employees, i.e., veterans, individuals with exceptional performance records, and those with considerable tenure. Current law does not provide for protection of spouses. Question: Are cut-backs in the civilian - - hurting workforce both in the U.S. and overseas riffed? Gen. Hudson: Even in times of austerity where there is very little hiring, spouses and veterans are more likely to be hired first due to their preference. Cutbacks, therefore, affect those employees without preference much more than spouses and veterans. Spouses may be hurt during time of RIF not so much because they're spouses but because many are nonveterans and don't have the same preference in times of RIF as veterans. The Military Family Act facilitates the entrance of military spouses into the government and allows them a preference when relocating. The Act does not presently protect them during a federal reduction in force. 'Question:' Are cut-backs in the civilian work force--both in the U.S. and overseas--hurting spouse employment disproportionately? Given that spouse employment is a big retention issue, how can we ensure that spouses are sheltered rather than disproportionately hit when civilians have to be riffed? Gen. Hickey: No, spouse employment is not being disproportionately hurt by civilian workforce cut-backs. Fortunately, we have been able to accommodate cut-backs without separating many employees by RIF. We are doing this by attrition, early retirements, and, in some cases, by imposing hiring freezes. Where hiring freezes have been imposed, spousal applicants may be temporarily held in abeyance. However, that treatment is not disproportionate to other applicants. Given that spousal retention is generally not being affected by RIFs, any measures to shelter spouses should be directed towards avoiding breaks in service for those spouses resigning to accompany their sponsor. This could be done by expanding provisions for granting leave without pay for military spouses, i.e., spouses returning from an overseas assignment. This proposal is currently being staffed by the Air Force. FORCE STRUCTURE REDUCTIONS Question. The revised fiscal year 1989 budget assumes active end strength decreases in fiscal year 1988 in each of the services except the Navy which will remain constant at the fiscal year 1988 authorized level (-23,000 in the Air Force, -8,600 in the Army and -2,300 in the Marine Corps). How will these reductions be achieved? Will certain missions be undermanned, done away with, or a combination of both? Since you are taking people out in 1988, but the force structure draw downs do not begin until 1989, how will you "mesh" the two with minimum turbulence? Lieutenant General Ono. The Army's directed end strength reduction will be achieved through attrition. Fewer replacements will be recruited and trained during FY 88 than were originally planned, while normal losses will continue in accordance with original program. Thus, strength will ramp down in an orderly fashion from the 781,000 on the rolls at beginning of FY 88 to a strength of 772,300 by end FY 88. The Army has identified certain force structure reductions to ensure that the demand for soldiers can still be satisfied despite the reduced end strength. These reductions are scheduled to become effective the last quarter of FY 88 and the force will not be undermanned as a result of the 8600 reduction. Both the requirement (mission) and the strength are reduced. As explained above, the strength reductions will occur through attrition across the Army. Where appropriate, incumbents will be cross-leveled locally against other requirements; where necessary, they will be reassigned. Recruiting in the skills cut by the force structure reductions will be constrained to provide an inventory to match the revised requirement. The Army does not expect the turbulence associated with this requirement to last beyond 1Q, FY 89. Chairwoman Byron: The revised fiscal year 1989 budget assumes active end strength decreases in fiscal year 1988 in each of the services except the Navy which will remain constant at the fiscal year 1988 authorized level (-23,000 in Air Force, -8,600 in the Army and -2,300 in the Marine Corps). How will these reductions be achieved? Will certain missions be undermanned, done away with, or a combination of both? Since you are taking the people out in 1988, but the force structure draw downs do not begin until 1989, how will you 'mesh the two with minimum turbulence? Vice Admiral Edney: The Navy has requested end strength in the Question: The revised Fiscal Year 1989 budget assumes active end strength decreases in Fiscal Year 1988 · in each of the services except the Navy which will remain constant at the Fiscal Year 1988 authorized level (-23,100 in the Air Force, -8,600 in the Army and -2,300 in the Marine Corps). How will these reductions be achieved? Will certain missions be undermanned, done away with, or a combination of both? Gen. Hickey:- The 23,097 military authorizations that will be reduced in the Air Force in Fiscal Year (FY) 1988 will be achieved in conjunction with eliminating a tactical fighter wing eqivalent, cutting out some reconnaissance aircraft, reducing communications activities, reducing training, and undermanning the force. All of these actions, except for unit undermanning, are specific actions that have a corresponding manpower reduction. Unfortunately, due to the timing and magnitude of the Service budget adjustments, not all of the manpower reductions have been identified with specific programs. This translates into a unit undermanning for the Air Force. The Air Force will definitize this undermanning in upcoming budget exercises. Question: Since you are taking the people out in 1988, but the force structure drawdowns do not begin until 1989, how will you "mesh" the two with minimum turbulence? Answer: The manpower being reduced in FY 1988 is tied to program reductions/cancellations and unit undermanning occurring in FY 1988 as outlined in the preceding question. Force structure drawdowns in FY 1989, such as reductions to the tactical fighter force, have a corresponding manpower reduction. This manpower will be used to help offset increases for such functions as wartime medical requirements, new space systems, and special operations forces. As a result, the end strength request for FY 1989 is equal to FY 1988. 7 Question: The revised fiscal year 1989 budget assumes active end strength decreases in fiscal year 1988 in each of the services except the Navy which will remain constant at the fiscal year 1988 authorized level (-23,100 in the Air Force, -8,600 in the Army and -2,300 in the Marine Corps). How will these reductions be achieved? Will certain missions be undermanned, done away with, or a combination of both? Since you are taking the people out in 1988, but the force structure draw downs do not begin until 1989, how will you "mesh" the two with minimum turbulence? Gen. Hudson: The end strength reduction during fiscal year 1988 will initially result in reduced manning of the current structure. However, since the bulk of the reduction will be achieved by reducing accessions who would be in the training pipeline during fiscal year 1988 and early fiscal year 1989, the manning impact on Fleet Marine Force (FMF) units will not be significant until later in fiscal year 1989. This will minimize the turbulence of the draw down since, by that time, we will have begun to restructure the Marine Corps to implement the decisions made as a result of our recently completed structure review. This review addressed all aspects of Marine Corps structure, to include the impacts of the end strength reduction. The review determined that the reduced end strength will not allow us to adequately man the structure we consider necessary. Aviator Continuation Pay (ACP) QUESTION: General Hickey, in your prepared statement you talk about pilot retention problems and propose that the Congress approve an Aviator Continuation Pay (a bonus) to improve retention; but, your testimony does not provide any details. Could you please provide us with a more thorough description of this proposal? When can we expect to receive the proposal for our review? Gen. Hickey: Aviator Continuation Pay (ACP) is the legislative initiative developed jointly by the Air Force and Navy for use by all Services, as required. It is flexible in structure so it can be directed at the retention problems of the individual Services. The structure is similar to the Aviation Officer Continuation Pay (AOCP) the Navy uses, but some factors of the implementation may differ from Service to Service as requirements dictate. Basic eligibility requirements are fixed. To be eligible, an officer must be in pay grade 0-5 or below, be entitled to Aviation Career Incentive Pay (ACIP), and be qualified to perform operational flying duty. Additionally, the individual must have completed at least 6, but no more than 13 years of service (start of 14th year), and have completed the active duty service commitment incurred for undergraduate flying training. If the officer meets these requirements and signs a written agreement to remain in aviation service for a specific period of time, then the individual may receive ACP. Service flexibility stems basically from contract length and bonus amounts. The legislation provides for contracts from one to eight years in duration with multiple contracts authorized per individual, but no contract can extend beyond the officer's 14th year of service (beginning of 15th year). An amount not exceeding $12,000/year of contract can to be paid in lump-sum or installments. This special pay entitlement will take the place of АОСР, and, after enactment, no new AOCP contracts will be offered. The legislative proposal has received coordination by all the Services and is now in the Office of the Secretary of Defense for approval. USAF OFFICER GROWTH IN RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT Question: The March 1, 1988, Defense Officer Requirements Study shows that the Air Force has significantly larger numbers of officer positions in Research & Development than any of the other services (about 9800 in fiscal year 1988). For example, the Air Force has 3 1/2 times more officers than the Army and almost 6 times more officers than the Navy in R&D. The report also shows that from 1980 - 1986 the Air Force increased the number of officers in R&D by about 1400, and of this growth, about 1100 (about 74 percent) could have been performed by civilians. a. Given that you found that 74 percent of the growth in Air Force R&D officer positions could have been performed by civilians, could you provide us with assurances that most of the remaining officer positions in R&D cannot be performed by civilians? b. Can you explain why the Air Force has many more times the number of officers in R&D than the other services and what specific criteria you use to determine if an R&D position is military or civilian? Gen. Hickey: This kind of analysis points out the difficulty and pitfalls of making comparisons using the Defense Planning and Programming Categories (DPPCs) as used in the Officer Requirements Report. The jobs being performed by the 9200 Air Force Research & Development authorizations are not comparable to the jobs performed This was by the Army and Navy R&D authorizations. pointed out to the Air Force by the Surveys and Investigations Staff of the House Appropriations Committee which recommended moving substantial funding and associated manpower resources out of the R&D area and into the Operations and Maintenance (O&M) area, primarily central logistics. The Air Force acted on that recommendation with changes effective in FY 88, so it does not show up in the FY 80 or FY 86 data used in the Officer Requirements Report. The annual Defense Manpower Requirements Report for FY 89 will be delivered to Congress shortly and the most recent version shows the R&D DPPC. FY 88 (000s) following for officers in the Service 1.5 1.3 2.3 This more current data shows that the Air Force, while still having the largest officer representation in R&D, is not out of line. Air Force military R&D positions are so designated based on the need for current military experience to successfully perform prescribed duties. The same HAC (S&I) study which recommended moving R&D resources into AF, O&M compared Air Force Systems Command (AFSC) to Naval Air Systems Command (NAVAIR) and pointed out that AFSC managed twice as many major test centers and ranges (6 vs 3), almost four times as many plant representative organizations (27 vs 7), two and one-half times as many major acquisition programs (40 vs 16), and a development and acquisition budget that was more than twice the size of NAVAIR ($40B vs $168). Thus, there are more programs and more geographical locations requiring operational input. The Air Force's philosophy, since its inception, has been that a significant proportion of its acquisition work force would be military to provide the critical user perspective needed to acquire operationally effective systems, allow for greater flexibility in managing the aoquisition work force through mobility and assignment selection, and the capability to quickly respond to evolving acquisition needs. The Air Force officer growth in R&D was not at the mid or senior management level where only one out of four present positions were officers. Rather, it was at the junior officer level where we must begin the acquisition officer development process. The Air Force military program manager development program was cited by the GAO in their May 1986 DOD acquisition report as most closely approximating the desired condition. We have already converted some of the 1100 officer authorizations identified in the Officer Requirements Report as doing work that could be performed by civilians and will convert the remainder in FỶ 88/89/90. Critical to our ability to make these changes will be your assistance in civilian funding and time to make these |