REPORT TO THE CONGRESS Too Many Crew Members Assigned Too Soon To Ships Under Construction 80172632 Department of the Navy BY THE COMPTROLLER GENERAL OF THE UNITED STATES 5s COMPTROLLER GENERAL OF THE UNITED STATES WASHINGTON DC 20242 B-172632 To the President of the Senate and the ii Speaker of the House of Representatives This IS our report on too many crew members assigned / t too soon by the Department of the Navy to ships under con- struction / Our review was made pursuant to the Budget and Account- mg Act, 1921 (31 U S C 53), and the Accounting and Audltmg Act of 1950 (31 U S C 67) Copies of this report are being sent to the Dlrector, Of- fice of Management and Budget, the Secretary of Defense, and the Secretary of the Navy 4. Comptroller General of the United States 50 TH ANNIVERSARY 1921-1971 I I i I I .qOMPTROLLERGEflER4L'S TOO MANY CREW MEMBERSASSIGNED TOO SOON TO 1 I REPORTTO THE COflGRESS SHIPS UNDER CONSTRUCTION I Department of the Navy B-172632 I I I I DIGEST ------ I I I I WHYTHE REVIEW WASM4DE I I I The Navy assigns nucleus or skeleton crews for temporary duty periods I up to 6 months to ships under construction to ensure delivery of ships I I with tralned, well-organized crews I I I Since the assignment of nucleus crews of experienced personnel to ships I at construction sites involves a significant amount of valuable man- I I power and since the payment of per diem to these crew members while on temPorarv duty increases ship construction costs, the General Ac- I I counti iig of+1ce ]GAO) examined into whether personnel assigned to these I ships were being used efficiently I I I I FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS I I I Over 2,800 enlisted men representing more than 980 man-years costing I I about $6 2 million had been assigned to temporary duty as nucleus I crews for 43 ships during the 12-month period ended July 31, 1970 I (See p 6.) I I I GAO reviewed crew assignments for five of these ships and found that I I --The number of personnel assigned to a nucleus crew was based on I I personal JUdgt’nent and precedent, rather than on actual need I (See P 8 ) I I I --Some crew members had been sent to construction sites before they I I were needed They also had been assigned to perform certain tasks I that already were the responslbllitles of other Navy organizations I (Seep lo) I I --The Navy had not evaluated work requirements to determine the type I of personnel that should be included in a nucleus crew I (See Pp 13 and 22 ) I I --The system for obtaining information on the use of nucleus crews I was inadequate (See p 22 ) I I In January 1971 the Navy approved a pilot program to place a Fleet In- I I troduction Team on permanent shore duty at bullding sites to accomplish many of the tasks currently performed by nucleus crews (See pp 19 I and 24 ) I I I I I Tear Sheet MJG 91197a 1 1 I I This pilot program represents a s?gnIflcant departure from tradItIona manning practices for new-construction ships GAO believes that the Navy can provide a means for better use of manpower resources if It lim- Its the assignment of nucleus crews to the mlnlmum size and composition needed to fulfill their missions RECOMMENDATIONS OR SUGGESTIONS Because of the Navy's opportunity to reduce manpower requirements and per diem expenditures, GAO IS recommending that the Secretary of the Navy --Determine the essential functions that nucleus crews should per- form --Evaluate the composition and duration of manpower needed to per- form these functions. --Asslgn to nucleus crews only the required rates and ratings for the man-months needed --Establish procedures which will provide for a continual evaluation of nucleus crew needs, lncludlng the requirement that prospective commanding effacers recommend needed changes to nucleus crew au- thonzatlon In their monthly ships' progress reports --MOnltor the actions already taken by the Navy, to make certain that valuable manpower resources are used effJclently. AGENCYACTIONS AND UNRESOLVED ISSUES The Navy concurs with GAO's recommendations (See app I ) Actions to refine current manpower assignment practices, with the goal of USI ng available manpower effectively, have been initiated by the Navy (See p 24 ) These actions include --Establishing an ad hoc panel to study and recommend solutions to problems associated with the delivery of new ships. --Performing a manpower survey, using applied work-measuring tech- niques, to document the manpower needed for a nucleus crew The Navy IS generally deferrlng further comments on these actions until its studies have been completed and reviewed, GAO belleves that the actions ln-rttated by the Navy are Important steps toward determining more valid nucleus crew manpower requirements. 2 I I MJTTERSFUR CONSIDEEtQTIOA' BY THE CONGRESS I I In the light of recent and antlclpated budgetary restraints, this re- I port is to inform the Congress of the Navy's opportunity to reduce costs I I and manpower needs by modifying its nucleus crew program I I I I I I I I I * I I I I I 1 I I I I I : I I I I I Tear Sheet I 3 Contents Page DIGEST 1 CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION 4 Personnel assigned to nucleus crews 6 2 OPPORTUNITYTO BETTER USE MANPOWER RESOURCES AND TO SAVE PER DIEM COSTS 8 Nucleus crew manpower requirements 8 Necessary functrons and responsi- bilities 10 Manpower required for present func- tions and responsibilities 13 Fleet Introduction Team 19 Navy review procedures 22 Conclusions 22 Reconrmendatlons 23 3 AGENCYCOMMENTS AND GAO EVALUATION 24 4 SCOPEOF REVIEW 26 APPENDIX I Letter dated February 23, 1971, from the Assistant Secretary of the Navy (Financial Management) to the General Accounting Of- flee 29 II Principal officials of the Department of Defense and the Department of the Navy responsible for activitres discussed in this report 35 ABBREVIATIONS co commanding officer FIT Fleet Introduction Team GAO General Accounting Office PC0 prospective commanding officer COMPTROLLERGENERAL'S TOO MANY CREW MEMBERSASSIGNEDTOO SOON TO REPORTTO THE CONGRESS SHIPS UNDER CONSTRUCTION Department of the Navy B-172632 DIGEST _----- WHYTHE REVIEW WASMADE The Navy asslgns nucleus or skeleton crews for temporary duty periods up to 6 months to ships under construction to ensure dellvery of ships with tralned, well-organized crews Since the assignment of nucleus crews of experienced personnel to ships at construction sites involves a slgnlflcant amount of valuable man- power and since the payment of per diem to these crew members while on temporary duty increases ship construction costs, the General Ac- counting OffIce (GAO) examined into whether personnel assigned to these ships were being used efficiently FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS Over 2,800 enlisted men representing more than 980 man-years cost-rng about $6 2 million had been assigned to temporary duty as nucleus crews for 43 ships during the 12-month period ended July 31, 1970 (See P 6 > GAO reviewed crew assignments for five of these ships and found that --The number ot personnel asslgned to a nucleus crew was based on personal Judgment and precedent, rather than on actual need ISee P 8 ) --Some crew members had been sent to construction sites before they were needed They also had been assigned to perform certain tasks that already were the responslbllltles of other Navy organizations (See p 10 ) --The Navy had not evaluated work requirements to determine the type of personnel that should be included In a nucleus crew (See Pp 13 and 22 ) --The system for obtaining lnformatlon on the use of nucleus crews was inadequate (See p 22 > In January 1971 the Navy approved a pilot program to place a Fleet In- troduction Team on permanent shore duty at bulldIng sites to accomplish many of the tasks currently performed by nucleus crews (See pp. 19 and 24 ) This pllot program represents a significant departure from traditional manning practices for new-construction ships GAO believes that the Navy can provide a means for better use of manpower resources if it llm- its the assignment of nucleus crews to the mlnlmum size and composltlon needed to fulfill their missions, RECOMMENDATIOiUS OR SUGGESTIONS Because of the Navy's opportumty to reduce manpower requirements and per diem expenditures, GAO 1s recommending that the Secretary of the Navy --Determine the essential functions that nucleus crews should per- form --Evaluate the composltlon and duration of manpower needed to per- form these functions --Assign to nucleus crews only the required rates and ratings for the man-months needed --Establish procedures which will provide for a continual evaluation of nucleus crew needs, including the requirement that prospective commanding offtcers recommend needed changes to nucleus crew au- thorization in their monthly ships' progress reports --Monitor the actlons already taken by the Navy, to make certain that valuable manpower resources are used efficiently AGENCYACTIONSAND UNRESOLVED ISSUES The Navy concurs with GAO's recommendatjons (See app I ) Actions to refine current manpower assignment practices, with the goal of using available manpower effectively, have been initiated by the Navy (See p 24 ) These actions include --Establishing an ad hoc panel to study and recommend solutions to problems associated with the delivery of new ships --Performing a manpower survey, using applied work-measuring tech- niques, to document the manpower needed for a nucleus crew The Navy 1s generally deferring further conments on these actions until its studies have been completed and reviewed GAO believes that the actions Initiated by the Navy are important steps toward determining more valid nucleus crew manpower requirements MATTERSFOR CONSIDERATION BY THE CONGRESS In the light of recent and anticipated budgetary restraints, this re- port 1s to inform the Congress of the Navy's opportunity to reduce costs and manpower needs by modlfylng its nucleus crew program CHAPTER1 INTRODUCTION Navy officer and enlisted personnel normally are as- signed to the crew of a non-nuclear-powered surface ship undergoing construction or conversion in two general groups, the nucleus crew and the balance crew. Nucleus crew person- nel are ordered directly to the building shlpyard or conver- slon site prior to commisslonlng of the ship. Balance crew personnel report to the ship about the time the ship IS completed or commlssloned. The nucleus crew corlslsts of experienced personnel. Officers of the nucleus rew normally are the prospectrve commanding officer f (PC01 and the department heads. Also part of the nucleus crew IS a cross sectlon of the senior en- lrsted pay grades wlthln the crew allowance and the maJorlty of the key enlisted ratings of the supply and engrneerlng de- partments. The balance crew consists of the remarnlng ship's crew allowance not assigned to the nucleus crew. The balance crew's enllsted men and officers, including the prospectrve executive officer, department assistants, and dlvrsron offl- cers, are ordered to a Fleet Tralnrng Center for 5 to 6 weeks of organrzed precommlssronlng trarnrng. This trarnlng usu- ally IS scheduled to permrt the balance crew to report to a naval actlvlty In the vlclnlty of the delivery point 1 week prior to the ship's completion or commisslonlng date. The Navy's Career Enlisted Rotatron System provides for rotation of ellglble enlisted personnel from sea duty to shore duty and from shore duty to sea duty. The perrod of time personnel are assigned to erther a nucleus crew or a balance crew xs consldered to be part of their sea duty ob- llgatlon. Enlrsted personnel assigned to a converted or newly constructed shop generally are completing, and are as- slgned from, a normal toclr of shore duty. They can, however, be transferred from a sea duty assignment. 1Officer In charge of a ship not yet commrssloned. The PC0 becomes the commandrng officer when the ship 1s commissioned and turned over to his command. 4 Durrng the period of assrgnment to a nucleus or bal- ance crew, the officer and enlisted personnel are normally on temporary duty and receive per diem In accordance wrth the Joint Travel Regulations applicable to military person- nel. The current prescribed dally rate of $25 is subJect to reduction when adequate Government quarters and/or messing facllltles are available. Navy offlclals told us that a nucleus crew was assigned to a ship under construction to ensure that the best pos- sable product, conslstlng of both a ship and a trained, well- organized crew, would be delivered. To accomplish this ob- Jectlve a nucleus crew (1) assists In ldentlfylng ship con- struction deflclencles, (2) assists In assembling the pre- commlsslonlng outfit (materials, repair parts, and other supply items), (3) prepares the organlzatlon of the ship, and (4) becomes familiar with the details of the ship's op- eration. PERSONNELASSIGNEDTO I'@CLEUSCREWS The Chief of Naval Operations is responsible for es- tablishlng the number and type of positions authorized for nucleus and balance crews. The process of assembling a crew for a ship under construction or conversion begins when the Chief of Naval Personnel issues a ship-manning directive. The manning directive includes the requirements for the nucleus and balance crews, the requirements for ratings,and the places and dates for the crews to report. For the 12-month period ended July 31, 1970, ship- manning dlrectives had been issued for 43 ships under construction or conversion. These directives had provided for the assignment of over 2,800 enlisted personnel to nucleus crews for periods of 3 to 6 months. The total en- listed manpower authorized by these dlrectrves represented almost 11,800 man-months, or over 980 man-years costrng about $6.2 million. Depending on the extent of Government quarters and messrng facilities available for assignment to the nucleus crew, the per diem paid to these enlisted personnel, based on the current rate, could vary from about= $720,000 to almost $9 million. The above man-months and per diem cost figures do not take into account slippages in the delivery or commisslon- ing dates of the ships to which personnel are being assigned. Nucleus crew members are selected for assqnnxmt and placed under orders between 8 and 10 months prior to the ship's projected commlsslonlng date. Although projected delivery dates at the lo-month time frame permit personnel planning, they have been sufficiently rnaccurate to result in costly and inefficient manpower management. Of 20 ships delivered in fiscal year 1969, only five were commissioned in the month forecasted at the time manning declslons had to be made. Past experience has shown that delays of 2 or 3 months in scheduled delivery or commissioning dates may be expected. These delays will substantially increase the man-months and per diem cost figures cited above. We made a brief rnqurry into the costly and inefficient manpower management resulting from inaccurate delivery 6 dates. Also the Navy recognized the need to xmprove com- municatlons concerning sllppage in ship construction schedules with offlclals responsible for assigning nucleus crew personnel. The Navy issued an lnstructlon which, if properly implemented, we belleve will minimize the adverse effects on manpower resources caused by delays. Conse- quently we concentrated our review on examining into whether personnel assqned to nucleus crews were being used ef- f1c1ently. 7 CHAPTER2 OPPORTUNITYTO BETTER USE MANPOWER RESOURCES AND TO SAVE PER DIEM COSTS The assignment of nucleus crews to ships under con- structlon or conversion 1s based on precedent rather than current need. Some nucleus crew members were not needed, some were not needed for the full length of time assigned, and some that were needed were not authorized. Valuable manpower which was already In short supply was not being used In the most efflclent manner, and per diem costs were being incurred unnecessarily. On the basis of a comparison of the manpower authorized with that reported as needed for five ships we revlewed, at least 380 man-months costing about $200,000 might have been better used and per diem Costs of nearly $200,000 might have been saved. (See P48.) NUCLEUSCREWMANPOWER REQUIREMENTS Manpower authorized for a nucleus crew 1s not based on an accurate estimate of need. The number of personnel au- thorized to be asslgned to a nucleus crew and the period of time the nucleus crew 1s at the construction site depends on the ship's total crew allowance. Under present Navy policy applxable to all ships, a nucleus crew numbers about one fourth of the sh1pI.s total allowance. The number of personnel asslgned to a nucleus crew 1s based on per- sonal Judgment and hlstorlcal practxe. Navy officials were unable to provide us with any other Justlflcatlon and did not know of any pertinent regulations or lnstructlons governing the size of a nucleus crew* A nucleus crew 1s authorized to be asslgned at the construction site 4 months prior to the date the ship 1s to be commlssroned. In addltron, for a ship wlrsh a total crew allowance of more than 350, five of the nucleus crew officers and 30 of the nucleus crew enlisted personnel are authorized to be at the construction site 2 addltlonal months, or a total of 6 months prior to the commlsslonlng date. We were told by offlclals In the Bureau of Naval Personnel that the Navy had no offlclal basis for the period nucleus crew personnel were to be assigned, According to these offlclals, the period of temporary duty cannot exceed the 6-month time llmltatlon that per diem can be paid without special Justlflcatlon. A nucleus crew 1s usually composed of personnel repre- senting each ship department, such as supply, weapons, en- glneerlng, and operations. Offlclals In the Office of the Chief of Naval Operations furnished us with a memorandum dated May 22, 1969, which contained their rationale For as- signing particular ratings (such as boilerman) and rates (such as first class) to represent these departments for new-construction escort ships. The memorandum did not cover the question of whether there was a need for particular rates and ratings at the construction site or a need for the ship departments to be represented by nucleus crew personnel. It stated that al- most all nucleus crew members were senior petty officers with many years of experience In their particular ratings and that these crew members had been responsible for all areas In which they were required to be knowledgeable for their ratings. Navy offlclals said that experience galned in previous precommlsslonlng operations provided the basis for contlnulng to make assignments In the manner followed by the Chief of Naval Operations. . Necessary fwctlons and responslbllltles The Navy 1s authorlzlng manpower for nucleus crews to perform functrons and responslbllltres that may be better performed by personnel other than those of the nucleus crew, Supervisors of Shlpbulldlng, Conversion, and Reparr have as their basic mlsslons the responslbllltles to admrnls- ter Department of the Navy and other Department of Defense shlpbulldlng, desrgn, conversron, repalr, and faclllty con- tracts at assigned private shlpyards. Some of the specrflc tasks and functions assigned In the accomplishment of their mlsslons are the same as those performed by a nucleus crew. Some of the tasks for which we noted that dual respon- slblllty exlsted Included (1) detecting contractor's work Ghlch was not In conformance wrth contract requirements, (2) dlscoverrng a need for and recommending operatlonal de- sign improvements, (3) assessing the progress of the work, and (4) determlnlng that the contractor properly performed his frttlng-out functions, such as blnnlng and stowage of repalr parts. The most apparent difference rn responslblllty between the two actlvrtles 1s that the Supervlsors of Ship- bulldlng have contlnulng responsrbrllty for these tasks and functions during construction of the ship and the nucleus crew IS responsrble only during the frnal stages of con- struction. Navy officials acknowledged instances in which Supervl- sors of Shlpbulldlng had relred on the nucleus crews to per- form some tasks and functions for which there had been dual responslbrllty. Since the Supervisors of Shlpbulldlng should have the caRablllty to perform the tasks and functions re- qulred to accomplish their basic mlsslons, the Navy might better use Its manpower If nucleus crew personnel were not also expected to perform some of these tasks and functions. Ellmlnatlng some of a nucleus crew's tasks and functions, such as those where dual responsrbrllty exists, should enable the Navy to decrease nucleus crew manpower. This would permit the use of enlisted men's skills (particularly for those ratings and rates of which there are shortages) for longer periods of time in the operating fleet. b 10 Nucleus crews recerve trarnlng (famrllarlzatlon and lndoctrlnatlon) by observing the ship's being constructed and by wltnesslng the testing of machinery and equipment. Nucleus crew personnel, however, generally are not allowed to operate any of the machinery or equipment until after the ship 1s delivered to the Navy. PCOs of the ships we reviewed expressed different oplnlons regarding the value of training received by the nucleus crews. For example, one PC0 told us that the amount of experience received by his nucleus crew at the shipyard was mlnlmal. Another believed that the training received by his nucleus crew was rnvalu- able. Training In actual operation of the ship's equipment 1s accomplished during the lo- to 60-day flttlng-out- avallablllty perlod at the Navy yard after the contractor delivers the ship Following the flttlng-out-avallablllty period IS the readiness-for-sea period of 1 to 3 weeks. The purpose of this period 1s to provide the commanding officer (CO) with an opportunity to prepare for, among other things, the organlzatlon of the ship and the tralnlng of the crew to the maxmum attainable level of combat readiness. In January 1970 the Office of the Chief of Naval Opera- tions recognized that, for at least one class of ship, 2 months of training aboard an operating ship would be more than equivalent to 6 months of observing a ship's being con- structed. Beginning with the second ship In Instances when several ships of the same class are constructed, part of the person- nel asslgned to the nucleus crew will report 2 months in ad- vance of delivery and will train on one of the completed shrps. Other nucleus crew personnel will be sent to the Fleet Tralnrng Center as part of the balance crew. Such a change In procedure will allow the Navy to benefit In two lm- portant ways (1) the crew will be better trained when re- porting aboard at delivery and (2) a manpower and per diem saving will result because of the reduced nucleus crew re- quirement at the building shipyard. Since the Navy considers the time spent by personnel assigned to a nucleus crew as lost to the operating fleet, any reduction In the nucleus crew's authorized manpower 11 would be economical because thus manpower could be retained by the operating fleet. The Navy considers a second-class petty officer or pay grade E-5 to be a representative rate for the nucleus crew, Department of Defense Instruction 7220.25 lists the man-year cost for a pay grade E-5 as $6,299. A reduction in nucleus crew manpower would result in per diem savings which could be as much as $750 a month for each man. 12 Manpower required for present functions and responsibilities For the five ships in our review, the Navy had autho- rized more man-months than were required to perform the functions and responslbllitles assigned to nucleus crews. In addition, the manpower authorlzatlon for these ships had not provided for some personnel with the ratings and rates needed as part of the nucleus crews. Without exception, PCOs and COs of the ships we re- viewed told us that more nucleus crew man-months had been authorized than they had considered necessary for dlscharg- lng assigned functions and responsiblllties. Most of these officers believed that the number of personnel assigned and the period of assignment should be reduced. All the offi- cers recommended a revision in the composition (ratrngs and rates) of the nucleus crew. Cur findings for the three classes of ships in our review follow. Amphrbrous transport dock (LPD class) This class of ship has a total enlisted crew allowance of 421 men. The authorized nucleus crew consists of 30 en- listed men to be assigned 6 months prior to the ship's com- mlsslonlng and an addItiona 75 enlisted men to be assigned 4 months prior to the ship's commissioning. The manpower authorlzatlon provides for the nucleus crew personnel to expend a total of 480 man-months prior to the ship's com- missioning. A PC0 of one ship we reviewed told us that some of the authorized nucleus crew ratings and rates should be revised. He believed that about 375 man-months, or over 100 man- months less than authorized, would have been sufficient for his nucleus crew to perform Its assigned responslbilitles. The proposed decrease in man-months was based on his belief that some nucleus crew personnel should be assigned for shorter periods of tame and that the number of personnel assigned should be reduced about lo-percent. Some of the more significant changes he advocated are shown below. 13 Nucleus crew manpower for LPD-class ship -- Authorized Recommended --- by PC0 Ratmgs Number Number Total Number Number Total and of of man- of of llElll- rates men --months months men months months Boatswain's mate BMCS 1 6 6 BMC 1 6 6 -1 6 6 BMC 1 5 5 -2 6 12 1 6 6 iii 2 4 8 1 5 5 BM3 -2 4 8 - - -8 40 -4 -22 Engmeman, ENC 1 6 6 1 5 5 EN1 2 4 8 1 3 3 EN2 4 4 16 1 2 2 EN3 la 2 2 ENFN - - la - -7 4 -12 Radloman. RMC 3 12 1 6 6 RMC 1 3 3 --1 --I5 - - -4 18 -2 -9 Electrician's mate. EMC 1 6 6 1 6 6 2 4 8 2 4 8 2a 2 4 - - 2a - -3 -5 -18 Total 22 15 6'1 aEIther rate would be acceptable. In addition to savings that could result from better use of manpower, savings of about $45,000 in per diem could result from a temporary-duty decrease of 100 man-months. At the yard where this ship was constructed, only those nucleus crew personnel having second-class rates and above received 14 the maximum daily rate of $25. Men with third-class rates and below were provided with Government quarters and mess, and each received $2 per diem. Replenishment oiler (AOR class) This class of ship has a total enlisted crew allowance of 350 men. For one ship we reviewed, 84 enlisted men were authorized to be assigned to the nucleus crew for about 5 months, a total authorazatlon of 420 man-months. The CO believed that a nucleus crew of approximately the same num- ber as that authorized should be assigned but that the pe- riod of assignment for most of the personnel should be re- duced. He believed also that the nucleus crew would require only 325 man-months, or about 100 man-months less than au- thorized, to accomplish the required work. The CO of another ship of the same class proposed a nucleus crew of 55 enlisted men for a total of 182 man- months of duty. The Navy authorization for his ship pro- vided for 30 enlisted men to be assigned to the nucleus crew for about 4-l/2 months and an additional 59 enlisted men to be assigned for about 3 months, for a total of about 300 man-months. This was over 100 man-months more than the CO believed necessary. In addition to reducing the period of assignment from that authorized for some nucleus crew personnel, he deleted as unnecessary certain personnel au- thorized as nucleus crew members. Ratings and rates de- leted included first- and second-class gunners' mates, first- and second-class electricians, and firemen. A summary of the manpower of the authorized nucleus crew compared with that recommended by the COs follows, 15 Authorized Recommended by COs Number Number Total Number Number Total of of man- of of man- men months -- months men months months Ship 1 84 5 8 6 48 13 5 65 20 4 80 -44 3 132 325 Ship 2 30 4-W 135 1 6 6 59 3 177 10 5 50 312 19 4 76 25 2 16 Escort shlpl(DE-1052 class) Thus class of shop has a total enlisted crew allowance of 210 men The authorized enlisted nucleus crew for this class of ship consists of about 50 men asslgned 4 months prior to commissioning, or a total of 200 man-months PCOS of two ships we reviewed believed that there could be a net reduction In the total man-month authorrzatlon The method by which each PC0 arrived at a reduced man-month requirement, however, was drfferent. One increased the number of person- nel to be assigned to the nucleus crew and decreased the net perrod of assignments and the second decreased the num- ber of personnel to be assrgned and increased the net pe- rlod of assignments. Both PCOs believed that the authorized composition of the nucleus crew should be revised. For instance, they both believed that the number of ratings and rates 1n the engr- neerlng departments should be increased and that the number of ratings and rates in the weapons departments should be decreased. A chart of the changes recommended by the two PCOs 1s shown below. Number of men Number of months Total man-months Recommended Recommended Recommended Rating Autho- by PC0 Autho- by PC0 Autho- by PC0 and rates razed No 1 No 2 razed No 1 No 2 razed No 1 No 2 Engineering department Boilerman BTC 1 1 1 4 6 4 4 6 4 BTl 2 2 2 4 4 4 8 8 8 BTl 1 15 - - 15 BT2 ;- - -2 15 -- 23 =3 =3 6 zx= g 14 16 Weapons department Gunner's mate GYGl 1 1 2 4 4 3 4 4 6 GMG2 2 1 4 4 - 8 4 - GMG3 -L 1 I 4 - - -4 --; =4 2 czz=z =2 2% ==8 6- The difference between the two PCOs* recommendations for fewer man-months and revised nucleus crew compositions emphasizes the need for review of the Navy's nucleus crew program,to establish more reallstlc manpower requirements. 17 Reductxons in authorized man-months proposed by the PCOs and COs of the five ships (three classes) we revrewed and the value of the manpower whrch could be used more ef- flclently are summarized below. Also shown 1s the per drem cost whxh could be saved by reducing the total man-month authorlzatlons. None of the figures shown take Into consld- eratlon the possible manpower or man-month reductions that would result from the ellmlnatlon of functions for which there are dual responsiblllties. PC0 and co Authorrzed recommended Net decrease Man- ME%Il- MZI- Value of Per drem ship Men IUOl-OZhS Men months Men months man-months (note a> w DE 51 204 69 170 lab 34 $ 18,000 $ 8,000 $ 26,000 DE 50 200 43 180 7 20 10,000 1,000 11,000 AOR 84 420 85 325 lb 95 50,000 46,000 96,000 AOR 89 312 55 182 34 130 68,000 98,000 166,000 LPD 105 @ 94 375 11 105 55,000 45.000 100,000 -379 ___ 1,616 346 -- -1.232 2 384 $201.000 - $198.000 -_ $399 .ooo aComputed on the basis of the per diem normally received by nucleus crew enlisted personnel at each buldmg site b Increase 18 FLEET INTRODUCTIONTEAY Early in our review we discussed with Navy officials the possibility of assigning qualified personnel to ship- yards on a permanent basis, in lieu of a nucleus crew to each ship, to supervise all ships of the class or type un- der construction at the particular shipyards. The Navy recognized that the concep t of a nucleus crew as constl- tuted resulted in the loss of manpower resources to the op- erating forces and on June 2, 1970, issued a proposal on "Manning of New Construction Non-Nuclear Powered, Surface Ships." This proposal provides that a Fleet Introduction Team (FIT), under the administrative control of the Super- visor of ShlpbJilding, be placed at designated private building sites on a permanent shore-duty basis. FIT would be composed of a minimum of four officers or warrant officers and an unspecified number of enlisted men, handpicked for their talent, experience, and ability. The function of FIT would be to accomplish certain specific tasks, including some of those in the inspection and slppl~ areas presently accompllshed by a nucleus crew. Also FIT would establish a formal training program, to be conducted both on board and In the classroom, to introduce the nucleus crew to Its ship and the ship's equipment. The proposal does not eliminate the nucleus crew. It provides for a re- duction in the period of time the nucleus crew would be as- signed but not for a reduction in the number of personnel to be assigned or for a change in the nucleus crew's composl- tion. As proposed, nucleus crew personnel would report in two increments. The first increment would consist of five offl- cers (Including the PCO) and five enlisted personnel who would report 4 months prior to the scheduled delivery of the ship. The second increment would consist of the remainder of the authorized nucleus crew, who would report to the building site to begin familiarization with the ship and in- stalled equipment about 2 months prior to the ship's commls- sioning. This delay in the second increment's reporting would provide an additional 2 months for the Navy to analyze the accuracy of the ship's projected delivery and commis- sioning dates. 19 The balance crew would report at about the same time as it does under the present manning policy. It would go to the precommlssioning training center for 5 to 6 weeks of train- ing and then Join the ship Just prior to its delivery or com- missionrng. According to the proposal FIT would reduce markedly the administrative work loads of both the balance and the nucleus crews and thereby enable concentration of effort on organiza- tion, training, and indoctrination. The man-months' savings from delayed reporting of the malorlty of nucleus crew per- sonnel would accrue to the fleet. In addition, there would be a reduction in per diem costs, the amount depending upon Government quarters and messing facilities available in the vicinity of the ship's building site. In summation, the Navy pointed out in the proposal that: "A stable permanently assigned FIT, not requiring the repetitive lndoctrlnatlon/orientatlsn period needed by each ship's company, would soon develop the technical proficiency (learning curve), knowledge of shipyard operations, range of per- sonal contacts, and procedural expertise, rarely if ever accumulated by a nucleus crew. ThlS talent, coupled with a continually growing fund of experience and feedback from the fleet and type commanders, should produce cost efficiencies in manpower utilization far beyond the gross savings accruing from implementation of the Team itself. An additional side effect would be the improved sea/shore rotation for several ratings presently considered in the deprived category." The proposal was circulated and comments were requested from various sources. Two of the Supervisors of Shipbuild- ing for the bullding sites included in our review opposed the idea. The third was in favor of the proposal but recom- mended several revisions to eliminate potential areas of conflict. One of his recommendations was that FITS be under the administrative control of the Iype Commander1 instead of 1A type command is a subdivision of a fleet involving ships of the same type. 20 the Supervisor of Shipbuilding. We concur with this recom- mendation and believe that FIT should be under the command of another Navy activity to adequately represent the re- quirements of fleet operating personnel, One Supervisor of Shipbuilding believed that a poten- teal area of conflict would arise because the proposal, as written, included the suggestion of imposing an additIona tier of inspection on the contractor. Another supervisor believed that implementation of the proposal would result in claims from the contractor for the added burden of double inspection. All three supervisors believed that some of the other tasks that FIT was to perform, such as monitoring the prog- ress of the shipyard's work in the later stages of con- struction and ensuring that supply items were placed on or- der timely, would duplicate their functions, As previously pointed out, dual responsibility for some of these tasks currently existed between the Supervisors of Shipbuilding and the nucleus crews. 21 NAVY REVIEW PROCEDURES The Deputy Chief of Naval Operations (Manpower and Na- val Reserve) currently has the responsibility for manpower validation Navy officials informed us that no in-depth study had ever been made on the use of nucleus crews. Also we found no indication that this matter had ever been looked into by the Navy's internal audit organization. We were told that the Navy had no procedures for obtam- ing information regarding the use or effectiveness of the nucleus crew other than the requirement that the PC0 inform the Chief of Naval Operations of the status of ship con- struction. The PC0 is required to submit progress reports to apprise the Chief of Naval Operations, among others, of the general condition and progress of the ship, including information and warnings of possible need for changes or exceptions to plans and pollcles. The Navy officials could not recall any instance when it had been reported that nucleus crew personnel were not needed at the construction site or that the nucleus crew was being ineffectlvely used. We noted that in only one of the progress reports submitted for the ships included in our re- view had a recommendation been made to change the authorized nucleus crew's manpower. All the officers we interviewed, however, told us that, In their opinions, some changes in the authorized nucleus crew's manpower, ratings, and rates should be made. CONCLUSIONS The Navy has not evaluated nucleus crew work require- ments to determine needed ratings and rates. The assign- ment of personnel to nucleus crews is based on personal judgment and historical practice rather than on established need. As a result more manpower 1s authorized for nucleus crews than is needed to perform presently assigned func- tions. Some assigned functions might be better performed by personnel other than the nucleus crew because dual re- sponsibility exists for some of these functions. The Navy's proposal to establish FIT represents a sig- nificant departure from traditional new-construction manning practrces and could provide a means for better using manpower 22 resources. The need to assign the same number of personnel to nucleus crews 1s questionable,however, srnce FIT should be performing some of the tasks normally performed by the nucleus crew. To adequately represent the requirements of the fleet, FIT should not be under the administrative con- trol of the Supervisor of Shipbuilding. We believe that, in validating nucleus crew manpower requirements, the Navy should examine critically the actual need for any task currently performed at the construction or conversion site and should eliminate any duplication of responsiblllty. The Navy also should assign to nucleus crews only those personnel who have valid and necessary functions to perform at the building site and should assign those per- sonnel for only the period required to perform the necessary functions. RECOMMENDATIONS Because of the Navy's opportunity to reduce manpower requirements and per diem expenditures, we recommend that the Secretary of the Navy: --Determine the essential functions that nucleus crews should perform. --Evaluate the composition and duration of manpower needed to perform those functions. --Assign to nucleus crews only the required rates and ratings for the man-months needed. --Establish procedures which will provide for a contin- ual evaluation of nucleus crew needs, including the requirement that PCOs recommend needed changes to nucleus crew authorizations in their monthly ships' progress reports, --Monitor the actions already taken by the Navy, to make certain that valuable manpower resources are used efficiently. 23 CHAPTER3 AGENCYCOMMENTS AND GAO EVALUATION The Assistant Secretary of the Navy (Financial Manage- ment) in commenting on our draft report (see app. I>, stated that the Navy concurred with our recommendations but did not concur fully with all the fIndings as they were stated In the draft report. His specific comments are summarized be- low. The Assistant Secretary stated that the Navy recognized the need to refine current manpower assignment practices, with the goal of using available manpower assets effectively and reducing the expenditure of per diem funds. He stated also that an ad hoc panel had been initiated in April 1970 to study and recommend solutions to problems associated with the delivery of new-construction and conversion ships. He stated further that the panel's draft report, dated Decem- ber 2, 1970, was currently in distribution within the Navy for review and comments. In January 1971 the Chief of Naval Operations approved the lnstitutlon of a pilot program for two FITS and requested a manpower survey of precommlssioning crews (nucleus and bal- ance crews>. The manpower survey will document through ap- plied work-measuring techniques, the manpower required for a nucleus crew. This survey will also evaluate work require- ments to determine the rates and ratings that should be in- cluded in a nucleus crew. The results of the manpower sur- vey are anticipated by the end of June 1971,and manning ad- Justment will be implemented at that time. The Assistant Secretary stated further that the Navy lnitlated a reduced nucleus crew program, whereby the number of men assigned to the nucleus crews for two ships had been reduced to about half the number formerly assigned. The Assistant Secretary deferred comment on the Navy's further plans for using manpower assets more effectively until the evaluation is complete and results of the current Navy studies and programs have been reviewed. Comment was deferred also on the FIT concept until after the implementa- tion and evaluation of the approved pilot program and until 24 a decision could be made as to whether FITS should be under the administrative control of the Supervisor of Shipbuilding. During our fieldwork we were told that the period that personnel were assigned to a nucleus crew could not exceed the 6-month time limitation that per diem could be paid. In his reply to our draft report, however, the Assistant Secretary stated that the Navy's staffing plan was not ori- ented to the 6-month time limitation for per diem funds. He said that the staffing plan currently being used had evolved from past experience, the need to manage properly manpower assets, and the monitoring of authorized nucleus crew assets. He stated also that the staffing plan for new construction and maJor conversion of ships had not been promulgated in its entirety. A Navy directive promulgating the staffing plan is in draft form and 1s scheduled to be issued by the end of June 1971. Regarding our recommendation that the Navy establish procedures to ensure continual evaluation of nucleus crew needs, the Assistant Secretary stated that instructions would be updated to provide for comments from the PC0 on the use of a nucleus crew. These comments will be submitted as part of the Progress and Readiness Reports which the PC0 presently 1s required to submit, We believe that the actions initiated by the Department of the Navy are important steps toward determining more valid nucleus crew manpower requirements. 25 CHAPTER4 SCOPEOF REVIEW Our work included an examination into Navy policies, procedures, and practices relatgng to the assignment of nucleus crews to ships under construction or conversion. We also had discussions with officials in the Office of the Chief of Naval Operations and the Bureau of Naval Per- sonnel; with Supervisors of Shipbuilding, Conversion, and Repair; and with appropriate personnel concerned with the ships included in our review. Our fieldwork was performed from January to September 1970 with the Supervisors of Shipbuilding, Conversion, and Repair in Seattle, Washington; Quincy, Massachusetts; and New Orleans, Louisiana. 26 APPENDSXES 27 APPENDIX I DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY WASHINGTON D C 20350 Mr Charles M. Bailey 23 FEB 1971 Director, Defense Divlslon U. S. General Accounting Cfflce Washington, D. C. 20548 Dear Mr. Bailey' The Secretary of Defense has asked me to reply to your letter of 14 December 1970 which forwarded the GAO draft re-port on assignment of nucleus crews to ships under construction or conversion. I am enclosing the Department of the tiavy reply to the report Sincerely yours CHARLESA. BOWSHER ASSISTANT SECRETARYOF THE NAVY (FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT) Encl. (1) U. S. Navy Reply on the Review of the Assx.gnment of Nucleus Crews to Ships Under Construction or Conversxon (OSD Case J/3%?) 29 APPENDIX I u s. NAVY REFLY ON THE REVIEW OF THE ASSIGNMENT OF NUCLEUS CREWS TO SHIPS UNDER CONSTRUCTIOVOR CONVERSION (OSD CASE # 3212) I. GAO FINDINGS AND TQXOi\3FNDATIONS. GAO revlel7ed the Navy practice of asslgnlng nucleus crelrs to ships under construction or conversxon to dcternnne whether personnel asslgned to nucleus crews were being used effxclently It 17~3s recognized that per- sonnel are asslgncd on a temporary basis for up to 6 months and that per diem costs are Involved Furthermore It v7a.s observed that the purpose of the assignment v7a.s to Insure the best possible products conslstlng of both ships and quell organized an3 tralncd crews are dellvered a That there is an opportunity to Lrrnsfer to other uses slgnxfr- cant mnnporer and funds presenLly allocated to nucleus crews b. Inat I* general, nucleus cretrs Pre sent to construction sltps before they are needed to perform certarn tasks that are already the responslblllty of other Navy organizaLions C That the present method of asslgnlng nucleus crews 1s not based on actual need. d That the k7ork requirements have not been evaluated to determme the rates and ratings that should be Included In a nucleus cret7 e. That the number of nersornel asslgned to a nucleus crew 1s based on 3lldgement and hlstorlcal practice f That the period of assignment 1s based on a 6 - month time Ilml- tatlon tiler per l-~em can orulnxzly be paid g That the system for obtaining xliormation on the utlllzation of nucleus creu7s 1s Inadequate. GPO Ident Lc~cd the recent f6rmulatror of a proposal to place a Fleet Enclosure (1) 30 APPENDIX I Introduction Team (Fll) at building sites on a permanent shore duty basis to accomplish ccrtaln tasks presently perforrxd by nucleus crews The proposal would reduce the length of time certain nucleus crew per- sonnel would be assigned but nould not alter the number of personnel as- sxgned or the nucleus creus composltron GAO RECCXNEMDS a. That the Secretary of the Navy order 1 A review of the nucleus crew program to determine the essen- tial functions that nucleus crews should perform. 2. An evaluation of the corrposltlon and duration of manpower needed to perform these functions and assignment of only those rates, ratings and man-months needed b That procedures be established to insure continual evaluation of nucleus crew needs xncluding requlrjng Prospcctlve Gommandlng Officers to report In their ship's progress reports recommended increases and decreases in nucleus crew authorlzatlons C, That the Fleet Introductzon Team not be under the admlnistratlve control of the local supervisor of shlpbulldlng, corlverslon, and repzlr Ine GAO report covered a period of approrrr "ttly IS moilLhs from Nay 1969 to December 1370. II. DCPARTPZWT02 THE hAVY POSITIOL~. The Navy concurs 171th the recoxAendatlons contalncd In the GAO Draft Report. Of particular interest. to the Havy IS the recognition by GAO of the current Navy efforts In progress to improve the methods by which nucleus and balance crebs are asslgncd to new construction and conversion ships The Navy does not agree fully 171th all of the flndlngs as they are stated 111 the report SpeclfJc co*lments concerning the areas of djs- agreement ere contalncd In SCCL~OJ 111 of this reply The Nav) lnitlatcd in April 1970 an AD HOC panel that was tasked to stud) Ned rer,om,cno solutlo?s to problems associated rnth delivery of ne(I constl UCtl311 at-d comer >I on ~P~US and thcLr lntroductlon into the fleet lhe draic. 1 eport (TXU A) of the results of tins AD IlCC p-ncl, d‘ltcd 2 ~cccr brl 1970, IS currcntl, ~rl distrlbutjon rlthln Izvy for ICVLIC’~J ?nd corLacnts Coxuri et,tl;, the Chlcf of Neal OperaLions ap- plovcd on 4 .~qnuqly 1971 the 3nstltutlnn of a pilot progran for two Fleet Tntro~uctlo~r TLI T C'O zddrcsscr: Ll?c EIT crj~tcep: -nd COI-1 rtc 1 o I llie 31 APPENDIX I number of personnel to be asslgncd to the team Furthermore, GAO Iden- tlflcd the problem of'the proper adnnnlstratlvc assignment to preclude an augmentation of thetlocal Supervisor of Shlpbulldlng, Conversion and Repair The Department of the Navy reserves comment on the FIT concept and the assxgnment thereof until after the Implement-atlon and evaluation of the approved pilot program Speclflc comments are stlblmtted below A FINDING - The Navy has not evaluated work requirements to deter- mine the rates and ratings that should be included In a nucleus crew. COFNCUT - The Office of the Chief of Naval Operations -0 (OP-10) lnitlated a request on 4 January 1971 for a manpower survey of pre-commlSslon2ng eretrs (nucleus and balance crews). Ships of the DE-1052 and LST-1179 classes are the recommended sample hulls. In Bfr\y of 1969, upon first contact xath GAO representatlves,a memo- . randum (OP-100~ ser 12368PlO of 22 >$~y r969) was provided, This docu- ment addressed the rationale then titxlxzed fobf the assignment of partlc- *ulal rates/ratings for DE net7 construction ships As an xnstrum$nt of self evaluatjon the RTavy instituted In Janwry 1970 a rcclw4 nticlefis crew plc&:rayll for tit0 LSi-1179 class ships bullu- lng at pdtlona? Steel and Shlpbulldlng Company, San DLego, Cal~forntl Under this program the nucleus crett 1a.s reduced from 4 officers and CO cnl1stc.d pcrso,lqel to 4 offlccrs and 20 enllstcd Reallzlng that the membets of the nucleus cretv spend considerable t$me and efforL mono- tosinz constructloo Pctlvitles, the staff of CoTmanZer Amphrblous Force, U S P=iclflc I'lect and other ApphiblousStaffs in the vLclniry of tbe bulldIng site \wx tasked wth prowc'lng the expertise to assist the reduced nucleus crerT The balance crew 1s ordered to the Fleet fralnlng Center, San D~.cgo for famlllarlzatlon and lndoctrxnatlon of net7 systc?% and equlprilent both at the fleet tralnlng center and aboard ~~1-1179 cless ships already in corwnsslon Feed back reports evaluating the redtced nucleus crew programs trill be available in >nrch 1971 or apploxlmately thirty days after comnlsslonlng of the SAGIKAW (LST-1188) and EO~DCR (LST-1190) B ---FII'DI~G - Ihe ~ac>'s system for obtaining informatxon on the utlll?a- tron of nucleus wet's 1s lnadeauate co1 - - -- - hiI-7 I,.-1ect1ve OFI \IIST [ICC 8 (scrle-) till bc updated to ;nc1,1 c co I-~LI~LS ;W L thz “10 ,, sctlxe &~-+a-,drrg off] Lcr (,<<I) on t'r~ utlll7Ption of q nucleus crt7 Co~ir nts 171IL be subpltted as part of the Progress arid Rcw~lness Pcpcrts rccuxred b) fi7av-y Dlrectlvc, OPxALq?I\'S1 32 APPENDIX I 9030 2 (series). c IINDING - The perrod of assignment 1s based on the 6 month time limit- atlon that per diem can ordlnarlly be pald. CO>XNT - 71~ nucleus crew consists of those personnel ordered directly --- to the bmldzng shlpyard or convcrslon site prior to the comnnsslonlng of the ship This detail consists of experienced personnel and does not normally receive pre-commissioning tralnlng. They assist in asscm- blylng the Poe-com~lsslonlng outflt, in witnessing tests of machinery and equipment and they serve as on the -Job instructors for the balance of the crew when it reports The phasing of the nucleus crew (approx- imately 25% of the authorized manpower) 1s structured so as to mlnlmlze personnel haldshlps, family separation, and any unnecessary expenditure of per diem funds For authorzzed orew s17e.s of less than 350 billets, a nucleus crew (25% of authorized billets) 1s ordered to report four months prior to commls- sioning For authorized crew sizes of greater than 350 billets, a nucleus crew of 5 officers and 30 enlisted personnel are ordered to report 6 months prior to conimissloning. The staffing plan currently utlllzed evolved from past experience, the need LO properly nlan~ge mznporcr assets, and the monltorlng of nucleus crew assets authorlded by OSD For FP 71, 75 percent of the new construction/conterslon non-nuclear powered ships 17cre manned 4 n onths or less pllor to commlsszonlng The total nucleus crew manporter authorlLed and assigned for these bulls F7as 129 officer and 1693 enlisted billets The manpoTqer associated with the renzlning 25 percent of the hulls was 60 officer and 360 enlisted billets It IS therefore the Navy's position that the structuring of the staffing plan was not. oriented to the 6 month time llmltatlon for per diem funds The hTaq staffing Plan for ne+q construction and maJor c&version has nbt been promulgated in its entirety A Navy dlrectlve, OPNAvIN>T 3500 23A, currently in a second draft form end scheduled to be issued durlrig the fourth quarter of FY 71, ~111 promulgate the staffing plan (TAB B) D --IXNDINC - The number of perscknel asslgned to a nucleus crew 1s based on Judgcmznt a?d historical practl-ee CO)fXTl-1~ --- - WV) does not conslocI this fInding to be crltlcal 01 Lhe nlnqlng procedures Ihe re,ccnl ly oLdered wnDwzer survey 1711.1. document 33 APPENDIX I through applied r7ork measuring tcchnlques the z'equlred mznpo\;7cr to man a nucleus crew. The current practice orlglnated with the first post WI1 maJor consLructlo2 efforL, the DD-931 class dcstroyzr Since that tlrre the nucleus crelr structure has been modlfled by the expressed needs of Prospective Commanding Offxcers, th? hrstorlcal results of va~lous net7 coqstructlon proglc7ms, and the Julgement of Navy Department experienced officers t7ho have first hand knowledge of the complcxltles of modern naval new construction The results of the marlpo;Ter survey are antlclpated by end of the fourth quarter FY 71, and at that time mannzng adJustments will be Implemented. E --FINDINGS - - The present method of asslgnlng nucleus crews 1s n3t based on actual need. - The Navy has a7 opportunity to transfer to other use, slgnlflcant manpower and funds ptesently allocated to nucleus crews - In general, nucleus cre17s are sent to construction siies before they are needed and to perform certain tasks that are alrendy the respo?slbzllty of other Navy orgdnl?atrons. --colQ%NTC - These flndlngs are consIdered Logical end-results in view of the time spsn of the review, the orlent2tlon of the representatives and the mcLhor'olo~y employed The ~2vy recog717cs the need to rcflnz cu1recit pr?ctlces ticlth tht go21 of effcctlvely uLlflLlng avaIlable manpor,ar assets and reducing the c+endlture of austere per diem funds The Navy considers thnt the vchlcles to acco~pllsh thzsc goals are preseiltly available in thz form of the previously mentioned AD HOC panel, FI'J. con- cept pllot program 3q.l the recently inltlated m?npoder survey iequest 'ihe Navy defers comment on the resoluLlon of above findings untrl the evaluation 1s complete and results of the current Na~ry studres and pro- grams have bzen reviewed l-13 Fe NlnI’J.1 O?iAL _L- CO XIJT’3 w-e-- I Under ~zvy Revre,q Procedures' on page 25 of the report it 1s stc ted that the Naval Inspector General 1s responsible for perfoLnnng evalu?tlons of the utlllzatlon of nucleus crews, cltlng the provlslons OZ a Navy Dlrectlve, OPXAV Instruction 5300 3, T<hlch 1s ouldated and does not reflect the OP,<AVorganlzatronal changes dlrected by OPNAVLKS7 5430 serial 30$5PO9B3 of 30 ilprll 1968. This latter mstruc- tion transferred the responslblllLles foL alanpower vallddtlon from the NAVINSGEq to the Deputy Chief of Naval. Operations @EnpoTTer and Naval Reserve). 1 GAO note. Page number refers to draft report. 34 r h APPENDIX II PRINCIPAL OFFICIALS OF THE DEPARTMENTOF DEFENSEAND THE DEPARTMENTOF THE NAVY RESPONSIBLEFOR ACTIVITIES DISCUSSEDIN THIS REPORT Tenure of offlce From To DEPARTMENTOF DEFENSE SECRETARYOF DEFENSE Melvin R. Lalrd Jan. 1969 Present Clark M. Clifford Mar. 1968 Jan. 1969 Robert S. McNamara Jan. 1961 Feb. 1968 DEPUTY SECRETARYOF DEFENSE David M. Packard Jan. 1969 Present Paul H Nitze July 1967 Jan. 1969 Cyrus R. Vance Jan. 1964 June 1967 ASSISTANT SECRETARYOF DEFENSE (MANPOWER AND RESERVEAFFAIRS) Roger T. Kelley Mar. 1969 Present Vxe Adm. W, R. Mack (acting) Feb. 1969 Mar. 1969 Alfred B. Fltt Oct. 1967 Jan 1969 Thomas D. Morris Oct. 1965 Sept. 1967 DEPARTMENTOF THE NAVY SECRETARYOF THE NAVY John H. Chafee Jan. 1969 Present Paul R. Ignatrus Aug. 1967 Jan. 1969 John T. McNaughton July 1967 July 1967 Paul H. Nltze Nov. 1963 June 1967 UNDERSECRETARYOF THE NAVY John W. Warner Feb. 1969 Present Charles F. Baird July 1967 Jan. 1969 Robert H. Baldwxn July 1965 June 1967 Kenneth E. Belleu Feb. 1965 July 1965 35 APPENDIX II Tenure of office From -To DEPARTMENTOF THE NAVY (contmued) ASSISTANT SECRETARYOF THE NAVY (MANPOWER AND RESERVE): James E. Johnson Apr. 1971 Present James D Hlttle Mar. 1969 Mar. 1971 Randolph S. Driver Aug. 1967 Jan. 1969 36 USGAO Vash,DC
Too Many Crew Members Assigned too Soon to Ships Under Construction
Published by the Government Accountability Office on 1971-08-09.
Below is a raw (and likely hideous) rendition of the original report. (PDF)