oversight

Impact of Employment Ceilings on Management of Civilian Personnel

Published by the Government Accountability Office on 1971-04-30.

Below is a raw (and likely hideous) rendition of the original report. (PDF)

        REPORT TO THE COATGRESS

                        _ llNml~llllllll
                               llllllllllllllllllllllllllll
                                 LM095669




              f Employment
                  anagement                 ’
    .


c
    To the President    of the Senate and the
    Speaker   of the House of Representatives
            \                                                                    f
             This is our report     OR tke impact    of employment    ceilings
    on management       of civilian   personnel   in the Department     of De-
    fens e .
     ,
            The review    -u;7as made pursuant    to the Budget and Ac-
.   counting   Act,  1921   (31  U.S.C. 53),  and  the Accounting  and
    Audit&g    Act of L950 (31 U.S.<.     67).

            Copies of this   report are being sent to the Director,’
    Office ,of Management      and Budget; and the Secreta+y    of
    Defensk.
                                                                                     f




                             l
                                          Comptroller      General
                                          of the United    States




                     SOTW ANWPERI;ARY        1922 - 1971
                                                  DPACT OF EWLQYPENT CEILINGS ON
                                                  84QWSEENT OF CIVILIAN PERSOt4NEt
                                                  Departzmt of Defense  8-165959


-DIGEST
  w----m




           Previous    reviews  concerned witk lkparbipnt      of Defense personnel
           ceilinqs    dealt with the pta&ice     of cmttacting     for personal
           servick,   questionable     u&e of overt4m3, and tia~emek        of per-
           some1 ceilings     md recruiting.      (S9e p. 26.)
                                                                                          i
                                                                                          ;       .
       Before this r&e++ was cqfeted,           tie zct's personnel      lid tations
       were regaled.     A ceiliq,spsWz        ~~vicusly      iqmed    by the Sureau
       of the Oudget was then relmta+,ed,          Ml also inquired      fnto devel-
       opmnts   in personnel    corrtrols folto~ing      those events.     (see p. 23.)




           Personnel    ceilings   or hiring   7fmit~~tfms   do not provide   the most
           effective    management cmtrol      ow2’h c’iv4 Ilaa persmnel.     That fs         c
           true,  in GAO's opinion*    whetkr    tie restrfctfom    are iqmsed by
           statute or by the Officz of !%mqmmt             mb Budpt  (formerly Bu-
           reau of the Budget).     Perrcib*rnel c..f1Sng!s tmd to be




 Tear
 _-- Sheer
       -
I         GAO believes  that personnel                 levels can be better   controlled     through
          budget and program planning                  procedures. -

          rmpuct   -of   ox?+   fs rf?strZctions
                                   . ..
          The reduction       of civilian      personnel  under the 1968 act was absorbed
          without    serious    impact on programs.        In some cases, a result      was im-
          balances of work-force          skills:     too many workers in some skills        and
          not enough in others.           Those imbalances,     combined with personnel
          shortages,      probably would have affected         overall    programs adversely
          if the restrictions         had remained in effect.          (See p. 8.)

          The most significant       effect     of the hiring     limitations,    together    with
          the spending reductions         required    by the law, was to increase          emphasis
          on priorities      in the allocation       of personnel      and funds.    The empha-
          sis given to work priorities           because of employment restrictions,           im-
          posed by statute       and by the Executive       Branch, will have long-range
          beneficial    effects,    GAO believes.       (See p. 31.)

          There was more flexibility           in management of personnel              under the
          ceilings    imposed by the Executive           Branch--which       were set annually--
          than under the statutory         hiring     restrictions.         Under the ceiling
          system, managers were able to make orderly                   personnel      plans on an
          annual basis;     under the statutory          restrictions,       they were subject
          to unanticiejated     changes in h!'ring         authorjty.       Causing more uncer-
          tainty   was the hiring     ratio directed           under the statutory         restric-
          tions which prescribed        that,     for every four civilian             employees
          leaving   the Department,       only three could be replaced.                  Thus va-
          cancies and hiring      frequently       were controlled         by attrition       rather
          than by management judgments on the needs of programs and activi-
          ties.    (See p. 24.)

          Department   of Defense officials      responsible      for manpower management
          agree that,    in this period of reduction        in defense activity,   fund
      .   limitations     cause more effective     control    over employment than do'
          personnel   ceilings.     (See p. 25.)


    RECO~~l?DATIONSOR SUGGESTIONS
          GAO proposed to the Director    of the Bureau of the Budget that depart-
          ments and agencies be permitted    to accomplish  their programs without
          restrictions on numbers of personnel,    being limited  only by the
          availability of funds.    (See p. 31.)

          Personnel management could be substantially        improved by a continuing
          evaluation  of the programs and activities      of Department of Defense
          component organizations   by an independent     group of officials.     GAO
          proposed that the Secretary   establish    a group for that purpose.       (See
          p. 32.)




                                                   :     2
                                                                                        I




ACiZ’tJU ACTIOflS M!J iXEZ~O5-~3     ISS;TS                                             i

      The Oepartmnt        of Defense said it did not consider that establishing         !
      a group     to reevaluate   programs and activities    would significantly         1
                                                                                       . I
      improve     its present   review process.   The Department said also that
      virtually      every level of managfxent was making maximum effort         to      !
      achieve     savings necessary    to meet budget reductions.     (See pa 32.)      i

      The Director       of the Office    crf~!!wage~nt     md Budget, upon request
      of the Deputy Secretary         of Ilefense,    agreed in Iketier    1970 to
      eliminate       employment ceilings      in the Department   of kfense   for a
      l-year    trial    period.   (See p. 32-j

      GAO has not been infomd    of the IDW-IS by which the Secretary   of
      Defense plans to assess the effectiveness   of fiscal and program
      -constraints on employment levels during the test period.     (See p. 32.)

      Accordingly,    GAO reccmnds     that the Secretary  establish     a centra'l-
      ized group of officials     to assess the effectiveness      of fiscal    and
      program constraints     on employment levels   in the Department       of De-
      fense.     {See p. 33.)




      This report       is fwnished    te the Congress because of its     continuing
       interest    in   civilian  personnel  ceiling  controls.




 Tear Sheet
                                      --




                                                        Page

DIGEST                                                    1    .



     1    LIMITATIONS ON CIVILEJW PERSONNELRESOURCES      4

     2    IMPACT OF STATUTQRYL!!4ITXTIUSS ON WAGE-
          ?4ENTOF CIVILIXY PERSOSNEL                      8
              Impact of hiring limitations on the
                Navy                              / I     9
              Impact of hiring limitations on the i
                Army                              i      18
              Impact of hiring Iinitations on the
                Air Force                                20


,~
     3     IWACT OF crv~~mii R~~XSEL CEILISGS SUB-
         , SEQUENTTO REPEALOF STXTW-ORYLIMITATIOKS
                                                 /       23

     4
                                                         26

     5    CONCLUSIOSS,XGESCYCO-WESTS, A.YDRECOM-'
          MENDATION                                      29
              Recomendation                       I      33

     6                                                   34
                                                                  Page
APPENDIX       -
  IV       Principal    officials     of the Department of De-
              fense and the Departments of the Army,
              Navy, and Air Force responsible        for admin-
              istration    of activities    discussed in this
              report                                               44




                   .


                                                                         i
i-      COMPTROLLERG?XZRAL'S                            IMPACT OF EMPLOYMENT  CEILINGSON
        REPORTTO THE COfJm?zSS,                         WYAGEMENT OF CIVILfAN PERSONNEL
                                                        Department of Defense  B-165959
i.I
1
        DIGEST
        ---m-m



             This review was made to assess the impact of hiring     restrictions
             directed  by the Revenue and Expenditure  Control  Act of 1968 on
             the Department of Defense,   to compare compliance  procedures       under
             the act's  restrictions with procedures  under the previous       civil-
             ian personnel ceiling systern, and to ccqare                 operations under
             the     act and the previous     system.

              Previous  reviews concen?ed with Department of Defense personnel
              ceilings  deal twith     the practice  of contracting   for personal
              services,   questionable    use of overtime,    and management of per-
              sonnel ceilings     and recruiting.    (See p* 26.1

             Before this review was completed,         tie act's personnel     limitations
             were repealed.   A ceiling     system ureviowly       irr-posed by the Bureau
             of the Budget was then reinstated.           GAO also inquired    into devel-
             opments in personnel    controls    following    those events.      (See p. 23.)


      1) FINDINGS R~'D..COJJCLUSIOHS
i             CeiZinqs am not best mthod
              Personnel     ceilings   or hiring    limitations    do not provide   the most
              effective     managerxnt    control   over civilian     personnel.   That is
              true,     in GAO's opinion,     whether the restrictions       are imposed by
              statute     or by We Office of Management and Budget (formerly             Bu-
              reau of the Budget).         Personnel     ceilings  tend to be

                   --arbitrarily     applied becaure    of the difficulty        of making        them
                      mogram         requiremnts;

                   --inflexible    because they do not all@{        for     changes   in skills      as
                       needed in   changed programs;

                   --uneconomical when they permit        accomplishment  of programs
                      through use of overtim labor        at pretium pay; and

                   --ineffective       in controlling    spending since,    as an alternative,
                       programs-?@       be accomplished   through contracting    Gth firms
                       or institutions      for personal   services.    (See PP# 29 and 30.)
                         YI-                  m   I




    GAO believes  that personnel                      levels   can be better   controlled   through
    budget and program planning                       procedures.

    Impact of act's            rt3sttietims
    The reduction       of civilian      personnel  under the 1968 act was absorbed
    without    serious    impact on programs.        In some cases, a result        was im-               .
    balances of work-force          skills:     too many workers     in some skills    and
    not enough in others.           Those imbalances,     combined with personnel
    shurtages,      probably    would have affected      overall    programs adversely
    if the restrictions         had remained in effect.          (See p. 8.)

    The most significant       effect     of the hiring     limitations,     together    with
    the spending reductions         required    by the law, was to increase           emphasis
    on priorities      in the allocation       of personnel      and funds.     The empha-
    sis given to work priorities           because of employment restrictions,            im-
    posed by statute       and by the Executive       Branch, will       have long-range
    beneficial    effects,    GAO believes.       (See p. 31.)

    There was more flexibility           in management of personnel                under the
    ceilings    imposed by the Executive            Branch--which       were set annually--
    than under the statutory         hiring      restrictions.         Under the ceiling
    system, managers were able to make orderly                    personnel      plans on an
    annual basis;     under the statutory           restrictions,       they were subject
    to unanticipated     changes in hiring            authority.       Causing more uncer-
    tainty   was the hiring     ratio      directed       under the statutory         restric-
    tions which prescribed        that,     for every four civilian              employees
    leaving   the Department,       only three could be replaced.                   Thus va-
                                                                                                      I
    cancies   and hiring    frequently        were controlled         by attrition       rather
    than by management judgments on the needs of programs and activi-
    ties.    (See p. 24.)

    Department   of Defense officials     responsible      for manpower management
    agree that,    in this period of reduction       in defense activity,   fund
    limitations    cause more effective     control    over employment than do
    personnel   ceilings.    (See p. 25.)


RECOML%XDATIOK5'
             OR iUGGESTI&S
    GAO proposed to the Director    of the Bureau of the Budget that depart-
    ments and agencies be permitted    to accomplish  their programs without
    restrictions on numbers of personnel,    being limited  only by the
    availabi?ity of funds.    (See p. 31.)

    Personnel  management could be substantially       improved by a continuing
    evaluation  of the programs and activities      of Department     of Defense
    component organizations   by an independent     group of officials.       GAO
    proposed that the Secretary   establish    a group for that purpose.         (See
    p. 32.j




                                         4”             2
     .
         The Department of Defense said it did not consider       that establishing
         a group to reevaluate    programs and activities   would significantly
         iwrove    its present review process.    The Department said also that
         virtually    every level of management was making maximum effort       to
         achieve savings necessary to meet budget reductions.         (See P- 32.)

         3he Direct@&&          the Office of Managemnt and Budget, upon request
         OF Ee Deputy Secretary           of Defense, agreed in December 1970 to
         eliminate       employment ceilings     in the Department of Defense for a
         l-year    trial    period.    (See p. 32.)

         GAO has not been informed of the means by which the Secretary     of
         Defense plans to assess the effectiveness   of fiscal and program
         constraints  on employment levels during the test period.    (See p. 32.)

         Accordingly,    GAO recommends that the Secretary      establish     a centra l-
         ized group of officials     to assess the effectiveness        of fiscal   and
         program constraints     on employment levels in the Department of De-
         fense.     (See p, 33.)
:I


         This report   is furnished    to the Congress because      of its   continuing
         interest   in civilian   personnel  ceiling  controls.




                                                 3
                                  CHAPTER1

                            LIMITATIONS ON

                    CIVILIAN PERSONNELRESOURCES

         On June 28, 1968, the Congress enacted the Revenue and
  Expenditure     Control Act of 1968,(Pub. L. 90-364) which im-
  posed restrictions      on hiring     of civilian    employees and ex-
. penditures    by the Executive Branch.           Because of continuing
  interest    in theemanagement of personnel resources by the
  departments and agencies of the Government, the General Ac-
  counting Office examined into the impact of these limita-
  tions on the Department of Defense.              We also inquired   into
  the impact of personnel ceilings           imposed by the Executive
  Branch after the hiring       limitations       were repealed.    The
  scope of our-work is outlined          on page 34.

         Reviews, of manpower management have increased our con-
  cern about the effectiveness      of numerical limitations   or
 -ceilings    in controlling  the employment and use of civilian
  personnel.     Personnel ceilings    often are the main consider-
  ation in the selection     of a particular    means of accomplish-
-ing tasks or programs-- relying       on in-house capability,   con-
  tracting    for services,  or authorizing    overtime labor.
        Before fiscal    year 1969, civilian    personnel ceilings
 for the executive     departments and agencies generally       were
 established     on the basis of annual budgets and were admin-
 istered    by the Bureau of the Budget--now the Office of Man-
 agement and Budget.       The Department of Defense allocated
 the personnel     spaces made available     by the Bureau of the
 Budget to the military      departments.     They) in turn, allo-
 cated spaces to the various commands, and the commands to
 their installations.
        Section ZOl--Limitation   on the Number of Civilian   Of-
 ficers   and Employees in the Executive Branch--of    the Reve-
 nue and Expenditure     Control Act of 1968 provided,   in part,
 that

        --no person be appointed as a full-time    civilian  em-
           ployee to a permanent position   in the Executive
           Branch during any month when the number of such

                              i       4
                                                                 -- --_._-




          employees was greater            than on June 30, 1966 [re-                *
          vised by Pub. L. 90-580,              L?ctober 17, 1968, to exempt
          certain     positionf        in support    of Southeast       Asia oper-
          ations);      during     any period     when appointments         were so
          prohibited,        the head of any department             or agency
          could appoint         a nmber       of persons     as full-time     civil-
          ian employees         in pemanent       positions      equal to 75 per-
          cent     of the number of vacancies             in such positions
          which occurred          during    the Period      by reason of resig-
          nation,     retirement,        removal,    or death;

        --the     number of temporary    and part-tine     employees    in
            any department    or agency in the Executive        Branch
            dur+ng any month not be greater         than in the corre-
            sponding    month in 1967 (revised      by Pub. L. 90-580,
            October    17, 1968, to the average number on an annual
            basis,   not exceeding    the average number during        1967);
            and

        --$he -Director,     Bureau of the Budget,         be responsible
           for administering      the hiring   linitations       and be
           given authority      to allocate   vacancies      to be filled
           from one department       or agency to another.

        Section  202 of the act provided  that expenditures
 during   fiscal  year 1969 be at least  $6 billion      less than
 the amount included    in the budget approved      by the Congress.

          On June 28, 1968, the Bureau of the Budget issued Bul-
 letin     No. 68-15 to the Heads of Executive               Departments        and
 Establishments         implementing       the statutory      limitations.        Em-
 ployment      ceilings     previously       established    by the Bureau for
 the end of fiscal          year 1969 ~u’crc rescind&d,          and responsi-
 bilities      of agency heads for adninistration                of    the “75 per-
 cent replacement          rule”   were defined.         The agencies       were
 told that contracting            with, firrris and institutions           should
 not be used to circulmvent             the EmplOymeIlZ     restrictions.

        Instructions        for implementing    Public  Law 90-364 and
, Bureau of the Budget Bulletin            68-25 in the Department     of
  Defense were issued by the Secretary             of Defense on July 15,
  1968, to the Secretaries          of the &Amy, x~vy, and Air Force
  and to other organizations           of the DeParenent.     The follow-
  ing policies       provided   guidance.



                                            5
      --The reduction    in civilian     employment should be
         achieved "bFvoluntary      personnel actions to the
         greatest practical    extent.

      --Elimination     of marginal functions,     consolidations    of
         organizations    for efficiency,   and improved.produc-
         tivity   should be considered    to the extent feasible
         in order to maintain operational       effectiveness.
      --Contracting      with firms and institutions     would not be
         used to circumvent      the prescribed    employment restric-
         tions.     Contracting    for products or services would
         be continued when fully       supported under criteria     pro-
         vided in pertinent      Department of Defense directives.

      --Department   of Defense components were encouraged to
         reassign vacancies between organizational     elements
      " under their jurisdiction     and among various types of
         positions  so as to achieve the most effective    use of
         those ,vacancies authorized   to be filled.

      The Secretary of Defense stated that each component of
the Department would be furnished          a ceiling  for full-time
permanent positions      as of June 30, 1969, and that the hir-
ing authority   might be revised in the future.           On August 30,
1968, the Assistant      Secretary of Defense (Manpower and Re-
serve Affairs)   notified     the military    departments that the
rate at which appointments        could be made of full-time       em-
ployees to permanent positions         becoming vacant on or after
September 1, 1968, was reduced from 75 percent to 70 per-
cent.   Other changes in the rehire rate were made on Janu-
ary 13, 1969--Army 70 percent;         Navy 74 percent;    and Air
Force 85 percent.
        On February 17, 1969, the President of the United
States expressed his concern that Federal Government em-
ployment was considerably        higher than it should be.       In a
letter    to heads of'executive       departments and agencies,    he
said that he had asked the Budget Director            to issue in-
structions    for review of civilian        employment levels.   .Re-
ductions were to be carried out through an orderly process
of attrition     and were to apply to all executive departments
and agencies including       activities     excluded from the employ-
ment limitations     of the Revenue and Expenditure         and Control
Act of 1968,

                             c     6
        Section   201 of the -&evenue and Expenditure         Control     Act
of 1968 was repealed        by the Congress on July       22, 1969.        The
system of managing civilian          personnel  ceilings     previously
used by the Executive        Branch was restored;      the stated       ob-
jective     was the continuing     of the restraint      and reduction
of overall      Federal  employment.

      The principal      officials     responsible  for administration
of the activities       discussed    in this report    are identified
in appendix     IV.
                                                    --

                                  CHAPTER2

                  IMPACT OF STATUTORYLIMITATIONS

                ON MANAGEMENT
                            OF CIVILIAN PERSONNEL

        Increased emphasis on evaluation           of programs and estab-
lishment of priorities         was, in our opinion,        one of the most
significant      effects    of the implementation        of the Revenue
and Expenditure        Control Act of 1968 at the military          head-
quarters,     commands, and installations          included in our exam-
ination.      Although limitations         on the hiring    of personnel
were absorbed without major impact on mission capabilities
during fiscal       year 1969, command and installation          officials
said that operations         and programs would have been ;adversely
affected     had the hiring      limitations     continued.
        The impact of hiring       limitations     on total opelrations
 could not be readily       distinguished      from the effects      of other
 circumstances.       Mosi signific-r' til L was the reduction      of expen-
 ditures   required under section 202 of the act; changes in
-operational     requirements,     shifts    in program empha?is, reas-
 signment of work among installations,             and availabllity     of
 the types of work skills         needed also affected      work load
management.
        Within specific        programs and work areas the impact of
hiring     limitations      was more evident than in the total work
load of a command or installation.                 Imbalances in work-
force skills --too many workers in some skills                  and not enough
in others     --caused     by  loss  of   personnel     through  attrition
contributed        to a need for reductions         in force in some in-
stances.        Increased use was made of temporary and part-time
employees and overtime labor.               Use of contractors.in          some
industrial-type         operations     increased,     but this was not sig-
nificant      in relation      to total programs.
                                                                     ]
        We did not identify         any instances      of increased assign-
ment of military         personnel to replace civilians            lost through
attrition.         We were told, however, that in many cases duties
of separated civilians            were absorbed by the personnel re-
maining,      including     assigned military       personnel.       In other
reviews of the assignment and utilization                   of personnel,     we
noted military         personnel in positions         that could be conv-erted


                              I
                              I         8
                                                                                                     :
                                                                                                     f



to civilian        positions     if limitations            imposed      by civilian
personnel       ceilings     were removed,
                                                                                                     I
         Although       our examination           was made primarily          in the
Navy, limited           inquiries      were made in the Army and the Air                             ;
Force.        Differences         in the manner of implementing                 the hiring
limitations         were attributed           to differences          in organizational
structure        and, to a lesser .extent,               in management philosophy.                   h
The implementing            procedures        used also reflected           differences              :
in civilian         personnel       situations        in July 1968, when sec-
tion     201 became effective,               as compared with those at                               1’
June 30, 1966.             In essence,        the Xavy integrated           the hiring
limitations          into its existing            personnel     ceiling     control        and       i
budget procedures;              the Army delegated           rehire     authority        to
its commands at specified                  rates;     and the Air Force used a                       /
procedure        based on both rehire              rates    and quarterly         target             :”
                                                                                                     ‘;
end strengths          e                                                                             t
IMPACT OF HIRING           LIMITATIONS
ON THE NAVY

         Thi Navy used existing              procedures      for administering
civilian      personnel      ceilings.          Although     not specifically
directed      by the Department             of Defense to reduce the total
number of civilians           employed to the level               existing    on
June 30, 1966, hiring              limitations         were converted      to numeri-
cal ceilings         and administered            by the Navy with that objec-
tive.       Quarterly     employment          ceilings     were allocated       by the                   i
Office      of Civilian      Manpower Management on the basis of at-                                     i
trition      studies     and the replacement             rate prescribed        for the
                                                                                                         'I,
Navy by the Department               of Defense.         Commands and installa-
tions were required           to operate            under the ceilings       placed              .
upon them by naval headquarters.                       Thus, the commands were
not directly         concerned       with implementing          the statutory       hir-
ing ,limitations.

        To achieve.personnel          reductions        on a program priority
basis,    the Navy.chose        to impose ceilings            on its commands
through     program budget decisions             rather     than through      exten-
sive hiring       restrictions.         Accordingly,        ceilings     for the
various     naval activities         were assigned         by linking.personnel
reductions       to budget reductions          through      a program designated
“Project      693,1f     After  all. budgetary        effects      had been
weighed,      it still      was necessary      to delete        about 1,200 posi-
tions    on a service-wide          basis.


                                                9
       The extent to which the Navy was successful        in achiev-
ing its objective   of coordinating      personnel reductions    with            .
revised program priorities     is illustrated      below.  This  sum-
mary is based on a May 1969 report in which the Office of
Civilian   Manpower Management attributed       only 2,000 of the
estimated reduction    of 13,300 civilian      positions  for fiscal
year 1969 directly   to the operation       of section 201 (see
app. III):

        Fiscal year 1969 budget reduction      by the
           Department of Defense                                 4,500
        $1 billion    funds cut under section 202 of
           Public Law 90-364                                     4,300
        $39 million     cut in funds for personnel
           compensation in other than industrial
           fund activities     I                                 2,500
        Section 201 of Public Law 90-364                         2,000

    .       Total reduction        in civilian   person-
              nel for fiscal        year 1969                   13.300

         To obtain information    on the effect of the hiring limi-
- tations   on operations,   ke visited  the following commands
  and installations,

 Naval Ship Systems Command's shipyards
       Officials  at Headquarters of the Naval .Ship Systems
 Command discussed with us the impact of the hiring    limita-
 tions on the operations   of its shipyards.
       A program budget decision       approved by the Office of
 the Secretary of Defense in December 1968 directed                   that a
 substantial    part of the reduction       in civilian      personnel im-
 posed on the Navy-was to be made at the Command's shipyards.
 This was to be achieved by revising          priorities;       i.e.,     can-
 celing some overhaul work, deferring          other work until           fis-
 cal year 1970,     transferring    work  to  commercial      shipyards,
 and increasing     the use /of overtime labor.           About 5,500 per-
 manent positions,      or 6 percent of the total employment,
 were eliminated      during fiscal   year 1969.
       Seventy-seven ships were deleted from the overhaul
 schedule presented with the program budget for fiscal    year
 1969. Reasons for these deletions    were summarized as fol-
 lows:

                                        10
                               I
       Operational      shift,     not replaced      because
          of funding      constraints                                15 ships
       Deferred    to future        years because of
          funding    reductions                                      id      ”
       Overhaul    canceled,        ship inactivated     or
          scrapped     because of funding         reduc-
          tions                                                      18     )’
       Overhaul    canceled       for other reasons                   9     tt
       Transferred      to Naval Reserve Training,
          subject    to overhaul        under that pro-
          gram.                                                       9     (1

       San Francisco        Bay Naval      Shipyard

        Civilian      employment     at the San Francisco           3ay Naval
Shipyard       was reduced by about 1,100 positions                 or 5.2 per-
cent, during        fiscal     year 1969.       Since the Shipyard’s         work
load also was reduced by the Command, we could not attrib-
ute any adverse           impact to the reduction           in personnel.                   .
Changes in work load--i.e.,               reassignment,       deferral,     or can-
cellatton        of planned     shipwork--xere       attributed       by the Com-
mand to other causes.              In all,     21 ships were deleted         from
the Shipyard’s          planned    work load schedule          for fiscal    year
1969.

         Procedures      for administering         personnel       ceilings        prior
to enactment         of Public    Law 90-364 remained            unchanged,          and
the reduction          in personnel     was accomplished           largely       through
attrition.         It was the policy        of the Shipyard            to make no
reductions       in force     for the purpose         of conforming           with as-
signed ceilings.            No specific     hiring     restrictions           were im-
posed by the Command, but a voluntary’hiring                         restriction
was used at the Mare Island              site    in April       1969 until         it was
decided      that the June 30, 1969,;ceiling                could be reached.               -

        The most significant            result     of personnel    reduction
through      attrition        was an imbalance       of work-force      skills.
Contributing           to this problem was the phaseout            of certain
ship construction             work and completion        of a major ship con-
version      project.         In April    1969, reduction-in-force            actions
involving        about 400 positions           were taken to correct          this
imbalance.           About 90 percent       of the employees       affected        were
offered      employment         in other trades      at the Shipyard.           In
June 1969, plans             were made for a reduction          in force of 160
additional         positions      which would not be required           unless


                                           11
    firm indications        of additional          new construction     were   re-
    ceived.

             Shipyard
            <,.            officials         attributed    the need for reduction-
    in-foi.ce     actions        to changes in the work “mix”          rather     than
    the ceiling         limitation,          but the Command indicated        that these
    actions      could have been avoided                had it not been for the
    statutory       hiring       limitations.

         Use of overtime      labor was not increased     significantly
  at the Shipyard      in fiscal    year 1969 as a result      of the re-
  duced number of personnel.          The increase   over the overtime
  fabor used in fiscal        year 1968 that did occur was attribut-
  able to the relatively         low use of overtime    in the last     two
1 quarters   of fiscal    year 1968.

             Departmental      and Command officials         were concerned      that
, planned        input    of apprentices      would be severely        reduced be-
    cause of hiring         limitations.        About 40 percent       of the Ship-
    yard’s      skilled    work force,    built     up during    World War II,
; would be eligible            for retirement       within   5 years,      and appren-
    tices     were needed to replace          the anticipated       losses.     No
/ - restrictions        on the hiring     of apprentices       were made at the
1 Shipyard         and more apprentices         were hired    during     fiscal  year
 - 1969 than planned.

I         Contracts    awarded to commercial      shipyards            for overhaul
i work and other       services  decreased   during.fiscal               year 1969,
  primarily      because of budget reductions.




                                     1’       12
                                                                  --


     Eaval   Material       Command’s           laboratories

             Officials     of the Office   of the Director     of Laboratory
     Programs,       Naval Material    Command, discussed    the hiring     Iim-
     itations       and the effect   on operations    of its 12 laborato-
     ries.

           As part of the “Project          693” budget reduction           program,
     funds available     for naval research          and development        in fis-
     cal year 1969 were reduced by $20 million.                  This    reduction
     in funds was apportioned         to each systems command, the Office
     of Naval Research,      and   the   Director     of Laboratory        Programs.
     These organizations      were responsible          for reviewing       projects
     with the project      sponsors     and for identifying         those on
     which work could be reduced,           deferred,      or canceiled.

           During fiscal   year 1969, personnel           ceilings      imposed on
     the Director    of Laboratory     Programs caused a re:duction             in
     the civilian   work force of-about        1,500 positions,           or
     6.4 percent.     The commander at each laboratory               center    was
     responsible   for meeting     assigned    ceilings;        the ,Director     of
     Laboratory   Programs provided       general     guidance      compatible
     with that of the Departments         of Defense and Navjy.

              Estimating     that net savings      of $13.3,million            could be
     realized       if action     was taken by January       31 to meet assigned
     June 30, 1969, ceilings,            the Director     considered         the use of
     reductions        in force because civilian        employment! at the lab-
     oratories        was above the ceiling       in effect     priof      to the en-
     actclent      of Public    Law 90-364.     Subsequently,         plans were re-
     vised in keeping          with Bureau of the Budget and Department
     of Defense policy          to avoid reductions       in force,        and the
     period      for making fiscal       year 1969 employment           reductions     at
-I   the laboratories          was extended   to permit      greater       reliance    on
     attrition.                                                          I

            In September     1968, the Director   of Laboratory      Programs
     assigned     year-end   Ceilings which represented     ailO-percent
     across-the-board      reduction   at each center   from’the     July 31,
     1968, employment      level.

             Naval      Weapons       Center,       China      I!ake ,’ Cali’forniA

              In the Directorate                of Laboratory           Programs,  the largest
      reduction     in personnel           was     planned        for    the Naval Weapons

                                                       13
                                  .
    Center..   As a result of ceilings    imposed by the Chief of
    Naval Material,    civilian employment was reduced by about
    330 positions,   or 6.5 percent,   during fiscal  year 1969.

           After"Y&    effective      date of the Revenue and Expenditure
    Control Act of 1968, the Chief of Naval Material               continued
    to assign personnel ceilings            to the Naval Weapons Center as
    he had done previously.           Ceilings   were achieved by attri-
    tion, restrictions        on hiring,     use of a screening board to
    review all requests for fuli-time             regular appointments,     re-
    allocation     of billets    (positions)      among the various depart-
    ments, and other management techniques.

            An informal    hiring   limitation      of one replacement      for
    each two employees separated,            adopted by the Center on
    July 3, 1968, was superseded by formal instructions                  on
    July 18, 1968, reinstituting            control   through assigned per-
    sonnel ceilings.        Subsequently,      various temporary rehire re-
    strictions      were imposed, either by the Chief of Naval Mate-
    rial or by,the Center, to achieve the required reduction                    in
    the work force.        Reduction-in-force        actions  initial.ly
    planned by the Center, involving             about 300 positions,       were
    canceled because of instructions             from the Chief of Naval Ma-
    terial     implementing     the Bureau of the Budget directives.

           By July 27, 1968, the Center had prepared a list of
    projects     planned for fiscal    year 1969 which it considered
    to be of.relatively      low priority.      The purpose of this list
    was to advise the Deputy Chief of Naval Material            of the Cen-
    ter's views on how savings in money and manpower could be
    achieved if the overall       scope of the Center's effort      was re-
    duced.      We were told that no immediate work load reductions
    were made. This list,       and a similar      list prepared in May
    1969 for fiscal     year 1970 projects,      later served the Naval
    Material     Command and project     sponsors in establishing     prior-
    ities    for work scheduled for the Center.

          During fiscal   year 1969, the number of full-time,       per-
    manent employees decreased, primarily      in clerical   and public
    works functions.     Greater use was made of temporary and part
    time employees.     Use of overtime labor increased during the
    second half of the fiscal     year over the rate for the preced-
    ing two 6-month periods by about 15 percent in man-hours and
.   25 percent in cost.     Personnel ceilings   and hiring   restric-
    tions contributed    to increased use of overtime.      The level
              of procurement       of research     and personal   services   remained
              approximately      the same as in the preceding          year, and we
              found no significant        increase     in work transferred     to other
              Government    installations       during   fiscal  year 1969.

                     .We attempted     to assess the impact of the hiring       limi-
              tations     at the Center by inquiring      into   the status of 10
              major programs       and the operations   or four functional      areas.
              Status    reports    did not show any significant      delays sttrib-                     r
                                                                                                            I

              utable    to the hiring     limitations;  although,    in some in-
              stances,      the need for additional    manpower was listed      as a
              minor problem.

                       In the functional       areas,    the central      staff     capability
              was affected        by a number of changes during             the year includ-
              ing (1) acquisition         by transfer       of some activities          from the
         ’    Corona Laboratories,          (2) transfer        of underseas      research     ac-
         I.   tivities      to another    laboratory,       and (3) conversion          to a full
              industrial       fund operation.        The Weapons Development             Depart-
              ment was.affected        by reductions        in secretarial        and clerical
              support     and in recruitment         of junior     professional       personnel.
 I            In the Research Department,             two projects       were eliminated          be-
t/       .    cause of loss of personnel,             and the studies         of I.0 other
 I            professionals        were terminated.          In the Public      Works Depart-
 I
     -        ment, imbalance        in work-force       skills    resulted     in inspection
1t            slippages       and in deferment       of some priority         maintenance
         _    work.
i


                       Although      the hiring      limitations        apparently   did not sig-
              nificantly        affect    the total        level     of operations   of the Na-
              val Weapons Center during                fiscal     year 1969 because of
               (1) increased         use of overtime          labor    and temporary    and part-’
              time employees           and (2) deferment          of some projects      and re-
              duced effort         on relatively         low-priority       work, Center offi-
              cials      felt   that there       soon would have been a significant
              impact had the restrictions                  continued.



                    Differences        in the impact of the hiring       limitations     at
              the San Francisco          Bay Naval Shipyard   and the Naval Weapons
              Center reflected         differences    in work assignment      procedures
              at the two types         of facilities.
     --Naval shipyard work loads are based on long-range
        plans for ship repair,     overhaul,    conversion,   and con-
        struction  necessary to support fleet operations.
        Although these requirements       are authorized    and
        funded through the operational       program, they are
        carefully  evaluated by the Naval Ship Systems Command -
        which considers-the    collective    capabilities    and plans
        of all naval shipyards.
       Shipyards operate under the Navy Industrial          Fund, in
       a manner similar     to a business enterprise.      They are
       reimbursed from operational       funds of the organiza-
       tions for whom the work is performed.          Because this
       is so, overall    shipyard programs generally      are con-
       trolled   by established   industrial   techniques    so that
       work loads are based on fundedioperational         require-
       ments.
     --The activities     of the naval research facilities            have
        become increasingly      centralized      through consolidation
        of f'kctior,al   capabilities      and missions.       This cen-
        tralization    was continued in fiscal         year 1969 with
        the transfer    of certain    functions      to the Naval Weap-
        ons Center and the transfer         of'other    functions   from
        the Center to other installations.             Research projects
        are authorized    and funded by the several naval sys-
        tems commands and by other organizations.
                                                I
       In recent years, the number of: approved and funded
       projects    has exceeded the capacity of the laborato-             .
       ries.    The assignment of projects        to laboratories      is
       a competitive     process involving     project    sponsors, the
       Director    of Laboratory    Programs, and Office of Naval
       Research:     We did not examine the effectiveness           of
       procedures for coordinating        evaluation     and assignment
       of research    projects.     It appears that savings could
       be realized    if responsibilities      for evaluation      and
       assignment were placed with a single I         organization     in
       the Navy.

N.avy Air Systems Command's
air rework facilities

       The Navy Office of.Civilian   Manpower Management had
ass igned civilian   personnel ceil ings, which represented  a


                           ;       16
reduction    of about 3 percent from the preceding year, to
the Naval' Air Systems Command. The Command, in turn, as-
signed personnel ceilings          to its seven naval air rework fa-
cilities   in proportion      to the level of employment at each
facility.      In total,   civilian     employment was reduced at
these facilities      during fiscal      year 1969 by about 1,750 po-
sitions,   or 5 percent,      chiefly    through attrition.
      To establish    personnel ceilings    for the rework facili-
ties,  total work load and manpower requirements        for the
seven facilities     were viewed as a whole.      If the work load
at one facility     was above its capacity,    work might be shifted            *'
                                                                          ..-_. '..
to another facility     with comparable capability.      Usually
there are two facilities      which can perform the same type of
work-- one on the east coast and one on the west coast.                         :.)
       Because the scheduled work load was reviewed and re-
vised quarterly,       it was difficult    to determine the effect   of
the hiring    limitations.     Navy officials     stated that work
load changes could not be attributed          to one cause, but could
result   from four major circumstances--(l)          availability of
funds, (2) availability       of manpower, (3) authorization      of
overtime labor, or (4) changes in the work program.
       The general plan for accomplishing    assigned work loads
with a decreasing work force at the air rework facilities
was to use alternative   methods, such as increased overtime
labor, temporary and part-time     employees, and contracting
for rework of aircraft    components.    Funds requested for
overtime work in fiscal    year 1969 were approximately     $15 mil-
lion higher than for fiscal    year 1968.
     IMPACT OF HIRING LIMITATIONS
     ON THE ARMY
              The Army restricted       the appointment of civilians       in
      full-time    permanent positions       to the number needed to fill
     ,751 percent of the vacancies occurring           after July.1,   1968.
      Pursuant to Bureau of the Budget direction,             on September 1,
      1968, the rate was reduced to 70 percent.              Subsequently,
      the Army reduced its rate to 35 percent on March 1, 1969,
      and restored     it to 70 percent for the month of June 1969.
      Personnel reductions        totaled   12,780 positions    during fiscal
      year &969,- (See app. III.]
            Establishment   of priorities     was left to the discretion
     of individual     Army commands. They were instructed         by Head-
     quarters    of the Army to review their programs and submit
     recommendations for elimination         of marginal functions    and
     consolidation     of activities     and organizations  under their
     kontrol.        -
           The commands were perm itted to honor hiring          commitments
     made prior to July 1, 1968, but these appointments            were to
     be counted against future vacancies that could be filled             in
     accordance with the rehire rate.          Employment of temporary
     and part-.time personnel was restricted          to the average num-
     ber of civilians      in these categories     during 1967. Military
__   ps:, onne 1 p overtime labor, and contract         services were not
     to be used to circumvent      the hiring    limitations.
             Army officials.told         us that the most significant        man-
     agement problem posed by the hiring              limitations     was lack of
     operating     flexibility.         Reduction of personnel       through at-
     trition    resulted        in an imbalance of work-force        skills.
     They cited a number of areas in which operating                  problems
     had been encountered and expressed the opinion that some
     would become critical           if the limitations       remained in effect.
     Some of these were:
            --Needed maintenance of real         property  being deferred
               with resulting   deterioration       and eventual higher
               costs to repair.

            --Heavy work load caused by Vietnam wounded and rapid
               turnover of personnel, creating problems in hospitals,
                                                                                                d
                                                   4-s--




               --Small  organizational           units     hurt   by the     loss   of only
                  a few spaces,

               --Staff      imbalances      throughout       the Army because of the
                  loss,     without    replacement,        of people with needed
                  skills.

               --New programs,   such as those for disadvantaged                      per-
                  sons, that were expected   to suffer from lack                     of
                  staffing.

               Armv Materiel.       Command

             Since the Army Materiel           Command employed approximately
      155,000 civilian           employees,  we discussed     the impact of the
      hiring    restrictions        with its representatives.       Civilian
      employment was reduced by about 4,800 positions,                 or 2.9 per-
      cent, during        fiscal    year 1969.

               Operating       problems    encountered    by the       Command, attrib-
      utable     in part       to reductions      in personnel,        included:

               --General   decline        in the rate at which receiving     and
                  shipping  actions         were completed in the time allotted
                  for this work.

               --General    increase   in the backlog             of preservation        and
                  packaging    of general   supplies.

               --Stopping  of the intern   recruiting               program in February
                  1969 at about 54 percent    of the              goal for the year.

               --Shifting       of skills     because of attrition              of personnel,
                  with resulting         imbalance   in the work           force,   loss of
                  productivity,       and increased     costs.

              Overtime      labor decreased     during      fiscal     year 1969 be-
      cause its use was restricted            to the support           of Southeast
      Asia operations,          top-priority    work,     and replacement            of
 i    needed materials          in inventory.      Officials         expressed       concern
.!    about continuance           of the apprenticeship          programs      but, be-
 I-   cause these programs are decentralized,                    information        was not
 j    readily     available       on the impact of the f-tiring           restrictions.
           .Army Materiel      Command officials             told us--as          had offi’
    cials     at Headquarters       of the Army--that             the greatest          prob-
    lemcaused       by reduction       of personnel          through      attrition       was
    lack of flexibility          -in managing      the work force.                Problems
    were encountered         because of periodic             changes in the rehire
    rate at which vacancies           could be filled,              coupled       with lack
--. ;crf knowledge     as to when further          restrictions           would become          .
    effective      and the lack of year-end              strength        objectives.                _
    It was much more difficult              to manage the Command’s opera-
    tions     with fluctuating       hiring     restrictions           than it would                I
    have been had a year-end             strength      limit     been furnished            at
    the beginning       of the year and remained                unchanged.

   IMPACT OF HIRING LIMITATIONS
   ON THE AIR FORCE

           Headquarters,       United     States     Air Force,         assigned     to its
   commands target         personnel      ceilings       which were adjusted
   month-by-month:in          consideration         of reductions          in positions
   actually     ac,hieved.      Particular        attention          was given to
   monitoring      the use of temporary            and part-time           employees.
   A reserve     or “pool”      of positions         was managed by the CSffice
   of Manpower and Organization,                 Deputy Chief of Staff             for
   Programs and Resources,             to provide        flexibility         for meeting
   emergency     situations.

          The initially        authorized      rate of 75 percent          for filling
   vacancies      with full-time        permanent      employees--i.e.,         three
   new employees        could be hired       to replace       each four employees
   separated-      -was reduced     to 70 percent        effective       September      1, -
   1968, and increased          to 85 percent         by the Department         of De-
   fense as of January          1, 1969.      As of April        1, 1969, a 33-
   percent     rate w-as imposed administratively                in response        to the
   President’s       expressed     desire    to achieve       reductions      in employ-
   ment beyond those required              by the law.        Reductions      totaling
   10,200 positions         were achieved        during    the fiscal      year.       (See
   app.    III.)

          The Air Force had some advantage          over the Army and the
   Navy as far as achieving         the base strength      at June 30, 1966,
   was concerned,      since the number of civilians         actually   em-
   ployed    at the time of enactment       of Public    Law 90-364 was not
   far above that level.         Increased   contracting     for personal
   services     during   that time was the primary       reason for lack
   of significant      change in civilian     employment.       The Air Force


                                     :         20
was at a relative    disadvantage       with   regard   to part-time       and
temporary   employment,     and careful      control  of these positions
was necessary.     Employees were added in positions              supporting
Southeast   Asia operations     which were exempted from controls
soon after    the act went into effect.
                                                                                              -__ _._-- ----
         Air Force officials         identified       management problems      be-
 cause of the hiring        limitations         similar     to those reported
 by the Army and the Navy--i.e.,                deferral      or postponement     of
 work and potential        impairment         of operational      readiness.
 Imbalance     of the work force         resulted       from loss through     at-
 trition     of personnel     with needed skills.

        Air   Force   Logistics                  Command

         The Logistics      Command, with an assigned             strength  of
 approximately        123,000 positions       at June 30, 1968, is the
 principal     employer     of civilian      personnel    in the Air Force.
 Our inquiries        on the effect      of the hiring      limitations     on the
 Command’s operations         were directed       to the Directorate        of
 Maintenance      Engineering      under the Deputy Chief of Staff,
 Systems and Logistics,          and to officials       at Logistics       Com-
 mand Headquarters,         Wright-Patterson        Air Force Base, Ohio.
 During fiscal        year 1969, civilian        employment      was reduced by
 about 3,000 positions,          or 2.4 percent.

        Logistics     Command officials           told us that,    in establish-
  ing priorities      and restricting         work to the most critical
  areas s  housekeeping        functions    usually    xere the first      to suf-
- fer.   For example,       priority      was given to processing        receipts
  and issues      of materials       whereas rewarehousing       of materials
  was deferred.       In maintenance,         priority    was given to work
  on engines whereas scheduled             aircraft    maintenance    programs
  were deferred.

        Depot maintenance      overtime    labor      increased    about 13 per-
 cent over the budget estimated          in fiscal         year 1969, from
 3.8   percent     of total pay in fiscal        year 1968 to 4.5 percent                                      .
 0f  total    pay.    Command officials      attributed        all this  in-
 crease to the hiring       limitations.

          Some of the work                    load management problems    had accumu-
 lated OV~F a number of                         years and were intensifed   by, but not
 directly     attributable                    to, hiring  limitations.    For example,
 the unprogrammed          work               load--i.e.,   work that had not been


                                                              21

                       _   -   -.-.   .“--.      _,__l   __        _
                                                                       -__I.7.-..-e”“m---I-     -
anticipated      --had increased        over a period      of years and an
increasing       portion     of this work was contracted          with comer-
cial    companies      while   the size of the work force had stabi-
lized      or decreased.       Fund restrictions        precluded     any sub-
stantially       increased     reliance     on contractors      during   fiscal
year 1969.




                                   ;   22
                                              CHAPTER 3


                     IMPACT OF CIVILIAN                 PERSOXNEL CEILINGS

                                   SUBSEQUENT TO REPEAL CF

                                    STATUTORY LIMITxTIo?;~

          Section   291 of the Revenue and Expenditure           Control     Act
of 1968 was repealed          by the Second Supplemental         Appropria-
tion Act approved by the Congress on July 22, 1969.                      In its
report     of July     8, 1969, the Committee       of Conference      on the                                                  i
bill    expressed      the intent    of the Congress     to continue      ta                                                   :
exercise      control     over Federal    employment   through    the tradi-
tioaal     appropriation      process   by providing     or withholding       ap-                                            ’ i
propriations        for salaries,
                                                                                                                               1
        After   repeal     of section     201, civilian'    personnel  ceill-
ing procedures         prescribed     by Bureau of the Eudget sere re-                                                         j
stored.       Ceilings     are authorized      through   the budgetary     pro-                                                I
cess p and personnel           spaces  are allocated     to the departments                                                    i
and agencies        through     Program Budget Decisions.
                                                                                                                                1
        Personnel   ceilings        in              the Department       of Defense were                                       1
                                                                                                                              .1
ahinistered       by the Office                     of the Assistant        Secretary       of
Defense,     Systems L4nalysis,                     prior     to enactment     of Public                                        1
                                                                                                                               ii
Law 90-36.4.      During     fiscal                 year 1969, the statutory            linita-                                f
tions were administered             by              the’ksistant        Secretary     for ??m-
power         and   ReserveAffairs.                   With    the repeal    of section        201,                              i
the Director        for Operations,                     under    the Principal     Deputy AS-
sistant     Secretary      to the Comptroller      of Defense,                                MS        nade
                                                                                                                               i
responsible       for   the administration       of ceilings                             on civilian                           I
empIo)men t , In the Army,            Navy,   an6 Air .Force,                            re~pO~Sibil=                          j
it? remained with                  the offices   that             administered             CiVili
nanpozer ceilings                  before   and during             the periud            of      the          slat-
utory  1 imitations.

      “f0 Compare     the             experience      of the bzpartment                       of’     @ePfcfiSe
under   the statutory                 limitations       and under      the             ~urrcnt                T’C-
.StriCtiORS          on    employment         assumed    by the   ElreCUtiVt?                    i?~il!lCh,
We-discussed              events    subsequent               to the     repeal     of sccbioh                        201
ltiith    Bureau      of     the    Budget     and      Department           of  Defense Offi                        -
Cials         responsible    for personnel                    ceiling       administration.                            I[R
brief,          we Were told    that,   in             the     Department         Of     kfcrjse:
        --Under   present   budgetary             restrictions,    funds provide
           a more effective     control             over employment    than do per-
           sonnel ceilings.

        --Since        vacancies     and rehire   authority      are no longer
           controlled         by attrition,     a substantial       degree of
           flexibility         in managing personnel         spaces has been
           restored.

        --Additional    flexibility      has been provided       through   a
           reserve   or “pool”      of spaces delegated       to the Depart-
           ment for conversion        of contract    operations     to in-
           house performance        where justified.

        --An experimental           suspension    of numerical     ceiling           con-
           trols is being         tested    in selected   laboratories.

        --Total     civilian      employment         in the Department    is de-
           creasing       largely   because        of the reduction    in defepse
           effort.    .

         With the reinstatement            of year-end       strength      ceilings,
managers are in a position               to direct     their      personnel       plans
toward definite         targets.        Under the statutory           limitations,
personnel      management not only was affected                  by the uncer-
tainties     of attrition,         but also by unanticipated                changes in
rehiring      authority      in many cases.         Assigned       ceilings       are
preferred      over the uncertainties            of the statutory            restric-
tions     in agencies       or organizations        with high turnover              rates.
Those organizations            with large numbers of lower grade em-
ployees,     usually      subject     to high turnover,          were penalized
under section         201, since only three new employees                    could be
hired     to replace      four employees       who were separated.

         Subsequent     to repeal. of the statutory              restrictions,
the Bureau of the Budget amended its guidelines                           governing
civilian      personnel     ceilings.         Two reserves      or “poo1s”         of
spaces were established              to permit      Federal    employment         of
civilians      to perform       services      previously      acquired       by con-
tract,     where appropriate.             One reserve      is assigned         to, and
administered        by, the Department           of Defense and one is ad-
ministered       by the Office        of.kIanagement       and Budget for all
other     agencies.       Defense officials          informed     us that,        as of
April     1970, only limited          use of the reserve          had been made
because of reductions             in defense      programs.


                                       *’    24
         Under “‘Project      Reflex,”        12 defense       laboratories       have
been relieved        of numerical         ceilings       as an experiment         in
suspens?@n of personnel             ceiling        controls.        Control    over   em-
ployment      is exercised      through         approved      programs      and fund
limitations,       and   through      a   balance      between      contiact    and in-
house; effort      in each case.           Although        the experiment       is still
in pr..cess,     manpower officials              told us that no particular
problems      had arisen.

       the several      officials      with whom we discussed         current
procedures      expressed       the opinion     that fund limitations         cur-
rently    provide    more effective         control    than personnel      ceil-
ings over defense         employment.        Under the expenditure         reduc-
tions program designated            “Project      703,” a $3 billion      reduc-
tion of defense programs            for fiscal      year 1970 was allocated
equally     to the Army, Navy, and Air Force.

       Army and Navy manpower officials              attributed       the cur-
rent absence of requests           for adjustment        of ceilings       by their
commands and installations             to a general      lack of funds at
the operating     level    for hiring      all the people         authorized.
Air F~j’rce representatives          did not feel      that funds out-
weighed .personnel      ceilings       as a control      factor,     but they
said that they knew of no ceiling              problems.         They felt    that
an effective    balance       between positions        and funds had been
coordinated    by budgetary        and program controls.

        Bureau of the -Budget officials       told us that some agen-
 cies of the Government       needed more employees      even though
 reductions     in total  Federal   civilian    employment   had been
 planned,     Adjustments    among agencies     can be made because of
 extensive    reductions   planned    in Department    of Defense em-
 ployment.

          Under estimated    reductions    in work force      for defense
 activities     in the 1971 budget,      the propused     civilian    per-
 sonnel ceilings       are lower than those for fiscal           year 1970.
 Hanposer officials       said that the current      installation      cut-
 back, flusure,       and realignment    program has been reflected
 through the budgetary         process  and has not been a matter of
 great concern in manpokier administration.




                                           25
                                        CHAPTER 4


                                  OTHER REVIEWS OF

                       MANAGEMEXT OF CIVILIAN           PERSONNEL

           Pr~~&~tis reports    on reviews         in the Department        of De-
    fense in which personnel         ceilings        affected    in-house     opera-
    tions $ contracts      for personal       services,       use of military
    personnel    in civilian    positions,         and extensive       use of over-
    time ,are summarized. below.

    CONTRACTING FOR PERSONAL SERVICES

          1, Use of contract        technical       services    personnel       by the
    Ground Electrdnics        Engineering      Installation      Agency,      Detach-
    ment No. 2, Fuchu Air Station,             Japan, cost about $230,000
    a year more than use of Government                personnel    would have
    cost (B-146824,       March 1964).        The Agency had recognized
    that contractor-furnished           employees      cost substantially         more
    than equal numbers of civil           service      employees     and had asked
    for authority      to convert     a number of contract           positions.
    Lack of manpower authorization             had prevented       replacement       of
    the contractor       personnel.

           GAO recommended measures to ensure conversion           of.con-
    tract   positions  in order to develop    in-house   capabilities.
    The Air Force said that contract      technicians    were being re-
    placed   by civil  service  employees   and military   personnel.

            In this     case, contractor          personnel       worked in positions
    similar      to those held by civilian              and military       personnel
    and were supervised            by Government        personnel      who retained
    final     control     over,their       employment.        The Civil     Service    Com-
    mission      subsequently        decided    that this       contract,     and all
    others     like   it,   constituted       a form of personnel           procurement
    not authorized         by law and violated            provisions      of the Civil
    Service      Act, the Veteran’s          Preference       Adt, the Classifica-
    tion Act, and other personnel                 statutes.

            2. Costs at Cambridge      Research   Laboratories       could be
    reduced     if personal   services   provided    by contractors       for
    Government     activities    were converted    to in-house       operations
.    (B-146981,    November 1967).      Air Force studies       indicated



                                         i   26
                         --

annual savings        of as mch as $750,000        through    conversion       of
contract    ‘services     a12ounting to about 93,000,OOO.            In this
case, use of contractor           personnel  was attributed        to adminis-
trative    ceilings     placed on the use of civil         service      person-
nel.     The extended      time required    +,o process    and obtain       ap-
proval    or disapproval       of amendments to personnel          ceilings
had been the major factor            in the continued     use of contractor
services.

        The Departzrent       cf Defense concurred,                in part,      with our      .
observations        and told us th3t           personnel        authorizations          had
been increased         to perait      the Laboratories             to convert       25
service     contracts     to CovermenZ             operation.        The Departnent
did not agree that personnel                tianpower ceiling            practices       had
prevented     economical        ~sn~g&ent          of programs        and resources,
We suggested        that personnei’ccilings                be made consistenr
with project        approvals     and I-cmt more expeditious                  procedures
be provided       for processing         adjustnents          to personnel        require-
merits.                                  I
          .
        3. Estimated       annual savings            of $766,000        or Aore could
be achieved       if contrscc,      services         costing     about $7.8 million
at several      Air Force locations              gert performed           in-house.
Reliance     on contractors         uasjattribured            to personnel         ceilings
 and to lack’of        adequate     cost     studies       fB-158655,        July I96S).
        5. In other examinations       made at. the specific       request
of committees, subcommittees,           and members of Congress, we
found that installations        or   organizations     experienced     dif-
ficulties    in operating    under    civilian    personnel ceiling       pro-
cedures.     Ceilings   generally     placed arbitrary      restraints      on
accomplishment      of authorized     programs.
MILITARY PERSONNELIN CIVILIAN POSITIONS

        In January 1968, we reported       to the Subcommittee on‘
Manpower and Civil Service, House Committee on Post Office
and Civil Service, OR a requested review of the civiliani-
zation program which had as its objective               the conversion   of
military    positions   to civilian   positions       to release military
personnel for assignments requiring           military     skills
(B-146895).       A number of positions     so converted would have
been established      as civilian   positions      in the first    place
had it not been for personnel ceilings.
EXTENSIVE USE,OF OVERTIME
p-7
        Overtime labor was the principal      source of manpower
other than regular employment at eight Army, Navy, and Air
Force installations        (B-157201, November 1969).       These in-
stallations     consistently     planned the use of costly overtime
labor to accomplish work loads in excess of their regular
capability.      In most cases, the principal      limiting    factor
on manpower availability        was civilian  personnel ceilings.




                               I


                                      28
                      CONCLUSIOSS,AGENCYCORMENTS


  CONCLUSIONS

          Civilian     personnel resources are acquired either
  through direct         employment       or through contracting        with firms
  and institutions         that furnish personal services.                In either
  case,    the   Government       bears    the   cost.    Effective    management
  of these resources and the reduction                   of expenditures     through
  acquisition       of only those resources actually                needed, in our
  opinion,      depend upon (1) continuing              evaluation    of missions,
  programs,      and   activities       to  distinguish      between   those which
  are essential        and those which are desirable               and (2) estab-
  lishing     priorities       to meet changing circumstances             and needs.

             Both the Congress and the Executive Branch have been,.
     and still    are, greatly concerned about limiting        the total
-":,'wrnber of civilians      employed by the Federal Government to
     those needed to perform essential         missions and functions.
     The basic method limiting       total  employment   has been one of
     establishing     personnel ceilings.      As a result,  the depart-
     ments and agencies have undertaken those programs and ac-
     tivities    that could be accomplished within the limitations
     provided by the available       personnel.
         Personnel ceiling   or hiring  limitations,     whether im-
   posed by statute or by the Executive       Branch, do not provide
   the most effective    management controls     over civilian  per-
   sonnel resources,    in our opinion.    Personnel ceilings    tend
   to be
         --applied     in establishing program priorities to do as
            much work as can be accomplished with the resources
            available;
         --arbitrarily      applied because       OP    the difficulty     of
            integrating     them with prOgrX?i         requirements;
         --inflexible     because    they are not responsive  to changes
            in work-force     skills    needed to accomplish changed
            Programs ;                                                      I-
                                          28
        --uneconomical        when they permit           use of overtime    labor
           at premium       pay to accomplish           authorized  programs;
           and

        --ineffective        in controlling        expenditures      since,     as an
            alternative,       contracting      with firms      or Institutions
            that furnish       personal     services    to the Government         may
            be used.

         Limitations       on funds seem to be more effective                  than
civilian       personnel      ceilings       in controlling        employment,      in
our opinion.           Personnel       resource      requirements     can be effec-
tively      controlled      through       deliberate       program planning,       bud-
geting,       and evaluation         procedures        without    use of rigid      em-
ployment       ceilings.

        Nationai’priorities           are established        by the President
and the Congress            for programs    and activities        considered     es-
sential      to the welfare        of the United      States.      These prior-
ities    change,       as shown by the present          increased     emphasis on
domestic       progrins       and decreased   emphasis       on defense     pro-
grams in the Federal             budget proposed      by the President         and
in the deliberations             of the Congress.

        It is the responsibility             of the highest       officials           in
the Department        of Defense to make decisions               concerning          pro-
grams and priorities             needed to accomplish--within               the limi-
tations    of funds appropriated--the              objectives      for the De-
partment     established         by the President      and the Congress.
Yet, all     too frequently          congressional     attention        is drawn to
fund-consuming        activities        which seem to have little               rela-
tionship     to the primary          mission    of the Department,            i.e.,      to
provide    for the security           of the United      States.

         In the budgeting     process,     the Secretary       of Defense
considers      the need for major programs           and activities      pro-
posed by the military         departments.        Evidence     of a systematic
critical      evaluation--   at the secretarial         level    6f the Depart-               ’
ment of Defense or the military              departments--of        the pro-
grams and activities         actually    carried     out by commands, in-
stallations,       and component organizations            was not found in
our review       or in discussions     with officials         of the depart-
merits.
         Individual       organizstions             had to make decisions             un the
allocation        of available            Z~SOUTC~S       where they could be used
most effectively            when confronted             with reductions          in the
personnel        or funds for their                operations.         Increased      enphasks
given to the evaluation                   or’ programs and establishment                 of
priorities        was, we believe,               the most constructive             action
taken by the various                 defense headquarters,               commands, and in-
stallations         to operate under the restrictions                        imposed by
the Congress.           Some prograas              and activities         were considered
to be essential           anh of highest             priority      and were continued;
others      were considered              desirabl    e but of lower priority               and
were deferred;          and some xere canceled.                    The impetus        given
to program and work priorities                       under the restrictions               im-
posed by the Congress and --after                       these restrictions            were re-
moved--the        restraints            on resources        imposed by the Executi~
3ranch will         have long-range             beneficial        effects.

AGENCY COMMENTS

      Our findings       uere presented        ta the Secretary      of Defense
and ts the Director,          S~reau of the Sudgc!: {nou tFe Pfiica
of Management and Budget),              for cogent.       Wer proposed    shnt
the Bureau. delegate         au thority’m      the departnents      ar,d agcn-
ties  to accomplish        the programs for which they ore rcspon-
sible   without   restriction          as to the nucbers af personnel          to
be useh,‘being      limited       by the total      funds zzade available      tu
them.
      I'*** I propose the elimination        of ceilings,   on a
      trial    basis, so that we may jointly        assess the ef-
      fectiveness     of fiscal   and program constraints      on
      employment levels.        I am confident    that experi-
      ence will show that positive         improvements will be
      realized     in operating   level manpower management,
      with no real loss with respect to control           of over-
      all employment levels in DOD [Department of De-
      fense]."
      The Director,   Office of Management and Budget, agreed
on December 26, 1970, to eliminate     administrative   ceilings
on employment for the Department of Defense for a l-year
trial  period.    On January 18, 1971, the Office of Management
and Budget furnished    us copies of the correspondence      on
this matter.     (See app. II.)

        We also proposed that the Secretary of Defense estab-
lish a group of high-level         officials    responsible      to him for
continuing     objective   evaluation      of missions,    programs, and
activities     of the component organizations          within the De-
partment.      Substantial   improvements in the management of
total personnel resources could be achieved,               in our opin-
ion, through continuous        evaluation     by officials     independent
of the component organizations.

        In his November 4, 1970, letter     (see app. I), the As-
sistant    Secretary of Defense (Comptroller)     said that maxi-
mum effort    was then being directed    within the Department
at virtually     every level of management to achieve the sav-
ing‘s necessary to meet reduced budgetary levels and that it
was not considered     that a special,   formally  established
group within the Office of the Secretary would significantly
improve the reviews currently      taking place within the De-
partment.
       As noted above, subsequent to the date of the Assis-
tant Secretary's    comments, the Office of Management and
Budget agreed to eliminate     ceilings   on employment for the
Department of Defense for a l-year trial        period.  We have
not‘been informed of the means by which the Secretary plans
to assess the effectiveness     of fiscal   and program oon-
straints   on employment levels during the test period.       We
believe,   however, that consideration     should be given to


                               <’
                                      32
establishing      a centralized   group in   the Office   of the   Sec-
retary     of Defense for this    purpose.



      Accordingly,      we recommend that the Secretary     establish
a centralized      group of officials    to assess the effective-
ness of fiscal      and program constraints     on employment    levels
in the Department       of. Defense,
                                   CHAPTER 6


                           SCOPE OF EXAMINATION

         Our examination     was focused       upon the Department        of the
Navy at headquarters          and command levels        and two naval in-
stallations.        To identify    significant      differences      within
the Department       of Defense in implementing            section   201 and
to ascertain      its impact,     we also made inquiries           at head-
quarters     and command levels       of the Army and the Air Force
and at the Bureau of the Budget.

       Within    the Department      of the Navy, we concentrated
upon activities        of the naval shipyards          and the naval re-
search and development        laboratory       centers.      We inquired   at
command level       into the impact of the hiring            limitations   on
the naval air rework facilities              and visited     the San Fran-            .
cisco Bay Naval Shipyard,          California,       and the Naval Weapons
Center:     China *Lake, California.

       Since the repeal           of section      201 occurred      at approxi-
mately Ithe time tha t our fieldwork                was completed      in 1969,
we extended      o&r inquiry         to bring    our observations        into
proper    perspective.          We met with officials          of the Depart-
ment of Defense,         the military        departments,      and the Bureau
of the Budget        (now the Office         of-Management       and Budget)     to
bring   dur information           on ceiling     controls     up to date and to
obtain    their    viewpoints        on events     subsequent     to elimination
of the statutory         restrictions.




                                   8’   34
        APPENDIXES




... _




          35
             .


..



     ., ,,
                                                                                           APPENDIX f

                                  ASSISTANT   SECUETARY         OF DEFENSE
                                                                 20301
                                                                                                             .
                                       WAWING~ON,        O.C.




                                                                         ._   _.-    -.

                                                                                    NW 4 1930

Mr. C. M. Bailey
Director, Defense Division
U, S. General Accounting   Office

Dear Mr. Bailey:

      This is irt response to your drsft   repoti%on examination    of the
impact of personnel    ceilin& OIL mmagerzen* or of civilian persozmel re-
sources {OSD Case f/3140).                P
        The draft      report    remmends       that the~Se$~%ary            of Defense establish
a high level group of tiowledgeable                  offic5aJ.s      %o reevaluate       missions,
progw         md activities        -withi    Decartm nt of Defense in order to identify
duplicatfon       or -fl-went&ion         of activif,ies        aa    to  idehtifjj    proga~       ma
activities       sot currently       essential     to the Department*s            mission.      Maximm
effort     is currently       being directed       toward precisely          this end within        the
Depaz~&~~ht i.n order to achieve the savizgs necessary to meet reduced
budget-f       levels.       ThLs effort     involves      virtually      every level of mmage-
merit within      the Department        of Defense.        It is not considered            that a
special-&mzally            established      group within        OSD would significantly            improve
or facilitate        the reviews curreritly          takiEg place within            the Depm%ment
of Defense.

      The draft  report  also recomends        tZLst the Office  of Menagemznt and
maget delegate msxtim       authority     to the Departments    and Agencies to
accomplish   the programs for which they are responsible          without   restticticn
as to the nmber of personnel         resources    to be used, being limited      by the
total  funds made available     to them.

        This recommendation %iould require that ONE3discontinue           the civilian
ceiling     controls    it has in;?osed ih the past, a step which CM3 h&i indica-
ted previously       it does not consider advisable.       The OXB position     with
respect to ceilings        was reaffirmd   in its letter    of November 26, 1969 to
Representative       Henderson in res_ocnse +,o his letter    questioning    the need
for and effectiveness         of ceilings.   Sowever, we plan to explore this fur-
ther with OifB.

      If ceilizgs    cannot be abolished we-will          continue    to work closely
with OMB in attenpticg       to insure that the controls           are cm-efully  related
to e,pproved program       and finamihg,       md that the system for administiring
these controls    provides     the flexibility    reqtired      to meet changing conditions,



                                                    37
    APPENDIX I
                                                                                               ‘.




          In our commentson a previous       GAOreport dated December 30, 1969,
-   Subject, "Management   of Civilian  ..Hiring     Limitations     and Recruiting
                                                                                 _    by the
    Department of Defense is Costly,"      we    outlined    certain   steps  taken to
    improve the effectiveness    and flexibility        of personnel ceilings within
    Department of Defense. These steps included a reserve of spaces for con-
    version of uneconomLca1 contracts,       a test of the effect of removal of
    numerica3. ceilI.ngs on selected research laboratories            and increased
    emphasis on relating personnel ceilings to program and financial. decisions
    in the budget process.
          We consider that these steps, .couplea with the current and foreseeable
    fiscal constraints,   should improve the effectiveness and responsiveness
    of personnel ceilings if they continue to be iqosed by Ithe Office of
    Management and Budget.
                                                              Sincerely,




                                       ?     38
                                                                 APPESDlX II    :




Honorabl,e Elmer D. Staats
Comptroller  General of e?e i;nited       States                                 c
Generid Accounttng   Office
Washington,      D. C, 20548

Dear Elmer:

  In view of your interest    in the use of ceilings    tu control
  civilian   emplopez~t in the E.xetut~ve Crslnch and particularly
  In the Department of Defense, we believe      that the action re-
:flected   in tht$ ecclosed exchange of ccrrespondence     between
'Directcr    Shultz and Deguzy Secretory   Sackatd represents      a
  development about vhich po'tp till   wish tq kxrsrt.

We plan      to folhw   closeiy  tfie success   ok t&i   fxqzhzrhent,
and will       advise you of its success.

                                        Sincerely,
                                                                                    i
                                                                                    n

                                           /      ’
                                         %
Enclosures                              Roger WT. Jones                         ’I
                                        Assistant   Director


                                                                               - I
            APPENDIX II


                               EXECUTWE         OFFICE        OF THE                PRESiDENT
        .                         OFFICE   OF   MANAGEMENT                  AND      BUDGET
                                            WASHlNGTON,          D.C.       20503




                                                                                              DEC.26 1970

             Honorable .Datid Packard
             Deputy Secretary  of Defense
             Washington,  D. C. 20301

             Dear Mr. Packard:

             We have received     your letter   of FTovember 17, 1970, with your proposal
             that employment     ceilings   be eliminated for the Defense Department   on
             a tsial basis.

             We generally      agree Faith the thrust       of the arguments presented     in your
    f        letter   and,   therefore,       are willing   -- for a one year trisl    period --
             to eliminate      administrative      ceilings   on employment for the Department
             of Defense.

             Bowever, in order to carry out our responsibilities          both within  the
             aecutive   Branch and also in connection     with our annual budget sub-
             mission to the Congress,     we will  still require     your Department's
             estimates  of where rivilian    employment will     stand at the end of
             FY 1971 and 1972.

                                                 Sincerely,             .




                                                 Director




,




                                                    .'      40
      APPENDIX   11




.,.
    APPENDIX        II              -


-          "+v-~
    9q?~TlZl~--    of effsrt   8-k dI, levels with5n the De-ysrtzent, but also
.   serves -in "3-n-y instences to divert zansgezent attent'ion         frm t'ae job
    t?x& xmst be dcne to the relationship        between t"aat job a-d the ceil-
    ing controls    -4'hLch S27e been k2-,0s2a.    ClbViOl2Sl-,, the less restrictive
    the ceilingtke      less nestive     is that iq3ct     on our OCRetioz.       But if
    ceiU.3gs 'are not required      fm control ~uqgses, tbeg do not represent
    a zana~e~ent beGfit       ccxmensurate 77ith the.er'f0r-t    involved in their
    aWoistratfon.
          RE the above reescks, I propose the eliaination   of ceilings,
    on e. trid  basis, so t&t ve my jointly  ~lssess the effectiveness              Df




                         l




               ”     .
               ..




                                              42
                                                                                            ,(
                                                                                 es    .I                                         L   iaiL




                                                                                                           APPENDIX III


                                            !xmNARY OF CIVILIAN

                                         PERSONNEL STRE?XTH CH;\tiGES
                                                                                                               J

                                              FISCAL      YEAR 1969                                                                          .__   .-_-   -




                                                                        Mavy                     hrmv
                                                                                                 -            Air
                                                                                                              -        Force

    FULLTIME PERMANEKI’ POSITIONS
      (notes a and b):
         July 1, 1968                                                  397,842              377,787                299,368
         Losses (note c)                                                53,350               53,543                 40,213

                                                                       344,492              324,224                259,155

          Accessions                                                    40,050                   40,783’            30,011

          June 3'0, 1969:
              Actual                                                   384,542              365,007                289,166

                  Allowable                                            384,488              365,565                290,944

                  Under   or over{-}                                        -54             ‘3          558        -2.778                    *

          Ne 5 reduction                                                13.300                   12.760            ~~10.202

          Percentage         reduction                                  3.34                3.38                   y3.4 1

    TEMPORARY AND PART-TIME POSITTONS
.     (notes a and b):-
        July 1, 1968                                                     7,077                   20,595               i,a23
        June 30, 1969                                                   16,522                   13,672                  262
        Average strength,   FY 1969                                     11,885                   15,780               2,815
         Allouable.average  strength based                      on
            average for FY 1967                                         12,619                   24,171               4,260
                                                                                                                                                              -.
     INTERMITTENT EMPLOYEES:
         July 1, 1968                                                     1,528                    1,057                 143
          June 30, 1969                                                   5,818                    5,817              1,9OS
     aExcludes      functions       other     than   military        and military                assistance.
     b Excludes    positions     in       support    of   Southeast       Asia        operations              exempted
      from   controls      by law.

     ‘Attrition    figures     shown include    losses to other                       Federal     agencies  and
    . other military       departments    uhich were generally                        replaceable      on a
       1:l basis.
     d Includes      a net      increase    of 86 in transfers  between civil    and mili-
      tary functions,             Corps of Engineers,    and net increase   of 3,265 in
      reclassification             of positions   between temporary    and permanent.                                         :




                                                           43
    APPENDIX IV


                                           PRINCIPAL OFFICIALS OF THE
                                     *
.
                                                DEPARTMENTOF DEFENSE
       AND THE DEPARTMENTSOF THE ARMY, NAVY, AND AIR FORCE

           RESPONSIBLEFOR ADMINISTRATION OF THE ACTIVI?IES

                                               DISCUSSED IN THIS REPORT

                                           .
               .._,             ,.                -                    Tenure of office,              .
                                                                       From            -To
                                r    . .
       *              -.   ._
                                                DEPARTMENTOF DEFENSE

    SECRETARYOF DEFENSE:
        Melvin R. L%ird.                                           Jan.     1969       Present
        Clark M. Clifford   I                                      Mar.     1968       Jan.    1969
                 ;
    ASSISTANT SECRETARYOF DEFENSE
      (MANPOWER AND RESERVEAFFAIRS]:
        Roger T. Kelley                                            Feb,     1969       Present
        Alfred B. Fitt               .~                            Ott,;.   1967       Jan.    1969

                                               DEPARTMENTOF THE ARMY
                                                                                          '
    SECRETARYOF THE ARMY:                              :       .        ._ "-‘:-- :-
       Stanley R. Resor                                            July    1965.     Present
                                                                                        .
    ASSISTANT SECRETARYOF THE ARMY
      (MANPOWER AND RESERVEAFFAIRS):
        William K. Brehm   .                                       Apr..    1968       Present

                                               DEPARTMENTOF THE NAVY
                                                                                   +
    SECRETARYOF THE NAVY:
       John H. Chafee                                              Jan.     1969       Present
       Paul R. Igqatius                                            Aug.     1967       Jan.    1969
    ASSISTANT SECRETARYOF THE NAVY
      (MANPOKERAND RESERVEAFFAIRS):
        James D. Hittle                                            Feb.     1969       Present
        Randolph S. Driver                                         Jan.     1968       Feb. 1969
                                                           APPENDIX IV


                                                Tenure of office
                                                From            -To
                             DEPARTMENTOF THE AIR FORCE

    SECRETARYOF THE AIR FORCE:
        Robert C. Seamans, Jr.                      1969     Present    -- - ___.--
                                                                                ---  d




                                             Jan.
       .Dr. Harold Brown                     Oct.   1965     Jan.    1969

    ASSISTANT SECRETARYOF THE AIR
      FORCE @!ANPOWER AND RESERVE
      AFFAZRS):
        Richard J. Borda                     Oct.   1970     Present
        James P. Coode (acting)              Apr.   1970     Oct.    1970                I
        Dr. Curtis W. Tarr                   June   1969     Apr.    1970
        James P. Goode (acting)              Mar.   1969     June 1969
        J. William Doolittle                 Apr.   1968     Mar. 1969



.




                                                                                 .       !




    ‘&Z.GAO   %‘o&,   V.C.