Defense Budget: Trends in Reserve Components' Military Personnel Compensation Accounts for 1990-97 (Letter Report, 09/19/96, GAO/NSIAD-96-226)
GAO reviewed the Department of Defense's (DOD) reserve components'
military personnel compensation accounts, focusing on: (1) the various
pay categories; (2) trends in those pay categories; and (3) how changes
in the DOD budget compared with changes in service force levels.
GAO found that: (1) the decrease in the reserves components' military
personnel budgets closely follows the decrease in reserve personnel; (2)
the majority of military reserve personnel accounts are comprised
primarily of unit and individual training and administration and support
costs; (3) despite an overall decline in the reserves components'
military personnel budgets, servicemember costs are projected to
increase for all components except for the Army National Guard; (4)
basic pay and allowances for quarters, variable housing, travel, and
other costs comprise about 82 percent of the National Guard's military
budget and about 80 percent of the Reserves budget; (5) there are
differences among the services in the pay, allowances, and travel
categories; and (6) some reserves components' budget categories are
disproportionate with personnel levels.
--------------------------- Indexing Terms -----------------------------
REPORTNUM: NSIAD-96-226
TITLE: Defense Budget: Trends in Reserve Components' Military
Personnel Compensation Accounts for 1990-97
DATE: 09/19/96
SUBJECT: Military budgets
Military downsizing
Military reserve personnel
Military training
Military pay
Future budget projections
Military expense allowances
IDENTIFIER: Defense Business Operations Fund
******************************************************************
** This file contains an ASCII representation of the text of a **
** GAO report. Delineations within the text indicating chapter **
** titles, headings, and bullets are preserved. Major **
** divisions and subdivisions of the text, such as Chapters, **
** Sections, and Appendixes, are identified by double and **
** single lines. The numbers on the right end of these lines **
** indicate the position of each of the subsections in the **
** document outline. These numbers do NOT correspond with the **
** page numbers of the printed product. **
** **
** No attempt has been made to display graphic images, although **
** figure captions are reproduced. Tables are included, but **
** may not resemble those in the printed version. **
** **
** Please see the PDF (Portable Document Format) file, when **
** available, for a complete electronic file of the printed **
** document's contents. **
** **
** A printed copy of this report may be obtained from the GAO **
** Document Distribution Center. For further details, please **
** send an e-mail message to: **
** **
** <info@www.gao.gov> **
** **
** with the message 'info' in the body. **
******************************************************************
Cover
================================================================ COVER
Report to the Chairman, Subcommittee on National Security, Committee
on Appropriations, House of Representatives
September 1996
DEFENSE BUDGET - TRENDS IN RESERVE
COMPONENTS' MILITARY PERSONNEL
COMPENSATION ACCOUNTS FOR 1990-97
GAO/NSIAD-96-226
Defense Budget
(701097)
Abbreviations
=============================================================== ABBREV
DOD - Department of Defense
ROTC - Reserve Officers' Training Corps
Letter
=============================================================== LETTER
B-274130
September 19, 1996
The Honorable C.W. Bill Young
Chairman, Subcommittee on National Security
Committee on Appropriations
House of Representatives
Dear Mr. Chairman:
The Department of Defense's (DOD) budget request for fiscal year 1997
includes almost $70 billion for pay and allowances for active and
reserve military personnel, which represents about 30 percent of
DOD's total budget request. DOD estimates that in 2001, pay and
allowances will continue to represent about 30 percent of the total
budget. Because the military personnel accounts represent such a
large share of DOD's budget, we reviewed them to determine (1) the
various pay categories included in the accounts, (2) the trends of
those pay categories, and (3) how changes in the budget compared with
changes in service force levels.\1 We also inquired into the reasons
for some of the service trends and differences among the services and
have included the explanations when available.
Our analyses and discussions in this report focus primarily on pay
and allowances for the reserve components, which for fiscal year 1997
comprise over $9 billion of the $70 billion requested. We reported
separately on the active components because the budget categories for
the active are considerably different from the reserve components.\2
Our review was performed under our basic legislative
responsibilities. Because of your expressed interest in the military
personnel accounts, we are addressing the report to you.
--------------------
\1 Our analysis used actual obligations for fiscal years 1990 to 1995
and budget estimates for fiscal years 1996 to 1997.
\2 Defense Budget: Trends in Active Military Personnel Compensation
Accounts for 1990-97 (GAO/NSIAD-96-183, July 9, 1996).
BACKGROUND
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :1
Military pay and allowances for active and reserve personnel are
funded through the military personnel accounts. Military personnel
is one of six major account groups for DOD.\3 It is the second
largest of DOD's account groups after operation and maintenance and
is expected to remain second through 2001.
The major budget categories for reserve component military personnel
accounts are unit and individual training; administration and
support; other training and support, including mobilization training,
school training, special training, Army branch officer's basic
course, health professions scholarship program, Junior Reserve
Officers' Training Corps (ROTC), and Army chaplain candidate program;
education benefits; and Senior ROTC.\4 These categories are listed in
detail in appendix I.
The reserve components of the Army and the Air Force include both the
National Guard and the reserves. These components account for about
85 percent of the total reserve personnel. The Navy, the Marine
Corps, and the Coast Guard have only reserves. Because the Coast
Guard Reserve is a small force--about 8,000 personnel in 1996--and is
under the Department of Transportation, it was not included in our
analyses. The change in personnel levels for each of the reserve
components between fiscal years 1990 and 1997 is shown in table 1.\5
Table 1
Personnel Levels for DOD's Reserve
Components
Reserve component 1990 1997 Difference
------------------------------------------ ------ ------ ==========
Army National Guard 436,96 366,75 (70,206)
4 8
Air National Guard 116,96 108,01 (8,950)
8 8
======================================================================
Total guard 553,93 474,77 (79,156)
2 6
Army Reserve 299,14 214,97 (84,175)
5 0
Air Force Reserve 80,602 73,281 (7,321)
Naval Reserve 149,35 95,941 (53,411)
2
Marine Corps Reserve 44,530 42,000 (2,530)
======================================================================
Total reserve 573,62 426,19 (147,437)
9 2
======================================================================
Total guard and reserve 1,127, 900,96 (226,593)
561 8
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: Personnel levels are for the selected reserve. Fiscal year
1990 end strength excludes personnel serving on active duty in
support of Operation Desert Shield.
Source: Services' budget estimates.
The distribution of personnel budgets by component for fiscal years
1990 and 1997 is shown in table 2.
Table 2
Personnel Budgets for Guard and Reserve
((Constant 1996 dollars in millions))
Reserve component 1990 1997 Difference
------------------------------------------ ------ ------ ==========
Army National Guard $3,992 $3,156 ($836)
Air National Guard 1,290 1,273 (17)
======================================================================
Total guard $5,282 $4,428 ($854)
Army Reserve 2,667 1,989 (678)
Air Force Reserve 803 755 (48)
Naval Reserve 1,901 1,352 (549)
Marine Corps Reserve 381 371 (10)
======================================================================
Total reserve $5,752 $4,467 ($1,285)
======================================================================
Total guard and reserve $11,03 $8,895 ($2,139)
4
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: Differences in addition and subtraction are due to rounding.
Source: Services' budget estimates.
--------------------
\3 The other major account groups are operation and maintenance;
procurement; research, development, test, and evaluation; military
construction; and family housing.
\4 These categories represent direct costs. Total military personnel
obligations also include reimbursable costs to the services, such as
personnel support provided to depot maintenance activities under the
Defense Business Operations Fund. Reimbursable costs represent under
1 percent of the military personnel accounts.
\5 Personnel levels are as of the end of the fiscal year, or end
strength.
RESULTS IN BRIEF
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :2
Discounting for inflation by using constant 1996 dollars, there has
been a relatively close correlation since 1990 between the decline in
the reserve components' portion of the military personnel accounts
and the reduction in reserve components' personnel. Specifically,
the National Guard's military personnel accounts are projected to
decline between fiscal years 1990 and 1997 by 16 percent, compared to
a 14-percent personnel reduction. During the same period, the
reserve's military personnel accounts are projected to decline by 22
percent, or about 3 percent below the rate of decline in the
reserve's force level. (See app. II for an overview of the National
Guard's military personnel budget and personnel level changes from
1990 through 1997 and app. III for a similar overview of the
reserve's budget and personnel.)
About 93 percent of the National Guard's military personnel accounts
for fiscal year 1997 consist of two categories: individual and unit
training (50 percent) and administration and support (43 percent).
These two categories account for about 87 percent of reserve military
personnel pay and allowances (49 percent for individual and unit
training and 38 percent for administration and support). No other
category in either the National Guard's or reserve's personnel
budgets comprises over 5 percent of the total. The reserve
components' budget categories, in turn, consist of servicemembers'
pay costs, of which the largest element is basic pay. Basic pay
represents 60 percent of National Guard budget obligations and 57
percent of reserve budget obligations. Retired pay, basic allowances
for quarters, variable housing allowance, and travel comprise an
additional 22 to 23 percent of the reserve components' total military
personnel costs.
The cost of each servicemember in fiscal year 1997 is projected to
increase for all reserve components, except the Army National Guard.
Because Army National Guard costs are projected to decline by over
$300 per person between fiscal years 1990 and 1997, total National
Guard costs per person are projected to decline from about $9,300 in
fiscal year 1990 to about $9,200 in fiscal year 1997, despite a
projected increase of nearly
$650 per person in Air National Guard costs. Increases in the
reserve's costs range from about $225 per person for the Marine Corps
Reserve to about $1,500 per person for the Naval Reserve. Overall
Reserve personnel costs per member are projected to increase from
about $9,700 in fiscal year 1990 to about $10,300 in fiscal year
1997.
There are marked differences in the reserve components' budgets for
several categories. The Naval Reserve's share of the fiscal year
1997 administration and support budget is twice its share of total
reserve personnel, while the Air Force Reserve has budgeted a minimal
percentage for administration and support in relation to its
personnel level. The Air Force Reserve has budgeted more for special
training than the other services combined. The Air National Guard's
fiscal year 1997 special training budget is three times that of the
Army's, even though the Army has over 75 percent of the personnel.
The Army National Guard has budgeted a much higher percentage for
education benefits than the Air National Guard.
DECREASE IN PERSONNEL BUDGET
CLOSELY FOLLOWS DECREASE IN
PERSONNEL
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :3
The reserve components' military personnel budgets, adjusted to 1996
constant dollars, are projected to decrease at about the same rate as
personnel level reductions between fiscal years 1990 and 1997. As
shown in figure 1, the National Guard's budget is projected to
decrease by
17 percent, from $5.3 billion to $4.4 billion, while personnel levels
are projected to decline by 14 percent, from 554,000 to 475,000. The
military personnel budget for the reserve, as shown in figure 2, is
projected to decline by 22 percent, from about $5.8 billion to $4.5
billion, while personnel levels are projected to decline by 26
percent, from about 574,000 to about 426,000.
Figure 1: Decline of National
Guard Personnel Budgets and
Personnel Levels Between Fiscal
Years 1990 and 1997
(See figure in printed
edition.)
Figure 2: Decline of Reserve
Military Personnel Budgets and
Personnel Levels Between Fiscal
Years 1990 and 1997
(See figure in printed
edition.)
The reductions in budget and personnel between fiscal years 1990 and
1997 vary for each reserve component. Figure 3 shows that the Army
National Guard's budget is projected to decrease to a greater extent
than its personnel, whereas the Air National Guard is projected to
have minimal budget reductions but larger personnel reductions. In
contrast, as shown in figure 4, the reserve components are projected
to have greater personnel decreases than budget decreases. The
decreases in the Army and the Naval Reserves' budgets and personnel
are projected to be considerably greater than those of the Air Force
and the Marine Corps Reserves.
Figure 3: Reductions in
National Guard Personnel
Budgets and Personnel Levels
Between Fiscal Years 1990 and
1997
(See figure in printed
edition.)
Figure 4: Reductions in
Reserve Military Personnel
Budgets and Personnel Levels
Between Fiscal Years 1990 and
1997
(See figure in printed
edition.)
MILITARY PERSONNEL ACCOUNT
PRIMARILY COMPRISED OF UNIT AND
INDIVIDUAL TRAINING AND
ADMINISTRATION AND SUPPORT
COSTS
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :4
The vast majority of the reserve components' military personnel
budgets are comprised of two categories: unit and individual
training and administration and support. Much of these two
categories provide for pays and allowances associated with training
activities and for personnel assigned to active duty in support of
the reserve components.\6 Pays and allowances are predominantly
entitlements. Generally, once servicemembers meet certain criteria
such as years of service or military rank, they are entitled to
certain benefits.
As shown in figure 5, approximately half of the projected military
personnel costs for fiscal year 1997 are comprised of unit and
individual training, while administration and support absorb most of
the remainder of the respective accounts. These two budget
categories comprise about 93 percent of the National Guard's military
personnel budget and about 87 percent of the reserve's military
personnel budget. The proportion of the budget allocated to
administration and support costs is projected to increase between
fiscal years 1990 and 1997. Administration and support costs were 35
percent of the total personnel budget for the National Guard in
fiscal year 1990, compared to 43 percent estimated for fiscal year
1997, and were about 33 percent of the total personnel budget for the
reserve in fiscal year 1990, compared to 38 percent estimated for
fiscal year 1997. The proportion of the budget allocated to unit and
individual training is projected to decrease by about 3 percent for
both the National Guard and the reserve.
Figure 5: Allocation of Fiscal
Year 1997 Military Personnel
Budget for National Guard and
Reserve
(See figure in printed
edition.)
Viewed differently, basic pay and four other entitlements--which are
incorporated within the National Guard's and the reserve's budget
categories--are projected to comprise about 80 percent of the reserve
components' fiscal year 1997 military personnel budgets. Basic pay
alone comprises 60 percent of the National Guard budget and 57
percent of the reserve's budget. (See fig. 6.)
Figure 6: Percentage of Fiscal
Year 1997 Reserve and National
Guard Budgets Related to Basic
Pay, Retired Pay Accrual, Basic
Allowances for Quarters,
Travel, and Other
(See figure in printed
edition.)
Note: The other category includes clothing, subsistence, separation
benefits, reserve incentives, disability and hospitalization,
education benefits, reserve officer training corps summer camp, other
training and support costs, and reimbursable costs.
--------------------
\6 Reserve personnel serving on active duty for contingencies and
peace operations are paid through active component military personnel
accounts.
PER PERSON COSTS FOR MOST
COMPONENTS ARE PROJECTED TO
INCREASE
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :5
Despite an overall decline in the reserve components' military
personnel budgets and personnel, per person costs are projected to
increase for all components, except the Army National Guard.\7 As
shown in figure 7, the total National Guard budget and per person
costs are declining (due to the projected decline in Army National
Guard costs). The projected decline in Army National Guard costs per
person is shown in figure 8, as well as the upward trend in Air
National Guard costs per person.
Figure 7: Trend in National
Guard Total and Per Person
Budgets
(See figure in printed
edition.)
Figure 8: Trend in National
Guard Per Person Budget, by
Service
(See figure in printed
edition.)
The downward trend in the total reserve budget compared to the
increase in total per person costs is shown in figure 9, while the
services' generally rising trends in per person costs are shown in
figure 10.
Figure 9: Trend in Reserve
Total and Per Person Budgets
(See figure in printed
edition.)
Figure 10: Trend in Reserve
Per Person Budget, by Service
(See figure in printed
edition.)
As table 3 shows, the per person costs for the Army National Guard
are projected to decrease by $339 from fiscal years 1990 to 1997,
whereas the costs per person for the other components are projected
to increase during the same time period. The table also shows that
those projected cost increases range from $224 for the Marine Corps
Reserve to $1,475 for the Naval Reserve. The total projected
increase for the National Guard and the reserve is $256 per person,
or about 2 percent.
Table 3
Per Person Costs by Component
Reserve component 1990 1997 Difference
------------------------------------------ ------ ------ ==========
Army National Guard $8,822 $8,483 ($339)
Air National Guard 11,035 11,675 640
======================================================================
Total guard $9,276 $9,206 ($70)
Army Reserve 8,499 9,030 530
Air Force Reserve 9,578 10,285 707
Naval Reserve 12,409 13,884 1,475
Marine Corps Reserve 8,664 8,887 224
======================================================================
Total reserve $9,671 $10,32 $651
1
======================================================================
Total guard and reserve $9,478 $9,734 $256
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: Rows may not subtract due to rounding.
Source: Our analysis based on services' budget estimates.
--------------------
\7 For per person calculations, we used the average yearly strength
reported by the services in their budget submissions (fiscal year
1990 personnel levels exclude reserve personnel who served on active
duty in support of Operation Desert Shield). The proportion of
full-time reservists included in the average strength varies by
service, thereby affecting per person costs differently.
ADMINISTRATION AND SUPPORT
CATEGORY ACCOUNTS FOR MOST OF
THE PER PERSON INCREASE
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :6
The administration and support budget category is projected to
receive the largest dollar increase for all components from fiscal
years 1990 to 1997. A comparison of the per person costs by National
Guard component and major budget category for fiscal years 1990 and
1997 is shown in table 4.
Table 4
Per Person National Guard Personnel
Costs by Service and Budget Category
Fiscal
Budget category year Army Air Force
------------------------------------------ ------ ------ ----------
Unit/individual training 1990 $4,706 $5,592
1997 4,448 5,228
Administration and support 1990 3,134 3,784
1997 3,736 4,876
Education benefits 1990 75 121
1997 106 35
School training 1990 498 695
1997 126 727
Special training 1990 393 815
1997 51 582
Reimbursable costs 1990 15 28
1997 15 228
======================================================================
Total obligations 1990 $8,822 $11,035
1997 $8,483 $11,675
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: Totals may not add due to rounding.
Source: Our analysis based on services' budget estimates.
The table shows the following for each category.
-- Unit/individual training. The Air Force's costs per person are
about 18 percent greater than the Army's costs in fiscal years
1990 and 1997. Both the Army's and the Air Force's costs are
projected to decline by about 5 percent from fiscal years 1990
to 1997. Air Force budget officials explained that Air Force
training requirements are intensive; for example, aircrew
members perform 48 additional flying training periods each year
for proficiency.
-- Administration and support. The Air Force's costs per person
are about 21 percent greater that the Army's costs in fiscal
year 1990 and are projected to increase to about 31 percent
greater than the Army's in fiscal year 1997. Costs for both
services are projected to increase from fiscal years 1990 to
1997: the Army's by 19 percent and the Air Force's by 29
percent. Army budget officials stated that the Army's projected
cost increase is due to increases in the student loan program,
retention bonuses, and the initiation of the transition benefit
program.\8 Air Force budget officials stated that pay and
allowances for members on active duty comprise the major portion
of this category and that these members are projected to
increase from about 8,640 in fiscal year 1990 to 10,130 in
fiscal year 1997. Also, the increase is partially due to
incentive pays for aircrew members.
-- Education benefits. The Army's costs per person are projected
to increase by 41 percent, whereas the Air Force's costs are
projected to decrease by 71 percent from fiscal years 1990 to
1997. Army budget officials stated that the DOD Board of
Actuaries determines the rate per eligible soldier and that the
actuarial rate and the amortization amount have increased
substantially since fiscal year 1994. The amortization payment
rose from zero to $6.2 million. Air Force budget officials
stated that the fiscal year 1997 budget for education benefits
is understated by about $6 million and, therefore, the per
person decrease is in error.
-- School training. The Army's costs per person are projected to
decline by 75 percent, whereas the Air Force's costs are
projected to increase by 5 percent from fiscal years 1990 to
1997. In 1990, the Air Force's costs were about 40 percent
greater than the Army's; however, in 1997, the Air Force's costs
are projected to be about 477 percent greater than the Army's.
According to Army budget officials, a decrease is projected
because this is one of two discretionary categories (the other
being special training), and available funds must be applied to
statutory requirements such as increases to the GI Bill. Air
Force budget officials explained that costs are driven by
aircraft and mission changes. For example, the addition of a
second bomber unit had a major influence on costs for fiscal
year 1997.
-- Special training. The Army's costs per person are projected to
decline by 87 percent, whereas the Air Force's costs are
projected to decline by 29 percent from fiscal years 1990 to
1997. Although the Air Force's costs per person were about
twice that of the Army's in 1990, they are projected to be 11
times greater than the Army's costs in 1997. Army budget
officials stated that costs are projected to decrease because
this category is discretionary and funds were needed to meet
statutory requirements.
-- Reimbursable costs. The Army's reimbursable costs are projected
to remain the same, but the Air Force's costs are projected to
increase over 700 percent. Also, in 1990, the Air Force's
reimbursable costs were about twice as high as the Army's, but
in 1997 they are estimated to be over
14 times higher. According to Air Force budget officials, costs
have increased because of a substantially larger role in the
training of foreign military pilots in conjunction with foreign
military sales programs.
-- Total costs. The Army's costs per person are projected to
decline by 4 percent, whereas the Air Force's costs are
projected to increase by 6 percent from fiscal years 1990 to
1997. Although the Air Force's per person costs were 25 percent
greater than the Army's costs in 1990, they are projected to be
38 percent greater than the Army's in 1997. Air Force budget
officials stated that increased costs are due largely to higher
numbers of full-time personnel. They further explained that
budget differences with the Army occur for a variety of reasons,
chiefly because Air Force training requirements are greater and
because the Army practices tiered resourcing, whereby units that
are designated as first to fight receive higher priority for
resources. (Tier I receives 100 percent of resource
requirements whereas tier IV receives 40 percent.) Because of
mission differences, training, schooling, recurring training,
travel, and other budgeted costs also differ. Other variables
affect the services' budgets as well, such as officer to
enlisted ratios, the full-time/part-time mix, demographics,
participation rates, clothing rates, and service initiatives.
Table 5 compares the per person costs by reserve component and major
budget category for fiscal years 1990 and 1997. The largest dollar
increase is in the administration and support category.
Table 5
Per Person Reserve Personnel Costs by
Service and Budget Category
Fiscal Marine
Budget category year Army Air Force Navy Corps
----------------------------- --------- ------ --------- ------ -----------
Unit/individual training 1990 $4,480 $6,147 $5,366 $5,314
1997 4,573 6,112 5,162 5,149
Administration and support 1990 2,477 616 6,264 2,230
1997 3,381 876 7,841 2,758
Education 1990 84 142 69 145
1997 115 63 71 235
Senior ROTC/Platoon leader 1990 171 221 132 134
1997 211 274 123 118
Mobilization training 1990 139 26 46 89
1997 36 42 25 62
School training 1990 404 649 87 218
1997 296 822 60 144
Special training 1990 394 1,465 311 484
1997 222 1,649 225 338
Junior ROTC 1990 21 50 25 34
1997 65 147 101 72
Health professions 1990 65 239 109 N/A\a
1997 80 290 220 N/A
Branch officers 1990 237 N/A N/A N/A
1997 23 N/A N/A N/A
Chaplains 1990 6 N/A N/A N/A
1997 10 N/A N/A N/A
Reimbursable 1990 23 23 1 18
1997 17 12 56 12
================================================================================
Total obligations 1990 $8,499 $9,578 $12,40 $8,664
9
1997 $9,030 $10,285 $13,88 $8,887
4
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: Totals may not add due to rounding.
\a Not applicable.
Source: Our analysis based on services' budget estimates.
The table shows the following for each category.
-- Unit/individual training. The change in the individual
services' per person costs is projected to vary by about 5
percent or less from fiscal years 1990 to 1997. The Air Force's
1997 estimated costs are about 34 percent greater than the
Army's estimate and about 18 percent greater than the Navy's and
the Marine Corps' estimates. Air Force budget officials stated
that costs are affected by (1) the percentage of personnel in
different training categories and (2) the officer/enlisted mix
and grade structure. Moreover, the Air Force Reserve may have a
higher percentage of officers and a higher grade structure,
which would result in higher costs.
-- Administration/support. Individual service increases are
projected to range from 24 percent for the Marine Corps to 42
percent for the Air Force between fiscal years 1990 and 1997.
However, the Air Force has the lowest per person costs, and the
Navy has the highest. The Navy's cost estimate for fiscal year
1997 is about eight times higher than the Air Force's and is
more than twice as high as the Army's. According to Navy budget
officials, training administration and support personnel
constitute about 15 to 17 percent of the Naval Reserve end
strength. The cost increase stems from the aggregate of pay
increases for such personnel. Further, differences among the
services in the number, type, and funding source of full-time
personnel result in the Navy's costs being higher than the other
services' costs (along with the Naval Reserve, including a large
portion of contributory support travel in this budget category).
According to Air Force officials, the projected increase for the
Air Force is due in part to increases in reserve incentives, the
health professions training program,\9 and the involuntary
separation pay program. They stated that Air Force costs are
lower possibly because of fewer full-time personnel or because
of differences among the services in categorizing administrative
and support costs. Marine Corps budget officials stated that
costs are projected to increase due to pay raises and increases
in related categories.
-- Education benefits. The Air Force projects a 56-percent
reduction in education benefits, whereas the other services
project increases. The Marine Corps and the Army estimate
increases of 62 percent and 37 percent, respectively, but the
Marine Corps has budgeted twice as much per person as the Army
and over three times as much as the other two services. The
Navy has projected a slight increase. Marine Corps budget
officials explained that the Marine Corps has a higher rate of
servicemembers taking advantage of educational benefits.
Because this level of participation was not estimated in earlier
years, the DOD Board of Actuaries directed amortization payments
to bring the Marine Corps' portion into balance. Air Force
officials said the Air Force's decrease is due to lowering the
actuaries' rate from $546 in fiscal year 1990 to $192 in fiscal
year 1997, as well as to fluctuations in enlistments,
reenlistments, and extensions. Army budget officials explained
that changes in the law increased participation rates and
allowances and resulted in higher costs. For example, under the
Fiscal Year 1996 Defense Authorization Act, the Reserve
Component Montgomery GI Bill educational assistance allowance
provides up to a 284-percent increase in the monthly allowance
for critical skills or specialties.
-- Senior ROTC and Marine Corps Platoon Leaders Class. Air Force
and Army increases are similar, at 24 and 23 percent,
respectively. However, in fiscal year 1997, the Air Force has
budgeted about 30 percent more than the Army and over twice as
much as the Navy and the Marine Corps. According to Army and
Air Force budget officials, costs are projected to rise due to
an increase in the monthly stipend rate, from $100 to $150. Air
Force officials pointed out that the number of students may vary
among the services and that the number of Air Force students
have decreased. Army officials said that a decrease in summer
training sites resulted in increased travel costs.
-- Mobilization training. Mobilization training costs have
fluctuated since fiscal year 1990. The Army's costs were
highest in fiscal year 1990, but they are projected to be second
lowest in fiscal year 1997. In fiscal year 1997, the Navy's
costs are projected to be the lowest, and all services but the
Air Force estimate decreases ranging from the Marine Corp's 29
percent to the Army's 74 percent. The Marine Corps' cost per
person for fiscal year 1997 is about 48 percent higher than the
Air Force's. Army budget officials explained that budget cuts
have led to the tiered resourcing whereby units that are
designated as first to fight receive higher priority for
resources. Air Force officials said that increases in the
health professions training program affected mobilization
training costs, as well as administration and support costs,
because participants are required to undergo mobilization
training. According to Navy officials, the Navy's costs are
projected to decrease because of shifting priorities and
declining end strength, particularly among individuals in the
Ready Reserve and Voluntary Training Units.
-- School training. The Air Force had the highest per person costs
in fiscal years 1990 and 1997, and it is the only service to
project an increase, about 27 percent. The other services
estimate reductions between 27 percent and 34 percent. In
fiscal year 1990, the Air Force's costs were about 61 percent
higher than the next highest, the Army's, and in fiscal year
1997, its costs are projected to be about 178 percent higher
than the Army's. The Navy had the lowest costs in both years,
about 93 percent lower than the Air Force's costs in fiscal year
1997. Air Force officials cited the need to train personnel in
operating and maintaining Air Force weapon systems as a likely
reason for costs that are higher than the other services. Also,
according to the officials, the Air Force's projected cost
increase is due to an increase in officer training days and a
decrease in enlisted training days. Specifically, there were
significant costs increases in officer training school,
undergraduate pilot/navigator training, unit conversion
training, and initial skills acquisition training. According to
Navy budget officials, resources have been prioritized to
provide maximum support to the active forces.
-- Special training. The Air Force's costs in fiscal year 1997 are
projected to be over seven times higher than the Army's and the
Navy's and almost five times higher than the Marine Corps'. The
Air Force was the only service to project a cost increase
between fiscal years 1990 and 1997, which amounts to 12 percent
per person. The other services have projected decreases ranging
from the Navy's 28 percent to the Army's 44 percent. Army
budget officials stated that budget constraints required a
decrease in the special training category, including tours of
duty in support of exercises, operational training, command and
staff support, and recruiting and retention support.
-- Junior ROTC. All services estimate higher costs of between two
to four times the fiscal year 1990 level. The Air Force had the
highest costs in fiscal year 1990, and it is projected to have
the highest costs in fiscal year 1997, about 46 percent higher
than the Navy and over 100 percent higher than the Army and the
Marine Corps. Army budget officials stated that under
congressional direction, the number of units rose from 865 to
1,380 since fiscal year 1990, and the number of students
increased from about 130,700 to about 206,100. Air Force
officials stated that Air Force costs rose due to (1) an
increase in the number of students from about 45,000 in fiscal
year 1990 to about 81,000 projected for fiscal year 1997, (2) a
near doubling in the number of detachments to over 600, and (3)
cadets' travel to Air Force locations. Navy officials said that
the Navy's program also has expanded, with the number of
students increasing from about 29,500 to a projected 55,500 and
that the annual inflation applied to uniform costs totaled over
17 percent. Marine Corps units are projected to increase from
80 to almost 175.
-- Health Professions Scholarships. Although the Air Force had the
highest costs per person in fiscal year 1990, and they are
projected to remain the highest in fiscal year 1997, the Navy's
costs are projected to more than double. Navy budget officials
explained that the program has expanded and that such
programmatic increases, along with over a 20-percent increase in
annual pay raises provided in student stipends, resulted in the
projected cost increase. The Army and the Air Force estimate
increases of 24 and 22 percent, respectively. For fiscal year
1997, Air Force costs are projected to be about 32 percent
higher than the Navy's and over three times higher than the
Army's. Army budget officials stated that the number of
students in the program decreased by 110, but stipend, clothing,
pay, and travel rates increased. According to Air Force
officials, the number of Air Force students might be higher than
other services, and the addition of a financial assistance
program grant in fiscal year 1991 contributed to higher costs.
-- Branch Officers Basic Course. Army costs are projected to
decrease by 90 percent because budget constraints have required
limiting the course to those who have a relevant unit of
assignment, according to Army budget officials. Army officials
explained that formerly, all newly commissioned officers
attended the course regardless of their future participation in
the Army Reserve (e.g., nonscholarship officers without a
follow-on unit and officers entering branches that were not in
the Army Reserve).
-- Chaplain candidates. Army costs are projected to increase by
about 67 percent. Army budget officials explained that the
estimated number of chaplains has increased by 32 percent since
fiscal year 1990. Further, the average number of days that
chaplain candidates serve on active duty for training has
increased to meet new training requirements, and the training
often takes place in high-cost areas.
-- Reimbursable costs. Costs are projected to decrease in all
services except the Navy, which had virtually no costs in fiscal
year 1990 but about three to four times the cost of the other
services in fiscal year 1997. According to Navy budget
officials, the costs resulted from transferring about 1,500
reservists into the Defense Business Operations Fund system,
which is scheduled to end in fiscal year 1998.
-- Total per person costs. The Navy has the highest and the Marine
Corps the lowest per person costs. Total per person costs are
projected to increase for all the services, with the Navy having
the largest increase since fiscal year 1990, about 12 percent,
and the Marine Corps having the smallest, about 3 percent. The
Navy's personnel costs, at about $13,900 per servicemember, are
projected to be about 35 percent more than the Air Force's,
which is next highest, about 54 percent more than the Army's,
and about 56 percent more than the Marine Corps'. Army budget
officials stated that different decisions have been made for
each category based on the number of its population, criticality
of the population to the mission, and availability of funds.
Additionally, each category has its own set of "cost drivers."
One major reason for the overall increase is separation
benefits, which did not exist in fiscal year 1990 but represent
over 2 percent of the fiscal year 1997 budget. Air Force budget
officials explained that fluctuations in military personnel
costs are expected due to officer/enlisted mix changes, grade
structure changes, and changes in training requirements driven
by weapon system and support changes. According to Navy
officials, the Naval Reserve is a more senior force than the
Army and the Marine Corps Reserves, and there is a large
disparity with the Air Force in terms of full-time support
personnel levels and funding. Consequently, the Naval Reserve
has a higher overall cost.
--------------------
\8 Full-time support personnel are authorized to receive the same
transition enhancements and initiatives as active personnel. These
benefits include special separation benefit, voluntary separation
incentive, temporary early retirement authority, reserve involuntary
separation pay, and reserve special separation pay.
\9 The program provides financial assistance to students undertaking
training as physicians or in other medical-related fields.
PER PERSON COSTS FOR BASIC PAY
AND ALLOWANCES DIFFER
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :7
Basic pay and four allowances imbedded within reserve and National
Guard budget categories comprise about 82 percent of the National
Guard's military personnel budget and about 80 percent of the
reserve's budget. The National Guard's and the reserve's costs for
basic pay, retired pay accrual, basic allowances for quarters,
variable housing allowance, travel, and other costs for fiscal years
1990 and 1997 are shown in tables 6 and 7.
Table 6
Per Person National Guard Personnel
Costs by Service and Budget Category
Army Air
Nation Nation
Fiscal al al
Budget category year Guard Guard
---------------------------------------------- ------ ------ ------
Basic pay 1990 $5,244 $6,620
1997 5,105 7,098
Retired pay accrual 1990 1,158 1,456
1997 919 1,274
Basic allowances for quarters 1990 646 727
1997 584 857
Variable housing allowance 1990 74 112
1997 92 175
Travel 1990 393 563
1997 209 488
Other 1990 1,307 1,557
1997 1,574 1,783
======================================================================
Total 1990 $8,822 $11,03
5
1997 $8,483 $11,67
5
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: Totals may not add due to rounding.
Source: Our analysis based on services' budget estimates.
Table 6 shows the following for each category.
-- Basic pay. The Army's costs per person are projected to
decrease by about 3 percent, while Air Force costs are projected
to increase by 7 percent. The Air Force's estimate is about 39
percent higher than the Army's for fiscal year 1997, compared to
26 percent higher in fiscal year 1990. According to Air Force
budget officials, a 1,500-person increase in the number of
full-time personnel since fiscal year 1990 accounts for the cost
increase.
-- Retired pay accrual. The Army estimates a decrease of about 21
percent from fiscal years 1990 to 1997, and the Air Force
estimates a decrease of about 13 percent. The Air Force's costs
were about 26 percent higher than the Army's in fiscal year
1990, and they are projected to be about 39 percent higher for
fiscal year 1997. Air Force budget officials said that the cost
increase stems from the increased number of full-time personnel.
-- Basic allowances for quarters. The Army projects a 10-percent
decrease for fiscal year 1997, but the Air Force projects an
18-percent increase. The Air Force's estimate is about 47
percent higher than the Army's for fiscal year 1997. Air Force
budget officials stated that increased costs are related to an
increase in full-time Air National Guard personnel as a
percentage of the total force.
-- Variable housing allowance. Both services project increases for
fiscal year 1997, the Army by 23 percent and the Air Force by 56
percent. The Air Force's estimate for fiscal year 1997 is 90
percent higher than the Army's, compared to fiscal year 1990
when the Air Force's costs were 51 percent higher. Army budget
officials stated that the proportion of officers to enlisted
personnel entitled to the allowance has increased, as well as
the average grade of the officers, thereby resulting in
increased costs. Air Force budget officials stated that
increased costs are related to an increase in Air National Guard
full-time personnel as a percentage of the total force.
-- Travel. Both services project decreases for fiscal year 1997,
the Army by 47 percent and the Air Force by 13 percent. The Air
Force's estimated costs per person are over twice the Army's.
Army budget officials stated that costs are projected to
decrease as a result of congressional intent, DOD directive, and
the force reduction. According to Air Force budget officials,
travel costs are related to training requirements and pilot
training and exercises require travel costs.
-- Other. Remaining costs are projected to increase by about 21
percent for the Army and about 15 percent for the Air Force.
Table 7
Per Person Reserve Personnel Costs by
Service and Budget Category
Fiscal Marine
Budget category year Army Air Force Navy Corps
----------------------------- --------- ------ --------- ------ -----------
Basic pay 1990 $4,880 $5,754 $6,779 $4,923
1997 5,238 5,946 7,528 5,281
Retired pay accrual 1990 1,014 848 1,846 1,002
1997 874 639 1,621 849
Basic allowances for quarters 1990 403 370 735 464
1997 366 485 909 564
Variable housing allowance 1990 61 12 216 105
1997 78 20 266 94
Travel 1990 641 1,093 1,107 707
1997 434 1,285 1,200 595
Other 1990 1,501 1,501 1,727 1,461
1997 2,039 1,911 2,360 1,506
================================================================================
Total 1990 $8,499 $9,578 $12,40 $8,664
9
1997 $9,030 $10,285 $13,88 $8,887
4
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: Totals may not add due to rounding.
Source: Our analysis based on services' budget estimates.
Table 7 shows the following for each category.
-- Basic pay. Projected increases per person range from 3 percent
for the Air Force to 11 percent for the Navy. The Navy's
estimate is about (1) 27 percent more than the Air Force's,
which is next highest; (2) 43 percent higher than the Marine
Corps'; and (3) about 44 percent higher than the Army's, which
is projected to have the lowest. The Navy also had the highest
cost in fiscal year 1990. Navy budget officials explained that
the difference in per person costs among the services is due to
their respective grade mixes and numbers and types of full-time
support personnel. Specifically, the Naval Reserve is
predominantly grade E-5 and above, and full-time support
personnel, in particular, are above E-4 and O-3. Civilian
support is minimal in the Naval Reserve but is prevalent in the
Air Force Reserve as full-time technicians (who are also
reservists). Such civilian support is funded from operation and
maintenance accounts rather than military personnel accounts.
Consequently, cost comparisons among the services are rendered
difficult because the personnel requirements and sources are so
different.
-- Retired pay accrual. The services' estimated decreases range
from 12 percent for the Navy to 25 percent for the Air Force.
The Navy's per person costs are projected to be 85 percent
higher than the Army's, 91 percent higher than the Marine
Corps', and about 154 percent higher than the Air Force's. The
Navy also had the highest cost in fiscal year 1990. Navy budget
officials stated that the Naval Reserve has large numbers of
higher-graded career personnel who require larger retired pay
accruals than do the more junior personnel in the Army and the
Marine Corps. Also, many full-time support personnel in the Air
Force are civilian; thus, they are not paid through the military
personnel account and do not require the accrual.
-- Basic allowances for quarters. Only the Army estimates a
decrease (9 percent). The other services project increases of
22 to 31 percent. The Navy is projected to have the highest per
person cost in fiscal year 1997, which is 61 to 148 percent
higher than the other services' estimates. The Navy also had
the highest cost in fiscal year 1990. Air Force budget
officials stated that the percentage of personnel in different
training categories and the officer/enlisted grade mix and grade
structure affect costs. Further, the Air Force may have a
higher percentage of officers as well as a higher grade
structure compared to the other services. Marine Corps budget
officials stated that costs have been affected by an increased
number of active reserves, the grade structure, and pay
increases.
-- Variable housing allowance. The Marine Corps is projected to
have about an 11-percent decrease between fiscal years 1990 and
1997, but the other services project increases of 23 percent for
the Navy, 28 percent for the Army, and 71 percent for the Air
Force. Although the Air Force is estimated to have the largest
percentage increase, it has the least cost per person of the
four services. Specifically, the Navy's costs are projected to
be 13 times higher than the Air Force's, over 3 times higher
than the Army's, and over twice as high as the Marine Corps'.
Army budget officials stated that the number of personnel
qualified to receive the allowance has increased. Air Force
officials stated that total variable housing costs are
relatively low ($1 million in fiscal year 1990 and $1.5 million
projected for fiscal year 1997) and that small dollar changes
can reflect large percentage changes. According to Navy
officials, the Naval Reserve's costs are attributable to rate
increases and a more senior force, particularly full-time
support personnel. They added that Army and Marine Corps
support personnel are more junior and more likely to have
government quarters available and that many Air Force support
personnel are civilian.
-- Travel. The Air Force and the Navy are projected to have higher
costs in fiscal year 1997. The Air Force, with about an
8-percent increase, and the Navy, with an 8-percent increase,
are estimated to have twice the cost of the next highest--the
Marine Corps--and almost three times the cost of the Army. The
Army's and the Marine Corps' budgets project decreases of 32 and
16 percent, respectively. Air Force officials stated that
changes in travel costs are most likely due to a change in the
location for school and special training. The Navy is
projecting an increase because of a growing role in contributory
support to the active component. According to the budget
officials, as the reserve with its more senior force has
increasingly participated in exercises, contingencies, and
contributory support, travel outside the continental United
States has risen proportionally. Such travel increased over
threefold between fiscal years 1993 and 1996. Also, active
naval units worldwide have reserve personnel on annual training
and special training throughout the year. Consequently, Naval
Reserve costs are two to three times higher than the other
services.
-- Other. Remaining personnel costs are projected to increase.
The Army's, the Air Force's, and the Navy's costs are projected
to rise between 27 and 37 percent, but the Marine Corps'
increase is slight.
SOME COMPONENTS' BUDGET
CATEGORIES ARE DISPROPORTIONATE
WITH PERSONNEL LEVELS
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :8
In a number of categories, the services' budgets do not reflect their
respective shares of personnel levels. For example, the Naval
Reserve has 45 percent of the $1.7 billion estimated fiscal year 1997
budget for administration and support, but its share of the personnel
level is under 23 percent. However, the Navy plans to allocate only
37 percent of its budget to unit and individual training, while the
other services plan to allocate between 50 and 60 percent of their
budgets for training. In contrast, the Air Force's budget comprises
less than 4 percent, and the Marine Corps budgets less than 7
percent, of the total administration and support budget.
The Air Force Reserve, with 17 percent of the reserve personnel,
projects that it will spend 59 percent of the $206 million special
training category in fiscal year 1997. Special training includes
activities such as command and staff supervision, competitive events,
exercises, management support, operational training, and service and
mission support. Similarly, the Air National Guard projects a
77-percent share of the $83 million special training category in
fiscal year 1997, although the Army National Guard has 77 percent of
the personnel level. And, the Army National Guard projects over a
90-percent share of the $43 million education benefits category.
There are also differences among the services in the pay, allowances,
and travel categories. With about 23 percent of the fiscal year 1997
reserve personnel level, the Naval Reserve has an estimated
54-percent share of the variable housing budget, about a 35-percent
share of the travel budget, a 39-percent share of the basic
allowances for quarters, a 37-percent share of the retired pay
accrual, and a 29-percent share of basic pay.
The Air National Guard has a disproportionate share of the total
National Guard budget for pay, allowances, and travel projected for
fiscal year 1997. With 23 percent of the personnel level, the Air
National Guard comprises about 41 percent of the travel category,
about 36 percent of the variable housing allowance, 30 percent of
basic allowances for quarters, and about 29 percent of basic pay and
retired pay accrual.
AGENCY COMMENTS
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :9
We have incorporated informal comments on a draft of this report from
DOD, National Guard, and reserve officials, where appropriate.
SCOPE AND METHODOLOGY
----------------------------------------------------------- Letter :10
To identify budget trends and differences in costs among the
services, we analyzed each service's annual military personnel budget
estimate submission to the Congress. For fiscal years 1990 through
1995, we used actual costs. For fiscal years 1996 and 1997, we used
estimated costs. We adjusted the nominal dollars to constant fiscal
year 1996 dollars using 1996 DOD inflation factors for military
personnel costs. We did not analyze or verify the services'
assumptions supporting the estimates, nor did we verify the accuracy
of the data presented in their budget estimate submissions. We asked
National Guard and reserve officials to explain some of the trends
and differences among the services and incorporated the explanations
that we considered relevant. We did not verify the services'
explanations. We conducted our work from October 1995 to July 1996
in accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards.
--------------------------------------------------------- Letter :10.1
We are providing copies of this report to appropriate congressional
committees; the Secretaries of Defense, the Air Force, the Army, and
the Navy; the National Guard Directors; the Reserve Chiefs; and the
Director, Office of Management and Budget. We will also provide
copies to other interested parties upon request.
If you have any questions concerning this report, please call me on
(202) 512-3504. Major contributors to this report were Robert
Pelletier and Richard McGeary.
Sincerely yours,
Richard Davis
Director, National Security
Analysis
RESERVE COMPONENT MILITARY
PERSONNEL BUDGET CATEGORIES
=========================================================== Appendix I
The following budget categories apply to all services, except where
parentheses specify the applicable services. National Guard budget
categories are similar to the Army and the Air Force Reserve budget
categories, but exclude Reserve Officers' Training Corps (ROTC),
Junior ROTC, Health Professions Scholarship Program, Chaplain
Candidates, and Branch Officers Basic Course.
Unit and individual training
-- Pay group A (assigned to reserve unit for annual training and
inactive duty training)
active duty training/annual training
inactive duty training
subsistence
clothing
travel
-- Pay group F (initial active duty training for non-prior service
enlistees)
pay and allowances/active duty training
clothing
subsistence
travel
-- Pay group P (inactive duty for training while awaiting initial
active duty for training) (Army, Navy, and Marine Corps)
inactive duty training
clothing (Marine Corps)
subsistence
-- Pay group B (inactive duty training and annual training for
individual mobilization augmentees)
annual training/active duty training
inactive duty training (Army and Air Force)
subsistence
clothing (Navy, Air Force, and Marine Corps)
travel
Administration and support
-- Active duty pay and allowances
-- Subsistence (Army and Navy)
-- Individual uniform gratuities/clothing (Army, Air Force, and
Marine Corps)
-- Continental United States cost-of-living allowance (Army and
Navy)
-- Travel
-- Child adoption expenses (Army and Navy)
-- Separation/transition benefits
-- Death gratuities
-- Disability/hospitalization
-- Reserve incentives
-- Health profession stipend (Air Force)
-- Naval ROTC nuclear bonus (Navy)
-- Active duty for special work (Navy)
Education benefits
-- Amortization payment/benefits accrual
-- Officer/enlisted (Army)
-- Reenlistment (Army)
Senior ROTC (Army, Navy, and Air Force)
-- Nonscholarship program
subsistence
travel
uniforms issue-in-kind
uniforms (commutation)
summer camp training (pay and allowances)
-- Scholarship program
subsistence
travel
uniforms issue-in-kind
uniforms/commutation
summer camp training/pay and allowances
Platoon leaders class (Marine Corps)
-- Uniforms issue-in-kind
-- Summer camp training
-- Subsistence allowance, subsidy
-- Subsistence of enlisted personnel
-- Travel
Other training and support
-- Mobilization training
operational training/readiness training (Army and Air Force)
exercises (Army)
service mission/mission support (Army and Air Force)
career development/career enhancement (Army and Air Force)
management support (Army)
individual ready reserve screening/muster/training (Army, Navy, and
Air Force)
competitive events (Army)
health profession training (Air Force)
annual training/active duty training (Navy and Marine Corps)
clothing (Navy)
subsistence of enlisted personnel (Navy and Marine Corps)
travel (Navy and Marine Corps)
merchant marine training (Navy)
-- School training
career development
initial skill acquisition
officer candidate school/officer training school (Army and Air Force)
prior service training (Army)
refresher/proficiency
undergraduate pilot/navigator (Army and Air Force)
recruiter (Air Force)
unit conversion (Navy, Air Force, and Marine Corps)
continuing medical education (Navy)
individual ready reserve training (Marine Corps)
-- Special training
command/staff support or supervision (Army, Air Force, and Marine
Corps)
competitive events
exercises
management support
operational training
recruiting
service mission/mission support
retention
environmental compliance (Army)
unit conversion (Navy and Air Force)
drug interdiction activity (Air Force)
conferences and visits (Navy)
additional/extended active duty training (Navy)
-- Branch officers basic course (Army)
active duty training
uniform allowance
travel
-- Health professions scholarship program (Army, Navy, and Air
Force)
pay and allowances/active duty training
initial clothing allowance/uniform allowance
additional clothing allowance
stipend
travel
financial assistance program pay and allowances
financial assistance program stipend
financial assistance program travel
nurse candidate bonus (Navy)
-- Junior ROTC
uniforms, issue-in-kind
subsistence (Army)
transportation/billeting, travel (Army and Air Force)
-- Chaplain candidate program (Army)
pay and allowances
uniform allowance
travel
SERVICES' SHARE OF NATIONAL GUARD
PERSONNEL BUDGET, FISCAL YEARS
1990-97
========================================================== Appendix II
(Dollars and personnel in millions and
shares in percent)
Budget Category Service Share Amount Share Amount Share Amount Share Amount Share Amount Share Amount Share Amount Share Amount Change Percent
--------------- -------- ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ -------- ------ -------- ------ -------- ------ -------- ------ ---------
Unit/ Army 76.5 $2,129 75.4 $1,886 75.1 $1,924 74.1 $1,780 74.5 $1,815 74.3 $1,741 74.1 $1,682 74.4 $1,655 ($475) -22.3
individual
training
Air 23.5 654 24.6 617 24.9 639 25.9 624 25.5 621 25.7 601 25.9 589 25.6 570 (84) -12.8
Force
====================================================================================================================================================================================
Total 100.0 $2,783 100.0 $2,503 100.0 $2,563 100.0 $2,403 100.0 $2,436 100.0 $2,343 100.0 $2,270 100.0 $2,225 ($558) -20.1
Administration 76.2 $1,418 75.0 $1,366 75.1 $1,425 74.7 $1,395 73.9 $1,423 73.3 $1,413 72.6 $1,379 72.3 $1,390 ($28) -2.0
and support Army
Air 23.8 442 25.0 455 24.9 472 25.3 473 26.1 502 26.7 515 27.4 520 27.7 532 89 20.2
Force
====================================================================================================================================================================================
Total 100.0 $1,860 100.0 $1,821 100.0 $1,896 100.0 $1,869 100.0 $1,925 100.0 $1,927 100.0 $1,899 100.0 $1,921 $61 3.3
Education Army 70.7 $34 74.9 $36 0.0 $0 0.0 $0 92.0 $13 90.4 $16 89.3 $33 91.2 $39 $5 15.6
benefits
Air 29.3 14 25.1 12 100.0 7 100.0 2 8.0 1 9.6 2 10.7 4 8.8 4 (10) -73.2
Force
====================================================================================================================================================================================
Total 100.0 $48 100.0 $48 100.0 $7 100.0 $2 100.0 $14 100.0 $18 100.0 $37 100.0 $43 ($5) -10.4
School training Army 73.5 $225 72.6 $243 67.9 $229 71.3 $208 68.5 $179 66.4 $168 59.7 $118 37.3 $47 ($178) -79.1
Air 26.5 81 27.4 92 32.1 108 28.7 84 31.5 82 33.6 85 40.3 80 62.7 79 (2) -2.6
Force
====================================================================================================================================================================================
Total 100.0 $307 100.0 $335 100.0 $337 100.0 $292 100.0 $261 100.0 $253 100.0 $197 100.0 $126 ($180) -58.8
Special Army 65.1 $178 72.0 $250 70.0 $233 66.4 $243 64.3 $193 65.1 $195 32.0 $32 23.2 $19 ($159) -89.2
training
Air 34.9 95 28.0 97 30.0 100 33.6 123 35.7 107 34.9 104 68.0 68 76.8 63 (32) -33.4
Force
====================================================================================================================================================================================
Total 100.0 $273 100.0 $348 100.0 $333 100.0 $365 100.0 $300 100.0 $299 100.0 $99 100.0 $83 ($191) -69.8
====================================================================================================================================================================================
Total direct $5,272 $5,054 $5,137 $4,932 $4,936 $4,839 $4,502 $4,398 ($874) -16.6
program
Reimbursable Army 67.9 $7 55.3 $7 61.3 $6 60.0 $6 46.7 $6 41.3 $6 30.0 $6 18.2 $6 ($1) -19.7
costs
Air 32.1 3 44.7 5 38.7 4 40.0 4 53.3 7 58.7 8 70.0 13 81.8 25 22 661.6
Force
====================================================================================================================================================================================
Total 100.0 $10 100.0 $12 100.0 $10 100.0 $10 100.0 $13 100.0 $14 100.0 $19 100.0 $30 $20 199.3
Total Army 75.6 $3,992 74.8 $3,788 74.2 $3,817 73.5 $3,633 73.3 $3,629 72.9 $3,539 71.8 $3,248 71.3 $3,156 ($836) -20.9
obligations
Air 24.4 1,290 25.2 1,278 25.8 1,330 26.5 1,309 26.7 1,320 27.1 1,315 28.2 1,273 28.7 1,273 (17) -1.4
Force
====================================================================================================================================================================================
Total 100.0 $5,282 100.0 $5,066 100.0 $5,147 100.0 $4,942 100.0 $4,949 100.0 $4,853 100.0 $4,521 100.0 $4,428 ($853) -16.2
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: Some columns do not add because of rounding.
(Dollars and personnel in millions and
shares in percent)
Person Person Person Person Personne Personne Personne Personne
Personnel level Service Share nel Share nel Share nel Share nel Share l Share l Share l Share l Change Percent
--------------- -------- ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ -------- ------ -------- ------ -------- ------ -------- ------ ---------
End strength Army 78.9 0.4370 79.0 0.4413 78.1 0.4258 77.8 0.4099 77.7 0.3969 77.3 0.3749 76.8 0.3730 77.3 0.3668 (0.070 -16.1
2)
Air 21.1 0.1170 21.0 0.1176 21.9 0.1191 22.2 0.1172 22.3 0.1136 22.7 0.1098 23.2 0.1127 22.7 0.1080 (0.009 -7.7
Force 0)
====================================================================================================================================================================================
Total 100.0 0.5540 100.0 0.5589 100.0 0.5449 100.0 0.5271 100.0 0.5105 100.0 0.4847 100.0 0.4857 100.0 0.4748 (0.079 -14.3
2)
Average Army 79.5 0.4525 79.1 0.4440 78.7 0.4373 77.7 0.4116 77.9 0.4040 77.6 0.3851 77.2 0.3741 77.3 0.3720 (0.080 -17.8
strength 5)
Air 20.5 0.1169 20.9 0.1170 21.3 0.1182 22.3 0.1179 22.1 0.1149 22.4 0.1114 22.8 0.1104 22.7 0.1090 (0.007 -6.8
9)
====================================================================================================================================================================================
Total 100.0 0.5694 100.0 0.5610 100.0 0.5555 100.0 0.5295 100.0 0.5189 100.0 0.4965 100.0 0.4845 100.0 0.4810 (0.088 -15.5
4)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: Some columns do not add because of rounding.
SERVICES' SHARE OF RESERVE
PERSONNEL BUDGET, FISCAL YEARS
1990-97
========================================================= Appendix III
(Dollars and personnel in millions and
shares in percent)
Budget Category Service Share Amount Share Amount Share Amount Share Amount Share Amount Share Amount Share Amount Share Amount Change Percent
--------------- -------- ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ -------- ------ -------- ------ -------- ------ -------- ------ ---------
Unit/ Army 47.2 $1,406 47.4 $1,222 48.0 $1,364 47.7 $1,259 46.6 $1,179 48.0 $1,108 47.2 $1,066 46.4 $1,007 ($398) -28.3
individual
training
Navy 27.6 822 29.2 753 26.8 763 26.5 700 26.1 661 22.7 523 23.1 522 23.1 503 (319) -38.8
Air 17.3 515 16.6 428 17.4 495 17.9 474 19.3 487 20.7 477 20.6 465 20.6 449 (67) -12.9
Force
Marines 7.9 234 6.8 175 7.8 222 7.8 206 7.9 201 8.6 198 9.2 207 9.9 215 (19) -8.2
====================================================================================================================================================================================
Total 100.0 $2,977 100.0 $2,578 100.0 $2,843 100.0 $2,639 100.0 $2,528 100.0 $2,307 100.0 $2,259 100.0 $2,173 ($803) -27.0
Administration Army 41.2 $777 40.4 $781 39.7 $795 40.3 $760 42.5 $797 44.5 $795 45.9 $801 44.1 $745 ($32) -4.2
and
support Navy 50.9 960 51.2 991 52.1 1,042 51.2 966 49.0 919 46.3 829 44.3 774 45.2 764 (196) -20.4
Air 2.7 52 2.9 56 2.9 57 2.9 55 3.0 56 3.2 58 3.5 61 3.8 64 13 24.5
Force
Marines 5.2 98 5.5 107 5.4 108 5.5 105 5.5 104 5.9 106 6.3 111 6.8 115 17 17.3
====================================================================================================================================================================================
Total 100.0 $1,887 100.0 $1,935 100.0 $2,002 100.0 $1,886 100.0 $1,875 100.0 $1,788 100.0 $1,748 100.0 $1,688 ($199) -10.5
Education Army 47.8 $26 48.2 $22 66.8 $29 47.3 $15 44.2 $11 55.7 $20 57.5 $28 54.3 $25 ($1) -4.2
benefits
Navy 19.1 11 10.3 5 9.7 4 16.3 5 18.6 5 13.2 5 11.8 6 14.8 7 (4) -34.4
Air 21.5 12 24.2 11 3.1 1 4.1 1 12.6 3 7.2 3 10.2 5 9.8 5 (7) -61.5
Force
Marines 11.6 6 17.3 8 20.4 9 32.3 10 24.7 6 23.9 9 20.5 10 21.1 10 3 53.1
====================================================================================================================================================================================
Total 100.0 $55 100.0 $45 100.0 $44 100.0 $32 100.0 $24 100.0 $36 100.0 $48 100.0 $47 ($9) -15.6
Senior ROTC/ Army 54.6 $54 53.6 $41 53.3 $37 53.7 $35 56.1 $35 52.9 $36 54.1 $43 55.6 $46 ($7) -13.3
Platoon leader
Navy 20.6 20 23.3 18 21.6 15 19.4 13 16.7 11 14.0 10 15.6 12 14.4 12 (8) -40.4
Air 18.8 19 17.6 14 17.7 12 18.7 12 20.2 13 26.2 18 24.5 19 24.1 20 2 8.7
Force
Marines 6.0 6 5.6 4 7.4 5 8.1 5 7.0 4 6.8 5 5.8 5 5.8 5 (1) -18.0
====================================================================================================================================================================================
Total 100.0 $98 100.0 $77 100.0 $70 100.0 $65 100.0 $63 100.0 $68 100.0 $79 100.0 $83 ($15) -15.0
Mobilization Army 76.8 $44 80.2 $46 63.7 $28 58.3 $23 68.6 $25 78.5 $29 54.4 $9 49.1 $8 ($36) -82.0
training
Navy 12.6 7 14.3 8 19.4 9 19.3 8 12.9 5 7.3 3 16.3 3 15.2 2 (5) -66.0
Air 3.8 2 0.6 0 3.3 1 9.6 4 6.0 2 7.5 3 12.5 2 19.4 3 1 42.8
Force
Marines 6.8 4 4.9 3 13.6 6 12.8 5 12.6 5 6.7 2 16.9 3 16.4 3 (1) -32.2
====================================================================================================================================================================================
Total 100.0 $57 100.0 $57 100.0 $45 100.0 $40 100.0 $37 100.0 $37 100.0 $16 100.0 $16 ($41) -71.8
School training Army 62.2 $127 65.0 $137 56.6 $114 54.6 $94 42.0 $65 45.8 $71 51.6 $86 47.5 $65 ($61) -48.5
Navy 6.5 13 6.5 14 6.2 13 6.3 11 4.7 7 4.3 7 3.8 6 4.2 6 (7) -55.8
Air 26.7 54 24.7 52 32.5 66 33.8 58 48.0 74 42.9 66 37.7 63 43.9 60 6 10.9
Force
Marines 4.7 10 3.8 8 4.6 9 5.3 9 5.3 8 7.0 11 7.0 12 4.4 6 (4) -37.0
====================================================================================================================================================================================
Total 100.0 $204 100.0 $211 100.0 $202 100.0 $172 100.0 $155 100.0 $155 100.0 $167 100.0 $137 ($66) -32.6
Special Army 39.2 $123 46.8 $157 37.8 $139 30 $90 25.1 $77 35.8 $115 21.4 $51 23.7 $49 ($75) -60.4
training
Navy 15.1 48 14.3 48 13.3 49 17.3 52 12.8 39 12.4 40 10.3 25 10.6 22 (26) -54.1
Air 38.9 123 31.7 107 41.6 153 45.0 135 51.9 158 43.6 140 57.3 136 58.8 121 (2) -1.5
Force
Marines 6.8 21 7.2 24 7.3 27 7.7 23 10.1 31 8.3 27 10.9 26 6.8 14 (7) -33.8
====================================================================================================================================================================================
Total 100.0 $315 100.0 $336 100.0 $368 100.0 $299 100.0 $305 100.0 $321 100.0 $238 100.0 $206 ($109) -34.7
Junior ROTC Army 40.6 $7 43.0 $8 47.7 $12 35.0 $13 47.3 $18 42.1 $17 32.6 $13 37.7 $14 $8 118.7
Navy 24.1 4 22.8 4 21.3 5 30.5 12 20.1 8 30.6 13 27.7 11 25.9 10 6 153.5
Air 26.3 4 24.1 4 23.6 6 26.3 10 25.3 10 19.0 8 27.2 11 28.5 11 7 154.7
Force
Marines 9.0 1 10.1 2 7.4 2 8.1 3 7.3 3 8.3 3 12.6 5 7.9 3 2 107.5
====================================================================================================================================================================================
Total 100.0 $16 100.0 $18 100. $24 100.0 $38 100.0 $39 100.0 $41 100.0 $41 100.0 $38 $22 135.5
Health 35.7 $20 37.9 $24 35.3 $22 30.9 $18 29.7 $18 29.4 $18 28.9 $18 29.3 $18 ($3) -13.0
professions Army
scholarship
program
Navy 29.3 17 29.9 19 32.7 20 31.9 19 32.9 20 34.9 21 34.8 21 35.4 21 5 28.1
Air 35.0 20 32.2 20 32.0 20 37.2 22 37.5 22 35.6 22 36.3 22 35.3 21 1 6.6
Force
====================================================================================================================================================================================
Total 100.0 $57 100.0 $62 100.0 $62 100.0 $60 100.0 $60 100.0 $61 100.0 $62 100.0 $60 $3 5.9
Branch officers 100.0 $74 100.0 $83 100.0 $59 100.0 $42 100.0 $31 100.0 $18 100.0 $6 100.0 $5 ($69) -93.1
basic course Army
Chaplain Army 100.0 $2 100.0 $2 100.0 $2 100.0 $2 100.0 $2 100.0 $2 100.0 $2 100.0 $2 $0 20.5
candidates
====================================================================================================================================================================================
Total direct $5,742 $5,405 $5,722 $5,275 $5,118 $4,833 $4,665 $4,456 ($1,28 -22.4
program 5)
Reimbursable Army 70.6 $7 66.3 $6 69.9 $7 66.7 $7 31.1 $5 32.6 $5 38.2 $3 35.5 $4 ($3) -47.8
costs
Navy 2.4 0 6.3 1 7.2 1 3.2 0 55.4 9 58.3 9 47.2 4 51.8 6 5 2189.3
Air 18.8 2 18.8 2 14.5 1 22.6 2 8.8 1 5.6 1 9.0 1 8.2 1 (1) -54.8
Force
Marines 8.2 1 8.8 1 8.4 1 7.5 1 4.7 1 3.5 1 5.6 1 4.5 0 0 -42.6
====================================================================================================================================================================================
Total 100.0 $10 100.0 $9 100.0 $9 100.0 $10 100.0 $16 100.0 $15 100.0 $9 100.0 $11 $0 4.0
Total Army 46.4 $2,667 46.7 $2,529 45.5 $2,609 44.6 $2,359 44.1 $2,262 46.1 $2,234 45.5 $2,126 44.5 $1,989 ($678) -25.4
obligations
Navy 33.1 1,901 34.4 1,860 33.5 1,921 33.8 1,785 32.8 1,682 30.1 1,458 29.6 1,384 30.3 1,352 (549) -28.9
Air 14.0 803 12.8 694 14.2 813 14.6 773 16.1 827 16.4 795 16.8 785 16.9 755 (48) -5.9
Force
Marines 6.6 381 6.1 332 6.8 389 7.0 368 7.1 362 7.5 361 8.1 379 8.3 371 (11) -2.8
====================================================================================================================================================================================
Total 100.0 $5,752 100.0 $5,414 100.0 $5,731 100.0 $5,285 100.0 $5,133 100.0 $4,848 100.0 $4,674 100.0 $4,467 ($1,28 -22.3
5)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: Some columns do not add because of rounding.
(Dollars and personnel in millions and
shares in percent)
Person Person Person Person Personne Personne Personne Personne
Personnel level Service Share nel Share nel Share nel Share nel Share l Share l Share l Share l Change Percent
--------------- -------- ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ -------- ------ -------- ------ -------- ------ -------- ------ ---------
End strength Army 52.1 0.2991 51.8 0.2999 53.2 0.3027 52.0 0.2759 53.3 0.2599 52.3 0.2413 51.7 0.2300 50.4 0.2150 (0.084 -28.1
1)
Navy 26.0 0.1494 26.0 0.1505 25.0 0.1423 25.0 0.1324 22.1 0.1076 21.8 0.1006 22.2 0.0989 22.5 0.0959 (0.053 -35.8
5)
Air 14.1 0.0806 14.6 0.0843 14.4 0.0819 15.2 0.0806 16.3 0.0796 17.0 0.0783 16.6 0.0740 17.2 0.0733 (0.007 -9.1
Force 3)
Marines 7.8 0.0445 7.6 0.0440 7.4 0.0422 7.9 0.0417 8.3 0.0407 8.9 0.0409 9.5 0.0423 9.9 0.0420 (0.002 -5.6
5)
====================================================================================================================================================================================
Total 100.0 0.5736 100.0 0.5787 100.0 0.5691 100.0 0.5306 100.0 0.4878 100.0 0.4611 100.0 0.4452 100.0 0.4262 (0.147 -25.7
4)
Average Army 52.8 0.3138 53.1 0.3071 52.3 0.3066 52.9 0.2862 52.2 0.2619 52.8 0.2481 51.8 0.2331 50.9 0.2203 (0.093 -29.8
strength 5)
Navy 25.8 0.1532 26.7 0.1545 26.3 0.1453 24.8 0.1340 24.1 0.1206 21.7 0.1022 22.2 0.0997 22.5 0.0974 (0.055 -36.4
8)
Air 14.1 0.0838 12.4 0.0719 14.0 0.0820 14.6 0.0792 15.5 0.0779 16.9 0.0777 16.9 0.0759 17.0 0.0734 (0.010 -12.4
Force 4)
Marines 7.4 0.0440 7.8 0.0452 7.4 0.0434 7.7 0.0416 8.2 0.0409 8.6 0.0402 9.2 0.0412 9.6 0.0417 (0.002 -5.2
3)
====================================================================================================================================================================================
Total 100.0 0.5948 100.0 0.5787 100.0 0.5773 100.0 0.5410 100.0 0.5013 100.0 0.4682 100.0 0.4499 100.0 0.4328 (0.162 -27.2
0)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: Some columns do not add because of rounding.
*** End of document. ***
|
NEWSLETTER
|
|
Join the GlobalSecurity.org mailing list
|
|
|
