The Navy has developed and implemented an integrated nobilization manpower requirements determination system (NAMMOS) which generates our Selected Reserve requirements. This system has just recently been endorsed by the Office of the Secretary of Defense. We have been able to use this period of stability in strength to organize our structure at the unit level and to steadily improve the match of individual Reservists and their qualifications with the specific requirements of their mobilization billet. We have greatly improved the quality of training through direct involvement of the active force command to which the individual Reservist or Reserve unit would mobilize. This involvement of active force units in Reserve training has had the additional benefit of direct support to the fleet as a by-product of Reserve training. This Mutual Support program has been warmly received by both the active and Reserve forces. The Naval Reserve has just embarked on a growth and modernization program to increase our capability to support an expanding Navy. We are: O о о Increasing the number of qualified Selected Reservists, Modernizing and expanding our surface warfare capability with the NRF Frigate program, Actively seeking replacement aircraft for our C-118s, and O Adopting a new policy of horizontal integration of our tactical air forces which will place new aircraft directly into the Naval Air Reserve. The Naval Reserve is anxious to accept these new and challenging assignments. I shall be happy to respond to any questions or provide any additional information you may desire. BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH REAR ADMIRAL WILLIAM D. DANIELS, USNR Rear Admiral William D. Daniels began his career in 1944 when he enlisted in Birmingham, Alabama, his home of record. After completing Recruit Training and Signal School, he served in the Pacific during the latter part of World War II. Assignments with the Service Force and with the Royal Australian Navy were completed in the New Guinea and Philippine areas. Following World War II, he served with the Atlantic Fleet Mine Force and at the Charleston Naval Base. Rear Admiral Daniels entered the Naval Academy in 1950 and graduated with the class of 1954 remaining on duty at the Academy after graduation. Following an assignment as First Lieutenant in USS LAFFEY (DD-724), he entered Submarine School at New London, Connecticut, and upon completion had tours on the USS BURRFISH, USS SEA CAT and USS CORPORAL. Rear Admiral Daniels completed a tour of Amphibious Force Duty in 1968 after serving as First Lieutena in USS PRINCETON for two and one-half years. Three Western Pacific deployments and nine amphibious assaults in Vietnam were conducted by PRINCETON during this period. Additional shore duty assignments have included; Commanding Officer, Naval Reserve Training Center, Omaha, Nebraska; staff of Commander, Naval Reserve Training Command; Officer Distribution Section of the Bureau of Naval Personnel; Executive Officer, USS PONCE (LP D-15); Commanding Officer, USS VOGELGESANG (DD-862); Director of the Reserve Plans and Policy Division, BUPERS; Commander, Destroyer Squadron 34; Special Assistant for Naval Reserve on the staff of the Deputy Chief of Naval Operations for Manpower, Personnel and Training; and Assistant Chief of Naval Personnel for Naval Reserve/Assistant Commander for Naval Reserve in the Naval Military Personnel Command. In July of 1981, Rear Admiral Daniels was ordered to New Orleans as Deputy Chief of Naval Reserve. His decorations include the Legion of Merit, Meritorious Service Medal, two awards of the Navy Commendation Medal and various campaign medals. Rear Admiral Daniels and his wife, the former Joan Harvey of San Antonio, Texas, have three children. Their son, Bill, is a member of the Class of 1977 at the Naval Academy. Daughter, Jane, is a graduate of Mary Washington College, Fredericksburg, Virginia. Their other daughter, Kim, is a student at Florida State University. MARINE CORPS RESERVE STATEMENT OF MAJ. GEN. GEORGE B. CRIST, U.S. MARINE CORPS, DEPUTY CHIEF OF STAFF FOR RESERVE AFFAIRS POSTURE OF CORPS Senator STEVENS. General Crist. General CRIST. Mr. Chairman, it is a privilege to appear before the committee today to discuss the posture of the Marine Corps Re serve. The year 1981 was another great year. For the second straight year our Selected Reserve strength ended up over plan. Attrition continued to decline, while retention went up. As strength increased, so did quality; more high school graduates, fewer mental group IV's. Training was rigorous and vigorous. Units were subjected to mobilization and combat readiness testing. Reservists trained alongside their active counterparts from CONUS to Korea. More units got out of their training centers and into the field. New management initiatives were introduced, and mobilization planning was both intensified and accelerated. All in all, 1981 was indeed a good year. But I must admit there were also problems. Personnel readiness continues to be degraded by skill shortages. Aviation readiness was limited by aging aircraft, shortfalls, incompatibility and near obsolescence. Materiel readiness was plagued by serious shortages, and training readiness suffers from a backlog in home center construction. The most critical aircraft shortages exist in the KC-130-that is, the refueler/transport-and the AH-1 attack helicopter communities. With the addition of the 4 KC-130's which were appropriated through congressional foresight in fiscal year 1982, there still remains a shortfall of 17 aircraft to complete the squadron in Glenview, Ill., and stand up a second squadron at Stewart Airfield in New York. The single Marine Corps Reserve attack helicopter squadron in Atlanta only has 8 of the 24 aircraft it is authorized. There is an urgent need to increase the helicopter antitank capability in the Marine Corps, and this is an ideal mission for the Re serve. With regard to our materiel readiness, the Marine Corps Reserve is currently short $546 million in equipment and $138 million short in secondary items. The latter includes repair parts, individual equipment, engines, transmissions and the like. The fiscal year 1983 budget provides for a 5.2-percent reduction in the equipment shortages and a 30-percent reduction in the secondary item shortfall. In summary, Mr. Chairman, the Marine Corps Reserve is alive and well, but it is obvious that we must pick up the cadence if the Marine Corps Reserve is to be a fully capable adjunct to the Active Force. Thanks in no small part to congressional backing, we are moving out to meet that challenge. That completes my statement, Mr. Chairman. [The prepared statement of Maj. Gen. G. B. Crist follows:] PREPARED STATEMENT OF MAJ. GEN. GEORGE B. CRIST DEPUTY CHIEF OF STAFF FOR RESERVE AFFAIRS MARINE CORPS RESERVE Mr. Chairman, distinguished members of the Committee, it is a privilege to testify today on the Marine Corps Reserve. 1981 was another good year. Selected Marine Corps Reserve (SMCR) end strength has grown steadily since FY-76. By the end of FY-81, the strength had climbed to 37,049 (10 percent over the goal). We plan to achieve wartime strength by FY 86-87. As strength increased so did quality. The percent of high school graduates increased 6 percent over 1980 to 79 percent. Mental Group IVs decreased from 25 percent in 1980 to 9 percent in 1981. Attrition continued to decline while retention went up. Non prior service attrition was down 5.6 percent from 1980. First term retention hit 55 percent as compared to 9.1 percent in 1975. Career retention was 94 percent for FY-81 versus 88 percent in FY-80. These positive trends are expected to continue in FY-82 and FY-83. Training was rigorous and vigorous. Using the same standards as applied to active units, 54 percent of the Reserve units tested were fully combat ready. Aviation units scored best with 86 percent combat ready. Eighty-one percent of the Reserve units tested were deployment ready. Two hundred and fifteen units conducted mission oriented training on the weekends, away from Reserve Training Centers, in realistic environments. Nearly 15,000 reservists participated in joint, combined and service field exercises. Over 200 individual SMCR personnel were assigned to and trained as Individual Mobilization Augmentees in the billets which they will fill on mobilization. We expect to preassign an additional 700 during FY-82. A total of 1,543 Individual Ready Reservists received refresher training in FY-81 alongside their active counterparts. To improve readiness, the exercise program is being expanded in FY-82. During 1981, the Mobilization planning was intensified and accelerated. Reserve structure was reexamined to determine the optimal composition and configuration necessary to: provide the air and ground SMCR structure required to augment and reinforce three active MAFs; field a Reserve MAB; and provide the nucleus for reconstitution of a Division and Force Service Support Group. As a result, we are embarking on an extensive, phased, seven year modernization plan to restructure and equip the ground, combat service support, and aviation elements in order to provide those capabilities and functions needed to satisfy full wartime requirements. Mobilization plans now require Sending Commands to identify specific augmentation and reinforcing Reserve units to the Receiving Active Commands, together with sustainability data. Actions are already being taken to assign specific contingency planning missions to selected Reserve aviation units and to the Reserve MAB. New management initiatives were introduced. Before FY-82, the Marine Corps Reserve had no management structure to receive, administer, train, assign and support the mobilization of individual reservists. The Marine Corps Reserve Support Center has been established at Kansas City for this purpose and will achieve full capability by FY-84. An automated data processing center will be established in FY-82 at the Marine Corps Reserve Support Center. Beginning in FY-82, automated data processing equipment will also be introduced into the selected Reserve units. All in all, the Marine Corps Reserve is alive and well, but I must admit there are also problems. Personnel readiness continues to be degraded by skill shortages. Aviation readiness was limited by aging aircraft, shortfalls, incompatibility and near obsolescence. Materiel readiness was plagued by serious shortages. And training readiness suffered from a backlog in home center construction funds. The As unit strength increases, grade and skill shortages are emerging as major inhibitors to increased personnel readiness. Approximately 30 percent of the 4th Marine Division units are reporting degraded readiness for this reason. primary contributing factors to this problem are non prior service attrition and a continuing decline in the prior service population. Non prior service attrition in FY-81 averaged 6.7 percent of the total selected Reserve population. While this is down 5.6 percent from FY-80, it still represents an |