ng AR 88 88 Senator GLENN. What is the role of your office in overseeing the manpower quirements of the Defense Agencies? Mr. GREEN. The office of the Assistant Secretary of Defense (Force Managem and Personnel) is responsible for formulating, presenting and justifying, and exe ing the military and civilian manpower requirements for all Department of Defe (DOD) components, including the Defense Agencies and DOD Field Activities. office is responsible for ensuring that the Defense Department's Total Force refl the most responsive, efficient, and economical mix of military, civilian, and cont tor manpower. Senator GLENN. Can you specify what effect the reduction in fiscal year 1 would have on the combat readiness of the military services? Mr. GREEN. The Defense Agencies and DOD Field Activities manpower requ ments are based on funded workloads and mission requirements. The Defense partment's budget request represents the best estimate of the total resources (do and spaces) that are needed to accomplish each component's mission. The Defense Agencies and DOD Field Activities provide direct support to the N tary Services, and therefore directly support combat readiness. Any Agency/Acti manpower reductions, beyond those in the Budget Summit Agreement, would h some impact on combat readiness. The Department, of course, would try to m reductions in areas with the least impact on combat readiness, but we maintain all reductions would directly or indirectly affect combat readiness. Senator GLENN. Are all Defense Agencies equally affected or can some stand reduction more than others? Mr. GREEN. The Secretary of Defense decided to spread the fiscal year 1988 G water-Nichols DOD fiscal year 1986 Reorganization Act reductions evenly across of the Defense Agencies and DOD Field Activities. The Secretary decided on approach because no programs or missions were cut by the Act, and it was imp ble to balance the adverse effects of reducing one Agency or Activity at the expe of another. As an example, if the intelligence related Agencies are shielded from reductions, then the logistices related agencies would have to take an additional duction. Any decision to shield specific organizations, at the expense of oth quickly becomes illogical. QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY SENATOR PETE WILSON Senator WILSON. Mr. Green, you touched briefly on the question of active/rese mix decisions in your prepared statement. I have been concerned for some time, am even more concerned now that we are reducing our active force structure w out a clear understanding of the capability of the Reserves to perform certain sions. Sometimes, it appears we may be increasing our Reserves just so we can better about bad decisions we have to make about our active force size. Would you comment about the analysis, including capability analysis, used to tify increased Reserve strength? Mr. GREEN. The Reserve strength for fiscal year 1989 included in this budge essentially level with fiscal year 1988 at 1,172,900. This is actually below the leve 1,176,070 which was previously authorized by the Congress for fiscal year 1989. The four services use different procedures to determine their force mix requ ments. Generally force structure which can be manned by the Guard and Reserv not assigned to the active components. Reserve forces are restricted by time straints from those missions which have a high peacetime operating requirem Capability is largely a factor of resourcing. Senator WILSON. I am also concerned that we in Congress may get a "false se of security" based upon our increasing reserve force size. Will you assure us you will inform us if we go too far in our reliance on the Reserves? Mr. GREEN. We will take care that missions which are inappropriate for rese components are not assigned to them. I am conducting an initial "force mix" sur of the services at the current time. I expect that the results of this effort wil reflected in future programs and budgets. 1 OFFICER REDUCTIONS Senator WILSON. I now read your prepared statement to say you have over 4,000 additional officer billets to be deleted in fiscal year 1989 and 1990, primarily as a result of the force structure reductions now being set Am I correct in my understanding that you are now recommendin repeal the statute requiring further officer reductions based upon the De determination that the 4,000 additional spaces will be deleted? Do we agreement that these 4,000 positions will be deleted? How do these addit positions break out among the services. Mr. GREEN. In addition to the first 2 percent officer reduction taken in 1987 and fiscal year 1988, the Department of Defense has identified an 4,000 officer positions to convert to civilian or eliminate. The Air Force has identified 500 officers in fiscal year 1989 and anothe cers in fiscal year 1990 that they would like to convert to civilian. Ad 2,100 Air Force officers will be reduced as a result of programmatic action for fiscal year 1990. The remaining 900 officers slated for reduction are tions (500 in fiscal year 1989 and 400 in fiscal year 1990). The Secretary of Defense has not yet approved the programmatic Air Fo tions for fiscal year 1990, but I fully expect we will reduce the Departm full 4,000 officer authorization. That will bring the net reduction of milita to over 10,000 officers (3.3 percent of fiscal year 1986 baseline). Based on the planned and executed reductions and the SecDef approved ments to OSD manpower oversight, I would ask that you support repeal maining 4 percent reduction. DUTIES OF SPOUSES Senator WILSON. Last year, as the result of some very unfortunate in the Air Force, I sponsored an amendment to the Defense authorization b on the Department to establish a policy to prevent military commander tempting to require that the spouses of military personnel participate teer" programs of the Services or attempting to evaluate a member's duty ance based on the spouse's participation in volunteer programs. I now understand that, in attempting to implement that amendment, some individuals in the Department who may be attempting to go mud than establishing a policy or attempting to expand the meaning of the ar to prohibit such things as considering marital status in making so-cal spouses" assignments. How is that amendment being implemented in the Department? Mr. GREEN. Department of Defense Directive 1400.33, February 10, 1988 Employment and Volunteer Work of Spouses of Military Personnel, in your amendment and section 637 of the House Conference Report of Pu 100-180, National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Years 1988 and 198 This policy states that no DOD official shall, directly or indirectly, impe erwise interfere with the right of a spouse of a military member to pursue a job, attend school, or perform volunteer services on or off a military ins It also states that the members of military promotion, continuation, and si sonnel selection boards are prohibited from considering the marital status tary member, or the employment, educational, or volunteer service activ member's spouse. With regard to your concern about considering marital status in maki spouses" assignments, the policy stated above is further clarified in the di ensure that marital status will be considered in facilitating the assignmen ried dual-career military couples to the same geographic area. A copy of t tive is attached for your information. DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE DIRECTIVE Subject: Employment and Volunteer Work of Spouses of Military Personnel capped Unuaren Act of 1975, as amendea (Title zu, United States Code, sectio 1401, et seq.). (f) Title 10, United States Code, chapter 47, Uniform Code of Milita Justice. A. Purpose. This Directive implements reference (a) and reissues references and (c). B. Applicability.-This Directive applies to the Office of the Secretary of Defer (OSD), the Military Departments (including their National Guard and Reserve co ponents), the Organization of the Joint Chiefs of Staff (OJCS), the Unified and Spe fied Commands, the Defense Agencies, and the DoD Field Activities (hereafter ferred to as "DoD Components"). C. Definitions.-1. "Spouse" refers to the husband or wife of a military member such spouse is not also a military member. 2. "Military Services," as used herein, refers to the Army, Navy, Air For Marine Corps, and Coast Guard (when operating as a part of the Navy). 3. "DoD official" refers to any commander, supervisor, or other military or civ ian official of a DoD Component. 4. "Marital status" refers to married, single, divorced, widowed, or separated. D. Policy.-1. No DoD official shall, directly or indirectly, impede or otherw interfere with the right of a spouse of a military member to pursue and hold a j attend school, or perform volunteer services on or off a military installation. Mo over, no DoD official shall use the preferences or requirements of a DoD Compone to influence, or attempt to influence, the employment, educational, or volunte service decisions of a spouse. Neither such decision of a spouse, nor the mari status of the member, shall affect, favorably or adversely, the performance appra als or assignment and promotion opportunities of the member, subject to the clar cation in paragraph D.2.b., below. 2. In furtherance of this policy: a. In discharging their responsibilities, members of military promotion, contin ation, and similar personnel selection boards are prohibited from considering t marital status of a military member, or the employment, educational, or volunte service activities of a member's spouse. b. Personnel decisions, including those related to the assignments of milita members, shall not be affected, favorably or adversely, by the employment, edu tional, or volunteer service activities of a member's spouse, or solely by reason of member's marital status, subject to the following clarification: (1) When necessary to ameliorate the personal hardship of a member or spou upon the request of the member concerned, such as when a family member requi specialized medical treatment, educational provisions under references (d) and (e), similar personal preference accommodations. (2) To facilitate the assignment of dual-career military married couples to t same geographic area. (3) When otherwise required by law, such as instances in which a prohibited co flict of interest may exist between the official duties of a military member and t employment of the member's spouse. (4) When the Assistant Secretary of Defense (Force Management and Personne with the concurrence of the General Counsel, determines, on a case-by-case bas for reasons of national security, that marital status is an essential assignment qua fication for particular military billets or positions. c. Performance appraisals on members of the Military Services, including offic and enlisted efficiency or fitness reports, shall not contain any information rega ing the employment, educational, or volunteer service activities of the membe spouse, or reflect favorably or adversely on the member based solely on the me ber's marital status. E. Responsibilities.-1. The Secretaries of the Military Departments and t Heads of other DoD Components shall ensure compliance with this Directive. 2. The Secretaries of the Military Departments shall issue regulations, enforcea under the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) (reference (f)), and appropria regulations or other guidance applicable to civilian personnel, implementing this rective. 3. The Assistant Secretary of Defense (Force Management and Personn (ASD(FM&P)) shall monitor compliance with this Directive. F. Effective date and implementation.-This Directive is effective immediate The Secretaries of the Military Departments shall forward two copies of impleme ing documents to the Assistant Secretary of Defense (Force Management and P sonnel) within 60 days. WILLIAM H. TAFT IV, Deputy Secretary of Defense NATIONAL GUARD AND RESERVE RETENTION Senator WILSON. General Ono, we will deal directly with recruiting, and compensation issues at our hearing next week. However, I am concern one problem of retention which may be affecting your overall requirement the problem of retention in the Army reserves. I have been told that the Army Reserve is continuing to experience an narily high loss of trained personnel. Lack of MOS trained personnel is ma ness problem in the Army Reserve. I had been concerned that this problem result of insufficient training. I now believe what is really happening is we are recruiting enough pe giving them training, but then they quit. Would you comment on this problem? General ONO. The problem you are addressing is one of providing the sol meaningful training during his Inactive Duty for Training period (weeke The Army has taken action to solve this problem. Among the actions directed toward resolution of this problem are: a. The Office, Deputy Chief of Staff for Operations-directed Military O Specialty Qualification/Retention Study. The goal of this study is to devel ing strategies more appropriate for the Reserve Component training sche skills that require long training periods. b. The Training and Doctrine Command's Reserve Component Training Task Force. The goal is to develop a comprehensive, coherent strategy for ing of Army Reserve Components for the future. c. The Office, Chief Army Reserve Sample Survey of USAR Troop Progra bers. This survey will prioritize reasons why soldiers leave their unit, re solutions and develop a computer retention model. The retention problem is further compounded by the fact that unit com are often overwhelmed with administrative (necessary) work to the extent impossible to actively and energetically plan meaningful and absorbing tra the unit. The current Office, Chief Army Reserve initiative to establish Support Centers seeks to shift this workload away from the unit in order t more time for training. REDUCED FORCE STRUCTURE Senator WILSON. General Ono, the Army proposes to reduce its active for ture in fiscal year 1989 by some 9,000 slots below the fiscal year 1988 auth level. How will that reduction be allotted in the Army's active force struct there be major force structure units left with essentially a headquarters onl General ONO. Senator Wilson, the required DOD manpower reductions w complished in the following manner: 1. FORSCOM will not activate two battalions in 6ID(L) and will inactivate gade 9ID(MTZ) and roundout with an RC separate brigade. The balance of 3387 military and 354 civilian positions were taken from BASEOPS of the ing installations. 2. Aviation spaces in TOE and TDA will be decremented at UIC level Total reduction will be 451 officers/warrants and 864 enlisted. The remai officer/warrant reduction will be paid with non aviation TDA spaces in F (102 OF, 273 EN), TRADOC (177 OF, 238 EN), and AMC (12 OF, 96EN). 3. RDTE spaces, military and civilian have been spread throughout RDT oping agencies to include secretariat and HQDA FOAS. Total reduction military and 622 civilians. 4. FOA military reductions (OMA) are being applied against secreta HQDA Field Operating Agencies and MACOM Field Operating Activities. E tribution still being determined-excludes AMHA. Total cut will be 188/0/ tary and 413 civilians—includes ADEA (46/0/9) military and 52 civilians). 5. TRADOC has identified 43 officer and 27 civilian spaces to be cut from 29 officer spaces spread between CDEC and TRADOC Liaison Element to and 49 officer spaces to be identified from ROTC or an alternate source. 6. Morale, Welfare and recreation is being reduced 23 officer and 177 spaces. 7. 121/0/1037 military will be removed from the individuals (THS) ac meet the 8,600 end strength reduction. 8. All reductions are effective 30 September 1988. 9. In all of these reductions, no unit has been left with only a headquar ment. The standard was to cut functions and units. 10. This reduction meets the Congressionally mandated officer cuts (1514), ali aviation spaces with aircraft to be retired, is balanced between TDA (51%) and T (49%)—(final percent to be determined) and, in as much as possible, protects tra ing and leadership development. The Army can still accomplish its wartime miss within the existing force structure-but with increased risk. Senator WILSON. There has been substantial doubt about whether the Army co properly man 18 divisions with an end strength of 781,000. How does the Army pose to man 18 divisions with only 772,000 personnel? General ONO. Pasts doubts about the Army's ability to man an 18 division fo aside, the facts are that we have consistently done so over the past several ye The average fill level of our 18 divisions has ranged between 94 percent and 98 cent since October 1986. Since the fiscal year 1989 end strength reduction to 772, is accompanied by a commensurate force structure reduction, we are confident t with congressional support of our budget request we can continue to properly m our approved force structure. NUCLEAR OFFICER SHORTAGE Senator WILSON. For the fifth or sixth year in the row, the Navy describes shortage of experienced nuclear trained officers as one of its most serious off manning problems. Presently, there is a 28 percent shortage against requireme I believe the Congress has authorized every compensation program sought by Navy for nuclear qualified officers and continues to authorize the use of spot pro tions for only these officers. Are we ever going to be able to "buy" this type of officer or must we start look for non-monetary incentives to retain these people? Do you think we will ever be able to man the Navy's "requirements" for th officers? Has the Navy done a detailed review of its requirements-Who is fill the billets for which there are shortages? How much is our readiness reduced manning these billets in this manner? Admiral EDNEY. The shortage of nuclear trained submarine and surface officer a significant problem, which the Navy is working hard to correct. This problem been with us for many years and will not be quickly resolved. With the strong s port of the Congress in approving special pays and incentives, we have been abl absolutely minimize the impact of this shortage on fleet manning and readiness. Submarine Officers The submarine community currently has a 28 percent shortage of senior, nucl trained officers in the ranks of Lieutenant Commander (0-4) through Captain (O This problem is a result of the low nuclear submarine officer accessions and re tion in the late 1960s and 1970s when these officers started their career. During the mid-1980s the Navy made strong improvements in nuclear submar officer recruiting and retention through improvements in submarine force operat tempo, increased opportunity for shore duty and post graduate education, and proved compensation in the form of enhanced Nuclear Officer Incentive Pay. fiscal year 1983, the Navy achieved 100 percent of its submarine officer access goal. In fiscal year 1985, nuclear submarine officer retention reached a histor high of 48 percent. When significant numbers of the officers in these year gro reach Lieutenant Commander in 5 to 6 years, the Navy will probably be able reduce the 28 percent shortage of senior submarine officers. The current short will remain stable until that time. However, there has been reason for additional concern in recent years. Since 1 nuclear submarine officer accessions have dropped. In fiscal year 1988, the N projects it will reach 90 percent of its submarine officer accession goal. Also, sub rine officer retention dropped in fiscal year 1986 to 43 percent and then to 39 cent in fiscal year 1987, the lowest figure in 5 years. When the Navy recognized trend in fiscal year 1986, we took corrective action by requesting a 35 percent crease in submarine pay, which Congress approved in the fiscal year 1988 DOD thorization Act. Additionally, the Secretary of the Navy approved raising Nucl Officer Continuation Pay from $9K to $10K per year (authorized ceiling in lav $12K). While it is too early to accurately predict the impact of these changes submarine officer retention, based on data collected so far this fiscal year it appe that the desired effect was realized and fiscal year 1988 retention will be 43 to percent. This still is short of the 55 percent goal. The Navy will continue to mon this situation closely. |