U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

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

http://bookstore.gpo.gov. For more information, contact the GPO Customer Contact Center,

U.S. Government Printing Office. Phone 202–512–1800, or 866–512–1800 (toll-free). E-mail, gpo@custhelp.com.

i 

73–436 2012

[H.A.S.C. No. 112–110] 

HEARING 

ON

NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT 

FOR FISCAL YEAR 2013 

AND

OVERSIGHT OF PREVIOUSLY AUTHORIZED 

PROGRAMS 

BEFORE THE

COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ONE HUNDRED TWELFTH CONGRESS 

SECOND SESSION 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON MILITARY PERSONNEL HEARING 

ON

MILITARY PERSONNEL BUDGET 

OVERVIEW—SERVICE PERSONNEL 

CHIEFS’ PERSPECTIVES 

HEARING HELD 

MARCH 6, 2012 
(II) 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON MILITARY PERSONNEL 

JOE WILSON, South Carolina, Chairman 

WALTER B. JONES, North Carolina 

MIKE COFFMAN, Colorado 

TOM ROONEY, Florida 

JOE HECK, Nevada 

ALLEN B. WEST, Florida 

AUSTIN SCOTT, Georgia 

VICKY HARTZLER, Missouri 

SUSAN A. DAVIS, California 

ROBERT A. BRADY, Pennsylvania 

MADELEINE Z. BORDALLO, Guam 

DAVE LOEBSACK, Iowa 

NIKI TSONGAS, Massachusetts 

CHELLIE PINGREE, Maine 

CRAIG GREENE, Professional Staff Member 

DEBRA WADA, Professional Staff Member 

JAMES WEISS, Staff Assistant 
(III) 

C O N T E N T S 

CHRONOLOGICAL LIST OF HEARINGS 

2012 

Page 

HEARING: 

Tuesday, March 6, 2012, Military Personnel Budget Overview—Service Personnel Chiefs’ Perspectives .................................................................................. 1 

APPENDIX: 

Tuesday, March 6, 2012 .......................................................................................... 21 

TUESDAY, MARCH 6, 2012 

MILITARY PERSONNEL BUDGET OVERVIEW—SERVICE PERSONNEL 

CHIEFS’ PERSPECTIVES 

STATEMENTS PRESENTED BY MEMBERS OF CONGRESS 

Davis, Hon. Susan A., a Representative from California, Ranking Member, 

Subcommittee on Military Personnel ................................................................. 2 

Wilson, Hon. Joe, a Representative from South Carolina, Chairman, Subcommittee on Military Personnel ........................................................................ 1 

WITNESSES 

Bostick, LTG Thomas P., USA, Deputy Chief Of Staff, G–1, Headquarters, 

U.S. Army ............................................................................................................. 3 

Jones, Lt Gen Darrell D., USAF, Deputy Chief of Staff for Manpower, Personnel and Services, Headquarters, U.S. Air Force .......................................... 6 

Murray, Sheryl E., Assistant Deputy Commandant for Manpower and Reserve 

Affairs, Headquarters, U.S. Marine Corps ......................................................... 5 

Van Buskirk, VADM Scott R., USN, Chief of Naval Personnel and Deputy 

Chief of Naval Operations (Manpower, Personnel, Training and Education)(N1) ............................................................................................................ 4 

APPENDIX 

PREPARED STATEMENTS: 

Bostick, LTG Thomas P. .................................................................................. 27 

Davis, Hon. Susan A. ....................................................................................... 26 

Jones, Lt Gen Darrell D. .................................................................................. 120 

Murray, Sheryl E. ............................................................................................. 90 

Van Buskirk, VADM Scott R. .......................................................................... 53 

Wilson, Hon. Joe ............................................................................................... 25 

DOCUMENTS SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD: 

The Fleet Reserve Association’s Statement on Military Personnel Policy, 

Benefits, and Compensation, Submitted by Master Chief Joseph L. 

Barnes, USN (Ret.), National Executive Director ...................................... 139 

Reserve Officers Association of the United States and Reserve Enlisted 

Association’s Statement on Personnel Issues ............................................. 149 
Page

IV 

WITNESS RESPONSES TO QUESTIONS ASKED DURING THE HEARING: 

[There were no Questions submitted during the hearing.] 

QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY MEMBERS POST HEARING: 

Ms. Bordallo ...................................................................................................... 161 

Mr. Loebsack ..................................................................................................... 170 
(1) 

MILITARY PERSONNEL BUDGET OVERVIEW—SERVICE 

PERSONNEL CHIEFS’ PERSPECTIVES 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES, SUBCOMMITTEE ON MILITARY PERSONNEL, Washington, DC, Tuesday, March 6, 2012. 

The subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 2:34 p.m. in room 

2212, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Joe Wilson (chairman 

of the subcommittee) presiding. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JOE WILSON, A REPRESENTATIVE FROM SOUTH CAROLINA, CHAIRMAN, SUBCOMMITTEE 

ON MILITARY PERSONNEL 

Mr. WILSON. Ladies and gentlemen, thank you for joining us for 

a subcommittee hearing of the Military Personnel Subcommittee of 

the House Armed Services Committee. 

We are delighted to have our participants today being the service 

personnel chiefs. 

This hearing will come to order. 

Today, the Military Personnel Subcommittee will receive testimony from the service personnel chiefs on the President’s fiscal 

year 2013 budget request regarding military personnel matters. 

This is an especially important hearing because the subcommittee will hear the perspective of the military services about 

the reductions to Active Duty military personnel programs included 

in the budget request that so many congressional members have 

found troubling. 

Last week, the witnesses from the Office of the Secretary of Defense defended the budget request, and the subcommittee members 

openly expressed their doubts and concerns. 

As I made clear last week, I must be counted among those members with serious reservations about the budget request and the reductions in force and to the personnel programs that are included. 

America remains at war with a ruthless and committed enemy 

that shows we must have resolve to stop the enemies overseas, to 

protect American families at home. 

In the face of that reality, this budget offers no apology for the 

program reductions that go to the heart of our military capability 

by undermining programs that serve our military personnel, putting America and its allies, such as Israel, at risk. 

The proposed major reductions to end strength, compensation 

programs, and health care programs sap our combat capability and 

undermine the trust of service members, military families, and veterans. 
2 

Now, the subcommittee will hear from the personnel leadership 

within the Services, the people with the most direct contact with 

the real stakeholders in this debate, the men and women serving 

our Nation in uniform. These are the leaders responsible for providing the manpower so critical to combat capability. 

If the subcommittee expects to hear the voice of our service members during testimony on this budget request, these are the witnesses we will rely on to bring us that message. 

I would like to welcome our distinguished witnesses: Lieutenant 

General Thomas P. Bostick, U.S. Army, Deputy Chief of Staff, G– 

1 Headquarters, U.S, Army; Vice Admiral Scott R. Van Buskirk, 

United States Navy, Chief of Naval Personnel and Deputy Chief of 

Naval Operations, Manpower, Personnel, Training, and Education; 

Ms. Sheryl E. Murray, Assistant Deputy Commandant for Manpower and Reserve Affairs, Headquarters, U.S. Marine Corps; Lieutenant General Darrell D. Jones, U.S. Air Force, Deputy Chief of 

Staff, Manpower and Personnel Headquarters, U.S. Air Force. 

I would also like to recognize that today is the first appearance 

before the subcommittee for Admiral Van Buskirk and Ms. Murray. 

We welcome you both. 

And Mrs. Susan Davis, who is our distinguished ranking member, would you have any opening remarks? 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Wilson can be found in the Appendix on page 25.] 

STATEMENT OF HON. SUSAN A. DAVIS, A REPRESENTATIVE 

FROM CALIFORNIA, RANKING MEMBER, SUBCOMMITTEE ON 

MILITARY PERSONNEL 

Mrs. DAVIS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and General Bostick and 

General Jones, we welcome you back to the subcommittee. 

And Admiral Van Buskirk and, of course, Ms. Murray, we welcome you as well. Thank you for being here for your first testimony. 

We appreciate receiving your views on the fiscal year 2013 budget request for military personnel. I look forward to hearing how the 

proposal will impact our military personnel and their families. 

As I mentioned last week, although the budget reductions have 

not severely impacted the military personnel accounts, they were 

certainly not immune. We need to understand what impacts there 

will be to personnel and family programs as a result of a proposed 

budget request. 

Over the past several years, the Service has made a good faith 

effort to fund quality of life programs for service members and 

their families in the base budget. I think that was extremely important, and we saw, I think, a generous response to the needs of 

our military and their families. 

Support for wounded warriors and their families, transition into 

civilian lives for those that are leaving the service, care and support for families that are staying, these demands are not going to 

go away. And in fact, in some cases, they may even increase. 

The Services will need to make a determination on what is important to sustain the All-Volunteer Force, and which may have to 

fall by the wayside. 
3 

These are going to be very, very difficult decisions. And the subcommittee will need to understand the reasoning that underpins 

these decisions. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I look forward to hearing from our 

witnesses and having a very substantive hearing today. 

Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Mrs. Davis can be found in the Appendix on page 26.] 

Mr. WILSON. Thank you very much. 

And without objection, I ask that statements from the Reserve 

Officers Association and the Fleet Reserve Association be included 

in the record of this hearing. 

[The information referred to can be found in the Appendix on 

pages 149 and 139, respectively.] 

Mr. WILSON. Hearing none, so ordered. 

And Lieutenant General Bostick, we will begin with your testimony. 

And it is very humbling for a retired colonel to even make a recommendation. But the reminder we have is his statement should 

be about 3 minutes. 

We have your written statements for the record. 

General Bostick. 

STATEMENT OF LTG THOMAS P. BOSTICK, USA, DEPUTY CHIEF 

OF STAFF, G–1, HEADQUARTERS, U.S. ARMY 

General BOSTICK. Chairman Wilson, Representative Davis, distinguished members of the committee, thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today. 

I am honored to represent the 1.1 million soldiers and nearly 

300,000 civilians and their families. This combat-seasoned force 

has performed superbly over the last decade. 

Now, the Army is poised to execute a drawdown of both our military and civilian personnel while still in combat and during a challenging economy. We will do this in a careful and deliberate manner while maintaining the best army in the world. 

To maintain an All-Volunteer Force of the highest quality soldiers, the Army must responsibly balance accessions, retention, 

promotion, voluntary, and involuntary separations. 

To assist our soldiers and civilians who will transition to employment in the private sector, we must equip them with the skills and 

knowledge to be successful. 

We completed a holistic review of our transition program, which 

will now better assist soldiers, civilians, and families as they return to communities across the country. 

We must continue to shape our future force by recruiting and retaining the next generation of Army leaders. 

We greatly appreciate your help in this effort and with improving 

the quality of life of our soldiers and their families through a superb health care system, educational opportunities, and soldier and 

family services. 

After a decade of war, many soldiers are coping with injuries and 

health issues resulting from their military service. Some are struggling with issues such as substance abuse, depression, and posttraumatic stress. 
4 

Our suicide rates are tragically high. Our current programs to 

build resiliency and relieve stress are critical to maintaining the 

readiness of our Army. 

The success of these programs is due, in large part, to the strong 

support of the Congress. We must not waiver on our commitment 

to support those who have sacrificed so much for our country. 

We are aggressively addressing the issue of sexual assault and 

harassment in our ranks. This terrible crime violates our core values and breaks the bonds of trust that we hold dear. 

Our goal is to eliminate even one incident from occurring. And 

we are committed to fixing this problem. 

Our soldiers, civilians, and families have performed superbly 

over the last 10 years of a war, and I can assure you that your 

Army will continue to meet the Nation’s needs whenever and wherever it is called to serve. 

Chairman Wilson, and members of the subcommittee, I thank 

you for your support, and I look forward to your questions. 

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

Appendix on page 27.] 

Mr. WILSON. Thank you very much. And we will now proceed to 

Admiral Van Buskirk. 

STATEMENT OF VADM SCOTT R. VAN BUSKIRK, USN, CHIEF OF 

NAVAL PERSONNEL AND DEPUTY CHIEF OF NAVAL OPERATIONS (MANPOWER, PERSONNEL, TRAINING AND EDUCATION)(N1) 

Admiral VAN BUSKIRK. Chairman Wilson, Ranking Member 

Davis, and distinguished members of the House Armed Services 

Committee, thank you for the opportunity to review our fiscal year 

2013 manpower and personnel budget request. 

In developing our request, we recognized that our Nation is at 

a historic inflection point. That we are shaping a Navy that will 

be more agile, flexible, ready, and technologically advanced. 

We believe our request appropriately balances risk in supporting 

the readiness requirements of the fleet, changing strategic mission 

focus, and essential programs that provide for the care of our sailors and their families. 

Our sailors operate forward from the United States bases and 

partner nation places around the world. On any given day, we have 

about 50,000 sailors and 145 ships under way. 

And about 100 of those ships deployed overseas assuring and 

partnering with our allies, while maintaining a global presence in 

order to deter aggression and stabilize the maritime crossroads. 

Our fiscal year 2013 budget request enables us to continue to 

meet the operational demands of the fleet and the joint force, while 

optimizing personnel readiness. 

As we move into this new era, the Navy is well-positioned to recruit, develop, retain, and provide American people the best and 

most capable maritime fighting force in history. Navy has worked 

hard to become a top 50 organization, an employer of choice providing world-class benefits and opportunities. 

As an All-Volunteer Force, we recognize that we must adapt to 

changing economic times while continuing to implement force management policies focused on incentivizing, encouraging, and re-
5 

warding high performance. We will continue to work towards a 

Navy that attracts and retains top-performing sailors who best possess the critical skills necessary for our mission. 

We are making hard choices on sailor retention as Navy continues to transition. But we are committed to doing so in a fair, 

transparent, and compassionate manner using performance as our 

benchmark. 

Our fiscal year 2013 Navy budget request appropriately balances 

the risk, preserve capabilities, and to meet current fleet and joint 

requirements, fosters growth in emerging mission areas, and provides vital support to Navy sailors and their families. 

The request supports Active end-strength of 322,700 and Select 

Reserve end-strength of 62,500. These levels will allow us to meet 

fleet and joint operational demands while optimizing personnel 

readiness. 

As we navigate through a period of change, Navy will continue 

to take action to posture itself for success in the future. Evolving 

missions, shifting workforce demographics, and increased competition for skills will require new and innovative approaches to attracting, recruiting, and retaining our best talent. 

Mission success starts and ends with a highly skilled and capable 

workforce. To build an effective future workforce, we remain focused on developing and sustaining a diverse workforce, providing 

our sailors with opportunities for greater work-life balance, and 

promoting open and frequent communication with families. 

With people as the heart and soul of our Navy’s warfighting capabilities, we will enable and support our sailors and their families 

with personnel programs that provide a high return on investment 

and readiness. 

We priority funded our programs to address behavioral health, 

mitigate operational stress, support families, eliminate the use of 

synthetic drugs like Spice, and aggressively prevent suicide and 

sexual assault. 

On behalf of the men and women of the United States Navy, and 

their families, I extend my sincere appreciation to the committee 

and the Congress for your leadership, your commitment, and unwavering support. Thank you. And I look forward to your questions. 

[The prepared statement of Admiral Van Buskirk can be found 

in the Appendix on page 53.] 

Mr. WILSON. Thank you very much, Admiral Van Buskirk. 

And we will now proceed to Ms. Sheryl Murray. 

STATEMENT OF SHERYL E. MURRAY, ASSISTANT DEPUTY 

COMMANDANT FOR MANPOWER AND RESERVE AFFAIRS, 

HEADQUARTERS, U.S. MARINE CORPS 

Ms. MURRAY. Chairman Wilson, Ranking Member Davis, distinguished members of the subcommittee, it is my privilege to appear 

before you today. 

Lieutenant General Milstead hoped to be here today, but sends 

his very best regards as he recovers from surgery. 

The Marine Corps is our Nation’s expeditionary force in readiness. At any given time, we have approximately 30,000 marines 

and sailors deployed in Afghanistan and around the globe. 
6 

We are ready to respond to today’s crisis with today’s force today. 

The individual marine is the Corps’ most sacred resource, and the 

quality of our force has never been better. 

The new strategic guidance issued by the President and the Secretary of Defense, as you know, includes a reduction and our Active 

Component end-strength from 202,100 to 182,100 by the end of fiscal year 2016. Our goal will be to conduct this drawdown in a 

measured way, approximately 5,000 marines a year. 

During this time, we will continue to depend on OCO [overseas 

contingency operations] funding for end-strength above 182,100. 

In doing so, our overarching goal is to keep faith with our marines, to use natural attrition, and voluntary separation measures 

as much as possible; to allow marines to complete their current 

contract, their current period of service; to give marines and their 

families’ ample time to transition and to provide a robust transition 

assistance for them. 

To this end, one of our most significant initiatives is improving 

our Transition Assistance Management Program, or TAMP. 

Already a mandatory program for marines, TAMP is being integrated and mapped to the lifecycle of a marine, beginning with recruitment through separation or retirement, and beyond as veteran 

marines. 

This core curriculum will have four well-defined pathways: university or college, vocational-technical training, employment, or entrepreneurship. This tailored approach will target the individual 

circumstances and needs of our marines. 

During our drawdown, as always, a top priority of the commandant and mine is to keep faith with our Marine families. 

Through program improvements and with your support, we are 

doing just that. 

I served 34 years as an Active Duty marine. And just as I was 

proud to earn the title of marine, I am pleased today to report that 

our marines are proud of the eagle, globe, and anchor, and what 

it represents to our country. 

With your support, our vibrant Marine Corps will continue to 

meet our Nation’s call. 

I look forward to answering your questions. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Murray can be found in the Appendix on page 90.] 

Mr. WILSON. Thank you very much, Ms. Murray. 

We now proceed to Lieutenant General Darrell D. Jones. 

STATEMENT OF LT GEN DARRELL D. JONES, USAF, DEPUTY 

CHIEF OF STAFF FOR MANPOWER, PERSONNEL AND SERVICES, HEADQUARTERS, U.S. AIR FORCE 

General JONES. Chairman Wilson, Ranking Member Davis, and 

members of the subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today to represent the men and women, the officers, enlisted, and civilian personnel of the United States Air Force 

who have performed valiantly during 20 years of continuous deployment and combat operations that date back to the Gulf War. 

In 2011, 69,000 airmen forward-deployed to 327 contingency locations across the globe supporting multiple operations, including 

major combat operations in Afghanistan and Libya, a major hu-
7 

manitarian mission in Japan and, of course, the honorable conclusion of our mission in Iraq. 

As the deputy chief of staff for Manpower, Personnel, and Services, I remain committed to recruiting, developing, and delivering 

to the battlefield innovative airmen to support our national security strategy. 

We are dedicated to properly managing our forces to maintain 

and sustain the appropriate size and force mix required to meet the 

current and future military operations. 

At the same time, we must continue the effort we began in earnest in 2010 to properly shape the force and remain within authorized end-strength. 

Fiscal year 2013 force structure reductions, and associated endstrength adjustments, will necessitate continuing implementation 

of force management programs in 2013 and beyond. We will exercise existing force management legislative authorities and, when 

needed, we will seek extensions of these programs and new programs that are required to help shape the force. 

As we proceed with our force management efforts, we will continue to utilize voluntary programs first, incentive programs where 

needed, and involuntary measures when required. 

We must also remain focused on assessing, retaining, and growing a motivated and uniquely qualified airmen force to meet the security threats of today and the future. 

We will carefully tailor recruitment and retention efforts to balance current needs with future requirements as underassessing or 

underretaining airmen has a potential to ripple through the force 

for many years to come. 

Therefore, we will continue investing in Air Force recruiting efforts and provide targeted retention bonuses as needed. These are 

worthy and necessary investments we make today to maintain a 

competitive advantage in drawing and retaining airmen to the 

force of tomorrow. 

The Air Force owes a debt of gratitude for the sacrifice made by 

our airmen and their families. Effective quality of life will continue 

to be one of our highest priorities. 

The demographics and lifestyles of our airmen have continued to 

change over the years and we must adapt to our programs to the 

Services and enforce the programs that they are interested in to 

ensure that we meet the needs of today’s airmen and their families. 

The hallmark of the United States Air Force’s success has always 

been, and will remain, our people. Our airmen continue to contribute significant capabilities to the joint team and do so with the 

integrity and excellence familiar to the global community. 

We appreciate your unfailing support of the men and women of 

our Air Force. And on behalf of the chief of staff of the United 

States Air Force, I look forward to answering your questions. 

Thank you. 

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

Appendix on page 120.] 

Mr. WILSON. Thank you very much, General Jones. 

As we proceed, we will be on a timeframe ourselves—5 minutes. 
8 

And I am very grateful that Craig Greene, who is above repute, 

will keep this very carefully. And we will actually ask questions 

based on when persons have been seated. 

To begin—overall question, if anyone knows, and that is, are you 

aware of any significant personnel reductions in any other Department of Government? 

And I am specifically concerned, of course, of the district I represent for the reduction of 80,000 personnel of the Army. I am very 

grateful to represent Fort Jackson. I represent Parris Island. 

I am very concerned about the 20,000 personnel reduction in the 

Marine Corps. And if you are not aware, I just want to be aware, 

I am concerned that it seems like reductions only apply to military 

personnel of the Department of Defense [DOD]. 

A specific question, and one of the hazards, General Bostick, of 

using the alphabet, you first, but I agree with you that our military 

service members, military families, veterans have sacrificed. 

They—we are at a time of conflict. And commitments have been 

made to our military in terms of health care benefits. 

And I am concerned that the proposal of the Department is for 

TRICARE Prime [health care program]; there is an increase of enrollment fees between 30 to 78 percent. But over 5 years, the enrollment increase can be between 94 percent and 345 percent. 

This is, I just think, an imposition on the commitments that have 

been made to people who have served our country. 

Do you know of any alternative? And I am just concerned about 

the fairness of this. 

General BOSTICK. Chairman Wilson, as an Army and as a Department, I think we all feel the obligation to balance the needs of 

our military with those of the country. And as the Secretary of Defense and chairman, and our own secretary and chief mentioned, 

we take that obligation seriously. 

And we have got to, in places where we can tighten our belts, 

in places where we can meet the needs of the Nation while caring 

for our soldiers, civilians, and families, we are going to do that. 

And we are part of the solution for the country in terms of how it 

meets its fiscal responsibilities. 

That said, we will ensure that we do everything we can to support our soldiers. 

Mr. WILSON. And I appreciate your commitment. But I am very 

concerned, as Congressman Austin Scott pointed out last week, 

that there seems to be a move for free health care for everybody 

except for service members, military families, and veterans. 

Additionally in regard to TRICARE, General Jones, the fee increases are tiered. Now, an E–7 who served 28 years would pay 

more than an E–7 who served 20 years. 

The E–7 with 28 years does not earn more retirement because 

he and she served longer and sacrificed. 

How should that be considered again as fair? 

General JONES. Well, Chairman, I believe that, as General 

Bostick said, in these times where we all have to share the burden 

of the national debt and the crisis that we have, we take very seriously our obligation to maintain our benefits for our retirees as 

well as our Active Duty. 
9 

If we can help contribute to, say, bend the curve of rising health 

care costs with modest increases, that may be something we have 

to seriously consider. 

1995 and 1996 was the last time we raised the price for any of 

our health care to our retirees. And I think a small portion may 

allow them to understand and make informed judgments as how 

they will get their health care in the future. 

But we don’t do this lightly. I think that any change we have to 

do has to be taken into account of how it affects recruiting, how 

it affects retention, and how it affects the readiness of our force because certainly that is our key and our goal that we have to focus 

on. 

Mr. WILSON. And I appreciate those considerations. 

Finally, if anyone—I feel like sequestration again is somehow 

singling out the Department of Defense, the military. 

And with $0.5 trillion of additional cuts, January 1, over the 

$586 million already reduced, how will that affect your commands? 

General BOSTICK. I think our leadership has already, or I know 

our leadership has already mentioned that this would have a devastating impact on our military. 

We believe that we can manage the current drawdown through 

2017, but a sequestration would certainly have a devastating impact. And we would have to regroup on our current planning and 

what we think we can possibly do in terms of our strategy. 

Mr. WILSON. And as I conclude, I appreciate Secretary Panetta 

making that very clear. 

And I shall yield now to Mrs. Davis of California. 

Mrs. DAVIS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you all again 

for being here. 

Perhaps I will start with General Jones. 

Could you please share with us, all of you, there are many challenges out there. But what do you see as the greatest challenge 

that you are facing this year and 5 years from now? 

And in those areas is it resources, is it authorities? What creates 

that challenge that you are probably most concerned about? 

General JONES. Ma’am, I would say the thing that keeps me up 

at nights, if you will allow me to use that term, is that we have 

to leave the force better than we have it today and posture it for 

successes down the road. 

We have to sometimes make the tough decisions in today’s environment so that, in the Air Force, we can keep accessions up as 

high as we can because if we make a mistake and if we don’t access 

to 100 percent of our goals, if we don’t keep the people in earlier 

in their career, we are going to cause ‘‘bathtubs’’ [bathtub-shaped 

chart curves reflecting downsized military capability] and ripples. 

Recruiting someone is as important as retaining them so that we 

maintain that readiness throughout the force. We have to be careful we don’t default to an easy solution. 

When the money gets tied and the force structure drops, the 

number of people we are allowed to have, my personal opinion is 

we can’t go to cut accession so that we are able to solve our problem today, but we saddle our successors with the burden of having 

lived with holes in the military that could last 20 years. 
10 

That is coupled with the fact that we have to be careful we don’t 

say times are good in the military. Retention is extremely high. 

Retention is a 17-year high in the Air Force. However, we have 

pockets of career fields stressed in critical career fields, which do 

require incentives, which do require bonuses. 

We have to make sure that we don’t make generalizing decisions 

to eliminate certain incentives for people that are in highly 

stressed, highly deployed career fields because we have to keep 

them in, more so than some of the others that are not as stressed. 

And those are the things I focus on, trying to maintain a strong 

force for the next 20 years after we are gone, not the next 2 or 3 

years. 

Mrs. DAVIS. If you could all respond? 

Ms. MURRAY. Yes, ma’am. I would be happy to respond. 

In addition—I echo what General Jones says, and just a couple 

of more comments from the Marine Corps perspective. 

We are confident that we are recruiting the very highest quality 

individuals into the Marine Corps, but we have to still have the 

sorts of monies that we can incentivize those individuals who perform the stress skills. 

We have to be careful that we don’t overcorrect. That we don’t 

reduce certain funding levels, for instance, use recruiting as an example to a level so low that when we need to begin recruiting again 

when the economy gets well and we are then really competing, we 

need to make sure we have the money to do that. 

We are working to make sure we don’t decimate our recruiting 

force. 

I think we have the authorities that we need, and I appreciate 

what you have done for us. 

Also, if we have something that comes up, we will be confident 

that we can come to you and seek some sort of additional authorities. 

It is really the challenge with the resources. As we have said, 

this Nation faces a tremendous economic crisis. 

And so we, as a Marine Corps, want to be part of the solution 

for that. But we also want to make sure that we don’t have a hollow force, that we don’t reduce too much in any particular grade. 

Those downsizing that we will do, the 5,000 every year, that will 

not be just accessions, that will not just be our first-term force. We 

will take a slice from the highest level on down to make sure that 

we have the capability to do what we need to do today with the 

right marines. 

Admiral VAN BUSKIRK. Congresswoman Davis, I think a couple 

of points. 

One, in addition to the ones already made is ensuring we can get 

to see the right signal as recruiting changes. 

I think as the economy changes, it is going to be key for us to 

recognize that foreign advance so that we can posture ourselves as 

the recruiting market gets tougher. 

Retention, we have been at a point where all of our retention has 

been pretty good, and recruiting has been very, very good because 

of several different factors. But watching those indicators and making sure we are postured to be able to recruit appropriately and get 

the critical skill sets is one item. 
11 

Second one, as mentioned by the chairman, has to deal with 

some of the discussions dealing with entitlements that keep us up 

at night in addition to health care pay and his retirement. 

I just returned from a trip to Japan, and there are discussions 

among the troops out there wondering what is going to be the future of their retirement and the angst associated with that. 

And so it is a challenge that we will have to work our way 

through. But it is one that we will have to work together to ensure 

we get that right if we decide to change it and to achieve it, at the 

very minimum, at least the force profiles that we are achieving 

today for retention of our critical skill and our service members. 

Mrs. DAVIS. Go to General Bostick or not—come back—— 

Mr. WILSON. No, go. 

Mrs. DAVIS. Go, General Bostick? 

General BOSTICK. We thought about this a lot. And I think we 

see that the problem or the challenge ahead in three broad areas. 

One, we have the drawdown what we are dealing with. 

The second is the transition. 

And the third leg of the stool is the disability evaluation system. 

In the drawdown where we need assistance is in some areas of 

authorities. And I can give you those specifics, but we do need 

some help with authorities. 

In the transition area, we need connection between our employers that want to hire folks and our soldiers that want jobs. It is 

just connecting them. 

The biggest area that we need help is in the disability evaluation 

system. And our problem may be different from others. 

But currently in our drawdown plan, we are going to draw down 

anywhere between 10,000 and 15,000 soldiers a year. 

Now, juxtapose that against the disability evaluation system 

where I have 19,600 soldiers. Almost 20,000 soldiers are in the system that takes over 400 days to get through. 

It is fundamentally flawed. It causes an adversarial relationship 

with our medical professionals. 

It is long. It is disjointed. We have put money and leadership 

after this. And I am very concerned that while we are drawing 

down, this large number of soldiers will remain in the disability 

evaluation system. 

Mr. WILSON. Thank you, Mrs. Davis. 

We will proceed to Congressman Mike Coffman of Colorado. 

Mr. COFFMAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

You know, I too feel very concerned about the sequester and that 

that would certainly cut in the capability. 

But at the same time, I am disappointed at the direction that the 

Department of Defense has gone given the existing scenario for 

cuts. And I think that it seems to be more about defending the status quo than defending the country. 

When we see that retention rate is through the roof, and any 

other organization outside of the Department of Defense that has 

a very high retention rate, would slow down the promotion rate. 

Yet, we seem to be maintaining the same promotion rate and forcing good people out where we could slow it down, save money, give 

people more time and grade in their respective MOSs [military occupational specialties] before they advance. 
12 

I don’t see that being looked at. 

The military across the board is so incredibly top-heavy today, I 

am stunned. 

I believe we have more flag officers than we did in 1990, yet we 

have a fraction of the force. It is like the British admiralty that as 

the British Navy shrunk, the admiralty grew. 

And so we have got to slim down our military. And I understand 

there are some efforts there, but I can tell you that, well, from 

what I have seen, they are not deep enough. 

Look at this size of the civilian workforce in the Department of 

Defense. I mean, it is stunning. 

We have 1.42 million men and women in uniform. And we have 

800,000, almost 801,000, civilian workers in the Department of Defense. 

You know, I was an infantry guy in the United States Army or 

the Marine Corps. I don’t know of a whole lot of casualties that 

were produced by somebody sitting behind a desk. 

And then we are not looking across the 1.42 million people in Active Duty and saying what do we really need to have on Active 

Duty, and what do we need in the Reserve Components. 

Israel is a country on a continual war footing. And the backbone 

of their organization is the Reserves, at a fraction of the cost when 

it comes to personnel cost. 

And yet we are just so status core oriented, we are just doing 

across the board cuts, and we are not reorienting our force as we 

ought to. 

And so I tell you, I just am incredibly disappointed with the lack 

of finesse that has gone into this process from all of the branches 

of the military and the Department of Defense, in terms of being 

able to conduct these reductions without compromising national security. 

And I believe that we fundamentally compromise capabilities 

with a lack of, I think, intelligence that has gone into these cuts. 

And with that, Mr. Chairman, unless anybody would like to respond I would yield back. 

Mr. WILSON. Is there any response. 

If not, we proceed to Congressman Dr. Joe Heck of Nevada. 

Dr. HECK. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you all for being 

here today. 

Just a comment first, on the retirement issue, and I appreciate 

Admiral Van Buskirk recognizing the impact of these discussions 

on our current serving members. 

It reminds me of when we thought that there might have been 

a Government shutdown and we were getting calls from people in 

harm’s way over the static phone line wondering what was going 

on with their LES [leave and earnings statement]. 

These discussions that we are having, and this loose talk that 

has been going around, really has a significant impact on our current service members. 

Why anybody would ever say we are going to put together a 

BRAC [base closure and realignment]-like commission to look at retirement that is beyond me because BRAC is not a term that is 

well-embraced. 
13 

The chairman spoke a little bit about TRICARE. And what bothers me as a physician, and a physician who has practiced in the 

military for 21 years, is this idea that we are controlling costs. 

We are not. We are mistaken if we think we are controlling cost 

by changing enrollment fees, copays, and deductibles. What we are 

doing is cost-shifting. 

It does nothing to control cost by shifting the burden to those 

who we are supposed to be taken care of. 

So, I hope that we start to change some of that phraseology because you are not controlling costs. We are just putting more of the 

cost onto the person who is seeking the care. 

General Bostick, in looking through your written statement, I appreciate the line, ‘‘As soldiers depart our Active Duty formations, 

the Army is committed to assisting them and their families as they 

transition to the Army Reserve, National Guard, or civilian life.’’ 

And I think you have heard Lieutenant General Stultz say quite 

often, we need to recruit a soldier for life and move them between 

the Components based on where they are needed. 

And not long ago, we had General Odierno who was asked, where 

is he going to accept risk based on the drawdown. And how was 

he going to mitigate the risk. 

And he said he was going to mitigate it based on the Reserve 

Component, which is great. We have really operationalized our Reserve Component over the last 10 years. 

But my concern is most of that was done with OCO money. And 

now that base budgets are decreasing, and OCO money is drying 

up, how are we going to maintain that capability in the Reserve 

Component? 

And how are we going to find a home for these Active Duty folks 

that are being separated when the Reserve Component is capped? 

The cap in the Reserve Component hasn’t changed, still 205,000. 

The National Guard is actually decreasing Army Guard by 5,000. 

So, those numbers don’t compute. Unless we are going to hope 

that there is a lot less in retention in the Reserve, and that is 

going to open up slots. But we don’t run those types of loss rates 

in the Reserve. 

So, help me understand how we are going to take these 80,000 

folks that potentially want to stay in the Reserve or Guard and 

find them a home, when the end-strength in the Guard and the Reserve is flat or decreasing. 

General BOSTICK. Well, the Reserve Component is an operational 

reserve, and we could not fight without them. We are completely 

convinced to that. 

And as we move forward, we will continue to find a way to continue to keep them as an operational force. 

The 80K that are going to come out of the Active Force, it is not 

a clean math equation to send them to the Reserves. Many will 

move on in terms of their own lives, whether they retire, transition 

to the Reserve Component, start their own business, go to school, 

or start a civilian job. 

What we have asked for is an increase in the bonus, the Selected 

Reserve bonus, so that an affiliation bonus would go from 10K to 

20K. We think that would keep some of the talent in the Reserve 

Component. And we believe in a continuum of service. 
14 

So, our chief and secretary have asked us to look at ways that 

soldiers might go in and out of the Reserves and in and out of the 

Active Force. 

And, as you know, some of the benefits, the medical benefits, and 

the paid benefits tie our hands in terms of the ability to do that. 

But we are looking at continuum of service. 

We are asking for a raise in the affiliation bonus. And we will 

continue to operationalize our Reserve. We just have to. 

Dr. HECK. And I would agree, and I appreciate that sentiment. 

But I guess, the question that I am trying to wrap my arms 

around is that if we get that authority to give an additional affiliation bonus, do you expect that the naturally-occurring attrition 

rate in the Reserves is going to open up enough slots to make way 

for those folks coming off Active Duty who want to stay affiliated, 

because historically those numbers haven’t been that high. 

General BOSTICK. I would have to work with General Stultz and 

come back to you, sir. I really don’t have that kind of fidelity. 

But I think in the specific MOSs and the challenged areas where 

we need specialties to transition, I think we could do that. 

Dr. HECK. Thank you, Mr. Chair. 

I yield back. 

Mr. WILSON. Thank you. Dr. Heck. 

And we proceed now to Congressman Allen West of Florida. 

Mr. WEST. Thank you, Mr. Chair and Ranking Member, and 

thanks for the panel for being here. 

And, of course, as I said, look at the Services representing here. 

I have friends, dear friends, in each one of these Services. And I 

have some relatives in a couple of these Services as well. 

You know, back when I was on Active Duty, we had a professional development book that we had to read, and that book was 

called, ‘‘America’s First Battles.’’ And when you read that book, you 

understand that we have a very crappy record of predicting the 

next combat or conflict. 

We go back to Kasserine Pass. We go back to Task Force Smith. 

We look at Pearl Harbor. We look at Coral Sea. We look Corregidor, Bataan. I mean, we have a problem with this. 

And I don’t want to see history repeat itself again by us ramping 

down our military while we live in a very Machiavellian world and 

someone is paying attention to that. 

So, the one question I have to each one of you is—and you kind 

of hit it already, Lieutenant General Jones—what is your number 

one unintended consequence concern with what we are doing as far 

as our personnel, our retirement, the cut of our military health 

care benefits? 

What is that number one unintended consequence that causes 

you the greatest concern? 

General BOSTICK. Sir, I will start off. 

When we did the drawdown in the 1990s, one of the things that 

we cut too deeply in and could not reverse was our officer corps. 

And one of the great things about our military is that we grow our 

leaders. 

And when you are short leaders, one of the challenges is that we 

grow our leaders. We can’t hire them laterally. 
15 

In some cases, we can. Doctors and nurses, and those with very 

specific skills, we might be able to bring in. 

But it takes 10 to 12 to 15 years to recover when we don’t get 

this right. 

So, one of the things that we are trying to do as we go through 

this is preserve some of the officer corps in positions in our institutional part of the Army. Preserve some of those officers in the Reserve Component of our Army so that if we had to expand that we 

could do that and have the officers that would be needed. 

Admiral VAN BUSKIRK. Congressman West, I think General 

Jones highlighted it as well when he mentioned hollow force. I 

think that is the number one consequence, biggest concern that we 

would have, ensuring that we get our force structure and endstrength in synchronization. 

We have taken some force structure cuts in the Navy by ships, 

and to make sure that: one, that we do not overshoot in terms of 

personnel to make sure that we get that right; and that we don’t 

try and harvest savings in the near term from a personnel perspective and then cause what we call a T-notch later on that we can’t 

recover from, or we have to mitigate through bonuses or special incentive pays. 

If we can maintain a steady stream of accessions in here as we 

go through this period of stabilizing our end-strength in the Navy 

and our force structure, and make sure that we don’t take too 

many short-term savings on the front end, that will bode us well 

for the future to ensure that we can stay away from a hollow force. 

Ms. MURRAY. Representative West, thank you for that question. 

Our Marine Corps has conducted a force structure review, as you 

know, over the past few years. And our commandant is confident 

that we will be able to accomplish our mission with the force that 

we are designing with our 20,000 end-strength reduction. 

But we also are mindful, just as every other panel member has 

said here, that we need to make those decisions very wisely. We 

cannot overreduce in our officer corps or our senior enlisted. 

As you know, 70 percent of our force is first-termers. So we have 

a high number of first-termers, and it makes it even more important that our staff and COs [commanding officers], and our officers 

that we do retain the sort of skills we need so that we can accomplish the mission. 

We will count on our Reserves, absolutely. We are working in the 

Corps today to make sure we define how we will use our Reserves. 

We cannot turn away from the value that they have given to us. 

And we have to figure out how do we put that in our baseline, 

all those challenges we are working with. 

But our commandant is confident that with the work that we 

have done to shape our Marine Corps through the force structure 

review, that we will be able to do this. 

And, oh, by the way, we have done that on our civilians as well. 

Mention was made of the civilians. 

As you know, Marine Corps probably has the least number of civilians per every marine of any of the Services. But we have looked 

at how they are shaped as well. 

Mr. WEST. Okay. 
16 

General JONES. Congressman West—Chairman, would you like 

me to—— 

Mr. WILSON. Briefly. 

General JONES. I know I am past my time, yes, sir. 

In the last year, we have had an attempt to make a real strategic 

review of what reductions we could take: not taking percentage 

cuts across the board; bringing together the senior leadership; we 

have held four three-star summits to look at civilian reductions we 

have had over the last year that are represented in this budget; 

and trying to make it a strategic overarching strategy-based decision, so that we are not just creating that hollow force. 

And that is the thing we have got to do in the interest of time 

I’ll end there. 

Mr. WEST. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I yield back. 

Mr. WILSON. Thank you, Congressman West. 

We will now proceed to Congressman Austin Scott of Georgia. 

Mr. SCOTT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

And ma’am, what percent of the population is covered by 

TRICARE? 

Ms. MURRAY. I am not sure that I understand your question, 

Representative Scott. 

Mr. SCOTT. What percentage of the U.S. population is covered 

under TRICARE? 

Ms. MURRAY. Oh, I am sorry. I would have to get back with you 

on that. 

Mr. SCOTT. I think it is safe to say it is under 1 percent. 

Would that be a fair number? 

Ms. MURRAY [continuing]. Fair to me. 

Mr. SCOTT. I think it is under 1 percent. But, I guess, what I 

wrestle with is having a five-fold increase proposed on those men 

and women who have earned those benefits. 

And General Bostick, I appreciate what you said with balance 

the needs of the Nation with the needs of the soldier. You want to 

be part of the solution. 

Most of the soldiers I speak with, they are very modest and understand that we have a significant deficit. Believe the deficit is the 

greatest enemy of their children and their grandchildren and that 

it must be reduced. 

And I hear share the burden over and over and over again from 

our soldiers, which is very humbling to hear people who are out 

there serving say that. 

But let us just get to this question. And I like each of you to answer this for me. 

How much of the savings from slicing the benefits to the soldiers 

is going to fund increases in benefits for those on entitlement programs? And how much will go to reduce the deficit? 

General Jones? 

General JONES. Congressman, I don’t have that number. I am 

sorry. 

Mr. SCOTT. Ma’am? 

Ms. MURRAY. Congressman, I don’t have that answer. 

Mr. SCOTT. Admiral? 
17 

Admiral VAN BUSKIRK. Congressman, I don’t have that answer 

either, sir. 

Mr. SCOTT. General Bostick? 

General BOSTICK. I would just say that it is probably fairly small. 

I don’t have the number. 

Mr. SCOTT. It is a very small amount that would actually go to 

reduce the deficit. 

The bottom line is the military and those who serve in the military and those who support those who serve in the military and 

their families, and those who support the warfighter out there at 

the depots and putting the equipment together and making sure 

that our soldiers have the equipment that they need are taking it 

on the chin with indiscriminate slicing. 

And the bottom line is the majority of the cuts are going to go 

to fund entitlement programs under this administration. 

And so with that said, Mr. Chairman, I may have some questions 

that I would get to you that will be more specific than that, but 

the bottom line is what we are doing here is cutting a group of people that are out there protecting our individual personal freedoms, 

and going to turn around and shift that money to a group of people, 

quite honestly, that maybe don’t appreciate what they do for this 

country. 

I yield my time. 

Mr. WILSON. Thank you very much, Mr. Scott. 

And Mrs. Davis has a follow-up question. 

Mrs. DAVIS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Are you finished with the rounds then? Do you think this—— 

Mr. WILSON. Yes. 

Mrs. DAVIS. One question I think just as a result of, I think— 

wouldn’t necessarily know those numbers specifically, but some of 

those savings back in the Services as I understand it that—because 

those are dollars that then don’t have to come out of the defense 

budget in order to make some of the other goals. 

So, I think that would be helpful to understand whether or not 

that—how that happens in that case. 

I wonder if you could just—on a different issue that has come up 

recently again with the recent combat, women-in-combat report, 

which indicated that additional analyses would be needed in order 

to develop gender-neutral standards to allow women to serve in 

traditionally close combat positions. 

Do you have a status report on your Service’s review of those 

gender-neutral standards, and where is your Service on this? 

Would you give us an update? 

General BOSTICK. I can give you a little bit of background on 

what we have done thus far. 

Every 3 years we conduct a cyclic review. And in the 2010 cyclic 

review that the secretary and the chief conducted, they made a decision that we could open up six specialties, military occupational 

specialties, 80 different units, and about 13,000 positions. 

We took that recommendation to the Secretary of Defense. And 

there was an overall study in DOD. And when we removed the colocation, the word colocation, it opened up that many positions. 

In addition to that, the chief and the secretary requested that we 

allow women to serve at the battalion level in open MOSs but 
18 

closed units. So for example, if you are an intelligence officer, female, you could serve in a battalion in the 82nd Airborne Division. 

That is what has gone forward. 

The broader study is also part of a DOD effort to look at genderneutral. So that is ongoing, but—— 

Mrs. DAVIS. I think I was really just concerned with whether or 

not there are individuals looking at the physical standards, what 

they are developing, because for some of these positions that 

doesn’t necessarily require this. 

General BOSTICK. That was the second effort. 

This first effort was to make sure that we remove colocation, 

move a lot of women to serve at the battalion level, and then the 

broader look at gender-neutral position is an ongoing effort at the 

OSD [Office of the Secretary of Defense]. And all of the Services 

are involved in that. 

Mrs. DAVIS. Okay. And so looking at those standards really as 

it relates to the physical standards—— 

General BOSTICK. Correct. 

Mrs. DAVIS [continuing]. You are looking at those. 

General BOSTICK. Yes. 

Mrs. DAVIS. Okay, great. 

Can I ask you one more question? 

Really, I think we have addressed some of this, but we are obviously drawing down our forces. We are preparing our families. 

And I am wondering what authorities you need to support these 

transitions. Is there anything other than what you have been doing 

in the past? 

You don’t need to relate all the programs that exist today, but 

what else do you need? Because we know that this is going to be 

a critical, critical area. 

General BOSTICK. I would say that—— 

Mrs. DAVIS [continuing]. Any other authorities? 

General BOSTICK [continuing]. Where we really need help is in 

the licensing and ability of our soldiers to—once they determine— 

and they are service members and spouses—once they determine 

where they live, if they have a license or a certification in one 

state, the ability to use that in another state, at least in an interim 

fashion before they actually are able to get recertified in that other 

state. Because it is hard for them to decide where they want to live 

as is the case with many of us. 

The other thing is really getting a single portal where all the 

businesses that want to provide jobs to our service members and 

their families—a single portal, well, that can connect with the service member. And we are working with DOD and the Department 

of Veterans Affairs and Labor to try to pull that together. 

Admiral VAN BUSKIRK. I will just echo what the general said. 

I think we are working closely with the office of the Secretary of 

the Defense on many of our transition programs. And I think that 

is pretty helpful as we look at this together. 

We are, as you are probably aware, in terms of our Enlisted Retention Board that we conducted, we are separating several sailors 

in an involuntary fashion. 

But as part of that, we have created some enhanced transition 

packages. And one area that we are having great success with is 
19 

a contractor-based outplacement program to where we can use an 

outplacement service to help find the jobs, to help place them in 

different services out there. 

And additionally, we are doing a program called Shipmate to 

Workmate program where we are using NAVSEA [Naval Sea Systems Command]. It attends to where we have the sailors who are 

transitioning to offer our veterans jobs and positions within our 

NAVSEA organization. 

So, I think it gets down to being innovative, working collectively 

here, taking advantage of each other’s initiatives that come into 

play and where they are successful, broadening them and funding 

them appropriately. 

Mrs. DAVIS. Thank you. Thank you. Okay. 

I think the time is up. And thank you, Mr. Chairman, for allowing me—— 

Mr. WILSON. Absolutely. 

Mrs. DAVIS [continuing]. To ask another question. 

Mr. WILSON. I thank everyone for being here today. We really appreciate your service. 

And I want to thank, in particular, the subcommittee members 

who are present, and being prepared, and asked questions that 

were heartfelt. 

We are now adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 3:29 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.] 

A P P E N D I X 

MARCH 6, 2012 

PREPARED STATEMENTS SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD 

MARCH 6, 2012 

(25) 

Statement of Hon. Joe Wilson 

Chairman, House Subcommittee on Military Personnel 

Hearing on 

Military Personnel Budget Overview— 

Service Personnel Chiefs’ Perspectives 

March 6, 2012 

This is an especially important hearing because the subcommittee will hear the perspective of the military services about 

the reductions to Active Duty military personnel programs included 

in the budget request that so many congressional members have 

found troubling. Last week, the witnesses from the Office of the 

Secretary of Defense defended the budget request and the subcommittee members openly expressed their doubts and concerns. 

As I made clear last week, I must be counted among those Members with serious reservations about the budget request and the reductions in force and to the personnel programs that are included. 

America remains at war today with a ruthless and committed 

enemy that shows we must have resolve to stop the enemies overseas to protect American families at home. 

In the face of that reality, this budget offers no apology for program reductions that go to the heart of our military capability by 

undermining programs that serve our military personnel putting 

America and its allies such as Israel at greater risk. The proposed 

major reductions to end strength, compensation programs, and 

health care programs sap our combat capability and undermine the 

trust of service members, military families, and veterans. 

Now, the subcommittee will hear from the personnel leadership 

within the Services—the people with the most direct contact with 

the real stakeholders in this debate, the men and women serving 

our Nation in uniform. These are the leaders responsible for providing the manpower so critical to combat capability. If the subcommittee expects to hear the voice of our service members during 

testimony on this budget request, these are the witnesses we must 

rely on to bring us that message. 
26 

Statement of Hon. Susan A. Davis 

Ranking Member, House Subcommittee on Military 

Personnel 

Hearing on 

Military Personnel Budget Overview— 

Service Personnel Chiefs’ Perspectives 

March 6, 2012 

We appreciate receiving your views on the fiscal year 2013 budget request for military personnel, and look forward to hearing how 

the proposed budget will impact our military personnel and their 

families. 

As I mentioned last week, although the budget reductions have 

not severely impacted the military personnel accounts, they were 

not immune. We need to understand what impact there will be to 

personnel and family programs as a result of the proposed budget 

request. 

Over the past several years the Services made a good faith effort 

to fund quality-of-life programs for service members and their families in the base budget. Support for wounded warriors and their 

families, transition into civilian lives for those that are leaving 

service, care and support for families that are staying, these demands are not going to go away. In fact, in some cases, they may 

even increase. The Services will need to make a determination on 

what is important to sustain the All-Volunteer Force, and which 

may have to fall by the wayside. These are going to be difficult decisions, and the subcommittee will need to understand the reasoning that underpins these decisions. 
27 
28 
29 
30 
31 
32 
33 
34 
35 
36 
37 
38 
39 
40 
41 
42 
43 
44 
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 

DOCUMENTS SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD 

MARCH 6, 2012 

(139) 
140 
141 
142 
143 
144 
145 
146 
147 
148 
149 
150 
151 
152 
153 
154 
155 
156 
157 

QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY MEMBERS POST HEARING 

MARCH 6, 2012 

(161) 

QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY MS. BORDALLO 

Ms. BORDALLO. 1) In your prepared statement you stated Army was reducing onboard strength to meet targets. How do you reconcile that statement with the statutory prohibition against managing to mandated levels? 

General BOSTICK. The targets were driven by budget reductions from the Office 

of the Secretary of Defense (OSD). However, the Secretary of the Army told the 

House Armed Services Committee and American Federation of Government Employees that he would add civilian authorizations for in-sourcing actions that he approved, where appropriate. 

Ms. BORDALLO. 2) In your statement you reference drawing down on-board 

strength to meet FY10 levels, which we understand are based on authorized levels. 

What is the difference between the on-board and authorized levels in the Army? 

General BOSTICK. In the FY2012 Budget request, the Army estimated a civilian 

end-strength of 266,256; this estimate did not include civilians hired for the performance of Overseas Contingency Operations (OCO) funded missions, Civil Works 

funded missions, or Non-Appropriated Fund missions. 

As of month’s end, February 2012, the Army’s active civilian rolls were 277,987. 

(+11,631). 

Much of this discrepancy is the result of personnel hired to support ongoing operations OCONUS and in critical support roles both overseas and in the United 

States, much of it funded by OCO monies. Foremost among these are medical services and support (approximately 4,200 in excess of programmed levels), repair and 

reset of equipment (approximately 2,500 in excess of programmed levels), and deployment and mobilization activities (approximately 4,500 OCO in excess of programmed levels). 

While the Army has not yet achieved its estimated end-state for FY2012, it is anticipated that it will through a process of rebalancing and reshaping all elements 

of our work force—military, civilian, and contractor. And that in doing so the Army 

will achieve efficiencies when possible and meet new or expanded mission requirements, such as transition programs and Sexual Assault Prevention and Response 

(SAPR), all within the constraints of the current fiscal environment. 

Ms. BORDALLO. 3) In your statement you stated that Army suspended civilian employment offers for certain positions, a suspension that remained in effect for nearly 

3 months. During that time, were OMA funded contract actions all suspended? How 

many contracts for services were extended or options exercised during this time period? 

General BOSTICK. During the time period of February 2, 2011 to April 29, 2011, 

OMA funded contract actions were not suspended. As needed to meet mission requirements, contracts for services were extended and options exercised during that 

time. 

During that time period, the Army extended the period of performance (by modification) or exercised an option on 99 contract actions, for an obligated amount of 

$69,868,520.63. 

Ms. BORDALLO. 4) Were dollars for contracted workload restrained or limited to 

the same degree dollars for OMA funded civilians were? 

General BOSTICK. No, service support contracts were cut by about $100 million 

per year, whereas civilians were reduced by about $1 billion per year. We are waiting for guidance from the Office of the Secretary of Defense (OSD) on how to implement Section 808 of the National Defense Authorization Act for 2012. This would 

restrain or limit dollars for contract workload to the same degree as Operations and 

Maintenance-funded civilians. 

Ms. BORDALLO. 5) You’ve stated that you’ve established business processes and reporting mechanisms to effectively align requirements, authorizations, on-board 

strength and associated funding execution for the civilian workforce. How do those 

processes reconcile with the title 10 total force language enacted in the FY12 NDAA 

and applicable DOD policies? 

General BOSTICK. Although we have established some business processes that will 

help us move toward this goal, we have not yet fully implemented them. When implemented, we will have greater visibility of our civilian workforce and be able to 
162 

link our strategic human capital planning for civilians to the Program and Budget. 

This will also move us closer to the Total Force Management principles as prescribed in the FY12 NDAA. 

Ms. BORDALLO. 6) What are you doing to ensure that the voluntary departures 

and attrition occurring to meet funded levels are not occurring in mission-critical 

occupations and that you’re not losing highly desired and needed capabilities and 

competencies? 

General BOSTICK. To ensure voluntary departures and attrition in mission critical 

occupations are not causing us to completely lose highly desired and needed capabilities and competencies, we are having commands manage their positions and onboard strengths against their missions and functions. Although there may be some 

degradation in the experience level of employees that remain after the voluntary departures and attrition occur, by allowing commands to make these important management decisions the Army is best able to ensure desired and needed capabilities 

and competencies are maintained while still reducing its workforce. 

Ms. BORDALLO. 7) How does the Department of Army’s budget request for FY13 

reconcile with legislative language set forth in Division A, Section 8012 of Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2012 (P.L. 112–74) which states that ‘‘ . . . during fiscal 

year 2012, the civilian personnel of the Department of Defense may not be managed 

on the basis of any end-strength, and the management of such personnel during 

that fiscal year shall not be subject to any constraint or limitation (known as an 

end-strength)’’, and more specifically, that the fiscal year 2013 budget request be 

prepared and submitted to the Congress as if this provision were effective with regard to fiscal year 2013? 

General BOSTICK. The Army’s FY13 budget request complies with Section 8012 of 

the Consolidated Appropriation Act of 2012 (P.L. 112–74). Army civilian personnel 

are not managed on the basis of end-strength, but are managed based on executive 

and legislative guidance, strategic plans, resource levels, workload and mission requirements. As required by Office Secretary of Defense and the Congress, the Army 

documents the civilian personnel levels supported in the budget request in the OP– 

8 exhibit. The OP–8 reflects the specific funding for civilian personnel, as well as 

the number of full time equivalents (FTEs) and end strength. 

Ms. BORDALLO. 8) President Obama has made reducing reliance on contractors 

and rebalancing the workforce a major management initiative of his Administration. 

In your opinion, given the restrictions on the size of your civilian workforce imposed 

by the Office of the Secretary of Defense, does the Army’s FY13 budget request reflect an appropriately balanced workforce across all major capabilities, functional 

areas, and requirements? 

General BOSTICK. Given that the Army can submit waivers to the Deputy Secretary of Defense if mission requirements indicate the need for increased civilian 

workforce and as of March 6, 2012, there were no pending waiver request that were 

submitted from the Army. The Army’s FY13 budget request reflects an appropriately balanced workforce across all major capabilities, functional areas, and requirements. The Army’s governance of this efficiency initiative included a decentralized review of civilian positions by capability and functional area. The Army Audit 

Agency is auditing compliance with the statutory prohibition of absorbing civilian 

reductions with contractors without a public/private competition. 

Ms. BORDALLO. 9) Do you believe that all contracted services currently procured 

by the Department of Army are the most cost-effective, appropriate, and risk-averse 

source of labor? 

General BOSTICK. Improvements in acquiring services in the Army are necessary 

and efforts are underway to make these improvements. The Army is fully committed 

to acquiring its contracted services in the most cost effective and appropriate manner, with a focus on minimizing risk to the government. The commitment is pervasive throughout the Army as the result of a September 2011 Secretary of the Armyapproved Optimization of Army Services Implementation Plan. The Services Implementation Plan implements an oversight and governance structure, establishes clear 

lines of accountability, and sets minimum standards to meet requirements for services efficiently and affordably. Specifically, this plan establishes increased oversight 

and a portfolio governance concept, while establishing Commander’s accountability 

for acquiring services. The Army also completed an Army-wide data call for Commands to identify services requirements and cost savings opportunities by portfolio, 

providing a forecast to enable effective management of services portfolios. Semi-annual Services Forecasts Updates and Quarterly Services Cost Savings Reports give 

the Army the ability to continuously track projected services acquisition requirements and cost savings. These actions are in effect today and managed by the Assistant Secretary of the Army (Acquisition, Logistics, and Technology) to comprehen-
163 

sively and efficiently meet mission requirements for contracted services. The Army 

will continue to strengthen oversight of contracted services. 

Ms. BORDALLO. 10) What assurances can you give me that, as civilian reductions 

or hiring freezes are occurring across Army installations, work is not shifting illegally to contract performance? 

General BOSTICK. The Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Army for Force Management Manpower Resources issued instructions to the field explaining the law and 

regulations prohibiting the shifting of work previously performed by civilians to contract performance. To ensure compliance, we have asked Army Audit Agency (AAA) 

to audit this specific issue to determine the level of compliance. 

Ms. BORDALLO. 11) What processes are in place within the Army to ensure the 

workload associated with reductions being made in the civilian workforce is in fact 

ceasing, as opposed to being absorbed by other labor sources such as contractors or 

military personnel? 

General BOSTICK. The Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Army for Force Management Manpower and Resources issued instructions to the field explaining the law 

and regulations prohibiting the shifting of work previously performed by civilians 

to contract performance. The Assistant Secretary of the Army for Manpower and Reserve Affairs has issued policy on the use of military manpower. We have asked 

Army Audit Agency (AAA) to audit this specific issue to determine the level of compliance. 

Ms. BORDALLO. 12) To what extent have the existing data sets available to Army 

planners, specifically the annual inventory of inherently governmental and commercial activities, contributed to the functional streamlining, organizational realignments, workforce shaping decisions, and civilian personnel reductions reflected in 

last year’s efficiencies initiative and continued in this year’s budget? 

General BOSTICK. The annual Inherently Governmental and Commercial Activities (IGCA) Inventory has not been used for the functional streamlining, organizational re-alignments, workforce decisions, and civilian personnel reductions reflected 

in last year’s efficiencies initiative and continued in this year’s budget. 

Ms. BORDALLO. 13) In achieving the right mix for the Total Force, how does the 

Department of Army use the annual inventory of inherently governmental and commercial activities, and associated manpower mix determinations, to identify the civilian workforce reductions reflected in the past two budgets? 

General BOSTICK. The Army did not use the Inherently Governmental and Commercial Activities Inventory (IGCA) to identify civilian workforce reductions reflected in the last two budgets. The Office of the Secretary of Defense (OSD) Comptroller and OSD Cost Analysis Program Evaluation used infrastructure codes in the 

program to identify all civilians performing generating force functions (such as support to military training, depot maintenance, acquisition, power projection) as overhead subject to reductions. 

Ms. BORDALLO. 14) As efficiencies are being executed across the Department of 

Army, is the workload and functions associated with those being tracked as eliminated or divested through the annual inventory of functions? 

General BOSTICK. The annual Inherently Governmental and Commercial Activities Inventory, which is what we believe was being referred to here, is not used to 

track workload and functions eliminated or divested. Only the management at the 

local organizational level has visibility into the functions eliminated as a result of 

the targeted civilian reductions. Army Audit Agency is reviewing this matter. 

Ms. BORDALLO. 15) How does the Navy’s budget request for FY13 reconcile with 

legislative language set forth in Division A, Section 8012 of Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2012 (P.L. 112–74) which states that ‘‘ . . . during fiscal year 2012, the 

civilian personnel of the Department of Defense may not be managed on the basis 

of any end-strength, and the management of such personnel during that fiscal year 

shall not be subject to any constraint or limitation (known as an end-strength)’’, and 

more specifically, that the fiscal year 2013 budget request be prepared and submitted to the Congress as if this provision were effective with regard to fiscal year 

2013? 

Admiral VAN BUSKIRK. The Department has established projected civilian funding 

levels based on overall program decreases, and works daily to balance critical mission requirements with fiscal realities. Current manpower targets represent our efforts to manage civilian personnel within FY 2010 funded levels, with some exceptions for critical growth areas such as the acquisition workforce, joint basing, intelligence programs, shipyards, and in-sourcing of security guards. The measures we 

are implementing with regard to civilian funding levels are consistent with current 

law, which directs us to manage civilian staffing levels based on expected workload 

and funding. An inevitable consequence of this is the use of common management 
164 

tools, such as man hours and full time equivalents (FTE), in budgeting and planning. Our procedures allow for the adjustment of budgeted targets in light of unanticipated programmatic and fiscal realities. 

Ms. BORDALLO. 16) President Obama has made reducing reliance on contractors 

and rebalancing the workforce a major management initiative of his Administration. 

In your opinion, given the restrictions on the size of your civilian workforce imposed 

by the Office of the Secretary of Defense, does the Navy’s FY13 budget request reflect an appropriately balanced workforce across all major capabilities, functional 

areas, and requirements? 

Admiral VAN BUSKIRK. The size of the civilian workforce is a function of the funded workload required to accomplish the Department of the Navy mission. When Department managers make decisions, they strive, consistent with legal requirements, 

to balance mission priorities, workload, and fiscal realities. The Department of the 

Navy has been very aggressive in reducing reliance on contractors, particularly service support and advisory and assistance contracts. From the FY 2010 budget request, funding has decreased 25%, from $4.5 billion to $3.3 billion, for these types 

of contracts. 

However, the Department has increased funding for maintenance contracts, such 

as ship, facilities, equipment, and aircrafts, in order to sustain and maintain our 

force structure and infrastructure for the future. Since FY 2010, funding for maintenance contracts has grown from $6.6 billion to $10.3 billion. In some cases, the Navy 

does not have the organic capability to perform the required work and must partner 

with the private sector to accomplish this critical maintenance. An example of this 

is the inactivation of USS ENTERPRISE, which drives nearly $1 billion of the increase since FY 2010. We are continuing our in-sourcing and acquisition initiatives, 

to the greatest extent possible, and work diligently to maintain an appropriately 

balanced workforce of civilians and contractors. 

Ms. BORDALLO. 17) Do you believe that all contracted services currently procured 

by the Navy are the most cost-effective, appropriate, and risk-averse source of labor? 

Admiral VAN BUSKIRK. While most of the Department of the Navy’s (DON) contracted services are cost-effective, appropriate, and risk-averse, DON has appointed 

a Senior Services Manager (SSM) to develop processes and oversee evaluation of 

contracted services to identify and correct those that do not meet the above criteria. 

Additionally, the SSM is executing process improvement initiatives designed to implement and execute services acquisition efficiencies described in the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology and Logistics (USD(AT&L) memo titled ‘‘Better Buying Power, Guidance for Obtaining Greater Efficiency and Productivity in Defense Spending’’, dated September 14, 2010. 

The SSM is engaged in improving services acquisition through (but not limited 

to):—Requirements validation—Improved Requirements Definition—Improved Oversight (Management and Oversight Process for the Acquisition of Services 

(MOPAS2))—Services Contracts Forecasting—Increased development/use of tools, 

templates and best practices—Organizational Health Assessments regarding services acquisition—Policy—Robust Spend Analysis (using DOD Services Portfolio Taxonomy)—Market/Business Intelligence—Strategic Sourcing 

DON has piloted, and is implementing DON-wide, a Services Requirements Review to establish a uniform review to identify, forecast, validate, assess, plan, and 

monitor service acquisitions across the Department to ensure the acquisitions are 

cost-effective, appropriate, and efficient. The review is an integral part of DON’s 

comprehensive implementation of Section 863 of the National Defense Authorization 

Act for Fiscal Year 2011. 

Ms. BORDALLO. 18) What assurances can you give me that, as civilian reductions 

or hiring freezes are occurring across Navy installations, work is not shifting illegally to contract performance? 

Admiral VAN BUSKIRK. The Department of the Navy adheres to the guidelines as 

set forth in10 USC Section 2461, which generally provides at (a) (1), ’’ No function 

of the Department of Defense performed by Department of Defense civilian employees may be converted, in whole or in part, to performance by contractor unless the 

conversion is based on the results of public-private competition . . . ’’ and 10 USC 

2463 provides guidelines and procedures for use of civilian employees to ensure compliance with legislative requirements concerning the use of contracted services. 

To manage contracted services oversight, which includes managing appropriate 

contractor application, the DON established the Senior Services Manager Organization (SSM) within DASN (Acquisition and Procurement) to focus on the following 

when contracting for services:—Improved Requirements Definition—Improved Oversight (Management and Oversight Process for the Acquisition of Services 

(MOPAS2))—Increased development/use of tools, templates and best practices—Or-
165 

ganizational Health Assessments regarding services acquisition—Policy—Robust 

Spend Analysis 

The SSM is also engaged with DON and OSD stakeholders to become compliant 

with 10 USC 2330a (Inventory of Contracts for Services), which requires the DON 

to complete a review of the inventory to identify any inherently governmental or 

closely associated with inherently governmental functions being performed by contractors and remediate as required. 

Ms. BORDALLO. 19) What processes are in place within the Navy to ensure the 

workload associated with reductions being made in the civilian workforce is in fact 

ceasing, as opposed to being absorbed by other labor sources such as contractors or 

military personnel? 

Admiral VAN BUSKIRK. Managers within the Navy strive for the most effective 

utilization of its human resources by balancing and assigning workload based on 

validated manpower requirements. DON reduction in civilian workforce has been 

based on process improvements and/or workload reduction. Transfer of work from 

government personnel to contractor performance cannot be done without a publicprivate competition. Recent efficiency reviews monitored levels of the Total Force 

mix to identify and assess trends. In addition, the DON adheres to the DODI 

1100.22, which provides workforce mix guidance to assess instances where human 

capital shortages and excesses are identified and to align manning levels to achieve 

a more effective and efficient division of labor. 

Ms. BORDALLO. 20) To what extent have the existing data sets available to Navy 

planners, specifically the annual inventory of inherently governmental and commercial activities, contributed to the functional streamlining, organizational realignments, workforce shaping decisions, and civilian personnel reductions reflected in 

last year’s efficiencies initiative and continued in this year’s budget? 

Admiral VAN BUSKIRK. The annual inventory of Inherently Government and Commercial Activities and the Inventory of Contracted Services are two of the tools used 

by department leadership to make human resource and workforce shaping decisions 

and implement functional streamlining and organizational realignments. The data 

sets contained within the inventory are used in varying degrees to influence decision-making as we continue to better integrate our Total Force. 

All of the resources reduced from DON overhead within functional streamlining, 

organizational realignments, and workforce shaping reported in the FY 2012 President’s Budget request, have remained intact through the FY 2013 budget review. 

Ms. BORDALLO. 21) In achieving the right mix for the Total Force, how does the 

Navy use the annual inventory of inherently governmental and commercial activities, and associated manpower mix determinations, to identify the civilian workforce 

reductions reflected in the past two budgets? 

Admiral VAN BUSKIRK. The Department of the Navy uses the inventory to influence workforce shaping and other manpower and manning decisions as we continue 

to better integrate our Total Force and comply with the general policy for Total 

Force management. 

Ms. BORDALLO. 22) As efficiencies are being executed across the Navy, is the 

workload and functions associated with those being tracked as eliminated or divested through the annual inventory of functions? 

Admiral VAN BUSKIRK. The Department of the Navy (DON) is committed to tracking efficiencies and ensuring impact to the warfighter, capabilities, and missions is 

minimized. To accomplish this, the DON continues to leverage existing processes 

and forums to inform risk management and execution. At the senior-level, the DON 

continues to utilize two major governing bodies to ensure leadership has the wherewithal to interact on a timely and meaningful basis with those responsible for execution. At the subordinate-level, individual entities within DON continue to manage 

and document processes and requirements. Overall, this approach is iterative and 

will continue to inform the way ahead as plans mature. To date, this structure is 

generating the results needed to successfully track and manage efficiencies. 

Ms. BORDALLO. 23) What progress has been made with the requirement from the 

FY11 appropriations to allocate $2 million dollars for the development of the Army’s 

Contractor Manpower Reporting System for the Navy? 

Admiral VAN BUSKIRK. The Department of Navy (DON) is executing the development of, and is on schedule to meet, the October 2012 initial operational capability 

detailed in the DON plan dated October 31, 2011. DON has made the $2M available 

and is executing the plan into two phases. 

Phase 1 completed the technical evaluation of the Army system and developed a 

performance-based statement-of-work to address required programming changes and 

database-hosting issues regarding implementation execution in February 2012. Outputs of the first phase included implementation requirements and the associated 

costs/Independent Government Estimate supporting the second phase. 
166 

Phase 2 is underway with two specific focus areas: manipulation of the Army 

code, and development of the necessary processes for secure hosting and information 

technology (IT) security. The data programming changes, and testing, necessary to 

map/use DON data in the Army system’s framework code are to be executed by an 

8(a) vendor over the next few months (late Spring—early Summer 2012). Concurrently, hosting and IT security arrangements are being developed to provide the 

proper authority to host, operate, and connect the system to the network. 

Ms. BORDALLO. 24) In your prepared statement, you indicated that a full review 

of the Total Force was conducted in late 2010. To what extent did your inventory 

of contracts for services contribute to that review? 

Ms. MURRAY. The total force review in 2010 did not include a review of service 

contracts. The Army’s contractor tracking system is being evaluated for use/implementation within the Department of the Navy. 

Ms. BORDALLO. 25) You stated that you needed to define civilian workforce requirements to meet civilian budget reductions? That seems to be budget-driven 

strategy, as opposed to strategy-driven budgeting. What requirements did you not 

execute as a result of these reductions? 

Ms. MURRAY. The budget reductions necessitated a strategic review of civilian requirements which is on-going. This includes a review of the workload to determine 

whether our civilian assets are aligned with the mission and performing functions 

necessary in a post OEF environment. Marine Corps commands have not identified 

the inability to execute any requirements to date. 

Ms. BORDALLO. 26) You indicated that the Marine Corps implemented a hiring 

freeze while worked was prioritized and defined. During that time, where Marine 

Corps contract actions also suspended? How many contracts for services were extended or options exercised during this time period? 

Ms. MURRAY. Marine Corps contract actions were not suspended; however, during 

the freeze, commands were prohibited from entering into new contracts to fill the 

gap as a result of vacant civilian positions. We are unable to determine how many 

service contracts were extended during the hiring freeze. 

Ms. BORDALLO. 27) You stated the Marine Corps has reduced civilian levels to 

meet targets. How do you reconcile that statement with the statutory prohibition 

against managing to mandated levels? 

Ms. MURRAY. The Marine Corps is aware of the prohibition against managing to 

mandated levels as stipulated in 10 USC Section 129. The Marine Corps restrained 

growth by establishing budgetary targets (not end strength targets) consistent with 

current fiscal realities. 

Ms. BORDALLO. 28) How does the Marine Corps’ budget request for FY13 reconcile 

with legislative language set forth in Division A, Section 8012 of Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2012 (P.L. 112–74) which states that ‘‘ . . . during fiscal year 

2012, the civilian personnel of the Department of Defense may not be managed on 

the basis of any end-strength, and the management of such personnel during that 

fiscal year shall not be subject to any constraint or limitation (known as an endstrength)’’, and more specifically, that the fiscal year 2013 budget request be prepared and submitted to the Congress as if this provision were effective with regard 

to fiscal year 2013? 

Ms. MURRAY. The Marine Corps has restrained growth by establishing budgetary 

targets (not end strength targets) consistent with current fiscal realities. Civilian 

personnel are not managed on the basis of end-strength. 

Ms. BORDALLO. 29) President Obama has made reducing reliance on contractors 

and rebalancing the workforce a major management initiative of his Administration. 

In your opinion, given the restrictions on the size of your civilian workforce imposed 

by the Office of the Secretary of Defense, does the Marine Corps’ FY13 budget request reflect an appropriately balanced workforce across all major capabilities, functional areas, and requirements? 

Ms. MURRAY. This will be difficult to answer until all reductions are levied by 

OSD. At that time, the Marine Corps will have fully implemented Strategic Total 

Force Management and Planning which will require a determination of the appropriate workforce mix. 

Ms. BORDALLO. 30) Do you believe that all contracted services currently procured 

by the Marine Corps are the most cost-effective, appropriate, and risk-averse source 

of labor? 

Ms. MURRAY. Marine Corps leadership is in the initial stages of developing a 

methodology for reviewing and assessing the cost effectiveness and appropriateness 

of service contracts. Department of the Navy implementation of the Army’s tool to 

track contractors will aid tremendously in this effort 
167 

Ms. BORDALLO. 31) What assurances can you give me that, as civilian reductions 

or hiring freezes are occurring across Marine Corps installations, work is not shifting illegally to contract performance? 

Ms. MURRAY. The Marine Corps ensured subordinate commands are aware of the 

restriction on converting any work currently performed, or designated for performance, by any number of civilian personnel to private sector (contract) work as required by OMB. These restrictions were recently reaffirmed in an OSD memorandum of 8 March 2012. Any alleged violation will be investigated immediately. 

Ms. BORDALLO. 32) What processes are in place within the Marine Corps to ensure the workload associated with reductions being made in the civilian workforce 

is in fact ceasing, as opposed to being absorbed by other labor sources such as contractors or military personnel? 

Ms. MURRAY. The Marine Corps has restrained growth in the civilian workforce 

consistent with current fiscal realities through a hiring freeze that enabled us to 

prioritize requirements and align resources with capabilities. Subordinate commands are aware of the restriction on converting any work currently performed, or 

designated for performance, by any number of civilian personnel to private sector 

(contract) work as required by OMB. 

Ms. BORDALLO. 33) To what extent have the existing data sets available to Marine 

Corps planners, specifically the annual inventory of inherently governmental and 

commercial activities, contributed to the functional streamlining, organizational realignments, workforce shaping decisions, and civilian personnel reductions reflected 

in last year’s efficiencies initiative and continued in this year’s budget? 

Ms. MURRAY. The Marine Corps has not experienced personnel reductions but has 

restrained growth consistent with current fiscal realities. The inventory of inherently governmental and commercial activities will be utilized when the Marine 

Corps fully implements Strategic Total Force Management and Planning. 

Ms. BORDALLO. 34) In achieving the right mix for the Total Force, how does the 

Marine Corps use the annual inventory of inherently governmental and commercial 

activities, and associated manpower mix determinations, to identify the civilian 

workforce reductions reflected in the past two budgets? 

Ms. MURRAY. The Marine Corps has not experienced personnel reductions but has 

restrained growth consistent with current fiscal realities. The inventory of inherently governmental and commercial activities and other workforce mix determinations will be utilized when the Marine Corps fully implements Strategic Total Force 

Management and Planning. 

Ms. BORDALLO. 35) As efficiencies are being executed across the Marine Corps, is 

the workload and functions associated with those being tracked as eliminated or divested through the annual inventory of functions? 

Ms. MURRAY. As missions and workloads change within the Marine Corps, new 

billets within the affected commands are added and deleted based on new requirements. This eliminates the requirement for review during the annual Inherently 

Governmental Inventory. 

Ms. BORDALLO. 36) How does the Department of Air Force’s budget request for 

FY13 reconcile with legislative language set forth in Division A, Section 8012 of 

Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2012 (P.L. 112–74) which states that ‘‘ . . . during 

fiscal year 2012, the civilian personnel of the Department of Defense may not be 

managed on the basis of any end-strength, and the management of such personnel 

during that fiscal year shall not be subject to any constraint or limitation (known 

as an end-strength)’’, and more specifically, that the fiscal year 2013 budget request 

be prepared and submitted to the Congress as if this provision were effective with 

regard to fiscal year 2013? 

General JONES. The Air Force does not manage its civilian workforce by any constraint or limitation in terms of man-years, end-strength, fulltime equivalent positions, or maximum number of employees. Based on fiscal constraints, OSD-directed 

civilian workforce budgetary targets for fiscal year 2012 achieved through strategic 

reviews to improve business operations, streamline administrative functions, and 

eliminate low-priority/overhead functions and expenses. For the fiscal year 2013 

(FY13) budget request, the Air Force determined the best workforce mix based on 

the most-efficient and cost-effective means to perform the Air Force mission. The 

FY13 budget request also accounted for budget constraints while at the same time 

returning a flexible, agile, and ready workforce. 

Ms. BORDALLO. 37) President Obama has made reducing reliance on contractors 

and rebalancing the workforce a major management initiative of his Administration. 

In your opinion, given the restrictions on the size of your civilian workforce imposed 

by the Office of the Secretary of Defense, does the Air Force’s FY13 budget request 
168 

reflect an appropriately balanced workforce across all major capabilities, functional 

areas, and requirements? 

General JONES. The FY13 budget request reflects an appropriately balanced workforce that meets required budget reductions that preserves readiness while avoiding 

a hollow force. The Air Force’s ‘‘sourcing’’ of functions and work between military, 

civilian, and contracted services must be consistent with workload requirements, 

funding availability, readiness and management needs, as well as applicable laws 

and statute. The fiscal year 2013 budget request reflects our best judgment today 

and represents a carefully coordinated approach based on the Department of Defense’s strategy and policy that balances operational needs and fiscal reality. The 

Air Force remains committed to meeting its statutory obligations to annually review 

missions, functions, and workforce composition, including reliance on contracted 

services, and to ensure the workforce is appropriately balanced and aligned to our 

most critical priorities. 

Ms. BORDALLO. 38) Do you believe that all contracted services currently procured 

by the Department of Air Force are the most cost-effective, appropriate, and riskaverse source of labor? 

General JONES. The Air Force’s ‘‘sourcing’’ of functions and work between military, civilian, and contracted services must be consistent with workload requirements, funding availability, readiness and management needs, as well as applicable 

laws and statute. The fiscal year 2013 budget request reflects our best judgment 

today and represents a carefully coordinated approach based on the Department of 

Defense’s strategy and policy that balances operational needs and fiscal reality. The 

Air Force remains committed to meeting its statutory obligations to annually review 

missions, functions, and workforce composition, including reliance on contracted 

services, and to ensure the workforce is appropriately balanced and aligned to our 

most critical priorities. 

Ms. BORDALLO. 39) What assurances can you give me that, as civilian reductions 

or hiring freezes are occurring across Air Force installations, work is not shifting 

illegally to contract performance? 

General JONES. We are tracking, on a monthly basis, our use of support contractors performing knowledge based services, service support contractors, management 

support services, and advisory studies to ensure that we achieve already planned/ 

programmed reductions. These actions, coupled with the current monthly tracking 

of the financial obligations of contract usage, facilitate prevention of inappropriate 

migration of workload from organic to contract support. In addition, we worked 

closely with USD (P&R) who developed a memo dated 1 Dec 2011 Prohibition on 

Converting Certain Functions to Contract Performance. The basic intent of this 

memo was to inform leadership at all levels and to reiterate the need to be cognizant of not converting work performed by organic personnel to contract performance. 

Ms. BORDALLO. 40) What processes are in place within the Air Force to ensure 

the workload associated with reductions being made in the civilian workforce is in 

fact ceasing, as opposed to being absorbed by other labor sources such as contractors 

or military personnel? 

General JONES. The main process is the AF’s planning, programming, and budget 

execution process. The Air Force conducted a comprehensive strategic review to increase efficiency, reduce overhead, and eliminate redundancy while preserving or 

growing the most critical mission areas in our civilian workforce. This force mix determination will be reviewed annually as we submit our president’s budget submission to ensure that we maintain the most-efficient and cost-effective means to perform the Air Force mission, taking into account current budget realities. 

Ms. BORDALLO. 41) To what extent have the existing data sets available to Air 

Force planners, specifically the annual inventory of inherently governmental and 

commercial activities, contributed to the functional streamlining, organizational realignments, workforce shaping decisions, and civilian personnel reductions reflected 

in last year’s efficiencies initiative and continued in this year’s budget? 

General JONES. The efficiencies initiatives began under Secretary Gates, and continued in this year’s budget, were implemented based on guidance to conduct organizational assessments and mission/function prioritization. This guidance required the 

Air Force to: baseline our organizations; assess and prioritize missions; eliminate 

duplication; ensure workload distribution; and submit recommendations for organization restructuring and reallocation of manpower, including workforce reductions. 

While the guidance did not specifically require DOD components to use their annual inventory of inherently governmental and commercial activities, it is one of 

many data sets and workload quantification sources that the Air Force utilizes during the planning, programming, and budget execution process. 
169 

Ms. BORDALLO. 42) In achieving the right mix for the Total Force, how does the 

Department of Air Force use the annual inventory of inherently governmental and 

commercial activities, and associated manpower mix determinations, to identify the 

civilian workforce reductions reflected in the past two budgets? 

General JONES. The Air Force conducted a comprehensive strategic manpower review to size civilian workload contained in our past two budgets with the goal to 

increase efficiency, reduce overhead, and eliminate redundancy while preserving or 

growing the most critical mission areas—not necessarily the IGCA review. However, 

the Air Force continually refines our Total Force skill mix to include civil servants 

and contractors, to determine the most appropriate, efficient, and cost-effective 

means of performing Air Force missions. As outlined in Department of Defense Instruction, 1100.22, ‘‘Policy and Procedures for Determining Workforce Mix’’, as well 

as Federal Acquisition Regulations 7.5, Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation 

207.5, and Air Force Instruction, 38–204, Programming USAF Manpower, the Air 

Force adheres to the overarching guidance regarding workforce mix determination. 

Also, the Air Force annually performs a comprehensive annual Inherently Governmental and Commercial Activities review to ensure it has the proper work force 

mix. This review categorizes all organically performed work as either an inherently 

governmental function (which must be performed by organic personnel) or a commercial activity (could be performed by organic or contractor support). 

Ms. BORDALLO. 43) As efficiencies are being executed across the Department of 

Air Force, is the workload and functions associated with those being tracked as 

eliminated or divested through the annual inventory of functions? 

General JONES. The annual Inherently Governmental and Commercial Activity review is not currently utilized to track eliminated or divested functions, but rather, 

identifies current positions that are either inherently governmental or a commercial 

activity in nature. As efficiencies are realized, government positions identified with 

performing those functions are removed from unit manning documents. Contractor 

reductions associated with efficiencies are tracked via a combination of financial 

commitments and organization surveys. 

Ms. BORDALLO. 44) What progress has been made with the requirement from the 

FY11 appropriations to allocate $2 million dollars for the development of the Army’s 

Contractor Manpower Reporting System for the Air Force? 

General JONES. The Air Force continues to work closely with OUSD(C), OUSD 

(P&R), and OUSD (AT&L) to fulfill contractor accounting mandated by Congress. 

Section 8108 of Public Law 112–10, the Department of Defense and Full-Year Continuing Appropriations Act 2011, required the Air Force to set aside no less than 

$2M to implement the Army’s Contractor Manpower Reporting Application with 

service specific requirements to document the number of full-time contractor employees. We have defined the system requirements; created a beta version of the 

technical solution to capture these requirements; and have developed the appropriate mechanism to direct all AF contractors to provide these requirements. However, two major hurdles arose during this development that must be rectified soon 

if we are going to make our projected timeline of 1 Oct 12 to start collecting FY12 

service contractor information: 

Technical Solution Certification and Approval—We have been working extensively 

with the Army to implement their existing system for the AF’s use. Our current 

plan is to initially house this system on the Army’s server so that we are covered 

by the current Army CMRA until the Air Force has proper certifications to transfer 

the CMRA program to Air Force servers. 

Approval to Incorporate Reporting Requirement in Contracts—The DOD requested emergency processing and approval of a public information collection requirement on 16 Dec 11. This was answered on 7 Feb 12 with the Federal Register 

Notice Announcement that required a full 60-day comment period for our data collection plan with respect to the inventory of contracts for services. We are not expecting a final decision until May 2012 at the earliest regarding this request. 
170 

QUESTION SUBMITTED BY MR. LOEBSACK 

Mr. LOEBSACK. 45) What steps are being taken to ensure that the Air Force personnel who will have their billets eliminated have access to assistance such as early 

retirement, placement options with other units, and transition assistance? Do you 

need legislative authority in order to be able to offer comprehensive assistance to 

these National Guard and Reserve Airmen who will have their billets eliminated? 

How and when will the Airmen who will see their billets eliminated in FY 2013 be 

able to access this assistance, especially if the Air Force requires legislative authority through the FY 2013 National Defense Authorization Act in order to offer these 

benefits? 

General JONES. From an active component perspective, Air Force force management programs size and shape the force to meet congressionally mandated end 

strength. Our multi-year strategy is focused on managing the force along the 30- 

year continuum of service. This strategy has allowed the Air Force to leverage voluntary measures first, offer incentivized programs where needed, and implement involuntary measures as required to yield a high quality active component force. 

The active component has early retirement authorities that were granted in the 

FY12 NDAA. We are using the Temporary Early Retirement Authority (TERA) to 

encourage voluntary losses within the enlisted force—Airmen with 15–19 years of 

service in the grades of Staff Sergeant through Master Sergeant in overmanned Air 

Force Specialties. This targeted approach will size and shape the force to endstrength requirements and the skills needed today and into the future. 

The Air National Guard is currently pursuing three Force Shaping legislative proposals through the FY13 legislative process to support the FY13 changes in ANG 

missions and end strength—all of which have been transmitted to Congress by the 

Office of Secretary of Defense. The first proposal would allow members of the Selected Reserve to qualify for non-regular service retirement with 15, rather than 20, 

creditable years of reserve service. The FY 12 NDAA provided this authority for active component members. The second proposal, Section 702 of the House Armed 

Services Committee’s NDAA would extend the eligibility of members of the Selected 

Reserve for TRICARE Reserve Select and TRICARE dental insurance for 180 days 

at the discounted rate for members of the Selected Reserve that are involuntarily 

separated without cause due to end-strength reductions or force management actions. And the third proposal would establish a new category of eligibility for military permanent change of station moves of family and household goods—traditional 

reservists displaced by force draw downs that are hired to fill a bona fide traditional 

unit vacancy in another reserve unit somewhere else in the country. 

These benefits would be available for Guard and Reserve Airmen upon approval 

of Congress. Access and assistance in leveraging these benefits will be available 

through support mechanisms already in place whether the Airmen are collocated 

with active component units or reserve units are geographically separated. The Air 

Force is committed to ensuring a smooth transition to civilian life for our Airmen 

who can no longer serve in uniform. 

Æ