Appendix — Rostker v. Goldberg

Supreme Court brief1981

Ask Donna

What actually matters in this document.

Text

POLIS EE I ag ek

No. 80-251

In the Supreme Court of the United States

OCTOBER TERM, 1980

BERNARD ROSTKER, DIRECTOR OF SELECTIVE

SERVICE, APPELLANT

Vv.

ROBERT L. GOLDBERG, ET AL.

ON APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES

DISTRICT COURT FOR

THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

JOINT APPENDIX

JURISDICTIONAL STATEMENT FILED AUGUST 19, 1980

PROBABLE JURISDICTION NOTED DECEMBER 1, 1980

In the Suprene Court of the United States

OCTOBER TERM, 1980

No. 80-251

BERNARD ROSTKER, DIRECTOR OF SELECTIVE

SERVICE, APPELLANT ~~

ROBERT L. GOLDBERG, ET AL.

ON APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES

DISTRICT COURT FOR

THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

INDEX

Page

In the United States District Court for the Eastern

District of Pennsylvania:

Relevant Docket Entries .................... l

Responses To Plaintiffs’ Interrogatories (Set

ND EERE ETT EEE CO TR Oe 21

Defendants’ Response To Plaintiffs’ Inter-

I CU MODS oe ses awe Vacscseaes 27

Presidential Recommendations For Selective

Service Reform (A Report to Congress Pre-

pared Pursuant to P.L. 96-107), February

RGM iic ka As ded he kes 0a 8 ian lie oe 29

Excerpts from America’s Volunteers (A Re-

port on the All—Volunteer Armed Forces),

I ns ld ik Va oc ond 0 vn sn’ 80

Excerpts from Background Study: Use Of

Women In The Military, 2d ed., September

EO ata sy a's LAPEER Es ean bee Oh ee so

Information Paper (Subject: Brookings In-

stitution Study: Women in the Military), 26

SO SHEE vce La Wek Ras Ci ewes 3h

Memorandum Thru Chief Of Staff, US Army

For Secretary Of The Army (Subject: Com-

bat Exclusion Definition for Women—

DECISION MEMORANDUM), 30 Sep-

CRE BOS iirc ks BHES ae See vh SE REC iss

Excerpts from Women Content In The

Army—Reforger 77 (REF-WaAc 77), 30 May

BR Pa Senay ee Cee & Ean) 2 on

Excerpts from Statement Of Harrison

Wellford, ET AL., March 19, 1980.........

Registration Of Women (Statement of Robert

B. Pirie, ET AL.), March 5, 1980..........

House Of Representatives Stenographic Tran-

script of Hearings Before The Committee

On Armed Services, Subcommittee on Mili-

tary Personnel, March 5, 1980.............

Statement By Robert B. Pirie (Women In The

Military), 13 November 1979 ..............

Excerpts from Deposition of Bernard D. Rost-

Me ee en ne ee Pot ae

Excerpts from Deposition of Peter T. Straub,

PONTE We ROT ck ANN bo ad eevee beede. sa

Excerpts from Deposition of Lt. General

Harold G. Moore, October 14, 1976 ........

Excerpts from Deposition of Edward C.

meyer, Getouet 10, TOTS. i.c icc ckevnwcess

Excerpts from Deposition of Robert B. Pirie,

ea ae Pee oe

Excerpts from Deposition of Richard Danzig,

PE ek Sees oo bewc ehaeeRn de N Reber

Page

182

185

188

206

209

213

244

246

251

252

259

266

275

Ill

Excerpts from Deposition of Major General R.

Dean Tice, May 138, 1980 ............00000-

Excerpts from Deposition of Major General

Robert G. Gard, Jr., December 21, 1976 ...

Excerpts from Deposition of John F. Ahearne,

ob ee nn eee eee

Plaintiffs’ Request For Admissions (Set

Se Tt i so AKG Eb as MENS CREAR Beets re

Excerpts from Ammunition Loading And Fir-

ing Test-Pretest Physical Conditioning Of

Female Soldier Participants, Technical Note

ac Cc is & 0 bC5 hn be oh es 00%

Excerpts from Improving Capability To

Mobilize Military Manpower, 16 January

ex RC AG SOR s OLDE MEE AEN Oe Cea ereed ces

Bureau of the Census, Department of Com-

merce, Statistical Abstract Of The United

States, Chart No. 407 (1971) ..............

In the United States Supreme Court (No. 80-251):

Ordering Noting Probable Jurisdiction .........

a * fae

Page

281

286

291

292

294

298

301

302

RELEVANT DOCKET ENTRIES

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR

THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

Date

1 June 16

June 16

2 June 25

3 June 30

4 July 1

5 July 23

6 July 23

7 Aug 16

8 Sep. 8

9 Sep. 10

Civil Action No. 71-1480

Proceedings

Complaint filed

Summons exist

Pliffs motion for the convening of a statut-

ory three-judge Court and memoran-

dum, filed.

Summons returned, “on 6-18-71 by cer-

tified mail served Henry R. Sherrard”

& 6-22-71 served Curtis Tarr Natl. &

John Mitchell, Attorney General,” on

6-17-71 served Louis C Bechtle,” on

6-22-71 served Local Board No. 138”,

filed.

Plif’s Notice of Change of Address filed.

Defs’ Reply to Motion of Plf. for the con-

vening of a Statutory Three-Judge

Court and Defs’ Motion to Dismiss filed.

Defs’ Memorandum in support of Defs’

opposition to Plfs’ Motion for a Three

Judge Court and Defs’ Motion to Dis-

miss filed.

Stipulation and Order extending time for

Plffs. to file responsive pleadings, etc.

in support of Motion for convening of a

statutory 3-Judge court and Defts’ Mo-

tion to Dismiss to 9/10/71, field. JG

Piff's motion for extension of time for de-

termination of whether the case is to be

maintained as a class action, filed.

Piff's memorandum in opposition to deft’s

motion to dismiss, filed.

Date

1972

Sep.

Nov.

Dec.

Apr.

. iF

. 18

May 1

Proceedings

Piff's reply Memorandum in support of

their motion for the convening of a

Three Judge Court, filed.

Argued sur plff's motion for convening a 3

Judge Court. C.A.V. JG

Argued sur Govt’s motion to dismiss the

complaint. C.A.V. JG

Defts’ supplemental memorandum in op-

position to plffs’ motion for a Three-

Judge Court, and in support of defts’

motion to dismiss, filed.

Piff’s supplemental reply memorandum in

support of motion for a Three-Judge

Court and in opposition to defts’ motion

to dismiss, filed.

Motion of plffs. for consolidation or in the

alternative to intervene, and memoran-

dum in support thereof, filed.

Defts’ motion for extension of time to re-

spond to plffs’ motion for consolidation,

etc., filed.

Order GRANTING defts’ motion for ex-

tension of time to respond to plffs’ mo-

tion, filed. (4-19-72 entered and copies

mailed) JL

Deft’s memorandum opposing motion for

consolidation or in the alternative, leave

to intervene, filed.

Memorandum, GORBEY, J., and Order

that plffs’ application for a three-judge

court is DENIED, and that defts’ mo-

tion to dismiss the complaint is

GRANTED, filed. (4-27-72 entered and

notice mailed) JG

Piffs’ notice of appeal, filed.

Date

1973

May 1

May 2

May 5

May 17

May 24

Mar 27

Jun 5

Nov 9

Proceedings

Copy of Clerk’s notice to U.S. Court of

Appeals, filed.

Original record transmitted to U.S. Court

of Appeals.

Order that plffs’ motion for consolidation

or in the alternative to intervene is

DENIED as moot, filed. (5-2-72 en-

tered and copies mailed) JG

Piffs’ bond for costs on appeal in the sum

of $250.00, with Fidelity & Deposit Co.

of Maryland as surety, filed.

Certified copy of Order, U.S. Court of

Appeals, denying appellant’s motion for

an expedited hearing, etc., filed. (Coy

to Judge Gorbey) F.VD

Order that motion of plffs. in Roland, et

al v. Tarr, et al, Civil Action No. 71-

1480, to consolidate said action with

Atlee, et al v. Laird, Civil Action No. |

71-2324, is DENIED as moot, filed.

(5-25-72 entered and copies mailed) JL

Ist supplemental record transmitted to

U.S. Court of Appeals,

Record on appeal returned.

Certified copy of Order, U.S. Court of

Appeals, issued in lieu of formal man-

date, that the judgment of the District

Court filed 4-27-72 is hereby VAC-

ATED AS TO COUNT III, and in all

other respects is affirmed—the cause

being remanded to the District Court

for further proceedings in accordance

with the opinion of this Court, filed.

(Copy to Judge Gorby)

Deft’s motion to dismiss Count 3 of the

Complaint, filed.

Apr 10

Apr 17

Apr 23

Apr 24

Apr 25

4 I

Proceedings

Deft’s brief in support of motion to dis-

miss Count 8, filed.

Plffs’ memorandum in opposition to mo-

tion to dismiss Count 3, filed.

Govt’s. supplemental memorandum in

support of motion to dismiss Count #3

of complaint, filed.

Order that plff. shall advise the Court of

sections of Selective Service Act which

are subjects of this action; that the

Court will request the convening of a

statutory court; and that deft’s motion

to dismiss will be held for decision by

the statutory court, filed. (8-29-74 en-

tered and copies mailed)) JG-Clk

Order constituting a Three Judge Court

that Hon. Max Rosenn U.S. Circuit

Judge and Hon. Joseph S. Lord 111,

Chief Judge to sit with Hon. H. Gorbey

for the hearing and determination of

this action, filed. 4-11-74 entered &

copies mailed

Order that whenever counsel for plff. file

a motion ete, with clerk of court they

shall also send a copy of documents to

the chambers of the three judges ete.

filed. 4/18/entered and copies mailed.

Order fixing 5/2/74, in ct. room #7, at

10:30 A.M., for argument on Deft’s. mo-

tion to dismiss, before a Three-Judge

Court, filed. 4/24/74 entered and copies

mailed. JG

Piff's. Memorandum in opposition to sec-

ond motion to dismiss, filed.

Order amending order of 4/23/74, etc.,

filed. 4/26/74 entered and copies

mailed. JG

Date

1975

May 2

July 1

July 25

July 31

Aug 6

Sept 6

Dec 3

Dec 4

Jan 2

Apr 22

May 19

Proceedings

Argued sur Govt’s motion to dismiss

count 111 of complaint Rosen C.J.

C.A.V. JL

Opinion & Order Lord Ch. J & Gorbey J.

that deft’s. motion to dismiss is DE-

NIED, with Dissenting Opinion &

Order Rosenn Circuit Judge, filed.

Motion and Order extending time to and

including 7/31/74 for deft to answer the

Complaint, filed 7/26/74 entered and

copies mailed

Answer filed.

CASE LISTED FOR TRIAL

Stipulation extending time to answer &

Order that the time within which to an-

swer the complaint in this action is ex-

tended until and including the day of

7/31/74, filed. 8/1/74 entered and copied

mailed. JG

Pliff’s Interrogatories to defts (Set No. 1),

filed

Deft’s answer to Pliff’s interrogatories,

filed

PRE-TRIAL CONFERENCE, Gorbey,

Piff's Request for Admissions (Set No. 1),

filed

Deft’s Response to plff’s Requests for

Admissions (Set No. 1), filed

Plffs’ Motion to compel admissions and, or

in the alternative, to compel answers to

interrogatories, Memorandum in sup-

port and Notice thereof, filed

Govt’s Motion for Protective Order and

Motion in Opposition to Piff's Motion to

Compel Discovery, filed

Date

(45)

(48)

May 28

May 29

June 13

June 25

Jul 8

Jul 22

Proceedings

Deft’s Motion for Judgment on the

pleadings or, alternatively, for Sum-

mary Judgment, Memorandum of Law

in support and Notice thereof, filed

Piff’s Motion to intervene Robert L.

Goldberg as party PIff, filed

Piff's Memorandum in opposition to defts’

Motion for Protective Order, filed

Plffs’ Memorandum in Opposition to deft’s

Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings

or, alternatively, for summary judg-

ment, filed

ORDER that leave for Robert L.

Goldberg to intervene as a party plff

and to participate fully as a party plff in

all proceedings and the title of this case

is changed to Robert L. Goldberg et al

v. Curtis Tarr etc., filed 6/26/75 entered

and copies mailed JG

Plffs’ Motion to Drop Certain Parties PIff,

filed

ORDER that Andrew Rowland, Steven

Rowland and David Freudberg are

dropped as parties plff, filed 7/23/75 en-

tered and copies mailed JG

ORDER DENYING plffs’ motion to com-

pel admissions and, in the alternative,

to compel answers to interrogatories,

filed 7/23/75 entered and copies mailed

ORDER that argument on the deft’s mo-

tion for judgment on the pleadings or,

alternatively for summary judgment,

will be held before the Three-Judge

Court at 10:30 A.M. on 7/31/75 in

Courtroom No. 3, filed 7/23/75 entered

and copies mailed JG

Date

Jul 22

Jul 31

Aug 6

Oct 7

Oct 24

Oct 31

Dec 23

JAN 7

MAR. 9

Apr. 30

Proceedings

ORDER that deft’s motion for protective

order is DENIED, filed 7/23/75 entered

and copies mailed JG

ORDER that argument on deft’s motion

for judgment on the pleadings or alter-

natively, for summary judgment,

scheduled for 7/31/75 at 10:30 A.M. is

continued to another date etc., filed

8/1/75 entered and copies mailed JG

ORDER that argument on the deft’s mo-

tion for judgment on the pleadings or,

alternatively, for summary judgment,

will be held before the Three-Judge

Court at 3:00 P.M. on 9/17/75 in Court-

room 13-B etc., filed 8/7/75 entered and

copies mailed JG

Transcript of 9/17/75, filed

ORDER DENYING defts’ Motion for

Judgment on the pleadings or, alterna-

tively, for summary judgment and that

the parties are to proceed with discov-

ery in this matter so that a full record

can be presented to the court before a

final decision is made on the merits of

this case, filed M. Rosenn, Cir. Judge

Ch. J. Lord, III

James H. Gorbey

Pliffs’ interrogatories to defts’, (Set No.

1-Supplementary), filed

Stipulation and Order extending time

until and including 1-31-76 for deft to

answer interrogatories, filed JG

Piff's notice of taking the depositions of

Peter T. Straub et al, filed

DEPOSITION OF PETER T. STRAUB,

FILED

Report of Pretrial conference Gorbey, J.,

filed. 5/3/76 entered JG-CLK

Date Proceedings

61 May5d Piff's Motion for Sanctions, Memorandum

in Support and Notice, filed

62 May7 Defts’ opposition to plff’s Motion for

Sanctions, Points and Authorities in

Support and Certificate of Service, filed

63 May 10 Plffs’ Reply Memorandum in support of

Motion for Sanctions, filed

64 May 13 Defts’ supplemental answers and objec-

tions to plffs’ interrogatories (Set No.

1-Supplementary), filed

65 May 17 Defts’ notice of taking the deposition of

plff, David B. Sitman, filed (Scheduled

for 6-14-76 at 2:00 P.M.)

66 May 17 Defts’ notice of taking the deposition of

plff, David B. Sitman, scheduled for

6-14-76 at 10:00 A.M.., filed

67 May 19 Pliffs’ Request for Production of Docu-

ments, filed

68 May 28 Supplemental Points and authorities in

support of defts’ opposition to plffs’ Mo-

tion for Sanctions, filed

69 May 28 Defts’ notice of taking the deposition of

plff, Robert L. Goldberg, filed

70 May 28 Defts’ notice of taking the deposition of

plff, David B. Sitman, filed

71 =Jun3 ORDER that defts’ objections to plffs’ in-

| terrogatories are overruled and defts

are Ordered to file responsive answers

to plffs’ interrogatories (Set No. 1—

Supplementary) or advise plffs and the

court that defts adopt as their complete

answers those answers which it filed on

5-31-76, within fifteen (15) days of the

date of this Order, filed 6-3-76 entered

and copies mailed JG

1976

72 June 8 Defts’ response to plffs’ Request for Pro-

duction of Documents, filed

Date

Jun 18

Jun 30

July 12

July 16

July 21

July 27

Aug 25

Sep 7

Sep 14

Sep 15

Proceedings

Defts’ supplemental Response to Piffs’ in-

terrogatories (Set No. 1-

Supplementary), filed

Appearance of John M. Kelson, Esq. as

counsel for Defts., filed.

Plffs’ Motion to join further defts, Memo-

randum in Support, Certificate of

Service and Notice, filed

Stipulation and Order extending time to

and including 7-16-76 for defts to re-

spond to Plffs’ Motion to Join Further

defts, filed JG

Defts’ Opposition to Plffs’ Motion to Join

Further Defts, Points and Authorities

in Support and Certificate of Service,

filed.

Stipulation and Order extending time to

7-20-76 for defts to respond to PIffs’

Motion to Join Further Defts, filed JG

ORDER DENYING Piffs’ Motion to Join

Further Defts, filed 7-28-76 entered and

copies mailed JG

Plffs’ notice of taking the depositions of

Commanding General, Robt. Gard, et

al, filed

DEPOSITION OF DAVID BRUCE

SITMAN, FILED

DEPOSITION OF ROBERT L.

GOLDBERG, FILED

Motion for Protective Order on behalf of

Maj. General Edward C. Meyer, Lt.

General Harold G. Moore, John F.

Ahearne, and Cpt. Joseph E. Murray,

Memorandum of Points and Authorities,

Certificate of Service, filed

Stipulation of counsel that the depositions

scheduled for Sept. 20, Sept. 21 and

Date

1979

Sep 15

Sep 17

Jan 19

Mar 21

Apr 14

Apr 20

Jun 7

July 6

Nov 10

Jun 6

Proceedings

Oct. 12, 1976 by plffs be rescheduled

ete., filed

Plffs’ Opposition to Motion for Protective

Order on behalf of Major General Ed-

_ward C. Meyer, Lt. General Harold G.

“Moore, John F. Ahearne, and Cpt. Jos.

E. Murray and Request for Sanctions,

filed

Order that motion for protective order

filed on behalf of Major General Edw.

C. Meyer, ete., is DENIED, filed. entr.

& cys. mailed 9/21/76 JG

DEPOSITION OF CAPT. JOS. E.

MURRAY, JR., FILED

DEPOSITION OF EDWARD C.

MEYER, FILED

DEPOSITION OF MAJOR GENERAL

ROBERT G. GARD, JR., FILED

DEPOSITION OF JOHN FF.

AHEARNE, FILED

Govt’s Motion for Extension of Time to

and including 7/3/77 to serve defts’ Re-

newed Motion for Judgment on the

Pleadings or, in the Alternative, for

Summary Judgment, filed

ORDER that defts’ motion for enlarge-

ment of time is granted and that defts’

time to serve their Motion is extended

to and including 7/3/77, filed 7/6/77 EN-

TERED & COPIES MAILED JG

ORDER reassigning this action from the

calendar of Judge Gorbey to the calen-

dar of Judge Cahn, filed 11/11/77 EN-

TERED; Copies mailed by chambersJG

Copy of Clerk’s Notice under Local Rule

23(a), filed 6/6/79 NOTICE MAILED

°’%

(98)

100

1980

101

102

Sept 21

Oct 30

Dec. 21

Jan 16

Feb 19

Proceedings

PLFF’s APPLICATION FOR DISCOV-

ERY CUTOFF AND TRIAL DATE,

FILED

Plff’s interrogatories to defts (Set No. 2),

filed

Plffs’ Memorandum in support of applica-

tion for discovery cutoff and final date

and contra dismissal under local rule 23,

filed

Plffs’ Memorandum in opposition to Mo-

tion for Protective Order, filed

Affidavit of Donald L. Weinberg, Esq.

pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. Procedure

56(f), filed

MOTION OF DEFTS FOR A PROTEC-

TIVE ORDER, POINTS AND AU-

THORITIES IN SUPPORT AND

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE AND

NOTICE, FILED

MOTION OF DEFTS FOR JUDGMENT

ON THE PLEADINGS, POINTS AND

AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT, CER-

TIFICATE OF SERVICE AND

NOTICE, FILED

ORDER DATED 10/29/79 THAT AR-

GUMENT ON ALL OUTSTANDING

MOTIONS WILL BE HEARD IN

COURTROOM 3B AT 3:00 P.M. ON

12/12/79, FILED. 10/30/79 entered &

copies mailed. EC

Appearance of William J. McGettigan,

Esq., AUSA for defts., filed.

Transcript of 12/12/79, filed

MEMORANDUM CAHN, J. & ORDER

THAT IN THE EVENT PLFFS WISH

Date

103

104

105

106

1980

107

108

Feb 26

Feb 28

Mar 7

Mar 19

Mar 20

Proceedings

THIS ACTION TO PROCEED AS A

CLASS ACTION, THEY SHALL

FILE A MOTION FOR CLASS CER-

TIFICATION AND A BRIEF IN

SUPPORT THEREOF ON OR BE-

FORE 3/28/80; IF PLFFS FILE A

MOTION FOR CLASS CERTIFICA-

TION, DEFTS MAY ANSWER AND

FILE A REPLY BRIEF ON OR BE-

FORE 4/18/80; DISCOVERY MAY

PROCEED UNTIL 5/9/80 ETC.;

DEFTS’ MOTION FOR A PROTEC-

TIVE ORDER IS DENIED AND

TRIAL SHALL COMMENCE ON

MAY 21, 1980 ETC., FILED 2/19/80

ENTERED & COPIES MAILED

Letter dtd. 2/19/80 to Judge Cahn from

William J. McGettigan, Esq. re:

Acknowledgment of Service of memo-

randum dated Feb. 19, 1980, filed

ORDER THAT DEFTS’MOTION FOR

SUMMARY JUDGMENT IS DENIED

AND THAT THE PROCEEDINGS

SCHEDULED FOR MAY 21, 1980,

WILL BEGIN AT 10:00 A.M. IN

COURTROOM 3B, FILED 2/28/80

ENTERED & COPIES MAILED EC

Piffs’ interrogatories to defts, Set No. 3,

filed

Piffs’ request for production of documents

with respect to plffs’ interrogatories to

defts (Sets No.s 2 and 3), filed

Piffs’ interrogatories to defts—Set no. 4,

filed

Piffs’ request for production of documents

with respect to plffs’ interrogatories to

defts (Set No. 4), filed

Date

109

110

111

112

113

114

115

116

117 May 12

Mar 20

Mar 25

Apr 18

Apr 29

May 5

May 8

Proceedings

Plffs’ interrogatories to deft (Set No. 5),

filed

PLFFS’ MOTION FOR CLASS DE-

TERMINATION AND MEMORAN-

DUM IN SUPPORT, FILED

Defts’ opposition to plffs’ Motion for Class

Certification, filed

MOTION TO INTERVENE OF OWEN

F. JONES AS PARTY PLFF, FILED

Reply memorandum in support of plff’s

Motion for Class Certification, filed

Plffs’ notice of taking the depositions of

Bernard D. Rostker etal, filed

ORDER AMENDING THE ORDER OF

THIS COURT OF FEB. 19, 1980 IN

THE FOLLOWING RESPECTS:

DISCOVERY MAY PROCEED UP TO

AND INCLUDING THE DATE OF

THE FINAL HEARING OR TRIAL

HEREIN ON ALL ISSUES AS SET

FORTH IN PARAGRAPH 2 OF THE

ORDER OF FEB. 19, 1980 ETC.,

FILED 5/5/30 ENTERED & COPIES

MAILED EC

DEFTS’ MOTION FOR A CON-

TINUANCE OF THE TRIAL DATE

AND EXTENSION OF TIME

WITHIN WHICH TO FILE LEGAL

MEMORANDA, POINTS AND AU-

THORITIES IN SUPPORT AND

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE,

FILED

Pliffs’ answer to defts’ motion for a con-

tinuance of the trial date and an exten-

sion of time in which to file legal

memoranda and memorandum in op-

position, filed

Date _

118 May 20

119

120

121

122

May 20

Proceedings

Transcript of Deposition of Bernard D.

Rostker, filed

Transcript of Deposition of Richard Dan-

zig, filed

Transcript of Deposition of Robert B.

Pirie, filed

Transcript of Deposition of Major General

R. Dean Tice, filed

ORDER THAT THE ORDERS OF THIS

COURT OF FEB. 19, 1980, AS

AMENDED BY ORDER OF 5/5/80,

AND OF FEB. 27, 1980 ARE FUR-

THER AMENDED AS FOLLOWS:

DEFTS’ motion for a continuance of the

trial date and extension of time within

which to file legal memoranda is

granted; trial shall commence at 10:30

A.M. ON JULY 1, 1980 IN COUR-

TROOM %B ETC. AND THAT THE

MOTION TO INTERVENE OF

OWEN F. JONES AS PARTY LPLFF

IS GRANTED AS UNOPPOSED.

LEAVE FOR OWEN F. JONES TO

INTERVENE AS PARTY PLFF

HEREIN, TO JOIN THE MOTION

FOR CLASS DETERMINATION

FILED HEREIN AND TO PARTICI-

PATE FULLY AS A PARTY PLFF

IN ALL PROCEEDINGS IS

GRANTED EFFECTIVE THIS DAY,

AND THE COMPLAINT OF

INTERVENOR-PLFF OWEN F.

JONES AS SET FORTH IN THE

MOTION TO INTERVENE IS

HEREBY ACCEPTED AS FILED

AND SERVED THIS DAY, FILED

(M. ROSEN, JL &E 5/20/80 EN-

TERED & COPIES MAILED

Date

123 May 20

124

125

126

127

128

129

130

131

Jun 4

Jun 10

Jun 16

Proceedings

ORDER THAT ANY MATERIALS

WHICH ARE TO BE DELIVERED

TO THE CHAMBERS OF THE

JUDGES OF THIS COURT SHALL,

WHEN DELIVERY IS INTENDED

FOR CHAMBERS OF JUDGE MAX

ROSENN, BE MAILED OR DELIV-

ERED TO JUDGE ROSENN’S

CHAMBERS IN WILKES-BARRE,

PENNA.. IF ANY MATERIALS ARE

SO VOLUMINOUS AS TO MAKE

THIS IMPRACTICAL, THE PAR-

TIES SHALL CONTACT JUDGE

ROSENN TO ARRANGE DELIV-

ERY, FILED 5/20/80 ENTERED &

COPIES MAILED EC

Piffs’ request for admissions (Set No. 2),

filed EC

Joint Documentary and Stipulated Ree-

ord (Volume No. 1), filed

Joint ocumentary and Stipulated Record

(Volume No. 2), filed

Joint Documentary and Stipulated Rec-

ord (Volume No. 3), filed

Joint documentary and Stipulated Record

(Volume No. 4), filed

Defts’ brief on The Standards for Deter-

mining Justiciability, Standing, Ripe-

ness, Mootness, and their applicability

to plffs’ claims, filed

Defts’ brief on the Standard of Judicial

Review, filed

Defts’ trial brief on plffs’ claims that the

Military Selective Service Act creates

an unconstitutional Gender-Based Dis-

tinction, filed

Date

132

133

134

135

136

137

138

139

140

141

142

143

144

145

ek i

Jun 16

Jun 17

Jun 23

Jun 24

Jun 25

Jun 26

Jun 30

Jun 30°

Proceedings

Piffs’ Memorandum sur Standards and

Burdens filed pursuant to Order of Feb.

19, 1980, filed

Stipulation with respect to trial tes-

timony of intervenor plff, Robert

Goldberg, filed

Plfis’ reply memorandum to defts’

memoranda filed 6/16/80, filed

Defts’ reply brief on Burden of Proof,

filed

Defts’ response to plffs’ pretrial memo-

randum sur applicable Standard of Law

and Burden of Proof governing issues of |

Mootness, Ripness and Standing, filed

Defts’ reply brief on the standard of judi-

cial review, filed

Defts’ reply brief on class certification,

filed

MOTION TO INTERVENE CARTER

FAUST AND STEVEN GOLDBERG

AS PARTY PLFFS, FILED

PLFFS’ MOTION TO JOIN ROBERT J.

LaROCCA AS PARTY PLFF AND

MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT,

FILED

Plffs’ designation of record—volume V,

filed

Stipulation with respect to testimony of

intervenor-plff Owen F. Jones, filed

Memorandum of Law in support of motion

to intervene Carter Faust and Steven

Goldberg as party plffs, filed

Joint Documentary and Stipulated Rec-

ord, filed

Piffs’ designation of stipulated record

volumes I through IV, filed

Date

146

147

148

149

150

151

152

153

Jun 30

Jul 2

JUL 2

Jul 14

Proéeedings

Trial Brief of plffs and intervenor plffs on

the unconstitutionality of the male-only

conscription statute, filed

Plffs’ proposed findings of fact, filed

Plffs’ Transcript of Congressional History

from 1948, filed

MOTION TO JOIN BRUCE JOSEPHS

AS PARTY PLFF, FILED

MOTION TO JOIN ROSS HUNTER AS

PARTY PLFF, FILED

MOTION TO JOIN STEPHEN RE-

THERFORD AS PARTY PLFF,

FILED

Affidavit of Robert J. Larocca in Support

of his Motion for party plff, filed —

ORDER THAT THE MOTION OF

ROBERT J. LA ROCCA TO JOIN AS

A PARTY PLFF IS DENIED; THE

MOTION OF CARTER FAUST AND

STEVEN GOLDBERG TO INTER-

VENE IS DENIED AND THE MO-

TION OF PLFTS TO HAVE THIS

CASE CERTIFIED AS A CLASS

ACTION IS GRANTED, IN AC-

CORDANCE WITH FED. R. CIV. P.

23(b)(2) A CLASS IS HEREBY CER-

TIFIED CONSISTING OF ALL

“MALE PERSONS WHO ARE REG-

ISTERED OR SUBJECT TO REGIS-

TRATION UNDER MALE PERSONS

WHO ARE REGISTERED OR SUB-

JECT TO REGISTRATION UNDER

50 U.S.C. §453 OR ARE LIABLE FOR

TRAINING AND SERVICE IN THE

ARMED FORCES OF THE UNITED

STATES ETC., FILED (Max Rosen,

Circuit Judge Jos. S. Lord, III Chief

Date

154

155

156

157

July 15

July 17

July 18

Proceedings

District Judge and Edward N. Cahn,

District Judge)

STIPULATION AND ORDER DATED

7/15/30 THAT BERNARD ROSTKER,

CURRENT DIRECTOR OF THE

SELECTIVE SERVICE BE SUBSTI-

TUTED FOR CURTIS TARR AS A

DEFT IN THIS ACTION, FILED 7/

15/830 ENTERED & COPIES

MAILED EC

Letter dtd. 7/15/80 to Judges Rosenn,

Lord & Cahn from Donald L. Wein-

berg, Esq. re: Response to the letter

brief to the Court from defense counsel,

dated 7/9/80 ete., filed

PLFTS’ MOTION FOR INTERIM RE-

LIEF AND NOTICE, FILED

MEMORANDUM CAHN J. AND

ORDER ROSENN CIRCUIT JUDGE,

LORD 111 CHIEF JUDGE AND

CAHN J. THAT CLASS IS REDE-

FINED TO INCLUDE ALL MALE

PERSONS WHO ARE REGISTERED

UNDER 50 USC OR ARE LIABLE

FOR TRAINING AND SERVICE IN

THE ARMED FORCES OF THE U.S.

AND WHO ARE ALSO EITHER

SUBJECT TO REGISTRATION

UNDER PRESIDENTIAL PROC-

LAMATION NO. 4771. THE MILI-

TARY SELECTIVE SERVICE ACT

50 USC IS DECLARED TO BE IN

VIOLATION OF THE IFTH

AMENDMENT TO THE U.S. CON-

STITUTION. DEFTS. ARE HEREBY

PERMANENTLY ENJOINED FROM

REQUIRING THE REGISTRATION

UNDER THE MILITARY SELEC-

Date

158

159

160

161

162

163

164

165

July 18

July 22

July 24

July 29

Aug 4

Proceedings

TIVE SERVICE ACT OF ANY

MEMBER OF THE PLFF. CLAS.

ETC., FILED. 7/18/80 entered & copies

servied on all counsel per order of

court.

NOTICE OF APPEAL OF THE DEFTS

TO THE SUPREME COURT OF THE

UNITED STATES, FILED

DEFTS’ MOTION FOR STAY PEND-

ING APPEAL WITH AFFIDAVIT OF

JOHN P. WHITE, DEPUTY DIREC-

TOR OF THE OFFICE OF MAN-

AGEMENT AND BUDGET, FILED

(SUPREME COURT NO. 80-251)

Points and authorities in support of defts’

motion for a stay pending appeal

ORDER THAT DEFTS’ MOTION FOR

A STAY PENDING APPEAL IS DE-

NIED, FILED 7/18/80 ENTERED &

COPIES MAILED (LORD, Chief

Judge)

ORDER, CAHN, J. AMENDING FIRST

SENTENCE OF PAGE 24 OF OPIN-

ION OF 7/18/80, FILED 7/23/80 en-

tered and copies mailed

Certified copy of order Supreme Court of

the U.S. that execution & enforcement

of order of this court is stayed pending

timely docketing of an appeal, filed.

ORDER DATED 7/28/80 THAT JUDG-

MENT IS ENTERED IN FAVOR OF

PLFFS. ROBERT L. GOLDBERG,

ET AL AND AGAINST THE DEFTS.

BERNARD ROSTKER, ET AL,

FILED. 7/30/80 entered & copies

mailed. EC

Defts’ List of the Court’s Citations to the

Revised Record, filed

Date

166

167

168

169

170

171

172

173

Aug 4

Aug 6

Aug 7

Sept 4

Oct 7

Oct 9

Proceedings

Joint documentary and Stipulated Record

(Volume I), filed (REVISED)

Joint Documentary and Stipulated Rec-

ord (Volume II), filed (REVISED)

Joint Documentary and Stipulated Rec-

ord (Volume III), filed (REVISED)

Joint Documentary and Stipulated Rec-

ord (Volume IV), filed (REVISED)

Transcript of 7/18/80 (Hearing on Govt’s

Application for a Stay), filed

ORDER DATED 8/6/80 AMENDING

THE COURT'S OPINION OF 7/18/80

ETC., 8/7/30 ENTERED & COPIES

MAILED EC

Joint Documentary and Stipulated Rec-

ord (Revised) Volume \V, filed

ORDER THE CLERK OF THIS

COURT IS DIRECTED TO CERTIFY

AND TRANSMIT TO THE CLERK

OF THE SUPREME COURT OF THE

U.S. THE REVISED JOINT

DOCUMENTARY AND STIPU-

LATED APPENDIX ETC.,

FILED.10/8/70 entered & copies

mailed. EC

Document Nos. 166, 167, 168, 169 and 172

transmitted to Supreme Court of The

United States pursuant to Order of

Court dated 10/7/80.

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

Civil Action No. 71-1480

ROBERT L. GOLDBERG, ET AL., PLAINTIFFS,

Vv.

CURTIS TARR, ET AL., DEFENDANTS.

RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFFS’ INTERROGATORIES

(SET NO. 2)

I, Major General R. Dean Tice, as Deputy Assistant

Secretary of Defense (Manpower, Reserve Affairs and

Logistics) (Military Personnel Policy), respond to plain-

tiffs’ Second Set of Interrogatories as follows:

INTERROGATORY NO. 9: Identify all documents

which, since the date of your last response to Plaintiff's

Interrogatories To Defendants (Set No. 1—Supplemen-

tary), have been prepared in whole or in part by personnel

of the United States Government, particularly including

but without limitation military or civilian personnel of the

Department of Defense and of the Armed Forces of the

United States dealing in whole or in part, with the follow-

ing topics:

(a) Current and projected utilization of women as

military personnel by the United States;

(b) Utilization by the United States of women as

military personnel in time of previous wars;

the United States in times of previous wars;

(d) Capability of the United States to utilize

women as military personnel in peacetime and/or time

of war;

(e) Current utilization of women as military per-

sonnel by any other nation(s);

(f) Utilization by other nation(s) of women as mili-

tary personnel in time of war or other hostilities;

(g) Performance of women as military personnel of

other nation(s) in time of war or other hostilities;

(h) Past or present conscription, or the feasibility

of conscription, of women into the Armed Forces of

the United States or other nation(s); or

(i) Performance as military personnel of women so

conscripted, which have not heretofore been produced

for inspection and copying by plaintiff.

RESPONSE: The Department of Defense maintains

numerous documents pertaining to the military utilization,

performance and capability of women. It is conservatively

estimated that the total number of such documents located

in the Office of the Secretary of Defense, the Service

Headquarters, the Service Military Personnel Centers,

the Service Major Field Commands, the Separate

Operating Activities, and individual bases, posts, and sta-

tions would run into the thousands. The Department of

Defense does not contend that the documents listed below

constitute all documents which deal with the utilization of

women in the military, but these comprehensive and en-

compassing documents provide extensive information on

utilization policy and procedures. Documents (a) through

(f) are attached. We are obtaining the document described

in subparagraph (g) and (h) and will provide them to the

plaintiffs as soon as they are available. The final study

listed, Women in the Military, is not a DOD study. Copies

can be obtained from The Brookings Institute, 1775 Mas-

sachusetts Avenue, N.W., Washington, D.C.

(a) America’s Volunteers: A report on the All-

Volunteer Armed Forces, December 31, 1978, Office

of the Assistant Secretary of Defense (Manpower,

Reserve Affairs, and Logistics). (Attachment 1);

(b) Use of Women in the Military, May 1977, (Sec-

ond Edition—September, 1978), Office of the Assist-

ant Secretary of Defense (Manpower, Reserve Af-

fairs, and Logistics). (Attachment 2);

tary of Defense, Manpower, Reserve Affairs, and

Logistics. Before the Subcommittee on Military Per-

sonnel, Committee on Armed Services, House of Rep-

resentatives, Hearings on Women in the Military,

November 13, 1979 (Attachment 3).

(d) Statement by Robert B. Pirie, Assistant Secre-

tary of Defense, Manpower, Reserve Affairs, and

Logistics and Dr. Bernard Rosther, Director, Selec-

tive Service System before the Subcommittee on Mili-

tary Personnel, Committee on Armed Services,

House of Representatives, Hearings on Registration

of Women, March 5, 1980. (Attachment 4).

(e) Profile, October 1979. Periodic DOD publica-

tion. (Attachment 5).

(f) Women Content in the Army REFORGER 77,

30 May 1978. U.S. Army Research Institute (Attach-

ment 6).

(g) Evaluation of Women in the Army, March 1978,

U.S. Army Administration Center.

(h) Women Content in Units Force Development

Test, October 3, 1977, U.S. Army Research Institute.

INTERROGATORY NO. 10: Identify all documents

which, since the date of your last response to Plaintiff's

Interrogatories to Defendants (Set No. 1—Supplemen-

tary), have been prepared pursuant to any grant, commis-

sion or contract in whole or in part for use by the United

States Government or its personnel, particularly including

but without limitation the personnel of the Department of

Defense and of the Armed Forces of the United States

which relate in whole or in part to subjects listed in Inter-

rogatory 9 and which have not been produced for inspec-

tion and copying by plaintiff.

RESPONSE: See Response to Interrogatory No. 9 and

No. 13.

INTERROGATORY NO. 11: As to each document iden-

tified in response to Interrogatories 9 and 10, identify by

name, rank, office address and telephone number the

present custodian of the original of such document and of

each copy thereof. |

RESPONSE: The documents produced in response to

Interrogatory Nos. 9, 10, and 13 have been in the posses-

sion of Lt. Colonel Albert H. Schroetel, USAF, who is

stationed at the Pentagon. The documents identified but

not produced are in the custody of the activity which pre-

pared them.

INTERROGATORY NO. 12: Identify each military oc-

cupational specialty in the United States Army and as to

each such specialty, state (a) whether women are pres-

ently eligible for the specialty, (b) the number of women

presently serving in that specialty, (c) the number of

women in the United States Army qualified for assign-

ment in that specialty, (d) the number of women permitted

to serve in that specialty, and (e) the total number of

United States Army personnel assigned in that specialty.

RESPONSE: The information sought by this inter-

rogatory is presently being compiled through various com-

puter runs and will be provided to plaintiffs upon the com-

pletion of that process. It is estimated that the information

will be available by April 18, 1980.

INTERROGATORY NO. 13: Identify all projects or

studies carried out, in whole or in part since June 15, 1974

concerning the potential or actual utilization or perform-

ance of women in the Armed Forces, and as to each such

project or study state:

(a) The name, rank, present address and telephone

number of the last known person in charge of the

project or study;

(b) The title, length and present location of all re-

ports generated by or arising out of such project or

study; and

study was or is being done.

RESPONSE: In addition to the documents listed in re-

sponse to Interrogatory No. 9 and provided to the plain-.

tiffs, the below listed studies are identified as being perti-

nent to this interrogatory. Again, these do not represent

all studies, only those which are considered major and en-

compassing. These documents can be obtained by con-

tacting Lt. Col. A.H. Schroetel, who is stationed in the

Pentagon, Washington, D.C. 20301.

(a) Migrations of Women to and from Non-

traditional Military Occupations, General Research

Corporation, McLean, Va., July 15, 1979.

(b) Ammunition Loading and Fire Test—Pretest

Physical Condition of Female Soldier Participants —

(U.S. Army Human Engineering Laboratory).

the Military: Results of a National Survey—Naval

Personnel Research and Data Center (NPRDC).

(d) Pregnancy in the Navy: Impact on Absen-

teeism, Attrition and Workgroup Morale—(NPRDC).

(e) Project Athena III—Report of the Admission to

the U.S. Military Academy—(USMA, West Point,

N.Y.).

(f) Male and Female Soldiers’ Beliefs about the Ap-

propriateness of Various Jobs for Women in the

Army—(Fort Benjamin Harrison, Ind.).

(g) Comparison of ASVAB test-retest results of

Male and Female Enlistees—USAF Human Re-

sources Laboratory (HRL), Brooks AFB, Texas.

(h) Characteristics of Women in the Air Force:

1970 through 1973—USAF (HRL).

(i) Utilization of Women in Industrial Career

Fields—USAF (HRL).

(j) Characteristics of Air Force Accessions:

Jan 1975 through Jun 1977—USAF (HRL).

(k) Air Force Female Pilots Program: Initial Per-

formance and Attitudes—USAF (HRL).

The above answers are true and correct to the best of

my knowledge.

/s/

R. DEAN TICE

Major General, U.S.A.

Deputy Assistant Secretary of

Defense (Manpower

Reserve Affairs and Logistics)

(Military Personnel Policy)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

Civil Action No. 71-1480

ROBERT L. GOLDBERG, ET AL. PLAINTIFFS,

CURTIS TARR, ET AL., DEFENDANTS.

DEFENDANTS’ RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFFS’

INTERROGATORIES (SET NO. 5)

I, Margaret C. Love, as attorney for defendants, re-

spond to plaintiffs’ Fifth Set of Interrogatories, as follows:

INTERROGATORY NO. 28: State all “legislative

facts”, if any, upon which defendants contend Congress

relied or found in support of the exclusion of females from

registration for conscription into the Armed Forces.

RESPONSE: The information necessary to respond to

this interrogatory may be found in the following public

documents:

(a) Military Selective Service Act of 1948 (62 Stat.

604);

(b) Senate Report No. 1268, 80th Cong., 2d Sess.

(1948);

(d) Senate Report No. 117, 82d Cong., 1st Sess.

(1951);

(e) House Report No. 271, 82d Cong., Ist Sess.

(1951);

(f) Conference Report*No. 535, 82d Cong., lst

Sess. (1951);

(g) Senate Report No. 209, 90th Cong., Ist Sess.

(1967);

(h) House Report No. 267, 90th Cong., Ist Sess.

(1967);

(i) Conference Report No. 346, 90th Cong., Ist

Sess. (1967);

(j) Senate Report No. 226, 96th Cong., Ist Sess.

(1979);

(k) Women’s Armed Services Integration Act of

1948 (62 Stat. 368);

(1) Senate Report No. 567, 80th Cong., 2d Sess.

(1948);

(m) House Report No. 1616, 80th Cong., 2d Sess.

(1948);

(n) Hearings Before The House Subcommittee on

Organization and Mobilization, 80th Cong., 2d Sess.

(1948).

INTERROGATORY NO. 29: Identify by name and last

known business and residence address and telephone

number all persons having knowledge of such “legislative

facts” or who have supplie’ defendants with information

concerning such legislative facts.

RESPONSE: The information requested by this inter-

rogatory is public information which may be found in the

documents described in defendants’ Response to Inter-

rogatory No. 28.

INTERROGATORY NO. 30: Identify all documents re-

flecting or referring to the consideration or finding by

“Congress of such legislative facts.

RESPONSE: See Response to Interrogatory No. 29.

I hereby swear under penalty or perjury that the

foregoing answers are true and correct to the best of my

knowledge.

Executed on: April 24, 1980

/s/

MARGARET C. LOVE

PRESIDENTIAL RECOMMENDATIONS

FOR

SELECTIVE SERVICE REFORM

A Raport to Congress

Prepared Pursuant te

P. 1. $6 - i07

February 11, 1980

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Executive Summary

Part I: Selective Service System Capabilities

Part II: Induction Authority Issues

Part III: Other Procedures to Improve the

Armed Forces

Part IV: Potential Impact of National Service

on the Armed Forces

Footnotes

Bibliography

Appendix

1. Section 811 of Public Law 96-107

RECOMMENDATIONS FOR

SELECTIVE SERVICE REFORM

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

On November 9, 1979, the Defense Authorization Act of

1980 (P.L. 96-107) became law. Section 811 of that Act

called for the President to send to the Congress a plan for

the fair and equitable reform of existing law providing for

the registration and induction of persons for military

service. The Congress asked for a review of ten issues that

have been grouped into the following broad topics:

— Revitalizing the Selective Service System

— Induction authority

— Meeting the Armed Forces’ personnel requirements

— National services

To review these issues, the Administration convened an

interagency task force that examined initiatives to main-

tain and improve our active and reserve Armed Forces,

and our capability to mobilize trained and untrained man-

power in the event of a national emergency. This report

presents the findings of the interagency task force.

REVITALIZING THE SELECTIVE SERVICE SYSTEM

The active and reserve forces were never intended to

fight without augmentation by draftees in the event of a

major national emergency. Since 1973, however, the

Selective Service System (SSS) has been reduced toa

planning and training organization of less than 100 full-

time personnel supported by reservists. The capability of

a standby SSS to process untrained manpower as part of a

potential mobilization has been a source of concern.

Therefore, a variety of steps are called for to enhance the

Selective Service System’s capability to mobilize man-

power.

In his State of the Union Address on January 23, 1980,

the President called for revitalizing the Selective Service

System. He announced his intention to resume registra-

tion in mid-1980 for all those born in 1960 and 1961. Those

who will turn 19 during 1981 will register in January, and

continuous registration of 18-year olds will also begin in

January.

’ To register, an individual will fill out a simple form

(name, address, sex, birthdate and social security number)

at a local post office. After the SSS recei-’2s the form, the

registrant will be sent an acknowledging receipt. No draft

cards will be issued. No classification or examination of

the registrant will be required.

The President would have to seek additional authority

from the Congress before anyone in the pool of registrants

could be inducted into the Armed Forces. He has no inten-

tion of doing so under present circumstances.

The decision to revitalize the Selective Service System

and to renew registration will substantially improve the

Selective Service’s ability to respond. While the system

will still be in “standby”, there will now be an actual regis-

tration, rather than a registration contingency plan. The

other components of the system will also be improved. The

steps to be taken include providing the computer capacity

to process data on the registrants; developing a process

for recruiting and training local draft board members in

the event of a mobilization; and planning a system for

processing claims and appeals.

Selective Service has provided for interim computer

processing adequate for registration and for any con-

tingency that may arise. Selective Service has also de-

veloped a long term plan for a joint computer center to be

shared with the Defense Department’s Military Enlist-

ment Processing Command. Registrant records within this

computer center would be accessible only to authorized

SSS employees. In the event of mobilization, the Emer-

gency Military Manpower Procurement System assures an

orderly process from registration through examination and

classification to induction and training.

To plan for the availability of trained local boards,

should mobilization ever be necessary, the SSS will work

with the Governors over the next 18 months to develop a

process for recruiting and training members of local

boards. The boards would thus be prepared to process

claims and appeals. This would insure the equity of the

process.

The local boards would have to be supported by area

offices, but creating and staffing. these at the time of

mobilization would be extremely difficult. Hence, the plan

provides that the SSS would use space in 434 military re-

cruiting service offices at mobilization. SSS would also use

computer terminals in the recruiting offices. Their staffs

would be pre-trained and ready to carry out the SSS

mobilization mission.

Carrying out these steps requires that the President’s

FY 1980 supplemental and 1981 amended budget requests

for the Selective Service System be enacted.

INDUCTION AUTHORITY

Congress asked that three questions be examined con-

cerning Presidential authority to induct people into the

Armed Forces: The desirability of legislation to provide

the President with induction authority in peacetime;

whether there should be an Individual Ready Reserve

(Ii. ) draft; and.whether registration and conscription

should extend to women.

With respect to the first question, the need for induction

authority has been, and should continue to be, a matter of

mutual agreement between Congress and the President.

In any mobilization, the Administration would im-

mediately submit legislation to amend the Military Selec-

tive Service Act to allow the President to begin inductions

from the existing list of registrants.

The second question relates to manning our forces. The

Individual Ready Reserve is a primary source at mobiliza-

tion of pretrained individuals to bring forces to wartime

strengths and to provide replacements for casualties.

The transition to an all-volunteer force brought longer

periods of active duty for individuals, and reduced the

period of reserve obligation and number of people serving

in the IRR.

The FY 1981 Ready Reserve program concentrates on

strengthening the Selected Reserve units so fewer Indi-

vidual Ready Reservists would be needed to fill out these

units in time of mobilization or war. Steps are also being

taken to strengthen the IRR to correct the current short-

falls.

The appropriate mobilization manpower levels could be

maintained through a voluntary system or through an IRR

draft. In a peacetime situation, an IRR draft is neither

necessary nor desirable and initiatives are underway to

build such forces to appropriate levels without it.

The third induction authority issue the Congress has

posed is whether women should be subject to registration

and induction under the Military Selective Service Act.

The President has decided to seek authority to register,

classify and examine women for service in the Armed

Forces. There are 150,000 women serving successfully in

the Armed Forces today, and by 1985 it is estimated that

there will be approximately 250,000 women in the Armed

Forces.

However, the number of women who could fill needed

job classifications in mobilization is dependent on military

policy and legislative restrictions.

Under current military policy, women are not assigned

to jobs involving close combat. The Secretary of Defense

has stated his intent to continue that policy.

There are now also legislative restrictions involving the

use of women in the Navy, Marines and Air Force. This

Administration has asked Congress to remove the restric-

tions in order to allow the DOD discretion in deciding the

best use of individuals in military service. The Adminis-

tration has stated that even absent legislative restrictions

we would continue a policy of not assigning women to close

combat positions.

A substantial number of support jobs must be reserved

for men so that they will be available if needed as close

combat replacements. These factors would limit the

number of women needed in the event of mobilization and

thus prevent men and women from being inducted in equal

numbers. Equity can be achieved by registering both men

and women and then providing that they serve in propor-

tion to the ability of the Armed Forces to use them effec-

tively. Conscriptions would be based upon actual military

personnel needs at the time.

MEETING THE ARMED FORCES’

PERSONNEL REQUIREMENTS

In a national emergency, strong, well-trained active and

reserve forces are essential.

The Administration has taken several steps with respect

to the active forces to insure that we maintain our

strength. Over the past three years, in spite of a difficult

recruiting market, enlistment of high quality volunteers

has remained high, first-term attrition has declined, and

retention rates at the first reenlistment point have in-

creased. In 1979, the services achieved a personnel level of

98.5 percent of authorized active duty strength. This is in

line with levels over the past five years. However, the

Department of Defense remains concerned about its ability

to continue recruiting enough people of high mental ability

and educational attainment. This is particularly true for

the Army because it fares worse than the DOD average

with respect to both of these rough measures of recruit

quality.

Sustaining the AVF is not only a matter of attracting

new recruits. It also depends on the Services’ ability to

retain personnel of high quality. Reenlistments must pro-

vide for a force of experienced career military personnel in

order to operate and maintain an increasingly complex

force. Service members who joined the AVF in the early

years are remaining beyond their initial obligation at a

satisfactory rate. First-term reenlistment rates have in-

creased substantially, from 24 percent in 1973 to 34 per-

cent in 1979. An even greater increase in first-term

retention—particularly in critical skill areas—is the key-

stone of our strategy to reduce the need for new recruits.

While retention of first-term personnel is encouraging,

retention of career personnel is a matter of concern, espe-

cially in the Navy. To aid in recruiting and retention, the

1981 budget includes an increase of $500 million for larger

enlistment and reenilstment bonuses, expanded bonus au-

thority, improvements in pay and benefits and increased

travel allowances.

As for the Ready Reserve, Selected Reserve strength

increased over 19,000 during 1979, for the first net gain in

total Selected Reserve strength since 1974. None of the

Reserve Components declined in strength. Most of the

overall strength increase was due to improved retention;

however, the Naval Reserve, Army Reserve and Army

National Guard experienced significant increases in new

recruits. Use of full-time recruiters and other actions

taken to improve both recruiting and retention are ex-

pected to produce further increases in Army Guard and

Reserve strength in 1980. Continued increases in unit

strengths are projected in 1981 and beyond. Emphasis is

being placed on better utilization of trained personnel and

on more intensive and effective unit training programs.

These include proposals to allow Guard and Reserve units

to participate in major training exercises dnd overseas tac-

tical deployments for training.

Finally, the Individual Ready Reserve strength of the

Army increased by 16 percent in 1979, and is expected to

continue to grow.

NATIONAL SERVICE

The Congress required that we examine and make rec-

ommendations with respect to:

“The desirability, in the interest of preserving disci-

pline and morale in the Armed Forces, of establishing

a national youth service program permitting volun-

teer work, for either public or private public service

agencies, as an alternative to military service.”

The four generic models examined in the report are:

— Voluntary broad-based national service

— Compulsory broad-based national service

— Voluntary targeted national service

— Compulsory lottery-based national service

We recommend against any national compulsory domes-

tic service at this time. We note that the volunteer force is

adequate to meet projected defense personnel needs; that

through programs operated by ACTION, Department of

Labor and other agencies, State and local governments

and the private sector, opportunities for voluntary service

are widely available; and that the federal government sup-

ports a substantial program of targeted employment and

training opportunities for disadvantaged youth. The Ad-

ministration has proposed a major expansion of these in its

new youth education and employment legislation.

The compulsory lottery-based national service alterna-

tive is the most promising of the four models examined in

the context of this report. It should be studied further in

contingency planning for any actual military conscription

in a national emergency, bearing in mind the serious prac-

tical and conceptual problems raised in this report.

PART I

REVITALIZATION OF THE

SELECTIVE SERVICE SYSTEM

INTRODUCTION

As part of the debate over the future of the selective

Service, the Congress, in the 1980 Defense Authorization

Act, asked the President to address a number of issues

pertaining to military manpower procurement policies and

the appropriate posture for a “standby” Selective Service.

This part of the report addresses five of the issues posed

by the Congress:

e The desirability and feasibility of resuming regis-

tration under the Military Selective Service Act;

e The desirability and feasibility of establishing a

method of automatically registering persons under

the Military Selective Service Act through a cen-

tralized automated system using school and other

existing records, together with a discussion of the

impact of such a registration on privacy rights and

on other constitutional issues;

@ Whether persons registered under such Act should

also be immediately classified and examined or

whether classification and examination .of regis-

trants should be subject to the discretion of the

President;

e Such changes in the organization and operation of

the Selective Service System as the President de-

termines are necessary to enable the Selective

Service System to meet the personnel requirements

of the Armed Forces during a mobilization in a more

efficient and expeditious manner than is presently

possible; and

e Such other changes in existing law relating to regis-

tration, classification, selection and induction as the

President considers appropriate.

On January 23, 1980, the President, while reiterating

support for the All-Volunteer Force (AVF), called for the

revitalization of the Selective Service System and said

that he would send legislative and budget proposals to the

Congress “so that we can begin registration and then meet

the future mobilization needs rapidly if they arise.” He

found: That the international situation demanded an im-

proved United States military posture; that part of this

posture was the credibility of the Selective Service to re-

spond in an emergency; and that an operating registration

system was necessary in this context. In making his deci-

sion, the President ruled out non-participatory registra-

tion and the classification and examination of registrants

at this time.

BACKGROUND

Since 1973, the Armed Forces of the United States have

operated under an AVF concept. The last draft calls were

issued in December 1972; statutory authority to induct ex-

pired in June 1973. On April 1, 1975, the President sus-

pended the requirement that those subject to the Military

Selective Service Act (MSSA) register with the Selective

Service System. Classification ended in FY 1976. Even

though inductions under the MSSA have been terminated,

the Selective Service System must be ready to provide the

untrained manpower that will be required to staff our

Armed Forces during a military emergency. The specific

requirement —numbers of people and delivery schedule—

are established by the Secretary of Defense. To meet this

requirement Selective Service must, at a minimum, be

able to start inductions within 30 days after mobilization

(M+30), induct 100,000 people by no later than M+60 and

accomplish 650,000 inductions within 180 days.

The ability of the Selective Service to meet this schedule

has been the subject of a number of critical reviews, in-

cluding a major President’s Reorganization Project Study.

Each study concluded, as did the then Acting Director of

Selective Service in a report to the Congress (March

1979), that, Selective Service does “not presently have the

capability to meet the Department of Defense wartime

manpower requirements from our ‘deep standby’ status.”

THE REVITALIZED SELECTIVE SERVICE SYSTEM

The President’s decision to revitalize the Selective

Service System and to initiate registration will substan-

tially improve Selective Service’s ability to respond to fu-

ture emergencies. The President’s decision requires that

Selective Service substitute an actual registration system

for a registration contingency plan and accelerate the

process of improving the other components of the Selec-

tive Service System.

The new standby Selective Service System has five key

components which together constitute the Emergency

Military Manpower Procurement System (EMMPS). The

components are:

can handle Selective Service’s pre- and post-

mobilization requirements.

orders for induction.

@ A claims process that can quickly insure that all

registrants’ rights to due process are protected.

eA field structure that can support the claims proc-

ess.

REGISTRATION

How: The United States Postal Service (USPS) has

agreed to undertake the task of face-to-face registration.

The USPS is ideally suited to undertake this task because

it has a single organization structure with facilities and

personnel, and a communication/transportation network

extending to every corner of the country. There are over

34,000 post offices and the USPS employs over 650,000

people. Postal locations are widely known. USPS has also

provided similar services for the Department of State

(passport applications) and for the United States Immigra-

tion and Naturalization Service (alien registration). In

1979 alone, the USPS processed over 1 million passport

applications, and registered over 4 million aliens.

When: The Administration is currently developing plans

and will determine in the near future exactly when regis-

tration will take place.

Who: The Congress, through the Military Selective

Service Act (MSSA) has provided that males between the

ages of 18 and 26 have a legal obligation to register with

the Selective Service at the time and place and in the

manner the President prescribes. There are approximately

16 million men who have this obligation. The President has

proposed that women also register; this would raise the

total to 32 million people.

When the draft was suspended in 1973, Selective Serv-

ice was operating under a series of legal and regulatory

reforms designed to correct the inequities of the draft

during the Vietnam period. Specifically, the 1971 reforms

eliminated student and occupational deferments, and insti-

tuted a national lottery. Regulatory reforms cancelled the

“oldest first” policy and replaced it with the policy of year

of vulnerability/youngest first, thus reducing the years of

uncertainty which characterized earlier drafts. Selective

Service will carry out these reforms, and will register only

sufficient year of birth groups to insure that it can meet

the needs of our Armed Forces.

Young men (and women when authorized by the Con-

gress) born in 1960 and 1961 will be asked to register with

Selective Service at a time the President will prescribe. In

January 1981, Selective Service will ask those born in 1962

to register and, at the same time it will also initiate con-

tinuous registration of 18 year olds, i.e., young men (and

women when authorized by the Congress) will register on,

or about the day they turn eighteen.

If it ever becomes necessary to draft anyone, Selective

Service will operate under the concept of random selection

based upon year and date of birth. The first year-of-birth

group from which inductees will be drawn is the one that

contains those who reach age 20 in a given calendar year.

Registering only those born in 1960 and 1961 will provide a

sufficiently large initial pool of people to meet the needs of

the Department of Defense. If it were to become neces-

sary to increase the size of the pool, Selective Service

would undertake a supplemental registration of those born

before 1960, who are subject to the MSSA. The size of the

pool will, however, increase over-time as 18 year olds

records of those previously registered.

Under the above plan, Selective Service will register

about 8 million males and females in the near future, and 4

million more by next January. It will register about 4 mil-

lion people per year thereafter.

ADP SUPPORT

In order to process the initial registration of two year of

birth groups, Selective Service will make use of the

keypunch capacity of the Social Security Administration

(SSA) and/or the Internal Revenue Service (IRS). Both

agencies have agreed to support Selective Service. The

SSA advises that they could do this job using some portion

of the 1,200 terminals at Wilkes Barre, Albuquerque and

Salinas. The IRS has over 4,000 data entry terminals lo-

cated in 10 regional centers, which are conveniently lo-

cated near USPS centers. During the tax return period of

January to June, the IRS has about 6,000 data entry per-

sonnel onboard. During the non-tax period of July to De-

cember, the staff is reduced to about 1,500 personnel.

The present Selective Service computer is inadequate to

do the total job of managing data files, running EMMPS,

and supporting area offices and the claims process. Cur-

rent hardware cannot be expanded to support these tasks.

In deciding how best to meet computer needs, Selective

Service must make sure that any new ADP system facili-

tates the entire registration-to-induction process. Respon-

sibility for this process is shared by Selective Service and

the DOD’s Military Enlisted Processing Command (MEP-

COM). Selective Service has the responsibility to:

e Register those subject to the MSSA.

@ Determine the order of those who will be called for

service.

e Order registrants to take physical and mental

examinations.

@ Issue orders for induction.

e Adjudicate claims for deferments, postponements,

and exemptions.

The Military Enlisted Processing Command, through its

67 Armed Forces Examining and Entrance Stations

(AFEES), has the responsibility to:

e Provide physical and mental examinations.

e Induct qualified registrants into the Armed Serv-

ices.

To provide short-term ADP capability, Selective Service

has developed a plan that will ensure (1) an immediate ca-

pability to maintain and process registration data and

issue orders of induction, if necessary in a national emer-

gency; and (2) within a year, provide for an improved

interface with MEPCOM. Selective Service wil! ‘m-

mediately establish the capability to manage the re vis-

trant data file, process change of address notices, an! be

ready to enter the registration data into the EMMPs in

the event of a military mobilization. This will be accom-

plished by using the facilities of a contractor. The De-

partment of Defense has agreed to provide interim com-

puter support for EMMPS. The compatability of the DOD

computer system with EMMPS was tested and demon-

strated in December 1979. DOD computer support will be

provided by the U.S. Army Management Systems Support

Agency (USAMSSA).

The USAMSSA computer and contractor support is only

temporary. Selective Service and MEPCOM have agreed

to develop a joint computer center by January 1981. A

joint center has many advantages. It will reinforce the link

between the two organizations, e.g., in the event of

mobilization the volume of data transmitted each day

would be substantial and a joint facility would minimize

delays and the need for an expensive telecommunications

network. It would put Selective Service on a computer

solely dedicated to the military manpower procurement

mission, and would help insure the coordination of man-

power flows into the AFEES. The computer center will

have sufficient data input capacity to handle Selective

Service requirements for continuous registration and data

file update (change of address). It will also have the ability

to support local boards upon mobilization through 434 area

offices which would be established. Computer terminals in

each area office will be linked to the central computer and

would be used to enter and update claims information.

The joint MEPCOM/SSS Computer Center will adhere

to DOD and SSS policy that procedures and safeguards

must be developed to insure that access to registrant data

files of the SSS is in accordance with existing law.

PROMULGATION OF ORDERS FOR INDUCTION.

In the event of a call for inductions, there will be a

single national draft call based upon random selection as

provided for in the Emergency Military Manpower Pro-

curement System (EMMPS). Actual induction orders will

be issued by the Director of Selective Service, by direction

of the President and under authority of Section 5(d) of the

MSSA. Using the Selective Service master registration

file, induction orders, in Random Sequence Number

(RSN) order (based on the lottery), will be transmitted as

Western Union Mailgrams. The Mailgrams will contain the

following information:

e Orders to report at a specific time to a designated

AFEES.

e Information on procedures to follow if unable to

comply with the induction order.

e Information on exemption and deferment rights.

e A simple claim for exemption or deferment form.

@ The address of the inductee’s local board/area office

to which claims should be sent.

The area office, upon recept of a claim, will notify Selec-

tive Service Headquarters and will process the claim ac-

cording to standard Selective Service procedures. MEP-

COM will also be notified of individua's ordered to AFEES

and will report their status to Selective Service Headquar-

ters.

CLAIMS PROCESSING AND THE SELECTIVE

SERVICE FIELD STRUCTUFE.

Under EMMPS, after receiving an order for induction a

registrant may apply for a deferment or exemption. It has

historically been, and will continue to be, the task of local

draft boards supported by Selective Service Area Offices

to adjudicate such claims. It is imperative that a claims

structure be in place when orders for inducation are is-

sued. Therefore plans and procedures are being developed

for the selection and training of local and appeal board

members. The FY 1980 Supplemental Budget contains

funds for Headquarter’s staff to initiate the process. The

actual selection and training of members is funded in the

FY 1981 Budget.

Selective Service also has streamlined its procedures to

reconstitute essential area offices in support of local

boards. The Secretary of Defense and the Director of

Selective Service have agreed that, “in order to facilitate

the operation of the Selective Service in support of the

manpower procurement needs of the Department of De-

fense, we must better coordinate our planning and post-

mobilization manpower system. In addition, it is appropri-

ate that DOD, like other Federal agencies, provide sup-

port to the Selective Service during a national emergency.

Such support from DOD might include but not be limited

to computer and data processing, selected personnel, and

facilities. However, DOD should not in any way be in-

volved in the process by which the Selective Service ad-

judicates claims for deferment or exemption.”

Selective Service has a cadre of 715 military reservists

to reactivate the administrative field structure upon

mobilization. Selective Service has entered into an agree-

ment with DOD to use specific Armed Forces Recruiting

Office facilities within 24 hours after mobilization. Re-

cruiting Service personnel will augment the Selective

Service reservists for about 45 days after mobilization.

These personnel will be identified by name, provided

training and will participate in training exercises and field

tests.

Also, Selective Service has restructured its reserve offi-

cer summer training to test its ability to mobilize State

Headquarters and reestablish area offices. Selective

Service reserve officers will visit the Armed Forces Re-

cruiting Offices scheduled to support Selective Service

during a mobilization. Equipment and personnel in these

offices will be inventoried and local contacts with GSA,

OPM, and the telephone company will be made. In addi-

tion, Selective Service will fully participate in the De-

partment of Defense mobilization exercise planned for this

fall.

CALENDAR OF EVENTS IN THE EVENT OF A

MILITARY MOBILIZATION.

The mission of the Selective Service is to be ready,

without notice, to provide the untrained personnel that

will be required to staff our Armed Forces during a mili-

tary emergency.

The President’s action to reinstate registration does not

change this mission. As previously noted, all that has hap-

pened is that the Selective Service will be substituting an

operating registration system for a registration con-

tingency plan. In the event of a national emergency and

the reinstitution of the draft, the Selective Service,

operating under EMMPS, will initiate the following proc-

ess:

Time Events

Pre-Mobilization Individuals subject to the MSSA

and in specific age groups register

with Selective Service at local post

offices.

M The President declares a national

emergency and asks Congress for

the authority to induct.

Time

M+1

M+2 to M+12

M+13

M+28

Events

Congress authorizes the President

to induct personnel into the Armed

Forces.

The Selective Service conducts a

lottery and establishes the “order-

of-call” based on Random Sequence

Number (RSN).

The Director of Selective Service

pursuant to regulations issued by

the President under Section 5(d) of

the Military Selective Service Act

(MSSA) issues orders for induction

in the proper RSN “order-of-call.”

Selective Service area offices open

under an established agreement

with the Department of Defense to

make available selected recruiting

command facilities and personnel.

Registrants receive orders for in-

duction and can:

—report to an AFEES for process-

ing, receive a physical and mental

examination, and if found fit, be in-

ducted.

—request an exemption or defer-

ment.

A registrant may request reclassifi-

cation by filing a claim with an area

office of the Selective Service.

First inductees report to their as-

signed military training bases.

The system, working at maximum

capacity, processes the 100,000th

inductee.

(Analysis shows that the AFEES

Time Events

could perform at least 14,000 physi-

cal and mental examinations based

on two shifts each day. The AFEES

plan to operate six days per week,

in the event of mobilization. Based

upon an historical 50 percent physi-

cal and mental examination accept-

ance rate, the system could induct

7,000 per day, six days per week.)

STANDBY SELECTIVE SERVICE SYSTEM

The 1980 Defense Authorization Act required the Presi-

dent to consider:

@ Non-participatory (computer-match) registration.

e Pre-mobilization registration.

e Pre-mobilization registration with classification.

@ Pre-mobilization registration with classification and

examination.

The previous discussion contained a detailed description

of plans to revitalize the standby Selective Service System

by initiating pre-mobilization registration and upgrading

other components of the system. The following describes

the other options:

Non-Participatory Registration. The Congressional

Budget Office (CBO) and the General Accounting Office

(GAO) proposed that Selective Service consider relying on

existing computer files to create a list of draft eligibles

instead of planning on a traditional face-to-face registra-

tion. This proposal was evaluated in terms of (1) Selective

Service’s ability to construct a list of sufficient size and

accuracy from which to induct the required personnel, and

(2) the impact of such procedures on the Privacy Act, on

other related statutes, on the MSSA, and on Constitu-

tional questions of equal protection and due process.

The Selective Service, in order to carry out the draft,

needs the name, address, and birth date of males subject

to the MSSA. (If females are subject to the MSSA, it

would also need to know the sex of the registrant.) At a

minimum, it needs valid data (e.g. correct addresses) on

sufficient numbers of people to insure that it can induct

the required number of people; a 5:1 order to induct/

induction ratio is anticipated and used for planning. A

master list must be available no later than M+20 to insure

that Selective Service can deliver the first inductees to

Defense by M+30.

The most comprehensive data base available is the mas-

ter Social Security Administration (SSA) file which con-

tains all the needed data except current address. Based

upon Selective Service’s survey of five Federal agencies

(Agriculture, HEW, Justice, Commerce, and Treasury);

and the Education, Motor Vehicle and Voter Registration

agencies in six states, it found the most comprehensive

source of “current” addresses is the Internal Revenue

Service (IRS).

The Congressional Budget Office, using Department of

Labor employment statistics, has estimated that 85 per-

cent of the 19-to-20 year old population work some time

during each year, and therefore file an Income Tax Re-

turn. The Bureau of the Census reports that the mobility

rate of the prime age group (18-26) ranged from 16 to 34

percent during the period 1975 to 1976. Selective Service’s

best estimate is that, unless a master list is updated reg-

ularly, approximately 25 percent of the addresses will be

invalid by the end of the year. A merged SSA/IRS list will

be most accurate immediately after April 15, and will be-

come progressively inaccurate until the following year’s

filing. Given Selective Service estimates of an 85 percent

IRS coverage and a 25 percent mobility rate, a master list

with “valid” addresses may capture as little as 60 percent

of the draft eligible population.

As noted, any registration system must be able to pro-

vide a list in about twenty days. CBO indicates that these _

agencies “already have a major tape exchange program in

effect, and they estimate it would take about three to five

days to merge the files . . .” However, in response to in-

quiries from Selective Service, Social Security indicated it

would take a month to deliver the data, and IRS indicated

two months to perform the match and create the merge

file. It appears that in order to insure a master file, SSA

and IRS data would have to be merged in the pre-

mobilization period.

While the construction of a master list from SSA and

IRS computer files is feasible, questions have been raised

on privacy and constitutional guarantees of equal protec-

tion and due process. All Federal agencies surveyed ad-

vised that not only would the Privacy Act of 1974 have to

be amended, but prohibitions on individual agencies would

also have to be changed. (IRS has specific prohibitions in

Title 26.) Moreover, IRS believes that, “to use the Inter-

nal Revenue Service system for the purpose suggested

would adversely affect our extremely important mission in

a number of ways. It may have a significant impact on

compliance in the area of withholdings and return filings

... if withholding records are used in the military induc-

tion process, draft protestors would be presented with an

irresistible temptation to become tax protestors.”

Non-participatory registration would require an

amendment to the MSSA, and such an amendment would

raises questions of due process and equal protection

guarantees of the Constitution.

Under present mobilization plans, not everyone eligible

to serve is likely to be called. A system in which induction

into military service would be confined to those who have

social security numbers, have filed an Income Tax Return,

and have not moved, does not appear to be an equitable

means for determining eligibility for military service This

is particularly true since there are other ways open to the

Congress—face-to-face registration—which guarantee the

process under the law.

It is often argued that face-to-face registration will not

provide more names and addresses than non-participatory

registration, and, therefore, the two systems are equiva-

lent. This does not appear to be correct. Selective Service

estimates that a face-to-face registration will provide a list

over 98 percent complete compared to as little as 60 per-

cent by means of computer merger. More importantly, as

long as everyone is given a fair opportunity to register,

100 percent of the population eligible for military service

under the MSSA will be legally accounted for, i.e., those

who do not register may be in violation of the law.

Non-participatory registration also may violate stand-

ards of equal protection because two people who are iden-

tical, except that one recently moved, would be treated

differently in terms of the probability they would have to

serve. The administration of such a scheme would thus

produce disparity of treatment of persons similar in all le-

gally recognized ways.

Pre-Mobilization Registration with Classification. If

pre-mobilization classification as well as registration was

in effect, the Selective Service would modify its Emer-

gency Military Manpower Procurement System (EMMPS)

procedures. SSS would establish 434 area offices to sup-

port the classification workload of local draft boards. At

the same time, 97 appeal boards would be established.

Registrants would be given continuous opportunity to ap-

peal or petition for change of classification.

Pre-mobilization classification of registrants would not

improve mobilization response times. First inductions

would still occur at M+12. One hundred thousand induc-

tions would be made by M+28 and 630,000 by M+119. The

benefit of classification before mobilization would not be in

response time, but in a more orderly induction process,

since orders would be issued only to those already clas-

sified. However, individuals who did not request reclas-

sification in the pre-mobilization period might still do so

during mobilization.

The additional costs incurred by reinstating pre-

mobilization classification would be determined in part by

the numbers classified.*

*The costs presented here are programmatic estimates and have not

been developed in sufficient detail to serve as budget estimates. The

costs would be in addition to those required to reinstate registration.

Two sub-options were considered: (1) classify only

enough registrants to insure the delivery of 100,000 qual-

ified inductees, and (2) classify an entire year of birth

group annually.

In order to provide 100,000 qualified inductees, Selec-

tive Service would classify approximately 500,000 regis-

trants. Additional staff would be needed to handle classifi-

cation questionnaires, make and maintain registrant files,

request additional documentation when required, decide

administrative reclassifications, support local boards, up-

date data bases, notify registrants of results, arrange for

personal appearances, and respond to queries.

If an entire year group (about 4 million men and women)

is classified each year, added costs would approximately

double, but with no increase in responsiveness.

Pre-Mobilization Classification and Examination.

Under this concept, registrants with specified classifica-

tions would be ordered to an AFEES for pre-induction

examination. Those found acceptable would be available

for induction after a check of physical status. Army regu-

lations provide that physical examinations are valid for

one year. If an individual is inducted within a year after

his examination, only a physical inspection is required. A

delay of more than a year would call for a new examina-

tion.

Responsiveness would be improved because MEPCOM

would be able to process pre-examined individuals more

quickly. Current estimates are that MEPCOM could ac-

cept up to 17,500 pre-examined individuals per day and

that about 16,000 of these (92 percent) would be found ac-

ceptable and inducted versus current processing estimates

of 7,000 pre-registered but unexamined inductees.

As with pre-mobilization classification, two sub-options

are: (1) examine sufficient numbers of classified regis-

trants to insure 100,000 qualified inductees and (2) exam-

ine an entire year of birth group annually. In either case,

induction orders would be issued on M+1, and inductions

would begin at M+12, initially at a rate of 16,000 per day.

If a portion of a year group is examined, 100,000 qualified

males could be inducted by M+16 and 650,000 individuals

could be inducted by M+108. If the entire year group is

examined in the pre-mobilization period, then the total

650,000 inductions could be made by M+56. Thus, both

sub-options exceed DOD’s stated requirements for induc-

tees.

If a decision is made to examine only enough people to

meet DOD’s 60-day requirement, Selective Service would

plan to order over 400,000 registrants for examination.

Additional Selective Service resources would be added to

process examination results, schedule transportation for

the registrants to take examinations, answer queries, and

schedule the additional workloads for local boards. One-

time costs would increase in either case since additional

area offices would need to be operational. The additional

Selective Service recurring costs would total $10 million if

part of a year group is examined and $50 million if an en-

tire year group is examined annually.

The costs of the examination would be borne by the De-

partment of the Army. The Office of the Army Deputy

Chief of Staff for Personnel provided an estimate of $75.00

per examination based on the expected use of contract

physicians. Re-examinations would cost about $10.00.

Using these projected costs, examining part of a year

group would cost about $30 million and examining an en-

tire year group would cost over $200 million.

CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Analysis of non-participatory registration suggests that

while as a procedure it is technically feasible, it is not

likely to be perceived as fair or equitable and would be

subject to serious Constitutional challenge. For these rea-

sons, the non-participatory registration concept has not

been adopted.

With the President’s decision to create a registrant data

base and revitalize the SSS, classification or examination

are not necessary at this time. The reduced delivery time

provided by the other options is unnecessary at this time

and does not warrant the significant additional costs. This

decision is always subject to review in light of the chang-

ing needs of the Armed Forces and the international situa-

tion.

|»

PART II

INDUCTION AUTHORITY ISSUES

INTRODUCTION

This set of issues concerns the authority of the Presi-

dent to register, classify, examine and induct persons into

the active Armed Forces and the Individual Ready Re-

serve. Specifically, the Congress has asked for a response

on:

e The desirability of the enactment of authority for

the President to induct persons registered under

the Military Selective Service Act for training and

service in the Armed Forces during any period with

respect to which the President determines that such

authority is required in the interest of the national

defense.

@ Whether women should be subject to registration

under the Military Selective Service Act and to in-

duction for training and service in the Armed

Forces under such Act.

e The desirability and feasibility of providing author-

ity for the President to induct persons into the In-

dividual Ready Reserve.

Those issues are reviewed and conclusions and recom-

mendations are presented in the following sections.

STANDBY PRESIDENTIAL INDUCTION AUTHORITY

Background

The draft was instituted during the Civil War and World

War I by Acts of Congress, and Congress authorized use

of the draft by the President beginning one year prior to

U.S. involvement in World War II. This authority con-

tinued through World War II. After World War II, Con-

gress allowed the draft law to expire for a brief period, but

reinstated conscription during the Berlin airlift of 1948.

For the following 25 years, the Congress delegated to the

President the authority to determine when to initiate in-

ductions. The 1948 law provided an induction authority for

a two-year period. The authority was extended for one

year in 1950. Beginning in 1951, the induction authority

was extended by Congress to the President for successive

four-year periods. However, in 1971, the Congress, at the

request of the Administration, extended the President’s

induction authority for only two years. The purpose of the

Administration’s request for only a two-year extension in

1971 was to allow time to phase into an All-Volunteer

force.

The last call for inductees was issued by the Selective

Service System in December 1972. On January 27, 1973,

the Secretary of Defense announced the implementation of

a “zero draft.” The Nixon Administration did not request

an extension of the President’s induction authority ir 1973.

Congress allowed the authority to expire on July 1 ‘973.

Other provisions of the Military Selective Service Act,

including Presidential authority to register and classify

young men, remained in effect.

Discussion and Conclusion

The following alternatives were reviewed:

e Provide authority for the President to induct per-

sons if the President determines that such induction

is required in the interest of national defense.

e Provide Presidential authority to begin induction

upon Presidential declaration of a national emer-

gency or Congressional declaration of national

emergency or war.

e Continue with current arrangement; i.e., where

Congress must enact the authority to induct.

The Military Selective Service Act presently authorizes

the President to reinstate registration and classification

but prohibits inductions without Congressional approval.

The Administration supports the requirement for Con-

gressional approval. In a nation where individual freedom

is cherished, the decision to institute conscription is a

serious matter and should be a shared responsibility of the

Congress and the President. The Administration would

request the authority to conscript if this step were deemed

necessary by the President.

However, sufficient time should exist after mobilization

is announced for Congress to authorize induction by

amending the current Military Selective Service Act (50

U.S.C. App. 451, et seq). The Administration does not

seek additional statutory authority to induct.

REGISTRATION AND INDUCTION OF WOMEN

Background

Current Statutory Authority. The statutory authority

for the draft expired in June 1973, ending a nearly con-

tinuous period of over 30 years of compulsory service for

men. The current Military Selective Service Act provides

standby authority to the President for the reinstitution of

registration and classification for service in the Armed

Services for young men between the ages of 18 and 26.

There is no provision for the registration and classification

of women. The President does not have authority to

reinstate inductions for men or to induct women.

Women in the Service. The influx of women into the

military during this decade has provided substantial evi-

dence that women are capable of high quality performance

in many military skills. The number of women in the mili-

tary service has increased from 39,000 in 1969 to over

150,000 in 1979. They represent about 8 percent of the

force and are projected to represent approximately 12 per-

cent by 1985.

Current Laws and Policy. The Secretary of Defense and

the Secretaries of the Military Departments set policy for

the assignment of women within statutory restrictions im-

posed by Congress. The Department of Defense has asked

that the statutory restrictions be removed. Repeal is

needed to provide the Service Secretaries with greater

flexibility in determining assignments. Current assign-

ment policies are described below:

Army. Within the Army, there are no statutory re-

strictions on the assignment of women. The Secretary

of the Army determines where women may serve and,

in conjunction with the Chief of Staff, develops

policies and programs to employ Army women effec-

tively. Current Army policy excludes women, both

officer and enlisted, from those specialties and units

which relate to close combat (infantry, armor, cannon

field artillery, combat engineer and low altitude air

defense units of battalion/squadron or smaller size).

Women are assigned to combat support and combat

service support units in divisions, including mainte-

nance battalions, signal battalions, brigade level

headquarters and certain artillery units.

Navy. For the Navy, Title 10 U.S.C. 6015, as

amended, prohibits the assignment of women to per-

manent duty on vessels and aircraft that are engaged

in combat missions. Female officers may be assigned

to positions within all unrestricted line career fields,

except submarine warfare and special warfare. These

two specialties remain closed to women because of

their close relationship to combat. Enlisted women in

the Navy have access to 86 of the 100 ratings. The

fourteen ratings excluded contain skills found primar-

ily on combatant ships.

Air Force. Female officers in the Air Force may

serve in all officer career fields but are excluded from

some specific positions due to the provision in 10

U.S.C. 8549 that restricts women from being as-

signed to air crew positions on combat aircraft en-

gaged in combat missions (primarily fighters, bomb-

ers, reconnaissance and tactical aircraft). Only four of

230 Air Force enlisted occupations are closed to

women. These exclusions are due to either the legisla-

tive restrictions in Title 10 U.S.C. 8549 or Air Force

policy.

Marine Corps. By policy the Marine Corps, like the

Army, does not assign women to units whose primary

mission is one of combat nor does it assign women to

those military occupations which are primarily as-

sociated with combat units. Marines in the Fleet Ma-

rine Force must be frequently rotated from land duty

to sea duty aboard combat vessels. Women are pre-

cluded by law from serving aboard these vessels.

Sufficient billets must be set aside ashore for men as-

signed to these positions to provide for an equitable

rotation policy. Therefore, no occupational field is al-

lowed to have more women assigned than can support

the established rotational policy of overseas tours for

men. Moreover, no unit of the Fleet Marine Force is

allowed to contain more than 10 percent women.

Discussion

The following alternatives were considered:

@ Women should be exempt from Selective Service

registration and induction into the Armed Forces.

@ Women should be subject to registration and induc-

tion. However, the rate of induction of women

should be based on the needs of the Armed Forces.

@ Women should be subject to registration and induc-

tion for training and service in the Armed Forces in

equal numbers with men.

Three arguments have been advanced for changing the

law to allow women to be drafted:

@ Women can perform well in skills and jobs needed

by the military.

@ The Armed Forces may need a female draft to meet

total wartime personnel requirements.

e It is inequitable to limit the burden of compulsory

service to males.

Job Performance by Women. Today over 8 percent of

military personnel are women. Women have won promo-

tions to the grade of Brigadier General, Rear Admiral,

Major General, and numerous other leadership positions.

Women are today performing well a wide variety of jobs in

each of the services. A large number of military jobs are

ones which women are also performing daily in civilian

life.

The Military Requirements for Drafting Women. If the

Military Selective Service Act is amended to provide for

the registration and classification of both men and women,

the pool of people available to be drafted would be dou-

bled.

It is doubtful that a female draft can be justified on the

argument that wartime personnel requirements cannot be

met without them. The pool of draft eligible men (ages 18

to 26) is sufficiently large to meet projected wartime re-

quirements. Furthermore, men, unlike women, can be as-

signed te any military position, including those combat

jobs.

However, women can be used in large numbers in the

peacetime and wartime force. Their presence could free

more men for close combat jobs. The maximum number of

women that can be used is subject to three constraints: (1)

legislative prohibitions against the use of women in certain

military positions, (2) the policy to reserve certain assign-

ments, such as close combat roles, for men only and (3) the

need to reserve a substantial number of noncombat posi-

tions for men in order to provide a pool of ready replace-

ments for close combat positions.

A change in the Selective Service Act to permit the

registration and induction of women would not necessarily

mean that significant numbers of women would be drafted.

If women were subject to the draft, the Department of

Defense wouid determine the maximum number of women

that could be used in the military forces subject to the

three constraints discussed above, and to the needs of the

Armed Forces to provide close combat fillers and replace-

ments quickly. If there were not enough women volun-

teers to bring total female strength up to that number, a

draft call for women would be issued.

The Issue of Equity. The argument has been advanced

that it would be inequitable to impose registration and in-

duction only on males. This is a persuasive argument.

Since women have proven that they can serve successfully

in the Armed Forces in peace they should be asked also to

serve in the Armed Forces during a national emergency or

war to the extent that they can make a contribution. It is

possible, however, that women would not be conscripted —

even for those positions to which they are assigned under

present policy—if volunteering provides as many women

as could be used.

The equity argument does not require that men and

women be inducted in equal numbers. The numbers for

each would have to reflect the jobs available for each to

fill.

Equity is achieved when both men and women are asked

to serve in porportion to the ability of the Armed Forces

to use them effectively.

Conclusion

In order to expand the potential personnel pool available

during a national emergency, women as well as men should

be subject by law to registration, induction and training

for service in the Armed Forces. Women should constitute

a part of the personnel inventory from which the Services

could draw to meet requirements as needed. The utiliza-

tion of women would be determined in accordance with the

needs and mission of each Service.

Recommendations

The Military Selective Service Act (50 U.S.C. App. 451,

et seq) should be amended to provide Presidential author-

ity to register, classify and examine women for service in

the Armed Forces. At such time as Congress authorizes

the conscription of men, authority should also be extended

to provide for the conscription of women.

INDUCTION INTO THE

INDIVIDUAL READY RESERVE (IRR)

Background

In assessing its need for mobilization manpower, the

Department of Defense has determined that the most de-

manding situation would be an outbreak of intense conflict

between the Warsaw Pact and NATO nations preceded by

very little warning time. Under this condition, there

would be an abrupt rise in personnel needed to bring units

up to wartime strength and to replace casualties.

To meet this “worst-case” wartime requirement, the

Department of Defense must rely not only on the active

forces and the Selected Reserve but also on personnel

trained before mobilization is declared. This pretrained

personnel pool must be sized to meet military manpower

requirements until a wartime draft can be activated and

inductees trained. If a period of rising tensions precedes

an outbreak of war, and if during that period a decision to

resume induction and increase the size of the active force

is made, a smaller pretrained manpower pool would be

needed. Planning for this less demanding circumstance is

subsumed under planning for the “worst case.”

The Individual Ready Reserve (IRR) is the primary but

not the sole pool of pretrained individuals. The IRR com-

prises the portion of the Ready Reserve strength consist-

ing of trained personnel not organized into units. Its pur-

pose is to provide in an emergency, trained individuals to

bring active and Selected Reserve units from their

peacetime to their wartime strength and to provide re-

placements for combat casualties in the first few months of

mobilization.

Individuals who have completed their tour of duty with

the active or Reserve Component forces but still have time

remaining on their six-year military service obligation are

transferred to the IRR and are subject to call in an emer-

gency. The IRR also contains volunteers, both officers and

enlisted personnel, who have extended beyond their

statutory obligation. However, its size is primarily a func-

tion of the number of people leaving active and selected

reserve service and the period of time remaining in their

obligation.

The IRR can be ordered to active duty upon a declara-

tion of national emergency by the President or the Con-

gress or upon a declaration of war by the Congress. It has

declined in strength from its average 890,000 in the 1960’s

and its peak of 1,600,000 in 1971 to a low of 354,000 in

early 1978. The decline was due primarily to a contraction

in the size of the active force, and therefore in the number

of obligated individuals leaving active duty. Secondarily, it

reflects longer average enlistments in the volunteer era.

In 1978 and the first three quarters of 1979, the IRR grew

by 12 percent to a September 30, 1979 level of 396,000.

The programs that have caused that increase and promise

further strength increases will be addressed later.

The IRR has been regarded by some as the only source

for supplementing active and reserve units with pre-

trained individuals. Clearly this is not so. There are other

important sources of pretrained individuals, including the

Standby Reserve and retired military personnel.

At current levels, the IRR and other sources of person-

nel are inadequate to meet the Army’s “worst case” needs

for pretrained personnel. If such a situation were to de-

velop, a shortage of 200,000 to 300,000 trained personnel

for the Army would likely develop in the first few months.

Peacetime induction directly into the IRR has been

suggested as a means of overcoming this shortfall. Such a

step would require new legislation and increased appro-

priations for pay and allowances for trainees, training base

operations, and the costs of processing people through the

draft mechanism.

Discussion

The following alternatives were considered:

e Provide the authority for the President in peace-

time to induct persons into the active forces for

training and then transfer them to the IRR after

completion of training.

IRR with voluntary programs.

These alternatives represent dramatically different

choices. The sections that follow present arguments for

and against an IRR draft as well as describing and

evaluating the volunteer alternative to the draft.

The IRR Draft

There are two major advantages to an IRR draft:

e It would eliminate the present Army shortfall in

pretrained manpower in about two and a half years

after implementation. *

e To the extent that some of the IRR ivnhiote would

want to join an active or reserve unit after training,

an IRR draft would help active force and Selected

Reserve recruiting.

The major disadvantages lie in the social and dollar costs

of an IRR draft and the relatively marginal value of IRR

draftees as compared with other trained soldiers.

e A recent Defense Department study estimated the

cost of an IRR draft to be in excess of $500 million

annually.

e IRR draftees would, by definition, suffer from lack

of unit experience. Their skills would severely

erode over their five and one-half year military ob-

ligation following training. (Present IRR members

typically are in this category for only one or two

years after having served in units.) Their short

term of active service (probably six months) would

be expected to influence adversely their acquisition

of skills, their retention of skills over the next five

and one-half years and their yield rates if mobilized.

Some of these adverse effects could be reduced if

the draft process included a requirement for addi-

* Assuming 100,000 draftees per year with 20,000 choosing the active

force or Selected Reserve in lieu of remaining in the IRR after train-

ing. (The Army training base can only accommodate about 80,000

people annually in addition to those programmed.) After two years, the

number drafted would likely be less. The exact number would depend

on the extent to which draftees opted to volunteer for the active force

or the Selected Reserve after training.

tional training two or three times during the five

and one-half year period of obligation. This would,

however, inerease the cost, hardship, and opposi-

tion to such a draft.

The Volunteer Alternative

The main alternative to the IRR draft is to enhance the

volunteer program for both the IRR and the Selected Re-

serve. Enlistment and reenlistment in either of these com-

ponents of the Ready Reserve will help resolve the Army’s

mobilization manpower shortfall because fewer IRR per-

sonnel would be needed at time of war to bring the

Selected Reserve up to wartime strength. Thus, a better

manned Selected Reserve reduces the need for IRR per-

sonnel.

The following sections of this paper present:

e The FY 1981 programs to increase IRR strength

and to manage that pool better.

e The major elements of the FY 1981 programs to im-

prove Selected Reserve strength.

e The measures being taken to make better use of

members of the standby reserve and retired per-

sonnel.

Increases in IRR Strength

The Department of Defense is currently enhancing its

volunteer program to increase the size of the IRR and to

manage it better. These initiatives are described below:

e All individuals leaving the Army from active duty

and the Selected Reserve prior to the end of their

enlistment are being screened to insure that only

those with no mobilization potential are discharged.

The remainder are transferred to the IRR. By this

technique, the Army estimates about 80,000 people

can be added to the IRR by 1985.

@ Each of the Services has an IRR reenlistment pro-

gram underway to encourage members reaching the

end of their six-year service obligation to reenlist in

the IRR. The need for a reenlistment bonus for the

Army is apparent. Consequently, legislation has

been prepared and will be submitted to authorize

the payment of a reenlistment bonus for the IRR.

The FY 1981 budget request includes funds for this

program. It is estimated that, the program would

increase the Army IRR by about 30,000.

Women enlistees now receive the same six-year

military service obligation as their male counter-

parts. This legislative change will begin to show re-

sults in 1981.

DOD no longer allows enlistees to count the time

spent after enlistment, but before they entered

service for initial training, toward fulfillment of the

six-year military service obligation. This will in-

crease the Army IRR by 14,000.

The legal provision that exempted enlistees 26

years of age or over from incurring the six-year

military service obligation was eliminated in 1979.

Currently, all enlistees incur a six-year obligation.

The Army will experience a 10,000 person increase

in the IRR by 1985 as a result of this change.

The active forces’ test of two-year active duty en-

listments and the Selected Reserve’s use of three

and four year enlistments will also increase the

strength of the IRR.

The shorter periods of time spent in the active

forces or the Selected Reserve means a longer

period in the IRR in order to fulfill the six-year ob-

ligation. The test for the Army for one year is ex-

pected to add about 1,000 members to the IRR, but

for FY 1981 only.

In 1979, the Army tested an IRR direct enlistment

program in which non-prior service persons were

allowed to enlist directly into the IRR and, after

successfully completing training, were given the op-

tion of transferring to the active Army, the

Selected Reserve or remaining in the IRR. About

30 percent went into the active Army and 15 per-

cent into the Selected Reserve. Based on these ini-

tial results, the IRR direct enlistment option is

being expanded to most of the country and provi-

sions for voluntary refresher training are being de-

veloped. This program is expected to provide addi-

tional accessions into the IRR and to serve also as

another source of accessions for the active force and

the Selected Reserve.

e As Army members leave the active forces and are

transferred to the IRR, they are being matched

with mobilization assignments and given orders

telling them where to report upon mobilization.

This will greatly speed the reporting of IRR mem-

bers when they are needed.

These programs are designed to make the IRR pool

more responsive to a mobilization call and to increase it in

size for DOD as a whole from 396,000 at end-F Y 1979 to

540,000 by end-F Y 1981 and 680,000 by end-F Y 1985. The

projected increases in Army IRR strength for the pro-

grams discussed are shown in the following table.

Projected Army IRR Strength Increases from FY 1979

(000*s)

Program End FY 1981 End FY 1985

Screen Discharges 30 80

IRR Peenlistment Bonus 15 30

MSO for Women 3 25

Elimination of Time in DEP - 14

Age 26 MSO Policy - 10

TOTAL “TS T53

The expected increase of 159,000 Army IRR members

will not be sufficient to eliminate the shortfall mentioned

earlier. Consequently, increases in the strength of the

Selected Reserve will be needed also to insure that war-

time manpower requirements can be met.

Selected Reserve Strength Increases

The programs to increase Selected Reserve strength are

in four major areas:

¢ Varied enlistment options are now being offered in

the Selected Reserve. New accessions may enlist

for four or five years in the Selected Reserve with

the balance of the six year obligation in the IRR.

These options are in addition to the standard six-

year enlistment.

e More flexibility to individuals in scheduling their

initial periods of training. In the past, all new ac-

cessions were required to serve a minimum of 12

consecutive weeks during which they received basic

military training and their specialty training. Split-

training is now offered which permits enlistees to

take basic military training and specialty training in

two separate sessions; e.g., two consecutive sum-

mers.

e Enlistment and reenlistment bonuses as well as

educational benefits are now being offered. These

incentive programs are designed to attract and re-

tain people in Selected Reserve units scheduled to

deploy in time of war. These programs have been in

effect since December 1978.

e A full-time Army Reserve recruiting force under

the control of the Army’s Recruiting Command is

now in operation. It features a centralized referral

system, an automated system for accession man-

agement and recognition of outstanding perform-

ance by individual recruiters. This management

program reversed the decline in Army Reserve

strength.

Besides further growth from these programs in the

years ahead, we are now planning substantial efforts to

reduce reserve attrition. Lower attrition will lead to in-

creased strength, even without more enlistments.

Together the increases in IRR and Selected Reserve

strength are expected to eliminate the Army’s shortfall of

pretrained manpower by the mid 1980’s.

Other Management Actions

In addition to the programs for increasing the strength

and better managing the IRR and Selected Reserve, we

are improving the responsiveness and utility of the retiree

and Standby Reserve pools of trained individuals:

e Members of the Standby Reserve are being

screened to determine their mobilization potential

and those with valuable skills are being asked to

transfer to the IRR. The frequency of contact with

the members is being increased in order to validate

home address, physical status and other important

data.

e All the Services have programs underway to iden-

tify positions that can be filled upon mobilization by

retired personnel. Efforts are also underway to

identify retirees and pre-assign them to specific

mobilization positions. Retired personnel represent

a valuable and experienced resource and could re-

place active duty personnel in the training and sup-

port establishments upon mobilization.

Conclusion

e The programs underway for increased manning in

the IRR and Selected Reserve should eliminate the

shortfall by 1985.

e A draft would not solve the IRR program much

sooner than the improvements contained in the cur-

rent program. Current Army training base expan-

sion capabilities would limit the amount of acces-

sions to about 80,000 people annually. Therefore, it

would take an IRR draft at least two and one-half

years to fill the shortfall.

PART III

OTHER PROCEDURES TO IMPROVE THE

ARMED FORCES

INTRODUCTION

The Congress asked the President to identify proce-

dures that could be established to enable the Armed

Forces to meet their personnel requirements. The follow-

ing sections review our progress in meeting personnel ob-

jectives and cite improvements that the Administration

has underway and under consideration.

BACKGROUND

The main personnel requirement of the Department of

Defense is to provide enough qualified people to maintain

military preparedness. Military preparedness depends on

three groups of people in differing states of readiness: the

Active Forces provide trained and equipped personnel or-

ganized into units and able to deploy immediately; the Re-

serve Components, which are organized in units and in

pools of obligated and trained personnel, provide the first

stage in the expansion of effective forces; the civilian

population represents unobligated and typically untrained

manpower resources available for the second stage of ex-

pansion of forces in the event of a severe threat to the

nation’s security.

In peacetime, the Active Forces and Reserve Compo-

nents depend entirely on volunteers. Their level of man-

ning is a consequence of recruiting success, attrition ex-

perience and reenlistment rates.

ACTIVE FORCE

Overview

A decade ago the President’s Commission on an All-

Volunteer Force set as the main objective of the AVF to

meet active force military manpower end strength re-

quirements without conscription. By that objective, the

AVF has been very successful. As shown on the following

table, since FY 1974 the active forces have remained

within 1.5 percent of the Congressionally authorized

strength levels. Insofar as strength levels have declined, it

is by choice, not because of recruiting problems.

ALL-VOLUWRTEER FORCE DATA: ACTIVE FORCES

Fiscal Year lst °

3 ss 18“ oo

joa “on

2,288 2,174 2,129 2,088 2,069 2,050 2,038 2,016

Actual 2,252 2,161 2,127 2,974 2,061 2,024 2,040 2,019

*% Achieved 6.4 99.5 99.9 99.3 99.6 98.7 100.1 100.1

Accessions

~Fotal (000) 485 430 458s 332338 65 84

& of Cbjective 96 97 102 98 98 93 90 6

NPS Accessions 455 af 395 419 338 2 316 @ 78

High School

Graduates (000) D1 23 277 269 240 223 a3 45

*% of NPS Accessicns 66 61 66 69 7 73 7 538

Reenlistment Rates (%)

rst x » 7 3s cri 77 x: rs)

Career 83 81 82 75 72 68 71 71

Total 47 52 57 4 55 53 55 56

First Term

Attrition (%) bf 2 37 3 Bc/ Wf Be/—

a7 Includes 206,000 Inductees for 1970 and 36,000 for 1973.

b/ Percent of those who enlisted for three or more years in fiscal year shown who left

will leave before completing three years of service.

c/ Projections based on data through PY 1979.

Recruitment

The above table also shows that FY 1979 was the most

difficult recruiting year under the AVF. The Services

achieved only 93 percent of their collective recruiting ob-

jective. For the first time under the AVF, all four Serv-

ices were short of objectives. Still, 338,000 young men and

women enlisted in the Armed Forces in 1979. That was

6,000 more than the previous year. (The Services achieved

98 percent of their goal in 1978 because the objective was

lower than in 1979.) In FY 1979, over 73 percent of new

accessions had high school diplomas—a percentage that is

higher than any year in history except for 1978. However,

the Department of Defense remains concerned about its

ability and educational attainment. The Army especially is

of concern, since it falls below the DOD average with re-

spect to both of these rough measures of recruit quality.

Although the recruiting results for the first quarter of

FY 1980 fell short of the overall DOD objective, they show

a significant improvement over the same period during FY

1979. During this period the Services recruited 96 percent

of their objectives as compared to 90 percent for the first

quarter of FY 1979. This is encouraging because the objec-

tive for the first quarter of FY 1980 (88,200) was 16,300

higher than for the first quarter of FY 1979 (71,900) be-

cause of the need to make up recruiting shortfalls carried

forward from FY 1979.

The demographic projections for the coming decade

raise concerns. During this period the pool of eligible 18

year old men and women will decline by about 20 percent

from the 1979 level of 4.2 million. No one can predict with

confidence how much these downward trends will affect

recruitment for the All-Volunteer Force.

Attrition

First-term attrition increased dramatically with the ad-

vent of volunteerism. The All-Volunteer Force Commis-

sion had projected a drop in attrition as conscripts passed

from the system. Instead, the Service policies were

liberalized. Discharge of poor performers was more com-

mon than it had been under the draft. To some extent, this

was a healthy change, but the losses are expensive in

terms of recruiting and training costs. Actions initiated in

1977 have begun to cut such losses, as shown on the table

above.

Reenlistment

First-term reenlistment rates have remained near 37

percent since 1975. The current rate is over 2.5 times the

FY 1970 rate. This larger than predicted retention of

trained personnel has significantly reduced the require-

ment for new accessions and is a major success of the

AVF, contributing to increased readiness.

On the other hand, reenlistment rates at the second and

later reenlistment points have dropped steadily from the

high of 83 percent in 1973 to 68 percent in FY 1978, well

below the 1970 rate. To some extent, this is attributable to

the higher first-term reenlistment rate. Many of those who

reenlisted to receive the Selective Reenlistment Bonus

and other incentives are faced with perceived pay cuts

when considering reenlistment decisions without bonuses

beyond ten years of service. While overall retention is en-

couraging, career reenlistment is of concern, especially in

the Navy.

SELECTED RESERVE

The Selected Reserve also provides an important part of

the All-Volunteer F orce. The following table shows recent

Selected Reserve trends.

ALL-VOLUNTEER FORCE DATA: SELECTED RESERVE

Fiscal Years

1973 1974 1975 1977 1978 1979

Average Strength (000)a/

Planned 917 904 914 835 809 798

Actual 927 912 905 813 796 808

Accessions

Total (000) 189 226 219 228 21 205

As % of Objective ~ - - 98 85 94

NPS Accessions (000) 7 46 69 73 70 78

Male High School Graduates - 19 27 3 22 26

Continuation Rates (%) b/

First Term - - 76 65 66 73

Career - - 81 81 81 81

Total 7 - 77 72 74 Te

af Congress authorizes the average strength of the Selected Reserve, in

contrast to the end-year.

b/ % of mumbers continuing fram one year to the next.

In FY 1978 the Reserve Components experienced a low

point in manning. This continued a decline from FY 1974.

The decline was reversed in FY 1979. The average

strength of the Selected Reserve is expected to continue

to increase from 808,000 in FY 1979 to 850,000 in FY 1981.

These increases are expected to result from a stable re-

cruiting force, incentives, and increased retention accom-

plished through better training. All other indicators in the

table showed an increase in FY 1979.

HELPING THE MILITARY MEET ITS PERSONNEL

REQUIREMENTS

The AVF is not without problems, but it is working, in

many respects better than anticipated ten years ago. The

problems are important, however. The key problems in

military recruiting seem to result from a decline in the

value of the enlistment package, an unfavorable image of

the military, and an improved economy. The Armed

Forces entered the All-Volunteer Force with a competi-

tive “enlistment package” that was successful. That pack-

age consisted of:

® career pay competitive with the private sector;

@ a strong educational incentive in the “‘GI Bill;” and

e highly valued in-service benefits for the serv-

iceperson and his/her family.

Over the past six years, the attractiveness of that pack-

age, particularly to high potential high school graduates,

has diminished. The basic pay for grade E-2 has declined

relative to pay in the private sector. Increases in career

military pay, along with increases in Federal civilian pay,

have lagged behind increases in pay in the private sector.

Further, the significant increases in the cost of living have

eroded the real income of all Americans. In addition, the

contributory Veterans Education Assistance Program

(VEAP) is not as attractive as the former GI Bill, and

some in-service benefits have been reduced.

There are improvements that would help the military

meet its personnel requirements:

e Make military service more attractive to the poten-

tial enlistee and to those in service by improving

pay and benefits.

> |

more women and by reducing the attrition of both

men and women already in service.

e Improve the capability to add trained people to the

force after mobilization by training draftees faster

and by increasing the size of the pool of trained

people.

The president’s Budget proposes actions in all of these

areas.

Improving pay and Benefits

The President’s FY 1981 budget proposes increases of

$133 million over the bonus levels paid in FY 1979, in-

cluding legislative requests for increases in the maximum

bonus payments permitted and an extension of bonuses

beyond the current ten years of service limit.

Also, there are a series of proposals pending before

Congress, or soon to be submitted, which we believe are

needed to make military pay and benefits more attractive.

Some of these proposals are discussed below:

e Legislation has been proposed to make the non-

disability retirement system more responsive to the

needs of members and military management re-

quirements. Under this initiative, existing in-

equities are corrected, uniformity is established

among the Services, new entitlements are provided

for members, and savings are realized, in the fu-

ture, that may be spent on other aspects of compen-

sation or elsewhere in the budget.

e Currently, a family separation allowance accrues

only to service members with dependents who are

in grade E-4 and above with more than four years

service. Legislation is pending to extend this bene-

fit to junior enlisted members.

e To ensure that pay levels are adequate to attract

and retain physicians, the Administration has pro-

posed a restructuring of existing special pays and a

new retention bonus for critical specialities.

e A legislative proposal to revise the method of com-

puting sea pay was enacted last year. A provision of

the bill required a transition period of several

years. The Administration has now proposed that

the new rates be paid immediately rather than at

the originally specified future date.

e A restructuring, both in form and amount, of the

reimbursement for moving expenses that now ex-

ceed out-of-pocket costs for military members. The

President’s budget adds $122 million in FY 1981 for

this purpose.

@¢ An Administration pay reform proposal that if

enacted would result in higher raises in FY 1981 for

military members than for general schedule Civil

Service employees.

e At present, unmarried senior enlisted personnel can

be required to live in barracks. Legislation will be

proposed to give these senior personnel the choice

between living in barracks or receiving a quarters

allowance.

@ The budget includes $102 million dollars to increase

the reimbursement to military members when they

are traveling on official business.

e Current law provides for forgiveness of some por-

tion of a student loan for persons serving on active

duty in combat. The House of Representatives has

passed and the Administration supports changes to

the Higher Education Act that would forgive a por-

tion of student loans for active or reserve enlisted

service.

Finally, the House Armed Services Committee has

asked the Department of Defense for a report on the

feasibility of a more generous educational incentives pro-

gram to attract potential recruits. However, the Depart-

ment’s report, is more comprehensive. It reviews all cur-

rent incentives, makes recommendations regarding mod-

ifications to existing programs, discusses possible new in-

centives that may be necessary, summarizes data on the

AVF through FY 1979 and presents Service comments.

This report will soon be submitted to the Congress.

Reducing the Need to Recruit Young Men

The Department of Defense has made plans to utilize

more effectively the personnel resources available. Two of

the more important aspects of these plans are:

Reducing the first-term attrition. The Services are re-

ducing the number of individuals who are lost to the mili-

tary during their first three years, prior to completing

their initial enlistment. By keeping volunteers longer,

fewer volunteers are needed. First-term attrition is now

28 percent, down from 37 percent in 1974. The Services

are more thoroughly screening those who enter the force,

and are increasing management attention to reducing at-

trition. Continued attention should keep first-term attri-

tion at, or perhaps somewhat below, current levels.

Increasing use of Women. All Services project con-

tinued large increases in female volunteers during the

next several years. Women represent the major, under-

utilized personnel resource for the military. Prior to 1973,

women provided less than 2 percent of the total Defense

enlisted strength. Under the All-Volunteer Force, the

percentage grew rapidly. It is about 8 percent now, and is

programmed to reach approximately 12 percent by 1985.

By 1985, one out of every six Air Force enlisted members

will be female. The role of women has also changed. While

women do not serve in infantry, armor, cannon artillery or

combat engineer units of battalion size or smaller in the

Army, they are serving in combat support units through-

out the service. About 95 percent of the skills in the armed

forces are open to women. Women are now being assigned

to some ships and aircraft crews, within the limits estab-

lished by 10 U.S.C. 6015 and 8549.

Improving the Capability to Add Trained People to the

Force After Mobilization

There are many programs and initiatives within the De-

partment of Defense to make trained people available

more quickly and in larger numbers following a decision to

mobilize. Many of these are aiscussed in the section of this

report on the feasibility of Presidential induction authority

for the Individual Ready Reserve (IRR). Three improve-

ments under consideration in the Department of Defense

for which Congressional authorization would be required

before implementation are described below:

Reenlistment Bonus for the IRR The 1981 Budget

proposes legislation that would authorize the payment

of a bonus for service in the Individual Ready Re-

serve (IRR). This would be offered to individuals who

have completed their statutory or contractual military

service obligation. This bonus would be directed to-

wards individuals who have military occupational

skills, such as infantry, armor, artillery and combat

medics, that are critically needed in the IRR. Recip-

ients would incur a three year service obligation for

the bonus, now anticipated to be $600. The program is

designed to increase the Army IRR by more than

30,000 members by 1985.

Selective Service Screening of Members of the

Standby Reserve. Legislation has been submitted to

delete the provisions in 10 U.S.C. 672 which provide

that members of the Standby Reserve must be

screened by the Selective Service System and de-

clared available for military duty before the Depart-

ment of Defense can recall them in a mobilization. The

Standby Reserve is the only category of military per-

sonnel that cannot be mobilized directly by the De-

partment of Defense. Members of the Standby Re-

serve, including physicians, may be needed quickly to

meet manpower requirements in the early days of a

mobilization and should be processed independently of

the Selective Service System. This change would also

relieve the Selective Service System of a responsibil-

ity that is peripheral to its primary job: to be pre-

pared to classify and deliver non-prior service per-

sonnel to the Department of Defense for examination

and induction.

Extension of the Military Service Obligation. One

way to increase the size of the Individual Ready Re-

serve (IRR) would be to make the current six-year

military service obligation longer. For example, indi-

viduals who serve in the active force for a period of

four years are currently transferred to the IRR for

the remaining two years of their statutory six-year

obligation. If the obligation were extended by a year,

they would spend a third year in the IRR.

A one-year extension would increase IRR strength

by about 85,000 for the Army, where the need is

greatest. This increase would not occur, however,

until six years after the law was changed.

A longer obligation would be a disincentive to en-

listment. It is not without precedent, however. Be-

tween 1951 and 1958, the nation had an eight-year

military service obligation. A proposal to lengthen the

obligation is being evaluated by the Department of

Defense.

CONCLUSION

The All-Volunteer Force has served the nation well

since its inception. There is every reason to believe it can

continue to do so in the future if the Congress provides the

enhancements to military pay and benefits proposed by

the Administration.

a = Ls

(fame

AMERICA’S

za VOLUNTEERS

A Report on the

ALL - YOLUNTEER

ARMED FORCES

‘ op |

DECEMBER 31, 1973

OFFICE OF THE ASSISTANT

SECRETARY OF DEFENSE

ae (MANPOWER, RESERVE AFFAIRS

~ AND LOGISTICS)

Increased Role of Women

Women are now serving in military skills previously

closed to them. Figure 3-8 shows the percentage of en-

listed positions by occupation which are filled by women.

Since the total force was 5.8% female, any percentage

above that level indicates higher than average concentra-

tion of women and percentages lower than 5.8% indicate

underrepresentation. The greatest density of women is in

traditional skills, the medical/dental and administration/

clerical occupations.

Figure 3-8

PERCENTAGE OF ENLISTED OCCUPATIONAL

POSITONS FILLED BY WOMEN

— (FY 1977)

18}

16+

14F- |

12+

10;

ot ea

al |

i |

0 m * ae ¢ ve os —" s

BOP OF SE EEO EE

os a Péd Soy ¢ oe

While Figure 3-8 considered positions filled by women

as a percentage of all the positions in each occupational

area, Figure 3-9 shows the distribution of enlisted men

and women by occupation. That is, Figure 3-8 shows what

percentage of all the enlisted women is in each occupation

as compared to the distribution for men. Of all enlisted

women on active duty at the end of FY 1977, 33% were in

administrative and clerical positions as compared to 13%

for men. Women also had a much higher percentage in

medical/dental (13%) when compared to men (4%). Women

have much lower percentages than men in electronic

equipment repair, crafts and, of course, combat skills.

Figure 3-9

OCCUPATIONAL DISTRIBUTION

OF ACTIVE DUTY ENLISTED PERSONNEL

(FY 1977 PERCENTAGE OF TOTAL)

ce ; 5

C_) tora

2r ES MALE 4

Taking Figures 3-8 and 3-9 together, one sees that 33%

of the women serve in administrative and clerical posi-

tions, but that they represent only 13% of the total posi-

tions in the occupation. While only 4% of men serve in ad-

ministrative and clerical positions, they fill 87% of those

positions. Even in the traditional occupations there is

room for growth in the numbers of women.

Current analysis indicates a potential to increase the

number of women in the military even further—in part

because more women want to enlist than are now ac-

cepted. But too rapid a rate of growth can result in an

imbalance of women in the junior ranks because it takes

years for recruits to be trained and promoted into posi-

tions as qualified supervisors. Moreover, DoD cannot be

certain how many women will be attracted to traditionally

non-female occupations, nor if they will reenlist in those

occupations in sufficient numbers to meet career force re-

quirements. For example, retention by DoD occupation

code for men and women is shown in Figure 3-10. Enlisted

women had much higher retention in traditional skills than

men, but much lower in non-traditional skills.

Figure 3-10

RETENTION OF MEN AND WOMEN BY DOD OCCUPATION CODE.

PERCENT OF THOSE ENTERING SKILL IN FY 1973 WHO WERE

STULL IM SKILL AT END FY 19876. DOD AVERAGE

_,,

ip g mace (—)

o y remace RSJ

‘ Z

« Y

g a

« ZY

PERCENT

MOY

MAAN

eLéc £0 Osea MED/OENT OTHER AOMIN/CK ELEC/IMECH CRAFTS SERV/EUFPLY

REPAIA weTtur rec REPAIA

While Figure 3-10 showed comparative retention of men

and women who enlisted in FY 1973 by occupation, Figure

3-11 compares the average retention of six cohort groups.

Women, on average, are retained as well as men. Taking

Figures 3-10 and 3-11 together, one concludes that women

are retained at higher rates than men in skills more tradi-

tionally identified with women and at lower rates in the

non-traditional skills such as electrical equipment repair,

Figure 3-11

PERCENT OF

FY 1971-1976 MALE AND FEMALE

ACCESSIONS ON ACTIVE DUTY

AS OF END FY 1977

sa MALE [_)

70 +- remace WY

S aL \

all \

ne \ \ NN \

733 0~=— 74 76

ACCESSION YEAR

FY 7

technical, mechanical repair and crafts, but that these

differences average out. One could argue that the Services

should concentrate on recruiting men and women into the

skills where they have the best retention prospects, but

such a policy would have some questionable equal oppor-

tunity implications. In recent years, the Services have

been striving to increase the numbers of women in non-

traditional occupations.

Comparative Promotion Experience

On average, men and women who enlist in the same year

have about the same promotion history, as shown in Fig-

ure 3-12. Men and women who enlisted in a given year, on

average, had achieved about the same grade level at the

end of FY 1977. However, the rapidly increasing percent-

ages of women in the force in recent years (see Figure 3-7)

mean that in absolute numbers there are many more junior

be I

women than senior women. This fact is often observed in

the field and has led to a number of concerned inquiries

about the promotion of enlisted women. Table 3-12 con-

firms that enlisted women are being promoted as well as

their male cohorts.

Figure 3-12

DOD AVERAGE PAY GRADE FOR

ENLISTED MEN AND WOMEN

BY YEAR OF SERVICE

(AS OF END FY 1977)

MEAN PAY GRADE

Tee ESS Se ee eet es ae Ger J

5 7 9 WwW 3 6b YF YH = W+

YEARS OF SERVICE

Women in Combat

As the number of women in the military increases,

women are beginning to enter, in greater numbers, job

fields that have been traditionally held only by men. Many

of these are in the combat environment. While women are

not assigned to positions requiring close combat on a reg-

ular basis, numerous jobs related to combat can be effi-

ciently and effectively filled by women. Army nurses, al-

though legally classified as noncombatant, have served in

the combat environment for more than a century. Women

have received combat decorations, such as the Bronze Star

and Purple Heart. Presently, there are no combat restric-

tions in law on the assignment of women in the Army. The

Secretary of the Army is authorized to determine where

Army women may serve. His policies and programs are

developeu, reviewed, and modified as national attitudes

and circumstances change. Recently, the Army has opened

all but the most hazardous and arduous positions to

women.

The current Army policy states: “Women are authorized

to serve :n any officer or enlisted specialty, except some

selected specialties, in any organizational level and in any

unit of the Army except infantry, armor, cannon field ar-

tillery, combat engineer, and low altitude air defense ar-

tillery units of battalion/squadron or smaller size.’”®

This means that women may be assigned to brigade

level headquarters, Hawk and Hercules Missile Air De-

fense Units, missile and field artillery elements such as

Lance units, signal battalions and wheel and track vehicle

maintenance battalions. They can fly the new Blackhawk

helicopter in nondirect combat roles and now some posi-

tions in the elite units such as the 82d and 101st Airborne

Divisions are open to women. Policy, however, restricts

them from serving in an attack or scout role.

An Army message of September 8, 1977, gave the fol-

lowing guidance to Army field commanders: “Women will

be trained to defend themselves individually as well as

participate in the unit defense of combat support and com-

bat service support units and should be employed by unit

commanders in the same manner as male soldiers . . . Unit

commanders are authorized to employ women to accom-

plish unit missions throughout the battlefield... . Women

are not excluded from performance of mission duty for-

ward of the brigade rear boundary “Soldiers will not be

excused from the performance of unit duties solely on the

basis of gender.”

®Deputy Chief of Staff for Personnel Memorandum for DAPE-

MPE-SS, 7 Dec 77.

7HQ DA message, DAPE-MPE-C5, Washington, D.C., R082058z,

8 Sept 77.

From these directives, it is clear that women soldiers

are an important and integral part of the Army. They will

be expected to pull their share of the workload in the com-

bat environment as do men in the same MOS, but will not

be assigned to certain of the most arduous combat units or

skills.

These changes in Army policy are not whims, but are

based on an extensive study. One such study is called

“Women Content in the Army (WITA)”. As part of WITA,

in 1976, the Army conducted major tests on the impact of

female participation in company size units. Units were

tested in three-day field exercises with from 0% to 35%

women. The results of those tests (called MAXWAC)

showed no degradation in unit performance as a result of

female content.* A second part of WITA was conducted in

1977. During the major NATO exercise, REFORGER-77

conducted in the fall of 1977, the effect of women in units

on sustained operations was tested. This test, called

REFWAC?, reconfirmed the MAXWAC results. Women

soldiers can and do perform well in combat support units

in the field as well as in garrison. There is no significant

difference in the performance of these kinds of units. Such

trends as did exist showed that, if anything, the inte-

grated units did better, especially when the number of

women were above the token level and the men and

women were well trained.

In the Navy, the issue of women is somewhat different

from the Army. Until this year, Section 6015 of Chapter

10 USC precludes women from serving on Navy ships,

stating, “ ... women may not be assigned to duty in air-

craft that are engaged in combat missions nor may they be

assigned to duty on vessels of the Navy other than hospi-

SWomen Content in Units Force Development Test (MAXWAC),

U.S. Army Research Institute for the Behavioral and Social Sciences,

October 1977.

®Women Content in the Army-Reforger 77, U.S. Army Research In-

stitute for the Behavioral and Social Sciences, 15 March 1978.

tal ships and transports.”!° Congress has passed language

modifying section 6015. Under the new amendment,

women will be allowed to serve full-time on hospital and

transport ships and other such vessels not expected to be

assigned combat missions. Also, they may serve up to six

months temporary duty on other Navy vessels.

As Secretary of the Navy testified, the Navy is begin-

ning to assign women to permanent duty on some ships.

Women on temporary duty assigned to combat ships do

not replace men. In case a vessel, with women on board, is

assigned to a combat mission, every effort would be made

to disembark the women but not in such a way as to

interfere with the accomplishment of the mission. In the

Navy, women still may not serve on vessels or aircraft en-

gaged in combat missions.

A similar legal restraint exists for the Air Force.

“Female members of the Air Force, except those desig-

nated under section 8067 of this title, or appointed with a

view to designation under that section, may not be as-

signed to duty in aircraft engaged in combat mission.”!!

This law does not pose any serious problems to the Air

Force in reaching their female recruiting objectives. The

Department of Defense has called for the repeai of both 10

USC 8549 and 6015. They are neither necessary nor ap-

propriate. Appendix H contains correspondence on this

matter.

Expanding the roles of women and the number of

women in the force broadens the recruiting base for

Armed Forces. As shown by recent experiences of the

Army, women are demonstrating that they are capable of

playing an even larger part in national defense. Repealing

the two laws mentioned above will be a significant step

forward in opening the military Services to those Ameri-

can women who want to serve and will reduce the effect of

10USC 6015, 10 August 1956, C.1041, 70A Stat 375 (See Appendix

H).

11USC 8549, 10 August 1956, C/1041, 70A Stat 528 (See Appendix

H).

the declining youth population on military recuiting under

an AVF.

Additional Management Flexibility

The initiatives already taken to date should more than

match the reduction in recruit supply occurring in the

1980s. Nevertheless, the future remains full of uncertain-

ties and additional flexibility is needed to cover unforeseen

situations. DoD has identified a number of other manage-

ment initatives that could assist in meeting AVF recruit-

ing targets. Some of the most promising are discussed in

the following sections.

SUBJECTIVE CRITICISMS IN PERSPECTIVE

LCDR John R. Thompson and CDR Richard W. Hunter

BACKGROUND

The body of this report has dealt primarily with issues

that could be quantified. However, in the discussion that

has taken place in recent years concerning the AVF, many

issues have been raised that are subjective in nature and

either are not readily subject to statistical comparisons or

require judgments beyond the data itself.

In a study prepared for Senator Sam Nunn in 1977, Wil-

liam R. King expressed concern about the AVF with re-

gard to a number of issues of this nature. In several arti-

cles, Charles C. Moskos and others have discussed facets

of the AVF that defy quantification. ?

The ABC Television Network presented a documentary

special on April 20, 1978, titled, “ABC NEWS CLOSEUP

... The American Army: A Shocking State of Readiness”

that raised numerous issues of the same type.

Representative Robin Beard (R. Tenn.) sponsored a study

by Jerry L. Reed that was, in part, critical of the volun-

teer Army and dealt almost exclusively in highly subjec-

tive opinions and perceptions.‘ During testimony before

the Manpower Subcommittee of the Senate Armed Serv-

ices Committee on June 20, 1978, a variety of witnesses

critized or defended the AVF.5 Again, much of the discus-

sion was concerned with aspects of the AVF that are not

easily described by statistical measures.

Congressman Les Aspin (D. Wisconsin) addressed the

House of Representatives on the subject of the AVF on

August 4, 1978. He presented a considerable amount of

quantified data on the subject; but, he too contributed to

the dialogue on the more subjective concerns.

ISSUES

The subjective issues generally fall into one of five

categories: the quality of the individuals entering the

force, the morale of the force, the readiness of the force,

patriotism in the armed forces, or the impact of the AVF

on society at large. Each category is discussed in more de-

tail in the following sections.

Quality of Volunteers

Perceived Problems

The quality of the individuals enlisting under the AVF

has been cited often as a shortcoming of the volunteer

Army. The critics assert that the volunteer Army is less

capable than its draft period predecessor. The data shows

changes in both directions, as discussed in Chapter 2. The

effect of the increase in mental category III-B personnel

and the decrease in category I to III-A accessions must be

balanced against greatly reduced number of category IV

people taken into the military under the AVF. The critics

of the AVF tend to concentrate on the reductions in upper

quality personnel, while the defendants of the AVF con-

centrate on the reductions in lowest quality personnel.?

The decline in the number of accessions with college ex-

perience has aiso been cited as evidence that the quality of

the volunteers is below that of the draft period acces-

sions.® Reading skills have been reported to be on the de-

cline even among high school graduates and the AVF is

implicitly blamed for this phenomenon.® Today’s volun-

teers were described by an Army junior officer in tes-

timony before Congress to be immature and to have diffi-

culty retaining basic knowledge and, in some instances, to

be unable to communicate in English.!° Some critics assert

that the increasing role of women, which they attribute to

the AVF, has weakened the force. (Many women do have

difficulty in performing some of the physical tasks re-

quired by some military specialties.)!! These alleged qual-

ity deficits have been said to be magnified by the increas-

ing complexity of modern weaponry.

Discussion of Quality Problems

These quality centered criticisms do not bear up under

close scrutiny. The most significant change in the mental

quality of recruits under the AVF has been the sharp de-

cline in mental category IV personnel (down 63% from

1964) as discussed in Chapter 2. These individuals have

historically accounted for a disproportionate share of dis-

ciplinary and training problems. The slight decrease in

category I and II personnel (down 8% since 1964) has had

much less impact. For the Army, the decline in mental

group IV is 54% and for mental groups I and II is 26%.

This 26% is of some concern. The Air Force has actually

had an increase in mental groups I and II, such that more

than half of their accessions are in these categories. While

mental group I and II individuals, who represent the top

35% of the nation’s youth, are needed in some specialties,

most specialties can be filled with average people and

many specialties can be filled very effectively with less

gifted persons. Representative Les Aspin (D. Wisconsin)

has even argued that the Services are taking too few low

mental category personnel.!? The same is true with re-

spect to the decline in college experienced accessions since

the Vietnam years. The military certainly can benefit from

these more educated people, but few enlisted military po-

sitions require college training. In many cases, a college

educated recruit would probably consider himself to be

overqualified for the tasks assigned. In time of war, the

percentage of college youth among accessions has histori-

cally increased as the military dipped further into the

manpower pool. While Chapter 2 showed that today’s en-

listed force contains more college educated personnel than

did the pre-Vietnam peacetime force and that the percent-

age is increasing under the AVF, the number of accessions

with college experience is lower than during the peacetime

draft.

The reading skill problem has been recognized by the

Department of Defense. Despite maintaining the percent-

age of recruits with a high school diploma, there has been

an increasing perception that many recruits are unable to

adequately understand training manuals and other written

material. The extent of the problem is difficult to quantify.

However, the Services are developing an adaptation of the

standard entrance examination which will specifically

measure reading and writing skills. This problem is not

unique to, nor caused by, the AVF. It is the result of

changing educational performance in society and probably

would be exacerbated by a return to conscription with the

associated increase of personnel in the lower mental

groups.

With respect to the ability of women to meet the physi-

cal demands of military service, even the highly critical

Beard Report found that the young male soldiers inter-

viewed tended to be complimentary of the job performance

of female soldiers and the Women Content in the Army

study found that units with women performed as well as

all male units.4* The Services are developing realistic

physical standards for the various military occupations to

ensure that people who do not meet the standards, male or

female, are not assigned to them. This is a much better

solution to the female strength issue than gender-wide

prohibitions on assignments.

Weapon systems have become steadily more complex,

but technology also has provided modular maintenance

techniques that tend to simplify the maintenance and re-

pair of the systems. Any disparity between the capabil-

ities of today’s recruit and the complexity of his weapons

should be solved by improvements in weapon designs that

more realistically assess operating and maintenance per-

sonnel capabilities and reflect greater concern for the

°%

human factor. As Representative Les Aspin pointed out, a

return to the lower quality standards under a draft would

only intensify these problems of over-complex systems:

“There are frequent reports from the field saying that

the recruits are too dumb to understand and handle

complicated weapons. If the recruits today can not

handle the weapons, the recruits in wartime will

never be able to. . . a wartime force must always dig

deeper into the category IV supply. The solution is

not to malign the recruits; it is to take the user into

account when the weapons are designed.”!4

While this study has shown that overall quality levels

are higher under the AVF than they would be under the

draft, the study group does agree that efforts are needed

to encourage more college bound youth to serve a tour in

the armed forces. But the cost of such incentives must be

balanced against other priorities competing for the same

resources. For example, the G.I. Bill educational program

was a very generous scholarship, but it would have cost

$1.5 billion per year—more than

Discussion of Readiness Problems

The concern that training reductions have adversely af-

fected readiness is not really an AVF issue. In any sys-

tem, draft or all-volunteer, DoD would strive for the most

economical way to effectively train its manpower. The

funding of training programs has been the subject of close

scrutiny by the Services, DoD, the Congressional Budget

Office, the Office of Management and Budget, and Con-

gressional Committees. The concensus of opinion has been

that a significant reduction could be made in the Services’

training programs with a greater share of the training

being assumed by the units. As a result, recent Service

budgets have reflected reductions in funding for training

programs. Unit commanders have assumed greater re-

sponsibility for training. There has been some dissatisfac-

tion expressed by the Services with this change. Such

criticism may be valid; however, because the new methods

in training are in the process of implementation and test-

ing, it would be premature to evaluate the impact of the

changes on unit readiness. DoD recognizes, however, that

these changes must be carefully monitored and evaluated.

If negative effects are noted, a return to some or all of the

previous training policies may be accomplished with no

change in the status of the AVF.

The number of junior enlisted personnel who are mar-

ried has increased in recent years, in large part because

with the 1972 pay readjustment they could afford it. This

has resulted in an increase in family related problems.

However, the married individual is reported to be more

responsible and less prone to creating disciplinary prob-

lems than the young unmarried enlistee. Commanders

generally state a preference for married personnel in spite

of the family oriented problems. *°

The need to provide child care for single parents and

families with both parents in the military is similar to the

everyday problems in society at large. The readiness re-

quirements for deployment on short notice for indefinite

and prolonged periods are unique to the military. While

the individuals involved know their mobilization and crisis

deployment responsibilities and are directed to make pro-

visions for the care of their dependents, the growing

number of members in these categories is a concern. The

problem is not primarily an AVF or a woman problem. For

example, there are many more single male parents than

female and the problem predates the AVF, but it is a

growing problem that needs attention.

The increasing number of women in the military has

other implications. There is concern about the effect of

women on the group dynamics essential for an effective

military organization. However, as stated by Binkin and

Bach:

“It is important to point out that an understanding

of the behavior and performance of men in groups,

particularly under combat or sea duty conditions, is

far from complete; an understanding of the behavior

of women under these conditions is very small; and

precious little is known about the effects of combining

men and women.”

Sociologists talk about a “male-bonding” theory that

men have a tendency to join together in male only organi-

zations, especially those that deal with aggression such as

politics, war and police work. For example, sociologist

Lionel Tiger argues, “not only will males and females re-

ject other females as potential leaders and defenders, but

that males will reject females as colleagues.”%? Admiral

Worth Bagley expressed that concern in testifying before

Congress in 1975.

“Since the inception of the Continental Navy, later

the U.S. Navy, traditional male domination of war-

fare and seafaring has continued. Only recently has

there been pressure for change. The naval profession

—specifically the business of going to sea—has been

advertised as, and accepted as, a closed club for men.

The present male-dominated, sea-going facet of

Navy life is one that is understood and accepted by

the country and the men in the Navy. Men join the

Navy for many different reasons; however, a certain

portion join and remain in the Navy because they

enjoy being in a job which has been historically as-

sociated with fellowship among men in a difficult and

dangerous endeavor. Changing the fabric of the Navy

Navy by integrating women into all combat roles

might well reduce the attractions of the Navy to this

segment of mankind as well as to some of those men

who might, in the future, join the Navy and make ita »

career,”’33

While this male-bonding theory seems to explain past

behavior, it is not supported by recent experience. In

1972-1973, 53 enlisted women (about 12% of the crew)

served abord the USS SANTUARY in all of the major de-

partments. The report of the experiment concluded,

“Women can perform every shipboard function with equal

ease, expertise, and dedication as men do... and may

serve on board the USS SANTUARY ... in per-

petuity.”%4

The MAXWAC study found no difference in the perfor-

mence of company level Army support units during 72-

hour field exercises with female contents ranging from 0%

to 35%. During the major month-long NATO REFORGER

Exercise in 1977, the Army studied both individual and

unit performance during sustained field operations and

found, “the presence of women soldiers . . . did not impair

the performance of support units ... (The tests) provide

strong evidence that EW (enlisted women) can adequately

perform their MOS-related duties in a REFORGER type

field exercise.”*5 These tests are about as close to actual

combat as it is possible to simulate in peacetime. Of

course, they are not combat, and the final test of any mili-

tary organization can only be made on the battlefield.

However, these tests, combined with the limited historical

experience of women in combat, gives assurance that our

forces with women are at least as effective as they would

be if there were no women. Considering the higher enlist-

ment standards required of women, the forces may be

more capable than they would be with men only.

The Army tests have served to clear the air and make it

possible to address, openly and directly, the concerns of

field commanders that units with large numbers of EW

may have reduced combat readiness . . .”°® Women have

been serving effectively alongside men in the military for

forty years, including three wars, and over thirty years

under the draft.

The nationwide experience of police and fire depart-

ments reinforces the military’s conclusions and tends to

refute the “male-bonding” theory.

Perceptions are important and there is evidence that

wives of military members oppose the increasing role of

women. Again, military experience indicates that the con-

cern conjured up in anticipation generates more adverse

reaction than is present after implementation. However,

the concerns of the families of military members must be

taken seriously and are an important part of many career

decisions.

Patriotism

Perceived Problems

Probably the most sweeping allegation with respect to

the AVF is the suggestion that today’s volunteer is less

dedicated than was his draftee counterpart simply because

he is better paid. This accusation comes in phrases such as

“redefinition of military service in terms of the economic

marketplace’”®’, or “. . . most recruits view military serv-

ice as just a job; the concept of duty, honor, and country as

a motivation for service has little meaning’”’*®, or a fear of a

developing “. .. classifieal employee-employer relation-

ship.”8® In the same vein, Senator Nunn is concerned that

“. . . life in the military is becoming a job, not a service.”*°

Bd 4 * * K

BACKGROUND STUDY

USE GF

WOMEN I THE RILITARY

OFFICE OF THE ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF DEFENSE

(MANPOWER, RESERVE AFFAIRS, AND LOGISTICS)

PAY 1977

SECOND EDITION - SEPTEMBER 1979.57

°.

Background Study

USE OF WOMEN IN THE MILITARY

Office of the Assistant Secretary of Defense

(Manpower, Reserve Affairs and Logistics)

Washington, D.C.

May 1977

PREFACE TO SECOND EDITION

The original background study on the use of women in

the military was conducted in response to a request from

Secretary of Defense Harold Brown during his first week

in office. It provided background data with which to

evaluate the Services’ growth plans and to form the new

administration’s policies on use of women in the military.

Since the study was published in May 1977, a number of

major policy decisions have been made to expand both the

number and role of women in the U.S. Armed Forces.

There has been considerable public interest in this topic

and three printings of the study have been exhausted. In

September 1978, a decision was made to produce a fourth

printing, but to update the study to reflect the

This text is long and has been trimmed here. Open the source document for the complete record.

This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.