determining whether individual positions should be filled by military personnel or by civilians. Positions in the strategic and general-purpose forces must continue to be staffed with military personnel. Consideration will be given to the need for establishing staffing guidance for positions other than those in forces for which military incumbents must be provided. Some actions already have been taken.

Because installation commanders may be unaware of rotation requirements, DOD does not consider it practicable to require commanders to document justification in official records for personnel assignments which deviate from staffing criteria.

We agree that there is no need for establishing guidance for positions for which military incumbents must be provided, such as positions in combat units of the strategic and general forces. This exception is covered clearly in the existing DOD policy.

As noted on page 13, the need for staffing guidelines for use by local commanders was recognized by the Assistant Secretary of Defense (Manpower and Reserve Affairs) in his February 22, 1971, letter to the military departments. On January 21, 1972, the Assistant Secretary requested the Navy and Air Force to consider the feasibility of providing staffing guidance to their installations for use in determining whether individual positions should be filled by military personnel or by civilians. He said that the Army had long provided such guidance.

If local commanders are to be held responsible for compliance with DOD's staffing policy, they should be provided with guidelines on the types and numbers of civilian-type positions to be authorized for military personnel for rotation, career development, and other requirements.

To monitor compliance with DOD's staffing policy by local commanders, internal review teams must relate personnel assignments to the guidelines provided by headquarters. This can be done only if documentation supporting personnel assignments which deviate from the staffing guidelines is available for review.

DOD commented on the examples cited in our report of positions authorized for military personnel that could be filled by civilians. The most common reason given by DOD for using military personnel in the positions was rotation needs.

We know that each military department can validate the need for specific civilian-type positions to enable the rotation of personnel between assignments overseas and assignments at installations in the United States. Until each service determines its total needs for rotation purposes by skill and occupation and assigns to each command its share of the total positions to be used for rotation, however, it does not seem reasonable to conclude that any specific positions at any installation should be earmarked for this purpose.

DOD's comments indicate agreement with our view that the determination of those positions which must be reserved for rotation purposes can be made only at the military department headquarters, since only at that level can the changing personnel inventories be matched with overseas personnel requirements. This is significant since rotation needs so often are cited at the local level and at departmental headquarters as the reasons for using military personnel in positions that could be filled by civilians.

DOD did not agree with our finding that personnel survey teams, as a general rule, were not giving serious consideration to substituting civilians for military personnel. It is DOD's view that:

These teams routinely review the staffing practices of
installation commanders and report their findings to
the military department or major command headquarters.
Additional emphasis on the function of these and similar
teams, however, might be needed. An initial step has
been taken to emphasize identification of the arbitrary
use of military personnel in positions suitable for
civilians. Further action is being considered.

We agree that personnel survey teams at the installations visited routinely reviewed the staffing practices of installation commanders. Reports on surveys and discussions

with officials at the installations showed, however, that the survey teams generally did not consider whether DOD's policy on the use of military personnel was being followed.

In a January 25, 1972, memorandum, the Assistant Secretary of Defense (Manpower and Reserve Affairs) expressed his concern that DOD officials knew too little about how well or how poorly their programs, systems, and policies met the needs of field commanders. He requested that more emphasis be placed on audits of manpower utilization practices of field activities by internal audit groups and by manpower survey teams.

CHAPTER 4

CONCLUSIONS, RECOMMENDATIONS

AND

MATTER FOR CONSIDERATION BY THE CONGRESS

CONCLUSIONS

DOD's policy on the use of civilians presents the military departments with an opportunity to realize substantial benefits in the management and use of DOD's manpower resources. This policy provides a means of increasing the use of military personnel in military positions and of holding military manpower requirements at the minimum level needed to safeguard the Nation's security. The military departments are not realizing fully these benefits because DOD's policy is not being applied fully.

In our opinion, less than full application of this policy has resulted from failure of the military departments to determine which types and numbers of positions should be filled by military personnel and which types and numbers should be filled by civilians. Since these determinations have not been made, installation commanders must make subjective decisions concerning personnel assignments and these decisions often are inconsistent with DOD's policy. Until the military department headquarters make these determinations and provide implementing guidelines to installation officials, there is every reason to believe that this condition will continue.

We believe that the personnel survey teams could provide valuable assistance to the military departments in monitoring compliance with DOD's policy. This could be accomplished by determining, as a part of their manpower reviews, whether personnel assignments at military installations comply with the policy.

We believe that the actions being considered by DOD to provide specific guidelines to all military installations and to emphasize the function of personnel survey teams could result in increased application of its existing policy. We believe also that these actions will not be fully effective unless DOD requires the military departments to establish controls at the headquarters level over those positions

reserved for military personnel that cannot be justified for combat-readiness purposes.

RECOMMENDATIONS

We recommend that the Secretary of Defense direct that each military department headquarters review all types of personnel positions, except those designated as being in deployable military units having a combat or combat-support mission, and, for each type, determine whether:

--The position must be filled by military personnel.

--The position could be filled by either military personnel or civilians and the circumstances in which the position would be used for military personnel, such as for rotation or for career development.

--The position need not be filled by a military incumbent and should be filled by a civilian.

The findings of the review should be formalized in specific guidelines for use by all military installations in designating whether individual positions should be filled by military personnel or by civilians. Moreover, when personnel assignments that deviate from these position designations are made, justifications for such actions should be documented in official installation records and such assignments should be for only limited periods. Also all conversions of military positions to civilian positions should be preceded by manpower requirement reviews which will establish the need for the positions; which will give adequate consideration to the potential for reducing military support positions as such conversions are made; and, if appropriate, which will determine whether the functions involved should continue to be accomplished by Government personnel or by

contractors.

We recommend also that, as part of the scope of manpower reviews, personnel survey teams determine whether personnel assignments comply with the policy and the guidelines. Since the survey teams' findings can provide the military department headquarters with information needed to ensure compliance with DOD's policy, the results of the teams' reviews should be reported to the headquarters.