Hearing of the House Armed Services Committee - Military Readiness: Implications For Our Strategic Posture
Interview
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
REP. JIM SAXTON (R-NJ): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Ms. Flournoy, in your statement, you made a number of statements that I'd just like to ask you about. The one statement that you made which was troubling -- I think you may have modified a bit in an answer to one of the Chairman's questions -- you said that since 2006, the Army has met yearly recruiting goals but has taken some fairly extraordinary steps to do so including moral waivers and -- but in your question and -- in the answer to your question you said it is hard to make absolute -- an absolute judgment on those issues.
And I'm glad that you modified what you said in your statement because we have looked at this issue at some length and we have found that in some cases, soldiers with waivers actually do better than soldiers without waivers.
For example, waivered soldiers had a lower loss rate in entry- level performance. The waivered soldiers' loss rate was 3 percent while the non-waivered soldiers' loss rate was 4-and-a-half percent. They also had lower rates of personal disorder, the lower -- the waivered soldiers' rate was about 0.9 percent, the non-waivered soldiers' rate was 1.1 percent.
The waivered soldiers had lower rates of unsatisfactory performance. Their rate of unsatisfactory performance was about 2 -- 0.2 -- 0.26 percent.
The non-waivered soldiers' rates was about double that. And I could go on down the list and -- there -- and then there were some areas where waivered soldiers didn't do as well.
And so I think it is a bit -- a bit premature, let's say, to say that the waiver process in itself is inherently flawed because some of the wavers are given for things like, one, use of marijuana. That would deserve a waiver.
And so I guess I'd just like you to respond, and again it's -- I'm glad that you modified your statement by saying that it's hard to make an absolute judgment in these cases because of varying results and performance by soldiers with waivers.
MS. FLOURNOY: Sir, I flagged this as an area to watch because I'm aware of the data that you cited and I think it's a mixed bag. In some cases, these waivered soldiers become, you know, models in the Army. In other cases, they don't, and they show greater difficulty in meeting Army standards.
So I think it is something that we need to watch over time and watch carefully because the hallmark of the force has always been its quality. And as we grow, the biggest challenge is to maintain that quality of a larger force.
So again, I don't -- I think the jury is out. I think there's some very positive data but also some data of concern and we just need to watch it very closely over time.
REP. SAXTON: Okay, thank you, that's good. Let me ask you about retention goals. In your statement, you stated that although the Army continues to meet its overall retention goals, it's beginning to experience serious retention problems in key parts of the force.
My information is that the active Army is actually doing quite well in meeting its overall retention goals in all categories. The Army is actually exceeding its goals in many.
The most deployed Army divisions have an exceptionally high reenlistment rate, for example, in all categories. And I think you've probably seen the information to back that up.
In the Army National Guard, which measures retention against a specific annual expected attrition of 19-and-a-hald percent the actual annual attrition rate for 1999 was 5.4 percent; for 2006, it was 4.7 percent; and for 2007, it was 4.3 percent. And in the Reserve, which has an expected attrition of 28.6 percent, the actual annual attrition was 6.5 percent in '99; in 2006, it was 4.9 percent -- I'm sorry, in 2007, it was 4.9 percent.
Those seem to be pretty good, particularly when taken in the context of your statement which says that the overall retention goals are beginning to experience serious problems. I don't understand.
MS. FLOURNOY: Sir --
REP. SAXTON: Maybe you can clear that up.
MS. FLOURNOY: Yeah. In my statement, I acknowledged that the good news is that company grade-loss rates have remained fairly stable, which I think is what you're citing. The challenge really comes from the combination of multiple, you know, the high ops tempo, but more importantly, the growth, so that as the force grows, the denominator changes; you actually have to have a higher-than- historical retention rate in order to fill out the ranks of company- grade officers and NCOs in the force.
And so we have to do better on retention than we ever have before in order to have the quality of leadership we need in a larger force. So I was simply -- I was trying to flag that at a time when I think we're finding a challenge -- challenging to meet historical rates of retention, we actually have to retain even more to be able to support expansion.
REP. SAXTON: Unfortunately, I don't have the numbers here for the active Army but I do have the numbers, or at least some numbers, for the Army Guard and the Army Reserve. And they appear to be doing just what you suggest, doing better than they have historically been expected to do. Do you agree with that?
MS. FLOURNOY: Well, the -- I would balance that against the problem -- the very real shortages that we see in both company grade and majors -- major shortages, at least 17 percent at this point. So I think there is a problem in terms of meeting some of the targets associated with expansion.
REP. SAXTON: Yeah, you made the point in your statement with regard to the West Point class of 2001 -- 46 percent of the West Point class of 2001, and 54 percent of the West Point class of 2000 have already left the Army. Army data is a little bit different, the Army does not dispute that reducing officer attrition is an important objective and asserts that an unprecedented effort is underway to accomplish that goal.
Army data shows that the U.S. Military Academy attrition at the end of 5 years is actually 30 percent for classes graduating from 1992 to 2002, and at the six-year mark the attrition for the classes for '92 through 2001 is 46 percent. So those numbers are a little different than what you said, I believe, in your testimony.
MS. FLOURNOY: Yeah. I think we'll have -- we have dueling data here, sir. I have a data released by the U.S. Military Academy, and the overall historical average since 1976 was about 40 percent loss, the last 10 classes, 45 percent loss, and over -- and then the most recent two classes, closer to 50 percent loss. So I think we'll -- I'm happy to get with your staff and compare data to see if we can sort that out.
REP. SAXTON: We appreciate that. Let me just ask you one final question with regard to high school diplomas. Your statement -- you said that in Fiscal Year 2007, only 79 percent of the recruits had high school diplomas. I was wondering if you included in that 79 percent the National Guard Youth Challenge Program GED certificates which we are -- which we continue to be hopeful, will hold up as a level of accomplishment that will permit people to be gainfully retained -- recruited and retained in the Army.
MS. FLOURNOY: Sir, I believe that figure is for active duty, but I can double-check that for you.
REP. SAXTON: Right. My understanding of your statement was that 79 percent of the recruits had high school diplomas --
MS. FLOURNOY: Right.
REP. SAXTON: -- and do you question whether or not the National Guard Youth Challenge Program, GED, is an appropriate level of accomplishment and achievement which we would require to join the Army?
MS. FLOURNOY: Well, what -- I was simply noting that the -- I think the historical standard has been 90 percent with a high school diploma. And I think it's important to try to continue to meet that goal.
REP. SAXTON: So you don't have an opinion on the National Guard Youth Challenge Program?
MS. FLOURNOY: No, I don't. I haven't looked at it closely.
REP. SAXTON: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Source