Page images
PDF
EPUB

TABLE 4.-Monthly reenlistment trends for regulars, by category, 1954-Army

[graphic][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed]

1 Data for Se tember-December 1954 are preliminary.

* Reenlistment data for first-term and "career" regulars in January-June 1954 were partially estimated. TABLE 5.-Monthly reenlistment trends for regulars, by category, 19541-Navy

[blocks in formation]

TABLE 6.-Monthly reenlistment trends for regulars, by category, 1954-Marine

[blocks in formation]

TABLE 7.-Monthly reenlistment trends for regulars, by category, 19541—Áir

[blocks in formation]

Mr. BATES. Now, the Air Force and the Navy is considerably larger than it was back in 1949, and I think we still use the same figure, about a million and a half voluntary reenlistments each year, that is in all the services, maintenance of strength. That was about the same figure we used back in 1950. So obviously if you are going to have people go into the Navy or Air Force to get out of the draft, then, of course, those figures would become distorted proportionately. The full figures, I think

Secretary BURGESS. We will give you the numbers and the percentages by service.

Mr. RIVERS. Go ahead, Mr. Burgess.

Secretary BURGESS (referring to chart No. 3): It reflects the continuing downward trend in reenlistments among our most experienced and skilled personnel.

On the left are shown the reenlistment rates for 1949-50. The darker color on the right shows the comparable rate for the 1954 period.

The decline in the reenlistment rates in the lower grades foreshadows the very serious problem of maintaining an adequate number of technicians in the higher grades. The fact that this trend has seriously affected grades E-5 and E-6, normally considered career grades, gives unusual significance to the critical problem faced by the Navy and Air Force.

The lengthy and expensive training required to qualify the technicians needed in these services makes it essential that they retain more men on a career basis. A continuation of these trends will reduce the level of skill and experience to a dangerous low.

Mr. BATES. May I ask just one question here?

Mr. RIVERS. Yes.

Mr. BATES. We are comparing different years and comparing different periods within each year. Is there anything in the statistics down through the years that indicates that November-June can be compared actually with the first quarter of the fiscal year, or is there something unusual about a first quarter.

Colonel STEPHENS. May I speak to that?

Secretary BURGESS. Yes.

Colonel STEPHENS. At the time this chart was made, sir, the only data we had in fiscal 1955 which was subsequent to the enactment of the reenlistment bonus bill of this past year, was for this first quarter. That is why we have shown this comparison. We took a period back here prior to Korea, feeling that that was a more normal period than any period subsequent to June of 1950. They are both short periods but nevertheless this was a relatively normal stable time and this was the latest data we had on 1955 reenlistments.

Mr. BATES. You could have a seasonal effect there.

Secretary BURGESS. Yes.

Mr. BATES. You have the figures and I think perhaps for comparative purposes we ought to get them in the record just in the event. there are seasonal differences here.

Do you have the November-June period preceeding the first quarter of fiscal 1955 ?

If you put those in the record I think we could perhaps get a better idea.

Colonel STEPHENS. Yes.

Mr. HARDY. I would like to go along with Mr. Bates' suggestion, because certainly a statistical analysis ought to compare like situations. In addition to that you have taken a period which again is prior to use a similar period in the current as nearly current as you can. In addition to that you have taken a period which again is prior to the beginning of the effective date of your bonus.

Secretary BURGESS. The bonus to the furthest extent that we can figure has some effect in there.

Colonel STEPHENS. Yes. It was effective July 1, and whatever effect it might have had in the 3 months would be reflected in these figures.

Mr. BLANDFORD. You have one problem here, Mr. Chairman. Mr. HARDY. I thought bonuses didn't actually begin to become effective until October?

Mr. BLANDFORD. You have one additional problem which you have to keep in mind and which makes comparisons almost impossible after June of 1950, and that is the involuntary extension of enlistments. Since you involuntarily extended enlistments it is, I would say, practically impossible to determine what your reenlistment rate actually was during the war in Korea.

Colonel STEPHENS. That is right.

Mr. BLANDFORD. Because it distorts the whole thing. You can't come up with any kind of a comparison.

Mr. BATES. When did they stop doing that?

Mr. BLANDFORD. They extended that twice; they did it in 1950 and in 1951, and I think the last extension was up to June of 1952, if I recall correctly. I may be wrong in that, but I think that is about right.

Mr. BATES. And that wouldn't have any effect on the NovemberJune figures preceding fiscal 1955?

Secretary BURGESS. Preceding Korea

Mr. BLANDFORD. But there is a hiatus from June of 1950 to June 1952 that just can't be used.

55066-55-No. 6 -6

Mr. BATES. I didn't want those figures. I wanted November-June prior to the fiscal 1955.

Mr. HÉBERT. The real crux of the situation resolves itself to this one fact, I think: That regardless of whether the bonus had its impact or didn't have an impact or whatever other incentives were given, the fact still remains that the reenlistment rate is lower and something has to be added to what you have already got. You have to implement

it.

Secretary BURGESS. That is what we are trying to show.

Mr. HÉBERT. No matter what the percentage figures show, percentagewise or numerically wise, the fact still remains that you do not have a satisfactory reenlistment.

Secretary BURGESS. The stability problem is far from desirable.

Mr. RIVERS. Then let the chairman observe this: And your curve is still going down.

Mr. MILLER. These figures directly do show a very definite trend in support of the statement you have made.

Secretary BURGESS. The only thing with this chart is that it doesn't reflect similar periods. It shows the trend.

Mr. HÉBERT. Even if it showed that the bonus did help you it would show that it helped you to a certain degree and it is not sufficient and has to be implemented.

Secretary BURGESS. That is right.

Mr. RIVERS. This is one of the factors you think has a part in that decline?

Secretary BURGESS. That is right.

Mr. RIVERS. Go ahead.

Secretary BURGESS. Not only is turnover a problem in the enlisted grades, but it is also serious in the officer grades. This next chart shows how Regular officers are distributed in the Navy by year groups and grade.

(The chart appears on p. 467.)

Secretary BURGESS. The hump in the middle grades, which was created by World War II accessions, is followed by a serious deficiency in the 4 to 10 years' service bracket. While the hump is a problem, the deficiency behind the hump is a greater problem, since it foreshadows shortages in leadership for the future.

The height of the three columns on the left reflects the large numbers of young officers performing obligated service. The high rate of turnover at the completion of obligated service is illustrated by the sharp drop at the beginning of the 4th year and the continuing deficiency extending through the 10th year.

This chart shows only the Navy line officer picture, but the shortage of officers in the other services in the 4 to 10 years' service group is equally serious. None of the services are able to hold enough young officers beyond their obligated service to make up the continuing deficit.

During calendar year 1954 approximately 4,000 young naval officers completed their obligated service. Of this group only 200 elected to remain in the active service. Of these, only 13 applied for a regular commission.

Secretary BURGESS. In the past, a career as a Regular officer was sought after, and selection was in itself a mark of distinction. This

[graphic]
[ocr errors]

DISTRIBUTION OF NAVY LINE OFFICERS ON ACTIVE DUTY By year group and grade as of July 1, 1954

[ocr errors]

1954 1953 1952 1951 1950 1949 1948 1947 1946 1945 1944 1943 1942 1941 1940 1939 1938 1937 1936 1935 1934 1933 1932 1931 1930 1929 1928 1927 1926 1925 JG LT CAPT

ENS

LCDR

CDR

CHART 4

« PreviousContinue »