GovernmentExecutive.com

Members of the House Armed Services Personnel Subcommittee complained Tuesday that the Bush administration's reliance on supplemental funding for the military made the challenging task of recruiting quality personnel more difficult. But the Pentagon's top personnel official argued that supplemental funding would be less of an issue if Congress had provided the full amount requested.

They expressed concern about what Armed Services Personnel Subcommittee Chairwoman Susan Davis, D-Calif., called "sacrifices in recruit quality." That is reflected mainly in the Army's failure to meet the Pentagon standard of 90 percent high school graduates and its need to take more recruits who score in the lowest acceptable category on the military qualification test and to issue more waivers for physical and "moral" problems.

Armed Services Personnel Subcommittee ranking member John McHugh, R-N.Y., said he shared "the concern of many about the new recruits who do not meet the time-tested DoD quality standards." He asked the service personnel officials to explain the implications of failing to meet those standards.

David Chu, undersecretary of Defense for personnel and readiness, noted that although only 82 percent of Army recruits so far this year had high school diplomas, the three other services were exceeding the standard. But Chu insisted that all the military recruits were "high school graduates" because they had passed the General Education Development exam.

Chu also suggested that the recent drop in recruit quality had to be considered in "historic context," pointing out how much better educated today's recruits are than in the past. In the years immediately after the Vietnam War, none of the services recruited 90 percent high school graduates, the Army and Marine Corps struggled to get above 50 percent, and more than half of all recruits fell in "category four," in the recruiting test scores.

But Rep. Carol Shea-Porter, D-N.H., rejected that argument, claiming that military service is much more complex now.

Questioned about the increased numbers of moral waivers, Chu said that reflected a society in which more young people have experimented with drugs. And he noted that recruits needed waivers because they admitted drug use or misdemeanor violations. Waivers are granted only after several layers of review.

Chu cited an Army study that showed recruits granted moral waivers "performed as well or even better" than other soldiers while in service.

All of the services met their recruiting goals last year and expressed confidence they would do so again this year, with the help of bonuses and increasing benefits.

Davis suggested that the recruiting problems were linked to "the increasing reliance of recruiting and retention programs on emergency supplemental funding," which prevented the planning and timely execution needed to sign enough recruits.

Other members complained about the continued use of supplemental requests, more than six years after the war in Afghanistan began.

Chu and the service personnel officials agreed they all would prefer getting their recruiting funds in the normal budget. Lt. Gen. Michael Rochelle said the Army was committed to funding recruiting and retention in its fiscal 2010 budget.

But Chu made the point several times that the administration had requested the fiscal 2008 supplemental quite early and that Congress provided less than half, leaving $102.5 billion still awaiting action.

"What would be most useful now would be the second increment of the supplemental," he said.

COMMENTS

• While I hate to back track, particularly to Skeeter of all folks, I do hold to a standard that requires self-examination and correction. My statements, upon reflection, were limited to my own experience. And while everyone I know here did have to comply with the procedures I stated; I just had to go look again, since it did seem logical that a truck driver hired by the Feds might not be required to get checked out that extensively. So saying, the best I could find is LOTS on our military and the following on myself and my DoD co-workers… DoD 5200.2-R, Personnel Security Program (dtd: Jan 87, available on the DoD military web site by Googling through the web): C3.2. CIVILIAN EMPLOYMENT C3.2.1. General. The appointment of each civilian employee in any DoD Component is subject to investigation, except for reappointment when the break in employment is less than 12 months. The type of investigation required is set forth in this section according to position sensitivity. C3.2.2. Nonsensitive Positions. In accordance with the OPM Federal Personnel Manual, (reference (cc)) a NACI shall be requested not later than 3 working days after a person is appointed to a nonsensitive position.” (Nonsensitive positions are the ones most folks don’t think need investigating. The others have more stringent requirements.) C3.4.2. Investigative Requirements for Clearance C3.4.2.2.1.2. NACI: Civilian employees. (NACI stands for National Agency Check [NAC] plus written Inquires.) AP1.1.1.1.3. An FBI/ID check, included in every NAC, is based upon a technical fingerprint search that consists of a classification the subject's fingerprints and comparison with fingerprint cards submitted by law enforcement activities. If the fingerprint card is not classifiable, a "name check only" of these files is automatically conducted. Okay, would that make for at least 95% of DoD, the largest of our federal government organizations? As for the number and/or percentage of civil servants that required a pre-employment urinalysis test; once more, all of us here did. I also know that all VA and DOJ applicants must. Anyone have any other info? Go on and call your names, Skeeter. At least you're using bigger words and spelling them correctly. Tip off Posted March 4, 2008 2:13 PM
• Tipsy as usual your off the mark, there is no background check done on civil servants unless their job requires a security clearence. Are you that obtuse or just suffering from dementia dan m ketter Posted March 3, 2008 6:55 PM
• Skeeter, once more your lack of knowledge shows glaringly. All military personnel AND civilians undergo an initial background check at a bare minimum when seeking government employment. If your job requires, you will undergo additional security clearance criteria. You will be interviewed, your neighbors and schools queried, your past work and homes checked up on, etc. You even have to take a urinalysis test for drug use/abuse. And you can not only lose your job but your freedom for lying or falling off the wagon. Periodically through out both careers you will have to update and resubmit to these same procedures. I must note that the military and those civilian occupations that carry weapons, work in areas of national security, safety, and health care are designated for even more frequent review/tests. Now, see? If you were one of us, you wouldn’t have to make such ignorant statements. But rest assured, if you just ask us and we’ll fill you in. Tip off Posted March 3, 2008 1:49 PM