In May 1978, General Bronars was assigned duty as the Commanding General, 2d Marine Division, Camp Lejeune, N.C. He was promoted to lieutenant general on July 1, 1979, and assumed his current assignment as the Deputy Chief of Staff for Manpower, Headquarters Marine Corps.

General Bronars' personal awards and decorations include the Silver Star Medal, the Legion of Merit with Combat "V" and gold star in lieu of a second award, the Bronze Star Medal with Combat "V" and gold star in lieu of a second award, two Air Medals, the Joint Service Commendation Medal and the Navy Commendation Medal with Combat "V".

Lieutenant General Bronars and his wife, the former Dorothea R. Bates of
Louisville, Kentucky, have two children, Barbara and Bruce.

PILOT INVENTORY

Senator STEVENS. I would like any one or all of you to tell me how you are ever going to stop it. If it were necessary for these 200 Navy pilots, or your group, to reduce your shortage and get them to stay this time, isn't it going to be necessary for the next group? General BRONARS. No, sir.

Senator STEVENS. Isn't it going to be necessary for the next group?

General BRONARS. As a matter of fact, the cost of the program for the Marine Corps is going from $7.6 million in 1981 to $1.6 million in 1982.

Senator STEVENS. But that next group has not demanded it yet? General BRONARS. We think that when we go through fiscal year 1983, sir, our pilot inventory will be approaching a healthy status, and at that time we would-at our own initiative-recommend that the pilot bonus be stopped. We are near our objective, and we think the Congress in authorizing us to initiate the bonus program did the right thing. We don't think we took advantage of the mandate that the Congress gave us. We believe it has been a very cost-effective program.

Admiral ZECH. The Navy has the same view, Mr. Chairman. The program is a bonus program which we look on as something that is important now but temporary. Our projections and analysis originally showed us we would need the program until 1989. However, because of our improved results from the program I believe when we conclude 1982, our analysis will probably show that we can cut the program back before that time.

When we started, our whole approach was that the program would be put on and later taken off. We figured we could take it off when we meet our requirements, and that certainly is our intention. When we meet those requirements, the program will no longer be necessary.

FUTURE TRAINING COSTS

Senator STEVENS. God willing, I will be here at that time. I want you to know I will be looking to see whether those training costs are reduced. It is probably a little bit early to see whether there is a real savings. I have not seen any reductions in your training cost requests yet, but I had better see them in 2 years, because I don't think these can be just theoretical savings, that you match a com

puter up and say what will it cost to train these guys if the others left.

If you training does not go down, that is where the proof of this is. You say you are going to make a savings in training by paying this bonus now. I want you to know that it is in the old computer up here and I am going to ask you 2 years from now where are the savings. I am of the opinion, the same as Senator Rudman, I disagreed with the bonus concept because I thought it would bring about a disincentive and I think it will over a period of time if you don't continue it.

We are not going to fight it this year. We will see what happens, because in the 1984 fiscal year we are going to see whether there is going to be any reduction in training cost. If there is not, I think we will certainly know that we should not continue with any more continuation bonuses.

I am going to start looking at some of these reenlistment bonuses, too, and see how effective they really are in the economy that we have right now.

Dr. KORB. Mr. Chairman, as I mentioned in my statement, we have already reduced or terminated 116 bonuses. So we do constantly monitor all the programs.

Senator STEVENS. I understand that. I think the reason the Congress voted for them was because of the bonus comparison with the training cost.

Dr. KORB. That is correct.

Senator STEVENS. Sometime that has to show up in your figures. Dr. KORB.. That is correct.

Also, I think you will see an increase in readiness which is the other side of the coin.

Senator STEVENS. Gentlemen, we now get to the Air Force.

General BRONARS. Could I make two points that are of importance to the Marine Corps?

Senator STEVENS. Yes, sir.

General BRONARS. You were talking about reenlistment. In the supplemental you will be looking at the Marine Corps' request for $9 million for the selective reenlistment bonus program. As you have stated, the value of the reenlistment bonus can be visibly seen by the statistics we can provide. We have had tremendous success in convincing experienced, highly trained individuals to remain in the service. When you do that, you have avoided a lot of training

expense.

That $9 million in the supplemental is important to us for this year. If we don't get it, we have to shut off our program. We ask the committee to look at it very carefully.

Senator STEVENS. We will. I compared that in my analysis to the recruitment money rather than anything else. I really think that the bonus is well spent if the results are as favorable as the recruitment money is on an objective analysis.

I don't argue the reenlistment bonus as much as I do this continuation bonus, when it was not phased into the economy. I think our real problem is that the economy is down. I have talked to a lot of people up my way who are on furlough from various civilian groups and they all came out of the military; 85 percent of them came from military training. They are telling everybody don't get

out right now because there is nothing for anybody. I know that has an impact much more than your bonus does in terms of retention.

It is my opinion that the economy had much more of an impact than your bonus did.

DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE

STATEMENT OF LT. GEN. ANDREW P. IOSUE

Before hearing your comments, General, we will place your prepared statement in the record.

[The statement of General Iosue follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF LT. GEN. ANDREW P. IOSUE, USAF

DEPUTY CHIEF OF STAFF, MANPOWER AND PERSONNEL

U. S. AIR FORCE

Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee:

I.

INTRODUCTION

I appreciate this opportunity to appear before you discuss manpower and personnel issues of the United States Air Force for Fiscal Year 1983. Our collective efforts on both sides of this table will, in large measure, determine the preparedness of the United States Air Force. Our success in attracting young people in the right numbers and of sufficient quality, and in training and using them on flight lines, bases, and in laboratories, is the key to maintaining a strong Air Force.

Last year, the Air Force requested significant improvements for recruiting, training and sustaining our people in both the active and the Air Reserve Forces. I wish to thank this committee for supporting many of these requests. The leadership of the members and the professionalism of the staff were the catalysts responsible for rebuilding our battered manpower situation. Clearly, the improvements which you have funded have had a positive impact. We are working now to continue on this positive track. It won't be easy, because several trends currently in our favor, such as high unemployment rates, lowered airline hiring rates, and a sizeable youth cohort will turn against us. Any other factors such as public sentiment or a shortage of funds for parts, training and weapons could change and impact adversely on Air Force recruiting and retention.

Moreover, in FY 83, we are increasing military strength to meet the requirements of modernization, improvements in wartime readiness and sustainability, security, training, and the Air Force's continued aggressive commitment to the Total Force.

For

There is a widespread perception that personnel costs are excessive and running out of control. This is simply not the case. Overall, personnel costs as a percentage of the Air Force's total budget have been steadily declining. example, in 1974 personnel costs including military retired pay represented more than 55% of the Air Force's Total Obligation Authority; in 1983 these costs will represent about 37% a decline of 18 percentage points.

-

-

-

We are very conscious of our stewardship obligations with regard to personnel costs and personnel utilization and are doing our utmost to use our resources efficiently and effectively. Consequently, the initiatives and programs which we are discussing with you today are the minimum required to assure that we continue the current positive recruiting and retention trends. These initiatives will require increased dollars, but we believe that the costs will be more than offset by gains in recruiting, morale, retention, productivity and force readiness.

The retention of our high quality, well trained and thoroughly experienced people remains our top priority and is the key to readiness. As we expand the force in the 80s, extraordinary retention will be needed to close the experience gaps that developed in the late 1970's. Additionally, in any future crisis, we cannot rely on having time to get ready; we must be ready. Our emphasis on maintaining the current retirement system, pay comparability, compensation initiatives, reimbursement for relocation expenses, and quality-of-life improvements is reflective of this need.

My statement will address each of these items in detail beginning with our manpower requirements for FY 83.

II. AIR FORCE MANPOWER REQUIREMENTS FOR FY83

The Air Force's active military, civilian and Reserve forces manpower requirements represent a balanced mix within the President's Budget request for FY

83.

As shown below, despite a decrease of more than 25 percent in total end strength compared to the pre-Vietnam era, the mix of Air Force military personnel, civilian employees and contract man-year equivalents has remained relatively stable. Our consistent, analytical approach to defining wartime and peacetime manpower requirements contributes to this stability. The mix also reflects an increased reliance on the Reserve components as a direct result of the successful implementation of the Total Force policy.

92-385 0-82-36

In fiscal year 83, we continue the increases in active military manpower that we began in FY 81, the first increase since 1968. Our civilian end strength in FY 83, after increases in FY 81 and FY 82, returns to the decreasing trend we had experienced since 1967. Manpower for our Reserve components continues to grow in FY 83. The table below compares our manpower program in the FY 83 budget against assigned strength at the end of FY 81.

In fiscal year 83, we continue the increases in active military manpower that we began in FY 81, the first increase since 1968. Our civilian end strength in FY83, after increases in FY81 and FY82, returns to the decreasing trend we had experienced since 1967. Manpower for our Reserve components continues to grow in FY83. table below compares our manpower program in the FY83 budget against assigned strength at the end of FY81.

The

FY 81

Actual

FY 82
Estimate

FY 83 Budget Request 600,000

168,381

(101,781)

(96,623)

(3,312)

(5,158)

(61,082)

(479) 242,839

Drill Pay
FTAD b/

a/ ANGUS/USAFR technicians are also included in civilian totals (29,230 in FY 83). b/ Full-Time Active Duty

ACTIVE DUTY MILITARY

The military manpower program included in the President's Budget for FY 83 reflects a 19,200 increase. This increase is required to support the continued modernization of our general purpose forces; new weapons systems such as the Air Launched Cruise Missile (ALCM), Compass Call, Ground Launched Cruise Missile (GLCM), EF-111, AWACS, and TR-1; wartime readiness initiatives; increased security of nuclear weapons; and increased medical and training support. These increases are partially offset by the phase down of some of our B-52D aircraft. CIVILIAN

The civilian manpower program, approximately 20% of our total manpower resource, represents an important element of the Air Force's ability to support and sustain its wartime capability. An in-service depot maintenance capability is retained to provide a flexible, productive industrial repair base, capable of expansion during wartime, to support our fighting force. Also included in Air Force civilian end strengths are 29,230 Air Reserve Forces Military Technicians members of the Air National Guard and Air Force Reserve who serve in their units on a full-time basis as dual-status civilians in peacetime, and become active military members upon mobilization.

The 4,290 net decrease in civilian end strength in FY 83 is primarily the result of reductions levied on the Air Force to meet OSD/OMB civilian ceiling constraints.