I

-- DEFENSE ---

M. t'POWER DATA CENTER

DESCRIPTION OF

OFFICERS AND ENLISTED PERSONNEL

IN THE U.S. SELECTED RESERVE: 1986

A REPORT BASED ON

THE 19[Ui RESERVE COMPONENTS SURVEYS

DTIC ELECTE

JUL. 2 2 R98I

i -T

Copy

k-160O WILSON BOULEVARD ARLINGTON. VIrINIA 22209
S ECURI TY CLAiFICIN OF THIS PAGE hD /b~ 9 Y '2C

REPORT DOCUMENTATION PAGE

Ia. REPORT SECURITY CLASSIFICATION lb. RESTRICTIVE MARKINGS

Unclassified ________________________

2a. SECURITY CLASSIFICATION AUTHORITY 3. DISTRIBUTION/ AVAILABILITY OF REPORT

2b. DECLASSIFICATION/I DOWNGRADING SCHEDULE Unlinitedi

4. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION REPORT NUMBER(S) S. MONITORING ORGANIZATION REPORT NUMBER(S)

6a. NAME OF PERFORMING ORGANIZATION 6~b OFFICE SYMBOL 7a. NAME OF MONITORING ORGANIZATION

Research Triangle Institute Ifppibe) DoD/Defense Manpower Data Center

6c. ADDRESS (City, State, and ZIP Code) 7b. ADDRESS (City, State, and ZIP Code)

P.O. Box 12194 1600 Wilson Boulevard, Suite 400

Research Triangle Park, N. Carolina 27709 Arlington, Virginia 22209

8a. NAME OF FUNDING/ SPONSORING Sb. OFFICE iYM8%,L 9. PROCUREMENT iNSTRUAMENT IDENTIFICATION NUMBER

ORGANIZATION (if applicable)

OASD(RA) & OASD(FM&P) MDA-903-86-C-0289

Sc. ADDRESS (City, State, and ZIP Code) 10. SOURCE OF FUNDING NUMBERS

Pentagon PROGRAM IPROJECT ITASK IWORK UNIT

Washington, D.C. 20301 ELEMENT NO. INO. NO. 1ACCESSION NO.

11. TITLE (include Security Classification)

Description of Officers and Enlisted Personnel in the U.S. Selected Reserves: 1986

12. PERSONAL AUTHOR(S)

-McCalla. -Marx, E. . Rakoff, Stuart H. : Doering. Zahava D.:; Mahoney, Bette S.;- Doherty, Julia H.

aF.7rR,3hE&'O tlb. TIME COVERED 7.DATE OF RFPORT (Year, Month Day) 5. PAGE COUNT

Fia FRM4___ TO May 1987 250

16. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTATION

A Report Based on the 1986 R ve Components Surveys

17. COSATI CODES \~18. SUBJECT TERMS (Continue on reverse if necessary and identify by block number)

FIELD GROUP S-GROUP Manpower, military personnel, officer, enlisted, surE7-

Xp~e=e --p-"en4t, spouse, guard, reserve, couple, marital

Istatus, employment, personal characteristics, civilian wives.

19. ABSTRACT (ContiSue on reverse if necessary and identify by block number)

SEE REVERSE PAGE FOR ABSTRACT.

20. DISTRIBUTION /AVAILABILITY OF ABSTRACT 21. ABSTRACT SECURITY CLASSIFICATION

g] UNCLASSIFIED/UNLIMITED 0 SAME AS RPT. Q DTIC USERS UNCLASSIFIED

2a. NAME OF RESPONSIBLE INDIVIDUAL 22b. TELEPHONE (nclude Area Code) 22c. OFFICE SYMBOL

LvreC. Wright 1(202) 696-5833 1 DMDC

DOFORM 1473, 84MAR 83 APRedition may be used untl exh~austed. 5ECURITY CLASS ifA7!C N Or 7:1iS PAGE

All other editions are obsolete. UCASFE
IN S

UNCLASSIFIED

SECURITY CLASSIFICATION OF THIS PAGE

This volume presents an overview of military personnel in the National Guard

and Reserve components based on two portions of the 1986 Reserve Components Surveys

-- the 1988 Reserve Components Survey: Selected Reserve Officer and Enlisted

Personnel (1986 BC Member Survey) and the 1986 Reserve Components Survey: Full-Time

Support Officer and Enlisted Personnel (1986 RC AGR Survey). An overview of the

third portion of the 1986 Reserve Components Surveys -- the 1986 Reserve

Components Survey of Selected Reserve Spouses (1986 RC Spouse Survey) -- is

presented in a companion volume.

-The surveys were conducted for the Office of the Assistant Secretary of Defense

Reserve Affairs) "-f*f i-ihband the Office of the Assistant Secretary of Defense

Ce nagement and Personnel) -eAGB49M&PL1: by the Defense Manpower Data Center

(D MC Over 12,000 officers and about 52,000 enlisted personnel in all seven

reserve components, representing the approximately 1,012,000 trained personnel in

the Selected Reserve, responded to extensive questionnaires sent to them in the

srring of 198e. The questionnaire asked about military background, personal and

family Characteristics, civilian emtloymert and economic stat-. Dercept-:'

family and employer attitudes toward reserve participation, reasons for

-:T-iCipatc 1Z :r ;.ne reser- :mp:

These are the first comprehensive surveys of members of the Selected Reserve

and the first major survey of the spouses of reserve members. The pP4.man.4goals of

the surveys were to provide (1) detailed information on factors which influence the

recruitment and retention of reservists possessing thee qualities, experience and

skills needed in today's critically important National Guard and Reserve units and

(2) specific data to assist the Sixth Quadrennial Review of Military Compensation

directed by the President to examine the costs and benefits of the compensation of

reserve members.

The surveys contain for the first time detailed information on family income;

employer attitudes and military leave policies, and family support for reserve

training needed for the analysis of pay elasticities and of employer and family

support program needs. Also for the first time,.the surveys provided the detailed

information necessary to asess the relationship between the military skil! of

reeervists and their civilian occupations, including the extent to which the

similarity or dissimilarity f their civilian and military skills are

complementary. The surveys al include extensive information on Active Guard and

Rs... members and military technic "-- s-.---- K yThe inzroauctory chaprers ox L;_ * ;,r provide a briaf history of tzc

Selected Reserve (Chapter "' ::.- the metbodology and background for the study

(Chapter 2). The first data chapter (Chapter 3) presents data for all members of

the trained Selected Reserve, while the remaining data (Chapters 4-9) are

restricted only to part-time unit members.

UNCLASSIFIED

SECURITY CLASSIFICATION OF THIS PAGE
DESCRIPTION NDELSE ~ ~ ~ ERONLI ~ OFOFCR H ~ ~ ~ ) 

U..SLCE EEV:18

A eotBsdo h 96RsreCmoet uvy

SEETDSERE BetS e1986n

Sua H. Doffrt

Linda L. Powers OI

INSPECTED/

Contract Title:

1986 Reserve Components Surveys of Officer

and Enli sted Personnel and Military Spouses _______

ACc.I' frRTI Project Leader: N3~~

Barbara A. Moser O

Ct

?
This report has been prepared for the Office of the Assistant Secretary of

Defense (Reserve Affairs) and the Office of the Assistant Secretary of

Defense (Force Management and Personnel), under Contract Number MDA-903-

86-C-0289, expiring 30 November 1987. The Research Triangle Institute

(Post Office Box 12194, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina, 27709) has

been the contractor for this study with the assistance of Decision Science

Consortium, Inc. (1895 Preston White Drive, Suite 300, Reston, Virginia,

22091). The technical monitor for the study has been the Survey and

Market Analysis Division, Defense Manpower Data Center.

The views, opinions, and findings contained in this report are those of

the authors and should not be construed as an official Department of

Defense position, policy, or decision, unless so designated by other official documentation.

Additional copies of this report may be obtained from

Defense Manpower Data Center

Survey and Market Analysis Division

1600 Wilson Boulevard, Suite 400

Arlington, VA 22209

Reports produced as part of this project include:

Description of Officers and Enlisted Personnel M

in the U.S. Selected Reserve: 1986

A Report Based on the 1986 Reserve Components Surveys

Description of Officers and Enlisted Personnel

in the U.S. Selected Reserve: 1986

Supplementary Tabulations from the

1986 Reserve Components Surveys

Description of Spouses of Officers and Enlisted Personnel

in the U.S. Selected Reserve: 1986

A Report Based on the 1986 Reserve Components Surveys

Description of Spouses of Officers and Enlisted Personnel

in the U.S. Selected Reserve: 1986 - I

Supplementary Tabulations from the

1986 Reserve Components Surveys

-I
2(1~ :antl. in, , oI n 

I' L. el ho m**V4i - n -U7, 

'lcy 1. in t;he All Voluntfeer Fo: . :, =.d ~itiu ~ JT' 9~

* u~dre I l'co hIv ben plmtcc, 00 c en (: VOXnYt3 I u il tr

:muA c",3ftl ~ ~ nagmiclin- of J, policy foril "I I;j for t111I

.11 forcaiitj on'l requireo thnat Lxydr nrkd tho nctivc tniitrv rre

x~:c~iLnhvo r'-lint-lo, valid, rind t-il !Jiy dna bancoi to oiuprt po)irc'/

yt':y[j, aval.ueiion, and resear-i. on cdcf'enon mpower iooucu. Thia

:rLatid other mmnlysee that will be. co'n ucted uaing data f rcn the IT!)

raCcqVX:lI S rvtI contribute to an ongoing asseectnent of tho

rt TTa- -I 6i FT'D a-r-Personnel to pact zn'i current policy changeo and

he identifi(7&tion of future aroao for 1, -licy action.

Thin volim-A precents an overvie-w of iitlitftry personnel I. the

~W~ ioalGuard and fliorve calxonente bnfsed on t'w, portIoorai of the 1985

!" .orvo Ccroit Survyy -- the 1986 Rnrve 0corneltn f33rveyj

CL. e.ted lResierve o??Eer and EnlistEid J;'RstnlT (1986 WC Mxonber Survoy,

ar emci the 1986 Reserve Carponents Survy:x lFull-TbmSppr Officer an~d

C.31.iinted Perfsonnel ( 1986 RC AGR Stirvey) . An overview ot tetir

LU :otriion - of the 1986 Reserve Cwponentci strv !ysr the 1.906 Resierve

LU Cp~oneitSSurvey of Selected Res8erve :L~ ;(1.986 PCG Spouce Su--

LA 100 ia rpT-eeie Illn acmpaion voury

Thc- rur-ve.yr were conducted for thf- oftic# of the Aqfintzrnt Secretary mc :xefcanue (Rzegerve Affairs) (OA$D(PA)] arkd thn Offic,, of thc krn,3iotnt

., Yrer~ary of Defense (Force WiAwgmw~nt an(I Personnel) (QIASD(FT4&P) 3 by tte

:>,.,Jenaa M~anpow~er DatAf Center (MtMC). Over 12,000 officers and about

-12 ,000 enlistod personnel in all seven resierve CeWxonents, representing

u-he aproxim.tely 1,012,000 trained perfj.oanel in thc 13elect--od Retoe ze,

~~ to extenaive quectionnairs ea trt to them in rh3 ,:;pring of I9PtI.

> uestionnaires asked about nilitm5y Nxckground, 1personal and famil.y

niv~-cterjiztcs, civilian enploymnt and econcatic Btatua, per:eptionfi of

~iiyarid arq:4loyer attitudes toward reserve part icipat ion, re~oamn for

iRcJ~on, and plans for rewiining in the reserve nt.

itceare the, fizr;t ccrprohcnaiv ;urvcys of ib-ri- ol el:t

and] the first mjaor survey of the spousea of referve .ito

'~hepri~r "16l of the surveys were to provide (1) dct8.ildInfo Vxc

,1:; f,,ctoro which influence the recruitment :and retention ofrc ivt

~ ~ir~qthe qlnlities, experience anid okilli' nooded in lc"ktly'ti

< tzaly in-,ortant National Guard =n1 PR'rsrvc unito (n 2) firvci.ic 4-) (19 i t), x+-th Qu cnnk Rov>-.% of milit-Ary (&2~~,!1

J-o*d by thw r ,cfjidorlf to e;imjpo hll A l"jjj

;oil Y'
Vie piavoya contain for the first thyii dotmiiod information en family Luccm, enployor attitudes and m~litry leave policies, and frinily support for reserve training needed for the analyeis of pay elasticities and

of employer and family Bupport program neods. Also for tw, first time,

the surveys prmided the detailed information necessary to -5ses the

relationship betv3n the military skill of reservists and their civilian

occupatior-, including the extent to which the similarity or dissimilarity of their civilian and military skills are caplemntary. The surveys also include extensive information on ictive Guard and Reserve members

and military technicians.

'Tho introductory chapters of thin report provide a brief history of

reserve forces and manpower (Chapter 1) and tho methodology and background for the study (Chapter 2). The first data chapter (Chapter 3)

presents data for all trained ntbers of the Selected Reserve. Chapters 4-9 are restricted only to part-time unit members. The major findings

are summarized below:

Militmry Backqround of Guard and Reserve Trained Personnel (Chapter 3)

Most trained member of the Selected Reserve were part-time

membera - 89 percent of enlisted personnel and 88 percent of

officers. There were substantial differences among the components, however, in the structure of the Selected Reserve.

Part-time nmmero were 100 percet of Coast Guard Reserve

enlisted mnmbers but only 74 percent of the Air National

Gurd. For officers, the range was frm 100 percent of the

toast Guard Raerve to 78 percent of the Army National

ard.

Individual Mobiliation Augmentees (IMAs) to active form

units and headqiarters are not used in the National Guard

in which all members oust be affiliated with a reserve unit

billet. Most IMAs are officers. The greatest use of IMsA

was in the Air Force Reserve, where 46 percent of all

selected Reserve officers were IMAs.

Military technicians are employed only in the reserve components of the Army and the Air Force. They made up 20

percent of the enlisted force and 14 percent of the officer

force of the Air National Guard.

Active Guard and Reaerve mmbers (AGR) are cnployed in all

components except the Coast Guard Reserve. ANis made up 15

percent of the Naval Reserve enlisted force and 8 percent of Naval Reserve officers.

iv
p-iteiitago of nmubera wht !i-lvn~ or, artivo dity. 11~'~2

1bwost hn.lf of pntrt-timy onntt'y pormanrve. in tjnit-n- awlrdx

prent of part-t-iim office-m in ii~nift. had aorvxtr in nn trc;1vo

c:oxnrit-. before Joining tho Quir-I or Piwservo.

'171(") prcentage of pj-'t;--t~iib. elindrImrbor:; wi th rI)or

active xrnmpxnent service vias only 22 p .imant in thu orin

eoDrp3 Reserve an-d 38 percent in the Army National G(T-rd.

It was 71 percont for the, Naval, Reserve and 64 percent flor

the Air Force Reserve.

F-or officers, the Army Natiorb-il Wuard wan !Jve only

caconent in which leq*i thlan half of part-tbrt- unit rt-rirlx3

had two or more years of active cauponent experierce. in

theo Marine Corps Reserve, 93 percent had served two -years

or more in an acti, ccuuponnnt...

imms, techn-icians, and AGRs vxmn inoro likely toi have haa

active-crq~onent experience, with AGns, on average, having~

the most active-camponent experience.

selected Reservists tend to have confAderable experience in the,

reserves in addition to any nctive ccu'nponnt experience.

-- Reserve experiew-e for part-tin, enlisted rcivbr, in units

ranged fran an average of 4.2 ynars for the Mari-nn Corps

Reserve to 8.6 years for the Coast Guard R1eqerve. Enlis;ted C.) technicians averaged oxver 1W years of resarve service in

LUall toir of tjk- canpornts Lhat enploy than.

-- For of ficers, years of resterve experience for pairt-trin

unit ITwbors ranged franm a low of S.6 years in the Air

F-orce Reserve to 13.5 yaro in the Coast Guard Reserve.

arce again, military tochnicimvi, with an averagje of over

11 yeairs in all canponents, had the highest average. years

of reserve experience.

pay grade patterns differed by rxenerve component and ckelect MReserve status. For exwnple:

-- Overall,, 20 perco~t of part-iru onlisted pornonno1 in

units were in the three I cawost pay qradcs, 70 percent 1-1

in E4-ES, and 10 percent uk ro in E7-S9.

-- In the Marine Corps Roererve, :xowever, 52 peruent. %kir in

tho lowest pay gradoi , whilIe, only 6 percent %m'- M. i n thehighest

- 1\Unty-two percent of pnrt.-In-v otficar-; in lini tl wx'rl in,

the, two lcwent pay grades, 5i2 peio3 in the, middi"

pay grades, andi 17 porx-ent %4'rn ry'nior 0ff14-411o~tilti
O~f pali-t-.ttn offlvxerij ;I Ilio Army NatPon6I O~tj ird i; the two lowest pk'y cjrivkd. only nix to ixscven Ix.rL-fnt -,A

Navail leerve nd Mar ne CorL>J Reserve officers wre in " ;

tw lowest pay griies.

The distribution of miliAry cxnpatior13 in the reserve owpononts again points up the extent to which the components

differ from one another.

Enlisted part-tim unit imrbers were assigned in nost occpational areas and reflected the prhiary missions of their

carponents. For example, 34 percent of those in the Army National Guard and 29 percent in the Mnrine Corps Reserve

had ccmbat arms occupations. Enlisted technicians were

concentrated in equipment maintenance and repair occupations, while the highest percentage of As were primarily

in functional support and administration.

The military occupations of part-time officers in units

also reflected corponent missions. The highest percentages

were in tactical. operations, with over half of Army

National Guard and Marine corps Reserve officers in this

occupational area. Officer technicians and AGs were

employed in a greater range of occupations than their

enlisted counterparts.

Personal and Family Characteristics of Guard/Reserve Mmbers

(Chapter 4)

The median age of enlisted personnel varied greatly by camponent. The Marine Corps Reserve was the youngest (23.1 yearn).

The Army National Guard and Army Reserve were next youngst

(28.3 and 28.5 years, respectively). The Coast Guard Reserve, I-E with a median age of 35.9 years, was the oldest.

X * The inedian age for officers varied less dramatically. The

-j Marine Corps Reserve (35.4 years) was the youngest. The Air

National Guard and coast Guard Reserve (40.4 and 40.5 years,

respectively) were the oldest.

Ninety percent of enlisted personnel and over 88 percent of

officers were men. The Air Force &nd Army Reserves had the

largest percentages of wown; the Marine Corps Reserve had the

smallest.

Nearly three-tenths of all cnlisted personnel and one-tenth of

all officers were members of racial/ethnic minority groups. A

higher percentage 3f enlisted women (41 percent) than men (27

percent) were members of racial or ethnic minority groups.

Among officer.,, 21 percent of the wcmn and 9 percent of the men

were minority grotip ,mebern.

vi
Over 90 percent of enlisted perconnel had at least a high schoci

education. Amorg all officers, 96 percent had ccapleted at

least one year cl collaw.

About 25 percent of both enlisted pereonnl and officers wero

continuing thair education at the time of the ourvey.

Officers wern more likely to be married and have dependents than

enlisted personnel. Approxiately 44 percent of the enlisted

personnel and over 64 pervent of officers had a spouse and

dependents.

Participation in and Pers2tive on Military Activities (Chapter 5)

The average nunber of years i n the current unit varied from a

low of 3.2 years for Naval Reserve officers and Marine Corps

Reserve enlisted members to a high of 7.9 years for Air National

Guard officers.

Eighty-six percent of enllsted personnel and over 95 percent of

officers reported they participated in annual training in 1985.

Most part-time reservists attended annual training in a sing] P

time segment, i.e., "all at once" -- 74 percent of enlisted

personnel and 69 percent of officers. In th. Air National

Guard, hwever, only 30 percent of the officers reported completing their annual training in a single segment.

In general, both enlisted personnel and officers reported that

factors affecting unit training quality did not present serious

problems. A substantial numfber of remvists indicated, however, that problem involving equipnt and facilitios and

AOuate time to plan and acconplish a&dinistrative work were

There was considerable variation by ccmponent in the

satisfaction of mwbers with specific aspects of unit trining activities.

Naval Reserve enlisted mmnbers were least satisfied with

training received during unit drills -- Marine Corps

Reserve and Air National Guard officers were most

satisfied.

Thirty-nine percent of enlisted Naval Resevists Ware very dissatisfied with m1-litary skill training received during

unit drills. The percentages dissatisfied in the other

conents were conoidsraly lower. Air National Guard

officers were the most satiefled.

v| 1
Tirty-one pf:-rcfrit oft.!riliotaed Naval RIA.~LrJiatt3 Ytcy-I

ecluiprent and weapons uooxi during -unit drillo s r-adenq

out-of-date. At the other extreno, only 0; rrrmnt ofA:

Na~tionaml Guard enlitt~d mwibers Baid rwquiplmen-v and weapons

wo.-e ..;.,.-date, and .151 percent said they w up-to-date.

Thase two ccm~pienta also represented the wt~iao~ with

respect to the rchanical ccndit~ on of their equipy.,nt ard

wpons. Toanty-tiva percent; of Naval Reservists rated i.t

as poor, while the awe~ percentage reported it as

excellent. In the Air National Guard, only 6 percent said

the trachardcal condition of ecruipront and wesapons was poor,

and 56 percent said it wan excellant.

-- Satisfaction with unit activities during annual training

was relatively Esirrilar azmng the ccarponernts and was

generally nmch higher than satisfaction with unit

activities during drill..

Civilian Ehlyn n ecie 9e tiue (Chtpter 6)

seventy-three perccnt of the enlisted personnel and 80 percent

of officers held full-tirw jobs. An additional 10 percent and 6

percent, respectively, were self -aeloyed. Twenty-seven percent

of the enlisted peruonnel awli 33 percent of the officers wure

.mployed in the public sector.

* off icers were zmre likely to hold managerial, technical, and

professional Jobs (60 percent) than were enliated perxn=.nl (16

percent).

-- There was Lignificant variation by cwrronent in the

percentage of xrenbers in cetAin occupational groupo For

exanple, 22 peicent of coast Guard enlisted memibers wo~ked

in protective services in their civilian life. Not

surprisingly, notable proportions of Air National Ok'tt and

Air Force Reserve officers were ccunrercial pilollfi (7 and 13

percent, respectively).

* officers were nearly twice as likely to report that they

received their fUll civilian pay as well as their military pay

during training (46 percent vs. 25 percent).

* Mernbers reported that absence frcii wrk for annual training,

followed closely by wxtxa tine spent on reserve activities,

caused the imost serious problens with arjployorts. This wag lefn

of a probleit for- Federal or state workerg.

*Fifty-sight r~rent of both enlisted personnel and officers aa~id

that their civilian supervinor'n Atvttude toazrd Cuird/rcrservr.

rx11ticiritlon was very or mxiv.,whit. favoraible.. Fiftoon Ixvi-c:

of bo~th qtoipo repntd utfnvor'010)ntj~lr

Vill
.Y.-m-,iv.'tJ.on of the extent u:) " ich ieral milit-Aryc' z~'

were nimilar t) their civilltm patiofl found that :z

no civllian equivalent for about 2. percent of the i5,'

pociIties held by reservn onlicted mwberc and 24 pe, ', r f

officer&. As expected, health professionals, judges, lawy 7

znd clergy wero typically ,.'orking in related civilian jocm.

,' Family and C(m.1ly4ity Life (ChanL(,r 7)

/Mnost half of spouses of enlit3tod pezronnel (48 parcsnt) and

officers (44 pervent) were eaploy(A full-time in the civilinn

sector. An additional 16 percent of spouses of enlisted personne l

a 20 percent of officers' spouses were erployed xt-rt-lre.

The spou0ea of enlisted paroonel who had dependents were lees

likely to have full-time civilian jobs than apcuses of those

without dependents (45 percent and 58 percent, respetively). The

s&me pattern was seen for officero (41 percent of spouses of thosi- "

with dependents and 61 percent .+f* spouses of those without

dependents),

'- officers tended to rate Guard/Reserve activities as ixre of a

C problm than did enlisted peroonnel. Married rese-.iats regarded

CJ. annual training as the greatest problem for their families.

L"-a One-quarter of enlisted pLraonnal replied that this was scewhat

p cf a problem or a serious problcmn. one-third of officers said

this was a problem.

Axpproxbrately 75 percent of both enlisted personnel and officers

bvi,.ated that theiz- spcuseo were favorable taward their

Guard/P.aserve participation This favorable attitude toward

participation increased as pay grade rose.

substantial majorities of enlisted person-nel and officers felt

that they spent the right amunt of tilm on both their civilian

jobs and on Guarx/Reserve activities. Over 76 pervezit of the

enlisted personnel and 69 percent of the officers felt this way

about their civilian jobs as did 81 porcent ard 69 percent,

respectively, about their Guard/Reserve tine.

Both enlisted personnel ;nd offi.cers felt that they did not

spend enough time on family activities (59 and 70 percent),

leisure activities (59 and 73 rxrcent), or ccmminity activitio

(47 and 53 percent).

i, ivn for Participation and Plano to colj Chaptcer 8)

R* Pcvirit,; s citet oth int-anm.i ,, :o and 1- flinti-w c,?j.<l~k+r, t o r, irom in rn.;,,ni; '-ir ,tay,' inf'.
4-

Serving their country was a m&jor contributor to th'

retention decision for 55 percent of the enlisted person-,1

and 59 percent of the officers.

Earning credit towards retirement was a major contributor

for 50 percent of the enlisted personnel and 62 percent of

the officers.

Prior service mebers were more likely to identify

retirement as a factor than were non-prior service mwbers.

Educational benefits were mentioned almost three times as

frequently by enlisted members as by officers as making a

major contribution to their decision to stay.

Enlisted personnel ganerally expressed vore dissatisfaction than

officers on retention-related questions. For exsmple, 37

percent of enlisted personnel were dissatisfied with their

opportunities for promotion ccq=prd to 15 percent of the

officers.

A significant majority of Selected Reserve enlisted personnel *

(80 percent) and officers (87 percent) intended to remain in

their current status for the upcoming year.

Thirty-seven percent of all enlisted personnel exprweed a high

probability of reenlistimt in the reserves. The pr-ailt Of

renaistirmt was twice as high aog upper gr Ae (E5-E9) a

among lower grades (El-E4). The average probability of

reenlistment for all enlisted personnel was 6.1 on a scale of 0

to 10.

" Seventy percent of officers indicated a high intention to

continue reserve obligation at the end of their current term,

and only 6 percent indicated a low intention.

" Four percent of enlisted members indicated that they had

cotpleted 20 or imore qualifying years for retiremv:a, d

another 51 percent indicated their intention to (itay until

qualifiled for retireent.

* Eleven percent of the officers indicated that they had already

qualified for retirment. Another 54 percent expected to stay

until retiremont.

x-
teve! '-l Ai3sessment of Guard/Reserve Service (Chapter 9)

Enlisted personnel perceived mrale in their units to be lor-r

than did officers. Based on a seven-point scale, the weighted

average was 4.8 for enlisted personnel and 5.3 for officers.

Aong bo# i enlisted personnel and officers, those in higher pay

grades, prceived morale to be higher.

Both enlisted personnel and officers were satisfied with

selected features of the Guard/Reserve.

Over 84 percent of enlisted personnel and 91 percent of the

officers were satisfied with the acquaintances/friendshipe

they developed in the reserves.

Eighty-one percent of the enlisted personnel and 89 percent

of the officers were satisfied with the opportunity to

serve their country.

Appradmtely 60 percent of enlisted personnel and officers

expressed satisfaction with the tine they spent on

Guard/Reserve activities.

-- About 40 percent of all reservists were satisfied with unit

social activities and education/training opportunities.

Part-time officers were nor satisfied with their overall

Guard/Reserve participation than enlisted personnel. over 59

percent of officers and 51 percent of enlisted personnel were

satisfied. Based on a -point scale, the weighted average for overalL satistacton was 5.4 for officers and 5.1 for the

enlisted personnel. Overall satisfaction increased with pay

grade.

'BE'N

C

I ) O l ~ y

.4

.. 4
PREFACE

This report provides an overview of selected data frm the 1986

Reserve Components Surveys prepared by the Research Triangle Institute

(RTI) under Contract MDA-903-86-C-0289 sponsored by the Office of the

Assistant Secretary of Defense (Reserve Affairs) [OASD(RA)] and the

Office of the Assistant Secretary of Defense (Force Management and Personnel) [OASD(FM&P)] with the collaboration of Decision Science Consortium, Inc. and the Defense Manpower Data Center (EDDC).

The 1986 Reserve Components Surveys (1986 RC Surveys) consist of

three portions, two of reserve component members and the third of their

spouses. The 1986 Reserve Ccmponents Survey: Selected Reserve Officer

and Enlisted Personnel (1986 RC Member Survey) surveyed a sample of

Selected Reserve unit members, Individual Mobilization Augmentees (IMAs),

and military technicians, i.e. Selected Reservists who are -- employed

full-time in reserve units in a civilian capacity. The 1986 Reserve

Carponents Survey: Full-Time Support Officer and Enlisted Personnel (1986

RC AGR Survey) surveyed a sample of Active Guard/Reserve or Training and

Administration of Reserve (AGR/TARs) members. The 1986 Reserve Crnponents Survey of Spouses of Selected Reserve Personnel (1986 RC Spouse

Survey) was a census of the spouses of all individuals sampled for participation in the 1986 RC Member Survey and the 1986 RC Spouse Survey.

This volume and a companion report, Description of Spouses of

Officers and Enlisted Personnel in the U-S. Selected Reserve: 1986, are

the two overview reports that initially pr z-nt the data collected in the

1986 RC Surveys. The overview presented here ,xs as its major focus

Selected Reserve un-t members in all seven reserve components (Army National National Guard, Guard, Army Air Reserve, Naval Reserve, Marine Corps Reserve, Air Force Reserve and Coast Guard Reserve) surveyed in

the 1986 RC Member Survey. The other categories of reservists surveyed

are discussed in a very limited fashion.

The activities connected with the design and conduct of the 1986 RC

Surveys, as well as the preparation of this report and the associated

volumes of Supplementary Tabulations and User Manual and Codebook,

required the effort of a number of people whose contributions the authors

would like to acknowledge. First, Lieutenant General Emmett H. Walker,

Jr., USA, Chief, National Guard Bureau; Major General (now Lieutenant

General) Herbert R. Temple, Jr., ARNUJS, Director Army National Guard;

Major General John B. Conaway, ANUS, Director Air National Guard; Major

General William R. Berkman, USA, Chief, Army Reserve; Vice Admiral Cecil

J. Kempf, USN, Chief, Naval Reserve and Commander, Naval Reserve Force;

Major General (now Lieutenant General) L. H. Buehl, USMC, Deputy Chief of

Staff for Reserve Affairs, HQ USMC; Major General Sloan R. Gill, USAF,

Chief of Air Force Reserve; and Rear Admiral A. D. Breed, Chief, Office

of Readiness and Reserve, United States Coast Guard, provided the strong

backing and support without which these surveys could never have been

conducted. Their understanding of the immediate and lasting value of the

project to evaluate the effectiveness of current policies and programs

xiii
and to plan new ones was evident in the thought and hard wrk contributed

by their staffs and by National Guard and Reserve ccmuaders and

administrative personnel everywhere.

Within the Office of the Secretary of Defense, COL Francis Rush, Jr.,

USAF, deserves special recognition. Both in his forrmer capacity as Principal Director, Office of the Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense

(Guard/Reserve Manpower and Personnel) (ODASD(G/R M&P) ] and in his current capacity, Staff Director, Sixth Quadrennial Review of Military Ccmpensation (MC), COL Rush provided guidance, direction and wise counsel

during every phase of survey design, data collection, analyses and

writing.

Major General Stuart H. Shenan, USAF, Retired, while serving as

Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense (G/R M&P) initiated the 1986 RC

Surveys, participated in the design, and facilitated the data collection.

CR enA Hartshorn, CI0ASD(G/R M&P), was DMDC's principal point-of-contact throughout the data collection. COL David T. Fee, Principal Director,

OSD(G/R M&P) and Gary Carlson, Executive Director, National Ctunittee

for Employer Support of the Guard and Reserve (NOESGR), and Robert A.

Nemetz, OASD(FM&P) have strongly supported the effort and provided

assistance at critical junctures.

Special appreciation is due Dr. David W. Grissmner, the Rand Corporation, and Barbara Moser, the Research Triangle Institute. Dr. Grissar

shared his expertise and knowledge of the reserve forces with us during

both design and analysis phases of the study. Major portions of the

present effort build directly on his previous research. Barbara Moser

served as Project Director and provided overall direction for this large,

omplex project.

Staff naibers at each of the participating organizations -- the 0

Research Triangle Institute, Decision Science Consortium, Inc. and the

Defense manper Data Center -- provided technical and substantive support throughout. While too numerous to mention here, they are individually acknowledged in several other publications based on these surveys.

In addition to the staff at the participating organizations, personnel A

from the Rand Corporation and Corputer Based Systems, Inc. also provided technical support. The authors recognize that without the dedication of

these individuals, and the range of talents utilized in these studies, the data reported here could not have been collected, prepared for

analysis and analyzed.

Finally, and most inportantly, the survey data described here wuld

not have been possible without the participation of nen and womn in the

reserve cam)onents who took the time to collect the data and complete

questionnaires. Over 12,000 officers and about 52,000 enlisted personnel

in all seven reserve ccmponents and over 33,000 spouses responded to

questionnaires, and many more were involved in the admnistrative aspects

of the surveys. Their contribution and cooperation is appreciated. Many - hundreds of these menbers and spouses also took the time to provide additional ccmuents which helped to set the quantitative data within the life

xiv S
and perspective of the ird and RWsrvWW re and spousae. In adition,, 3 these ccirnents served to identify concerns and issues that wre not

specifically resed in the survey aeio are Th1ese reports tell

their story. The authors hope they have told it fairly and accurately for the benefit of policymalaers and the public at large.

I

Iv/ Y
TABIE OF CCUITh1S

Excuiv sONar ................................... ......... 1-1

Pref ace ............... ............................................ I-I 1. INTRODUCION AND BCN . .. ................... 1-1

A .Inroucio ......................................... 1-1

2. 1. Adie er pt iv for ine ......................................... the Report ............................ 1-1 1-2 U B. Bsckground: The Reserve Forces in Historical

Perspective. .. . .. . ....... ..... . ...... 1-3

1. Constiturtional Origins. . . . ......... . .. . . .. . 1-3

2. Reserve Forces Following World War II and

Korea ............................................. 1-4 .

3. Uniform Militry Training and Service At .......... 1-6

4. The Armed Forces Reserve Act of 1952 .............. 1-6

5. Reserve Officer Personnel Act ................. 1-7

6. Reserve Forces Act of 1955. ................... .1-8

7o Reserve Forces Bill of Rights and Vitalization Ac-t, 1967 ......................................... i-9 q

C. Total Force Policy and the All-Volunteer Force...... 1-10 lo The Policy............................ 1-10 2* The All-Volunteer Fre1-10

3o Current Status..................................o. 1-11

D. Orznization of the Report and Analytic Aroach ....... 1-12

10 Orga IaIoandChapterContents.... .......... 1-12

2. Analytic Approach... .... . . .. .. .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1-13

2. AN IN1-XTI(ON TO THE 1986 RESERVE CODhIS SURVEY o..... 2-1

A. Survey Research in the Department of Defense........... 2-1

B. Bwsckround of the 1986 Reserve Ccuponents Surveys...... 2-2 0

2. Previous Reserve Studies ........................ 2-4

3. Brief Description of the 1986 Reserve C..re ouain iiS e. ... .. *. .. ... .... ....... 2-

c. suvyPpltosadsamples ................. o ses ..-2-6

1. Military Personnel............. . . . .... 2-6

2. Spouses ....................................... 2-9

D. 3. Couples ...... ................................... 2-9

D. Survey kktinistration and Response Rates.............. 2-10

1. Administration...... ....... ........ 2-10

2. Response Rates ................................ 2-13

3. Weighting the Dat............... 2-27

E. The Survey Questionnaires ........................... 2-30

1. QuestionnaireDevelopent........................2-30

2. Quest ionnai re Contents - o o - o ...... o- . ... 2-32

r

xvii

' I , ,r'W' ,w' ,P,' K ~ , '', '' ,-. w__
4

Table of Contents (continued)

PE S U ................................................... 3-1 ,

B. Experience of the Reserve Force.................. 3-6

1. Active Force length of Service ............. ::::: .... 3-6

2. Guard/Rserv Lengh of Srvice. ................... 3-9

3. Source of Comaission ........ o...................... 3-16

4o Pay Grade Distribution ............................ 3-19

C. Military Occupation .......... o....o.............. ....... 3-25

1. Enlisted Part-Time Reservists .... ...... oo.......... 3-25

2. Enlisted military Technicians. ......... ...... .. 3-27 3. Enlisted ... .... .... ............... ..... .. 3-29

4. Enlisted R Mmers .......... .................. 3-31

5. Officer Part-Time Reservists ....... ... ......... o 3-31

6. Officer Military Technicians ......... .......... - 3-34

7 officer oAs . io......o. ....................... 3-36

8. A r Officers ........... . ................. 3-40

D. Summary ............ o.............. ................ 3-41

4. PERS AM FAMILY RE STICS OF G3ARD/RESERVE

ME Re ooooo oe oooo%, ooeo oo o oo*oeooeeeooee • • o e

B. Personal OTse Characteristics of rs . ................ o.. 4-1

1. Off Composition ............ .. ......... 4-1

2. Gender Coposition .......... ................ ..... 4-36 3. Ethnic/Racial Composition ........................ 4-7

C. Member's Eduational Exprience .... o.................. 4-9

D. Marital Status and Household Compositiono .............:: 4-13.

E. F. Militay Summary ................. Experience in Member's ....................... childhood Family ...... o. 4-17 4-22

5. PATIL N ANLO MILITARY A..... 5-1

A. Introduction h.. ...... erstc of .. ..... . ......... .. . 5-1

.Ti e nCureosUit........o.. ............. o....... 4-1

C. Training for Primary Military u patio. .............. o 5-5

D. GuPadtaeseavesarticipation in 1985 .................- 5-11

F. Perceived Unit Traiinng Probles ...... o .............. 5-15

1. Equipment and Facilities ......................... 5-16

2. Tim Problems ................................. 5-20

G. satisfaction with Unit Activities ..................... 5-21

E . Satisfaction with Training Received During Unit5

Drills .................................. ......... 5-21

2. Satisfaction with the Opportunity to Use Military

Skills in Drills.................................. 5-22

--- - -7 - , rn , v- , - ~ V. WU V W '
Table of Contents (continued)

3. Satisfaction with Equipment/Weapons Used During Unit Drills ....................................... 5-23

4. Satisfaction with Mctanical Condition of

Wsapons/Euipment ................................. 5-25

5. Satisfaction Tr with Unit Activities at Annual i i g.......................................... 5-25

H. summar ................................................ 5-27

6. c*ni CIVLIN 4 wrOME AND PERCIvED EbPalYE ATIr1US ....... 6-1

A. Introduction ........................................... 6-1

B. Employment Status and Civilian Employment in 1985 .... 6-1

C. Time Off and Pay for Guard/Reserve Duty in 1985 ........ 6-8

D. Employer Problems from Member's Participation ........... 6-13 0

E. Supervisor's Attitude to Member's Guard/Reserve Duty .... 6-18

F. Similarity of Military and Civilian Occupations ........ 6-21

G. Summary ............................................ .... 6-30

7. MEMBERS' FAMILY AND COMMUNITY LIFE ........................ 7-1

A. Introduction ................ ........ ................ 7-1

B. Spouse Employment and Military Experience .............. 7-1

1. Spouse Employment................................. 7-1

2. Spouse Military Experience ........................ 7-3

C. Family Problem from and Spouse Satisfaction with

Member Participation ................................... 7-6

1. Family Problems from Mmber's Guard/Reserve Participation ..................................... 7-6

2. Spouse Satisfaction with Meber Participation ..... 7-12

D. Menber's Feelings About Time Spent on Military and

Civilian .................................... Acivities 7-14

E. Summary .............................................. . 7-21

8. EASB N RR PARTss cPATIN A D PLANS CNTINE .............. 8-1

A. Introduction ........................................... 8-1

B. Reasons stayed in the Reserves ........................ 8-1

C. Leols of Satisfaction ................................. 8-7 D. Plans for Next Year .................................... 8-9

E. Intention to Stay and Long-Term Military Plans ......... 8-14

F. Summary ................................................ 8-18

xix
Table of Contents (continued)

9. OVEALL ASSESSHES OF GMR/RESERVE SERVIE . .. .. ........ 9-1

B. 1Irceived Nbrale of Ulnit. .. ... . ... ....... . . .... 9-.'L.

c. sat'sfa&tion with Features of the GurdReer....... 9-6

D. Overall Satisfaction With Guard/Reserve Participation ... 9-14

E. Sumr............................................... 9-17

xxS
LIST CF FIGURES

3.*1 Ocaiposition of selected Reserve . .. . .... . .. .. . ... . ....... 3-2

3.2 Gurd/Reserve Length of service: Enlisted Personel ........... 3-10

3.*3 uar/Raservie Imngth of Service: officers........ .. ....... 3-14

7.*1 Family Probleim from )Mrtber' s Guard/Reserve Participation

byj Househlid Ccmpositicn ........................ ..... 7-8

7.*2 Spouse's Attitude [award Nb.iter' s Participation by Pay

Grde.................. o..........o......... o.....7-15

7.3 Use of Time on Selected Activities: Enlisted Personnel-......7-16

7.4 UseOf TimOn Selected Activities: Officers ............ .... 7-17

9 .1 overall Satisfaction with Military.... .. ............... 9-20

xxi
4

LIST OF T BLES x

Table Pai

2.1 1986 Reserve Ccmponents Surveys Sampling Ratios for

Military Mmders .............................................. 2-7

2.2 Basic Sanple of Military Mebfters Selected for the 1986

Reserve CCqponents Survey ........................................ 2-8

2.3 1979 Reserve Forces Follow-up Survey Sanple ................... 2-9

2.4 Merer 1986 Reserve , by Stratum. Carponents ......... Surveys *................................. Response Rates for Military 2-15

2.5 1986 Reserve Ccaponents Surveys Response Rates for Military

Merekrs, by Reserve Cimponents.................. ........ . 2-19

2.6 1986 Reserve catponents Spouse Survey Response Rates, by

Stratum ................................................. 2-22

2.7 1986 Reserve Cctponents Spouse Survey Response Rates, by

Reserve C rxponent ............................................. 2-26

2.8 Relationship of Usable Questionnaires to Selected Reserve

Population as of 30 June 1986 ................................. 2-28

3.1 Size of Trained Force and Percentage by Reserve Category:

Enlisted Personnel ............................................ 3-4

3.2 Size of Trained Force and Percentage by Reserve Category:

Officers ...................................................... 3-5

3.3 Reserve Force with Prior Active Service: Enlisted Personnel

with Two or More Years of Prior Service ....................... 3-7

3.4 Average Years of Active Service: Enlisted Personnel with

Two or More Years of Prior Service ............................ 3-7

3.5 Reserve Force with Prior Active Service: Officers with Two

or More Years of Prior Service ................................ 3-8

3.6 Average Years of Active Service: Officers with Two or

More Years of Prior Service ................................... 3-9

3.7 Average Years of Reserve Service: Enlisted Personnel ......... 3-12

3.8 Average years of Reserve Service: officers .................. 3-13

3.9 Source of Ccmmission for Part-Tine Officers ................... 3-17

3.10 Source of Camission for Officer Military Technicians ......... 3-18

xxii

-,
List of Tables (continued) 0

Table Pag

3.11 Source of Caunission for officer MAs ......................... 3 19

3.12 Source of Ccummission for officer sGRs ......................... 3-20

3.13 Reservists by Pay Grade: Enlisted Personnel by Reserve

Category ...................................................... 3-21

3.14 Reservists by Pay Grade by Reserve Category: Officers ........ 3-23 p

3.15 Reservists by Pay Grade by Reserve Category: CUnissioned fficers Only ................................................. 3-24

3.16 Military Occupation for Part-Time Members: Enlisted

Personnel ..................................................... 3-26

3.17 Military Occupation for Part-Time Members: Enlisted

Personnel with Prior Active Service ........................... 3-28

3.18 Military Occupation for Part-Tine Members: Enlisted

Personnel without Prior Active Service ........................ 3-28

3.19 Military Occupation for Reserve Military Technicians:

Enlisted Personnel ............................................ 3-29

3.20 Military Ocupation for Reserve Military Technicians:

Enlisted Personnel with Prior Autive Service .................. 3-30 ,

3.21 Military Ocupation for Reserve Military Technicians:

Enlisted Personnel without Prior Active Service ............... 3-30

3.22 Military Occupation for Reserve IM@s: Enlisted Personnel ..... 3-31

3.23 Military Occupation for Reserve IMAs: Enlisted Personnel

with Prior Activ( iervice ................................ 3-32

3.24 Military Occupation for Reserve IMAs: Enlisted Personnel. .. 3

without Prior Active Service .................................. 3-32

3.25 Military Occupation for Reserve AGRs: Enlisted Personnel ..... 3-33

3.26 Military Occupation for Part-Tirs Mmbers: officers .......... 3-34

3.27 Military Occupation for Part-Tine Members: Officers with

Prior Active Service .......................................... 3-35

3.28 Military Occupation for Part-Time Members: fficers

without Prior Active Service .................................. 3-35

xxiii

I 1C III 01,1 
List of Tables (continued)

Table

3.29 Military Occupation for Reserve Military Technicians:

Officers ...................................................... 3-36

3.30 Military occupation for Military Technicians: Officers

with Prior Active Service ..................................... 3-37

3.31 Military occupation for Military Technicians: Officers

without Prior Active Service ............................... 3-37

3.32 Military ocupation for Reserve IMAs: Officers............... 3-38

3o33 Military ocupation for Reserve ImTs: Officers with

Prior Active Service .......... ......... . .. ...... 3-38

3.34 Military Occupation for Reserve IMAs: Officers without

Prior Active Service ....................................... 3-39

3.35 Military Occupation for Reserve .AGs: Officers ............... 3-40

4ol 116ilembam' Aige: Enlisted Personmnel........ .. .......... 4-2

4.2 Milbers' Age: Officerso................. . ... 4-2

4.3 Age by Pay Grade and Prior Service: Enlisted Personnel ....... 4-4

4.4 Ag by Pay Grade and Prior Service: Officers................ 4-4

4.5 Gender: Enlisted Personnel and Officers. ......... o ... 4-5

4.6 Percent Female by Pay Grade and Prior Service Status:

Enlisted Personnel ........................................ 4-6

4.7 Percent Female by Pay Grade and Prior service status:

Officers ............... .................................. .4-6

4.e Ethnic/Racial Group: Enlisted Personnel and Officers ......... 4-8

4.9 Ethnic/Racial Group by Gender Compared with Active Force:

Enlisted Personnel ....................................... 4-8

4.10 Ethnic/Racial Group by Gender Ccmpared with Active Force:

Cfficers ................................................... 4-10

4.11 Education Completed: Enlisted Personnel........... ........ 4-10

4.12 Education Ccmpleted: Officers .............................. 4-11

xxiv
%

List of Tables (continued)

Table Page

4.13 Current School Attendance by Education Ca.pleted: Enlisted

4.14 Current School Attendance by Education Ccupleted: Officers... 4-12

4.15 Household Ccmposition: Enlisted Personnel .................... 4-14

4.16 Household Cpomition: Officern .............................. 4-14

4.17 Household Ccmposition by Pay Grade and Gender: Enlisted

Personnel ..................................................... 4-16

4.18 Household Ccmposition by Pay Grade and Gender: Officers ...... 4-16

4.19 Military Experience in Childhood Family: Enlisted Personnel

and Officers........................................... ..... 4-18

4.20 Military Experience in Childhood Family by Pay Grade:

Enlisted Personnel .................... ..................... 4-19

4.21 Military Experience in Childhood Family by Pay Grads:

Officers ............. .................................. 4-21

5.1 Average NUmber of Years in Current Unit ....................... 5-2

5.2 Years in Current Unit by Year of Guard/Reserve Service: - Enlisted Personnel ............ .. ......................... . 5-3

5.3 Years in Current Unit by Year of Guard/Reserve Service:

Officers ..................................................... 5-4

5.4 Personnel with All National Guard/Reserve Service in 0

Current Unit .................................................. 5-5

5.5 Training for Primary Military Occupation by Military

O-xpation: Enlisted Personnel .............................. 5-6

5.6 Training for Primary Military Occupation by Military S

Occupation: Officers ........................... 5-9

5.7 Participation in Selucted Guard/Reserve Activities in

1985: Enlisted Personnel ................................... 5-12

5.8 Participation in Selected Guard/Reserve Activities in 0

1985: fficers ............................................... 5-13

5.9 Annual Training Timing in 1985: Enlisted Personnel ........... 5-15

Xxv
.L

List of Tables (continued)

Table Paci

5.10 Annual Training Timing in 1985: Officers ..................... 5-15

5.11 Rating Issues as Not a Problem: Enlisted Personnel ........... 5-17

5.12 Rating Issues as Not a Problem: Officers ..................... 5-18

5.13 Perceived Unit Training Problems--Percentage Responding

Serious Problem ............................................... 5-19

5.14 Satisfaction with Training Received During Unit Drills........ 5-22 .

5.15 Satisfaction with the Opportunity to Use Military Occupational Skills in Drills ....................................... 5-24

5.16 Rating of Currency of Equipment/Weapons ....................... 5-24

5.17 Rating of Mechanical Condition of Equipment/Weapons ........... 5-26

5.18 Satisfaction with Unit Activities at Annual Training .......... 5-26

6.1 Current Employment Status: Enlisted Personnel ................ 6-3

6.2 Current Employment Status: Officers .......................... 6-3 -N

6.3 Civilian Occupation: Enlisted Personnel ....................... 6-.

6.4 Civilian Occupation: officers ................................ 6-5 .

6.5 Type of Employer: Enlisted Personnel ......................... 6-7

6.6 Type of Employer: Officers ................................... 6-7

6.7 Time Off and Pay for Guard/Reserve Duty in 1985: Enlisted

Personnel ................................. ........ ...... 6-10

6.8 Tine Off and Pay for Guard/Reserve Duty in 1985: Officers .... 6-10 ~. .-

6.9 Tine Off and Pay for Guard/Reserve Duty in 1985 by Employer

Type: Enlisted Personnel ..................................... 6-11

6.10 Time Off and Pay for Guard/Reserve Duty in 1985 by Employer Type: officers ............................................... 6-12

6.11 Employer Problems from Member' s Guard/Reserve Participation:

Enlisted Personnel ............................................ 6-14

6.12 Employer Problems fron Member's Guard/Reserve Participation:

Officers ...................................................... 6-15

xxvi .3
3 List of Tables (continued)

Table __q

6.*13 Emtployer Problemu from Memb~er, as Guard/Reserve Participation:

by Pliployer Ty~pe: Enlisted Personnel ............. 6-16

6.*14 Eitployer Problem from Membter'I a Guard/Reserve Participation

by mployer TIype: officers ..................... 6-17

6.*15 Civilian Supervisor's Attitude to Mmtrer 's Guard/Reserve

Participation: Enlisted Persnnel and Ofics............... 6-19

6.16 Supervisor's Attitude to Mwrber' a Guard/Reserve Participation

by' Employer %Vpe: Enlisted Personnel. . . . .. . . ... .. . ... . ... ... 6-20

6.17 Supervisor's Attitude to Member'sa Guard/Reserve Participation

byr Emtployver S~rpe: officers. .. ............ ........... . .. .. 6-20

6.18 Dsriuon of Enlisted Personnel yCiila and Civilian 62

6.19 Distribuxtion of off icers by Civilian and Civilian Equivalent

Of Military Occupation Groups ............................ 6-23

6.20 For Civilian Occupation Groups - DistribUtion into Military

Occupation Groups: Enlisted Personnel........................ 6-25

6.*21 For Civilian Occupation Groups - Distribuition into Military

O=cpaio Groups: Officers .................................. 6-26

6.22 For Civilian Equivalent of Military ccupation. Groups -

Distribution into Civilian Occupational Groups: Enlisted... -2 Perionnel 0 ... ................. a00 000 ..... ......... 6-2

6.23 For Military Occupation Groups - Distribution into Civilian

Ocpton Groups: officers ............................. 6-28

7.*1 Spouse Employment: Enlisted Personnel and officers ............ 7-2

7.*2 Spouse aplomnt by Household Camposition: Enlisted

Personnel and Off icers. .. .. .. . .. .. . . .. .. .. .. .............. 7-4

7.3 Military/Civilian Status of Spouse by Gender: Enlisted

Personnel 0*..............*0.0..............*.. ....... 7-

7.4 Military/Civilian Status of Spouse by Gender: officers ........ 7-7

7.5 Family Problemi from Mwber' s Guard/Reserve Participation:

Enlisted Personnel ......................................... 7-10

xxvii
I

List of Tables (continued)

Table Pa 

7.6 Family Problems from Mmber's Guard/Reserve Participation: Officers ...................................................... 7-10 ,

7.7 Family Problem from Member 's Guard/Reserve Participation

by Household Ccmposition: Enlisted personnel ................. 7-11

7.8 Family Problems from Mmber's Guard/Reserve Participation

by Household Ccqposition: Officers ........................... 7-12

7.9 Spouse's Attitude Toward Member' s Participation: Enlisted

Personnel and Officers ........................................ 7-13

7.10 Metber's Feelings About Time Spent on Military and Civilian

Activities: Enlisted Personnel ............................... 7-18

7.11 Member's Feelings About Time Spent on Military and Civilian

Activities: Officers ......................................... 7-19

7.12 Mmber's Feelings About Time Spent on Military and Civilian

Activities by Household Composition and Pay Grade: Enlisted

Personnel ..................................................... 7-20

7.13 Meber's Feelings About Time Spent on Military and Civilian

Activities by Household Cczposition and Pay Grade:

officers ...................................................... 7-22

8.1 ercentage Indicating That a Reason Made a Major Contrioution to Staying in the Guard/Reserves ....................... 8-2

8.2 Percentage Responding that Earning Credit Toward Retirement

Was a Major Contribution to Decisions to Stay by Prior

Service Status ......................................... 8-6

8.3 Satisfaction with Retention-Related Items: Enlisted personnel ... ........... .... ..... 8-8

8.4 Satisfaction with Retention-Related Itens: Officers .......... 8-9

8.5 Plans for Next Year: Enlisted Personnel ...................... 8-10

8.6 Plans for Next Year: Officers .............. ............... 8-10

A.7 Plans for Next Year by Pay Grade: Enlisted Personnel ......... 8-11

8.8 Plans for Next Year by Pay Grade: Officers ................... 8-12

8.9 Enlisted Personnel with High Probability of Reenlisting ....... 8-15

xxviii

LWI
List of Tables (continued)

Table Paqe

8.*10 Enlisted Personnel with Low Probability of Reenlisting.... 8-15

8.*11 Average Probability of Reenlisting. . .. .............. 8-16

8.*12 off icers who intend to continue. .... ... . .. .. .. . .. ... ..... 8-17

8.13 officers who intend to imame . .. . ... .. . ... ...... .. . .. . .. ... 8-17

8.14 Enlisted Personnel Who Plan to Stay Until Retirement ........... 8-19

8.15 Officers Who Plan to Stay Until Retirement.................... 8-19

9.1 Perceived Morale in Unit: Enlisted Personnel and officers .... 9-2

9.2 Perceived Mokrale in Unit by Reserve Ccuipnent: Enlisted

Personmnel. . .............. ............. ... ... . ... . ... . .. . 9-2

9.*3 Perceived Mo~rale in Unit by Reserve Component: Officers ....... 9-3

39. 4A Perceived Morale by Pay Grd: Enlisted Personnel ............ 9-4

9. 4B Perceived Morale by Pay Grade: EnlistedPesl ..... ....... 9-5

9.5A Perceived Morale by Pay Grade: Officers ................... 9-5

9.5B Perceived Morale by Pay Grade: Officers.......................9-6

9.6 Satisfaction with Features of the Guard/Reserve: Enlisted

Personnel andi officers.......................... *............. 9-8

9.7 Satisfaction with Features of the Guard/Reserve: Enlisted

9.*8 satisfaction with Features of the Guard/Reserve: Offier.... 9-11

A9.9 satisfaction with Features of the Guard/Reserve by Pay

Grade: Enlisted Personnel .................................. 9-12

9.10 satisfaction with Features of the Guard/Reserve by Pay

Grd: officers ..................................... 9-13

9.11 overall Satisfaction with Guard/Reserve Participation:

Enlisted Personnel and officers .............................. 9-15

9.12 Overall Satisfaction with Guard/Reserve Participation:

Enlisted Personnel.......................................... 9-16

xxix
* ~WU~WW ~ 'I I I~Il1'WI7 fU

List of Tables (continued)

Table Pal

9.13 overall satisfaction with Guard/Reserve Participation:

9 Offic O erl .. atisfa...ion.with .... ar./.ese e.Par..ici.ation .. by1

9.14k Overall Satisfaction with Guard/Reserve Participation by

9.* 15B overall Satisfaction with Mlitare Psaayrftifeato by

Pay Grade: offictd ersnl ... .. .. ... . .. .. . .... .. . ... . .... 9-19

9.*14B Overall Satisfaction with Military As a Way of Life by

Pay Graes: officers ...... . .. . . .. .. .. . . ... .. . . .......... 9-19

xxx

I C 11 1 11
1. INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND

A. Introduction

1. Perspective

The ultimate puxpose of all Department of Defense (DoD)

manpower policies is to recruit, train, equip, and field a force

capable of preserving the peace and protecting the vital interests of

the United States and its allies. The men and women currently in the

reserve forces are an integral part of that force. Since the

proclamation of the Total Force policy in the All Volunteer Force era,

and particularly since 1980, increased reliance has been placed on

reserve members and units.

To achieve the increased readiness associated with this reliance,

unprecedented attention has been focused on upgrading reserve equipment

through modernization, improving training and addressing compensation

and benefits matters in support of reserve force manpower objectives.

New bonus, stipend, loan repayment and educational assistance programs

have been authorized and implemented. Improved and expanded medical, 0

incapacitation and survivor benefits have been enacted and comissary

privileges enhanced. In addition to compensation, attention has been

paid to staffing requirements, duration and kinds of training provided,

and personnel management. These measures have been considered

necessary to achieve manpower goals in a rapidly expanding reserve

force and to provide adequate protection to reservists required to meet 0

Total Force readiness standards, employ state of the art weapons

systems and perform training and support missions throughout the world.

Continued effective management of and policy formulation for all

armed forces personnel requires that DoD and the regular and reserve

components have reliable, valid, and timely data bases to support

policy analysis, evaluation, and research on defense manpower issues.

In addition to data that are routinely collected for administrative

purposes, demographic, economic, behavioral and attitudinal information

is needed. Survey research can provide such information. If collected

periodically, survey data can be used to assess the responses of

military personnel to past and current policy changes and to identify 0

future areas for policy action.

This volume presents an overview of military personnel in the

National Guard and Reserve Components, based on the 1986 Reserve

Components Surveys. The 1986 Reserve Components Surveys (1986 RC

Surveys) consist of three portions, two of reserve component members

and the third of their spouses. The 1986 Reserve Components Survey:

Selected Reserve Officer and Enlisted Personnel (1986 RC Member Survey)

surveyed a sample of Selected Reserve unit members. Individual

Mobilization Augmentees (IMAs), i.e., Selected Reservists who train

with the active components, and military technicians, i.e., Selected

Reservists who are also employed full-time in reserve units in a

1-1
civilian capacity, were also included in the 1986 PC Member Survey.

The 1986 Reserve Comonents Survey: Full-Tme Sum~ort Officer and

Enlisted Personnel (1986 RC AGR Survey) surveyed a sample of Active

Guard/Reserve and of Training and Administration of Reserve (AGR/TARs)

members. Individuals in all seven reserve components (Army National

Guard, Army Reserve, Naval Reserve, Marine Corps Reserve, Air National

Guard, Air Force Reserve and Coast Guard Reserve) were included in both

the 1986 RC Member Survey and, where appropriate, in the 1986 RC AGR

Survey.

These surveys were conducted for the Office of Assistant Secretary

of Defense (Reserve Affairs) [OASD(RA)] and the Office of the Assistant

Secretary of Defense (Force Management and Personnel) [OASD(FM&P)] by

the Defense Manpower Data Center (DUMC). Over 12,000 officers and

about 52,000 enlisted personnel in all seven reserve components, and

over 33,000 spouses, responded to extensive questionnaires sent to them

in the spring of 1986.

In the chapters that follow, and in the associated Supplementary

Tabulations, ye present a description of military personnel based on

the surveys.* In addition to extensive, heretofore unknown, family

demographic and economic characteristics, behavioral and attitudinal

data are presented. The reactions of these men and women to current

policies, their plans for the future, the ways in which their reserve

participation interacts with their civilian lives as family menbers and

as partic:ipants in the labor force, and their assessments of their

training in the reserves are discussed.

Clearly, the satisfaction and performance of members of the reserve

forces are partly a reflection of the effectiveness of personnel

policies. This report, and other analyses which will be conducted

using the survey data, are a contribution toward an assessnent of

current policies and the formulation of new ones.

2. Audience for the Report

Data collected in broad-based personnel surveys such as the

1986 RC Surveys cannot in a single report or volume meet the needs of

all of its potential audiences entirely. Although the data were

collected to satisfy a set of information requirements, nany of these

were intentionally general in scope so as to provide for future, as yet

unanticipated, uses. In addition, the various actual and potential

users of these data have differing needs as to the complexity and level

of deta] of specific analyses. In all likelihood, each of the

reserve components will concentiate analysis primarily on its own

personnel. Pesearchers, including irndivjduals at institutions such as

federally contracted research centers, the military academies,

universities, and consulting and research firns, will be using the data

to address specific research questions, sore of which rr.ay cross

conponent ines.

Notes are found at the end of each chapter.

1-2
In the course of the initial survey planning, it became clear that

a report which presented a broad overview of the data would serve as a

useful document and reference tool for both current and potential

users. Senior DoD managers in the Office of the Secretary of Defense

(OSD) and in the regular and reserve components, and interested members

of Congress and the public, would find a basic descriptive sumary of

the demographic and attitudinal data on the current reserve forces

useful. DoD analysts could use both the present report and its

associated Supplementary Tabulations in the preparation of reports,

issue papers, congressional testimony, briefings, and correspondence

without additional analyses. Finally, DoD, the Coast Guard, and the

regular and reserve components could use the information in these

reports to place problems in perspective and identify issues which

require policy attention. It is toward the audiences described above

that this report is directed.

In the remainder of this chapter, we first provide an abridged

legislative history of the reserve forces, beginning with their

Constitutional origins and ending with the All-Volunteer Force era.

Second, the organization of the report is discussed, including

abbreviated sumaries of the contents of subsequent chapters. Finally,

the analytic approach is summarized.

B. Background: The Reserve Forces in Historical Perspective3

1. Constitutional Origins

The 200th anniversary of the Constitution of the United States

of America may serve as a reminder that the Constitution codified a

military system that had roots in the English militia tradition and a

century and a half of American colonial experience. The militia clause

of the Constitution (Article I, Section 8, Clauses 15 and 16) provided

for the continued existence of the militia.4 The Constitution also

provided very broad power to the Congress to raise and support armies

(Article I, Section 8, Clause 12).

The Militia Act of 1792 served to implement the provisions of the

militia clause of the Constitution. While inadequate with respect to

providing the United States with trained military reserves to augment

the regular forces, it was the only permanent legislation covering the

organization of the militia until the Twentieth Century.

The legal framework for our current reserve forces was established

beginning with the Dick Act of 1903 and continuing through the Act of

June 15, 1933 amending the National Defense Act.5 At the end of this

period, the Army National Guard of the United States had been created

and its members were now at all times members of both the National

Guard of their State and of a reserve component of the Army. The new

statutes also created for the first time purely Federal reserve forces

and the Reserve Officers Training Corps (ROTC) program.

1-3
The Dick Act provided that the National Guard would be equipped

through Federal funds and conform to the organization of the Regular

Army. It also established a requirement for 24 armory drills and a _

five day encampment annually, and authorized the assignment of Regular

Army instructors to the National Guard.6 The National Defense Act of

1916 required more training for the National Guard and authorized

federal pay for drills and administrative work as well as for field

encampments. The 48 drill periods and 15 days of field training

requirement established for the National Guard in 1916 remains today

the statutory minimum requirement for the Guard.

2. Reserve Forces Following World War II and.Korea

Mobilization plans in place prior to World War II assumed a

full mobilization of reserve forces and qualified civilian manpower. S

The actual sequence of events did not follow this planning scenario.

In fact, active duty and National Guard forces were increased and

National Guard training time was expanded in 1939 and 1940. In 1940,

mobilization of the reserve was approved and a peacetime draft enacted.

Nevertheless, similar mobilization plans were developed after the

war. Even had more flexible mobilization plans for reserve forces been

in place, however, they would have been difficult to execute. This was

because the legal vulnerability to recall of reserve units and members

was not differentiated by their training status. All reserves were

equally vulnerable to mobilization, and units and individual reserve

training priorities were not clearly specified. C

Within the newly formed Department of Defense there was recognition

that problems with existing reserve forces required immediate

attention. While the underlying legal structure of the reserve system

was complete by 1933, statutes setting out detailed and uniform

mobilization, training, compensation and personnel systems were not in

place.

In November of 1947, Secretary of Defense James Forrestal directed

a comprehensive study of the reserve components. The report was to

include recommendations on how reserve components should be structured

and organized to best carry out their missions. In addition, the study S

was to address the measures needed to eliminate disparities and

inequities among the components.

The report of this study, issued in June of 1948, is known as the

"Gray Report" after the chairman, then Assistant Secretary of the Army

Gordon Gray.7 The report called attention to the major defense

responsibilities of the United States in the unstable post-war world

and the extent to which the reserves were necessary to meet defense

needs. It noted further that these reserve forces would have to be

imdiately ready for mobilization and deployment. The authors assumed

that it was unlikely that future conflicts would give the United States

1-4
time for an intensive period of arming and training after mobilization

and prior to initial combat.

At the same time, a major revision to the reserve compensation

system was under consideration in the Congress and, on June 29, 1948, a

nondisability retirement program for reserve personnel was enacted.

The purpose of this new program was to encourage longer reserve service

so that there would be a relatively large group of well-trained

reserves available if needed for mobilization. The reserve retirement

system has not been substantively revised since enactment. The 1948

initiative may be seen as the first step in the creation of a

structured manpower, personnel and compensation management system

designed to meet readiness and training requirements of the reserve

forces.

Many of the recommendations of the Gray Report dealt with the 0

structure for training, compensating and promoting reserve members.

The report recommended a simplified structure common to all Services.

This included dividing reserve forces into active and retired

categories and categorizing the active reserve forces in accordance

with the degree of required participation in training.

Also recommended were pay for all drill periods, the establishment

of uniform appointment, promotion and separation criteria for reserve

members, and a standard system of benefits for reservists injured,

disabled or killed during training. To meet the training standards

demanded by the mission and mobilization requirements to be placed on

reserve forces, the assignment of full-time personnel, in particular

Guardsmen and Reservists on full-time duty, was recommended. The

problem of conflicts between increased training requirements and

civilian employment was also addressed. Standard and uniform policies

relative to leave from civilian employment for reserve training were

suggested as a solution.

The invasion of South Korea by North Korean troops just a few days

short of two years after issuance of the Gray report underscored many

of the conclusions which that study had reached. The manpower needs

associated with the Korean War did not fit with a full mobilization

str&tegy. In fact, time for training, deployment and employment was

limited. The result was that reservists who were not being paid to

train and who had not trained since their release from active duty

following World War II were called in large numbers. They were the

first reservists in the combat zone. The need to call first those

reservists who were veterans of World War II and who, within the Guard

and Reserve structure, were relatively low priority volunteer and

inactive reservists was controversial.

Within a year after the start of the Korean War, in January of

1951, Secretary of Defense George Marshall announced a set of 39

long-range policies designed to provide for ready and effective reserve

forces. These policies, expanded in number to 43, were formally set

out in April of that year. Developed to a large extent from the

1-5

0
findings and recommendations of the Gray Report, the new Department of

Defense Policies clearly set out the purpose of reserve forces and

defined the reserve components.

They outlined a structure for the organization and administration

of reserve affairs, including a Reserve Forces Policy Board in the

Office of the Secretary of Defense and similar policy committees in

each Military Department. The structure for the reserve forces

followed the lines recommended by the Gray Report. They would consist

of a Ready Reserve, made up of units and individuals available for

immediate employment in any expansion of the active forces and subject

to involuntary active duty for training not to exceed 15 days a year, a

Standby Reserve and a Retired Reserve. Reserve forces training

categories, indicating the minimum required training and training

priority, were to be established along with a system of setting A2

priorities for involuntary order to active service.

The Reserve Forces Policies called for adequate and equitable

promotion systems and stated that members in an inactive status would

not be eligible for promotion. The Services were required to maintain

adequate and current personnel records for all reserves and a standard

system of physical examinations was established. Policies for

full-time personnel were also set out. All regular officers were, to

the fullest extent practicable, to spend a tour with the reserve

forces. Reserve officers and enlisted members were to be placed on

continuous active duty in connection with the organization, training

and administration of the reserve forces.

3. Uniform Military Training and Service Act

Enacted on June 19, 1951 during the Korean War, the purpose of this

act was:

"First to raise imediately the manpower necessary to build and

maintain an armed force [to meet] our minimum security requirement,

and, secondly, to provide for the maintenance of an adequate force

of trained reserves.... 8

To achieve the first objective, every male 18 to 26 years of age

was required to register for military service. Those in this group

over age 18 1/2 were liable for service in the armed forces. In

support of the second objective, all those inducted, enlisted or

appointed prior to age 26 were subject to a total military service

obligation in the active and reserve forces of eight years. Young men

who joined the National Guard before age 18 1/2 and who were

satisfactory participants in the Guard were deferred from induction.

Upon completion of active duty, qualified members were to be

automatically transferred to a reserve component. While this provided

for a flow of trained and untrained men into the reserve components,

those components still lacked an integrated and adequate personnel,

training and compensation system.

1-6
I1

4. The Armed Forces Reserve Act of 1952

The Armed Forces Reserve Act of July 9, 1952 was the first of

several major legislative initiatives of the 1950's and 1960's which,

taken together, formed the basis for a reserve system with more

rigorously defined training, promotion, pay and personnel systems and a

clear hierarchy of mobilization priorities and vulnerabilities. It was

based in considerable part on the 43 Defense policies of April, 1951.

The Act declared that the reserve components are:

"maintained for the purpose of providing trained units and

qualified individuals to be available for active duty . . . in time

of war or national emergency, and at such other times as the

national security may require, to meet the requirements of the

Armed Forces . . . during and after the period needed for

procurement and training of additional trained units and qualified

individuals . . . ." (66 Stat. 482).

It specified the seven reserve components, to include the Army National

Guard of the United States and the Air National Guard of the United

States, and declared it essential that the strength and organization of

the National Guard, as an integral part of the first line defenses of

the nation, be maintained and assured.

Established in law as a result of the Act were the Ready, Standby

and Retired Reserve categories, and the physical examination and

recordkeeping requirements of the DoD Policies. Also included were

requirements for a Reserve Forces Policy Board and for top level

civilian and military officials with specific responsibilities for

reserve component affairs on the military department and service

staffs. Provisions for full-time support to reserve forces by regular

and reserve members were also specified.

Also following on the DoD Policies, but set out in greater detail,

were provisions for voluntary and involuntary active duty and release

from duty. Uniform training and pay categories were mandated for all

purely Federal reserve components. These categories were to specify

the types, degrees and duration of training required. The new law did

not, however, require minimum training for any category or establish

penalties for non-participation. It did provide general authority to

require up to 15 days of annual training for all reservists in an

active status.

Finally, the 1952 Act set up a system of allowances for the

purchase of uniforms for reserve officers. These allowances were

payable when ordered to active duty and at certain other times

contingent upon satisfactory participation. It also provided authority

to provide enlisted members with rations in kind when performing

inactive duty training of at least eight hours in any day.

1-7

A=
"4

5. Reserve Officer Personnel Act

The DoD Policies and the Armed Forces Reserve Act required that

adequate and equitable systems for the promotion of active status 4

reservists be established. The systems were to be patterned, insofar

as practicable, after the regular component systems. Before these

systems were fully in place, however, the Reserve Officer Personnel Act

(ROPA) was enacted on September 3, 1954 (Pub.L 773, 68 Stat 1147).

ROPA provided detailed statutory procedures for the promotion,

precedence, constructive service credit, grade distribution, retention,

and voluntary and involuntary separation of reserve officers. The

legislation was largely based on the officer personnel systems

established for regular officers by the Officer Personnel Act of 1947.

The Congressional committees were concerned that the lack of a firm,

adequate promotion system reduced the incentive for active reserve

participation in peacetime and caused confusion and discontent

following mobilization. The Korean experience had provided concrete

evidence with respect to the latter concern. ROPA was an important

part of the manpower, personnel and compensation systems developed

after Korea. For officer personnel management procedures, ROPA filled

out the provisions of the Armed Forces Reserve Act of 1952. In so

doing, it relied heavily on the structure provided by the earlier Act.

6. Reserve Forces Act of 1955

The Reserve Forces Act of 1955 reflected continued concern

about reserve programs. Both the Congress and the Executive Branch

issued major studies in 1953 and 1954 focusing on the status of reserve

forces. A primary concern in both was that, under existing rules,

reserve forces could not be maintained at the high state of readiness

needed to meet immediate mobilization requirements. There was high

attrition and low participation in training programs. Individuals who

enlisted directly into the National Guard did not attend any form of

initial basic training and only gradually acquired the necessary

military skills through drill and annual training attendance. The 1952

law required that consideration be given to the length and nature of

previous service whenever the Ready Reserve might be mobilized in time

of a Presidentially declared national emergency. However, there was

widespread concern that lack of trained younger men would result in

experienced veterans again being called first iii any future emergency.

In January of 1955, President Eisenhower se- : a message to Congress

relative to military security which included recommendations for new

legislation on both active and reserve forces. The bulk of the message

dealt with new measures deemed necessary to strengthen reserve forces.

The House Armed Services Committee began hearings on these

recommendations in early February. Prior to enactment six months

later, the bill had been rewritten five times. During June, when the

legislative progress bogged down, President Eisenhower twice publicly

I, L- 1',1 ''
stressed thu need for new reserve legislation to strengthen the reserve

forces.

The new law, enacted on August 9, 1955, reduced the military

service obligation from eight to six years for individuals entering

military service after its enactment. But for these new members it

established for the first time an obligation to participate in reserve

training and established enforcement measures to help ensure the

participation requirements were met. The 1955 Act also provided for

continuous screening of Ready Reservists under regulations to be

prescribed by the President. This process was intended to ensure that

those members who could not be mobilized in an emergency would be

transferred to the Standby Reserve so that no significant attrition

would occur to Ready Reserve units and members during a mobilization.

The original legislative proposal would have required all new

members who enlisted directly into the reserve components to complete

basic training. While this proposal was not enacted, emphasis on

special enlistment programs provided by the Reserve Forces Act of 1955

was credited with greatly reducing the number of Ready Reservists who

had not completed 4 months of active duty for training or the

equivalent. It was estimated by the Department of Defense that

immediately prior to the 1955 Act over half of the members of the Ready

Reserve did not have basic training. By 1960, this had been reduced to

under five percent.

The two special reserve enlistment programs added in 1955 were:

(1) a two-year active duty program, and (2) a draft deferment/exemption

in exchange for enlistment in a Reserve program requiring three to six

months of active duty for training or in a National Guard program with

no active duty requirement.

The draft deferment/exemption program was repealed in 1963. The

new law substituted a program which provided a draft exemption in

exchange for a 6 year reserve enlistment with an initial period of

active duty for training of not less than 4 months. Subsequent

amendments revised the length of active duty for training required from

A months to 12 weeks and modified the requirement for commencement of

the training from 180 days after enlistment to 270 days. These

changes, together with new service policies for training reserve

enlistees, effectively elim4nated the long-standing basic training

problem.

7. Reserve Forces Bill of Rights and Vitalization Act. 1967

The last major piece of legislation affecting the basic

manpower and compensation structure of the reserve forces was the

Reserve Forces Bill of Rights and Vitalization Act of 1967. This Act

created a Selected Reserve force within the Ready Reserve. A Selected

Reserve within the Ready Reserve of the Navy had been established by

regulation in 1958 and the Department of Defense had strongly advocated

statutory sanction for a smaller reserve force in a higher state of

1-9
readiness. In 1966 just over 50 percent of the total Ready Reserve was

in paid training. The new Selected Reserve force was, for the most

part, composed of members participating in paid training.

Under the new law, the organization and unit structure of the

Selected Reserve was to be approved by the Secretary of Defense and, in

the case of the Coast Guard Reserve, the Secretary of Transportation.

Selected Reserve strength was to be authorized annually by Congress.

Ready Reservists not in the Selected Reserve were administratively

classified to the Individual Ready Reserve. While priority status was

now focused on that part of the Ready Reserve associated with immediate

readiness, Ready Reservists still had the same liability for call to

active duty and, under the law, could be required to meet the same

minimum training requirements.

Other important, if less dramatic, changes with respect to

personnel and compensation were revised training requirements and the

authorization of per diem for reservists. The Reserve Forces Act of

1955 had required (1) not less than 48 inactive duty training periods,

and (2) not more than 17 days of active duty for training. The 1967

Act revised the latter requirement to not less than 14 days. It also

mandated that non-prior service enlistees into the reserve components

who were qualified for induction perform an initial period of active

duty for training of not less than 4 months to coinence insofar as

practicable within 180 days after enlistment.

The Act also included significant changes in the structure for

administration of the reserve components within the Department of

Defense. A statutory position, requiring Presidential appointment and

the advice and consent of the Congress, for a Deputy Assistant

Secretary of Defense was established. It also created statutory

authority within each of the military departments for an Assistant

Secretary for Manpower and Reserve Affairs and for military chiefs of

the Army Reserve and the Air Force Reserve.

C. Total Force Policy and the All-Volunteer Force

1. The Policy

On August 21, 1970, Secretary of Defense Melvin Laird directed 7.

the Military Departments to apply a total force concept to all aspects

of planning, programming, manning, equipping and employing Guard and

Reserve forces. Increasing reliance and dependence was to be placed on

the Guard and Reserve as a combat-ready part of the total force

structure as active forces were reduced. In this manner the adequacy

of the total military capability could be maintained while reducing the

overall cost of defense programs.

The Selected Reserve was now to be maintained as a force in being,

able to deploy rapidly and to operate side-by-side with active force

units in peacetime as well as when mobilized. The readiness objectives

1-10
ra ANM

were directed toward the degree of mobilization and training readiness

that had been intended in the Reserve Forces Bill of Rights and

Vitalization Act. Under that Act, the Secretaries of the Military

Departments I/were required to provide the personnel and the materiel 0

support to enable the Selected Reserve to meet the mobilization

readiness requirements prescribed for them by the Joint Chiefs of Staff

in contingency and war plans.

On August 23, 1973, Secretary of Defense Schlesinger stated that

the Total Force was no longer a concept but a "Total Force Policy which

integrates the Active, Guard and Reserve forces into a homogenous

whole." He recognized the progess that had been made but directed

specific actions toward achieving the readiness requred by contingency

plans.

2. The All-Volunteer Force

The report of the President's Conmission on an All-Volunteer

Armed Force indicated that the Commission "recognized from its first

meeting the need for special attention to the problems of the reserve

forces." They also recognized that their analysis of this problem

suffered from a serious lack of data.

While the Comission tentatively concluded that a reserve force

associated with the 2.25 to 2.5 million member active force could be

maintained in an all-volunteer environment, the precipitous decline in

strength from 987,000 in 1970 to 788,000 in 1978 experienced by the

Selected Reserve was cause for widespread concern. Contemporary .

analysis of this trend noted that the manpower deficits varied markedly

by component, being significantly greater for the Army Reserve and

Marine Corps Reserve (and, to a lesser extent, for the Army National

Guard). Also, heavy losses of draft-motivated members at the end of

their first enlistment could have been expected to cause a drop in

reserve strengths without significant increases in reserve

accessions.

10

The Total-Force policy recognized that "reserve forces would take

on an enhanced importance in an all-volunteer environment due to the

smaller planned size of the active force and the dimii.ished capability,

without an operating draft, to rapidly expand the active force during

mobilization."1 1 Thus, the significant decline in Selected Reserve

strengths experienced in the 1970s triggered significant, if belated,

attention to reserve manpower issues. In 1976, President Ford directed

a review of the effectiveness of reserve compensation in meeting

manpower objectives. Increased management attention, greatly expanded

recruiting resources and new bonus authorities all helped to reverse

the unfavorable strength trends after 1978.

3. Current Status

By 1984 Selected Reserve numbers had reached an all time high,

surpassing the previous strength peak which had been achieved in 1959

1-11

.q!
F

when reserve service could qualify an individual for deferment front the

draft. Selected Reserve strength has continued to grow as missions and

roles for resore forces expand. Since 1981, significrnt new benefits C

and protections for reservists and their families have been

in lemented. These enhancements recognized the increased demands of

reserve service.

When the 1986 Reserve Conponents Surveys were conducted, many

reservists were being asked to train more intensely and for longer

periods than ever before. The extent to which increased training

results in tine and schedule conflicts between reservists and their

civilian employers and puts additional stresses on family and community

activities was addressed in the surveys in some detail. Thus, the

deveop.erit of the survey design and the questionnaires was conducted

in the context that significant infornational needs existed to support

the analysis of reserve manrx*er and comensation progran; that could

be effectively filled in no other way. For example, the results

reporteC in the following chapters and Supplementary Tabulations should

provide policy makers valuable information concerning bow employer and

family conflicts affect reserve service and pejhaps suggest programs or

the need for programs to reduce these impacts.

As the data collection was coming to an end in 1986, President

Reagan directed that the Sixth Cuadrennial Review of Military

Compensation (QOMC) "undertake a comprehensive evaluation 2 the

benefits and costs of all reserve compensation programs." The

Q1O.C staff formed to conduct this evaluation 1. drawing very heavily

upon the 1986 PC Surveys in their analyses. The reports of the Sixth

WPMC which are scheduled to be issued in 1988 will, accordingly,

provide a much more detailed analysis of the survey data as they apply

to te compensation and benefit programs apllicable to reserve r mbers

than reported here. Also, responses from such groups as reserve healtb

professionals anO AGP/TARs wi.]1 be reported on fully in the QR!C

reports, as will the ana]ysis of data bearing on recruiting and

retention of reserve nanpower. It is precisely because of vcrk

unCertaken by the QIWC that this report does not address several areas

covere. by the surveys in more than passing detail.

In the remairi ei of this report we focus on trained personnel. in

the Selected Reserve. These approximately 1,012,000 men and wonen are

the largest portion of the United States Ready Reserve. The current

organizational structure of the Selected Reserve and a stummary of the

obligations of its menbers is discussed in Chapter 3.

D. Organmzation of tbe Report and Analytic Approach

1. Organization and Chapter Contents

In addition to this Introduction and Background (Chapter 1),

this report contains a methodological chapter (Chapter 2) and seven

substantive chapters. A supplementary set of volumes contains

1-12
extensive data tables organized according to the subject areas of

chapters in the main report. The reader can easily go from any point

in the main text to the supplements to find more detailed data on the

subject. Readers interested in spezific components may wish to refer

to the supplements, as all information presented in them is presented

separately for each component, as well as totals for the six DoD

components and totals for the Selected Reserve, i.e. all seven

components. The general contents of Chapter 2-9 are described below.

Chapter 2. "Introduction to the 1986 Reserve Components Surveys."

After a brief discussion of survey research in the Department of

Defense, this chapter describes the survey design and provides

information about the sample, data collection, response rates,

weighting procedures and the questionnaires.

Chapter 3. "Military Background of Guard and Reserve Trained

Personnel." This chapter presents information on the military

experience among members of the seven reserve components, including the

source of their entry into the component in which they are currently

serving, source of commission for officers, length of military service

(both active and reserve), pay grade distributions and military

occupations.

Chapter 4. "Personal and Family Characteristics of Guard/Reserve

Members." Data on the personal characteristics, educational

attainments and household composition of part-time unit members are

presented in this chapter. Included are age and sex by prior service

status, marital status, educational level completed and current school 0

attendance.

Chapter 5. "Participation in and Perspective of Military

Activities." A range of military activities and participation rates

for part-time members are discussed in this chapter. In addition, the

relative satisfaction levels with various aspects of unit activities,

ranging from quality of training to opportunities to use military

skills are outlined. Finally, the members' perceptions of unit

training problems are described.

Chapter 6. "Civilian Employment and Perceived Employer

Attitudes." This chapter begins with a description of members' S

civilian jobs and employers. Next, the interface between Guard/Reserve

duty and civilian employment is explored, beginning with an examination

of how members got time off from their civilian jobs for Guard/Reserve

participation aid how they were paid. Data are presented on member

perceptions of the extent to which their absence for Guard/Reserve

participation is a problems for their employers, and their perception

of employer attitudes toward their Guard/Reserve participation.

Finally, data on the degree of correspondence between reservists'

civilian jobs and their primary military occupational specialties are

discussed.

1-13
Chapter 7. "Members' Family and Community Life." This chapter

presents data on spouse employment and military background; members'

perception of the degrees to which their absence for weekend drills, -

Annual Trainin/ACDUTRA and extra time at Guard/Reserve are problems V

for their families; members' perceptions of their spouses' attitudes

toward their reserve participation; and members' feelings about the

amount of time they spend on various activities. (More detailed

treatment of these and related issues from the point of view of spouses

of part-time unit members are presented in a companion report.l/ )

Chapter 8. "Reasons for Participation and Plans to Continue."

This chapter explores the motivations and plans of Selected Reserve

members and their reasons for joining and staying in the reserves.

Levels of satisfaction vith several retention-related items, their

plans for the year following the survey and, finally, their long-range

intent for Guard/Reserve participation are included.

Chapter 9. "Overall Assessments of Guard/Reserve Service." This

final chapter presents data on the general assessments of part-time

members in units of their experience in the Guard/Reserve. Members'

ratings of unit morale, as well as their satisfaction with selected

features of the Guard/Reserve, are discussed. Finally, the members'

overall satisfaction with their participation in the Guard/Reserve is

presented.

2. Analytic Approach

The tables and occasional graphs used to present data in

Chapters 3-9 compare the percentages of reserve members on a large

number of dimensions, with a major emphasis placed on comparisons among

the various reserve components. Statistical tests of significance were

not used. In a survey with such a large sample most estimates can be

made so precisely that even small differences in observations between

components and other large groupings are statistically significant.

Some of the statistically significant differences are unimportant for

policy purposes. Estimates for some subgroups, however, are based on

small numbers of observations. Differences smaller than 5 to 10

percentage points are generally not discussed, unless they appear to be

part of a particular pattern or are important for policy reasons.

Unclassifiable or missing data are generally less than two percent of

the responses. They have been excluded from the tabulations as a

separate category, as they are assumed to be distributed in the same

way as the available data.

The reader interested in more detailed information is directed to

the Supplementary Tabulations mentioned earlier. In addition, the data

bases from the 1986 RC Surveys will be made available for more detailed

analysis both within OSD and to the individual reserve components. A

public use data base will be available after an initial period of

internal analysis.

1-14
ENDNOTES

1Description of Officers and Enlisted Personnel in the U.S.

Selected Reserve: 1986. Supplementary Tabulations from the 1986 6

Reserve Components Surveys (1987).

2 For example, staff members of the Sixth Quadrennial Review of

Military Compensation (QRHC) are already using these data in a

comprehensive evaluation of the benefits and costs of all reserve

compensation programs.

3Sections B and C of this chapter are based on material

prepared for the Sixth QRMC.

4 The militia clause of the Constitution provides that:

The Congress shall have Power... To provide for organizing,

arming, and disciplining the Militia, and for governing such

part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United

States, reserving to the States... the Appointment of Officers,

and the Authority of training the Militia according to the

discipline described by Congress.

5Two accounts of these statutory provisions that complement

one another in scope and detail may be found in Weiner, F. B.(1940,

December). The Militia Clause of the Constitution. Harvard Law

Review, LIV. No. 2, 182-220; and Goldrich, R. L. (1980, Fall). 0

Historical Continuity in the U.S. Military Reserve System. Armed

Forces and Society, 7, 88-112.

6A 'drill' is a four-hour period of training. Generally, two

drills are held on one day, with four drills typically conducted

during a weekend.

7Department of Defense (1948). Reserve Forces for National

Security - Report to the Secretary of Defense. Washington, DC:

Government Printing Office.

8Senate Armed Services Comnittee, Report No. 117, 82d

Congress, 1st session, p.1.

9The Report of the President's Commission on an All-Volunteer

Force. Washington, DC: Government Printing Office, 1970, p. 97.

0Cooper, R.V.L. (1977). Military Manpower and the

All-Volunteer Force. Santa Monica, CA: The Rand Corporation, pp.

150-158.

1-15

p
llBrinkerhoff, J. R. & Grissmer, D. W. (1986). The Reserve

Forces in an All-Volunteer Environment. In Bowen, W., Little, R. and

Sicilia, G. T. (Eds). The All-Volunteer Force After a Decade.

McLean, VA: Pergamon-Brassey, p. 209.

1 2 Also see the companion volumes, Description of Spouses of

Officers and Enlisted Personnel in the U.S. Selected Reserve: 1986.

A Report Based on the 1986 Reserve Components Surveys and Description

of Spouses of Officers and Enlisted Personnel in the U.S. Selected

Reserve: 1986. Supplementary Tabulations from the 1986 Reserve

Components Surveys.

13Memorandum for the Honorable Casper W. Weinberger, The

Secretary of Defense, Subject: The Sixth Quadrennial Review of

Military Compensation (QRMC), The White House, Washington, D.C.,

September 25, 1986.

14 See Endnote 12.

1-16

- -, _~~
2. AN INTRMDUCTION TO THE 1986 RESERVE COMPONEWS SURVEYS

This chapter provides an overview of the 1986 Reserve Coionents

Surveys. It includes a discussion of survey research in the Department of Defense and the design used in conducting the present surveys.

Information about the sample, data collection, response rates and the

questionnaires is also provided.

A. Survey Research in the Department of Defense

In formulating manpower and personnel policy, the Department of

Defense (DoD) relies on both administrative data and on survey data.

Administrative data are personnel-related information collected from

individuals, or maintained about them, primarily for record-keeping

purposes. Such information is used in determining the types and

amounts of military ccapensation, eligibility for various forms of

health and program benefits, and performance assessments. These data

are largely automated and readily available for policy research and

formulation purposes.

Survey data collected in DoD include social characteristics,

descriptive, economic, demographic, and behavioral information, as well

as data about tastes, preferences, experiences, and projected behaviors. Survey data are currently collected from samples of

individuals, using a range of methodologies. Data are most frequently collected using self-administered questionnaires distributed and

collected individually or in group settings. They are also collected

through personal and telephone interviews and as an adjunct to field

experiments. Survey data can be used to supplement administrative data

as well as to address issues which cannot be studied from the

administrative data. Particularly if collected periodically and 

0

systematically, these data serve as a basis for assessing the response of military personnel to policy changes and for identifying areas for

future policy action.

Each of the Services and the reserve components undertakes policy analyses using their own administrative data and data from surveys 

S

conducted among their own personnel. In general, such studies address

Service- or coponent-specific issues. Issues which are cross-Service

or cross-component in nature are addressed within the Office of the

Secretary of Defense (OSD). Either such studies are conducted by OSD

or a single service is designated to conduct a study on OS's behalf.

The administrative data used to support OSD studies are less

detailed than those available at the Service or component level, since

the former are primarily used for policy formulation and assessment,

while the latter are used for detailed personnel management as well as

for policy purposes. Surveys conducted at the OSD level strive for 

a

balance between data which will allow for cross-Service or cross- 

]

component policy analysis and data detailed enough so that t~ey

can also be used by the separate military services.

2-1
The 1986 Reserve Camonents Surveys (1986 RC Surveys) described

below are the most recent examples of OSD surveys, developed and

conducted with the cooperation of the reserve components and intended

to provide data for both OD and component-specific studies. In the

case of the 1986 RC Surveys, the Coast Guard Reserve was included to

ensure comprehensive coverage of all seven reserve components of the

armed forces.

B. Background of the 1986 Reserve Corponents Surveys.

1. Purpose

In January, 1983, the Deputy Secretary of Defense mandated a

survey of military families, who were increasingly recognized as

important to the retention and preparedness of the armed forces. While

each of the military services had previously conducted small-scale

studies of Service-specific military families, a single consistent

cross-service data set which could be used to study emerging family

issues was not available. Concurrent with the requirement to create a

data base for studying military families, DoD also had a need to assess

the impact of a range of personnel policies implemented in the past few

years. Because there was a great deal of overlap in the information

needed for both purposes, i.e., studying family issues and studying a

broad range of personnel issues, the two requirements were merged.

In preparation for that task, the Assistant Secretary of Defense

(Manpower, Reserve Affairs and Logistics) [currently the Assistant

Secretary of Defense (Force Management and Personnel)] established the

Family Survey Coordinating Committee, a DoD-wide committee which

assessed both information requirements and data sources within the

DoD. Early in the deliberations of the Committee, it was recognized

that major surveys of both the active and the reserve components were

required. Recognizing the ccmplexity of the undertaking, the Committee

initiated active force surveys but temporarily postponed the reserve

ccaponents surveys. The 1985 DoD Survey of Officer and Enlisted

Personnel (1985 DoD Member Survey) and the 1985 DoD Survey of Military

Spouses (1985 DoD Spouse Survey), collectively the 1985 DoD Surveys of

Officer and Enlisted Personnel and Military Spouses (1985 DoD Surveys),

were thus conducted to meet the requirrzents for data from active-duty

military personnel and their spouses.*

In February, 1985, the Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense

(Guard/Reserve Manpower and Personnel) (DASD(G/R M&P)] asked the

Defense Manpower Data Center (DMDC) to act as his agent in the conduct

*See Endnotes to this chapter.

2-2
of the 1986 Reserve Components Surveys. DMDC had acted in a similar

capacity in the conduct of the 1985 active duty surveys. In

addition,the DASD(G/R M&P) convened a special committee of reserve

ccaponent representatives to focus on establishing the requirements for

the surveys. The 1986 Reserve Components Surveys, described in detail

in the remainder of this chapter, were conducted to meet the

requirements for data from members of the reserve components and their

spouses.

Together, the 1985 DoD Surveys and the 1986 Reserve Components

Surveys provide data sets on the total population actively involved in

the military way of life. The survey data collected from both of these

major surveys can be used to study:

o The response of military personnel to changes in military

compensation and benefits enacted in recent years;

o Factors affecting individual preparedness and retention of

active-duty and reserve personnel;

o Projected behavior of military personnel in response to

possible changes in personnel management;

o Differences in career orientations, attitudes, and experiences

between members of different subgroups, e.g., occupational

specialties, officers and enlisted members, minorities, men and

women;

o The denographic, household, familial and other characteristics

of military personnel, couples, and families, including special

groups such as dual-career couples and single-parent families;

o The impact of military policies on aspects of military and

family life such as residential arrangements, continuing

education, and spouse employment;

o Family well-being, including economic issues facing military

families; and

o Demand for, use and adequacy of programs providing family

services.

In addition, data available from the 1986 Reserve Components

Surveys can be used to address a variety of questions about National

Guard and Reserve components members and families which heretofore have

been the subject of limited or outdated research, broad stereotyping,

and speculation. These include:

o Patterns of previous active and reserve component service;

o Financial issues that would fac= Guard and Reserve families in

the event of mobilization;

2-3
o The interaction between the amount and forms of reserve

compensation and career intentions;

o The relationship between civilian occupations and military

occupations for members;

" Availability of medical and health coverage to reserve families

from non-reserve sources;

o The impact of enployer policies, practices and attitudes on

member reserve participation; and

o The role of the family in reserve participation.

2. Previous Reserve Studies

The 1985 DoD Surveys and the 1986 Reserve Components Surveys

(1986 RC Surveys) build directly on OSD-sponsored survey research

conducted in recent years. The objectives of these surveys include a

systematic examination of, and provision of policy-sensitive

information about the military life cycle. The military life cycle

includes both reserve and active force enlistment and reenlistment

decisions, career orientations, responses to policies that affect

military members and their households, and decisions to leave the

military.

Beginning in FY 1979, several major life cycle surveys have been

conducted. The 1979 DoD Survey of Personnel Entering Military Service

and the 1981 and 1983 DoD Surveys of Applicants for Military Service

focussed on enlistment decisions. The 1978/79 DoD Survey of Officer

and Enlisted Personnel (1978/79 DoD Surveys) focused on the in-service

population; i.e. the men and women on active-duty in the four

Services. The 1985 DoD Surveys are closely related to the 1978/79 DoD

Surveys both in subject areas and survey design.

Former studies of the reserve components include the 1979 Reserve V

Force Studies Surveys (1979 RF Surveys) and the 1984 Survey of National ,

Guard and Reserve Members. The 1979 RF Surveys were administered to a

cross-section of enlisted personnel and unit ccmanders in both the

Army National Guard and Army Reserve. The purpose of the surveys was

to collect data for the Office of the Deputy Assistant Secretary of

Defense (Reserve Affairs) and the Army Guard and Reserve cofponents to

support policy research analysis on reserve force and manning

problems. The study was limited to a sample of 441 Army National Guard

and Army Reserve units, 219 for specialized case studies and 222

randomly selected. In each unit, questionnaires were administered to

all junior and senior enlisted pcorsonnel and to the unit comnanders.

In addition, one questionna-re was filled out either by the unit

commander or another unit nember (generally the unit military

technician) to report b\sic factual information about each sanpled

unit.

2-4

S
The 1984 Survey of National Guard and Reserve Members was conducted

at the request of the Office of the Deputy Assistant Secretary of

Defense (Reserve Affairs) and the Office of the Deputy Assistant

Secretary of Defense (Military Personnel and Force Management). The

purpose of the survey was to provide information on the attitudes and

experiences of Selected Reserve members with regard to the military

identification card system and other aspects of reserve service. The

sample included 201 units. Within sampled units, all Selected Reserve

members (including drilling members, Active Guard/Reserve or Training and Administration of Reserve members (AGR/TARs), and military 4

technicians) were asked to complete questionnaires.

3. Brief Description of the 1986 Reserve Components Surveys

The 1986 Reserve Components Surveys (1986 RC Surveys) consist

of three portions, two of reserve component members and the third of

their spouses. The 1986 Reserve Components Survey: Selected Reserve

Officer and Enlisted Personnel (1986 RC Member Survey) surveyed a

sample of Selected Reserve unit members. Individual Mobilization

Augmentees (IMAs), i.e., Selected Reservists who train with the active

cczponents, and military technicians, i.e., Selected Reservists who are

also employed full-time in reserve units in a civilian capacity, were

also included in the 1986 RC Member Survey. The 1986 Reserve

Comronents Survey: Full-Time Support Officer and Enlisted Personnel

(1986 RC AGR Survey) surveyed a sample of Active Guard/Reserve or

Training and Administration of Reserve (AGR/TARs) members. Individuals

in all seven reserve components (Army National Guard, Army Reserve,

Naval Reserve, Marine Corps Reserve, Air National Guard, Air Force

Reserve and Coast Guard Reserve) were included in both the 1986 RC

Member Survey and, where appropriate, in the 1986 RC AGR Survey.

As an additional part of these surveys, a follow-up of selected

Army National Guard and Army Reserve units included in the 1979 RF

Surveys was conducted. Of the 222 units randomly selected in 1979,

145 were still in existence in 1986. A census of approximately 13,000

enlisted members in these units constituted the 1979 RF Follow-Up

portion of the 1986 RC Surveys. These units were included so that

changes in personnel attitudes and attributes could be compared between

1979 and 1986. Members selected for the 1979 RF Follow-Up are included -

in the 1986 RC Member Surve population.

The 1986 RC Member Survey and the 1986 RC AGR Survey were

administered to a sample of approximately 121,000 Guard/Reserve members

(including about 13,000 in units previously sampled in 1979) in the 0

United States and Puerto Rico. Five questionnaire versions were used:

officer and enlisted members (including technicians and IMAs) (Forms 1

and 2); full-time support officer and enlisted personnel (Forms 3 and

4), and the commanders of units in the 1979 RF Follow-Up (Form 7).

The 1986 Reserve Ccmponents Survey of Spouses of Selected Reserve

Personnel (1986 RC Spouse Survey) was a census of the spouses of all

2-5
individuals sampled for participation in the 1986 RC Member Survey and

the 1986 RC AGR Survey. A questionnaire was sent to approximately 75,000 spouses in English (Form 5) and Spanish (in Puerto Rico) (Form

6) versions.

All of the questionnaires contained a core group of questions

similar to those used in previois DoD active and reserve surveys

covering members' and spouses' characteristics and current experiences.

C. Survey Populations and Samples

The Reserve Components Cowon Personnel Data System (RCCPDS) as of

30 October 1985 was used to initially define the population on which

the samples were based. In addition to the information used for , sampling, BCCPDS contains other administrative data on Guard/Reserve

members which were used in data collection. The 1986 PC Surveys

contain three units of analysis: military personnel, spouses and

couples.

1. Military Personnel

The population for the basic military samples of the 1986 RC

Surveys consisted of Selected Reserve trained officer and enlisted :7..

personnel; i.e., individuals in the training pipeline were excluded. .

These personnel are included in the Selected Reserve strength of all :.

reserve components. Therefore, the sample population was smaller by

approximately 9 percent from the total population of the Selected WIN

Reserve. The basic stratification variable was reserve component.

Within each component, personnel were classified by reserve category

(RCAT) as defined in RCCPDS, officer/enlisted personnel status and

sex. The four reserve categories are unit menbers (IWAT = S), non-unit

menbers or IMAs (RCAT = T), military technicians (RCAT = M), and fulltime support personnel or AGR/TAR (PCAT = F). The final sample sizes

were based on a compromise between the number of questionnaires needed

for detailed analyses of special small populations and budgetary

constraints. In most strata, the design provided for a 10 percent sample. The sample design also provided for larger sampling ratios of

women, officers, Marine Corps Reserve and Coast Guard Reserve

personnel. The final stratification scheme along with the sampling L

ratios is shown in Table 2.1. Within each stratum, a random sample of_•

military personnel was selected with equal probability of selection

using the sampling ratios shown in Table 2.1. The final sample sizes,

by stratum, are shown in Table 2.2.

As indicated above, in addition to the basic sample, approximately 13,000 Army National Guard (ARNG) and Army Reserve (USAR) menbers of

specific units from the 1979 RF Surveys were surveyed. These 145 units

had been randomly selected and surveyed in the 1979 RF Surveys and were

still in existence in late 1985. Table 2.3 shows the complete

follow-up sample, in strata defined on the basis of unit size; i.e.,

following the classification used in the 1979 RF Surveys. The table u.

shows 12,977 individuals were selected; 7,443 individuals in the ARNM •

2-6
Table 2.1 1986 Reserve Components Surveys Sampling Ratios

for Military Members

Reserve Component

Respondent

Type ARNG USAR USNR USMCR ANG USAFR USCGR

Unit Members (RCAT=S)

Officer

Male 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.40 0.10 0.10 0.60

Female 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.80 0.20 0.20 1.00

Enlisted

Male 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.20 0.10 0.10 0.30

Female 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.20 0.10 0.10 0.30

Non-Unit Members (IMAs) (RCAT=T)

Officer

Male - 0.10 - 0.40 - 0.10 -

Female - 0.20 - 0.80 - 0.20 -

Enlisted

Male - 0.10 - 0.20 - 0.10 -

Female - 0.10 - 0.20 - 0.10 -

Technicians (RCAT=M)

Officer S

Male 0.10 0.10 - - 0.10 0.10 -

Female 0.20 0.20 - - 0.20 0.10 -

Enlisted

Male 0.10 0.10 - - 0.10 0.10 -

Female 0.10 0.10 - - 0.10 0.10 -

Full-Time Support (FTS-AGR/TAR) (RCAT=F)

Officer

Male 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.40 0.10 0.10 -

Female 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.80 0.20 0.20 -

Enlisted

Male 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.20 0.10 0.10 -

Female 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.20 0.10 0.10 -

2-7
Table 2.2 Basic Sample of Military Members Selected

for the 1986 Resecve Components Surveys

Reserve Component Total

Respondent Selected

Type ARNG USAR USNR USMCR ANG USAFR USCGR Reserve

Unit Members (RCAT=S)

Officer

Male 3,175 3,345 1,872 976 935 584 890 11,777

Female 385 1,340 331 46 163 309 74 2,648

Enlisted

Male 30,785 15,826 7,650 6,040 5,971 3,729 2,890 72,891

Female 1,408 3,164 899 224 777 852 300 7,624

Non-Unit Members (IMAs) (RCAT=T)

Officer

Male - 795 64 208 - 651 - 1,718

Female - 94 9 39 - 164 - 306

Enlisted

Male - 291 4 97 - 347 - 739

Female - 42 2 13 - 85 - 142

Technicians (RCAT=M)

Officer

Male 531 96 - - 187 77 - 891

Female 31 13 - - 9 7 - 60

Enlisted

Male 1,548 243 - - 1,790 672 - 4,253

Female 141 29 - - 162 55 - 387

Full-Time Support (FTS-AGR/TAR) (RCATfF)

Officer

Male 277 280 164 76 92 15 - 904 .

Female 22 43 16 18 7 2 - 108

Enlisted

Male 1,523 592 1,254 154 441 32 - 3,996

Female 188 191 89 34 110 11 - 623

Total 40,014 26,384 12,354 7,925 10,644 7,592 4,154 109,067

2-8
Table 2.3 1979 Reserve Forces Follow-up Survey Sample

Reserve Unit

Ccoponent Size Selected

Army National Guard 101-160 54

41-100 2,174

101-160 3,911

161+ 1,304

Subtotal 7,443

Army Reserve 0-40 270

41-100 1,043

101-160 1,863

161+ 2,358

Subtotal 5,534

Total 12,977

and 5,534 in the USAR. However, some individuals in the ARNG or USAR

are in both samples, that is, they were randomly selected as part of

the basic sample and happened to be members of 1979 RF Follow-Up. The

actual number of additional unique individuals sampled was 11,700:

6,707 in the Army National Guard and 5,013 in the Army Reserve. Put

another way, there is an overlap of 1,257 individuals, 736 in the Army

National Guard and 521 in the Army Reserve who are in both the basic

1986 RC Surveys sample and the 1979 RF Follow-Up.

2. Spue

The 1986 RC .ouse Survey queried the total population of

spouses of married t.Llitary members who had been randonly selected for

inclusion in the military portions of the 1986 RC Surveys. While the

accuracy of marital status information in RCCPDS made this

administrative data of limited use in selecting married members, it was

possible to make a rough estimate of the total number of reservists who

were married. It was estimated that approximately 75,000 individuals

in the basic and additional samples described above would be married at

the time of data collection.

3. Couples

The couple data have been derived by merging survey information

2-9
Ia

provided by married military survey respondents with that given by

their responding spouses. A unique aspect of the couple information is

the existence of married couples both of whom are Guard/Reserve

members. It is clear that, with two distinct probabilities, either or

both partners of any dual-Guard/Reserve couple could have been drawn

into the military sample. If both partners were selected, both

received "military" questionnaires to ccmplete. In addition, both

partners also received 1986 RC Spouse Survey questionnaires. Because

the spouse questionnaire was sufficiently different from the member

questionnaire, both partners were asked to fill out the spouse

questionnaire. When only one partner was selected into the member

sample, the couple was asked to complete one member and one spouse

questionnaire between them.

D. Survey Administration and Response Rates

1. Administration LN

Data collection for the 1986 Reserve Components Surveys was the

responsibility of component-specific administrative units, coordinated

by the DMDC, ODASD(G/R M&P) and representatives from each of the

reserve components.

Prior to the start of data collection, DMDC provided a contractor,

National Computer Systems (NCS), with a tape of the military sample

selected frn the 30 October 1985 RCCPDS file. The tape contained two f

types of records. The first type, Record Control Number (RCN) records,

defined the location of the targeted military sample. RCN records

contained unit addresses for all military members in the survey,

numbers of specific questionnaire variants sent to each location, and

other information for survey control purposes. (The term "unit" in

this context refers to an organizational element of the reserve

components such as headquarters, a company or platoon.) The second

type, individual records, contained information about each person to be

surveyed at each unit. The information included name, Social Security

Number (SSN), rank, questionnaire variant assigned to the individual,

and the individual's home address. NCS used this information in

producing field materials and in the survey tracking system designed

for these surveys.

NCS mailed packages containing questionnaires and related materials N

directly to approximately 15,000 units in the U.S. and Puerto Rico. On

the average, units had 7-10 survey participants. However, many units

had only one or two survey participants, while other units (including

the 1979 RF Survey follow-up units) had 50 or more survey

participants. The survey packages mailed to units contained the

following documents: Zq

o Survey checklist;

o Printed roster identifying military survey participants and

2-10
requesting spouse information and member address and

information correction;

o Alternate return mailing labels for those expected to be absent

during the survey administration;

o Member survey packets (including questionnaires with computergenerated nember identification numbers and cover letters, in

individually addressed envelopes/survey packets for each member

survey participant);

o Spouse packets (including questionnaires with computergenerated spouse identification numbers and cover letters, in

individually addressed envelopes/survey packets for each spouse survey participant ); 0

" Administration instruction booklet; and

" Return mail packaging materials.

With minor variations resulting from conponent-specific 0

organizational differences, the administrative procedures used for data

collection were the same in each of the conponents. The basic process

is sumnarized below:

o Prior to sending the survey package, a "heads up" letter was

sent to the unit ccuander requesting the name of a point-of- 0 contact (POC) to administer the survey as well as the POC's telephone number.

o Next, a survey package was sent to the POC or unit conmander

(if a POC had not been designated). When a survey package

arrived at a unit, the POC was responsible for the following

actions:

Reviewing, completing, and returning the Survey Checklist

to NCS. The checklist allowed survey administrators to

specify any deficiencies in the survey package shipment.

They were required to conplete same and return to NCS. 0

Reviewing, and completing the Survey Roster. Survey

administrators reviewed the roster, indicated members who

were still in the unit, those who are expected to be absent

during the survey administration, and those married. They

also verified home addresses and/or provided corrected home

addresses and, for married members, provided the spouse's

name.

Mailing Spouse Survey Packets. The mailing contained

Spouse Survey packets addressed "to the Spouse of ... " for

all members selected to participate in the survey, since

information available prior to the survey was judged 0

inadequate for data collection purposes. Administrators

2-11
were instructed to destroy packets for unmarried members.

For those married, the correct spouse name was to be

substituted where possible for "to the Spouse of ... " and

addresses verified and corrected where necessary.

Corrected packets were then mailed to the hone address by

the unit point-of-contact -- not given to members to take

home.

tSeparating Member Survey Packets and Returning Survey

Roster. Using the Survey Roster, administrators were

instructed to separate the Member Packets into groups of

those who were no longer in the unit, those expected to be

absent, and those expected to be present at either the next

drill or the one following. The packets for those no

longer in the unit were to be destroyed. Packets were

mailed to members at home if they were expected to be

absent during the administration period. An alternate

return mailing label was enclosed, so questionnaires could

be returned directly to the contractor. Packets for unit

members expected to be at either of the next two drills

were held for administration. Annotated survey rosters

were then to be returned to NCS.

Administering Member Survey. Returning Completed

Questionnaires and Questionnaires for Those Unexpectedly

Absent During Administration Period. Questionnaire packets

were distributed to members during the next drill following,

receipt of materials or, if any were absent, at the

following drill. Units were expected to give time for

members to complete the questionnaire during the drill.

The survey administrator collected all completed Ed

questionnaires in sealed envelopes. After the second

drill, completed questionnaires were packaged and mailed to

the contractor.

To ensure that data collection procedures were being followed, the

survey contractor monitored each stage of the process and sent followup letters and special remJiders to unit points-of-contact. Follow-up

letters were sent if checklists, rosters, and questionnaires were not _

received within a specified period of time after initial transmittal.

NCS processed completed member and spouse questionnaires, as they were

returned, by optically scanning, editing and coding responses onto

computer tapes. Follow-ups (including a second questionnaire) were

sent to the home addresses of those members expected to be absent from

drills, and to spouses, if questionnaires were not received within a

specified period of time.

Administrative procedures for individuals identified as IMAs (RCAT = T) were somewhat different. IMAs are programied in significant '.

numbers in only three components: Army Reserve, Marine Corps Reserve

and Air Force Reserve. For the Army and Air Force Reserve samples,

computer tapes listing the names, SSNs, and mailing addresses were sent

2-12

-~ ~'~V/ *_
U to the Reserve Personnel Centers where the addresses were corrected and

forwarded to NCS. Survey packets were then sent directly to their home

addresses. In the Marine Corps Reserve, a survey package containing 

0

survey packets was sent to the Personnel Center in Kansas City. There,

packet addresses were hand-corrected and mailed directly to the home

addresses of IMAs and their spouses.

Data collection from spouses followed another scenario, one less

complex than used for the member surveys. As indicated above,

questionnaire packets were mailed directly to verified or corrected

home addresses from units or from NCS or the Marine Corps Personnel

Center in the cases of spouses of IMAs. Following the pattern of the

member survey, spouses received an introductory letter and a follow-up

letter from component-specific military leaders and, after several

weeks, received a second questionnaire. While the units were

responsible for mailing the initial questionnaire to the spouses, the

follow-up activities were the responsibility of the contractor. Thus,

if the unit had failed in following the procedures for the initial

mailing, the second mailing insured that at least one questionnaire was

sent.

Questionnaires to the 145 unit commanders in the 1979 RF Follow-Up 0 were mailed directly to them by NCS, several weeks after the start of

the main data collection activities. For this group, follow-up

activities were handled by DMDC. Personal telephone calls were made to

commanders from whom questionnaires were not received within 

a

reasonable amount of time.

Throughout the data collection,, ODASD(G/R M&P) was informed of the

surveys' progress and asked to provide special assistance, e.g.,

resolving unit specific problems or contacting components who appeared

not to be conducting the survey in a timely fashion.

2. Response Rates

As shown in Table 2.2, the basic sample selected for the

military member surveys consisted of a total of 109,067 officer and

enlisted personnel. Including individuals unique to the 1979 RF

Follow-Up Survey, i.e. excluding those who were selected for both

samples, a total of 120,787 were to be surveyed.

Data collection for the survey began in February 1986 with the

mailing of the initial notification letters to units containing sampled

individuals. Because of the dispersion of the sample, varying drill

schedules, and the follow-up efforts initiated to improve response

rates, the last questionnaires were not received by the survey

processing contractor until June 1986. The majority of the

questionnaires, however, were filled out in March and April 1986.

Data collection for the spouse survey lagged that of the member

surveys initially by several weeks, since the first questionnaires were

mailed by the unit. Follow-up efforts, however, lagged even more. The

2-13
lag resulted from the reliance on verifications and corrections of

spouse home addresses to arrive from military units. This delay in

copleting the initial mailing, combined with the requirement to send

second questionnaires to spouses who did not respond initially, meant W

that the last questionnaires for the spouse survey were not received

until late July 1986.

One way to assess the response rates among military members is to

compare the numbers of questionnaires mailed out with the final numbers

received. Table 2.4 provides a conplete set of member response rates,

by stratum, and the frame count (i.e., the number in the population),

the number selected, the number eligible, and the number responding.

Table 2.5, an abridgement of Table 2.4, shows the same data by reserve

component, for both officers and enlisted personnel separately and

cosrbined.

The unadjusted response rates shown in Tables 2.4 and 2.5 do not

account for the fact that some individuals who had been selected for

participation from the 30 October 1985 administrative files were no

longer members of the unit to which the questionnaires were sent at the

time of actual data collection. There are several reasons why this

occurs. First, individuals may have totally separated from the armed

forces, i.e. were no longer menbers of any reserve or active

coqponent. Second, individuals may have transferred from a reserve

component to an active conponent. Third, individuals may have

transferred within the reserve components to either another

classification, e.g. individual ready reserve, to another component, or

to another unit within their original component. Eqerience with the

reserve coponents shows that a "losing" unit may or may not have

information about the actual status of a "lost" member. For exanple,

an individual may inform his unit that he is totally separating from

the reserve components due to geographical relocation but may, in fact,

rejoin another unit several months later. Thus, the administrative

procedures specified that survey eligible members were only those who

were unit members at the time of data collection. (Unit members who

were absent during data collection were eligible to participate.)

As can be seen, the unadjusted response rates for all coponents,

officer and enlisted personnel combined, except the Army, are over 50

percent. Since the Army conponents constitute a significant portion of

the total DoD sample selected, (65 percent), its response rate lowers

the (unadjusted) overall DoD total to 53 percent. As is usually the

case, officer response rates were higher than those for enlisted

personnel, with the overall DoD officer total (unadjusted) being 67

percent and the enlisted personnel (unadjusted) being 50 percent.

Adjusted response rates, which take account of the administrative

procedures, were calculated by comparing the sanple selected as of

30 October 1985 with (a) the survey control files which reflect

information received from units as to whether the reservists selected

were still unit members when data were collected and (b) for units who

did not provide this information, the 30 June 1986 RCCPDS

2-14

~ - ~ ~ ,. *'~** '~" *''V%~' *~ ~l
Table 2.4 1986 Reserve Components Surveys Response Rates

for Military Members, by Stratum

Unad- S

Se- Re- justed Adjusted

Stra- Reserve Frame lect- Eli- spond- Response Response

tum Sex Component Count ed gible ing Rate Rate

RCAT = F (AGR/TAR) Rank Group = Officer S

1 F USAR 211 43 36 27 62.8 75.0

2 F USAFR 9 2 2 1 50.0 50.0

3 F ARNG 110 22 22 14 63.6 63.6

4 F ANG 32 7 6 5 71.4 83.3

5 F USMCR 24 18 II 10 55.6 90.9 S

6 F USNR 80 16 14 12 75.0 85.7

7 M USAR 2796 280 237 182 65.0 76.8

8 M USAFR 146 15 15 14 93.3 93.3

9 M ARNG 2803 277 268 187 67.5 69.8

10 M ANG 924 92 91 79 85.9 86.8

11 M USMCR 190 76 73 59 77.6 80.8 0

12 M USNR 1632 164 145 106 64.6 72.7

Subtotal 8957 1012 920 696 68.8 75.7

RCAT = F (AGR/TAR) Rank Group = Enlisted

13 F USAR 1909 191 162 76 39.8 46.9

14 F USAFR 102 11 11 9 81.8 81.8

15 F ARNG 1914 205 191 124 60.5 64.9

16 F ANG 1095 110 104 91 82.7 87.5

17 F USMCR 167 34 32 24 70.6 75.0

18 F USNR 888 89 81 44 49.4 54.3

19 M USAR 921? 592 50? 278 47.0 55.4

20 M USAFR 311 32 31 21 65.6 67.7

21 M ARNG 15315 1729 1611 1161 67.1 72.1

22 M ANG 4415 441 431 384 87.1 89.1

23 M USMCR 769 154 141 86 55.8 61.0

24 M USNR 12540 1254 1107 586 46.7 52.9 5

Subtotal 45345 4842 4404 2884 59.6 65.5

2-15

•S
Table 2.4 (continued)

Unad-V

Se- Re- justed Adjusted

Stra- Reserve Frame lect- Eli- spond- Response Response

tum Sex Component Count ed gible ing Rate Rate

RCAT = M (Military Technicians) Rank Group = Officer

25 F USAR 61 13 12 7 53.8 58.3

26 F USAFR 31 7 7 6 85.7 85.7

27 F ARNG 156 31 30 24 77.4 80.0

28 F ANG 43 9 9 9 100.0 100.0

29 M USAR 963 96 89 66 68.8 74.2

30 M USAFR 762 77 73 58 75.3 79.5

31 M ARNG 5323 531 494 406 76.5 82.2

32 M ANG 1862 187 183 167 89.3 91.3

Subtotal 9201 951 897 743 78.1 82.8

RCAT = M (Military Technicians) Rank Group = Enlisted

33 F USAR 285 34 29 17 50.0 58.6

34 F USAFR 542 55 50 42 76.4 84.0

35 F ARNG 1430 157 135 83 52.9 61.5

36 F ANG 1613 162 151 134 82.7 88.7

37 M USAR 2430 323 278 162 50.2 58.3

38 M USAFR 6713 672 650 525 78.1 80.8

39 M ARNG 15518 1786 1671 1116 62.5 66.8

40 M ANG 17900 1790 1738 1496 83.6 86.1

Subtotal 46431 4979 4702 3575 71.8 76.0

2-16

Q'I
3 Table 2.4 (continued)

UnadSe- Re- justed Adjusted

Stra- Reserve Frame lect- Eli- spond- Response Response 3 tum Sex Component Count ed gible ing Rate Rate

RCAT = S (Unit Members) Rank Group f Officer

41 F USAR 6849 1340 1124 724 54.0 64.4

42 F USAFR 1545 309 282 226 73.1 80.1

43 F ARNG 1938 385 324 220 57.1 67.9

44 F ANG 813 163 154 125 76.7 81.2

45 F USMCR 57 46 43 33 71.7 76.7

46 F USNR 1668 331 276 206 62.2 74.6

47 F USCGR 74 74 68 64 86.5 94.1

48 M USAR 34271 3345 2804 2011 60.1 71.7

49 M USAFR 5833 584 541 400 68.5 73.9

50 M ARNG 31809 3175 2784 1959 61.7 70.4

51 M ANG 9353 935 890 739 79.0 83.0

52 M USMCR 2440 976 858 671 68.8 78.2

53 M USNR 18755 1872 1629 1313 70.1 80.6

54 M USCGR 1419 890 792 691 77.6 87.2

Subtotal 116824 14425 12569 9382 65.0 74.6

RCAT = S (Unit Members) Rank Group = Enlisted

55 F USAR 31687 4110 3178 1541 37.5 48.5

56 F USAFR 8534 852 684 485 56.9 70.9

57 F ARNG 14216 1660 1380 703 42.3 50.9

58 F ANG 7773 777 690 520 66.9 75.4

59 F USMCR 1117 224 172 103 46.0 59.9

60 F USNR 9425 899 715 471 52.4 65.9 S61 F USCGR 1009 300 238 165 55.0 69.3

62 M USAR 158767 19808 15272 7426 37.5 48.6

63 M USAFR 37380 3729 3168 2245 60.2 70.9

64 M ARNG 308589 36763 31648 17847 48.5 56.4

65 M ANG 59118 5971 5479 4366 73.1 79.7

66 M USMCR 30255 6040 4980 3086 51.1 62.0

67 M USNR 77747 7650 6224 3791 49.6 60.9

68 M USCGR 9739 2890 2457 1788 61.9 72.8

Subtotal 756016 91673 76285 44537 48.6 58.4

2-17
Table 2.4 (continued)

UnadSe- Re- justed Adjusted

Stra- Reserve Frame lect- Eli- spond- Response Response

turn Sex Component Count ed gible ing Rate Rate

RCAT = T (Non-Unit Members; Individual Mobilization Augmentees)

Rank Group = Officer

69 F USAR 470 94 80 58 61.7 72.5

70 F USAFR 825 164 139 123 75.0 88.5

71 F USMCR 48 39 37 27 69.2 73.0

72 F USNR 44 9 8 6 66.7 75.0

73 M USAR 7946 795 674 533 67.0 79.1

74 M USAFR 6559 651 552 503 77.3 91.1

75 M USMCR 520 208 203 165 79.3 81.3

76 M USNR 659 64 54 42 65.6 77.8

Subtotal 17071 2024 1747 1457 72.0 83.4

RCAT = T (Non-Unit Members; Individual Mobilization Augmentees)

Rank Group = Enlisted

77 F USAR 419 42 36 15 35.7 41.7

78 F USAFR 860 85 72 47 55.3 65.3

79 F USMCR 62 13 13 6 46.2 46.2

80 F USNR 12 2 2 0 0.0 0.0

81 M USAR 2904 291 247 125 43.0 50.6

82 M USAFR 3513 347 294 191 55.0 65.0

83 M USMCR 483 97 76 28 28.9 36.8

84 M USNR 41 4 3 1 25.0 33.3

Subtotal 8294 881 743 413 46.9 55.6

Total 1008139 120787 102267 63687 52.7 62.3

2-18

= a
Table 2.5 1986 Reserve Components Surveys Response Rates

for Military Members, by Reserve Components

Unadjusted Adjusted 0

Reserve Frame Response Response

Component Count Selected Eligible Responding Rate Rate

Rank Group = Officer

USAR 53567 6006 5056 3608 60.1 71.4

USAFR 15710 1809 1611 1331 73.6 82.6

ARNG 42139 4421 3922 2810 63.6 71.6

ANG 13027 1393 1333 1124 80.7 84.3

USMCR 3279 1363 1225 965 70.8 78.8

USNR 22838 2456 2126 1685 68.6 79.3

USCGR 1493 964 860 755 78.3 87.8

Subtotal 152053 18412 16133 12278 66.7 76.1

Rank Group = Enlisted 0

USAR 204321 25391 19704 9640 38.0 48.9

USAFR. 57955 5783 4960 3565 61.6 71.9

ARNG 356982 4 300 36636 21034 49.7 57.4

ANG 92574 9251 8593 6991 75.6 81.4

USMCR 32853 6562 5414 3333 50.8 61.6

USNR 100653 9898 8132 4893 49.4 60.2

USCGR 10748 3190 2695 1953 61.2 72.5

Subtotal 856086 102375 86134 51409 50.2 59.7

Reserve Components

USAR 257888 31397 24760 13248 42.2 53.5

USAFR 73665 7592 6571 4896 64.5 74.5

ARNG 399121 46721 40558 23844 51.0 58.8

ANG 105601 10644 9926 8115 76.2 81.8

USMCR 36132 7925 6639 4298 54.2 64.7 %

USNR 123491 12354 10258 6578 53.2 64.1

USCGR 12241 4154 3555 2708 65.2 76.2

Total 1008139 120787 102267 63687 52.7 62.3

2-19
administrative files. This comparison allowed for the identification

of both those who do not appear on RCCPDS at all (i.e. were either no

longer in the armed forces or hac transferred to the regular

components) and those who had made various transfers within the reserve

components, e.g., changed component, unit, or transferred out of the

Selected Reserve. Of the 120,787 individuals initially selected,

18,520 were in fact not eligible for the survey for the reasons noted

above. Of these, 7,971 did not appear in RCCPDS in June 1986 and an

additional 10,549 were in RCCPDS but at a unit different from the one

at which they were selected for the survey, leaving an effective sample

of 102,267.

As shown in Table 2.5, after the adjustments are made the overall

response rate is increased to 62 percent. The final (adjusted) officer

response rate was 76 percent. The enlisted response rate was 60

percent. Except for the Army components, officer response rates were

about 80 percent and those for enlisted personnel were over 60

percent. It is likely that the greater mobility of Army personnel

partly explains the lower response rates.

When subgroups of the sample are examined, as shown in Table 2.4,

other differences are apparent. For example, among officers, the

response rates ranged from a low of 74.6 percent for officers in units

to 83.4 percent to officers who were IMAs. Among enlisted personnel,

unit members had the lowest response rate, 58.4 percent, and military

technicians the highest, 76.0 percent.

The calculation of response rates for spouses is somewhat more

complex than that for military members. Unadjusted rates for members

were defined as the ratios of the number of questionnaires received to

the number mailed out. For military members, the contractor mailed out

known numbers to each administrative unit; i.e. the number selected by

DMDC. As discussed in Section D. 1 above, the contractor provided units

with the same number of spouse questionnaires as member

questionnaires. Since we know that not all reservists are married, a

calculation of unadjusted response rates for spouses in the same way as

was done for members is meaningless. The appropriate "mailed out"

number should be the number of questionnaires sent out by unit

administrators to married members. This number, according to the

procedures, should have been reported to the contractor on returned

rosters. In fact, some unit administrators did not return rosters and

others who returned them did not indicate marital status next to every

name. As a result, a determination was made as to the marital status

of each 5eservist in the sample, using a variety of methods and

sources. These population estimates, by stratum, together with the

number of spouses responding (i.e. questionnaires received) and

response rates are shown in Table 2.6. A summary of these data is

presented in Table 2.7.

Examination of Table 2.6 shows variation among various subgroups.

Among the spouses of officers, the rates range from 49.3 percent among

spouses whose mates are part-time unit members (RCAT = S) to 60.6

2-20

. . . .. . . .
percent among the spouses of officers who are also military

technicians. Among the spouses of enlisted personnel, spouses of unit I. members have the lowest rate, 34.2 percent, and spouses of military

technicians the highest, 54.3. Within subgroups, there is variation

both by component and by the sex of the spouse. In general, the

response rates for female spouses are higher than those for male

spouses and the response rates for the Air Force components are highest

among the contoents.

Table 2.7 summarizes the response rate by component. For spouses

of reserve officers, response rates for the Army components were the

lowest. Rates for the Naval and Marine Corps Reserve were slightly

higher. The response rates for spouses of enlisted personnel in the

Army comrponents and Naval and Marine Corps Reserve were also the

lowest, and considerably lower than rates among spouses of officers.

Since the Army components constitute the largest portion of the

samples, their low response rates decrease the overall rates.

Examination by DMDC of all the information available on the data

collection suggests several reasons for the low response rates to the

1986 RC Spouse Survey. First, we know that 31 percent of units did not

return rosters, and that the majority of these were in the Army

components. The number of questionnaires returned by spouses from

units who did not return rosters was smaller than from those who did

return them. This strongly suggests that a considerable nuter of

spouses may never have received questionnaires from the unit; i.e., that administrative procedures were not followed. The response rate

data presented in Tables 2.6 and 2.7 assumes that every eligible spouse

received a questionnaire. This may not have been the case. Second, it

appears that some administrators gave the spouse's questionnaire to the

member to deliver, rather than mailing it to a home address in

accordance with the instructions provided. We do not know how many of

these questionnaires were never received by a spouse. Again, our

response rate calculations assume receipt. This also may not have been

the case.

DMDC analyses show that the demographic characteristics of members

whose spouses returned questionnaires are the same as those of members 

S

whose spouses did not. Further, since respondents to the 1986 RC

Member Survey and the 198r ,C AGR Survey reported the demographic

characteristics of their spouses, DMDC was able to compare the 

k

demographic characteristics of spouses who returned questionnaires with

those who did not. The analysis shows that they are quite similar. Similarity of demographi2 characteristics, however, does not mean that

respondents and non-respondents would have similar attitudes and

opinions. There is some evidence to suggest that non-respondents are

more detached and indifferent to their mates' reserve participation.

Thus, the data collected from spouses should be viewed as suggestive

rather than definitive. In order to minimize misinterpretation, given

the difference in response rates between components, initial reports

based on the data from the 1986 RC Spouse Survey will not discuss

2-21
Table 2.6 1986 Reserve Components Spouse Survey Response Rates,

by Stratum

Population p

Estimate Eligible Responding Response Rate

Stra- Reserve Total Total Spouse Couple Spouse Couple

tum Sex Component Spouses Spouses

RCAT = F (AGR/TAR)

Rank Group = Officer

1 F USAR 100 23 10 9 43.5 39.1

2 F USAFR 7 1 1 1 100.0 100.0

3 F ARNG 28 10 3 2 30.0 20.0

4 F ANG 22 4 3 3 75.0 75.0

5 F USMCR 9 8 4 4 50.0 50.0

6 F USNR 34 5 2 2 40.0 40.0

7 M USAR 2519 244 139 130 57.0 53.3

8 M USAFR 130 13 9 9 69.2 69.2 p

9 M ARNG 2628 243 168 146 69.1 60.1

10 M ANG 973 84 61 60 72.6 71.4

11 M USMCR 152 63 38 38 60.3 60.3

12 M USNR 1538 149 82 78 55.0 52.3

Subtotal 8140 847 520 482 61.4 56.9

RCAT = F (AGR/TAR)

Rank Group Enlisted

13 F USAR 974 88 26 24 29.5 27.3 I

14 F USAFR 33 4 2 2 50.0 50.0

15 F ARNG 830 91 47 38 51.6 41.8

16 F ANG 645 65 37 34 56.9 52.3

17 F USMCR 91 18 8 7 44.4 38.9

18 F USNR 746 42 16 15 38.1 35.7

19 M USAR 5014 477 192 170 40.3 35.6

20 M USAFR 311 29 18 18 62.1 62.1

21 M ARNG 13006 1439 883 777 61.4 54.0

22 M ANG 3800 362 252 243 69.6 67.1

23 M USMCR 520 102 45 36 44.1 35.3

24 M USNR 10168 878 300 272 34.2 31.0 ,

Subtotal 36138 3595 1826 1636 50.8 45.5 per

1-

2-22

le* .~*,,
Table 2.6 (continued)

Population

Estimate Eligible Responding Response Rate

Stra- Reserve ToUl Spouse Couple Spouse Couple

tum Sex Component Spouses Spouses

RCAT = M (Military Technicians)

Rank Group = Officer

25 F USAR 26 5 3 3 60.0 60.0

26 F USAFR 21 4 3 2 75.0 50.0

27 F ARNG 99 15 12 10 80.0 66.7 0

28 F ANG 30 4 4 4 100.0 100.0 '. S

29 M USAR 870 88 48 44 54.5 50.0

30 M USAFR 586 60 38 35 63.3 58.3

31 M ARNG 4705 486 302 286 62.1 58.8

32 M ANG 1576 166 124 118 74.7 71.1

Subtotal 7913 828 534 502 64.5 60.6

RCAT M (Military Technicians)

Rank Group = Enlisted

33 F USAR 97 11 6 5 54.5 45.5

34 F USAFR 350 31 19 16 61.3 51.6

35 F ARNG 639 88 33 28 37.5 31.8

36 F ANG 745 74 42 40 56.8 54.1

37 M USAR 2006 268 121 101 45.1 37.7

38 M USAFR 5484 565 351 318 62.1 56.3

39 M ARNG 12480 1483 855 729 57.7 49.2 .f

40 M ANG 14259 1478 983 934 66.5 63.2

Subtotal 36060 3998 2410 2171 60.3 54.3

2-23
Table 2.6 (continued)

Population

Estimate Eligible Responding Response Rate

Stra- Reserve Total Total Spouse Couple Spouse Couple

tum Sex Component Spouses Spouses

RCAT = S (Unit Members)

Rank Group = Officer

41 F USAR 3920 709 300 252 42.3 35.5

42 F USAFR 750 149 79 71 53.0 47.7

43 F ARNG 973 188 72 66 38.3 35.1

44 F ANG 468 89 47 47 52.8 52.8

45 F USMCR 34 25 11 11 44.0 44.0

46 F USNR 1246 233 110 100 47.2 42.9

47 F USCGR 63 57 43 42 75.4 73.7

48 M USAR 26901 2629 1323 1187 50.3 45.2

49 M USAFR 4916 492 316 255 64.2 51.8

50 M ARNG 24426 2453 1376 1185 56.1 48.3

51 M ANG 7682 764 506 458 66.2 59.9

52 M USMCR 2097 804 445 401 55.3 49.9

53 M USNR 16722 1584 894 841 56.4 53.1

54 M USCGR 1309 774 520 486 67.2 62.8

Subtota] 91507 10950 6042 5402 55.2 49.3

RCAT = S (Unit Members)

Rank Group = Enlisted

55 F USAR 11332 1647 275 223 16.7 13.5

56 F USAFR 3918 422 130 116 30.8 27.5

57 F ARNG 5484 682 188 153 27.6 22.4

58 F ANG 3161 331 137 130 41.4 39.3

59 F~ USMCR 373 97 19 14 19.6 14.4

60 F USNR 5217 486 194 169 39.9 34.8

61 F USCGR 540 150 63 54 42.0 36.0

62 M USAR 92108 11199 3588 2934 32.0 26.2

63 M USAFR 25075 2598 1211 1063 46.6 40.9

64 M ARNG 184063 21712 9266 7509 42.7 34.6

65 M ANG 41869 4119 2365 2186 57.4 53.1

66 M USMCR 9735 2202 663 556 30.1 25.2

67 M USNR 49385 4889 2180 1896 44.6 38.8

68 M USCGR 6762 2040 1072 980 52.5 48.0

Subtotal 439022 52574 21351 17983 40.6 34.2

2-24
Table 2.6 (continued)

Population

Estimate Eligible Responding Response Rate

Stra- Reserve Total Total Spouse Couple Spouse Couple

tum Sex Component Spouses Spouses

RCAT = T (Non-Unit Members; Individual Mobilization Augmentees)

Rank Group = Officer

69 F USAR 324 52 30 29 57.7 55.8

70 F USAFR 633 108 54 53 50.0 49.1

71 F USMCR 44 29 18 15 62.1 51.7

72 F USNR 0 7 0 0 0.0 0.0

73 M USAR 6811 666 355 336 53.3 50.5

74 M USAFR 5639 554 330 324 59.6 58.5

75 M USMCR 499 185 109 102 58.9 55.1

76 M USNR 438 55 9 8 16.4 14.5

Subtotal 14388 1656 905 867 54.6 52.4

RCAT = T (Non-Unit Members; Individual Mobilization Augmentees)

Rank Group = Enlisted

77 F USAR 287 22 6 5 27.3 22.7 5

78 F USAYR 642 56 28 26 50.0 46.4

79 F USMCR 69 11 4 3 36.4 27.3

80 F USNR 0 2 0 0 0.0 0.0

81 M USAR 2651 176 67 61 38.1 34.7

82 M USAFR 2926 266 146 136 54.9 51.1

83 M USMCR 341 81 18 15 22.2 18.5

84 M USNR 54 1 1 1 100.0 100.0

Subtotal 6970 615 270 247 43.9 40.2

Total 640138 75063 33858 29290 45.1 39.0

2-2S

2-25
Table 2.7 1986 Reserve Components Spouse Survey Response Rates,

by Reserve Component

Population

Estimate Eligible Responding Response Rate

Reserve

Component Total Spouses Total Spouses Spouse Couple Spouse Couple

Rank Group Officer

USAR 41471 4416 2208 1990 50.0 45.1

USAFR 12682 1381 830 750 60.1 54.3

ARNG 32859 3395 1933 1695 56.9 49.9

ANG 10751 1111 745 690 67.1 62.1

USMCR 2835 1114 625 571 56.1 51.3

USNR 19978 2033 1097 1029 54.0 50.6

USCGR 1372 831 563 528 67.7 63.5

Subtotal 121948 14281 8001 7253 56.0 50.8

Rank Group Enlisted

USAR 114469 13888 4281 3523 30.8 25.4

USAFR 38739 3971 1905 1695 48.0 42.7

ARNG 216502 25495 11272 9234 44.2 36.2

ANG 64479 6429 3816 3567 59.4 55.5

USMCR 11129 2511 757 631 30.1 25.1

USNR 65570 6298 2691 2353 42.7 37.4

USCGR 7302 2190 1135 1034 51.8 47.2

Subtotal 518190 60782 25857 22037 42.5 36.3

Reserve Component

USAR 155940 18304 6489 5513 35.5 30.1

USAFR 51421 5352 2735 2445 51.1 45.7

ARNG 249361 28890 13205 10929 45.7 37.8

ANG 75230 7540 4561 4257 60.5 56.5

USMCR 13964 3625 1382 1202 38.1 33.2

USNR 85548 8331 3788 3382 45.5 40.6

USCGR 8674 3021 1698 1562 56.2 51.7

Total 640138 75063 33858 29290 45.1 39.0

2-26
m •~

ILI

individual reserve components. Rather, a general discussion ot spouse

issues for the reserve components in general is presented.

Finally, examination of Tables 2.6 and 2.7 shows that the response

rates for couples are lower than those for spouses. These lower rates

result from the administrative procedures which called for independent

administration of questionnaires to members and spouses. A response on

the part of a member was not a prerequisite for a spouse to receive or

complete a questionnaire. In order for a couple to be included in the

couple response rates, both the member and the spouse had to return

completed questionnaires. What these data show is that for

approximately 4,600 completed spouse questionnaires a matching

completed member questionnaire was not received.

3. Weighting the Data

To allow time for questionnaire distribution and mailing of

packages to units, a gap of several months was planned between sample

selection and survey administration. Since questionnaires were sent to

individuals selected by name, planning for the surveys could not

readily make provisions for surveying new unit accessions between

sample selection and survey administration. Further, as discussed

above, provisions were made for forwarding questionnaires to

individuals who would be absent during the period of data collection.

As described in the section of the sample design, other technical

considerations resulted in excluding from the sample individuals who

were in the training pipeline (RCAT = U). This includes unit members

awaiting or attending initial active duty for training and untrained

Selected Reservists attending specialty training programs such as

chaplain candidates, health, etc.

Because the sampling plan allowed for disproportionate sampling

among subgroups in the DoD population, differential weights were

required for the different subgroups. In addition, weights were

requiired to adjust for the fact that the sampled subgroups did not

respond to the survey in identical rates. When the sample of

respondents was weighted, population statistics could be computed,

indicating estimates for the population at a given point in time.

Inspection of the dates on which actual questionnaires were filled

out indicates that the majority were completed in March and April

1986. However, in selecting a RCCPDS population to which weight

adjustments would be made, the decision was made to use the 30 June

1986 file, since it would most likely reflect lag between changes in

the field situation at the time of the survey and inclusion of those

changes in the RCCPDS files. Weights were calculated separately for

the basic sample and for the 1979 RF Follow-Up. A weighting procedure

was then utilized in which the 1979 RF Follow-Up sample was combined

with the basic sample's ARNG and USAR components. The final combined

sample weights can be used to produce consistent estimates of the

Selected Reserve trained population as of 30 June 1986. Table 2.8

shows the total component populations, by reserve category and by

2-27
vv w-uw - r- -Vi ON~ n r a..' APr00 

OD OGLC LA

-n L- r- r

Eli ( A - C 1

LA z 4r-r r- o - , L rgr 

to c l CT0 %D r- t

4- %D C) kl . I

'I C 0 . -

-L - Lqv (0~A 1C -mnrt % %o ) oo

C4 C,'4 r, Ln (noo Dk

(A w t- n %

('4k I~' 00 r-k -

00N-0 CD 

,, 0 9 r. C)(7%m ON -m %4 L -*ILA - rr.v 0 olC1 1 C4r o C 'sWLA 1 (

CNI 40 -N ko% Vr - 0

0 L

4.) - C)IT C) L OL.a a' r- Lnr- ,0 0n -0'0no-~ 00 

LAl 00( 10 -L1 t' 

m * S -SS - -

('4 ac4 Do-r

0 00

001 040

CA~~~~- C% V*4Jo nr

-,1'-4 

-- 4J~'a 1-4 4F
'AT IV %- W v tS- c %Jo.

ck ~~~~ Ln "01T ~ , in" -4

(A . .%A

Cl' Cecn0

V0

% -V M co ; nS-a 

v. v i n I IV V 

%0 tS m S7 Wenr o r-c oS -r nL -

V- 03 01 - L -c4L

M OD co e0 nc D X -4

- c- * - C%3 v w -(A

%0U ON--u~ G' u

V 7 a 0 en at(

%I Cl I % 14i

C;~* enM cl 

-n (n cO C? r- wD C) CD Nr N m ( ::;

0% %0 0enV r2-29 c
officer and enlisted status, for which inference can be made using the

1986 RC Surveys data.

E. The Survey Questionnaires

As noted above, the data requirements for the 1986 Reserve

Cnponents Surveys were developed by two groups of individuals: those

concerned with broad issues of personnel management and those

specifically concerned with family issues. In order to address both

types of issues in a systematic fashion, the Deputy Assistant Secretary

of Defense (Guard/Reserve Manpower and Personnel) established a

ccmmittee consisting of representatives from each of the reserve

ccmponents, as well as representatives from his office and DMDC

technical experts. The Committee concurred with the conclusion reached

at the time the 1985 DoD Surveys were designed, namely, that new

information would need to be collected. The Ccmmittee also identified

subject areas covered in previous efforts which would be important to

reevaluate, as well as new areas for which survey data would be

helpful.

An outline which consolidated all of the requirements was then

circulated to all interested OSD offices and individuals. These

included researchers who had utilized previous reserve survey data,

especially the 1979 RF Survey, both within DoD and in other government

agencies as well as Committee members.

1. Questionnaire Development

Following general agreement on content, DMEDC prepared draft

questionnaires. In constructing the questionnaires, special attention

was paid to ensuring comparability, whenever possible, with previous

military and civilian survey efforts. The most heavily relied on

questionnaires were those from the 1979 Reserve Studies Surveys and the

1985 DoD Surveys.

Draft questionnaires were reviewed by the same groups involved in

developing the data requirements and, after agreement was reached, the

questionnaires were prepared by DMDC for pretesting.

The pretesting was conducted in iterative fashion; that is,

problems identified in one pretest were corrected prior to the next.

Correction generally involved modification of items or clarification of

instructions. In sane instances, however, the pretests identified

subject areas which had been overlooked in assembling the data

requirements. By the time the questionnaires were considered final,

formal and informal pretests had been conducted with officers, enlisted

personnel and spouses. Both officer and enlisted personnel

participated in pretests at an Air Force Reserve Unit and Coast Guard

Reserve unit in Richmond, VA, an Army Reserve unit at Ft. Meade, MD.,

an Army Guard Dental Unit in Iowa City, Iowa, a Naval Reserve unit in

Baltimore, MD. and an Ar.' Reserve unit in Boston, Mass. Full-time

support personnel participated in pretests at Andrews Air Force Base, -

2-30
MD (DC Air National Guard) and in the Office of the Assistant Secretary

of Defense (Reserve Affairs). The major changes resulting from the

pretests are discussed below.

In the original planning, it had been assumed that separate

questionnaire variants were needed for officer and enlisted personnel

who are not unit members, i.e., individual mobilization augmentees

(IMAs). Visits to the three components (Army Reserve, Marine Corps

Reserve and Air Force Reserve) who utilize IMAs led to the conclusion 0

that IMA issues were quite similar to those of unit members. Thus, IMAs

could receive the basic member questionnaires. Codes preprinted on the

questionnaires would, however, allow data from this population to be

analyzed separately.

The pretest at the Army.Guard Dental Unit in Iowa City, Iowa,

highlighted the importance of addressing training issues in detail.

Members were particularly concerned that the only time they got to

practice their skills was during Annual Training. Questions dealing

with training were expanded, including the addition of a question

assessing the percentage of time spent working in the member's primary

occupation.

The utilization of time, both training time and time required for

meeting reserve obligations, came up in several Army National Guard and

Army Reserve locations. To address these concerns, a question asking

the number of unpaid hours (monthly) spent at drill locations was

added.

The Naval Reserve pretest was especially helpful in clarifying

differences in nomenclature between its members and members of other

reserve components. One example is the use of the abbreviation ACDUTRA

(Active Duty for Training) instead of Annual Training (AT) as used by

most other reservists. As a result, in many place,the questionnaires prov.'Ie for alternate terminology, e.g. Annual Training/ ACDUJTRA and

MOS/Rating/Specialty.

In developing the FIS-AGR/TAR questionnaire variants, DMDC relied

heavily on the 1985 DoD Survey of Officer and Enlisted Personnel. A

pretest conducted with FIS-AGRs of the DC Air National Guard, and

discussions with several TARs, clarified differences between components

utilizing FIM personnel, as well as differences between FTS personnel

and active duty personnel in the regular components. For example, some

National Guard AGRs had difficulty answering the questions that related

to PCS moves, since the relocation process is different for full-time

support members from that of active component n-mKbers. Accordingly,

the questionnaire was modified to account for the differences.

Questions on career status were also modified to account for component

differences.

For all membership categories, questions about military background

presented problems, since some of the distinctions which are

analytically important are difficult to communicate in a

2-31

W. S
questionnaire. For example, initially FTS-AGR/TARs were asked how long

they had served on active duty, followed by a question asking how long

they had served in the Guard/Reserve. Individuals with prior active

duty time, Selected Reserve time and FTS tours encountered problems.

Attention to wording, question order and asking for estimates of time

spent in different categories clarified some of the problems.

Inspection of the data, however, indicates that not all problems of

this type were resolved.

A pretest theme, one corrected in the revisions, was a sentiment

that more questions should be asked about the interface between reserve

obligations and benefits and civilian employment and benefits.

Questions about loss of overtime pay at civilian jobs, medical

benefits, and related issues were subsequently added.

As a result of all the pretests, the questionnaire underwent

considerable refinements. Questions were deleted, added and reworded

for clarity and simplicity so that respondents would have little

trouble in answering them. In the final iterations, comparability with

previous research was reviewed and attention was paid to questionnaire

length. Where question modifications were marginal in improving

clarity, but where the modification would lose comparability, the

original wording was restored.

The spouse questionnaire was also subjected to rigorous pretesting

and underwent important changes from the initial questionnaire to the

final one. In the initial versions, the spouse was asked many

questions which assumed greater familiarity with the reserve components

than proved to be the case. In the end, most of these questions were

excluded and the questionnaire oriented more towards understanding what

spouses knew, the types of information they would be interested in

having, and detailed information about themselves.

2. Questionnaire Contents

A total of seven questionnaire forms were used in the data

collection for the 1986 Reserve Components Surveys. For the rmber.

surveys, two nearly identical pairs were developed. The difference is

primarily in terminology and in the inclusion of some items which

pertain specifically only to officers or only to enlisted members.

Form I was used for all officers, except FTS-AGR/TARs and Form 2 for "j

all enlisted personnel, except FTS-AGR/TARs. Form 3 was for FIS-AGR/

TAR officers, and Form 4 for FTS-AGR/TAR enlisted personnel. Form 5

was used for all English-speaking spouses and Form 6 was a direct

translation, into Spanish, for spouses who elected to use it in Puerto

Rico. (The spouses in Puerto Rico received both an English and a

Spanish version of the questionnaire in the same envelope.) A seventh

form for the commander of the 1979 RF Follow-Up units was almost

identical to that used in the 1979 RF Surveys.

1986 RC Member Survey. The first section of each of the regular -

member survey questionnaire (Forms 1 and 2), "Military Background,"

2-32

-, - .~j.. 71
collected basic data such as reserve component, pay grade, number of

active duty years, number of years in the reserve components and the

different components in which the respondent had served. For Officers, 0

procurement source was ascertained. Section II, "Military Plans,"

probed the respondent's future plans by asking the likelihood of

staying in the reserves under current conditions, as well as under

several hypothetical management options (e.g. an increase in drills

and/or Annual Training), number of good years, plans to elect the

Survivor Benefits Plan, plans for the next year, and participation

reasons. Officers were asked about their current obligation, its

completion date and if they intended to participate at the end of their

obligation.

Section III, "Military Training, Benefits and Programs," asked the

respondents how they were trained for their current Primary •

MOS/Specialty/Rating or Designator and the tine spent working in that

skill. Respondents were asked to assess the similarity between their

civilian job and their reserve job. Respondents were queried about

Annual Training, their Guard/Reserve earnings, educational benefits,

unit training objectives, and their opinion on training, promotions,

leadership, supervision and unit morale. This section also included

special questions for military technicians, e.g., did they serve as

technicians and, if so, how long they had been so employed.

Section IV, "Individual and Family Characteristics," focused on

basic demographic facts such as sex, age, marital status, aspects of

educational attainment, number of dependents and whether or not

dependents were handicapped. Married respondents were asked to provide

basic demographic data about their spouses, as well as information

about spouse military participation.

Section V, "Civilian Work," included detailed questions about labor

force participation, such as civilian occupation and industry, type of

employer, hours and weeks worked in the previous year, and earnings.

Questions dealing with the interface between civilian employment and

reserve participation were included here, as well as questions about

spouses' employment. Section VI, "Family Resources," asked the

respondents about additional income sources, debts and monthly mortgage

and the effects on their income should they be mobilized for 30 days or

more.

The last section, Section VII, "Military Life," elicited attitudes

toward time spent on selected activities, plus interest in receiving

information on Guard/Reserve benefits and programs. The questionnaire

conclude with a set of items measuring satisfaction or dissatisfaction

with selected aspects of military life, e.g., pay and allowances,

commissary privileges, retirement benefits, unit social activities, and "

the opportunity to serve the country. The final item measure overall

satisfaction with participation in the Guard/ Reserve.

1986 RC AGR Survey. Like Forms 1 and 2, the first section of each

of the FIS-AGR/TAR questionnaires (Forms 3 and 4), "Military NON

2-33

J -. . '-.
Background," collected basic data such as reserve corponent, pay grade,

number of active duty years, number of years in the reserve comporents

and the different components served in. For officers, procurement

source was ascertained. Section II, "Present and Past Locations,"

asked questions about the length of stay, expected stay, and problems

encountered both at the present location and in moving to the location.

Section III, "Military Plans," probed the respondent's future plans

by asking the likelihood of staying in the FTS program, number of good

years, plans to elect the Survivor Benefits Plan, plans for the next

year and participation reasons. Officers were asked about their

current obligation, its completion date and if they will continue to

p- :ticipaj-e following the end of their obligation.

Section IV, "Individual and Family Characteristics," focused on

basic demographic facts such as sex, age, marital status, aspects of

educational attainment, number of dependents and whether or not

dependents were handicapped. Married respondents were asked to provide

basic demographic data about their spouses, as well as information

about spouse military participation. With minor differences, this A

section is identical to Section IV in Forms 1 and 2.

Section V, "Military Compensation, Benefits and Programs," asked

about the benefits being received by the respondent, as well as the

availability and level of satisfaction with a broad range of family

programs. Section VI, "Civilian Labor Force Experience," and Section

VII, "Family Resources," focused on the household's labor force

participation and earnings, non-wage or salary sources of income, debts

and monthly mortgage payments.

The last section, Section VIII, "Military Life," elicited

respondents' perceptions of unit problems and unit morale. The

questiornaire concludes with a set of items measuring satisfaction or

dissatisfaction with selected aspects of military life, e.g., pay and

allowances, interpersonal environment, retirement benefits, and overall

satisfaction with military life.

1986 RC Spouse Survey. The spouse questionnaires (Form 5 in

English, Form 6 in Spanish), consisted of five major sections. Section

I, "The Guard/Reserve Community," collected information about the kind

and size of community in which the household lived, transportation

arrangements for the member, and information about the spouse's

participation in volunteer activities. It also included questions

about knowledge of and participation in Guard/Reserve activities and

interest in information about benefits and programs for families in the

reserve components.

Section II, "Family Military Experience," asked about the spouse's

military background and the member's military background and career

plans from the spouse's perspective. Section III, "Your Background and

Family," focused on basic demographic facts such as sex, age,

educational attainment, number of dependents and whether or not they

2-34
MwW.

were handicapped. Spouses with young dependents were asked about their

child care arrangements.

In Section IV, "Family Work Experience," focused on the households@

labor force participation and earnings, non-wage or salary sources of

income, expenditures in military exchanges and comissaries, and

debts. The section includes items on conmunity social services and an

assessment of family problems resulting from the member's reserve

participation. •

The last set of questions, Section V, "Family Concerns," asked

about aspects of family preparedness, e.g., wills and life insurance,

military services which might be utilized in case of mobilization/

deploymant of the menter, and comwrnity social problems. It concluded

with a set of satisfaction measures with various features of the S

member's participation in the Guard/Reserve and with overall

satisfaction.

Respondents to all of the surveys were provided with the

opportmity to make additional convents or reccurendations on all

topics, whether or not the topic was included in the questionnaires. S

For this purpose, a separate page was provided, without identification,

but with space to indicate reserve conponent and status, i.e., enlisted

or officer personnel or spouse.

1986 RC Unit Commnander Survey. Form 7 was developed for

administration to unit cormanders in units included in the 1979 RF S

Follow-Up Survey. The major purpose of this effort was to collect N

information about -characteristics of unit comanders and their opinions

about both unit activities and environments so that changes since 1979

could be studied. The design necessitated, by definition, a

questionnaire as close to that used in 1979 as possible.

Section I, "Unit Characteristics," Section II, "Unit Personnel,"

and Section III, "Unit Drill and Annual Training Activities," asked for

objective data about the unit, as well as an assessment of personnel,

*training activities, equipment, and overall unit functioning. Section

IV, "Your Guard/Reserve Activities," asked about time spent on various

activities and an assessment of whether it was sufficient or not. 0

- Section V, "Your Opinions," addressed the unit conmander's view of unit

problems, priorities given to unit activities by headquarters, and a

comparison of the unit in 1986 with its condition five years

previously. Section VI, "Your Military Background," and Section VII,

"Individual Characteristics," collected military and civilian

demographic information similar to that collected from officers in the

other survey questionnaires.

•

2-35

1% 

1

ZO;: Z .
ENDNOTES

IA Descriptio of Military Dependents Issues Based on the 1985

DoD Survey of OffiSOr and Enlisted Personnel. By A.J. Bonito, 0

Research Triangle I stitute, 1986.

Description of Offibers and Enlisted Personnel in the U.S. Armed

Forces: 1985 A Reprt Based on the 1985 DoD Survey of Officer and

Enlisted Personnel. By M.E. McCalla, S.H. Rakoff, Z.D. Doering, and

B.S. Mahoney. Research Triangle Institute, 1986.

Description of Officers and Enlisted Personnel in the U.S. Armed

Forces: 1985 SuppleMntary Tabulations from the 1985 DoD Surveys of s.

Officer and Enlisted Personnel. By L.M. LaVange, M.E. McCalla, T.J.

Gabel, S.H. Rakoff, Z.D. Doering, and B.S. Mahoney. Research

Triangle Institute, 1986 (3 Volumes).

Descriptions of Spoudes of Officers and Enlisted Personnel ii the

U.S. Armed Forces: 1285 A Report Based on the 1985 DoD Surveys of

Officer and Enlisted Rersonnel Military Spouses. By J.D. Griffith,

Z.D. Doering, and B.S. Mahoney. Research Triangle Institute, 1986 (3 volumes ).

Description of Spouses of Officers and Enlisted Personne! in the U.S. "

A-nied Forces: 1985 Suplenentary Tabulations from the 1985 DoD

Surveys of Officer and Anlisted Personnel Military Spouses. By L.M.

LaVange, T.J. Gabel, J.. Griffith, Z.D. Doering, and B.S. Mahoney.

Research Triangle Institute, 1986 (3 Volumes).

2 Thus, "population estimate" in Tables 2.6 and 2.7 refers to 2,"

the estimated total number of spouses in the reserve population. For

a d-scussion of marital status in the 1986 RC Surveys see Appendix A.

1986 RC Surveys: Survey Weighting Methodology in 1986 Reserve

Components Surveys: Selected Reserve Officer and Enlisted Personnel--

User's Manual and Ccdebook or 1986 Reserve Components Surveys:

Full-Time Support Officer and Enlisted Personnel-- User's Manual and

Codebrmk.

2-36

• - m % .... , - p I
D

''

3. MILITARY BAMKGRON OF GUARD AND RESERVE TRAINED PERSONNEL

A. Introduction

Memb0ers of the reserve components have a variety of patterns of

military experience. Some enlist or enter the reserve components directly frm civilian life and pursue full-time civilian occupations as

well as their part-time military service. Others enter after service in

one of the active ccuponents, bringing their full-time military

experience to the reserve unit in which they serve. In some of the

reserve ccaponents, many members have been in the same unit for a long

tine. In other reserve camponents, there is a good deal of movement in

and out of the Selected Reserves and among units as well. In this

chapter, we explore the patterns of military experience among members of

the seven reserve ccrponents, including source of conmission for

officers, length of military service (both active and reserve), pay grade distributions, and military occupations.

Survey data were collected from members in a number of Selected

Reserve status categories, including the part-time unit members, fulltine members (referred to as Active Guard and Reserve (AGRs)), military technicians (civilian employees of the Reserve or Guard who also train as

members of units), and members who do not have a reserve unit affiliation

but participate in active ccoponent unit training and activities (also

known as Individual Mobilization Augmentees or IMAs). The bulk of this

report deals only with the first and largest category, part-tine melbers

of the National Guard and Reserve carponents. In this chapter, however,

we describe the military background of members in each category. As

discussed in Chapter 2, in all cases, members who were in the initial i.

training pipeline were excluded from the sample frame for the study.

The Selected Reserve consists of those units and individuals within t

the ready reserve that are designated by their respective Services, and

approved by the Joint Chiefs of Staff, as so essential to initial wartime

missions that they have priority over all other reserves. All Selected

Reservists are in an active status.

The President may order up to 200,000 of the Selected Reserve to

active duty involuntarily for any operational mission for not more than

90 days without declaring national emergency. If circumstances

warrant, this may be extended for not more than 90 additional days. The

erergency nature of a mobilization requires that the Selected Reserve be

able to assemble and deploy forces within 24 hours.

The Selected Reserve consists of the following subcategories (Figure v 3.1).

Selected Reserve Units--Units manned and equipped to serve

and/or train either as operational or as augmentation units.

operational units train and serve as units. Augmentation units

train together but, when mobilized, lose their unit identity,

3-1
jWA

Figure 3.1

Composition of Selected Reserve l

Selected

Reserve

Units Training Pipeline Idiividuals

(Not Surveyed)

FV

Part-Time Full-Tie Part-Tine Full-Time.d

Reservists Unit Lndividual Individual

in Units Support (nMs) Support

being subsumed into an active unit or activity. Selected

Reserve units include:

Part-Time Unit Members: Trained unit members who

participate in unit training activities part time. These

members are required to participate in 48 drill periods (a

drill period is usually not less than 4 hours) and two

weeks of full-time training duty each year.

Full-Time Reserve Unit Support Personnel:

Active Guard/Reserve (AGR) -- Guard or Reserve members of

the Selected Reserves who are ordered to active duty or

full-time National Guard duty with their consent for the

purpose of organizing, administering, recruiting,

instructing, or training reserve caponent units.

Military Technicians (M11) -- Federal civilian employees who

provide full-time support for administration, training, and

3-2

* .**P *-.
maintenance to reserve units and support activities. These

employees must maintain their status as part-time unit 5

members, are often referred to as dual-status individuals,

and are counted in the part-time unit member subcategory.

Dual-status military technicians must be in mobilization

positions and are required to meet the same drill and

annual training requirements as other part-time unit

members.

Trained Individuals -- Individual members of the Selected

Reserve assigned t9"an active-force organization. Trained

individuals include:

- Individual mobilization Augmentees (IMAs): IMAs are trained S

individuals preassigned to an active component, Selected

Service System or Federal Emergency Management Aqency

organization's billet that must be filled on or shortly

after mobilization. IMAs train part time with an active

component unit in preparation for recall in mobilization.

Sane IMAs have the same participation requirements as unit

members. Most, however, are required to participate in

only 24 drill periods (this is the typical IMA training

requirement in the Air Force Reserves) or only annual

training (the typical pattern in the Army Reserve) each

year.

- Individual Active Guard/Reserve (AGR): Individual Guard or

Reserve members of the Selected Reserve who are ordered to

active duty or full-time National Guard duty in an active

component organization with their consent for the purpose

of organizing, administering, recruiting, instructing or

training the reserve component. They are assigned in

headquarters and support functions of both active and -

reserve components. 7

- Individual Military Technicians (MT): Individual federal

civilian employees who provide full-time support for

administration, training and maintenance in the Selected

Reserve, not in a unit. These employees must also maintain

their status as part-time unit mmbers. All individual

military technicians must be in mobiization positions.

The distribution of members in each of the seven reserve ccnponents

among these four categories of service provides the context for this and O

the following chapters. Data for these coiparisons appear in Table 3.1

for enlisted personnel and Table 3.2 for officers.

The data indicate same significant differences in the manning

patterns of the seven reserve components. First, sane categories of

reserve service are not used by sare of the components. There wre fulltime support personnel in all the ccrponents except the Coast Guard

Reserve, for example, while there were no military technicians in the

Naval Reserve, Marine Corps Reserve, and Coast Guard Reserve. The

3-3

g'.J
Table 3.1 Size of Trained Force and Percentage by Reserve Category:

Enlisted Personnel 0

Reserve Component Total

Total Selected

Reserve Category ARNG USAR USNR USMCR ANG USAFR 0o0 USCGR Reserve

Percentage of

Trained Force

Part-time 91% 93% 85% 96% 74% 79% 88% 100% 88%

Military

Technician 5 1 .. .. 20 12 5 -- 5

IMA -- 2 <1 1 -- 8 1 -- 1

AGR 5 4 15 3 6 1 6 -- 6

Total 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100

Force Size

Part-time 322,295 193,008 89,337 30,959 69,720 46,025 751.356 10,763 762,119

Technician 16,159 2,583 .-- 18,790 7,239 44,771 -- 44,771

IMA -- 4,485 46 415 -- 4,493 9,439 -- 9,439

AGR 17.241 7,713 15,793 1,045 5,743 426 47,961 -- 47,961

Total 355,695 207,789 105,176 32,419 94,253 58,183 853,527 10,763 864,290

Source: 1986 RC Member Survey; Table 2.8, this volume.

two National Guard components plus the Coast Guard Reserve do not include

IMAs in their manpower pool.

Table 3.1 presents the proportion of enlisted personnel in each of

the components who fell into each of the four categories of reserve

service. Eighty-eight percent of the enlisted members were part-time

members of a reserve unit in the spring of 1986. However, there were

some differences by component. All of the Coast Guard enlisted personnel

were part-time members while the DOD components ranged from 96 percent in

the Marine Corps Reserve to 74 percent in the Air National Guard. There

were substantial numbers of full-time support in the Naval Reserve (15

percent) and the Air National Guard (6 percent). Military technicians

formed a significant percentage of the reservists in the Air National

Guard (20 percent) and the Air Force Reserve (12 percent). Only the Air

Force Reserve had a significant percentage of Dg2s (8 percent). a..

Table 3.2 presents the proportion of officers in the same four

categories as in Table 3.1. The one major difference between these

distributions for enlisted personnel and officers is the proportion of

reservists who are part-time members. Only 77 percent of officers were

3-4
,0

Table 3.2 Size of Trained Force and Percentage by Reserve Category: Officers

Reserve Comoonent Total

Total Selected

Reserve Category ARNG USAR USNR USMCR ANG USAFR DoO USCGR Reserve

Percentage of

Trained Force

Part-time 80% 77% 89% 75% 78% 48% 76% 100% 77%

Mi itary

Technician 13 2 - - 14 5 6 - 6

IMA - 16 4 18 - 46 12 - 11 0

AGR 7 6 8 6 8 1 6 - 6

Total 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100

Force Size

Part-time 32,816 41,395 21,491 2.620 10.201 7,554 116,077 1,571 117,648

Military

Technician 5,431 1,007 - - 1,847 789 9,074 - 9,074

IMA - 8,687 850 629 - 7,330 17.476 - 17,476

AGR 2,938 3.015 1,814 221 1,065 164 9,217 - 9,217

Total 41,185 54,084 24,155 3,473 13,113 15,837 151,847 1,571 153,418

Source: 1986 RC Member Survey; Table 2.8, this volume.

part-time unit menbers at the tire of the survey, while over 88 percent

of enlisted personnel were in this category. Like the enlisted S

personnel, all of the Coast Guard officers were part-time unit nebers.

Within the DoD components, there were substantial differences.

Eighty-nine percent of the Naval Reserve officers were part-tire members,

but in the Air Force Reserve only 48 percent were part-timers. In the

other caponents, around 75 percent were in the part-time officer

category. Clearly, there are major differences in the seven carponents • in the distribution and utilization of the four reserve categories.

Perhaps most striking is tb-t only half of the Air Force Reserve officers

were part-time unit menbers.

For the officers, IMAs were large contributors to total strength in

three covponents, with 16 percent of the Army Reserve officers, 18

percent of the Marine Corps Reserve officers, and almost half (46

percent) of the Air Force Reserve officers. Full-tire support personnel

were small fractions of the officer force in those carponents where they

were used at all; the highest rate was 8 percent in the Naval Reserve and

the Air National Guard, and the lowest rate was 1 percent in the Air

Force Reserve. Military technicians followed a different pattern; they

3-5

,' .'..A.
were potions a significant of the other part cmponents. of the two National Guard components, but small

B. Experience of the Reserve Force

In this section we exadne the patterns of experience of members of

the reserve corponents as of the date of the survey, the spring of 1986,

from a number of perspectives. We present data on two measures of

experience: the proportion of reservists who had served in the active

force (other than for training as part of their Reserve or Guard service)

and the total length of Reserve service. The next section analyzes the

s .:rces of commissioning as a key to understanding the military

background of officers. Finally, for all members, we examine the

distribution of personnel into enlisted and officer pay grades.

1. Active Force Length of Service

Active service is thought to be an important variable because

personnel receive more training and gain more experience on full-time

active duty. In addition, active force experience may help members of

the reserves adapt better to the full-time military in the event of mobilization.

This section examines the average length of active-duty service for

those members of the National Guard and Reserves who had at least two

years of active service, exclusive of active duty for training. These

prior service members comprise varying proportions of the reserve

ccponents, as shown in Tables 3.3 and 3.5.

Approximately half of the enlisted personnel in part-time unit status

had prior active service, but the onponent percentages ranged widely

around this average. The Naval Reserve was highest at 71 percent prior

service, while the Marine Corps Reserve was lowest at 22 percent. The

DoD average for enlisted military technicians was 60 percent, although

the Air Force Reserve was substantially higher (91 percent). For IMAs,

all the components were very high, with the DoD average at 86 percent.

All AGRs have active duty experience by definition so they are excluded

from this table.

The data in Table 3.4 indicate a rather narrow range of years of

active service across ccmponents for those enlisted personnel with two or

more years of active service. For part-time unit members, prior service

members had, on average, appr.cimately 4 years of active duty service,

ranging from a low of 3.8 years for the Army Reserve to a high of 4.8

years for the Air Force Reserve. In other words, the average prior

service enlisted reservist had served one enlisted term of service before

leaving the active force and joining the National Guard or Reserves.

The range for military technicians is slightly higher, from a low of

4.3 years for the Army National Guard, to a high of 5.3 years for the Air

Force Reserve. The average length of active serice for military

technician.3 is somewhat greater than a single term of service. The

3-6 -
Table 3.3 Reserve Force with Prior Active Service: Enlisted

Personnel with Two or More Years of Prior Service

Reserve Comoonent Total

Reserve Total Selected

Category ARNG USAR USNR USMCR ANG USAFR DoD USCGR Reserve

Part-Time 38% 51% 71% 22% 52% 64% 47% 53% 47%

Military

Technicians 46 79 - - 58 91 60 - 60

IMAs - 85 100 88 - 86 86 - 86

Source: 1986 RC Member Survey, DMDC Tabulations, September 1987.

Table 3.4 Average Years of Active Service: Enlisted Personnel 0

with Two or More Years of Prior Service

Reserve Comoonent Total

Reserve Total Selected

Category ARNG USAR USNR USMCR ANG USAFR DoD USCGR Reserve

Part-Tlme 4.1 3.8 4.4 4.3 4.5 4.8 4.2 4.5 4.2

Military

Technicians 4.3 5.2 - - 4.7 5.3 4.8 - 4.8

IMAs - 4.8 - 5.3 - 5.8 5.3 - 5.3

AGRs 8.7 7.7 9.3 5.9 7.1 10.5 7.8 - 7.8

Source: 1986 RC Member Survey, OMDC Tabulations, September 1987. 0

3
Table 3.5 Reserve Force with Prior Active Service: Officers with

Two or More Years of Prior Service

Reserve Component Total

Reserve Total Selected

Category ARNG USAR USNR USMCR ANG USAFR DoD USCGR Reserve

Part-Time 45% 58% 90% 93% 61% 75% 62% 71% 62%

MII Itary

Technicians 45 68 - - 59 100 55 - 55

IMAs - 82 89 99 - 91 87 - 87

Source: 1986 RC Member Survey, DMOC Tabulations, September 1987.

averages for I.As are slightly higher again, but only 5.8 years for the

Air Force Reserve.

Full-time AGRs had, on average, mre active-duty service than those

in any other reserve category. The Air Force Reserve was again the

highest, with an average length of active-duty service of 10.5 years.

The Naval Reserve was the next highest at 9.3 years. Marine Corps

Reserve AGRs had the lowest average at only 5.9 years.

Table 3.5 shows that officer patterns of active service were quite

different. Overall, a greater proportion of officers had active-duty

experience than did enlisted personnel (62 percent for part-time officers

versus 47 percent for part-time enlisted personnel). The component

patterns were similar, however, with the Army National Guard at the low

end and the Marine Corps Reserve at the high end. The Marine Corps

Reserve showed the greatest contrast between its officers and enlisted 14

personnel; only 21 percent of the part-time enlisted personnel had two or

mre years of prior active service, compared to 93 percent of the

officers.

Average lengths of prior service for officers were somewhat longer

and somewhat more dispersed across the components than those for enlisted

personnel (Table 3.6). For part-time officers, the Army National Guard

was lowest with an average of 4.4 years, while the Air Force Reserve was

again highest at 6.2 years. The spread across components was even larger

for military technicians, frcm 4.3 (Army National Guard) to 7.9 (Air

Force Reserve). IMAs were samewhat more narrowly grouped, but the Air

Force Reserve average of 6.7 years of active service was still nuch

higher than the other coponents. The length of active-duty service was

3-81
Table 3.6 Average Years of Active Service: Officers with Two

or More Years of Prior Service S

Reserve Comoonent Total

Reserve Total Selected

Category ARNG USAR USNR USMCR ANG USAFR DoD USCGR Reserve

Part-Tilme 4.4 4.5 5.5 5.2 5.7 6.2 5.0 5.1 5.0

Military

Technicians 4.3 5.1 - - 5.6 7.9 5.3 - 5.3 S

IMAs - 5.7 5.5 5.0 - 6.7 6.1 - 6.1

AGRs 6.4 8.4 12.4 10.6 9.6 12.8 8.8 - 8.8

Source: 1988 RC Member Survey, DM0C Tabulations. September 1987.

substantially longer for full-tine officers (AGRs), with the Naval

Reserve and Air Force Reserve averaging over 12 years.

2. Guard/Reserve Length of Service

Time spent in the reserve carponents is a second inportant

measure. Respondents were asked how nany years they had served in the

National Guard or Reserve, not including tine on active duty. Full-time

members (AGRs) were asked how long they had served as paid part-time unit

meRbers. Responses to these questions are presented in the following

tables and discussed in this section.

Table 3.7 presents the Guard/Reserve average years of service

reported by enlisted personnel by reserve category and conponent. The

lowest average length of service (LOS) for part-time enlisted personnel

was over 4 years for the Marne Corps Reserve, followed by the Army

r Reserve. The average for the enlisted personnel of Coast Guard Reserve

units was over eight and c -half years. All other reserve corponents

averaged over seven years.

Further detail on the distribution of reserve length of service for

these part-tine unit members is presented in the graphs in Figure 3.2.

These graphs show 3ome striking similarities and differences in the

percentages of the force in each LOS group from 0 to 30. Active-force

experience is not included in these graphs. The description of average

active service included only those menbers with active caponent

experience; these graphs, however, include all members because all have

some reserve ccqonent experience. The plots for the two Army reserve

3-9

so" '@.
U,)

Cl)l

0 U)

U) uO2.

(3) (D0 cr U)

0 0L

Ec 0

0 0) 02 < 0c

O~L toU) C

wu C

.2

00 co N co ) 0 co cmj co It O

0

U 0)

0 cc c

U) 0

1 0

E cr

C) C) 0 

w cm co It 0V ,l c

C Ol ~ cl0 CY U)

0)O. 0O CU3~ 1811/ Ci)Ja
C)

CV)

cm

U) 0

cm )

* __ U)

U) LO

C U) U)

C0

-~ C)

C 0)CO

E

0 S?)

U)

0 It) (/

0.0

a ) C) 0

cc'

IT 0) co CmJ U) 0 Cl)

>\ C\J

0 0- 0

0 C 9 0-c >

UQ) %~

co U)

U) a)

a))N

0) a -D I

00

a)~ 2)U

VU) >. 0 .t C 0 C'J U 00

Uo c'j (\

C) ~ C ~ c ~ co 

CM C/)

ZeO- -0laO
Table 3.7 Average Years of Reserve Service: Enlisted Personnel

Reserve Component Total

Reserve Total Selected

Category ARNG USAR USNR USMCR ANG USAFR DoD USCGR Reserve

Part-Time 7.1 6.7 7.2 4.2 7.8 7.3 6.9 8.6 7.0

Military

Technicians 12.6 12.7 - - 13.0 10.7 12.5 - 12.5

IMAs - 8.1 - 9.2 - 9.0 8.6 - 8.6

AGRs 7.1 6.9 1.1 3.1 5.7 7.0 4.9 - 4.9

Source: 1986 RC Member Survey, DMDC Tabulations, September 1987. I,'

components look remarkably similar. Both peak sharply at the third LOS

(at about 15 percent of the force), then decline gradually and smoothly,

with the steepest part of the decline caning at the end of the first

term. There are very few enlisted personnel in these initial years of

the distribution because many of these personnel were still in the

training pipeline and were excluded from the sampling frame of the study.

Data for the Naval Reserve and the Marine Corps Reserve show more

marked peaks in the early period. The Marine Corps Reserve has 23

percent of its mwrbers in the third year of service, which explains its

lower average length of service noted above. This caponent also tails

off quite quickly, with very little of the Marine Corps Reserve manpower , having more than 10 years of service. The Naval Reserve also peaks at

the third year, but its decline frua that peak is more jagged than was

the case for the two Army ccanponents. The Coast Guard Reserve third-year %

peak is nuch lower than that of the other ccmponents, and there are ??

substantially irre Coast Guard enlisted personnel with LOS of 10-15 years

than in the other conponents. These two phenomena, the lower peak and'.

the bulge at LOS cof 10-15 years, are very distinctive for the Coast

Guard, where a ezege LOS is the highest of the seven carponents.

Like the Coast Guard Reserve, the two Air Force Reserve components

peak in the early years (lower here than in the other components, the

highest point being 11 percent at the third year for both). The

distribution is flatter to an LOS of about 20 years, but the average Air

Force Reserve LOS is raised by a series of small bulges in the

distribution between 8 and 12 years.

3-12
Returning to the tabular data in Table 3.7 for enlisted personnel,

the military technician line indicates very high average length of

reserve service. In this case, the Air Force Reserve is the lowest of

the carponents with an average reserve experience of 10.7 years; the

other components are all more than 12.5 years. These military

technicians, then, represent an inportant core of experience for these

components.

Enlisted IMAs had experience averages more closely comparable to the

part-time unit mibers. The only major difference here is that IMAs in

the Marine Corps Reserve had an average reserve LOS of 9.2. This is much

higher than the LOS of unit members. AGRs had a very wide distribution,

frcm a very low average length of service of just over one year for the

Naval Reserve to seven or more years for the Army National Guard and Air

Force Reserves. The low Marine Corps number reflects the differences in

the sources of manpower that the active and reserve Marine Corps tap.

The reserve experience of officers was nmch higher than the reserve

experience of enlisted personnel (Table 3.8). Average reserve experience

for part-tine unit members exceeded 10 years in five of the seven

components and was 13.5 years in the Cocst Guard Reserve. This was

dramatically higher than the average experience of officers in the active

force, among wham almost 30 percent had less than 5 years' experience.

The comparable distributions for the part-time reserve officers in units

are shown graphically in Figure 3.3.

~we noticed in examining similar graphs for enlisted personnel that

almost 15 percent of the enlisted personnel had a LOS of three years, and

that this spike lowered the average LOS for the enlisted force. Officer

force profiles, on the other hand, did not evidence this sharp spike.

Table 3.8 Average Years of Reserve ServIce: Off Icers

Reserve Comoonent Total

Reserve Total Selected

Category ARNG USAR USNR USMCR ANG USAFR DoD USCGR Reserve

Part-Time 11.0 10.6 10.1 9.0 10.8 8.6 10.5 13.5 10.5

Military

Technicians 11.8 15.1 - - 14.1 12.9 12.7 - 12.7

IMAs - 12.7 14.5 13.3 - 10.3 11.8 - 11.8

AGRs 12.1 10.8 3.8 7.1 9.3 1G.5 9.6 - 9.6

Source: 1986 RC Member Survey, DMOC Tabulations, September 1987.

3-13

V.'
CM)

Occ 0 M~

l 0) cm )

(n1

a) - U a , )0

a: Ci,

E .~ 0

Io 0.

U- c

C

0 0

.0

ieloi 10 WU8310d ieJ.J 10 iueojad

+ +

0V0 V) 

4)

to U, E

0l C-0 a:

:3 ca Z

.2t

0L U~)~ c2

as 0 

E c

coC 0 I o M c

18101 J0 IUGOJ~d IeIO. 10 lUa3Jd

3-14

Vli 

z
C)

CU

0

a) .2

. 0 160 .s 0 +C

c c 000M a

0

S 0 a 0.

4; ('c) 0

C))

~ ~0 .A C.0 C1 Co It 0 .

((D

(9 0

+ ca 0 .3

0

to E

0 Dw 0 o ' 0

a)~( CM 0 D N o ItC

*C) ?U3O .0ll O.1 IUSOJOd

Cil

.') 0

In

4''t 0 '.0 m co vt 0

"*~ cm N v

3-15
o

For the two Army reserve components, for example, the highest single year

group was the 8 percent for Army Reserve officers with an LOS of four

years. The distribution did not tail off smoothly as did the enlisted

distribution, contributing to the very high average LOS for officers.

Also notable is the relatively large number of officers with more than 20

years of reserve service, especially the large number with more than 30

years of service. There is also a pronounced bulge in the distribution

around the 15-year mark in the two Arry ccmponents.

This pattern varies for the Naval Reserve and Marine Corps Reserve.

The Naval Reserve peaks at 8 percent at an LOS of four years, but from

that point it gyrates quite widely through LOS 16 years. Like the Army

components, there is a substantial tail after the 20-year point. The

Marine Corps Reserve peaks at just under 10 percent with three years of

service, then declines sharply to about 3 percent of the force with 12

years. After a bulge in the distribution around 15 years, the

distribution flattens before a second bulge at 30 years and beyond.

The Air Force Reserve peaks at over 9 percent with two years of

service, gyrates around 5 percent through 14 years, bulges at 15, then

declines. The Air Force National Guard has no early peak but climbs

steadily to only about 5 percent of the force, then moves in a narrow and

flat range through 11 years. From there it rises sharply to 15 years,

then declines except for a spike at 20 years and another at 30 years or

more.

Finally, the Coast Guard Reserve shows a slow but irregular increase

in force proportion up through 12 years, then gradually declines except

for a spike at 20 years. This relatively flat force profile, with no

large concentration in the early LOS points, explains the very high

average LOS for the Coast Guard Reserve.

Returning to the data in Table 3.8, we also find high average years

of reserve service for officers who were military technicians and IMAs in

the reserve components. Average years of reserve service were the lowest

t. for officer military technicians in the Army National Guard at 11.8

years; the average for all components was 12.7 years. The overall

average years of reserve service for IMA officers was 11.8 years, with

the Naval Reserve the highest at 14.5 years and the Air Force Reserve the

lowest at 10.3 years. AGR officers showed a varying pattern of reserve

years of service. The Naval Reserve was at the low end of the range with

an average years of reserve service of 3.8. The Army National Guard was

at the other extreme with a 12.1 year average.

3. Source of Comnission

Another measure of the experience profile of the force is the

source of commission for officers. There has always been a sharp

* perceived difference among officers who are graduates of the military

* academies and those who entered through ROTC programs and Officer

Candidate and Training Schools or by appointment from the enlisted ranks.

3-16

e
In this section we look at the patterns of commissioning source across

the seven reserve caponents and the four reserve categories.

Table 3.9 presents data for part-time officers in each of the seven

reserve corponents. The first striking finding is that only 4 percent of

'4' the officers overall were graduates of the military academies. This

figure was higher for officers in the Naval Reserve (12 percent). ROTC

graduates accounted for 28 percent of all officers, but substantially

more Army Reserve officers (42 percent) and fewer Marine Corps Reserve (8 percent) and Coast Guard Reserve officers (1 percent). Federal Officer

Candidate School (OCS) program accounted for 17 percent of total reserve

oi officers, but OCS produced 60 percent of the Marine Corps Reserve

officers and one-third of the Naval Reserve officers. State OCS programs

were the commissioning source of 12 percent of all part-time reserve

officers, almost all of whcm were in the Army National Guard where they represented almost one-third of all officers. Direct aeppoirt-"nt wac the

source for 25 percent of the officers. Half of the Coast Guard Reserve

officers, and one-third of the Army Reserve, Naval Reserve, and Air Force

Reserve officers (largely medical and other professionals who are

concentrated in the reserve ccponents) but only 3 percent of the Marine Corps Reserve officers were in this category. (The Marine Corps draws

most of its professional support, largely medical, from the Navy, not its

own reserve ccmponent.) The "other" category shown in the table was

dcminated by the 32 percent in the Air National Guard who were graduates of the Academy of Military Science (AMS). Warrant officer sources

represented seven percent of the sources overall, but larger shares than

that in the Army National Guard, Marine Corps Reserve, and Coast Guard

Reserve which all had substantial numbers of warrant off £cers in aviation

positions. Warrant officers are not usually included when discussing

source of ccmission. They are included here for convenience and to more

fully describe the reserve officer force in the seven coponents.

Table 3.9 Source of Commission for Part-Time Officers

Reserve Comoonent Total

Comm I ss I on Total Se I ected

Source ARNG USAR USNR USMCR ANG USAFR DoD USCOR Reserve

Academy 1% 1% 12% 3% 3% 5% 4% 8% 4%

ROTC 23 42 17 8 22 31 29 1 28

OCS 14 8 32 60 19 26 17 22 17

* State OCS 33 7 0 0 1 0 12 0 12

Direct appoint 14 32 28 3 22 35 25 50 25

Aviation 0 0 2 2 2 1 1 0 1

Other 1 2 6 6 32 2 5 4 5

Warrant officer 14 7 3 18 0 0 7 14 7

Source: 1986 RC Member Survey, OMOC Tabulations, September 1987.

3-17

6
* In Table 3.10, we present similar data on the source of officer

comnissions for the four caTponents which have officers in the military

technician category. Here, the patterns are much the same as those in

Table 3.9. Few officer military technicians were academy graduates.

ROTC graduates comprised 11 percent of all officer military technicians

but 29 percent of military technicians in the Air Force Reserve. OCS

graduates accounted for 14 percent of all officer military technicians.

OCS was the largest single source for the Ai Force Reserve (42 percent)

and was higher than the average in the Air National Guard. The large "other" contribution for the Air National Guard military technician

officers were the graduates of AMS. The largest single source of officer

ri' itary technicians was warrant officer program (39 percent overall).

The two Army reserve carponents had even higher percentages fra this

source, indicating the importance of warrant officer military technicians

in these carponents.

Data on the source of camission for officer IMAs are presented in

Table 3.11. Here, we see more academy graduates in the Naval Reserve (13

percent), but RO=I was the single largest contributor overall (45 percent

of all officer IMAs). The Naval Reserve and Marine Corps Reserve were

substantially lower than the Army and Air Force Reserves in use of ROTC

officers, however. OCS was the major source of Marine Corps Reserve IMA

officers (72 percent), while direct appointment was an important source

of these officers in the other three caponents.

Table 3.10 Source of Carnission for Officer Military Technicians

Reserve Carponent

Commission Total

Source ARNG USAR ANG USAFR DoD

Academy 0% 1% 0% 2% 0%

ROC 7 13 13 29 11

OCS 9 7 20 42 14

State OCS 21 4 1 2 13

Direct appoint 7 16 28 6 12 -' Aviation 0 0 11 17 4

Other 2 0 26 2 7

Warrant officer 54 59 1 2 39

a.

Source: 1986 RC Member Survey, DMDC Tabulations, September 1987.

3-18
Table 3.11 Source of Connission for Officer IMAs

Commission Reserve Component Total

Source USAR USNR USMCR USAFR DoD

Academy 5% 13% 3% 4% 5%

ROTC 52 20 12 43 45

OCS 12 42 72 26 21

State OCS 5 0 0 0 3

Direct appoint 20 14 1 25 21

Aviation 0 2 1 1 1

Other 2 9 5 1 2

Warrant officer 5 0 6 0 3

Source: 1986 RC Member Survey, DMDC Tabulations, September

1987.

The major source of AGR officers, as shown in Table 3.12, was the OCS

program, accounting for 33 percent over the six caxponents with full-tie

officers. Over 72 percent of the Naval Reserve AGR officers and more

than half of the Marine Corps AGR officers were ccnnissioned through OCS.

ROTC was the next largest source, being the camnissioning mode of 20

percent of AGR officers, including 34 percent of the Air Force Reserve

and 32 percent of the Army Reserve. Fifteen percent of AGR officers

overall came frum State OCS programs; almost all of these were in the

Army Reserve (36 percent). Aviation sources accounted for 20 percent of

the Air Force Reserve officers. The large "other" category for the Air

National Guard were the graduates of AMS. Warrant officers were 11

percent overall, representing 20 percent of the Army Reserve officers and

18 percent of the Marine Corps Reserve officers.

4. Pay Grade Distribution

Our final measure of the experience of the force is the pay

grade distribution of each of the components and reserve categories. Pay

grade signifies the responsibility and status accorded military personnel

as well as (along with years of service) being the major determinant of

military compensation. Promotion to higher pay grades is a major tool of

personnel management in the military. Examination of the distribution of

personnel into pay grades is, therefore, important for a caoplete

description of the experience of the reserve components.

The enlisted force is divided into three pay grade groups in Table

3.13, the mst junior (EI-E3), mid-level (E4-E6) and senior (E7-E9).

These distributions are shown for each of the four categories of reserve

participation. Again, junior enlisted members in the training pipeline

3-19
,q.

Table 3.12 Source of Camnission for Officer AGRs

Reserve Conponent Total

Camission Source ARNG USAR USNR USMCR ANG USAFR DoD

Academy 1% 1% 7% 0% 3% 14% 2%

ROC 14 32 10 2 21 34 20

OCS 22 25 72 58 16 26 33

State OCS 36 10 0 0 0 0 15

Direct Appoint 6 17 3 0 20 7 10

Aviation 0 0 5 6 5 20 2

Other 2 2 4 16 36 0 7

Warrant officer 20 14 0 18 0 0 11

Source: 1986 RC Member Survey, DMDC Tabulations, September 1987.

were not included in the survey population. For all DoD reserve

components, the data for part-time unit members show that approximately

20 percent were in the lowest enlisted pay grades, 70 percent in the

middle pay grades, and 10 percent in the highest pay grades. There were,

however, some substantial variations from these average pay grade

distributions by component. The concentration in the lower pay grades

for the Marine Corps Reserve was the major deviation from the DoD

average. Fully 52 percent of the part-time Marine Corps Reserve enlisted

personnel in units were in the lowest pay grade group, and only 6 percent

were in the highest. This pattern is consistent with the pattern of

years of service for members of this coaponent and reflects a major

difference between the Marine Corps Reserve and the other DoD reserve

components in force management and personnel policy. The Marine Corps

Reserve force mirrors the active-duty Marine Corps in its personnel

characteristics. Each other branch has built a reserve component with

* significantly more experience (in years and pay grades) than its active

coqponent.

The pay grade structure of the two Air Force reserve caponents, on

01 the other hand, was much more senior than the DoD average. Only 13

percent of the Air National Guard and 7 percent of the Air Force Reserve

part-time enlisted personnel in units were in the lowest pay grade group,

capared to 20 percent for DoD overall. The enlisted pay grade

distributions for the Coast Guard Reserve and Air Force reserve

Vk coponents were relatively top-heavy.

The pay grade distribution for enlisted military technicians was

quite different frau that for part-time unit members. Only 1 percent of

the enlisted military technicians were in the lowest pay grade group,

3-20
Table 3.13 Reservists by Pay Grade: Enlisted Personnel by

Reserve Cate~gry

Reserve Cauponent Total

Reserve Total Selected

Category ARM3 USAR USNR USMCR ANG USAFR DoD USOGR Reserve

Part-Timl

Unit Me±bers

El-E3 21% 19% 25% 52% 13% 7% 21% 9% 20%

E4-E6 72 67 65 42 77 77 69 78 70

E7-E9 7 14 11 6 10 16 10 13 10

Military Technicians

El-E3 1% 1% - - 1% 0% 1%

E4-E6 58 51 - - 54 64 57

E7-E9 42 49 - - 46 36 43

IMs

El-E3 - 2% - 5% - 0% 1%

E4-E6 - 63 - 59 - 58 60 I

E7-E9 - 35 - 36 - 42 38

AGRs

El-E3 0% 0% 20% 1% 2% 0% 7% - -

E4-E6 58 43 67 85 67 40 60 - -

E7-E9 41 58 13 15 32 60 33 - -

Source: 1986 RC Meuber Survey, IIDC Tabulations, Septerber 1987.

L3

~3-21

I " . " . - ." .% " . "" " .. '.' """"" """ ""% ' """ "% 'J . ." % . ''' ' J7
* with the remainder split between the top two groups at about a 60/40

ratio. The enlisted military technicians have already been identified as

having high average years of service; it is clear that they had the high

pay grades to go with those years of service. Enlisted Emhs also had

high pay grade distributions; about 60 percent were in the middle group,

and most of the remlainder were in the highest enlisted pay grades.

AGRs on the whole look like the military technicians and IMs with

regard to pay grade. In the Naval Reserve, however, 20 percent of the

enlisted Ars were in the lost pay grade group. kGs in the Navy

represented 20 percent of enlisted reserve manper, so tiis lower pay

grade distribution is significant.

The pay grade distributions for officers looked similar to the

enlisted distributions, especially because there was quite a large number

of officers at the senior end of the pay grade range. Data for all

officers are presented in Table 3.14. A second table (Table 3.15)

presents data for cummissioned officers only because there are no warrant

officers in the Air Force components and the percentages in the other six

4 ccmponents varied.

Over all the seven cxTponents, commissioned officers in the lowest

two pay grades ccmprised 22 ptrcent of all part-tine officers; middle pay

grade ccmissioned officers accounted for an additional 52 percent; and

senior ccmmissioned officers represented 17 percent of all part-tim

officers. Warrant officers accounted for 9 percent of the total parttine officer force in the seven cauponents, but there were substantial

differences across the seven components. Warrant officers accounted for

significant portions of the part-time officer force in the Army National

Guard (17 percent), the Marine Corps Reserve (19 percent), the Coast

Guard Reserve (14 percent), and the Army Reserve (8 percent) but ware

absent or insignificant in the other ccuponents. These differences make

it difficult to oupare the commissioned officer pay grade data in Table

3.14 but, with this caveat, the major differences in officer pay grades

c,-jn be n+d.

-' Fully a third of the part-time officers in the Army National Guard

ware in the two lowest ccmissioned pay grades, cumpared to only six to

seven percent of the part-time officers in the Naval Reserve and Marine

Corps Reserve. Conversely, a third of the part-time officers in the

Naval Reserve ware in the highest ccmissioned officer group (05-07)

ccpared to only 9 percent in the Army National Guard.

* Data in Table 3.15 exclude the warrant officers to get a better

picture of the pay grade distribution of comissioned officers only. For

the part-time officers, 24 percent of all commissioned officers ware in

the lowest pay grade group (01-02) across the seven components. The

Naval Reserve and Marine Corps Reserve were the lowst (7 percent and 8

percent, respectively) within this category, while the Army National

*Guard was the highest (40 percent). Fifty-seven percent of all parttime officers ware in the middle pay grade category (03-04), but in this

* range the Army National Guard was lowest at 49 percent while the Marine

3-22

%0

,.., .I_, ....,,?X. .., _, . :! . . . ....... ,, .,. , ., ._.,. ',, , ,..,,,,,.,.
A,.

Table 3.14 Reservists by Pay Grade by Reserve Category: Officers

Reserve CaVtonent Total

Reserve Total Selected

Category ARMG USAR USNR USMCR AM USAFR DoD USCGR Reserve

Part-Time Unit

Members

01-02 33% 24% 6% 7% 20% 18% 22% 22% 22%

03-04 41 53 57 60 61 70 52 51 52

05-07 9 16 34 14 19 12 17 14 17

W1-W4 17 8 3 19 0 0 9 14 9

Military Technicians

01-02 4% 3% - - 9% 8% (% -

03-04 20 24 - - 39 52 27 - -

05-07 19 13 - - 52 40 27 - -

W1-W4 57 60 - - 1 0 41 - -

lIAs

01-02 - 3% 0% 2% - 7% 5% - -

03-04 - 57 48 34 - 64 58 - -

05-07 - 36 52 58 - 30 35 - -

p W1-W4 - 4 0 6 - 0 2 - -

AGRs

01-02 12% 7% 3% 2% 5% 0% 7% - -

03-04 49 64 67 48 73 14 60 - -

t5. 05-07 18 16 30 31 22 87 22 - -

W1-W4 21 14 0 19 0 0 11 - -

Source: 1986 RC Member Survey, EtDC Tabulations, September 1987.

3-23 1 %
I

Table 3.15 Reservists by Pay Grade by Reserve Category:

Camissioned Officers Only

Reserve Carponent Total

Reserve Total Selected

Category ARNG USAR USNR USMCR ANG USAFR DoD USCGR Reserve

Part-Tim Unit Members

01-02 40% 26% 7% 8% 20% 18% 24% 25% 24%

03-04 49 57 59 74 61 70 57 59 57

05-07 11 17 34 18 19 12 19 16 19

Military Technicians

01-02 9% 7% - - 9% 8% 9% - -

I 03-04 47 60 - 39 52 46 - -

05-07 44 33 - 52 40 45 - -

01-02 - 4% 0% 2% - 7% 5% -

03-04 - 59 48 36 - 64 60 - -

05-07 - 38 52 62 - 29 36 - -

AGRs

01-02 15% 8% 3% 2% 5% 0% 8% - -

03-04 62 74 47 60 73 13 67 - -

05-07 23 18 29 38 22 87 24 - -

Source: 1986 RC Member Survey, l'IDC Tabulations, Septeiber 1987.

.3

~3-24
a

Corps Reserve and the Air Force Reserve were highest, each having at

least 70 percent of their part-time officers in these pay grades. The

Naval Reserve had the highest percentage in the 05-07 group at 34

percent, compared to the total DoD percentage of 19 percent.

Military technician officers were like enlisted personnel in that

they tended to be in the higher pay grades. Overall, warrant officers

comprised 41 percent of the military technicians. Almost 60 percent of

the officer military technicians in the two Army ccmponents were warrant

officers, but there were no warrant officers in the Air Force reserve

coponents. The four components with commissioned military technician

personnel were quite similar in pay grade distribution. Only 9 percent of these officers were in the lowest pay grade group, and the remainder

were about evenly divided between the middle and highest groups.

*'. Officer IMAs presented yet another pattern. There were few IMA

warrant officers. The pay grade distribution of ccmnissioned officers

was relatively stable across the four curponents with IMAs, with 5

* percent in the lowest pay grade group, 60 percent in the middle group,

and 36 percent in the upper group. The Naval Reserve had slightly more

higher pay grade and fewer middle pay grade IMA officers than the

average.

Finally, AGR officers looked most like the military technicians, with

11 percent warrant officers (none in the Naval Reserve or the Air Force

ccmponents) and over two-thirds of the cormissioned officers in the 03-04

group. In the Air Force Reserve, however, 87 percent of the IMA officers

were in pay grades 05-07; that is, they were field pay grade officers

working in the reserve components.

C. Military Occupation

The job a military member performs is a major descriptor of his or

her military background. In this section we describe the distribution of

Selected Reservists across occupations by component and Selected Reserve

status category. We used a set of military occupational categories based

on the DoD occupational classification to make comparisons. This

classification translates each Service-specific specialty code (e.g., MOS

.AFSC and Rating) into a common terminology across all Services. The

eight occupational categories used here are based on an aggregation of

the first digit of the DoD occupational classification. A translation of

Coast Guard specific specialty codes into the DoD classification is not

available at this time. Thus, only data for the DoD reserve components

are presented. 1 Overall patterns for a single status category are

discussed, followed by a short synopsis of any significant findings by

gender or prior/non-prior status for that category.

1. Enlisted Part-Time Reservists

Tables 3.16 through 3.18 show the percentage of part-time enlisted members by prior service and non-prior service categories as

well as totals by reserve component and military occupation. It was

3-25

-. ~ . -. vv *~ ~ NX0 *
Table 3.16 Military occupation for Part-Tie Mmbers: Enlisted Personnel

'I

Reserve Camponent

Total

Military Occupation ABN3 USAR USNR USMCR AM3 USAFR DoD

Ccrbat Arms 34% 17% 5% 29% 6% 8% 22%

Maintenance & Repair 17 13 28 17 35 28 20

Ccmunications/Other 12 9 12 9 11 4 10

Health Care 3 9 7 -- 4 9 6

Func Support/Admin 11 26 15 11 23 35 18

Craftsmen 4 6 14 3 12 8 7

Service & Supply

Ha",lers 13 16 3 18 10 6 12

Non-Occupational 5 4 14 12 1 1 6

Source: 1986 RC Member Survey, EMDC Tabulations, September 1987

noted earlier in this chapter that 88 percent of all enlisted Selected

Reservists were part-time mnmbers. As seen in Table 3.16, the three

major occupations for these reservists appear to be combat arms, smintenance and repair, and functional support/administration. Over one-third

of the Army National Guard part-time enlisted w were in the carbat

arms. In addition, almost 30 percent of the Marine Corps Reserve and 17

percent of the Army Reserve myiers were in this field. The other ccmponents had relatively small representations in the corbat arms.

-. The Naval Reserve and the two Air Force components had 28 to 35 percent of their part-time unit personnel in the maintenaice and repair

group. The lowest percentage in this field was in the Army Reserve where 13 percent of the enlisted personnel were in this military occupation. Like the maintenance and repair field, the functional support/administration category was a major military occupation category for zant rs of the

Army Reserve (26 percent), the Air National Guard (23 percent), and the

Air Force Reserve (35 percent).

The health care area and the non-occupational category had the smallest percentages of part-time reservists. The craftsmen and service and

supply handlers fell in between. The Marine Corps Reserve had no health

care reservists because their health services are supplied by the Navy.

There were some distinct patterns by gender in the military oocupations of the part-tim reservists. 2 The percentage of male members was

higher than the total in the canbat arm and the maintenance and repair

area, though only slightly. For exanple, 35 percent overall and 38

3-26

6"' '" '.. . J -, -- :, . ' "k . J'"" """" "" '""""" ""'' - - - """""\;" "i-';-' ''''" -"""""""'
percent of the man of the Air National Guard were in the maintenance and

repair group. The femle part-tine reservists were primarily represented

in the health care and the functional support/administration groups.

There were very few wmen in ccmbat arm. Over 61 percent of the Marine

Corps Reserve wamnn were in the functional support/administration field, followed by 55 percent in the Air National Guard, and 53 percent in both

the Army Reserve and the Air Force Reserve.

There were also sane differences in the military occupations of the

part-tine reservists by prior active service status as seen in Tables

3.17 and 3.18. For example, 27 percent of the prior service and 38 percent of the non-prior service Army National Guard menbers were in corbat

arms. There was a 10 percent difference by prior service status for the

Marine Corps Reserve also; 21 percent of the prior service and 31 percent

of non-prior service reservists were in cambat armw. Another striking

difference was in the maintenance and repair field for the Naval Reserve;

over 33 percent of the prior active-duty service reservists had this

military occupation, while only 15 percent of the non-prior service mmrebers were in this category.

2. Enlisted Military Technicians

JFive percent of the enlisted Selected Reservists were military

technicians; their distribution wross occupational areas differed fran

that of the part-tine merbers, as can be seen in Tables 3.19 through

3.21. There are no military technicians in either the Naval Reserve or

the Marine Corps Reserve. The overwhelming majority of military technicians were in maintenance and repair and functional suport/adainistra- / tion (Table 3.19). The maintenance and repair group was almost twice as

V large as the second area, except in the Army Reserve. Seventy-one percent of the Air Force Reserve military technicians and 58 percent of

those in the Air National Guard were in the maintenance and repair area.

Thirty-nine percent of the Army Reserve and 28 percent of the Army

National Guard military technicians were in the functional support/adiinistration areas.

The occupational distribuition patterns by gender seen in the parttime reservists were repeated for the military technicians.3 Of the two

major fields for military technicians, the maintenance and repair area

had a much larger percentage of man than wanen. For example, 71 percent

of all military technicians in the Air Force Reserve were in the maintenance and repair group. Over 75 percent of the men were in this category, but only 26 percent of the wcmen. Gender differences were even

mre evident in the Air National Guard where 6 percent of the male but

only 7 percent of the fenale military technicians were in the maintenance

and repair group. The female military technician's major role seems to

be in the functional support/adinistration area. One hundred percent of

the Army Reserve female military technicians were so employed, along with

83 percent of the Army National Guard woen and 80 per cent of the Air

National Guard waen.

3-27
0

Table 3.17 Military Occupation for Part-Time Members:

Enlisted Personnel with Prior Active Service

Reserve Component

Total

Military Occupation ARNG USAR USNR USMCR AND USAFR Doe

Combat Arms 27% 201 7% 21% 7% 9% 18%

Maintenance & Repair 18 13 33 22 33 26 22

Communications/Other 11 9 13 8 10 5 10

Health Care 3 7 7 0 3 8 5

Func Support/Admin 13 26 15 17 23 36 20

Craftsmen 4 5 13 3 12 9 7

Service L Supply Handlers 16 18 4 17 10 7 13

Non-Occupational 8 2 7 13 1 1 5

Source: 1986 RC Member Survey, DMDC Tabulations, September 1987.

Table 3.18 Military Occupation for Part-Time Members:

Enlisted Personnel without Prior Active Servlcj

Reserve Component

Total

Military Occupation ARNG USAR USNR USMCR ANG USAFR DOD

. Combat Arms 38% 15% 1% 31% 6% 7% 26%

Maintenance & Repair 17 13 15 16 36 32 18

CommunicatIons/Other 12 8 10 10 12 3 10

Health Care 4 11 8 0 4 12 6

Func Suppport/Admln 10 26 15 9 22 33 16

Craftsmen 4 7 17 3 11 8 6

Service & Supply Handlers 12 14 2 18 9 5 11

Non-Occupational 4 7 31 12 0 0 a

Source: 1986 RC Member Survey, DMDC Tabulations, September 1987.

3-28

%'

~. - ~ a v% a'V' , VV . .,, ..o,, ,.
t4

Table 3.19 Military Occupation for Reserve Military Technicians:

Enlisted Personnel

Rosary& Component

Total

Military Occupation ARNG USAR USNR USMCR ANG USAFR DoD

Combat Arms 8% 910-% 2% 8% 8%

Maintenance &, Repair 54 37 - -- 58 71 57

Communications/Other 3 2 - -- 3 1 3

Health Care 1 3 - 1 1 1

Func Support/Admin 28 39 - - 23 14 24

Craftsmen 2 3 - 8 3 5

Service & Supply

Handlers 2 8 - 5 2 4

Non-Occupational 2 o -- 0- a 1

Source: 1988 AC Member Survey. DUDC Tabulations, September 1987

There is an interesting Pattern shown in Tables 3.*20 and 3.21 in the

prior service/non-prior service distribuition for the military teh iins

in the two major areas in which they were Pre&ominant-maintenance and!

repair and support/administration. The prior service murbers were the

larger percentage in the maintenanc~e and! repair occupation while the nonprior service personnel were zmre heavily represented in support/administration. Thirteen percent of the prior service personnel and! 21 percent of the non-prior service personnel were functional support personnel

in the Air Force Reserve. Seventy-three percent of the prior service

military tcnc and ix 55 percent of the non-prior service military

technicians were in aitnceand repair in the Air Force Reserve.

3. Enlisted Me~

r Although the I1@s were only one percent of the enlisted Selected

Reserve their distribution by reserve ccaiponent and military occupation

shows sane major differences (Tables 3.22 to 3.24). The National Gaard

ccuponents do not have IMP, reservists. Table 3.22 shows that all of the

Ias in the Naval Reserve were in the functional support/achninistration

field, while only 26 percent of the Air Force Reserve mwbers were in

that group. Nonetheless, that occupation had the largest percentages of

DMAs for the rmaining reserve ccmponents. Health care personnel,,

craftmen, and non-occupational workers were only smll Percentages Of

INAs.

3-29
4

Table 3.20 Military Occupation for Reserve Military Technicians:

Enlisted Personnel with Prior Active Service

Reserve Component

Total

Military Occupation ARNG USAR USNR USMCR ANG USAFR DOD

Combat Arms 9% 10% .. .. 21 8% 6%

Maintenance & Repair 54 35 .. .. 66 73 62

Communications/Other 3 2 .. .. 3 1 2

Health Care 1 3 .. .. 0 0 1

Func Support/Admin 26 38 .. .. 19 13 21

Craftsmen 2 4 .. .. 6 3 4

Service & Supply Handlers 3 8 .. .. 4 1 4

Non-Occupational 2 0 .. .. 0 0 1

Source: DMDC Tabulations, September 1987.

Table 3.21 Military Occupation for Reserve Military Technicians:

Enlisted Personnel without Prior Active Service

Reserve Comoonent

Total

Military Occupation ARNG USAR USNR USMCR ANG USAFR DoD

Combat Arms 7% 7% .. .. 2% 8% 5%

Maintenance & Repair 53 41 .. .. 47 55 50

Communications/Other 3 0 .. .. 3 2 3

Health Care 2 4 .. .. 1 2 1

Func Support/AdmIn 30 42 .. .. 29 21 30

Craftsmen 2 1 .. .. 11 8 6

Service & Supply Handlers 1 6 .. .. 6 4 4

Non-Occupational 1 0 .. .. 0 0 1

Source: OMDC Tabulations, September 1987.

1I

3-30

I

Js

JZ
Table 3.22 Military Occupation for Reserve IMAs: Enlisted Personnel

Reserve Component

Total

Military Occupation ARNG USAR USNR USMCR ANG USAFR DoD

Combat Arms -- 19% 0% 12% -- 4% 12%

Maintenance & Repair -- 11 0 6 -- 13 12

Communications/Other -- 18 0 27 -- 17 17

Health Care -- 6 0 .. .. 6 6

Func Support/Admin -- 30 100 43 -- 26 29

Craftsmen -- 2 0 0 -- 11 6

Service & Supply

Handlers -- 14 0 9 -- 22 18

Non-Occupational -- 0 0 3 -- 0 0

Source: 1986 RC Member Survey, DMDC Tabulations, September 1987

IMAs had the same gender differences noted in the other categories of

Selected Reservists.4 There were no women in the Naval Reserve IMA

sample, and the majority of wamen in the other ccmponents were in the

functional support/administration category. The major differences in

prior/non-prior service seemed to be in combat arms and maintenance and

repair, where there were more prior service reservists (Tables 3.23 and

3.24).

4. Enlisted AGR Members

As seen in Table 3.25, the majority of AGR reservists were in

combat arms, maintenance and repair, and functional support. Ninetyseven percent of the Air Force Reserve personnel were in functional support, along with 80 percent of the Army Reserve. Forty-eight percent of

the Naval Reserve AGR members were in maintenance and repair. The Army

National Guard had the highest representation in combat aims with 16

percent.

The split by gender did not show any different patterns than have

* already been discussed for other status categories. With the exception

of the Naval Reserve at 64 percent, over 87 percent of the wmen in all

reserve camponents were in functional support/administration.

5. Officer Part-Time Unit Members

Tables 3.26 to 3.28 display the occupational data for the total

part-time officers in units as well as by prior service status. The

occupational groupings are different fram those of the enlisted personnel.

3-31

:I
Table 3.23 Military Occupation for Reservs IMAs:

Enlisted Personnel with Prior Active Service

Reserve Counanent

Total

Military Occupation ARNG USAR USNR USMCR ANG USAFR DO

Combat Arms -- 21% 0% 14% -- 4% 13%

Maintenance & Repair -- 13 0 7 -- 12 12

Communications/Other is 1 0 27 -- 18 is

Health Care -- 7 0 0 -- 8

Func Suppport/Admin -- 25 100 45 -- 26 27

Craftsmen -- 2 0 0 -- 11 6

Service & Supply Handlers -- 14 0 3 -- 23 18

Non-Occupational -- 1 0 3 -- 0 0

Source: 1986 RC Member Survey, OMOC Tabulations, September 1987.

Table 3.24 Military Occupation for Reserve iMAs:

Enlisted Personnel without Prior Active Service

Reserve Component

Total

Military Occupation ARNG USAR USNR USMCR ANG USAFR 000

Combat Arms -- 7% 0% 0% 3% 5%

Maintenance & Repair -- 4 0 0 -- 21 12

*Communications/Other -- 12 0 25 -- 8 11

Health Carse- 0 0 0a- 12 5

Func Suopport/Admln - 58 0 25 - 28 42

Craftsmen -- 0 0 0 -- 12 6

Service & Supply Handlers -- 19 0 50 -- 19 20

Non-Occupational - 0 0 0 -- 0 0

Source: 1988 RC Member Survey, DMOC Tabulations, September 1987.

3-32
,J.

Table 3.25 Military Occupation for Reserve AGRs: Enlisted Personnel

: v. Reerva Cnononant

Total

Military Occupation ARNO USAR USNR USMCR ANG USAFR 00

Combat Arms 161 5% 1% 7% 122 0% 8%

Maintenance & Repair 8 9 48 25 21 0 22

CommunIcatIone/Other 7 2 4 4 4 0 5

Health Care 1 2 4 -- 2 0 2

Func Support/Admln 64 80 35 54 52 97 56

Craftsmen 2 1 5 2 4 0 3

Service & Supply

Handlers 3 1 1 7 6 3 3

Non-OccupatlonaI 1 0 1 1 0 0 1

Source: 1986 RC Member Survey, DMOC Tabulations, September 1987

Thie majority of part-tine officers were in the tactical operations field

(Table 3.26). Fifty-one percent of the Marine Corps Reserve officers

were in that field, along with 50 percent of the Army National Guard.

* The Naval Reserve had the sallest percentage in this field--20 percent.

In contrast to the enlisted reservists, a significant portion of the

officers were in the health care field. Over 29 percent of the Air Force

Reserve and 23 percent of the Army Reserve were health professionals.

Reserve officers were also concentrated in the adinistrative area.

Because less than one-half of one percent of the officers in the reserves

were general and flag officers, they have been included with atministrative personnel for this analysis. Wenty-two percent of the Air National

Guard officers and 20 percent of the Naval Reserve officers fell into the

administrative category. Engineering was the final area with a fairly * large concentration, 12 percent of all officers and 17 percent in the

Naval Reserve.

Differentiation by gender shows that the majority of female part-time officers were in the health professions and, to a lesser degree, in the "** adninistrative area.6 Over 84 percent of the f~iale officers in the Air

Force Reserve and 65 percent in the Army Reserve Were health profes- sionals. In contrast, the highest percentage of male health profes- sionals was in the Army Reserve with only 14 percent male officers. As

.p in the overall picture, the males were concentrated in the tactical oper- ations, administration, and engineering fields.

.3-33

6
Table 3.26 Military Occupation for Part-Time Members: Officers

Rarva Camnnnant

Total

Military OccupatIon ARNO USAR USNR USMCR ANG USAFR DoO

Adminlstratlva 121 171 201 91 22% 91 181

Tactical Operations 50 31 20 51 43 42 37

Intelligence 1 4 9 2 3 1 4

Engineering 14 9 17 13 11 9 12

Scientists 4 8 11 2 5 3 8

Health Professional 7 23 13 -- 10 29 15

Service & Supply

Procurement 7 7 10 11 5 7 7

Non-OccupatIonal 5 4 0 11 2 0 3

Source: 1988 RC Member Survey, OMOC Tabulations. September 1987

alncludes all general and flag officers.

As seen in Tables 3.27 and 3.28, there were no consistent differences

between prior/non-prior service part-time officers except for those in

the tactical operations field where there was a higher percentage with

prior active service than without prior service. For exaiple, 47 percent

of Air Force Reserve officers with prior active-duty experience were in

tactical operations while 27 percent of Air Force Reserve officers with

no prior service experience were in tactical operations.

6. Officer Military Technicians

Tables 3.29 to 3.31 display the ocuational data for reserve

officer military technicians. Table 3.29 shows that officer military

technicians were concentrated in administration, tactical operations, and

Sengineering. Over 66 percent of the Air Force Reserve military technicians were in tactical operations, and 38 percent of the Air National

Guard were engaged in administrative occupations. Nenty-six percent of

the Army National Guard military technicians were in engineering fields.

The service and supply procurenent occupation also had a significant

l percentage of military technicians--20 percent of the Army Reserve and 18

percent of the Any National Guard.

The majority of female military technicians were in administrative

positions; over 84 percent of the female Army Reserve military technicians were in the administrative area. Male military technicians were

found in all three areas mentioned above; 69 percent of Air Force Reserve

males, for example, were in tactical operations.

*" 3-34

M
Table 3.27 Military Occupation for Part-Time Members:

Officers with Prior Active Service

Reearve Component

Total

Military Occupation ARNO USAR USNR USMCR ANG USAFR DoD

Admlnletrativea 11% 16% 20% 91 221 101 18%

Tactical Operations 56 35 21 53 46 47 38

Intelligence 1 5 9 1 2 1 5

Engineering 13 10 17 12 13 11 13

Sclentlsts 3 a 11 2 5 3 6

Health Professional 7 20 13 0 7 20 13

Service & Supply Procurement 8 7 10 12 6 8 8

Non-Occupatlonal 3 1 0 12 0 0 2

Source. '36 AC Member Survey, DWDC Tabulations, September 1987.

aincludes all general and flag officers.

Table 3.28 Military Occupation for Part-Time Members:

Officers without Prior Active Service

Reserve Comoonent

Total

Military Occupation ARNO USAR USNR USMC ANG USAFR DoD

Administrativea 131 17% 211 121 221 6% 161

Tactical Operations 46 26 15 30 38 27 35

Intelligence 1 3 8 10 3 0 2

Engineering 14 7 24 36 7 3 11

Scientists 5 6 10 2 5 3 6

Health Professional 6 27 15 0 17 57 18

Service & Supply Procurement 8 6 8 8 5 3 7

Non-Occupational 6 8 0 3 4 1 6

Source: 1986 RC Member Survey, DMDC Tabulations, September 1987.

aincludes all general and flag officers.

3-35
Table 3.29 Military Occupation for Reserve Military Technicians: Officers

Reserve Comoonent

TotaI

Military Occupation ARNG USAR USNR USMCR ANG USAF OoD

Adminlstrativea 27% 31% . . 38% 16% 29%

Tactical Operations 27 25 . . 36 66 32

Intelligence 0 3 .. 1 2 1

Engineering 26 21 .. .. 16 7 22

Scientists 1 0 . . 0 2 1

Health Professional 1 0 . . 0 1 0

Service & Supply

Procurement 18 20 . . 9 7 15

Non-Occupational 1 0 - - 0 0 1

Source: 1988 RC Member Survey, DMDC Tabulations, September 1987

aIncludee all general and flag officers.

As seen in Tables 3.30 and 3.31, the prior service designation was

inportant in several areas. Prior active service officer military

technicians were nore likely to be in tactical operations than were

officer military technicians without prior active-duty service. Over 66

percent of the Air Force Reserve military technician officers with prior service were in tactical operations, while in the Air Force Reserve as a

whole, no one without prior service was a military technician. More nonprior service officers than prior service officers had administrative

positions and engineering occupations. Thirty-two percent of non-prior

service and only 19 percent of prior service Army National Guard officer

military technicians were in engineering.

7. Officer IMAs

The data for officer IMAs are shown in Table 3.32 for all IMA

officers and in Tables 3.33 and 3.34 by prior service status. Like the

part-time and military technician officers, slightly more IM officers

* were in the tactical operations field than any other area as seen in

Table 3.32. Thirty-seven percent of the Marine Corps officers were in

this military occupation, along with 33 percent of Naval Reserve IM

officers. The Air Force Reserve, however, had only 4 percent of their

.IMA officers in tactical operations. The rest of the IMA officers were

spread relatively evenly among administration, engineering, and science.

tOne significant area where the IMAs had more of an inpact than either the

part-time officers or the technicians was the intelligence field. Over

3-36
-4

Table 3.30 Military Occupation for Military Technicians:

Officers with Prior Active Service

Reserve Cobnonent

Total

Military Occupation ARNG USAR USNR USMCR ANG USAFR 0oO

Administrativea 28 26% .. .. 34% 18 281

Tactical Operations 37 30 .. .. 42 e8 42

Intelligence 1 0 .. .. 1 2 1

Engineering 19 20 .. .. 15 7 17

Scientists 1 0 .. .. 0 2 1

Health Professional 1 0 .. .. 0 1 0

Service & Supply Procurement 18 19 .. .. 7 7 13

Non-Occupational 0 0 .. .. 0 0 0

Source: 1988 RC Member Survey. DMOC Tabulations. September 1087.

'lncludes all general and flag officers.

i

Table 3.31 Military Occupation for Military Technicians:

Officers without Prior Active Service

Reserve Comonnent

Total

Military Occupation ARNG USAR USNR USMCR ANG USAFR 0oD

Administrativea 271 431 .. .. 441 01 321

Tactical Operations 19 15 .. .. 27 0 20

- - Intelligence 0 8 .. .. 1 0 1

Engineering 32 12 .. .. 18 0 27

Scientists 0 0 .. .. 0 0 0

Health Professional 1 0 .. .. 0 0 0

Service & Supply Procurement 19 23 .. .. 11 0 18

Non-Cccuoatlonal 2 0 .. .. 0 0 1

Source: 1986 RC Member Survey, OMOC Tabulations, September 1987.

Oincludes all general and flag officers.

3-37

a.-
Table 3.32 Military Occupation for Reserve IMAs: Officers

Reerve Comonmnt

Total

Military Occupation ARNG USAR USNR USMCR ANU USAFR Do0

Adminlstratlvea -- 10 24% 26% -- 19% 19%

1 Tactical Operations -- 25 33 37 -- 4 17

Intelligence -- 12 2 8 -- 15 13

Engineering -- 11 15 7 -- 23 18

Scientists -- 14 15 12 -- 17 15

Health Professional -- 7 2 .. .. 13 9

Service & Supply

Procurement -- 13 9 S -- 9 11

Non-Occupationl -- 0 0 4 -- 0 0

Source: 106 RC Member Survey, OMDC Tabulations. September 19867

aincludee all general and flag officers.

Table 3.33 Military Occupation for Reserve IMA*:

4 Officers with Prior Active Service

Reserve Cnonnant

Total

_ Military Occupation ARNG USAR USNR USMCR ANG USAFR DoD

Admlnistrativea -- 18% 21% 26% -- 19% 19%

Tactical Operations -- 26 34 37 -- 4 17

Intelligence -- 13 3 S -- 16 14

Engineering -- 11 15 7 -- 23 18

Scientists -- 13 15 12 -- 17 15

Health Professional -- 6 3 0 -- 11 8

Service & Supply Procurement -- 13 10 5 -- 10 11

" Non-Occupational -- 0 0 4 -- 0 0

Source: 1988 RC Member Survey, DDC Tabulations, September 1987.

ancludes all general and flag officers.

3-38

6 ."'V"
Table 3.34 Military Occupation for Reserve IMAs:

Officers without Prior Active Service

Reserve Component

Total

Military Occupation ARNG USAR USNR USMCR ANG USAFR O0

Administrativea -- 17% 80% 0% -- 15% 18%

Tactical Operations -- 25 20 0 -- 2 18

Intelligence -- 8 0 0 -- 10 9

Engineering -- 13 0 50 -- 20 15

Scientists -- 15 0 0 -- 24 17

Health Professional -- 9 0 0 -- 25 13

Service & Supply ProcurePent 13 0 50 4 10

Won-OccupationaI -- 0 0 0 -- 0 0

Source: 1986 RC Member Survey. DMDC Tabulations, September 1987.

aIncludes all general and flag officers.

15 percent of the Air Force Reserve IMAs and 12 percent of the Any

Reserve IMA officers were intelligence officers.

No new pattern is evident when the IMA reserve officers are examined

by gender. 8 Again, the majority of the females were in administration

and the health professions. The male IMAs were spread more evenly across

occupations. The Naval Reserve shoed over 79 percent of the female iAs

*in tactical operations; but the sanple was very small, making the

percentage an unreliable estimate.

Slightly more IMA tactical operations officers were prior service

-personnel as shown in Tables 3.33 and 3.34, but the differences were not

significant. The rest of the data on the IMAs by prior service status

showed no real trends, and the non-prior service Marine Corps IMAs were

too few to be significant.

3-39

6'
8. AGR Officers

As shown in Table 3.35, full-tim officers were most predominant in the tactical operations and the administrative groups. About half of

the AGR officers in the Any National Guard and Marine Corps Reserve were

in tactical operations. sixty percent of the Air Force Reserve AGR

officers and 56 percent of Naval Reserve AM officers were in the administrative group. A nuich smaller percentage of the AGR officer personnel

were in the engineering, and services and supply procurement occupations.

The pattern by gender for the AGR officers was no different than that A noted for the other gtatus categories among either enlisted personnel or officers.- An overwhelming percentage of AGR women were in the administrative category. One hundred percent of the female Air Force Reserve

AGR officers ware administrative personnel. Ninety-one percent of the

Naval Reserve and 89 percent of the Marine Corps Reserve female officers

were also categorized as administrative workers. The male AGR officers

generally followed the pattern set by the overall AGR reserve officer

force.

Table 3.35 Military Occupation for Reserve AGRs: Officers

'S

Reserve Carionent

-Total

Military Occupation ARNG USAR USNR USWR AM USAFR DoD

Administrativea 25% 21% 56% 32% 31% 60% 31%

Tactical Operations 50 34 20 49 42 34 38

Intelligence 0 4 2 3 2 0 2

Engineering 9 15 11 12 17 0 12

Scientists 1 1 1 1 1 0 1

Health Professional 1 5 0 -- 0 7 2 -' Service & Supply

• Procurement 13 20 11 3 7 0 14

Non-Occupational 1 0 0 0 0 0 0

Source: 1986 RC Member Survey, EUMDC Tabulations, September 1987.

* aIncludes all general and flag officers.

3-40

0V
Io.

D. m

This chapter presented information on the military background of

Selected Reserve personnel in all seven reserve covponents. The chapter

dealt with all status categories of trained personnel in the Selected

-: Reserve--part-time unit members, Individual Mobilization Augmentees

(IMAs), military technicians, and Active Guard/Reserve personnel (As).

Part-tir unit members and AG~s are in all reserve ccuponents. The Naval

Reserve and the Marine Corps Reserve do not have military technicians,

and the two National Guard cctponents do not have IMAs. The Coast Guard

-. Reserve includes only part-time unit members. Among the major findings

are:

'5.~ '* Most trained members of the Selected Reserve were part-time unit

• ~menbers - 88 percent of enlisted personnel and 77 percent of

officers. There were substantial differences among the ccvponents, however, in the structure of the Selected Reserve.

--- 'Part-time unit menbers were 100 percent of Coast Guard 5. Reserve enlisted members and 96 percent of the Marine Corps

Reserve. They made up only 74 percent of the Air National

0 Guard and 79 percent of the Air Force Reserve. For

officers, the range was from 100 percent of the Coast Guard

Reserve and 89 percent of the Naval Reserve to only 48

percent of the Air Force Reserve.

-- Individual Mobilization Augrentees (IMAs) to active force

units and headquarters are not used in the National Guard

in which all menbers mrust be affiliated with a reserve unit

billet. Most IMAs are officers. The greatest use of IMAs

was in the Air Force Reserve, where 46 percent of all

Selected Reserve officers were IMAs.

* -- Military technicians are enployed only in the reserve

components of the Army and the Air Force. They made up 20

percent of the enlisted force and 14 percent of the officer

force of the Air National Guard.

Active Guard and Reserve mmbers (A) are employed in all

* components except the Coast Guard Reserve. AGRS made up 15

percent of the Naval Reserve enlisted force and 8 percent

of Naval Reserve officers.

*.There were also great differences between the corponents in the

percentage of members who had served on active duty. Overall,

almost half of part-time enlisted personnel in units and over 62

percent of part-time officers in units had served in an active

conponent before joining the Guard or Reserve.

0

3-41

0#.

% _ _____________________________
4I

-- iThe percentage of part-time enlisted members with prior

*,, active component service was only 22 percent in the Marine

Corps Reserve and 38 percent in the Army National Guard.

It was 71 percent for the Naval Reserve and 64 percent for

the Air Force Reserve.

- For officers, the A"my National Guard was the only ccnponent in which less than half of part-time unit mmrbers

had no active ccponent experience. In the Marine Corps

Reserve, 93 percent had served two years or more in an

Uactive component.

-- IMAs, technicians, and AGRs were more likely to have had

active-cazponent experience, with AGs, on average, having

the most active-ccmonent experience.

Selected Reservists tend to have considerable experience in the

reserves in addition to any active component experience.

-- Reserve experience for part-time enlisted members in units

ranged fran an average of 4.2 years for the Marine Corps

Reserve to 8.6 years for the Coast Guard Reserve. Enlisted

technicians averaged over 10 years of reserve service in

all four of the ccmponents that euploy them.

For officers, years of reserve experience for part-tine

unit members ranged from a low of 8.6 years in the Air

Force Reserve to 13.5 years in the Coast Guard Reserve.

Once again, military technicians, with an average of over

11 years in all components, had the highest average years

of reserve experience.

Pay grade patterns differed by reserve ccponent and Selected

Reserve status. For example:

Overall, 20 percent of part-time enlisted personnel in

units were in the three lowest pay grades, 70 percent were

in E4-E6, and 10 percent were in E7-E9.

In the Marine Corps Reserve, however, 52 percent were in

'the lowest pay grades, while only 6 percent were in the

highest.

-- 'Twenty-two percent of part-time officers in units were in

the two lowest pay grades, 52 percent were in the middle

pay grades, and 17 percent were senior officers. One-third

of part-time officers in the Army National Guard were in

the two lowst pay grades. Only six to seven percent of

Naval Reserve and Marine Corps Reserve officers were in the

* two lowest pay grades.

3-42

% %
I.

* The distribution of military occupations in the reserve

cm onentS again points up the extent to which the camponents

differ frm one another.

-- Enlisted part-ti e unit mmbers were assigned in most

A. occupational areas and reflected the primary missions of

.* their components. For exauple, 34 percent of those in the

Army National Guard and 29 percent in the Marine Corps Reserve had cabat arms occupations. Enlisted technicians

were corentrated in equipment maintenance and repair

occupations, while the highest percentage of A~s were

primarily in functional support and a&inistration.

- The military occupations of part-time officers in units

also reflected cmponent missions. The highest percentages

were in tactical operations, with over half of Army National Guard and Marine Corps Reserve officers in this

occupational area. Officer technicians and As were

employed in a greater range of occupations than their

; enlisted counterparts.

S

O

3-4 .,

.

.5

,/"" 3-43

0/
1For a detailed discussion of the various classification system, see

Appendix E in 1986 Reserve Ccponents Survey: Selected Reserve Officer

and Enlisted Personnel--User's Manual and Codebook.

2See the Supplementary Tabulations for the 1986 Reserve Cmponents

Surveys, Table 3.14.

3 ibid.

4 Ibid.

5 Ibid.

6Cp. Cit., Table 3.15.

7 Ibid.

8 ibid.

9 1bid.

3-44

0N

aK,
4. PERSCNAL AND FAMILY CHARACIERISTICS OF GUARD/RESERVE MEMBERS

A. Introduction

Data on the personal characteristics, educational attainments and

household ccuposition of the men and wanen in the reserve carponents

provide insight into concerns and issues that affect mnrbers' performance

and career decisions. Information on some of these characteristics is

available in administrative records. It is useful, however, to examine

similar information frum the survey data because in later chapters we

will be looking at their relationship to information on attitudes and

other characteristics that are not available in records.

This chapter begins with a description of the age, gender, and

ethnicity/race of the part-time unit mtbers of the various reserve

cciponents. Members' educational levels and their current school

attendance are examined next. Finally, we describe members' marital

status and household ccnposition.

B. Personal Characteristics of Menbers

1. Age Ca position

Age is strongly related to other characteristics of interest,

both military and personal, such as year of service, pay grade, marital

status, and household ooaposition. Table 4.1 presents data on age at the

time of the survey by carponent for enlisted personnel. Table 4.2

presents these data for officers.

The median age of all part-time enlisted personnel was 29.5 years.

overall, about 42 percent of the enlisted personnel were 26 year. old or

less, 44 percent were between 27 and 41 years old, and 14 percent were 42

years old or older. The Marine Corps Reserve was the youngest group; 42

percent were 21 years of age or less, and 78 percent were 26 years old or

*. less. The median age of enlisted personnel in the Marine Corps Reserve

was 23.1. Enlisted personnel in the Coast Guard Reserve were the oldest;

their median age was 35.9, and only one in five was 26 years old or less.

The median ages for enlisted members of the other components ranged frou

28.3 to 33.7.

As would be expected, officers were older than enlisted personnel.

(Table 4.2). The median age for officers overall was 37.9 years,

appoxinately eight years older than the median for enlisted personnel.

The median age of officers in the Marine Corps Reserve was lower, and the

median age of officers in the Coast Guard Reserve was higher than the

medians for those in the other reserve cauponents. Officers across the

' caponents were more alike in age than were enlisted personnel. The

majority of the officers in each component was between 32 and 41 years

old; the percentage of officers in this age group ranged fran 48 percent

of the Army National Guard to 61 percent of the Air Force Reserve. The

Army National Guard had the largest percentage (30) of officers under 32.

4-1

Y,
Table 4.1 Members' Age: Enlisted Personnel

Reserve Component Total

Total Selected

Member's Age ARNG USAR USNR USMCR ANG USAFR DoD USCGR Reserve

21 or less 18% 16% 11% 42% 10% 6% 16% 5% 16%

22-26 28 29 20 36 21 20 26 16 26

27-31 15 17 16 9 15 20 16 15 16

32-36 13 13 16 5 17 18 14 18 14

37-41 13 14 17 5 18 17 14 19 14

42-46 7 6 10 2 10 9 7 14 7

47 or older 7 6 10 1 10 10 7 12 7

Median age 28.3 28.5 33.0 23.1 33.2 33.7 29.5 35.9 29.5

Source: 1986 RC Member Survey, Supplementary Tabulations 4.1.

Table 4.2 Members' Age: Officers

Reserve Component Total

Total Selected

Member's Age ARNG USAR USNR USMCR ANG USAFR DoD USCGR Reserve

21 or less I% 1% a a a a 1% a 1%

22-26 13 7 1 2 5 2 7 1 7

27-31 16 12 15 23 15 13 14 8 14

32-30 21 22 28 31 20 28 23 19 23

37-41 27 30 28 26 31 33 29 31 29

42-46 12 18 18 12 19 17 15 23 15

47 or older 10 12 11 8 10 6 11 19 11

Median age 38.8 38.3 38.1 35.4 40.4 38.1 37.8 40.5 37.9

* Source: 1986 RC Member Survey. Supplementary Tabulations 4.2.

aLess than 0.5 percent.

4-2

."r 

X. . &

'I,.a A
dlb

Age was related to pay grade and prior service. Tables 4.3 and 4.4

present data on age by pay grade and prior service for enlisted personnel

and officers, respectively.

Enlisted personnel's median age increased with pay grade. The

largest difference in median age was between E4 and ES; the median

increased fran 23.2 for E4's to 32.7 for E5's to 42.2 for E7-E9's. The

distribution across the age range also varied by pay grade. In the

lowest pay grade, E1-E3, 87 percent of the enlisted personnel were 26

years old or less. The age groupings were less concentrated in the

higher pay grades. Enlisted personnel with prior service, i.e. those

with two or more years of active service, tended to be older than those

without prior service. The median age for those with prior service was

more than 10 years higher than the median age for those without prior

service.

Officers' median age increased with pay grade for the pay grades 01

to 06 and higher. The median age was 29.4 years for officers in the pay

grades 01-02, 35.4 years for 03's, 41.0 years for 04-05's, and 50.1 years

Vfor 06 and higher. Warrant officers, WI-W4, had a median age (41.5) that

was somewhat older than the median age for all officers in the Total

Selected Reserve (37.9).

As discussed in Chapter 3, the majority of Guard/Reserve officers had

at least two years' prior active service experience. Prior service was

strongly related to age. Officers with prior service tended to be older

(median age 40.2) than those without prior service (median age 35.2).

This age difference was not as great as the difference between enlisted

personnel with prior service and those without prior service.

2. Gender Cocposition

The reserve components are predominantly male. This is clearly shown by Table 4.5 which presents data on gender by reserve component.

Overall, 93 percent of the part-time enlisted personnel were man. The

Air Force Reserve and the Army Reserve had the highest percentage of

women (19 percent and 17 percent, respectively), while the Marine Corps

Reserve had the lowest (4 percent). The percentage of male part-time

officers was slightly lower than the percentage of male enlisted

personnel. overall, 88 percent of officers were men, and 12 percent were

women. The percentages of officers by gender across components were

similar to those for enlisted personnel; the Air Force Reserve and the

Army Reserve had the "ighest percentages of woen (21 percent and 18

percent, respectively), while the Marine Corps Reserve had the lowest (2

percent).

Several similarities and differences are seen when the data in

Table 4.5 are ccrpared to similar data for the active force. Overall, 90

percent of active-force enlisted personnel were men, and 10 percent were

woren. This is essentially the same as shown here for the Total Selected

Reserve. The active-force components, with the exception of the Marine

4-3

4 r 
Table 4.3 Age by Pay Grade and Prior Service: Enlisted Personnel

Prior Total

Member's Pay Grade Service Status Selected

Age El-E3 E4 E5 E6 E7-E9 Prior Non-Prior Reserve

21 or less 54% 15% 2% a a 1% 29% 16%

22-26 33 46 21 4 a 17 35 26

27-31 7 20 24 13 3 18 13 16

32-38 4 10 21 23 15 19 9 14

37-41 1 6 18 29 31 22 7 14

42-48 a 3 8 15 21 11 4 7

* 47 or older a 1 6 15 30 11 3 7

Median age 20.8 23.2 32.7 38.7 42.2 35.7 25.0 29.5

Source: 1988 RC Member Survey, Supplementary Tabulations 4.1.

* aLess than 0.5 percent.

Table 4.4 Age by Pay Grade and Prior Service: Officers

Pay Grade Prior Total

Member's 06 & Service Status Selected

Age W1-W4 01-02 03 04-05 Higher Prior Non-Prior Reserve

21 or less a 3% a a a a 2% 1%

22-26 2 31 a a a 1 17 7

27-31 4 33 23 1 a 13 17 14

32-36 11 24 40 15 a 24 22 23

37-41 37 9 30 43 2 33 22 29

42-48 21 1 7 29 23 18 11 15

47 or older 25 a 1 12 74 11 10 11

Median age 41.5 29.4 35.4 41.0 50.1 40.2 35.2 37.9

Source: 1986 RC Member Survey, Supplementary Tabulations 4.2.

aLess than 0.5 percent.

4-4.

o
i

Table 4.5 Gender: Enlisted Personnel and OffIcers

Reserve Component Total

Total Selected

Gender ARNG USAR USNR USMCR ANG USAFR DoD USCGR Reserve

EnIIsted Personnel

Male 95% 83% 88% 980% 88% 81% 90% 91% 90%

Female 5 17 12 4 12 19 10 9 10

Off Icers

Male 94 82 91 98 92 79 88 95 88

Female 8 18 9 2 8 21 12 5 12

Soirce: 1986 RC Member Survey, Supplementary Tabulations 4.3-4.4.

Corps, however, were more similar to each other than to the reserve

caponents. Only about 5 percent of the enlisted members of both the active Marine Corps component and the Marine Corpa Reserve were women.

Among officers, however, the reserve components have a slightly higher

percentage of wren (12 percent) than the active force (10 percent). U'Here again, the Marine Corps Reserve and the active Marine Corps were

more similar to each other than to other active or reserve components.1

Tables 4.6 and 4.7 examine the percentage of waren by pay grade and . prior service status for part-tine enlisted personnel and officers,

respectively.

slightly more than one-tenth of the part-time enlisted personnel in k ' the pay grades El-E3, E4, and E5 were women. The percentages of cmen in

the higher pay grades were lower--7 percent in E6 and 4 percent in E7-E9.

Nearly two-fifths of the Air Force Reserve personnel in the lowest pay ~grades, EI-E3, were woen. One fifth of the lowest pay grades in the

Army Reserve and Air National Guard were women. The percentage of women

in the highest pay grades, E7-E9, ranged fran 1 to 7 percent across the

reserve corponents.

The overall percentage of female enlisted personnel in the non-prior

service category was nearly double that for the prior service category.

For each of the reserve couponents except the Marine Corps Reserve, the

percentage of woven was higher for those without prior service than for

4-5

- . " ".=Ws ' • K w & '' ;O %.d "

®r .. Y .- -U. e. . , ' ; . . . , . V.
Table 4.6 Percent Female by Pay Grade and Prior Service Status:

Enlisted Personnel

Reserve Comoonent Total

Total Selected

ARNG USAR USNR USMCR ANG USAFR DoD USCGR Reserve

Pay Grade

E1-E3 5% 20% 12% 2% 19% 39% 11% 5% 11%

E4 6 20 17 3 16 24 13 15 13

E5 5 18 15 9 13 20 11 8 11

E6 2 14 8 8 6 13 7 7 7

E7-E9 1 5 3 1 3 7 4 5 4

Prior Service Status

Prior Service 3 11 7 8 6 11 7 3 7

Non-prior Service 6 23 23 3 18 32 13 17 13

Source: 1986 RC Member Survey, Supplementary Tabulations 4.3.

Table 4.7 Percent Female by Pay Grade and Prior Service Status: Officers

Reserve Comoonent Total

Total Selected

ARNG USAR USNR USMCR ANG USAFR DoD USCGR Reserve

N, Pay Grade

W1-W4 2% 4% a 2% a a 2% 2% 2%

01-02 9 32 17 8 16 46 20 9 20

03 7 18 14 2 9 22 14 8 13

04-05 4 13 7 2 5 12 8 2 8

06 or higher a 4 3 a a 6 2 a 2

Prior Service Status

* Prior Service 3 12 8 3 5 13 8 3 8

Non-prior Service 8 26 17 1 13 46 17 10 17

Source: 1986 RC Member Survey, Supplementary Tabulations 4.4.

al.ess than 0.5 percent.

4-6

-N -"
t. those with prior service; in the Marine Corps Reserve, eight percent of those enlisted personnel who had prior service were women, but only three

percent who did not have prior service were wcuen.

The percentage of wtmen differed scmewhat more by pay grade for part- tire officers than for enlisted personnel. Overall and for the individual ccponents, the percentage of wtmen decreased as ccmmissioned pay grade category increased. One-fifth of all officers in pay grades 01-02

were warien, as were 13 percent of those in pay grade 03, and 8 percent of

those in pay grades 04 and 05. Only two percent of those in pay grades 06 or higher were women. The variation among the individual carponents

was very similar to that observed for enlisted personnel. The Army Reserve and Air Force Reserve had the highest proportions of w~men at all

pay grade levels, and the Marine Corps Reserve had the lowest.

The percentage of officers without prior service who were wzmen was

slightly greater than twice the percentage of those with prior service

overall. In each of the reserve corponents, officers without prior service were more likely than those with prior service to be women. Nearly

half the Air Force Reserve officers without prior service were wcmen.

Given the increase in the number of women in the active force in recent

years, the movement of women officers from active duty into the reserve

components has not kept pace with the direct entry of women into the

reserves.

3. Ethnic/Racial Ccrposition

Ethnic/racial minorities have traditionally regarded the military as a means of econcmic advancement. Table 4.8 shows the proportions in major ethnic/racial groups for part-time enlisted personnel and officers. Nearly one-third of all enlisted personnel and about one-tenth of

all officers were members of minority groups. About two-fifths of the

Army Reserve enlisted personnel were minorities; 26 percent were Black, 9

percent were Hispanic, and 3 percent were other minorities. The Coast

Guard Reserve had the lowest percentage of minorities among enlisted

personnel; 5 percent were Black, 5 percent were Hispanic, and 3 percent

were other minorities.

The ethnic/racial couposition of the officers varied less than did

the ethnic/racial ccmposition of the enlisted personnel. The percentage of minorities was consistently low a&ro&b al. t"'c izrve ccuponents; it

ranged fran 2-7 percent for Blacks, 2-4 percent for Hispanics, and 2-3

percent for other minorities.

Table 4.9 shows the proportions of enlisted men and women in each

reserve corponent who were members of an ethnic/racial minority group.

Overall a higher proportion of enlisted women (41 percent) were minority

group members than enlisted en (27 percent). In all the reserve canponents, the proportion of female enlisted personnel who were minority

group members was higher than the proportion of male enlisted personnel

who were minority group menbers. The reserve coponents had a somewhat

larger percentage of wcmen who were minority groups members (41 percent)

4-7

W-' Y-.b - r v

"---A
Table 4.8 Ethnic/Racial Group: Enlisted Personnel and Officers

Reserve Comoonent Total

Ethnic/Racial Total Selected

Group ARNG USAR USNR USMCR ANG USAFR DoO USCGR Reserve

Enlisted Personnel

Black 17% 26% 10% 18% 9% 19% 18% 5% 18%

Hispanic 8 9 6 12 6 9 8 5 8

White 72 62 81 67 81 69 71 88 71

Other 3 3 3 3 4 4 3 3 3

Officers

Black 4 7 2 4 3 3 5 3 5

Hispanic 4 4 2 2 3 2 3 2 3

White 89 86 93 92 91 93 89 94 89

Other 2 3 3 2 3 2 3 2 3

Source: 1986 RC Member Survey, Supplementary Tabulations 4.5-4.6.

Table 4.9 Ethnic/Racial Group by Gender Compared with Active Force:

".€Enlisted Personnel

Gender/ Reaerva Comoonent Total

Ethnic/Racial Total Selected Active

Group ARNG USAR USNR USMCR ANG USAFR DoD USCGR Reserve Force

Male

* Black 10% 23% 9% 17% 8% 16% 16% 4% 16% 18%

2 Hispanic 8 9 6 12 6 9 8 4 8 8

White 72 65 81 67 82 71 73 89 73 69

Other 3 3 3 3 4 4 3 3 3 5

Female

Black 29 41 19 25 14 29 31 16 31 26

Hispanic 7 8 5 9 7 8 7 7 7 7

White 61 49 74 64 74 61 59 74 59 64

Other 3 3 3 2 5 2 3 3 3 4

* Source: 1986 RC Member Survey, Supplementary Tabulations 4.5. Active force data from

1985 DoD Member Survey, Supplementary Tabulatior 4.7.

aLess than 0.5 percent.

5 4-8

0

a' . . "' ' ". ' €" * . .2 . '"4 " " ". *," r, . " "'-
than did the active force (37 percent). The situation was reversed for

men by a similar percentage (27 percent for the reserve components and 31

percent for the active force).2

Table 4.10 presents data on ethnic/racial group by gender for

officers. About one-fifth of the female officers, overall, were minority

group members ccmpared with about one-tenth of male officers. For both

the Army National Guard and the Army Reserve, about one-fourth of female

officers were fron minority groups compared to about one-tenth of male

officers. The proportion of female officers who were frcm minority

groups in the remaining three reserve ccmponents ranged from 12-14

percent. The proportion of male officers who were from minority groups

was smaller, ranging from 6-8 percent.

C. Members' Educational Experience

The growth in the number of military occupations requiring

technological skills has made recruiting and retaining well-educated

personnel more important than in the past. The Guard/Reserve and the

active Services share the need for well-qualified personnel to fulfill

their responsibilities as parts of the Total Force. The desLred

educational level for enlisted personnel is high school graduation; for

officers, ccmpletion of a college degree. Results of the 1986 RC Member

Survey indicate that the reserve components have succeeded in meeting

those requiremnts.

Over 90 percent of the part-time enlisted personnel had at least a

high school education (Table 4.11). With one exception, the highest

proportion of the members in each ccmponent had received a high school

diplcma or equivalent as their highest degree. The exception, members of

the Coast Guard Reserve, who were also older, had the most education; 29

percent had completed 1-2 years of college, and 40 percent had ccmpleted

more than two years of college. The percentages of enlisted personnel in

the other components who had completed at least one year of college

ranged from 31 percent of the Army National Guard to 58 percent of the

Air Force Reserve.

The educational profile of part-time enlisted personnel was different

from that of their active-force counterparts. Although smwhat fewer

part-time enlisted reservists (93 percent) had at least a high school

education than did active-force enlisted personnel (98 percent), a higher

percentage of part-time enlisted personnel had advanced education.3

For Guard/Reserve officers overall, 80 percent had completed a

bachelor's degree or more (Table 4.12). Sixteen percent had finished 1-4

years of college but had not yet completed a degree. Among the

components, the Naval Reserve and the Air Force Reserve had the highest

educational levels. For both, more than two-fifths had completed a

bachelor's degree and nearly one-half had ccmpleted more. The

differences between the educational profiles of part-time and

." active-forcc officers were smaller than these differences for part-time

* and active-force enlisted personnel. Four percent of the part-tine

4." 4-9

z.
Table 4.10 Ethnic/Racial Group by Gender Compared with Active Force: Officers

Gender Reserve Component Total

Ethnic/Racial Total Selected Active

Group ARNG USAR USNR USMCR ANG USAFR DOD USCGR Reserve Force

Male

Black 4% 8% 2% 5% 2% 2% 4% 3% 4% 5%

Hispanic 4 4 1 2 3 2 3 2 3 3

White 90 88 94 92 92 94 91 94 91 90

Other 2 3 3 1 3 2 3 2 3 3

Female

Black 12 16 5 a 11 7 13 a 13 11

Hispanic 7 4 3 a 2 2 4 a 4 4

White 77 75 88 a 86 87 79 a 79 81

Other 4 5 4 a 1 3 4 a 4 4

Source: 1986 RC Member Survey, Supplementary Tabulations 4.6. Active force data from

1985 Dog Member Survey, Supplementary Tabulations 4.8.

aToo few cases for rellable estimates.

Table 4.11 Education Completed: Enlisted Personnel

ResArve Component Total

Education Total Selected

Completed ARNG USAR USNR USMCR ANG USAFR DO USCGR Reserve

Less than high

school 11% 6% 5% 5% 4% 4% 7% 3% 7%

High school or

equivalent 58 52 44 47 41 37 52 27 51

1-2 years

college 18 23 27 32 30 30 23 29 23

More than 2

years college 13 19 23 17 25 28 18 40 18

Source: 1986 RC Member Survey, Supplementary Tabulations 4.7.

4-10

&~
INa

t'. Table 4.12 Education Completed: Officers

EducationReserve Cononn Total Tote

Completed ARNG USAR USNR USMCR ANG USAFR DoD USCGR Reserve

High school or

less 9% 3% 1% 3Z 1% a 4 3% 4%

1-4 years college,

no degree 33 14 3 11 9 7 16 12 16

Bachelor's degree,

only 35 41 48 56 53 49 43 45 43

More than 4

years college 23 42 48 30 37 44 37 40 37

Source: 1986 RC Member Survey, RTI Tabulations, October 1987.

aless than 0.5 percent.

officers had no more than a high school education compared to only two

percent of the active-duty officers. On the other hand, fewer part-time

officers had mre than a bachelor's degree (37 percent) than did

active-duty officers (41 percent) .4

Tables 4.13 and 4.14 present data on the efforts of part-time

reservists to augment their current education. Members were asked if

they were attending a civilian school in 1985:

If you are now attending a civilian school, what

kind of school is it? Mark all that apply.

* Does not apply, I don't attend school

* Vocational, trade, business or other career

training school

* Junior or cmmnity college (two years)

* Four year college or university , Graduate or Professional school

*• Other

Here w examine responses in only one category, the percentage attending

any type of school.

One-quarter of all the part-time enlisted personnel were attending

school at the time of the survey. Overall, enlisted personnel who had

ccrpleted at least same college were mre likely than other enlisted

4-11

el

- ;
Table 4.13 Current School Attendance by Education Conpleted:

Enlisted Personnel

Reserve Cariponent Total

Education Total Selected

Copleted ARNG USAR USNR USMCR ANG USAFR DoD US(XR Reserve

12 grades or less

no diplcma 10% 13% 12% 11% 9% 11% 11% 18% 11%

HS certificate

other than

diplcma 13 18 26 30 17 22 16 17 16

HS diplcma 11 17 18 21 15 16 14 14 14

1-2 years of

college 40 40 41 61 38 37 41 37 41

3-4 years of

college 42 37 38 70 39 42 41 32 41

More than 4

years of

college 31 37 36 55 28 39 35 33 35

* Total 20 26 29 41 27 30 25 28 25

Source: 1986 RC Member Survey, Supplementary Tabulations 4.9.

Table 4.14 Current School Attendance by Education Coapleted:

Officers

Reserve CoM!onent Total

Education Total Selected

Carpleted ARNG USAR USNR USHMR ANG USAFR DoD USCGR Reserve

HS diploma 22% a a a a a 19% a 19%

* 1-2 years of

P college 40 25 a a a a 35 a 35

3-4 years of

college, no

degree 60 51 a a a a 53 a 53

Bachelor's degree 24 23 23 21 15 18 22 21 22

* More than 4

years of

college 20 15 12 18 13 10 15 13 15

Total 31 22 18 21 17 15 23 17 23

Source: 1986 RC Mewber Survey, RTII Tabulations, October 1987.

aToo few cases for reliable estimates.

4-12

I7
personnel to be attending school. About two-fifths of those who were in

each of the three highest educational categories (1-2 years college, 3-4

years college, more than four years college) were attending school in

1985. The percentage of those in the lower educational categories (no

diploma, high school certificate or diploma) attedling school ranged from

11 to 16 percent. The Marine Corps Reserve showed the highest school

attendance among the reserve components; twc-fifths of Marine Corps

enlisted personnel were in school.

Overall, apprcximately the same percentage of officers (23 percent)

as enlisted personnel (25 percent) were attending school at the time of

the survey. For officers, the carponent with the highest percentage of

school attendance was the Army National Guard (31 percent), while the

Naval Reserve, the Air Force ccmponents, and the Coast Guard Reserve had

the lowest (15 to 18 percent). The educational level at which officers

were most likely to be in school was "3-4 years of college, no degree"

(53 percent, overall). Officers who had completed a bachelor's degree

were somewhat more likely (22 percent) than those with more education (15

percent) to be attending school.

The responses of reservists cannot be directly ccurpared to the

responses in the active-duty survey because the 1985 DoD Meter Survey

asked about school attendance over a year's timre. Assuming, however,

that the rate of school attendance at one point in tim for the

reservists was about the same as their annual rate, the data for

reservists and active-duty personnel were quite similar. Nineteen

percent of the active-duty enlisted personnel and 21 percent of the

active-duty officers went to school in the preceding calendar year. 5

D. Marital Status and Household Ccmposition

Tables 4.15 and 4.16 present data on the household composition of

part-time enlisted personnel and officers in the various reserve

ccponents. 6 To determine marital status, respondents were asked:

Are you currently:

0 Married for the first time

0 Remarried

* Widowed

• Divorced

* Separated

* single, never married

Respondents who were "married for the first time", "remarried", or

"separated" were classified as married; respondents who were "widowed", "divorced", or "single, never married" were considered unmarried.

Respondents were also asked how many dependents they had (excluding self

and spouse). A dependent was defined as "anyone related to you by blood,

4-13

' ' '',,'.,e ' ." "g p." -j " p" '., " - *r' y.i *' Kp.: . u -
Table 4.15 Household Carposition: Enlisted Personnel

Reserve CaTponent Total

Household Total Selected

Cctposition ARNG USAR USNR USMR ANG USAFR DOD USCGR Reserve

Unmarried

W/O dependents 33% 37% 34% 63% 29% 30% 35% 28% 35%

With dependents 10 12 8 7 8 8 10 6 10

Total unmarried 43 49 42 70 36 38 45 34 45

Married

- W/O dependents 11 10 14 8 12 14 11 13 11

With dependents 46 41 44 22 52 48 44 53 44

Total married 57 51 58 30 64 62 55 66 55

Source: 1986 RC Member Survey, Supplementary Tabulations 4.11 and 4.13.

Table 4.16 Household Composition: Officers

Reserve Comonent Total

Household Total Selected

Coaposition ARNG USAR USNR USMCR ANG USAFR DoD USCGR Reserve

Unmarried

W/O dependents 19% 21% 15% 15% 16% 19% 18% 8% 18%

With dependents 5 7 4 4 5 6 6 5 6

Total unmarried 24 28 19 19 21 25 24 13 24

Married

W/O dependents 13 11 14 12 11 11 12 13 12

With dependents 63 61 67 68 68 63 64 73 64

Total married 76 72 81 80 79 74 76 87 76

Source: 1986 RC Member Survey, Supplementary Tabulations 4.12 and 4.14.

4-14

J * q- - w

! -..-. . *1 ~ %~~Vi ~*
marriage or adoption, and who depends on you for over half their

support."

Slightly over half of the part-time enlisted personnel in units in

the Selected Reserve were married. A plurality of all enlisted personnel

(44 percent) had a spouse and dependents. One in ten was married with no

dependents. Another 10 percent were unarried with dependents. The

remaining 35 percent were urmarried with no dependents. The enlisted

personnel in the individual components followed this bimodal

pattern--either married with dependents, or unmarried without dependents. Enlisted personnel in the Air National Guard (64 percent), Air Force

Reserve (62 percent), and Coast Guard Reserve (66 percent), however, were

more likely to be married. The low percentage of Marine Corps Reserve

enlisted personnel who were married (30 percent) is not surprising

because they are nuch younger than those in the other reserve components.

Part-time officers in units in the Selected Reserve were more likely

to be married (76 percent) than enlisted personnel (55 percent). The

percentages of officers in the individual components who were married

were similar to the overall figure. As with the enlisted personnel,

married officers were more likely to have dependents, and unmarried

officers were less likely to have dependents.

Tables 4.17 and 4.18 present data on household composition by pay

grade and gender. Pay grade is related to several factors that are

associated with family formation, such as age, length of service, level

of job responsibility, and income. Member's gender is also important.

Part-time enlisted personnel in the higher pay grades (E5-E9) were

more likely to be married than unmarried; three-fourths in the higher

pay grades were married compared to under two-fifths in the lower pay

grades. In the higher pay grades, 62 percent had a spouse and dependents

while 13 percent had a spouse and no dependents. In the lower pay

grades, 27 percent had dependents and 10 percent had only a spouse.

Approximately 10 percent of those who were unmarried in both the higher

and the lower pay grades had dependents.

For enlisted personnel overall, men (57 percent) were more likely to

be married than wmen (38 percent). Both married men and married women

were more likely to have dependents than not to have dependents, while

both unmarried men and women were less likely to have dependents.

The percentages of enlisted men in the reserves and active force who

were married were quite similar (57 percent in the Guard/Reserve and 60

percent in the active force). The percentage of enlisted wmen who were

married, however, was considerably higher for active-force mmbers (53

percent) than part-time unit members (38 percent). For both men and

women, the percentage of part-time unit mebers with dependents was

higher than in the active force.

Officers in pay grade 04 and higher were more likely to be married

than those in pay grades 01-03. Married officers in both the lower and

4-15

4

%p.
Table 4.17 Household Ccuposition by Pay Grade and Gender:

Enlisted Personnel

Gender

Household Pay Grade Guard/Reserve Active Force

Composition El-E4 ES-E9 Male Fenale Male Female

Unmarried

W/O dependents 53% 17% 34% 44% 36% 30%

With dependents 11 9 9 19 4 9

Total umarried 64 26 43 63 40 47

Married

W/O dependents 10 13 11 13 15 25

With dependents 27 62 46 25 45 28

Total married 37 75 57 38 60 53

Source: 1986 RC Mater Survey, Supplementary Tabulations 4.13, and 1985 DoD

Maber Survey, Supplemnntary Tabulations 4.19.

Table 4.18 Household Ccmposition by Pay Grade and Gender:

*Officers

Pay Grade Gender

Household 04 or Guard/Reserve Active Force

Composition W1-W4 01-03 Higher Male Female Male Female

5Unmarried

W/o dependents 9% 28% 9% 16% 36% 17% 46%

* With dependents 5 6 5 5 12 2 5

Total unmarried 14 34 14 21 48 19 51

0* Married

W/o dependents 13 13 11 11 18 18 27

With dependents 73 53 75 68 34 63 22

Total married 86 66 86 79 53 81 49

Source: 1986 RC Menber Survey, Supplementary Tabulations 4.14, and 1985 DoD

Member Survey, Supplementary Tabulations 4.20.

4-16
/W W

higher pay grades were more likely to have dependents than not to have

dependents. Only about 5 percent of the officers in both pay grade

groups were unarried with dependents. The marital status and dependency

status of warrant officers were very similar to those of the higher pay

grade commissioned officers. The sane percentage was married (86

percent), and virtually the same percentage had dependents. As discussed

previously, the warrant officers were also similar to this group in age

and prior service.

Male officers were more likely to be married (79 percent) than female

officers (53 percent). Both married men and women were more likely to

have dependents than not to, although the percentage was higher for men.

Indeed, overall, 54 percent of the female officers did not have

dependents compared to only 27 percent of the male officers.

The percentages of both male and female part-time officers who were

married were quite similar to the active force. Eighty-one percent of

male active-force and 77 percent of male part-time Guard/Reserve officers

were married as were 49 percent of the female active-force officers and

52 percent of the female part-time Guard/Reserve officers. Only married

male part-tire officers resembled their active-force counterparts (68

percent and 63 percent, respectively) with respect to dependents.

E. Military Experience in Merber's Childhood Family

Guard/Reserve memers were asked about the military experience (active duty and/or Guard/Reserve) of individuals in their childhood

families: father, mother, brothers, and sisters. The responses of parttime unit members appear in Table 4.19. Nearly one-fifth--17 percent of

enlisted personnel and 19 percent of officers--had a close relative with

sufficient military service to have earned retirement. Substantial

proportions-43 percent of enlisted personnel and 51 percent of officers-

-came from families where at least one person had served in the military (for less than eight years) and separated. Around one-tenth reported

that a member of their childhood family was currently serving in the

military. Enlisted personnel (who were younger, on the average) were

somewhat more likely than officers to report this: 14 percent of

enlisted personnel ccmpared to 9 percent of officers. Only one-fourth of

enlisted personnel in the Selected Reserve and about one-fifth of

officers came fra families where no one in their childhood families had

served in the military.

There were sane differences among the individual ccrponents in the

military experience of members' parents and siblings. Enlisted personnel

in the Marine Corps Reserve and Army National Guard were more likely than

those in other caponents to cane from families where no one had military

service (28 and 27 percent respectively). Enlisted personnel in the

Naval Reserve, the two Air Force caponents, and the Coast Guard Reserve

were more likely than others to cane from families where saeone had

military service; only 20 to 21 percent reported that no one in their

childhood family had served in the military. Most of these family

members had served less than eight years and separated; 47 to 53 percent

4-17
Table 4.19 Military Experience In Childhood Family: Enlisted Personnel and Officers

Reserve Component Total

EnlIsted/Offlcer Status/ Total Selected

Family Military Experience ARNG USAR USNR USMCR ANG USArR DoD USCGR Reserve

Enlisted Personnel

A f.;;'y mebar:

Retired from military 18% 17% 18% 15% 18% 20% 17% 19% 17%

Currently serving 15 15 11 14 13 12 15 8 14

Served < 8 years &

separated 40 43 50 43 48 47 43 53 43

No one served 27 25 21 28 21 21 25 20 25

Of f Icers

A family member:

Retired from military 19 18 21 20 19 22 19 19 19

Currently serving 11 9 6 8 10 6 9 6 9

Served < 8 years &

separated 50 51 52 54 49 46 51 53 51

No one served 20 22 20 18 23 26 21 22 21

Source: 1986 RC Member Survey, Supplementary Tabulations 4.15 and 4.16.

of enlisted personnel in the Naval, Air Force, and Coast Guard caponents

reported this type of service.

Officers in the Marine Corps Reserve, Army National Guard, and Naval

Reserve were less likely than those of other components to coe from

families where no one had served in the military; only 18 to 20 percent

reported this. Air Force Reserve officers were most likely to come fram

families where no one had military experience (26 percent) and were least

likely to report that a family mmb&er had served less than eight years

and separated. These officers were also the most likely to report that

someone in their family had enough military experience to have retired

fran a service (22 percent).

4-18
These results for both enlisted personnel and officers differed by

pay grade. Table 4.20 shows these differences for enlisted personnel.

In the Selected Reserve overall, enlisted personnel in pay grades El-E4

were more likely to report no family member had ever served in the

military (28 percent) than were those in pay grades E5-E9 (22 percent).

Lower pay grade personnel were less likely than higher pay grade personnel to report that family mmTbers had served and separated (38

percent vs. 48 percent) and more likely to report family merbers were

currently serving (17 percent vs. 12 percent). The percentages saying W that a family meber had retired frao the military differed little by pay

grade.

Table 4.20 Military Experience In Childhood Family by Pay Grade:

Enlisted Personnel

Reserve Comoonent Total

Pay Grade/Family Total Selected

Military Exper I ence ARNG USAR USNR USMCR ANG USAFR DoD USCGR Reserve

ELEA

A family member:

Retired from military 16% 17% 16% 14% 19% 21% 17% 21% 17%

Currently serving 18 18 14 14 17 17 17 10 17

Served < 8 years &

separated 36 37 47 40 42 42 38 53 38

No one served 30 27 23 31 21 20 28 16 28

A family member:

Retired from military 19 18 19 16 17 20 18 17 18

Currently serving 13 12 9 14 11 10 12 7 12

Served < 8 years &

separated 45 49 52 49 51 48 48 54 48

No one served 23 22 20 21 21 21 22 22 22

. Source: 1986 RC Member Survey, Supplementary Tabulations 4.15.

4-19

S ' " , .","-". -", """""" . """: . . v .",'. .'''.-, ...,, .':': ,,,. .,.. "3 .., . ',% % ',? . .:.-, .-, : , .,2

: '..' .,:'.", ",.,., ' ,'."/ *' . ,. -. . -,', ."'" ." .. ." .'.'.'.:"''_.',,.-,,.,, ' ,; :'i J , .. ... ."j . ,
%The individual components differed considerably in the proportions of

memmbers in pay grades E1-E4 whose family umbers had any military

service. The proportions saying no family menber had ever served ranged

from 30 percent (for the Army National Guard) and 31 percent (for the

Marine Corps Reserve) to 20-21 percent (for the Air Force components) and

16 percent (for the Coast Guard Reserve). The proportions reporting that

family members had served and separated also differed substantially

across ccmponents, ranging from 36-37 percent (for the two Army ccrponents) to 47 percent (for the Naval Reserve) and 53 percent (for the

Coast Guard Reserve). Differences among components in the proportions of

umbers in pay grades EI-E4 with parents or siblings currently serving or

retired from the military are much smaller.

Members in pay grades ES-E9 differed nuch less across ccrponents than

those in pay grades E1-E4. Very similar proportions reported that no one

in their families had served and, hence, that scmeone had. Coast Guard

Reserve officers were most likely of the individual coiponents to say

that a family uember had served less than eight years and separated (54

percent) and least likely to say that one was currently serving (7

percent). The DoD components varied most in the proportion saying a

family menmber had served and separated--from 45 percent in the Army

* National Guard to 52 percent in the Naval Reserve.

The opposite general pattern appeared for officers (Table 4.21).

Among cammissioned officers, those in the lower pay grade category (01-

03) were more likely than those in the higher category (04 or higher) to

report that parents and/or siblings had served in the military. And

there was less variation among individual caiponents for the lower

commissioned pay grades than for the higher. Fifteen percent of Selected

Reserve officers in pay grades 01-03 said that no one in their family had

served in Lhe military, ccmpared to 29 percent of those in pay grades 04

or higher. Those in pay grades 01-03 were somewhat more likely than

those in pay grades 04 or higher to report family umbers with each of

the three types of service asked about: 52 percent said a family umber

had served and separated (capared to 49 percent), 12 percent said a

family umber was currently serving (campared to 6 percer'), and 21

percent said a family umber had retired from the military (capared to

16 percent).

* There was little difference among the individual components in the

proportions of officers in pay grades 01-03 reporting that no one in

their family had served in the military and that a parent and/or sibling had separated from, military service. There was sumewhat more variation

in the proportions saying that a family umber was currently serving

(frum 6 percent in the Air Force Reserve to 14 percent in the Army * National Guard). There was also some variation in the proportions saying

that one had retired fran the military (from 20 percent in the Army

Reserve to 28 percent in the Air Force Reserve).

In contrast, there is considerable variation among the individual

ccmponents in the proportions of officers in pay grades 04 or higher

reporting that no one in their family had served in the military--fram 22

4-20

0
Table 4.21 Military Experience In Childhood Family by Pay Grade: Off icers

Reserve Component Total

110Pay Grade/Family Total Selected

Military Experience ARNG USAR USNR USMCR ANG USAFR DoD USCGR Reserve

izHa

A family member:

Rbtlred iiam mI:;tary 17% 14% a 11% - - 16% 6% 16%

Currently serving 8 10 a 5 - - 8 5 8

Served < 8 yeare &

separated 54 50 a 61- 53 49 53

No one served 20 20 a 24 - - 23 41 23

A family member:

Retired from miiitary 21 20 23 21 23 28 21 23 2

Currently serving 14 12 9 13 12 6 12 7 12

Served < 8 years&

separated 50 53 55 53 53 50 52 55 52

No one served 15 15 13 13 13 16 15 15 15

A family member:

Retired from military 15 14 20 22 15 14 16 18 16

Currently serving 6 5 5 5 8 6 6 5 6

Served < 8 years &

separated 50 1Z 51 51 45 42 49 52 49

No one served 29 32 24 22 32 38 29 25 29

* Source: 1986 RC Member Survey, Supplementary Tabulations 4.16.

* 8Too few cases for reliable estimates.

-Not applicable.

* 4-21

9. e. 5i* 'S j ~
percent in the Marine Corps to 38 percent in the Air Force Reserve. Most

of the differences among cczponents appear to be accounted for by

differences in the proportions reporting family mmbers who had served

less than eight years and separated (which range from 42 percent in the

Air Force Reserve to just over half in the Naval Reserve, Marine Corps

Reserve, and Coast Guard Reserve). One-fifth or more of the Naval

Reserve officers and Marine Corps Reserve officers reported that family

mebers had completed sufficient military service to have retired,

campared to 14 percent in the Air Force Reserve and Army Reserve.

F. S

This chapter provided detailed information on the personal and family

characteristics of part-time unit members of the Selected Reserve. The

chapter also provided information on educational attainments and goals.

Data ware presented by pay grade, gender, age, and prior service

category. Among the major findings are:

0 .The median age of enlisted personnel varied greatly by

cczrponent. The Marine Corps Reserve was the youngest (23.1

years). The Anry National Guard and Army Reserve were next

youngest (28.3 and 28.5 years, respectively). The Coast Guard

Reserve, with a median age of 35.9 years, was the oldest.

* The median age for officers varied less dramatically. The

Marine Corps Reserve (35.4 years) was the youngest. The Air

National Guard and Coast Guard Reserve (40.4 and 40.5 years,

respectively) were the oldest.

* Ninety percent of enlisted personnel and over 88 percent of

officers were men. The Air Force and Army Reserves had the

largest percentages of women; the Marine Corps Reserve had the

smallest.

* Nearly three-tenths of all enlisted personnel and one-tenth of

all officers were menbers of racial/ethnic minority groups. A

% higher percentage of enlisted waren (41 percent) than men (27

percent) were mmbers of racial or ethnic minority groups.

* Among officers, 21 percent of the women and 9 percent of the men

were minority group meabers.

0:Over 90 percent of enlisted personnel had at least a high school

education. Among all officers, 96 percent had copleted at

least one year of college.

; About 25 percent of both enlisted personnel and officers ware

continuing their education at the time of the survey.

0 Officers ware more likely to be married and have dependents than

enlisted personnel. Approximately 44 percent of the enlisted

personnel and over 64 percent of officers had a spouse and

* dependents.

4-22
SData on the gender camposition are in Table 4.3 of Description of

Officers and Enlisted Personnel in the U.S. Arned Forces: 1985. A Report

Based on the 1985 DoD Survey of Officer and Enlisted Personnel. Prepared

for the Office of the Assistant Secretary of Defense by the Research

Triangle Institute, Research Triangle Park, WC, 1986. This report is

referred to here as the 1985 DoD Meter Survey.

2See the Supplecentaxy Tabulations for the 1985 DoD Menber Survey, .Tables 4.7 and 4.8 for these data on the active force.

3See the Supplemntary Tabulations for the 1985 DoD Meber Survey,

% Table 4.9

4Cp. Cit., Table 4.10.

5Data presented on page 51 of the 1985 DoD Marber Survey -,port.

6More detailed informtion about the imrmdiate families of part-time

unit mbers can be found in the coapanion report in this series:

* Description of Spouses of Officers and Enlisted Personnel in the U.S.

" Selected Reserve: 1986. A Report Based on the 1986 Reserve Caponents

4-2

,.4

4--

4
5. PARTICIPATION IN AND PERSPECTIVE ON MILITARY ACTIVITIES

wA. Introduction

Par'-time members of National Guard and Reserve units may participate

in a number of different unit activities throughout the course of their

military service. Participation in and the satisfaction with unit activities can potentially affect morale and camitent and, ultimately, the

preparedness and capability of these units. In this chapter we identify

the activities and participation rates for those who were part-time

National Guard and Reserve menbers in units at the time of the survey.

We also outline the relative satisfaction levels with various aspects of

these unit activities, ranging from quality of training to opportunities

to use military skills. This chapter also deals with the menbers' perceptions of unit training problems.

B. Timfe In Current Unit

Unlike the active military personnel, National Guard and Reserve

component part-time unit members join specific units and can often change

units when, for instance, they move due to a civilian job chdnge. Most

analysts and military leaders agree that the cohesiveness of a unit and,

therefore, its capability and preparedness are partly a function of the

length of time that the unit merbers have been together. For these reasons, we begin this chapter by examining the length of time that these

part-time unit members reported being in their current units. Because

the length of current unit service is clearly related to the total time

the member has been in the Guard/Reserves, the tables and analysis that

follow examine length of time in the current unit by current year of

Guard/Reserve service.1

We first examine the average number of years served in the current

unit, as calculated from the responses to the survey questions (Table

5.1). The data must be treated carefully because the coiponents differ

quite widely in total length of service in the Guard/Reserve (see section

3.B.4 above). The data do, however, reveal some interesting patterns.

First, enlisted personnel appear to have served longer in their current

units (average 4.9 years) than have officers (average, 4.6 years).

Second, there are substantial differences across the seven corponents in

the length of service in the current unit. The two Air Force reserve

cnponents have the longest lengths of service. This is especially true

for officers (many of whm are pilots). The Coast Guard Reserve length

of service is low for officers but high for enlisted personnel. The

Natioral Guard components tend to have longer service in the current unit

than do the other reserve camponents. The Naval Reserve length of service in current unit is low for both enlisted personnel and officers.

Further conclusions on this subject can be drawn from examination of

the data in the following two tables which present the distributions of

time in the current unit when controlled for the year of Guard/Reserve

service (YOS) menbers were currently serving. a

5-1

"%.

S&.- -
I

N Table 5.1 Average Number of Years in Current Unit

Reserve Component

Enlisted/ Total

Officer Total Selected - Status ARNG USAR USNR USMCR ANG USAFR DoD USCGR Reserve

Enlisted 5.4 4.7 3.6 3.2 5.8 4.9 4.9 5.6 4.9

Officer 4.4 4.7 3.2 4.3 7.9 5.6 4.6 3.3 4.6

Source: Calculated from grouped survey responses, 1986 RC Member

Survey, Dt4DC Tabulations, 1987.

Several findings in Tables 5.2 and 5.3 are quite interesting. Data

for these two tables are sunmarized and presented more simply in Table

5.4. Table 5.4 presents only the percentages of enlisted personnel and

officers in each YOS group who indicated they had served virtually their

4 entire careers in the same unit. Thus, the first section of the table

-hows the percentage of personnel at YOS 4-6 who had served in their

current unit for 4-6 years.

The first finding evident for this table is that in almost every case

a higher percentage of enlisted personnel than officers had served virtually the whole term of service in the current unit. The exceptions to

this are the Air National Guard (in all three YOS groups examined) and

the Air Force Reserve (for YOS 11-20 only). In scue cases, enlisted

personnel were twice as likely as officers to have served in only one

unit--this is especially true in the Army National Guard and the Coast

Guard Reserve.

The second finding that emerges is the stability of membership

through long careers in the reserve ccponents. Half of the enlisted

personnel in the Anmy National Guard in YOS group 4-6 had served in thet A[ current units for their entire careers. In the 7-10 YOS group, 43 percent had served that long in their current Army National Guard units and,

even at 11-20 YOS, fully 47 percent had served in their current units for

at least 10 years. The repetition of the same pattern in other ccaponents

indicates remarkable stability in Guard/Reserve unit membership.

Even with this stability, there is considerable variation across the

seven reserve carponents. Over half of Army National Guard officers had

served in their current units for their whole careers, ccmpared to Much

smaller proportions of Naval Reserve and Coast Guard Reserve officers.

In the Naval Reserve, only 6 percent of the officers with 11-20 YOS had

served in their current units for 10 years or more; the comparable Coast

Guard Reserve figure was slightly higher, 8 percent.

5-2

I

m ' .

L ,"" " % " % . - ' '%"%, -' .%,'.*''"' ."% % %"" . .". "''". ."*" .,' ,'' ' ". ." '-,' . , '. " J '-' .

5

'h" . '% '
Table 5.2 Years in Current Unit by Year of Guard/Reserve Service:

Enlisted Personnel

Reserve Component

Guard/Reserve Total

YOS/Years Total Selected

Current Unit ARNG USAR USNR USMZR AM3 USAFR DoD USCO Reserve

Guard/Reserve YOS = 1-3

N-1 or less 45% 56% 65% 61% 59% 66% 54% 52% 54%

2-3 54 43 35 38 41 34 45 46 45

Guard/Reserve YOS = 4-6

1 or less 9 11 18 7 9 10 10 13 10 e. 2-3 41 48 56 55 43 49 46 48 46

4-6 50 42 26 38 47 41 44 38 44

Guard/Reserve YOS = 7-10

1 or less 8 9 16 6 9 9 9 9 9

2-3 10 14 30 12 11 15 14 19 14

4-6 39 40 35 51 39 34 38 41 38 I 7-10 43 37 19 31 41 43 39 31 38

Guard/Reserve YOS = 11-20

1 or less 5 8 16 6 4 7 7 7 7

2-3 8 12 23 11 7 11 11 13 11

4-6 13 16 18 9 15 17 15 15 15

7-10 27 26 23 30 27 30 27 30 27

More than 10 47 38 19 44 48 35 41 35 40

Guard/Reserve YOS = Total

1 or less 16 23 33 31 19 23 21 18 21

2-3 29 32 35 40 24 28 31 29 31

4-6 27 23 17 20 24 22 24 23 24

7-10 15 13 10 5 16 16 14 16 14

More than 10 13 10 6 4 17 11 11 15 11

N-1

Source: 1986 RC Member Survey, Supplementary Tabulations 5.1.

Note: The totals for each component include those with nore than 20 years

of service.

5

., 5-3
I

Table 5.3 Years in Current Unit by Year of Guard/Reserve Service:

Officers

Reserve Ccx=nent

Guard/Reserve Total

YOS/Years Total Selected

Current Unit ARNG USAR USNR USMCR ANG USAFR DoD USCGR Reserve

Guard/Reserve YOS = 1-3

1 or less 69% 48% 54% 57% 58% 62% 56% 68% 56%

2-3 28 51 44 43 41 38 43 32 42

Guard/Reserve YOS = 4-6

1 or less 27 16 22 23 11 13 20 31 20

2-3 46 47 62 42 35 53 49 48 49

4-6 26 37 16 33 54 34 31 21 31

I

Guard/Reserve YOS = 7-10

1 or less 29 20 24 25 4 12 22 37 22

2-3 29 29 35 29 10 14 28 35 28

* 4-6 27 30 29 25 30 34 29 16 29

7-10 15 21 11 21 56 40 22 12 22

Guard/Reserve YOS = 11-20

1 or less 22 17 28 16 5 8 19 39 19

2-3 27 28 37 30 9 13 27 36 27

4-6 19 20 19 20 11 18 19 11 19

7-10 17 18 11 16 22 22 17 6 17

DMore than 10 14 18 6 19 53 40 20 8 19

Guard/Reserve YOS = Total

1 or less 26 20 30 27 10 20 23 39 23

2-3 31 33 43 34 16 26 33 36 33

4-6 21 24 18 19 22 21 21 13 21

7-10 13 13 7 12 23 18 13 6 13

More than 10 9 10 3 9 29 15 10 7 10

Source: 1986 RC Member Survey, Supplementary Tabulations, 5.2.

Note: The totals for each corponent include those with more than 20 years

of service.

5-4
Table 5.4 Personnel with All National Guard/Reserve Service in

Current Unit

Guard/ Reserve Ccwponent Total

Reserve Total Selected

YOS ARNG USAR USNR US1CR ANG USAFR DoD USCGR Reserve

Guard/Reserve YOS = 4-6

Enlisted 50% 42% 26% 38% 47% 41% 44% 38% 44%

Officers 26 37 16 33 54 34 31 21 31

Guard/Reserve YOS = 7-10

Enlisted 43 37 19 31 41 43 39 31 38

Officers 15 21 11 21 56 40 22 12 22

Guard/Reserve YOS = 11-20

Enlisted 47 38 19 44 48 35 41 35 40

Officers 14 18 6 19 53 40 20 8 19

Source: Data extracted from tables 5.2 and 5.3, this volume.

C. Training for Primary Military Occupation

Reservists are assigned to and trained for specific military occupations required by their units and, in order to fully participate in unit

training, members of the Guard/Reserve must be sufficiently trained to

perform their primary military occupation. In later sections of this

chapter we will examine the extent to which reservists use their military

skills and their satisfaction with the opportunities to use these skills.

First, however, we will explore the sources and types of training for

primary military occupations reported by enlisted personnel and officers.

Formal service schools, military correspondence courses, civilian

schools, and various form of on-the-job training provide reservists with

training for their primary occupation. Table 5.5 contains information on

sources of primary military occupation training for enlisted personnel.

The percentages shown represent the percentage of enlisted personnel in

that occupation and reserve corponent who reported receiving some of

their primary military occupation training for that training source.

5-5

% N 'V-V % a. 1N IMJ N 
I

Table 5.5 Training for Primary Military Occupation by Military

Occupation: Enlisted Personnel

Training Source/ Reserve Comoonent Total

Military Occupation ARNG USAR USNR USMCR ANG USAFR 0oD

In a Formal Service School

Combat Arms 33% 47% 28% 73% 70% 79% 40%

Maintenance and Repair 47 59 65 78 54 67 56

Comm, Intell, Other Tech 49 63 76 89 49 52 57

Health Care Specialists 72 66 80 -- 63 61 69

Functional Support & Admin. 44 61 38 73 43 36 49

Craftsmen 33 41 41 77 36 34 38

Service & Supply Handlers 41 53 38 56 39 36 45

Non-Occupational 39 54 15 41 33 33 35

Correspondence Course

Combat Arms 17 22 40 16 52 42 20

Maintenance and Repair 20 20 35 13 55 50 30

Comm, Inteli, Other Tech 19 19 36 9 58 45 25

Health Care Specialists 14 12 20 -- 50 42 19

Functional Support & Admin. 28 26 54 16 57 52 36

Craftsmen 15 17 37 14 60 52 31

Service & Supply Handlers 21 21 34 8 54 41 24

Non-Occupational 13 9 48 9 51 23 23

OJT, Active Service

Combat Arms 21 21 62 15 21 20 22

Maintenance and Repair 18 21 48 23 21 27 25

Coma, Intel[, Other Tech 14 15 41 10 15 21 18

Health Care Specialists 15 23 22 -- 32 37 23

Functional Support & Admln. 15 14 38 17 17 18 18

Craftsmen 16 19 31 12 16 19 21

Service & Supply Handlers 18 23 45 29 27 32 22

Non-Occupational 13 23 20 13 23 7 17

5-6

.4I
2. Table 5.5 (Continued)

Reserve Comoonent

Training Source/ Total

Military Occupation ARNG USAR USNR USMCR ANG USAFR DoD

'

OJT, Guard/Reserve Unit

Combat Arms 61% 58% 41% 37% 61% 66% 59%

Maintenance and Repair 54 42 39 37 71 63 53

Comm, Intell. Other Tech 49 39 37 27 68 61 47

Health Care Specialists 31 24 24 -- 53 58 31

Functional Support & Admin. 56 43 50 39 69 71 54

Craftsmen 55 49 33 41 65 59 50

Service & Supply Handlers 55 46 35 33 67 64 51

Non-Occupational 54 36 48 62 64 51 50

In a Formal Civilian School

Combat Arms 2 2 1 1 6 4 2

Maintenance and Repair 6 8 13 6 8 7 8

Comm, Intell, Other Tech 7 7 9 1 14 15 8

Health Care Specialists 14 17 20 15 17 17

Functional Support & Admln. 5 5 14 2 4 3 5

Craftsmen 8 6 19 10 11 8 11

Service & Supply Handlers 3 4 14 2 4 5 4

Nu,, C~cupatlonal 7 8 7 3 17 7 7

OJT, Civilian Job

Combat Arms 6 6 8 4 12 10 6

, Maintenance and Repair 15 13 23 10 13 10 15

Comm, Intell, Other Tech 8 8 9 3 19 21 9

Health Care Specialists 9 8 14 -- 17 17 11

Functional Support & Admln. 12 1 29 6 11 10 13

Craftsmen 22 19 54 16 31 23 31

Service & Supply Handlers 14 12 26 9 15 11 14

Non-Occupational 9 7 14 6 18 13 10

Total Selected Reserve

In a Formal Service School 41 56 50 68 49 51 49

Correspondence Course 19 21 39 12 56 48 27

OJT, Active Service 18 19 38 18 20 24 21

OJT, Guard/Reserve Unit 55 44 40 39 68 65 52

In a Formal Civilian School 5 6 13 3 8 6 6

OJT, Civilian Job 10 10 24 7 15 12 12

Source: 1986 RC Member Survey, Supplementary Tabulations, 5.3.

5-7
(Multiple responses were possible, so table data add to more than 100

percent.) For this analysis, service-specific military oocupational

specialties were converted into a computer classification system used by

DoD.2 Conversion tables were not available for Coast Guard Reserve occupations; therefore, Coast Guard personnel are excluded frm the analyses.

The DoD occupational categories for enlisted personnel shown in these

tables are different fram those shown for officers. The categories have

been established to reflect the differences in occupational assignments

and duties between the two major groups of personnel.

Forty percent of ccmbat arms personnel reported training in formal

service schools, but the Marine Corps Reserve and the two Air Force

reserve carponents reported over 70 percent in this category. The Army

National Guard was lower at 33 percent. OJT in the Guard/Reserve unit

was an important source of training in all enlisted occupations except

health care. Over 59 percent of all ccnat arms enlisted personnel, for

example, were trained in this manner. The proportions for this occupa- tion ranged from 37 percent in the Marine Corps Reserve to 66 percent in

the Air Force Reserve.

On-the-job training in civilian jobs was an important source of

training for enlisted personnel who were craftsmen (31 percent) or electrical/aechanical repairmen (15 percent) but not for those who were in

ccrn-unications (9 percent).

In Table 5.6, the percentages of r ficers reporting sources of training are presented by the military crxpations of the officers. Over half

of all officers in every occupation except health care received training

in a formal service school. Over 78 percent of tactical operations officers and 72 percent of intelligence officers were trained in formal

service schools. Sane military occupations show differences by reserve

coqponent; over 93 percent of the Air Force Reserve intelligence officers

attended formal service schools, while only 63 percent of the Naval

Reserve officers did. Sixty-three percent of all supply and procurement

officers trained at formal service schools, but only 45 percent of these

officers in the Air Force Reserve trained at formal service schools.

Civilian on-the-job training (OJT) and formal civilian schools are

alternative training methods for officers. It appears that civilian OJT

was not a major source of officer training for primary military occupations. The officers that most frequently reported training in formal

civilian schools were health professionals (86 percent) and scientists

and other professionals (57 percent). Examination by carponent reveals

T.-hat over 94 percent of Naval Reserve health professional officers

received saTe of their training in this way capared to only 75 percent

of the Air National Guard. The Marine Corps Reserve has no health professional officers. Their health professionals cane fram the Navy.

The most outstanding point to be made about other types of officer

ni c, na concerns the contrast between health professional training and

tr- aLng .. for other occupations. For example, the percentage of health

5-8

2:. -.' ".'"-" 2. " ¢_' "'" " ' ./'. " -"2-o.".- ' ." ; -. '-' .'. V;. ' 0_ ' '= , ' . " -I
Table 5.6 Training for Primary Military Occupation by

Military Occupation: Officers

Training Source/ Reserve Comoonent Total

Military Occupation ARNG USAR USNR USMCR ANG USAFR DoD

In a Formal Service School

Ua

Administratlona 61% 55% 56% 61% 42% 53% 55%

Tactical Operation 81 72 67 84 85 83 78

Intelligence 66 82 63 72 68 93 72

Engineering and Maintenance 64 62 56 69 61 48 60

Science and Professionals 52 53 53 71 52 48 53

Health Professlonalst 11 12 11 -- 31 31 15

Supply, Procurement, & Allied 55 64 77 70 52 45 63

Non-Occupational 66 73 0 55 81 54 68

Correspondence Course

Adminlstratlona 51 47 26 22 30 21 40

Tactical Operations 31 40 15 14 4 2 26

Intelligence 41 34 39 57 39 62 38

Engineering and Maintenance 57 43 26 34 25 15 40

Science and Professionals 62 42 21 35 24 18 37

Health Professionals 9 5 5 -- 3 4 5

Supply, Procurement, & Allied 60 51 32 19 33 23 44

Non-Occupational 15 11 0 31 0 0 14

OJT, Active Service

Administrationa 8 12 44 27 16 29 20

.Tct!Gal Operations 8 12 41 26 12 16 14

Intelligence 12 11 41 29 4 38 24

Engineering and Maintenance 10 17 47 24 22 22 24

, Science and Professionals 5 4 52 41 18 13 21

Health Professionals 2 6 12 -- 4 4 6

Supply, Procurement, & Allied 8 14 45 22 17 17 21

Non-Occupational 8 7 0 17 29 0 9

OJT, Guard/Reserve Unit

Administrationa 44% 40% 54% 48% 62% 60% 48%

Tactical Operations 33 40 38 33 26 24 34

Intelligence 37 40 78 53 59 49 57

Engineering and Maintenance 45 39 44 53 48 34 43

Science and Professionals 42 26 43 51 28 27 35

Health Professionals 9 7 7 -- 16 20 9

Supply, Procurement, & Allied 55 49 55 38 74 67 54

Non-Occupational 24 35 0 63 10 46 32

5-9

IVW

"pu
Table 5.6 (Continued)

Training Source/ Reserve Component Total

Military Occupation ARNG" USAR USNR USMCR ANG USAFR DoD

In a Formal Civilian School

Administrationa 24% 21% 24% 19% 20% 23% 22%

Tactical Operations 5 8 6 2 2 3 6

Intelligence 10 8 10 8 0 15 9

Engineering and Maintenance 16 19 22 13 33 38 21

Science and Professionals 69 67 37 72 55 67 57

Health Professionals 87 88 94 -- 75 76 86

Supply, Procurement, & Allied 8 11 13 2 12 6 10

Non-Occupational 18 7 0 3 0 46 11

OJT, Clvian Job

Administrationa 23 16 20 15 22 25 19

Tactical Operations 5 8 7 2 2 2 6

Intelligence 14 13 19 20 0 15 15

Engineering and Maintenance 18 15 18 19 11 15 17

Science and Professionals 27 14 23 32 13 22 20

Health Professionals 10 14 9 -- 7 8 11

Supply, Procurement, & Allied 8 13 17 6 6 4 11

Non-Occupational 0 3 0 3 0 46 2

Total Selected Reserve

'- a Formal Service School 68 53 55 74 64 59 60

Correspondence Course 38 33 22 21 15 8 29

OJT, Active Service 8 10 41 25 14 14 16

OJT, Guard/Reserve Unit 36 32 44 42 38 30 36

In a Formal Civilian School 18 33 28 7 20 31 26

OJT, Civiilan Job 10 12 16 7 8 8 11

--

Source: 1986 RC Member Survey, Supplementary Tabulations, 5.4.

aincludes all general and flag officers.

*1'

5-10

'IA
professional officers who reported Active Service CJT was 6 percent;

those reporting Guard/Reserve Unit OJT was 9 percent, and those reporting

correspondence course(s) was 5 percent. All of the other primary

military occupations were considerably higher in all of these categories.

Same interesting contrasts can be made between Guard/Reserve officer

training and enlisted training. Enlisted personnel were much less likely

to report training in a civilian school--only 6 percent cumpared to 26

percent of the officers. Only 15 percent of health professional officers

were trained in a formal service school, but 69 percent of enlisted

health care specialists were trained this way, reflecting the different

professional requirements for each group.

D. Guard/Reserve Participation In 1985

With this background of unit service and training mode established,

we can now turn to the question of the types of activities in which parttime unit members participated in 1985. Respondents were asked to indicate whether or not they participated in any of four categories of activities in 1985.

Table 5.7 displays the percentages of enlisted personnel in each of

the seven camponents who reported that they engaged in each of these four

activities in 1985.

By far, the largest percentages of enlisted personnel participated in

annual training. In total, over 86 percent reported participating in

this activity. The Marine Corps Reserve had the lowest percentage participating (76 percent), while the two Air Force ccarponents had the highest

percentages participating (89 percent each).

A substantial percentage of enlisted personnel reported working on

Guard/Reserve matters either at hame or on their civilian jobs. The

Coast Guard Reserve had the largest percentage of enlisted personnel

(24 percent) reporting this outside work. Among the DoD camponents, the

Army Reserve and the Naval Reserve were the most likely to report working

on military activities outside military time (23 percent).

Small portions of enlisted personnel spent same time on active duty

(other than for initial training). Reports of the analysis showed that

the two carponents with the highest reported participation were the Air

Force Reserve (18 percent) and the Air National Guard (17 percent). The

Naval Reserve had the lowest rate at 8 percent.

Examination of the responses indicating participation in initial or

extended active duty for training showed that the Marine Corps Reserve

had the highest participation at 17 percent, followed closely by the Army

Reserve, Air Force Reserve, and Air National Guard. The Naval Reserve

and the Coast Guard Reserve reported the smallest percentages participating in training on active duty, 6 percent and 9 percent respectively.

New entrants in the Marine Corps Reserve who were not present during the

annual training period partly explain the lower annual training rate for

this component.

5-1l

4
Table 5.7 Participation in Selected Guard/Reserve Activities In 1985:

Enlisted Personnel

Reserve Comoonent Total

Type of Total Selected

Participation ARNG USAR USNR USMCR ANG USAFR DoD USCGR Reserve

Annual training 87% 85% 83% 76% 89% 89% 86% 86% 86%

Guard/Reserve work

at home or on my

civilian Job 21 23 23 18 18 17 21 24 21

ActIve duty 9 11 8 11 17 18 11 13 11

a, Initial or extended

active duty for

training 13 16 6 17 15 16 13 9 13

Source: 1986 RC Member Survey, DMDC Tabulations, 1987.

Participation rates in these four activities by part-time officers in

units of the Guard/Reserve were similar to those reported by the enlisted

menbers in sane cases. In other cases, the participation percentages

reported were quite different. Table 5.8 displays the data for the

officers.

Officers differed fram enlisted personnel in the first category,

annual training. On the average, over 95 percent of the officers and 86

percent of the enlisted personnel took part in annual training. The

reason for the lower rates for the enlisted members appears to be that a

higher prcportion of enlisted personnel had entered in the past year.

These new entrants might not have been in the unit when it went for its

* annual training. There was no significant difference by camponent for

the part-time officers.

A large proportion of officers also reported spending time working on

Guard/Reserve item at hare or on their civilian jobs. Sixty-seven percent of Coast Guard Reserve officers spent some of their nonmilitary time

* on military activities. By carparison, only 31 percent of the officers

in the Air Force Reserve reported working at home or on the job. The

percentages for the remaining ccaonents were between 34 percent and 50

percent.

5-12

V%

0
4N Table 5.8 Participation In Selected Guard/Reserve Activities

In 1985: Officers V.

% Reserve Comnnent Total

Type of Total Selected

Participation ARNG USAR USNR USMCR ANG USAFR DoD USCGR Reserve

.

, Annual training 95% 951 94% 94% 93% 94% 95% 921 95%

Guard/Reserve work

at home or on my

civilian Job 50 45 45 34 37 31 45 87 45

Active duty 18 15 5 24 41 44 19 12 18

Initial or extended

active duty for

training 25 19 4 12 20 18 18 5 17

Source: 1986 RC Member Survey, OMOC Tabulations, 1987.

Results of the analysis of the percentage of officer personnel who

spent tine on active duty parallel those of the enlisted personnel.

While only five percent of the Naval Reserve officers reported being on

active duty at sun point in 1985, over 44 percent of the Air Force

Reserve officers and 41 percent of the Air National Guard officers

reported tim spent on active duty. Almst 24 percent of Marine Corps

officers and 18 percent of the Amy National Guard officers reported that

they had served on active duty in 1985. There is sane question about the

accuracy of these responses, however. Those menters reporting activeduty service may actually have been in joint exercises with active canponent units.

Significant percentages of officers in the Air Force and Army ccmponents reported serving on active duty for training. Over 25 percent of

A ay National Guard officers fell into this category, as did 20 percent

of Air National Guard officers. Nineteen percent of the Army Reserve and

18 percent of the Air Force Reserve also were on active duty for training. The two lowest participating groups were the Naval Reserve at four

percent and the Coast Guard Reserve at five percent. The large influx of

- new entrants into the reserves who spend their initial service on activeduty training may explain these high rates of active-duty training.

Examination of additional data (not reported here) that displays these

participation rates by pay grade confirnis this hypothesis. 3

5-13

4. 4 - . - .~ € * 4, G : -. ... . .. . . . .. ..- ' 
E. Annual Training Time in 1985

Reservists can attend annual training in several different ways. The

most common method is to go for a two-week period, accomplishing the

training all at once, Other options available include a few days several

times a year or a week or more at a time. Table 5.9 displays data on the

manner in which part-time enlisted personnel attended annual training

while Table 5.10 shows the same iniformtion for officers.

Generally, part-time reservists attended annual training "all at

once." Over 74 percent of part-time enlisted reservists attended this

way. The Air Force caontnents were lowest in this category. Fifty-five

percent of the Air National Guard and 66 perrcent of the Air Fore eser've

enlisted personnel reported this option. The largest group was the Naval

Reserve where 78 percent attended at one time.

. The Air Force ccrponents had the largest percentages in the other two

options (a week or more at a time and a few days at a time, several times

a year) for attendance at annual training. One quarter of the Air

Nation al Guard and 16 percent of the Air Force Reserve enlisted personnel

attended "- *eek or more at a time." Less than one percent of the parttime enlist ri nbers of the Naval Reserve reported that they attended

"several timet a year."

The "did not atend" response percentages were quite high for the

enlisted personnel. The highest rate was in the Marine Corps Reserve

where over 22 percent reported that they did not attend annual training

in 1985. The next largest group was the Naval Reserve with 17 percent

not attending. Across ail ca tponents, over 14 percent of enlisted reservists did not attend annual training. ALmost all of those not attending

were in the lowest grades and probably had not been in r he unit long

enough to attend.

Like the enlisted personrel, almst all officers exmept those in the

Air Force components attended annual training "all at once." Eight-one

V percent of the officers in the Naval Reserve went all at once, while only

30 percent of the officers in the Air National Guard attended all at

oncet. The Air Force Reserve was also low at 44 percent. Seventy-nine

percent of the Army National Guard officers and 69 percent of Army

Reserve officers were in this category. The Coast Guard Reserve had over

66 percent attending in one session, anc the Marine Corps Reserve had 76

percent.

The Air Force ccrnonents showed the highest percentages in the second

and third options for attending. in fact, the Air National Guard appears

* to be fairly evenly split among the first three options. The Naval

Reserve had the fewest officers participating "a few days, several times

a year." These variations could be the result of the differing missions

N of the reserve ccaronents and the ability to acconplish effective training in certain tine periods.

5-14

.0
Table 5.9 Annual Training Timing In 1985: Enlisted Personnel

Reserve Comoonent Total

. Attendance at Total Selected

Annual Training ARNG USAR USNR USMCR ANtL USAFR DoD USCGR Reserve

All at once 77% 76% 78% 67% 55% 66% 74% 72% 74%

Week or more at a time 7 7 5 7 25 16 9 11 9

Several times a year 3 3 <1 4 10 8 4 4 4

Did not attend In 1985 13 14 17 22 11 11 14 13 14

Source: 1986 RC Member Survey, Supplementary Tabulations, 5.9

4. Table 5.10 Annual Training Timing In 1985: Officers

Reserve Component Total

Attendance at Total Selected

Annual Training ARNG USAR USNR USMCR ANG USAFR DoD USCGR Reserve

All at once 79% 69% 81% 76% 30% 44% 69% 86% 69%

Week or more at a time 11 13 13 16 33 22 15 19 15

Several times a year 5 14 1 3 31 28 11 6 11

Did not attend In 1985 4 5 5 6 6 6 5 8 5

Source: 1986 RC Member Survey, Supplementary Tabulations, 5.10.

As noted in the earlier section, only 5 percent of part-time officers

did not attend annual training. The Coast Guard Reserve had the largest

percentage who reported not attending (8 percent), while the other components clustered around 5 percent.

F. Perceived Unit Training Problems

The resources devoted to improving unit preparedness in the reserve

camponents are spent largely on training. One measure of the success of

these prograns and the preparedness of these reserve units is in the

perceptions of the unit menbers of their unit training. Respondents were

-15

.................................................................... . .% m • .. ,... " "..'..'.... ,,.'.. .'.......... "," " .". ", ",". ". : ", " " ,.
I

N

a.. oasked to evaluate certain unit training problems, specifically a list of

15 questions about equigment/weapons, possible personnel shortaaes (both

raw numbers and personnel quality), low attendance at drills and annual

training, and lack of sufficient training manuals, facilities and supplies. The reservists rated each possible problem on a scale of 1 to 7,

with 1 indicating that the problem was serious and a 7 meaning that there

was no problem.

For the most part, both enlisted personnel and officers reported that

the named items were not problems for their units (see Tables 5.11 and

5.12). Five items, however, were considered to be serious problem by a

substantial number of the reservists. These five items can be categorized into two main areas: equipment and facilities problems and tine

problems. The five items comprising these two areas are listed below.

Equipment and facilities

Lack of access to good training facilities and grounds

Out-of-date equipment

Lack of supplies

* Time problems

Not enough tine to practice skills

Not enough time to plan training objectives and get all

administrative paperwork done

The areas mentioned above were analyzed by examining the percentage

of respondents rating the problem as very serious or serious (a score of

1 or 2 on the scale). Generally, the positive responses for each item

outweighed the negative ones, but on these specific items there were a

substantial number of responses indicating problems. Table 5.13 contains

a sumnary of the negative responses to the questions and can be referred

to throughout the discussion of these data. The Supplementary Tabulations to this report have more detailed data on the responses to these

items.

Neither enlisted personnel nor officers had any great concern about

personnel problems. Respondents seemed to feel that there was no shortI age of personnel by pay grade or in any particular skill. The reservists

also felt satisfied with the attendance at annual training and at unit

drills. Further data on these two areas of training are contained in the

Suppleentary Tabulations volume.

1. Equipment and Facilities

I

Out-of-date equipment. In general, the reserve officers considered out-of-date equipment to be a more serious problem than did

enlisted personnel. However, Naval Reserve enlisted personnel felt most - .strongly that out-of-date equipent was a very serious problem; 29 percent of them thought that out-of-date equipment was a very serious

" problem for their unit compared to only 16 percent of the Naval Reserve

-5-16

: _ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~...,,....Z:... . i ,......' .................... "*"""" - "-'
Table 5.11 Rating Issues as Not a Problem: Enlisted Personnel

" Reserve Comoonent Total

Total Selected

Issue ARNG USAR USNR USMCR ANG USAFR O0 USCGR Reserve

Out-of-date equipment 43% 43% 33% 45% 53% 55% 43% 40% 43%

Poor condition of

equipment 49 47 35 52 64 56 49 42 49

Grades E-1 - E-4 below

. strength 46 51 42 52 59 50 49 35 48

Grades E-5 - E-9 below

strength 64 60 59 65 69 67 63 59 63

No resources to plan

effective training 52 44 42 52 59 51 50 42 50

Low attendance at unit

drills 59 57 73 62 80 73 63 69 64

Low attendance at annual

training 69 65 75 66 79 78 70 73 70

Ineffective annual

training 58 56 51 57 66 59 58 52 57

Shortage of personnel

with occupational skill 53 48 46 54 69 62 53 46 53

Low quality of personnel

In low grades 51 48 51 52 69 59 52 59 53

Not enough drill time

to practice skills 56 49 55 60 56 51 54 48 54

Lack time for planning/

administrative work 44 34 35 44 46 38 40 35 40

Lack access to good

facilities/grounds 47 37 30 47 57 52 44 36 44

Lack good Instruction

manuals/materials 58 49 43 56 68 64 55 44 55

Lack supplies 56 46 38 57 67 66 53 27 53

Source: 1986 RC Member Survey, Supplementary Tabulations, 5.13, a-o.

hi"5-1

-I

4%

* ", 5-17

I.

0w
--

Table 5.12 Rating Issues as Not a Problem: Officers

Reserve Comoonent

Total

Total Selected

Issue ARNG USAR USNR USMCR ANG USAFR DoD USCGR Reserve

Out-of-date equipment 35% 39% 52% 49% 42% 49% 41% 32% 41%

Poor condition of • equipment 48 46 56 57 66 50 51 42 50

Grades E-1 - E-4 below

strength 46 48 54 38 51 45 49 35 48

Grades E-5 - E--9 below

strength 68 55 48 58 60 54 58 49 58

No resources to plan

effective training 52 41 52 60 61 54 49 34 49

Low attendance at unit

drills 71 68 84 71 82 79 74 75 74

0 Low attendance at annual

training 75 72 86 81 82 85 78 86 78

Ineffective annual

training 65 61 67 74 69 67 65 55 64

Shortage of personnel with

occupational skill 51 41 46 39 62 58 48 35 47

Low quality of personnel

In low grades 56 51 66 67 71 63 58 72 58

Not enough drill time

to practice skills 37 35 56 35 49 58 42 29 42

Lack time for planning/

administrative work 23 19 20 20 32 33 22 12 22

Lack access to good

facilities/grounds 39 34 41 40 52 57 40 22 40

Lack good Instruction

manuals/materlals 60 50 47 59 65 65 55 32 54

Lack supplies 44 39 56 54 64 66 48 21 48

Source: 1986 RC Member Survey, Supplementary Tabulations, 5.14 a-o.

5

,

€ 5-18

a. . -% .% .% % .% - . . . • % - . % , , . . . . ". ,¢ .
Table 5.13 Perceived Unit Training Problems--Percentage Responding Serious

Problem

Reserve Component Total

Perceived Problem/ Total Selected

Enlisted/Officer Status ARNG USAR USNR USMCR ANG USAFR DoD USCGR Reserve

Out-of-Date Equipment

Enlisted 20% 19% 29% 17% 11% 9% 19% 19% 19%

Officers 23 19 16 18 18 14 19 24 19

Lack of Access to Good Training Facilities and Grounds

Enlisted 21 28 38 20 14 17 24 26 24

Officers 24 26 25 22 12 13 23 32 23

Lack of Supplies

Enlisted 16 20 26 12 8 7 17 34 17

Officers 18 21 14 12 7 4 16 38 16

Not Enough Time to Practice Skills

Enlisted 15 19 14 12 13 16 15 17 15

Officers 21 23 11 22 16 15 19 27 19

Not Enough Time to Plan Training Objectives and Get All

Administrative Paper-Work Done

Enlisted 18 29 26 17 16 24 22 21 22

Officers 33 46 47 42 29 37 40 52 40

Source: 1986 RC Member Survey, Supplementary Tabulations, 5.13 and 5.14.

-1
4

officers, 52 percent of whom felt that it was not a problem (Table 5.12).

The Air Force Reserve components had the lowest percentages saying

out-of-date equipment was a problem and the highest percentages indicating it was not a problem. Eighteen percent of Air National Guard officers and 11 percent of the enlisted personnel said that equipment being

out-of-date was a very serious or serious problem. Forty-one percent of

the officers and 43 percent of the enlisted personnel in this ccrponent

responded that it was not a problem. In the Air Force Reserve, 49 percent of the officers and 55 percent of the enlisted personnel marked outof-date equipment as no problem, while only 14 percent of the officers

and 9 percent of the enlisted personnel indicated that it was a serious

problem.

More Army reserve caponent officers indicated that up-to-date equipment was a problem for their units than did officers in any other DoD

component; 23 percent of the officers in the Army National Guard and 19

percent in the Army Reserve gave this response. Similarly, a smaller

proportion of Army reserve component officers said equipment was not a

problem.

Lack of Access to Good Training Facilities and Grounds. On this

second measure of training problems, Naval Reserve enlisted personnel (38

percent) most often rated the absence of proper training facilities and

yiuunds cw a very serious problem. The Coast Guard Reserve also had a

rather large percentage of both officers and enlisted personnel saying

that this area could be considered a serious problem. Twenty-six percent

of the enlisted Coast Guard Reserve personnel felt this way, along with

32 percent of their officers.

Analysis of the responses from the Air Force reserve coponents shows

that both officers and enlisted personnel in these two ccuponents felt

that access to good training facilities and grounds was not a serious

problem for their units. About a quarter of Army Reserve personnel

responded that facilities were a problem.

Lack of Supplies. Thirty-eight percent of the officers and 34 percent of the enlisted personnel in the Coast Guard Reserve listed lack of

supplies as a serious problem in meeting unit training objectives. In

the Naval Reserve, 26 percent of the enlisted personnel but only 14 percent of the officers reported that the lack of supplies was a serious

problem. Only a few personnel in the Air Force Reserve and the Air 4

National Guard rated this as a serious problem. More enlisted personnel

and officers in the Army reserve components thought that supplies were a

serious problem for their unit; a little over one-fifth of both in the

Army Reserve and just under 20 percent of the Army National Guard personnel offered this response.

2. Time Problems

Not Enouqh Time to Practice Skills. This item appeared to cause

more problems for officers in the Guard/Reserve than it did for the

enlisted personnel. For example, while 27 percent of the Coast Guard

5-20
Reserve officers rated the lack of time to practice skills as a very

serious problem, only 17 percent of the enlisted personnel in the Coast

Guard Reserve said that this was a serious problrn that nterfered with

accoplishing unit training objectives. Twenty-two percent of the Marine

Corps Reserve officers felt this was a serious issue, but only 12 percent

of the enlisted personnel felt the same way. However, only 11 percent of

the Naval Reserve officers felt lack of time to practice skills was a

serious problem for their units, ccpared to 14 percent of the Naval

Reserve enlisted personnel. In the Army Reserve, over one-fifth of the

officers offered this as a serious unit problem, as did slightly fewer

enlisted personnel.

Not Enough Time to Plan Training Objectives and Get All Administrative Paperwork Done. An extremely large percentage of reserve officers

felt this item caused a quite serious problem. Although the magnitude of

the problem was not as great for the enlisted personnel, it was still

substantial. Approximately half of the officers in the Coast Guard

Reserve, Army Reserve, and the Naval Reserve indicated that paperwork presented a very serious problem, as did about one-third of the officers

in the other carponents. In all cases, the percentage of officers who

said it was a serious problem was greater than the percentage saying it

was not a problem in meeting unit objectives. Coast Guard Reserve officers seemed to have the most severe problem.

G. Satisfaction with Unit Activities

The last section of this chapter deals with the level of satisfaction

of Guard/Reserve personnel with different dimensions of reserve duty.

Five questions were posed to the reservists which dealt with the satisfaction with training received during unit drills, the opportunity to use

military occupation/rating/specialty skills in drills, the quality of

equiprent/weapons used in drills along with an assessmnent of the mechanical condition of the equipment or weapons and, finally, unit activities

at annual training.

The scale used for the evaluation of these questions ranged from, in

most cases, "very dissatisfied" to "very satisfied", with a 1 indicating

dissatisfaction and a 7 representing satisfaction. The questions on the

equipment used the same seven-point scale, but the end points for the

quality of equipment/weapons were designated as 1 ("out-of-date") and 7

("up-to-date"). For the nechanical condition of equipment question, the

scale ranged from 1 ("poor") to 7 ("excellent").

1. satisfaction with Training Received During Unit Drills

Much of the irrportant training received by members of reserve

units takes place in unit drills. Satisfaction with this training is

considered an important indicator of preparedness.

As seen in Table 5.14, the percentage of enlisted personnel who were

very satisfied was greater than the percentage who were very dissatisfied. The Naval Reserve was an exception; 26 percent were very dissatis5-21

;-.;-. % .- : , <
Table 5.14 Satisfaction with Training Received During Unit Drills

Reserve Comoonent Total

Satisfaction Total Selected

Level ARNG USAR USNR USMCR ANG USAFR DoD USCGR Reserve

Enl isted Personnel

Very dissatisfied 14% 19% 26% 19% 12% 14% 17% 21% 17%

-, Very satisfied 35 28 22 30 39 36 32 26 32

Officers

Very dissatisfied 9 13 15 7 7 8 11 14 11

Very satisfied 36 30 34 46 45 42 35 28 35

Source: 1986 RC Member Survey, Supplementary Tabulations, 5.15 and 5.16.

fied with their training, and 22 percent were very satisfied. The Air

Force reserve ccuponents had the highest satisfaction percentages and the

lowest dissatisfaction percentages. Only 14 percent of the enlisted

personnel in the Army National Guard reported being very dissatisfied

with their training, while more than twice as many were very satisfied.

Analysis of the officers' responses shows that the percentages who

responded that they were very dissatisfied and very satisfied were more

dispersed than were the enlisted personnel's responses. Most officers

were very satisfied, and few were very dissatisfied with the training

received during unit drills. The Marine Corps Reserve officers had the

highest percentage (46 percent) indicating satisfaction, while the Coast

Guard Reserve had the lowest percertage (28 percent). Naval Reserve

,* officers had the largest dissatisfaction percentage (15 percent). Marine

Corps Reserve and Air National Guard officers were the least dissatisfied. Relatively few officers in the Army National Guard were dissatisfied with unit training at drills, canpared to over one-third who were

very satisfied. The Army Reserve had nearly as large a percentage of

officers dissatisfied (13 percent) as the Naval Reserve and a smaller

percentage satisfied (30 vs. 34 percent).

4 2. Satisfaction with the Opportunity to Use Military Skills in

Drills

Maintaining individual military skills is an inportant function

of unit drills and, especially for mrore technologically demanding tasks,

5-22

,,
the quality of skill training in these drills is an important contribution to unit capability. The results frum the satisfaction ratings for

this category are displayed in Table 5.15.

Enlisted personnel in the Naval Reserve were the most dissatisfied

with their opportunities to use their military occupational skills in

unit drills -- over 39 percent were very dissatisfied and only 21 percent

were very satisfied. The Army Reserve ranked second in dissatisfaction

(27 percent very dissatisfied and only slightly more very satisfied), followed closely by the Marine Corps Reserve. Enlisted mmbers of Air

Force carponents were the most satisfied with use of their skills in unit

drills. Over 43 percent of the Air National Guard and 39 percent of the

Air Force Reserve enlisted memrbers expressed satisfaction.

The officer data show that exept for the Coast Guard Reserve, many

more officers were very satisfied with their opportunities to use military skills than were very dissatisfied. In the Coast Guard Reserve, 31

percent were very dissatisfied and only 20 percent were very satisfied.

Officers in the Air Force reserve camponents were the most satisfied with r. this aspect of reserve training; 56 percent of the Air National Guard and

52 percent of the Air Force Reserve officers were very satisfied. About

one-third of Army Reserve and Naval Reserve officers were very satisfied,

as were about half of the Army National Guard and Marine Corps Reserve

officers.

3. opinion of Equipment/Weapons Used During Unit Drills

USubstantial resources are being invested in upgrading the equipment available to the reserve caqponents, and responses to this question

measure the perceived need for these resources in the spring of 1986.

Data gathered fram responses to this question are displayed in Table

5.16. Responses ranged frm "out-of-date" to "up-to-date." There were

many fewer respondents at the negative end for this item then there were

for the prior item.

About one-third of enlisted personnel in the Naval Reserve (31 per- cent) felt that their equipment was out-of-date. To pit this into per- spective, the percentage of Naval Reserve enlisted personnel expressing dissatisfaction was twice as high as that of enlisted personnel in any of

the other reserve camponents. Only 25 percent of Naval Reserve enlisted

personnel said that the equipment was up-to-date, while half of the Air

National Guard and Air Force Reserve personnel responded that their

equipment was "up-to-date." Only 31 percent of the Coast Guard Reserve

enlisted personnel gave their equipment a positive rating with respect to

currency.

Coast Guard Reserve officers were nuch less likely to say their

equiprent/weapons were up-to-date (23 percent) than any other ccTponent. About 40 percent of the officers in the Marine Corps Reserve, Air

National guard, and Air Force Reserve thought the unit's equipment and

Aweapons were up-to-date. About one-fifth of the Naval Reserve and Coast

5-23

V0
Table 5.15 Satisfaction with the Opportunity to Use Military Occupational

Skills In Drills

Reserve Comoonent Total

Total Selected

Satisfaction Level ARNG USAR USNR USMCR ANG USAFR DoD USCGR Reserve

Enlisted Personnel

Very dissatisfied 21% 27% 39% 26% 14% 17% 24% 25% 24%

Very satisfied 38 31 21 31 43 39 35 30 34

Officers

Very dissatisfied 11 19 21 12 7 7 i5 31 15

Very satisfied 49 37 34 52 56 52 43 20 43

4 Source: 1988 RC Member Survey, Supplementary Tabulations, 5.17 and 5.18.

*i Table 5.16 Rating of Currency of Equipment/Weapons

Reserve Comuonent Total

Equipment/Weapons Total Selected

Rating ARNG USAR USNR USMCR ANG USAFR BoD USCGR Reserve

Enlisted Personnel

Out-of-date 14% 14% 31% 13% 10% 9% 15% 18% 15%

Up-to-date 43 41 25 45 51 49 42 31 42

Officers

Out-of-date 15 16 19 13 18 12 16 19 16

Up-to-date 36 33 30 48 40 42 35 23 35

. Source: 1986 RC Member Survey, Supplementary Tabulations, 5.19 and 5.20.

5-24

¢.

N5
Guard Reserve officers responded that their equipment and weapons were

"out-of-date".

4. Opinion of Mechanical Condition of Weapons/Ecuipment

-Equipment maintenance is a critical contributor to unit pre- paredness. The answers to this question cast some light on the maintenance support preparedness in the reserve ccmponents. The responses

ranged from "poor" to "excellent". Most officers and enlisted personnel

in the seven reserve corrponents felt that the mechanical condition of

equipment was excellent (Table 5.17).

Almost twice as many Naval Reserve enlisted personnel rated their

equipment to be in "poor" condition as did enlisted personnel in any of

the other components. One quarter of the Naval Reserve personnel

expressed this view; the next highest component was the Coast Guard

Reserve at 14 percent. At the other end of the scale, only 25 percent of

the Naval Reserve enlisted personnel felt that their equipment was in

"excellent" condition, compared to a positive rating of 56 percent for

the enlisted members in the Air National Guard. Also, the Air Force ,carponents again registered the lowest negative response and the highest

positive response.

Only five percent of the officers in the Air National Guard reporte

feeling that their equipment was in poor mechanical condition. Over 16

percent of Naval Reserve officers felt this way, along with 13 percent of

Coast Guard Reserve officers. Over 50 percent of the officers in two

components responded in the "excellent" range--the Air National Guard (63

percent) and the Marine Corps Reserve (54 percent). Coast Guard Reserve

and Naval Reserve officers ware the lowest in this category at 29 percent

and 30 percent, respectively. Over 45 percent of Army National Guard

officers thought their equipment maintenance was excellent.

5. Satisfaction with Unit Activities at Annual Traininq

This final satisfaction item measures overall reactions to

annual training, a critical event in the annual unit schedule. Enlisted

Vi personnel were more dissatisfied with annual training activities than the

" officers. As can be seen in Table 5.18, the percentages very dissatisfied ranged fron a low of seven ercent for the Air National Guard to a

high of 13 percent for the Army Reserve. In all the reserve components

except the Coast Guard Reserve over 50 percent of the enlisted personnel

were very satisfied with annuL l training. Forty-six percent of the Coast

Guard Reserve were very satisfi3ed. The Air National Guard was the leader

at 59 percent.

The officers expressed very little dissatisfaction with unit activities during annual training. The highest negative response was eight

percent in both the Army National Guard and the Army Reserve. One interesting result shown here is the low level of dissatisfaction for the

Coast Guard Reserve officers--four percent; these officers were among the

most dissatisfied on the other questions. Over 50 percent of officers in

5-25

4., ," ."p,.." o ." . '" J . J .' " . , " . , " " . ' .. " -.-' ' ' . -.-.. -.-.- , - ".-.,,-. -. . . [ ' "- .' 'm
Table 5.17 Rating of Mechanical Condition of Equlpment/Weapons

Reserve Comoonent Total

Equipment/Weapons Total Selected

Rating ARNG USAR USNR USMCR ANG USAFR DoD USCGR Reserve

Enlisted Personnel

Poor 11% 12% 25% 9% 6% 7% 12% 14% 12%

Excellent 44 41 25 47 56 49 42 32 42

Officers

Poor 8 11 18 9 5 11 10 13 10

Excellent 47 37 30 54 63 41 41 29 41

Source: 1986 RC Member Survey, Supplementary Tabulations 5.21 and 5.22.

Table 5.18 Satisfaction with Unit Activities at Annual Training

Reserve Comoonent Total

Total Selected

Satisfaction Level ARNG USAR USNR USMCR ANG USAFR DoD USCGR Reserve

Enlisted Personnel

Very dissatisfied 12% 13% 11% 10% 7% 8% 11% 9% 11%

Very satisfied 51 54 54 54 59 57 52 46 52

* Officers

Very dissatisfied 8 8 5 7 4 5 7 4 7

Very satisfied 58 58 65 70 83 60 80 53 60

* Source: 1986 RC Member Survey, Supplementary Tabulations 5.23 and 5.24.

-" 5-26

%v~
all of the cconxents responded that they ware very satisfied with unit

activities at annual training. For the most part, the annual training

period was highly rated by both enlisted personnel and officers in all

the comonents.

H.

This chapter eamined. aspects of the military activities of part-time unit Members. First, the length of time the military nvuber had spent in

the current unit and military occupational training ware discussed. With

this information as background, the types of activities the reservists

engaged in and their satisfaction and interpretation of problem associated with their unit training and activities were presented. Sane of the

major points made in this chapter are:

* The average number of years in the current unit varied from a

low of 3.2 years for Naval Reserve officers and Marine Corps

Reserve enlisted uwtbers to a high of 7.9 years for Air National

Guard officers.

* Eighty-six percent of enlisted personnel and over 95 percent of

officers reported they participated in annual training in 1985.

*0 Most part-time reservists attended annual training in a single

time segment, i.e., "all at once" -- 74 percent of enlisted

personnel and 69 percent of officers. In the Air National

*Guard, however, only 30 percent of the officers reported campleting their annual training in a single segment.

* In general, both enlisted personnel and officers reported that

factors affecting unit training quality did not present serious

problems. A substantial number of reservists indicated, however, that problems involving equipment and facilities and

adequate time to plan and accoaplish administrative work were

serious.

* There was considerable variation by component in the satisfaction of mappers with specific aspects of unit training activities.

-- Naval Reserve enlisted members were least satisfied with

training received during unit drills -- Marine Corps

Reserve and Air National Guard officers ware most satisfied.

Thirty-nine percent of enlisted Naval Reservists were very

dissatisfied with military skill training received during

unit drills. The percentages dissatisfied in the other

components were considerably lower. Air National Guard

officers were the most satisfied.

5-27
- Thirty-one percent of enlisted Naval Reservists rated the

equipmnt and weapons used during unit drills as being out-of-date. At the other extrem, only 10 percent of Air

National Guard enlisted nebers said equipment and weapons

were out-of-date, and 51 percent said they were up-to-date. These two corponents also represented the extreues with

respect to the mechanical condition of their equipment and

weapons. Twenty-five percent of Naval Reservists rated it

as poor, while the same percentage reported it as

excellent. In the Air National Guard, only 6 percent said

the mechanical condition of equipment and weapons was poor,

and 56 percent said it was excellent.

Satisfaction with unit activities during annual training

was relatively similar among the ccnponents and was

generally much higher than satisfaction with unit

activities during drill.

%W

-5-2

!%

)-I

*., K

.-. 5-28

6o=
* ENENTZYES

1Current Guard/Reserve Year of Service (YOS) is the year of service

the enlisted meber is currently in. Those who have ccmpleted five

years of military service, for exanple, are in their sixth year.

2For a canplete discussion of the construction of occupational

variables in the 1986 RC Surveys, see Apperilx E in 1986 Reserve

Camponents Survey: Selected Reserve Officer and Enlisted Personnel--

User's Manual and Codebook.

3See the Supplemntarv Tabulations for the 1986 Reserve Corponents

Surveys, Tables 5.7 and 5.8.

I5-29

A AfA
6. CIVILIAN EMPIYMENT AND PERCEIVED EMPLOYER ATTI=DES

A. Introduction

Most part-tim mebers of the Selected Reserve hold full-tine

civilian jobs. Thus, the support of their employers is critical to their

having the time required to drill and train and, hence, to the continued

success of the Guard/Reserve. Civilian jobs are a source both of skills

members bring to their Guard/Reserve duty and of ccupeting demands on

their time and energy.

We begin this chapter with a description of members' civilian jobs

and employers. Next we examine the interface between Guard/Reserve duty

and civilian employment, looking at data on how members got time off from

their civilian jobs for Guard/Reserve participation and how they were

paid. We continue by presenting data on member perceptions of the extent

to which their absence for Guard/Reserve participation is a problem for

their enployers, and their perceptions of erployer attitudes toward their

Guard/Reserve participation. Finally, we present data on the degree of

correspondence between reservists' civilian jobs and their primary

military occupational specialities.

B. Enployrent Status and Civilian Employment in 1985

This section describes the enployment status, civilian jobs, and

employer characteristics for members of the reserve carponents. We begin

by examining the employment status of enlisted personnel and officers at

the time of the 1986 RC Member Survey. Memers were asked:

Are you currently:

* Working full-tine as a Guard/Reserve technician

* Working full-time in a civilian job (not technician)

* Working part-time in a civilian job

* With a civilian job but not at work because of temporary

illness, vacation, strike, etc.

* Self-employed in own business

* Unpaid worker (volunteer or in family business)

• Unemployed, laid off, looking for work

* In school

. Retired

• A homemaker

* Other.

I

6-1

*.e
Tables 6.1 and 6.2 present the current civilian employment status of

part-time Guard/Reserve enlisted personnel and officers, showing the

percentages with a

0 * Full-time job

. Part-tine job

, Self-employed

• Uneaployed

* Not in the labor force.

The great majority of part-time enlisted personnel were employed in

the civilian labor force at the tine of the survey (Table 6.1). About

three-fourths had full-tire civilian jobs, 10 percent had only part-time

jobs, and three percent were self-etployed. Slightly aver one tenth of

all part-time enlisted personnel were not erployed. Seven percent were

unemployed (or laid off) and looking for work; six percent were not in

the labor force (in school, retired, a hcnemaker, or other).

For the most part, members of the individual reserve cozponents did

not differ greatly in enployment status fromn the overall figures for the

Selected Reserve. Only members of the Marine Corps Reserve and Coast

Guard Reserve show substantial differences. Marine Corps Reserve

enlisted personnel were less likely than those in other corponents to be

employed full time (66 percent were), and more likely to be employed part

time (16 percent) or to not be in the labor force (10 percent). (The

reader may rmvrber fra Chapter 4 that Marine Corps Reserve enlisted

personnel were younger, on the average, than menbers of other ccmponents

and more likely to be in school--factors that may explain the difference

in their employment status.) Enlisted mmters in the Coast Guard Reserve

were more likely than those in other caponents to be employed full tire

(81 percent were) and less likely to be uneuployed (2 percent). This

reflects the fact that the Coast Guard reserve has older members (Table

4.1).

More than 90 percent of part-time officers in the Selected Reserve

*.. were employed in the civilian labor force--80 percent full tire, six

* percent part tire, and seven percent self-employed. Only two percent

were unemployed and looking for work at the tie of the survey; five

percent were not in the labor force (Table 6.2). The employment status

of those in the individual reserve caoponents did not differ greatly from

these figures for the Selected Reserve overall.

Members were asked specifically about the civilian job they had in

1985:

The next questions are about your civilian job in 1985. If you

had more than one job, please answer these questions for the job

where you worked the most hours per week for most of the year. 6

"-" 6-2

* '
Table 6.1 Current Employment Status: Enlisted Personnel

Reserve Comoonent Total

Civilian Total Selected

Employment Status ARNG USAR USNR USMCR ANG USAFR DoD USCGR Reserve

Full-time Job 72% 71% 78% 66% 77% 77% 73% 81% 73%

Part-time job 10 11 9 16 10 9 10 8 10

Self-employed 3 3 3 2 3 2 3 3 3

Unemployed 9 9 4 6 4 5 7 2 7

Not In labor force 6 7 5 10 6 8 6 6 6

Source: 1986 RC Member Survey, extrapolated from Supplementary Tabulations 6.1a and 6.1b.

Table 6.2 Current Employment Status: Officers

Reserve Component Total

Clvilian Total Selected

Employment Status ARNG USAR USNR USMCR ANG USAFR DoD USCGR Reserve

Full-time Job 77% 81% 85% 84% 78% 84% 80% 86% 30%

Part-time job 7 6 4 5 5 7 6 3 6

Self-employed 7 6 7 6 10 5 7 7 7

Unemployed 2 2 1 1 1 2 2 1 2

Not in labor force 7 5 3 4 6 2 5 3 5

Source: 1985 RC Member Survey, extrapolated from Supplementary Tabulations, 6.2 and 6.3.

Write the nanie of your job in the box below. (Kind of work/job

title)

What kind of organization did you work for in 1985? (For exanple,

TV and radio manufacturing, retail shoe store, police department,

etc. Federal workers: enter the Agency, Departrent or Government

Branch for which you work.)

6-3

% % -

* .U U*%) ~ ~ / - ~ *.
-I

J,

Write the kind of organization (business/industry) in the space

below. Do not write the name of the ccupany.

The responses to these questions were used to code members' occupations into detailed categories developed by the U.S. Bureau of the Census. The results for part-time enlisted personnel who reported 1985

occupations are summarized in very broad occupational categories in Table

6.3. Of those employed in 1985, seven percent were administrators or

mannagers, and nine percent were in management-related occupations (such

as accountants, personnel specialists, buyers, and inspectors) or were

professionals (such as engineers, scientists, and health professionals).

The proportion of Coast Guard Reserve enlisted personnel in these first

two categories (26 percent) was greater and the proportions of Air

National Guard (11 percent) and Marine Corps Reserve (12 percent)

enlisted personnel were smaller than the average (7 percent).

Another 15 percent were clerks or health technicians or in administrative support occupations (e.g., computer operators, office machine

operators). Air National Guard members (20 percent) and Air Force Reservists (24 percent) were somewhat more likely than those in other ccmponents to have such occupations. Seven percent were in sales, with

* little variation among components. Almost 10 percent were in protective

",evices (firefighters and police) and postal services in all components

e xcept the Coast Guard Reserve, where fully 23 percent of part-time

enlisted members were in such occupations. Eight percent overall were in

other service occupations (e.g., cooks, waiters, barbers, ushers); the

highest percentages of these members were found in the Army caonents

and in the Marine Corps Reserve.

Almost 20 percent were mechanics, miners, or construction workers.

Thirteen percent worked in production or related occupations; another six

percent were vehicle operators or had jobs in transportation (rail and

water transportation and material moving equipment). Finally, eight

percent were laborers. There was little difference cnng tWhe ccuponents

in the proportions of mechanics, operators and laborers, except that the

Coast Guard Reserve was somewhat less likely than others to have members

with such occupations while the Army National Guard was scaewhat more

likely.

* The categories for officers' civilian occupations in Table 6.4 are

not the same as the categories in Table 6.3 because the percentages of

officers and enlisted personnel employed in the various types of jobs

differed markedly. Officers were more likely than enlisted personnel to

be managers, technicians, and professionals (shown in more detail in this

table) and less likely to be laborers; vehicle operators; construction,

* production, or service workers. Overall, 20 percent of officers were

administrators and managers; Naval Reserve officers, Marine Corps Reserve

officers and Coast Guard Reserve officers were scmewhat more likely than

those in other ccmonents to have occupations of this type. A:

Fifteen percent, overall, were in occupations generally classified as

* professional or scientific, 13 percent were specifically health professionals (physicians, dentists, registered nurses, etc.), and 12 percent

6-4

'-~~~~~~~~~~.....,......-......-,... ..-.. -.............-...... ,.. -..-.,... -.......-......... -... o.. . ........ ,-
Table 6.3 Civilian Occupation: Enlisted Personnel

Reserve Component Total

Civilian Total Selected

Occupation ARNG USAR USNR USMCR ANG USAFR DoD USCGR Reserve

Admin & Managerial 5% 7% 8% 6% 8% 8% 7% 11% 7%

Sclentific/Prof/Academic & Other mgt 6 9 13 6 12 13 9 15 9

Admln Spt/Clerlcal

& Health Tech 10 16 18 12 20 24 15 16 15

Sales 6 8 8 11 8 7 7 8 7

Protective service

& postal 7 9 7 11 11 10 8 23 9

Food & Other Service 9 10 6 9 4 5 8 4 8

Mechanics/Mine/

Construction 22 16 18 19 17 15 19 12 19

Production & Related 16 12 12 12 10 10 13 7 13

Vehicle Operators

& Transportation 8 7 5 6 5 4 6 3 6

Other Laborers 10 7 5 9 4 4 8 2 8

Source: 1986 RC Member Survey, extrapolated from Supplementary Tabulations 6.3.

Table 6.4 Civilian Occupation: Officers

.4

Reserve Comoonent Total - Civilian Total Selected

Occupation ARNG USAR USNR USMCR ANG USAFR DoD USCGR Reserve

Admln & Mgt 18% 18% 25% 23% 22% 16% 20% 24% 20%

Prof/Sclentlflc 10 14 22 14 14 15 15 17 15

Health Pro'z slonal 7 19 10 <1 11 23 13 1 13 Academic/Clergy & Law 11 15 12 11 10 8 12 14 12

Pilots & Navigators 3 1 a 7 14 22 5 1 5

Sales 10 8 7 11 9 4 8 7 8

Protective Service 7 5 1 7 1 <1 4 12 5

Other Mgt & Specialty 7 9 8 10 7 6 8 10 8

Admln Spt/Clerlcal

S& Health Tech 10 6 5 7 7 3 7 7 7

Other Serv & Laborers 16 6 4 11 5 3 8 6 8

Source: 1986 RC Member Survey, Supplementary Tabulations 6.4.

6-5

O' ~*
I

were educational professionals, clergy, lawyers, or judges. The Naval

Reserve was more likely than the other catponents to have officers with

general professional and scientific ocupations (22 percent). The Army

Reserve and Air Force Reserve had proportionally higher numbers of health

professionals (19 and 23 percent, respectively) while the Army National

Guard (7 percent) had fewer than other caqponents.

Not surprisingly, notable proportions of Air National Guard (14 per- cent) and Air Force Reserve (22 percent) officers were commercial pilots and navigators. Between one and seven percent of the officers in the

other canponents were also pilots and navigators. Small proportions of

officers were in sales (8 percent overall), protective services (5 percent), and other management positions and specialties (8 percent). As we

saw for enlisted personnel, the coast Guard Reserve had a higher proportion of officers in protective service occupations (12 percent) than

other carponents. There was little difference among ccuponents with

respect to sales or other professional/managerial occupations.

Seven percent of all officers 'including warrant officers) were

clerical workers, health technicians, or in administrative support occupations; eight percent were laborers or other service workers. The Army

National Guard was more likely than other carponents to have officers with occupations in these two categories (26 percent altogether), while the Air Force Reserve was least likely to have them (6 percent).

The size of an agency or ccarpany and whether it is in the public or

private sector may make a difference in employer attitudes toward Guard/

Reserve participation and the enployers' support of Guard/Reserve parti- cipation. Table 6.5 shows that almost 30 percent of all part-time enlisted personnel reported working in the public sector. They were

about evenly divided among Federal enployees (10 percent), employees of a

State government (8 percent), and eployees of a local county or nmunicipality (including public schools, 9 percent). Of the 62 percent of the

enlisted personnel who worked for private firms, samewhat more worked for

medium-sized or small firms (500 or fewer enployees) than for large firms

(35 percent vs. 27 percent). The remaining one-tenth were self-euployed

or worked in a family business.

Two carponents had disproportionate nunbers of enlisted personnel

* eaployed in the public sector. Nearly 40 percent of Air Force reservists

were public employees, with 24 percent working for the Federal government. Forty-five percent of Coast Guard Reservists were public enployees, with 23 percent working for local government. In the Marine

Corps Reserve, enlisted personnel were disproportionately &cployed in

private firms, especially medium-sized or small on-- (42 percent). I

Table 6.6 shows enployer types of part-time officers. Overall, officers were sceiwhat more likely than enlisted personnel to be public

aTiloyees (35 percent of officers vs. 27 percent of enlisted personnel).

Like enlisted personnel, officers who were public employees were nearly

evenly distributed among the three levels of government. Officers were

less likely to be eMployees of private firs (53 percent of officers vs.

6-6

C.

C,

I

*... - '..... . .S' .2b . ., , C - .V', .. " . • " ". *C ~ , -" "" "" * * *-" .* " . , " .* " '.. . . r C- ."--*..- - "," " .% °" . ." . "'' . ' * ."% "'". "" ' , , ' " * " % -
Table 6.5 Type of Employer: Enlisted Personnel

Reserve Component Total

Type of Total Selected

Employer ARNG USAR USNR USMCR ANG USAFR Do0 USCGR Reserve

Federal government 7% 12% 12% 5% 13% 24% 10% 12% 10%

State government 9 8 6 6 10 6 8 10 8

Local government 8 8 8 7 10 9 8 23 9

Private firm -.

500+ employees 24 26 32 29 31 31 27 24 27

Private firm --

500 employees 39 36 32 42 28 23 36 24 35

Self-employed/

f4mlly business 13 9 10 12 8 7 11 7 11

Source: 1986 RC Member Survey, Supplementary Tabulations 6.5.

Table 6.6 Type of Employer: Officers

Reserve Comoonent Total

- Type of Total Selected

Employer ARNG USAR USNR USMCR ANG USAFR DoD USCGR Reserve

Federal government 11% 17% 14% 7% 12% 12% 14% 15% 14%

State government 14 12 7 6 9 5 11 9 11

Local government 13 11 6 12 8 5 10 22 10

Private firm --

600+ employees 27 28 41 43 40 52 33 29 33

Private firm --

.500 employees 22 19 20 21 15 16 20 16 20

Self-employed/

family business 13 13 13 11 17 10 13 10 13

Source: 1986 RC Member Survey, Supplementary Tabulations 6.6.

6-7

#S '% %

D
62 percent of enlisted personnel), but officers who worked for private

firms were disproportionately with large firms. One-third of all

officers worked for private firms of nre than 500 employees, while onefifth worked for smaller firms. Again, about one-tenth were selfemployed or worked in a family business.

The individv'ai conponents all varied from this general pattern

somewhat. Officers in the Army National Guard, Army Reserve, and Coast

Guard Reserve worked disproportionately for governmnt--about 40 percent

of those in each Army component and 46 percent in the Coast Guard

Reserve. Nearly one-fifth of Army Reserve officers worked for the

Federal government; Army National Guard officers were more likely to work

for State or local government. One-fifth of all the Coast Guard Reserve

officers worked for local government. Officers in the other four

components were relatively more likely to work for large private firms--

about two-fifths of officers in the Naval Reserve, Marine Corps Reserve

and Air National Guard, and about half of those in the Air Force Reserve.

officers in these components were less likely than those in other

cc-mnents to work in the public sector.

.. LL. Off and. Pay for Guard/Reserve Duty in 1985

All erployers are required by law to give employees leave (not

charged against their annual vacation period) for Guard/Reserve duty.

Nearly all governrment eRployer continue full pay for 15 days during this

military leave. The extent to which private sector employers provide pay

during this leave is an important indicator of employer support for

Guard/Reserve participation.

are Some reservists use vacation time for Guard/Reserve duty because they

are paid for this time and may not be paid by their employers when on

military leave/leave of absence. Using vacation time or other days off

-from work for Guard/Reserve duty in lieu of military leave/leave of

absence may be a hardship for mebers and their families, reducing

mebers' participation in and satisfaction with the Guard/Reserve. In

this section we present data on how eiployed members got time off for

Guard/Reserve participation and how they were paid.

The data are from responses to two questions in the 1986 RC Member

Survey:

Which of the following describes how you got time off from your

civilian job to meet your Guard/Reserve obligations in 1985?

Include Annual Training/ACDUTRA. [Mark all that apply.]

• Does not apply. I was self-employed

* I received military leave/leave of absence

, I used vacation days

" 1 Py Guard/Reserve obligaLions were on days on which I

didn't work

6-8

I0

.4
Which of the following describes how you were paid for the time

you took from your civilian job for Guard/Reserve obligations?

[Mark all that apply.]

* I received full civilian pay as well as military pay

" I received partial civilian pay as well as military pay

9 I received only military pay

My Guard/Reserve obligations were on days on which I

didn't work

The first panel in Table 6.7 shows that a substantial majority (63

percent) of all part-tine enlisted personnel had military leave or leave

of absence from their civilian employment to meet at least part of their

Guard/Reserve obligations in 1985. About one-fifth used vacation days;

28 percent used days on which they did not work. The individual

cnaponents differ little frm this overall pattern.

The second panel in the table shows that 40 percent of enlisted

personnel received at least partial civilian pay (as well as military

pay) for the time taken to meet Guard/Reserve obligations. Half received

only military pay, however. At least part of the civilian pay received

was vacation pay for the one-fifth of enlisted personnel using vacation

days. Another one-fifth reported using non-work days (receiving only

military pay for those days).

The Army National Guard, the Army Reserve, and the Naval Reserve

showed patterns very similar to that overall pattern. The othor four

components differed. Marine Corps Reserve enlisted personnel were much

less likely than average to receive any civilian pay for their

Guard/Reserve duty in 1985 (26 percent). Majorities in the Air National

Guard, Air Force Reserve, and Coast Guard Reserve received at least

partial civilian pay (ranging from 53 to 61 percent).

Cczparable data for officers appear in Table 6.8. Officers, overall,

were more likely than enlisted personnel to have been able to take

military leave or a leave of absence; 75 percent of officers vs. 63

percent of enlisted personnel had leave. Officers were also more likely

than enlisted personnel to have used vacation days (38 percent vs. 19

percent) and/or days they were not working (33 percent vs. 28 percent) to

fulfill sate of their Guard/Reserve obligations.

Air Force Reserve officers were less likely than officers in the

other components to have had military leave or leave of absence (67

percent did); officers in the other components were very similar to the

overall average in this respect. Concomitantly, Air Force Reserve

officers were more likely than this average to have used vacation days

(45 percent) and/or non-work days (50 percent) to fulfill their

obligations. Air National Guard officers also used vacation and/or non6-9

%0
Table 6.7 Time Off and Pay for Guard/Reserve Duty In 1985: Enlisted

Personnel

* Reserve Component Total

Total Selected

Time Off and Pay ARNG USAR USNR USMCR ANG USAFR DoD USCGR Reserve

How Got Time Off

Not app., self-emp. 8% 6% 6% 6% 5% 5% 7% 6% 7%

Military leave/LOA 60 63 67 60 66 70 63 69 63

Used vacation 19 19 16 16 22 21 19 17 19

Used non-work days 27 29 28 29 30 29 28 33 28

,4 How Paid

Full civilian +

military pay 22 26 26 15 32 36 25 41 25

Part civilian +

military 13 14 21 11 21 18 15 20 15

Only military pay 56 50 44 62 38 40 50 29 50

4 Used non-work days 16 20 19 18 22 20 18 24 19

Source: 1986 RC Member Survey, Supplementary Tabulations 6.11 and 6.13.

Note: Percentages do not add to 100 percent because respondents could choose more than

one response.

Table 6.8 Time Off and Pay for Guard/Reserve Duty In 1985: Officers

, Reserve Comoonent Total

Total Selected

Time Off and Pay ARNG USAR USNR USMCR ANG USAFR DoD USCGR Reserve

How Got Time Off

Not app., self emp. 13% 12% 13% 11% 17% 10% 13% 9% 13%

Military leave/LOA 74 75 78 75 73 67 75 77 75

Used vacation 41 39 28 40 43 45 38 27 38

Used non-work days 32 32 28 27 43 50 33 32 33

How Paid

Full civilian +

military pay 46 50 43 43 45 36 46 53 46

Part civilian +

military 15 15 25 19 18 14 17 19 17

Only military pay 40 33 27 38 34 43 35 22 34

Used non-work days 26 27 21 21 32 42 27 28 27

Source: 1986 RC Member Survey, Supplementary Tabulations 6.12 and 6.14.

Note: Percentages may not add to 100 percent because respondents could choose

more than one response.

6-10

4b
work days at a higher than average rate (43 percent). This likely

relates to the data in Table 5.9 showing the Air Force Reserve and Air

National Guard officers were much less likely to perform their annual

training all at once. Naval Reserve officers used vacation and/or nonwork days at a lower than average rate (28 percent).

Tables 6.9 and 6.10 present the data on how menbers got time off from

work for Guard/Reserve duty and how they were paid, by enployer type for

enlisted personnel and officers, respectively. Euployer type clearly and

very substantially affected whether both enlisted personnel and officers

could take military leave or leave of absence and whether they would get

at least partial civilian pay for their time off work for Guard/Reserve 4,, obligations. High proportions of members working for government or for

large private firms used leave for their military duty. As noted above,

all Federal and nearly all state and local governnent enployees are

entitled to 15 days military leave with full pay. As Tables 6.9 and 6.10

indicate, however, all reservists did not take advantage of this

entitlenent and used a ccmbination of ways to neet their Guard and

Reserve requirerents. This also accounts for the government enployees

who reported that they did not receive full civilian pay during annual

training.

Table 6.9 Time Off and Pay for Guard/Reserve Duty In 1985 by Employer

Type: Enlisted Personnel

Employer Type

Private Firm Total

Government Employ Employ Self- Selected

Time Off and Pay Fed'l State Local >500 <500 employeda Reserve

- How Got Time Off

Not app., self-emp. 2% 3% 2% 1% 3% 45% 7%

MilItary Ieave/LOA 81 76 72 72 56 26 63

Used vacation 23 18 23 20 19 9 19

Used non-work days 26 27 33 26 31 23 28

How Paid

Full civilian +

military pay 71% 68% 58% 10% 8% 8% 25%

Part civilian +

m ilitary 6 7 9 33 10 5 15

Only military pay 17 17 23 51 70 70 50

Used non-work days 20 20 24 16 18 22 19

Source: 1986 RC Member Survey, Supplementary Tabulations 6.11 and 6.13.

aincludes those working In family businesses.

6-11 41

IN
S

Table 6.'0 Time Off and Pay for Guard/Reserve Duty In 1985 by Employer

Type: Officers

Emolover TYpe

Private Firm Total

Government Employ Employ Self- Selected

Time Off and Pay Fed'l State Local >500 -500 employeda Reserve

How Got Time Off

Not app., self emp. 1% 1% 1% 1% 5% 85% 13%

Military leave/LOA 94 85 77 73 59 39 75

Used vacation 39 32 31 42 36 56 38

Used non-work days 30 34 43 32 32 29 33

How Paid

Full civilian +

military pay 88% 77% 65% 22% 30% 37% 46%

Part civilian +

military 3 6 7 32 13 8 17

Only military pay 14 16 22 44 48 44 34

.1€ Used non-work days 28 28 36 26 23 23 27

J"- ------------------------------------------------------------

Source: 1986 RC Member Survey, Supplementary Tabulations 6.12 and 6.14.

aIncludes those working In family businesses.

Federal employees were most likely to have leave--81 percent of

enlisted personnel and 94 percent of officers did. State enployees

-" followed (with 76 percent of enlisted personnel and 85 percent of

officers having leave), then eployees of local government (with 72

percent of enlisted personnel and 77 percent of officers having leave)

and large private firms (72 percent of enlisted personnel and 73 percent

of officers). Members employed by smaller private firms were less likely

to have leave--56 percent of enlisted personnel and 59 percent of

officers did. The few self-employed members were least likely to have

leave--26 percent of enlisted members and 39 percent of officers did.

It is interesting to note that the availability of military leave or

leave of absence did not reduce the proportions of members saying they

had used vacation and/or non-working days to fulfill their Guard/Reserve

obligations. The proportions of members saying they had used vacationwi

and/or non-work days did not vary substantially nor systematically by

eployer type for either enlisted personnel or officers. As discussed

6-12

C.I

Ni
I

above with respect to those members eaployed by the government, it way be

that members who had military leave or leave of absence used fewer

- vacation or non-work days than those without leave. The 1986 RC Member

Survey does not provide data to examine this question, however.

D. Ehployer Problem from Member's Participation

. Absence from civilian work to fulfill Guard/Reserve obligations and

to work on Guard/Reserve business are potential sources of conflict

between part-time reservists and their civilian employers. Members were

asked how much of a problem each of four aspects of their Guard/Reserve

". activities was for their enployers (or for themselves, if self-employed):

absence for weekend drills, absence for annual training, absence for

extra time spent at Guard/Reserve, and time spent on Guard/Reserve

business. For each of these four aspects, members were to choose one of 4 the following categories:

, Serious Problem

* Somewhat of a Problem

6-. * Slight Problem

* • Not a Problem

Does Not Apply

* Don't Know.

Table 6.11 shows the percentage of part-tine enlisted personnel

responding "Not a Problem" or "Does Not Apply" for each of these four

problem types. (Presumably, where there was no problem for the employer,

the question did not apply.) The bottom panel of the table shows the

" .percentage responding "Somewhat of a Problem" or "Serious Problem" for

each of the four problem types.

P Overall, part-time enlisted personnel believed that their absence

from work for weekend drills or time spent at work on Guard/Reserve

business caused less problem for their employers than absence for annual

training or extra time at Guard/Reserve. About two-thirds said weekend

drills and time spent at work on Guard/Reserve business were not a

problem for their employers or did not apply to them, compared to 52

.percent for extra time at Guard/Reserve and 45 percent for annual

training. At the same time, weekend drills or time spent at work on

Guard/Reserve each posed somewhat of a problem or a serious problem for

-i ""about 15 percent of their euployers, ccmpared to 23 percLznt for extra

time at Guard/Reserve and 29 percent for annual training. The individual

components show the same general pattern.

Officers did not differ significantly from enlisted personnel in

their perceptions of the problem weekend drills posed for their

enployers; 68 percent said drill was not a problem or the question did

not apply to them, while 13 percent said it was somewhat of a problem or

6

p. -1

I-L
Table 0.11 Employer Problems from Member's Guard/Reserve Partlclpatlon: . En I I ted PersonnelI

Reserve Comoonent Total

Total Selected

Employer Problems ARNG USAR USNR USMCR ANG USAFR DoO USCGR Reserve

Not a problem/Does not apply for:

Weekend drills 63% 88% 66% 57% 71% 73% 66% 70% 86%

Anhual training 44 47 44 38 44 46 45 43 45

Extra time spent

at Guard/Reserve 49 53 59 48 53 49 52 53 52

Time on Guard/

Reserve at work 63 66 69 61 70 67 65 66 65

Somewhat/Serious problem for:

Weekend drills 16 13 14 20 11 11 14 14 14

* Annual training 31 26 27 36 27 26 28 26 29

Extra time spent

at Guard/Reserve 25 21 20 26 24 25 23 24 23

Time on Guard/

Reserve at work 17 14 13 18 14 15 15 17 15

Source: 1986 RC Member Survey, Supplementary Tabulations 6.17, 6.19, 6.21, and 6.23.

a serious problem (Table 6.12). Officers also agreed with enlisted

personnel in the perception that time spent at work on Guard/Reserve

business was less a problem for their employers than extra time at

Guard/Reserve and annual training, but officers were somewhat more likely

to see these three kinds of Guard/Reserve duty as a problem. One-fifth

said time spent at work on Guard/Reserve business was a problem for their

employers (while 54 percent said it was not), 29 percent said extra time

* at Guard/Reserve was a problem (while 41 percent said it was not), and 36

percent said annual training was a problem (while 30 percent said it was

not).

Tables 6.13 and 6.14 show these data by employer type for enlisted

personnel and cfficers, respectively. Annual training, the obligation

* -tenbers believed was the mst problem for their employers, caused the

most substantial and consistent differences across employer types.

Enlisted personnel who were Federal or State eRployees Were more likely

than other groups to say annual training was not a problem for their

erployers; 56 percent of Federal enployees and 52 percent of State

6-14

e S-e 

-.
Table 6.12 Employer Problems from Member's Guard/Reserve Participation:

Officers

Reserve Comoonent Total

Total Selected

Employer Problems ARNG USAR USNR USMCR ANG USAFR DoD USCGR Reserve

( Not a Problem/Does not apply for:

Weekend drills 64% 72% 71% 71% 67% 58% 68% 76% 68%

Annual training 31 30 30 35 28 28 30 33 30

Extra time spent

at Guard/Reserve 32 42 55 42 40 32 41 48 41

Time on Guard/

Reserve at work 50 52 59 54 60 57 54 50 54

.~ , Somewhat/Serious problem for:

Weekend drills 15 11 11 11 13 21 13 8 13

* Annual training 39 36 34 35 33 39 36 32 36

Extra time spent

at Guard/Reserve 36 28 20 28 29 37 29 21 29

Time on Guard/

Reserve at work 24 23 19 22 15 23 21 22 21

Source: 1986 RC Member Survey, Supplementary Tabulations 6.18, 6.20, 6.22, and 6.24.

employees said this compared to the average (45 percent of all enlisted Ipersonnel). These two employee groups were also less likely to say

annual training was a problem; 19 percent of Federal and 23 percent of

* ,State employees perceived this obligation as a problem for their

eployers ccnpared to 29 percent of all enlisted personnel. Enlisted

,*:." *. personnel who worked for medium-sized or small private firms (having 500

or fewer enployees) and those who were self-employed were most likely to

* say this obligation was a problem (32 and 34 percent, respectively,

. :.- cmccpared to 29 percent of all enlisted personnel). These two etployee .- * -.: groups were also the least likely to say it was not a problem. Those

S- ~ working for local government and private firms with more than 500

.e ployees were very close to the average for all enlisted personnel in

their perceptions.

0 Officer perceptions of enployer problems with annual training -'- N" differed by employer type in the same way. Federal and State enployees k'" were least likely to see this obligation as a problem. Only 26 percent

of Federal and 27 percent of State employees said it was a problem

,".. 6-15

0V
Table 6.13 Employer Problems from Member's Guard/Reserve Participation

by Employer Type: Enlisted Personnel

k.

Emolover Type

¢% Private Fire Total

Government Employ Employ Self- Selected

Employer Problems Fed'l State Local >500 S500 euployeda Reserve

Not a problem/Does not apply for:

Weekend drills 73% 72% 69% 65% 66% 60% 66%

Annual training 56 52 48 44 40 41 45

Nip. Extra time spent

at Guard/Reserve 57 56 54 50 50 53 52

T!me on Guard/

Reserve at work 68 68 66 65 64 65 65

Somewhat/Serious problem

Weekend drills 11 12 15 14 14 17 14

Annual training 19 23 27 27 32 34 29

Extra time spent

at Guard/Reserve 19 21 22 25 24 23 23

Time on Guard/

Reserve at work 14 15 15 16 15 14 15

Source: 1986 RC Member Survey, Supplementary Tabulations 6.17, 6.19, 6.21,

6.23.

aIncludes those working In family businesses.

S

_6-16

V.P

% ,.

6&S& l
Table 6.14 Employer Problems from Member's Guard/Reserve Participation

by Employer Type: Officers

Employer Type

erivate FIrL Total

Government Employ Employ Self- Selected

Employer Problems Fed'l State Local >500 500 employeda Reserve

Not a problem/Does not apply for:

Weekend drills 81% 80% 73% 67% 64% 50% 68%

Annual training 39 37 34 28 25 25 30

Extra time spent

at Guard/Reserve 49 45 43 39 39 36 41

Time on Guard/

Reserve at work 57 57 56 53 52 48 54

Somewhat/Serious problem for:

Weekend drills 7 8 11 13 15 20 13

Annual training 26 27 34 37 43 46 36

Extra time spent

at Guard/Reserve 22 23 30 31 32 31 29

Time on Guard/

Reserve at work 20 17 22 23 22 20 21

Source: 1986 RC Member Survey, Supplementary Tabulations 6.18, 6.20, 6.22, and 6.24.

alncludes those working In family businesses.

SI,

6-17

V V V V
(ccupared to 36 percent of all officers), while 39 and 37 percent,

respectively, said it was not (ccqpared to 30 percent of all). Those

working for private firms with 500 or fewer enployees and the selfenployed were mst likely to see it as a problem (43 and 46 percent,

respectively) and least likely to say it was not (25 percent of both

Jenployee groups). Those working for local government or for private

*, finms of more than 500 employees were about average.

It may also be interesting to note that self-enployed enlisted

personnel and officers were distinctive in saying that weekend drills

were a problem. One-fifth of self-enployed officers said drills were

samewhat serious or a serious problen (ccpared to 13 percent of all

officers), while half said they were not a problem (coupared to twothirds of all officers). Enlisted personnel showed the save pattern,

though the differences were smaller.

E. Supervisor's Attitude to Member's Guard/Reserve Duty

The final indicator of enployer support we examine is supervisor

attitudes toward Guard/Reserve participation. Members were asked

* What is your immediate (main) civilian supervisor's overall

attitude toward your participation in the Guard/Reserve? Mark

one.

1 * Does not apply, I am not working at a civilian job

* Does not apply, I am self-employed

° Very favorable

. Scmewhat favorable

a Neither favorable nor unfavorable

S Somewhat unfavorable

- Very unfavorable

* Table 6.15 sunarizes the responses of enlisted personnel and officers.

Fifty-eight percent of all enlisted personnel said their immediate

supervisors' attitudes toward their Guard/Reserve participation were

,"very favorable" or "scawhat favorable." Only 15 percent said their

supervisors' attitudes were "somewhat unfavorable" or "very unfavorable."

* The responses of enlisted personnel in the individual components were

very similar to those overall. Proportions perceiving their supervisors

as favorable ranged frum 53 percent in the Coast Guard Reserve to 60 . percent in the Army Reserve; the range of unfavorable ratings was from 17

percent in the Army National Guard to 12 percent in the Naval Reserve.

Off'cers' ratings of supervisors' attitudes differed little from those of

* enlisted personnel either overall or in the individual ccuponents.

6-18

v
K" Table 6.15 Civilian Supervisor's Attitude to Member's Guard/Reserve

Participation: Enlisted Personnel and Officers

%. Reserve ComDonent Total

, Supervisor's Total Selected

Attitude ARNG USAR USNR USMCR ANG USAFR DoD USCGR Reserve

Enlisted Personnel

* Very/somewhat 57% 60% 58% 57% 56% 58% 58% 53% 58%

favorable

Somewhat/very

unfavorable 17 14 12 13 13 14 15 15 15

Offlcers

Very/somewhat 55 56 64 64 60 58 58 59 58

favorable

Somewhat/very

unfavorable 19 16 11 13 14 15 15 13 15

Source: 1986 RC Member Survey, Supplementary Tabulations 6.15 and 6.16.

Table 6.16 shows that enlisted personnel's ratings of supervisors'

attitudes varied by type of enployer. Over 60 percent of Federal and

State employees and of those working in family-owned businesses said

their imediate supervisors' favored their Guard/Reserve participation.

These employee groups had the most favorable perceptions of their

supervisors' attitudes. Those working for local government were the

least likely to say that their supervisors had favorable perceptions (54

r- percent), but the differences from other groups were small. Employees of

private firms, regardless of size, were about average in their

perceptions that their supervisors favored their Guard/Reserve

participation.

Officers' perceptions of supervisors' attitudes varied by enployer

type in about the same way as those of enlisted personnel'(Table 6.17).

Again, erployees of Federal or State government and of family businesses

were most likely to say their supervisors favored their Guard/Reserve

participation--61 to 66 percent of these three groups gave this response.

.Eployees of private firms were again about average. Officers enployed

by local government were also near the average for all officers in

perceiving their supervisors as favorable; they were slightly more likely

6-19

6V

* '-
Table 6.16 Supervisor's Attitude to Member's Guard/Reserve

Participation by Employer Type: Enlisted Personnel

4EmPlover Tvoe

Private Firm Total

Supervisor's Government Employ Employ Family Selected

Attitude Fed'i State Local >500 500 Business Reserve

Very/somewhat

favorable 62% 63% 54% 56% 57% 62% 58%

Somewhat/very

unfavorable 14 14 17 16 15 14 15

Source: 1986 RC Member Survey, Supplementary Tabulations 6.15.

Note: Enlisted personnel who were self-employed are not Included In this table.

Table 6.17 Supervisor's Attitude to Member's Guard/Reserve

Participation by Employer Type: Officers

Emolover Type

Private Firm Total

Supervisor's Government Employ Employ Family Selected

Attitude Fed'I State Local >500 500 Business Reserve

Very/somewhat

favorable 66% 61% 55% 55% 56% 66% 58%

Somewhat/very

unfavorable 14 15 20 14 16 10 15

Source: 1986 RC Member Survey, Supplementary Tabulations 6.16.

Note: Officers who were self-employed are not Included In this table.

6-20 S " 1 6

4. A, v

AL A 6-20-0
than those in other groups to say their supervisors were somewhat or very

unfavorable (20 percent did).

-S F. Similarity of Military and Civilian Occupations

Earlier in this chapter we described the kinds of civilian occupations reservists held in 1985, the calendar year preceding the survey,

and their employers. In this section, we examine the similarity between

the civilian and military occupations of reservists. We examine the

extent to which reservists in each major <7ivilian occupation group use

similar occupational skills in the reserves. We also describe the civilian occupations of the membership of military occupational groups.

We make no inference in this discussion about where or when an individual learned occupational skills or whether occupational similarity is

-. necessarily good. Clearly, however, these are important relationships to

explore on several counts, including training. We also do not discuss

the direction of the relationship between civilian and military occupations here. Sae prior service reservists may have been trained for what

are now their civilian occupations in the armed forces, although they

selected dissimilar occupations in the reserves. Alternatively, reservists may have been trained in civilian occupations by private-sector

eployers and then joined specific units because those units gave them

the opportunity to use their civilian skills.

The tables in this chapter categorize both military and civilian jobs

by a civilian occupational classification based on a classification

system developed by the U.S. Bureau of the Census. Military occupational

codes were transformed to civilian equivalents using a program developed

by the Occupational Crosswalk Project in QASD (EM&P). The crosswalk was

based on a systematic, cowparative analysis of the occupational definitions in both civilian and military taxonomies. The primary occupational

dimensions that were compared include tasks performed, machines or tools

used, and output or results achieved. 1

Tables 6.18 and 6.19 show the civilian equivalent categories for the

military occupations of enlisted personnel and officers, respectively.

The categories are quite different fram the occupational classification

system in Chapter 3 that is commonly used in caparing occupations across

Services in DOD. 2 Also, unlike the tables presented earlier in this

chapter, the tables in this section include individuals who had no civilian job in 1985 because these individuals have military occupations.

Inspection of Tables 6.18 and 6.19 shows that there is no civilian

occupational equivalent for about 21 percent of military occupations held

by enlisted personnel and about 24 percent of military occupations held

by officers. In other words, these jobs exist only in the armed forces. In general, the "no civilian equivalent" occupations include most of the

combat arms specialties (i.e., infantry, gun crews, and seamanship specialists discussed in Chapter 3) as well as other occupations unique to

the military.

6-21
Table 6.18 Distribution of Enlisted Personnel by Civilian and

Civilian Equivalent of Military Occupation Groups

Percent in Percent in

Civilian Military Occupations

Civilian Occupation Group Occupations (Civilian Equivalent)

No Civilian Job 9

Non-Occupational 1

Administrative & Managerial 6 3

Other Management Related Occupations,

Professional, Scientific &

Specialty Occupations; Teachers

& Educational Administrators 8 3

Health Technologist & Technicians,

Administrative Support & Clerical

(except Postal) 13 25

Sales 7 a

Protective Service & Postal 8 4

Food Services & Other Service

Occupations (except Protective) 7 5

Mechanics & Repairers; Farm, Mine

& Construction Workers 17 25

'l. Precision Production Workers, Machine

Operators, Assemblers & Inspectors 12 6

Motor Vehicle Operators; Other

* Transportation & Material

Moving Operators 6 7

Other Handlers, Helpers & Laborers 7 a

No Civilian Equivalent a 21

- Total 100 100

Source: 1986 RC Member Survey, DMDC Tabulations, September 1987.

ar1rIss than 1 percent.

6-22

0W
Table 6.19 Distribution of Officers by Civilian and Civilian

Equivalent of Military Occupation Groups

Percent in Percent in

Civilian Civilian Military Occupations

Occupation Group Occupat-ons (Civilian Equivalent)

No Civilian Job 4 --

Non-Occupational -- 3

Administrative & Managerial 19 19

Professional, Scientific & Social

- Science 14 7

Physicians, Dentists, Registered Nurses,

Other Health Professions 12 17

Teachers, Educational Administrators,

- Clergy, & Lawyers/Judges 12 5

Pilots & Navigators 5 12

* Sales 8 1

Protective Services 4 1

Other Management Related Occupations,

Professional, Scientific &

Specialty Occupations 8 6

Health Technologists & Technicians

(exept Pilots), Administrative

Support & Clerical 6 3

Other Service Occupations, Agriculture,

Crafts, Production, Repair,

Operators & Laborers 8 2

No Civilian Equivalent -- 24

Total 100 100

Source: 1986 RC Members Survey, UMDC Tabulations, September 1987.

-V 6-23
Aside fram the "no civilian equivalent" occupations in the armed

forces, a caparison of the distribution of part-time unit member's

civilian occupations and the distribution of their military occupations clearly shows major differences. In several occupational groupings such

as precision proauction and related occupations among enlisted personnel and professional and scientific personnel among officers, for ecwple, the percentage holding those jobs in the ctvilian sector was twice the

percentage in the military.

We show how well civilian and military occupations match in Table

6.20 for enlisted personnel and Table 6.21 for officers. In these

tables, part-time unit members are categorized by their civilian occupa- tions and then within civilian occupation by military occupation in civilian occupational equivalents. Put another way, we ask "what military

occupations are filled by reserve personnel in each civilian occupation?

The proportion of enlisted personnel who were in identical military and civilian categories ranged from one percent or less to 41 percent. The categories with essentially no similarity were those that have few

military billets (e.g., sales personnel), that have special requirements,

or that are generally occupied by officers (e.g., management related).

* Among enlisted personnel, civilian administrative support/clerical and

health technicians (41 percent) and mechanics and farm/mine/construction

workers (37 percent) were most likely to be assigned similar military

occupations. Vehicle operators and transportation (16 percent), protec- tive service and postal workers (16 percent), and food service and other

service worker (13 percent) were in an intermediate category.

Officers, as shown in Table 6.21, were more likely to have military occupations similar to their civilian occupations than enlisted personnel. At the high end, over 90 percent of civilian health professionals

and 80 percent of pilots and navigators were in the same occupational categories in the military (when their military oc-upations were classified by their civilian equivalents). The Supplementary Tabulations show

some variation within these groups, with 96 percent for registered

nurses, 88 percent for dentists, 84 percent for physicians, and 73 percent for other health professions in similar occupations in the military. The remaining administrative and professional occupations (i.e., administrative and managerial workers, 28 percent; professional and scientific

* personnel, 19 percent; and members of academic, religious and legal pro- fessions, 29 percent) were in an intermediate category. The percentages of reservists in the other civilian occupational categories who had similiar military jobs were not as high.

Tables 6.22 and 6.23 provide a different approach to occupational similarity for enlisted personnel and officers, respectively. In these

tables, part-time unit members are categorized by their military occapa- tions (in civilian equivalents) and then by civilian occupation within

military occupation. Here, we attenpt to answer the question "what civilian occupations are held by reserve personnel filling specific military

jobs?"

6-24

<4
0

a 0 Q~i 4" 'A* 3.0a CdNC4 ~~C 

c

C

0 0

CL .3 0C4 4b 42V)Lb QJV# W D

04 ! CI V

CL

0

3 13

4C40 U) 40 m I I * 804

4 0 0-

V C4 C4) lp' OD Lo~ r - 0

00

0 C

m4)

00

o .5

c~ -0

.3 Cd m4 t 0 o0 3

u C 0IL .

eq q c~ 

0 C

IQ-

.4 A

C" cf~~ 0

>d SOO z S. 0

If .9 A 4 cIL

.2 -o 1: - 2 . A C t d -u Cd 40 Cd - .4 0

0 0 1.L 41)

4. 0L C

03 ~ 4C 6-25

q)- % - 0 -0
do

4a

1% 44

c. .4

IN

3- CL

V C

411

0 0

441

c 16

U 0 P Mr.4 , i 2 41,
12

0 *0

CC

o0 aof a- - IAJ

0.

I. C4

C, 0

0 0 > CL - C .

c to N N

E0

Cu. (x 40. co 40 to t40

- 1- "04

.2

to to) o 0 t400.. CC9 40

u to 4 to -4- 4 44 -a 04 0

0 0 do LC

-9-0

3.: Q I cc 2 0.0

40.

01
- - -- ----- -

~Iq 4)

ce

- 0 r in .4C v r N

ul L. '

1- 0

0

I- u C.4 f, ob N &a co c

* - CC-

(x- - <tCI0

0,*

4 .0

0.x

C, U3

0

0. 00 C4 WO)(J).

C .7

;E 46

00

0 4C CO CDt.D-WL4ot

.0 0 ax

0 c

fn 004 OD0 ) 4C .4 

u 0

o C

£0 6-

U0

44 4

0 0 C6

0) 0

C's t q o4 - 0.n 

a.. L4a

* 0O

I- a02"t

c 0 .1."-0 0

L >4 U .

CL -- 

U 6-28

IV % %C
ON'

As seen in Table 6.22, there were reservists with ccmparable civilian

occupations for every military occupational categry (with the e=etion

of non-occupational and no-civilian equivalent). The percentage ranges from 32 percent in protective service and postal work to 6 percent in sales, with most being between 13 and 25 percent (e.g., administrative

support/clerical and health technicians, 22 percent; mechanics and farm/

mine and construction workers, 25 percent; vehicle operators and transportation, 13 percent; food service and other service workers, 17 per- cent).

The data for officers are quite different (Table 6.23). The civilian

occupations of officers were often similar to their military occupations:

acadenic, religious and legal professions (76 percent), and health professions (61 percent). The pattern for specific occupations, as shown in

the Supplementary Tabulations, includes dentists (93 percent), lawyers

and judges (86 percent), physicians (82 percent), clergy (81 percent), and registered nurses (71 percent). Relatively large numbers of "similar

occupation holders" are found among pilots and navigators (33 percent) and protective service workers (37 percent). In addition to those who

were in similar occupations, many of the professionals were in related

occupations. For exanple, three percent of military physicians were in

administrative positions as civilians, probably as administrators of

medical-related organizations.

Data presented in the Supplementary Tabulations show that the extent

of occupational similarity varied somewhat by reserve component and by gender. For example, about one-third of the pilots and navigators in the

Selected Reserve had main civilian jobs as pilots and navigators. 3 In

the individual components, this figure ranged fra almost one-fifth of

pilots and navigators in the Army National Guard to about one-third of

the pilots and navigators in the Marine Corps Reserve and Air National

Guard, and about half of the pilots and navigators in the Air Force

Reserve. Eighty percent or more of those whose main civilian jobs were

as pilots or navigators, however, were military pilots or navigators. 4

This figure ranged from 62 percent in the Naval Reserve to 92 percent in

the Army National Guard. Additional analyses may well show that differences in the types of aircraft used by the different components may be

causing sate of the differences.

The discussion presented here is only suggestive, as there are other

factors to be taken into account, and there are other ways of looking at

the data than by the civilian crosswalk comparisons briefly summarized

here. The availability of military occupations in specific locations

certainly affects the degree to which civilian and military occupations match, as discussed above. Variations in labor force experience among civilians in similar occupations probably leads to differences in milltary occupational assignment. Individual preferences influence occupational choice both in the civilian and military environments. Data of

this nature were not available before and nmst be analyzed in greater

detail to better understand the civilian-military occupational relation-

.4. ships.

6-29

1m

S,
G.

This chapter discussed the types of civilian eripioyment of part-time

unit members of the Selected Reserve, including the perceived attitudes

of the reservists' civilian employers toward reserve participation. It

also described the relationship between members' civilian jobs and their

Guard/Reserve occupations. Among the major findings of this chapter are:

" Seventy-three percent of the enlisted personnel and 80 percent

of officers held full-time jobs. An additional 10 percent and 6

percent, respectively, were self-employed. Twenty-seven percent of the enlisted personnel and 35 percent of the officers were

employed in the public sector.

* Officers were more likely to hold managerial, technical, and

professional jobs (60 percent) than were enlisted personnel (16

percent).

There was significant variation by ccAponent in the per- centage of menbers in certain occupational groups. For

exmTple, 22 percent of Coast Guard enlisted members worked

in protective services in their civilian lives. Not surprisingly, notable proportions of Air National Guard and

NAir Force Reserve officers were comercial pilots (7 and 13

percent, respectively).

* Officers were nearly twice as likely to report that they received their full civilian pay as well as their military pay during training (46 percent vs. 25 percent).

* Memrbers reported that absence from work for annual training, followed closely by extra time spent on reserve activities,

caused the most serious problems with employers. This was less

of a problem for Federal or State workers.

* Fifty-eight percent of both enlisted personnel and officers said

that their civilian supervisor's attitude toward Guard/Reserve

participation was very or somewhat favorable. Fifteen percent

of both groups reported unfavorable attitudes.

-. * Examination of the extent to which members' military occupations

were similar to their civilian occupations found that there is

no civilian equivalent for about 21 percent of the military

specialties held by reserve enlisted members and 24 percent of

officers. As expected, health professionals, judges, lawyers, - and clergy were typically working in related civilian jobs.

.0%

.= .J"3

6-30

4,'.,
lFor a caiplete discussion of the construction of occupational variables in the 1986 RC Surrveys, see Appendiix E in 1986 Reserve Cagonents

Survey: Selected Reserve Officer and Enlisted Personnel--User's Manual

and Codebook.

2 The crosswalk did assign ech military ocuainlspecialty a

three-digit code from the Census tawmnaTy. In these tables, for ease of

presentation, we are using an occupational grouping of these codes speci- -p ~fic to this study. For simtilar tables using a less agrgtdpresentation, see the Supplementary Tabulations.

3See the Supplenentary Tabulations for the 1986 Reserve Capponents

Suvy, Table 6.32.

40p. Cit., Table 6.30.

6-3
a

7. ME4BERS' FAMILY AND CQCJITY LIFE

A. Introduction

Families are an important part of the lives of most part-time unit

members. Guard/Reserve members are away fram their families for drill and

annual training, and many spend extra time at their drill locations. The

perception of these absences as a problem for families may be affected by the backgrounds and current situations of other family members, particular- ly spouses. Members' feelings about how their time is parcelled among military duty, family, civilian job, and other activities and their percep- tions of family member attitudes may be inportant factors in retention

0decisions.

This chapter presents data on spouse employment and military experience; members' perceptions of the degree to which their absences for weekend drills, annual training, and extra time at Guard/Reserve are a problem

for their families; mebers' perceptions of their spouses' attitudes toward

their Guard/Reserve participation; and members' feelings about the amount

of time they spend on various activities. More detailed treatment of these

and related issues from the point of view of spouses of parttime unit

members are presented in a companion report. 1

B. Spouse Employment and Military Experience

1. Spouse Employment

The employment status of civilian spouses may be related to the

impact a meber's absence for Guard/Reserve participation has on family life, spouse attitudes toward nmber participation, nemer retention, and

mber preparedness for mobilization. For exaMple, employ ent provides incume for the family and, potentially at least, a source of social support and self-esteem for the employed spouse. Employed spouses, then, might find mmber absences for Guard/Reserve participation less burdensome than

spouses who are not working (assuming adequate child care arrangmnints). A

family that has the spouse's income and benefits may need fewer services A[ and less support from the military in the event of mobilization. On the

other hand, a spouse's income may reduce a mmber's likelihood of staying in the Guard/Reserve at the end of the current term of enlistment or

obligation.

Table 7.1 shows the employment status of part-time unit members'

spouses. The first panel shows that 27 percent of enlisted personnel

spouses were not in the labor force (that is, they were in school, retired,

a homemaker, or other). The great majority were erployed or unemployed and

looking for a job. Most were employed full time--two percent were in the

armed forces and 48 percent had full-tite civilian jobs. Sixteen percent

were employed part time, and four percent were unemployed and looking for

work.

7-1

.
0

Table 7.1 Spouse Employment: Enlisted Personnel and Officers

RAserve Comonaant Total

Total Selected

Spouse Employment ARNG USAR USNR USMCR ANG USAFR DoD USCGR Reserve

Enl lted Personnel

In Armed Forcesa 1% 2% 4% 3% 1% 5% 2% 3% 2%

Civilian--full time 46 49 49 48 51 50 48 48 48

C'vlfan--part time 15 16 17 16 17 16 16 1 18

uvIlIan--seIf-employed 3 3 3 4 4 4 3 3 3

CIvlIIan--uneuployed 4 4 3 4 2 2 4 1 4

Not In labor force 31 26 24 25 25 23 27 28 27

Officers

In Armed Forcesa 2% 3% 4% 1% 2% 5% 3% 3% 32

* ClvlIlan--full time& 45 48 39 43 41 42 44 43 44

Civilian--part time 19 20 20 20 20 20 20 21 20

Clvlllan--self-employed 5 6 6 3 7 6 6 5 6

CIvIlIan--unemployed 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

Not In labor force 28 22 29 30 29 27 28 27 28

Source: 1986 RC Member Survey, Supplementary Tabulations 7.5a, 7.5b. 7.8a, 7.6b.

alncludee spouses In the Armed Forces full time and spouses with no civilian Job who were

part-time Guard/Reserve members.

The individual caiponents differed little from these figures for all

part-tie enlisted personnel, or from eah other. The proportion in the

armed forces ranged from one percent (of Army National Guard and Air

National Guard spouses) to five percent of Air Force Reserve spouses.

* Approimately half of the spouses worked full time, ranging fran 46 percent

of Any National Guard spouses to 51 percent of Air National Guard spouses.

*The proportion who worked part tine ranges frat 15 percent of Any National

Guard spouses to 19 percent of Coast Guard Reserve spouses. The percentage

who were unenployed and looking for work ranged fran one percent (of Coast

Guard spouses) to four percent (of Army National Guard, An~y Reserve and

* Marine Corps Reserve spouses). The remaining proportion who wexe not in

the labor force ranged fram 23 percent (of Air Force Reserve spouses) to 31

percent (of Army National Guard spouses).

7-2

K'

K'
The employment status of spouses of part-tin officers in units was

very similar to that of enlisted personnel (Table 7.1). Again, the individual carponents were very similar. Overall, three percent of officers' I ispouses were serving in the armed forces--with figures in the individual

carponents ranging fran one percent (of Marine Corps Reserve spouses) to

five percent (of Air Force Reserve spouses). Forty-four percent of officer

spouses worked full time--ranging frum 39 percent (of Naval Reserve

spouses) to 48 percent (of Army Reserve spouses). Aproximately one-fifth

of officer spouses worked part time, and one percent were unemployed.

Approximately one-fourth were not in the labor force--ranging fram 22 percent (of Army Reserve spouses) to 30 percent (of Marine Corps Reserve

spouses).

Table 7.2 shows spouse employment status according to household canposition--that is, whether the member and spouse had dependents (us:Ally

children). Here it can be seen that spouses were more likely to be in the

labor force and to be working full tine when there were no dependents in

the households. The first panel shows the data for enlisted personnel.

Twenty-nine percent of their spouses with dependents in the household were

not in the labor force ccapared to 20 percent of spouses with no depen- dents. Forty-five percent of spouses with dependents were working full

time ccImpared to 58 percent of those with no dependents.

This pattern is even stronger for officers' spouses. Where there were

dependents in the household, 29 percent of officers' spouses were not in

the labor force and 41 percent were working full time. Where there were no

dependents, only 13 percent were not in the labor force, and 61 percent

were working full time.

The differences in emplcynt status between spouses of part-time enlisted personnel and part-time officers are undoubtedly caused by several

factors, including differences in financial need, differences in education,

and differences in household camposition. Independently of the reason,

eaployment-related conflicts are more likely to arise in the households of

en listed personnel than in the households of officers. Ways in which these

conflicts can be eased should be an area for investigation for reserve

%J policy makers. Sam of the kinds of problem for families are discussed

later in this chapter.

2. Spouse Military Experience

Whether spouses of part-tme unit merbers had served in the military and the sort of experience they had are likely to affect spouses'

atzitudes toward members' Guard/Reserve participation and, thus, members'

own. Members were asked:

Has your current spouse ever served in the U.S. Armed Forces,

either on active duty or in the Reserves?

* No, never served

*' Yes, retired fran [services and caponents ]

aJ * Yes, separated fran [services and caiponents ]

Yes, now serving in ( services and components]

7-3

0

MUM
Table 7.2 Spouse Employment by Household Composition:

Enlisted Personnel and Officers

Household Composition Total

Spouse, No Spouse, With Selected

Spouse Employment Dependents Dependents Reserve

Enlisted Personnel

In Armed Forcesa 3% 2% 2%

Civilian--full time 58 45 48

Civilian--part time 13 17 16

CivilIan--self-employed 3 3 3

Civilian--unemployed 3 4 4

Not in labor force 20 29 27

Officers

q in Armed Forcesa 6% 2% 3%

Civilian--full time 61 41 44

Civilian--part time 14 21 20

Civilian--self-employed 4 6 6

Civilian--unemployed 2 1 1

Not in labor force 13 29 26

Source: 1986 RC Member Survey, Supplementary Tabulations 7.5a, 7.5b, 7.6a and 7.6b.

aIncludes spouses In the Armed Forces full time and spouses with no civilian job who were

part-tIme Guard/Reserve members.

All ccaponents of all services (including the Active Coast Guard and Coast

Guard Reserve) were listed under each "Yes" response as indicated above;

respondents were instructed to mark all that applied. Tables 7.3 and 7.4

summarize the responses showing whether spouses are

* Currently serving in the Guard/Reserve

a Currently on active duty 0 Retired or separated fran the military, or

• Never served in the military.

About five percent of all enlisted members' spouses had military ex0 perience (Table 7.3). Most of these spouses (3 percent) were currently

serving in the Guard/Reserve. One percent were currently on active duty, and one percent wre retired or separated fron the military. Table 7.3

also shows that members' wives differed greatly in their military experi7-4
Table 7.3 Military/CivilIan Status of Spouse by Gender: Enlisted

Personnel

Reserve Comoonent Total

Military/Civilian Total Selected

Status of Spouse ARNG USAR USNR USMCR ANG USAFR DoD USCGR Reserve

Member's Wife

In Guard/Reservea 1% 2% 2% 1% 1% 3% 2% 2% 2%

On active duty b b b 1 b 1 b b b

Retired/Separated

from military b b b b b b b b b

Never served 98 97 98 98 98 96 98 98 98

Member's Husband

In Guard/Reservea 36 29 33 c 46 29 33 c 33

On active duty 10 19 43 c 18 35 25 c 25

Retired/Separated

from military 5 7 6 c 7 5 6 0 6

Never served 49 45 18 c 29 31 36 c 36

Total

In Guard/Reservea 2 4 4 2 4 8 3 4 3

On active duty b 2 3 2 1 5 1 2 1

Retired/Separated

from military b 1 1 b I 1 I b I

Never served 97 93 92 96 94 89 95 93 95

Source: 1986 RC Member Survey, Supplementary Tabulations 7.7.

alncludes spouses reported as "now serving" In the Guard/Reserve, regardless of spouse

civilian employment status. For that reason, percentages "In Guard/Reserve" and

percentages "On Active Duty* may not sum to corresponding percentages "In Armed Forces"

in Tables 7.1 and 7.2.

bLess than 0.5 percent.

,cToo few cases for reliable estimates.

b

7-5

om 0 DA 
once from mmbers'I husbands. Two percent of wives were currently

Guard/Reserve mmbers while less than 0.5 percent were serving on active

duty or retired/separated; 98 percent of wives had no military experience.

One-third of husbands, on the other hand, were currently serving in the

Guard/Reserve, 25 percent were on active duty, and six percent had retired

or saparated from the military. Nearly two-thirds of husbands, then, had

military experience.

The percentages of wives with military experiamce are too iall for

differences among components to be clear. There were som clear differences rng individual omonents in the military experience of husbands.

The husbands of enlisted mmbers of the Naval Reserve were most likely to

have military experience (82 percent). Most of these husbands were on

active duty (43 percent), while most of the rest were in the Guard/RAserve

(33 percent). Approximately 70 percent of husband of enlisted mebers of

the Air National Guard and Air Force Reerve had military experience. most

of the Air National Guard husbands ware in the Guard/Reserve (46 percent).

mot of the Air Force Reserve husbands with military experience were on

active duty (35 percent). Apprcoximately half of husbands of enlisted members of the Army National Guard and Army Reserve had military experience.

mst of these husbands were in the Guard/Reserve (36 percent for the Army

National Guard and 29 percent for the Army Reserve).

The results for part-time officers in units were similar (Table 7.4).

Overall, about seven percent of spouses had military experience-nearly 60

percent of husbands cmpared to three percent of wives. The Naval Reserve

and the Air Force Reserve were most likely to have officers whose husbands

had military experience (72 percent and 73 percent, respectively). These

husbands were mre likely than the husbands of mmbers in other ccmponents

to be on active duty (45 percent and 44 percent, respectively). Almost

two-thirds of married female officers in the Army National Guard and Air

National Guard and half of those in the Army Reserve had husbands with

military experience. Most of these husbands were currently in the Guard/

Reserve (43 percent for Army National Guard husbands, 45 percent for Air

National Guard, and 33 percent for Army Reserve).

- C. Family Problems from and Spouse Satisfaction with Member Participation

1. Family Problems frum Member's Guard/Reserve Participation

Absence frmu home to fulfill Guard/Reserve obligations is a potential source of conflict within the family. Married members were asked how

much of a problem their absences for weekend drills, annual training, and

extra time spent at Guard/Reserve were for their families.

I

7-6

V% %
Table 7.4 Military/Clvliian Status of Spouse by Gender: Officers

Reserve Comoonent Total

Military/Civilian Total Selected

Status of Spouse ARNG USAR USNR USMCR ANG USAFR DoD USCGR Reserve

Member's Wife

In Guard/Reservea 2% 2% 2% 2% 4% 3% 2% 3% 2%

On active duty b b 1 b 1 b 1 1 1

Retired/Separated

from military b b b b b b b b b

Never served 98 97 97 98 96 96 97 97 97

Member's Husband

In Guard/Reservea 43 33 23 c 45 25 32 c 32

On active duty 13 14 45 c 12 44 23 c 23

Retired/Separated

from military 7 3 4 c 8 4 4 c 4

Never served 37 50 28 c 35 27 41 c 41

Total

In Guard/Reservea 3 5 3 2 5 5 4 3 4

On active duty 1 1 3 1 1 5 2 2 2

Retired/Separated

from military b 1 b b b 1 1 b 1

Never served 96 93 93 97 93 89 94 94 94

5 Source: 1986 RC Member Survey, Supplementary Tabulations 7.8.

aIncludes spouses reported as "now serving" In the Guard/Reserve, regardless of spouse

civilian employment status. For that reascn, percentages "in Guard/Reserve" and percentages

"On Active Duty" may not sum to corresponding percentages "in Armed Forces" In Tables 7.1 and

7.2.

bLe ss than 0.5 percent. *4

CToo few cases for reliable estimates.

*. 7-7

. . - Xv, A e
,%0

For each of these three aspects, members were askEs to choose one of the

following categories:

• Serious Problem

* Stomewhat of a Problem

Slight Problem

Not a Problem

* Does Not Apply

* Don't Know.

The responses to these questions are summarized in Figure 7.1 for

enlisted personnel and officers. The grah shows the percentages of

Figure 7.1 Family Problems from Member's

Guard/Reserve Participation by Household Composition.

80

70 - Enlisted Personnel Officers

60

ca C: 50 \\

(D 40 -

)

o.. 30 -

r:1') 20

10

S0

Weekend Annual Extra Time Weekend Annual Extra Time Drills Trainir.g at Guard/ Drills Training at Guard/

'- Reserve Reserve

* ' No problem/ Somewhat/

,, Does not apply Serious problem

Source: 1986 RC Mmber Survey, Supplementary Tabulations 7.9a-79c.

Note: Only married reservists are included.

7-8

"" V N V % %
" - naried part-tine enlisted personnel and officers who responded "Not a

Problem" or "Does Not Apply" for each of the three aspects of Guard/Reserve

participation, and the percentages who responded "Scme4wt of a Prcblem" or

"Serious Problem." Married enlisted personnel regarded annual trainnLg as

the greatest problem for their families and weekend drills as the least

problem. Forty-eight percent said that annual training was not a problem

or not applicable to them (ccarared to 55 percent for extra tine at Guard/

Reserve and 59 percent for weekend drills). Twenty-five percent said

annual training was sarewhat of a problem or a serious problem (compared to S20 percent for extra time at Guard/Reserve and 15 percent for weekend

drills).

N% Married part-time officers in units were mre likely than enlisted

personnel to respond that each aspect of Guard/Reserve participation caused

problemns for their families. The officers were as likely to say annual

training and extra tine at Guard/Reserve were problems as to say they were

not. Thirty-nine percent said weekend drills were not a problem for their

families (26 percent said they were), 33 percent said annual training was

not a problem (33 percent said it was), and 34 percent said extra tine at

Guard/Reserve was not a problem (35 percent said it was).

Tables 7.5 and 7.6 show that there was little difference among individuql cczponents in the family problem ratings. Enlisted Marine Corps reservists were consistently samewhat more likely than those in other cmponents to regard all three aspects of their participation as causing prob- lems for their families (Table 7.5). One-third said annual training was a

problem (and only 38 percent said it was not), 26 percent said extra tine

was a problem (49 percent said it was not), and 21 percent said weekend drills were a problem (51 percent said it was not). Those in the Air

National Guard were sarewht less likely than those in other components to regard extra tIne at Guard/Reserve as a problem for their families (only 15

percent did), and nore likely to say it was not (62 percent). Otherwisf

married enlisted personnel in the individual conponents gave similar re-

*sponses.

Fewer than half of the officers in every carponent responded that any of the three aspects was not a problem or not applicable, while one-fifth

to more than two-fifths said that one or another was a problem (Table 7.6). Air Force Reserve officers were sarewhat more likely than those in other

ccponents to say that all three aspects caused problem for their families

and were less likely to 6ay tUiey did not. Forty-one percent said annual

training was a problem (24 percent said it was not), 43 percent said extra

tine was a problem (26 percent said it was not), arid 37 percent said weekend drills were a problem (27 percent said they were not). Army National

Guard mrbers were disproportionately bothered by extra tine at Guard/

Reserve; 40 percent said it was a problem for their families while 27 percent said it was not. Coast Guard Reserve officers were scmewhat less

likely than those in other camponents to regard annual training as a problem for their families (only 27 percent said it was), and more likely to

say it was not (39 percent). Naval Reserve officers were less likely to

say extra tine at Guard/Reserve was a problem (only 29 percent said it was) * and more likely to say it was not (43 percent). Otherwise the individual

coiponents were similar in their responses.

7-9

-I
Table 7.5 Family Problems from Member's Guard/Reserve Participation:

Enlisted Personnel

Reserve Comoonent Total

Total Selected

Family Problems ARNO USAR USNR USMCR ANG USAFR DoD USCGR Reserve

No Problem/Does Not Apply for:

Weekend drills 59% 61% 57% 51% 61% 58% 59% 61% 59%

Annual training 49 49 44 38 48 49 48 48 48

Extra time at Guard/

Reserve 54 53 59 49 62 58 55 55 55

Somewhat/Serious Problem for:

Weekend drills 15 14 16 21 13 15 15 13 15

Annual training 28 25 28 33 21 22 25 22 25

Extra time at Guard/

Reserve 22 22 18 26 15 18 20 18 20

Source: 1986 RC Member Survey, Supplementary Tabulations 7.9a-7.9c.

Note: Only married enlisted personnel are Included In the table.

Table 7.6 Family Problems from Member's Guard/Reserve Participation:

Officers

Reserve Comoonent Total

PAMTotal Selected

Family Problems ARNO USAR USNR USMCR ANG USAFR DoD USCGR Reserve

No Problem/Does Not Apply for:

Weekend drills 40% 44% 35% 41% 37% 27 39% 43% 39%

Annual training 34 35 31 34 35 24 33 39 33

Extra time at Guard/ 27 34 43 35 36 26 34 33 34

o* Reserve

Somewhat/SerIous Problem for:

Weekend drills 23 25 28 22 25 37 26 20 26

Annual training 33 34 33 29 30 41 33 27 33

Extra time at Guard/ 40 35 29 33 31 43 35 31 35

* Reserve

Source: 1986 RC Member Survey, Supplementary Tabulations 7.10a-7.10c.

*" Note: Only married officers are Included in the table.

7-10

B.'
Tables 7.7 and 7. 8 present sare data on whether the meatbr's Guard/

Reserve participation caused family problems. Data for married enlisted

personnel and officers are presented for those with and without dependents.

The differences for enlisted personnel are small. Those with dependents

were no more likely than those with no dependents to say any of the three

aspects of Guard/Reserve participation was a problem for their families

(Table 7.7). They were loe likely, however, to say that they were not.

Fifty-eight percent of those with dependents said weekend drills were not a

problem (compared to 63 percent of those without), 47 percent of those with

dependents said annual training was not a problem (cxmpared to 53 percent

of those without), and 54 percent of those with dependents said extra time

was not a problem (carpared to 60 percent of those without).

Married officers with dependents were more likely than those without

dependents to regard all three aspects of Guard/Reserve participation as a

Table 7.7 Family Problems from Member's Guard/Reserve Participation by

Household Composition: Enlisted Personnel

Household Composition Total

Spouse, No Spouse, With Selected

FamIly Problems Dependents Dependents Reserve

No Problem/Does Not Apply for:

Weekend drills 63% 58% 59%

Annual training 53 47 48

Fytra time at Guard/Reserve 60 54 55

. Sc at/Serious Problem for:

Weekena drills 14 15 15

Annual training 23 25 25

Extra time at Guard/Reserve 19 21 20

Source: 1986 RC Member Survey, Supplementary Tabulations 7.9a-7.9c.

Note: Only married enlisted personnel are Included In the table.

7-ii

4

........ : ~ % V. ~ **~~'. * ''4 ~ .J-,'*~w ~ -
I

Table 7.8 Family Problems from Member's Guard/Reserve Participation by

Household Composition: Officers

Household CmonaItaIn Total

Spouse, No Spouse, With Selected

Family Problems Dependents Dependents Reserve

No Problem/Does Not Apply for:

Weekend drIlls 49% 37% 39%

Annual training 45 31 33

Extra time at Guard/Reserve 43 32 34

Somewhat/Serious Problem for:

Weekend drills 19 27 26

Annual training 24 35 33

Extra time at Guard/Reserve 30 36 35

Source: 1986 RC Member Survey, Supplementary Tabulations 7.9a-7.9c.

Note: Only married officers are Included In the table.

problem for their families and less likely to say that they were not (Table

7.8). The largest differences between the two groups were for annual

training. Thirty-one percent of those with dependents said there was no

problem for their families fram annual training (compared to 45 percent of

those without), while 35 percent of those with dependents said there was a

problem (cTared to 24 percent of those without). Similarly, 32 percent

of those with dependents said extra time at Guard/Reserve was not a problem

(ccnpared to 43 percent of those without), while 36 percent of those with

dependents said this was a problem (conpared to 30 percent of those without). Finally, 37 percent of married officers with dependents said weekend

drills were not a problem for their families (compared to 49 percent of

those without dependents), while 27 percent of those with dependents said

they were a problem (capared to 19 percent of those without dependents).

2. Spouse Satisfaction with Meber Participation

Spouses' overall satisfaction with niwer participation is another

indicator of conflict (or its lack) brought about by the caupeting demands

*i of Guard/Reserve participation and family life. Overall spouse satisfaction is assumed to influence attrition and retention in the active-duty

force; it is reasonable to expect it to influence Guard/Reserve attrition

and retention as well. The partial analysis permitted by limited data fran

prior studies for the Guard/Reserve suggests that family conflicts could

account for up to 30 percent of progranUd enlisted attrition.

7-12

,~./ Wk' -.-- h~a -, .* N 
Hu&bers 'are askced:

WAhat is your spouse's overall attitude toward your participation

in the QGard/Raearve? Mark one.

* Very favorable

* Sanewhat favorable

N either favorable nor unfavorable

* Saiuwhat unfavorable

* very unfavorable.

Table 7.9 suinnaizes the responses of part-tii enlisted personnel and

officers in units. it shows the proportions of each goup who said that

the attitudes of their spouses were very or scmewhat favorable and the

proportions, very or scamwbat unfavorable.

Table 7.9 Spouse's Attitude Toward Member's Participation: Enlisted

Personnel and Officers

Reserve Comnanhnt Total

Total Selected

Spouse's Attitude ARNG USAR USNR USECR ANG USAFR DoD USCGR Reserve

Enlisted Personnel

Very/somewhat

favorable 721 731 751 641 781 791 74% 78% 74%

Very/somewhat

unfavorable 14 13 12 20 9 10 13 9 13

Officers

Very/somewhat

favorable 71 78 82 80 81 75 78 83 78

Very/somewhat

unfavorable 12 14 9 12 9 14 12 8 12

Source: 1988 RC Member Survey, Supplementary Tabulations. 9.9 and 9.10.

7-13
Approximately three-fourths of both enlisted personnel and officers

said their spouses had favorable attitudes toward their Guard/Reserve participation. Only 13 percent of enlisted personnel and 12 percent of officers reported that their spouse's attitude was unfavorable. There was

little difference among the individual ccmponents. Enlisted personnel in

the Marine Corps Reserve reported more negative spouse attitudes than those

in other caponents; 64 percent said their spouse's attitude toward their

participation in Guard/Reserve was favorable, and 20 percent said it was

unfavorable. Otherwise differences among the individual components were

small.

Figure 7.2 presents these data by meuber's pay grade for enlisted personnel and officers. Enlisted personnel in higher pay grades clearly reported more favorable spouse attitudes than those in lower pay grades.

Indeed, there was a progressive increase in the proportion reporting favorable spouse attitudes as pay grade rose--fram 66 percent of enlisted personnel in pay grades E1-E3 to 79 percent of those in pay grades E7-E9.

There was a concomitant decrease in the proportions reporting unfavorable

spouse attitudes--from 20 percent of those in pay grades El-E3 to 10 percent of those in pay grades E7-E9.

The pattern for officers was similar. The proportions of ciumissioned officers reporting unfavorable spouse attitudes decreased somewhat as pay

grade rose--frcm 13 percent of those in pay grades 01-02 to 8 percent of

those in pay grades 06 and higher. There was a more substantial increase

in proportions reporting favorable spouse attitudes, fram about 75 percent

of those in pay grades 03 and under to 80 percent of those in pay grades 04

and 05 to 86 percent of those in pay grades 06 and higher.

There are certainly several reasons why the spouses of mnbers have

different attitudes toward members' Guard/Reserve participation. One of

these may be the problems participation causes in the household, as discussed above. The companion volume to this report analyzes the spouses'

own reports. Whether members accurately report the attitudes of their

spouses is not, however, as inportant as the fact that junior part-time

unit members are more likely to perceive negative attitudes. Members whose

spouses are less supportive are assumed to be more likely to leave the

Guard/Reserve. Efforts should be made to understand spouses' negative

attitudes and to develop programs to modify them. Further analysis of the

present data set is a start in that direction.

* D. Member's Feelinqs About Time Spent on Military and Civilian Activities

Members were asked a series of questions regarding how they felt about

the amount of time they spent on five military and civilian activities:

"Your civilian job," "Family activities," "Leisure activities," "Guard/

Reserve activities," and "COmunity activities." For each activity they

were asked to choose one of the following responses:

7

,' 7-14

I

:&
d

Figure 7.2 Spouses Attitude Toward Member's Participation by Pay Grade.

Enlisted Personnel Officers

100 ME El- E.3 C W1 -W4

- in90 E4 01- 02

E E5 E 03

S70- E6 I-104-05

~60

EM E7 -E9 M06+ C 50

a. 40

30

20

10

0

Very/Somewhat Very/Somewhat Very/Somewhat Very/Somewhat

Favorable Unfavorable Favorable Unfavorable

Source: 1986 RC Member Survey, Supplementary Tabulations 9.9 and 9.10.

*, I spend too much time

* I spend about the right amount of time

O I don't spend enough time

* Does not apply.

Figure 7.3 presents the responses of part-time enlisted unit members.

Substantial majorities of these enlisted personnel, as a group, felt they

spent about the right amount of time (or said the activity did not apply to

*- them) on their civilian jobs (76 percent) and their Guard/Reserve

activities (81 percent). Small but notable proportions felt they spent too

nuch time on these activities: 17 percent on their civilian jobs and 10

percent on their Guard/Reserve activities. Fifty-one percent said they

spent about the right amount of time (or did not apply) on community

activities; hoever, almost as many (47 percent) felt they did not spend

enough tim on this. Identical percentages said they did not spend enough

time on family activities and leisure activities (59 percent each).

Substantial proportions, however, felt they spent about the right amount of

time on both; 40 percent responded about right (or did not apply) for

family activities, and 37 percent responded this way for leisure

activities.

7-15

-. , . .. . . . . . %
Figure 7.3 Use of Time on Selected Activities: Enlisted Personnel.

90

80

70

60

50

40

30

20

10

0

Too Much Right Amount Not Enough

E Civilian job

m Family activities muG/R activities

i Leisure ~ Leiure ctiviies Community activities activities

Source: 1986 RC Member Survey, Supplementary Tabulations 7.11a-7.11e.

Figure 7.4 presents the responses of part-tine officers. The overall

pattern of responses is similar to that for enlisted personnel.

Substantial majorities felt they spent about the right amount of time on

their Guard/Reserve activities and their civilian jobs (each 69 percent).

more officers than enlisted personnel, however, felt they spent too much

time on Guard/Reserve activities (23 percent) and on their civilian jobs

(26 percent). More than two-fifths felt they spent about the right amount

of time on ccuminity activities (43 percent); but about half said they did

not spend enough time on these activities (53 percent). Majorities, again,

said they did not spend enough time on family activities (70 percent) or

leisure activities (73 percent). Notable proportions (but smaller ones

than for enlisted personnel) said they spent about the right amount of time

on these activities--30 percent for family activities and 26 percent for

*, leisure activities.

There was little variation among the individual cmponents in these

responses, for the most part. Enlisted personnel in the Naval Reserve, the

two Air Force cumponents, and the Coast Guard Reserve were soIewhat more

likely (at 63 to 65 percent) than others (55 to 59 percent) to say they did

not spend enough time on leisure activities (Table 7.10). Enlisted Marine

Corps reservists were most likely (14 percent) to say they spent too much

7-16
IQ

Figure 7.4 Use of Time on Selected Activities: Officers.

90

80 -

70 -

z060 -

S50 -

40 -

20

100 * 1

Too Much Right Amount Not Enough

I flI Civilian job ED G/R activities

* *] Family activities * Community activities

SLeisure activities

Source: 1986 RC Member Survey, Supplementary Tabulations 7.12a-7.12e. j i*Less than 0.5 percent.

t~ime on Guard/Reserve activities. Those in the Air Force components and Coast Guard Reserve were least likely (5 to 7 percent) to say this.

-= • Among officers, Air Force reservists were most likely (78 percent) to

say they did not spend enough time on leisure activities, and most likely

(27 percent) to say they spent too much time on Guard/Reserve activities

(Table 7.11). Officers in the Army cctponents were also more likely than

average (at 25 to 26 percent) to say they spent too nuch time on

*" Guard/Reserve activities. There was little difference among ccmponents in

feelings about time spent for other types of activities.

Table 7.12 shows the data on enlisted nmbers' feelings about their

activities for household ocuposition and pay grade groups. There were few

differences among these groups. Most enlisted personnel felt they spent

about the right anount of tine on their Guard/Reserve activities, civilian

jobs, and cctmiunty activities. In particular, the proportion saying they

felt they spent too nuch time on Guard/Reserve activities did not differ

significantly by household composition or pay grade. Married meibers with

dependents were more likely (at 20 percent) than umarried nebers with no

dependents (at 14 percent) to say they spent too much time on their

I
Table 7.10 Member's Feelings About Time Spent on Military and Civilian

Activities: Enlisted Personnel

Reserve Component Total

Member's Feelings Total Selected

About Time Spent ARNG USAR USNR USMCR ANG USAFR DoD USCGR Reserve

Member's Civilian Job

Too much time spent 18% 17% 21% 18% 20% 18% 17 22% 17%

About right/not app. 78 76 73 74 75 77 76 75 76

Not enough time spent 7 7 6 8 5 4 7 4 7

Family Activities

Too much time spent 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 a 1

About right/not app. 40 41 39 39 37 39 40 41 40

Not enough tine spent 58 57 61 80 63 61 59 59 59

* Leisure Activities

Too much time spent 4 4 3 5 3 2 4 1 4

About right/not app. 40 38 34 39 33 33 37 34 37

Not enough time spent 56 59 63 55 64 65 59 65 59

Guard/Reserve Activities

' Too much time spent 11 10 9 14 5 7 10 8 10

About right/not app. 80 80 85 78 86 84 81 85 81

Not enough time spent 9 10 7 8 9 9 9 9 9

Community Activities

Too much time spent 3 2 3 2 3 2 2 3 2

About right/not app. 53 50 47 51 48 46 51 50 51

Not enough time spent 45 48 50 47 49 51 47 47 47

0

Source: 1988 RC Member Survey, Supplementary Tabulations 7.11a-7.11e.

aLese than 0.5 percent.

,b

7-18

0

rrI

ySo
Table 7.11 Member's Feelings About Time Spent on Military and Civilian

Activities: Officers

Reserve Component Total

Member's Feelings Total Selected

About Time Spent ARNG USAR USNR USMCR ANG USAFR DoD USCGR Reserve

Member's Civilian Job

Too much time spent 22% 26% 28% 26% 28% 27% 25 29% 26%

About right/not app. 72 68 67 68 67 68 69 68 69

Not enough time spent 6 6 5 6 5 5 5 3 5

Family Activities

Too much time spent a a a a a a a a a

About right/not app. 27 30 33 32 30 28 30 28 30

Not enough time spent 72 70 67 68 69 72 70 72 70

Leisure Activities

Too much time spent 1 1 1 1 1 a 1 2 1

About right/not app. 27 26 28 30 27 22 26 25 26

Not enough time spent 72 73 71 69 72 78 73 73 73

j Guard/Reserve Activities

Too much time spent 26 25 18 18 18 27 23 22 23

About right/not app. 66 68 77 72 73 85 69 72 89

Not enough time spent 9 7 5 11 9 8 7 6 7

p Community Activities

Too much time spent 3 3 5 3 4 2 3 6 3

About right/not app. 45 44 43 49 40 38 43 44 43

Not enough time spent 52 53 52 48 56 59 53 50 53

Source: 1986 RC Member Survey, Supplementary Tabulations 7.12a - 7.12e.

aLess than 0.5 percent.

7-19
Table 7.12 Member's Feelings About Tine Spent on Military and Civilian

Activities by Household Ccniposition and Pay Grade: Enlisted

Personnel

Household Composition

Unmarried Married Total

Member' s Feelings No With No With Pay Grade Selected

About Time Spent deps. deps. deps. deps. EI-E4 E5-E9 Reserve

Mrber's Civilian Job

Too n uch time spent 14% 17% 17% 20% 15% 20% 17%

About right/Not app. 76 77 77 75 76 75 76

Not enough time spent 10 7 6 5 9 5 7

Family Activities

Ibo much time spent 1 2 1 1 2 1 1

About right/Not app. 51 41 41 31 44 35 40

Not enough time spent 48 57 58 68 54 64 59

Leisure Activities

Too much time spent 6 4 3 2 6 2 4

About right/Not app. 46 40 36 31 42 33 37

Not enough time spent 48 56 61 67 52 65 59

Guard/Reserve Activities

Too much time spent 9 8 11 10 9 10 10

About right/Not app. 81 82 82 82 80 82 81

Not enough time spent 10 11 8 8 10 8 9

Ccmunity Activities

Too much time spent 2 2 2 3 2 3 2

About right/Not app. 53 50 51 49 53 49 51

Not enough time spent 46 48 47 48 45 49 47

Source: 1986 RC Menber Survey, Supplementary Tabulations 7.11a - 7.11e.

7-20

w- * -

€I
civilian jobs; however, this difference is sall, and the proportion saying

they spent about the right amount did not differ by household caiposition

or pay grade in any case.

The proportions saying they did not spend enough time on family activities or leisure activities did vary across household composition groups and

across pay grade groups for enlisted personnel. Married menters with children were nuch more likely to feel this way about family activities (68

percent) than married mnsbers without dependents (58 percent), unmarried

members with dependents (57 percent), and unmarried members with no dependents (48 percent). At the same time the proportion saying they spent

about the right amount of time increased from 31 percent for married menbers with dependents to 51 percent for unmarried members with no dependents. The pattern for leisure activities was very similar. Pay grade

also made a difference (probably because it is related to age and household

composition). For both activities, about half the members in the lower

grades felt they did not spend enough tine on family or leisure activities

(and about two-fifths felt it was about right), while aLmst two-thirds in

the higher pay grades felt they did not spend enough time (and about ine

third thought it was about right).

Table 7.13 shows comparable data for officers. The results are very

similar.

E. S

This chapter dealt with the families and ccmmunity life of part-time

unit members. In addition to spouse eaployment and military experience,

menbers' perceptions of how their reserve activities affect their families,

and members' feelings about the amount of time they spend on various family

and cczuunity activities were discussed. The major findings in this chapter include:

Almost half of spouses of enlisted personnel (48 percent) and

officers (44 percent) were employed full-time in the civilian

sector. An additional 16 percent of spouses of enlisted personnel

and 20 percent of officers' spouses were employed part-time.

* The spouses of enlisted personnel who had dependents were less

likely to have full-time civilian jobs than spouses of those without dependents (45 percent and 58 percent, respectively). The

same pattern was seen for officers (41 percent of spouses of those

with dependents and 61 percent of spouses of those without dependents).

" Officers tended to rate Guard/Reserve activities as more of a

problem than did enlisted per. rnel. Married reservists regarded

annual training as the greateb. problem for their families.

One-quarter of enlisted personnel replied that this was somewhat

of a problem or a serious problem. One-third of officers said

this was a problem.

7-21

'ZV : . .' s . -.. ''. *. ~ *** * * * q . V. w *"
Table 7.13 Member's Feelings About Time Spent on Military and Civilian

Activities by Household Canposition and Pay Grade: Officers

Household Conposition Unmarried Married Total

Member' s Feelings No With No With Pay Grade Selected

About Time Spent deps. deps. deps. deps. WI-W4 01-03 04+ Reserve

Member's Civilian Job

Too nmuch time spent 21% 23% 23% 28% 25% 23% 28% 26%

About right/Not app. 73 71 72 67 72 71 66 69

Not enough time spent 7 6 5 5 3 5 6 5

Family Activities

Toon uch time spent a a a a a a a a

About right/Not app. 53 32 34 22 27 33 26 30

Not enough time spent 47 68 66 78 73 67 74 70

0

1 1 Leisure Activities

Toon uch time spent 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

About right/Not app. 38 29 28 22 24 29 23 26

Not enough time spent 60 69 71 77 75 69 76 73

Guard/Reserve Activities %"

Too much time spent 17 19 23 25 24 21 21 23

About right/Not app. 71 73 71 69 70 70 76 69

Not enough time spent 11 8 6 6 6 10 3 7

Cunity Activities

. Too rich time spent 2 2 3 4 3 3 5 3

About right/Not app. 44 41 44 44 46 42 44 43

Not enough time spent 55 57 53 52 51 55 51 53

Source: 1986 RC Member Survey, Supplementary Tabulations 7.12a-7.12e.

aLess than 0.5 percent.

7-22

S.. ... w...,. . ... ,
* Approximately 75 percent of both enlisted personnel and officers

indicated that their spouses were favorable toward their

Guard/Reserve participation. This favorable attitude toward

participation increased as pay grade rose.

Substantial majorities of enlisted personnel and officers felt

that they spent the right anunt of time on both their civilian

jobs and on Guard/Reserve activities. Over 76 percent of the

enlisted personnel and 69 percent of the officers felt this way

about their civilian jobs as did 81 percent and 69 percent,

.,' respectively, about their Guard/Reserve time.

Both enlisted personnel and officers felt that they did not spend

enough time on family activities (59 and 70 percent), leisure

activities (59 and 73 percent), or comunity activities (47 and 53

percent).

°i.

U

7-23

'

'W0L *0 &
ENYIE5

1Description of Spouses of Officers and Enlisted Personnel in the U.S.

Selected Reserve: 1986. A Report Based on the 1986 Reserve Ccaponents

Survey of Spouses.

0

'p'

7-24

0%O,

'p p pV
8. REASCN FOR PARTICIPATION AND PLANS TO CXCTINUE

A. Introduction

The issues of retention and career plans for members of National

Guard and Reserve units have become increasingly important as more

emphasis is placed on the reserves' role as a vital part of the U.S.

Total Force. The need to retain trained and experienced personnel in the

Selected Reserve is a significant factor in all considerations of

Guard/Reserve policy. This chapter is intended to contribute to a better

understanding of the motivations and plans of Selected Reserve members

and explores the reasons given by reservists for staying in the reserves,

their levels of satisfaction with several retention-related itews, their

plans for the next year in the reserves and, finally, their long-range

intention regarding Guard/Reserve participation.

B. Reasons Stayed in the Reserves

Understanding the motivations for participation and continuation in

the reserve caponents is an iqportant element in developing and

evaluating manpower and personnel policies for the reserves. In this

section we will examine the reasons Selected Reserve members gave for

continuing and highlight the results in several ways.

Survey respondents were asked to respond to each of 14 reasons for

staying in the Guard/Reserve. Four possible responses were offered for

each:

* major contribution

* moderate contribution

* minor contribution

* no contribution.

Our analysis of these data is based upon the percentage of enlisted

personnel and officers in each caponent who chose each of the four

options for the 14 items. These data are presented in ccRplete detail in

the supplementary tabulations volume of this report. 1 Table 8.1

summarizes these data into two major categories, intangible reasons and

financial reasons, and shows the percentages of enlisted personnel and

officers who indicated that each item was a major reason for their

staying in the Selected Reserves. Data presented in this table are for

the total Selected Reserve; the seven individual components did not

differ significantly from this average except where so noted in the text

that follows.

The highest number of major contribution responses for the question

about reasons for staying in the reserves were the intangible items

"Serve country", "Just enjoy Guard/Reserve", and "Pride in own

accomplishments". Enlisted personnel gave the highest number of major

8-1

J%
Table 8.1 Percentage Indicating That a Reason Made a Major Contribution

to Staying In the Guard/Reserves

4

Total Selected Reserve

4 Reasons for Staying Enlisted Officers

intangible Reasons

Serve country 55% 59%

Serve with people In unit 33 32

Use military equipment 19 12

Challenge of training 32 24

Travel, get away 28 20

Just enjoy Guard/Reserve 33 40

Pride In own accomplishments 47 51

Financial Reasons

Use educational benefits 20 7

Training for civilian job 19 6

Credit towards retirement 50 62

Promotion opportunitIes 31 33

Need money for basic family expenses 34 23

Extra money to use now 35 25

Save money for future 22 20

Source: 1986 RC Member Survey, Supplementary Tabulations, 8.1 a-n and 8.2 a-n.

contribution responses to serving their country; 55 percent picked this

reason as a major contributor to their decision. Patriotism as a factor

was most important to the Marine Corps Reserve; over 61 percent of

enlisted personnel indicated that serving their country weighed heavily in their decision. Fifty-nine percent of all officers said that serving their country contributed heavily to their decision to stay in the

reserves, second only to obtaining credit toward retirement. As with the

enlisted personnel, the Marine Corps officers were the largst group saying serving their country was a major reason for staying in the

reserves; over 75 percent of them indicated that this was a major contributor.

Just enjoying the Guard/Reserve was another intangible factor in many of the reservists' decisions to stay in the reserves. Thirty-three percent of the enlisted personnel and 40 percent of the officers offered 4, enjoying the Guard/Reserve as a major contributor. Officers in the

8-2
Mprine Corps Reserve were, again, the largest group with this opinion

(over 59 percent). On the other hand, only 24 percent of the Marine

Corps Reserve enlisted personnel chose this factor as a major contributor

to their decision, 9 percent lower than the reserve caponent average for

enlisted personnel.

A majority of the reserve officers responded that "pride in my acccnplishments" made a major contribution to their decision to stay in

the Guard/Reserve. Again, the Marine Corps Reserve officers were the phighest, with 67 percent mentioning that pride was a major factor.

Forty-seven percent of the enlisted personnel said pride in their

acccaplishments was important in their decision to stay in the reserves.

The enlisted personnel in all the caq~onents ware closely clustered

around this average.

Financial considerations also appear to be inportant in the decision

to stay in the reserves. Enlisted personnel were more likely to say financial factors were major contributors than were officers. Too,

enlisted personnel seemed to emphasize present rather than future

financial needs. Needing money for family expenses or wanting extra

money to use now, in other words, appeared to be more significant factors

than saving money for the future.

Thirty-four percent of the enlisted personnel said needing money for

family expenses was a major consideration in their decision to stay in

the reserves; 23 percent of the officers said this. For enlisted

I personnel, the ccmponents ranged from the Marine Corps Reserve at 19

percent to the Army National Guard at 38 percent. For officers, the

range was both lower and narrower; the Marine Corps Reserve and the Coast

Guard Reserve were each 16 percent, and the Army Reserve was the highest

at 25 percent.

The contrast between wanting money to use now versus saving for the

future is quite evident. Thirty-five percent of the enlisted personnel

indicated that having extra money to use now was a major factor, while

only 22 percent indicated that saving money for the future was a major factor. Only 21 percent of the Marine Corps Reserve enlisted personnel

said that extra money now was a major contributor to staying in the

Guard/Reserve. Thirteen percent of this group indicated that money for

the future was a factor. Marine Corps was above average in the affectrelated considerations noted above.

The exception to this focus on current income is the high proportions of both enlisted personnel and officers who offered earning credit toward

retirement as a major contributor to their career decisions. Fifty

percent of the enlisted personnel and over 62 percent of the officers

rated retirement as a major contributor. Retirement was the highest

single category response for officers and the second highest for enlisted

personnel. The response for Coast Guard Reserve officers was even

higher, with 74 percent replying that retirement credits ware a major

factor.

8-3

le
On only four of the 14 itemw were there significant differences

between items identified as major contributors by enlisted personnel and

officers (in this case, differences of more than 10 percent). These four

were use of educational benefits, training for civilian job, credit towards retiruent, and needing money for family expenses.

Enlisted peraonnel were almost three times as likely to offer the use

of educational benefits as a major contributor to their staying in the

Guard/Reserve. Over 20 percent of the enlisted msrbers responded that

this was & major reason for their staying; the corresponding figure for

the officers was only seven percent. All of the reserve ccuponents clustared around these averages except for enlisted personnel in the Coast

Guard Reserve (10 percent), and officers in the Army National Guard (13

percent). Officers are only eligible for educational benefits if they do

not have a bachelor's degree.

Enlisted personnel and officers also differed in the importance they

attached to obtaining training in a skill that would help them get a

civilian job. Nineteen percent of the enlisted personnel felt that this

contributed heavily to their decision to stay in the Guard/Reserve, while

only six percent of the officers felt that way. The only significant

variation from these total Selected Reserve averages was for enlisted

personnel in the Coast Guard Reserve where only nine percent indicated

that training for a civilian job was a major contributor to staying in

the reserves. This finding is consistent with the data in Chapter 6 that

showed enlisted personnel are concentrated in occupations that are lower

paying and less professional than the occupations of officers. The much

older enlisted force in the Coast Guard Reserve may account for the fact

that training for a civilian job was less important for enlisted maners

in that component.

We noted earlier that earning credit towards Guard/Reserve retirement

was a very important reason for staying in the reserves for both enlisted

personnel (50 percent) and officers (62 percent). Only 22 percent of the

enlisted Marine Corps reservists said retiremnt credit was a major

reason for staying. In contrast, over 60 percent of the enlisted Coast

Guard reservists felt that retirement credit had a major influence on

their decision. The DoD officer patterns did not differ significantly

from the average; the Coast Guard Reserve figure, however, was 12 percent

higher than the total of 62 percent. These differences appear to result

fran the relative youth of enlisted Marine Corps reservists and the relatively advanced age of both the enlisted personnel and officers in the

Coast Guard Reserve. As noted below, the low percentage of prior service

enlisted personnel in the Marine Corps Reserve was also a factor here.

Needing money for basic family expenses was mentioned as a major

contributor to the decision to stay in the reserves by enlisted personnel

(34 percert) more often than it was by officers (23 percent). Again, the

couponents show some interesting variations around this average. Needing

money for basic family expenses, for example, was an inportant reason for

only 19 percent of the enlisted personnel in the Marine Corps Reserve and

8-4

II
10 percent of the enlisted Coast Guard Reserve, far less than the Selected Reserve total of 34 percent. For the officers, the ccmponents deviated little fra the average.

Further analysis of these responses indicated that in sme cases

there were significant differences on the importance of these items

between nubers with and without prior active-duty service. These differences were moot prauinent on the "earning credit toward retirement"

item. The data for this item by prior service status are presented in qTable 8.2.

In every case, members with prior service were more likely--within

component, often twice as likely or more--to have identified retirement

as having a significant impact on their retention decisions. Fully 65

percent of the enlisted personnel with prior service listed retirement as

a major contributor, ccnpared to only 36 percent of the enlisted person- nel without prior active service. Responses were consistently at these

levels for most of the Caponent cells--the only major =e .ption was that

only 12 percent of the Marine Corps reservists without prior service

identified retirtunt as making a major contribution. The patterns becane even more informative when broken down further by pay grade. In the

lower pay grade group (El - E4), 46 percent of the prior service person- nel offered retirem t as a major factor ccmpared to only 24 percent of

those without prior service experience. Only eight percent of the Marine

Corps Reserve personnel without prior service in these lower pay grades rated retirement as a major contributor. The percentage in the higher

pay grade group mentioning retirement as a major factor was higher (these

personnel were closer to retirent)--73 percent of enlisted personnel with prior service and 61 percent of those without prior service. The

difference between these two groups was also nuch smaller. Again, though, the Marine Corps Reserve was the lowest, with only 37 percent of

enlisted personnel without prior service in the higher grades saying that

retirement was a major decision factor.

The results were similar for officers, although smal 1 cells prevent the analysis fram being as ccmplete as it was for enlisted personnel. Sixty-nine percent of the officers with prior service and 50 percent without prior service offered retirement as a major factor in retention

decisions. There is only minor variation by cuponent around this total

but, again, it is the Marine Corps Reserve officers who are least likely

to rate retirement as a major factor. The Coast Guard Reserve was

noticeably higher than the total. Officers in pay grades 01-03 were less

likely to weight retirenent heavily than were warrant officers and senior

camissioned officers. There was virtually no difference between warrant

officers with and without prior service, but there were small differences

between these two categories for the camnissioned officers.

p8-5

S JIY.
Table 8.2 Percentage Responding that Earning Credit Toward Retirement

Was a Major Contribution to Decisions to Stay by Prior

Service Status

Reserva Comnnnant Total

Enlisted/Officer Status/ Total Selected

Pay Grade/Prior Service ARNG USAR USNR USMCR ANG USAFR DoD USCRG Reserve

Enlisted Personnel

EI-E4

Prior Service 50% 44% 44% 38% 42% 40% 40% 59% 48%

Non-Prior Service 26 24 25 8 19 19 24 26 24

E5-E9

Prior Service 71 72 78 8e 75 73 73 79 73

Non-Prior Service 61 00 Be 37 84 58 el 71 81

Total Enlisted

Prior Service 64 81 66 81 08 88 64 74 65

Non-Prior Service 38 36 34 12 40 38 36 42 38

Officers

W1-W4

Prior Service 70 78 a 77 -- 74 a 74

Non-Prior Service 71 a a a .. .. 71 a 72

01-03

Prior Service 58 85 80 43 84 87 62 71 82

Non-Prior Service 41 45 a a 43 38 43 71 43

04+

Prior Service 71 78 73 58 74 79 74 75 74

Non-Prior Service 68 62 a a 64 a 64 a 64

Total Officers

Prior Service 64 72 69 54 70 74 69 75 69

Non-Prior Service 50 51 44 a 51 40 50 71 50

* Source: 1988 RC Member Survey, Supplementary Tabulations, 8.1e and 8.26.

aToo few cases for reliable estimates.

I

8-6
t'

C. Levels of Satisfaction

Enlisted personnel and officers were asked to rate their satisfaction

level with item such as opportunities for prcvtion, opportunities for

leadership, supervision in the unit, and pay and benefits. The scale for

these four items was the same seven-point scale which was used in the

unit training satisfaction section. Tables 8.3 and 8.4 present the data

calculated for these satisfaction questions.

Total Selected Reserve responses were greater for the "very satisfied" response than for the "very dissatisfied" response for "oportunities for leadership," "supervision in unit," and "pay and benefits."

Although enlisted personnel in total were more likely to respond that

they were dissatisfied with "opportunities for praotion," enlisted per- sonnel in the Naval Reserve, Marine Corps Reserve, and Coast Guard

Reserve were slightly more likely to be satisfied than dissatisfied. For

the remaining camponents, the percentage of enlisted personnel dissatis- fied with oportunities for prawtion greatly outweighed the percentage

of satisfied members. In the Air Force Reserve, for example, 41 percent

were very dissatisfied, and only 20 percent were satisfied or very satisfied. This 21 percent difference is more significant than the four percent difference in the other direction in the Marine Corps Reserve.

Officers were more satisfied with their opportunities for prcmtion. For the total Selected Reserve, 49 percent were very satisfied, and only 15 percent were very dissatisfied with prawtion opportunities. The

satisfaction rate of Marine Corps Reserve officers was at least 10 percent higher than the rate for officers in any other camponent. Officers

in the Air National Guard registered the highest dissatisfaction percentage (20 percent). In contrast, the lowest enlisted dissatisfaction

percentage for this category was 21 percen the Coast Guard Reserve.

The second retention-related question asked reservists how satisfied

they were with their opportunities for leadership. Again, the officers

were more satisfied than the enlisted personnel. The total Selected

Reserve result for the officers showed that eight percent were very dissatisfied, and 61 percent were very satisfied. The corresponding numbers

for the enlisted reservists were 19 percent very dissatisfied and 37

percent very satisfied. Navai Reserve and Coast Guard Reserve enlisted

personnel were more positive about the opportunities for leadership--in

each, 13 percent were very dissatisfied and 42 percent were very satisfied.

The data for the officers did indicate sane substantial differences

by camponent, especially in the very satisfied category. While 61 percent of the total Selected Reserve officers were very satisfied with

their opportunities for leadership, for example, 74 percent of the Coast

Guard Reserve officers indicated satisfaction. Marine Corps Reserve

officers were also high, with 71 percent registering satisfaction.

8-7 , 

NM I

J1

" .,
Table 8.3 Satisfaction with Retention-Related Items: Enlisted Personnel

Reserve Component Total

Total Selected

Satisfaction Item ARNG USAR USNR USMCR ANG USAFR DoD USCGR Reserve

Opportunities for Promotion

Very dissatisfied 38% 40% 29% 26% 39% 41% 37% 21% 37%

Very satisfied 24 24 31 30 23 20 25 36 25

Opportunities for Leadership

Very dissatisfied 19 21 13 18 17 19 19 13 19

Very satisf ied 37 36 42 36 37 34 37 42 37

Supervision in the Unit

Very dissatisfied 13 15 12 15 11 14 13 12 13

Very satisf led 47 42 47 44 53 45 46 44 46

Pay and Benefits

Very dissatisfied 15 15 13 20 10 13 14 11 14

Very satisfied 37 35 36 29 42 39 37 35 36

Source: 1986 RC Member Survey, Supplementary Tabulations, 8.3, 9.1, 9.3, and 9.11.

The differences between enlisted personnel and officers for the third

satisfaction-level question on supervision in the unit were not as

pronounced. Fifty percent of the officers and 46 percent of the enlisted

personnel were very satisfied with the supervision in the units. The

very dissatisfied percentages were 9 percent for the officers and 13

percent for the enlisted personnel. Again, there were few significant * differences amng the reserve coztponents. Air National Guard enlisted

personnel were sawhat more satisfied, and officers in the Naval

Reserve, Marine Corps Reserve, Air National Guard, and Coast Guard

Reserve were nore satisfied.

In general, officers were mre satisfied than enlisted personnel with

* their pay and benefits. Forty-nine percent of officers expressed

satisfaction in this area as did 36 percent of the enlisted personnel. Exmnination of the data by corponent shows that the highest rates were in

the Air National Guard, where 42 percent of the enlisted personnel and 57

percent of the officers were very satisfied with pay and benefits. In

6

8-8

0k

'pZ
Table 8.4 Satisfaction with Retention-Related Items: Officers

Reserve Component Total

Total Selected

Satisfaction Item ARNG USAR USNR USMCR ANG USAFR DoD USCGR Reserve

Opportunities for Promotion

Very dissatisfied 16% 16% 9% 7% 20% 14% 15% 9% 15%

Very satisfied 46 46 58 69 42 43 48 59 49

Opportunities for Leadership

Very dissatisfied 8 10 6 5 8 9 8 5 8

Very satisf led 64 58 65 71 56 55 61 74 61

:Supervision In the Unit

Very dissatisfied 9 11 6 6 8 11 9 5 9

Very satisfied 50 43 59 63 56 48 49 57 50

Pay and Benefits

Very dissatisfied 11 13 9 10 10 11 11 10 11

Very satisfied 49 45 55 55 57 45 49 48 49

Source: 1986 RC Member Survey. Supplementary Tabulations 8.4, 9.2, 9.14, and 9.12.

total, 14 percent of all enlisted personnel and 11 percent of officers

were dissatisfied with their pay and benefits. The percentages for the

carponents are grouped closely around these totals.

D. Plans for Next fear

Both enlisted members and officers were asked to categorize their

plans for the coming year to determine the possibility for achieving

satisfactory retention levels in the Selected Reserve. Reservists were

offered a variety of responses ranging fra retiring or leaving before

retirement to transferring to the active force. Other options offered

were transfer to another Guard/Reserve unit, the IMA program, the

Individual Ready-Reserve (IRR), or the Inactive National Guard (IMG).

Their final choice was remaining in their current status. Tables 8.5 and

8.6 show the one-year plans of the enlisted personnel and officers.

Tables 8.7 and 8.8 display the same information broken out by pay grade.

8-9

,2
Table 8.5. Plans for Next Year: Enlisted Personnel

Reserve Component Total

Total Selected

Plans ARNG USAR USNR USMCR ANG USAFR DoD USCGR Reserve

Retire 2% 1% 2% 1% 2% 1% 2% 1% 2%

Leave Guard/Reserve

before retiring 7 4 5 11 4 3 6 4 6

Transfer to active force 3 4 3 5 1 2 3 1 3

Apply for FTS-AGR

program 2 3 2 2 1 0 2 0 2

Transfer to another

Guard/Reserve 6 7 4 5 4 5 6 2 6

Transfer to IMA program 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0

Transfer to IRR/ING 1 2 1 4 1 1 2 3 2

Remain In current status 78 78 83 72 88 86 80 89 80

Source: 1986 RC Member Survey, Supplementary Tabulations 8.5.

Table 8.6. Plans for Next Year: Officers

Reserve Component Total

Total Selected

Plans ARNG USAR USNR USMCR ANG USAFR DoD USCGR Reserve

Retire 1% 2% 2% 1% 3% 2% 2% 1% 2%

Leave Guard/Reserve

before retiring 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

5 Transfer to active force 3 2 1 2 0 1 2 0 2

Apply for FTS-AGR

program 4 3 1 1 1 0 3 0 3

Transfer to another

Guard/Reserve 3 5 3 6 2 4 4 1 3

Transfer to IMA program 0 2 0 0 1 4 1 0 1

Transfer to IRR/ING 1 2 1 6 0 0 2 3 2

Remain In current status 86 84 91 83 92 89 87 93 87

Source: 1986 RC Member Survey, Supplementary Tabulations 8.6.

.8

8-10

V"

45

,0,' w ~Wj ,%,,'," .~ , , "p ':;: ' .,.:.. ,. ; • ,
Table 8.7. Plans for Next Year by Pay Grade: Enlisted Personnel *

Reserve Component Total

V Total Selected

Plans ARNG USAR USNR USMCR ANG USAFR DoD USCGR Reserve

El to E4

Retire 1% 1% 0% 1% 0% 0% 1% 1% 1%

Leave Guard/Reserve

before retiring 9 6 8 13 6 5 8 7 8

Transfer to active

force 5 7 5 7 2 5 5 2 5

Apply for FTS-AGR

program 2 2 2 2 1 0 2 0 2

Transfer to another

Guard/Reserve 7 8 5 5 5 6 7 3 7

Transfer to IMA

program 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Transfer to IRR/ING 2 2 1 4 1 1 2 4 2

Remain In current

status 74 74 77 69 85 83 75 83 75

E5 to E9

Rbtlre 3 2 3 1 3 2 3 1 3

Leave Guard/Reserve

before retiring 4 3 2 6 3 3 3 2 3

Transfer to active

force 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 0 1

Apply for FTS-AGR

program 2 4 1 5 1 0 2 0 2

Tansfer to another

Guard/Reserve 6 6 3 4 3 5 5 2 5

Transfer to IMA

Program 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0

Transfer to IRR/ING 1 3 1 4 0 0 1 2 1

Remain In current

status 83 81 88 79 90 87 84 93 84

Source: 1986 RC Member Survey, Supplementary Tabulations 8.5.

A

8-11

V S
Table 8.8. Plans for Next Year by Pay Grade: Officers

Reserve Component Total

Total Selected

Plans ARNG USAR USNR USMCR ANG USAFR DoD USCG Reserve

W1-W4

Retire 1% 4% 8% 3% -% -% 3% 7% 3%

Leave Guard/Reserve

before retiring 0 1 0 0 - - 1 0 1

Transfer to active force 0 0 0 2 - - 0 0 0

Apply for FTS-AGR program 3 4 3 3 - - 3 0 3

Transfer to another

Guard/Reserve 3 2 0 2 - - 3 0 3

Transfer to IMA Program 1 1 0 0 - - 1 0 1

Transfer to IRR/ING 2 2 3 3 - - 2 8 2

Remain In current status 90 86 87 86 - - 89 85 88

01 - 03

Retire 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Leave Guard/Reserve

before retiring 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 1

Transfer to active force 5 4 2 3 1 1 3 1 3

Apply for FTS-AGR program 5 5 2 2 2 0 4 0 4

Transfer to another

Guard/Reserve 4 7 2 8 2 5 5 2 5

Transfer to IMA program 0 1 0 0 0 1 1 0 1

Transfer to IRR/ING 2 3 1 5 0 0 2 1 2

Remain In current status 83 80 91 79 93 91 84 95 84

04 or Higher

Retire 3 3 3 0 6 3 3 1 3

Leave Guard/Reserve

before retiring 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 1

Transfer to active force 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0

Apply for FTS-AGR program 2 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 1

Transfer to another

Guard/Reserve 1 2 3 6 1 3 2 1 2

Transfer to IMA program 0 3 0 1 2 7 2 0 2

Transfer to IRR/ING 1 2 1 7 0 0 1 2 1

* Remain In current status 91 88 91 85 90 86 89 C5 89

Source: 1986 RC Member Survey, Supplementary Tabulations 8.6.

8-12

16

' .p' , , ' ,, ;; %. . -,, .".. . . .. -'.., . L ' .,..... .".' ' ' ,., : ' ., .' , ' .
The most frequent plan for the enlisted personnel was to remain in

their current status. Eighty percent of all enlisted personnel were

planning to remain in their curr-Ent status. The responses for this option ranged fran 89 percent in the Coast Guard Reserve to 72 percent in

the Marine Corps Reserve.

The differences and similarities in the enlisted reservists' responses are more striking when examined by pay grade. Three-quarters of

the personnel in pay grades El to E4 and 84 percent of those in paygrades

E5 to E9 intended to remain in their current status. Seven percent of

the El to E4 members and five percent of the E5 to E9 mnbers indicated

they would transfer to another Guard/Reserve unit. The percentage plan- r~ing to retire ;.a.s_.n '.al.

The second highest response for the lower pay grade enlisted personnel was leaving the Guard/Reserve before retiring. This alternative was

selected by over eight percent of the junior enlisted personnel. The

Marine Corpe Reserve enlisted personnel led with 13 percent opting for

this alternative. Three percent of the more senior enlisted personnel

indicated they would leave, with the largest segment in the Marine Corps

Reserve (6 percent).

Fran Table 8.6 it is obvious that, across all pay grades, the overwhelming majority of the toital Selected Reserve officers intended to stay

in their current status for the upcoming year (87 percent). There are

sane differences by reserve cc%onent. The Coast Guard Reserve was high- est with 93 percent of officeri indicating that they would remain in

their current status next year while the Marine Corps Reserve was lowest

at 83 percent. The next moet canmn plan was transferring to another

Guard/Reserve unit; however, the total Selected Reserve average for this

choice was only three percent.

Table 8.8 displays the officer plans for the up=.." year by pay

grade. These tables stiow again that the majority of officers planned to

remain in their current status, but there are slight differenoes by pay

grade. As would be expected, a smaller percentage of officers in pay

grades 01 to 03 (84 percent) indicated that they would remain in their

current status than did either the higher pay grade officers (89 percent)

or the warrant officers (88 percent). The main alternative for these

lower pay grade officers was transferring to another Guard/Reserve unit;

over five percent of them indicated this as their plan for the upcaning

year.

There are scare variations by carponent within the pay grade breakouts

for the officers. First, it should be noted that there are no warrant

officers in the Air Force caponents. While 84 percent of all 01-03s

indicated that they would remain in their current status, only 79 percent

of the junior officers in the Marine Corps Reserve had this intention.

At the other extreme, over 95 percent of the junior Coast Guard Reserve

officers intended to remain in their current status. Eighty-nine percent

of the officers in pay grades 04 and up had no plans to change their

statuses.

8-13

M 

e
I

The next most popular alternative for warrant officers and higher pay

grade commissioned officers was retirement. Three percent of the warrant

officers had plans to retire, along with three percent of the officers in

pay grades 04 and up. In the warrant officer ranks, eight percent of

those in the Naval Reserve were planning to retire in the next year as

were seven percent in the Coast Guard Reserve. For the senior officers,

the highest percentage intending to retire (6 percent) was in the Air

National Guard, while the smallest percentage was in the Marine Corps Reserve.

E. Intention to Stay and Long-Term Military Plans

The immediate plans of the -eserve force members were examined in the

previous section. Here we turn to their long range goals in the military

and either their intention to reenlist (for the enlisted members) or

their comiitment to stay beyond their current obligation (for the officers). In addition, the reservists were asked about their probability of

remaining in the reserves until retirement.

Enlisted mmbers were asked to rate their chances of reenlisting on a

scale of 0 to 10. Percentages of those who stated they were certain or

near certain to reenlist (10 or 9) are shown in Table 8.9. These reservists are those with a "high probability" of reenlisting. Percentages

of those who stated there was no chance or only a very slight possibility

of their reenlisting (0 or 1) are shown in Table 8.10. These reservists

are those with a "low probability."

Data in Table 8.9 indicate that 37 percent of all enlisted personnel

have a high probability of reenlisting. Twice as many personnel in the

senior enlisted grades as in the junior enlisted grades (49 percent versus 24 percent) are in the high probability group. There are also interesting differences by ccrponent within pay grade groups. The Marine

Corps Reserve had the lowest percentage of junior enlisted personnel with

a high probability of reenlisting (11 percent). The 54 percent for

Marine Corps senior enlisted personnel, however, surpassed the total

Selected Reserve response by five percentage points and was second only

to the 56 percent for the Coast Guard Reserve. Overall, only 23 percent of all enlisted Marine Corps personnel indicated a high probability of

reenlisting.

Table 8.10 displays the percentage of each component indicating a low

probability of reenlisting. There are differences between the pay grades

as well as differences between those expressing a high reenlistment probability and those indicating a low probability. Sixteen percent of the

entire enlisted reserve population had a low probability of reenlisting.

* Twenty-one percent of those in the El to E4 category and 10 percent of

these in the E5-E9 category had a low probability of reenlisting. By

cmponent and pay grade group, the Marine Corps again stands out as an

extreme. The percentage of Marine Corps personnel in the E5-E9 category who had a low probability of reenlisting was the same as the percentage -" for the entire enlisted reserve force. The percentage of personnel in

El-E4, however, was nmch higher (36 percent) than the percentage for the

entire junior enlisted force.

8-14

6

*%%~ .~'.
d

Table 8.9 Enlisted Personnel with High Probability of Reenlisting

Reserve Component Total

Total Selected

Pay Grade ARNG USAR USNR USMCR ANG USAFR DoD USCGR Reserve

El - E4 23% 27% 24% 11% 29% %25% 24% 29% 24%

E5 - E9 46 49 53 54 52 51 49 56 49

Total 34 38 40 23 44 44 37 45 37

Source: 1986 RC Member Survey, Supplementary Tabulations 8.7.

Table 8.10 Enlisted Personnel with Low Probability of Reenllsting

Reserve Comoonent Total

Total Selected

Pay Grade ARNG USAR USNR USMCR ANG USAFR DoD USCGR Reserve

El - E4 22% 17% 22% 36% 15% 12% 21% 16% 21%

E5 - E9 12 10 9 10 9 8 10 8 10

Total 17 14 15 29 11 9 16 12 16

Source: 1986 RC Member Survey, Supplementary Tabulations 8.7.

A weighted average probability of reenlisting was also calculated

from these data as another way of data presentation, and the results are

given in Table 8.11. This table shows that the average probability of

reenlisting for all enlisted reservists was 6.1 on a scale of 0 to 10.

The results here parallel those found on the high and low probability

tables. That is, the upper pay grades had a higher reenlistment

probability than the lower pay grades, and the Marine Corps Reserve had

the lowest probability, both for pay grades El to E4 (3.7) and the

enlisted force as a whole (4.7).

8-15
I

Table 8.11 Average Probability of Reenllstlng

Reserve Comoonent Total

Total Selected

Pay Grade ARNG USAR USNR USMCR ANG USAFR oO USCGR Reserve

El - E4 5.0 5.5 5.1 3.7 5.8 5.5 5.2 5.7 5.2

E5 - E9 6.8 7.1 7.4 7.3 7.3 7.3 7.1 7.6 7.1

Total 5.8 6.3 6.4 4.7 6.8 6.8 6.1 6.8 6.1

Source: Calculated from grouped survey responses, 1986 RC Member Survey, Supplementary

TabulatIons.

Long-range plans for officers were investigated by asking officers if

they intended to continue in the Guard/Reserve after their current

* obligation. Possible answers were "yes", "no", and "don't know". Table

8.12 shows those with a positive intention to continue, and Table 8.13

shows those who intended to leave. The data are also displayed by the

sane pay grade groups defined earlier. The "don't knows" forned a

substantial portion of the total responses. Over 24 percent of the

entire officer reserve population answered that they did not know if they

would continue past their current obligation.

Seventy percent of the officers in the Selected Reserve expected to

extend their obligation at the end of the current term. Only 6 percent

said they would not continue. The pay grade breakouts show that warrant

officers had the highest percentage with plans to continue (82 percent),

followed by the 04 and higher officers (75 percent), and the lower grade

officers (68 percent).

The data in these tables indicate that 68 percent of the officers in

pay grades 01 through 03 intended to continue their military service in

the reserves. Marine Corps Reserve junior officers were nost likely to

have this intention (over 86 percent), and Army Reserve officers were

least likely (62 percent). Ninety percent of all Marine Corps Reserve

officers intended to continue past their current obligation, while the

average for the entire officer reserve population was 70 percent.

The data on officers who did not intend to continue does not differ

significantly by pay grade, with warrant officers being slightly less

inclined to leave (3 percent) than the other pay grades or the population

as a whole (6 percent). Also, in grades 04 and up, 12 percent of Naval

Reserve officers intended to leave in contrast to an average of 7

percent.

I

' , 8-16

I

a..' v, .. .,,"-'- ., ."...: .:- .. :\. ''-''"-' ."'';7" ....- ,.,, .,. ,.''" .''': "G. % 23 ." , 3"
Table 8.12 Off icers Who Intend to Continue

Reserve Camnannant Total

Total Selected

Pay Grade ARNG USAR USNR USMCR ANG USAFR Boo USCOR Reserve

W1 - W4 81% 84% 75% 84% -% 4 82% 731 82%

01 -03 84 62 81 80 82 72 a8 83 68

04+ 85 78 64 98 85 70 75 86 75

Total B6 65 78 go 83 71 70 111 70

Source; 1088 RC Member Survey, Supplementary Tabulations 8.8.

Table 8.13 Officers Who Intend to Leave

Reserve Cooonent Total

Total Selected

Pay Grade ARNG USAR USNR USMCR ANG USAFR DoD USCGR Reserve

IN -114 01 6% 0% 7% -% -1 31 a 3%

01 -03 8 9 3 2 1 2 8 2 6

04+ 5 7 12 1 7 7 7 7 7

Total 7 9 5 2 2 4 6 5 5

Source: 1986 RC Member Survey, Supplementary Tabulations 8.8.

8Too few cases for reliable estimate.

The final rnethod used to determine the long range military plans of

the Selected Reserve nmbers was to inquire as to whether or not they

Intended to stay until retirement. Again the respondents were given a

scale ranging frcm 0 to 10, with a 0 meaning they had no chance of staying until retLrenmnt, and a 10 indicating they were certain of staying.

8-17

~ I~ %
There was also a cell to mark if they had already qualified for retirement benefits. Tables 8.14 and 8.15 show the results of this analysis. Reservists were counted as planning to stay if they answered the question

with a 9 or 10. Data for those already qualifying for retirement are

also shown.

There are some inportant differenes ang enlisted personnel by pay

grade as seen in Table 8.14. Overall, 51 percent of the enlisted reservists planned to stay until retirement. sixty-nine percent of those in

pay grades E5 to E9 planned to continue, with only 33 percent of those in

the lower pay grades planning to continue. Very few El to E4s in the

Marine Corps Reserve planned to stay until retireamt (12 percent). At

the opposite end, El to E4s in the Coast Guard Reserve (45 percent) were

12 percent more likely than average to plan to stay. Also, a much lower

percentage of enlisted personnel (4 percent) than officers (11 percent) had already qualified for retirevent.

Table 8.15 shows the data for the reserve officer force. Looking at

the total line, 54 percent of the officers planned to stay until retiremant. There is no significant variation by orponent from this total, although there are scr variations by pay grade. The expected difference

S between the lower officer pay grades and the higher ones is again evident. A lower percentage (48 percent) of 01 to 03 officers than more

senior officers (60 percent) planned to stay until retirenent. By the

t",r the officers reach the upper pay grades, their accumulated credits

toward retiretut and the attractiveness of staying to earn the retiremeat pay becomes significant.

On the average, there is not much difference between the warrant

officers and the higher pay grade commissioned officers. Half of the

Naval Reserve and Coast Guard Reserve war.7ant officers, hoever, had

already qualified for retirement, while the Selected Reserve average was

20 percent.

F. a

This chapter presented data on the reasons part-time unit rrl>bers

gave for staying in the reserves. It also looked at several retentionrelated issues and analyzes the reservists' immediate and long-range

S plans for future service in the Guard/Reserve. Several of the important

findings in this chapter are:

* Reservists cited both intangible factors and financial considerations as main reasons for staying.

* Serving their country was a major contributor to the retenS"-tion decision for 55 percent of the enlisted personnel and

59 percent of the officers.

U' - Earning credit towards retirement was a major contributor

for 50 percent of the enlisted personnel and 62 percent of

* the officers.

8-18

4.

S.
I.

Table 8.14. Enlisted Personnel Who Plan to Stay Until Retirement

Reserve Comoonent Total

Total Selected

Pay Grade ARNG USAR USNR USMCR ANG USAFR DoD USCGR Reserve

SE1- E4

Already qualified 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%

Plan to stay 32 37 35 12 40 32 33 45 33

E5 - E9

Already qualified 8 6 14 3 9 9 8 12 8

Plan to stay 67 72 69 60 72 68 69 76 69

Total

Already qualified 4 3 8 1 6 6 4 7 4

Plan to stay 48 53 54 26 60 58 51 63 51

Source: 1986 RC Member Survey. Supplementary Tabulations 8.9.

Table 8.15 Officers Who Plan to Stay Until Retirement

Reserve Component Total

Total Selected

Pay Grade ARNG USAR USNR USMCR ANG USAFR DoD USCGR Reserve

I1 - W4

Already qualified 18% 16% 49% 24% - - 19% 50% 20%

High likelihood 58 59 49 65 - - 58 41 58

01 -03

Already qualified 1 1 3 0 3% 0% 1 6 1

High likelihood 51 46 48 39 55 44 48 62 48

04+

Already qualified 34 18 17 12 24 15 21 25 21

High likelihood 49 62 60 63 64 63 60 57 60

Total

Already qualified 12 9 13 9 14 8 11 19 11

High likelihood 52 53 56 53 59 53 54 57 54

Source: 1986 RC Member Survey, Supplementary Tabulations 8.10.

8-19

6

A'".
I

-Pior service members were more likely to identify

retirement as a factor than were non-prior service members.

Educational benefits were mentioned almost three times as

frequently by enlisted members as by officers as making a

major contribution to their decision to stay.

" Enlisted personnel generally expressed more dissatisfaction than

officers on retention-related questions. For example, 37

percent of enlisted personnel were dissatisfied with their

opportunities for promotion ccapared to 15 percent of the

officers.

" A significant majority of Selected Reserve enlisted personnel

(80 percent) and officers (87 percent) intended to remain in

their current status for the upcoming year.

" Thirty-seven percent of all enlisted personnel expressed a high probability of reenlistment in the reserves. The probability of

reenlistment was twice as high among upper grades (E5-E9) as

* among lower grades (E1-E4). The average probability of

reenlistment for all enlisted personnel was 6.1 on a scale of 0

to 10.

Seventy percent of officers indicated a high intcrLrion to

continue reserve obligation at the end of their current term,

and only 6 percent indicated a low intention.

* Four percent of enlisted menmbers indicated that they had

p.. coapleted 20 or more qualifying years for retirement, and

p. another 51 percent indicated their intention to stay until

qualified for retirement.

pEleven percent of the officers indicated that they had already

qualified for retirement. Another 54 percent expected to stay 4. until retirement.

:*'2

p. 8-2

,* " . V .1.~.pp .
lDescription of Officers and Enlisted Personnel in the U.S. Selected

Reserve: 1986. Supplementary Tabulations fraa the 1986 Reserve

CclTponents Surveys.

cor

.8I2

6z

NO

% A01 .
S 9. OVERALL ASSESSMENTS OF GUARD/RESERVE SERVICE

A. Introduction

Understanding the levels of satisfaction individuals receive from

serving in the Guard/Reserve helps clarify why some individuals continue

to participate while others do not. Exploration of satisfaction levels

is useful to policy makers, as it indicates areas in which action way be

appropriate. This final chapter presents data on the general assessments

of part-time unit mwbers of their experience in the Guard/Reserve.

First we look at their ratings of unit morale. Next we examine their

satisfaction with selected features of the Guard/Reserve. Finally, we

examine mmbers' overall satisfaction with their participation in

Guard/Reserve.

B. Perceived Morale of Unit

The 1986 RC Survey asked nebers to describe the Morale of military

personnel in their units:

In general, how would you describe the morale of

military personnel in your unit?

Respondents were asked to "mark the number which best shows your

opinion." The scale points were labeled as follows:

1 - Morale is very low

2-

3-

4-

5-

6-

7 - Morale is very high

Officers, overall, perceived morale in their units as somewhat higher

than did enlisted personnel. Table 9.1 shows that 6 percent of officers

rated morale as low (combining the two lowest points on the scale)

- compared to 12 percent of enlisted personnel, 54 percent of officers

rated morale as high (corbining the two highest points on the scale)

caTpared to 40 percent of enlisted personnel. Officers' weighted average

v5 of 5.3 was half a point higher than enlisted personnel's average.

Enlisted personnel in the individual components rated morale

siimilarly (Table 9.2). Average scores ranged from 4.7 in the Army

Reserve and Marine Corps Reserve (where just under two-fifths rated

morale as high) to 5.1 in the Air National Guard (where nearly half rated

morale as high). officers in the individual components also differed

little in their perceptions of morale (Table 9.3). Their average scores

ranged from 5.1 in the Army Reserve (where 46 percent rated morale as

high) to 5.7 in the marine Corps Reserve and 5.5 in the Naval Reserve and

Air National Guard. The difference between enlisted personnel and

9-1

'S.

iS.5
4i

Table 9.1 Perceived Morale In Unit: Enlisted Personnel and Officers

Total Selected Reserve

Enlisted

Perceived Morale Personnel Officers

1--Morale Is very low 6% 2%

2 6 4

3 10 6

4 17 12

5 21 23

6 23 32

7--Morale Is very high 17 22

Weighted average response 4.8 5.3

Source: 1986 RC Member Survey, Supplementary Tabulations 9.5

and 9.6.

Table 9.2 Perceived Morale In Unit by Reserve Component:

Enlisted Personnel

Reserve Comoonent

Total

Perceived Morale ARNG USAR USNR USMCR ANG USAFR DoD USCGR

1--Morale Is very low 6% 7% 5% 7% 4% 5% 6% 4%

2 6 7 6 7 5 6 8 6

3 10 10 9 10 7 9 10 10

4 16 18 16 16 14 17 17 17

5 21 22 22 21 21 22 21 25

6 22 21 26 23 29 25 23 24

7--Morale Is very high 18 15 16 15 20 15 17 15

Weighted average

* response 4.8 4.7 4.9 4.7 5.1 4.8 4.8 4.9

Source: 1986 RC Member Survey, Supplementary Tabulations 9.5.

9-2
Table 9.3 Perceived Morale in Unit by Reserve Component: Officers

Reserve Comoonent

Total

Perceived Morale ARNG USAR USNR USMCR ANG USAFR DoD USCGR

1--Morale Is very low 2% 2% 1% 1% 1% 2% 2% 1%

2 3 5 3 2 4 5 4 3

3 6 7 5 5 6 8 8 7

4 10 14 11 8 7 13 12 10

5 21 26 21 19 20 21 23 22

6 35 29 32 38 35 32 32 37

7--Morale is very high 22 17 27 28 26 22 22 20

Weighted average

response 5.4 5.1 5.5 5.7 5.5 5.3 5.3 5.4

Source: 1986 RC Member Survey, Supplementary Tabulations 9.6.

officer scores hovered around half a point higher in all of the components except the Marine Corps Reserve where it was a full point higher.

Enlisted personnel and officers in higher pay grades perceived morale

as higher than did those in lower pay grades. Table 9.4A shows that

enlisted personnel in the highest pay grade category, E7-E9, rated morale

in their units higher than those in lower grades; fully half of higher

pay grade menbers rated morale as high, while only seven percent rated it

as low. Their average morale score was as high as the overall average

score for officers, 5.3. There are few differences among enlisted pay

grade categories under E6 in morale ratings. Approximately 40 percent of

E1-E3s, E4s and E5s rated morale in their units as high, while 12-14

percent rated it as low; average morale scores for these three groups

ranged only fram 4.6 to 4.8. Those in pay grade E6 were slightly less

likely than those in the lower pay grades to rate morale low; nine percent of them did. Otherwise E6s were similar to those in lower pay

grades.

The finding that those in higher pay grades perceived morale as higher than those in lower pay grades was also observed in the 1985 DoD Survey of Officer and Enlisted Personnel. In that survey, respondents were

asked:

How would you describe the morale of military personnel

at your current location? ( If you are currently assigned to a ship, indicate the morale of personnel on board

ship.]

9-3

I

~~................................................ " .".= -" ." -. -." '."., -. - " '-." ,
Table 9.4A Perceived Morale by Pay Grade: Enlisted Personnel

Total

Pay Grade Selected

Perceived Morale E1-E3 E4 E5 E6 E7-E9 Reserve

1--Morale is very low 6% 7% 6% 4% 3% 6%

2 6 7 6 5 4 6

3 10 11 10 9 6 10

* 4 18 18 17 15 13 17

5 21 21 22 23 22 21

6 21 21 24 26 30 23

7--Morale is very high 18 16 16 17 22 17

Weighted average

response 4.7 4.6 4.8 4.9 5.3 4.8

Source: 1986 RC Mtaer Survey, Supplementary Tabulations 9.5.

In comparing the results fra the present survey and the 1985 DoD

Member Survey, we restricted ourselves to active-duty personnel who were

assigned to United States shore locations and deleted those who were

overseas or whose permanent duty station was afloat. The reader should

also note that the wording above is slightly different from used in the

present survey, and that the passage of a full year between the two

surveys may have affected the responses. It is assumed that the

difference in the findings that is the result of wording differences is

small. Table 9.4B shows that, for the most part, morale increased with

pay grade among active-duty enlisted personnel. The most striking finding

is that the perception of morale for active-duty enlisted personnel

(weighted average response, 3.6) was significantly lower than that for

reserve enlisted personnel (weighted average response, 4.8).

Among commissioned officers, perceptions of morale differed more

substantially. On the average, reserve officers in pay grales 06 or

higher rated morale in their units a full point higher (at 6.0) than

officers in pay grades 01-02 (Table 9.5A). Officers in the middle pay

grades showed steadily increasing average ratings: 5.2 for 03s, and 5.5

for 04-05s. The proportions rating morale high increased similarly with

ccmmissioned pay grade, fran 44 percent of officers in pay grades 01-02 to

50 percent of those in 03, 60 percent of those in 04-05, and 77 percent of

those in pay grades 06 or higher. Few officers in any pay grade rated

morale as low. The substantial increase in high ratings with

9

~9-4

I
Table 9.4B Perceived Morale by Pay Grade: Enlisted Personnel

Total

Pay Grade Active

Perceived Morale E1-E3 E4 E5 E6 E7-E9 Force

1--Morale is very low 14% 15% 11% 8% 5% 12%

2 16 17 14 10 8 14

3 22 22 22 20 15 20

4 24 24 25 24 22 24

5 16 16 18 23 28 19

6 6 6 8 11 17 9

7--Morale is very high 2 1 3 4 6 3

Weighted average

response 3.4 3.3 3.6 3.9 4.4 3.6

Source: 1985 DoD Survey.

Table 9.5A Perceived Morale by Pay Grade: Officers

Total

Pay Grade Selected

Perceived Morale WI-W4 01-02 03 04-05 06+ Reserve

1--orale is very low 2% 3% 2% 1% 1% 2%

2 4 5 4 3 1 4

3 7 9 7 5 3 6

4 12 14 14 10 5 12

5 22 26 23 22 14 23

6 32 31 31 34 35 32

7--Morale is very high 21 13 19 26 42 22

Weighted average

response 5.3 5.0 5.2 5.5 6.0 5.3

Source: 1986 RC Meffber Sur-vey, Supplementary Tabulations 9.6.

9-5

Su
pay grade, then, came from a decreasing tendency to perceive morale at a

Smid-level among officers in higher pay grades and a shift to a perception

of viewing it as high.

Data for active-duty officers are presented in Table 9.5B.

Active-duty officers gave morale a lower average rating (4.6) than

reserve officers (5.3). Similar to the finding for enlisted personnel,

the rise in morale with pay grade among active-duty officers was less

dramatic than the rise among reserve officers. The difference between

active-duty and reserve officers was not as great as the difference

between active-duty and reserve enlisted personnel.

C. Satisfaction with Features of the Guard/Reserve

In this section, we examine part-time unit members' satisfaction with

five specific features of the Guard/Reserve:

, Time required at Guard/Reserve activities

. unit social activities

* opportunities for education/training

. Opportunity to serve one's country

' Acquaintances/friendships.

Total , Pay Grade Active

SPerceived Morale WI-W4 0-2 03 04-05 06+ Force

O1-0

" 1--orale is very law 2% 3% 4% 2% 1% 3%

L 2 7 8 8 6 4 7

3 14 14 14 12 6 13

4 27 21 21 18 16 20

5 26 31 30 31 30 30

--- .6 19 19 20 25 34 22

7--Morale is very high 4 5 5 6 10 5

.. , weighted average

- ,response 4.4 4.4 4.4 4.7 5.1 4.6

"ira Source: 1985 DoD Survey.

.9-6

A..

A . % %
C.k

Respondents were asked to rate their satisfaction with these features

on a five-point scale labeled:

* Very satisfied

0 Satisfied

* Neither satisfied nor dissatisfied

0 Dissatisfied

* Very dissatisfied.

Satisfaction with a specific feature of the Guard/Reserve as present- ed in the tables that follow is a ocmbination of the responses of "very

satisfied" and "satisfied" with that feature; dissatisfaction is a cambination of the responses of "dissatisfied" or "very dissatisfied."

Table 9.6 presents data on satisfaction with features of the Guard/

Reserve for enlisted personnel and officers overall. The pattern of

ratings was similar for enlisted personnel and officers, although

officers were somewhat more likely to be satisfied with the features

rated highest by both groups. Both groups were most likely to be very

satisfied/satisfied with their acquaintances/friendships-84 percent of

enlisted personnel and 91 percent of officers. Eighty-one percent of the

enlisted personnel and 89 percent of the officers also reported this

level of satisfaction with the opportunity to serve one's country. less

than five percent of the enlisted personnel or officers were dissatisfied

or very dissatisfied with these two features. These findings reaffirm

the observations of high levels of patriotism and unit cohesion among

reserve units.

Most part-tim unit members also expressed satisfaction with the time

required at Guard/Reserve activities--63 percent of enlisted personnel

and 61 percent of officers. Officers were sanwhat more likely than

enlisted personnel to be dissatisfied with this feature (15 percent compared to 9 percent). For the remaining two features, unit social activities and education/training opportunities, apprxizately two-fifths of

the enlisted personnel and the officers were either very satisfied or , satisfied, and between approxinately 10-20 percent were dissatisfied or

very dissatisfied.

Enlisted personnel in the individual carponents expressed similar

levels of satisfaction with most queried features (Table 9.7). "Time

required" was an e~ooeption. Enlisted Marine Corps reservists were clearly less likely than those in other carponents to say they were very

satisfied or satisfied with time required (52 percent did) and more like-

.- ly to say they were dissatisfied or very dissatisfied (16 percent). On

the other hand, enlisted personnel of the Air National Guard, Air Force

Reserve, and Coast Guard Reserve were clearly more likely than those in

other carponents to express satisfaction with time required; 71 percent

in each of the Air Force caiponents and 69 percent in the Coast Guard

Reserve were satisfied. Enlisted Marine Corps personnel reported

9-7

~ *i Z,
Table 9.6 Satisfaction with Features of the Guard/Reserve:

Frl!sted Personnel and Officers

Total Selected Reserve

Enlisted

Satisfaction/Feature Personnel Officers

Very satisfied/Satisfied with:

Time required 63% 61%

Unit social activities 38 43

Opportunities for

education/training 48 45

Opportunity to serve

one's country 81 89

Acquaintances/friendships 84 91

Dissatisfied/Very dissatisfied with:

Time required 9 15

Unit social activities 20 14

Opportunities for

education/training 21 18

Opportunity to serve

one's country 3 1

Acquaintances/friendships 2 1

Source: 1986 RC Member Survey, Supplementary Tabulations 9.7a-9.7e and 9.8a-9.8e.

• '

-q '4

0"

-:
Table 9.7 Satisfaction with Features of the Guard/Reserve:

Enlisted Personnel

Reserve Comoonent

Total

Satisfaction/Feature ARNG USAR USNR USMCR ANG USAFR DoD USCGR

Very satlsfied/Satisfied with:

Time required 61% 63% 67% 52% 71% 71% 63% 69%

Unit social activities 39 35 37 30 43 40 38 33

Opportunities for

education/training 52 44 39 36 55 46 48 38

Opportunity to serve

one's country 80 79 82 79 84 83 81 81 a,,' Acquaintances/ friendships 84 83 85 83 87 86 84 85

Dissatisfied/Very dissatisfied with:

Time required 11% 9% 8% 16% 5% 6% 9% 7%

Unit social activiI ties 20 22 20 23 13 17 20 17

Opportunities for

education/training 17 25 29 31 14 20 21 29

. Opportunity to serve

a. one's country 3 3 3 4 1 2 3 2

Acquaintances/

friendships 3 2 1 3 1 1 2 1

Source: 1986 RC Member Survey, Supplementary Tabulations 9.7a - 9.7e.

* '.

:.a,

9-9

V - - -
the highest dissatisfaction levels with four of the five features dis- cussed here.

Officers in the individual components also showed very similar levels

of satisfaction with mst features (Table 9.8). Again, tie required was

an exception. Officers in three components were mre likely than others

to express satisfaction with time required: Marine Corps Reserve (70

percent), Air National Guard (69 percent), and Naval Reserve (66 percent). Air Force Reserve officers were mre likely than others to

express dissatisfaction (20 percent), though they were about average in

the proportion expressing satisfaction (59 percent). There were also

three ccuponents in which officers were mre likely to express satisfaction with unit social activities: Marine Corps Reserve (49 percent), Air

National Guard (51 percent), and Air Force Reserve (50 percent).

Satisfaction with specific features of the Guard/Reserve varied with

pay grade for part-tine unit mebbers (Table 9.9). Enlisted personnel's satisfaction with three of the five features increased steadily and substantially as pay grade increased. Eighty percent of those in pay grades

EI-E3 said they were very satisfied or satisfied with their acquaintances/friendships compared to 85 percent of those in pay grade E5 and 92

'.1' percent of those in pay grades E7-E9. Similarly, 75 percent of members 10 in pay grades EI-E3 expressed satisfaction with the opportunity to serve

4 one's country provided by the Guard/Reserve compared to 82 percent in pay grade E5 and 91 percent in pay grades E7-E9. Fifty-six percent of those

in pay grades El-E3 were satisfied with time required caqm-aed to 67

percent of those in pay grade E5 and 69 percent of those in pay grades

E7-E9. Dissatisfaction with the five features of Guard/Reserve partici- pation did not vary greatly with pay grade among enlisted personnel,

except in the Marine Corps Reserve. Marine Corps reservists in pay

grades below E5 were more likely than those in pay grades E5 or above to

express dissatisfaction with time required and opportunities for education/training.1 Personnel in pay grades EI-E4 make up a great majority of enlisted Marine Corps reservists. This accounts for their higher overall dissatisfaction levels with these two factors shown in Table 9.7.

Officers presented a somewhat different picture (Table 9.10). Comimissioned officers' expression of satisfaction with the same three

features also increased as pay grade increased, but the difference

biTween lowest ad highest pay grades in satisfaction levels was smaller

than for enlisted personnel. Eighty-nine percent of officers in pay

grades 01 and 02 were satisfied with their acquaintances/friendships in

the Guard/Reserve capared to 95 percent of officers in pay grades 06 or

higher. similarly, 88 percent in pay grades 01 and 02 were satisfied

0 with the opportunity to serve one's country ccuipared to 95 percent in pay

grades 06 or higher. Sixty-three percent of those in pay grades 01 and

02 were satisfied with time required cczpared to 71 percent of those in

pay grades 06 or higher. Warrant officers expressed satisfaction with

all five features at rates about equal to the total Selected Reserve

resnonses.

9-10

9=
Table 9.8 Satisfaction with Features of the Guard/Reserve: Officers

Reserve Com~nnent

Total

Satisfaction/Feature ARNG USAR USNR USMCR ANG USAFR DoD USCGR

Very satlsfled/Satisfled with:

Time required 58% 60% 66% 70% 69% 59% 61% 61%

Unit social actlvlties 40 39 47 49 51 50 43 39

Opportunities for

education/training 55 43 39 40 47 38 45 36

Opportunity to serve

one's country 90 88 89 93 91 86 89 91

Acquaintances/

friendships 91 89 91 94 94 92 91 91

Dissatisfied/Very dissatisfied with:

Time requlied 17% 17% 11% 11% 10% 20% 15% 13%

Unit social activities 17 16 11 13 10 11 14 11

Opportunities for

education/training 16 21 17 19 14 14 18 22

Opportunity to serve

one's country 1 1 1 1 a a 1 1

Acquaintances/

friendships 1 1 1 a a 1 1 a

Source: 1986 RC Member Survey, Supplementary Tabulations 9.8a -9.8e.

aLess than 0.5 percent.

9-11

MIP
Table 9.9 Satisfaction with Features of the Guard/Reserve by Pay

Grade: Enlisted Personnel

Total

Pay Grade Selected

Satisfaction/Feature E1-E3 E4 E5 E6 E7-E9 Reserve

Very satisfied/Satisfied with:

Time required 56% 61% 67% 68% 69% 63%

Unit social activities 39 37 38 37 37 38

Opportunities for

education/training 50 47 48 46 45 48

Opportunity to serve

one's country 75 77 82 86 91 81

Acquaintances/

friendships 80 82 85 88 92 84

4 Dissatisfied/Very dissatisfied with:

Time required 11% 10% 8% 8% 10% 9%

Unit social activities 17 19 20 22 22 20

Opportunities for

education/training 21 22 21 20 19 21

Opportunity to serve

one's country 4 4 2 2 1 3

Acquaintances/

friendships 3 3 2 1 1 2

Source: 1986 RC Member Survey, Supplementary Tabulations 9.7a - 9.7e.

9-12

I
Table 9.10 Satisfaction with Features of the Guard/Reserve by Pay

Grade: Officers

Total

Pay Grade Selected

Satisfaction W1-W4 01-02 03 04-05 06+ Reserve

Very satisfied/Satisfled

Time required 62% 63% 59% 61% 71% 61%

Unit social activities 41 39 40 46 59 43

Opportunities for

education/training 46 51 41 44 54 45

Opportunity to serve

one's country 88 88 86 91 95 89

Acquaintances/ 93 89 89 93 95 91

friendships

Dlssatisfied/Very dissatisfied with:

Time required 14% 13% 17% 17% 10% 15%

Unit social activities 17 19 16 10 7 14

Opportunities for

education/training 19 23 21 13 7 18

Opportunity to serve

one's country 1 2 1 1 a 1

Acquaintances/

friendships 1 1 1 a 1 1

Source: 1986 RC Member Survey, Supplementary Tabulations 9.8a - 9.8e.

aLess than 0.5 percent.

I

9-13

r,

""C * r r ) " " - " W" -
Cammissioned officers' dissatisfaction with these features also

varied by pay grade. Officers in the middle pay grades (03 and 04-05)

had a higher level of dissatisfaction (17 percent) with time requirements

than those in other pay grades. Dissatisfaction decreased with pay grade for two features: unit social activities (frm 19 percent in pay grades

01-02 to seven percent in the highest pay grades) and opportunities for

education/training (fran 23 percent in pay grades 01-02 to seven percent

*in the highest pay grade). Warrant officer dissatisfaction levels were

about equal to the total Selected Reserve responses.

The difference noted by pay grade suggests that junior level personnel who are dissatisfied with various aspects of reserve participation * leave before reaching the higher pay grades. There is, therefore, greater hax xeneity and consensus and higher morale among reservists who re- Smain in the Guard/Reserve and are promoted to the higher pay grades.

D. Overall Satisfaction With Guard/Reserve Participation

Overall satisfaction was measured with the question:

Overall, how satisfied are you with your participation in the

* Guard/Reserve?

Respondents answered on a seven-point scale that was labeled as follows:

1 - Very Dissatisfied

2-

3-

4-

N5

6-

7 - Very Satisfied -P.

-Part-tine officers were saewhat more satisfied with their Guard/

Reserve participation than part-time enlisted personnel (Table 9.11).

Most members in both groups were satisfied (measured by combining the two

highest points on the scale); 59 percent of officers and 51 percent of

enlisted personnel rated themselves as satisfied. Enlisted personnel

were somewhat more likely to choose a middle level on the scale. Forty

percent of enlisted personnel and 33 percent of officers ciose a middle

level rating (from the third to the fifth point on the scale). Only nine

percent of enlisted personnel and seven percent of officers rated themselves as dissatisfied (measured by combining the two lowest points on

the scale). Their weighted average satisfaction scores were only threetenths of a point apart (5.1 for enlisted personnel and 5.4 for officers). 6

9-14

A..

'J"

6,
Table 9.11 Overall Satisfaction with Guard/Reserve Participation:

Enlisted Personnel and Officers

Total Selected Reserve

Enlisted

Overall Satisfaction Personnel Officers

1--Very dissatisfied 4% 3%

2 5 4

3 7 5

* 4 15 9 5 18 19

6 29 36

7--Very satisfied 22 23

Weighted average response 5.1 5.4

Source: 1986 RC Member Survey, Supplementary Tabulations 9.13-9.14.

Enlisted personnel in the individual components rated their satisfaction with their Guard/Reserve experience similarly (Table 9.12). Proportions rating themtselves as satisfied were close to 50 percent in most

corponents, ranging fran 46 percent (in the Marine Corps Reserve) to 56

percent (in the Air National Guard). The range of average satisfaction

scores was very narrow, fron 5.0 (for the Naval Reserve and Marine Corps

Reserve) to 5.3 (for the two Air Force coaponents).

Officers in the individual carponents were also similar to each other

in their satisfaction ratings (Table 9.13). The proportions rating

themselves as satisfied ranged fra 54 percent (in the Air Force Reserve)

to 71 percent (in the Marine Corps Reserve), with most hovering around 60

percent. Average satisfaction scores again had a range of about half a

point, fram 5.1 (for the Army National Guard) to 5.7 (for the Marine

Corps Reserve).

One way to study the relative satisfaction levels of enlisted personnel and officers is to coupare average satisfaction scores in the individual ccuponents (Tables 9.12 and 9.13). Officers were somewhat more

satisfied than enlisted personnel with their Guard/Reserve participation

in met ccmponents. The greatest differences were in the Marine Corps

Reserve (where officers' average satisfaction was 5.7 and enlisted

personnel's was 5.0) and the Coast Guard Reserve (where officers' average

score was 5.5 and enlisted personnel's was 5.1). Enlisted personnel and

officers in the Air Force Reserve both had scores of 5.3. Similarly,

enlisted personnel and officers in the Army National Guard each had an

average score of 5.1. Average satisfaction of enlisted personnel and

officers differed only slightly in the remaining components.

9-15

I
Table 9.12 Overall Satisfaction with Guard/Reserve Participation:

Enlisted Personnel

Reserve Comoonent

Total

Overall Satisfaction ARNG USAR USNR USMCR ANG USAFR DoD USCGR

-------------------------------- ---- - ---------------

1 Very dissatisfied 4% 4% 5% 5% 3% 3% 4% 3%

2 5 5 5 5 4 4 5 5

3 6 7 7 7 5 6 7 7

4 15 15 16 17 14 14 15 15

5 18 19 18 19 18 19 18 20

6 27 29 29 26 32 31 29 30

7--Very satisfied 24 21 19 20 24 23 22 19

Weighted average

response 5.1 5.1 5.0 5.0 5.3 5.3 5.1 5.1

Source: 1986 RC Member Survey, Supplementary Tabulations 9.13.

Table 9.13 Overall Satisfaction with Guard/Reserve Participation:

Officers

--

Reserve Component

Total

4 Overall SatIsfaction ARNG USAR USNR USMCR ANG USAFR DOD USCGR

1--Very dissatisfied 3% 3% 2% 3% 3% 2% 3% 3%

2 4 5 4 4 3 3 4 3

3 5 6 6 3 3 7 5 5

4 9 10 9 7 8 13 9 9

5 18 19 20 12 16 21 19 17

, 6 37 36 36 38 36 32 36 35

7--Very satisfied 24 21 23 33 31 22 23 28

Weighted average

response 5.1 53 5.4 5.7 5.6 5.3 5.4 5.5

Source: 1986 RC Member Survey, Supplementary Tabulations 9.14.

9-16

S'
r"V.

The proportion of enlisted personnel rating themselves as satisfied

increased with pay grade from 43 percent of those in pay grades E1-E3 to

53 percent of those in pay grade E5 to 67 percent of those in pay grades

E7-E9 (Table 9.14A). Average satisfaction scores also increased steadily

with pay grade, fran 4.9 for El-E3 to 5.2 for E5 to 5.6 for E7-E9. There

was little difference in dissatisfaction by pay grade; 11 percent of

those in pay grades El-E3 rated themselves as dissatisfied cumpared to 8

percent of those in pay grades E5 and E7-E9.

The satisfaction of cammissioned officers also increased with pay

grade (Table 9.15A). Fifty-five percent of those in pay grades 01-02

rated themselves as satisfied compared to 62 percent in pay grades 04-05

and 77 percent of those in pay grades 06 or higher. Average satisfaction

scores of canissioned officers increased from 5.3 for the lower pay

grades to 5.9 for the highest. Again, dissatisfaction did not vary by

pay grade. Warrant officers' satisfaction was even across the seven

camponents.

Table 9.14B shows the results for a comparable question in the 1985

DOD member Survey. Once again, in ccmiparing the results from the present

survey and the 1985 DoD Member Survey, we restricted ourselves to activeduty personnel who were assigned to United States shore locations and

deleted those who were overseas or whose permanent duty station was

afloat. The overall satisfaction of active-duty enlisted personnel increased with pay grade in a fashion similar to that of reserve enlisted

personnel. Reservists' overall satisfaction, however, was significantly

greater. The difference in satisfaction between the two groups diminished with pay grade.

Table 9.15B shows the same information for officers. Overall satisfaction for active-duty officers was fairly similar except for those at

the 06 and above level. The differences in overall satisfaction between

reserve and active-duty officers, while still there, were nmuch smaller.

Using the same definitions as in the preceding tables, the overall

satisfaction ratings of enlisted personnel and officers in both the

reserves and active force are depicted in Figure 9.1. The conclusions

drawn fran the preceding tables are even more obvious here.

VA far higher percentage of reserve enlisted personnel was satisfied

and a lowr percentage was dissatisfied than active-duty enlisted personnel. The overall percentages for the three satisfaction levels for

reserve officers were identical to the percentages for active-duty officers. Officers in both the reserves and active force were more satisfied

than enlisted personnel in either the reserves or active force.

E. rammer

This final chapter presented data on the overall assessments of parttime unit members of their Guard/Reserve participation. In the survey,

reservists rated the morale of their units and their satisfaction

9-17

(-P

p%.

- ~ V.~, ~n
- ---

Table 9.14A Overall Satisfaction with Guard/Reserve Participation by Pay

Grade: Enlisted Personnel

Total

Pay Grade Selected

Overall Satisfaction E1-E3 E4 E5 E6 E7-E9 Reserve

4 1--Very dissatisfied 6% 4% 4% 3% 4% 4%

2 5 5 4 4 4 5

3 8 8 6 6 4 7

4 19 18 15 12 7 15

5 20 19 19 17 14 18

6 25 26 30 32 34 29

7--Very satisfied 18 19 23 26 33 22

Weighted average

response 4.9 5.0 5.2 5.4 5 6 5.1

Source: 1986 RC Member Survey, Supplementary Tabulations 9.13.

a

Table 9.15A Overall Satisfaction with Guard/Reserve Participation by Pay

Grade: officers

Total

Pay Grade Selected

Overall Satisfaction W1-W4 01-02 03 04-05 06+ Reserve

1--Very dissatisfied 3% 3% 2% 3% 5% 3%

2 5 4 5 4 3 4

* 3 5 6 6 5 1 5

4 7 11 12 8 4 9

5 16 21 21 18 9 19

6 39 36 34 37 32 36

7--Very satisfied 25 19 20 25 45 23

* Weighted average

response 5.4 5.3 5.3 5.4 5.9 5.4

" Source: 1986 RC Member Survey, Supplementary Tabulations 9.14.

9-18

I
Table 9.14B Overall Satisfaction with Military As a Way of Life

by Pay Grade: Enlisted Personnel

Total

Pay Grade Active

Overall Satisfaction El-E3 E4 E5 E6 E7-E9 Force

1--Very dissatisfied 10% 7% 4% 3% 3% 6%

2 11 10 6 4 4 8

3 19 20 16 13 11 16

* 4 12 11 10 9 6 10

5 23 24 27 25 21 24

6 22 23 31 37 42 29

7--Very satisfied 4 4 6 8 13 6

Weightel average°9_

response 4.1 4.2 4.6 4.9 5.2 4.5

Source: 1985 DoD Survey.

Table 9.15B Overall Satisfaction with Military as a Way of Life

by Pay Grade: Officers

Total

Pay Grade Active

Overall Satisfaction WI-W4 01-02 03 04-05 06+ Force

1--Very dissatisfied 3% 3% 3% 2% 5% 3%

2 6 4 6 3 2 4

3 13 10 I 9 4 10

4 6 4 5 3 1 4

5 20 20 22 20 11 20

6 42 47 44 50 52 47

* 7--Very satisfied 12 12 9 12 25 12

Weighted average

response 5.1 5.2 5.1 5.3 5.7 5.2

Source: 1985 DoD Survey.

9-19

, % 
C) . LO)= F - .LO LL

~~U)

U)) Cl

V4 c

0 CV)

(.) W '.2

C.i. -n (1 .

(I) CD 00 =0- _0 _

cc L.. m U.

00

o u co

'0 Cunm

L.D 0

~Cfl

0_0 00

a) U)

in .2 -0 10 0

CL a

c M

9-20

% *
with selected features of the Guard/Reserve. The last part of this chapter examined their overall satisfaction. The main findings in this chapi ter include:

-. * Enlisted personnel perceived morale in their units to be lower

than did officers. Based on a seven-point scale, the weighted

average was 4.8 for enlisted personnel and 5.3 for officers.

Among both enlisted personnel and officers, those in higher pay

grades perceived morale to be higher.

Both enlisted personnel and officers were satisfied with selected features of the Guard/Reserve.

Over 84 percent of enlisted personnel and 91 percent of the

officers were satisfied with the aoquaintances/friendships

they developed in the reserves.

Eighty-one percent of the enlisted personnel and 89 percent

Vof the officers were satisfied with the opportunity to

serve their country.

Approximtely 60 percent of enlisted personnel and officers

expressed satisfaction with the time they spent on Guard/ P~e."Reserve activities.

-- About 40 percent of all reservists were satisfied with unit

social activities and education/training opportunities.

Part-time officers were more satisfied with their overall

Guard/Reserve participation than enlisted personnel. Over 59

percent of officers and 51 percent of enlisted personnel were

satisfied. Based on a seven-point scale, the weighted average

for overall satisfaction was 5.4 for officers and 5.1 for the

enlisted personnel. Overall satisfaction increased with pay

grade.

-.

9-21

. ij S GOVERNMFNT PRINTING OFF ICE 1988-0-209-577

r,. 

''
1See the Suplementary Tabulations for the 1986 Reserve Ccqmpnents;

Surveys, (Tables 9.7d andi 9.7g).

9-2