THE ARMY fAMILY 

A White Paper 

I ** 

I 

Eric K. Shlnseki 

THE ARMY FAMILY 

A White Paper 

Eric K. Shinseki 

General, United States Army 

Chief of Staff 

**** 
Illustrations courtesy of the following sources: between pages 3 and 7, Frontier Army 

Museum, Fort Leavenworth, Kansas; and between pages 12 and 16, U.S. Army Community 

and Family Support Center, Alexandria, Virginia. 

First Printing, 2003 

CMH Pub 70-84-1 
fOREWORD 

In the course of thirty-eight years of military service, my wife Patty and I have seen 

much that has changed and much that has endured in the United States Army. Equipment, 

training, and doctrine have all changed markedly, yet va lues, traditions, and loyal subordination to those who govern us have not. Nowhere has this striking mix of change and continuity been more apparent to us than with respect to the Army Family. Programs, emphases, 

and expectations concerning the Army Family have all changed radically, yet an underlying 

spirit of service and sacrifice continues to characterize the Army and its fami lies alike. 

Perhaps the most salient single initiative we personally have witnessed with respect to 

Army families has been Chief of Staff General John A. Wickham, Jr.'s The Army Family 

white paper of 1983 and all that flowed from it. That landmark document clearly recognized 

the changing relationships caused by the All Volunteer Army and the partnerships that would 

be necessary for its success. The Army Family announced robust cycles of research and 

analysis, consultation, and remedial action that ted to such spectacularly successful initiatives as the Army Family Action Plan, Family Readiness Groups, and Army Family Team 

Building. When we compare the treatment afforded Army families during the Vietnam War 

with that routinely expected during recent deployments, it takes our breath away. 

It has been twenty years since The Army Family white paper of 1983. Patty and I in our 

tturn have done all we could to bring General Wickham's vision and promise to fruition. The 

last four years have seen a great deal of further progress benefiting Army families everywhere, the results of unflagging efforts on the part of commanders, community leaders, 

service organizations, soldiers, and spouses worldwide. Despite extraordinary deployment 

rates, quality of life for families has remained high and, with it, retention and readiness. The 

Army is working harder than ever, which is all the more reason to work harder than ever 

toward the well-being of the Army Family. This white paper is intended to provide a historical summary, survey, and assessment of changes and progress since 1983; to describe the 

Army Family and its circumstances today; and to discuss initiatives we as an Army have 

agreed upon as the way ahead. We have made wonderful progress in twenty years of Armywide effort, yet much remains to be done. 

9 June 2003 

- Ill -

ERIC K. SHINSEKl 

General, United States Army 

Chief of Staff 

THE ARMY fAMILY 

On 15 August 1983, then Chief of 

Staff of the Army General John I\. 

Wickham, .Jr., signed off on his groundbreaking wh ite paper, The Army Family. 

This paper acknowledged the radical 

social transformation of the Army from a 

cadre of professionals leading a great mass 

of draftees and short-term enlistees to an 

all-volunteer force much more professional in its tenor. Of this force more than half 

were married. Rather than being peripheral concerns, fami ly issues were now 

absolutely essential to both retention and 

readiness and thus to the success of the 

Army. General Wickham committed to a 

philosophy of partnersh ip between the 

Army and the Anny Family and targeted 

"Well ness" and "Sense of Community" as 

major thrusts to be supported by both the 

Army and Anny families. 

General Wickham's initiative certainly 

was not the beginning of the Army caring 

for its people, but it did mark the first systematic effort to design programs, policies, 

and a research agenda comprehensive 

enough to address the Army's family concerns as a whole. The Year of the Army 

Family in 1984 emphasized the importance 

of the issues involved, and the Army 

family Action Plan (AFAP) emerged as a 

mechanism for transfonning philosophy 

into reality. Now, twenty years later, it is 

appropriate to again review historical 

precedent, assess progress, renew commitment, and focus on work that remains to be 

done. 

THE ARMY fAMILY, 1775-1983 

The Army's willingness to acknowledge the critical role families play in its 

mission has moved from studied neglect, 

through ambivalent inclusion of families in 

military communities, to the current recognition that family well-being is an institutional imperative if the Army is to succeed. 

[n its earliest years the tiny Army of the 

new republic avoided any forma l reference 

to family issues. Militia regulations envisioned service proximate to home and 

hearth but gave little specific consideration 

lo families. Many soldiers of the Regular 

Army were followed across the conti11ent 

by their wives and children, yet the only 

regulations that recognized the families' 

presence concerned the status of "camp 

followers" and gave regimental or post 

commanders complete authority over them 

and all other accompanying civilians. 

Some wives attained employment as laundresses, cooks, nurses, foragers, water carriers, and concspondencc copiers, among 

other capacities. Tt was generally as::;umed 

that enlisted men were not manied but 

acknowledged that many officers and senior noncommissioned office rs (NCOs) 

were. Over time this implied an obligation 

to provide for such basics as food, shelter, 

and medical care for the relatively few 

Army families that were present. Such support was local, informal, and ad hoc. 
During most of the nineteenth century, for 

example, the Army built houses for officers but only provided space to NCOs and 

enlisted so that they could build their own 

housing. The wives themselves organized 

to support each other and generally set the 

pace for whatever social life austere frontier posts would have. 

By the late 1800s, the obligation to 

provide for basic family needs received 

formal recognition in Army regulations. 

The Army nevertheless tended to narrowly 

specify services and benefits and to restrict 

eligibility to the families of officers and 

senior noncommissioned officers. The 

Army considered families of junior enlisted men to be an unwanted burden. Army 

regulations, with few exceptions, forbade 

the peacetime enlistment or reenlistment of 

men with wives and minor children until 

1942. Housing, medical care in Army facilities, rations-in-kind, and other associated 

benefits were not formally available to 

enlisted families. Local commanders and 

wives' groups did what they could to help 

out on a case-by-case basis. After the 

Spanish-American War, overseas service in 

Panama, the Philippines, Puerto Rico, or 

Cuba could be a bit more pleasant than life 

on the frontier. The cost of living in these 

exotic locales was low enough that a soldier's salary could go a long way. 

Tbe massive World War 1 mobilization 

came and went so quickly that it bad little 

effect on rhythms of peacetime Army life. 

World War II was different. In 1940 the 

creation of a new civilian-oriented Army 

began as a result of the enactment of the 

Selective Training and Service Act. The 

tremendous Army expansion which followed Pearl Harbor found no agency prepared to assist the large numbers of young 

soldiers and families experiencing problems of adjustment, financial hardship, 

wartime separation, and emotional stress. 

Wartime Americans would not tolerate the 

neglect of such issues burdening their 

drafted sons and brothers. Heretofore, the 

Army informally dealt with families 

requiring emergency support through post 

funds, chapel pantries or "helping hand'' 

funds, cooperation with local charitable 

organizations, and referrals to the 

American Red Cross. The American Red 

Cross expanded its operations, but even its 

resources were not enough to meet skyrocketing requests for assistance. The 

Army needed an agency of its own to turn 

to without resorting to public charity or 

welfare. The Secretary of War directed the 

creation of Army Emergency Relief (AER) 

on 5 February 1942 as a private, nonprofit 

organization. The express purpose of AER 

was to collect and administer funds to 

relieve distress among Army members and 

their families. "The Army Takes Care oflts 

Own" became the AER slogan. AER cooperated with federal, state, county, municipal, and private agencies to utilize all 

potential resources to relieve soldiers and 

their family members. At about the same 

time the Secretary of War directed The 

Judge Advocate General (TJAG) to make 

adequate legal advice and assistance available to soldiers throughout the Army. By 

1945, 1,600 offices for that purpose had 

been established. 

The genesis of AER and legal assistance typified the Army's improvisational 

approach to dealing with families. Housing 

and rations-in-kind fell under the purview 

of the old Quartermaster Corps, health 

benefits were administered by The Surgeon 

General, and management of AER programs evolved into yet another insular 

bureaucracy. This trend of dealing reactively with family issues continued through the 

Korean War and beyond. However, the 

maintenance of a large standing peacetime 

Army at home and overseas during the 

Cold War made it impossible to revert to 

pre- World War II practices of discouraging 

the enlistment of married personnel. In 

Germany and, to a lesser extent, Japan and 

- 2 -
Korea, entire American commuruttes far 

from home sprang up to support units 

deployed overseas. Each was a microcosm 

of America, with housing, shopping, support activities, and recreational facilities 

gathered together. Construction abroad and 

on stateside posts established much 

expanded residential base communities 

that became the core of Army Family life. 

By 1960 family members outnumbered 

uniformed personnel in the active force. 

Family issues had to be addressed. Needs 

far outstripped such traditional resources 

as chaplains' programs or chapel charities. 

The Army Community Service (ACS) 

Program, established in I 965, was the first 

serious attempt to establish an umbrella 

organization for family services, to 

empower families, and to systematically 

build community cohesiveness. Another 

important step toward comprehensive family support was the creation of the Civilian 

Health and Medical Program of the 

Uniformed Services (CHAMPUS) in 

1966. This program ensured adequate medical care for military families stationed at 

locations away from military treatment 

facilities or where specific military medical services were not available. During the 

early 1970s the United States Army, 

Europe (USAREUR), pioneered such initiatives as the community mayor program 

and the new parent support program that 

eventually caught on Army-wide. 

Throughout this period Congress expanded 

the practice of authorizing monetary entitlements in lieu of goods and services. By 

1983, for example, over 60 percent of soldiers lived in the civilian community and 

received a Basic Allowance for Quarters 

(BAQ) to offset the expense of housing. 

Although thoughtful, useful, and effective, initiatives such as AER, ACS, and 

CHAMPUS were insufficient to meet the 

rigors of the Vietnam War or to sustain the 

excellence of the All Volunteer Army that 

followed in its wake. The Vietnam War was 

too long and too bloody and the families of 

the soldiers fighting it too dispersed, poorly 

informed, and poorly organized to allow for 

adequate support from "stovepipe" solutions. The family problems expetienced 

during that difficult conflict demanded 

careful resolution if they were not to be 

repeated. Family issues were also too central to the success of the All Volunteer 

Army to trust to piecemeal solutions. 

Circumstances called for yet another long 

step forward in the historically evolving 

relationship between the Army and the 

Army Family. In 1982, the Am1y established the Army Family Liaison Office to 

solicit feedback and promote the concept of 

well-informed families ready for the challenges of Army living. Additionally, The 

Army Family white paper of I 983 suggested ever more dramatic change throughout 

the culture of the Army. 

- 3 -
Soldiers and their families enjoy the outdoors. c. 1900. 

Soldiers and their wives travel by huggy in 

Montana, c. /880. 

An oflicer and his .f'tuni~l' relax 011 the porch of 

their military quarters. c. /895. 

Lieutenant of the I 3th h!fanfl:r and his .fami~r. 

c. 1885 
Army captain and his w((e. 

c. 1877 

• ..... :··, .. 

. , 

A militaJy wedding at Fort Leavenworth. c. 1910 
Residents of Fort Sidney. Nebraska, prepare for a concert on the lawn, c. 1890. 

Formal photographic portrait of an Army noncommissioned officer and his 

wife, c. 1918 
THE ARMY fAMILY, 1983-2003 

The Army of 1983 consisted of 

789,000 active duty soldiers, 418,000 

Army National Guardsmen, 475.000 

Army Reservists, and 322,000 Department of the Army civilians. Of the service 

members, 13 percent were officers and 87 

percent enlisted. Of the soldiers on active 

duty, 80 percent of the officers, 78 percent 

of the senior enliste<L and 28 percent of 

the first-term enlisted were married- a 

marriage rate exceeding 50 percent overall. Family members associated with these 

marriages included 384.000 spouses, 

630,000 children, and 68,000 dependent 

parents or other relatives. Thus, family 

members outnumbered their active duty 

sponsors by a factor of one and a half to 

one. More than half of the career soldiers' 

spouses worked outside of the home, and 

these contributed 33 percent of the family 

income as opposed to 19 percent for 

their civil sector counterparts. Career soldiers those anticipating at least twenty 

years of service and retirement with pay 

and benefits- and family members kept a 

wary eye on the treatment accorded 

retirees and their family members, who 

numbered 499,000 retired service members and 683,000 surviving family members at the time. Clearly, this was not an 

Army wherein family issues could be 

ignored. 

Since the closing years of the Vietnam 

era, Army spouses had been meeting with 

commanders informally to air problems 

with Army life and seck solutions. A 

Women's Symposium held in Munich, 

Germany, in August 1979 gave representatives from VII Corps communities the 

opportunity to identify and prioriti7e their 

concerns. In 1980, the Officers' Wives 

Club of the Greater Washington Area, 

assisted by the Association of the United 

States Army, sponsored the first Army 

Family Symposium. Similar worldwide 

Army Family Symposiums met in 1981 

and 1982. In 1984, the concept of identifying issues for Army resolution through 

worldwide representation of Army spouses 

became institutionalized in the AFAP. 

AFAP provided a systematic mechanism for addressing family issues by convening annual conferences at installations, 

Major Army Commands (MACOMs), and 

Headquarters, Department of the Army 

(HQDA). where grassroots delegates 

brought forward their concerns. 

Installation-spcci fie improvements created 

a local climate of progress while issues forwarded to MACOMs and HQDA afTccted 

benefit entitlements, programs, and services of the Army as a whole. The commander of the llcadquarters, Department of the 

Army, Community and Family Support 

Center (CFSC), established in 1984, served 

as the executive agent for AFAP, assuring 

that each issue was referred to appropriate 

agencies to be worked until resolved. 

Progress was carefully monitored and 

reported at semiannual General Officer 

Steering Committee meetings until issues 

were settled or resolution was judged unattainable. During the period from 1984 

through 2003, the AFAP fielded 542 

issues, of which 357 are now characterized 

as completed, 85 arc still active, and 93 

declared unattainable. This activity resulted in 82 changes to national legislation, 

130 revised Department of Defense (DOD) 

or Army regulations, and 140 improvements to programs and services. Of the 542 

issues, 170 addressed force support, I 08 

relocation, 72 medical, 59 youth, and 57 

family support. This is not to mention the 

even larger volume of concerns and issues 

resolved by subordinate commands or 

locally, one of the greatest strengths of the 

program. It became apparent from the 

beginning that the resolution of family 

issues broadly involved entire communi-

- 7 -
ties. Some AFAP issues, such as transportation to post for those living off post in 

USAREUR or the rationalization of quarters termination procedures, progressed 

quickly when aired at an appropriate leadership level. Other issues took longer. 

Given that there is insufficient room in this 

paper to discuss--or even list- all 542 

AFAP issues, it might nevertheless be useful to discuss one pat1icularly challenging 

and illustrative example, child care. See 

Appendix I for further information on 

unresolved AFAP issues. 

Few issues presented a more obvious 

requirement for the All Volunteer Army 

than the need for quality child care. As previously stated both parents worked outside 

the home in more than half of Army families, not to mention the 3 or 4 percent of 

soldiers who were sole parents. Yet the 

Army of the early 1980s paid little attention to child care. Thousands of children 

were on waiting lists, and most junior 

enlisted struggled to afford on- or off-post 

child care fees. Many child care centers 

were inappropriately built facilities, often 

reconfigured stables or World War 11 barracks. Over 70 percent did not meet fire 

and safety codes. Staffs were poorly 

trained and poorly paid. Annual turnover 

rates often exceeded I 00 percent, and sloppy personnel policies contributed to lapses 

such as a shocking sexual abuse scandal at 

the Presidio of San Francisco Army base. 

The military was characterized by some as 

the "ghetto" of child care. Evidence 

mounted that poor performance in this 

regard adversely affected recruitment, 

morale, and retention. 

Child care was an early and recurrent 

target of the AFAP. Year after year spouses 

surfaced inadequacies of the system, and 

the Army struggled to address their concerns. Construction invested in child care 

centers rose from zero dollars in 1981 to 

$42,360,000 in 1986. Between 1983 and 

2003, 132 child care centers were built or 

renovated at a total cost of $325,4 70,000. 

Tn concert with its sister services, the Army 

pressed for and secured the Military Child 

Care Act of 1989, enabling legislation that 

resolved a thicket of resourcing and policy 

issues. Staff compensation and training, 

staff-to-child ratios, child development 

programs, and child care facilities radically improved. A sliding scale child care fee 

system ensured that affordable child care 

was available to all. By 2000, 95 percent of 

military child care centers were accredited 

by the National Association for the 

Education ofYoung Children, versus 8 percent for the nation as a whole. The General 

Accounting Office validated both the quality and the affordability of Army child care 

in a comprehensive sh1dy of child development programs. To improve nationwide 

child care performance, in I 997 the 

President of the United States declared 

military child care a "model for the nation" 

and directed the Department of Defense to 

share its child care expertise with the public and private sectors. The Army's steady 

improvements with respect to child care 

provide a fine example of the AFAP's ability to effect change over time. 

ln addition to the attention given to 

child care, programs for older children 

received much needed emphasis. Over 

time, youth centers have progressed from 

being unsupervised adolescent hangouts to 

facilities that offer a wide range of educational and character-building extracurricular activities provided under professional 

supervision. This is the philosophy of 

Child and Youth Services (CYS). One particularly striking example of intervention 

on the behalf of young people emerged 

from the Army's Secondary Education 

Transition Study (SETS), conducted by the 

Military Child Education Coalition. This 

study recognized that the Army's 175,000 

secondary school-age students moved 

three times more often than their civilian 

counterparts and experienced all of the 

- 8 -
challenges that such moves imply. An indication of the complexity of guaranteeing 

quality education may be gained from the 

fact that the Department of Defense 

Education Activity (DODEA) itself operates 224 schools in seven states and fourteen countries. SETS identified the best 

practices with respect to the transfer of 

records, student transitions, extracurricular 

activities, calendars, faculty professional 

development. graduation requirements. 

and installation assistance that promise to 

ameliorate the adverse effects of such 

extreme mobility. School superintendents 

who participated in the SETS envisioned a 

memorandum of agreement among school 

districts likely to experience heavy student 

turnover. The Army again provided a 

groundbreaking example for the civilian 

sector. given that our nation as a whole 

experiences considerable movement of 

secondary school students. This is also 

illustrative of how broadly defined a single 

AFAP action can become. 

!lousing was also an early and recurrent target of the AFAP. The Army, in 

response to a congressional directive 

requiring a plan to eliminate all inadequate 

housing by 2007, developed an aggressive 

privati7ation program utilizing the 

Military Housing Privatization Initiative 

(MI I PI) Act Congress granted in 1996. 

These authorities allowed the Army to 

leverage appropriated housing funds and 

assets to attract private-sector capital and 

expertise to operate, manage, maintain. 

and build on-post housing. The MIIPI Act 

allows soldiers to usc their Basic 

Allowance for Housing to pay rent for 

their on-post housing. By the end of 2006, 

approximately 82 percent of the go\'crnment-owned inventory will be privatized. 

Since the MHPI Act only applies to U.S. 

installations, overseas bases arc using traditional Military Construction Funds plus 

the additional funds freed up after government-ov.ned family housing is privatized 

to meet the 2007 goal of eliminating inadequate housing. 

While the AFAP process helped to prioritize Army community needs, considerable focus on family issues occurred within deployable units as well. Change was 

driven not only by the increasing proportions of married servicemen and women, 

but also by an increased pace of overseas 

deployment. The disintegration of the 

Soviet Union removed the threat of global 

holocaust and, with it, the need for the 

great Cold War masses of forwarddeployed troops. It did not, however, 

reduce the demand for rapid interventions 

into regional quarrels wherein American 

interests were at stake. Indeed, the opposite 

was true, and active duty deployments 

away from the family skyrocketed by 300 

percent in a ten-year period. This phenomenon was even more exaggerated in the 

Reserve Component, which went from providing about a million duty days annually 

to providing about 12 million duty days 

annually a twelvefold increase. Clearly, 

this ballooning incidence of family separation had to be addressed. 

Hearkening back to lessons from the 

past, the spouses of unit members deploying to peacekeeping in the Sinai Desert 

from Fort Bragg, North Carolina, organized into Family Support Groups (FSGs) 

for mutual support during the early 1980s. 

These units' careful selection of rear 

detachment commanders rounded out the 

partnership between the deployed unit and 

the spouses remaining behind and has 

become a hallmark of contemporary family support After Family Support l1roups 

had proven their value to the families of 

deployed soldiers. in 1984 the XVIII 

Airborne Corps Commander directed all 

his tactical units to form them. The concept 

caught on. By DESERT STORM, most 

deploying units throughout the Army had 

arrangements of this type. By the mid1990s, Army Family research undertaken 

- 9 -
by the Community and Family Support 

Center, the Army Research Institute for the 

Behavioral and Social Sciences (ART), the 

Walter Reed Army Institute of Research 

(WRAIR), and others had given considerable attention to the phenomenon, and a 

corpus of generally agreed-upon usages 

and characteristics had emerged. Manned 

by volunteers, mature organizations featured telephone trees or other such internal 

communications, routine meetings for 

social or informational purposes, means 

for maintaining contact with deployed soldiers, access to counseling, provisions for 

mutual support or exceptional needs, and 

recreational activities for families. Some 

commands stood up family assistance 

resource centers as optimal settings for 

Family Support Group activities-such as 

the I st Cavalry Division's famous "Yellow 

Ribbon Room''- and both deployments 

and homecomings were carefully choreographed. Poor preparations for reunion 

could be as problematic as the separation 

itself, so considerable study, thought, and 

counseling focused on the return as well as 

the deployment. 

The evolution of Family Support 

Groups was not without its problems. 

Local issues and solutions varied widely in 

their composition and effectiveness; no 

standardized program existed to benchmark "what right looked like." Well-intentioned group leaders too often devoted an 

overwhelming disproportion of their time 

to a tiny fraction of spouses that were 

excessively dependent, overly demanding, 

seeking the early return of their sponsors, 

or beset with multiple problems too deeply 

rooted for an amateur's expertise. Failure to 

satisfy these hard cases could discourage 

those attempting to do so, while distracting 

them from more feasible efforts to deal 

with the modest emotional and material 

needs of the vast majority of the spouses. 

One of the lessons learned from Operation 

DESERT STORM was the need for readily 

available training materials for ACS staff to 

train newly appointed FSG leaders. 

Operation READY (Resources for 

Educating About Deployment and You) 

was developed by CFSC in 1994, and the 

resultant FSG leader's handbook became 

the standard for all FSGs. Additionally, 

Army Family Team Building (AFTB) 

addressed and adjusted expectations 

through independent learning. Established 

in 1994, it undertook to train volunteers on 

an Army-wide basis, and then these trainers conducted training themselves through 

three levels of training emphasis. Family 

members received an "Army I 0 l" 

approach to empowerment and independence while acquiring relevant knowledge 

and skills. In addition, English as a Second 

Language (ESL) programs, first introduced during the 1970s, were available to 

spouses facing language challenges. A 

shared picture offamily readiness emerged 

across the Army, along with a caution to 

stick to the basics and refer the hardest 

cases to professional help. 

The term Family Support Group transitioned to the term Family Readiness Group 

(FRO) to reflect the philosophy of being 

ready as opposed to waiting for the Army 

to take care of everything itself. Family 

readiness envisioned that spouses and families could weather their sponsors' 

absences with thoughtful but reasonable 

community support and a little help from 

their friends. Predeployment routines, 

including tightly coordinated multistation 

Preparation for Overseas Movement 

(POM) and family predeployment orientations, increased the odds that spouses had 

access to transportation, money, medical 

care, cow1seling, and other such support 

systems while their sponsors were gone. A 

Soldier Issue Forum convened by the Chief 

of Staff, Army (CSA), in 1989 had brought 

further attention to issues such as housing, 

health care, family care plans, and the 

impact of deployments. Spousa l employ-

- 10 -
ment recei\ ed attention, both with respect 

to preferential hiring on post when feasible 

and with respect to assistance in external 

placement. ln December 2002, the Army 

Chief of Staff conducted an employment 

summit with Fortune 500 companies to 

increase private-sector employment opportunities for Anny spouses and to facilitate 

skills training. At the same time volunteer 

work was recognized as satisfying in itself 

and as a bridge to eventual employment, 

and a Volunteer Summit in 2002 de\·eloped 

an action plan to further energize the 

Army's volunteer system. Another initiative toward spousal empowerment originated in 2002 as the Spouse Orientation and 

Leadership Development (SOLD) system. 

SOLD set goals in the areas of connecting, 

leading, contributing, and growing and 

envisioned the means to document skills, 

training, experience, and performance to 

reinforce personal portfolios. SOLD capitali7ed on the spousal tradition of community involvement by offering afTirmative 

opportunities and pat1ncrships with other 

spouses serving as ambassadors, lifeline 

coaches, and mentors in numerous Army 

communities. 

Chaplains have long been an installation- and unit-based resource for specialized marriage and family pastoral counseling and education programs. The Spring 

2000 Sample Sun·ey of Military Personnel 

listed the chaplain as third behind family 

member and spouse or close friend as the 

person a soldier would most likely talk to 

about a confidential matter. Building on 

this institutional reputation, in the late 

1970s the Army selected chaplains to 

attend specialized training in Family Life 

Ministry. As trainers, they enhanced the 

counseling and education skills of all unit 

chaplains. As service providers, they 

ofTered the alternative of spiritually integrated counseling and family education. A 

recent command initiative conducted by 

chaplains is the Building Strong and Ready 

Families (BSRF) program, a unit-based 

skill training that can significantly enhance 

the confidence and resilience of young 

married couples and case their transition 

into the military. It also provides a unitlevel conduit to other agencies young families may not know exist on an installation. 

Family empowerment envisioned 

expedient access to medical care without 

the sponsor's intervention. Over the past 

twenty years, Family Practice has expanded to accommodate both the numbers of 

family members and the likelihood of 

deployment. I\ specific Primary Care 

Manager (PCM) serves as a family's firstline health care provider, similar to the old 

family doctor. I lealth management is now 

proactive, fostering healthy lifestyles and 

frequent checkups. Since 1983, the 

Exceptional Family Member Program 

(EFMP) has ensured that families '' ith 

dependents requiring sustained exceptional care will be assigned proximate to 

appropriate medical facilities, thus better 

meeting their specific health needs as well 

as reducing hardships should the sponsor 

deploy. Recognizing the dispersal of modern military communities. TRICARE was 

established in 1994 as a managed health 

care program to preserve a choice of 

health care providers and to improve 

access to care. The early growing pains of 

TRICARE gave it considerable visibility 

among recurrent AFAP issues, but the system has improved significantly and complaints about it have reduced over time. 

Providing adequate health care remains a 

complicated. costly, and difficult challenge for the nation as a whole, and continued focus on it will be necessary within 

DOD as well. 

The twenty years since 1983 have witnessed extraordinary progress along the 

lines envisioned by The Army Fami~r white 

paper of that year. The Army Family 

Action Plan has elevated one issue after 

another for consideration at the highest 

- 11 -
levels, and the majority of these have been 

happily resolved. Army communities have 

made numerous advances in caring for 

their families, with the accolades accorded 

child care being a case in point. Family 

Readiness Groups have extended this 

sense of effective community into the context of the deployable unit, and Army 

Family Team Building has reinforced that 

success Army-wide. The working mechanics and operational impact offamily readiness are now featured in the curriculum of 

officer and NCO leadership training programs, reinforcing unit leaders' appreciation of family issues. Family empowerment is greatly facilitated by a number of 

programs with the self-reliant spouse and 

the confident family as ultimate objectives. The Army has adapted well in twenty years' time. General Wickham's vision 

of a partnership between the Army and the 

Army Family focusing upon wellness and 

sense of community has certainly taken 

hold. All that having been said, what is the 

current posture with respect to family 

issues? 

- 12 -
Mrs. Pa{(y Shinseki presents a plaque to an AFAP voluntee1: 

Child and Yowh Services supervises 

recreational activities. 

An Army Family Action Plan conference 
A homecoming 

Army programs provide a quality education. 
Tile Army strives to build a sense of community. 

Fami(1· issues are importalll to retention. 
THE ARMY fAMILY TODAY 

The Army today consists of 485,000 

active duty soldiers, 351 ,000 Army 

National Guardsmen, 207,000 Army 

Reservists, and 199,000 Department of the 

Army civilians. Of the service members, 14 

percent arc officers. 2 percent warrant officers, and 84 percent are enlisted. Of the soldiers on active duty, 69 percent of the officers, 84 percent of the warrant officers, and 

49 percent of the enlisted arc married- a 

marriage rate of 53 percent overall. Family 

members associated with the marriages 

include 25 I ,000 spouses, 461 ,000 children, 

and 3,600 other relatives. Thus, family 

members continue to outnumber their 

active duty sponsors by a factor of one and 

a half to one. Oftbe spouses not themselves 

in uniform, over 30 percent work outside 

the home full-time, about 20 percent work 

part-time, and 20 percent characterize 

themselves as unemployed but actively 

seeking work. Career soldiers and family 

members continue to keep a wary eye on 

the treatment accorded the retirees, now 

numbering about 526,000. Clearly, the 

Army must continue to view family issues 

as an important institutional priority. 

Although the Army has downsized significantly since 1983, considerable continuities remain in its demographics. The 

marriage rate remains at about 53 percent. 

It seems to have peaked in 1992 before 

declining to present levels. The number of 

family members associated with these marriages continues at about the same proportion, at about one and a half to one. 

Spousal employment remains about the 

same at 50 percent, although the numbers 

of those actively seeking work are somewhat higher. Spousal employment continues to be a major concern of our Army 

families. Jn their broadest outlines the 

demographics of the Army Family of today 

resemble those of The Army Family white 

paper of 1983. 

There are, however, matters of detail 

wherein Army Family demographics have 

changed. The proportion of the Active 

Army that is female has almost doubled 

from 9 percent in 1982 to 15 percent today. 

This has brought an increase in the proportion of dual military marriages. Almost II 

percent of the Army's families feature both 

husband and wife in uniform, with 6 percent of the Army's uniformed husbands 

and 42 percent of its uniformed wives married to a service member. This raises 

important issues with respect to joint domicile assignments and family care planning 

should two uniformed parents deploy at the 

same time. 

There has also been an increase in the 

proportion of sole parents, 3.7 percent of 

active duty officers and 8.4 percent of 

active duty enlisted. This has important 

implications for child care and youth services. Attention to this particular demographic has led the Army to realize that 

sole parenthood is dynamic rather than 

static. Individuals can become sole parents 

through death, divorce, desertion, separation, or extramarital liaison, and many· if 

not most eventually marry out of that status. A significant fraction of the remainder 

migrate out of sole parenthood because 

custody or guardianship changes. Issues 

related to sole parenthood are not simply 

resolved by providing child care during 

working hours. The sole parent often needs 

support, counsel, friendship, and advice as 

he or she copes with personal relationships 

and transitions from one marital or parental 

status to another. Noncustodial parents in 

uniform face their own complex issues in 

attempting to be responsible parents. 

Single soldiers who characterize themselves as already in committed relationships also need counsel and advice. 

Research indicates that these couples take 

each other into account making career 

- 16 -
decisions and need emotional support during periods of separation. 

A few comments on the cthnicity of 

the Army may be in order. Today's Active 

Army is 58.7 percent white, 25.1 percent 

African American, 9.5 percent llispanic. 

and 6. 7 percent other, as compared to the 

general population ages seventeen through 

nineteen with 66.7 percent white, 14.5 percent African American. 13.7 percent 

llispanic, and 5.1 percent other. It seems 

that young black men are half again more 

prone to military service than their white 

counterparts. Young black women are four 

times more likely to join military service 

than their white counterparts and now represent 41.7 percent of the Army's uniformed women. The proportion of 

Hispanics in the Army has increased as 

well, more than doubling from about 4 percent in 1982 to about I 0 percent today. The 

Army is truly multicultural and multiracial, 

as is the Army Family. 

One result of the emphasis placed on 

the Army Family since 1983 is that we have 

learned much about families from a scienti fie point of view. largely because of the 

white paper's mandate for further research 

and studies. More than two decades of 

Army Family research by CFSC, ARJ. 

WRAIR. RAND Corporation, and others 

have resulted in more precise user-friendly 

demographic databases and an impressive 

body of scientific studies. These agencies 

have used interviews, surveys, sensing sessions, demographic analysis, and other 

means to study the subject, allowing for 

greatly improved precision. An example of 

such precision involves the survey method. 

The 2001 Survey of Army Families established that 88 percent of the respondents 

with children had children five years and 

younger, whereas 68 percent had children 

from six to ten, 37 percent had children 

eleven to twelve, and 40 percent had children sixteen to eighteen. Clearly. the lion's 

share of the community's family demand 

should have accommodated children 

twelve and under, and yet over half of the 

community's spouses were dissatisfied 

with the availability of affordable child 

care. Interestingly enough, of those who 

did have access to Army child care, the 

ovenvhclming majority were satisfied with 

it. Such a mix of demographic and survey 

data is now widely used within the Army to 

bring problem areas to light and to contribute to their resolution. Examples, in no 

particular order, of insights gained through 

surveys and sensing sessions with respect 

to our contemporary soldiers and family 

members include the following: 

• Men want to be participating fathers. 

• Women want parenting shared. 

• Women want to share in achieving 

family financial security. 

• The desire for quality parental and 

marital relationships remains high. 

• Separations and relocations arc major 

family stressors; family readiness and 

deployment assistance are vital. 

• Families want leadership support all 

the time, not just during crises. 

• Spouses give priority to employment 

assistance that advocates for them to 

potential employers, helps build skills, and 

provides referrals. 

• Educational models must enforce 

minimum standards for Army children 

everywhere and must ameliorate the disruption of required moves. 

• Soldiers and families without children recognize the importance of family 

programs as a life cycle service. 

• Soldiers who perceive that family and 

personnel c;upport programs are a\.nlablc 

when and where they need them report significantly higher overall satisfaction with 

Army life. 

• Leadership support dramatically 

enhances family programs. 

Survey data have also been mobilized 

to track progress with respect to key issues 

surfaced by the AFAP. Medical care is a 

- 17 -
recurrent and tightly focused AFAP issue. 

A recent survey established that family 

member satisfaction with the overall quality of medical care increased from 57 percent to 62 percent and with its availability 

increased from 47 percent to 60 percent 

within a five-year period. Similarly, satisfaction with Army dental care with particular recognition of Delta Dental care. 

which is available to family membersrose from 47 percent to 51 percent with 

respect to overall quality and from 37 percent to 49 percent with respect to availability. Such progress has been accompanied 

by a broadening of the personnel entitled to 

health coverage. ln March 2003, for example, the Department of Defense shortened 

the activation time for guardsmen and 

reservists from I 79 days to 30 days for 

their family members to qualify to be 

enrolled in TRICARE Prime and TRICARE Prime Remote. Families that reside 

with qualifying reservists and guardsmen 

are eligible to enroll in TRICARE Prime 

Remote. Such a broadening of programs 

must be accompanied by an energetic marketing campaign. The Exceptional Family 

Member Program offers another case in 

point, with 59.127 now enrolled representing 8.3 percent of all family members. The 

AFAP of today is considerably reinforced 

by a wealth of survey and other analytic literature as it identifies and addresses family issues. 

The Family Readiness Groups of today 

find considerable utility in survey data. 

One survey established, for example, that 

two-thirds of the spouses polled foresaw 

only slight problems coping with deployments of six months or less, whereas less 

than a third were similarly confident with 

respect to deployments of more than a year. 

The problems they foresaw were also 

instructive: 93 percent thought they were 

doing well taking care of children's health, 

89 percent taking care of children at home, 

85 percent obtaining needed transportation, and 83 percent working at a paid job. 

Only 50 percent, on the other hand, thought 

they were doing similarly well handling 

their own personal loneliness. For the 

increasingly empowered families that the 

Family Readiness Groups are intended to 

nurture, the emotional needs of constituent 

members remain the most important issues 

addressed. 

Attempts to understand the all-important relationship between deployment and 

retention yield similarly complex results. 

Contrary to popular opinion, the inclination 

to reenlist does not go down as days away 

from home go up nor does family support 

for such reenlistment. lt may well be that 

purposeful, well-managed, reasonably brief 

deployments actually make retention go up. 

First Termers who have had a single deployment are more prone to reenlist than those 

who have never deployed, and their families 

support them in that decision. Problems 

emerge with back-to-back deployments 

without sufficient recovery time, poorly 

managed deployments attended by confusion and lack of notification, or circumstances wherein family support is perceived 

to have been ignored. The manner in which 

soldiers and families are treated seems far 

more important than days away from home. 

Today's Army seems to be doing well in this 

regard. In a recent survey a somewhat higher proportion of spouses (61 percent) wanted their soldiers to stay in for a career than 

soldiers intended to stay in for a career (60 

percent). In the same survey yet another 18 

percent of both spouses and sponsors 

favored reenlistment or retention beyond 

their present obligations. Thus, more than 

three-quarters of the respondents both 

spouses and sponsors-favored further 

service. 

An important caveat on this rosy view 

is the continuing need to satisfy the expectations of both soldiers and their spouses 

for self-improvement through additional 

education and progressive employment. 

- 18 -
The proportion of college partiCipation 

among soldiers has roughly doubled since 

1985. By their second enlistment nearly 80 

percent of Army enlisted soldiers have 

some college education. Some gain credit 

through college equivalencies for skills 

they have acquired in the service, and some 

take advantage of available educational 

benefits while on active duty. In many 

cases, educational options are a precondition for reenlistment. Those who consider 

themselves to be on career status foresee a 

follow-on career, and those intending to get 

out short of retirement foresee an even earlier transition into another line of work. 

The spouses of both generally have career 

aspirations of their own, and 69.4 percent 

of Army spouses now have at least some 

college education. In recognition of the 

cost of college education, the Army 

encourages states to modify in-state tuition 

rate policies in favor of soldiers and family 

members. Although half of spouses are 

employed, many others are discouraged in 

their search for work, and Army spouses 

have a higher unemployment rate overall 

than their civilian counterparts. One of the 

most striking aspects oftoday's Army is the 

value its members attach to further education and to meaningful employment. 

This discussion of the Army Family 

today describes considerable continuity, 

some change, extraordinary diversity, 

demonstrated dedication, and great expectations. The development and exploitation 

of surveys, demographics, and other means 

of analyses have enhanced the capability of 

such institutions as the Army Family 

Action Plan, Army Family Team Building, 

and Family Readiness Groups to fulfill 

their mandates. They have also demonstrated how phenomena, previously considered 

separate, have become interconnected. 

Such diverse issues as professional development, pay and compensation, health 

care, family member education, family 

programs. financial readiness, and recreation repeatedly impinge upon each other 

as surveys and analyses progress. This ripple effect of mutual relationships has led 

Chief of Staff General Eric K. Shinseki to 

adopt a holistic approach to Army 

Transformation that he chose to label Army 

Well-Being, which will be addressed later. 

EMERGING CHALLENGES TO THE ARMY fAMILY 

The Army and its families have a long 

history of coping with crises and change. 

The near future promises to be no different 

in this regard. Although the future can 

never be precisely foreseen, we can reasonably anticipate some of the difficulties that 

we will face. 

The operational tempo for forces 

deploying and redeploying shows no sign 

of letting up soon and may well in fact 

increase. Recent campaigns in Afghanistan 

Md Iraq have underscored the absolute 

necessity of "having boots on the ground" 

to achieve decisive results in war and to 

secure the peace. Even forces forward 

deployed in Europe and Northeast Asia 

have found themselves further deployed 

elsewhere to respond to short-notice contingencies. An extended United States military presence in Central Asia and the 

Middle East seems likely, both to bring 

current operations in Afghanistan and Iraq 

to closure and to further persevere in the 

War on Terrorism. The War on Terrorism is 

truly global, raising the possibility of 

future military campaigns in distant places 

amid the broader sweep of diplomatic, economic, and humanitarian act1V1t1cs. 

Whether related to international terrorism 

or not. peacekeeping activities also seem 

- 19 -
likely to require a substantial American 

presence for some time to come. All that 

we can foresee suggests that the Army 

Family will continue to cope with an operational tempo at least as challenging as it 

has been through the last several years. 

Future overseas deployments seem far 

more likely to be unaccompanied rather 

than accompanied by family. This will 

result from the brevity of deployments for 

individuals and units, the austere environments into which units are likely to deploy, 

and the short notice such interventions are 

likely to provide. Coupled with the aspirations of most spouses to find meaningfttl 

work and the desirability of stabilizing 

children with respect to their educational 

options, the expeditionary nature of foreseeable future operations recommends further thoughtful attention to home stationing. Deploying soldiers are going to want 

to leave their families behind in robust 

communities that can readily meet their 

needs. Due attention must be paid to the 

full range of community capabilities and 

services-employment opportunities; 

child care; youth supervision; housing; 

medical care; religious support; educational facilities; Morale, Welfare, and 

Recreation (MWR) programs; Family 

Readiness Groups; quality rear detachments; and attentive leadership-if Army 

families are going to survive and even 

thrive when facing the recurrent operational separations that seem to be in their 

future. 

Housing offers perhaps as strong an 

argument for thoughtful home stationing as 

spousal employment. The 2001 Survey of 

Army Families established that 62 percent 

of spouses were satisfied with their housing. These included 51 percent of tl10se 

renting off post, 54 percent of those in onpost government housing, 56 percent of 

those in off-post government housing, and 

92 percent of those owning their own home 

off post. Clearly, those who owned their 

own home were far more satisfied than 

those in any other category. Home ownership implies stability; soldiers want a certain confidence they will be in a place for 

a while before committing to buying a 

home. Home ownership can be a wonderful 

investment, given that a soldier is able to 

receive and invest into his home a housing 

allowance he would not be in receipt of if 

living in government housing. This 

prospect will be considerably reinforced by 

the current DOD initiative to reduce locally averaged out-of-pocket housing expenses to zero by 2005. 

Modern communications technology 

will prove to be both a blessing and a curse 

to famil ies in future deployments. On the 

plus side, ever-expanding digital capabilities have radically improved the ability of 

loved ones to stay in touch over great distances and through difficult circumstances. 

E-mai Is, cellular phones, digital photography, and the ever-present equipment to support them have multiplied the connectivity 

of Army families several times over. 

Virtual Family Readiness practices are now 

being used by units challenged by distances. Youth technology labs provide the 

equipment and the environment to encourage youths and teens to communicate with 

deployed parents. On the debit side, 

minute-by-minute television coverage 

from embedded newsmen may prove harrowing to one who has loved ones involved 

on the battlefield. One troubling vignette 

from Operation IRAQI FREEDOM concerned 

an understandably anxious mother who 

could not take her eyes off the television 

coverage portraying her son's unit, all the 

way up to the moment the young man was 

killed. She so wished that there had been a 

way to get away from the unrelenting tension. Younger children can have significant 

problems with such coverage as well. 

Studies indicate that preschoolers will 

react to particularly frightening film 

footage as if it happened next door rather 

-20 -
than far away and that repetitions of such 

imagery will cause them to believe the horrific events depicted have happened that 

many more times rather than that they happened once and are simply being replayed. 

Family Readiness Groups will have to cope 

with such downsides of emerging corrununications teclmology as well as with its 

obvious advantages. 

A further issue emerging for Family 

Readiness Groups is the increasingly 

diverse organizational source of the members of deploying formations. Since Task 

force Hawk deployed to support the 

Kosovo operation in 1999, it has become 

increasingly apparent that the unique 

demands of contemporary operations will 

often require specially designed task forces 

drawn from numerous units rather than the 

orderly deployment of a single unit. Joint 

and combined headquarters and the like are 

going to be even more diverse in the specialties they draw on. Recent deployments 

have stood up these ad hoc organizations on 

short notice, and rotational schemes complicate the picture with a shufi1ing to and 

fro of constituent personnel. If there is a 

framework unit, it can suddenly find itself 

responsible for family members from 

organizations with which it has had no previous relationship. Conversely, those organizations may well have only a few personnel 

deployed out of a much larger number. 

Family members from such a unit may well 

feel overlooked if their loved ones represent 

too few soldiers to be readily visible. This 

sense of isolation can increase in the case of 

individual guardsmen or reservists who are 

geographically challenged by the distances 

that separate their families from the Army 

communities supporting the deployment. 

We do not yet have a fully developed model 

to cope with such diverse and complex 

units, but we do need one. 

Diverse organizational provenance can 

become even more complicated when 

deploying individuals are not themselves 

soldiers. If one accepts that a commander 

is responsible for all that happens and fails 

to happen within his command, then it follows that he is similarly responsible for the 

well-being of all of those whose activities 

he directs. Their fami ly issues become his 

family issues. A striking manifestation of 

this recently bas been the increased presence of contractors. In earlier times contractors were minimally present to execute 

some discrete function or another. We now 

rely upon them so heavily that they are 

integral to the Army work force-and thus 

to the Army FamHy. This trend may continue as we endeavor to craft the work force to 

meet growing demands that support, but do 

not fall into, our core competencies. This 

relationship came home strikingly when a 

number of contractors were killed during 

the 11 September 2001 attack on the 

Pentagon and again when a number were 

killed during operations in Southwest Asia. 

In both cases the Army rightly came forward to offer the survivors assistance on 

behalf of these fallen comrades. Future 

commanders may well find themselves 

responsible for a mix of DOD civilians, 

contractors, interagency representatives, 

nongovernmental organizations, and allies 

as well as for the soldiers with whom they 

deploy. 

Increased operational tempo in both the 

Active Component and Reserve Component 

and the increasing complexity of the expeditionary operations involved will challenge 

Family Readiness Groups as never before. 

Soldier and family support will require even 

further visibility throughout the Army so 

that no one is left behind. In units with 

active Family Readiness Groups about twothirds of spouses actively participate and 

about one-fourth serve as group leaders or 

in positions of responsibility. Reasons for 

nonparticipation include not having heard 

about meetings, lack of time, and a desire to 

keep military life and personal life separate. 

Understandably, when crisis erupts the non-

- 21-
participants are characteristically the least 

prepared and generally have the most difficulties. Fortunately, the spouses who have 

been participating have generally been sufficient in number to pull an organization 

through tough times. CFSC and ARl have 

produced Family Readiness Group manuals 

that are helpful for this purpose. However, 

as we have seen, the neat paradigm for integral unit deployment is increasingly giving 

way to more complex improvisational configurations. Deployable units are far more 

ready than the Army at large. Almost half of 

all Army families serve in organizations 

wherein there is no active Family Readiness 

Group, yet their sponsors are increasingly 

likely to deploy as individual augmentees. 

This is not to mention the nonsoldiers who 

may well join them and are likely to have no 

idea what a Family Readiness Group is or 

does. 

Army Family Team Building is 

designed to complement the Family 

Readiness Groups and to deepen the contribution they can make, but it is of little use to 

those who do not attend. Those who do 

attend give it high marks for increasing 

familiarity with community resources, helping one feel part of the Army, increasing 

confidence with respect to challenges, and 

increasing preparedness and self-sufficiency. Those who have not attended claim they 

do not have the time, do not feel the need, or 

do not find the times and hours of training 

convenient. Units and organizations without 

Family Readiness Groups are unlikely to 

have seen much in the way of AFTB attendance. As a result, we have a force wherein 

about half of the spouses consider their 

sponsor to be deployable and about half do 

not. The reality is that, in an age of high 

operational tempo, downsizing, complex 

deployment, and heavy reliance on individual augmentation, all sponsors are potentially deployable. Consistent leadership emphasis and support at all levels will greatly 

enhance family adjustment to the emerging 

challenges of deployment in a new era. 

THOUGHTS ON THE WAY AHEAD 

The United States Army and the Army 

Family have together made great strides 

since 1983, but much remains to be done. 

The philosophical commitments to partnership, family wellness, and sense of 

community envisioned in the white paper 

of 1983 are now generally accepted. Ever 

increased merging of the Active Army, 

Army National Guard Army Reserve, and 

the Army civilian work force creates further challenges and opportunities. The 

Army Family Action Plan has proven to be 

a highly effective means for surfacing 

issues and carrying them through to resolution. It should continue to do so. Family 

Readiness Groups, considerably enhanced 

by other support systems, have ably carried 

their organizations through deployments of 

diverse challenge and scope. A challenge 

for the future is to expand their concepts 

into a seamless family assistance system 

that serves a diverse and geographically 

dispersed Army population, all of whom 

are deployment prone. Lnitiatives that started out as mere acronyms- ACS, CHAMPUS, CFSC, CYS, TRlCARE, SETS, 

SOLD, and EFMP, for example- have 

become household words with robust 

meanings to Army families across the 

globe. Extensive studies and analyses by 

the Army Research Institute and others 

have refined our understanding of the pertinent issues and have enabled us to better 

address them. A firm foundation has now 

been built, and substantial momentum for 

further growth exists as well. 

-22-
All soldiers must consider themselves 

deployable, and every Army Family must 

envision the prospective deployment of a 

loved one. The deployment psychology 

common to most tactical units must pervade the Army as a whole. Units must now 

anticipate the assignment of numerous 

augmentees, and organizations must envision the prospect of augmenting others. It 

is imperative that adequate provision be 

made for the families of deployed soldiers, 

Department of the Army civilians, and contractors in the Army's employ. The Army's 

human issues are too complex, diverse, and 

intertwined to be readily resolved by 

stovepipe solutions focusing on one particular issue or another; they must be transformed through a hobstic integration 

involving the Active Army, the Army 

National Guard, and the Army Reserve 

together. To this purpose, in 1999 the Chief 

of Staff directed a comprehensive study of 

Army Well-Being, defined as the personal- physical, material, mental, and spiritual- state of soldiers (active, reserve, guard, 

retirees, and veterans), civilians, and their 

families that contribute to their preparedness to perform and support the Army's 

mission. The Anny Team was defined to 

include the family members of soldiers and 

civilians as well as veterans and retirees. 

By 2003 the Army was exploring the concept of a Human Resources Command collectively responsible for human relations, 

soldier and family support, well-being lab 

sites, pay and compensation, and the civilian personnel program. The Deputy Chief 

of Staff, G-1, became the staff proponent 

for Well-Being. Well-Being is the human 

dimension of Army Transformation. It creates a strategic direction and focused integration of programs designed to support all 

constituency groups within tbe Army. ln 

doing so Well-Being will measure, assess, 

integrate, and establish clear and concise 

goals that will fulfill the strategic needs of 

the Army and its people. This holistic 

approach ties into a specific Well-Being 

philosophy as follows: 

Army Well-Being is a Strategic 

Human Capital Management approach 

that seeks to influence personnel readiness by providing an environment in 

which its members are self-reliant, confident in the Army's commitment to them 

and their families, and focused on mission 

accomplishment. Such an approach is 

ultimately focused on the institutional 

objective of personnel readiness through 

recruiting, retention, and development, 

but recognizes those institutional objectives can be accomplished only if the 

needs and aspirations of its people are 

understood and met. According to the 

concept of Well-Being, each person exists 

in four dimensions or states of beingphysical, material, mental, and spiritual. 

Additionally, people are constantly striving to fulfill four common aspirationsto serve, to live, to connect, and to grow. 

When unsuccessful in achieving fulfillment in either the din1ensions or aspirations, people take action to increase their 

fulfillment. For the Army to be successful, it must provide the mechanism by 

which such fulfillment is attained by 

simultaneously supporting organizational 

objectives. Military life can be harsh and 

demanding, yet thousands volunteer and 

reenlist annually. Over the years, the 

Army has found ways to offset the 

demands of military life by offering fulfillment in areas important to its members. Many of the etiorts to off~ct the sacrifice of service require few resources, 

but must be constantly nurtured lest they 

fail to keep pace with the changing expectations of our people. Caring leadership. 

values, camaraderie, traditions, sense of 

purpose, and a feeling of self-wOJth arc 

all-powerful forces that can help to overcome the rigors of military life. 

The Well-Being philosophy lays out 

four compelling strategic goals by which 

Well-Being is personalized for our people: 

- 23-
an opportunity for service; a compet1t1ve 

standard of living; a unique culture, sense of 

community, and record of accomplishment 

that engenders intense pride and sense of 

belonging; and an environment that allows 

individuals to enrich their personal life by 

achieving their individual aspirations. These 

goals have been fmther restated as To Live, 

To Grow, To Connect, and To Serve. Each 

goal is broken down into a series of categories and functions. The resultant WellBeing management processes provide 

mechanisms whereby the Army will synchronize a Well-Being Action Plan, WellBeing Status Report, Well-Being Resource 

Crosswalk, Strategic Conununications Plan, 

and Strategic Readjncss System within the 

overall Army Transformation Campaign 

Plan. The concept of Well-Being combines 

the principles of human behavioral science, 

elements of the Anny's strategic planning 

process, and result-oriented performance 

measures. Well-Being does not replace 

existing programs but does increase coordination, effectiveness, and efficiency. 

The execution of the Well-Being Action 

Plan must be proactive to be effective with 

respect to the Army Family. As successful as 

the Army Family Action Plan and Family 

Readiness Groups have been with respect to 

resolving issues, they often have been reactive in dealing with crises once identified. 

The Well-Being Action Plan envisions an 

antic ipatory posture. Its strategy will 

include shifting of services toward a prevention model, cross-training of agency staffs, 

installation integrated planning systems, 

support staff connectivity with unit leadership, focus on the community as a whole, 

accountability, guidance to commanders 

with respect to expectations, and appropriate funding for research and analysis. This 

strategy will refine, organize, and follow up 

on precedents already set for success 

achleved thus far. 

Well-Being encompasses and unites 

the Army at large, seamlessly binding the 

Reserve and Active Components, geographically isolated communities, and 

communities inside and outside installation 

gates. 1t focuses on the overall population, 

addressing not only the small percentage 

who account for the greatest incidence of 

personal and fami ly dysfunction, but also 

the larger group of individuals and families 

who experience few problems of this 

nature and are motivated by their interests, 

ambitions, and aspirations. By anticipating 

and providing proactive prevention and 

intervention methods, Well-Being increases skills and resiliency and strengthens atrisk individuals and families. By providing 

satisfactory standards of living, opportunities to become active partners in vibrant 

communities, and outlets to satisfY interests and aspirations, Well-Being gives constituents reasons to like being members of 

the Army community, to feel connected 

and committed to it as a way of life, and to 

take pride in service. Partnerships among 

diverse functional areas, disciplines, and 

agencies; individuals and groups; and constituents and leaders are the keys that make 

Well-Being much greater than the sum of 

its parts. The collaborative efforts create an 

environment and culture that capitalize on 

and celebrate the human dimension, 

embrace individuals and families for their 

potential and commitment, and create a 

strong linkage to readiness and retention. 

SUMMARY 

During its 227 years of service the 

Army's relationship with its families has 

moved from neglect to concern and from 

a heavy reliance upon the volunteer, 

- 24-
piecemeal and ad hoc, to an increasing 

rei iance upon formal and fede rally funded 

policies, organizations, and systems. 

Army families, in turn, have accepted a 

relationship recognizing their responsibilities toward the Army. The Army Family 

white paper of 1983 was a watershed 

event in these regards, both because of the 

vision and goals with respect to pa11nership that it professed and because of the 

mechanisms for change it inspired, such 

as the Community and Family Support 

Center and the Army Family Action Plan. 

It also made provision for invaluable feedback and analysis by appropriately 

focused and funded research and research 

agencies. 

Although much has been accomplished, much remains to be done. The 

Army can proudly point to a model child 

care system, robust Army Family Team 

Building, demonstrably capable Family 

Readiness Groups, and many other 

advances as proof of progress during twenty years of consistent effort. However, the 

Anny still loses or alienates too many soldiers because of family circumstances. 

Such issues as recurrent family separations, frequent relocations, and employment challenges for spouses who want to 

work outside the home remain topical. 

Proposals with respect to home basing, 

improved management of deployments, 

and preventing rather than fixing many 

family problems remain to be evaluated. 

The Army's senior leaders are committed to furthering the progress of the past 

twenty years. Systems that are working 

well will continue to be reinforced. Further 

research and studies will be designed and 

funded. Perhaps most important, the WellBeing Action Plan is designed, and agencies executing it are empowered to take on 

Army Family issues in a manner that is pervasive, holistic, and proactive. This is our 

way forward into the twenty-first century. 

- 25-

GLOSSARY 

ACS (Army Community Service): 

Established in 1965, it assists commanders 

in maintaining individual. family. and 

community readiness by developing, coordinating, and delivering services that promote self-reliance, resiliency, and stability 

during times of war and peace. ACS 

Centers provide a wide range of services 

to ensure families and soldiers arc ready 

for deployment at any time. Included in 

the programs and services offered by ACS 

are the following: 

• Mobilization and Deployment 

Family Readiness 

• Family Advocacy Program (FAP) 

• Exceptional Family Member 

Program (EFMP) 

• Employment Readiness 

• Financial Readiness Program 

• Relocation Readiness Program 

• Volunteer Program 

• Army Emergency Relief 

• Operation READY materials 

• Army Family Team Building 

• Army Family Action Plan 

• Spouse Orientation and Leadership 

Development (SOLD) 

• Integrated Service Delivery 

• Community lntegration Council 

• Unit Service Coordinator 

AER (Army Emergency Relief): A 

nonprofit organization that provides emergency loans to soldiers in crisis. generally 

for food or travel but also for vehicle 

repairs, insurance, rent, or utility bills. 

AER also provides some educational 

financial assistance. 

AFAP (Army Family Action Plan): It 

provides the opportunity for Army constituents to elevate standard-of-living concerns and ideas for improvements to leadership on a regular, on-going basis. In 

operation since 1984, AFAP is implemented via a series of Army-wide conferences 

through which issues that are submitted 

from Army communities are evaluated by 

constituent delegates who recommend the 

most important for resolution. AFAP provides commanders real-time information 

and enables them to act quickly to keep 

pace with a changing world. In so doing, it 

helps leaders protect and improve benefits, 

entitlements. and the overall Army and 

Department of Defense standard of livi ng. 

AFTB (Army Family Team 

Building): It emerged in 1994 as a result 

of lessons learned from Operations DESI·RT 

STOR\t and S1 IIELD. AFTB 's mission is to 

educate members of the military community, particularly spouses, in developing 

skills and encouraging behaviors that 

strengthen self-reliance, promote retention, 

and enhance readiness. AFTB foste rs individual and fami ly readiness through a 

series of sequential, progressive training 

modules that provide information on the 

Army. systems and opportunities "ithin 

the Army, and skills to support emerging 

and senior-level volunteer leaders. 

ARI (Army Research Institute for 

the Behavioral and Social Sciences): It is 

the primary Army laboratory conducting 

research. studies, and analyses focused on 

the human dimension of the Army the 

- 27 -
soldier. In addition to conducting personnel research and development, ARI provides timely, scientific information for 

ATmy leaders via attitude and opinion surveys and analyses of Army occupations. 

Army Family Research and 

Evaluation Program: lt is sponsored by 

CFSC to generate scientific data needed for 

informed program and resource decisions 

for MWR and family support programs. 

The program is executed primarily by three 

research agencies: U.S. Anny Research 

Institute for the Behavioral and Social 

Sciences, Arroyo Center of the RAND 

Corporation (RAND), and the Walter Reed 

Army institute of Research (WRAJR). The 

research component collects and develops a 

SOlmd, scientific body of knowledge about 

the relationships among soldier, family, 

community characteristics, leadership 

behaviors, readiness, retention, demographics, and family wellness. The evaluation 

component enhances common wisdom, 

expert opinion, and anecdotes with a solid, 

scientific database used to prioritize programs in terms of impacts on readiness and 

retention of quality soldiers, identify new 

and emerging needs, provide a clearer picture of how soldier and family needs should 

be addressed and how programs should be 

developed or adjusted, and allow comparisons between A1my communities and civilian populations. 

BSRF (Building Strong and Ready 

Families): It is a command program coordinated by chaplains and executed at the 

brigade level. The target population is 

first-term married or newly married soldiers to assist in their transition to marriage 

and the military culture. BSRF includes 

workshops and an overnight retreat. 

Couples learn marriage education skills 

such as communication, conflict management, problem solving, and strategies to 

strengthen their bonds as a couple. The 

program integrates health promotion and 

addresses other family and community 

support programs. 

CFSC (Community and Family 

Support Center): It is a Field Operating 

Agency of the Assistant Chief of Staff for 

Installation Management. The mission of 

the CFSC is to develop and formulate 

plans, strategies, and standards to achieve 

''First Choice" Morale, Welfare, and 

Recreation (MWR) programs, support 

commanders in the implementation of the 

Army's MWR programs, and operate and 

manage assigned MWR activities. 

Generally, in accomplishing this mission 

the CFSC will provide a preeminent organization that achieves and sustains "First 

Choice" programs, which contribute significantly to the Army's Well-Being. 

(CFSC l 0- 1 , Organizations and Functions, 

1 August 200 I.) 

CHAMPUS (Civilian Health and 

Medical Program of the Uniformed 

Services): A program of medical benefits 

provided under public law to specified categories of individuals who are qualified for 

these benefits by virtue of their relationship to one of the seven uniformed services. It is not an insurance program, but 

rather a method of accessing needed health 

services for military beneficiaries from the 

civilian sector. 

Community Integration Council: 

The Community Integration Council, cornposed of representatives from diverse functional areas and disciplines, serves as the 

oversight body within the Integrated 

Service Delivery (ISO), providing efficient 

and effective multifunctional and multidisciplinary utilization of resources to support 

overall community well-being. 

CYS (Child and Youth Services): The 

consolidation of Child Development 

- 28 -
Services and Youth Services into Child and 

Youth Services began in 1997. The change 

to a CYS configuration gains operational 

efficiencies and predictability of child and 

youth services across the Army. The Army 

CYS organization is composed of four 

delivery systems: Child Development 

Services (CDS), School-Age Services 

(SAS), Youth Sen,ices (YS), and CYS 

Liaison, Education, and Outreach Servkes 

(CLEOS). 

• CDS- Child Development Services is composed of facility-based care in 

Child Development Centers (CDCs) and 

home-based care in a FamHy Child Care 

(FCC) program that offers child care in 

certified government quarters. Full-day 

and part-day care for infants, toddlers, preschool, and kindergarten is provided as 

well as hourly and extended hours and 

long-term care. 

• SAS- School-Age Services offers 

before and after school programs, fuJI-day 

programs during school vacations and closures, and summer camp for children generally in the 1st to 5th grades. 

• YS- Youth Services offers regularly 

scheduled programming and occasional use 

options for middle school youth and teens. 

• CLEOS- CYS Liaison, Education, and Outreach Services provides central registration, resource and referral, 

instructional, and outreach care options. 

DODEA (Dep~rtment of Defense 

Education Activity): It operates 224 

schools in seven states and fourteen countries, with over 106,000 students. The 

quality of education available to children 

of military parents is a recurrent AFAP 

issue. DODEA plays a central role in this 

regard overseas and an important role within CONUS. 

EFMP (Exceptional Family Member 

Program): A mandatory enrollment program that works with other military and 

dvilian agencies to provide comprehensive 

and coordinated co1nmunity support, housing, education, medical, and perso1111el 

services to families with special needs 

members. Active duty soldiers with exceptional family members who require specialized services enroll in EFMP so that the 

availability of services to meet the special 

needs can be considered in the military 

perso1111el assignment process. 

Employment Readiness: It provides 

information, referral, and training workshops in the areas of employment, education, skills training, transition, and volunteer opp01iunities. The program assists 

spouses and family members who are part 

of the mobile military lifestyle in obtaining employment and in maintaining 

careers even as they relocate on a continuing basis. 

Family Life Chaplain Program: The 

Army trains twelve selected chaplains a 

year at two Family Life Chaplain Training 

Centers. The fifteen-month training model 

focuses on marriage and family counseling 

and consists of graduate school, a counseling practicum, and pastoral integration. 

Graduates in turn train unit and installation 

chaplains and chaplain assistants in pastoral counseling, family life ministry, and 

crisis intervention. 

FAP (Family Advocacy Program): 

It provides resources for commanders and 

families to resolve family problems and 

enhance individual, couple, and family 

functioning. The program emphasizes 

prevention, education, prompt reporting, 

investigation, intervention, and treatment. 

FAP provides seminars for units covering 

a variety of topics to include conflict resolution, communication skills, stress 

management, parent education, respite 

care, foster care, relationship support, and 

safety education. 

- 29-
Financial Readiness Program: It 

provides services to assist soldiers and 

families in living within their means and in 

investing for the future. Emphasis is 

placed on money management, proper use 

of credit, financial planning for deployment, transition and relocation, insurance, 

and check-writing principles. Through the 

debt liquidation program soldiers are provided guidance to work with their creditors 

to regain stable and manageable financial 

positions. Financial Readiness also educates soldiers on their rights as consumers. 

The Financial Readiness Program was initially referred to as the Consumer AITairs 

and Financial Assistance Program 

(CAFAP). 

FRG (Family Readiness Group): An 

organization of family members, volunteers, soldiers, and civilian employees who 

together provide an avenue of mutual support and assistance and a communication 

network among the members, the chain of 

command, and community resources. 

FRGs promote self-sufficiency, resiliency, 

and stability for family members during 

times of peace ~Uld war. Family Readiness 

Groups were initially referred to as Family 

Support Groups (FSGs). 

lSD (Integrated Service Delivery): Tt 

ensures integration of well-being functions 

and services by systematically evaluating, 

redesigning, or establishing conununity 

partnerships that contribute to the strength 

of the mission and family readiness. 

MHPI (Military Housing Privatization Initiative): The act was passed by 

Congress in 1996 and later extended tmtil 

December 2014. These authorities allow 

the military services to leverage appropriated housing funds (BAH) and on-post 

housing assets to attract private-sector capital and expertise to operate, manage, 

maintain, and build housing. 

Mobilization and Deployment 

Family Readiness: It supports commanders of Active and Reserve 

Component forces and emergency essential civilians during predeployment, mobilization, deployment, homecoming, and 

stability and support operations, including 

mass casualties, evacuation, and natural 

disasters. Services offered include training rear detachment personnel, Family 

Readiness Group leaders, and designated 

family sponsors; giving predeployment 

briefings; activating and operating Family 

Assistance Centers; and assisting single 

or dual military couples and dual emergency-essential civilian couples in developing family care plans. 

:vtWR (Morale, Welfare, and 

Recreation): A quality-of-Life program 

that directly supports readiness by providing a variety of conununity, soldier, and 

family support activities and services. 

These include social, fitness, recreational, 

educational, and other activities that 

enhance community life, foster soldier and 

unit readiness, promote mental and physical fitness, and generally provide a working and living environment that attracts and 

retains quality soldiers. 

Operation READY (Resources for 

Educating About Deployment and You): 

A series of training modules, videotapes, 

and resource books for ACS staff to use in 

training and informing soldiers and families, commanders, Family Assistance 

Center staff, Family Readiness Group leaders, and other stakeholders in family readiness about understanding, planning, and 

coping with deployments, to include the 

dynamics of homecoming and reunion. 

PCM (Primary Care Manager): A 

professional provider assigned to be the 

main health care provider for an individual 

or family. Based on the age and gender of 

-30-
the individual, a PCM may be an internist, 

family practitioner, pediatrician, general 

practitioner, gynecologist, physician's 

assistant, or nurse practitioner. The PCM 

may be a civilian network provider or a 

military provider, depending on the status 

of the patient and the level and location of 

TRlCARE enrollment. 

RCT (Residential Communities 

lnitiative): This is the Army version of the 

1996 Military Housing Privatization 

lnitia6ve passed by Congress. The program allows a soldier's BAH to be paid to 

a partnership between the installation and a 

private business for the purpose of rev italizing on-post housing and reducing the 

housing deficit. 

Relocation Readiness Program: lt 

provides services designed to train and prepare soldiers and families to make wellinformed plans that result in successful 

relocations. Education, training, and information services include overseas orientations, cross-cultural training, pre- and postmove briefings, relocation counseling, and 

comprehensive information via the 

Standard Installation Topic Exchange 

Service (SITES), an automated database of 

all major military installations. Household 

items are available through the Lending 

Closet, and sponsor training is provided to 

units, program trainers, and sponsors. The 

Relocation Readiness Program was initially referred to as the Relocation Assistance 

Program (RAP). 

SAF (Survey of Army Families): An 

Army-wide survey conducted about every 

four years to examine aspects of well-being 

important to Army families. SAFs 1 

( 1 987), 11 ( 1992), III ( 1995), and N (200 1) 

assisted CFSC and the Army Staff to do the 

following: 

(1) Assess the status of Army Family 

Ac6on Plan issues, (2) Assess family member attitudes about the Army, (3) identify 

new and emerging concerns, ( 4) 

Supplement other evaluation and research 

efforts, and (5) Assess the impact of 

deployments and separations. 

SETS (Secondary Education 

Transition Study): A 1999 study conducted at nine Army communities and installations to understand the effects of mobility 

during high school and provide recommendations to improve transition predictability 

for mobile high school students. The 

SETS report, executive summary, parent 

guidebook, and information outlining how 

other districts can join in an MOA were 

released in July 200 I. The SETS materials 

are available through distribution by the 

Military Family Resource Center via email request. 

SIF (Soldier Issue Forum): An informal forum convened from 1989- 1994 for 

senior Army Staff leaders to discuss soldier 

issues candidly and one-on-one with the 

CSA. Members of the SIF included the 

Vice Chief of Staff, the Director of the 

Army Staff, the Assistant Chief of Staff for 

Installation and Environment Management, the Deputy Chief of Staff for 

Personnel, The Judge Advocate General, 

the Chief of Chaplains, the Director of 

Management, the Sergeant Major of the 

Army, The Surgeon General, the T nspector 

General, the Chief of Engineers, the Chief 

of Public Affairs, the Director of Programs 

and Evaluation, and the Commander, 

CFSC. The SI F encouraged timely, 

"directed telescope" focus on issues that 

affect readiness, training, and quality of 

life. During five years SIF members discussed over 120 issues and positively 

resolved 40 percent of them. 

SOLD (Spouse Orientation and 

Leadership Development): It leverages 

existing services, systems, and internet 

- 31-
technologies to connect Army constituents, 

especially spouses, to the Army and its 

lmique and vibrant culture. By involving 

spouses in affirmative opportunities and 

partnerships from the time they become part 

of the Army and throughout their Army 

experience, SOLD significantly expands 

and enhances the reciprocity between 

spouses and the Army. The web-based 

SOLD Personal Development Process contains referral sources of service and information, a personal portfolio to record an 

individual's training and experience, and the 

opportunity to contact ambassadors, life line 

coaches, and mentors to acquire information, advice, and guidance from experienced 

and knowledgeable individuals. 

TRICARE: The DOD's worldwide 

health care program for active duty and 

retired uniformed services members and 

their fam ilies. lt consists of three major 

categories and a special program for 

retirees over the age of 65. 

a) TRICARE Prime: a managed care 

option similar to a civilian HMO. Active 

duty service members are required to 

enroll, and this is the only option that 

requires enrollment. Active duty family 

members, retirees, and their family members are encouraged, but not required, to 

enroll. There are no deductible and no 

fees, cost shares, or co-pays for active duty 

and their family members. 

b) TRICARE Extra: a preferred 

provider option (PPO). Beneficiaries 

choose a doctor, hospital, or other medical 

provider within the TRICARE network. 

There are a deductible and a 15 percent 

cost share. 

c) TRICARE Standard: a fee-for-service option. Beneficiaries have the flexibility to see any authorized provider of 

choice. This is the most expensive plan, 

requiring a deductible, a 20 percent cost 

share for active duty family members, 25 

percent fo r retirees and f~tmily members, 

and a co-pay. 

d) TRTCARE for Life: a special program for beneficiaries aged 65 and over 

who are eligible for Medicare Part A and are 

enrolled in Medicare Part B. This program 

is used in conjunction with eithcrTRJCARE 

Extra or Standard, with Medicare paying a 

portion of the health care costs. 

USC (Unit Service Coordinator): 

Unit Service Coordinators are ACS starr 

members placed directly in units to provide 

infonnation, awareness, trai ning, and services. The staff members have sufficient 

general knowledge to respond to diverse 

inquiries and requests for assistance. 

Volunteer Program: It manages, supports, and encourages Army-wide voluntcerism, resulting in important benefits for 

the Army and its volunteers. Volunteering 

provides the opportunity to serve, to meet 

challenges, to learn about the Army and the 

comnnmity, to acquire new skills, to obtain 

work experience, to network, to build 

friendships, and to become a cohesive part 

of the community. 

WRAIR (Wa1ter Reed Army 

Institute of Research): Tt is the largest, 

most diverse, and oldest laboratory in the 

U.S. Army Medical Research and Materiel 

Command. It conducts research on a range 

of militarily relevant issues, including naturally occurring infectious diseases, combat casualty care, operational health hazards, and medical defense against biological and chemical weapons. WRATR scientists enhance the understanding of military 

operations and environments, including the 

stresses and exposures troops encounter 

and the performance requirements of a 

deployed military force. 

-32 -
APPENDIX 1 

Army Family Action Plan (AFAP) Issues 

(Status as of 9 June 2003) 
Issue 

Counseling 

(CONUS) 

Counseling (RC) 

Counseling 

(Remote Areas) 

Dental 

(Insurance Costs) 

Dental 

(Prcauthorizations) 

EFMP (Staffing & 

Standardization) 

EFMP 

(Respite Care) 

Employment 

(Efrects of A76) 

ARMY fAMILY ACTION PLAN ISSUES 

Issue# 

(Year) 

474 (2000) 

465 (1999) 

522 (2002) 

509 (2002) 

533 (2002) 

220 ( 1993) 

501 (2002) 

518 (2002) 

Recommendation 

Increase the number of professional marriage and family counselors in 

CONUS under-served locations. 

Allow soldiers and family members up to one year post-mobilization to identify the need for service-connected c.ounscling problems. 

Provide and fund li.ccnsed marriage and family (M&F) counseling services in 

remote areas. 

I. Reduce member cost share to 20% for dental services not already covered 

at I 00% in the TRICARE active duty and retiree dental programs. 

2. Increase maximum annual benefit to Sl,SOO for active duty and retirees. 

I. Provide response to soldier and BCAC within 7 days of receipt of request 

for civilian dental care tor service members. 

2. Increase staffing of Military Medical Support Office (MMSO) to improve 

e!Ticiency in processing claims and prcauthori:c:at.ions. 

1. Address EFtvlP staffillg shortages and unfilled positions. 

2. Standardize EFMP enrollment forms among the military services. 

Authorize usc of and provide OMA funds to either pay or subsidize respite 

care for EFMP families. 

Amend the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR 52.207- 3) to include 

Military Spouse Preference (MSP). 
111 Progress Toward Resolution Remaining 

Requirements ._ 

I. Shortages identified at 9 installntions. requiring I 0 marriage/family therapists. FY03 Army Funding 

contract (Hcalthfax) for 10 therapists ($750K/yr) funded by MEDCOM. A~ of Mar 03. 

7 of I 0 therapists have been hired. Army MEDCOM intends to fund FY04 contract 

with FY03 end-of-year resources. 

2. MEDCOM is monitoring Army Behavioral Health Initiative and Employee Assistance 

~ Program for impact on marriage/family counseling services. 

I. Army G- 3 Operations Directorate's Operations Division is developing a Deployment Army Policy 

I Cycle Support Program (DCSP). 

2. The Well-Being Survey of Reserve Components (FY03) demonstrates positive response 

to possible chaplain/fami ly assistance workshops. 

1. MEOCOM is assessing the feasibility of remote M&F therapy services. DOD Policy 

2. USAMEDCOM will monitor status of the following: a) G- 1 multidisciplinary study on 

Army well-being, including a behavioral health initiative designed to create a cohesive program for provision ofsociaVrelated services, and b) G- 3 exploration of an employee assis-

---, lance program modeled after a program already serving several federal agencies. 

f 1. TRICARE Management Activity (TMA) docs not support lowering cost shares because DOD Policy 

it would increase premiums- active duty (AD) would assume 40% of the increase and (no additional action 

retirees. 100%. planned) 

2. New retiree dental plan contract increases both the maximum annual and orthodontic 

- benefit to S 1 ,200. 

3. Contract recompctitions: 2005 for AD and 2007 for retirees. 

I. In FY02, MMSO implemented a new automation system, added a dentist stan· member. DOD Systems 

and reduced processing time to 5 days for 95% of initial requests for civilian dental Development 

care. 

2. OTSG will monitor MMSO's progress deploying Health Insurance Portability and 

- Accountability Act (HIPPA) compliant technology to receive and send preauthorization 

information electronically. E-mail is not a secure means for transmission of personal 

data under HIPPA. 

I. CFSC is developing a staffing matrix determining requirements for EFMP and other Army Regulation 

- ACS programs. 

2. DOD developed a standardized medical and education form (DO Form 2792) to coordinate overseas assignments of sponsors with EFMs. The forms are being revised to 

meet HI PPA compliance. Change to AR 608- 75 will allow Army to usc the content of 

the DO form but retain its own disclosure statement. 

I. CFSC is determining the appropriate legislative avenue. Legislation 

--: 2. CFSC developed a UFR for the FY05-Q9 POM ($2.3M annually) for respite care for 2% 

of the 60,000 EFM enrollees ( 1.200 EFMs) for a maximum of 16 hrs. per month at a 

rate of S 1 0/hr. 

I. The Mi litary Spouse Preference Program only applies to DOD. Action outside Army 

2. Only federal employees adversely alfectcd by a decision to convert to contract or or DOD purview 

Intergovernmental Support Performance have Right of First Refusal. OSD docs not (Federal Reg) 

support extending the right to others. 

-
ARMY fAMILY ACTION PLAN ISSUES (CONT.) 

Issue 

Employment 

(Opportunities) 

Employment 

(NAF Comp Time) 

Employment (Pay 

Comparability) 

Employment 

(Unemployment 

Compensation) 

Entitlements 

(Retirement Info) 

Entitlements 

(Career 

Recognition) 

Entitlements 

(Incapacitation Pay 

for RC) 

Entitlements 

(Dependency 

Determination) 

Issue# 

(Year) 

38 (1989) 

479 (2000) 

499 (2002) 

524 (2002) 

492 (2002) 

494 (2002) 

232 (1989) 

458 (1999) 

Recommendation 

1. Increase federal employment opportunities for active duty family members 

who do not have prior federal service. 

2. Allow family members hired on Excepted Appointments to attain careerconditional status. 

Authorize compensatory time for all full-time :-JAF employees. (1\onexempt 

employees are covered by the Fair Labor Standards Act and must receive 

overtime instead of cornp time.) 

Amend the Federal Employees Pay Comparability Act (FEPCA) to establish 

a minimum 5% general increase annually until pay comparability is 

achieved. 

Enact legislation that will direct Stdtes to establish relocation during PCS 

moves as an involuntary separation, thereby granting unemployment compensation to all qualified recipients. 

I. Implement retirement benefits information programs at intervals during a 

soldier's career. 

2. Publish Army Retirement Services website address biannually ou LES for 

AD and RC. 

3. Inform spouses of retirement benefits through family programs. 

Implement a tiered recognition package: 

-at 10 years: warm-up suit in Army colors, 

-at 15 years: ten days nonchargeable leave, and 

-at retirement: commemorative timepiece. 

Improve timeliness of Incapacitation Pay procedures. 

Establish the date of marriage, adoption, or other legal action as the authorization date to establish dependent status tor travel and transportation entitlements. 
Progress Toward Resolution Remaining 

Requirements 

I. Since 1985, a number of civil service refom1 initiatives have stalled in Congress or Legislation 

failed to gain \mion support. 

2. Army is working with OSD to prepare legislation based on demonstration pr~jcct best 

practices. Army is also working with MEDCOM to test its spouse and family member 

referral program. 

1. Approx·imately 15,000 employees (55% ofNAF work force) cannot receive compensa- Legislation 

tory time off because they are nonexempt employees. 

2. Legislation to authorize comp time for nonexempt NAF employees was submilted for 

FY04 cycle but was dropped from consideration. 

3. Army must determine if it will submit the initiative again. 

I. In Mar 02, the President's Pay Agent estimated the civilian pay lag at. 19%, however, Legislation 

OPM, Labor Dept, and OMB do not support FEPCA as a method for detem1ining or 

achieving pay comparability between the federal and private sector. 

2. The Anny will work with DOD on alternative strategies to achieve pay comparability. 

1. Army submitted tbe unemployment compensation recommendation to OSD's Civilian Legislation (not supPersonnel Management Service Benefits Legislative Work Group. ported-no additional 

2. The working group cited a Supreme Court decision upholding a denial of benefits to a action planned) 

claimant who voluntarily quit a position to follow her spouse. OSD will not support further attempts to initiate this type of legislation. 

I. Army will coordinate with TRADOC to develop fom1at of instruction to cover retire- Army Policy 

ment topics for NCOES and Officer/Warrant courses. 

2. AD Retirement Services website posted on .Jan 03 LES. G- 1 pursuing biannual posting 

of AD & RC retirement web addresses. Also exploring web-based tool to provide retirement/survivor information and benefits calculation. 

3. G-1 is pursuing dissemination of retirement information via family programs. 

The Army has a viable rccog·nition/awards program, recognizing longevity when soldiers Army Pol icy (no 

reenlist by awarding the Good Conduct Medal; a biennial pay raise for all soldiers: and, additional action 

at retirement, a parade/eeremonyiprcsentation of u.s. nag. planned) 

I. DOD target is decision of cases within 30 days of notification of injury, illness, or dis- Army Regulation 

case. Anny streamlined procedures for Lncap Pay extensions. Primary impediment is 

LOD investigation. 

2. Revision to J\R 135-381 (lncapacitation ofRC Soldiers) and a new DA Pam will ensure 

compliance with new DOD I (RC I neap System Management). Revision to AR 600- 8-4 

(Line of Duty Reg) at PF.RSCOM. 

I. JFTR change to establish the date of marriage, adoption. or other legal action as author- DOD Policy 

ization for dependency status to allow travel and transportation was not supported by 

the other services. 

2. G 1 will explore the feasibility of changing the JFTR to allow SMs to use remaining 

HHG authorization to move newly acquired dependents' HHG. 
ARMY fAMILY ACTION PLAN ISSUES (CONT.) 

lssue Issue # Recommendation 

(Year) 

Entitlements 530 (2002) I. Allow military spouses to apply for any NAf or APF position without 

(Mil itary Spouse invoking military spouse preference. 

Preference) 2. Authorize military spouses to select specific grade levels and job series 

when using MSP. 

Entitlements 391 (1994) Treat active duty deaths as I 00% disability retirement, thus providing 

(Survivor Benefits) Survivor Benefit Plan (SBP) compensation to all eligible survivors. 

Entitlements 442 (1998) Compensate soldiers for additional expenses incurred when "remotely" 

(Remote Duty) assigned. 

Entitlements 455 (1999) Extend TLE to 14 days (currently 10 days). 

(TLE Increase) 

Entitlements 493 (2002) 1. Provide RC soldiers on active duty full BAH after 30 days. 

(RC BAH) 2. Pay RC soldiers on active duty in excess of 140 days the full BAH from the 

first day of activation. 

Entitlements 506 (2002) Authorize RC soldiers the option to receive a reduced rate of retired pay at 

(RC Retirement) age 50 or wait until 60 to receive full retired pay. 

Entitlements 512 (2002) I. Authorize payment of the first six months' COLA entitlement in a lump 

(OCONUS COLA) sum upon arrival at an OCONUS duty station. 

2. Begin full COLA at 7th month of assignment. 

Entitlements (RC 514 (2002) Change Parachute Jump Pay to a monthly rate. (Jump pay is currently comParachute Jump puted 011 a daily rate, hence RC members receive a prorated amount based 

Pay) on days in dwy status.) 

entitlements 523 (2002) I. Establ ~h a civilian health care a llowance for activated RC soldiers. 

(Medical Cov for 2. Require civilian health insurance providers reinstate preactivation medical 

RC) benefits if a soldier elects the TlUCARE option. 
Progress Toward Resolution Remaining Requirements 

I. A 2-year European Command pilot allows military spouses to apply for and be selected DOD Policy 

for part-time or nonpermanent positions without losing MSP. Army will work with 

DOD to affect policy changes based on pilot results. 

2. In COl\! US. spouse~ can select the grade levels and job series for MSP by registering in 

PPP as Cat 3 eligibles and OCONUS by selective submission of applications. 

I FY02 1\IDAA extends SBP benefits to spouscs'childrcn of all sen icc members who die Legislation 

on active duty. regardless of years of service (retroactive to I 0 Scp 0 I). 

2. OMB disapproved an FY04 legislative initiative to extend the same survivor benefits to 

spouses or chtldren of RC soldiers who die in the line of duty while in IDT status. 

I. No support for remote duty pay. G I working group composed of CSMs and SGMs Legislmion 

concluded that Army's priority should continue to be competitive pay. 

2. FY02 legislative itlitiative to increase CONUS COLA was disapproved new proposal 

submitted for FY05. 

3. FYOO NOAA approved paid parking for recruiters. ROTC, and MEPCOM. Af'AP Issue 

513 seeks child care for remotely asstgned soldiers. 

I. Approximately 60% of military families exceed TLE entitlement. DOD deferred legis- Legislation 

latton to extend TLE to 15 days to FY05 due to funding($ 18M). Army supports the initiatne and will monitor progress. 

2. Recent TLE changes include the following: TLE for initial PCS: increase from S II 0 to 

$180/day maximum: elimination of BA II/BAS offsets in TLE computation. 

I. Legislation to lower the 140-day threshold to 30 days was deferred to FY05, then Legislation 

dropped. Army cost, $30M. Entitlement to full BAH is a discussion topic in working 

group preparing a report to Congress, due Aug 03. 

2. Army request to eliminate requirement that 140 days be served at one location was 

dented based on Comptroller General dcciston that a soldier cannot receive full BAH 

and be m a temporary status. 

I. The 9th QRMC reviewed several RC retirement options and detennined more study was Legislation 

needed. 

2. RC retirement will be included in reports that are due to Congress in 2003 addressing 

Reserve compensation and entitlements. 

I. An FY02 legislative proposal to provide lump sum COLA was not supported and an Legislation 

FY03 proposal was returned by OMS. 

2. Legtslative proposal will be fom·arded to Congress in the FY04 Omnibus. 

A GAO study on Resen·e special pays is pending. Based on that repon. the ASD (RA) will Legislation 

determine if the office will pursue a legislative change for specific special pays that 

impact the RC soldier. 

I. An FY04 legislative proposal to allow mobilit.cd reservists either to participate in TRI- Legislation 

CARE or to receive a voucher toward their private insurance premiums was deferred to 

the f'Y05 legislative cycle. 

2. Army is monitoring the progress of the legislative initiative. 
ARMY fAMILY ACTION PLAN ISSUES (CONT.) 

Issue Issue # Recommendation 

(Year) 

Entitlements 525 (2002) Eliminate the ten-year expiration date for MGIB benefits. 

(MGIB Expiration) 

Entitlements 528 (2002) Authorize and fund a Dislocati<.m Allowance (DLA) for retiring service 

(R~tirement DLA) members. 

Entitlements 45 1 (1999) Lower the CONUS COLA threshold to 7%. 

(CONUS COLA) 

Entitlements (Pay 461 ( 1999) Implement pay table reform (especially for enlisted personnel). 

Reform) 

Entitlements 520 (2002) Authorize and fund Invitational Travel Orders (TTO) for spouses to attend 

(RC Family annual unit commander's briefing and orientation. 

Member Training) 

family Support 5 15 (2002) 1. Establish a liaison at installation level to assist family members with the 

(INS Assistance) 1:--JS process. 

2. Obtain Immigrdtion and Naturalization Service (INS) approval for DODadministered fingerprinting and physical exams. 

Family Support (In- 521 (2002) I. Waive out-of-state tuition for military family members who reside in a 

State Tuition) state on military orders. 

2. Retain in-state tuition status once established. 

Fami ly Sl.tpport 527 (2002) Create a Mobilization Preparation Program to provide assistance to RC sol-

(RC Mobilization) diers and families for transition from reserve status to mobilization. 

Family Support 3lW (1994) Fund Mobilization/Deployment Readiness positions at installations, Reserve 

(Mob/Dept) ARCOM/TAACOM. and NG STARCs. 
Progress Toward Resolution Remaining 

Requirements 

I. The Veterans Affairs estimates cost to eliminate MGlB expiration date is $1.8B annually. Legislation 

2. In Feb 03, MGIB Working Group (all services) supported the recommendation. 

Legislative action to begin in Fall 2003. 

I. Cost estimate is $20M annually. Legislation 

2. USPACOM submitted this initiative for FY05 legislative cycle. Army supported the initiative and will monitor its progress. 

J. Low·ering threshold J% would add 14 cities and increase CONUS COLA by $25 for cur- Legislation 

rent recipients. Potential cost, $14M. An FY02 legislative proposal to lower CONUS 

COLA thxeshold was not supported. 

2. Initiative submitted for FY05 legislation. 

l. Based on analysis conducted by the 9th QRMC, DOD established a benchmark that mil- Legislation 

itary compensation should equal 70% of the earnings of civilians with comparable education and years of experience. Mid-grade and senior enlisted fall below the benchmark. 

2. Targeted pay raises. implemented in FY03 and proposed in the FY04 budget, continue 

the incremental corrective action proposed by the 9th QRMC. 

l. Federal law prohibits usc of APF to pay expenses (per diem) of spouses and family Legislation (not Sllpmembers. To be placed on Invitational Travel Orders. the traveler must be an active par- ported- no additional 

ticipant who perfon11S a direct service. Attendance at a training conference docs not action planned) 

meet requirements for ITOs. 

2. Organi7.ation may develop distant learning modules, provide traveling teams, or "ide.os 

(via web or mail) to those who cannot attend meetings. 

I. CFSC is working with PERSCOM to develop an overall plan to assist family members Action outside Army 

with the immigra6on process. or DOD purview 

2. CFSC will meet with the rNS to seek approval of DOD fingerprinting and physical (fNS) 

exams. 

I. The CSA initiated Army's involvement with in-state tuition at Ju.J 02 Education Summit. Action outside Army 

Initiative began in 5 states with largest Am1y populations (GA, KY. NC, TX, and VA). or DOD purview 

Letters/packets from G-1 to 5 states dispatched 28 Feb 03. Installation Cdrs informed (States) 

and involved. 

2. Reporting and monitoring process will continue until a conclusion is reached in each state. 

1. Social services provided by local, state, and federal agencies and clergy. Army Funding 

2. Family Readiness Program in place and functioning with staff at each RSC and Direct 

Reporting Command. Mobilization briefings include TRlCARE, ARC. AER, PAO, 

FRG, JAG, and emotional and financial issues. 

3. FY05/09 POM request for spouses to attend prcdeployment briefings. 

I. 32 installations have a full-time Mobilization/Deployment Readiness specialist, remain- Army funding 

dcr function as additional duty for ACS staff member. The Army requirement is 80 

positions. ACS is seeking approval for additional authorizations and will include 

requirements in FY05-09 PO.NI. 

2. The NGB has 54 State Family Program Coordinators. The USARC has 24 GS Family 

Program directors and 25 contractors. 
ARMY fAMILY ACTION PLAN ISSUES (CONT.) 

Issue Issue# Recommendation 

(Year) 

Family Support 491 (2002) I. Provide authorizations and funding for all ACS positions according to the 

(ACS Positions) U.S. Army Manpower Analysis Agency Staffing Guidelines. 

2. Fund the Well-Being initiatives that support ACS. 

Fam•ly Support 421 ( 1997) Pronde funding for program and staff for AFTB and AFAP programs (AD 

(AFAP AFTB) and RC) and an accounting code to capture expenditures. 

Family Support 449 (1999) Allow reimbursement of child care costs for family members attending com-

(Child Care mand-sponsorcd training, such as Operation READY, English as a Second 

Reimbursement) Language. budget classes, and AFTB. 

Family Support 519 (2002) I. Streamline local installation access procedures for caregi,crs. 

(lnMallation 2. Educate commanders and community on access process. 

Access) 3. Resolve multisen icc 'component access issues. 

Family Support 466 (1999) Implement program standards for AFAP and AFTB. Update program circu-

(AFAP/AFTB) Iars outlining HQDA, MACOM, and installation responsibilities. 

Family Support 480 (2000) Assign sponsorship of waiting families to the garrison chain of command and 

(Unaccompanied require Military Personnel Senice Centers to notify ACS and garrison 

Tours) commander ofwaitmg families in the area. 

Family Support 516 (2002) I. Streamline application process for dependency determination. 

(Dependency) 2. Provide clear guidance and instruction with checklist of submission procedurcs. 

3. Notify soldier of receipt of documents and provide feedback on disposition 

of request. 

Family Support 476 (2000) Authorize reimbursement of adoption expenses incurred by sen ice members 

(OCONUS serving in a foreign country or U.S. territory. 

Adopuon) 

Family Support 497 (2002) Authorize all soldiers with ill least 10 years of service to distribute MGIB 

(MGIB benefits to dependents without additional reenlistment requirements. 

Distribution to 

FMs) 
Progress Toward Resolution Remaining 

Requirements 

I. CFSC request for 185 requirements through Total Army Analysis 2005 2009 (TAA Army Funding 

05 09) is being staffed. $9.6M for the new requirements is an emerging requirement in 

the FYOS 09 POM. CFSC requesting $ 19.6M in FYOS- 09 POM for the 292 authoriz.1tion shortfall on the FY04 TAADs. 

2. $26.7~1 is in the FY05-09 POl\ I for ACS Well-Being initiatives. 

I. S3.2M was prodded in FYOI 02 for 56 positions at for.vard-deployed and power pro- Army Funding 

JCCtton ~upport platfon11s. In FY03. $8.2\1 \\<IS funded to support program operations (attained) 

and 138 JOint AFAP1AFTB program manager positions. 

2. An accounting code to track expenditures was implemented in FY02. 

I. Installation activities may transfer funds to installation CYS. Army CYS authori7ed Army Funding and 

NAF and APF. Regulation 

2. Army pursuing submission of S 1.3M APF requirement and change in applicable rcgulatory guidance regarding use of APF to fund command-sponsored child care. 

I I. Army regulation sets Army access policy: local access policies set by mstallauon Army Policy 

commanders. 

2.G I will work with IMA on identifying and resolving access issues. 

3. Army must focus effort on educating commanders and community. 

I. AFAP standards approved and implemented in 0 I. Three AFTB standards approved at Army Regulation 

Scp 02 EXCOM. Accreditation standards for both programs were implemented in 

FY02 in concert with ACS accreditation. 

2. AFAP and AFTB regs submitted to U.S. Army Publishing Agency (USAPA) in Nov 02. 

Projected publication, 4th Qtr FY03. 

I. Garrison staff is unable to assume sponsorship for waiting families. Army Regulation 

2. All personnel scheduled forO\ crscas tours arc reqUired to auend ACS o\·crseas briefing. 

ACS will request addresses of waiting famtlic~ and \\ill include waiting families 111 the 

ACS Outreach Program. Change to AR 608 I submitted to USAPA for publication. 4th 

Qtr FY03. 

I. Currenily, soldiers are given DFAS fax number 10 submit dependency requests. There DOD Policy 

arc no provisions to verify submission or feedback from DFAS. Issue was submiucd 10 

Army Business Initiatives Council. 

2. Issue was briefed 10 SECARMY as a deferred issue. Actions are being worked prior to 

development of an implementation plan. 

I. OCONUS soldiers may receive reimbursement for adoption expenses if they seck assis- Legislation 

tance through Legal Assistance and utilize a rccogmzed adoption agency. 

2. Expansion of adoption reimbursement to qualified overseas agencies ~~ in the fY04 

leg1slativc cycle. 

I. The FY02 NOAA restricts MG IB distribution to soldiers with designated critical skills Legislation 

who reenlist for 4 years. Army wi ll monitor Air Force test to distribute MG IB to 

dependents and review outcomes. 

2. Removing "critical skill" requirement and allowing Service Secretaries to oiTcr transferability to all service members would cost $700M first ycar/S80M each year rtftcr. FY03 

legislation to remove those requirements was unsuccessful. 
ARMY fAMILY ACTION PLAN ISSUES (CONT. ) 

Issue Issue # Recommendation 

(Year) 

1-amily Support 475 (2000) r stablish and fund a program Army-wide tor 'pousal tuition assistance. 

(Spouse Tuition 

Assistance) 

Family Support 438 (1997) E'tablish (resource) the l-Upplcmental food program for WIC for OCOl\US 

coco:-:us WIC> personnel. 

Force Support 351 (1993) l::.stablish an emergency relief program (similar to AER) for the RC. 

(AER for RC) 

Force Support 529 (2002) Authori/e and fund a Retirement Service Olficcr at each Regional Support 

(Retirement Svc) Command. 

Force Support 507 (2002) Increase Clothing Replacement AJio,vancc (CRA) to allow for semiannual 

(Runnmg Shoes) replacement of runnmg shoes. 

Force Support 44 I ( 1998) I. 1-.stablish a full-time command financial specialist position at battalion 

(Financial level Army-wide. 

Planning) 2. Establish financial management education begmnmg at the lowest le,cl in 

Am1y school systems. 

Force Support 462 ( 1999) Increase personnel to meet mission requirements. 

(Personnel) 

Force Support 496 (2002) I. Pro, ide commanders the DEERS extract report monthly. 

(DEERS Info) 2. Develop a web-based system linked to AKO to check DEERS. 

3. Implement reminders on soldiers' LES to check DEERS status. 

Force Support 473 (1999) I. 1\.landatc training at all levels for personnel who process financial transac-

(Personnel-Pa) lions. 

System) 2. lmprO\·e processing time~ for critical financtal transactions (such as housmg allowance. promotions. and change in marital status). 
Progress Toward Resolution Remaining 

Requirements 

1. The Voluntary Education Service Chief£ agree that spouse Tuition Assistance (TA) Legislation 

would be well received but not at the expense of the active duty program. 

2. Per YC'SA directive (NO\ 02 AFAP GOSC), !:.ducation Di\'ision coordinated cost for 

spouse TA with Army Budget Office. However, differences in the unfinanccd requiremenb Ill sold1er TA must still be resolved. 

I. DOD Health Atrairs TRICARC Management A ell\ ity began implementation of Legislation (attained) 

OCO'\ LiS WIC m Jan 0 I. Full Implementation accomplished in Dec 02. 

2. ProgrJm established at 53 OCONUS locations. sen ing 25.500 part1c1panh 111 I I foreign location~ in Europe, Pacific, and Latin America. 

I. At=R Board of Managers has repeatedly voted down requests to assist RC soldiers acti- Action outside Army 

vated for fewer than 30 days. or DOD purview 

2. AER d1d not respond to YCSA's letter (signed Apr 02) asking for change to AER char- (AER) 

tcr that would align its RC assistance \\ ith that of the other sen ices' aid societies. 

FoiiO\\·up letter from CAR is being staflcd. 

I I. In Feb 03. the U.S. Am1y Resef\e Command requested existing Pos1t1on Description Army Funding 

from DA Retirement Sen ices Office. 

2. USARC 1s developing a cost analysis for I 0 positions to be placed at each Reg1onal 

Support Command. 

I. Effective I Oct 01, Army provides initial entry training soldiers $60 toward the purchase Army Funding 

of running shoes. No running shoe allowance is in the annual CRA. 

2. To add 2 pairs of running shocs'year to CRA. the Manning PEG will have to 

concur/fund during FY06-IO POM. (FY06 cost $44M: FY06-IO. $217M.) 

I. No IIQDA support to add unit financtal specialist to force structure. Arm)' Policy 

2. Fm;mcial training added at BT.AIT. and fiN duty st;ltion. The SMA recommended a pamphlet with appropnate financial planmng mformation for various school levels. Content 

is bcmg re,le\\Cd by TRADOC and\\ ill be submitted to the SMA for final appro,al. 

I. Current Force Structure Allowance (FSA} is capped at 480K. FY03 projected Army End Army Poltcy 

Strength is 489.3K for a fill of I 0 1.94<!/o. 

2. Manning goal reached: 100% aggregate fill lor all AC divisions. ACRs. and Early 

Deploying Units (EDUs). FY03 focus continues to target 10 active divisions. 2 ACRs. 

separate brigades, FY02103 ED Us. and the equitable distribution of remaining targets 

to all fill Priority 2 TOE and TDA umts. 

I Pro\ 1ding a momhl) DEERS report \\Ould not ~olvc 1hc rm~blem. Arm> Systems 

2. System bemg de,eloped whereby AKO \\ill read data from DMDC' and present bas1c De,·elopment 

DE£ RS mformation to authenticated user proJeCted operation in May 03. 

3. In \ug 02, DFAS began placing quarterly reminder on LES to review DI RS status. 

I. The AG School placed an S I Tool Kn on its website for commands to usc locally in con- DOD Systems 

dueling S I sustainment training. Development 

2. The Defense Integrated Military I Iuman Resources system (Personnel and Pay) 

(DIMIIRS Pers Pay) will resolve the Army's Personnel and Pay System integration 

issues. Army lmtial Operating Capability for DIMIIRS scheduled for Jun 04 
ARMY fAMILY AcTION PLAN Issues (CoNT.) 

Issue Issue# Recommendation 

(Year) 

Force Support 385 (2001) Allow Veterans Education Assistance Program (VEAP) era soldiers remain-

(MGIBJ ing on active duty to enroll in the MGlB. 

l"orce Support 467(1999) Adopt a model uniform code of righb and protections for member~ of the 

(State Laws) armed forces. 

Force Support 483 (2000) Authorize military technicians (MT) to receive incentives contained in the 

(lncenti\'eS for Mil Selected Reserve Incentives Program (SRIP). 

Techs [RC]) 

Force Support 486 (2000) Pro\! de tax credits to employers of resen ists mobili7ed deployed 111 support 

( R( l:.mployer Tax of a contingency operallon or pursuant to a Presidential Selected Reser\c 

Credal) Call-up or mobilization. 

llousang 440 ( 1998) Eliminate all inadequate Army Family I lousing units and the housang deficit 

( Privatit:ttion) by 2010. 

Medical (Staffing) 484 (2000) I Increase medical and dental pcr,onncl to suppon the entare OCONUS military community. 

2. Build transition time for med/dcn personnel. 

Medical (Military 532 (2002) Develop and implement a standardized, mandatory. Army-wide 

Pregnancy/ pregnancy/postpanum program with command emphasis that addresses 

Po~tpartum) readiness and a return 10 physical fitness and weight ~tandards. 

Medical {TRI- 505 (2002) Reduce the number ofTRICARI· regaons and allow bencfaciancs to access 

<.:ARf Regions) routine and spcciali7ed medical care in other regions. 

Medical 508 (2002) Provide TRICARE coverage for all medically necessary nutritional ~ub-

(Nutritional stances or therapeutic dietary supplements prescribed by a health care 

Supplements) provider. 
Progress Toward Resolution Remaining 

Requirements 

1. Army suppons legislative change to allow "VEA P era" soldiers to convert or I'Cceivc the Legislation 

MGIB. Previous legislative propos<lls have been unsuccessful. 

2. In Feb 03, a I louse resolution was submiucd to allow a one-year period for all VEAP 

era sold1crs remaining on active duty to enroll in MGIB with a $2.700 contribution. 

1. DOD ha-. not forwarded a Draft Model Code that addresses such 1ssucs as taxauon. Legislation 

tulllon. 'oung. ,-chicle registration. and licensing. 

2. Lcg1slation to update Soldier's and Sailor's Ci\ 11 Relief Act was submiued to the 108th 

Congrcs~. Included arc provisions addressing personal property tax, income ta'\ brackcts, and property leases affected by deployment or PCS. 

I. This 1S a no-cost initiative since the number of MTs has already been included in the for- Legislation 

mulas to figure bonus money because of their drilling reserve participation. 

2. Survey fielded to support anticipated FY05 lcgislati\'e initiative to include MTs in affiliation bonuses. 

I I. RC employer 1ax initiatives were deferred in the FY02 and 03 legislative process. Legislation 

2. The ReserYe l:mployerTax Credit Assistance Act of2003 has acth·e support of1hc Reserve 

Officers Associauon. ational Guard Association. and 1he U.S. Chamber of Ct)mmcrce. 

I. Army 1s programming elimination of all inadequate houses by 2007 and full sustainment Army Funding 

of owned inventory in FY06. RCI is the primary strategy in U.S. 

2. The Family I lousing Master Plan expands RCI to 28 sites, 80% of U.S. inventory. 

- Fons Carson, llood, Lewis, and Meade arc privatit:ed (15,727 units). 

- Forts Bragg, Campbell, Irwin. and llamilton and Presidio of Monterey scheduled for 

tmnsfcr in 2003. 

I. Europe initiated venture capital projects to fund increased Fam Pmctice. Peds slafl' sup- Army Policy 

port and 1s moni10ring RC rotations impact on specialty shonagcs. 

2. Europe Korea 1mplcmcmed proccsl. imprO\ emen1s 10 enhance access 10 care. 

3 Korea established a central appointment desk and is coordinating backfill efforts wi1h 

USARC. 

4. PERSCOM docs not support the overlap of medical/dental personnel. 

I. USACII PPM developed a Pregnant/Postpartum Soldiers Certification Program. Personnel Army Policy 

from the military treatment facility. garrison, <llld units are to be utili.~:cd as trainers. 

Program sus1ainment is based on ecrtificallon. training. and oversight by <1 DA proponent. 

frainmg materials arc developed, and certification manuals and program guide::. were sen1 

for endorsement. 

2. LiSAC'II PP'vt Identifying core clru;se::. and es::.cntial information. 

CO,US TRICARE regions will be reduced from II to 3. A rcques1 for proposals was DOD Policy 

released I Aug 02, and bids are bemg e\·alualcd. Con1rac1 award is set for Jun 03. wi1h 

setup to be phased in by region between Apr and Nov 04. 

I. Medicare t>an B. Veterans Affairs. and most civilian insurance plans cover supplements DOD Policy 

for lUbe feedings only. 

2. The TRICARE Management Activity is considering a change to its current nutritional 

lhcrapy policy, regulations. It is anticipated that changes would address only nutritional sunplcmcnts prescribed by a physicmn <IS medically necessary. 
ARMY fAMILY ACTION PLAN ISSUES (CONT.) 

Issue 

Medical 

(RC Information) 

Medical 

(Remote Area:.) 

\1ec.hcal 

(Surger) J 

Medical 

(Pre/Postnatal 

Benefits 

lnfom1ation) 

\1cc.llcal 

(Vtston Rcadmess) 

Medical 

('I RICARE 

Referrals) 

\1cc.hcal 

(O<.:O,US Access) 

Issue# 

(Year) 

510 (2002) 

517 (2002} 

534 (2002) 

535 (2002) 

490 (2002) 

536 (2002) 

487 (2000) 

Recommendation 

1. Clarify and simplify written RC medical information and translate these 

publications into other languages. 

2. Develop multilingual education 'idcotapes for RC. 

Increase TRICARE reimbursements to competitive rates as an mcenti\e to 

recruit and retain medical care providers in remote areas. 

I xtcnd TRIC ARE covered henefib to include autologous blood collection. 

processing. and storage co~ts. 

I. Create a brochure that explains the prenatal, delivery. and postpartum tests 

and procedures routinely covered by TRICARE. 

2. Disseminate this brochure to p<~tients, post on website, and place in military health care facilities. 

Require annual vision readtncss (VR) screenings for all soldtcrs (acti,e. 

guard, and reserve). 

I. Allow Primary Care Manager (PCM) to authorize referrals up to I year lor 

specialty and chronic care TRIC'ARE Prime patients. 

2. Authorize the specialist to order necessary diagnostic testing without addiuonal referrals from the PCM. 

I Lxpand personal sen tcc contracts at remote OCO:\t.JS sues and wnhmthc 

host nauon to pro' tde health care sen ices. 

2. Ensure host nail on pro' idcrs rccetvc timely payment for sen tccs. 
I Progress Toward Resolution 

I. 90,000+ TRIC'ARE info cards/COs were distributed thru mobilization stations. family 

support centers, and e-mail1phone requests. Informative websitcs linked at httrt;LlDli: 

CARE,o:;d miL reserve. TMA and MEDCOM provide e-mail help ser,iccs. 

2. The national TRICARE Markcllng Fducation contractor will be required to de,·cfop 

beneficiary information in Spanish. German, Korean. etc. Tl\.IA 1s developing a 

Spamsh RC TRJCARE pamphlet. TRICARI· CD mfo card being considered for language translauon. 

I. TRICARF reimbursement rates are mde\ed to Medicare reimbursement rates. TRICARC Management Activiry is working to implement a bonus payment plan under the 

I fcalth Provider Shortage Area initiative. 

2. The llouse repealed the planned FY03 4.4% Medicare payment cut and instead 

increased the Medicare payment level by 1.6%. The 1.6% incrca~e to TRIC'ARE 

Maximum Allowable Charges went into effect I Apr 03. 

I. TRICAR£ Co\ers collection. processtng. and storage of autologous blood \\hen transfused to the pat1ent and when used for scheduled surgical procedures requmng usc of 

blood as a mcd1cal necessity. 

2. OTSG '~Ill request that TMA auvert1se TRICARI.::. co,·erage of the collecuon. processing, and storage of autologous blood. 

I. TRICARb Management Activity conducted focus group testing of obstetrics marketing 

in formation in Jan 03. 

2. The Army Medical Department (AMEDD) will request and help TMA devclor/test a 

pre/postnatal benefits information brochure. AMEDD will work to priorillt.c funding 

so TMA can produce and deploy pre/postnatal information pamphlet in 4th Qtr FY03 

and ass1st T'v!A post information on TRIC'!\REtother websites. 

I. Currently. there 1s no standard VR process "tthin any of the military ser' ices. 

2. A DOD '1s1on readiness screening program was de,·eloped. Followmg apprO\ al of the 

AsSIStant Secretary of Defense (Health !\ murs). the military sen ICes Will disseminate 

policy for annual 'ision screenings for all sen icc members during SRPs. Lstimated 

DOD-w1de cost of the information management portion of this initiative is S230K. 

I. TRICARE is a triple-option health care plan. TRIC'ARE Prime requires management by 

the enrollee's PCM. TRJCARE Standard and E.xtra allow beneficiaries more freedom 

of choice. 

2. Hospital commanders or contractor case managers can facilitate special treatment needs 

of patients wtth complex illnesses or :.pecial therapy requirements. 

I. The f·ederal Acquisition Regulation precludes personal sen 1ces contrach m rcmote 

location~ TRICARE Europe's preferred pro' 1der network has more than 1.200 professionals mslltutions. Claims processmg above 95°'o since Jan 00. 

2. TRICARE Global Remote Over~eas Health Care contract was awarded to lnt'l SOS 

(ISOS) to providc cashless/claimless heahh care. Coverage (rail 03): 

Central/South/Latin America. Canada. Western Pacific, parts of Europe. 

Remaining 

Requirements 

DOD Policy 

DOD Policy 

DOD Policy 

DOD Policy 

DOD Policy 

DOD Policy 

(no additional 

action planned) 

DOD Polic) 

(attained) 

Implementation 

Necessary 
ARMY fAMILY ACTION PLAN ISSUES (CONT.) 

Issue Issue# Recommendation 

(Year) 

Medical 122(1989) Pro' 1de the RC nonsubs1d11ed group heahh and dental insurance. 

CRC Insurance) 

Medical 488 (2002) Pro\ ide TRICARE Prime Remote for active duty family members 

(Remote Sites) (TPRADFM) to all active duty fam1ly members \\ho reside in TPR zip 

code areas. (ADF.\fs ll'lro reside ,,·ith then· sponsor are eligible j(Jr TPR.) 

Relocation (HIIO 307 (1991) I. Award moving company contracts based on performance and ela1ms histoRc-cngineering) ry as well as cost. 

2. Prov1de full replacement value for lost or damaged HHG. 

Relocation 454 ( 1999) I. Establish a trained sponsorship pool at unit or installation level. 

(Sponsorship) 2. Report sponsorship monitoring and evaluation findings to higher headquarters. 

Relocation 457 ( 1999) Amend enlisted portion of the PCS weight allowance table to more closely 

(Weight Allowance) match the officer weight al lowances. 

Relocation (2d 526 (2002) Fund the shipment of a second POV for OC'ONUS tours. 

POV Shipment 

OCONUS) 

Relocat1on 531 (2002) Authon.:e 500 pounds of professional we1ght for all spouses for items 

(Professional required for employment and volunteenng. 

Weight Allowance 

for Spouses) 

Volunteer 1!{4 ( 1988) l:.xpand benefits to volunteers in any program or service that provides sup-

(Expansion) port to service members and families. 
Progress Toward Resolution Remaining 

Requirements 

1. An FY03 legislative initiative addressing reservists' civilian health insurance during mobi- Legislation 

lization was unsuccessful. A proposal was not submitted in FY04 because of ongoing 

studies. 

2. OSD Reserve Affairs submitted an FY05 legislative initiative to allow Ready Reservists to 

enroll in TRJCARE Prime or receive a voucher toward private health care premiums. 

I. Ineligible categories include families of mobilized reservists assi.gned outside the TPR Legislation 

area. college students. and relocating families (unaccompanied tour). 

2. FY03 legislation provides TPRADFM to ADFMs who remain in their current TPR toeation while tl1e sponsor serves an unaccompanied tour and to FMs who reside in a TPR area 

with an RC sponsor ordered to AD for more than 30 days. 

3. SECJ\RMY submitted an FY04 legislative proposal to OSD seeking to remove the 

" resides with" eligibility requirement ofTPRADFM. 

1. Recommended features for DOD's Future Personal Property Program include full value Army Funding 

replacement, best value awards. direct claims settlement. direct communication between 

customer and transportation provider, customer satisfaction survey. and E-commercc 

billing. New program to cost 13% over current program. 

2. Military services and industry support new program: plan FYOS roll out. 

1. AR 600-8-8 (The Total Army Sponsorship Program) was revised to address sponsorship Army Regulation 

training and reporting requirements. (attained) 

2. Army is identifying a division to test a CONUS version of S-GATE. 

3. Spouse Orientation and Leadership Development (SOLD) funding included S200K for 

sponsorship program. ACS outcome measures will gauge effectiveness of sponsorship. 

1. Administrative weight allowance increased from 2,000 to 2,500 lbs. forE 1- E5 (I Oct 02). Legislation 

FY02 NDAA increased PCS weight allowance for El- E4. 

2. An OSD working group proposal to increase weight allowances by an average of 8% 

resulted in an FY04 legislative initiative. The initiative was deferred to the FY05 lcgislative cycle. 

I. The shipment of one POV to and from OCONUS on PCS orders is established by law and Legislation 

requires service concurrence for a change to the law. 

2. Anny G-4 is working with G-1 to determine the number of accompanied OCONUS personnel and to solicit service concurrence. 

I. By law. the JFTR authori.~:cs shipment and/or storage of professional books, papers, and Legislation 

equipment in a soldier's profession that are needed for the perfonnance of official duties. 

2. Anny G-4 is working with G- 1 to define "professional items," detennine number of personnet and cost. and solicit comments and concurrence from other services. 

I. OSD published a DOD! addressing voluntary service in DOD in Mar 02. Army already Army Regulation 

activated policies in 1998 in an HQDA letter. 

2. AR 608- 1 revision includes a "Volunteer" chapter. Projected publication is 4th Qtr FY03. 
ARMY fAMILY ACTION PLAN ISSUES (CONT.) 

Issue Issue# Recommendation 

(Year) 

Child Care 513 (2002) Locate and subsidize child care spaces in local community child care pro-

(Remote Sites) grams for use by geographically isolated active duty soldiers who do not 

have access to military child care systems on installations. 

Child Care 447 ( 1999) Fund. purchase. and install audio/video surveillance equipment in all Child 

(Surveillance Development Centers (CDCs). 

Equipment) 

Youth (Program 439 (1997) Standardize teen programs by establishing standards and providing guidelines 

Standardization) on effective teen programs and services. 

Youth (Leadership 502 (2002) I. Fund current Youth Services budget to provide Youth Leadership Forums 

Forums) and instructor/student training. 

2. Establish Youth Leadership Forums as a baseline program in Youth 

Services. 

Youth Education 453 (1999) Authorize and fund full-time School Liaison Officers (SLO) at every Army 

(School Liaison) installation. 

Youth Education 432 ( 1997) Implement full-day kindergarten in DOD schools. 

(Kindergarten) 

Youth Education 503 (2002) I. Provide a standardized PE program throughout DODEA schools that con-

(PE in DODDS) tains 5 periods of vigorous exercise per week. 

2. Fund program without impacting existing school budget. 

Youth Education 478 (2000) Provide space-available, tuition-free DODDS education to family members of 

(Access to DOD nonsponsored, full-time NAF employees and DOD contractors. 

DODDS) 
Progress Toward Resolution Remaining 

Requirements 

1. Gcogmphically isolated active duty soldiers pay substantially more for child care than Army Funding 

those who resiuc on or near a milil:lry installation. 

2. Actions include the following: 

- Locaung comparable quality communuy child care options; 

- POM 05 09 UFR to '"buy down·· cost of care to DOD rates ($31M yr): and 

- Markctmg materials geographically to inform soldiers of options. 

I. Purchase and installation of security system-. funded for 158 child and youth facility Army Funding 

sites three-year fielding schedule. 

2. Fund1ng atta111cd for recurring maintenance and replacement at COCs. 

3. OMA Tail for maintenance and replacement for school age/youth centers remains 

unfunded validated in FY04- 09 POM ($3.4M). 

I. Youth Services established benchmarks and standards to sustain quality programs. This Army Funding 

includes baseline programming. staO'trainmg. and leveraging personnel and financial 

resources. 

2. Key reqUirements addressed and validated in I'Y0+-09 POM remain unfunded youth 

sponsor.;h1p program. youth program sustamment, and youth parllclpallon mcrcasc 

from 20°o to 35°\l of the eligible youth population. 

I. Funding ($475K) to provide annual regional or alternative Army-wide Youth Leadership Army Funding 

forums will be submitted for fY05 09 POM. 

2. CFSC working with I MA regional CYS staff to develop procedural guidance to include 

installation forums as a component of CYS bnsclinc programming. 

3. Coordination under way to submit as an objccthe in Army Well-Being Plan. 

I. S6.8M funded in FY02-{)7 POM for 68 SLO~. Army Funding 

2. S4.9M funded in FY03 for 49 additional SLOs. (attained) 

I. Full-day kmdcrgarten has been Implemented Ill 126 schools (all OOI:.SS schools DOD Funding 

[COr\US] and 79 DODOS schools). 

2. full Implementation planned at remaining 17 schools by 2004-2005 school year, with 

the exception of 3 schools in Japan/Korea. 

I. Expanding PE to 5 days/week is unattainable by DODEA alone due to budget con- DOD Funding and 

straints. school day. and other DODEA priorities. Policy 

2. During summer 2003, selected PE teachers will he tmined in adapted PE to address the 

PE' needs of students with disabilitie~. 

3. DO DEA ''ill collect data on PE enrollment. Also examining increasing the liS gmduat ion requirement b} .5 credits (nutrition & physical acth ity). 

I. In 2002. depcndcntl' of local-lure. full-tunc overseas NAF employees were authori/ed Legislation 

space-available. tuition-free DODOS enrollment. 

2. Lcgislati\C inttiativcs seek authority to enroll children of full-time. locally hired APF 

and NAF employees in DODOS on a ~race-required, tuition-free basis and children of 

government contractors on a spacc-n:quirccltuition-paying basis. 
ARMY fAMILY ACTION PLAN ISSUES (CONT.) 

Issue Issue# Recommendation 

(Year) 

Youth Education 379 ( 1994) I. Pur•.ue full funding for Impact Aid. 

(Impact Aid) 2. Encourage orgamzations to support solving the problem of Impact At d. 

3. Require installation commanders to work with school systems to educate 

the community on Impact Aid. 
Progress Toward Resolution Remaining 

Requirements 

I. FY02 legislation increased fund ing 15%; FY03 funding increased 4%. Legislation 

2. Army works closely with private organizations that advocate for Impact Aid. 

3. Army ~;:!forts to inform families and commanders include AFTB modules. School 

Liaison OfTicer outreach, senior level officer/NCO leadership courses, and spouse seminars. 

APPENDIX 2 

Selected Research 

(As of 9 June 2003) 

SELECTED RESEARCH 

RAND ARROYO CENTER 

Families and Mission: A Review of the Effects of Family Factors on Army Attrition. 

Retention, and Readiness ( 1987) 

Surveys available literature on family-manpower relationships, identifies gaps in policy 

formulation, and suggests directions for future research. 

Families in the Army: Looking Ahead ( 1989) 

Documents trends, anticipates directions of future change, identifies issues and implications for force management and service delivery policies. 

Army Families and Soldier Readiness ( 1992) 

Focuses on extant family needs and how they are affected by family characteristics and 

Army policies. 

Army Morale. We?f'are, and Recreation Programs in the Future: Max imizing Soldier 

Benefits in Times of Austerity (1994) 

Examines ways in which MWR programs are fiscally managed and develops a decisionmaking model that can assess relative costs of various MWR provision options. 

ARMY RESEARCH INSTITUTE FOR THE BEHAVIORAL AND SOCIAL 

SCIENCES (ARI) 

How To Support Families During Overseas Deployments: A Sourcebook for Service 

Providers ( 1996). 

Focuses on what we have learned about how families cope with deployments and the 

Army support mechanism that they rely upon. 

What We Know About Army Families ( 1993) 

Focuses on key findings of the Army Family Research Program ( 1986- 1993), including 

family demographics, adaptation, ACS, role of families in soldier retention and readiness. 

Sample Survey ofMilitm:v Personnel (semiannual) 

Covers MWR, family, and single soldier issues; program use and satisfaction. 

WALTER REED ARMY INSTITUTE OF RESEARCH (WRAIR) 

The Reciprocal Nature of Work and Family: Spouse ~s· Perception of the Ar Fami~y 

lnte1jace and Its Impact on Soldier Retention ( J 989) 

Gulf War Research 

Focuses on deployed soldier MWR and waiting spouse stress, support programs, and 

coping. 

- 59-
CFSC/ ARJ/WRAIR 

Survey o.fArmy Families I (1987), 11 (1991), Ill (1995), lV (2001) 

Focuses on trends in stresses and satisfaction, emerging family issues, MWR programs, 

and deployment. 

CALIBER ASSOCIATES 

Assessment ofArmy Fami~y Action Plans 1- 4 ( 1987) 

Morale, Welfare & Recreation (MWR) Programs and Readiness Links ( 1996) 

Evaluation of the Army Family Team Building (AFTB) (2002) 

Additional studies, reports, and books are available via tbe DOD Military Family 

Resource Center: http://mfrc.calib.com/. 

- 60 -