U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800

Fax: (202) 512–2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402–0001

1

37–653 2008

[H.A.S.C. No. 110–20]

HEARING

ON

NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT

FOR FISCAL YEAR 2008

AND

OVERSIGHT OF PREVIOUSLY AUTHORIZED

PROGRAMS

BEFORE THE

COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

ONE HUNDRED TENTH CONGRESS

FIRST SESSION

MILITARY PERSONNEL SUBCOMMITTEE HEARING

ON

BUDGET REQUEST ON OVERVIEW OF

RECRUITING AND RETENTION

HEARING HELD

FEBRUARY 15, 2007

(II)

MILITARY PERSONNEL SUBCOMMITTEE

VIC SNYDER, Arkansas, Chairman

MARTY MEEHAN, Massachusetts

LORETTA SANCHEZ, California

SUSAN A. DAVIS, California

NANCY BOYDA, Kansas

PATRICK J. MURPHY, Pennsylvania

CAROL SHEA-PORTER, New Hampshire

JOHN M. MCHUGH, New York

JOHN KLINE, Minnesota

THELMA DRAKE, Virginia

WALTER B. JONES, North Carolina

JOE WILSON, South Carolina

MICHAEL HIGGINS, Professional Staff Member

JOHN CHAPLA, Professional Staff Member

MARGEE MECKSTROTH, Staff Assistant

(III)

C O N T E N T S

CHRONOLOGICAL LIST OF HEARINGS

2007

Page

HEARING:

Thursday, February 15, 2007, Fiscal Year 2008 National Defense Authorization Act—Budget Request on Overview of Recruiting and Retention ............. 1

APPENDIX:

Thursday, February 15, 2007 ................................................................................. 41

THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 15, 2007

FISCAL YEAR 2008 NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT—

BUDGET REQUEST ON OVERVIEW OF RECRUITING AND RETENTION

STATEMENTS PRESENTED BY MEMBERS OF CONGRESS

McHugh, Hon. John M., a Representative from New York, Ranking Member,

Military Personnel Subcommittee ...................................................................... 1

Snyder, Hon. Vic, a Representative from Arkansas, Chairman, Military Personnel Subcommittee ........................................................................................... 1

WITNESSES

Brady, Lt. Gen. Roger A., Deputy Chief of Staff, Manpower and Personnel,

U.S. Air Force ....................................................................................................... 7

Chu, Hon. David S.C., Under Secretary of Defense (Personnel and Readiness) 2

Coleman, Lt. Gen. Ronald S., Deputy Commandant for Manpower and Reserve Affairs, U.S. Marine Corps ........................................................................ 6

Harvey, Vice Adm. John C., Jr., Chief of Naval Personnel and Deputy Chief

of Naval Operations (Manpower, Personnel, Training & Education), U.S.

Navy ...................................................................................................................... 5

Rochelle, Lt. Gen. Michael D., Deputy Chief of Staff, G1, U.S. Army ................ 4

APPENDIX

PREPARED STATEMENTS:

Brady, Lt. Gen. Roger A. ................................................................................. 109

Chu, Hon. David S.C. ....................................................................................... 50

Coleman, Lt. Gen. Ronald S. ........................................................................... 115

Harvey, Vice Adm. John C., Jr. ....................................................................... 88

McHugh, Hon. John M. .................................................................................... 47

Rochelle, Lt. Gen. Michael D. .......................................................................... 68

Snyder, Dr. Vic ................................................................................................. 45

DOCUMENTS SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD:

[There were no Documents submitted.]

QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD:

Mr. Kline ........................................................................................................... 147

Mr. McHugh ...................................................................................................... 146

Mr. Murphy ....................................................................................................... 148

Dr. Snyder ......................................................................................................... 139

(1)

FISCAL YEAR 2008 NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT—BUDGET REQUEST ON OVERVIEW OF RECRUITING AND RETENTION

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES, MILITARY PERSONNEL SUBCOMMITTEE, Washington, DC, Thursday, February 15, 2007.

The subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 2:04 p.m., in room

2212, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Vic Snyder (chairman

of the subcommittee) presiding.

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. VIC SNYDER, A REPRESENTATIVE FROM ARKANSAS, CHAIRMAN, MILITARY PERSONNEL

SUBCOMMITTEE

Dr. SNYDER. The hearing will come to order. We are pleased

today to have this array of witnesses to discuss recruiting and retention. This has been an important issue to Mr. McHugh for the

time that he was the chairman and it continues to be an interest

of both of ours.

We are aware, the committee is aware, of the challenging recruiting and retention environment that we face as a country, particularly in light of the proposal for increased numbers in the Army

and Marine Corps.

During fiscal years 2006 and 2007, the Congress and Department

of Defense partnered to authorize a wide array of increased recruiting and retention incentives and more flexible legislative authorities and part of our purpose today is to get a sense of where we

are at with these partnerships. And I know, Dr. Chu, you made

mention of legislative proposals coming up.

So we are glad to have you all here, and before I introduce the

witnesses, I will turn the time over to Mr. McHugh for any opening

statement he has.

[The prepared statement of Dr. Snyder can be found in the Appendix on page 45.]

STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN M. MCHUGH, A REPRESENTATIVE

FROM NEW YORK, RANKING MEMBER, MILITARY PERSONNEL SUBCOMMITTEE

Mr. MCHUGH. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Without objection, I would ask that my full statement be submitted in the record in its entirety, and I will just make a couple of

opening comments.

First of all, gentlemen, welcome, as always. Thank you for being

here. We deeply appreciate your service to the country and your efforts to help this subcommittee do its important work.

2

Some of the issues we face, as you know, are relatively the same

as in years past; the concerns about sustainment of adequate recruiting and retention programs, the question of end-strength, et

cetera. But they take on a different dimension this year because we

do have, some of us would argue, a long-overdue increase in the

force structure and the growth of end-strength for the Army and

the Marine Corps.

That puts a different light on our recruiting and retention programs. We are going to be interested to hear from you as to that

challenge and how you feel the way ahead may feel to you at this

point. A number of other issues, as well, of course, that we look forward to your comments about, particularly as they relate to this

budget.

I am going to be interested in pursuing these supplemental requests as it affects your job. Most people think of that supplemental as a war-fighting instrument, something to pay for those

important theaters. They are that, but there are other efforts as

well, I suspect, perhaps recruiting and retention and how the approval or not of those requests may affect your job to grow the

force.

So thank you for being here, and I look forward to your comments.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

[The prepared statement of Mr. McHugh can be found in the Appendix on page 47.]

Dr. SNYDER. Thank you, Mr. McHugh.

Our five witnesses today are Dr. David Chu, the Under Secretary

of Defense for Personnel and Readiness; Lieutenant General Michael Rochelle, Deputy Chief of Staff, G–1, for the Army; Vice Admiral John Harvey, Chief of Navy Personnel and Deputy Chief of

Naval Operations; and Lieutenant General Roger Brady, Deputy

Chief of Staff, Manpower and Personnel, for the U.S. Air Force;

and Lieutenant General Ronald Coleman from the Marine Corps,

Deputy Commandant for Manpower and Reserve Affairs.

We appreciate you all being here. If you all would testify in that

order so that I won’t get confused, that would be great.

And, Dr. Chu.

STATEMENT OF DR. DAVID S.C. CHU, UNDER SECRETARY OF

DEFENSE (PERSONNEL AND READINESS)

Dr. CHU. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee. It is a privilege to be here this afternoon, to be joined

by my colleagues.

It is our responsibility, as you suggest, Mr. Chairman, to testify

about the recruiting and retention programs that affect the most

important resource of the Department, and that is our people.

We have in the last 18 months, in my judgment, sustained the

success the volunteer force has enjoyed over the three decades of

its existence. And that is due very much, I would argue, to the additional authorities that you have provided us in previous authorization bills.

Indeed, the record of the recent years, I think, should be viewed

in that historic context. If I could ask Mr. Gatreau to put the chart

up for me, please. This chart is in my prepared statement, which

3

I hope you would accept for the record, but it shows the Department’s performance against two key standards that have for over

a decade now been the norms against which we aim to succeed.

That is to say that 90 percent or better of our new recruits, nonprior-service recruits, have a high school diploma as a predictor of

their ability to stay with military service, and, second, that 60 percent or more of our recruits score above average on the Armed

Forces Qualification Test.

There has been a great bit of discussion about these standards.

They have not changed for over a decade. They come out of a study

undertaken in partnership with the National Academy of Science

in the 1990’s that balanced the return to these important characteristics against the costs of acquiring and retaining personnel with

these success indicators.

And in a longer perspective, they come out of the early history

of the volunteer force, and as you can see from the chart, in the

early days the volunteer force did not enjoy this same level of personnel quality in terms of its recruits, a much lower quality by

these same standards. We have, however, for the last 20 years sustained those standards, and that is true down to the present day.

Yes, we do make some changes in important factors that are a

part of this picture, so, for example, several years ago we normed

the test, we normed the Armed Service Vocational Aptitude Battery, that actually makes it somewhat tougher by two or three percentage points to get an above-average grade on that test than was

true in the past.

Our challenge, our challenge together, as you suggest, Mr. Chairman, is to sustain that success in the future. And I think there are

two key complements in that present and future partnership.

One, of course, is legislative action. You will be seeing from us

shortly a proposal, once cleared by the Office of Management and

Budget, to consolidate the myriad of special pay authorities we

have into a smaller number of categories to improve the flexibility

of the response to this Department as we look to future challenges.

Second, we would like to extend and expand the pilot authorities

given the Army to undertake special new initiatives, particularly in

the recruiting lane. And, third, as we look to the joint needs of the

future against a smaller manpower base for some of the services,

we do believe we need some relief on grade restrictions for senior

enlisted and for mid-grade officers. Certainly that is the case in the

United States Navy, and I will let Admiral Harvey speak to that

agenda.

The second area in which we seek your partnership is in advocacy. I think it is critical, if the Nation wants a strong, able military, that we all speak up positively about the favorable aspects of

military service.

As the military has shrunk in the post-Cold War years, important parts of the country, and especially I think in many New England states, Northeastern states in the upper Midwest, important

parts of the country no longer can see a military base next-door or

see an example of a military effort close to the hometown. It is

more distant than it was in the past, and I think it is important

in that situation that we all speak up, encouraging young people

4

who are interested in military service in the choice that they might

make.

In fact, I would argue that the most serious recruiting challenge

we face is the outlook of what we call the influencers. What do parents, what do counselors, what do teachers, what do coaches, what

do leaders like yourselves say when a young person steps forward

and indicates that he or she be interested in military service? It is

not just the Army’s job or the Marine Corps’ job to succeed in this

regard. We would argue it is all our jobs as citizens of the United

States to help ensure that success, or what we tell our young people about the choices they might make.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

[The prepared statement of Dr. Chu can be found in the Appendix on page 50.]

Dr. SNYDER. I haven’t said about the order. I forgot who is next

on our list here.

General ROCHELLE. Sir, I am.

Dr. SNYDER. Good. There you go. Thank you. General Rochelle.

STATEMENT OF LT. GEN. MICHAEL D. ROCHELLE, DEPUTY

CHIEF OF STAFF, G1, U.S. ARMY

General ROCHELLE. Chairman Snyder, Representative McHugh,

ladies and gentlemen, thank you so much for this honor and privilege to appear before this body today.

Success of the all-volunteer Army starts with recruiting. Competition with industry, an improving economy, lower unemployment and decreasing support, as you heard from Dr. Chu, of key

influencers are all significant factors, not to mention the global war

on terror (GWOT).

Thanks to your support and the efforts of the secretary of the

army, secretary of defense, chief of staff of the army and support

from this body, the United States Army was successful in recruiting over 175,000 young men and women in fiscal 2006, and we expect to repeat that this year.

However, recruiting will continue to be challenging. It is always

challenging, and that will be no different, obviously, in 2007 and

moving into 2008. Medical recruiting is a significant challenge for

all of us, but I will speak only for the Army.

You are clearly aware that nurses are a national matter. There

is a shortfall for everyone, and we feel that most pronouncedly in

the United States Army. We will be seeking some dispensations to

help us with that challenge, and I believe you will hear more about

that.

I will conclude my remarks by saying thank you for your support.

Thank you on behalf of the more than one million soldiers who are

serving in your Army today.

[The prepared statement of General Rochelle can be found in the

Appendix on page 68.]

Dr. SNYDER. Admiral Harvey.

5

STATEMENT OF VICE ADM. JOHN C. HARVEY, JR., CHIEF OF

NAVAL PERSONNEL AND DEPUTY CHIEF OF NAVAL OPERATIONS (MANPOWER, PERSONNEL, TRAINING & EDUCATION), U.S. NAVY

Admiral HARVEY. Thank you, sir. Chairman Snyder, Representative McHugh, distinguished members of this committee, thank you

very much for the opportunity to appear before you today.

I think it is important to start with one of the bigger lessons I

have learned in my first year-plus on the job, and that is to state

how grateful we are for the unstinting support that this committee

has provided our sailors and our Navy. And without this support,

we would clearly not be the Navy that we are today, and it is this

Navy of today that you have done so much to support and sustain

over time that continues to perform exceptionally well, helping to

bring certainty to an uncertain world.

Our Navy total force—and I emphasize the total force aspect of

our Navy, active and reserve, our Federal and civilian employees

and our contract personnel—continue to perform the traditional atsea roles that we all grew up with, while drastically increasing our

support in what has been non-traditional missions for us:

counterinsurgency, counterterrorism, civil-military operations and

delivering humanitarian aid around the world.

And certainly our challenge is to sustain these core capabilities

and readiness that the Nation expects every day of every year,

while building a future fleet increasingly capable of applying influence from the sea across the littorals and ashore.

For the past five years, our focus has been on sizing the force,

ensuring we had the right number of billets and the right number

of sailors to fill those billets. Today, we are focused on shaping and

stabilizing the force, ensuring we have the right fit between the

knowledge, skills and abilities required by a billet and those possessed by the sailor to fill that billet and ensuring that we can easily adjust that fit based on what we see as a rapidly changing warfighting requirements in our current environment.

This shift in focus from fill to fit requires profound changes in

the way we do business. Our recruiting, our personnel distribution

system, our training and compensation processes, all must change

in order to meet the challenge of delivering tomorrow’s force.

Cold War recruiting and retention strategies won’t sustain us

into the future, particularly in the face of a shrinking talent pool

with decreased propensity for military service. Major demographic

shifts, reflecting significant growth in our immigrant and minority

populations, present new challenges, but also present us terrific

new opportunities to leverage the diversity of our population and

bring their talent into our Navy. And a Navy that reflects society’s

diversity will be a stronger, more cohesive and more capable fighting force in this society.

The robust economy, evidenced by our low unemployment and

sustained economic growth, increases the overall competition for

the best and brightest talent in our Nation and meeting our recruiting goals in quantity and quality—quality which makes the

difference for our force—will certainly become a far tougher task

over the next few years.

6

Retention dynamics are also changing as a new generation of

sailors, the millennials and the post-millennials, enter the force

and are increasingly likely to forego traditional, career-long relationships with a single employer, opting instead for frequent job

changes over the course of a career, increased availability and variety of career choices, portable incentive packages, multiple training

and education opportunities and increased competition for technologically savvy youth certainly contribute to this new dynamic.

Our basis pay table was developed in 1922. The Officer Personnel

Management System was essentially codified from 1971 to 1979

and passed into law in 1980. Current military retirement compensation principles were essentially developed at the end of the

last century.

Given these foundations for how we do business, perhaps it is

time, perhaps it is time to reexamine our existing compensation

policies with an eye toward establishing a construct that is competitive, fair, flexible and responsive to the rapidly changing operational and market-based environment we are facing today and

will continue to face in the future.

Likewise, existing Defense Officer Personnel Management Act

(DOPMA) grade limitations greatly inhibit our flexibility to efficiently align our personnel to current and projected force structure

requirements. Navy has become a far more joint and senior force,

reduced in size but with increased war-fighting capability.

As our end-strength stabilizes, the need for more senior and experienced sailors will continue to increase. We are currently operating at or very near statutory control grade limits. Consequently, we

are now suppressing billet grades through the programming and

budgeting process in order to comply with current DOPMA constraints.

In fiscal year 2008, Navy is seeking relief, as Dr. Chu mentioned,

from these control grade limits to enable us to properly man our

billet structure, while providing the flexibility to respond to the

continuously emerging external control grade requirements, particularly in the rapid growth in the joint world.

As we build the Navy of the future and prepare our people to

meet the demands of this dynamic and dangerous world, we must

continue to improve total force readiness, stabilize our force and

develop the policies that bring forth the full promise of our people.

Our Navy total force must be ready when, wherever called upon.

That is our heritage, that is our legacy and, with the continued

support of the American people and this Congress, that is exactly

what we will continue to do.

Thank you very much, sir.

[The prepared statement of Admiral Harvey can be found in the

Appendix on page 88.]

Dr. SNYDER. Welcome.

General Coleman.

STATEMENT OF LT. GEN. RONALD S. COLEMAN, DEPUTY COMMANDANT FOR MANPOWER AND RESERVE AFFAIRS, U.S. MARINE CORPS

General COLEMAN. Sir.

7

Chairman Snyder, Representative McHugh and distinguished

members of the subcommittee, it is an honor to appear before you

today to discuss Marine Corps recruiting and retention.

I would like to first thank all of you for your continued support

for our Marines and their families. The commitment of Congress to

increase the war-fighting and crisis response capabilities of our Nation’s armed forces and to improve the quality of life for Marines

is central to the strength of your Marine Corps today.

I would like to make three points. First, in fiscal year 2006, the

Marine Corps exceeded its mission both in recruiting and retention.

In doing so, we continued to exceed DOD quality standards in recruiting. We also achieved over 97 percent military occupational

specialty match in first-year Marines and 94 percent in career Marines.

Second, in fiscal year 2007, the Marine Corps is off to a strong

start in both recruiting and retention. We were initially on pace to

meet or exceed our fiscal year 2006 results. As part of the plan to

increase our end-strength to 202,000 by fiscal year 2011, we are

now planning to increase our end-strength to 184,000 by the end

of fiscal year 2007.

Consequently, we are increasing both our recruiting and retention missions significantly. These new missions will present challenges to our recruiters, commanders and retention specialists, but

we believe we will meet the challenge.

Key to our success will be the additional funding that we have

applied to both our enlisted, bonus and selected reenlistment bonus

programs. Third, the plan to increase the Marine Corps endstrength will enable our Marine Corps to better train across the

war-fighting spectrum, responding to other conflicts and crises and

reducing the strain on our Marines and units.

Meeting the end-strength growth requirement will require us to

continue to increase our recruiting and retention goals. The Marine

Corps will also increase the number of recruiters, expand marketing and advertising efforts and increase enlistment and reenlistment incentives.

We ask for your support in authorizing and funding these programs. With these important tools, we will be able to continue to

attract and retain the best and brightest. Thanks to you, your Marine Corps remains the Nation’s force in readiness and will continue to fulfill its mission of being most ready when the Nation is

least ready.

I look forward to answering your questions.

[The prepared statement of General Coleman can be found in the

Appendix on page 115.]

Dr. SNYDER. Thank you, General.

General Brady.

STATEMENT OF LT. GEN. ROGER A. BRADY, DEPUTY CHIEF OF

STAFF, MANPOWER AND PERSONNEL, U.S. AIR FORCE

General BRADY. Mr. Chairman, Congressman McHugh and members of the committee, thank you for this opportunity to discuss our

efforts to ensure we recruit and retain high-quality airmen for the

world’s most respected air and space force.

8

Our airman have been continuously deployed and globally engaged in combat missions for more than 16 straight years, since

the first F–15 touched down in Saudi Arabia in August of 1990.

Today, airmen are fully engaged in the interdependent joint fight

and stand prepared for rapid response and conflict across the globe.

Our priorities are clear: winning the global war on terror and

preparing for the next war, developing and caring for our airmen

to maintain our competitive advantage, and modernizing and recapitalizing our aircraft and equipment to meet 21st-century challenges.

As you know, we have been involved in a critical recapitalization

and modernization effort for an aging air and space force. Budgetary pressures force difficult choices to ensure that the Air Force

would maintain the right balance across our personnel, infrastructure, readiness and investment portfolios.

The Air Force undertook significant personnel reductions to generate dollars, to reprogram toward essential systems for recapitalization and modernization, concurrent or congruent with these

three key mission priorities.

While this has been difficult, it has also provided the impetus for

a hard look at our processes and organizational structure. At the

same time, we have placed equal emphasis on improving the education and training of our airmen.

The bottom line is that we are becoming a leaner, more flexible,

more capable force. As we prepare for an uncertain future, we are

transforming the force to ensure we have the right sized and

shaped force to meet emerging global threats with joint and battletrained airmen.

We are becoming a smaller force with a critical need for specific

skills. We recruit, train and educate our airmen for the complex

multinational and interagency operations of today with an eye on

tomorrow. Our recruiting force has met our recruiting mission

through great persistence and dedication.

In 2001 through 2006, we had a recruiting mission of more than

158,000 and assessed over 160,000, or 101 percent of mission accomplishment. For 2007, the active-duty mission requirement is

27,800. Over 6,400 new airmen have assessed up to this point, with

another 12,000 waiting to enter basic training. We are on track to

meet our goals.

To date, for fiscal year 2007, we have assessed 100 percent of our

active-duty goals, 100 percent and 107 percent of our reserve and

guard goals, respectively. Our recruiting service continues to find

the right person for the right job at the right time, and this is ever

evident in our most critical war fighter skills.

The recruiting service has filled every requirement for combat

control or pararescue; tactical air control party, survival, escape,

resistance and evasion; and linguists since 2001. This has been accomplished through hard work and significant assistance of this

Congress, and we appreciate it.

These individuals are offered an initial enlistment bonus ranging

from $3,000 to $12,000, depending on the job and the term of enlistment. No other enlistment bonuses are offered.

9

The majority of our officer programs have met with mission success, but much like General Rochelle told you, medical recruiting

and retention remained a challenge.

In fiscal year 2007, we continue to manage and shape the force

across and within skills. Maintaining retention at acceptable levels

through targeted retention programs continues to be critical to this

effort. Force shaping ensured active-duty end-strength met our

longer-term requirements. This effort is successful in no small

measure because of your support.

Active-duty Air Force and Air National Guard met their overall

officer and enlisted retention goals for fiscal year 2006. The Air

Force Reserve met its officer goal but fell slightly short of its enlisted retention goal by 0.8 percent, attaining 99.2 percent of goal.

Even with these successes, some enlisted specialties in the active

Air Force did not achieve their overall retention goal. Our most

critical war-fighting skills require a special retention focus to maintain combat capability due to critical manning and increased operations tempo demands placed on career fields such as pararescue,

combat control, explosive ordnance disposal.

Budgetary support for retention programs is critical to effectively

manage the force and retain needed war-fighting capabilities.

These programs are judiciously and effectively targeted to provide

the most return on investment in both dollars and capability.

Our war-fighting airmen are committed to serving, including

those experiencing high deployment rates. Combatant commander

requirements and the global war on terror at large require a high

demand for pilots, intelligence, maintenance, civil engineers, communication and enlisted officers, as well as enlisted airmen and

aerospace maintenance, supply, transportation munitions and

weapons, fire protection, services and security forces.

Despite an increased operations tempo and deployment rate, retention statistics for these career fields mirror the Air Force average. As part of our Air Force transformation, we continue to improve education and training. We are extending basic military

training to 8.5 weeks to teach airmen the skills to defend an airbase and set them up in an expeditionary operation. We are teaching every airman self aid and buddy care so that they can take care

of each other when their bases take mortar fire or the truck they

are driving comes under enemy attack.

We are teaching language training and enhancing regional studies in our Air Command and Staff College, Air War College and our

non-commissioned officer (NCO) schools. We are consolidating Air

Force specialty codes to provide broader skill sets and enabling

flexibility and GWOT and support of combatant command

(COCOM) missions.

We have also placed a great focus on language and culture training at officer accession sources. One force development strategy is

to target foreign language speakers, primarily focusing on Air

Force Reserve Officer Training Center (ROTC) detachments sponsoring foreign language programs. We currently have 54 cadets enrolled as language majors, with another 629 scholarship cadets majoring in technical degrees and taking language as electives.

All Air Force Academy and Air Force ROTC cadets on scholarship contracts majoring in non-technical degrees must complete

10

four semesters of foreign language and our technical majors must

complete two semesters. Today’s airmen are performing at the high

standards that have been the hallmark for as long as there have

been American airmen.

Our airmen are fully prepared and engaged today, and we must

continue to invest to ensure tomorrow’s air and space and cyberspace dominance. We have taken prudent actions to ensure your

Air Force remains the most respected air and space force in the

world.

We appreciate your unfailing support for the men and women of

our Air Force, and I look forward to your questions. Thank you.

[The prepared statement of General Brady can be found in the

Appendix on page 109.]

Dr. SNYDER. I think we made it through everyone, even though

I didn’t follow the order worth a darn.

Mr. Higgins is going to start the clock here. We are going to follow our five-minute clock, but that is for us. And we have a panel

of five, and if you see the red light go on and you have got a

thought you want to finish or if it hasn’t gotten to you, we want

you to go ahead and spend the time. Don’t be panicked about that.

That is for us, that we will stop.

Go ahead and start it there.

Dr. Chu, you mentioned advocacy.

I guess it is just coincidental, but, Mr. McHugh, have any of you

done this ‘‘Colbert Report’’ thing? So right away you know what a

doofus you have got for chairman here, because I did. It was taped

down the hall here about three weeks ago, and tonight they are

broadcasting it. But as part of that, I forget the context. He tapes

for about an hour and 20, 30 minutes so he can have a lot of material to edit and to making officials look stupid, which is not difficult

to do.

But part of that was at some point he said, I want you to look

in the camera and encourage people to enlist, which I did very sincerely. And the point I tried to make is that even in times of great

foreign policy debate, which our country goes through every now

and again, we still need good folks to step forward and back their

country, and I believe that very strongly. I appreciate what you

have said about advocacy.

Dr. Chu, before I get into some specific questions, I want to get

real basic here. I want you to define with as much particularity as

you want to, the terms attrition, accession, retention, delayed-entry

program and recruitment.

Dr. CHU. Okay, sir, let me do my best. First of all, thank you for

your advocacy.

Dr. SNYDER. We will see the show tonight at 11:30, then we will

decide.

Dr. CHU. That is not my usual bed time, but let me be sure I

touch all the terms you——

Dr. SNYDER. Retention, attrition, accession, delayed-entry organization and recruitment.

Dr. CHU. Okay, let me start with accession. That means to us

that you actually join the military. You raise your right hand and

take the oath to protect and defend the Constitution of the United

States. That is different from contracts, I might add, which are like

11

reservations in the system. So we may have higher contract goals

in order to build a pool of people.

That is the delayed-entry program. There are people who agree

to serve, but to come on at a future date.

Attrition refers to the premature loss of an individual, in other

words, before the expected term of service. And, typically, against

a three-year horizon, we lose about one-third of the cohort before

the end of that period of time.

Retention implies that the individual made a positive decision to

accept a longer or additional term of service that may or may not

be in return for something we offer them as an incentive.

I believe I covered all your terms——

Dr. SNYDER. Just the general term recruitment, is that a term

of art, or does it just refer broadly to——

Dr. CHU. I think recruitment is, as you imply, sir, subject to a

broader and less precise interpretation. Perhaps the way I would

look at it, as I think my colleagues would, is that while people on

the one hand speak of this as an all-volunteer force, in reality it

is an all-recruited force.

We don’t just wait for people to show up, we reach out, partly

because, as you appreciate, we do set high standards and have for

the last 20 years or so for whom we would like to have in military

service. So we need to advocate for those kinds of people to come

in and make a positive decision, in particular make a positive decision, as General Brady’s testimony implied, to take on some of the

most arduous, demanding, hard-to-train-for tasks in the military.

Dr. SNYDER. Dr. Chu, and then anyone else can join in on this

question, too, with regard to the valuation for promotion, the performance of your recruiters, are all the services now evaluating

their recruiters the same way and which of those do they look at

in terms of evaluating the performance of recruiters for promotion,

et cetera?

Dr. CHU. I would let my colleagues answer, because I do think

there are some individual service——

Dr. SNYDER. That is what I would like to hear.

Dr. CHU [continuing]. Their specific circumstances. So, as one example that General Coleman can elaborate on, the Marine Corps

unites both the recruiting and the training function, because its

view, and I think there is merit to that view, is that until the person has successfully come to the conclusion, graduated, from training, we haven’t quite succeeded yet.

But perhaps I would turn to each of my colleagues to describe

how they evaluate their recruiters.

Dr. SNYDER. General Coleman, do you want to start, and we will

just go down the line.

General COLEMAN. Yes, sir, and thank you, sir.

Our recruiters and all recruiters are probably one of the more

difficult, if not the most difficult, assignment anyone can have. But

recruiters are graded, evaluated on how well they do their job, not

only how many recruits come in, how many recruits graduate and

the quality of those recruits.

Our recruiters are out for usually a 36-month tour. Some will

volunteer to stay longer. Some will kiss the ground and leave at

that 36-month mark, because it is such a tough assignment. But

12

they are evaluated not only by the number that they contact and

the number that they bring in, but also the number that remain

and graduate from basic training.

Dr. SNYDER. Admiral Harvey.

Admiral HARVEY. Yes, sir. It is a multifaceted approach. You

start it with an assigned quota, but you don’t want a quota solely

to drive performance, because that leads you down some roads that

you don’t want to walk down. So you have a quota you aim for, and

you also are a member of a team and a district, and so you are

evaluated on your participation and your ability to enhance the

overall performance of the recruiting team in that area, as well.

And then you are evaluated on your ability to sustain our delayed-entry pool, what you do to keep the folks that we have put

under contract, that we depend on for a steady flow through the

year, to keep them on board and interested and focused and motivated.

So it is a lot of things go into it, one of which, an important part

of which, is have you met what we expect you to bring in in terms

of your own individual performance, and then how are you as a

member of the team and contributing to our overall performance,

sir?

Dr. SNYDER. General Rochelle.

General ROCHELLE. Yes, sir, not much more to add, except that

we recognize recruiters who are exceptionally good at recruiting

quality just a little bit better, or higher, if you will, than the recruiter who simply achieves the number, if I may put it that way.

And since 2002, we have been gradually shifting the credit,

frankly, to mirror the Marine Corps’ model from simply achieving

the enlistment contract or reservation to the young man or woman

actually arriving at basic training.

Dr. SNYDER. Arriving at basic training or finishing basic training?

General ROCHELLE. Arriving, sir.

Dr. SNYDER. General Brady.

General BRADY. I would echo very much what my colleagues

have said, and particularly Admiral Harvey.

It is multifaceted, clearly, maybe to a greater degree than other

people in our service there are some empirical standards by which

you can measure how effective they are. But, at the same time, I

think it is just as important that we expect our standards, our recruiters, to reflect the very high standards of Air Force. They are

the welcome wagon to the Air Force, and so we want them to look

sharp and be sharp and have all the professional standards that

there is nowhere that it is more important than that.

So it is not just they are meeting their recruiting goals, but it

is the way they present themselves, the way they conduct themselves, their teamwork and their ability to present the Air Force to

the young men and women of America.

Dr. SNYDER. Mr. McHugh.

Mr. MCHUGH. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

One of the many reasons I haven’t done ‘‘Colbert’’ is I am just

so bad at math. So, General Rochelle, I am going to ask you to help

me understand some math, here.

13

In your written statement, you note that the Army in 2006, fiscal

year 2006, reached more than 100 percent of your recruiting mission. You also note that the Army achieved 105 percent of its retention mission in 2006. And those are great statistics, but the interesting part, and where the math comes in, is that in spite of those

more than 100 percent achievements, you really achieved an endstrength of just over 505,000 in 2006, that failed to reach the authorized end-strength of 512,000, about 7,000 less.

And what I am having a hard time understanding is how can you

be so successful on your recruiting and retention goals, but not

achieve the end-strength. And then I have got to ask a broader

question about end-strength to your colleagues. But what happens

there?

And, really, while you are at it, I guess the more important question is you are going to retain those same objectives for the next

fiscal year, in spite of the fact that your next target for endstrength is supposed to grow to 518,400, with that recruiting goal

of 80,000. How does the math work there? How are we going to

successfully grow the force when those kinds of objectives, having

been met, are not really adding to the force. They are not getting

where you state you want to be. Help me understand.

General ROCHELLE. Excellent question, sir. Thank you for the opportunity.

To be quite blunt, we reached our limits of advance in 2006.

Given the recruiting climate that we were in, we were very successful. In total, we grew the force of the United States Army by 13,000

in 2006. We could not simply grow it any faster or any larger, nor

could we achieve it any faster in 2006.

We do expect to hit 518,000 in 2007, from a combination of both

strong recruiting, with the help of this body and certainly very

strong retention. By the way, sir, I might add that we were in fact

within the 2 percent tolerance given us by the Congress against

that 512,000 end-strength.

Mr. MCHUGH. Absolutely.

General ROCHELLE. We were authorized to go up that high.

Mr. MCHUGH. And I don’t want to suggest that it was less an

achievement than it was, because you had come a long way. But

clearly the challenge now, uniquely, is to grow the force for you and

the Marine Corps. And I am having, as I said, a hard time understanding how an 80,000 target—you are going to have to really

overachieve. And I am just concerned myself that recruiters naturally will target the target—that is why they call it a target—and

not focus on the fact of that expected overachievement. And retention is really going to have to work, which brings me to my next

question.

This committee, I and the chairman and many others, have expressed a concern about the roller coaster budget lines that recruiting and retention receive. Good times, when recruiting is easier,

the dollars don’t seem to be there. They go elsewhere. Retention

and recruiting programs kind of fall off, and then times get hard

and it is tough to make it up.

If you look at your budget for recruiting, it is clear that more and

more the services are being called upon to rely upon supplementals

for their recruiting and retention programs, and we can go through

14

the numbers, but you know them probably far better than I do. The

Army, for example—on my left, Michael tells me.

Thank you, Michael.

The Army right now, compared to what they actually spent in

2006 and the base budget for 2007, for recruiting and retention

programs, is about $735 million behind. All the services are behind.

The Army is the biggest number.

So I think it is good for us in Congress to hear your assessment

of what the upcoming supplemental budget may mean to your ability to meet your end-strength and what happens in that ability if

somehow the Congress doesn’t go where you think it needs to go.

Dr. CHU. If I may start, Congressman McHugh, the fact that

some of this funded in supplemental reflects a budgetary strategy

that is under change, as you appreciate, as to how these things are

handled. That is the decision made about the individual service

level.

There is in my judgment an aggressive posture, particularly for

the Army, in the 2007 supplemental for additional funding, both to

support recruiting and retention efforts and to support the growth

in end-strength that we hope thereby to achieve.

Two, your bottom-line question, how important is the supplemental to our success? Critical, and I think critical especially to receive the supplemental. I recognize it is beyond this subcommittee’s

responsibilities, but critical to receive the supplemental in a timely

manner, or the natural reprogramming friction will make it much

harder for the military services to reorient monies in order to try

to sustain the success that has been achieved thus far.

Dr. SNYDER. Thank the gentlemen.

Ms. Davis.

Ms. DAVIS OF CALIFORNIA. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

While we are looking at these numbers, can we talk a little bit

about—and thank you all very much for being here, for your service, as well.

Just can we sustain the rate of bonuses that we are giving out,

and is that of great concern to all of you?

Dr. CHU. Let me start, ma’am, and invite my colleagues to join.

My short answer would be yes.

Ms. DAVIS OF CALIFORNIA. Numbers, because I think it is—we

spent $1.8 billion on retention bonuses. Fiscal year 2006 was $300

million more than the 1.5 spent in during 2005. And we really are

escalating it.

Dr. CHU. Ma’am, we have increased the amounts. That is true.

However, you look at the total compensation bill for the Department, the bonuses, special pays, typically are less than ten percent.

Many years they have been five percent of the total.

It is, I think, a tribute to the management of the Department

and the partnership of the committee for many years that we have

been able to use bonus and special pays in a targeted manner, because that is much more economical of taxpayers’ money.

And so, yes, I think that success can be sustained. What probably matters more than attention to the total amount is our authority on how and when we can pay it. You have been very gracious in the last several years in enlarging that authority, allowing

payment of bonuses and targeted extensions when we have a speVerDate 22-MAR-2001 11:03 Nov 03, 2008 Jkt 037653 PO 00000 Frm 00018 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 C:\DOCS\110-20\046020.000 HAS2 PsN: HAS2
15

cific need. So, for example, to persuade individuals to join specific

reserve units, or in the case of an important program where we are

urging those personnel leaving from the Air Force and the Navy,

as part of their downsizing, to consider the Army as a further career choice.

Those have been very helpful authorities. So our emphasis has

been much more on how we can spend the money, be sure we can

spend it in a way that is effective.

The budgetary amounts are manageable from the Department’s

perspective, the executive branch’s perspective. Indeed, our problem in the bonus accounts has typically been that the appropriations process has not always been kind to them. Sometimes it has

reduced them in manners that we find problematic.

Ms. DAVIS OF CALIFORNIA. Anybody else want to comment? Generally, is that how you found that you are able to retain the folks

that you want as a result of the bonus? And what if they went

away? Is that not possible?

General ROCHELLE. I would first of all say, ma’am, and thank

you for the opportunity to respond to that question, that on the retention side, that is very, very wise investment, to keep a trained

soldier, sailor, airman, Marine, Coast Guardsman, is a wise, wise

investment. So I would say you have to sustain that, and maybe

even take it higher.

The second point I would make is that given what we see in

terms of the individuals who are eligible to serve in—and I will

speak, once again, just for the Army today—only three out of 10

young Americans between the ages of 17 and 25 are eligible to

serve today, without a waiver. That is medical waiver or a moral

waver or an aptitude waiver.

And given declining propensity, which Dr. Chu spoke of and my

colleague from the Navy also spoke of, we may have no choice on

the recruiting side, except to continue along the same path.

Ms. DAVIS OF CALIFORNIA. Thank you. You are mentioning the

percentage of individuals that are eligible to serve now, and I

know, Dr. Chu, you pointed out the fact, and I have actually heard

this when we have asked people, tell us about the quality of recruits or the quality of individuals that are serving today, and they

often mention the fact that people are much more adaptable to information technology, of course, but their physical condition is poor.

Can you address that, and are we lowering those standards in

order to get the folks, and how are we going to deal with that?

Dr. CHU. No, ma’am, we are not lowering the standards. We are

exploring how we best apply those standards.

The Army, and General Rochelle can speak to it better than I,

has another program in which we look at people who might be

viewed as overweight by our body mass index indicator but nonetheless have good physical fitness.

So, for example, most National Football League players could not

pass the body mass index standard. The issue therefore for us is

well, is that always the right indicator? The Army has developed

an additional set of tests to put people through to see do they have

the physical potential to succeed in basic and advanced training?

Because that is really the issue.

16

I will acknowledge, however, that the national problem with

overweight, obesity in the extreme, is an issue for us, because it

is partly behind General Rochelle’s three in ten number. And so

improved national physical fitness is an important consideration

for us.

General ROCHELLE. I would only add, to echo what Dr. Chu said,

and to piggyback off of the wonderful remarks of Admiral Harvey,

as well, we have designed two tests with support from the Office

of Secretary of Defense, the Tier Two Attrition Study, which takes

a young person who has not graduated from high school and applies different aptitude tests, in addition to the Armed Services Vocational Aptitude Battery, and tracks their performance. And it is

comparable to that of a high school retention and success in basic

training.

And to the extent that we have the longitudinal data, unit attrition, as well, mirrors that of a high school graduate. The body mass

index test that he referred to is called the Advanced Respiratory

Monitoring System (ARMS) test, and it is a measure of, really, if

you will, the heart of the individual to serve. Here, again, those individuals who would not have been eligible to enlist based upon

body mass, height and weight and the ratio thereof, they, too, retain and are successful at the rates of individuals who do.

So, in that sense, I would offer that to echo Admiral Harvey’s

comments about our changing demographic.

Dr. SNYDER. Mr. Kline.

Mr. KLINE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. It occurs to me when we

are sitting here that half the Marines in Congress are at this table

and we are trying to do this higher math. I am very concerned.

[Laughter.]

I have got tables and charts here, and frankly we are trying to

figure out if we are authorizing enough money, if there is enough

money to meet the increased recruiting demands, because I certainly believe what General Krulak used to say, that the all-volunteer force was an all-recruited force. You have got to get them. You

need access to high schools and to colleges, and we are interested

in watching that.

I was sorry to hear about the shortage of nurses, and I will try

to keep that from my wife. She may decide that the 22 years she

served as an Army nurse wasn’t enough.

Dr. CHU. We do have retiree recall programming.

Mr. KLINE. No, I am taking the phone off the hook.

Let me try to get at it this way, if I can. I want to get this down

simple enough so that I can sort of get my hands around the increased recruiting effort, and I want focus—Dr. Chu, you can address this, or General Rochelle or General Coleman, or all three of

you.

Can you quantify for me two things that would help me understand what we are doing with the increased demands for recruiting? One, if you compare—we will use fiscal year 2006, before we

increase the end-strength of the Army and the Marine Corps, to fiscal year 2008, particularly in the Army and Marine Corps, now,

how many more recruiters—and you can include officers selection

officers of whatever we call them—are you going to be putting out

in the field? And how much more money are you going to spend

17

on advertising? Not on bonuses and all the rest of it—that is very

important. That number is probably $6 billion plus. But just so I

can kind of understand the impact, how many more people you are

putting in the field, how much more you are spending on advertising, what goes on television and so forth.

If you have got that, I would love it. Supplemental, anything,

whatever you have got out there. How much more?

General ROCHELLE. Sir, I will have to take for the record the advertising budget for fiscal 2007. I am afraid I don’t have that figure

immediately at my fingertips.

Mr. KLINE. I am looking for it for 2008.

General ROCHELLE. Yes, sir, I meant for 2008. What I do know

is that, one, we have added in the last 3 years approximately 400

additional recruiters to the field. And these are the enlisted recruiters who recruit for both officer candidate school (OCS), as well as

the enlisted force. And we are planning in the next few months to

add an additional 200, and I think you will hear from my colleagues that just about everyone is adding to that recruiting force.

We are looking at the advertising from within the existing budget to attempt to reapportion the amount that is spent at the national level, broad-reach advertising, if you will, which is television,

cable TV and the like.

And the secretary has authorized a shift more to the local level,

not ignoring the national level, and I think that is quite wise.

Mr. KLINE. Okay, well, I will still be looking for the overall dollars spent. I appreciate that we are going to spend money more

wisely, more efficiently. I am not yet persuaded that that is the

thing to do, but nevertheless, that is hard for me to believe that

we are going to try to increase this end-strength and not have to

spend more money on advertising.

General ROCHELLE. Sir, if I may add one thing, please.

Secretary Harvey, in his testimony yesterday, indicated that the

budget for fiscal year 2008 is sufficient to achieve the mission, and

I honestly believe that is absolutely true. In addition to that, he

made it clear that there was no hesitancy on his part to reprogram,

should that be necessary.

Mr. KLINE. Okay, and I heard that. I attended that hearing. I

would still like to see the dollars and we are a little bit in the oversight business here.

General ROCHELLE. Of course.

Mr. KLINE. I want to see how this plays out.

And then either Dr. Chu or General Coleman, what is going

on——

Dr. CHU. Before General Coleman responds from the Marine

Corps perspective, let me just add one other thing that I think is

important to highlight in terms of the Army’s experience, and that

is the Army has, importantly, led by the National Guard, tried,

benefiting also from your pilot authority, additional authorities in

the authorization act, tried a new approach to recruiting. To get

young people, and start with the guard, having their own people,

serve as recruiters and receive a small payment as a recompense

for their effort if that individual shows up and swears in and then

completes basic training successfully.

18

And that, I think, General Blum, the National Guard bureau

chief would tell you, General Vaughn, the Army Guard chief would

tell you has been very, very important in terms of the Army

Guard’s recent success in recruiting, getting a different, beyond our

normal trained recruiters, getting a different set of people out there

to advocate with their peers, really—and of course for the guardsmen, someone who can speak to this is what it is going to be like.

This is what you are signing up for. This is what I experienced.

I think it is very powerful, very innovative. The Army has been

aggressively extending that to the Army Reserve as an approach

and I think the active Army is starting to do something similar.

Mr. KLINE. Thank you. We have seen that in Minnesota for some

years now. In fact, the Minnesota Guard has been at the forefront

of that recruiting from high schools. It does put them in competition, a little bit, with the active Army.

But, if I could—the light is red, but if I could get the answer

from General Coleman on how many more recruiters and how

much more money you are going to spend advertising.

General COLEMAN. Yes, sir. On recruiters, we recently added 200

recruiters for a total of 2,850 recruiters. We plan to increase by 200

in fiscal year 2008 and another 200 in 2009.

As far as money, sir, we spent in fiscal year 2007 $135 million

and we would need an—we are talking about advertising. We

would need an increase in 2008.

Mr. KLINE. But you don’t know what that number is? It is not

in the budget? You haven’t put a line in there for the 2008 budget?

General COLEMAN. No, sir, I don’t have that. I will have that for

you before we leave here.

Mr. KLINE. Okay, thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

General ROCHELLE. And if I may, sir, if I could answer Mrs.

Davis’s question from before, we absolutely need the bonuses and

cannot do without them.

Dr. SNYDER. Ms. Drake.

Mrs. DRAKE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

And thank you all for being here.

In regards to healthcare, can you tell me what our recruiters are

saying now to a new recruit? What I am trying to determine is

what is the expectation of our men and women who are signing up

in recent years or today? We all know that years ago people

thought, or were told, or thought they were told, they would have

healthcare for life at no cost.

So I just want to know, what are we saying today?

Dr. CHU. Ma’am, let me start and invite my colleagues to continue. If you look at our Web sites, look at our materials, what they

are told is when you are on active duty, you and your family will

get a low-cost, high-quality healthcare plan. We do not say it is

free. And, in fact, it is interesting, we don’t generally speak to the

post-service elements of the plan. So it is focused on active service.

When you join the active military, this is part of the package that

you will receive.

Mrs. DRAKE. And you are not talking about retirement at all,

which would be good.

19

Dr. CHU. As you look at our materials, and I did review this very

recently, no, typically we do not speak to post-service benefits.

I think that reflects a variety of factors, including the fact that

young people, whether they enter the military or not, tend to be

very present focused. Something 20, 30 years from now, at least

that has been our experience, collectively, isn’t a major selling

point.

Mrs. DRAKE. Okay.

Dr. CHU. Maybe it should be, but it is not.

Mrs. DRAKE. And that is across the board, all four of you.

The other question that I have deals with, again, retention and

bonuses, but particularly in regards to our Special Operations

forces. We all know that they are an incredible asset, and they are

in very high demand right now in the corporate world. And I have

actually experienced it, hearing people come up in the community

and to be out somewhere and be there with someone who is an active-duty SEAL and someone come up and talk to them about what

they would be willing to give them if they were to separate from

the military.

So I wondered if you think the bonuses are a short-term fix or

if there are things we could talk about more in retirement benefits.

Or if we ask them, what is it that would keep you here with the

military? And, of course, the young man where I overheard the conversation was just so determined he was going to serve the U.S.

that he did not buy into that.

Dr. CHU. That certainly is the spirit of so many of the fine people

serving in those ranks. We have actually had a conversation like

that over the last three years with the commander of the Special

Operations Command, currently General Brown. And we have put

in place a much more energetic program of retention incentives for

Special Operations personnel.

I think the most interesting feature of those changes is that for

the first time the Department is using authority you gave us, including the critical skills retention bonus authority, to encourage

people to stay beyond 20 years of service. To my knowledge, it is

the only important program we have where we tried to do that.

And it is for exactly the reasons that you described. Part of it is

in the different Special Operations communities, it is typical that

you recruit someone to that community who has already had several years of service in some other military specialty, so that the

career length in Special Operations is going to foreshortened.

Until now, until the build-up of these forces, it hasn’t been a big

issue. It is now, and so we are actually offering rather powerful incentives, large amounts of pecuniary reward to counter the private

sector, in part. If you will agree, when you reach 16, 17, 18 years

of service, or 20 years of service, to serve for a number of years beyond the 20-year point, I think that is the—there are other parts

to the package, but that is the most interesting change, in my judgment.

Mrs. DRAKE. Well, and I think we would like to know if there is

anything you identify that you think would be more helpful and

could keep them retained.

I see I have just a little more time, so if I could ask something

a little off topic, I wondered from General Brady if you could give

20

us an update on the National Security Personnel System (NSPS)

and particularly the Spiral 1.1, because I understand the Air Force

is involved in the program and I wondered if you have any input

on that, if you could give us an update?

General BRADY. I think it is going very well. Obviously, that

issue, as you well know, there are some legal issues in the minds

of some and there is some court action regarding that. But for

those people who are not in bargaining units, we are moving forward with that. I think we are enthusiastic about it. I know we are

enthusiastic about it, and we are very positive about and very

pleased with the response of our people in regard to NSPS.

We think it is an incredibly important initiative for the services

and, quite frankly, for our people, for our ability to retain, recruit

and reward our very finest people.

That system was designed to help us do that and we are very

anxious to move forward with it as conditions permit.

Mrs. DRAKE. Thank you for that.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back.

Dr. SNYDER. Dr. Chu, the issue about evaluating the recruiters,

and I understand there has got to be—you are evaluating human

behavior, it is an art. It can’t just be some kind of strict thing. But

it seemed a little bit loosey-goosey to me. You had made some reference that there are some differences in the services.

Is that something on your level that you are continuing to look

at or are you satisfied that the services are doing what they need

to do?

Dr. CHU. We are generally satisfied with what the services are

doing, although the details vary. Typically, actually, it is among

the more focused and performance-oriented standards in the military.

Dr. SNYDER. Do you have an apples-to-apples comparison between the services on attrition?

Dr. CHU. Yes, sir, we do. We have the data.

Dr. SNYDER. Your charts, by the way, are part of the record that

has been submitted. I don’t think that was part of your statement.

Dr. CHU. It was. The chart is in my statement.

Dr. SNYDER. On attrition?

Dr. CHU. The chart I showed up there.

Dr. SNYDER. That one is, yes, I know.

Dr. CHU. The attrition numbers are not in my statement but we

would be glad to furnish them for the record, sir.

Dr. SNYDER. Do you know offhand, are all four services about the

same?

Dr. CHU. To a first approximation, they are roughly speaking the

same. There are some differences about when it occurs. So the Marine Corps does benefit, in my judgment, from the way it handles

delayed entry program (DEP). It has somewhat less attrition,

therefore, in the basic training period, because some of that occurs

during the DEP period, importantly, I think, because the Marine

Corps does that use that period for some very elementary military

training and some physical fitness training.

And, if anything, we would like to encourage all to think about

that. There are some legal issues there, I would acknowledge, that

are a little tricky. But to a first approximation looked across a

21

three- or four-year time horizon for the initial cohort, the services

are roughly similar.

Dr. SNYDER. You make a reference I think both in your oral

statement, also in your written statement, about the special and incentives pay legislative proposal coming.

Dr. CHU. Yes, sir.

Dr. SNYDER. Do you anticipate that that will be essentially budget neutral?

Dr. CHU. Yes, sir.

Dr. SNYDER. Is it going to be about the same amount of money

but you want to move it around. Okay.

Dr. CHU. It is the rules, how we apply it and flexibility, ability

to be agile, that in our judgment are important. They would not

turn the money around.

Dr. SNYDER. And I think it was also in your written statement,

Dr. Chu, where I think you discussed ROTC and ROTC scholarships and that there has been a drop-off. Is that something that

you are looking at or we need to look at?

My take-home a little bit from that was that we need to increase

the amount of scholarships. Is that an over-simplistic reading of

that, or how do you see that issue? Amplify on that for me, please.

Dr. CHU. First, there is, as you would recognize, a trade-off

among the three, really four, commissioning sources we enjoy, the

academies, ROTC, officer candidate programs of various kinds and

direct commission. So one must be careful not to overdo any one,

because each has its merits and its benefits to the services, to the

Nation, to the individuals concerned.

We are relatively comfortable where we are, broadly speaking. I

do think we have to be energetic about our ability to pay tuition

expenses at the more expensive schools, because that is an issue.

The Army has over the last two or three years revamped how it

has handled ROTC scholarships to make it more advantageous at

those schools. And I do think we have to watch out over time for

our ability pay, which you have helped with, expenses other than

tuitions for schools that have low tuition but significant expenses

of other kinds, typically some of the state institutions.

So there are issues of degree, but think in terms of kind we are

relatively comfortable with where we are.

Dr. SNYDER. Your written statements says that the Government

Accountability Office (GAO) indicates that enrollment has dropped

to 26,000—this is ROTC enrollment. It has dropped to 26,000 from

a 32,000 enrollment in 2003. The ROTC program has produced 12

to 16 percent fewer offers this year than the 4,500 that has been

programmed. I would assume that is a significant number for you

all to deal with.

So you are saying it is——

Dr. CHU. Manageable, because the other source is—let me back

up. First of all, we have to discriminate between how many people

enroll in the ROTC and how many people graduate to paid commissions. Those are different outcomes, as you appreciate.

Second, we also have the Officer Commissioning School lane. And

I do think, as a matter of mobility within the force, particularly

given the high quality of enlistees in the contemporary volunteer

force, it is very important to have a vigorous officer candidate

22

school and direct commissioning program so that those who are

best qualified at this point can look forward to that opportunity.

Do you want to add anything?

Admiral HARVEY. Yes, sir. Just in the Navy, just to your point,

we are seeing behaviors across the board return to our pre–9/11

level, and so our force shaping and sizing that we based on and the

balance you have between retention and recruiting, the assumption

we made was we are going to be able to retain to where we were

pre–9/11 and not in that post–2002, 2003 period, where there was

certainly another dynamic in play influencing those decisions. And

to that point, we see that in applications, both at the Naval Academy and for ROTC programs.

I think the drop is from an abnormal increase that we experienced post–9/11, and now we are seeing a return to what has been

a steady-state level before that time, sir.

Dr. SNYDER. Thank you.

Mr. Murphy, we are going to let you do a catch up on round one,

even though we just started round two. So go ahead, five minutes.

Mr. MURPHY. Thank you, sir.

Thanks, gentlemen, for being here today. We obviously didn’t

meet the allocated authorized force, especially when we talk about

the Army on active duty. And I understand that with the recruiting

they have met their goals, but they were so short. How about retention? Why do you think the retention—is it just the op tempo

of the Army that we are seeing such bleeding within the Army?

General ROCHELLE. Sir, the Army was successful in 2006, highly

successful in 2006, across all of our components of retention, to the

108 percent level overall. And thus far this year, retention is running at about 111 percent of our goal. Part of the reason we are

successful, obviously, are the authorities that we have been granted

by this body for retention bonuses and such.

Mr. MURPHY. I am just trying to wrap my arms around the numbers, though, because we are short as far as the authorized goal of

active-duty trends, we are not there. That is correct.

Dr. CHU. Congressman, if I may interrupt. I think the confusion

arises from the fact that the end-strength goal that the Congress

authorized was not the goal at which the Army was aiming. The

Army was aiming at a sort of goal that was consistent with thenplanned force build, which was not necessarily 512,400.

Mr. MURPHY. What was the Army goal, Doctor?

Dr. CHU. The Army was aiming at a personnel, active personnel,

number consistent with its build to 43 brigade combat teams active. That was not necessarily 512,400. That number was the

Congress’s authorized goal. It was the same as the internal planning agreement between the then secretary of defense, Don Rumsfeld, and the Army, over how far above the baseline number,

482,400, could the Army go without coming back to him for a further dialogue.

But the Army did not necessarily name at 512,400 in order to

sustain its build toward 43 brigade combat teams (BCTs). I think

that is a source of confusion. You have a congressionally authorized

number, which as General Rochelle points out the Congress itself

said plus or minus two percent is okay. And under a declaration

23

of national emergency, these numbers are not a floor or ceiling for

the Department, at least under current statute.

We had the Army building its strength through its accession and

retention goals to sustain a particular brigade combat team plan.

The last three, the accession goals and retention goals and brigade

combat team plan, that those all came together, 512,400 is a different mark on the wall. That is my only point.

And so the Army didn’t miss a goal. That is what I would underscore.

Mr. MURPHY. But, so I am accurate, what is the goal? What are

the numbers? I understand the 43 BCTs, Mr. Secretary, but my

confusion, and maybe you could help me here, is what was the

Army’s goal. I know you are saying it wasn’t the Congress’s goal,

512, what was the Army’s goal?

General ROCHELLE. For recruiting or the goal for overall growth?

Mr. MURPHY. Overall. I mean, was it just that we are going to

get 43 brigade combat teams and then we are going to stop? Or

was it we are going to try and hit—you are saying the goal wasn’t

512 that we authorized, but what was the goal?

General ROCHELLE. We attempted to grow the Army as far toward that 512,000 authorized end-strength as far as we could go.

I commented earlier to a question from Congressman Kline that we

essentially reached our limits of advance on the recruiting side of

it, but we are very happy with the retention achievements and accomplishments.

We were shooting for a goal, we thought we could hit 502, and

we did hit 502, and that is the figure that Dr. Chu was speaking

of. In fact, we exceeded 502—505.

Mr. MURPHY. Yes, thank you.

Dr. SNYDER. Dr. Chu, the ROTC information was not from your

written statement. It was from the committee staff memo, so if you

thought you just completely had a loss of brain matter, it was me

that did, not you.

Mr. McHugh.

Mr. MCHUGH. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Murphy’s point, though, I think is one that we tried to pursue earlier, and it is well-taken, and that your goals are not going

to get you where you want to be in 2008. And I guess we have

agreed upon that. You are going to have to be terrific overachievers

to get to the 518,400. That is your goal.

Dr. CHU. Yes, sir. Now, on that point, we agree with you.

Mr. MCHUGH. Or 2007, pardon me.

Dr. CHU. We will have to recruit more than 80,000 this year. We

will have to retain well, consistent with the Army’s 2006 track

record, to hit 518.

Mr. MCHUGH. You are absolutely right. You are going to have to

have a great year. And I guess the disconnect is, then, why aren’t

we adjusting goals? Why don’t we have a goal of 90,000, versus

80,000?

Dr. CHU. That issue is under discussion within the Department,

should we adjust the formal goal, and, if so, how? To be fair to the

Army, the decision to add additional combat brigades to the Army’s

structure was taken after the 2007 budget was formulated and

after the 2007 goals were established. The 2007 goals, of course,

24

start 1 October 2006. The decision on additional brigades for the

Army, additional structure of the Army and likewise the Marine

Corps, that decision was taken in late December, early January,

2007.

So, yes, we are going to have to hit more than 80,000. There is

a robust discussion going on about how should one formally recognize that. There is the management issue of how do you change the

signals to the recruiters in the field in an effective way so that they

do the right thing?

Yes, sir, we know, we have to recruit more than in——

Mr. MCHUGH. Thank you, Mr. Secretary.

Let us talk a little bit about waivers. If you look at the raw numbers for DOD across all the services, in 2004, all waivers as a percent of accessions was 20 percent. Through 2006, it is now 25 percent. That is a 25 percent increase. And if you look at, for example,

the active Army, you went from 12 percent of waivers as a percentage of accessions in 2004, and now it is up to 20 percent, nearly

doubling those.

And the troubling part to me, and Dr. Chu talked about body

mass index and overweight and revaluations and health areas. And

I think that is appropriate. The American health profile is changing and the services ought to be allowed to do that as well.

But the largest, by far, percentage of those waivers is in the

moral. In 2004, the Army issued 4,529 moral waivers. Now it is

nearly twice that that, at 8,129. The Marine Corps, 53 percent of

all of its accessions is under a waiver. What can you say to this

subcommittee and this Congress to assure us that is not a clear indicator, or an indicator at all, of the erosion of recruit quality?

Dr. CHU. Let me begin and invite my colleagues to join me in

this response. First, I think we have, in the way we have presented

the waiver issue, caused a misapprehension which is ill founded.

One has to step back, I believe, and ask why are the waivers

there? They are there because, just as you suggested, sir, we put

applicants’ military service through a long series of screens. There

is a set of physical screens, there is a set of mental screens, there

is a set of credential screens. That is the high school diploma, GED,

et cetera. And there is a set of behavioral screens—have you ever

done X, Y or Z.

We could, of course, not ask those questions and we would have

zero waivers, but we do. And so the waivers represent those cases

where an individual has answered honestly and said, ‘‘Yes, I did

try marijuana.’’ That is one of the reasons for the high Marine

Corps number. And then we make, or my colleagues and their

teams make, a considered decision, in the most serious cases at the

general officer level, is this truly a disqualifying event, or is it a

one-time aberration, youthful indiscretion, whatever the case might

be?

We count, frankly, in the most unkind way, so charges, for example, that are not adjudged not guilty by a court are counted in our

system. It doesn’t mean that you actually were found guilty. It

doesn’t mean that you would have been found guilty. It means that

we reviewed your case. That is really what the waiver means. It

says you answered positively.

25

It is like a health screen, when you go to the doctor. You answered positively on an indicator did you ever try marijuana, yes

or no. The Marine Corps standard is one trial, one trial, which

would disqualify large numbers of Americans, one trial is enough

to trigger a review.

Now, it doesn’t mean that we disqualify you, but it does mean

that to be enlisted you have to have a waiver in the Marine Corps

standard. Now, other services aren’t quite so strict with the marijuana issue. Each service has slightly different standards in this

regard.

And so I am not troubled by the waivers, because they are an

indicator that we are reviewing the records of these people, we are

making considered decisions. The real issue is, are those decisions

wise? In other words, is the subsequent service of these people consistent with our judgment that the youthful indiscretion or whatever it might be—you broke your neighbor’s window, for example.

In Massachusetts, malicious destruction of property of more than

$250 can be charged as a felony. At repair rates these days, it is

not hard to run up a $200 bill for something that you might do to

your neighbor’s house.

Mr. MCHUGH. You know that pretty well. Were you charged?

Dr. CHU. I have been paying these bills, recently. I have painful

knowledge of what local labor rates look like. So I think we need

to look at the waivers as these are the people who processed successfully—we don’t report, maybe we should, how many people answered these questions positively and we rejected. We don’t actually keep those data, unfortunately. Maybe we should be keeping

those data, to give you a fuller picture of what is going out there.

Now, the Army has shared with me, and I will let General Rochelle have his turn at this, its tracking of the subsequent attrition,

to go back to Chairman Snyder’s question, of those who received

moral waivers. And my understanding of those data is at least in

the last four or five years, the attrition rates, which is one indication of whether you have served successfully or not, for those who

received moral wavers is about the same as those who received no

waiver whatsoever. And it is below waivers for other reasons.

For example, we have administrative waivers if you have a large

number of dependents and so on and so forth, and that group does

not serve as successfully.

General Rochelle.

General ROCHELLE. Sir, I would only add that we do ask tough

questions, and we induce as best we can the individuals to answer

them truthfully and then follow up.

The review that is done for any serious misconduct is at the general officer level. I would like to emphasize that. And the judgment,

to Dr. Chu’s point, when we look back at either the attrition or the

overall performance of the soldiers who have been granted waivers,

is very positive. In fact, as he said, it exceeds the stick-to-itiveness

and it exceeds the quality of service, for example, for an individual

we might give a medical waiver to.

Mr. MCHUGH. Does anyone else have a comment?

General COLEMAN. Yes, sir, I would, sir.

As was stated, all it takes is for a poolee to say, ‘‘I tried marijuana one time,’’ for the Marine Corps to say, ‘‘Okay, we are going

26

to have to re-look this, see if you are deserving of a waiver and

then give or issue or not issue that waiver.’’

I think this is a check and a double-check and a third check to

ensure that we are getting the quality recruits. Over the last five

years, the increase in waivers has been four point eight percent,

which means less than one percent a year increase in our numbers

of waivers.

Mr. MCHUGH. And, Mr. Chairman, if I just may submit a question for the record, and I appreciate that. And, clearly, the outcomes justify what has been happening here. The quality of the

men and women in uniform today is stunning. It is remarkable. So

something sure is working.

But we have all heard the questions and the aspersions of doubt

cast upon the quality of folks in the military today by others and

I find it despicable. And I would like to have an additional response for the record, please, as to the growth of the waivers.

Dr. CHU. Sir, I think that is very much appropriate. I think we

are at fault, I accept responsibility. We have not explained the

waiver program to the American public in the way it should be.

And I think when properly explained people will be comfortable

with what we are doing and whatever changes might occur in those

numbers.

Mr. MCHUGH. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Dr. SNYDER. When you have 535 representatives that I suspect

a few times a year ask you to consider getting waivers for someone.

Isn’t that accurate?

Dr. CHU. I won’t go there, Mr. Chairman.

Dr. SNYDER. Ms. Davis.

Ms. DAVIS OF CALIFORNIA. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

You have some very ambitious goals in terms of recruiting and

I know that we talked a little bit about some of the demands on

recruiters and how tough that it is, perhaps. The GAO, and I am

sure you are familiar with this report, took a look at recruiting and

felt that the services needed better data to enhance the visibility

over the recruiter irregularities, and I understand there were a

number of recommendations, of which DOD accepted probably the

bulk of those in terms of the recommendations.

Has there been a change in the way that that data is collected,

so that they can have a better handle on where are the irregularities, where the problems may be, and what is it about those

changes that you have confidence in, perhaps, or not so? Or do you

think that they were overreacting?

Dr. CHU. Yes, ma’am, we have accepted the majority of the

GAO’s recommendations in this regard, the most important of

which you have touched upon, and that is we need to establish and

we have established for the Department as a whole a set of standard category standard definitions of what constitutes irregularity.

Again, I want to praise the quality of the recruiter force, generally. It is excellent. It is some of our finest young men, young

women, in uniform. The Marine Corps has long had a policy, for

example, of sending some of its strongest performers to recruiting

duty.

27

General Pace was a recruiter, if I recall correctly, early in his career. And some of the irregularities, in fact, a nontrivial portion of

the irregularities in the GAO count were what you would call administrative irregularities. In other words, they did not conform to

all the procedural steps, or they made some other error of one sort

or another that is not really an indictment of performance, but it

does indicate an area that we should—so we have laid down——

Ms. DAVIS OF CALIFORNIA. And yet the numbers, sir, were fairly

high, the jump of irregularities, as I understand it. Is that not

true?

Dr. CHU. No, I don’t think we judged them to be extraordinary.

But to the central issue of the GAO report, that we lacked a consistent way of defining, tabulating and reporting on this, they were

right. We have published that template and the services are now

following it.

Ms. DAVIS OF CALIFORNIA. Let me just turn to one area that we

all recognize as of great need in the services, and that is linguistic

ability. I know that yesterday at the hearing—I believe it was yesterday—I needed to leave early, but I saw that in the goals, it

states that the initiatives had been fully funded for language recruits or work that is being done.

And I am just wondering how you would assess how ambitious

those goals are. Are we setting a goal which is doable, but maybe

doesn’t get us to where we want to go? Should we be more aggressive in that area?

Are recruiters encouraged to find students in communities who

may have some language gifts that we can use? And are they being

as aggressive in that? Should we be providing some kind of bonuses

even in recruitings in that area because it is such a great need?

How would you assess that? Are we being as ambitious as we

should?

Dr. CHU. Whether we are being ambitious enough or not I think

only time will tell. I do think this is an area of true transformation

in the Department. When I came to this Department in 2001, language was not viewed as a critical skill. It was not given much attention. It is now central, in my judgment, to the efforts of all four

military services.

And just to outline the major steps we have taken, we have, as

you know, strengthened the Defense Language Institute (DLI),

which has long been a flagship asset to the United States. Recall,

many of our most proficient academics trained originally at DLI as

service members in years past. But we are doing more there. We

are doing more in depth there. We are doing more language there.

Second, we have, as General Brady’s testimony underscored, decided that language is and will be a competence that our future

leaders must have across the board. Two out of three military academies are making it mandatory for everyone. The third is adding

a strong emphasis to its current programs. And we are in the process, thanks to your approving it last year, of awarding grants to

ROTC institutions to strengthen the language programs.

American higher education typically teaches what the former secretary would have called the old European languages. We don’t

teach as much Arabic, Chinese, Korean and Japanese, et cetera, as

we should. We need to change that. We in the Department need

28

to provide the seed money and recognize that we are funding it as

part of the President’s national security language initiative.

And we are willing to reach beyond that. We recognize that the

time to learn a language is when you are young, when you are in

kindergarten and first grade, not to wait until high school. And so

the Department of Defense has funded at the Federal level the first

of these so-called pipeline programs. The first one was in Oregon

in Chinese. The second one, announced just last fall, Michigan, in

Arabic.

And that is to pay the local educational authorities to start a program at the kindergarten level that takes students all the way

through high school, to encourage the local, the state university, to

offer a scholarship, other support, for those who prosper and succeed in those areas.

Third area of endeavor is to recruit from the heritage language

communities. The Army has a very successful program in this regard, and I certainly would defer to General Rochelle to say a few

more words about it. But language and culture is now a central

part of how we view future war-fighting skills. It is embodied now

in the curricula of separate service war college, commander general, staff college programs.

General ROCHELLE. I would only add, ma’am, that we have had

a program since 2004 to recruit from native Arab speakers for a

program we call the translator, Arabic translator. This past year,

2006, we recruited 300 for that program. I can’t give you the total

over time, but——

Ms. DAVIS OF CALIFORNIA. I appreciate that.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for the additional time. I think one

of the concerns is, at least it was my understanding, that even

today, with one of the embed forces, we may have two translators

there for however many people in theater, in any one particular

area. It seems like we obviously have to work on this very hard,

and I appreciate what is being done.

The other thing I would just mention really briefly, I know that

Camp Pendleton in San Diego is partnering with San Diego State

University in a program, because the folks coming from the defense

university actually said that they didn’t feel they were well-prepared. And so they are now working with more informal speech,

really, more conversational speech, at that level. And maybe we

need to take a look at that and be sure that if we have those programs that can be worked in with the university where they also

are providing fitness training and a whole lot of other things at the

same time. That might be helpful and something that we can

use——

General BRADY. Congressman Davis, I think you have raised a

great question, and I think the honest answer is we don’t know. We

can ask what the requirement is. I think we can tell you with some

precision what the requirement is in an intelligence sense for nearnative speakers and absolute native speakers. We can tell you what

that is, and that is hard to achieve.

The other issue, as Dr. Chu alluded to, is this issue of language

and culture. And this very panel has had this discussion on a

weekly basis, occasionally, over in Dr. Chu’s office, about is it big

‘‘L’’ and little ‘‘c’’ or is it big ‘‘C’’ and little ‘‘l’’? How do you get to

29

a greater cultural awareness, which we all sign up to? We all know

we have got to be better at this. How is the best way to get to that?

So defining the requirement, outside of the pretty clear intelligence requirements for those kinds of linguists I think is hard to

know. And next week several of us on this panel are going to be

meeting with some other predominantly English speakers, the people from Canada and the U.K. and New Zealand and Australia and

Great Britain are going to meet and discuss this topic as to how

are those services addressing this challenge. And I am looking forward to that discussion.

Dr. SNYDER. Mr. Kline.

Mr. KLINE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I have been sitting here worrying about my comment about my

wife’s former service as an Army nurse and dreading the phone

call. So I think I should offer that my niece is a graduate of one

of those splendid ROTC programs and is already serving on active

duty as an Army nurse, and so leave us alone. [Laughter.]

I think it needs to be said that I, at least, am very proud of the

recruiting effort and the retention effort that the services have

mounted. I, of course, spent my life in the Marine Corps and I am

always pleased to see that the Marines have exceeded their accession and retention goals, and all of the services have really done

a fine job in the climate that we are in with the very, very low unemployment. What you are competing with is really tough. There

are lots of jobs out there, and so you have got to compete with that

civilian employment.

Having said that, I want to one more time make sure that it is

perfectly clear what I am asking for in my earlier question. I understand fully, as do the members of this committee and the staff

and all others, that there are many things associated with recruiting and retention. It is bonuses and it is general quality of life and

there are all sorts of things involved.

But what I am asking for is specifically a comparison between

fiscal year 2006 before the President announced the increase in

end-strength, which we have all been begging for for some time, I

might say, and fiscal year 2008, once we have gotten through all

of this fiscal year 2007 and started transition and what we requested and didn’t request and all that. But the difference between

2006 and 2008 and the numbers of recruiters, Army and Marine

Corps, and the dollar amount of the advertising budget. And I

know that is not the whole story; I understand that. And if you

want to put asterisks and commas and things, that is okay.

But I really would like to see that comparison, so we can get an

idea of what you are thinking and what you are doing. Even

though I said I wasn’t any good at it and probably shouldn’t do it,

I tried to do some math here. And it looks to me like the Marines

are increasing their recruiters in the field by some 21 percent. I

think those are the numbers, 2,800, 200, something. That is a pretty significant increase, and I am not critical of that at all. That

may not even be enough. I don’t know.

But if you can just for us, for the record, as quickly as you can,

let us see those two snapshots. I don’t mean to be ignoring the Air

Force and the Navy, but you haven’t had this plus-up in endVerDate 22-MAR-2001 11:03 Nov 03, 2008 Jkt 037653 PO 00000 Frm 00033 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 C:\DOCS\110-20\046020.000 HAS2 PsN: HAS2
30

strength that the other two services have. And, with that, incredibly enough, with the light green, I yield back.

Admiral HARVEY. One point, sir, that we are increasing our recruiter strength significantly in view of the more challenging environment we are getting to. I took the watch last year in fiscal year

2006 with about 3,400 field recruiters. And by the middle of 2009,

I am going to be at 5,000 recruiters in the field to meet a mission

that is going to be going up, even though our end-strength is coming down. So the dynamic applies to just about everybody, sir.

Mr. KLINE. Since the light still is green, even though I yielded

back, let me reclaim some time. Since you have volunteered that

up, let me ask all the services for that same comparison, because

you are looking—I mean, clearly you are looking at the climate and

so forth, so let us see that comparison, 2006 to 2008, please, for

all——

Admiral HARVEY. Absolutely, sir.

Dr. SNYDER. Mr. Murphy.

Mr. MURPHY. Thanks, Mr. Chairman.

I joined, first, the Army. I joined in 1993 and from 2001 to 2003

my additional duty when I was a professor at West Point was to

be a recruiter, called into the JAG Corps, the New York law

schools, Fordham, Columbia and Pace Law School, New York Law

School. I went to interview prospective officers coming into the JAG

Corps.

I know, I was thinking back, when I was a recruiter, I didn’t

have an standard operating procedure (SOP) as far as if there was

a protest. I mean, they protested about Iraq, about the don’t ask,

don’t tell policy, but I never had an SOP from my understanding,

or from my memory, to report that back.

Is there an SOP to report if there is a protest, either at a college

or at a high school, if there is a protest or if there are people that

are barring you access to that student body?

Admiral HARVEY. Yes, sir. During the normal incident reporting

system that applies across the board to the military, not just to recruiters, you would have something that goes from a unit situtation

report (SITREP), where someone comes and stands in front of your

recruiting station with a sign, to when if you were actually trying

to go on and visit a recruiter and you were physically intimidated.

And it moves up the scale to the old operations report (OPREP)

system, that type of things.

So I see all those kind of reports. The CNO sees them, the secretary of the navy sees them all throughout the Navy, so it is covered in our normal incident reporting system, sir.

Mr. MURPHY. How about the numbers, Admiral? Have they been

going up, since, say, the start of the Iraq war? At least maybe the

past——

Admiral HARVEY. I will quantify it for it later, sir, but my sense

is from my year on the job is that it has been very steady, low

numbers of physical events near a recruiting station, bomb threats,

things like that. Nothing out of the usual that I have seen in the

past year, sir.

Mr. MURPHY. What percentage, if you could—I know you don’t

have the numbers in front of you, but what is the percentage?

31

Admiral HARVEY. I would really hesitate to give you something

that I don’t have a basis for, sir. So I will come back to you.

Mr. MURPHY. But you can get that to us, you think?

Okay, can I ask the other branches?

General ROCHELLE. Sir, may I add that in 2005 we saw a fairly

precipitous increase in the numbers of seriously reportable incidents in and around recruiting stations and on college campuses.

So, at that point, the Army Recruiting Command strengthened its

reporting criteria, as well as to capture as much, if you will, information about the protest or the incident as we could.

I can’t give you a number, but my estimate would be that it has

remained relatively—it actually may have declined since 2005.

Mr. MURPHY. I am sorry, General, so you think it has declined?

General ROCHELLE. I think it has declined a little bit since 2005.

Mr. MURPHY. And that is because we strengthened more recruiters?

General ROCHELLE. I am speaking of the number of incidents

that are reportable may have declined, but I will provide that information accurately for the record.

Dr. CHU. If I might, Congressman Murphy, to buttress what

General Rochelle said, when we had some of the high-profile incidents, we have taken extra steps in terms of what you do when

this occurs, how you comport yourself, et cetera, in terms of counseling those who are going to go to a campus and it might be an

issue.

Two, the law schools, specifically, you read a list where fortunately I don’t believe we had any miscreants on it, but when this

Administration began, we had approximately two dozen law schools

that would not afford our JAG recruiters access equal in quality

and scope to that afforded civil employers.

The Congress armed us with the authority to deal with this issue

and we have been quite successful. That list is down to a very

small number. There is one still in litigation, I regret to say, where

the Supreme Court did reject the argument of the law schools that

they could bar such recruiting. And you, the Congress, strengthened our authority by putting those words, equal in quality and

scope, into the statute.

Mr. MURPHY. And maybe those are——

General BRADY. This would be the Air Force, sir.

Mr. MURPHY. I am sorry. My brothers in the Air Force are going

to be upset with me right now.

General BRADY. I think our report would be anecdotal, but we

are highly sensitized to areas in which we sense less friendly access in schools. And so our recruiters are very good about reporting

if they run across a school district or independent school, individual

schools, where we may feel like we get the folding chair back in the

locker room for a recruiting area. So we are paying a lot of attention to that, but have seen no real significant uptick in that, anyway.

Mr. MURPHY. I have a little bit of time. I guess how about as far

as the high schools and I accessed it as student information responses. Has that——

Dr. CHU. That has likewise improved with the provisions Congress has given us and direction it gave us some years ago, which

32

was to send a senior officer to speak with those schools. We have

gotten the number of those schools down significantly. We do have

one high school that is an issue, currently.

I won’t mention its name or location, but it is consistent with

every stereotype in American culture. That doesn’t mean there isn’t

a potential issue out there, and that is the whole question of opt

out and how to deal with that, with some wanting it to be opt in.

We would, of course, vigorously oppose such a step as being inconsistent with the very call to service that Chairman Snyder has just

recorded.

Dr. SNYDER. General Brady, articulate for me—and I am now

hesitant to say where I have read stuff, since I have already confused Dr. Chu’s statement with the committee memo, but articulate

for me where the thinking of the Air Force is right now with regard

to the coming down of numbers when the Marine Corps and Army

are going up and you all are to be responsible for carrying them

around.

General BRADY. Right. That is an excellent question, and I appreciate you asking it. As you recall, in fact, I think you and I have

personally had this conversation; the Air Force finds itself in a situation where we have a rapidly aging fleet that we must recapitalize. We decide that we could and should, to ensure that our airmen

have the best chance of not only survival but mission success tomorrow that they have today, we had to provide them with the appropriate equipment to meet the threats that we foresee in the future and to be successful.

To do that, we made the decision, which we believe was the prudent one, to take some reductions, and you are aware of that. As

we look going forward at that, we are certainly not unaware of the

discussion going on regarding the ground forces. And, as you increase the ground forces to whatever degree they are increased as

a result of the ongoing discussion in this body, there is—if they increase, to whatever degree they increase, there is a commensurate

complement that you have to do in the Air Force as well as part

of the interdependent joint fight.

So, as we go forward, and that increase takes effect in the

ground forces, to whatever degree it does, that requires that we reassess where we end up in terms of our end-strength, and, as you

point out, our ability to take them around to be attack P’s, to be

para-jumpers (PJs), to provide what we provide as part of the joint

fight, intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance (ISR), whatever

it might be.

So I think that is what you are seeing. You are probably referring to the testimony of our chief and secretary in another hearing

that said, I think, what I am saying, that that is something that

we are looking at. We are not asking for a change in this cycle, but

as we get through the end of 2008 and into 2009, there will be a

time and we will be doing that this summer, looking at where we

go in 2009.

Now, a change, of course—of course, we have budgeted for a

change to take us to 316,000 from where we are now. We are at

roughly 344 and change at the moment. So we are on a path to

316. If for whatever reason circumstances require that we arrest

that dissent somewhere short of that, there will have to be money

33

back in the budget beginning in 2009 to allow that to happen. But

we would only be interested in that if it does not put at risk what

we think is the most critical thing, which is our recapitalization

program.

Dr. SNYDER. Dr. Chu, do we have a proposal coming with regard

to the high-tempo pay, ops-tempo pay for individuals? Is there

something coming from you all on that?

Dr. CHU. No, sir. We think we possess sufficient authority with

existing statutes to deal with that issue. We are, I will be candid

in acknowledging, debating what is the right way to do this. We

have not made a decision yet.

Dr. SNYDER. And one of the issues that has been talked about a

lot in the past in this committee, based on things that have been

reported publicly and that we hear privately has been recruiter

misconduct. What is your current thinking and any comments any

of the rest of you have with regard to where we are at with regard

to recruiter misconduct, either criminality or inappropriate behavior?

Dr. CHU. I think we regret any incident of recruiter misconduct.

We do owe you a report on certain issues attached to that, which

is due in approximately a month and a half, if I recall correctly.

Dr. SNYDER. March 1st. Is it March 1st?

Dr. CHU. March 1st, okay, a week and a half.

Dr. SNYDER. I may be wrong.

Dr. CHU. But we will try to render that in a timely manner. I

do think that we have in place good safeguards against such misconduct. As I said, it is regrettable even if there is one single instance of such misconduct, so I don’t want to defend any such misconduct. I do think the rate is at relatively low levels.

General ROCHELLE. Sir, I would only add that any case of recruiter misconduct is indefensible, and it injures no one more deeply than the 99.9 percent of great recruiters out there who are doing

it the right way, the hard way, every single day.

I know that the leadership takes care of every single incident

that is proven and that that is done both swiftly and is taken very,

very seriously.

Admiral HARVEY. Sir, a couple of the questions you have asked

really come together and bear on this, and I think it is really important. The environment out there is getting tough, a lot tougher,

and will continue to be so. If we ask people to do more with less,

that is where you get into trouble. That is why we are increasing

the number of recruiters out there, so that when we give them a

goal to get, it is realistic, it is achievable within their professional

abilities. And we don’t try to play a game where you push them beyond what reality would yield and then that is when you induce

a problem downstream that gets you into that place that we won’t

go to.

General Rochelle has it exactly right. The people who suffer most

from a recruiter misconduct, other than the individual this misconduct is perpetrated upon, is the service. These recruiters are our

face to the families.

Dr. Chu represented we not only have a fight with the youth to

get them into our service, but also the influencers. And so any account of misconduct really hurts us in that battle, and so we react

34

very strongly to that in terms of I have reviewed the code of conduct we give our recruiters down at our introductory course in Pensacola.

Admiral Kilkenny has gone over with me what he does in each

district that he visits, when he visits them. We have the standard

we expect of a successful petty officer of the United States Navy.

So there is no one more energized or agitated about this than the

people you see at this table. We are the ones who not only have

to make sure it happens, but we are the ones who lose doubly when

it does happen.

So I think we have got steps in progress. As Dr. Chu alluded to,

better reporting, clearly. We have a lot of people out there on independent duty who carry a very heavy load for us. We are screening

them to make sure they are ready for that kind of duty and we are

giving them the resources they need to perform as we expect them

to do, so we are approaching this on a multitude of fronts, sir.

General COLEMAN. I would like to echo that, sir, as what everyone said here. Every recruit, every potential recruit that walks into

a Marine Corps recruiting station or is visited by a Marine Corps

recruiter deserves the utmost dignity and respect and that is the

way he or she will be treated, sir.

General BRADY. Dr. Snyder, if I could make a couple of comments, I first of all want to echo what my colleagues have said.

They have said it extraordinarily well. We are all in relatively—it

varies from service to service—tough recruiting environments. Occasionally I read and am told that the Air Force is in a recruiting

holiday.

Brigadier General Suzanne Vautrinot would find that—that

would come as a great surprise to her if I told her that. We are

after the talent in America, and it is going to be tougher and

tougher for us to get them.

Congressman Davis asked, are bonuses important? Absolutely

they are important. Absolutely they are important to all of us. But

there is one thing that we haven’t said and I think is important

for us to say and it gets to Congressman McHugh’s comment about

waivers. When we grant a waiver or consider a waiver, it almost

invariably in the Air Force, and I suspect it is the same in the

other services, it comes as a result of a conversation with those

young people.

And the information we got, we got from them. I think it speaks

in eloquent ways to the integrity of the young people that are coming in, that they are sharing this with us at some risk to their future service. So they are having this great conversation with us

about them and things they have done in their lives. And I think

it is important that we make that point and we are making an assessment. The waivers are not automatic. They are certainly not in

the Air Force and I am very confident they are not in the other

services.

But they come as the result of some self disclosure from the

great young men and women of America who come into the recruiting places.

Dr. SNYDER. Mr. McHugh.

Mr. MCHUGH. Mr. Chairman, let me play off a question you

posed to General Brady about the ability of the Air Force to meet

35

its challenges in this new environment vis-a-vis a growing force in

the Army by going over to Admiral Harvey.

Admiral, in fiscal year 2004, the Navy projected its end-strength

to be, at the end of 2009, 365,900. In that 2004 year, you then revised the end-strength estimate for 2009 to be 357,400. In 2005,

the revised end-strength for 2009 became 345,300 and then 2006,

you revised the 2009 end-strength again to 330,000 and now in

2007 you have revised your end-strength projections again, to go

down to 328,400 in 2008 and 322,200 by 2013.

I am wondering, where do we begin to settle on an end-strength

number? What seems to be the challenge here? And, equally important is how are you accommodating your challenges that will be associated with your sister force and brother force in the Marines,

given their end-strengths growths, whether it is in medical personnel, chaplains or whichever?

Admiral HARVEY. Well, first off, if we assume that the full endstrength plus-up to the Marine Corps does occur, we have estimated what our requirement will be for that, and that is programmed into the 2008 and out budget. So we have built into the

program what we call blue and supportive green that supports the

end-strength increase of the Marine Corps. So that is done, sir, and

we think we have a very good handle on what that is across the

board, and we have got that accommodated.

But, to your other question, form follows function. The years you

highlighted were the years where the Navy was trying to come to

grips with what is the size of the future fleet? And I think if we

were sitting in another one of the subcommittees off this full committee, you would have heard that same question posed perhaps to

Admiral Clark and then incoming Admiral Mullen, that your shipbuilding plan has changed every year. The form follows function.

Our personnel plan must support the future fleet size.

Well, one of the things I had the great benefit of when I came

into this job was that Admiral Mullen has led the effort and developed what is the fleet of the future that we are aiming for now?

And so it is about 313 ships, about 3,800 to 4,000 tactical aircraft.

And that, with the completion of the last piece of the BRAC process, gives me the overall structure that we have to support in our

manpower program.

So I am quite confident that what we have brought forward to

you in 2008, that we are going to lead to this final end-strength

figure of about 322,000, is what we need to do the mission that the

Nation expects this Navy to do with the fleet structure we expect

to have of about 313 ships and about 3,800 tactical aircraft.

Mr. MCHUGH. General Coleman, do you feel comfortable with

that? You are going to get where you need to be?

General COLEMAN. Yes, sir.

Mr. MCHUGH. I am sure the Marine Corps was an integral part

of those calculations, Admiral.

Admiral HARVEY. Absolutely, sir. General Amos was the first

one, as soon as that plus-up was authorized, asked the question,

okay, what are we going to get to help make it work from your

end?

We had that dialogue, we agreed on what the number is, and

that number has been programmed, sir.

36

Mr. MCHUGH. Okay, good. Thank you. You raised the point, you

said blue supports green. All of us on this panel have been talking

about blue into green, a big program to try to take advantage of

some great people, but now the Army is changing uniforms. What

is it, blue into deep blue, or we have to rename it?

Admiral HARVEY. We will be able to keep up with them, sir, no

matter what color they end up in.

Mr. MCHUGH. All right, good enough.

Mr. Chairman, I would thank you for this. Let me just make my

normal year-end comment, and it does not have anything to do

with the authorities of the gentlemen at the table, but it does have

a lot to do with what they are changed with doing and do so very

well, and that is the budget structure for recruiting and retention.

I continue to be deeply troubled by a budget process that relies

so heavily upon supplemental funding. We are sitting here right

now and really find it almost impossible to talk about real numbers

on recruiting and retention—forget 2008, in the 2007 supplemental.

And the timing of these approvals, when they get to the Congress,

are critical, and of course it is exacerbated by the fact that it is not

built into the base budget.

So I would be remiss if I didn’t, as I have in each of the last five

years, make my plea to this Administration and I assume subsequent Administrations to do everything we can to build our recruiting and retention budgets into the base budget.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Yield back.

Dr. SNYDER. I guess back to Mr. Kline’s concern about advertising budgets and everything else. You get more bang for the buck

with advertising if you can know you have got the money ahead of

time.

Mr. Murphy. Okay.

Mr. Kline.

Mr. KLINE. I thought I was going to have to defend myself there

for just a minute. Are you yielding to me for a moment?

Dr. SNYDER. You are up for five minutes.

Mr. KLINE. Well, I don’t need five minutes.

Dr. SNYDER. That is what you said the last time.

Mr. KLINE. No, I didn’t. I will try to take six.

I just was thinking about the discussion we were having earlier

about officer accessions and, Dr. Chu, you gave a very good response and to the sort of four sources. And you had a response to

the chairman, I think, about well, we are a little bit concerned

about some of the ROTC programs at some of the more expensive

schools.

Can I just ask you or any of them sort of across the board, do

you see any problem areas in any of those programs, but particularly the academies and ROTC and getting enough qualified people

who want to get in those programs?

Dr. CHU. I should let my colleagues answer. My assessment of

the overall data is that, just as Admiral Harvey said, we had an

increase at the academies, specifically, which is the easiest indicator to gather—we had an increase in interest after 9/11, more applicants to the programs. They have come back down, just as we

said.

37

Mr. KLINE. Excuse me. We see that, of course, in our offices. I

think it would reflect probably the same, but I am not taking that

as an indication of trouble. We have splendid young men and

women who are coming to apply.

I am just asking, do you use a warning area out there in young

men and women applying to either the academies or the ROTC program? That is all I am asking.

Dr. CHU. Not that I have seen, but I defer to my colleagues.

General Rochelle.

General ROCHELLE. Sir, the quality of the young men and women

applying to the Military Academy is as high as we have ever seen

it. We have increased recently by, I believe, 100. We are very limited on our capability at the academy to increase the intake. But

we have increased it recently.

Army ROTC will have to grow. As we grow the Army, the brigade combat team structure, it does require that we increase the

number of officers from Army ROTC. We have some concerns.

Admiral HARVEY. Sir, the numbers and quality overall look good,

academy and ROTC. As I referenced in my remarks, though, we

are focused on the shaping of that force and the increased diversity

demands that we want to see in our service that reflect in the

changing demographics of the Nation.

But I would say that as strong as we are at the ROTCs and the

academies, to a point that Congressman Murphy made in reference

to his own experience, it is at the professional schools—medical

school, dental school, nursing school, law school, that I see a really

terrific battle ahead in terms of propensity to join the service.

I think there is one common element among all four of us here

is that our medical programs that we are going for, we are not

meeting the goals that we have set for ourselves. And so it is at

the professional schools, where their demographics have changed

dramatically and an increase in numbers of women graduates who

are less propense even than the normal graduate to join the military. So that is the focus area for us, sir. I know it is not your question, but I did want to call your attention to it, because it is a serious one that will be with us for some time, sir.

Mr. KLINE. Thank you.

General BRADY. Our assessment would be exactly the same. As

Admiral Harvey said, there was a peak post–9/11. We are pretty

much down in academy applications, et cetera, to the pre–9/11. We

still have many more qualified applicants than we can accept, but

we share the same concerns about professional schools.

General COLEMAN. Sir, our recruiting and retention of officers is

very well. There are no concerns, and I would submit to you that

if we could talk the Navy into allowing more Marines to come out

of the academy, we would fill the school.

Mr. KLINE. I think I am still on that board of visitors, pending

the new speaker’s confirmation. We will have that chat. I yield

back.

Dr. SNYDER. I am going to do another five minutes, John, if that

is all right with you all.

Dr. Chu, going back to the foreign language issue, you used the

words it was central, in your words, foreign language is central to

the modern war fighter, and I think that is true. We talk about a

38

Marine always being a rifleman, and I suspect now we say a Marine is always a rifleman and somehow the ability to operate a

laptop.

But I don’t think we are at the point yet in the military where

a foreign language really is central like a rifle is to a Marine, and

I suspect that is something that we are going to be working on for

some time to come, exactly what that means.

For example, I have suggested this before, not entirely tongue in

cheek, but I have always thought that incoming recruits ought to

be assigned a foreign language in boot camp, and that is it. Whether they are in the military for 3 years or 25 years, they will continue, they will have an expectation that wherever they are, we

have got the ability with computers and all, if they are sitting in

Korea, they can still be working on their Farsi, whatever it is that

they are assigned.

And, at some point, that will be of value to us as a Nation. When

we think of Marine Corps tours rotating every seven months now,

I mean, who are we kidding about the ability of someone to really

pick up on language and culture in that kind of a rotation. But I

think this is something, I know, that there are a lot of Members

of Congress that are very interested in exploring and recognizing

that we are going to be fumbling around.

It is not just a military problem. Just like the issues that we

have with paying for healthcare in the military, it is a societal

problem. And one of our abilities—one of the challenges we have

as a Nation, our ability to compete in globalization. We have so

many of our young folks, we are so far behind foreign language

skills compared to the rest of the world. I don’t know if there are

some things that we can help with as far as exploring other approaches or experiments. I guess we don’t call them experiments.

Dr. CHU. Well, you have, I think, touched on the very issues we

are attempting to work. We recognize it is going to be a considerable journey to get to the point where it really is in fact central,

and that is not just a goal, which is the present situation. I would

add one of the services is doing something like you have described,

making them choose early on in their careers and then continue

with that choice.

But, to your larger point about how it is a societal issue, we

agree. We are willing to put the Department’s money—and you

have supported us in that, we are grateful for that—on the line to

start changing the American landscape. I have been impressed at

how advocacy does make a difference, just as you are doing this

evening in the program that you mentioned, just having the Department cosponsor with the University of Maryland a conference

on what we should be doing here caused a program in California

to start—pipeline Chinese program to start, simply because we said

there is going to be a market for you out there, that your young

people, if they do this, will have a benefit. And I think it is part

of our responsibility.

Where in your larger responsibility for the overall for the budget,

you can help us, is an area where I think as a Nation we fell short

last year. The Administration did ask for support in Department

of Education for the so-called pipeline grants, did not get it out of

the appropriations process. Now, you gave it to us in Defense, and

39

we will proceed with those grants and we need to renew that effort.

Because, long term, that really is a Department of Education responsibility and Defense shouldn’t be doing the whole thing,

shouldn’t really be in charge, either. We don’t seek to be in charge.

Some of this is just simple, good public Administration. So, for

example, we have required the military departments now to survey

all their uniformed—and we will be doing soon the same thing for

field personnel—simply to ask them, what language competence do

you have?

The Navy, we are very impressed, Admiral Harvey came back,

the Navy had reported over 1,000 who self reported some degree

of competence in one of the African languages, quite an extraordinary potential inventory.

Now, in addition, as you know, we are paying an incentive to

those who take the necessary tests and demonstrate a level of proficiency in that test a modest stipend to maintain that proficiency.

And that is proving a powerful incentive to get people to step forward, get people to take the test and show it is not just that you

claim you can speak X, you really have the following degree of competency.

So I think we can move forward in less than a generation. I don’t

think this is forever, but it is not one year. I acknowledge that.

And we are still at the early stages, as General Brady said, of deciding, well, what do we want to have? We have polled now the

combatant commanders, every one of them, with a template the

joint staff approved, to say, okay, which billets in your command

ought to have which languages? So we start to create for the military services a set of targets to aim at.

It is not enough and, as General Brady said, I agree, we haven’t

fully decided exactly what the end point should look like. Should

we be like the Dutch, where any professional has to speak a major

foreign language? And it is typically English. Is that our proficiency level? We are building now a foundation, because the literature argues that if you know some of a foreign language, even

one relatively close to your native language, your ability to learn

the next foreign language is enhanced, and we are putting

predeployment packages out there.

Now, they are rudimentary, but I think within the limits that

time permits, they are helpful. So we are taking a number of steps.

We recognize it is a national problem. We are willing to contribute

to the solution of a national problem both by leadership with funding, if you permit us, and with exploring new avenues for success.

Dr. SNYDER. Mr. McHugh, any further questions or comments?

Mr. Murphy, any further questions?

We appreciate you all being here this afternoon. Did anybody

have any closing comments you all would like to make?

Dr. CHU. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Dr. SNYDER. The men’s room is right back this way. [Laughter.]

Thank you all very much.

The hearing is adjourned.

[Whereupon, at 4:10 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.]

A P P E N D I X

FEBRUARY 15, 2007

PREPARED STATEMENTS SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD

FEBRUARY 15, 2007

(45)

46

47

48

49

50

51

52

53

54

55

56

57

58

59

60

61

62

63

64

65

66

67

68

69

70

71

72

73

74

75

76

77

78

79

80

81

82

83

84

85

86

87

88

89

90

91

92

93

94

95

96

97

98

99

100

101

102

103

104

105

106

107

108

109

110

111

112

113

114

115

116

117

118

119

120

121

122

123

124

125

126

127

128

129

130

131

132

133

134

135

QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS SUBMITTED FOR THE

RECORD

FEBRUARY 15, 2007

(139)

QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY DR. SNYDER

Dr. SNYDER. Do you have an apples-to-apples comparison between the services on

attrition?

Dr. CHU. This chart reflects the average first term attrition of active duty personnel by Service for the period 1985 through 2005.

Dr. SNYDER. Given that the depleted level of the active Army’s delayed entry program at the beginning of fiscal year 2007 seems to put the recruiting program at

greater risk of failure, how significant is the level of risk and what is the Army and

DOD doing to reduce the level of risk? What does the Congress need to do to assist

in reducing the level of risk?

Dr. CHU. Recruiting was successful in FY 2006, despite having an entry pool of

12.4% at the start of the fiscal year. The Army’s goal is to recruit 35% of its annual

mission prior to the onset of the fiscal year in the delayed entry program. A moderate level of risk is 20% or greater. Entry pool levels less than 20% pose a significant challenge to mission success. An inadequate entry pool increases stress on the

recruiting force, constrains the Army’s capabilities, and increases recruiting costs.

To offset the shortfall in the FY 2006 entry pool, the Army increased the size of

its recruiter force, increased incentives, began pilot programs, and refined business

practices. As a result, the FY 2007 entry pool was 15.1 %. We are working with the

Army on policy and resource adjustments. These include adding processing dates at

Military Entrance Processing Stations, encouraging funding of enhanced strategic

media outreach (Army Strong campaign), supporting increased funding of enlistment incentive programs, and continuing to seek increases in the recruiter force for

the FY 2007 recruiting effort. Fundamental in addressing these challenges is the

need to sufficiently resource recruiting and retention to achieve numerical and quality goals. Robust funding for recruiting and retention is essential, and the Global

War on Terror supplemental is critical to reducing risk and achieving recruiting

goals.

Dr. SNYDER. Will the change in policy terminating the 24-cumulative month limit

on mobilization of reservists have an affect on the retention in the reserve components?

Dr. CHU. The new guidance governing Reserve component mobilizations prescribed by the Secretary of Defense did, in effect, eliminate the ‘‘24-cumulative’’

month policy, but it also established other tenets, including:

Æ Limiting Reserve component mobilizations to a maximum of one year at any

time.

140

Æ Enhancing predictability by establishing the ‘‘one year mobilized to five years

demobilized ratio.’’

Æ Strongly emphasizing proper employment of hardship waiver programs.

Æ Minimizing the use of ‘‘Stop Loss.’’

Æ Managing the mobilization of ground forces on a unit basis.

Taken together, these policy changes have been designed to reduce stress on the

force, enhance the prudent and judicious use of our Reserve forces, and provide significantly more predictability for members, their families, and employers. Accordingly, the policy changes should have a positive effect on retention in the Reserve

components.

Dr. SNYDER. Are there any plans to extend the G–RAP program to the other Army

components and to the other services?

Dr. CHU. Yes. The Army Reserve has just recently initiated a similar program,

and the program will be briefed to the other military services in the coming months.

Dr. SNYDER. Will the change in policy terminating the 24-cumulative month limit

on mobilization of reservists have an affect on the retention in the reserve components?

General ROCHELLE. For the Army Reserve (AR), the effect on retention is unknown at this time; however, the AR has experienced high retention rates for Soldiers previously mobilized. The AR has distributed an extensive Strategic Communications (STRATCOM) package to commanders in the field to effectively communicate the new policy to all Soldiers. Additionally, implementation of the AR manning strategy to support Army Force Generation (ARFORGEN) will provide increased predictability to Soldiers, families, and employers. As part of the manning

strategy, the AR is implementing targeted monetary and non-monetary incentives

to aid in retention of key skills and grades. In the near term, a compensation package for breaking dwell time in order to remobilize AR Soldiers is critical to continued retention success.

The Army National Guard (ARNG) as an operational force, must provide manned

and ready units. The cornerstone for achieving this resides in effectively managing

the force to increase the number of qualified Soldiers. Recruiting and retaining Soldiers during war time remains a challenge. Specifically the change in policy to terminate the 24-cumulative month limit on mobilization does have a minor affect on

recruiting and retention. This impact is largely overcome by highly trained Recruiting and Retention Non-Commissioned Officers (RRNCOs) in the field. All RRNCOs

are trained in comprehensive communication skills in their Military Occupations

Specialty (MOS) training to address the challenges of war time recruiting and retention. The overall impact on retention is yet to be determined but loss rates may increase due to multiple and prolonged mobilizations and deployments.

Dr. SNYDER. Are there any plans to extend the G–RAP program to the other Army

components and to the other services?

General ROCHELLE. The Army is currently taking steps to expand the G–RAP program to the United States Army Reserve. Expansion of the G–RAP program to other

services is an action best addressed by the Office of the Secretary of Defense (OSD)

because such an initiative exceeds the purview of Headquarters, Department of the

Army.

Dr. SNYDER. Given that the depleted level of the active Army’s delayed entry program at the beginning of fiscal year 2007 seems to put the recruiting program at

greater risk of failure, how significant is the level of risk and what is the Army and

DOD doing to reduce the level of risk? What does the Congress need to do to assist

in reducing the level of risk?

General ROCHELLE. The Army’s goal is to recruit 35% of its annual mission (Delayed Entry Pool) prior to the onset of the fiscal year, anything less than this could

present a risk. In Fiscal Year 2006, the starting entry pool was 12.4% and the Army

still managed to have a successful recruiting year. In anticipation of the shortfall,

the Army increased the size of its recruiter force, increased incentives, began pilot

programs and refined business practices; as a result, it began FY07 with a 15.1%

entry pool. We are working with the Office of the Secretary of Defense on further

policy and resource adjustments to include: adding processing dates at Military Entrance Processing Stations; encouraging funding of enhanced strategic media outreach (Army Strong Campaign, etc.); supporting increased funding of enlistment incentive programs, and continuing to seek increases in the recruiter force for the FY

2007 recruiting effort. Sufficient resources for recruiting and retention are fundamental to addressing the challenges to achieve numerical and quality goals and

in preventing undue stress, cost and capability constraints that an inadequate entry

pool can cause. Full funding for these programs must continue and the GWOT supplemental is essential to achieve recruiting and retention goals.

141

Dr. SNYDER. What was done during the last six months of fiscal year 2006 and

the first three months of fiscal year 2007 to make Air National Guard recruiting

successful and why wasn’t corrective action taken at an earlier date? What role in

the improved posture of the Army National Guard recruiting program can be attributed to the Guard Recruiter Assistant Program (G–RAP)?

General ROCHELLE. The Guard Recruiting Assistance Program (G-RAP) is designed for individuals who voluntarily apply to serve as part-time, contracted, Recruiting Assistants (RA). Each RA cultivates quality potential Soldiers from within

their individual sphere(s) of influence and can earn up to $2000 for each new enlistee who reports to Initial Entry Training (IET).

Since the inception of the G–RAP program in December of 2005, the Army National Guard (ARNG) has enlisted a total of 30,802 Soldiers through this enlistment

enabler. The ARNG enlisted 15,511 Soldiers in fiscal year (FY) 2006; the ARNG has

enlisted 15,291 Soldiers in FY 2007, as of 10 April 2007. At the present moment,

G–RAP accessions account for almost half of the prior service and non-prior service

enlistments nationally. This growth exceeded all expectations and is a testament to

the importance of the program in reaching strength goals.

The contribution of the G–RAP program to the improved strength posture of the

ARNG is immense. Without the G–RAP program, the ARNG would not have

achieved 350,000 end-strength. This program allows the ARNG to take advantage

of our greatest asset, Citizen Soldiers serving their State and Nation that are embedded in local communities. It is through their contributions, sacrifice, and hard

work that the ARNG continues to meet manpower objectives in this time of war.

The uncertainty brought about by Base Realignment and Closure decisions, implementation of Total Force Integration initiatives, and required changes to existing

manpower documents all negatively impacted the Air National Guard Recruiting

and Retention Program. Much of the success in the Air National Guard Recruiting

and Retention Program is a result of implementing the Guard Recruiter Assistant

Program; a program which has been very successful in the Army National Guard.

Additionally, toward the end of fiscal year 2006, new manpower documents were

issued to the field units. This mitigated some of the uncertainty derived from Base

Realignment and Closure decisions.

Dr. SNYDER. Will the change in policy terminating the 24-cumulative month limit

on mobilization of reservists have an affect on the retention in the reserve components?

Admiral HARVEY. Unknown, but minimal effects are anticipated. Without sufficient quantitative data to support this response, much is left to speculation since

this change in policy is relatively recent (two months) and this change was made

in conjunction with six other major policy changes (in the 19JAN07 DoD Utilization

of the Total Force memorandum), each of which may have either positive or negative effects on retention. Overall, the combined effects of the changes being implemented from SECDEF’s 19JAN07 memorandum will most likely be increased stability in the predictable, periodic rotation of SELRES personnel, and that should be

expected to have a positive effect on retention. However, until the policy guidance

is fully implemented and an opportunity to observe/analyze retention trends is afforded, a more definitive answer cam not be crafted. Furthermore, irrespective of

this policy, the Navy has yet to involuntarily mobilize any Sailors for a second time

and does not intend to do so pursuant to the new policy for any Sailors until the

use of all volunteers and ‘‘first-time mobilized’’ Sailors has been exhausted and sufficient ‘‘dwell’’ time has expired (which is not anticipated to occur for the first time

until 2008).

Dr. SNYDER. What is the continuing problem with recruiting in the Navy Reserve

and why hasn’t there been management action to make the program successful? If

the Navy Reserve recruiting problem is related to force structure reductions, why

hasn’t the recruiting goal been adjusted?

Admiral HARVEY. Navy continues to experience difficulty in attaining sufficient

numbers of prior service members to meet established requirements largely due to

the fact that nearly 70 percent of our Reserve accession mission is comprised of personnel departing active duty, many of whom are not inclined to affiliate with the

Reserve upon leaving active duty. Additionally, many of the skills required in the

Reserve component are the same as those needed in the active component; consequently, the success we have enjoyed in retaining these individuals on active duty

diminishes the number available for Reserve affiliation.

To mitigate these shortfalls in the near-term, we increased the FY06 non-prior

service accession mission by 13 percent from the original goal, representing 34 percent of the total mission. Non-prior-service goal was increased again for FY07 by

almost 50 percent over original plans. In doing so, Navy incurs certain risk associated with readiness declines resulting from a reserve component force-mix that is

142

less senior, less trained and less experienced than required to meet minimum readiness requirements. We also implemented a one or two-year mobiliziation deferment

policy, increased advertising and expansion of efforts to attract Sailors from current

source ratings into critical ratings directly supporting the Global War on Terrorism

(GWOT) and enhanced many special pays to target personnel with required skills

to affiliate with, and then remain in, the Selected Reserve. All incentives require

a drill obligation from three to six years. This will increase retention in those critical skill sets attained.

Additionally, I have directed the following actions to improve mission accomplishment:

(1) A Fleet-to-NOSC (Navy Operational Support Center) program which

streamlines the process for immediately enlisting a separating active duty

Sailor into the Reserve.

(2) New Accession Training (NAT) and Prior Service mission flexibility changes

to meet critical skill requirements and accelerate reserve personnel through

the training pipeline.

(3) Implementation of a pilot to retrain prior service Sailors to gain the needed

skill sets for Reserve GWOT ratings.

(4) Revitalization of direct procurement enlistment programs to offer commensurate advanced pay grade to Reserve recruits in recognition of acquired civilian skills.

(5) Expanded incentives focused on GWOT critical skill sets for both officer and

enlisted programs. All incur a three to six year drill obligation.

Reserve recruiting problems are not related solely to force structure reductions.

The improving economy and eroding public support for the war in Iraq have contributed to a lower propensity to enlist in the Reserve. While Navy has decreased the

size of the active duty force, thereby increasing the number of personnel leaving active duty, the skills those personnel possess frequently do not coincide with those

required of prior service Reserve accessions. So, despite the fact that overall Reserve

strength is also declining, the recruiting mission continues to present significant

challenges, particularly in specific critical skill areas. Until we can consistently meet

both aggregate and specific skill Reserve accession goals, it would not be prudent

to reduce the accession mission.

Dr. SNYDER. Given that the recruiting environment is equally harsh for all the

services, is there any concern within the Navy that some of the recruiting incentives

have been designated for use by the Army alone? What incentives do you believe

should be made available to all the services?

Admiral HARVEY. Yes, Navy has concerns with the concept of recruiting incentives

that are designated for use by the Army alone. The recruiting environment is becoming increasingly challenging for all services, and it is imperative that each of

the Services has maximum latitude to address specific recruiting challenges. As

Navy exits the glide slope and stabilizes end strength, it is critical that we have

effective, flexible and competitive tools available to recruit and retain the right highly qualified Sailors to meet current and future requirements.

Army-only incentives that Navy would like made available for all the services use

includes:

• Reserve Referral Bonus payable to service members who refer candidates for

enlistment with Reserve component.

• Enhanced Reserve Referral Bonus to be paid to any person, active, guard, reserve, retired, or civilian employees, who successfully refers a new recruit.

• Advanced authority to implement selected pilot projects.

• Recruiter ‘‘Pay for Performance’’ incentive program.

Dr. SNYDER. Will the change in policy terminating the 24-cumulative month limit

on mobilization of reservists have an affect on the retention in the reserve components?

General BRADY. To date the 24-cumulative month policy has not appeared to impact the retention of our Airmen. It is difficult to predict how the recent change to

the 24-consecutive month policy will impact the Air Force Reserve. Our AEF rotation model ensures that predictability, an important element in retention, is provided for both Active and Reserve component members. We have postured ourselves

to utilize the total force in prosecuting the GWOT for the long haul.

Dr. SNYDER. Given that the recruiting environment is equally harsh for all the

services, is there any concern within the Air Force that some of the recruiting incenVerDate 22-MAR-2001 11:03 Nov 03, 2008 Jkt 037653 PO 00000 Frm 00146 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6621 C:\DOCS\110-20\046020.000 HAS2 PsN: HAS2
143

tives have been designated for use by the Army alone? What incentives do you believe should be made available to all the services?

General BRADY. While we support the Army getting these authorities to meet urgent Army recruiting shortfalls, we believe incentives in like ‘‘hard-to-fill’’ career

fields such as Pararescue, Combat Controller, Explosive Ordnance Disposal (EOD),

etc. should be the same throughout all components. It is especially important that

authorities for accessions be extended, thus allowing each component to determine

its own set of initiatives which best meets its individual requirements to recruit the

right person for the right job. While the AF is meeting its enlisted recruiting goals,

we are concerned with the future recruiting environment and the challenges in some

specific specialties. After seeing these incentives in operation in the Army, we believe they should be extended to the AF.

We have reviewed a complete list of current Army incentives. Of note, the Army

offers recruits in critical specialties a Thrift Savings Program (TSP) that matches

contributions. While we must continue research on the intricacies of the program

(percentage of matching funds), we have little doubt a similar program could enhance our ability to fill critical Air Force skills. Additionally, the Army offers ‘‘seasonal’’ bonuses that allow them flexibility to ship recruits earlier, depending on the

immediate need; these bonuses range from $3K to $15K. Traditionally the Air Force

experiences difficulty making its recruiting mission from February through May

(seasonal) each year. Implementing a ‘‘seasonal’’ bonus would aid our recruiting posture. Finally, the Army College Fund (ACF) supplements the Montgomery GI Bill

(MGIB) and offers much larger dollar amounts for college ($36K+ for a two-year enlistment up to $72K+ for six or more years). The Air Force MGIB program, by contrast, offers the DOD standard of $40K+ for either a four or six-year enlistment.

While we have highlighted only three Army specific bonuses, there are others that

merit availability to all the services. As stated previously, identical career fields

across the services and those critical, ‘‘hard-to-fill’’ skills should receive the same bonuses. We have also compared initial enlistment bonuses across the services. There

are disparities.

INCENTIVES:

SUBJECT: Enlistment Incentives Changes Effective 2 March 2007.

1. This message supersedes USAREC MSG 07–045, dated 06 December 06. Subject:

Enlistment Incentive Program Change Effective 07 December 2006, USAREC MSG

07–075, dated 30 January 07 and USAREC MSG 07–079, dated 02 February 07.

2.References:

a. HQDA Message, DAPE–MPA, Subject: Enlisted Incentive Program Changes Effective 02 March 2007. DAPE–MPA, 2–27–2007.

b. HQDA Message, DAPE–MPA, Subject: Enlisted Incentive Program Changes Effective 9 February 2007. DAPE–MPA, 2–08–2007.

c. HQDA Message, DAPE–MPA, Subject: Enlisted Incentive Program Changes Effective 30 January 2007. DAPE–MPA, 1–29–2007.

3. Thrift Savings Program (TSP) matching funds pilot program. Non-prior service

enlistees with Tier I or II education credential that are TSC I–IIIB and elect to

serve 5 or more years on active duty in a critical specialty listed in paragraph 18

with incentive level 1–4 may participate in the TSP matching funds pilot program.

This incentive is in addition to any enlistment incentive that the applicant is otherwise qualified to receive. See USAREC message 07–001 for more information on this

program.

4. Seasonal enlistment bonuses of $15000, $10000, $6000, or $3000 may be available

to Non-Prior Service applicants.

a. Non-Prior Service and DOS seasonal enlistment bonuses are available to TSC

I–IIIA applicants with Tier I, NGYC, Home School (HS) or other Tier II, TSC I–

IIIA that pass TTAS, selecting an incentivized MOS level 1–7 and the following

MOS level 8: 15Q, 21D, 25N, 27D AND 31B as described in paragraph 18. This is

for new contracts enlisting for three or more years. The REQUEST system will identify the availability of the bonus, the training seat priority, and the bonus amount.

This bonus may be combined with all other incentives.

b. Applicants receiving the seasonal bonus and later choosing to renegotiate their

enlistment contract may lose the seasonal bonus if a priority training seat is not

available. Applicants that renegotiate to an earlier ship date with the same MOS

may retain the seasonal bonus.

5. 09L enlistment bonus: All NPS Applicants enlisting into 09L regardless of education level and TSC standards for a minimum four years term of service will be

144

eligible for all cash bonuses. Applicants enlisting for ACF require at least TSC I–

IIIB. Note: Activated IRR soldiers who hold MOS 09L and are approved for RA enlistment under the provisions of MILPER Message Number 05–143; subject: Enlistment of Mobilized United States Army Reserve (USAR) or Army National Guard of

the United States (ARNGUS) soldiers into the Regular Army, issued:

06/16/2005 who are enlisting into the Regular Army for a period of four or more

years will receive a bonus of $15,000. These applicants are not eligible for any other

incentives.

6. Enlistment bonus for PS, RC to AC and B2G applicants enlisting as Skill Level

1:

a. Prior Service and Blue to Green (B2G) applicants who select training or enlist

in an MOS listed at levels 1–7 (include option 18) will receive the same bonus

amount as NPS applicants. The Prior Service applicants must enlist for a term of

service of three or more years, may not receive other enlistment bonuses (including

ACF or LRP), and are subject to recoupment policies in AR 601–280.

b. Active Duty RC soldiers who are approved for RA enlistment under the provisions of Milper Message Number 05–143; Subject: Enlistment of Mobilized United

States Army Reserve (USAR) or Army National Guard of the United States

(ARNGUS) soldiers into the Regular Army, Issued: 06/16/2005 who select training

or enlist in an MOS listed at level 1–7 based on TOS will receive a bonus in the

same amount paid to NPS applicants. These applicants are not eligible for any other

incentives.

7. A Higrad bonus is authorized for TSC I–IIIB Non-Prior Service and days of service (options 3, 4, 19, 26, 40) applicants with 30 or more semester hours enlisting

for 2 or more years into all MOS’s. The Higrad bonus may be combined with other

incentives.

a. $2000 bonus is authorized for 30–59 semester hours of college.

b. $4000 bonus is authorized for 60 or more semester hours of college.

c. $5000 bonus is authorized for applicants with a two-year Associate Degree or

equivalent.

d. $6000 bonus is authorized for applicants with a four-year Bachelor degree or

higher.

8. OCS Loan Repayment Program (LRP): LRP is authorized to all NPS OCS applicants.

9. College First: Applicants are eligible for MOS-related bonuses and MOS-related

Loan Repayment Program (LRP) in effect at the time of MOS selection.

See Paragraph 15 for LRP requirement. Applicants are not eligible for the Army

College Fund.

10. $6000 Airborne enlistment bonus and $4000 Ranger enlistment bonus are rescinded.

11. Army Civilian Acquired Skills Program (ACASP): A $5,000 enlistment bonus is

authorized for Non-Prior Service or DOS applicants in TSC I–IIIB with tier I education credential, enlisting for 3 or more years TOS in any ACASP MOS listed in

paragraph 18.

12. A $5,000 enlistment bonus or repayment of qualifying student loans (principal

and interest) up to $18,000 is authorized to national call to service program (NCSP)

applicants. The bonus may not be combined with any other incentive and will be

paid upon completion of the 15 month active duty obligation. The NCSP bonus is

available for the following MOS’s: 11X, 13B, 13D, 13F, 13M, 13P, 13S, 13W, 15Q,

15R, 15T, 15U, 19D, 19K, 21B, 21C, 21E, 21F, 21J, 21K, 21L, 21M, 21R, 21S, 21T,

21U, 21V, 21W, 31B, 31L, 42A, 42L, 45B, 52C, 52D, 55B, 56M, 63B, 63S, 63W, 73C,

74D, 88H, 88M, 88N, 91E, 91G, 91Q, 91R, 91S, 91T, 91W, 92A, 92F, 92G, 92M, 92S,

92W, 92Y, and 96R.

13. The total bonus amount is limited to $6000 for a two year TOS (not authorized

for TSC IIIB), $10,000 for a three year TOS ($20,000 max may be available on selected MOS’s as identified in the Request System) and $40,000 for four or more

years TOS. Applicants receiving an enlistment incentive and not completing their

initial term of service will be subject to the re-coupment policies in AR 601–280. Recoupment applies to enlistment bonus, seasonal, Higrad, airborne, or any and all

other enlistment bonuses. However, Higrad and seasonal bonuses will not be subject

to re-coupment if the soldier fails to complete training in the incentivized MOS or

is reclassified to any other skill that is not incentivized as long as they remain in

the army and complete their term of contracted service. Applicants selecting MOS

145

18X who fail any portion of their MOS qualification training will revert to 11X. They

will receive the 11X bonus that was available at the time of contracting.

14. Initial payment of all bonuses will not exceed $10,000 and will be made upon

arrival at first duty station. The remaining bonus amount to be paid upon graduation from basic or OSUT training in annual increments. Recruits for 18X will be

paid upon successful completion of special forces assessment and selection (SFAS)

course. Applicants not completing their initial term of service will remit any unearned portion of the enlistment bonus. This authority is not retroactive with the

exception of soldiers enlisting for the OCS enlistment option as described in paragraph 8 above.

15. The Loan Repayment Program (LRP) is available to all NPS Tier I education

credential, TSC I–IIIB (and OCS applicants as indicated in paragraph 8 above), enlisting for a minimum term of service no less than three years in an MOS as shown

in paragraph 18. Term of service is dictated by the parent MOS. The maximum reimbursable loan amount is $65,000. LRP applicants are required to decline enrollment in the MGIB. Guidance Counselors need to brief applicants selecting LRP as

an enlistment option IAW AR 601–210 Table 9–4. Applicants must choose the

EB+LRP or ACF/LRP Only package from paragraph 18 below. However, LRP may

be combined with the seasonal bonus, HG bonus, or ACASP if qualified. The LRP

is not available for Days of Service applicants except in the following cases: Applicants who served on Active Duty for less than 180 days and were separated for medical or other non disciplinary reasons with an uncharacterized separation or separated under honorable conditions. In no casewill an applicant currently affiliated

with the USAR or ARNG be enlisted for LRP.

16. Army college fund amounts (when combined with the MGIB) are in excess of

$36,864 for two-year enlistments, $51,300 for three years, $62,100 for four years,

$69,300 for five years, and $72,900 for six or more years for selected MOS’s. The

applicants must be non-prior service with tier I education credential, TSC I–IIIB or

Tier II, TSC I–IIIA. The ACF is not available for Days of Service applicants. The

minimum TOS for the MOS governs the availability of ACF. Applicants must enroll

in the Montgomery GI Bill to receive the ACF. Guidance Counselors will ensure that

the soldier understands the importance of maintaining the GCR Dynamic Annex for

verification cf ACF benefits with the Department of Veterans Affairs. The ACF may

be linked with all other incentives except LRP.

17. The following non-combat arms MOS are part of the 2+2+4 ACF test program

(2 years active duty, 2 years reserve duty, 4 years inactive reserve): 56M, 68Q.

These recruits enlisting for this program are eligible for 2 year ACF only.

18. The enlistment bonus is available to Non-Prior Service and DOS applicants with

TSC I–IIIA applicants with Tier I, NGYC, Home School (HS) or other Tier II that

pass TTAS, selecting an incentivized MOS at levels 1–7 based on Term of service

as shown below. Incentives for each MOS by allowable term of service are listed in

the following table. An MOS merging into another MOS will carry the original incentive with it unless the new MOS has a larger incentive, in which case the larger

incentive will become the current incentive. The three incentive packages for each

MOS are broken down to show the enlistment bonus (EB) only package, EB that

combines with the ACF or LRP (EB+ACF or EB+LRP), and the ACF only package.

The applicants can only choose one of the three packages. The ‘H’ in MIN TOS column for MOS 97E, 98C, 98X or 98Y indicates that ACASP option applicants (language proficient IAW AR 611–6) that are otherwise eligible for an enlistment incentive, may enlist for a TOS of 4 years and a 4 year incentive for that MOS and incentive level. The actual ACF combined with MGIB amounts for 2 year TOS is $36,864,

3 year TOS is $51,300, 4 year TOS is $62,100, and 5 year TOS is $69,300, and 6

or more year TOS is $72,900.

USAF Initial Enlistment Bonus (IEB) FY07/1Q—New FY06/1Q—Old

AFSC TITLE 6-YR 4-YR 6-YR 4-YR

1A831 AIRBORNE LINGUIST $12,000 $3,000 $12,000 $3,000

ARMY LINGUIST $14,000 $8,000 $14,000 $8,000

1C231 COMBAT CONTROL $10,000 $6,000 $10,000 $6,000

ARMY SPEC FORCES $20,000 $12,000 $20,000 $12,000

146

USAF Initial Enlistment Bonus (IEB) FY07/1Q—New FY06/1Q—Old

AFSC TITLE 6-YR 4-YR 6-YR 4-YR

NAVY SEALS $15,000 $10,000 $15,000 $10,000

1C431 TAC AIR COMMAND AND

CONTROL

$6,000 $4,000 $6,000 $4,000

1N331 LINGUIST $12,000 $3,000 $12,000 $3,000

ARMY LINGUIST $14,000 $8,000 $14,000 $8,000

NAVY LINGUIST $12,000 $8,000 $12,000 $8,000

MARINE CORPS $12,000 $4,000 $12,000 $4,000

1T0X1 SURVIVAL, EVASION, RESIST,

ESCAPE

$10,000 $6,000 $10,000 $6,000

1T231 PARARESCUE $10,000 $6,000 $10,000 $6,000

ARMY SPEC FORCES $20,000 $12,000 $20,000 $12,000

NAVY SEALS $15,000 $10,000 $15,000 $10,000

3E831 EXPLOSIVE ORDINANCE

DISPOSAL

$10,000 $6,000 $10,000 $6,000

ARMY EOD $20,000 $12,000 $20,000 $12,000

Dr. SNYDER. Will the change in policy terminating the 24-cumulative month limit

on mobilization of reservists have an affect on the retention in the reserve components?

General COLEMAN. The implementation of the new activation policy and the impact of the active component increase to 202K with its associated incentives for Marines to stay/return to active duty are both factors that may have an impact upon

retention in the Marine Corps Reserve. However, we are currently unable to forecast the exact nature of that impact. We continue to pursue various options to mitigate these factors to include the development of the Long War Reserve Force Generation Model in order to provide an element of predictability for our Reserve Marines. We expect that providing a tool that allows our Reserve Marines the ability

to predict when they will be called to full-time duty will enhance retention.

Dr. SNYDER. Given that the recruiting environment is equally harsh for all the

services, is there any concern within the Marine Corps that some of the recruiting

incentives have been designated for use by the Army alone? What incentives do you

believe should be made available to all the services?

General COLEMAN. The Marine Corps is not concerned with incentives designated

for, or used by the Army. However, any recruiting incentives should be open to all

services. At this time, the Marine Corps makes a determination internally based on

accession needs how any incentives available to all the services are used to support

Marine Corps recruiting.

QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY MR. MCHUGH

Mr. MCHUGH. I would like to have an additional response for the record, please,

as to the growth of the waivers.

Dr. CHU. While there has been an increase in the number of new accessions with

waivers, the quality of new recruits remains high. Today’s military is younger than

the population as a whole, is more disciplined, and is more physically and morally

fit. Over 90 percent of new recruits are high school graduates while only 80 percent

of American youth are. About 67 percent of new enlistees score in the upper half

of the enlistment (math/verbal aptitude) test. These attributes translate to lower attrition, more effective training, and higher performance. Our entrance standards are

tough; over two-thirds of the American youth populations are disqualified for enlistVerDate 22-MAR-2001 11:03 Nov 03, 2008 Jkt 037653 PO 00000 Frm 00150 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6621 C:\DOCS\110-20\046020.000 HAS2 PsN: HAS2
147

ment by military entrance standards, mainly owing to medical conditions. However,

a limited number of enlistees are permitted to enter the military with a waiver of

otherwise disqualifying conditions.

The percentage of new enlistees entering the Service with waivers did increase

between 2003 and 2006. The greatest increase was for waivers for medical conditions. Numerous reports show that obesity is prevalent among our youth. Additionally there is a preponderance of previously undiagnosed conditions such as Attention

Deficit Disorders. If these conditions increase in the general population, there will

be a corresponding increase in our market, and thus a need to review cases that

warrant consideration.

Moral waivers are another area of concern. The percentage of people entering the

Services with moral waivers between 2003 and 2006 actually decreased by about 3

percent. Often reports concerning moral waivers imply that the Services are allowing hardened criminals and felons to routinely serve in our military. This is not

true. Our standards and criteria for requiring a moral waiver are high. The majority

of those we identify as felony waivers are individuals who, as a youth, were charged

with a serious offense, and through the court process, the charges were reduced or

ultimately dropped. Our policies and practices are very conservative, and require us

to consider these court actions as adverse adjudication at a General Officer’s review.

The public at large generally would not consider these individuals convicted felons,

but for reporting purposes, we acknowledge the charges. The waiver process ensures

that the individual is indeed fit to serve.

Our waiver process has served us well. It is not the quality of our young men and

women who are in uniform that should be questioned but rather our reporting procedures. We will continue to try to educate the public about this process in an attempt to dispel the misconception that we are allowing felons and hardened criminals to serve. We will remain vigilant of the waiver process and will continue to

ensure that only those determined to be fit for Service are allowed to serve.

QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY MR. KLINE

Mr. KLINE. What are we doing with the increased demands for recruiting? And

how much more money are you going to spend on advertising?

Admiral HARVEY. Navy had 4,879 production recruiter billets authorized in FY06

(3,771 active enlisted, 726 reserve enlisted, 264 active officers and 118 reserve officers) and has 5,084 billets authorized for FY08 (4,000 active enlisted, 703 reserve

enlisted, 263 active officers and 118 reserve officers).

Navy advertising budget in FY06 was $119.2 million and is $84.6 million for

FY08.

Mr. KLINE. What are we doing with the increased demands for recruiting?

General COLEMAN. The Marine Corps has not seen a significant increase or decrease in incidents around recruiting stations that could be tied directly to the Iraq

war.

Mr. KLINE. What are we doing with the increased demands for recruiting? And

how much more money are you going to spend on advertising?

General ROCHELLE. The Army annually adjusts the accession mission to support

the end strength requirements. To achieve the accession mission, the Army has several levers to include the size of the recruiting force, advertising missions, and financial and educational incentives. To support the required FY06 accession mission,

the Army fielded 12,600 uniformed recruiters and spent $477 million on marketing

and advertising (including dollars re-programmed during the year of execution). The

Army has already added an additional 300 uniformed recruiters (FY07). Funding decreases slightly in FY08 but will be adjusted, and the number of recruiters increased, if mission requirements increase above 80,000 for the active force.

Mr. KLINE. What are we doing with the increased demands for recruiting? And

how much more money are you going to spend on advertising?

General BRADY. The number of FY06 recruiters for Air Force active, guard, and

reserve, respectfully, was 1,342, 465, and 400. In FY07, we have 1,342 active, 463

guard, and 400 reserve recruiters. In FY08, we project having 1,200 active, 493

guard, and 396 reserve recruiters.

The Air Force recruiting advertising budget for active, guard, and reserve in

FY06, respectively in millions of dollars, was: (programmed) 61.1, 5.8, and 9.7 & (executed) 66.5, 15.2, and 12.5. In FY07, the budget is programmed at 68.2 million for

active, 17 million for guard, and 12 million for reserve. Our FY08 programmed recruiting advertising budget is 55.1 million for active, 19.4 million for guard, and

13.7 million for reserve.

148

QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY MR. MURPHY

Mr. MURPHY. What are the numbers of reported incidents at recruiting stations?

General BRADY. Over the past three years, the number of reported incidents at

recruiting stations where protestors caused problems was 5 incidents in FY04, 21

incidents in FY05, and 31 incidents in FY06.

Mr. MURPHY. Is there a standard operating procedure (SOP) if there is a protest,

either at a college or at a high school, or if there are people that are barring you

access to that student body? What are the numbers of reported incidents at recruiting stations?

General ROCHELLE. Following a precipitous increase in the numbers of seriously

reportable incidents in and around recruiting stations and on college campuses in

Fiscal Year (FY) 2005, the United States Army Accessions Command (USAAC)

strengthened its reporting procedures and tracking of these incidents. Reportable incident data for FY 2006 and FY 2007 year-to-date data is below. While demonstrations appear to be on the decline, it appears that acts of vandalism and threat communications may equal or exceed the previous year totals.

United States Army Recruiting Command (USAREC)*

FY06 FY07

Demonstrations 81 42

Government Vehicle Vandalisms 70 49

Vandalisms against Recruiting Stations 27 32

Bomb Threats 23 15

Total 201 138

United States Army Cadet Command (Army ROTC)**

FY06 FY07

Demonstrations 2 0

Government Vehicle Vandalisms 0 1

Vandalisms against ROTC Facilities 0 1

Bomb Threats/Suspicious Packages 2 1

Total 4 3

* Note: United States Army Recruiting Command data is as of 24 Apr. 2007.

** Note: United States Army Cadet Command data is as of 30 Apr. 2007.

Mr. MURPHY. Is there a standard operating procedure (SOP) if there is a protest,

either at a college or at a high school, or if there are people that are barring you

access to that student body? What are the numbers of reported incidents at recruiting stations?

Admiral HARVEY. With respect to protests, either at a college or a high school,

Commander Navy Recruiting Command (CNRC) provides standard operating procedures through issuance of Public Affairs Guidance (PAG) to all Recruiters and Navy

Recruiting Districts (NRDs). Training on handling protest situations begins at

entry-level training for recruiters and is reinforced in regular training sessions at

NRDs.

With respect to situations in which access to a school is denied, procedures are

promulgated in the Navy Recruiting Manual. Instances of denial are first resolved,

if possible, by the local NRD commanding officer and staff. If such efforts fail, reports and procedures are executed as provided in a Memorandum of Understanding

(MOU) between the Department of Defense (DoD) and the Department of Education

(DoED), which delineates procedures and responsibilities for military recruiters and

recruiting activities denied access to public schools. Recruiters or recruiting activities experiencing problems accessing either a school or a student directory reflect

this information in the Military Recruiter Access to High School (RAHS) database

maintained by the Defense Manpower Data Center (DMDC). Training on access-toschool denials begins at the entry-level training for recruiters and is reinforced in

regular training sessions at NRDs.

Navy recruiters have encountered very few instances of organized protests at

schools. In 2006, Navy Recruiting Region East—comprised roughly of the states east

of the Mississippi River—reported no organized protests at any school or university

149

during recruiting visits. For Navy Recruiting Region West, 17 such protests were

experienced at high schools, 18 at undergraduate colleges and none at graduate

schools. Navy Recruiting Command reported just one instance of denied access (both

to students and to student directory) at a public high school in 2006 to the Department of Defense via the RAHS database.

Mr. MURPHY. Is there a standard operating procedure (SOP) if there is a protest,

either at a college or at a high school, or if there are people that are barring you

access to that student body? What are the numbers of reported incidents at recruiting stations?

General COLEMAN. The Marine Corps has not seen a significant increase or decrease in incidents around recruiting stations that could be tied directly to the Iraq

war.

Æ