U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

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

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

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

1 

51–108 2010

[H.A.S.C. No. 111–70] 

HEARING 

ON

NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT 

FOR FISCAL YEAR 2010 

AND

OVERSIGHT OF PREVIOUSLY AUTHORIZED 

PROGRAMS 

BEFORE THE

COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ONE HUNDRED ELEVENTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

MILITARY PERSONNEL SUBCOMMITTEE HEARING 

ON

BUDGET REQUEST ON MILITARY 

PERSONNEL OVERVIEW 

HEARING HELD 

MAY 21, 2009 
(II) 

MILITARY PERSONNEL SUBCOMMITTEE 

SUSAN A. DAVIS, California, Chairwoman 

VIC SNYDER, Arkansas 

LORETTA SANCHEZ, California 

MADELEINE Z. BORDALLO, Guam 

PATRICK J. MURPHY, Pennsylvania 

HANK JOHNSON, Georgia 

CAROL SHEA-PORTER, New Hampshire 

DAVID LOEBSACK, Iowa 

NIKI TSONGAS, Massachusetts 

JOE WILSON, South Carolina 

WALTER B. JONES, North Carolina 

JOHN KLINE, Minnesota 

THOMAS J. ROONEY, Florida 

MARY FALLIN, Oklahoma 

JOHN C. FLEMING, Louisiana 

MICHAEL HIGGINS, Professional Staff Member 

JOHN CHAPLA, Professional Staff Member 

ROSELLEN KIM, Staff Assistant 
(III) 

C O N T E N T S 

CHRONOLOGICAL LIST OF HEARINGS 

2009 

Page 

HEARING: 

Thursday, May 21, 2009, Fiscal Year 2010 National Defense Authorization 

Act—Budget Request on Military Personnel Overview .................................... 1 

APPENDIX: 

Thursday, May 21, 2009 .......................................................................................... 33 

THURSDAY, MAY 21, 2009 

FISCAL YEAR 2010 NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT— 

BUDGET REQUEST ON MILITARY PERSONNEL OVERVIEW 

STATEMENTS PRESENTED BY MEMBERS OF CONGRESS 

Davis, Hon. Susan A., a Representative from California, Chairwoman, Military Personnel Subcommittee ............................................................................. 1 

Wilson, Hon. Joe, a Representative from South Carolina, Ranking Member, 

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

WITNESSES 

Coleman, Lt. Gen. Ronald S., USMC, Deputy Commandant for Manpower 

and Reserve Affairs, Headquarters, U.S. Marine Corps ................................... 7 

Ferguson, Vice Adm. Mark E., III, USN, Chief of Naval Personnel, Deputy 

Chief of Naval Operations, Total Force .............................................................. 6 

McGinn, Gail H., Acting Under Secretary of Defense, Personnel and Readiness, Department of Defense ............................................................................... 3 

Newton, Lt. Gen. Richard Y., III, USAF, Deputy Chief of Staff, Manpower 

and Personnel, Headquarters, U.S. Air Force ................................................... 8 

Rochelle, Lt. Gen. Michael D., USA, Deputy Chief of Staff, G–1, Headquarters, U.S. Army ............................................................................................. 4 

APPENDIX 

PREPARED STATEMENTS: 

Coleman, Lt. Gen. Ronald S. ........................................................................... 117 

Davis, Hon. Susan A. ....................................................................................... 37 

Ferguson, Vice Adm. Mark E., III ................................................................... 105 

McGinn, Gail H. ................................................................................................ 39 

Newton, Lt. Gen. Richard Y., III ..................................................................... 147 

Rochelle, Lt. Gen. Michael D. .......................................................................... 91 

Wilson, Hon. Joe ............................................................................................... 38 

DOCUMENTS SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD: 

[There were no Documents submitted.] 
Page

IV 

WITNESS RESPONSES TO QUESTIONS ASKED DURING THE HEARING: 

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

Dr. Fleming ....................................................................................................... 161 

QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY MEMBERS POST HEARING: 

Mr. Loebsack ..................................................................................................... 165 
(1) 

FISCAL YEAR 2010 NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT—BUDGET REQUEST ON MILITARY PERSONNEL OVERVIEW 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES, MILITARY PERSONNEL SUBCOMMITTEE, Washington, DC, Thursday, May 21, 2009. 

The subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 2:00 p.m., in room 

2212, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Susan A. Davis (chairwoman of the subcommittee) presiding. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. SUSAN A. DAVIS, A REPRESENTATIVE FROM CALIFORNIA, CHAIRWOMAN, MILITARY 

PERSONNEL SUBCOMMITTEE 

Mrs. DAVIS. Good afternoon. The meeting will come to order. 

We are happy to have everybody here. Today, the subcommittee 

will hear testimony on the fiscal year 2010 national defense budget 

request for military personnel. 

Each of your written statements makes clear the heartfelt commitment by the Department of Defense (DOD) and the services to 

protect and enhance the programs that support service members 

and their families. You can be sure that the subcommittee shares 

your view that the men and women who serve our Nation in uniform are deserving of the highest praise and our best efforts to protect the programs that are the foundation for their quality of life. 

I was pleased to observe that Admiral Mullen, the chairman of 

the Joint Chiefs of Staff, feels as strongly as we do that personnel 

programs must be protected. In a speech at The Brookings Institution on Monday this week, the admiral indicated that tighter budgets will put increasing pressure on leaders to reduce programs that 

sustain people and that those leaders, including him, needed to resist the temptation to make those cuts. 

The admiral did note that health care and other personnel-related costs were growing and that more needed to be done to control such costs because the rate of growth associated with personnel programs was not sustainable over time. 

We have all felt the budget pressures increasing in recent years. 

For example, the ongoing cuts to recruiting and retention are understandable, so long as the military continues to attract and retain quality people. However, the cuts must be structured so as not 

to preclude our ability to respond when the economy begins to recover. 

Other less prominent indicators of budget pressures are more 

troubling. For example, the Navy’s freeze of permanent changes of 

station (PCS) for the remainder of the year is causing hardship for 
2 

many of our families. There are rumors of funding cuts to programs 

such as the Army Knowledge Online that is so important to communication within the Army and the Virtual Army Experience, 

that is important to understanding the recruiting of a new hightech generation. 

We now know that the Marine Corps Reserve will, for the third 

consecutive year, not achieve its authorized end-strength during 

fiscal year 2009. And the Air Force, the one service most reliant on 

retention, continues to struggle to achieve certain goals. 

Our purpose today is to better understand how those budget 

pressures will be translated to fiscal year 2010 and how those pressures will impact end-strength; recruiting and retention; force 

structure; compensation; and service member, retiree, and family 

morale and welfare. 

Once again, thank you all for being here. We look forward to 

your testimony. 

And I want to turn to Mr. Wilson for his opening remarks. 

[The prepared statement of Mrs. Davis can be found in the Appendix on page 37.] 

STATEMENT OF HON. JOE WILSON, A REPRESENTATIVE FROM 

SOUTH CAROLINA, RANKING MEMBER, MILITARY PERSONNEL SUBCOMMITTEE 

Mr. WILSON. Thank you, Chairwoman Davis. 

In many respects, the military personnel systems today reflect a 

degree of success that would have been questionable three to five 

years ago. In large part, that success is due to the efforts of the 

witnesses who will testify today. 

I want to particularly single out Lieutenant General Michael D. 

Rochelle, the Army G–1, and Lieutenant General Ronald S. Coleman, the Marine Corps deputy commandant for Manpower and Reserve Affairs. This likely will be their last appearance before this 

subcommittee. Each will complete more than 30 years of exceptional service before retiring. Both men are directly responsible for 

successfully directing the personnel programs of their respective 

services through an extraordinarily difficult period. 

I personally want to thank you for your service to this Nation 

and wish you both well in our future endeavors. And I particularly 

know of your success, having the privilege of representing Fort 

Jackson, representing Parris Island, the Marine Corps Air Station 

in Beaufort and Naval Hospital at Beaufort. So thank you both for 

your service. 

With regard to the fiscal year 2010 military personnel budget request, I have three areas of concern. 

The first is the $800 million reduction in the services’ recruiting 

and retention budgets. While I know that the downturn in the 

economy has made recruiting and retention somewhat easier, the 

experience of this subcommittee is that reductions in recruiting and 

retention funding inevitably prove to be too deep. So I am interested in hearing the personal assessment of each of the service personnel chiefs as to where risk exists in the proposed cuts to recruiting and retention resources. 

My second concern focuses on the number of nondeployable personnel in the Army, Army National Guard, and Army Reserve. 
3 

Clearly, the fact that there are at least 27,000 nondeployable personnel in the active Army and at least another 21,000 

nondeployables in the Army National Guard and Army Reserve 

must have a range of effects on these components. I would like to 

hear more about those impacts and how the Army believes they 

might be mitigated. 

The third area of concern relates to the recent testimony by the 

service chiefs, particularly those of the Marine Corps and Army, 

that dwell time will not significantly increase in the foreseeable future. I would like to understand why, with increased end-strength, 

there will not be a significant change in the dwell time for the active and Reserve components. 

Madam Chairwoman, thank you for holding this hearing, and I 

look forward to the testimony of our witnesses. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Wilson can be found in the Appendix on page 38.] 

Mrs. DAVIS. Thank you, Mr. Wilson. 

I now want to introduce our first panel. 

Ms. Gail McGinn, Acting Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness, Department of Defense. 

Thank you very much. Welcome back to the hearing. And I had 

an opportunity to see you this morning, as well, and talking about 

balloting for our military personnel overseas, and I appreciate your 

doing that, as well. 

Lieutenant General Michael D. Rochelle, Deputy Chief of Staff, 

G–1, Headquarters U.S. Army. 

And, General Rochelle, we had an opportunity to meet earlier, 

and I wanted to wish you the very best as you retire this summer. 

This probably is your final appearance before this subcommittee, 

and we wish you well. We thank you so much for all of your dedicated service. Thank you very much. 

Vice Admiral Mark Ferguson III, Chief of Naval Personnel, Deputy Chief of Naval Operations of Total Force. 

Thank you very much for being here, Admiral. 

Lieutenant General Ronald S. Coleman, Deputy Commandant for 

Manpower and Reserve Affairs, Headquarters, U.S. Marine Corps. 

And, General Coleman, we know that you also will be retiring 

this summer, and this is probably your final appearance as well. 

And, again, I thank you for your dedicated service. Thank you very 

much. 

And Lieutenant General Richard Newton III, of the U.S. Air 

Force, Deputy Chief of Staff, Manpower and Personnel, Headquarters, U.S. Air Force. 

Thank you for being here. 

Please, we will start with Ms. McGinn. 

STATEMENT OF GAIL H. MCGINN, ACTING UNDER SECRETARY 

OF DEFENSE, PERSONNEL AND READINESS, DEPARTMENT 

OF DEFENSE 

Ms. MCGINN. Thank you. 

Chairwoman Davis, Representative Wilson, and distinguished 

members of the committee, thank you for the opportunity to testify 

before you on the overview of the Department’s programs, policies, 
4 

and budget dedicated to taking care of our most precious resource, 

our people. 

As our data shows, we are largely succeeding in attracting and 

retaining the best and brightest young people. The Department of 

Defense has set high standards for the quality for the All-Volunteer 

Force, and the payoff is evident in the performance of this force in 

the field, which has been truly remarkable. 

It is vital to our national defense to maintain this highly skilled 

and motivated force. We must continue to ensure that we provide 

the right combination of pay, benefits, and compensation. We want 

to continue to work with you to ensure that we make the best use 

of every dollar authorized. 

We are still sending our service members in harm’s way and to 

face serious conflicts abroad. And for those service members who 

have returned from these operations wounded and injured, the Department is committed to doing everything we can to make sure 

they receive all the necessary medical care and nonmedical assistance to return to full-duty status or successfully transition to the 

next phase of their lives. 

We are grateful to you for your giving us the authority and resources to make significant progress in restructuring the disability 

and compensation systems, enhancing case management, and hiring additional recovery care coordinators. 

However, we know that the work is not done. And this budget 

is a testament to the fact that the Department will continue to devote our energy and resources to our wounded, ill, and injured. 

Furthermore, we understand the sacrifices made by not just the 

service members but their families. These brave men and women 

cannot do what they do without the support of their loved ones. 

And to enforce the ongoing support of these family members, the 

Department increased the fiscal year 2010 baseline for family assistance by shifting funds from the overseas contingency operations 

budget to the baseline to ensure continuity in program delivery. 

This is a step in the right direction. 

I do have a statement I submitted for the record. And I would 

just like to thank you for the opportunity to discuss these important issues with you today, and I look forward to your questions. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. McGinn can be found in the Appendix on page 39.] 

Mrs. DAVIS. Thank you very much. Appreciate it. 

General Rochelle. 

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

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

General ROCHELLE. Chairwoman Davis, Ranking Member Wilson, distinguished members of the committee, thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today. 

I appear before you on behalf of the 1.1 million men and women 

serving here and abroad, in peace as well as the most violent environments. This combat-seasoned force is resilient and professional, 

yet it is strained. More than 1 million of this Nation’s finest citizens have deployed over the past 7 years into harm’s way. We realize very well that are costs and effects associated with this conflict, 

both visible and invisible effects. 
5 

Our current programs to relieve stress on the force are vital to 

maintaining a healthy, balanced, and prepared Army. These programs help us defend our Nation against some of the most persistent and wide-ranging threats in our Nation’s history. 

The success of these programs are due in part—in large part, I 

might add—to the support of the Congress and specifically this 

committee. This committee has give us numerous programs that we 

have instituted to keep America’s Army strong well into seven-plus 

years of war. 

First and foremost, you have given us the means to recruit and 

retain an agile Army and, I might add, the best trained, the best 

led, and the best equipped Army in the world. As a result, for the 

past two years, we have met or exceeded our recruiting and retention goals for the total Army. This is a step in the right direction 

to get our personnel, our people, back in balance. 

We continue to transform our force into one Army that consistently use the talents of our active, Reserve, and National Guard 

soldiers, as well as our magnificent teammates, our civilian workforce. This total force approach is key to restoring balance within 

our ranks and in our homes. 

This Congress has embraced our needs, and we are very, very 

grateful. You have given us the means to improve the quality of life 

for our soldiers and their families. Soldiers are remaining in the 

Army because they see it is a good environment in which to serve 

and raise a family, thus making us the employer of choice. 

The Army continues to face challenges which will be directly in 

front of us for the next several years. Armed with lessons learned, 

it is our intent to stay in front of those challenges, anticipate them, 

develop strategies and programs, and keep them from becoming 

problems in the future. 

One of our largest challenges is the eligible population to serve 

in our Armed Forces today. That number continues to drop, thus 

creating what I believe is a national dilemma, a national problem. 

The Army will continue to work hard to attract and retain the best, 

but we need your help in taking on this larger issue, this larger 

problem. 

The challenging environments that our soldiers serve in demand 

that we maintain the standards as set. And we must remain ever 

vigilant that our force is manned with both physically and mentally 

fit and qualified soldiers, as it is today. 

I have described the challenging environment to you here today. 

I am confident, however, that with the operational and institutional agility America’s Army has developed over the past eight 

years, we will meet all the challenges that will come our way. 

It is easier to commit to a plan of action when we know that the 

Congress supports us. Your leadership and support have been unwavering. I have appreciated the discussions we have had over the 

years concerning the health of this great Army, and I look forward 

to taking your questions today. 

Thank you for your support. 

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

Appendix on page 91.] 

Mrs. DAVIS. Thank you. 

Admiral Ferguson. 
6 

STATEMENT OF VICE ADM. MARK E. FERGUSON III, USN, 

CHIEF OF NAVAL PERSONNEL, DEPUTY CHIEF OF NAVAL 

OPERATIONS, TOTAL FORCE 

Admiral FERGUSON. Chairwoman Davis, Representative Wilson, 

and distinguished members of the committee, thank you for the opportunity to appear before you to review our budget request on behalf of the Navy total force and their families. 

During my previous testimony in March, I discussed endstrength and our successes in recruiting and retention. Since that 

time, recruiting and retention have remained strong, and we continue to achieve our enlisted and officer goals across both the active 

and Reserve components. 

Our fiscal 2010 active and reserve budget request supports our 

ability to attract, recruit, and retain a highly skilled naval force in 

support of our maritime strategy. I would like to briefly highlight 

the principal themes contained in our budget request. 

First, it includes an increase of our authorized end-strength to a 

level of 328,800. It sustains the Reserve force at an end-strength 

of 65,500. This increased end-strength above our 2009 level supports the demand for individual augmentees for the joint force and 

demonstrates our commitment to sustaining our current deployment dwell times to minimize stress on the force. 

Our request sustains the recruiting successes we achieved last 

fiscal year, where we met medical goals for the first time in five 

years, and this year we met nuclear Zone A retention goals for the 

first time in over 30 years. 

While the budget reflects a slight decrease in advertising expenditure, it increases the amount for enlistment bonuses and sustains 

our recruiting force in the field at their current levels to support 

our projected accessions. 

The budget request also supports our stabilization strategy to 

balance the force in terms of seniority, experience, and skills, while 

safeguarding the careers of our top performers. We have adjusted 

incentives and bonuses in response to sailor behavior, and this request sustains our enlistment bonus programs at 2009 levels. 

The budget request also includes increases for selected medical 

recruiting programs. Your support for these programs is essential 

as we continue to target our investment in critical skill areas. And, 

I might add, your support has been critical to our successes in the 

past. 

The budget request also increases funding for family support programs and our Navy Safe Harbor, wounded, ill, and injured, program. It also supports our efforts to build resiliency and foster a 

culture that encourages sailors to seek help in response to stress. 

Finally, our request balances our education and training requirements with growth in important mission areas, such as cyber warfare, language and culture. 

Last week, I had the opportunity to visit our naval personnel 

overseas in Europe and the Middle East. Your sailors today are 

positive, enthusiastic, and performing extraordinarily well in meeting the demands of the joint force and of the Nation. I could not 

be prouder of their efforts that they do every day in service to the 

country. 
7 

And so, on behalf of all the men and women in uniform who sacrifice daily and their families, I wish to express my sincere appreciation to the committee and the Congress for your unwavering 

support for our Navy. 

Thank you, and I look forward to your questions. 

[The prepared statement of Admiral Ferguson can be found in 

the Appendix on page 105.] 

Mrs. DAVIS. Thank you. 

General Coleman. 

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

General COLEMAN. Chairwoman Davis, Congressman Wilson, distinguished members of the subcommittee, it is my privilege to appear before you today to discuss Marine Corps personnel. 

I would like to thank both the Chairwoman Davis and Congressman Wilson for their kind words. It is an honor to serve this greater Nation of ours. 

I would like to make a few key points. 

First, with regard to our end-strength, the Marine Corps is now 

building on our success in fiscal year 2008 and will reach our 2010 

goals this fiscal year, two years ahead of schedule. We owe this 

success in large part to our recruiters, who continue to meet all accession goals while maintaining the highest-quality standards. 

Thank you for your continued support of our enlistment incentives 

which help make this achievement possible. 

Secondly, our active-duty component retention continues to be 

successful. In fiscal year 2008, first-term retention was 36 percent. 

We are building on that success in fiscal year 2009, having already 

achieved our fiscal year mission. We thank you for your support of 

our Selective Reenlistment Bonus Program. It will remain the foundation of our retention efforts as we move from growing our force 

to shaping it so that we maintain vital Marine Corps leadership 

and critical skills. 

Third, I want to reiterate that a top priority of the commandant 

of the Marine Corps is caring for our wounded warriors and for the 

families of all Marines. Our wounded warrior regiment is diligent 

at work, implementing a new and holistic approach to wounded 

warrior care which makes thriving, not just surviving, the expectation of our wounded Marines. 

Likewise, our family readiness programs have undergone a host 

of significant improvements which continue to this day. They are 

made possible in large part by the generous funding that you have 

provided. 

I want to personally thank you, Chairwoman Davis, for your recent introduction of a House resolution that recognizes the work of 

our family readiness volunteers. As you mentioned, they are a crucial part of the family care and military readiness equations. 

In closing, I want to thank you and the other Members of Congress for your support and partnership. They have been central to 

the strength that your Marine Corps enjoys today. They will continue to be essential as we work to shape the Marine Corps of the 
8 

future so that we always remain the most ready when the Nation 

is least ready. 

Thank you. 

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

Appendix on page 117.] 

Mrs. DAVIS. Thank you. 

General Newton. 

STATEMENT OF LT. GEN. RICHARD Y. NEWTON III, USAF, DEPUTY CHIEF OF STAFF, MANPOWER AND PERSONNEL, HEADQUARTERS, U.S. AIR FORCE 

General NEWTON. Madam Chairwoman, Ranking Member Wilson, and distinguished members of the committee, thank you for 

this opportunity to discuss our efforts as they relate to the fiscal 

year 2010 budget to ensure we attract, recruit, develop, and retain 

a high-quality and diverse fighting force. 

Airmen are the focal point for providing the critical capabilities 

that the Air Force contributes for winning today’s fight. And while 

the Air Force has innovative technologies and equipment, it is the 

hard work of our dedicated men and women in uniform and our civilians who underscore our success. 

Without a doubt, the tremendous talent of our total force airmen 

and civilians is the backbone of our United States Air Force, and 

our budget proposal recognizes this fact. These dedicated volunteer 

servants are our most important asset. Without them, our organizations and equipment would not function, our operations would 

grind to a halt. 

Therefore, we must ensure we have the proper end-strength to 

meet current, new, and emerging missions. For fiscal year 2010, 

our active-duty end-strength will be 331,700 airmen, with 69,500 

serving in the Air Force Reserve and 106,700 airmen in the Air National Guard. This stops previously planned total force endstrength reductions. We will also grow our civilian population to a 

little over 179,000, which includes 4,200 contractor-to-civilian conversions. 

Simultaneously, we will continue to reshape the skill sets of our 

workforce, with particular emphasis on stress career fields and 

mission areas that need our attention, such as intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance, aircraft maintenance, acquisitions, cyber 

operations, nuclear deterrence, operations, and sustainment. For 

instance, in fiscal year 2010, our manpower investment includes increasing our nuclear-related personnel by 2,500 and adding 200 acquisition professionals. 

The growth in end-strength goes hand in hand with an increase 

in our recruiting efforts, and it goes beyond finding the right numbers. We must also ensure that the right quality and the right 

skills are present in our potential candidates. 

And, despite the weak economy, we expect 2010 to be a critical 

retention environment for several reasons: an increased need to retain specific skill sets in certain specialities; previous end-strength 

decreases and corresponding decreases in accessions; increased 

operational demands; and new and emerging missions. 

Our commitment includes continued support for special pay and 

allowances to address recruiting and retention concerns in our 
9 

health professional skills and our most critical war-fighting skills 

such as pararescue, combat control, tactical air control party, and 

explosive ordnance disposal. 

Finally, we are committed to taking care of our airmen and their 

families, to include our wounded warriors, to whom we have a 

never-ending obligation. Over the past year, we tackled important 

issues for Air Force families, such as expanding child care capacity, 

increasing child care support for Guard and Reserve families, improving financial readiness, and providing opportunities for children of airmen, whether they reside on our military installations 

or in our civilian communities throughout the United States. 

The Air Force is leaning forward to be all in. Your continued support of our missions to attract, develop, and sustain talented and 

diverse airmen and their families is mission-essential, and it is also 

most appreciated. Our efforts to effectively manage end-strength to 

recruit and retain, train, develop, and care for airmen and their 

families will enable us to fly, fight, and win in air, space and cyberspace. 

Thank you for your unfailing support of the men and women and 

the families of the United States Air Force. And I also look forward 

to your questions. 

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

Appendix on page 147.] 

Mrs. DAVIS. Thank you very much. 

Thank you all for your presentations. 

You have all mentioned end-strength, and let’s talk about that a 

little bit, because we know that there has been an increase in endstrength in excess of the 2009 authorization. And what I think we 

are interested in is your assurances that the dollars will be there 

as we move into 2010, given the fact that there is likely to be a 

bow from those higher end-strength numbers. 

What can you tell us about those concerns? And do we have that 

all together? 

I think I would just turn to the serve chiefs initially and start 

with you. 

General COLEMAN. It is not often they let me go first, ma’am, as 

I am the junior guy, but I will just jump right up. 

Ma’am, I think we are well—we, the Marine Corps—right now. 

We do expect that the funds will go down. We can handle that 

somewhat. It would be a discredit to you if I came in right now and 

said, we have made our retention goal already this year. We are 

two years ahead of schedule on our enlistments, but my fear, our 

biggest fear is that, if funds are taken away to allow the critical 

MOSs to reenlist and to bring in those critical Military Occupational Specialties (MOSs), then there would be great concern. 

Mrs. DAVIS. Okay, thank you. 

Admiral FERGUSON. From the Navy perspective, there are several challenges that we uniquely face and share with some of the 

other services. From a shared perspective, changes in entitlements, 

as the bill goes through the Congress, can affect our ability to execute. 

Second, we receive cost increases throughout the execution year 

for housing allowances, subsistence allowances, and so those 

changes in rates greatly affect our ability to execute. We feel that 
10 

the money we put in the budget adequately programs and covers 

the cost of the end-strength that we have. 

In the Navy, a unique case because we received authority from 

the Secretary to over-execute at end-strength this year. In the 2010 

request, you will see part of our end-strength is funded in supplemental, and it covers 4,400 individuals in the overseas contingency 

operations to allow us to provide joint enablers to the joint force, 

where we provide almost 14,000 to the force. 

And so, for our funding in 2010, the Overseas Contingency Operations (OCO) and supplemental both cover a portion of our endstrength. 

General ROCHELLE. The Army, Madam Chair, is in a fairly 

unique position, not too dissimilar from my brother in the Navy, 

in the sea service here, in that we were funded below the 547.4, 

which is the number we have grown to 2 years ahead of schedule. 

As a result, we have a $1.6 billion shortfall in 2009, which we are 

hopeful will be covered in full in the OCO request. 

And, now, I realize that is here under deliberations by this body. 

But that is key for us if we are, in fact, to be fully funded across 

the fiscal year, fiscal year 2010, entering 2010 in a balanced way. 

Mrs. DAVIS. Uh-huh. 

General NEWTON. Madam Chairwoman, you and the committee 

members are certainly aware that we were on a glide-path down 

to 16,000 active-duty end-strength. We are going to make amends 

to that, and we are going to actually, as I mentioned in my opening 

remarks, will be active-duty end-strength at 331,700, and so we 

have programmed and budgeted for that. 

And so we are absolutely committed to make sure that we uphold, both from a funding standpoint but also as we go out to recruit and retain, particularly in those critical skill sets, that we 

maintain what we have programmed and budgeted for. We feel 

that we are certainly adequately positioned to do just that throughout the program objective memorandum (POM). 

Mrs. DAVIS. Thank you. 

I know that, Admiral Ferguson, you mentioned the supplemental. 

And so, do any of you—you mentioned that you are okay. I think 

there is a concern that some of that we might need to look to an 

additional supplemental to help those numbers be able to support 

the increased end-strength that you have. Is that not a concern for 

anybody else? 

Admiral FERGUSON. From the Navy perspective, in the current 

supplemental for fiscal year 2009, the House Appropriations Committee added in their mark of the bill $350 million to support the 

Navy end-strength in this year, and that is under consideration in 

the Senate. 

So, for this fiscal year in execution, that will help us to alleviate 

both the permanent change of station issue you addressed in your 

opening, as well as get us through and cover the end-strength. 

Mrs. DAVIS. Thank you. 

You know, I think the big question for all of us is, is there anything in this that would suggest that you have to reduce some accounts? And are there impacts on the family and welfare accounts 

that might be felt in 2010? 
11 

General ROCHELLE. I go back to the $1.6 billion Military Personnel Army (MPA) shortfall for Army. And, again, the marks, as 

they make it through the House and the Senate, will determine the 

answer to the question you just posed. It is pretty significant for 

us. 

Mrs. DAVIS. Uh-huh. All right. 

General COLEMAN. Madam Chairwoman, for 2009, we feel good. 

But when you speak to 2010—— 

Mrs. DAVIS. No, we are talking about 2010. 

General COLEMAN. Yes, ma’am. We are concerned that a large 

cut in 2010, especially in recruiting and retention and our family 

readiness programs, that would be brutal to us, ma’am. 

Mrs. DAVIS. Thank you. 

My time is up. I will turn to Mr. Wilson, and we will start the 

round of the panel. 

Mr. WILSON. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman. 

Again, thank all of you for your successes. 

And right in line with discussing some budget cuts, recognizing 

that there has been a cut in the recruiting and retention of nearly 

$800 million—and I indicated my concern about that in my opening 

statement—I am interested in hearing your assessment, all of you, 

as to where the risk may exist in the proposed cuts in recruiting 

and retention. And, in your own view, does the budget request cut 

too deeply for 2010? 

General ROCHELLE. Well, let me start, if you will, Representative 

Wilson. 

First of all, you are familiar with my experience in the recruiting 

world directly. And my concern would be that we are—we are funded adequately in 2010. However, however, we must be careful that 

we don’t yo-yo across the POM, we don’t yo-yo the resourcing of the 

recruiting initiative. Frankly, because it is imperative that we have 

a fairly steady stream and predictable stream of resourcing to resource both recruiters, advertising, and all of the associated support structure that, day to day, helps our recruiters be successful. 

As a matter of fact, hours before I came to the Hill, the new commanding general of U.S. Army Recruiting Command paid a visit on 

me, and we had this very discussion. The discussion centered on 

the fact that we are in a very positive place today relative to where 

the Army was in 2005, the year I left Recruiting Command, a very 

different place, largely because of the economy. But there are already signs that the economy is beginning to make a slight turnaround. And so we must think strategically about recruiting in that 

new environment and not be lulled into a false sense of security 

from where we are today. 

Ms. MCGINN. I would just say that we are very aware of the 

risks involved when you cut the recruiting account and believe that 

we have taken a prudent risk here with this particular cut because 

of the status of recruiting and retention and the overall status of 

the economy. 

But my colleagues and I watch recruiting data monthly. They 

probably watch it more frequently than I do. So we need to be very 

vigilant in terms of keeping an eye on what is happening both in 

the economy and with the recruiting endeavors so that, if there is 

something to be corrected, we can correct it. 
12 

General COLEMAN. I would say again, sir, our concern in the Marine Corps is more drastic in the reenlistment bonus, the retention 

side of it, than the initial accession of it. So, too large a cut would 

be—because you can’t make that up when there is critical MOSs 

and critical Marines to fill those MOSs, and when they go out, you 

can’t get a seven-year veteran by someone coming in the front door. 

So I think it is imperative that we maintain our selective reenlistment bonuses, sir. 

Admiral FERGUSON. With respect to Navy, we did take a minor 

reduction in advertising, where we felt that was a prudent risk to 

take in balance, but yet we increased our accession bonus program, 

and we kept the number of recruiters in the field. We figured that 

is the strength of our program, in bringing in new sailors. 

General NEWTON. Sir, may I also add from, perhaps, a different 

approach, the pool of talent and American youth that we can go 

after—I know we have discussed this previously in other hearings—is a challenge for all the services and particularly for the Air 

Force. 

As you go about trying to find specific critical skills, not only 

from a recruiting standpoint but a retention standpoint as well, because even though we are in a downturn of our economy, many of 

those skills that airmen bring to the fight are skills that a lot of 

employers in the commercial sector put an eye on the prize as well. 

So there is no letup, there should not be any letup, and the same 

effort, either in a downturn or an upturn, as General Rochelle described, you know, the strategic effort ought to still be maintained. 

Mr. WILSON. Well, I appreciate all of you. 

And I want to point out, I appreciate Chairwoman Davis visited 

with me at Fort Jackson, the recruiting and retention school, last 

year. And that was an extremely rewarding experience to me, to 

see the dedicated personnel. But it reinforced my concern over 

budget cuts, in that, General Rochelle, you all have helped create 

an extraordinary technological base. It makes you feel really good 

to know of the capabilities that you used to recruit people for the 

opportunity of military service. 

Thank you very much. 

Mrs. DAVIS. Thank you, Mr. Wilson. 

Mr. Murphy. 

Mr. MURPHY. Thanks, Madam Chairwoman. 

And thanks to all the briefers today for your continued service 

to our country. 

And I especially want to highlight General Rochelle and General 

Coleman. Thank you for your great service to our country. I wish 

you all the best in your future endeavors. And we are very proud, 

as a Nation and a Congress, for all that you have done. 

Part of my questions, frankly, were already addressed by the 

opening statements and also by the questions, so let me ask and 

try and drill down a little bit. 

General Rochelle, you mentioned, as did General Newton just a 

second ago, about the eligible population to join the military is declining, and that is a national issue. You all have physical fitness 

standards, and you have a great leadership model on how to get 

your folks in tremendous shape. 
13 

What advice do you give to Congress, what do you think we 

should do? I know this is kind of, probably, out of the box; you 

probably didn’t prep for this. But what would you advise the Congress of the United States, what should we be doing to inspire the 

American people to follow your lead? 

General ROCHELLE. I will defer to the junior member of the 

panel. 

General COLEMAN. Thank you, sir. 

If we could just continue, as a Nation, to emphasize physical fitness. It is a lot easier, I think we all would say, to stay in shape 

than it is to get in shape. So I think if we can—and I think you 

probably know this, sir, having served: There is a large percentage 

of the population that is not physically fit. And that is deplorable, 

when you think about what it was when we were growing up, when 

you had to take gym, and now you can opt out of gym. And you 

can’t regain those muscles in a short period of time. 

So if we could stress, and I don’t just mean for a day, but if we 

could stress physical fitness. And I think a healthy body leads to 

a healthy mind. So, as a Congress, as a Nation, if we could stress 

physical fitness, I think we would be on the right track, sir. 

General NEWTON. If I may add, Representative Murphy, it is 

also, to add to what General Coleman said, it is a call to service, 

as well. It is one that—I believe our generation has seen a more 

fit lifestyle, a more fit approach. Certainly, as I have gotten into 

my fifties, it is planning for the future as well. 

This is a national challenge we have. One of the largest challenges we have with regard to being able to reach into America’s 

youth, much less to entice them to come into the service, is because 

of the obesity issue we have among American youth. 

And so, that behooves us who are perhaps more senior, regardless if you happen to be a Member of Congress or serving in the 

military, you be fit to fight, as we say in the United States Air 

Force. And so we have walk the walk and talk the talk and show 

our commitment in resources and so forth. But I believe it is a significant call to service that somehow if we can fill that gap. 

General ROCHELLE. Sir, first of all, I would like to thank you for 

your very gracious comments about General Coleman and my service. And I would simply add that, not unlike all of our great soldiers and Marines and airmen and sailors who serve, it is our families who really deserve the credit. 

To your question, and just to add on to what my wingman said 

here about obesity, the larger issue is high school completion and 

the declining rate of high school completion. 

A couple of data points—and I will try to do this very quickly. 

If you look at high school graduation rates nationally and segment 

those rates by race, ethnicity, levels of poverty, and then the general population, you see some pretty alarming trends. Only one out 

of three, anywhere in the Nation, regardless of race and regardless 

of the level of income for the family, will graduate—I beg your pardon, I said that incorrectly—30 percent will not graduate. 

If you now add the level of income at or below the poverty level, 

that number that will graduate, irrespective of race or ethnicity, 

drops to 50 percent. Add one more layer of segmentation, and we 
14 

are now looking at race, poverty level in general, and 70 percent 

will not graduate on time. 

And I have talked about this a number of different times in various committees on the Hill. It really is a national tragedy. And for 

us to think that we can remain strategically competitive, not to 

mention a strong defense, with those types of trends is foolhardy. 

Mr. MURPHY. I know my time is up, but I thought that President 

Obama’s speech at the State of the Union when we talked to the 

American people, looked them in the eye and said, ‘‘When you 

graduate—if you drop out of high school, you are not just quitting 

on yourself, you are quitting on your country.’’ I thought that was 

exactly the right tone, and putting the burden back on not just the 

teachers but it starts at home, education. And we need that accountability and that responsibility. 

And I yield back the balance of my time. Thank you very much. 

Mrs. DAVIS. Thank you. 

Dr. Snyder. 

Dr. SNYDER. Thank you, Madam Chair. 

I wanted to ask—as you may know, another subcommittee here 

is doing a study of professional military education in residence, 

professional military education (PME). In fact, General Coleman, I 

now understand why, when I was at the Marine Corps University 

yesterday, I was the only one eating the donuts and the Marine officers were not. It all becomes clear to me now. 

But I wanted to ask two questions and have you each respond. 

The first one is with regard to faculty the in-residence PME 

schools, and the second one is with regard to students. 

The first one is, how are faculty selected for the in-residence 

PME programs? Both how they are selected, and then what does 

that mean for them down the line? I won’t tell you which service, 

but we heard from a couple of people yesterday that said they were 

told by all their friends, don’t take the position, it was a dead-end 

for them to be assigned as a faculty member at one of the schools. 

And then, second, with regard to the students, how are students 

assigned to these schools? And how are decisions then made with 

regard to what their next assignment—you know, when and how 

is that process, as far as their next assignment after the school? 

General Coleman. 

General COLEMAN. Yes, sir. Thank you, sir. 

As far as the faculty, the faculty is selected both by the head of 

our MMOA—that is the manpower management officer assignment 

side of it—in conjunction with the president of the university. So 

his or her record jacket is screened, goes to the school, and the 

school has say, the Marine Corps University, in, yes, this person 

should or should not be an instructor. 

Dr. SNYDER. But what are the criteria by which you make the 

decision to send those to the school to be looked at? 

General COLEMAN. Sir, probably one of the first things would be 

promotability. I will use myself as an example. When I was an instructor at our Amphibious Warfare School, which is a companygrade school, 12 members of the faculty, seven us were selected to 

general officer. So, in the Marine Corps, if you go to be an instructor at a school, you know that you have been selected. 
15 

Now, whether it means that you have all A’s or all B’s, I don’t 

think we do that. We look at the jacket. We look at intelligence. 

We look at personnel appearance. We look at physical fitness. We 

look at the whole-man or whole-woman concept. And then the 

president of the university still has some say, maybe not the final 

say, but he or she does have some say in that person coming to the 

school. 

As far as the students, there is a board that convenes, just like 

a promotion board. And I would say, for some schools, like our toplevel schools, your chances of making colonel are better than they 

are getting selected to school. So it is a hard nut to crack, from 

where I sit, sir. 

Admiral FERGUSON. From the student perspective, when naval 

officers go through—I will speak about the unrestricted line—when 

they go through their screening boards at the O–5 and the O–6 

level, generally if you are in the upper half of the group that 

screens and you are assigned a code, it makes you eligible to go to 

a senior war college. And then the distribution process will allocate 

those among National Defense University, the Naval War College, 

the various seats that we have to fill. So for our unrestricted line, 

they are screened by a board and then assigned a code that generally represents the top half. 

We are driven in those pay grades primarily by command opportunities. And so we don’t ascend them right away; it is adjusted 

based upon when their command tour is of a fighter squadron, let’s 

say, or a submarine or a surface ship. 

With regard to the faculty, the faculty are generally senior officers, O–6, at the Naval War College who have had prior master’s 

degrees, most have had a prior tour, but they are nominated by the 

Bureau of Personnel to the president of the Naval War College for 

selection. 

General ROCHELLE. Army’s procedures are not terribly dissimilar 

from those of the Marine Corps and the Navy, the sea services. 

However, for our intermediate-level education, I believe you know, 

sir, that that is universally offered to all officers at a certain grade 

level. Whether it is done in residence at Fort Leavenworth, Kansas, 

which is our flagship intermediate-level education institution or 

whether it is done in a distributed fashion at one of several installations across the United States, where you can get the same level 

of training and education but it is broken up into segments and 

some of it is done via distance learning, it is universal intermediate-level education. 

Your question about faculty—make no mistake about it, the 

Army is challenged right now to ensure that we have the very best 

faculty in place in our institutions of higher learning and training. 

The demand for that very best talent, from theater and elsewhere 

around the globe, is enormous. However, having said that, as my 

fellow witnesses have stated, the leaders of each of these institutions has a voice in whether or not an officer is acceptable to be 

on the platform. 

Let me go to the next level, the Army War College. First of all, 

for that level of education and training, the capstone, if you will, 

for most officers, that is a board selection process—best qualified. 
16 

The availability of the officer to attend, however, is somewhat impacted by the level of demand on the Army today. 

And one final point, if I may return to the intermediate-level 

education, two years ago we launched a pilot program, which I 

coined the phrase, ‘‘leader development assignment panel.’’ The 

leader development assignment panel was designed to take a look 

at, are we, in fact, sending our very best and our brightest to our 

intermediate-level education in resident training? With a view toward where I think your question is heading, are we making the 

appropriate investments for the future, for the next Global War on 

Terror or downrange? 

And for two years, we have received very, very positive feedback 

from the panel members. And we have indeed adjusted, as a result 

of those pilots—we will do a third one this year—whether individuals are sent to fellowships, whether they are offered an opportunity for a graduate-level education, or the resident intermediatelevel education. All of the above are on the table. 

General NEWTON. Sir, just briefly, a similar process in terms of 

selection, both for our faculty and students. Our faculty, first we 

look at their professional credentials as well as their academic credentials and, also, their desire to serve as instructors, particularly 

at our Air War College and Air Command and Staff College. 

I can also tell you, from a student selection standpoint, those for 

intermediate development education or senior officer development 

education, again, those are board results. We take generally our 

top 15 to top 25 percent. 

The actual selection and where they attend school could be at Air 

Command and Staff College or Army Command and Staff and so 

forth. I actually chair that board every fall and identify which students will go to what particular development education from that 

point on. 

But it is, again, one that we put a lot of attention to. Because, 

as we are trying to not only develop certain professional qualities, 

it is also how they go about in their strategic thinking. How are 

they beginning, again, now, to become those strategic thinkers and 

those strategic leaders as early on as we possibly can to impact 

their professional development. 

General COLEMAN. Can I add one more thing, sir? 

Dr. SNYDER. Please. 

General COLEMAN. And I should have started off with this. If you 

are not what we call PME complete, so if you haven’t attended or 

haven’t completed the schooling for your grade, then you do not get 

promoted. 

Dr. SNYDER. Thank you. 

Mrs. DAVIS. Thank you. 

Mr. Loebsack. 

Mr. LOEBSACK. Thank you, Madam Chair. 

Thanks to all of you for being here. 

And, also, in particular, General Rochelle and General Coleman, 

it is my third year in Congress, and I have gotten to know you 

some. And I am going to miss you, but hopefully I will see you in 

another context in the future. 

Just to follow up on some of the earlier comments that were 

made and questions asked, while Mr. Murphy is out with the base-
17 

ball team preparing for the big game in June, I normally go out 

running. And I go over by the Armory and go out into the Robert 

F. Kennedy Stadium parking lot, along the river there, and across 

over the Anacostia and go into the park on many days. And I see 

a lot of the folks from the services who are over there working out, 

doing their tests, running, that sort of thing. And, you know, I wish 

I could stop and talk to them and encourage them to continue to 

do it and all the rest, but of course they are running and I am running and that is not possible. But I think that it is just absolutely 

fantastic. And I think if we take a lifelong approach to this, too, 

I think that is really the way to do this. 

Also, on the education front and the high school dropout issue, 

there are at least two of us on this subcommittee who are on the 

Education and Labor Committee. And the dropout factory problem 

is a huge one across the country, high schools where there are disproportionate numbers of folks who drop out and don’t graduate. 

And we are trying to address that on the committee. I actually 

have legislation, myself, trying to deal with that issue, as well. So 

we are going to continue along those lines, and this is where we 

can cross over, as far as committees are concerned, I think. 

But, along those lines, what, if anything, is being done by services as far as encouraging—I mean, it is a problem, but encouraging folks to stay in school and helping folks to get their high 

school degrees? 

General COLEMAN. For us, sir, that is a recruiting tool. And we 

look at every Marine as a recruiter. But as our recruiters visit 

schools, I think that is the best way we can do it. And I would say 

that most Marines would never pass up a chance to go speak to a 

school or to children in any part or any fashion. But it is one of 

those things that you have to be accessible and they have to allow 

you in it. But I think that is the key. 

Mr. LOEBSACK. If I might follow up, when the recruiters go to the 

high schools, they also then obviously encourage students to stay 

in school? Is that something they do as well? 

General COLEMAN. Yes, sir. And that is service- and also DODdirected because of the propensity of a high school graduate to do 

well in the service and stay. So, yes, sir. 

Admiral FERGUSON. Some of the other services—the Navy Junior 

Reserve Officers Training Corps (NJROTC) program in the high 

schools, we have 75,000 students. Most are diverse and in lowerprivilege areas. But when they complete to graduation, 65 percent 

go on to higher education and 45 percent come into the service. 

That is a real strong program for us, and we have over 600 units 

around the country. 

General ROCHELLE. Sir, I would add one thing that we are very 

proud of. First of all, every soldier encourages young people, whether it is in his or her community or on a military installation, and 

the high school resident on that installation encourages young people to stay in school. And that is especially true of Army recruiters, 

as well. 

But since we are at such an epidemic state on this—and you, obviously, know quite well that it is epidemic—the Army has 

launched an Army Prep School at Fort Jackson, South Carolina. 

And the Army Prep School is our effort, with DOD support—I re-
18 

call having several conversations with Dr. David Chu about this, 

and he was very supportive. But as a result of those efforts, in 

2009, 1,500, almost 1,600 young persons who would not have received a high school diploma did so through the Army Prep School. 

Now it is an equivalent today. But, working with the Governor 

of South Carolina, we expect that, before the end of fiscal 2009, it 

will indeed be a certified high school diploma. That is a small effort, but it is a start. 

General NEWTON. Just as a short follow-up, we also see our airmen as role models in whatever communities they serve. There is 

a total force aspect of that from those who are serving in active 

duty, but Guard and Reserve as well. I almost see that as a responsibility that they have as wearing the uniform. 

I would also add that it is not just the students themselves, but 

to go after the influencers in the communities. And that could be 

found in the school, it could be found in a variety of organizations 

throughout. 

The last point I would raise, in terms of the challenges that we 

have with regard to recruiting, whereby perhaps we focused on 

high school, 11th, 12th grade, perhaps we are now being compelled 

to reach into lower grades, as well, to begin, because of the challenges that we have already discussed here. 

Mr. LOEBSACK. Well, thank you all. 

General ROCHELLE. Sir, may I please edit my numbers? The 

1,600 are the numbers who were entered into the program. The 

number of graduates is 1,376. 

Mr. LOEBSACK. Okay, thank you. 

And, Madam Chair, if I could, I would like to submit a question 

for the record, also, on access to family services, especially for the 

Reserve component. 

[The information referred to can be found in the Appendix beginning on page 165.] 

Mrs. DAVIS. Okay, thank you. 

Ms. Tsongas. 

Ms. TSONGAS. Thank you very much for your testimony. 

I would love to hear more at some other time about the prep 

school. It is South Carolina-specific? 

General ROCHELLE. Yes, ma’am, it is, because of the support 

from the Governor of South Carolina. 

Mr. WILSON. But students from across the country. 

General ROCHELLE. That is correct. I beg your pardon. I didn’t 

understand that was your question. They are from across the country. 

Ms. TSONGAS. I was going to say, you are doing very well here. 

I am going to change the subject a little bit, if I might, and I 

think this will be directed to General Rochelle and General Coleman. General Casey mentioned at the Army posture hearing last 

week that we can expect the operational tempo to increase through 

fiscal year 2009 and into 2010. This is despite the fact that both 

the Army and the Marine Corps are projected to achieve their programmed end-strength increases by the end of this fiscal year. 

How soon can we see a reduction in the operational tempo and 

an increase in dwell time for Army and Marine Corps combat and 

support units? 
19 

General ROCHELLE. Thank you for your question, ma’am. First, 

let me elaborate on what the Chief said and say it in the way that 

I would articulate it. 

Before we see a net reduction in demand, we are probably looking at 12 months to 18 months into the future. And that is if everything goes according to plan, with responsible drawdown in Iraq 

and buildup to some acceptable level of forces in Afghanistan. 

It is a little bit like, an analogy, if I may, of having an aircraft 

carrier battle group replace an aircraft carrier battle group in the 

middle of the Pacific. For a period of time, the Chief of Naval Operations has two equivalents of battle groups tied up that he can’t 

do anything with until the one being relieved recovers. It is no different for a brigade combat team. It is no different for a combat 

aviation brigade replacing another combat aviation brigade. 

If that demand, eventually, at the end of 12 to 18 months, does 

begin to diminish and we see a net reduction—and, by the way, 

history suggests that demand continues to rise. Yesterday, in testimony in the other body, I used the analogy, if the past is indeed 

prologue, then we may be headed for trouble. 

But, optimistically. If we see the demand reduced, then we will 

be able to see also an equivalent reduction in the current dwell 

time, which, for the active Army, is one year deployed for every 1.3 

years at home. That is unsustainable, completely unsustainable. 

For the Army Reserve and Army National Guard, the dwell is one 

year deployed for less than three years at home. Even at that rate 

for an operational reserve, that is way too high. 

So the long answer to your question, 12 to 18 months from now, 

if all goes according to plan. 

Ms. TSONGAS. And let’s assume for a moment that things don’t 

go according to plan and, in fact, there is a need for overall increases, what kind of planning and thinking is taking place to respond to that? 

General ROCHELLE. We are actively considering—and this is a 

discussion we are having inside the Army at this point and will 

soon have at the Department of Defense level. We are actively considering whether or not, in order to mitigate the risk that you are 

articulating, ma’am, if we shouldn’t look at other means of having 

a temporary wartime allowance. But that is an internal discussion, 

at this point. 

Ms. TSONGAS. General Coleman. 

General COLEMAN. Yes, ma’am. Thank you, ma’am. 

At this time, with our growth, we have seen improvement in our 

dwell time. Our overall average now, where it was—and, unlike the 

Army, the Marine Corps is seven months out, seven months back, 

and our goal is three to one. We started off at 1-to-1.8. We are now 

at 1-to-2.4, so almost 2.5, a cycle back. 

With the drawdown in Iraq, with the increase to our 202,000, I 

would suggest to you that during fiscal year 2010, we will conceivably get to where we want to be. But, again, as General Rochelle 

says, that is contingent upon things coming down out of Iraq in the 

way we think and depending on what happens in Afghanistan. But 

we have seen an increase in our dwell time. 

Ms. TSONGAS. Thank you. I think my time has run out. 

Mrs. DAVIS. Thank you very much. 
20 

Ms. Bordallo. 

Ms. BORDALLO. Thank you very much, Madam Chairwoman. 

And good afternoon to all our witnesses. 

I would like to ask you, General Rochelle or Ms. McGinn, a question about the Army National Guard’s end-strength. I represent 

Guam, where National Guard and Reserve personnel outnumber, 

per capita, any State in our Nation. And our ranking member, Mr. 

Wilson, will attest to that, because we attended a ceremony where 

these records were revealed. 

The Guard is authorized for an end-strength of 352,600, according to your reports here, but is currently at an end-strength of over 

368,000. Given that the Commission on the National Guard and 

Reserve has indicated that the National Guard is a highly cost-effective means of national defense and that the National Guard has 

demonstrated through innovative means that it can meet endstrength goals, can you describe the benefits of permanently increasing the Army National Guard’s end-strength to 371,000? And 

I want to also add to that, keeping in mind that they have a domestic role to play. 

Ms. McGinn. 

Ms. MCGINN. I think that is a good question. General Rochelle 

may have a better answer, but I think I would need to consult with 

my colleagues back at home to give you that for the record so that 

I can give you a thoughtful response to it. 

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

page 161.] 

Ms. BORDALLO. Thank you. 

General. 

General ROCHELLE. It is a very good question. 

First of all, let me say that the Army National Guard—and I 

know it is true for the Air National Guard, as well—is an extraordinary force, more so today than ever in the past, because it has 

migrated from the strategic reserve context to a much more relevant context, that of an operational reserve. And we are asking 

a great deal of our Army National Guard and Air National Guard 

soldiers, airmen, and leaders. 

However, an operational reserve—first of all, let me say that 

358,200, which is the current authorization, is sufficient, in my estimation, to cover down on both operational reserve demands in the 

Global War on Terror today, as well as to address the needs of governors across the United States and Guam. 

Whether or not it would be efficacious to grow the Guard beyond 

that should be based upon operational demands, either in the state 

or operational and increased demand that we see for forces—Army 

forces and air forces—in the current environment. And I think it 

would be a prudent move, with that, to look at it strictly from the 

perspective of the demand for those forces. 

There remains some reshaping that we may need to look at for 

the Guard in terms of structure, what is in those forces at 358,200. 

But I would like to conclude by simply echoing, once again, Lieutenant General Clyde Vaughn, who you may know, a great, great 

leader who will retire on the 1st of June, is both my next-door 

neighbor and dear, dear friend. And he deserves many of the same 
21 

accolades that the chairwoman and others have bestowed upon 

General Coleman and myself. 

Our Guard, the Army National Guard in particular, is awesome. 

Ms. BORDALLO. If I could just add to that, what are the potential 

benefits of creating a Trainees, Transients, Holdees, and Students 

(TTHS) account for the Guam National Guard? 

General ROCHELLE. Actually, I would expand my answer to your 

question. Creating a TTHS account for the Army National Guard 

and the Army Reserve would be a very prudent move, very prudent. 

Ms. BORDALLO. Very good. 

And one other short question, Madam Chair, just a short question. I think Ms. McGinn would probably be the best to answer 

this. This is for my own information. 

What are the percentages of members of the military personnel— 

now, this is the active military personnel—who continue in the 

military service, make it a career, as opposed to those who leave 

the military service? Do you have any numbers? And that would 

include all the branches. 

Ms. MCGINN. I think it would vary by branch. The Marine Corps 

has had—and General Coleman can speak to this—Marine Corps 

has had higher turnover of first-term Marines than the other services. And so I think that we would have to get you those numbers 

by branch. 

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

page 161.] 

Ms. BORDALLO. I would appreciate that. And I didn’t want to go 

into all the branches here, but just overall what the retention is. 

Thank you, Madam Chairman. 

Mrs. DAVIS. Thank you. 

I want to turn to a discussion about those service members who 

are unavailable to deploy, we call them nondeployables, but who 

are not able to deploy with their units for whatever reason. 

General Chiarelli mentioned recently, the Army Vice Chief of 

Staff, that the number of Army service members who are 

nondeployable has become a burden on the force that threatens the 

Army’s ability to fill deploying units to required levels and to 

achieve its objectives to reduce operation tempo and increase dwell 

time between deployments. 

It sounds like that active nondeployable population is around 

27,000, is that correct, as of April of 2009? 

And I wonder, General Rochelle, if you could comment then. 

Given this current number, was the Army forced to give up the brigade combat teams (BCT), going from 48 to 45, as a result of that? 

Is that at play here, that the additional end-strength for manning 

those levels couldn’t be achieved at the higher level? Where does 

that come into play? I mean, obviously, the shift from 48 to 45 

BCTs has an impact, in a number of ways, for the ability to carry 

on the operations. 

General ROCHELLE. An excellent question, Madam Chair. 

And let me say at the very outset that the shift from 48 to 45 

brigade combat teams, as has been testified in the past by both the 

Secretary of the Army and the Chief of Staff of the Army—and I 

think the Vice Chief, as well—was intended to give us the ability 
22 

to thicken our forces. In other words, we weren’t chasing that additional structure inside a 547,400 end-strength, which would have 

stretched us even a little bit more. So it was a prudent move, but 

it remains to be seen over time relative to demand. 

To your specific question, 26,936 nondeployables, temporary as 

well as permanent nondeployables, were indeed reported through 

our unit status reporting process in the month of April. And I want 

to emphasize that it is a moving target. A soldier who is 

nondeployable for a temporary reason this week may be fully 

deployable next week, and vice versa. So it moves fairly substantially. 

But I will bring it into focus at the brigade combat team level. 

The Army G1 tracks, through rear detachment reporting, for our 

next-to-deploy brigades what the nondeployable rate is inside that 

brigade, frankly because it is a measure of whether or not we are 

going to meet our very, very critical gates in terms of operational 

manning for that deploying unit. And we are committed to ensuring that we deploy, as I said in my oral statement, the best trained, 

the best equipped, and the best led, and that includes the best 

manned. 

The last 14 brigade combat teams, as we looked at their average 

nondeployables, averaged 11 percent, which is up, I might add, 

from over a year ago, prior to the surge, where nondeployable rates 

were trending between 8 percent and 10 percent. As we look at the 

most recent brigades, five, to deploy, of that 11, we saw an uptick 

to 12 percent. 

Now, that is somewhat alarming for two reasons. I think it illustrates the cumulative effect of seven-plus years of war. It represents the impacts of too short dwell, 1.3 years at home for every 

one year deployed. And it is cumulative. And we are gaining some 

tremendous insights as a result of that. 

To your question, however, we are able to deploy today the best 

trained, the best manned, the best equipped, and the best led soldiers downrange to do the Nation’s bidding. Back to the question 

of risk, in terms of the future, my concern would be, if we cannot 

bring that dwell down, then we will begin to see other problems in 

addition to the ability to meet the manning levels. 

Mrs. DAVIS. Yeah. 

Others? General Newton, would you like to comment on that? 

General NEWTON. Other than the fact that, again, we try to focus 

on our Expeditionary Air Force and our expeditionary airmen to 

make sure that their contribution to the fight, that they are ready, 

they are trained well for whatever the joint war-fight may take us. 

Mrs. DAVIS. Admiral Ferguson. 

Admiral FERGUSON. The Navy population of limited duty or 

medically not able to deploy is relatively small, roughly in the two 

percent to four percent range of the enlisted force. So it is not a 

significant problem. And our Safe Harbor Wounded Warrior program has about 400 individuals, for example. So, for us, it is not 

as significant an issue. 

Mrs. DAVIS. General Coleman. 

General COLEMAN. Yes, ma’am. For us, the nondeployables—and 

we have and I would believe all the services have what we call 
23 

P2T2, and that is the Patients, Prisoners, Trainees, Transients. 

And that is an everyday occurrence, and every day that changes. 

But when you take that away and you are talking about combat 

units deploying, the Marine Corps will not deploy a unit—infantry 

battalion is deployed at 100 percent. Now, what that means is that 

a unit deploying has 100 percent but the unit back home may not 

be at 100 percent because we stole from Peter to pay Paul. 

Mrs. DAVIS. And I guess we end up with more individual 

augmentees as a result of that, too, which creates some additional 

problems; is that correct? 

General COLEMAN. Not in infantry battalions, ma’am. When you 

go to an infantry battalion, you have—for the Marine Corps, anyway—we have a six-month buildup. So when you deploy, you have 

been with that unit for 6 months before they deploy. 

Mrs. DAVIS. Okay. Thank you. 

General ROCHELLE. In our case, because we are committed to 

eliminating stop-loss, the challenge that I just articulated makes 

the mountain that we have to climb just a little bit higher. 

Mrs. DAVIS. Uh-huh. Okay. Thank you. 

Mr. Wilson. 

Mr. WILSON. Actually, the brigade combat teams question, the 

number reduced from 48 to 45, was my interest. So I appreciate 

that that has been discussed. 

And so I would be happy to defer to Dr. Fleming. 

Mrs. DAVIS. Dr. Fleming, welcome. 

Dr. FLEMING. Okay. Thank you, Madam Chairman. 

Well, first of all, let me say that I thank you for being here today 

to testify. And on the issue of personnel, that is, in my opinion and 

I think the committee as a whole, to be the most important asset 

that we have in armed services. So I appreciate your focus on that. 

More specifically, Ms. McGinn, in your testimony you mention 

that DOD is looking at altering the meritorious award system, 

medals, based on the new realities of the war on terror. Can you 

elaborate on that some? 

Ms. MCGINN. Yes. As a result of action from the Congress, we 

have new medals now for Iraqi Campaign Medal, Afghanistan 

Campaign Medal, Global War on Terror Expeditionary Medal, and 

the like. And so what we have been doing is systemically going 

through our records and policies for awards of medals and meritorious citations, and we are updating our policies on that to reflect 

the new kinds of decorations that we have for now. 

Dr. FLEMING. Thank you. 

Is there any change in the Valor Award criteria? 

Ms. MCGINN. That I don’t know. I will have to get back to you. 

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

page 161.] 

Dr. FLEMING. Anyone else on the panel have any input? 

General ROCHELLE. Sir, let me comment on that, if I may. I was 

a member of the panel, a member of the board, if you will, working 

that issue in the Department of Defense. And almost unanimously—I believe it was not unanimous—but I want to mention 

something here that I think is very important. 

Each of the service senior enlisted advisors were present on this 

matter of valorous awards. And, to a person, they felt that we 
24 

should not change the valorous award criteria—and I concurred 

with that and supported it—while we are in our current conflict. 

Dr. FLEMING. Okay. 

I will ask a totally unrelated question. You know, there has been 

this problem or issue with two wars that have gone on longer than 

we would have liked at levels that are more intense than we would 

like. 

I would love to hear from the panel, whoever would like to step 

up on this one, what is the sustainability of that? You know, we 

have a very active Reserve. They are not a reserve Reserve in the 

classic sense any longer. And some people who have been in the 

Reserves have had several deployments, have been more activeduty than they have not-active-duty. 

So I would love to hear comments from the panel on this. 

Ms. MCGINN. Can I just say that, if you look at the retention statistics from the services, where just about every retention goal has 

been met, it tells you that the All-Volunteer Force is working. 

The Gates Commission that was the commission that recommended the All-Volunteer Force had predicted that, in a time of 

prolonged conflict, it wouldn’t stand up. But it is doing very, very 

well, thanks to the work of my colleagues here and thanks to your 

help. Because what is very critical are the bonuses and the funding 

for recruiting and retention that we get. And so we are sustaining 

very well, at this point. 

General NEWTON. Sir, if I may, just to briefly chime in, it is certainly a total force effort, not only from an active-duty, Guard and 

Reserve standpoint, but also the aspect of how we, as the United 

States Air Force, contribute to that joint fight. 

I would also mention to you that, for 2009, we have dedicated it 

the ‘‘Year of the Air Force Family.’’ And the reason I say that is 

the balance of effort and resources and so forth, it is important to 

us not only on our men and women in uniform, regardless of activeduty, Guard and Reserve, but also our family members as well, 

that we emphasize their value, their service, and their commitment. 

Dr. FLEMING. Anyone else? 

General ROCHELLE. Sir, for the Army, it is about dwell. It is 

whether or not we will have the ability, as predicted, to have a 

slightly less demand—or a substantially less demand that would 

allow us to get to the optimum levels of time home against time 

deployed for the active component as well as the Army Reserve and 

Army National Guard components. 

And the current level, as I said earlier in my testimony, the current levels of dwell are unsustainable. 

Dr. FLEMING. Okay. 

Yes, sir? 

Admiral FERGUSON. In our survey data of members and their 

families throughout the conflict, what we have seen is that the support of the Congress, in terms of compensation, health care is extremely important and access to it, the family support programs. 

We have had to expand our own health care programs, providers, 

as well as family support programs. And that has been the biggest 

ability that we have demonstrated, I think, to support families and 

has kept morale high. 
25 

General COLEMAN. Thank you, sir. 

Sir, I would say that, for the Marine Corps, we are doing extremely well. Our reenlistment rates are higher amongst those marines that deploy than those that do not deploy. I believe our families, thanks to you all, are being taken care of much better than 

ever before. And, as importantly, the American people support the 

military to a higher degree. 

Ms. MCGINN. Can I throw one more thing into the mix? One of 

the things that we are doing now, it is really a new initiative, is 

building a civilian expeditionary workforce so that our civilian employees can step up to do some of the missions that our military 

personnel have to do right now, particularly in the phase-four postconflict operations, stability operations, humanitarian missions. We 

are asking civilians who would be willing to come forward and volunteer to be sent on those kinds of assignments to identify themselves. 

And we have a few thousand in the mix, and it is a brand-new 

initiative. So it is very small right now, but hopefully it will pay 

off in the future. 

Dr. FLEMING. Madam Chairwoman, if I could just close the loop 

on this very quickly, let me say that an All-Volunteer Force is an 

expensive force, but I think it is a great investment. I think it is 

worth every penny of it. 

My understanding is that the active-duty member today is likely 

to have a family, as opposed to in previous years. And it would be 

my sense that they can perform much longer overseas in harder 

conditions if they know their families are well taken care of, which 

I think is such a high priority today. And so I thank you in your 

efforts in doing this. 

I yield back. 

Mrs. DAVIS. Thank you. 

Ms. Tsongas. 

Ms. TSONGAS. I hate to pick on you, General Rochelle, but since 

you mentioned stop-loss, I just am curious: Again, do you think 

that you can achieve the timetable that is in place? And is it subject, really, to the dynamic of how we are able to bring down soldiers in order to respond to the needs in Afghanistan? 

General ROCHELLE. It cannot be done in isolation from the challenges of deployers, nondeployers, et cetera. It exacerbates the 

challenge. But we can do it. We can absolutely do it. But we will 

be challenged. 

Ms. TSONGAS. So the timetable, you still feel confident, or—— 

General ROCHELLE. I do. 

Ms. TSONGAS. You do. 

And then the follow-up question is, in terms of the sustainability 

and the issue of dwell time being so key, General Chiarelli, I think, 

recently testified of the enormous mental strains that our soldiers 

are currently experiencing, and the need we have for mental health 

care professionals, chaplains and I think he said substance abuse 

counselors. 

So, as you face many questions, really, around how quickly you 

are going to be able to address the issue of dwell time, knowing the 

great strains that are going to continue to be placed on our sol-
26 

diers, how are you responding to that in terms of the need for these 

professionals? 

General ROCHELLE. Well, we have actually had much help from 

the Congress and help even from Office of Personnel Management 

(OPM) on addressing health care professionals. The ability to do direct hire for civilians, which has helped us a lot in isolated areas. 

The ability, if you will, to bypass some of the merit-based hiring 

practices that are extraordinarily cumbersome. 

For the Congress, we have been given the authority to offer very 

attractive bonuses, and for individuals going through the Health 

Professions Scholarship Program, to offer them additional incentives as well. So we have received support in both. 

Ms. MCGINN. Can I jump in on that from a DOD-wide perspective? 

We have been aggressively pursuing more mental health providers in our health care system. We actually have, since 2007, I 

think 1,900 more in our military treatment facilities and about 

10,000 more in our contracted TRICARE operation. 

We have expanded the number of confidential counseling sessions you can have with our Military One Source, which is also a 

call-in support line we have for our families. And we have provided 

for confidential mental health counseling under TRICARE. 

Today, I think we rolled out a major mental health campaign 

called Real Warriors, which is a marketing campaign designed to 

do away with the stigma of showing up for help if you have a mental health problem and to reinforce the fact that leaders should encourage their service member subordinates to seek help for that 

just as they would seek help for anything else. 

So we have been working very closely with the Department of 

Veterans Affairs and established a Center of Excellence on Psychological Health and Traumatic Brain Injury. And we have been moving very, very aggressively towards solving the mental health problem. 

Ms. TSONGAS. Would any others like to comment? 

It seems as though we have made great strides. And I know that 

Congress wants to be a partner with you, but that we just can’t 

seem to keep up with it, that even General Chiarelli said, ‘‘I need 

more, and I don’t know where I am going to get them.’’ So I think 

it is an ongoing challenge that we all have an obligation to face. 

But thank you. 

Ms. MCGINN. It is. It is a national problem, in terms of shortage 

of mental health providers. 

General ROCHELLE. If I may follow up, ma’am, one of the things 

we are learning is that our basis of authorization for mental health 

providers was designed, if you will, in a Cold War environment. 

And it is inadequate for what we are facing and what our soldiers 

are experiencing today. 

And I would especially mention the fact that, in addition to what 

Ms. McGinn said, I fully agree with, that there is a challenge nationally to grow the mental health care providers, health care providers in general, that we need. It is especially acute in our ability 

to find individuals capable of donning the uniform and providing 

those services to our soldiers in Afghanistan at Sharana and—you 

name the combat outpost. 
27 

Mrs. DAVIS. Thank you, Ms. Tsongas. 

And it is really interesting because I think that, almost every 

discussion that we have lately, we turn towards mental health 

issues. I mean, we end up talking about them. We will be having 

a hearing solely on mental health issues, post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), traumatic brain injury (TBI), and the impacts on 

family, as well, because we want to highlight those issues and we 

know it is critical. 

I am delighted to hear about the program that is being unveiled. 

And we know that the issue of stigma is an important and a critical one. 

I wanted to turn quickly, Ms. McGinn, to an issue that is going 

to hit us in the face here pretty soon. And we are seeing the first 

concurrent receipt legislative proposal offered by the Administration. And it is a very welcomed shift, I think we all feel that way, 

in the concurrent receipt landscape, which will really set a precedent for future initiatives. 

The President’s budget request does provide sufficient mandatory 

offsets to support the legislative proposal, but none of those offsets 

are within the Defense accounts and, therefore, not within the 

management reach of the House Committee on Armed Services. 

And I am wondering, Ms. McGinn, what the Department’s position on the offsets is. And will the Department and the Office of 

Management and Budget (OMB) assist the committee in identifying some offsets that are most likely to be available for inclusion 

with the provisions in the national defense authorization bill? 

Ms. MCGINN. Well, Madam Chairman, I wasn’t part of the conversation around the offsets, so I will have to get back to you on 

that so I can get a good answer for you. 

Mrs. DAVIS. Okay. What it does is limit our ability to act in some 

other areas. And, while we welcome it, we really are interested in 

how you all are going to be handling it, as well. So that would be 

of help to us. 

I know that there are a number of family initiatives that you 

have been speaking about and are considering. I would like you to 

just let us know what initiatives that you are really most proud of 

that will result from a 2010 funding request. What are you hoping 

that is new, provides additional services to our families, that we 

might be able to follow and evaluate in the future? 

General COLEMAN. Ma’am, I would say for us, the money that 

this Congress has allowed us to work with as far as family readiness, it has allowed us to hire folks rather than a key volunteer 

or someone working with and for the families on an all-volunteer 

basis. We have been able, thanks to you all, to hire folks to do that. 

So I don’t know that there is anything more important than the 

funding that Congress has given us to take care of our families— 

nothing more. And as long as we maintain that, because a Marine 

or any service man or woman that deploys and knows that his or 

her family is taken care of is a much better service man or woman. 

Admiral FERGUSON. I would offer, too, is the important support 

of the Congress on recruiting and retaining medical personnel— 

dental, nurses, Medical Service Corps, mental health practitioners. 

Those bonuses are very important to us, and to protect those is important. 
28 

In terms of the programs for the Navy, we have rolled out what 

we call the Operational Stress Control. And we have introduced 

this training to up to 16,000 service members, everyone going into 

theater, coming out, and then also expanding it to the whole force. 

And the budget request supports us expanding that, essentially, 

education awareness of service members and how they react to 

stress and be able to remove the stigma of it. I think that is an 

important program that you will see from us in the future. 

Ms. MCGINN. I think that a lot of what is in the budget is an 

expansion of the important things that we are already doing; child 

care being principal among them, to try to meet the unmet demand 

for child care. 

There are a couple of things—obviously, there was a litany of 

them in my testimony. The spouse career accounts, where we provide funding for spouses to get certifications for careers and we can 

start to build a career base for our spouses. I think spouse employment is incredibly important. 

And I also think that the Yellow Ribbon Program, where we 

reach out to the Reserve component upon their deployment and 

their coming home, working with their families and easing the 

stress of the deployments for the Reserves is another very important one. 

General ROCHELLE. I would echo Ms. McGinn’s opening comment, which is that much of what you see in the fiscal year 2010 

budget is a continuation of the wonderful programs that the Congress has authorized us to have and to offer primarily to our families. I would echo the words of General Creighton Abrams, a former 

Chief of Staff of the Army, who said that the Army isn’t about people, it is people. And that is very, very true. It is perhaps even 

more true today than it was then, if that is possible. 

I would highlight one particular area that is fully funded in the 

budget that is vital, with those two previous comments in mind, 

and that is, one, the family readiness support assistance, which the 

Secretary of the Army and the Chief of Staff of the Army two years 

ago carved out of existing authorizations and existing funds to resource down to the brigade and battalion level in order to address 

what they clearly recognized as the fragile fabric of that family 

readiness. And repeated deployments: Once again, dwell being at 

one year for every 1.3 years back at home. And for our Army National Guard and Army Reserve, the same. 

General NEWTON. Madam Chairwoman, as I mentioned earlier, 

2009 is the ‘‘Year of the Air Force Family.’’ And as we move forward into the fiscal year 2010 through 2015 budget years, we are 

also continuing to make a deep investment in our families. There 

is a balance in terms of our men and women in uniform and our 

civilians, but also our family members as well. 

I believe Dr. Fleming had talked about the operations tempo and 

so forth in a previous discussion. The stress on the families is significant, and we are anticipating it to remain significant. We have 

taken great steps, through the support of this committee and support of resources, to narrow down our open child care spaces from 

over 6,400 nearly down to zero by fiscal year 2011 and so forth, as 

we continue to make sure that, again, we take care of what are 

mission-critical efforts for our Air Force family, as well. 
29 

And I will just close on this point, that we hosted a Year of the 

Family symposium that lasted two days where we looked at a number of initiatives that we are going to follow through, not necessarily just for fiscal year 2009 but for the out-years as well, from 

family support and Guard and Reserve support, school support; the 

challenges that children have, on average moving five, six, seven 

times. 

I was an Air Force kid; I moved 13 times in 12 years of school 

and so forth. I brought my wife Jodi with me today, and I think 

we are on our 18th or 19th move. But can you imagine the impact 

that has on a lot of our service men and women? That will continue 

to remain. 

Thank you. 

Mrs. DAVIS. Thank you very much. 

And thank you, Jodi, for being here. We appreciate it. We know 

that you sacrifice a great deal and are a great support. And thank 

you very much for being here and for being part of this. 

Mr. Wilson. 

Mr. WILSON. Admiral Ferguson, a few minutes ago you mentioned Navy JROTC. And I want to give you a first-line report. 

Saturday, I went to an awards dinner at Chapin High School, 

Chapin, South Carolina. There were nearly 400 people there. And 

Colonel Buddy Slack, Chief Charlie Cook, the personnel you have 

there, it was just really uplifting to me. My wife and I were just 

so impressed by the young people serving the families. We have 

known so many of the families over the years, and to see these 

young people, what an extraordinary opportunity. And they will 

have a great future. 

Another issue you mentioned was individual augmentees. I 

would like to know what the status in the Navy as to individual 

augmentees and what the Navy is doing for families who have had 

individual augmentee deployments. 

Admiral FERGUSON. That is a great question. 

Presently, there are about 11,000 on the ground in Central Command Navy personnel. And, on any given day, there may be more 

personnel on the ground than there are at sea in the waters off 

Iraq. 

And so, last October, the Chief of Naval Operations designated 

a four-star, Admiral Greenert down at Fleet Forces Command in 

Norfolk, to be the lead executive agent for individual augmentee 

support and family support. 

We have formed a federated council: the Chief of the Navy Reserves; the Bureau of Medicine and Surgery, Admiral Robinson; 

Admiral Greenert’s deputy; myself. And we formed together and 

look at all the ways to support families and do that. And so, having 

a four-star in charge of that, with us as a council to help him, has 

provided that to the families, where we do following, we assign 

mentors for them, we track them and provide assistance where we 

can. 

Mr. WILSON. Well, it is really, again, inspiring to me to know the 

talented people serving in the Navy who have volunteered to serve 

around the world as sand sailors, many of them trained at Fort 

Jackson, South Carolina. 

Admiral FERGUSON. That is correct. 
30 

Mr. WILSON. Thank you very much. 

Mrs. DAVIS. Thank you. 

Before we close—and I certainly appreciate everybody having 

been here. I know that members have other committees to go to 

today. But one of the areas that we speak about often are the critical-need areas that we have in the services. And I wondered if you 

believe that we should open up some ideas about how we might 

have more commissioned officers who don’t necessarily always 

come from the ranks of citizens, that perhaps have green cards, 

have talents, have abilities that we might look to for help in the 

services. We have some opportunities with the Reserves and also 

with the enlisted, but not with commissioned officers. 

Any thoughts about that and whether or not that is an area that 

we ought to explore more? 

General ROCHELLE. I would like very much to offer a thought, 

Madam Chairwoman. 

First of all, a little background to get to your question. Several 

years ago, when I was the Commanding General (CG) of Recruiting 

Command, I was called to the Pentagon and asked if we could 

launch a program to recruit Middle Eastern-born individuals, primarily in the Dearborn, Michigan, area, which was where it began. 

That program is called—and it still exists—the O–9 Lima Interpreter Program. It broke the mold a little bit because these, indeed, 

are citizens, in many cases, but they were unable to pass the 

standard Armed Services Vocational Aptitude Battery. 

A few years later, last year, to be precise, fiscal 2008, if my memory serves correctly, we launched the Military Accessions Vital to 

National Interest Program—in fact, it may have only been this 

year, this fiscal year—which was targeted toward visa holders. And 

what we saw is that we were able to attract a much better educated individual. Nothing wrong with the O–9 Lima interpreters, 

but we opened up a whole new vista. And that program has proved 

very, very fruitful for the Army. I have not tracked so closely the 

other services’ accessions in it. 

To your specific question, I believe, because of the challenges we 

face, which we have talked about today, in terms of health care 

professionals, scientists, and individuals with very highly specialized skills, that it is time to ask the difficult question: Should we, 

indeed, change Title 10 United States Code to allow us to commission individuals in a military-accessions and skills-vital-to-nationalinterest style? I believe it is. 

Mrs. DAVIS. Anybody else want to comment on that? 

Well, it is a discussion, perhaps, that we need to have in the future. And I appreciate the fact that sometimes, when one is retiring, you can bring up some issues that might have been tougher 

earlier on. 

General ROCHELLE. No, Ms. McGinn just said my opinion hasn’t 

changed. 

Mrs. DAVIS. It hasn’t changed; it has been there. Right. Well, I 

appreciate that. 

And we always really encourage people to stick out on issues 

which may not always be easy but have, certainly, some merit as 

we move forward. Because people are critical, and being able to 

reach out and really engage Americans, people who are in our 
31 

country, productive and contributing, is always an important issue 

for us. 

And so I want to thank you very much again. 

General Coleman and General Rochelle, thank you for your dedicated service. We will miss you at these hearings, but we wish you 

well. 

And thank you to all of you being here. 

The committee is adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 3:43 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.] 

A P P E N D I X 

MAY 21, 2009 

PREPARED STATEMENTS SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD 

MAY 21, 2009 

(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 
136 
137 
138 
139 
140 
141 
142 
143 
144 
145 
146 
147 
148 
149 
150 
151 
152 
153 
154 
155 
156 
157 
158 
WITNESS RESPONSES TO QUESTIONS ASKED DURING 

THE HEARING 

MAY 21, 2009 

(161) 

RESPONSES TO QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY MS. BORDALLO 

Ms. MCGINN. The Department supports the President’s Budget. 

The end strengths for the Reserve components are as follows: 

Army National Guard 358,200 

Army Reserve 205,000 

Navy Reserve 65,500 

Marine Corps Res. 39,600 

Air Force Reserves 69,500 

Air National Guard 106,700 

Coast Guard Reserves 10,000 

Total 854,500 

[See page 20.] 

Ms. MCGINN. The percentages of Service members who enter active duty that can 

be expected to remain until the 20-years-of-service point and retirement is as follows: 

Service Officer Enlisted 

Army 36% 13% 

Navy 35% 13% 

USMC 35% 8% 

USAF 40% 22% 

The continuation rates are consistent with historical rates and what managed attrition and career field manpower pyramids demand of retention to maintain a balanced force. Desired retention is a component of end strength and grade requirements. Strength is generally derived from three components that must be continually balanced—recruiting capable people, controlling initial term attrition, and retaining the skill and grade mixes required to fill the critical military structures. The 

continuation rates across the Military Departments are further complicated by the 

needs of specific military occupational specialties within each of the Services which 

have varying manpower grade structures. [See page 21.] 

RESPONSE TO QUESTION SUBMITTED BY DR. FLEMING 

Ms. MCGINN. In answering this question, the Department’s assumption is that the 

question refers to the high-level valor awards that are common to all Military Departments, which includes: The Medal of Honor, Service Crosses (Distinguished 

Service Cross—Army; Navy Cross—Navy and Marine Corps; Air Force Cross—Air 

Force), and Silver Star. 

There have been no changes to the Department’s valor award criteria. The Department’s policies and procedures for awarding valorous decorations and awards 

are outlined in Department of Defense Manual of Military Decorations and Awards, 

DOD 1348.33-M. The manual promulgates, without elaboration, valor award criteria 

as stipulated by statute and Executive Orders. Application and adherence to the criteria in recognizing the valorous actions and performances of Service members fall 

primarily under the purview of the Secretaries of the Military Departments. The 

Military Department Secretaries are directed by Department of Defense policy to establish procedures in their respective Departments to ensure compliance with the 

policies and procedures outlined in the Department’s Manual of Military Decorations and Awards. 

Additionally, there have been no changes to the valor award criteria contained in 

each respective Military Department’s military decorations and awards manuals, 

regulations, or instructions. [See page 23.] 

QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY MEMBERS POST HEARING 

MAY 21, 2009 

(165) 

QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY MR. LOEBSACK 

Mr. LOEBSACK. What is each of the Services doing to improve access to family support services, including child care, for both the active duty and the Reserve Components? What challenges do you face in providing family support to the Reserve Components? What plans are in place to overcome these challenges? Do you believe that 

sufficient resources are allocated to make families of the Reserve Components aware 

of the services available to them? 

General ROCHELLE. In 2007, the Army unveiled the Army Family Covenant, a 

commitment to provide Soldiers and their Families a quality of life commensurate 

with their level of service and sacrifice to the Nation. In the two years since the 

Covenant was unveiled, the Army has developed aggressive improvement strategies 

resulting in significant improvements in Soldier and Family quality of life, including 

Family programs and services; increased accessibility to health care; improved housing; excellence in schools, child, and youth services; and expanded education and 

employment opportunities for Family members. 

Since the Covenant’s inception the Army has implemented the Army National 

Guard’s Yellow Ribbon Reintegration Program to minimize stresses of military service, particularly the stress of deployment and Family separation. We have added 

more than 1,000 Family Readiness Support Assistant positions to enhance administrative and logistical support to Family Readiness Groups. We also established 

Army OneSource to provide Soldiers and their Families access to standardized services, programs, and support. We supported 249 Army National Guard Family Assistance Centers, which provide Soldiers and Families support services, regardless of 

geographic location, and expanded community-based outreach to geographically dispersed children of deployed Active, Guard, and Reserve Soldiers through Operation: 

Military Kids. 

Reaching geographically dispersed Soldiers and Families with information and 

services, especially those in the Reserve Component, is one of our greatest challenges. In 2008, the National Guard Bureau created the Soldier Family Services and 

Support Division to provide Family program resources, guidance, and training to all 

states and territories. The Reserve Component also communicate consistently with 

State Offices or subordinate commands to improve processes and update programs 

based on changing needs. Through coordination with the Reserve Component, we 

will continue to improve programs and services and ensure all Soldiers and Families 

are aware of the programs and services available to them. 

Through the Army Family Covenant, Army leadership has committed to enhancing the quality of support to Soldiers and their Families across the entire Army and 

has doubled its investment in base funding from fiscal year 2007 to 2010. So, yes, 

we believe the Army has sufficient resources to inform both Active and Reserve 

Component Families of the services available to them. 

Admiral FERGUSON. Through a Navy-wide network, which includes Navy Installations Command, Fleet and Family Support Centers, Navy Reserve Forces Family 

Support Coordinator, five regional Family Support Administrators and their Navy 

Operational Support Center (NOSC) staffs, Navy continues to make significant 

strides in improving resources and support for families of active and reserve Sailors, 

placing particular emphasis on those who do not reside in Fleet Concentration Areas 

where services are more readily available. Initiatives include: 

• Reducing waiting time for child care and expanding access by adding approximately 7,000 new child care spaces through construction of 26 child development centers (including 24/7 facilities), converting existing pre-school age spaces 

into infant spaces to meet the greatest demand, establishing commercial contracts in communities across the United States, and expanding military certified home care. 

• Reaching remotely located families through information technology, providing 

virtual family discussion groups and workshops, publication of a monthly Enewsletter and distribution of Family, Sailor and Command Individual 

Augmentee (IA) Handbooks. 
166 

• Developing and delivering an electronic deployment toolkit/sea bag to better 

equip school administrators and staff in working with children of deployed Sailors. 

• Providing a comprehensive Personal Financial Management (PFM) program 

that emphasizes a proactive, career life-cycle approach to family and individual 

savings and investment, delivered through a network of accredited financial 

counselors and educators at Fleet and Family Support Centers and Command 

Financial Specialists, with collaboration from partner organizations. 

• Launching a family awareness effort of Operational Stress Control (OSC) initiatives incorporated into existing family support programs and services that center on promoting psychological health, reducing stigma associated with seeking 

psychological services and improving resilience in Sailors and their families. 

• Implementing a ‘‘Give Parents a Break’’ program and embedding Child and 

Youth Behavior Consultants in our programs to provide a resource to observe 

and train our professionals in intervening to assist families facing challenges 

during deployments. 

• Launching a new Navy-wide School Liaison Officer program designed to assist 

families and local school districts with dependent education issues arising from 

frequent moves and deployments. 

Challenges in supporting the Reserve component are centered on our ability to 

reach remotely located families impacted by deployment demands, and in restructuring support services to include extended family members of single Sailors. While 

we have made significant progress in providing resources and support to geographically dispersed families, repeated deployments continue to put strain on the system. 

Work remains to integrate available resources into an institutionalized, sustainable 

delivery system and to provide effective outreach to families and service providers 

informing them about resources available to them and how they may access them. 

The President’s budget includes the resources necessary to continue our efforts to 

improve support services for active and reserve Sailors and their families, including 

making them more readily accessible. 

General COLEMAN. Over the past year, the Marine Corps initiated a multi-year 

strategy to transition family support programs to a wartime footing, per the Commandant’s directive. To measure the effectiveness of our services and family support 

programs, we conducted a series of program assessments and received feedback 

from our Marines, their families, and our commanders. In response, we implemented key reforms at every level of command and aboard each installation. Central 

to our transformation efforts, we expanded the depth and breadth of our family 

readiness training and support programs and established the Unit, Personal and 

Family Readiness Program to educate our Marines and their families and to empower them to achieve and maintain a high state of personal readiness and resiliency. We continue to aggressively institute new Family Readiness Programs, revitalize services, and proactively reach out to our Reservists and their families to ensure our programs and services meet the changing needs and expectations of our 

Marines and their families. 

As part of transformation efforts, we are placing full-time Family Readiness Officers (FROs) at the battalion/squadron level and above, staffed by either civilians or 

Active Duty Marines, who serve as the focal point for our families and support the 

Commander’s family readiness mission. Every Marine Corps Reserve unit throughout the country has a Family Readiness program that serves as the link between 

the command and family members—providing official communication, information, 

and referrals. As the ‘‘communication hub’’, the FRO provides families with information on the military lifestyle and benefits, provides answers for individual questions 

and areas of concerns, and enhances the sense of community and camaraderie within the unit. Outreach is conducted through various forms of communication to ensure that every family member is afforded access to the information. This includes 

live sessions conducted on or near the Reserve Training Facility, telephonic contact, 

email, USMC websites, links to on-line support services, newsletters, and marketing 

of national military resources to include the Joint Family Services Assistance Program (JFSAP). 

Understanding that communication is a key quality of life issue important to our 

Marines and their families, we conducted research and analysis to identify the communication needs of Marines and their families; the effectiveness of our current 

communication methods, and to develop a formal organizational communication system that would facilitate three-way communication: commands to Marines and families; Marines and families to commands; and Marines and families to each other. 

As a result, we are implementing a Mass Communication Tool which enables simul-
167 

taneous broadcast of official communication via email, text messaging, or phone, and 

other technology enhancements to expand communications between the unit and 

Marines and their families regarding official communication or important unit training events. All of these tools are available to the Reserve Component as well as the 

Active Component. 

The Marine Corps’ partnership with the Boys and Girls Clubs of America (BGCA) 

and the National Association for Child Care Resources and Referral Agencies 

(NACCRRA) continues to provide a great resource for our service members and their 

families in selecting child care, before, during, and after a deployment in support 

of overseas contingency operations. The Boys and Girls Clubs of America provide 

outstanding programs for our Reserve Marines’ children between the ages of six and 

18 after school and on the weekends. Under our agreement with BGCA, Reserve 

families can participate in more than 40 programs at no cost. With NACCRRA, we 

help families of our Reservists locate affordable child care that is comparable to 

high-quality, on-base, military-operated programs. The NACCRRA provides child 

care subsidies at quality child care providers for our Reservists who are deployed 

in support of overseas contingency operations and for those Active Duty Marines 

who are stationed in regions that are geographically separated from military installations. We also partnered with the Early Head Start National Resource Center 

Zero to Three to expand services for family members of our Reservists who reside 

in isolated and geographically-separated areas. 

We restructured our Exceptional Family Member Program (EFMP) and established a continuum of care for our Marine families (on active duty 30 or more days) 

enrolled in the program. This program, which is fully staffed at both the installation 

and headquarters levels, is helping nearly 6500 families gain access to medical, educational, and financial services that may be limited or restricted at certain duty stations. A Marine Corps-funded Respite Care Program provides up to 40 hours of free 

respite care per month to all enrolled families, and can be used in conjunction with 

the TRICARE Extended Care Health Option (ECHO) benefit. We are working with 

the Bureau of Medicine and Surgery and TRICARE to resolve health care access 

and availability issues at several bases. In addition, legal counsel is now on staff 

to advise our exceptional family members on state and Federal entitlements and 

processes. 

We fully recognize the strategic role our families have in mission readiness, particularly mobilization preparedness. We prepare our families for day-to-day military 

life and the deployment cycle (Pre-Deployment, Deployment, Post-Deployment, and 

Follow-On) by providing educational opportunities at unit Family Days, Pre-Deployment Briefs, Return and Reunion Briefs, and Post-Deployment Briefs. Educational 

opportunities at these events include access to subject matter experts in areas such 

as Military OneSource, VA, TRICARE, legal, financial counseling, Chaplain, Employer Support of the Guard and Reserve (ESGR), Combat Operational Stress Control (COSC), and other resources that unit Commanding Officers determines would 

be beneficial to the unique circumstances of the Marines and families. This is accomplished through unit level Family Readiness programs that are the responsibility of the Commanding Officer, managed by the full-time, non-deploying FRO and 

supported by trained volunteers and Force level programs such as Lifestyle Insights, 

Networking, Knowledge, and Skills (L.I.N.K.S.). The L.I.N.K.S. program is a training and mentoring program designed by Marine spouses to help spouses, children 

and parents thrive in the military lifestyle and adapt to challenges—including those 

brought about by deployments. 

To better prepare our Marines and their families for activation, Marine Forces Reserve is fully engaged with OSD to implement the Yellow Ribbon Reintegration Program (YRRP), much of which we have had in place for quite some time. We continue 

to implement an interactive approach that provides numerous resources and services throughout the deployment cycle. Available resources include, but are not limited to, family-related publications, online volunteer training opportunities, and a 

family readiness/mobilization support toll free number. Family readiness educational materials have been updated to reflect the current deployment environment. Specifically, deployment guide templates that are easily adapted to be unit– 

specific were distributed to unit commanders and family readiness personnel, as 

well as Marine Corps families, and are currently available on our Web site. Services 

such as pastoral care, Military OneSource, and various mental health services are 

readily available to our Reserve Marines’ families. Also, through the DoD contract 

with the Armed Services YMCA, the families of our deployed Reserve Marines are 

enjoying complimentary fitness memberships at participating YMCA’s throughout 

the United States and Puerto Rico. Our Active Duty Marines and their families located at Independent Duty Stations have the ability to access these services as well. 
168 

Managed Health Network (MHN) is an OSD-contracted support resource that provides surge augmentation counselors for our base counseling centers and primary 

support at sites around the country to address catastrophic requirements. This 

unique program is designed to bring counselors on-site at Reserve Training Centers 

to support all phases of the deployment cycle. Marine Forces Reserve has incorporated this resource into post-demobilization drill periods, Family Days, Pre-Deployment Briefs, and Return & Reunion Briefs. Follow-up services are scheduled 

after Marines return from combat at various intervals to facilitate on-site individual 

and group counseling. Additionally, we are utilizing these counselors to conduct 

post-demobilization telephonic contact with Individual Ready Reserve (IRR) Marines 

in order to assess their needs and connect them to services. 

The Peacetime/Wartime Support Team (PWST) and the support structure within 

the Inspector-Instructor staffs at our Reserve sites provides families of activated and 

deployed Marines with assistance in developing proactive, prevention-oriented steps 

such as family care plans, powers of attorney, family financial planning, and enrollment in the Dependent Eligibility and Enrollment Reporting System (DEERS). During their homecoming, our Marines who have deployed consistently cite the positive 

importance of family support programs. 

Geographic dispersion and proximity to active duty installation services has been 

and will continue to be the greatest challenge to providing support to Reservists and 

their families. To overcome these challenges and strengthen family support programs, we will continue to enhance, market, and sustain outreach capabilities. The 

current OSD-level oversight, sponsorship, and funding of family support programs 

properly corresponds to current requirements. We are particularly supportive of 

Military OneSource, which provides our Reservists and their families with an 

around-the-clock information and referral service via toll-free telephone and Internet access on a variety of subjects such as parenting, childcare, education, finances, 

legal issues, elder care, health, wellness, deployment, crisis support, and relocation. 

General NEWTON. Guard and Reserve members and their families are actively included in programs offered to Active Duty Airmen and their families. To meet the 

challenges of working with geographically-dispersed Airmen and their families, we 

recently conducted a Caring for People Forum to identify any gaps in service, in 

which the Guard and Reserve participated. Additionally, we meet with active, 

Guard and Reserve family coordinators to determine areas we can develop and enhance partnerships to overcome challenges that exist. 

In a constrained environment, we provide support to meet the greatest needs of 

our Airmen and families. As such, we value our national partnerships, state relationships, and interagency partnerships with the Department of Defense and our 

sister services to be able to expand our resources. We are further challenged with 

identifying the needs for child care as the Guard and Reserve families are geographically dispersed throughout the country in a wide variety of settings where 

local services may not be available. 

Æ