oversight

General and Flag Officers: Number Required is Unclear Based on DOD's Draft Report

Published by the Government Accountability Office on 1997-06-16.

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

                   United States General Accounting Office

GAO                Report to Congressional Committees




June 1997
                   GENERAL AND FLAG
                   OFFICERS
                   Number Required Is
                   Unclear Based on
                   DOD’s Draft Report




GAO/NSIAD-97-160
      United States
GAO   General Accounting Office
      Washington, D.C. 20548

      National Security and
      International Affairs Division

      B-276499

      June 16, 1997

      The Honorable Strom Thurmond
      Chairman
      The Honorable Carl Levin
      Ranking Minority Member
      Committee on Armed Services
      United States Senate

      The Honorable Floyd D. Spence
      Chairman
      The Honorable Ronald V. Dellums
      Ranking Minority Member
      Committee on National Security
      House of Representatives

      Congress determines the maximum number of general and flag officers
      that the military services may have by specifying service-specific ceilings
      in title 10 of the U.S. Code. Congress authorized 12 new general officer
      positions for the Marine Corps as part of the National Defense
      Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1997.1 The act required the Department
      of Defense (DOD) to study general and flag officer requirements and
      recommend changes to the law, if necessary.2 The act also required our
      office to evaluate DOD’s study.3

      DOD  has delayed completion of its report, but as requested by the
      Subcommittee on Military Personnel, House Committee on National
      Security, we are issuing this interim report on DOD’s progress to date in
      determining its general and flag officer requirements. Thus, we
      (1) reviewed DOD’s draft recommendations, (2) estimated the cost to
      implement DOD’s draft recommendations, (3) reviewed the criteria the
      services used in doing their studies, (4) compared troop strength to
      general and flag officer requirements, and (5) determined whether certain
      general or flag officer positions may be candidates for conversion to
      civilian status. This report discusses the draft DOD report and
      recommendations contained in a working draft provided to us in
      February 1997 and subsequently revised and provided to us on May 9,



      1
       P.L. 104-201, section 405, Sept. 23, 1996.
      2
       P.L. 104-201, section 1213.
      3
       P.L. 104-201, section 1213 (e).



      Page 1                                        GAO/NSIAD-97-160 General and Flag Officers
             B-276499




             1997.4 DOD has delayed completion and release of its report until after it
             has an opportunity to determine whether or not to adjust its draft general
             and flag officer requirements and recommendations or redo its study to
             take into account Quadrennial Defense Review (QDR) recommendations.5


             Active duty general and flag officer authorizations fluctuated from over
Background   2,000 in 1945 to about 1,000 in 1951. In 1967, DOD had about 1,300
             authorized active duty general and flag officers, but that number was
             reduced to 1,073 by October 1, 1981. A number of studies of general and
             flag officer requirements have been done since the mid-1980s. The most
             recent DOD-wide study of active duty requirements was done in 1988 by a
             contractor, the Hay Group, Incorporated. The study concluded that the
             services needed 1,449 general and flag officers. The services adjusted the
             number to 1,475, which the Office of the Secretary of Defense (OSD)
             reduced to 1,436.

             Congress left the authorizations at 1,073 until the 1991 National Defense
             Authorization Act mandated a reduction to 858 by October 1, 1995.
             Subsequently, the ceiling was increased to 865. In 1996, the DOD-wide
             ceiling had been further increased to 877.

             DOD used a four-level structure to manage its 1997 statutorily mandated
             study of general and flag officer requirements. The structure consisted of
             the Secretary of Defense (the final approval authority) and the Executive,
             Steering, and Working Committees. The Executive Committee, chaired by
             the Assistant Secretary of Defense (Force Management Policy) and
             composed of senior civilian executives, including the Assistant Secretary
             of Defense (Reserve Affairs) and the Chairman of the Reserve Forces
             Policy Board, was to provide oversight and guidance to the study teams.
             The Steering Committee, chaired by the Deputy Assistant Secretary of
             Defense for Military Personnel Policy and composed of the military service
             personnel chiefs and others, was to coordinate service and joint
             community study inputs. The Working Committee was established in OSD
             to coordinate service and joint community studies, consolidate the draft
             recommendations, and write DOD’s draft report.



             4
              The revised draft was provided after we testified on the initial draft before the Subcommittee on
             Military Personnel, House Committee on National Security. General and Flag Officers: DOD’s Draft
             Study Needs Adjustments (GAO/T-NSIAD-97-122, Apr. 8, 1997).
             5
              The QDR was required by sections 922 and 923 of the National Defense Authorization Act for 1997 to
             study national defense strategy, force structure, force modernization plans, infrastructure, budget
             plans, and other issues in 1997 and at the start of each newly elected administration after 1997.


             Page 2                                              GAO/NSIAD-97-160 General and Flag Officers
                   B-276499




                   The study was designed to follow six steps. First, each service and the
                   Joint Staff were to review all active and reserve general and flag officer
                   positions (including those filled by colonels, Navy captains, and civilians),
                   and except for the Army, other positions that did not then require a
                   general or flag officer. Second, the service secretaries were to review their
                   services’ recommendations, adjust the study results, and forward their
                   reports to the Working Committee. Third, the Working Committee was
                   responsible for writing a draft report consolidating service and joint
                   community study results and recommendations and providing it to the
                   Steering Committee. Fourth, the Steering Committee was responsible for
                   reviewing the consolidated draft report and providing it to the Executive
                   Committee. Fifth, the Executive Committee was responsible for reviewing
                   the consolidated draft report and forwarding it to the Secretary of
                   Defense. The active and reserve components, Reserve Forces Policy
                   Board, OSD (Reserve Affairs), and other officials either assisted in doing
                   the study or commented on the study.

                   DOD has stopped its study process at this point to give itself time to
                   determine the need to adjust its draft recommendations or redo its draft
                   study to take QDR recommendations into account. The Secretary of
                   Defense may approve the draft report or a revised report and submit it to
                   Congress at some time in the future. As a result, the DOD draft study results
                   and recommendations are considered preliminary and do not represent
                   DOD’s final position.


                   DOD’s draft report recommends that Congress authorize 54 new active duty
                   general and flag officers, to give the services 1,018. The draft report also
                   recommends an increase of 32 reserve component general and flag
                   officers.


                   DOD’s draft does not clearly identify requirements for general and flag
Results in Brief   officers and does not explain the basis for its recommendations to
                   increase the number of general and flag officers by 54 active and 32
                   reserve positions. The draft recommends 1,018 active duty general and flag
                   officers, the service studies recommended 1,096, and the service
                   secretaries recommended only 995. To date, neither the actual number of
                   general and flag officers needed nor the criteria used to arrive at the
                   number have been explained by DOD, the Army, Navy, or Marine Corps. In
                   trying to reconcile the different numbers, we found that some of the
                   difference results from military judgment of the service chiefs, some from
                   perceived political realities not to ask for too many general and flag



                   Page 3                                 GAO/NSIAD-97-160 General and Flag Officers
B-276499




officers, and some from the conflicting draft recommendations from the
services and OSD. In addition, DOD, the services, and the joint community
did not effectively integrate their studies, and this led to different
assumptions about how many general and flag officers will be provided by
the services for joint duty. The draft also recommends an increase of 32
reserve component general and flag officers. Some reserve component
study results and recommendations were also adjusted.

We estimate the cost of implementing DOD’s draft recommendations would
be at least $1.2 million annually, assuming the services reduce the number
of colonels/Navy captains by the same amount as the increase in general
and flag officers. However, if the services do not reduce their
colonels/Navy captains, DOD’s draft recommendations will exceed
$1.2 million annually.

The criteria and methodology used in the services’ studies are based on
widely used job evaluation techniques that have highly subjective features.
The Army, Navy, Air Force, Marine Corps, and Joint Staff selected
different methodologies for the studies. The different methodologies
together created at least 24 different definitions of a general or flag officer.
Therefore, some results are not comparable. Also, the data collected did
not attempt to demonstrate the impact of the mandated reduction in
general and flag officers between fiscal year 1991 and 1996.

Force structure changes and general and flag officer requirements have
not always been linked. Since the early 1980s, in some years, troop
strength dropped and in other years it increased while general and flag
officer authorizations remained constant. In 1993, 3 years after Congress
mandated the latest cut in general and flag officer positions, DOD
completed its Bottom Up Review strategy that further changed the force
structure. The requirements for general and flag officers may further
change based on 1997 and subsequent QDRs.

DOD may be able to fill some new general and flag officer positions if it
converts nonmilitary essential positions to civilian status and transfers the
incumbent. For example, we identified a number of positions that
currently require general or flag officers that may be candidates for
conversion.




Page 4                                   GAO/NSIAD-97-160 General and Flag Officers
                                          B-276499




                                          Congress established four military ranks above the rank of colonel (for the
Current Legislative                       Army, Air Force, and Marine Corps) and captain (for the Navy). Table 1
Limits on General and                     displays the pay grade designation, title of rank, and insignia worn by
Flag Officers                             officers at general and flag officer ranks.

Table 1: Pay Grade, Title, and Insignia
Worn at General and Flag Officer                                                         Title of rank
Ranks                                                          Army, Air Force,
                                          Pay grade            Marine Corps                     Navy                         Insignia
                                          O-10                 General                          Admiral                      4 stars
                                          O-9                  Lieutenant general               Vice admiral                 3 stars
                                          O-8                  Major general                    Rear admiral (upper half)    2 stars
                                          O-7                  Brigadier general                Rear admiral (lower half)    1 star
                                          Source: Title 10 U.S. Code and the services.



                                          Congress requires each service to maintain at least 50 percent of its
                                          general or flag officers in the rank of brigadier general/rear admiral (lower
                                          half). Also, no more than 15 percent may serve above the rank of major
                                          general/rear admiral (upper half), and of that number, no more than
                                          25 percent may be generals/admirals.6 Finally, Congress provided up to
                                          (1) 3 exemptions from the general/admiral ceiling for officers serving as
                                          the Chairman and Vice Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and/or the
                                          Chief of Staff to the President;7 (2) 11 exemptions until September 30,
                                          2000, from the general/admiral grade ceiling for officers in certain senior
                                          joint positions such as a commander in chief of a unified or specified
                                          command;8 (3) 1 exemption from the admiral ceiling for the current
                                          Superintendent of the Naval Academy until the incumbent leaves the
                                          Navy;9 and (4) 6 exemptions from the lieutenant general/vice admiral
                                          ceiling for officers in joint positions designated by the President.10 Title 10
                                          does not address the grade mix for reserve general and flag officers
                                          (although it did specify the grade that certain reserve component officers
                                          must hold).

                                          Title 10 of the U.S. Code established service-specific ceilings for active
                                          duty general and flag officers that total 877. The law also authorized 12

                                          6
                                           See 10 U.S.C. § 525.
                                          7
                                           See 10 U.S.C. § 525(b)(3).
                                          8
                                           See 10 U.S.C. §§ 525(b)(5) as amended by P.L. 104-201 § 404(b).
                                          9
                                           See 10 U.S.C. § 525 note (P.L. 103-337, sec. 406).
                                          10
                                              See 10 U.S.C. § 525(b)(4).



                                          Page 5                                                GAO/NSIAD-97-160 General and Flag Officers
                                      B-276499




                                      general and flag officer positions to be allocated by the Chairman of the
                                      Joint Chiefs of Staff to the services for joint duty positions. This
                                      authorization, which expires on October 1, 1998, is commonly called the
                                      “Chairman’s 12.”11

                                      During fiscal years 1996 and 1997, the services can also allow up to 75
                                      colonels/Navy captains to wear the insignia of brigadier general/rear
                                      admiral (lower half) prior to promotion, a practice known as “frocking.”12
                                      Under 10 U.S.C. § 777, an officer may be frocked to brigadier general/rear
                                      admiral (lower half) only if he/she has been selected for promotion, the
                                      Senate has approved the promotion, and the officer is already serving in or
                                      has orders to serve in a position for which that grade is authorized.
                                      Frocked officers are not paid the salary of the higher rank until promoted.
                                      The number of officers that may be frocked to brigadier general/rear
                                      admiral (lower half) will drop to 55 during fiscal year 1998 and to 35 after
                                      fiscal year 1998.13 Title 10 does not address frocking above the brigadier
                                      general/rear admiral (lower half) rank.

                                      Finally, the law authorizes an exemption from both the grade and number
                                      ceiling if a general or flag officer is serving as either the Director or Deputy
                                      Director of Central Intelligence.14

                                      As shown in table 2, the title 10 ceiling, Chairman’s 12, and current
                                      frocking limits combine to authorize 964 general and flag officer positions,
                                      but that number is scheduled to drop by 52 to 912 by fiscal year 1999 due
                                      to the impending expiration of the law providing for the Chairman’s 12 and
                                      the mandated reduction in frocking limits.

Table 2: Current and Planned Active
Duty General and Flag Officer         Ceiling                           Fiscal year 1997       Fiscal year 1999             Net change
Authorization Ceilings                Title 10                                      877                     877                     0
                                      Frocking                                       75                      35                   –40
                                      Chairman’s 12                                  12                       0                   –12
                                      Total                                         964                     912                   –52
                                      Source: Our analysis based on data provided by OSD and title 10 U.S.C. §§ 526, 777.




                                      11
                                        See 10 U.S.C. § 526(c).
                                      12
                                        See 10 U.S.C. § 777.
                                      13
                                        See 10 U.S.C. § 777(d).
                                      14
                                        See 50 U.S.C. § 403(c)(3)(C).



                                      Page 6                                               GAO/NSIAD-97-160 General and Flag Officers
                                       B-276499




                                       Title 10 U.S.C. § 12004(a) has authorized up to 422 reserve component
                                       general and flag officers in addition to those on active duty. However, the
                                       law exempted from the ceiling any general or flag officer serving as a state
                                       adjutant general or an assistant adjutant general or in the National Guard
                                       Bureau.15 The exemption allows for an additional 178 general or flag
                                       officer positions in fiscal year 1997, for a total of 600. Title 10 does not
                                       address either the grade mix or the frocking authority for the reserve
                                       components.


                                       DOD’s draft recommends an increase in active general and flag officer
DOD and the Service                    ceilings from 877 to 943 in title 10 and seeks to maintain the fiscal year
Draft Requirements                     1997 frocking limit of 75 to avoid the loss of 40 authorizations by fiscal
Are Unclear                            year 1999. DOD’s draft report also recommends a new grade mix for active
                                       duty general and flag officers.16

                                       The service studies concluded that a combined total of 1,096 general and
                                       flag officers were needed but the service secretaries’ combined
                                       recommendations would only provide 995. Subsequently, OSD developed
                                       draft recommendations that provide for 1,018 positions, as shown in
                                       table 3.


Table 3: Differences Between Service Study Results and the DOD Draft Recommendations
                             Current title 10 ceiling
                                    of 877 plus the
                                Chairman’s 12 and                                                               Draft recommendation
                              current frocking limit                                  Service                       of the Secretary of
Service                                        of 75         Study results    recommendations                                 Defense
Army                                         336                           353                          355                        355
Navy                                         242                           328                          249                        262
Air Force                                    299                           297                          308                        314
Marine Corps                                    87                         118                            83                        87
Total                                        964                         1,096                          995                      1,018
                                       Source: Our analysis based on data provided by OSD and the services.



                                       The difference between the 995 authorizations recommended by the
                                       services and the 1,018 recommended by OSD’s draft report is accounted for
                                       in the way the services handled recommendations on frocking. Only the


                                       15
                                         See 10 U.S.C. § 12004(b).
                                       16
                                         We discuss the draft recommendations on the grade mix in appendix I.



                                       Page 7                                             GAO/NSIAD-97-160 General and Flag Officers
    B-276499




    Army recommended maintaining the current frocking limit of 75 (of which
    its current share is 29) and did not add positions to its recommended title
    10 ceiling to compensate for its loss of 17 Army-specific frocking
    authorizations by fiscal year 1999. On the other hand, the other services
    made no recommendations on frocking, which would lead to a combined
    drop of 23 for the Navy, Air Force, and Marine Corps between fiscal year
    1997 and 1999. At the same time, the Navy, Air Force, and Marine Corps
    developed their recommended new title 10 ceilings with the expected loss
    of frocking authority in mind and compensated themselves through higher
    title 10 ceilings.

    In its May 8, 1997, draft, DOD stated that “all services had not built the loss
    of frocking into their analyses.” However, this is inconsistent with the
    documentary evidence the services provided to us before the proposed
    freeze on frocking at the current level of 75 was made.

•   In an August 23, 1996, point paper, the Marine Corps pointed out that it
    had recently completed an effort to increase its general officer ceiling by
    14 to 82 (the law provided 12 for a total of 80). The paper also stated,
    “Within the 14 was included the ultimate loss of 6 frocking authorizations
    that resulted from the fiscal year 1996 Defense Authorization Bill.”
•   A June 18, 1996, memorandum signed by the Chief of Naval Operations
    was used to justify a request to increase the Navy’s flag officer ceiling to
    240. That memorandum stated that the “Navy must receive an increase in
    flag officer authorizations to counter the cumulative effect of the
    reduction in frocking and flag officers.” In 1997, the Navy again
    recommended an increase in its flag officer ceiling to 240.
•   A December 5, 1996, memorandum written by the Air Force General
    Officer Matters Office was used as part of the scoring process in the
    current study of general officer requirements. The memorandum stated
    that “we would subtract the 11 frocked brigadier generals we are allowed
    beginning in FY99, and request authorization for 221 plus 74 joint, for a
    total of 295.” If DOD’s draft recommendation to maintain frocking at 75 is
    put forward and adopted, the Air Force would have frocking authority of
    17, not the 11 planned plus the new recommended title 10 ceiling that
    assumes frocking of 11 not 17.
•   The Army’s 1997 general officer requirements study recommended a title
    10 ceiling of 319 (subsequently changed to 326). It also stated that
    “frocking is a very cost effective means to help close the gap between
    requirements and authorizations. If we apply the future frocking constraint
    of 12 to today’s general officer requirements, the vacancies will increase




    Page 8                                   GAO/NSIAD-97-160 General and Flag Officers
                          B-276499




                          from 18 to 30. Therefore, recommend that frocking authorization be held
                          at the FY 1997 levels.”

                          Therefore, because DOD’s draft report recommended maintaining the
                          current frocking limit of 75 while accepting the services’ recommended
                          new title 10 ceilings, the overall OSD draft recommendations would lead to
                          a total of 1,018, not the 995 recommended by the services, because 23
                          positions were counted twice.

                          Even 1,018 may not be the right number. The service studies concluded
                          that 1,096 were needed, even though they only recommended 995. The
                          Secretaries of the Army and the Navy and the Commandant of the Marine
                          Corps did not fully explain the criteria they used to adjust their
                          recommendations from the study results, leaving unclear what the right
                          number should be. For example, Kapos Associates, Incorporated, a job
                          evaluation consultant, concluded that 328 Navy positions and 118 Marine
                          Corps positions were general or flag officer positions. Neither the Navy
                          nor the Marine Corps fully explained why they reduced their
                          recommended positions to only 249 for the Navy and 83 for the Marine
                          Corps. OSD, Navy, and Marine Corps officials whom we spoke with, and
                          documents that we had access to, acknowledged that it would be difficult
                          to convince Congress to authorize 1,096 general and flag officers.


The Distinction Between   The services’ studies were conducted to identify those positions that
Requirements and          required leadership at general or flag rank. The requirements process was
Authorizations            aimed at determining how many general and flag officers the services
                          believe are needed—not how many they can have. The next step was to
                          determine general and flag officers (resources) to fill those positions
                          identified as worthy of general or flag rank. Obtaining resources is done
                          through the authorization process. Congress authorizes general and flag
                          officers by providing them through (1) limited allotments specified for
                          each service in title 10, (2) exemptions to title 10 limits such as the
                          Chairman’s 12, and (3) frocking. Congressional action deals only with
                          authorizations by providing general and flag officers and frocking
                          authority up to congressionally specified limits. The Air Force stated that
                          nothing in law limits the number of general and flag officers that a service
                          can say it needs, the law limits the number that are available. We agree.
                          Table 2 of our report displays the number of general and flag officers
                          authorized in law—the number available—not the number of positions the
                          service says require general or flag rank. When we use the term
                          “authorize,” we are referring to the process of congressional action that



                          Page 9                                 GAO/NSIAD-97-160 General and Flag Officers
                           B-276499




                           provides general and flag officers, not the process of determining
                           requirements or permitting positions to be carried on the books as general
                           or flag officer positions, whether or not enough general or flag officers are
                           available to fill all positions.

                           The Air Force believed table 3 of our report inappropriately combines
                           requirements (which we labeled as “Study results”) with authorizations
                           (which we labeled as “recommendations”). We combined them (as does
                           the Air Force, as shown by the Air Force’s December 5, 1996,
                           memorandum that we quoted previously) within the table because the Air
                           Force, Navy, and Marine Corps reports did not clearly state the number of
                           general or flag officers that would exist if their recommendations were
                           accepted by Congress. For example, as shown in table 3, the
                           recommendations of the Secretary of the Air Force would produce more
                           general officers than the Air Force study concluded were needed. In table
                           3, we clearly distinguish between requirements (determined by the service
                           studies) and general and flag officers that would be available (if the
                           recommendations of the service secretaries or OSD are adopted).

                           The service studies attempted to identify (determine requirements for)
                           those jobs that require leadership at the general and flag officer level. But
                           just identifying requirements does not equate to having the resources to fill
                           them. Thus, OSD made draft recommendations that, if accepted by
                           Congress, would provide the resources (general or flag officers) to meet
                           requirements identified in the service studies. Among the draft
                           recommendations made by OSD was one to maintain frocking at the
                           current level of 75. That recommendation covers all of the services. The
                           Marine Corps pointed out that its support of freezing frocking at 75 “was
                           made to demonstrate our solidarity and support for our sister service
                           needs.” The Marine Corps also stated that it never intended to benefit from
                           freezing frocking limits and pledged not to frock any more than three
                           officers to the rank of brigadier general after October 1, 1997.


Joint Community and        The Navy, Army, Marine Corps, and Joint Staff did not fully integrate their
Service Requirements Are   studies, even though joint community general and flag officers come from
Not Well Integrated        the services. As a result, the Navy, Army, Marine Corps, and Joint Staff
                           used different assumptions about service participation in the joint
                           community, leading to incompatible sets of requirements. For example,
                           the Joint Staff projected that the Army would nominate 78 general officers
                           for joint duty, while the Army projected nominations of 70 to 75 and
                           developed the service title 10 and frocking recommendations based on its



                           Page 10                                GAO/NSIAD-97-160 General and Flag Officers
                                         B-276499




                                         estimate of joint and Army-specific needs. Likewise, the Joint Staff
                                         projected that the Navy would nominate 66, but the Navy estimated 68 and
                                         developed the Navy recommendations with its own projections—not the
                                         Joint Staff’s—in mind.

                                         The Joint Staff does not need congressional approval to change its general
                                         or flag officer authorizations; it levies its requirements on the services with
                                         the approval of the Secretary of Defense. In the early 1990s, the Chairman
                                         of the Joint Chiefs of Staff unilaterally reduced general and flag officer
                                         positions in the joint community from 280 to 219 to help the services cope
                                         with the mandated reduction in the title 10 ceiling. However, that trend
                                         has been reversed. In 1996, the Joint Staff added 11 active duty general and
                                         flag officer positions, which increased the total number of joint
                                         community general and flag officers to 229. The Marine Corps indicated
                                         that it would increase its nominations to the joint community by 4 (and
                                         received the 12 new general officers to help them do that). The other
                                         services had to provide the other eight general and flag officers from
                                         existing authorizations. In 1997, the Joint Staff recommended adding 15
                                         more active component general and flag officers, for a total of 244 in the
                                         joint community. The joint community also recommended adding 11 new
                                         reserve component general and flag officers for a total of 44 in the joint
                                         community. (See app. III for the list of joint general and flag officers.)


Reserve Component                        DOD concluded that current statutory limits do not adequately recognize
General and Flag Officers                the increased role of the reserve components in operations and the draft
Would Increase If Congress               report recommended that reserve component general and flag officer
                                         positions be increased by 32, to 454 (632, including the 178 general officers
Accepts DOD’s Draft                      serving as state adjutants general or assistant adjutants general or in the
Recommendations                          National Guard Bureau), as shown in table 4.

Table 4: Current and Draft Ceilings on
Reserve Component General and Flag       Service                     Current ceiling      Proposed ceiling              Increase
Officers                                 Army                                   207                     227                   20
                                         Navy                                    48                      53                    5
                                         Air Force                              157                     161                    4
                                         Marine Corps                            10                      13                    3
                                         Total                                  422                     454                   32
                                         Source: OSD and title 10.




                                         Page 11                                       GAO/NSIAD-97-160 General and Flag Officers
                          B-276499




                          The services and the joint community plan to use the 32 new reserve
                          component general and flag officers as commanders or deputy
                          commanders in a variety of operational and support positions in both the
                          reserves and National Guard, if the recommendation is put forward and
                          adopted by Congress. Some would command organizations such as the
                          81st Infantry Brigade in the Army Reserve. Others would serve as deputy
                          commanders. For example, the Marine Corps would use two new reserve
                          general officers as the Deputy Commanders of Marine Forces Atlantic and
                          Marine Forces Pacific. Lastly, the services and the joint community would
                          use the new reserve general and flag officers in organizations in the United
                          States and in foreign locations. For example, the Joint Staff planned to use
                          one as the Deputy Assistant Chief of Staff for Operations at United States
                          Forces-Korea and the Army planned to assign one as the Assistant Chief of
                          Staff for Planning at the Eighth Army, also in Korea.

                          We found no evidence of uncoordinated recommendations in the reserve
                          component portion of the studies, although some study results and
                          recommendations were adjusted as with the active component. DOD
                          avoided the problems encountered in the active component studies at
                          least partly because exemptions and frocking authorities available for
                          active force management are not used in the reserve component and no
                          service recommended any change to that.


                          We estimate that the cost increase will be about $1.2 million annually and
DOD’s                     another approximately $54,000 in one-time costs if Congress accepts all of
Recommendations           DOD’s draft recommendations. The cost of general or flag officers includes

Will Cost at Least $1.2   a total increase in military compensation of over $1 million annually over
                          that paid to colonels/Navy captains and about $180,000 more for
Million Annually          allowances associated with the higher rank such as aides, speechwriters,
                          entertainment, and the purchase of new china (to which some but not all
                          general or flag officers are entitled). As an example, the Joint Staff
                          authorized an increase from colonel/Navy captain to brigadier general/rear
                          admiral (lower half) for the J-5 of the Special Operations Command at an
                          estimated annual cost of over $78,400. This cost includes about $14,200 per
                          year more for military compensation (salary, allowances, and certain tax
                          advantages) paid at the higher pay grade and annual military
                          compensation of about $64,200 paid to an executive officer at the rank of
                          major. While the major who will be assigned as an executive officer may
                          already be in the service, that person is already doing something else and a
                          replacement major will have to backfill as the first major transfers to the
                          joint position. In addition, the Joint Staff plans to incur a one-time expense



                          Page 12                                GAO/NSIAD-97-160 General and Flag Officers
B-276499




of $24,000 for the purchase of new office furniture and equipment for the
J-5 of the Special Operations Command. Our total estimate is conservative,
however, because DOD provided incomplete information on the cost of the
recommended new reserve general and flag officers.

Our cost estimate assumes that the services would reduce the number of
colonels/Navy captains by the same number as those promoted to
brigadier general/rear admiral (lower half). DOD’s February 1997 draft
report indicated that the services would decrease their colonel/Navy
captain authorizations to account for the increases to brigadier
general/rear admiral (lower half). However, the May 1997 revised draft
pledged to identify officer reductions in accordance with the provisions of
the Defense Officer Personnel Management Act,17 rather than
automatically reducing the number of colonels/Navy captains. The act
governs the number of officers who may be serving above the rank of
captain (Army, Air Force, and Marine Corps) and lieutenant (Navy) and is
related to the overall size of the officer corps, not the number of general
and flag officers. If the services replace officers ranked lower than
colonel/Navy captain, the cost of the draft recommended new general and
flag officers could be much higher than we estimated.

The Marine Corps retained 12 colonel positions and deleted 6 first
lieutenant’s positions, 5 captain’s positions, and 1 major’s position to
account for the new general officers it received in 1996. The Marine Corps
will incur additional military compensation costs of about $713,000 per
year with 12 new general officers over what it would have with the lower
ranked officers.18

Permitting higher frocking limits, rather than increasing title 10 ceilings,
would not cost additional money because frocked officers do not receive
the pay of the higher grade until promoted. On the other hand, greater use
of frocking could mean longer waits for promotion for frocked officers
because more could be in line for promotion to relatively fewer slots.




17
  Public Law 96-513, December 12, 1980.
18
  If the additional cost of military compensation for the 12 new Marine Corps general officers is added
to that of the draft recommended 54 new positions in the other services, the total additional cost to
DOD would be about $1.9 million.



Page 13                                              GAO/NSIAD-97-160 General and Flag Officers
                           B-276499




                           The services and the Joint Staff used modified versions of two widely
The Services Used          accepted job evaluation techniques. These systems use criteria to evaluate
Widely Accepted Job        jobs for ranking and determining compensation. Job evaluation attempts
Evaluation                 to bring objectivity into the inherently subjective process of determining
                           the value of jobs. In our review of the scholarly literature, we found that
Techniques                 subjectivity is commonly a part of job evaluation techniques. For example,
                           the factors selected for measurement are based on subjective judgment
                           and the factors chosen can influence the results. Also, the process of
                           scoring jobs is subjective, as are management overrides of the study
                           results.


Criteria and Methodology   The Army, Navy, and Marine Corps used criteria developed in the 1950s
Used by the Army, Navy,    and included in a 1986 Marine Corps order that characterizes the attributes
and Marine Corps           of a general officer.19 The criteria were expanded and used by Kapos
                           Associates, Incorporated, in its studies of Navy and Marine Corps general
                           and flag officer positions in the mid-1980s. These criteria deal with 25
                           attributes of general and flag officers that address such aspects of
                           command as the rank of higher, lateral, and subordinate commands; the
                           magnitude of personnel and resources controlled; the visibility of the
                           position to the press, public, or Congress; and any unusual training or
                           experiences required. The Army, Navy, and Marine Corps each collected
                           comparable information about both active and reserve component general
                           and flag officer positions and used comparable methodologies to evaluate
                           the positions.

                           For their recent studies, the Navy and the Marine Corps contracted with
                           Kapos,20 and the Army used a self-conducted version of the Kapos
                           methodology. The Kapos methodology largely consists of identifying the
                           presence of the general or flag officer attributes at a specified threshold in
                           positions reviewed. Because some positions share common attributes, the
                           methodology (1) groups positions into a set of sectors and subsectors (for
                           example, operations, service headquarters, and combat development);
                           (2) matches attributes relevant to each subsector and discards those not
                           relevant; (3) reviews position descriptions for the presence of relevant
                           attributes; (4) establishes thresholds above which a position is ranked as a
                           general or flag officer; and (5) subjectively assesses positions that fall well
                           above or below the threshold.


                           19
                             See appendix II for a detailed description of the criteria and methodology the services used in doing
                           their general and flag officer studies.
                           20
                             Kapos did the Marine Corps study in 1996 and the Navy study in 1997.



                           Page 14                                              GAO/NSIAD-97-160 General and Flag Officers
                              B-276499




Criteria and Methodology      The Air Force and Joint Staff adopted criteria developed by the Hay
Used by the Air Force and     Group, Incorporated, in the 1950s. These criteria are (1) know-how,
Joint Staff                   (2) problem-solving, and (3) accountability of the positions evaluated.21 To
                              conduct its 1997 study on general and flag officer requirements, the joint
                              community (1) accepted as still valid the 1994 and 1996 Hay studies of 229
                              general and flag officer positions and (2) scored 24 positions it reviewed
                              on its own in 1997, using a variation from the Hay methodology. The Air
                              Force conducted its own study of general officer requirements by using an
                              approach based on the Hay methodology. The Joint Staff and the Air Force
                              each collected comparable information about both active and reserve
                              component general and flag officer positions and used comparable
                              methodologies to evaluate the positions.


Different Methodologies       Differing methodologies make cross-service comparisons difficult, even
Lead to Different             when comparing similar positions from one service to another. For
Definitions of a General or   example, matching sectors and attributes has the effect of producing a
                              different definition of a general or flag officer for each sector. Thus, the
Flag Officer and              Navy and Marine Corps methodology produced at least 12 different
Incompatible Results          definitions of a general or flag officer while the Army’s groupings
                              produced another 11. The Air Force and the Joint Staff added another
                              definition by using the Hay methodology. As a result, the service studies
                              together created at least 24 different definitions of a general or flag officer
                              and may have led to inconsistent results that are difficult to compare. For
                              example, the Defense Logistics Agency requested that its comptroller
                              position be upgraded from a colonel/Navy captain to a brigadier
                              general/rear admiral (lower half), but the Joint Staff denied that request. In
                              contrast, the Air Force used four general officers in similar financial
                              management positions in the Office of the Secretary of the Air Force and
                              at the Air Mobility Command. In addition, the Navy scored its Chief of the
                              Naval Exchange Service as a rear admiral (lower half), but the Army and
                              the Air Force concluded that their combined Exchange Service required
                              two general officers (one major general and one brigadier general).

                              The Air Force believed that even though differing methodologies were
                              used, the results were consistent. For example, the Air Force stated that it
                              believes that the Comptroller of the Defense Logistics Agency (an O-6
                              position) is unlike the Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Air Force (an O-8
                              position) and the Director, Budget Operations (an O-7) position (two of
                              the four Air Force general officers serving in financial management

                              21
                               The Hay Group evaluated active and reserve general and flag officer requirements DOD-wide in 1988
                              and 1992, respectively, and active duty general and flag officers in the joint community in 1994 and
                              1996.



                              Page 15                                             GAO/NSIAD-97-160 General and Flag Officers
                        B-276499




                        positions and cited in our example above). While all of the positions
                        involved overseeing budgets, the Air Force suggested the positions are
                        dissimilar because the Defense Logistics Agency Comptroller oversees a
                        budget of only about $14 billion versus budgets of about $75 billion (the
                        entire Air Force budget) and about $36 billion (a component of the Air
                        Force budget), respectively. We used that example to illustrate the point
                        that differing methodologies can produce differing results. However, the
                        size of the budget may not be sufficient criteria to justify a general or flag
                        officer, or even a military person. For example, the DOD Comptroller (a
                        civilian) oversees the entire fiscal year 1997 DOD budget of about
                        $250 billion (more than 3 times the Air Force budget).

                        OSD  permitted the services to use their own methodologies for three
                        reasons. First, DOD’s draft report stated that the methodology chosen had
                        to recognize the unique mission and structure of each service. Second,
                        according to DOD, there is no single definition of a general and flag officer
                        and no one way to conduct job evaluations. Therefore,both methodologies
                        were deemed valid. Finally, using existing methodologies and recently
                        completed studies saved time, an important consideration because DOD
                        would have had only about 6 months to complete its study, if it had
                        delivered its report on time. The Hay Group conducted general and flag
                        officer studies for the joint community in 1994 and 1996 and Kapos did a
                        similar study for the Marine Corps in 1996. The results were deemed still
                        valid, and each wanted to use the results in the 1997 study. OSD officials
                        told us that selecting one of the methodologies and forcing the joint
                        community and the Marine Corps to use it would have been duplicative of
                        work already completed. Also, having off-the-shelf methodologies
                        available for the Army, Navy, and Air Force saved time since they did not
                        have to develop and test a methodology.


                        Since the late 1970s, DOD has completed a reduction in troop strength,
Changing National       implemented a defense buildup that peaked in fiscal year 1987, and begun
Security Environment    an uninterrupted reduction in troop strength that has continued into fiscal
Suggests the Need for   year 1997. During the period, trends in force structure changes and general
                        and flag officer authorizations have not always been linked, as shown in
Periodic                table 5.
Reevaluations




                        Page 16                                 GAO/NSIAD-97-160 General and Flag Officers
                                           B-276499




Table 5: Troop Strength, Title 10 Active
Duty General and Flag Officer Ceilings,                                            Title 10 active duty Number of troops
and Troops to General or Flag Officers                                                general and flag for each general or
in Selected Fiscal Years (Troop            Fiscal year              Troop strength       officer ceiling       flag officer
Strength in Millions)                      1978                               2.06                  1,119                1,800
                                           1981                               2.08                  1,073                1,900
                                           1987                               2.17                  1,073                2,000
                                           1988                               2.14                  1,073                2,000
                                           1992                               1.77                  1,030                1,700
                                           1995                               1.52                    865                1,800
                                           1996                               1.49                    877                1,700
                                           1997                               1.46                    877                1,700
                                           Source: DOD.



                                           In October 1993, DOD issued its Bottom-Up Review strategy report that
                                           recommended changes to the force structure needed to implement the
                                           strategy. But that report did not recommend any changes to general and
                                           flag officer authorizations, even though the force structure was to undergo
                                           change. Other changes may also be forthcoming. In 1997 and at the start of
                                           every new administration thereafter, the QDRs could recommend further
                                           changes to force structure or mission that affect the need for general and
                                           flag officers.


                                           The services did not fully evaluate the potential for military to civilian
Some Positions Could                       conversions. For example, the Air Force explained that it asked Air Force
Be Candidates for                          field commanders whether any existing general officer positions could be
Military to Civilian                       converted (as did the other services) and all the Air Force respondents
                                           said “no.” However, just asking field commanders whether positions can
Conversion                                 be converted does not constitute full consideration of the potential for
                                           conversion. DOD has issued Directive 1100.4, which specifies policies for
                                           annual manpower programs including determining military essential
                                           positions by specifying the characteristics of such positions. None of the
                                           services’ methodologies considered the contents of that directive as part
                                           of their studies of general and flag officer requirements.

                                           The need for additional general and flag officers could be reduced by
                                           converting to civilian status general and flag officer positions that are not
                                           military essential. For example, the Navy uses an admiral to command the
                                           Naval Exchange Service, while DOD uses a civilian to manage the Defense
                                           Commissary Agency. Also, the Army uses a brigadier general as its




                                           Page 17                                   GAO/NSIAD-97-160 General and Flag Officers
                      B-276499




                      Director of the Center for Military History, while the other three services
                      use civilians in similar positions. In addition, the Army, Navy, Air Force
                      and Defense Finance and Accounting Service together use eight general
                      and flag officers ranked as high as major general or rear admiral (upper
                      half) in various financial management positions that are also candidates
                      for conversion based on our criteria.22 Other general or flag officer
                      positions in the services and the joint community may also be candidates
                      for conversion. On the other hand, the Army has identified three
                      acquisition general officer positions and one infrastructure manager
                      position for conversion to civilian status. If some positions can be
                      converted, the services would need fewer new general and flag officer
                      positions.


                      DOD’s draft recommendation for more general and flag officers does not
Conclusion            explain how many more are needed for active duty. Conflicting
                      recommendations and unexplained adjustments of the study results leave
                      unclear what DOD’s requirements are for general and flag officers. On the
                      other hand, job evaluation is essentially a subjective process and there is
                      room for military judgment. The services’ use of job evaluation
                      methodologies is an attempt to bring some objectivity to an otherwise
                      subjective process. However, DOD and the services did not document the
                      reasons for subjective decisions and draft recommendations flowing from
                      those decisions. In addition, double counts of some positions raise
                      questions about the draft recommendations. Also, DOD did not fully
                      consider military to civilian conversions as a means to free up some
                      general and flag officers from nonmilitary essential positions and make
                      them available to fill unmet needs. If positions can be converted, the
                      number of new authorizations needed would be reduced.


                      We recommend that the Secretary of Defense modify the draft report to
Recommendations       include

                  •   an explanation of the criteria used by the service secretaries to modify the
                      results of the services’ studies and a statement about whether the numbers
                      represent the actual requirements for general and flag officers,
                  •   an adjustment to the consolidated draft recommendations to eliminate
                      double-counting,


                      22
                       Our criteria were developed based on DOD’s directive for an earlier report, DOD Force Mix Issues:
                      Converting Some Support Officer Positions to Civilian Status Could Save Money (GAO/NSIAD-97-15,
                      Oct. 23, 1996).



                      Page 18                                            GAO/NSIAD-97-160 General and Flag Officers
                         B-276499




                     •   an evaluation of the potential to convert nonmilitary essential general and
                         flag officer positions to civilian status, and
                     •   a mechanism to reduce the number of colonel’s/Navy captain’s positions
                         by the number of general and flag officers added.


                         Congress may wish to require DOD to revalidate its general and flag officer
Matter for               requirements as part of the periodic QDRs.
Congressional
Consideration
                         In commenting on a draft of this report, DOD indicated that it would take
Agency Comments          our recommendations under advisement, continue to evaluate its
and Our Evaluation       organizational structure and staffing patterns as a result of the QDR, and
                         defer finalizing its general and flag officer report at this time. We agree
                         that it is prudent to wait until after QDR-inspired organizational or staffing
                         changes are fully considered or implemented before finalizing general and
                         flag officer recommendations. DOD’s response is printed in its entirety in
                         appendix IV. DOD also provided some technical comments and we have
                         incorporated them into the text where appropriate.


                         We reviewed DOD’s 1997 draft report on general or flag officer
Scope and                requirements; service and Joint Staff studies supporting the draft report;
Methodology              prior studies of general or flag officer requirements conducted by Kapos
                         Associates, Incorporated, and the Hay Group, Incorporated; and other
                         documents supporting some of these studies. In addition, we interviewed
                         officials and obtained documents from the Office of the Secretary of
                         Defense (Officer/Enlisted Personnel Management), the Assistant Secretary
                         of Defense (Reserve Affairs), the General Officer Matters Office or its
                         equivalent in the four services and the Joint Staff, the Reserve Forces
                         Policy Board, and the National Guard Bureau.

                         To enhance our understanding of the two methodologies employed by the
                         services and the Joint Staff, we met with officials of the Hay Group,
                         Incorporated, and Kapos Associates, Incorporated, and obtained
                         documents that explained their respective approaches. We also held
                         discussions with an official of the Rand Corporation. We extensively
                         searched scholarly literature to understand the basic approaches to job
                         evaluation that have traditionally been used in the United States and to
                         identify any analyses that had been conducted on the specific




                         Page 19                                 GAO/NSIAD-97-160 General and Flag Officers
B-276499




methodologies employed by either the Hay Group, Incorporated, or Kapos
Associates, Incorporated.

To determine the estimated cost associated with adding new active duty
general and flag officers (who qualify for higher pay) to the number on
duty, we used the estimated cost difference in military compensation
between a colonel/Navy captain and brigadier general/rear admiral (lower
half) provided by the service (for those services that provided this
information) or we estimated the annual basic pay, allowances, and the
tax advantage accruing by virtue of the nontaxability of the allowances for
military personnel using military compensation data provided by the
Assistant Secretary of Defense (Directorate of Compensation). We then
subtracted the annual compensation paid to a colonel/Navy captain to
determine the incremental increase in salary for the new general and flag
officers. Next, we asked each of the service and Joint Staff General Officer
Matters Offices (or equivalent) to estimate the cost of any personnel
assistance provided to new general or flag officers and any additional
one-time costs (such as the purchase of new china). We could only obtain
incomplete information for the new reserve general or flag officers. We
added together all available cost estimates to obtain an estimated total
cost.

Due to the mandated short time frame between the date that DOD was to
have issued its report (Mar. 23, 1997) and the date that we were required to
issue our report (30 days after DOD issued its report), DOD invited us to
attend meetings of its Executive and Steering Committees.23 We accepted
that invitation with the understanding that we were acting as observers
only—not as participants. When requested, we did provide DOD and service
officials with our preliminary observations to the Executive, Steering, and
Working Committees and the Reserve Forces Policy Board. Finally, at the
invitation of a Rand Corporation official, we attended a meeting to explain
the approaches that we would take in analyzing the methodology DOD and
the services employed in their studies.

We conducted our work from October 1996 to June 1997 in accordance
with generally accepted government auditing standards.


We are sending copies of this report to the Secretaries of Defense, the
Army, the Navy, and the Air Force; the Commandant of the Marine Corps;

23
  DOD plans to issue its final general and flag officer report after considering the impact of QDR
recommendations on general and flag officer requirements. We also plan to issue a final report that
evaluates DOD’s final report in accordance with the legislation that requires these two reports.



Page 20                                             GAO/NSIAD-97-160 General and Flag Officers
B-276499




the Chairman, Reserve Forces Policy Board; the Rand Corporation; the
Hay Group, Incorporated; and Kapos Associates, Incorporated. We will
make copies available to others upon request.

The major contributors to this report are listed in appendix V. If you have
any questions about this report, please contact me on (202) 512-5140.




Mark E. Gebicke
Director, Military Operations and
  Capabilities Issues




Page 21                                GAO/NSIAD-97-160 General and Flag Officers
Contents



Letter                                                                                                  1


Appendix I                                                                                             24

DOD’s Draft
Recommended
Changes to the Grade
Mix of General and
Flag Officers
Appendix II                                                                                            26
                         The Hay Group, Incorporated, Methodology                                      26
The Methodologies        Kapos Associates, Incorporated, Methodology                                   27
Used on the Studies of
General and Flag
Officer Requirements
Appendix III                                                                                           32
                         Active Component                                                              32
Joint Community          Office of the Secretary of Defense                                            32
General and Flag         Joint Chiefs of Staff                                                         32
                         Defense Agencies                                                              34
Officer Positions        Unified Commands                                                              36
                         Combined Commands and Agencies                                                39
                         Special Activities/Joint Service Colleges                                     41
                         Reserve Component                                                             42
                         OSD                                                                           42
                         Joint Chiefs of Staff                                                         42
                         Unified Commands                                                              43
                         Combined Commands and Agencies                                                44

Appendix IV                                                                                            45

Comments From the
Department of
Defense




                         Page 22                                GAO/NSIAD-97-160 General and Flag Officers
                        Contents




Appendix V                                                                                           46

Major Contributors to
This Report
Tables                  Table 1: Pay Grade, Title, and Insignia Worn at General and Flag              5
                          Officer Ranks
                        Table 2: Current and Planned Active Duty General and Flag                     6
                          Officer Authorization Ceilings
                        Table 3: Differences Between Service Study Results and the DOD                7
                          Draft Recommendations
                        Table 4: Current and Draft Ceilings on Reserve Component                     11
                          General and Flag Officers
                        Table 5: Troop Strength, Title 10 Active Duty General and Flag               17
                          Officer Ceilings, and Troops to General or Flag Officers in
                          Selected Fiscal Years
                        Table I.1: Current Grade Distribution of General and Flag                    24
                          Officers, Including the Chairman’s 12
                        Table I.2: Grade Distribution of General and Flag Officers If                25
                          DOD’s Draft Recommendations Are Adopted




                        Abbreviations

                        CINC       Commander-in-Chief
                        DOD        Department of Defense
                        OSD        Office of the Secretary of Defense
                        QDR        Quadrennial Defense Review


                        Page 23                               GAO/NSIAD-97-160 General and Flag Officers
Appendix I

DOD’s Draft Recommended Changes to the
Grade Mix of General and Flag Officers

                                           The mandate that required the Department of Defense (DOD) to study
                                           general and flag officer requirements also required that the study address
                                           any perceived need to change the grade distribution of general and flag
                                           officers. Because the services do not believe the current authorized grade
                                           mix permits them to assign general and flag officers with high enough
                                           grades to certain positions, DOD has drafted recommended changes to the
                                           title 10 active duty grade mix by replacing the current formula with set
                                           numbers of general and flag officers at each rank. Table I.1 displays the
                                           current general and flag officer grade distribution, by service.

Table I.1: Current Grade Distribution of
General and Flag Officers, Including                                                                         Grade distribution
the Chairman’s 12                          Service                            Authorized             O-7           O-8            O-9         O-10
                                           Army                                        307           154           106             35            12
                                           Navy                                        220           110             77            25                8
                                           Air Force                                   282           141             99            31            11
                                           Marine Corps                                  80            40            28            10                2
                                           Total                                       889           445           310            101            33
                                           Note: This table includes the current title 10 ceiling of 877 plus the Chairman’s 12. It excludes 1
                                           exemption currently authorized for an admiral (O-10) who serves as the Superintendent of the
                                           Naval Academy, meaning the O-10 total was actually 34 and the O-9 total was actually 100, at the
                                           time of our review. The exemption will expire when the current incumbent leaves the service, at
                                           which time the position will revert to an O-9 position.

                                           Source: Our analysis based on data provided by each of the services.



                                           DOD’s draft would create an authorization of 127 O-9s overall (with 28 in
                                           the joint community) and 34 O-10s overall (with 13 in the joint
                                           community), although all would come from the services. However,
                                           because most joint community general and flag officer positions are
                                           nominative,1 and it is unknown how many positions would go to any one
                                           service at any given time, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff would
                                           distribute the 28 O-9 and 13 O-10 authorizations to the services, thus
                                           permitting them to exceed O-9 and O-10 grade ceilings at the time their
                                           nominations are accepted for a given position. As a result, at any given
                                           time, a service may have more O-9s and O-10s serving on active duty than
                                           the limits specified in title 10 for that service. To avoid exceeding the title
                                           10 ceiling of 943 for general and flag officers, a service that exceeds its O-9
                                           or O-10 ceiling using the joint community authorizations would decrease
                                           its O-7 and/or O-8 numbers by a commensurate amount. Table I.2 displays

                                           1
                                            About 66 percent of joint community general and flag officer positions are “nominative,” that is, as a
                                           vacancy is projected, an announcement is issued and the services may nominate an officer to fill the
                                           position. Of the remaining 34 percent of positions, some are rotated among the services, some are
                                           reserved for one service, and some are reserved for one to three of the services.



                                           Page 24                                              GAO/NSIAD-97-160 General and Flag Officers
                                           Appendix I
                                           DOD’s Draft Recommended Changes to the
                                           Grade Mix of General and Flag Officers




                                           the grade mix that would be authorized if DOD draft recommendations
                                           were approved.

Table I.2: Grade Distribution of General
and Flag Officers If DOD’s Draft                                                                           Grade distribution
Recommendations Are Adopted                Service                           Authorized            O-7           O-8          O-9          O-10
                                           Army                                       326          172           114            34              6
                                           Navy                                       240          127            84            23              6
                                           Air Force                                  297          155           103            32              7
                                           Marine Corps                                80            41           27            10              2
                                           Joint Staff                                NAa           NAa           NAa           28b            13b
                                           Total                                      943c         495d          328d         127              34
                                           a
                                           Not applicable.
                                           b
                                            DOD’s draft did not recommend any authorizations in title 10 for joint community general or flag
                                           officers. The draft did recommend that 28 O-9s and 13 O-10s be authorized in title 10 above the
                                           grade ceilings for the services to use in nominating to the joint community at those grades.
                                           c
                                            The 75 frocked O-7s, who would be available if the draft recommendations are put forward and
                                           accepted, are not represented in the table because they are not counted against the title 10
                                           grade ceilings for general and flag officers.
                                           d
                                            The totals for O-7 and O-8 would be reduced by a combined total of 41 to account for the 28 O-9
                                           and 13 O-10 authorizations that the joint community would distribute to the services.

                                           Source: Our analysis based on data provided by the Office of the Secretary of Defense (OSD).



                                           DOD’s draft report also identified the positions that would be filled with
                                           generals/admirals or lieutenant generals/vice admirals if its draft
                                           recommendations were adopted. Among the positions that would be
                                           upgraded to lieutenant general/vice admiral is the chief of the service
                                           reserve in each service and chief of the National Guard in the Army and
                                           the Air Force. Title 10 does not specify the reserve component grade mix,
                                           and DOD’s draft did not recommend any grade mix changes to the law.




                                           Page 25                                            GAO/NSIAD-97-160 General and Flag Officers
Appendix II

The Methodologies Used on the Studies of
General and Flag Officer Requirements

                     The services and the Joint Staff used variations of one or the other of two
                     job evaluation methodologies that had been used in past studies of general
                     and flag officer requirements. In this appendix, we describe the two
                     methodologies.


                     The Hay Group uses a proprietary job evaluation methodology conceived
The Hay Group,       in the 1950s. An organization using this methodology evaluates the three
Incorporated,        factors deemed by its developers to be most significant in distinguishing
Methodology          jobs. The factors are “know-how,” “problem-solving,” and “accountability.”
                     The problem-solving factor includes two subfactors. The know-how and
                     accountability factors include three subfactors. The company believes that
                     an evaluation of these factors and subfactors permits an organization’s
                     jobs to be ranked based on difficulty of the position and importance to
                     organizational goals. According to company literature, the methodology is
                     most commonly used for studies of salary practices in organizations.


Application of the   The Hay methodology is applied in a multistep process. A separate matrix
Methodology          for each of the three factors is produced with semantic descriptions of
                     levels of difficulty for each of the subfactors. Semantic descriptions are
                     intended to correspond to degrees of difficulty of the subfactors and are
                     tied to higher scores as the degree of difficulty increases.


Know-How             The three subfactors under know-how are “depth and breadth of
                     specialized knowledge,” “managerial know-how,” and “human relations
                     skills.” Depth of knowledge has eight levels of difficulty, which range from
                     “limited” to “specialized mastery” along one axis of the matrix. Managerial
                     know-how has five levels of difficulty, which range from “task” to “total
                     management of the company.” The human relations skills subfactor has
                     three levels of difficulty, which range from “basic” to “critical.”


Problem-Solving      The two subfactors under problem-solving are “thinking environment” and
                     “thinking challenge.” Thinking environment has seven levels of difficulty,
                     which range from “strict routine” to “generally defined,” and thinking
                     challenge has five degrees of difficulty, which range from “repetitive” to
                     “uncharted.”




                     Page 26                                GAO/NSIAD-97-160 General and Flag Officers
                    Appendix II
                    The Methodologies Used on the Studies of
                    General and Flag Officer Requirements




Accountability      The three subfactors under accountability are “freedom to act,” “job
                    impact on end results,” and “magnitude.” Freedom to act has nine degrees
                    of difficulty, which range from “limited” to “strategic guidance;” job impact
                    has four degrees of difficulty, which range from “ancillary” to “primary;”
                    and magnitude has five degrees of difficulty, which range from
                    “nonquantifiable” to “medium-large.”

                    Each degree of difficulty has a definition to help interpret the factors and
                    subfactors. The matrices provide increasing scores for increasing degrees
                    of difficulty, and the intersection of rows and columns of the semantic
                    descriptions of the two subfactors becomes the score for that particular
                    factor. Each position evaluated receives one score for each of the three
                    factors.

                    Next, the organization (whose positions are to be evaluated) prepares
                    position descriptions for a test sample of jobs to be reviewed. Then, an
                    evaluation committee is selected from the organization whose positions
                    are to be reviewed. The committee is generally made up of officials ranked
                    higher than the positions evaluated. The committee receives training in
                    applying the methodology and then scores the sample positions. When the
                    Hay Group is executing the methodology, a Hay consultant leads the
                    committee. The committee members individually score the positions on
                    each of the three factors and add them together to produce a total score.
                    To reach a consensus score for each position, the committee discusses any
                    variations in the scores. The results of the sample scoring are reviewed by
                    higher management and Hay consultants for acceptability. Once
                    organizational management is satisfied with the results of the sample, the
                    committee evaluates all other positions scheduled for analysis using the
                    same process. Finally, the positions are ranked from highest to lowest
                    based on the consensus score for each position.

                    Hay Group officials told us that natural cut points between ranks or grades
                    become apparent based on the scores. DOD can then make a distinction
                    between colonels/Navy captains and brigadier generals/rear admirals
                    (lower half) as well as other ranks in the military.


                    Kapos Associates, Incorporated, uses a multistep process to evaluate jobs.
Kapos Associates,   The methodology includes up to 25 attributes as criteria, and each position
Incorporated,       is evaluated for the presence or absence of these attributes, at a specified
Methodology         threshold. Our description that follows used the 1996 study of Marine
                    Corps general officers as an example to make it easier to understand.



                    Page 27                                    GAO/NSIAD-97-160 General and Flag Officers
                                  Appendix II
                                  The Methodologies Used on the Studies of
                                  General and Flag Officer Requirements




Application of the                First, the study team selected all existing service-specific general officer
Methodology                       positions for analysis, regardless of the current incumbent’s rank or
                                  whether the position was even filled at the time. The study team also
                                  selected a large enough sample of colonel positions for analysis to
                                  establish the threshold at which a position would be considered a general
                                  officer position. Next, the service was divided into five sectors that
                                  characterize the major types of organizations within the Marine Corps. The
                                  sectors consisted of (1) operations, (2) combat development, (3) material,
                                  (4) service headquarters, and (5) out of service. Within the Marine Corps,
                                  the five sectors were further subdivided into 15 subsectors that represent
                                  groupings of positions with similar functions and responsibilities. The
                                  subsectors follow.

Operations Sector             •   Operational component commands
                              •   Operational combatant commands
                              •   Operational readiness commands
                              •   Operational training commands

Combat Development Sector     •   Headquarters
                              •   Training installations

Material Sector               •   Systems command
                              •   Logistics bases1
                              •   Bases and stations2

Service Headquarters Sector   •   Office of the Secretary of the Navy3
                              •   Office of the Chief of Naval Operations
                              •   Headquarters of the Marine Corps

Out-Of-Service Sector         •   Office of the Secretary of Defense and departmental offices
                              •   Office of the Secretary of the Navy
                              •   Joint commands4




                                  1
                                   Logistics bases were defined as those that provide logistical support to the operating forces, including
                                  depot and prepositioned war reserves support.
                                  2
                                   Bases and stations were defined as large, complex installations that support operating forces,
                                  excluding those that provide depot and prepositioned war reserve support.
                                  3
                                   Kapos includes Marine Corps general officers in the Office of the Secretary of the Navy in both service
                                  headquarters and out-of-service sectors.
                                  4
                                  Joint commands are those with representation by two or more U.S. services (such as the Atlantic
                                  Command).



                                  Page 28                                              GAO/NSIAD-97-160 General and Flag Officers
                                    Appendix II
                                    The Methodologies Used on the Studies of
                                    General and Flag Officer Requirements




                                •   Combined commands5

                                    The first four sectors were evaluated using this methodology. The
                                    out-of-service sector analysis consisted largely of (1) accepting the need
                                    for a general officer, (2) estimating the percentage of time that the Marine
                                    Corps would fill particular positions, and (3) deriving the number of
                                    general officers needed based on the amount of time that the Marine Corps
                                    would be estimated to fill positions.

                                    For criteria, Kapos reviewed 16 attributes of a general officer developed in
                                    the 1950s and later included in a 1986 Marine Corps order. Kapos officials
                                    told us that the original set of 16 attributes had gaps and did not fully
                                    address all aspects of military leadership. They expanded the list to 25
                                    items to provide clearer distinctions and to highlight aspects that could be
                                    readily quantified or categorized for analysis but subsequently used only
                                    21 items in the study.6 The attributes are divided into four groups.

Nature of Position              •   Level or echelon of the military establishment at which duty is performed
                                •   Rank of the official to whom the position reports
                                •   Rank of the majority of lateral counterparts
                                •   Span of control (rank, number, and diversity of direct subordinates)
                                •   Special authority that goes with the position by legislation or regulation
                                •   Independent decision-making authority

Magnitude of Responsibilities   •   Number of personnel and commands under the position
                                •   Operating budget of command, including subordinate commands
                                •   Other money managed, such as military construction funds
                                •   Other product throughput
                                •   Value of equipment controlled
                                •   Value of real estate in the form of land
                                •   Value of facilities such as buildings and runways
                                •   Value of inventories controlled

Significance of Duties          •   Duties in the international arena entailing independent dealings with
                                    foreign audiences
                                •   Duties at the seat of government having an impact on national defense
                                •   Duties involving significant exposure to the public and media


                                    5
                                    Combined commands are those made up of U.S. and allied forces (such as the U.S.-Republic of Korea
                                    Combined Forces Command).
                                    6
                                     Kapos dropped (1) isolation of command or remoteness from direct supervision, (2) number of
                                    personnel in the position’s immediate staff, (3) geographic extent of command, and (4) operating
                                    budget of immediate staff because they were deemed nondiscriminating between ranks.



                                    Page 29                                             GAO/NSIAD-97-160 General and Flag Officers
                             Appendix II
                             The Methodologies Used on the Studies of
                             General and Flag Officer Requirements




                         •   Duties entailing representation before Congress
                         •   Duties entailing direct support to the operating forces

Special Qualifications   •   Unusual breadth of experience required
                         •   Special depth of skill or training in other than the primary combat
                             specialty

                             Kapos convened four panels of Marine Corps officers to match attributes
                             that defined a general officer in each subsector and discarded those
                             attributes that did not. The selected attributes varied from one subsector
                             to another based on whether the attributes were deemed applicable to
                             general officer positions within the subsector and discriminated between
                             colonels’ and brigadier generals’ positions. This produced a number of
                             different definitions of a general officer.

                             Next, researchers collected data demonstrating the extent to which the
                             selected attributes were present in each position reviewed. The
                             information became a position description for each position. Researchers
                             used statistical methods to determine the threshold for each attribute
                             above which a position was deemed “general officer-worthy.” For
                             example, within the combat development sector and headquarters
                             subsector, Kapos applied seven attributes. Among the seven was the
                             attribute “equipment controlled,” and Kapos determined the dollar-value
                             threshold at which a position in that subsector would be deemed general
                             officer-worthy. Similarly, Kapos developed thresholds for each of the other
                             six attributes in the subsector. Taken together, the set of threshold values
                             became known as the general officer profile. The profile establishes the
                             number of attributes that must be present at the threshold level for
                             positions in the subsector to be deemed general officer-worthy. For
                             example, in the combat development sector and headquarters subsector,
                             Kapos concluded that positions required at least six of the possible seven
                             attributes to be deemed general officer-worthy. Next, researchers
                             reviewed nine positions within the subsector to determine which had
                             responsibilities at the general officer thresholds for each of the seven
                             attributes. Kapos found (1) three positions had six or seven attributes at
                             the general officer threshold, (2) one colonel’s position had five attributes
                             at the threshold and was considered potentially general officer-worthy,
                             and (3) five colonels’ positions had one to three attributes at the general
                             officer threshold and were deemed properly ranked. Similar analyses were
                             conducted of each position in each subsector using the subsector’s unique
                             set of attributes and general officer threshold.




                             Page 30                                    GAO/NSIAD-97-160 General and Flag Officers
Appendix II
The Methodologies Used on the Studies of
General and Flag Officer Requirements




Some existing general officer positions may have some attributes that fall
below the position profile threshold, known as “outliers.” Some colonel
positions may be at the threshold, known as “upspikers.” These positions
were recommended for further evaluation by the Marine Corps to
determine whether the positions should be changed to a higher or lower
rank or maintained at their present rank.

The service could overrule the study’s conclusion about a given position.
For example, the President of Marine Corps University had only two
attributes at the threshold level in a subsector that required at least six to
be considered general officer-worthy. However, the Marine Corps decided
to maintain the position as a brigadier general position, even though the
study ranked it well within the colonel range.7




7
 At the time of the study, the Marine Corps had assigned a major general to the position, even though
the position specified only brigadier general.



Page 31                                             GAO/NSIAD-97-160 General and Flag Officers
Appendix III

Joint Community General and Flag Officer
Positions

                             In 1996, the joint community had 229 active component general and flag
Active Component             officers. In 1997, the joint community recommended to the Secretary of
                             Defense that the number be increased by 15 more, to 244. The existing and
                             recommended 244 active component joint community positions are listed
                             below.



Office of the Secretary
of Defense

Office of the Secretary of   Senior Military Assistant to the Secretary of Defense
Defense, Washington, D.C.    Senior Military Assistant to the Deputy Secretary of Defense

Office of the                Director, Special Programs
Undersecretary of Defense    Director, Defense Airborne Reconnaissance Office
(Acquisition and             Director, Joint Advanced Strike Technology
                             Deputy Director, Joint Advanced Strike Technology
Technology), Washington,     DOD Space Architect
D.C.
Office of the                Deputy Undersecretary of Defense (Policy), Chief of Staff
Undersecretary of Defense    Director, Asia and Pacific Affairs
(Policy), Washington, D.C.   Director, Inter-American Region
                             Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense, Policy and Missions


Office of the                Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense (Military Personnel Policy)
Undersecretary of Defense    Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense (Health Services Operations and
(Personnel and Readiness),   Readiness)
                             Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense (Readiness, Training, and
Washington, D.C.             Mobilization)



Joint Chiefs of Staff

Office of the Chairman of    Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff
the Joint Chiefs of Staff,   Vice Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff
Washington, D.C.             Assistant to the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff




                             Page 32                                GAO/NSIAD-97-160 General and Flag Officers
                             Appendix III
                             Joint Community General and Flag Officer
                             Positions




Joint Staff, Washington,     Director
D.C.                         Vice Director

J-1 Manpower and             Director
Personnel Directorate,
Washington, D.C.
J-2 Intelligence             Director
Directorate, Washington,     Vice Director
D.C.
J-3 Directorate of           Director
Operations, Washington,      Vice Director
D.C.                         Deputy Director, Current Operations
                             Deputy Director, Current Readiness
                             Deputy Director, Operations, National Systems Support
                             Deputy Director, Operations, National Military Command Center
                             Deputy Director, Operations, National Military Command Center
                             Deputy Director, Operations, National Military Command Center
                             Deputy Director, Operations, National Military Command Center
                             Deputy Director, Operations, National Military Command Center
                             Deputy Director, Combatting Terrorism (recommended)


J-4 Logistics Directorate,   Director
Washington, D.C.             Vice Director
                             Deputy Director, Medical Readiness


J-5 Strategic Plans and      Director
Policy Directorate,          Vice Director
Washington, D.C.             Deputy Director, Politico-Military Affairs
                             Deputy Director, Politico-Military Affairs
                             Deputy Director, Strategy and Policy
                             Deputy Director, International Negotiations
                             Joint Chiefs of Staff Representative on Security and Cooperation in
                             Europe




                             Page 33                                    GAO/NSIAD-97-160 General and Flag Officers
                             Appendix III
                             Joint Community General and Flag Officer
                             Positions




J-6 Command, Control,        Director
Communications, and          Vice Director
Computers, Washington,
D.C.
J-7 Operational Plans and    Director
Interoperability             Vice Director
Directorate, Washington,
D.C.
J-8 Force Structure          Director
Resource and Assessment      Vice Director
Directorate, Washington,     Deputy Director, Force Structure and Resources
                             Deputy Director, Joint Warfighting Capability Assessments
D.C.                         Director, Joint Theater Air and Missile Defense Organization
                             (recommended)
                             Deputy Director, Joint Theater Air and Missile Defense Organization
                             (recommended)


Inter-American Defense       Chairman
Board

Defense Agencies

Ballistic Missile Defense    Director
Organization, Washington,    Deputy for Acquisition/Theater Missile Defense
D.C.                         Assistant Deputy for Theater Missile Defense Programs
                             Director, National Missile Defense


Defense Finance and          Deputy Director for Finance
Accounting Service,
Arlington, Virginia
Defense Information          Director
Systems Agency, Arlington,   Vice Director
Virginia                     Commander, Western Hemisphere




                             Page 34                                    GAO/NSIAD-97-160 General and Flag Officers
                             Appendix III
                             Joint Community General and Flag Officer
                             Positions




                             Deputy Director for Operations
                             Deputy Director for Engineering and Interoperability


Defense Intelligence         Director
Agency, Washington, D.C.     Director, National Military Intelligence Collection Center
                             Defense Attache, Russia
                             Defense Attache, China
                             Defense Attache, Pakistan (recommended)
                             Defense Attache, India (recommended)
                             Defense Attache, Brazil (recommended)
                             Defense Attache, Israel (recommended)
                             Defense Attache, France (recommended)


Defense Logistics Agency,    Director
Alexandria, Virginia         Principal Deputy Director
                             Deputy Director for Materiel Management
                             Executive Director for Distribution
                             Executive Director for Supply Management
                             Deputy Director for Acquisition Management
                             Commander, Defense Supply Center, Columbus, Ohio
                             Commander, Defense Fuel Supply Center
                             Commander, Defense Industrial Supply Center
                             Commander, Defense Personnel Support Center


Defense Special Weapons      Director
Agency, Alexandria,          Director for Operations
Virginia
Defense Security             Director
Assistance Agency,
Arlington, Virginia
National Imagery and         Director
Mapping Agency, Chantilly,   Director, Customer Support Office
Virginia




                             Page 35                                    GAO/NSIAD-97-160 General and Flag Officers
                             Appendix III
                             Joint Community General and Flag Officer
                             Positions




National Security Agency,    Director
Fort George Meade,           Deputy Director for Plans, Policy, and Programs
Maryland                     Assistant Deputy Director for Operations
                             Chief, Operations and Targeting Group


On-Site Inspection Agency,   Director
Chantilly, Virginia

Unified Commands

Atlantic Command,            Commander in Chief (CINC)
Norfolk, Virginia            Deputy CINC
                             Director for Intelligence J-2
                             Director for Operations J-3
                             Director for Logistics J-4
                             Director for Plans, Policy, and Joint Exercises J-5
                             Director for Command, Control, Communications, and Computer Systems
                             J-6 (recommended)
                             Director J-7
                             Commander, Special Operations Command
                             Commander, U.S. Defense Forces-Iceland
                             Director, Joint Interagency Task Force-East
                             Commander, Joint Task Force-6


Central Command, MacDill     CINC
Air Force Base, Florida      Deputy CINC/Chief of Staff
                             Director for Intelligence J-2
                             Director for Operations J-3
                             Deputy Director for Operations J-3
                             Director for Logistics J-4/J-7
                             Director for Plans and Policy J-5
                             Deputy Director for Plans, Policy, and Programs J-5 (recommended)
                             Director for Command, Control, Communications, and Computer Systems
                             J-6
                             Commander, Forward Headquarters Element/Inspector General
                             Commander, U.S. Military Training Mission (Saudi Arabia)
                             Chief, Office of Military Cooperation (Egypt)
                             Commander, Middle East Force (Bahrain)




                             Page 36                                    GAO/NSIAD-97-160 General and Flag Officers
                       Appendix III
                       Joint Community General and Flag Officer
                       Positions




                       Commander, Special Operations Command
                       Chief, Office of Military Cooperation (Kuwait)
                       Commander, Joint Task Force Southwest Asia (Saudi Arabia)
                       Joint Rear Area Coordinator (recommended)


European Command,      CINC
Stuttgart-Vaihingen,   Deputy CINC
Germany                Chief of Staff
                       Director for Intelligence J-2
                       Director for Operations J-3
                       Deputy Director for Operations J-3
                       Director for Logistics and Security Assistance J-4/J-7
                       Director for Plans and Policy J-5
                       Deputy Director for Plans and Policy J-5
                       Director for Command, Control, Communications, and Computer Systems
                       J-6
                       Chief, Office of Defense Cooperation (Turkey)
                       Commander, Special Operations Command-Europe
                       Commanding General, Combined Task Force “Northern Watch” (Turkey)


Pacific Command,       CINC
Honolulu, Hawaii       Deputy CINC/Chief of Staff/Inspector General
                       Director for Intelligence J-2
                       Director for Operations J-3
                       Deputy Director for Operations J-3
                       Director for Logistics and Security Assistance J-4
                       Director for Plans and Policy J-5
                       Deputy Director for Plans and Policy J-5
                       Director for Command, Control, Communications, and Computer Systems
                       J-6
                       Commander, Joint Task Force-Full Accounting
                       Pacific Command Representative-Guam
                       Commander, United States Forces-Japan/Commander, 5th Air Force
                       (Japan)
                       Deputy Commander/Chief of Staff, United States Forces-Japan (Japan)
                       Commander, Special Operations Forces-Pacific
                       Commander, Alaskan Command/Headquarters Alaskan Air Command
                       (Alaska)




                       Page 37                                    GAO/NSIAD-97-160 General and Flag Officers
                            Appendix III
                            Joint Community General and Flag Officer
                            Positions




Southern Command,           CINC
Quarry Heights, Panama      Deputy CINC/Chief of Staff
                            Director for Intelligence J-2
                            Director for Operations J-3
                            Director for Logistics J-4 (recommended)
                            Director for Plans and Policy J-5
                            Director for Command, Control, Communications, Computers, and
                            Intelligence Systems J-6 (recommended)
                            Commander, Special Operations Command-South


Space Command, Peterson     CINC
Air Force Base, Colorado    Deputy CINC/Chief of Staff
                            Director for Intelligence J-2
                            Director for Operations J-3
                            Director for Plans and Policy J-5
                            Director for Command and Control Systems J-6
                            Commander, Cheyenne Mountain Operations Center (Colorado Springs,
                            Colorado)
                            Deputy Commander, Canadian North American Air Defense (North Bay,
                            Ontario, Canada)
                            Director for Plans and Policy J-5, North American Air Defense


Special Operations          CINC
Command, MacDill Air        Deputy CINC/Chief of Staff
Force Base, Florida         Director for Operations J-3
                            Director for Plans, Policy, and Strategic Assessments J-5/J-7
                            Director for Plans and Policy J-5 (recommended)
                            Director for Resources J-8
                            Commanding General, Joint Special Operations Command (Fort Bragg,
                            North Carolina)
                            Deputy Commanding General, Joint Special Operations Command (Fort
                            Bragg, North Carolina)


Strategic Command, Offutt   CINC
Air Force Base, Nebraska    Deputy CINC
                            Director for Intelligence J-2
                            Director for Operations J-3/Director for Logistics J-4
                            Director, Combat Operations Staff
                            Director for Plans and Policy J-5



                            Page 38                                    GAO/NSIAD-97-160 General and Flag Officers
                           Appendix III
                           Joint Community General and Flag Officer
                           Positions




                           Director, Strategic Target Plans
                           Director for Command, Control, and Communications Systems J-6


Transportation Command,    CINC
Scott Air Force Base,      Deputy CINC
Illinois                   Director for Operations J-3/Director for Logistics J-4
                           Director for Plans J-5
                           Director for Command, Control, Communications, and Computer Systems
                           J-6



Combined Commands
and Agencies

United Nations             CINC
Command/Combined           Deputy CINC/Commander, 7th Air Force
Forces Command/United      Chief of Staff/Commander, 8th U.S. Army
                           Deputy Chief of Staff
States Forces-Korea,       Deputy Assistant Chief of Staff, J-2
Seoul, Korea               Assistant Chief of Staff, J-3
                           Deputy Assistant Chief of Staff, J-4
                           Assistant Chief of Staff, J-5


Supreme Headquarters       Executive to the Supreme Allied Commander, Europe
Allied Powers Europe       Assistant Chief of Staff for Operations and Logistics
                           Chief, Policy and Requirements
                           Chief, Information Systems


Ace Rapid Reaction Corps   Deputy Chief of Staff

Ace Reaction Forces        Deputy Director
Planning Staff
Allied Forces North        Chief of Staff
Europe




                           Page 39                                    GAO/NSIAD-97-160 General and Flag Officers
                           Appendix III
                           Joint Community General and Flag Officer
                           Positions




Allied Forces North West   Assistant Chief of Staff for Operations
Europe
Allied Forces Central      Director for Operations
Europe                     Commander, Allied Land Forces Central Europe
                           Commander, Allied Air Forces Central Europe


Allied Forces Southern     CINC
Europe                     Chief of Staff
                           Assistant Chief of Staff for Plans
                           Deputy Commanding General, Allied Land Forces South Eastern Europe
                           Deputy Chief of Staff for Support
                           Commander, Strike Forces South
                           Deputy Commander, Strike Forces South
                           Commander, Allied Submarines-Mediterranean
                           Commander, Marine Air Forces-Mediterranean
                           Commander, Allied Air Forces Southern Europe
                           Chief of Staff, Allied Air Forces Southern Europe
                           Deputy Commander, 5th Allied Tactical Air Forces
                           Deputy Commander, 6th Allied Tactical Air Forces


North Atlantic Treaty      Commander
Organization Early
Warning Force
Ace Mobile Forces (Land)   Commander

Allied Command Atlantic    Chief of Staff
                           Assistant Chief of Staff
                           Commander, Strike Forces Atlantic
                           Commander, Submarine Bases Atlantic
                           Commander, Standing Naval Force Atlantic
                           Deputy CINC, Iberian Atlantic Command


North Atlantic Treaty      U.S. Military Representative
Organization Military      Deputy U.S. Military Representative
Committee                  Deputy Chairman




                           Page 40                                    GAO/NSIAD-97-160 General and Flag Officers
                               Appendix III
                               Joint Community General and Flag Officer
                               Positions




Special
Activities/Joint
Service Colleges

National Defense               President
University                     Commandant, National War College
                               Commandant, Industrial College of the Armed Forces
                               Commandant, Armed Forces Staff College


Defense Systems                Commandant
Management College
Office of the Director of      Associate Director for Military Support
the Central Intelligence       Associate Deputy Director for Operations
Agency, Langley, Virginia
U.S. Congress, Washington,     Physician to Congress
D.C.
U.S. Department of Energy,     Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary for Military Applications
Washington, D.C.
National Security Council,     Director, National Security Council Staff (recommended)
Washington, D.C.
Joint Command and              Director
Control Warfare Center
Joint Warfighting Center       Commander

Joint Cruise Missile Project   Program Executive Officer, Cruise Missile/Unmanned Aerial Vehicles

                               The Joint Staff scored another 9 positions as general and flag officer
                               requirements, but the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff decided not to
                               add those to the 244 positions.




                               Page 41                                    GAO/NSIAD-97-160 General and Flag Officers
                             Appendix III
                             Joint Community General and Flag Officer
                             Positions




                             The joint community also has 33 reserve component general and flag
Reserve Component            officer positions. In 1997, the joint community recommended adding 11
                             reserve general and flag officer positions to the existing 33. The 44 existing
                             and recommended positions are listed below.



OSD

Office of the Assistant      Assistant for Mobilization and Reserve Affairs
Secretary of Defense
(Health Affairs),
Washington, D.C.
Office of the Assistant      Military Advisor and Executive Officer, Reserve Forces Policy Board
Secretary of Defense
(Reserve Affairs),
Washington, D.C.

Joint Chiefs of Staff

Joint Staff, Washington,     Mobilization Assistant to the Director, Joint Staff
D.C.                         Assistant to the Director J-4 Logistics (Medical Readiness)
                             Mobilization Assistant to the Director of Logistics J4
                             Special Assistant to the Director of Command, Control, Communications,
                             and Computers (recommended)
                             Assistant to the Director of Strategic Plans and Policy (recommended)


Defense Information          Mobilization Assistant to the Director
Systems Agency, Arlington,
Virginia
Defense Intelligence         Mobilization Assistant to the Director
Agency, Washington, D.C.
Defense Logistics Agency,    Mobilization Assistant to the Director
Alexandria, Virginia         Mobilization Assistant to the Deputy Director, Acquisition Management




                             Page 42                                    GAO/NSIAD-97-160 General and Flag Officers
                            Appendix III
                            Joint Community General and Flag Officer
                            Positions




National Security Agency,   Mobilization Assistant to the Chief, Central Security Service
Fort George Meade,          Mobilization Assistant to the Deputy Chief, Central Security Service
Maryland

Unified Commands

Atlantic Command,           Chief of Staff
Norfolk, Virginia           Vice Director of Intelligence
                            Vice Director of Operations
                            Vice Director for Logistics
                            Vice Director for Plans and Policies
                            Vice Director for Joint Training


European Command,           Director of Mobilization and Reserve Component Affairs
Stuttgart-Vaihingen,        Crisis Action Team Director
Germany                     Assistant Political Advisor
                            Assistant Director of Intelligence J-2


Pacific Command,            Deputy CINC
Honolulu, Hawaii            Director for Operations (recommended)
                            Director for Logistics and Security Assistance J-4 (recommended)
                            Director for Strategic Planning and Policy J-5 (recommended)
                            Director for Command, Control, Communications, and Computer Systems
                            (recommended)


Southern Command,           Deputy CINC for Mobilization and Reserve Affairs
Quarry Heights, Panama      Vice Director for Operations (recommended)
                            Deputy Director for Logistics (recommended)


Space Command, Peterson     CINC
Air Force Base, Colorado    Mobilization Assistant to the Director of Intelligence
                            Mobilization Assistant to the Director of Operations
                            Mobilization Assistant to the Director of Command and Control Systems




                            Page 43                                    GAO/NSIAD-97-160 General and Flag Officers
                            Appendix III
                            Joint Community General and Flag Officer
                            Positions




Special Operations          Deputy CINC for Mobilization and Reserve Affairs
Command, MacDill Air        Deputy Director of Operations
Force Base, Florida
Strategic Command, Offutt   Mobilization Assistant to the CINC
Air Force Base, Nebraska    Mobilization Assistant to the CINC
                            Mobilization Assistant to the Director of Intelligence


Transportation Command,     Mobilization Assistant to the Deputy CINC
Scott Air Force Base,       Mobilization Assistant to the Director of Plans and Policy (recommended)
Illinois                    Deputy Director for Operations and Logistics (recommended)


Combined Commands
and Agencies

United Nations              Deputy Assistant Chief of Staff J-3 (recommended)
Command/Combined
Forces Command/United
States Forces-Korea,        The Joint Staff scored another 6 reserve component positions as general
Seoul, Korea                and flag officer requirements, but the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff
                            decided not to add those to the 44 positions.




                            Page 44                                    GAO/NSIAD-97-160 General and Flag Officers
Appendix IV

Comments From the Department of Defense




              Page 45      GAO/NSIAD-97-160 General and Flag Officers
Appendix V

Major Contributors to This Report


                        Sharon A. Cekala
National Security and   William E. Beusse
International Affairs   Brian J. Lepore
Division, Washington,   William J. Rigazio
                        Arthur L. James, Jr.
D.C.                    Nancy L. Ragsdale


                        Herbert I. Dunn
Office of the General
Counsel, Washington,
D.C.




(703205)                Page 46                GAO/NSIAD-97-160 General and Flag Officers
Ordering Information

The first copy of each GAO report and testimony is free.
Additional copies are $2 each. Orders should be sent to the
following address, accompanied by a check or money order
made out to the Superintendent of Documents, when
necessary. VISA and MasterCard credit cards are accepted, also.
Orders for 100 or more copies to be mailed to a single address
are discounted 25 percent.

Orders by mail:

U.S. General Accounting Office
P.O. Box 6015
Gaithersburg, MD 20884-6015

or visit:

Room 1100
700 4th St. NW (corner of 4th and G Sts. NW)
U.S. General Accounting Office
Washington, DC

Orders may also be placed by calling (202) 512-6000
or by using fax number (301) 258-4066, or TDD (301) 413-0006.

Each day, GAO issues a list of newly available reports and
testimony. To receive facsimile copies of the daily list or any
list from the past 30 days, please call (202) 512-6000 using a
touchtone phone. A recorded menu will provide information on
how to obtain these lists.

For information on how to access GAO reports on the INTERNET,
send an e-mail message with "info" in the body to:

info@www.gao.gov

or visit GAO’s World Wide Web Home Page at:

http://www.gao.gov




PRINTED ON    RECYCLED PAPER
United States                       Bulk Rate
General Accounting Office      Postage & Fees Paid
Washington, D.C. 20548-0001           GAO
                                 Permit No. G100
Official Business
Penalty for Private Use $300

Address Correction Requested