a matter both of basic fairness and of military readiness. If the 
Department of Defense cannot continue to attract and retain high caliber people to 
military service, the quality of our national security will be endangered. If soldiers, 
sailors, airmen, and marines cannot concentrate on the mission at hand because 
they are worried about their families and their futures, we will have jeopardized our 
ability to accomplish that mission. 

The Quality of Life initiative has three major components: raising compensation, 
improving the quality and quality of housing, and bolstering our community and 
family support programs. 

MILITARY COMPENSATION 

No single stimulus is stronger than monetary compensation in generating the re- 
tention of top-quality people. Our initiatives in this area include: 

1—The Pay Raise 

The budget we have submitted funds a military pay raise at the full rate allowed 
by law through the end of the century. This is an unprecedented commitment and 
a reflection of the value that this administration places on treating our men and 
women in uniform fairly. We have allocated $7.7 billion to cover this commitment. 

2 — Housing Allowances 

About 70 percent of our military families live in the civilian community and re- 
ceive housing allowances. These allowances were designed to cover about 85 percent 
of the housing costs of military members, but they have fallen behind and now cover 
only 78 percent of housing costs. Secretary Perry has approved a plan to increase 
housing allowance payments over the next 5 years and begin to bring them back 
in line for more than 700,000 military members and their families. The Secretary 
directed the addition of $43 million in fiscal year 1996 as the first step in his plan. 

3—CONUS Cola 

Last year the Congress authorized a cost-of-living allowance (COLA) within the 
continental United States (CONUS) in recognition of the difficulties faced by 
servicemembers assigned to certain areas in which the cost of living is exceptionally 
high. The Department intends to implement the CONUS Cola in the last quarter 
of fiscal year 1995. Secretary Perry has specified that individuals living in areas 
where the local, non-housing cost-of-living exceeds the national average by more 
than 9 percent would receive this new allowance. 

The amount of the allowance is determined by things: (1) The area's cost of living 
in relation to the national average; (2) the military member's spendable income; and 
(3) whether the member has dependents. We expect the monthly average benefits 
to vary from $16 to $266, depending on area. Approximately 25,000 members will 
benefit from this program. 

HOUSING IMPROVEMENTS 

Decent and affordable housing is an essential concern of military personnel and 
their families and a significant factor in retention. Secretary Perry has reallocated 
a total of $296 million in the fiscal year 1996 budget for the improvement of mili- 
tary housing. The plan calls for upgrades over the next 6 years to about 10,000 
homes currently threatened by closure due to lack of maintenance funds; improve- 
ments in privacy and other amenities to 5,000 dormitory (barracks) spaces — 1,200 
immediately; and the exploration of partnerships with the private sector. With a 
view to increasing the availability of affordable and quality housing, DOD hopes to 
provide land and funding to stimulate home-building, with lease-back options via 
private -sector housing ventures/partnerships. The reallocation of $296 million in fis- 
cal year 1996 is in addition to previously planned and programmed funds for main- 
tenance and construction. 

COMMUNITY AND FAMILY SUPPORT 

In fiscal year 1996, our plan increases funding for child care and for better com- 
munity and family support by $94 million. Our total capacity in DOD child care pro- 
grams in fiscal year 1996 will be increased by 23 percent, to 204,000 spaces. This 
means that we will meet two-thirds of need for child care. Currently, we are meet- 
ing only one-half. The money will also be used to improve recreation facilities, ex- 
tend hours, reduce surcharges on the use of recreational goods and services, and 



17 

strengthen the prevention and counseling programs at the prevention of family vio- 
lence. 

QUALITY OF LIFE TASK FORCE 

As we move forward with the plans I have outlined, we are searching for addi- 
tional way to improve military life. In order to ensure that we are doing everything 
possible to support our men and women in uniform and their families, Secretary 
Perry has established a panel of distinguished outside experts to form a Quality of 
Life task force. The task force, chaired by former Army Secretary Jack Marsh, will 
provide recommendations for improving housing and the delivery of community and 
family services. The task force will also advise the Secretary on initiatives he can 
take to address the issue of personnel turbulence — an increasing problem in an area 
of high deployment rates — and its effect on military families. The Secretary has also 
established an internal Quality of Life Executive Committee, which I chair, to en- 
sure that the approved recommendations of the Marsh panel are carried out swiftly 
and efficiently. 

EIGHTH QMRC 

Finally, the eighth Quadrennial Review of Military Compensation (QRMC), which 
formal, began its work this January, gives us an additional opportunity to review 
how we provide for our servicemembers. Whenever he considers it appropriate, but 
at least once every 4 years, the President is required to direct A complete review 
of principles and concepts of military compensation. 

The President has directed that the eight QRMC address both the challenge of 
supporting the men and women who serve today and the actions necessary to en- 
sure the vitality of the forces that will protect our Nation in the years to come. This 
QRMC will look to the future, and will identify desirable components of a military 
compensation system capable of attracting, retaining, and motivating a diverse mili- 
tary force in the 21st century. Their long-term strategy is to set forth a framework 
for military compensation in the next century, and to design the components of the 
compensation system along with a strategy for implementation. Short-term objec- 
tives include a review of ways to reengineer elements of the current compensation 
system to better support readiness and the Quality of Life initiatives of Secretary 
Perry and the President, while expediting the adoption of initiatives that put people 
first and thereby support readiness 

PERSONNEL SUPPORT, FAMILIES AND EDUCATION 

In addition to Secretary Perry's Quality of Life initiative, we are working hard 
to fulfill our ongoing responsibility to support all areas of military life. 

COMMISSARIES 

Commissaries support a reasonable standard of living for military people sta- 
tioned in the States and abroad. They help offset the economic stress experienced 
by many families. Surveys show that consumers can save an average of 20-25 per- 
cent over commercial retail food stores and annual savings can range from a few 
hundred dollars to more than $1,500, depending on family size. This non-pay benefit 
is an integral part of the non-pay compensation package for active duty military, 
members of the Reserve components, and military retirees. Secretary Perry has 
made clear his view that the commissary benefit must not be eroded. As of October 
1994, there are 223 commissaries in the United States and 108 overseas, where they 
are often the only source of American products. 

OFF-DUTY EDUCATION 

Off-duty, voluntary education benefits both the service member and the Nation. 
DOD offers outstanding incentives to military personnel who want to continue their 
education on their off-duty time, or increase their skills to become more competitive 
in their military career. In fiscal year 1993, the Department made available $134 
million in tuition assistance, which represented 75 percent of the cost of studies un- 
dertaken by servicemembers. Almost 40 percent of the force participated in college 
and university courses offered through the program. The chart below reflects the 
magnitude of participation in the Voluntary Education Program during fiscal year 
1994. 



18 

Number 
Programs en- Degree earned 

rolled 

High School/GED 1,300 700 GED/HS Diplomas 

Undergraduate 637,703 20,471 Associate Degrees; 5,603 Bach- 
elor's Degrees 

Post -Graduate 79,103 4,371 Master's Degrees; 32 Doctorates 

Functional/Basic Skills 57,359 N/A 

Dantes Testing 255,410 N/A 

CHILD CARE 

Servicemembers are parents to 1.2 million children under the age of 12. Reliable, 
high quality child care helps military families achieve economic security in a time 
when two incomes are often essential. Not only is the Department the largest pro- 
vider of child care in the world, but DOD child development services have been her- 
alded as a role model for other government agencies and the Nation as a whole. Ap- 
6roximately, 166,000 child care spaces are available at 374 locations worldwide. The 
lepartment has a potential child care need for 312,000 spaces. 

FAMILY ADVOCACY PROGRAMS (SPOUSE AND CHILD ABUSE) 

As the rate of deployment for servicemembers rises, the stress and the potential 
for family violence increases. The Family Advocacy Program (FAP), now in its 14th 
year, has been successful in helping troubled families. 

In addition to treatment ana intervention, FAP works to recognize the signs of 
potential abuse, and to institute training and support systems that prevent it from 
starting. Congress has helped enormously by increasing assistance to new parents 
and first-term families. New parent support programs will be implemented at instal- 
lations with high populations of young first-term families. Outreach services will in- 
clude pre- and post-natal home visits, parent education, and other skill building 
services. 

YOUTH PROGRAMS 

While the number of children in the birth to age 5 population is decreasing, there 
has been an increase in the number of children ages 6-18; now more than 980,000. 
The increased tempo of deployments is creating greater strain on our families of 
these children. We are concerned about an increase in the number of substantiated 
cases of child abuse in these age groups, especially the adolescent population. 

We are also concerned about the general welfare of youth on installations, who 
are not immune to the forces of violence and gang activity which trouble the Nation 
as a whole. In addition to maintaining youth activity centers, which feature social 
and recreational activities, we have begun supporting locally developed child and 
adolescent support projects through the Model Communities Incentive Awards pro- 
gram. 

MORALE, WELFARE & RECREATION (MWR) 

Morale, Welfare and Recreation programs include fitness centers, libraries, sports 
and athletic programs, as well as a wide variety of other recreational, social, and 
developmental activities. These programs, along with exchange services, serve 12 
billion patrons and participants, and employ over 220,000 people worldwide. 

Revenues generated from exchange sales and MWR programs are used to build 
and modernize MWR facilities. In fiscal year 1995 the nonappropriated construction 
program totaled $323 billion. We have streamlined operations, modernized facilities, 
and freed the hands of the services and the installation commanders to act within 
broad policy guidance. 

ARMED FORCES PROFESSIONAL ENTERTAINMENT OVERSEAS 

The Armed Forces Professional Entertainment Office (AFPEO) is a joint-service 
program that logistically supports entertainers who are willing to perform free of 
charge for servicemembers on military installations overseas. Entertainers perform 
at numerous overseas locations, with a priority given to remote and isolated sites. 
Shows are also organized for troops mobilized for missions in such places as Soma- 
lia, Macedonia, and Saudi Arabia. In fiscal year 1994, the AFPEO fielded 88 non 
celebrity tours and 17 celebrity service organizations/DOD tours. These tours per- 
formed an estimated 2,300 shows, entertaining over 250,000 servicemembers and 



19 

their families. This small but vigorous programs touches the lives of members over- 
seas, when they most need it. 

FAMILY CENTERS 

By 1994, over 60 percent of our servicemembers had family responsibilities. Our 
317 Family Centers provide them, and their civilian counterparts, with programs 
that are tailored to the unique needs of military life. In that way, Family Centers 
can assist commanders in maintaining the readiness of the total work force. There 
responsibilities include information and referral, relocation assistance, personal fi- 
nancial management, spouse employment assistance, outreach, family life education, 
crisis assistance, and volunteer coordination. These essential services create an in- 
frastructure for the quality of life that military families deserve. 

As we saw in the Persian Gulf war, family readiness is a crucial component of 
overall force readiness. Family Center deployment support programs specifically 
focus on family preparedness — teaching skills to ensure that family members have 
the capabilities and tools to manage in the absence of the military member. In con- 
junction with these programs, family support groups at the unit level provide a criti- 
cal resource and link to other support systems. 

As the frequency of deployments increase, Family Center programs have refocused 
efforts to mediate the stress associated with more frequent separation. The Centers 
continually adapt, evolve, and develop innovative ways to assist the families in 
meeting the growing challenge of family separation. 

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE DEPENDENT SCHOOLS (OVERSEAS) 

Department of Defense dependents schools will support 87,000 students overseas 
in fiscal year 1996. We strive for educational excellence in all of our schools by ex- 
tensively involving parents, staff and the military services in strategic planning and 
by pursuing the Presidents national education goals. Further, we will improve meth- 
ods of accountability of high student performance and increase the decision-making 
at the school level, seeking even higher levels of student performance. Parents ana 
teachers throughout the system are involved in the development of a strategic plan 
that will focus resources on preparing students for the 21st century. 

We can report that our efforts to minimize the effects of the drawdown on chil- 
dren's education have been very successful. In spite of the reductions, DODDS stu- 
dents scored 8 to 19 percentile points above the national average in all comprehen- 
sive test of basic skills (CTBS) and American College Test (ACT) test areas over the 
past school year. Although students already perform well above the national norms 
on Standardized Achievement Tests, DODDS has set even more demanding targets 
under the national education goal in the areas of math and science, as well as core 
studies throughout the elementary and secondary grades. By the 1996 school year, 
we expect schools in Europe and the Pacific to be stabilized from the drawdown. 

DODDS has maintained a quality educational program with enhancements such 
as distance education, foreign language immersion, reading recovery (a program to 
help children-at-risk learn to read) and advancement via individual determination 
(a college preparatory program for students who come from backgrounds most 
underrepresented in 4 year colleges and universities). DODDS has also offered a 
testbed for applications of advanced technology, including the use of the Defense 
Simulation Internet. DODDS now serves all preschool children between the ages of 
3-5 with disabilities under the provisions of the Individual with Disabilities Edu- 
cation Act. 

DOD DOMESTIC ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS (DDESS) 

The DDESS program (formerly section 6 schools) provide education to approxi- 
mately 33,000 eligible dependents residing on 16 military installations in the States 
and Puerto Rico. The schools have locally elected school boards which participate 
in the development and oversight of policies, procedures, and programs. Under the 
national education goals, we have developed special projects to support a high de- 
gree of parental participation in child development, preschool, and early childhood 
development programs; advanced placement courses; special instructional models 
and strategies designed to help students learn. This agency also has oversight re- 
sponsibility and fiscal support of eight special contractual arrangements with local 
educational agencies in five States and Guam, serving an additional 6,000 students. 

CHAPLAIN SERVICES 

The Military Chaplaincies serve as the link between servicemembers, their fami- 
lies, and support services throughout the Department. They act as liaisons with 



20 

Family Centers, Family Advocacy, and other military relief programs; they also 
work with outside organizations such as the American Red Cross and Drug and Al- 
cohol Rehabilitation Centers. Chaplains offer expert assistance at pre- and post-de- 
ployment briefings, provide pastoral care to family members who remain at home, 
and facilitate the religious and spiritual needs of deployed servicemembers world- 
wide. 

relocation/base closure assistance 

When a military base closes, no one feels the stress more than the families who 
depend on that base for their living. We have responded by organizing a base clo- 
sure assistance team to provide commanders with expert consultation to address in- 
dividual installation issues. The multi-disciplinary teams will work with affected in- 
stallations to identify potential problem areas and to develop strategies and solu- 
tions tailored to local needs. We are also gathering lessons-learned and developing 
resource and planning guidance to ensure that organizational and individual needs 
are addressed during the closure and realignment process. 

IMPACT OF BLOCK GRANT PROPOSALS 

Since many young military families are of moderate means, we have taken a 
strong interest in Federal programs that help them make ends meet. We are con- 
cerned that proposals to shift many of these programs that support families, such 
as the women, infants and children program, to state block grant mechanisms may 
harm some rank and file servicemembers. We urge the Congress to give consider- 
ation to military personnel as they reform these programs. 

CIVILIAN PERSONNEL 

Even as we work hard to maintain a good quality of life for our servicemembers 
and their families, we understand that our civilian workforce is a crucial link in our 
national defense. The Department of Defense employs over a million civilians 
around the world. With roughly 824,000 of these in the Federal Civil Service sys- 
tem, we are by far the largest Federal employer; indeed, we account for nearly half 
of the Federal civil servants. Additionally, we employ about 180,000 through the 
nonappropriated fund system to work in Morale, Welfare, and Recreation, as well 
as 62,400 foreign nationals at our bases outside the United States. 

DOWNSIZING THE CIVILIAN WORKFORCE 

The Department of Defense has accounted for the overwhelming majority of per- 
sonnel cuts in the Federal Government. Our regular employment has fallen from 
1,117,000 at the end of fiscal year 1989 to 887,000 in November 1994. DOD civilian 
strengths are portrayed below. 

CIVILIAN END STRENGTH 

Fiscal yean 



1994 1995 1996 1997 

(Actual) (Program) (Bud(et) (Budget) 



Army 279,526 269,673 257,059 248,830 

Navy 252,959 237.820 224,260 214,168 

Air Force 196,489 190,061 184,398 178,928 

Marine Corps 16,141 16.334 16,417 16,490 

000 Agencies 155,625 153,039 146,456 140,630 

Total 900,740 866,927 828,590 799,046 

In the past two fiscal years, we reduced civilian employment by roughly 115,000 
people; fewer than 8,000 of these separations were involuntary, that is, as a result 
of reductions in force (RIF). We have tried hard to avoid RIFs because they are so 
costly in morale, productivity, time, and money. To achieve this, we have relied on 
a variety of policy tools provided by the Congress, including hiring freezes, the prior- 
ity placement program, separation incentives, outplacement assistance, and collabo- 
rative ventures with the Department of Labor ana OPM. Our separation incentives, 
or buyouts, started in January 1993; roughly 54,000 employees have taken them so 
far. Further, over 8,000 employees have retired under the Voluntary Early Retire- 
ment Authority (VERA). 



21 

This year marks the 30th anniversary of our Priority Placement Program (PPP), 
a pioneering effort to help displaced DOD employees find other positions within the 
organization. It is part of the Civilian Assistance and Re-Employment (CARE) pro- 
gram, which is designed to help the Department meet its drawdown goals of achiev- 
ing necessary reductions, minimizing the impact on civilian employees, helping laid- 
offemployees, and maintaining workforce balance. 

In the Central Care Activity, PPP placements increased to an average of 900 per 
month for fiscal year 1994. The program's Interactive Bulletin Board System now 
connects personnel offices worldwide with the CPMS Systems Support Branch. This 
connection has allowed us to process an average of 19,000 registrants a year, up 
from a few thousand several years ago. 

Despite the heavy drawdown, between the end of fiscal year 1989 and the end of 
fiscal year 1994, the percentage of women among civilian DOD employees held 
steady. Although the relative percentage of women in blue-collar occupations fell 
slightly, the percentage of mid- and nigh-grade white-collar positions going to 
women increased. The relative percentage of minorities in the workforce rose in all 
general schedule categories. Much of these successes can be attributed to intelligent, 
aggressive use of buyouts and the PPP. The Priority Placement Program protects 
our capital investment because it lets us transfer valuable assets to other locations 
within the Department. 

We have managed our reductions by being true to our goals (reducing staff, avoid- 
ing involuntary separations, assisting employees, and achieving balance) and by 
steadfastly holding to mission and readiness requirements. We have delegated au- 
thority to the lowest levels possible in order to let managers determine where reduc- 
tions are needed and which skills they need to retain. Our voluntary tools (incen- 
tives, vera, hiring authority) allow managers to control, to a large degree, who goes 
and when. We also pay constant attention to workforce demographics and the re- 
sults of downsizing, most notably through a workforce reshaping task force managed 
by the Office of Civilian Personnel Policy. 

We have successfully used a variety of tools provided by the Office of Personnel 
Management (OPM) to achieve our goals including: 

Early Retirement Flexibility 

OPM allowed us to expand early retirement authority to cover locations where we 
could create placement opportunities. 

Retirement Eligibility 

When we closed Eaker Air Force Base (LA), we learned that a woman would be 
separated only 3 weeks before she was eligible for a retirement annuity; yet she had 
to t>e let go. We worked with OPM, which agreed to publish a rule change to allow 
employees to use annual leave if that would let them reach retirement eligibility. 
This Title 5 change, of course, helps all Federal agencies, not just DOD, to manage 
downsizing more humanely. 

Training and Re-Training 

When we closed Mather Air Force Base in California, regulations at the time 
made it impossible for the Department of Labor to help with retraining employees 
until RIF notices actually were distributed. We worked with OPM and DOL to de- 
velop a "Certificate of Expected Separation" which may be used 6 months in ad- 
vance of a RIF to receive eligibility for Job Training Partnership Act programs. 

Civilian Personnel Regionalization and Systems Modernization 

With the establishment of Regional Servicing Centers and the movement of all 
DOD components to a standard, modern data system, we will go from one personnel 
specialist for every 60 employees to one for every 100 by the year 2001. After the 
new system is in place, DOD will save about $156 million a year. 

Developed Labor -Management Partnerships 

The Office of Civilian Personnel Policy continued to use its Presidents' Roundtable 
to involve union, employee, and managerial groups, as well as the services and de- 
fense agencies in civilian personnel policy. More significantly, we managed to have 
the Defense Partnership Council chartered and its bylaws adopted. Further, the 
staff provided partnership training to over 700 senior managers and their counter- 
part union representatives in support of the National Performance Review. 

Initiated Liaison Offices for Injury and Compensation 

We located field liaison offices at Department of Labor (DOL) offices, through 
which technical experts have provided advice and guidance to the over 400 installa- 
tion personnel on Federal Employees' Compensation Act (FECA) matters. Review of 



22 

injury claims at DOL and encouraging installations to re-employ injured workers re- 
sulted in 158 successful placements. As a direct result, actual 1-year savings exceed 
$3 million, with potential savings exceeding $101 million. 

Streamlined and Increased Complaint Investigations 

The Office of Complaint Investigations (OCI) reduced its work-in progress inven- 
tory by a third reducing staffing levels by 8 percent. It increased monthly production 
almost 20 percent through economies of scale, staff training, and streamlined proce- 
dures. By implementing mediation, OCI has enabled local parties to achieve settle- 
ment in over half of all mediation attempts. Conservatively, OCI's use of mediation 
has been saving DOD at least $8 million a year. As all investigators become trained 
mediators, the savings should rise even higher. 

EQUAL OPPORTUNITY 

Finally, I want to stress our unwavering commitment to equal opportunity and 
to the right of all military members and civilian employees in the Department of 
Defense to perform their job and pursue their career objectives without discrimina- 
tion or harassment. Secretary Perry has set in motion a comprehensive set of initia- 
tives that will help ensure that we build on our past successes. 

• First, he established the Office of Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for 
Equal Opportunity as a focal point for military and civilian programs and appointed 
Mr. William E. Leftwich, III to serve as Deputy Assistant Secretary. 

• Second, he restructured the Department's Defense Equal Opportunity Council 
(DEOC) to emphasize management accountability. The DEOC is chaired by Deputy 
Secretary of Defense Deutch. Its membership includes the service Secretaries, the 
Under Secretaries of Defense, the Director, administration and management/Wash- 
ington headquarters services, and other members of OSD'S senior management 
team. 

• Third, he initiated a major study of the officer "pipeline." This study will help 
us to outline a clear and achievable vision of what we need to do to improve the 
flow of minority and female officers from recruitment through general and flag offi- 
cer ranks. 

• Fourth, Secretary Perry set in motion a vigorous, sustained effort to improve 
the representation of women, minority, and people with disabilities among our civil- 
ian managers. 

• Fifth, he energized our program of equal opportunity training, particularly the 
training of our leaders to ensure they understand their responsibilities with respect 
to equal opportunity. In response to this charge, the Defense Equal Opportunity 
Management Institute has developed special seminars and briefings for senior civil- 
ian and military leaders, including a mandatory 2-day program for all new flag and 
general officers and members of the senior executive service. 

Secretary Perry has also focused our attention on the need to combat sexual har- 
assment as a key element of our overall policies to ensure fair and respectful treat- 
ment of servicemembers and civilians. Secretary of the Air Force Widnall and Under 
Secretary of Defense Dorn have developed a five part policy action plan in response. 
They also head a task force on discrimination and sexual harassment that reviews 
the services discrimination complaints systems including issues such as the training 
of complaint handlers, commanders and supervisors; the conduct of investigations; 
support services for victims; procedures for the prevention of reprisals; and proce- 
dures for reporting the results of investigations. 

Last August, Secretary Perry set out sexual harassment program guidelines that 
established baseline standards for all elements of the Department of Defense that 
firmly underscored his commitment to eliminating sexual harassment from the DOD 
workplace. We will soon issue a new directive to set out Department-wide standards 
that are informed by the work of the task force on discrimination and sexual harass- 
ment. 

As I indicated earlier in my statement, we are well along with the task of right- 
sizing the force. We have achieved this without reducing the representation of 
women and minorities in the services — indeed their representation has improved. 
Our task now is to meet Secretary Perry's vision and complete the measures nec- 
essary to expand opportunities for women and minorities. 

Mr. Chairman, this concludes my statement. I would be pleased to answer any 
questions that you and the members of the committee may have. 

Senator Coats. Let me iust announce to the committee that we 
are in the process of a roll call vote. Second bells have rung. We 



23 

will just temporarily suspend here while we go over and vote and 
then come back and immediately resume where left off. 

Thank you, Mr. Secretary, for your testimony. We will be back 
as quickly as we can. 

Mr. Pang. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. [Recess.] 

Senator Coats. Well, I am new at this job. Am I supposed to 
bang the gavel again? No? Good. 

We will resume where we left off, and I apologize for the inter- 
ruption. There may be more, but we will do the hest that we can. 

General Stroup, why don't we start with you? And then we will 
just go left to right here. 

STATEMENT OF LT. GEN. THEODORE STROUP, JR., U.S. ARMY 
DEPUTY CfflEF OF STAFF FOR PERSONNEL 

General Stroup. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I am 
pleased to discuss with you today some critical personnel issues 
from America's Army's perspective and will give you a very quick 
verbal summary of my perspective of the Army's status as we look 
at it today. For the record, I will submit, with your permission, my 
prepared remarks. 

Senator Coats. Very good. 

General Stroup. Initially, from the Army's standpoint, I thank 
you and your committee for your generous support to date and your 
understanding, particularly with flie advanced questions. 

That is very helpful to our staff, also, to provide them. Speaking 
for all my service Chiefs over here in Personnel, it has been very 
good this year to work with your committee. 

I am going to talk to you today about the drawdown from the 
Army's perspective. I want to give you an overview of recruiting as 
its status is in the Army today and share concerns on that, and 
briefly talk about quality of life. 

We are 90-percent finished on the Army drawdown, and we will 
finish the drawdown in terms of reaching our end strength for the 
Active component in fiscal year 1996. That number will be 495,000 
active duty soldiers. 

We will finish the drawdown for our two Reserve components, 
the Army National Guard and the Army Reserve, in fiscal year 
1997. 

We have worked hard to use the voluntary programs that you 
gave us. They have been a success. Having participated in the ear- 
lier drawdown the first time I was in Personnel after Vietnam, our 
hats are off to you and the members of the Senate for the most val- 
uable, compensating and compassionate tools you gave us to use as 
part of this drawdown. 

Unfortunately, we have had to force out a few individuals, but 
we have had those compensating tools to financially help them, and 
it has been great. 

One of my major concerns that I share with Secretary Pang, and 
I am sure my fellow personnel chiefs will discuss also, was in re- 
cruiting. There is something funny going on out in the market- 
place. Secretary Pang talked about the propensity being down. 

As I have looked at propensity from the way that we measure it 
across the services, my view from 1989 to this last fiscal year, pro- 
pensity of young Americans to join the services is down 39 percent, 



24 

a dramatic and drastic drawdown. We are all busily looking at it, 
trying to figure out what it means. 

However, this past year, we have nothing but success in our re- 
cruiting and assessing into the Army of outstanding young men 
and women. 

We have met all of our goals, and our quality has remained high. 
Your efforts in helping us resurrect the recruiting dollars for adver- 
tising has contributed to that, and we ask your continued support. 

The propensity, as I said earlier, is causing us to look at the mar- 
ket very hard. We are not sure what is going on. Within the Army, 
we have a group of experts studying it, both from our Army Re- 
search Institute and from academia and from RAND. We continue 
to work that problem very aggressively. 

For example, today's recruiter, who, like all other recruiters in 
the services are handpicked, has to make 160 contacts before that 
recruiter gets a signed contract for a young American to join the 
Army. 

Back in 1989, 1990, we were looking at a recruiter making 100 
contacts to get one young American to join the Army. The pressure 
is on in the recruiting force, and we are sensitive to that. 

Our officer programs, particularly the reserve officers' training 
program, is likewise feeling the pressure in this downturn of pro- 
pensity. 

We are still getting the correct number of young men and women 
to join our ROTC program; however, it is becoming increasingly dif- 
ficult for the officers that we have on the campuses to recruit peo- 
ple for our scholarship programs and for our voluntary contract 
programs. And that again is another area that we are working on. 

Quality of life is a concern for all services and for the Depart- 
ment of Defense, and we ask for your continued support to provide 
us the right tools and the right compensation so that we can con- 
tinue to improve quality of life for our service men and women and 
their families. 

Sir, I will quickly conclude again by thanking you and your com- 
mittee for your support in the past, and we look forward to working 
with you during this legislative session. Thank you. 

Senator Coats. Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of General Stroup follows:] 

Prepared Statement by Lt. Gen. Theodore G. Stroup, Jr., USA, Deputy Chief 

of Staff for Personnel 

Chairman, thank you for the opportunity to testify before your subcommittee on 
behalf of the men and women of the U.S. Army. In spite of continuing turbulence 
during the past year, America's Army remains capable of accomplishing our many 
varied missions. Within the next 2 years we will complete "downsizing the Army 
and reach steady state. Therefore, we are now concentrating on programs that will 
ensure our continued readiness. Today I will give you a progress report on the 
drawdown. I will discuss our Accessions Programs, Military Compensation, Quality 
of Life, Senior Service Colleges, and Women in the Army. 

DRAWDOWN UPDATE 

Regular Army 

As I stated above, we will complete our drawdown in the next 2 years. Thanks 
to the tools you have provided, we have been able to do this about as painlessly as 
is possible given the fiscal constraints and desires of our personnel. At the end of 
fiscal year 1994, we were about 90 percent complete. By the end of this fiscal year 
we will be about 95 percent complete and will complete the drawdown in fiscal year 



25 

1996 for enlisted and fiscal year 1997 for officers. As of December 30, 1994, the ac- 
tive army strength was 533,000, which is down 32.8 percent from a high of 780,000 
in 1987. 

During this fiscal year, we will separate 1,266 officers, 120 warrant officers, and 
4,600 enlisted soldiers under two voluntary separation programs: Voluntary separa- 
tion Incentive and the Special Separation Benefits. Additionally, another 200 en- 
listed soldiers will separate under the Voluntary Early Transition (VET) program. 
Our voluntary separation programs have been very successful over the course of the 
drawdown and have significantly reduced the requirement for involuntary separa- 
tions. Thus far we have avoided a Reduction in Force for our junior officers and non- 
commissioned officers. 

Our involuntary separations have primarily targeted retirement eligible officers in 
the grades of lieutenant colonel and colonel. In January 421 officers were notified 
and will retire this summer. 

Finally, for our mid-grade personnel, we have capitalized on the Temporary Early 
Retirement Authority you provided and plan to separate 698 officers, 120 warrant 
officers and 6,200 enlisted soldiers who volunteer for this program. 

Army National Guard (ARNG) and United States Army Reserve (USAR) Draw Down 
The Army National Guard is on track to meet its end strength of 367,000 in fiscal 
year 1998. Our goal during the drawdown is to reduce strength while maintaining 
acceptable levels of readiness. Even though personnel strength declined in fiscal 
year 1994, management of soldiers assigned to inactivating units was successful. 
The National Guard placed 7,126 of these soldiers into other Army National Guard 
units. 

The United States Army Reserve is on track to meet its end strength objective 
of 208,000 at the end of fiscal year 1998. During fiscal year 1995, in order to meet 
downsizing requirements, certain categories of soldiers will be separated from the 
USAR. Unit members of Selected Reserve who have to be involuntarily separated 
are authorized transition benefits. For active duty members of the Selected Reserve, 
Voluntary Separation Incentives are offered prior to the use of involuntary means. 
All separations are carefully orchestrated to target overage categories and to main- 
tain equity of treatment within the Selective Reserve. The Army Reserve Transition 
Benefits Programs continue to be very successful tools in drawing down and reshap- 
ing the force to meet the Army Reserve fiscal year 1998 end strength. 

CIVILIAN PERSONNEL 

The Army's civilian manpower program has reduced from 403,000 in fiscal year 
1989 to 280,000 in fiscal year 1994. End fiscal year 1995 is projected to be at 
270,000. By end fiscal year 1996, there will be an additional reduction of 13,000 per- 
sonnel bringing us to 257,000. The Army's civilian workforce is projected to continue 
to decline through fiscal year 2001 to about 232,000. 

The Army is downsizing the civilian workforce using the National Performance 
Review objectives for streamlining that include both quantitative and qualitative as- 
pects. The quantitative portion addresses overall reductions to the civilian 
workforce, reducing the supervisory-employee ratio and reducing senior grades. The 
qualitative objectives include empowering employees, delegating authority, and im- 
proving accountability. 

The Army has recently revised its civilian resource projections for fiscal year 1995 
through fiscal year 2001. This change is driven by the recognition of the need to 
reduce infrastructure and its costs, and employment level limitations in the Federal 
Workforce Restructuring Act of 1994. Prior to the fiscal year 1996 President's Budg- 
et, civilians were managed by funded workload and budgeted end strength targets. 
Management under Full Time Equivalent (FTE) limitations is a significant change 
in management philosophy on civilian resources. 

The Army has actively participated in the Voluntary Separation Incentive Pro- 
gram (VSIP) since its inception. During fiscal year 1994, nearly 4,400 employees 
were released through the use of VSIP and an additional 4,500 and 2,600 respec- 
tively, are projected during fiscal year 1995 and fiscal year 1996. The use of VSIP 
and other drawdown tools will be key to the Army civilian workforce reductions and 
achieving geographic, job skill, and grade balance. 

ACCESSIONS PROGRAMS 
Regular Army 

Even though we are reducing our mid-grade and senior personnel, we must con- 
tinue to attract and retain junior personnel, both officer and enlisted. 



26 

I am proud to report that the U.S. Army Recruiting Command achieved its fiscal 
year 1994 Active component accession mission of 68,000 while maintaining our high 
standards. Ninety-five percent of all incoming Active component soldiers had a high 
school diploma or higher and 70 percent tested in the top 50 percent category on 
the Armed Forces Qualification Test (AFQT). We took in only 1.9 percent from the 
lowest AFQT category. Looking at this year, we are again on schedule to attain mis- 
sion, while maintaining our quality marks. 

However, the future continues to be a significant challenge for a variety of rea- 
sons. First, American youth seem less inclined to enlist than they did a few years 
ago. In the recruiting business we call this "propensity" and we measure it through 
a series of surveys known as Youth Attitude Tracking Surveys or YATS. Propensity 
to enlist now is the lowest it has been in 10 years. It has fallen 39 percent among 
16-21 year old males from fiscal year 1991 to fiscal year 1994. This means our field 
recruiters must work harder than ever to convince a young man or woman to enlist. 
We are conducting additional surveys to determine the reasons for the decline in 
propensity. 

Declining propensity would not, in and of itself, be a major problem, were it not 
for a second factor that cannot be ignored. Now that we are reaching our steady 
state of 495,000, we must access to replace every loss which will result in an in- 
crease to our enlisted accessions. As a result, our enlisted accession mission will av- 
erage about 90,000 over the next 5 years. That represents a 29 percent increase 
from this year's mission of 70,000. 

To meet this challenge we are adding another 350 field recruiters to the force by 
July 1995. The number of field recruiters was significantly reduced in past years 
and this is only a partial return to our pre-drawdown recruiting force. Second, we 
are relying on advertising to get the word out to America's youth that we are still 
open for business. Our advertising budget of $70 million is the minimum that we 
must have to accomplish our mission in fiscal year 1996. Finally, we have some low 
cost means to assist our recruiters. For example, the Hometown Recruiter Assist- 
ance Program assigns outstanding junior soldiers fresh from basic training to their 
hometowns for a 10-day period of time to assist recruiters. 

We appreciate the support that Congress has provided to our recruiting effort over 
the years and ask for your continued support as we plan for the significant chal- 
lenges of fiscal year 1996 and beyond. 

Army National Guard (ARNG) and United States Army Reserve (USAR) 

The Army National Guard (ARNG) achieved 88 percent of its fiscal year 1994 re- 
cruiting objective and did not meet its quality goals. Higher than anticipated man- 
ning levels in the first half of the fiscal year caused a budget crisis. Funds were 
reprogrammed from recruiting and retention bonus programs to pay the force. This 
year we are ahead of schedule in meeting our ARNG accession goals of 60,600. In 
fact, we exceeded our accession goal for nrst quarter fiscal year 1995 by accessing 
12,270 soldiers against a mission of 12,075. The ARNG recruiting objectives are pro- 
jected to decrease to 55,800 in fiscal year 1996. Manpower and dollar resources are 
sufficient to achieve these. 

The U.S. Army Reserve (USAR) achieved its accession and quality goals for fiscal 
year 1994, enlisting 49,000 new soldiers, of which 95 percent were high school grad- 
uates. However, the fiscal year 1995 mission of 52,000 will be challenging. The 
USAR missed its first quarter mission by 1,700 accessions. The combination of de- 
clining propensity and reduction in Active Guard and Reserve (AGR) positions is 
contributing to the problem. We are working closely with the Chief, Army Reserve 
to turn this situation around. 

RETENTION 

As a final note on a closely related subject, we are meeting our retention goals 
across all components. 

OFFICER ACCESSIONS 

Our officer accession program, specifically the Reserve Officers Training Corps 
(ROTC) is a matter of concern. ROTC is our largest source of junior officers. Addi- 
tionally, we rely on it to produce officers for both Active and Reserve components. 
Similar to our enlisted recruiting challenges, ROTC is experiencing a decline in pro- 
pensity, which translates into a decrease in enrollment and commissioning. Last 
year's increase in the ROTC cadet stipend, the first in 20 years, was a positive move 
toward correcting this problem. This year, we are reviewing increasing the stipend. 
We will continue to pursue all available internal options to commission sufficient 
numbers of officers, but Cadet Command is challenged to meet our requirements. 



27 

OFFICER MANAGEMENT 

As we drawdown, we are reviewing our officer requirements. We were heartened 
by your action last year in granting relief from the DOPMA limitations on our field 
grade force. However, we were disappointed that it was only temporary. We are 
working with the other services and the Department of Defense on an overall review 
of officer requirements with the goal of producing a comprehensive DOD package 
requesting permanent adjustments to DOPMA. 

MILITARY COMPENSATION 

This is one of the most frequently asked questions I hear in my travels about the 
Army. This is always the toughest issue to deal with how to be fair to soldiers and 
fair to the taxpayer. I believe, and I think most Americans do also, that these young 
men and women, who serve in America's Army from Macedonia to the Korean DMZ, 
should be adequately compensated. Indeed, soldiers must be paid fairly and believe 
that they are being paid fairly, or they will neverjoin us, or if they do, they will 
leave as soon as they can. Military life is rigorous. The pace of operations is increas- 
ingly more demanding to expect volunteers in sufficient numbers when the pay is 
inadequate. The Army leadership and I understand the fiscal constraints under 
which you operate. However, in the long term, we cannot ask soldiers to sacrifice 
too much or we will begin to lose our equality force, which is our real edge in today's 
uncertain world. 

QUALITY OF LIFE 

As we downsize the Army, it is imperative that we maintain quality of life pro- 
grams for our soldiers and family members. These programs are directly linked to 
readiness through high morale and retention of quality personnel. The downsizing 
of the Army has created added stress on soldiers and family members. The pro- 
grams which provide fitness, recreational, social, educational, and family support 
enhance the working and living conditions of soldiers and family members on Army 
installations throughout the world. We must continue to care for our soldiers and 
family members both at home and overseas. We must not neglect our soldiers and 
family members and we ask for your support in continuing to provide essential qual- 
ity of life programs. 

SENIOR SERVICE COLLEGE 

As you know, there has been some discussion on the correct size of our classes 
for our various Senior Service Colleges. We remain convinced that the current mix 
is correct. Graduates of these schools are a force multiplier that allows a more effi- 
cient and effective use of our limited assets. As the world becomes a more unstable 
place, it is imperative that our senior officers have a solid grounding in professional 
military education. 

WOMEN IN THE ARMY 

We have been increasing the opportunities for women across the Army. They rep- 
resent 13 percent (70,070) of the Active Army 21.9 percent (49,614) of the Army Re- 
serve and 8.0 percent (31,324) of the Army National Guard. As a result of the new 
Secretary of Defense policy on the assignment of women, 91 percent of all Army ca- 
reer fields and 67 percent of all Army positions are now open to women. Women 
are now authorized in 87 percent of the enlisted military occupational specialties, 
97 percent of the warrant officer specialties and 97 percent of the officer specialties. 
Between April 1993 and October 1994, the new assignment policy review resulted 
in 41,699 additional positions being opened for the assignment of women. In my 
travels around the Army, I have not encountered any major problems with this new 
policy. 

CONCLUSION 

Our Army has accomplished a great deal over the past few years. Our drawdown 
is about complete. We are now about to reach a steady state environment. You and 
I care deeply for the American soldier. Our soldiers are the best in the world. Work- 
ingtogether, I believe we will maintain that status. 

Thank you again for the opportunity to appear before the committee and I shall 
gladly answer any questions you may have. 

Senator Coats. Admiral Bowman. 



28 

STATEMENT OF VICE ADM. FRANK L. BOWMAN, U.S. NAVY 
CHIEF OF NAVAL PERSONNEL 

Admiral Bowman. Mr. Chairman, I welcome the opportunity to 
talk today about our outstanding, great Navy people and to present 
our Personnel budget for fiscal year 1996. As with General Stroup, 
I would request your permission to enter into the record my formal 
statement, sir. 

I am here really on behalf of the more than 448,000 Navy officers 
and enlisted men and women on duty literally throughout the 
world. 

As I speak to you today, 184 of our 378 ships, about 50 percent, 
are underway, and of those, 86 are forward deployed for a period 
of 6 months or greater. We really do not expect this pace to slow 
as we continue to operate forward from the sea in support of our 
Nation's interest. 

Admiral Boorda and I are telling our sailors, as I have discussed 
with you privately, Mr. Chairman, that we really have the toughest 
part of downsizing behind us. 

At this moment, we are more than two-thirds of our way through 
the downsizing. We will be three-quarters of the way through at 
the end of this fiscal year. 

Because this subcommittee has supported us, we have been able 
to keep faith with our people by avoiding involuntary separations 
of career, non-retirement eligible personnel. Admiral Boorda and I 
have begun telling our sailors that it is now time to focus on the 
future, that the Bureau of Naval Personnel is back full time in the 
career planning and retention business. In a nutshell, what I am 
doing is encouraging the best of the best to stay Navy. 

These sailors are all team players who take enormous pride in 
their ability to do more with less. But they also look to us in Wash- 
ington for an acknowledgement of their sacrifices, and they trust 
us to take care of them and their families. 

Because the morale of our sailors and officers clearly impacts 
readiness, we continue to highlight people programs in our Navy's 
plans and budgets. 

Your continued support will allow us to provide stability and re- 
assurance to our members who have weathered the uncertainties 
of the drawdown so far. 

In the crucial area of compensation policies and programs, we 
are requesting the full 2.4 percent increase in pay and allowances 
and ask your ongoing support of our Selective Reenlistment Bo- 
nuses, Aviation Continuation Pay, Nuclear Officer Incentive Pay 
and other special pays. 

There can be no doubt that dollars spent on achieving pay com- 
parability and retention bonuses increase our effectiveness, because 
they help us keep the right people with the right skills in the right 
places at the right times, people whose skills are highly sought 
after on the outside and who would be very, very expensive to re- 
place. 

These are programs with proven track records. Our budget re- 
quest also reflects our interest and continued emphasis on quality 
of life. Improved housing for both single sailors and families is our 
number one priority in this category. 



29 

We also want to upgrade our Morale, Welfare and Recreation 
programs to promote physical fitness and provide balanced rec- 
reational, social and community support activities for all Navy per- 
sonnel. 

Your active support has translated into real spending increases 
in this area in past fiscal years. I know personally from my visits 
to the fleet that our sailors are grateful for your concern for their 
well-being and for that of their families. 

A big part of continuing past downsizing with the quality that we 
see today is recruiting the most talented young men and women 
from every segment of society. Our recruiting effort is critical to fu- 
ture readiness, yet poses many challenges. 

Our recruiters are battling, as General Stroup just said, an im- 
proving economy, a declining propensity for military service and 
the perception that the Armed Forces are no longer hiring. 

These factors, combined with our commitment to access only the 
highest quality recruits, make it very difficult for the recruiting 
commands to make their goals. 

Last year, you recognized these challenges and acted decisively 
to increase recruiting resources, a sound investment which is al- 
ready paying dividends and should continue to do so. 

With the continuing support and goodwill of your committee, I 
am confident that the Navy of the future, which we are recruiting 
and shaping today, will remain second to none and ready to meet 
our Nation's commitments around the globe. 

Mr. Chairman, I am glad to have this opportunity to talk to you 
today and the committee members about our Navy people and to 
share these messages. Thank you, sir. 

Senator Coats. Thank you, Admiral Bowman. 

[The prepared statement of Admiral Bowman follows:] 

Prepared Statement by Vice Adm. Frank L. Bowman, Chief of Naval 

Personnel 

introduction 

Mr. Chairman, members of the subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to 
discuss significant issues relevant to the Navy's Manpower and Personnel Program 
for fiscal year 1996. 

The Navy continues to move forward to shape the force that is needed today and 
will most certainly be needed tomorrow. At the heart of our great Navy are men 
and women from every walk of life and segment of our society. Sailors, our most 
treasured asset, are the foundation of the Navy's ability to respond rapidly and deci- 
sively around the globe, wherever our Nation's interests dictate. 

The professional development and Quality of Life of these sailors are my primary 
responsibilities as the Chief of Naval Personnel. It is a fundamental truth that no 
weapon system, no matter how technologically advanced, can be any better than the 
people who operate and maintain it. We rely absolutely on the honor, courage, and 
commitment of our sailors to carry out the Navy's many missions. As a result, it 
is imperative that we maintain the current high quality of our servicemembers. 
Without quality people, there can be no quality force. 

To that end, we must be able to provide our sailors with rewarding career oppor- 
tunities, ensure that they have the highest affordable standard of living, and pay 
them fairly and adequately. Although our Navy may be smaller than it was during 
the Cold War, our force will be more high-tech and more capable, and will continue 
to require high-caliber professionals. Recruiting and retaining the best and brightest 
men and women available are key to ensuring both current and future readiness 
to protect national security interests. 



90-165 96-2 



30 

FOCUS ON THE FUTURE 

I come before you today with a different message than the one you have heard 
for the last 5 years; it is the same message I have been giving the sailors whenever 
I visit the fleet. 

The first part of this message is that the Navy is coming out of the downsizing 

F>rocess. By October 1995, downsizing will be 75 percent complete. As we enter the 
inal 25 percent of the drawdown, it is crucial that our force-shaping tools now be 
used to support retention of the force of the future. We must shift our emphasis 
from encouraging some good sailors to leave the Navy to ensuring that the best of 
them stay Navy. Career planning and retention efforts have moved to the forefront 
of our day-to-day activities. 

The second part of my message is how we must create the right professional envi- 
ronment so we can make the most of our sailors' capabilities. In order to retain our 
best men and women, we must provide a workplace afloat and ashore that is, quite 
simply, harassment- and discrimination-free. As we strive to create a Navy that will 
reflect the gender and ethnic make-up of the Nation at the turn of the century, en- 
suring that our sailors are treated fairly and with dignity wherever they serve is 
essential to future readiness. 

By focusing our attention and efforts on the Navy of the future, looking beyond 
the end of the downsizing, we can avoid the mistakes of the early and mid-1970s 
that resulted in the "hollow force" a force that took so much time, effort, and money 
to rebuild. 

Avoiding a hollow force is more than simply a question of numbers of sailors; it 
is having the right mix of high quality sailors with the right skills and experience. 
It is showing our most qualified sailors and junior officers that they have a bright 
future with us. It is convincing highly qualified young men and women to enlist in 
a world-class organization, a Navy as committed to the future of its members and 
their families as it is to getting the job done. 

We have been able to maintain force readiness, in great part because of the tools 
Congress has provided us to manage the drawdown. We were able to keep faith with 
the career force and avoid any forced separations of mid-career personnel before 
they were eligible for retirement. We were able to increase the resources devoted 
to recruiting in an environment where the challenge faced by our recruiters in the 
field grows tougher day by day. And we were able to increase our efforts to improve 
and enhance the Quality of Life for our sailors and their families. 

We will continue to use the tools provided to shape the career force to meet the 
Navy's needs in the next century. Our Navy will be one which is a totally inte- 
grated, diverse team of Active and Reserve sailors and civilians. This force will be 
professionally empathetic, understanding, and respectful of each individual while 
demonstrating the highest standards of commitment and honor. The Navy of 2010 
will be forward deployed in deterrence, always ready to act first to stop wars before 
they start. It will be a highly educated, high-tech Navy where shipmates are encour- 
aged, mentored, and developed. It will retain the tested traditions of our expedition- 
ary force — full recognition of the authority, accountability, and responsibility of the 
commanding officer and the chain of command, and the expectation that they will 
act with intelligent dare and exercise leadership at all times. 

QUALITY OF LIFE PROGRAMS 

In his 1995 Posture Statement, Secretary Dalton said, "The Department of the 
Navy is committed to providing the best possible Quality of Life for our 
servicemembers and their families. We remain acutely aware that it is critical to 
the readiness and well being of our forces." 

Our actions in the fiscal year 1996 program match the Secretary's words. We rec- 
ognize that one of the keys to current readiness is retention, and the key to reten- 
tion is sailors' satisfaction with their Quality of Life. We are moving out smartly 
to improve the Quality of Life for our sailors and their families in a wide range of 
areas. The plan recently announced by Secretary of Defense Perry for a Quality of 
Life funding increase could greatly assist in improving family and bachelor housing; 
Morale, Welfare, and Recreation facilities; and child care centers. In addition, it 
could provide a much needed CONUS cost-of-living allowance and higher quarters 
allowances. 

Housing 

Navy housing, for both our families and single sailors, has been reaffirmed as the 
Navy's premiere Quality of Life issue. Funding levels for our Neighborhoods of Ex- 
cellence program have been sustained during fiscal year 1996 through fiscal year 
2001 at average levels of $1.2 billion for family housing and $332 million for bach- 



31 

elor quarters, despite continued overall constraints applied to Navy's budgets. Our 
housing strategy is to follow a balanced program: take care of the existing backlog 
of maintenance and repair through revitalization and replacement, as well as estab- 
lish and fund appropriate investment levels. New construction of family housing is 
sought only where community assets are unavailable or unaffordable. 

Our current maintenance backlog reduction program is in place but will not finish 
for 10 years. It will take us until fiscal year 2005 to bring our housing units to a 
satisfactory state of repair at current funding levels. We will replace over 3,600 
units beyond economical repair. Bachelor quarters construction is targeted toward 
major fleet concentration areas and is building toward a capacity to house 200,000 
people. 

Our goal is to ensure that all sailors — whether single or married, ashore or at 
S ea — are afforded the same high-quality services and enjoy an equitable level of 
quality housing. 

Compensation 

I ask for your support for the basic tools to keep our personnel fairly compensated. 
It is essential that the entire compensation package remain competitive in order to 
attract and retain the caliber of people we need. Fully funding the planned 2.4 per- 
cent pay raise is a "must" to keep faith with our people; however, even with this 
percent pay raise over the next 5 years, some analysts predict the pay raise gap 
can be expected to grow. 

The Navy is considering three proposals which would enhance Quality of Life and 
improve equity in compensation and entitlements. The first initiative would author- 
ize BAQ for single E6 petty officers assigned to sea duty. This action would improve 
the Quality of Life for a key group of senior enlisted men and women and ensures 
that they are treated comparably with other servicemembers of equal seniority as- 
signed ashore. A second initiative would amend the authorizing language for Family 
Separation Allowance (FSA II) to ensure continued entitlement for members em- 
barked on board a ship (away from its homeport) or on temporary duty (away from 
the permanent duty station for 30 consecutive days) whose family members chose 
not to accompany them to the homeport or permanent duty station. The third pay 
initiative under review would correct a long-standing inequity by authorizing contin- 
uous sea pay for all sailors serving on tenders. With this latter proposal we would 
recognize the challenge of assignment to a tender as being equal to serving aboard 
other Navy ships that qualify for continuous sea pay. 

Community and Family Support Programs 

Morale, Welfare, and Recreation (MWR) 

Readiness and morale of sailors and our Navy families depends heavily upon the 
type and quality of individual, community, and recreational programs and facilities 
available to them. Robust, relevant, and balanced programs promote retention, fit- 
ness, esprit de corps, and personal development. 

Historically, Navy has placed fewer appropriated fund resources into its MWR 
programs than Army and Air Force; however, in fiscal year 1994 and out years, the 
Chief of Naval Operations closed the gap by realigning $65 million in appropriated 
fund support to Navy MWR. This realignment has enabled us to eliminate most fees 
being charged to sailors using basic mission-essential programs and has also en- 
abled MWR to effect some badly needed modernization of facilities. 

Fiscal year 1996 funding requests will enable us to continue to close the gap that 
exists between the level at which Navy's mission- essential (e.g., fitness) and com- 
munity-support MWR programs are funded in comparison to authorized levels of ap- 
propriated fund support. Our objective is to free up non-appropriated funds so we 
can continue with recapitalization and elimination of fees being charged to sailors 
using physical fitness facilities. 

Child Development Services, comprised of Child Development Centers and Family 
Child Care Providers, are included in Navy MWR. Currently, over 10,000 children 
are awaiting full-time care. We are attacking the problem of reducing the child care 
waiting list on four fronts. First, we have obtained funding to test an outsourcing 
program that we expect to provide an additional 4,900 spaces. Second, we are re- 
viewing a plan to request an additional future 3,200 outsourcing spaces. Third, we 
identified to Secretary Perry's special Quality of Life panel a proposal to subsidize 
family child care spaces which we anticipate will help incentivize the current pro- 
gram and grow capacity in the out years by at least 1,000 spaces. Finally, the re- 
mainder of the waiting list should be handled through currently programmed 
MILCON projects. On-base child care is a key ingredient to readiness, particularly 
at overseas stations and remote sites where no off-base alternatives exist. We now 



32 

have the capacity to meet only 59 percent of documented requirements for 38,000 
spaces, based on DOD standards for children up to 5 years old. Reductions in fund- 
ing for Child Development Centers must be avoided. 

I seek your continued support and commitment to personnel readiness by provid- 
ing balanced programs to promote physical fitness and ensure the availability of 
quality off-duty recreation, social, and community support activities for all Navy 
personnel. 

Family Service Centers (FSCs) 

The Navy's 77 Family Service Centers are a source of major support for single 
and married sailors and their families. Our FSCs, staffed by over 1,400 dedicated 
counselors, educators, and coordinators, now provide over 4 million client contacts 
annually, crucial support for family members during deployments, and contingency 
operations support. The return of our Navy families from Guantanamo Bay was co- 
ordinated through the five FSCs in the Norfolk area. These FSCs served as the 
linchpin for communications, stress relief, and essential assistance for these family 
members, who left virtually all their household goods behind when they were evacu- 
ated. 

Demands on our FSCs will grow during the next year. Navy demographics indi- 
cate that 71 percent of officers and 54 percent of enlisted personnel are married, 
and that we nave over 640,000 family members. FSCs currently offer three types 
of services and a wide range of programs designed to enhance the Quality of Life 
for sailors and their families. Information and referral, classes, and counseling serv- 
ices are offered for each of the core or baseline FSC programs including: Family 
Education; Individual, Marital, Family and Group Counseling; Mobilization and De- 
ployment Support; Relocation Assistance; Outreach/Command Representative Pro- 
gram; Family Advocacy; Exceptional Family Member Program; Spouse Employment 
Assistance; Transition Assistance Management; Personal Financial Management; 
Volunteers and Crisis Response. These vital services are an integral part of the 
Navy's efforts to give our sailors and their family members the Quality of Life they 
deserve. 

Transition Assistance Management Program (TAMP) 

During the past 4 years, Navy has continued its strategy of building on existing 
strengths, fully integrating and using all OSD program functions, and taking maxi- 
mum advantage of other Federal department resources in the area of transition as- 
sistance. 

In order to provide the best possible transition services to all separating and retir- 
ing servicemembers in fiscal year 1995, Navy has begun several initiatives to ensure 
full implementation and support of this important program, including use of a Mo- 
bile Job Assistance Team (MJAT), which takes the transition program to sailors on 
deployment or at overseas sites (such as Japan). 

Because Navy has used Command Career Counselors to conduct pre-separation 
counseling, we are sending these Navy Counselors to transition manager school and 
implementing TAMP training in the Command Career Counselor course. 

Employment assistance for transitioning servicemembers is provided by a staff of 
professional counselors located at our Family Service Centers (FSCs). Navy cur- 
rently employs over 260 personnel at 77 sites throughout the world. While transi- 
tion counselors are trained in all employment and transition issues, their location 
at FSCs allows full access to all Quality of Life assets useful in helping 
servicemembers make a smooth transition to civilian life. Services provided include 
individual counseling and workshops in skills assessment, job search techniques, 
resume writing, and interview procedures. TAMP counselors coordinate logistical re- 
quirements for the Department of Labor (DOL) Transition Assistance Program 
(TAP) and help servicemembers access DOD automated employment assistance sys- 
tems, such as the Defense Automated Employment Referral System (DORS) and the 
Transition Bulletin Board (TBB). We continue to work with the DOL to maintain 
the quality of TAPs at all transition sites and we have expanded support of the De- 
partment of Veteran's Affairs (VA) efforts to supply VA counselors at overseas sites 
to include European and Pacific sites. 

DOD is currently the sole source of funding for this program, and transition serv- 
ices will still be required when downsizing is complete. Maintaining a global transi- 
tion program to meet the needs of over 80,000 annual separating and retiring 
servicemembers is a task requiring the efforts of over 200 full-time TAMP personnel 
worldwide. Without the necessary resources, it will be impossible to deliver the 
quality of service our departing servicemembers deserve. We solicit your support of 
the fiscal year 1996 budget request which provides the necessary funding. 



33 

Family Advocacy Program (FAP) 

The Navy is not immune to any of the social problems faced by our society at 
large. The FAP is another important element of the Navy effort to address the needs 
of Navy families. FAP services, provided through Family Service Centers (FSCs) and 
Medical Treatment Facilities (MTFs), include prevention, identification, reporting, 
treatment, and follow-up of child abuse/neglect and spouse abuse. Intervention ei- 
forts focus on both victims and offenders. Increased congressional interest and sup- 
port for the current year provided the opportunity to improve prevention efforts by 
increasing New Parent Support services (our primary prevention program for child 
abuse) to over 40 installations worldwide, and by provioung spouse abuse victim sup- 
port services and outreach services for youth-at-risk at over 30 installations. We are 
also in the process of implementing a comprehensive risk assessment model that 
will significantly improve our ability to manage and evaluate cases and ensure 
greater safety for victims. 

Alcohol Abuse Prevention and Treatment 

Again as a reflection of American society, alcohol abuse accounts for a large pro- 

{>ortion of Navy's accidental deaths. It is the root cause of much sailor-on-saitor vio- 
ence and is strongly connected with suicide, sexual assault, and family violence. It 
is the single most abused drug for sailors under the age of 25 and is connected with 
many safety, health, disciplinary and family problems in the Navy. We have made 
progress in reducing alcohol abuse and treating alcoholism and have increased pre- 
vention efforts through policy initiatives and new educational efforts. 

We continue to treat alcoholism. The Navy has some of the finest treatment pro- 
grams in the world, which return many sailors to distinguished service — sailors 
who, in turn, often help their shipmates with alcohol problems. Our commitment to 
prevention and treatment of alcohol abuse and alcoholism is important to improved 
Quality of Life for Navy members and their families. 

Voluntary Education 

Sailors are, in increasing numbers, striving to better themselves through further 
education. The opportunity to pursue education is reportedly the number one reason 
young people are enlisting in the military today. Active-duty personnel believe edu- 
cation is an increasingly important factor in selection for career advancement and 
a requirement for maintaining a quality lifestyle after military service. We are sup- 
porting sailors' pursuit of education through three basic programs: Tuition Assist- 
ance (TA), Program for Afloat College Education (PACE), and Functional Skills. 

The Tuition Assistance (TA) program pays 75 percent of the cost of authorized 
courses (not to exceed $285 for an undergraduate course, or $395 for a graduate 
course). As the primary support system for helping sailors get a college degree, Tui- 
tion Assistance is a "win-win" program for the Navy and the country. In fact, the 
majority of sailors using TA are the very people we need to retain: mid-level petty 
officers and junior officers. Demand for Tuition Assistance continues to grow in spite 
of downsizing, up 5-10 percent so far this year. 

Sailors assigned to ships and submarines are offered academic skills refreshers 
and lower level college courses. The number of sailors participating in the program 
for Afloat College Education (PACE) has increased more than 16 percent. With the 
PACE II program, Navy is investing heavily in the use of computer interactive video 
to provide college courses on our ships and at remote shore sites. We have sailors 
in Antarctica taking college level courses by this means, connected to instructors via 
Internet. 

Recognizing that we need to reach more sailors who need to improve their read- 
ing, writing, and math skills, we are seeking to individualize our Functional Skills 
Program. This year we have established two Academic Skills Learning Centers at 
Little Creek, Virginia, and Jacksonville, Florida. Using self-paced computer course- 
ware, instruction can be tailored to individual sailor's academic needs and duty re- 
quirements. If these two pilot centers are successful, we plan to establish more 
learning centers at other Navy sites around the world. 

These investments in our sailors contribute to their personal success, improve 
their opportunities for promotion and advancement, and enhance overall readiness. 

Chaplain Corps Programs 

Chaplain Corps programs are a key factor in our ability to deliver on our commit- 
ment to providing the best possible Quality of Life for our sailors and their families. 
The Chaplain Corps plays a vital role in mobilizing the institution with moral lead- 
ership, strengthening people through pastoral care, and building community. Chap- 



34 

lains enhance existing support programs, provide unique forms of individual sup- 
port, and coordinate programs which reinforce the Navy's efforts to maintain high 
Quality of Life standards. Chaplains are integral to Family Service Center pro- 
grams, Family Advocacy programs, Casualty Assistance, Suicide Awareness and 
Prevention, Command Managed Equal Opportunity, Personal Excellence programs 
and community service programs at home and abroad such as "Sharing Thanks- 
giving" and "Project Handclasp." 

AN ENVIRONMENT OF EXCELLENCE 

I mentioned earlier that I am now sending the message to the fleet for our best 
sailors to "stay Navy." A large part of encouraging the best of the best to stay with 
the Navy for a career is creating a professional military environment that enables 
all members of our Navy family to strive for excellence. Every member of our team 
has the absolute right to a workplace free from discrimination and harassment. 

In our Navy we have made enormous progress toward a culture in which all are 
accepted for their talent and effort and none are held back because of gender, race, 
family heritage, or any other reason. The product of these efforts will be an environ- 
ment of excellence where, as Admiral Boorda said, "every member of our team has 
equal access to training, to challenging work, to all the things that lead to success." 

We want everyone to understand that our Navy is committed to true equal oppor- 
tunity. We want every person in the Navy to know that our leaders are fully com- 
mitted to this basic standard. We need all our people to know that they can talk 
with and trust their leaders — and that, if necessary, they can make formal com- 
plaints without fear of reprisal. We want to make our "people program" education 
and training really useful. We want every person in our Navy to know that success 
is based on personal effort and accomplishment, and that we re neither advantaged 
nor disadvantaged because of anything other than that effort and accomplishment. 

Creating this environment of excellence for our sailors will not be easy, but we 
have made a strong start. Let me review some of our efforts: 

Sexual Harassment Prevention 

In the area of sexual harassment prevention, recent data are encouraging; we 
keep getting better. We need to step up efforts in some areas and refine them in 
others, but we are moving forward. 

Every 2 years, the Navy Equal Opportunity and Sexual Harassment (NEOSH) 
survey anonymously measures the perceptions of sailors Navy-wide about the 
Navy s Equal Opportunity (EO) climate. Our most recent survey indicates that most 
sailors believe the EO climate is positive, that leadership enforces policy, and that 
training is taken seriously. Rates of sexual harassment incidents are down across 
the board. The chain of command is fully committed to addressing sexual harass- 
ment issues. There is always room for improvement, but we are definitely making 
progress. 

We have put more and better tools in the hands of our commanding officers, the 
ones who make the program work. We've given them stronger programs and better 
training, and we're holding them accountable for zero tolerance. 

The Navy has developed a comprehensive complaint form that provides detailed 
guidance for handling equal opportunity/sexual harassment complaints. Required 
timelines, mandatory appointment of an advocate and feedback to the complainant, 
investigation requirements, and appeal processes are spelled out clearly and suc- 
cinctly. This new form addresses many of the underlying problems which caused 
some of our sailors to lack confidence in the complaint system. 

The Navy's 1-800 line for Sexual Harassment Advice and Counseling continues 
to provide valuable information to our personnel. The majority of almost 2,000 calls 
received thus far has requested policy guidance, while about 25 percent of the call- 
ers have sought and received advice on how to resolve specific instances of sexual 
harassment. Assistance provided is confidential and available to all within the Navy 
Department, both uniformed and civilian. 

Command Managed Equal Opportunity (CMEO) 

We are in the midst of a top-to-bottom review of Navy Equal Opportunity; we will 
be examining recruiting, retention, advancement, promotion, training, and assign- 
ment policies. Our goal is to move beyond simply establishing minimum standards, 
to seeing all members of the Navy family as people with definite assets and taking 
positive steps to encourage them to be their best. 

Central to this effort is the concept of accountability, the responsibility of our com- 
manders to identify trends and prevent equal opportunity problems before they 
occur. We are helping our commanding officers do this "preventive maintenance for 
people" through the Command Assessment Team Survey System (CATSYS), a user- 



35 

friendly, automated data gathering system that greatly facilitates monitoring an in- 
dividual command's climate and rapidly identifies problem areas requiring imme- 
diate attention. 

Our efforts in this area will be unrelenting and are based on the idea that, in 
addition to simply being the right way to do business, an environment that unlocks 
the full potential of each one 01 our sailors is absolutely vital to readiness. We must 
have each and every one of our uniformed and civilian team members treated with 
dignity and respect to create the esprit de corps so necessary to successfully carry- 
ing out our mission. 

Broadened Contributions From Minorities 

In November 1993, the Secretary of the Navy initiated the "Enhanced Opportuni- 
ties for Minorities Initiative." His memorandum to the Chief of Naval Operations 
specifically tasked the Navy "... to ensure we are maximizing minority contribu- 
tions to the Department." Out of the ensuing effort came the "12/12/5 Initiative," 
named for the recruiting strategy that will nelp ensure our officer and enlisted 
ranks reflect the racial and ethnic diversity we expect to see in our society at the 
turn of the century. To retain the support of this increasingly diverse society, it is 
clear we must draw on the broadest possible segment of our population to fill our 
officer and enlisted ranks. We must also ensure that we have leadership and role 
models throughout our rank and grade structure for the young men and women we 
will be recruiting from so many different backgrounds. Our plan is to reach acces- 
sion goals of no less than 12 percent African-American, 12 percent Hispanic, and 
5 percent Asian-American/Pacific Islander across all rates and designators by the 
year 2000. 

The Navy is fully committed to the 12/12/5 goal. In raw numbers, we are very 
close to that composition now in our enlisted ranks. The challenge in the enlisted 
community is to correct an uneven representation across the various ratings. We 
have changed our recruiting and classification procedures to equalize minority dis- 
tribution in the rating structure, and we have revised training policies to expand 
opportunities for minorities in selected rates. 

The challenge in our officer corps is to access officers into the various commu- 
nities at a rate higher than the college graduation rate, the standard upon which 
past goals have been based. We selected 50 sailors for the "Seaman-to-Admiral" pro- 
gram in order to tap the diversity and talent of our junior enlisted personnel. We 
have begun an innovative scholarship offer, the Immediate Scholarship Decision 
(ISD), to help attract qualified applicants including minorities, into the Naval Re- 
serve Officer Training Corps (NROTC) program. The Naval Academy has expanded 
its minority recruiting effort and the Naval Academy and NROTC are working to- 
gether to streamline application procedures. Our Baccalaureate Degree Completion 
program has been expanded from 2 to 3 years, to make it a more attractive edu- 
cation/commissioning option. The Navy Recruiting Command has been tasked to ac- 
cess the 12/12/5 goal through Officer Candidate School. 

The 12/12/5 initiative is not something that can be achieved in a short time, and 
it is not the only answer to enhancing an environment of equal opportunity in our 
Navy. But it is a very strong start on achieving a goal to which we are completely 
committed. 

Women in the Navy 

One of the Navy's great "good news" stories in the drive to create a professional 
environment that allows all sailors to "be all they can be" has been our response 
to the 1993 repeal of the combat exclusion law. We have moved rapidly to maximize 
and greatly expand opportunities for women in the Navy. 

Our carefully planned integration of women into combatant ships, aviation squad- 
rons, afloat staffs, and Naval Construction Battalions (Seabees) has progressed 
smoothly and resulted in a rapid escalation of professional and leadership opportu- 
nities for women. 

Following required congressional notifications, most classes of combatant vessels 
were opened to assignment of women. Over the next 2 years, 28 combatant ships- 
from nuclear-powered aircraft carriers to Aegis destroyers — will be modified to em- 
bark women. By the beginning of this year, over 1,400 women were serving on com- 
batants and in carrier air wings, with a total of more than 10,000 women at sea 
overall. Women have been fully integrated into each Mobile Construction Battalion. 

Over 96 percent of officer designators and enlisted ratings are now available to 
women. Last year, 80 women officers were selected for surface warfare, 85 women 
aviators were in combat squadrons or the aviation training pipeline, and 75 enlisted 
women were selected for the Nuclear Propulsion Program. By the beginning of fiscal 
year 1996, women will be embarked in 37 combatant ships. 



36 

The expanded women-at-sea policy has produced meaningful, visible career im- 
provements for women and significantly added to the pool of talent the Navy can 
depend upon and draw from in the years ahead. 

THE RECRUITING CHALLENGE 

Our recruiting program remains an essential element in planning for the Navy 
of the 21st century. For fiscal year 1994, the Navy Recruiting Command attained 
100 percent of the enlisted accession goal of 53,982, while achieving figures of 95.1 
percent high school diploma graduates, 68.3 percent scoring in the upper half of the 
Armed Forces Qualification Test, and none from the lowest recruitable mental 
group. African-American recruits made up 19 percent of non-prior service acces- 
sions, with 97 percent high school diploma graduates. Similarly, Hispanic recruits 
made up 8.3 percent of accessions with 96 percent high school diploma graduates. 

Even in the difficult recruiting environment the military is currently experiencing 
the Navy has not reduced its quality requirements. For the "high-tech" force of the 
future, we must have "high-tech" recruits; accordingly, in fiscal year 1994 our per- 
centage of high school diploma graduates increased compared to fiscal year 1993. 
Our commitment to quality recruits is unwavering. 

In fiscal year 1995 we will access more than 52,000 new recruits. There are sev- 
eral factors now impacting our ability to attract young people. First, the improving 
economy, while good for the Nation, makes recruiting tough. Good jobs are available 
for the same high quality young men and women we seek for the Navy. Addition- 
ally, well publicized downsizing of the military has created the misperception that 
the Navy no longer offers secure employment or educational opportunities for moti- 
vated, talented young people. The recruiting market now exhibits the lowest propen- 
sity for military service in the past decade. The latest DOD Youth Attitude Tracking 
Study (YATS) shows the inclination for youth aged 16-21 to enlist in any branch 
of the Armed Forces declining for the 4th straight year, with the Navy attracting 
the fewest respondents of all services. Fewer of the centers of influence for young 
people today — such as school counselors, coaches, and parents — have served in the 
military or are willing to encourage military service. 

In fiscal year 1994, although we achieved accession goals every month, we missed 
monthly new contract objectives for 9 of the 12 months. Thus far in fiscal year 1995, 
new contract objective was missed in 3 of the first 5 months. This translates into 
insufficient numbers of young men and women being sworn in and waiting 1-12 
months to go to boot camp. These people form our Delayed Entry Program (DEP) 
pool. The inability to consistently attain new contract objectives threatens the via- 
bility of the DEP and puts in jeopardy our ability to attain accession goal this 
spring. In past years, by drawing on our DEP pool, we were able to shift accessions 
from the traditionally difficult spring months to the summer. Now, with only one 
Recruit Training Center (RTC), such flexibility no longer exists. If the DEP is de- 
pleted to achieve near-term-accession goals, long-term goals for fiscal year 1996 be- 
come threatened. 

To counter these problems, and maintain high recruit quality, we have provided 
additional resources to the recruiting effort and have allowed Navy veterans in cer- 
tain undermanned rates to return to active duty. It is too early to predict the results 
of our actions, but I remain cautiously confident that the additional recruiters pro- 
vided and increased funding committed to recruiting and advertising programs will 
bring in the required number of young people we need. 

SHAPING THE FORCE OF THE FUTURE 

Enlisted Personnel I Programs 

We are now at the point in the long-term restructuring of the Navy, begun in 
1989, that we must shift the focus of manpower policies to shaping the force of the 
future. In this fiscal year, we will separate approximately 27,000 Navy personnel 
without replacement to bring us to the 75 percent point of the drawdown, an en- 
listed end strength of 375,200. 

Our change in focus is best shown by the contrasts between last year's use of 
force-shaping tools— Enlisted Selective Early Retirement (SER), Voluntary Separa- 
tion Incentive and Special Separation Benefit (VSI/SSB), Entry into the Career 
Force (ENCORE), and 15-year retirement (TERA)— and what we will do this fiscal 
year. 

There will not be an enlisted SER in fiscal year 1995, and I do not anticipate one 
in fiscal vear 1996. In fiscal year 1994, 570 senior enlisted men and women were 
selected for early retirement. 



37 

Our VSI/SSB program for fiscal year 1995 is already closed out, with 420 sailors 
(primarily from decommissioning and disestablishing units) electing to separate. In 
fiscal year 1994, over 3,000 sailors were separated through VSI/SSB. 

In fiscal year 1994, 950 sailors chose to separate under our voluntary Temporary 
Early Retirement Authority (TERA). Our fiscal year 1995 goal for TERA is approxi- 
mately 3,950 sailors targeted in paygrades E5 to E7 with 15-20 years of service and 
in selected overmanned skills. Increasing our TERA offering helps improve advance- 
ment opportunity for junior sailors and reduces the pressure to involuntarily retire 
senior enlisted personnel early. 

We had maintained centralized control over first-term reenlistments since 1992 as 
a downsizing instrument for meeting end-strength requirements. Last year, we re- 
turned control of most first-term reenlistments to our commanding officers. 

Taken together, these changes send the unmistakable signal that we are back in 
the career-planning and retention business. Advancement opportunity is up from 
fiscal year 1994 and will continue to increase in fiscal year 1996. 

Force reductions will of course continue as we approach the steady state level of 
fiscal year 1999, but our primary concern is now on long-term quality and establish- 
ing retention levels that will sustain our Navy into the next century. 

The retention declines over the past few years are largely a result of the direct 
and indirect effects of our drawdown policies. It is difficult to disentangle the var- 
ious causes of retention behavior, but we believe that much of the decline has re- 
sulted from VSI/SSB/TERA, early outs, low advancement opportunity, and other fac- 
tors related to the drawdown. 

We are keeping a very close watch on this area. In order to establish steady state 
retention levels of 37 percent first term, 54 percent second term, and 69 percent 
third term, we must maintain the emphasis on competitive pay raises, good career 
opportunity, and high Quality of Life. 

Officer Personnel I Programs 

Just as in our enlisted personnel programs, we're beginning to "put on the brakes 
. . . smartly" and send the message to our junior officers that downsizing is behind 
us. I am even more concerned about getting this message to our officers out in the 
fleet rapidly because we have begun to see an increase in the number of junior offi- 
cers who state "lack of career opportunity" as one of the top reasons for voluntarily 
separating. 

We have taken some dramatic steps to let our officers know that now is the time 
to look to the future and take advantage of the many career opportunities that most 
certainly do exist: 

• In fiscal year 1994, we involuntarily released nearly 550 Surface and Aviation 
Reserve Officers to meet end strength requirements. In fiscal year 1995 and fiscal 
year 1996, we will involuntary release fewer than 100 junior officers. 

• Our augmentation rate for the Aviation community at the most recent board 
was 62 percent. In fiscal year 1994, the corresponding rate was 29 percent. 

• In fiscal year 1994, 1,041 officers elected to separate through VSI/SSB. The pro- 
gram closed in fiscal year 1995 with 680 takers. We will not require VSI/SSB in 
fiscal year 1996, although we may use the program in fiscal year 1997. 

• Our goal for this year's TERA is 354 officers. In fiscal year 1994 we separated 
1,347 officers via early retirement. 

Although we were required to conduct an officer SER board this year, the number 
selected was lower than in fiscal year 1994. We changed the SER procedures so that 
06s will now receive only two looks for early retirement, which will occur at 2- and 
5-year time in grade. 

Current overall officer retention is strong, but we face continued difficulties in the 
Aviation, Nuclear Power, and Medical fields that I will discuss in more detail. 

Aviation: Jet and propeller pilot retention decreased slightly while helicopter pilot 
retention increased ana Naval Flight Officer retention remained constant. Aviation 
Continuation Pay. (ACP) was applied to communities of concern and will be selec- 
tively offered again in fiscal year 1995 to aid the retention effort. 

Additionally, partially in recognition of the requirement and desire for Joint Duty 
Assignments, we are reviewing a legislative proposal to reduce initial Aviation Ca- 
reer Incentive Pay (ACIP) operational flying requirements (known as the "flight 
gate") to stipulate 8 of the first 12 years, instead of the current 9 of the first 12 
years. This proposal would provide a way for aviators to "make their gates" and con- 
tinue to receive ACIP, in view of the drawdown's impact on available flying billets, 
time to promotion, and increased emphasis on non-flying duty. Without this gate re- 
duction, nearly 30 percent of naval aviators in year groups 86, 87, and 88 will fail 
to meet their initial flight gate. Such a result could only add to the difficulty of re- 
taining top-quality aviators. 



38 

While not an immediate issue, I am concerned about forecasts of civilian airline 
hiring increases over the next few years that could significantly impact our pilot re- 
tention program. We are of course watching this closely. 

Nuclear: Because of overall force level reductions, we have been able to keep our 
submarine force adequately manned, yet we presently have a shortfall of about 280 
mid-grade submarine officers. Our submarine junior officer retention over the last 
2 years has averaged the lowest level in over a decade. More first-tour officers are 
resigning after completing their minimum service obligation rather than taking as- 
signments ashore. 1 am convinced that Nuclear Officer Incentive Pay (NOIP) has 
been essential in maintaining the required number of officers and that without it 
our overall nuclear trained officer retention situation would be critical. 

Medical: Because of higher pay and family stability in the civilian sector, the re- 
tention of medical personnel continues to challenge us. At the end of fiscal year 
1994, Navy had 4,359 physicians, 3,350 nurses, and 2,829 health care administra- 
tors and scientists but only 1,469 dental corps officers — 99 officers below target. To 
improve dental corps accessions, we expanded the Armed Forces Health Professional 
Scholarship program by 25 4-year scholarships, and expanded the Health Services 
Collegiate Program as another accession pipeline for up to 25 officers. We expect to 
reach overall end strength in fiscal year 1995 but will have inventory shortages in 
dentists and several of the medical specialty and sub-specialty communities: for ex- 
ample, surgeons, primary care physicians, optometrists, pharmacists, and certified 
registered nurse anesthetists and nurse practitioners. 

Joint Officer Management 

The Navy continues to make good progress in joint officer management. Our ef- 
forts to send high-quality officers to joint assignments are evident in the very posi- 
tive results of the fiscal year 1995 unrestricted line commander and captain pro- 
motion selection boards when comparing selection statistics of JSOs and Joint serv- 
ing officers with those officers serving at Navy headquarters. For the fiscal year 
1995 unrestricted line captain promotion board., both 47 percent of officers on the 
Joint Staff and officers serving at Navy headquarters were selected for promotion. 
For the fiscal year 1995 unrestricted line commander promotion board, the results 
were 87 percent and 85 percent, respectively. 

Military Acquisition Workforce 

We are in the final stages of transition from the Material Professional program 
to the Acquisition Professional Community as required by the Defense Acquisition 
Workforce Improvement Act (DAWIA). Career field certification requirements en- 
sure our future acquisition program leaders are gaining documented experience, 
education and training throughout their careers as they prepare for major program 
management assignments. The actions required by DAWIA constitute a significant 
step forward in the development of a high level of professionalism in our Acquisition 
Workforce. 

DOPMA Grade Table Relief 

Shaping the career officer force requires extremely careful attention to promotion 
opportunity and flow points. Accordingly, we are considering a modest grade table 
relief in order to maintain unrestricted line 04 and Nurse Corps 06 promotion flow 
points within DOPMA upper guidelines. Our intention is to work closely with OSD 
to present a coherent permanent DOPMA grade relief proposal as part of the fiscal 
year 1997 budget submission. 

Naval Reserve Personnel 

Today's Naval Reserve is better trained and equipped than at any time in its his- 
tory and has evolved into a force closely linked to the Active Navy. Everyday sup- 
port to the Regular Navy is on the increase with more Reservists drilling at their 
gaining command and using increasingly flexible drill schedules. Recognizing the 
growing importance of the Naval Reserve in areas of crisis response, contingency op- 
erations, and contributory support, we will focus our efforts on ways to use Reserv- 
ists even more fully in the fleet. 

The Active Duty for Special Work (ADSW) program will provide prompt, flexible 
support to the operating forces. Critical know-how and real-world skills can be rap- 
idly put in place to meet emergent short-term needs of our Active and Naval Re- 
serve components through selective voluntary recall of Reservists. 

We are vigorously implementing the Reserve Transition Benefits program to as- 
sist those Naval Reservists adversely affected by the drawdown. These Denefits in- 
clude separation pay for members with 20 or more years of qualifying service, early 
retirement for members with at least 15 but less than 20 years service, separation 
pay for members with 6 to 15 years qualifying service, and Montgomery GI Bill eli- 



39 

gibility. Additionally, Serviceman's Group Life Insurance (SGLI) can be continued 
for early retirees. 

This past year, we initiated development of a strategy to integrate Active and Re- 
serve source data collection in the field. The purpose of this integration of data col- 
lection is to significantly improve mobilization capability while reducing manpower 
requirements. The Navy Standard Integrated Personnel System (NSEPS) will pro- 
vide local accessibility to Active and Reserve personnel and pay data; use of the 
same software application whether on shore, at sea, or overseas; and increased flexi- 
bility to incorporate changing functional requirements. 

The recent passage of the Reserve Officer Personnel Management Act (ROPMA) 
will provide the Navy a greater flexibility and predictability in fulfilling Reserve of- 
ficer management requirements. ROPMA parallels, to a large degree, the basis for 
managing active-duty officers while providing the Secretary of the Navy discretion 
to manage unique requirements and circumstances of the Naval Reserve. 

Our Naval Reservists are a proven commodity, working side by side with active- 
duty counterparts everywhere our Navy is employed. The talent and resourcefulness 
of these dedicated Reservists have made the "One Navy" concept a reality. 

Civilian Manpower 

The fiscal year 1996 total of 222,456 Navy civilian employees represents about 
one-third of our total workforce end strength. The majority of our civilians contrib- 
ute directly to the readiness of our operational forces, while the balance provide es- 
sential support in such diverse functions as training; medical care; communications; 
MWR programs; and engineering, development, acquisition, and life cycle support 
of weapons systems. Clearly, we could not get the job done without the day-to-day 
support of our civilian team. 

During fiscal year 1996, we project reductions of 13,315 civilian personnel end 
strength; this number is down from 15,038 civilians separated in fiscal year 1995. 
This civilian end-strength reduction reflects the decline in workload at Navy activi- 
ties as our force structure declines. 

The civilian reduction reflects the continued downward trend of the civilian 
workforce, both at headquarters and field activities, as a result of force structure 
downsizing. Some of these downsizing results are reduced depot workload, savings 
from Base Realignment and Closure decisions, and management efficiency savings. 
Civilian staffing levels are sized to support our budgeted readiness requirements. 

We continue to make every effort to minimize the adverse impact of these nec- 
essary force reductions on our civilian employees. Aggressive use of separation in- 
centives continues and has minimized the need for reductions in force in past years. 
We anticipate the number of separation incentive takers to decline as tne eligible 
pool of participants diminishes. Whenever reductions in force are required, those 
personnel affected will be accorded full benefits. 

SUMMARY 

The past 5 years have been a period of dramatic change for the Navy. We are 
now able to look beyond the end of downsizing and see what we must do for our 
sailors today to be ready to operate "Forward . . . From The Sea" in the years 
ahead. To be fully ready requires, above all else, quality people. If we take care of 
our people and treat them with respect and dignity in a professional environment 
which fosters excellence, we will have ships and aircraft that operate well. 

Our people must remain our focus. Your continued support, your understanding, 
and your assistance will ensure that our sailors are ready today, and in the future, 
to go wherever they must go and do whatever must be done for the defense of our 
Nation. 



Appendix A 

THE MILITARY PERSONNEL, NAVY (MP,N) APPROPRIATION REQUEST 

The fiscal year 1996 MP,N request is for an appropriation of $16,930,609,000 in 
obligational authority. This is a net decrease of approximately $639 million from the 
current funding for fiscal year 1995. The major factors include annualization of 2.6 

Sercent January 1995 pay raise ($97.5 million); 2.4 percent January 1996 pay raise 
5262 million); $21 million in special separation benefits and 15-year retirement; 
and additional funding for the following Quality of Life issues: increase in BAQ/VHA 
from 79 percent to 80 percent of housing costs ($13 million) and $11.8 million for 
the new CONUS COLA Program. Offsetting decreases are average strength reduc- 
tion of 21,871 ($628 million) and $32.5 million in incentive and special pays. The 



40 

following paragraphs provide explanations on funding required for selected budget 
activities; and the table A-3 reflects funds requested for all six budget activities, 
as well as the percent of each to the total program. 

PAY AND ALLOWANCES OF OFFICERS 

A total of $4,344,447,000 is requested to support the planned officer strength in 
fiscal year 1996. This represents a net decrease of approximately $45.9 million from 
the fiscal year 1995 level. The change in required appropriations is attributed pri- 
marily to planned strength reductions, partially offset by annualization of the fiscal 
year 1995 and the planned fiscal year 1996 pay raise which is based on the Federal 
Employees Pay Comparability Act (ECI minus 0.5 percent). The funds required in 
this budget activity are based on the monthly strength plans and resultant 
workyears indicated in the table A-3. 

QUALITY OF LIFE 

Funds for two major issues of the Quality of Life initiative are being requested 
for the fiscal year 1996 budget: $13.1 million for additional BAQ and $11.8 million 
for CONUS COLA are considered vital to the initiative of improving the quality of 
life of our Navy men and women. The BAQ request is an additional 1 percent above 
the 2.4 percent increase requested for all pay and allowances for fiscal year 1996. 

PAY AND ALLOWANCES OF ENLISTED PERSONNEL 

Planned enlisted strength will require $11,356,904,000 in fiscal year 1996. This 
represents a net decrease of approximately $488 million from the fiscal year 1995 
level. The net decrease represents planned strength reductions offset by increases 
for annualization of the fiscal year 1995 pay raise and the proposed fiscal year 1996 
pay raise. 

SUBSISTENCE OF ENLISTED PERSONNEL 

The amount required for Subsistence of Enlisted Personnel is $518,117,000 in fis- 
cal year 1996, a decrease of $17 million from the fiscal year 1995 level. The change 
in required funding is attributed to decreases to end strength and workyears, and 
is offset by annualization of the fiscal year 1995 pay raise and the proposed fiscal 
year 1996 pay raise. 

PERMANENT CHANGE OF STATION (PCS) MOVES AND AVERAGE COST BY CATEGORY 

The DON PCS Program will require $571,542,000 for fiscal year 1996. The cost 
variances include the impact of the current reductions to authorized strength levels, 
inflation factors, and industrial funded service rates. 

The table A-4 shows planned moves and average costs by travel category across 
the years. The Navy's goal for operational readiness, when called upon for any con- 
tingency, is to continue to provide the installations and ships with the best qualified 
personnel. PCS costs associated with accession, separation, training, and organized 
unit moves are mandatory to meet that goal and attain force levels. 

Fiscal year 1996 discretionary moves represent 32 percent of the total Navy PCS 
program. However, only limited opportunities exist to restrict these moves without 
disrupting programs and efforts to maintain skill and grade balances within the 
naval force. 

While the Navy continues to make every effort to minimize moves, full PCS fund- 
ing is absolutely essential for recruiting, training, developing, and retaining the best 
fighting force possible. 

Congressional understanding of and support for the Navy's fiscal year 1996 PCS 
program is absolutely necessary if we are to sustain our ability and readiness dur- 
ing this period of world uncertainty and transition. 

Table A-3 

MILITARY PERSONNEL, NAVY AMOUNT ($000) BY BUDGET ACTIVITY 

Budget Activity R *»£" Percent **$»" Percent f ^ a ' Percent 

Pay and Allowances (Officers) $4,653,927 

Pay and Allowances (Enlisted) 12,499,769 

Pay and Allowances (Midshipmen) 35,822 

Subsistence of Enlisted Personnel 560,957 



25.1 


$4,390,309 


25.1 


$4,344,447 


25.7 


67.4 


11,844,609 


67.4 


11,356,904 


67.1 


0.19 


35,548 


0.2 


35,102 


0.2 


3.0 


535,094 


3.0 


518,117 


3.0 



41 



MILITARY PERSONNEL, NAVY AMOUNT ($000) BY BUDGET ACTIVITY— Continued 



..... Fiscal year „ , Fiscal year 

Budget Activity 1^ Percent {9g £ 

Permanent Change of Station (PCS) Travel .... 641,141 3.5 605,333 

Other Military Personnel Costs 154,878 0.9 158,244 

Total Direct Program $18,546,494 1OO.0 $17,569,137 

Reimbursables $357,307 $255,784 

Total Financial Program $18,903,801 $17,824,921 



Percent 



Fiscal year 
1996 



Percent 



3.4 
0.9 



571,542 
104,497 



100.0 $16,930,609 
$248,563 



$17,179,172 



3.4 
0.6 



100.0 



Table A^l 

PERMANENT CHANGE OF STATION MOVES AND AVERAGE COSTS BY TRAVEL CATEGORY 



Category 



Fiscal year 1994 actual Fiscal year 1995 estimate Fiscal year 1996 estimate 



Moves 



Average 
costs 



Average 
costs 



Average 
costs 



Accessions _ 56,824 $808.25 

Separations 78,900 1,565.96 

Training 19,170 2,822.27 

Operational 48,564 3,374.91 

Rotatonal 29,938 8,375.07 

Unit Moves 2,606 3,407.52 

Total Moves 236,002 

Composite Average Costs $2,814.22 



56,160 



$879.40 59,579 $890.92 



68,690 


1,573.46 


56,384 


1,610.12 


16,940 


2,925.33 


14,834 


3,003.04 


41,853 


3,517.57 


37,341 


3,647.44 


28,755 


7,451.43 


27,133 


7,773.05 


4,384 


4,372.72 


4,342 


4,554.12 


216,782 


199,613 





$2,808.50 



$2,880.78 



42 



FY95 & FY96 OFFICER STRENGTH PLAN 



6ZOOO 
61000 


- ~- „ FY95 

\ 
\ 


/*" "*^x 

FY9^ BUDGETED WORK YEAH AVWAGE 


60000 
59000 


\ 

* N 

- ^x FY96 


/ 

/ 

/ 

/ s „ 

W96 8U0GETE0 WORK YEAR AVEflAGE 




^~~~-^ _^ 


/ 
/ 
/ 
/ 


58000 
57000 


1 1 1 1 J 1. .. _L 1 1 1 1 



OCT NOV OEC JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP 



FY95 & FY96 ENLISTED STRENGTH PLAN 



370000 L_ 







v 


^„fY95 


- 


- 


-~„ 


. 


















FY95 BUDGETED WORK YEAR AVERAGE 






- 




* 


FY96 


























FY96 BUOGETEO WORK YEAfl AVERAGE 






■ 






i 


























--.._ 




^ " 


i i i i 1 — 





OCT NOV OEC JAN FEB MAR APfl MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP 

Senator Coats. General Boles, we will probably be able to get 
one more statement in before we have to go back for yet another 

V °General Christmas, we have not forgotten you. If you can be pa- 
tient, we will get back to you .. , 
So General Boles, why don't you proceed? And then we will take 

another quick break. 



43 

STATEMENT OF LT. GEN. BILLY J. BOLES, U.S. AIR FORCE 
DEPUTY CHIEF OF STAFF, PERSONNEL 

General Boles. Yes, sir. Thank you, sir. 

As you noted, I am pleased to report to you for the fourth year 
on the posture and the well-being of what I consider America's 
best, the men and women of the United States Air Force. I have 
submitted a statement for the record, and I will run through a 
quick few comments. 

First and foremost, I, too, would like to join my colleagues in say- 
ing thanks for the support that you and this committee have given 
us, particularly during the 4 years I have been the DCS, Personnel 
because I have learned that when we need help and we ask you 
for it, we get help. 

For example, last year, we came to you and said we were having 
an emerging recruiting problem. You responded by increasing ad- 
vertising dollars and by removing some restrictions on the number 
of recruiters that we could have. Because of your actions, we ended 
fiscal year 1994 in good shape. 

This year, recruiting is even more troubling. We are about 15 
percent behind where we would like to be and where we feel we 
need to be in terms of new contracts. We missed the shipping goals 
last month by about 14, and we are forecasting some ROTC short- 
falls. 

But again, thanks to the flexibility that you have given us, we 
are able to respond to the situation. We are putting more recruiters 
on the streets this year, about 80 more in the near future. 

And we are also increasing our advertising dollars even further. 
And that is just one example. 

In my testimony last year, I told you that the number one ques- 
tion I heard from troops in the field was: Who cares? Who cares 
about us and our families? And I think this committee answered 
that question very strongly. 

You said Congress and the American people care. Your actions, 
the pay raise, the CONUS COLA, retiree cost of living allowance, 
et cetera, demonstrated that you care about them. And it was an- 
other example of your willingness to help us. 

So this year, in addition to working the recruiting issues that I 
mentioned earlier, the Air Force is focusing on quality of life for the 
people who are in the Air Force. 

On November 10, the Secretary of Defense and the Chairman of 
the Joint Chiefs of Staff announced the DOD $2.7 billion quality 
of life initiative. That is going to fund needed increases in housing 
allowances, better single and family living quarters and address 
military community needs. 

Within the Air Force, Secretary Widnall and General Fogelman 
are committed to a better quality of life for Air Force people, and 
it is part of their continuing emphasis to put people first. 

Their leadership is evident in the Air Force's new comprehensive 
quality of life strategy. I have included the details of that strategy 
in my statement for tne record. 

The bottom line, I feel, is the troops heard the committee's an- 
swer of "we care," and they are hearing it from within the Depart- 
ment. 



44 

So I believe we are taking care of the people who are taking care 
of the mission. And the drawdown, as we end that, is another ex- 
ample of how you have supported us with the tools. 

Even with those tools, the drawdown has affected everyone, those 
who left voluntarily, those who left involuntarily, those who stayed 
and the families of all three groups. So we devoted a lot of time 
and effort to working that problem. 

I think we are reaching the end of the drawdown and it gives us 
that opportunity to shift to the quality of life of the people who are 
staying. 

So as we do that, I think it is important that we remember that 
we are talking about Air Force people who joined, who survived, 
and who have remained with us through the toughest drawdown 
years. 

They are busy. They are all over the world supporting high de- 
ployment and operation tempos. But they are not complaining, be- 
cause they are busy doing what they have been trained to do and 
what they joined the Air Force to do. 

So I would report to you that the men and women of the Air 
Force are the best this country has to offer. They appreciate what 
the committee has done in the past, and so do I. I look forward to 
answering your questions. 

[The prepared statement of General Boles follows:] 

Prepared Statement by Lt. Gen. Billy J. Boles, Deputy Chief of Staff, 
Personnel, Headquarters, U.S. Air Force 

INTRODUCTION 

Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, it's my pleasure to report to you 
for the fourth time on the posture and well-being of America's Best — the men and 
women of the U.S. Air Force. As always, America's Best are busy doing their best 
for America. 

In my testimony last year, I told you the prevailing question on the minds of Air 
Force people was, "Who cares about us?" The troops in the field wanted to know 
who cared about them and who cared about their families. This committee answered 
their question: Congress and the American people care. Your support of the full pay 
raise allowed by law, CONUS COLA, adjustment of the military retiree COLA effec- 
tive date, and the other legislation and initiatives passed in last year's bill dem- 
onstrated your commitment to them. They know you care. Your visible and vocal 
support was echoed on November 10, 1994, when Secretary of Defense Perry and 
JCS Chairman General Shalikashvili announced their comprehensive $2.7 billion 
Quality of Life initiative. This initiative will fund needed increases in housing allow- 
ances, better single and family living quarters, and an upgraded military commu- 
nity environment. Within the Air Force, Secretary Widnall and General Fogleman 
have placed new emphasis on Quality of Life and redoubled their commitment to 
put "People First". Your answer of "We care!" — repeated by DOD and Air Force sen- 
ior leaders — has been heard on every Air Force base, sparking a new sense of deter- 
mination and optimism among America's Best. 

There is another reason underlying the buoyant attitude of Air Force military per- 
sonnel: the end of the military drawdown is in sight. Since 1986 we, as an Air Force, 
had to take some significant actions to reduce our military strength levels as far 
and fast as required. If you had the opportunity to visit Air Force bases and talk 
to our people during the past few years, you probably sensed the undercurrent of 
uneasiness and uncertainty. Today, you would sense an opposite trend. You would 
see and hear about Air Force people working hard, with renewed energy and a re- 
stored optimism. With your continued support of our requested military manpower 
strength levels, fiscal year 1995 will be marked as the last of the "big drawdown 
years . At last, Air Force military people will be able to put the drawdown (and the 
fear and apprehension it produced) behind them and to enjoy a more secure, stable 
environment. We, in turn, will be able to shift our focus to providing a higher qual- 
ity of life for the men and women of the Air Force who have joined and remained 



45 

with us through the tough years, and who have dedicated their lives to defending 
this great Nation. 

OUR "PEOPLE FIRST" QUALITY OF LIFE PRIORITIES 

At this point I would like to depart from the normal format of my manpower and 
personnel overview statement to outline what the Air Force views as the critical 
quality of life areas we need to pursue over the years ahead. We have made good 
progress in this area, but there is still work to do and issues to address. 

A quality Air Force needs quality people. Without the best people, our force is not 
the best quality. In order to recruit and retain the best, we must provide them and 
their families with the right environment in which to work and live. 

We will actively and substantially pursue improvements in Quality of Life. To 
that end, we have developed a prioritized list of Quality of Life initiatives to guide 
our corporate efforts to improve the quality of life of every member of the Air Force 
team. Some of the initiatives involve continuing programs that are already funded 
and which we will continue to support. Some are new items we have funded in the 
fiscal year 1996 President's budget that we look forward to working with the Con- 
gress to achieve. The remaining items are areas we will work as funding becomes 
available. Viewed in its entirety, our priority list provides us a comprehensive, co- 
ordinated approach to make significant improvements in the Quality of Life of Air 
Force people. Here are our seven key quality of life areas: 

Priority No. 1: Pursue fair and equitable compensation and benefits 

We support full pay raises allowed by law. We remain committed to fair and com- 
petitive pay that allows our people to maintain a reasonable standard of living com- 
mensurate with that enjoyed by their fellow Americans. Compensation is en integral 
part of the quality of life equation that Secretary Perry has actively pursued and 
the Congress has actively supported. 

As you are aware, the gap between military and private sector pay raises contin- 
ues to grow. One of the fundamental principles of the All-Volunteer Force was that 
military pay would keep pace with the private sector. We learned a hard lesson 
when we ignored this principle in the late 1970s — military pay shortfalls were a 
major contributor to the poor retention and "hollow force" problems we experienced. 
With the 2.6 percent military pay raise Congress provided last year, the gap be- 
tween private sector pay and military pay has increased to 12.6 percent. Current 
projected pay levels will cause this gap to widen to over, 18 percent by fiscal year 
2001. 

More significantly, military pay is not keeping pace with inflation. The difference 
between the annual pay raise and the annual inflation rate is the "pay gap" most 
visible to the average Air Force person. Since pay comparability was last achieved 
in 1982, inflation has exceeded the annual military pay raise in 9 out of 13 years. 
The current 4 percent inflation gap is projected to more than double, and could 
reach as high as 8 percent over the next 6 years. 

The pay raise gap is not a problem unique to those in uniform. Pay raises for our 
civilian employees also continue to lag the private sector. You have already taken 
action to address this problem in the Federal Employees Pay Comparability Act of 
1990. 

We need to decrease member absorption of Permanent Change of Station (PCS) 
costs by increasing reimbursements. With the support of Congress, we have made 
significant improvements in this area over the past decade. In 1984, we were reim- 
bursing Air Force people less than 30 cents for every dollar they spent making a 
PCS move. By 1990, we were paying them back at a rate of 50 cents on the dollar. 
Today, the reimbursement rate is 65 cents on the dollar. 

Although we have made progress, the fact remains that when we move an Air 
Force member and his or her family to satisfy military needs, they must absorb $1 
out of every $3 spent out of their limited finances to cover the cost of the move. 
For example, the average staff sergeant and his or her family must absorb about 
$700 in out-of-pocket PCS expenses — that is equal to two weeks' pay or a month 
and a half of groceries. And, that is just in the areas where we allow reimburse- 
ments — it does not include expenses such as buying or selling a home. We would 
like to continue to decrease out-of-pocket PCS costs by increasing reimbursements 
in areas such as: mileage allowance; removal and reinstallation oi catalytic convert- 
ers; round-trip travel for shipment of vehicles to/from overseas; vehicle storage for 
members assigned to overseas locations with restrictions on the shipment of vehi- 
cles; and the dislocation allowance. 

We support the DOD review of the Survivor Benefit Plan (SBP). The catastrophic 
crash at Pope AFB highlighted an inequity in the current law between service mem- 
bers who die instantly on active duty and those who die shortly after being hospital- 



46 

ized and are retired for disability. Current law allows SBP payments for active duty 
deaths only if the member had at least 20 years of service (retirement eligible) or 
was retired for disability. Take, for example, an aircraft accident involving two cap- 
tains, each with 7 years of service. One officer dies instantly; the other officer is 
injured seriously enough to be retired for disability, and then passes away. The 
spouse of the captain who lived long enough to be retired for disability would receive 
over $400 a month more in survivor benefits than the spouse of the officer who died 
instantly. This significant difference in benefits is difficult to explain to a grieving 
widow or widower. 

The tragic B-52 accident at Fairchild AFB pointed out another inequity in the law 
as it pertains to retirement eligibility. Two of the four crewmembers killed were re- 
tirement eligible; their surviving spouses are receiving SBP benefits. Two crew- 
members did not have the requisite 20 years of service; their survivors are not re- 
ceiving SBP benefits. 

Extending SBP for all active duty deaths could appropriately recognize the ulti- 
mate sacrifice of dying in the service of one's country, and could provide equivalent 
compensation for all survivors. The Air Force supports the DOD review of potential 
changes to SBP. 

Priority No. 2: Provide access to safe, affordable housing 

Increased investment in family housing and dormitories is necessary. Air Force 
people deserve safe and affordable housing, either on-base or in the form of allow- 
ances, which meets reasonable community standards. Like most Americans, Air 
Force members want to live and raise their families in comfortable, secure neighbor- 
hoods. But unlike most Americans, Air Force members must support worldwide de- 
ployments and contingencies and leave their families "home alone." Quality housing 
enables our people to deploy with the assurance their families are safe, secure, and 
properly housed. 

Unfortunately, we do not have enough quality housing to go around. The average 
age of Air Force housing is 32 years, and we have over 60,000 homes that require 
improvement or replacement. At current funding levels, it will take us 24 years to 
catch up with the backlog. Despite its age and condition, demand for on-base hous- 
ing is high: 39,000 families are on waiting lists to move on base. 

Improvements are also needed in dormitories for our single and unaccompanied 
personnel. Privacy is the number one housing request among our young airmen. We 
have joined with the other services to develop a new dormitory living space standard 
that increases the net living space and offers a new dormitory building configuration 
that will allow us to give each person a room of their own. Setting a new standard 
is the easy part; renovating old dorms and building new ones will take time and 
money. Approximately 27,700 spaces still do not meet DOD standards, many of 
which still have central "gang" latrines. Nevertheless, we are committed to upgrad- 
ing the living accommodations of our junior members. It's equally important to ad- 
dress the need for privacy of airmen living in our existing dormitories today, as well 
as the newly constructed dormitories of the future. To this end, the Secretary of the 
Air Force has requested a new DOD private room assignment standard that would 
allow the services to assign one person per room in existing dormitories. This would 
be implemented as the services are able to program additional allowances required 
to download dormitories and implement private rooms. 

We need to close the Basic Allowance for Quarters (BAQ) gap. Over half of all 
Air Force families live in off-base housing. We have been asking them to underwrite 
far too much of the cost of off-base housing. Nearly 22 percent of housing expenses 
is absorbed from a member's basic pay — far more than the 15 percent envisioned 
by Congress. Through Secretary Perry's quality of life initiative we have provided 
$11.5 million in this year's budget to help reduce the quarters allowance absorption 
gap by almost 1 percent. OSD and congressional support for continued action to 
close the gap, returning the member's out-of-pocket contribution to 15 percent, are 
essential to this key Quality of Life program. 

The Air Force supports housing allowance reform. We will seek legislation that 
would establish locality-based floors for Variable Housing Allowance (VHA) pay- 
ments. This would ensure our most junior members are able to afford safe and ade- 
quate housing and guarantee sufficient allowances are provided to meet fair market 
rental demands placed on young enlisted families. A sampling of situations shows 
we have young families in locations where their total housing allowance, plus the 
average out-of-pocket contributions from base pay, is $100-$200 per month less 
than the fair market rental value for a two bedroom apartment. In Washington, DC, 
for example, where there is no CONUS COLA adjustment for the high cost of living, 
a young enlisted family is forced to live in less than adequate quarters because they 



47 

must use part of their housing allowance, almost $100 per month short of the appro- 
priate level, for other necessities. 

Furthermore, once housing commitments are made by our members, their housing 
allowances should not be decreased as long as their costs remain static or even in- 
crease. VHA rate protection would protect military members against unexpected de- 
clines in total housing allowances for the duration of an assignment unless individ- 
ual housing expenses decline. We estimate the cost of implementing VHA locality- 
based floors and VHA rate protection to be $56 million. 

Priority No. 3: Provide access to quality health care for active duty members and 
their families 

We support the current TRICARE program with no user fees in our Military 
Treatment Facilities (MTFs) and no enrollment fees for active duty families. Our 
members rank health care as their number one non-cash benefit — and they want ac- 
cess to quality care for their families, too. The rising cost of health care has made 
the military health care system even more visible and important to our members 
and their families. Evidence shows that quality of care remains high, but access to 
care is becoming more difficult. As a result, beneficiaries have had to rely more on 
the Civilian Health and Medical Program of the Uniformed Services (CHAMPUS) 
which requires them to pay annual deductibles and share the cost of in- and out- 
patient care. Air Force members perceive the shift to civilian providers as a benefit 
erosion and the end of "health care without payment" for their families they believe 
they were promised in exchange for their service to their country. The TRICARE 
program was designed to counter this perceived erosion by improving beneficiary ac- 
cess to care and assuring affordable and high quality care, while containing overall 
health care costs. We are aggressively pursuing implementation of the TRICARE 
program. We believe TRICARE benefits (i.e., no MTF user fees and no active duty 
enrollment fees) should be sustained at the current level. 

We are expanding preventive health programs. Optimal health and total fitness 
pay big dividends. Readiness is enhanced and medical care dollars saved by preven- 
tive health programs, such as smoking cessation, dietary and fitness counseling, and 
overseas dental care for families. We want to assist Air Force people to lead fit and 
healthy lives. We want to expand an integrated medical self care initiative to train, 
educate, and assist all Air Force people in the art of personal self care, disease pre- 
vention, and health promotion. We have also established the Office of Prevention 
and Health Services Assessment (OPHSA), a customer-responsive center of excel- 
lence, created for research and program development to enhance the health of Air 
Force people. The OPHSA goals are to: prevent premature onset of disease and dis- 
ability; improve operational readiness; enhance efficient use of health services; and 
reduce health costs. We want to further expand the Health and Wellness Center 
concept Air Force-wide to provide "one-stop shopping" for physical fitness assess- 
ment, fitness enhancement, and health promotion and prevention activities. In addi- 
tion, our TRICARE program includes "enhanced benefits" designed to ensure a more 
healthy population. 

ROTC graduates awaiting active duty need health care coverage. We strongly sup- 

{>ort an initiative that would provide up to 12 months of medical and dental care 
or ROTC graduates who are involuntarily delayed in entering active duty. Most do 
not qualify as dependent children on their parents' insurance; they no longer qualify 
for low-cost student insurance; and short-term employment featuring health insur- 
ance is hard to find. It's in our best interest to safeguard the health of these young 
Reserve officers who have made a commitment to serve their country as soon as we 
need them, and in whose education we have made a significant dollar investment. 

Priority No. 4: Decrease family separation and personal hardship 

We can reduce the OPTEMPO of active duty personnel, decrease family separa- 
tion, and lessen personal hardship by funding and redistributing Air National 
Guard and Air Force Reserve man-days. One of the more significant factors impact- 
ing our people today is the rate at which we ask them to deploy. As we have re- 
duced the size of our force, we have also seen an increase in our deployment com- 
mitments around the world. On average, four times as many Air Force people are 
deployed today as there were in 1989. Our people are busy enforcing no-fly zones 
over Iraq and Bosnia; maintaining humanitarian airlift bridges to support those in 
need of our help in Bosnia Rwanda, and the Caribbean; and interdicting illegal drug 
traffic in South America. Proud, professional Air Force men and women are doing 
whatever their country asks — and doing it well. Compared to the total Air Force 
population, the number of people deployed at any given time represents only 5 per- 
cent of our force — but the same 5 percent are answering the call to deploy. For ex- 



48 

ample, the average AWACS crew spent 165 days deployed to a major contingency 
or exercise during the past year. 

Our people enjoy these challenges and jump at the opportunity to do the job they 
have been trained to do. However, they must know their work is appreciated, they 
will be fairly compensated for their efforts, and their families back home are in good 
hands. Making sure they are appreciated is another leadership challenge and our 
quality of life priorities seek to do just that. We have changed our TDY accounting 
process to ensure everyone gets credit in the assignment process for the time they 
spend away from home. We nave also taken steps to ensure we fair share our com- 
mitments across all qualified people instead of calling on the same command or 
group of people. To further reduce the TDY burden and lower the active duty 
OPTEMPO, we are working to increase Military Personnel Account (MPA) man-days 
so we can expand our use of Air National Guard and Air Force Reserve volunteers 
to support active duty missions. 

We are also concerned with the impact the high OPTEMPO has on Air Force fam- 
ily members. You need only talk to the family of a pilot or life support technician 
from the 429th Electronic Combat Squadron at Cannon AFB New Mexico to under- 
stand the impact of long and multiple deployments: some members of that unit have 
been deployed 200 days in the last year. 

We have taken a proactive approach to help family members cope with the 
stresses of deployment. Our Family Support Centers (FSC) are actively working de- 
ployment support programs, and the staff of every FSC in the Air Force has re- 
ceived rigorous training in family readiness. Many centers now have full time readi- 
ness coordinators assigned to manage pre-, during- and post-deployment programs. 
We have coordinated the efforts of our FSCs with other base agencies that interact 
with families — medical treatment facilities, commissaries, base exchanges — to estab- 
lish comprehensive programs to meet the needs of our families. Our Child Develop- 
ment programs allow nondeployed parents to have periods of free time away from 
parenting. Before and during deployments, other MWR programs provide a wide 
range of opportunities that support the families' need for recreation and physical fit- 
ness to reduce stress. These programs better prepare our people and their families 
for deployments and allow our members to concentrate on the mission they are de- 
ployed to do. Mission readiness is enhanced as a result. 

Priority No. 5: Enhance our base I community programs 

We must preserve the commissary benefits enjoyed by our active duty and retired 
members. Commissary savings are vital to the military community and are ranked 
second behind health care as the most prized non cash benefit. Military members 
depend on commissary savings to offset the impact on their pocketbooks of pay gaps, 
inflation, and out-of-pocket housing and moving costs. In fact, $1 billion of com- 
missary subsidy money provides military members the same economic impact as a 
6 percent pay raise — which would cost $3.5 billion to fund. 

We are encouraged by the strong support expressed for the commissary benefit 
during the past year. We were heartened by Secretary Perry's statement during his 
November 10, 1994 press briefing, "I have no intention of reducing the commissary 
benefit." Congressional support remains equally strong and we appreciate your ac- 
tion last year to increase commissary funding to sustain commissary operations at 
our current level. 

We will continue funding support for Child Development Center construction and 
the equipment/furnishings to support these facilities. The Air Force Child Develop- 
ment Center (CDC) program is nationally recognized, providing care for 43,000 chil- 
dren daily in child development centers, family day care homes, and youth center 
programs. An additional 8,000 children are on waiting lists-70 percent of those are 
under 3 years old. We cannot accommodate 200-300 hourly care children each day 
(and this number excludes those parents who have given up on getting into the sys- 
tem). This negatively impacts Air Force communities by reducing the number of vol- 
unteers able to work in the Red Cross, Family Services, hospital, and other base 
agencies; it also limits spouses' ability to obtain and hold a job. Clearly, more child 
development centers are needed. Although fiscal constraints and the uncertainties 
of the base closure process have caused our total military construction investment 
to fall considerably below past levels, construction and refurbishment of child devel- 
opment centers remain fairly robust. We plan to spend a total of $11.8 million to 
construct or refurbish five facilities in fiscal year 1996. 

An increase in appropriated fund employees for child care and MWR is needed. 
Our MWR programs are essential parts of an overall quality of life effort for the 
Air Force community. The programs are effective tools by which commanders can 
enhance morale, esprit-de-corps, and unit cohesion. These programs also directly 
support personnel recruitment, retention, and readiness. Although we have made 



49 

progress in this area, we need to increase the level of support for these vital pro- 
grams. To improve the child development program, increased civilian workyears are 
needed to increase the percentage of caregivers paid from appropriated funds in 
order to lower the cost to parents. We also need to expand family day care in order 
to bring down the cost and to encourage individuals to be providers (e.g., provide 
equipment needed to get started and stay in business). In addition, we need to in- 
crease the level of support for other vital MWR programs. To provide fitness center 
operating hours to meet the needs of our customers, we need increased manpower. 
Currently, fitness center manning is adequate to keep facilities open from 63 to 91 
hours a week. This is inadequate to meet mission requirements and customer needs, 
and negatively impacts morale and readiness. We are looking hard at wavs of pro- 
viding needed support in these areas, and may come back for relief if unable to solve 
internally. 

Construction and refurbishment of physical fitness centers, libraries, and dining 
halls are essential to the Air Force community. Due to pressing readiness require- 
ments, we were unable to invest MILCON dollars in community support facilities 
such as fitness centers, libraries, and dining halls in fiscal year 1996. With in- 
creased OPTEMPO and the increased trend toward healthier lifestyles and edu- 
cation, we need to provide modern fitness centers, libraries, and dining facilities for 
our troops to maintain and improve their readiness. 

Repair and maintenance of on-base federally funded schools are necessary to pro- 
vide a quality educational environment for Air Force children. All children deserve 
to attend class in safe, well-maintained facilities. We support the continued renova- 
tion, remodeling, and upgrading of federally owned schools (Section 6, DOD Depend- 
ent Schools, and Department of Education-owned schools) to ensure on-base schools 
meet accepted quality standards. We appreciate the interest Congress has shown by 
funding for maintenance of these schools and solicit your continued support. 

Priority No. 6: Preserve the retirement system and benefits 

We are committed to preserving the lifetime benefits — retirement, COLA, and ac- 
cess to health care — military retirees earned and deserve. The military retirement 
system has long been the top retention incentive for quality people to serve full ca- 
reers in uniform. It is the centerpiece of the benefit package we use to offset the 
extraordinary demands and sacrifices of military service. The combination of re- 
forms to the military retirement system during the 1980s has already reduced the 
lifetime value of retired pay for newer servicemembers by 26 percent — resulting in 
savings for the government. Always proud to do their share, retirees have contrib- 
uted to deficit reduction through pay caps (while on active duty) and lower pay 
raises than those enjoyed by average American workers (14 of last 20 years) which 
significantly diminished their lifestream retirement earnings. Recent Cost of Living 
Allowance (COLA) delays have added to the burden already borne by military retir- 
ees. Further reductions in the value of retired pay could have a dramatic, negative 
impact on retention and readiness. We support full and timely COLA increases for 
military retirees. 

Access to quality health care is critical to our retirees. Under the new DOD 
TRICARE uniform health benefit program, Medicare-eligible beneficiaries age 65 or 
older will continue to be eligible for space available care in our MTFs. They are cur- 
rently not authorized CHAMPUS benefits. In order to allow this population to enroll 
in TRICARE, the Air Force strongly supports an initiative to amend the Social Secu- 
rity Act. This amendment would revise the current prohibition on making Medicare 
payments to a Federal provider of health care services and allow Medicare to pay 
an annual enrollment fee to the military Medical Services. This initiative, called 
Medicare subvention, would assure continued access to quality health care, for life, 
for our retirees. 

Priority No. 7: Expand education tuition opportunities and access 

We must preserve tuition assistance. Education and training opportunities are the 
top reasons recruits cite for joining the Air Force. Tuition assistance is a valuable 
recruitment, retention, professionaldevelopment, and quality of life program. It pro- 
vides active duty personnel the opportunity for professional development through 
tuition assistance for post-secondary education. Tuition assistance is used exten- 
sively by Air Force members to complete Community College of the Air Force associ- 
ate degrees, undergraduate degrees, and masters degrees. It's a popular quality of 
life benefit; it's cost effective; and it improves the overall professionalism of Air 
Force members while they serve our Nation. 

Enrollment opportunities in the Montgomery GI Bill need to be expanded. The 
Montgomery GI Bill continues to be a success story for the Air Force and the Na- 
tion. We rely on the bill as a critical incentive to recruit and retain quality people. 



50 

Today, nearly 95 percent of the young men and women entering the Air Force enroll 
in the program. Significant changes have been made since 1990, including an in- 
creased stipend and coverage for flight training. We believe people who opted out 
should have another opportunity to enroll in the program. 

A few last words about our quality of life effort. Secretary Perry has stated, "No 
single investment we make is more important than an investment in our people." 
We wholeheartedly agree, and solicit the support of this committee to make a sig- 
nificant investment in the quality of life of the men and women of the U.S. Air 
Force. I must thank each ol you, on behalf of every "blue suiter," for the support 
you gave us throughout the drawdown. You gave us the tools — the Voluntary Sepa- 
ration Incentive (VSI), Special Separation Benefit (SSB), and the Temporary Early 
Retirement Authority (TERA) — that made the drawdown a success story. Your ef- 
forts made it possible for us to achieve 86 percent of our military losses through 
voluntary means and to keep involuntary actions as "last resort" measures. I am 
confident this committee will make a similar commitment to providing a quality of 
life for Air Force people that is equal to the price of their service to our country. 

At this point, I would like to update the committee on where we stand regarding 
the drawdown, as well as our efforts to recruit and retain quality Air Force people. 
I will conclude my posture statement with a few words about equal opportunity, pro- 
fessional military education, and the Air Force officer promotion program. 

DRAWDOWN UPDATE 

We have been reducing military end strength at a rate of about 4 percent per year 
since 1986 — a pace faster than any other drawdown in Air Force history. For com- 
parison, the post-Korea and post-Vietnam drawdowns proceeded at a rate of 2 per- 
cent and 3 percent per year, respectively. One out of every three "blue-suit" jobs 
that existed in 1986 is gone today. In people terms, two out of every three people 
on active duty at the beginning of 1986 have left the Air Force. Based on the mili- 
tary manpower strength levels contained in our fiscal year 1996 request, more than 
90 percent of our required end strength reductions are complete. 

Our work for fiscal year 1995 is already done. Our fiscal year 1995 drawdown tar- 
get was to generate about 19,500 officer and enlisted losses above and beyond nor- 
mal attrition. By November 1994 we had identified enough officer and enlisted 
losses to meet our drawdown goals. Approximately 17,000 enlisted and 2,000 officers 
signed up for one of the special separation programs (VSI, SSB, or TERA). We did 
not need to conduct an enlisted selective early retirement board (SERB) and we 
were able to cancel the scheduled line Lieutenant Colonel SERB. Assuming current 
projected strengths remain firm, we do not anticipate any further reduction-in-force 
(RIF) or SERB actions for either the enlisted or line officer force. We will, however, 
need to conduct a SERB for Lieutenant Colonel and Colonel Nurse Corps officers 
in May 1995 to further align the Nurse Corps inventory with their authorizations. 

For fiscal year 1996, we anticipate using a limited and structured approach for 
our voluntary separation offers, relying primarily on the Temporary Early Retire- 
ment Authority to generate the additional 1,500-2,000 enlisted and 800-1,000 offi- 
cer losses we will need. If military manpower strength levels remain firm and we 
continue to get the normal losses we are projecting, we should be able to meet out- 
year (fiscal years 1997-1999) military reductions through limited voluntary separa- 
tion offers and normal personnel actions. 

While the end of the military drawdown is near, significant challenges remain for 
our civilian work force. Our fiscal year 1995 civilian program required us to cut ap- 
proximately 6,400 occupied positions — a 3.3 percent decrement from our assigned 
fiscal year 1994 strength. For fiscal year 1996, we must reduce the civilian work 
force by 5,700 employees — about a 3 percent decrease in total work years — and we 
will continue to reduce total work years by 3 percent per year through fiscal year 
1999. By fiscal year 2001 our civilian work force will be 15 percent smaller than 
it will be at the start of fiscal year 1996, representing a loss of almost 29,000 civil- 
ian employees. We intend to use essentially the same drawdown philosophy used 
to work the military drawdown. We will reduce permanent civilian accessions to 
2,500 to meet civilian drawdown requirements. We will also emphasize maximum 
use of voluntary separation incentives and use reduction-in-force action as a last re- 
sort. We are also taking a hard look at how we do business and our infrastructure 
to identify more programmatic ways to reduce our civilian strength. 

We expect to encounter the same turbulence and adverse impact on morale that 
we experienced with the military drawdown. Thus, as Air Force military members 
stride toward more stable times, civilian members of the Air Force team approach 
the turmoil of a major force reduction. 



51 



RECRUITING OUTLOOK 



Despite the drawdown, the Air Force is still hiring the best America has to offer. 
With the end of the military drawdown clearly in sight, we hope to see some im- 
provement in the recruiting area. As I stated during last year's hearings, we have 
been fighting a perception that the Air Force is not hiring. With thousands of Air 
Force people leaving active duty and going back to their home towns with separa- 
tion bonus and early retirement money in their pockets, it's been tough convincing 
people that we have thousands of jobs to fill with high quality young men and 
women. We have been working hard over the past year to turn that perception 
around. Our efforts were aidedljy the repeal of the 10 percent cut in recruiter re- 
duction and the advertising budget increase Congress provided last year — both are 
greatly appreciated — but we need more. As we approach the midyear point in fiscal 
year 1995, it is obvious that we need to increase our fiscal year 1995 and fiscal year 
1996 recruiting budgets and increase the number of recruiters. 

The recruiting environment remains challenging, but our recruiters are working 
hard to find quality people to satisfy our accession requirements. We made our fiscal 
year 1994 enlisted, requirements and saw a slight increase in recruit quality. En- 
listed quality — as measured by the Armed Forces Qualifications Test (AFQT>— rose 
from 80.0 percent of new recruits scoring in Categories I— Ilia in fiscal year 1993 
to 80.8 percent last year. To put the quality issue in perspective, as recently as fis- 
cal year 1990, 85.5 percent were scoring in Categories 1-IIIa. We also made our 
overall officer end strength numbers, but missed some specific targets for physi- 
cians, nurses, and judge advocates. 

Some recurrent factors continue to cloud the recruiting picture. An improving 
economy means tougher competition for America's best young people. As opportuni- 
ties increase in the private sector, fewer young people consider a military career 
something they would like to pursue. In fact, the DOD Youth Attitude Tracking 
Study reports that the propensity of 16-21 year old males to enlist in the Air Force 
has declined for five consecutive years. In 1989, about 1 in 5 young men were in- 
clined to join; today only 1 in 10 view the Air Force as "a great way of life" they 
would like to live. One reason for the decline in interest is that more young people 
are attending college than before. In 1983, 53 percent of high school seniors entered 
college within 12 months of graduation; that number is over 62 percent today. An- 
other reason for the waning interest in the Air Force is that military service is no 
longer the shared, almost universal American experience it was for other genera- 
tions. Not long ago, there was a strong chance a young person knew someone-par- 
ent, relative, or friend-who had served, or was serving, in the military. Our smaller, 
all-volunteer military has lessened the opportunity for the "informal recruiting" that 
took place between those who had served and those who might. With fewer dinner 
table discussions about military service, young people today are not as likely to 
think about joining the military. Recruiters must now be the primary face-to-face 
source of information about military service. 

Our recruiters are busy supplying that information, aided by a new radio adver- 
tising campaign made possible through the advertising budget "plus-up" Congress 
provided last year. Our challenge for fiscal year 1996 is to recruit 31,000 quality 
young people to enlist and access almost 5,000 new officers. It will be tough. Al- 
though we remain hopeful about reaching our current fiscal year targets, we have 
fallen short of our new enlistment contract goal in a couple of months and we may 
not send as many new recruits to basic training during the early spring months as 
programmed. We are also projecting a shortfall of about 50 officers in our fiscal year 
1995 AFROTC program, and a shortfall of 200-300 for fiscal year 1996. We are 
working the problem hard, and not sacrificing our quality standards to hit a quan- 
tity target. We need your help: continued congressional support of our recruiting 
and advertising budget is critical. We are also hoping our full court press on quality 
of life will make the Air Force an even more attractive career option for the best 
America has to offer. 

THE RETENTION PICTURE 

Our quality of life effort will also help us on the retention front. We did not forget 
retention during the drawdown. As we worked to achieve the drawdown numbers 
we needed, we worked hard to balance today's losses with tomorrow's needs. We 
made sure we kept the right people with the right skills, while being fair in offering 
separation incentives. We also, of course, kept our critical skills — pilots, medical spe- 
cialists, key technical skills — off the drawdown table. However, in many cases we 
viewed a voluntary departure as a bonus — someone we did not have to pay to leave 
or to force out involuntarily. Thus, the drawdown may have masked our true reten- 
tion picture. 



52 

Retention was tough to work before the drawdown, and it may be more difficult 
to work afterwards. A reviving economy means a bigger "pull" from the private sec- 
tor. A significant increase in airline hiring is forecast, with a large population of 
Vietnam-era commercial pilots scheduled to retire over the next 5 years. More im- 
portant, we are also not sure how Air Force people are going to behave, retention- 
wise, after the drawdown. The "push" factor to leave the Air Force may be greater 
as Air Force members feel less certain about the security of a military career. We 
are spreading the word to the troops that the darkest days of the drawdown are 
over and that brighter, more stable, more secure days are ahead. Our quality of life 
priorities serve to reinforce that message. 

Our retention efforts are aided immensely by the Aviator Continuation Pay (ACP), 
Selective Reenlistment Bonus, and Specialty Pay programs. Your continued support 
of these programs allows us to retain valuable and experienced pilots, specialist 
technicians, and professionals. We urge Congress support to extend authority and 
provide the requested funding for these critical programs. 

EQUAL OPPORTUNITY 

Another key to retention success is equal opportunity. We must ensure every per- 
son who joins the Air Force has the opportunity to achieve his or her full potential 
and to work and live in an environment that values human dignity and is free of 
discrimination. We must get the most out of each and every member of the Air 
Force team. No one is too junior; no contribution insignificant. We are committed 
to providing a level playing field for all and an environment free of any behavior 
that hinders performance. 

The Air Force policy on discrimination is very clear, and Secretary Widnall and 
General Fogleman have taken every opportunity to voice it: "No amount of sexual 
harassment or discrimination of any kind will be tolerated." We are working hard 
to improve our equal opportunity program. We have revised our procedures to 
strengthen our complaint process and instituted stricter timelines for feedback and 
follow-up. We are reviewing the human relations curricula in our accession, Profes- 
sional Military Education, and commander training programs to ensure we are 
teaching the right people the right things at the right times in their careers. We 
are also developing a new 4-hour base-level course that will be mandatory training 
for every Air Force member and employee. We will put more Social Actions people 
at base level to support this training initiative — and also as a visible sign of our 
commitment to enhancing our equal opportunity program. We stand ready to act on 
the recommendations of the Defense Equal Opportunity Council Task Force on Dis- 
crimination and Sexual Harassment — co-chaired by Secretary Widnall — when that 
group finishes its work. 

EDUCATION AND TRAINING 

Our education and training programs keep our people mission ready for tomor- 
row's threats. The programs we developed under the "Year of Training" initiative 
now are maturing. Our goal to send "ready to work" technicians to the field became 
a reality when the first graduates of the F-16 and C— 141 courses arrived at their 
first duty stations and hit the ground running. 

We are growing the next generation of Air Force leaders through our Professional 
Military Education (PME) programs. The relative peace we enjoy around the world 

f>rovides a prime opportunity to invest in tomorrow's airpower experts. The time to 
earn to fight a war is during peace — not over the battlefield on Day 1. In addition, 
critical job requirements — command, joint duty and acquisition billets — must be sat- 
isfied with hign quality officers with the right backgrounds and experience. We need 
to send at least 320 une officers each year through our Senior Service Schools to 
ensure we have a sufficient pool of resident war college-educated leaders. 

PROMOTIONS 

We recognize the value and future potential of our people through promotion. One 
of our concerns during the drawdown was maintaining a reasonable promotion 
tempo. Again, the force structuring tools Congress provided us helped us achieve a 
stable promotion environment. Our enlisted promotion tempo has remained consist- 
ent, with sew-on timing within the targets for all but two grades. 

We have achieved similar results in our officer promotion program. By reducing 
promotion opportunities to major, lieutenant colonel, and colonel to DOPMA mini- 
mum rates, we have been able to keep pin-on timing within DOPMA recommended 
windows for all grades except major. The officers on the current promotion list to 
major will have, on average, 12 years and 1 month of commissioned service before 
they pin on their new rank — that's over a year outside the DOPMA window. We are 



53 

seeking temporary grade relief to major to help bring pin-on timing to that grade 
back into line. Without grade relief we will not see timing within the window until 
the year 2001; with relief we can bring timing back into tolerance 2 years earlier. 

Concerns continue to be expressed about the integrity of the officer promotion sys- 
tem. Let me assure you that the Air Force officer promotion system is in compliance 
with all laws and DOD directives. We have worked very hard to resolve past con- 
gressional concerns, and to maintain a promotion system worthy of the trust and 
confidence of the Air Force officer corps. 

We are particularly sensitive to those who may perceive that any part of our per- 
sonnel system may not be fair or operating properly. Their perceptions are impor- 
tant to us and we are committed to responding to them. Dr. Widnall and General 
Fogleman recently convened special independent review groups to look at our eval- 
uation and assignment programs in response to concerns expressed by Air Force 
people in the field about those programs. The review groups are taking a wall-to- 
wall approach and will identify what we need to fix, and what we do not. The first 
review group, which looked at the officer evaluation and assignment programs, is 
in the process of briefing their findings to the senior Air Force leadership. When 
their recommendations are approved, they will be promptly implemented. My mes- 
sage here is simple: we are sensitive to the perceptions of our people and we will 
work to restore and maintain confidence in these programs. 

IN CLOSING 

The Secretary and the Chief of Staff have already affirmed to this Congress our 
commitment to our people. As they pointed out in their testimony, "Our people are 
at the core of all we do." I agree wholeheartedly with their assessment — and history 
adds further credence to their views. To paraphrase something George S. Patton, 
Jr. said as a young major, "Wars may be fought with weapons, but they are won 
by [people]. It is the spirit of the [people] who follow and the [people] who lead that 
gains the victory." 

I have devoted a significant amount of time describing our strategy to enhance 
the quality of life for Air Force people. The senior leadership of the Air Force recog- 
nizes that we cannot provide this Nation the best Air Force in the world without 
recruiting, retaining, and sustaining the world's best people. Our quality of life 
agenda seeks to provide Air Force people with an acceptable standard of living, an 
environment in which they are treated with dignity and respect, and some relief 
from the stresses associated with our high deployment tempos. In essence, we are 
aiming at the working living factors critical to the spirit of every man and woman 
wearing a blue uniform. I solicit your support in this endeavor. 

Senator Coats. Thank you. 

With apologies, we will have another brief recess. We have some 
coffee brewing in the back here, if you need that to keep alert while 
we run back and forth. We will do this as quickly as possible. 

Then, General Christmas, we will begin with you and then open 
it up for questions. 

General Christmas. I look forward to it, sir. [Recess.] 

Senator Coats. One more time. General Christmas, you are on. 

STATEMENT OF LT. GEN. GEORGE R. CHRISTMAS, U.S. MARINE 
CORPS DEPUTY CHIEF OF STAFF FOR MANPOWER AND RE- 
SERVE AFFAIRS 

General Christmas. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman. I, too, have 
a statement for the record. What I would like to do, as you asked, 
is just summarize that statement as briefly as I can for you. 

I am very pleased to appear here today, because it is my first 
year at the helm of the Marine Corps Manpower. And I have been 
privileged to preside over the completion of a well-organized and 
deliberately executed reduction, which results, quite frankly, in the 
leanest Marine Corps our Nation has seen in over 30 years. I as- 
sure you, we maintain our expeditionary character. 



54 

Right now what we are focused on is refining that force in five 
specific areas. The first area is redisciplining the manpower process 
to bring balance and stability to the force. 

The second area is to work closely with the Marine Corps Re- 
cruiting Command to overcome potential recruiting shortfalls, to 
ensure that our recruiters truly have a satisfactory quality of life, 
and that we have fully resourced our efforts. I assure you, though, 
sir, that we will not lower quality standards for quantity. 

The third area is to enhance quality of life for all of our Marines 
and their families. We are behind our sister services, and we must 
catch up. 

The fourth is to manage diversity. The Commandant's commit- 
ment is clear. We will continue to provide all Marines the oppor- 
tunity to realize their full potential in an environment free from 
discrimination of any kind as we maintain our core values of cour- 
age, honor and commitment. 

Also, we know that while our enlisted force is very nicely bal- 
anced from a diversity standpoint, our officer corps is not. And it 
is important to have quality role models in representative numbers 
to join our ranks. Consequently, we are aggressively pursuing 
qualified minorities and women. However, as I previously stated, 
we will not sacrifice quality standards and/or fighting capabilities 
to achieve quantity. 

The fifth area is reserve participation. The Marine Corps has de- 
veloped a well-integrated total force that capitalizes on the 
strengths and contributions of its active, reserve and civilian com- 
ponents. We are continuing to enhance the seamlessness of this 
total force. 

I see two major challenges that face the Marine Corps in the 
coming fiscal year. The first challenge is recruiting. Our recruiters 
are in an uphill fight to meet the tremendous accession goals need- 
ed to sustain our steady-state force now, and most especially in the 
future in a tight recruiting market. With your help, we need to get 
the word out that we are open for business, and there is plenty of 
opportunity in the Marine Corps and, quite frankly, in all of our 
Armed Forces for anyone who has the desire to succeed. 

Your continued support in providing adequate resources, and 
your public endorsement, and that of your colleagues, of military 
service as a noble and a viable profession will go a long way in en- 
couraging our young people to give us a look. 

The second challenge is to improve and enhance the quality of 
life of our Marines. The Commandant has charged me with this 
task, and I have formed a quality of life task force, which puts its 
arms completely around all aspects of quality of life, from con- 
structing BEQs to developing family advocacy programs. 

Now, I suspect that additional funding will be needed in the fu- 
ture to properly maintain, replace and build new facilities, as well 
as ensure ample family support programs are in place. But please 
understand, sir, the Marine Corps cannot, will not, enhance these 
quality of life programs at the expense of readiness now and in the 
future. Very simply, we must have a proper balance between the 
two. 

During your deliberations, I would like to solicit your support on 
four items. The first is the Aviators Incentive Program. Aviation 



55 

career incentive pay and aviation continuation pay are necessary to 
retain experienced aviators in the Marine Corps. As an infantry of- 
ficer, I can assure you that it feels very, very good to get bombs 
on target where and when you need them from an experienced avi- 
ator who has an appreciation for the Marines on the ground. 

The second is to support the Department of Defense effort to 
amend the Federal Work Force Restructuring Act of 1994 to ex- 
empt the Department of Defense from the full time equivalent ceil- 
ing, the FTE ceiling. We need that relief. 

The third is in the area of permanent grade table relief. We are 
grateful to the 103rd Congress for granting the Marine Corps tem- 
porary relief through fiscal year 1997. Unfortunately, the tem- 
porary nature of the relief does not allow us to plan and fund for 
the future. 

With the Defense Department, we plan to present a comprehen- 
sive proposal for permanent grade table adjustments, which will in- 
corporate all of our services. Again, I ask your support, sir, when 
that is presented. 

Fourth, I would like to thank the Congress for its past support 
of many matters beneficial to our Marines, especially the Selective 
Reenlistment Bonus Program. Please continue to support this pro- 
gram as a key tool in retaining quality Marines. 

Finally, sir, I would say to that the tenet taught to every Marine 
is "to accomplish the mission and take care of your Marines." We 
plan to do just that by providing our field commanders with the 
most qualified, best trained Marines we possibly can and working 
closely with you and the Department of Defense to improve living 
conditions for our Marines and their families. 

Mr. Chairman, the Marine Corps knows our reason for being, 
that simply, is to fight the Nation's wars and any other contingency 
it should have and to win. The initiatives outlined in the prepared 
statement that I have given you for the record are designed to hone 
this total force Marine Corps into the epitome of readiness and 
warfighting. 

I thank you, sir. 

[The prepared statement of General Christmas follows:] 

Prepared Statement by Lt. Gen. George R. Christmas, USMC, Deputy Chief 
of Staff for Manpower and Reserve Affairs 

Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee: I am pleased to appear before 
you today to discuss the Marine Corps' Manpower program. In this, my first year 
at the helm of Marine Corps manpower, I have been privileged to preside over the 
fulfillment of a well-organized, deliberately executed force reduction, that satisfies 
the force structure guidelines imposed by the Bottom-Up Review and results in the 
leanest Marine Corps our Nation has seen in over 30 years. I am even more pleased 
to announce that we achieved this milestone without compromising our expedition- 
ary character or the flexibility to adapt to varied and changing requirements which 
allow us to take up the fight whenever and wherever needed. 

Providing the Nation with a viable quality force-in-readiness is uniquely demand- 
ing. Doing so with a newly established base force is all the more challenging. As 
the disparity between requirements and limited resources increases, we recognize 
the inevitability of programming tradeoffs. It is because of this realization that we 
can no longer remain content to simply correct past deficiencies, but must instead 
strive to optimize our capabilities and versatility that will permit us to meet the 
future demands of our Nation's defense. To that end, I have launched an aggressive 
plan that focuses on honing and refining our force in five specific areas. I would like 
to take a few moments now to describe our program and highlight key objectives. 



56 



REDISCIPLINING THE MANPOWER PROCESS 



Department of Defense and congressionally mandated force reduction initiatives 
have introduced elements of turbulence to the manpower system which we must 
now work to diffuse. Stabilizing the process will necessitate the realignment of 
grade and skill imbalances incurred during the drawdown to ensure that our inven- 
tory effectively satisfies our ability to meet requirements placed on us by the Na- 
tion. We will also concentrate on improving our career force management practices 
to make certain that we retain only our best qualified marines. These actions will 
preserve our experience base and provide continuity across the broad spectrum of 
occupational specialties. 

Officer Force Management 

The fiscal year 1994 Defense Authorization Act authorized the Marine Corps to 
maintain a total active duty officer end strength of 17,851. In fiscal year 1995 officer 
end strength will increase to a steady state of 17,977, which reflects the actual offi- 
cer requirement for the 174,000 force. 

The Marine Corps plans to increase officer end strength in fiscal year 1995 by dis- 
continuing the use of congressionally authorized force reduction management pro- 
grams, increasing accessions, and by decreasing the separation of Reserve officers 
through the use of augmentation to meet the new steady state officer requirement. 

Although we anticipate no difficulties in achieving our authorized officer end 
strength, we do once again foresee a problem in satisfying our requirements. This 
is principally due to the outdated grade tables of the Defense Officer Promotion 
Management Act (DOPMA) which artificially constrains the number of field grade 
officers that the services are authorized. Enacted in 1981, the tables were con- 
structed using requirements and retention rates experienced at that time and fail 
to account for subsequent force structure changes and increased field grade officer 
requirements incurred as a result of congressional legislation such as the Gold- 
water-Nichols Defense Reorganization Act (1986) and the Defense Acquisition 
Workforce Improvement Act (1990). These significant changes render the tables to- 
tally in adequate to meet national defense and service needs. Left unchecked, in- 
creases to promotion timing and a continued disparity between authorizations and 
requirements will result. The 103rd Congress did grant the Marine Corps temporary 
grade table relief through fiscal year 1997. This temporary relief, however, ad- 
versely affects the service's ability to forecast for and fund various manpower pro- 
grams and requirements in the future. Assignments to joint billets, augmentation, 
accession and training plans, promotion plans, and funding for these programs or 
requirements are all affected by increases in field grade authorizations. Permanent 
grade table relief is needed to eliminate the uncertainty associated with temporary 
increases in field grade authorizations. With OSD, we plan to present a comprehen- 
sive proposal for permanent grade-table adjustments, which will incorporate all 
services within the forthcoming months. Let me reassure you that any increases in 
field grade authorizations will not increase our officer end strength or affect the Ma- 
rine Corps' lean officer-to-enlisted ratio (1:8.7). 

The Marine Corps continually strives to make headway against pilot shortages. 
There is no shortage of applicants to become aviators, but retaining trained aviators 
remains a problem. Aviation Career Incentive Pay (ACIP) and Aviation Continu- 
ation Pay (ACP) appear to be aiding our retention efforts. Improved continuation 
rates, however, have not compensated for low retention in previous years. It will 
take time to overcome the low rates of the past. Increased pilot retention appears 
to be a result of ACP and the slump in airline hiring experienced during the last 
few years. Airline hiring is beginning to pick up, however, as evidenced by the 6,000 
commercial pilots hired in calendar year 1994. The decrease in pilot retention expe- 
rienced in fiscal year 1994 is probably attributable to this hiring surge. Since Ma- 
rine pilots continue to be attracted to these overtures, short term ACP remains the 
most judicious option for allowing us to more effectively shape our aviation force. 
To summarize, we have reached our steady-state end strength and our Officer Force 
Management priority is shifting to balance a smaller Officer Corps by grade and 
skill. Our two most pressing issues are the DOPMA Permanent Grade Relief and 
continued funding oi aviator incentives. The temporary DOPMA grade relief and 
your continued support of funding aviator incentives will give us the force manage- 
ment tools to better manage and shape our Officer Corps, in the coming years. 

Enlisted Force Management 

Having achieved our prescribed base force level at the end of fiscal year 1994, we 
have shifted our focus from meeting end strength goals to satisfying the grade and 
skill requirements of our force. We will rely heavily on our Enlisted Career Force 
Controls (ECFC) Program to manage this. 



57 

The ECFC Program is a comprehensive package of policies that is designed to 
shape our inventory of marines by grade and occupational specialty to meet pre- 
scribed requirements, while striving to provide an equitable promotion opportunity 
for all Marines. We accomplish this by actively managing promotion and retention 
of our enlisted marines. The retention and promotion policies of the ECFC are de- 
signed to allow us to retain and promote only quality marines. 

Part of the ECFC Program is our First-Term Alignment Plan (FTAP). The FTAP 
ensures that only Marines with skills necessary to meet our career force require- 
ments are allowed to reenlist. Marines otherwise eligible for reenlistment whose 
skill is not needed by the career force are encouraged to make a lateral move to 
a new skill. For those who don't reenlist, we encourage continuing their career in 
the USMC Reserves. In fiscal year 1994, we met 99.99 percent of our reenlistment 
requirement. Because we were short 188 reenlistments in 78 occupational special- 
ties, however, we ended up with a 95.23 percent fill mix, by skill. This is a true 
testament to the effectiveness of our program. 

In fiscal year 1992, significant refinements were made to the ECFC Program. 
These changes included the establishment of variable promotion opportunities based 
on individual skill promotion tempo, and an up-or-out promotion policy for enlisted 
marines in the grades of E-5, E-7, E-8, and E-9. These refinements enhanced our 
ability to ensure the time-in-service goals for each grade are met. During fiscal year 
1994, another refinement was made to the up or-out promotion policy. Staff ser- 
geants (E-6) who twice fail selection for promotion, will be separated at the end of 
their current enlistment contract. Staff sergeants passed for promotion the second 
time in 1996 will be the first marines separated under this new policy. This policy 
change will significantly improve promotion tempo for marines in the grades of ser- 
geant and below, while still providing an average promotion opportunity of 75 per- 
cent to gunnery sergeant (E-7). 

Due to our aggressive force management actions, the marine's time-in-grade de- 
creased by 12 percent last year. We will continue to seek new and innovative ways 
to improve the quality of our enlisted force, while providing enhanced career oppor- 
tunities for all marines. 

Civilian Work Force 

Our civilian employees are an integral part of the Marine Corps' Total Force. 
With an active duty end strength of 174,000, the need to maintain sufficient civilian 
structure within our supporting establishment becomes critical. I believe our civil- 
ians are at an irreducible level. When compared to the rest of the Department of 
Defense our ratio of civilian employees-to-military is nearly l-to-10 compared to 1- 
to-2 for DOD overall. Civilian personnel are essential in supporting our operating 
forces. Right now, I believe that we have a good mix of Active, Reserve, and civilian 
personnel. Reducing any or shifting resources from one to another will shift the bal- 
ance and be disproportionate to our needs. 

The Marine Corps civilian manpower program was authorized an end strength of 
21,974 in fiscal year 1990. The fiscal year 1996/97 President's Budget requests an 
authorized strength of 18,221 in fiscal year 1996. Were it not for marginal increases 
to our program to satisfy emerging Quality of Life requirements such as Child Care, 
Family Service Centers, Family Advocacy and Transition Assistance Programs, as 
well as dealing withpressing environmental concerns, our civilian reductions would 
exceed 20 percent. This significant loss of resources without a commensurate loss 
of functions has proven to be a considerable challenge to our base and station com- 
manders. 

Perhaps the greatest contribution our civilians make lies in the realm of providing 
continuity. They are placed in key billets of responsibility in our supporting estab- 
lishment, allowing us to keep more marines in the operating forces. Marine Corps 
civilian end strength, as reflected in the fiscal years 1996/97 OSD budget, remains 
relatively constant with only minor programmed reductions through fiscal year 
2001. These out-year reductions are associated with base closures, headquarters 
staff, and DOD consolidations. They will require us to prioritize functions and elimi- 
nate or transfer functions for which sufficient resources are not available. 

We have changed the way we manage our civilian resources in fiscal year 1995 
from the management-to-payroll (MTP) method of accounting to that of full-time 
equivalent (FTE) ceilings. This change requires a complete shift in management phi- 
losophies. Under FTE ceilings, availability of payroll dollars is no longer the govern- 
ing criterion in managing our civilian work force. Rather, our commanders are now 
restricted to managing by budgeted work years. This greatly limits the flexibility 
of our work force to quickly adjust to and meet the critical, unprogrammed, require- 
ments of our operating forces. The Federal Workforce Restructuring Act of 1994 
needs to be amended to exempt Department of Defense from the Full-Time Equiva- 



58 

lent (FTE) ceilings. I believe that this Act was not intended for the Departments 
of Defense. The Department was already in the midst of downsizing when the law 
was enacted. We are working with the Department of Defense to find a solution for 
this problem. 

The Marine Corps' civilian manpower authorizations approved in the current 
budget depict an extraordinarily lean program. Reductions incurred since fiscal year 
1990 have left our traditionally austere work force "one deep" in many positions. 
Recent experience suggests that when one of these civilian employees leave, the cor- 
porate knowledge ancTexpertise leave with them. Continued erosion of this experi- 
ence base must t>e stopped. To minimize these effects, we continually scrutinize our 
civilian work force, seeking to maximize the efficiency and effectiveness of our lim- 
ited assets. 

The Marine Corps can ill-afford to absorb additional cuts to our civilian manpower 
program. Any additional reductions, coupled with the 19 percent reduction already 
described, would surely compromise the readiness posture of our Corps. 

OVERCOMING POTENTIAL RECRUITING SHORTFALLS 

Although pressure on our recruiting program and recruiters remains unabated 
and challenges have grown, there is reason for some optimism. I am pleased to re- 
port that we met our qualitative and quantitative accession goals for fiscal year 
1994. 

Indicative of continuing difficulties, however, the Marine Corps along with the 
other services missed fiscal year 1994s contracting goal. Contracting serves as the 
most important measure of future recruiting success. If we fill delayed entry pools 
today, we will meet tomorrow's accession requirements. Significantly, our records 
since 1980 show that this is the first time the Marine Corps fell short of its annual 
contracting goal. Through the first quarter of fiscal year 1995, while each of the 
services met their shipping goal; they struggled to meet their requirements for new 
enlistment contracts unsuccessfully. This ailemma is symptomatic of a tough re- 
cruiting environment. My concern is future year recruiting when each of the serv- 
ices will be seeking increased accessions. 

By last year's congressional testimony and the Deputy Secretary of Defense's Sen- 
ior Panel on Recruiting, talk of the difficulties has emerged from the confinement 
of recruiting offices and headquarters conference rooms. As a result, the Marine 
Corps and the other services benefited from Congress': (1) elimination of the legis- 
lated 10 percent reduction in recruiters; (2) fiscal year 1995 budgetary plus-up for 
recruiting and advertising programs; and (3) passing a stateside cost oi living allow- 
ance (COLA). Recruiting duty remains arduous. The stateside COLA will help re- 
cruiters and their families (as well as other servicemen and women) who must cope 
with living in high-cost areas away from the advantages of on-base support. 

We appreciate these congressional actions. At the same time, however, challenges 
crowd the horizon. Recruiting missions begin to rebound from the artificially low 
levels during downsizing. By fiscal year 1996, accession missions jump dramatically 
for all the services. As compared with fiscal year 1994, Marine Corps requirements 
increase by 9 percent in fiscal year 1996, and 14 percent in fiscal year 1997. Acces- 
sion requirements have increased for a variety of reason, but primarily because the 
Marine Corps has reached its steady state end strength. At this point, downsizing 
is complete and accession requirements must increase to maintain a constant 
strength. 

Meanwhile, missed contracting goals create a predicament. To continue meeting 
accession goals in fiscal year 1995 the Marine Corps must rely more heavily on re- 
cruiting from the tough direct market, i.e. qualified prospects who are willing to 
commence active duty right away. At the same time, we must rebuild our Delayed 
Entry Program pool to gird for the higher recruiting missions in fiscal year 1996 
and fiscal year 1997. 

Our Fall 1994 Awareness and Attitude Study provides insights on America's 
youth. Advertising awareness for the Marine Corps is at its lowest level since 1989. 
This is a likely result of the deep reductions in advertising funding since fiscal year 
1990. Lack of interest in the military overall remains at the high levels reached 2 
years ago. The number of young Americans describing themselves as simply "not in- 
terested" in military service has increased significantly from a year ago; yet four out 
of five of those surveyed have a favorable opinion of the military in general. 

With peacekeeping operations like Somalia and Haiti, however, they sense an un- 
certainty about the future role of the military. In fact, involvement in Haiti made 
them less (or much less likely) to consider joining. Further, a full 30 percent felt 
that the value and prestige of the military has suffered. Among prospects, almost 
half still feel that the military is hiring less due to defense cuts and base closures. 



59 

Furthermore, after hearing about the AmeriCorps concept (National Service Plan), 
47 percent of prospects said they would consider it. This represents a greater level 
of interest than that enjoyed by any of the services. Fifty-six percent felt that the 
National Service Plan and other programs were better ways to get money for college 
than the military. Prospects, informed about it, said they would definitely look into 
the National Service. This indicates that prospects with some interest in the mili- 
tary are open to other alternatives. This is especially true as the unemployment 
rates have dropped. Low unemployment makes recruiting especially difficult. 

At the same time, we are stepping up our efforts to recruit greater numbers of 
minority men and women. Our Nation's growing racial diversity compels us to im- 
plement recruiting strategies which will help make our officer and enlisted ranks 
as representative of America as possible. The number of young men and women who 
are minority in America will grow significantly. Consequently, our commitment will 
require continued focus and new initiatives to meet with success. Our task is for- 
midable because propensity to join has declined unevenly among minority groups. 

Similarly, the expanding role of women in the military underscores the need to 
rethink the fundamentals of recruiting women and more of them. The Marine Corps 
is increasing opportunities for woman. From fiscal year 1994 to fiscal year 1999, 
Marine Corps women accession requirements rise by 80 percent. 

The recruiting challenges we face are numerous. Nonetheless, with a trimmer Ma- 
rine Corps, and continual technology advances, our marines must remain talented 
and versatile. Consequently, quality recruits are more critical than ever. High qual- 
ity recruits mean better performance and less attrition. They improve unit readi- 
ness. High quality recruits make a wise investment simply because of the cost-effec- 
tive nature of their service. We recognize the false economy of lowering quality 
standards. As a priority matter, therefore, we will maintain our standards. 

Despite the many challenges, we have good reason for optimism. Recruiting dif- 
ficulties are gaining attention and Congress has been supportive of our needs. More- 
over, between now and the year fiscal year 2000 the size of the youth population 
begins to grow steadily, albeit very slowly. Most importantly, the American people 
continue to value what the Marine Corps represents. 

With their support and through our durable image, the Marine Corps will con- 
tinue to attract sufficient numbers of high quality young Americans willing to serve 
their country as U.S. marines. 

To ensure the necessary flow of quality recruits, we must maintain a solid team 
of recruiters. We need to work on arming them with more active public support. By 
this I mean positive endorsements of military service by community, State, and na- 
tional leaders. Our recruiters also need the resources including the necessary adver- 
tising resources which will enable them accomplish their mission with a reasonable 
amount of effort and a modest quality of life. 

The Marine Corps most potent answer to an unpredictable and potentially turbu- 
lent world is still the individual Marine. A top priority, therefore, is to continue to 
recruit many of the Nation's finest young men and women. To do so, the Marine 
Corps remains committed to strong and adequately resourced recruiting programs. 

QUALITY OF LIFE (QOL) INITIATIVES 

The Marine Corps, like its sister services, is adjusting to operating in a new envi- 
ronment — an environment characterized by sustained world-wide, forward deployed, 
requirements; diminished resources; and a host of challenges spawned by a new 
world order. 

The challenges we face as an institution are not limited to the technical or tactical 
facets of our profession of arms. Rather, they transcend the battlefield to include 
emerging social changes within our Armed Forces. As previously indicated, in 1994, 
we achieved our final force reduction goals rendering the leanest Marine Corps that 
this Nation has seen in over 30 years. At the same time, we have witnessed the 
continuing growth in the number of military family members. Ten years ago, mili- 
tary family members began to out-number our active duty end strength. This trend 
continues today. We currently have nearly 190,000 military family members. This 
has, of course, increased the demand for services and support the likes of which we 
have not seen, and for which we were admittedly ill-prepared. 

We have taken great strides to meet the needs of our marines and their families, 
but concede that we can continue to improve. By some comparisons, we are behind 
our sister services. However, the Commandant recognizes this and is thankful for 
your initial support to our QOL upgrades, and those of the Secretary of Defense. 
As a further measure, he has commissioned a special task force to recommend to 
him a strategic (5 year) plan for the future. This task force — "MARINES 200 1-A 
QUALITY LIFE" is working on a plan that will continue to capitalize on the current 



60 

momentum and carry us into the next century. We have committed scarce oper- 
ational dollars to ensure our quality of life programs provide the most essential 
services, and we balance very carefully any requirement to divert additional re- 
sources to these deserving programs without compromising readiness. As such, we 
find ourselves dependent upon you for much needed help to close the gap and im- 
prove the quality of support for our marines and their families. 

The Marine Corps recently completed a military member quality of life survey. 
In it, we learned something we already intuitively knew — that our marines quality 
of life perception has behavioral consequences in terms of duty performance, per- 
sonal readiness and reenlistment intentions. We also learned that our most junior 
marines (EI— 3 and below) who make up about half the Corps were the least satisfied 
with their quality of life. They told us that they preferred to "hang-out". Reading 
and listening to music, interacting with significant others, and working out were 
their favorite past-times. As such, comfortable, private living quarters and quality 
recreation facilities are very important to them. Our more senior married force is 
also looking for quality housing and programs that support a safe and stable family 
environment. 

Some of our immediate concerns focus on reducing family violence and alcohol 
abuse within the Marine Corps, providing adequate funding for morale, welfare and 
recreation (MWR) programs, and providing quality, affordable child care for our ma- 
rines and civilian employees. Our major long-term concern is with improving the 
?uality of our housing for both single and married marines. While there are others, 
will specifically address these concerns in my remarks. 

Before I do, however, I want to stress that the most important aspect of quality 
of life is to bring marines home safely from the battlefield. The way to do this is 
through tough training, equipment that works, and quality marines who can think 
on their feet. So, as I point out to you the things we are doing and the resources 
we need to improve and sustain our programs, the dollars to fund them cannot come 
at the expense of currently financed readiness, recruiting, and equipment programs. 

Family Advocacy 

Family violence is clearly a negative and destructive phenomenon. Its adverse ef- 
fects extend well beyond the walls of the family unit into the work place and the 
surrounding community. The shattering effects of such violence compromise not only 
family integrity, but also degrade our military readiness. Dealing with these inci- 
dents drains organizational resources and absorbs much of a unit's leadership's time 
and energy. For these, and other equally compelling reasons, the Marine Corps has 
initiated a "Coordinated Community Response" (CCR) to deal with family violence 
episodes. As its name suggests, this initiative stresses a coordinated community ap- 
proach to helping marines and their families. The emphasis is on proactive commu- 
nity involvement and shared responsibility among military/civilian law en 
forcement, judicial and medical agencies in responding to family violence. Our 18 
Family Service Centers located at our major installations operate our family vio- 
lence program using the CCR approach. We hope to stem the tide of family violence 
through education and a concerted leadership effort. We are getting the message 
across that such behavior is not acceptable and is not in concert with Marine Corps 
core values and standards. 

Alcohol Abuse 

The abuse of alcohol is without a doubt a destructive force throughout our ranks. 
It not only impacts on the individual marine, but extends into that Marine's unit, 
family, and community. The combined effect degrades military readiness and places 
an extra strain on organizational resources which must be committed to overcoming 
the problems which result from alcohol abuse. 

As a result of alcohol abuse and its wide-ranging impact, the Marine Corps has 
initiated programs to educate our marines on personal responsibility and to train 
our leaders to recognize early warning signs and symptoms of developing alcohol 
problem. Through our health promotion program, Semper Fit 2000, we are empha- 
sizing the advantages of a healthy lifestyle, which includes preventing alcohol 
abuse. For those in need of help, we offer comprehensive outpatient treatment serv- 
ices in coordination with various counseling resources at our 18 Substance Abuse 
Counseling Centers, located at each major installation. 

We will continue to strive to eliminate the abuse of alcohol and numerous prob- 
lems that result. All marines must learn that alcohol abuse is inconsistent with our 
core values and will not be tolerated in the Marine Corps. 

Morale, Welfare, and Recreation 

The role played by Morale, Welfare and Recreation (MWR) in providing quality 
of life cannot be overstated. MWR programs and activities touch all marines and 



61 

their families in one way or another. From the libraries used to support off-duty 
education to intramural sports competitions which support physical training and 
unit camaraderie, MWR helps Marines' well-being. The mission is accomplished 
through the delivery of over 20 major quality of life program components within 
MWR, including community, individual recreation skill, food and beverage, and re- 
sale programs. The variety of Drograms under the MWR umbrella is continually re- 
viewed to ensure marine satisfaction and mission contribution. 

To further define marines' needs and desires for MWR activities, we conducted 
numerous customer research projects in 1994. The results are being used to deter- 
mine a new direction for our traditional activities, such as Enlisted Clubs. Most im- 
portantly, we completed a baseline review of all MWR facilities to determine re- 
quirements for renovation, improvement, and new construction. This is particularly 
important to young single marines who have already identified in our 2 year study 
that they want state of the art fitness centers because working out is their greatest 
leisure activity. With a Corps composed of 49 the percent lance corporals and below, 
we must address these requirements. 

The completion of our Marine Corps MWR Strategic Plan this past year, and its 
initiation in 1995, represents an important milestone. Each commands MWR pro- 
gram will work as part of an integrated system to support the accomplishment of 
seven strategic goals that benefit all marines. These goals focus on the themes of 
restructuring, program improvements, capitalization, resourcing, information sys- 
tems, human resources, and image enhancement. Our restructuring initiative will 
focus on deleting inefficient and redundant functions through regionalization, cen- 
tralization, elimination, or outsourcing to maintain our efficiency and competitive- 
ness. 

While the challenges are many, the future is brighter in 1995, and the years be- 
yond, due to the renewed funding commitment of the Secretary of Defense's Quality 
of Life Initiative. By bringing the Corps' MWR appropriated funding on par with 
the other services, significant improvements will be achieved. Continued improve- 
ments in the timeliness of our services and management decision-making processes, 
and significant capital investment in equipment, facilities renovation, and construc- 
tion will improve our program for marines and their families. 

Child Care 

The relative importance of child care services has grown markedly in recent years 
as our family member population has surpassed that of active duty members. On 
October 1, 1994, we established a Children's Programs Branch within our Human 
Resources Division to provide oversight for Marine Corps Child Development Pro- 
grams. Our goal is to assist Marine Corps personnel in balancing the competing de- 
mands of family life and mission accomplishment. We also hope that these efforts 
will improve the economic viability of young families. 

In fiscal year 1994, our Child Development Programs provided access to 10,000 
child care spaces serving children, ages 6 weeks through 12 years, in full-day, part- 
day, and hourly care programs. Our goals for fiscal year 1995 are to increase the 
availability of services and improve the delivery of full-day and part-day care for in- 
fant/pretoddlers and school-age children and hourly care for eligible children of all 
ages. We have funded 12,000 spaces in fiscal year 1995 and 14,000 in fiscal year 
1996. The Marine Corps child care space requirement is 27,700. The Department 
of Defense goal is to fund 65 percent of the identified need or 18,000 spaces. We 
currently have an unfunded requirement for an additional 4,000 child care spaces. 

Housing Programs 

Food, clothing, and shelter have long been considered the most fundamental of 
human needs and are increasingly ascribed to the concept of human dignity. Our 
marines rightly expect that, even at the most rudimentary level, we will provide for 
these needs. In the past, housing has often been overlooked, yet is a basic contribu- 
tor to the quality of life equation. 

Bachelor Quarters 

Congress has expressed a desire to ensure that single service members are being 

grovided with living conditions that are on par with their married counterparts, 
qually, our QOL study clearly shows that single marines expect attractive, com- 
fortable, and private quarters (barracks). The Commandant of the Marine Corps ap- 
proved the Bachelor Housing Campaign Plan in June 1994 that strives to upgrade 
bachelor housing as part of the overall effort to improve the quality of life for our 
enlisted marines. The plan addresses point-in-time goals for maintenance and re- 
pair, new construction, revitalization and utilization. Beginning with fiscal year 
1994, the plan strives to: 
a. Obtain maximum utilization/occupancy of adequate barracks space; 



90-165 96-3 



62 

b. Revitalize (repair, environmentally abate, and modernize) man-spaces through 
fiscal year 1999; 

c. Eliminate maintenance backlogs; 

d. Reduce deficits; and 

e. Provide personnel support equipment and amenities for individual rooms, com- 
mon areas et cetera, that meet the current standards. 

In addition, the Marine Corps is participating with the other services to deter- 
mine a uniform barracks standard for new construction and rehabilitation projects. 

Family Housing 

As with barracks funding, military family housing competes with other Marine 
Corps priorities for funding. Despite their relative importance to the quality of life 
equation, family housing projects may not ultimately rank among overall top budget 
priorities for a command dealing with fiscal constraints, a Reductions on the mar- 
gin, such as cuts in minor maintenance and repair, only exacerbates the problem. 
Lack of funding in the near term results in continued degradation to the point at 
which they become major repair projects. 

Despite this rather candid outlook, there are some positive developments on the 
horizon. First, as with the Bachelor Housing Program, the Commandant of the Ma- 
rine Corps also published a Family Housing Campaign Plan in June of last year. 
It sets as its priorities maintaining and modernizing our current inventory; elimi- 
nating our deficit; building support facilities to enhance quality of life; and improv- 
ing housing referral. 

Second, the Marine Corps has made a conscious effort to support this plan as evi- 
denced by our reallocation of resources to increase our fiscal year 1996 family hous- 
ingbudget by 16 percent. 

Third, as a result of OSD plus-ups, the fiscal year 1996 President's Budget sub- 
mission includes provisions for the construction of 69 junior enlisted family housing 
units at Camp Pendleton at a cost of $10 million. Similarly, the fiscal year 1997 
President's Budget submission will provide for an additional 102 new junior enlisted 
and 31 senior enlisted family housing units at Camp Pendleton, helping alleviate 
the critical housing shortage experienced there. This is particularly significant since 
the Marine Corps defines junior enlisted as military members in pay grades E-5 
and below (in contrast to the Navy definition of E-6 and below). This is the popu- 
lation least able to absorb the high living costs incurred in the surrounding commu- 
nities when base housing is not available. 

Historically, the Marine Corps has had to make difficult choices between oper- 
ational readiness and quality of life programs in order to fund the latter adequately. 
These choices have, in some categories, kept us below par in per capita spending 
for our support programs when compared to the other services. Secretary Perry's 
initiative to increase quality of life funding for all service members will certainly 
continue to improve conditions for our marines and their families, but as the gap 
between requirements and resources widens, we recognize that future programming 
tradeoffs may continue to be necessary.' Our readiness and operational responsive- 
ness remain our number one priority. We cannot and will not "mortgage the future" 
of our operational forces in order to disproportionately increase support to our qual- 
ity of life programs. Operational necessity precludes immediate additional invest- 
ment in some of these well-deserving programs. Our critical core readiness capabili- 
ties, which define us as a Service, will remain our resourcing priority. 

As I have previously noted, the Marine Corps has recently identified military 
member quality of life needs in an exhaustive 2 year study. We are currently re- 
viewing the results of that survey to develop the overarching strategic plan men- 
tioned earlier which will satisfy those needs. I think it important to note that our 
long-range, or, strategic plan will fold-in all of our already standing QOL initiatives 
and campaign plans. We Delieve our efforts have both life and texture, and that they 
will result in the improvements all of us are looking for. Most importantly, our stra- 
tegic plan will also allow us to accurately and credibly reflect the needs of our ma- 
rines and their families and to realistically prioritize those needs in our budget re- 
quests. 

In recent years, the themes of "Relevant, Ready, and Capable" and "America's 
911" force have defined the focus of effort of your Corps. The Sergeant Major of the 
Marine Corps announced for the Commandant in testimony before Congress on Feb- 
ruary 2, a third-theme, one that emphasizes the priority we put in improving and, 
then sustaining the quality of life of our Marines and their families. "Marines 
2001 — A Quality Life is more than a slogan — it is a commitment. We believe it 
complements the readiness and responsiveness which have proven to be the worth 
of the Corps. Moreover, it is the theme that will serve to guide our aggressive Qual- 
ity of Life programs that, I assure you, have the Commandant's full attention. 



63 

We are fully engaged and our focus is clear. No matter how dedicated we may 
be, however, our elForts mean little without your continued support. In addition to 
adequately funding our Quality of Life support programs, we need your strong sup- 

Kort in providing the funding necessary to properly maintain our facilities, and with 
IILCON dollars needed for barracks, family housing, gymnasiums, child develop- 
ment centers and libraries. 

MANAGING DIVERSITY 

From the standpoint of social change, the challenges of the future will not differ 
significantly from those of the recent past. Heightened awareness in the aftermath 
01 recent events involving issues of equal opportunity, gender parity, and sexual 
harassment have accentuated the need for reexamining our programs and policies 
to ensure that our people know and understand the Commandant's commitment to 
providing all marines the opportunity to realize their full potential in an environ- 
ment free from discrimination of any kind. To accomplish this wholesale assess- 
ment, the Commandant of the Marine Corps chartered a Quality Management 
Board (QMB) in July 1993 to analyze the processes by which we access, train, edu- 
cate, assign, augment, promote, and develop our officers, with an overarching goal 
of improving the opportunities for success of minorities and women in the Marine 
Corps. An outgrowth of the QMB's policy initiatives is a campaign plan that will 
execute and institutionalize its recommendations. The objective of our campaign 
plan is to focus our effort in three distinct, but related areas. First, we will make 
the officer corps reflective of our society by aggressively pursuing qualified minori- 
ties and women. Second, we will improve career development so that it broadens 
opportunities, and accurately and fairly measures the merit of each marine based 
on skill and experience. Finally, we will reinforce our commitment to equal oppor- 
tunity by ensuring that every marine is treated fairly and with respect that is incul- 
cated in our Core Values— COURAGE, HONOR, COMMITMENT. 

Our immediate concerns center on attracting greater numbers of minorities into 
our officer ranks and expanding opportunities for women and minorities. Our long 
term goal is to continue developing education programs which stress the importance 
of diversity. We have already taken great strides toward achieving the latter with 
the introduction of our "Team Marine" program, which institutionalizes diversity 
training throughout the Corps. We are working equally hard on developing racial 
and gender force diversity accession and distribution plans that provide equal oppor- 
tunity for women and minorities. Additionally, there are a host of other pilot pro- 
grams on the drawing board that we hope will further expand opportunities such 
as educating enlisted marines on available officer programs; developing centers of 
influence within minority communities; and reviewing successful corporate/service 
programs for applicability and relevance to Marine Corps goals and objectives. 

Several initiatives and events are slated during fiscal year 1995 to advance the 
Marine Corps' Equal Opportunity posture. A contract has been awarded to produce 
a Marine Corps Sexual Harassment/Discrimination Prevention Video that will be 
used when conducting our annual requisite training in this area. Another video is 
scheduled to be produced that explains the results of the Marine Corps Equal Op- 
portunity Survey, to give much needed feedback to the thousands of participants 
who completed the survey and the remainder of the Corps. An Equal Opportunity 
Advisor (EOA) training conference was conducted in January 1995, providing EOA's 
with up-to-date information briefs, survey results, and workshops relating to the 
Discrimination and Sexual Harassment (DASH) reporting system and the Marine 
Corps Command Assessment System (MCCAS). The conference brought together 
EOAs currently assigned to 22 Marine Corps bases and stations, augmenting their 
formal Defense Equal Opportunity Management Institute (DEOMI) training and 
keeping them abreast of the latest developments in the field. Finally, the Marine 
Corps has been designated as the lead agency for the 1995 National Association for 
the Advancement oi Colored People (NAACP) convention, which annually honors a 
government organization. We are honored to be designated lead agency and are al- 
ready preparing for the convention in July. 

RESERVE PARTICIPATION 

The Marine Corps has developed a well integrated Total Force that capitalizes on 
the strengths and contributions of its Active, Reserve, and civilian components. In 
both real world operations and exercises, Reserve elements have consistently dem- 
onstrated their ability to effectively augment and reinforce the Active component in 
both traditional and non-traditional missions. Marine Corps Reserve participation 
with their Active component counterparts in exercises conducted throughout the 
world have provided a range of training and self-evaluation opportunities covering 



64 

the spectrum from individual Marine war fighting skills to enhancing the deploy- 
ment capability of Marine Expeditionary Forces. They have also provided opportuni- 
ties for Reserve Marines to train in joint arenas, in some cases. 
We currently have over 2,285 marines on active duty to support our Reserve com- 

Sonent under the Active Reserve (AR) program, formerly known as the Full-Time 
upport program. In fiscal year 1994, we took a significant step to improve this pro- 
gram by making it a career program, greatly enhancing stability, credibility and 
f>rofessionalism. Marines on the Active Reserve program perform a wide variety of 
unctions, from developing policy, performing administrative and recruiting func- 
tions, to provide training ana logistical support for our Reserve component. 

Our current AR structure consists of 2,559 billets or 274 billets more than our 
current AR end strength authorization. An additional 816 billets are needed to ade- 
quately support our Selected Reserve Force of 42,000. The majority of these billets 
will replace the Active component billets eliminated during our recent drawdown. 
Subject to approval, we plan to phase the additional 1,090 billets over 3 years at 
a cost of $7.3 million in fiscal year 1996, $23 million in fiscal year 1997, and $41 
million in fiscal year 1998. These numbers are for your information and are not a 
formal request. I strongly believe that the funding of these additional Active Re- 
serve billets is a good investment and will further enhance our Selective Reserve 
Force. 

An important accomplishment in support of Reserve participation has been the 
fielding of the Marine Corps Total Force System (MCTFS). MCTFS is our inte- 

K-ated, automated information system for personnel and pay functions for all Active, 
eserve, and retired marines. Completed in late 1994, it allows for the seamless mo- 
bilization and deployment of our Reserve marines as well as retirees, by using a sin- 
gle integrated system that works the same for both Active and Reserve units. 

Recently, over 450 citizen-marines from Marine Forces Reserve volunteered for ac- 
tive duty at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba in support of Operation Sea Signal. With over 
14,000 Haitians and almost 30,000 Cubans in refugee camps at Guantanamo Bay, 
Marine Forces Reserve provided three separate increments of provisional trifle com- 
panies (task -organized) over a 90 day period to assist in providing security for 
Cuban and Haitian migrants. In addition, reservists from the 4th Service Support 
Group and 8th Tank Battalion volunteered to provide equipment maintenance sup- 
port for Active component units which deployed for Operation Sea Signal. The con- 
tributions of these Reserve marines proved invaluable as their Active component 
counterparts, already heavily committed, also faced the increased likelihood of com- 
bat operations in both Haiti and Southwest Asia at the time. 

We are justifiably proud of the demonstrated versatility and proven effectiveness 
of our Reserve program. Only frequent participation in realistic training exercises 
and actual contingency operations, however, can provide these marines the range 
of experience in conditions necessary to hone their individual and unit warfighting 
capabilities. It is crucial that we continue to provide them these opportunities, espe- 
cially participation in live-fire combined arms exercises, if we are to expect them to 
effectively perform their role as part of our integrated Total Force. 

CONCLUSION 

The Marine Corps is the first service to reach its Bottom-Up Review Base Force. 
Retaining the end strength of this force of 174,000 active duty marines, 42,000 Se- 
lective Reservist, and 18,000 civilians is critical to meeting the requirements the 
Nations expects us to fulfill. We are now focusing our effort to maintain, shape, and 
sustain this force. I see three challenges facing the Corps in the next fiscal year. 

The first challenge is in recruiting. Our recruiters are in an uphill fight to meet 
the tremendous accession goals place on them to sustain our force. They are forced 
to do this in a very tight recruiting market. We believe that there are still bright, 
patriotic young Americans who will respond to the call for selfless service to their 
country, however, finding them has become more difficult. With needed support, 
adequate resources and flexibility to use them, the Marine Corps will overcome the 
difficulties and meet its quality accession goals. I also request your continued sup- 
port in encouraging our national leaders to publicly endorse military service as a 
noble and viable profession. For many years now, the subliminal message sent to 
our youth was that the military was "going out of business" and that there was little 
career opportunity. With your help, I would like to change that message and get 
the word out that we are open for business and there is plenty of opportunity in 
Marine Corps for anyone who has a desire to succeed. 

Our second challenge is in diversifying the Corps so that it better reflects society 
at-large. I want to assure you that the Marine Corps is firmly committed to this 
goal, especially in our officer corps. However, we will not reduce our quality stand- 



65 

ards to obtain numbers. We plan to aggressively recruit qualified minorities and 
women into our ranks. We will ensure that every marine is treated with the dignity 
and respect they deserve, and they will be judged on their character, performance 
and achievements — not by race or gender. 

Our third challenge is to improve and enhance the quality of life of our marines. 
The Commandant has charged me with this formidable task. I have gathered ex- 
perts from Headquarters, Marine Corps and the Marine Corps Combat Development 
Center in Quantico, Virginia to study and develop a strategic plan for the Marine 
Corps by the end of this summer. The cornerstone document will be the Quality of 
Life Study mentioned earlier. I suspect that additional funding will be needed to 
properly maintain, replace, or build new facilities; such as barracks, family housing, 
gymnasiums, child development centers, and libraries. Please understand that the 
Marine Corps cannot enhance these Quality of Life Programs at the expense of 
readiness and much needed investment programs. 

I would also like to stress the importance of and to solicit your support for a cou- 
ple of items. The first is the Aviator's Incentive Program. We never have a shortage 
of applicants to become aviators, but retaining them remains a problem. I believe 
that your continued support of Aviation Career Incentive Pay (ACIP) and Aviation 
Continuation Pay (ACP) will provide the necessary incentive to retain experienced 
aviators in the Marine Corps. As an infantry officer, I can't tell you how good it feels 
to be able to get bombs on target where and when you want them. This can only 
be accomplished by experienced aviators with an appreciation for the marines on the 
ground. 

The second is our effort with the other services and the Department of Defense 
to develop a provision to amend the Federal Workforce Restructuring Act of 1994 
to exempt the Department of Defense from the Full-Time Equivalent (FTE) ceiling. 
We need this relief to afford base and station commanders the flexibility they need 
to properly sustain our operating forces. The current law fails to provide any provi- 
sion for emergency unprogrammed requirements. This poses a significant hardship 
on our commanders and forces them to turn away valid work load requirements for 
which funding is available. We seek your assistance in supporting this initiative. 

Finally, I would say to you that the first tenet taught to every marine is "to ac- 
complish the mission and take care of your Marines. I intend to follow this tenet 
during my tenure as the Deputy Chiei of Staff of Manpower and Reserve Affairs. 
My mission is to provide our field commanders with the most qualified and best 
trained marines possible. As the Quality of Life Spokesman for the Marine Corps, 
I will work very closely with you and the Department of Defense to improve living 
conditions for our marines and their families. 

Mr. Chairman, there are certain fundamental truths of which the Marine Corps 
is well aware. Our reason for being is to fight our Nation's wars and win! Equally, 
Americans expect their marines to be a ready force, capable of performing whatever 
is required to protect our national interests. The Corps must always be the most 
ready when the Nation is generally least ready. The programs, plans, and initiatives 
that I have outlined are designed to hone and refine a Total Force Marine Corps 
that is the epitome of readiness and warfighting. 

Subject to your questions, this concludes my remarks. 

Senator Coats. Thank you, General Christmas. 

Senator Byrd, I turn to you for your statement and whatever 
questions you might have for the panel. 

Senator Byrd. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I will begin by congratulating you, Senator Coats, on assuming 
the chairmanship of this subcommittee. I look forward to working 
with you as we progress through this session. 

I also welcome our distinguished witnesses. Collectively, you rep- 
resent the interests of approximately 1.5 million active duty serv- 
icemen and women, almost 1 million members of the selected re- 
serve, around 900,000 civilian employees of the Department of De- 
fense, as well as the interests of family members and the retired 
community. 

I have an especially keen interest in ensuring that our men and 
women in uniform can enjoy a reasonably comfortable quality of 
life and that they have trie resources and training necessary to 



66 

maintain readiness and to perform their duties to the best of their 
abilities. 

The people of West Virginia have had a long and distinguished 
record of service to their country. In the defense of our Nation, 
West Virginia has played a role far outweighing its proportion 
among the States. 

In World War II, West Virginia ranked fifth among the States in 
the percentage of its eligible male population participating. It 
ranked first among the States in participating in the Korean war 
and second among the States in the percentage of its eligible male 
population participating in the Vietnam war. 

West Virginians have continued that tradition, both in the regu- 
lar service and in reserve units, serving in Somalia and the Persian 
Gulf war and in peaceful nations around the world. 

It is easy to say that people are our most important asset. It is 
very easy to rely on buzzwords like quality of life. I hear those 
words around here a good bit, Mr. Chairman. Senators talk a lot 
about quality of life. 

I have always thought that more important than the quality of 
life is the quality of our work. We buy into this. If it means long 
hours, fine. That is part of what we buy into. 

It is much more difficult to shoulder the tremendous responsibil- 
ities with which you have been entrusted. The American people 
look to you to develop, implement and maintain the programs that 
effectively recruit and retain the quality individuals that our Na- 
tion deserves to have serving in the military profession. 

In that light, the challenges you face are daunting. They are 
even more difficult today, because you are also being asked to be 
better and more frugal while having fewer resources available. 

As we focus on the active duty manpower, personnel and com- 
pensation programs, we have to Be mindful of the need to balance 
the requirements of combat readiness with programs consistent 
with our budgeting parities. In doing so, we must not break faith 
with the courageous men and women serving in the military and 
their families. 

So today we look to you, who are charged with overseeing the 
manpower and personnel programs of the military services, to ad- 
vise us regarding the right combination of programs to meet the 
challenges of the post-Cold War era. 

Now let me ask you about an article that recently appeared in 
The Washington Post. This article is titled, "Clear and Present Dia- 
pers." It appeared in the March 12, 1995 edition. 

The sub-heading reads as follows, 'The Pentagon's costly pro- 
family military philosophy." I will read excerpts from it. The article 
is by David Evans. 

"'This new policy will cost the Navy an aircraft carrier,' groused 
my friend, a retired rear admiral. The subject of his ire was a 
month old directive signed off by Navy Secretary John Dalton, 
which proclaimed that pregnancy and parenthood are compatible 
with a naval career. 

"Over the next 6 years, the Pentagon will spend nearly $3 billion 
improving family housing for married troops and day care centers 
for their kids. In the same 6-year period, about $7 billion will be 
sliced from key weapons programs to save money. 



67 

'The administration's fiscal 1996 budget continues these trends. 
Programs to support military families will consume more than $20 
billion, while troops are demobilized at the rate of some 1,500 per 
week, and new weapons programs are truncated. 

"It is a telling indication of priorities that for every new de- 
stroyer under construction this year and next, four new child care 
centers will be built." 

I am just skipping around. I will put the entire article in the 
record. 

"It is not an idea that has been warmly received in recent years, 
but perhaps the time has come to rethink our military's marital 
policies. Given the hypothetical choice between a trooper who re- 
quires a single bunk and a married one who needs the full array 
of family benefits, maybe the one who is single is the better buy 
in an era of ever tighter defense budgets. 

"The Marine Corps now spends more annually on family housing 
than on ammunition, $156 million versus $132,000, and more on 
child development and family centers than on repair parts, $32 
million versus about $30 million. 

"Alan Carlson, Director of the Center on the Family in America, 
in Rockford, Illinois, estimates that the total cost to support mili- 
tary dependents is about 10 percent of all defense dollars. 'When 
you subsidize something, you get more of it. The new policy will en- 
courage more single mothers in the Navy,' Donnolly said. 

"That is Elaine Donnolly, President of the Michigan-based Center 
for Military Readiness. Donnolly said, 'If the Republicans are going 
to increase money for things the military really needs to enhance 
readiness and to develop new weapons systems, then they have to 
look at these very expensive personnel items.' 

'The policies of yesteryear were not anti-family. On the contrary, 
they were intended to provide the incentives for service members 
to avoid having children out of wedlock and for them to defer mar- 
riage until they were more mature and on a more solid financial 
footing." 

Has each of you read this article? 

Mr. Pang. Yes, Senator, I believe we all have. 

Senator Byrd. All right. Let me just read from the article again. 

"Over the next 6 years, the Pentagon will spend about $3 billion 
to improve family housing and day care centers while cutting about 
$7 billion from key weapons programs. The Marine Corps annually 
spends more on family housing than on ammunition and more on 
family centers than on repair parts. And for every new destroyer 
built this year and next, four new day care centers will be opened." 

What are your personal views on the emphasis on family issues 
and related matters at a time when your services are struggling to 
apportion insufficient dollars between readiness and moderniza- 
tion? 

Mr. Pang. Senator, let me just take the first crack at that. You 
know, I think that what you find here is a reality of the all-volun- 
teer force. We went to an all-volunteer force in 1973, and we had 
to then compete with the private sector for recruits. 

Today over 60 percent of our force is married. In terms of the 
number of children, there are about 1.4 million children and de- 
pendents of military personnel. 



68 

And of that number, about 575,000 are between the ages of 1 and 
5. So we have abut 980,000 between the ages of 6 and 18. That is 
1.4 million children. That is a reality that we have to deal with. 

As a result of these demographics, providing care to these de- 
pendents, especially when members are deployed, consumes, as you 
point out, quite a sizable amount of the budget. 

Let me just turn to each one of my colleagues here and see what 
they have to say, sir. 

General Christmas. Well, Senator, since Mr. Evans is a former 
Marine, perhaps I should begin with this. 

First of all, sir, we recognize that there are certain fundamental 
truths, and those are, first of all, that our job is to fight our Na- 
tion's wars or do what our Nation needs us to do in the way of con- 
tingencies, to match whatever our national interests are, as deter- 
mined by you all. Readiness is the equation by which we do that. 
I mean, there is no two ways about it. It is what the American peo- 
ple expect of us. 

Well, if we look at our quality of life programs and initiatives, 
we realize that they must support readiness and warfighting. That 
is the tenet that we have to follow, and we understand that. If our 
focus equals upgraded quality, which in turn equals readiness, we 
must remember that there is a finite number of dollars out there. 
To be able to do both, we have to create a balance between the two, 
then we will have a successful program. 

The reason why quality of life is a readiness factor is not only 
as the Secretary has said, that we have a different force, but also 
it is the type force that is attracted to us. Quite frankly, quality 
of life is readiness because of what it means to a young Marine 
who is a deployer, someone that the Nation sends out continually. 
Twenty five thousand Marines are deployed as of this morning to 
the forward reaches of the world. If that young Marine is married 
and he in fact knows that his family is in a good, secure set of 
quarters, with family support arrangements around him, he does 
not become a casualty out there and does not have to come home 
for that family problem. If he is a young unmarried Marine, who, 
quite frankly, as our Commandant puts it so well, is in training, 
he picks up his lunch pail on Monday morning and comes home 
Friday afternoon. He needs to come home, or she needs to come 
home, to a barracks, a BEQ, which is comfortable, which is secure, 
which has a degree of privacy that young people wish and expect 
today, and that is attractive. We should not send those young men 
and women home to places we would not want to be. 

So quality of life is a readiness factor, as we prepare and train 
our forces and make them the best that we possibly can. So, it is 
important to us. 

General Boles. Sir, with regard to the Air Force, we look at this 
as starting off with buying the hardware and the force structure 
that is necessary to fight and to win against whatever the antici- 
pated threat would be. 

A key aspect of that is having the people to operate and to do 
that. And we cannot expect to operate the equipment that we have 
with a first-term, unmarried force that we would expect to stay 
with us for 20 years. 



69 

So we have to have a balance of career, airmen and officers and 
first-term airmen and officers. And we expect that the careerists, 
particularly, are likely to get married and have families. 

Those people tell us clearly that if we do not provide support for 
their families, they will not stay with us. They expect that, and I 
think we have to do it if we are going to retain the right kinds of 
people. 

We believe that we have worked toward the right balance in cur- 
rent readiness, modernization and in taking care of the people that 
we have on board. 

Now that is not to say that we would not love to have more 
money in each of those pots or in all of those pots. But we think 
we have about the right balance of existing funds at the present 
time and that taking care of the people is an essential element. 

Admiral Bowman. I think I am running out of good answers, be- 
cause General Christmas and General Boles have hit the nail on 
the head. Both have spoken of the balance of both assets and the 
mix of people for our services. 

I firmly believe that what we have today represents the strongest 
military that we have had in this country. I also firmly believe the 
budget that has been submitted represents that balance between 
pure Quality of Life issues and readiness issues for the Navy and 
Marine Corps. 

Now, as you said, Senator Byrd, and I agree wholeheartedly, 
there is an intertwining. The temptation to categorize things as 
Quality of Life sometimes leads us in the wrong direction. 

I think that quality of life items run throughout. You could have 
the prettiest BEQ in the world, and if a sailor is not afforded the 
opportunity to perform his or her mission at sea because we do not 
have the steaming hours or we do not have the assets to do our 
exercises, I do not think you are going to have a happy sailor. 

So the Quality of Life issues run throughout our budget, and I 
think we have achieved the balance that we need. 

General Stroup. Senator, as you well know, all of us are almost 
into a quarter century of the volunteer force. In the Army's case, 
the volunteer force has been a success. And as part of its success, 
it has changed as the demographics of young America has changed. 

We have a force that is clearly more married, as the Secretary 
said, than when we had a conscription Army. But that brings good- 
ness. It does not bring unreadiness as some proponents would say. 

All the services, including my own, have family readiness pro- 
grams in place that are concerned and demonstrate in Desert 
Shield, Desert Storm, even in Somalia and even today with the 
25th Division moving from Schofield Barracks in Hawaii to replace 
the 10th Mountain Division in Haiti, we have family readiness pro- 
grams in place that provide volunteer and appropriated safety nets 
for those married soldiers. 

Echoing my colleagues' remarks, you do have to have a dedicated 
career force so that when they are deployed and when they are 
launched at the point of the spear, they are not worrying or looking 
back over their shoulder as to whether or not their families are 
taken care of. 

In addition to that, for the single soldier, they have to have the 
same concerns that when they come back from a deployment, 



70 

whether it is a concern in Germany or a post station or camp in 
the United States, they can come back to comfortable, secure BEQs 
for our single soldiers. 

From the standpoint of the tug and the balance between re- 
sources for readiness, whether it is personal readiness, Quality of 
Life issues or dollars for ammunition or hardware, there is a bal- 
ance that we have to strike. We believe that we have incorporated 
that in our budget that we have turned into you. 

We would not want to go back, in my personal opinion, to the 
Army that I joined where the young soldier had to get permission 
from his first sergeant and his company commander to get married. 

It is a different America today, and America's Army is clearly 
part of that. And the difference is a better Army. 

Senator Byrd. Mr. Chairman, my time has expired. I wish to 
pursue this subject. 

Senator Coats. Well, Senator Byrd, I would just like to keep this 
question open, and I think it is a good time to discuss it. 

I have a follow-up question. I recognize that with an all-volun- 
teer Army, we are attracting career individuals. It is no longer a 
draft, 2 years, covering 18 and 19 year olds. That is a reality. We 
have made that decision, and I think it is a good decision. 

The consequences of that are that we are not only enlisting the 
soldier, sailor or airman, but we are enlisting their families. 

It is reasonable to expect that we want to provide for the quality 
of life for those families, and that is going to involve housing and 
education and morale, welfare items and the whole range of serv- 
ices that we now provide. 

I think inherent in the question here is the situation that exists 
today that did not exist in the past, and that is, we have a number 
of single military personnel, who are having children out of wed- 
lock. 

The question I have is: What is the policy or what should the pol- 
icy be relative to the services' obligations to a single individual who 
has a child out of wedlock, in terms of career, in terms of the re- 
sponsibility of the taxpayer and the services to provide services for 
that individual? 

There are some real implications here. For instance, how do we 
deploy that person without potentially serious consequences for the 
child? 

Here is a child with a single mother, who suddenly is off to the 
Middle East for a 6-month or longer deployment. Here is a child 
whose only parent undergoes the rigors of service life. 

It is one thing to provide support for a spouse and the children 
of a uniformed personnel, who is deployed or in intense training or 
not home at 5 o'clock every afternoon, but it is another thing to 
have that sole parent shipped off, sometimes on an hour's notice. 
I think that goes to the broader question. 

Would you want to respond to that? I would just tell Senator 
Byrd, whv don't we just open this up? We do not need to feel con- 
strained Dy time or order or whatever. I just think it is an impor- 
tant question that we ought to address. 

General Stroup. Mr. Chairman, if I may take the lead. Within 
the Army, prior even to Desert Storm and Desert Shield, in our ex- 
amination of the issue of the single parent, whether it is a single 



71 

parent by an out-of-wedlock birth or through a single parent 
through some other circumstance, we established regulatory de- 
ployment policies and regulatory policies that deal with the care of 
the young family member. 

If the soldier, male or female, officer or enlisted, cannot meet 
those regulatory standards in terms of deployment, if you have to 
go on a very fast overseas deployment, through your chain of com- 
mand, you are supposed to have, by our regulations — and we check 
them on a periodic basis by that chain of command down to the 
captain and the first sergeant level — a family care plan. 

So that the child or the children have a certified, well-understood 
care plan for those single dependent or dependents to be turned 
over to extended family members or to some other person who is 
certified by that chain of command. 

If the Army personnel cannot meet those standards, then those 
personnel are separated under that regulation. 

Senator Coats. Is that a consistent policy with all the services? 

General Boles. Yes, it is. 

Admiral Bowman. It is, yes, sir. 

General Christmas. We call that worldwide deployability, and 
we require the same sorts of certification. 

Senator Coats. Are there exceptions to that requirement? Are 
there categories of individuals who are non-deployable because of 
their marital status or lack of marital status? 

General Stroup. No, sir. I would tell you there are no exceptions. 
However, if you would find a critical immediate illness where, from 
a compassionate standpoint, that particular service member would 
not be deployed, it would probably be made on an individual basis. 

And we have that within our regulatory policy. But we are rather 
ironclad, but not bureaucratically dumb in our execution of that. 

General Boles. And I would say, sir, that is also true within the 
Air Force. In fact, it is exercised periodically by commanders to en- 
sure that people have made the necessary arrangements. 

But again, as General Stroup says, regardless of whether you are 
talking about single member parents, whether you are talking 
about military couples with dependents, or families in which only 
one member is in the military, you may make exceptions, based on 
a unique situation, to not deploy someone at a particular time. But 
it is that situation and not the marital status or the dependency 
status. 

Senator Coats. Senator Byrd. 

Senator Byrd. Let me read an additional paragraph from the ar- 
ticle. 

"Over the next 6 years, the Pentagon will spend nearly $3 billion 
improving family housing for married troops and day care centers 
for their kids. In the same 6-year period, about $7 billion will be 
sliced from key weapons programs to save money." 

Have you identified, given your budget constraints, at what point 
quality of life expenditures begin to reduce our readiness? 

Mr. Pang. Senator, during the budget review process, we worked 
in the Office of the Secretary of Defense very carefully with the 
services. We knew that we had some personnel quality of life short- 
falls. 



72 

The Secretary identified those and went to the services and 
asked them to make the appropriate tradeoffs, so that the amount 
of money that we are talking about, the $2.7 billion, really is an 
investment over a 5-year period, about $450 million this year to 
correct problems in compensation, housing, and community and 
family support. 

The problem is that we have a deteriorating infrastructure, espe- 
cially in housing. I am told that about 80 percent of our on-post 
housing is substandard. It is a serious problem for us. 

The Secretary went to the military services and said, "Look, we 
have this problem. We need your help in working on this, you work 
it out." 

The tradeoffs were made by the services, and this funding was 
approved. But it is not $2.7 billion immediately, but $450 million 
per year over a 6-year period. 

General Christmas. Senator, I can assure you that from a Ma- 
rine Corps perspective, and as I indicated in my opening remarks, 
we recognize that the first and foremost tenet of quality of life is 
to bring a young Marine back from the battlefield. That means that 
that young Marine has to have substantial training, and it requires 
dollars to ensure that that readiness is there. That is why I made 
remarks concerning balance. There is a balance and just as indi- 
cated, unfortunately, the infrastructure has in fact slipped. We do 
in fact have substandard housing. We do in fact have areas that 
fall under quality of life that, quite frankly, must be addressed. 

We in the Marine Corps have balanced it very, very carefully. 
Quite frankly, we are where we need to be to keep our readiness 
as it currently is, and it is the best it has been for a long, long time 
and it is a force that you can be proud of. We are working, and we 
have upgraded where we can in quality of life programs, but we are 
at that balance. What comes beyond that to improve quality of life 
has to come from outside of the Department of Defense. We have 
balanced that very carefully. 

I can assure you that we fully recognize what I think you are 
driving at, sir, that the first thing you want is you want your 
Armed Forces to continue to be the very best. But I think that if 
you would ask each one of us, and all of us have many years of 
experience, we would tell you that our forces today are the best. It 
is because we attract the quality, and the quality remains. They re- 
main because of such things as the security they have in good fam- 
ily housing for their dependents, the great training they nave, but 
also knowing in fact that they are satisfied with the work that they 
do. 

General Boles. From our perspective, I do not know Mr. Evans, 
but I would agree that he is very articulate. He has taken some 
disparate data and pulled it together into what I perceive as an at- 
tempt to prove that quality of life is adverse to readiness, and we 
disagree completely with that. Quality of life is readiness. 

And in my view, $7 billion spent on people is just as important 
to readiness, if it is spent in the right places, as $7 billion spent 
on aircraft, tanks, or bullets. 

Senator Byrd. I quote again, "The Marine Corps now spends 
more annually on family housing than on ammunition, $156 mil- 
lion versus $132 million.' 



73 

Where is the appropriate balance, given today's budget con- 
straints, between day care centers and ammunition? 

General Christmas. The appropriate balance — I guess I am on 
the hot seat here, sir. The appropriate balance, as we see it, is — 
first of all, let's take the ammunition side — a conscious decision 
made to ensure that we have sufficient ammunition to carry out 
substantially, much more difficult live fire training than we have 
ever done before. At the same time, we worked toward a balance 
in our, in this case, child care centers and a balance in developing 
a campaign plan to attack housing that is quite frankly, old and 
decrepit. I would assure you that the direction of emphasis is going 
toward enlisted housing, which again helps to create the quality 
force. 

The article is correct in that yes, over the last few years more 
was spent toward those campaign plans to increase quality of life, 
but not at the degradation of readiness. I think that is the impor- 
tant point. 

General Stroup. Senator, as a sister land service, if I could help 
my fellow from the Marines, in the eighties, up to the late eighties, 
the Army was spending an average of $4 billion a year on ammuni- 
tion. 

Sir, that was a Cold War budget figure. And when we built our 
budget on an annual basis, there was never any discussion as to 
how much money we would spend on ammunition. It was an auto- 
matic checkbook entry, $4 billion, $4 billion, $4 billion. 

Those ammunition dollars did not go into nuclear rounds. They 
went into conventional rounds, and they built up over the years, 
on a requirement basis, a large Cold War ammunition pile that we 
were going to need facing the potential Warsaw Pact. 

As the Department of Defense with the Army in its accompani- 
ment started its drawdown, both from the standpoint of end 
strength and force structure and, of course, its budgets, we started 
in the Army to use the $4 billion a year as sort of a bill payer for 
other things we had to do. And while we were doing that, our budg- 
et was dropping year after year after year. 

We soon reached the point where we realized that even though 
we had over half a billion tons of Cold War ammunition in Ger- 
many for the Warsaw Pact, that after the 9th of November 1989, 
that ammunition had to either be disposed of or brought back to 
the United States. 

We started using that ammunition. I am going to link it to peo- 
ple in a minute, sir. We started using that ammunition, as I know 
the Marine Corps did, that we had from the Cold War to use for 
training ammunition. And so we sort of used that as an offset, and 
we invested less in our ammunition account as we came down. 

It is only within the last 24 months that the Army has gone back 
and reevaluated and said: We have probably gone too deep on the 
ammunition account. And now we are struggling to try to put more 
money back into our annual budget to make sure we bring our am- 
munition stocks. 

And most of your ammunition that your services worry about, 
Army, Navy, Air Force and Marines, are not ammunition for train- 
ing, but it is ammunition stacked up beneath the hanger deck, on 



74 

the runways, in the ships or on the battlefield for that potential 
war that comes up. 

And so what I have painted to you is our ammunition accounts 
have come down, come down from a Cold War measurement. In the 
meantime, we have had our volunteer force. 

In the meantime, we have become continually impressed with 
the value of the quality of the young men and women that we have 
been bringing, not only to the Army but the other services. 

And we knew that, as we say in the Army, you enlist a soldier, 
but you reenlist a family. And it became evident to us, as our budg- 
ets have been slipping over the last several years, including our 
ammunition accounts, which I have said we used as bill payers for 
other things, that our infrastructure in particular, both OCONUS 
for the Army in Germany and in Korea and in the United States, 
our quality of life infrastructure that our families look at, and our 
single soldiers look at, was slipping also, because our operations 
and maintenance appropriations was also declining. 

You reach a certain point where you have to make a judgment. 
And in the last several years, particularly the last two, all four 
service departments, four services and three service departments, 
we have realized we have probably neglected the quality of life in- 
frastructure and some of the quality of life programs to the extent 
that the families will not be reenlisting, and we will not have the 
quality, experienced career force that General Boles talked about, 
that we need to maintain America's readiness. 

And so, sir, there really is not a proper balance. It is sort of a 
snapshot in time. And I think probably David Evans, in all honesty 
and integrity, takes a different snapshot than the four of us take. 

Senator Byrd. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that the 
article be included in the record. 

Senator Coats. We will do so. 

[The information follows:] 



75 



Clear and Present Diapers 

The Pentagon 's Costly Pro-Family Military Philosophy 



By David Evans 



£4^ B ^ ^"^ NEW policy will cost the Navy an aircraft 
carrier/' "groused my friend, a retired rear ad- 
jL miraL 

The subject of his ire was a month-old directive signed 
off by Navy Secretary John Dalton, which proclaimed that 
"pregnancy and parenthood are compatible with a naval ca- 
reer.* 

In a Navy and Marine Corps establishment where 
spouses and children outnumber officers and enlisted per- 
sonnel by 832,000 to 637,000, Dalton 's new policy is likely 
to increase not only the number of dependents but the 
costs of caring for them. 

Two summers agojformer Navy secretary James Webb 
raised the gut question about defense spending priorities 
for the 1990s: In an era of military cutbacks, should we 
funnel our limit ed resources into "troops and weapons" or 
"dependents and day care centers? 

Dalton's new policy provides the latest evidence of the 
answer. It's day care. • 

Just look at the spate of recent decisions. Over the next 
six years the Pentagon will spend nearly $3 billion improv- 
ing family housing for married troops and day care centers 
for their kids. In ihs s^me six-year period about $7 billion 
will be sliced from key weapons programs to save money. 

The administration's fiscal 1996 budget continues these 
trends: Programs to support military families will consume 

more than $20 billion, while troops are demobilized at the 
rate of some 1,500 per week and new weapons programs 
are truncated. It is a telling indication of priorities that for 
every new destroyer under construction this year and 



76 

next, four new child care centers win be built 

These decisions may be inevitable given the vast num- 
bers of young enlisted personnel who are either married or 
single parents — nearly one-third of Marines, for example, 
marry within three years of enlisting, four times the rate 
for civilians of the same age group. But no amount of 
spending on family support programs can make up for long 
periods of separation and the harsh reality of service life, 
especially in the junior enlisted ranks. The grim future of 
America's post-Cold War military means there will simply 
be less money and fewer troops to meet unrelenting over- 
seas commitments. 

A few years ago, when the corps was 200,000 strong, 
about 24,000 Marines were deployed overseas. Now, at a 
strength of 174,000, about 27,000 Marines are deployed 
away from their home bases. The Air Force, meanwhile, 
has four times more people deployed away from home 
units than five years ago. And on any given day, half the 
Navy's 385 ships are at sea. "... 

It is not an idea that has been warmly received in recent 
years, but perhaps the time has come to rethink our mili- 
tary's marital policies. Given the hypothetical choice be- 
tween a trooper who requires only a single bunk and a 
married one who needs the full array of family benefits, 
maybe the one who's single is the better buy in an era of 
ever tighter defense budgets. 

The costs of mamtaining the current policy are sub- 
stantial. The Marine Corps now spends more annually on 
famil y housing than on ammunition: $156 million versus 
$132 mnHon. And more on child development and family 
centers than on repair parts: $32 million versus about $30 
million. 

Allan Carlson, director of the Center on the Family in 
America in Rockford, EL, estimates that the total cost to 

support military dependents is about 10 percent of all de- 
fense dollars, or roughly $25 billion in the Clinton adminis- 



77 

tratkra's proposed $246 billion defense budget for fiscal 
1996. 

Carlson argues that throughout history the most effective 
standing military has always been a bachelor force. .,'./" 

The end of the pressure of the Cold War," Carlsonjnain- 
tains, "offers a golden opportunity to rethink our personnel 
policies. The family-based military was created in reaction to 
the Cold War, when we needed to maintain an enormous 
standing Army." * ; \°[ 

"Now, we no longer have a state of national emergency 
that pushes us to a second-rate solution," Carlson said:' 

Elaine Donnelly, president of the Michigan-based Center 
Jot Military Readiness, which specializes in military person- 
nel issues, regards Dalton's new dependent-friendly policy as 
a recipe for a social welfare state in the armed forces, . 

"When you subsidize something, you get more of it The 
new policy will encourage more single mothers in the •Navy," 
DonneDy said. "If the Republicans are going to increase mon- 
ey for things the military really needs to enhance readiness 
and to develop new weapons systems, then they have to look 
at these very expensive personnel items." " £ 

Cmdr. Eugene Gomulka, a Catholic chaclain at the. Naval 
Amphibious Base in Coronado, Calif., coniided that he sees 
the human toll every day. 

"When the 'experts' say first- term marriage has no impact 
on readiness, they're not on the same planet," he groused- 

Gomulka talked about the daily parade of problems he 
sees. When a service member is deployed, children often be- 
come withdrawn, or act out with aggressive behavior. 
Wives, some as young as 16, simply lack the maturity to 
cope. 

To minimize these problems, a "Back to the Future" re 
version to policies of the 1950s may be in order, when 
the services stopped recruiting married personnel 
Today's smaller military has to enlist only 60 percent of the 



78 

number of new recruits needed just five years ago. Instead 
of allowing married persons to enlist in the armed forces, 
maybe recruiters out on the hustings should be more picky. 
The issue clearly is not the elimination of military families, 
but aiming for fewer families. 

And perhaps junior personnel, male or female, who be- 
come single parents with custody should face discharge, as 
was the practice of yore for pregnant females. 

The policies of yesteryear were not anti-family. On the 
contrary, they were intended to provide the incentives for 
service members to avoid having children out of wedlock, 
and for them to defer marriage until they were more mature 
and on a more solid financial footing. To be sure, these poli- 
cies kept the lid on family support costs. They also maxi- 
mized the number of service members available, as the say- 
ing goes, for "unrestricted assignment at sea and in -the 
field" 

When Perry lauds today's "more family-oriented force," 
he's also committing himself to spend money for commissar- 
ies instead of cruisers. He's tacitly accepting a greater num- 
ber of divorces that wiQ result from the inevitable strains of 
military service, rfe's accepting a military force comprised of 
more people who are not easily deployahle. Six male sailors 
aboard the carrier USS Eisenhower, according to a recent 
Navy report, await humanitarian transfer back to shore- be- 
cause of "child care issues." That's another half-dozen,', in 
nearly 200 "unplanned losses" from the Eisenhower's 'crew 
of 4,600 for various medic*] zni administrative r *;« ,, " e 
since last April 

These losses are the price of policies that encourage pre- 
mature matrimony and parenthood with marriage 'optional. 
It seems that we have a reproduction option and a readiness 
option- So far, we've chosen more parenthood and less.pre- 
paredness. 



Dcvid Evans is a retired Marine Corps lieutenant colonel 



79 

Senator Coats. Thank you, Senator Byrd. 

Let me just pursue that question a little bit. We had some excel- 
lent testimony from Secretary Perry and General Shalikashvili, as 
well as the Commanders in Chiefs of the four services on the ques- 
tion of housing. 

Their testimony, if I could summarize it, was that over the years, 
commitment dollars spent on housing and infrastructure were de- 
ferred in favor of ammunition, in favor of modernization, weapon 
systems, other items throughout the decade of the eighties. 

And we have now reached a somewhat embarrassing point in 
terms of our inability to adequately fund needed infrastructure re- 
pairs. 

We have many, many units through the services, as they indi- 
cated, that we cannot allow either families or individual soldiers to 
live in because of lack of repairs, of peeling paint, broken water 
pipes, asbestos conditions, a number of other deteriorating factors. 

Secretary Perry, in recognition of that, set aside some additional 
funds in his budget, $450 million a year for 6 years, to try to ad- 
dress some of that. But as another Washington Post article pointed 
out, this barely scratches the surface of what we are able to do. 

I believe I heard Secretary Pang say that 80 percent of military 
housing is considered substandard. Much of that includes not just 
family housing but housing for single service members in the bar- 
racks and so forth. 

The military is now in a process of trying to redress some of that 
inadequacy. It is a long-term project. We realize that the funds are 
not going to be available to do as much as we need to do. We are 
looking at potential private sector initiatives to leverage the funds. 

I have visited many of these facilities. We provide absolute top 
quality people, and strive for excellence, in the quality of personnel 
in terms of their experience and education. We also provide the 
very best of weapons. We have seen the result of the buildup in the 
eignties. The world's best training. But, some of the living condi- 
tions to which we subject our military personnel are truly embar- 
rassing. It is not anywhere near excellence. It is not even good. It 
is, as Secretary Pang said, substandard. 

Secretary Perry drew a very tight nexus between readiness and 
quality of life, saying that we owe it to our people who commit a 
career and commit a lifetime to the service and to serving our 
country. 

But it is important for them to understand and know that they 
will be treated as the world outside the military fence is treated. 
He said we have not done that. He gave me a briefing. You may 
want to do that. 

General Mundy, in fact, came and gave me a briefing of pictures 
of some of the infrastructure problems that we have at some of our 
bases around the country and around the world. 

I understand your question, and I think it is an important ques- 
tion. If there is one area where the military has lagged behind, in 
my opinion, it is in the area of infrastructure. 

Secretary Pang, do you want to add any thoughts to that? 

Secretary Pang: Mr. Chairman, you are right on the mark. You 
know, two-thirds of our housing right now in inventories is over 30 
years old. That is the big problem. 



80 

I have a listing here of what we call family housing hot spots 
that I would be happy to enter into the record, sir. 

Senator Coats. Without objection, we will enter that into the 
record. 

[The information follows:] 

FAMILY HOUSING HOT SPOTS 
Army 



Benning 


Lee 


Irwin 


Bliss 


Lewis 


Stewart 


Bragg 


Meade 


Sill 


Campbell 


Rucker 


Polk 


Hood 


Schofield 

Navy/Marine Corps 




Great Lakes 


Oahu 


Camp Lejeune 


Lemoore 


Oceana 


Camp Pendleton 


New London 


San Diego 

Air Force 


Cherry Point 


Andersen 


Grand Forks 


Mountain Home 


Andrews 


Hickham 


OfTut 


Beale 


Holloman 


Onizuka 


Boiling 


Incirlik 


Ramstein 


Cannon 


Kadena 


Randolph 


Davis Monathon 


Keesler 


Scott 


Dover 


Kirkland 


Seymour Johnson 


Edwards 


Langley 


Shaw 


Elgin 


Little Rock 


Whiteman 


Ellsworth 


Malstrom 




Elmendorf 


McGuire Ofiut 





Senator Byrd. Mr. Chairman, I just was interested in posing 
these questions in view of the article that I had read, especially in 
view of the budget constraints that we are under. I wonder just 
where the tradeoff is and how that tradeoff point is decided. 

Let me ask a question about Korea. The figures for active duty 
military personnel and their dependents in Korea are as follows: 
Total active duty personnel, 36,796; total number of dependents, 
10,414. So we have there a fourth, more than a fourth, that are 
made up of dependents. 

Is there any effort to minimize the number of dependents in a 
situation like Korea, where you have a powerful Army from the 
north that could invade at any time, where the dependents them- 
selves could find themselves living in a war zone within a period 
of 5 minutes and be under great danger? The first thoughts of the 
military personnel are certainly going to be about their loved ones. 
What about a situation like that? 

Mr. Pang. Senator, I think the situation you highlighted is a 
very difficult one for our military in this sense. Most of the depend- 
ents in Korea — and I would ask General Stroup to correct me, if 
I am wrong — are what we call non-command-sponsored depend- 
ents. 

Senator Byrd. I did not understand that term. 

Mr. Pang. Sir, they are called non-command-sponsored depend- 
ents, and let me explain what that is, sir. 



81 

Korea is basically an unaccompanied tour. We have many serv- 
icemen who, because of personal desire, want to have their depend- 
ents with them. They will send for their dependents and bring 
them over on their own. 

So we have quite a number of people who are in that category, 
and we do not have rules governing the freedom of dependents to 
go wherever it is they want to go. 

But that is the reason that you have such a large number over 
there. The number of command-sponsored tours over there, I can 
provide for the record. But I am certain that it is not one-third of 
the tours over there. Maybe General Stroup can elaborate. 

Senator Byrd. The presence of a fourth of the total number being 
dependents, does that not compound your problem in the event 
that suddenly an attack is made on South Korea and on the de- 
pendents? 

It would seem to me that someone who is viewing it from a great 
distance would certainly compound the problem many times over. 

General Stroup. Sir, we have the preponderance of the fighting 
forces in Korea in the form of the Second Infantry Division, which 
is located up next to the DMZ. And I am sure you have visited 
there. 

Senator Byrd. Forty years ago. 

General Stroup. Yes, sir. 

Senator Byrd. 1S55. 

General Stroup. Sir, I was in high school, but I was reading 
about it. 

We have an approximate total of 27,000 soldiers that are de- 
ployed in Korea. The majority of them are in the Second Infantry 
Division in the southwest portion of the DMZ. Behind that, we 
have a garrison compound in the capital city of Seoul. 

And behind that, we have a logistical command in the City of 
Taegu in the south. 

We have very strict policies in terms of how many of the soldiers 
take their families to Korea sponsored by the Army in terms of 
both paying for the passage over and providing government fur- 
nished quarters. We hold that to a very low minimum. 

Those family members who are sponsored and authorized, both 
by an agreement with the United Nations Command over there 
and the Combined Forces Command that is composed of the U.S. 
Air Force, the U.S. Army and the Korean command, are located in 
the city of Seoul in government quarters. The remainder of those 
sponsored family members are south in Tague. 

As in the Cold War, when we faced a potential evacuation prob- 
lem in Germany, we have in place non-combatant evacuation oper- 
ational policies, which are exercised regularly. What has 
compounded that small number of authorized families is that 
Korea is now no longer economically a third country from the 
standpoint of economics. 

The ambiance and the availability of western style quarters and 
apartments for family members to rent and come over in a non- 
command-sponsored status, where they can get a visa from the gov- 
ernment of Korea, has, as Secretary Pang said, increased the num- 
ber of non-command-sponsored family members over there. 



82 

I can assure you, since the non-combatant evacuation operation 
falls under my purview, as Chief of Personnel, that — we already 
have plans to take care of those non-command-sponsored families, 
in addition to the command-sponsored families. 

Now that is not to say that you are not going to have, in either 
a surprise attack scenario, or a deliberate attack scenario, some 
plugging of the evacuation routes to the south. We anticipated that 
also as we looked at the Cold War Army that we had deployed on 
the German frontier. 

We do not view it as a major problem. General Luck is concerned 
about it, but he has put in place mechanisms and policies to move 
those families south. And we continue to discourage, through our 
chain of command, those soldiers from bringing over their families. 

It does cause a unique problem for the commander on the ground 
in Korea. The commander on the ground in Korea, whether it is 
General Abrams, who commands the Second Division along the 
frontier, General Timmons in Seoul, or General Brown in Tague, 
does not want to be saddled with any type of accusation that you 
are not taking care of my family, whether the family is command- 
sponsored or not. 

And so what we find in the theater of Korea, we find that we 
must, out of our own hide, take some of our operations and mainte- 
nance dollars and put them on a voluntary basis into some small 
community centers, so that those young — and they are mainly 
young family members of young soldiers and young sergeants — can 
come into the compounds, the large compounds, and wash their 
clothes, even though they are living in western-style apartments 
outside. 

So we do provide the amenities out of our own hide, but I do not 
think anybody would want us to do anything different. 

Senator Byrd. Mr. Chairman, you have been very generous with 
your time. I have just two more questions. I would like to submit 
those for the record, if you will allow me. 

Senator Coats. We will do that without objection. Thank you, 
Senator Byrd. 

Senator Glenn. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am not a 
member of this subcommittee. I was chairman at one time of this 
subcommittee, I have a continued interest in it. 

Back in those days, when I was working with now-Secretary 
Pang, he did great work on the committee and continues over at 
the Pentagon. 

I think Senator Byrd has put his finger on one of the most vexing 
problems we have in the all-volunteer forces; how do you deploy 
people, keep them over there, keep capable units, keep a capability 
for combat and at the same time turn around and say even thougn 
you are willing to pay for it and there is vacant housing you could 
rent you cannot bring your family over. 

It is a tough situation, and nobody has ever figured out a way 
to really deal with it, except the way it is being discussed here 
today. 

The Navy takes care of it by making 6-month tours. Six months 
out, and that is it. They are unaccompanied deployments aboard 
ship, of course. 



83 

The Marine Corps has traditionally had a lot more unaccom- 
panied tours than the other services. I think General Christmas 
could probably give us a lot of information on that. 

But this is one of the real problems of the all-volunteer forces. 
How do you get people in and keep them in? They are not rotated 
through like draftees would be, and you cannot expect them to 
spend their whole life and not get married and not have a family. 
And yet, you cannot expect them not to deploy. How do you take 
care of this? 

I think the services have done a pretty reasonable job of this 
through the years, but this is a tough problem. And you are right, 
if combat started and people started down the Que Son Valley from 
the DMZ down toward Seoul, there would be a big scramble of peo- 
ple getting out of there, and it would be a mess for a while. 

But that was the same problem in Europe throughout the Cold 
War. We faced this problem of wondering whether it was right to 
restrict people. 

They are over there for a long duration, so most of them have 
accompanied tours. But it is a tough one. As long as we stick with 
the all-volunteer force, which I think most people conclude by this 
time has worked out pretty well, I think this is going to continue 
to be a problem. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Senator Coats. Thank you, Senator. 

Let me just ask some final questions and hopefully I will ask 
them briefly and we can just get some brief answers. 

Even though housing is not under your direct purview, you do 
surveys with enlisted and officer personnel, as well as, I assume, 
the spouses and families. What do your surveys show in brief — I 
do not need the numbers, just roughly. 

Where do concerns about current housing conditions fall in terms 
of lists of uniformed personnel concerns? 

General Stroup. Sir, we take a comprehensive survey on an an- 
nual basis, as you described, and it falls within the top five issues. 

Senator Coats. Admiral Bowman. 

Admiral Bowman. Also in our top five; we have our sailors who 
are leaving the Navy fill out a questionnaire on the dissatisfiers 
and the satisfiers. On the list of dissatisfiers, at the very top is pay. 
Then comes family separation and general Quality of Life items in 
that top five. So housing is certainly in that group, sir. 

Senator Coats. General Boles, the Air Force usually gets pretty 
good marks for its housing, but what are your views on this? 

General Boles. Sir, I think it would still be within about the top 
five. And we are in the process of updating a survey on that, as 
we speak, which we can provide for the record in a few months. 

Senator Coats. I wish you would. 

General Boles. And the fact that you have about some 40,000 
families on waiting lists right now, that would tell you that people 
are wanting and needing more military family housing. 

I would also say that that is a very real concern with the enlisted 
men and women with the dormitories, with providing adequate 
square footage and privacy for the young men and women that are 
given awesome responsibilities. To have to share a room is not 
something we should be doing. 



84 

Senator Coats. General Christmas, I have a lot of Marines tell 
me that all they need is a cloth tent and a plywood floor and they 
are happy. 

General Christmas. That is all of us that go to the field. Mr. 
Chairman, when my children would call, they would say, "Where 
is Dad?" And my wife used to always say, "Well, he is out playing 
in the mud. As you know, he is happy." And we Marines are happy 
playing in the mud. 

We just did an exhaustive 2-year study, which attempts to qual- 
ify our Marine Corps members feelings and perceptions that had 
behavioral consequences and, therefore influenced readiness. We 
have 49 percent of our Marine Corps in the grade of lance corporal 
and below, at about an average age of 23. 

What we found was that almost half that population, those 
young lance corporals and below, were in some measure, dissatis- 
fied with their quality of life. They wanted, in fact, a BEQ that of- 
fered them a degree of privacy. They wanted to be able to work out 
and that is a keen ethic. So it means more appropriate fitness cen- 
ters. It means us being a whole lot smarter in what we do. 

They also wanted a place to socialize with significant others. 
Finding a place to interact is part of the problem that young men 
and women fall into in that age category. You need to ensure that 
there are those appropriate places that young men and women can 
in fact mix. And they, quite frankly, also wanted to be able to read. 
They wanted to listen to music. So you need libraries and the like. 

On our married side, what we found was interest in family hous- 
ing and then a support base. Just wanting that comfort level to 
know that there were support programs there that, while I am 
gone, when I am out there for that 6-month deployment, maybe it 
is sitting off Bosnia, maybe it is evacuating the U.N. from Somalia, 
that my family is secure and the fact that there is a support base 
there. We do it through our key volunteers program and those 
other support programs. 

So our family housing fits in that top four category. It would be 
BEQs. It would be fitness-type centers. It would be family housing, 
and then I would follow it up with day care centers or that type 
of other support. 

Senator Coats. Last question. General Boles, you indicated that 
currently the Air Force is 15 percent behind new contracts for re- 
cruiting. I am curious as to where the other services are, if you 
have an up-to-date number on where you are in this year, this re- 
cruiting year? 

General Stroup. Sir, we measure a little bit differently than the 
Air Force. I never think of contracts being behind. I look forward 
to the closure of the year. So the percentage that I would give you 
would be different from what General Boles would give. 

But as I look at the contracts written, that I must have written 
for this fiscal year to finish the year at the number and the quality 
marks, I will give you an approximate number of about 59.7 per- 
cent is where I believe we are this year. 

Senator Coats. Have you found the need, as General Boles has, 
to bump up the number of recruiters and bump up your advertising 
dollars dedicated to this? 



85 

General Stroup. Yes, sir. Thanks to the Congress, all services 
have been given additional dollars for advertising. In the Army's 
case, we are in the fifties of millions this year, and in the next fis- 
cal year or so, I will need to go up to about $70 million. And we 
have asked for that in our budget and in our program. 

Now with respect to recruiters, when we were coming out of the 
Cold War and we were going through the euphoria of the victory 
of Desert Storm, the propensity figures were telling us in the Army 
that we were going to have a great 4 to 5 years coming. And so 
the Army reengineered its recruiting command, getting ready for 
the next decade. 

In our reengineering, based on our assumptions we had from the 
success of propensity, we took about 1,100 recruiters, foxhole re- 
cruiters, out of our recruiting force and we downsized our leader- 
ship. We took colonels and majors and captains out, also. 

Now that propensity has dropped, as I said earlier, from 1989 to 
1994 39 percent, we have just recently introduced another 350 fox- 
hole recruiters without any additional leadership cadre into the 
force for the coming fiscal year, because your services recruit about 
a year out. 

You have to train your recruiters, and so you have to bring them 
in about a year out to get them trained up to make the recruiting 
sale. 

I have a personal anticipation that in the next coming fiscal year, 
I will probably have to go back to my chief and my secretary and 
justify the need for even additional enlisted recruiters, production 
recruiters, but not any additional leadership cadre. 

Senator Coats. Thank you. General Christmas. 

General Christmas. Mr. Chairman, we are concerned. Contract- 
ing is extremely important for the future, and that is why it is of 
concern to all of us. All of us right now are meeting our shipping 
goals. In the Marine Corps we are at 100-plus percent shipping 
each month. But we are watching our contracting slip. We are 
1,500 contracts short so far this year. 

That becomes important when it comes to those contracts that 
build our delayed entry pools. It is those pools that are carried into 
the next year that make shipping so much easier. If you do not 
have a large enough pool, you force your recruiters into direct ship- 
ping. When you start forcing them into direct shipping, what hap- 
pens is your quality starts to slip and attrition out of recruit train- 
ing starts to rise. 

All of us are concerned for the outyears. We are all about to hit 
the wall, quite frankly, in fiscal year 1997, because we have fin- 
ished our drawdown and now are climbing back to a steady state. 
The other three services are almost to the bottom of their 
drawdown, but then they, too, must climb back. That means in- 
creased accession starting in fiscal year 1996, more in fiscal year 
1997. All of us will need to increase accession to get to a steady 
state that holds our base force, that force that we have elected to 
reach. That is the basis of our concern with the contract. 

Senator Coats. Secretary Pang, I will just finish with this. Since 
we are speaking of quality of life, I would be remiss if I did not 
ask this question. 



86 

I very much appreciate your responsiveness and good answers to 
the questions that the committee has submitted prior to the hear- 
ing. As I said, it provides us with a terrific base of information on 
which to fashion this year's authorization bill. 

Are we giving you sufficient notice and sufficient time? You can 
answer this on behalf of yourself and the services, or are we de- 
stroying your quality of life and the quality of life of your staff 
when they call home and say, "I will not be home this weekend." 

Why? 

"Because we are working on quality of life information for the 
committee." [Laughter.] 

Is there anything we need to do differently or get it to you 
quicker? 

Mr. Pang. Mr. Chairman, this was our first iteration. You know, 
we have not done this before. It did have some effect on the quality 
of life of some of the people that worked for us, and it had some 
effect on my quality of life, because I had to read through all of 
them and make sure that they were accurately responding to your 
questions. 

Having said that, though, I think they were helpful to us, be- 
cause they highlight for us your areas of interest. And if these are 
your areas of interest, they ought to be ours. So yes, we spent a 
lot of time on them. 

I think we did a thorough job on responding, because I read 
through all of the answers. If we could have just a couple more 
days, I think that would have helped a little bit. But I know that 
this was the first shot out the barrel. 

Senator Coats. Well, it is a first shot for us, too. But it is very 
helpful for the committee, and I anticipate we will be doing it 
again. We give you advance notice now, and we will try to get the 
questions to you in as timely a fashion as possible. 

Mr. Pang. Mr. Chairman, let me say that it was not only helpful 
to, I think, all of us at the table, but to the people who really do 
the work, the people that work for us. And I think that when you 
show the kind of interest that you show, it makes them value their 
work. So I think it was helpful. 

Senator Coats. Well, pass on the committee's thanks to them for 
their efforts. I want to thank the panel. 

Senator Glenn. Could I have just one more? 

Senator Coats. Sure. 

Senator Glenn. I wanted to ask this earlier, and I forgot to do 
it. You watch the trends on reenlistment rates and on divorce 
rates. The reduced number of people and the higher op tempo 
mean people are on the go all the time, away from home, the wife 
and kids. I know you watch these things as to see if we are getting 
into a bad situation. I would appreciate any of your comments 
along that line. 

Are you seeing a higher divorce rate with the high op tempo we 
have had? We are down to too low a number in active duty force 
anyway. I have been saying this for the last couple of years. 

I think we should have leveled at about 1.6 and assimilated what 
we are doing a little bit better and not go down to the lower num- 
ber, but that is another subject for another day. 



87 • 

Are you having trouble getting people to reenlist now, particu- 
larly married, particularly your staff NCOs, with the op tempo we 
have been having and the time they have to spend away from 
home? Does anybody want to comment on that? 

General Christmas. I will talk of the Marine Corps first, sir. For 
whatever reason, our reenlistments are better this year than they 
have ever been. We are already at 98 percent of offers being let. 

We are at 86 percent of young men and women who have already 
put up their hand and said, "Yes, I do." 

And we are at about a 98-percent MOS mix, which will get to a 
good 100 percent. 

Senator Glenn. Are these your noncoms, your senior staff 
NCOs? 

General Christmas. These are our first termers. That is those 
that are in their first term of enlistment. In our career force — and 
that is how we break it down, Senator. 

In our career force, we expect each year that we will reenlist be- 
tween 70 and 75 percent who are eligible. Last year we were at 73 
percent. This year already right now, we are above it. We are actu- 
ally at 78 percent. 

So, so far there has been no indication of a retention problem. 
Now, we watch it very carefully. As you said, sir, it is one of our 
key indicators. We do not know what next year brings and that 
sort of thing. That is why the selective reenlistment bonus is so im- 
portant. Right now, we look all right. 

As far as divorces are concerned, they seem to be holding steady. 
Over the last 4 years, the percentage is basically the same. 

General Boles. And it is pretty much, sir, the same in the Air 
Force. It sort of defies logic in one sense. We look at some of our 
high personnel tempo skills, and we find that about 40 percent of 
them are above the Air Force average for reenlistment rates in the 
first term. 

Many of those that are below are those in which we have limited 
the number of people that we want to enter the career force. 

So I think we are in pretty good shape. We have had some in- 
crease in incidents of family violence, an increase in that arena, 
but we are putting a lot of focus on that. On the other hand, we 
have had decreases in drug use and alcohol abuse and those rates. 
So I think we are in pretty good shape. 

Admiral Bowman. And I am likewise comfortable with what we 
are seeing. The Navy is still in the throes of downsizing. We will 
experience 27,000 unreplaced losses this year. 

So that means, on the one hand, I am encouraging certain groups 
and certain over-manned ratings in the enlisted side to leave to 
contribute to that 27,000. But on the other side, I am encouraging 
the best of the best to stay around. 

So the question becomes how much of the depressed retention is 
due to our own policies as we are encouraging some to leave. 

I feel very comfortable that I can explain the differences between 
where we need to be at the end of the drawdown and where we are 
today in each of the three categories of first term, second term, 
third term retention. 



88 

I would note that first term and second term retention for the 
young people is about where we are going to need it to be at the 
end of the drawdown. 

Third term are the more career or senior people we are encourag- 
ing to leave for the upward mobility of these others as we see the 
tail end of the drawdown coming. I feel very comfortable that we 
are on track. 

General Stroup. Sir, part of our drawdown, in addition to the 
structure in the unit strength, was to come out of Europe. And in 
the Cold War, we had 271,000 soldiers in Europe. 

That pulled us in a different direction in terms of overseas rota- 
tion. Today, we are now coming down to 65,000 in Europe, and we 
will remain at about 27,000 in Korea. That has changed our over- 
seas rotation. 

But the thing that is interesting in this post-Cold War world is 
on any day, we have about 29,000 to 30,000 plus soldiers deployed 
in about 71 countries other than the concentration in the Federal 
Republic of Germany or in Korea. 

So we are experiencing more operational deployment tempo, both 
for small units and for the individual soldiers than what we had 
experienced when we were focused on the Warsaw Pact. 

That increased personnel tempo, in your gut, you are going to 
say: Gosh, that is going to put a strain, and people will not stay 
in. If I take the Tenth Mountain Division from Fort Drum, New 
York, which, over the last 2 years, has had a lot of out-of-country 
rotations, Somalia, Haiti, Guantanamo, even Hurricane Andrew 
and that, and I look at the specialties that particularly get rotated 
a lot, military police, signalers, a lot of logistics personnel, I will 
echo what my Marine counterpart says, my reenlistment rate is up. 

Across my force, my reenlistment is healthy, but my gut tells me 
that with the increased deployments that we are experiencing in 
service, I think I have something fragile out there, but I cannot 
quantify it. 

But as I have traveled to every one of our divisions over the last 
9 months, the kids are almost unanimous in saying, "General, it is 
dynamite. Keep it up." 

Senator Glenn. Yes. It is sort of a dichotomy here. You think 
you are interrupting family life, but what they are doing, is impor- 
tant. They feel it. They want to be active, and they are out doing 
something important. And, man, that makes a big difference. 

Even the families, the wives, they get a little excited about this, 
too, even though they are separated from their husbands. And that 
may more than offset the other. I don't know. It is a good thing it 
is working out that way, I guess, but I am not sure how long you 
can do that. 

General Stroup. Sir, we may give you a different answer next 
year. 

Senator Glenn. Well, if you can have people do that for a whole 
career it is exciting. 

You know, it is a big motivator when you are deployed and you 
are doing something that you think is important. So maybe that is 
the reason for it, even though it is tough on your family. 

Senator Coats. Well, it is a dichotomy, and there is a tension 
there. That is what they enlisted for in the first place. 



89 

Senator Glenn. They enlisted to do something, and they are 
doing it although the families may suffer a little. 

Senator Coats. That is why I think, Senator Glenn, it is so im- 
portant that we provide the necessary amenities and support for 
those families back at home. 

All of them, I believe, understand that deployment is part of the 
business, and they are willing to accept it. The spouses are by and 
large willing to accept that also. 

But to be left in a substandard house with inadequate services, 
unavailability of child care, facilities for their kids to get entertain- 
ment and to receive physical activity and so forth, I just think we 
have to recognize that. As you said, with the all-volunteer force, 
this is what comes with the territory. We cannot have it both ways. 

If we want to go back to spartan living, we are going to have to 
go back to 2-year enlistments on a draft basis to the 18 and 19 year 
olds and all the problems that you have with people who are there 
who do not want to be there. 

By the time you get them trained, particularly in today's sophis- 
ticated military, they are short timers. 

I think that what we are doing here in terms of the family bene- 
fits, the family amenities, it goes with the territory. It is necessary. 
And as Secretary Perry said, it is directly linked to readiness and 
morale. 

I want to thank our panel. We extended this longer than we had 
anticipated, but I think it was a very fruitful and helpful discus- 
sion. Thank you for your candidness. We look forward to working 
with you this year as we prepare the budget and meet your needs. 
Thank you. 

Mr. Pang. Thank you, sir. 

Senator Coats. Dr. Cindy Williams and Mr. Dick Fernandez of 
the Congressional Budget Office. Dr. Williams is the Assistant Di- 
rector of the National Security Division of the Congressional Budg- 
et Office, and Mr. Fernandez is a principal analyst in that National 
Security Division. 

Earlier this year, the committee asked the Congressional Budget 
Office to perform a comprehensive review of military compensation. 
That is a very large task, which is not yet completed. 

Today, however, they will discuss the gap between military and 
private sector civilian pay based on information that they have re- 
ceived to date and their analysis to date. 

The pay gap is a subject of much discussion each time we discuss 
military pay raises or restructuring of the military compensation 
system. I look forward to your testimony today. Again, your written 
statement will be made part of the record without objection. 

Dr. Williams, if you have an opening statement, we will accept 
that. If you can summarize it, given the way the time is moving 
on here and the fact that I have just been informed that it is fairly 
soon we will have another vote, that would be helpful. 

Mr. Fernandez, if you want to add anything, we would be happy 
to accept a written statement in the record and then open it up for 
questions. 



90 

STATEMENT OF DR. CINDY WILLIAMS, ASSISTANT DIRECTOR, 
NATIONAL SECURITY DIVISION, CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET 
OFFICE 

Dr. Williams. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I will try to be brief. 
As you mentioned, we are going to talk about the so-called military 
pay gap and also get into how much it would cost to close it. 

But before getting into the cost of closing the gap, I would like 
to make two basic points. The first is that tnere are many ways to 
calculate a pay gap, and each of them can lead to a different an- 
swer. The estimates that have been widely reported in the press 
seem to us to be near the upper end of the range of possible an- 
swers. 

Second, if a pay gap does exist, it does not necessarily indicate 
problems that are looming on the horizon for the military's ability 
to compete as an employer, nor does it mean that military person- 
nel are compensated unfairly for their sacrifices. 

I will start with the range of estimates of the gap. To begin with, 
the pay gap is not a measure of the difference in absolute pay lev- 
els between the military and the civilian sector. Studies comparing 
absolute pay levels are difficult and expensive and therefore rarely 
conducted. 

Instead, a pay gap reflects differences in pay raises between the 
military and the civilian sector, starting from a certain date. 

Because the large military pay raises of 1981 and 1982 were 
widely held to have put military pay on an equal footing with pay 
in the civilian economy, most estimates use fiscal year 1982 as the 
starting date for pay comparisons. 

Now, the commonly reported number places the pay gap after the 
1994 military pay raise at 12.1 percent, meaning that military pay 
would have to increase by an additional 12.1 percent in order to 
bring military pay raises accumulated since 1982 on a par with ci- 
vilian-sector raises since that date. 

We got the 12.1 percent number from a table that was prepared 
by DOD's Directorate of Compensation, and so we call the method 
that underlies that number the DOD method, although in fact oth- 
ers outside DOD use the method as well. 

CBO uses a similar method, and that method compares military 
pay raises against the same basic measure of pay growth as is used 
in that widely reported number. But we come up with an estimate 
of 5.3 percent instead of 12.1 percent. 

Senator Coats. What was that percentage again? 

Dr. Williams. 5.3 instead of 12.1. 

There is an alternative measure of civilian pay growth that could 
be used, one that was developed for DOD by RAND, that actually 
leads to a negative estimate. In other words, it suggests that mili- 
tary pay raises have exceeded pay raises for comparable civilian 
workers since 1982. 

Now, I will talk for a minute about the DOD and CBO methods 
and compare them back and forth. Both of those methods measure 
pay raises in the civilian economy using a version of the ECI, the 
employment cost index. But there are two important distinctions 
between the way that DOD and CBO handle the numbers. 

First of all, DOD and CBO use different time slices to measure 
each year's increase in the employment cost index. The DOD meth- 



91 

od uses the time slice that was used each year as the next year's 
pay raise was being decided upon by the Congress and by the ad- 
ministration. 

For example, it compares the 1993 military pay raise, which took 
effect on October 1, 1992, with the rise in the ECI from March 
1991 to March 1992. In other words, there is a 6-month lag there. 

Of course, those were the best civilian pay data that were avail- 
able at the time that the pay raise was being set. But now we are 
evaluating a pay gap as it builds over time, and we have the ad- 
vantage of hindsight. So we do not have to stick with that 6-month 
lag. 

Therefore, CBO's method looks instead at the time slice between 
military pay raises. That is, it compares military pay raises with 
civilian pay raises over exactly the same period. 

In the 1983 example, it compares the October 1982 military pay 
raise with the increase in civilian earnings from September 1981 
to September 1982; that is, over the exact period since the previous 
pay raise. 

Now, these distinctions are important primarily because of what 
was going on with inflation and wages during the 1980s. What you 
saw at that time was that inflation and wage growth were high but 
they were declining from year to year. 

That means that the DOD method of looking backwards an extra 
6 months each year overstates civilian wage growth and therefore 
overstates the differences between military and civilian pay raises. 

The accumulated effect of all these 6-month errors is about 6 per- 
centage points, which amounts to about half of the widely reported 

gap. 

Now, the other important distinction between CBO's method and 
DOD's is that CBO includes the quarters allowances, namely the 
basic allowance for quarters and the variable housing allowance, on 
the military side of the equation. 

As you know, those housing allowances are integral parts of mili- 
tary compensation. Since 1982, they have actually risen faster than 
military basic pay, which is all that the DOD method includes in 
its calculations. 

Because military housing allowances have risen faster, the esti- 
mate of military pay grows and thus decreases the estimate of the 
pay gap. If you take that plus the difference in the time slices that 
I already talked about plus a few other minor factors, you end up 
with a pay gap of 5.3 percent. 

I want to talk for just a minute about that negative gap that I 
mentioned, the one that is based on the RAND work. So far I have 
been talking about comparisons between changes in military pay 
and the ECI, the employment cost index. 

The ECI measures roughly the average change in pay for all 
workers in the private sector, so it includes old people, young peo- 
ple, college graduates, high school dropouts, everyone. 

But military personnel differ in some important respects from 
those workers. For example, a much lower fraction of workers in 
the military are college educated compared to the civilian work 
force. The military population is also a lot younger than the civilian 
labor force, and particularly so in the enlisted ranks. 



92 

Now, you probably know that over the past 10 to 15 years, the 
major wage gains among civilian workers went to the college edu- 
cated. And among non-college-educated people, they went to the 
older workers. 

That means that younger people with only a high school edu- 
cation, who predominate in the military population, did not fare 
nearly as well in terms of wage growth. 

If you compare the raises of military personnel with those of ci- 
vilian workers who are actually comparable to them in terms of 
age, education, and occupation, you find that the military is not 
only keeping up since 1982 but actually moving ahead. In other 
words, there is a negative pay gap. 

But the point here is hardly to say that the military is overpaid. 
That is not my point at all. It is simply that the military pay gap 
has to be thought of as a range rather than as a single point. 

And at the moment, the range is quite wide and includes the pos- 
sibility that military pay growth has in fact kept up with civilian 
pay growth, at least for comparable civilian workers. 

Now, I want to make one other brief point, and that is to assume 
that there is a pay gap and ask, what about it? It does not nec- 
essarily follow that the military is no longer competitive as an em- 
ployer and therefore facing big problems in recruiting and reten- 
tion. 

In fact, pay is only one of the factors in an individual's decision 
to join the military or continue in service. And we heard earlier 
that, in fact, retention figures right now are quite good and acces- 
sion figures are not bad. 

Accession figures are worse than they were 2 years ago, but they 
are very good compared with the period of the 1980s. 

Pay is only one of a number of tools that the services use to get 
people to sign up or stay in, and during the 1980s, when the re- 
ported pay gap developed, retention was strong. Recruit quality 
was very high. 

Finally, I want to come to the question of the cost of closing a 
pay gap, if there is one. If you just want to maintain the current 
position of military pay relative to the ECI, that would mean grant- 
ing the full ECI raises that some people are talking about. That 
would add $4.7 billion to the defense budget over the period from 
1996 to 2000. 

Senator Coats. Would you repeat that last statement? 

Dr. Williams. Yes, sir. $4.7 

Senator Coats. If you close the gap as suggested by DOD. 

Dr. Williams. No. This is not to close the gap. This is if you only 
want to retain the same level of gap relative to the ECI, in other 
words, to grant raises up to the full level of the ECI instead of the 
ECI minus half of a percentage point, which the Defense Depart- 
ment has proposed. 

Senator Coats. I am sorry. 

Dr. Williams. That would add $4.7 billion. Now if, instead, you 
wanted to close the reported 12 percent pay gap, there are different 
schedules on which you could do that. 

But if you wanted to work it off by say, 2 percentage points a 
year, that would mean adding, over and above that $4.7 billion, an 
additional $17.3 billion in the period from 1996 to 2000. 



93 

Senator Coats. For the period. 

Dr. Williams. Yes. 

Senator Coats. At 2 percent? 

Dr. Williams. At 2 percentage points a year over 6 years. 

Senator Coats. But that is the total amount. The $17.3 is the 
total amount. 

Dr. Williams. No. 

Senator Coats. Not per year. 

Dr. Williams. Oh. That is the total amount over that period, but 
you have to add it on to the $4.7 billion over that period just to 
get up to full ECI raises. 

Senator Coats. All right. 

Dr. Williams. That concludes my remarks. 

Senator Coats. All right. Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Dr. Williams follows:] 

Prepared Statement by Cindy Williams, Assistant Director, National 
Security Division, Congressional Budget Office 

Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee, I am pleased to have this op- 
portunity to testify on the so-called military "pay gap," the amount by which mili- 
tary pay raises seem to have lagged behind raises in the civilian economy over the 
?»ast 10 years or more. That issue is part of a larger Congressional Budget Office 
CBO) study also requested by this subcommittee. The full study, which CBO ex- 
{>ects to complete later this year, will examine the structure of military pay and al- 
owances as well as the overall level of pay. 

According to widely reported estimates, a pay gap developed rapidly during the 
1980s. The Army, Navy, and Air Force Times regularly report those estimates, and 
many people accept the existence of a gap as a simple fact. According to a February 
20, 1995, article in the Navy Times, the gap stood at 12.8 percent following the most 
recent military pay raise. 

This testimony makes two basic points and provides cost estimates for some illus- 
trative military pay raises above those planned by the administration. First, the 
military pay gap must be thought of not as a single number but rather as a range. 
There are many ways to calculate the gap, and the most commonly reported number 
is toward the upper end of the range of possible estimates. Using the same basic 
measure of civilian earnings and assumptions that underlie the reported estimate 
of the pay gap, but applying them in a different manner, CBO finds a gap only 
about half as large as is commonly reported. An alternative measure of raises in 
the civilian economy, which was developed for the Department of Defense (DOD) as 
part of the Seventh Quadrennial Review of Military Compensation 4 years ago, indi- 
cates that military pay raises may actually have exceeded pay raises for comparable 
civilian workers. 

Second, a pay gap, if one existed, would not necessarily indicate problems for the 
military in competing with civilian employers, nor would it mean that military per- 
sonnel are underpaid or are not fairly compensated for their sacrifices. Pay is only 
one of many factors in individual decisions to join the military or continue in serv- 
ice, and it represents only one of many tools that the services use to influence those 
decisions. Notably, during the 1980s, when most of the reported pay gap developed, 
retention was strong and recruit quality was rising rapidly. 

Some people may interpret a reported pay gap as meaning that the military is 
underpaid in absolute terms — that people are paid less than they could earn in com- 
parable jobs in the private sector or that junior personnel, in particular, are paid 
too little to afford a decent standard of living. Unfortunately, there is no easy or 
generally accepted way to measure pay comparability for military personnel, and it 
is only by assumption, and not through any formal study, that certain years are ac- 
cepted as times when military pay was "about right" in comparison with civilian 
pay. Judging the equity of military pay is even more problematic and largely a mat- 
ter of policy rather than analysis. Estimates of a pay gap do little to help in that 
judgment. What was a "fair" level of pay when the main threat was a Soviet inva- 
sion of Europe or a nuclear attack may be too high or low in today's very different 
environment. 

Closing the reported pay gap would be costly. Simply maintaining the current po- 
sition of military pay, relative to the index of pay in the private sector that is used 



90-165 96-4 



94 

in the pay-adjustment process for Federal civilians, would add $4.7 billion to defense 
budget authority over the 1996-2000 period. Adding an extra 2 percentage points 
to the raise each year, to roughly close the reported gap over 6 years, would cost 
an additional $17.3 billion over the. 1996-2000 period. 

MEASURING THE PAY GAP 

Of the various methods that might be used to calculate a military pay gap, this 
testimony focuses on three that together illustrate a wide range of possible answers. 
All look at changes in military pay since the beginning of fiscal year 1982, when 
a "catch-up" raise was widely believed to have "restored military pay to the position 
it held relative to pay in the civilian sector at the start of the modern volunteer era. 
The first method is used by the Department of Defense and shows a gap of 12.1 
percent after the 1994 military pay raise. 1 CBO developed the second method by ap- 
plying the same basic assumptions and measure of growth in civilian earnings as 
the DOD method in what seems a more appropriate way. The result suggests that 
the gap was about 5.3 percent. The third method uses a different measure of in- 
creases in civilian pay than the other two. That measure was developed by RAND, 
the California-based research organization, to reflect unique characteristics of the 
military population. The method produces a negative gap, indicating that military 
pay rose faster than the pay of comparable civilians during the 1980s. 

DOD and CBO Estimates Based on the Same Assumptions 

Both the DOD method and the CBO alternative compare military pay raises with 
changes in a version of the employment cost index (ECI), reported quarterly by the 
Bureau of Labor Statistics. 2 Three factors account for the difference between the 
DOD estimate of 12.1 percent and the CBO estimate of 5.3 percent (see Table 1). 

TABLE 1 . DOD AND CBO ESTIMATES OF THE PAY GAP BASED ON THE 
EMPLOYMENT COST INDEX AND FACTORS AFFECTING THE 
DIFFERENCE (In percent) 



Gap/Adjustment 

DoD Estimate of Gap After 1 994 Raise 1 2. 1 

CBO Adjustments 

Measure ECI change over same period as military pay • 6.2 

Allowances for subsistence and housing included - 2.2 

Minor adjustments 17 

CBO Estimate of Gap 5.3 

SOURCE: Congressional Budget Office 

NOTES: ECI - employment cost index. The CBO estimate is for a a typical person, represented by in E-5 receiving 
allowances at the with-depcrxlenti rale and with the median years of service for the grade. Numbers may not 
add to total hwiiraf of rounding. 



More than 6 percentage points of the difference arise because the DOD method 
includes some months of high inflation before the 1982 raise in the civilian side of 



1 The estimate of 12.1 percent is drawn from a table prepared by the Directorate for Com- 
pensation, Office of the Assistant Secretary of Defense (Force Management Policy), "Military 
Pay in Comparison with ECI and CPI" (December 15, 1994). A slightly different estimate, pro- 
duced by the Retired Officers Association (TROA), places the 1994 gap at 12.3 percent See 
TROA table, "Comparison of Military Pay, ECI, and CPI Increases" (February 16, 1994). The 
difference stems from the tatter's attempt to base the comparison on 1972 rather than 1982. 
Because the employment cost index did not become available until 1975, however, this attempt 
requires linking to a different, unrelated index of civilian earnings for its early years. The TROA 
method shows a gap of 0.2 percent in 1982, which it carries forward into more recent years. 

2 ECI here refere to the employment cost index for wages and salaries of private-industry 
workers. The DOD method for computing the pay gap relies on this index starting in 1992 and 
on another version of the ECI that includes State and local government workers before 1992. 



95 

the comparison; CBO instead compares the growth in military and civilian pay over 
exactly the same period. Housing allowances, including both the basic allowance for 
quarters and the variable housing allowance, account for another 2 percentage 
points. Those allowances are an integral part of military compensation and rose 
faster than military basic pay during the period of comparison. CBO includes hous- 
ing allowances in the comparison; the DOD method does not. The rest of the dif- 
ference stems from some minor adjustments working in the opposite direction, in- 
cluding accounting for a shift in the date of the annual pay raise from October to 
January. 3 

CBO estimated the pay gap by comparing military and civilian pay increases over 
the period from October 1, 1981 (the date of the fiscal year 1982 pay raise) to Janu- 
ary 1, 1994. Over that period, the pretax paycheck of a typical person in the mili- 
tary, which includes allowances for subsistence and housing, rose by 54.1 percent. 
Over that same period, the ECI rose by 62.3 percent. The difference between the 
two increases, expressed as a percentage of military pay in 1994, is 5.3 percent. 

The largest share of the difference between the CBO and DOD estimates of the 
gap comes from a rather minor difference in method. The DOD method relies on 
what might be called "hypothetical raises" — the raises that should have been grant- 
ed each year according to the civilian-pay index that DOD was monitoring at the 
time. In setting the annual pay raise, the administration and the Congress must 
rely on information available before they decide on the raise. For example, under 
current law the 1996 raise for military personnel would be based, through the link 
with Federal civilians, on the increase in the ECI from September 1993 to Septem- 
ber 1994. Using information available before each pay raise may mean a raise that 
is too large or small to offset the erosion in military pay since the previous raise. 
Over time, however, those minor errors even out. 

In calculating a pay gap starting from 1982, the errors in the hypothetical raises 
are not so minor and have never evened out. The early part of the 1980s was 
marked by high inflation in both prices and wages, which steadily declined as the 
decade progressed. As a result, the raises indicated by the index of civilian pay were 
consistently higher than necessary to make up for the actual erosion in military pay 
between raises. For example, the ECI used in DOD's calculation of an appropriate 
raise for 1983 indicated that the raise should have been more than 8 percent. The 
actual increase in the ECI between the 1982 and 1983 raises was under 7 percent. 
Similar differences continued to appear as the rate of increase in wages diminished 
year by year through the 1980s. Using year-old data is a fact of life for 
decisionmakers setting the annual pay raise, but it can give a misleading impres- 
sion of how far military pay has lagged behind civilian pay. 

Measuring the Pay of Comparable Civilians: A Negative Pay Gap 

The employment cost index is not the only measure of civilian earnings that can 
be used to measure a military pay gap. An alternative index, which may better 
track the earnings of civilian workers who are truly comparable to the military pop- 
ulation, actually shows military pay outpacing civilian pay since 1982 — or a nega- 
tive pay gap. 

Military personnel differ in some important ways from the population of all civil- 
ian workers (see Figure 1). They are much younger on average — 40 percent are 
under age 25, and fewer than 5 percent are over 45. In terms of education, nearly 
24 percent of civilian workers have college degrees, which compares with the 14 per- 
cent of military personnel who are officers (few enlisted personnel are college grad- 
uates). Thus, over any specific time period, a general index such as the ECI might 
not track well the earnings of civilian workers who are truly comparable to the mili- 
tary population. 



3 The comparison shown collapses several minor differences between the methods into the 
"minor adjustments." In particular, the DOD method uses two different versions of the ECI, one 
for raises before 1992 and the other — the index that CBO uses throughout ite calculation — be- 
ginning with the 1992 raise. Accounting for the minor differences in an alternative way could 
reduce the portion of the difference in estimates from CBO's measurement of military and civil- 
ian pay increases over the same period to about 4 percent. 



FIGURE 1. 



96 



DISTRIBUTION BY AGE GROUP OF MILITARY PERSONNEL AND 
THE CIVILIAN LABOR FORCE (In percent) 



Percentage of total 




Military 



E3 Civilian Labor Force 



SOURCE: Department of Defense. 
NOTE: Data are for fiscal year 1992. 



The contrasts in age and education between military and civilian workers are im- 
portant for pay comparisons because not all workers equally shared the growth in 
civilian earnings during the 1980s and early 1990s. In particular, the pay of college- 
educated workers rose faster than that of people with only a high school diploma, 
and the pay of older workers rose faster than that of younger workers (particularly 
among those who did not go beyond high school). 

Concerns about the usefulness of such general indexes as the ECI, and the record 
of strong military recruiting and retention despite a reportedly growing pay gap, led 
DOD to sponsor an important study by RAND that was published in 1992. The 
study developed an alternative index, which it called the defense employment cost 
index (DECI), by matching military personnel with civilian counterparts based on 
age, education, and occupation. The DECI cannot be as timely as the ECI, but it 
provides a useful alternative when one is examining the performance of past pay 
raises. In addition, a separate DECI can be created for any subgroup of the military 
population to examine the possibly differing changes over time in the civilian-pay 
alternatives of, say, officers and enlisted personnel. 4 

Differences in the growth of civilian earnings among segments of the population 
drive the sharply different picture of a military pay gap based on the DECI rather 
than the ECI (Figure 2). Instead of a large and growing gap, the comparison with 
the DECI suggests that military pay roughly kept pace with the pay oi comparable 
civilian workers through the 1980s and then moved ahead during the 1990s. In 
1994, the gap was negative 4.8 percent; that is, between 1982 and 1994, military 
pay rose by more than the DECI. 



4 For a more complete discussion of the DECI, see James R. Hosek and others, A Civilian 
Wage Index for Defense Manpower, R-4190-FMP (Santa Monica, Cal.: RAND, 1992); and James 
R. Hosek, Christine E. Peterson, and Joanna Zorn Heilbrunn, Military Pay Gaps and Caps, MR- 
368-P&R (Santa Monica, Cal.: RAND, 1994). The index is also discussed in Department of De- 
fense, Seventh Quadrennial Review of Military Compensation, Annual Pay Adjustment: Major 
Topical Summary (MTS) 5 (August 1992). 



97 



FIGURE 2. MILITARY PAY GAPS BASED ON THE DEFENSE EMPLOYMENT 
COST INDEX (In percent) 



Index (1982-0) 



ALL PERSONNEL 




1978 1980 1982 1984 1986 1988 1990 1992 1994 

Fiscal Year 



Index (1982-0) 



OFFICER AND ENLISTED 




1978 



1980 



1982 



1984 1986 1988 
Fiscal Year 



1990 



1992 



1994 



Officer E3 Enlisted 



SOURCE: Congressional Budget Office. Data on defense employment cost index developed and supplied by 

RAND. 
NOTES: Pay gap - (change in civilian pay index • change in military pay index) / (military pay index). All 

changes measured from 1982. 

Civilian pay index - defense employment cost index. The value for each fiscal year represents 

average earnings in the previous calendar year. Indexes for officers and enlisted personnel are based 

on characteristics of those two groups. 

Military pay index is based on military basic pay only. The value for each fiscal year represents the 

pay level after that year's pay raise. 

The gap estimates differ from those published by RAND because RAND attributes military pay 

raises to specific fiscal years differently. 



98 

For some subgroups of the military population, comparing military pay raises 
with the raises of comparable civilians shows important differences. As might be ex- 

Eected, officers (most of whom are college educated) have not fared as well, relative 
) their civilian counterparts, as have people in the enlisted grades. Other compari- 
sons show the most junior enlisted personnel, those with fewer than 5 years of serv- 
ice, doing particularly well. For that group, the gap in 1994 was a negative 11 per- 
cent. 

The DECI is not a perfect tool for examining past pay changes, and it is even less 
useful as a tool in the annual pay-adjustment process. As currently derived, the 
index is not timely enough to drive the annual pay raise. The value for 1994, for 
example, comes from survey data collected in March 1995 and not available for 
analysis until some months later — too late to determine the 1996 raise. (An alter- 
native, more timely procedure might be possible but has not yet been explored.) 

The DECI is also considerably more volatile than the ECI. Over the last 5 years, 
the annual changes in the DECI ranged from a high of 4.5 percent to a low of 0.5 
percent, whereas changes in the ECI ranged from 4.4 percent to 2.7 percent. Al- 
though the volatility in average civilian earnings indicated by the DECI may be 
2uite real, incorporating it into annual military pay raises might not be good policy, 
lertainly, it would be hard to explain to people in the military why they should re- 
ceive an across-the-board pay raise of 4 percent one year and no raise at all the 
next. The volatility would also make future changes in the DECI difficult to predict, 
greatly complicating the job of DOD budget planners. 

As a tool for examining past pay changes — that is, for calculating the pay gap 
(positive or negative)— the DECI suffers, as does any practical alternative, from an 
inability to capture all of the factors that determine potential civilian earnings for 
individuals. In particular, it is well known that the quality of new military recruits 
improved dramatically during the 1980s. That improvement was not only in terms 
of education, which the DECI does account for, but in test scores as well. The frac- 
tion of recruits scoring in the upper half on the military's "entrance exam," the 
Armed Forces Qualification Test, rose from 52 percent in 1982 to 69 percent in 
1990. Presumably, the higher- scoring recruits of recent years had better civilian 
earning prospects, relative to their peers, than did their lower-scoring counterparts 
of the early 1980s. The DECI cannot capture that factor. 

Although the DECI is not a perfect tool for examining the adequacy of military 
pay, it offers one big advantage over the alternatives: it explains why a reportedly 
growing pay gap through the 1980s was not accompanied by growing difficulties in 
recruiting and retention. Evidently, the young high school graduates whom the serv- 
ices sought to attract and retain found military pay to be keeping up rather well 
with the pay that they, lacking a college degree, could find in the civilian world. 

WHAT DOES A PAY GAP MEAN? 

The range of possible values of the current pay gap, from positive to negative, 
may give a person reason to question the usefulness of the very concept of a gap. 
Even if everyone could agree on a precise number for the gap, however, the question 
would remain as to how decisionmakers should use that number in setting policy. 

The apparent existence of a pay gap can mean different things to different people. 
To some, a gap may imply that the services must be unable to attract and retain 
quality personnel — that is, that military pay is not competitive. To others, it may 
suggest an absolute comparison — that military personnel are underpaid relative to 
their civilian counterparts. To still others, it suggests that the men and women of 
the military are being treated unfairly. 

Pay Competitiveness 

Although pay is an important element in the military's ability to compete as an 
employer with the civilian sector, a pay gap is at best only one indicator of possible 
problems in recruiting and retention. Better indicators are available. The military 
services do not simply look to a reportedly growing gap and conclude that they must 
devote more resources to recruiting and increase reenlistment bonuses. Rather, they 
rely on their own observations of difficulties in recruiting and retention. If problems 
in both areas became severe, the services would press for a large pay raise regard- 
less of what any particular estimate of a pay gap showed. Conversely, they probably 
would not offer to divert money from other areas of their budgets to support a large 
raise that did not seem warranted by personnel problems, even if the reported gap 
continued to grow. In short, pay is only one of many factors that affect people's deci- 
sions to enter and remain in the military — and, according to surveys, far from the 
most important. 

In addition to pay, the services offer monetary benefits including retirement pay, 
educational assistance (in-service and veterans'), and a large number of special and 



99 

incentive pays based on an individual's assignment and duties. Non-monetary bene- 
fits include commissary and exchange privileges, health and dental care, paid vaca- 
tion and holidays, legal assistance, ana child care. Virtually all recruits are trained 
in a military skill, which for some may be useful in a civilian career. The services 
also used paid advertising to attract recruits, assign substantial numbers of career 
personnel as dedicated recruiters, and offer scholarships to college students willing 
to commit themselves to a military career. To retain trained personnel, the services 
offer reenlistment bonuses and career continuation pay. Finally, the services are 
often in the position of continuing to hire new people when civilian employers are 
not, since the need for national defense does not vary with the business cycle. 

The ability of the services to attract and retain quality personnel can be affected 
by factors over which the services have no control. The state of the civilian economy 
is one such factor, as indicated above. Decisions to employ U.S. forces abroad and 
the general risk of combat are others. Recently, a new factor may have entered the 
picture: with military reductions, potential recruits may believe that the services are 
no longer hiring or that they no longer offer stable employment. 

If pay is not the only factor determining the competitiveness of the military as 
an employer, it is nonetheless a significant one. Numerous studies have examined 
the role of pay in both recruiting and retaining enlisted personnel and have estab- 
lished clear (if not always precise) relationships. Other things being equal, a drop 
in the pay of military personnel, relative to what civilian employers offer, can be 
expected over time to reduce the quality, if not the absolute number, of new military 
recruits and to cause more people to leave the military when their service obliga- 
tions end. 

Pay Comparability 

A reported pay gap does not necessarily mean that a member of the military is 
being paid less m absolute terms than a civilian worker doing similar work under 
similar conditions, nor would someone's finding of a negative gap indicate that mili- 
tary personnel are overpaid. A determination of either sort would require a much 
more careful study than a simple comparison of pay raises and, for that reason 
among others, has seldom been performed. The large pay raise of 1982, for example, 
was not based on any study of pay comparability. Perhaps more important, pay com- 
parability is extremely difficult to define in practice, precisely because of the unique 
conditions of employment in the military. 

Military service places some unusual demands on service members, and it offers 
some unusual rewards. Many members are regularly sent to overseas assignments 
or on board ships, where they cannot take their families. In recent years, those as- 
signments have often come with little warning. People in the military can be called 
to duty at any time and are subject to strict discipline. And, of course, military serv- 
ice by its very nature subjects members to risks that are rarely seen in civilian jobs. 

Among the rewards that people in the military can expect are the array of fringe 
benefits already mentioned, plus a fairly secure career, a generous retirement sys- 
tem, and perhaps a sense of doing something important. For some, it may also offer 
more subtle advantages. For example, despite occasional reported problems, mem- 
bers of minority racial and ethnic groups apparently find the concept of equal oppor- 
tunity to be more truly realized in the military than in the civilian world. 

Placing a value on many of the benefits of military service is possible, although 
most attempts would have to rely on the costs of providing them rather than on esti- 
mates of the value that service members place on them. Putting a price on some 
of the benefits and on the unusual demands would be far more difficult. On a net 
basis, they would simply represent the difference between military and civilian pay 
after everything possible had been put in money terms. Labeling that residual as 
either an underpayment or an overpayment is merely giving a name to all the un- 
knowns. 

Equity 

Concerns about the fairness of military compensation arise because of the percep- 
tion that military service imposes unique burdens including, of course, the risk of 
death or serious injury. Private employers can let the market decide how such bur- 
dens should be compensated: if deep-sea diving is very dangerous, then (other things 
being equal) deep-sea divers will be well paid. When the Nation is the employer, 
however, it may feel that the market alone is not adequate. 

Recently, some observers have questioned the fairness of pay for junior military 
personnel, but estimates of a pay gap do not inform that debate. Stories of military 
families on food stamps, or unable to afford decent housing, fuel the concern. In fact, 
civilian workers with comparable education and experience most likely face similar 
difficulties. Even if the concern is valid, however, an estimated pay gap is a state- 



100 

ment about the pay of all people in the military, not just its youngest members. A 

ffeneral pay raise is a very expensive way to improve the lot of young military fami- 
ies. 

Ultimately, the question of what constitutes a fair level of military pay must be 
a matter for political judgment; it cannot be decided by objective analysis. It may 
be tempting to interpret a reported pay gap as meaning that pay is now unfair, but 
that merely passes the buck. How does one decide when pay is fair? Moreover, the 
reported gap developed during a period of tremendous change for the military. What 
was a fair level of pay when the main threat was a global war with the Soviet Union 
may be too high or low in today's environment. 

THE FUTURE OF MILITARY PAY RAISES 

How big should military pay raises be in the future? The administration plans to 
limit military pay raises through 1999 to the increase in the employment cost index 
minus one-half of a percentage point. Limiting raises below the level of ECI in- 
creases would tend to add to the pay gap, whatever it may be, or to gradually elimi- 
nate a negative gap if that is the current situation. Granting raises equal to the 
full increase in the ECI, however, would not be inexpensive. Granting even bigger 
raises, based on the premise that the pay gap is currently 12 percent or more, would 
require a substantial increase in the defense budget. 

The Link to the Raises of Federal Civilians 

Defense Secretary William Perry has described the planned military pay raises 
of ECI minus one-half of a percentage point as "the full pay raises allowed by law." 
In fact, any legal limits on military raises are only indirect. The law governing mili- 
tary pay raises provides for military personnel to receive an automatic increase of 
equal percentage to what Federal civilian employees receive in their base pay. In 
practice, however, recent history has made the legal link between military and civil- 
ian pay largely irrelevant. Only once since 1980 has the automatic mechanism for 
adjusting military pay been allowed to operate. In every other year, the Congress 
has legislated specific military pay raises, even when the raise was the same as that 
granted to Federal civilian workers. 

The administration apparently plans to seek military pay raises equal to the in- 
crease in the ECI minus one-half of a percentage point because that is the size of 
the across-the-board raises for Federal civilians provided for under law and because 
the required automatic adjustments in military pay are linked to those raises. An- 
other factor behind that plan may be that throughout most of the 1980s military 
pay raises were apparently smaller than they should have been — that is, a pay gap 
developed — with no apparent harmful effects. As discussed above, the reason no 
harmful effects occurred may be that the pay gap that developed was not nearly as 
large as commonly reported. Indeed, in comparison with the pay of civilian workers 
who are truly comparable with the military population, military pay may even have 
risen disproportionately. 

The 1990 law that set ECI minus one-half of a percentage point as the basis for 
the raises of Federal civilians also established the new system of locality pay for 
those workers, effectively giving them two raises each year. As the law was written, 
the average total raise for civilian employees would actually exceed the ECI increase 
for several years, until all measured local pay gaps were closed to 5 percent. After 
that, the sum of across-the-board and average locality-based raises would roughly 
equal the ECI increase. 

The administration does not plan to let the automatic adjustment mechanism de- 
termine Federal civilian raises. Rather, it intends to hold the total raise to ECI 
minus one-half of a percentage point through 1997 and "makes no assumption about 
how to distribute the pay raise between locality pay and a national schedule adjust- 
ment." 5 After 1997, civilian raises would equal the increase in the ECI minus 1.5 
percent (a similar reduction in the military raises would begin in 2000). 

The automatic link between the civilian and military pay raises would give mili- 
tary personnel only the across-the-board raises of Federal civilians but not the por- 
tion allocated to increases in locality pay. Those lower raises are "the full pay raises 
allowed by law." However, the administration plans to give both groups the same 
average total raise each year, at least through 1997. Thus, the administration's plan 
eliminates for the time being the unequal treatment that the 1990 law creating ci- 
vilian locality pay effectively established, if not the effects of the "ECI minus one- 
hair provision. 



"Budget of the U.S. Government, fiscal year 1996: Budget (1995), p. 157. 



101 

Against the background of the administration's plan to seek legislated pay raises 
each year for both civilian and military workers, the Congress may want to consider 
whether the provision for ECI minus one-half of a percentage point is appropriate 
for the military. Limiting raises to that level might not do any harm, if the earnings 
prospects of young high school graduates in the civilian economy continue to fall rel- 
ative to those of older workers and college graduates. That trend could be reversed, 
however, in which case even raises equal to the full increase in the ECI might not 
be sufficient to maintain recruit quality and personnel retention at desired levels. 
On balance, planning on sustained limits on military pay raises may be unrealistic, 
as eventually recruiting and retention problems would almost certainly appear. 

Costs of Higher Military Pay Raises 

Compared with the administration's plan, granting military pay raises equal to 
the full increase in the ECI would add $0.2 billion to defense budget authority in 
fiscal year 1996 and $4.7 billion over the 1996-2000 period (see Table 2). Additional 
raises of 2 percent each year — big enough to roughly close the reported pay gap over 
6 years — would increase costs by a further $0.9 billion in 1996 and $17.3 billion over 
the 1996-2000 period. When fully implemented in 2002, such a "catch-up" raise 
would add $8.6 billion to defense costs in that year. 



TABLE 2. COSTS FOR TWO ALTERNATIVE MILITARY PAY RAISE PLANS 
COMPARED WITH THE ADMINISTRATION'S PLAN 
(By fiscal year, in billions of dollars of Department of Defense budget authority) 















1996- 


Plan for Military Pay Raises 


1996 


1997 


1998 


1999 


2000 


2000 


Equal to Full Increase in ECI 


0.2 


0.5 


0.8 


1.1 


2.0 


4.7 


Additional 2 Percent Raise Each Year 


0.9 


2.1 


3.3 


4.7 


6.3 


17.3 


Equal to Full Increase in ECI 














Plus 2 Percentage Points 


7" l.l 


2.6 


4.1 


5.9 


8.2 


21.9 



SOURCE: Congressional Budget Office. * 

NOTES: ECI - employment cost index. Cocts in the total federal budget would be lea because the accrual costs for 
military retirement are ofiset elsewhere in the federal budget Numbers may not add to totals because of 
rounding. 



CONCLUSION 

The phrase "military pay gap" conveys the impression that military personnel are 
paid less than they could obtain in the civilian economy. To many people, that is 
a simple fact. An estimated gap of more than 12 percent has been widely reported. 

In fact, there are many ways to calculate a gap, and the range of values that can 
be derived from credible methods is quite wide. According to one estimate, military 
pay raises have even outpaced the increases in earnings of comparable workers in 
the civilian sector. 

Perhaps more important, any estimate of a gap only indicates how relative pay 
has changed, not how pay compares in an absolute sense. A positive pay gap does 
not necessarily mean that military personnel are paid too little any more than a 
negative gap implies that they are paid too much. 

A pay gap is not a very clear indicator of the military's competitiveness as an em- 
ployer. Pay is only one factor in an individual's decision to join the military or to 
stay in. In a volunteer environment, the best indication of how well the military can 
compete as an employer is the overall picture of the services' success in recruiting 
and retention. 

Senator Coats. Mr. Fernandez, do you have anything to add? 
Mr. Fernandez. I have nothing to add, Senator. 



102 

Senator Coats. Well, let me just ask some questions here. First 
of all, when is your final report going to be available or is it avail- 
able? 

Dr. Williams. It is not available. The final report is going to in- 
clude this material, all of which is in the written testimony that 
we submitted and could be prepared for a report at any time. 

But the wider report is going to look also at the structure of mili- 
tary pay and ask some questions about the basic pay versus the al- 
lowances and also about the structure of the pay table inside the 
basic pay. 

Senator Coats. When do you estimate the full report will be com- 
plete? 

Dr. Williams. We do not expect that to be out until late summer. 

Senator Coats. Late summer? 

Dr. Williams. Yes, sir. 

Senator Coats. To what extent are you coordinating your re- 
search with the Department of Defense? Are they aware of the pa- 
rameters that you are using and the indexes you are using and so 
forth? 

Dr. Williams. We have been working back and forth with the 
Department of Defense. 

Do you want to comment more on that? 

Mr. Fernandez. Yes. We have held several meetings with DOD's 
Director of Compensation, and also we will be meeting next week 
with the Eighth Quadrennial Review staff. So I think we are work- 
ing rather closely. 

They were aware, certainly, of this portion of our analysis before 
we brought it here for testimony and, I think, are aware of the 
broader context. 

Senator Coats. Do you feel they are fully cooperating? Are you 
getting the information you need? 

Mr. Fernandez. Oh, absolutely. There is no question of that. 

Senator Coats. Are you calculating the other variables? I assume 
that is what you are saying. You still have yet to do that. Other 
variables in this, I would assume, would include the differential in 
commissary cost, base exchange prices, the availability of enter- 
tainment at a different cost, recreation facilities, et cetera. 

Dr. Williams. That is a really hard question. And, in fact, we do 
not have a good grip on that in this work or in the work that we 
are planning. Typically, these pay gap estimates are done without 
considering any of the fringe benefits or any of the special military 
benefits. 

Senator Coats. The 12.1-percent DOD pay gap estimate does not 
include these other variables? 

Dr. Williams. That is right. And the reason is that the pay gap, 
all of these pay gap estimates, only look at military base pay and 
at non-fringe benefits pay in the civilian sector. 

Senator Coats. Of course in fairness, you would have to look at 
the private sector fringe benefits and compare those to a com- 
parable level job. 

Dr. Williams. That is right. In fact, that is why comparability 
studies are so rarely done, because it is very difficult to figure out 
how to compare the absolute level of pay and the fringe benefits 
from one sector with the other. 



103 

Senator Coats. At this stage of your analysis, what conclusions 
or recommendations would you make to the committee, if any, in 
terms of how we proceed with this question? 

Dr. Williams. You know that CBO does not make conclusions or 
recommendations typically. The only one that we can make is to be 
cautious when you hear about a pay gap and to ask the question 
about how that estimate was formulated, and to keep in mind that 
there is a range of estimates going from 12 percent in DOD's esti- 
mate all the way down to actual negative estimates, and then to 
ask the question about what is the real effect of that on the things 
that matter to you the most. 

The things that probably matter to you the most are the quality 
of the troops that you are bringing into the military, the retention 
of the people who are already in, and the effectiveness of the pay 
system in motivating people and getting them to do their best. In 
those matters, it is not clear at this point that you have serious 
problems. 

I know the gentlemen before mentioned some tip of the iceberg- 
type problems in recruiting. Those, I think, need to be carefully 
monitored. But whether they are firmly tied to pay or to a pay gap 
is a question. 

Whether you would want to try to clear them up using pay as 
a mechanism is a question, because pay is probably the most ex- 
pensive tool that you would have at your disposal to address any 
recruiting problems, maybe also to address retention problems. 

The things that the gentlemen mentioned before, increasing the 
number of recruiters, increasing the amount of advertising, they 
did not mention the educational benefits, but those are a really big 
and cost-effective player, evidently, in attracting high-quality re- 
cruits. 

Those are the areas where you can increase the money in a rel- 
atively modest way and make very big gains, according to previous 
studies on recruiting. 

Senator Coats. I would think some of the retention numbers 
would be as important, if not more important, than recruiting. Re- 
cruiting is an initial entry position, whereas retention goes to a 
point where individuals have been trained in certain specialties. 

Their lateral movement into the private sector — they probably 
have more opportunities, I would think, than someone just coming 
out of school or looking for their first employment. 

Dr. Williams. Yes, sir. I think that is probably true, but one 
thing to remember is that while they have lateral exit opportuni- 
ties, people do not have lateral entrance opportunities into the mili- 
tary. 

And because of that, who you recruit today is who will lead you 
tomorrow. So I believe that DOD would argue that its recruiting 
numbers, especially for the high-quality recruits, are very impor- 
tant. 

Senator Coats. I want to thank you. I will look forward to receiv- 
ing your final report in the late summer when it comes out and 
then perhaps having you back to explain your findings and having 
people from the Department come and explain their views and 
measure the one against the other. This is very helpful to us. 

Dr. Williams. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 



104 

Senator Coats. These questions continue to rise. We read reports 
and so forth. This is very helpful, and I appreciate you providing 
this for the committee. 

Thank you, also, for your patience today through all the votes 
and the lengthy first panel. 

Dr. Williams. Our pleasure, sir. 

Senator Coats. With that, the committee will be adjourned. 

Advance Questions Submitted by Senator Dan Coats to Mr. Pang 
active duty end strength 

Senator Coats. Are the active duty end strengths requested in the fiscal year 
1996 budget adequate to man the force structure and infrastructure required to suc- 
cessfully support the CINCs warfighting requirements while training, equipping and 
maintaining the force? If not, what are the required levels? Do you intend to fully 
fund the end strength requested? 

Mr. Pang. Yes. The active duty end strengths we have requested in the fiscal year 
1996 budget are adequate to man both combat forces and the supporting Defense 
infrastructure. We intend to fully fund the end strengths requested. 

Senator Coats. Are you able to retain quality service members in adequate num- 
bers to support the planned or required end strength? 

Mr. Pang. Yes. In the aggregate, we are retaining quality personnel in the num- 
bers we need. For example, enlisted personnel with high school diplomas who scored 
in the upper aptitude categories represent 64 percent of the force today compared 
to 56 percent in 1987. 

RECRUITING 

Senator COATS. Are you able to recruit quality recruits in adequate numbers to 
support the planned or required end strength? 

Mr. Pang. Our early signs are encouraging for this year. Through January 1995, 
all of the military services met their year-to-date recruiting objectives. Overall, DOD 
has 72 percent of its fiscal year 1995 accession goal of 191,300 recruits in the De- 
layed Entry Program (DEP) or already shipped. This compares with 74 percent at 
this time in fiscal year 1994. (The "DEP + Shipped" proportions for each service are: 
Army — 69 percent, Navy — 69 percent, Marine Corps — 84 percent, and Air Force — 
68 percent.) 

In terms of quality, 94 percent of recruits were high school diploma graduates 
(HSDGs), 70 percent of recruits scored in the upper half of the Armed Forces Quali- 
fication Test (AFQT Categories I-IIIA), and only 1 percent of new recruits scored 
in the lowest acceptable category (AFQT Category D7). These quality indices are the 
same as for this time last year. 

Senator COATS. Despite assurances to the contrary from the Office of the Under 
Secretary of Defense Tor Personnel and Readiness, it appears that some services 
*Hinder accessed" during the early years of the drawdown. This practice necessitates 
an increase in accession goals as the services reach their endstate. Did the services 
"under access" during the drawdown? If so, why and what is the impact now and 
in the near future? To what extent is "under accession" contributing to difficulties 
experienced by recruiters? 

Mr. Pang. I think it may be fair to say that some of the services may have 
accessed personnel at a rate lower than optimally required to sustain their projected 
end strength during the early years of the drawdown. However, the projected 
steady-state end strength at the beginning of the drawdown was the Base Force 
level of about 1.6 million. The projected level under current plans is about 1.4 mil- 
lion. This lower projected end strength requires a optimally lower accession level. 
Therefore, there is no apparent negative effect now or in the future from the acces- 
sion levels of the early years of the draw down. I do not believe that any of the dif- 
ficulties experienced by recruiters today are caused by accession practices in the 
early years of the drawdown. 

Senator Coats. The committee is concerned with the high first term attrition 
rates which have been reported for the past 2 years. What is the first term attrition 
rate? Please breakout by race and gender. 

Mr. Pang. First-term adverse attrition is near 30 percent and has been in that 
range for a number of years. Below is the attrition pattern over time (percent lost 
from the cohort that entered in the fiscal year shown, as measured at 12-, 24, and 
36-month intervals). 



105 



Enlist*} During FY » 


1983 


79*4 


1985 


1988 


1987 


1988 


1989 


1990 


1991 


1992 


1993 


Percent Lost at 12 Montnj 
Percent Lost at 24 Montis 
Percent Lost at 36 Months 


14 
21 
26 


14 
21 

26 


14 
21 
27 


15 
23 
28 


14 
22 

28 


15 
22 
28 


15 
23 
29 


15 
23 
29 


16 
24 
30 


16 
23 


18 


Sue of trie Entry Cohort 


310K 


320K 


311K 


32 5K 


297K 


278K 


283K 


228K 


207K 


203K 


205K 



The detailed breakout for fiscal years 1987-1991 by race and gender is provided 
in the following table. 









F1RST- 


TERM (36-MONTH) 


adveh 


3E ATTRITION RATES BY RACE AND GENDER 










uu 


F«mau 


Toal 


mjm FvmaM 


TOW 


Him F«m» Toal 


M«* F«mM Tom 


LUX 


FwnaM 


T<xa 


wtvw 

BLK* 
Ham 
Otm 
Tow 


27 
27 

a 

21 
27 


a 
a 
a 
a 

a 


a 

27 

a 
a 

a 


27 41 

a a 

a 34 

21 31 
27 *St 


a 

27 
24 

a 
a 


a 43 31 

27 31 a 

24 a a 
21 a a 
a a a 


X 43 32 

a 3i a 
a a a 
a 3i a 
a a a 


a 

24 

a 

a 


31 

34 

a 

40 


a 

a 

24 

a 



Senator COATS. What are the primary causes of the attrition described above? 
What programs are planned or in place to reduce this attrition? 

Mr. PANG. Reasons for adverse attrition fall into four categories: (1) medical dis- 
qualifications, (2) dependency status or hardship conditions, (3) behavioral problems 
or unsatisfactory performance, and (4) other separations or discharges. 

The services have on-going research programs designed to reduce adverse attri- 
tion. These include: (1) identification of personal characteristics that closely cor- 
relate with attrition that can be used to screen out people likely to leave service 
prematurely, and (2) consideration of the effects of military organizational climate 
on the causes and rates of attrition. There are numerous factors that have consist- 
ently been shown to relate to adverse attrition: age, high school academic perform- 
ance, school behaviors and attitudes, work history, and educational achievement. 
These have been combined into a joint-service adaptability questionnaire which has 

E roved, in an experimental setting, to be a valid predictor of first-term attrition. 
Ibwever, such a questionnaire may he susceptible to coaching and faking, thereby 
limiting its effectiveness. Try-out of the questionnaire as part of the actual enlist- 
ment process is the next step in this type of attrition research. 

The services also are studying a variety of organizational variables such as leader- 
ship styles of training instructors and unit officers and NCOs, job and base assign- 
ments, and quality-of-life considerations (i.e., pay, housing, family services, etc.) as 
they relate to attrition. While this work is relatively new, it is clear that young peo- 
ple must be given realistic previews of military life and work. Recruits must be ap- 
praised of the need for regimentation, rigorous physical training, and discipline. In 
sum, the best promise toward reducing adverse attrition is to enhance the match 
between the individual and the organization through adaptability screening as well 
as dissemination of realistic information about the job, the military environment, 
and the military style of life. 

Senator Coats. Last year, the Congress authorized additional recruiting and ad- 
vertising funds. Does the fiscal year 1996 budget request provide adequate funds for 
recruiting and advertising requirements in fiscal year 1996 and through the FYDP? 

Mr. Pang. The military departments recently confirmed the adequacy of the funds 
we requested for recruiting in the fiscal year 1996 budget. We are recruiting in a 
very difficult market. The propensity of American youth to join the military contin- 
ues to decline. If we begin to fall short of our recruiting goals, we may need to reas- 
sess the adequacy of our resources. At this time, however, I believe the funding we 
have requested is sufficient. The same is true for funding in the FYDP. 

Senator COATS. We have listened to your reports of the declining propensity of eli- 
gible youth to enlist in the military. What research has been done to determine why 
the propensity is declining and what are the results of the research, if any? 

Mr. Pang. Since 1975, the Department of Defense annually has conducted the 
Youth Attitude Tracking Study (YATS), a computer-assisted telephone interview of 
approximately 10,000 young men and women, nationwide. This survey provides in- 
formation on the propensity, attitudes, and motivations of young people toward mili- 
tary service. Research has shown that the expressed intentions of young men and 
women are strong predictors of enlistment behavior. 

Enlistment propensity is the percentage of youth who state they plan to "defi- 
nitely" or "probably" enlist in the next few years. In 1994, the percent of 16-21 year- 
old males (our primary recruiting source) who expressed such interest in the mili- 
tary continued to decline. YATS data show 26 percent of 16-21 year-old men ex- 
pressed enlistment propensity for at least one active-duty service. This is a 3-per- 



106 

centage point drop from the 1993 YATS survey, and an 8-percentage point decline 
from the historically -high, 34 percent level in 1991. 

While YATS can identify trends in youth propensity, the "why" is conjecture at 
this time. The Department has several efforts underway to understand this issue 
better. First, in conjunction with the Army, we conducted a special administration 
of the YATS this past summer. Although fewer youth than usual were surveyed 
(N=4,000), we specifically asked youth with decreased interest in military service 
why they feel that way. Second, we are analyzing results of our large, annual survey 
of youth. It was administered in fall 1994 and contained similar Questions that 
probed reasons why youth are now less attracted to the military. We also have focus 
groups planned to help us better understand these trends. 

Senator Coats. Has the Department of Defense conducted any research inside the 
declining propensity to determine if the aggregate figures represent a decline in the 
high quality, eligible population or among the population at large with actual effect 
on the target population? Does the declining propensity have any effect on the qual- 
ity of individuals you are accessing? If so, what do you intend: to do? If not, why 
is declining propensity a condition about which we should worry? 

Mr. Pang. Yes, we have conducted research into propensity for the high quality 
market. Similar to aggregate propensity figures for the overall youth population, 
high quality youth interest in the military and in their enlistment intentions have 
dropped. There has, however, been no immediate effect on the quality of individuals 
we are accessing. Last year was our third best recruiting year ever. We track pro- 
pensity since it is closely related to the supply of potential enlistees, and a contin- 
ued decline could adversely impact the quality of our new recruits, particularly 
given increased accession requirements in the near future. 

Senator COATS. The National Voter Registration Act of 1993 requires military re- 
cruiters to offer personnel who enter their offices the opportunity to register to vote, 
ask individuals who decline to register to fill out a form indicating that they de- 
clined, assist those who desire to register, and maintain records of their activities 
in this area. How has this requirement added to the workload of military recruiters? 
How many have registered through military recruiting offices? How many were of- 
fered the opportunity to register out declined? What are the costs attributable to 
the National Registration Act? 

Mr. Pang. The NVRA has not been in place long enough to accurately measure 
any impact on the work of military recruiters. We are encouraging recruiters to use 
the NVRA as an opportunity to establish good relationships with the community 
they serve. 

The program was implemented in January 1995. Reports for NVRA activity dur- 
ing the first quarter of 1995, including the information you requested, are due in 
mid-April. A cumulative statistical report by State will be available in early May 
1995. 

Costs include postage for mailing completed registration forms from recruiting of- 
fices to State officials; duplication of declination forms; maintenance of an adequate 
inventory of forms and instructional materials; and programs to train recruiters in 
these new responsibilities. We do not now have a good estimate of these costs. 

PERMANENT CHANGE OF STATION 

Senator Coats. What is the Permanent Change of Station budget for fiscal year 
1996? 

Mr. Pang. Budgeted for fiscal year 1996 is $2,725 billion. 

Senator COATS. How many moves are planned in this budget? 

Mr. Pang. The services project 809,871 moves for fiscal year 1996. 

Senator COATS. How many moves were planned and executed in fiscal years 1988, 
1993, and 1994? 

Mr. Pang. The following are the planned and actual moves for fiscal years 1988, 
1993, and 1994. 







Fiscal years 






1988 


1993 


1994 


Planned 


1,143,301 


957,330 
965,137 


879,950 


Actual 


1,136,827 


852,113 









COMPENSATION 



Senator COATS. What compensation program would you implement given author- 
ity and sufficient resources? 



107 

Mr. Pang. One of our quality of life initiatives in the fiscal year 1996 authoriza- 
tion request is to reduce the out of pocket cost for military personnel who reside 
in the civilian community. Currently, such military personnel receive housing allow- 
ances which on the average cover about 80 percent of actual housing costs. We want 
to increase the coverage to 85 percent for fiscal year 1996, we propose to increase 
the coverage to 80 percent and incrementally increase coverage by 1 percentage 
point in each of the next 4 years. I would consider acceleration of this initiative if 
authority and sufficient resources were provided. 

Senator Coats. There has been much discussion about the "pay gap". Some in the 
Department of Defense question whether there is a pay gap and whether the ECI 
index is an appropriate index upon which military pay raises should be based. In 
your opinion, what is the current pay gap? Do you have a recommended alternative 
to the ECI as a basis for computing military pay raises? 

Mr. Pang. At the current time, the pay gap is 12.6 percent using the ECI as the 
appropriate index. I do not have an alternative to the ECI, but I can tell you how 
the Department has addressed the pay raise. First, the President and the Secretary 
have nailed down the maximum military pay raise provided for under current law 
for the rest of the century. This is a major — perhaps unprecedented — commitment. 
Second, Secretary Perry has asked that the Quadrennial Review of Military Com- 
pensation review this action and consider — given the dollars we have committed for 
compensation — if we should restructure how the money is allocated in any way. He 
has also asked them to consider whether a one-time adjustment might be appro- 
priate. I believe this represents a prudent and responsible approach to the "pay gap" 
issue. 

Senator COATS. S. 205, a bill to terminate entitlement of pay and allowances for 
members of the armed services who are sentenced to confinement and a punitive 
discharge or dismissal introduced by Senator Boxer, has been referred to the Com- 
mittee on Armed Services. Has the Department reviewed S. 205? 

Mr. Pang. Yes. 

Senator COATS. Does this bill, as drafted, meet the needs of the Department of 
Defense or would you recommend modifications? If so, please describe the rec- 
ommended changes. 

Mr. Pang. While the Department strongly supports the purpose and underlying 
philosophy of S. 205, we are now considering legislation to provide a straight for- 
ward solution to this issue. 

The proposal we are considering would: 

1. Stop the pay and allowances of members confined as a result of a general court- 
martial conviction. 

2. Start forfeitures when adjudged rather than waiting for review and approval 
by the convening authority which can occur months after the trial. 

3. Provide for limited transitional support to inmate families if needed, subject to 
ceilings on duration and amount. 

4. Toughen rules for officer inmates, assuring no creditable time during confine- 
ment as a result of a court-martial conviction. 

5. Clarify that parolees are not to be paid. 

Senator COATS. When do you anticipate we will receive the DOD proposal? 

Mr. Pang. We hope for clearance in the near future. Final intra-Department co- 
ordination was due on March 14; we will work to quickly clear the proposal with 
OMB, and submit the proposal to Congress. 

Senator COATS. The Personnel Subcommittee has oversight of the Defense Fi- 
nance and Accounting Service (DFAS). Have you conducted any customer satisfac- 
tion surveys to determine how well DFAS is meeting the needs of the service mem- 
bers and the agencies serviced by DFAS? If so, what are the results? If not, why 
not? Are the services satisfied with how well DFAS meets the needs of the service 
members as well as being responsive to inputs from services? 

Mr. PANG. The Defense Finance and Accounting Service comes under the direction 
of the Under Secretary of Defense, Comptroller, but I am happy to provide you with 
information which was provided to me: 

• DFAS measures customer satisfaction through the use of performance measure- 
ments and surveys. While those performance measurements cover the operational 
side of their business (e.g., timeliness, accuracy), surveys provide a means to meas- 
ure satisfaction from the customer's point of view. They have performed several sur- 
veys that address elements of customer satisfaction. 

• A recently-completed survey of Army retirees indicated that almost all (99 per- 
cent) of the respondents were satisfied or very satisfied with the retired pay services 
from the Indianapolis Center. DFAS also completed a post-transfer customer service 
survey for the Executive Office of the President, the Defense Industrial Supply Cen- 
ter, the Defense Distribution Region West, and the Defense General Supply Center; 



108 

this survey identified that most (77.5 percent) of the respondents felt satisfied with 
the overall quality of service. 

• A special survey of all DOD Flag Officers also was completed; that survey iden- 
tified a need to communicate better with certain groups of customers. In this par- 
ticular survey, individual responses from DFAS were dispatched to respond to the 
individual concerns of each survey participant. 

• DFAS is planning a variety of other surveys that can provide a better perspec- 
tive on customer satisfaction levels from their customers — a survey of American Ex- 
press Travel Card Administrators and travelers; a survey of civilians paid by their 
civilian pay systems (DCPS and DBMS); a survey of the vendors paid by our Colum- 
bus Center; a survey of out-of-service debtors managed by their Indianapolis Center; 
and a survey of active duty military paid from the Denver Center. These efforts, 
coupled with those already completed, will provide a well rounded view of customer- 
satisfaction levels. 

Senator Coats. What is the Basic Allowances for Quarters (BAQ) gap? What are 
the recommended corrective actions? 

Mr. Pang. In 1985, the National Defense Authorization Act conferees noted that, 
"basic allowance for quarters (BAQ) rates [were] restructured so that they would 
cover 65 percent of national median housing cost in each pay grade." Since the 1985 
restructuring, BAQ has lagged behind housing cost growth because its annual rate 
increase has been tied to the percentage of basic pay increase. Data from the fiscal 
year 1994 Housing Survey reflect that BAQ coverage of cost has fallen to 59 percent 
of the national median housing cost. This 6 percent difference between congressional 
intention and currently experienced BAQ coverage of housing costs is the BAQ gap. 

As a result of DOD's Quality of Life initiatives, the Secretary has recommended 
fiscal year 1996 legislation requesting BAQ be increased by $43 million, a 3.4 per- 
cent increase, and the BAQ program be increased by $272 million across the FYTJP. 
Without this funding, BAQ would be tied to the basic pay increase of 2.4 percent, 
and the BAQ-gap would continue to grow. Our programmed additional funding is 
projected to reduce the BAQ gap by 1 percentage point per year across the FYDP. 

OFFICER PERSONNEL 

Senator Coats. What is the officer/enlisted ratio for fiscal years 1988, 1993, 1994, 
1995 and projected for fiscal year 1996? Do you believe that this ratio is an accurate 
means of assessing the proper structure of the military services? 

Mr. Pang. The following chart reflects the ratios (officers enlisted) for the fiscal 
years concerned. Officers include both commissioned and warrant officers. 



Fiscal Year -? 



1988 



1993 



1994 



1995 



1996 



DoD Total 



1:6.0 



1:5.6 



1:5.5 



1:5.4 



1:5.3 



I do not believe that the officer/enlisted ratio is an accurate means of assessing 
the proper structure of the military service. The mix of officer and enlisted person- 
nel results from a requirements determination process which involves: the assess- 
ment of threat; the determination and allocation of forces to counter the threat; the 
determination of units required to compose the forces; and the determination of indi- 
viduals required to compose the units. Because it is a result and not a measure, 
I do not endorse the ratio as a method of management, either in developing man- 
power policy or evaluating structures of the military services. 

Senator COATS. What is the current (fiscal year 1995) Joint Duty Assignment List 
requirement? How does this compare to fiscal years 1988 and 1991? Field Grade 
JDAL 1988/1991/1995. 

Mr. Pang. The most recent JDAL, No. 95-A, was approved on March 7, 1995. It 
contained a total requirement of 9,253. In 1988 the total list size was 8,363, and 
in 1991 it was 8,952. 

1988: Field Grade=8,084, (G/FO=279); 

1991: Field Grade=8,685, (G/FO=267); 

1995: Field Grade=9,013, (G/FO=240). 

Senator Coats. Field Grade authorizations 1988/1991/1995? 

Mr. Pang. 

1988: Field Grade 100,516, (G/FO= 1,057); 

1991: Field Grade 99,036, (G/FO=1,017); 

1995: Field Grade 85,666, (G/FO=910). 

Senator COATS. What is the current (fiscal year 1995) requirement to fill OSD and 
non-JDAL billets in the Defense agencies? How does this compare to fiscal years 
1988 and 1991? 



109 



Mr. Pang. The following table responds. 



Fiscal Year -> 


19X3 


1991 


1995 


OSD 


440 


440 


429 


Defense Asencies (Non-JDAL) 


2844 


2838 


2736 



Senator Coats. The Senate Armed Services Committee has, for several years, 
urged the Department of Defense to submit a comprehensive DOPMA relief request 
rather than forcing individual services to request short-term relief. Will you submit 
a request for DOPMA relief this year? If so, describe the relief you will request. 
What is the justification for the requested relief? If no relief will be requested, does 
this indicate satisfaction with current DOPMA tables? 

Mr. Pang. The Army and Marine Corps have temporary field grade relief through 
fiscal year 1997 as a consequence of the 1995 National Defense Authorization Act. 
A request for similar relief for the other services is pending review by the Office 
of Management and Budget. If enacted, all will have temporary grade relief through 
1997. 

DOPMA grade relief was discussed at a November 8, 1994, "Personnel Summit" 
attended by the Department's top civilian and military personnel officials. At that 
time the Department committed to hammering out a game plan and obtaining serv- 
ice input; after which a consolidated proposal would be developed and presented to 
Congress for permanent grade relief. The attendees agreed to pace efforts toward 
submission of the legislation as part of the Department's legislative program for 
year 1997. 

The legislative history of DOPMA shows that grade tables are derived from two 
sequential analyses. The first is the manpower requirements pattern which is the 
grade pyramid derived from manpower requirements-determination process. Second 
is the analysis to confirm that such grade patterns support the attainment of 
DOPMA promotion timing and promotion opportunity guidelines, in light of antici- 
pated retention. For the Department to build upon that foundation, I believe we 
must achieve a consensus view in both areas — the target shape of each service's 
grade pyramid and the desired retention scenario, and must do so using a common, 
systematic approach. 

Senator COATS. Are the current drawdown authorities adequate to permit an or- 
derly downsizing of the officer corps? 

Mr. Pang. The current drawdown authorities, both voluntary and involuntary, 
have allowed us to target specific grade, skill and experience cohorts for release 
from active duty. These authorities have proved adequate to enable the Department 
to downsize the officer corps in an orderly and fair manner. The Department's policy 
for the drawdown has been to offer voluntary incentives to reduce the force before 
taking involuntary measures. Three voluntary authorities — Voluntary Separation 
Incentive (VSI), Special Separation Benefit (SSB), and Temporary Early Retirement 
Authority (TERA)— have been highly successful, accounting for about 25,000 separa- 
tions since fiscal year 1992, with fewer than 2,000 separation resulting from an in- 
voluntary Reduction in Force (RIF). 

ENLISTED PERSONNEL 

Senator COATS. Are the current drawdown authorities adequate to permit an or- 
derly downsizing of the enlisted force? 

Mr. PANG. The current drawdown authorities, both voluntary and involuntary, 
have allowed us to target specific grade, skill and experience cohorts; they are ade- 
quate for the Department to downsize the enlisted force in an orderly and fair man- 
ner. The Department policy for the drawdown has been to offer voluntary incentives 
to reduce the force before taking involuntary measures. The three voluntary authori- 
ties — Voluntary Separation Incentive (VSI), Special Separation Benefit (SSB), and 
Temporary Early Retirement Authority (TERA) — have been successful, accounting 
for about 114,000 separations since fiscal year 1992. 

Senator COATS. Describe the demographics of the enlisted force by race and gen- 
der in fiscal years 1991 and 1994 and projected fiscal year 1999. Describe the same 
demographic categories for the top three enlisted grades. 

Mr. Pang. The following are the fiscal years 1991 and 1994 demographics: 



110 



Total Enlisted 


White 


Black 


Hispanic 


Other 


Female 


FY91 


70.3% 


20.6% 


4.8% 


4.3% 


11.0% 


FY94 


70.3% 


19.5% 


5.4% 


4.8% 


12.2% 












Top 3 Enlisted 


White 


Black 


HisDanic 


Other 


Female 


FY91 


69.2% 


20.4% 


4.3% 


6.1% 


5.4% 


FY94 


66.1% 


22.7% 


4.9% 


6.4% 


7.8% 



The Department does not project race, ethnic and gender demographics. 



Senator Coats. Are you employing a "tiered manning" strategy? If so, describe 
your plans and the readiness impact of such a plan. 

Mr. Pang. In the Bottom-Up Review, the four main phases for a conflict with an 
invading force are to (1) halt the invasion; (2) build up the U.S. combat power while 
reducing the enemy's; (3) defeat the enemy; and (4) provide post-war stability. A 
"tiered manning" strategy ensures that the properly configured and manned forces 
are available and can be committed at the proper time. 

Senator Coats. How do you define PERSTEMPO? 

Mr. Pang. PERSTEMPO is the time individuals spend away from their homeport 
or station; it is driven by a number of variables such as service assignment and ro- 
tation policies. Reserve component utilization, force structure mix, and overall utili- 
zation of our forces throughout the world. 

Senator Coats. What is your PERSTEMPO plan? 

Mr. Pang. Until recently only the Navy had a PERSTEMPO system and policies. 
Within the past year, the other services have begun to measure and collect data on 
PERSTEMPO. Each service will manage this facet of its readiness using service- 
unique standards based on mission. The Joint Staff is leading a Department-wide 
PERSTEMPO study to ensure a better understanding and sound management of 
this matter. 

Senator Coats. What is the actual experience? 

Mr. Pang. Each service recently reported its top PERSTEMPO problem or poten- 
tial problem areas. These areas are listed below: 

A. Army — Senior enlisted logisticians, cargo specialists, and watercraft engineers 
and operators. (These personnel, assigned to the 7th Transportation Group, while 
at a high PERSTEMPO rate over the past few months have recently returned to 
a more normal operating schedule.) Psyops specialists and patriot crews rounded out 
the Army's list. 

B. Navy — PACFLT: overseas homeported surface combatants and aviation squad- 
rons. LANTFLT: surface combatants and amphibious ships. Also maritime patrol 
and reconnaissance aircraft, attack sub and LAMPS helicopter units. 

C. Marine Corps — EA-6B attack squadrons. 

D. Air Force— A-10 pilots in USAFE. HC-130, EC-130, and AWACS crews in 
ACC. Combat Control Teams in AFSOC. 

Senator Coats. What type of deployments/time away from home station are In- 
cluded in the PERSTEMPO calculation? What is excluded? 

Mr. Pang. PERSTEMPO calculations, standards, and policies, vary by service due 
to service-unique missions. The Navy's established system tracks units by several 
measures. These measures are: (1) deployments no longer than 6 months, (2) a mini- 
mum turn-around ratio of 2:1 between deployments, and (3) 50 percent time in 
homeport over a 5 year period. Deployments are defined as greater than 56 days 
or as delineated by the CINCs. The system currently does not address individuals 
or occupational specialties. The Army is now tracking "SKILLTEMPO" (individual 
time away from home by specialty) and "DEPTEMPO" (Unit deployments). Initial 
analysis of SKILLTEMPO" data has begun. A DEPTEMPO system is still under de- 
velopment. The Army intends to develop PERSTEMPO thresholds once data analy- 
sis is completed. The Air Force tracks PERSTEMPO based on individual TDY orders 
and has established a tentative threshold of 120 days/year. The Air Force is evaluat- 
ing its policy and may consider varying this threshold by career fields. The Marine 
Corps is currently tracking "DEPTEMPO," defined as away from home for oper- 
ations and training in excess of 10 consecutive days. The Marine Corps has estab- 
lished the threshold of a 6-month limit on deployments and will analyze 
DEPTEMPO data before determining if additional thresholds will be developed. 



Ill 

OTHER MATTERS 

Senator COATS. Section 533, fiscal year 1995 NDAA required the Secretary of De- 
fense to submit an annual report on trends in recruiting, retention and personnel 
readiness. The initial report was to be submitted in conjunction with the fiscal year 
1996 budget. What is the status of this report? 

Mr. Pang. The report appears at Appendix "G" of the Secretar/s Annual Report 
to the President ana Congress. The report is published, and distribution is under- 
way. 

ASSIGNMENT OF WOMEN 

Senator Coats. What are the tangible readiness impacts of the expanded opportu- 
nities for the assignment of womenr What are other, less-tangible, impacts? 

Mr. Pang. There are no readiness impacts — tangible or intangible — of the ex- 
panded opportunities for the utilization of women that I am aware of. The imple- 
mentation of the expanded opportunities for women has been seamless, reflecting 
the services' experience in personnel management and the quality of the men and 
women in todays forces. 

Senator COATS. Some services have integrated initial recruit training. What 
changes were required to accommodate co-ed initial training? 

Mr. PANG. The Army, Navy and Air Force have integrated recruit/basic training 
to best meet the needs of their service. For the most part, very little was required 
to accommodate the co-ed training. Trainees, regardless of gender, receive the same 
training and must complete the same course objectives. The main area that required 
changes involved living arrangements to accommodate men and women in the same 
barracks or dormitory. Trainees in the same unit, such as a company in the Army 
or a squadron in the Air Force, routinely live in the same barracks or dormitory. 
Many of these have open-bay style rooms with open bathrooms and shower bays. 
When a unit is integrated, women occupy a section of a building or a separate floor. 
As women make up a much smaller portion of the recruits and they do not arrive 
at a consistent rate, some units will remain all male out of necessity rather than 
by choice. 

Senator COATS. When the co-ed initial training experiment was conducted pre- 
viously there were noticeable reductions in cohesion among the trainees. What is 
the current experience? Are you using the same measures that were used in the ear- 
lier experiment to ensure a valid comparison? 

Mr. Pang. In the 1970s, the Army studied and conducted integrated Basic Initial 
Entry Training, but there is no detailed research available as to why this was not 
adopts in January 1993, the Commanding General of the Army's Training and Doc- 
trine Command initiated a plan to study the feasibility of integrating basic training 
programs. Between February 1993 and June 1993, Fort Jackson conducted an inte- 
grated training test at the squad level. The results were positive. The research 
found no significant difference in training performance outcomes and the Army lead- 
ership made the decision to integrate basic training in June 1994. The Army recog- 
nized the importance of training men and women together as a cohesive team. For 
example, the Army's study indicated that gender-integrated basic training can be as 
positive for males as single-gender training, and that gender-integrated training is 
much more positive for women. The Navy conducted a similar study and integrated 
recruit training at Recruit Training Center Great Lakes in August 1994. Air Force 
basic military training has been integrated since 1990. Marine Corps basic training 
is not integrated. All programs are working well. Since there is no detailed body of 
research available on the Army's 1970 experience, a solid basis for compensation of 
that experience and today's program does not exist. 

Senator Coats. Have the standards for any specialty opened to the assignment 
of females been modified to accommodate females? If so, explain. 

Mr. Pang. We have not changed the occupational performance standards in any 
specialty recently opened to women. Most of the additional assignment opportunities 
come from opening jobs for women in their current specialty in units previously 
closed to them, such as assigning female maintenance and supply specialists to air- 
craft carriers. Training standards for selection into and continuation in career fields 
open to both men and women will continue to be gender-neutral. We fully recognize 
that to maintain combat readiness and effectiveness, every individual, regardless of 
gender, must be capable of performing those tasks required to be proficient in the 
military skills needed for a given career field. 

Senator Coats. What costs are attributable to the expansion of the opportunities 
for the assignment of women? 

Mr. Pang. The only significant direct costs associated with opening additional as- 
signments to women is the cost of reconfiguring ships to accommodate adequate pri- 



112 

vacy and berthing aboard ships. These costs vary by the size of the ship and the 
number of women to be assigned. 

Senator COATS. Describe the current policy concerning assignment and 
deployability of female service members when they are pregnant? 

Mr. PANG. Each service has its own policies to meet specific mission requirements, 
taking into consideration the health and welfare of the service member. There are 
general themes in these policies. At an early stage in the pregnancy, women are no 
longer deployed on exercises or in a theater of operations. Women are restricted 
from flying high-performance aircraft when pregnant. Each service also provides a 
reasonable amount of time for post-partum leave. 

Senator Co ATS. There have been a number of articles in the press recently con- 
cerning the sleeping arrangements of men and women deployed to Haiti and other 
areas. What is the DOD policy on men and women and/or officers and enlisted per- 
sonnel living in the same tents? At what command level is the policy established? 
What is the impact on berthing on ships? 

Mr. Pang. Decisions on field-living arrangements are left to the services. In most 
cases, the local commander determines the living accommodations based on mission 
requirements, available assets, and common sense. 

Land units in the field often do not have adequate tent age to lodge their person- 
nel with complete gender separation. Consequently, mixed-gender living arrange- 
ments in tents and warehouses may become necessary. In all cases, women are pro- 
vided separate shower and bathroom facilities. If separate changing rooms are not 
available, temporary partitions are erected to provide privacy. 

During Operation Desert Shield conditions were similar to those in Haiti. This is 
not out of the ordinary, but typical of many deployments and training exercises. In 
the Persian Gulf, blankets were used to provide privacy for women in tents. Signs 
were used on bathroom doors to indicate when they were occupied. Separate shower 
times were established for men and women. In general, adequate privacy was not 
considered an issue by male or female service members. 

Recent circumstances involving land units have no impact on berthing aboard 
ships. Ships are reconfigured to accommodate a fixed number of women prior to de- 
ployment. 

JOINT DUTY 

Senator COATS. Regarding active duty line promotion boards to the grade of briga- 
dier general and rear admiral (lower half) convened in fiscal years 1992, 1993, 1994, 
and 1995, please provide to the subcommittee: 

(1) the number of individuals recommended for promotion by each board; 

(2) the number of individuals granted "joint equivalent" waivers for the require- 
ment to have served in a joint assignment prior to promotion to brigadier general 
or rear admiral (lower half); 

(3) a listing of those assignments for which "joint equivalent" waivers were grant- 
ed. 

Mr. Pang. 



Service 


Number Promoted 




Granted Waivers 






92 


D3 


94 


95 


92 


93 


94 


95 


Army 


38 


38 


39 


HA** 


7 


5 


4 


NA 


Nary 


31 


30 


30 


31 


5 


5 


4 


1 


Air Force 


36 


84» 


NA 


38 


11 


20 


NA 





USMC 


11 


14 


15* 


14 


2 


5 


2 


2 



•The scheduling of the boards (Nov 92 and Sep 93) resulted in two boards for FY93 and no board for FY94 
"No board has been held to date in FY95 

List of Assignments where Joint equivalent assignments were granted: 

Army 

1992 
Joint Operational Testing Staff Officer, ODCSOPS, HQDA 

Maintenance Officer, 70th Aviation Detachment, USA Support Group, Thailand 
NATO Staff Officer, War Plans Division, OSSCDOPS, HQDA 
Cryptologic Staff Officer, USA Intelligence and Security Cmd, Duty at NSA 



113 

Cryptologic Staff Officer, USA Intelligence and Security Cmd, Duty at NSA The 
Cryptologic Staff Officer billet is listed twice because two officers were promoted 
to BG with the same duty title) 
Battalion S-3, 1st Ranger Battalion, 75th Infantry Regiment 
S-/S-3, later Senior Launch Commander, Command and Control Detachment 
South, 5th Special Forces Group later mission transferred to Training 
Advisory Group, U.S. Army, Vietnam 

1993 
Exchange Officer, Logistics Executive (British Army) 
Commander, United Nations Command Support Group, Joint Security Area, 

Korea 
Staff Officer, Office of the DCS for Operations and Plans, Hqs U.S. Army 
Operations Officer, Delta Force, 1st Special Operational Detachment 
Staff Officer, Office of the DCS for Logistics, Hqs US. Army 

1994 
Chief, Military Police Investigations, later Chief Special Operations, Berlin 
Brigade United States Command, Berlin 
Assistant Chief, later Chief, General Officer Management Office, Office of the 

Chief of the Staff, Army 
Force Development Staff Officer, Office of the DCS for Operations and Plans, 

Chief Plans Division, Office of the Asst Chief of Staff, G-3, (Operations), V 

Corps United States Army Europe 

1995 
No board held to date in fiscal year 1995 

Navy 

1992 

Staff Operations Officer and Chief of Staff for Operations and Plans Commander 
Carrier Group TWO 

Head, Projects Section, Polaris/Poseidon Strategic Submarine Div OP-21, OPNAV 

Assistant Chief Operational Test Director, Air Test and Evaluation Squadron, 
Point Mugu, CA 

AAW/ASMD Analyst, Office of the CNO, OP-96, OPNAV 

Head, Strike Warfare Section, Air Warfare Branch, Director, Research Develop- 
ment, Test and Evaluation, OP-982, OPNAV 

1993 
Commander, Carrier Air Wing FIVE 
Assistant Chief of Staff for Plans, Training and Readiness for Commander Naval 

Surface Group, Western Pacific 
Commander Task Group 72.2/Commander Okinawa Air Patrol 
Special Assistant to the Office of the CNO, OP-96, OPNAV 
Strategic-C3 Intelligence and Strategic Program Analyst, OPNAV 

1994 
Strategic Studies Group, OP-60, OPNAV 
Office of Legislative Affairs, Congressional Committee Liaison 
Combat Information Center Officer, Commander Carrier Group EIGHT Vietnam 
Service 

1995 
Assistant Head, Planning and Architecture Branch, Office of the CNO, OPT 

Air Force 
1992 

Squadron Forward Air Controller, 20 Tactical Air Support Sq, DaNang Airfield, 
Vietnam 

Weapons Systems Staff Officer, Office of the SecAF for Legislative 

Affairs and Deputy Chief, Sys Liaison Div, Office of the SecAF for Legislative Af- 
fairs 

Chief, Strike Attack Div, Operating Location A. Hqs, 17th AF, United States Air 
Force Europe 

Deputy Chief, Tactical Div, DCS, Research Development and Acquisition Hqs, 



114 

Deputy Dir and later, Director, Programming and Policy, DCS Plans, Hqs, Mili- 
tary Airlift Command 

Forward Air Controller, 22nd ARVN Division, 21 TASS, Cam Ranh Bay 

AB, Vietnam and Aide de Camp to CINC, Allied Air Forces Central Europe/ 
USAFE 

Air Operations Officer, Tactical Forces Division, DCS Plans and Operations, Hqs, 
USAF 

Air Operations Officer, Strategy Division, DCS, Plans and Operations Hqs, USAF 

Chief, Middle East Africa Div, and Asst Dir for Joint and NSC Matters 

DCS Plans and Operations, Hqs, USAF 

Air Operations Officer, Fighter Division Asst Chief of Staff, Studies and Analysis, 
Hqs, USAF 

Space Shuttle Program Element Manager, DCS Research Development and Acqui- 
sition, Hqs, USAF 

1993 

International Programs Manager for Middle East/Africa, then Chief, International 
Programs, Egypt Section, DCS Programs and Resources, Hqs, USAF 

Squadron Air Liaison Officer and Air Ground Operations School Instructor, 601st 
Tactical Air Support Group, Duty with V Corps, U.S. Army 

F-15 Operations Monitor and Chief, Weapon System Branch, DCS for Plans and 
Operations, Hqs, USAF 

Assistant Executive Officer to the Chief of Staff, USAF 

Deputy for Program Control, Defense Support Program Office 

Air Operations Staff Officer, Tactical Fighter, DCS Programs and Resources, Hqs, 

USAF Systems Analyst, Office of the Asst Sec of Def, Prgm Analysis and Evalua- 
tion 

Forward Air Controller, V-10A, 23rd Tactical Air Support Squadron, 56th Special 
Operations Wing, Nakhon Phanom Royal Thai AFB, PACAF 

Operations Programming Officer, Hqs, Military Airlift Command 

Planning, Programming and Budgeting System Branch Chief, Programming and 
Policy, Hqs, Military Airlift Command, Air Operations Officer 

Directorate of the Air Force Board Structure, Office of the AF Vice Chief 

Tactical Fighter Air Operations Officer, Programs Division Deputy Chief and Ex- 
ecutive Officer, Programs and Requirements, Warsaw Pact 

Capabilities Analyst, DCS Operations and Intelligence, Hqs, USAF 

Contiguous United States Basing Branch Program Officer; Overseas Bases and 
Units Branch Chief; and Evaluation Division Chief, Hqs Strategic Air Command 

Battalion Air Liaison Officer, 9th Infantry Division 

Air Operations Officer and Joint Training Exercise Planner; Hqs, Military Airlift 
Center Europe; Airlift and Training Division Chief, Office of the SecAF for Ac- 
quisition 

Aide to the Chief of Staff, USAF 

Assistant Operations Officer, 57th Fighter Weapons Wing, Tactical Air Command; 
Action Officer, Tactical-General and Deputy Assistant Director, Special Projects, 
DCS Operations, Hqs, USAF 

Tactical Air Operations Standardization and Evaluation Division Chief, Oper- 
ations, Hqs United States Air Forces Europe 

Emergency War Order Tactics Development Branch Chief, Operations with duty 
at Joint Strategic Target Planning Staff, Hqs, Strategic Air Command; Missile 
Operations Director/Planning and Programming Officer, and Assistant Chief, 
Strategic Offensive Forces Division, DCS Plans and Operations, Hqs, USAF 

Satellite Control Facility Program Element Monitor and Program Manager and 
Executive Officer, Research and Development, Hqs USAF; Office of the Sec- 
retary of Defense Study Team Member on U.S.-U.S.S.R. Space Programs 

OV-10A Forward Air Controller Instructor Pilot, 1st Special Operations Wing, 
Tactical Air Command; Tactical Force Programmer and Executive Officer, DCS 
Plans and Resources, Hqs, USAF 

Pacific/East Asia Division Air Operations Officer, DCS Plans and Operations, Hqs, 
USAF 

1994 

None 
1995 

None 



115 

Marine Corp 

1992 

Assistant Plans Officer Flag Allowance Atlantic and Naval Flag Allowance Am- 
phibious Group 2 

Advisor, Vietnam Infantry Brigade Plans Officer, Eastern Regional Plans Branch, 
Hqs, USMC 

1993 

Land Forces Aviation Plans Off, Aviation Plans Prgms and Budget Branch, Hqs 
USMC 

Training Officer/Marine Liaison, Defense Liaison Group, Indonesia and Assistant 
Deputy Chief of Staff for Marine Corps Matters/Amphibious Plans and Ops Offi- 
cer, Naval Forces Korea 

Assistant Chief of Staff for Plans/Assistant Chief of Staff for Operations, Hqs, 
Fleet Marine Force, Europe 

Plans Officer, Joint Strategic Branch, Plans, Policies, and Operations Dept, Hqs 
USMC 

Aide de Camp to Commander, Joint Rapid Deployment Force 

1994 
Plans Div Officer, Plans Policies and Operations Department, Hqs, USMC 
Senate Liaison Office, Special Asgmt Navy Dept, Office of Legislative Liaison 

1995 
NASA Astronaut 

Headquarters, USMC, Plans, Policies and Operations, Current Operations 
Exercise Plans/Analysis Officer 

JOINT EDUCATION 

Senator Coats. Under what conditions, other than in-residence instruction at a 
service or joint intermediate or top level school, mav an active duty service member 
be awarded credit for Joint Professional Military Education (JPME)? (Please provide 
a copy of implementing instruction or regulations for awarding such equivalency or 
credit instruction or regulations for awarding such equivalency or credit.) 

Mr. Pang. The Military Education Policy Document (CM-16 18-93, copy provided), 
authorizes the awarding of Phase I PJE credit for three types of programs other 
than in-residence PME. 

• Non-Resident Intermediate PME Programs. These programs undergo the same 
rigorous Process for Accreditation of Joint Education as resident programs and are 
accredited accordingly. 

• CJCS-Approved International Military Programs. These programs are reviewed 
annually by the services and CJCS. 

• CJCS-Approved Fellowship Programs. These programs are reviewed annually. 
Senator Coats. What institutions or programs are authorized to award equiva- 
lency credit for JPME? 

Mr. Pang. None. Only CICS grants equivalency credit for specific programs. 

Senator Coats. How and under what standards are these institutions or programs 
accredited to awards such credit? 

Mr. Pang. Non-resident intermediate PME program* undergo the same rigorous 
accreditation review process that resident programs do. International and fellowship 

grograms are scrutinized on an annual basis by the services and CJCS. Criteria for 
JE Phase I credit include service acceptance of a program as PME equivalence, 
and application of service standards for selection to attend PME. Should these offi- 
cers be selected to be Joint Specialty Officers, they then required to attend a Joint 
Transition Course and the 12 week Phase II joint education program at Armed 
Forces Staff College. This ensures they are properly educated and prepared to oper- 
ate in a joint environment and fully understand joint warfighting. 

CILILIAN PERSONNEL 

Senator Coats. In the fall of 1994, the Department of Defense announced an in- 
crease and acceleration in the planned civilian work force reductions. There is a 
widespread perception that this decision was based on the need to generate savings 
to pay for other programs or to force the civilian work reductions when expressed 
as a percentage to match the percentage of military force reductions. To what extent 
were more substantive factors such as the civilian contribution to military readi- 
ness; force structure changes; and civilian work load changes considered in assess- 
ing the wisdom of increasing and accelerating the civilian work force reductions? 



116 

Mr. Pang. Civilians contribute greatly to military readiness through areas as di- 
verse a policy formation, logistical support, health care, education and training, re- 
pairs and maintenance, scientific and engineering research, computer operations, 
and morale, welfare, and recreation services both on base and during deployment. 
The Department of Defense operates as a Total Force consisting of active military, 
Guard and Reserve military, and civilians all working together. Therefore, changes 
in the military size and structure inevitably affect decisions about the civilian 
workforce. 

Senator Coats. To what extent, if any, are the departments and agencies author- 
ized to time their civilian work force reductions to reflect their specificity in terms 
of force structure changes and work load and/or to shape them in light of the future 
needs of the service? 

Mr. Pang. Because of the importance of civilians to our overall operations, we con- 
tinue to study the long-range impact of our planned civilian reductions. Last sum- 
mer, for example, we convened a Workforce Shaping Task Force to study the impact 
of the civilian cuts so far and to develop polices and programs for ensuring that we 
have the type of civilian workforce that can best fulfill our future mission. To meet 
staffing and readiness needs, this cross-component task force has developed a num- 
ber of proposals that appear in the Department's current legislative agenda. The 
task force will continue its work over the coming year. As another example, the Of- 
fice of the Under Secretary of Defense (Personnel and Readiness) has commissioned 
a survey of civilians at closing and realigning bases to determine transitional needs, 
evaluate programs, and gather data for improving operations. 

One of our top priorities is to streamline the way in which we operate. The 
planned civilian reductions will force us to improve our business processes; this im- 
provement, in turn, will affect the numbers and types of civilians we need. We see 
the downsizing as an iterative process which will result in fewer civilian employees, 
but improved operating practices. 

PERSONNEL DEMONSTRATION PROJECTS 

Senator Coats. Recently, the Congress provided the authority for the Secretary 
of Defense to conduct personnel demonstration projects at Science and Technology 
Reinvention Laboratories. What progress has been made in using this authority to 
encourage demonstration projects tailored to the needs of individual laboratories? 
How is the Department ensuring that any tendency toward corporate frameworks, 
artificial constraints, and unnecessary coordination requirements do not delay the 
evaluation and approval and implementation of individual projects? 

Mr. Pang. With the passage of the 1995 Authorization Act granting demonstra- 
tion project authority to the labs, OSD, OPM and service component laboratory and 
civilian personnel communities met in October at a 2-day workshop to interpret the 
statutory language and develop strategies for immediate reaction. Since then, we 
have devoted many resources to the effort full-time. 

My staff works with the Defense Directorate for Research and Engineering on the 
Coordination Council and Laboratory Quality Improvement Panel's Human Re- 
source Management (HRM) Subpanel to integrate and facilitate the effort at the 
OSD level and on the Evaluation Subgroup to develop a corporate design matrix for 
project evaluation to relieve the labs of much of the burden. We are coordinating 
a final draft of an HRM Lab Demo Framework with service components and labs. 
The Framework considered flexibilities the labs proposed during and since the Octo- 
ber workshop, the National Performance Review and National Partnership Council 
reports, and the DOD corporate interests and strategic goals for HRM reinvention. 
It establishes broad parameters for project proposal assessment and approval to 
guide and expedite the effort. It also identifies HRM-related issues outside the scope 
of title 5, such as FTE controls and administration of the Defense Priority Place- 
ment Program, that we are working concurrent with but separate from the project 
proposals. 

Based on title 5 requirements for demonstration projects, we have divided the 
demonstration project process into three phases: (1) concept paper guidance; (2) pro- 
posal design comments, and (3) proposal final approval. Most labs are just entering 
the second phase. Implementation of some aspects of the proposals can begin imme- 
diately with local, service and DOD granted authorities. We and OPM have devel- 
oped both internal and mutual processes for informal information exchange with the 
labs and for concurrent staffing to respond to the labs as quickly as possible. 

The labs are our customers. With their unique authority to test HRM interven- 
tions that we would like to pursue Department-wide, they also are our suppliers. 
I assure you that we all appreciate this opportunity and will continue to work to- 



117 

S ether to streamline and improve our laboratory HRM programs so that they add 
irect value to lab effectiveness and mission accomplishment. 

MODERNIZATION AND REGIONALIZATION OF MANAGEMENT FUNCTIONS 

Senator Coats. Given certain assumptions, the modernization and regionalization 
of civilian personnel management functions could provide a tremendous opportunity 
for enhanced customer service and substantial savings in overhead and staff re- 
sources. Without a modern, standard personnel data system, the consolidation of 
personnel servicing into large service centers may not enable the realization of sub- 
stantial cost savings without an unacceptable degradation in customer service. Does 
the Department intend to consolidate personnel servicing before a modern, standard 
personnel data system and its supporting communications network is in place? If 
so, what level degradation in customer servicing does the Department expect to ex- 
perience? What benefits does the Department expect to realize in choosing this 
course of action? 

Mr. PANG. Yes, the Department will begin restructuring our civilian personnel op- 
erations in late fiscal year 1995. The target standard data system is scheduled for 
DOD-wide deployment in fiscal year 1998. In the interim, prior to the implementa- 
tion of regional centers and customer service centers, we will install automation 
hardware and communications support and field innovative process improvement 
applications that are beneficial to regionalization. 

While the target system environment will further increase resource savings and 
improve customer service, regional restructuring, even if done alone, would also 
produce significant resource savings without reducing the current level of personnel 
services provided. This resource savings would be produced primarily through econo- 
mies of scale. We believe we can achieve significant savings and benefits now with- 
out any level of degradation in customer service. Regionalization alone is expected 
to increase the ratio of Civilian Personnel Office staff to service population from 
1:61 to 1:72. Partially implementing the automated process improvements will im- 
prove the servicing ratio to 1:85. Full implementation of the modernized system cou- 
pled with regionalization will culminate with an overall servicing ratio of 1:100. 

Many efforts are underway to ensure the success of civilian personnel regionaliza- 
tion and systems modernization. The Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense (Civil- 
ian Personnel Policy) has established a Program Management Office (PMO) for Re- 
gionalization and Modernization with overall responsibility for integrating the two 
major efforts, each of which has its own Project Officer. She receives weekly 
progress reports from the PMO and shares these with component counterparts for 
collaborative monitoring. Further, regular planning conferences are conducted with 
the highest level civilian personnel representatives from the DOD components to co- 
ordinate and report on regionalization and modernization actions and events. 

We are currently assessing commercial off-the-shelf (COTS) human resource pack- 
ages to determine whether a COTS package is available that, with some modifica- 
tion, will meet the Department's needs. Acceptance of a COTS package may allow 
deployment of the fully modernized system by as much as 12 months earlier. 

MANAGEMENT BY FULL TIME EQUIVALENTS 

Senator COATS. The administration's report: "Cutting Red Tap — Creating a Gov- 
ernment That Works Better and Costs Less" in referring to "Full Time Equivalents" 
(FTEs) provides that "The President should direct OMB and agency heads to stop 
setting FTE ceilings in fiscal year 1995." What role do FTEs ceilings play in the 
Department's management of the civilian work force? Do you believe that manage- 
ment by end strength or by FTEs — as opposed to managing and budgeting by ceil- 
ings on operating costs — is appropriate for managing the civilian work force of the 
Department of Defense as a whole? For managing the civilian force in the military 
departments? For managing the civilian work force in the individual agencies within 
the Department of Defense? 

Mr. Pang. The Federal Workforce Restructuring Act of 1994, establishes full time 
equivalent (FTE) ceilings as a means of measuring the downsizing of the Federal 
workforce. The Office of Management and Budget was directed to provide each 
agency with their respective ceilings. 

The FTE limits imposed by the Federal Government Restructuring Act of 1994 
are unnecessary for controlling the staffing levels of the Department. Prior to the 
establishment of these ceilings, DOD did not have any externally directed ceilings 
and we were able to be well ahead of the budgeted end strength. There is no need 
to impose these types of external restraints when downsizing targets are consist- 
ently met. Use of the FTE ceilings impedes the ability to implement resource-shar- 
ing innovations which require reallocating manpower to accomplish the job. Further, 



118 

DOD will always face emergency missions that require rapid responses; artificial 
ceilings constrain our ability to reallocate resources effectively and efficiently. 

Military Education Policy Document 

(Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff) 

SECTION III— POLICIES for pme 

1. General. This section provides guidelines for the services, NDU, and other edu- 
cational institutions to follow in the conduct of their officer education responsibil- 
ities. 

a. The services and NDU provide PME at each level of education, through either 
resident or nonresident courses, to uniformed members of the U.S. Armed Forces, 
international officers, and eligible civilians in the Federal Government. Curriculum 
for nonresident courses should parallel equivalent resident courses with accommoda- 
tions made for different teaching environments, methodologies, and time available. 

b. Each service operates its oificer military education system to develop officers 
with the functional expertise and professional knowledge appropriate to their grade, 
branch, or warfare specialty. Developingthe ability to function in a joint environ- 
ment is inherent in the mission of all PME. 

c. NDU operates its institutions to further the development of select officers from 
all services and select civilians from the Federal Government in joint matters and 
national security strategy. 

d. The services will select only the most qualified officers for attendance at 
intermediate- and senior-level PME institutions. 

2. Program for Joint Education 

a. The PJE is the body of principles and conditions that prescribes at both the 
intermediate and senior levels of military education the course goals and learning 
objectives for formal, officer JPME programs. PJE is described in detail in Appendix 
A and is designed to: 

(1) Ensure that all students at PME colleges are knowledgeable in joint matters. 

(2) Prepare students for joint duty assignments. 

(3) Satisfy the educational requirements for JSO qualification. 

b. PJE is a shared responsibility between the intermediate- and senior-level PME 
institutions and AFSC. PJE Phase I is incorporated into the curriculums of the serv- 
ice colleges, both resident and nonresident, as well as other programs that may be 
accredited for PJE by the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. All educational in- 
stitutions should seek to ensure that the PJE Phase I curriculum interfaces with 
the PJE Phase II curriculum. NWC and ICAF also have a PJE responsibility, but 
their curriculums fully incorporate the learning objectives of the PJE. 

c. To satisfy the educational requirements for JSO qualification the officer must 
be a graduate of NWC or ICAF or have completed both an accredited PJE Phase 
I course of instruction and the AFSC Phase II instruction. 

d. AFSC will operate a Joint Transition Course (JTC) of approximately 1 week 
in length for officers who did not complete PJE Phase I by attending an accredited 
or certified program (resident or nonresident) at a U.S. service college; the JTC will 
prepare officers to attend PJE Phase II. 

e. All PME institutions will ensure that current joint doctrine, procedures, and 
other publications are used as course references. 

3. Education Requirements for JSO Designation 

a. Designation as a JSO identifies an oificer as having education and experience 
in joint matters in addition to expertise in the officer's principal military occupa- 
tional specialty. Normally an officer must complete PJE and then complete a full 
tour of duty in a JDA in order to meet the prerequisites to become a JSO. 

(1) Officers, 0—6 and below, with a critical occupational specialty (COS) are ex- 
empt from the normal sequencing requirement of PJE followed by a JDA. 

(2) The Secretary of Defense may, on a case-by-case basis, waive the sequence re- 
quirement for non-COS officers or waive the PJE requirements for officers who have 
completed two full JDAs. These waivers must demonstrate a critical need and are 
limited to 10 percent of the total JSO designations by grade for any fiscal year. 

b. To qualify as a JSO, an officer must take a sequenced approach to joint edu- 
cation in which the norm would require an officer to complete Phase I instruction 
before proceeding 



b. International student officer participation at AFSC PJE Phase II course is lim- 
ited to no more than one per seminar, on a space available basis. 



119 

(1) Student qualifications include: 

(a) Active duty, 0—4/0-5 equivalent. 

(b) Genuinely fluent in English language (ECL 80). 

(c) Graduate of a resident U.S. intermediate-level service college or PJE Phase I 
equivalent program approved by the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. Grad- 
uates of international intermediate- level service schools that are not included on 
a listing of CJCS-approved PJE Phase I equivalent programs will be considered on 
a case-by-case basis. 

(d) Graduate of AFSC JTC (optional for resident graduates of U.S. 10-month PME 
school programs). 

(2) Requests to attend AFSC should be submitted to the Commanding Officer, 
Naval Education and Training Security Assistance Field Activity (NETSAFA), Pen- 
sacola, Florida. Final approval for acceptance of an international officer to attend 
AFSC will be made by the Deputy Director, Joint Staff, for Military Education. 

11. U.S. Officers in International PME Programs. Services conduct programs for 
the participation of select officers in international programs consistent with relevant 
policy directives. Officers attending international schools may attend PJE Phase II 
if either of the following is met: 

a. The Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff has designated the specific inter- 
national program as PJE Phase I equivalent. Deputy Director, Joint Staff, for Mili- 
tary Education, VJ-7, will maintain a list of CJCS-approved programs. Services 
should periodically review the approved programs and request additions or deletions 
as appropriate. 

b. Completion of a service or NDU program that includes PJE Phase I. 

12. Process for Accreditation of Joint Education 

a. All JPME programs and the PJE portion of service PME programs, including 
intermediate-level nonresident programs, must be accredited by the Chairman of 
the Joint Chiefs of Staff to qualify for PJE credit. The Chairman will direct accredi- 
tation of these programs through the Process for Accreditation of Joint Education 
(PAJE) as outlined in Appendix B. 

b. Certification conducted by the JCS Initial Certification Group for academic year 
1988-1989 is valid for all PME and JPME colleges through academic year 1993- 
1994. The services and NDU may request accreditation of their programs at any 
time; however, the PAJE will be conducted for AFSC and all ILCs and SLCs no 
later than academic year 1993-1994. 

13. PME College Equivalence. If a service grants PME equivalence for courses of 
study or fellowships at other than PME institutions, officers who participate in 
these programs in lieu of a U.S. service school or college may attend PJE Phase II 
if either of the following is met: 

a. The Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff has designated the specific program 
as PJE Phase I equivalent. Services may request consideration of alternative mili- 
tary education programs for Phase I equivalence through the Deputy Director, Joint 
Staff, for Military Education, VJ-7, who will maintain a list of CJCS-approved pro- 
grams. Services should periodically review the approved programs and request addi- 
tions or deletions as appropriate. 

b. Completion of a service or NDU program that includes PJE Phase I. 

14. Capstone Course. Capstone course attendance is a statutory requirement for 
officers selected for promotion to G/FO rank, unless waived by the Secretary of De- 
fense. 



Advance Questions Submitted by Senator Dan Coats to General Stroup 
active duty end strength 

Senator Coats. Are the active duty end strengths requested in the fiscal year 
1996 budget adequate to man the force structure and infrastructure required to suc- 
cessfully support the CINCs warfighting requirements while training, equipping and 
maintaining the force? 

General STROUP. Yes. Even though we have a negative operating strength devi- 
ation (undermanned) in each of the years from fiscal year 1996 to fiscal year 2000, 
the strength budgeted will be adequate to man the force and support the CINCs 
warfighting requirements. 



120 

Operating Strength Deviation 

[In Man-years] 



Thousands 



Fiscal years: 

1996 -6.1 

1997 -7.6 

1998 -3.6 

1999 -3.3 

2000 -4.5 

Senator COATS. Does your service intend to fully fund the end strength requested? 

General Stroup. Yes. 

Senator COATS. Are you able to retain quality service members in adequate num- 
bers to support the planned or required end strengths? 

General STROUP. Yes. Retention goals, especially for careerists, have been met or 
exceeded. 

Senator Coats. Are you able to recruit quality recruits in adequate numbers to 
support the placed or required end strength? 

General STROUP. Yes, we will in fiscal year 1995. We are concerned about our 
ability to access enough quality recruits to meet our end strength in future years 
for two reasons. First, our accession mission increases substantially; the fiscal year 
1996 accession mission is 85.2 thousand, the fiscal year 1997 accession mission is 
96.3 thousand, while the fiscal year 1995 accession mission is 70,000. Second, exac- 
erbating the higher accession missions is the persistent fall in positive propensity 
of young males to join the Army which makes recruiting even more difficult today 
than last year 

Senator Coats. List the accession goals for fiscal years 1994, 1995, 1996, and 
1997. Breakout the accession goals by quality category and by race and gender. For 
fiscal year 1994 and 1995 (to date), list the planned and actual accomplishment. 

General STROUP. The Army does not set goals by race. NPS female goal is 18 per- 
cent or more for fiscal years 1995-1997. Data is through February 1995 





FY94 


FY95 


FY96 


FY97 




Goal 


Achieve 


Goal/YTD* 


Achieve 


Goal 


Goal 


Accessions 


68K 


68K 


70K/26.4K* 


26.4K* 


85.2K 


96.3K 


NPS 


60.2K 


60.2K 


62K723.6K* 


23.6K* 


77.2K 


88. 3K 


PS 


7.8K 


7.8K 


8K/2.8K* 


2.8K* 


8K 


8K 


HSDG 


>=95% 


95.2% 


>=95% 


96.1%" 


>=95% 


>=95% 


TSC I-niA 


>=67% 


70.6% 


>=67% 


70.9** 


>=67% 


>=67% 


TSCIV 


<=2% 


1.9% 


<=2% 


1.5** 


<=2% 


<=2% 


NPS Females 


11. IK 


11. IK 


11.2K/4.5K* 


4.9K 


18% 


18% 


NPS Amlnd 




0.6% 




0.7%* 






NPS Asian 




•1.8% 




2.2%* 






NPS Black 




22.2% 




24.8%* 






NPS White 




72.3% 




68.2%* 






NPS Other 




3.1% 




4.1%* 







• YeaMo-date (YTD) 
•• Accession +DEP 



RECRUITING 

Senator Coats. Despite assurances to the contrary from the Office of the Under 
Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness, it appears that some services 
"under accessed" during the early years of the drawdown. This practice necessitates 
an increase in accession goals as the services reach their endstate. Did your service 
"under access" during the drawdown? 

General STROUP. No. The Army has not under accessed during the drawdown. The 
Army has met congressional and OSD guidance. In fact, the accession missions in 
fiscal years 1994 and 1995 were "boosted" by voluntary enlisted loss programs. 



121 

The Fiscal Year 1991 Defense Authorization Act, Title IV, Section 402, page 62, 
required services to limit accessions to a number not greater than that required to 
sustain the force projected in fiscal year 1991 and beyond. This act also required 
publication of regulations by the Office of the Secretary of Defense on a uniform 
process for implementing reductions. These military manpower objectives required 
services to program accessions at a level not greater than required to sustain the 
fiscal year 1995 force levels and not to be less than 85 percent of that level. Major 
Army reductions did occur early in the drawdown years. 

Prior to the drawdown beginning in fiscal year 1988, the annual Army enlisted 
accession missions ranged from 120,000 to 140,000. 

The drawdown policy was to reduce accessions, decrease retirement eligible popu- 
lations and tailor the remainder of the force by skill and grade through the vol- 
untary loss programs. 

Accession missions during the drawdown years: 

Thousands 

Fiscal years: 

1991 77.8 

1992 76.5 

1993 , 77.0 

1994 67.5 

1995* 70.0 

1996* 84.0 

* Projected. 

In fiscal year 1997, the Army expects to rebound in accession requirements to 
96,000, gradually returning in fiscal year 1998 and beyond to a steady range of 
85,000-90,000. 

Senator Coats. What is the first term attrition rate? Please breakout by race and 
gender. 

General STROUP. First term attrition by race and gender. 



Male Female Total 



White 36.0 51.2 38.0 

Black 29.7 32.3 30.4 

Other 30.0 3 1.8 3 1.0 



Totals 34.5 43.8 36.0 

Senator Coats. What is the attrition rate for initial unit training (recruit train- 
ing)? Again, breakout this out by race and gender. 

General STROUP. The attrition rate for Active Component Basic Training based 
upon fiscal year 1994 data is 9.9 percent. 

The breakout by gender is Male — 8.9 percent and Female — 12.4 percent. 

The breakout by race is Asian — 6 percent, Black — 7.3 percent, Native American — 
9.1 percent, and White — 10 percent. 

Senator Coats. What are the primary causes of the attrition described above? 
What programs are planned or in place to reduce this attrition? 

General STROUP. We are concerned that the current attrition levels are too high 
and that it has risen in all categories. Therefore, we have convened an attrition 
roundtable of senior leaders and expert researchers to include TBADOC, USMA, 
RAND, and ARI and other organizations and focused their research efforts to deter- 
mining the causal factors of attrition and the development of holistic solutions to 
reduce attrition. 

We have also implemented some initial corrective actions to reduce attrition. 
These actions include stressing positive motivation by Drill Sergeants, counseling of 
potential Entry Level Separation (ELS) category soldiers, counseling of borderline 
or optional Existed Prior to Service (EPTS) category soldiers, and counseling on re- 
tention/separation process limited to the chain of command medical and mental 
health personnel interaction limited to the specifics of medical conditions and issu- 
ance of profiles. 



122 

Senator Coats. Last year, the Congress authorized additional recruiting and ad- 
vertising fund. How have you used those funds? Does the fiscal year 1996 budget 
request provide adequate funds for your recruiting and advertising requirements? 

General STROUP. An adequately resourced advertising program is critical to suc- 
cessful recruiting as a means to counter growing media and public perception that 
the Army is no longer a relevant choice for our Nation's youth and that the Army 
has significantly reduced enlistment opportunities as a result of the on-going 
drawdown. Extensive market research provides empirical evidence that advertising, 

Particularly television advertising, has a direct ad positive influence on recruiting. 
Without a quality advertising program, Army opportunities and the long-term bene- 
fits of Army service will remain largely unknown to prospects and parents. 

The Active Army recruiting advertising budget for fiscal year 1995 was $43.3 mil- 
lion, and the fiscal year 1995 budget is $55 million. The additional resources al- 
lowed the Army to significantly enhance its communications program by increasing 
the effective reach and frequency of the Army message nationally. The increased 
funding levels allowed the Army to establish network television sports as the domi- 
nant medium for general market media advertising. For the first time in 5 years 
the Army is executing a continuous 12-month advertising program, that in addition 
to sports TV, uses a media mix including youth television, print and radio. In addi- 
tion to reaching our prime prospect audience (men 18-24 years old) more effectively, 
increased advertising, particularly in general interest magazines, will achieve more 
exposures to parents and women. Besides the increased media, the Army will 
produce three new television commercials. These are the first new Army television 
commercials produced in 5 years. The increased budget for this fiscal year will also 
allow the Army to expand its direct mail program targeting females, and increased 
mailings to Army Nurse Corps and medical specialists prospects. Other require- 
ments resourced with the increased funding include expanded promotional cam- 
paigns and research necessary to support a robust national communications pro- 
gram which is critical in today's difficult recruiting environment. 

Senator COATS. What is the breakout of production recruiters to support staff 
within your recruiting personnel? What was this breakout in fiscal years 1988, 1994, 
and 1995? What actions have you taken to increase the effectiveness of your recruit- 
ing operations? 

General STROUP. USAREC has continued to reduce its overhead from fiscal years 
1988-1995. The data below is authorizations. 

Production Support 

Recruiters Staff 

Fiscal years: 

1988 6,775 5,056 

1994 6,153 4,328 

1995 6,503 4,280 

USAREC has taken many steps to increase the effectiveness of its recruiting oper- 
ations. First, they have spearheaded the Joint Recruiting Information Support Sys- 
tem (JRISS). JRISS will increase recruiter productivity as recruiters will be able to 
conduct paper-less applicant presentations and processing at the applicant's home 
or work allowing the recruiter more prospecting time each day. Second, they have 
modified their recruiter mission assignment process to enhance individual recruiter 
productivity. USAREC has also substantially increased use of Total Army Involve- 
ment in Recruiting (TAER) and Hometown Recruiter Assistance Program (HRAP) as 
low or at no cost to local awareness builders. TAIR uses active and reserve units 
such as the Golden Knights and band exhibitions in the local community. HRAP sol- 
diers return to their hometown and talk with their friends for up to 10 days imme- 
diately following completion of AIT enroute to their first duty station. 

Senator Coats. We have listened to your reports of the declining propensity of eli- 
gible youth to enlist in the military. What research has been done to determine why 
the propensity is declining and what are the results of that research? Has DOD con- 
ducted any research inside the declining propensity to determine if the aggregate 
figures represent a decline in the high quality, eligible population or among the pop- 
ulation at large with little actual effect on the target population? Does the declining 
propensity have any effect on the quality of individuals you are accessing? If so, 
what do you intend to do? If not, why is declining propensity a condition about 
which we should worry? 

General STROUP. The Army conducted focus groups in fiscal year 1994 and con- 
ducted a special out-of-cycle YATS survey called Y ATS "Plus." 



123 

The USAREC conducted eight focus groups in April-May 1994 targeting male 
high school diploma seniors/graduates expressing negative propensity and parents 
of males fitting the above description. The biggest negative associated with joining 
the military/Army were government mistrust, commitment, and military lifestyle. 
Additionally, recruiters were viewed as used car salesmen. 

YATS "Plus" was recently completed and detailed analysis is ongoing. Preliminary 
results indicate that "military lifestyle" is the most significant reason not to join. 
Further, respondents' view of recruiters was another reason not to enlist. These re- 
sults reinforce focus group results. USAREC is still conducting more analysis on the 
YATS "Plus" data. 

RAND has found that the propensity in the high quality youth market has not 
declined substantially relative to pre-drawdown levels. 

The decline in positive propensity has tremendous adverse effects on the entire 
recruitable population substantially increasing recruiters' workload and their daily 
stress. The Army uses YATS positive propensity to evaluate the recruiting difficulty 
from one year to another year. The Army has experienced a persistent decline from 
fiscal years 1989-1994 of 39 percent among young males. Positive propensity is the 
"attitude" of Americans about serving on active duty. And, right now it is very nega- 
tive. Army recruiters must prospect in this very adverse environment. The recruiter 
must contact ALL the 17-21 year olds in their area, establish enough rapport with 
each to determine if the prospect is possibly qualified to enlist and, if so, continue 
the process, if the prospect is willing. His willingness is best described and esti- 
mated by positive propensity, which is at historically low levels. 

The low positive propensity does not have an affect on the quality of our appli- 
cants, but it is important because it has quality of life and resource and implica- 
tions. First, recruiters must spend more time finding prospects willing to screen, 
test, and access. This additional time adds to the recruiters' stress of making mis- 
sion and reduces their off-duty time. Second, the Army's advertising budget has in- 
creased to the $70 million level for fiscal years 1995-2000 to increase awareness of 
Army opportunities with our prospects and their parents, creating additional re- 
cruiter leads. Last, as we explore the reasons behind the increased attrition, we 
think that it might be explained by the change in positive propensity. 

Senator Coats. What are the recruiting goals of the Reserve and National Guard 
for fiscal years 1994, 1995 and 1996? Breakout the goals by quality category, race 
and gender. For fiscal years 1994 and 1995, show the actual numbers in addition 
to goals. 

General Stroup. The below tables detail the Army National Guard and Army Re- 
serve recruiting goals and achievements for fiscal years 1994, 1995 and 1996. 



124 

Table 1 
FY94 Army Reserve Components Recruiting Goals and Achievements 





ARNG 




ARNG 




USAR 




USAR 




CATEGORY 


Goals 


%Prod 


Ach 


% 


Prod 1 


Goals 


ft Pratt 


Ach 


% 


Prod 1 


HSDG 


25,890 




94% 


19,027 




84% 


19,000 




95% 


17,980 




95% 


i-mA 


17,077 




62% 


12,486 




55% 


13,400 




67% 


13,245 




70% 


CAT TV 


551 




2% 


487 




2% 


400 




2% 


378 




2% 


Females 


2,701 




10% 


3,391 




15% 


5,200 




26% 


5,527 




29% 


Total NPS 


27,543 




40% 


22,526 




37% 


20,000 




41% 


18,846 




38% 


Total PS 


42,167 




60% 


38,742 




63% 


28,500 




59% 


31,062 




62% 


Total 


69,710 






61,268 






48,500 






49,908 







Table 2 
FY95 Army Reserve Components Recruiting Goals and Achievements 



CATEGORY 


ARNG, 
Goals °yfProd 


ARNG 
Ach 1 % 


Prod 1 


USAR 
Goals % 


Prod 1 


,USAR 
Ach 3 % Prod 1 


HSDG 


23.047 


95% 


5.013 




83% 


19,000 




95% 


5.841 95% 


i-niA 


15.041 


62% 


3,347 




55% 


13,400 




67% 


4,586 75% 


CATTV 


485 


2% 


150 




2% 


400 




2% 


125 2% 


Females 


3,199 


13% 


967 




16% 


5,200 




26% 


1,873 30% 


Total NPS 


24,260 


40% 


6,040 




34% 


20,000 




38% 


6,145 39% 


Total PS 


36,389 


60% 


JJ.646 




66% 


32,000 




62% 


9,685 61% 


Total 


60,649 




17,686 






52,000 






15,830 



1 Percentage of Production 

2 Achievement data is through January, 199S. 



Trt>le3 
FY96 Army Reserve Components Recruiting Goals and Achievements 



CATEGORY 


ARNG 
Goals 




USAR 
Goals 




HSDG 

I-ITIA 

CAT IV 

Females 

Total NPS 

Total PS 

Total 


21,208 
13.841 
446 
2,497 
22,324 
33,486 
55,810 


95% 
62% 
2% 
13% 
40% 
60% 


20,900 
14,740 
440 
5,720 
22,000 
34,197 
56,197 


95% 
67% 
2% 
26% 
39% 
61% 



Note: The Army Reserve Components have no specific recruiting objectives based on race. 



Senator COATS. The National Voter Registration Act of 1993 requires military re- 
cruiters to offer personnel who enter their offices the opportunity to register to vote, 
ask individuals who decline to register to fill out a form indicating that they de- 
clined, assist those who desire to register, and maintain records of their activities 
in this area. How has this requirement added to the workload of military recruiters/ 
How many have registered through military recruiting offices? How many were of- 
fered the opportunity to register but declined? What are the costs attributable to 
the National Registration Act? 

General Stroup. This program began its implementation on January 1, lyyc me 
Recruiting Command has set up a Quarterly Reporting Tracking system. The num- 



125 

bers will not be known until the 1st week of April. As of March 8, 1995, there has 
been no significant impact on the workload of recruiters. 

PERMANENT CHANGE OF STATION 

Senator COATS. What is your Permanent Change of Station Budget for fiscal year 
1996? 

General STROUP. The fiscal year 1996 budget request for Permanent Change of 
Station is $1,061 billion. 

Senator Coats. How many moves are planned in this budget? 

General STROUP. The fiscal year 1996 budget request for Permanent Change of 
Station moves is 310,897. 

Senator COATS. How many moves were planned and executed in fiscal years 1988, 
1993, and 1994? 

General STROUP. The requested data follows: 

Fiscal year No. moves 



1988 1993 1994 



Planned 479,092 398,076 334,604 

Executed 444,461 368,769 306,378 

Fiscal year 1988 Execution shortfall is due to congressional reductions ($22.9 million), plus absorption of new PCS entitlements costs 
approved by Congress ($66 million), absorption of a change in TLE authorization ($7.7 million), and absorption of price increases ($18.5 
million). Total dollar impact was $55 7 million in fiscal year 1988. 

Fiscal year 1993 Execution shortfall is due to acceleration of European Troop withdrawal into fiscal year 1992 vice fiscal year 1993. 

Fiscal year 1994 Execution shortfall is due to congressional reductions of $36.5 million, plus $40 million move reduction by Army in an 
attempt to partially cover a congressional reduction of $92 million in the Retired Pay Accrual account 

COMPENSATION 

Senator COATS. What compensation program would you implement given author- 
ity and sufficient resources? 

General Stroup. Both the 7th Department of Defense (DOD) Quadrennial Review 
of Military Compensation (QRMC) and Quality of Life program review have rec- 
ommended changes in the Variable Housing Allowance (VHA). If given the authority 
and sufficient funding the Army would support a VHA locality floor. A floor to the 
allowance would be based on an external housing price index. Current soldier sur- 
veys frequently do not accurately mirror the cost of adequate housing. The VHA 
rates are set based on a survey of actual housing expenses as reported by uniformed 
members in an area. A locality floor would ensure that soldiers receive an allowance 
reflecting the cost of adequate housing. The VHA rate would then be set individ- 
ually by using the higher of the normal (survey-based) VHA or the VHA locality 
floor. 

Senator Coats. There has been much discussion about the "pay gap." Some in the 
Department of Defense question whether there is a pay gap and whether the ECI 
index is an appropriate index upon which military pay raises should be based. In 
your opinion, what is the current pay gap? Do you have a recommended alternative 
to the ECI as a basis for computing military pay raises? 

General STROUP. The military pay gap, as measured by the Employment Cost 
Index (ECI), is currently 12.6 percent. While no one index is ideal, the ECI rep- 
resents an average pay raise for the private sector labor market. We have examined 
a number of methodologies over the years and have found the ECI to be the best 
measure for growth in wages. The Federal Employees Pay Comparability Act of 
1990 mandated the use of the ECI for annual pay raises and DOD has used the 
ECI since 1982. The 12.6 percent pay gap, which will continue to grow without an 
adjustment of pay to close the gap, continues to be of great concern. Once the gap 
has been closed, we feel the by-law pay raise will be generally adequate. The ECI 
index is the most stable, allowing soldiers to estimate their career compensation. 

Senator COATS. What is the Basic Allowance for Quarters (BAQ) gap? What are 
the recommended corrective actions? 

General STROUP. Our soldiers' housing allowances currently pay 79 percent of 
their housing costs. Legislation in 1981 restructured the BAQ and VHA rates to 
cover 81 percent of their housing costs. Because these allowances have not kept pace 
with the average housing costs, the soldiers' absorption rate has grown an addi- 
tional 6 percent to 21 percent. An increase in BAQ rates would help defray the cost 
of housing, allow for improvement in housing adequacy, and contribute to a ready 
force by enhancing morale and retention. The Army supports DOD's request for re- 
lief from provisions of 37 U.S.C. 1009, permitting an additional 1 percent increase 
in BAQ rates for fiscal year 1996. 



90-165 96-5 



126 

OFFICER PERSONNEL 

Senator COATS. What is the officer/enlisted (O/E) ratio for fiscal years 1988, 1993, 

1994, 1991 and projected for fiscal year 1996? 

General STROUP. O/E ratio for fiscal years 1988, 1:6.2; 1993, 1:5.5; 1994, 1:5.3; 

1995, 1:5.2; and 1996, 1:5.0. 

Senator Coats. Do you believe that this ratio is an accurate means of assessing 
the proper structure of the military service? 

General Stroup. No. The O/E ratio is not an accurate means of assessing the 
proper structure of the military services. Using the O/E ratio to directly redistribute 
manpower might have unanticipated adverse effects on operational readiness and 
capability. 

Army Position 

a. Force XXI: The O/E ratio is determined by force structure to meet force projec- 
tion requirements. The U.S. Army structure has evolved from a Cold War Army to 
a Force XXI Army. 

b. 18 to 10 Divisions: It is illogical to arbitrarily impose an O/E ratio tied to an 
old force structure. This approach ignores the cut of eight enlisted rich warfighting 
divisions out of the force from fiscal years 1988 to 1996. 

c. Mandated Requirements: An increase in the O/E ratio is further driven by ex- 
ternally mandated requirements for more officers: 

Mandated Programs 

O/E Ratio 

Congressional^ Directed AC/RC support (fiscal year 1993 NDAA) 1:2.0 

Joint Requirements (Title 10) 1:1.1 

Defense Requirements 1:1.4 

Defense Health Personnel (DHP) Medical Requirements 1:1.6 

Special Operations Forces (SOF) Requirements 1:2.1 

Excluding these officer rich requirements, the Army has maintained a relatively 
constant O/E ratio. 

Senator Coats. What is the current fiscal year 1995 Joint Duty Assignment List 
(JDAL) requirement? How does this compare to fiscal years 1988 and 1991? 

Field grade (FG) JDAL 1988/1991/1995. 

Field grade authorizations 1988/1991/1995. 

General STROUP. Bottom Line: The number of officers available to fill the JDAL 
requirements have decreased (20.9 percent overall for FG officers between 1988 and 
1995) while the requirements have increased (8.61 percent overall for FG officers 
between 1988 and 1995). 

Fiscal yean 



1995 (Current*) 1991 1988 



JDAL Requirements 3,147 (.5% OCR) 3,164 (3.7% INCR) 3,050 

FG JDAL 2,533 (.2% DCR) 2.538 (8.8% INCR) 2,332 

FG Authorizations 19,856 (19.6% DCR) 24,694 (1.6% DCR) 25,098 

•The most current JDAL is fiscal year 1994 because the fiscal year 1995 JDAL has not been approved as of March 8, 1995 

Senator Coats. What is the current fiscal year 1995 requirement to fill OSD and 
non-JDAL billets in the Defense agencies? How does this compare to fiscal years 
1988/1991? 

general STROUP. Bottom Line: The overall requirements decreased by 51.8 percent 
between 1988 and 1995, despite an increase in requirements between 1991 and 
1995. 

OSD and non-JDAL Defense agency requirements: 







fiscal years 






1995 (Current) 


1991 


1988 


Requirements 


858 (15.3% INCR) 


744 (58.2% DCR) 


1,781 



Senator Coats. Will you submit a request for DOPMA relief this year? If so, de- 
scribe the relief you will request. Is this a service specific request or will it be part 



127 

of a comprehensive DOD level request? What is the justification for the requested 
relief? 

General STROUP. The Army and the Marine Corps requested and received tem- 
porary DOPMA relief through fiscal year 1997 in the fiscal year 1995 NDAA. This 
request was based primarily on post DOPMA legislation increasing the need for 
Field Grade officers (i.e. Goldwater-Nichols DOD Reorganization Act, Defense Acqui- 
sition Workforce Improvement Act, and Title XI AC support to the RC). The Office 
of the Assistant Secretary of Defense (Force Management Policy) is currently lead- 
ing a DOD effort to develop a consolidated proposal to Congress for permanent 
grade relief in time for inclusion in the fiscal year 1997 NDAA. The objective of the 
study and steering groups is to achieve a consensus view in determining each serv- 
ices' grade pyramid and the desired retention scenario using a common, systematic 
approach. 

Senator COATS. What is the officer promotion opportunity and pin-on point by 

B-ade for 04, 05, and 06 for fiscal years 1988, 1994, and 1995 compared to the 
OPMA goals? 

General STROUP. The Army has maintained promotion opportunity while decreas- 
ing pin-on points for our field grade ranks since 1988. A conscious decision was 
made prior to the drawdown to keep our promotion plans and our reduction plans 
separate and distinct, and for the most part we have been able to do this. The 
Army's overall promotion philosophy is qualitative, whereas the reduction philoso- 
phy has been quantitative. All grades are meeting the DOPMA promotion goals. 
Colonels are within the DOPMA pin-on point of 22 years plus or minus 1 year; Lieu- 
tenant Colonel pin-on points have dropped by 14 months since 1988 bringing them 
in line with the goal; and the pin-on point to Major, although not yet within the 
DOPMA goal, is also expected to be down, at most to 11 years 2 months by fiscal 
year 1997. 

PROMOTION OPPORTUNITY AND PIN-ON POINT 

Board Year MAJ LTC COL 

Fiscal year 1988 73.4% 11/9 74.6% 17/8 44.1% 22/8 

Fiscal year 1994 85.4% 11/10 70.5% 16/9 50.4% 22/9 

Fiscal year 1995 80%' 11/7 70.2% 16/6 50.0' 22/8 

DOPMA Goal 80% 10+/-1 70% 16+/-1 50.0% 22+/-1 

1 Fiscal year 1995 Major and Colonel Boards have been scheduled lor April and August 1995, respectively. Promotion opportunity is based 
on current projections. 

Senator Coats. Describe your fiscal year 1996 officer drawdown plans including 
which authorities will be used and the numbers you plan to realize from each. 

General STROUP. Final decisions on the fiscal year 1996 drawdown have not been 
made by the Army leadership. Thus, a discussion of which drawdown authorities 
will be used and exact numbers is not possible. However, in general the Army ex- 
pects to continue with a limited voluntary early release/retirement program 
(VERRP), mainly in support of the requirements of Title XI to improve the ratio of 
former active duty soldiers in the Reserve component. Additionally, the Army will 
once again selectively continue (SELCON) nonselected majors at less than 100 per- 
cent. Tentative plans call for continuation of majors to 20 years of service only to 
meet critical Army needs. All other non continued majors will be offered early re- 
tirement. The fiscal year 1996 voluntary early retirement program will once again 
focus on the major cohort (YG80) prior to lieutenant colonel promotion consider- 
ation, as well as once nonselected majors and captains with at least 15 years of 
service. The need for selective early retirement or reduction-in-force boards is cur- 
rently being reviewed by the senior Army leadership. The voluntary separation in- 
centive (VSIVspecial separation benefit (SSB) program will again be offered, but eli- 
gibility is largely dependent upon decisions regarding the need for reduction in force 
boards for overstrength captain cohorts. 

Senator COATS. Are current drawdown authorities adequate to permit an orderly 
downsizing of the Officer Corps. 

General STROUP. Current drawdown tools provided by Congress, and if used by 
the Army, are adequate to achieve an orderly and balanced reduction over 
overstrength cohorts. As in the past years of the drawdown, the Army plan will con- 
tinue to use the drawdown tools authorized by Congress, to target surplus grades/ 
skills where the Army must generate losses. These tools have been used successfully 
during the drawdown in order to achieve mandated force reduction goals by largely 
voluntary means, while maintaining readiness. Especially noteworthy has been used 
of our early retirement authority at the captain and major grades. 



Active 


Reserve 


Active 


Reserve 


1,030 




930 




3,141 


826 


3,235 


581 


350 


100 


350 


100 




855 




855 


707 


200 


693 


235 



128 

Senator Coats. What were your officer accession plans for fiscal year 1994 by 
source? What did you actually access from each source 1 ? 
General STROUP. 

Focal year 1994 pit* Focal yetr 1994 adu«l 
Active Reserve Active Reserve 

USMA 1,000 1,032 

R0TC 2,952 853 2.919 611 

0CS- 

Federal 350 100 475 34 

State 855 ' 

DirAppt 689 200 828 « 

Total 4,991 1,385 5,254 

* Information input by 0CAR and NGB. Beinf confirmed at present. 

Senator Coats. What are your officer accession plans for fiscal years 1995 and 
1996? Please list by source. Within the ROTC accession numbers, please breakout 
active duty and reserve forces duty. 

General Stroup. 

Fiscal year 1994 plan Fiscal year 1994 actual 



USMA , 

ROTC 

0CS: 

Federal 

State 

Direct 

Total 5,228 1,981 5,208 1,771 

ENLISTED PERSONNEL 

Senator COATS. Describe your fiscal year 1996 enlisted drawdown plans including 
which authorities will be used and the numbers you plan to realize from each. 

General STROUP. The enlisted drawdown program is essentially over in fiscal year 
1995 as a shaping and reduction tool. We will continue to offer early retirement to 
a small population of sergeant promotables facing mandatory separation due to a 
significant change in the retention management program. This is consistent with 
previous drawdown policy. 

In fiscal year 1993, the retention control point (RCP) for sergeant promotable was 
changed from 20 to 11 years of service. In the first year of implementation we 
"grandfathered" the affected population. In fiscal years 1994 and 1995, soldiers were 
offered early retirement as they reached the 15th year of service. In fiscal year 1996, 
1,100 sergeant promotables who had reenlisted prior to fiscal year 1993 to serve be- 
yond 15 years of service will reach their RCP. Only this population, ETS beyond 
their RCP, will be offered early retirement. The final 1,000 sergeant promotables 
in this category age out of the Army in fiscal year 1997. 

The National Defense Authorization Act for fiscal year 1993 authorized the Sec- 
retary of Defense early retirement authority as a temporary force management tool 
with which to effect the drawdown of military forces through fiscal year 1995. The 
National Defense Authorization Act for fiscal year 1994 extended this authority 
through fiscal year 1999. 

Senator Coats. Are the current drawdown authorities adequate to permit an or- 
derly downsizing of the enlisted force? 

General STROUP. Yes, the voluntary incentive programs currently authorized by 
Congress provide sufficient opportunity to generate losses to meet enlisted planned 
end strength goals. 

Senator COATS. Describe the demographics of the enlisted force by race and gen- 
der in fiscal years 1991, 1994 and projected fiscal year 1999. Describe the same de- 
mographic categories for the top three enlisted grades. 

General STROUP. In 1991, women comprised 11 percent of the active enlisted force 
and grew to 12.9 percent by 1994. Enlisted female force composition by REDCAT 
reflects approximately a 1 percentage point fluctuation in each racial/ethnic category 
over the 3 year period. (See following chart.) 



129 

Between 1991 and 1994, the black female population in the top 3 enlisted grades 
grew by 7-9 percentage points while the white female population declined by about 
the same percentages. Hispanic and other composition categories fluctuated by ap- 
proximately 1 percentage point. 

During the same timeframe, the civilian female population in the United States 
reflects only a .2 percentage point growth in the black female population and a 2 
percentage point drop in white females. Hispanic and other categories mirror the 
Army statistics of approximately 1 percentage point growth. 

Projected for 1999: Gender and race composition is not a factor in determining 
force projection. The Army does not have a policy that establishes a target composi- 
tion for enlisted women. At this time, the Army strives to assess at least 18 percent 
women in its recruiting efforts so as to sustain the present female enlisted popu- 
lation of approximately 13 percent. The expansion of opportunities for women in- 
creases the flexibility to recruit, train and assign the most qualified person for each 
job. 

Demographic projections for the U.S. civilian female population in 1999 reflect a 
decline in white females by 3 percentage points and a growth in black females by 
less than 1 percentage point. Hispanic and other category growth is expected at ap- 
proximately 1 percentage point. 



130 



©. © 

TOr/4L £M_- «>,7>7 SFO 52,678 



87% 
TOTAL ENL: 452,514 



90% 



WC- V5>2* 



• r— i. \n I 

3% wcBcr i rA 

© © 



*«<?.• /;,»« 



5CM.- 3J21 



1 . In 1 991 , women comprised 1 1 % of the active enlisted force and grew to 
12.9% in 1994. Force composition by REDCAT reflects approximately 
^percentage point fluctuation in each racial/ethnic category over the 3 year 
period. 

2. In 1994, the black female population in the top 3 enlisted grades grew by 7 to 
9 percentage points while the white female population declined by about the 
same amount. Hispanic and other composition categories fluctuated by 
approximately 1 percentage point 



131 

Senator Coats. Are you employing a "tiered manning" strategy? If so, describe 
your plans and the readiness impact of such a plan. 

General Stroup. The Army uses three priorities for distributing personnel. Prior- 
ity one includes all critical units such as the rangers, special operations units, and 
other operationally sensitive units that are manned at 100 percent of skill and 
grade. Priority two units are manned at 98-100 percent in the aggregate and in- 
clude all of the Contingency Divisions and the 2nd Infantry Division in Korea. Prior- 
ity three units are comprised of the remainder of the Army and include the CONUS 
based reinforcing divisions, Europe, Hawaii, Panama, and Alaska. These units are 
filled at fair-share. This system ensures that units expected to deploy early are 
maintained at the highest possible personnel readiness. The price is that during 
manpower shortages, priority three units become the "billpayers" and may report at 
a lower level of personnel readiness, dependent upon the personnel inventory. 

Senator Coats. How do you define PERSTEMPO? What is your PERSTEMPO 

Elan? What is the actual experience? What type of deployments/time away from 
ome station are included in the PERSTEMPO calculation? What is excluded? 
General Stroup. PERSTEMPO was divided into two separate categories and de- 
fined as: 

— DEPTEMPO: Percent of time spent on "out of station operational deployments" 
by unit. 

— SKILLTEMPO: percent of time spent on "out of station operational deploy- 
ments" by MOS and skill level. 

Systems are currently being developed to capture deployment rates in each cat- 
egory with an expected completion date of April 1995. Data will be collected from 
existing data bases with the intent to minimize the workload at unit level. Proto- 
type reports have been developed that identify the top deploying units and skills. 
To date these units include air defense, MP, and Forward Support Units. The top 
skills are primarily Patriot mechanics and crewmen as well as Special Forces ele- 
ments. The Army is refining DEPTEMPO and SKILLTEMPO reports to identify ef- 
fects of operational deployments which currently includes only contingency oper- 
ations. Other areas being examined for inclusion are counterdrug deployments, 
major training exercises and mission support deployments, humanitarian deploy- 
ments (CONUS), CTC deployments, and individual deployments for U.N. staff re- 
Juirements/special operations. Local training requirements will not be addressed, 
lata will be primarily for internal Army use. Sufficient data must be gathered to 
identity PERSTEMPO trends within the Army before PERSTEMPO policy is devel- 
oped. 

OTHER MATTERS 

Senator COATS. Section 555, fiscal year 1995 NDAA required the Secretary of the 
Army to conduct a thorough review of the discharge of Cadet James Webster Smith 
and Cadet Johnson Chestnut Whittaker from the U.S. Military Academy within 180 
days of enactment. What is the status of the review on these two cases? 

General STROUP. The action to award Cadet Whittaker a posthumous commission 
is with the President. The Smith case is currently under review within the Assistant 
Secretary of the Army (Manpower and Reserve Affairs), and is expected to be for- 
warded next week. 

ASSIGNMENT OF WOMEN 

Senator Coats. What are the tangible readiness impacts of the expanded opportu- 
nities for the assignment of women? What are other less-tangible impacts? 

General STROUP. At this time, there are no known tangible readiness impacts in- 
volved in the expanded opportunities afforded to women. 

Senator COATS. Have the standards for any specialty opened to the assignment 
of females been modified to accommodate females? 

General STROUP. Since the expansion of opportunities for women began in October 
1994, there have been no modifications to the established standards for any spe- 
cialty or branch qualification to accommodate women. 

Senator COATS. What plans do you have to further expand the opportunities for 
the assignment of women? 

General STROUP. In accordance with the Secretary of Defense guidance effective 
October 1, 1994, the assignment policy for women was changed to open approxi- 
mately 33,000 additional positions. Currently 91 percent of all Army career fields 
and 67 percent of all Army positions are open to women. The Army continues to 
assess the effectiveness of all policies to maximize the opportunities afforded to 
women. 



132 

Senator COATS. Describe the current policy concerning assignment and 
deployability of female service members when they are pregnant. 

General Stroup. Army policy regarding the assignment and utilization of preg- 
nant soldiers is an ongoing personnel management obligation which is considered 
the same as any other temporarily disabling condition. Pregnant soldiers continue 
to perform duties during the prenatal period, limited by a temporary physical pro- 
file, when required, as determined by the attending physician. 

Pregnant soldiers are ineligible for deployment overseas. An exception is granted 
for in-service couples when joint domicile has been approved and medical facilities 
are adequate. If a noncombatant evacuation is ordered, soldiers who have reached 
up to the 7th month of pregnancy will be evacuated. 

Pregnant soldiers who are found to have been pregnant prior to beginning their 
military service may be discharged for erroneous enlistment. A soldier who becomes 
pregnant during basic or additional entry training may be separated under the 
trainee discharge program if a medical officer and the soldiers' commander deter- 
mine the soldier cannot fully participate in required training because of her physical 
condition. 

Senator COATS. There have been a number of articles iii the press recently con- 
cerning the sleeping arrangements of men and women deployed to Haiti and other 
areas. What is the Army policy on men and women and/or officers and enlisted per- 
sonnel living in the same tents? At what command level is the policy established? 

General Stroup. Army commanders at all levels are sensitive to the need of pri- 
vacy for each individual. Arrangements are made to accommodate privacy to the ex- 
tent possible. In all field exercises or contingency operations, the Joint Task Force 
Commander and subordinate commanders are responsible for the billeting arrange- 
ments of deployed personnel. Accommodation is based on common sense billeting ar- 
rangements are personnel security and availability of permanent structures. Experi- 
ence has shown that soldiers on the same team hold each other in high regard and 
do what is necessary to protect and respect each other. All personnel are thoroughly 
briefed on Army policies regarding fraternization and the prevention of sexual har- 
assment. The bottom line is that optimum privacy is not always possible, yet essen- 
tial privacy will always be provided. 

Senator Coats. What costs are attributable to the expansion of the opportunities 
for the assignment of women? 

General STROUP. A preliminary investigation reveals no known costs attributable 
to the expansion of opportunities for women. Further inquiry is ongoing to deter- 
mine any costs associated to include facility and equipment modification, additional 
training, and development of new authorization documents. 

Senator Coats. Have you integrated initial recruit training? What changes were 
required to accommodate co-ed initial training? 

General Stroup. The Army implemented Gender Integrated Basic Combat Train- 
ing on October 1, 1994 at Fort Jackson, SC and Fort Leonard Wood, MO. The Gen- 
der Integrated Training study indicated a need for, and TRADOC implemented, a 
change in drill sergeant training. Drill sergeants are now trained to recognize the 
physical and behavioral differences between men and women and are taught how 
to optimize, the physical fitness of each gender and how to avoid fraternization and 
sexual harassment situations. Barracks, latrines, and clothing issue facilities are 
being modified to provide privacy for the gender integrated training companies. 

Senator COATS. When the co-ed experiment was conducted previously there were 
noticeable reductions in cohesion among the trainees. What is your current experi- 
ence? Are you using the same measures that were used in the earlier experiment 
to ensure a valid comparison? 

General STROUP. Previous study of coed initial entry training conducted from 1978 
to 1982, but individual records of this study are not available. TRADOC historical 
records for this period mention the study, but do not reflect an attempt to measure 
unit cohesiveness. In 1992, CG, TRADOC directed Fort McClellan to study Gender 
Integrated Training (GIT) and in 1993, CG TRADOC, directed Fort Jackson, SC to 
study GIT. Results of the latest study indicate that males and females can be inte- 
grated into Basic Combat Training (BCT) down to the squad level without degrading 
performance or overall unit cohesion. 

JOINT DUTY 

Senator Coats. Regarding active duty line promotions boards to the grade of brig- 
adier general and rear admiral (lower half) convened in fiscal years 1992, 1993, 
1994, and 1995, please provide to the subcommittee, (1) the number of individuals 
recommended for promotion by each board; (2) the number of individuals granted 
"joint equivalent" waivers for the requirement to have served in a joint assignment 



133 

prior to promotion to brigadier general or rear admiral (lower half); and (3) a listing 
of those assignments for which joint equivalent" waivers were granted. 

General Stroup. The number of individuals recommended for promotion by each 
board are: 1992—38; 1993—38; 1994—39; and 1995— scheduled for June 13, 1995. 

The number of individuals granted "joint equivalent" waivers for the requirement 
to have served in a joint assignment prior to promotion to brigadier general and the 
list of those assignments for which "joint equivalent" waiver were granted are found 
at the following: 

1992— Red Tab 

1993— Blue Tab 

1994— Green Tab 



134 



RED TAB 



JOINT STATISTICS 
1992 BRIGADIER GENERAL BOARD 



SUtARY OF JOINT QUALIFICATIONS OF SELECTEES: 

Number of officers selected with or serving on joint assignments 
(Number serving initial joint assignments) 

Number of officers selected with Joint equivalence 

Number of officers selected with scientific/technical 
skills that qualify for waiver 

Number of officers with no qualifying joint duty 

experience (pending OSD approval of joint equivalence) 



22 
(3) 



Listing of Officers Selected by Category 



Joint 

••■Baxter 
+ Brown 

canavan 
*4Garrett 
■KJile 
*-K;lisson 
+Harmeyer 
•fHennessee 
•flaws 

Maggart 
•fMahan 
•fMcFarren 
•rttichitsch 

Morttero 
*4Chle 

PetrosJcy 
IRiley 
IRippe 
fRokosz 

Sherfield 
+Smith, John 

Walsh 



■Joint Equivalence 

*+Burnette # 

Gerald 
•-Will 
i + Kennedy 
-♦•King 
Haher 
■Tangney 



Sci/Tech 

+Gust 
Hunter 



Lackers 

Cherrie 

Goff 
+La Parte 

Maude 
*Rigby 

Smith, Larry 
4Tackaberry 



♦ JSO 

* Serving on ARSTAF/SecArmy Staff 

# Serving initial joint assignment 



135 

SUMMARY OF WAIVERS APPROVED BY ASD(FMSP) 



Officers recommended for a waiver based on 
an assignment involving significant experience 
in joint matters. Rationale attached. 
10 USC 619(e) (2) (E) (i) 

(Burnette, Gerald, Hill, Kennedy, King, Maher, 
Tangney) 



Officers recommended for a waiver based on 13 

service in a joint assignment that began before 

January 1, 1987, for a period which was not less 

that 12 months and was considered a full 

tour of duty under pre-Goldwater-Nichols rules. 

10 USC 619(e) (2) (D) 

(Baxter, Garrett, Gile, Glisson, Marmeyer, 

Hennessee, Maggart, Mahan, McFarren, Ohle, 

Sherfield, J.W. Smith, Wafsh) 

Officers recommended for a waiver because 2 

their selection was based on scientific and 
technical qualifications for which joint 
requirements do not exist. 
10 USC 619(e) (2) (B) 
(Gust, Hunter) 



Officers recommended for a waiver because 
they are currently serving in their in 
initial joint duty assignment and will 
complete at least two years in those positions. 
10 USC 619(e) (2) (E)ii 
(Riley, Rippe, Rokosz) 



136 

RATIONALE FCR JOINT EQUIVALENCE 



NAME 



1. Colonel Thomas N. Burnette, Jr. 



2. Colonel Stuart W. Gerald 



duty title rs) /joint EXPERIENCE 

Joint Operational Testing Staff nffi'oaT^ 
ODCSOPS, HQOA . Period: 1 July 1986 - 
20 July 1988 (25 months) . Responsible 
for preparation, coordination , and 
implementation of staff actions on joint 
operational testing programs and 
policies, to include serving as the Army 
representative to Joint Testing Senior 
Advisory Group Working Group. Majority 
of his tine during this assignment was 
spent on development of DoD-level policy 
and guidance, requirements, and 
priorities for operational testing to 
evaluate weapons systems and concepts. 
Since the time Colonel Burnette served 
in this assignment, the responsibility 
for these functions have been 
consolidated under the Office of 
Director, Defense Research and 
Erqineering. Duties required extensive 
daily coordination with other services 
and DoD staff. During his tour of duty, 
Colonel Burnette was credited with being 
the major catalyst in a dramatic 
improvement of the Army's role in joint 
operational test and evaluation; and 
through his contributions as a member of 
the Joint Testing Senior Advisory Group 
Working Group, he improved virtually all 
facets of joint operational testing from 
policy development to the assignment of 
missions and responsibilities to the 
various services. 

Maintenance Officer, 70th Aviation 
Detachment, United States Armv Support 
Group, Thailand . Period: 13 May 1973 - 
15 June 1976 (37 m on ths) . Responsible 
for USMAC-Thai's materiel assets worth 
ever five million dollars, and 
supervised a combined American/Thai work 
force averaging 35 men. He received a 
Joint Service Commendation Medal for 
this period of service. Colonel Gerald 
was specifically cited for his 
leadership skills as reflected by his 
unit's perfect response record during 
several joint operations to include the 
rescue mission of the USS Mayaguez, and 
his planning of the orderly and 
efficient retrogra de effort of US 
aviation equipment and personnel out of 
Thailand. 



137 

RATIONALE TOR JOINT EQUIVALENCE 



NAME 
3. Colonel James T. Hill 



Colonel Claudia J. Kennedy 



DUTY TITLE (S) /JOINT EXPERIENCE 

NATO Staff Officer, War Plans Division 
ODCSOPS, HOD* . Period: 7 July 1980 -"^ 
16 May 1983 (34 months) . Responsible 
for all actions relating to NATO Force 
Planning Systems, including preparation 
of Defense Planning Questionnaire (DPQ) 
response and NATO Force Goals, and 
development of SACEUR's Rapid 
Reinforcement Plan. Duties required 
extensive daily coordination with DoD, 
Joint, SHAPE, and NATO staffs. During 
his tcur of duty, Colonel Hill became 
the acknowledged expert in NATO-related 
issues. B a se d on his demonstrated 
abilities, he earned the confidence of 
the senior US leaders, and ultimately 
became the spokesman for not only the 
Chief of Staff of the Army, but also 
the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of 
Staff and the Department of Defense in 
the NATO force planning community. 

Cryptoloqic Staff Officer. US Army 
Intelligence and Security Command, with 
duty at the National Security Aoencv . 
Period: 26 July 1977 - 18 July 1980 
(36 months). During this three year 
period, Colonel Kennedy participated in 
the highly competitive DoD cryptologic 
career program consisting of 3-6 month 
rotational assignments throughout the 
National Security Agency. This 
structured academic and assignments 
program provided selected officers of 
all services with experience in the 
Defense and National level cryptologic 
intelligence. She was awarded the 
Defense Meritorious Service Medal for 
her contributions during this period of 
service, and was specifically cited for 
the preparation of an extensive summary 
ofa $50 mill ion Army field station 
upgrade which was delivered to the 
House Appropriations Committee; the 
development of a highly acclaimed 
briefing for the DASD for In telli gence 
covering the general upgrading of 
worldwide intelligence support to 
tactical commanders; and the 
development of new decision analysis 
techniques for the National Security 
Agency. 



138 

RATIONALE FOR JOINT EQUIVALENCE 



NAME 
5. Colonel Janes C. King 



Colonel John J. Maher HI 



DUTY TITLE (S) /JOINT EXPERIENCE 

Cryptologic Staff Officer, US Army 
Intelligence and Security Command, with 
duty at the National Security Agency . 
Period: 13 September 1973 - 10 December 
1976 (39 months) . During this three year 
period, Colonel King participated in the 
highly competitive DoO cryptologic career 
program consisting of 3-6 month rotational 
assignments throughout the National 
Security Agency. Tnis structured academic 
and assignments program provided selprTed 
officers of all services with experience in 
the Defense and National level cryptologic 
intelligence. He was awarded the Joint 
Service Commendation Medal for his 
achievement in implementing a complex new 
worldwide collection management system 
which enabled the development of 
intelligence information from data 
previously considered unexploitable. He 
was also cited for the development of 
comprehensive guidance and policy for NSA 
support to NATO, unified commands, and 
other service agencies. 

Battalion S-3, 1st Ranger Battalion, 
75th Infantry Reaiment . Period: 17 
October 1983 - 17 January 1985 (15 
months) . Responsible for preparing 
contingency plans for real world joint 
special operations, and representing the 
battalion commander at high level joint 
planning conferences. Due to inherent 
limitations of the unit to be employed 
independently, Colonel Maher devoted great 
deal of time coordinating mission 
requirements with other services and joint 
command headquarters. He routinely 
coordinated with members of other US and 
foreign military services to fully 
integrate the unique special operations 
capabilities of each element, and to ensure 
proper allocation of aircraft and other 
supp o rt needs of these units. During this 
period of ass i gnme nt, Colonel Maher was 
credited with developing the joint Air 
Force/Army operational plan for the combat 
mission in Grenada, the successful 
execution of a major multi-service 
battalion exercise that blanketed the 
Southeastern US, and planning and 
coordinating numerous successful joint 
special operations. 



139 

RATCCNMX FCR JOINT EQUIVALQJCE 

NAME DUTY TITLE (Sl/JOINr EXPERIENCE 

7. Colonel William P. Tangney S-2/S-3, later Senior Launch Commander, 

Command and Control Detachment. South, 
5th Special Forces Group (later the 
mission and the unit transferred to 
Training Advisory Group, US Army 
Vietnam) . Period: 21 August 1970 - 15 
September 1971 (13 months) . Served as 
both the intelligence and operations 
officer of a special mission unit, 
working directly for a Joint/Combined 
General Staff. The unit performed highly 
classified missions deep within enemy 
territory, and was composed of 200 US, 
1400 indigenous mercenary, and 250 Army 
of the Republic of Vietnam (ARVN) 
troops. Colonel Tangney 's specific 
duties as the S-2/S-3 was to train the 
ARVN cadre to c on duct reconnaissance 
missions and exploit enemy targets, 
establish the local intelligence net, and 
coordinate with ARVN and US units in 
intelligence effort, POW interrogation, 
and information dissemination. Later as 
the Senior Launch Commander, he was in 
cuiLiand of a forward operational base 
from which reconnaissance teams and 
exploitation forces were inserted deep 
into enemy territory. In this position, 
he was directly responsible for the 
control of US and Vietnamese Air Force 
and Army aircraft and its crews, and 
routinely coordinated with US and ARVN 
units up to divisional size. 



140 

BLUE TAB 

JOINT STATISTICS 
1993 BRIGADIER GENERAL BOARD 



SUMMARY OF JOINT QUALIFICATIONS OF SELECTEES : 

Humber of officers selected with or serving on joint assignments 
(Number serving initial joint assignments) 

Number of officers selected with Joint equivalence 

Number of officers selected with scientific/technical 
skills that qualify for waiver 

Number of officers with no qualifying joint duty 

experience (pending OSD approval of joint equivalence) 



25 
(5) 

f 5 



Listing of Officers Selected by Category 



Joint 

{Ackerman 
+Bowra 
-t-Black 
*+Bums, J. 
♦Byrnes, M. 
f+Close 
-iOodson 

♦Flowers 

Franklin 
♦Hamilton 
+Ivany 

Lemoyne 
iMcDuffie 

Nelson 
*+Oder 

O'Neal 
■fRo miti e e 
+Ryneska 
•fShadley 
*+Shane 
+ Shoemaker 
I Smith, E. 

Sylvester 
■♦Thomas 
fWeisman 



. Joint Equivalence 

•*+Gibscn 

Grange 

+King 

-tviale 

• Lust 



Sci/Tech 

*+Beauchamp 
*-t*Jeyer 
Wooten 



Lackers 

Brynes, K. 

Clark 

+Garrett 

*+Cosumano 

Snyder 



+ JSO 

* Serving on ARSTAF/SecAnny Staff 

f Serving initial joint assignment 



141 

Summary of Joint Duty Prerequisite Waivers Approved by XSD(PtR) 
1993 Army Brigadier General Promotion Selection Board 

Officers recommended for a waiver based on 5 

an assignment involving significant experience 
in joint matters ('joint equivalent assignments*) 
per 10 USC 619 (e) (2) (E) (i) . Rationale attached. 
Gibson, Grange, King, Viale, Lust 

Officers recommended for a waiver based on 11 

service in a joint assignment that began before 

January 1, 1987, for a period which was not less 

than 12 months, per 10 USC 619(e)(2)(D). 

Black, Bowra, Burns, Franklin, Ivany, Nelson, 

Oder, O'Neil, Rountree, Shadley, Shoemaker 

Officers recommended for a waiver because their 3 

selection was based on scientific and technical 
qualifications for which joint requirements do 
not exist, per 10 USC 619(e)(2)(B). 
Beauchamp, Meyer, Woo ten 

Officers recommended for a waiver because they 5 

are currently serving in, their initial joint 

duty assignments and will complete at least two 

years in the assignments ("currently serving*), 

per 10 USC 619(e) (2) (E) (ii) . 

Ackerman, Close. McDuffie, E. Smith. Weisman 



142 



RATIONALE FOR JOINT EQUIVALENCE 



NAME 
1. Colonel Boyd E. King, Jr. 



2. Colonel Charles R. Viale 



duty title (S) /joint experience 

Exchange Officer, logistics Executive 
(British Army) Period: 16 March 1982 - 
4 July 1983 (15 months) . Responsible 
for policy on all arms logistic training 
and project officer for the Senior 
Officers Logistic Course. Acted as 
foreign army liaison officer to include 
coordination for tasking of the British 
Army liaison officers accredited to the 
United States and French Armies. Acted 
as principle deputy to the Chief of 
Staff of the British Logistic Executive, 
a British 2-star general officer. 
Prepared and coordinated logistical 
actions within British Army Staff. 
Acted as Chief of the Logistic Executive 
Emergency Situation Center, British Army 
Staff. Prepared British portion of the 
United States, United Kingdom, German 
Logistic Interoperability Handbook. 

Cairrander, United Nations 
Command Support Group, Joint Security 
Area, Korea. Period: 7 November 1983 - 
15 July 1985 (22 months) . Responsible 
for the protection of all personnel in 
the United Nations portion of the DM2 in 
Korea. Provided security and all 
support to the Swiss and Swedish 
Delegations to the Neutral Nations 
Supervisory Commission. Coordinated and 
trained a integrated team of US and 
Korean soldiers as well as paramilitary 
and Korean National support a mom ents. 
Senior Rated by RADM Home, Senior 
Member, UN Command, Military Armistice 
Commission. Received LCM from CLNC, UNC 
and Letter of Appreciation from the 
Minister of National Defense, Republic 
of Korea. 



143 

rationale for joint equivalence 

hame duty title (s)/joiot experience 

3. Colonel Emmitt E. Gibson Staff Officer, Office of the Deputy 

Chief of Staff for Operations and 
Plans, US Army, Washington, DC. 
Period; 5 July 1983 - 9 June 1986 (35 
months) . During this three year 
period, Colonel Gibson was the Amy's 
representative en the Air Force Staff 
as part of the CSA's officer exchange 
program . He implemented Joint Force 
Development Process initiatives between 
the US Army and Air Force in the area 
of air base ground defense, close air 
support, joint attack of the s ec ond 
echelon, manned aircraft systems and 
theater interdiction systems. He 
developed co n cept s and doctrine in the 
area of close air support, air base 
ground defense, rear area operations, 
light forces, special operations, and 
airlift. Advised senior service and 
civilian decision makers on 
implications of doctrinal issues 
regarding service functions and 
missions. Colonel Gilbert, USAF, his 
immediate rater said the following of 
his performance, "He was a key member 
of the Joint Air Base Defense Working 
Group/Air Force Study Group 
impressively serving as an integral 
part of the Air Staff. For his efforts 
Colonel Gibson was awarded the Air 
Force Commendation Medal. 



144 

RATIONALE FOR JOINT EQUIVALENCE 



NAME 
4. Colonel David L. Grange 



5. Colonel Larry J. Lust 



am title (s)/jop/r experience 

Operations Officer, Delta Force, 
1st Special Operational Detachment. 
Period; 31 May 1985 - 27 March 1987 (23 
m ont hs) . Operations Officer for DELTA 
Force, a National defense asset. 
Coordinated deployment with Department of 
State, other governmental agencies, and the 
Joint Special Operations Ccmnand. 
Coordinated seventy worldwide, unit, joint 
and combined exercises. . .He personally 
convinced Ambassadors in Latin America and 
the Far East of DELTA'S training needs. 
Colonel Grange devoted a great deal of time 
coordinating mission requirements with 
other services and joint command 
headquarters. He routinely coordinated 
with members of other US and foreign 
military services to fully integrate the 
unique special operations capabilities of 
each element, and to ensure prope r 
allocation of aircraft and other support 
needs of these units. For his efforts in 
the DELTA Force, many of which are 
classified, Colonel Grange was awarded the 
Defense Superior Service Medal which 
covered this period of service. 

Staff Officer, Office of the Deputy 
Chief of Staff for Logistics, US Army, 
Washington, DC. Period; 1 July 1985 - 24 
January 1987 (19 months) . Responsible for 
all research, development, coordination, 
preparation, and implementation of policies 
involving joint Staff, DoD, and 
c ongres sional staff members regarding the 
force integration far the M60 and M48 
series tanks, 105mm Ammo, Forward Area 
Armored Logistics Vehicle Family, M60A3 
Fire Trainer, M240/M240C MS, Tank Search 
Lights, Tank Bcresight Devices and Foreign 
Military Sales. Respon s ible for the 
development of key lines of communications 
with his counterparts on the Joint Staff 
and DoD Staff. Duties required extensive 
daily coordination with other services and 
DoD staff to ensure balanced approach to 
the development, RDTE, and procurement of 
armor weapons systems amongst the services. 



145 



GREEN TAB 

JOINT STATISTICS 
1994 BRIGADIER GENERAL SELECTION BOARD 

SUMMARY OF JOINT QUALIFICATIONS OF SELECTEES: 

Number of officers selected with or serving on joint assignments 
(Number serving initial joint assignments) 

Number of officers selected with joint equivalence 

Number of officers selected with scientific/technical skills 
that quality for waiver 

Number of officers selected with no qualifying joint duty 
experience (pending 0S0 approval of joint equivalence) 

LISTING OF OFFICERS SELECTED BY CATEGORY 



27 
(D 



Joint 


.Joint Eauivalent 


♦Anderson 


♦Doherty 


♦Bell 


Miller 


Brown 


Smith 


♦Caldwell 


St Onge 


♦Edwards 




♦Freeman 




•♦Gaddis 




•♦Glacel 




•Harper 




#lnge 




♦Kensinger 




Kerrick 




♦Kindred 




•♦Madora 




Marcello 




♦McNeill 




♦Mikolashek 




Mountcastle 




•♦Nabors 




.♦Reppert 




.♦Scearce 


• 


♦Scott 




Sinn 




♦Soriano 




♦Sullivan 


^ 


♦Thompson 




♦Wallace 





Sci-Tech 

Dickinson 
♦Floyd 
Snider 



Lackers 

♦Clemmons 

Griffin 

•♦Mitchell 

Morgan 

Ward 



♦ JSO 

• Serving on ARSTAF/SecA/my Staff 

# Serving initial joint assignment 



146 

REQUEST FOR JOINT TOUR EQUIVALENCE 

NAME DUTY TlTLEfSVJOINT EXPERIENCE 

1 . Colonel Daniel A. Doherty Chief, Military Police Investigations, later Chief- 

Special Operations. Benin Brigade, United 
States Command. Beriin from September 1977 
to June 1980; 33 months. Coordinated and 
supervised all investigative functions for US 
Forces Berlin; was the Correctional Officer for 
the Benin Confinement Facility, a multi-service 
facility. Was in charge of security arrangements 
for all United States distinguished visitors to 
Bedin, including all services and Congressional 
delegations. Coordinated with German 
authorities for all Police-community relations in 
the United States Sector. As Chief, Special 
Operations, he planned, supervised and 
conducted Provost Marshal activities related to 
United States access on the Berlin-Helmstadt 
autobahn; was responsible for operation of 
' Allied Checkpoints Bravo and Charlie and 
support of United States passenger and cargo 
trains transversing the German Democratic 
Republic. Maintained liaison with Soviet military 
officials and local German officials on a day-to- 
day basis. Served as the representative of the 
United States Commander, Berlin, using his 
Russian language ability, on all sensitive 
international matters dealing with United States 
access rights to and from Berlin. As such, 
coordinated closely with British, French, and 
Soviet military forces on a daily basis. 



147 



2. Colonel Geoffrey D. Miller Force Development Staff Officer, Office of the 

Deputy Chief of Staff for Operations and Plans , 
United States Army, Washington, DC. from 
October 1984 to December 1986; 26 months. 
Force development staff officer responsible for 
managing the force structure changes in Europe 
resulting from Conventional Force Europe (CFE) 
United States Treaty Agreement Programmed 
the changes through the Master Force System 
and orchestrated the transition to the multi- 
service Force Structure Analysis System. 
Frequently and routinely provided resulting 
information to Office of the Secretary of 
Defense, Congress, and Audit Agencies of the 
Government Army's point of contact to the Joint 
Chiefs of Staff for European Troop Strength (a 
joint service action). He handled all Army input 
to the Department of Defense to gain relief from 
Congressionally-imposed deadlines on 
European Troop Strength Reductions; worked 
, daily with service counterparts and Joint Staff 
and OSD representatives for the two-year 
period. 



148 



3. Colonel Stephen R. Smith Assistant Chief, later Chief General Officer 

Management Office. Office of the Chief of Staff, 
Army. Washington, Dp . from June 1985 to June 
1991; 72 months. Chief of Staff, Army's point of 
contact for all joint matters involving general/flag 
officers for the Services. Coordinated daily with 
Office of the Secretary of Defense, Organization 
of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Congressional Staff, 
Air Force, Navy, and Marine Corps 
representatives on behalf of the Chief of Staff, 
Army both in his role as a Service Chief and in 
his role as a member of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. 
Served as the Army point of contact/action 
officer for implementation of the 1986 
Goldwater-Nichols Defense Reorganization Act 
and its impact on the general/flag officer force. 
Member of joint service working group that 
drafted relief legislation to Goldwater-Nichols to 
allow the services and JCS to better transition to 
the joint provisions of the Defense 
Reorganization Act Instrumental in assessing 
' the effectiveness of the Hay Corporation's 
methodology in a study of Army general officer 
positions and advising the Joint Staff on 
implementation for all joint general/flag officer 
billets. Primary point of contact for all general 
officer nominations through the Joint Staff, 
Office of the Secretary of Defense, White 
House, and Congress. 



149 

4. Colonel Robert J. Si Onge, Jr. Chief. Plans Division Office of the Assistant 

Chief of Staff. G-3 (Operations). V Corps United 
States Army Europe from May 1985 to June 
1987; 25 months. The primary Corps Staff 
Planner for General Defense Plan. Corps 
representative for war planning to Central Army 
Group, Allied Command. Europe; Fourth Allied 
Tactical Air Force, Allied Command. Europe; 
United States Army, Europe; and Headquarters, 
First French Army. During exercises (and 
wartime), functioned as Chief of the Corps Plans 
Module with responsibility for coordinating 
nuclear employment with NATO and planning for 
movement and assignment of multi-national 
augmentation forces. Coordinated almost daily 
with counterparts from CENTAG and 4th ATAF, 
Allied Command. Europe, and the First French 
Army to refine war, exercise, and contingency 
operations plans. Primary point of contact and 
action officer for corps review of joint doctrine 
warfighting issues and publications. 



150 



JOINT EDUCATION 



Senator Coats. Under what conditions, other than in-residence instruction at a 
service or joint intermediate or top level school, may an active duty service member 
be awarded credit for Joint Professional Military Education (JPME)? (Please provide 
a copy of the implementing instructions or regulations for awarding such equivalent 
credit.) 

General STROUP. In a case of an officer who has completed two full tours of duty 
in a joint duty assignment and is subsequently nominated for the joint specialty, 
the Secretary of Defense may waive the requirement that the officer attend an ap- 
propriate program at a JPME school. Such a waiver may be granted only on a case- 
by-case basis in the case of an individual officer and in the case of a general or flag 
officer only under exceptional circumstances in which the waiver is necessary to 
meet a critical need of the Armed Forces, as determined by the Chairman 01 the 
Joint Chiefs of Staff. The total number of waivers granted under this paragraph for 
officers in the same pay grade during any fiscal year may not exceed 10 percent of 
the total number of officers in that pay grade selected for the joint specialty during 
that fiscal year. For implementing instructions see enclosure 1. 



151 

ENCLOSURE 1 
CHAPTER 88— JOrNT OFFICER MANAGEMENT 

64 1. VUn*f»mtot policm for joint spcUltr offictri. 

662. Promotion policy ©b>etivt» for joint ornar*. 

663. Education. 

664. Ltsfth of .joint duty aMifnmtnu 

665. ProCTdurti for monitoring e*r«cn of joint officer*. 

666. JU*ervt of&cen &ot on th« active-duty U»t. 

667. Annual ripen to Congreu. 
666. Definition*. 

1661. Management policiei for joint specialty officer* 

(a) Establishment.— The Secretary of Defense shall establish 
policiei, procedure!, and practical for the affective management of 
officer* of the Army, Navy, Air Force, and Marine Corps on the ac- 
tive-duty liit who are particularly trained in, and oriented toward, 
joint matters (a* defined in taction 668 of this title). Such officers 
ah all be identified or designated (in addition to their principal mili- 
tary occupational specialty) in such manner as the Secretary of De- 
fense directs. For purposes of this chapter, officers to be managed 
by such policies, procedures, and practices are referred to as hav- 
ing, or having been nominated for, the "joint specialty". 

(b) Numbers and Selection.— (1) The number of officers with 
the joint specialty shall be determined by the Secretary. Such num- 
ber shall oe large enough to meet the requirements of subsection 
(d). 

(2) Officers shall be selected for the joint specialty by the Sec- 
retary of Defense with the advice of the Chairman of the Joint 
Chiefs of Staff. The Secretaries of the military department* shall 
nominate officers for selection for the joint specialty. Nominations 
shall be made from among officers— 

(A) who meet qualifications prescribed by the Secretary of 
Defense; and 
. (B) who— 

(i) are senior captains or, in the case of the Navy, sen- 
ior lieutenants; or 

(ii) are serving in the grade of major or lieutenant 
commander or a higher grade. 

(3) The authority of the Secretary of Defense under paragraph 
(2) to select officers for the joint specialty may be delegated only 
to the Deputy Secretary of Defense. 

(c) Education and Experience Requirements.— (l) An officer 
who is nominated for the joint specialty may not be selected for the 
joint specialty until the officer— 




fully completes a full tour of duty in a joint duty assignment 



152 

(as described in section 664(0 of thii title (other then in para- 
graph (2) thereof)). 

(2)(A) An officer (other than t general or flag officer) who has 
e military occupational specialty that is a critical occupational spe- 
cialty involving combat operations (as designated by the Secretary 
of Defense) and who is nominated for the joint specialty may be se- 
lected for the joint specialty after successful completion of a full 
tour of duty in a joint duty assignment (as described in section 
664(f)(2) of this title) and successful completion of a program under 
paragraph (1XA). 

(B) The Secretary may not for the purposes of this paragraph 
designate a military occupational specialty as a critical occupa- 
tional specialty involving combat operations unless that occupa- 
tional specialty is within the combat arms, in the case of the Army, 
or the equivalent, in the case of the Navy, Air Force, and Marine 
Corps. In determining for the purposes of this paragraph what 
milita ry occupstional specialties within the combat arms (or the 
equivalent) are critical, the Secretary shall designate as critical any 
military occupational specialty experiencing severe shortages of 
trainee officers. 

(3XA) In the case of an officer who has completed both a pro- 
gram of education referred to in paragraph (1XA) and a full tour 
of duty in a Joint duty assignment (as described in section 664(f) 
of this title (other than in paragraph (2) thereof)) and is subse- 
quently nominated for the joint specialty, the Secretary of Defense 
may waive the requirement in paragraph (1KB) that the tour of 
duty in a joint duty assignment Se performed after the officer com- 
pletes the pro g ra m of education if the Secretary determines that 
the waiver is necessary in the interests of sound personnel man- 
agement. 

(B) In the case of an officer who has completed two full tours 
of duty in a joint duty assignment (as described in section 664(f) 
of this title) and is lubseouently nominated for the joint specialty, 
the Secretary may waive the requirement that the officer have suc- 
cessfully completed a program of education referred to in para- 
graph (1XA) it the Secretary determines that — 

(i) it would be impractical to require the officer to complete 
such a program at the current stags of the officer's career, and 

(ii) the types of joint duty assignments completed by the 
officer have been of sufficient breadth to prepare the officer 
adequately for the joint specialty. 

(C) A waiver under subparagraph (A) or (B) may be made only 
under unusual circumstances justifying deviation irom the condi- 
tions established in paragraph (1) for selection of an officer for the 
joint specialty. 

(u) The authority of the Secretary of Defense to grant a waiver 
under this paragraph may be delegated only to the Deputy Sec- 
retary of Defense, ouch a waiver may be granted only on a case- 
by-case basis in the case of an individual officer and in the case of 
a general or flag officer only under exceptional circumstances in 
which the waiver is necessary to meet a critical need of the armed 
farces, as determined by the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. 
The total number of waivers granted under this paragraph for offi- 
cers in the same pay grade during any fiscal year may not exceed 



153 

10 ptretnt of tht total number of officers in that pay grade selected 
for the joint specialty during that fiscal ytar. 

(4) For purposes of this chapter, a tehool that is ornnized 
within, and operated by, a military department may not oe con- 
strued to be a joint profesiional military education school. 

(d) Number or Joint Duty Assignments .— (l) The Secretary 
of Defense shall ensure that approximately one-half of the joint 
duty assignment positions in grades above captain or, in the case 
of tne Navy, lieutenant are filled at any time by officers who— 

(A) have the joint specialty; or 

(B) have been nominated tor the joint specialty and— 

(i) have successfully completed a program of education 
referred to in subjection (c)(lxA); or 

(ii) have a military occupational specialty that is des- 
ignated under subsection (cX2)(A) as a critical occupational 
specialty involving combat operations. 
(2XA) The Secretary snail designate not fewer than 1,000 joint 
duty assignment positions as critical joint duty assignment posi- 
tions. Such designation shall be made by examining each joint duty 
assignment position and designating under the preceding sentence 
those positions for which, considering the duties and responsibil- 
ities of the position, it is highly important that the occupant be 
particularly trained in, and onented toward, joint matters. 

(B) Until January 1, 1994, at least 60 percent of the positions 
designated by the Secretary under subparagraph (A) shall be held 
at all times by officers who have the joint specialty. On and after 
January 1, 1994, each position so designated may (subject to sub* 
paragraph (O) be held only by an officer who has the joint spe- 
cialty. 

(C) The Secretary of Defense may, on a case-by-case basis, 
waive the requirement in the second sentence of subparagraph (B) 
with respect to a particular assignment of an officer to a position 
designated as a critical joint duty assignment position. The author- 
ity of the Secretary to make such a waiver may be delegated only 
to the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. 

(D) During the period beginning on October 1, 1992, and end- 
ing on January 1, 1993, the secretary of Defense shall submit to 
Congress a report on the operation, to the date of the report, of the 
first sentence of subparagraph (5) and on the Secretary's projection 
for the use of the waiver authority provided under subparagraph 
(C), including the Secretary's estimate of the average annual num- 
ber of waivers to be provided under subparagraph (C). 

(8XA) The Secretary shall ensure that, of those joint duty as- 
signment positions that are filled by general or flag officers, a sub- 
stantial portion are among those positions that are designated 
under paragraph (2) as critical joint duty assignment positions. 

CBj The Secretary shall ensure that, of those positions des- 
ignated under paragraph (2) as critical joint duty assignment posi- 
tions, an appropriate portion are filled by officers with the joint 
specialty who were selected for the joint specialty under subsection 
(cX2). 

(4) Of the officers serving m joint duty assignment positions 
covered by paragraph (1) who are described in subparagraph (A) or 



154 

(B) of that paragraph, not mora than 25 percent at any time may 
be officers deienbaa in subparagraph (BXii) of that paragraph. 

(•) Career GUIDELINES.— The Secretary, with the advice of the 
Chairman of the Joint Chief* of Staff, thai' establish career guide- 
lines for officers with the joint specialty. Such guidelines shall in- 
clude guidelines for— 

(1) selection; 

(2) military education; 
(8) training*, 

(4) typos of duty assignments; and 

(5) such other matters as the Secretary considers appro- 
priate. 

(f*) Treatment or Certain Service. -^Any service by an officer 
in the grade of captain or, in the case of the I'&vy, lieutenant in 
a joint duty assignment shall be considered to be service in a joint 
duty assignment for purposes of all laws (including section 
619<eXl) of this title) eaubliahir^ a requirement or condition with 
respect to an officer's service in a joint duty assignment. 

(Added PX. 99-133, §401, Oct. 1, 1986, 100 Stat. 1025, and 
amended PX. 100-180, « 1801, 1802(a), (b), Dec. 4, 1987, 101 Stat. 
1168, 1169; PX. 100-456, H511, 612(a), 617(a), 518, Sept. 29, 

1988, 102 SUt 1968, 1971; PX. 101-189, »1113, 1122, Nov. 29, 

1989, 10S SUt. 1564, 1556.) 

1 662. Promotion policy objective* for joint officers 

(a) Qualifications.— The Secretary of Defense shall ensure 
that the qualifications of officers assigned to joint duty assignments 
are such that— 

(1) officers who art sarving on, or have served on, the Joint 
Staff are expected, as a group, to be promoted to the next high- 
er grade at a rate not lees than the rate for officers of the same 
armed force in the same grade and competitive category who 
are serving on, or have served on, the headquarters staff of 
their armed force: 

(2) officers who have the joint specialty art expected, as a 
group, to be promoted at a rate not less than the rate for offi- 
cers of the same armed force in the same grade and competi- 
tive category who are serving an, or have served on, the head- 
quarters staff of their armed force; and 

(8) officers who art serving in, or have served in, joint duty 
assignments (other than officers covered in naragrapns (1) and 
(2)) stb expected, as a group, to be promoted to the next higher 
grade at a rate not laee than the rate for all officers of the 
tame armed force in the same grade and competitive category. 

(b) EXPORT.- The Secretary of Defeat shall periodically (and 
not leu often than every six months) report to Congress on the pro- 
motion rates of officers who art serving in, or have served in, joint 
duty assignments, especially with respect to the record of officer se- 
lection boards in meeting the objectives of clauses (1), (2), and (8) 
of subsection (a). If such promotion rates fail to meet such objec- 
tives, the Secretary shall fnehids in the periodic report required: by 
this subsection information on such failure and on what action the 
Secretary has taken or plans to take to prevent further failures. 



155 

(Added Pi. W-433, f 401(a), Oct. 1, 1986. 100 8tat 1026, and 
amended PX. 100-466, |61S, Sept. 29, 1988, 102 Stat. 1969; P.L 
101-610, S 1311(3), Nov. 6, 1990, 104 Stat. 1669.) 

1668. Education 1 

(a) Capstone Course for New General and Flao Om- 
CERS.— (1) Each officer •elected for promotion to the grade of brie a- 
dier general or, in the case of the Navy, rear admiral (lower half) 
anal] be required, after such selection, to attend a military edu- 
cation course designed specifically to prepare new general and flag 
officers to work with the other armed forces. 

(2) Subject to paragraph (S), the Secretary of Defense may 
waive paragraph (1>— 

(A) in the case of an officer whose immediately previous 
assignment was in a joint duty assignment and who is thor- 
oughly familiar with joint matters; 

Co) when necessary for the good of the service; 

(C) in the case oi an officer whose proposed selection for 
promotion is based primarily upon scientific and technical 
qualifications for which joint requirements do not exist (as de- 
termined under regulations prescribed under section 619(eX4) 
of this title); and 

(D) in the case of a medical officer, dental officer, veteri- 
nary officer, medical service officer, nurse, biomedical science 
officer, or chaplain. 



»8ub»oetiaai i (a) tad <T» of Mctloa 1123 of tho Katiaaal Dofoaoo Authorisation A* far Tual 
Toan 1990 ftsd 1991 fP.L. 101-199; 108 But. 1MB). •pprer.d Not. 29. 1989, prrmdr 
(») tome ErroKn To Uipapvx pxon**:oNAi Miutajty Ebucat:on.-/i) Tho Goldwttor- 

J^i^pA^aaftat of Dafeaw JUcrtftiixiUoB Afi of IMS cPublio Law 99-453. 100 fui 992) 

(A) tho »tr«i#V>«aia« of tho foeu* oa Mat auttan la eounoo of iaowuettoa ofitowd by we. 
SjooioaaJ BiLury odoxatiae aefemlj operstod by tho jailUary dopanacau; tad 

(J) (ho Btiatoaaaeo of riforou* otaadaruo at joiat profoooioaal mihUrr •due* two achoolo 

Br tho oduaotioo of jaiai opodaity offloon. w*™ •*«*» 

(1) Cwpm tP^audt the ocbaoj ukon saco 19BS by tho fioerotary of Sofcaao tad tao Chair- 

sua of tho Jouji Chiftii ox Sua, coanmai with ioeh naadatc. to iapnrt pnrcotioaal military 

•^S? 6 9*™** by tatorsodutt tad toaior proioooioatl military odueotlon oeaooU. 

(b) Statxmxnt or Conoix*j;oxal>oucy.— Ao port of tho affortj of the Boamary of Dafoaao 
to impnm profuiio&al Billtary oduoouon, Coafr»a« tirfoo, oo o m*tt.ro/ pSoyTaadftiS ' «- 
poeto tho Soenury u omblith tho foilowiar 

(1) A ooaaraatftad ooBprohoaarvo fnaower* (fer tho tdutatiaa of effioon. Btlttdlai oft- 
fori aoauattOB sot tho joiat tpocttlty 
Q) A ^ tw ££ hM *,»Z prT *^ u •wtarhoaiat tho focus ea joiat aattan. u fallow* 

IAJ raaoo I taou-uottta ormootinf ofo ^aat eurriouJua, la ftdditioD to tho Prtadptl 
ajmeuJua Buffet to oil tffloca at oanri»<cp«ratod prefotnoati military oeucat»a 

(B) Pbaoo D j&JUwtloa ooaaiotiar of ft fallow-oa, oalaly joiat ourrtsuJua tauefct at tho 
Araod Forooo Staff Collogo to often who in axpoetod to bo toloctod fcr thoioiat opo- 
aoity Tho eumculua ohould tmphux** Buttial* "htadi oa" oatrtioeo tad bur oao- 
guavoly propan otudoau to porters offoctlvoiy tna tho outoot ia what will probably 
N ff™L ™ ,t "Vo»v« to • touUr bow oaTlroaaoat, aa aatiixaoat to * joiat. 
B^t^oT^ornaiaftUoa. Phaoo U Botruetion ohould hi oMtaSd^Oat otuiotu 
KTi^fS.- i^ ^^^^ »C> oint nBtton wtraod ia Phaao I to tho oml of «. 
ponioo aoooattry for oueoooof-aiporrarmaaeo ia tho Joiat mu 
H) A Mqucaead tppTooah to joiat oduaUoa ia which tho aara would nquln aa ofa«r 

aTft^2llJS2?^?oSli! r?^ 1 *^ ^ Cnainaaa of tho Juat Chxt> ofSuff aa* 
2L^f^te^^ U 4^J?^^ wu ^0fll<«n ooloetod to roeaiTo ouch oa oaaoptloa 
thTlW !^^ui^ 4 t£fSf?, , i*% we *^W*» •* J«i "Mtton aad othar aopocto of 
ffoa^totTSSlf liif-^ 1 *" 6 ^," 1 **^ B ^ t ^ aiaiauB roquiromoau ootaoUthod 
l/oSSlSi^^JSS^ ^^^ Pa *** l »«n»rtioa. Tao auabor 

lw?1iu?Sul^ ikfk J? !?i£ f *? E?"^ !"■■■ »f «»truotioa at tho Anaod 
•^po^^to^auii^B^'iS.^ l ^"-^ -^ m **~ ** ■ 



156 

(8) Tbt authority of the Secretary of Defense to grant a waiver 
under paragraph (2) mar only be delegated to the Deputy Secretary 
of Defenie, an Under secretary of Deieme, or an Assistant Sec* 
retary of Defense. Such a waiver mey be granted only on a ease' 
by-case basis in the case of an individual ameer. 

(b) Joint Military Education* Schools.— The Secretary of 
Defense, with the advice and assistance of the Chairman of the 
Joint Chiefs of Staff, shell periodically review and revise the cur- 
riculum of each school of the National Defense University (and of 
any other joint professional military education school) to enhance 
the education and training of officers in Joint matters. The Sec- 
retary shall require such schools to maintain rigorous standards for 
the military education of officer* with the joint specialty. 

(e) Other Professional Military Education Schools.— The 
Secretary of Defense shall require that each Department of Defense 
school concerned with professional military education periodically 
review and revise its curriculum for senior and intermediate grade 
officers in order to strengthen the focus an— 

(1) joint matters; and 

(2) preparing officers for joint duty assignments. 

(d) Post-Education Duty Assignments.— The Secretary of 
Defense shall ensure that— 

(1) unlesi waived by the Secretary in an individual case, 
each officer with the joint specialty who graduate! from a joint 
professional military education school shall be asiigned to a 
joint duty assignment far that officer's next duty assignment; 
and 

(2) a high prop orti on (which shall be greater than 50 per- 
cent) of the other officers graduating from a joint professional 
military education school also receive assignments to a joint 
duty assignment as their next duty assignment. 

(e) Duration op Principal Course of Instruction at Armed 
Forces Staff Colleqe.— (1) The duration of the principal course 
of instruction offered at the Armed Forces Staff College may not be 
less than three months. 

(2) In this subsection, the term "principal course of instruction* 
means any course of instruction offered at the Armed Forces Staff 
College as Phase U joint professional military education. 8 

(Added P.L. 99-4SS, 1401(a), Oct. 1. 1985, 100 Stat 1027, and 
amended P.L. 101-189, |1128(cXl), Nov. 29, 1989, 103 Stat. 1557; 
PA. 102-190, 1 912(a), Deo. 5, 1991, 105 But 1462.) 

1664. Length of joint dvtj assignments 

(a) General Rule.— The length of a joint duty assignment- 
CD for general and flag officers shall be not lass than two 

years, and 

(2) for other officers shall be not less than three years. 

(b) Waiver AUTHoanT.— The Secretary of Defense may waive 
subsection (a) in the ease of any officer. 



»6«ctM tiSft) «f ** NitUuj n f i Avtfaorintin Act ft* FlMftl Tun 1SS3 t»tf 1SSS 
9.L XOi-lSO. 101 Out JUJ), u inidid. prrrulM that sutoMtiaa <»XD titU Ml apply wttfa 
VMpm to tfa* Araac* raw Stogr«n«« w*U J— — tj 1, 1SS4. 



157 

Senator COATS. What institutions or programs are authorized to award equiva- 
lency credit for JPME? 

General STROUP. The Military Education Policy Document provides for Profes- 
sional Joint Education (PJE) Phase I credit to be given to U.S. officers granted Pro- 
fessional Military Education (PME) equivalence for courses of study or fellowships 
completed at other than PME institutions. Enclosed is a list of schools and fellow- 
ships who have been granted intermediate or senior-level PME credit by one or 
more of the services for those officers selected to attend. Graduates of these highly 
selected educational programs are granted PJE Phase I equivalence for possible 
Joint Specialty Officer (JSO) designation. All intermediate level students who qual- 
ify for PJE Phase I credit under these provisions are required to attend the Joint 
Transition Course before attending the PJE Phase II course at the Armed Forces 
Staff College. Enclosed list, see enclosure 2. 



90-165 96-6 



158 

ENCLOSURE 2 

SERVICE COLLEGE PK2 EQUIVALENCE 
(JUNE 1993) 

Services ^currently grant intermediate- or -senior-level PME 
equivalence to the following schools and fellowship programs: 

-iyS-WSB>CTTE=-LEVEL" !THEL~4 ) 

School 5 

Argentine. War! Col legef " " -.. 

Argentine 1 Naval~war College"" 

Argentine:Es i c,vela Superior. -.de-Guerra (Command and Staff College) 

'Australian 'Army Staff College 

Brazilian Naval War College 

Brazilian Command and Staff College 

British Army Staff College 

Canadian Forces Command and Staff College 

Canadian Militia Command and Staff 

French Ecole 1 Superieure de Guerre 

French Ecole' Superieure de Guerre Interarmees 

French Naval War College 

German Command and Staff College 

German General Staff/Aim Staff College 

India Command and Staff College 

India Defense Service Staff College 

Italian Naval War College 

Italian War College 

Italian Seoula di Guerra (War College Superior Course) 

Japanese KSDF Staff College 

Japanese Ground Self Defense Forces Staff College 

Norwegian Army Staff College 

Peruvian Air Command and Staff College 

Peruvian Naval War College 

Peruvian Senior War College 

Royal Air Force 8taff College 

Royal (British) Naval Staff College 

Royal Australian Navy Staff College 

Spanish Naval War College 

United States -Army School of the Ameriacas 

"Uruguayan Travel War College 

Venezuela Air Command and Staff College 

Venezuela Naval War College' 



159 

8INI0R-LEVEL (WEI-1) 

Schools «: 

Argentine Senior Course of National Defense 

Australian Joint Service staff College 

Canadian National Defense College 

Chilean Naval War College 

Trench Air War College 

India National Defense College 

Inter -American Defense College 

Japanese. National 'Institute for Defense Studies 

NATO Defense College 

Norwegian National Defense College 

Roy»l (British) Air Force Advanced Course 

Royal (British) College of Air Warfare 

Royal (British) College of Defense Studies ■ > 

Pakistan National Defense College 

fellowships 

Advanced Operational Studies Fellowship Program 

American Enterprise Institute 

Armed Forces Communications and Electronic Association 

Atlantic Council of the United States 

Brookings Institution 

Center for Strategic and International Studies 

Center for International Affairs (Harvard University) 

CIA Intragovernmental Fellowship 

Council on Foreign Relations 

CKO Strategic Studies Group 

Defense and Arms Control Program (KIT) 

Drug Enforcement Agency 

Fletcher School, Law and Diplomancy (Tufts University) 

Foreign Service Institute Intragovernmental Fellows 

Hoover Institution on War, Revolution, and Peace 

Institute for Advanced Technology (Univ of Texas * Austin) 

JFK School of Government (Harvard University) 

Joint Center for Political Studies 

Korea Institute for Defense Analysis 

Kershon Center (Ohio State University) 

National Security Fellows Program (Harvard University) 

NATO Defense College Fellowship 

NDU Senior Research Fellows 

Paul Nitze School of Advanced International Studies (Johns 

Hopkins) 
Queen's University (Canada) Visiting Defense Fellowship 
Rand Corporation 
Ridgway Center (Univ of Pittsburgh, Graduate School of Public 

and International Affairs) 
US State Department of Senior Seminar 
Walsh School of Foreign Service (Georgetown University) 
White House Fellowship 



160 

Senator Coats. How and under what standards are these instructions or pro- 
grams accredited to award such equivalency credit?. 

General Stroup. All JPME programs, including nonresident programs, must be 
accredited by the Chairman Joint Chiefs of Staff (CJCS), to qualify as Professional 
Joint Education (PJE). The CJCS accreditation process is referred to as the Process 
of Accreditation of Joint Education (PAJE). A PAJE team is appointed and serves 
as an advisory body to the CJCS. The PAJE is conducted by senior military officers 
(0-6 and above) and is advised and assisted by prominent civilian educators from 
within the Federal Government. Although the composition of the accreditation body 
is unique, its concept and approach seek to achieve a goal common to all systems 
of academic accreditation — to strengthen and sustain the excellence and integrity of 
professional education, in this case military education, thereby making it worthy of 
public confidence. The process will be generally guided by the accepted standards 
and practices adhered to by the civilian accreditation bodies. However, these stand- 
ards and practices are tailored to best serve the military education system. 

CIVILIAN PERSONNEL 

Senator Coats. In the fall of 1994, the Department of Defense announced an in- 
crease and an acceleration in the planned civilian work force reductions. There is 
a widespread perception that this decision was based on the need to generate sav- 
ings to pay for other programs or to force the civilian work reductions when ex- 
pressed as a percentage to match the percentage of military force reductions. To 
what extent were more substantive factors such as the civilian contribution to mili- 
tary readiness; force structure changes; and civilian work load changes considered 
in assessing the wisdom of increasing and accelerating the civilian work force reduc- 
tions. To what extent, if any, are the Departments and agencies authorized to time 
their civilian work force reductions to reflect their specificity in terms of force struc- 
ture changes and work load? 

General Stroup. The Army's accelerated drawdown of the civilian workforce was 
based on the specific FTE (full time equivalent) limitations as included in the Fed- 
eral Workforce Restructuring Act of 1994 and as further allocated to Army by the 
Office of the Secretary of Defense. Factors such as support to military readiness, 
force structure drawdown, funded workload, streamlining objectives and cost effi- 
ciency were considered in determining the functional areas to reduce the civilian 
workforce to the specified levels. 

MANAGEMENT BY FULL TIME EQUIVALENTS 

Senator COATS. The administration's report: "Cutting Red Tape — Creating a Gov- 
ernment that Works Better and Costs Less" in referring to "Full Time Equivalents" 
(FTE) provided that "The President should direct 0MB and agency heads to stop 
setting FTE ceilings in fiscal year 1995." What role do FTE ceilings play in the De- 
partment's management of the civilian workforce? Do you believe that management 
by end strength or by FTEs — as opposed to managing and budgeting by ceilings on 
operating costs — is appropriate for managing the civilian workforce of the Depart- 
ment of Defense as a whole? For managing the civilian workforce in the individual 
agencies within the Department of Defense? 

General STROUP. With the inclusion of the Department of Defense in the limita- 
tion of FTEs by the Federal Workforce Restructuring Act of 1994, the Office of the 
Secretary of Defense (OSD) determined that the Army would manage the civilian 
workforce by FTE workyears. FTE serves as a management tool to size the civilian 
workforce by limiting the amount of work that can be done in-house. The manage 
to budget philosophy determines the size of the civilian workforce based on funded 
workload and is potentially more flexible that the FTE system. We recognize that 
the costs of the sustaining base and infrastructure must be contained and reduced. 
The Army would prefer a system which provides the maximum flexibility to the 
commander in the field to manage within limited resources. The Army used the 
manage to budget system prior to the implementation of the FTE workyears. 



161 

Advanced Questions Submitted by Senator Dan Coats to Admiral Bowman 

The Chief of Naval Personnel, 

March 14, 1995. 

Hon. Dan Coats, 

Chairman, Subcommittee on Personnel, 

Committee on Armed Services, 

U.S. Senate, 

Washington, DC. 

Dear Mr. Chairman: I am pleased to submit the answers to the questions you 
directed to me in your letter of March 2, 1995. The questions which requested the 
comments of the Judge Advocate General have been answered separately by Rear 
Adm. H. E. Grant, JAGC, U.S. Navy. 

A similar letter with the enclosure has been sent to the ranking member of the 
Subcommittee on Personnel, Senator Byrd. 

Sincerely, 

F. L. Bowman, 

Vice Admiral, U.S. Navy. 
Enclosure. 



Questions and Responses 
active duty end strength 

Senator COATS. Are the Active duty end strengths requested in the fiscal year 
1996 budget adequate to man the force structure and infrastructure required to suc- 
cessfully support the CINCs warfighting requirements while training, equipping, 
and maintaining the force? If not, what are the required levels? Does your service 
intend to fully fund the end strength requested? 

Admiral Bowman. The end strength requested in the fiscal year 1996 budget is 
adequate to man the ships, aircraft, submarines, and supporting infrastructure to 
successfully support the CINCs warfighting requirements and allow for training, 
equipping, and maintaining the force. Navy intends to fully fund the end strength 
requested. 

Senator Coats. Are you able to retain quality servicemembers in adequate num- 
bers to support the planned or required end strength? 

Admiral Bowman. Yes. Declines in retention over the past few years are largely 
a result of the direct and indirect effects of Navy drawdown policies (VSI/SSB/ 
TERA, Early-Out program, slowdown in advancements, etc.) 

Declines in retention so far have not been undesirable. The Center of Naval Anal- 
ysis (CNA) has recently completed a study of retention trends which shows that, 
without the drawdown policies, retention is close to the pre-drawdown levels. 

Quality of the enlisted and officer communities remains high. Statistics show that 
enlisted personnel staying in the Navy are those younger, rapidly advanced person- 
nel with low time in service — a strong indicator of high quality. Both officer and en- 
listed selection boards continue to report extremely high quality of personnel re- 
maining, as evidenced by careful selection board record review. 

As we approach the end of the drawdown, Navy is renewing emphasis on: 

• Competitive pay raises. 

• Good career and advancement opportunity. 

• High quality of life. 

• Adequate bonuses and special pays. 

RECRUITING 

Senator COATS. Are you able to recruit quality recruits in adequate numbers to 
support the planned or required end strength? 

Admiral BOWMAN. Yes. In fiscal year 1994 recruit quality remained high with 95.1 
percent High School Diploma Graduates (HSDG) and 68.3 percent Upper Mental 
Group (UMG) recruits. These recruits exceeded our accession quality goals of 95 per- 
cent HDSGs and 62 percent UMG. We have not accessed any lower quality recruits 
(Mental Group IV). 

As of March 1, 1995, we recruited over 1,600 more applicants than for the same 

f>eriod during fiscalyear 1994, nearly a 10 percent increase in production in a less 
avorable market. These recruits are 95.4 percent HSDG and 64.4 percent UMG. 
Navy has not, and will not, access lower mental group candidates. 



162 

However, as a result of missing our New Contract Objective (NCO) the last 16 
of 22 months, our fiscal year 1995 delayed entry pool of recruits waiting to go to 
bootcamp has been seriously depleted. 

Navy recruiting started the year with less than the desired percentage (40—50 per- 
cent) of the next 12 months' accessions in the delayed entry pool. 

In view of the challenging recruiting market, our current outlook is guarded. Low 
production will place spring accession goal in jeopardy. Continued poor recruiting 
production would endanger accession attainment in fiscal year 1996 and beyond. 

Senator Coats, (a) List the accession goals for fiscal year 1994, fiscal year 1995, 
fiscal year 1996, and fiscal year 1997. (b) Break out the accession goals by quality 
category and by race and gender. For fiscal year 1994 and fiscal year 1995 (to date), 
list the planned and actual accomplishment. 

Admiral Bowman, (a) The following matrix lists non-prior service accession goals 
for fiscal year 1994 through fiscal year 1997: 

Fiscal year 
1994 1995 1996 1997 

Total 53,964 50,770 53,770 53,770 

UMG 33,458 (62%) 31,477 (62%) 33,337 (62%) 33,337 (62%) 

HSOG 51,265 (95%) 48,231 (95%) 51,081 (95%) 51,081 (95%) 

Black 6,476 (12%) 6,092 (12%) 6,452 (12%) 6,452 (12%) 

Hispanic 4,856 (9%) 5,584 (11%) 6,452 (12%) 6,452 (12%) 

Asian/Pac Is - 1,523 (3%) 2,688 (5%) 2,688 (5%) 

Male/Female 44,898/9,066 Gender neutral Gender neutral Gender neutral 

Starting this fiscal year, the Navy will be allowing 2,000 Navy veterans per year 
to return to active duty, thereby increasing total accessions to 52,770 for fiscal year 
1995; 55,770 for fiscal year 1996; and 55,770 for fiscal year 1997. 

(b) The following list shows the actual break-out of non-prior accession goals by 
quality category and by race and gender for fiscal year 1994 and fiscal year 1995. 

ACCESSIONS 

Fiscal year 1994 Fiscal year 199S 



Goal Attained Goal Attained ' 



Total 53,964 53,964 50,770 18,892 

UMG 33,458 (62%) 36,867 (68.3%) 31,477 (62%) 12,657 (67.0%) 

HSPG 51,265 (95%) 51,327 (95.1%) 48,231 (95%) 17,283 (91.5%) 

Male' 44,898 44,898(83.2%) 14,715(77.9%) 

UMG 30,806 (68.6%) 10,293 (69.9%) 

HSOG 42,474 (94.6%) 13,273 (90.2%) 

Female' 9,066 9,066(16.8%) 4.177(22.1%) 

UMG 6,061 (66.9%) 2.364 (56.5%) 

HSOG 8,853 (97.7%) 4,010 (96.0%) 

Black 6,476 (12%) 10,273 (19.0%) 6,092 (12%) 3,992 (21.1%) 

UMG 2,137 (33%) 4,690 (45.7%) 2,436 (40%) 1.736 (43.5%) 

HSDG 9,965 (97.0%) 3,766 (94.3%) 

Hispanic 4,856 (9%) 4,501 (8.3%) 5,584 (11%) 2,210 (11.7%) 

UMG 2,572 (57.0%) 1,364 (61.7%) 

HSOG 4,321 (96.0%) 1,947 (88.1%) 

Asian/Pac Is 1.511 (2.8%) 1,523 (3%) 670 (3.5%) 

UMG 906 (60.0%) 339 (55.6%) 

HSOG 1,481 (98.0%) 588 (96.4%) 

Notes: 

'Navy spanded opportunities lor females mid fiscal year 1994 
* As of March 1, 1995 

Senator COATS. Despite assurances to the contrary from the Office of the Under 
Secretary of Defense for personnel and Readiness, it appears that some services 
"under accessed" during the early years of the drawdown. This practice necessitates 

an increase in accession goals as the services reach their endstate. Did your service 

"under access" during the drawdown? If so, why, and what is the impact now and 
in the near future? To what extent is "under accession" contributing to difficulties 
experienced by recruiters? 



163 

Admiral BOWMAN. The Navy did not "under access" during the drawdown. The 
Navy is currently accessing to the sustaining level of force requirements. During the 
early years of the drawdown, we accessed at levels above the sustaining level. 

Senator Coats. What is the first-term attrition rate, total and broken out by race 
and gender? 

Admiral Bowman. The first-term attrition rate is defined here as the percentage 
of people whose enlistment contacts would have ended in a particular year but who 
failed to complete their first term of service. This definition includes cohorts with 
differing obligation lengths who entered service in different years. For example, data 
for fiscal year 1994 includes fiscal year 1992 2 year obligors (2 YOs), fiscal year 1991 
3 YOs, fiscal year 1990 4 YOs, fiscal year 1989 5 YOs, and fiscal vear 1988 6 YOs. 

Attrition rates for those who would have come to the end of their first term of 
service in fiscal year 1990-94 are: 

ATTRITION RATE (PERCENT) BY GENDER 









Fiscal year 








1990 


1991 


1992 


1993 


1994 


Male 


38.0 


37.0 
38.4 


38.0 
42.0 


40.0 
42.9 


44.2 




39.6 


44.9 


Total 


38.1 


37.1 


38.6 


40.3 


44.3 


ATTRITION RATE (PERCENT) BY RACE/ETHNICITY 








Focal year 








1990 


1991 


1992 


1993 


1994 



White 39.2 38.3 40.0 42.1 46.7 

Black 36.0 35.3 36.4 37.7 40.0 

Hispanic 38.8 36.9 36.5 37.8 40.5 

Other 23.2 24.5 27.6 26.0 29.7 



Total 38.1 37.1 38.6 40.3 44.3 

Higher fiscal years 1993-94 attrition levels reflect drawdown early-out programs 
that selectively allowed members to leave before the end of their term of service. 
Effects of these programs will continue through fiscal year 1996. Historical attrition 
rates have often been in the 36-38 percent range. 

Senator COATS. What is the attrition rate for initial unit training (recruit train- 
ing)? Again, break this out by race and gender. 

Admiral Bowman. The rate at which personnel leave the Navy before completing 
initial unit training is provided below, broken out by race and gender: 

CAUC BLACK HISP AM INDIAN ASIAN PAC 

Fiscal year 1994: 

Female 12.4 10.6 7.4 11.8 3.3 

Male 13.3 14.3 12.2 15.1 7.8 

Fiscal year 1995 (Year to date): 

Female 15.2 11.2 9.9 13.6 9.9 

Male 12.0 13.4 12.0 24.4 8.8 

Senator COATS. What are the primary causes of the attrition described above? 
What programs are planned or in place to reduce this attrition? 

Admiral Bowman. The primary causes of male and female recruit attrition are 
pre-service medical-related, deficiencies, fraudulent enlistment, lack of motivation, 
and personality disorders. CNO has chartered an Accession Quality and Attrition 
Executive Steering Committee to address Navy-wide attrition. This group is working 
closely with the Military Entrance Processing Stations (MEPS) to improve prior 
service screening. I have initiated a mentoring program to accelerate service accul- 
turation while recruits are in the delayed-entry program (DEP). 

RTC Great Lakes has been proactive in reducing attrition. Three recruit division 
commanders are now assigned to each recruit division, allowing more one on-one in- 
struction to prepare recruits for upcoming events and to allay their fears. In addi- 
tion, the Counseling and Assistance in a Recruit Environment (CARE) program has 



164 

been implemented to provide assistance, counseling, and referral services to re- 
cruits. Two other initiatives have also been undertaken: a Recruit Evaluation Unit 
was created to provide psychological coping skills for new recruits; and a Recruit 
Convalescent Unit was created to provide recruits an opportunity to recover from 
minor medical problems and reenter training. 

Senator Coats. Last year, the Congress authorized additional Recruiting and Ad- 
vertising funds, (a) How have you used those funds? (b) Does the fiscal year 1996 
budget request provide adequate funds for your recruiting and advertising require- 
ments? 

Admiral Bowman, (a) The Navy Recruiting Command used the additional re- 
sources for recruiter support and advertising as follows: 

(Dollars in millions] 

Original Additional 

budget funds 

Recruiter support ' $71,673 $5,841 

Advertising 2 18.176 24.424 

Total $89,848 $30,266 

1 Recruiter support (undine included $4 million in postal costs tor mail-outs, $18 million lor supplies and material, $3 1 million lor equip- 
ment and maintenance, and $6 million for other contract services 

'Advertising funding included $14 million lor printing, SI 1 million in postal costs, $3 1 million in contract and advisory services, and 
$188 million for contract and media purchases, which includes our television campaign. 

(b) The President's budget funding is adequate to meet fiscal year 1996 recruiting 
accession goals. 

Senator COATS, (a) What is the breakout of production recruiters to support staff 
within your recruiting personnel? What was this breakout in fiscal year 1988, fiscal 
year 1994 and fiscal year 1995? (b) What actions have you taken to increase the 
effectiveness of your recruiting operations? 

Admiral Bowman, (a) A breakout of average on board Production versus Support 
personnel is listed below: 

Fiscal year 



1988 ' 1994 1995 



Recruiters 4,144 3,346 3,373 

CRF recruiters 620 506 494 

TEMAC recruiters 190 

Total production recruiters 4,954 3,852 3,867 

USN support personnel 1,403 1,034 1,086 

Other support personnel 66 123 122 

Total support personnel 1,469 1,157 1.208 

1 Fiscal year 1988 data not available 

Admiral Bowman, (b): Key actions taken to increase recruiting effectiveness have 
included: 

• A national advertising program, re-implemented in fiscal year 1994, which has 
made individual recruiters more effective and has directly increased contract pro- 
duction. 

• Increased advertising focus and a conscious effort to increase the percentage of 
female and minority recruiters, which has improved efficiency in recruiting these 
market segments. 

• Office automation initiatives, begun in fiscal year 1993, are putting state-of- 
the-art computer and telecommunication technology in the hands of the field recruit- 
ers to make prospecting and processing more efficient. 

• Reduction in infrastructure from six to four areas, 41 to 31 districts, 2,150 to 
1,283 stations. 

• Investment in demographic research (e.g., on youth population, on location of 
target markets, on local market productivity, and education attainment, all to deter- 
mine the truly eligible market pools) has supported better targeting of resources in 
the field. 

• Implementation of various screening techniques (for example the Compensatory 
Screen Model) have expanded the recruiting market yet minimized pipeline and 



165 

Fleet attrition by selecting non-high school diploma graduates in the upper mental 
group with low attrition potential. 

• Recruiter incentive programs have been changed in fiscal year 1990, fiscal year 
1993 and fiscal year 1994 in an effort to motivate field recruiters to improve produc- 
tion and to attract quality personnel from the Fleet to become recruiters. 

• Efficient recruiter assignment has been accomplished by using computer mod- 
els that maximize production. 

Senator Coats. We have listened to your reports of the declining propensity of eli- 
gible youth to enlist in the military. What research has been done to determine why 
the propensity is declining and what are the results of that research, if any? 

Admiral Bowman. Although there are many theories regarding the continued drop 
in propensity (including low unemployment, end of the Soviet threat, downsizing the 
military, increasing trend toward college attendance, and the low number of men- 
tors and influencers with military experience), we know of no definitive analysis of 
the reasons for declining propensity. 

DOD has initiated several market research studies to try to better understand 
propensity. The Defense Manpower Data Center (DMDC) nas been assigned the 
task of coordinating a series of focus groups to study trends in propensity this sum- 
mer. 

The focus groups will survey approximately 200 minority and non-minority adult 
influencers and 120 youth. Study results will be available in the early fall of 1995. 

Senator COATS. Has the Department of Defense conducted any research inside the 
declining propensity to determine if the aggregate figures represent a decline in the 
high quality, eligible population or among the population at large with little actual 
effect on the target population? Does the declining propensity have any effect on the 
quality of individuals you are accessing? If so, what do you intend to do? If not, why 
is declining propensity a condition about which we should worry? 

Admiral Bowman. A May 1994 RAND Corporation study stated that the decline 
in propensity reflects only marginally on the target population. Our recruiters know 
that although the size of the youth population is important, it is not the only predic- 
tor of recruiting difficulty. Projected trends in unemployment, college enrollment, 
and propensity all contribute to the challenges military recruiting will face into the 
next decade. 

The decline in propensity has not forced us to lower the quality of our accessions. 
In fiscal year 1994, recruit quality remained high with 95. 1 percent High School Di- 
ploma Graduates (HSDG) and 68.5 percent Upper Mental Group (UMG) recruits. 
These recruits exceeded our accession quality goals of 95 percent HSDGs and 62 
percent UMGs. We have not accessed any lower quality recruits (Mental Group IV). 

The impact of propensity remains a concern, because while not necessarily a good 
indicator of who enlists, youth propensity estimates have been a good indicator of 
the effort and resource level required to recruit. Recruiting in a lower prepensed en- 
vironment is more expensive in terms of total recruiters and advertising. 

The positive impact of advertising and adequately manning recruiting stations as 
a means of compensating for any decline in youth propensity was validated by the 
RAND Corporation study. 

RESERVE RECRUITING 

Senator Coats, (a) What are the recruiting goals of the Reserve for fiscal year 
1994, fiscal year 1995, and fiscal year 1996? Breakout the goals by quality category, 
race, and gender, (b) For fiscal year 1994 and fiscal year 1995, show the actual num- 
bers in addition to the goals. 

Admiral Bowman, (a) The following information matrix lists Reserve recruiting 
goals for fiscal year 1994, fiscal year 1995, and fiscal year 1996: 

Fiscal year 



1994 1995 



ENL SELRES 13.144 14,000 18,000 

SAM 2.073 

HSDG 1,969(95%) 

UMG 1.285(62%) 

Black 248(12%) 

Hispanic 186 (9%) 

Asian/Pac Is 105 (5%) 

Male/Female 1.782/291 (14%) 



N/A 


278 


N/A 


264 (95%) 


N/A 


172 (62%) 


N/A 


33 (12%) 


N/A 


25 (9%) 


N/A 


14 (5%) 


N/A 


289/39 (14%) 



166 

Admiral BOWMAN, (b): The following list shows the breakout of non-prior service 
accession goals by quality category and by race and gender for fiscal year 1994 and 
fiscal year 1995: 

Fiscal year 1994 Fiscal year 1995 

Goal Attained Goal Attained 

SAM 2,073 2.073 (100.0%) (No goal) N/A 

Male 1,782 1.782 (100.0%) 

Female 291 (14%) 291 (14.0%) N/A 

Black 248 (12%) 324 (15.6%) N/A 

HSDG 309 (95.4%) 

UMG 203 (62.7%) 

Hispanic 186 (9%) 222 (10.7%) N/A 

HSDG 214 (96.4%) 

UMG 140 (63.1%) 

Asian/Pads 103 (5%) 66 (3.2%) N/A 

HSDG 65 (98.5%) 

UMG 44 (66.7%) 

Senator Coats. The National Voter Registration Act of 1993 requires military re- 
cruiters to offer personnel who enter their offices the opportunity to register to vote, 
ask individuals who decline to register to fill out a form indicating that they de- 
clined, assist those who desire to register, and maintain records of their activities 
in this area. How has this requirement added to the workload of military recruiters? 
How many have registered through military recruiting offices? How many were of- 
fered the opportunity to register Dut declined? What are the costs attributable to 
the National Registration Act? 

Admiral BOWMAN. Excluding time spent in initial and refresher training, recruit- 
ers estimate they spend an average of 5 percent (approximately 30 minutes) of then- 
workday on voter registration. 

Exact registration figures were not readily available from all recruiting stations. 
One (of four) Navy Recruiting Areas did have data from all of its stations for the 
period January 1 through March 3, 1995 and reported that 310 prospective enlistees 
and individuals entering recruiting stations solely for the purpose of registering to 
vote submitted voter registration applications. During that same period, 4,476 pro- 
spective enlistees declined to register to vote. 

Recurring costs associated with implementation of NVRA include postage (which 
averages approximately $400 per week nationwide) and the cost of photocopying 
forms when supplies are not available. One-time costs included travel and long-dis- 
tance telephone calls to conduct initial training, and postage to distribute training 
materials. 

PERMANENT CHANGE OF STATION 

Senator Coats. What is your Permanent Change of Station budget in fiscal year 
1996? 

Admiral BOWMAN. The Permanent Change of Station (PCS) budget for fiscal year 
1996 is provided below: 

Mandatory $168,941,000 

O/R/T $402,601,000 

Total $571,542,000 

Senator Coats. How many moves are planned in this budget? 

Admiral BOWMAN. The planned moves for this budget submit are provided below: 

Mooes Fiscal year 1996 

Mandatory 120,305 

O/R/T 79,308 

Total 199,613 

Senator Coats. How many moves were planned and executed in fiscal year 1988, 
fiscal year 1993, and fiscal year 1994? 

Admiral Bowman. Planned and executed moves for fiscal year 1988, fiscal year 
1993, and fiscal year 1994 are provided as follows: 



167 





Moves 


Fiscal year 


1988 


Fecal year 


1993 


Fiscal year 


1994 




Planned 


Executed 


Planned 


Executed 


Planned 


Executed 


Q/R/T 




196,072 
112,513 


203,113 
110,721 


160.270 
110,631 


151,220 
110,722 


142.321 
93,500 


138,330 
97,672 


Total 


308,585 


313,834 


270.901 


261,942 


235,821 


236,002 



COMPENSATION 

Senator Coats. What compensation program would you implement given author- 
ity and sufficient resources? 

Admiral Bowman. Given both the authority and sufficient resources, my short an- 
swer is both simple and immediate, and resonates with the number one pay concern 
of every sailor in uniform: zero the pay gap. This single action would eradicate a 
persistent pay inequity in an existing compensation program (regular military com- 
pensation annual pay raise) vice implementing a new one. 

As a detailer from 1980 to 1982, I saw firsthand the very positive effect on mo- 
rale — and subsequently on quality retention — stemming from the large "catch-up," 
congressionally supported pay raises in 1980 and 1981. 

Senator Coats. There has been much discussion about the "pay gap." Some in the 
Department of Defense question whether there is a pay gap and whether the ECI 
index is an appropriate index upon which military pay raises should be based. In 
your opinion, what is the current pay gap? Do you have a recommended alternative 
to the ECI as a basis for computing military pay raises? 

Admiral BOWMAN. In both my opinion and current DOD projections for fiscal year 
1995, the current pay gap — based on an Employment Cost Index (ECI) comparison 
since fiscal year 1982— is 12.6 percent. 

Navy still has confidence in the ECI as a relevant index by which to judge the 
annual military raise, based on the studies conducted and recommendations made 
by the 1992 Seventh Quadrennial Review of Military Compensation (QRMC). While 
Navy is aware that the Defense Employment Cost Index (DECI) is a possible alter- 
native to the ECI, it has yet to be determined or proven that the DECI measure- 
ment has matured since 1992 as a reliable measure. The Eighth QRMC is just now 
tackling the President's charter to develop the military compensation system of the 
2l8t century. Certainly, as part of that process, a thorough evaluation of ECI, DECI, 
and other potential indexes should be made to determine which is the most accurate 
predictor on which to base the annual pay raise. 

Senator Coats. The committee asked the Congressional Budget Office to review 
the Aviation Career Program to determine whether the need for the program is still 
valid and to recommend alternatives which may be more effective in a smaller force. 
What is your budget for ACP for fiscal year 1988, fiscal year 1995, and fiscal year 
1996? How do you ensure that the bonuses are effective tools in retaining aviators 
to meet the needs of the service? Do you pay ACP to aviators in specialties which 
are not, and have not experienced a shortage/ If so, how do you justify this expendi- 
ture of scarce resources? 

Admiral BOWMAN. The Aviation Continuation Pay (ACP) budgets for the re- 
quested years are: 

[Dollars in millions] 

Fiscal year 



199S 1996 



Total budget $12.68 12.45 13.21 

To ensure ACP is an effective tool for retaining aviators, the program is reviewed 
annually to determine which communities are critically manned. ACP is paid only 
to eligible aviators who, upon completion of their minimum service requirement, 
agree to remain on active duty in a flying status through their 14th year of commis- 
sioned service. We authorize bonuses only for those pilots whom we need to meet 
department head, requirements. 

The current fiscal year 1995 program is offered only to pilots in the following com- 
munities, which have experienced shortages, or are predicted to: 

Per year 

VFA(F/A-18) $12,000 

VAQ(LA-6) 12,000 



168 

Per year 

VS (S-3) 9,000 

VQ (E-6A) 12,000 

VQ (ES-3A) 9,000 

VAW(E-2C) 4,000 

ACP is not paid to aviators from communities that are not experiencing or pre- 
dicted to experience shortages. We authorize payments to only 6 of 14 aviation com- 
munities. The program is modified each year (based on updated retention and force 
structure changes) to offer contracts to only those communities where meeting re- 
quirements will be difficult. 

Retention of qualified and well-trained aviators will continue to be an issue. The 
number of aviators accessed into the Navy in the 1990s is considerably less than 
in the 1980s. Although the Navy is paying ACP to only 6 of 14 aviation sub-commu- 
nities today, it will become necessary to target more aviators in the out-years to 
keep a higher percentage of the smaller force throughout Naval Aviation. 

NUCLEAR BONUS PROGRAM 

Senator Coats. What is your budget for nuclear bonuses in fiscal year 1988, fiscal 
year 1995, and fiscal year 1996? Who receives these bonuses and pays? How do you 
ensure that the bonuses and pays are effective tools in retaining nuclear qualified 
personnel to meet the needs oi the Navy? 

Admiral Bowman. The budget for nuclear bonuses is as follows: 

[Dollars in thousands] 

Fiscal year 



1995 1996 



Nuclear bonuses $29,056 $24,754 $23,560 

The following personnel receive these bonuses: 

a. Nuclear Officer Accession Bonus: Congress authorizes $8,000 and Navy cur- 
rently pays $6,000; $4,000 is paid to midshipmen and officer candidates who volun- 
teer and are accepted for nuclear power training, with an additional $2,000 paid to 
officers upon successful completion of nuclear training. 

b. Nuclear Officer Continuation Pay: Congress authorizes $12,000, and Navy 
currently pays $10,000 per year in advance to nuclear qualified Unrestricted Line 
officers who agree to remain on active duty for three-, four-, or five-year periods be- 
yond their minimum service requirement. Only those officers with less than 26 
years commissioned service are eligible. 

c. Annual Incentive Bonus (Unrestricted Line): Congress authorizes $8,000, 
and Navy currently pays $7,200 per year at the end of the fiscal year to nuclear 
qualified officers who remain on active duty beyond their minimum service obliga- 
tion. Officers who are on a Continuation Pay Contract (paragraph b above) are not 
eligible for this payment. 

d. Annual Incentive Bonus (Limited Duty Officers and Chief Warrant Offi- 
cers): Congress authorizes $4,000, and Navy currently pays $3,600 per year at the 
end of the fiscal year to nuclear qualified Limited Duty Officers and Chief Warrant 
Officers who served in a qualifying billet directly involving nuclear duty. 

Among eligible nuclear trained officers, the present distribution of those drawing 
Annual Incentive Bonuses (AIB) and Continuation Pay (COPAY) is as follows: 

RANK AIB COPAY 

LDO/CWO 364 N/A 

LT (03) 375 851 

LCDR(04) 152 402 

CDR(05) 53 371 

CAPT(06) 110 196 

Total 1,054 1,820 

Increases in pays and bonuses have historically had a marked affect in improving 
retention of nuclear qualified personnel. However, it is very difficult during this 
transition period of downsizing to ensure that these bonuses and pays are sufficient 
retention tools. While nuclear officer retention is currently at the lowest level in 
twelve years, the concurrent force structure decrease has allowed us to meet man- 



169 

ning requirements. Retention will need to be increased by at least eight percent over 
the next five years to meet the needs of a stable force structure. The current levels 
of pays and bonuses will be monitored closely to ensure that they are sufficient to 
foster this increase. We continue to monitor nuclear officer retention closely as the 
Navy transitions from downsizing to steady state force levels. 

Senator Coats. What is the Basic Allowances for Quarters (BAQ) gap? What are 
the recommended corrective actions? 

Admiral Bowman. In 1985, Congress set BAQ rates to compensate the Sailor for 
65 percent of his/her housing costs (VHA is a fixed 20 percent with the sailor ab- 
sorbing the remaining 15 percent). Since BAQ is one of the elements of the annual 
pay raise formula, increases in BAQ are linked to the ECI index, vice a housing 
index, such as the Military Housing Cost Index (MHCI). Consequently, since 1985, 
annual increases in BAQ have not kept pace with actual housing cost increases, cre- 
ating a "BAQ gap." Today, BAQ now represents 59 percent of housing costs with 
the Sailor making up the lost 6 percent out of pocket, driving his/her contribution 
to the equation up to 21 percent. 

Corrective action is already underway as part of Secretary Perry's 6-year, $2.7 bil- 
lion Quality of Life initiative, which proposes to provide funding to close that gap 
in 1 percent increments over the next 6 fiscal years. Legislation is currently being 
drafted by OSD for the 104th Congress, which if enacted, will allocate approxi- 
mately $43.5 million each fiscal year, from fiscal year 1996 to fiscal year 2001, to 
reestablish the 65 percent BAQ rate. 

OFFICER PERSONNEL 

Senator COATS. What is the officer/enlisted ratio for fiscal year 1988, fiscal year 
1993, fiscal year 1994, fiscal year 1995, and projected for fiscal year 1995? Do you 
believe that this ratio is an accurate means of assessing the proper structure of the 
military services? 

Admiral Bowman. The officer/enlisted ratios are 1:7.1 (fiscal year 1988), 1:6.6 (fis- 
cal year 1993), 1:6.5 (fiscal year 1994), 1:6.3 (fiscal year 1995), and 1:6.2 (projected 
fiscal year 1996). Officer/enlisted (0/E) ratio is not an accurate means of assessing 
the proper structure for the Navy. Measuring solely 0/E ratio assumes that the re- 
quirements and platforms remain the same throughout the drawdown. New plat- 
forms and new technology have been brought into service, thereby changing man- 
power requirements. (As an example, new ships powered by gas turbines require 
fewer enlisted maintainers and operators than ships powered by steam turbines — 
but still require an equivalent number of officer watchstanders and leaders.) 

This change in force structure has predicated a small change in the O/E ratio. 
New platforms are less enlisted-intensive than older decommissioned platforms as 
indicated below: 



PRK 


O/K 




POST 


O/B 


RECAPITALIZATION 


RATIO 


RECAPITAI^ZATION RATIO 


18 CG 16/26 


1:16 


27 


CG 47 


1:12 


10 DDG 37 


1:16 


6 


DOG 51 


1:14 


DDG 2 


1:16 




FFG 7 


1:12 


VAL 


1:10 




VFA 


1:8 


AFS 


1:16 




[Deconsniss 


tioned] 


CV 


1:18 




[Decotnmiss 


iioned] 


SSN 


1:9 




[Deconsniss 


iioned] 



Even with this minor adjustment to the 0/E ratio, Navy continues to have the 
lowest O/E ratio of any of the Departments. 

Furthermore, the O/E ratio is adversely affected by the substantial Navy medical 
officer requirements in support of the Fleet Marine Force (FMF). Navy support re- 
quirements to the FMF are not decreasing, and the higher O/E ratio of this support 
is not accurately reflected in changing O/E ratios for the Navy. The O/E ratio is also 
affected by the continuing necessity of filling officer joint and Defense agency billets 
(Joint O/E is 1.2:1) 



170 

Any decision to base end strength on an arbitrary O/E ratio would have an imme- 
diate negative impact on readiness due to additional losses not tied to any pro- 
grammatic adjustment. 

Senator Coats. What is your current (fiscal year 1995) Joint Duty Assignment 
List (JDAL) requirement? How does this compare to fiscal year 1988/fiscal year 
1993? 

Admiral BOWMAN. The comparison of JDAL requirements and authorizations for 
these fiscal years is as follows: 

JDAL = Field grade JDAL requirements, fiscal years 1988/91/95. 
AUTTH = Field grade authorizations, fiscal years 1988/91/95. 
Fiscal year 1988: 

JDAL 1,737 

AUTH 26,025 (18,151) 1 

Fiscal year 1991: 

JDAL 1,830 

AUTH 25,297 (17,347) » 

Fiscal year 1995: 

JDAL 1,919 

AUTH 23,160 (15,930) * 

1 This figure excludes designators the 2xxx, 410x and 6xxx (Medical, Dental, 
JAG, chaplains, and LDOs). 

Senator COATS. What is your current (fiscal year 1995) requirement to fill OSD 
and non-JDAL billets in the Defense Agencies (DOD non-JDAL)? How does this 
compare to fiscal year 1988/fiscal year 1991? 

Admiral Bowman. OSD, non-JDAL, and DOD non-JDAL billet requirements for 
these fiscal years are compared below. 

Fiscal year 1988: 

OSD 155 (50) i 

DOD nonJDAL 784 

Fiscal year 1991: 

OSD 178 (67) * 

DOD nonJDAL 815 

Fiscal year 1995: 

OSD 141 (38) » 

DOD non-JDAL 1,455 

1 Non-JDAL. 

Senator Coats. The Senate Armed Services Committee has, for several years, 
urged the Department of Defense to submit a comprehensive DOPMA relief request 
rather than forcing individual services to request short-term relief. Will you submit 
a request for DOPMA relief this year? If so, describe the relief you will request. Is 
this a service-specific request or will it be part of a comprehensive DOD level re- 
quest? What is the justification for the requested relief? 

Admiral Bowman. Navy has submitted a request for temporary grade relief 
through fiscal year 1997. This request for temporary grade relief is service-specific; 
however, we are working now with DOD and the other services to prepare a DOD- 
level request for permanent grade relief beyond fiscal year 1997. 

Navy requires grade table relief both to meet its requirements for field grade offi- 
cers and to maintain promotion opportunity and timing for officers in these grades 
within DOPMA/DOD guidelines. Specifically, Navy requirements for officers in the 
grades of 04, 05, and 06 exceed both current and forecast grade table authoriza- 
tions. (Navy has taken unilateral action to temporarily "roll down" these billets for 
distribution purposes, to allow, inventory to meet artificial requirements.) In addi- 
tion, Unrestricted Line 04 and Nurse Corps 05 and 06 promotion timing either cur- 
rently exceed or are forecast to exceed DOPMA guidelines. DOPMA grade table re- 
lief will allow Navy to adequately address these officer requirements. 

All services accessed officers throughout the "buildup" years to meet anticipated 
force structure manning requirements. We have taken reasonable action in the 
drawdown to remove many of these officers. Those remaining are top quality, who 
have served in good faith. DOPMA relief will allow our services to snow the same 
good faith in providing reasonable upward mobility for these officers. 

Senator COATS. What is the officer promotion opportunity and pin-on point (by 
grade) for 04, 05, and 06 for fiscal year 1988, fiscal year 1994, and fiscal year 1995, 
compared to the DOPMA goals? 



171 

Admiral BOWMAN. The comparison of DOPMA goals and actual officer promotion 
opportunity/pin-on point is provided in the following table, for both the Navy as a 
whole and the Unrestricted Line (URL) competitive category. Average pin-on point 
is given in years and months. 

DOPMA goals Fiscal year 

1988 actual 1994 actual 1995 actual 

Opp (%) Pin-on 

Opp (%) Pin-on Opp (%) Pin-on Opp (%) Pin-on 

06 50 22±1 YCS 

Navy 56 2m 52 21/3 52 21/3 

URL 55 21/1 50 21/0 50 21/2 

05 70 16±1 YCS 

Navy 72 15/2 70 15/9 71 15/7 

URL 70 15/2 70 15/2 70 15/4 

04 80 10±1 YCS 

Navy 82 9/10 79 10/4 74 10/9 

URL • 80 10/0 70 10/6 70 10/3 

Senator Coats. Describe your fiscal year 1996 officer drawdown plans including 
which authorities will be used and the numbers you plan to realize from each. 

Admiral Bowman. For fiscal year 1996, 5,995 officer gains and 7,190 officer losses 
are planned. Natural losses (retirements, resignations, discharges, and releases from 
active duty) will account for approximately 6,315 losses. VSI/SSB will not be re- 
quired in fiscal year 1996 to meet end-strength controls or for force shaping. The 
selective early retirement (SER) will be used in fiscal year 1996 to retire approxi- 
mately 300 officers, while 575 officers are proiected for early retirement under the 
Temporary Early Retirement Authority (TERA). 

Senator COATS. Are the current drawdown authorities adequate to permit an or- 
derly downsizing of the officer corps? 

Admiral Bowman. Yes. The Navy has been able to use the tools provided to 
drawdown the force without using a Reduction-in-Force (RIF). This approach has al- 
lowed us to both maintain faith with our officer corps and draw down in an orderly 
manner. These tools have been useful for both force reduction and force shaping and 
will be required through fiscal year 1999 to ensure that we reach our drawdown ob- 
jectives. 

Senator COATS. What were your officer accession plans for fiscal year 1994 by 
source? What did you actually access from each source? 

Admiral Bowman. The planned and actual officer accessions for fiscal year 1994 
are as follows: 



Sou ice 



Planned Actual 

accession accession 



USNA 800 754 

NR0TC 1.105 1.104 

0CS/A0CS 375 316 

ECP 131 193 

LD0/CW0 612 650 

Merchant Marine 15 22 

Direct Procurement 533 851 

Student Programs 845 332 

Interservice Transfer 24 11 

Recall to active duty 70 208 

Total 4,510 4,441 

Senator Coats. What are your officer accession plans for fiscal year 1995 and fis- 
cal year 1996? Please list by source. 

Admiral Bowman. The officer accession plans for fiscal year 1995 and fiscal year 
1996 are as follows: 

Fiscal year 

Source 

1995 1996 

USNA 805 805 

NR0TC 1,050 1,050 



1995 


1996 


603 


500 


175 


200 


446 


548 


50 


50 


60 


20 


640 


650 


764 


772 


20 


20 


62 


60 



172 



Fatal year 
Soy ret 

OCS 

ECP 

LDO/CWO 

Seaman to Admiral 

Merchant Marine 

Direct Procurement 

Student Programs 

Interservice Transfer 

Recall to active duty 

Total 4,675 4,675 

ENLISTED PERSONNEL 

Senator COATS. Describe your fiscal year 1996 enlisted drawdown plans including 
which authorities will be used and the numbers you plan to realize from each. 

Admiral BOWMAN. The fiscal year 1996 enlisted end strength reductions will be 
accomplished through natural attrition, voluntary separation incentives and early 
retirement. Specifically: 

• The fiscal year 1996 accession plan reflects the sustaining level of accessions 
required at the end of the drawdown. 

• VSI/SSB will be offered to ES-E7 through fiscal year 1996. 

• TERA will be offered to paygrades E5-E7 in selected skills. 

5 enlisted drawdown plans submitted in the fiscal year 1996 President's Budget 
include the following authorities for the numbers as shown: 

• VSI7SSB: 301. 

• TERA: 4,778. 

Senator Coats. Are the current drawdown authorities adequate to permit an or- 
derly downsizing of the enlisted force? 

Admiral Bowman. Yes, as currently planned. 

Senator Coats. Describe the demographics of the enlisted force by race and gen- 
der in fiscal year 1991, fiscal year 1994, and projected fiscal year 1999. Describe the 
same demographics for the top three enlisted grades. 

Admiral Bowman. Enlisted demographics, totals: 

[In percent] 

Fiscal year 



American Indian/Alaskan Native 

Asian American/Pacific Islander 

Black (non-Hispanic) 

Hispanic 

White (non-Hispanic) 

Other/unknown 

Male 

Female 

Enlisted demographics, top three enlisted grades: 

(In percent] 

Fiscal year 



American Indian/Alaskan Native 
Asian American/Pacific Islander 

Black (non-Hispanic) 

Hispanic 

White (non-Hispanic) 

Other/unknown 

Male 

Female 



1991 


1994 


1999 


0.6 


0.6 


0.6 


4.7 


5.0 


5.0 


17.7 


18.0 


18.0 


6.5 


7.0 


8.0 


70.1 


69.0 


68.0 


0.4 


0.4 


0.4 


90.2 


89.0 


87.0 


9.8 


11.0 


13.0 



1991 


1994 


1999 


0.7 


0.5 


0.5 


9.3 


8.3 


7.0 


7.6 


9.2 


11.8 


2.4 


2.8 


3.5 


79.0 


78.4 


75.6 


0.9 


0.8 


0.8 


95.6 


94.2 


92.3 


4.4 


5.8 


7.7 



173 

Senator COATS. Are you employing a "tiered manning" strategy? If so, describe 
your plans and the readiness impact of such a plan. 

Admiral Bowman. We do not employ a "tiered manning" system. Two of the guid- 
ing principles for the Navy, as we shape our force for the next century, are main- 
taining the quality and morale of our people and preserving our readiness for com- 
bat. Essential to these principles are a properly manned force and adequate num- 
bers of ships and aircraft to meet existing and future contingencies. 

We are not a garrisoned force. We are in the business of forward presence. De- 
ployments are routine, and we man all our battle forces to be "deployment ready." 

Although we do not employ a tiered manning system, we do man our battle forces 
for "routine deployments. Our battle forces today are manned at about 92 percent 
of the wartime requirement. Wartime requirement is defined as the total number 
of sailors required to project and sustain power in two nearly simultaneous major 
regional contingencies (MRCs). Wartime requirements are predicated on continuous 
underway operations aboard ships and submarines, and maximized aircraft sortie 
rates. Toda/s 92 percent manning level allows our forces to fully employ all their 
weapon systems and to project power for durations consistent with expected threats. 
Should escalating world tensions increase the threat, we have the capability to 
surge active-duty personnel from our infrastructure and Reserve forces. This ap- 
proach was validated during Operations Desert Shield/Desert Storm. On a day-to- 
day basis, we believe our manning posture represents a prudent and efficient em- 
ployment of resources. 

Even if provided additional resources, we would not choose to man our force at 
a wartime level during peacetime. Although doing so would maximize unit personnel 
readiness, we must balance manning levels with other competing requirements, 
such as quality of life, PERSTEMPO, and adequate force structure. For example, 
many of our ships could not support long duration wartime manning and still pro- 
vide all crew members with their own bunks. Overcrowding degrades the quality of 
life of the affected crew members and would, over time, impact retention. 

A smaller Navy presents challenges to our manpower and personnel planners. A 
smaller force means less flexibility to redirect personnel to activities with personnel 
shortfalls. When transitory perturbations in training and distribution cycles cause 
temporary shortages in certain paygrades and ratings, our personnel planners must 
determine priorities and direct tne right people to the highest priorities. Our current 
readiness cycles allow us to easily identify those priorities. For example, at any 
given time each of our deployable ships and squadrons are positioned at some point 
in the readiness cycle. Some are in overhaul, others are undergoing workup train- 
ing, and still others are forward deployed. Since force manning is a zero sum situa- 
tion, unit priority for personnel replacement is lowest immediately following a de- 
Sloyment, and gradually builds as a unit approaches its next deployment departure 
ate. This self correcting manning cycle ensures that our ships and squadrons de- 
ploy with the right people, and that no single unit consistently absorbs more than 
its fair share of short-term undermanning. 

In summary, we man all our battle forces to be deployment ready. We do not em- 
ploy a tiered manning system. We do, however, man our battle forces for routine 
deployments. We believe our manning posture, proven both in the recent past and 
during current operations, can decisively counter any threat and represents a pru- 
dent and efficient employment of resources. 

PERSTEMPO 

Senator COATS. How do you define PERSTEMPO? What is your PERSTEMPO 
plan? What is the actual experience? What type of deployments/time away from 
home station are included in the PERSTEMPO calculation? 

Admiral Bowman. The Navy's PERSTEMPO program consists of three guidelines: 
a maximum deployment of 180 days (portal to porcal), a minimum Turn-Around 
Ratio (TAR) of 2:1 between deployments, and a minimum of 50 percent for the time 
a unit spends in homeport over a 5-year period (three past/two projected). For the 
purposes of our program, a "deployment" is defined as any unit away from homeport 
for more than 8 weeks (56 days). However, for Navy's PERSTEMPO calculations 
every day out of homeport, no matter what the reason, whether it be deployment 
or non-deployment operations, or overhaul/repairs in out of homeport facilities, all 
are considered "negative days" in the PERSTEMPO calculation. 

Quarterly PERSTEMPO reports submitted by FLTCINCs identify which units are 
"in the red (number of negative PERSTEMPO days), and provide projected recovery 
quarter for each unit. 

CNO personally approves PERSTEMPO violation requests, which are submitted 
only after Fleet CINCs have first exhausted all available options. 



174 

In the last 3 years, the Navy has approved only a limited number of 
PERSTEMPO exceptions. In 1992, as the Navy recovered from the effects of the 
Gulf war, there were 46 approved PERSTEMPO exceptions a majority of these were 
TAR exceptions in order to restore normal patterns of operations after DESERT 
STORM and resume an equitable and satisfactory rotation for deploying ships and 
squadrons. In 1993, there were only five exceptions all were TARS and involved only 
two ships. In 1994, we had 17 approved PERSTEMPO exceptions, 9 of which were 
a direct result of contingency operations. We have managed to keep PERSTEMPO 
policy exceptions to an absolute minimum through a very care fully managed em- 
ployment scheduling process. The unstable global environment since 1992 and the 
succession of crises requiring response have made this a challenge, particularly in 
the face of past force reductions. 

Our actual experience is that there is not a PERSTEMPO problem today in the 
Navy, however, we will continue to monitor it. If the force structure continues to 
decline, and operational commitments remain unchanged, or increase, we will expe- 
rience a resultant increase in the number of units with negative PERSTEMPO. 
Studies have shown conclusively that increased PERSTEMPO has a negative effect 
on retention. But let me say I do believe we are operating right on the edge of hav- 
ing a problem. 

CWO has recently announced major deployment and training policy changes to re- 
duce PERSTEMPO in the Navy and improve Sailor quality of life. These changes 
include more predictability with fewer ships assigned to CVBGs, but the ships are 

{>ermanently assigned; reorganization to place ships with like missions together; tai- 
ored tactical training and training en route; and finally, more time at home, with 
an expected 3 more weeks in homeport in an average year. 

ASSIGNMENT OF WOMEN 

Senator COATS. What are the tangible readiness impacts of the expanded opportu- 
nities for the assignment of women? What are other, less -tangible, impacts? 

Admiral BOWMAN. There has been no measurable negative impact on readiness. 
By design, assignment policy andpipeline training are based on personnel qualifica- 
tions and billet requirements. Those policies have not changed to accommodate 
women. The result is qualified personnel, regardless of gender, fill valid billets in 
operational commands. 

Senator Coats. Have you integrated initial recruit training? What changes were 
required to accommodate coed initial training? 

Admiral Bowman. Yes, RTC Great Lakes has implemented integrated training. 
All of the female recruits and approximately 30 percent of the male recruits undergo 
integrated recruit training. The 30 percent figure for males is due to recruit acces- 
sion numbers for males exceeding that of females. Constraints within the recruit 
training pipeline in many classrooms and training areas restrict integrated recruit 
unit capacity to 168 recruits or two recruit divisions comprised of 84 recruits each. 
All military drill, physical fitness, weapons training, seamanship, fire fighting, and 
classroom academic training is conducted in an integrated environment with males 
and females side by side. With the exception of gender-specific requirements such 
as berthing and personal hygiene needs, all training facilities are gender neutral 
and can accommodate a mix of male and female recruits. Due to gender differences, 
males and females are berthed in separate compartments within the same facility. 

The changes required to accommodate coed training at Great Lakes include: 

Additions 

• OB/GYN medical facilities. 

• Female uniform storage, issue, fitting, and tailoring. 

• Female restrooms were added or enlarged. 

Modifications 

• Training aids and curriculum to support gender-neutral or -specific training 
(rape awareness, pregnancy, family planning, uniform wear/care/stow, hygiene, etc!) 

• Female berthing spaces to install washers/dryers, door locks, panic Dars, hair 
driers, and frosting all windows in berthing compartments. 

• Command instructions and training manuals to include female recruit issues. 

• Training for all staff to incorporate female recruit issues and gender integrated 
training. 

Senator COATS. When the coed initial training experiment was conducted pre- 
viously, there were noticeable reductions in cohesion among the trainees. What is 



175 

your current experience? Are you using the same measures that were used in the 
earlier experiment to ensure a valid comparison? 

Admiral BOWMAN. Current experience at Great Lakes indicates only minor cohe- 
sion concerns among trainees. They include perceived differences in PRT standards, 
and different uniform and grooming standards. Initial integrated team training was 
conducted separately in male and female berthing spaces. This situation has now 
been improved by establishing closely supervised training sessions during curricu- 
lum hours in coed groups in either male or female berthing spaces. Implementing 
this change has allowed integrated divisions the ability to conduct training, debrief 
events, praise or reprimand all hands together as a unit, and demonstrate to both 
males and females that they are trained to identical rules and regulations. Effective- 
ness of coed recruit training is measured by the performance of the coed recruit 
companies, as compared to the single-gender companies. 

Senator Coats. Have the standards for any specialty opened to the assignment 
of females been modified to accommodate females? If so, explain. 

Admiral BOWMAN. The simple answer is, no. The Navy has not changed the stand- 
ards to accommodate females in the service. 

OPTEMPO 

Senator COATS. What is the OPTEMPO of surface combatants as compared to 
support ships? 

Admiral BOWMAN. Operating Tempo (OPTEMPO) is used to allocate our fuel 
budget. The program was instituted in the mid-1980s to establish a funding guide- 
line for non-deployed and deployed ships and aircraft squadrons. The current pro- 
gram budgets for 50.5 average underway days per ship deployed and 29.0 average 
underway days per ship not deployed per quarter. Ships are considered to be de- 
ployed when they are out of homeport for more than 56 days. 

OPTEMPO statistics for calendar year 1994 reflect surface combatants having 
58.5 deployed/36 non-deployed days per quarter at sea, and 43.5 deployed/26.2 non- 
deployed days per quarter at sea for support ships. (These numbers will not add up 
to 90 because they represent days spent at sea and do not include days in port.) 

Senator COATS. What plans do you have to further expand the opportunities for 
the assignment of women? 

Admiral Bowman. Expansion of the embarkation of women into ships and air 
squadrons continues. Already, we have embarked women into ships of the following 
classes: 

a. CV/CVN (and associated air wings). 

b. Combat Logistics Force ships (including AO, AE, AOE, MSC ships). 

c. Repair and Salvage ships (including AD, AS, ARS). 

d. Other combatant ships (including DD, DDG). 

e. Some flagships (such as LCC, AGF). 

Each year it is planned to embark women in additional ships of these types. Be- 
ginning in fiscal year 1996, the first LHD will embark enlisted women. Female offi- 
cers will report aboard the first cruiser this year, and enlisted females will begin 
embarkation in cruisers in fiscal year 1997. 

Schedule of combatant ship embarkations: 



CB 2 CS 2C3 203 2 

CVM 1 CVH 1 CW 1 OH 1 

LSD 2 LSD * 1 L3A 1 LZA 1 

LKA 1 L3A 1 LHD 1 ADOS) 10 

LHD 1 LSD 1 JLODJD 11 

ADDS) * If XDDKD 12 

XDDID It I 

In all, initial embarkation of women sailors is planned for a total of 95 ships 
where previously only male sailors were assigned. When added to the Navy ships 
which already embark women sailors, this represents a great expansion 01 oppor- 
tunity for women to serve in the Navy. Accelerating this embarkation schedule 
ahead of the current plan conflicts with two limiting factors: (1) Funding must be 
identified to convert ships berthing for mixed-gender crews, and (2) the numbers of 
senior enlisted women (E7-E9) to serve as role models in seagoing ratings do not 
support going any faster. 



rum 


2 


PDA 


s 


Dog 


C7/C7JT 


2 


CV/CVH 


1 


C//CVB 


T en 


1 


LSD 


2 


LSD 


adoko 


12 


tim 


2 


T-ST* 






MCS 


1 


Lax 






CO 


1 


AOE 



176 

Senator Coats. What costs are attributable to the expansion of the opportunities 
for the assignment of women? 

Admiral Bowman. The modification cost of carriers to embark mixed-gender crews 
ranges between $1.8 million and $2.2 million per carrier. So far the U.S.S. Dwight 
D. Eisenhower and the U.S.S. Abraham Lincoln have been modified. For cruisers, 
destroyers, and amphibious ships (including women marine berthing), modification 
costs range between $500,000 to $1.2 million. 

Navy women have been serving at sea for 17 years in support ships. As part of 
the continuing women-at-sea program, in addition to the combatants, six AOEs and 
two AGFs were modified in fiscal year 1994. Other than the two carriers, 17 ships 
were modified in fiscal year 1994, for a total cost of $13.77 million. 

Senator Coats. Describe the current policy concerning assignment and 
deployability of female servicemembers when they are pregnant. 

Admiral BOWMAN. A servicewoman receiving orders to shipboard duty (or other 
deployable command) completes a pregnancy test prior to executing those orders. If 
found to be pregnant, she will not execute those orders and will remain at her 
present command or be transferred to a shore-duty command. Another sailor will 
be assigned to the deployable unit. If a servicewoman is confirmed to be pregnant 
while assigned to shipboard duty, she must be reassigned to shore duty no later 
than the 20th week of pregnancy or date of deployment whichever comes first. Until 
that point, the commanding officer, in consultation with the servicewoman's doctor, 
will decide what duties she may perform. The exact timing of transfer is at the dis- 
cretion of the commanding officer, with due consideration to the ship's schedule, 
shipboard environment and the pregnant servicewoman's medical condition. Preg- 
nant servicewomen may not deploy. That policy is consistent throughout DOD. Addi- 
tionally, pregnant servicewomen may not even get underway aboard ship if transit 
time to reach shore-based OB/GYN care will exceed 6 hours. If a pregnant service- 
woman does not complete her prescribed sea tour prior to transferring from ship- 
board duty, she will return to sea duty (generally to the same ship or unit from 
which she was transferred) to complete her sea tour. 

Senator Coats. There have been a number of articles in the press recently con- 
cerning the sleeping arrangements of men and women deployed to Haiti and other 
areas. What is the Navy policy on men and women and/or officers and enlisted per- 
sonnel living in the same tents? At what command level is the policy established? 
What is the impact on berthing on ships? 

Admiral Bowman. Navy policy is that men and women shall not cohabit. That pol- 
icy has been directed by the Chief of Naval Operations. For shipboard berthing, 
OPNAVINST 9640.1 directs that "Female officers, CPO and crew berthing accom- 
modations shall be separate from those of their male counterparts." Further it 
states, "In sanitary facilities associated with living spaces, facilities for female per- 
sonnel shall be separate from those for male personnel." In cases of temporary as- 
signment of women to ships, OPNAVINST 1300.17 directs that women's "Sleeping 
quarters must be separate from males. Head facilities may be provided on time- 
snaring basis. Locks will be provided on doors of heads to ensure adequate privacy." 

JOINT DUTY 

Senator Coats. Regarding active duty unrestricted line and restricted line pro- 
motion boards to the grade of brigadier general and rear admiral (lower half) con- 
vened in fiscal Years 1992, 1993, 1994, and 1995, please provide to the subcommit- 
tee, (a) the number of individuals recommended for promotion by each board; (b) the 
number of individuals granted "Joint equivalent" waivers for the requirement to 
have served in a ioint assignment prior to promotion to brigadier general or rear 
admiral (lower half); and (c) a listing of those assignments for which "joint equiva- 
lent" waivers were granted. 

Admiral BOWMAN, (a) Recommended for promotion: Fiscal year 1992, 31; fiscal 
year 1993, 30; fiscal year 1994, 30; fiscalyear 1995, 31. 

(b) Granted joint equivalent waivers: Fiscal year 1992, 35; fiscal year 1993, 5; fis- 
cal year 1994, 4; fiscal year 1995, 1. 

(c) Assignments for which waivers were granted: 

Fiscal year 1992: 

1. Assistant Chief Operational Test Director, Aid Test and Evaluation Squadron, 
Point Mugu CA. Individual worked extensively with USAF as Operational Test Di- 
rector of the joint USN/USAF classified project "HAVE IDEA." 

2. Head, Projects Section, Polaris/Poseidon Strategic Submarine Division, OP-21, 
OPNAV. Individual liaised daily with Joint Staff and OSD regarding strategic pro- 
grams including TRIDENT I Backfit Program, FBM TAK Replacement Program, 
and establishment of an Atlantic Coast SSBN refit site. 



177 

3. Head, Strike Warfare Section, Air Warfare Branch and Director, Research De- 
velopment, Test and Evaluation, OP-982, OPNAV. Individual worked daily with 
USA and USAF on the exchange of information relating to classified new technology 
programs. He was also the Navy representative to the joint DOD Emitter Suppres- 
sion Steering Committee. 

4. AAW/ASMD Analyst, Office of the CNO, OP-96, OPNAV. Individual was direc- 
tor for the Joint USAF/USN Airborne Warning and Control Systems/AEGIS/Fleet 
Air Defense Assessment Study. He also worked daily with USAF to prepare numer- 
ous position papers on joint USAF/USN AWACS analysis. 

5. Staff Operations Officer and Chief of Staff for operations and Plans, Com- 
mander Carrier Group TWO. Individual liaised daily with U.S. Forces and the na- 
vies of Israel, Italy, France, and Great Britain on a wide range of subjects, pro- 
grams, and exercises. 

Fiscal year 1993 

1. Commander Task Group 72.2/Commander Okinawa Air Patrol. Individual man- 
aged naval operations between USN and Japanese Maritime Self-Defense Forces. As 
Operations Officer, Commander THDID Fleet, he also directed Joint Force targeting 
of Soviet missile range instrumentation ships. 

2. Commander Carrier Air Wing FIVE. Individual had daily contact with Japa- 
nese Military/Government and USAF for the formulation of extensive bilateral 
Strike/Anti-Air Warfare training. 

3. Assistant Chief of Staff lor Plans, Training, and Readiness for Commander 
Naval Surface Group, Western Pacific. Individual planned, coordinated, and 
oversaw — from conception through execution — bilateral operations with Japan, Thai- 
land, Malaysia, Australia, and the Republic of Korea. 

4. Special Assistant in the Office of the Chief of Naval Operations OP-96, 
OPNAV. Individual was instrumental in developing the Navy's position on OSD 
issue papers and assisted in the formulation of a Navy Steering Group established 
to interact daily with OSD for the development of Defense Guidance. He also served 
as Assistant Fleet Operations Officer for Commander SEVENTH Fleet, where he di- 
rected the Battle Group staff during major USN/Japanese exercises and was the 
spokesman for USN/Republic of Korea operations and exercise development meet- 
ings. 

5. Strategic-C 3 Intelligence and Strategic Program Analyst, OPNAV staff. Individ- 
ual was the Navy "point man" for Joint program issues with OSD and the Joint 
Staff. He also conducted frequent discussions with Program Analysis and Evaluation 
(PA&E), OSD and J-8, Joint Staff on crucial acquisition issues. 

Fiscal year 1994 

1. Strategic Studies Group, OP-60, OPNAV. Individual served as the USN rep- 
resentative on the DOD working group for developing a congressionally mandated 
mobility study. He also assisted in developing a maritime study in support of na- 
tional security objectives; the study required extensive liaison and coordination with 
all services and the Joint Staff. 

2. Office of Legislative Affairs, Congressional Committee Liaison. Individual 
worked extensively with DOD and congressional staff personnel in briefing and 
gaining defense program authorization and appropriation for fiscal years 1983/84. 

3. Commanding Officer, Patrol Gunboat U.S.S. Tacoma (PG 92). Individual 
worked extensively with elements of the U.S. Coast Guard, Vietnamese Navy, USA 
and USMC in countering infiltration of enemy elements into South Vietnam. 

4. Combat Information Center Officer, Commander Carrier Group EIGHT. Indi- 
vidual planned and executed numerous national and international exercises inte- 
grating USAF assets into Navy battle group operations. He also developed the am- 

Rhibious and inner defense zone coordination tactics that are now used routinely by 
fATO. 

Fiscal year 1995 

1. Assistant Head, Planning and Architecture Branch, Office of the CNO, OP-009. 
Individual served as the staff member responsible for improving and maximizing in- 
telligence support to all operating forces. He also provided significant contributions 
to several DOD, study groups involving joint service interoperability and compatibil- 
ity of Navy intelligence and cryptologic systems with USA, USAF, USMC, and 
NATO. 

Senator COATS. Under what conditions, other than in-residence instruction at a 
service or joint intermediate or top level school, may an active-duty servicemember 
be awarded credit for Joint Professional Military Education (JPME)? (Please provide 
a copy of the implementing instructions or regulations for awarding such equivalent 
credit.) 



178 

Admiral BOWMAN. Active-duty officers may be awarded credit for completion of 
the corresponding studies or seminar programs of the Army, Navy and Air Force. 
Additionally credit may be awarded by completion of the courses or programs listed 
below, which the Chairman, Joint Chiefs of Staff has approved in memorandum 
CM-209-94 of April 13, 1994. 

Schools 

Senior-Level 
Australian Joint Service Staff College 
Australian College of Defense and Strategic Studies 
Canadian National Defense College 
Chilean Naval War College 
India National Defense College 
Inter-American Defense College 
Japanese National Institute for Defense Studies 
NATO Defense College 
Norwegian National Defense College 
Royal (British) College of Defense Studies 
Pakistan National Defense College 

Intermediate-Level 
Argentine Naval War College 
Brazilian Naval War College 
Canadian Forces Command and Staff College 
French Naval War College 
German General Staff/Adm Staff College 
India Defense Service Staff College 
Italian Naval War College 
Japanese MSDF Staff College 
Royal (British) Naval Staff College 
Royal Australian Navy Staff College 
Spanish Naval War College 
Uruguayan Naval War College 
Venezuela Naval War College 

Fellowships 

American Enterprise Institute 

Atlantic Council of the United States 

Brookings Institution 

Center for Strategic and International Studies 

Center for International Affairs (Harvard Univ) 

Council on Foreign Relations 

CNO Strategic Studies Group 

Defense and Arms Control Program (MIT) 

Fletcher School, Law and Diplomacy (Tufts Univ) 

Foreign Service Institute Intragovernmental Fellows 

Hoover Institution of War, Revolution, and Peace 

Inst for the Study of Conflict, Ideology and Policy 

JFK School of Government (Harvard University) 

Legislative Fellowship 

National Security Fellows Program (Harvard Univ) 

NDU Senior Research Fellowship 

RAND Corporation 

White House Fellowship 

Enclosure (1) contains implementing instructions for awarding JPME credit for 
the respective nonresident programs. 



179 




aUJRHMi Of THEJCWT CHIEFS OF STAFF 
WMMM6IMI, 0JC3OXt*mm 



CM-209-94 

13 April 1994 



MEMORANDUM FOR: Chief of Staff, US Army 

Chief of Haval Operations 
Chief of Staff, US Air Force 
Commandant of the. Marine Corps 

Subject: Programs for Joint Professional Military Education 
Phase Z Equiva lence 



1- The Military Education Policy Document (MEPD)" provides for 
Joint Professional Military Education (FJE) Phase I credit to be 
given to US officers granted Profesaioaal Military Education 
(PME) equivalence foe courses of study or fellowships completed 
at other-than-PME institutions. 

2. Enclosed is a list of schools and fellowships granted 
intermediate- or senior-level PME credit by one or more of the 
Services for those officers selected to attend. Graduates of 
these highly select educational programs are granted PJE Phase I 
equivalence for possible Joint Specialty Officer (JSO) designa- 
tion. All intermediate-level students who qualify for PJE Phase 
I credit under these provisions will attend the Joint Transition 
Course before attending the PJE Phase II course at the Armed 
Forces Staff College. 

3. The equivalence policy is meant to ensure that high-quality 
officers selected for attendance at non-PME programs are not 
denied the opportunity to be selected as JSOs or JSO nominees. 
Each Service must ensure that only top quality officers are 
identified. 

4. This memorandum supersedes CM- 1783-93. 22 July 1993. 
'Programs for Joint Professional Military Education Phase Z 
Equivalence." 




-J Joint Chiefs of Staff 



Enclosure 

Reference: 

• CM-1618-93, 23 March 1993. "Military Education Policy 
Document" 



180 



ENCLOSURE 

SERVICE COLLEGE PME EQUIVALENCE 
(April 1994) 

Services currently grant intermediate- or senior-level pme 
equivalence to the following schools and fellowship programs 
(changes from CM-1783-93 are highlighted in bold print) : 

ScSoola 

SENIOR-LEVEL fUEL-l) 

Argentine Senior Course of National Defense 

Australian Joint Service Staff College 

Australian Collage of Defence and Strategic Studies 

Canadian National Defense Collage 

Chilean Naval War College 

Chilean Air Force Air Warfare Academy 

India National Defense College 

Inter-American Defense College 

Japanese National Institute for Defense Stndies 

NATO Defense College 

Norwegian National Defense College 

Royal (British) Air Force Advanced Course 

Royal (British) College of Defense Studies 

Pakistan National Defense College 

Argentine Naval war College 

Argentine Command and Staff College 

Australian Army Staff College 

Belgian C t mruAud and Staff College 

Brazilian Naval War College 

Brazilian Command and Staff College 

British Army Staff Collage 

Canadian Forces Command and Staff College 

French College Interarmees de Defense (C.I.D.) 

French Naval War College 

German General Staff/Ada Staff College 

India Defense Service Staff College 

Italian Naval War College 

Italian Scoula di Guerra (War College Superior Course) 

Japanese KSDF Staff College 

Japanese Ground Self Defense Forces Staff College 

Norwegian Army Staff College 

Peruvian Naval War College 

Royal Air Force Staff College 

Royal (British) Naval Staff College 

Royml Australian Navy Staff College 

Royal Australian Air Force Staff College 

Spanish Naval War College 

Spanish Air Force Conoand and Staff College 

United States Army Scnool of the Americas 

Uruguayan Naval War College 

Venezuela Air Command and Staff College 

Venezuela Naval War College 



181 

ggaiflBdUggL ^wCT-n 

Advanced Operational Arts Studies Fellowship Program 

American Enterprise Institute 

Armed Forces Communications & Electronics Association 

Atlantic Council of the United States 

Brookings Institution 

Center for Strategic and International Studies 

Center' for International Affairs (Harvard Univ) — " 

Center for International Relations (Queen's Univ) 

Centex for Professional Development (UT Austin) 

CIA Intragovernmental Fellowship 

Council on Foreign Relations 

Contemporary Aran Studies (Georgetown Oni-r) 

CHO Stratagic Studies Group 

Defense and Arms Control Program (HIT} 

DOJ (Justice) Intragovernmental Fellowship 

Drug Enforcement Agency 

Environmental Policy (Dni^ of XL) 

Fletcher School. Law and Diplomacy (Tufts Univ) 

Foreign Service Institute Intragovernmental Fellows 

Bealth Policy (George Washington Univ) 

BBS (Bealth/Human Services) Intragovernmental Fellowship 

Hoover Institution on War. Revolution, and Peace 

Institute for the Study of Conflict. Ideology and Policy 

(Boston University), 
JFS School of Government (Harvard University)*- 
Jo:.nt Center for Political Studies 
Korea Institute for Defense Analyses 
Leadership Fellowship (Harvard Univ) - 
Legislative Fellowship 
Mershan Center (Ohio State University) 
National Security Fellows Program (Harvard Univ) — 
NDU Senior Research Fellowship 
Olin Institute (Harvard University) 
Paul Bitxe School of Advanced International Studies (Johns 

Hopkins University) 
Program in Arms Control', Disarmament, and Inte rnati onal 

Security (Univ of Illinois) 
Program on Information Resources Policy (Harvard Univ) 
Rand Corporation 
Ridgway Center (Univ of Pittsburgh, Graduate School of 

Public and International Affairs) 
US Department of State Senior Seminar 
Walsh School of Foreign Service (Georgetown Univ) 
White House Fellowship 

TVT-r^MvnTarr-T.TTVT. fWVT-4^ 

Graduate School of International Studies (Univ of Hiaml) 

Fletcher School of Law &. Diplomacy (Tufts Univ) 

Center for International Relations (Queens Univ) 

Library of Congress, Congress Research Service 

Band Fellows 

Kershon Center (Ohio State University) 




182 



Tnz CKAifiMAM jCir:T S.-S£?j 



Oi-a 14-91 

29 March 1991 



MEMORANDUM FOR THE CHIEF OF NAVAL OPERATIONS 

Subject: CJCS Initial Certification — Naval War College 
Intermediate-Level Nonresident Program 

1. Initial certification of the Naval War College (NWC) 
Intermediate-Level Nonresident Program is approved- Services 
are authorized to grant Program for Joint Professional Military 
Education (PJE) Phase. I credit to graduates of this program who 
complete the Joint Maritime Operations course not earlier than 
academic year (AT) 1590-1951 and have completed all other 
requirements for graduation from NWC. 

2. The r.ecort cf Certification of the NWC Intermediate-Level 
Nc-resider.t Program is, enclosed. I applaud the significant 
progress made to integrate PJE into your curriculum. Several 
issues are iCsncifiec in the report that should be addressed 
before accreditation is requested. 

3. The initial certification status of PJE programs expires at 
the end of AT 1593-1994. To remain valid, the NWC 
Interaediate-Levsl Nonresident PJE Fhase 1 Program must 
successfully complete the CJCS Process for Accreditation of 
Joint Education as outlined in the Military Education Policy 
Document. ■ 




COLIN L. POWELL 

Chairman 

Joint Chiefs of Staff 



Enc 1 o s u r e 



Reference: 

* CM-344-90. 1 May 1993, "Military Education Policy" 

Copy to: 
CSA 
CSA5 
CMC 
ASD(FMSP) 




183 

THfi JOIWT STAff 
HASWBOTOtl. DC 



Reply ZIP Code: 

20318-7000 



U 4 JUN 1391 



MEMORANDUM FOR PRESIDENT. NAVAL WAR COLLEGE 

Subject: CJCS Initial Certification - Naval War College 
Intermediate-Level Honreoidont Program 



Your request to extend PJZ Phase I credit to officers who 
completed the Joint Maritime Operations course in academic year 
(AX) iy«9-2U, and hava completed all uthei Naval War College 
Nonresident program requirements, is approved. 




Brigadier General, US Army 
Deputy Director, Joint Staff, 
for Military Education 



184 




CHAIRMAN. JOINT CHIEFS OP STAFF 

WASHINGTON, o.C 20318-00O1 



CM-1607-93 

10 March 199 3 



MEMORANDUM FOR THE CHIEF OF NAVAL OPERATIONS 
Subject: CJCS Accreditation — Naval War College 



1. The College of Naval Warfare, College of Naval Command and 
Staff, and Collece of Continuing Education are accredited as 
meeting the Program for Joint Education (PJE) Phase I educa- 
tional reguirements. The Services are authorized to grant PJE 
Phase I credit to graduates who otherwise complete all other 
reguirements foe graduation. 

2. Enclosed are the Reports of Accreditation of -the- three 
colleges. I applaud the progress made by the Naval War College 
(NWC) faculty to develop a PJE Phase I curriculum that instills 
in today's officers a joint perspective and an ability to apply 
warfare planning in Service and joint environments. Suggestions 
made by the Process for Accreditation cf Joint Education Team 
should be addressed by the NWC leadership and implemented when 
appropriate. 

3. This accreditatior. is valid for 4 years. Reaffirmation of 
accreditation of this program should be completed not later than 
first ouarter. Calendar Year 1997. 




COLIN L. POWELL 

Chairman 

of the 

Joint Chiefs of Staff 



Enclosures 

Copv to: 
CSA 
CMC 

CSAF 

ASD(FMSP) 



185 

Senator COATS. What institutions or programs are authorized to award equiva- 
lency credit for Joint Professional Military Education (JPME)? How and under what 
standards are these institutions or programs accredited to award such equivalency 
credit? 

Admiral Bowman. The following institutions and programs are authorized by the 
Chairman, Joint Chiefs of Staff (CJCS) memo CM-209-94 to award equivalency 
credit for JPME Phase I. 

Senior- Level 
Australian Joint Service Staff College 
Australian College of Defense and Strategic Studies 
Canadian National Defense College 
Chilean Naval War College 
India National Defense College 
Inter-American Defense College 
Japanese National Institute for Defense Studies 
NATO Defense College 
Norwegian National Defense College 
Royal (British) College of Defense Studies 
Pakistan National Defense College 

Intermediate-Level 

Argentine Naval War College 

Brazilian Naval War College 

Canadian Forces Command and Staff College 

French Naval War College 

German General Staff/Adm Staff College 

India Defense Service Staff College 

Italian Naval War College 

Japanese MSDF Staff College 

Royal (British) Naval Staff College 

Royal Australian Navy Staff College 

Spanish Naval War College 

Uruguayan Naval War College 

Venezuela Naval War College 

Fellowships 

American Enterprise Institute 

Atlantic Council of the United States 

Brookings Institution 

Center for Strategic and International Studies 

Center for International Affairs (Harvard Univ) 

Council on Foreign Relations 

CNO Strategic Studies Group 

Defense and Arms Control Program (MIT) 

Fletcher School, Law and Diplomacy (Tufts Univ) 

Foreign Service Institute Intragovernmental Fellows 

Hoover Institution of War, Revolution, and Peace 

Inst for the Study of Conflict, Ideology and Policy 

JFK School of Government (Harvard University) 

Legislative Fellowship 

National Security Fellows Program (Harvard Univ) 

NDU Senior Research Fellowship 

RAND Corporation 

White House Fellowship 

The Military Education Policy Document, CM-16 18-93, discusses the Process for 
Accreditation of Joint Education (PAJE). In summary, it states that the Chairman 
of the Joint Chiefs of Staff must accredit all JPME programs and the Professional 
Joint Education (PJE) portion of Service PME programs, including intermediate- 
level nonresident programs in accordance with the PAJE. Services may request con- 
sideration of alternative military education programs for Phase I equivalence 
through the Deputy Director, Joint Staff, for Military Education, J-7, who will 
maintain a list of CJCS-approved programs and request additions or deletions as 
appropriate. 



186 

CIVILIAN PERSONNEL ISSUES 

Senator Coats. To what extent were more substantive factors such as the civilian 
contribution to military readiness; force structure changes; and civilian work load 
changes considered in assessing the wisdom of increasing and accelerating the civil- 
ian work force reductions? 

Admiral Bowman. The Department of the Navy sustained no additional horizontal 
reductions associated with the implementation of the DOD accelerated downsizing. 
The Department of the Navy civilian downsizing reflects the continued downward 
trend of the civilian work force both at headquarters and field activities as a result 
of force structure downsizing, including reduced depot workload, savings resulting 
from Base Realignment and Closure (BRAC) decisions, and management efficiency 
savings. Civilian staffing levels are sized to support our budgeted readiness require- 
ments. 

Senator COATS. To what extent, if any, are the Departments and Agencies author- 
ized to time their civilian work force reductions to reflect their specificity in terms 
of force structure changes and workload? 

Admiral Bowman. Civilian staffing levels are determined within the context of the 
funded programs they support. Thus, our currently funded civilian resources reflect 
a balance between the funded workload and the staffing levels necessary to execute 
it. Since most civilians are in support of readiness or readiness related functions 
such as depot maintenance, medical support, and base operations any reductions in 
civilian levels apart from funded mission requirement considerations will hinder the 
Department's ability to maintain our readiness posture. 

Senator COATS. What role do FTE ceilings play in the Department's management 
of the civilian work force? Do you believe that management by end strength or by 
FTE — as opposed to managing and budgeting by ceilings on operating costs — is ap- 
propriate for managing the civilian work force of the Department of Defense as a 
whole? For managing the civilian work force in the Military Departments? For man- 
aging the civilian work force in the individual agencies within the Department of 
Defense? 

Admiral Bowman. The Department is currently executing the budget under a 
statutorily imposed full-time equivalent work-year ceiling. This mean9 of manage- 
ment control is very constraining. The only management flexibility available under 
this control to accommodate emergent workload is through the use of overtime or 
contracting out, both of which can be more costly and less effective than hiring a 
temporary work force. As the Department downsizes, more — not less — flexibility to 
adjust the work force during execution is required to accomplish emergent workload 
while minimizing the need to initiate adverse personnel actions which are costly and 
disruptive to ongoing programs. From fiscal year 1985 through fiscal year 1994, the 
Department has successfully executed mission requirements within budgeted levels 
under the Managing to Payroll concept while downsizing by 25 percent with a mini- 
mum of adverse actions. This additional flexibility allowed managers to adjust work 
force levels within funded program dollars to execute emergent readiness-related re- 
quirements and avoid costly work-arounds. 



Advanced Questions Submitted by Senator Dan Coats to Admiral Grant 

Department of the Navy, 
Office of the Judge Advocate General, 

Alexandria, VA, March 14, 1995. 

Hon. Dan Coats, 

Chairman, Subcommittee on Personnel, 

U.S. Senate, 

Washigton, DC. 

Dear Mr. Chairman: I am pleased to submit answers to the questions you di- 
rected to me in your letter to Vice Admiral Bowman, Chief of Naval Personnel, 
dated March 2, 1995. 

A similar letter, with the enclosure, has been sent to the ranking member of the 
Subcommittee on Personnel, Senator Robert Byrd. 
Sincerely, 

H. E. Grant, 

Rear Admiral, JAGC, U.S. Navy, 
Judge Advocate General. 
Enclosure. 



187 

Questions and Responses 

Senator COATS. The attached proposed legislative language addresses the issue of 
State recognition of military advance medical directives. In relation to the enact- 
ment of the proposed provision, what is the position of each military service Judge 
Advocate General? 

Admiral GRANT. Similar legislation is under review within the administration. 
Pending completion of the review, the military services have no official position on 
the proposed legislation. 

Senator COATS. Does the proposed legislative language adequately address the 
needs of each of the military services? What, if any, proposed changes might be nec- 
essary to account for service specific needs? 

Admiral GRANT. Similar legislation is under review within the administration. 
Pending completion of the review, the military services have no official position on 
the proposed legislation. 

Senator Coats. If you nonconcur with the use of the proposed legislative solution, 
what is the basis for the nonconcurrence? Describe how any alternative proposal 
would provide a better solution? Does the alternative proposal require legislative ac- 
tion? IT so, when will you submit the alternative proposal? 

Admiral Grant. Not applicable. I concur with the legislative solution proposed. 

Senator Coats. In each of the past 5 years, how many cases were decided by each 
correction board and discharge review board? 

Admiral Grant. 

Cases received Cases decided 

Board for Correction of Naval Records 
Year: 

1990 17,685 13,178 

1991 18,171 11,068 

1992 16,214 10,393 

1993 14,431 10,521 

1994 11,100 6,956 

Naval Discharge Review Board 

1990 i 2,378 1,885 

1991 2,433 2,332 

1992 1,888 1.476 

1993 1,933 1,952 

1994 1,940 1,442 

Senator Coats. In each of the past 5 years, how many cases were filed in Federal 
Court challenging a correction board or discharge review decision? 

Admiral Grant. The Office of the Navy Judge Advocate General does not main- 
tain litigation statistics which may be readily separated by year; however, over the 
past 5 years the following cases were filed in Federal Courts: 

Total personnel cases 8CNR/N0RB 

Circuit: 

1 8 

2 14 

3 11 

4 32 

5 10 

6 12 

7 12 

8 6 

9 48 

10 13 (includes habeas) 

11 12 

Federal 77 

DC 87 

Senator Coats. In how many cases were plaintiffs granted relief and in how many 
were they denied relief? 

Admiral GRANT. The Office of the Navy Judge Advocate General does not keep 
won/loss statistics per se. Plaintiffs filing personnel actions against the Department 
of the Navy in Federal District Court, however, are denied relief in approximately 



188 

95 percent of the cases. Accordingly, we expect that 95 percent of the cases involving 
the Board for Correction of Naval Records or the Naval Discharge Review Board 
also result in denial of relief to plaintiffs. 

Senator COATS. The committee has been informed that there is a Department of 
Justice effort to centralize review of such cases in a single Federal Court. What ad- 
vantages, to include savings in time and money, do you see in such a system? What 
disadvantages? 

Admiral Grant. The advantages of consolidating in one court, include: 

a. Concentration of judicial expertise on military personnel regulations; 

b. Predictability: development of a more uniform body of case law not circuit de- 
pendent; 

c. If assigned to the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, it would: 

1. Be with a court already having significant expertise in administrative deci- 
sionmaking; 

2. Result in reduced travel costs for the military litigation attorneys. 

The disadvantages of consolidating in one court, include: 

a. Single appellate decisions would be more closely binding on all future cases; 
and 

b. More difficult access to the court by service members not located near the court. 

If review of correction board decisions is to be centralized in a single Federal 
Court, that court should be the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (Fed Cir- 
cuit). This is consistent with a statutory proposal (The Military Personnel Review 
Act of 1995) initially proposed by Department of Justice attorneys to the DOD Gen- 
eral Counsel which would limit review of final correction boards decisions to one 
Federal Court, the Fed Circuit. The review under this proposal would be limited to 
a judicial review of the administrative record developed by the correction board. 
This proposal is similar in many ways to the current judicial review of the Merit 
System Protection Board decisions only by the Fed Circuit, as well as the judicial 
review of Board of Veteran Appeals only by the Court of Veteran Appeals (with ap- 
peals of that court's decisions to the Fed Circuit). 

Senator COATS. What statutes, if any, would need to be changed if the United 
States' Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces were given this role? 

Admiral GRANT. The following statutes would need to be changed if the United 
States Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces (CAAF) were given the role of review- 
ing military correction board and discharge review board cases: 

(1) 10 U.S.C. § 867(a): Under 10 U.S.C. § 867(a) (Article 67(a), UCMJ), CAAF ex- 
ercises jurisdiction over — (1) all cases in which the sentence, as affirmed by a mili- 
tary Court of Criminal Appeals (CCA), extends to death; (2) all cases reviewed by 
a CCA which the Judge Advocate General orders sent to CAAF for review; and (3) 
all cases reviewed by a CCA in which, upon petition of the accused and on good 
cause shown, CAAF has granted a review. Because CAAF lacks the jurisdictional 
authority to adjudicate civil actions for relief, 10 U.S.C. § 867(a) would have to be 
changed to expand the scope of CAAF's jurisdiction on review. 

(2) 10 U.S.C. § 867(d): Under 10 U.S.C. § 867(d) (Article 67(d), UCMJ), CAAF is 
also limited to taking action only with respect to matters of law. See also, United 
States v. Lowry, 2 M.J. 55 (CMA 1976). Congress did not intend for CAAF to be a 
forum for litigating factual issues. Litigation of factual issues is a necessary function 
of adjudicating appeals from the corrections boards as review of a corrections board's 
actions and decisions involves a factual and legal review. Kalista v. Secretary of the 
Navy, 560 F.Supp. 608 (D.C. Colo. 1983). Therefore, 10 U.S.C. § 867(d) would also 
have to be changed to authorize CAAF to hear and adjudicate factual issues. 

(3) 28 U.S.C. § 1346(a): It is well settled that the Court of Federal Claims has 
jurisdiction to review actions of military corrections boards. Sanders v. U.S., 594 
F.2d 824, 219 Ct.Cl. 322. Under 28 U.S.C. § 1346(a) (the Tucker Act), the district 
courts and the Court of Federal Claims have concurrent jurisdiction over reinstate- 
ment and back pay issues. See Sargisson v. United States, CA. Fed 1990, 913 F.2d 
918 and Ballenger v. Marsh, CA. 8 (Mo) 1983, 708 F. 2d 349. In order to effect the 
proposed change to grant CAAF exclusive jurisdiction of military corrections board 
reviews, an exception will have to be carved out of 28 U.S.C. § 1346(a). 

(4) 28 U.S.C. § 1491(a) (2): Under 28 U.S.C. § 1491(a) (2) the United States Court 
of Federal Claims (formerly the United States Court of Claims) has the explicit stat- 
utory authority "to provide an entire remedy," including "restoration to office or po- 
sition, placement in appropriate duty or retirement status, and correction of applica- 
ble records." See also, Mitchell v. United States, 930 F.2d 893 (Fed. Cir. 1991). This 
statutory authority would have to be explicitly rescinded if were given this role in- 
stead. 



189 

(5) 5 U.S.C. § 701 et. sea.: These statutes waive the sovereign immunity of the 
United States for equitable relief and allow for suit in the Federal District Courts. 
They would have to be amended to retract the waiver of sovereign immunity, except 
to cases filed in the Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces. 

(6) 10 U.S.C. § 1552: This statute establishes military correction boards and could 
be amended to require petition to the correction board as a mandatory precondition 
to asserting military personnel claims in a Federal Court. This would ensure that 
all personnel cases presented to CAAF had been considered by the cognizant correc- 
tion board. 

Senator COATS. The case of Darby v. Cisneros, 113 S. Ct. 2539 (1993) has had a 
chance to impact the Department of Defense administrative procedure. What is the 
actual or anticipated effect of Darby on the judicial review of military administrative 
discharges and other adverse administrative personnel actions? 

Admiral GRANT. Some courts have been less inclined to dismiss cases in which 
the plaintiff failed to seek relief from the BCNR. In light of the fact that some Cir- 
cuits never required a service member to seek relief from BCNR before filing suit, 
Darby has no impact in those Circuits; Some District Courts have adopted our argu- 
ment that the military is excepted from the Darby analysis. 

Senator Coats. What legislative action of agency rule changes, if any, have pro- 
posed or undertaken by the Department of Defense or Department of Justice to deal 
with the possible effects of Darby? 

Admiral Grant. The Navy Judge Advocate General's office is not aware of specific 
legislative action proposed by the Department of Justice or the Department of De- 
fense in response to Darby. 

Senator Coats. What are the advantages of the present decentralized judicial re- 
view and what are the disadvantages in relation to centralized judicial review? 

Admiral GRANT. The advantages of consolidating in one court, include: 

a. Concentration of judicial expertise on military personnel regulations; 

b. Predictability: development of a more uniform body of case law not circuit de- 
pendent; 

c. If assigned to the Court of Federal Claims, it would: 

1. Be with a court already having significant expertise in administrative deci- 
sion-making; 

2. Be with a court which does not maintain a criminal docket; 

3. Result in reduced travel costs for the military litigation attorneys. 

The disadvantages of consolidating in one court, include: 

a. Single appellate decisions would be more closely binding on all future cases; 
and 

b. More difficult access to the court by service members not located near the court. 
If review of correction board decisions is to be centralized in a single federal court, 

that court should be the Court of Federal Claims. Not only does the Court of Fed- 
eral Claims have the statutory mandate to render judgments and remedies in such 
cases, but its experience and expertise in this area has been recognized by the Unit- 
ed States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. As recognized by the court in 
Mitchell v. United States, 930 F.2d 893, 896 (Fed. Cir. 1991), the Court of Federal 
Claims has "extensive experience reviewing decisions of corrections boards in mili- 
tary pay cases" which extends back before 1951 (when the correction board law was 
passed) to the nineteenth century origins of the Claims Court. 

Senator Coats. If review of military administrative discharges were centralized, 
what would be the anticipated case load? What would be the anticipated case load 
of adverse administrative military personnel actions? Would these numbers be the 
same if the centralization happened in the United States Court of Appeals for the 
Armed Services as opposed to the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit? 

Admiral GRANT. The Navy averages approximately 60 Federal Court challenges 
to personnel actions (including challenges to corrections board action) per year. If 
review of military administrative discharges were centralized in the United States 
Court for the Armed Forces (CAAF), we expect this number to increase as service 
members and their counsel come to view CAAF, a relatively well known entity with- 
in the military, as part of the administrative process. In other words, over time, pe- 
titions to CAAF may become a matter of course for service members dissatisfied 
with the Navy's decision to discharge them. By contrast, review in the Court of Fed- 
eral Claims is less likely to be similarly viewed as part of the agency's administra- 
tive process. Action in the Federal Courts would continue to be considered an ex- 
traordinary measure, and we would not expect the number of lawsuits to change 
in any significant respect. 

Senator COATS. The National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Years 1990 and 
1991 (Section 1301) provided for the Chief Justice of the United States, upon re- 



90-165 96-7 



190 

quest of the Chief Judge of the United States Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces 
(CAAF), to appoint an Article III judge to serve on the Armed Forces Court of Ap- 
peals in certain circumstances. (10 ILS.C. 942). That authority will expire on Sep- 
tember 30, 1995 unless Congress takes action to preserve it. Please provide the 
opinion of each of the services along with DOD as to whether this authority should 
be retained. 

Admiral GRANT. Whether or not to seek retention of the authority is currently 
under review. No official position is available at this time. 



Advance Questions Submitted by Senator Dan Coats to General Boles 
active duty end strengths 

Senator COATS. Are the active duty end strengths requested in the fiscal year 
1996 budget adequate to man the force structure and infrastructure required to suc- 
cessfully support the CINCs warfighting requirements while training, equipping and 
maintaining the forces? If not, what are the required levels? Does your service in- 
tend to fully fund the end strength requested? 

General Boles. Yes. The active duty end strengths requested in the fiscal year 
1996 President's budget are adequate to man the force structure and infrastructure 
required to support the CINCs warfighting requirements while training, equipping 
and maintaining the force. The Air Force intends to fully fund the end strength re- 
quested. 

Senator COATS. Are you able to retain quality service members in adequate num- 
bers to support the planned or required end strength? 

General BOLES. Yes, we have been able to retain the right quality and number 
of people. However, we are concerned the force drawdown may have masked our 
true retention picture. Continued turbulence, increased PERSTEMPO, real or per- 
ceived erosion of benefits, a reviving economy, and forecasts of a significant increase 
in airline hiring are causes for concern. DOD and Air Force Quality of Life initia- 
tives will help us work the retention issue. 

RECRUITING 

Senator COATS. List the accession goals for fiscal years 1994, 1995, 1996 and 
1997. Breakout the accession goals by quality category and by race and gender. For 
fiscal years 1994 and 1995 (to date), list the planned and actual accomplishment. 

General BOLES. The accession goals for the requested years follow: 



Fiscal yean 


1994 


1995 1996 


1997 


Enlisted 30,000 


31,500 31,000 
5.059 4,968 


36,000 


Officer 4,875 


5,324 






Planned and actual accomplishment for fiscal years 1994 
ruary 28, 1995) follow: 


and 1995 (as 


of Feb- 


Fiscal years 


1994 Plan 


az i995pten * 


1995 

Actual* 


Enlisted 30,000 


30,000 12,659 
4,903 986 


12,645 


Officer .... 4,875 


1,048 







* Prorated for fiscal year 1995 as of February 28, 1995. 

The Air Force does not have any gender or race goals. In fiscal year 1994, 23.7 
percent of our enlisted accessions were female. Blacks accounted for 13.75 percent 
of our enlistments and Hispanics were 3.74 percent. In fiscal year 1994, 16.2 percent 
of our line officer accessions were female. Officer accessions were comprised of 4.9 
percent blacks and 7.2 percent other minorities. 

Quality is measured by percent of enlistees scoring in the top 50th percentile of 
the Armed Forces Qualification Test (AFQT), Categories I-IIIa. The Air Force has 
enjoyed a rate at or above 80 percent since fiscal year 1989. The DOD established 
floor is 60 percent and the Air Force informally sets 83 percent as its target. We 
are currently above 85 percent. 

We also use the High School Diploma Graduate (HSDG) rate as a quality indica- 
tor. Individuals who are HSDGs attrit at lower rates from training and experience 



191 

lower incidences of disciplinary problems. The Air Force policy is to require at least 
99 percent of our enlisted accessions to be HSDGs. We nave been at or above the 
99 percent rate since fiscal year 1987. 

Senator Coats. Despite assurances to the contrary from the Office of the Under 
Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness, it appears that some services 
"under accessed" during the early years of the drawdown. This practice necessitates 
an increase in accession goals as the services reach their endstate. Did your service 
"under access" during the drawdown? If so, why and what is the impact now and 
in the near future? To what extent is "under accession" contributing to difficulties 
experienced by recruiters? 

General BOLES. The Air Force did "under access" during the drawdown. However, 
we only accessed what we needed to sustain the future force. When the decision was 
made to reduce accessions, the size of the future force was still unknown. We never 
let accessions fall below 85 percent of the current force because we thought this 
would sustain the future force. By reducing accessions, we prevented having to sepa- 
rate more service members than was absolutely necessary, which in turn lowered 
the cost needed for incentivized programs. Reduced accession levels allowed us to 
safely manage resources without severely impacting the force. Since the Air Force's 
military drawdown is mostly behind us, accession levels will naturally increase to 
meet the more stable end strength targets. As we turn to recruiting efforts, the Air 
Force must recruit at levels to replace losses and sustain the force. This normal in- 
crease comes at a time when our recruiters are suffering from the effects of several 
years of reduced advertising budgets, a declining propensity to enlist in the service, 
and public focus on base closures and force reductions. In short, the numbers we 
must recruit now were more easily attained in the past — today's market is tougher. 
We believe the lack of advertising is the primary contributor to our current recruit- 
ing difficulty and that increased advertising is the fix. 

Senator Coats. What is the first term attrition rate? Please breakout by race and 
gender. 

General BOLES. The overall first term attrition rate is 31 percent, including early 
attrition as a result of the drawdown. The attrition rate for males is 29 percent and 
for females is 40 percent. Across racial groups first term attrition is 28 percent for 
blacks, 25 percent for Hispanics, 32 percent for whites and 26 percent for other 
groups. 

Senator Coats. What is the attrition rate for initial unit training (recruit train- 
ing)? Again, break this out by race and gender. 

General BOLES. The overall Basic Military Training (BMT) attrition rate is 9.0 
percent. The rate for males is 7.7 percent and for females is 13.3 percent. The rate 
for Caucasians is 9.6 percent, for Blacks is 5.6 percent, and for other minorities is 
5.7 percent. 

Senator COATS. What are the primary causes of the attrition described above? 
What programs are planned or in place to reduce this attrition? 

General BOLES. The primary cause of Basic Military Training (BMT) attrition is 
due to medical reasons (55 percent of total BMT attrition). Additional causes, al- 
though small, are: performance/conduct; fraud; homosexuality; and mental health. 
The Air Force Surgeon General is examining the reasons for medical separations 
with the ultimate goal of providing a more accurate screening tool. To help reduce 
BMT attrition we must ensure recruits are physically prepared for BMT. Each re- 
cruit is given a pamphlet which specifies fitness requirements and lays out an exer- 
cise program to follow. Recruiters emphasize the need to be in shape the entire time 
the person is waiting to go on active duty. Recruiters must identify any medical con- 
dition they become aware of that would preclude success at BMT. 

Senator COATS. Last year, the Congress authorized additional recruiting and ad- 
vertising funds. How have you used those funds? Does the fiscal year 1996 budget 
request provide adequate funds for your recruiting and advertising requirements? 

General BOLES. Congress authorized an additional $1.1 million for fiscal year 
1995 recruiting and advertising. Air Force used the plus up to continue a paid radio 
campaign begun last summer. Radio advertising is a proven, economical media to 
reach the targeted, recruitable market. As a result of our radio ads, we have seen 
an increase in interested traffic, but not in sufficient numbers to meet our recruiting 
targets. The fiscal year 1996 Air Force budget has $8.3 million for recruiting and 
advertising requirements. Due to the increasing difficulty in recruiting experienced 
so far in fiscal year 1995 and the forecast for even greater challenges in fiscal year 
1996, Air Force Recruiting Service is reassessing this budget and may be suggesting 
an increase. 

Senator Coats. What is the breakout of production recruiters to support staff 
within your recruiting personnel? What was this breakout in fiscal years 1988, 1994, 



192 

and 1995? What actions have you taken to increase the effectiveness of your recruit- 
ing operations? 
General BOLES. 

Focal year* 



1988 1994 199S 



Production Recruiters 1,488 1,468 1,462 

Support Staff 1,796 1.168 1,175 

Total 3,284 2,636 2,637 

During the drawdown era, the Air Force reduced our total military personnel as- 
signed to recruiting from 3,255 in fiscal year 1990 to 2,660 in fiscal year 1994. The 
Air Force streamlined its infrastructure by reducing the number of personnel at the 
group level and closing three units (one group and two squadrons). The current re- 
cruiting organization maximizes the effectiveness of our recruiting support and 
keeps the number of production recruiters at the highest level possible. 

RECRUITING GOALS 

Senator COATS. We have listened to your reports of the declining propensity of eli- 
gible youths to enlist in the military. What research has been done to determine 
why the propensity is declining and what are the results of that research, if any? 

General Boles. The Youth Attitude Tracking Study (YATS) is administered by 
the Office of the Assistant Secretary of Defense (Force Management). To date, no 
research has been done on the reasons why propensity is declining; however DOD 
has initiated a focus group to better understand this phenomenon. The Air Force 
will be invited to participate in the focus group study. 

Senator Coats. Has the Department of Defense conducted any research inside the 
declining propensity to determine if the aggregate figures represent a decline in the 
high quality, eligible population or among the population at large with little actual 
effect on the target population? Does the declining propensity have any effect on the 
quality of individuals you are accessing? If so, what do you intend to do? If not, why 
is the declining propensity a condition about which we should worry? 

General Boles. Research in this area would come under the purview of the As- 
sistant Secretary of Defense (Force Management Policy). The Air Force remains 
committed to accessing high-quality recruits to meet our personnel requirements. 
We have not experienced a decline in quality despite the declining propensity. The 
decline in propensity does however, cause us concern because it increases the bur- 
den on our recruiters. Since fewer people are interested in military service, our re- 
cruiters must expend additional time and resources in order to locate, qualify, and 
process applicants interested in enlisting. 

Senator Coats. What are the recruiting goals of the Air Force Reserve for fiscal 
years 1994, 1995, and 1996? Breakout the goals by quality category, race and gen- 
der. For fiscal years 1994 and 1995 show the actual numbers in addition to the 
goals. 

General Boles. The Air Force Reserve recruits for specific vacancies in each unit. 
Our recruiting goal is to maintain manning in our units at 100 percent of the tar- 
geted end strength. We have no targeted goals for race, gender or quality and reflect 
active duty representation in these areas since we have historically relied on Air 
Force prior service for the bulk of our accessions. However, we do know that as the 
active duty drawdown comes to an end, we will have to target more and more non- 
prior service individuals to meet our accession requirements. This will require nec- 
essary increases in funding to ensure basic and initial skills training are accom- 
plished to avoid mission degradation while these new recruits are brought up to our 
current standards. Fiscal year 1994 assigned end strength was at 79,621 or 97.69 
percent of our authorized level. Fiscal year 1995 we are at 77,052 representing 97.89 
percent of authorized levels (compared to last year at this time when we were at 
95.21 percent of end strength). 

Senator Coats. What are the recruiting goals of the National Guard for fiscal 
years 1994, 1995, and 1996. Breakout the goals by quality category, race, and gen- 
der. For fiscal years 1994 and 1995, show the actual numbers in addition to the 
goals. 

General BoLES. The Air National Guard recruiting goals for the following years 
are: Fiscal year 1994—12,252; fiscal year 1995—9,650; and fiscal year 1996—5,434. 
The projections are based on reduced force structure changes over these fiscal years. 



193 

Actual accession for fiscal year 1994 was 8,571 and as of February 28, 1995, the 
Air National Guard gained 3,596. 

As a general accession policy, the Air National Guard's goal is to reflect the cul- 
tural diversity of local communities. In an effort to stimulate this objective within 
this organization, the Air National Guard's Human Resource Quality Board initi- 
ated an awareness training program that has been developed and will be offered to 
command and field units. 

Quality category: Generally, 99 percent of all recruits have high school or higher 
education. 

Fiscal years 



1994 1995 

percent percent* 



Race: 

(1) Caucasian 81.2 81.3 

(2) Native American 0.8 1.0 

(3) Asian/Pacific Islander 2.8 3.2 

(4) African American 10.4 9.5 

(5) Hispanics 4.5 4.8 

Gender: 

(1) Male 81.2 82.6 

(2) Female 18.8 17.4 

* As of February 28, 1995. 

Senator COATS. The National Voter Registration Act of 1993 requires military re- 
cruiters to offer personnel who enter their offices the opportunity to register to vote, 
ask individuals who decline to register to fill out a form indicating that they de- 
clined, assist those desire to register, and maintain records of their activities in this 
area. How has this requirement added to the workload of military recruiters? How 
many have registered through military recruiting offices? How many were offered 
the opportunity to register but declined? What are the costs attributable to the Na- 
tional Registration Act? 

General BOLES. The so-called "Motor-Voter" Act has added to our recruiters' work- 
load by requiring additional paperwork and questioning during the application proc- 
ess. We have had to take time to train all our recruiters on registration procedures 
and record keeping. Since this act just took effect in January 1995, we are unable 
to provide any details regarding registrations, declinations, or costs. 

PERMANENT CHANGE OF STATION 

Senator COATS. What is your Permanent Change of Station budget for fiscal year 
1996? 
General Boles. The fiscal year 1996 budget is $858.1 million. 
Senator Coats. How many moves are planned for this budget? 
General BOLES. 182,346 moves are planned for fiscal year 1996. 

COMPENSATION 

Senator Coats. What compensation program would you implement given author- 
ity and sufficient resources? 

General BOLES. Given sufficient resources, the Air Force would like to provide 
military pay raises commensurate with that of the average American worker. Be- 
yond basic pay, we would like to get the housing allowance program up to where 
it should be. Members are paying more than 21 percent of their housing expenses 
out of basic pay when the intent has always been that they would only have to pay 
15 percent out-of-pocket to support their housing needs. We would also establish 
local housing allowance floors to ensure junior troops can afford adequate housing 
when we cannot provide it on base, and we would like to protect their individual 
allowances from decreasing while they are committed to off base housing contracts. 

Senator Coats. There has been much discussion about the "pay gap". Some in the 
Department of Defense question whether there is a pay gap and whether the ECI 
index is an appropriate index upon which military pay raises should be based. In 
your opinion what is the current pay gap? Do you have a recommended alternative 
to the ECI as a basis for computing military pay raises? 

General Boles. An underlying principle in implementing the all-volunteer force 
in the early 1970s was that military pay must be kept comparable with private sec- 
tor wages to attract and retain high quality volunteers to meet the needs of the 
services. 



194 

The adequacy of military pay raises is measured against annual wage increases 
received by the average American, as measured by the Employment Cost Index 
(ECI). With a 2.6 percent pay raise in fiscal year 1995, the gap between private sec- 
tor raises and military pay increases increased to 12.6 percent. Projected pay levels 
will cause this gap to widen to over 18 percent by fiscal year 2001. Military raises 
also lag inflation. The current 4 percent inflation gap is projected to increase to 
nearly 10 percent by fiscal year 2001. 

The ECI, produced by the Bureau of Labor Statistics, serves as the standard 
measure for most of the government and has been the benchmark for military pay 
comparisons since 1982. Though alternative methods have been considered, we have 
found none that improve on the ECI as the basis for setting pay raises. 

Senator Coats. The committee asked the Congressional Budget Office to review 
the Aviation Career Program to determine whether the need for the program is still 
valid and to recommend alternatives which may be more effective in a smaller force. 
What is your budget for ACP for fiscal years 1988, 1995, and 1996? How do you 
ensure that the bonuses are effective tools in retaining aviators to meet the needs 
of the service? Do you pay ACP to aviators in specialties which are not, and have 
not experienced a shortage? If so, how do you justify this expenditure of scarce re- 
sources? 

General BOLES. Aviator Continuation Pay (ACP) was first authorized and imple- 
mented in fiscal year 1989; therefore no funds were budgeted in fiscal year 1988. 
The budget for fiscal year 1995 is $46.8 million and the forecast for fiscal year 1996 
is $46.5 million. 

To ensure that the bonus program is an effective tool in retaining aviators to meet 
the needs of the Air Force, we target the program to those aviation specialties with 
identified shortages that would experience a retention improvement as a result of 
the bonus program. As a monetary incentive, the bonus program is most effective 
in countering other financial opportunities that might encourage an Air Force avi- 
ator to separate. Many of our fixed wing pilots perceive a significant financial ad- 
vantage in pursuing a career in the airlines. Historically, airline hiring has been 
the most significant factor impacting aviator retention, primarily fixed wing pilot re- 
tention. Therefore, the program has its greatest potential impact targeting that 
aviation specialty. 

There has been a shortage of fixed wing pilots each year the Air Force has offered 
bonus contracts to fixed wing pilots. Since we only offer long-term contracts that 
commit pilots to continued service through 14 years of commissioned service, the 
program has an equally important impact on outyear retention and inventory as it 
does the current year. 

OFFICER PERSONNEL 

Senator Coats. What is the officer/enlisted ratio for fiscal years 1988, 1993, 1994, 
and 1995, and projected for fiscal year 1996? Do you believe that this ratio is an 
accurate means of assessing the proper structure of the military services? 

General BOLES. The Air Force officer/enlisted ratios are as follows: 

Fiscal years 1988, 1:4.48; 1993, 1:4.29; 1994, 1:4.26; 1995, 1:4.15; and the pro- 
jected ratio for 1996, 1:4.11. 

However, excluding officer and enlisted personnel assigned to provide medical 
care or to man the various unified command headquarters and Defense Activities, 
the ratios for the remaining 85 percent Of the Air Force are as follows: 

Fiscal years 1988, 1:4.98; 1993, 1:4.89; 1994, 1:4.91; 1995, 1:4.90; and 1996, 1:4.88. 

The Air Force does not believe the officer/enlisted ratio is an accurate means of 
assessing the proper structure of the military services. The number of officer and 
enlisted members each service maintains must be based on requirements to employ, 
maintain, and sustain its combat forces in support of national security objectives. 
The arbitrary use of ratios provides a disincentive to many of the services' efforts 
to streamline and become more efficient. Many smart initiatives result in saving 
large numbers of enlisted authorizations and relatively few officer authorizations, 
which negatively impacts the ratio. For example, force structure modernization, in- 
creases in aircraft reliability and maintainability, base closures, and maintenance 
streamlining (going from 3-level maintenance to 2-level) all generated significant en- 
listed manpower savings as well as savings in operating costs; however, each of 
these actions has also had a negative impact on the ratio because of the relatively 
smaller savings in officer authorizations. While using ratios as a benchmark to pro- 
vide senior leadership visibility on changes may be appropriate, specifying a fixed 
ratio as an absolute measure that must be maintained regardless of the readiness 
implications is not appropriate. The Air Force does not support using a fixed officer- 



195 

to-enlisted ratio as a means of determining the appropriate mix of officer and en- 
listed manpower. 

Senator COATS. What is your current fiscal year 1995 Joint Duty Assignment List 
(JDAL) requirement? How does this compare to fiscal years 1988, and 1991? 

Field grade JDAL 1988/1991/1995 

Field grade authorizations 1988/199171995 

General BOLES. JDAL requirement: Fiscal years 1988, 3,001; 1991, 3,257, and 
1995, 3,357. 

Field Grade JDAL: Fiscal years 1988, 3,001 (Major-Colonel); 1991, 3,257 (Major- 
Colonel); and 1995, 3,357 (Major-Colonel). 

Field Grade Authorizations: Fiscal years 1988, 30,741; 1991, 28,330 and 1995, 
22,973. 

Senator Coats. What is your current fiscal year 1995 requirement to fill OSD and 
non-JDAL billets in the Defense agencies? How does this compare to fiscal years 
1988/1991? 

General BOLES. Our policy is to fill 100 percent of all JDAL and OSD require- 
ments. At a minimum, we man non-JDAL positions in the Defense agencies at the 
Air Force worldwide average. In 1988 and 1991 we manned joint requirements in 
OSD at 100 percent along with filling 100 percent of the non-JDAL requisitions in 
the Defense agencies. 

Senator COATS. What is the officer promotion opportunity and pin on point, by 
grade for 04, 05, and 06 for fiscal years 1988, 1994, and 1995 compared to DOPMA 
goals? 

General Boles. 

OFFICER PROMOTION OPPORTUNITY 







Fiscal yean 




DOPMA 




1988 


1994 


1995 


Minimum 




90 


80 
70 
50 


80 
70 
50 


80 




75 

55 


70 
50 








OFFICER PIN-ON POINT 






Fiscal years 




DOPMA Goals 




1988 


1994 


1995 




11.0 


12.0 
16.1 
21.9 


11.8 
16.2 
21.9 


9-11 YOS 


To U. Col 


16.4 

20.9 


15-17 YOS 
21-23 YOS 









Senator COATS. Describe your fiscal year 1996 officer drawdown plans including 
which authorities will be used and the numbers you plan to realize from each. 

General BOLES. Based on the end strength projected in the fiscal year 1996 Presi- 
dents budget, the Air Force will need to generate 800 additional officer losses be- 
yond those anticipated through normal attrition in fiscal year 1996. We plan to 
achieve those additional losses through a combination of 600 Temporary Early Re- 
tirement Authority (TERA) retirements, 50 early releases from active duty service 
commitments, and 150 early retirements for officers with 2 years time-in-grade as 
Lt. Colonels and Colonels or 8 years of commissioned-service-time for Captains and 
Majors. The Air Force fiscal year 1996 TERA program continues to be selectively 
based on grade, year groups, and skills. Critical skills will be ineligible for separa- 
tion incentives (e.g. pilots, navigators, and air weapons directors are excluded from 
participating in the fiscal year 1996 drawdown programs). 

Senator COATS. Are the current drawdown authorities adequate to permit an or- 
derly downsizing of the officer corps? 

General BOLES. Based on current end strength projections, the drawdown incen- 
tive tools provided by the fiscal year 1991 and subsequent National Defense Author- 
ization Acts (Variable Separation Incentive, Special Separation Benefit, and the 
Temporary Early Retirement Authority) will adequately provide for the orderly 
downsizing of the Air Force officer force through the rest of the drawdown. 

Senator COATS. What were your officer accession plans for fiscal year 1994 by 
source? What did you actually access from each source? 

General BOLES. The officer accession plans and actual accession for fiscal year 
1994 follow: 



196 



Fiscal years 
1994 Plan 



1994 
Actual 



USAF Academy 984 1,000 

AFROTC 1,792 1,894 

Officer Training School 720 630 

Health Professions Scholarships 419 426 

Other* 960 953 



Total 4,875 4,903 

* Includes Direct Appointments, Surgeon General Enlisted Commissioning, and Reserve Recall. 

Senator COATS. What are your officer accession plans for fiscal year 1995 and fis- 
calyear 1996? Please list by source. 

General Boles. Air Force officer accession plans by source follow: 

Fiscal years 



1995 



USAF Academy 1,003 938 

AFROTC 1,807 1,785 

Officer Training School 771 707 

Health Professions Scholarships 525 463 

Other* 953 1,075 

Total 5,059 4.968 

* Includes Direct Appointments. Surgeon General Enlisted Commissioning, and Reserve Recall. 

ENLISTED PERSONNEL 

Senator Coats. Describe your fiscal year 1996 enlisted drawdown plans including 
which authorities will be used and the numbers you plan to realize from each. 

General BOLES. Based on the end strength projected in the fiscal year 1996 Presi- 
dent's budget, the Air Force will need to generate 1,500 additional enlisted losses 
beyond those anticipated through normal attrition in fiscal year 1996. We plan to 
achieve those additional losses using a combination of 1,200 under the Temporary 
Early Retirement Authority (TERA) and 300 using Date of Separation Rollback (for 
members ineligible to reenfist) The Air Force fiscal year 1996 TERA program contin- 
ues to be selectively based on grade, years of service, and skills (e.g. all chronic criti- 
cal skills will remain ineligible for separation incentives). 

Senator COATS. Are the current drawdown authorities adequate to permit an or- 
derly downsizing of the enlisted force? 

General BOLES. The drawdown incentive tools provided by the fiscal year 1991 
and subsequent National Defense Authorization Acts (Variable Separation Incen- 
tive, Special Separation Benefit, and the Temporary Early Retirement Authority), 
based on current end strength projections, adequately provide for orderly downsizing 
of the Air Force enlisted force. 

Senator COATS. Describe the demographics of the enlisted force by race and gen- 
der in fiscal years 1991 and 1994 and projected fiscal year 1999. Describe the same 
demographic categories for the top three enlisted grades. 

General Boles. The Air Force is a gender neutral service and does not 

PROJECT EITHER BY GENDER OR RACE. THE FOLLOWING HISTORICAL INFORMATION IS 
PROVIDED: 



Total 


Top 3 Grades 


Fiscal year 1991 Fiscal year 1994 


Fiscal year 1991 Fiscal year 1994 


Number Percent Number Percent 


Number Percent Number Percent 



Gender: 

Male 350,885 86 287,884 84 47,797 93 41,750 90 

Female 58,540 14 53,433 16 3,361 7 4,386 10 

Total 409,425 100 341,317 100 51,158 100 46,136 100 

Race: 

Cauc 320,838 78 268,598 79 40,488 79 35,982 78 



197 



Total 


Top 3 Grades 


Fiscal year 1991 Fiscal year 1994 


Fiscal year 1991 Focal year 1994 


Number Percent Number Percent 


Number Percent Number Percent 



Black 71,342 17 57,018 17 9,270 18 8,650 19 

Other 17,245 4 15,701 5 1,400 3 1,504 3 

Total 409,425 100 341,317 100 51,158 100 46,136 100 

Senator COATS. Are you employing a "tiered manning" strategy? If so, describe 
your plans and the readiness impact of such a plan. 

General BOLES. The Air Force does not use a "tiered manning" strategy. 

Senator Coats. How do you define PERSTEMPO? What is your PERSTEMPO 
plan? What is the actual experience? What type of deployments/time away from 
home station are included in the PERSTEMPO calculation? What is excluded/ 

General BOLES. PERSTEMPO simply refers to the number of days TDY away 
from home station per year for an Air Force member. The Chief of Staff has initially 
established a maximum desired level of 120 days TDY per year away from home. 
We have developed a TDY accumulator capability within the Personnel Data System 
(PDS) that allows us to both track and report individual PERSTEMPO. Within 6 
months to a year we will have solid numbers that can be analyzed by unit, weapon 
system, crew position. MAJCOM, or individual. Prior to 1995, we collected "stubby 
pencil" data by major weapon systems. As we suspected, several were experiencing 
nigh PERSTEMPO levels. The rates for a dozen or so major weapon systems and 
skills were above the desired maximum level of 120 days TDY per yean some were 
in the 180 to 200 days per year range. Beginning in January 1995, we started col- 
lecting data by individual for all members going TDY for any reason or any length. 
This will provide the accuracy we need to monitor the PERSTEMPO of the entire 
force. The only TDY excluded is that which occurs "enroute" to a new PCS assign- 
ment. 

ASSIGNMENT OF WOMEN 

Senator COATS. What are the tangible readiness impacts of the expanded opportu- 
nities for the assignment of women? What are other, less tangible, impacts? 

General Boles. The Air Force uses gender-neutral recruiting, training, and as- 
signment systems (except for the few positions restricted by direct ground combat), 
and holds everyone to the same standards. Readiness is also gender-neutral. 

Deployment requirements represent a specific number of personnel in various 
skill types. Readiness is affected by whether or not we have trained personnel (men 
or women) available to fill the planned positions. It is not impacted by whether or 
not positions are filled by men or women. 

The opening of combat and combat support positions to women enabled the Air 
Force to draw from the largest available pool of human resources, thereby increas- 
ing flexibility in selecting and in training people with the greatest abilities and 
skills in the defense of our Nation. 

Senator COATS. Have you integrated initial recruit training? What changes were 
required to accommodate co-ed initial training? 

General BOLES. Yes, the Air Force has integrated initial recruit training. In 1976 
Basic Military Training (BMT) began the process of integrating its training squad- 
rons. Prior to this time, the training squadrons were either all male or all female. 
The BMT Group integrated approximately one-third of the training squadrons and 
by 1990, the entire training group was integrated with all training squadrons co- 
ed. 

To meet the challenge of training both sexes together, the group started by provid- 
ing enhanced education and awareness of the uniqueness of each sex to include an 
increased understanding and sensitivity to gender specific medical concerns and an 
appreciation for personal privacy. They then made adjustments to the BMT curricu- 
lum to ensure all trainees, regardless of gender, received the same training and 
completed the same course objectives. Today, male and female trainees attend aca- 
demic classes, marksmanship training, the confidence courses, and participate in 
physical conditioning together. 

Senator COATS. When the co-ed initial training experiment was conducted pre- 
viously there were noticeable reductions in cohesion among the trainees. What is 
your current experience? Are you using the same measures that were used in the 
earlier experiment to ensure a valid comparison? 



198 

General Boles. We are currently experiencing no cohesion problems with our in- 
tegrated training. 

Trainees, regardless of gender, receive the same training and must complete the 
same course objectives. Male and female trainees attend all academic classes to- 
gether and except where natural physiological differences exist, must complete the 
same physical conditioning requirements. 

The Air Force did not participate in the earlier experiment; however the BMT 
Group reevaluates its training programs on a continuous basis to ensure they con- 
tinue to meet the needs of the Air Force. 

Senator COATS. Have the standards for any specialty opened to the assignment 
of females been modified to accommodate females? If so, explain. 

General BOLES. No. Air Force job standards are gender-neutral except where re- 
stricted by combat rules, i.e., Pararescue. Our training standards are also gender- 
neutral as all students (regardless of gender) must meet the same level of pro- 
ficiency on skills and knowledge for the specialty for which they were selected. 

Senator COATS. What plans do you have to further expand the opportunities for 
the assignment of women? 

General BOLES. Over 99 percent of all Air Force career fields and positions are 
open to women — the highest percentage in the Department of Defense. Given cur- 
rent policy we can not expand further. Closed career fields and positions within the 
Air Force are those excluded by OSD policy based upon the direct ground combat 
definition and assignment rule restricting women from assignment to units whose 
primary mission is to engage in direct combat on the ground, or assigned with units 
that require collocation with direct ground combat units. If the Secretary of Defense 
should modify these policies, then the Air Force will reexamine our career fields and 
open the remaining positions as appropriate. 

Senator Coats. Wnat costs are attributable to the expansion of the opportunities 
for the assignment of women? 

General BOLES. There are no specific costs attributable to the expansion of the 
opportunities for the assignment of women. 

Senator Coats. Describe the current policy concerning assignment and 
deployability of female service members when they are pregnant. 

General Boles. Pregnant active duty members are not placed on assignment to 
an overseas location or to a continental U.S. (CONUS) isolated location. They are 
not assigned from a CONUS location to another CONUS location when the report- 
ing date is after the 6th month of pregnancy. Women assigned to areas without ob- 
stetrical care will have their assignment curtailed in order to ensure that they re- 
ceive adequate care. Regarding deployability, female service members who are preg- 
nant are non-deployable. 

Senator Coats. There have been a number of articles in the press recently con- 
cerning sleeping arrangements of men and women deployed to Haiti and other 
areas. What is the Air Force policy on men and women and/or officers and enlisted 
personnel living in the same tents/ At what command level is the policy established. 

General Boles. Headquarters Air Force Services (HQ USAF/SV), through the co- 
ordination of other Air Staff directorates, establishes the policy on living arrange- 
ments in lodging facilities during peacetime as well as exercises, contingencies, and 
military operations other than war. 

The Air Force policy allows for lodging managers, during peacetime, to house un- 
accompanied males and females in the same building as long as they do not share 
sleeping rooms. However, during military operations, deployed commanders may de- 
viate from peacetime policy and house male and females in the same tent for rea- 
sons of military necessity, readiness, and space efficiency. This action is done as 
long as sufficient measures are taken to provide adequate privacy for both sexes. 

During peacetime Air Force lodging operations, typically, separate officer and en- 
listed members by assigning officers to visiting officer quarters (VOQs) and enlisted 
members to visiting airman s quarters (VAQ). However, during military operations, 
deployed commanders may deviate from this policy and billet officer and enlisted 
in the same tent for as long as necessary. 

JOINT DUTY 

Senator Coats. Regarding active duty line promotion boards to the grade of briga- 
dier general and rear admiral (lower half) convened in fiscal years 1992, 1993, 1994, 
1995, please provide to the subcommittee, (1) the number of individuals rec- 
ommended for promotion by each board: (2) the number of individuals granted "joint 
equivalent" waivers for the requirement to have served in a joint assignment prior 
to promotion to brigadier general; and (3) a listing of those assignments for which 
"joint equivalent" waivers were granted. 



199 

General Boles. (1) There were 36 line officers recommended for promotion from 
the calendar year 1991 Brigadier General Selection Board (convened fiscal year 
1992), 84 officers were recommended from two boards in fiscal year 1993 (39 from 
the calendar year 1992 board and 45 from the calendar year 1993 board), no boards 
were held in fiscal year 1994, and 38 officers were recommended from the fiscal year 
1995 board. (2) The Secretary of Defense granted 11 "joint equivalent" waivers for 
the calendar year 1992 board, 20 for the fiscal year 1993 boards (12 for the calendar 
year 1992 board and 8 for the calendar year 1993 board), there were no boards held 
in fiscal year 1994, and no "joint equivalent" waivers were required for the fiscal 
year 1995 board. (3) The following is a listing of those assignments for which "joint 
equivalent" waivers were granted: 

Fiscal Year 1992 

1. Squadron Forward Air Controller, 20th Tactical Support Squadron, Da Nang 
Air Field, Republic of Vietnam 

2. Weapons Systems Staff Officer and Deputy Chief, Systems Liaison Division, Of- 
fice of the Secretary of the Air Force for Legislative Liaison 

3. Chief, Strike Attack Division, Headquarters 17th Air Force, United States Air 
Forces in Europe 

4. Deputy Chief, Tactical Division, Deputy Chief of Staff, Research, Development 
and Acquisition, HQ USAF 

5. Director, Programming and Policy, Deputy Chief of Staff, Plans, HQ Military 
Airlift Command 

6. Forward Air Controller, 22nd ARVN Division, 21 TASS, Cam Ranh Bay AB, 
Republic of Vietnam; and Aide de Camp to Commander in Chief, Allied Air Forces 
Central Europe, United States Air Forces in Europe 

7. Air Operations Officer, Tactical Forces Division, Deputy Chief of Staff, Plans 
and Operations, HQ USAF 

8. Air Operations Officer, Strategy Division, Deputy Chief of Staff, Plans and Op- 
erations, HQ USAF 

9. Chief, Middle East Africa Division and Assistant Director for Joint and NSC 
Matters, Deputy Chief of Staff, Plans and Operations, HQ USAF 

10. Air Operations Officer, Fighter Division, Assistant Chief of Staff, Studies and 
Analyses, HQ USAF 

11. Space Shuttle Program Element Manager, Deputy Chief of Staff, Research, 
Development, and Acquisition, HQ USAF 

Fiscal Year 1993 (Calendar Year 1992 Board) 

1. Chief, Planning, Programming and Budgeting System Branch, Deputy Chief of 
Staff, Plans, HQ Military Airlift Command; and Air Operations Officer, Directorate 
of the Air Force Board Structure, Office of the Vice Chief of Staff, HQ USAF 

2. Tactical Fighter Air Operations Officer; Deputy Chief, Programs Division; and 
Executive Officer, Deputy Chief of Staff, Programs and Resources, HQ USAF; and 
Warsaw Pact Capabilities Analyst, Deputy Chief of Staff, Operations and Intel- 
ligence, HQ United States Air Forces in Europe 

3. Contiguous United States Basing Branch Program Officer, Chief, Overseas 
Bases and Units Branch; and Chief, Evaluation Division; HQ Strategic Air Com- 
mand 

4. Battalion Air Liaison Officer, 9th Infantry Division 

5. Air Operations Officer and Joint Training Exercise Planner, HQ Military Airlift 
Center Europe; and Chief, Airlift and Training Division, Office of the Secretary of 
the Air Force for Acquisition 

6. Aide to the Chief of Staff of the Air Force, HQ USAF 

7. Assistant Operations Officer, 57th Fighter Weapons Wing, Tactical Air Com- 
mand; and Action Officer, Tactical-General and Deputy Assistant Director, Special 
Projects, Deputy Chief of Staff, Plans and Operations, HQ USAF 

8. Chief, Tactical Air Operations Standardization and Evaluation Division, Deputy 
Chief of Staff, Operations, HQ United States Air Forces in Europe 

9. Chief, Emergency War Order Tactics Development Branch, Deputy Chief of 
Staff, Operations with duty at Joint Strategic Target Planning Staff, HQ Strategic 
Air Command; and Missile Operations Director, Planning and Programming Officer, 
and Assistant Chief, Strategic Offensive Forces Division, Deputy Chief of Staff, 
Plans and Operations, HQ USAF 

10. Satellite Control Facility Program Element Monitor and Program Manager 
and Executive Officer, Deputy Chief of Staff, Research and Development, HQ USAF 
with duty as Office of the Secretary of Defense Study Team Member on U.S.- 
U.S.S.R. Space Programs 



200 

11. OV-10A Forward Air Controller Instructor Pilot, 1st Special Operations Wing, 
Tactical Air Command; Tactical Force Programmer and Executive Officer, Deputy 
Chief of Staff, Deputy Chief of Staff, Programs and resources, HQ USAF 

12. Pacific/East Asia Division Air Operations Officer, Deputy Chief of Staff, Plans 
and Operations, HQ USAF 

Fiscal Year 1993 (Calendar Year 1993 Board) 

1. International Programs Manager for Middle East/Africa, then Chief, Inter- 
national Programs, Egypt Section, Deputy Chief of Staff, Programs and Resources, 
HQUSAF 

2. Squadron Air Liaison Officer and Air Ground Operations School Instructor, 
601st Tactical Air Support Group, duty with V Corps, United States Army 

3. F-15 Operations Monitor and Chief, Weapon Systems Branch, Deputy Chief of 
Staff, Plans and Operations, HQ USAF 

4. Assistant Executive Officer to the Chief of Staff, HQ USAF 

5. Deputy for Program Control, Defense Support Program Office (DSPO) 

6. Air Operations Staff Officer-Tactical Fighter, Deputy Chief of Staff, Programs 
and Resources, HQ USAF; Systems Analyst, Office of Assistant Secretary of De- 
fense, Program Analysis and Evaluation (PA&E) 

7. Forward Air Controller, OV-10A, 23rd Tactical Air Support Squadron, 56th 
Special Operations Wing, Nakhon Phanom Royal Thai AFB, Pacific Air Forces 

8. Operations Programming Officer, Deputy Chief of Staff, Plans, HQ Military 
Airlift Command 

Fiscal Year 1994 

There were no boards held in fiscal year 1994. 
Fiscal Year 1995 

There were no ^joint equivalent" waivers required. 

JOINT EDUCATION 

Senator Coats. Under what conditions, other than in-residence instruction at a 
service or joint intermediate or top-level school, mav an active duty service member 
be awarded credit for Joint Professional Military Education (JPME)? (Please provide 
a copy of the implementing instructions or regulations for awarding such equivalent 
credit.) 

General Boles. Our actions are guided by two documents: the Military Education 
Policy Document (CM-1618-93) (Atch 1), and Air Force Instruction 36-2301 (Atch 
2). Eligible Air Force officers may be awarded JPME Phase I credit in two addi- 
tional ways: (1) complete the non-resident Air Command and Staff College course 
and (2) complete courses of study or fellowships at institutions which have been rec- 
ognized as PME equivalent by the Air Force and accredited as JPME equivalents 
by the Chairman oi the Joint Chiefs of Staff. Officers complete their joint education 
by attending the JPME Phase II course at Armed Force Staff College. Copies of the 
implementing instructions are provided per your request. 

Senator COATS. What institutions or programs are authorized to award equiva- 
lency credit for JPME? How and under what standards are these institutions or pro- 
grams accredited to award such equivalency credit? 

General BOLES. JPME equivalency credit is awarded to Air Force officers attend- 
ing 21 institutions (16 at the Senior Service School level and 5 at the Intermediate 
Service School level) (listing provided). The Air Force approves courses which meet 
PME requirements, and based on Air Force recommendations, the CJCS designates 
the courses as JPME equivalent. 

MANAGEMENT BY FULL TIME EQUIVALENTS 

Senator Coats. The administration's report: "Cutting Red Tape — Creating a Gov- 
ernment That Works Better and Costs Less" in referring to "Full Time Equivalents" 
(FTEs) provides that "The President should direct OMB and agency heads to stop 
setting FTE ceilings in fiscal year 1995." What role do FTE ceilings play in the De- 
partment's management of the civilian work force? Do you believe that management 
by end strength or by FTEs — as opposed to managing and budgeting by ceilings on 
operating costs — is appropriate for managing the civilian work force oi the Depart- 
ment of Defense as a whole? For managing the civilian work force in the military 
departments? For managing the civilian work force in the individual agencies within 
the Department of Defense? 

General BOLES. The Federal Workforce Restructuring Act of 1994 requires the 
Federal Government, DOD and thus the Air Force to manage to Full-Time Equiva- 
lents (FTEs). The Air Force agrees with the administration's report; we should stop 






201 

the practice of managing to FTE ceilings. Since 1985, Congress annually exempted 
DOD from end-strength management and encouraged DOD to manage its civilian 
resources within its appropriated funding. This manage-to-budget philosophy pro- 
vided flexibility to invest in civilian resources to meet mission requirements without 
worrying about end-strength constraints. Further, we think managing to FTEs is 
counter-intuitive to the recommendations embodied in the President s National Per- 
formance Review. We have long advocated the manage-to-budget philosophy. The 
Air Force has repeatedly demonstrated an ability to make prudent decisions regard- 
ing our management of resources, including tough actions that must be taken to re- 
duce our civilian workforce. Our objective should be to both empower and hold our 
commanders accountable for spending the taxpayers' dollars wisely. Managing to 
FTEs places artificial constraints on achieving that objective. Because of this, the 
Air Force strongly supports the managing by budget of its civilian resources. 

PSDA 

Senator Coats. The Patient Self-Determination Act (PSDA) (42 U.S.C.A. 
1395cc(f)(l)) requires medical facilities that receive Medicaid and Medicare funds to 
have procedures for handling patients' advance medical directives (AMDS), and to 
inform patients about their rights to make AMDs under State law. The PSDA left 
the substance of the law to the States, resulting in the adoption of different forms 
and procedural requirements. The combination o? diverse State requirements and an 
inherently mobile military lifestyle suggests the need for uniform treatment of 
AMDs prepared for military personnel: The attached proposed legislative language 
addresses the issue of State recognition of military advance medical directives. In 
relation to the enactment of the proposed provision, what is the position of each 
military service Judge Advocate General? 

General Boles. While we cannot answer for the other services. The Judge Advo- 
cate General of the Air Force would support enactment of this provision. The pro- 
posed amendment would be a desirable change in the law, along the lines of the 
current 10 U.S.C. 1446, which enacted similar provisions for military powers of at- 
torney. 

PROPOSED LEGISLATION 

Senator COATS. Does the proposed legislative language adequately address the 
needs of each of the military services? What, if any, proposed changes might be nec- 
essary to account for service specific needs? 

General BOLES. We believe the proposed legislative language adequately attempts 
to achieve uniformity in the implementation of AMDs. This uniform treatment of 
documents prepared for members of the Armed Forces by legal assistance attorneys 
would indeed simplify matters for our mobile military personnel, and would ensure 
that their wishes concerning medical treatment are complied with regardless of loca- 
tion. 

Senator COATS. If you nonconcur with the use of the proposed legislative solution, 
what is the basis for the nonconcurrence? Describe how any alternative proposal 
would provide a better solution. Does the alternative proposal require legislative ac- 
tion? Ii so, when will you submit the alternative proposal? 

General BOLES. N/A. 

JUDICIAL REVIEW OF BOARD DECISIONS 

Senator COATS. In each of the past 5 years: How many cases were decided by each 
correction board and discharge review board? 

General Boles. Below are the number of Air Force Board for Correction of Mili- 
tary Records (BCMR) applications for calendar years 1990 through 1994. 

1990, 2,989; 1991, 4,377; 1992, 3,463; 1993, 5,684; and 1994, 5,584. 

These figures do not include about 120 requests for reconsideration annually. 

Below are the total number of Air Force Discharge Review Board (DRB) cases 
completed, both personal appearance and non-personal appearance, for the calendar 
years 1990 to 1994. 

1990, 847; 1991, 886; 1992, 829; 1993, 617; and 1994, 434. 

Senator COATS. How many cases were filed in Federal court challenging a correc- 
tion board or discharge review decision? (Please provide your answer by circuit.) 

General Boles. The Military Personnel Branch of our Civil Law and Litigation 
Directorate conducted a search of all files currently maintained in our computer 
database or physically located in the Rosslyn complex. These figures reflect the 
number of cases currently open and are representative of each of the 5 years re- 
quested in the question from the committee. Over this period, 54 percent of open 
cases involve appeals from decisions of the AFBCMR. Of these cases, 22 (63 percent) 



202 

were filed in the Federal Circuit, 3 in the D.C. Circuit, 2 in the 4th, 1 in the 6th, 
2 in the 7th, 4 in the 9th, and 1 in the 10th Circuit (a total of 37 percent outside 
of the Federal Circuit). Applying this representative baseline to our 5-year caseload 
of 514 cases, we have determined that approximately 278 cases involved appeals 
from BCMR decisions. Of these, approximately 175 were filed in the Federal Circuit 
with the remaining 103 brought in the district courts. We have no court actions 
based on Discharge Review Board decisions. 

Senator COATS. In how many cases were plaintiffs granted relief and in how many 
were they denied relief? (Please provide your answer by circuit.) 

General Boles. We are in the process of reviewing the pertinent case files for the 
5-year period. During 1994, we prevailed in 95 percent of the cases involving ap- 
peals from decisions of the BCMR decisions. Relief was granted in only a single 
case — in the Federal Circuit. Extrapolating this percentage over the 5-year period, 
plaintiffs were granted relief in approximately 14 cases and denied relief in 264. 
When we have completed our review of the case files, we will have more reliable 
data. 

CENTRALIZED JUDICIAL REVIEW OF BOARD DECISION 

Senator Coats. The committee has been informed that there is a Department of 
Justice effort to centralize review of such cases in a single Federal court. What ad- 
vantages, to include savings in time and money, do you see in such a system? What 
disadvantages? 

General BOLES. For some time now, the Department of Justice informally has 
been working with the Departments of Defense and Transportation to consider var- 
ious proposals for a statutory basis for judicial review of military personnel decision- 
making. As this matter primarily affects the military services, the Department of 
Defense has taken the lead in working on this matter. 

As indicated, the ABA has put forth a proposal regarding the merits of centraliza- 
tion that differs in some significant ways from the current DOD-DOJ initiative. The 
DOD General Counsel formed a working group to evaluate in detail the general con- 
cept of centralization as well as the comparative strengths and weaknesses of the 
competing proposals. A senior member oi my litigation staff is chairing this group 
and I look forward to assessing their recommendations in this matter. With that ca- 
veat, I offer some general comments regarding the concept of centralization. 

The current system of judicial review of matters that fall within the jurisdictional 
scope of the various boards for the correction of military records has been essentially 
an ad hoc process. There is no statutory framework for judicial review of military 
administrative decisions. Consequently, different courts apply a variety of different 
legal theories, to review (second guess) day-to-day military decisionmaking. The lack 
of a consistent legal process, with predictable rules for reviewing military decisions, 
results in an unproductive expenditure of time and money by all concerned — plain- 
tiffs, government attorneys, and the courts. Much effort is devoted toward the reso- 
lution of jurisdictional issues and conflicts between the laws of the various circuits, 
to the exclusion of the merits of some cases. 

A statutory-based, centralized system of review exists for review of personnel ac- 
tions involving members of the civil service and foreign service, as well as decisions 
of the Department of Veterans affairs. I believe, based upon my preliminary analy- 
sis, that a properly designed centralized system, to account for the unique aspects 
of decisionmaking within a military environment, would serve all parties better 
than the present. 

Before discussing these advantages, I note that the current DOD-DOJ proposal 
couples centralization of the process of appeal, with appeals going directly to the 
Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, with the requirement for exhaustion of ad- 
ministrative remedies through the services' correction boards. Mandatory exhaus- 
tion to build the record on appeal would be beneficial independent of any steps to- 
ward centralization in a specific court. Together, as provided for by this proposal, 
the symbiosis would dramatically enhance the efficiency, effectiveness, and credibil- 
ity oi judicial review. 

More specifically, centralization coupled with mandatory exhaustion, as described 
by the proposal, would offer the following benefits: 

— A single body of law would develop thereby enhancing the consistency, predict- 
ability, and clarity of judicial pronouncements. 

— The existence of a single forum for review would eliminate the complex juris- 
dictional battles which currently take place whenever a plaintiff seeking more than 
$10,000 files a complaint in a local district court. Current jurisdictional statutes re- 

auire plaintiffs to waive any claim in excess of $10,000 in order to establish a juris- 
ictional basis in a district court. 



203 

— The Court of Federal Claims (Federal Circuit) handles the vast majority of cur- 
rent cases. As compared to any other judicial body, including the newly formed 
Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces, the Federal Circuit has the greatest institu- 
tional expertise and experience in dealing with the full spectrum 01 military issues 
addressed by the correction boards. This is a very specialized area of the law and 
existing stare decisis exists in this forum. Centralization in the Federal Circuit 
would provide the opportunity to build upon the expertise and the established body 
of case law that the Federal Circuit has already established. 

— The boards of correction of records would develop an appropriate administra- 
tive record. This would enhance the efficiency of judicial review. 

— The relatively informal nature of board proceedings would serve all parties 
well. Although potential complainants currently have the option of going to the 
boards requiring it would promote efficiency, while providing judicial review. 

There do not appear to be any significant disadvantages to this approach. How- 
ever, consistent with my previous comment. I would prefer to reserve final judgment 
until the working group nas had the opportunity to review the issue in detail and 
make specific recommendations. 

STATUTORY CHANGES FOR CENTRALIZED REVIEW 

Senator Coats. What statutes, if any would need to be changed if the United 
States Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces were given this role? 

General Boles. The extent of statutory revision required by consolidation of re- 
view of these cases in the United States Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces 
would vary depending on a number of factors. Most importantly, a positive grant 
of jurisdiction would have to be made to the court in Article 67 of the Uniform Code 
of Military Justice (10 U.S.C. 867). If jurisdiction was to be granted to the court ex- 
clusively, both 28 U.S.C. 1331 and 1346 (dealing with the jurisdiction of United 
States District Courts) would have to be amended. Both 28 U.S.C. 1295 and 1491, 
dealing with the jurisdiction of courts would require amendment. If exhaustion of 
remedies at the review board level were to be a prerequisite to going to the Court 
of Appeals; other potential required amendments would include 10 U.S.C. 1034 
(Military Whistleblower Protection Act) and 10 U.S.C. 1552, 1553, 1554 (Board for 
the Correction of Militant Records). 

DARBY V. CISNEROS 

Senator COATS. The case of Darby v. Cisneros, 113 S. Ct. 2539; 1993 has had a 
chance to impact the Department of Defense administrative procedures: What is the 
actual or anticipated effect of Darby on the judicial review of military administrative 
discharges and other adverse administrative personnel actions? 

General Boles. The actual impact of Darby v. Cisneros is not yet clear. We have 
taken the position that Darby does not affect the administrative exhaustion require- 
ment in the context of judicial review of military decisions under the Administrative 
Procedure Act. However, it remains to be seen whether such an argument will be 
persuasive in the courts. Because of Darby, I believe that a statutory requirement 
to exhaust is desirable. The centerpiece of the DOD-DOJ proposal under study is 
the requirement to exhaust in the correction boards, with appeal to the Federal Cir- 
cuit. 

Senator Coats. What legislative action or agency rule changes, if any, have been 
proposed or undertaken by the Department of Defense or Department of Justice to 
deal with the possible effects of Darby case? 

General Boles. The Military Personnel Review Act is a proposal to centralize re- 
view of military personnel decisions. The Act would require mandatory exhaustion 
to the Correction Boards, exclusive appeal to the Federal Circuit, and a record re- 
view by the courts. 

Senator Coats. What are the advantages of the present decentralized judicial re- 
view and what are the disadvantages in relation to centralized judicial review? 

General BOLES. As I have stated, these issues are under study. But, at this point, 
I believe the advantages of a centralized system are many. 

Senator COATS. If review of military administrative discharges were centralized, 
what would be the anticipated case load? What would be the anticipated case load 
of adverse administrative military personnel actions? Would these numbers be the 
same if the centralization happened in the United States Court of Appeals for the 
Armed Services as opposed to the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit? 

General Boles. Simply centralizing review in one court would have no significant 
impact on case load. Centralizing judicial review in combination with mandatory ex- 
haustion would likely result in some increase in the number of administrative cases 
before the correction boards. The number of cases in litigation can be expected to 



204 

decrease on the theory that relief from the AFBCMR granted pursuant to 10 U.S.C. 
1552 may satisfy some plaintiffs who would otherwise end up in court. 

If the United States Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces (USCAAF), as opposed 
to the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, conducted the central review of cor- 
rection board cases, the case load would be the same. However, while the case load 
would remain the same, the work load would increase for the USCAAF. Currently, 
USCAAF has no established case law concerning military personnel administrative 
issues, unlike the Federal Circuit which has a well established history of case law 
in the military personnel arena. USCAAF has no particular expertise to handle ad- 
ministrative personnel actions, because their exclusive experience has been in the 
military justice arena. In effect, they would start with no expertise and no existing 
precedent. The absence of existing precedent may initially encourage re-litigation oi 
previously settled issues and leaves both plaintiffs and the government with no 
basis upon which to predict results. The absence of predictable results may also in- 
hibit settlement, with neither side comfortable to negotiate. Committing to USCAAF 
the task of reviewing all AFBCMR appeals would dilute their current focus on the 
military justice system. 

OPINION 

Senator Coats. The National Defense Authorization Act for fiscal years 1990 and 
1991 (Section 1301) provided for the Chief Justice of the United States, upon re- 
quest of the chief judge of the United States Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces, 
to appoint an Article III judge to serve on the Armed Forces Court of Appeals in 
certain circumstances. (10 U.S.C. 942) That authority will expire on September 30, 
1995 unless Congress takes action to preserve it. Please provide the opinion of each 
of the services along with DOD as to whether this authority should be retained. 

General BOLES. The 10 U.S.C. 942 authorization serves a valuable purpose when- 
ever the full complement of United States Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces 
(USCAAF) judges are unable or disqualified to perform their judicial duties and 
properly dispatch the business of the court. The uninterrupted and expeditious judi- 
cial review of courts-martial is essential to an efficient military justice system, the 
preservation of good order and discipline with the military and the rights of the in- 
dividual accused. Any impediments to the court's ability to promptly address and 
resolve courts-martial issues, including those associated with an increased workload 
or temporary shortage of appointed judges should be removed and suitable alter- 
natives should be provided. This authorization provides a suitable alternative, when 
necessary, and should be extended beyond the expiration date of September 30, 
1995. 



Advance Questions Submitted by Senator Coats to General Christmas 

civilian PAY 

Senator Coats. Is civilian pay fully funded? 
General CHRISTMAS. 





(Dalian in millions] 


















fiscal 


yea 








1994 


1995 




1996 


1997 


Funding 




$703 
18,000 


$674 
18,000 




$681 
18,000 


$702 


End Strength 




18,000 









Civilian pay is fully funded. The fiscal year 1995 funding decreases because the 
Government of Japan assumes the responsibility of paying all of our foreign na- 
tional employees in Japan. Funding increases in fiscal year 1996 and fiscal year 
1997 are due to authorized compensation increases and pays related to BC (sever- 
ance and relocation pays). 

Senator COATS. What are the criteria that qualify an outside agency to be cat- 
egorized as "National Service" (Operating Forces) or "Defense Agency" (supporting 
establishment)? 

General Christmas. The criteria by which organizations are individually deter- 
mined to be either "National Service" or "Defense Agencies" is based on operational 
requirements and budgeting for these organizations. Organizations that are involved 
in supporting the requirements of the different unified and specified commands 
(that are not FMF units), and some research and development activities are consid- 



205 

ered National Service. Additionally, most of Major Force Program 3, Communica- 
tions and Intelligence, are considered National Service based on services provided 
to all CINCs. In contrast, those offices and agencies that support the Defense estab- 
lishment for purposes such as pay, administration, or centralized logistics support, 
have been categorized as Defense Agencies. 

Senator COATS. Does the Marine Corps consider raising the ROTC stipend a sig- 
nificant factor for recruiting ROTC candidates? 

General CHRISTMAS. We support the DOD position that increasing the ROTC sti- 
pend will have a positive effect on recruiting ROTC midshipman. We have observed 
that many ROTC candidates concurrently apply to the Marine Corps and other serv- 
ice ROTC programs. These candidates are attracted to the financial benefits offered 
with a ROTC scholarship, i.e. free tuition and books, stipend for subsistence. How- 
ever, with the exception to the benefit they derive from the stipend, cadets or mid- 
shipmen have to rely on their own resources for room and board. We believe an in- 
crease to the stipend will provide an incentive to induce more young men and 
women who are seeking financial support for college to consider a ROTC scholar- 
ship. Attracting more qualified applicants will allow us to select a higher quality 
ROTC midshipman. 

Senator COATS. Are the Marines who "return from desertion" (a gain) also counted 
as attrition/adverse (a loss)? 

General CHRISTMAS. The attached paper provides some statistics on desertion: de- 
serted, return from desertion, bad conduct discharges as a result of special and gen- 
eral courts-martial. The statistics for deserted and return from desertion are based 
on an administrative report drawn from our Manpower Management System 
(MMS). Commands in the field will administratively count a marine as a deserter 
when the unauthorized absence exceeds 30 days (DOD Instruction 1120.11), and 
input this status into the MMS. Later, when the marine surrenders, the command 
will input return from desertion into the MMS data base. 

Commanders have the discretion to take judicial or administrative action against 
deserters who have returned to military control. As the attached paper reflects, the 
majority of the marines who return from desertion are not referred to the military 
justice system for resolution. Rather, the vast majority of cases are resolved through 
administrative action. 

Desertion Statistics: Desertions, Return from Desertion, Discharged 
as a Result of Courts-Martial for Desertion 



Desertion Statistic 


3". Desert* 


ons. Return (rot 


n Oesertji 


BO.DI 


scharged as a Result i 


J' Courts-) 


^aru 


af for Desei 


lion 


9 MAR 95 






Dlscrtg 


















Return frorrr 




SCM, GCM' 


Desertion 




Desertion 






•Other Oiscng 


FY Desertion 


Deserted 


Desertion 


SCM 




ALL SCM % 


GCM 




ALL GCM 


% 


for Cesertion 


90 1.645 


1,568 


159 




152 


1.042 14.6% 




7 


135 


5.2% 




91 1.493 


1,259 


161 




154 


684 22.5% 




7 


86 


8.1% 




92 1.185 


1,237 


260 




250 


804 31.1% 




S 


145 


6.2% 


1 


93 1.517 


1.097 


147 




143 


658 21.7% 




4 


76 


53% 




94 1,292 


1.149 


126 




103 


454 22.7% 




23 


100 


23.0% 





SCM: Special Courts-Martial 
GCM: General Courts-Martial 



1 Officer in FY94 was discharged for Oesertion 

ACTIVE DUTY END STRENGTH 



Senator COATS. Are the active duty end strengths requested in the fiscal year 
1996 budget adequate to man the force structure and infrastructure required to suc- 
cessfully support the CINCs warfighting' requirements while training, equipping 
and maintaining the force? If not what are the required levels? Does your service 
intend to fully fund the end strength requested? 

General CHRISTMAS. The Marine Corps is the first service to meet its Bottom-Up 
Review Base Force end strength of 174,000 Active/42,000 Reserve/18,000 civilian. 
During the drawdown, our structure did not declined as quickly as our end strength. 
To better manage the structure drawdown, the Commandant established the Force 
Structure Working Group (FSWG). The FSWG is tasked with carefully balancing 
our structure against the available manning and required capabilities needed to 
support the National Military Strategy. Although the work of the FSWG is on-going, 
the Marine Corps is presently manning its total active component requirement at 
90 percent as directed by OSD. 



206 

We believe that current levels are adequate to support our planned force struc- 
ture. 

The Marine Corps intends to fully fund our requested end strength of 174,000/ 
42,000/18,000. 

Senator Coats. Are you able to retain quality service members in adequate num- 
bers to support the planned or required end strength? 

General CHRISTMAS. Yes. Marine Corps reenlistment rates indicate we are meet- 
ing our reenlistment goals. Slight decreases in reenlistment rates over the past sev- 
eral years are attributed to the drawdown and force structure changes. However, 
recently we have seen reenlistment rates returning back to pre-drawdown levels. 

RECRUITING 

Senator Coats. Are you able to recruit quality recruits in adequate numbers to 
support the planned or required end strength? 

General CHRISTMAS. Yes; but it is becoming increasingly difficult. We intend to 
make 100 percent of our accession requirement for fiscal year 1995. Although we 
are still exceeding our quality standards, education and upper mental group per- 
centages are slipping. 

Our biggest concern now is in making our annual contracting goals. Through Feb- 
ruary, we are over 1,500 contracts behind fiscal year 1995s annual contracting plan. 
We do not expect to make up most of this shortfall. As a result, the size of our de- 
layed entry program (DEP) is decreasing. 

A smaller DEP, increasing accession requirements and adverse market conditions 
all threaten our ability to meet fiscal year 1996s recruiting objectives. We expect 
fiscal year 1996 to be even more challenging than fiscal year 1995. 

Regardless of these difficulties we must aggressively counter any suggestions to 
reduce our quality standards. Quantity at the expense of quality is a false economy. 

Senator COATS. List the accession goals for fiscal year 1994, fiscal year 1995, fis- 
cal year 1996 and fiscal year 1997. Breakout the accession goals by quality category 
and by race and gender. For fiscal year 1994 and fiscal year 1995 (to date), list the 
planned and actual accomplishment. 

General CHRISTMAS. 

Fiscal year 1994 Fiscal year 1995 Fiscal year Fiscal year 
(thru Feb) 1996 1997 



Goal Actual 



Goal Actual Goal Goal 



Accessions 32,056 32,094 35,450 13,074 35,436 36,932 

Males 30.456 30,370 33,650 12,263 33.436 34,532 

Females 1,600 1,724 1,800 811 2.000 2,400 

Tier t (%) 95 96.5 95 94.1 95 95 

MG l-IIIA (%) 63 68.3 630 99.9 63 63 

Afro-Amer (%) 12.6 12 13.6 12 12 

Hispanic (%) 10.2 10 12.1 10 10 

Other (%) 3.9 3 4.3 3 3 

Quality standards within the Marine Corps have remained constant throughout 
the period. Mental Group category IV applicants are accepted on a case-by-case 
basis. 

The Marine Corps is committed to maintaining a socially diverse force. Accord- 
ingly, emphasis on gender and ethnic recruiting will remain a priority. Increases in 
female and racial accession requirements are planned to be incrementally phased 
throughout the remainder of the decade. Currently our racial goals are 12 percent 
Afro-American, 10 percent Hispanic and 3 percent Other. Female accessions will in- 
crease from 1,800 in fiscal year 1995 to 2,400 in fiscal year 1997 to reach our 6 per- 
cent total force end-strength goal. 

Senator COATS. Despite assurances to the contrary from the Office of the Under 
Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness, it appears that some services 
"under accessed" during the early years of the drawdown. This practice necessitates 
an increase in accession goals as the services reach their endstate. Did your service 
"under access" during the drawdown? If so, why and what is the impact now and 
in the near future? To what extent is "under accession" contributing to difficulties 
experienced by recruiters? 

General CHRISTMAS. The Marine Corps did not "under access" during the 
drawdown. The Marine Corps drawdown and new base force accession profile, 
actuals and projections, and their fluctuations differ from the other services in that 
we were originally directed to fall to 159,000 by the end of fiscal year 1997. Midway 



207 

through the drawdown to 159,000, we received authorization to stop at 177,000 by 
the Congress and later 174,000 by OSD in a subsequent Program Budget Decision 
in January of 1994. 

The annual non-prior service (NPS) regular enlisted projection with the 174,000 
base force is 35,000. The difficulties that our recruiting service has been facing since 
the beginning of fiscal year 1993 are, to a large degree, the result of the approval 
of the higher base force which occurred just as we were passing through that 
strength on our way to 159,000 — in other words, too late to execute a properly 

Scanned and funded accession strategy. The most refined steady state requirement 
or the 159,000 base force was 30,000. Our lowest NPS execution year was 29,298 
in fiscal year 1991 when we were still only funded in the out-years to the 159,000. 
Senator Coats. What are the recruit training and first term attrition rates? 
Please breakout by race and gender. 

General CHRISTMAS. To present you with one table, we combined first term and 
training attrition rates. 

ATTRITION RATES BY RACE AND GENDER 

Recruit First Term 

White/Other: 

Male 

Female 

Total 

Black: 

Male 

Female 

Total 

Hispanic: 

Male 

Female 

Total 

Total: 

Male 

Female 

Total 

Senator Coats. What are the primary causes of the (recruit) attrition described 
above? What programs are planned or in place to reduce this attrition? 

General CHRISTMAS. According to automated separation data, the primary causes 
for recruit attrition during fiscal year 1994 were: 

Reason Percent 

Recruit failure 35.0 

Erroneous enlist 24.1 

Fraudulent enlist 19.2 

Drug related 11.0 

Other 10.7 

The Marine Corps is devoting significant resources toward reducing recruit train- 
ing attrition, both male and female. Recent and ongoing efforts include reviewing 
and adjusting the recruit training syllabus to allow for more recovery time between 
physically strenuous events, conducting sports medicine studies and consultations 
with the Naval Health Research Center in San Diego, and complete reviews of re- 
cruit training policies by the Commanding Generals, MCRD Parris Island and 
MCRD San Diego. 

We have resisted the temptation to choose and implement a recruit attrition ceil- 
ing. Attrition can be attributed to several factors which are not always within the 
direct control of the services. Higher recruiting missions, coupled with external vari- 
ables such as economic forces, national feeling toward the military, and serious 
budget austerity all affect whom we recruit and now long we can prepare applicants 
for recruit training. We are attempting to determine the reasonable cost of doing 
business through a contracted study. 

Senator Coats. Last year, the Congress authorized additional Recruiting and Ad- 
vertising funds. How have you used the funds? 

General CHRISTMAS. We appreciate the $6.6 million increase. 

Most of the increase, $4.3 million, is going to improve awareness. The Marine 
Corps advertising budget was cut by 33 percent since fiscal year 1990 and has re- 
mained low. Consequently, awareness of the Marine Corps has dropped to its lowest 



11.2 


33.5 


26.9 


56.6 


13.8 


34.8 


10.8 


34.3 


22.1 


44.2 


13.3 


35.1 


7.1 


24.2 


19.9 


40.4 


8.9 


25.1 


12.6 


33.0 


25.4 


52.6 


13.3 


34.2 



208 

level since 1989. To regain lost awareness, we invested our dollars in television and 
radio advertising. We also began developing a new ad campaign to replace the aging 
"Chess" ad. Minority advertising was increased by 50 percent. Finally, we intro- 
duced a new female ad campaign to support our increasing female accession require- 
ments. 
The remaining $2.3 million went to support recruiting operations. 

• Increasing the recruiter's "tools of the trade" by increasing his communications 
and transportation capability. With a propensity to enlist, number of qualified mili- 
tary available, and unemployment rates all at low levels, it takes more work and 
dollars to acquire new recruits. 

• Beefing up training, ensuring that recruiters can do their jobs effectively. 
Senator COATS. Does the fiscal year 1996 budget request provide adequate funds 

foryour recruiting and advertising requirements? 

General CHRISTMAS. No. The $6.6 million in additional funding that Congress pro- 
vided for recruiting and advertising in fiscal year 1995 is not carried into fiscal year 
1996 and fiscal year 1997. Unless that funding is otherwise made available, we will 
need to identify additional resources in order to meet our recruiting mission. 

Senator COATS. What is the breakout of production recruiters to support staff 
within your recruiting personnel? What was the breakout in fiscal year 1988 and 
fiscal year 1994? 

General Christmas. 





Ftscal year 






1988 1994 


1995 


Production Recruiters 


2,445 2,507 


2,550 


Support Staff 


(Not avail) 1,603 


1,591 









Support staff includes, personnel assigned to the headquarters at the command, 
region, district, and recruiting station levels. It also includes personnel assigned to 
the Recruiters School, and two liaisons at the Schools of Infantry. The fiscal year 
1995 support staff figure also includes 255 civilian personnel. 

Senator Coats. What actions have you taken to increase the effectiveness of your 
recruiting operations? 

General CHRISTMAS. The much appreciated $6.6 million plus-up to our recruiting 
and advertising budget was used to produce a new female ad campaign, increase 
minority officer advertising by 50 percent, and begin the development of a replace- 
ment for the aging "Chess campaign. 

Starting in Fiscal year 1996, we plan on adding an additional 101 production re- 
cruiters. This is in anticipation of the fiscal year 1997 spike in accession require- 
ments. 

We've rephased our annual accession plan to take advantage of both the normal 
recruiting cycle and our delayed entry program profile. 

We've increased and repositioned our enlistment incentive programs to better sup- 
port the more difficult months of February through May. 

We've taken advantage of the prior service market to fill both first term and ca- 
reer force vacancies. 

Our recruiters have the flexibility to exceed their annual female accession goals. 

Finally, we are attempting to provide the recruiting force with increased man- 
power through the various recruiter support programs. 

Senator COATS. We have listened to your reports of the declining propensity of eli- 
gible youth to enlist in the military. What research has been done to determine why 
the propensity is declining and what are the results of the research, if any? 

General Christmas. DOD's Youth Attitude Tracking Study (YATS) documents the 
shear decline in youth's propensity to enlist. There is a direct correlation between 
decline in propensity and difficulty in recruiting. 

Although the Marine Corps Awareness and Attitude Tracking Study (AATS) takes 
a slightly different approach than the YATS, both studies show a similar decline in 
propensity. We broadened our survey to help pinpoint the reasons for the decline. 
The study points to a variety of reasons: 

• Awareness of the Marine Corps and Marine Corps advertising at their lowest 
levels since 1989. 

• Uncertainty about the future role of the military, particularly peacekeeping 
roles. 

• Declining prestige or value seen in military service. 

• College is the primary competition for the military. Best route to a good job. 
There are Detter ways of getting money for college than the military. 



209 . 

• Majority have a positive opinion of the military but "lack of interest" continues 
to grow as a reason for not joining. 

Army study, "YATS Plus. No conclusive results. 

DOD is currently conducting focus groups among both infiuencers, high school 
seniors and graduates. Results will be available during the fall of 1995. 

Senator Coats. Has DOD conducted any research inside the declining propensity 
to determine if the aggregate figures represent a decline in the high quality, eligible 
population or among the population at large with little actual effect on the target 
population? Does the declining propensity have any effect on the quality of individ- 
uals you are accessing? If so, what do you intend to do? If not, why is declining pro- 
pensity a condition about which we should worry? 

General CHRISTMAS. DOD is conducting research into declining propensity. DOD 
is attempting to determine the reliability of its data and its relationship to current 
recruiting difficulties. 

• The RAND analysis "Recent Recruiting Trends and Their Implications" con- 
tends that the decrease in propensity among the high quality youth, which we most 
desire, has not dropped as significantly as overall propensity and that there is still 
a sufficient population from which to recruit. We question the validity of RAND's 
work. They estimate high quality from self-reported academic achievement and not 
actual ASVAB testing and high school graduation rates. Furthermore, the report 
points out that many of our recruits come from those who have a negative propen- 
sity toward military service, but fails to account for the fact that it takes far more 
time, effort and dollars to recruit from that segment of the population. 

Except for RAND's work, we are not aware of any other DOD studies that attempt 
to segment propensity by quality. 

Propensity is a measure of interest in military service. In other words, it is an 
indicator of how likely an individual is to seriously consider enlistment in the 
Armed Forces. Consequently, propensity is very relevant to recruiting. We are con- 
cerned when propensity is low because recruiting is more difficult and recruiting 
costs escalate. We are experiencing these increased costs not only in terms of dollars 
but in human terms as well. We nave not yet been able to provide our recruiters 
with a quality of life comparable to that of other servicemen and women. 

Senator Coats. What are the recruiting goals of the Reserve for fiscal year 1994, 
fiscal year 1995 and fiscal year 1996. Break out the goals by quality category, race, 
and gender. For fiscal year 1994 and fiscal year 1995, show the actual numbers in 
addition to the goals. 

General Christmas. 

Fiscal year 1994 Fiscal year 1995 fiscal year 
(thru Feb) 1996 

GMl Actu » l ~~&_ Artrt f^T" 

Accessions 5,869 5,869 5,276 1,883 5,845 

Males 5.782 5.782 5,126 1.839 5,665 

Females 87 87 150 44 180 

Tier I (%) 95 99.2 95 97.3 95 

MG ll-IIIA (%) 63 100 63 100 63 

Afro-Amer (%) - 10.5 - 12.7 

Hispanic (%) _____ 

Other (%) - 15.1 11.7 

Senator COATS. How has the NVRA requirement added to the workload of mili- 
tary recruiters? 

General CHRISTMAS. NVRA requires our recruiters to serve actively as voter reg- 
istrars. 

Their duties include: distributing the forms as part of each interview, assisting 
with completing the forms, accepting the completed forms, promptly transmitting 
the forms to State officials, ordering and maintaining supplies, maintaining files 
and statistical data, preparing and submitting reports, and resolution of questions. 

We also incur managerial overhead to run the program. 

For information, the Marine Corps and other services are now facing one of the 
most challenging recruiting environments since inception of the AVF. NVRA re- 
quirements pose an unnecessary distraction. 

NVRA represents an additional paperwork burden for recruiters at a time when 
we are struggling to alleviate many of this impediments which they must deal with. 

For information, the latest DOD Recruiter Survey shows 62 percent of recruiters 
believe that paperwork interferes with their ability to make their recruiting goals. 
Exempting recruiters from NVPA requirements will help. 



210 

Senator COATS. How many have registered through military recruiting offices and 
how many were offered the opportunity to register but declined? 

General CHRISTMAS.The Program was implemented in January. 

We will not have the first report until April 10. At that time, we will know the 
number of persons we assisted, the number of parsons who completed the DD Form 
2645, Information Sheet and the number of persons who actually applied to vote. 

Senator COATS. What are the costs attributable to the NVRA? 

General CHRISTMAS. On the initial costs of the forms and instructional materials, 
we defer to the Director, Federal Voter Assistance Program. 

We are more concerned about the costs in human terms. Recruiters are working 
excessively long hours. The demands of their duties often prevent them from taking 
leave. The NVRA requirements levied on them only add to their frustrations. 

PERMANENT CHANGE OF STATION 

Senator COATS. What is your Permanent Change of Station budget for fiscal year 
1996? 

General CHRISTMAS. $230.3 million. 

Senator Co ATS. How many moves are planned in this budget? 

General CHRISTMAS. In our most recent budget submission, (PRESBUD 1996), we 
have planned 111,859 PCS moves in fiscal year 1996. 

Senator COATS. How many moves were planned and executed in fiscal year 1988, 
fiscal year 1993, and fiscal year 1994? 

General CHRISTMAS. The number of planned and executed moves are depicted 
below: 



Planned Executed 



Percent ot 
plan 



Fiscal year 1988 124,591 128,741 103.3 

Fiscal year 1993 118,520 118,253 99.8 

Fiscal year 1994 108,821 107,085 98.4 

COMPENSATION 

Senator COATS. What compensation program would you implement given author- 
ity and sufficient resources? 

General CHRISTMAS. Any compensation system for our Armed Forces would have 
to recognize the valuable and unique contributions our marines make to our Nation 
and compensate them for their time, efforts and sacrifices. 

The first step would be to increase the amount of direct compensation, i.e. base 

fiay, that each marine receives. Studies continue to show that military pay raises 
ag up to 12 percent behind comparable civilian pay raises. 

In addition to an increase in base pay, Basic Allowance for Quarters (BAQ) should 
be increased in order to offset the approximate 21 percent that marines are now re- 
quired to pay out of pocket to cover housing costs. The intent has long been that 
the absorption of out of pocket costs for housing expenses should be 15 percent, but 
increases in BAQ have failed to keep pace with housing expenses. 

Basic Allowance for Subsistence (BAS) needs to be reformed and either included 
in thee amount of base pay, or have the rules modified so that Marines do not loose 
money when they deploy from their home station. As you are aware OSD together 
with the services is currently studying this issue and will soon make recommenda- 
tions to Congress as how best to resolve it. 

In addition to direct compensation, indirect compensation such as commissary 
privileges, access to medical/dental coverage, and safe and adequate housing must 
also be addressed. These benefits are critical to marines and their families, but 
many are calling for their reduction or elimination. Failure to meet the needs of ma- 
rines will result in recruitment and retention problems, which will in turn ulti- 
mately effect readiness. 

Senator Coats. There has been much discussion about the "pay gap". Some in the 
Department of Defense question whether there is a pay gap and whether the ECI 
index is an appropriate index upon which military pay raises should be based. In 
your opinion, what is the current pay gap? Do you have a recommended alternative 
to the ECI as a basis for computing military pay raises? 

General CHRISTMAS. While no one index is ideal, at the present time the ECI is 
the best index upon which to gauge military pay. It would be difficult to compare 
a marine with an "average" civilian worker, but the ECI does provide a timely, com- 
prehensive indicator of salaries in the private sector. 



211 

The current pay raise gap, based upon the ECI is roughly 17 percent. As has been 
noted previously, military pay raises have not kept place with inflation, let alone 
pay raises in the private sector. 

The ECI, while not perfect, continues to be the best method for computing mili- 
tary pay raises. Until a better, proven system is developed, it should remain as the 
standard to compare salaries. 

Senator COATS. What is your budget for ACP for fiscal year 1988, fiscal year 1995, 
and fiscal year 1996? 

General CHRISTMAS. The Aviation Continuation Pay (ACP) Program was not 
begun by the Marine Corps until fiscal year 1990. Therefore, there was no fiscal 
year 1988 budget. The fiscal year 1990 budget execution for ACP was $2.5 million. 
For fiscal year 1991, it was $3.05 million. For fiscal year 1995, the budget is $1.6 
million. And for fiscal year 1996, the projected budget will be $0.9 million. 

Senator COATS. How do you ensure that the bonuses are effective tools in retain- 
ing aviators to meet the needs of the service? 

General CHRISTMAS. Aviation bonuses are one tool that the Marine Corps utilizes 
to retain aviators. Our primary retention tools are (in order of priority): proper in- 
ventory management, active-duty service obligations; transition/conversion of avi- 
ators, augmentation of Reserve officers, and aviation continuation pay. 

By targeting the ACP based on specific quantifiable criteria, we believe that we 
can positively influence retention behavior to meet the needs of the Marine Corps. 
Prior to the institution of ACP, decreased retention outstripped our ability to bal- 
ance our aviator inventories. 

Cumulative Continuation Rates (CCR), defined as the probability that an aviator 
entering his 5th year of commissioned service would complete his 11th year of com- 
missioned service, was below 40 percent. Since the inception of ACP, this rate has 
remained at about 50 percent or higher, positively benefiting our inventory manage- 
ment. Our minimum acceptable retention rate is in the mid 40s. 

As we have targeted our ACP payments narrower over the preceding program 
years, we have found that our desired continuation rate and our required continu- 
ation rate nearly match. This would appear to demonstrate the efficiency of the Ma- 
rine Corps program. However, we cannot say with absolute confidence that ACP is 
the single determining factor affecting this positive retention. 

Senator Coats. Do you pay ACP to aviators in specialties which are not, and have 
not experienced a shortage? 

General CHRISTMAS. No. The Marine Corps pays ACP only to Military Occupa- 
tional Specialties (MOS) that we determine are critical based on the following cri- 
teria: 

a. The MOS is manned at less than 95 percent of required inventory. 

b. The inventory shortage is expected to remain below 95 percent for at least the 
next 2 years. 

c. Payment meets the constraints of the Defense Authorization Act concerning ac- 
tive-duty service obligation and years of commissioned service. 

Senator Coats. If so, how do you justify this expenditure of scarce resources? 

General CHRISTMAS. Not applicable. 

Senator Coats. What is the Basic Allowance for Quarters (BAQ) gap? What are 
the recommended corrective actions? 

General CHRISTMAS. The current BAQ gap, the cost of housing marines are re- 
quired to absorb out of pocket is approximately 21 percent. The intent of DOD is 
that marines should absorb only 15 percent of housing costs out of pocket. 

Since BAQ increases have not kept pace with actual housing costs, Marines are 
forced to cover more of their housing expenses from base pay. One method to correct 
this problem would be to de-link annual pay raises from raises in allowances. This 
would permit Congress to direct raises specifically to allowances to correct the cur- 
rent inequities. 

OFFICER PERSONNEL 

Senator COATS. What is the officer/enlisted ratio for fiscal year 1988, fiscal year 
1993, fiscal year 1994, fiscal year 1995, and projected for fiscal year 1996? Do you 
believe that this ratio is an accurate means of assessing the proper structure of the 
military services? 

General Christmas. The Marine Corps officer/enlisted ratio for the requested fis- 
cal years are provided in the table below. 



212 









fiscal year 








1988 


1993 


1994 


1995 


1996 


Ratio 


1:8.8 


1:8.7 


1:8.8 


1:8.7 


1:8.7 



We do not believe that the officer/enlisted ratio is an accurate means of assessing 
the proper structure of the military services because of the relative nature of this 
measure. In a less dynamic period, this may be an accurate means of assessing 
proper structure — as the national security requirements changes so would the needs 
relative to our force structure change. Trie officer/enlisted ratio is a result of force 
planning that attempts to optimally meet the national security needs of the Nation 
over time and for a given situation. One particular dynamic that is not apparent 
is the effect of DOD decisions to consolidate redundant functions. As the services 
continued to reduce internal structure commensurate with declining end strength, 
external requirements (billets outside the services that we are required to fill) such 
as the Joint Staff, Unified and Specified Headquarters Staffs, and DOD Agency 
Staffs — have grown during the same period. These staffs tend to be officer intensive 
and for the most part require field grade officers. This has had the effect of lowering 
the officer/enlisted ratio of all the services, suggesting that we are more top heavy 
and less efficient than past years. This simply is not the case. 

Senator COATS. What is your current (fiscal year 1995) Joint Duty Assignment 
List (JDAL) requirement? 

General CHRISTMAS. 527. 

Senator COATS. How does this compare to fiscal year 1988, fiscal year 1991? 

General CHRISTMAS. Fiscal year 1988 - 444; fiscal year 1991 - 488. 

Senator Coats. Field grade JDAL 1988/1911/1995? 

General CHRISTMAS. 1988 - 430; 1991 - 488; 1995 - 514. 

Senator COATS. Field grade authorizations 1988/1991/1995? 

General CHRISTMAS. 1988 - 5,477 (field grade end strength); 1991 - 5,375 (field 
grade end strength); 1995 - 5,413 (field grade end strength). 

Senator COATS. What is your current (fiscal year 1995) requirement to fill OSD 
and non-JDAL billets in the Defense Agencies? 

General Christmas. OSD - 23; non-JDAL Defense Agencies - 131. 

Senator COATS. How does this compare to fiscal year 1988/fiscal year 1991? 

General CHRISTMAS. Fiscal year 1988: OSD - 26; fiscal year 1991: OSD - 23. 

No data available on Non-JDAL Defense Agencies for fiscal year 1988 and fiscal 
year 1991. 

Senator COATS. The Senate Armed Services Committee has, for several years, 
urged the Department of Defense to submit a comprehensive DOPMA relief request 
rather than forcing individual services to request short-term relief. Will you submit 
a request for DOPMA relief this year? If so, describe the relief you will request. Is 
this a service specific request or will it be part of a comprehensive DOD level re- 
quest? What is the justification for the requested relief? 

General CHRISTMAS. The Marine Corps is participating in a DOD sponsored 
DOPMA field grade table study. The Congress has previously provided the Marine 
Corps with temporary grade table relief for majors and lieutenant colonels in the 
fiscal year 1994 and fiscal year 199S Defense Authorization Acts. We will not sub- 
mit a request for permanent grade table relief this year. The Marine Corps perma- 
nent grade table relief request will be part of the comprehensive DOD grade table 
relief request to be forwarded to Congress next year. 

Senator Coats. What is the officer promotion opportunity and pin on point, by 
grade for 04, 05 and 06 for fiscal year 1988, fiscal year 1994, and fiscal year 1995 
compared to the DOPMA goals? 

General CHRISTMAS.The following opportunities and timing are provided for "due 
course" officers: 







Promotion 


opportunity 






Promotion timing (Pin on Point) 






DOPMA 




Fiscal year 




DOPMA 




Fiscal year 






1988 1%) 


1994 (%) 


1995 {%) 


1988 


1994 


1995 


04 
05 

06 


80 
70 
50 


79.1 
69.7 
55 


70.7 
59.3 
44.9 


69.8 

60 

45 


10+/-1 yr 
16+/-1 yr 
22+/-1 yr 


11 yrs 10 mos 
17 yrs 1 mo 
21 yrs 10 mos 


11 yrs 9 mos 
17 yrs 11 mos 
22 yrs 3 mos 


11 yrs 6 mos 
18 yrs 1 mo 
22 yrs 5 mos 



Senator COATS. Describe your fiscal year 1996 officer drawdown plans including 
which authorities will be used and the numbers you plan to realize from each. 



213 

General CHRISTMAS. The Marine Corps has reached its steady state end strength, 
we have no drawdown plans for officers in fiscal year 1996. 

Senator COATS. Are the current drawdown authorities adequate to permit an or- 
derly downsizing of the officer corps?. 

General CHRISTMAS. Not applicable. 

Senator COATS. What were your officer accession plans for fiscal year 1994 by 
source? What did you actually access from each source? 

General CHRISTMAS. 



Source PLC OCC 


NROTC USNA MECEP WO 


Planned 531 118 

Actual 511 187 


268 154 98 152 
192 198 93 160 


Senator Coats. What are your officer accession 
cal year 1996? 

General CHRISTMAS. 


plans for fiscal year 1995 and fis- 


Source PLC OCC 


NROTC USNA MECEP WO 


Fiscal year 1995 638 265 

Fiscal year 1996 625 253 


274 155 139 166 
208 163 123 200 



PLC = Platoon Leaden Course 

OCC = Officer Candidates Class. 

ROTC = Naval Reserve Officer Training Corps (Scholarship and non-scholarship) 

USNA = United States Naval Academy 

MECEP = Enlisted commissioning programs 

WO = Warrant Officers 

ENLISTED PERSONNEL 

Senator COATS. Describe your fiscal year 1996 enlisted drawdown plans including 
which authorities will be used and the numbers you plan to realize from each. 

General CHRISTMAS. The Marine Corps reached its base force of 174,000 at the 
end of fiscal year 1994. Our VSI/SSB funding, which was previously authorized 
through the end of fiscal year 1995 was withdrawn by congressional action. We are 
working on correcting skill imbalances engendered by the drawdown and related 
force structure changes through our Enlisted Career Force Controls Program 
(ECFC). 

This suite of mutually supporting policies is designed to regulate the inventory 
of marines to Marine Corps manpower requirements by skill, grade and year of 
service, while simultaneously providing equitable and timely promotion opportunity. 
We have not conducted enlisted early retirement boards since 1991. The Marine 
Corps did not have the necessary MPMC funding to execute a 15-year retirement 
program. 

Senator COATS. Are the current drawdown authorities adequate to permit an or- 
derly downsizing of the enlisted force? 

General Christmas. This question is not applicable to the Marine Corps because 
we are finished with the drawdown. See the answer to the above question. 

Senator COATS. Describe the demographics of the enlisted force by race and gen- 
der in fiscal year 1991, fiscal year 1994 and projected fiscal year 1999. Describe the 
same demographic categories for the top three enlisted grades. 

General Christmas. Demographics by race and gender: 

Fiscal year 



White: 

Male 

Female 

Total 
Black: 

Male 

Female 

Total 
Hispanic: 

Male 



1991 


1994 


1999 


69.7 


70.3 


68.4 


58.5 


58.2 


53.3 


69.2 


69.8 


67.7 


19.6 


17.0 


16.7 


29.7 


26.6 


28.6 


20.7 


17.7 


17.1 


7.6 


9.1 


10.7 



214 



Fiscal year 
1991 1994 1999 

Female 7.8 10.2 12.5 

Total 7.6 9.2 11.0 

Other: 

Male 3.2 3.5 4.2 

Female 4.0 5.0 5.6 

Total 3.2 3.6 4.2 

Total: 

Male 95.3 95.6 94.0 

Female 4.7 4.4 6.0 

The Marine Corps possesses no specific modeling capability for race and gender 
for planning purposes. The projections contained in these answers represent our 
best estimates based on coalescing the plans of two separate models: minority and 
female accessions. 

Demographics by race and gender of top three grades: 

Fiscal year 
1991 1994 1999 

White: 

Male 69.1 65.0 62.9 

Female 63.8 58.4 57.1 

Total 69.0 64.7 62.7 

Black: 

Male 21.5 24.3 24.9 

Female 28.0 30.8 31.0 

Total 21.7 24.5 25.1 

Hispanic: 

Male 6.7 7.7 9.0 

Female 6.1 8.3 9.3 

Total .-. 6.6 7.8 9.0 

Other: 

Male 2.7 3.0 3.2 

Female 2.2 2.4 2.6 

Total 2.6 3.0 3.2 

Total: 

Male 97.3 96.0 94.0 

Female 2.7 4.0 6.0 

Senator COATS. Are you employing a "tiered manning" strategy? If so describe 
your plans and the readiness impact of such a plan. 

General Christmas. No. We do not employ a tiered manning strategy. The Marine 
Corps is the Nations' Force In Readiness, as such, we man our force to the Defense 
Planning Guidance level of 90 percent of authorized structure. 

Senator Coats. How do you define PERSTEMPO? What is your PERSTEMPO 
plan? What is the actual experience? What type of deployments/time away from 
home station are included in the PERSTEMPO calculation?. 

General CHRISTMAS. PERSTEMPO — The percentage of time in a given annual 
period that an individual supports operations or training away from his or her bar- 
racks, home base or station for a period of time greater than 24 hours; to include 
unaccompanied Fleet Marine Force (FMF) duty assignments and Temporary Addi- 
tional Duty (TAD). The Marine Corps does not routinely track personnel tempo. 

However, to capture that activity — deployment time and time away from home — 
which has the greatest impact upon naval expeditionary forces, DEPTEMPO is the 
measure we use. 



215 

DEPTEMPO is defined as the percentage of time in a given annual period that 
a unit, or element of the unit, supports operations or training away from its home 
base or station for a period greater than or equal to 10 consecutive days. 

Because we are expeditionary, and forward deployed year round, the amount of 
time our battalions, squadrons, and detachments spend at sea and in the field is 
an indicator of unit and community activity. Those deploying battalions, squadrons, 
and detachments are considered the base units in measuring the amount of de- 

gloyed time. Maintaining an end strength of 174,000 active force enables the Marine 
orps to conduct essential peacetime operations and meet CRC warfighting require- 
ments while preserving DEPTEMPO below 50 percent. 

DEPTEMPO is driven by operational commitments. On average, infantry battal- 
ions, and the elements that support them, are deployed approximately 4 to 6 months 
a year. These rates reflect deployments for training and scheduled world wide for- 
ward presence missions. Unanticipated operational commitments (i.e. Haiti, Cuba, 
Persian Gulf and Bosnia) cause unscheduled deployments, extend scheduled deploy- 
ments, and disrupt training cycles. 

We cannot forecast how future contingency operations will affect our DEPTEMPO. 
However, the recent level of unplanned operational deployments have increased the 
DEPTEMPO of units in all of the FMF (ground combat, aviation combat, and com- 
bat service support forces). Although some units and communities have experienced 
higher than normal deployment rates, we feel that, Marine Corps wide, current 
rates are manageable within service personnel and assignment policies. 

ASSIGNMENT OF WOMEN 

Senator Coats. What are the tangible readiness impacts of the expanded opportu- 
nities for the assignment of women? What are the other, less tangible, impacts? 

General CHRISTMAS. It is too soon to measure the effectiveness or impact of these 
policy changes. Full implementation of our revised policies will take several years 
as women marines are accessed and distributed into the newly opened MOSs and 
positions. We believe the expansion of women's opportunities will allow us to make 
better use of our most valuable resources — people. 

— Less tangible are the positive impacts on overall fairness in assignment to 
hardship duties and career opportunity. 

— We should soon begin to see benefits in the area of reducing personnel tempo, 
or the amount of time a marine is away from his family and home station. For ex- 
ample, as our implementation plans proceed, women will become full members of 
our aviation community — some of our highest personnel tempo is experienced by our 
aviation community — and be assigned to our forward deployed forces. Women will 
now share the burden of personnel tempo in newly opened occupations along with 
their male counterparts. 

— Opening 48,000 Jobs or women allows more opportunity for women to move 
into the top positions of enlisted and officer leadership. 

— Better use of resources and ensured fairness are measures that improve readi- 
ness. 

Senator Coats. Have you integrated initial recruit training? What changes were 
required to accommodate co-ed initial training? 

General CHRISTMAS. No. Marine Corps recruit training is conducted in a gender 
segregated environment. Some events are conducted concurrently, in a gender inte- 
grated fashion, i.e., the rifle range, combat water survival, and fast rope/rappelling. 

Officer training and education at The Basic School (TBS) and Officer Candidates 
School (OCS), as guided by their Program of Instruction (POI), is conducted in a 
gender neutral environment except wnere precluded by privacy considerations or 
gender differences in physical stature and abilities. Both male and female officers 
at TBS execute the same POI without exception, however, they are evaluated on dif- 
ferent criteria primarily based on physiological differences. 

Senator COATS. When the co-ed initial training experiment was conducted pre- 
viously there were noticeable reductions in cohesion among the trainees. What is 
your current experience? Are you using the same measures that were used in the 
earlier experiment to ensure valid comparison? 

General CHRISTMAS. This question should be directed to the Army. The Marine 
Corps has not experimented with co-ed initial training. 

Senator COATS. Have the standards for any specialty opened to the assignment 
of females been modified to accommodate females? If so, explain. 

General CHRISTMAS. No, the standards for the newly opened specialties are the 
same for both males and females. 

Senator COATS. What plans do you have to further expand the opportunities for 
the assignment of women? 



216 

General CHRISTMAS. In addition to our accession plans, women, currently in the 
Marine Corps, will have the opportunity to voluntarily migrate into the newly 
opened MOSs and units consistent with our existing methods of assignment. As we 
gain experience with the implementation of our most recent changes in the assign- 
ment of women, we will continue to review and refine our policies appropriately. 

Senator Coats. What costs are attributable to the expansion of the opportunities 
for the assignment of women? 

General CHRISTMAS. An additional investment will be made in our advertising 
program to inform women of expanding opportunities; by fiscal year 1997, we will 
spend $1.8 million more than we did in fiscal year 1994, with additional funds chan- 
neled to print and television advertisements that target high-quality women can- 
didates. We will also begin a direct mailout program to potential female applicants. 

Senator COATS. Describe the current policy concerning assignment and 
deployability of female service members when they are pregnant. 

General CHRISTMAS. Marine corps jpolicy is that pregnancy and parenthood are 
considered compatible with a Marine Corps career. 

— Pregnant marines will not participate in contingency operations nor will they 
deploy for operations aboard naval vessels. 

— A marine who becomes pregnant during deployment aboard ship will, at first 
opportunity, be sent TAD to the closest U.S. military facility that can provide OB/ 
GiN care and returned to her unit's home base at the earliest opportunity via a 
medically authorized mode of transportation. 

— Commanding officers may deploy pregnant marines, in conjunction with advice 
from their medical officers, when the mode of transportation does not involve trans- 
port aboard naval vessels and the deployment is other than a contingency operation. 

— Pregnant marines will not be ordered to dependents-restricted or unaccom- 
panied tours. 

— Assignment to an overseas tour will be deferred for 4 months from the birth 
of a child to a marine mother when the marine is directed to a dependents-restricted 
tour or an accompanied tour where concurrent travel of the child is denied. The ma- 
rine may waive deferment if desired. 

— Because of the hazards of flight, pregnant aviators or flight personnel shall 
consult with their flight surgeon when they first suspect they are pregnant. Aviators 
or flight personnel are grounded during pregnancy unless a medical clearance to 
continue flight status is granted by CMC(ASM) based on recommendations by ap- 
propriate medical authority. Waivers are not permitted for single-piloted aircraft, 
ejection seat aircraft, high performance aircraft that will operate in excess of 2g's, 
and aircraft involved in shipDoard operations. 

Senator COATS. There have been a number of articles in the press recently con- 
cerning the sleeping arrangements of men and women deployed to Haiti and other 
areas. What is the Marine Corps policy on men and women and/or officers and en- 
listed personnel living in the same tents? At what command level is the policy es- 
tablished? What is the impact on berthing on ships? 

General CHRISTMAS. CMC has published policies regarding appropriate security 
and privacy arrangements for women deployed aboard amphibious ships. 

— For shipboard environments, acceptable berthing allows for appropriate secu- 
rity and privacy. This is defined as a self-contained berthing area with adequate us- 
able head and shower facilities that do not require transit through male berthing 
spaces to gain access. Under no circumstances will male and female marines be 
berthed in the same compartment. (ALMMR 192/94) 

— The Marine Corps has coordinated our long-term requirements for appropriate 
female berthing aboard amphibious ships with the Navy. Our long-term plan dove- 
tails with the Navy's schedule for converting berthing on LSD (Whidbey Island 
Class), LHD/LHA, and CVN class ships over the next several years. 

— Commanding officers apply the same guidance on appropriate privacy and se- 
curity arrangements, tailored with common sense to meet the specific situation, for 
field operations. Accordingly, male and female marines will not be billeted in the 
same tents under normal circumstances. 

— Regarding officer and enlisted billeting, normally officer and enlisted marines 
are billeted separately in garrison environments and at sea. During field or tactical 
operations, officers and enlisted marines often occupy the same tent, fighting posi- 
tion, bunker, etc., applying common sense to meet the specific situation. 

JOINT DUTY 

Senator COATS. Regarding active duty line promotion boards to the grade of briga- 
dier general and rear admiral (lower half) convened in fiscal years 1992, 1993, 1994, 
and 1995, please provide to the subcommittee, (1) the number of individuals rec- 



217 

ommended for promotion by each board; (2) the number of individuals granted "joint 
equivalent" waivers for the requirement to have served in a joint assignment prior 
to promotion to brigadier general or rear admiral (lower half); and (3) a listing of 
those assignments for which "joint equivalent" waivers were granted. 

General CHRISTMAS. (1) Number of individuals recommended for promotion to 
brigadier general: 

Fiscal year 1992- 11. 

Fiscal year 1993 - 14. 

Fiscal year 1994 - 15. 

Fiscal year 1995 - 14. 

(2) Number of individuals granted "joint equivalent" waivers: 

Fiscal year 1992 - 2 (GOS waivers - 4, serving in joint billet - 1, total waivers 
-7). 

Fiscal year 1993 - 5 (GOS waivers - 1, total waivers - 6). 

Fiscal year 1994 - 2 (GOS waivers - 3, serving in joint billet - 1, total waivers 
-6). 

Fiscal year 1995 - 2 (GOS waivers - 5, total waivers - 7). 

(3) Assignments for which "joint equivalent" waivers were granted: 

Fiscal year 1992 - Plans Officer, Naval Flag Allowance Staff 2d Amphibious 
Group; Plans Officer, PP&O & Vietnam marine Advisor, HQMC. 

Fiscal year 1993 - Plans Officer, AVN, HQMC; Plans Officer/Training Officer, In- 
donesia; Aide-de-camp to CG, JRDTF; Plans Officer, Joint Strategic Branch, PP&O, 
HQMC; Plans and Ops Officer, FMF EUR. 

Fiscal year 1994 -Plans Officer, PP&O, HQMC; Senate Liason Officer. 

Fiscal year 1995 - Astronaunt, NASA; Plans & Ops Officer, PP&O, HQMC. 

JOINT EDUCATION 

Senator COATS. Under what conditions, other than in-residence instruction at a 
service or joint intermediate or top level school, may an active duty service member 
be awarded credit for Joint Professional Military Education (JPME)? (Please provide 
a copy of the implementing instructions or regulations forwarding such equivalent 
credit.) 

General Christmas. None. 

Senator Coats. What institutions or programs are authorized to award equiva- 
lency credit for JPME? How and under what standards are these institutions or pro- 
grams accredited to award such equivalency credit? 

General CHRISTMAS. None. Resident attendance at Intermediate Level School 
(ILS) or Top Level School (TLS) is the only way marines can earn JPME credit. 

CIVILIAN PERSONNEL 

Senator COATS. To what extent were more substantive factors such as the civilian 
contribution to military readiness: force structure changes; and civilian work load 
changes considered in assessing the wisdom of increasing and accelerating the civil- 
ian work force reductions? 

General CHRISTMAS. Our civilian employees are an integral part of the Marine 
Corps' Total Force. We believe our civilians are at an irreducible level. When com- 
pared to the rest of the Department of Defense our ratio of civilian employees to 
military is approximately 1:10 vice 1:2 of the other services. In consideration of the 
factors noted in the question, our civilian reductions have neither been increased 
nor accelerated. Our force, both active and civilian remains stable. 

Senator Coats. To what extent, if any, are the Departments and agencies author- 
ized to time their civilian work force reductions to reflect their specificity in terms 
of force structure changes and workload? 

General CHRISTMAS. This is not applicable to the Marine Corps since our civilian 
structure profile in the outyears does not reflect significant reductions. 

Senator Coats. The administration's report: "Cutting Red Tape - Creating a Gov- 
ernment That Work Better and Costs Less'' in referring to "Full Time Equivalents" 
(FTEs) provides that "The President should direct OMB and agency heads to stop 
setting FTE ceiling in fiscal year 1995." 

General CHRISTMAS. Concur that the President should direct OMB and agency 
heads to stop setting FTE ceilings in fiscal year 1995. This act was primarily di- 
rected at the civilian agencies, not DOD. The Intent was to cap the size of the Fed- 
eral bureaucracy. Because DOD was already in the midst of major downsizing, this 
act was not needed in DOD. FTE puts ceilings and controls on civilian structure 
above and beyond budget restraints. This greatly limits our ability to quickly adjust 
to and meet critical, unprogrammed, requirements of our operating forces. 



218 

Information Paper 
civilianization of military positions and borrowed military manpower 

Senator Coats. Initiatives, if any, to civilianize military positions that do not re- 
quire uniformed military personnel. 

General CHRISTMAS. The Deputy Under Secretary of Defense (Requirements and 
Resources), in a memorandum of November 30, 1994, tasked the services to review 
their military structure for potential candidates for conversion to civilian personnel. 
In response to the tasking, a review was conducted and it was concluded that the 
Marine Corps had no candidates for conversion. This determination was made using 
the following rationale: 

a. Further conversion of military billets to -civilian may threaten our already di- 
minished military end strength (ES) authorizations. Based on the Bottom-Up Re- 
view, the Marine Corps has a minimum Active and Reserve ES requirement of 
174,000 and 42,000 respectively. This structure is necessary to support our portion 
of the National Military Strategy. We cannot afford any reduction below our present 
budgeted authorizations. The subject proposal contains no safeguards to prevent 
such reductions. 

b. Additional conversions will negatively affect our already lean rotational base as- 
signments. Continuous monitoring of efficiency initiatives has resulted in many mili- 
tary billets previously being converted to civilian; e.g., Food Service, Base Mainte- 
nance, and Morale, Welfare, and Recreation. Our operating forces are already com- 
mitted to a high operational tempo and require rotational base assignments for peri- 
odic relief. We must ensure an adequate ratio of Fleet Marine Force billets to non 
Fleet Marine Force billets and are concerned that additional elimination of military 
billets outside the Fleet Marine Force would upset this balance. 

c. Easily identifiable billets have already been converted. If directed to find addi- 
tional conversion candidates, the Marine Corps would need from 8-18 months to 
perform a valid manpower requirements determination study. We have already con- 
verted the easily identifiable billets. 

Point of contact is Ms. Sinkler, ext. 4-5695. 

MANAGEMENT BY FULL TIME EQUIVALENTS 

Senator COATS. What role do FTE ceilings play in the Department's management 
of the civilian workforce? Do you believe that management by end strength or by 
FTEs — as opposed to managing and budgeting by ceilings on operating costs — is ap- 
propriate for managing the civilian work force of the Department of Defense as a 
whole? For managing the civilian work force in the Military Departments? For man- 
aging the civilian work force in the individual agencies within the Department of 
Defense? 

General CHRISTMAS. Managing and budgeting by ceilings on operating costs, vice 
by end strength (ES) or FTE, is more appropriate. It encourages the establishment 
of the most efficient and effective civilian workforce whether the function is per- 
formed in-house or contract. With ES and FTE ceilings the flexibility to create new 
f>ositions in-house, even if a cost analysis supports it being able to be performed at 
ess cost, is restricted. 

Under the new law all flexibility previously afforded under Manage-to-Payroll has 
been eliminated and the new law fails to provide any provision for emergency 
unprogrammed requirements. This poses a significant hardship upon the Marine 
Corps "at a time when our military structure is stabilized. Additionally, it forces us 
to turn away valid work load requirements for which funding is available. 

Senator COATS. In the fall of 1994, the Department of Defense announced an in- 
crease and an acceleration in the planned civilian work force reductions. There is 
a widespread perception that this decision was based on the need to generate sav- 
ings to pay for other programs or to force the civilian work reductions when ex- 
pressed as a percentage to match the percentage of military force reductions. 

General CHRISTMAS. The Marine Corps is not programmed to experience the same 
civilian work reductions as the other services and agencies. During the Bottom-Up 
Review it was decided the Marine Corps has a minimum Active, Reserve, and civil- 
ian end strength requirement of 174,000, 42,000, and 18,000 respectively. This 
structure is currently authorized in the budget and remains constant in the out- 
years. 

With the stabilization of our military structure, the need to maintain sufficient 
civilian structure within our supporting establishment becomes critical. It is agreed 
any increase or acceleration to planned reductions should be directly related to de- 



219 

creased functions and not to generate savings or match the percentage of military 
force reductions. 



[Questions for the record with answers supplied follow:] 
Questions Submitted by Senator Dan Coats 
recruiting 

Senator COATS. Mr. Pang, your responses to our questions concerning the impact 
of the National Voter Registration Act say that DOD does not have sufficient data 
to assess the costs and manhours required for voter registration. What are your 
emerging results? How about each of the uniformed personnel chiefs, what can you 
tell us based on available information? 

Mr. Pang. We currently lack evidence that would clearly define costs and man- 
hour requirements. However, first-quarter results of the impact of the National 
Voter Registration Act on military recruiting are expected soon from the military 
services, and we will carefully evaluate their impact on the recruiting mission. Pre- 
liminary information indicates that considerable effort is being expended by military 
recruiters in implementing the voter registration program. 

Admiral Bowman. DOD recently initiated a new quarterly report which addresses 
the question you just asked. The first report is due to DOD not later than April 17, 
1995. Preliminary information from the recruiting stations indicates that except for 
the initial training, the implementation of the National Voter Registration Act has 
had minimal impact on the field recruiters. As we gather these results from the 
field, the main concern of the Navy is the recurring costs associated with postage 
and the purchase of forms through DOD/Navy supply system. 

General CHRISTMAS. The Marine Corps and other services are now facing one of 
the most challenging recruiting environments since the inception of the All Volun- 
teer Force. Requiring recruiters to serve actively as voter registrars places an addi- 
tional administrative burden on the recruiting service at a time when we are strug- 
f;ling to alleviate many of the impediments they must currently deal with. Results 
rom the 1994 DOD Recruiter Survey, completed before the initial implementation 
of the NVRA, clearly demonstrate that recruiters and their families are making tre- 
mendous sacrifices. The survey's result are the most disturbing since the survey 
began in 1989 and include some of the following statistics: 

— 79 percent of Marine recruiters work more than 60 hours per week. 

— Recruiting demands prevented two-thirds of Marine recruiters from taking 
leave 

— 62 percent of recruiters feel that paperwork interferes with their ability to 
make their recruiting goals. 

The duties imposed dv the NVRA are well understood. They include distributing 
the forms as part of each interview, assisting with completion of the forms, promptly 
transmitting the forms to State officials, ordering and maintaining supplies, main- 
taining files and statistical data, preparing and submitting reports, and resolution 
of questions. 

We do know that based on an informal survey, the emerging results for the second 
quarter of fiscal year 1995 indicate that the NVRA has, on an average, increased 
the typical recruiter's workload by 1 hour per week. While this may not seem like 
considerable added burden, it is important to recognize that this represents 1 hour 
less a recruiter can devote to recruiting, or his family. Further, and of even greater 
significance, publicity regarding the NVRA has been virtually non-existent. Once 
the public has been made aware of opportunities for voter registration at recruiting 
offices, we expect the NVRA workload to increase considerably. 

General STROUP. During the time period of January 1, 1995 through March 31, 
1995, the total number of voter Registration Applications mailed was 832. The total 
number of Voter Registration Information forms completed was 1,168. The total for 
persons assisted for recruiting was 8,797. Seventy -eight percent of the applicants 
were already registered, too young, or refused to participate. 

A total of 1,362 man hours were expended in assisting people seeking voter reg- 
istration, forms management, and data collection. 

A total of $563.39 was expended for postage. 

The Station Commander has the primary responsibility for the National Voter 
Registration Act. He also has the responsibility to train, evaluate, counsel, motivate, 
manage and supervise his recruiters. While 1,362 man hours spent may seem a 
small amount oi time, the program has just begun, and will in all probability take 
up more man hours as awareness grows. This means more time for the Station 



220 

Commander to lose on his critical tasks mentioned above, which translates to re- 
cruiter needs being neglected. 

OFFICER MANAGEMENT 

Senator COATS. General Stroup, I read that you promoted about 260 officers to 
Captain earlier than allowed by law. How did this happen? What have you done to 
ensure it does not happen again? Did you notify the committee when you discovered 
the error? 

General Stroup. Our success at reducing the pin-on-point to Captain to 4 years 
caused us to collide with the provisions of Title 10 requiring that First Lieutenants 
complete 2 years in grade before pinning on. We erroneously promoted 93 officers 
in January who should not have pinned on until February 1, and 176 officers in 
February who should not have pinned on until March 1. For the past several years, 
time in grade as a First Lieutenant had not been a factor in determining the num- 
ber of officers to promote each month because the pin-on-point averaged 4 years and 
4 months. This list was sequenced to bring the pin-on-point down to 4 years; the 
erroneous promotions were an unforeseen consequence of our success in driving 
down the pin-on-point. Time in grade is now unfailingly verified to ensure erroneous 
promotions will not be repeated. 

Because these promotions contravened the statutory requirements, they were 
void. We subsequently amended the affected officers' promotion orders to reflect the 
correct promotion date. Fortunately, since these officers occupied the higher grade 
in good faith, they were able to retain the pay, allowances, and benefits with no 
recoupment by the Army. I saw no requirement to notify the committee of the erro- 
neous promotions since, by law, the promotions were void and our error in promot- 
ing the officers was rectified by amending their promotion orders. 

Senator COATS. General Boles, the complaints we receive about the irregularities 
in the Air Force officer promotion system center on several recurring problems all 
of which revolve around improper preparation of the Promotion Recommendation 
Form. The sheer number of complaints indicates that the officer corps believes there 
is something wrong. Perception of a problem is normally sufficient reason to address 
the problem. Do you have any plans to change the promotion system to address the 
perceived irregularities? How do you plan to deal with the erosion of confidence in 
the officer promotion system? 

General BOLES. I wholeheartedly agree that if the officer corps, the Congress, or 
the public perceives there's a problem, then there is a problem. We must address 
both perceptions and problems equally in an open, honest, and forthright manner. 
As you have stated, the majority of the complaints we have seen are related to the 
Promotion Recommendation Form component of our evaluation system, and fall into 
one of three areas: mini-boards, the consideration of improper information, and non- 
standard practices among commands. We have engaged in an aggressive publicity 
campaign aimed at ensuring senior raters understand and comply with the rules. 
We have asked the IG to investigate all allegations and, in those cases where we 
have confirmed an impropriety, we have taken swift action to ensure affected offi- 
cers are treated fairly. As for the issue of erosion of confidence in the system, that 
was the number one driver behind General Fairfield's Review Group. We knew we 
needed to review our processes and make adjustments where necessary. General 
Fairfield has concluded his review and we have already implemented many of the 
recommendations. We are staffing others and we plan to make all changes in time 
for the fall board cycle. Among the areas that General Fairfield's review targeted 
was the lack of continuing education for officers and evaluators as key to the evolv- 
ing misunderstandings and misperceptions of our evaluation and promotion sys- 
tems. Of the evaluators who did not follow the rules, for the most part, investiga- 
tions have revealed their actions were not deliberate. Rather, their motivation was 
to provide the central selection board with the best assessment of the potential of 
their officers. 

Related to this is the need to do a better job of explaining to the officer corps that 
not everyone can be or will be promoted to every grade. The Defense Officer Person- 
nel Management Act (DOPMA) provides for an up-or-out system which if working 
right will, of necessity, result in passover for promotion of officers who are fully 
qualified to serve in the next-higher grade. This is because the function of the up- 
or-out system is to provide at each grade more officers who are qualified to serve 
in the next grade than the billets require. This situation allows us to pick the best 
from a selection of fully qualified officers. Said another way, it is inevitable that 
very capable officers are going to be passed over for promotion. We must explain 
this concept to every second lieutenant — that 10 out of every 100 officers who enter 
the Air Force with their year group will ultimately be selected to the grade of colo- 



221 

nel. Or more pointedly, that only 8 of every 10 captains will be promoted to major; 
7 of every 10 majors to lieutenant colonel and 5 out of 10 lieutenant colonels to colo- 
nel. Our officers deserve to have the "straight word" on their chances for promotion 
and that responsibility rests with senior leadership. 

CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 

Senator COATS. General Boles, as we examine the complaints of irregularities in 
the Air Force promotion system, a parallel issue has surfaced. Many of the officers 
who talk to us have applied to the Air Force Board for Correction of Military 
Records. The responses and actions of the Board are strikingly similar, down to the 
wording of the replies. Much like promotion boards, integrity and the confidence of 
the force are critical to an effective Board for Correction of Military Records. Is the 
Air Force Board for Correction of Military Records an independent body with the 
authority to render decisions based solely on the facts represented to them? How 
do you restore the confidence of those in the field? 

General BOLES. Since a number of these officers are raising similar allegations 
of legal/systemic errors and or injustices in the officer promotion/evaluation systems 
and the Board has found no merit in these allegations, it is not surprising that the 
responses and actions of the Board would be strikingly similar, down to the wording 
of the replies. Given the similarities of the issues raised, inconsistency in actions 
and replies by the Board would be a matter of utmost concern. Although these offi- 
cers seem to believe otherwise, there are no rules or guidelines that obligate the 
Board to arrive at any given decision. To the contrary, the Board has a statutory 
mandate to carefully consider all issues properly brought before it and arrive at a 
decision based on its collective assessment of the total weight of the evidence sub- 
mitted and of record. It may accept an unfavorable recommendation from the Air 
Staff and adopt its rationale as the basis for the decision. On the other hand, the 
Board may reject a favorable recommendation from the Air Staff and deny the appli- 
cation. More often than not, however, the Board approves favorable recommenda- 
tions from the Air Staff. The Board also grants approximately 20 percent of the 
cases where the Air Staff recommends denial. Recent figures from the Defense Fi- 
nance and Accounting Service (DFAS) also reflect that for calendar years 1993 and 
1994, that agency settled 1,675 claims arising from the correction of records at a 
cost of $5,249,346.56. Since the officers in question have most likely been turned 
down by the Board, unless relief is summarily granted, it is doubtful that their con- 
fidence in the correction of records process can be restored. It might be helpful to 
reemphasize to those individuals that if their cases were denied because of timeli- 
ness, the Board also reviewed the merits of their cases. 10 USC 1552(b) permits the 
Board to waive timeliness if it is ". . . in the interest of justice." Consequently, the 
Board reviews the merits of untimely applications and, if found to be meritorious, 
waives timeliness in the interest of justice. Thus, their original submissions did not 
persuade the Board that the lack of timeliness should be waived and, in the exercise 
of its discretionary authority, the Board denied their cases as untimely. 

In any event, because of the figures provided by the DFAS, however, it is self- 
evident that an individual can submit a meritorious application to the Board and 
expect a full and fair consideration. 

HOUSING SURVEY 

Senator COATS. General Boles, let me ask some final questions. Even though 
housing is not under your direct purview, you do surveys with enlisted and officer 
personnel, as well as, I assume, the spouses and families. Where do your surveys 
show in brief — I do not need the numbers, just roughly. Where does housing — con- 
cerns about current housing conditions, were does that fall in terms of lists of uni- 
formed personnel concerns? 

General BOLES. In an Air Force-Wide Climate Survey last summer, officer and en- 
listed personnel rated their level of satisfaction with the availability of base hous- 
ing. About a third of our personnel (30 percent officers; 34 percent enlisted) said 
they were satisfied with the availability of base housing. More enlisted members (34 
percent) than officers (29 percent) said they were dissatisfied with the availability 
of base housing. Enlisted personnel in the grades of Sergeant to Technical Sergeant 
were the most dissatisfied (38 percent). In relation to 19 other Air Force factors, 
e.g., pay and allowances, promotion opportunity, base of assignment, availability of 
medical care, etc., personnel dissatisfaction with the availability of base housing 
ranked number six for both officers and enlisted personnel. 

We are currently conducting a survey that includes a number of specific housing 
questions. For example, we are asking members if where they live (on or off base) 
affects morale and satisfaction with the Air Force, what housing attributes, e.g., 



90-165 96-8 



222 

size, location, storage, number of bedrooms, etc., are most important, level of satis- 
faction with those attributes, and what factors drive one's preference to live on or 
off base. 

We will provide you information on the housing portion of the survey, for the 
record, as soon as it is available. 



Questions Submitted by Senator John McCain 

Senator McCain. Secretary Pang, in the National Defense Authorization Act for 
fiscal year 1994 there was a provision that directed the Secretary of Defense to con- 
duct a test program to determine the efficiency and cost-effectiveness of using pri- 
vate preparatory schools as an alternative to the military Service Academy Pre- 
paratory School program. Secretary Pang, has the private prep school test been 
started yet? 

Mr. Pang. We plan to contract with private educational institutions to conduct the 
test. Our study plan was briefed to committee staff early this year. The contract 
should be awarded in June 1995, and the test itself will begin during Academic Year 
1995-1996. 

Senator McCain. Secretary Pang, when did the President sign the 1994 Defense 
bill into law? 

Mr. Pang. November 30, 1993. 

Senator McCain. Secretary Pang, why has it taken so long to get this test off the 
ground? 

Mr. Pang. Following enactment, we could not complete a test plan and contract 
statement of work and implement all acquisition requirements in time for the test 
to commence during academic year 1994—1995. In his letter of January 19, 1994, 
Secretary Dorn reported these circumstances to the committee. 

Senator McCain. Secretary Pang, it is my understanding that the Service Acad- 
emy Prep Schools are determined to cut costs and have demonstrated great savings 
to the Department on their own without congressional or DOD interference. For ex- 
ample: would you comment on some of the cost-saving programs underway, such as 
the lowering of pay for Service Academy Prep school students to the same level as 
cadet and midshipman pay, which has reduced costs in half? 

Mr. Pang. The adjustment to pay that you cite was extremely important, as was 
the adjustment to class size to more closely align the number of graduates with 
service academy vacancies. Each prep school continues to pursue greater efficiencies 
that promise further improvements, but probably not of the magnitude achieved by 
the adjustments to class size and student compensation. 

Senator McCain. Secretary Pang, what about other cost saving measures such as 
lowering the enrollment at the Service Academy Preparatory Schools and the great- 
er practice of sharing of resources such as older textbooks, computers, and the like. 
Also, the co-location of schools like at the Air Force Academy has produced some 
savings hasn't it? 

Mr. Pang. Yes. All of the initiatives you mention generate savings. 

Senator McCain. According to a memorandum which you sent the services in De- 
cember 1994, I believe that you determined that the test program would cost three 
quarters of a million dollars to send about 60 students to the private preparatory 
schools. Where did this money come from? Will this money have a detrimental effect 
on readiness or was this money not needed by the services? 

Mr. Pang. Our estimated tuition costs for the initial year would be about 
$220,000 per military department, for a total of $660,000. The services advise that 
these funds come from in-service education and administration accounts. No service 
reported any measurable impact on unit readiness as a consequence of our efforts 
to fund this congressionally-directed test. 

Senator McCain. Secretary Pang, is this $3/4 million test program still necessary 
given the services' strong determination to find real savings from within for these 

Erograms — as it is my understanding that Service Academy Prep School costs have 
een cut in half over the past 2 years when the DOD test program should have com- 
menced? Secretary Pang, have we not already met the objective of the test pro- 
S r am — if the answer is yes, then why doesn't the Department recommend to the 
ongress to cancel the test program instead of applying yet another unfunded man- 
date? 

Mr. Pang. The Department is complying with the direction of Congress in con- 
ducting this test, but would not oppose repeal of the requirement. 

Senator McCain. Secretary Pang, are we not experimenting with kids when the 
Service Academy Prep School program is supposed to build prospective candidates 
for the Academies academically, physically, and militarily for the rigors of the Acad- 



223 

emies and I understand that there is no requirement under the proposed test pro- 
gram to provide the military or physical training required for success at the acad- 



emies? 

Mr. Pang. Our draft statement of work requires availability of physical fitness fa- 
cilities, but does not require a specific physical training program, nor does it require 
military training. Either restriction could have limited the number of proposals. 
However, the availability of such programs could be considered by the rating panel 
as it reviews the proposals. That panel includes representatives of all the military 
departments and each of the service academies. 

Senator McCain. Secretary Pang, have you determined what cost will be associ- 
ated in respect to the Academies administering the various test programs around 
the various sites? 

Mr. Pang. Those cost estimates have not been finalized by the military depart- 
ments. They will depend on the number of schools participating and their geographi- 
cal locations. 

Senator McCain. Secretary Pang, what safeguards have you put in the proposed 
test program to continue with the goal of providing the same quality of graduates 
who are minority and enlisted as that graduate from the Service Academy Prep 
Schools where 55 percent of the African American Academy graduates are Service 
Academy Prep School students? 

Mr. Pang. Those selected for attendance at private-sector schools will mirror the 
demographics and general aptitudes of their DOD-school counterparts. Their aca- 
demic improvement during the prep experience will be directly related to the quality 
of the education they receive; therefore, the joint rating panel will exercise great 
care in evaluating and "scoring" proposals. 



Questions Submitted by Senator Robert C. Byrd 

Senator BYRD. Recently, the Washington Post reported that nearly 75 percent of 
the civilian work force reductions during fiscal year 1994 came from the Department 
of Defense and that figure was expected to increase to 95 percent during fiscal year 
1995. Do you believe that the level of the reductions in civilian personnel already 
executed or planned for execution are of the appropriate magnitude for the Depart- 
ment of Defense? 

Mr. PANG. In general, I believe the actual and planned reductions in the DOD ci- 
vilian work force are appropriate based on the following primary factors: (1) In re- 
cent years, the DOD direct hire civilian work force has comprised between 42 and 
45 percent of executive branch civilian employment (excluding the Postal Service); 
(2) Few other Federal agencies have seen tneir mission altered as much as the De- 
fense Department, as DOD continues to adjust to a post-Cold War mission; and (3) 
Actual and planned reductions in the DOD budget are driving reductions in DOD 
manpower. 

Senator Byrd. Do you believe these reductions have been appropriately allocated 
among and within the military departments and Defense agencies? 

Mr. Pang. Yes. The Department's strategy for allocating reductions considered a 
number of factors, including but not limited to actual and planned force structure 
changes, actual and planned infrastructure reductions, major DOD-wide streamlin- 
ing initiatives, approved base closure and realignment actions, and outsourcing and 
reinvention opportunities. 

[Whereupon, at 4:36 p.m., the hearing was adjourned.] 



DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION 
FOR APPROPRIATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR 
1996 AND THE FUTURE YEARS DEFENSE 
PROGRAM 



THURSDAY, MARCH 23, 1995 

U.S. Senate, 
Subcommittee on Personnel, 
Committee on Armed Services, 

Washington, DC. 

DOD MEDICAL PROGRAM AND RELATED HEALTH CARE 

ISSUES 

The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 2:01 p.m. in room 
SR-222, Russell Senate Office Building, Senator Daniel R. Coats 
(chairman of the subcommittee) presiding. 

Committee members present: Senators Coats, Thurmond, 
Santorum, Nunn, Kennedy, and Robb. 

Committee staff members present: Richard L. Reynard, staff di- 
rector; George W. Lauffer, deputy staff director. 

Professional staff member present: Charles S. Abell. 

Minority staff member present: Patrick T. Henry, professional 
staff member. 

Staff assistants present: Menge Crawford and Deasy Wagner. 

Committee members' assistants present: Richard F. Schwab, as- 
sistant to Senator Coats; Grayson F. Winterling, assistant to Sen- 
ator Warner; Patty Stolnacker, assistant to Senator Santorum; Ste- 
ven A. Wolfe, assistant to Senator Kennedy; John P. Stevens, as- 
sistant to Senator Glenn; Lisa W. Tuite, assistant to Senator Byrd; 
and Suzanne Dabkowski, assistant to Senator Robb. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR DANIEL R. COATS, 

CHAIRMAN 

Senator Coats. The committee will come to order. The Sub- 
committee on Personnel meets today to receive testimony concern- 
ing the Department of Defense health care programs related to the 
Defense Authorization Request for Fiscal Year 1996. 

This committee has a long history of interest in and oversight of 
military medical readiness in the Department of Defense health 
care system. This is arguably the largest single health care system 
in the United States, with 8.2 million beneficiaries. 

The responsibilities of our witnesses today for the health care 
and well being of our service members, their families, and those 
who have retired after years of dedicated service, are difficult to 

(225) 



226 

fathom. First and foremost, military medical units must be trained, 
equipped, and ready to deploy with the combatant forces anywhere 
in the world. 

In addition to being able to perform the most delicate and com- 
plex medical procedures under austere conditions, these medics, 
nurses, and doctors must ensure that the force maintains a high 
state of personnel readiness so that they can deploy. On top of 
these monumental tasks, we expect these dedicated people to pro- 
vide world class health care to the husbands, wives, and children 
of active service members, and to the retirees and their families. 

When service personnel are surveyed as to the most important 
factors which affect their decision to stay in the military, health 
care is traditionally at the top of the list. Military health care is 
medical readiness. It is also an important quality of life factor. 

I am pleased to report that in the main, we receive excellent re- 
ports about the job you are doing of managing competing priorities 
in light of constrained budgets. However, I think we would all rec- 
ognize there are always improvements to be made and innovative 
new methods to exploit. We look forward to hearing about some of 
those today. 

Before we turn to our witnesses, I want to offer Senator Robb an 
opportunity to make remarks. 

I want to welcome our panel of witnesses here today. Before that, 
let me just state that we have received two requests for statements 
to be incorporated in the record. One is from the American Associa- 
tion of Nurse Anesthetists, and the other is from the National Leg- 
islative Commission of the American Legion. Without objection, we 
will order those printed in the record. 

[The statements referred to follow:] 

Prepared Statement by Kimo Hollingsworth, Assistant Director, National 
Legislative Commission, The American Legion 

Mr. Chairman, The American Legion appreciates this opportunity to express its 
concerns regarding the Fiscal Year 1996 Defense Authorization focusing on medical 
programs and health care issues. Last year, this subcommittee held hearings con- 
cerning health and medical care issues surrounding the growing number of Active 
duty personnel complaining of illnesses they believe resulted from their service dur- 
ing the Persian Gulf War. The American Legion, Persian Gulf veterans and their 
families appreciate this subcommittee's leadership on this sensitive, complex and 
critical issue. 

Last year, DOD finally started its registry for Active duty personnel. Contrary to 
DOD's initial position that only a couple hundred Active duty personnel were experi- 
encing health problems, over 15,600 names now appear on DOD's registry. In fact, 
Active duty personnel have responded faster to DOD s registry than did participants 
of the Department of Veterans' Affairs (VA) Persian Gulf Registry. Unfortunately, 
there are still many service members on active duty who will not come forward for 
a variety of reasons. The American Legion will continue to encourage both veterans 
and Active duty personnel to participate in either VA's or DOD's Registries. 

Recently, The American Legion has been in contact with numerous veterans from 
Great Britain and Canada. Lute the past experiences of Persian Gulf veterans here 
in America, veterans from Canada and Great Britain are having difficulty getting 
recognition from their respective governments. The American Legion would like to 
recommend the possibility of including some of our allied veterans on DOD's Reg- 
istry at medical facilities overseas. The American Legion would encourage DOD or 
the State Department to nudge the Coalition Forces into accepting the responsibility 
of caring for their ill Persian Gulf veterans. 

Mr. Chairman, The American Legion is encouraged by the overall progress on this 
issue. However, much more needs to be accomplished to find a solution to the grow- 
ing number of Persian Gulf veterans who are experiencing health problems. In Jan- 
uary, the National Academy of Sciences, Institute of Medicine (IOM) released the 



227 

first of several reports concerning their findings in regards to health concerns of 
Persian Gulf veterans. Although the report credited VA and DOD with addressing 
health issues concerning Persian Gulf veterans, the report heavily criticized those 
departments for their fragmented reporting, tracking and research efforts. 

The American Legion agrees with much of IOM's report. However, the IOM also 
stated that there is little medical or intelligence evidence to suggest that the ill- 
nesses are a result of chemical or biological warfare agent exposure. The Legion be- 
lieves there is strong evidence available to indicate that many illnesses may be a 
result of chemical or biological warfare agent exposures. Since DOD maintains that 
chemical and biological exposures did not occur and that these types of weapons 
were not present in the theater of operations, military doctors providing health care 
to sick veterans and their families refuse to consider the possibility that personnel 
may have been exposed to these types of agents. Ignoring the possibility that service 
personnel may have been exposed to chemical and biological warfare agents may 
prevent some personnel from receiving proper medical care. The American Legion 
is also confused why one member of the IOM received a classified briefing when 
DOD maintains that there is no classified information surrounding the issue. 

Although DOD maintains that the symptoms experienced by sick veterans are 
commonly represented in the civilian population, VA's Birmingham, Alabama study 
finds that the symptoms of forgetfulness and memory loss are symptoms not readily 
found in the civilian population as a whole. Memory loss or forgetfulness can some- 
times be caused by stress, but it is also a common and distinct symptom found in 
persons exposed to nerve agents. A review of available medical literature on the ef- 
fects of personnel exposed to low levels of chemical warfare agents reveals that the 
problems experienced by Persian Gulf veterans are identical. 

Last year, the Senate Banking Committee under the direction of Senator Riegle 
(D— MI) investigated the possibility that personnel were exposed to chemical and/or 
biological warfare agents. As a result, the committee released three separate re- 
ports. The information contained in these reports reveals that some personnel were 
indeed exposed to chemical warfare agents and that these agents were stockpiled 
in the theatre of operations. The American Legion would strongly suggest that this 
subcommittee read those reports. 

Since the intelligence community maintains that there is no evidence of these 
types of exposures, DOD has made a decision not to explore this issue further. Iron- 
ically, intelligence is the result of a process that begins with the collection of infor- 
mation on the battlefield. Testimony before this committee and other committees, 
as well as other agencies, indicated that chemical alarms and sensors were sounding 
constantly. Many of the alarms sounded directly after overhead explosions. In con- 
junction with the explosions, soldiers were ordered into full protective clothing and 
many experienced sensations that directly parallel chemical exposures. The Joint 
Chiefs oi Staff intelligence section authorized for publication "The History of the 2nd 
Marine Division During Operation Desert Shield /Storm." Interestingly enough, the 
publication discusses the explosion of an Iraqi chemical mine during breaching oper- 
ations that resulted in Marines receiving mustard gas burns. We are also confused 
why DOD would authorize awards for individual soldiers who detected chemicals 
and for chemical injuries, then adamantly deny the presence of chemical agents in 
the theatre of operations. 

The American Legion is also concerned because material safety data sheets 
(MSDS) prepared by the U.S. Army Chemical Research, Development and Engineer- 
ing Center, at Aberdeen Proving Grounds, Maryland indicate that unhealthy nerve 
agent exposure occurs at levels as low as 1/1000 of the amount required to set off 
the M8A1 alarm which was widely employed during the Persian Gulf War. Mr. 
Chairman, this is significant; according to the safety data sheets, prolonged expo- 
sures to these undetectable low levels of nerve agent can cause delayed toxic effects. 

Iraq was also well versed in the toxicity of low level nerve agent exposure. The 
American Legion has obtained a copy of an Iraqi field manual classified "Iraqi Re- 
stricted" which was translated by the Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) as an un- 
classified document entitled "A Course in Nuclear, Biological and Chemical Protec- 
tion." The document specifically states that "these agents have a cumulative effect, 
if small dosages are used repeatedly on a target, the damage can be very severe." 

This information coupled with the confirmed and valid Czech detection; the DIA 
statement made in GAO report number GOAD/PEMD-94-30 about the Czech detec- 
tion "resulting from live agent testing or a possible accident involving chemical 
agents among coalition forces;" veterans' sworn eyewitness testimonies; log entries 
recently released by CENTCOM; available medical literature on low level exposures 
to chemical warfare agents (A Comparative Study of Warfare Gases: Their History, 
Description and Medical Aspects, A U.S. Army Medical Bulletin published in 1923 
by H.L. Gilchrest; Delayed Toxic Effects of Chemical Agents, written in 1975 by Dr. 



228 

Karlheinz Lohs, former Director of Toxicology of the German Democratic Republic's 
Academy of Sciences; as well as studies performed by W. Hellman; W.C. Hueber; 
A. Weiss and others) and the Riegle Reports should make a sound argument to in- 
clude chemical warfare agent exposure in current studies. 

In regards to biological exposures, DOD does not have the technical capabilities, 
on the battlefield, to confirm or deny whether biological exposures occurred. Accord- 
ing to DOD training manuals and GAO reports, there are currently no battlefield 
detectors for biological agents. Military personnel are taught to look for an abun- 
dance of dead animals, absence of insects on the dead animal carcasses and symp- 
toms of illnesses that defy diagnosis and treatments. Every one of these signals was 
present during and after the Persian Gulf War. DOD maintains that the animals 
died of diseases endemic to the Persian Gulf. Mr. Chairman, the microorganism's 
used in biological warfare are also endemic to the Persian Gulf. In light of this infor- 
mation, The American Legion is confused how DOD can rule out possible exposures 
to biological agents. 

To exclude chemical and biological exposures from the government's research ef- 
forts would be a serious mistake and should be aggressively pursued. This is ex- 
tremely important, because U.N. weapons inspection teams are reporting daily how 
extensive Iraq's chemical and biological warfare program really was and how little 
the intelligence community knows about the complexity of Saddam's weapons of 
mass destruction. 

Mr, Chairman, The American Legion is still very much concerned about leishma- 
niasis. A carrier can be asymptomatic and the parasite can remain dormant for 
many years. The disease can be transmitted through a blood transfusion and can 
survive in a blood bank. Presently, The American Legion knows of no known "gold 
standard test" for leishmaniasis and questions whether the decision to lift the blood 
ban on Persian Gulf veterans was safe and responsible. Current medical testing for 
the parasite remains difficult and elusive and therefore needs to be re-examined in 
the government's study. This subcommittee should hear testimony from Dr. A.J. 
Magul, Major, U.S. Army about this disease. He is a leading expert on leishmaniasis 
ana is stationed at Walter Reed Army Medical Center. 

Recently DOD released preliminary results of 1,000 soldiers who have enrolled in 
DOD's Comprehensive Clinical Evaluation Program (CCEP). Dr. Stephen Joseph re- 
cently stated that "only 15 ^percent of the soldiers cannot be diagnosed" and General 
Blanck, the Commanding Officer of Walter Reed Army Medical Center stated that 
"another 25 percent of these soldiers appear to have Chronic Fatigue Syndrome 
(CFS) or similar ailments." Mr. Chairman, The American Legion believes that since 
no one knows what causes CFS, this is not a suitable diagnosis and the percentage 
of unknown diagnosis should be 40 percent. 

Because a large percentage of veterans and soldiers are given a diagnosis of CFS, 
an epidemiological study should fully investigate Mycoplasma Incognitus and recom- 
binants of these mycoplasmas. Dr. Shyh-Ching Lo of the Armed Forces Institute of 
Pathology has done extensive research on mycoplasmas and has reported that pa- 
tients with AIDS, as well as CFS demonstrate a high incidence of this elusive myco- 
plasma. Dr. Garth Nicholson at the University of Texas has reported similar find- 
ings in both CFS patients and Persian Gulf veterans. The American Legion rec- 
ommends that this subcommittee receive testimony from Dr. Lo and Dr. Nicholson 
on their findings and how the mycoplasma relates to CFS. An epidemiological study 
should also include research on Human Herpes Virus Type 6 (HHV6). Neenyah 
Ostrom has done extensive research in this area and we recommend that the sub- 
committee hear testimony from her as well. 

The American Legion is also concerned because the CCEP program is providing 
service personnel with a diagnosis of their symptoms and fails to establish a cause. 
Since the inception of the CCEP, The American Legion has talked with numerous 
service personnel about the care they have received through DOD medical facilities. 
Most ill service personnel indicate that DOD medical doctors are diagnosing their 
symptoms and that the medication and treatments they receive do little to relieve 
or eliminate their medical problems. DOD appears more interested in finding a 
"known diagnosis" instead of addressing the real medical issue of finding a cause. 
Mr. Chairman, when AIDS patients first reported medical problems, the medical 
community provided these patients with a diagnosis of their symptoms and later 
learned that this type of a medical approach was a mistake. The American Legion 
believes that if DOD were to put forth the same efforts in trying to find causes of 
the medical problems, instead of diagnosing the symptoms and attempting to down- 
play the seriousness of these problems, the medical care for sick active duty person- 
nel would be greatly enhanced. 

Mr. Chairman, in May of 1993, Dr. Edward Hyman of New Orleans testified be- 
fore Members of Congress concerning his findings of bacteria and yeast cultures 



229 

found in urine samples of returning veterans. Dr. Hyman stated his belief that the 
bacteria and yeast are the proximate cause of the veterans' health problems and 
that more research is needed to determine how and why these cultures enter the 
urinary tract. In September of 1993, Congress agreed to fund Dr. Hyman's research 
and appropriated $1.2 million toward Dr. Hyman's efforts. The bill was passed by 
Congress and signed by the President of the United States. The American Legion 
is concerned because the Department of the Army at the request of the U.S. Army's 
biological warfare research center in Fort Detrick, Maryland has not yet released 
these funds. 

To ensure Dr. Hyman would not lose his funding, Congress re -appropriated the 
original $1.2 million plus another $2.2 million in 1994. That legislation was also 
passed by Congress and signed by the President of the United States. The American 
Legion recommends that this subcommittee receive a briefing from DOD on their 
decision not to provide these research dollars. The American Legion believes Dr. 
Hyman's research may be an important factor in uncovering answers to health prob- 
lems experienced by Persian Gulf veterans. 

Mr. Chairman, when veterans and their families first began to report their health 
problems, VA and DOD tried to deny that Persian Gulf veterans were ill. Then vet- 
erans were told their medical problems were all due to stress. Recently, veterans 
were told "we know you are sick, we don't know what you have, but you did not 
get it in the Persian Gulf." Now the explanation is "we know you are sick, here is 
what you have and you would have gotten this whether or not you went to the Per- 
sian Gulf." The facts still remain that healthy men and women deployed to the Per- 
sian Gulf War and since their return, their health has deteriorated. Whether veter- 
ans incurred injury or aggravated an existing condition, this Nation has an obliga- 
tion to make them "whole." The American Legion would like to ask the subcommit- 
tee to consider future hearings that focus on veterans' testimonies in regards to the 
medical care and treatment they receive through DOD's CCEP, VA's Persian Gulf 
Registry and civilian health care providers. 

Mr. Chairman and Members of the subcommittee, this concludes my testimony. 
Thank you. 



Prepared Statement by the American Association of Nurse Anesthetists 

The American Association of Nurse Anesthetists (AANA) is the professional asso- 
ciation that represents over 26,000 certified registered nurse anesthetists (CRNAs), 
which is 96 percent of the nurse anesthetists in the United States. The AANA ap- 
preciates the opportunity to provide testimony regarding the shortage of CRNAs in 
the military and to make recommendations regarding ways to recruit and retain 
CRNAs within the military. We would also like to thank this committee for the help 
it has given us in trying to assist the Department of Defense (DOD) and each of 
the services to recruit and retain CRNAs. Our testimony will address the following 
issues: manpower, pay, and education. 

MANPOWER 

Current Status of CRN A Force Nationally 

The shortage of CRNAs in the military is affected by the overall shortage of 
CRNAs throughout the United States. As reported in a 1990 Health Economics Re- 
search CRNA manpower study which was mandated by the congressional appropria- 
tions committees, there was a national shortage of 6,000 CRNAs for 1990, or a 13.6 
percent shortfall. It further reported the need for 30,000 CRNAs by the year 2000, 
and over 35,000 CRNAs by the year 2010. While the number of CRNA graduates 
has increased in the past 2 years, it is still not enough to meet the demand. 

Current Status of CRNA Force in the DOD 

In all the services, maintaining adequate numbers of active duty CRNAs is of ut- 
most concern. Current statistics compiled by the military for fiscal year 1994 indi- 
cate a continuing CRNA shortage in the military, particularly in the Army and Air 
Force. The table below shows fiscal year 1994 CRNA (Active component) end 
strengths by service. Adjustments to the end strength requirements have been made 
by the services to reflect the change to a peace-time readiness structure and base 
closures. 



230 



NURSE CORP (CRNAs), FISCAL YEAR 1994 END STRENGTH 
[Active Component] 

Service REQ AUTH INV DELTA 

Army 352 273 213 (-60) 

Navy 170 143 126 (-17) 

Air Force 263 263 197 (-66) 

DOD 785 679 536 (-143) 

REQ (Requirements) = Programmed End Strength 
AUTH (Authorizations) = Budgeted End Strength 
INV (Inventory) = Actual End Strength 
DELTA = Authorizations minus Inventory 

Fiscal year 1993 data from the services showing the mean years of service for 
CRNAs in their respective grades indicates a lack of distribution throughout the 
grades. With the mean so close to the 20 year point, the severity of the shortage 
is likely to increase as further retirements occur. This points to both a recruitment 
and retention problem. DOD reports that military nurses generally attend anesthe- 
sia school between their 4th and 8th years of service. Current mean years of service 
for active duty CRNAs by grade level are: 



Years of service 
(mean) 


Grade level: 

0-4 


16 


0-5 


19.5 


0-6 


27 





In addition, data shows that CRNA losses have consistently exceeded gains. Since 
fiscal year 1988, Army and Air Force losses have exceeded gains by 57 (Army 22, 
Air Force 35). Projected CRNA status, as compiled by the Army, further indicates 
the increasing military shortage as reflected in a comparison of authorized versus 
actual inventory of CRNAs. 

NURSE CORPS (CRNAs) PROJECTED END STRENGTH AUTHORIZATIONS/INVENTORY/DELTA 

[Active Component] 





Service 








Fiscal 


year 








1993 


1994 


1995 


1996 


1997 


1998 


Army: 

Auth 






303 


273 


287 


272 


272 


272 


Inv 






210 


213 


201 


204 


207 


207 


Delta .... 






(-93) 


(-60) 


(-86) 


(-68) 


(-65) 


(-65) 


Navy: 

Auth 






142 


143 


143 


143 


143 


143 


Inv 






127 


131 


135 


143 


143 


143 


Delta .... 






(-15) 


(-12) 


(-8) 


(0) 


(0) 


(0) 


Air Force: 


















Auth 






238 


263 


286 


286 


286 


286 


Inv 






197 


196 


197 


208 


208 


208 


Delta .... 






Ml) 


(-67) 


(-89) 


(-78) 


(-78) 


(-78) 


DOD: 














Auth 






683 


679 


716 


701 


701 


701 


Inv 






534 


540 


533 


555 


558 


558 


Delta .... 






(-149) 


(-139) 


(-183) 


(-146) 


(-143) 


(-143) 


Auth (Authorizations) = Budgeted End Strength 
Inv (Inventory) = Actual End Strength 
Delta ■ Authorizations minus Inventory 















231 

CRNA Practice Environment Hinders Retention 

A comparison of civilian versus military CRNA practice shows the uniqueness of 
military service. Military CRNAs must possess a specialized body of knowledge 
which will enable them to perform both peacetime and mobilization roles. Their 
scope of practice must include all types of anesthesia, including regional anesthesia, 
and proficiency with austere mobilization anesthesia equipment which would rarely 
be seen by a civilian CRNA. In the private sector, a civilian CRNA has the oppor- 
tunity to become highly specialized in an area of interest, with a very narrow scope 
of practice, which is a very attractive professional goal for CRNAs. Additionally, 
since the services rely on contracted, non-deployable civilian CRNAs to alleviate the 
shortage of providers, military CRNAs are required to fill operational assignments 
with greater turnover out of a smaller pool. This contributes to a decrease in job 
satisfaction and morale. 

Multiple administrative duties, leadership responsibilities, and supervision of per- 
sonnel are a part of normal military CRNA practice, rather than an additional duty 
which warrants extra compensation as in the civilian sector. The work week for 
military CRNAs can include 20 + hours more than their civilian counterparts. On- 
call work is frequently every 2-3 days, with field or ship duty as required. Civilian 
CRNAs who have job expectations which include overtime, on-call, and other special 
skills and responsibilities, also have supplementary compensation which cor- 
responds to these duties. In addition, civilian tuition, continuing education, health 
care, retirement, bonuses, and other benefits often equal or exceed those offered by 
the military. 

The ability to function autonomously in remote locations is required of all military 
CRNAs. It is the promise of this independence which draws many to military anes- 
thesia service. Therefore, any attempt to change the anesthesia practice standard 
to require that an anesthesia care team consisting of a CRNA and a supervising 
anestneisologist deliver all anesthesia would not only prove detrimental to the mo- 
rale of military CRNAs, but would also undermine any attempts by the services to 
recruit highly motivated individuals. Even more importantly, the services would 
loose mobilization effectiveness by requiring two anesthesia providers where autono- 
mous CRNAs have previously provided anesthesia safely and effectively for over 100 
years. This military standard is based on the need of the services to provide a wide 
range of health care with as few providers as possible during mobilization to remote 
or isolated locations. Historically, CRNAs have always worked independently at 
such locations; therefore, there is no basis for requiring supervision of CRNAs when 
they then return to more urban facilities. While many CRNAs may find this type 
of practice setting undesirable, it is these very conditions under which many mili- 
tary CRNAs thrive. 

In light of their largely autonomous role in provision of anesthesia and their expe- 
rience as military officers, nurse anesthetists could provide valuable insights in the 
development of military anesthesia practice standards. CRNAs have consistently 
been involved in policy development, and contributions to the development of stand- 
ards is a professional responsibility that nurse anesthetists respect. Since both phy- 
sician anesthesiologists and CRNAs are commissioned officers with the same duties, 
rights and responsibilities toward the development of their profession, formal rec- 
ognition and inclusion of CRNAs in the process is only logical. 

Hospitals, clinics, and anesthesiology groups actively recruit CRNAs who have the 
broadest experience and expertise, which points to the military trained CRNA. 
Therefore, it is not surprising that the private sector's practice environment, pay, 
and potential for advancement is very alluring to military CRNAs. Retirement bene- 
fits alone have proven to be an insufficient incentive to maintain an adequate sup- 
f»ly of CRNAs in the military. Without additional incentives, the drain of CRNAs 
rom the military will continue to risk mobilization capability. 

AANA Recommendation: 

1. Maintain the mobilization effectiveness of CRNAs by continuing the current 
practice standard of autonomous anesthesia care by CRNAs in all locations. 

2. Encourage participation and recognition of CRNAs in the development of anes- 
thesia practice standards, to utilize and benefit from their expertise and experience 
as military officers and anesthesia providers. 

PAY 

In the early 1980s, once military CRNAs reached the grade of major (0-4 grade) 
with 12-14 years service, they could expect their salary and fringe benefits to match 
that of the average employed CRNA in the civilian workforce. Due to significant in- 
creases in civilian CRNA income in the past few years, military pay and fringe ben- 



232 

efits are no longer comparable to the average employed civilian CRNA. According 
to a March, 1994 study requested by the Health Policy Directorate of Health Affairs 
and conducted by DOD, a large pay gap existed between annual civilian and mili- 
tary pay in 1992. This study concluded that "this earnings gap is a major reason 
why the military has difficulty retaining CRNAs." 

Civilian Compensation Data 

The AANA Membership Survey for 1993 provided the following data for CRNAs 
mean gross annual salary/income by type of employment arrangement for calendar 
year 1991: 

Employment Arrangement v ^ u 

Hospital $81,647 

University 77,060 

CRNA/MDA group 77,199 

Self-employed 99,811 

CRNA group 99,639 

Office, clinic, surgicenter 71,651 

Locum Tenens 87,509 

Additionally, tangible benefits add up to 30 percent to the reported salaries for 
CRNAs in civilian employment. The survey also found that CRNAs were given bo- 
nuses on top of their base salary and benefits. Data indicated the range of bonuses 
given to CRNAs in civilian employment settings for 1990 was $3,827 to $18,845. 

Military Compensation Data 

The latest military compensation data, as published in the January 1993 Army 
Times, showed the following "salary" range for each of the above referenced grades: 

Salary range (8 yr.-26 yr.) 

Grade level: 

0-4 $51,827-462,972 

0-5 56,822- 75,391 

0-6 64,298- 88,488 

(The figures combine Basic Pay, Basic Allowance tor Quarters, Basic Allowance tor Subsistence and the average Variable Housing Allow- 
ance. It also includes the tax advantage from untaxed allowances ) 

Additionally, tangible benefits for the military includes vacation, medical/dental, 
and other programs which are intended to assist in retention. Military CRNAs who 
agree to remain on active duty for a peril of at least 1 year can qualify for an annual 
Incentive Special Pay (ISP) bonus, either $6,000 or $15,000 depending on their obli- 
gation status. 

Bonuses Given to Military CRNAs 

As authorized by the Fiscal Year 1995 Defense Authorization bill, DOD Health 
Affairs has implemented an increase in the annual ISP from $6,000 to $15,000 for 
those CRNAs who are no longer under service obligation as payback for their anes- 
thesia education. Those CRNAs who remain obligated will continue to receive the 
$6,000 ISP. In addition, DOD has standardized the payback obligation across all the 
services, which allows for fair implementation of this increase. AANA thanks this 
committee for its assistance in securing this increase in the annual ISP, which will 
hopefully result in better retention of highly qualified, experienced CRNAs by clos- 
ing the pay gap. There is also an indication of better recruitment rates with the 
promise of a future bonus of $15,000. AANA strongly recommends the continuation 
of the annual ISP for CRNAs, which recognizes the special skills and advanced edu- 
cation that CRNAs bring to the DOD health care system. 

Even with the implementation of an increased ISP, CRNAs remain cost effective 
anesthesia providers for DOD. The alternative to CRNAs, physician anesthesiol- 
ogists, are eligible for four different bonuses (some vary according to the length of 
service), as published in the January 1995 Navy Times: 

Variable Special Pay $ 7,000-$12,000 

Additional Special Pay 15,000 

Board Certified Pay 2,500- 6,000 



233 

Incentive Special pay 33,000 



TOTAL $57.500-$66,000 

This illustrates a marked difference in the cost of a physician anesthesiologist 
compared to the cost of a CRNA. 

AANA would also be highly supportive of the implementation of Board Certifi- 
cation Pay for all advanced practice nurses, including CRNAs, nurse midwives, 
nurse practitioners, and clinical nurse specialists. Currently several other categories 
of non-physician providers are authorized to receive Board Certification Pay; how- 
ever, DOD has never implemented this bonus in light of the legislative oversight 
which excluded advanced practice nurses. While it is hopeful that the increased ISP 
will aid retention efforts, the pay gap is still significant, which could be further de- 
creased by Board Certification Pay. CPNA retention is closely linked with parity in 
pay. According to the March, 1994 DOD study: 

It is clear from the observed data that increased retention appears to be high- 
ly correlated with higher military and civilian earnings ratios. In 1985 military 
and civilian earnings were at parity, and retention was very high at 96 percent. 
By 1992 the earnings ratio had decreased to .67 and retention dropped to 57 
percent. 

It is clear then that Board Certification Pay would increase the earnings ratio, 
and thus increase retention rates. 

AANA Recommendations: 

1. The $15,000 annual ISP for non-obligated CRNAs, which recognizes their ad- 
vanced education and special skills, should be maintained in order to close the pay 
gap between civilian and military pay. 

2. A Board Certification Bonus should be implemented for advanced practice 
nurses, as is currently authorized for other non-physician providers. 

EDUCATION 

The Health Professions Scholarship Program for Anesthesia Nursing provides fi- 
nancial assistance to professional nurses who are pursuing a master's degree in an- 
esthesia nursing. The services all sponsor two general categories of nurse anesthesia 
training (1) In-house programs conducted by the services and (2) Programs which 
fully fund, or provide financial assistance to, participants in nurse anesthesia pro- 
grams conducted by civilian educational institutions. A DOD report on military use 
of CRNAs found that the number of participants in both categories of nurse anes- 
thesia education programs sponsored by the military departments totaled 180 in 
1990. 

DOD statistics show that CRNA recruitment occurs primarily through Nurse 
Corps officers who choose to continue their education and specialize in nurse anes- 
thesia. Student access to the Health Professions Scholarship Program has been a 
critical component to the recruitment efforts by the services. Other avenues of re- 
cruitment of civilian CRNAs into the services has been virtually impossible since fis- 
cal year 1990, at which time civilian CRNA pay rose sharply. Recent statistics from 
all services indicate that the majority of CRNAs (79 percent) are produced from 
within the services. 

Additionally, the cost to educate nurse anesthetists is significantly lower than the 
educational costs for physician anesthesiologists. Becoming a CRNA takes an aver- 
age of 27 months additional education beyond the nurse's baccalaureate education 
(4 years); while becoming an anesthesiologist takes a minimum of 12 years, which 
includes a 4-year residency. 1992 data from the AANA Council on Accreditation sur- 
vey of nurse anesthesia programs indicates that the average annual program cost 
per student nurse anesthetists is $11,741. The total cost for 27 months of CRNA 
education would therefore be approximately $26,417 ($11,741 per year x 2.25 years). 
According to 1990 HCFA data, the average annual residency program cost per medi- 
cal resident was $84,837. The total cost for a 4-year anesthesiologist residency 
would therefore be approximately $339,400 ($84,837 per year x 4 years). AANA esti- 
mates that at least 10 CRNAs can be educated for the cost of educating one anesthe- 
siologist. With the shorter training period, the 10 CRNAs will each be in practice 
for several years before the one anesthesiologist completes his/her residency. A Fed- 
eral study comparing the costs of education for CPNAs versus anesthesiologists 
would provide valuable data for decisionmaking on the allocation of scarce federal 
resources to support health professions education. 

The AANA is gravely concerned about continuing support for the Uniformed Serv- 
ices University of the Health Sciences (USUHS). A new nurse anesthesia education 



234 

f»rogram opened in June, 1994 at USUHS with an initial class of seven students 
rom the Air Force and one student from the Public Health Service. The class of 
1995 is planned to register 12 students, which originate from the Air Force, Army, 
Navy, and Public Health Service. It is clear that alter only 1 year in operation, the 
USUHS nurse anesthesia program has earned broad praise and support from all the 
services. USUHS has demonstrated the efficiency and effectiveness necessary to pre- 
pare health professionals for the military, and to shut its doors now would prove 
shortsighted. 

AANA Recommendations: 

1. Continued funding should be available for the Uniformed Services University 
of the Health Sciences, which educates military health professionals including nurse 
anesthetists. 

2. DOD graduate education funding should remain available to nurse anesthesia 
education programs, to maintain efforts to recruit new CRNAs. 

3. A congressionally-mandated study should be done to compare the education 
costs for CRNAs versus anesthesiologists. 

Conclusion 

In conclusion, the AANA believes that the recruitment, retention and appropriate 
utilization of CRNAs in the services is of critical concern. Efforts to alleviate the 
current and future shortage must address manpower, pay, practice, and education. 
Military service must be attractive to those considering entering the field of nurse 
anesthesia. This can be accomplished through enhanced educational opportunities 
currently offered by DOD and the addressing of practice and pay issues. These ef- 
forts combined will assist the services in maintaining the military's ability to meet 
its peacetime and mobilization medical mission. For further information, please con- 
tact Greta Todd, AANA Associate Director of Federal Government Affairs, at 202/ 
682-1267. 

Senator Coats. I might also state that today we received at the 
subcommittee's request the General Accounting Office report enti- 
tled "Defense Health Care, Issues and Challenges Confronting Mili- 
tary Medicine." 

I have not had the opportunity to read this. I have been informed 
that it is an excellent primer on the status of military health care. 
I recommend that we all take a look at it, and whatever questions 
are raised and recommendations that are made, and in the future 
we will have an opportunity to discuss those in the future. 

Our panel today consists of Dr. Stephen Joseph, who is Assistant 
Secretary of Defense for Health Affairs. Our uniformed witnesses 
are Lt. Gen. Alcide LaNoue, the Surgeon General of the Army, Vice 
Adm. Don Hagen, Surgeon General of the Navy, and Lt. Gen. Ed 
Anderson, Jr., Surgeon General of the Air Force. 

General Anderson, this is your first appearance before the com- 
mittee. I want to welcome you and tell you that we look forward 
to working with you in the next several years. 

Admiral Hagen, I understand you plan to retire this summer. 

Admiral Hagen. Yes, sir. 

Senator Coats. This, therefore, will probably be your last ap- 
pearance before the committee. We want to thank you for the con- 
tributions that you have made to this committee over the past sev- 
eral years, and for your 31 years of dedicated service to the Navy. 
We will miss your attitude, which has always been positive, and 
your expertise on these matters. 

Admiral Hagen. Thank you. 

Senator Coats. Without objection, I will be happy to place your 
written statements as well as your answers to trie advance ques- 
tions in the record. I want to thank all of you for the extensive 
body of material you provided as answers to our questions. I know 
that the advance question policy is not always easy to comply with, 



235 

but it is very helpful to us and to the staff in particular as we pre- 
pare the authorization bill, so we thank you for your efforts. 

Secretary Joseph, we will start with you. We look forward to 
your opening statement. Then we will proceed around the table. 

STATEMENT OF HON. STEPHEN C. JOSEPH, ASSISTANT 
SECRETARY OF DEFENSE FOR HEALTH AFFAIRS 

Dr. Joseph. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Senator Robb. I am 
pleased to be here. 

Senator Coats. Excuse me. I just realized Senator Robb sat 
down. 

Senator Robb. Senator Kennedy has arrived with me. 

Senator Coats. Let me interrupt then, Dr. Joseph, and ask Sen- 
ator Kennedy and Senator Robb if they have opening statements 
they would like to make. 

Senator Kennedy. No. 

Senator Robb. No, thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Senator Coats. Mr. Secretary. 

Dr. Joseph. Then I will proceed, Mr. Chairman, Senators Robb 
and Kennedy. 

I am pleased to be here today along with my colleagues, the Sur- 
geons General, to address our requirements as presented in the 
President's fiscal year 1996 budget, and to touch on the programs 
which support our twin missions of readiness and everyday health 
care delivery. 

I have a long and detailed statement. With your permission, I 
would like to insert that in the record, and then just briefly sum- 
marize it and respond to your questions. 

Senator Coats. Without objection. 

Dr. Joseph. The medical portion of the President's defense budg- 
et is $15.4 billion, and it will afford us the resources to ensure that 
health care continues to be a successful contribution to quality of 
life in the military, and that we are ready to provide care to our 
people wherever and whenever. 

Almost $9.9 billion of that is requested for the Defense Health 
Program for worldwide medical and dental services to the active 
forces and other eligible beneficiaries. Included in that $9.9 billion 
are $3.8 billion in costs associated with CHAMPUS, the Civilian 
Health and Medical Program of the Uniformed Services. For mili- 
tary and medical personnel, there is almost $5 billion, and for med- 
ical construction, $314 million. 

Our fiscal 1996 budget submission reflects strong commitments 
to readiness, quality of life, and managed health care delivery. This 
submission represents a fully funded CHAMPUS, and the phasing 
in of the new cost shares, or the uniform HMO TRICARE benefit. 
It also seeks $13.5 million for additional research in support of our 
service members and their families who are suffering from illnesses 
thought to be associated with service in the Persian Gulf. 

Military medicine today has in place the leadership and the tools 
necessary to lead, guide, size and shape the Military Health Serv- 
ices System to meet its twin missions into the next century. While 
speaking of military medical leadership, Mr. Chairman, and echo- 
ing your remarks, I would like to acknowledge that our Surgeon 
General of the United States Navy, Admiral Don Hagen, will retire 



236 

this summer after more than 30 years of dedicated service to his 
country. He has generously shared his vision, and offered wise 
counsel as we have tackled together the many crises and issues of 
military medicine. 

Let me begin with a few words on readiness, our job number 1. 
With the military services and the Joint Staff, we have reexamined 
our military medical readiness capabilities, identified broad func- 
tional categories needing attention, and formulated task require- 
ments. Results of this evaluation are detailed in the Medical Readi- 
ness Strategic Plan 2001, a coherent framework now coordinated 
throughout the Department for tackling a diverse and complex 
array of readiness issues. 

This plan, which we will be happy to provide to you, contains 42 
action items, and we have selected six to concentrate on rapidly 
and intensively at the start. These six include joint and combined 
medical planning, information management, joint medical logistics 
planning, impact of the shorter theater evacuation policy, medical 
readiness oversight, and standard processes to monitor and ensure 
personnel deployability. 

As we progress through the other 36 action items of the medical 
readiness strategic plan, our medical readiness capabilities will 
continue to sharpen. 

Before leaving the subject of medical readiness, I want to spend 
a moment describing our efforts to care for service members who 
are suffering from a variety of health problems thought to be relat- 
ed to their service in the Persian Gulf War. 

Last year, the Department undertook a multi faceted medical care 
effort to care for these patients and to attempt to discover the 
causes of their unexplained illnesses. We developed and are now 
conducting an aggressive, comprehensive Clinical Diagnostic Pro- 
gram, the so-called CCEP, Comprehensive Clinical Evaluation Pro- 
fram. By 1 June of this year we intend to have finalized and vali- 
ated the records for 10,000 patients who have completed this so- 
phisticated medical evaluation. 

Preliminary findings from over 2,000 patients, the first 2,000 pa- 
tients, revealed that about 85 percent have clear diagnoses which 
explain their conditions, but about 15 percent have ill-defined 
symptoms and, as yet, no clear diagnoses. These patients will re- 
ceive further evaluations at one of two recently established special- 
ized care centers, one in the Washington area and one in San Anto- 
nio. 

Based on the sizable number of patients from across the United 
States and overseas, we have no clinical evidence to date for a new 
or unique agent causing illnesses among Persian Gulf veterans. In 
addition, we have underway a number of research projects to exam- 
ine the spectrum of health problems posed by veterans from the 
Persian Gulf War. 

Everything we are doing with the CCEP and our research is di- 
rected toward taking care of our patients. We are exploring all 
leads that sound medical practice presents to us, and we are re- 
solved to continue to pursue the reasons for their suffering. 

Building our Defense Health Program, determining the budget, 
and negotiating the extent of manpower and end strength reduc- 
tions has caused us to consider carefully the requirements of our 



237 

dual mission, peacetime care and wartime care. Clearly, to us, 
these missions are codependent. 

This truth is often overlooked or is not easily understood, yet it 
is the operation of military hospitals and clinics, the everyday care 
and treatment of our broad range of beneficiaries, that in fact af- 
fords our health care professionals the necessary experience to 
maintain their skills. Peacetime and wartime medical capability 
form a joint product. One cannot be separated from the other with- 
out breaking the system. 

Turning to our mission of everyday health care delivery, the De- 
partment is well-embarked on a bold strategy to transform the 
military health services system. TRICARE is regionalized managed 
care that brings together the health care delivery systems of each 
of the military services as well as CHAMPUS in a cooperative and 
supportive manner to better serve military patients and to better 
use the resources available to military medicine. 

TRICARE is a comprehensive military health plan which in- 
cludes a range of alternatives for beneficiaries, an HMO managed 
care option called TRICARE Prime, a preferred provider option 
known as TRICARE Extra, and traditional CHAMPUS, called 
TRICARE Standard. 

A major undertaking last year was the determination of a uni- 
form benefit structure, or a uniform cost-sharing structure, under 
the TRICARE Prime option. By the National Defense Authorization 
Act for fiscal year 1994, the uniform benefit on average was man- 
dated to cost beneficiaries less than standard CHAMPUS and yet 
not increase the overall cost of the CHAMPUS program. A decision 
was reached in December for our beneficiaries to meet those twin 
tests. Our nonactive duty beneficiaries who are not eligible for 
CHAMPUS currently cannot enroll in the TRICARE Prime option. 

The TRICARE program integrates civilian networks of providers 
with our military treatment facilities to ensure a health care plan 
that will care for all who want to enroll. Some patients will see ci- 
vilian network providers. Today, we cannot pay for our Medicare- 
eligible beneficiaries when they receive care from civilian providers. 
Medicare is the responsible health system. 

Military retirees, survivors, and their families, lose their eligi- 
bility under CHAMPUS when they become eligible under the Medi- 
care system. While we continue to care for our Medicare-eligible 
patients in our military facilities on a space-available basis, the 
cost to the Department is about $1.2 billion a year, and we receive 
no reimbursement from Medicare for those services. 

DOD continues to feel that the best solution to this dilemma is 
one submitted to Congress last year as part of the administration's 
health care reform package, to have Medicare reimburse DOD for 
the care provided to military Medicare-eligible patients who enroll 
in TRICARE Prime. This solution is frequently referred to as Medi- 
care subvention. We will continue to explore other options and 
other appropriate solutions to this problem. 

In summary, our budget this year reflects an increase somewhat 
less than what the anticipated increase will be for medical care in 
the Nation. However, our budget is predicated on both significant 
management initiatives and infrastructure reductions. The Military 
Health Services System transformation to TRICARE, incorporating 



238 

both management initiatives and readiness requirements, will en- 
sure an effective and efficient military medical system that pro- 
vides high quality care to as many beneficiaries as possible. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. At your convenience, I will be happy 
to attempt to respond to your questions. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Joseph follows:] 

Prepared Statement by Hon. Stephen C. Joseph, Assistant Secretary of 
Defense for Health Affairs 

Mr. Chairman, Distinguished Members of the Committee, I am pleased to be here 
today to provide a comprehensive account of the Military Health Services System. 
I want to address our requirements as presented in the President's fiscal year 1996 
budget and then go into some detail about the programs which support our twin 
missions of readiness and everyday health care delivery. 

Department of Defense leaders, throughout the years, have stated that people are 
our most valuable resource; a principle clearly espoused by President Clinton and 
Secretary Perry in their determined actions to improve the quality of life for all 
members of the Armed Forces. Among the components contributing to an acceptable 
standard of living is health care: health care for service members wherever and 
whenever that care is needed; and, health care at home that is easily accessible, of 
high quality and at reasonable cost for service members and their families. 

FISCAL YEAR 1996 DOD MEDICAL BUDGET 

The medical portion of the President's defense budget, $15.4 billion, will afford us 
the resources to ensure that health care continues to be a successful contribution 
to quality of life in the military. 

Of the total medical budget, almost $9.9 billion is planned for the Defense Health 
Program to provide support for worldwide medical and dental services to the Active 
forces and other eligible beneficiaries, veterinary services, medical command head- 
quarters, specialized services for the training of medical personnel, and occupational 
and industrial health care. Health care services will be provided in 124 military hos- 
pitals and 504 clinics for a beneficiary population numbering 8.2 million. 

Included in the $9.9 billion are $3.8 billion in costs associated with the Civilian 
Health and Medical Program of the Uniformed Services (CHAMPUS). CHAMPUS 
is the program through which eligible patients may share the cost of health care 
purchased from the civilian sector. 

In addition, $288 million in the Defense Health Program provides for procurement 
of capital equipment for military medical treatment facilities and other health ac- 
tivities worldwide. It includes equipment for initial outfitting of new, expanded or 
altered health care facilities being constructed under major military construction 
programs; equipment for modernization and replacement of worn-out, obsolete or 
economically reparable items; equipment in support of CHAMPUS and medical 
treatment facility information processing requirements; and equipment supporting 
programs such as pollution control, clinical investigation, and occupational/environ- 
mental health. 

The remainder includes the amounts requested for military medical personnel, al- 
most $5 billion, and medical construction at $314 million. 

Our fiscal year 1996 budget submission reflects strong commitments to readiness, 
quality of life issues and managed health care delivery. This submission represents 
a fully funded CHAMPUS and the phasing-in of the new cost-shares for the uniform 
HMO benefit. This submission seeks $13.6 million for our Comprehensive Clinical 
Evaluation Program and research activities in support of our service members and 
their families who are suffering from illnesses thought to be associated with service 
in the Persian Gulf. 

In the past, Congress, concerned with shortfalls in the medical programs, directed 
that the Secretary of Defense certify the adequacy of the Defense Health Program 
budget. 

This direction resulted in a very careful and deliberate formulation of our budget 
submission. The key assumptions used in crafting the budget were that: 

A. The proportion of eligible DOD health care beneficiaries who use the Military 
Health Services System will not increase above the current level, 

B. Operation and Maintenance inflation occurs at the OMB/DOD projected rates 
(i.e., 4.1 percent composite), 

C. The military departments' military end-strengths decrease as projected, and 



239 

D. The DHP military and civilian end-strength levels funded in the fiscal year 
1996 budget are executed by the military departments as projected. 

This submission is the third in which we have used a modified capitated meth- 
odology for resourcing the military departments. The methodology, updated in Octo- 
ber 1994, is based on fiscal year 1994 base year costs. Rather than determining our 
capitation rate using the total number of eligible DOD beneficiaries, we estimate the 
number of those beneficiaries who actually use our system. That estimate is deter- 
mined by a survey conducted semi-annually. The costs divided by the number of es- 
timated users results in the capitation rate. We then adjust that rate for inflation 
and known changes from the base year. 

DOD HEALTH CARE LEADERSHIP 

Building the medical programs for the Department of Defense is an effort for 
which considerable negotiation, coordination and collaboration is essential. As the 
individual within DOD responsible for military medicine, I must have knowledge 
and an understanding of the pressures driving the military departments, the joint 
staff and the military "line," as well as their plans, so that the medical programs 
will support their efforts. To this end, I re-energized the Defense Medical Advisory 
Council (DMAC). This council is composed of Presidential appointees from each of 
the military departments, the vice chiefs of staff from the military services, and the 
Director of Logistics, J—4, from the joint staff. Major policy issues of medical readi- 
ness and everyday health care delivery are considered and discussed at these ses- 
sions. In addition to being an opportunity for me to gain an appreciation for the cur- 
rent and planned activities of the military services and the joint staff, it is my occa- 
sion to inform these individuals about military medical issues. 

Guiding the Military Health Services System in fulfilling its missions is the pur- 
pose of the TRICARE Executive Committee (TEC), which advises me on all matters 
pertaining to the military medicine. The TEC is chaired by my Principal Deputy and 
includes the three Surgeons General. Their activities involve developing military 
medical policy in support of the Armed Forces, or TRICARE policy. These efforts en- 
tail determining strategic direction and resolving major issues pertaining to both 
medical readiness and the everyday delivery oi health care for all of our bene- 
ficiaries. As part of our renewed focus on medical readiness, the Director of Logis- 
tics, J—4, will join the TEC when they address medical readiness issues. In fact, the 
current impetus of the TEC is to commit more time and energy to readiness issues 
and to increasinglydelegate some of the everyday health care delivery issues to the 
lead agents. The TEC meets weekly and approximately once a month extends the 
meeting to include all of the TRICARE lead agents via teleconference. Service- 
unique issues will continue to be addressed within the services. 

It is my belief that military medicine, today, has in place the tools necessary to 
lead, guide, size and shape the Military Health Services System to meet its twin 
missions into the next century. Along with the senior advisory groups, we have the 
Defense Health Program, our capitated budgeting process, and management tools 
including those fundamental to TRICARE: regional organization, managed care, uti- 
lization management, and provider networks. In addition, we have revised the Medi- 
cal Readiness Strategic Plan to focus on the requirements necessary today for medi- 
cally supporting the Armed Forces in carrying out the military objectives of our na- 
tional security strategy. 

READINESS 

The world in which we live is charged with activity. It is neither settled nor pre- 
dictable. Recent events have resulted in the crafting of a new national security 
strategy which recognizes that the interests of this Nation remain global in nature, 
while the threats we face are more diverse. The President's national security strat- 
egy is one of engagement and enlargement. As the world's leading power, the United 
States must do all it can to deter aggression, promote peace, and foster the growth 
of democratic governments throughout the wond. 

For the Department of Defense, this new strategy underscores the need to be pre- 
pared for short-notice deployments in harsh, austere environments with missions 
that range from war to contingencies to peacetime operations. Military medicine 
must be prepared to play an integral part in this strategy. 

With the military services and the joint staff, we have re-examined our military 
medical readiness capabilities, identified broad functional categories needing atten- 
tion, and formulated task requirements within each functional area describing what 
must be done and who has responsibility to do it. 

Results of this medical readiness evaluation are detailed in the Medical Readiness 
Strategic Plan 2001. With this plan we have a coherent framework for tackling a 



240 

diverse and complex array of readiness issues. After thoughtful debate we selected 
from among the 42 action items the 6 we believe should receive the highest priority, 
near-term attention. Our objective is to quickly accomplish these action items, some 
of which will assist in achieving still others, and move on to the next grouping. The 
first six include: 

Joint/Combined Medical Planning. Involved in this action plan are tasks to 
ensure medical planning is incorporated into service doctrine, to integrate service 
medical doctrine, and to place qualified medical planners in key and strategic plan- 
ning positions. This action item also includes the requirements to develop integrated 
medical force packages capable of responding to any type of crisis or operational 
mission. 

Information Management. The tasks for this action plan are to develop and de- 
ploy a seamless medical information support system that can be transported to and 
used in a contingency area. This support system will need to handle multiple and 
varied information requirements. Two examples are PACMEDNET in the Pacific 
theater and pre-deployment, deployment and post deployment surveillance capabili- 
ties. 

PACMEDNET is a computer-based patient record enhancement to the Composite 
Health Care System, together with supporting telecommunications upgrades for a 
Pacific-focused regional testbed. The objective is to facilitate patient care throughout 
the Pacific in any operational circumstance. 

Our surveillance capabilities will be detailed in a military public health/preven- 
tive medicine policy which expands and integrates health activities related to de- 
ployment operations. The goal is to provide increased protection of military person- 
nel from hazards associated with military operations. 

Joint Medical Logistics Planning. Tasks included in this action item include 
developing a standard medical readiness reporting system, identifying materiels es- 
sential to support deployments for any contingency operations, and validating trans- 
portation capabilities to support medical logistics requirements. 

An example of what this action item will achieve is the Single-Integrated Medical 
Logistics Management concept. This concept places responsibility with one military 
service to provide medical equipment and supply support for all medical units in an 
area of operations. Currently this single manager for medical logistics concept is in- 
corporated in the plans for all potential major regional conflicts. 

Impact of a Snorter Theater Evacuation Policy. This action item acknowl- 
edges the changed requirements for today's Armed Forces; units will be deploying 
rapidly, they will be highly mobile, and their stays will be much shorter than in 
the past. The tasks include definition of evacuation requirements and development 
of enhanced capabilities. The new concepts are major tenets of the on-going Joint 
WarfightingCapabilities Assessmentprocess, led by the joint staff. 

Medical Readiness Oversight. This action item strengthens the oversight func- 
tion by involving senior leadership within DOD in medical readiness and ensuring 
that medical issues gain senior "line" visibility. Re-activating the DMAC and con- 
centrating the attention of the TEC on medical readiness are significant steps to- 
ward achieving this action item. 

Standard Processes to Monitor and Ensure Personnel Deployability. This 
action will have us formulate a single set of medical fitness standards for all of 
DOD, ensure their consistent application, and create the mechanism to afford timely 
and accurate reporting. Compliance with standards will be jointly reported monthly 
by the military services and evaluated by the joint staff and the Commanders in 
Chief of Unified Commands to assess personnel and unit capabilities. 

As we progress through the action items of the Medical Readiness Strategic Plan 
2001 our medical readiness capabilities will continue to sharpen in order to support 
our forces deployed to meet our national security objectives. 

Persian Gulf Illnesses. Lessons from Operations Desert Shield and Desert 
Storm have highlighted and helped to clarify the need to enhance medical surveil- 
lance and preventive medicine policies and programs. This Gulf war also is the 
central focus for a number of service members who served during the war and now 
are experiencing a variety of health concerns. 

Moving to address their concerns, the Department of Defense undertook a 
multifaceted medical effort to care for these patients and to discover the causes of 
the unexplained illnesses. 

First, we developed and are now conducting an aggressive, comprehensive clinical 
diagnostic program offering intensive examinations to active duty and Reserve vet- 
erans who are experiencing illnesses which may have resulted from service in the 
Gulf. Both the Secretary of Defense and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff 
encouraged active duty members to participate in the Comprehensive Clinical Eval- 
uation Program (CCEP), and we set up a "hot-line" to facilitate access. 



241 

At present, over 15,000 people have registered, and of the 5,810 patients who 
have completed evaluations, 2,074 have had their records reviewed, validated and 
entered into the CCEP data base. By the 1st of June, we expect to have completed 
and validated the records for 10,000 patients who have registered for the CCEP. 

Our preliminary findings, based on the 2,074 CCEP patients with validated eval- 
uations, reveal 84 percent have a clear diagnoses which represent a broad range of 
clinical entities and explain their conditions. Infectious diseases account for rel- 
atively few diagnoses, while 21 percent have psychologically related medical condi- 
tions. There are about 16 percent who have completed the CCEP evaluations and 
have ill-defined symptoms and no clear diagnoses. These patients will receive fur- 
ther evaluations. 

Based on our experience to date, with this sizable number of patients from across 
the United States and overseas, we have no clinical evidence for a new or unique 
agent causing illnesses among Persian Gulf veterans. These preliminary findings 
are consistent with the conclusions of a National Institutes of Health Technology 
Assessment Workshop that found "... no single disease or syndrome . . . appar- 
ent, but rather multiple illnesses with overlapping symptoms and causes." More- 
over, the Defense Science Board determined that there was insufficient evidence 
that supported a coherent syndrome." Further, an independent review of DOD clini- 
cal and research efforts concerning the Persian Gulf War was conducted by Dr. Har- 
rison C. Spencer, Dean of the Tulane School of Public Health and Tropical Medicine. 
Based on the information available at the time, Doctor Spencer concluded that there 
did not appear to be a single cause of the many symptoms being experienced by Per- 
sian Gulf veterans. 

We have established two new Specialized Care Centers, one in Washington D.C., 
at the National Naval Medical Center and Walter Reed Army Medical Center, and 
in San Antonio, at Wilford Hall Air Force Medical Center, and Brooke Army Medical 
Center, in order to conduct additional examinations and provide treatment for those 
who do not have a clear diagnosis. 

Next, we asked the Institute of Medicine (IOM) of the National Academy of 
Sciences to assess and make recommendations on both the process of the evaluation 
program and the case findings. The IOM panel of experts from across the country 
is conducting the assessment in four increments, with a final report by mid-year in 
1995. 

In addition to the clinical evaluation program, we have a number of research 
projects underway to examine the spectrum of health problems posed by veterans 
from the Persian Gulf War. Many of these projects are singly focused, others more 
broadly targeted and are using control groups. The Departments of Veterans Affairs 
(DVA) and Health and Human Services (DHHS) are collaborating on a number of 
these research efforts. Additionally, the DVA is conducting a similar comprehensive 
clinical evaluation program for all veterans not eligible for military health care. 
Overall, there are extraordinary efforts underway to help all those who are suffering 
from illnesses that may have resulted from service in the Persian Gulf War. Clearly, 
these efforts also will help, and have already helped us to be better prepared for 
future contingency deployments. 

Everything we are doing with the CCEP, our research, and the joint efforts of the 
Departments is directed toward taking care of our patients. That is the very basic 
responsibility of the Military Health Services System. As we fulfill that responsibil- 
ity, we are determined to be totally open about all aspects of the Persian Gulf ill- 
nesses. We have set no preconditions on what is or what is not to be considered, 
evaluated, examined and tested. Instead, we are exploring all leads that sound med- 
ical practice presents to us. We will let our medical findings guide us to solutions. 
It is our resolve to do what we do best, and that is to take care of our people and 
to pursue the reasons for their suffering. 

INSEPARABLE TWIN MISSIONS 

Building our program, determining the budget, and negotiating the extent of man- 
power and end-strength reductions caused us to consider carefully the requirements 
of our dual missions. This process crystallized the fact that these missions are co- 
dependent. This truth often is overlooked or is not easily understood by those who 
evaluate the Military Health Services System superficially. It is the operation of 
military hospitals and clinics, the everyday care and treatment of our broad range 
of beneficiaries that affords our health care professionals the necessary experience 
to maintain their skills. 



242 

TRICARE 

Status of the Conversion 

Turning to our mission of everyday health care delivery, the Department has em- 
barked on a bold strategy to transform the Military Health Services System. 
TRICARE is regionalized managed care that brings together the health care deliv- 
ery systems of each of the military services, as well as the Civilian Health and Med- 
ical Program of the Uniformed Services (CHAMPUS), in a cooperative and support- 
ive manner to better serve military patients and to better use the resources avail- 
able to military medicine. 

The organization of TRICARE includes 12 regions, each administered by a lead 
agent, who is a commander of one of the military medical centers located within the 
region. These lead agents have developed and are in the process of implementing, 
in collaboration with all military treatment facility commanders in the region, inte- 
grated plans for the delivery of health care to beneficiaries residing within their re- 
gions. 

TRICARE offers a comprehensive military health plan which includes a range of 
alternatives for beneficiaries. For catchment areas and select areas with high con- 
centrations of CHAMPUS eligible beneficiaries, TRICARE will offer an HMO option 
called TRICARE Prime. Beneficiaries who choose not to enroll in TRICARE Prime 

fenerally will preserve their freedom of choice of provider by remaining in 
RICARE Standard. These beneficiaries will have Standard CHAMPUS cost shar- 
ing requirements of deductibles and copays, except when they opt to use the pre- 
ferred provider network under a point of service option called TRICARE Extra. 
Then, they must meet the deductible, but will have a lower percent copay and the 
network provider usually will do the claims filing. All beneficiaries are eligible to 
receive care in military medical facilities. As a general rule, active duty service 
members will be enrolled in the TRICARE Prime option. This enrollment process 
has begun in selected areas. CHAMPUS beneficiaries may select the health care de- 
livery option of their choice on an annual basis. 

TRICARE PRIME 

TRICARE Prime, a voluntary enrollment option, offers patients the scope of cov- 
erage available today under CHAMPUS, plus additional preventive and primary 
care services. Prime includes features such as primary care managers, who are re- 
sponsible for enrollee health care, to include referrals for specialty treatment. An- 
other Prime feature is the health care finder, who assists patients in locating and 
making specialty appointments. 

A major undertaking last year was the determination of a uniform benefit struc- 
ture and CHAMPUS cost sharing levels under the TRICARE Prime option. By con- 
gressional direction, in the National Defense Authorization Act for fiscal year 1994, 
the uniform benefit, on average, has to cost beneficiaries less than standard 
CHAMPUS, and not increase the overall cost of the CHAMPUS program. This 

!)roject was considered by the Department as a compensation issue and was ana- 
yzed by all staffs — the military services, the Joint Staff, the OSD staff— and by rep- 
resentatives of the Military Coalition. A decision was reached in December. 

Enrolled active duty family members will have no enrollment fees, and for civilian 
care pay $6 (E4 and below) or $12 (E5 and above) for most ambulatory visits, and 
$11 per day of hospitalization CHAMPUS eligible retirees, their family members 
and survivors who enroll in Prime will have an annual family enrollment fee of 
$460, and for civilian care pay $12 for most ambulatory visits, and $11 per day of 
hospitalization. For Prime enrollees, the new cost sharing provisions do away with 
the usual standard CHAMPUS cost sharing. Enrollees in TRICARE Prime obtain 
most of their care from their primary care manager (PCM) within the integrated 
military and civilian network of TRICARE providers. Under a point of service op- 
tion, Prime enrollees may retain freedom to use providers other than their PCM 
without a referral, but with significantly higher cost sharing than TRICARE Stand- 
ard. 

Our non-active duty beneficiaries who are not eligible for CHAMPUS currently 
cannot enroll in the TRICARE Prime option. The TRICARE program integrates ci- 
vilian networks of providers with our military treatment facilities to ensure a health 
care plan that will care for all who want to enroll. Some patients will see civilian 
network providers. We cannot pay for our Medicare-eligible beneficiaries when they 
receive care from civilian providers. Medicare is the responsible health care system. 
Military retirees, survivors and their families lose their eligibility under CHAMPUS 
when they become eligible under the Medicare System. While we continue to care 
for our Medicare-eligible patients in our military facilities, on a space-available 
basis, the annual cost is about $1.2 billion. 



243 

With continuing reductions in military medical facilities and end-strength, our 
"space available" will decline. As this occurs, there is little doubt that our Medicare- 
eligible patients will be forced to seek care from civilian providers under the Medi- 
care system. First, this may turn out to be more costly for the government. Second, 
we believe there is a moral obligation for DOD to care for these former members 
of the Armed Forces and their families and survivors. Third, this older group of pa- 
tients presents the wealth of clinical workload needed by our military medical per- 
sonnel to maintain their skills for readiness missions. 

DOD continues to feel that the best solution to this dilemma is one submitted to 
Congress last year as part of the administration's health care reform package: to 
have Medicare reimburse DOD for the care provided to military Medicare-eligible 

Katients who enroll in TRICARE Prime. This solution is frequently referred to as 
ledicare Subvention. We will continue to explore other appropriate solutions to this 
problem. 

A fully implemented TRICARE program will bring all demonstrations and site- 
specific programs into one military health care delivery system. This will include 
those areas now operating as CHAMPUS Reform Initiative sites, Catchment Area 
Management demonstrations, and the Uniformed Services Treatment Facilities 
(USTFs). This integration will provide consistent programs which enhance our abil- 
ity to eliminate redundancy, achieve needed economies, and potentially avoid spend- 
ingrnillions of dollars. These programs have helped us in formulating the policies 
of TRICARE, and have been well-received by many patients. However, it's time to 
fold them into our overall managed care plan for all of our patients. For USTFs, 
this means converting to the Prime benefit effective October 1, 1995. And, as Lhe 
regional managed care support contracts are implemented, our plan is to have those 
USTFs in the region compete for inclusion in our networks on the basis of quality 
and cost. 

MANAGED CARE SUPPORT CONTRACTS 

A major component of TRICARE is the series of managed care support contracts 
that supplement the capabilities of regional military health care delivery networks. 
When fully implemented, we will have seven fixed-price, at-risk contracts, support- 
ing the 12 regions. They will be competitively awarded prior to the end of fiscal year 
1996. The new TRICARE Prime cost sharing provisions will be phased in nationally 
as each regional TRICARE contract begins operations. 

The first contract, for Region 11 (Northwest Region), was immediately protested 
upon announcement of the award last year. That protest was flatly and totally de- 
nied by the GAO on January 27 of this year. Triple option services began on March 
1 of this year in Washington and Oregon, right on schedule! Very importantly, the 
GAO's complete denial of the protest, gives the procurement process we have adopt- 
ed and all military medical personnel a well-deserved vote of confidence ... we 
know what we are doing. 

Because the decision on the Prime option cost sharing arrangements was about 
to be announced, we delayed the recompeted contract award for Regions 9 (southern 
California), 10 (Golden Gate Region) and 12 (Hawaii Pacific Region) to afford bid- 
ders a competitive opportunity to include these cost sharing arrangements in their 
proposals. We expect to award the contract by the end of this month. The procure- 
ment action for Regions 6 (Southwest Region), 3 (Southeast Region), and 4 
(Gulfsouth Region) are in the evaluation process. For the remaining regions, work 
is in progress to build the requests for proposals (RFP) tailored to the specific re- 
gional requirements. During 1995, we will have procurement actions in every stage 
of development and implementation. Because the dollar value is significant, these 
contracts are sought by a number of health care corporations. It will be a highly 
competitive process and we fully expect protests from losing bidders. 

CAPITATION BUDGETING 

An important element of TRICARE is the new capitated method of funding mili- 
tary medical facilities, which began in October 1993. This military medical capita- 
tion model is a population driven system designed to ensure appropriate funding for 
medical readiness and unique military medical -related functions. The model has 
three major components: 

A. Military Medical Support funding, which applies to military medical support 
functions that are not directly related to the size of the force structure. Examples 
include the aeromedical evacuation system and overseas medical facilities. This 
funding is calculated by considering mission changes, inflation and other adjust- 
ments normally figured in the budgeting process. 



244 

B. Military Medical Unique Capitation Rate funding reflects the costs of military 
medical unique and medical readiness functions related to the size of the force 
structure and service specific military requirements. Examples are optical labora- 
tories and education and training. These functions and activities are related to the 
size of the active duty military population supported. 

C. Medical Capitated Cost funding is analogous to the capitation rate used by ci- 
vilian health maintenance organizations (HMO). Examples are military medical fa- 
cilities and CHAMPUS. This is the funding which is used to provide and to pur- 
chase health care for beneficiaries. 

Since all eligible beneficiaries do not use the Military Health Services System, we 
apply the number of actual system users to the computation for the capitation rate. 
We estimated numbers of users based on biannual survey data designed to capture 
this information. Once enrollment is implemented throughout the regions, a defini- 
tive population number will be available and used. It is important to understand 
that it is the actual patients who use our system, rather than a given catchment 
area population, that is the basis for computing a capitated budget. 

By funding on a capitated basis, military medical managers are motivated to pro- 
vide cost effective care for their patients in the most appropriate setting and in a 
timely way. To assist in this effort, we have established standards for access to 
health care and routine screenings. 

UTILIZATION MANAGEMENT 

As TRICARE progresses toward a single standard of care in a "seamless" system, 
we have adopted a uniform policy for utilization management practices for care that 
is provided and for care that is purchased. Consistency about when and where care 
should occur not only ensures a uniform benefit but also offers a sound basis for 
comparing utilization patterns throughout the system and against national norms. 
TRICARE utilization management programs are patient focused, ensuring access, 
quality and delivery of necessary and appropriate care at the most cost effective 
level. Utilization management activities and information are essential elements in 
overall development ana incorporation of total quality improvement measures with- 
in military medicine. The military utilization management system includes prospec- 
tive review, concurrent review, discharge planning, case management, and retro- 
spective review. Very important is the fact that the Defense health budget assumes 
major accomplishments in utilization management in order to hold the annual rate 
of growth to levels below the national average for the health sector. 

QUALITY CARE 

Military medicine strives to attain a high level of quality in the provision of care 
and in its health care practices. Standard utilization management is one essential 
link between the delivery of care and the accomplishment of an overall process of 
quality improvement. We have taken a number of other steps to solidify and retain 
the level of quality in military medicine. Among them are a new policy for creden- 
tials transfer for providers temporarily assigned to another medical facility; a redi- 
rection of the Civilian External Peer Review Program focusing on high volume clini- 
cal episodes and product lines; and, establishment of the Clinical Quality Manage- 
ment Program incorporating accreditation, credentials and privileges, the National 
Practitioner Data Bank, and the quality management contract. 

OVERSEAS HEALTH AND DENTAL CARE 

We have a number of initiatives underway, particularly in Europe, to enhance ac- 
cess to medical and dental care for our beneficiaries. The rapid drawdown of forces 
in Europe included military medical facilities, which resulted in limited or no care 
in some locations. A tri-service Executive Steering Committee has developed a com- 
prehensive regional health care plan for all beneficiaries residing in Europe, and is 
working to establish Europe as a TRICARE health services region. 

Considerable emphasis has been given to implementing a patient liaison and ad- 
vocacy system for Deneficiaries who must use host nation providers. And, as the 
TRICARE program progresses, networks of providers will be established and will in- 
clude translation services. On a demonstration basis, we have waived CHAMPUS 
cost sharing for active duty family members in Europe. This waiver facilitates using 
host nation providers, who are unfamiliar with patients needing to meet deductibles 
and with collecting partial payments from patients. 

We are turning around the problem of access to dental care in Europe through 
the addition of many more dentists, both active duty and contract personnel. This 
effort is one part of several to achieve a comprehensive, integrated dental care plan, 
tailored to each location. This dental program is an integral component 01 the 



245 

TRICARE Europe Regional Health Plan. Additionally, we now allow beneficiaries to 
remain enrolled in the Family Member Dental Plan when moving to overseas as- 
signments. This affords them the opportunity to access care in the United States 
during trips home. 

BRAC 

The closure of a military medical facility can have a devastating impact on many 
beneficiaries, especially our older retirees, who have come to depend heavily on that 
facility. With the help of the Congress, we have implemented several actions de- 
signed to lessen that adverse impact. 

Each of the military services develops a detailed transition plan for the closures, 
which include outreach programs to ensure that information about the closure 
reaches those who use the facility. In addition, we have a BRAC Health Care Bene- 
ficiary Working Group that is visiting all of the closure sites to meet with the bene- 
ficiaries and to gain insight into specific health care issues and concerns. 

With the help of Congress, alternative health care delivery options are available, 
wherever feasible, to eligible beneficiaries in closure sites. In most instances, pre- 
ferred provider networks have been established to ensure access to providers who 
are CHAMPUS participants, and to offer a slight reduction in repayments. 

A major concern when the military medical facility closes is loss of the pharmacy. 
To help overcome that loss, we have two pharmacy programs underway. In each lo- 
cation where a provider network is established, a retail pharmacy network is in- 
cluded. This program is for CHAMPUS eligible patients and those Medicare-eligible 
patients who reside within the former catchment area of the closed facility, provided 
no other military medical pharmacy is present. The second pharmacy program is the 
mail service demonstration project in Hawaii, California, Florida, Georgia, South 
Carolina, Pennsylvania, Delaware and New Jersey. Eligibility for this program is 
the same as for the retail pharmacy program. 

At the request of Congress we are in the process of expanding the range of Medi- 
care eligible beneficiaries who may use these two pharmacy programs. We will make 
these programs available to all those who have been dependent upon the closed fa- 
cility. 

CHIROPRACTIC DEMONSTRATION 

Responding to congressional direction, we have designed and organized a dem- 
onstration to evaluate the feasibility and advisability of providing chiropractic care 
in the Military Health Services System. At 10 designated locations, we have con- 
tracted with civilian chiropractors to work in our military medical facilities. Patients 
having spine-related complaints in those locations will be referred to the chiroprac- 
tors. In another three locations, patients with similar complaints will be treated 
within the allopathic system. Information we gather from all sites will be the basis 
of our evaluation. The plan for how we conduct the evaluation is being developed 
at this time, with a report due to the Congress by May 1. 

Overseeing the conduct of this demonstration is an Advisory Committee comprised 
of six chiropractors, a representative of the Comptroller General, one representative 
from each of the military medical departments, two beneficiary representatives and 
one member of my Health Affairs staff. This committee has been involved in all as- 
pects of the demonstration planning. 

NEW FRONTIERS IN TELEMEDICINE AND TELECOMMUNICATIONS 

The number of systems supporting the delivery of health care in the Military 
Health Service System is growing, and those that are in-place are being refined. It 
is a moment of creative synergy for automation, telecommunications and technology. 
The possibilities are exciting, but those possibilities must be recognized as tools to 
assist in achieving the fundamental goals of military medicine. In that context, the 
military services are exploring the multiple applications of telemedicine. As a group- 
ing of advanced technologies, telemedicine will re-engineer the way the military 
health services deliver health care. The Army has the lead, with the Navy and Air 
Force, to develop and implement telemedicine technologies into a Telemedicine 
Testbed Project and to guide these technologies into the Military Health Services 
System mainstream. 

CLOSING 

In summary, our budget this year reflects an increase somewhat less that what 
the anticipated increase will be for medical care in the Nation. However, our budget 
is predicated on both significant management initiatives being implemented 



246 

throughout the Military Health Services System and infrastructure reductions. The 
management initiatives, such as managed care, enrollment, utilization management, 
consolidation of services, and a shift from hospital to ambulatory care, depend on 
the capability and flexibility provided by our regional, at-risk managed care support 
contracts. Additionally, these initiatives are designed to accommodate infrastructure 
reductions — since fiscal year 1988, the number of military hospitals has decreased 
by 53, and in the same period, the number of normal beds has been reduced by 
12,000; with BRAC and manpower cuts these numbers will go up. The Military 
Health Services System's transformation to TRICARE, incorporating the manage- 
ment initiatives, will ensure an effective and efficient military medical system that 
provides high quality care to as many beneficiaries as possible. 

The Military Health Services System change to TRICARE has been an evolution- 
ary one. One that began several years ago with the everyday delivery of health care 
and more recently growing to include the requirements of medical readiness. With 
considerable legislative guidance and support, TRICARE has reached the point 
where it is being implemented. TRICARE will continue to be evolutionary, address- 
ing new difficulties and obstacles, phasing in new methods and initiatives for im- 
proving the delivery of care to military beneficiaries, and solidifying its medical 
readiness role. 

In handling the change and challenges of today, I continue to encourage our mili- 
tary medical personnel to be bold in their thinking and in their leadership. Threats 
to the institution of military medicine, while very real, can be the source of stimula- 
tion and opportunity. We must find those opportunities and exploit them to create 
the atmosphere and environment to sustain the Military Health Services System as 
a flexible system prepared to meet the challenges of its interwoven missions. 

I am certain that with the encouragement and assistance of this committee the 
future will see a highly capable, very agile military medical support structure pro- 
viding state-of-the-art, high quality health care to patients who are highly satisfied 
with its delivery. 

Thank you Mr. Chairman. At your convenience, I will be happy to respond to your 
questions. 

Senator Coats. Thank you, Dr. Joseph General LaNoue. 

STATEMENT OF LT. GEN. ALCIDE M. LaNOUE, SURGEON 
GENERAL, DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY 

General LaNoue. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I have a couple of very brief comments. I would like to point out 
I am at my midpoint of the 4-year tour as the Surgeon General of 
the Army. The first 2 years were dedicated to developing managed 
care and reengineering of the force structure of the Army Medical 
Department, which were two enormous tasks. 

The managed care initiatives have now joined in partnership 
with my colleagues at this table, and it is a partnership of 
TRICARE which we are all working out together towards a com- 
mon purpose of efficiency and quality access to our patients. I feel 
very satisfied that we are on a steady track towards a successful 
program as we work out the details. 

The major reengineering has included a 1,000-physician cut from 
the Army Medical Department and a 31 percent cut of military 
manpower, and is now faced with additional civilian cuts whicn 
have some hazard of the original reorganization. I will point out 
there is a difference between the three services in that the Army 
Medical Department has taken a substantial cut, and as civilian 
cuts are mandated upon us, it is causing us significant concern for 
readiness and the ability to provide quality care. 

Sir, in the last 2 years of my tour, I hope to spend the majority 
of my time bringing the new reorganization into balance and focus- 
ing on the principles and characteristics of the readiness of the 
Army Medical Force. 



247 

In the last 4 months, I had an opportunity to get to each of my 
new major subordinate commands wherein the accountability for 
readiness, particularly of the Reserves, is being focused. 

When I started that trip I felt that readiness in the Reserves was 
essentially broken, based on the experience we had in Desert 
Storm, Desert Shield, and what I thought was less than full ade- 
quacy of the readiness posture of the AMEDD at that time. With 
the problems of reorganization going on in the Reserves and addi- 
tional cuts, and the agreement between the National Guard and 
the USAR, to transfer manpower from one organization to the 
other, this turbulence had to have a very negative effect on the 
readiness posture of the Reserve forces, which constitutes 70 per- 
cent of our readiness posture in going to war. 

I can tell you after having comprehensively reviewed the posture 
of the Reserves in each corner of this country, that we have fixed 
the equipment problem in the majority of cases. Every Reserve unit 
that is part of the leading group that goes in force package 1 and 
force package 2 and 3, in fact, is, indeed, at a high state of readi- 
ness, and it is only the later deployers that continue to have prob- 
lems with personnel assignments and organization. 

I am pleased to report to you that our readiness posture is ten- 
tative at the present time, but I feel that the fix is on line for us 
to maintain a quality readiness force at any time that you need it, 
sir. 

Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of General LaNoue follow:] 

Prepared Statement by Lt. Gen. Alcide LaNoue, Surgeon General, 
Department of the Army 

introduction 

Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, I am Lt. Gen. Alcide M. LaNoue, 
the Army Surgeon General. It is a privilege for me to appear before this committee 
today to report on Army health care programs and discuss our plans for the future. 
I thank you for your continuing support of the Army Medical Department (AMEDD) 
and its efforts to provide the finest medical support to America's Army. 

REENGINEERING 

It has been my <listinct pleasure to serve not only as Surgeon General but, as of 
October 1, 1994, as Commander of the new United States Army Medical Command, 
in San Antonio, Texas. This dual status serves as a clear example of how the 
AMEDD has changed in the past year and how we will continue to evolve in the 
coming year. 

Before I tell you where the Army Medical Department (AMEDD) is headed, let 
me tell you where we have been. As I stated, we activated the new MEDCOM on 
October 1, 1994 replacing the old Health Services Command. We have downsized 
the Office of the Army Surgeon General by over 75 to a staff of about 100 personnel. 
We have also created the U.S. Army Center for Health Promotion and Prevention 
Command (CHPPM) at Aberdeen Proving Grounds, Maryland. 

We have reorganized Medical Research and Material Command (MRMC) to in- 
clude acquisition, logistics, and facility planning functions. Finally, we have created 
regional Health Service Support Areas (HSSA) whose task is to provide regional 
guidance and enhance the medical readiness posture. 

I am continually amazed at the various reports we see and hear about military 
health care that purport the Military Health Service System (MHSS) is at "status 
quo" relative to the civilian sector. These studies falsely assume that the MHSS is 
static, waiting for some great push from an external source to propel it forward. 
Nothing could be further from the truth. 

These studies also focus on the number of doctors as a measure of readiness. The 
plain fact is that it is the enlisted combat medic which is of equal or greater impor- 



248 

tance, and they have to have a quality environment in which to train. The HSSA 
provides that environment, by partnering with the Reserve component. 

The only thing "static" is our unwavering dedication to the American soldier, as 
we so clearly state in the AMEDD Vision Statement: 

The Army Medical Department — a world class system for total quality health 
care in support of America's Army at home and abroad, accessible to the total 
Army family, accountable to the American people. 

Simply stated, the first principle is medical readiness — the readiness to project 
and maintain a level of medical resources to ensure the health of the force, provide 
quality health services to all beneficiaries, and the capability to mobilize, deploy and 
sustain medical assets in support of any military operation. 

READINESS 

Since 1989 and the end of the Cold War, the number of field medical units and 
medical personnel for all Army components has declined considerably. Yet the Army 
still has over 150,000 soldiers overseas in more than 70 countries. Deployments for 
the Army have increased three-fold since 1990. During this time, the AMEDD has 
become a leaner, more flexible and supportive system. 

In fact, I will focus my remaining 2 years as Surgeon General on improving the 
readiness posture of our Active and Reserve components. The AMEDD has already 
begun several initiatives to make this happen. A Memorandum of Understanding 
(MOU) is being negotiated with the U.S. Army Reserve Command (USARC) and 
Forces Command (FORSCOM) to enhance USAR readiness. This MOU came about 
because of the need for synergism between all components of America's medical 
forces — Active and Reserve. 

Some of the provisions of this MOU include verifying the clinical competency of 
all USARC health care providers, conducting Battle Focused Training Management 
functions for USAMEDCOM's War Trace units, and conducting medical logistics and 
biomedical maintenance activities of USARC equipment and supplies. We are ex- 
ploring similar initiatives with the Army National Guard to begin to focus on NG 
readiness issues. The USARC and the MEDCOM are jointly committed to providing 
a seamless military medical force capable of supporting America's Army in both 
peace and war. 

The AMEDD continues to look for ways to enhance our capabilities while becom- 
ing more efficient. The Medical Reengineering Initiative (MRI) is an AMEDD-initi- 
ated redesign process to review the 10 functional areas of the combat support sys- 
tem across the domains of doctrine, training, leader development, organizations, and 
materiel as they affect soldiers. The MRI will incorporate the design principles and 
parameters of Force XXI, organizing around information and leveraging technology 
to enhance our ability to provide combat casualty care across the operational contin- 
uum. Does this sound like an organization stuck in a "status quo" posture? 

The military departments, under guidance from the Joint Chiefs of Staff and in 
coordination with the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Health Affairs (ASD(HA)) 
must remain in charge of this process because of the mission to develop, train, pro- 
vide, and continuously adapt the medical combat support mission. 

MANAGED CARE INITIATIVES 

The new DOD managed care program, TRICARE, will provide access to high qual- 
ity, affordable health care, that provides choices. TRICARE is scheduled to be 
phased in over the next 3 years. The AMEDD, however, is not resting while await- 
ing this implementation schedule. The MEDCOM's fiscal year 1994 business plans 
included over 200 initiatives to provide better access to care for our beneficiaries. 
These initiatives include: 

— 31 surgery 

— 30 psychiatry/mental health 

— 42 primary care/pediatrics 

— 29 obstetrics/gynecology 

— 10 cardiology 

These initiatives required a total CHAMPUS investment of $82 million. They re- 
sulted in a total CHAMPUS recovery of over $124 million to the MHSS and a total 
CHAMPUS cost avoidance of $42 million. 

We are also very proud of DeWitt Army Community Hospital at Fort Belvoir, Vir- 
ginia. DeWitt was a recent recipient of a National Performance Review Hammer 
Award for their Primary Care Reinvention Plan. This plan will dramatically im- 
prove the way health care is provided to more than 140,000 beneficiaries in DeWitt's 
catchment area. The plan calls for establishing six new satellite clinics, expanded 



249 

clinical hours to accommodate working parents, a 24-hour nurse advise system, ex- 

«anded child and adolescent psychiatric services, and creating a special "Well 
foman" clinic. 

The Pharmacoeconomic Center at San Antonio, Texas, is another example of a re- 
cently introduced program that is paying big benefits. The AMEDD has been able 
to decelerate the inflation rate increases for pharmaceuticals for the past several 
years, but this year we cut the actual costs. Several factors were involved, but most 
of the reduction is due to simple good business sense. 

Since we began to implement managed care, it is apparent that the three services 
have learned much to help them improve the quality and quantity of medical serv- 
ices provided to their beneficiaries. As General Patton once said, "never tell people 
how to do things. Tell them what to do and they will constantly surprise you with 
their ingenuity." The fine officers, enlisted, and civilian personnel of the AMEDD 
continue to surprise me with their ingenuity and innovative ideas. 

GRADUATE MEDICAL EDUCATION (GME) 

The AMEDD benefits tremendously from in-house GME. These benefits include 

Sroviding specialty and sub-specialty care and potential increases in physician pro- 
uctivity due to the teaching environment. Other benefits include lower patient care 
expenses, the potential attraction of more qualified physicians to the academic envi- 
ronment that teaching hospitals provide, and a higher retention rate of physicians 
for those trained in military facilities, leading to lower acquisition and training 
costs. 

Maintaining critical wartime skills cannot easily be accomplished during peace- 
time. State of the art Medical Centers with a variety of training programs and a 
diverse patient population, to include retired beneficiaries and their families, are ab- 
solutely essential if clinicians are to acquire and maintain skills crucial to combat 
casualty care in wartime. 

Army GME programs have during the last 40 years repeatedly demonstrated their 
excellence through their near 100 percent accreditation rate; the success of the 
trainees and graduates in both in-service and board examinations; and the distin- 

Siished careers of their alumni in both military and civilian medicine. Vigorous 
ME programs ensure state of the art care for combat casualties and are key to 
the retention of quality physicians. 

R&D SUCCESSES 

The military medical research and development community has also contributed 
tremendously to both readiness and patient care. USAMRMC has unique expertise 
and facilities for all phases of vaccine development. This includes a Hepatitis A vac- 
cine which was recently invented, tested and demonstrated safe and effective by 
Army scientists. This vaccine will be the first licensed by the Food and Drug Admin- 
istration for use in the United States. 

Units deploying to Somalia, the Persian Gulf, Macedonia, and Haiti received com- 
prehensive advice books prepared by USAMRMC on avoiding local health hazards 
ranging from disease-carrying insects and poisonous snakes to contaminated food 
and water, heatstroke and frostbite. 

In the area of peacetime medical research, MRMC has led a very successful effort 
in ADDS research, defense women's health research, and malaria, to name a few. 
The Army's successful management of $235 million for breast cancer research in 
1993 and 1994 has won high praise from both scientific and advocacy groups. The 
fiscal year 1995 Appropriations Act provided MRMC with another $150 million for 
breast cancer research. 

CHHPM led the effort to develop an outside-the-boot parachute ankle brace that 
has significantly reduced jump-related ankle sprains common in airborne soldiers. 
All these research and preventive medicine initiatives are done in the name of im- 
proving soldier readiness, providing quality health care, and improving cost effi- 
ciencies. 

NEW TECHNOLOGY 

AMEDD medical centers have been the projection platforms for telemedicine ini- 
tiatives. Using commercial off-the-shelf equipment, telemedicine enables medical 
personnel at remote locations to consult with a physician at a medical center and 
quickly obtain expert advice on critical or unusual cases. Telemedicine puts the di- 
agnostic firepower of specialists into the hands of the deployed physicians in Soma- 
lia, Zagreb, Macedonia, or Haiti. 

Many of our medical centers have ongoing telemedicine initiatives. The Army has 
established the Center for Total Access at Eisenhower Army Medical Center in Au- 



250 

gusta, Georgia. That project links Eisenhower with the Medical College of Georgia 
and the Augusta Veterans Affairs hospital. The center is one more step in the 
Army^s contribution as the DOD Executive Agent for telemedicine and its use of ad- 
vanced medical communication technology. 

At Madigan Army Medical Center, the first phase of Project Seahawk has been 
completed. Project Seahawk brings telemedicine to the Federal hospitals in Wash- 
ington State, including the Department of Veterans Affairs and the Indian Health 
Service. Some of the non-deployment systems that have been established include 
Project Akamai, which links Tripler AMC with numerous locations throughout the 
Pacific Rim including Korea. 

Brooke AMC in San Antonio, Texas, is setting up a telemedicine link with a large 
retirement community, USAA Towers, to provide easier access to care and informa- 
tion in-home for a primarily elderly population. 

This country is being propelled into the 21st century at an almost breakneck 
speed. It gives me a great deal of pride to see the AMEDD setting the pace for ad- 
vances in medicine as is its great history. Technology is being evaluated today for 
concepts such as telesurgery, and possible uses of robotics and virtual reality are 
also being actively explored. 

A future scenario may very well include central monitoring of the medical status 
and location of each soldier on the battlefield through the wearing of a wrist watch- 
like device, and video images of injuries relayed by aidmen in the field to supporting 
physicians at the aid station. An early version of this latter concept is being used 
today in Macedonia. 

CONCLUSION 

The Army Medical Department stands ready, willing, and able to accomplish its 
combat medical support mission. We do this in peacetime in the following ways: 

— our doctors, nurses, and other healthcare providers practice and hone their 
skills in everyday routine medical practice in preparation for war, 

— keeping our soldiers healthy and fit at all times improves our readiness pos- 
ture, 

— soldiers' confidence that their families will be well cared for while they are de- 
ployed is a major morale factor. 

The new Army Medical Department is a powerful arrangement of units, creative 
people, empowered commanders, and complementing staffs focused on carrying for- 
ward the great tradition of Army medicine. I am confident that with your continued 
support the AMEDD will be in great shape to meet the challenges of the future. 

Once again, I appreciate the opportunity to appear before the committee and shall 
be happy to answer any questions you may have. 

Senator Coats. Thank you. General Anderson. 

STATEMENT OF LT. GEN. EDGAR R. ANDERSON, JR., SURGEON 
GENERAL, DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE 

General Anderson. Mr. Chairman, members of the committee, I 
am indeed pleased to be here this afternoon for the first time to 
discuss the progress and the programs of the Air Force Medical 
Service. 

We have had a busy and a challenging year as we have worked 
with our counterparts to meet the Air Force mission of global 
reach, global power, and global presence. Our efforts to establish 
TRICARE have been no less challenging or important, as the suc- 
cess of our wartime and our peacetime missions are inextricably 
linked. 

During 1994, the Air Force Medical Service experienced the high- 
est operations tempo since Operation Desert Storm. Medical de- 
ployments doubled since 1993, with more than 2,500 medics sup- 
porting global peacetime engagements, U.N. peacekeeping, and hu- 
manitarian relief operations. Our personnel could be found as far 
afield as Rwanda, Kenya, Croatia, Vietnam, and Southwest Asia, 
and in locations closer to home such as Panama and Cuba. 



251 

Throughout these operations, we have embodied the total force 
concept with active duty, Guard, and Reserve personnel joining to- 
gether to perform vital services to our country and to its neighbors. 
We have also worked hand-in-hand with our sister services to an- 
swer the global call for assistance, complementing each other with 
our unique, service-specific capabilities. 

Over the past year, the Air Force Medical Service has labored to 
reengineer our medical readiness program. We are adapting our 
structure and equipment where necessary to better meet our post- 
Cold War readiness needs. 

For example, we are modularizing our clinical capability to allow 
us to tailor our delivery packages on the battlefield, adding special- 
ized teams where necessary, for such areas as burn treatment or 
mental health. 

We are also redesigning our air medical evacuation system to 
better support the reduced forward medical footprint needed for 
our lighter, more mobile force by structuring it into three tiers of 
increasing capability. 

In addition, we are exploring the use of nontraditional aircraft 
for our retrograde aeromedical evacuation such as the KC-135 
tanker, the C-21 or Lear Jet, to replace our aging C-141 fleet. Use 
of these alternative aircraft, as well as the Civil Reserve Air Fleet, 
will require air crew training modifications to adapt to new ways 
of doing business. 

While we are decreasing the number of our prepositioned contin- 
gency hospitals in Europe and in the Pacific, we are increasing the 
capabilities of our air transportable hospitals. We have added re- 
sources to increase the level of care for nonbattle injuries, and have 
also improved the capability to support our female service mem- 
bers. We are also outfitting our air transportable hospital to oper- 
ate in a contaminated biological chemical environment for up to 30 
days without relocating. 

Modular equipment and personnel sets are being developed to 
allow medical commanders to choose additive capabilities to match 
whatever operational environment is called for. These include var- 
ious bed size increments, and specialized expansion packages such 
as dentistry, surgery, or obstetrics. All of these features will en- 
hance our wartime mobility and flexibility. 

I am very proud to state that the Air Force medical readiness 
training is in excellent shape, as recently confirmed by the DOD 
Inspector General and the Air Force Audit Agency. 

One of our major training accomplishments is the establishment 
of a 2-week aeromedical evacuation contingency operations training 
program to standardize air evacuation training. Another is the ex- 
pansion of our training on deployable assets to ensure that active 
duty and our Air Force Reserve component personnel are trained 
on the equipment with which they will deploy. 

Certainly the most important factor in our medical readiness 
equation is our people. We continue to recruit the highest caliber 
of health care professionals. A key factor in this is the excellence 
of our graduate medical education program. It is truly the lifeblood 
of military medicine, and in turn our medical readiness program. 
Without our graduate medical education program, we simply can- 



252 

not recruit the caliber of medical professionals we need to fulfill 
our wartime and our peacetime missions. 

This past year was a watershed for graduate medical education, 
and we continue to expand our quality transformation. Along with 
our partners in the other services, we are dedicated to maintaining 
the highest possible quality and efficiency in our graduate medical 
education programs in this time of budget constraints. 

One way we are doing this is by consolidating programs through- 
out DOD wherever feasible to eliminate duplication and to improve 
service. This is an important step in our effort to right-size the Air 
Force Medical Service. 

Since we know that medical readiness begins with the individual, 
we are teaming up with the line of the Air Force to build a totally 
fit, optimally healthy force through health promotion and disease 
prevention. 

Our health and wellness centers and fitness program are two 
highly successful efforts that are resulting in healthier lifestyles for 
all our personnel. 

We are also offering our people training for medical self-care that 
teaches them to become active partners in their health care team. 
Our preventive programs are not just geared to the active duty 
member. We have long recognized that the health and well-being 
of our Air Force families is crucial to medical readiness. 

Because one of the most destabilizing influences on families is 
family violence, we continue to take active steps to prevent it 
through the Air Force Family Advocacy Program. Our 3-pronged 
approach here of prevention, early intervention and treatment ap- 
pears to be paying off. 

Our research indicates that when Air Force child abuse rates are 
compared to the best statistics from the civilian sector, we are hold- 
ing steady at about half the civilian rate. Our research also shows 
that we are making many positive changes in the way spouse abus- 
ers relate to their spouses. 

To complete our multifaceted preventive medicine program, our 
bioenvironmental engineers, or BEEs as we like to call them, are 
dedicated to searching out hazards and eliminating them wherever 
they are found in the working and community environments. Our 
BEEs have been lauded by the Occupational Safety and Health Ad- 
ministration and are the vanguard of the Air Force's state of the 
art occupational medicine program. 

The readiness of Air Force personnel requires our diligence in 
evaluating their health before, during and after deployment. In this 
light, we are working aggressively with the other services, with 
DOD and with the Departments of Health and Human Services 
and the Veterans Affairs to evaluate and treat the concerns of our 
Persian Gulf veterans. 

The final crucial factor in our medical readiness equation is our 
peacetime health care base. Thus, we are very enthusiastic about 
the TRICARE program and the improvements it offers to military 
beneficiaries in obtaining affordable, quality health care in a timely 
manner. 

Our four Air Force lead agents are fully staffed and operational 
at Region 6, Lackland Air Force Base in Texas; Region 10, Travis 



253 

Air Force Base, California; Region 4, Keesler Air Force Base, Mis- 
sissippi; and Region 5, Wright-Patterson Air Force Base, Ohio. 

Our lead agents have conducted local site visits to each of their 
region's medical treatment facilities and developed comprehensive 
regional health services plan for providing high quality, easily ac- 
cessible, cost-effective care. 

In so many ways, we have found new and better ways of doing 
business. Modern information systems such as the Composite 
Health Care System and the Provider Workstation will support 
TRICARE with state of the art information tools. 

In addition, we have adopted capitation financing in all our fa- 
cilities that provides them with a population-based, annual fixed 
budget, eliminating our old workload base system. We are explor- 
ing right-sizing initiatives at Air Force medical treatment facilities 
to ensure that they are appropriately sized to the medical needs of 
the community and are cost-effective to the Government. 

We actively seek civilian contracts for services wherever they can 
provide more cost-effective care than in our own facilities. In using 
these measures, we maintain the necessary balance between qual- 
ity care and cost-saving while preserving the crucial level of man- 
ning to perform our medical readiness mission within its peacetime 
health care support base. 

In conclusion, sir, I cannot emphasize too strongly the inter- 
dependence of our wartime and peacetime missions. Our peacetime 
mission provides a global platform from which we can respond to 
a full spectrum of contingencies anywhere in the world. It also 
serves as a training base for our providers that ensures their war- 
time skills remain state of the art. 

Further, I noted earlier our graduate medical education pro- 
grams allow us to recruit the brightest and best and teach them 
to be responsive to the unique needs of our Air Force mission and 
its culture. 

Finally, our peacetime system allows the Air Force Medical Serv- 
ice to take care of its own. We are the people who best understand 
what is needed to make the Air Force fit to fly, fight and win, to 
include caring for our families and on the bottom Tine, we can do 
it more cost-effectively in most cases than can the civilian sector. 

I will close by saying thank you for your support of the Air Force 
Medical Service. It will continue to be an invaluable service as we 
meet the challenges of the future. I look forward to working with 
the committee during the next several years as we strive together 
to serve the men and women of the United States Air Force and 
the military. Thank you, sir. 

[The prepared statement of General Anderson follows:] 

Prepared Statement by Lt. Gen. Edgar R. Anderson, Jr., Surgeon General, 
Department of the Air Force 

Mister Chairman and members of the committee, I appreciate this opportunity to 
address the status of the Air Force Medical Service (AFMS) as we rapidly approach 
the birth of the 21st century. We continue to support the line of the Air Force in 
its mission of Global Reach/Global Power/Global Presence, working closer than ever 
before with our sister services to meet the diverse challenges of today's evolving 
world. The AFMS stands ready to serve the needs of our Nation in response to the 
National Command Authorities, from providing medical relief to our foreign neigh- 
bors in times of crisis, to treating our deployed personnel in contingency operations, 



90-165 96-9 



254 

to caring for our family members and retirees at home. The successes of our war- 
time and peacetime missions are inextricably linked. 

MEDICAL READINESS 

During 1994, the AFMS experienced the highest operations tempo since Operation 
Desert Storm. Medical deployments doubled since 1993, with more than 2,500 medi- 
cal personnel supporting global peacetime engagements, United Nations peacekeep- 
ing, and humanitarian relief operations. We deployed a total of five air transport- 
able hospitals (ATHs) to support Rwandan reliet efforts, Haitian/Cuban migrant op- 
erations at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, and Cuban migrant operations in Panama. 
Three of these ATHs remain deployed. Medical forces also deployed to establish 
medical staging operations and aeromedical evacuation infrastructures within the 
Caribbean region for Operation Uphold Democracy and in Southwest Asia for Oper- 
ation Vigilant Warrior. 

In early 1995, Air Force medics supported Operation United Shield in Mombassa, 
Kenya, establishing a Mobile Aeromedical Staging Facility and aeromedical evacu- 
ation services to evacuate remaining United Nations Protection Forces 
(UNPROFOR) personnel from Somalia. Air Force aeromedical evacuation crews also 
participated in Operation Safe Passage, transferring Cuban patients from Panama 
to Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. In addition, we continue to support UNPROFOR medi- 
cal operations at Zagreb, Croatia, with a deployment of almost 150 Air Force medics 
in February. 

Another contribution of the AFMS is the participation of our Independent Duty 
Medical Technicians (IDMTs) from the Pacific Air Forces (PACAF) in Operation Full 
Accounting. These IDMTs are supporting multiple teams in Southeast Asia to re- 
cover, identify and return the remains of U.S. servicemen missing in action (MIA). 

Finally, our personnel participate in ongoing rotations in Southwest Asia for Op- 
erations Provide Comfort, Southern Watch, and Desert Calm; in Europe for Oper- 
ations Deny Flight and Provide Promise; and in Central America to support theater 
aeromedical evacuation and counterdrug operations. Throughout these nigh tempo 
operations, our Guard and Reserve counterparts have made vital contributions. 

Over the past year, the AFMS has been in the process of "reengineering" medical 
readiness. We identified prevention, clinical intervention and aeromedical evacu- 
ation as the basic triad of AFMS readiness capabilities. During this process, we vali- 
dated our pillar facilities, such as our air transportable hospitals and clinics and 
aeromedical staging facilities (mobile and fixed). We will be making adjustments to 
these facilities to adapt their capabilities to our evolving global mission in concert 
with Defense Planning Guidance. 

In the area of prevention, we will be developing methods to identify and mitigate 
threats in the environment and workplace. For example, we will be expanding pre- 
ventive medicine practices to include identifying health risks in the field during de- 
ployments. This will provide valuable data for post deployment follow-up as well as 
for future deployments. We are also working to develop on-site wing support for Nu- 
clear, Biological and Chemical (NBC) threat identification and monitoring that will 
strengthen our predictive capabilities and maximize effectiveness in the NBC war- 
fare environment. 

To enhance clinical intervention, we are modularizing our field clinical capability 
to allow us to tailor care delivery packages in an economically and clinically efficient 
manner as an integral part of our Operational Plans (OPLANS). We will be able 
to provide augmentation teams for specialized areas of need, such as mental health 
or burn teams. This will enable us to make optimal use of our human resources in 
a contingency environment. 

We are also redesigning our aeromedical evacuation (AE) system to better meet 
today's readiness needs. We are structuring it into three tiers of increasing capabil- 
ity. Nursing comprises the first and basic modular tier. We are adding physicians 
and updating equipment to add capabilities to the second tier that will allow us to 
move more recently stabilized patients. We are also developing a sophisticated third 
tier capability to move intensive care patients on theater missions. This will require 
establishing critical care transport teams that may augment crews to move very sick 
patients to the rear. Our change in approach to AE will support the reduced forward 
medical "footprint" needed for a lighter, more mobile force. 

We are also studying our AE hardware needs. Airframe availability projections in- 
dicate that our C— 141 fleet will be reduced into the next century, with no projected 
replacement at this time. We are adapting to this situation by exploring contractual 
relationships within the Civil Reserve Air Fleet (CRAF) program, which may pro- 
vide dedicated aircraft for patient movement with no front-load costs. 



255 

We are also incorporating the tenet that we may need to use non-traditional air- 
craft for our retrograde AE. In recent operations other than war, the AE system has 
provided support not only on "traditional" aircraft such as the C— 130 and C— 141, 
but also on alternative aircraft such as the KC-135, C-21 and aircraft of United 
Nations coalition nations. We are capturing information from missions on these al- 
ternative aircraft to ensure that in the future AE personnel have information avail- 
able to them that will prevent compromise of medical care and safety when flying 
on these aircraft. Both the use of CRAF and alternative military aircraft will re- 
quire modification to the training of our aircrews as we adapt to new ways of doing 
business. 

The Air Force continues to build on the strengths of the AE system and correct 
identified weaknesses. The Command Surgeon at Headquarters, Air Mobility Com- 
mand (HQ AMC), has undertaken a review of the roles and responsibilities of the 
major components operating and supporting the AE system. The review will identify 
processes and facilitate coordination of changes to the system, with the goal of fur- 
ther improving AE support to our customers. 

Through HQ AMC, we also continue to work with U.S. Transportation Command 
(USTRANSCOM) in developing and implementing the TRANSCOM Regulating and 
Command and Control Evacuation System (TRAC2ES). Once installed, TRAC2ES 
will provide real-time in-transit visibility of patients and equipment being moved 
through the AE system and will reduce administrative repetition within the patient 
movement process. 

To achieve our plan to reduce our forward medical footprint, we have decreased 
the number of our pre positioned contingency hospitals in Europe and the Pacific. 
Today, our contingency hospital program has been reduced from nine sites to two 
sites in Europe, and from three sites to one site in the Pacific. Surplus materiel 
from the deactivated medical facilities has been used to meet other Air Force re- 
quirements or the needs of other Department of Defense (DOD) agencies. Materiel 
that cannot be used by other agencies has been identified to the Department of 
State for humanitarian assistance purposes. 

The AFMS recognizes the importance of maintaining flexibility to meet the needs 
of the Air Force and our changing world. While decreasing the number of our 
prepositioned hospitals in Europe, we are increasing the capabilities of our ATHs. 
We have added resources to increase the level of care for non-battle injuries and 
have also improved the capability to support our female service members. A major 
program we have embarked upon is the outfitting of our mobile hospitals to operate 
in a contaminated biological and chemical warfare environment. Our medical facili- 
ties are being designed to support both the patients and staff for periods as long 
as 30 days without having to relocate in case of chemical attack. 

In addition, modular equipment and personnel sets are being developed to allow 
medical commanders to choose additive capabilities to match the operational envi- 
ronment. The bed size of the ATH is available in increments of 14, 25, 50 or 90 
beds. An iteration with 10 beds, known as the air transportable trauma center, is 
being developed. The growth from 50 to 90 beds will be accomplished with the hos- 
pital surgical expansion module, which includes an operating theater with two ta- 
bles. Other expansion packages being considered are dentistry, optometry, obstetrics 
and various surgical specialties. These initiatives will offer greater flexibility in pro- 
tecting U.S. interests in both wartime and humanitarian operations. 

The Air Force Blood Program is a crucial element of our medical readiness mis- 
sion. We continue to work closely with DOD and our sister services to ensure our 
troops' blood needs will be met in any contingency. Recently, a second Armed Serv- 
ices Whole Blood Processing Laboratory (ASWBPL) opened on the west coast. This 
new facility and the one on the east coast are situated in prime locations to provide 
rapid response for both liquid and frozen blood products. 

The Defense Blood Standard System (DBSS) automated system is being installed 
in all Air Force Blood Donor Centers and transfusion services. The system, which 
is compatible with existing systems, supports donor registration, donor deferral 
(putting rejected donors on a data base for future reference), donor collection and 
blood processing. The system is designed for eventual wide area networking for ef- 
fective donor deferral data base sharing, inventory control; transshipment, theater 
support, and look -back (review of past cases) for post-transfusion associated events. 
The Air Force has deployed 22 computer systems and will deploy 35 more in 1995. 

In response to the many published reports criticizing medical readiness training 
in the military, I must emphatically state that Air Force medical readiness training 
is in excellent shape. The DOD Inspector General reported in August 1994 that "the 
Air Force program for providing initial and sustainment medical readiness training 
is by far the most effective Military Service initiative to date." In addition, the Air 



256 

Force Audit Agency has just completed a review of our program and found that 
more than 95 percent of our personnel had current training documentation. 

Lessons learned from Operations Desert Shield and Desert Storm have been in- 
strumental in finetuning our medical readiness training program. Recent training 
accomplishments include the establishment of a 2-week Aeromedical Evacuation 
Contingency Operation Training Program to standardize AE training, and expan- 
sion ofour training on deployable assets to ensure our active duty and Air Reserve 
Component (ARC) personnel are trained on the equipment with which they will de- 
ploy. Our revised program focuses active and ARC training on mission and spe- 
cialty-specific requirements that will prepare our members for their actual role in 
a contingency operation. This is a crucial step in our goal toward a complete Mirror 
Force, wnere our ARC units are reconfigured to "mirror" active duty units to facili- 
tate seamless transition when they serve as backfill to deploying active duty person- 
nel or deploy themselves. 

PEOPLE 

Certainly the most important factor in our medical readiness equation is our peo- 
ple. The AFMS continues to attract the highest caliber of health professionals 
through the outstanding efforts of the U.S. Air Force Recruiting Service. In fiscal 
year 1994, the Recruiting Service met or exceeded the Medical Service Corps, Dental 
Corps and Biomedical Sciences Corps recruiting goals. Medical special pays are hav- 
ing a positive affect on recruiting and retention of physicians, although we still have 
some difficulty attracting and keeping people in some provider specialties, such as 
family practice. In the past, the Nurse Corps has not successfully competed for cer- 
tified registered nurse anesthetists (CRNAs), however, language in the Fiscal Year 
1995 Defense Authorization Act raising CRNA incentive special pay will help us re- 
cruit and retain these highly skilled professionals. We appreciate the efforts of the 
Congress in this area. 

The Financial Assistance Program continues to be a resounding success. This pop- 
ular program allows us to attract residents in difficult-to-recruit specialties. The 
Nurse Accession Bonus is a continuing success story, and we are delighted that Con- 
gress has extended this program through fiscal year 1996. 

The retention rate of AFMS officers in fiscal year 1994 remained stable or showed 
slight improvement. The Biomedical Sciences Corps, Dental Corps and Nurse Corps 
reflected slight gains in retention, while the Medical Corps and Medical Service 
Corps remained relatively stable. Special pay programs, quality of life initiatives 
and satisfaction with Air Force medicine are just a few of the tangible contributors 
to the successful retention of our highly skilled professionals. 

Having worked closely with our Graduate Medical Education (GME) program for 
many years, I would challenge anyone to find a finer program anywhere. It is truly 
the life blood of military medicine and our medical readiness program. Without our 
GME program, we cannot recruit the caliber of medical professionals we require to 
fulfill our wartime and peacetime missions. Further, the men and women who par- 
ticipate in our GME program "grow up" in the Air Force culture — they are trained 
to respond to the unique needs of our members and their families, whether at home 
or on the battlefield. They also learn the fiscally responsible approach to health care 
that has become so crucial today. 

This past year was a watershed for GME, and we continued to expand our quality 
transformation. Along with our sister services, we are dedicated to maintaining the 
highest possible quality and efficiency of our GME training programs in this time 
of budget constraints. 

The second tri-service GME Selection Board resulted in a 25 percent increase of 
inter-service selection of trainees over last year's premier board. Recognizing the 
greater demand for primary care physicians as the Military Health Services evolve 
into TRICARE, we increased our pool of Family Practice trainees to meet future 
needs. We continued to support the use of deferred training programs to augment 
GME programs as a cost-savings measure. 

We are working with our sister services to identify GME programs that can be 
consolidated to eliminate duplication and improve service. We identified six GME 
programs in the San Antonio, Texas, area for integration between the Air Force's 
Wilford Hall Medical Center and Brooke Army Medical Center. Integration of dupli- 
cate programs enhances jointness interoperability and potentially the training expe- 
rience. This is one of the many ways we are seeking to right-size" the AFMS. 

HEALTH PROMOTION AND DISEASE PREVENTION 

We know that optimal health and total fitness are force multipliers. Thus our goal 
is to empower and assist Air Force people to lead healthy life-styles. A key compo- 



257 

nent in our support of our primary customer, the warfighters, is teamwork with the 
line of the Air Force to build that totally fit and optimally healthy force. 

We are forging a joint effort with Air Force Services to expand the Health and 
Wellness Center concept Air Force-wide. These centers offer "one-stop shopping" for 
physical fitness assessment and health promotion activities, such as counseling and 
education on proper nutrition, stress management and tobacco use cessation. 

The Air Force fitness program is successfully motivating people to exercise regu- 
larly. In conjunction with Air Force Services, we convened a "fitness summit" meet- 
ing this past summer. Leading civilian and military authorities in the area of exer- 
cise evaluation and prescription met in San Antonio, Texas, to evaluate the Air 
Force program. They concluded that cycle ergometry provides a valid tool to meas- 
ure and improve Air Force members' cardiorespiratory endurance. Furthermore, 
they noted that the Air Force fitness program represents a state-of-the-art applica- 
tion of assessing and improving the health of a large population. In the aggregate, 
we have seen a 10 percent improvement from 1993 to 1994 in Air Force members 
meeting or exceeding the Air Force fitness standard, a true testament to the pro- 
gram's success. 

Because readiness begins with the individual, we have expanded our medical self- 
care initiative by training and educating Air Force members in the art of personal 
self-care and disease prevention. Air Force people learn to confidently address their 
minor health problems, understand when to involve a health care provider, build a 
preventive health ethic, and become an active partner of their health care team. Key 
pillars to an effective self-care program include reference materials, self-care advi- 
sors and follow-up. 

To reinforce our emphasis on prevention, we have established the Office of Pre- 
vention and Health Services Assessment (OPHSA) in San Antonio. OPHSA is work- 
ing to improve the delivery of clinical preventive services such as immunizations, 
and screening and counseling to enhance early detection and treatment of disease. 
OPHSA is evaluating more than 20 projects related to intervention strategies and 
optimal resource allocation. 

Recently, OPHSA, in cooperation with the Department of Health and Human 
Services, championed and conducted a tri-service 'T'ut Prevention into Practice" im- 
plementation conference. The goal is to begin integrating a benchmarked clinical 
preventive service into managed care operations. This campaign will facilitate build- 
ing a culture where each encounter between the medical professional and the pa- 
tient is seen as an opportunity to discuss healthy life-styles and preventive health 
measures. 

Our preventive programs are not just geared to the active duty member. To the 
contrary, the health and well-being of our Air Force families is equally crucial to 
military readiness. Families must feel secure, and stable family life must be encour- 
aged ii we are to continue to demand and receive optimum performance from our 
active duty men and women. We know that one of the most destabilizing influences 
on families is family violence, and we continue to take active steps to prevent it 
through our Family Advocacy Program. 

Beginning with soon-to-be parents, we are reaching out — increasingly, going right 
into the home — to provide new parents training in infant and child development, 
parenting kills and couples communication. Our young parents experience a sense 
of success from the very beginning and are so positive about the program that they 
are telling their friends. Staffed by professional nurses and social workers who un- 
derstand the special needs of our military families, these programs are showing 
great promise in reducing the potential for family violence. Our three-pronged ap- 
proach of prevention, early intervention and treatment appears to be paying off. Re- 
search indicates that when Air Force child abuse rates are compared to the best es- 
timates of civilian child abuse, we are holding steady at about half the civilian rate. 

Spouse abuse is another area of family violence where the Air Force is heavily 
involved. We actively identify and intervene in spouse abuse and, while our rates 
of spouse abuse have been increasing over the past few years, our recidivism rates 
appear quite low. Our research continues to indicate we are making significant posi- 
tive changes in the way abusers relate to their spouses. We also see abused spouses 
reporting increased levels of marital satisfaction and fewer problems with their 
mates after having received our services. In short, while we continue to seek im- 
provement, our Air Force Family Advocacy Program remains the envy of many of 
our civilian colleagues. 

To complete our multifaceted preventive medicine program, our bioenvironmental 
engineers (BEEs) are dedicated to searching out hazards and eliminating them from 
the working and community environments. Our BEEs are the vanguards of a state- 
of-the-art occupational medicine program that provides continuous monitoring of all 
Air Force workplaces. They work closely with our public health officers and physi- 



258 

cians to anticipate, recognize, evaluate and control health threats in the workplace, 
preventing occupational^ related illnesses and subsequent mission degradation. 

In addition, our BEEs promote compliance with Occupational Safety and Health 
Administration (OSHA) and Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) health-related 
laws, rules and regulations. In fact, our existing programs dealing with lead-based 
paints, asbestos, radiation, radioactive materials, noise, and chemical/physical haz- 
ards in the workplace have been lauded by OSHA as *H.he best of the Federal sec- 
tor." We are also developing programs for ergonomics and indoor air quality that 
will go far in reducing workplace hazards and will pay off in happier, healthier 
workers, as well as reduced compensation claims and disability payments. 

Finally, we are taking disease prevention to new levels, both industrially and en- 
vironmentally, by implementing the Hazardous Materials Pharmacy program. Bases 
testing this program have proven its effectiveness in tracking and controlling haz- 
ardous materials, reducing use of those materials, and ultimately substituting mate- 
rials that are safer, healthier, and more friendly to the environment. 

PERSIAN GULF ILLNESS COMPREHENSIVE CLINICAL EVALUATION PROGRAM 

I would now like to briefly discuss the Air Force contribution to the Persian Gulf 
Illness Comprehensive Clinical Evaluation Program (CCEP). The readiness of Air 
Force personnel retires our diligence in evaluating their health before, during and 
after deployment. In this light, the Air Force is working aggressively with the other 
services, DOD, and the Departments of Health and Human Services and Veterans 
Affairs to evaluate and treat the health concerns of Persian Gulf veterans. Together, 
we have developed the CCEP for Persian Gulf illness to address their health care 
needs. 

DOD has completed evaluations on 5,000 participants in the program, and re- 
leased a formal report on the first 1,000 in December 1994. The report stated that 
16 percent of the first 1,000 participants were Air Force members. Of the total num- 
ber of CCEP registrants, currently 15,000, the Air Force comprises approximately 
10 percent, roughly equivalent to the percentage of Air Force personnel serving in 
the Gulf War. The report also stated that the majority of CCEP participants have 
clear diagnoses, which include a variety of conditions for which they are receiving 
treatment with favorable response. 

DOD has established two Specialty Care Centers (SCC) for individuals who have 
completed the thorough medical work-up provided by the CCEP and require addi- 
tional diagnostic tests, evaluation or specialized treatment for illnesses related to 
deployment. The two centers will combine the very best clinical expertise and tech- 
nology that the services have to offer at four major military medical centers. The 
first SCC, in TRICARE Region 1, will combine the resources of Walter Reed Army 
Medical Center and the National Naval Medical Center-Bethesda. The second, in 
TRICARE Region 6, will join the resources of the Air Force's Wilford Hall Medical 
Center and Brooke Army Medical Center. The SCCs will allow for the consolidation 
of critical skills, specialty consultation and centralized data collection to assist those 
personnel for whom a definitive diagnosis is still elusive. 

Data and experience gained from the CCEP will result in improved preventive 
medicine guidance before deployment; in theatre surveillance, particularly for envi- 
ronmental hazards; and post-deployment health surveillance. We are committed not 
only to resolving the health concerns of our Gulf War veterans, but also to protect- 
ing the health oi those who follow them into battle. 

TRICARE 

The final, crucial, factor in our medical readiness equation is our peacetime health 
care base. Thus, we are very enthusiastic about the TRICARE program and the im- 
provements it offers military beneficiaries in obtaining affordable, quality health 
care in a timely manner. 

Implementation of the basic tenets of TRICARE is well under way. These tenets 
include regionalization and lead agencies; managed care support contracts, a triple- 
option benefit, capitation financing, and utilization management. Our four Air Force 
lead agents are fully staffed and operational. They are located at Lackland AFB, 
Texas, (Region 6); Travis AFB, California, (Region 10); Keesler AFB, Mississippi, 
(Region 4); and Wright-Patterson AFB, Ohio, (Region 5). Our lead agents have con- 
ducted local site visits to each of their region's MTFs and developed comprehensive 
regional health service plans for providing high quality, cost-effective care. 

TRICARE managed care support contracts are being phased in over the next 3 
years, with completion planned by May 1997. Region 10 is currently operating 
under a modified version of the Civilian Health and Medical Program of the Uni- 
formed Services (CHAMPUS) Reform Initiative contract, which did not include the 



259 

role of lead agents. However, the current contractor, Aetna Health, has been very 
cooperative in helping the services transition to the lead agent concept. For the Air 
Force, the first TRICARE managed care support contract that incorporates the role 
of lead agents will be awarded in Region 6 this summer. Region 4 is reviewing bid- 
ders' proposals under a single contract that combines Region 4 with the Armys Re- 
gion 3 requirements. Region 5 is actively involved in planning and coordinating re- 
gional health care services, and will soon begin development of their request for pro- 
posals from prospective bidders. 

As required by law, TRICARE offers beneficiaries a triple-option health care bene- 
fit. In December 1994, the Deputy Secretary of Defense approved the new TRICARE 
Prime benefit, formerly known as HMO Option A, as the Uniform Benefit. The serv- 
ices are unified in their support for HMO Option A as the best benefit for our bene- 
ficiaries. It eliminates enrollment fees for active duty families who choose to enroll 
and offers retirees and their families no deductible and significantly reduced civilian 
inpatient costs in exchange for a modest enrollment fee. 

TRICARE Prime will be offered nationally wherever possible in conjunction with 
the start of the managed care support contracts. Today, and after the start of the 
contracts, all beneficiaries retain their choice of keeping standard CHAMPUS cov- 
erage. If they choose the TRICARE Standard option, but selectively use the network 
providers established for Prime enrollees, they receive a 5 percent discount off the 
standard CHAMPUS cost shares for visits to those network providers. In addition, 
these beneficiaries should see further savings when using network providers be- 
cause these providers' charges are negotiated at a lower rate than standard 
CHAMPUS. This is called the TRICARE Extra option. 

TRICARE will of course be available to those beneficiaries living in Base Realign- 
ment and Closure (BRAC) sites. Until TRICARE has been implemented in their re- 
spective locations, beneficiaries will have several health care alternatives. In addi- 
tion to the standard CHAMPUS, CHAMPUS contracts are modified for BRAC loca- 
tions to provide a preferred provider organization type of option, as well as a retail 
pharmacy network with reduced patient cost-sharing. Military beneficiaries who are 
age 65 and older and living in BRAC sites where the benefit is offered are eligible 
to use the retail pharmacy networks. 

A mail-order pharmacy demonstration program has begun in several designated 
locations throughout the country. The program is operational in California and Ha- 
waii and two tri-State regions (Florida, Georgia and South Carolina; and Pennsylva- 
nia, New Jersey and Delaware). It will be implemented in 12 designated BRAC loca- 
tions that are not covered by an existing at-risk TRICARE managed care support 
contract. The mail-order pharmacy demonstration will be expanded to two addi- 
tional multi-state regions, and will ultimately be available nationally under the 
TRICARE support contracts. 

The success of TRICARE depends in great part upon the capabilities and 
functionality of our information systems. The Composite Health Care System 
(CHCS) will provide a standard platform across all MTFs in each TRICARE region 
for patient information. CHCS permits long-term storage of patient information 
while allowing for immediate retrieval. The need to access information from a vari- 
ety of different systems in a seamless manner is critical. The Corporate Executive 
Information System (CEIS) will facilitate this, plus present the information to non- 
technical users in a way that is easy to obtain and understand. 

In the long term, using the Wide Area Network to aggregate data from CHCS will 
offer the opportunity to integrate each region's MTFs and provide a valuable tool 
to support lead agent decisions. The need for such a decision support system is criti- 
cal: It directly impacts patient management by providing data on the patterns of 
care and patient outcomes linked to the resource consumption and costs associated 
with the health care process. 

I am happy to say we have made tremendous progress in deploying information 
systems to our Air Force MTFs. CHCS functionality is now in place at 60 out of 
84 of our facilities. Patient appointment and scheduling, patient administration, 
pharmacy, laboratory and radiology CHCS modules are deployed to all Air Force 
medical centers except Wilford Hall, where deployment will be completed by May 

We are also rapidly deploying the CHCS managed care program module to all our 
MTFs. This module provides an enrollment information systems platform for record- 
ing enrollment in TRICARE Prime and making specialty referrals and appoint- 
ments. We expect deployment completion by fiscalyear 1996. 

Those sites with the managed care module are beginning to enroll active duty 
members into TRICARE Prime and assigning them to a primary care manager in 
the MTF. This early enrollment, before the start of the managed care support con- 



260 

tracts, ensures our active duty members receive the highest priority for care in our 
hospitals. 

In addition to CHCS, systems like the Provider Workstation and the Clinical In- 
formation System (CIS) capture essential patient data, assisting AFMS personnel to 
improve quality and effectively manage information. We appreciate Congress' sup- 

¥ort of the Provider Workstation and believe the CIS will prove equally valuable, 
his system focuses on capturing clinical care data and measures performance 
against national standards. Further, CIS can interface with CHCS and other auto- 
mation systems. 

To complement our own automation systems, the AFMS strongly supports the use 
of Commercial Off-the-Shelf (COTS) products where they meet our needs. Several 
applications lend themselves to COTS. These include blood and anatomic pathology, 
patient care documentation (nursing), third party collection, operating room schedul- 
ing, and managed care decision support software. All of these systems tools I have 
described are vital as we implement our state-of-the-art managed care program, 
TRICARE. 

In so many ways, we have found a new and better way of d oing business. A key 
managed care principle we have adopted for all Air Force MTFs is capitation financ- 
ing. All our facilities are given a population-based, annual fixed budget. By imple- 
menting capitation, we have eliminated our old workload-based system that re- 
warded increased production regardless of outcome. Our focus now is on using man- 
aged care principles to ensure the appropriate level of care. 

The TRICARE program is a partnership involving all Federal health care facili- 
ties. We continue to seek out new opportunities for joint ventures and sharing 
agreements with Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) hospitals wherever feasible. 
We are pleased with this program: It saves money and increases patient access to 
care. On the bottom line, it makes our patients happy, and that makes us happy. 

Our joint ventures at Kirtland AFB, New Mexico, and Nellie AFB, Nevada, are 
proving very successful, and we are looking forward to the expansion of the joint 
venture at David Grant Medical Center, Travis AFB, California, planned for 1998. 
In addition, 36 Air Force MTFs currently have sharing agreements with the VA, re- 
sulting in an estimated DOD cost-avoidance of $6.1 million. 

We are exploring "right-sizing" initiatives at Air Force MTFs in an effort to en- 
sure they are sized appropriately to the medical needs of the community, and are 
cost-effective to the government. The Reese AFB, Texas, hospital is our right-sizing 
prototype. It is drawing down inpatient services and creating a large ambulatory 
care facility that includes ambulatory surgery capability. We will use lessons 
learned from our Reese experience in future restructuring efforts at other Air Force 
MTFs that offer opportunities to improve and modernize our approach to health 
care delivery. 

As we embark on the TRICARE program, the AFMS stands solidly on it founda- 
tion of quality care. Of our 98 MTFs, 62 are accredited by the Joint Commission 
on the Accreditation of Healthcare Organizations (JCAHO). Almost 18 percent of 
these facilities are accredited with commendation, as compared to approximately 10 
percent of civilian medical facilities. 

As participants in the Maryland Hospital Association Quality Indicator Project, 
Air Force inpatient facilities consistently maintain lower rates than all other partici- 
pants in 9 of the 15 indicators. For example, the Air Force has lower numbers of 
caesarean sections; total inpatient, neonatal and perioperative deaths; and unsched- 
uled returns to the operating room. I am also happy to share that years of study 
by the DOD Civilian External Peer Review Program proved that the DOD health 
services system provides health care above established standards. Therefore, the 
program has shifted its emphasis to the analysis of product lines and patterns of 
care, to identify both "best clinical practice" and "best clinical outcome." 

We in the AFMS are proud of our record and are committed to sustaining our 
hallmark of quality care in the challenging years ahead. 

CONCLUSION 

I have addressed in some detail the Air Force's efforts in our medical readiness 
and peacetime health care missions. I cannot emphasize too strongly the inter- 
dependence of these two missions. Contrary to some reports, our peacetime health 
care system is essential to our ability to sustain medical readiness. 

First, our peacetime capability around the globe provides a platform from which 
we can respond to a full spectrum of contingencies anywhere in the world. This 
flexible response capability is key to the Air Force's mission of Global Reach/Global 
Power/Global Presence as our medical units deploy directly with their line elements. 



261 

Second, our peacetime health care system serves as a training base for our provid- 
ers that ensures their wartime skills are state-of-the-art "when the balloon goes up." 
Air Force physicians, nurses, dentists — and all our providers and technicians — 
maintain currency in their skills as they provide hands-on care on a daily basis to 
our patients. 

Third, Air Force medical centers train our new providers to be among the best 
in their fields, both as health care professionals and as Air Force officers. Air Force 
Graduate Medical Education programs allow us to recruit the brightest new talent 
in the medical community, and teach them to be responsive to the unique needs of 
our Air Force mission and culture. 

Finally, study after study has shown that unit cost for care is lower in the mili- 
tary direct care system than in the civilian sector. We recognize that this savings 
may be countered by the "demand factor" — that is, the lower costs for care will bring 
additional patients to the MTF. However, we have already instituted major changes 
in our system to offset the demand factor, such as capitation budgeting, business 
case analysis and utilization management. I am confident that these changes, cou- 
pled with the Air Force Medical Service's experience, talent and commitment to ex- 
cellence, will ensure our beneficiaries receive the best possible health care for the 
taxpayer's dollar. 

We continue to reduce the size of the AFMS, or "right-size," where appropriate 
to deliver high quality, cost-effective patient care within the declining resource envi- 
ronment of DOD. We actively seek civilian contracts for services where they can be 
provided more cost-effectively than in our MTFs. In using these measures, we main- 
tain the necessary balance between quality care and cost savings while preserving 
the crucial level of manning to perform our medical readiness mission within its 
peacetime health care support base. 

In conclusion, I would urge our Nation's leadership to recognize all of these fac- 
tors when considering the issue of medical readiness. Our peacetime system is not 
just a "nice to have" institution — it is imperative if we are to respond to the care 
of our soldiers at war. To the members of this committee, I offer my deepest grati- 
tude for your support in meeting the needs of the Air Force Medical Service, and 
thus the needs or our patients worldwide. 

Senator Coats. Thank you, General. Admiral Hagen? 

STATEMENT OF VICE ADM. DONALD F. HAGEN, SURGEON 
GENERAL, DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY 

Admiral Hagen. Thank you, Senator, and thank you for the rec- 
ognition. It has been an honor to work with you over the last 4 
years and I certainly would like to thank the committee Members 
for their support of military medicine. Without you we would never 
have what we have today, which is really a very fine medical sys- 
tem. 

As usual, I would like to start out by saying Navy medicine is 
still focused on the fleet and the Marines. This morning, we have 
379 ships in the Navy and 50 percent are at sea. Thirty percent 
of the Navy medical personnel are either employed aboard ship, 
with the Marines or overseas. 

So, with 30 percent always gone, the other two-thirds back here 
are training to go. For us, this is a constant way of life. 

It has been a very, very exciting year. Since I saw you last time, 
we have deployed the hospital ship Comfort twice on 5 days notice. 
We moved that massive hospital ship down to the Caribbean, first 
in support of the Haitian refugees at sea for that terrible problem 
we had down there, and the second time when we put the troops 
into Haiti. 

Most recently, we have worked with the extraction of the Ma- 
rines from Somalia in a very successful operation. We just brought 
back our fleet hospital staff from Croatia after a year and have 
passed that responsibility on to the Air Force. Those people did 
their job extremely well. We are still involved in Guantanamo Bay, 



262 

treating the Cuban refugees in that particular area, as well as the 
fires, floods, earthquakes and other things that we have been work- 
ing with across this country. 

One thing that is also very obvious this year is that the Reserve 
support is active and working well. In Croatia during the last 6 
months that we were there, we staffed the hospital with Active 
duty and Reserves and you could not tell one from the other. They 
did exceptionally well, by the way, some are from Indiana, I think 
we had a brother and sister team from there. They did a super job. 
The morale is sky high. 

We are making tremendous progress in one area that has been 
a problem for us for as long as I have been in the Navy. It has to 
do with Reserve credentialing for physicians. You know, in the 

f>ast, we had discussions about whether or not Dr. X, when mobi- 
ized, would be able to go do a job in wartime because you did not 
know, for example, if the pediatrician was in the right billet. 

Senator Kennedy got involved in that vears ago when that dis- 
cussion was going on. We have developed a centralized 
credentialing database in which 80-plus percent of all the doctors 
in the Reserves are now included. Any one of my hospitals can ac- 
cess that database and get the details on a doctor including his or 
her qualifications. 

Now, when a Reserve anesthesiologist shows up at the door of 
Bethesda to train on a weekday morning, the CO can access the 
database, bring up the credentials, and check and make sure that 
he or she is fully licensed and certified. That anesthesiologist can 
go right to work and practice with our full confidence that he or 
she can do the job. 

This will now also apply to the deployable units that go overseas 
so you know that the staff is right and ready to go. That is a mar- 
velous improvement and we are moving toward making this a Tri- 
service initiative. This makes me very, very proud. 

You have never seen anything like jointness until you work with 
us. This group that you see before you now meet every week for 
at least 2 hours discussing common issues and working with all of 
our military treatment facilities. 

Joint staffing is now real. It happens all over the place. The na- 
tional capital region is a good area to look at in terms of consolida- 
tion of programs. If you just look at some of the programs that we 
are putting together with Walter Reed, Bethesda and Malcom 
Grow here, you can see we really mean it. 

Psychiatry is a good example. Bethesda will provide adolescent 
psychiatry screening. Adult psychiatry and inpatient services will 
principally be located at Walter Reed. Substance abuse will be co- 
ordinated under the Air Force at Malcom Grow. Instead of dupli- 
cating our activities, we are doing things jointly. 

In addition, Ob-Gvn at Bethesda is operated by staff from all 
three services. Air Force and Navy are almost interchangeable in 
deployability these days, and Tri-service really is the name of the 
game. 

We also are proud that in the residency selection process, we are 
meeting together and selecting the best qualified residents from all 
three services for those programs. This is working exceptionally 
well. 



263 

When people talk about privatization and bridging out with the 
community, why not look at us first. We are probably doing it bet- 
ter than most parts of the department. We started out in Charles- 
ton, working with the local medical people bridging them to the 
Navy and the Air Force. We then moved to Tidewater and 
TRICARE. In TRICARE and Tidewater, we Have over 1,000 civilian 
physicians in the network in Portsmouth-Norfolk area right now, 
as part of the PPO option for the TRICARE model. 

TRICARE is working exceptionally well. It is a virtually seamless 
operation and we are very excited about the whole TRICARE ini- 
tiative. TRICARE helps readiness. We have bridged with civilian 
communities throughout the country so that when I deploy a hos- 
pital ship, people can get directly into care in the civilian commu- 
nity and not have to wait in line for somebody to come back from 
deployment. 

There is a tremendous readiness posture that can be improved 
by implementing TRICARE and we believe that it is very, very 
positive. 

The other area that we have been working on with the Navy is 
telemedicine. We have been at sea. We put telemedicine capability 
on the U.S.S. George Washington, the aircraft carrier in the Medi- 
terranean and over a 6-month period they avoided 32 medical evac- 
uations. 

Each one of those saves a tremendous amount of money because 
we do not have to send the patient home. It changed the whole 
practice of medicine out there. The ship does not have to lose its 
mission and we do not have to replace people. The Navy is starting 
to demand more and more of this because we get immediate con- 
sultation from Bethesda back to the doctor at sea. 

It improves the quality of care for the sailors and marines at sea. 
We are working very hard to network the ships and the remote fa- 
cilities together with interactive television and to change the prac- 
tice of medicine in many of our remote facilities. 

Lastly, we are very concerned, as Dr. Joseph mentioned, that the 
Medicare-eligible people feel left out of TRICARE. These people 
have tremendous loyalty to us and they want to come to us, but 
now there is no incentive. As a matter of fact, it is a disincentive 
when we are precluded from enrolling them because of the law. We 
do want to take care of the over-65 population, so we would like 
to strongly encourage this committee to reexamine the issue of 
Medicare subvention. 

It is a joy to work with you. It is time to retire and move on to 
other jobs. That is very sad sometimes, but when I look at the man 
on my right and hear what he had to say a few minutes ago, it is 
a pleasure to know that the next generation is picking up on the 
readiness posture and the jointness we stand for. It will be a pleas- 
ure to retire honorably. 

Thank you very much. 

[The prepared statement of Admiral Hagen follows:] 



264 

Prepared Statement by Vice Adm. Donald F. Hagen, Surgeon General, 
Department of the Navy 

introduction 

Mr. Chairman, thank you for the privilege of testifying before your committee and 
the opportunity to share our vision of the future of Navy medicine. I have discovered 
that those who seek excellence are bound by their willingness to embrace change. 
Navy Medicine is eager to move into the 21st century with positive change and un- 
precedented levels of achievement. 

Navy Medicine's primary mission is medical readiness in support of the fleet and 
Fleet Marine Force (FMF). This medical readiness mission requires the Navy Medi- 
cal Department to maintain a ready Navy-Marine Corps fighting force while at the 
same time maintaining the readiness of the Navy Medical personnel and equipment 
that deploy and serve wherever there are sailors and marines. Our readiness mis- 
sion is comprised of two components: wartime support and day-to-day operational 
support to the fleet and Fleet Marine Force. A third distinct, but closely interrelated 
mission is the provision of peacetime health care to eligible beneficiaries. While we 
are not able to provide all the care our beneficiaries need within our military treat- 
ment facilities, that which we do provide is essential to the skills maintenance of 
our people who have rotated from duty with the operational forces or overseas and 
to train the people who will man the fleet in the future. 

How Navy Medicine is accomplishing these elements of the overall medical mis- 
sion is challenging, complex, and exciting. There have been major shifts in how we 
think about and deliver medical support. We are adopting a much more holistic ap- 
proach to managing our facilities, resources and programs. We are looking closely 
at how to better integrate our health services through collaboration with the Army 
and Air Force and participation with the civilian health care community. The inte- 
gration of these elements will create a seamless health delivery system that will en- 
sure mission accomplishment and enhance the medical benefit. 

The drawdown of resources, both manpower and dollars, requires that we look for 
efficiencies throughout the system. Technological advances and innovative manage- 
ment offer great promise for improving the delivery and management of health care. 
The benefits of advances in technology, both from the civilian sector and through 
Navy research and development, touch every facet of our health care system. We 
are improving access to specialty care for isolated areas, enhancing the training op- 
portunities throughout the system, saving travel dollars wherever possible, and pro- 
viding important information for better understanding and treatment of certain dis- 
eases and injuries. Technology and innovation are allowing us to make better use 
of our resources and to extend services, both in quality and quantity. 

Our ultimate success in meeting our readiness missions will be determined by the 
quality of our people. Navy Medicine is made up of people who, through their collec- 
tive efforts and expertise, sustain the Navy Medical Department. I am fully commit- 
ted to maintaining this level of excellence by recruiting, training, and retaining the 
very best people. Only through their efforts can we support a ready Navy-Marine 
Corps team and provide the quality medical care they and their families deserve. 

Readiness remains the "raison d'etre" for Navy Medicine. We will continue to 
focus on providing the very best medical support to our sailors and marines. 

OPERATIONAL SUPPORT 

This year humanitarian missions and operations other than war throughout the 
world demanded significant medical support. Our work in the Caribbean is an excel- 
lent example of the multifaceted capabilities of Navy Medicine. I am proud to say 
that Navy Medicine performed superbly in every instance we were called upon. 

One oi our hospital ships, the USNS Comfort, was deployed to the Caribbean to 
provide initial support for screening, processing, and providing medical care to Hai- 
tian refugees. The Naval Hospital in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, augmented by Navy 
medical personnel from around the United States, worked jointly with two Air Force 
Air Transportable Hospitals to provide support for the Haitian and Cuban refugee 
camps on U.S. Naval Station, Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. Approximately 80 Haitian 
and Cuban migrants were subsequently evacuated to National Naval Medical Cen- 
ter, Bethesda, Maryland, and Naval Medical Center, Portsmouth, Virginia, for fur- 
ther tertiary medical care that could not be provided in Cuba. Later in the year, 
USNS Comfort, as part of Operation Uphold Democracy, again deployed to the Car- 
ibbean to provide surgically intensive support to U.S. forces restoring democracy in 
Haiti. 

For the past year, Navy medical personnel from Fleet Hospitals Five and Six 
staffed a 60 bed U.S. Field Hospital in Zagreb, Croatia, to support United Nations 



265 



Protection Force personnel. This platform was comprised of men and women from 
Navy medical ana dental facilities from both the east and west coast of the United 
States with logistic support from the Seabees and Marine Security Force personnel. 
Teleradiology and interactive teleconsultation were used extensively to augment the 
care provided in Zagreb. The Fleet Hospital transmitted an average of 175 digital 
radiology images per week to Naval Medical Centers Portsmouth, Virginia, and San 
Diego, California. This technology offers exciting possibilities for improving and ex- 
panding our ability to provide quality specialty medical care to our remote medical 
treatment facilities, ships, Marine Corps medical units and small hospitals. 

Navy medical personnel also played a role in numerous other humanitarian sup- 
port and operations other than war. Environmental health experts were deployed 
to the crisis in Rwanda. During Operation Vigilant Warrior, medical personnel sup- 
ported and augmented Navy/Marine Corps forces deployed to Kuwait. Medical 
teams provided support for Operation Full Accounting, with general medical officers 
and Independent Duty Corpsmen providing primary medical support for MIA field 
search and recovery teams in Cambodia and Laos. Medical Mobilization Augmenta- 
tion Readiness Response Teams (MMART) from Naval Hospitals and Medical Cen- 
ters provided continuing support to the fleet for numerous exercises and operations 
such as Strong Resolve, Tandem Thrust, and Valiant Usher. 

Navy medicine has also been active at home in disaster relief. The floods in the 
Midwestern States saw Navy Disease Vector Ecology and Control Center teams de- 
ployed in support of the National Guard and Federal Emergency Management Agen- 
cy. When Marine units were dispatched to Washington State to fight forest fires, 
Navy medical personnel were also there. In addition to these major humanitarian 
and operational missions, normal day-to-day peacetime operations required medical 
support for almost 600 other missions of varying requirements. Whether our na- 
tional interest required a hospital ship, an overseas community hospital, or a state- 
side teaching hospital, Navy Medicine was ready and able to do the job. 

BUMED Claimancy Support to Military Operations 
September 1993 - February 1995 



1200 



1000 



E 

3 
< 

Q 

UJ 

S 

00 



E 



800 



600 



200 




Fab 



Keeping up this tempo of deployment would not have been possible without our 
medical reserves. The deployment of USNS Comfort in support of our humanitarian 
mission in the Caribbean required over 280 active duty medical personnel. Our Re- 
serve Force Integration Office worked very closely with the medical programs staffs 
at Commander Naval Surface and Air Reserve Force to devise an innovative plan 
to divert medical Selected Reserves (SELRES), previously scheduled for annual 
training, to those hospitals and clinics hardest hit by USNS Comfort's deployment. 
In addition to supporting Comfort in the form of backfill, our continued mission in 
Zagreb involved 11 Naval Reservists. When volunteers were solicited from our four 
Reserve Fleet Hospitals, the response was gratifying. We were able to send highly 
skilled, trained professionals necessary to enhance the capability of the hospital in 



266 

Zagreb. From my personal observations, I am proud to say our Active and Reserve 
members quickly blended into a most impressive integrated medical team. 

The Navy's Central Credentialing and Privileging Activity in Jacksonville, Flor- 
ida, was established to ensure that our reserve health care providers are privileged 
to provide care to our troops in the event of deployment. The activity has verified 
the clinical credentials and the current clinical competence of more than 70 percent 
of Navy Selected Reserve providers. Early in 1996 we will begin the consolidation 
of all privileging activities for both active duty and reserve providers in Jackson- 
ville. This will assure that current information on the readiness of our clinical staffs 
is available in the event of any future deployment or conflicts. 

As an increasing number of women are assigned to combat ships, squadrons and 
in support of our Marine units, their health care needs are being addressed. The 
Navys proactive involvement in the Defense Women's Health Research Program has 
resulted, in 11 newly funded research efforts designed to enhance Navy women's 
operational readiness. These efforts support continuous occupational studies and 
database development programs to evaluate the major health concerns of active- 
duty Navy and Marine Corps women. The cornerstone study is the development of 
a unique longitudinal database designed to detail demographic and medical informa- 
tion which will enable us to identify trends and concerns in women's health care. 
This database is a prototype for the development of an interactive tri-service 
database. 

Finally, the Navy, in collaboration with the Office of Assistant Secretary of De- 
fense (Health Affairs); the Army; University of California, San Diego; and the De- 
partment of Veterans Affairs, is launching three 5-year studies to examine the effect 
of Persian Gulf War service on the health of our personnel. These studies, designed 
to help define a Gulf War Veterans' Syndrome, will target likely origins and associ- 
ated risk factors. These studies will also help us to identify possible preventive ac- 
tions in future conflicts. 

INTEGRATED HEALTH SERVICES 

"Rightsizing" the Navy Medical Department has caused us to take a critical look 
at our mission, delivery and management of care, infrastructure, staffing methodol- 
ogy, and resourcing procedures. The Navy is not performing this assessment in a 
vacuum. The Office of the Assistant Secretary of Defense (Health Affairs) and the 
other services are collaborating with the Navy on the evaluation of all common 
areas within the Military Health Services System (MHSS). The outcome of these 
self-assessments is a much more integrated system focusing on jointness and mu- 
tual support while making certain we can support the unique demands of the Navy 
and Marine Corps in a maritime environment. 

Cooperation among the military services is inherent in the organization of 
TRICARE, DOD's regional managed care program for members of the uniformed 
services and their families, and survivors and retired members and their families. 
TRICARE brings together the health delivery systems of each of the military serv- 
ices, as well as the Civilian Health and Medical Program of the Uniformed Services 
(CHAMPUS), in a collaborative effort to better serve our patients and to better use 
the resources available. 

Across the United States, 12 regions have been identified, each administered by 
a Lead Agent. Each Lead Agent is the commander of one of the military medical 
centers in the region, and is responsible for the development, in unison with the 
other military treatment facilities in the region, of an integrated plan to deliver 
health care to the region's beneficiaries. 

The Navy is the Lead Agent for Region 2, covering North Carolina/Southern Vir- 

R'nia area, and Region 9, covering Southern California. Region 1, encompassing the 
ortheastern portion of the United States, is directed by a rotating tri-service exec- 
utive board located in the National Capital Area. 

While all regions are working hard to put managed care programs in place, Re- 
gion 2 (Tidewater, VA area) has served as the prototype for patient enrollment, one 
of the critical elements of any managed care program. Region 2's experience in mar- 
keting and identification of automation systems to facilitate the enrollment process 
has provided valuable lessons for other regions around the country. 

The Navy is working closely with the Assistant Secretary of Defense (Health Af- 
fairs) in streamlining requests for proposal and evaluating bids for regional man- 
aged care support contracts (MCSC). These contracts will provide the quality civil- 
ian health care beyond the capabilities of uniformed providers necessary to complete 
a seamless health benefit. We are eager to implement the contracts nationwide to 
eliminate any disparity of benefits resulting from geographic location. We expect all 
contracts to be in place by 1997. 



267 

Coordination and collaboration among the three services is occurring at the head- 
quarters level; regionally, through the Lead Agent structure; and locally at each of 
our military medical treatment facilities. At the Headquarters level, we have 
stressed coordination with the other military services in graduate medical edu- 
cation, staffing, technical training and other issues. On a regional basis, TRICARE 
Lead Agents work in concert with civilian contractors and service representatives 
to provide comprehensive managed care to our full range of beneficiaries. On the 
local level, Navy facilities have implemented innovative resource sharing agree- 
ments and partnerships with the Veterans Administration, civilian hospitals, and 
other military treatment facilities. 

Navy Medicine is also reviewing its small hospitals, those with an average daily 
patient load of less than 50 patients, to identify opportunities to improve the effi- 
ciency of the system without degrading access to high quality care for our bene- 
ficiaries. Reallocation of under-utilized manpower from one military treatment facil- 
ity to another to reduce expensive health care contracts, innovative health care ar- 
rangements with the civilian community, and aggressive management of overhead, 
have the potential for significant cost avoidance and efficiencies across the system. 
Regardless of the scope or complexity of any new health care initiative, access to 
quality care remains our utmost goal. 

In 1994, the Joint Commission on Accreditation of Healthcare Organizations 
(JCAHO) initiated a major change in its standards and survey processes. It changed 
from an examination of the structures of organizations as predictors of success to 
an actual examination of an organization's performance. Through use of function- 
based, performance-oriented survey protocols, the JCAHO has dramatically in- 
creased its interaction with all levels of personnel within the organizations they sur- 
vey. Navy hospitals and clinics have responded in a commendable manner to this 
change, maintaining an excellent record of compliance with the revised JCAHO 
standards. I am particularly proud of our record. Navy hospitals and clinics 
achieved an average score of 93.4 percent on JCAHO surveys during 1994, up from 
90 percent in 1993. 

JCAHO GRID SCORE OUTCOME 

National : DOD : Navy 
Hospital Accreditation Services 



100.0 



o 
o 
V3 

o 




'Data not yet available 



One of our brightest success stories for controlling costs and increasing system ef- 
ficiencies is the Prime Vendor Program. This program allows us to make large re- 
ductions in inventories of pharmaceutical and medical/surgical supplies, freeing up 
operations and maintenance funds for other purposes. Other benefits of this pro- 
gram include fewer disposal costs, savings on open market purchases, and a reduc- 
tion in ordering and processing time. Twenty regional pharmacy contracts have been 



268 

awarded to cover the prime vendor requirements of the continental United states 
(CONUS). Prime Vendor pharmacy coverage will be in place by mid 1995 for Eu- 
rope; Asia will be covered by the end of 1995. 

Medical/surgical prime vendor contracts are in place at 20 Navy facilities. By the 
end of 1995, we expect to have full worldwide medical/surgical prime vendor cov- 
erage. Prime Vendor coverage for the operational forces is currently being tested in 
Norfolk, Virginia, for ships of the line, and at Camp Lejeune, North Carolina, for 
Marine Corps units. 

TECHNOLOGY 

Navy Medicine continues to exploit new technologies that equip our people with 
the tools necessary to perform our varied missions at sea and ashore. The expo- 
nential rate of change in technological advances necessitates a multi-disciplinary re- 
view of new devices, procedures and techniques. The Deputy Chief, Bureau of Medi- 
cine and Surgery chairs the Strategic Technology Planning Committee which was 
chartered to ensure integration of new technologies as indicated by mission require- 
ments. 

Our proactive stance and employment of telemedicine and digitized communica- 
tions is an exciting addition to Navy medicine and has proven to be an extremely 
valuable tool. The delivery of medical support, specialty care and training is now 
provided to the most remote regions of the globe, particularly aboard ship, where 
the practice of medicine is at its most isolated. As I mentioned earlier, telemedicine 
is being deployed, tested and enhanced in mission support roles. In a 4-month pe- 
riod during recent deployment of the U.S.S. George Washington to the Mediterra- 
nean and Indian Ocean, more than 30 medevacs were averted using teleradiology 
digitization technology. This one sample avoided almost $100,000 in medevacs and 
kept people on the job at sea. 

Technological advances have also proven very beneficial in training. The oper- 
ational training for medical department personnel is essential for ensuring they are 
capable of integrating into specific deployable units. Improvements in the use of ex- 
isting technology, such as the standardization of data elements of the mobilization 
training database, will enhance efficient use of all resources for future response to 
medical augmentation support requirements. 

Another area of rapid technological emergence is the use of virtual reality to test 
the effectiveness of new technologies in simulated environments. This technology 
will reduce costs, avoid premature deployment and ensure interoperability with ex- 
isting systems. The latter is of particular importance in joint operations. 

Navy research and development programs are also underway to enhance medical 
care, safety and training performance for operational settings. The research includes 
"edge-of-the-envelope" ideas such as: Liposome Encapsulated Hemoglobin (LEH), a 
red blood cell substitute; hearing protection based on the principle that sound waves 
will not propagate through a vacuum; non-invasive eye-tracking device for studying 
instrument scan patterns; MEDTAG, a prototype electronic battlefield medical data 
collection device; and research into fabrication of universal donor blood for battle- 
field support. 

MANPOWER AND PERSONNEL 

Navy Medicine will continue to meet its commitment to our beneficiaries by struc- 
turing the most cost effective health care delivery system through careful integra- 
tion of uniformed providers, civilian providers, and health care contracts. The reduc- 
tions in our beneficiary base have not matched the reductions in active duty end 
strength. The Navy Medical Department will reduce its current staffing levels as 
the Navy and Marine Corps continue to adjust their force structures. In this ever- 
changing personnel resource environment, we must ensure that sufficient uniformed 
providers are maintained to meet our readiness missions. 

Navy Medicine has developed a manpower requirements tool to ensure appro- 
priate medical support. This management tool accurately determines the uniformed 
personnel required for Navy Medicine's readiness missions. It clearly defines, at the 
subspecialty level, the minimum number of Navy medical personnel needed to sup- 
port our wartime and peacetime day-to-day operational requirements. The tool also 
allows us to calculate our sustainment requirements. Sustainment requirements 
provide for a continuous flow of qualified personnel into the operational forces and 
overseas activities as people attrite either from the Navy or from their current skill 
level and move to a higher skill level. 

By basing manpower readiness requirements on the wartime and day-to-day oper- 
ational missions, this management tool demonstrates the impact of changes on mis- 



269 

sion priorities. The ability to predict such impacts is a beneficial and useful strategic 
manpower management tool for future planning. 

We continually monitor recruitment and retention incentives and refine them to 
attract and retain the best qualified health care professionals. Some specialties, in- 
cluding certified registered nurse anesthetists (CRNAs), maternal and child nurse 
practitioners, pharmacists, physician assistants, obstetricians and gynecologists, 
orthopedists, family practice physicians, and primary care dental officers remain as 
areas of concern. Even with aggressive recruiting, the disparity between civilian and 
military salaries for professionals continues to hamper both recruiting and reten- 
tion. Although retention remained high, except for dental officers, through fiscal 
year 1993, we experienced higher loss rates for all medical field specialties during 
fiscal year 1994. I am concerned about future retention. 

Overall, opportunities in the Medical Corps for general training, graduate medical 
education, and promotion remain extremely good. These trends must continue, as 
they directly impact retention. We are working closely with the Center for Naval 
Analysis on numerous projects to improve projection techniques to improve our abil- 
ity to meet our vision of the future of the Medical Corps. We are committed to in- 
creasing the number of minority health professionals recruited and retained in the 
Navy Medical Department with a goal of looking like our society. 

Changes in Navy health care dictate a change in our nursing force structure and 
nursing opportunities for the future. Factors such as managed care, the increased 
emphasis on primary care and health promotion, and expanded opportunities for 
women in operational support are reshaping the Navy's health care system. Unfor- 
tunately, an out-of-balance Nurse Corps (NC) billet structure is hamperingour abil- 
ity to meet these challenges. Since implementation of the Defense Officer Personnel 
Management Act (DOPMA) in 1981 NC officers have not achieved and maintained 
promotion opportunity consistent with other Navy officer communities. DOPMA's 
grade tables are not effective for NC officers in providing viable career opportunities 
mat attract and retain the number of high caliber officers we need. The practice 
of "borrowing^ numbers from other communities to improve NC promotions has been 
helpful in the past, but will no longer be available due to Navy downsizing. We are 
working with the Secretary of the Navy to alleviate the grade table restriction, 
which has resulted in promotion disparity for nurses in controlled grades (04 
through 06). We are reviewing a possible adjustment to current DOPMA grade ta- 
bles which would correct nurse promotion opportunity and timing and bring the 
Nurse Corps in line with DOPMA guidelines. 

A serious threat to the vitality of the Navy Dental Corps (DC), long accepted as 
one of the Nation's most cost-effective providers of quality oral health care, contin- 
ues. The Navy Dental Corps ended fiscal year 1994 below desired end strength de- 
spite our expanded recruiting efforts. Decreased retention of mid-career general den- 
tists and specialists threatens the viability of the DC by eroding access to care, fu- 
ture leadership, and training. We must continue to press initiatives to enhance the 
competitiveness of military pay and provide quality of life and career opportunities 
that will compete with the civilian community, if we are to successfully recruit and 
retain qualified career dentists. 

Our highly diverse Medical Service Corps (MSC) officers are playing key roles in 
redefining the delivery of health care in the next century. Interservice initiatives, 
as exemplified in the TRICARE Lead Agent concept, in other managed care pro- 
grams such as the mail order pharmacy program, the Pharmacoeconomic Center 
and Triservice Formulary, Prime Vendor delivery services, and in medical research 
initiatives, have given MSCs the opportunity to excel. As with other corps, however, 
the Medical Service Corps faces shortfalls in specific specialties, including optom- 
etry, pharmacy, physician assistants, and occupational therapists. The success and 
continuation of our scholarship programs are essential to meet the needs of our offi- 
cer corps in this changing health care environment. 

Our Hospital Corps and Dental Technician manning and morale remains excel- 
lent. Maintaining this vital force of enlisted personnel is essential to Navy Medi- 
cine's ability to meet its mission. During the past year they have proven that they 
are the backbone of Navy Medicine. These well trained enlisted men and women are 
ready to meet any world wide contingency. As our health care system changes, the 
training and education of this valuable asset must be preserved to meet our readi- 
ness mission. Hospital Corpsmen are not an asset that can be "bought" in the civil- 
ian sector; they truly are unique members of our Navy medical team. 

EDUCATION AND TRAINING 

Education and training are a critical component of a quality Medical Department. 
The Navy Medical Department provides initial training in technical areas and oper- 



270 

ational medicine, refresher and professional update training, graduate medical edu- 
cation, and leadership and management development. 

In fiscal year 1994 we trained more than 9,000 Hospital Corpsmen and Dental 
Technicians through our technical training programs which are accredited by the 
Southern Association of Colleges and Schools. 

Our graduate medical education (GME) programs are an equally essential ele- 
ment of the Military Health Services System. Navy sponsored GME maintains full 
accreditation by the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education 
(ACGME). We have begun integrating GME programs with the other services in ge- 
ographic locations like the National Capital Region. The second annual Joint Service 
GME Selection Board, convened November 1994, introduced standardized proce- 
dures for selecting residency program directors for consolidated programs. 

As we plan for the future, our focus is on projecting medical personnel require- 
ments in support of the Navy's readiness missions. Nowhere has this been more ap- 
parent than in the process used to make our GME selections in 1994. For the second 
straight year, our training programs in primary care were 100 percent filled. 

Much of our enlisted technical training is conducted cooperatively with the Army 
and the Air Force. The Navy continues to serve as the permanent chair of the 
Health Care Committee (HCC) of the Interservice Training Review Organization 
(ITRO). Together, the three services are examining additional possibilities for 
shared training to promote interoperability of personnel while still maintaining the 
capability of meeting service-specific requirements. 

QUALITY OF LIFE 

As we "rightsize", retaining high quality sailors and marines will depend on the 
quality of life that these individuals can expect. Navy Medicine's contribution to im- 

g roving their quality of life rests primarily on the promotion of a healthy lifestyle, 
y promoting healthy choices and stressing disease prevention, we will enable our 
marines, sailors and their families to live a longer, more enjoyable life. Navy medi- 
cine's health promotion programs focus on physical fitness, tobacco and substance 
abuse prevention, back injury prevention, stress management, and improving nutri- 
tion. 

The single most preventable cause of death and disease is tobacco use. The Navy 
Medical Department is educating marines and sailors about the hazards of tobacco 
use and offering programs to help them quit. The Bureau of Medicine and Surgery 
is working closely with the Chief of Naval Personnel and his staff to implement a 
comprehensive policy on health promotion issues. The Navy Medical Department is 
committed to providing our active duty members and their families proactive, medi- 
cally based disease prevention and health promotion programs. One of the most im- 
portant benefits of healthier lifestyles is the reduction in the cost of health care to 
the Navy and to the country. 

Another way we have contributed to improving the quality of life is in the im- 
provement of medical facilities for our beneficiaries. With your support, construction 
is underway for the much needed new medical center in Portsmouth, Virginia. In 
addition, in 1994 we opened a new Naval Hospital at Cherry Point, North Carolina 
that we dedicated to Pharmacist Mate 2nd Class William D. Halyburton Jr., a Navy 
hospital corpsman who was awarded the Medal of Honor on Okinawa during World 
War II. However, the maintenance and repair of our existing medical and dental 
treatment facilities remains a challenge. Our backlog of deficiencies continues to 
grow as our inventory ages and ever more stringent facility standards are estab- 
lished. To ensure a safe and efficient environment for our patients and staff, your 
support for the fiscal year 1996 funding request for maintenance of real property 
is crucial even in this time of constrained resources. 

Finally, through the generosity of Zachary and Elizabeth Fisher, we have Fisher 
Houses at Naval Medical Center, Portsmouth, Virginia; San Diego, California; and 
National Naval Medical Center, Bethesda, Maryland, that provide an invaluable 
service to the families of seriously ill patients. The Navy has accepted these facili- 
ties and currently funds operations through donations, fees and appropriated dol- 
lars. Families staying in these houses develop a strong bond through their daily 
interaction and mutual support. They often express gratitude that Mr. and Mrs. 
Fisher and the Navy care enough to provide the warmth and comfort that surrounds 
them. 

CONCLUSION 

As I finish my 4th year as the Navy Surgeon General and prepare to retire after 
more than three decades of service, I look back on a rewarding and exciting time 
for medicine, the Navy, the military and the Nation. 



271 

Providing high quality, cost-effective health care to the millions of men and 
women who serve and have served in the U.S. military has never been more chal- 
lenging. The Navy Medical Department has taken this challenge on with vigor for 
as long as I can remember. Navy medicine is built for success. That we are ready 
to pave the road of excellence into the 21st century is the direct result of the dedi- 
cated, professional and diligent civilian staff, active duty members, and ever-present 
Reserve support. In my 31 years of service, it has never been more true that "our 
most important resource is our people." They are superb and have made my job as 
Navy Surgeon General extremely rewarding. 

Senator Coats. Thank you, Dr. Joseph, and all the Surgeons 
General, for your statement. 

I would like to ask just one preliminary procedural question, 
then turn to Senator Kennedy who has a conflict and give him an 
opportunity to ask his questions. 

The committee is aware of the increased clearance requirements 
this year, Dr. Joseph. I would like you to state for the committee, 
if you feel it is necessary, what changes in your prepared statement 
you were required to make and whether or not you were required 
to make any changes in the questions that were submitted prior to 
the hearing. 

We ask this question because we want to make sure that we 
have full access to information that we need in order to make deci- 
sions relative to this year's defense authorization bill. 

Dr. Joseph. Mr. Chairman, there is always a fair amount of 
tweaking that goes on as the statement goes up and down for clear- 
ance in the department and the OMB. There were a number of 
minor changes made in my statement. There were some differences 
of opinion particularly around the Medicare subvention statement 
that I made. But in the end, the statement that was presented to 
you, both written and oral, is quite close to the original that I had. 

I cannot recall any major change in my statement, written or 
oral, and in our questions I do not believe there were any questions 
from Health Affairs that were substantively changed in the proc- 
ess. 

Senator Coats. I am pleased to hear that and I trust as we pur- 
sue the questions here today that you will feel completely free to 
give us your opinions and the full expression of your answers with- 
out feeling any constraints. We need that information and we ask 
that you do that. 

Senator Kennedy. 

Senator Kennedy. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to thank 
you for accommodating a conflict. I will submit some questions, but 
let me ask you about why the uniform benefit and costs are being 
imposed at the USTFs in regions where the TRICARE has yet to 
be implemented. For example, up in our region at the Brighton 
Hospital they are going to be implementing that requirement in 
October of this year and the benefits are not going to come until 
May of next year, so you are going to have the recipients paying 
a good deal more before they ever get a chance to get the benefits. 

Yet, I think it is kind of understandable. There still will be some 
concerns I am sure about anytime you get higher payments and 
deductibles and co-pays and the rest of it for additional services but 
if you are getting an increase in the cost you are not going to get 
the benefits for the outyears. How do I justify that? 



272 

Dr. Joseph. Let me respond to that, Senator Kennedy. It is, in 
a sense, a "six of one, half dozen of the other" issue. Our objective 
is to, as quickly and efficiently as possible, set up the national 
TRICARE system, region by region, to comply with the congres- 
sional directives. 

As we do that, we need to bring all aspects of our Military 
Health Services System into line under the uniform benefit. The 
USTFs are one group that needs to align. We made a choice that 
said the way to do this is on a given date, October 1, 1995, which 
is the start of an enrollment year for the USTFs, bring them on 
line with the new uniform benefit. The one exception is one hos- 
pital in one region which will come on line a month later since that 
is where the TRICARE benefits will be available. 

There is good and sound argument for doing it that way. On the 
other hand, one could make the argument that you have just made 
in terms of holding off on implementing the uniform benefit in the 
particular USTF until its region came on line. I think it is "six of 
one, half dozen of the other." We think we made the right choice 
going for the uniform date, but we are not hard over on it and 
would be happy to look at it again. 

Senator Kennedy. I appreciate that. The six of one, half dozen 
of the other. They are paying it a year and a half ahead. You can 
understand if it is one month, 2 months in terms of the phasing 
in but they are paying for a year and a half prior to any time they 
get services and this is not inconsequential in terms of the people 
that are paying out there. 

We want to try and accommodate some uniformity and minimize 
administrative bureaucracy and duplication and a variety of dif- 
ferent rules and regulations for different segments of the country, 
but it does seem to require that payment a year and a half prior 
to the time of getting any benefits. 

I have already begun to hear from some people up there and we 
would very much appreciate it if you take a look at it and see if 
there is some other way. 

Dr. Joseph. The other side of the argument is, of course, they 
have been paying less out-of-pocket costs with higher costs to the 
Government tor those services in that part of the system. So, it is 
a balance question. We will look at it again. 

Senator Kennedy. I notice in the GAO report they talked about 
the increased burdens of the military paying as a result of cost- 
shifting and I am just wondering if you want to talk about that. 
This is sort of a broad issue both in terms of the general kind of 
health care actions that are being taken as a result of the military 
or in terms of what we are doing up here in terms of legislation. 
What are the implications of some of those actions? Cost-shifting 
is a reality out there and I am iust wondering how much more the 
military is paying as a result of the fact that it is not getting reim- 
bursement from the private sector and other areas. 

Can you tell us anything about it or do you want to take a look 
at it and get back to us? 

Dr. Joseph. No. Part of the answer to that question I am de- 
lighted to have the opportunity to say again. The mother of all cost- 
shifting is the Medicare reimbursement issue, Senator. 



273 

In a sense, we have a billion dollar a year "hole in our crankcase" 
and this is a total cost-shift back towards the Medicare side. That 
is the single key impediment to us putting up the system as Admi- 
ral Hagen said, and being credible to all our beneficiaries. That lev- 
eling out of that cost-shift, or moving that cost-shift, would really 
make it possible. 

Senator Kennedy. This has implications, I guess, in terms of 
others, the Indian Health Service and others, the veterans, and 
runs across committee jurisdictions and the rest of it. Maybe our 
good chairman can work that through in terms of other commit- 
tees. It is something that has escaped it but for the reasons I think 
you have stated and that has been stated also in the GAO report, 
it should get attention and get some focus. 

Also, on the quality assurance issue, just generally, I think we 
have had some statement or comment about steps which are being 
taken and I think they are impressive in recent times. If you would 
like to comment about how you are doing that and what steps you 
anticipate to try to increase quality assurance for the recipients. 

Dr. Joseph. There are a number of things, and my colleagues 
may wish to add some, because I am sure I will forget several. The 
key one is the advantage that a regionalized Tri-service Managed 
Care system offers. 

As trie TRICARE regions stand up, we are able to do utilization 
management in a way and on a scale that we could not previously. 
We are also able to take the best features of a particular service 
or a particular hospital, whatever the color of uniform, and look at 
it for its benefits across the entire system. 

We have a very aggressive program of utilization management 
underway through TRICARE and I think that will be our most im- 
portant quality assurance mechanism in the years to come. 

We also have a number of quality assurance and oversight mech- 
anisms through CHAMPUS and through the individual services. I 
am sure I am leaving out something important so someone may 
want to add that in. 

Admiral Hagen. I would just reassure the Senator that in the 
HMO option there are checks and balances and quality control 
monitors which are equivalent to what we have in the military 
today. 

In the preferred provider network that we facilitate, we will also 
be tracking provider performance. This is a triple choice option. 
What we have been trying to do with our people is to give them 
better quality access than they have today. 

When they choose standard CHAMPUS, they have control to go 
anywhere and choose a doctor. They pay more but they do not have 
the same kinds of assurances of quality they would have if they 
signed up to come to us. We have written those into our system. 

I can assure you that one of the things we are proudest of, after 
some really low times in the early 1980s with our quality systems, 
is that the national average for hospitals in terms of joint commis- 
sion inspections is about 80 for the country; for us in the Navy, it 
is 91. 

We have hospitals that are rating at the 98, 99 percentile in 
terms of quality monitoring by the civilians. So, I think we really 



274 

have a good handle on how to do it well and I can reassure the 
Senator that that is going to be a focus of ours. 

Dr. Joseph. In fact, if you look at any of the national quality as- 
surance credentialing standards, whether it is the Joint Commis- 
sion, board certifications, the passage of specialty boards by resi- 
dents, we outrank consistently by a substantial margin the civilian 
sector. 

Senator Kennedy. Thank you very much. 

Senator Coats. Thank you, Senator Kennedy. 

I am pleased the chairman has joined us, the Senator from South 
Carolina. I would ask at this time if he has a statement to make 
or wishes to ask any questions. 

Chairman Thurmond. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. You are one of 
the most efficient chairmen of our subcommittees and I wanted to 
be here for just a few minutes with you. 

I want to commend you gentlemen for the service you are render- 
ing the country. You could make a lot more monev out in civilian 
life. I appreciate you continuing in the service. I do not think you 
could spend your lives in a better way. 

Now, let me ask you this question. There have been some efforts 
to try to close tne Uniformed Services University of Health 
Sciences, I hear. I have been a strong proponent to keep that uni- 
versity. Am I on the right track? I would like to hear from you on 
that. 

General LaNoue. Yes, sir, you are right on the right track. It 
provides quality people who are prepared for the environment to 
which they go and it also lends to the synergy of the services be- 
cause they live and work together during those 4 years and train 
together, and they develop a bonding that in prior years we have 
not had. 

So, it allows a greater jointness in the future as these young men 
and women progress through the ranks. 

Dr. Joseph. When I answered a similar question from you at my 
confirmation hearing, Senator Thurmond, I repeated the adminis- 
tration position, which I will repeat. With relation to the Vice 
President's report and its findings to close the school, it is a ques- 
tion of hard choices in a time when many important functions are 
being cut or reduced. 

I said then, and I will say again now, that I have never seen a 
finer group of medical students nor a more focused institution in 
terms of its relationship to the needs of military health care than 
is out there at the USUHS. I personally believe there is no com- 
parable substitute for the quality and retained product that we get 
from that university. It boils down to a question of what are you 
going to take out as the military downsizes. 

Chairman Thurmond. General Anderson. 

General Anderson. Sir, I would like to point out we get 50 prod- 
ucts from that magnificent university each year who are splendid 
officers, first, and also extremely competent physicians able to com- 
pete with the graduates from any other medical university. 

I would point out also that tne retention rate, the commitment 
to stay in the service of their country from the graduates of the 
Uniformed Services University is extraordinary in comparison to 
the people who graduated from LSU, where I did. 



275 

Again, these are magnificent officers, very committed to a life of 
service to their country, who have the background, the interlinks 
with their compatriots in the other services. 

Just before coming up here 6 months ago, I was commander of 
Wilford Hall Medical Center in San Antonio, Texas. A growing 
number of department chiefs, indeed, the leaders of that splendid 
medical center, were graduates from that school. They stay longer. 
They are quality officers and in fact, they are the coming leaders 
of military medicine, in my judgment, for decades to come. So, I 
could not support it any more strongly. 

Chairman Thurmond. Admiral Hagen. 

Admiral Hagen. Yes, sir. If I could, I would play a video tape of 
my testimony here last year. I am the strongest supporter and I 
am glad that you asked this question during my last testimony be- 
fore this committee. USUHS offers us a very, very unique prod- 
uct — a doctor who knows how to deal with doctors in each of the 
other services, a doctor who knows the mission, who is patriotic, 
who is dedicated for a total career when he or she finishes school. 

I just cannot get any stronger in my support for the university 
than that. I wish I could have had that training in 1964 before I 
went to Vietnam the first time with the Marines. I would have 
been a finer doctor then than I was had I been able to go to 
USUHS. Right now, 12 percent of my Navy doctors are graduates 
of USUHS and they are staying in. We need them, Senator. 

Chairman Thurmond. I congratulate all of you for your attitude 
on this matter. I think it is very important. I would also like to 
know what percent of retired people the military is able to take 
care of and what percent go to civilian doctors but get reimbursed. 

Dr. Joseph. Overall, Senator, about a third of our total health 
care expenditures are for CHAMPUS claims. 

Chairman Thurmond. About a third of what? 

Dr. Joseph. About a third of our medical expenditures are for 
CHAMPUS claims. I cannot tell you how that percentage breaks 
down with our retirees. But a key problem, one I was discussing 
before you came in, is that we are unable to be reimbursed for our 
Medicare-eligible military retiree beneficiaries at all. 

Chairman Thurmond. The other question is this. A great many 
people are carrying insurance. For instance, I have insurance. Now, 
is the military taking advantage of my insurance to collect from my 
company to reimburse you all for that service? 

Dr. Joseph. We have a greatly scaled-up effort in the last 2 years 
on that point. We are now collecting a much higher percentage of 
billable third-party payments than we were previously. 

I think it is somewhere now in the range of 40 to 45 percent of 
billables we actually collect. We can do better. We are continuing 
to do better. We now have a national contract in place that helps 
the individual military treatment facility to go after those billables, 
but we have a way to go yet on that. 

Chairman Thurmond. Again, I thank you gentlemen. Did you 
want to say something, General? 

General LaNoue. Yes, Senator, I would just like to add that we, 
in fact, have been very successful at collecting but more recently 
it seems that the monies are now being taken away from us. 



276 

When the hospital goes through the effort of providing the serv- 
ice and the staff goes through the effort of making the collection, 
it was the original idea that that hospital would benefit from the 
collection in order to improve the services to future folks that come 
to that institution. 

But there has been a progressively increasing removal of those 
monies that we receive and I would just like to point that out. 

Chairman Thurmond. Well, thank you very much for the fine 
contribution you are making to our country. Thank you, Mr. Chair- 
man. 

Senator Coats. Thank you. General LaNoue, where are those 
monies removed to? 

General LaNoue. Recently, the Department of Defense, in its at- 
tempt to save money, has removed I don't know the exact number, 
but in the millions of dollars. Last year, for instance, the Army col- 
lected about $53 million and it is about $60 million equivalent that 
we have to make this year just to pay for the decrement that we 
receive for that program. 

It stays in the Department of Defense, yes, sir. 

Senator Coats. The Department of Defense or Department of 
Army? 

General LaNoue. I believe it is the Department of Defense. 

Dr. Joseph. I will submit, Mr. Chairman, I don't know what pro- 
portion of those moneys find their way back into the health system. 
I think there are three points of issue here; one, the hospital, itself; 
two, the entire health system; and three, in essence, the general 
revenue basket of the department. 

We will try to sort those three layers out and get information to 
you. 

Senator Coats. Will you provide that for the committee? 

Dr. Joseph. Yes, we can. I do know, I was just handed a note 
that our third-party collections last year at the end of the fiscal 
year amounted to $70 million and it was then about 25 or 30 per- 
cent of what is billable. As collections continue, the dollars and the 
percents increase. We can do better, but that figure is up consider- 
ably from 2 or 3 years before when it was down in the 5 to 10 per- 
cent range. 

[The information follows:] 

The percentage we collect for a fiscal year continues to rise during the course of 
the following fiscal years since much of what was billed has not yet been collected. 
Our collection percentages at the end of fiscal year 1992 and fiscal year 1994 were 
33.4 percent, 33.6 percent and 33.9 percent respectively. These percentages contin- 
ued to increase as prior year billings were collected. As of January 1995, the fiscal 
year 1992, fiscal year 1993, and fiscal year 1994 collection percentages had grown 
to 45.2 percent, 42.5 percent and 40.6 percent respectively. Since many of these bills 
take an extraordinary amount of time to resolve, I would anticipate the fiscal year 
1993 and fiscal year 1994 percentages to continue to increase and to level off at 
about the 45 percent level. We hope to increase that in fiscal year 1995 as we be- 
come smart in what and how we bill, and more efficient in what we collect. 

As to the proportion of the third party collection moneys that find their way back 
into the health care system, the answer is 100 percent of collections. As mandated 
in Title 10 USC 1095, "Amounts collected under this section from a third-party 
payer for the costs of health care service provided at a facility of the uniformed serv- 
ices shall be credited to the appropriation supporting the maintenance and oper- 
ation of the facility." We are in mil compliance with this section dealing with third 
party collections. 



277 

Senator Coats. That is moving in the right direction. I hope you 
keep the process in place so that next year you can come and re- 
port that you are up at the 50 percent level. I do not mean to put 
any excess pressure on you but it seems like we ought to get at 
least half the money back and a vigorous collection program ought 
to be able to do that. 

Admiral Hagen. Senator, I think part of it has been technology. 
The way we used to do business we were not charging by diagnosis, 
so we had to put systems in place that could properly account for 
the billing process. 

Those systems are now coming into place. I think you are going 
to see tremendous improvement in the next year. 

Senator Coats. I will charge my questions against my time. I 
want to turn to Senator Robb, but just one further question. Dr. 
Joseph, I have reviewed your verbal statement here relative to the 
Uniform Services University. Your position on that is somewhat at 
odds with the Department's official policy because in answer to 
your questions, you indicated the Department's policy is for the 
phased closure of the university to begin in 1996 and completed by 
1999. Obviously this is contingent on legislative authority, which 
has not been provided. 

Dr. Joseph. Mr. Chairman, the way I try to tap that dance is by 
offering that the rationale of the Department's position lies in the 
hard choices made in the time of downsizing. I try to answer that 
as a separate question from the value, uniqueness and importance 
to the military health services system of that institution. 

Senator Coats. I understand. Thank you. Senator Robb? 

Senator Robb. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have got a number 
of somewhat scattered questions requiring specific detail. I would 
like to begin with a general question that none of the Surgeons 
General or the Secretary touched on in their statements, and I 
could not see in looking through the additional testimony. It has 
to do with this purple concept and attempts to be more efficient 
and to ignore the old, rather confining lines that used to constrain 
us in delivery of all kinds of services. 

It is one of those questions that is always controversial. You have 
lots of folks that have some very strongly held opinions about it in 
terms of the kind and quality of care that are available in DOD 
and the V.A. and what efficiencies might be available just within 
the extended military family? 

Dr. Joseph. DOD-V.A. sharing? 

Senator Robb. Yes, something along those lines. 

Dr. Joseph. Let me answer in two parts, Senator Robb. First of 
all, the color purple is not a popular color among the four of us. 
The way we state it is that the Defense Health Program and the 
corporate culture that we are forging together in the TRICARE sys- 
tem is the appropriate answer. In this way we avoid a homogeni- 
zation while gaining the benefits of collaboration. We retain the 
unique needs and qualities of each service but in a way that is 
functionally collaborative. 

The TRICARE system in the regions allows us to pull medical 
collaborative requirements together without breaking the appro- 
priate command and control lines of the individual services. We 



278 

feel very strongly about that, and I think that makes us work to- 
gether better rather than pulls us apart. 

Now, with respect to the V.A. First, though there is a certain su- 
perficial similarity between the two agencies, there are many very 
important differences. We serve very different constituencies. We, 
for example, are a full service system to an entire demographic 
spectrum of beneficiaries. The V.A. has many narrower categorical 
restrictions on the services they provide and who they provide 
them to. 

Second, the V.A. has much more invested in and is much more 
tied to a large hospital footprint system than we are. It is easier 
for us, and that is the trend of modern medicine, to break away 
from that hospital-based system. 

Third, we have the deployment responsibility. We have the readi- 
ness mission and everything we do in the way we make or buy 
medical care has to keep an eye on what we do next Tuesday when 
Admiral Hagen's people have to pick up and go somewhere else on 
short notice. 

Now, that said, there are a lot of ways, large and small, that we 
are increasing our collaborative efforts with the V.A. We have sev- 
eral thousand sharing agreements with the V.A. They range all the 
way from small agreements to share laundry services in the Seattle 
area to the actual joint construction of a hospital at Nellis Air 
Force Base to the V.A.'s inserting two new hospital wings into our 
hospital, David Grant Medical Center, in northern California. 

We have a number of very large joint projects underway in terms 
of construction. Then we have sharing agreements that range from 
joint use of PET scanning or MRI imaging, highly technical costly 
services in a particular area, all the way down to the smaller kind 
of things that I have mentioned. 

We continue to look at pushing those frontiers out. We do need 
to do more together, and Ken Kaiser and I are working on that ac- 
tively. But, I think it is important to maintain the understanding 
that that there is a fundamentally different mission, quite different 
patient populations to serve, and quite different constituencies in 
both a political and a medical care sense. 

Admiral Hagen. We use the Veterans Administration Hospital in 
Chicago to provide care to the boot camp in Great Lakes for some 
services. This works well. 

In Orlando, where we are closing the Naval Hospital, we will 
turn the key over to the V.A. They are going to convert into a 
chronic care facility. They already have people working in their 
clinics, so there is a lot of jointness around. 

We are not often co-located with the V.A. as much as the Air 
Force is in Albuquerque and the Army is at Tripler. However, there 
are similarities and we are trying to work wherever we can. 

General Anderson. I think it is fair to say my policy is to ex- 
plore every opportunity where it is mutually beneficial and to very 
aggressively capture those and Dr. Joseph has mentioned Travis 
Air Force Base, Nellis Air Force Base. We also have had joint oper- 
ations for probably 5 to 7 years at Kirtland where we built and 
shared a hospital. We are aoing that at Elmendorf in Alaska and 
looking at other places, too. 



279 

So, I think it is fair to say, sir, that there is a very aggressive 
effort that pays off, and again, is mutually beneficial to both agen- 
cies. 

Dr. Joseph. We also do a great deal of graduate medical edu- 
cation training in common. Of course, in a contingency, we are de- 
pendent upon the expansion into V.A. beds should we need them 
for casualties. 

Admiral Hagen. There is one area, Senator, that is really close. 
That is in the head and neck injury, spinal cord injury area for 
which the V.A. does a lot of rehabilitation. We have effectively cre- 
ated a system that is almost transparent. If you are active duty 
and you have a severe head injury and it looks like you need that 
kind of care, we can immediately move you into the V.A. system 
because of the agreements we have in place. 

General LaNoue. If I may add, first, to the purpose discussion, 
that the three services' medical departments are uniquely different 
and can be synergistic because of their differences and so we are 
more powerful as we work together towards common goals, but we 
think of patients as being purple, because any patient who is a 
beneficiary DOD-wide can come to any of our facilities and get the 
same level of quality of care. I think we have all dedicated our or- 
ganizations to be able to do that. 

But in terms of accountability, we have very unique require- 
ments to our respective commands and indeed, at every level of our 
medical care there is a military commander who looks to his sur- 
geon or to his hospital in support of his or her community and that 
bond and that relationship is very important within the military 
because it relates all the way into the battlefield as well as to the 
support of the family. 

In terms of the relationship with the V.A., everything that my 
colleague said is very true. I have worked in great detail with am- 
putees and we are working a program now that is to be more en- 
demic in the whole system. We call it enabling care — it pertains to 
people with spinal cords, blindness, loss of a limb, or severe head 
injuries. These injuries are very unique, very damaging to families 
and damaging to the individuals and very difficult to recover from. 
We in the military treat these people in wartime and get very ex- 
pert at it but during peacetime, it is the Veterans Administration 
that really carries that expertise. 

So the ability to have a closer interaction with the V.A. for these 
enabling care kinds of patients, I feel, is very important. Just this 
week I had a meeting with some members of the V.A. in order to 
make that bond a little bit closer. 

Senator Robb. My time is up. I have seen directly that coopera- 
tion with respect to spinal cord injuries and others, in McGuire and 
V.A. hospitals and in my own State. Before I yield back to the 
chairman, let me just say that I am not a proponent of purple as 
the unifying color. 

As a matter of fact, I am one who wants to see more efficiency 
in a lot of the procurement, a lot of other activities where individ- 
ual service identity is not as important and, indeed, some of the 
things that we are going to do in terms of standard munitions, et 
cetera, make a lot of sense. 



280 

I do like to preserve the individual services and I understand the 
benefit of that so I do not want to be perceived as an advocate for 
the purple in this case. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I will wait for 
the next round for additional questions. You are not foreswearing 
any of your heritage. Senator Santorum. 

Senator Santorum. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have a couple 
of questions. One is on the psychologist's prescribing program. First 
off, do you have any evaluation of the program, the training, the 
actual pharmacist and psychologist out there prescribing, and is 
this a program that you would like to see continued past this fiscal 
year? 

Dr. Joseph. The two graduates of that program who are in hos- 
pitals currently, both of them Navy if memory serves me correctly, 
will be practicing under supervision. Evaluation of that practice 
will begin soon. What we intend to do this year is to continue the 
program without further expansion while we take a very hard look 
at all aspects of the program. There are concerns, some of which 
do not relate to the tangibles of the program itself. Some relate to 
attitudes of other providers in the system in which the psychologist 
would practice, and some relate to unanswered questions about 
both the curriculum and the practice after graduation from the pro- 
gram. So, we think it is about time to evaluate. We are talking 
about small numbers over a limited period of time, but we think 
it is about time to take a very hard look, an objective look, at all 
aspects of the program, and then make decisions about the future. 
We intend to do that this year. 

Senator Santorum. You said without further expansion. Does 
that mean you are not going to put anybody else into the training 
program? 

Dr. Joseph. No. I am sorry. I was a little ambiguous about that. 
I meant holding the numbers of people coming into the program 
constant. In other words, rather than going up to six per year, we 
will stay at three per year. 

Senator Santorum. I have a couple of questions with respect to 
TRICARE. Number one, I understand you are phasing it in, and 
I know Senator Coats is an advocate of this alternative plan, and 
that is the medical savings account option. Was any thought given 
to providing some sort of medical savings account, catastrophic op- 
tion as a part of TRICARE? 

Dr. Joseph. No, I do not believe so. But I am struggling to see 
if I really understand your question. While there is a catastrophic 
cap on CHAMPUS, I am not aware that there would be a need for 
a catastrophic ceiling in the enrolled part of TRICARE. I may not 
be answering your question, I am sorry. 

Senator Santorum. What we are talking about with medical sav- 
ings accounts is instead of providing a few options, managed care 
options, fee for service option, obviously those options have an asso- 
ciated cost, sort of a premium cost for each of those options. Could 
thought be given to looking at what is being contemplated here in 
the Congress as a medical savings account which would be a higher 
deductible policy, much higher deductible policy, with an account 
that would be set up with premium savings, so to speak, being de- 
posited for the individual to use toward that deductible? 



281 

Dr. Joseph. Senator, for our Active duty, and for our Active duty 
dependents, there is no enrollment fee. There is no premium into 
the program. 

Senator Santorum. I understand that. Each of your plans, each 
of your options, has an associated cost to it. And the question is 
if you took that cost, in a sense what you are doing is giving people 
options, I would imagine some are more expensive options, some 
are less expensive options, correct? Or are they all the same. 

Dr. Joseph. No, there is what we call a uniform benefit, a uni- 
form cost-share now, for all those who pay cost-shares. What might 
come closest to what you are articulating is a recent policy which 
will allow those who have to pay an enrollment fee to pay it on a 
quarterly installment basis rather than as a lump sum once-a-year. 

I am afraid I cannot be helpful because I do not quite understand 
what you are saying. We would be happy to try to both respond to 
the question and see what we can do with the idea, if you will get 
it to us. 

Senator Santorum. How about instead of trying to get into an 
at-length discussion here that we talk a little further? 

Dr. Joseph. We would be happy to do that. I am sorry I cannot 
be more responsive. 

Senator Santorum. That is okay. And the other question I have 
regards moving to TRICARE, do you see this as sort of a phasing 
into a civilian managed care program over time as opposed to hav- 
ing a defense component? 

Dr. Joseph. No, what TRICARE offers is a way to put, on a re- 
gionalized basis, a combined set of management tools in the hands 
of the lead agent. For medical care in a given region, that lead 
agent can decide whether to "make" specific care — provide it in the 
military treatment facilities, or buy that care though the indirect 
system — through the managed care support contractor. This is, in 
a sense, a very real public/private partnership, and involves the 
managed care support contractor, and the network provider from 
the private sector aligned with the public sector direct provision of 
care in the military treatment facilities. So, we see TRICARE as 
that kind of partnership but not one that would progressively push 
all care into the civilian sector. 

Senator Santorum. Thank you. 

Dr. Joseph. Except where it is more efficient to do that for a 
given procedure or patient. 

Senator Coats. Thank you, Senator Santorum. 

Dr. Joseph, what is the cost to the system of the lack of reim- 
bursement under Medicare, on an annual basis? 

Dr. Joseph. Currently, to our system it is $1.2 billion. I think I 
saw a figure coming over here that our expectation for fiscal year 
1996 is that it would rise to $1.6 billion. I suppose in the latter 
years of the decade it will be up over $2 billion a year. That is the 
cost of services that we provide and for which we are not reim- 
bursed. 

Senator Coats. For patients 65 and over? 

Dr. Joseph. That is correct. 

Senator Coats. That would be Medicare eligible. 

Dr. Joseph. That is correct, sir. 



282 

Senator Coats. Tell me, if this problem of receiving that reim- 
bursement, is not resolved, what are the likely consequences, and 
what are your options? 

Dr. Joseph. The largest consequence is that I do not personally 
believe we can build a healthy, credible, whole managed care sys- 
tem unless we can serve our entire spectrum of beneficiaries. And 
I do not believe, as we reach those out-years, that without either 
additional resources coming into the Department or a fair amount 
of Medicare reimbursement, that we will be able to serve that en- 
tire spectrum. So, at some point late in this decade those two 
things will cross. The consequence will be either a broken system 
or a way to get reimbursed for those services we provide. 

Senator Coats. Is there a third option? I