These men serve an obligated tour of 2 years during which they go through an expensive training program. In this group we have a large potential for enlistment in the regular service. If we could attract an additional 10 percent of this group to continue their careers in the Armed Forces, that alone would result in substantial savings in training costs.

The retention of qualified commissioned officers presents an equally serious problem. Resignations among Regular officers with less than 10 years of service are particularly high, when projected through the normal career span.

Our Reserve officers on active duty comprise about three-quarters of our active commissioned force; the retention problem is particularly acute in the lower grades. These young officers who are being called to duty for 2 years for the most part, upon completion of their obligated tour, return to civilian life.

A surprising number of the ROTC honor graduates, selected for their outstanding records, have declined to accept regular commissions. It is genuinely disturbing that this opportunity of gaining a position and career which should be regarded as one of responsibility, distinction, and honor should be so lacking in appeal.

It has been said that pay alone does not provide the incentive needed to induce men to choose military service as a career. I agree with this. There are many other factors and some are material in nature. Others, with an intangible appeal, influence men's decisions concerning a military career. Yet, it is an inescapable fact that economic problems compel many servicemen to seek careers in civilian life offering greater monetary return.

It is significant that 39 percent of the Army enlisted personnel today have family responsibilities; that is, they are either married or have dependent parents. Among our officers, 80 percent have such dependent obligations. Thus, the normal desire to provide an acceptable standard of family support is an important factor that cannot be overstressed.

The recommended legislation in addition to increasing basic pay also provides for an increase in the per diem allowance payable during periods of temporary duty to $12 per day. This increase applies only in the United States, and when the military member performs travel to areas where Government quarters and messing facilities are not available.

A provision for a dislocation allowance on permanent change of station has been included to meet a long-felt need in the military services. Changes in station result in a considerable financial loss to the service member because of added expenses just prior to departing the old station and in reestablishing himself and his family at a new location.

It has been found these extra expenses relate themselves to the member's basic allowance for quarters. Therefore, it is proposed that the amount authorized be equal to 1 month's basic allowance for quarters for members with dependents. These expenses are not covered by the transportation allowances now authorized.

Succeeding witnesses will provide greater detail on the points that I have mentioned.

In conclusion, I should like to express my opinion that the passage of this measure, together with the other steps in process to improve the appeal of a military career, will greatly enhance our ability to attract and retain capable personnel.

ENLISTED PERSONNEL TURNOVER, ACTIVE ARMY

Mr. KILDAY. Thank you, General Young.

Are there questions of the general?

Mr. BATES. Mr. Chairman

Mr. ARENDS. I would like to ask some questions.

Mr. KILDAY. Mr. Arends.

Mr. ARENDS. You say that those who are with you later on will fill us in with regard to these additional allowances with regard to transportation?

Mr. YOUNG. That is right, Colonel Brinckmann and Captain Martineau will go into greater detail and explain that for you.

Mr. KILDAY. Mr. Rivers?

Mr. RIVERS. Yesterday and the day before, somebody brought up the question that the military can do a lot to curtail some of this unnecessary change of station, and that is one of the things wherein we may have trouble if we don't have a ready answer on the floor, because a lot of people think the military change stations too much.

55066-55-No. 6-10

And we want some help on it.

General YOUNG. I agree thoroughly, and in the later discussion I think it will be brought out clearly that stabilization of our personnel and our ability to retain them in the service will be a major contributing factor to preventing the frequent changes which have occurred in the past.

I also agree, however, that we, too, should, and will do better in that respect.

Mr. RIVERS. Thank you.

Mr. BLANDFORD. In that connection, may I ask you this question, General. In fiscal 1954, 61 percent of the officers of the Army made a permanent change of station, and 71 percent of your enlisted personnel made a permanent change of station. So you can say that approximately 62 percent of the entire Army underwent a change of station, yet, we know that normally a tour of duty is supposed to be 2 years, in some cases 3 years.

How do those figures compare with previous years?

Mr. Milton indicated they are making great progress, or trying to. How do those figures compare with previous years on permanent changes of station? In other words, is there anything that we can say on the floor of the House that would indicate that your changes of stations have been decreasing?

General YOUNG. I think you can. I would prefer to have firm figures to support that, Mr. Blandford, and Mr. Chairman.

One of the factors which required us to make such a large number of changes of station was the short tour in Korea, and other areas. With a large percentage of the Army on a 12- and 18-month tour of duty, that naturally causes quite a turnover.

So as conditions stabilize, and as our Regular Army percentage increases, our changes of station will become less.

Mr. BLANDFORD. Thank you.

Mr. KILDAY. General, for the information of those who are going to provide the detail, I just wanted to say that you are not going to have to convince this group of how costly it is, because it is something that we are faced with constantly.

General YOUNG. Yes, sir.

Mr. KILDAY. We are all family men, we have to go between Washington and home at least once every year; more often 2, 3 times a year. So we know that it is costly. But you are going to have to convince us that this is not just the easy way out, that we are going to compensate him. And I am personally fearful that the attitude may be not those at the policy level but those at the working level, would be that when you have any change coming, you are going to get paid for it. We are going to have to get that out of our minds.

General YOUNG. I agree we must overcome any such attitude as that.

Mr. KILDAY. Frankly, that is the way I feel about it, I feel this would encourage more frequent changes of station because the man is being compensated for at least some of the expenses incident to his travel. We know how expensive it is.

We want you to explain how this is going to be helpful, actually, to the Army, rather than harmful. I just want that for the working people who are going to give us detail.

Mr. WILSON. Mr. Chairman?

Mr. KILDAY. Mr. Wilson.

Mr. WILSON. If I remember correctly, the Air Force figures showed in a survey made of career attractiveness that the second most important factor in attractiveness was the change of station. So that is something that the Army has got to have and the whole Defense Department has got to give their immediate attention to.

General YOUNG. Yes, sir.

Mr. Chairman, it is certainly correct; Mr. Wilson, during the height of the war in Korea, it was not unusual for a Regular Army enlisted man returning from Europe to be eligible to go to Korea with only a 9-month stay here in the United States.

That was just a military necessity. A Regular Army soldier or officer returning from the Far East was eligible to be shipped to Europe with only 6 months here at home.

Now, that condition has been corrected, and a minimum of 18 months is now guaranteed to our Regular Army soldiers, and I say Regular Army because they are the only ones who would have a long enough period to make, in the service, to make those two moves.

And our junior officers, a minimum of 18 months is now guaranteed and it is usually exceeded.

Mr. BATES. Mr. Chairman?

Mr. KILDAY. Mr. Bennett.

Mr. BENNETT. In line with this objective that you have and we all seem to be very anxious to see that it be accomplished-of trying to minimize transfers, I would like you to put in the record for our help on the floor and also for my education as much as possible any steps that you are taking or that you contemplate taking to minimize these transfers.

Things that run through my mind are such as the possibility that you may be doing or have you-set up any committee or organization within the Department of Defense to help in this, or are there any directives which have been issued to accomplish this objective, or are there any reports which are made by commanding officers to show that there has been achievement accomplished in this respect?

I have in mind there have been such pressures put on with regard to other objectives in the Department, such as integration and things like that.

I wonder whether we are expending the same amount of energy on these transfers?

General YOUNG. Yes, sir, we have a very active committee, consisting of senior officers from the Adjutant General's Office, from G-1, from G-3, the operations end, and elsewhere, who are studying this matter constantly. And we have achieved considerable improvement in that respect.

Mr. BENNETT. Have there been any directives issued?

General YOUNG. Well, I just mentioned one which I think has achieved considerable improvement in that.

Mr. BENNETT. Are there any regular reports required of commanding officers of units to explain why transfers are in such great number? General YOUNG. No, sir, because frequently, we, right here at the Department of the Army, in the case of the enlisted men are responsible for it, since we impose on them, on the lower echelons, the matter of levies for overseas shipments.

It is in the levies for overseas shipments that we get our largest number of permanent changes of station, in order to support our overseas commitments with personnel.

The Department of Defense has also taken cognizance of this problem and does have working under Mr. Burgess, the Assistant Secretary, a committee inquiring into all measures that might be taken for stabilizing tours in many areas.

Mr. BENNETT. It seems to me, before this thing actually hits the floor, there could be some analysis in the record some way to show some accomplishment that has actually taken place, directives issued, some reports received back showing improvement.

It would be helpful, because as Mr. Wilson pointed out, and as those charts indicated, the average Congressman at least feels this question of excessive transfers about as much as any other issue that comes before us.

And there is where the wife is going to be affected.

General YOUNG. Yes, sir.

That can be furnished and I think can be done very much better if we can have a little time and put it in the record.

Mr. BATES. Mr. Chairman?

Mr. KILDAY. Mr. Bates.

Mr. BATES. General Young, the figures you have given us indicate about 55 percent of your enlisted men are inductees

General YOUNG. That is right, approximately.

Mr. BATES. You indicate if we could attract an additional 10 percent of this group of the inductees, it will result in substantial savings in training costs and of course it would.

General YOUNG. Yes, sir.

Mr. BATES. What percent currently of your inductees are enlisting in the service after the end of their 24 months.

General YOUNG. I have those figures right here.

The figures, Mr. Chairman, since July of 1954, as as follows for the last 6 months of calendar year 1954: 4.3, 3.2, 2.4, 2.4, 3.4, 3.3 for an average of 3 percent of our inductees.

Mr. BATES. That is a pretty low figure?

General YOUNG. Yes, quite low.

Mr. BATES. Is there anything in this bill that is particularly designed to attract those men? I have in mind such things as enlistment bonus; for instance, at the end of 4 years they can get a reenlistment bonus, at the end of 2 years they get no bonus.

Colonel BRINCKMANN. Yes, sir; if they enlist at the conclusion of 2 years of service, they do get a reenlistment bonus.

Mr. BATES. An inductee gets that?

Colonel BRINCKMANN. Yes, sir.

He would be reenlisting.

Mr. BATES. Do you call that a reenlistment, even though he was inducted, not enlisted?

Colonel BRINCKMANN. He is originally an inductee, he finishes his obligated tour, then he reenlists. He is no longer an inductee. He reenlists and is entitled to the bonus.

Mr. BATES. He doesn't reenlist, he enlists for the first time?

Colonel BRINCKMANN. That is correct.

Mr. BATES. But under the law, you interpret that as being identical with reenlistment?