the existence of civilian personnel ceilings had discouraged conversion of the positions to civilian positions. Examples follow. 1. At the Security Police Squadron, Travis Air Force Base, California, 19 military personnel were being used in clerical or administrative positions. Base officials agreed that civilians could be used in 13 of these positions. The officials stated that placing civilians in these positions would release military security policemen for police-type work and would make more military security policemen available for overseas assignment. 2. At three Navy bachelor officers' quarters located Additional examples are included in appendix II. In June 1970 the Marine Corps initiated a study to determine the maximum number of military positions that could be converted to civilian positions. At Camp Pendleton, California, 478 of the 2,351 military positions reviewed were considered to be suitable for conversion. We reviewed 394 of the positions that were not recommended for conversion and found that: --The decision that 205 positions could not be converted was questionable and/or was not supported fully. --The decision that 87 positions could not be converted was based on improper criteria. For example, the reviewers concluded that 36 administrative positions should not be converted because they believed that civilians and military personnel could perform the tasks equally well. As long as military personnel continue to be used in positions that do not require military incumbents, these personnel will not be available to perform combat or combatsupport duties. Moreover continuance of this practice (1) will result in maintaining the Armed Forces at a strength greater than necessary and (2) could create conditions leading to friction among, and/or affecting the morale of, civilians and military personnel at DOD installations. PERSONNEL SURVEY TEAMS DO NOT ADEQUATELY Each of the military departments has personnel survey teams that periodically conduct reviews to validate manpower needs and to improve the use of both military personnel and civilians. These reviews often result in the establishment of new staffing standards or in the revision of existing standards. These standards serve as a basis for revising staffing levels for specific functions throughout the military departments. The survey teams also review personnel operations. Reports of personnel survey teams and discussions with installation officials showed that, as a general rule, the personnel survey teams were not giving serious consideration to substituting civilians for military personnel. We were told that, where civilian or military designations of positions were considered, the survey teams were influenced by the existing force structure and usually recommended retention of the military or civilian incumbent. Many studies were made of only one of several activities at installations, and economies available through consolidation of activities or improved utilization of manpower resources were not considered. Instances in which personnel survey teams did not adequately consider whether positions should be filled by military personnel or civilians are discussed below. 1. In April and May 1970, a personnel survey team made a manpower study at a Navy activity at Pearl Harbor. During the study numerous individual adjustments affecting the number and rank or rate of military positions were considered. The team questioned the rationale behind the use of a military man instead of a civilian in only one of the 433 positions reviewed. 2. Personnel survey teams made several manpower studies at Travis Air Force Base during 1969 and 1970. The studies were concerned with staffing standards and did not consider whether positions should be occupied by military personnel or by civilians. Installation officials stated that civilian occupancy of positions usually was considered during such studies only at the request of the commander of the unit being reviewed. CHAPTER 3 AGENCY COMMENTS The comments of DOD were provided to us in a letter dated December 3, 1971. (See app. I.) DOD's principal comments and our related views are summarized below. 1. The Department does not agree with our conclusion that a lack of staffing guidance at the installation level is the major restriction to full application of DOD's policy on the use of civilians. The principal constraints have been restrictions on civilian employment and budgetary limitations, which are discussed fully in the report. 2. There are several measures which can, and should, We concur in DOD's comment that restrictions on civilian employment and budgetary limitations are constraints on the use of civilians. The lack of staffing guidelines to installation commanders, however, contributes to less use of civilians than is implied by DOD's policy. The Congress considers amounts to be appropriated annually for DOD on the basis of the President's budget requests, which include estimates of military and civilian personnel requirements. Since military personnel costs and civilian personnel costs are funded in separate appropriations, it is the responsibility of DOD to prepare realistic estimates of the numbers of military personnel and civilians it intends to use. Unless these estimates are prepared within the framework of DOD's policy, it is not reasonable to expect the Congress to appropriate funds for the use of civilians and military personnel on a basis consistent with that policy. Civilian personnel ceilings usually are established for the departments and agencies of the executive branch by the Office of Management and Budget. It is the responsibility of DOD to provide realistic estimates of the number of military positions that can be converted to civilian positions and convincing justification on the number of positions needed to be retained to accomplish its mission. Although the President's budget for fiscal year 1973 has been sent to the Congress, we believe that substantial numbers of positions occupied by military personnel could be converted to civilian positions during the year if DOD had funds in the proper appropriations. This could be achieved if the Congress were to grant DOD authority to transfer such funds as may be required from the military personnel appropriations to the appropriations from which civilian personnel are compensated. As noted in DOD's comments, a precedent for this authority was provided in the Department of Defense Appropriation Act of 1955 (37 U.S.C. 235). If this authority is granted, DOD should obtain permission from the Office of Management and Budget to employ the civilians that can be substituted for military personnel as a result of such transfer of funds. The need for staffing guidelines for use by installation commanders was recognized by the Assistant Secretary of Defense (Manpower and Reserve Affairs) in his February 22, 1971, letter, referred to in DOD's comments. In this letter to the military departments, he said, in part: "It is requested that you establish procedures In regard to staffing guidelines for installation commanders, DOD said that: DOD will consider further the need to provide specific guidelines to all military installations for use in |