[House Hearing, 115 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]

[H.A.S.C. No. 115-44]

HEARING

NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT

FOR FISCAL YEAR 2018

AND

OVERSIGHT OF PREVIOUSLY AUTHORIZED PROGRAMS

BEFORE THE

COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

ONE HUNDRED FIFTEENTH CONGRESS

FIRST SESSION

__________

SUBCOMMITTEE ON MILITARY PERSONNEL HEARING

MILITARY PERSONNEL POSTURE: FISCAL YEAR 2018

__________

HEARING HELD
MAY 17, 2017

[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

_________

U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE

25-837 WASHINGTON : 2018

SUBCOMMITTEE ON MILITARY PERSONNEL

MIKE COFFMAN, Colorado, Chairman

WALTER B. JONES, North Carolina JACKIE SPEIER, California
BRAD R. WENSTRUP, Ohio, Vice Chair ROBERT A. BRADY, Pennsylvania
STEVE RUSSELL, Oklahoma NIKI TSONGAS, Massachusetts
DON BACON, Nebraska RUBEN GALLEGO, Arizona
MARTHA McSALLY, Arizona CAROL SHEA-PORTER, New Hampshire
RALPH LEE ABRAHAM, Louisiana JACKY ROSEN, Nevada
TRENT KELLY, Mississippi
Dave Giachetti, Professional Staff Member
Craig Greene, Professional Staff Member
Danielle Steitz, Clerk

C O N T E N T S

----------
Page

STATEMENTS PRESENTED BY MEMBERS OF CONGRESS

Coffman, Hon. Mike, a Representative from Colorado, Chairman,
Subcommittee on Military Personnel............................. 1
Speier, Hon. Jackie, a Representative from California, Ranking
Member, Subcommittee on Military Personnel..................... 1

WITNESSES

Brilakis, LtGen Mark A., USMC, Deputy Commandant for Manpower and
Reserve Affairs, United States Marine Corps.................... 4
Burke, VADM Robert P., USN, Chief of Naval Personnel, United
States Navy.................................................... 3
Grosso, Lt Gen Gina M., USAF, Deputy Chief of Staff for Manpower,
Personnel and Services, United States Air Force................ 5
McConville, LTG James C., USA, Deputy Chief of Staff, G-1, United
States Army.................................................... 2

APPENDIX

Prepared Statements:

Brilakis, LtGen Mark A....................................... 60
Burke, VADM Robert P......................................... 47
Coffman, Hon. Mike........................................... 33
Grosso, Lt Gen Gina M........................................ 78
McConville, LTG James C...................................... 34

Documents Submitted for the Record:

[There were no Documents submitted.]

Witness Responses to Questions Asked During the Hearing:

Mr. Coffman.................................................. 97
Ms. Speier................................................... 98

Questions Submitted by Members Post Hearing:

[There were no Questions submitted post hearing.]
MILITARY PERSONNEL POSTURE: FISCAL YEAR 2018

----------

House of Representatives,
Committee on Armed Services,
Subcommittee on Military Personnel,
Washington, DC, Wednesday, May 17, 2017.
The subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 3:30 p.m., in
room 2118, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Mike Coffman
(chairman of the subcommittee) presiding.

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. MIKE COFFMAN, A REPRESENTATIVE FROM
COLORADO, CHAIRMAN, SUBCOMMITTEE ON MILITARY PERSONNEL

Mr. Coffman. Please be seated. I want to welcome everyone
to the Military Personnel Subcommittee's hearing on the state
of the military service personnel systems as we enter the
fiscal year 2018 budget season.
Our panel of the service personnel chiefs is here to
address each of their services' personnel postures, including
personnel policies for recruiting and retention, family
programs, and/or address budget and legislative requests for
fiscal year 2018 to the extent that they can.
Today's focus is on the personnel policies the services
currently have to sustain and create efficiencies, which
includes promotion policy, bonus and incentive policies, and
end-strength changes that still need to be examined in light of
proposed increases, and the ensuing challenges.
I am especially interested in your plans for retention of
the right service members that are central to your mission, in
what may develop into difficult recruiting and retention--into
a difficult recruiting and retention environment in the coming
years. We would like to understand the policies and programs
that will be used to maintain and increase personnel end
strengths.
Before I introduce our panel, let me offer Congresswoman
Speier an opportunity to make any opening remarks.
Ms. Speier.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Coffman can be found in the
Appendix on page 33.]

STATEMENT OF HON. JACKIE SPEIER, A REPRESENTATIVE FROM
CALIFORNIA, RANKING MEMBER, SUBCOMMITTEE ON MILITARY PERSONNEL

Ms. Speier. Mr. Chairman, thank you. And thank you to all
of our witnesses who are here today. This is a critical time to
hear from you. The services have spent the past several years
implementing end-strength reductions. Before we commit to
growing the force again, we need to take a very good look
beyond just the numbers, because for each and every new service
member that commits to military service, we are signing the
government up for a lifelong commitment to them as well, a
commitment that will come with a significant cost.
I am interested in hearing how the services are going to
compete in an increasingly competitive labor market and retain
the skilled individuals they invest in, while still operating
in a constrained budget environment. In the past, recruiting
challenges have been addressed by lowering standards, a tactic
I do not support and presume you do not as well.
But simply adding manpower will not address the personnel
challenges of today and tomorrow. We also need to focus on
retention, quality of life, and fostering the culture of
respect for all service members. These are areas in which I
believe current efforts are insufficient. Skilled women and men
are abandoning the military in response to a persistent plague
of harassment, assault, and degradation. Further cuts to family
programs and housing allowances run counter to trends in the
private sector, providing even more enticement to leave.
We also need to think creatively about how the services
manage people. I am interested in hearing how the services are
going to transform their personnel management policies to
better manage and retain talent. There have been many proposals
over the past few years, and many of these initiatives can be
accomplished internally without changes in law but will most
likely require a cultural shift, which has always seemed to be
the biggest challenge.
I understand that this may be General McConville's last
hearing as the Army's personnel chief and that he may be moving
up. Thank you for all you have done as Army's G-1.
And thank you, Mr. Chairman. I look forward to hearing from
our witnesses.
Mr. Coffman. Thank you, Ranking Member Speier.
Let me welcome our panel:
Lieutenant General James McConville, Deputy Chief of Staff,
G-1, United States Army. Additionally, I would like to also
congratulate General McConville on his nomination to be the
United States Army Vice Chief of Staff.
Vice Admiral Robert Burke, Chief of Naval Personnel, United
States Navy.
Lieutenant General Mark Brilakis, Deputy Chief of Staff for
Manpower--I am sorry. Deputy Commandant for Manpower and
Reserve Affairs, United States Marine Corps.
Lieutenant General Gina Grosso, Deputy Chief of Staff for
Manpower, Personnel and Services, United States Air Force.
General McConville, you are now recognized for 5 minutes.

STATEMENT OF LTG JAMES C. McCONVILLE, USA, DEPUTY CHIEF OF
STAFF, G-1, UNITED STATES ARMY

General McConville. Thank you, sir.
Chairman Coffman, Ranking Member Speier, distinguished
members of the committee. I would like to thank you for the
opportunity to appear before you on behalf of the United States
Army. I have submitted a statement for the record, but I would
like to highlight a couple of points.
The Army's people--our soldiers, our civilians, our
retirees, veterans, and families--are our greatest asset. They
are our greatest weapons system, and there is a continued need
for a ready force, one that is fully manned, fully equipped,
and trained, as evidenced daily by the international events.
Predictable and timely funding are key to manning the Army and
accomplishing our missions. We thank you for the increase in
end strength of 28,000. That will improve our readiness and
ensure that the Army has better manned formations.
I want to thank you for all you have done. And as we move
into the future--you asked about talent management--we are
moving from a personnel management system to a modern talent
management system that will allow us to more effectively manage
all three components of the Army.
Diversity is important to the Army. Through our outreach
and marketing efforts, we are increasing the diversity of our
force in underrepresented branches and occupations. We are
committed to giving all soldiers the opportunity to serve in
whatever military occupation they can meet the standards of.
Currently, all military occupations are open to women, and
women serve in every battalion in the Active Army.
We remain focused on personal resiliency and suicide
prevention with world-class programs for our soldiers,
civilians, and families, and are aggressively working to
decrease the stigma with seeking behavior health care.
Sexual assault and sexual harassment have no place in our
ranks and diminish our readiness. Our recently published
Workplace and Gender Relations Survey of Active Duty Members
shows a decrease in prevalence and increase in reporting, but
there is much work to be done.
At the end of the day, the Army's people, the men and women
who serve our country today, along with their families, and all
those are vital to the security of our Nation.
I thank you for your continued support of the All-Volunteer
Army and look forward to your questions.
[The prepared statement of General McConville can be found
in the Appendix on page 34.]
Mr. Coffman. Vice Admiral Burke.

STATEMENT OF VADM ROBERT P. BURKE, USN, CHIEF OF NAVAL
PERSONNEL, UNITED STATES NAVY

Admiral Burke. Chairman Coffman, Ranking Member Speier, and
distinguished members of this committee, thank you for the
opportunity to appear before you to discuss Navy manpower,
personnel, training, education, and family support programs.
I am honored to represent the men and women of the United
States Navy. For 240 years, the Navy has been a cornerstone of
American security and prosperity. Now more than ever, the Navy
is important to national security and so are its people. As
Chief of Naval Personnel, I am responsible for ensuring our
ships, squadrons, submarines, and stations are fully manned
with sailors who are ready to undertake the many jobs and tasks
we ask of them. This responsibility includes finding and
recruiting talented individuals as well as executing training
pipelines that transform sailors into highly skilled maritime
warriors.
While the Navy has healthy recruiting, retention, and
manning today, it is vital we update policies that position us
to deal with challenges before we are confronted with a crisis.
As with the weapons systems we use, we must continue to refresh
our personnel system to keep pace with the rapidly changing
world, and we must do so with a sense of urgency. Our workforce
must be poised to adapt quickly to new and evolving threats as
we continue to work to attract and retain the very best sailors
in an increasingly competitive talent market.
We will continue to evaluate our policies, practices,
delivery systems, and when appropriate, we will pursue
additional avenues, with your help, to improve readiness and
also to provide sailors choice and flexibility.
Sailor 2025 is an effort we began a few years ago and is a
roadmap to help us do just that. Today it consists of about 45
different initiatives aimed at modernizing our personnel
management and training systems to more effectively recruit,
train, and manage our force while also improving the Navy's
warfighting readiness. At the foundation of these initiatives
is an effort to streamline and optimize our organizational
processes. Today, our success greatly depends upon the
extraordinary efforts of sailors and Navy civilians working
tirelessly to overcome an aging personnel business model in a
noncoherent and manually intensive family of 55 personnel IT
[information technology] systems. That is why we are
transforming the way we operate, leveraging modern commercial
IT capabilities and practices that will help us improve fleet
readiness and customer service to our sailors, reducing
operating costs and helping us to manage our organizational
data and programs.
Ultimately, this transformation is intended to holistically
improve the way we manage sailors' careers and deliver
personnel readiness to our Navy.
I look forward to working with you as we build the Navy of
tomorrow together, and I look forward to your questions. Thank
you.
[The prepared statement of Admiral Burke can be found in
the Appendix on page 47.]
Mr. Coffman. General Brilakis.

STATEMENT OF LTGEN MARK A. BRILAKIS, USMC, DEPUTY COMMANDANT
FOR MANPOWER AND RESERVE AFFAIRS, UNITED STATES MARINE CORPS

General Brilakis. Thank you.
Chairman Coffman, Ranking Member Speier, distinguished
members of the subcommittee, it is my privilege to appear
before you to discuss your Marine Corps.
Marines are the foundation of the Corps. They are the
services' most critical resource and always will be. Your
Marines are recruited, educated, trained, and retained to win
our Nation's battles. Everything we do in the Marine Corps must
contribute to their readiness and their ability to win in
battle.
Overall, Marine Corps recruiting and retention remains
strong. Our recruiters continue to find high-quality men and
women of character who want to take up the challenge to be
United States Marines. We will make our recruiting mission this
year, and we will have a start pool for next year above 50
percent. Over 99 percent of those who we will ship will be tier
1 traditional high school graduates or the equivalent.
We thank you for the increased end-strength authorization
in last year's NDAA [National Defense Authorization Act] that
takes us to 185,000 in the Active Component. This increase
serves to enable our retaining critical warfighting
capabilities while improving information-related capabilities
and capacities necessary in an increasingly dynamic operating
environment.
Along with the other services, the Marine Corps is
diligently preparing for the new Blended Retirement System
[BRS] that goes into effect on January 1st. This new system
represents the most significant change in military compensation
in many years. So the financial education of each Marine is a
priority. To this end, we have implemented an integrated
communications plan to increase awareness. I have personally
discussed the BRS at major installations with our leaders and
recently spoke to our prospective commanders course about the
challenge of preparing over 184,000 Marines in both the Active
and the Reserve Component for this important opt-in decision
during 2018. We must get this right. Thereafter, we will
closely be monitoring the BRS for any unintended consequences,
including those affecting retention.
Your Marines are proud of what they do. They are proud of
the Eagle, Globe, and Anchor, and what it and each Marine
represents to our Nation. With your continued support, a
vibrant Marine Corps will be ready to meet our Nation's call.
Thank you again for the opportunity to present this
testimony, and I look forward to your questions.
[The prepared statement of General Brilakis can be found in
the Appendix on page 60.]
Mr. Coffman. General Grosso.

STATEMENT OF LT GEN GINA M. GROSSO, USAF, DEPUTY CHIEF OF STAFF
FOR MANPOWER, PERSONNEL AND SERVICES, UNITED STATES AIR FORCE

General Grosso. Chairman Coffman, Ranking Member Speier,
and distinguished members of the subcommittee, thank you for
the opportunity to appear before you today to deliver the Air
Force personnel posture for fiscal year 2018.
America's Air Force is always there, providing global
vigilance, global reach, and global power to combatant
commanders around the world. However, being always there comes
at a cost to equipment, infrastructure, and, most importantly,
our airmen. Sustained global commitments and continued
budgetary uncertainty have diminished our ability to
successfully balance capability, capacity, and readiness.
Simultaneously, the Air Force experienced increased demand in
enduring missions and growth in new mission sets such as cyber,
remotely piloted aircraft, information surveillance and
reconnaissance, and special operations.
The Air Force is currently facing three distinct personnel
challenges: first, the need for increased end strength to
support current mission requirements; second, the national
pilot crisis; and, finally, meeting the quality-of-life and
quality-of-service needs of our airmen and their families.
Our first challenge is obtaining the end strength the Air
Force needs to support current mission requirements. We are
grateful for the congressional support to increase fiscal year
2017 Active Duty end-strength levels to 321,000 airmen. Even
with this increase, Air Force readiness depends on responsible
growth in fiscal year 2018 to a requested total force end-
strength level of 675,000 airmen. This growth is necessary to
support current operations.
Our second challenge is the national pilot crisis. As you
are aware, we discussed the pilot shortage at length in our
March 29 hearing. I would just add to that discussion that we
are meeting with several airline senior executives tomorrow to
seek ways to collaboratively address the national pilot
shortage.
The third challenge to note today is ensuring we meet the
quality-of-life and quality-of-service needs of our airmen and
their families. Our force readiness depends on a strong,
resilient force. We are increasing resiliency skills programs
by adding installation resilience trainers, evaluating military
family needs, and ensuring airmen exposed to combat and
traumatic events receive needed care. Unfortunately, working
against our resiliency efforts is any form of interpersonal or
self-directed violence, to include sexual assault and suicide.
Any number of incidents is one too many.
Additionally, violence is not always physical, as forms of
violence have bled into social media. Since my testimony to
this committee on the Air Force's social media policies, the
chief of staff chartered a working group to evaluate the
policies in place for appropriate conduct online and via social
media.
New guidance is currently in coordination. This guidance
will be punitive and will be completed and issued in the next
60 days.
As we move beyond our immediate challenges, we are planning
and preparing for the future. To do this, the Air Force
established a comprehensive human capital strategy across six
lines of effort to address talent planning, talent acquisition,
talent development and utilization, talent evaluation,
compensation and retention, and, finally, transition. Our
talent management strategy focuses on how to best leverage the
abilities of our total force airmen, maximize efficiencies, and
increase human performance to produce warfighters and leaders
for the Air Force and joint force.
To further our status, we established a Talent Management
Innovation Cell to rapidly identify and deploy initiatives
within existing authorities. As this team produces policies and
programs to better attract and retain talent, we will work with
our service partners and the Office of the Secretary of Defense
to present options to Congress to modify or add authorities as
needed.
Our talent strategy would not be possible without the
support and authorities Congress has already given us. For
example, we are using the Career Intermission Program authority
to provide career flexibility to our airmen and their families.
Additionally, the Air Force is grateful for congressional
support in continuation of direct hire authorities to hire
talented civilian airmen directly from our universities, expand
the access of professionals for our depots, and increase hiring
speed to bolster our cyber mission forces.
We also appreciate the authority granted for expanded
parental leave and the first aviation bonus increase in 18
years. The increased bonus will help alleviate our pilot crisis
by retaining more pilots after their initial Active Duty
service commitments.
Thank you for allowing me to cover our current personnel
challenges today and share with you how we are preparing for
the future. I look forward to your questions.
[The prepared statement of General Grosso can be found in
the Appendix on page 78.]
Mr. Coffman. Thank you, General Grosso.
First question to the Army, Lieutenant General McConville:
I am concerned--and I think the Oversight and Investigations
Subcommittee for the House Armed Services Committee looked at
this issue. And that is, in Afghanistan, force management
levels, and that what the combatant commander was, quite
frankly, forced to do, was kind of work with those numbers. And
in working with those numbers--for instance, helicopter units,
they displaced the enablers of the maintenance personnel with
civilian contractors, I believe at a higher cost--not only at a
higher cost, but really, I think, compromising the technical
skills of those enablers that didn't have the airframes to work
on while they were in Afghanistan. So what they did, so the
objective was, they only allowed so many uniformed military
personnel--to supplant some of those uniformed military
personnel with contractors. I think we need a policy of what we
are really not going to do in terms of enablers. Maybe the
policy was simply wrong to begin with. But I wonder if you can
reflect on that?
General McConville. Well, I can, as far as--I think it is
absolutely critical that we train the entire force. So having
commanded aviation units--actually, people tend to focus on the
pilots. But the maintainers, the people that fix the
helicopters, the people that refuel those helicopters, if they
don't deploy with you, you need to make sure that they are
getting the training someplace else, because, if not, those
aircraft will not fly, and when you return from that
deployment, the pilots redeploy from that deployment, you will
not have a unit that is ready to go to combat. So I think it is
very, very important that, if the troops did not deploy with
all their enablers, those enablers have the opportunity to get
the training. And that is what we are doing right now.
Mr. Coffman. And I guess it is at our policy level to say,
you know, it is simply wrong to send those aircraft frames
without the enablers simply because we are trying to show the
American people that our numbers, our troop numbers, are down,
when the reality is we are just substituting uniformed military
personnel for higher priced contractors in a war zone. And so I
just think that is inappropriate. And I think one thing that
this subcommittee will take a look at is, where do we draw the
line in terms of what is inappropriate for a civilian
contractor to do versus a uniformed military?
I would like to hear from each one of you. So many times I
think we talk more about the officer's side of the equation.
But on the enlisted side, what is the--a critical career field
that it is difficult to--I think accessions are not a problem,
I am assuming--but to retain. In terms of retention, what would
be a career field in your respective branch of service that is
difficult, in terms of retention, on the enlisted side?
Why don't we start with you, General Grosso?
General Grosso. Sir, on the enlisted side, we have,
actually, unprecedented retention, with the exception of five
career fields that we are following closely: cyber defense;
battlefield airmen, which is our PJs [pararescue specialists],
our SERE [survival, evasion, resistance and escape
specialists], our TACPs [tactical air control party
specialists]; intelligence; explosive ordinance disposal; and
then select nuclear enterprise specialists.
Mr. Coffman. This is on the retention side?
General Grosso. This is on the retention side, yes, sir.
And we use the tools that you have given us: selective
reenlistment bonuses, career status retention bonuses, things
that we can do in the assignment process, giving more
flexibility and more say in the assignment process, watching
family issues to understand if there are some family challenges
there. But we have over 200 enlisted specialties. So this is a
small subset that we are not----
Mr. Coffman. What is the most critical out of the five?
General Grosso. We don't have a way to--we don't rate these
one to five. We don't think of it that way. Although, we
don't--we are not retaining enough of these specialties to
sustain the force, and we focus on all of these to fix
individually.
Mr. Coffman. General Brilakis.
General Brilakis. Sir, thanks. We have some fields: cyber--
--
Mr. Coffman. Okay.
General Brilakis [continuing]. Some intel fields, HUMINT
[human intelligence], counterintel [counterintelligence]. Those
have been challenged with retentions. Part of the challenge,
some of our MOS [military occupational specialty], especially
in cyber, are what we call lat [lateral] move MOSes. So we take
junior Marines from various MOSes and give them those
requirements, because it is very technical, very difficult
training. There are incentives that we use to attract those
individuals. And we are taking a look at how we have contracted
them in the past and how we will do it in the future, whether
we finish the training, get your certification, and then you
serve out your contract length.
So there are a number of different MOSes--in the combat
arms, we are doing very well. In the aviation community, we are
doing very well.
Mr. Coffman. Okay.
General Brilakis. It is really in those low-density, high-
demand MOSes and some of the more highly technical MOSes where
we are having some retention challenges. We use the SRBs
[selective reenlistment bonuses], and we have in the past used
an operating--what we call an OpFor Kicker.
Mr. Coffman. Vice Admiral Burke.
Admiral Burke. Yes, sir.
For the Navy, our number one challenge continues to be our
nuclear-trained enlisted rating. And then a very close tie
there would be the linguists and the cryptology specialists,
almost identical vocational aptitude requirements, you know,
required both through recruiting nukes and the linguists. So
they are both a recruiting challenge and a retention challenge.
And then, on the retention front, number three and four
after that would be cyber offense and defense, and then all the
advanced electronics fields. And we are managing all of those
retentionwise with the SRBs. We are having to start to ratchet
those numbers back up.
Mr. Coffman. Thank you.
Lieutenant General McConville.
General McConville. Cyber is huge for training.
Mr. Coffman. Okay.
General McConville. These kids come in with incredible
capabilities. And then we start to get into the languages and
cryptology type things where they are very marketable to other
organizations.
Mr. Coffman. Okay.
Okay. Ranking Member Speier.
Ms. Speier. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you to our
witnesses again.
I am trying to get handle on the 2017 NDAA.
Lieutenant General McConville, the Army had an addition of
how many? Is it 16,000?
General McConville. It is 16,000, ma'am, in the Active. It
is 28,000 total. So our Reserve had--National Guard had an
increase of 8,000 and Reserve had an increase of 4,000.
Ms. Speier. Okay. And the Navy, Vice Admiral?
Admiral Burke. We were nearly flat.
Ms. Speier. Flat.
Marines?
General Brilakis. Ma'am, we had a 3,000-person increase in
the Active Component, none in the Reserve Component.
Ms. Speier. Air Force?
General Grosso. Ma'am, 4,000 in the Active Component and a
steady state in the rest.
Ms. Speier. Okay. So let's start with you, General
McConville. It appears that you were originally going to have
to reduce your strengths by some 16,000 or 15,000. And then,
all the sudden, it reversed to an increase of 16,000. How did
you accomplish that? And what is the cost associated with that?
General McConville. Well, when we started the year--I will
talk about the Active Force--it was 475,000 starting the year.
And we were on a path to reduce the Active Component to
460,000. So we are basically going to--if nothing happened, if
the NDAA 17 didn't come out, we would have reduced the Army by
15,000. The authorization we got was 476 [thousand]. So it
stopped the reduction, the drawdown. But the Army is coming
down. So all the systems were set to bring the Army down. So
what we are doing is, is we were in a drawdown, and now we are
reversed from that drawdown. What we did was we went ahead and
increased our enlistments by 6,000. We retained 9,000 more
soldiers in the field. And we increased our officer accessions
by a thousand to get that 16,000.
Ms. Speier. Vice Admiral Burke, you didn't have--you were
flatlined. Okay.
Lieutenant General Brilakis.
General Brilakis. All right. Yes, ma'am.
We were at 202,000 at the height of our strength. And we
were coming down some 20,000. We got down to--we were heading
down to 182,000. We did that over the course of 4 years. Then-
Commandant Dunford requested a 1-year extension to stay at
184,000. And so where we found ourselves was a little bit below
184,000. The Congress gave us the additional 3,000. And so we
were going to meet that by accessing 2,000 additional Marines.
And we have been very clear. We are not going to compromise on
quality. And so we will make the rest of it up in the coming
year. Because the law came later in the year and the money came
even later, we did not want to do any retention actions that
would compromise quality.
Ms. Speier. Okay. Lieutenant General Grosso.
General Grosso. Ma'am, we reached a low in fiscal year 2016
of 311,000. So we had a big push in fiscal year 2016 where we
grew to 317,000. And to do that, we had to put some additional
resources into the recruiting effort, both people and dollars.
But we had the capacity in our training infrastructure. So I
can get you the dollar cost of that.
Ms. Speier. Okay. So advertising, how much do you spend on
advertising for each of your services?
General McConville. About $230 million.
Ms. Speier. Advertising?
General McConville. For marketing. For total marketing.
Ms. Speier. Wow. Okay.
Navy?
Admiral Burke. Ma'am, we have been on a declining trend:
2017's budget is $47 million; that is down from $56 million 2
years prior.
General Brilakis. The ideal requirement is $100 million.
The fact is we were budgeted about $82 million this year.
Ms. Speier. Okay.
General Grosso. We are about $110 million for advertising.
Ms. Speier. Okay. So, if we add you all up together, we are
looking at close to, what, $450 million, give or take.
How do we measure the value? I mean, because you advertise
at NASCAR [National Association for Stock Car Auto Racing], how
do we know--what are the deliverables from that?
General McConville. Well, what we have is we have metrics
that we look at. And some of the metrics include how many
people that were not favorable toward maybe serving in the
military. By the basis of advertising, we track influences, how
many people are favorable, how many people come on to our Go
Army social media. And then we track the investment of those
dollars and the return on how many leads we get of young men
and women that want to actually come into the Army.
Ms. Speier. So, in politics today, you know, the cost of
advertising is very high, whether it is print or TV. And there
is a whole movement to social media, which is much cheaper. So
I am curious to what extent--my time is out--so maybe in the
second round we can talk about it. It seems like we would be
much better served to take that money, put some of that into
social media, and reduce what we are spending on some of these
boutique operations that we have going on. And it sounds like,
basically, from most of you, with the exception of Lieutenant
General Grosso, that you are not having any problem filling
these vacancies. It appears some of the issues are around
retention, particularly in cyber and intelligence. But we can
address that second round.
Thank you.
Mr. Coffman. Thank you, Ms. Speier.
Mr. Bacon, you are now recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. Bacon. Thank you. I want to thank each of you for your
leadership. And I think you each have a tough job. And I think
Congress owes each of the services better. We have raised
money. We have cut money. We have done sequesters. We have done
CRs [continuing resolutions]. And that always impacts how many
people we have in each of the services.
And after 30 years of experience myself, people are at the
end of that whip, going up and down. And I think we owe you
more stability and more predictability. So we are going to work
hard to do that.
I want to ask each of you: What is the number one reason
for an officer in your service, the number one reason for an
enlisted in your service, to decide to get out early? I just
want to see what we can learn from it. I will just start off
with General McConville.
General McConville. I think many come in to serve. What we
are seeing is they are taking the opportunities. They are
taking the training. They want to serve their country. And they
want to live the American dream. You come in; you serve your
country for a tour. That is what we like them to do. They take
the GI Bill. They go off to college, raise a family. And what
we want them to do is become soldiers for life, and go out
there and hire our vets in their occupations and also inspire
other young men and women to serve. And what we have found is
79 percent of our recruits that come into the Army have a
family member that has served. So we have kind of tasked them
to do that.
Mr. Bacon. Thank you.
Admiral Burke.
Admiral Burke. Sir, it is the same thing for the Navy. You
know, whether they stay in for a career in the Active Component
or they go in the affiliate Reserves or go on and be a great
citizen and advocate for the Navy in society.
You know, some folks come in to get an education. They come
in to grow up and learn about themselves, set themselves up for
another walk in life.
Some folks don't necessarily agree with the long periods of
family separation and deployment life that the seagoing service
has. So that is probably number one.
Mr. Bacon. I did one tour on the Carl Vinson, and I can
speak, that was an experience for this airman.
Admiral Burke. Yes, sir.
General Brilakis. Yes, sir. Thirty-nine years ago, I signed
on with the intention to serve 3 years.
Mr. Bacon. Uh-huh.
General Brilakis. I was going to go be a captain of
industry with my business degree. And here I am after two times
where I actually thought about leaving the service, but I
decided----
Mr. Bacon. Someone did a bait-and-switch on you somehow.
General Brilakis. That is right, sir.
Seventy-five percent of every annual cohort that we recruit
will leave the service.
Mr. Bacon. Right.
General Brilakis. With two-thirds of the Marine Corps in
the operating forces, it is a young force. And we have no place
to put everybody in the career force. We have youngsters that
join the Marine Corps to do just that: join the Corps, prove
themselves, join the team. Whether they joined to fight in the
last decade or whether they are joining to serve, as they are
doing now, those individuals joined the Marine Corps to get
that experience, to be that Marine. We try to mold them and
send them back to be good citizens. But we have got a lot of
folks who have got a plan in life, and the Marine Corps is part
of that plan. And staying in the Marine Corps is not part of
that plan. And I think I can say the same thing for our
officers.
Mr. Bacon. Thank you.
General Grosso.
General Grosso. I think the number one reason they tell us
is separation from family. So, when you are at that point where
either your enlistment is up or your officer doesn't have a
commitment, they evaluate their situation and their
predictability to be separated and make a decision.
Mr. Bacon. Just from my own personal experience, I think
when the family member has said they have had enough, it is
hard for the Active Duty member or Guard and Reserve to stay
in. We are over having a good time--enjoying ourselves, or the
morale, the mission, inspires us. But when the family has said
they have had enough, it is hard to stay in.
I would also just point out, my experience has been when we
feel like we are part of an elite service, with modern
equipment, great training, people want to be part of the elite.
But when we have cut training, have 25-year-old equipment, that
also undermines our retention.
So one other question for my time here. What are the rates
of your nondeployable folks? I think we are growing--I am
hearing, anecdotally, anyway, that some of the services, that
number is growing, which means it is falling on fewer and fewer
people, which means then they have more health problems and
becomes a cycle. Are you seeing the trends growing for your
nondeployables for health reasons? And should we fix that
somehow?
General McConville.
General McConville. The Army, we are about 10 percent
nondeployables. We have actually come down from the peak of the
war where we were running about 14 to 15 percent.
What we are doing is really, at every phase of when we
bring soldiers, we put in an occupational and physical
assessment tests. So you have to get in shape before you start
initial military training. Then when you come to initial
military training, if you are not ready to start, we get you in
shape there. And when come to the unit, we are usually putting
physical therapists in the unit because what we are finding is
musculoskeletal injuries are the biggest cause of soldiers
being nondeployable, and we have got to work them through the
whole cycle to make that happen.
Mr. Bacon. Admiral Burke.
Admiral Burke. In the Navy, we have about 335,000 Active
Component folks. We have a little less than 2,000 that are
nondeployable because of legitimate medical issues. And then we
have got about 18,000 that are overdue for their dental exams.
And that is something that we continuously work on. We are in
the midst of changing our program for overseas and sea duty
screening to make it on par with our physical fitness program,
put the onus on the individual; it has to be done at certain
period densities. So we are changing that paradigm.
And then the only other factor is operational holds for sea
duty for pregnant women. But very, very low numbers.
Mr. Bacon. Thank you. I know I am out of time, Mr.
Chairman. But hopefully they can--maybe the rest can answer the
question. I defer to you.
Mr. Coffman. Yeah. Go ahead and finish.
General Brilakis. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Sir, you have got a couple of different types of
nondeployables: those in the brig, those in the hospital, those
that are in the Integrated Disability Evaluation System, et
cetera. Those are kind of the long-term nondeployables. And
then you have the short term, those that go to the hospital,
get a surgery, come back, rehabilitate, and come in and out. I
can't give you the exact numbers. They are something we track.
I have to brief the Commandant on them quarterly and explain to
him.
As far as that goes, we have taken efforts, steps, to
reduce the backlog in the Disability Evaluation System. We are
making progress as far as that goes. We have got just over
2,000 Marines in that particular process.
That is a complex question, but I would be happy to have
that discussion with your staff offline.
General Grosso. Myself as well. I did not bring that data
with me, but I will be happy to get that to you.
Mr. Bacon. Thank you.
Mr. Coffman. Thank you.
Ms. Tsongas, you are now recognized for 5 minutes.
Ms. Tsongas. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and good afternoon to
our witnesses.
I appreciate the chance to talk with each of you today
about the military services recruitment efforts. And in
particular, I have an interest in the importance of recruiting
more women into the Armed Forces. Readiness depends--and
meeting all the needs that you all have--depends upon the
abilities of the services to take advantage of the talent pool
across all segments of society. And this is particularly true
when it comes to leveraging the talents of women, as they
constitute half of our citizenry and are proportionately
underrepresented in all the services.
So, with this in mind, I would like to ask all of you: The
most recent report of the Defense Advisory Committee on Women
in the Services, DACOWITS, notes that some of the services have
instituted, quote, ``credible, meaningful accession goals for
women,'' unquote, in connection with integration of women into
previously closed combat arms, military occupational
specialties in units. So I would like to ask each of you, have
you set such goals? And if you have, how you have adapted your
recruitment strategies to meet those goals?
General McConville. Well, for the Army, I would just like
to say we have 170,000 women in the United States Army right
now, which is a significant portion of the force. We have women
serving in every infantry, armor, and artillery battalion and
every brigade combat team in the Army. And we are seeing, as we
have opened up all the occupations to women, many more women
are serving. We are seeing places like West Point where--I was
the second class with women at West Point. When I went, in
1981, we were running probably 5 or 6 percent. We are seeing
rates of 24 percent in the classes coming in. So we are seeing
an increase.
We have not set exact goals. But in the field, recruiting,
we are actively recruiting women. And we need to because they
are high quality. And as we grow the Army, we are not going to
reduce the standards. So we need high-quality women and high-
quality everyone to come into the Army.
Ms. Tsongas. Admiral Burke.
Admiral Burke. Yes, ma'am. Today, the Navy is 18 percent
women.
The last 3 years, we have exceeded 25 percent women
enlisted accessions. This last year was almost 27 percent.
The Naval Academy graduating class this year will be almost
27 percent.
For us, it has become a readiness issue with technical
graduates, numbers of women with technical degrees growing and
the number of technical degrees that we rely on to do the jobs
that we have in the Navy. So it is an increasing readiness
issue.
We have drastically increased the mixed-gender
representation in our recruiting material. Last year, that
included shifts in what we do for special warfare, including
things that we do out in the field when we represent what we
call our warrior challenge rating. So that is SEAL [Sea, Air,
and Land teams], special warfare combat crews, EOD [explosive
ordnance disposal] divers.
And then we send out a lot of female representatives for
public events and things of that nature.
And then, the submarine force as well, we are doing quite
well in that area.
So, progress.
And then, in terms of where we are--what roles we are
moving those women into, which occupational specialties, or
ratings as we call them in the Navy, we are moving them into,
you know, fields that had been traditionally underrepresented
by women, increasingly moving them into technical fields and
increasingly--they are becoming increasingly comfortable in
those fields that had been previously underrepresented by
women.
So we need them in those fields. We need them to do those
jobs.
Ms. Tsongas. General Brilakis.
General Brilakis. Representative Tsongas, thank you.
We have no specific quota for women other than more. The
Commandant has put us on a trajectory to increase the number of
females represented in the Marine Corps. The initial goal is 10
percent. That is maximizing the existing infrastructure we have
for our recruit training. I owe him an answer at the end of the
summer on a plan to go to the next particular level as far as
that goes.
Accompanying that direction was decisions to improve the
quality of the young ladies that we bring into the Marine
Corps. We have seen an increase in their intelligence scores,
their physical fitness scores. We have seen a reduction in the
attrition at recruit training. And all those point to a
direction that Recruiting Command has taken the drive toward
quality seriously.
Then I think your question was really kind of focused on
quotas in the integration of our previously closed units. We
don't have any quotas. We don't have quotas for our male
Marines. Every individual that comes in to join the Marine
Corps, we ask them what they want to do, and we try and fit
that to what they are trying to aspire to.
Ms. Tsongas. Could you add a few minutes for General Grosso
to answer, Mr. Chairman?
Mr. Coffman. Yes.
General Grosso. Ma'am, we do have applicant goals for both
the Academy and for ROTC [Reserve Officer Training Corps].
Obviously, that doesn't mean they get accessed. And we have
seen the number of women going--increasing due to those
applicant goals. But we do have women in almost every skill in
the Air Force with the exception of those we just opened, our
high-end battlefield airmen. And we do targeted recruiting for
women across all of our skill sets.
Mr. Coffman. Mr. Kelly, you are now recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. Kelly. Thank you, Chairman. And thank each of you
witnesses for being here today.
Going back just real briefly on what I think General Bacon
asked--or Congressman Bacon asked--on nondeployables. I am one
of those guys who served 31 years in the Reserves and done
multiple deployments. It bothers me when you are permanently
nondeployable. Temporary is a whole different ball game. We
need to get those guys back in the fight, guys and girls back
in the fight. But these permanently nondeployables, if I play
in the NFL [National Football League] and I tear my ACL
[anterior cruciate ligament] and I can't run anymore and I
don't run a 4.4 anymore, I run a 4.9, I don't still get to play
football. So, if you can't go and do the things that you are
required by your country, then we need to look for a way to get
those guys into a thing, which leads me to my next point, which
is the new Blended Retirement System. And, guys, I am scared to
death of that because in our low-density MOSes in the Army--and
I speak Army speak more than I do the other--but Signal and MI
[Military Intelligence], and those very tough branches that you
have to have high scores to get in, the training is better in
the military than you can get in the civilian world. And so
there is a high pull to get those guys out. And the promotions
aren't there, necessarily, and the money. And with the Blended
Retirement Systems, we are going to lose those critical guys,
those captains and majors. We are going to lose those E-6s and
E-7s at the peak of their career. I am wondering, what are we
doing now to address that 12- to 14-year soldier or airman?
What are we doing now to address that, to make sure that we
don't get a huge retention problem 12 years from now?
General McConville. Well, from the Army standpoint, we are
moving from an industrial age personnel management system to
what I would call a talent management system. And, sir, your
point is well taken. It used to be, if you got someone past 10
years, you basically had them for 20. I find even today with
the young men and women, they are incredibly talented--but
having three that are in the service right now--they are
millennials, and they look at things differently than we do.
They want their talent managed. They want us to respect what
their knowledge, skills, and abilities. And we can't treat
them, you know, kind of like round pegs and expect them to go
through their career.
We are going to have to manage their talents. We don't know
yet what the Blended Retirement System is going to do. But
there are some opportunities here. There are opportunities, the
way the system is done, that we can give critical bonuses at
the 8 to 12 year. There are things that we have to do in the
system that are getting the folks in the right job, in the
right place, so they want to stay.
When we look at cyber, the MOS, if we can incentivize them
right, they will stay because they get to do things in the Army
that they can't do in the civilian world. And as you all
understand, there are some incredible things that they get to
do serving their country. We have to compensate them so the
families will stay.
Mr. Kelly. Yes, sir. Because I have one more question I
want to get to. So, if you can be quick, I would like to hear
from all of you real quick.
Admiral Burke. Yes, sir. From the Navy standpoint, similar
approach. With our Sailor 2025, it is about providing that
flexibility in those career choices. But, again, I think the
flexibility you gave us in the 2017 NDAA to control the timing
of that continuation pay. And then, as we adjust our selective
reenlistment bonuses around that, I think we are going to have
the latitude we need to be able to control the retention
behavior we need.
General Brilakis. Sir, it is incumbent on us to give our
Marines good training so they can make the choice, that opt-in
choice, and decide whether they want to remain in the legacy
system or go to the BRS. And then I concur with you: We don't
know what the retention behavior will be with the BRS.
General Grosso. I believe it is--we are going to have to be
agile in that continuation pay and have a modern system that
people want to stay in.
Mr. Kelly. And then my final question--and just real
briefly. I really want you to think about it, and if one of you
has a chance to answer, but I really want you to think about
this. In World War II, a lot of guys joined and they were
airborne because they got that $50 jump pay. I mean, it made a
big difference. We still give jump pay and jump status and
those things, and we have that. We really need to look at our
legacy soldiers, whether they are in cyber, and incentives to
make those special. You know, being airborne is special. And
being Air SOF [special operations forces] is special. We need
to do that with some of these low-density MOSes so that they
are special and there are incentives. And then the other thing
is those low-density MOSes, sometimes the promotion
opportunities aren't there. And that probably applies across
the Marine Corps and everywhere else. You know, we used to have
like the spec 7s and 8s. They are not necessarily going to be
leadership guys because they like doing the stuff that they do.
The guy who flies an airplane wants to fly an airplane. He
doesn't want to do some other things. And a guy who is in a
signal unit or communications or cyber doesn't want to go
command a company or a platoon. What he wants to do--so we
really have to look at ways to incentivize them to stay by the
pay. Are y'all looking at those kinds of things?
General McConville. Yes, sir. Absolutely.
Mr. Kelly. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I yield back. But
thank you.
Mr. Coffman. Thank you, Mr. Kelly.
Ms. Rosen, you are now recognized for 5 minutes.
Ms. Rosen. Thank you.
I want to thank the ranking member and everyone here for
their testimony today.
I want to build a little on that, especially in the areas
of STEM [science, technology, engineering, and mathematics]. I
have been working on some STEM opportunities acts. And so, as
you talk about the changing military and you talk about
retention and the millennials and what you have to do to get
people in linguistics and cyber--I am a computer programmer
myself by trade. You are going to have be--you talk about
deployables. They are deployed in a different way than maybe
somebody who is flying or going into another space.
So maybe they are deployed in a computer center, or they
are deployed operating drones. So how are you going to address
some of these changes where people are actually really deployed
here at home, maybe more of a desk job, maybe more of an
intellectual job? And what are you doing in our high schools
and universities to try to get these linguistics,
cryptologists, computer programmers, and the like?
Anyone can start. That is fine.
General Brilakis. Ma'am, just to break up the movement,
huh?
Ms. Rosen. Yeah. That is right. You don't always let him go
first.
General Brilakis. There is a pursuit for STEM both on the
civilian side and on the military side, and those individuals
who can come in and produce for the service. But, first and
foremost, we produce Marines. And while the cyber force, as it
is, is beginning to grow, we initially went after this as a
lateral move. So Marines who came in, prove their capability,
leadership skills, then move over, and get additional training.
We have recognized with the growth of that force, that we will
have to go into initial accessions as well.
So the challenge is: What is it that makes up that young
man or woman who wants to be a cyber Marine, and what are the
skill sets that we are looking for? What is their innate
ability? And what would indicate to us? So we are looking at
testing regimens to see whether or not we can help ourselves
qualify.
Those higher skill MOSes on the enlisted side, we do that
by seeking those that get good line scores within the ASVAB
[Armed Services Vocational Aptitude Battery], et cetera.
So we have been very interested in the whole STEM. How do
you pursue that? There are a number of different activities at
the services. I went to an Air Force sponsored cyber thing for
high school. It was fascinating. Those kids were doing pretty
amazing stuff. And I said we should send people to the next one
so we can start stealing from the Air Force because they have
come up with a really good thing. But those young men and women
are important to us. And we are working on recognizing that and
expanding our ability to reach out to them.
Admiral Burke. On the recruiting front, though, you do have
to plant the seeds early. So you have to get in even at the
middle school level. And you have to go to science fairs, and
you have to even sponsor those things. We do things similar to
what the Air Force does. And we have displays and science fair
types of activities to do, even hack-a-thons, and things like
that and like General Brilakis was talking about and just spark
the interest. And, you know, maybe at some point down the road,
they will associate that interest with the Navy and come back
and talk to us. So you have to plant that seed corn and get
that conversation going.
In terms of how you prepare that workforce then to--you
know, to work at a desk job, that is actually easier. So----
Ms. Rosen. Because your talent in some of these may be
people who don't necessarily see themselves as a certain type
of military man or woman, because they have maybe been in
science or doing other things where they may not physically see
themselves or emotionally see themselves in that way, but they
have the talent to do these kinds of things, which we need the
cyber iron dome, right?
Admiral Burke. You just have to get them interested in the
topic, and then show them the rest of the story, though, what
it looks like when they get there.
Ms. Rosen. Right.
Admiral Burke. Which may not be the World War II movie of
the military.
Ms. Rosen. Right. Right.
General McConville. We are actively recruiting STEM
students. And we have done that in ROTC where, if you want to
get an ROTC scholarship, there is a certain requirement. It is
really a shift. For a while there, I think we got away from
that. When we came in, you took engineering; you went to West
Point. It was primarily an engineering school. If you got a
master's, you got it in engineering. And we kind of shifted.
But we are coming back. And we are coming back in a pretty good
percentage because we need that foundation for a lot of these
future type skill sets. So we have done things where--you know,
Hack the Army, where we are going out to some--and our cyber
folks are really getting out there. And, again, a lot of the
young men and women are really excited about these
opportunities to use those skill sets. And even in the Army,
you still can serve in the Department of the Army civilian if
you cannot meet the physical standards----
Ms. Rosen. Right.
General McConville [continuing]. And still serve your
country. So we are offering multiple ways for people to serve
through STEM.
Ms. Rosen. Thank you.
General Grosso. Ma'am, I would just add that the mission
sells itself. And, really, a lot of it is us getting the word
out that we have these tremendous opportunities, because I
agree with you that people don't understand that there is
tremendous opportunity for STEM and cyber within the United
States military. So I go to a lot of mentoring events and a lot
of job fairs and talk to women and men about the opportunities
because they just don't know they exist. But then the mission--
this is what they want to do. And, as someone pointed out,
there are some things you can only do in the United States
military.
Ms. Rosen. Fantastic. Thank you so much for your time.
Mr. Coffman. Mr. Russell, you are now recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. Russell. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank each of you
not only for what you do but for being here today.
OPTEMPO [operational tempo], deployment-to-dwell ratios,
could y'all speak to that a little bit?
General McConville. Yes, sir. Many have thought the dwell
time has gone down because the troop levels have reduced in
Afghanistan and Iraq. And that is really not the case. You
know, we are rotating forces right now into Korea. We are
rotating forces into Kuwait. We are rotating forces into
Europe, along with Iraq and Afghanistan. So the dwell time has
not come down. And, you know, the way we are trying to get
after that is y'all have helped with growing the Army. By
having soldiers available to conduct these task missions is
helping us try to get that dwell time down.
Mr. Russell. Is it a 1:2 ratio? What are we looking at
here?
General McConville. In some cases, it is below that.
Mr. Russell. Really?
General McConville. Yes, sir.
Mr. Russell. Thank you.
Admiral Burke.
Admiral Burke. Sir, just to paint a picture, your pre-9/11
Navy had about 421 ships. On any given day, we had a hundred
ships deployed. Today, we have about 274 ships. On any given
day, we have a hundred ships deployed.
You know, we have kind of backed down from our days a few
years ago, having 9-month deployments. That is just deployed
overseas on mission.
And we have gotten back to more predictable schedules for
our sailors. But we are doing that by riding our ships harder
and keeping our sailors at sea longer. So it has come at a cost
to our sailors and their families.
Our sailors are doing it because we have gotten to be more
predictable. And as long as we can maintain predictability and
some expectation of what the schedule will be, they are willing
to continue to sustain that tempo.
Mr. Russell. Thank you.
General Brilakis.
General Brilakis. Mr. Russell, thank you.
The Marine Corps, like the Navy, is a deployed force,
rotationally deployed force, with units heading out to Okinawa,
out in the CENTCOM [U.S. Central Command] AOR [area of
responsibility], and now the special purpose MAGTFs [Marine
air-ground task forces] in Africa and also in the CENTCOM AOR.
On top of that, you have got some of the residuals for combat
operations, existing RFFs [requests for forces] that have gone
on and on. So what we found, we came out of combat expecting
this dep-to-dwell holiday. Never happened.
We have a number of units. And in the aviation community,
some units well below 1:2. Our infantry is just below 1:2. And
so we are deploying, we are coming back, and we are immediately
going into training cycle and deployment cycle, because you
deploy to train.
And so we are finding we are really roughing up not only
our Marines and their families, but the gear doesn't have
enough time to be reset. The training is being rushed before
you go to the deployment. And while we are meeting our deployed
requirements, the ready bench is a little bit ragged. The next
to deploy are okay. Those at rest, it is a bit of a challenge.
Sustaining this over time is going to be difficult. But the
185, the additional 3,000, really just enabled us to maintain
warfighting capability and introduce the new information
capabilities the Commandant believes are necessary for the
current fight in the battlefield of the future. So we still
have no solution right now in meeting all the demands from the
COCOMS [combatant commands] and also getting our arms around
the dep-to-dwell challenge.
Mr. Russell. General Grosso.
General Grosso. We have really never left the Middle East
since 1991. So what we find is, depending on the skill set--in
our high-demand/low-density, they do have much shorter, some
1:1, some 1:2. But I would say that is a small number of skill
sets. What we find, though, is that, even on a normal rotation,
what is happening when you come home, to get back up to speed
on all of your mission sets, you are not home when you are
home. And so something that we are spending a lot of time
looking at is the time when people are at home, how do we give
them more time? How do we give them more white space to spend
that time regrouping? And growing end strength will also help
us tackle some of that OPSTEMPO.
Mr. Russell. And I think, you know, one of factors, too,
that you look at on returning units is about a third of your
warriors will leave just at the end of their enlistments or in
attrition. And then, of those that you have, you are
integrating a new batch. And then you have noncommissioned
officers and officers that you got to get to the training so
that they can improve their skill sets and, in the meantime,
doing all of the refit, reorganization. And I don't think that
is often appreciated enough. You know, so that is why I asked
the question.
I, like you, share great concerns over the Blended
Retirement System. I think it makes us very vulnerable. It will
be interesting to see in fiscal year 2018 who opts for old
versus new. I am not sure we have got a solution there.
And then, the last concern, Mr. Chairman, just a comment,
our continued cutting of incentives. BAH [basic allowance for
housing] now, on post, we are making soldiers pay living on
post, BAH shortfalls. It was Congress that screwed that up.
So the more incentives we cut, the old adage: Nothing is
too good for the troops, and nothing is what we will give them.
We have got to turn that around.
So thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back.
Mr. Coffman. Thank you, Mr. Russell.
Dr. Wenstrup, you are now recognized for 5 minutes.
Dr. Wenstrup. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you all for
being here today. I appreciate it.
So we have had really good conversation today, and the
balance that you try to have with recruitment, retention, the
quality of troops that you bring in, the opportunities that you
offer someone who is joining the military, and the
opportunities that they may have when they leave the military.
Those are all components that go into someone making up their
mind to serve, whether it is 4 years or for 20 years. I know
when I hit about 12, I decided I was going to go for 20, and
that made the most sense.
And then the other thing that was discussed today too is,
what do our numbers look like compared to the requirements of
each branch and of the military, the downtime, all these things
that you have to, you know, be considering and balancing all
the time to meet the current expectations and needs, and
hopefully the future expectations and needs of our military?
And I just would love to hear what you consider to be a
couple of the greatest challenges you have in blending all of
those things together as you look to the future, as you look
to--well, not only today, but if you look 10 years down the
road, the world we are living in today. And, more so, what can
Congress do to help you in that challenging mission?
And we will start on the other end and go the other way.
General Grosso. Sir, I would say that what you can do to
help us the most is stable funding over an extended period of
time, because the ups and downs, especially from a military
manpower perspective, are impossible. If you just look at the--
we have been decreasing since 1991, and took a hard right up.
Even on our civilian workforce, it is very, very difficult to
manage a stable human capital strategy.
General Brilakis. Sir, I will echo General Grosso's comment
with respect to funding. Extended CRs, short periods of time to
spend additional cash, not doing it responsibly, et cetera, is
really a challenge for all of us.
What our Marines expect, they expect good training, they
expect good weapons, and they expect a good mission.
Admiral Burke. I would echo the stable funding comment. We
have the last 4 or 5 years kind of jump changes in end strength
for a number of different reasons that caused us to do somewhat
unnatural acts to meet those demands.
But then the other thing that happens is sometimes our
manpower overhead accounts, the things like the individuals
accounts and the transients accounts are attractive targets to
meet topline numbers. And even though you may have enough in
your accounts to pay for the bodies, if you don't have enough
to cover the overhead to have people in training you really
can't keep the total number of bodies in there.
Over the last 4 years, what that has translated to for the
Navy is an increasing number of gaps at sea. Today I am at
about 7,000 gaps at sea in my forward-deployed ships, and that
has been cascading over the last 4 years. And every year we
have looked to program our way out of that and it just becomes
an attractive target.
So you have to properly fund the overhead accounts as well
as the total end strength.
And then I think the continued support that you have given
us in the flexibility to help us, all of us are doing some form
of modernization of our personnel system, and we have
appreciated the flexibility that you have given us as we look
at that, because we all need to continue to take a look at
that. We appreciate that.
General McConville. Since timely and predictable funding
has already been covered, what I would just like to mention is
the qualifications of American youth. And right before
President Kennedy took office, he wrote a paper lamenting the
fact that only 50 percent of Americans were qualified to
basically serve in the military. We wish it was that today. It
is 25 percent.
And as we go in the future, we are going to have to take a
hard look at the ability to get these extraordinary young men
and women to serve, and we are going to have to be very
innovative to bring those qualified folks. And recruiting, even
though we make it, at least for the Army, is a tough mission,
and we have got to work that every single day.
Dr. Wenstrup. Well, we could probably have another whole
hearing just on the reasons for 50 percent down to 25 percent,
and maybe we need to do that at some point.
But I appreciate it. And I also notice some unanimity there
on the stable funding. And I think everyone here recognizes
that need, and I hope that we address that as we move forward.
Thank you.
Mr. Coffman. I have got sort of four questions related to
accessions, and if you could go through them very quickly,
because we are limited in time.
One is, what is your attrition rate during the first
enlistment through administrative or adverse separation?
Two, have you developed better screening tools in terms of
recruiting to not take those people in or a certain profile of
individuals that you could, in terms of recruiting, that you
have learned not to take through some kind of measure?
Why is it that we are getting on the MEP [Military Entrance
Processing], in MEP side, why do we have a gap between people
that are accepted, deemed physically qualified, sent to recruit
training, and then not deemed physically qualified, and sent
back home at taxpayers' expense? You know, it is expensive. And
why do we have that gap?
And then I want to know how many personnel that you have
totally engaged in recruiting, not just line recruiters, but
support staff and command staff as well.
Who is ready to go?
General McConville. I am ready to go.
Mr. Coffman. Yes. Lieutenant General McConville.
General McConville. Twenty-eight percent attrition.
Mr. Coffman. In the first tour of duty?
General McConville. Yes, sir.
Mr. Coffman. Twenty-eight percent?
General McConville. That is down from 35 percent.
Mr. Coffman. Wow.
General McConville. Yes, sir. And then as far as screening,
we have two things in place----
Mr. Coffman. I don't mean in terms of reenlistment. I just
mean administrative or adverse.
General McConville. I am talking people because of
misconduct, physical injuries, do not finish their first term.
Mr. Coffman. Wow. I am very surprised. Okay.
General McConville. It was running about 35 percent.
Mr. Coffman. Wow.
General McConville. And so it is coming down, and we are
working that. And that is why we have put a lot of things in
place.
And you talked about screening. We put an occupational
physical assessment test in place. We have a TAPAS [Tailored
Adaptive Personality Assessment System] test; we are trying to
get the right psychological fit. And we are doing longitudinal
studies to allow us to bring those numbers down.
Mr. Coffman. Okay. So then why the disparity in the
physicals?
General McConville. That is something we need to--I need to
take that for the record.
Mr. Coffman. Please do.
[The information referred to can be found in the Appendix
on page 97.]
General McConville. We know that happens, but we haven't
been able to--you know.
Mr. Coffman. You don't know how many total personnel you
have in recruiting?
General McConville. Oh, 12,000, about 12,000. I will get
you for the record, but it is about 12,000 with staff and
recruiters.
[The information referred to can be found in the Appendix
on page 97.]
Mr. Coffman. Okay. Vice Admiral Burke, your attrition rate
first tour of duty?
Admiral Burke. Is around 15 percent, about 12 percent in
boot camp, 3 thereafter. And we are looking at some--we have
screening tests in place. We are looking at some additional
ones for destructive behavior profiling that we are piloting
right now.
The MEPS [Military Entrance Processing Station] versus our
service screening, we think we have a problem within our own
Navy medical community that we are looking to close the loop,
that we are being unnecessarily conservative. And we are
continuing to work that.
I will have to come back to you on the exact numbers, but I
think we are around 5,000 total, about 3,000 recruiters and
about 2,000 additional.
[The information referred to can be found in the Appendix
on page 97.]
Mr. Coffman. Okay.
General Brilakis.
General Brilakis. Mr. Chairman, non-EAS [end of active
service] attrition can be folded a number of different ways,
but the short answer is less than 10 percent.
Mr. Coffman. Less than the 9 percent?
General Brilakis. Less than 9--less than 10; 10 to 9
percent.
Mr. Coffman. During the whole first term? Okay.
General Brilakis. Well, during the whole first term----
Mr. Coffman. First enlistment.
General Brilakis [continuing]. Year over year, I can't--I
will take that for the record.
[The information referred to can be found in the Appendix
on page 97.]
Mr. Coffman. Okay. But it is 9 percent in boot camp?
General Brilakis. Our non-EAS attrition annually is less
than 10 percent.
Mr. Coffman. I am just concerned about in the first
enlistment.
General Brilakis. First enlistment.
Mr. Coffman. That is all.
General Brilakis. I have got to get you that answer.
Mr. Coffman. Okay.
General Brilakis. Yes, sir.
Mr. Coffman. General Grosso.
General Grosso. I don't have first enlistment, but I do
know 6 percent is our basic training.
Mr. Coffman. Wow.
General Grosso. So I will get you that for the first
enlistment.
Mr. Coffman. Okay.
[The information referred to can be found in the Appendix
on page 97.]
General Brilakis. You want to follow up with the rest of
those?
Mr. Coffman. Yeah. Well, how about very quickly, MEPs, why
is there a disparity?
General Brilakis. So the screening tools, a recruiter is
the best screening tool we have. The process is probably the
best----
Mr. Coffman. But on the health side?
General Brilakis. On the health side in MEPCOM [Military
Entrance Processing Command], I would have to look at a
particular specific. I can't--I know that we had a case--we had
a situation at one point where we had problems with the
calibration of the hearing--the hearing test at some of the
MEPs and it wasn't translating. That, I know, has been taken
care of. We also had an issue in Colorado with lordosis, which
I don't want to get into explanation of what that condition is.
Mr. Coffman. Sure.
General Brilakis. But we got that fixed through working
through the process.
We have 5,300 Marines involved in recruiting.
Mr. Coffman. Fifty-three hundred?
General Brilakis. Yes, sir.
Mr. Coffman. And that is support personnel, staff?
General Brilakis. Joint headquarters, production
recruiters, nonproduction recruiters. That is it.
Mr. Coffman. Okay.
General Grosso. We have 2,300 people in our recruiting
infrastructure. We are working on better screening tools. And I
will have to take for the record the MEPs question.
[The information referred to can be found in the Appendix
on page 97.]
Mr. Coffman. Okay.
Ms. Speier.
Ms. Speier. This is all really helpful. It is interesting
that the Marines have 5,300 in recruiting and yet 182,000 in
the Marine Corps; Air Force has half as many recruiting and has
317,000.
Do you want to address that, General?
General Brilakis. Yes, ma'am. This year we will have 38,000
enlisted non-prior-service accessions. But as I mentioned, we
are a young force. Two-thirds of the force is in the operating
forces. Every 4 years we turn over 75 percent of each cohort. I
had the second-largest recruiting mission of all the Armed
Forces.
Ms. Speier. Because there is such a high turnover, is that
what you are saying?
General Brilakis. That is correct, yes, ma'am.
Ms. Speier. And so we need to look at why.
General Brilakis. Because we are an inexpensive and we are
a young force. The model that was created, because I can only
put so many first-term Marines into the career force, because
there isn't that much of a career force.
Ms. Speier. Got it. Got it. Okay.
I am going to ask you to provide this to us for the record.
So I would like for you to each provide us with how you spend
your advertising budget, TV, sponsor of events, and the like.
[The information referred to can be found in the Appendix
beginning on page 98.]
Ms. Speier. General Grosso, in particular, I was at a
Michigan game not so long ago in which they had Air Force
planes flying overhead and then they had them skydive into the
stadium, which was exciting to watch, but I couldn't help but
sit there thinking: How much is this costing us? So if all of
you would provide that, that would be helpful.
In terms of the Navy, Admiral Burke, the anticipation of
having 355 ships would be a huge increase in personnel. What
are you doing in contemplating that? What tradeoffs will the
Navy be prepared to make to meet that financial commitment?
Admiral Burke. Well, in terms of the manpower increases,
the exact number will depend on what the makeup of that new
force construct exactly would look like. So the answer is it
depends. You know, that is obviously still being discussed.
Ms. Speier. Well, if we add these ships, have you done an
analysis of how many additional sailors and civilians you will
need?
Admiral Burke. We have done bounding analyses. Again, the
discussions are anywhere between 12 to 14 carrier strike groups
and then the composition of those. And then we think that that
force also needs to be a mix of manned and unmanned vessels as
well, so that could also reduce the manpower increase. But we
are very much looking at that. And then the timeframe and the
speed at which we build those vessels. So the answer is it
depends. But anywhere from 20,000 to 40,000 additional sailors,
depending on how we bound it.
The infrastructure that we have in place in terms of our
Recruit Training Command is sufficient given shipbuilding
timelines to put enough sailors through there. We would have to
ramp up additional drill, recruit division commanders, and
perhaps additional training capacity, but probably not
additional infrastructure is where we are with that right now,
ma'am.
Ms. Speier. Okay. We spent some time asking the question
where your retention areas were, and many of you referenced
cyber and intelligence in particular. I wonder to what extent
those functions should be filled by civilians and the focus be
placed there, with the expectation that you are putting someone
in the military in those positions, they are so attractive to
companies outside, that you are going to have them moving
through there very quickly and constantly in a retraining mode.
That is just an aside.
It appears that the number one issue here is retention--or
attrition, depending how you look at it, I guess, in some
respects. If you have a high attrition rate, then the costs of
retraining are significant. So you want to reduce the attrition
rate, is where we want to go, correct?
So I would be interested in knowing what other--and I am
running out of time, so maybe for the record as well--what
other programs, policies we should contemplate to address the
attrition rate and find ways to reduce it.
[The information referred to can be found in the Appendix
beginning on page 98.]
Ms. Speier. With that, I yield back, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Coffman. Just one very quick point. I think we are
still locked into the promotion structure of, I think, the
height of Iraq and Afghanistan. And is the promotion system too
fast? When the ranking member talked about retention and the
cost of training, the fact that it seems to be very competitive
in a lot of career fields to stay in, are we forcing good
people out that should otherwise stay in, by virtue of our
promotion system? Would anybody like to answer that?
Admiral Burke. Sir, I would like to take that one, the
question. I think we do--we are very much taking a look at--you
know, from a sustainability standpoint, we have a very broad
personnel pyramid, very large at the base, that still very much
assumes we can bring people in in large volume and
inexpensively.
So a lot of our Sailor 2025 programs are aimed at narrowing
the base of the pyramid, make it a little taller, so longer
careers, and perhaps allowing more opportunities to repurpose
the career, let people change their specialties throughout a
career.
We can relatively easily do that on the enlisted side with
the authorities that we have, and we are doing that in Sailor
2025. A little harder to do that on the officer side without
some additional policy relaxations, and we are working with
your teams to explore those opportunities.
Mr. Coffman. Anybody else? Okay. Anybody else? Yes.
General McConville. Mr. Chairman, the way our model works
with the pyramid in law is only 10 percent of enlisted soldiers
really can make it to 20 years and 30 percent of officers serve
a full career. That is kind of how the model works. And this
has been especially exacerbated during the drawdown when we
went from 570,000 soldiers on the way to 460,000. So almost
100,000 soldiers either attrited or were asked to leave that
may have been fully qualified from the Army over the last 5
years.
Mr. Coffman. Anybody else? Yes.
General Grosso. On the enlisted side, we allow people to
stay that haven't been promoted. So I would share that with
you, and that is the first commander.
On the officer side, we for longest time to major, we have
had a 95 percent promotion rate. So I wouldn't make the
argument that we are losing talent because of the promotion
system.
General Brilakis. Sir, we promote to vacancy. We have a lot
of platoon leaders, we have a lot of squad leaders, and a lot
of Marines. They move their way up, and I have fewer spots for
folks as we go. So the up-or-out system, the way we do
business, makes it very competitive, allows us to find the
talent. And we have processes in place where individuals who
have devoted a good chunk of their life to service are allowed
to be continued to 20 years, staff sergeants and majors.
Mr. Coffman. Okay.
Ms. Speier, anything else?
I wish to thank the witnesses for their enlightening
testimony this afternoon.
There being no further business, the subcommittee stands
adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 4:47 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.]

=======================================================================

A P P E N D I X

May 17, 2017

=======================================================================

PREPARED STATEMENTS SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD

May 17, 2017

=======================================================================

[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

=======================================================================

WITNESS RESPONSES TO QUESTIONS ASKED DURING

THE HEARING

May 17, 2017

=======================================================================

RESPONSES TO QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY MR. COFFMAN

General McConville. Applicants are not allowed to access into the
Army unless they are deemed physically qualified by the Military
Entrance Processing Command Chief Medical Officer. In addition to
confirming that applicants are medically qualified to succeed in
training, the Army instituted the Occupational Physical Assessment Test
(OPAT) in 2017 to predict a recruit's aptitude for performing physical
tasks in the Army's most physically demanding occupations. Applicants
are contracted for specialties only when their performance on the OPAT
indicates they will succeed. [See page 23.]
General McConville. The Army has 11,932 Soldiers serving as
recruiters in the Regular Army, Army Reserve and Army National Guard.
[See page 23.]
Admiral Burke. Navy currently has a recruiting cadre of 6,096
Sailors, composed of 4,855 production recruiters and 1,241 support and
command staff. [See page 23.]
General Brilakis. The Marine Corps has historically maintained a
low rate of unintended attrition outside of our total force model
compared to the other services. Approximately 7% of enlisted Marines do
not complete boot camp and 13% do not complete their initial contract
for a variety of reasons to include medical, misconduct, and
performance. Currently, the average annual non EAS attrition rate is
4.5% of the total enlisted force. [See page 24.]
General Grosso.

Active Duty First Term Enlistment Category Involuntary Discharges--from FY 2012 thru FY 2017
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FY # First Term Inventory # First Term Involuntary Discharges %
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2012 121,671 1,410 1.2
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2013 123,528 1,250 1.0
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2014 120,595 1,333 1.1
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2015 121,960 1,060 0.9
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2016 130,108 976 0.8
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2017 138,349 1,015 0.7
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[See page 24.]

General Grosso. Medical Screening--Air Force recruiters do a good
job of asking questions during the interview process to try and
identify any previous medical concerns, unfortunately potential
trainees have the ability not to disclose medical conditions and/or may
not know they have a medical condition. Our MEPS Medical staff does a
good job during the physical to identify disqualifying conditions,
etc., but again, potential trainees do not always disclose ailments.
Then when the trainee arrives in the training environment, some of
those ailments then become more apparent due to additional physical
activity, added stresses, etc. or trainees then start identifying these
``hidden'' issues as a way to drop out because of the stress of Basic
Military Training. We also have some trainees that make it beyond their
180-day mark and then start bringing attention to known or unknown
medical conditions. We also ensure trainees meet the ``additional'' Air
Force Specialty Code (AFSC) requirements some career fields have to
enter that specialty, flight physical, etc.
Occupational Screening--In reference to some of our higher
attrition career fields (e.g. Explosive Ordinance Disposal, Pararescue,
SERE, and TACP), we provide fact sheets which are required to be
understood and signed by applicants in conjunction with being
contracted for those positions. Our Battlefield Airmen/Combat Support
(BA/CS) career fields utilize contracted developers who conduct the
physical agility and stamina qualification tests, as well as provide
ongoing development until the applicant leaves for Basic Military
Training. We utilize the Air Force Enlisted Classification Directory
and additional manual Air Force Specialty Code qualification checks for
all of our career fields. We also have initiated the AF-WIN pilot which
is a career self-exploration tool that gives Air Force recruits an
opportunity to identify ``good fit'' enlisted Air Force careers based
on a series of simple job interest questions. [See page 24.]
______

RESPONSES TO QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY MS. SPEIER
General McConville. 1. How much was spent on marketing and
advertising overall in FY16: $189.8M
2. How much was spent on specific subset areas of marketing:
--Sports marketing: $10.37M
--Non-sports sponsorship in FY16: $3.15M (Education, Diversity)
--Advertising (media (broadcast and on-line)): $71,734,488
3. How much was spent on fly-overs in FY16: $0.00
[See page 25.]
General McConville. The Army is very interested in reducing
attrition, both for readiness and resourcing reasons. This is an area
that we monitor closely. It is essential to screen recruits, before
they ever sign a contract or ship to training. Current screening tools
are very useful, but we still lose 12% of recruits while they are in
initial entry training. The Army is testing the redesigned Tailored
Adaptive Personality Assessment System (TAPAS), a non-cognitive
assessment which helps predict the assimilation to Army life, job
satisfaction, and risk of attrition to include misconduct attrition.
Additionally in 2017, the Army implemented the Occupational Physical
Assessment Test (OPAT) for all new recruits. This assessment is used to
determine if a recruit will be able to meet the physical requirements
of a particular MOS. Screening for physical aptitude in the most
demanding combat arms occupations will improve MOS training and reduce
injury related attrition. Initial results already show a decrease in
attrition over the first six months of implementation. The Army would
like to see continued Congressional support of TAPAS and OPAT to reduce
attrition now and in the future. [See page 26.]
Admiral Burke. Navy spent $71.4 million for Marketing and
Advertising in fiscal year (FY) 2016. Navy spent $5.1 million on direct
sports marketing and advertising in FY2016. Additionally, we purchased
cable and broadcast media packages that run ads on various television
networks. In FY2016, 28 percent of the ads were run on sports networks
at a cost of $9.1 million. Approximately $500 thousand was spent to
execute the Department of Defense-regulated maximum of 40 flyovers in
FY2016 (nearly all in support of sporting events). In addition to
sponsorship of diversity and Science, Technology, Engineering, and
Mathematics (STEM) organizations, Navy continues to sponsor the ESPN
Winter and Summer X-Games, the Southern Heritage Classic, and the Army-
Navy football game. [See page 25.]
Admiral Burke. Navy has entered a ``War for Talent'' and we are
working to pull every available force management lever to maximize
retention and reduce attrition of highly skilled Sailors. Forthcoming
initiatives include:
expanding high-year tenure length-of-service gates for
Sailors in pay grades E-3 through E-6, which will allow them to remain
in the Navy longer and will provide them with additional advancement
opportunities.
initiating several pilot programs at Recruit Training
Command to improve the physical and mental fitness of Sailors during
initial recruit training. On January 1, 2018, we will institute a
minimum physical fitness standard that recruits must meet before
beginning training.
working with Military Entrance Processing Command (MEPS)
to reduce attrition at Recruit Training Command, by streamlining pre-
service identification of disqualifying medical conditions that
typically arise during initial recruit training.
revising our Physical Readiness Program separation policy
by eliminating the requirement to process Sailors for separation due to
Physical Fitness Assessment (PFA) failures. Under the revised policy,
enlisted Sailors will be retained for the duration of their enlistment
contract, and officers will be retained through completion of their
minimum service requirement.
Following PFA failure, Sailors will enroll in a Fitness Enhancement
Program that will offer focused care and the opportunity to work
towards compliance with fitness standards and eligibility for continued
career progression. Each year, Navy recruits, processes, and trains,
nearly 40,000 Sailors, and sends that same number home. Even if budgets
were unlimited, this turnover is inefficient, in terms of cost and
time. We must continue to find better ways to retain, and repurpose,
the talent in which we have already invested, and avoid incentivizing
Sailors to walk out the door. [See page 26.]
General Brilakis. Per your request, the Marine Corps' recruitment
advertising program requirement exceeds $100 million annually.
Total Marine Corps Recruiting Command Marketing and Advertising
spend in FY16 was $79.7 million. Total sports advertising and marketing
spend: $15,419,357 Total sports advertising and marketing percentage of
spend: 19.35%
Advertising alone (Traditional media: scale media/TV, digital,
mobile, et al) spend for FY16: $12,558,725 Advertising percentage:
15.76%
The Advertising program's key investments and measurable objectives
include:
1. Achieving DOD's JAMRS-validated, advertising industry baseline
levels of awareness. Specifically, exposing 50% of our prospect
audience, three times quarterly, to our advertisements via scale TV/
media investments. This accounts for approximately 50% of the Marine
Corps' advertising program spent. Beyond setting the conditions for
long-term mission effectiveness, scale TV/media spent has proven to
directly impact the amount of qualified leads and contracts the program
delivers and influences annually.
2. Delivering more than 20% of the command's net new contracts via
lead generation efforts. The three primary drivers of our lead
generation efforts are the web (which includes Marines.com), paid
search, and direct mail.
3. Delivering on-time essential recruiter support. Examples include
(but are not limited to) contracting for lead generating enhanced area
canvassing events that put our recruiters face-to-face with the
prospect market in communities across the nation. adequate collateral
sales material to facilitate informed discussions with prospects and
influencers, as well as promotional and incentive items intended to
drive contracting and advocacy for the Marine Corps.
Marketing spent (engagement activities with prospect youth that are
face-to-face) for FY16: $2,860,632
Marketing percentage: 3.59%
National-level spend: $821,169
National percentage: 1.03%
Region/District-level spend: $2,039,463
Region/District percentage: 2.56%
[See page 25.]
General Brilakis. The Marine Corps has historically maintained a
low rate of unintended attrition outside of our total force model
compared to the other services. Approximately 7% of enlisted Marines do
not complete boot camp and 13% do not complete their initial contract
for a variety of reasons to include medical, misconduct, and
performance. Currently, the average annual non EAS attrition rate is
4.5% of the total enlisted force. [See page 26.]
General Grosso. The AF Recruiting Service Commander issued guidance
severely restricting AF recruiting units from executing contracts with
professional sporting teams/organizations that might present the
appearance of impropriety or misuse of government funds. As a result,
AFRS did not execute any marketing or advertising with professional
sporting organizations (NFL, MLB, NBA, MLS, etc.) in FY16.
In FY16 HQ AFRS did execute five contracts that could be considered
sports related. Those contracts totaled $2,371,700.
a. Formula Drift Racing--$201,200
b. International Series of Champions snowmobile racing--$178,000
c. Steve Scheuring Speed Sports snowmobile racing--$127,500
d. For Inspiration and Recognition of Science and Technology
Robotics competition--$275,000
e. Richard Petty Motorsports--$1,590,000
In FY16, AFRS spent $68.4M on marketing and advertising for
recruiting purposes broken down as follows:
Category of Expense Amount Description
Recruiter Support Systems $15.2M Web sites, data mgmt, lead
collection, 1-800#, promo items
Advertising $18.7M On-line ads, Direct Mail, Social Media, Theater
ads, print ads
Television $17.9M Paid TV advertising
Public Engagement Events $16.6M Partnerships*, mobile tours,
professional convention space
Total $68.4M
During fiscal year 2016, Air Force units volunteered to provide
aerial support at 87 collegiate- and professional-level sporting
events. Each flyover is incidental to a previously programed training
mission and are flown in conjunction with training objectives,
specifically time-over-target and low-level visual flight requirements.
Because of this, the flyover program is run at no additional cost to
the government in accordance with 10 U.S.C. Sec. 2012 (d). More
information regarding flyovers and other community relations activities
can be found in a September 2016 GAO report (GAO-16-794), titled
``Community Relations DOD's Approach for Using Resources Reflects Sound
Management Principles'' which can be found at http://www.gao.gov/
assets/680/679912.pdf. [See page 25.]
General Grosso. Basic Military Training attrition since 2012
averages approximately 6% per FY. So far this FY we have brought in
22,589 Active Duty Airmen and lost 1,107 through attrition (4.5%). The
consistent top reasons for attrition from FY12-16 include medical
discharge, mental health, fraudulent enlistment, drugs/drug fraud, and
marginal performance. All top five categories remained consistent in
terms of percentages of actual trainee discharges from FY 16-17, we are
seeing a real drop in total numbers that takes into account that we
still have a full third of FY17 left.
The Air Force changed the accession process earlier this year. We
adjusted how we ask about pre-service drug use, focusing more on the
type of drug and tendency for future use vice a hard number. Air Force
Recruiting Service undertook a major program to educate their
recruiters on the importance of having potential recruits be open and
honest, and working waivers at the pre-accession level. Basic Military
Training introduced a pilot program in FY17 in 2 of their training
squadrons (through a grant with University of the Incarnate Word) to
work with trainees and Physical Training Noncommissioned Officers to
focus on preventative injury activities to lower attrition related to
stress fractures and other exercise-related issues. The 559th Medical
Group (associated with Basic Military Training) recently undertook a
major study in FY17 (looking back at least 10 years) to look into why
trainees were attriting as the result of mental health issues. Those
efforts identified two key areas: (1) non-disclosure of prior to
service mental health history; and (2) trainees using reports of
suicidal ideations as a means to self-eliminate from Basic Military
Training. As a result, recruiter training was modified to address
prior-to-service mental health history and ongoing manpower studies to
provide additional preventative support to trainees to reduce
instrumental suicidality as a means of self-elimination. [See page
26.]