« PreviousContinue »
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 cur 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. 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 area
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.
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. 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?
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?
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!
Mr. BATES. But under the law, you interpret that as being identical with reenlistment?
Colonel BRINCKMANN. That is right.
Mr. RIVERS. At that point, could we have that part, Mr. Blandford, inserted in the report, where they make that interpretation of the existing statute?
Mr. BLANDFORD. We discussed that last year if you will recall. The previous reenlistment bonus bill I think required a man to complete a stated period of time before he could enlist in the Regular service, and then be eligible for a reenlistment bonus. At that time, we were thinking of the man joining the National Guard and going on 2 weeks training duty, then enlist in the Regular Army and be eligible for reenlistment bonus. So the previous law precluded him from doing that under the Career Compensation Act. Then when we brought up the reenlistment bonus bill last year, we decided that if a young man was that ambitious and intelligent, to figure out a way to obtain a reenlistment bonus by doing exactly that, that he should be entitled to that.
Mr. RIVERS. It is clear in the statute. Mr. BLANDFORD. It is clear in the statute. In fact, it was put in there deliberately. Major McCABE (reading): 4. Definition of reenlistment. In this section of these regulations a "reenlistment" means-(a) An enlistment in the Regular Army after compulsory or voluntary active duty in the Army; or (b) A voluntary extension of an enlistment for 2 or more years.
Mr. KILDAY. Of course, that was one of the purposes we had in mind was to get the men to sign up.
Mr. BLANDFORD. After completion, did you say?
Major McCABE. You would have to have completed one period of service.
Mr. BLANDFORD. That is not true, though, for the National Guard man or reservist. Under existing law a National Guard man or reservist can serve a short period of time as National Guard man and then enlist in regular service and that is considered a reenlistment.
Major McCABE. But his tenure as National Guard man would be terminated upon enlistment in the Regular Army.
Mr. BLANDFORD. Is it true an inductee in the second day in camp can go down and reenlist in the Army?
Major McCabe. I can't quote the law on that, but under the Army regulation no reenlistment bonus may be paid to a member who reenlists during his period of basic recruit training.
Mr. BLANDFORD. But after he has finished 16 weeks, he enlists and that is considered a reenlistment.
Major McCabe. Yes, sir.
Mr. ARENDS. How much would an inductee get at the end of two years of reenlisting!
General YOUNG. It depends.
Colonel BRINCKMANN. The monthly basic pay to which the man was entitled to at the time of discharge times the number of years he is enlisting for.
Mr. KILDAY. 180 would be the least, wouldn't it!
Mr. BLANDFORD. For 4 years, it would be $320. It is the number of years times his monthly pay.
Mr. RIVERS. He couldn't save that much in 2 years in Congress.
General NELSON. I have Major Stockman and Major Perkins with me this morning, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, I appreciate this opportunity of representing the United States Marine Corps in connection with the proposed Military Career Incentive Act of 1955.
In the constant indoctrination and training of our officers and men we have always pointed with pride toward the intangible rewards connected to service life-such things as opportunity to demonstrate leadership, esprit de corps, satisfaction in serving one's country, and devotion to duty.
These are a few of the psychic goals or objectives which contribute to a high order of motivation and normally tend to guarantee leaders of high caliber. These motivating factors must characterize our career personnel if our standards are to be met and maintained.
Through our promotion processes our officers and noncommissioned officers advance through positions of increasing responsibility which correspondingly demand increased knowledge, experience, and skills.
The Hook Commission, in its report completed in 1948, recognized the fact that service pay should be directly related to responsibility, knowledge and skill. The base pay tables submitted by that Commission reflected this relationship. With the enactment of the Career Compensation Act of 1949, the basic principle of this relationship was clearly set forth by law. This represented a great stride forward in the area of pay legislation. The slight upward revisions in 1952 were the answer to the then existing requirements for adjustment necessary to bring military pay into closer harmony with the cost of living.
Since 1952 conditions have further changed and it is now apparent to everyone that further adjustments are required. This could have been done by further upward revisions of the old law. Instead, the Department of Defense Committee that examined the area of military pay and accomplished the basic preparation of the proposed Career Incentive Act of 1955, developed another principle relating to military pay—the concept of adjustment through the addition of career incentive pay increments. This is a logical extension of the philosophy contained in the Hook Commission study.
I believe that the proposed Military Career Incentive Act of 1955 now under study of this group is a very realistic attempt to link material inducements and tangible rewards to the psychic or intangible rewards traditionally associated with service life.
This represents a more valid approach toward a solution of the military pay problem than an across-the-board or uniform increase based solely on a cost of living differential.