The end fiscal year 1961 objective has been reduced by 2,100 to 822,900 through inactivation of one B-47 wing. The fiscal year 1962 budget program I will present today also ends with 822,900. It includes 126,700 officers and 696,200 airmen and cadets. The manyear average strength for fiscal year 1962 is programed at 824,000, an increase of 8,000 over fiscal year 1961.

FISCAL YEAR 1961 MILITARY PERSONNEL OPERATING PROGRAM

Before discussing the fiscal year 1962 budget program, I will review briefly our current situation in this operating fiscal year 1961. As many of you will recall from our presentation last year, we were faced with a dollar deficit in fiscal year 1960. Accordingly, we took various actions and actually ended the year within appropriated funds. However, the actions required to stay within the budget caused our strength to drop to about 814,800 on June 30, 1960, more than 10,000 below program, and has brought us to 810,800 on December 31; 1960. We feel that the decline in strength has now been arrested. Programed personnel actions will raise our strength to 822,900 by June 30, 1961. The strength shortage at end fiscal year 1960 and continuing through the first half of fiscal year 1961 is entirely in the airman force. Officer strength is proceeding on a programed decline from 129,700 to 128,700 during fiscal year 1961. The airman understrength resulted from greater losses than predicted.

In order to reduce PCS travel, as directed by the Congress, we have released noncareer airmen returning from overseas or when their unit moved within the ZI, if they did not have 12 months of service retainability at a new station. During the past 18 months this movereduction and moneysaving policy has caused the early release of about 45,000 airmen, some of whom were released as much as a year before their normal date of separation.

To check the strength decline, improve the manning of our units, and reach the programed objective for end fiscal year 1961, we have taken several actions. These I will discuss later along with the problem of airman retention.

FISCAL YEAR 1962 BUDGET PROGRAM

I would now like to cover some of the elements of the fiscal year 1962 budget program beginning with the officer portion. I will discuss this under the headings of "Losses and gains," "Retention," "Officer promotions," and "Rated officer program."

OFFICER LOSSES AND GAINS

The losses forecast for fiscal year 1962 generate our procurement requirements. However, since officer authorizations in fiscal year 1962 are 2,000 below fiscal year 1961, losses will exceed gains by that amount. Procurement and retention are the key factors in the creation and maintenance of an effective officer force. Procurement, obviously, nust respond to changing requirements. The program for fiscal year 1962 is responsive to our present and future needs in that it reflects an hereasing requirement for officers educated in the scientific and gineering fields. Also, our increasingly complex tasks demand that we retain a reasonable number as career officers.

The officer candidate school and the aviation cadet program are the only sources which are not entirely composed of college graduates. The officer candidate school program serves the purpose of providing a means for capable airmen to achieve officer status. The aviation cadet program is retained to provide a sufficient number of entries into navigator training.

In the next part of this presentation, I will outline some of the things which have been done in an effort to improve retention.

RETENTION

The Air Force believes that there are two basic approaches to the officer problem. The first is to develop procurement programs which produce well educated young officers who are highly motivated from the beginning for full service careers. The second is to convince our better young officers that a service career is challenging and rewarding. I would like to identify two specific steps we have taken to better the retention of young officers.

We have reduced turnover by increasing the required tours of nonrated officers from 3 to 4 years. This is more compatible with the required tour for rated officers which is 4 years from the time of completing flying training. Apart from the obvious effect on turnover, there is reasonable expectation that the additional year may encourage more young officers to remain in the service.

We have also taken a more direct and vigorous approach in our egular appointment program. We have modified the program this ast year by selecting certain active duty Reserve officers for Regular ppointment without requiring them to apply. The results have een encouraging. We plan to broaden that program and tender Regular appointments to more young officers. It has been our xperience that offering Regular appointments materially affects areer intentions.

Next, I want to discuss officer promotions.

OFFICER PROMOTIONS

Since 1954, the Armed Forces have been operating under the ficer Grade Limitation Act which established finite numbers of ficers in each service in the grade of major and above, which may t be exceeded. Because the Air Force was a relatively young vice at the time of the 1954 act, its proportionate authorization of → total commissioned strength for the field grades was considerably low that of the other services. Upon passage of the act in 1954, the r Force developed a phased program which would provide continued motion opportunity. However, field grade strengths reached LA limitations in Fiscal year 1960.

In fiscal year 1960 the Air Force had to seek legislative relief to ord some opportunity for promotion to the grade of major. Conss granted the needed relief on a temporary basis by permitting excess to the OGLA limitation in the amount of 3,000 majors until of fiscal year 1961 pending full examination and possible revision he grade structure of all the services.

The officer grade structure problem was referred to the Bolté (OSD Hoc) Committee which was established to study the basic laws,

regulations, and practices pertaining to the career management pattern of officer personnel. The findings of this committee promise to form the basis of legislation for a uniform promotion system and grade structure for all the services. This legislation will provide the relief the Air Force needs for the foreseeable future, but will not solve the immediate problem.

In fiscal year 1961 the Air Force selected for promotion to the grade of major approximately 6,000 captains who are now in their 13th and 14th year of active commissioned or promotion list service. Using all existing vacancies, we were only able to promote 2,500. The remaining 3,500 can be promoted during fiscal year 1962 only if the Air Force receives the officer grade limitation relief it is seeking. If, for example, the relief we are seeking is not granted but, rather, the current temporary authority for 3,000 additional majors were to be extended, the Air Force could only promote 2,500 of the 3,500 captains currently on the selected list, in fiscal year 1962. The 1,000 remainder who were selected in fiscal year 1961 could not be promoted until fiscal year 1963. If no relief is granted and the temporary authority expires on June 30, 1961, not only will we be unable to promote those officers already selected, but action will be required to reduce the strength in majors to that authorized by the current OGLA.

Likewise, in fiscal year 1961, the Air Force selected for promotion to the grade of lieutenant colonel approximately 1,900 majors who are in their 19th year of active commissioned or promotion list service. Again, using all existing vacancies, we will be able to promote only 600 of these majors. Of the remaining 1,300, approximately 1,200 will be promoted in fiscal year 1962 while the other 100 will have to wait until fiscal year 1963. No additional selections will be made in fiscal year 1962 unless some new legislative relief is granted. After fiscal year 1962, the same general situation will exist for the grade of colonel.

Accordingly, to prevent complete promotion stagnation, the Air Force has forwarded a separate legislative proposal to the Office of the Secretary of Defense requesting an amendment to the Air Force table contained in the OGLA. The proposal is identical with the grade distribution tables proposed by the Bolté Committee and follows the principles developed by the Congress in the enactment of the OGLA of 1954. The Air Force believes it is fundamental that an officer should have the same basic promotion opportunity regardless of the service he chooses. Equity of promotion opportunity is not possible under the current OGLA.

Consideration was also given to the need for a proper distribution of officers among the various grades that would follow the requirements of the Air Force at the designated levels of responsibility. Under currently programed strengths, there is an urgent need for officers in the higher grades.

A general revision of the OGLA is vital to the Air Force, both for its on-board officers and those whom it hopes to procure and retain.

I some form of relief is not obtained by the Air Force in this session f Congress, active duty (temporary) promotions must be disconnued. This will mean that we will only be able to promote Regular ficers at the mandatory permanent promotion service phase points 14 years to major and 21 years to lieutenant colonel. No Reserve ficer can be promoted on active duty above the grade of captain. 1 addition, as indicated before, some undesirable action will have to e taken to reduce the strength in majors to that authorized under le OGLA of 1954. The Air Force has been seeking grade limitation lief since 1959. It is now one of our most critical personnel problems. Funds are included in this budget request to support the continuaon of the 3,000 temporary major authorizations. However, if legistion is enacted to authorize a general revision of the OGLA, addional funds will be required for its support.

RATED OFFICER PROGRAM

To conclude the officer portion of the program, I would like to discuss ertain important aspects of the rated officer program.

One of the most intricate problems facing the Air Force today conrns the status of the rated officer inventory. To assure that this roblem is seen in proper perspective, I will discuss basic concepts, ast and future trends, current actions, and a legislative requirementI as they relate to the rated inventory.

CONCEPTS

The Air Force has a mixed force of manned and unmanned weapon 'stems. Because it has been, and will continue for some time to be rgely dependent upon reliable manned systems, it must be composed rated officers possessing current knowledge and experience in the nployment and operation of such systems. On the other hand, as anned weapons gradually give way to dependable missile systems, naturally follows that the requirement for rated officers will decline ccordingly. The integration of manned and missile systems into a nified aerospace combat force, which can react positively and reably to the various demands in support of national objectives, is a hallenging task. The proper balance of experienced personnel eeded to support such a force poses very real and complicated lanning problems.

PAST AND FUTURE TRENDS

The Air Force is confronted with the problem of determining just ow many rated officers are required during this transitional period. nalysis of advancing technology and changing force structure gives vidence that there is a surplus of rated skills. The officers possessing hese skills, however, are not surplus to total officer requirements. Logical questions at this point could be, "Why does the Air Force ave an excess of rated officers and how did it develop? Could not ood management have foreseen the problem?"

A brief review of what has occurred over the past several years will ermit a more adequate understanding of this problem.

66865-61-pt. 1- -39