United States General Accounting Office

GAO Testimony

Before the Subcommittee on Readiness and Military

Personnel, Committee on National Security, House of

Representatives

For Release on Delivery

Expected at

9:00 a.m. CST

Friday,

March 20, 1998

MILITARY READINESS

Observations on Personnel

Readiness in Later

Deploying Army Divisions

Statement of Mark E. Gebicke, Director, Military

Operations and Capabilities Issues, National Security and

International Affairs Division

GAO/T-NSIAD-98-126

Mr. Chairmen and Members of the Subcommittees:

We are pleased to be here to discuss our preliminary findings from our

ongoing evaluation of personnel readiness in the Army’s five

later-deploying divisions. These divisions constitute almost half of the

Army’s active combat forces and, according to Army officials, are critical

to the success of specific war plans and the national military strategy.

This morning, I would first like to summarize our preliminary observations

regarding personnel readiness in the later-deploying divisions. Then, I

would like to describe in more detail the (1) extent of personnel shortages

in the divisions and the extent to which these shortages are reflected in

readiness reports, (2) key factors contributing to personnel shortages and

the impact such shortages have on readiness, (3) Army’s plans for

correcting such shortages should these divisions be called upon to deploy,

and (4) issues to be considered in dealing with personnel shortages.

Unless otherwise indicated, the information provided reflects what we

found at the time of our visits to the later-deploying divisions during the

period August 1997 through January 1998.

Summary In the aggregate, the Army’s five later-deploying divisions had an average

of 93 percent of their personnel on board at the time of our visits.

However, aggregate data does not fully reflect the extent of shortages of

combat troops, technical specialists, experienced officers, and

noncommissioned officers (NCO) that exist in those divisions.

The readiness reporting system that contains the aggregate data on these

divisions does not fully disclose the impact of personnel shortages on the

ability of the divisions’ units to accomplish critical wartime tasks. As a

result, there is a disconnect between the reported readiness of these

forces in formal readiness reports and the actual readiness that we

observed on our visits. These disconnects exist because the unit readiness

reporting system does not consider some information that has a significant

impact on a unit’s readiness, such as operating tempo, personnel shortfalls

in key positions, and crew and squad staffing.

The Army’s priority in assigning personnel to these divisions, Army-wide

shortages of personnel, frequent deployments to peacekeeping missions,

and the assignment of soldiers to other tasks outside of their specialty are

the primary reasons for personnel shortfalls.

Page 1 GAO/T-NSIAD-98-126
The impact of personnel shortages on training and readiness is

exacerbated by the extent to which personnel are being used for work

outside their specialties or units. According to commanders in all the

divisions, the collective impact of understaffing squads and crews,

transferring to other jobs the NCOs from the crews and squads they are

responsible for training, and assigning personnel to other units as fillers

for exercises and operations have degraded their capability and readiness.

If the Army had to deploy these divisions for a high-intensity conflict,

these divisions would fill their units with Individual Ready Reserve

Soldiers,1

 retired servicemembers, and newly recruited soldiers. However,

the Army’s plan for providing these personnel includes assumptions that

have not been validated, and there may not be enough trained personnel to

fully staff or fill later-deploying divisions within their scheduled

deployment times.

Solutions, if any, to these problems will depend upon how the Army plans

to use these divisions in the future.

Before I continue, I want to provide you with some additional background

about the Army’s divisions.

Background Today’s Army faces an enormous challenge to balance risks and resources

in order to meet its many missions. Since 1990, active Army ranks have

been reduced from 770,000 to 495,000 personnel, a reduction of about

36 percent. Simultaneously, world events have dictated that forces be

trained and ready to respond to potential high-intensity missions in areas

such as Korea and the Persian Gulf while conducting peace enhancement

operations around the world.

The Army currently has 10 active combat divisions compared to the 18 it

had at the start of Operation Desert Storm in 1991.2

 Four of the 

10 divisions are considered contingency divisions and would be the first to

deploy in the event of a major theater war. These units are the 82nd

Airborne, 101st Air Assault, 3rd Infantry, and 1st Cavalry divisions. The

1

The Individual Ready Reserve is comprised of officers and enlisted soldiers with prior military service

who are completing their 8-year military service obligation or who are not assigned to units. The

majority of these personnel have no annual training requirements.

2

Three of the 18 divisions were composed of 2 active brigades and 1 reserve component brigade.

Today, the 10 divisions are composed of all active duty units.

Page 2 GAO/T-NSIAD-98-126
2nd Infantry Division, while not a contingency force division, is already

deployed in Korea.

The remaining five divisions, which are the focus of my testimony, are

expected to deploy in the event of a second simultaneous or nearly

simultaneous major theater contingency or as reinforcements for a

larger-than-expected first contingency. These units are the 1st Armored,

1st Infantry, 4th Infantry, 10th Infantry, and 25th Infantry divisions. Also,

these divisions have been assigned the bulk of the recent peacekeeping

missions in Bosnia and Haiti, and the 4th Infantry division over the last

2 years has been conducting the Army’s advanced war-fighting

experiment.

Appendix I provides a list of the Army’s current active divisions and the

locations of each division’s associated brigades.

Personnel Shortages

Are Significant in

Later-Deploying

Divisions

In the aggregate, the Army’s later-deploying divisions were assigned

66,053, or 93 percent, of their 70,665 authorized personnel at the beginning

of fiscal year 1998. However, aggregate numbers do not adequately reflect

the condition that exists within individual battalions, companies, and

platoons of these divisions. This is because excess personnel exist in some

grades, ranks, and skills, while shortages exist in others. For example,

while the 1st Armored Division was staffed at 94 percent in the aggregate,

its combat support and service support specialties were filled at below

85 percent, and captains and majors were filled at 73 percent.

In addition, a portion of each later-deploying division exists only on paper

because all authorized personnel have not been assigned. All these

divisions contain some squads, crews, and platoons in which no personnel

or a minimum number of personnel are assigned. Assigning a minimum

number of personnel to a crew means having fewer personnel than needed

to fully accomplish wartime missions; for example, having five soldiers per

infantry squad rather than nine, tank crews with three soldiers instead of

four, or artillery crews with six soldiers rather than nine. We found

significant personnel shortfalls in all the later-deploying divisions. For

example:

• At the 10th Infantry Division, only 138 of 162 infantry squads were fully or

minimally filled, and 36 of the filled squads were unqualified.

• At the 2nd and 3rd brigades of the 25th Infantry Division, 52 of 162 infantry

squads were minimally filled or had no personnel assigned.

Page 3 GAO/T-NSIAD-98-126
• At the 1st Brigade of the 1st Infantry Division, only 56 percent of the

authorized infantry soldiers for its Bradley Fighting Vehicles were

assigned, and in the 2nd Brigade, 21 of 48 infantry squads had no

personnel assigned.

• At the 3rd Brigade of the 1st Armored Division, only 16 of 116 M1A1 tanks

had full crews and were qualified, and in one of the Brigade’s two armor

battalions, 14 of 58 tanks had no crewmembers assigned because the

personnel were deployed to Bosnia. In addition, at the Division’s engineer

brigade in Germany, 11 of 24 bridge teams had no personnel assigned.

• At the 4th Infantry Division, 13 of 54 squads in the engineer brigade had no

personnel assigned or had fewer personnel assigned than required.

The significance of personnel shortfalls in later-deploying divisions cannot

be adequately captured solely in terms of overall numbers. The rank,

grade, and experience of the personnel assigned must also be considered.

For example, captains and majors are in short supply Army-wide due to

drawdown initiatives undertaken in recent years. The five later-deploying

divisions had only 91 percent and 78 percent of the captains and majors

authorized, respectively, but 138 percent of the lieutenants authorized. The

result is that unit commanders must fill leadership positions in many units

with less experienced officers than Army doctrine requires. For example,

in the 1st Brigade of the 1st Infantry Division, 65 percent of the key staff

positions designated to be filled by captains were actually filled by

lieutenants or captains that were not graduates of the Advanced Course.

We found that three of the five battalion maintenance officers, four of the

six battalion supply officers, and three of the four battalion signal officers

were lieutenants rather than captains. While this situation represents an

excellent opportunity for the junior officers, it also represents a situation

in which critical support functions are being guided by officers without the

required training or experience.

There is also a significant shortage of NCOs in the later-deploying divisions.

Again, within the 1st Brigade, 226, or 17 percent of the 1,450, total NCO

authorizations, were not filled at the time of our visit. As was the case in

all the divisions, a significant shortage was at the first-line supervisor,

sergeant E-5 level. At the beginning of fiscal year 1998, the 5

later-deploying divisions were short nearly 1,900 of the total 25,357 NCOs

authorized, and as of February 15, 1998, this shortage had grown to almost

2,200.

Page 4 GAO/T-NSIAD-98-126
Current Readiness

Reports Do Not Fully

Disclose Personnel

Shortfalls

In recent years, in reports and testimony before the Congress, we

discussed the Status of Resources and Training System (SORTS),3

 which is

used to measure readiness, and reported on the need for improvements.

SORTS data for units in the later-deploying divisions have often reflected a

high readiness level for personnel because the system uses aggregate

statistics to assess personnel readiness. For example, a unit that is short

20 percent of all authorized personnel in the aggregate could still report

the ability to undertake most of its wartime mission, even though up to

25 percent of the key leaders and personnel with critical skills may not be

assigned. Using aggregate data to reflect personnel readiness masks the

underlying personnel problems I have discussed today, such as shortages

by skill level, rank, or grade. Compounding these problems are high levels

of personnel turnover, incomplete squads and crews, and frequent

deployments, none of which are part of the readiness calculation criteria.

Yet, when considered collectively, these factors create situations in which

commanders may have difficulty developing unit cohesion, accomplishing

training objectives, and maintaining readiness.

Judging by our analysis of selected commanders’ comments submitted

with their SORTS reports and other available data, the problems I have just

noted are real. However, some commanders apparently do not consider

them serious enough to warrant a downgrade in the reported readiness

rating. For example, at one engineer battalion, the commander told us his

unit had lost the ability to provide sustained engineer support to the

division. His assessment appeared reasonable, since company- and

battalion-level training for the past 4 months had been canceled due to the

deployment of battalion leaders and personnel to operations in Bosnia. As

a result of this deployment, elements of the battalion left behind had only

33 to 55 percent of its positions filled. The commander of this battalion,

however, reported an overall readiness assessment of C-2, which was

based in part on a personnel level that was over 80 percent in the

aggregate. The commander also reported that he would be able to achieve

a C-1 status in only 20 training days. This does not seem realistic, given the

shortages we noted. We found similar disconnects between readiness

conditions as reported in SORTS and actual unit conditions at other armor,

infantry, and support units.

3

The system assigns each unit a readiness rating from C-1 to C-5. A C-1 unit can undertake the full

wartime mission for which it is organized and designed; a C-2 unit can undertake the bulk of its

wartime mission; a C-3 unit can undertake major portions of its wartime mission; C-4 and C-5 units are

at lower levels of readiness. Each commander reporting readiness may use his/her professional

judgment to either upgrade or downgrade the calculated overall C-rating by one level but must provide

a written justification in the form of “commander’s comments.”

Page 5 GAO/T-NSIAD-98-126
Many Factors Have

Contributed to

Personnel Shortfalls

in Later Deploying

Divisions

Many factors have contributed to shortfalls of personnel in the Army’s

later-deploying divisions, including (1) the Army’s priority for assigning

personnel to units, commands, and agencies; (2) Army-wide shortages of

some types of personnel; (3) peacekeeping operations; and (4) the

assignment of soldiers to joint and other Army command, recruiting, and

base management functions.

Later-Deploying Divisions

Receive Low Priority for

Staffing

The Army uses a tiered system to allocate personnel and other resources

to its units. The Army gives top priority to staffing DOD agencies; major

commands such as the Central Command, the European Command, and

the Pacific Command; the National Training Center; and the Army Rangers

and Special Forces Groups. These entities receive 98 to 100 percent of the

personnel authorized for each grade and each military occupational

specialty. The 2nd Infantry Division, which is deployed in Korea, and the

four contingency divisions are second in priority. Although each receives

98 to 100 percent of its aggregate authorized personnel, the total personnel

assigned are not required to be evenly distributed among grades or

military specialties. The remaining five later-deploying divisions receive a

proportionate share of the remaining forces. Unlike priority one and two

forces, the later-deploying units have no minimum personnel level.

Army-wide Shortages of

Personnel Have

Contributed to Shortfalls

Army-wide shortages of personnel add to the shortfalls of later-deploying

divisions. For example, in fiscal year 1997, the Army’s enlistment goal for

infantrymen was 16,142. However, only about 11,300 of those needed were

enlisted, which increased the existing shortage of infantry soldiers by an

additional 4,800 soldiers. As of February 15, 1998, Army-wide shortages

existed for 28 Army specialties. Many positions in squads and crews are

left unfilled or minimally filled because personnel are diverted to work in

key positions where they are needed more.

Also, because of shortages of experienced and branch-qualified officers,

the Army has instituted an Officer Distribution Plan, which distributes a

“fair share” of officers by grade and specialty among the combat divisions.

While this plan has helped spread the shortages across all the divisions, we

noted significant shortages of officers in certain specialties at the

later-deploying divisions.

Page 6 GAO/T-NSIAD-98-126
Peacekeeping Operations

Have Exacerbated

Shortfalls

Since 1995, when peacekeeping operations began in Bosnia-Herzegovina,

there has been a sustained increase in operations for three of the

later-deploying divisions: the 1st Armored Division, the 1st Infantry

Division, and the 10th Infantry Division. For example, in fiscal year 1997,

the 1st Armored Division was directed 89 times to provide personnel for

operations other than war and contingency operations, training exercises,

and for other assignments from higher commands. More than 3,200

personnel were deployed a total of nearly 195,000 days for the

assignments, 89 percent of which were for operations in Bosnia. Similarly,

the average soldier in the 1st Infantry Division was deployed 254 days in

fiscal year 1997, primarily in support of peacekeeping operations.

Even though the 1st Armored and 1st Infantry Divisions have had

90 percent or more of their total authorized personnel assigned since they

began operations in Bosnia, many combat support and service support

specialties were substantially understrength, and only three-fourths of

field grade officers were in place. As a result, the divisions took personnel

from nondeploying units to fill the deploying units with the needed

number and type of personnel. As a further result, the commanders of

nondeploying units have squads and crews with no, or a minimal number

of, personnel.

Other Assignments of

Soldiers Have Created

More Shortfalls of

Personnel

Unit commanders have had to shuffle personnel among positions to

compensate for shortages. For example, they

• assign soldiers that exist in the largest numbers—infantry, armor, and

artillery—to work in maintenance, supply, and personnel administration

due to personnel shortages in these technical specialties;

• assign soldiers to fill personnel shortages at a higher headquarters or to

accomplish a mission for higher headquarters; and

• assign soldiers to temporary work such as driving buses, serving as

lifeguards, and managing training ranges—vacancies, in some cases, which

have resulted from civilian reductions on base.

At the time of our visit, the 1st Brigade of the 1st Infantry Division had 372,

or 87 percent, of its 428 authorized dismount infantry. However, 51 of

these 372 soldiers were assigned to duties outside their specialties to fill

critical technical shortages, command-directed positions, and

administrative and base management activities. These reassignments

lowered the actual number of soldiers available for training to 75 percent

daily.

Page 7 GAO/T-NSIAD-98-126
In Germany, at the 2nd Brigade of the 1st Infantry Division, 21 of 

48 infantry squads had no personnel assigned due to shortages. From the

remaining 27 squads that were minimally filled, the equivalent of another 5

squads of the Brigade’s soldiers were working in maintenance, supply, and

administrative specialties to compensate for personnel shortages in those

specialties. The end result is that the brigade only had 22 infantry squads

with 7 soldiers each rather than 48 squads with 9 soldiers each.

Army Officials Believe

Readiness and

Training Have Been

Degraded

According to Army officials, the reduction of essential training, along with

the cumulative impact of the shortages I just outlined, has resulted in an

erosion of readiness. Readiness in the divisions responsible for

peacekeeping operations in Bosnia has been especially affected because

the challenges imposed by personnel shortages are compounded by

frequent deployments.

Universally, division officials told us that the shortage of NCOs in the

later-deploying divisions is the biggest detriment to overall readiness

because crews, squads, and sections are led by lower-level personnel

rather than by trained and experienced sergeants. Such a situation

impedes effective training because these replacement personnel become

responsible for training soldiers in critical skills they themselves may not

have been trained to accomplish. At one division, concern was expressed

about the potential for a serious training accident because tanks, artillery,

and fighting vehicles were being commanded by soldiers without the

experience needed to safely coordinate the weapon systems they

command.

According to Army officials, the rotation of units to Bosnia has also

degraded the training and readiness of the divisions providing the

personnel. For example, to deploy an 800-soldier task force last year, the

Commander of the 3rd Brigade Combat Team had to reassign 63 soldiers

within the brigade to serve in infantry squads of the deploying unit, strip

nondeploying infantry and armor units of maintenance personnel, and

reassign NCOs and support personnel to the task force from throughout the

brigade. These actions were detrimental to the readiness of the

nondeploying units. For example, gunnery exercises for two armor

battalions had to be canceled and 43 of 116 tank crews became unqualified

on the weapon system, the number of combat systems out of commission

increased, and contractors were hired to perform maintenance.

Page 8 GAO/T-NSIAD-98-126
According to 1st Armored and 1st Infantry division officials, this situation

has reduced their divisions’ readiness to the point of not being prepared to

execute wartime missions without extensive training and additional

personnel.

Retirees, Individual

Ready Reservists, and

New Recruits Would

Be Used to Fill

Shortfalls

If the later-deploying divisions are required to deploy to a second major

theater contingency, the Army plans to fill personnel shortfalls with retired

servicemembers, members of the Individual Ready Reserve, and newly

trained recruits. The number of personnel to fill the later deploying

divisions could be extensive, since (1) personnel from later deploying

divisions would be transferred to fill any shortages in the contingency

units that are first to deploy and (2) these divisions are already short of

required personnel.

The Army’s plan for providing personnel under a scenario involving two

major theater contingencies includes unvalidated assumptions. For

example, the plan assumes that the Army’s training base will be able to

quadruple its output on short notice and that all reserve component units

will deploy as scheduled. Army officials told us that based on past

deployments, not all the assumptions in their plans will be realized, and

there may not be sufficient trained personnel to fully man later-deploying

divisions within their scheduled deployment times. Finally, if retired

personnel or Individual Ready Reserve members are assigned to a unit,

training and crew cohesion may not occur prior to deployment because

Army officials expect some units to receive personnel just before

deployment.

Solutions Depend on

Expectations for

Later-Deploying

Forces

Finding solutions to the personnel problems I have discussed today will

not be easy, given the Army’s many missions and reduced personnel. While

I have described serious shortfalls of personnel in each of later-deploying

divisions, this condition is not necessarily new. What is new is the

increased operating tempo, largely brought about because of

peacekeeping operations, which has exacerbated the personnel shortfalls

in these divisions. However, before any solutions can be discussed, the

Army should determine whether it wants to continue to accept the current

condition of its active force today, that is, five fully combat-ready divisions

and five less than fully combat-capable divisions.

The Army has started a number of initiatives that ultimately may help

alleviate some of the personnel shortfalls I have described. These

Page 9 GAO/T-NSIAD-98-126
initiatives include targeted recruiting goals for infantry and maintenance

positions; the advanced war-fighting experiment, which may reduce the

number of personnel required for a division through the use of technology;

and better integration of active and reserve forces. Efforts to streamline

institutional forces4

 may also yield personnel that could be used to fill

vacancies such as these noted in my testimony.

If such efforts do not yield sufficient personnel or solutions to deal with

the shortages we have noted in this testimony, we believe it is important

that the Army, at a minimum, review its current plans for rectifying these

shortfalls in the event of a second major theater war. In particular, if the

Army expects to deploy fully combat-capable divisions for such a war, it

should review the viability of alleviating shortfalls predominately with

reservists from the Individual Ready Reserve.

This concludes my testimony. I will be happy to answer any questions you

may have at this time.

4

The Army’s institutional force provides generally nondeployable support to the Army infrastructure,

including training, doctrine development, base operations, supply, and maintenance.

Page 10 GAO/T-NSIAD-98-126
Page 11 GAO/T-NSIAD-98-126
Appendix I 

Active Army Divisions

1st Cavalry Division - headquarters and three brigades at Fort Hood, Tex.

3rd Infantry Division - headquarters and two brigades at Fort Stewart, Ga.,

and one brigade at Fort Benning, Ga.

82nd Airborne Division - headquarters and three brigades at Fort Bragg,

N.C.

101st Airborne Division - headquarters and three brigades at Fort

Campbell, Ky.

2nd Infantry Division - headquarters and two brigades in Korea, and one

brigade at Fort Lewis, Wash.

1st Infantry Division - headquarters and two brigades in Germany, and one

brigade at Fort Riley, Kans.

1st Armored Division - headquarters and two brigades in Germany, and

one brigade at Fort Riley, Kans.

4th Infantry Division - headquarters and two brigades at Fort Hood, Tex.,

and one brigade at Fort Carson, Colo.

10th Mountain Division - headquarters and two brigades at Fort Drum, N.Y.

25th Infantry Division - headquarters and two brigades at Schofield

Barracks, Hawaii, and one brigade at Fort Lewis, Wash.

(703211) Page 12 GAO/T-NSIAD-98-126
Ordering Information

The first copy of each GAO report and testimony is free.

Additional copies are $2 each. Orders should be sent to the

following address, accompanied by a check or money order

made out to the Superintendent of Documents, when

necessary. VISA and MasterCard credit cards are accepted, also.

Orders for 100 or more copies to be mailed to a single address

are discounted 25 percent.

Orders by mail:

U.S. General Accounting Office

P.O. Box 37050

Washington, DC 20013

or visit:

Room 1100

700 4th St. NW (corner of 4th and G Sts. NW)

U.S. General Accounting Office

Washington, DC

Orders may also be placed by calling (202) 512-6000 

or by using fax number (202) 512-6061, or TDD (202) 512-2537.

Each day, GAO issues a list of newly available reports and

testimony. To receive facsimile copies of the daily list or any

list from the past 30 days, please call (202) 512-6000 using a

touchtone phone. A recorded menu will provide information on

how to obtain these lists.

For information on how to access GAO reports on the INTERNET,

send an e-mail message with "info" in the body to:

info@www.gao.gov

or visit GAO’s World Wide Web Home Page at:

http://www.gao.gov

PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER
United States

General Accounting Office

Washington, D.C. 20548-0001

Official Business

Penalty for Private Use $300

Address Correction Requested

Bulk Rate

Postage & Fees Paid

GAO

Permit No. G100