Page images
PDF
EPUB

nearly as sharply in the higher grades as do overall service require

ment curves.

In addition to the need for an overall pay adjustment, it is our belief that the greatly increased need of the uniformed services for highly qualified professional and scientific officer manpower, together with the steadily rising salaries which this group may command in the civilian economy, point to the need for additional compensation factors specifically attuned to the recruitment and retention of trained, specialized personnel.

In presenting this view, we wish to note that similar expressions have emanated from other groups concerned with this matter-the Scientific Manpower Commission, the Folsom committee, which studied the personnel problems of the Public Health Service, and the Advisory Panel on Federal Pay Systems, which presented recommendations to the executive branch relative to military pay legislation presented to the House of Representatives and the immediate preceding witness.

We would like, therefore, to present two specific proposals for the consideration of the subcommittee which we feel would greatly increase the ability of the uniformed services to recruit and retain adequate numbers of trained professional personnel.

First, we urge the subcommittee to restore the provision contained in the original bill recommended by the administration to authorize up to 3 years constructive credit for purposes of appointment, promotion, and basic pay to officers holding post graduate degrees in designated fields.

Second, we recommend that the special incentive pay, presently authorized for doctors and dentists, be broadened to include engineers, scientists, and other scarce categories of personnel.

To quote from the report of the House Armed Services Committee, on II.R. 5555:

The problem facing the armed services today is more of a question of quality than quantity *** unless the armed services can attract and retain more personnel with the necessary high degree of competence and dedication required, They are faced with a force structure of steadily declining quality completely compatible with the increased technological and combat leadership demands being placed upon the Armed Forces.

Except in the case of the Coast and Geodetic Survey, there is no provision in present law to recognize the increasing need of the uniformed services for individuals possessing postgraduate degrees in vital engineering and scientific specialties.

We note, in contrast, that provisions covering Federal civilian salaries do recognize this problem, and that the Civil Service Commission has acted to provide higher starting salaries for engineers holding post graduate degrees.

We believe that the provision for constructive credit, as proposed by the administration, would put the uniformed services in a better position to attract and retain the more highly trained and qualified personnel that they require.

In addition, if broadened to cover officers now on active duty, such a proposal would act as a stimulus to promote further professional development among those already committed to a career in the uniformed services.

The recommendation for incentive pay is based upon the demonstrated fact that similar compensation provided for doctors and dentists have resulted in the retention of substantially higher proportions of these categories of personnel. Comparison of uniformed service compensation scales with industrial scales indicates that such incentive pay, together with constructive credit for graduate study, would go far toward placing the military in a more competitive position for the highly trained personnel so vitally needed.

In the interest of time, a more detailed analysis of this specific recommendation has been prepared separately and forwarded to the subcommittee previously.

We respectfully urge your serious consideration of this analysis, and request that it be inserted in the record as an appendix to our

statement.

We appreciate the opportunity of appearing here today, and stand ready to assist the subcommittee further in any manner possible. Senator CANNON. It will be inserted.

(The document referred to follows:)

INCENTIVE PAY FOR ENGINEERING OFFICERS

APPENDIX TO NATIONAL SOCIETY OF PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERS TESTIMONY

Few people question the fact that in the United States today there is a shortage of highly educated and trained engineers. As modern technology becomes more complex, and as engineering enrollments remain static, this shortage becomes steadily more acute. In the past, decisions involving the national defense and welfare turned primarily upon the question of whether dollar costs were justified by potential benefits. Today the question is more often not whether we can afford the money, but whether we can afford the investment of engineering and scientific talent.

As the demand for engineers and scientists increases, so does the competition for them. Not only private industry, but also the Federal civil service, has been forced to recognize this increasing competition by providing salary scales which take into account the law of supply and demand.

For the uniformed services, the problem is rapidly becoming critical. The complexity of modern warfare, and the increasing importance of engineering in such areas as air and water pollution, oceanography, and medical research, have brought about a corresponding increase in the need for highly qualified engineering officers.

In the recent past, this need has been filled from the large pool of engineering officers who remained on active duty following World War II and the Korean conflict. In the next few years, however, a large portion of these officers will reach retirement age, leaving a void which must be filled from the ranks of the younger engineering officers.

In the vast majority of cases, these younger engineering officers leave their respective services at the end of their obligated duty period.

At the present time, the services retain only about 14 percent of this group, with the percentage falling as low as 7 percent in certain specialized areas. While there are many reasons for this high loss rate, in too many cases the deciding factor has simply been money. The salaries of engineers in the private economy have increased 50 percent over the last 10 years, but the pay of military engineers has risen only 16 percent.

It has been estimated that it costs the military services through their academies, ROTC, and officer candidate school program, an average of $7,500 to commission and orient an engineering officer. During the obligated period of duty the services spend an additional $4,000 in further training over and above the services afforded the Government by each officer. Thus, at the termination of the obligated duty period, the Government has an investment of about $11,500 in each engineering officer.

With such high initial processing and training costs, it is not difficult to calculate the tremendous waste resulting from the loss of over 85 percent of those 21-482-63-18

trained. Nor is it difficult to calculate the potential savings to the services if retention rates could be increased.

With the current retention rate of about 14 percent, the services must train 714 officers to retain 100 past the obligated duty period, at a total cost of about $8.2 million. As evidenced by the experience of the services when faced with a similar retention problem among medical and dental officers, the establishment of a special incentive pay providing a pay scale more nearly comparable to that prevailing in the private economy greatly reduced loss rates.

The payment of a similar incentive pay to engineering officers-$100 under 2 years of service, $150 over 2 years' service, $200 over 6 years' service, and $250 over 10 years' service-would place the uniformed services in a position to compete much more effectively for the top-quality engineering officer personnel which they must have.

If, through the institution of such a plan, the retention rate of engineering officers could be raised to even 35 percent, the overall savings in training costs, including incentive pay, would be approximately $3.7 million for each 100 officers remaining on active duty past the obligated period of service. If the retention rate were increased to 50 percent, considered a desirable level for engineering officers, it would be necessary to train only 200 officers to retain 100 past the obligated duty period. Thus, the cost of retaining 100 engineering officers, including incentive pay, would be $2,780,000, as opposed to the present cost of $8.2 million.

All of the services agree that present high loss rates among engineering officers constitute a serious problem, not only because of the training costs involved, but because of the effect such losses have upon vital research, development, and construction programs.

A further problem created by this high loss rate, as pointed out by the Department of Defense, is the effect which it has upon the quality of the services' middle management group. In order for the services to maintain adequate manpower levels at the 4-, 5-, and 6-year points, they must accept from 95 to 98 percent of the officers who apply for indefinite career status. Engineering officers of the uniformed services are directly responsible for decisions involving the expenditure of literally billions of taxpayers' dollars. It is only economic commonsense to entrust this great responsibility to the most highly qualified personnel available.

In addition, the effectiveness of many research and development programs under the direction of engineering officers must be measured in terms of human life and well-being, rather than in terms of dollars. Here again, it is vital that such responsibilities be placed only in the hands of those most qualified.

It is evident from a comparison of the rates proposed in H.R. 5555 with those of engineers in private industry that adequate comparability cannot be achieved without the addition of further incentives.

It is also evident, from the tremendous cost such a plan would entail, that it would be impractical to solve this problem through a further, general pay increase for all officers of the uniformed services. Thus, it is apparent that only through the institution of a special incentive pay plan can retention of engineering officers be significantly improved at a reasonable cost to the services. The problem is clear and present and, without special attention, can only get

worse.

The proposed solution, moreover, is not without precedent, and would be far less costly than a continuation of the present situation.

Senator CANNON. Thank you very much for appearing here and for giving us the benefit of your views. You have made a very important statement and certainly the committee is well aware of the problem of retention that we have of our specialized people in the service. I note on the last page of your statement you say:

The recommendation for incentive pay is based upon the demonstrated fact that similar compensation provided for doctors and dentists has resulted in the retention of substantially higher proportions of these categories of personnel. According to the evidence presented to us now, we are retaining hardly any of them, so if we are retaining a higher percentage because of this

Mr. ROBBINS. I read the statement of Secretary Paul, and it is certainly apparent there are problems there, though I think it is a true statement a higher percentage are retained, even though it is still inadequate for the armed services needs.

Senator CANNON. I think you probably are correct.

Thank you very much for your appearance here. We will certainly give consideration to your views.

Mr. ROBBINS. Thank you, sir.

Senator CANNON. Is Mr. Patton here, the national executive director of the Naval Enlisted Reserve Association?

(No answer.)

Senator CANNON. It is requested that the following statements be inserted in the record at this point:

American Bar Association, Maj. Gen. Reginald C. Harmon (USAF, retired).

American Dental Association.

American Legion, William C. Doyle, chairman, National Security Commission.

American Medical Association.

American Veterinary Medical Association, J. A. McCallam, V.M.D. Chief Warrant and Warrant Officers Association, U.S. Coast Guard, CWO H. S. Hayman, USCG, president.

Maj. Gen. E. N. Harmon, USA retired, president of Norwich University, Northfield, Vt. (inserted at request of Senator George D. Aiken).

Adm. H. Kent Hewitt, USN (retired) of Orwell, Vt. (inserted at request of Senator George D. Aiken).

Vincent S. Lukas, BMC, U.S. Coast Guard (retired disabled). Col. Ben F. Mariska, USAF, of Aurora, Colo. (inserted at request of Senator Peter H. Dominick).

Lt. Howard L. McLeod, Emergency Officers Retired List, Army, of Bemidji, Minn.

Naval Reserve Association, of Washington, D.C., Comdr. Hugh H. Howell, Jr., USNR, national vice president for legislation.

Veterans of Foreign Wars of the United States, Brig. Gen. James D. Hittle, USMC, retired, Director, National Security and Foreign Affairs.

(The statements are as follows:)

STATEMENT OF MAJ. GEN. REGINALD C. HARMON (USAF, RETIRED), ON BEHALF OF THE AMERICAN BAR ASSOCIATION

Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee, my name is Reginald C. Harmon, major general, U.S. Air Force, retired, and formerly for nearly 12 years Judge Advocate General of the U.S. Air Force. I appreciate the opportunity to present this statement on behalf of the American Bar Association, expressing the views of that association with respect to H.R. 5555, the proposed "Uniformed Services Pay Act of 1963."

Addressing my remarks primarily to one aspect of military pay, I should like to recommend that the bill be amended to allow certain professionally trained officers to receive credit, for basic pay purposes, for the time spent by them in obtaining their professional education. The proposed amendment embodying this recommendation is attached to this statement.

Under the proposed amendment, chaplains, judge advocates, veterinary officers, and certain medical service officers holding Ph. D. degrees or the equivalent could, under secretarial regulations, be given not more than 3 years' credit for the purpose of computing basic pay rates.

I might say, Mr. Chairman, that the amendment proposed by the American Bar Association was not originated by the association as something new. The substance of this amendment was included in the original pay proposal forwarded to Congress by the Department of Defense. Unfortunately, during modification of the original bill in the House of Representatives, this provision was dropped for reasons mentioned later in this document. The association recommends that the provision, modified as shown in the attached proposed amendment, be reinstated in the bill.

Simply stated, the problem is that we can assume that a newly commissioned officer in the Armed Forces is expected to have a basic college degree, or its equivalent, and is entitled to no additional pay for having such basic qualifications. A graduate of either the Military, the Naval, or the Air Force Academy has such a degree, as do officers trained under the ROTC program. There are, however, certain specialized functions in the Armed Forces which require professional training beyond the 4-year undergraduate level. When a young man, on his own time and at his own expense, obtains this additional professional education before he enters military service, the Armed Forces receive the benefit of his professional training. However, since the professionally trained individual enters military service approximately 3 years later than his college contemporary, he is, by virtue of having less active service, penalized for the time and money he has spent on his professional education.

The Armed Forces have partially recognized this inequity. Under present law, a chaplain, judge advocate, veterinary officer, or medical service officer with a Ph. D. degree or its equivalent in certain fields is, when he is initially commissioned, given a credit of 3 years for grade and promotion purposes. Thus, these officers normally enter military service in the grade of first lieutenant, rather than second lieutenant, in recognition of the time spent by them on their professional education. They are not, however-and this is the significant point-given the same credit for pay purposes (in this respect, they differ from medical and dental officers, who are given constructive credit for both promotion and pay purposes, as well as substantial extra pay).

The net result of this inequity is that although the chaplain, lawyer, veterinary officer, or medical service officer with a Ph. D. degree has the same military grade as his college contemporary, he draws substantially less basic pay, and this inequity stays with him throughout his military career.

The extent of this difference in pay can readily be seen in the pay tables contained on page 2 of H.R. 5555. Let us assume that two officers, contemporaries in college, are on active duty. The first one entered military service immediately after graduation from college. He is now a first lieutenant and has 3 years of service for pay purposes. His pay is $420 per month. However,

his contemporary who went to law school for 3 years and has just entered active duty as a judge advocate is also a first lieutenant but draws only $259.36 per month. Three years later, if we assume that both officers have been promoted to captain, the first officer will be receiving $535 per month, whereas the second officer will be receiving only $440 per month.

This discrepancy at the end of 3 years is particularly significant when we consider that the young lawyer, chaplain, veterinary officer, or specialized medical service officer will, at that point, be considering the question of whether he should make the military service his career.

The question of retention in the military service of professionally trained officers is a serious one. During the long period I served as Judge Advocate General of the Air Force, I became increasingly disturbed at the difficulties encountered by the Armed Forces resulting from the failure of the younger judge advocate officers to remain on active duty beyond their 3-year tour of obligated service.

The constant turnover of younger lawyers in the Armed Forces, together with the attrition of older lawyers through retirement and otherwise, resulted in a gradual lowering of the experience level of officers assigned to legal duties, with the consequent lowering of morale and efficiency. My own experience is, of course, limited to the Judge Advocate General's department of the Air Force. However, as some of the members of this committee may recall, the Judge Advocate General of the other two services, when asked to present their personal views to this committee while testifying on the Cordiner pay bill in 1958, reported similar experiences.

« PreviousContinue »