Military Downsizing

Although the military services have significantly reduced accession levels over those of previous years, they are also recruiting large numbers of personnel to better ensure a balanced force across the various pay grades and skill areas. Congress has prescribed reduction targets and provided other guidance to the Pentagon to facilitate downsizing, minimize involuntary separations, and preserve a balanced force. This report examines the Defense Department's (DOD) adherence to congressional guidance and authorization in military downsizing. GAO discusses (1) what progress DOD has made toward meeting reduction targets, (2) how downsizing actions are affecting new recruiting or accessions, (3) what range of voluntary and involuntary reduction actions are being taken to meet downsizing objectives, (4) how downsizing is being accomplished across various groupings of officer and enlisted personnel by years of service and how this is affecting future force profiles, and (5) what issues might be important to future reduction decisions.

GAO found that: (1) DOD has accomplished the majority of its planned active duty force reductions, and its fiscal year (FY) 1993 personnel level will be about 21 percent below its FY 1987 personnel level; (2) as a result of the DOD bottom-up review, further reductions below planned FY 1995 levels are probable; (3) DOD and the services have reduced planned personnel accession levels by 34 percent, but they are continuing to recruit large numbers of personnel in order to sustain a balanced force across various pay grades and skill areas and preserve future career opportunities and military capabilities; (4) personnel turnover rates are higher than force reduction rates due to uncertainties, career anxiety, and force-shaping decisions; (5) DOD has given priority to voluntary separations through early release, retirement, and financial incentives, but the pool of likely candidates for voluntary separation is declining; (6) involuntary reduction actions involve higher retention standards, mandatory retirement of selected personnel, and reduction-in-force for nonretirement-eligible personnel; (7) the ratio of officers to enlisted personnel and average pay grades have increased slightly during downsizing; and (8) issues that could impact future force reduction decisions include future force profiles, how quickly the force can be reduced, what accession levels should be, and what cost trade-offs are most desirable between a younger or a more experienced force.

Recommendations

Our recommendations from this work are listed below with a Contact for more information. Status will change from "In process" to "Open," "Closed - implemented," or "Closed - not implemented" based on our follow up work.

Director: Team: Phone: