That was a two star billet, and Turkish allies were very se the rank aspect. So I was again frocked to two star. Currently the Air Force has only 12 brigadier generals out of the authorization of 20, and no major generals. comment, I know all the other services stressed the hurt are going through. The Air Force has in the tradition stepp the issues of the reductions and saluted smartly, but it ha down the force structure, and it is going to impact. At lea give us more risk in the area of being able to carry the fi particularly, to sustain it. Senator GLENN. This is not the best of times for those o are concerned about manpower in the military and how ou are treated, how we retain the best people, how we tre fairly in a time when we could not get some of the pay wanted to get in comparison to the civilian sector, as w tioned earlier, or welfare, recreational concerns. We did into those this morning. We will get into those issues a hearing. But these are all areas of great concern to us, and these good times right now for us, particularly on this subcomm dealing with these matters. I wish we were not under some of the limitations tha under. We want to get information on the 1989-1990 officer re as soon as possible. We will be getting into recruiting, r compensation, bonuses in the hearing on the 24th as McCain mentioned. We want to work closely with you in this all out together. I know the hearings, by their very na sometimes more adversarial and confrontational than w like or than I enjoy. But if we see things that we think ne pepped up or need to be restudied or whatever, that is our bring them out, and that is what we have done, and that is got into this whole officer strength issue. When the ratios. tions were getting down to two to one, and questions we and we did not get satisfactory answers for almost 2 years we had to keep on that. I do not like to be the bad guy on this, which I have beer but every year when we get ready to have our manpower since we started this business, I know it is inevitable. I ha clippings here with me this morning that have been rel the various service publications and let me say your PR ments are doing a good job, and they will not be entere record, but I read them with great interest. And we want together on this; we truly do. My bottom line is what is combat efficiency, and that is am coming from on it, and where I see us getting out o some areas, as I raise questions. So we look forward to working with you on these issues preciate your cooperation and what we have tried to do on committee, since I have had the chairmanship, is to get t the point where we do not have to deal every time on every with every service. Secretary Green and I have talked about this in cons detail, and I talked to Secretary Carlucci about it also, r our difficulty in getting answers through the Secretary of Defe office, back when we started this problem. And so in frustratio had to go to each one of the services, have them come over, s my office or have a meeting here and try and get the valida figures out of each service. And that was a long and laborious ess. We did not enjoy it, I did not like it, the services did not, ei and I am not pushing for one-stop shopping in Secretary Gr office at the Pentagon just for convenience. It is because that i way we are supposed to be organized. We are supposed to be ab go to the Secretary of Defense's office, his people that are exp and get the information we need. So I think that process is being strengthened, and you are v ing on it, the service personnel chiefs are cooperating, I trust cause that is what we want to do. We want to straighten the w system out and work together. So I appreciate your input this morning. We may have addit questions for you. Let me say one thing. If you have questions of us, ordinarily flow of information is one way, we are asking and you are pr ing answers, but if there are things you are curious about what our view is and what we are going to do, let's work toge on these things. That is what I want to do. Mr. GREEN. I think, Senator, we have done that pretty well, your staff, both your personal staff and the committee staff been extremely helpful to us. Senator GLENN. They stand ready to work with you on th any time. We have a good staff here and they do excellent v Fred Pang and David Lyles of the committee staff, and Phil chulte, of my personal staff who has had a long career in the tary, and he is interested in this not only as a staff member for but from his previous career before he got here. So we all want to work together on these things and we look ward to doing exactly that. [Questions for the record with answers supplied follow:] QUESTION SUBMITTED BY SENATOR JOHN GLENN GENERAL AND FLAG OFFICER STRENGTHS Senator GLENN. Are we to draw any conclusion from the 1,168 number? In words, will your requirements study tell us you need at least this number, more? Mr. GREEN. The Service/JCS General and Flag Officer (GFO) Requirements ies are in draft form, and the results could be used to support a significant in in the number of GFOS. The Hay Group, the Department contractor for cond the study, is reviewing Service/JCS caveats and explanations as to why certain tions should remain at a particular grade in spite of Hay finding, given con ation to such factors as international agreements, protocol requirements, and tory provisions. The OSD staff will then carefully review the Hay input along other ongoing developments that may affect GFO requirements, including b driven force structure reductions and a recent review of Unified and Specified mand Headquarters staffing levels. Even if our review of the Hay results leads accept only recommended downgrades, the study will still support a requirem excess of 1,350 GFO's. The Department will be reporting the results of the stu the very near future. FROCKING Senator GLENN. What effect, if any, would a prohibition on future fr one-star rank have on the combat readiness of the military services? Mr. GREEN. The relationship between frocking and combat readiness itself to empirical analysis. A prohibition on future frocking to the o would not, therefore, have a quantifiable effect on combat readiness. T say that such a prohibition would be without effect. The step from field to general or flag officer is extremely significant in terms of status, im influence. Frocking is used to maximize an officer's effectiveness in a quiring the grade to which that officer has been selected, approved, ar but not promoted. A prohibition on frocking that constrained an officer one-star position from fully exercising decision-making and liaison auth general or flag officer level could certainly have an adverse effect on ness and combat readiness of the organizations involved. Similarly, t that it could constrain a Service from assigning the best-qualified office position-particularly to a joint or international position-for reasons niority, a prohibition on frocking to one-star could adversely affect c ness. Senator GLENN. How many officers do the military services have fr two-star rank? Mr. GREEN. There were 47 officers frocked to the two-star grade o 1988. Of these, 35 were serving in joint or command positions. Senator GLENN. How do you control frocking to the two-star rank and be the effect on combat readiness if future frocking to the two-star rank ited? Mr. GREEN. Department of Defense Directive 1334.2, "Frocking of C Officers," dated March 13, 1987, provides prerequisites for frocking to a cluding two-star. These prerequisites include nomination for promotion dent and confirmation of the promotion by the Senate. Frocking must to the officer's maximum effectiveness in the assigned billet, and the off serving in or ordered to a billet designated for the higher grade. The has placed a specific numerical limit on frocking to the one-star gra since maintained one-star frocking levels substantially below that limi the total number of officers wearing general or flag officer insignia does the minimum necessary for effective mission accomplishment. Frocking star grade does not add to the total number of officers wearing general cer insignia, and the Department has not established a two-star frocking Since the relationship between frocking and combat readiness does no to empirical analysis, a prohibition on future frocking to the two-star g not have a quantifiable effect on combat readiness. That is not to say prohibition would be without effect. The step from one-star to two-star is in terms of status, importance, and influence. Frocking is used to maxin cer's effectiveness in a position requiring the grade to which that office selected, approved, and confirmed, but not promoted. A prohibition on fr constrained an officer serving in a two-star position from fully exercisin making and liaison authorities at the required level could certainly have effect on the effectiveness and combat readiness of the organization invo larly, to the extent that it could constrain a Service from assigning the fied officer to a certain position—particularly to a joint or international for reasons of relative seniority, a prohibition on frocking to two-star cou ly affect combat readiness. Hon. JOHN GLENN, ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF DEFENSE, Chairman, Subcommittee on Manpower and Personnel, Committee on A ices, U.S. Senate, Washington, DC. DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: During the March 3, 1988, subcommittee hearing fense Officer Promotion Program, you asked that I provide some inform cerning numerical trends in officer frocking, in graph form if possible, and sis of the positions that general/flag_officers are serving in while frock grade of O-7 especially with regard to the number in command functions. Enclosure 1 reflects the significant decrease (82 percent) in field gra frocking numbers which I testified had resulted from the Department's c frocking initiated in 1986. The allowable number of designated frocked p frocking to the s does not lend -one-star grade That is not to d grade officer portance, and a position rend confirmed, er serving in a horities at the the effectiveto the extent er to a certain of relative se combat readi rocked to the On August 1, commissioned to the two- each service is 5 percent of the total neiu graue promoted positions auto) the Defense Officer Promotion Management Act (DOPMA) for each Service. the 714 field grade officers currently frocked has been nominated by the P for promotion, the promotion has been confirmed by the Senate, the officer ing in an authorized billet designated for the higher grade, and the office mander or supervisor has certified that frocking is essential to the officer mum effectiveness in the designated billet. The 714 frocked officers, althoug senting less than 1 percent of the field grade officers currently serving or duty, permit added flexibility in meeting field grade requirements. The graph at Enclosure 2 reflects the number of officers frocked to the O-7 from 1985 to the present. I am pleased to report that the Department duced its number of frocked officers in this grade by 48 percent and was we a self-imposed ceiling of 95 by the end-FY87 deadline set by the Deputy Se of Defense. Each Service has an individual frocking quota to ensure the Dep does not exceed our ceiling of 95. Our analysis of the 72 individuals currently frocked to the grade of O-7 i that command positions represent 44 percent of the total, the remainder be tributed to staff positions in joint assignments (31 percent), Service headquar percent), and other headquarters (8 percent). The category of command includes officers frocked to commander/depu mander positions in their respective Services, such as Commander, Naval Warfare Command; Commanding General, 1st Force Service Support Grou manding General, III Corps Artillery, and Commander, 12th Air Division. frocked to 0-7 in joint duty positions comprise thirty-one (31) percent of the sample of these positions includes Deputy Director, National Military Co Center, Office of the Joint Chiefs of Staff; Director of Intelligence, United Southern Command; and United States Defense Attache, Brazil. Seventeen cent of the officers are frocked to O-7 positions in their Service headquarte as Director, Maintenance and Supply; Competition Advocate General; and A Vice Chief of Naval Operations. The remaining category, other headquarte tions, has 8 percent of the frocked O-7s and includes billets such as the Chief of Staff, Plans, United States Air Forces Europe; and Chief of Staff, VI United States Army Europe. Frocking is not a recent practice but has historical roots dating back when John Paul Jones was frocked to admiral in order to sign the Treaty o Over the years, the practice was maintained in order to increase the effectiv an officer during the period between Senate confirmation and final appoint permits us the management flexibility to use an officer in a billet of the nex grade when additional rank is prudent to maintain the officer's effectiveness I trust that the information provided in this letter is responsive to your Frocking levels are being closely monitored by this office, and the applicable are being carefully administered by each Service to ensure compliance. Sincerely, Enclosures: As stated. DAVID J. ARMO Principal D JEL, ned Serv n the Detion conan analyed to the e officer trols on itions in |