GOVERNMENT

Storage

ROTATION OF FEDERAL CIVILIA0

)1 4 EMPLOYEES FROM OVERSEAS POSTS

. Slop 

0v2)2)

965

HEARINGS

L.11 BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON MANPOWER

OF THE

-0 COMMITTEE ON

11 OFFICE AND CIVIL SERVICE

OUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

EIGHTY-NINTH CONGRESS

FIRST SESSION

AUGUST 11, 12, 17, 1965

Printed for the use of the Committee on Post Office and Civil Service

U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 1965

•
ps..mimmilmimmonallW

400

.4•1''

COMMITTEE ON POST OFFICE AND CIVIL SERVICE

TOM MURRAY,

JAMES II. MORRISON, Louisiana

THADDEUS J. DULSKI, New York

DAVID N. HENDERSON, North Carolina

ARNOLD OLSEN, Montana

MORRIS K. UDALL, Arizona

DOMINICK V. DANIELS, New Jersey

LINDLEY BECKWORTH, Texas

HARLEY 0. STAGGERS, West Virginia

ROBERT N. C. NIX, Pennsylvania

JOE R. POOL, Texas

WILLIAM J. GREEN, Pennsylvania

SPARK M. MATSUNAGA, Hawaii

PAUL J. KREBS, New Jersey

RAYMOND F. CLEVENGER, Michigan

JAMES M. HANLEY, New York

JOHN V. TUNNEY, California

Tennessee, Chairman

ROBERT J. CORBETT, Pennsylvania

H. R. GROSS, Iowa

GLENN CUNNINGHAM, Nebraska

EDWARD J. DERWINSKI, Illinois

ROBERT F. ELLSWORTH, Kansas

ALBERT W. JOHNSON, Pennsylvania

JOHN H. BUCHANAN, JR., Alabama

JAMES T. BROYHILL, North Carolina

CHARLES E. JOHNSON, Staff Director

B. BENTON BRAY, Associate Staff Director

JOHN H. MARTINY, Counsel

WILLIAM A. IRVINE, Assistant Staff Director

SUBCOMMITTEE ON MANPOWER

(B-370(b),, Rayburn Building—Ext. 2821)

DAVID N. HENDERSON, North Carolina, Chairman

LINDLEY BECKWORTH, Texas

ROBERT N. C. NIX, Pennsylvania

RAYMOND F. CLEVENGER, Michigan

JAMES M. FIANLEY'New t York

JOHN V. TUNNEY, alifornia

• Ex Officio

TOM MURRAY, Tennessee

H. R. GROSS, Iowa

EDWARD J. DERWINSKI, Illinois

JOHN H. BUCHANAN, JR., Alabama

Voting Members

ROBERT J. CORBETT, Pennsylvania
CONTENTS

Statement of—

Gisvold, Capt. Paul A., U.S. Navy, Chief of the Office of Industrial

Relations, Department of the Navy, accompanied by Harry E. Page

McClain Office of Industrial Relations Staff 37

Department of the Army (letter) 54

Griner, John F., president, American Federation of Government

Employees, accompanied by Thomas H. Russ and Louis W. Hann.. 56, 80

Jones, Roger, special assistant to Director, Bureau of the Budget_ _ _ _ 13

Lang, John A., cting Special Assistant to the Secretary of the

Air Force for 

Jr.,

Manpower, Personnel and Reserve Forces, accompanied by John Watts, Director of Civilian Personnel, and James

Walden, Director of Employee Programs Division, Office of Civilian

Personnel 22

Macy, Hon. John W., Chairman, U.S. Civil Service Commission,

accompanied by 0. Glenn Stahl, Director of Bureau of Programs

and Standards, Civil Service Commission 2

McCart, John, operations director, Government Employes' Council,

AFL—CIO 96

Wheeless, Leon L., Director of Civilian Personnel Policy, Office of

the Assistant Secretary of Defense (Manpower) 18

White, Henry J., Jr., representative of Temporary Group, Kindley

Air Force Base, Bermuda 70

Wolkomir, Nathan T., president, National Federation of Federal

Employees 102

2
•

ti

47'1-

0' 0 or
ROTATION OF FEDERAL CIVILIAN EMPLOYEES FROM

OVERSEAS POSTS

WEDNESDAY, AUGUST 11, 1965

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,

SUBCOMMITTEE ON MANPOWER OF THE

POST OFFICE AND CIVIL SERVICE COMMU rEE

TV ashington,D.0 'D.C.

The subcommittee met at 10 a.m., in room 215, Cannon House Office

Building, Hon. David N. Henderson (chairman of the subcommittee)

presiding.

Mr. HENDERSON. The subcommmittee will come to order.

We are this morning beginning a series of public hearings concerning the rotation of U.S. citizen employees of the Department of

Defense from overseas activities back to the continental United States.

Today we will hear from proponents of plans and tomorrow we will

hear first of the Navy plan and then criticism of the plans by heads

of several employee organizations.

The Congress of the United States in the 86th Congress adopted a

policy to facilitate the interchange of civilian employees of the

Defense Establishment between post of duty in the United States and

post of duty outside the United States. The policy was enacted into

law by Public Law 86-585. As a result of this legislation, employees

are now being sent overseas with the understanding their tours of duty

are limited, and likewise,. upon their return to the United States they

are guaranteed a job of an equal grade of that which they had when

they went overseas.

An important item of our public hearings is the fact that there were

already overseas at the time Public Law 86-585 went into effect several

thousand career U.S. citizens who had been working overseas for

several years. The Departments of the Air Force and Navy have

proposed programs to rotate all employees back to the States who have

been working continuously 5 years or longer in activities outside the

United States.

The subcommittee members have been advised by the Department

of the Army.that they do not foresee the need at this time for a mandatory rotation program for their career civilian employees.

The members feel that the rotation of career civil service personnel

is of such import that it warrants public review, and for that reason

we have called upon the Chairman of the Civil Service Commission, as

well as other interested and knowledgeable individuals, to discuss this

subject and to analyze the plans.

1
2 ROTATION OF CIVILIAN EMPLOYEES FROM OVERSEAS POSTS

I am very happy this morning to welcome Chairman Macy of the

Civil Service Commission to speak to the members. He will be

followed by the Special Assistant to the Director of the Bureau of

the Budget, Mr. Robert Jones.

We will then hear from Mr. Leon Wheeless in the Office of the

Secretary of Defense.

Mr. Lang will, in turn, analyze the Air Force rotation program.

Mr. Macy, will you please come forward and present your testimony?

STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN W. MACY, CHAIRMAN, CIVIL SERVICE

COMMISSION; ACCOMPANIED BY 0. GLENN STAHL, DIRECTOR OF

BUREAU OF PROGRAMS AND STANDARDS

Mr. MACY. Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, I am

pleased to appear before you in connection with your consideration

of the Air Force overseas return placement program.

One of the best ways to maintain an effective, dynamic work force

is to see that employees have a chance to grow, a change to develop

perspective and breath of experience. And one of the best ways this

can be done is to encourage job mobility.

By this I do not mean change for the sake of change, but rather,

career progression, which enables an employee to develop his capability to the fullest and the Government to obtain the full benefit of

it.

At one time in the not too distant past, career mobility was pretty

much a haphazard thing. Some employees who really stood out were

identified for advancement; others were fortunate enough to make

their own breaks all too many reached a dead end and stayed there.

More and more, however, it came to be recognized that in a Government as large as ours, and in a world as complex as ours, haphazard

arrangements were not good enough. In recent years greater attention has been focused on the need for career mobility and the need for

planned action to channel it in the right directions. As a result, various systems have been developed to facilitate greater movement within an agency, across agency lines, and even between jurisdictions.

Nowhere is the need for a sound mobility polity more apparent than

in overseas employment. There is very obviously something special

about serving overseas. Away from their native environment, employees have to face added responsibilities and pressures. In their

relationships with their hosts they constantly have to consider the

effect of almost every public step they take. They have to guard

against becoming insulated from American life and culture. They

have to take special pains to update their capabilities because the

sources of their technical know-how may far removed.

All agencies with employees overseas recognize the need for periodic

reexposure to the American way of life. In the Foreign Service, in

the military, and even in various domestic agencies which have certain overseas responsibilities, there are in operation a variety of rotation arrangements which suit their needs.

Planned rotation of employees keeps them from being shunted aside

in a far off corner of the world and forgotten. It helps to make more

advantageous use of knowledges gained overseas. It gives other employees a chance to obtain valuable overseas experience. At the same
ROTATION OF CIVILIAN EMPLOYEES FROM OVERSEAS POSTS 3

time, it gives people in foreign countries a chance to see some other

Americans.

The Air Force program is in line with the overall emphasis on career mobility and is consistent with the best rotation practices of other

agencies. Basically, it is a logical outgrowth of Public Law 86-585.

This law declared it to be the policy of the Congress to—

facilitate the interchange of civilian employees of the Defense Establishment

between posts of duty in the United States and posts of duty outside the United

States through the establishment and operation of programs for the rotation, to

the extent consistent with the missions of the Defense Establishment and sound

principles of administration, of such employees who are assigned to duty outside the United States.

Under this law, employees recruited for overseas service since October 1, 1960, are accorded the right to be returned to their former

positions within 5 years or be separated.

On October 1, 1965, the 5-year limit on foreign service for this group

starts going into effect. As the Air Force has pointed out in its public

statements on the program, it would be inequitable to enforce the statutory return rights provision for these employees and permit others

with longer overseas service to continue serving overseas.

The proposed plan would place the longer service employees on

essentially the same basis as the post-1960 group even to the extent of

providing them an opportunity for stateside employment without loss

of grade or basic salary. In other words, the proposed program would

regularize overseas rotation practices in the Air Force.

I have been assured by the Air Force that the plan will be carried

out with good judgment and discretion, and with a minimum of hardship to employees. There will be no mass movement of employees to

the United States or vice versa. The rotation of these long service

employees will be phased over an extended period of time so that those

affected will have enough time to settle their affairs. Location preferences will be honored to the maximum extent possible. In addition,

overseas assignment may be extended 1 year beyond the 5-year limit

because of personal hardship, impending retirement, or the needs of

the service.

The proposed program has been endorsed in principle by the Civil

Service Commission. I am satisfied that it would be beneficial both

to employees and to the Air Force. For the employee, it will provide

reasonable assurance that a job will be waiting for him when he comes

home, and that his overseas experience will be an integral part of his

career development. For the Air Force, it will provide a reservoir

of skilled personnel with both overseas and domestic experience and

assure a continuing flow of fresh talent to overseas locations.

We are so concerned with the problem that we would like to see a

required rotation plan extended at the earliest practical opportunity to

all overseas civilians of all agencies.

I hope the proposed program meets with your approval. Thank you

for affording me the privilege of discussing it with you.

Let me add as a footnote, I have been interested in the problems of

overseas civilian employment for a number of years. At the time I

served as Executive Director of the Commission, I was privileged to

take a trip through many of the overseas operations of the Department

of Defense in the Pacific area, and I found in 1957 that the commanders

at the posts in that farflung area identified as one of their major
4 ROTATION OF CIVILIAN EMPLOYEES FROM OVERSEAS POSTS

problems the problem of providing a means for the constructive return

of many of the civilian employees who had worked with them since

World War II, and affording them an opportunity to contribute their

overseas experience to domestic operations and affording the Department an opportunity to bring new people onto the scene to contribute

updated skills to the administration of defense operations in those

areas.

I believe that the Air Force plan is a sound one. I believe that the

Department has proceeded with great care in organizing it. They will

present the details to you in later testimony.

I wanted to take this opportunity to add my personal and official

support to what has been undertaken.

11/Ir. HENDERSON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. You have made a

very fine statement.

You state that the proposed program of the Air Force has been

endorsed in principle by the Commission. I wonder if this is true of

the Navy plan.

Mr. MACY. The Navy plan has not been presented to the Commission. I am not familiar with it. The Air Force representatives at

a meeting of the- full Commission a number of months ago presented

this plan, and after hearing it the Commission indicated its support

in principle. There was no need for Commission approval per se because this is an action that is within the authority of the Secretary

of the Air Force.

Mr. HENDERSON. Could we assume because of your consideration of

the Air Force plan that you would endorse in principle the Navy plan

for rotation without saying you endorse all the provisions since you

are not familiar with them?

Mr. MACY. That is right.

Let me add, in endorsing the principle of rotation as a Governmentwide policy, I want to say I do not mean to infer that there should

be a uniform policy because I feel that operational conditions are

different from department to department and to some extent from one

geographical location to another. I feel that the principle of rotation is a desirable one for each of the operating departments to work

out within the terms of its mission so we do not have a situation

where individuals spend an entire career abroad.

Mr. HENDERSON. What• we are talkng -about this morning is a formal plan of the Air Force and the Navy.

Could you enlighten us with regard to other forms of rotation programs that other agencies of the Government may, or may not, have?

You say you would like to see a required rotation plan extended at the

earliest practical opportunity to all overseas civilians of all agencies.

Could you give us some information as to where we stand now

agency wide ?

Mr. MACY. Well, as far as overseas service is concerned, there are

really two basic categories, or systems, relating to employment of that

kind. One under the Foreign Service Act where you have a system

of obligated service where tours are set up for periods of time overseas with the understanding that the individual will return at the end

of that tour either to an assignment in the United States or to another

foreign assignment.
ROTATION OF CIVILIAN EMPLOYEES FROM OVERSEAS POSTS 5

The other system is the civil service system. Back in 1954, the Civil

Service Commission extended the competitive service to employment

abroad, and one of the objectives behind that extension was to integrate

overseas service for the non-Foreign Service employees into the career

service. This was the fundamental intent. Since that time legislation was passed in 1960 which afforded reemployment rights for those

who served overseas. This was a further step to make overseas service

part of a total career.

Mr. HENDERSON. That public law applies to all agencies of the Government, all employment, or are there exceptions?

Mr. MACY. I believe it applies solely to the Defense Establishment.

The bulk of the civil service employees abroad are employees of the

three military departments. This is the largest group. My comment

about a required rotation relates primarily and predominantly to the

Defense Department situation. As far as other departments are concerned, they have tended to design systems that call for rotation.

The Commission is in the process of reviewing those with other

departments and will counsel a requirement in their policy of assured

rotation.

I think it is important to recognize that rotation calls for planning

on the part of the agencies so that those returned from overseas return

to a meaningful career assignment and are not put on the shelf, or put

aside. This calls for planning and care with respect to the individual's

career if it is going to function satisfactorily.

What impresses me about the Air Force plan is that concern about

the stateside assignment for those who have served abroad is fully incorporated in the plan.

Mr. HENDERSON. Mr. Chairman, are you familiar with any plan

with regard to the Panama Canal employees who would be rotated

back to the continental United States?

Mr. MACY. There have been extensive discussions over a period of

time with the Department of the Army about workng out a system

whereby those civilians serving the Panama Canal Company government have opportunities to return to the United States and that assignments in the Canal Zone be filled with those who have had some recent

stateside experience.

I believe that the Department of the Army is continuing to work on

such a plan, and that this is part of the general consideration of

management problems that relate to the Canal Zone.

Mr. HENDERSON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. GROSS. Mr. Macy, you say—

planned rotation of employees keeps them from being shunted aside in a far-off

corner of the world and forgotten.

The Department heads can take care of that kind of a situation, can

they not, if they are so disposed?

Mr. MACY. *Yes. My point is, I feel mobility, in other words, a

number of different assignments and experiences is an important part

of the development of the individual over the span of his career, and

that if there is a requirement that the individual not stay abroad more

than 5 years, managment is going to have an obligation to see to it that

the individual does have an assignment awaiting him upon his return.
6 ROTATION OF CIVILIAN EMPLOYEES FROM OVERSEAS POSTS

Mr. GROSS. It seems to me they are poor personnel managers if

they send some person off to a far corner of the earth and forget about

him. This is not saying very much for those who are administering the

various agencies and departments. I do not believe that is a substantial

argument for this legislation. I am not saying that I am opposed to the

legislation. Again you say "It gives people in foreign countries a

chance to see some other Americans." .

Maybe this is good and maybe it is bad. How do we know? I do

not know whether the new fresh faces they see will be better or worse

than they have just gotten rid of. 

Mr. MACY. That is a risk we take. I think, generally, the feeling is

if they can have exposure to additional Americans, they will have a,

better understanding of a broader cross section of American personalities and this will be beneficial.

Mr. GROSS. You know, Mr. Macy, what I would like to see is the

American withdrawal of a lot of people from all over the world.

I think we would be doing ourselves a favor to get a lot of these

people back. I do not think we have any business policing Europe

today. I think the Europeans are capable of providing the troops

if they will do it to police their own countries in Western Europe.

I think we are doing far too much by way of sending civilian employees overseas and troops overseas in areas where they can take

care of their own protection or should at least.

Mr. 

Mr. 

GROSS. 

MACY. 

I 

This 

understand 

policy does 

that.

not pertain toMr. MACY. The considerations that place people there should not

stipulate the presence of any increased number in and of itself. The

people are there to perform assignments that are given to them by

the Congress and by their department.

Mr. GROSS. We should stop trying to take care of all the world, for

it is not within our capacity to do it. We should relieve ourselves of

some of these problems, take care of our own business, and let them

take care of some of theirs.

Mr. HENDERSON. May the gentleman yield for a comment?

You mention the legislation. We are not considering legislation

here. We set this up at the request of the Air Force and the Navy.

We afford them a forum to tell us as an oversight committee about

their plan and the reasoning behind their plan with the idea it would

be helpful for all of the Government to understand the Air Force's

plan here.

However, I have been advised that the subcommittee may be asked

by some of the witnesses to approve or disapprove the Air Force plan,

which comes as something of a surprise to the Chair.

Certainly whatever the wishes of the subcommittee are, we will give

consideration to the matter.

Mr. GROSS. I assume this would be followed by legislation of some

kind or the other. I seem to recall quite a hassle over the rotation

of agricultural attaches a year or so ago.

Remember, Mr. Macy, when they wanted to bring the agricultural

attaches back and plant them in jobs irrespective of the work they

were doing overseas?

Mr. MACY. I recall that; yes.
ROTATION OF CIVILIAN EMPLOYEES FROM OVERSEAS POSTS 7

Mr. GROSS. Putting a grade 16 or 17 in a grade 9 job and keeping

him there 4 years. It took a lot of doing to block that legislation

until we could work out a reasonable compromise.

Mr. MACY. There is no request on the part of the administration for

legislative action with respect to this plan.

The plan, as laid out by the Air Force, can be accomplished under

the authority of the Secretary of the Air Force. The presentation

here today and the discussion is to provide the committee with information to afford a forum where, I gather, some opponents to the plan

will express their opposition.

Mr. GROSS. I thought we worked out, in terms of legislation, a rotation program for the Defense Department, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. HENDERSON. That legislation was perspective inasmuch as it

did not apply to the employees that were then overseas.

The Air Force has adopted a plan that they are presenting to us

that would rotate those employees that were overseas at that time.

Mr. MACY. Right. And it is my view, what the Air Force proposes

here is consistent with the intent of Congress in that 1960 legislation.

Mr. HENDERSON. It is my understanding that the timing of this

plan is important because the enactment of the law 5 years ago stated

that employees employed thereafter would be overseas only 5 years,

and beginning October of this year, those employees will start rotating under the law.

Mr. MACY. That is right. Really, what the Air Force is attempting.

to deal with here are the numbers of employees who will have been

overseas in excess of 5 years as of this fall, and to apply this policy

equitably into the future, and not to have a group that continues to

make an entire career overseas.

Mr. GROSS. In your statement you say—

Under this law employees recruited for overseas service October 1, 1960, are

accorded a right to be returned to their former positions in 5 years, or be

separated.

This is a pretty horrendous choice for some people.

Mr. MACY. The legislation was primarily designed to assure those

employees who were willing to go overseas there would be a position

held for them. In other words, that they would have rights to come

back into positions within the domestic service.

It was the view of the Defense Department at that time that they

needed this statutory authority in order to assure the employees there

would be these opportunities.

Mr. GROSS. You mean literally returned to their former positions?

Mr. MACY. Not to the same specific position, but to assure there

would be a like position they could return to after a tour of service

overseas.

Mr. GROSS. Taking into account the increases in their grades, and so

forth?

Mr. MACY. As I recall it, and I do not have the details at my fingertips, the plan was there would be an assurance that the individual

would have a job similar to the one that he left upon his return from

overseas. This was the intent of the legislation.
ROTATION OF CIVILIAN EMPLOYEES FROM OVERSEAS POSTS

Mr. GROSS. I have before me a letter from an interested employee.

I am not going to use his name.

The proposed plan would force an employee to accept a position at an equal

pay level with a penalty for not accepting the position of discharge. I cannot

understand the legality of separating a career employee because he did not

accept a position which he felt would not further his career, or at a location

which did not suit him.

This is the choice he has?

Mr. MACY. Yes, the effort would be on the part of the Air Force

to place the individual who had been overseas 5 years or more back

in an assignment that would be compatible with his experience, and

with his career 

objectives, 

and in a location where it would be as close

as possible in line with his desires.

However, there conceivably could be circumstances where there

would not be a base in the place where he wished to be, or there would

be no positions of the type he wanted, and in that event every assistance would be offered to him in finding employment elsewhere in the

Federal Government, or assisting him to find a position on the outside.

• Mr. GROSS. I am not opposed to rotation of employees as evidenced

by the fact that I finally joined in supporting the bill providing for

rotation of agricultural attaches.

Mr. MACY. Right.

Mr. GROSS. They are a very small number. But when you begin

to deal in large numbers such as this, I want to be awfully sure of

where we are going, and what we are doing.

• Mr. MACY. Mr. Gross, the plan as worked out by the Air Force is

one that has balanced the interests of the Government and the employee. I think you will see as they present the details of it this

clearly has been their purpose.

Mr. GROSS. That is all.

Mr. HENDERSON. Mr. Nix?

Mr. Nix. Mr. Macy, the idea when an installation is.phased out

and placing employees in comparable positions in other installations

is nothing new, is it?

Mr. MACY. No. This has been a pattern that has been followed at

least since the conclusion of World War II when there was an extensive

placement program along with reduction in force in an effort to try

to place those people who had civil service status and experience,

which the Government wished to keep.

Mr. Nix. That is true of practically every agency of Government,

is it not?

Mr. MACY. Yes, these are Government-wide requirements.

Mr. Nix. Now, I cannot think of any method that would be more

equitable than this method for the reason that if you permitted each

employee displaced to select the place he wanted to go, you would

never get anywhere, would you?

You would add complexity to complexity in every possible agency

of Government.

Mr. MACY. The effort is made to try to place the individual as

close to the location of his desire as you possibly can.

Mr. Nix. Yes.
•

ROTATION OF CIVILIAN EMPLOYEES FROM OVERSEAS POSTS 9

Mr. MACY. But if the individual is unwilling to, there is obviously

an outer limit as to what you can do.

Mr. Nix. Certainly.

Public Law 86-585, of course, was not retroactive. Therefore,

it did not include a certain element or segment of the overseas

employees.

Now,the problemthat arises is the people who were not included in

Public Law 86-585 ; is that correct?

Mr. MACY. Well, that law applied prospectively, and set a maximum period of service of 5 years for reemployment rights. There

are now those who are not covered by the law who have periods in

excess of 5 years.

Mr. Nix. Yes. We are talkinc,about the longest service employees,

those who do not come within the purview of Public Law 86-585.

That is the segment of employees that now raises the problem, and

the effort is to bring them within the provisions of the law that now

becomes operative; it is an effort to bring them within the purview

of that law, and that is the problem?

Mr. MACY. Actually, the Air Force is endeavoring to provide a

regular rotation plan for those with 5 years or more service, who atO

not covered by the law.

Mr. Nix. Of course. That is what I am saying. That poses a

problem.

People who have been there over 5 years, the question is whether or

not they can be included in the plan of rotation.

Mr. MACY. The purpose is to bring those people back who have

been there more than 5 years and give them domestic assignments and

to replace them with new people if the posts they are presently filling

are to be continued.

Mr. Nix. Do other agencies have plans dealing with rotation?

Mr. MACY. Yes. In fact, under Government policy it is the right

of an agency to move an employee anywhere.

Mr. Nix. What I would like to know is whether or not the other

plans include overseas employees of all grades, after all years of

tenure overseas, or whether they are restricted to 5 or 6 years?

Mr. MACY. Well, this is the only plan I know of that has 5-year

limitation.

The Foreign Service has shorter periods of service for the most

part. I feel that 5 years is an equitable time; that this would constitute a period for service overseas that would be reasonably appropriate, and that in the interest of the individual in the Government,

it would be well for these individuals to rotate back to the United

States after such a period of time.

Mr. Nix. One other thing—when these people who take overseas

assignments go into this job, they elect to? No one forces then to

go overseas, or any other place? They elect to accept service in a

given part of the world; is that not correct?

Mr. MACY. That is correct.

Mr. Nix. At the time of electing to do so, it is true that they know

something about the limitation of service, or the tenure in that job

in that place; is that not so?
•

10 ROTATION OF CIVILIAN EMPLOYEES FROM OVERSEAS POSTS

Mr. MACY. I do not believe so. I think most of these people

signed up for these jobs without any idea as to how long they would

be there. There was no indication we would necessarily be in many

of these locations more than a limited period of time. I do not think

they had any commitment as to the period of time they would be

' in any of these locations.

Mr. Nix. It is reasonable to assume, when an American citizen

elects to serve abroad, he does not elect to separate himself from his

country permanently. He certainly contemplates some limitation on

the service abroad. That seems reasonable to me, would you not

think so?

Mr. MACY. Yes, in some cases, although there are a good many

employees who apparently have the intention of remaining for their

entire working life abroad. They return home on leave, but they

return to their posts, and it is our view that this is not a desirable

personnel policy, that people should return to the United States

and become re-Americanized periodically so they are familiar with

their own country and know what the current situations are. Then

if they wish to have another tour abroad, this can be considered

and determined by management as to whether this is desirable for

them as a part of the balance of their career.

Mr. Nix. Then what you are telling me is that management should

be the determining influence in saying whether or not you, the employee, may or may not have another tour of service abroad?

Mr. MACY. Yes. Management has that authority now. Management has the authority to assign employees where they will meet the

neecic- of the Government.

Mr. Nix. Then I go back to what I said before. When the employee accepts, or elects to go abroad, he is aware of the limitations on

the service, he is aware of the fact it is a limited time, he is aware at

the time that management has the right to say to him that you may

not go abroad again after this tour of duty?

Mr. MACY. Yes. He knows that management has the right to assign him to some other post at any time based upon the needs of the

service.

Mr. Nix. Now, this proposal—I am speaking about the present proposal—seeks to set a time limit on the Foreign Service after which the

man must be rotated?

Mr. MACY. That is right.

In other words, this is giving order and form to the exercise of

management's authority to the assignment of personnel so it will be

clear to anyone going abroad that this is not an indefinite assignment,

that this is one that has a maximum limit of 5 years.

Mr. Nix. In other words

'

management wishes to bring some order

out of a chaotic condition that has existed and wants to formalize it

and put it in order?

Mr. MACY. Wants to put it in orderly form, both for the benefit of

the Government and the benefit of the individual.

Mr. Nix. Thank you.

Mr. BUCHANAN. Many private businesses require that employees

must make a given move if they are to stay with a company, and I

do not feel this is necessarily unreasonable.
ROTATION OF CIVILIAN EMPLOYEES FROM OVERSEAS POSTS ii

I ,am, however, concerned governmentally from this point of view:

If a man has a particular unique value because of some special skill

or knowledge, experience in a given area, would this policy allow his

return to that area if management feels this would be governmentwise the thing to do?

Mr. MACY. He can be returned at management's judgment and discretion if the belief is that the Government's interest is best served by

having him return to an overseas assignment.

Mr. BUCHANAN. Will there be any particular waiting period required, or will this be spelled out?

Mr. MACY. I think this will be spelled out in the instructions. I do

not have a precise answer to that.

I am sure the Air Force people will. I would personally feel, just

to express a view, that certainly an equivalent period, a period of 5

years of domestic service, would be desirable before an individual

went back.

Again, I would hope there would be some discretion on that if there

were special conditions. Circumstances might develop in a particular

area of the world, and if you had some employees with experience

there, who were now back in the United States

'

you would want to

mobilize them and move them in to deal with that particular situation.

I do not think that we ought to have a policy that is so hard and fast

that the Government's needs are inhibited in a situation of that kind.

Mr. BUCHANAN. Some degree of flexibility would be the most

worthwhile.

Mr. Nix. Would the gentleman yield for a question?

Management, of course, has the right to determine whether or not

special skills are needed. What has the employee the right to present

in order to say to the Government, I have special problems here and

because of these special problems I should stay?

Would the instruction set out certain conditions under which the

employee would have certain rights to protect his interests abroad?

Mr. MACY. My feeling would be that in every instance you would

want to look at the circumstances with respect to the individual, and to

become aware of the individual's interests and desires and views with

respect to his own career, that sound management calls for this.

Mr. Nix. The point I make is, the Government has the complete

right to say, but the employee does not have a similar right in certain

circumstances.

Do you get what I am talking about?

I will put it another way: Management can say "We do not need

your skills, Mr. X. Therefore, you are not to be reassigned abroad."

I pose this to you. There are circumstances, or circumstances might

arise, where an employee abroad has let us say married, perhaps gone

into business abroad, or many other situations that might arise that

makes service abroad extremely important to him, to his interests, to

his financial interests and many other interests. Does he have any

right to say, "Well, under the circumstances I am going to demand to

stay abroad because I think the circumstances warrant this demand"?

Mr. MACY. I would not feel that he would have the right to say he

should stay abroad indefinitely because of personal or business reasons.

An agreement to that demand would not be in the best interests of the

Government.
12 ROTATION OF CIVILIAN EMPLOYEES FROM OVERSEAS POSTS

Mr. Nix. I just wanted to know.

Mr. MACY. It seems to me that a management that has a concern

about individual employees' attitudes and interests is going to take

that into consideration.

In the final analysis, it is the Government's needs that are to be

served, and the taxpayers are to be considered, and if the individual

finds that it is impossible for him to return to the United States, it

seems to me he should be assisted in finding other employment with a

private organization, or some other enterprise that will permit him

to remain where he feels he has to remain.

Mr. Nix. I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Mr. BUCHANAN. One more question:

You mentioned the Canal Zone personnel and possible rotation was

being considered. Would this include the pilots?

Mr. MACY. After the bill that was reported out the other day, I guess

most of the pilots have retired. I would say seriously, Mr. Buchanan,

the pilots represent a special group with specialized experience, and

they probably have their career bounded by the canal.

Mr. BUCHANAN. I would say just for the record, Mr. Macy, eventually I saw the light and voted against that bill.

Mr. MACY. I appreciate your action. I think it was an appropriate

one.

Mr. FIENDERSON. Before we dismiss you, I want to touch on one

problem we all, I am sure, recognize here because it is an important

one, and that is with regard to the problem of reassigning personnel

within the Defense Establishment as a result of base closures.

Even though we do have at this time that problem, do you feel that

it would be helpful that we have the Air Force and the Navy plan as

proposed and perhaps approved by the subcommittee, even though we

might all recognize there would be reasons for going slow in view of

the number of people we are trying to relocate as a result of base

closures?

Mr. MACY. Yes.

Let me assure you, and the other members of the committee, it is

understood this plan will not result in a massive move of people from

overseas back into the United States.

As I recall it, there are about 7,600 U.S. citizens, employees of the

Air Force, abroad at the present time, and about a third of them have

5 years or more, so we are talking about a relatively small number.

This will be phased over a period of time.

My feeling is, the numbers involved in the program are sufficiently

small so they should not constitute an additional assignment burden

on the Department of Defense on top of the relocation of employees in

the bases that are being closed.

Mr. HENDERSON. Thank you. Mr. Chairman. You have been very

responsive to our interests, and we appreciate your appearance this

morning.

Our next witness will be Mr. Rozer W. Jones, Special Assistant to

the Director of the Bureau of the Budget.

Mr. Jones, I welcome you before the subcommittee and you may proceed with your statement.
ROTATION OF CIVILIAN EMPLOYEES FROM OVERSEAS POSTS 13

STATEMENT OF ROGER JONES, SPECIAL ASSISTANT TO DIRECTOR,

BUREAU OF BUDGET

Mr. JONES. Thank you very much Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Chairman and members of 

much,

subcommittee, thank you for

your invitation to appear before the committee as an individual rather

than as a representative of the Bureau of the Budget. I appear in

support of the Air Force rotation program for civilian employees

stationed in foreign areas.

I first became concerned, officially and personally, with the problem

of rotation of civilian employees serving in a foreign area during the

period which immediately followed the Korean cease fire. At that

time I was Assistant Director of the Bureau of the Budget for Legislative Reference. In that capacity I had a number of conversations

with officials of the Civil Service Commission and the Department of

Defense about various legislative proposals relating to overseas personnel and conditions of their employment.

By the fall of 1956 it was apparent that anticipated problems were

beginning to develop in four chief fields: (1) status and rights; (2)

pay and allowances; (3) travel and leave; and (4) recruitment and replacement.

In the fall of that year I accompanied then Assistant Secretary of

Defense Carter L. Burgess on an extended trip to the Far East to

study military and civilian personnel problems on the ground. Three

years later, after I had been appointed Chairman of the U.S. Civil

Service Commission, I again made a similar inspection trip to the

Far East in company with then Assistant Secretary of Defense

Charles Finucane. Subsequent experience as Deputy Under Secretary of State gave me another view of the problems faced both by the

Government and by employees if they serve too long in overseas

assignments.

Finally, in 1963, after my return to the Budget Bureau, I had

another opportunity for observation of the problems in connection

with official travel in Europe and the Far East.

In the spring of 1960, I appeared before this committee in support

of H.R. 10695, which became Public Law 86-585, the basic statute

providing for rotation of overseas assignments for civilian employees.

I continue to hold the views I expressed at that time, and I believe

that some of the more critical problems are still with us. These problems are well known to the committee. Simply stated, they are four

in number:

1. Long assignment overseas interferes with effective career planning for employees because there are very limited opportunities for

advancement and varied experience at any overseas post.

2. Long absence from the United States tends to get an employee

out of touch with the responsibilities and programs of his department,

and to have a cumulatively narrowing effect on the focus of his own

job in his foreign post.

3. Prolonged service at a foreign post tends to make an employee

lose contact with the broader view of what is going on at home, with

the resulting development of what has been referred to as "localitis."

52-506-65-2
14 ROTATION OF CIVILIAN EMPLOYEES FROM OVERSEAS POSTS

4. With few exceptions, foreign positions can be better discharged

by persons who have had recent experience in the United States, and

the kind of training for overseas service which can be acquired only

in the United States.

This all adds up to strong conviction on my part that one cannot

keep Americanism in proper personal and official perspective if he

does not have regular contact with it. I use the term "Americanism"

both in the broad context of the philosophies, ideals, and principles

of government and of our society generally, and also in the context

that "Americanism" is an essential ingredient in the attitudes and

working tool kit of all career employees of the Government.

In the 5 years since Public Law 86-585 was enacted, substantial

progress has been made to build overseas employment and experience

into the career base of all of our departments and agencies with major

foreign responsibilities. We recognize that many, not just a few,

must have duty in other countries. We have learned that personnel

needs for successful program operations abroad are not static. They

change materially and often, even in such common denominator jobs

as budgeting, accounting, and personnel management.

Military personnel have definite and limited tours abroad, depending upon the nature of the assignment and the degree of hardship

associated with the post. Similar specific limitations apply to the

overseas assignments of Foreign Service officers, and now of Foreign

Service Staff officers, of personnel in our AID and information programs, and of other specialized personnel such as agricultral attach6s.

Since enactment of the 1960 act, career Air Force employees have

been required to exercise their statutory return rights within 5 years

or to be subject to separation at the end of that period. It is my un- derstanding that this is a definite condition of employment. Quite aside from that fact, in my judgment it is not equitable to enforce such requirements only against employees hired since 1960. We should

not continue to permit indefinite foreign service by employees of from

6 to as much as 20 years of uninterrupted service outside the United

States.

My past associations with the issues presented by rotation my deep interest in those issues (periodically renewed by overseas trips) and

my official responsibilities in several positions convince me that there will be wise, compassionate, and equitable administration of this program by the Department of the Air Force. I recommend that it re- ceive the support of this committee and of the Congress, generally.

Other witnesses have presented or will present detailed figures illus- trating the magnitude of the problem. If I am correctly informed,

there are now almost 2,000 career employees of the Air Force who have served continuously overseas for more than 5 years. Almost 30

percent of them have been away from the United States over 15 years. Their reassignment to the United States and adjustment to new duties

at home will be demanding processes, both for them and for the Department of the Air Force. But it must be remembered that these employees will bring back to the United States informed points of view and invaluable experience. Both can be put to effective use to improve our programs and to enhance career progression opportunities for employees who must serve overseas in the future.
ROTATION OF CIVILIAN EMPLOYEES FROM OVERSEAS POSTS 15

I think it is equitable that the proposed reassignments should be

phased over a period of several years, and that employees with the

longest periods of continuous service in foreign areas should be brought

home first. I have no doubt that challenging, appropriate, and acceptable assignments will be obtained for most of them. Those who

are unwilling to undertake such assignments should be retired or otherwise separated. No other policy will bring about equal treatment for

all employees—a principle which I believe to be of the utmost

importance.

I am not impressed with the argument that civilian employees should

not be rotated without their consent. In this day and age, Government service carries with it an obligation to serve wherever needed

most. If a Federal employee cannot accept that obligation, and if

there is no better reason for his unwillingness to do so than personal

preference, he should seek other employment which does not involve

such an obligation. The authority to reassign employees for the good

of the service is soundly based in statute and regulations. But the

authority is meaningless if it is not exercised.

There may be some employees who have been so long overseas that

they will not wish to come back to the United States even if they are

retired or otherwise terminated. I would not remove their right to

make this choice.

In closing, may I repeat my conviction that rotation of employees

from foreign assignments on a mandatory basis is necessary for the

Government, fair to the employee, and productive of a better career

service.

Mr. Chairman, I shall be glad to answer any questions which fall

within my competence.

Mr. HENDERSON. Thank you very much, Mr. Jones, for a very fine

presentation. I believe the Chair has no questions.

Mr. Nix?

Mr. Nix. Yes, I would like to ask of Mr. Jones, Mr. Chairman:

Of course, there may be some employees who have been overseas so long that

do not wish to come back to the United States even if they are retired or otherwise terminated. I would not remove their right to make this choice.

You cannot do that, can you?

Mr. JONES. Yes, I think we could require the return of any employee

to the United States.

Mr. Nix. No. You are referring to those who are retired or terminated some other way.

Mr. JONES. What I meant is that we could force them to come back

to the United States before retirement or termination.

Mr. Nix. You say here that you are not impressed with the agreement that civilian employees should not be rotated without their consent. The saving grace in this paragraph seems to me to be "if there

is no better reason for his unwillingness."

I take it, then, that you mean that if the employee served all these

years overseas and has substantial reasons why he wishes to remain in

his assignment, that reason will be given every consideration?

Mr. Jos. Every consideration, but it should not control, Mr. Nix.

Mr. Nix. Of course, management controls.
16 ROTATION OF CIVILIAN EMPLOYEES FROM OVERSEAS POSTS

Mr. JONES. Yes. But I think that in the past the assumption grew

up on the part of some employees that they had a vested right in their job in a given post overseas. I remember talking on one occasion with

a civilian employee who had been in Okinawa from the time that we first put civilians into the island, and he took the position in his con- versation with me that it was his right to have a job in Okinawa as long as he chose to remain a Federal employee.

I could not possibly agree with his position.

Mr. Nix. That is not consistent with practice or common sense.

You would agree with that.

Mr. JONES. Yes.

Mr. Nix. The other part that I would ask about is that statement in which you say that you felt that the employees with longest service should be first rotated. It seems to me that what you are doing there is that you are making it applicable to people of the longest service, that is, this rotation, something in which they were not involved

before.

Mr. JONES. That is correct. That is exactly what I would do.

Mr. Nix. Isn't that rather harsh? Here you have people who have served a longer term than these people who come within the purview

of the 1960 to 1965 law, and who had no connection with it, who cer- tainly must have served under the impression that they would not be involved in this, and suddenly they are jerked up and told "you must

rotate."

Mr. JONES. Mr. Nix, I do not think this is sudden. These people have long known that something of this kind was going to have to happen. I know in the case of the Foreign Service staff employees who had been overseas as much as 20 years with no rotation back to the United States, once they were advised they would thereafter have

an opportunity to rotate and would be rotated on a mandatory basis, if everything went as we planned it, I would say 98 or 99 percent of them were overjoyed at this prospect. They felt that they could once again participate in something other than the affairs that were taking place in a given embassy.

Mr. Nix. Just one last thing, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Jones, they might

not be overjoyed. At least I cannot see why they would be, for the

reason that all along they could have availed themselves of the right to rotate. So why should they now be overjoyed?

Mr. JONES. No, sir I do not think I could agree that is quite the case. In many instances until we began to focus on this problem, these people had no reemployment rights back in the United States. The agencies themselves were reluctant in many cases to make room for them. They

were unknown quantities to executives in the United States. They

were not quite sure that they wanted them to come back. In many circumstances, I think our policies in effect forced these people to stay

overseas to the point where they gave up and decided they would continue to stay there.

Mr. Nix. Mr. Jones, this introduces a new element to me, because I

was under the impression that in any one of these installations, an employee could make application for another assignment or could be rotated. That is what was told to me. If this particular class of peo- ple were not accorded the same opportunity, then I do not know what has been done to these people. Certainly they have been discriminated against.
z

ROTATION OF CIVILIAN EMPLOYEES FROM OVERSEAS POSTS 17

Mr. JONES. I think in some cases they have been. Certainly in both

1956 and 1959 the Assistant Secretaries of Defense and I discovered

cases of individuals who had applied for return to the United States

and had been told that there was no job for them, or any interest in

trying to find a job for them. If they wanted to stay where they were,

that was fine. If they wanted to come back to the United States, they

would have to find other employment. I do not think this was right.

We are trying to correct that.

I think the Air Force program has been worked out with a very careful view of the attitudes, rights, and desires of the employees. It will

be conducted in a manner in which I believe the Congress and employees will find entirely satisfactory.

Mr. Nix. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. HENDERSON. Mr. Buchanan.

Mr. BUCHANAN. Mr. Jones, I thank you for a very fine and clear

statement. You pointed out that the Air Force has almost 2,000 career

employees with more than 5 years' service continuously overseas and

about 30 percent of these have over 15 years' overseas experience. You

said in this connection that these employees will bring back to the

United States informed points of view and invaluable experience,

which both can be put to effective use to improve our programs and to

enhance career progression opportunities for employees who must

serve overseas in the future.

Without wanting to be too repetitive or redundant, I hope the Air

Force will keep this in mind in the case of these with long experience

who are brought back. As you have so well pointed out, they might

have some unique value perhaps in the training of other employees.

Mr. JONES. I am sure they will, Mr. Buchanan. I think we have

been trapped by the strange belief which grew up after World War II

that we were not overseas to stay, and that as of any given moment

things would quiet down and we would bring a great number of employees back home. That is not the way it worked out. In many cases

we were hampered on movement simply because the authorizations

were of such limited duration that we did not know what the program was going to be the next year. AID and its predecessor agencies

have gone on since the days of the Marshall plan on a 1-year authorization basis. Some employees have gone overseas to do a certain relatively narrow kind of a job. The need of that kind of job, for example,

some of the technical cooperation types of jobs, has tended to disappear. But there was no basic overriding controlling philosophy under

which agencies knew what to do with these people. In an effort to

be compassionate, in an effort to take into account what employees

wanted to do and make such use as they could of their capabilities,

agencies have tended to leave them there too long. In other cases

I think we have paid too much attention to the personal commitments

that the man has made.

He may have married a foreign wife, he may have children who

feel they almost have dual nationality, he may have acquired business

interest overseas. In other cases, the particular circumstances have

been such that he has come to feel that he is invaluable. A succession

of post commanders or chiefs may have said, "I cannot let this man

go.' They have resisted letting him come back to the United States.

I think we have to loosen this whole thing up.
18 ROTATION OF CIVILIAN EMPLOYEES FROM OVERSEAS POSTS

I am sure the committee would agree that certainly within our

generation we are going to have to be overseas in a various number of

capacities for a long time to come. The only equitable way to handle

this situation in my judgment is to provide for maximum rotation.

People should not get both the advantages and the disadvantages of

too long overseas service. We can use overseas service to help in training others who must go to take up these kinds of duties.

Most Americans still have no concept at all of what a 2-year duty

or an extension for 2 years means in a hardship post. In sub-Sahara

Africa, in some of the places in the Far East, for example, we have

a big job to do in teaching people what it means to live in a different

society with different values, with different political systems, with

different standards of living. This will help very much to make it

possible for those employees who must succeed taem in these very

necessary assignments to have better feel for the kind of a life into

which they are going.

Mr. BUCHANAN. Thank you, sir.

Mr. HENDERSON. Thank you very much, Mr. Jones. I think particularly the fact that you are speaking not as a representative of the

Department in which you are presently rendering such fine service but

rather from your own personal experience is most helpful, and I am

sure you have called the shots just as you see them.

Mr. JONES. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. HENDERSON. Thank you, sir.

The next witness is Mr. Leon W-heeless, Director of Civilian Personnel Policy, Office of the Assistant Secretary of Defense (Manpower).

Mr. Wheeless, you may proceed.

STATEMENT OF LEON L. WHEELESS. DIRECTOR OF CIVILIAN PERSONNEL POLICY, OFFICE OF THE ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF

DEFENSE (MANPOWER)

Mr. WHEELESS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee. The question of whether civilian personnel of the Department of Defense employed in foreign areas Should be permitted to

remain overseas indefinitely or whether some systematic program of

rotation should be established has long been of concern to the Department.

In 1960, upon recommendation of the Department of Defense, the

Congress provided in Public Law 86-585 the basis for a rotation program for career employees of the Department who accepted oversea

employment. The basic purpose of this legislation was to facilitate

the desirable objective of orderly rotation between the States and

overseas.

In implementing Public Law 86-585, which provided reemployment

rights for employees going overseas, a defensewide policy was adopted

which required such employees to sign an agreement providing for the

exercise of reemployment rights upon expiration of a specified tour of

duty. The agreement was also to provide that such tour of duty with

reemployment rights would not normally extend beyond 5 years. Expiration of reemployment rights was designed, of course, as an inducement to return to the United States.

A

A
ROTATION OF CIVILIAN EMPLOYEES FROM OVERSEAS POSTS 19

•

Employees who had gone overseas prior to this time had not signed

such an agreement. However, the Secretary of a military department,

under his general power to reassign personnel, has the authority to

reassign these employees to positions in the States which do not involve adverse actions, such as reduction in grade.

Thus, the Air Force proposal is, in effect, a plan to use this authority to reassign on a systematic basis, and to apply uniformly to all

career employees overseas the maximum 5-year tour limitation. This

approach, while not providing as much flexibility, in individual cases

as the present procedure, does have the advantage of according uniform treatment to all employees and of establishing a systematic procedure for making positions available in the States to which overseas

employees can be returned.

The Air Force plan has been submitted to the Secretary of Defense

for approval, and has been thoroughly reviewed with members of the

Air Force staff. There has been no question as to the basic principle

of rotation nor as to the proposed 5-year limit upon oversea tours of 

duty. The first is clearly embodied in Public Law 86-585 and both

in the implementation thereof in the Department of Defense.

We did have two concerns. First was the effect of a program such

as this upon our ability to find jobs for the thousands of Defense employees affected by the current base closure and reduction-in-force

program, to whom Secretary McNamara has made a commitment of

another job opportunity. Second was the question whether a mandatory rotation program would prove desirable in practice. For these

reasons we were unwilling at this time to embark upon a defensewide

plan for the mandatory rotation of employees from overseas to positions in the States.

At the same time, we recognized that a plan such as the Air Force

proposed did have merit and might well be tested. The Assistant

Secretary of Defense (Manpower) has therefore approved the plan

in principle, with final authorization for its implementation being

subject to the following conditions,:

1. The mandatory rotation of personnel to and from overseas must

not interfere with the reassignment of employees being released from

bases being closed or consolidated, and Defense employees affected

by such actions who have not received and declined a job offer must

be given preference in filling Air Force vacancies over employees

scheduled for rotation from overseas.

2. The plan must be fully discussed -with the House and Senate Post

Office and Civil Service Committees and the national officers of employee organizations accorded formal recognition at the national level

by the Air Force and having significant membership among Air Force

employees in overseas areas; and

3. The reactions of the two committees and the employee organizations must be ascertained and given thorough consideration.

The Air Force has accepted these conditions and has been proceeding with the discussions. The comments of this committee will be of

great assistance to us in reaching a final decision on this matter.

Mr. HENDERSON. Mr. Wheeless, I think your statement is very much

to the point and covers the matter under discussion in a very brief and

able manner. Perhaps you would like to comment with regard to the

fact that has given me some concern and that is, we have the Air
20 ROTATION OF CIVILIAN EMPLOYEES FROM OVERSEAS POSTS

Force and Navy plan now, but are informed that the Army, at least

at this time, does not see the necessity for a firm rotation policy. You

point out that the Department of Defense had some problems coming

to it through its defensewide plan. But you do plan to monitor the

situation, looking forward to a defensewide plan or a decision to leave

it up to the services, I presume.

Mr. WHEELESS. Mr. Chairman, we plan to work very closely with

the Air Force in the implementation of this plan. I think I can say

without any question, assuming this plan works satisfactorily, as we

expect it will, that there will be a defensewide 'plan with basically the

same features as the Air Force plan, modified by whatever their

experience indicates is desirable.

Mr. HENDERSON. Likewise, without the Army moving into this area

at this time, we should have an opportunity both in the Department

and in the committees to observe what the experience of the Army is

as well as the experience of the Air Force and Navy under a plan,

and it might be that you would want to leave it to the services.

Mr. WHEELESS. I think that possibly could happen, Mr. Chairman.

My feeling is that if we find this plan works, and again as I say, we

have no reason to expect that it won't. There may be some modifications found to be desirable, as we learn by experience, but I think that

it will prove to be something that should be applied, at least in its

basic principles, with some room for changes to meet different situations in the different departments, but applied basically across the

board.

Mr. HENDERSON. Mr. Nix.

Mr. Nix. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Wheeless, you agree in principle with the plan that has been

submitted. There is no assurance, of course, that at a later time you

will agree with the plan and its development. Of course, there is no

assurance that you will not, that you will disagree with it. So it is just

up in the air until it is thoroughly studied.

Mr. WHEELESS. We think, Mr. Nix, that basically it is a sound proposal. As you say, in the implementation of it there may be some

changes, but we are reasonably convinced that it is a sound proposal..

Mr. Nix. Your conclusion that it is a sound proposal is based primarily on the feature of rotation, is it not?

Mr. WHEELESS. It is. That is basic to the plan and we think that

in itself is sound. It is the basic principle established by the Congress

in the Public Law 86-585. Of course, we cannot say that we really

have had experience under that statute, because the first rotation occurs

the latter part of this year when the first 5-year period is up.

Mr. Nix. You see what I am trying to get at, Mr. Wheeless, is when

you say you agree in principle, there must be some factual matter,

something of value, that formed the basis of your decision.

Mr. WHEELESS. Yes.

Mr. Nix. I do not know what it is yet. I suggested it might be the

feature of rotation. But the latter part of your statement, a moment

ago, suggested to me that it is not that alone. What is it?

Mr. WHEELESS. I would say that the principle of rotating people to

and from overseas areas, as has been emphasized so clearly by Chairman Macy and Mr. Jones in earlier statements, is one in which we

believe. I would say that is the primary reason that we support this

plan in principle.

A

•
ROTATION OF CIVILIAN EMPLOYEES FROM OVERSEAS POSTS 21

Mr. Nix. There was one other thing that was agreeable with me.

Your entire statement was, of course.

Mr. WHEELESS. Thank you, sir.

Mr. Nix. But there are degrees of delight that I get. That part of

your statement when you say employees who had gone overseas prior

to this time, that is before the 1960-65 law, had not signed such an

agreement. However, the Secretary of the military department under

his general power to reassign personnel has the authority to reassign

these employees. Is it mandatory?

Mr. WHEELESS. It is not mandatory. This is a discretionary authority which the Secretary of the Air Force, for example, has to

reassign personnel.

Mr. Nix. But as to those between 1960 and 1965, it is mandatory

that they have a right to reassignment to comparable employment.

Mr. WHEELESS. Actually, Mr. Nix, the law itself does not make

rotation mandatory. The law provides a basis for making rotation

mandatory. It also provides in the statute a basis for saying to an

employee, "When you have finished your tour overseas, we guarantee

you your old job or a jOb comparable to it."

Now, in implementing that law in the Department of Defense, we

have said, and the Air Force has gone along with this, that at the

end pf 5 years, reemployment must be exercised or it is lost. To that

extent it is mandatory.

Mr. Nix. I am trying to clarify for myself the distinction between

the authority to reassign as it concerned those people during 1960-

65 and those people who were there before that time. I understand

now that those pe,ople do not come within the purview of the provision. They are just working and they want to come back and there

is no definite assurance that they may be reassigned.

Mr. WHEELESS. That is true. Administratively, of course, the Air

Force or the Army or the Navy can say we will give preference to

everybody who wants to come back from overseas for vacant positions

in which they may be interested in.

Mr. Nix. One last thing. However, in the event this segment of

the employees now come within the terms, then they enjoy the benefit

of reassignment?

Mr. WHEELESS. That is true. Under the Air Force plan they would

be guaranteed placement at the same grade in which they are serving

overseas unless in an individual case an employee is willing to accept

a lower grade, ppssibly to get to a location that he prefers or for some

other reason.

Mr. Nix. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. HENDERSON. Mr. Buchanan.

Mr. BUCHANAN. Mr. Wheeless, I want to commend you on what

seems to be a reasonable and wise policy. I think you are wise to

wait and see before the implementation pf such policy.

I am interested in your statement or your reservation concerning

the fact that employees being reassigned from bases closed must take

priority over these coming in from overseas. I certainly would not

debate that policy. I think that, too, is good policy.

On the other hand, I wonder if we could have at some point spelled

out what this might mean for these being transferred, in view of the

large number of bases being closed.
22 ROTATION OF CIVILIAN EMPLOYEES FROM OVERSEAS POSTS

Mr. WHEELESS. I think, Mr. Buchanan, without question, the way the Air Force plans to manage this program and considering the c,om- paratively small number of people involved, they will be able to meet their yearly objectives reasonably well. The Air Force has some figures which they will give you in their presentation which I think will illustrate this even better than I can say.

Mr. HENDERSON. Mr. Wheeless, it may be obvious, but it might be

well to comment at this time that we will have an opportunity, even

perhaps during the hearings but certainly after the rotations begin- ning October 1 under the requirements of the act and certainly upon

implementation of the proposed policy, to have some of the personnel

directly involved in the rotation plan to come before the subcommittee

and speak of their own experience, which could be quite helpful to the subcommittee and, I am sure, to the Department of Defense as it con- siders DOD-wide policy.

Mr. WHEELESS. We would certainly be happy to cooperate in that

endeavor, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. HENDERSON. I am sure the members of the subcommittee will

have a continuing interest in this area.

I thank you very much for your appearance.

Mr. WHEELESS. Thank you,sir.

Mr. HENDERSON. Our next witness is John A. Lang, Jr., Acting

Special Assistant to the Secretary of the Air Force for Manpower,

Personnel, and Reserve Forces. It is a real pleasure to welcome this 'distinguished gentleman to our committee. The other witnesses have

.done such a good job in presenting their testimony, your time is somewhat limited, but I assure you that the subcommittee will hear you in full and arrange to go into the matter thoroughly.

You may proceed.

STATEMENT OF JOHN A. LANG, JR., ACTING SPECIAL ASSISTANT

TO THE SECRETARY OF THE AIR FORCE FOR MANPOWER, PERSONNEL, AND RESERVE FORCES; ACCOMPANIED BY JOHN WATTS,

DIRECTOR OF CIVILIAN PERSONNEL; AND JAMES WALDEN, DIRECTOR OF EMPLOYEE PROGRAMS DIVISION, OFFICE OF CIVILIAN

PERSONNEL

Mr. LANG. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee, it is a pleasure for

me to meet with you this morning and discuss the proposed Air Force

program for the rotation to the United States of civilian employees

serving in foreign areas.

After World War II there was a need for the assignment of a large

number of civilian employees to foreign areas by the military departments. Many of these employees were appointed locally and

others were recruited in the United States specifically for such employment. Many were temporary employees, and none had reemployment rights when they returned to the United States, nor was there

any limitation on the period that such personnel could remain in foreign areas.

Five years ago Congress enacted Public Law 86-585 which provided

reemployment rights for civilian employees of the Defense Estab-
ROTATION OF CIVILIAN EMPLOYEES FROM OVERSEAS POSTS 23

lishment serving in oversea areas, upon completion of their foreign

duty: In reporting on this bill, the Committee on Post Office and Civil

Service, House of Representatives, included the following statement:

The purpose of this legislation which is based on an official recommendation of

the Department of Defense, is to strengthen the defense effort by improving the

administration of oversea defense activities. In order to accomplish this purpose, * * * the Congress in this legislation establishes a strong policy of facilitating the interchange of civilian employees of the Defense Establishment between posts of duty in the United States and posts of duty outside the United

States through the administrative establishment and operation of programs

for the rotation of civilian employees who are assigned to duty outside the

United States.

This legislation enabled the Air Force to establish a rotation program for employees assigned outside the United States since October

1960. Under this program, the Air Force has several hundred employees serving in foreign areas who have reemployment rights under

the law. The Air Force has limited their tours to a maximum of 5

ears as being in the best interests of the service. Some of these

employees will have completed their 5-year tour this year and will be

rotated to the United States beginning next October.

Public Law 86-585 was not retroactive, and did not grant reemployment rights to employees who were serving in foreign areas prior to its

enactment. The Air Force had, as of last March 31, 1,836 career employees in this category who have served 5 to 20 or more years in foreign areas and have no rights to reemployment in the United States.

To meet this problem we now have developed a comprehensive program for the rotation of these individuals that guarantees them employment in the United States without loss of grade or base pay.

This program will put these employees, with lengthy service in foreign areas, on substantially equal footing with those having reemployment rights under Public Law 86-585. Those who do not accept employment in the United States at the end of their tour of foreign

service will be separated, as Chairman Macy and others have indicated

in their statements previously.

In brief, in this program, we assure that "there is a place" within

the Air Force for these people and assure them of an assignment within the United States. It also recognizes the obligation of employees

to serve where the interests of the Government can best be met.

Employees affected by the proposed program will be expected to

accept assignment anywhere within the 48 contiguous States and the

District of Columbia. They may voluntarily extend their areas of

consideration to include Alaska and Hawaii. Also, they have the

right to identify areas of preference which will be honored to the extent practicable.

Reassignments will be made judiciously. For example, an employee will be expected to relocate in an area which represents a health

hazard to himself or one of his dependents when the condition is substantiated by competent medical evidence. If there are well defined

management needs or considerations involving personal hardship,

Headquarters, Air Force, will approve an extension, not to exceed 1

year, of the 5-year limitation. Consideration will be given to such

things as approaching retirement, health factors, and dependents'

school terms.
24 ROTATION OF CIVILIAN EMPLOYEES FROM OVERSEAS POSTS

Mr. HENDERSON. In view of the interest of the subcommittee which

has already been demonstrated this morning, I wonder if I might ask

YOU if you could tell us how you plan to insure that the employee overseas brings his personal hardship situation to the Headquarters, Air

Force.

Mr. LANG. When the employee has identified that he is affected by

the new program if it becomes operative, he can make an indication

of three selected places that he desires to go. As I pointed out previously, we will honor that to the extent that the service will permit.

If we are able to place him in none of those three, he can present his

conditions of hardship through his supervisory channel, to our headquarters, to Mr. Watts' office, and we will set up a policy which will

consider those requests to the extent practicable, to the extent of a 1-

year extension if there is valid evidence that this request is well

founded.

Mr. HENDERSON. We are all interested in this. I understood from

Mr. Nix's questions that we were probing at some of the hardships we might get. As the Secretary has pointed out 

here, 

suppose the employee has a child who has one more year to complete in a high school

aboard, this certainly would seem to me to be a very valid reason for

consideration.

Mr. LANG. Our regulations will provide for that consideration and will contain such a provisions to be duly offered and honored, and the

Secretary will set that forth in the regulations which go out.

Mr. HENDERSON. On the other hand, I wonder just what the situation is. We have been talking about 5 years as the period, but do we give consideration to bringing an employee back earlier than a 5-year

tour when he has a hardship?

Mr. LANG. He has a tour of 2 years when he goes over there, and

then a 2-year extension on top of that. After he completes two 2-year

tours he begins to know that he has been over there a (rood while, and

he still his another year if he desires to stay. It would seem that as he goes into the fifth year point he knows that he is beginning to approach a zone in which he is receiving careful consideration for return

to the United States.

Mr. HENDERSON. That brings to mind another question. I wonder

if at the end of, say, his fourth year, there would be any way for him

to determine and get an extension for 2 more years, which would give

him the benefit of the 1 year that you have specifically said he would

get at the end of the 5 years.

Mr. LANG. There is nothing in this plan that I know of which would

prevent him from doing that. However, we are now in the proving

stage on this policy. We will have to get enough experience in this

area to tell about the feasibility of your suggestion.

I would think it would be possible to consider this proposal.

Mr. HENDERSON. It seems to me that this would be, again, a decided

advantage to the employee to be able to make a decision at that point

that he would be there 2 more years for a total of 6 years.

Go right ahead, Mr. Secretary.

Mr. LANG. Our proposed program has long-term benefits which are in the best interests of both management and employees, as the other

gentlemen who have preceded me have indicated. Vacancies created

by the returning personnel will provide increased opportunities for
ROTATION OF CIVILIAN EMPLOYEES FROM OVERSEAS POSTS 25

our employees in the United States to enjoy benefits of residence and

service abroad. Further, our employees in the United States will have

a greater desire to accept foreign assignments, in view of the broader

choice of locations and positions abroad. In addition, personal benefits accrue to those who have had both domestic and foreign service.

Their skills and viewpoints are broadened and their opportunities for

service are increased. These factors enhance career development and

career progression opportunities, as the Chairman of the Civil Service

Commission has so well pointed out already.

The Air Force also benefits because the new challenges and experiences create a better trained, a more balanced, and a more knowledgeable work force.

Some pre-1960 employees may have strong ties to their foreign

assignments, but at the same time there is a need to place them again

in the mainstream of American thoughts and attitudes. Assignments

in the United States will provide them with an opportunity to update

their skills and become familiar with new methods and techniques developed here at home. Agencies with long experience in foreign areas,

such as the State Department, the Agency for International Development, and the U.S. Information Agency, have found it desirable to

have some limitation on the period of time their employees stay in

foreign areas. The U.S. Foreign Service requires frequent rotation

of personnel who are assigned overseas so that they may retain their

identification with the United States. Similarly, the uniformed services have placed a limitation on tours of duty in foreign areas for military personnel. The post-1960 employee who is now required to rotate

will be permitted to apply for placement at his current grade or at his

election be reemployed at his former grade and position.

This is not to say that the people subject to return under this program are not good, loyal employees. We want to strongly emphasize

that they are. To satisfy ourselves and others on this point we had

performance appraisals for a number of our long-term foreign service

employees submitted to us on a random sample basis. Their performance compares very favorably with that of Air Force employees as a

whole. They have given long years of productive service, but we do

feel for reasons previously stated that foreign service should be broadened, that it is in the interest of the Air Force and to the personal

benefit of individual employees that long periods of foreign service,

be supplemented by a tour of duty in the United States. This program treats our career people equitably and guarantees a large number of them who do not have any reemployment rights whatsoever an

opportunity for a stateside position at their present grade and salary.

The proposed plan has been thoroughly discussed with interested

parties. The Office of the Secretary of Defense, as Mr. Wheeless has

already indicated, has studied the plan and given preliminary approval, subject to evaluation of the views of members of interested

congressional committees and officials of appropriate employee organizations. Also, we have agreed that Defense employees affected by

base closures and consolidations who have not received an offer of another job opportunity must be given preference in filling Air Force

vacancies over employees scheduled for rotation from foreign areas.

It has been presented to, and approved in principle by, the Chairman

and the two other Commissioners of the Civil Service Commission.
26 ROTATION OF CIVILIAN EMPLOYEES FROM OVERSEAS POSTS

Staff members of the House Committee on Post Office and Civil Service

and staff members of the Senate Committee on Post Office and Civil

Service have been briefed on the plan.

Representatives of national headquarters of the four employee

unions which have formal recognition have been briefed on the program. They were furnished copies of the draft of the proposed regulation, and invited to submit their Comments and recommendations.

In closing, I would like to state that we believe our proposed program will contribute substantially to increasing the efficiency of our

operations, provide a more fully rounded career for our civil

servants, and give our long-term foreign service employee a well deserved chance to come home to a job comparable to the one he now

holds.

We realize this program is not a legislative item before your committee, but we do solicit your cooperation and support, and would welcome any comments and suggestions the committee may have.

Mr. Chairman, I have with me today Mr. John A. Watts, Air Force

Director of Civilian Personnel, and Mr. Jim Walden, a member of his

staff. I am also prepared, through Mr. Walden, to show you some

Vu-Graphs which give the details, dollarwise and peoplewise, of how

we propose to implement our program. After this presentation if

you would like to have it, we will be prepared to answer any detailed

questions.

Mr. HENDERSON. Thank you very much, Mr. Secretary.

Before we get into that, Mr. Walden,

i

I would like to make a comment, particularly while Mr. Wheeless s here, with regard to the bill

which was considered in the House this week with regard to the

teachers.

You will recall an amendment offered by Mr. Ford, I believe, was

adopted which would provide for a 5-year limitation period for the

teachers overseas. It has been suggested that inasmuch as the opportunities are limited within the Department of Defense, if there are

any, for teachers to come back and serve a teaching tour here in the

States, looking forward to going back to overseas schools, perhaps

some arrangement could be made for the teachers to teach in public

or private schools in the country when they come back as employees of

the Department of Defense.

This committee certainly feels this problem is one so closely related

to this problem, we would be happy to assist in any way we can, as

we are doing here. If we can be of assistance in providing staff assistance or a forum, I wanted to afford the Department of Defense and the

services such an opportunity.

Mr. Walden, You may proceed.

Mr. WALDEN. Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee,

these charts are ones we have used over the past year. Some of them

will be redundant, but I will go over them very quickly. Stop me at

any time, as we are going into a little more detail on the procedural

aspe:cts of the program.

(Slide 1) I do not think there is any reason for belaboring the

reasons for the program, and the background or legislative history of

Public Law 86-585 which established a 5-year limitation on foreign
•

ROTATION OF CIVILIAN EMPLOYEES FROM OVERSEAS POSTS 27

service. We have a group of people who have been overseas for the

Air Force since 1960 who will have to start coming back in October.

Basically, we are trying to establish equity and put all these foreign

service employees on an equal basis.

(Slide 2) This will give you some idea of the numbers of people

involved. This represents as of March 31 the total Air Force civilian

direct-hire U.S. citizen complement overseas paid out of Air Force

funds, 7,747. Out of that group, 2,707 had been over there more than

5 years. We do have some problems. We are talking about people

who are in the career service, people who have civil service status and

who qualify for stateside jobs. So, the figure on career employees in

total is 4,047, of whom 1,692 have been in foreign areas 5 years-plus,

plus 144 in the Panama Canal Zone, or a total of 1,836 career

employees.

These noncareer employees, OSL, are overseas limited appointees.

We have had authority- since the 1954 legislation to appoint people who

are resident overseas, _American citizens, without regard to civil service requirements. We try to keep this figure down. To the extent

they can take an appropriate civil service examination and qualify,

we convert them to competitive status. We still have 521 of them on

the rolls, many of them are military dependents. One hundred and

thirty-two have been overseas 5 years-plus. In the dependents school

program, we have 2,453. The Air Force is paying for them. They

are excluded from our proposed program because separate consideration is being given to their interests.

We have the MAAG (military advisory assistance groups), with

241, 99 who have been there over 5 years. Some of these people are

in the excepted service, some of them have personal status. They are

tied in with the Joint Chiefs of Staff and other activities. So the Air

Force cannot unilaterally make an exception there. We have 248

other excepted. Most of these people are in highly specialized jobs—

translators, intelligence specialists and so forth. We are working out

with counterpart agencies in the United States, individual programs

for them. This group is excluded from what we have been talking

about all morning.

Again as of March 31, 496 people have gone over with reemployment rights to the positions they held in the United States, since October 1, 1960. Roughly 160 of those people will be coming back. They

signed a condition of employment that they will return or be separated.

One hundred and sixty will be coming back beginning October 1 of this

year.

(Slide 3) This is a breakdown by command which comes to the

same total, 1,836 people. This is the Military Air Transport Service,

which reflects 189 out of 316 U.S. citizens have been there 5 years-plus.

They are serving worldwide. There are MATS bases in the Azores

and in Bermuda, but they have complements or small groups of people

all over the world. PACAF, Pacific Air Forces in the Pacific Ocean

area—Japan, Saipan, Hawaii and the Philippines, and southeast Asia.

Some of these people are in Vietnam right now. The Strategic Air

Command, 110 out of 338 have 5 years-plus service. These people

serve worldwide. There are SAC people at all bases throughout the
•

28 ROTATION OF CIVILIAN EMPLOYEES FROM OVERSEAS POSTS

world. USAFE, which includes Europe, the Mediterranean area,

and the Near East, has 765 out of 1,700 who have been there 5 years.

Of course, this represents predominantly Germany, France, and England. USAFSO, for Panama primarily, 141 out of 237 have been

there 5 years.

(Slide 4) Program features: Some of this is redundant. As has

been stated, we are guaranteeing these employees a position in the

continental United States at their present grade and salary. I would

like to make one distinction between the pre-1960 and the post-1960

people. The people who went over since 1960 with reemployment

rights have the legislative and legal entitlement to the job they held

in the United States at the time they left. In most instances this is

a lower grade or salary than they are now receiving. Practically

everyone who takes a foreign assignment gets a promotion within 2

or 3 years. If he is there 10 or 15 years, he may have had three or

four promotions. So the post-1960 people have the entitlement back

to the location they came from, which in most instances would be at

a reduced salary. We are incorporating them in this program. We

are guaranteeing to them that if they accept the conditions of the

overall program

'

they will get a job in the United States at the salary

and grade they hold overseas.

(Slide 5) I have already touched upon this. There are exceptions

becaire we do not have counterpart jobs in the United States for all

Of these people, and all of them do not have career status. In our

regulation we have a built-in provision for approval in Air Force

headquarters of 1 additional year based on hardship, management

need, approaching retirement, or dependent children in school, and

things of that sort. This is what is going to stay in the regulations.

The Secretary of the Air Force within his legal authority can make

extensions beyond this 1-year period. They would have to be in extremely rare and justifiable cases. But we will listen to the employee's

side of the story in every situation that comes up.

We are going to initiate a program to get rid of these overseas limited

people, people who are appointed overseas and who do not have civil

service status. They will be subject to displacement by career people

and career people affected by the base closure program in the United

States if they want to go overseas. We are going to discontinue making those appointments indefinitely. We are going to make them

for a 1-year period. If a person does not qualify under a civil service

examination within 1 year, in all probability we will separate him if an

appropriate examination has been given. If not, we will renew the

appointment for the period of another year.

If a reassigniment offer is not accepted or reemployment rights are

not exercised, he will separate for failure to accept assignment. Of

course, this is basic to the whole rotation concept.

(Slide 6) How do we plan to implement it? We have three elements involved. We have our overseas commands, our stateside

commands or activities, and we have Air Force headquarters. The

overseas commands will submit to us as soon as the program is published, a list or a roster of people who are affected by the program,

scheduling them in reverse order, that is, those with 15 to 20 years'

a
ROTATION OF CIVILIAN EMPLOYEES FROM OVERSEAS POSTS 29

service will come back first, 10 to 5, and so on, in increments over a

5-year period. One-fifth of them will come back each year. At the

same time, any requests for exceptions will be submitted based on the

criteria we have established. This list of availables with a resum6 of

their experience, their qualifications, et cetera, will be submitted to our

headquarters. Simultaneously, the overseas activity, if it needs a

replacement, will submit a requisition for recruitment. It does not

necessarily have to be for the job vacated. They may have promoted

someone overseas for the job or it may have been washed out. Overseas commands will advise employees if they refuse specific assignment

they will be separated.

We have been doing a lot of orientation work with our overseas people in anticipation of this program.

Our headquarters, specifically Mr. Watts' office, will get this list

of availables from the overseas activities. Concurrently we will be

receiving a list of vacancies from stateside installations. Taking into

consideration the employee's desires as to location and the available

openings in the United States, we will direct assignments of these

people.

This is contrary to historic Air Force practice. Our base commanders have had a lot of authority in hiring and firing. This will

be a directed program, the same as the base closure program, if the guy

is qualified and we can find a job for him.

Losing and gaining activities: The particular bases concerned will

work out the travel arrangements and reporting dates concurrently on

direct negotiation.

(Slide 7.) This again is a wrapup or summary.

Mr. HENDERSON. For the benefit of the members and persons present,

this is all contained in a printed brochure and, without objection, I will

order that it be printed in the record at this point.

(The 'brochure follows:)

Am FORCE PROGRAM FOR ROTATION OF CIVILIAN EMPLOYEES FROM FOREIGN AREAS

AND THE PANAMA CANAL ZONE TO THE UNITED STATES

PUBLIC LAW 86-585, APPROVED JULY 5, 1960

Provides reemployment rights to jobs in the United States.

In its report on this bill the House Committee on Post Office and Civil Service

stated (No. 1469, Apr. 12, 1960) : "* * * the Congress in this legislation established a strong policy of facilitating the interchange of civilian employees of the

Defense Establishment 'between posts of duty in the United States and posts of

duty outside the United States * *

Report of Senate Committee on Post Office and Civil Service to Senate (No.

1624, June 21, 1960) : "Expresses will of Congress to facilitate rotation of employees between positions overseas and positions in the United States. Return

rights would serve as statutory foundation for this program."

AIR FORCE IMPLEMENTATION OF PUBLIC LAW 86-585

Air Force established policy which became effective October 1960:

Placed 5-year limitation on foreign service:

Will be separated if they do not return within 5 years.

Otherwise, U.S. placement guaranteed.

Employees moved to foreign areas since October 1960 will begin to return

to United States this year.

52-506-65— —3
30 ROTATION OF CIVILIAN EMPLOYEES FROM OVERSEAS POSTS

Magnitude of problem—Civilian direct hire strength (foreign areas and

Panama Canal Zone)

5 years plus Total

Competitive service:

Career employees 1,692 4,047

Noncareer (OSL) 132 521 Excepted service:

Dependents school personnel 540 2,453 MAAG 99 241 Other excepted 100 248 Canal Zone 144 237

Total 2,707 1 7,747 Subject to mandatory reassignment (career) 1,836 

1 496 now have status return rights—must return beginning Oct. 1, 1965.

Career employees with 5 plus years continuous service in foreign areas and

Panama Canal Zone by years of service

5 to 10

years

10 to 15

years

15 years

plus

Total

5 years

Total

career

employees

MATS 81 32 76 189 316

PACAF 157 195 276 628 1,693

SAC 88 18 4 110 338

USAFE 398 214 153 765 1,700

USAFSO 36 32 76 144 237

Total 760 491 585 1,836 4,284

PROGRAM FEATURES

Assure placement in the United States without loss of grade or pay for career

employees with 5 years plus in foreign areas:

If they accept assignment anywhere in the United States.

Those with reemployment rights have option of exercising them.

Schedule mandatory reassignment to positions in United States: Phase over

5-year period.

Initiate program to minimize future problems in foreign areas:

Replace noncareer with career employees:

Adversely affected by base closures and other cutbacks.

Who apply for foreign assignment.

Limit to 1 year appointments of local hires: Subject to displacement by

career employees.

Only temporary promotions made after 42 months' service (18 months before

end 5-year period) : Returned to permanent grade before reassignment.

Exceptions (continuing study will be made) :

Noncareer employees.

Dependents school personnel now on board.

Employees with specialized skills and qualifications who cannot be placed

in Conus.

MAAG personnel.

By Headquarters, USAF, for 1 additional year based on hardship, management need, or approaching retirement.

Initiate program of replacing overseas limited appointees with career

employees.

Freeze matching vacancies in United States to accommodate placement of

those scheduled for return.

If reassignment offer not accepted or reemployment rights not exercised, separate for refusal to accept assignment.
ROTATION OF CIVILIAN EMPLOYEES FROM OVERSEAS POSTS 31

REASONS FOR RETURN PROGRAM

Provide equity between employees assigned to foreign areas after October

1960 and those employed earlier:

Extends to employees who were assigned before October 1960.

Guarantees job in United States at current grade and basic pay.

Enhances career development and career progression.

Provides reorientation in American ideals and way of life.

Program has long-term benefits which are in best interests of both management and employees:

Creates more opportunities for service abroad.

Creates greater desire on part of stateside employees to accept foreign

assignments.

Shares equitably benefits of United States and foreign service residence.

State Department finds people who stay in foreign areas for full career:

Tend to get isolated.

Tend to get insulated from realities of life at home.

Military departments limit overseas service for military personnel:

Career progression.

Opportunity to gain new experiences.

Assures updating of skills and techniques.

Public Law 86-585 established firm foundation and need for—

Rotation program between United States and foreign countries.

It is in the interest of both the agency and employee.

OPERATING PROCEDURES

Overseas major air command—Schedules return of career employees:

Begin with those having longest foreign service.

Request exceptions for 1 year based on—

Needs of management.

Personal hardship.

Approaching retirement.

Sends list of availables to Headquarters, USAF:

Include one-fifth of those overseas 5 years plus.

Submit each year until program current.

Submit (simultaneous with above) requisition for recruitment of replacement:

May be for position vacated.

May be for another position if vacancy filled by promotion or

reassignment.

Advise employees scheduled for return that if they refuse specific assignment, they will be separated.

Headquarters, USAF:

Matches list of availables with vacancies.

Directs placement of returnee in appropriate vacancy.

Directs command which places returnee to find replacement if necessary.

Losing and gaining activities: Work out details so that employees move

concurrently.

SUMMARY OF REASONS

Employees with long foreign service can return to their homeland without

loss in grade or basic pay.

Provides opportunity to renew ties with American way of life and next of

kin.

Provides opportunity for foreign service to greater numbers of people.

Program applicable to all has advantages for Air Force and provides equitable

treatment to all employees.
32 ROTATION OF CIVILIAN EMPLOYEES FROM OVERSEAS POSTS

Estimated costs

Estimated additional cost of proposed program,' per year if phased over 5-year

period:

PCS return 217 per year $434, 000

Stateside replacements 217 per year 434, 000

Total PCS movement 868, 000

Cost per year added AFPCP staff 45,000

Total for proposed program 913,000

Cost of present program per year (normal attrition) :

PCS return to United States 660,000

PCS stateside replacements (330 average per year) 660,000

Total present program 1,320,000

Total per year for present plus proposed program 2,233,000

I To phase out the 1,836 5-year-plus employees over a 5-year period will require the

return of 367 per year. However, additional costs are required for only 217. Approximately 150 5-year-plus people are included in the normal attrition of 330 each year.

Mr. HENDERSON. Let me ask if you could refer back to chart No. 4.

The question I want to ask may not be directly tied to this chart.

In the competitive service and in your career employees there, that

1,692, have you an idea how many of that group are over there and do

not have status?

Mr. WALDEN. All the 1,692 have status. The 132 do not.

Mr. HENDERSON. Were the 132 hired in the United States?

Mr. WALDEN. No. They were hired locally in the overseas area.

Mr. HENDERSON. That is the group you plan to phase out?

Mr. WALDEN. That is right, unless they qualify for conversion on

an appropriate examination. We would like to see them qualify.

Some of these people have been over there 20 years and have never

taken an examination, even when it was offered.

Mr. HENDERSON. What kind of work, generally speaking, are these

employees doing overseas?

Mr. WALDEN. Everything from clerk-typist up to the intelligence

specialists, engineers, comptrollers, budget types. They run the

gamut, the same thinc,we have in the United States—wage-board

employees, sewage disposal, saline water operations.

Mr. HENDERSON. You certainly have all of their counterpart positions here in the continental United States.

Mr. WALDEN. We have counterpart positions someplace in the

United States for practically every job over there within the Air Force.

Whether the time will match or not, I do not know. If we cannot

match them, we will have to leave them there until we can honor our

commitment, except for a few of the intelligence jobs. We are working

with the National Security Agency, and some of the intelligence offices

around town, to work things out.

Mr. HENDERSON. That problem is similar somewhat to the teachers

overseas.

Mr. WALDEN. Yes, sir.

Mr. BUCHANAN. Hps there been any system whereby an employee

who has to be returned to the United States would be assured of

retirement in the States?

Mr. WALDEN. We have had a voluntary placement program, but it

has been paper-shuffling. As Mr. Macy and some of the other speakers
ROTATION OF CIVILIAN EMPLOYEES FROM OVERSEAS POSTS 33

indicated, they have had to shop for a job, because historically our

base commanders have done their own hiring.

This is a directed program of enforced placement. We have done a.

lot under our voluntary program. We have placed a lot of people.

But we have not given them a guarantee. We are not giving them

something positive. Also, some of our commands have overseas and

stateside installations, and to the extent they can pick up and operate

the program without going through headquarters, that is fine.

Mr. HENDERSON. I have a question at this point that I think is applicable. Any of you may answer. Would it be possible for us to use

a computer operation, as we are using for base closures, in connection

with this program?

Mr. WHEELESS. Yes, that could be used, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. LANG. I might add a word on Mr. Buchanan's point. The advantage of our proposed program is that overseas personnel who are

included are guaranteed an opportunity of a job equivalent to what

they have overseas, whereas heretofore these pre-1960 people who

wanted to come back home, if we did not have a place for them, had to

go shopping around. This program guarantees them an opportunity

or we will not bring them home.

Mr. HENDERSON. Mr. Secretary, as I understand and as we have been

told, the Department of Defense has a freeze on new hires in the

continental United States now because of the .base-closing problem.

That freeze affords us an opportunity to look at job availability within

the continental United States for these people.

Mr. LANG. That is right. We are talking of roughly 300 people a

year for the next 5 years under our proposed program. We anticipate

that some of these people, who are involved, will not want to come

home. On our best calculation, it figures out to about 271 a year that

we will be dealing with in the next 5 years. We do not think that

number is unmanageable.

Mr. WALDEN. We do not have a firm freeze. It is only when someone is available in the referral system. If we have none available, we

can hire them.

Mr. HENDERSON. That is the reason I raised the point. There would

be a possibility, I guess, probably a rare one, on a base closure. You do

not have somebody in the job by number. It is not frozen. But it

would be possible if you have them in this system to apply that freeze

by order.

Mr. WALDEN. Yes, sir.

Mr. HENDERSON. That would be within the Air Force, would it not?

Mr. WALDEN. Yes.

Mr. HENDERSON. I would think it would be possible, if the Air Force

did not have an available job back here, you could call on the Department of Defense with regard to the availability in the other services.

Mr. LANG. That is the way the program operates.

Mr. WALDEN. As Mr. Macy indicated, we will have some operational

problems to be met.

Mr. LANG. If I could inject a point of information which may be

helpful to the committee concerning how we are getting along with

the base closure personnel problem, in the last 6 months we have

placed 3,085 of those employees affected in the same or higher grades,

we have placed 726 in a lower grade and 318 in industry, of the more
34 ROTATION OF CIVILIAN EMPLOYEES FROM OVERSEAS POSTS

than 30,000 who are affected. So we are getting into this problem

rather well this early in the base closure exercise.

Mr. HENDERSON. It certainly is helpful on this point, because it

illustrates the magnitude of this undertaking is nothing like the magnitude of that problem.

Mr. LANG. Again, we want to emphasize that the base closure people take precedence over our rotation proposal.

Mr. BUCHANAN. I assume, then, Mr. Secretary, as you have stated,

that if base closure personnel priorities mean comparable work will

not be available in the United States, the man will not be brought

back.

Mr. LANG. That is right. We do not bring him back until he gets

comparability at least.

Mr. BUCHANAN. IS it not true that there is the distinction that those

aoing overseas after 1960 have gone on a strictly voluntary basis?

Mr. LANG. Yes, sir. They understood the terms under which they

went over there, the 5-year proposition.

Mr. BUCHANAN. But this is not necessarily true, of course, before

1960.

Mr. LANG. No, sir, it was not true of them.

Mr. BUCHANAN. I believe that is all, Mr. Chairman.

Thank you, Mr. Secretary.

Mr. HENDERSON. Mr. Secretary, I do not suppose I should let you

get away without asking one loaded question, one which I think would

be helpful to the committee. Can you tell us or can any of you tell

us why the Air Force has allowed an employee to stay overseas 20

years on a tour of duty?

Mr. LANG. I believe Mr. Chairman, that the gentlemen who preceded me gave some pretty good answers to that.

Mr. Macy, Mr. Jones, and Mr. Wheeless have indicated that when

we instituted our overseas programs several years ago, we did not

know how long we were going to be there, and the job has continued

and grown as a result of the international situation. Thus, we are now

confronted with a rotation problem that we realize is one we should

resolve.

As Mr. Jones has pointed out, during our lifetime it appears that

we are going to be over there for a good while, so now we had better

begin to do something to resolve our rotation problem.

Mr. JONES. There is another factor here, too. I ask the subcommittee not to forget that for a long time these people had no status. We

did not extend civil service overseas.

Mr. HENDERSON. To be specific, I will ask Mr. IVheeless, do you feel

that the fact that this matter has been under consideration and study,

I will not say procrastination on the question, has led to the lengthening of the tours—the mere fact that somebody has not taken this

problem and come to a conclusion before now?

Mr. WHEELESS. I think there is no question that that is true, Mr.

Henderson.

Mr. HENDERSON. This puts it in the record that it becomes incumbent upon the subcommittee, since we have been requested to give our

comments on this, to proceed with the hearing and afford the Department of Defense any suggestions that the committee members might

have.
ROTATION OF CIVILIAN EMPLOYEES FROM OVERSEAS POSTS 35

Mr. WHEELESS. I might add, as has been said, we came to grips with

the need for some program such as this, at least prospectively, in 1960.

At that time all three of the military departments embarked on these

more or less voluntary rotation programs which, as Mr. Walden has

indicated, have worked out with some reasonable success; but we still

have this backlog of people with long periods of overseas service who

are not volunteering to come back, so we now need something else.

Mr. BUCHANAN. Mr. Secretary, this may be a little premature. One

thing has occurred to me. I note in your description of operating

procedures in implementing this program you begin with those having the longest foreign service, and you take into account approaching

retirement as one of the exceptions for 1 year. I want to point out it

might be possible that you would have a man who within the 5-year

period on which you are basing this thing would be reaching retirement age, and it might be worth considering that there might be cases

where, if you are going to do this over a 5-year period, some of those

with the longer service would reach retirement within the 5 years,

rather than the one, and you might want to start on the other end or

at least be flexible in this policy.

Mr. LANG. Mr. Buchanan, that comes within the flexible provisions

of this program. We should be in a position to consider individual

personal problems based on their merit within the guidelines of this

program.

I think from what we have said, we certainly will be considerate and

judicious in implementing this proposal.

Mr. BUCHANAN. In other words, if a man's retirement should come

within the 5 rather than the 1 year, you might take that into

consideration.

Mr. LANG. That is right.

Mr. HENDERSON. Mr. Secretary, your presentation has been very

good. I would think that we may want to come back, perhaps informally, and talk with you after we hear from the other witnesses

about some of the problems that we see, but at this point I think you

have done a commendable job, and I want to thank you for being as

well prepared and patient with us as you have been.

The subcommittee will convene at 10 a.m. tomorrow, at which time

we will hear from representatives of the Department of the Navy, the

American Federation of Government Employees, AFL-CIO representatives, representatives of the National Federation of Federal Employees, and, while these are the only 2 days we have scheduled, certainly in the light of the importance of this matter, the subcommittee

will take such time as it may require to thoroughly go into these plans

and programs and be as helpful as we can to you.

The subcommittee will stand adjourned.

( Whereupon, at 12:17 p.m., the subcommittee adjourned, to t 'convene at 10 a.m., Thursday, August 12, 1965.)
S.
ROTATION OF FEDERAL CIVILIAN EMPLOYEES FROM

OVERSEAS POSTS

THURSDAY, AUGUST 12, 1965

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,

SUBCOMMITTEE ON MANPOWER OF THE

COMMITTEE ON POST OFFICE AND CIVIL SERVICE

ashing ton:D.0

The subcommittee met at 10 a.m., in room 215, Cannon Building,

Hon. David N. Henderson (chairman of the subcommittee) presiding.

Mr. HENDERSON. The subcommittee will come to order.

We are, today, continuing the public hearings relating to rotation

of U.S. 

citizens, 

civilian employees of the Department of Defense

from oversea posts back to the continental United States.

Yesterday we heard from the Chairman of the Civil Service Commission, the Honorable John Macy; the Special Assistant Director,

Bureau of Budget, Mr. Roger Jones • Mr. Leon Wheeless, Director

of the Office of Civilian Personnel, Office of the Secretary of Defense;

Mr. John A. Lang, Special Assistant for Manpower to the Secretary

of the Air Force.

Today Capt. Paul A. Gisvold, Chief of Industrial Relations Department of the Navy, will outline the Navy's Department for rotating

their Department's career civilian employees overseas.

Following the Navy plans, we will hear from Mr. John Griner,

national president of American Federation of Government Employees;

director of Government Employes' Council, AFL—CIO, Mr. John

McCart ; the president of National Federation of Federal Employees,

N. T. Wolkomir ; and Mr. Henry J. White, representative of an

employee group at Kindley Air Force Base, Bermuda.

Gentlemen, we are happy to have you before the subcommittee this

morning.

Captain Gisvold, you might proceed.

STATEMENT OF CAPT. PAUL A. GISVOLD, U.S. NAVY, CHIEF OF THE

OFFICE OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS, DEPARTMENT OF THE

NAVY, ACCOMPANIED BY HARRY E. McCLAIN, OFFICE OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS STAFF

Captain GISVOLD. Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee,

the Navy appreciates this opportunity to appear before the members

of the subcommittee to discuss with you the Navy's proposed return

placement program for U.S. citizen employees stationed in overseas

areas. I have with me today Mr. Harry E. McClain, who is the Overseas Coordinator of the Office of Industrial Relations Staff.

87
38 ROTATION OF CIVILIAN EMPLOYEES FROM OVERSEAS POSTS

Navy's employment of U.S. civil service personnel in foreign coun- tries ranges somewhere between 2,000 and 2,500, which is relatively

small in comparison with the other military services. About 25 percent of these are dependents of locally stationed military personnel.

These dependents present no significant rotation problems. The re- maining 75 percent, numbering about 1,600 or so, are the principal

subjects of our present concern.

But, we are also concerned about some of our personnel in offshore

U.S. areas such as Alaska, Hawaii, Guam, Puerto Rico, et cetera. In these areas we have about 2,000 employees recruited from continental United States under employment agreements which entitle them to certain special benefits such as pay differentials and transportation

allowances for themselves, their dependents, and their household goods.

Some of these personnel want to return to the continental United.

States after serving agreed tours. In other instances, due to the de- veloping state of local labor markets in these U.S. areas, qualified local residents become available as potential replacements for these people. When such money-saving replacements can be made, or when employees who have served agreed tours desire to return to continental United States, the need for an effective return-placement program is similar to that required for personnel stationed in foreign countries.

We have considered proposals regarding rotation of U.S. citizen employees between overseas areas and activities within the continental United States on several occasions over the past years. While a num- ber of problem situations have generated such proposals, three basic problems are considered to be of paramount importance:

RETURN EMPLOYMENT RIGHTS

Overseas employees who wish to return to the continental United States are often unable to negotiate acceptable stateside placements

on their own, and may thus remain overseas far beyond the time when they legitimately desire to return. This is undesirable from two

aspects: it is unfair to leave an employee stranded overseas with no effective means of providing for his return to appropriate employment in the continental United States and some high-quality candidates

are undoubtedly deterred from applying for overseas placements because they fear they may be stranded overseas.

MANAGEMENT INITIATED ROTATION

When oversea activities observe needs for employees to be refreshed in their occupations by stateside experience, or when they observe social problems surrounding an employee or his dependents because of isola- tion from the continental United States, they are without effective

means of accomplishing management-initiated reassignments.

REPLACEMENT wrrn LOCAL HIRES

Oversea activities do not have a workable method of terminating the employment agreements of stateside personnel when qualified local residents who may be appropriately employed as replacements become available. This causes the Navy to continue unnecessary costs for the special allowances and benefits discussed above.
ROTATION OF CIVILIAN EMPLOYEES FROM OVERSEAS POSTS 3g

Our examination of this matter has indicated that our existing

programs for voluntary exercise of reemployment rights under Public

Law 86-585 and for voluntary placement assistance are not adequate

to solve these problems, because they lack two factors which an effective rotation program must have: (1) Activities in the continental

United States must be required to accept directed placements, and (2)

some employees stationed overseas must be required to choose between

directed reassignments and involuntary separations.

Accordingly, we believe we should act now to establish a suitable

return placement plan which includes those two essential features.

Our proposed return placement plan is based upon the three

principles:

1. Selections for oversea positions should contribute constructively

to sustained fulfillment of our manpower needs, representation of the

United States abroad, and the efficiency of the Navy. Long-term

assignments in foreign areas involve hazards to these objectives.

Therefore, under normal circumstances, employees should be encouraged to seek reassignment in the continental United States after not

more than two consecutive tours of duty in foreign areas.

2. When an employee does not make timely application for return

placement, or when an oversea activity determines that return placement would be in the best interests of an employee, his dependents, or

the Navy, a management-initiated reassignment should be made.

Naval activities in oversea areas should assure that any indicated

economies are realized whenever qualified local residents become available and can be appropriately employed to replace employees recruited

from the continental United States.

3. The Navy's plan should assure timely responses to employee

applications and management nominations for return placements.

The primary features of the proposed Navy return placement program are as follows:

The Navy's proposed plan would apply to all activities of the Navy

which employ U.S. citizen civil service employees outside of the continental United States. In foreign areas the plan would apply to all

U.S. civil service employees except marine employees of the Military

Sea Transportation Service and professional personnel of dependents'

school systems. Both of these groups of employees are sufficiently

unique as to require separate plans. In the U.S. oversea areas, the

plan would apply to all employees who are entitled to any special

allowances or benefits because they claim a place of residence in the

continental United States.

Activities in foreign areas would establish maximum tour limits for

employees in key positions which normally would prevent such employees from living outside the United States for more than 5 consecutive years; however, upon recommendation of the employing command,

the cognizant bureau headquarters could authorize an extension of an

employee's foreign tour limit when such action was judged to be in the

best interests of the employee, his dependents, and the Navy.

An employee who has completed his current oversea tour of duty

could apply for placement in the continental United States at his current grade or pay level and base pay—or at any lower grade or pay

level and base pay which he voluntarily agreed to accept.
40 ROTATION OF CIVILIAN EMPLOYEES FROM OVERSEAS POSTS

Overseas activities could request reassignment of employees to

positions in the continental United States under four general

circumstances:

(1) When an employee failed to apply for and accept return

placement upon completion of his authorized maximum tour of

duty in a foreign area—however, I should again like to make it

clear that where it is mutually agreed to be in the best interest

of all concerned, that is the employee, his dependents, and the

Navy, to keep the employee in his position, his maximum tour of

duty in the foreign area will be extended;

(2) When employment of a qualified local resident of the

overseas area as a replacement for an employee recruited from the

mainland would be appropriate and would eliminate extra costs

for special allowances and benefits;

(3) When an activity observed a need for updating occupational skills due to isolation of the employee from the United

States 

' 

• or

(4) When the activity observed a social problem due to isolation of the employee and/or his dependents from the United

States.

When an activity desired to nominate an employee for return

placement, it would notify him of its intention and inquire whether he

would accept return placement, and at what locations. If the employee

refused to accept a directed reassignment, separation proceedings

would be instituted by a separate notice. In U.S. overseas areas

'

a

person who had been so separated could be reemployed, after a break

in service

'

as a local hire. As a local hire, however, he would lose entitlement to the special allowances and benefits he formerly received.

Of course, such management decisions could be appealed under our

present procedures. That prerogative is not left entirely in the

command.

When return placements are to be made, each bureau and office

of the Navy which has primary-support responsibilities for overseas

activities would make the initial placement efforts on behalf of employees of its overseas activities. If it should appear that placement

of an employee was unlikely within a reasonable period of time, the

bureau or office would register the employee into the DOD centralized

referral system in order to assure placement opportunities; however,

the employee would be assigned a lower priority for placement than

employees affected by base closures.

You notice we provide first for the cognizant bureau to place an

employee within its jurisdiction. If that cannot be done promptly, we

would then use the DOD computerized system. However, we would

not interfere with the rights of persons affected by base closures.

With regard to current status of the plan, I should like to emphasize that the plan I have been discussing is still in the proposal

stage. We have requested the bureaus and offices of the Navy, and

the employee organizations to which we have accorded national formal

recognition, to provide us with their comments, and we are now giving

very careful consideration to them.

We have asked 13 employee organizations for their comments. We

have comments back from four of those organizations. We expect

to get some more in the next few days.
ROTATION OF CIVILIAN EMPLOYEES FROM OVERSEAS POSTS 41

We are very gratified to have this opportunity to present our proposed plan to his subcommittee. Since the establishment of a return

placement program will confer significant career development benefits on employees selected for overseas assignments, and because such

a plan would have considerable impact on the Navy and its employees,

we wish to obtain the views of all parties who may be able to assist

us in developing the best possible plan for accomplishing the objectives I have discussed.

Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee, it is a pleasure

to be here today. I am now prepared to answer any questions you

may have.

Mr. HENDERSON. Thank you, Captain.

You make the point that some highly qualified candidates are deterred from applying for overseas placements because they feel they

will be stranded overseas.

Wasn't this the underlying factor that led to the enactment of

Public Law 86-585?

Captain GISVOLD. Public Law 86-585 only applied to the people who

were sent overseas after that time. The people who are overseas 

Mr. HENDERSON. That leads to my second question. Didn't the enactment of that law, however, give your new hires, those that now

want to go over, the assurance that they could come back at least to

the job that they held before they went over?

Captain GISVOLD. Most of these people that go overseas get a promotion later on. Their return rights under the law are to come back to

the job they left.

Now, there are several reasons for not coming back to that job.

One, they are either taking a cut in pay in coming back to the United

States, or they may even go from a supervisory position overseas to

a nonsupervisory position.

Mr. HENDERSON. The point you are making is that in this particular

instance, the plan that the Navy has will correct this situation more

effectively than Public Law 86-585 because it will enable the employee

to come back to a position of a grade comparable to the one he is

holding at the time he makes his application, rather than the one he

held before he went over there?

Captain GISVOLD. That is right, sir.

Mr. HENDERSON. YOU do find that in the Navy this is a deterrent to

overseas placement because of the fear of losing their grade and promotion more than loss of job?

Captain GISVOLD. They have practically committed themselves to

stay in the position they went overseas in they are committed to stay

in until they come back to the United States, which can be 5 years,

and they may be forced into a longer session overseas.

Mr. HENDERSON. Captain as I understand your testimony, and it

was very well presented arid prepared, do I gather that there is a

difference in the Navy plan and the Air Force plan?

First, perhaps I should ask you: Are you familiar with the Air

Force plan?

Captain GISVOLD. Yes, sir I am.

Mr. HENDERSON. Is there a difference here—you are putting more

emphasis on the overseas employee voluntarily requesting assignment before the mandatory rotation is triggered?
•

42 ROTATION OF CIVILIAN EMPLOYEES FROM OVERSEAS POSTS

Captain GISVOLD. I'm sorry. I didn't quite understand the question.

Mr. HENDERSON. As I understand your plan, at the end of two

tours the employee will be afforded an opportunity to make a timely

application for return placement?

Captain GISVOLD. Yes.

Mr. HENDERSON. As I understood the Air Force plan—and I may

be wrong on this—they didn't testify that they would afford this opportunity for the voluntary request to come back.

Captain GISVOLD. As I understand the Air Force plan, it does not

emphasize that aspect as we do.

Mr. HENDERSON,. And there is this difference between the two plans.

Captain GISVOLD. Yes, sir.

Mr. HENDERSON. When they make the timely application—and I

assume that this is at that point voluntary—are you going to within

the Navy afford 'them all of the mechanics to locate a job for them and

place them in a job that you would afford under the mandatory assignment, if they don't do thwt?

Captain GISVOLD. Yes.

Mr. HENDERSON. As I understand it, you do have a 5-year period

that you are talking about here, as the Air Force was yesterday?

Captain GISVOLD. We are not giving any fixed length of time. We

are recommending two tours of duty.

Mr. HENDERSON. In that two tours, at the end of two tours, the

employee may ask for rotation back to the States?

Captain GISVOLD. Yes, sir.

Mr. HENDERSON. At that point, what are you going to do to help

him find a job and get him a job?

Captain GisvorD. He makes an application to his cognizant bureau.

The bureau tries to place him within the organization to which he is

normally attached in his overseas assignment. If they are unable to

do so within a fixed period of time, he is then registered into the DOD

Centralized Referral. System. If he doesn't get a job through the Centralized Referral System, we will retain him in his overseas position

until a stateside job for him is located. I don't think most employees

will have any real difficulty in this unless they are very restrictive

with regard to the areas and locales where they will accept placement.

We have had some problems with the Centralized Referral System

when an employee says "I only want to go to one location," and there

isn't a job available in the one location. But the system provides for

freezing job openings for which the individual is qualified.

Mr. HENDERSON. Are you going to use the exact procedure to make

the same effort at that stage, as you would make when the command

requests that he be sent back?

Captain GISVOLD. Yes.

Mr. HENDERSON. There will be the same effort and same procedure?

Captain GisvoLo. The placement is the same.

Mr. HENDERSON. Suppose that the voluntary request is to come back

and you offer him an assignment that he says is not acceptable to him.

You couldn't give him his first choice. Are you going to give three

or more choices?

Captain GISVOLD. When we haven't, through the Centralized Referral Service, come up with any offers we keep him in the system
ROTATION OF CIVILIAN EMPLOYEES FROM OVERSEAS POSTS 43

until we are able to get him a job. We think we will be able to fulfill

his desires in a reasonable period of time.

Mr. HENDERSON. Suppose he says he doesn't want to go to the base

where you have a job of his grade and level, and within his field of

experience?

Captain. GisvoLD. I think we are going to have to provide a place

for him because we want to rotate these people from overseas.

Mr. HENDERSON. Then I was going to ask, are you going to trigger

your mandatory assignment or would you say to him, if you don't

accept 

this, 

then under this procedure, we are going to separate you?

Captain GISVOLD. If we offer him what we regard to be a suitable

placement, yes.

Mr. HENDERSON. If he voluntarily asks for assignment, and then

doesn't take the assignment offered to him 

Captain GISVOLD. We have the option of separating him in the oversea position, yes, sir.

Mr. HENDERSON. This would be true under the next step, that if he

did not make the voluntary request at the end of his tour, then his

command could ask that he be returned?

Captain GISVOLD. That is right.

Mr. HENDERSON. You make the statement that the bureau headquarters could authorize an extension of an employee's foreign tour.

And my question is, how long or do you have a limitation? The Air

Force yesterday said that they woulci give at least a 1-year extension.

Captain GISVOLD. There is no limitation. We like to keep the man

in the position as long as he is needed in the position overseas, as long

as he is satisfactory to the command that is responsible for doing the

job overseas.

Mr. HENDERSON. Therefore, if you had an employee that had been

there for two tours, he did not voluntarily request to come back at the

end of that time, the command asked that he come back—let me put it

this way: Suppose the command did not ask he be rotated. What

would happen?

Captain GISVOLD. At the end of the two tours?

Mr. HENDERSON. Yes.

Captain GISVOLD. What would happen, Mr. McClain?

Mr. McCLAirr. This is what would happen there: the command

would request concurrence of its bureau headquarters to extend his

foreign tour on the grounds that all parties concerned would be best

served by this action and if the bureau agreed, then his tour would be

extended and there would be no limitation on how far it could be extended under this procedure.

Mr. HENDERSON. And if you found that it was in the best interest

of the Navy and the employee, say, to be extended 2 years, and then

take another look at it, you could continue, but at least you would

have a review at the end of his two tours?

Mr. McCLAnsr. This is right.

Mr. HENDERSON. And a review above his command headquarters

overseas?

Mr. MCCLAIN. That is right.

Mr. HENDERSON. Just following that, you said an employee has

completed his tour, he could apply at his current grade or pay level
44 ROTATION OF CIVILIAN EMPLOYEES FROM OVERSEAS POSTS

of base pay or at a lower grade or pay level and base pay which he

voluntarily agreed to accept. I wonder why the lower grade or pay

level.

Captain GISVOLD. S011ae of these people may be desirous of coming back to the States quickly, or to a particular location and would

be willing to take a lower pay grade to accelerate their return, or

to improve their prospects of being placed where they want to be.

Mr. HENDERSON. Why would they be, if you are saying in the plan,

you are going to try to get them equal pay grade and equal pay level?

Captain GISVOLD. They may not be able to get the location they

want, or they may want to come back next month, in effect. It may

take a while to place them in locales they are interested in going to, and we may be unable to do that immediately. We may have

another job at a lower grade that he would be willing to accept.

Mr. HENDERSON. This would be an offer on your part, contingent

upon timing?

Captain GISVOLD. That is right.

Mr. HENDERSON. I notice that you propose to rotate civilian em- ployees from Alaska 'and Hawaii. I wonder why you included those States in the plan.

Captain GISVOLD. People from Hawaii—well, we would like to have

a terminal date on some of the people under employment agreements

who have fringe benefits being accrued year after year after year

over there. This is a cost factor.

Mr. HENDERSON. In that category, I think you made a good point.

I think I see that. How about the other employees who do not have those fringe benefits?

Mr. McCLAIN. There are problems of requests for return placements there. Some people who were recruited from the mainland of the United States for shortage category positions in the States of Hawaii and Alaska desire to return to the continental United States after serving an agreed tour, and this plan would provide the same

sort of responsiveness to those employee applicants as would 'apply

to those in foreign countries.

Mr. HENDERSON. How much of a problem does the Navy have in getting employees in these two States?

Captain GISVOLD. Local hires?

Mr. HENDERSON. That you have to come back to the continental United States and run into problems you just spoke of.

Mr. MCCLAIN. The Navy's stations in Alaska are in Kodiak and Adak; those are the only places we have employees in Alaska, and there is no local labor market of any significance in those locations at all, so those positions are filled 'almost 100 percent with continental

U.S. recruits.

You ask how much of a problem is it? We fill them, it involves work to fill them, but we get them filled. Now in the other State Mr. HENDERSON. Certainly I can see in the isolated case there

in Alaska, and I do think it is isolated, a little different situation. But I just hoped that with Hawaii, we would not be setting a

pattern here, that some of our employees who might be stationed down in Key West would think they were isolated from continental
a

ROTATION OF CIVILIAN EMPLOYEES FROM OVERSEAS POSTS 45

United States and would like to return to their home or some isolated areas in North Carolina. They might feel they were

Mr. McCLAnsT. The law doesn't apply to Key West as it does in

Hawaii. If we recruit in the Navy's interest for shortage categories

in Hawaii, we are obligated under existing law to put them under

employment agreements which provide for transportation at

Government expense.

Mr. HENDERSON. I don't think the committee would want the

Navy to put Hawaii in the category certainly that it is not as attractive as Florida and other resort areas of our own country.

Mr. McCLA1N. The Navy does not designate Hawaii as being

different, sir, the law does.

Mr. HENDERSON. I think that you ought to keep this in mind and

not let this, particularly with the State of Hawaii, get out of hand.

I caution you on that.

For the benefit of the committee, Captain, I interrupted you as

you were starting to talk about these employees that are over, but

at least there is one case that has been brought to our attention by

our own staff of a truckdriver, and I don't even know what service

is in Hawaii, who had one of these contracts, provided he would be

returned to one of the Eastern States every 2 years. It rather shocked

me that the service couldn't find truckdrivers in Hawaii but had to pay

this overriding cost here, 20 years after the war.

Captain GISVOLD. The law provides a renewal capability in this

thing which allows many to renew their contracts at the end of their

tours, and they just renew them over and over again. The law

allows them to do this.

Mr. HENDERSON. I am informed this is a Navy contract, Captain,

that costs the Navy some $3,700 every 2 years to return the employee, and your point made here, I think, is well taken. We

certainly agree in those cases that something needs to be done and

if they have a shortage of truckdrivers in Hawaii, I would think

that it might be interested in the manpower training program out

there.

I believe that covers the particular questions I had. Mr. Nix?

Mr. Nix. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Before these proposals were advanced, there must have been a

study and a survey in order to determine whether or not it would be

advantageous to the service to present these proposals. What I

want to know is, What are the considerations that motivated the

presentation of this rotation system? You must have had in mind

something that you would gain to the service. I want to know

those things.

Captain GISVOLD. Well, this thing has been generating over a

period of time, of course, and the number of people who have

served long tours overseas has been getting larger and larger, and

the problem has become more acute, and we have looked at the areas

overseas. We have had complaints about the personnel who have

employment agreements and they are costing us money. GAO, in

auditing the Guam and Hawaii areas, has criticized these points.

We also have recognized that people have gone overseas in a particular job and then have not wished to come back to their old

jobs because they have gotten promoted overseas.

52-506---65------4
46 ROTATION OF CIVILIAN EMPLOYEES FROM OVERSEAS POSTS

Mr. Nix. Captain if I may get in at it in this manner. First, finance, is it contemplated there will be a saving of money?

Captain GISVOLD. Yes, sir.

Mr. Nix. That is No. 1. What is No. 2?

Captain GISVOLD. We will get a rotation program so that the

benefits of overseas tours of duty for people will be distributed

thhroughout the Navy. We will get better quality group within

the Navy.

Mr. Nix. Better quality?

Captain GISVOLD. That is right, sir.

Mr. Nix. Others?

Captain GISVOLD. Another one is we won't strand people overseas. They won't be left over there indefinitely because they don't

have the opportunity to get back.

Mr. Nix. When you say they will have the opportunity to come

back, you are necessarily referring to those people who did not

come within the purview of Public Law 86-585.

Captain GISVOLD. Yes, sir that is right.

Mr. Nix. And that is a limited number of people?

Captain GisvoLD. Even those people that did come within that

purview may have been promoted overseas, and under those conditions would not have wanted to come back.

Mr. Nix. Might not have wanted to return back. That isn't a

question of their not being able to come back?

Captain GISVOLD. Excuse me, yes.

Mr. Nix. So that would materially limit the number of people

who would be unable to come back, if there are such people?

Captain GISVOLD. Yes.

Mr. Nix. What other benefit would accrue to the services, Captain?

Captain GISVOLD. Do you know of any others, Mr. McClain?

Mr. McCLAIN. As was enumerated in the statement, there are

three basic problems designed to be corrected by this, and these

problems have existed for a long time, but they have been growing

in intensity. And that is what stimulates the action now.

The three problems are: First, there are significant numbers of personnel overseas who want to come back and have wanted to come back

for a long time and we have had no system to be responsive to their

applications.

Mr. Nix. Before you leave that, again you are referring to those

not under Public Law 86-585?

Mr. McCLAmr. I refer to both, sir. Those that are under Public

Law 86-585, many of them to return under the provisions of Public

Law 86-585 would have to suffer career regressions and this is not acceptable to many people. It is not an appropriate sort of way to

return.

Mr. Nix. Let me understand that. You have--I understood they

had the right to return to positions comparable to those held by them

abroad.

Mr. McCLAnsr. No.

Captain GISVOLD. Not under Public Law 86-585.

Mr. McCiAirr. No; that guarantees them return to positions comparable to the ones they left in the continental United States before
ROTATION OF CIVILIAN EMPLOYEES FROM OVERSEAS POSTS 47

they went abroad. Typically, people going abroad will either go

abroad in order to get a promotion or having _served over there for

some time will qualify for promotion While there. So when it comes

time for them to return under the terms of Public Law 86-585, they

would have to accept a demotion back to a former status.

Mr. Nix. I understand now.

Tell me this, do you have any idea of the proportion of people coming within the terms of Public Law 86-585 who have made application and expressed the wish to return?

Mr. McCLAIN. No, I can't answer that specifically. Really, the time

has not yet arrived when cases would start maturing in number under

those provisions.

Mr. Nix. So at this moment in the consideration of this proposal,

there is a question of finance that has not been determined. There is

a question of return of people who might not be able to enjoy the

same status when they come back, and that is not determined because

you don't know the number. So all of the reasons why this proposal

should be accepted are speculative at this point?

Mr. McCiAmr. They are speculative to a degree. It is impossible,

I would suggest, to determine absolutely what numbers are involved

here. However, our studies indicate conclusively that significant numbers are involved.

We know from querying employees that at least some 40 percent

of our employees overseas have responded affirmatively when asked.,

Are you interested in a return placement to the continental United

States?

Mr. HENDERSON. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Nix. Certainly, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. HENDERSON. I would like to pursue this. It may be that you

are certainly going in this direction. Was there any consideration

given in the Navy to taking the first step that you talk about here,

)ust the voluntary system rather than extending it to the mandatory

second step?

Mr. McCiAix. Yes, sir. We have had a placement assistance program, which is dependent upon voluntary action. It has not been

effective.

Mr. HENDERSON. As I understand your testimony, it has not been

because you have not had a firm policy in the Navy that you would

make the effort to get that employee a position back in the States? To

the extent that you propose to do it under this plan?

Mr. McCLAIN. We have not in the past adopted the practice of

directing placement of returnees in stateside activities.

Mr. HENDERSON. Mr. Nix hit a point here that came to my mind

that after the Air Force testimony yesterday, I think it was brought

to my attention, and I did not fully realize it at that point, that

there are a number of Air Force employees who could testify to

us that they have requested, wanted to come back, but the service

made little or no effort to give them comparable jobs back in the

United States.

So what we are beginning to think toward now is how does this

fit into the testimony of yesterday that they are just going to take

those that have been over there the longest and start bringing them

back?
48 ROTATION OF CIVILIAN EMPLOYEES FROM OVERSEAS POSTS

Wouldn't it be worth consideration to first permit those that want to come back to comparable jobs, afford them that opportunity? This is going to cost some money, it is going to take some time to do that and see how that works, because one of the big points that have been made for the case, I think, both by the Air Force and Navy, is that the statistic base that you have had so many over there for

so long. But is that a result of the lack of the opportunity to come back?

My point is that I would hate to see us arbitrarily start out bring- ing people back that have been over there 18 or 19 years who have

some rem-son for staying, at least they want to stay, and not bring back people that have been over there at the end of two or three tours that want to come back.

Mr. McCLAIN. We agree absolutely.

Mr. HENDERSON. Certainly you do not want to chastise the employee doing a good job but willing to return to the States, when needed. Captain GISVOLD. Both of these are covered in the Navy plan. Mr. HENDERSON. Let me say at this point at least I am attracted by the first provision of the Navy plan of a voluntary provision of this than I was the Air Force's system of yesterday.

I am also more impressed with the flexibility of extending the tour

more than the 1 year that the Air Force presented yesterday.

Mr. Nix. Then, too, I am impressed with the fact that there are

many employees abroad who have acquired special skills in the serv- ices being rendered the U.S. Government. To remove those people would add cost to the Government of the United States and deprive the people of the United States of extremely skilled services that could not be replaced. Now there must be many people. Therefore, if your provision is made mandatory, we lose everything.

Captain GISVOLD. This is one of the big goals of this plan the Navy puts forward.

Mr. Nix. That is the difference, the attractive difference between the proposal that you advance and that which has been advanced. However, I understand from the statement that you presented that this is only under discussion, that there has been no firm or fixed decision as to what finally, if anything, comes of the proposal. Captain GISVOLD. Go ahead, sir.

Mr. Nix. I also am never quite satisfied with how this proposal got moving.

Captain GISVOLD. We have been discussing this type of proposal for some time now, for 5 years or more. Every time we go through the problem of overseas personnel, we have to face up to this problem,

so we have worked up to this about the same time that the Air Force worked up to their proposal. Now ours is different from theirs, because it is more flexible.

Mr. Nix. The reason I ask that, Captain, is because in my limited time in this service, I have seen so many installations and every time I look around one installation has a proposal for this and a proposal for that and a proposal for something else.

There is always the search for greater efficiency and saving of the

money to the agency. I realize that. I realize that if there is to be

progress, there must be probing, reconsideration, but, so far as I am concerned, there must be justification for it. There must be some basis
ROTATION OF CIVILIAN EMPLOYEES FROM OVERSEAS POSTS 49

for it. That is why I asked about finance and the other thing, Mr.

Chairman.

Mr. HENDERSON. I want to ask one question here.

Mr. Nix. Certainly.

Mr. HENDERSON. Have you had information from your employees

in these overseas positions that they have wanted to come back, that

they have asked to come back, and you realize that you haven't had the

effort to place them in jobs in the continental United States comparable to what they had overseas?

This has come to my attention, but I don't think either of the services

have pointed this out, but some of the employees have pointed out to

us that they wanted to come back. So this might be one of the things

that have stimulated you to do this.

Mr. McCLAIN. This question is very closely related to the point Mr.

Nix made. Let me recount a little bit of history on this. The problems that we are concerned with here are old problems. They have

been with us and growing over a period of several years. We have

wrestled with them on numerous occasions.

We have adopted various voluntary attempts to solve them. We

have known all along that they could be solved promptly if we took

two rather coercive measures. One would be to direct the placement of

returning personnel in stateside activities. Now this is a rather distasteful procedure and we have been avoiding it.

The practice in the past has been to delegate appointing authority

down to commanding officers of a local installation and he was free to

select who he would appoint on his payroll. To force the return of

an overseas employee, we would have to say to the commanding officer,

you may not make an uninhibited selection here, as long as this person

who is available for return from overseas is available for that vacancy,

you can't fill it with anyone else. That is one point.

Mr. HENDERSON. Right at that point may I ask this question,. or

make this comment. That at the Marine Corps base in my district,

Mr. Nix, I recall a position being open there that would have been

very attractive to some of your overseas personnel. As I recall the

procedure it was open on a register. The way I got into it, some of the

employees on the base were very anxious to be promoted and ended

up qualifying on the register. As I recall, the base commander at that

time took the position that he should seek the most qualified person for

the position, whether he happened to be in Norfolk or Charleston, or

there on the base, and that was very difficult for me to argue against.

It was offered to the No. 1 man on the register who was from another

location. He didn't accept the position. I understood that he rather

used it to get a promotion where he was, but it was filled finally by an

employee at the base.

I understand you are saying if such a position came up, rather than

the present type of personnel, you would be saying to that base

commander, "We have John Smith in overseas base who has requested

return. He is qualified and you will take him." So there will be some

preference, you might say, over employees on the base or in the continental United States for that slot.

Mr. MCCLAIN. Yes, sir. This is what we referred to as directed

placements, which involve some compromising of the general principle of appointing the best qualified available person for each vacancy.
50 ROTATION OF CIVILIAN EMPLOYEES FROM OVERSEAS POSTS

But of course we are forced to accept such compromise in several situa- tions such as in the base closure program, for example.

Mr. HENDERSON. On that point, why should we give the base closure

employees preference over our overseas employees?

Mr. McCLAIN. Because if they are not given preference they are out

of a job. The overseas employee can continue to work where he is until we find a placement for him. But in base closure it is either place him or separate him.

• Mr. HENDERSON. I certainly agree with that preference.

Mr. Nix. May I ask another question, Mr. Chairman?

Mr. HENDERSON. Yes.

Mr. Nix. It just occurred to me that the number of employees that

you have abroad, that the Air Force has abroad, is not in any way comparable to the number employed by the Army abroad. Why is the problem more acute for you and the Air Force than it is for the Army?

Mr. McCiAirr. I don't think it is.

Mr. Nix. I don't see any plan proposed by the Army.

Mr. HENDERSON. Mr. Nix, may I say that at the conclusion of the testimony of the Navy I have here in response to my inquiry the Army's position. I don't know whether you have seen it or not, but they say they don't have the necessity. So I don't think the Army agrees with

Mr. McClain, but I am not saying that he is wrong in his statement

that they do have problems. But you have hit a question that this sub- committee has to answer.

As I yield to Mr. Buchanan, let me say that other members of the committee have found it necessary to be at the Foreign Affairs Com- mittee this morning. We have three of our members over there. They

are interested in the so-called Hays bill that the subcommittee has been interested in and the Chair wanted the record to show that Mr. Gross and Mr. Beckworth and Mr. Derwinski indicated to me their interest in being back here this morning, but we were also interested in having them over there. We divided.forces.

Mr. BUCHANAN. Captain, I appreciate this testimony and I must

concur with the chairman and the point is well taken, Mr. Chairman,

that it would seem most reasonable that if any such program is insti- tuted you might take into consideration any who had a desire to come back as over against those who did not desire to come back for first rotation and also the point that the chairman and Mr. Nix brought

out, which has caused me considerable concern that it takes some time

I expect to develop experts in certain ways, knowledge of certain languages and so forth, and many other things perhaps, other specialized

knowledge or skill, experience, that I am delighted to see you are leav- ing room to conserve for the good of the service and the country as well

as the benefit perhaps of the employee.

I know we are talking about a number of different types of employees and I congratulate you on the flexibility of your proposed plan.

May I ask you how many of your employees or have you determined

how many of these have been overseas over 5 years?

Mr. MoCLAIN. I can't give you an absolute figure on that. Of

course, the figure is continuously changing. It varies considerably

from one situation to another. Generally speaking I can say that where we have conducted studies, the overall average came out to some-
4

ROTATION OF CIVILIAN EMPLOYEES FROM OVERSEAS POSTS 51

thing in excess of 60 percent of the employees that we had over there

had been there over 5 years.

But this varied substantially. I recall, that in the Philippines, the

percentage was about 35 percent, whereas in Japan it was about 75

percent. In Europe, at least in Italy and England, I think it was

around 35 percent.

I would say that in a sample that we studied recently, my recollection is that the average was 68 percent.

Mr. BUCHANAN. In the neighborhood of a thousand of these then.

What are some of the jobs performed by these individuals? A

truckdriver was mentioned and. I am sure this situation needs to be

corrected. Those you plan to rotate back, could you give me some

examples of jobs being performed?

Mr. McCLAIN. In general it runs the gamut of occupations. However, it is mostly supervisory, key personnel. We have a policy, as do

all the military departments and the Department of Defense, of making maximum utilization of indigenous personnel. This means generally speaking, U.S. citizens are recruited from continental United

States for overseas service, only for key positions, those which it is essential be filled by U.S. citizens in order to maintain the character of

a U.S. activity rather than a foreign-staffed activity.

Then second would be positions which must be filled by U.S. citizens

because of security considerations and then third would be positions

which could, under other aspects of policy be filled by local personnel,

but the skills that are required are not at that time available in the local

market.

Now the effect of this is that supervisory, key administrative personnel and technical personnel are U.S. citizens. Then, such clerks

and stenographers as are required to have security clearances are U.S.

citizens, and then there would be a smattering of specialized, hard-tolocate skills.

Mr. BUCHANAN. I see. You mentioned that after two terms a man

could request, make timely application for return and you would try

to meet this application. Also, base commanders I suppose could

order his return?

Captain GISVOLD. Yes.

Mr. BUCHANAN. You said there would be the right of appeal.

Would that appeal, in the procedure, would this be before or after

his separation from the service?

Captain GISVOLD. It would be during his separation in effect. He

would be notified that he was going to be separated and then he could

appeal it.

Mr. McCLAIN. Excuse me. He could have an appeal before separation proceedings were instituted. He could appeal the decision to

reassign him.

Mr. BUCHANAN. He could appeal this decision to reassign him?

Mr. McCiArN. Yes.

Mr. BUCHANAN. Do you envision within this policy, suppose a man

appealed, he was ordered reassignment, he refused it, or he appealed

it rather, the appeal was rejected. Would he have an opportunity

then to reconsider, before separation, assuming he had made appeal

and this appeal was denied or would denial be tantamount to--
52 ROTATION OF CIVILIAN EMPLOYEES FROM OVERSEAS POSTS

Captain GISVOLD. He would be separated under the circumstances. If the appeal was denied, presumably he would be separated. That doesn't say he can't come back and make application again. He could be accepted as a local hire.

Mr. BUCHANAN. You mentioned he might appeal the decision before separation proceedings were effected?

Captain GISVOLD. Pardon?

Mr. BUCHANAN. The testimony was that he might appeal the deci- sion before separation.

Captain GISVOLD. That is right.

Mr. BUCHANAN. Process was set in motion. Now, under these cir- cumstances, let's say he appealed the decision and his appeal was denied. Do you envision him then having an opportunity to reconsider before he was separated?

Captain GISVOLD. Yes, sir.

Mr. BUCHANAN. May I say, Captain, and Mr. Chairman, this flex- ibility of this plan has a good deal more appeal to me than the one we heard yesterday.

Mr. HENDERSON. I certainly agree with Mr. Buchanan.

Captain, yesterday the Air Force testified that they proposed to make their plan effective October 1. Does the Navy have a date that it has agreed upon?

Captain GISVOLD. We don't have any target date right now, sir. We were interested in the outcome of these hearings, for one thing, and getting all of the views of all of the interested people, including the employee organizations' views which we haven't really gotten yet. We could establish a target date for go or no go, but if I were going

to do that I would probably fix January 1 as a date.

Mr. HENDERSON. Also, has the plan been approved by the Office of the Secretary of Defense?

Captain GISVOLD. They have the plan. It hasn't been approved by them. It is still in discussion stage with them, the proposal stage.

Mr. BUCHANAN. Mr. Chairman, may I ask one other question? Captain, I meant to ask this of the Air Force yesterday and neg- lected to. They also testified that they had asked the opinion of various employee organizations and I know we are going to hear directly from them, but I would be interested in the nature of the response.

Mr. McCLAIN. That seems like a simple question. It is difficult to describe really the nature of the response. As the captain indicated,

we 

Mr. 

distributed 

HENDERSON. 

our plan toCould we ask this question? Have you heard from those who are to testify?

Mr. McCLAIN. Yes, we have, and in fact 

Captain GISVOLD. That is essentially it.

Mr. McCLAIN. Those that are here today are the principal re- spondents.

Mr. BUCHANAN. Others you have not heard from.

Mr. McCLAIN. Especially in their presence, I would hesitate to try

to describe what they said.

Mr. BUCHANAN. I will retract the question.

Mr. HENDERSON. To conclude, Captain, I will say this, and you may

want to comment on it, but it seems to me that we clearly have before

US now one thing that you have done that we all seem to agree on, and
ROTATION OF CIVILIAN EMPLOYEES FROM OVERSEAS POSTS 53

that is to offer the oversea employee a job back here and give him preference, if you want to call it that, for the job that you can locate and

a vacancy that you can find. It would seem to me that the employees

would certainly want that. Now maybe they don't want it. We will

listen to their testimony. Maybe they don't want the separation that

comes if they don't ask to come back. Maybe they don't want the

mandatory features, but do either of you know any reason that they

wouldn't want this priority for jobs back in the continental United

States?

Mr. MCCLAIN. I know one reason that has been mentioned and I

think it was mentioned earlier here this morning, and that is the interference that the return of a person from overseas would interpose to the

careers of people within an activity in the United States.

Let's take a shipyard for example. If there is a position open in a

shipyard that could be filled by somebody returning from an oversea

activity, of course there is somebody already in the shipyard there who

is an aspirant for that job, and who may be denied an opportunity for

promotion to it.

Mr. HENDERSON. And this is a point I wanted to get. I wanted to

be sure that the opposition, you might say to the plan, where it is

coming from, is it coming from employees that are here that are looking for these jobs and these promotions, or is it coming from the

group overseas, because we are primarily interested in their welfare

and their problems.

Mr. MCCLAIN. It is coming from both, but for different reasons because they have different reasons.

Mr. HENDERSON. Also, the reason I asked the question if you know

of any reasons, certainly if we followed the more voluntary features

that appeal to us in your plan, and we find that there are American

citizens even with this that don't ever want to come back to the United

States, the attention of the committee is going to be directed more

critically at this smaller group than we are now able to give to the

larger group because the services have not had this technique of

giving them the preference for jobs back in the States.

Now, the reason I wanted to make that point at this time, we are

not as sure as some would have led us to believe, that there are many

that just don't want to come back for reasons that may be satisfactory to them, but may not be in the best interests of the service.

Mr. MCCLAIN. We know there are some, and in some cases, that

the commands would agree. Of course, the flexibility of the Navy plan

would permit resolution of those cases which would be acceptable to

all concerned.

To return to the point that you made earlier, if I may, this is the

objection of the employees in the United States to this plan, where

they said the returning of a person from overseas would interfere

with career progression of the people here in the United States. A

point which we think is pertinent in that regard is that the person

returning from overseas leaves behind him a vacancy over there, that

people in the United States are free to apply for, and this becomes

an opportunity forthem to advance their career there.

Mr. HENDERSON. I might say that I am very much impressed with

the point that Captain Gisvold made that was not made here yesterday, that without the assurance to the employee that they can come
54 ROTATION OF CIVILIAN EMPLOYEES FROM OVERSEAS POSTS

back without losing grade and pay, we are not getting the high quality

of people going overseas, or the highest quality that we would like

to have.

This is, for me, a very strong point. But again, we have to take into account the overall picture, but the Air Force yesterday cer- tainly impressed me that we are talking about a relatively small

number of employees, and I am sure that this is a relatively small number within the Navy.

Captain GISVOLD. Yes.

Mr. McCLAIN. That is right.

Mr. HENDERSON. Captain Gisvold, and Mr. McClain, I am very ap- preciative of your testimony this morning. I think it was most helpful to us and before you leave there has been some discussion here this morning about the possibility of the subcommittee getting the Air

Force witnesses that were here yesterday, and perhaps you folks

back together, and maybe in an executive session where we could pursue some of our problems in greater depth and be more helpful to you.

We will be in touch.

Captain GISVOLD. Thank you very much.

Mr. MCCLAIN. Thank you.

Mr. HENDERSON. Without objection I would like to order, immediately following the appearance of the Navy witnesses the response

of the Department of the Army to the inquiryof the Chair. It would

most logically follow at this point.

(The document referred to follows:)

DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY,

OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY OF THE ARMY,

Washington, D.C., August 9, 1965.

Mr. BUN B. BRAY, Jr.,

Staff Director, Subcommittee on Manpower, House Post Office and Civil Service Committee, House of Representatives, Washington, D.C.

DEAR MR. BRAY: Attached is a paper entitled "Army Actions Relating to Return of Employees from Overseas," pursuant to Chairman Henderson's request in his letter to the Secretary of the Army dated July 26, 1965.

I trust this information will be of assistance to the subcommittee.

Sincerely,

ROY H. STEELE,

Colonel, GS, Office, Chief of Legislative Liaison.

ARMY ACTIONS RELATING TO RETURN OF EMPLOYEES FROM OVERSEAS

The military departments' missions overseas are so important to U.S. interests that it is essential that each of the limited number of U.S. citizens employed in these activities maintain a high level of performance on the job and discharge fully his responsibilities as a good representative of the United States.

Some time ago, the Department of the Army concluded that the maintenance of such a high quality, highly motivated civilian work force overseas can be better accomplished when the oversea employees are fully integrated into Army's worldwide work force and look upon their assignment overseas as an integral part of career progression within the Army.

This conviction caused the Department, in 1956, to establish its overseas interchange program. Under this program, vacancies in the foreign areas would be filled by reassignment of career employees from installations in the United States and careerists working overseas would be accorded priority place- ment into vacancies existing in stateside Army activities. Although the inter- change program involved no involuntary reassignments, it has been successful in filling our oversea vacancies with topnotch career employees. Through the returnee aspect, it has also succeeded in bringing stateside supervisors to the view that the oversea returnee is a competent, conscientious employee who will be a true asset to any stateside installation.
ROTATION OF CIVILIAN EMPLOYEES FROM OVERSEAS POSTS 55

In the past decade, the Department has also been giving emphasis to the

establishment of civilian career programs. Armywide programs covering 8

occupational fields and 47,000 employees are already in operation and others are

in varying states of development. Without exception, the career programs give

emphasis to the need for the employee to be mobile so as to progress up the career

ladder within Army. In its procedures, the career program brings about mobility

through the limitation it places on commanders to make a selection from the list

of candidates determined to be best qualified by the functional chief of the

program. In the past year, of 1,185 selections made from Armywide referral lists,

approximately 50 percent were selectees from a different geographical locality.

For the year ending March 31, 1965, Army's U.S. citizen civilian employees in

foreign countries averaged 11,176. In the same period, 3,618 employees left

their overseas positions through reassignment, resignation, death, retirement,

etc. Even though our dependent schoolteachers, who account for over 3,100 of

the U.S. citizen employee strength, normally do not continue overseas for extended

periods, there is a significant turnover among the "career" work force. Among

the career employees separating from the oversea commands, 464 obtained

CONUS assignments in the Army. The number of oversea employees exercising

mandatory reemployment rights is expected to increase materially as our oversea commanders make greater use of their authority to require the exercise of

reemployment rights of any employee whose return from overseas is considered

mutually advantageous.

Maintaining a high-quality work force in an activity, whether it be in a

foreign area or in the United States, is primarily the responsibility of the

employing command. In the event there is a problem employee, it is in the first

instance up to the employing command to take -appropriate remedial action.

Depending upon the nature of the problem, the remedial action may be in the

disciplinary area, including removal; it may involve initiation of disability

retirement; or it may call for bringing about improvement through constructive

supervision, counseling, and training. Headquarters, Department of the Army,

recognizes an obligation to supplement and backstop the efforts of the oversea commands. If an oversea command has an employee whose return to the

United States would be mutually beneficial, the headquarters recognizes a

responsibility to give positive assistance to the oversea command in placing

the employee in CONUS.

There is nothing in Army experience to demonstrate that, through extended

service overseas, the U.S. citizen necessarily becomes marginal or deficient

either on the job or in the discharge of his responsibilities as a representative

of the United States. In April 1960, Headquarters, Department of the Army

initiated a study in which the U.S. Army, Europe, and U.S. Army, Pacific,

furnished background data on 2,000 employees in grades GS-9 and above having

6 or more years of service overseas. In addition, an independent review of the

quality of their U.S. citizen civilian personnel was made by USAREUR and

USARPAC. The results of these studies indicate (a) that length of service overseas does not, in itself, limit an individual's effectiveness on the job, and (b) that

oversea commands need little in the way of CONUS assistance in the areas of

training and remedial placement.

As an example of the command conclusions, a comprehensive USAREUR report

dated July 25, 1960, stated that: "Length of oversea service and recency of

CONUS experience are not determining factors in employee performance effectiveness. The oversea employee, by and large, is a highly capable individual."

With respect to job effectiveness, of the 602 key civilian employees included in

USAREUR study, 92 percent were performing at a high level which met or exceeded job requirements. Only 17 (3 percent) were identified as being in a group

which required assignment to CONUS and only 11 (2 percent) were identified as

needing training in CONUS to increase job knowledge or skills. Of the 461 key

employees who had been overseas 5 years or more, 90 percent were rated fully

satisfactory. The USARPAC study reached similar conclusions. In a letter to

subordinate commanders dated May 31, 1960, CINCUSARPAC stated that: "With

rare exceptions there is little correlation between job competence and the length

of time that an employee has worked continuously in an oversea area."

A degree of mobility is, of course, recognized as essential to the success of

Army's worldwide civilian career programs. Nevertheless, movement of an employee should be considered only when the assignment in a different locality serVes

a legitimate management interest or serves a legitimate employee interest. We

know of no inherent good in movement for movement's sake.
56 ROTATION OF CIVILIAN EMPLOYEES FROM OVERSEAS POSTS

The extent to which an employee will submit to a movement which may be con- sidered in management's interest is in direct proportion to the existence of demonstrated evidence that management is prepared to assure the individual employee's

further progression in his career.

Mr. HENDERSON. Our next witness is Mr. John F. Griner, national

president, American Federation of Government Employees. Mr.

Griner, it is always a pleasure to have you before the subcommittee,

and it is always very helpful.

Mr. Griner, I notice that you have a very detailed and very well

prepared statement, and certainly the Chair does not want to in any

way limit the opportunity afforded you, or any of the other witnesses,

but for your convenience, as well as the subcommittee, I will direct that

the full statement be printed in the record as presented. Afterward,

if you would prefer to highlight, and comment on it, please feel free

to proceed.

STATEMENT OF JOHN F. GRINER, PRESIDENT, AMERICAN FEDERATION OF GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES; ACCOMPANIED BY THOMAS

H. RUSS AND LOUIS W. HANN

Mr. GRINER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate the opportunity of appearing before this committee and giving the committee

our side and I believe it is the employee's side to this problem. I want

to congratulate this committee upon their holding such a hearing because this is the one way that we feel we have a way of presenting our

problems or presenting the employee's side of the question where it

will be given consideration. By past experience, we know that this committee does consider the employee problems as well as management

problems, and we are certainly appreciative of it.

(The prepared statement of Mr. Griner follows:)

PREPARED STATEMENT OF JOHN F. GRINER, PRESIDENT, AMERICAN FEDERATION OF

GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES

I come before this subcommittee today as the president of an organization

having 165,000 members, of whom 7,500 are serving their Government overseas.

Our organization has members in Germany, Iceland, Puerto Rico, Guam, Okinawa, Panama Canal Zone, Hawaii, and Alaska. At some of these oversea

installations, our organization has exclusive recognition under Executive Order

10988.

It should be apparent, therefore, why we are vitally interested in the 5-year rotation plan proposed by the Departments of the Air Force and the Navy.

The proposed changes in the regulations of these two Departments providing for

the return of employees after 5 years of service overseas is, in our opinion, dis- criminatory and totally indefensible from the standpoint of good management.

We believe that it would unnecessarily increase by a substantial amount the

cost of maintaining military installations on foreign soil. The proposal appears

to fulfill no real needs, reflects on the patriotism of civilian employees who

volunteer for foreign service, and would in nowise improve the efficient operation

of defense activities outside the United States.

The principal advantage of civilian employees remaining at the same foreign

post and in the same position for some years is the continuity of knowledge

and experience it affords. To eliminate this advantage deliberately makes little

sense. If there were no other objection to this rotation plan, this one aspect alone

should be a sufficient reason for abandoning such a change in the personnel policy

of these departments.

It requires several years for an American citizen to acquaint himself with the language and the way of life of the people in another country. Employees who remain for a considerable period at one post increase their knowledge of the
ROTATION OF CIVILIAN EMPLOYEES FROM OVERSEAS POSTS 57

country and its customs and are able to improve their facility with the language,

all of which adds to their usefulness as Government employees at these foreign

stations.

• If their duties bring them into constant contact with foreign nationals in a

particular area, continued service there is a positive advantage to the U.S.

Government inasmuch as it gives them the opportunity to gain the confidence

of the people with whom they must deal.

We should bear in mind that the great majority of the American citizens who

are serving in these overseas posts are holding supervisory positions. They are

not employees who are serving in run-of-the-mill jobs. They are not only supervising a considerable number of employees who are performing lesser duties but

they have trained and are continuing to train their subordinates who in large

number are foreign nationals recruited from the population of the particular

overseas area. They are the individuals who must indoctrinate and train the

employees who are designated to take over the supervisors' positions when they

are returned to the United States.

The Air Force has more than 23,000 employees in foreign countries of whom

only 7,000 are U.S. citizens. The Navy has more than 17,000 employees in

foreign countries and of that number approximately 15,000 are noncitizens.

Hence, a rotation plan which requires American citizen employees to return to

this country at stated intervals overlooks their usefulness and the significant

contribution they are making to the maintenance of defense activities in foreign

lands or in overseas territories of the United States.

The great majority of those American citizens who would be affected by the

proposed regulations of Air Force and Navy were recruited for the positions

they have been filling abroad with an implied'promise of job security. These

Departments were anxious to have the services of these employees because they

needed their skills to maintain the varied activities of these two military services

outside the United States. As a means of attracting these employees, they were

offered bonuses in the form of various allowances, because it is not every employee who desires to take a job in a foreign country and live there for some

years separated from members of his family or friends.

These employees who were so recruited have now weathered the storm, and

have been successful in performing the jobs to which they were assigned. Some

of these employees have established themselves in these other countries, looking

forward to the day when they will be able to retire and then return to the

States. Numerous employees who have accepted these jobs beyond our borders

have no employment rights in the States. They were recruited specifically for

those jobs.

To say that these American citizen employees would lose touch with the

United States if they did not return at least every 5 years is an unwarranted

reflection on the regard they have for their country. One of these employees

has written me that he greatly resents this aspect of the rotation plan. "Losing

touch with the United States is false," he said, "because I am sure that you

would find that a great majority of us are war veterans and also combat veterans. Losing touch with the United States just doesn't happen because most of

us spend our leaves in the States every 2 years when work permits."

One employee stationed at an Air Base in France wrote me as follows: "Maybe there are some employees who have never returned to the United States since

their arrival in Europe. I believe they are few. I have always returned to

the United States every 2 years with my family to spend our vacations there

because we love our country and sometimes we are homesick for it. I would

go every year if permitted."

Civil service employees in foreign lands return to the United States as their

leave allows. There are so many days of home leave and many avail themselves

of this benefit. After all, why wouldn't they come back? It means returning

to places they consider home, to close relatives and friends of many years.

It seems strange that a Federal department should sponsor a mandatory

policy when it has been the experience of every Government agency that it is

the exception rather than the rule for Federal employees who have selected

foreign service to remain abroad indefinitely.

Many like their assignments and some are unwilling to terminate them, but

that greatly benefits any agency that maintains activities outside this country.

A goodly number of persons select these assignments. It is to the advantage

of the agency for them to make this voluntary selection. It is their right to

do so, but is it not also their right to continue their employment abroad so long
58 ROTATION OF CIVILIAN EMPLOYEES FROM OVERSEAS POSTS

as there is need for their services and they are satisfactorily performing their duties?

A policy of enforced return of employees to the United States every 5 years is an exceedingly uneconomical requirement. The average cost of transporta- tion of an employee and his family would amount to $2,000, and his replacelikely 

ment would cost an equal amount. Newcomers to these foreign posts would become tourists during the early part of their service as well as buyers of foreign goods, thus increasing our loss of gold with its adverse effect on our world monetary position.

Employees who have been in a foreign country for some time have visited the greater number of places of interest to them and have made most of their purchases of items other than those they need in their daily lives. Thus this rotation policy is not compatible with the policy of buy American and see America first.

The concern which many longtime employees of the Departments of the Air Force and the Navy have indicated concerning the proposed rotation policies

received 

of these Departments is not confined to employees stationed in Europe. I have considerable evidence of opposition to this policy from employees in the Panama Canal Zone.

the 

They have pointed to the fact that the majority of employees who went from

permitted 

States were recruited with the implied understanding that they would be

them 

to work and remain in the Canal Zone so long as there is work for

determine 

and they continue to meet the requirements of Federal employment. To unilaterally now that these employees must return to the continental

a 

United States in compliance with an arbitrary rotation policy is in their opinion breach of an implied contract of employment.

Perhaps the most telling argument against the adoption of a rotation policy for 

official, 

employees on the isthmus is the expressed satisfaction of a high Canal Zone Lt. Gov. David S. Parker. Addressing a group of Panama Canal em- ployees at a retirement ceremony in May, he expressed appreciation for the years these retiring employees have devoted to working for the canal organization. Lieutenant Governor Parker called attention to the difficult Problem with which Government and private industry must cope; namely, turnover of personnel. He emphasized the fact that the Panama Canal is fortunate to have employees who remain on the job for a long time and thus assure smoothness of operation. The Federal employees who are serving in the Panama Canal Zone are a good example of employees serving overseas who do not lose their patriotism. They have time and time again proved that they have not lost their ties with their homeland to the slightest extent. The insistence last year of American students on flying the U.S. flag in front of their school, while having undesirable conse- quences, was certainly proof that American families in the zone have not lost touch with their country.

Since 1960, it has been Government policy to facilitate the interchange of civil- ian employees of the Defense Establishment between posts of duty within and outside the United States. They have been subject to programs for rotation authorized by Public Law 86-585, July 5, 1960. That law provides that the right to return to a position in the United States "shall be without reduction in the seniority, status, and tenure held by the employee immediately before this assignment to duty outside the United States."

This law required the employee to be placed in the position which he held im- mediately before his foreign assignment if such position exists. If the position does not exist, he is to be placed in a vacant existing position or in a new con- tinuing position for which he is qualified, in the same geographical area as the position he formerly held, and with equal rights and benefits and in the same grade as the position he held immediately before his assignment to duty outside the United States.

If within a 90-day period, the employee cannot be placed in a position which would mean no reduction, or if no position can be otherwise provided, he is to be reassigned or separated under regulations prescribed by the Civil Service Commission.

Under this statute, employees were guaranteed the return to the same or equivalent position they left back in the States.

The Air Force says that employees have the right to come back voluntarily but that few have exercised that right. Yet, the 1960 law is still in effect and provides an appreciable degree of protection for employees while at the same time making it possible for management to encourage but not force employees to accept reassignment in the States.
ROTATION OF CIVILIAN EMPLOYEES FROM OVERSEAS POSTS 59

The policy of the Defense Establishment seems to have undergone considerable

change within the last 5 years since the issuance of Department of Defense

Pamphlet 1-18. In that pamphlet it is stated:

"Many of the abilities needed by today's highly technical Armed Forces are

not primarily military, hence, it is often more efficient and economical to employ

already qualified civilians than to give years of nonmiliary training to thousands

of military personnel. Civilian employees can stay longer in a single assignment

and location than can military personnel * * *. Career civilian employees are

the backbone of many support activities, with many serving 20, 30, 40, and even

50 years at one particular specialty—often at the same installation. This continuity on the part of our civilian employees is a desirable condition that assures

that the necessary, and sometimes vital, support jobs are performed even though

their uniformed coworkers come and go."

Altogether the Air Force has more than 7,000 American citizen employees in

• overseas positions. The rotation plan would apply to all positions in foreign

areas except those which are in excepted status and incumbents of which would

not be eligible for reinstatement in competitive positions—all personnel in Department of Defense Overseas Dependents Schools are excluded—employees who

elect to exercise administrative reemployment or statutory return rights, and

employees of other military departments who are serviced by the Air Force

under cross-servicing agreements.

Those Air Force employees who would be affected are worried, and indeed

they may be deeply concerned, for this regulation is one of the most disturbing

and deceptive personnel policies to be proposed in recent years.

Take for example, the statement of policy of the Air Force in section 2 of

the proposed regulation:

"It is the policy of the Air Force to provide equal opportunity for all Air

Force employees to acquire well-rounded experience in furtherance of their

careers and to increase their value to the Air Force by serving in different

organizations and locations in the United States and in foreign areas. In

accordance with this policy and the policies set forth in AFR 40-303, the Air

Force encourages employees in the United States to seek assignments in foreign

areas, and those in foreign areas to seek assignments in the United States for the

purpose of broadening their experience and horizon and to develop new, or update current skills. Further, it is deemed to be in the best interests of the Air

Force and/or its employees to return employees in foreign areas to positions

in the United States at certain intervals."

One would gain the impression from reading this paragraph quoted above

that the Air Force is keenly and genuinely concerned with the welfare of its

employees, so much so that it wants its employees to seek service in different

areas "in furtherance of their careers." Up to this point there is no hint of

any compulsion. But that is the catch in their seemingly innocent introductory

paragraph purporting to outline Air Force policy.

The very next sentence sets the stage for the regulation which has the sole

result of forcing employees to go where the Air Force decrees they shall go,

with no argument, no redress. They must leave jobs abroad to which they were

sent by the Air Force with every assurance that they were greatly needed and

• which they could fill so long as they performed satisfactorily.

They must uproot family ties, leave friends, but above all leave jobs which

they are doing to the express satisfaction of the Air Force merely because

someone in the Pentagon has had what we believe to be an untried idea. Henceforth, arbitrary movement of personnel at stated, arbitrary intervals is to be

• the order of the day.

If it is so essential that overseas employees should not remain in their positions longer than for a 5-year period, why should any employee anywhere remain

at the same location, with the same agency, and in the same position? If change

is so essential to successful operation of the Government, why not move career

employees from Washington to Chicago and then to Seattle, and continue this

type of movement for their entire service?

It becomes evident that only chaos could result, but basically the difference

is only one of numbers and not of the essential principle of change without a

sound reason. To move an employee from the place from where his particular

skill is needed is most certainly the misuse of valuable manpower.

In the case of overseas employees, movement means withdrawal of capable

employees who have learned the language of the country and the many aspects

Of business practices in the area which are closely related to the duties these

employes are performing.
60 ROTATION OF CIVILIAN EMPLOYEES FROM OVERSEAS POSTS

In the policy section of the proposed Air Force regulation it is stated that employees who are "involuntarily reassigned or who apply for placement assist- ance" will be placed in positions in the United States "at their current grades and base salaries."

This is immediately followed by: "or at any lower grade which they volun- tarily agree to accept." The word "voluntarily" is the key word. How can the employee do anything but accept whatever grade is offered, when the only alternative is dismissal from the service? But that comes later in the regulation. The regulation compounds Its inequity and amazing disregard of employee rights as the statement of procedure unfolds. ,Still in the policy section, it is stated that after 42 months of service or residence in foreign areas, employees will not be selected for promotion "except on a temporary basis."

This strange concept of mismanagement is indeed difficult to understand.

For in subsection (a) of the policy section it was stated that the Air Force encourages employees in this country to seek foreign assignments to broaden their experience and horizon and to develop new or to update current skills. The only natural consequence of such career development is a promotion but

now the regulation forecloses that possibility by stipulating that no permanent promotion is possible at a foreign post. If it does take place, it must be temporary.

The next stipulation is that even if the temporary promotion is made, there must be a "written understanding that their entitlement to reassignment to posi- tions in the United States will be at the grade level and base pay of the position occupied prior to such a temporary promotion, and that they will be returned to that grade prior to reassignment." That provision speaks clearly for itself. The next two sections—eligibility criteria and oversea command responsibil- ity—merely augment the arbitrariness of what has gone before. For example, it is stated that "Employees become eligible to apply voluntarily under this

program upon completion of the initial or a current agreed tour of duty." But the word "voluntarily" seems to be an oversight. It is certainly misleading. This statement is then followed by this wording: "Otherwise, they will be scheduled for return at the beginning of the 4-month period prior to completion of 5 years' continuous service in foreign areas." Yes, the eligibility to apply is completely voluntary—for 4 months. If the answer is not in the affirmative, the employee will be scheduled for return to the States, whether he desires it or not. He has the choice of selecting dismissal.

Of course, the whole program is anything but voluntary. The employee has

one choice: accept the directive to return or be returned. We shall see a little further on that the wording of the regulation is even more insidious than merely telling the employee finally that he must come back to the States.

It is stated that "Employees who are scheduled for mandatory return will be advised in writing of the priority assigned and the reason therefor," and it is further stated that "The notice will include information concerning the employee's rights, as well as management's prerogatives." There is no hint as to what these rights might be, but one may be reasonably certain that the emphasis will be on "management's prerogatives."

But now comes the shocking provision in the regulation. The employee already has been told that he will be returned at his current grade, or in any lower grade he will voluntarily accept.

Then he is told that he can look forward to no promotion after 31/2 years abroad except on a temporary basis.

After such details as placement action and designation of geographical loca- tions, there follows this bluntly worded sentence in section 4c(3) : "If they re- fuse to accept assignment at their current or any acceptable lower grade, sepa- ration action will be initiated."

There is not even a hint here of "employee rights." Only "management prerogatives."

Just one further comment. The employee for whom separation action is due is to be allowed 15 workdays to reply and "when appropriate" to establish that certain areas in the United States are not acceptable because of hazard to health for himself or a dependent. Note that the answer may not deal with the order

to return but only with the prospective area back in the States. Then the exclusion of certain areas for health reasons "must be certified to by the base medical officer."

If the employee initiates the request to return to the States, he may have the right of reassignment in this country but as a practical matter he must find

a job himself. Then he is in competition with other persons at the installation
•

ROTATION OF CIVILIAN EMPLOYEES FROM OVERSEAS POSTS 61

where the opportunity for reemployment exists. Even if, under these regulations, he is forced to return to the States, he is given little option as to where

he can be placed. Actually placement if possible may be anywhere in the 50

States. This is unfair. Persons who occupy positions at foreign posts should

have the right to return and be placed in positions in this country. They should

also have the right to remain. They accepted jobs overseas under difficult circumstances, and many do not want to leave them but desire to make foreign

duty a career.

The regulation proposed by the Navy is no better. In fact in some ways it is

worse. Analysis of the Navy regulation leaves one with the definite impression

that it is paralleled only by the acceptable level of competence provision in the

Classification Act as a possible and effective means of punishing an employee who

somehow or other runs afoul of his supervisor's ill will.

In a letter from the Navy Department, which transmitted a draft of the proposed Navy regulation, it is stated:

"Some persons who have read the enclosed draft have reacted in fear that the

major intent is to force employees to return to the United States against their

wills. A close reading of the instruction reveals that this is not its basic purpose at all. The basic purpose is to provide a system which will be effectively

responsive to employees' applications for return placements, as well as overseas

managers' nominations of employees for return placements."

I must disagree with this statement. Navy employees have good reason to

react in fear to the proposed change in policy. What is it but a method of

forcing employees to return to the United State's? The fact is that a purely

voluntary system has never been given a fair trial. Navy employees who have

been overseas prior to 1960 have as much right to their jobs as employees

working stateside.

The Navy regulation has the semblance of being voluntary but in actuality

it is not. Where there is management selection, a commanding officer would be

given wide discretion to select those who are to be reassigned to positions in the

States. From a practical standpoint it is an opportunity to get rid of any employee

who has incurred the displeasure of his superior.

If Navy were to say that employees are to be sent back for retraining, I would

have no objection. In such case they could be brought back for a stipulated

time for retraining only and then be rotated back abroad.

Like the Air Force regulation, Navy's is couched in innocuous terms. Consider

this preliminary management description of the proposed Navy instruction:

"Under existing arrangements, reemployment rights in previously held positions in the United States constitute the only systematic means for naval

employees stationed overseas to return to employment with the Navy in continental United States. Since exercise of such reemployment rights often involves

career regressions, many employees have had little choice but to remain overseas

for unreasonable periods beyond the time when they legitimately desire to return.

It has been recognized, therefore, that we need some more systematic means of

responding to employees' desires for return placements."

We agree that the instruction is a "systematic means" of railroading any

employee back to the States whether he wishes to return or not. What is meant

by "career regressions" I would not be too certain, but I suspect that it means

that if the unsuspecting employee tries to return to the States there is a good

chance of him coming back in a lower grade, otherwise termed a "career

regression."

But let us get to the instruction itself. In the policy section there is the statement that "Overseas positions * * * constitute valuable career development

opportunities."

There is then the observation that overseas placements "should contribute

constructively to sustained fulfillment of manpower needs, representation of the

United States abroad, career development, and efficiency of the service." One

can scarcely disagree with that statement, but the instruction then refers to the

entitlement of the employee to a "suitable return placement" and to recognition

of this right enabling avoidance of such undesirable situations in which employees

and their dependents are stranded overseas.

Section 4 deals with foreign tour limits. This provides that a "maximum

foreign tour limit: shall be established by each activity in a foreign area for

employees 'occupying key positions—indicated as likely to be GS-6 or above,

wage board positions above the journeyman level, and Canal Zone merit system

equivalents.

52-506-65----5
62 ROTATION OF CIVILIAN EMPLOYEES FROM OVERSEAS POSTS

The limit, of course, is again 5 years. Navy puts it this way: "Such limit shall

be designed to prevent the employee from living outside the United States for

more than 5 consecutive years without an intervening period of at least 2 years

of employment in the United States." There is indicated a possibility of a longer

foreign tour being approved for an individual employee. Again there is the definite opportunity for favoritism and refusal of such approval for an employee

who does not "fit" with his supervisor.

As in the case of the Air Force regulation, Navy provides that .an employee

completing his current overseas tour may apply for return to continental United

States at his current grade or pay level "or at any lower grade or pay level and

base pay which he voluntarily agrees to accept."

So much for the reassignment back home requested by the employee. Now

comes a lengthy section entitled "Management-Initiated Reassignments."

The possibilities for trumped-up reasons for sending an employee back to the

States are unlimited. Furthermore they are both strange and vague in the potential reasons which are set forth. First there is the fact that there is a local hire

who is available. It is indicated that this would eliminate the cost of sending

a replacement from the States, but it glosses over the fact that there would be

the unnecessary cost of sending the incumbent employee back to the States when

he would be willing to remain abroad.

The newt two reasons for returning an employee to the States are unparalleled

examples of inane reasons for the operations of the proposed rotation policy.

One is "Occupational obsolescence due to isolation of the employee from the

United States." Why anyone who is proficient in any occupation should lose his

skill simply because he is in a foreign country is not explained.

The next reason is still more questionable as a sound and serious reason for

a personnel action. It is stated as "Social deterioration due to isolation of the

employee and/or his dependents from the United States." I am sure that our

European allies would feel supremely flattered by this excuse for detaching a

Federal employee from foreign duty.

The Navy instruction provides for the employee requesting reassignment, but

it also goes on to provide for the Navy activity making such a request. If the

employee "fails to respond affirmatively within a specified reasonable time, or

if he responds affirmatively but subsequently fails to accept a directed reassignment, separation proceedings shall be instituted by issuance of a new notice."

In other words, the employee has only the choice to say "yes" or be fired.

The worst feature of the entire rotation plan—and this is true of both Air

Force and Navy—is that commanders overseas can send back any employee they

wish to move from their commands. What it really boils down to is a form of

military-civilian jealously. I say this, not to be critical of the military, but just

just as on observation of a factual situation.

The military have a mandatory rotation system and it is only a fair deduction

that some of the military are trying to impose it on civilians. If a military

commander decides that certain civilians are undesirable, under the proposed

regulation, he needs only to notify them that they are to return stateside.

Our judgment, Mr. Chairman and members of this subcommittee, of the regulations proposed by the Departments of the Air Force and Navy, is unqualifiedly

adverse. We can find nothing in them to commend this approach to personnel

administration in foreign areas.

The proposed regulations of Air Force and Navy are uneconomical and

diametrically opposed to any principles of competent staffing. They are discriminatory in that they treat overseas employees differently from those in the

United States.

We are not opposed to rotation. Far from it. We are not opposed to rotation

on a voluntary basis, but that has never been given a fair trial. What we propose is voluntary rotation, which would give an employee the right to return to

the same or equivalent position to that which he left.

We also believe the U.S. citizen who is employed overseas should be accorded

protection if he elects to return to the United States. This would not be provided by the proposed Air Force and Navy regulation's.

It has been contended that overseas employees do not want to come home.

That is not supported by the facts. Of the employees of the Air Force serving

in the United Kingdom, 36 percent have served more than 5 years. Many of

them no doubt would be willing to return if they could have some assurance of

employment rights back in the 'States.
ROTATION OF CIVILIAN EMPLOYEES FROM OVERSEAS POSTS 63

We were unable to find a single substantial reason for the policy stated in

these regulations. It is difficult to reconcile it with the principles of good management. Our objections to these proposed regulations may thus be summarized:

(1) Enforced rotation ignores the need for continuity of knowledge and experience in any position having more than a minimum amount of responsibility.

(2) Rotation overlooks the years required to perfect one's knowledge of the

language and the business and social customs of another country.

(3) Employees affected are largely supervisors who train foreign national

employees and must train their own replacements.

(4) Persons employed prior to 1960 went overseas with an implied promise

of job security.

(5) Enforced rotation is extremely uneconomical, since it costs $2,000 or more

to bring back an employee and the same amount to send over his replacement.

(6) If a commanding officer has the discretion to direct the return of an

employee to the States, such authority can be used for a punitive purpose, and

according to past practice it is very likely to happen. This is definitely wrong.

For these reasons, Mr. Chairman, we protest these proposed regulations as

unwarranted and harmful to employee morale. I respectfully request this

subcommittee to use every means at its command to prevent these regulations

from becoming effective.

Mr. GRINER. Now, for the benefit of the record, my name is John

F. Griner, national president of the American Federation of Government Employees. On my right here. I have a longtime employee

of the U.S. Army in the European theater, Mr. Hann, and on my

left, a longtime employee of the Air Force in' the European theater,

Mr. Thomas Russ. Mr. Hann has been over in the European theater

for 19 years and Mr. Russ has been over for 16 years. I might say

that both of these gentlemen represent our lodge in the European

theater.

I asked them to come with me this morning so that if there was

any technical question that should arise that they would be available

to assist me in giving the correct answer.

I would like to point out that this organization 

Mr. HENDERSON. At this point, do you have a breakdown of your

members serving overseas as to the three branches of service that

they are in?

Mr. GRINER. NO, sir; I do not.

Mr. HENDERSON. I thought we might insert it in the record. I

thought at this point since you mentioned 7,500 members are serving

overseas, I wondered if we had a breakdown because apparently what

we are talking about now are the plans of the Air Force and the Navy.

The Army has indicated to us at least at this time, they are not going

to put in a plan. If you don't have a breakdown, perhaps we could

insert it later.

Mr. GRINER. We don't have a breakdown because of the manner

in which our overseas lodges are organized. They usually are organized by the Department of Defense, which would bring in all three

groups. We might be able to get a reasonable breakdown on them

within a short period of time if that would be of any benefit to the

committee.

Mr. HENDERSON. It might be Mr. Hann and Mr. Russ could tell

us. Mr. Hann, your lodge is located where

Mr. HANN. Frankfurt, Germany.

Mr. HENDERSON. Do you have an idea of the breakdown between the

services in the lodge?

•
64 ROTATION OF CIVILIAN EMPLOYEES FROM OVERSEAS POSTS

Mr. HANN.• No sir. We have more Army members than Air Force

members, but there, and we have no Navy.

Mr. HENDERSON. Mr. Russ, what is the situation with the Air Force?

Mr. Russ. Same lodge, sir, and I would not know the percentages.

Mr. GRINER. I might say that we have a lodge in Okinawa, for

instance, but the percentage I would say is about equal, and we represent more than half of the American citizens that are now working

in Okinawa. We have lodges in Guam which are principally Navy.

We do have the viewpoints of those people.

Mr. HENDERSON. Thank you, sir.

Mr. GRINER. But I will be glad to try to get a further breakdown if

you care for it.

Mr. HENDERSON. If it is conveniently available, if not, I am not sure

it is essential.

Mr. GRINER. Thank you.

By reason of the fact that we do have about 7,500 members in the

overseas installations, we are quite concerned about the proposal of

both the Air Force and the Navy. Before I get into my statement, I

would like to call this committee's attention to some of the—let's say,

I would like to clarify a few of the statements which were made here

yesterday and this morning by representatives of the administration

as well as representatives of management of these particular

departments.

Now, with respect to the discussion, I would like to show you, for

instance, the Department of the Air Force regulations. There is no

mention that it is a :proposed regulation. I did not know that the

regulation was in existence. I did not know they were working on

it until part of the staff of this very same committee was briefed on

it. I then called and they said, "Oh, yes, we were going to give you a

briefing." And I said, "A briefing is not what I am looking for." I

said "You have already made up your mind, you have already prepared your instructions and your procedures. Then you are going

to tell me that this is it?"

Now. the Navy was more considerate. After working on it for a

period of 5 years, which has just been acknowledged here:I was sent

a proposed plan which I appreciated. And I did discuss it with representatives of the Navy. And I can be frank, I can answer the

question, Mr. Chairman that you asked. We are definitely against

both plans as proposed.'

The voluntary part of the Navy plan is good. And I think it can

be used to an advantage if we will do away with the compulsory part

of that plan.

Mr. HENDERSON. Mr. Griner, can you give us any idea of how many

or what percentage of your employees you think would take advantage of the Navy voluntary provision?

Mr. GRINER. Mr. Chairman, I visited Camp Zama in 

Japan, 

I

visited Okinawa, I visited Alaska last November and December. And

it is my opinion, from hearingthese people talk, that at least 50 percent of those in Okinawa and Alaska would immediately take advantage of a voluntary plan.

Mr. HENDERSON. Which assured them a position in the continental

United States comparable to the level they have over there.

4
•

ROTATION OF CIVILIAN EMPLOYEES FROM OVERSEAS POSTS 65

Mr. *GRINER. That is right, sir. I don't believe that the percentage

in—and this was Army by the way—in Camp Zama in Japan would

have been quite as high.

As you know, there are very good living conditions over there at the

present time; that is, in comparison with other overseas installations.

I doubt that there would be many in the Hawaiian Islands that would

want to move, and I hate to think that the Navy saw fit to place two

States in the continental United States in the same category as they

would a foreign installation.

Mr. HENDERSON. On the other side of the coin, do you agree with

the Navy and me, that we have a difficult time upholding the system

we have to pay special benefits for Hawaiian duty now?

Mr. GRINER. That may be true. But, on the other hand, I think

the record will have to speak for itself, Mr. Chairman, with respect

to those two States. This is especially true in Alaska, you know.

Mr. HENDERSON. This is a light of the point of our testimony here.

But I am a bit suspicious that might have had something to do with

the Navy putting this in their plan. We might get at that through

other directions that the subcommittee have been thinking about.

In any event, your point is well made.

• Mr. GRINER. All right.

I would like to comment just a minute and try to clarify the position with respect to Public Law 86-585. Now that law was passed

in 1960. The people who have gone into foreign service from the

United States since 1960 have taken advantage of that law. They

volunteered their services. In no case has anybody been compelled

to go to an overseas station since 1960 that I know anything about.

Now, under that law, he was guaranteed a right to come back to

the same job if it was still in existence, a like job at the same place

that he left, or if it was not in existence, they would run a risk, just

like any other civil service employee.

Now, I want to commend both the Navy and the Air Force for giving

these employees who took these foreign assignments the advantage

of bringing back with them the higher grades to which they were promoted during that assignment. It is only fair because if these employees had remained in the States, in all probability they would have

been promoted. And I think that is commendable.

Mr. HENDERSON. Mr. Griner, that will only be effective if a portion

of this plan is put into effect, though, isn't that right?

Mr. GRINER. That is right. I want to commend them for proposing

that.

Mr. HENDERSON. In this plan.

Mr. GRINER. However, it doesn't take the entire plan to put that

mto effect, Mr. Chairman. They have the authority; all they need

to do is write a regulation doing that. They could have done it 5 years

ago when they put this in.

Let's see the difference between these people now who have accepted

these jobs voluntarily under the provisions of Public Law 86-585 and

those people who have been in these foreign assignments for more than

5 years.

No. 1, these people who have been in these foreign assignments were

actually recruited, a lot of them, immediately after World War II

A
.66 ROTATION OF CIVILIAN EMPLOYEES FROM OVERSEAS POSTS

.when jobs were plentiful in this country. A lot of them went for the

-benefit of the services, for the benefit of their country, and they went

through some rough times over there.

A lot of them have tried to get back since then. That is acknowledged by both the Air Force and the Navy.

They have said to them that we will bring you back but you must

find yourself the job to come back to. Now, how can he find that job?

There are two ways. First, the old well-known buddy system. He

had a good buddy back home in the States who happened to be the

commanding officer or personnel officer in some installation that he

wanted to return or secondly, if these ladies will excuse me, the old

well-known brown-nosing system. That is the only way he could get

back.

Consequently, few, if any, came back.

In the meantime, these people have given up hopes, and they haw:

made up their mind to establish themselves in these installations until

they retire. There is where they think their career is. And frankly,

I think so, too. I have reason for thinking that.

Now, they propose to bring these people from an established job, and

it was pointed out here yesterday, on several occasions, that these people could be transferred and I agree with them, that they can be transferred. But it makes just as much sense to me to transfer everybody

from Chicago to San Francisco, or from Washington to Cleveland,

and transfer those people from Cleveland to Washington

'

and San

Francisco to Chicago, as it is to transfer these people from the States

to these overseas assignments and vice versa.

None of us who work for the Federal Government has a guarantee

of a job. But we do have an implied promise that as long as the

job is there, and as long as we perform the work satisfactorily, that

we are going to be able to stay on that job. That implied promise

applies to these people in oversea assignments, because they are now

under civil service, and that is something we must remember, they

went there without any civil service protection, as the people we have

in this country.

I do not agree that those people have less rights to those jobs than

the people who are stateside. Both of them are still working for this

great Government of ours.

Now, they will take these stateside people under Public Law 86-

585 and give them rights to return to their permanent assignment.

That is commendable. But what do they do with these people now

that they are going to force and I am using the word "force"—

they are going to mandate that they must return. They say, "You

have no further rights to this job that you held for 15 years and

performed satisfactory service. We are going to bring you back and,

yes, if we happen to have a job in the place that you would rather

go, we will place you there. But if we don't, we can place you any

place."

Frankly, I am a southerner. There are certain parts of the North

that I wouldn't like to live because of climatic conditions. Or maybe

some people have other reasons. I think before I live there, or in

certain places, I would rather leave the service.

So, you are discriminating against these people with more than

5 years' service because you do not give them the same rights as you

9
ROTATION OF CIVILIAN EMPLOYEES FROM OVERSEAS POSTS 67

do the people that are now working in the States. And this is baloney,

whenever they try to sit before you and say to you, gentlemen, we

want to treat everybody equal. That is what they are trying to propose and trying to have you and me believe. They are not treating

them equally.

How much chance would these people have to further their careers

by coming from a station where they have been after 15 years? They

are getting along in age now. I don't know how old this gentleman

here is, but I imagine he is about my age. And I don't have many

years to go. But they are getting along in age now and the services

are looking for younger men for Federal career people. I believe

that their chances are better where they are.

All right, they say we need these people's skills over here. That

is another 

Mr. HENDERSON. I am about to break in right there. I understand

Mr. Russ wanted to come back, but he couldn't get much consideration

about a job back here, so the voluntary feature of this plan, the Navy

plan at least, would be very attractive to Mr. Russ, in light of your

experience, I think, wouldn't it?

Mr. Russ. That sounded very reasonable, the voluntary portion,

sir.

Mr. HENDERSON. Mr. Griner made the point. Go ahead, sir.

Mr. GRINER. They claim that they want the experience that these

!people have acquired. Well, let's take a look. In the Air Force there

is about 26 percent, or a little less than 26 .percent, of the citizens

that are assigned overseas that are involved in this 5 or more years

that we are talking about. In other words, 74 percent of their people

are now on rotation. If experience is what they want, what is wrong

with these people now who have been serving 5 years over there?

Don't they bring back with them the experience necessary?

There is another thing that I agree with. They say they may need

additional training, especially professional people, to keep up the

profession. We have ways and means of doing that. They can detail

a man from overseas to a school or to some training place, just like

they do at the present time, people from within the country. That

should be no headache. It is not necessary to transfer this man

permanently over here.

Now, when we say mandatory to the American people, we are immediately faced with an obstacle that is hard to overcome. Any time

that you force the American people to do something, it becomes

repugnant. There have been no surveys, really surveys made that I

know of by either the Navy or Air Force. However, the Army did

go to the trouble of making a survey. So the Army knows more

about what they are talking about than the Navy or Air Force, and

what does the Army say? We can find no reason why we should make

these people come back. If these people are undesirables over there,

if they are not doing their work over there, we have ways and means

of bringing them back or firing them.

I might say this is typical of the broad personnel policy that the

Army follows.

Mr. HENDERSON. Mr. Griner, you mentioned earlier in your testimony that in the Army base in Japan you felt that there would not

be as high a percentage of those that would want to come back under
68 ROTATION OF CIVILIAN EMPLOYEES FROM OVERSEAS POSTS

a voluntary program. I believe you said that living conditions were

good there, relatively speaking, comparing the people there with

Alaska. There would be quite a difference in being stationed in the

Army base in Japan and Navy bases in Alaska, wouldn't there?

Mr. GRINER. Yes, sir.

Mr. HENDERSON. Couldn't that be one of the big reasons that the

Army doesn't feel that they need the plan to the extent the Navy

does?

Mr. GRINER. Mr. Chairman, the Army, I believe, has more bases

scattered out through the world than any other part of the service.

Some of those would be what I would consider more or less undesirable bases, might be equal even to the two stations in Japan, and this

survey was made both on the Atlantic and European and Pacific.

They found no need for such a proposal in either one.

I noticed something significant in all of these stations that I have

heard at the present time. There is no mention made of the cost, except

to this, that we want to be economical, and I agree. We want to be

economical to the taxpayers.

Let's take a little look at what this rotation is costing this Government. Ocean freight costs the Government $35 per 100 pounds, going 

and coming, that is from European theater now, and that is relatively

close to some other place. Single employees are authorized 2,500

pounds • married employees 7,000 pounds. It has been conservatively

estimated that each job swap would cost the U.S. Government $5,500.

That, of course, includes the travel, personnel.

The Army now has 6,300 employees in Europe, and the Air Force

1,700. I don't know how many Navy, but just taking those two., 20

percent under this plan now, if this plan were put into effect, there

would be 20 percent of all of the employees. And the Air Force and

the Navy, that would be rotated each year, one-fifth; $17,600,000 for

just the European theater alone for a year.

Now, Mr. Wheeless was here yesterday. A few days ago, why he

presented to me a problem which involved moving some 60 citizens

from Guam to the United States. The Comptroller General says they

must move them. And I said what is the reason back of it? He said

we can get local hire, Guamanians there. This will save cost of living

allowance for 60 men. They go to great extent to save that. Yet, they

are willing to pay $17,600,000 each year for one theater, and this doesn't

include the Navy.

So I can't buy that. I am for economy in the Government, but let's

make it across the board.

There is something else that I think they have forgotten to tell us,

that for all of these years, these two departments have known that this

was going on. They knew that these people were overseas. They knew

that these people, some of thena wanted to return, but they never lifted

a hand to help them. Now, why all of this sudden movement? I

said to the Department of the Air Force, after I was briefed, "Now I

have seen the excuse; what is the reason?" I am still looking for the

reason.

I am wondering, could it be that they are going to try and force these

people to retire at a very early date? Because the Air Force, at least,

intends to bring your older people back first, people nearer retirement

age, people who are more settled over there. Is that what they have in
•

ROTATION OF CIVILIAN EMPLOYEES FROM OVERSEAS POSTS 69

mind, or is there somebody over there that should be fired and this is

the easy way out? In other words, the supervisor or the commanding

officers don't want to go through the steps necessary to fire that man.

Or could it be this: The Army and Navy and Air Force military has

to rotate. Or is there some jealousy, which we hope there is not, that

they see the civilian able to stay and they can't stay. And they come

back to the States and they say "those no good civilians."

Yet we say, "What is wrong with them; tell us?" If they are no

good, let's fire them. They can't pinpoint it. I am still groping for

the answers of this whole problem.

Mr. HENDERSON. Mr. Griner, at that point may I ask this question:

I don't think that at the present time we are in the war situation that

I would envision my question to be in, but if we had an all-out war

effort, what would you think should be the authority of the services

to move civilians about over the world, either bring them back from

overseas or within the continental United States?

Mr. GRINER. Mr. Chairman, in the case of a national emergency, I

think that authority should be unlimited. I think this civilian ought

to subject himself to the same conditions as the military. To serve

his country to his very best interests, zegardless of where they are

called on to serve their country.

Mr. HENDERSON. Of course, even within the military we have the

criteria, particularly within the selective service, of giving account

to family status, age, these various factors. But I was quite sure that

there would be no question about what your answer would be or any

of the employees.

Mr. GRINER. Let me point out something at this time, Mr. Chairman. I was afraid you were going to ask me this question, and I

knew that you did not know that I had this letter in my possession.

When I was visiting Okinawa in December of 1964, I noted there

were about 10 native hires to every 1 American over there American

citizens. And I asked several of th,3 top command what would

happen here in the case of a national emergency? We seem to have

no secrets. Of course, I guess we did, it is just what I seemed to see,

because the stenographers, the clerks, practically everyone with the

exception of topline supervisors, were local natives.

Well, anyway, just yesterday I received this letter from the president of our lodge over there. Let me read you a paragraph. He

says:

Another item of interest. You may remember that at every meeting you had

with management officials you remarked on the high ratio of local nationals to

American citizen personnel, approximately 9 or 10 to 1. You also asked the

officials what would happen in the event of hostilities, et cetera. You must have

had your crystal ball because last week the local labor union threatened to

strike because the Government wished to send a tug with an Okinawan crew to

Saigon. The final outcome was that the citizen, American citizen, military

personnel manned the tug. If the Government had insisted on the Okinawan

crew manning the tug to Saigon, a strike would have been called.

Mr. HENDERSON. Mr, Griner, I wonder if I could break in right

here. The committee has a problem of time of course. We don't

let it bother us, but we—because we will take the time—but we do have

some witnesses that we need to accommodate.

Mr, Henry J. White, Jr., is here representing Temporary Employee

Group at Kindley Air Force Base in Bermuda, and I am sure he

4.
70 ROTATION OF CIVILIAN EMPLOYEES FROM OVERSEAS POSTS

would like to get a chance to testify and we certainly would not want

to keep him over the weekend for he probably could not appear later.

And Mr. McCart, I would like to welcome you here. The staff

advises me we can get room 219 on Tuesday next. I am certainly disappointed that we couldn't get to you at this time, but I am sure

you would rather we give you ample time and try an squeeze you in

between now and 12:15 and 12:20, when we get a quorum call.

I don't want to break in on your testimony, and I assure you we can

arrange the record so it would not appear to be broken in, and it would

logically follow on.

Mr. Griner, would you be available to us to come back Tuesday

and the other witnesses?

Mr. GRINER. Yes,•sir. I am always available.

Mr. HENDERSON. I wonder if you might accommodate Mr. White

by giving him the 14 or 15 minutes we might have here, to get his

testimony in, and then Tuesday we would want to get in.

Now, I have had an opportunity to talk to Mr. Hann just briefly.

I certainly wanted to afford him and Mr. Russ an opportunity to

comment here. I wonder what your situation is with regard to your

staying over until Tuesday of next week?

Mr. Russ. I cannot stay, sir; but that is beside the point.

Mr. HENDERSON. How about Mr. Hann?

Mr. HANN. I will stay, sir.

Mr. HENDERSON. I might say this. If there is no objection with the

subcommittee members, perhaps Mr. Bray of the staff, could talk

this afternoon with Mr. Russ and if he would accommodate Mr. Hann,

and at least reduce their position in writing for us, so that it might

be included in the record, because you have been very helpful to come

here. I am sure your views and your own personal experience would

be very helpful to members of the subcommittee.

I would ask the subcommittee staff to make their résumé or briefing

of your position available to us next week.

Thank you, Mr. Griner. We will pick up here next week.

(See additional comments submitted by Mr. Hann on p. 91-95.)

Mr. HENDERSON. Mr. White, I certainly want to thank you for coming to afford us these few minutes to make your statement.

STATEMENT OF HENRY J. WHITE, JR., REPRESENTATIVE OF

TEMPORARY EMPLOYEE GROUP, KINDLEY AIR FORCE BASE,

BERMUDA

Mr. WHITE. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

I would also like to thank Mr. Griner for permitting me to do this.

I have a plane at 2:30 which I would like to catch, if possible.

Mr. HENDERSON. I didn't know that, but I knew you had come a

long way.

Mr. WHITE. I would also like to preface my remarks by the following. I have no experience in this line of endeavor, and the whole

thing is entirely new to me.

Mr. HENDERSON. What is your background, sir? You may have it

in your statement.

Mr. WHITE. I don't. I have a brief background. I have it as far

as my relationships to the Government are concerned. But, as I say,

4.
ROTATION OF CIVILIAN EMPLOYEES FROM OVERSEAS POSTS 71

I am a bit nervous sitting here. But, nonetheless, I wish you would

listen to me and if I do make verbal mistakes, they are not due to

insincerity but more to ineptitude.

Mr. HENDERSON. We have the opportunity to make corrections to

the record.

Mr. WHITE. I have been in Government service for approximately

131/2 years and am a limited overseas appointment, having .served at

Kindley Air Force Base, Bermuda, for the past 9 years. Since I am

a limited overseas- appointment, and under the proposed policy will

inevitably lose my job, I have accepted an offer with private industry

and have tendered my resignation to be effective the 1st of September.

Therefore, I have no personal ax to grind and appear here today

motivated solely by my firm belief that the best interests of the United

States are definitely not served by this change in Air Force policy.

I would like to interject here, these comments relate solely to Air

Force policy. There are elements of the Navy policy which I haven't

had time to study and which I don't feel qualified to comment on.

Further, I am the duly elected and authorized representative of

the first employee group ever formed in the 23 years since Kindley Air

Force Base was founded.

Whenever a functioning system is to be changed, one must examine

the motivations for such a change to determine their validity. Over

the past few months I have searched and questioned every facet of this

program with a positive approach, to find some elemental justification

which warrants such a policy change. I can honestly, and in all conscience, state that I have not found it nor has it been pointed out to me

by individuals, both here in Washington and in Bermuda, who are supposedly its proponents. So obvious are its failings that individuals

who have been actively trying to return to the United States for as

long as 5 years have joined myself and my constituents in our protest,

despite the fact that their own interests will suffer should we be successful.

There are two major and, I feel, totally distinct areas of professed

motivation for this policy change. The first, and it is advertised as the

primary, is what we can term the "mechanical" aspects of the program

these purport better management, improved effectiveness, equality in

personal opportunity, et cetera. These are, in my opinion, nothing

more than a thinly disguised and unsuccessful sugar coating to a truly

bitter pill.

First, better management. If this were the true goal, some semblance of selectivity would be evident. Management is primarily

concerned with the upper grade levels, not carpenters, secretaries, and

plumbers. Plumb lines, paper, and pipe, are the same in Afghanistan

as in Detroit or Oshkosh. Also, an employee can go just as stale in

one place in the United States as his oversea counterpart, if not

more SO.

Second, improved effectiveness. I doubt that the proponents of

this policy can present any statistics or valid data to show that the

performance of their oversea employees is second rate in comparison

to their Conus employees. In fact, the opposite is true, if anything,

and there is indicative data to back up that statement. The additional

costs of this program are estimated at over $7.5 million, just for

transportation. This figure does not include the incalculable cost in
72 ROTATION OF CIVILIAN EMPLOYEES FROM OVERSEAS POSTS

reduced effectiveness when individuals with long-term experience in

their specialty are moved to a totally new environment and replaced

with personnel who may have the paper qualifications but not the

intimate experience. Additionally, it takes years to acquire a feel for

a foreign culture, its language, customs, and social mores. This knowledge of ours has paid off handsomely, albeit quietly, in projecting the

best side of the American image in foreign lands.

To replace these knowledgeable and experienced people with novices

is to invite the same situation so aptly in the book, "The Ugly American." I can personally cite examples within even the highly Americanized culture of Bermuda where intimate knowledge of local

conditions is of great material benefit to the U.S. Government.

Third, equality in personal opportunity. This is perhaps the

most inane reason when one considers that the proposed policy affects

only some 1,800 overseas employees against the U.S. force of 200,000,

which is less than 1 percent. There are other minor "mechanical"

Aspects but they are easily disposed of and not worth the expenditure

of my ;Hotted time.

Now to examine the second motivation and, I believe, the prime one.

Let me label it from the outset as insidious and insulting. This is

the subject of—and I quote from documents I possess—"reexposure

to the American life,' "re-Americanization of overseas personnel,"

renewal of family ties." I say categorically that I and my group

resent most strongly these snide insinuations at our patriotism loyalty,

and our personal lives. We pay. taxes, our children go to American

schools many of us vote in elections, and many of us have been shot

at in the defense of our country.

The English who have long experience in this field have found the

stanchest British hearts were not necessarily found in the midlands

of that small island but often in the most remote corners of their

empire.

Now granted there are deviant individuals within any group, and

surely we must have ours, those who act or think unpatriotically.

But there are ample instruments to discharge these people. Our

group would be the first to endorse such action. In the vast majority,

we are a loyal and patriotic group, we are constantly aware of our

role as Americans and are called upon to defend the American position with far more frequency than our fellow citizens in the United

States.

Now, I am not an American solely because I was born here; I am

not an American because I went to school here; I am not an American

because I am told I should be an American. I am and I will remain,

God willing, a loyal American for many reasons, but none of these.

Many of the political systems which we hold to be distasteful assure

the allegiance of their citizens by means precisely the same as the

ones incorporated in this policy. We have come to a sorry turn of

'events if the American Government must use the same strategems

to maintain loyalty as the Soviet Union.

However, should the creators and proponents of this policy have any

significant comparative data between ourselves and our counterparts

in the United States indicating that we are degenerative Americans,

or that qualified professionals in the workings of the human psyche

have made a statistical and scientific study of this matter confirming
I

ROTATION OF CIVILIAN EMPLOYEES FROM OVERSEAS POSTS 73

our need to renew family ties, I will gladly recant my position. I know

of no such study performed in Bermuda. If this is not the case, then

we are forced to conclude that the people behind this policy have

whimsically—and this is a suitable adjective—decided that I and my

ilk need to be "re-Americanized."

We reject this suggestion most strongly. In fact, since this policy

will primarily detract from the effectiveness of the U.S. Air Force

and since it is not in the traditions of the American concept with its

retroactive and coercive elements, I am forced to hold suspect in the

same area that I and my group are now suspect, the creators and

fomentors of this policy. It is a curious and anomalous situation but

based on the facts, based on any reasonable chain of logic, one is forced

to this ultimate conclusion.

Implementation of this policy will cause the very thing it is supposed to prevent. Our foreign allies will say, "Look, the Americans

have to send their citizens back, just like Russia."

Our own people will say, and they have said, I might add, "Our

Government doesn't trust us."

Let there be no mistake—people will be hurt, they will suffer financial loss and personal loss.

They will resent the highhanded manner of "Take this job in 'Anywhere U.S.A.' or you are fired."

For me, being a good American is not dependent on where one

hangs his hat. Being a good American is a state of mind, a consciousness of the inherent wisdom which formed and created our great

country. It is awareness that individuals such as myself can seek

redress and appeal before our representatives in a place such as this.

In conclusion, I am prepared to debate, rebut, or comment on any

facet of this program as it affects myself or my employee group. I

am also fully prepared and eager to defend any conclusions, opinions,

or lines of reasoning which have been put forward.

Thank you.

Mr. HENDERSON. Mr. White, are there other civilian employees,

citizens of the United States, in the Air Force base in Bermuda who

do not have career status?

Mr. WHITE. I happen to be one of them, sir, and there are many

others. There are approximately five or six, I should say, immediately. Two of them are extremely high-quality personnel who have

already done, as I have just done, resigned. One of them is an electronics data processor and the other is a highly qualified aircraft

engine mechanic.

Mr. HENDERSON. What had been your position over there?

Mr. WHITE. My position has been technical assistant to the base

supply officer. I am a specialist in management and systems.

Mr. HENDERSON. Have you attempted to get status?

Mr. WHITE. Sir, there has been no register open for me. Indicative of my effort in this behalf I have taken examinations for GS-12

and 14—I am a 9—and passed them, administrative judgment teas at

any rate. There has been n,o register open for me to compete and I

understand from Mr. Watt's ogee, 60 to 40 percent of the overseas

limited appointments are in this category.

We have no sympathy with those who have an open register and.

have either not taken it or failed. But I might also add at this junc-
•

74 ROTATION OF CIVILIAN EMPLOYEES FROM OVERSEAS POSTS

ture that the most important and valuable thing a man has, is not necessarily his money, but his time. And there are a lot of people over

there who have invested years, 19 years, in some cases. My secretary

is a good example of that, in the Air Force, with a specific understanding at one time, and now they are faced with an extremely difficult

situation, because they have naturally made some investments there, or

some family commitments or something of that nature.

Mr. HENDERSON. Have you attempted, since you have been over

there, to get an Air Force job in the continental United States?

Mr. WHITE. No, sir; I have not. If the opportunity were open to

me I must honestly say that I probably would not. My choice of location in Bermuda is because I like the environment. I am an avid

sports enthusiast and I could not find, and I have tried, sir, a place in

the United States, such as Florida, where I can actively pursue sailing,

diving, and my other sports which I enjoy.

Mr. HENDERSON. Are you at liberty to say what industry position

you have taken?

Mr. WHrrE. Yes, sir. I have taken a position as manager, well I

must qualify this, I have been offered the directorship of the Bermuda

biological station, which is a U.S. company there, and I have also been

offered the directorship or managership of an industrial gas company,

and I have selected, I feel almost certain, the industrial gas company.

It is not in Bermuda sir.

Mr. HENDERSON. What is your marital and family status?

Mr. WHITE. I am married to an American citizen. I have one child,

sir. I own my own house in Bermuda which I just sold at a loss.

• Mr. HENDERSON. In your new job you would not be stationed in

Bermuda?

Mr. WHITE. No, sir.

Mr. HENDERSON. What do you think of the feature that we have discussed here this morning of the Navy plan which would permit the

voluntary application with the assurance of an equal job for the employees back in the States? In your own experience I gather that you

have not wanted a job here?

Mr. WHrrE. - Not specifically; no. I must confess this. I was employed previously in the States and was hired in Bermuda after deliberately going there looking for a job. I hadn't intended staying this

long, but in commenting on the Navy program I feel it is far more desirable and far more cognizant of the needs of the management than

the Air Force program by any stretch of the imagination. I feel the

Navy has taken a more logical approach and I feel from the comments

of the captain that they are more aware, more strongly aware, of the

delicacy of this problem.

Mr. HENDERSON. You were here yesterday?

Mr. WirrrE. Yes; I was.

Mr. HENDERSON. You heard the Air Force testimony with regards

to the provisions that they will have for a 1-year extension, and then

the testimony of the Navy today, that there will be consideration given

to extending the overseas tours within the Navy without just the 1-year

limitation. Would you think that the reasons that you have presented this morning are factorial with regard to your situation, would

be valid reasons for the Navy, for instance, if you were employed by

them, to permit you to stay in Bermuda?

v
ROTATION OF CIVILIAN EMPLOYEES FROM OVERSEAS POSTS 75

4

Mr. WHITE. No; I don't think so. My reasons for remaining in.

Bermuda are certainly not valid ones, when the considerations of management are taken. I would say this, that my personal experience, my

intimate knowledge of the local media, as far as business is concerned,

I don't feel can be replaced overnight. I think that it would take a man

up to 2 years to become sufficiently, as familiar as I am with my particular job.

I might also add that this would be even further complicated if I

lived in an area where a, foreign language was concerned, because there

is nothing more abominable to the French than American high school

French. And this of course, when you fill out the form, you have, "Do

you speak French," and someone who speaks French with a very strong

American accent will put down "Yes, I do." And he will be sea to

France. But, when he speaks French, he will not be thought well of,

believe me, sir.

Mr. HENDERSON. Mr. Hanley?

Mr. HANLEY. Just one question, Mr. Chairman. If you would care

to comment on the Bermuda biological firm, which you made reference to is this a contractor of the U.S. Government?

Mr. 

to,

No; it is not. It is an independent, non-profit-making

organization incorporated in New York under the directorship of the

chair of biology at Lehigh University in Pennsylvania, sir. He has

offered me the business managership of it. This was a tentative offer,

and I have declined. In fact I have been reconsidering it, but I have

in actual fact declined since my house was sold.

Mr. HENDERSON. Mr. Buchanan?

Mr. BUCHANAN. May I say that you have given very eloquent testimony, sir, and if you were nervous it certainly doesn't show.

Mr. WHITE. Inside I am.

Mr. BUCHANAN. I appreciate so much your testimony and it seems

to me that it does have weight and does at the very least confirm the

preferability of the Navy program we have heard today, to the Air

Force program we heard yesterday; particularly I appreciate your

response that your personal circumstances would not necessarily warrant, your personal reasons wanting to stay, that you had perhaps

some experience and skill that would be difficult to immediately replace. I think that is quite important from a governmental point of

view.

Mr. WHITE. This is quite unique. I am not as unique as some. We 

have, I believe, the only freshwater distillation plant in the Air Force

there and there are 40-some employees that I am curious to find out

where the Air Force is going to put them, because we also have a liquid

oxygen plant. There are three in the Air Force. The man who runs

the oxygen plant has been trying to return for 5 years. He has had

applications in, written Senators, Congressmen, everything he can

think of, and the Air Force could not remove those three men who now

occupy those positions. Neither will they volunteer to go to Bermuda,

so he is stuck and that is his specialty.

But I feel these are complications which have either been glossed

over, or have not been made readily evident in these hearings, and

there are additional ones.

Mr. BUCHANAN. Thank you.
76 ROTATION OF CIVILIAN EMPLOYEES FROM OVERSEAS POSTS

Mr. HENDERSON. Mr. White, I consider that your situation is a

unique one, and I think it will be very helpful to us, as we consider all of the facets of our problem here. But, you are not typical of the overseas civil service employee.

You see, not having status, not being interested in coming back to a

job here, and apparently not being quite so concerned about ability

to get work, you demonstrate by your own choice that you can move

out.

I would like to ask you this question, and if you feel that it would embarrass you 

Mr. WHITE. Not at all, sir.

Mr. HENDERSON (continuing). Don't answer it. But from your viewpoint, you have observed career civil service employees in Ber- muda, I am sure.

Mr. WHITE. Yes.

Mr. HENDERSON. What do you think about their motivations and their feelings?

Mr. WHITE. I would like to comment I really would.

Mr. HENDERSON. It Will be very helpful.

Mr. WHITE. The career employee in Bermuda, and I must speak

now of the vast majority, as in any group have people. who grow stale, but these are, and I feel certain of this, are a vast majority. We have in our base, been recognized in all of our inspections and indicative

data that I speak of, our personnel office, which is purely civilian and only purely civilian organization, has been rated outstanding, which is the highest award that they can get from the Air Force grading standpoint, more frequently than perhaps any base in the United

States.

In 1962, let's go to general overseas, three out of five of the selected bases for outstanding civilian personnel programs were, in fact,

overseas.

Now, as far as the U.S. employee there, there are a number of them—I can quote examples but I will speak in generalities—who

fully intend to retire to the 

examples,

States after they have completed their 20 years. They have been planning this ever since they got there. They have in cases bought houses, or made investments. They have married indigenous people. This is true. But also in the back of their mind is retirement to the United States, and to gain their pension there.

Now there are other economic advantages to being overseas, and

as you well know, the cost-of-living allowance, PX privileges, and things of that nature, and I certainly neither am for them or against them, I feel that they are warranted in certain situations and I must also confess unwarranted in others. But nonetheless they do tend

to draw, I feel, by definition, a higher quality of personnel because this is a filtering system in action.

Overseas situations require, let's say, a more adventuresome spirit, which in turn perhaps means a little more aggressiveness. I am speak- ing of personalities .now. When an individual comes overseas he is undertaking an adventure, he is not staying in his backyard. He is

more aggressive. He has a tendency to look for opportunity a little

more.

Mr. HENDERSON. I was impressed with the statement of the captain this morning, in the Navy presentation, that this is what they are trying
ROTATION OF CIVILIAN EMPLOYEES FROM OVERSEAS POSTS 77

to get overseas, and I can see that Bermuda ought to be, if it is not

one of the high areas.

Mr. WHITE. It is.

Mr. HENDERSON. Let me ask you this: Do you know of any cases of

Air Force employees over there who have wanted to come back but

could not because of loss of grade?

Mr. WHITE. Very definitely. In fact, I referred to them. They

are part of my group. They have desired, this liquid oxygen plant

operator I spoke of, numerous other individuals, a secretary whom

I just found out can come to Washington, but she has been trying to

come back. She is a GS-5, which should be easily replaced, if there

was any attempt at voluntary replacement within the Air Force

complex.

I go along with the Army 100 percent. I feel that people should put

in their applications and get some kind of response. These people

don't get any response to their requests. They are merely left hanging.

If you had a good workable voluntary program, one that was not

just lipservice, because there is supposedly a program, but it is purely

lipservice as far as effectiveness is concerned unless there is an obvious

vacancy, then I don't think that this problem would be nearly as

evident as it is now.

There are individuals like myself who would prefer to remain

overseas, in a specific area, and if that is not possible, then we will

move to the States or find some other employment, if the conditions

are different.

Mr. HENDERSON. You made a very good case in your own personal

case, and I can see your reasons, andI was going to ask you if you

know other civil service employees who went from the continental

United 

States, 

who after getting over there don't want to come back

after, say, 5 or6 years?

Mr. WHITE. Well, I have got to qualify that, when you say "don't

want to."

Mr. HENDERSON. Put it this way, could you give us some of the reasons, this is what I was getting at, as to why they didn't want to come

back?

Mr. WHITE. First of all, in our particular case again, the island is

very attractive. It is good climate and if you are a sportsman it has

the advantage of access there, which I don't think you can find anywhere else in the States. By that I mean it is 5 minutes to a tennis

court, 10 minutes to the beach, 10 minutes to your boat, and things of

this nature.

Mr. HENDERSON. Does this proximity to the continental United

States have something to do with it?

Mr. WHITE. A great deal, sir. I have been back to the States since

January six times, two of them in relation to this matter, the other

four not. And all of our people do this. They are back to the States

probably twice a year, something of this nature.

Mr. HENDERSON. Let me conclude by differing with you just a little

bit. And the other members of the subcommittee can speak for themselves. But I don't feel perhaps to the extent that you do, that the

Air Force or the Navy or even the Army in any considerations they

might have given, have felt that they were so motivated, that their

employees were in any way lacking loyalty to our country. Now, this

52-506-65-6
78 ROTATION OF CIVILIAN EMPLOYEES FROM OVERSEAS POSTS

again is in generalities. But I am appreciative of the fact that you

would be sensitive if anybody thought you were, but let me say in defense of the services that they certainly have not impressed me that

this was their motivating factor.

Now, when they talk about bringing some of the employees back

that have been overseas for many years, I can see some advantages, but

it is not the big question that they become less loyal and I am appreciative of the fact that you say they become perhaps more loyal.

Mr. WHITE. They do, sir.

Mr. HENDERSON. As I have said to the others on this subject, I didn't

defend my little community when I lived there as the best neighborhood of America, because it wasn't necessary, everybody there would

have agreed with me, but since I have been away these last 5 years I

do defend it. It is the best community in America. This is the American way of life.

So I think this is a point that I hope you were making and not really

taking the services to task by saying that they had claimed their employees were really disloyal to them. I don't really think you meant to

imply that.

Mr. WHITE. May I just make one comment on that? I would agree

with you if I could find any material benefit at all in the program.

However, a letter from the Civil Service Commission which I have,

very mildly indicates such broad brush treatments as 

Commission,

management," "improved personal oppqrtunity," and things of this nature.

Then, in the next paragraph, but most firmly, very strongly, we believe, Chairman Macy, who generally speaks for President Johnson,

believes that you need to be re-Americanized. When you read between the lines, when you read what it says, this is the implication

and a strong one.

Mr. HENDERSON. I believe I would let Chairman Macy defend himself, so to speak, on that.

Mr. WHITE. I would like for him to.

Mr. HENDERSON. He is able, but I don't believe that he really

had in mind here any weakening of loyalties. Certainly if he did, I

would take him to task, as I know you would, or anyone else.

Mr. WHITE. Yes, sir.

Mr. HENDERSON. But I do think that in view of your statement,

and I realize you have given some thought to this, and perhaps hadn't

seen the whole picture as we are trying to see it, your statement is

a good one. I am appreciative of the facts that you make, and let

me say that on the other side I have been very concerned about what

I see in the continental United States. There are some people that

will not stand up and wave the flag and defend their country.

Mr. WHITE. You will find it overseas, sir.

Mr. HENDERSON. The fact that you do testify to this is certainly

commendable.

It is getting late and unless there are questions by the members, the

subcommittee will stand adjourned until Tuesday morning at 10 a.m.

At that time, of course, we will conclude Mr. Griner's testimony and

we will hear from Mr. McCart, and Dr. Wolkomir of the National

Federation of Federal Employees. We will meet in room 219.

(-Whereupon, at 12 noon, the subcommittee recessed, to reconvene at

10 a.m., Tuesday, August 17, 1965.)
ROTATION OF FEDERAL CIVILIAN EMPLOYEES FROM

OVERSEAS POSTS

TUESDAY, AUGUST 17, 1965

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,

SUBCOMMITTEE ON MANPOWER OF THE

COMMITTEE ON POST OFFICE AND CIVIL SERVICE,

Washington, D.C.

The subcommittee met at 10:30 a.m., in room 215, Cannon Building,

Hon. David N. Henderson (chairman of the subcommittee, presiding.

Mr. HENDERSON. The subcommittee will come to order.

Today we are continuing the public hearings relating to the rotation

of U.S. citizen civilian employees in the Defense Department from

posts overseas back to the continental United States. Last week WEI

heard from the Chairman of the U.S. Civil Service Commission, Director of the Office of Civilian Personnel, in the Office of the Secretary

of Defense, special assistant to the Director of the Bureau of the

Budget, special assistant to the Secretary of the Air Force for Manpower, and Captain Gisvold, Chief of the Industrial Relations Department of the Navy, who outlined Navy programs for rotating

career civilian employees from overseas.

We will continue with the testimony this morning from Mr. Griner,

national president of the American Federation of Government Employees, who so kindly deferred to let us hear from Mr. White of

Kindley Air Force Base from Bermuda last week.

Following Mr. Griner we will hear from Mr. John McCart, Government Employes' Council, AFL-CIO; and N. T. Wolkomir, president

of the National Federation of Federal Employees.

The Chair feels also an obligation this morning to try to have some

division of time because there are some matters that will be on the

floor at 12. The calendar will be called very quickly after we convene

today and I am sure all of the members would like to get over there

and it will be necessary for the Chair to be there very shortly after 12.

We will do our very best to be as fair as we can to all of the witnesses.

Mr. Griner, I may call time on you, but you go right ahead and

proceed as best you can and certainly we will afford you every opportunity to include any material in the record or any statement that you

are not able to make personally.

Mr. Griner.

79
80 ROTATION OF CIVILIAN EMPLOYEES FROM OVERSEAS POSTS

STATEMENT OF JOHN F. GRINER, NATIONAL PRESIDENT, AMERICAN FEDERATION OF GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES—Resumed

Mr. GRINER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of the com- mittee.

At this time I would like to submit a supplement to my statements

which I submitted last week, and this supplement relates to the cost of this rotation plan.

As I pointed out last week, the spokesman for the administration forgot to mention costs for some reason. So this statement is only the approximate costs and it only refers to the rotation plan as it would apply in the European area. We do not have any figures

on which we could base the cost in the Pacific or other areas, but you will note by this that the cost is free.

(Supplemental statement follows:)

What rotation will cost in the European area

[Appropriated fund employees as of Mar. 31, 1965]

Army civilians 6,308 Air Force civilians 1, 737

Total, all civilians 8, 045

20 percent to be rotated yearly 1, 609 Replacements 1, 609

Total coming and going each year 3, 218 Unmarried (10 percent of 3,218) 322 Married (90 percent of 3,218) 2, 896 Average family, 4 persons X 2,896 11, 584 Total personnel coming and going 11, 906 Transportation costs per person from New York to Europe and vice versa $125 Total personnel coming and going, 11,906 X $125 1 $1,488, 250 1 day per diem for each employee going and coming, $17 X 3,218._ $25, 742 Minimum travel costs yearly $1,513, 192

the 

1 This 

United 

amount ($1,488,250) does not include transportation from home of residence in

arrival 

States of America to New York or McGuire Air Force Base; or from points of in Europe to duty stations.

It should be noted that single employees often bring dependent parents. However, none have been considered in this computation.

Automobile shipping costs

Almost 100 percent of the employees coming and going ship automobiles. Therefore, 3,218 employees are rounded out to 3,000 automobiles.

Cost per measurement ton $18 Average car size, measurement tons 15 Average shipping cost per car $270

Shipping costs, 3,000 cars X $270 $810, 000 Port-handling fee per car, 3,000X$750 22,500

Transportation of automobiles for rotating employees 832, 500
4

ROTATION OF CIVILIAN EMPLOYEES FROM OVERSEAS POSTS

Household goods and baggage costs

Unmarried employees allowed 2,500 pounds, 322X 2,500 pounds__

Married persons allowed 7,000 pounds, 2,896X 7,000 do 

Total weight do 

81

805,000

20, 272, 000

21,077,000

Total of transoceanic freight at 35 cents per pound is 21,077,000

X$0.35 $7,376,950

Yearly totals

Transportation of personnel and per diem $1,513,192

Transportation of automobiles and port handling costs 832,500

Transportation of household goods and baggage 7,376,956

Total transportation costs each year 9,722,642

Total, every 5 years 148,613,210

1 Rounded out to $48,600,000.

NOTE.—There are 5,379 nonappropriated fund employees in Europe; if the rotation plan

is also applied to them, the increase will be approximately five-sixths of $48,600,000, or

$40,500,000, making a grand total of $89,100,000 every, 5 years to swap trained employees

already in Europe for personnel now in the United States.

Mr. GRINER. Next, I would like to correct a statement that I made

last week, and that was that the Air Force or the Navy had not made a

survey in the European and Pacific theaters such as the Army had

made. Since the meeting last week, I have further information from

some of my people in Okinawa and Japan, that the personnel officer

of the Air Force, together with Mr. Steve Shulman of the Department

of Defense, was in that area in November or December of last year.

And this matter was brought to the attention of both the employees

and management.

The employees definitely opposed it and it is our understanding that

management definitely opposed it at all points, and that was Japan,

Okinawa, and Korea especially.

Whether the Navy has made such a survey, I am not in a position

to say.

Mr. HENDERSON. Your estimates will be included in the record at

that point.

Mr. GRINER. Thank you.

I don't intend to take as much time as I did last week. I want to

apologize for infringing on the time of this committee.

Mr. HENDERSON. You didn't infringe on it, you were kind to help

us, and we are very glad to hear you.

Mr. GRINER. I want to principally relate my discussion this morning

to the proposed regulation of the Department of the Navy, and I might

say in the beginning that I think some of us are being led into a false

feeling of security by the word "voluntary."

In my opinion, the proposed regulation of the Navy is in some ways

more dangerous or worse than that of the Air Force, because in the

Air Force regulation it is mandatory. We know what is coming. In.

the Navy's proposal it is left to a degree with the commanding officer.
82 ROTATION OF CIVILIAN EMPLOYEES FROM OVERSEAS POSTS

I do not know whether the committee has a copy of the Navy's transmitttal letter with the proposal. If they do, I would like to call their

attention to the last paragraph on page 1, which reads:

Some persons who have read the enclosed draft have reacted in fear that

the major intent is to force employees to return to the United States against

their wills. A close reading of the instructions reveals that this is not the basic

purpose. The basic purpose is to provide a 'system which will be effectively

responsive to employees' application for return placement as well as overseas

managers' nominations of employees for return placements.

Gentlemen, I would like to call to your attention at this point to

section 6a of the Navy's draft, and if that is not mandatory I do not

know what is. The language is specific. It states that the maximum

tour limits shall be established by each activity located in a foreign

area for each of its employees who occupy a key position; namely,

positions in grade 6 or above, wage board positions above journeyman

levels, and Canal Zone merit system equivalent.

• Furthermore, you will notice that the limits shall be designed to

prevent employees from living outside of the United States for more

than 5 consecutive years. So, regardless of what we say, this is a

mandatory plan, whereby the employee must receive an exception in

order to stay more than the 5 years.

I think it is very plain that if the commanding officer wants to make

an exception to this general rule—and this is the general rule—he can

do it. Otherwise the employee will be forced to return within 5 years

Or his service will be terminated.

It is very clear, if you will notice, under section 6c, page 3, that

there is ample provision for termination.

Furthermore, I would like to call your attention to section 6d on

page 4, in which if an employee refuses to return to the United States

he may be rehired on a local hire basis, but then he must say that he

does not have a residence within the United States. Gentlemen, I

would not like to be put in that position if I would ever be in a foreign

land or an overseas installation and in order to get work have to

certify that I do not have a residence in my native State.

Mr. HENDERSON. Mr. Griner, if I may break in right here, I note

that you passed over 6b, and I think that the section would require

reading in the whole. I am not disagreeing with what you say. I

think the Navy testified that that plan does have the mandatory

feature, but under subsection b you have a criterion, for which they

testified to the voluntary feature of their plan, and b says:

When reassignments under the terms of subparagraph a (1) hereof can be

requested for some but not all employees within a competitive level, the activity

shall proceed as follows.

Now, I think that 6a is not effective unless it can be effective for all

employees within the competitive level, and then you have under b(1)

that "All employees on the applicable retention register shall be given

the opportunity to volunteer for return placement.

And then (2) :

If more volunteer than are needed, those who have served overseas longest

without an intervening period of at least 2 years of employment in CONUS, or

other U.S. area of residence, shall be nominated.

And, (3) :

If fewer volunteer than are needed, the remaining nominations shall be made

in the order that would be followed for a reduction in force.
g

A

ROTATION OF CIVILIAN EMPLOYEE.S FROM OVERSEAS POSTS 83

So that I think that your statement certainly is accurate in only

reading 6 a and c and d, but you do have the 6b provision that will

be some criterion for your organization and the House and Senate

committees to watch, to be sure that the Navy is fully implementing

their plan.

I agree with you that if they only implement the 6 a and d that it

would be strictly mandatory, but with the provision of 6b in I think

there is, to the extent as set out in the proposed plan, that much of a

voluntary feature about the Navy plan.

Mr. GRINER. Mr. Chairman, I agree with you 100 percent, and if

their plan had stopped with 6a I would say it is a wonderful plan, and

that is why I think it should have stopped right at 6a.

Mr. HENDERSON. AS I understand it 

Mr. GRINER. Before I finish this morning, I hope to make a recommendation along certain lines.

Mr. HENDERSON. Are you suggesting that the Navy plan would be

better without 6b ?

Mr. GRINER. No, excuse me. I mean if it stopped after 6b before

it got into 6c. In other words, they are actually giving these people

an opportunity to volunteer and come back and they will place them,

and I think that is very significant and should receive every consideration. But then the part that we do not like is the fact that if they do

not volunteer they are going to force them to come back. That is

under 6c.

Mr. HENDERSON. As I understand the purpose of 6c, it is a limitation

upon what the employee activity must do by way of protection to the

employees if they are forced to come back under 6a. Again reading,

it says :

Before an employing activity requests reassignment of an employee as provided in subparagraph a hereof, the activity shall issue a written notice to the

employee stating its intention to request the reassignment, giving the reasons

therefor specifically and in detail, asking whether he will accept a return placement, and requesting information to enable consideration of his location preferences if his response is affirmative.

So, it would seem to me that if you are going to agree with the mandatory feature of 6a that surely you want protection of this type. I

am not saying that it is perfect in every detail as afforded in 6c.

Now., I think with regard to 6d that that paragraph is the one that

you might say lowers the boom on the employee after having gone

through the formal procedure, and that is the paragraph for the separation of the employee.

Mr. GRINER. Mr. Chairman, we believe that there is no need for the

mandatory provision to be put in any of these rotation plans. We are

definitely against saying to these employees, "You must return to the

United States whether you want to or not," unless for some reason

whether it be for the good of the service—and I mean by that maybe

their social life in these overseas stations is not in accord with our

country's policies2 or for other reasons where they would normally be

transferred even if they were in the United States, and they have sufficient authority to do that without such a plan.

In other words we believe that these people are the best ambassadors that the United States has in these foreign lands and these overseas installations. They have conducted themselves through the

years—of course, there have been exceptions and there will be ad.di-
84 ROTATION OF CIVILIAN EMPLOYEES FROM OVERSEAS POSTS

tional cases where it will be necessary to bring a person back to the mainland or maybe even fire him. In those cases we have no sympathy

for the man.

Mr. HENDERSON. The Chair does not want to interfere with your presentation, and I do not want to take your time, but I wanted to try

to get in my own mind if I could just basically what is your position.

First of all, you would agree with the Army that it would be better

not to have a rotation plan?

Mr. GRINER. That is right—that is mandatory, let us say. The voluntary I am for 100 percent.

Mr. HENDERSON. That was going to be my second question. Would

you like to have a plan that would permit the overesas employee to indicate his desire to come back, and upon doing so be given job

employment rights in this country at a grade and level comparable to the grade level that he has overseas?

Mr. GRINER. That is right, sir.

Mr. HENDERSON. So that, secondly, if the services are going to have

a plan you would prefer that it be the voluntary type plan without

any mandatory features in it?

Mr. GRINER. That is right, sir.

Mr. HENDERSON. Thirdly, if the services have a mandatory plan

of any type, then you would want the committee to be cognizant of any

features of the plan that would give the employee all the rights that might be afforded that employee to indicate his desires for location,

type of job, and protection to that employee if it is going to be mandatory.

Mr. GRINER. If we must have a mandatory plan, but we are saying

it is not necessary. In fact, it is worse than no plan at all. Forcing

the average American to do something is repugnant to him.

I again want to remind this committee that our position is that

these people had an implied promise, just like every other employee

stateside, that when he is employed for a position he can retain that position as long as he satisfactorily performs the work and as long as

the position is in existence.

Now, this is only an implied promise and, like anyone else, these

employees have just as much right to their position in Okinawa or

Guam or Japan or in the Aleutians as an employee does in the State

of Washington. It makes just as much sense to us to pick those

people up and bring them in here, into the States, as it would make

to pick up 100,000 people out of Washington and transfer them to

Chicago and pick 100,000 people out of Chicago and transfer them

into Washington.

Mr. DOWNEY. Will the Chair yield? I have a question.

Mr. HENDERSON. Certainly.

Mr. TIINNEY. Can you tell me, please, which of the reasons under

6a for reassignment do you disapprove of, (1) through (4) ?

Mr. GRINER. Well, let us take them one by one, Mr. Tunney.

The availablity of local hire is something that we already are

faced with. Let us take Okinawa, for instance. We have about 10

local hire to every 1 citizen over there—American citizen. In fact,

practically all of your citizens that are there are supervisory personnel that supervise these local hires. Now, these people were taken
ROTATION OF CIVILIAN EMPLOYEES FROM OVERSEAS POSTS 85

over there in good faith, and as these local hires are trained they

are being put in positions that your people have held and their

services are being terminated and they are being sent back home.

Now, we are not opposed to placing those people in vacant positions, but to terminate one of the employees who went over there

under contract, just because he has been able to train one of the

local hires, is something that we do not agree with.

Mr. HENDERSON. Will the gentleman yield to the Chair for a question at this point? Mr. Griner, to clarify my own thinking, it was

my understanding that what the Navy was talking about, Mr. Tunney,

with regard to local hires, are American citizens that might be in

the area, rather than natives of, say, Guam or Okinawa. If I am

mistaken about that, certainly I want the question clarified to my

understanding. You think this means non-American citizens?

Mr. GRINER. That is right, sir, and let me give you my reason

for it. Just a few days ago I had a letter from Mr. Wheeless 

Mr. HENDERSON. Let me ask this. Look at 6a(1), Mr. Tunney. It

says:

Availability of a local hire who can appropriately be employed as a replacement, when such replacement would eliminate extra costs incurred because

the employee is a U.S. citizen or because he claims or claimed a residence

outside the area of his employment.

As I understand this, suppose that we have on Guam a clerktypist who has been over there more than 5 or 6 years that could

be brought back, but there would be the wife of a serviceman stationed in that area. The Navy is saying here under those facts we

would bring back the civil service employee who had residence at

the time he went over in the States, and that that replacement would

eliminate the extra cost because the employee is a citizen and claims

a residence outside the area of his employment.

Now let me say this. Mr. Griner's point is well taken. We are

talking about hiring non-U.S. citizens to fill the position held by a

U.S. citizen over there. So, if there is a question about this point,

the subcommittee certainly will clarify this matter with the Navy.

Mr. GRINER. Mr. Henderson, you bring up a very interesting question which I had not thought of until just then.

Mr. HENDERSON. You and I have been so concerned about the hiring

of non-U.S. citizens in the overseas areas that I can certainly appreciate Mr. Griner's fear here, and I would agree with him, but my

understanding is that this is one of the considerations of the Navy,

and it would also affect the cost involved here. If we are assuming

that there is going to be a two-way cost of bringing the employee back

and sending an employee over, there would be twice the cost, but if

you are only bringing the employee back and replacing that employee

with an American citizen in that area and otherwise available and

unemployed, you do not have the transportation cost involved, except

one way.

Mr. TUNNEY. I would like to ask the chairman if it would be possible at, this point in the record to get the clarification from the Navy

as to what is meant, because I cannot understand that.

Mr. HENDERSON. I will ask the staff to get the Navy to look at the

colloquy here this morning and give us a definitive statement on it.
86 ROTATION OF CIVILIAN EMPLOYEES FROM OVERSEAS POSTS

(The following statement was provided the subcommittee chairman in response to a series of questions raised by the members during

public hearings on August 17,1965 :)

CLARIFICATION OF PARAGRAPH 6a (1) OF PROPOSED SECNAVINST 12213

This paragraph provides that an overseas activity may initiate action to reassign o U.S. citizen mainland hire to the continental United States for

sound reasons, including—

"Availability of a local hire who can appropriately be employed as a replacement, when such replacement would eliminate extra costs incurred because the

employee is a U.S. citizen or because he claims or claimed a residence outside

the area of his employment."

"Local hire" as used in this paragraph can, depending upon the circumstances, refer to (1) a local resident U.S. citizen in a U.S. overseas area such

as Hawaii or Guam; (2) a local resident U.S. citizen, such as a dependent of

a military person or civilian employee of the Government in a foreign country;

or (3) a local resident foreign national of the foreign country.

The principal application of this provision would be in U.S. overseas areas

such as Hawaii and Guam. In these areas the Navy employs substantial

numbers of mainland personnel who were recruited for overseas service because, at the time of recruitment, the overseas area could not supply all of the

skills required by the Navy. In many cases, local residents of these areas are

now qualified and available for the positions occupied by mainland personnel.

In foreign countries, the replacement of mainland personnel with local

residents is possible, but much less likely to occur. U.S. citizens are recruited

from the continental United States only for key level positions, positions requiring access to classified information, and positions requiring skills that

cannot be supplied by the foreign country. The decision to replace a mainland

hire holding a position in the latter category with a local resident would be

discretionary with the command. It is believed, however, that most commanding officers would follow the logical approach of effecting such replacements

only when there was some assurance that the local labor market could continue to supply the skill involved. This assurance would not be provided by

the temporary presence in the area of a dependent of a military person or of a

civilian employee, or by the availability of a single qualified foreign national.

Where there is assurance that a continuing supply of local resident U.S. citizens or foreign nationals with the required skills will be available, replacement

of mainland personnel with local residents is appropriate.

Mr. GRINER. Mr. Chairman, I would like to call your attention at

this point to two things. First, the cost of keeping that man over

there under contract would be infinitesimal in comparison with the

cost of the rotation plan. In other words, this is again—and as I said

in the beginning I am still trying to find the reason for this. I have

seen a lot of excuses, and you have just brought to my mind something

that could be one of the reasons, and that is that these people would

be replaced by local hire. Who are the local hire? If they are going

to be American citizens, they are retired military people. That may

be the reason back of some of this.

Mr. HENDERSON. I have been wondering all through the testimony

if you were going to hit something that has been a concern to me.

Mr. GRINER. I will hit some more.

Mr. HENDERSON. I am not concerned about them hiring retired military overseas as replacements if their retirement was what I will term

bona fide retirement and their choice to live in a country, but if they

are retiring and bringing these people back and retiring over there in

order to get these jobs from continental United States as replacement,

I do not think I have to assure you this subcommittee is going to be

breathing down their neck. We have got a pretty good record on

this score.
ROTATION OF CIVILIAN EMPLOYEES FROM OVERSEAS POSTS 87

Mr. GRINER. This may be part of the answer for this thing because

I am still in a position that I am trying to find the reason. I have

seen the excuses but no reasons up to the present point.

Proceeding along the line that you have pointed outMr. HENDERSON. Let me also say, in order to make the record clear

here, that this has been a concern of the staff and the Chair, and we

believe that the experience that we have had, both with the DOD and

the Civil Service Commission gives us some assurance that at least they

are going to follow the minimum requirements of placing retired military in the,„413 positions.

Mr. GRINER. Let us go to section (2), Mr. Tunney, we acknowledge

that in case of an engineer or a scientist or some other technician it

might be necessary to bring that person back stateside for retraining,

but we do that every day in the States. We take these people and put

them in schools. You have a number of schools throughout the

United States in the DOD facilities. Now, why cannot these people

be brought over and be retrained or brought up to date in their profession and then be returned to their job, just like these people are

stateside. There are not many of them; there are a few of them. But

we do not see, other than for a highly skilled technician, why a person

would become any more obsolete overseas than he would stateside.

With respect to (3), frankly we feel that that is rather a slam at

our American citizens who are overseas. Most of these people have

battle scars and battle stars that are now employed over there. They

are, if anything, overly patriotic. I was just recently in the Canal

Zone. During my visit in the Canal Zone a discussion came up about

the flag incident. A very high official of the Canal Zone Government

said that he was severely criticized because one of his boys happened

to be in this incident, and he said to the people, "Millions of us fought

• and died for that flag. I am not going to criticize my boy for fighting

for it." Now, that is typical of the patriotism that these people have

overseas. I have visited these places. I have talked to these people.

This is their home. This is where they expect to return whenever

they have finished. This is their way of life, and they are teaching

the American way of life to the people that they are supervising. They

are doing a good job of it.

Now, the next is failure of the employee to apply for and achieve

return placement prior to the expiration of his currently authorized

maximum foreign tour. That is something I cannot answer. I do not

know why it was put in there. In other words, if we are going to say

the maximum, which is under c down here, shall be 5 years, and the

person does not apply for it within the 5 years, that is the only reason

for it. That is no voluntary situation.

Then "When reassignments under the terms of subparagraph a(1)

hereof can be requested.' That is b.

Mr. TUNNEY. You find disagreement with each of the four reasons

for reassignment? •

Mr. GRINER. Yes, sir, I certainly do. I do not think they are

reasons. I am yet trying to find what is the reason, and I say we may

have stumbled into part of it.

Mr. TUNNEY. I just wanted to clarify my own mind. Thank you,

Mr. Chairman.
88 ROTATION OF CIVILIAN EMPLOYEES FROM OVERSEAS POSTS

Mr. GRINER. I have taken up considerable time with this committee,

which 

Mr. 

I 

HENDERSON. 

appreciate, 

Mr. 

and if 

Griner, 

I might 

it might 

just for 

be 

a 

helpful 

minute sum upfor the Chair to

advise the subcommittee members that according to the requests that

I made at the last session the subcommittee staff has conferred with

Mr. Hann. Mr. Hann had a prepared statement, and without objection I will order that his prepared statement be printed in the record

immediately following Mr. Griner's testimony, together with the question-and-answer responses that the subcommittee made last week, in

order to save time and get this matter into the record.

For the information of the members, I would point out that Mr.

Hann personally is employed by the Army, so that he is not so directly

affected. However, he is representing lodge 2348 of Frankfurt Germany, and can speak not only from his personal viewpoints about

the plans but also as a spokesman for the lodge in Germany. Mr.

Griner, I thought you would like to know before you concluded that this will be included in the record at this point, and anything further

that you and Mr. Hann would like to say to the committee we will be

glad to hear from you.

Mr. GRINER. Well, I would like to apologize for not introducing

Mr. Hann again this morning. He is a member of our lodge whom

I asked to come from Germany to be with us at this hearing, so that he would be in a position to give me technical advice in case you gentlemen should ask me a question that I did not understand.

If I may sum up just briefly, we believe this enforced rotation ignores the need for continuity of age and experience in any position having more than the minimum amount of responsibility. From time to time over the past years, I have heard the commanders of the different DOD installations say it is necessary to have civilian employees in key jobs in order that we may have a continuity, because

of the turnover in the military and the rotation of the military. Now they are actually recommending a program which would destroy that continuity.

I think that rotation overlooks the years required to perfect one's knowledge of the language and the business and the social customs

of another country. These people tell me it takes about 5 years. or a

minimum of 5 years, in a supervisory position to be in a position where they can understand the native hire, the people who are hired from these countries, to understand enough of their language in order to properly give them instructions, to understand enough of their habits, enough of their philosophy, in order to get along with them and be a

good will ambassador for this country, as they should be.

Now, if we are going to have continuous rotation of these people who have proved themselves over a period of years, then that certainly is going to hurt this continuity of knowledge and experience that we have asked for so often.

The employees affected are largely supervisors who train foreign national employees and must train their own replacements. Can you imagine a situation such as I saw in Okinawa, where 1 supervisor had

300 foreign nationals working for him? That supervisor had been

over about 10 years, if I recall. Can you imagine a new man com- ing from the States and going over and taking over his job and that

man leaving and coming back? Who is going to train this man?
ROTATION OF CIVILIAN EMPLOYEES FROM OVERSEAS POSTS 89

Do we say that some other supervisor will train him? No, we cannot say it, because the other supervisor has his own line of work and

he has a full-time job supervising the several hundred nationals.

Frankly, I do not think that the DOD departments gave much thought

to this idea.

Then, a person employed prior to 1960 went overseas with an implied promise of job security, which I have mentioned on several occasions here. Gentlemen, this idea has been put before us that the

Government has a right to transfer people anytime, anyplace that they

want to. Yes, they do have that right. But can you imagine the

confusion if we made these wholesale transfers? That regulation

was put in the Federal Personnel Manual for one reason, an that is

for the case of an individual, not for a case of a group of employees

but in the case of an individual when they found that for the good of

the service—and there can be a number of reasons for the good of the

service—that the person should be transferred.

We say this. If we actually find that for the good of the service

an individual or two or three people should be transferred from Okinawa or Guam or some other place into the States, they have the

authority to do it. We do not have to go under a rotation plan in

order to do that.

Then, as I have shown you, the enforced rotation is extremely

uneconomical. This document only refers to the European theater.

There are not as many American citizens in the European theater as

there are in the Pacific theater. The cost in the Pacific theater would,

I imagine, be a great deal more than the cost in the European theater.

I would like to point out to you, as I started to point out a few

minutes ago, that in Guam we have 60 people who can be replaced by

local hire, and there is preparation being made to bring those people

back stateside. And I asked why. They said we do not have to pay

the cost of living to local hire. If they were so perturbed about a few

hundred dollars that would be involved in the cost-of-living allowance

for 60 people, they could have been placed as openings occurred in

Guam. Then why are they not concerned with the cost, which runs

into millions of dollars. We figure that, over every 5 years, the cost

will be close to $50 million in the European theater alone. Is it

worth it?

Then there is another thing that we do not like about it, and that

is the commanding officer has the discretion to direct the return of an

employee to the States. Such authority can be used for punitive

purposes, and in accordance with past practice, cases that we know

of, it could very well happen. I want to get this straight on the 

individual

officer 

We are not in any sense of the word accusing any 

officer or any group of officers of taking undue advantage of his authority in this manner. However, if it is done in only one case it is

wrong. We should not give him the opportunity to do it.

Much has been said about the right to appeal. I have read this

Navy proposed regulation a second or third time, and it is possible

that I have overlooked it, but I do not see any appeal rights for these

employees. And where does the appeal go? It goes to another Navy

officer. Now let us be human. Let us take it from a human standpoint. If I have a subordinate, I am going to try to find ways and
90 ROTATION OF CIVILIAN EMPLOYEES FROM OVERSEAS POSTS

means to support that subordinate, or else he will not be any good to

me very long. That is only human nature.

Gentlemen, let me make this recommendation, for what it is worth,

and I hope that you will consider it; that is, that the voluntary part of

the Navy plan be adopted. It is good—that these people who have accepted foreign assignments after 1960 in accordance with Public Law

86-585—are you familiar with that? Let me explain, if you do not

mind, just what that meant.

Public Law 86-585 provided that a person who accepted a foreign

assignment would retain his rights to come back to his same job, a

similar job, or if the job has been abolished altogether he would fare

the same as if he had been in the States all the time. It would be a

reduction in force. And that only applied to people who went into

foreign assignments October 1960 or later. We are talking here

about the people who were over there prior to October. So there is

a constant rotation of people who can bring in experience from the

overseas installation. They can carry it to the overseas installation.

So this would give those people this additional right, and we think

they should have it, that when they are brought back after completing

their assignment they retain the grade and the pay that they were receiving at the time that they left the overseas assignment. In most

cases it is one or two grades higher than what they had when they left the States. Prior to—well, at the present time; before any regula- tion was adopted, they are only guaranteed to come back at the same

pay. We say that that can be extended on a voluntary basis to these people who were over there prior to 1960, and let them come back to

vacant positions.

As the chairman so well put it on the floor of the House a few days ago, there are 50,000 or more civilian positions now being occu- pied by military. Certainly there would not be any hardship whatsoever in placing these few people comparatively few people, that would volunteer to return back to die States. We believe this is all that is necessary. Thank you.

Mr. HENDERSON. Let me assure you that any further statement that

you would like to add into the record after reviewing the record, or

even before, will certainly be printed, if there is no objection from the subcommittee.

I think your position is clear. I think it might be well for the Chair to make one comment at this time, and not selecting you out any more than I would be the other employee witnesses, and to point out that we do have clear evidence here that the departments are seeking the best type of plan, having made the decision that they are going to have the rotation plan. I think we all should be appreciative of the fact that they have afforded the employee organizations an opportunity

to present their positions. The Members of Congress have been af- forded an opportunity to open this subject to the public and to all interested persons. With this in mind, I think it behooves both em- ployee organizations and the committee to do all we can to prole() and find the best system and to make as good a recommendation as we can to the services.

Frankly, the Chair has some question about how far we should delve into the wisdom of the decision, because clearly the services have the authority under the law, and if we are going to delve into that we
A

ROTATION OF CIVILIAN EMPLOYEES FROM OVERSEAS POSTS 91

might want to really question the law itself. We are not sitting as a

legislative committee at this time. Of course, there are no limitations

on what Congress can do if it is in the mood to take legislative action,

so that certam.ly the position that the employee representatives have

made in this regard would not be overlooked, and we certainly would

not close our eyes to them.

Mr. Griner, your testimony has been very helpful to the subcommittee, and let me assure you as we move forward in consideration

that we may want to call you back, either in executive session or

public hearings, for further information.

Mr. GRINER. We shall be happy, Mr. Chairman, to come back at any

time at the convenience of this committee. I want again to express

my appreciation for the opportunity to appear before you.

Mr. HENDERSON. Thank you very much, Mr. Griner.

Mr. Hann, the committee is very appreciative of your attendance

and the fine cooperation you have given us throughout the hearing.

(The prepared statement and comments of Mr. Hann, previously

referred to, follow:)

PREPARED STATEMENT OF LOUIS W. HANN, REPRESENTATIVE OF LODGE 2348, AMERICAN FEDERATION OF GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES, FRANKFURT, GERMANY

Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, I have come from Frankfurt,

Germany, as the official representative of Lodge 2348, American Federation

of Government Employees. My lodge consists of civilian employees, of both

the U.S. Army and the U.S. Air Force, serving in Europe.

The proposed 5-year mandatory rotation plan, if adopted, will prove detrimental to the interests of the U.S. Government in that it will destroy the

pool of specialized skills and knowledge which were acquired through long

years of working overseas. Such skills and knowledge are essential to efficient

functioning only in the areas where they were acquired; they are of little or

no value in the United States. To move an employee from the place where his

particular skill is needed most would be a serious misapplication of manpower.

The plan envisions rotating precisely those people who by the very fact of

their long service abroad have proven they possess the specialized know-how

to effectively perform in foreign surroundings. Their long uninterrupted service has enriched their experience and developed within them that specialized

knowledge and capability which can best be utilized in the service of our country, in the place where it was acquired and is still needed. These career service employees constitute a reliable, continuous, stable source of information

and advice to military personnel who seldom remain in the same assignment

in excess of 3 years.

The stable overseas employees insure that continuity of operations which

is essential to the effective accomplishment of our military and political missions. They also contribute immeasurably to that international understanding for which our country spends billions of dollars annually, to develop at

home and abroad. The most valuable employees are those who have by years

of overseas work learned the language, economic practices, contract laws, engineering methods, construction techniques, and other facets of foreign practices that are daily factors in their jobs.

It should be obvious that these employees are of greatest value to the Government where they can utilize these skills to their maximum. It appears most

illogical to argue that it is in the Government's interest to reassign such personnel to jobs where they can make no use of these hard-to-come-by skills.

The experience an employee gains in working in a foreign country for 10 to 15

years is irreplaceable once the employee is rotated. To attain the skills derived

from such experience would require the replacement to remain overseas an

equivalent amount of time. In the interim, the Government suffers a very real

loss in employee effectiveness without any compensating benefits and when

acquired the skills will again be abandoned because due to the time limitation

the employee will be reassigned.
92 ROTATION OF CIVILIAN EMPLOYEES FROM OVERSEAS POSTS

Substantially the same views have been expressed by the Department of

Defense in DOD Pamphlet 1-18. An excerpt of which reads as follows:

"Abilities not otherwise available * * *. Many of the abilities needed by

today's highly technical Armed Forces are not primarily military personnel.

"Continuity of administration and operation * * *. Civilian employees can

stay longer in a single assignment and location than can military personnel.

They are not subject to periodic assignment to overseas or sea duty, or to military

training courses and schools. Career civilian employees are the backbone of

many support activities, with many serving 20, 30, 40, and even 50 years at

one particular specialty—often at the same installation. This continuity on

the part of our civilian employees is a desirable condition that assures that

the necessary, and sometimes vital, support jobs are performed even though

their uniformed coworkers come and go."

Should the forced 5-year rotation plan be implemented, the continuity which

the Department of Defense itself describes as desirable, necessary, and vital will depend solely upon the loyalties of local national employees. We submit

that it is not logical to expect a local national to be more loyal to the United

States than he is to his own country. Local nationals know that they must live

and work in their own countries long after the Americans are gone and in

Europe many of the better qualified local nationals have already been lured away

by the booming local economy.

The financial impact of implementing the forced 5-year rotation plan cannot

be taken lightly. To forcefully move 20 percent of the present European work

force of approximately 8,000 appropriated plus 5,379 nonappropriataed fund

employees to and from the United States each year, along with their household goods, automobiles, and personal property, would cost the U.S. Government

more than $17 million annually or $85 million every 5 years. A substantial

amount of this $85 million could be saved if those employees now doing an out- standing job were encouraged to remain where they are.

The important question, still not answered, is why must any employee who

is doing an outstanding job in his present position be forced to move elsewhere?

If change for the sake of change promotes efficiency, then why not move career

employees from Washington to Texas or New York to Florida and vice versa.

Recently a newspaper carried an article about a man and wife who had served

at one installation for a total of 75 years. Was this bad for the Government?

We should like to extend to the members of this committee an invitation from

the overseas civil service employees. Of late there has been a plethora of statements regarding attitudes and conditions of these employees. There have been veiled as well as outspoken charged of un-Americanism, of expatriates and hyphenated Americans, there has been suspicion east on their loyalties and talk of alienation from American values. There are references to plush housing, lowpaid servants, cheap whisky, tax-free salaries, and the like. It is difficult to perceive how long and faithful overseas service to our country can earn for

us the opprobrium Of being called un-American. Was the late Gen. Douglas

MacArthur un-American?

Overseas employees are, if anything, more cognizant of their country's secu- rity and financial interests than those who have never left home. Overseas em- ployees know the rights and obligations of members of the U.S. forces stationed in host countries and with monthly alerts, block warden duties, and monthly

NEO (noncombatant evacuation order) briefings, no overseas employee takes his citizenship lightly.

Gentlemen, the true situation is quite different than these reports would have

you believe. To determine the truth, to get at the real facts, we ask you, we

urge you, come to Europe and see for yourselves. See us at work, see how we live, determine for yourselves whether we are hyphenated Americans.

Set up hearings there, listen to what our civilians have to say regarding their jobs, learn how they apply the skills and experience acquired abroad for the benefit of the Government, investigate what the effect of mandatory rotation would have on our overall operations overseas. Speak to supervisors and higher level management, find out how crippling it would be to their organizational efficiency if they should be deprived of the skills of their veteran employees with

over 5 years experience abroad.

Before any decision is made regarding this rotation plan, detailed, extensive, factual information should be made available regarding its impact on U.S.

overseas interests. Such a study is lacking, the supporters of this plan have made no survey to establish whether the skills and experience presently avail-
ROTATION OF CIVILIAN EMPLOYEES FROM OVERSEAS POSTS 93

able among overseas personnel can be disposed of without impairing our operations abroad. There has been no job-by-job evaluation to identify essential

skills that are developed on the job and therefore not available elsewhere.

The situation abroad is a unique one in terms of civil service, a comprehensive

study by an impartial group is the only logical approach to the problem of personnel rotation. We therefore invite you to come to Europe and learn the

truth. Then, and only then can you be certain that whatever your decision may

be, it will be in the best interest of the U.S. Government.

Thank you for giving the American Federation of Government Employees,

Lodge 2348, of Frankfurt, Germany, this opportunity to comment on the mandatory 5-year rotation plan.

COMMENTS MADE BY LOUIS W. HANN, REPRESENTATIVE OF AMERICAN FEDERATION

OF GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES, LODGE 2348, FRANKFURT, GERMANY, IN RESPONSE

TO QUESTIONS FROM THE SUBCOMMITTEE ON MANPOWER

Question. Mr. Hann, how long have you been employed overseas?

Answer. Approximately 19 years.

Question. What is your job?

Answer. Along with 2 other Americans and aided by a staff of 32 local nationals—including Yugoslays, Czechoslovakians, British, and Israelis—I procure

utilities services for the U.S. Army in all of Western Germany. This includes

both the purchase and sale of electricity, water, gas, steam, sewage disposal,

refuse and garbage collection, and disposal services. The aforementioned services

are either bought or sold at more than 9,000 service locations and there are about

324 different suppliers. The services we buy cost more than $28 million annually. Contracts for these services are always bilingual; that is, English

and German, with each language having equal authenticity. There are no

military utilities contracting officers in Germany and only a U.S. citizen with

valid orders may negotiate utilities contracts which are binding upon the U.S.

Government. Only a few days ago we were alerted to the necessity for negotiating 140 bilingual memorandums of understanding; most of them will be in

French and English. These government-to-government agreements are similar

to contracts and cover the purpase or sale of utilities at jointly occupied, isolated

sites along the French, Belgian, and Luxembourg borders of Germany. The

U.S. Government does not recognize the validity of any contract which is in

contradiction with U.S. law. Germany, our host nation, will not recognize any

contract which is not in consonance with German law, therefore, my two colleagues and I must be able to read and understand both the English and German versions of the contracts which we negotiate and sign.

Question. Can your skill be reasonably found in the continental United States

if a replacement were needed?

Answer. I believe that there are many U.S. citizens who are equally fluent in

both French and German and that they could do a considerable amount of my

work with a reasonable amount of training. There is, however, one major

drawback. My colleagues and I were in Germany when the electricity and

sewer lines were installed. We know who paid for the installation of each of

the myriad of utilities systems. When, for example, the city of Kaiserslautern

charged the U.S. Army the statute rate for electricity carried over high-tension

lines which the Army and the prime supplier—not the city—financed, we went

to court. After more than 5 years in a series of lower courts, the Supreme Court

of the Federal Republic of Germany gave a favorable decision and about $200,000

annually was saved. During the past year, we have effected recurrent cost

reductions of about $1,800,000 annually as verified by the U.S. Army Audit

Agency. At this very time, the city of Giessen, Germany, is demanding payment

of 540,000 deutsche marks—$135,000--for the service which the U.S. Army provides for itself. The mayor of Giessen has told us that if we will pay first he

will discuss the details later. But what is there to discuss after we have paid?

We intend to take this matter to the German Federal Cartel Board and, if

necessary, to the German Supreme Court. Gentlemen, we didn't study these

aspects of our work; we grew up with the job. As the Army's housekeeping

needs expanded, our knowledge of the Army's housekeeping mission increased.

We were there to either see how things were done or to do them ourselves.

Nobody kept records because we never expected the U.S. Government to be in

Europe so long and on so large a scale. We made mistakes and we learned from
94 ROTATION OF CIVILIAN EMPLOYEES FROM OVERSEAS POSTS

them. If we are rotated, our replacements will make mistakes and learn from

them and after 5 years more newcomers will make more mistakes and so on

ad infinitum. If this trial-and-error method helps our Government, then replacements for all of us can readily be found.

Question. How long would it take a replacement to satisfactorily perform

your job?

Answer. The question is most difficult to answer. With years of experience

and superior ratings, we are still trying to find ways to improve. I learn more

about my work every day. In the short span of 5 years one can have very little

knowledge about 9,000 service locations.

Question. Have you ever indicated a desire to return to a position in the

United States? If so, why didn't you?

Answer. I have never asked for a stateside assignment. In the beginning,

we went overseas to see Europe, our funds were depleted before we saw all we

wanted to see, so I took a job with the Army. My wife also works for the Army

as a teacher. We had two daughters who wanted to become language teachers

and, being overseas, we had a wonderful opportunity to allow them to realize

their desires for careers as language instructors. After they were educated

in French secondary schools, our daughters were sent to the United States to

college; one graduated from Bennett in Greensboro, N.C., and one from Upsala

in Orange, N.J. The Bennett graduate, age 25, is now a French teacher at the

Arts High School in Newark, N.J. She is also conducting a pilot program in

language teaching for the Encyclopaedia Britannica. Our second daughter, age

23, is now getting a doctorate at Goethe University in Frankfurt. She will be a

professor of German. In the meantime, we had three more daughters, twins

age 1, and the youngest age 7; these three, like their older sisters, are also trilingual and all three want to teach languages, either French or German. With

all of those daughters wanting to teach European languages, we saw no reason

for my wife and I to give up two jobs and go elsewhere and thwart our children's

ambitions. For this reason, we do not want to move now, but we have not

"gone native," we have an American made automobile, American furniture, and

we own a house in the United States at 248 Tremont Avenue, Orange, N.J. All

of our savings are invested in the United States. Our children will come back

to the United States with the knowledge gained in Europe and they will teach

in the United States. We have no deep roots in Germany; as American Negroes,

we would make odd-looking Germans.

Question. Has your career been hindered by remaining overseas, if so, why

didn't you try to return to the United States for promotional advantages?

Answer. I am unable to say whether or not my being overseas has hindered

my career in Government service. The main purpose in life for my wife and I

is to educate our children and insure a better life for them. We have been able

to help our children more by being overseas. If we must choose between a bigger paycheck and a better education, we prefer more education and less pay.

Question. What is your estimate of the quality of work being performed overseas by U.S. civilians, in comparison with people in the United States?

Answer. I cannot give an honest answer to the question as asked. It is not possible to compare a known with an unknown, and I do not know the quality

of work being done in the United States. From observations, I feel we have

some highly capable civil service employees on both sides of the ocean.

Question. Are there many U.S. employees who would rotate if given a chance?

Answer. This is a very good question, and I can give an honest answer. There

are many who would like to rotate but have not been given a chance. Some have

been trying for 4 to 5 years without success. Recently the Air Force and the

Army forced out all employees who had lived in U.S. Government controlled

housing for 5 years or more. These employees have paid key money of up to

$5,000 to get a fairly decent place to live. Some can't afford to rotate and lose

this money. If the Army or Air Force would take over the leases, or pay back

a proportionate share of the key money, these people would gladly rotate. The

Air Force has actually entrapped its U.S. citizen employees by forcing them to

move into costly and scarce economy housing and then accusing them of "going

native" by establishing roots overseas.

Mobility, flexibility, fluidity, and maneuverability have destroyed the stability

and tranquility of the overseas employee. Here is a prime example: In January

1964, Army employees who had lived in U.S. Government controlled housing for

5 years or more were told to get out within 6 months. AFGE Lodge 2348 asked

the then U.S. Army Europe commander to allow these employees to remain in

•
e•N

ROTATION OF CIVILIAN EMPLOYEES FROM OVERSEAS POSTS 95

quarters until a decision was made as to which of the two subordinate area commands (northern with headquarters at Frankfurt, or southern with headquarters at Munich) would be phased out. The request was denied and the civilians

were forced out of Army housing at bath Frankfurt and Munich. Six months

after the civilians at Munich had signed leases, paid agents fees, key money, and

moved onto the economy at Munich, they were transferred to Frankfurt, 250

miles away. Six months after these people came from Munich to Frankfurt, and

again paid agents fees, key money, and signed leases, they Were ordered back

to Munich where for the third time in 18 months they had to pay key money,

agents fees, and sign leases. Many of these employees have spent all of their

savings on these useless moves. The coup de grace will be the mandatory 5-year

rotation plan.

People such as these would also ask to be rotated if the U.S. Government would

take over their leases and allow them to recoup some of their investments.

Question. Would you say that there has been a change in the quality or type

of employee coming to Europe since July 1960?

Answer. Employees coming to Europe today invariably bring along a list of

places to see and things to buy before returning home. As the end of the 5

years approaches these employees, realizing that they may never return to

Europe, concentrate on seeing the sights and visiting interesting places. Nineteen years ago I did the same, but I'm not sure that the U.S. Government should

finance European tours in perpetuum. After 3 years, many of the post-July 1960

employees were already looking for other interesting assignments. These migratory employees feel that there is no need for them to continue to learn more

about jobs which they know 'they will soon be leaving.

Question. If a rigid mandatory rotation system were instituted, assuming

the military continue their programs, what ill effect could it have on operations

of your activity?

Answer. The suppliers with whom we deal would only have to stall for time.

It is already a known fact and at least one burgermeister was heard to openly

remark, "If the Army would change the civilians as often as it does the military,

we wouldn't lose these cases." Since utilities are vital to the health and welfare

of all the people, our operations would continue. Costs, however, would certainly

increase. Our cost reduction efforts have been so successful that we would

prefer working for the U.S. Government for nothing. We could triple our staff

and quadruple our salaries if we were allowed to keep 10 percent of the savings

we effect for the Government.

Question. Do you feel that by remaining overseas 19 years you have missed

any of the American spirit and/or latest techniques in performing your job?

If so, would periodic trips to the United States correct that condition?

Answer. The history of the British Foreign Service has demonstrated, beyond

a doubt, the immense value to the Government of stabilizing a loyal and capable

work force of career civil service employees at overseas installations. We are

told that we are ambassadors of good will; are we now to become roving ambassadors? Americans overseas know all about the failure of Russian forced 5-

year plans, and we see no advantages which will accrue to our country from the

implementation of the forced 5-year plans now being considered by this committee.

Question. Do you wish to make any further statement about the matter under

consideration by the committee?

Answer. I would like to ask the members of the committee to give serious

consideration to two purposeful steps which would clarify many of the contradictory statements made during these hearings:

1. Submit a questionnaire to each overseas civilian employee. The questionnaire should contain all of the questions which I have been asked.

2. The members of lodge 2348 have instructed me to urge the members of this

committee to either come to Europe themselves, or send a task force, to get the

facts on the scene. Gentlemen, this is not a picayune matter, the security and

the financial interests of our country warrant 'the serious consideration which I

am sure you will give to these two recommendations before a final decision is

reached.

On behalf of Greater Frankfurt Lodge 2348 AFGE, I wish to thank you for

your interest in this matter.

Mr. HENDERSON. Our next witness is Mr. John A. McCart, of the

Government Employes' Council, AFL—CIO. Mr. McCart, it is al-
96 ROTATION OF CIVILIAN EMPLOYEES FROM OVERSEAS POSTS

ways a pleasure to welcome you before the subcommittee. I note that

you have a brief statement, but I am sure that you know we would be

glad to hear from you as fully as time will permit anyway.

STATEMENT OF JOHN A. McCART, OPERATIONS DIRECTOR,

GOVERNMENT EMPLOYES' COUNCIL, AFL-CIO

Mr. MCCART. Mr. Chairman, as you have indicated, I have a prepared statement, which we have supplied to the subcommittee. With

your concurrence, I would like to have the statement included as a

part of the record.

Mr. HENDERSON. Without objection, it is so ordered.

(The prepared statement of John A. McCart follows:)

PREPARED STATEMENT OF JOHN A. MOCART, GOVERNMENT EMPLOYES' COUNCIL,

AFL-CIO

Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee, the Government Employes'

Council desires to assert its objections to plans of the Departments of Air Force

and Navy to require civilian employees assigned to installations abroad to return to the United ,States or other nonforeign territory upon completion of a

tour of duty. Thirty-one AFL-CIO unions representing Federal employees in

all agencies are deeply concerned over the pending proposals.

Our disagreement with the plans are based upon several fundamental considerations.

First, the problem described by the agencies is simply not as serious as it is

portrayed. Second, the remedy offered is much more drastic than the defect it

seeks to correct. Third, serious inequities will be experienced by career Federal

employees if the plans become effective.

These thousands of career public servants represent their country in the farflung corners of the world--4n Europe, Asia, Africa, the Panama Canal Zone,

and oceans of the globe.

Relatively few individuals serving at overseas posts remain abroad indefinitely.

Most are anxious to return to the United States to renew home ties and keep

abreast of developments in their communities and the country as a whole.

Of the 7,000 individuals employed by the Air Force in jobs overseas, slightly

more than 1.800 career employees with competitive status have not returned to

the United States for work assignments in the last 5 years or more. However,

an undetermined number have utilized their home leave to return to the States.

The Navy has 35,000 workers in all its offshore activities. About 1,600 assigned to foreign territory have work agreements. The agency has no significant

figures on the number of employees who have remained abroad without interruption.

To rectify what the agencies view as an undesirable practice of the few who do

not return, they advance an innovation affecting all regular employees serving in

foreign areas. This approach brings to mind the occasional situation where an

individual Federal employee is suspected of abusing sick leave or malingering.

Some years ago, attempts were made to correct the problem by requiring all of

the employees in a unit to present a medical certificate for each day of illness.

Fortunately, the unfairness of such action to the majority of individuals was apparent, and the requirement was quickly rescinded. Individual workers making

improper use of sick leave are now counseled, and in the absence of any improvement are subject to appropriate discipline. But their fellow employees are

not affected.

The solution offered under the plans of the military agencies will have the effect

of penalizing the vast majority of workers because of the failure of a few to

comply with the standard the agencies feel is appropriate.

Another facet of the plans relates to the compulsory nature of the program

to rotate all workers in overseas positions. Despite references to voluntary

return of the U.S. citizens to the homeland, the fact remains that those not desiring to return for reasons other than health will be required to do so. Since the

individuals involved have accepted foreign assignments in the best interest of

the Federal service, the council believes that each case should be considered in-

•
ROTATION OF CIVILIAN EMPLOYEES FROM OVERSEAS POSTS 97

dividually and efforts made to convince the employee where the return is warranted.

Where a department believes it essential for an individual to leave an overseas

post, it should be possible with intelligent supervision and administration to arrange a transfer to another location. There should be no necessity of resorting

to compulsion.

One of the arguments propounded for the policy change is that it will assure

employment in the United States for many overseas workers who are anxious

to return home. Absence of mandatory placement rights serves as a deterrent,

according to this view. In such cases, it should be possible to supply this right

without the necessity of adopting a mandatory rotation plan.

Actually, however, the proposals do not contain a guarantee of a comparable

position in the United States without loss of pay. Even though the plans allude

to assignment to a lower grade job at home only with the consent of the individual, the fact remains that he may have to accept a lower rate.

Both the Air Force and Navy plans deal specifically with promotions of

employees whose return to the United States is contemplated. The Air Force

draft limits promotions for employees who have been overseas 3% years to only

a temporary basis, and with reassignment rights to jobs in the States only at

the grade and pay held prior to promotion. The Navy's plan differs only to the

extent that temporary promotions will be made where an employee is not

expected to remain in the foreign area for at least 2 years.

This approach is inequitable on two counts. It denies career employees an

opportunity for permanent positions, despite their qualifications and length of

service. Having been denied advancement on a permanent basis, the individual

will have placement opportunities at home only at the lower level attained before

promotion. In addition to the unfairness to the employees, the agency may find

many of them reluctant to accept temporary advancement, thus depriving the

installation of valuable skills and supervisory ability.

An assumption underlying the proposals offers the picture that the employees

in question are living and working in highly isolated areas without access to

basic American thinking, American know-how and American policy, both domestic and international. Somehow their exposure to foreign customs and language will cause their de-Americanization. It is well to emphasize here that

most of the Federal Government employees abroad perform their assignments

in large American communities. For the most part, they are in a large military

complex, with thousands of other Americans, both military and civilian. We

believe it would be difficult for them to escape the American philosophy and way

of life, even if they desired to.

In 1960, Congress undertook a substantial revision of the conditions for Federal employees assigned to overseas posts. One of the important additions to

the program was home leave. Public Law 86-707 describes the conditions under

which these workers are entitled to leave in the United States.

Among the most important justifications advanced for home leave at that time

was the necessity for the employees to renew their home, social, and community

relationships and to reacclimate themselves to the American way of life. In

our view, the enactment of this legislation has provided a completely satisfactory

incentive for Federal employees and their families to meet the objectives of the

legislation.

In short, then, there is little justification for the drastic policies advanced by

the military agencies.

In May 1965, before another subcommittee of the House Post Office and Civil

Service Committee, Civil Service Commission Chairman John W. Macy, Jr.,

recommended that some system be devised for rotating teachers in the dependent

schools to the United States upon completion of a stipulated period of service.

I bring this development to the attention of this subcommittee because of the

peculiar problem it raises. To date, no specific plan has been drafted by the

Department of Defense applying the rotation principle to these employees.

I have no desire to burden the record with the detailed objections the teachers

would have to such a program. Many of the arguments we have advanced in

opposition to the pending rotation plan for other Defense Department employees

would apply equally in the case of teachers.

Perhaps our objections can be summarized best in the following statement

by Mr. Lynn M. Bartlett, Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense (Education)

to the Civil Service Subcommittee of the Senate Post Office and Civil Service

Committee on August 3,1965.
•

98 ROTATION OF CIVILIAN EMPLOYEES FROM OVERSEAS POSTS

"Rotation, I think, would be very difficult because there is little opportunity

to rotate them back to this country. In other words, we do not have in the

schools an opportunity to take the teachers who served overseas and place

them in a school system stateside."

He then described some preliminary steps taken to encourage overseas teachers

to return to the States on a voluntary basis.

Mr. Chairman, the council is hopeful that, following additional service reflection, the agencies involved will realize the wisdom of abandoning any system

of mandatory rotation.

Mr. MOCART. I am John McCart, operations director of the Government Employes' Council, AFL-CIO.

The 31 unions associated with our organization, Mr. Chairman, feel

that this is a very salutary development that the subcommittee has

decided to air this entire problem and review all of its facets. I think,

too, the agencies involved are to be commended for their decision to

acquaint both the House and Senate Civil Service Committees with

their proposals, so that they can be seen in the light of day.

Our organization objects to the compulsory rotation program, for

three basic reasons: first, because the problem is not nearly as serious

as the agencies insist; second, the solution that they propose is going

to cause more problems than the problem itself; and, third, there are

certain inequities in the plans offered by the Air Force and the Navy.

With respect to the extent of the problem, there are about 7,000 employees of the Air Force in overseas jobs. Slightly more than a quarter

of them with competitive status have failed to return to the United

States after 5 years or more. Of course, some have used their home

leave. On the other hand, the Navy Department has 35,000 employees

assigned to all overseas positions. Of this number there are about

1,600 who have work agreements in foreign agreements. These are

the concern of the Navy, I understand, in conjunction with the rotation

program. However, there are no significant figures that we can find

as to the numbers among the 1,600 who have failed to return to the

United States for an extended period, after 5 years or more. There

are some figures that were supplied relative to the Pacific, but these

vary and there are no figures that have been given with respect to the

other theaters. So, the problem is confined to a small group of people

to begin with.

The solution offered reminds us somewhat of a situation we encounter from time to time relative to the use of sick leave. Sometimes employees are accused of malingering or abusing their sick leave, and

there have been some occasions when as a result of this there have been

orders promulgated covering an entire unit of employees, requiring

them to submit medical substantiation of every absence. This, we submit, is what is happening in this case. Because the agencies feel that

a few employees are not acting in their own best interest or in the

interest of the Government, they therefore have planned to adopt an

entirely new program that is going to apply to all of the employees

overseas who are covered. Thus, a large majority of the employees

will be penalized for what the agencies feel are the deficiencies of a

few.

I do not think there is any need for me to dwell upon the mandatory

nature of the plan. I think we can listen to the testimony of the

agencies' witnesses and their attempts at voluntarism, but when you

boil it down to its essentials the fact remains that the employee is

+It
ROTATION OF CIVILIAN EMPLOYEES FROM OVERSEAS POSTS 99

going to be forced to come home whether he concurs or not, so there

is the element of compulsion.

We feel that if there are instances where employees have remained

too long abroad, with intelligent supervision it should be possible to

make other arrangements, such as the opportunity to transfer to

other areas.

In that connection, Mr. Chairman, I do not intend to deal in any

detail with either of the proposed plans, but I was very much interested in the colloquy relative to section 6 of the Navy Department's

program. I think two of the points here under section 6a emphasize

the concern that the employees have. For example, two of the reasons that can be given for requiring employees to accept a reassignment

in the United States are occupational obsolescence due to isolation of

the employee from the United States and social deterioration.

Mr. Chairman, I am not going to quarrel with those reasons, because I do not understand them. I do not know what they mean—occupational obsolescence and social deterioration. I submit, Mr.

Chairman, that these are very broad and undefined reasons for compelling employees to return to the United States. At the very least

they would be subject to misinterpretation and abuse.

Reference has been made in earlier testimony to the inequity experienced by employees hired since 1960 under Public Law 86-585.

As explained, that law has as a condition of employment that employees

recruited after that time agree to rotation. The theory is that it is unfair not to require employees hired prior to 1960 to conform to a

similar program. We submit there is nothing at all unfair about it,

Mr. Chairman. The individuals recruited since 1960 have accepted

rotation as a condition of employment, with full understanding that

this is what is expected when they signed the agreement. There was

no such condition of employment when the individuals hired prior to

1960 took their positions. It could very well be that many of them

view their jobs as career jobs in the overseas service.

With regard to the job guarantees I think that an analysis of

the plans will indicate that there really is not, and perhaps cannot

be, any positive job guarantee to an individual. In the first place, the

plans talk about the acceptance of a lower grade by an employee,

with his consent. It could very well be that an employee will find it

necessary to accept a job of a lower grade and will be put in the position of having to decide whether to accept the position at a lower

grade or not rotate, with the consequences that can flow from it, including actual separation.

Another of the principal arguments advanced for the plans under

consideration by the subcommittee has been that they will correct a

deficiency by guaranteeing or providing job assurance to the employee

who is rotated back to the United States. We feel, Mr. Chairman, that

there is a sharp distinction between providing that individual with a

job in the States, shall we say guaranteeing him the job, and forcing

him to return. The mandatory job assurance is fully justified. The

mandatory rotation in our view is not.

As to the inequity to the employees that I mentioned a moment ago,

in both the Air Force and Navy plans permanent promotions are

available to employees only up to a certain point before they are

returned to the United States. The Air Force, for example, limits
100 ROTATION OF CIVILIAN EMPLOYEES FROM OVERSEAS POSTS

promotions for employees who have been overseas 3/12years to only a

temporary basis, and with reassignment rights to jobs in the States

only in the grade and pay held prior to the promotion. The Navy's

plan is similar. It differs only that the timespan is 2 years instead of

3i/2. In other words, individuals who are not expected to remain overseas for 3/12years in the one case or 2 years in the other cannot anticipate permanent promotions. We submit, Mr. Chairman, that this is

inequitable to the employees. In addition, we feel that it may work a

hardship on the agencies, because they might find employees reluctant

to accept such temporary jobs or even to accept jobs overseas when they

will not have an opportunity to acquire permanent promotions during

that particular period.

One of the underlying reasons for rotation is the problem of the deAmericanization of these employees who accept overseas employment.

The theory appears to be that because they are away from their homes

for extended periods they somewhow may lose their identity with their

American background. Well, we do not concur. First of all, most of

these employees are in areas where there are large American complexes, and they are exposed continually to American thinking and the

American way of life. As a matter of fact, they could not avoid it

if they desired.

I was browsing through the hearing on the Senate side on H.R.

10695 in 1960. This is the bill which ultimately became Public Law

86-585. I was interested in a comment made by the spokesman for

the Civil Service Commission at that time relative to this point I am

making now. This was on June 2, 1960. He said:

But I would say to the committee with all sincerity that this is not designed

to correct a large-scale expatriation type of thing that has grown up because

people have been sent overseas and then been permitted to stay too long.

I submit, Mr. Chairman, that the situation has not changed, so that

• cannot be a really valid reason.

• Mr. TUNNEY. Could I interrupt for a quick question, Mr. Chairman?

Mr. H_ENDERSON. Surely.

Mr. TIINNEY. Is there any provision in the regulations of the Navy

or Air Force for transferring employees who have gone native, so to

speak, who are identifying with local interests rather than the

interests of the United States, besides this regulation that is being

porposed ?

Mr. MCCART. Well, Mr. Tunney, I think the same requirements

would apply to employees overseas as apply stateside. An agency has

an opportunity to transfer an employee at any time it wishes. Sometimes we dispute that right, but that is the case.

Secondly, if there is an individual who is not meeting the standards

of the agency, appropriate disciplinary action can be initiated against

him. You have raised the question of the individuals who may go

native. I think this presents a little different problem, and you may

have physical or psychological or emotional factors involved that can

also be treated in other ways.

Let me simply remind the committee that the hearing that I alluded

to in 1960 also covered another bill providing for home leave for these

employees, and of course most of them take advantage of their right

to home leave. This, of course, provides an opportunity to renew

•
ROTATION OF CIVILIAN EMPLOYEES FROM OVERSEAS POSTS 101

their home ties, their community ties, their social exposure to the

American way of life.

Another question that has been raised as a justification for the proposed policies is the problem of updating skills and again I would

like to refer to the hearing in 1960, which I think provides some interesting background for this particular matter. This question was

propounded by a member of the subcommittee:

In considering the work of the Government employees overseas and those in

the United States in your efficiency surveys, and I assume you make such efficiency surveys, are you able to note any difference between achievement effort put

forth between the employees in the United States and the same employees overseas, that is, employees of relative training and experience and capability.

And without burdening you with the entire response, let me quote

the conclusion by the representative of the Department of the Air

Force:

Hence, group for group, sir, from my 10 years as director of civilian parsonnel

for the Air Force, I see no material difference in the level of productivity of the

two groups.

So that really the question of updating skills or making jobs more

responsive to developments in an occupational field in the States is

not valid.

One final point, Mr. Chairman—arid I raise this because it has been

mentioned by the Chairman of the Civil Service Commission in his

testimony before this subcommittee and was the subject of his comments before another subcommittee handling legislation dealing with

teachers overseas. The Civil Service Commission has proposed that

a rotation plan be applied to all overseas employees, and I allude to it

because it is part of this entire basic problem. I think the response

that I am going to quote is pertinent. Mr. Lynn M. Bartlett, the

Asisstant Secretary of Defense for Education, testifying before the

Senate Civil Service Subcommittee on August 3, 1965, made this comment with respect to teachers:

Rotation, I think, would be very difficult because there is little opportunity to

rotate them back to this country. In other words, we do not have in the

schools an opportunity to take the teachers who served overseas and place them

in a school system stateside.

In conclusion, Mr. Chairman, I think that the problem can be stated

very succinctly. Rotation is not necessary. If there are particular

problems that the agencies are experiencing, then these can be solved

without having to resort to compulsion and force, and I think we

would all agree that this is a much more desirable solution for any of

the problems outlined thus far.

Mr. Chairman, that concludes my formal presentation.

Mr. HENDERSON. Thank you very much, Mr. McCart. It is very

helpful to the committee. Certainly if the members have any important questions I would not want to cut questions off, but time is slipping

by and we certainly must hear from our next witness. We are very

appreciative of your appearance this morning, and you have been very

helpful to us.

Dr. Wolkomir, the president of the National Federation of Federal

Employees, has been patiently waiting. It is always a pleasure to welcome you before the subcommittee.

A
102 ROTATION OF CIVILIAN EMPLOYEES FROM OVERSEAS POSTS

STATEMENT OF N. T. WOLKOMIR, PRESIDENT, NATIONAL FEDERATION OF FEDERAL EMPLOYEES, ACCOMPANIED BY BEN MARTIN

Mr. WOLKOMIR. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman and

members of the subcommittee, for the record I am president of the

National Federation of Federal Employees, and to my right is my

assistant, on both regular and legislative matters, Mr. Ben Martin.

Although my statement looks voluminous, may I for the record

indicate the fact that most of it is an attachment for study. We of the

NFFE felt that sitting here in Washington in an air-conditioned

room is no solution to this problem. Consequently, immediately upon

receipt of the rotation programs from both the Navy and the Air Force

we wrote to our representatives overseas. I would like to state that,

never in the history of our organization have our people in our national headquarters, who have been with us for over 40 years, received

such a voluminous response from our members. We feel that these

overseas members are the experts. These are the people who really

know what the conditions are overseas. As a result, we have added

as attachments to our original statement copies of correspondence that

we have received during the time permitted. Since then may I state

that we have received two or three times the amount of correspondence

that we have enclosed as part of our attachment.

Mr. HENDERSON. Without objection, I will order that the entire

statement be printed, and certainly will afford you an opportunity if

you would like to supplement this by further quotations from the more

recent mail. That might be done at the conclusion of your printed

statement.

Mr. WOLKOMIR. We sure appreciate this, Mr. Chairman, and we

certainly would like to add same. Our organization has locals and

members in virtually all departments and agencies under the flag in

this country and overseas. We are the oldest general union of Federal employees. Long before we thought of rotation plans we have

had people rotating back and forth. We have 21 locals in foreign

areas, including Alaska, Guam, the Panama Canal Zone, Puerto Rico,

and Hawaii. We also have them in Germany, Japan, Korea, the

Philippine Islands, Italy, and members in other foreign areas as well.

These employees are employed by the Departments of the Air Force,

Army, and Navy, and they are vitally affected by the proposals of

the departments for the rotation of our civilian personnel. I say

"are vitally affected" because reports of plans to put the harsh regulations into effect have had an alarming impact on the individuals

involved, as I have indicated by the correspondence received.

However, while the impact on individuals and upon the morale in

the overseas service certainly should be taken into the fullest and

sympathetic account, the most compelling reason for opposing this

plan is to be found in the demonstrable fact that it runs directly

counter to the paramount national interest. Indeed, Mr. Chairman

and members of the subcommittee, if this plan is not rescinded the

effect upon the efficiency and effectiveness of our overseas service is

likely to be deleterious in a deeply serious degree.

The NFFE has been asked by the departments concerned to comment on these proposals. Although it is understood that the Department of the Army is not in accord with the proposed stringent
ROTATION OF CIVILIAN EMPLOYEES FROM OVERSEAS POSTS 103

5-year rotation plan since the three departments are components of

the Department of Defense it is reasonable and logical to anticipate

that if the plan is adopted by one department the other two departments will soon be required to put the same limitation into effect.

Mr. HENDERSON. Mr. Wolkomir, would you comment on one question that has been in the Chair's mind on this? Do you feel that if

we are going to have a policy that it ought to be a uniform policy

for all three services? I certainly know that you are opposed to a

compulsory rotation plan but if we are going to have one do you

see advantages in the DOD having a uniform policy?

Mr. WOLKOMIR. Not having a plan is a plan also, sir. Having a system for the sake of having a system in itself does not cure any evils.

The need for a plan is a consideration that I realize is not in the "big

picture" for us or perhaps the consideration of this subcommittee.

However, a plan for a plan's sake is no solution to a problem.

Mr. HENDERSON. The Chair might say that the biggest advantage

that I have seen in what we anticipate to be the situation is that the

Army does not have a firm rotation plan. The Air Force has one that

is more compulsory than that of the Navy, which would afford us an

opportunity if they are implemented to see which works best. The

Army has what you would call no plan and the Navy's is less mandatory than the Air Force compulsory plan. I just thought you might

want to comment on the situation as we see it.

Mr. WOLKOMIR. To take a firm stand, Mr. Chairman, I would like

to say that we are for a voluntary plan and a purely voluntary plan.

This voluntary plan would fall within the confines of present rules

and regulations as they exist, and I state this based upon the experience

that we have had with our people overseas.

Mr. HENDERSON. You do agree that it would be most helpful to our

overseas employees for the Department of Defense to make a greater

effort to find jobs of equal level back in the continental United States

and afford them an opportunity to come back to those jobs if they

want to?

Mr. WOLX01VIIR. The problem perhaps is slightly more acute than

this, Mr. Chairman, in this respect. When the people do go and rotate overseas there is a promotional possibility for these people. I believe that they should have what we commonly refer to as "retreat

rights." The fact that they are overseas and the overseas position is

conducive to promotion should be looked upon only in light of their

overseas assignment. Their retreat rights should be strictly back to the

positions and grade that they had prior to the time they went overseas. But this affects the overall promotional program. We have

many of our employees prior to the 1960 ruling who have been there

for a good many years. Would this affect their promotional possibilities while they are overseas? This is an entirely different problem.

They must or should be subject to the same rules and regulations and

promotional possibilities that the agency has for their Zone of Interior

employees. So I hope we are not contaminating the whole study of a

rotation plan with the various nuances of what is involv ed with a man

who stays a day or 20 years. This is not the issue. I believe the issue

of a mandatory plan is the conducive right of an agency to direct the

man back at their will and at their wish. This can be used for disciplinary measures, and may I say it has been. I am not afraid to say we
104 ROTATION OF CIVILIAN EMPLOYEES FROM OVERSEAS POSTS

have cases on record, and we have submitted same to the subcommittee, where these instances have occurred. So we should not confuse the issue of a directive promotion program directed by an agency

here in the Zone of Interior and forcing this upon our employees in

view of the promotional problems we have overseas for our people,

which is limited—incidentally, where they are limited within the confines of their own particular assignments.

There are the issues that are involved, and I think this calls for a

different type of study. Rather, the issues that are involved here are

strictly a rotation program. All of the incidentals are, let me say, the

after effects of a rotation program. We get more involved in after

effects and prior effects than we are in the program itself and the problem that is involved.

Our organization is unalterably opposed, if I may coin a phrase, sir,

to "Operation Scramble." This is all we consider the directed program to be, and this is what we predict will happen.

Going off my prepared text: Mr. Macy made a statement, and this

is in line with the promotion statement we just made, and I am quoting from Mr. Macy's statement:

"Career progress, which enables an employee to develop his capability"—and I would like to know what lie means by this. Is he stating

that upon a forced rotation of an employee from overseas back to the

States that they will be able to develop his capability here in the

States? When we consider what is going on amongst our own employees in the Zone of Interior, with the present promotion freezes,

budgetary restriction, downgrading actions, base closures, and a complete impasse in many cases in the "stoppage lists"—if these are the

conditions to which they will return—how are we going to develop his

capability here in the Zone of Interior? Is this what we are going to

bring him back to?

Mr. Jones in his testimony referred to a term he called "localitis,"

and he has referred to this as a result of prolonged service at a foreign

post. I refer him to another term, and this is `ZI Interioritis," right

here in the Zone of Interior what is happening to our people? Some

don't ever know the mission of their own organization. ZI Interioritis,

indeed! In addition, Mr. Wheeless himself has indicated that we are

affecting so many individuals here in terms of our promotional policies

and replacements in reference to the hire of aliens versus our temporary hires, versus those who are overseas, and admittedly states that

the eventual prospect would be not to take those who do not want to

rotate back to the States and then make them temporary hires, but

actually eventually replace temporary hires with alien employment.

This has happened and we have cases, and the subcommittee has these

cases on hand.

These are some of the ramifications of what would happen under

such a forced rotation.

If I may continue with the prepared statement, we have reviewed

the various proposals by the various departments concerned, and I

would like to cite an example of some of the proposed changes in lieu

of the existing regulation that does not have a mandatory 5-year limitation. Now referring strictly to the Air Force regulation:

No current employee may serve more than 5 continuous years in foreign

affects, unless an extension is granted by Headquarters, USAF, for a period

not to exceed 1 year after his scheduled return to the United States. Er6
ROTATION OF CIVILIAN EMPLOYEES FROM OVERSEAS POSTS 105

tensions to this limitation affecting current employees will be granted only

in cases of individual employees or by occupational groups, based upon considerations of hardship and/or the needs of management. The 5-year limitation upon continuous foreign service includes military service, employment

with other departments and agencies of the Federal Government, and residence abroad for any purposes.

We have supplied the emphasis.

The potential impact of this proposal of the Air Force for mandatory rotation is appreciated when I tell you that in just one area—

Tachika,wa, Yokota, Misawa, and Itazuke airbases and smaller installations of the 5th Air Force in Japan—its director of personnel

states that all employees would be affected.

Mr. Chairman, I believe that the most effective rebuttal to the

so-called reasons advanced by the departments in support of the

rotation plan have been put forward in the thoughtful, factual

communications which the NFFE has received on this subject

from our members overseas. We are presenting this testimony, as

I indicated, as an appendix to our statement. However, permit me

to quote some of the highlights of just a few. For example, a

reason for the rotation plan advanced by the Air Force is that the

"State Department finds people who stay in foreign areas for full

career tend to get isolated and tend to get insulated from realities

of life at home." While the Department of Defense employees

affected by the proposed plan do not stay in foreign areas for full

career, I would like you to hear this comment on the proposal from

one of our members in the Far East, and I quote:

In my opinion, those employees who have been overseas for a number of

years are the best ambassadors of the United States that we have. They

know and understand the people of the foreign country where they live,

because they have lived with them and in many instances they have built

up friendships. Being away from the United States causes these people to

appreciate America and its greatness. They sell America in a positive unflerstanding way because they know and understand the people where they are

stationed. We are told that we should learn the language of the people,

where we are stationed, but why should this be important if one is only

going to be among them for a short period? To me some of the poorest

ambassadors that we have are those who come with the idea that the only

way to do anything is the American way, to demonstrate by actions more

than words that the people are backward and servile. People who have

been here, know the people and some of their culture does not do these sort

of things.

Also, the rotation program is unfair, since it is primarily directed at a

small minority of persons. It is directly opposed to the concept of continuity and efficiency in service.

That long-term overseas employees lose touch with our country is a

mere statement to justify the program and is without fact or proof. I think

one would find the long-term overseas employees to be better informed,

especially with items of national interest. Communication as it is today

one is never very far away from home.

I could go on and quote some other statement, and I know time

is of essence, so if you will forgive me I would like to add off the

text some comments that we recently received from our overseas

employees, and in this text it is pretty interesting to note that

these people listen by the hour, practically every hour, when they

are away from their job to the broadcasts from this country. How

many of our Americans are listening to the news who live in the

Zone of Interior practically every hour on the hour?
106 ROTATION OF CIVILIAN EMPLOYEES FROM OVERSEAS POSTS

They also have enclosed some clippings that are pretty interesting,

that are exemplifying our particular conditions in this country.

And these are editorials written inside North Korea, written by a

K. P. Hong and Forest Kindler for their local newspapers. It

speaks about oriental youth.

In any analysis of juvenile delinquency—

and this may seem remote from the subject, gentlemen, but it is

not—

children of oriental descent have always been conspicuous by their absence

from the statistics and remain well behaved. Chinese and Japanese kids

just don't get into trouble. Chinese and Japanese youths are being reported

as increasing in California in such things as thievery and knifing actions.

A police captain of the Sacramento police juvenile bureau force stated: "I

imagine it is because the kids are becoming Americanized." Why should "becoming Americanized" mean losing respect for parents, for neighbors, for

law, and the rights of others? What kind of society are we building where

a police officer can matter of factly consider Americanized and criminalized

as being virtually synonymous?

Again going to the same article:

This is good and well, but if we leave out the finer ethics of respect of

parents, reverence to God, courtesy to fellow men and other related moral

principles, we may be denying our children an important heritage.

And they continue with the article, and they speak now about

elections and democratic procedures. And, mind you, these are the

people overseas who are doing a fine analysis on their own of what

it takes to be a true American. And I repeat, how many of our

Americans here are performing such analysis practically every hour

during their free time.

To continue it says—

The miracle of winning an election by a 100-percent mandate is simple—

said a Red Communist agent who defected to the Republic of

Korea.

All the Communist North Koreans do is make casting of a dissenting vote

a risk of job or life. The North Korean people were supposed to enjoy the

right to cast a nay ballot into a black box at the poll against the single

candidate, whom they have never seen, heard, or talked with.

These are our people who are analyzing the democratic procedures of voting and tearing apart the Communist influence in

North Korea.

Gentlemen, I can go on with more and more of this sort of

profundity .and this sort of analysis from our people overseas, and I

am wondering who are the true Americans? I think that the statement and the appendix attachments that we have added to our

testimony are clear indication of the type of individual that we are

speaking about overseas.

We represent—and I believe that Mr. Gross the other day asked

one of the other representatives of an employee organization 'whom

are they speaking for?" We are speaking for approximately 2,000

members. With our various forms of recognition, I would like to

state that we are speaking for closer to 5,000 people who are employed

by the Government, and these are full-time civil service employees

spread both in the European and Pacific areas.
A

ROTATION OF CIVILIAN EMPLOYEES FROM OVERSEAS POSTS 107

I repeat in summary that the NFFE is unalterably opposed to any

type of a forced rotation program for our people, based upon the

very evidence that they have submitted to you to review.

Thank you very much for this opportunity to appear, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. HENDERSON. It is always refreshing to have you before the

subcommittee. You have presented a very fine statement. I wish we

had more time than we have. I know there are some material questions that we would all like to ask you, but I cannot help but comment

after your editorial that maybe one consideration that has not been

given to this matter is that maybe we as parents in America need to get

some of these employees overseas for some time to come back here and

tell us how to raise our juvenile delinquents. It is a problem with all

of us, and I am very much impressed with the editorial, while it is

not directly in point.

Feel free to include in the record or supply to the staff any additional material that you would like for us to have, and as we consider

this matter we will certainly from time to time call on you and your

associate for assistance.

Mr. TIINNEY. There is only one very brief question I would like

to ask, Mr. Chairman. I have asked it before, but I want to get our

witness' opinion. On the books now are there regulations in the Department of Air Force and Department of Navy that enable those

services to transfer back to the United States people who have gone

native, civilian employees who have gone native, and who are identifying with the foreign country more than they are identifying with the

United States of America?

Mr. WOLKOMIR. I noted your question, the same question asked previously, and certainly feel that an appropriate answer should be made

to the point. I believe that the regulations in all three agencies, the

Departments of Air Force, Army, and Navy, today are stringent

enough to be able to take care of the particular circumstances that you

are speaking about. I am not saying that such do not exist. I feel

quite sure, and we have had visitors, and we have had the pleasure of

bringing them to Congressman Henderson's office from there, who we

think have gone native, for many reasons. These people, I think, can

be controlled by present existing regulations without going to a forced

rotation program.

I would also like to add the fact that we have testimony from Some

of our people from overseas who have made a very interesting statement. They would like to have a survey made as to how many civilian

employees since World War II overseas have defected to the enemy as

compared to how many of the military upon short exposure to overseas

have defected to the enemy. We have come with a record of absolutely none amongst the civilian employees, in spite of the fact that

some of them may have gone native, whatever the term means—marrying natives, having a mixture of native children and becoming oriented

to the native way of life. I do not know of any case where they have

gone native by defecting to whatever the native country may have

been. I do not know if I have added anything to the answer, but

1 hope I have answered.
108 ROTATION OF CIVILIAN EMPLOYEES FROM OVERSEAS POSTS

Mr. HENDERSON. Dr. Wolkomir, we certainly appreciate your attendance throughout all the hearings these few days. You have been

very helpful to us, and I want to compliment all of the employees'

witnesses, because certainly your testimony has been full and very

informative to the subcommittee.

(Mr. Wolkomir's prepared statement and attachments follow:)

STATEMENT OF NATHAN T. WOLKOMIR, PRESIDENT, NATIONAL FEDERATION OF

FEDERAL EMPLOYEES

Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee, my name is Nathan T.

Wolkomir. I am president of the National Federation of Federal Employees,

which has many locals and members in virtually all departments and agencies

under the flag, in this country and overseas.

The NFFE has 21 locals in foreign areas and in Alaska, Guam, the Panama

Canal Zone, Hawaii, and Puerto Rico. We have locals in such foreign areas as

Germany, Japan, Korea, Philippine Islands, Italy, and members in other foreign

areas as well.

Our members, and many other Federal employees, are employed overseas by the

Departments of the Air Force, Army, and Navy. They are vitally affected by the

proposals of the Departments for the rotation of oversea civilian personnel. I

say "are vitally affected" because reports of plans to put the harsh regulations into

effect have had an alarming impact on the individuals involved.

However, while the impact on individuals and upon morale in the overseas

service certainly should be taken into the fullest and sympathetic account, the

most compelling reason for opposing this plan is to be found in the demonstrable

fact that it runs directly counter to the paramount national interest. Indeed,

Mr. Chairman, if this plan is not rescinded, the effect upon the efficiency and

effectiveness of our overseas service is likely to be deleterious in a deeply serious

degree.

The NFFE has been asked by the Departments concerned to comment on these

proposals. Although it is understood that the Department of the Army is not

in accord with the proposed stringent 5-year rotation plan, since the three

Departments are components of the Department of Defense, it is reasonable and

logical to anticipate that if the plan is adopted by one Department, the other two

Departments will soon be required to put the same limitation into effect.

I will cite an example of the proposed change. In lieu of the existing regulation that does not have a mandatory 5-year limitation, the Department of the Air

Force proposes that—

"No current employee may serve niore than 5 continuous years in foreign areas,

unless an extension is granted by Headquarters USAF for a period not to exceed

1 year after his scheduled return to the United States. Extensions to this limitation affecting current employees will be granted only in cases of individual

employees or by occupational groups, based upon considerations of hardship

and/or the needs of management. The 5-year limitation upon continuous foreign

service includes military service, employment with other departments and agencies

of the Federal Government and residence abroad for any purposes." [Emphasis

supplied.]

The potential impact of this proposal of the Air Force for mandatory rotation

is appreciated when I tell you that in just one area—Tachikawa, Yokota, Misawa,

and Itazuke airbases and smaller installations of the 5th Air Force in Japan—

its director of personnel states that 411 employees would be affected.

Mr. Chairman, I believe that the most effective rebuttal to the so-called reasons

advanced by the Departments in support of the rotation plan have been put

forward in the thoughtful, factual communications which the NFFE had received

on this subject from our members overseas. For the information of the subcommittee, I shall present in my testimony pertinent views of these highly qualified

employees. The excerpted statements herein are documented by copies of the

communications which I will furnish the subcommittee in an appendix to my

testimony.

For example, a reason for the rotation plan advanced by the Air Force is that

the "State Department finds people who stay in foreign areas for full career

tend to get isolated and tend to get insulated from realities of life at home."

While the Department of Defense employees affected by the proposed plan do
ROTATION OF CIVILIAN EMPLOYEES FROM OVERSEAS POSTS 109

not stay in foreign areas "for full career," I would like you to hear on this point

the comment on the proposal from one of our members in the Far East:

"In my opinion, those employees who have been overseas for a number of years

are the best ambassadors of the United States that we have. They know and

understand the people of the foreign country where they live, because they have

lived with them and in many instances they have built up friendships. Being

away from the United States causes these people to appreciate America and its

greatness. They sell America in a positive, understanding way because they

know and understand the people where they are stationed.

"We are told that we should learn the language of the people where we are

stationed, but why should this be important if one is only going to be among them

for a short period. To me, some of the poorest ambassadors that we have are

those who come with the idea that the only way to do anything is the American

way, to demonstrate by actions more than words that the people are backward

and servile. People who have been here, know the people and some of their culture, do not do these sort of things.

"Also, the rotation program is unfair, since it is primarily directed at a small

minority of persons. It is directly opposed to the concept of continuity and

efficiency in service.

"That long-term overseas employees lose touch with our country is a mere

statement to justify the program and is without fact or proof. I think one would

find the long-term overseas employees to be better informed, especially With

items of national interest. Communication as it is today is never very far away

from home."

Another member overseas states that:

"The employee who is returned to a position within the United States (either

on a so-called voluntary or involuntary basis) is placed at a distinct disadvantage with respect to job rotation. He may readily get 'bumped' from his new U.S.

position, whereas the stateside employee who accepts a foreign position or assignment has return rights to his former stateside position. These provisions appear

to be discriminatory against employees in foreign areas."

The proposal "denies employees in foreign areas who have more than 42 months

of service in the foreign area of the opportunity for promotion (except of a temporary nature). Since promotions are based upon changes in job responsibilities,

it is believed that denial of promotion to an individual, who is otherwise qualified

because of length of service in a particular area, is both discriminatory and illegal." The proposal "provides that employees eligible to apply voluntarily (for

positions within the United States) upon completion of the initial or a current

agreed tour of duty will do so; otherwise, they will be scheduled for return to

the States. Webster's dictionary defines 'voluntary' as 'of one's own choice or

full consent.' It is felt that the wording of the paragraph is misleading and is

obscuring the real purpose of the regulation: to force a certain group of Air Force

civilians to surrender their current positions without regard for their individual

desires. It can be anticipated that employees may elect to 'volunteer' for an

assignment in hopes of getting a certain geographic area, rather than to be

involuntarily assigned to any location the Air Force chooses. These decisions,

although called voluntary, may actually be made under duress."

The proposal "provides for the separation of an employee if he refuses to

accept an assignment at his 'current or any acceptable lower grade.' The paragraph does not indicate who determines whether a lower grade is 'acceptable.'

It appears to provide a means of forcing an employee to surrender his position

and accept a lower grade or face separation. It is believed that such a provision is illegal."

The President of our local 1210, Wiesbaden, Germany, writes:

"Promised stateside job security is misleading. Nothing has been mentioned

about conveying reemployment rights or their equivalent for the overseas employees being coerced back to the United States. Stateside employees going overseas under the proposed scheme have them. No assurance is provided the overseas employee that he or she is not headed for a stateside base earmarked, but not

necessarily announced publicly, for early closure. Paragraph 4c (3) of the

proposed regulation states: 'If they refuse to accept assignment at their current or any acceptable lower grade, separation action will be initiated.' This

is a matter of gVeat concern—acceptable to whom? The Government or the

employee? Who determines what is an acceptable lower grade?"

That is a question I hope the subcommittee will answer.

52-506-65---8
110 ROTATION OF CIVILIAN EMPLOYEES FROM OVERSEAS POSTS

From the same area, Germany, I received comment on the proposal which

not only emphasizes the role of Department of Defense employees in foreign

areas serving as "overseas ambassadors," but makes an interesting comparison—

the absence of charges against Department of Defense employees defecting to Iron Curtain countries.

From Germany, an employee writes me:

"From a management point of view this program is also undersirable. Again, it is the word "continuity" which is foremost. Several military supervisors have expressed their concern to me (in off-the-record conversations) about the lack of continuity that will occur in certain positions. Naturally, there may be those who would counter this by suggesting that a rotation program would put continuity to a test—that it would prove if continuity is a fact or a myth. Such suggestions would be ridiculous. It would be the ultimate in stupidity and ignorance to test and search for a nonexistent substitute for experience. For continuity is nothing but experience. Experience on the job, experience in a

particular job environment, acquiring a knowledge of the many details that comprise the whole, etc.—and for but one purpose: to increase the effectiveness of the operation.

"Your letter mentioned the role of overseas Government employees as am- bassadors of the U.S. Government. I would say that most DOD civilians have given their wholehearted support to the DOD policy of being an 'overseas am- bassador.' By learning the host's language, by understanding his way of life, and by treating him as an equal the DOD employee has made an important con- tribution to the image of America. It now appears, however, that he is being criticized for doing his duty. However, what disturbs me most is the state- ment, 'Agencies have charged that long-term overseas employees tend to lose touch with our country.' The inference in this statement cannot be missed. It is disgusting, almost unbelievable, to think that supposedly mature individuals could come to such a conclusion. Don't they know that one's loyalty is not gov- erned by the geographical location of his feet. Perhaps a more understandable reply to such immature thinking would be 'Speak for yourself John Alden.'

"However, it is not necessary to oppose the agencies' statement with mere

commonsense; statistics prove that they are wrong. To the best of my knowledge and belief there have been no instances of DOD U.S. civilians (serving in Europe—World War II to date) defecting to Iron Curtain countries or becoming involved in espionage or other traitorous acts against the United States. I do not believe the same can be stated for the U.S. uniformed services (serving in Europe) who have had a 3- to 4-year rotation plan for many years."

Our local 1023, on Guam, refers to letter of May 17, 1965, from Leon L. Wheeless, Director, Civilian Personnel Policy, Department of Defense (copy of letter in- cluded in appendix) , and states:

"This letter plainly shows that they intend to reduce stateside hires to local hire and claim they were fair about it by offering them a job in the U.S. main- land where if they please they will force them to accept local hire or be fired. We know for sure that this is their plan, and they could care less if a person has

a job to go to in the United States.

"Again we say if there are 146 local hire people available why are they not hired and 146 aliens sent home. Why is it only the U.S. citizen who they can replace? Why was several new alien employees brought into Guam with these local people available, under these conditions are our immigration laws not being violated?

"Again let us state we feel that Washington level is to blame for all our prob- lems, as they know what is going on over here, and they intend to operate Guam with cheap alien labor, and not local hires, if they could get rid of the stateside hires and bridge this with alien employees, then they could dump the local hires who cannot or will not do their job and replace them with aliens."

The principal of a DOD high school in Japan certainly answers the reason that the plan "Provides Reorientation in American Ideals and Way of Life" in his letter of July 19, 1965:

"It is believed that this decision is based upon erroneous information furnished by people who have little or no insight into what is involved for the American citizen who wishes to serve his country in the manner which he chooses to be most beneficial for all concerned. It is an obvious fact and also prima facie evidence that the people this rotation would hurt most are the people who are concerned least as being a world tourist at Government expense. These people

are concerned primarily with becoming more proficient in the service with the least expense to themselves and the Government.
ROTATION OF CIVILIAN EMPLOYEES FROM OVERSEAS POSTS 111

"We are well adjusted to the performance of foreign service. We have our

employment rights when we wish to visit the States. We receive stateside and

worldwide news on an hourly basis. The latest publications in all forms and

categories are available continuously for us in our libraries. Our professional

growth is thus not hampered. We have specialists come over annually at least,

for conferences, seminars, institutes, what have you. We are as current and

up to date if not ahead of our stateside counterparts, as far as any other aspect

of our total being. We are as American as any you will find stateside.

"In reference to the recent economy drive, the Federal employees who wish

to remain overseas are saving the Government the expense of shipping household goods, cars, and families."

Another local of the NFFE in Japan writes:

"Commander Military Sea Transportation Service, Far East Area, upon learning of the Air Force decision to mass rotate its overseas civilians that they

thought had 'lost touch,' immediately initiated action to find out which of his

civilians were married to Japanese nationals, with the implication that these

particular employees had 'lost touch.' This action seems to have died a quiet

death, but it is an instructive warning of what could happen if responsibilities

were misplaced.

"One could fill volumes with other small examples which added together

would underscore this theme.

"In conclusion, the Air Force has no business interferring with the individual

responsibilities and liberties of its civilians unless specifically authorized by the

Congress or by the President. And to even think of such tactics on the pretext

that there are some rotten apples in the barrel is tantamount to being considered

guilty until proven innocent because a few got away. We refuse to dignify

this improper, unjust, and illegal action with a reply, and to the accusation say,

the biggest lie in the world rests most securely on a pinpoint of truth."

May I also invite attention to a statement by our local 1196, Japan, in letter

of June 21, 1965, to Senator A. S. Mike Monroney, chairman, Senate Committee

on Post Office and Civil Service:

"At this point of the game, Senator, I question the feasibility or wisdom of

bringing replacements overseas (in some cases to bases that are already in a

process of phase out or down) and who will have to undergo both numbered

Air Force, air division, and major air command ways of doing things and additional training for at least 6 months to even come close to the managerial

ability on hand and which has been proven over the years. I request that the

Director of Civilian Personnel be enjoined for at least 1 year from implementing

Public Law 86-586 to impose a 5-year limitation on foreign duty and that in

that year he, or a responsible representative from his office, spend at least 6

months overseas talking to civilian employees, other than those assigned to base

personnel. Briefings by high ranking base officials to be kept to a minimum

and at least 60 percent of the interviews to be restricted to concerned supervisory military and civilian personnel at the working level."

Summarizing, the proposed plan is definitely not in the interest of the Government or the employee.

In evaluating the plan, it is evident that due consideration was not given (a)

the initial cost in loss of manpower on the job prior to departure to an overseas

station; ( b ) the cost in transportation of employee and household effects, nor,

in many cases, the transportation of employee's family, and (c) the cost of

orienting and training the employee after arrival at the overseas station.

The plan in some areas would result in the replacement of American citizens

by natives.

The plan would not absolutely guarantee a job in the United States in the

same grade and basic pay in effect when the employee is returned to the homeland, with consequent loss in morale to all employees on overseas duty (Department of Defense employees have had, and continue to have, plenty of bitter

experience with the so-called guarantee of a job in connection with the closing

out of military bases and installations).

The need for the so-called reorientation in "American ideals and way of

life" is pure fiction. Employees on duty at overseas stations have as much or

more desire as their counterparts in the homeland to cherish our ideals and

way of life. Moreover, they are highly effective ambassadors of American good

will. When the Government is spending millions, yes billions, to foster good

relations with foreign countries, it would be a foolish, as well as an indefensible

waste of funds, to abruptly end a tour of duty that—without extra cost to the

Government—is contributing in no small degree to that vital objective.
112 ROTATION alr CIVILIAN EMPLOYEES FROM OVERSEAS POSTS

Based on firsthand information supplied by employees with practical knowledge and experience, not theory, the National Federation of Federal Employees is unalterably opposed to the proposal to arbitrarily place a 5-year limitation on overseas service of Department of Defense civilian employees.

On behalf of the National Federation of Federal Employees, and particularly

our many members overseas, I want to express to you and to the members of the subcommittee our very deep appreciation of your keen interest in and awareness of the gravity of these proposals, as is evidenced by these hearings. It is our hope that as a result of the incontrovertible factual evidence developed by the hearings, and the concern shown by the Members of Congress, overseas rotation regulations and plans will be promptly rescinded and dropped.

Mr. Chairman, for the information of the subcommittee, I have attached to my testimony herewith a representative cross section in full text, of letters received by the NFFE from members overseas in connection with the rotation plan. These letters, typical of a great many which have come to us in recent weeks, provide graphic and factual evidence of the unsoundness and harmful effects of the rotation program. In summary, may I highlight the following: We recently received a piece of correspondence from the Department of the Air Force with reference to a military/civilian problem in Government and they stated the following:

"While we would agree that on the surface the clothing sales store is not the ideal place for military, this function does, nonetheless, contribute to the overseas/U.S. rotation base for supply personnel Air Force-wide since the skills employed in a clothing sales store fall in the supply field which is used overseas." Are these then to be the positions that will be rotated on a mandatory basis? Related to this interpretation by DOD, may I summarize the following rebuttal to both Mr. Macy's and Mr. Jones' statements at this hearing last week: Bureau states: "'I imagine it's because the kids are becoming Americanized.' Why should 'becoming Americanized' mean losing respect for parents, for neigh- bors, for law and the rights of others? What kind of society are we building where a police officer can matter of factly consider 'Americanized' and 'criminal- ized' as being virtually synonymous? * * * If we leave out the finer ethics of respect 

moral 

to parents, reverence to God, courtesy to fellow men and other related principles, we may be denying our children an important heritage. "I call the committee's attention to the fact that we speak about Americaniza- tion 

who 

and loss of citizenship with reference to our overseas employees and wonder

the 'American' 

really is Americanized. They claim overseas that they keep up to date on

on Zone 

way of life every hour on the hour in order to keep up to date

fundity 

of Interior events. How many U.S. natives do the same? The pro- with which these Americans overseas have analyzed the mandatory rotation plan is in itself an indication of their capability.

"1. Are promotion freezes, budgetary restrictions, downgrading actions, base closures, and an impasse in stoppage lists, Mr. Macy's 'career progression which enables an employee to develop his capability'?

"2. If a planned rotation keeps employees 'from being shunted aside in a far- off corner of the world and forgotten' then it surely is an indication that the gander is neglecting the goose and the Civil Service Commission is ripe for rotation.

cost 

"3. 

concept. 

Career mobility is a military concept, and its cost is prohibitive in a fixedI would even question its erstwhileness in the military and essays have been and could still be written on the subject. An analysis of the mobility program in effect in the Zone of Interior by certain agencies such as the Federal

Interior 

Aviation Agency in itself bears investigation. Let's clean house in the Zone of before we subject local Americans to interior deficiencies. "Mr. Jones in his testimony has referred to localitis' as a result of prolonged service at a foreign post, and I refer him to `interioritis.' Has he or the Civil Service Comrhission ever investigated the 'narrowing effect of Air Force em- ployees at interior bases'? Has he ever checked just how much of the `big pic- ture aspect' or 'broad technical knowledge' our so-called Americanized Govern- ment employees possess?

"In ccinclusion, may I state that the NFFE is unequivocably against any fixed rotation program. We would like to reiterate and term the entire exercise, "Operation Scramble."
ROTATION OF CIVILIAN EMPLOYEES FROM OVERSEAS POSTS 113

HEADQUARTERS, PACIFIC AIR FORCES,

U.S. Am FORCE,

July 20, 1965.

Subject: Overseas NFFE.

To: Mr. N. T. Wolkomir, President, NFFE, 1737 H Street NW., Washington,

D.C.

DEAR MR. WOLKOMIR Reference your letter of July 12, 1965.

In my opinion, those employees who have been overseas for a number of years

are the best ambassadors of the United States that we have. They know and

understand the people of the foreign country where they live, because they have

lived with them and in many instances they have built up friendships. Being

away from the United States causes these people to appreciate America and its

greatness. They sell America in a positive, understanding way because they

know and understand the people where they are stationed. We are told that

we should learn the language of the people where we are stationed, but why

should this be important if one is only going to be among them for a short

period? To me some of the poorest ambassadors that we have are those who

come with the idea that the only way to do anything is the American way, to

demonstrate by actions more than words that the people are backward and

servile. People who have been here know the people and some of their culture

do not do this sort of thing.

Also, the rotation program is unfair, since it is primarily directed at a small

minority of persons. It is directly opposed to the concept of continuity and

efficiency in service.

That long-term overseas employees lose touch with our country is a mere

statement to justify the program and is without fact or proof. I think one would

find the long-term overseas employees to be better informed, especially with

items of national interest. Communication as it is today, one is never very

far away from home.

It would be just as justifiable for a firm in one State to dismiss an employee

because he has been with the firm for 5 years, is very efficient in his job, but

he has been away from his home State too long.

There are those who think that because the military rotate every few years

that that is what private business and Government civilian employees should

do. What the rotation does to efficiency in a position any well-operated firm

could tell you.

Your work for the welfare of the civilian employees is most commendable and

greatly appreciated.

Sincerely,

( S) ROLAND W. PETERSON,

Clark AFB, Manila.

NATIONAL FEDERATION OF FEDERAL EMPLOYEES, LOCAL 1210,

Wiesbaden, Germany, June 17, 1965.

Mrs. FLORENCE I. BROADWELL,

Secretary-Treasurer, National Federation of Federal Employees, Washington,

D.C.

DEAR MRS. BROADWELL : Thank you for forwarding a copy of the proposed instructions relative to rotation of Air Force employees.

Our continued employment in Europe is being assailed by the mandatory

forced rotation plan announced for July 1, 1965, by the U.S. Air Force for employees working at overseas installations more than 5 years. The Air Force

is being used as the "guinea pig" to launch this forced rotation plan for overseas employees in the other U.S. Department of Defense agencies (Army and

Navy).

The smokescreen put up by Mr. John Watts, Director of Civilian Personnel,

Department of the Air Force, and many influential personalities in the Pentagon

and Civil Service Commission to strike a mortal blow at the integrity of the

civil service merit system overseas is a series of preposterous misrepresentations.

At a recent news conference Mr. Watts said that the Department felt American

citizens serving abroad with the Air Force were losing contacts with "the

American way of life, those with 5 and 10 years or more overseas service," he
114 ROTATION OF CIVILIAN EMPLOYEES FROM OVERSEAS POSTS

said, "especially so." Nothing could be further from the truth than these

irrational, subjective views. On the scene in Europe, the civilian employees

and their military supervisors know the fallacy of these emotional appeals. It

is ridiculous to contemplate casting aside those employees with a wealth of

knowledge and acquired experience for getting a job done in a foreign environment—where they have demonstrated adaptability to overseas service—where

they have proven better than satisfactory performance—and where the Government has a recurrent need for their critical skills. For the Department of

the Air Force to insist on the capricious replacement of trained and competent

specialists, solely on the basis of their having provided more than 5 years of

continued loyal and competent service in an overseas area, is folly. Introduction of this policy will impose execution of key assignments from a base of

ignorance or limited knowledge of the job requirements under prevailing overseas conditions.

Popular belief for the Air Force being selected to spearhead this assault

against the right of career DOD civilian employees overseas is their negligible

number (14 percent of total Air Force civilian employees in organized employee

associations). The management-oriented Civil Service Commission, in going

along with this nefarious scheme, pointed out the future application of this Air

Force program in a letter from Mr. John W. Macy, Jr., Chairman of the U.S.

Civil Service Commission, to Eugene M. Zuckert, Secretary of the Air Force,

which stated in part: "The proposed Air Force plan for reassignment of civilians

to the United States after a specified period of foreign service seems consistent

with congressional thinking as reflected in Public Law 86-585. I believe it is a

worthy program well conceived and practical. Experience under it would be

beneficial in considering the validity of a comparable plan for Government-wide

application."

The U.S. Government should consider itself fortunate to retain peak performance by tried and tested personnel. It is inconceivable that private industry

would tolerate for a moment such mismanagement of its manpower. That

arbitrary enforcement of the policy would invoke injustices and hardships upon

certain employees is of secondary importance. First and foremost is that this

policy could undermine the continuity and effectiveness of our national defense

effort. Is the job continuity concept out of practice? In the past it was the

practice that civilian employees were inspired to remain on the job and provide

continuity.

The Department of Defense has been able to operate as smoothly as it has in

the Western European area largely due to firsthand experience gained by many

oldtimer civilian employees who have stayed put. When the "hairy problems"

present themselves, it is the veteran civilian employee who knows the right person

in the right foreign agency to set things straight. There is no substitute for

this professional experience gained through many years of overseas service.

Those who would question the loyalty and patriotism of the veteran overseas

employee would do well to remember that almost without exception these

employees have proudly worn the uniform of the serviceman of the United

States in time of war. The many combat decorations awarded them should be

ample testimony to their sacrifices and devotion. Aspersions cast on the loyalty

and patriotism of these dedicated civilian employees are intolerable. To think

that a mandatory rotation program for employees after 5 years' overseas employment is good for our country and the employees at home and abroad is a fallacy.

Promised stateside job security is misleading. Nothing has been mentioned

about conveying reemployment rights or their equivalent for the overseas employees being coerced back to the United States. iStateside employees going

overseas under the proposed scheme have them. No assurance is provided the

overseas employee that he or she is not headed for a stateside base earmarked,

but not necessarily announced publicly, for early closure. Paragraph 4c (3) of

the proposed regulation states: "If they refuse to accept assignment at their

current or any 'acceptable lower grade, separation action will be initiated." This.

Is a matter of great concern—acceptable to whom? The Government or the

employee? Who determines what is an acceptable lower grade?

Local 1210 is unequivocally opposed to any form of a forced rotation plan for

overseas employees who provide satisfactory performance or better on assignments abroad when a recurring need exists for their specialized services. Rotation on a voluntary basis is the proper solution for job stability overseas and at

home. Regulations already exist for a voluntary rotation program within the

Department of Defense.
ROTATION OF CIVILIAN EMPLOYEES FROM OVERSEAS POSTS 115

The established machinery for the voluntary interchange program is ensnarled

in insufficiency and all forms of bungling. The Department of Defense should

be required to make this voluntary interchange program workable without attempting to scuttle the rights of career employees.

The right to dissent is the heritage of all freedom-loving Americans. As servants of our Nation and its post in the Nort Atlantic Treaty Organization, we appeal to the National Federation of Federal Employees to help us do our job in

Europe in a manner which uses skills here and now.

Please take all measures considered appropriate, including testimony before

House and Senate committees, in opposition to the Government's forced rotation

plan—across-the-board or for single agencies.

Sincerely and fraternally,

(S) ADOLPH WOLFF, Secretary-Treasurer.

NATIONAL FEDERATION OF FEDERAL EMPLOYEES,

Washington, D.C., July 21,1965.

DEAR MR. WOLKOMIR : Reference your letter of July 12, 1965, pertaining to the

overseas rotation program, I believe that this plan must be opposed by all DOD

employees, whether overseas or in the Zone of Interior, because it strikes at one

of the basic reasons for having civilians in the DOD—continuity. Many of us

owe our jobs to this ground rule; that is, in many instances continuity is one

of the prime justifications used when a civilian position is established. Once

this program is implemented continuity will become a justification of the past;

not only overseas, but in the Zone of Interior as well. It is reasonable to assume

that the elimination of continuity as a justification will eventually lead to less

and less civilian positions. That is why I believe that the Zone of Interior DOD

employees must also oppose this program.

From a management point of view this program is also undesirable. Again,

it is the word "continuity" which is foremost. Several military supervisors have

expressed their concern to me (in off-the-record conversations) about the lack

of continuity that will occur in certain positions. Naturally, there may be those

who would counter this by suggesting that a rotation program would put continuity to a test—that it would prove if continuity is a fact or a myth. Such suggestions would be ridiculous. It would be the ultimate in stupidity and ignorance to test and search for a nonexistent substitute for experience. For continuity is nothing but experience. Experience on the job, experience in a particular job environment, acquiring a knowledge of the many details that comprise

the whole, et cetera—and for but one purpose: to increase the effectiveness of

the operation.

Your letter mentioned the role of overseas Government employees as ambassadors of the U.S. Government. I would say that most DOD civilians have

given their wholehearted support to the DOD policy of being an "overseas

ambassador." By learning the host's language, by understanding his way of

life, and by treating him as an equal the DOD employee has made an important

contribution to the image of America. It now appears, however, that he is being

criticized for doing his duty.

However, what disturbs me most is the statement "Agencies have charged

that long-term overseas employees tend to lose touch with our country." The

inference in this statement cannot be missed. It is disgusting, almost unbelievable, to think that supposedly mature individuals could come to such a

conclusion. Don't they know that one's loyalty is not governed by the geographical location of his feet. Perhaps a more understandable reply to such

immature thinking would be, "Speak for yourself, John Alden."

However, it is not necessary to oppose the agencies' statement with mere

commonsense; statistics prove that they are wrong. To the best of my knowledge and belief, there have been no instances of DOD U.S. civilians (serving in

Europe, World War II to date) defecting to Iron Curtain countries or becoming

involved in espionage or other traitorous acts against the United States. I do

not believe the same can be stated for the U.S. uniformed services (serving in

Europe) who have had a 3- to 4-year rotation plan for many years. Suggest you

validate the number of such incidents because a zero rate for civilians, as compared with the uniformed rate, would leave no doubt as to the loyalty of the

U.S. DOD civilians. In fact, such a comparison could possibly be strengthened

by including all overseas areas instead of just Europe.

Yours truly,

(S) E. J. GARTNER.

S.
116 ROTATION OF CIVILIAN EMPLOYEES FROM OVERSEAS POSTS

OFFICE OF THE ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF DEFENSE,

Washington, D.C., May 17, 1965.

Mr. N. T. WOLKOMIR,

President, Federation of Federal Employees,

Washington, D.C.

DEAR MR. WOLKOMIR : In Guam and Puerto Rico, it is the policy of the Department of Defense to require that positions be filled by qualified local U.S. citizens,

and that recruitment be permitted outside of the area only when the skill cannot be obtained locally. U.S. citizens who are recruited outside of the area

are entitled to transportation and travel and on Guam, to a nonforeign differential and to special home leave.

The General Accounting Office, by letter of February 3, 1965, submitted to

the Congress a report titled "Unnecessary Costs Resulting From Employment

•of Stateside Personnel in Civilian Positions at Naval Installations on Guam,

Marianas Island." The report concludes that unnecessary costs of about $516,000

are being incurred annually because at least 146 employees recruited from the

United States occupy civilian positions on Guam that could be filled by qualified

Guamanians. The costs result from the salary differentials, home leave and

periodic transportation costs referred to above. GAO recommends that such

employees be replaced with locally available qualified personnel.

Although there is some question as to the GAO estimate of the number of

mainland recruits who could be replaced by locally available personnel, it is

conceded that there are some and that efforts should be made to return these

employees to the United States. We are considering adoption of a program

to identify such employees and to arrange to transfer them to positions in

the United States at their current grades and salaries. This could involve

such measures as giving them an opportunity to volunteer for return placement

and, failing that, to direct return placement. Of necessity, those who refuse to

accept directed placement would be separated for such refusal. Every effort

would be made to place employees in the locations of their preference in the

States.

If such a program should be adopted, there might be some employees who

would elect to be separated and remain on Guam. Such persons could apply

for and might subsequently be reemployed as local hires without eligibility for

the differential, transportation, and home leave entitlements.

Another problem with which we are confronted on Guam relates to the eligibility of certain locally hired persons to receive the differential, periodic transportation to "home of record," and home leave entitlements because they claim

residence in the United States. With respect to transportation, this problem

also applies to a small number of employees in Puerto Rico.

Eligibility to receive the nonforeign differential is determined in accordance

with chapter 591 of the Federal Personnel Manual. These regulations are subject to interpretation, and interpretations of different departments have not

always been consistent. Examples of persons who, in some cases, receive the

differential but for whom continued payment is highly questionable are:

(1) Persons who entered Guam as dependents, grew up, finished school, and

were recruited locally. Some have been there for years prior to and after employment, married locally, and are for all practical purposes local residents.

(2) Married couples who were recruited while single, and who are both drawing the differential. In such cases, it would appear that only one should continue

to be eligible.

(3) A dependent spouse of an employee who was recruited outside the area

and was employed without the differential after arrival. Following death of

the sponsor, the spouse applied for the differential.

The suggested program for return of main and hires to the United States,

if adopted, might in time result in the return of such persons and the elimination of the problem. However, it would not account for all cases and some of

these persons definitely would not want to return. Therefore, we are considering regulations which will limit eligibility for the special entitlements referred

to above (periodic return transportation in the case of Puerto Rico) to those

persons who were recruited outside of the area or whose presence in the area,

at the time of recruitment, was not attributable to having been brought in as a

dependent, and to limit payment of the differential to one spouse only in the

ease of a married couple.
ROTATION OF CIVILIAN EMPLOYEES FROM OVERSEAS POSTS 117

Before taking any action, we would appreciate the views of your organization

on these matters. If you desire, I will be glad to meet with you for a discussion

of the problem and of the views of your organization.

Sincerely yours,

LEON L. WHEELERS,

Director, Civilian Personnel Policy.

NATIONAL FEDERATION OF FEDERAL EMPLOYEES,

Local No. 1023, Agana, Guam, June 27, 1965.

NATHAN T. WOLKOMIR,

President, NFFE, Washington, D.C.

DEAR Mn. WOLKOMIR : I have just been given your letter of June 18 to President Schimberg along with a copy of a letter dated May 17, 1965, from Leon L.

Wheeless, Director, civilian personnel policy, Department of Defense.

I am sorry for the delay in answering this letter but it was not brought to

my attention until today for an answer.

I have just had a meeting at Mr. Schimberg's home and we feel that the

LaVille grievance speaks for conditions all over Guam, and that out of several

hundred employees now working for the Government that it would be very hard

to find 146 of this said number that one could call qualified and in most eases

as stated in the LaVille grievance, some stateside hire is carrying the full load.

The training program set up by CIRO has been a failure, but it has been

upheld by CIRO in order to protect high-paid training personnel and justify

the large sums of money spent on this program at the District of Columbia level.

This letter plainly shows that they intend to reduce stateside hires to local

hires and claim they were fair about it by offering them a job in the U.S. mainland where, if they please, they will force them to accept local hire or be fired.

We know for sure that this is their plan. And they couldn't care less if a person

has a job to go to in the United States.

Again we say if there are 146 local-hire people available why are they not

hired and 146 aliens sent home? Why is it only the U.S. citizen who they can

replace? Why were several new alien employees brought into Guam with these

local people available? Under these conditions are our immigration laws not

being violated?

Again let us state we feel that Washington level is to blame for all our

problems, as they know what is going on over here, and they intend to operate

Guam with cheap alien labor, and not local hires. If they could get rid of the

stateside hires and bridge this with alien employees, then they could dump the

local hires who cannot or will not do their job and replace them with aliens.

We feel a checkup with the Immigration Department will show that their

hands are tied by orders from Washington, along with false statements by the

local agencies of the military made to obtain and also keep aliens on the job.

We feel a stand should be taken that not one single U.S. citizen be replaced

until all aliens are sent home.

Fraternally yours,

Amos 0. FOSTER, Secretary.

JUNE 26, 1965.

N. T. WOLKOMIR,

President, National Federation of Federal Employees, Washington, D.C.

DEAR Sin: During recent weeks, overseas Federal employees have been subjected to a barrage of humiliating criticism in a variety of publications.

Designed to foster public support for an Air Force plan to arbitrarily displace

certain of its overseas employees from their jobs, it has maligned the image of

thousands of loyal, productive, and specially trained workers.

At this time, we cannot ascertain the full extent of his publicity attack but

lengthy articles have been carried in the Air Force Times, the Federal Times

and Air Force base newspapers on a worldwide basis. Released by the Air

Force News Service in Washington, this publicity has obtrusively questioned

the intelligence of very confirmed overseas employees without so much as one

word of acknowledgement or praise.

To those who actually served abroad, and who know the facts firsthand,

recent assertions by high Air Force authorities seem incredible. One widely
118 ROTATION OF CIVILIAN EMPLOYEES FROM OVERSEAS POSTS

publicized view has it that "career persons who stay overseas tend to become isolated and insulated from the realities of life." Such an allegation seems to completely disregard the benefits of periodic home leaves, management train- ing overseas and the ubiquitous influence of military work associates who continuously rotate to and from the United States.

The mental capabilities of overseas employees have been further questioned in a similar statement. On May 26, 1965, the Air Force Times quoted personnel authorities as saying, "* * * such employees may unconsciously interpret policy and regulations in a different manner than stateside workers." Such whimsical inferences are not only unfair but are most unfortunate in the effect they have have had on morale and management efficiency.

The Air Force has reported that 1,836 of its employees have spent at least

5 years overseas and that, consequently, their effectiveness is now to be ques- tioned. We must remember that Air Force employees are not so different from

the overseas employees of other U.S. agencies and that any prejudicial action

by one agency will surely bring disregard for long-term overseas personnel of any identity. If carried out on any scale, the civilian continuity concept would be

lost and long-sought harmonious relations with associate military personnel

would be disrupted.

For many years, the NFFE truth campaign has been a mighty voice in support

of the Federal employee image. Time and again, it has maintained that civil

service employees get their jobs on merit and seek to hold them the same way.

Now, we believe, is the time for it to defend the image of the oversea employee

who has done a good job and is willing to continue.

Without a shred of proof, Civil Service Chairman John W. Macy, Jr., has hailed the Air Force plan as "a worthy cause." In this terse pronouncement,

we see ominous signs of unprecedented action that would darken the outlook

for many a faithful employee and callously dishonor the public trust in foreign

societies which are held to have such deleterious effects on our American representatives that may serve in them.

We suggest that immediate steps be taken to refute this negative approach

to career service abroad. On behalf of our interested members here, as well

as thousands of others around the world, we request your personal interest in this vital problem. Finally, we believe that the very integrity of the overseas worker is now at stake and that all such unfavorable publicity should be effectively answered with the truth.

LEOPOLD THORN,

President, 1196, 6111th Spt. Sqdn.,

APO San Francisco, 96525.

DRAKE JUNIOR HIGH SCHOOL,

6100TH SUPPORT WING (PACAF),

APO an Francisco, 96267, July 19, 1965.

Reference July 12, 1965, letter.

NATIONAL FEDERATION OF FEDERAL EMPLOYEES,

Washington, D.C.:

Your strong protest against the rotation program is correct. The possibilities

of the realization of a career in Federal service can be jeopardized instead of

implemented by this proposed rotation program.

It is believed that this decision is based upon erroneous information furnished

by people who have little or no insight into what is involved for the American

citizen who wishes to serve his country in the manner which he chooses to be

most beneficial for all concerned. It is an obvious fact and also prima facie evidence that the people this rotation would hurt most are the people who are

concerned least as being a world tourist at Government expense. These people

are concerned primarily with becoming more proficient in the service with the

least expense to themselves and the Government.

We are well adjusted to the performance of foreign service. We have our employment rights when we wish to visit the States. We receive stateside and worldwide news on an hourly basis. The latest publications in all forms and categories are available continuously for us in our libraries. Our professional growth is thus not hampered. We have specialists come over annually at least, for conferences, seminars, institutes, what have you. We are as current and

up to date if not ahead of our stateside counterparts, as far as any other aspect of our total being. We are as American as any you will find stateside.
ROTATION OF CIVILIAN EMPLOYEES FROM OVERSEAS POSTS 119

In reference to the recent economy drive, the Federal employees who wish to

remain overseas are saving the Government the expense of shipping household

goods, cars, and families so often.

WAYNE A. MALOY, Principal.

JULY 21, 1965.

Mr. N. T. WoLKomrs,

President, National Federation of Federal Employees,

askiington, D.C.

DEAR MR. WOLKOMIR : Regarding your letter of July 12, 1965: It seems that

in this era of cold war, brush fire war, and the threat of nuclear holocaust, certain

political, civilian, and military leaders have lost sight of the fact that the one

and only mission of our Armed Forces is to provide for the military protection

of the United States and its interests, and for those of our allies. Any actions

or comments in areas not directly related to this mission are outside the scope

of its jurisdiction and responsibilities.

The position of our Military Establishment is an unenviable one. Nobody

likes it, nobody wants it, everybody accuses it, until it is needed; like a policeman you bitterly curse one day and call to risk his life for you the next day.

We can be proud of our military arm which is so desperately needed these days,

and the energy, creativeness, and determination that it has poured into safeguarding our way of life. But it is incumbent upon the military arm to recognize that there exists a delicate balance between the responsibilities and duties

of the military. It is the same balance as is required of the red and white corpuscles in a healthy body, and just as surely as any imbalance would eventually

destroy the body, so would permitting the military 'to assume responsibilities and

duties which are not theirs eventually destroy our way of life.

The military has traditionally acted as a superguardian for its military personnel, but in doing so have taken away many of those small individual responsibilities which added together spell "liberty" to the average American citizen.

This is as it should be, for uniformity is the heart of military life and discipline.

But it is these small responsibilities, this feeling created from within, that has

set the American apart from the citizens and subjects of other countries. They

have provided the individual civil service employee with a sense of duty that has

given him the confidence and courage to criticize, to suggest, to improve, which

in turn, has given the United States an honest, hard working, and efficient Government, free from graft and political corruption. Freedom to choose your

employment with the Government, for as long as you desire, unless prohibited

by the Congress or the President of the United States is certainly the responsibility of the individual.

A reporter once stated "A badly run democracy is better than a well run military dictatorship." Those of us employed in an area dominated by military

thinking can attest to this. That they are inept at seeing beyond their own

single-minded and caste-system world can be found in the history books and in

present day example. Some of the observations here in Japan leads one to the

conclusion that World War II was won despite these people.

1. Commander, Naval Forces, Japan has an extant directive (which includes

civilians) stating that cars having rust spots, holes in the upholstery, or other

small discrepancies will not be passed for the annual car safety inspection, and

that cars 10 years or older will generally not be passed for inspection. The

reason being, specified in the directive) that such discrepancies, despite the fact

that they do not constitute a hazard to the operation of the vehicle, creates an

unfavorable impression in the minds of the Japanese people. Evidently the

admiral feels the desirable impression is that all Americans are rich and have

nothing better to do than dote over their prize possessions.

2. Commander, Military Sea, Transportation Service, Far East Area has not

permitted its civilians, as a general policy, to ship cars from the United States

at Government expense although the Congress, in view of the outflow of gold, did

pass such a law. The reason given was the expense of transportation. The

facts of the case, especially in view of the lipservice paid by the DOD on the

outflow of gold, argue so strongly against this policy it is difficult to believe that

an intelligent person could make or carry on such a bad decision.

(a) The Government subsidizes the commercial shipping industry, many times

for carrying nothing.

(b) MSTS is completely subsidized by the Government and has much empty

space on vessels returning to CONUS from the Far East.
120 ROTATION OF CIVILIAN EMPLOYEES FROM OVERSEAS POSTS

(c) Round trip ocean transportation costs from the United States are one-third

to one-half the cost of a new car.

(d) An informal survey several years ago showed that in a 2-year period U.S. civilians of MSTSFE had bought 23 new cars, 18 of which were of foreign manu- facture, and that most of these people would have bought American cars except for the prohibitiveness of the cost of ocean transportation.

Consequently, this decision resulted in a loss of $36,000 to $54,000 to the

U.S. economy in the interests of saving the right hand pocket of the U.S. Government from paying $18,000 to the left hand pocket of the U.S. Government. This loss to the American economy is still continuing.

3. Commander, Military Sea Transportation Service, Far East Area upon learning of the Air Force decision to mass rotate its oversea civilians that they

thought had "lost touch," immediately initiated action to find out which of his

civilians were married to Japanese nationals, with the implication that these. particular employees had "lost touch." This action seems to have died a quiet

death, but it is an instructive warning of what could happen if responsibilities

were misplaced.

One could fill volumes with other small examples which added together would

underscore this theme.

In conclusion, the Air Force has no business interfering with the individual

responsibilities and liberties of its civilians unless specifically authorized by

the Congress or by the President. And to even think of such tactics on the pretext that there are some rotten apples in the barrel is tantamount to being

considered guilty until proven innocent because a few got away. We refuse

to dignify this improper, unjust, and illegal action with a reply, and to the

accusation say, the biggest lie in the world rests most securely on a pinpoint of

truth.

Sincerely,

STEVE LEAKOS.

LARRY BAZZANO.

P.S.—The merits of having civilians employed for purposes of continuity of

administration and operation on a long-term basis is adequately covered in

DOD Pamphlet 1-18 of July 6, 1960, entitled "Civilian Employees of the Armed

Forces." This directly opposes the forced repatriation principle embodied in

the Air Force's determination that Public Law 86-585 also applies to the tenure of service of all civilians who have served continuously for more than 5 years

overseas.

STEVE LEAKOS,

MSTS Far East Area, FPO, San Francisco, Calif.

JUNE 21, 1965.

Senator MIKE MONRONEY,

Postoffice and Civil Service Committee,

Senate Office Building, Washington, D.C.

DEAR SENATOR: I am adding my voice to what I hope have been many others

to protest the bureaucratic manner in which Air Force plans to deal with what

they appear to believe, according to attached newspaper clippings, are a group

of almost disloyal and/or unqualified citizens. I resent the imputation both as

an oversea World War II veteran and as a qualified oversea civil service worker

who received an outstanding rating and a sustained superior performance award

within the past year.

The Department of Defense provides both reemployment and home leave to its

oversea employees and this proposed mandatory rotation to the ZI for such

reasons as being "out of touch with the United States" is a slap in the face to

the concerned supervisory personnel, both military and civilian, who have it in their power and are obliged by General McConnells' 13 point policy letter to

remove from the service without any delay, personnel whose ineptness or im- propriety is conclusive. Apparently Army and Navy do not have the s.nie attitude toward oversea employment that Air Force does.

At this point of the game, Senator, I question the feasibility of wisdom of

bringing replacements oversea (in some cases to bases that are already in a process of phaseout or down) and who will have to undergo both numbered Air

Force, Air Division and Major Air Command ways of doing things and additional

training for at least 6 months to even come close to the managerial ability on

hand which has been proven over the years. I request that the Director of
ROTATION OF CIVILIAN EMPLOYEES FROM OVERSEAS POSTS 121

Civilian Personnel be enjoined for at least 1 year from implementing Public

Law 86-586 to impose a 5-year limitation on foreign duty and that in that year

he, or a responsible representative from his office, spend at least 6 months overseas talking to civilian employees, other than those assigned to base personnel.

Briefings by high ranking base officials to be kept to a minimum and at least 60

percent of the interviews to be restricted to concerned supervisory military and

civilian personnel at the working level.

In conclusion, Air Force has had since 1960 a 5-year foreign duty agreement

with personnel assigned to overseas as of that year. I can't believe there is

anything in the record to justify now an arbitary desk ruling from Washington,

D.C. that those employees who were not hired or assigned under this agreement

lack anything, in comparison with their stateside conferees, in American citizenship, ability or technical knowledge of their jobs.

Sincerely yours,

k JAMES J. CARE,

6100 Caonron, Bow 2640, APO an Francisco, 96323.

JULY 20,1965.

NATIONAL FEDERATION OF FEDERAL EMPLOYEES,

Washington, D.C.

(Attention of Mr. Wolkomir).

Sin: In response to your request for material to use in rebuttal or reversal

of the expected rotation plan, enclosed is a letter which I received from a former

CG of USARJ. Letter is self-explanatory and in answer to direct specific

questions.

The information contained in referenced letter can be used by you for constructive and helpful assistance to the majority of DOD civilian employees.

What most of us are interested in is a true interchange program without any

hidden clauses or exceptions, something similar to the State Department Foreign

Service plan with direct interchange.

The main reason the majority of us are on overseas duty is that this is where

the job is in our particular field. Most of us would leave for CONUS if we

were given a valid reasonable job offer.

I, myself, have tried every way possible for the last 6 years to get back to

CONUS, but I do not have reemployment rights or friends in the right places

to give me the needed assistance. I would welcome this rotation plan provided

it was not a political gimmick, and would actually give us the proper assistance

for CONUS placement.

After you have evaluated the enclosed letter, would like to have your comment

on how it might be used to help.

Respectfully,

WALTER A. DUFFIELD,

Boo 45, USALCJ,

APO Sam Francisco 96354.

DEAR Mn. DUFFIELD : I am in receipt of your letter of June 3,1964, concerning

recommendations for improvements in our work situation. Your letter touches

upon several general areas of continual interest to the command. I hope that

subsequent comments are fully responsive to your specific concerns.

In your letter you express misgivings as to the caliber of personnel, both military and civilian, who are assigned to positions of responsibility within the

Department of the Army. Unfortunately, in any large size work force there will

be a few personnel whose performance needs improvement. However, our

progress in recent years is clear evidence that the vast majority of our militarycivilian team are highly competent and dedicated careerists.

With reference to your belief that there is "indiscriminate promotion or

placement of personnel," the current merit system in effect throughout the Department of the Army is specifically aimed at precluding such a condition. This

system provides for fair competition and full consideration of all applicants.

Selections require full justification and documentation, which in turn may be

examined by all employees. Exceptions to the competitive procedures are

authorized in certain instances where merited. /Within USARJ these exceptions

have been, comparatively speaking, extremely few. The command has continually exceeded the U.S. Army Pacific objective of 50 percent of all promotions

being processed under the merit program procedures. In this connection, I was
122 ROTATION OF CIVILIAN EMPLOYEES FROM OVERSEAS POSTS

most pleased to note at the conclusion of a recent survey of personnel management practices, which was conducted within this command by representatives of

the Deputy Chief of Staff for Personnel, Department of the Army, that there

were no instances of failure to comply with legal or regulatory requirements.

In fact, it was the opinion of the survey team that this command enjoys one of

the finest civilian personnel management programs within the Department of

the Army.

As indicated by you, regrettably, there have been irresponsible remarks concerning oversea service by individuals not fully aware of the true situation.

When discussing length of service overseas, what we really are concerned with,

of course, is the individual and his contributions to the command mission.

Performance of duty, keeping abreast of advances in his career field, potential,

character—these are the true determinants of an individual's suitability for

continued oversea service. Mobility is another key essential—stagnation,

whether in Washington, D.C., or in Japan, will reduce the individual's effectiveness and his value to the Federal service. In other words, the subject of personnel remaining overseas for prolonged periods requires serious consideration

of a variety of complex factors before any meaningful evaluation or direction

can be determined.

In your letter you speak of the recent increase in hospitalization rates for U.S.

citizen employees. This increase was the result of a directive issued by the

Department of Defense, based upon Executive Order 11116. The previous daily

rate of $5 did not nearly approach the actual costs for hospitalization of an individual. The difference between the daily rate and the actual costs was being

borne by the U.S. Government when the major portion of this difference should

have been borne by the insurance carrier, as provided for in the Federal employees health benefits program. In connection with hospitalization rates, you

also mentioned the lower rates, which are accorded to non-U.S. citizens. In view

of the extreme differences in pay and economic status of U.S. citizen employees

and citizens of foreign countries working for the United States overseas, and,

since they are not provided benefits under the Federal employees health benefits

program, it is most desirable that they be provided the "fringe benefit" of reduced

costs of hospitalization.

In the successful attainment of the command mission, the maintenance of a

cooperative, productive, and efficient work force is essential. This kind of

work force can only be attained where personnel management policies are fair

and sound and employees have an opportunity to participate in the formulation

of these policies. Please be assured that this command is making every effort

for continued improvement and welcomes any specific recommendations you

may have.

JULY 22, 1965.

DEAR "NATt"-SAN : That salutation clearly indicates I have been here too

long—doesn't it?

Actually, I think I have; at any rate, I am not only willing, but eager, to

return to CONUS. This is stated, along with the happy word that I am employed by the Army, not the Air Force (thank God!) to establish the fact that

my objections to the proposed rotation program are not based on personal

considerations. I protest on the matter of principle (a bad habit that gets me

into pickles from time to time). But (if you will excuse the vanity), I think

it's damned American of me.

This is a "warning" to you that, sometime in the not too distant future (I

hope) you will be receiving from me a stack of pages in re "rotation" and related

matters. I have been pecking away at typewriters ever since receipt of your

letter requesting "evidence"; whenever I think I am about to wind it up,

something else occurs, or some new train of thought is suggested by discussion with colleagues, and it's "back to the typewriter."

By way of a "trailer" I ask or suggest the following:

1. Has or can anyone obtain from the Air Force its definition of "the American way of life"? And a list of specific ways in which we long-termers indicate

that we are "out of touch"? What are the symptoms?

2. In playing the number-of-years overseas game, is there some way of relating number of years with degree of "out of touchness"? Like: Is the 20-year

man 434 as out of touch as the 5-year man? Is he, then, 6% times as out of

touch as the short (3 year) term military man?
ROTATION OF CIVILIAN EMPLOYEES FROM OVERSEAS POSTS 123

3. "Insulated" and "isolated" from what? (Can anyone with some experience of the military, name any group of reasonably affluent U.S. citizens as

"insulated" and "isolated" as an officers' club? Whatever in the world might

be its geographical location?)

4. Strongly suggest that you talk to Senator Inouye and Representative

Mink about the "affair of the Kanto Base Civilian Club" (still current). I

am devoting a whole chapter (entitled "The Civilians' Revolt") to this matter,

as it provides extraordinarily sharp evidence in re the attitudes (military and

civilian) (short term and long term) that bear on the answer to the question:

Who is "out of touch"? (And what is the traceable relationship to either

geography or time?)

I doubt that either the Senator or the Congresswoman has all the facts that

will be included in my "chapter" (if for no other reason than that no one

else is in my league when it comes to long-windedness). But obviously they

have been made aware that there was some fishy business going on at Tachikawa

Air Base that threatened the welfare of hundreds of their constituents in

Japan. Because both took action (bless them) that resulted in very abrupt

rescue—of all of us—from double discrimination: TAB vice commander against

(1) nisei, (2) Army members of the civilian club.

Enough for now?

I'll try to get at least an installment or two in the mails in the next few

days.

Good luck with the reversal.

( S ) MARY W. LONG,

Local 1196, USALCJ, Box 322,

APO San Francisco, 96354.

NATIONAL FEDERATION OF FEDERAL EMPLOYEES,

FAR EAST LOCAL No. 1219,

Yokohama, Japan, June 5, 1965.

N. T. WOLKOMIR,

President, National Federation of Federal Employees,

Washington, D.C.

DEAR MR. WOLKOMIR : Reference your letter of May 24, 1965, enclosing copies

of proposed Air Force plan for rotation of overseas civilian personnel, and my

letter of May 31, 1965, on this subject.

After reviewing the draft of the proposed regulation, I wish to again reiterate

the strong feeling and objections to the mandatory and involuntary nature of

the program. This regulation can be used as a tool to, or unwittingly, force an

employee into an insecure job, severely jeopardizing his career.

Attached are specific comments made in reviewing the brochure and the draft

regulation.

In summary, a sound program providing for periodic rotation from overseas

is welcome. Such a program has long-term benefits which are in the best interests of both the Government and employees. The following are considered good

features of the proposed program.

Replace noncareer with career employees.

Limit to 1 year appointments of local hires, then subject to displacement

by career employees.

Replacing overseas limited appointees with career employees.

Freezing matching vacancies in the United States to accommodate placement of overseas employees.

Placement of overseas employees in the United States without loss of

grade or pay.

The proposed program is sadly lacking in considering employees desires and

needs. I do not think that any overseas employee will strongly object to being

forced to return to the United States after an extended tour overseas. The objection is the probability of forced to take an undesirable assignment or be

separated. An employee should be considered for placement only within the

area or areas he designates. If he designates a wide area or several areas, he

should be permitted to decline, say at least the first and second offers, if he did

not consider them suitable.

We strongly urge that employees be permitted the right to be selective as to

where they desire to live and work. Of course it follows that to work for the

Air Force, there must be an Air Force installation or office in the desired area.

A
124 ROTATION OF CIVILIAN EMPLOYEES FROM OVERSEAS POSTS

Eliminate the mandatory tone and present a program to encourage voluntary

participation. As I mentioned in my letter of May 31, we believe in advertising.

Let the overseas employee know what is available for him in the areas he would

like to work in.

Since this subject is of vital importance to the membership here in Japan,

please keep us posted on the latest developments.

Fraternally yours,

PAUL E. NEW MAN, President.

COMMENTS ON REVIEWING B ROCH URE—" AIR FORCE PROGRAM FOR RETURN OF

CIVILIAN EMPLOYEES ASSIGNED TO FOREIGN AREAS AND THE PANAMA CANAL ZONE"

I. Magnitude of problem (p..4)•

The total number of employees with over 5 years of overseas service is a

minority—one-third—of the overseas civilian force, which in itself is a minority

of Air Force employees. Is there a problem?

//. Program features

1. (P. 6). Assure placement without loss of grade or pay if mandatory reassignment to anywhere in the United States is accepted. An employee desiring

California, goes to Maine, while an employee wanting Maine, goes to Florida,

the New Yorker to Los Angeles, etc. No guarantee it will not happen.

2. Only temporary promotions after 42 months overseas. Restrictions are

needed, yes; however, this conflicts with the object of career progression. Maybe

provisions for exceptions if promotion is in line with a career development

program.

3. (P. 7). Exceptions. Why air attaché and MAAG personnel? Unless for

specialized skills, it would appear that personnel in such assignments have more

reason not to become "isolated and insulated."

4. Separation for refusal to accept assignment. Conflicts with the principal

of equality. How about rotation between positions in the United States?

Democracy?

/H. Reasons for return program

1. Provides reorientation in American ideals and way of life. We question

the validity a this. Especially as a major item. This is very debatable subject

and the need is a matter of opinion. Employees may be better Americans

because of long overseas employment.

2. (P. 9). Employees tend to get isolated and insulated. What are home

leaves and training programs for?

3. Limit in overseas service for military personnel. Are we now to be considered members of the Armed Forces when desired by military leaders?

4. Assures updating of skills and techniques. We seriously question this

reason. Opportunity to update skills and techniques are present around the

world, individual attitude and application are the important factors. If overseas employees have become antiquated, it is only at the fault of the military

leaders, for they occupy top management positions, have been rotated and

therefore should bring new techniques with them. However, we question that

employees have become antiquated.

IV. Summary of reasons

1. Provides opportunity to renew ties with American way of life and next of

kin. Not if employee's kin are in the East and the employee is given a mandatory assignment in the West, or vice versa. With home reemployment leaves

employees have more opportunity to visit next of kin from an overseas assignment than in the United States and remote from his hometown.

2. Provides equitable treatment to all employees. This is very questionable.

There is no mandatory reassignments from positions in the United States except

in cases of reduction-in-force. The whole program still continues to be pretty

much of a "one-way street."

COMMENTS ON DRAFT OF AIR FORCE REGULATION "OVERSEAS RETURN

PLACEMENT PROGRAM"

Paragraph 2b: As a policy 5 years is considered a good guideline. However,

it appears too arbitrary. The trend is to allow military personnel to stay

longer, with a strict limited tour for civilians, one reason for the use of civilian

A

•
ROTATION OF CIVILIAN EMPLOYEES FROM OVERSEAS POSTS 125

employees, to maintain continuity, is defeated. This can be then used by military brass to eliminate, or at least reduce, the use of civilians overseas. A

great blow to career employees.

Extensions should not be limited to one of 1-year duration. As long as they

are being controlled by Headquarters USAF, some flexibility should be permitted.

Paragraph 2e: Places unnecessary restrictions on promotional opportunities

in cases of true merit. Restricts promotions while serving overseas. No provisions for normal career development while overseas. Creates unequal opportunities for overseas and U.S. employees which is in direet conflict with program

objective.

Paragraph 2f (last line) : Salary retention benefits will be applied to the maximum extent possible. Suggest that salary retention be guaranteed, not just to

the maximum extent passible.

Paragraph 3: The following wording is objected to: "must be recommended

for continued employment with the Air Force, and must be determined to be

suitable and fully qualified by the servicing major air command." This implies

that overseas employees are incompetent, undesirable, and unqualified. To the

contrary, employees generally had to have higher qualifications to be eligible

for overseas employment. Also, there are other regulations that adequately

provide for appropriate action if an employee is incompetent, undesirable, and

unqualified. Such wording or inference is considered unnecessary in proposed

regulation.

!Clarification of exceptions for specialized skill and qualifications should be

made. These are numerous American supervisors with a bilingual (Japanese

and English) ability. It can be expected that if they were to be replaced by

non-Japanese-speaking supervisors, it would be more difficult to direct the Japanese work force. This language requirement is not placed on the position, such

as a shop foreman, but is an extra benefit the Government has been enjoying.

Paragraph 4c (1) : No provision for an employee to decline, without facing

separation, a position in a locality that he does not desire.

Paragraph 4c (2) : What is the size of the geographical locations an employee

may designate for preference? Suggest this be defined. 'Strong opposition is

offered to not permitting delay in plfement whle efforts are still possible to place

an employee in a desired location.

Paragraph 4d (2) : Again the objectionable reference to competency of overseas employees.

Paragraph 6c: We can understand a restriction on a circuitous route to the

United States, but believe there should be some provision for the employee to

take leave, if desired, between assignments. This is especially true in cases

where the employee is being forced to a locality remote from his next of kin.

Also, 45 days is a mighty short time in such cases.

Paragraph 7b (2) : Again the restriction of promotions for overseas employees.

Equality?

Paragraph Sc: Needs revision to grant and protect rights of former overseas

employees filling obligated positions.

U.S. ARMED FORCES INSTITUTE, JAPAN,

APO Sam Francisco, July 16, 1965.

Mr. NATHAN T. WOLKOMIR,

President, National Federation of Federal Employees,

Washington, D.C.

DEAR Sin: As an NFFE member I am opposed to the Air Force's new rotation

program. My opposition is not derived from personal interest in remaining in

an oversea position nor from the interest of other Federal employees overseas,

but rather from the fact that the program is not in the best interest of our

Government nor its employees.

The program is being sold on catch phrases, innuendoes, and cliches that have

no sound basis in fact to back them up. Such phrases as': "They have been

overseas too long," "They are homesteading over there," and "They are losing

touch with America" sound bad in the intonation and emphases with which

they are presented, but are these things bad per se? No sound arguments have

been presented to back up such implications, but I offer a few sounds in rebuttal.

52-506-65-9
126 ROTATION OF CIVILIAN EMPLOYEES FROM OVERSEAS POSTS

I. Federal employees overseas are not losing touch with America

Most of the oversea employees I know read Time and/or News Week and World

Report as well as professional periodicals. Many also subscribe to hometown:

and other newspapers. This reading keeps them abreast with developments—

general as well as specific.

Because oversea employees are involved, they have a much better understanding of America's world policy and are very much behind it. You find no oversea

employees parading with anti-American policy placards. Perhaps some of the

college professors and students who have stayed in America and are so much in

touch should be sent overseas to get in touch with the world.

We still have people in America—good steady American citizens—who have

never been 500 miles from their hometown. I believe that the man who has

traveled the breadth of the land and across an ocean and who has come to

realize that his welfare depends on that great Nation back there is in much better

position to put his country in proper perspective than any citizen who has stayed

at home, not to mention the many provincial citizens who have hardly left their

hometowns.

II. Civil employees add continuity to programs

Military personnel assigned oversea positions generally rotate in from 1 to 3

years. Military officers •and NCO's in charge of programs and projects take

their knowledge and experience with them and their replacements must depend

on the civilian executives to carry on until they are oriented. The new officer

will desire to try out his own ideas. The experienced civilian can guide him

and keep him from repeating the failures of his predecessors and help with the

development of new ideas that hold promise. This continuity in knowing what

has gone before saves a great deal in preventing the repetition of costly errors

and leads to progress.

III. Morale

Many newly assigned oversea employees are unhappy in their location. They

do what they have to do until their transportation agreement expires and they

can return. The textbooks on personnel management tell us that such unhappy

people are not productive people. Furthermore, such people generally fail to

make many friends among the local nationals and thus prove to be poor ambassadors of the United States. People who have remained more than 5 years or

even more than 2 years are staying voluntarily and are probably happy with

both their location and their work. Forcing a 5-year man to return to the United

States and assigning a new oversea employee to replace him could well result

in two discontented employees.

Another morale problem will occur when the 5-year man i,s in a position for a

promotion within his organization and is the best qualified man for the job at

the time of his rotation. Rotation may result in no promotion and his assignment in a position where no promotional opportunity exists. Such actions will

have a very adverse effect upon the ambitious career employee.

All in all it is my considered opinion that the Air Force's new rotation program will generate many more problems than it will correct.

Sincerely,

ELISEO A. HERMOSA.

JULY 25, 1965.

Mr. NATHAN T. WOLICOMIR,

National Federation of Federal Employees,

Washington, D.C.

DEAR MR. WOLROMIR : Thank you for your letter of July 10 concerning the Air

Force's 5-year mandatory rotation plan. I'm glad you've circularized NFFE

oversea members on this subject and hope you have an overwhelming response

to help in opposing the plan.

I'm enclosing a copy of an official bulletin which outlines all that we have

received so far on this subject. It appears that the rationale given here lacks

logic and I'm surprised that people in high circles appear to have been taken in

by it.

Incidentally, I heard last week by way of rumor through a visitor passing

through from Washington that the Air Force plan is to be shelved for the time

being. Gossip says that the Air Force felt it needed congressional blessing before

implementing the plan and went to the CSC for them to seek congressional authority. The CSC is supposed to have replied that this was no time to take the
ROTATION OF CIVILIAN EMPLOYEES FROM OVERSEAS POSTS 127

matter to Congress and advised Air Force to forget it for the present. Have

you any knowledge of this gossip?

I'm enclosing some notes of my own on this subject and copy of a letter written

by one of my colleagues to AFGE in response to their appeal to overse,a, members.

You may find this useful; at least it's interesting.

One of our chief complaints is the underhand manner in which this whole

matter is being handled officially. There is in fact nothing official at all, yet

personnel actions have been held up, or turned down on the basis of length of

overseas service rather than on the merits of the proposed action. It is now

impossible to be promoted, reassigned, or transferred locally overseas, except for

RIP actions, I am told. It is really a war of nerves apparently intended to create

so much uncertainty that employees will voluntarily give up their jobs and return

to the United States. For some time now most of us have felt that we have no

security whatsoever in our jobs.

I certainly appreciate your interest and will look forward to hearing from you

further when there is anything definite to report.

Sincerely,

( S ) KEN ALLEN,

Eq. SAF, Bow 34, APO New York, 09125.

[Employee/Supervisors' newletter, June 9, 1965]

FIVE-YEAR ROTATION INFORMATION

In the May newsletter, we noted that the Air Force rotation plan (for 5-yearplus employees in overseas areas) had been the subject of recent articles in several overseas news publications and advised you that we would inform you as

soon as any official word on the program was received. Headquarters, U.S. Air

Force has now furnished us with the latest progress report on the rotation plan

and we reprint it below. In future newsletters we shall refer to it under its

official title, "The Overseas Return Placement Program."

AIR FORCE PROGRAM FOR ROTATION TO THE UNITED STATES OF CIVILIAN EMPLOYEES

SERVING IN FOREIGN AREAS AND THE PANAMA CANAL ZONE

For the past few years the Air Force has been developing a program for the

reassignment of civilian employees with long-term continuous foreign service to

positions in the United States. This program places a limit of 5 years on such

service. It provides that the employees involved will be scheduled for return

at their current grades and base salary. The reassignment of these employees

will be phased over a 5-year period. The employees with the longest periods of

continuous service will be returned first. Those who decline reassignment to

the United States will be separated. The agency under law and Civil Service

Commission regulations has the authority both to reassign employees for the

good of the service and to separate those who fail to accept reassignment.

Since October 1, 1960, employees recruited in the United States for foreign

service have been accorded rights to return to their former positions under Public

Law 86-585 in 5 years or be separated. The 5-year limitation on foreign service

for this group of employees begins to become effective October 1, 1965. It would

be inequitable to enforce the statutory return rights provisions for these employees and permit other employees with from 6 to 20 years of continuous foreign

service to continue employment in foreign areas. On the other hand, there has

hitherto been no regulatory means for guaranteeing the employee with long-term

foreign service stateside employment without loss of grade or pay. The proposed

Air Force program provides such guarantee, puts all U.S. citizen employees in

foreign areas on an equal footing and is consistent with the concepts of the oversea rotation program contemplated by Public Law 86-585.

Employees affected by the proposed program will be expected to accept assign-.

ment anywhere within the 48 contiguous States and the District of Columbia.

They may voluntarily extend their areas of consideration to Hawaii and Alaska.

Areas of preference will be honored to the maximum practicable extent. Exceptions to mandatory reassignment will only be made for urgent compelling reasons. For example, while an employee will not be expected to relocate in an

area which represents a health hazard, that fact would require complete substantiation. There is also a built-in provision for extending the 5-year limit for

an additional year based on management need, personal hardship, or approaching

retirement.
128 ROTATION OF CIVILIAN EMPLOYEES FROM OVERSEAS POSTS

While there will be a modest increase in the transportation expense involveo

in the program for the next 5 years, the cost is considered minimal and manageable in view of the benefits the program provides. The return of U.S. citizen

employees with long-term foreign service to stateside positions will be fully coordinated with the priority placement assistance program for employees adversely

affected by base closures.

The proposed plan has been thoroughly discussed with interested parties. The

Office of the Secretary of Defense has studied the plan and given preliminary

approval, subject to evaluation of the views of members of interested congressional committees and officials of appropriate employee organizations.

It has been presented to and approved by the three U.S. Civil Service Commissioners. A letter from the Chairman of the Commission expresses the view that

the Air Force program may well become the pattern for the total Federal service.

The staff of the House Post Office and the Oivil Service Committee has been

briefed and expressed 'agreement with the principles the program includes. The

plan has been presented to all of the national employees unions to which the Air

Force has granted formal recognition. The desirability of limiting total continuous foreign service and the opportunity for reassignment to the homeland without

loss of grade or pay, as basic concepts have met with general agreement among

the many individuals and groups briefed thus far. Additional briefings for members of congressional committees are being arranged.

It is planned to publish the program this year. The precise date and the final

format and details cannot be forecast at this time. However, the program provides for an ample preparatory period to enable the employees concerned to

make adjustments in advance of the date of their scheduled return. Both from

the employee standpoint and sound management practice, it is considered that

this program significantly and progressively meets a long recognized Air Force

need. At the end of the 5-year phased program it is expected that thereafter

civilian foreign service will become a true rotation program consistent with the

modern management concepts of employee mobility and Public Law 86-585.

( S ) J. T. CHEATHAM, Jr.,

Civilian Personnel Officer,

CCPO, Headquarters, 3d Air Force (USAFE), APO U.S. Forces, 09125.

JUAY 19, 1965.

Mr. MURRAY SENTNER,

Lodge 2348, AFGE,

Frankfurt/Main, Germany.

DEAR MR. SENTNER : In response to your letter about the 5-year rotation plan,

I submit the following:

(a) Job title: Chief, negotiations and liaison office.

( b) Grade: GS-0341-12/8.

(o) Position title and number: Administrative officer No. 18.

(d) Activity: Headquarters 3AF (comptroller) USAFE.

(e) Duty station: South Ruislip, Middlesex, England.

(1) Resume of job description: Serves as point of contact on United StatesUnited Kingdom cost-sharing arrangements, intergovernmental agreements, technical arrangements, intercommand/interservice agreements, for which 3AF has

United Kingdom area responsibility. Participates in negotiations with host

government agencies and maintains liaison with the embassy in financial negotiations involving U.S. military organizations in the United Kingdom.

Provides advice, guidance, and assistance to the 3AF commander and staff in

matters involving interpretation or limitations of U.S. liability under United

States-United Kingdom arrangements, agreements, or understandings.

For the past 2 years I have served as a member of the Joint Military-Civilian

Incentive Awards Committee. This position has afforded me a unique opportunity in accessing the effectiveness of oversea civilian employees. Because of

the preliminary propaganda about the "5-year rotation plan" I took pains to

determine what categories of employees were receiving recommendations for

outstanding, quality step increases, and sustained superior performance awards.

I believe the statistics speak for themselves. From May 15, 1964 through May

15, 1965, rating periods 121 recommendations were received for committee consideration. Seventy-six recommendations applied to individuals with over 5

years service in oversea areas, six recommendations applied to those with less

than 5 years oversea service, 39 applied to dependents of military personnel

(their tour is normally limited to correspond to that of their sponsor).
ROTATION OF CIVILIAN EMPLOYEES FROM OVERSEAS POSTS 129

'(The summary table follows:)

Summary—Department of the Air Force civilians in United Kingdom

Category Total Percent Number

Recommendations for

awards

(percent)

'Over 5 years 88 36 73 63

Under 5 years 156 64 

Dependents 39 32

'Other 6 5

Total 244 100 121 100

In other words, 36 percent of the civilian force produced 63 percent of the

outstanding effort.

Among typical comments in the recommendations were:

"Through her tact and understanding of United States and United Kingdom

aims and objectives she revitalized and made an outstanding success of the

Anglo-American Community Relations Program."

"His understanding of his counterparts (United Kingdom) enabled him to

negotiate agreements unique in their benefits to the United States."

"Only through his long experience with their (United Kingdom) procedures

was this possible."

Many of the recommendations referred to the advantages of continuity, as

above.

I believe that most employees who could be affected by the 5 year plan

resent:

(a) An implied impugnment of their loyalty.

(b) Discrimination (ZI employees are not directed to move after a period of

years in the same area).

(c) Disruption of their children's education (I have a son and daughter

both in college in the United Kingdom).

I enclose my check for fighting the 5-year rotation plan.

Sincerely,

' 4 JOHN KADEL,

Headquarters 3AF (Orce of Comptroller)

Bow 821, APO U.S. Forces, 09125.

COMMENTS ON THE Ala FORCE 5-YEAR MANDATORY ROTATION PLAN

1. My feeling and it is probably representative of most oversea employees

is that DOD if it wishes to see its oversea employee population return to the

United 'States on an average of 20 percent of total population per year, should

do it on a voluntary basis. Voluntary action can only be accomplished if DOD

agencies will implement a workable employee placement system. At present,

it is virtually impossible for oversea employees to obtain a job in the United

States unless they have some personal contact. There is no encouragement to

or incentive for U.S. hiring agencies to give priority to or even give serious

consideration to oversea employees desiring to return. This gap I believe is

within the jurisdiction and authority of DOD and its agencies to correct by administrative means—and should certainly be done, if the Department is serious in trying to institute a workable rotation plan for oversea employment.

2. The plan as announced unofficially gives the returning oversea employee

no permanent tenure or security. If he by chance returns to change jobs with

an individual desiring to go overseas at the same time, the employee going

overseas has reemployment rights. The returning employee under such a swap

has no rights, and may be displaced from his job at any time after 2 years

when the oversea employee with reemployment rights may return. There is no

indication that the former employee who returned from overseas without

reemployment rights has any recourse if he is bumped from his job by an individual exercising reemployment rights. The individual bumped appears not

to have any bumping rights himself by virtue of his second-class citizen

category.
130 ROTATION OF CIVILIAN EMPLOYEES FROM OVERSEAS POSTS

3. What justification is there for hiring civilians (other than possibly secretaries—and even they can be military) to work with a military organization,

overseas, other than to provide the continuity on the job and experience based

knowledge which only time can provide? If civilians are to be limited to approximately the same time as military, there is really no point in having

civilians and the effect of the DOD rotation plan is to displace the civilians

(who are performing effectively and protecting the interests of the Government

from the inexperience of newly assigned personnel) by military. It is surely

not the intent of the Congress that civilians who can perform better (and in

fact at less cost to the taxpayer) should be displaced in this backhand manner

by military?

4. The implication that we are all possible security risks because of our length

of overseas service is monstrous. Possibly there are a few in this category but

it is certainly un-American to judge all of us on the actions of a few. If a security

risk exists DOD has the means of demonstrating it and is in fact obliged to do

so under the regulations. Security risks should be ferreted out and removed.

No one would quibble with that. But those who are loyal, industrious, and

outstanding performers have a right to be judged on their own merits, not on

generalizations.

JULY 27, 1965.

Mr. WOLKOMIR : Sir, I have been working for the U.S. Government over 20

years; 18 of them as deputy post engineer. I will give you a résumé of my experiences during those years.

I have worked overseas before World War II and I can truthfully say I have

performed favorable ambassadorial duties along with my job.

I worked in Trinidad under contract with Walsh Driscoll Co.

We taught the indigenous people in all types of construction crafts, taught

them to operate engineer equipment, cold storage plants, water plants, sewerage

disposal plants, warehousing. After 4 years the indigenous people replace all

the American workers except the top supervisors. This took place in the post

engineer sections at Fort Read, Trinidad.

In Japan I stayed nearly 10 years. During that stay I was transferred

to three posts. In that particular job I saved the U.S. Government hundreds

of thousands of dollars. In 1952 I reduced the consumption of coal from 97,000

tons to 52,000 tons. The price of coal was $8.60 per ton.

Because of my past experiences overseas areas I am able to cope with situations in Korea that seerretd insurmountable to the Army after the Korean war.

I have been in Korea going on 8 years. Here again we are teaching the Korean

people all types of crafts, teach them how to operate engineer equipment, electric

substations, water plants, boiler plants, communication system, warehousing, etc.

All this teaching of the Korean people has paid off well. Because the various

U.S. contractors are now recruiting them as mechanics, engineer equipment

operators, electricians, plumbers, etc. They are paying them $200 to $600 per

month depending on the occupation. Here they earn up to $40 per month. The

other day a plumber working for the post engineer came to me to give him a

reference that he worked for the U.S. Government as a plumber he made an

application to work in Vietnam. I gave it to him.

I can go on and on. Other U.S. Government employees have the same experiences.

Does the State Department rotate their employees? Or do they rotate them

from one country to another?

My recommendation would be that overseas workers should not be kept in

the same place. They should be rotated in overseas areas again. I feel I should

have the opportunity to work elsewhere overseas after spending 8 years in

Korea.

Mr. Wolkomir, I believe a plan worked out by your office recommending rotation of DD personnel from country to another country would be the answer to

Department of Defense's desire to rotate their employees.

The DD plan to recruit new people is certainly going to cost the U.S. taxpayer

money for which he will gain nothing.

In closing I feel that I can say this for all the U.S. Government people working

overseas is that they like to work overseas. They are faithful, honest, and

produce more then the people at home.

Fraternally,

FRANK BALAKA,

Deputy Post Engineer,

APO 96259, San Francisco, Calif.
4

g

ROTATION OF CIVILIAN EMPLOYEES FROM OVERSEAS POSTS 131

LOCAL No. 1196 OF THE NATIONAL

FEDERATION OF FEDERAL EMPLOYEES,

July 29, 1965.

MT. N. T. WOLKOMIR,

National Federation of Federal Employees,

National Headquarters, Washington, D.O.

DEAR MR. WOLKOMIR: Thank you very much for the most encouraging letter

of action taken by NFFE in regards to the Department of the Air Force, 5-year

rotation plan. This letter has done more good than any other gimmicks to

draw in new members. As you know the normal question by a prospective

member is, "What does the NFFE do for me?" Since the majority of the employees on this base and command are oldtimers affected by this regulation your

letter has done a whale of difference in explaining to them of unified action which

can be taken in cases like this.

After relinquishing my position as president of local 1196, I felt I was obligated

to assist the new president, Mr. Leopold Thorn, who by the way is a very

hard worker, that I will assist in obtaining formal recognition for local 1196

at Kanto Base Command and the members at U.S. Army Logistical Center,

Tokorozawa, Japan.

There are many points we can say for our retention in the Far East or any

foreign country and here are some of the actual reasons:

Many of us has spent much of our own time trying to understand the people

of this country, by working with them, associating in sports, social functions,

attending various school and community relation functions. Like people of any

country until they have faith in a stranger and trust in their actions they will

not react to their wishes. In my operations the military officers and enlisted

men rotate in 2 or 4 years and with each change it leaves a feeling of doubt

and uncertainty as to what kind of supervisor the next man will be. This is

where we civilian employees who have been well versed on customs and have

the confidence and faith of the local nationals, briefs the new commanders and

supervisors to soften the bridge between the military and our local nationals.

Recently when our commander left for the United States this was a comment

made by a Japanese foreman, "When the colonel first came here we thought

we could never see his way of operation and was very much concerned of our

security but, over the years he ended up as a very good person to work for."

It was his civilian deputy that was responsible for indoctrinating this colonel

and guided him through to his tour that won respect from these people. His

deputy is a well-known person in photographic and social circles in Japan.

It is almost 20 years since the end of World War II and at this time when

we want to retain our good relations with the people of this country the personnel that has been here have done and is doing a lot to keep up this good

will. Many are engaged in teaching English after duty to college students,

acting as officials in college debates and oratorical contest, many belong to

country clubs and associate with the upper class of people, countless other

functions which requires time to make these contacts may be broken, with the

return of the employee to the United States.

Although most of the personnel are supposed to be screened before they are

sent overseas, they come here and try to enforce their ideals to these people,

any one who is forced to accept tends to resist and we lose what we have strived

these past years.

Originally when the civilian employees were hired it was to retain continuity

of opertaion and control of the local nationals employed by the command. A

stranger in this country may be lost and these people will make a fool of their

supervisors. This I have experienced with a new supervisor not well acquainted

with their customs. In their argument about losing contact with our country,

it is completely out of question. With the rotation of the military who comes

from assignment all over the United States I feel that we are better versed on

procedures and problems than majority of the base. Newcomers with new ideas

are always welcomed to upgrade the operations. Local training centers on the

base trains the employees on procedures, techniques, and management to upkeep

with times. It is much cheaper to the Government to send a man TDY to ZI

for advanced training than to move him and his family. An employee signs a

2-year contract and is entitled to take a reemployment leave home for 30 days.

Many of them take special training courses during this trip and visit bases to

see any changes in techniques and operations.

A
132 ROTATION OF CIVILIAN EMPLOYEES FROM OVERSEAS POSTS

In closing I feel that if I have to rotate I will go but, sincerely think and am

Sure that I will be better off to serve my country with my language capabilities

and experience here in Japan than anywhere else in the world.

Sincerely,

TAKEO OKAFuJI.

SAN FRANCISCO, CALIF., July 24, 1965.

NATIONAL FEDERATION OF FEDERAL EMPLOYEES,

TVashington, D.C.

DEAR Sin: Ref your letter of July 12 to all DOD overseas Nr.F1il members:

American civilian employees in Korea have, since my arrival here in August

1959, performed admirably as ambassadors of good will. During the over 5-year

period of my residence in Korea, the press has reported persistently of adverse

incidents involving Korean and United States citizens. More than several

hundred U.S. servicemen, including commissioned officers and enlisted men,

have reportedly been involved in such incidents which reflect adversely upon

the U.S. presence in Korea. During the same period, only seven U.S.

civilian employees have been reported as engaging in such acts of misconduct.

This is not to suggest necessarily that the character or morals of civilian employees is higher than military personnel. Instead, I think the key to understanding this apparent discrepancy lies in the fact that long-stationed employees,

who entered Korea voluntarily and at their own choosing, have developed an

adjustability to local conditions, involving an ability to work harmoniously

with their Korean counterparts and Korean residents in general. Most untoward incidents, I believe, arise from the accumulated frustrations of a person

who doesn't want to be here, who wants to be home, and who therefore is

propelled to release his frustrations in acts of misconduct impairing the American image in this country. Of course, some civilian employees also do not

adjust to life in Korea; however, they usually Solve the problem by seeking

employment elsewhere before the hardships of the post accumulate to uncontrollable proportions. The glowing civilian performance is all the more remarkable in view of the fact that a civilian committing an offense can, under present

conditions, be subject neither to military court-martial nor local law.

Another facet of the problem 'relates to civilian personnel in categories where

experience in the country is essential to effective performance of duty. Included

would 'be civil affairs specialists, international relations officers, information

officers, intelligence research specialists, community relations officers, and many

other categories. The loss of personnel in these groups would be particularly

keenly felt, since any newcomer to occupy these posts would require at least

several years to acquire the local expertise of those rotated back to the States.

Sincerely yours,

FRANCIS K. COOK,

G-2 Seotion, Hq, EUSA, APO 96301.

JULY 26, 1965.

Mr. NATHAN T. WOLKOMIR,

National Federation of Federal Employees,

Washington, D.C.

DEAR MR. WOLKOmIR : I am approaching the subject of civilian rotation on the

basis of goodwill and friendly country-to-country relationships which derive from

civilian personnel employed in overseas areas over prolonged periods of time.

In the past, military and civilian Government personnel have been advised by

our President that they act as ambassadors of the U.S. Government, in that they

reflect the American image overseas. It has been my experience that long-term

civilian Government employees are more likely to present an effective and favorable image. The majority of these employees are mature and staid individuals,

dedicated to their country and 'their career as an Air Force employee. It is indeed a rarity for a long-term civilian employee to 'become involved in situations

wherein the U.S. Image abroad is 'tarnished; this as opposed to acts of violence,

thievery or other evidence of moral turpitude displayed by less mature or dedicated military short-term 'members. The dignity displayed by the long-term

civilian employee aids in'offsetting this 'distorted image and resultant publicity

emanating from the thoughtlessness of the immature military member.
ROTATION OF CIVILIAN EMPLOYEES FROM OVERSEAS POSTS 133

Presenting another view, these long-term civilian employees have successfully

proven their assimilation in day-to-day living in a foreign country. As an example, in Japan most civilian employees with families do not live in Government quarters located on military installations. Within the Kanto Base Command, of 398 families, only 78 live on military installations. Predominantly,

they live in Japanese communities and are in daily contact with Japanese neighbors and other Japanese who would normally have little if any contact with

Americans. Through neighborly gestures, these associations and friendships

promote good will and harmony of the type that U.S. economic and military

aid cannot purchase at any price.

In most foreign countries it takes considerable time to learn the language, the

customs, and to become orientated to the environment. Normally, in the first

few years, employees who cannot adjust to their new surroundings voluntarily

return to the United States. Therefore, persons who have served overseas for

long periods of time have completely adapted themselves to their new environment and are happy, well-adjusted employees. Are we to completely discard

their invaluable experience, devotion to duty and their country, and start all

over a frustrating genesis with an individual who might not be able to make

the grade?

An additive factor is that of the intermingling of U.S. citizens from all over

the United States. Through this intermingling good will is fostered between

U.S. citizens. This is especially true from a racial viewpoint. In that there

is no racial or religious discrimination on U.S. military installations and in

very few foreign countries, Americans of all races and religions have an opportunity to meet together in a convivial atmosphere and get to know each other

as individuals as opposed to a stereotype. Friendships therefrom are formed

on the basis of merit and interests of the individuals. When you consider the

large numbers of both military and civilian personnel, who, after being exposed

to an environment which is conducive to form such valuable associations and

friendships, the far-reaching inputs to more harmonious relationships between

the "groups" in the United States are of tantamount importance. The longer

one stays in an area which is devoid of U.S.-type racial and religious pressures,

the less one remembers the racial pressures and practices one was exposed to

in the United States. Consequently such segregationist policies are practically

nonexistent among the long-term civilian employees. (Perhaps this could be

construed as "losing sight on reality.") Since, to say the least, this has been

one of the darker sides of the U.S. image projected overseas, it helps to erase

some of the stigma when a foreign national can see Americans of all races and

creeds working and socializing harmoniously.

I feel that long-term overseas employment makes one more acutely aware of

our Nation's role in world affairs and stimulates us to do something to help

our country in attaining its goals.

I further believe that forcing an employee who is satisfied with his job, his

location and who is performing in accordance with the standards required to

continue employment with the U.S. Government, to depart from such employment

can be the beginning of a dangerous situation wherein at any time a department,

committee, or individual can arbitrarily decide that an employee or group of employees are "losing sight on reality" and therefore must be sent elsewhere or get

fired. The proposed rotation policy would be a wedge to make an opening for

such a dangerous, undemocratic policy. One of our inalienable rights, and one

of the foundations on which our country was founded, is the right to the pursuit

of happiness. By "cramming" such a policy as the proposed forced rotation

on individuals who are presently happy in their surroundings and performing

satisfactorily in their jobs, certainly takes away this right to the pursuit of

happiness.

Further, what happened to the old policy of needing civilian employees in

certain positions because of their immobility and the need 'for continuity of

operations? What happened to the cost reduction program? Are these factors

to be glibly set aside and forgotten in the interest of one der artment's idea that

these happy civilians must be made unhappy and forced into a supposed "world

of reality."

Perhaps the man who seemingly is pushing this program has "lost touch with

reality" in that he has been in Washington in one career field for 15 years or

more. Perhaps he should be rotated.

Sincerely,

JERRY M. TAYLOR.

Accounting and Finance, APO an Francisco. 96323,
134 ROTATION OF CIVILIAN EMPLOYEES FROM OVERSEAS POSTS

A.UGUST 2, 1965.

Mr. N. T. WOLKOMIR,

President, National Federation of Federal Employees,

Washington, D.C.

DEAR MR. WOLKOMIR : Reference your letter of July 12 about the new rotation plan for civilian employees.

As you well know, this new rotation plan is having an extremely adverse

impact on the morale of overseas employees. In effect, we are being told that

we are second-rate citizens. If there is a stigmatism on overseas assignment,

why is DOD attempting to recruit for overseas? And why is it a one-way street?

CONUS employees coming overseas have reemployment rights; why not the

same rights for overseas employees going to CONUS?

If staying in one position or one locale lessens an employee's value to the

U.S. Government, why are not all Government employees, including those in

CONUS, arbitrarily relocated every 5 years? As for losing touch with our country, the majority of overseas employees return to the States periodically on home leave. Many, We will concede, do not go as often as they are authorized

and would like, but this is because their supervisors have requested them to

delay their leave and, because of their sense of responsibility to their jobs, they have postponed taking leave, sometimes for several years. In Korea, where

the military tour of duty is short, civilians provide continuity and feel an obligation to be "on the job" during changeover of military supervisors.

As for new job methods and procedures, the civilian personnel organization in

Korea has a training program that is second to none. In addition, a program

is in effect whereby key personnel are sent to CONUS for special training. Upon their return they implement the new procedures they have learned. These supervisors have the knowledge and experience gained in Korea which are so important when changing procedures involving Korean national employees.

The longer an individual lives in a country—the Far East especially—the

better he can understand and work with the local national employees. It is

not only a matter of being a good ambassador, it is a matter of doing a better job through better understanding of local people and local conditions, knowing what to expect and how to handle incidents and problems that never arise in

a stateside situation. Local experience is the only guideline.

If this were not true, why would 36 percent of the employees of the civilian

personnel office in Korea (as well as Japan and Okinawa) have been in the Far

East in excess of 5 years? This is a fact that can be verified. Not only that, but

the names of a substantial number of these employees have appeared on DA referral lists (ad hoc committees) along with equally qualified stateside employees,

and the overseas employees have been selected by the overseas operating officials

as being the best qualified. This statement is applicable also to other civilian

employees in the Far East. Why must these employees, who competed with

equally qualified stateside employees, be arbitrarily returned to Conus because

of a 4ecision made by some remote bureaucrats in Washington who have no onthe-spot knowledge of the true situation. A hurried staff visit to Korea to talk

with high-ranking military officers and equally high-ranking civilian yes-men

does not automatically confer on-the-spot knowledge. The high-ranking officers

are briefed by officers of lower rank, and so on down the line to the second lieutenants, many of whom in this military hierarchy in Korea have been placed in

supervisory positions over well-qualified DAC's with more than 20 years experience. It is a well-known fact that the military have a deep resentment of DAC's,

nurtured by such publications as the Army Times. This resentment is directly

traceable to a lack of experience in working DAC employecz and a lack of knowledge by the military of the terms of employment and the problems of their civilian

counterparts.

Another very important fact, which the proponents of this plan have overlooked, is the length of time required to fill a position by stateside recruitment.

In theory a position can be filled in 90 days; in actual practice a period of 6

months to 2 years or longer is required. This is particularly true in an area

like Korea where DOD employees cannot bring their families with them. Stateside recruits are so appalled at the living conditions and restrictions imposed

(see enclosure following), especially in the outlying areas, that many of them

return immediately to the States even though they have to pay their own transportation. Others return to the States afer 1 year, the first 6 months of which

they were breaking in, on their job and the last 6 months they were counting the

days until they could leave Korea. Toward the end of the year, some of these

stateside recruits begin to realize that stateside methods and procedures must be
ROTATION OF CIVILIAN EMPLOYEES FROM OVERSEAS POSTS 135

adapted somewhat to local conditions and culture. They are disillusioned when

they find that centuries old methods are being substituted for the modern procedures they have so carefully tried to implement. Patience and understanding

gained through local experience are required in abundance to guide and train

local national employees. Each additional year's experience in a foreign situation makes the civilian employee more instead of less valuable to the U.S. Government, both in the work situation and as an unofficial ambassador of the United

States.

Sincerely yours,

( S) KATHRYN TIPPINs,

Post Engineer, Ascom, APO San Francisco, 96220.

SCA CO.

Subject: Venereal disease control.

To: See distribution.

JULY 3, 1965.

1. The continuous struggle to reduce and control venereal disease is the moral

responsibility of each and every one of us. To further this program another joint

venture with U.S. Army and Korean authorities will be initiated effective July 6,

1965. A phase of this endeavor will effect each and every one of us and it is mandatory that all cooperate to the maximum. To insure this support all American

personnel will be restricted from the civilian community, Ascom area during the

period July 6-12, 1965, inclusive.

2. During the period July 6-12, 1965, KN female bona fide guests may be permitted in various Ascom district command clubs provided they are escorted in a

group by individual designated by the compound commander. During this period

KN female guests will be limited to the confines of the officer, NC(), and EM

clubs and service clubs only. (Note: All KN female guests will be escorted as a

group to and from the club during the period by designated representatives only.)

3. The above program is not to be construed as to prohibit those personnel

that are authorized to reside offpost from living with their dependents during this

period. Further, organization commanders will use prudent judgment in authorizing passes and/or leave for quasi-official activities.

4. During the period all American personnel should be encouraged to actively

participate in the numerous sports, crafts, recreational, religious, and entertainment activities that are provided by the U.S. Army within this area.

Col. MILDRIDGE F. VAUGHN,

Commanding, Headquarters, U.S. Army, Ascom District Command, APO

U.S. Forces, 96220.

AUGUST 6, 1965,

NATIONAL FEDERATION OF FEDERAL EMPLOYEES,

Washington, D.C.

DEAR PRESIDENT WOLKOMIR : As a longtime overseas Air Force employeo, I am

very happy to answer your July 12 letter and to add my comments to tiv question of forced rotation from a satisfactory place of employment to some as yet undisclosed location within the ZI. Due to the closeness of the problem, and the distinct feeling that the plan is a slap in the face to old timers, I am afraid my answer

secure. I might add that the very fact that military personnel are constantly

forced rotation and reasons therfor. You have my permission to use any of my

statements and my name if you desire.

My background in summary is: I was born in Washington, D.C.. in 1917, lived

most of my life in nearby Maryland. My family were all loyal civil service

workers but I was caught by the quota system and no matter how hard I tried,

could not get a civil service job until after the start of World War II. I received a duration-plus-6-month appointment during the war. I was an instrument maker at the U.S. Naval Observatory engaged in research work and was

therefore deferred during the war but drafted in 1946. Upon being sent to

Japan, I decided to stay in Japan and work as a civilian for the Air Force when

the Naval Observatory stated my former position was no longer available. This

turned out to be a wise move as I finally found a position which was reasonably

secure. I might add that the very fact that military personnel are constantly

rotated hither and you is one of my prime reasons for being a civilian rather than

a military man. At present then, I have over 24 years civil service and about 8

years experience working in private industry. I have been in Japan continuously

since 1946. I speak Japanese fairly well and can understand the Japanese point
136 ROTATION OF CIVILIAN EMPLOYEES FROM OVERSEA5r-POSTS

of view. I supervise II*" about 85 Japanese technicians directly and indir • , and

use both Japanese and English depending on the individuals knowle. if English. Forgive the lengthiness of this opener but I feel it will help erstand

my comments which follow:

1. Published accounts of the pending rotation plan are a direct, per • -Astatsult

to me and every other oldtimer working overseas. Inferences that w: are living

in grass huts under primitive conditions and thereby "going native" a dlosing

the "American way" is like a slap in the face to me. I work with !Fp 'i -St

modern Air Force equipment, engage in much correspondence with Z

nizations, follow current Air Force directives, return occasionally to the Z

conferences or send some of my assistants to the same and am as up to date and

current as anyone in the ZI and more current in relations with my Japanese

counterparts.

2. Inferences in the published accounts of the plan are a direct insult to the

country in which I am a guest. Statements such as overseas workers are "going

native" or are losing touch with the United States are a serious insult to the host

country. Japan has to take a back seat to no one in its science and technology

and we who are oldtimers here are proud to have in some measure helped in therebuilding of this country. Irresponsible newspaper accounts such as have been

published only serve to foster the "ugly American" image and encourage the

"go home yankee" sort of hysteria. Such foolish articles do much to wreck

years of good relations that we have developed in overseas areas.

3. Policy, if established, to force rotate civilians from overseas jobs to otherlocations will set a precedent for telling Civil Servant John Doe, "Look, you have

been here in Washington for over 5 years now, we want to uproot you and your

family and shift you to Topeka for a few years. If you don't rotate, we will

separate you" needless to say, such precedents are fraught with danger.

4. The timing of the announcement of the pending plan is peculiar. At the

very time the Air Force Times was publishing an article concerning the Air

Force being censured for too many PCS moves for the military members of the

Air Force as being too expensive and wasteful of taxpayer's money, the Federal

Times was publishing reports of a forced rotation plan for civilians. It takes no

great research to develop cost figures for the moves. Although overseas civilians

are authorized a trip home every 2 years, very few of them travel this much. I

myself have had home leave only twice, in 1951 and again in 1962.

5. The primary reason for having Air Force civilians is to assure continuity

and free military personnel for military duties. Forced rotation would destroy

this continuity. Could this plan be a gimmick to get more military into civilian

jobs?

6. New employees assigned to overseas areas require a period of adjustment,

oldtimers have long ago become adjusted and are valuable, stable members of

the community in which they work. Loss of this stability, knowledge, and language ability will add a tremendous hidden cost to the Air Force in dollars lost aswell as efficiency lost.

This letter is long enough now but I have one more comment. Just as Ambassador Reischauer has done, many of the oldtimers have married Japanese

women and I therefore have an extremely close tie with Japan.

Although our wives are born Japanese, many are now loyal American citizens,

thus keeping alive some of the things that have done so much to make the

United States the greatest country on earth. By accepting the foreign born as

citizens, America has always benefited. By being in the foreign country we are

acting as ambassadors and representatives of America to the local citizens. This

increases the bonds between our countries and should be commended, not

condemned.

ALBERT M. SCHMIDT,

California Certification Officer, 6100 CMR, Box 2272 APO San Francisco,

96323.

Mr. HENDERSON. For the benefit of the members of the subcommittee, I think it is incumbent upon us to wrap this matter up as soon

as we can. The Chair will try to arrange a session in which we can..

give further consideration to the matter before us.

If there are no further questions, we will stand adjourned.

(Whereupon, at 11:57 a.m., the subcommittee recessed.)

2