# Appendix — Rostker v. Goldberg > Briefs, arguments, decisions, and more. URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/brief%3Amicro_IA40385007_0272%3A02 ## Record - **Collection:** Supreme Court brief - **Document type:** Appendix - **Published:** January 1, 1981 - **Citation:** 453 U.S. 57 ## 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 7% In the Suprene Court of the United States OCTOBER TERM, 1980 No. 80-251 BERNARD ROSTKER, DIRECTOR OF SELECTIVE SERVICE, APPELLANT ~~ v. 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 > IT 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 99 182 185 188 206 209 213 244 246 251 252 259 266 275 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. 1 7% Date 10 11 12 1972 13 14 15 16 17 18 Sep. Nov. Nov. Nov. Dec. Apr. 16 30 Df . iF . 18 May 1 2 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 19 20 21 1973 May 1 May 1 May 2 May 5 May 17 May 24 Mar 27 Jun 5 Jun 5 Nov 9 3 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. 29 30 31 32 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 we Date 35 36 37 39 1975 May 2 July 1 July 25 July 31 July 31 Aug 6 Sept 6 Dec 3 Dec 4 Jan 2 Apr 22 May 19 5 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, J 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 44 45 46 47 (45) (48) 49 May 28 May 29 May 29 June 13 June 25 Jul 8 Jul 22 Jul 22 Jul 22 6 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 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 10:30 A.M. on 7/31/75 in Courtroom No. 3, filed 7/23/75 entered and copies mailed JG Date 51 52 55 Jul 22 Jul 31 Aug 6 Oct 7 Oct 24 Oct 31 Dec 23 JAN 7 MAR. 9 Apr. 30 7 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 8 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 73 74 75 76 77 78 77 81 82 Jun 18 Jun 30 July 12 July 16 July 21 July 27 July 27 Aug 25 Sep 7 Sep 7 Sep 14 Sep 15 9 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 7s Date 84 85 91 1979 92 Sep 15 Sep 17 Jan 19 Mar 21 Apr 14 Apr 20 Jun 7 July 6 Nov 10 Jun 6 10 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 °’% 97 (98) 100 1980 101 102 Sept 21 Oct 30 Dec. 21 Jan 16 Feb 19 11 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 7 Mar 19 Mar 20 12 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 Apr 29 Apr 29 May 5 May 8 13 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 May 20 May 20 May 20 14 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 10 Jun 10 Jun 10 Jun 16 Jun 16 Jun 16 15 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 24 Jun 24 Jun 24 Jun 24 Jun 25 Jun 26 Jun 26 Jun 30 Jun 30 Jun 30° 16 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 2 Jul 2 JUL 2 JUL 2 Jul 14 17 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 15 July 17 July 18 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 18 July 18 July 18 July 22 July 24 July 29 Aug 4 19 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 4 Aug 4 Aug 4 Aug 6 Aug 7 Sept 4 Oct 7 Oct 9 20 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. 21 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; (c) Performance of women as military personnel of 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; 22 (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- 23 ant Secretary of Defense (Manpower, Reserve Af- fairs, and Logistics). (Attachment 2); (c) Statement by Robert B. Pirie, Assistant Secre- 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. 24 ' 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 (c) The person or persons for whom the project or study was or is being done. rs 25 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). (c) Intentions of Women (18-25 years old) to Join 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). 26 (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) 7% 27 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA Civil Action No. 71-1480 ROBERT L. GOLDBERG, ET AL. PLAINTIFFS, v. 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); (c) House Report No. 1881, 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); 28 (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 30 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 62 31 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 32 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 33 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. 34 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 35 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. 36 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 37 — 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. 38 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 39 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.” 40 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: © A registration process that is reliable and efficient. © An Automated Data Processing (ADP) System that can handle Selective Service’s pre- and post- mobilization requirements. © A system for the promulgation and distribution of 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. 41 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- 42 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 register each year and Selective Service keeps current the 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. 7% 43 © Classify individuals. 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 44 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: © Identification of the inductee. 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- 45 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- 46 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 47 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. or —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 49 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- 50 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 vy 51 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. 52 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 re 53 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 54 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. |» 55 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 56 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 57 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 58 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- 59 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. 60 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 61 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 7% 62 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 7% 63 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. © Do not induct persons into the IRR but rebuild the 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. 65 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 66 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 67 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. 68 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. 69 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. 70 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 71 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 72 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. 73 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 74 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: © substantial increases in pay; ® 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. > | 75 © Reduce the need to recruit young men by recruiting 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. U [Text truncated at 120,000 characters. The full text is on the page linked above.] --- Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/brief%3Amicro_IA40385007_0272%3A02. Public record. Not legal advice.