Allegations of Gross Misutilization of Civilian Personnel by the U.S. Army, Hawaii

Published by the Government Accountability Office on 1971-02-19.

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

                  COMPTROLLER     GENERAL     OF      THE   UNITED   STATES
                                WASHINGTON.    D.C.     20548

B-171432                                                February       19, 1971

Dear Mrs. Mink:
       On November 27, 1970, you forwarded to us correspondence concerning
                                                        d Maintenance Agency
             organized four                          lve years, and the
usual result is that                   itions are abolished -.,-Tl-.*m:>l*
                                       ~~~~~,-~~:~~.~~~~~-~~'~f and
                                                                        r l.l..
situation   can be justified.
     In October 1969 Headquarters, United States Army,
two reorganization orders effective November 1, 1969,
by the Department of the Army. General Order 761

Management Agency.
Management Agency as the Pacific
Department of the Army approved the reorganization                            effective   June 30,

        Our staff has inquired into this reorganization    to determine its
effect on civilian    personnel.   We examined documents which showed that
a position management and classification     review was made of the 381
civilian    positions authorized the Deputy Chief of Staff for Logistics
and the Pacific Supply and Maintenance Agency, as provided in Army
Civilian    Personnel Regulation 505. Two objectives of such a review
are to assure careful study of the possibilities       of5mproving position
structures and to ensure avoidance of position actions which would
unnecessarily increase payroll costs.
      The position management and classification   review included a
study of the need for each position and a determination of whether
the duties performed or to be performed were in accordance with job
descriptions.     The grade and pay classification of 275 positions was
not changed, but 106 positions were subjected to further evaluation.

                          50 TH ANNIVERSARY                 1921- 1971
         Although the review was completed in August 1970, some proposed grade
         and pay changes had not been approved at the time of our inquiry in
         January 1971.
                Most of the employees whose positions were reviewed retained their
         positions or were reassigned to other positions at the same or higher
         grades. It was determined that some clerical    and support positions were
         not needed. Sixteen employees who had held these positions were reassigned
         to lower grade positions.    Some of these employees have filed appeals with
         the Civil Service Commission. Four employees were separated through re-
         duction in force actions.    These 20 employees were the last listed in the
         retention registers for their competitive levels.
                It seems evident that action to implement the proposed reorganization
         was taken prematurely.    In some departments provisional  position changes
         were made and employees were detailed to other duties several months before
         the effective   date approved by the Department of the Army and before the
         position management and classification   review was made. The Civilian
         Personnel Office was not involved in planning and implementation early
         enough to coordinate position actions and resolve potential      problems,
         and employees were not properly informed about how they would be affected.
.qp&       - The Civil Service Commission, Honolulu Area Office, has been in-
         volved in personnel problems associated with this reorganization    since
         September 1970 when the American Federation of Government Employees re-
         quested an investigation   of actions which they said appeared to violate
         the basic merit principles   of the Federal Civil Service System. The
         Manager of the Honolulu Area Office provided us a copy of his November 23,
         1970, letter to you describing in detail the events that had occurred.
         He said that although a serious problem had existed because of adminis-
         trative errors or oversight,   the rights of the individual  employees are
         being protected.
\ T/           Since both the Army and the Civil Service Commission have taken action
         to protect the rights of employees affected by the reorganization,  we believe
         that further review by our staff at this time would not serve a useful pur-
              We trust that our reply is responsive to your request.      Please let
         us know if we can be of further assistance.
                                                   Sincerely   yours,

                                                   of the United States
          The Honorable Patsy T. Mink
      c f House of Representatives
  /                                                                        -2-