Tom Philpott
has been breaking news for and about military
people since 1977. After service in the Coast
Guard, and 17 years as a reporter and senior
editor with Army Times Publishing Company,
Tom launched "Military Update,"
his syndicated weekly news column, in 1994.
"Military Update" features timely
news and analysis on issues affecting active
duty members, reservists, retirees and their
families. Tom also edits a reader reaction
column, "Military Forum." The online
"home" for both features is Military.com.
Tom’s freelance articles have appeared in
numerous magazines including The New Yorker,
Reader's Digest and Washingtonian.
His critically-acclaimed book, Glory Denied,
on the extraordinary ordeal and heroism of
Col. Floyd "Jim" Thompson, the longest-held
prisoner of war in American history, is available
in hardcover and paperback.
The Defense Department has asked Congress for authority to test new
promotion, pay and retirement policies on four small communities of
officers, the results of which could lead to a "revolution'' in officer
career management,
said David S. C. Chu, the Pentagon's top manpower official.
The officer management experiments would involve all Army foreign
area officers, about 1000 total; several hundred Navy acquisition
professionals; and a few thousand Navy "restricted line'' engineering
duty officers, both those involved with ships or submarines and those
in aviation.
Chu, under secretary of defense for personnel and readiness, told
a Senate subcommittee that the authorities sought could prove powerful
for finding better ways to recruit, develop and promote officers.
"It will not change things next year, except for those few officers,''
Chu said. "But it will, I will argue, have a dramatic, profound effect
on what we will all learn together five [or] 10 years from now --
and I think, will produce the next revolution in officer personnel
management.''
Chu compared the proposed officer experiments to demonstration programs
for managing Navy civilian employees at China Lake laboratories in
California, which began in 1980. Those evolved over many years into
the new National Security Personnel System, which Congress enacted
in 2003 and which will be phased in for all DoD civilians, starting
with 60,000 in July.
The officer initiatives could be included as part of the 2006 defense
authorization bill. But first the armed services committees have to
accept the notion of waiving all current laws and regulations governing
officer personnel management, even if only for several thousand officers.
Bill Carr, acting deputy under secretary of defense for military personnel
policy, conceded the committees "aren't in love with any of this.''
But unless Congress trusts the department to experiment with new management
techniques, Carr said, their effectiveness can't be proven, and efforts
to transform the officer corps to be more cost effective and professionally
satisfying can't proceed.
"It is, in essence, an opportunity for us to be more agile, to be
more responsive to officers, for them to have greater options, but
above all for us to find out what works so we can put it in law and
proliferate it,'' Carr said.
The most powerful advocate for change is Defense Secretary Donald
Rumsfeld, a critic of the "up-or-out'' officer promotion system. The
military adopted in 1947 and hates to give up. Up-or-out was designed
to keep the officer corps young and vigorous, and allow only the most
qualified to reach the upper ranks. It replaced a strict seniority
system that had left much deadwood in the senior ranks of the U.S.
military as World War II began.
Under up-or-out, officers stand for promotion at set points in their
careers and the percentage promotion opportunity is well known. If
passed over twice for the next higher rank, officers are discharged
or retired.
Rumsfeld says up-or-out is too rigid and wasteful, as it forces out
many expensively-trained and still capable officers. His staff commissioned
the think tank, RAND, to develop alternatives to up-or-out. The RAND
report, "New Paths to Success: Determining Career Alternative for
Field-Grade Officer,'' serves as a blueprint for demonstrations DoD
wants to run.
One key feature of the Army foreign area officer test will be ending
up-or-out so that FAOs who are twice passed over can remain in service
as long as their skills are in demand, Carr said. Up-or-out is especially
inefficient for FAOs who don't begin their specialty training until
they are captains and become FAO as new majors, after immersion in
the language and culture of a foreign country. They serve typically
serve as military attaches, military-political officers, on intelligence
staffs or as security assistance officers.
Though enormously effective in their niche, Carr said, FAOs see promotion
opportunity pinched by rigid grade structure requirements. Few gain
the rank of colonel and many, because of up-or-out, must retire while
their skills are still in great demand. DoD wants these officers to
serve careers of up to 40 years if a major Army command, Army headquarters
or DoD is willing to offer them a "commitment of employment.''
Compensation incentives would be changed too, though details aren't
available. RAND suggested that FAOs see retirement benefits continue
to grow, by 2.5 percent for each year served even beyond 30. Also,
if it's impractical to add time-in-grade raises to the military pay
table for longer serving FAOs, the Army should consider making contributions
to their Thrift Savings Plans at interval to recognize gains in experience.
A worry for the armed services committees, said a staff member, is
that Defense officials haven't shared many details on innovations
they want to try out on select officer communities. He said he suspects
Rumsfeld and company have many business-based ideas they want to test
in the military.
"They believe they can craft some things that would make people up
here cringe even to contemplate, but that they can go and test for
a year and prove it's attractive to people,'' he said. "Whether it's
good for people is another issue.''
Carr suggested many specifics just aren't known. Indeed, Navy personnel
officials weren't ready to discuss how their restricted line engineering
duty officers or their acquisition specialists might be impacted.
"There are all sorts of things [Congress] can do to limit us from
going crazy on this thing,'' Carr said. With or without added safeguards,
he said, DoD is not "going to pull a shocker on the officer corps.
We can't stay in business that way…and have the kind of cohesion we're
looking for.''
To comment, write Military Update, P.O. Box 231111, Centreville,
VA, 20120-1111, or e-mail milupdate@aol.com.
