Dominant Logistics
Solving the Personnel Problem
There are a variety of issues that combine to create a personnel problem for the collective U.S. military. Whether it is personnel leaving service early or incompetent personnel remaining in service for far too long, there are many issues that must be addressed within the military to improve its overall management of personnel. Many suggestions have been made but arguably the best ideas have been proposed by Carlton Meyer of G2mil.com. Many of the following suggestions are based upon his concepts while others come from various sources including my own personal views on the topic.
Rank Structures and Tenure
Some have proposed converting the U.S. military to a single tier rank structure but I don't believe this is a good idea. While I am well aware that many studies have been done on this supporting a single tier, my own experience has been that other options should be available and civilian activities support this view. In any given organization, you will typically find three classes of personnel: workers, line-level supervisors, and management personnel. The problem with military personnel structures is not that we have multiple tiers of rank but that we demand progression through multiple tiers or we force the individual from service.
Many people are perfectly content to be workers and there is nothing wrong with this. Maybe its the satisfaction of a job well done or simply the enjoyment of not having to deal with the stresses of supervisory work. Go into any successful civilian organization and you will see many people happily performing their jobs, and quite well at that, even though they have been in that same position for many years. Supervisory work is not for everyone and to force servicemembers into supervisor roles is foolish. Many don't want the work and others simply are not cut out for it. Some prefer to work their way up the ranks and take on that additional responsibility and this should be openly encouraged but not required. We'll discuss the officer situation in a moment.
In short, we should retain the multiple tier system with some critical changes. The initial rank structure I would suggest would look something like the following:
S1 - Entry-level trainee. This is for personnel currently working on their initial training to include basic training as well as advanced individual training. Until the servicemember takes their position with their first assigned unit, they should remain the rank of S1 regardless of experience or education level. Initial training will no longer be considered "time in service" as it is really time in training. Time in service begins when you reach your first assigned unit.
S2 - Private/Ensign. This rank is for those who have completed their initial training and are entering the force. Promotion to S2 is automatic as intial training is completed.
S3 - Private/Ensign First Class. Some will argue that this promotion should involve testing for competency but I would make this a mandatory promotion at two years in service, after initial training is completed and this will be the rank held through the completion of the servicemember's first four year term of enlistment.
Now then, the catch I haven't mentioned yet is that this section on lower enlisted ranks should apply to all servicemembers as I would require all officers to complete a single enlisted tour prior to going off to the service colleges. We need to know that these personnel are military material BEFORE we make the enormous investment of educating these personnel as officers. Moreover, these officers NEED the experience of having been in the positions they are to command.
Upon completion of the servicemembers first enlistment, the servicemember would be given the following options: to sign on as a Specialist for an eight year term without possibility of promotion but with regular pay increases based upon time in service, to attend leadership training and take a shot at the NCO track, or if test scores justify the choice, to attend college and enter the Officer track.
S4 - Specialist. A worker-level servicemember that will remain at the operational level for the duration of their enlistment, which is limited to a maximum of 12 years time in service. Those personnel who wash out of either the NCO or Officer tracks can revert to Specialist rank to complete a military career and receive some benefits upon completion. Also, specialty roles such as pilots can remain specialists with a payroll bonus appropriate to their role and training to eliminate the Warrant Officer track. With Congressional approval, it will be possible for some Specialists to be tenured to remain in service for a full 20 years or more under special circumstances.
N4 - Corporal. The first step in the NCO track assigned as the line-level manager for teams and sections. Is assistant to Lance Corporals.
O4 - Lieutenant. The new first step in the Officer track merges the First and Second Lieutenant positions since personnel will have already completed a four year enlistment and thus have practical experience. The Lieutenant is ready to command sections and platoons where an officer is deemed necessary while also serving as assistants to Captains.
Non-Commisioned Officer Track
N5 - Lance Corporal. Is the leader for a squad and must pass testing and a board to achieve this rank. In the Army, this replaces the rank of Sergeant but retains the current insignia to signify a fully trained and experienced NCO who is still a leader but is within his/her area of specialty.
N6 - Sergeant. A Platoon or departmental leader, equivalent to the current Army rank of Staff Sergeant, or E-6. Represents making the step up to being responsible for a wider range of roles and tasks.
N7 - Sergeant First Class. Same as the current Army rank of E-7, this is a Sergeant who has attained a mastery of a variety of roles and tasks within the service but has not yet reached the point of justifying a tenured rank.
N8 - Master Sergeant. The most senior of the NCO ranks and the rank at which tenure is achieved. Once this rank is achieved, the soldier is allowed to remain in service as long as physically able and may be assigned to various command positions with higher ranking titles but at the same pay grade. For example, existing First Sergeants, Sergeant Majors, and Command Sergeant Majors would all fall into the rank of N8 but would be allowed to move up or down in assignments for as long as they are able to meet the requirements of service. The title will change but the rank remains the same. For assignment purposes, Master Sergeants will be considered Officers and allowed to serve in many of the "ticket punch" slots currently filled by Lieutenants and Captains to allow these officers to remain in command positions for greater lengths of time.
Officer Track
O5 - Captain. The Captain has a full command of his/her respective branch but isn't quite ready to take the step up to a full command dealing with a wide spectrum of roles and responsibilities. The Captain will typically be in command of a major section or serving as an assistant to higher command positions in the role of executive officer.
O6 - Major. The Major has the experience and training to step up to the wider responsibilities inherent in a full command position. Roles will typically be company commander or a supporting role to the next higher command.
O7 - Colonel. Colonels will be commanding at the battalion level and serving in supporting roles to senior commanders.
O8 - General. Generals will be commanding Brigades and as their experience and knowledge grows, they will be assigned to higher positions while remaining in the rank of General. Because we are moving towards force structures of smaller size engaging in greater actions, we need officers of higher rank at lower command positions. This is also a tenured position.
Tenured Ranks
In this new rank structure, I am including what I refer to as Tenured Ranks. These are the only ranks that should require Congressional approval for promotion while all other promotions should be handled within the respective services. Tenured ranks represent the cream of the crop and are the personnel who will be allowed to remain in service as long as they are able to serve so that the service can benefit from their knowledge and experience. Just as it takes an act of Congress to achieve this rank, it will also take an act of Congress to take it away.
The importance of tenure is that personnel who have achieved this level are no longer subject to being summarily forced out of service for political or personal reasons. Short of gross violations of rules or laws, these personnel will be around a long time serving as trainers and mentors for the force in general. These personnel can also be called upon to fill various command and other special roles where they will be in a higher position of authority but will remain at the same pay grade. This allows for movement between positions with a minimum amount of difficulty.
A Real Benefits Package
Most people fail to grasp that the benefits package available to servicemembers today is little more than a joke. Unless one completes a full 20 years of service, or gets severely injured in the line of duty, the servicemember typically leaves service with little to show for his/her efforts. Even more ridiculous is that a servicemember who only serves for four years will typically leave with the same benefits as someone who served for 12 or more years. While I would never suggest ending the existing pension plans for the military "lifers" who hang around for 20 to 30 years, more appropriate options should be added to the mix to make service more worthwhile and beneficial to the average servicemember. It shouldn't take losing a limb to obtain real benefits from serving one's country. The civilian world doesn't require nearly the level of hardship and yet major benefits are typically available after as little as five years of service.
The first addition is to add a Separation Plan that would be similar in function to a 401k plan but would be tax exempt and would be fully available to the servicemember upon separation from service. This could be rolled directly into a 401k or the servicemember could use the money to defray the costs associated with separation or even use it as a down payment on a house. This would be a private plan and the servicemember should have a choice from a variety of plans for this investment. The servicemember would also be allowed to make additional tax-deductable contributions to the plan.
The second addition is for a Medical Savings Account. MSAs are a type of medical coverage that combine an account with money along with a catastrophic insurance plan to meet the holder's medical needs. Catastrophic medical plans are much cheaper than conventional medical plans and non-catastrophic needs are met by the money in the account. This plan would remain with the servicemember upon separation from service to provide ample medical care to bridge the transition gap. Using the MSA also allows for the military to close down expensive clinics at those locations where they are not cost effective and simply apply the costs to the assigned soldier's MSAs to provide medical care. This will also enable the long-term phase out of the VA medical system as veterans entitled to medical care after serving can simply retain the MSA and the government can put money into the account as needed. Unlike an HMO, an MSA can be used anywhere for medical services as it functions as cash to the care provider.
The third addition is to replace the existing "clothing allowance" with a credit card program. This card would hold a maximum balance of $2000 and the payments would be taken directly from the servicemembers pay. This can be used to cover emergency expenses as well as to meet personal needs such as clothing and equipment. Pay would be increased sufficiently to cover the payments for a maximum balance and any money not used for the payment would simply be included in the servicemembers paycheck up to $50.00 per month. This can replace the currently problematic government credit card program for travel as the soldier can place their travel expenses on their own card and have the account reimbursed directly by the military once they complete their supporting documents.
These three changes provide the servicemember with some very real and tangible benefits that will make military service more competitive with civilian benefit plans. Every servicemember who completes a single tour of duty can walk away from the service with substantial money from the Separation Plan, some medical coverage through the MSA, and a decent credit history through the credit card program. And those who serve longer will obtain more benefits, consistent with their length of service. For active duty servicemembers, this would involve a total "pay" increase of $250.00 per month in the form of $100.00 to their Separation Plan, $100.00 to their MSA, and $50.00 towards their credit card every month. This also leaves the separating soldier with ample funds to pay off their credit card and still have money left over at separation after serving as little as 20 months.
The 4/8 Rotation System
An interesting concept proposed by Carlton Meyer is to use a rotational readiness system based upon an 18 month cycle including a six month refit period and one year of readiness. The Navy and Marines already use a similar system and this type of concept should be employed force wide. The only exception I would make is that I would expand the concept into a four-year cycle.
The 18 month cycle allows for two cycles in the typical three year stationing of servicemembers. To accomodate for the wide variety of non-war activities the military engages in, I would add an additional year to the mix for a total of a four year cycle. The added year would be a one-year OOTW cycle engaging in peacekeeping, humanitarian missions, or supplementing homeland defense. Currently, most units are left out of these missions and the burden falls upon a very small segment of the force. The OOTW cycle may involve a unit relocating to Korea, Bosnia, or the Middle East for one year, or they may go down to Arizona and assist the Border Patrol. This allows for 25% of our active forces to be available for the OOTW mission burden, allowing the remaining majority of the force to focus exclusively on preparations for war. If fewer forces are needed for OOTW, these units can spend the year serving as trainers for units on the normal readiness cycle.
This also stretches out the typical assignment to a total of four years, which should be the standard term of enlistment anyway. By not counting initial training, this would ensure that every soldier would complete two readiness rotations and a full year of OOTW during their first tour of duty and every subsequent four year period. All initial commitments should be for this four year period while all subsequent reenlistments should be of either four or eight years, with an eight year re-up giving the servicemember a choice of duty stations where they will remain for the full eight years.
Why eight years? This is sufficient time for the servicemember to establish some roots. It is enough time, having already completed a four year term, to purchase a house or start a family or what have you. Many servicemembers will not be comfortable committing to an eight year enlistment and will stick with four years so we should be able to accomodate this within the personnel system. This gives potential recruits an effective 12 year career option where they would only have to change duty stations once, they could get a jumpstart on life with the means to start a family and buy a house in addition to leaving the service with about $40,000 in Separation and MSA benefits (savings plus interest) and an established credit history along with the standard education and other VA benefits. And these benefits increase steadily as the length of service increases.
Assignment Issues
In his excellent piece on reducing the quantities of Lieutenants in the Army, Meyer suggests that units should be commanded at the company level by a Major, have a Captain as an XO, while most platoons should be led by Lieutenants with the exception of the weapons platoon which would be led by a Master Sergeant. The only change I would make here is to move the Master Sergeant over to lead the headquarters platoon instead. The reasoning is that the typical HQ platoon features a wide variety of sections that are distinct from the role of the overall unit.
For example, consider the Signal company I used to be a member of (this would also apply to combat units as well). We had four platoons of signal soldiers while the HQ platoon included all maintenance personnel, all supply personnel, all adminstrative personnel, as well as unit level communications and NBC personnel. But as per SOP, the officer assigned to lead us was a 1st Lieutenant from the Signal Corps. No matter how hard she tried, she had no clue what our various sections were doing, and this would be no different in any other unit, whether it be combat arms, combat support, or even combat service support. Learning and understanding the functions of all of these sections is something that can only come with time, and hence the command of this platoon should come from someone with lots of time and experience under their respective belt. These sections make or break a commanding officer, moreso than even the overall function of the unit.
I've had commanders the rank of Captain with no clue what a 2406 report was (this was the report used to tell the Pentagon if the unit's systems were ready to go to war - commander's got relieved over botching this report from the maintenance sections). These are also the sections that maintain the unit's inventories and property books, where the company commander signs for literally millions of dollars of gear that they are personally responsible for. And the officers "in charge" of these critical roles more often than not haven't the slightest clue what they are doing, not of their own fault, but simply because they don't have the experience. Simply put, a servicemember cannot reach the rank of Master Sergeant without getting significant experience in these areas.
With a Master Sergeant leading this platoon, the overall unit will be able to function more effectively as the support elements can be tailored by the N8 to meet the needs of the unit. The commander can also sleep better at night knowing that these critical roles are being managed by a person with the experience to handle the job and the tenure to keep things in line because the N8 doesn't have to make things look good, he just needs to ensure they ARE good. There will be no fudging of the books to get a good OER, to kiss the CO's butt, or to hide problems as the N8 has no reason to do so - that's the beauty of tenure.
Similar results can be expected in many of the other critical slots that are currently part of the officer "ticket punch" parade like the battalion support shops. The fact that we will be requiring officers to complete a four year enlisted term prior to schooling will mean that many of the officers that currently get commissioned but leave early won't even get commissioned. They will discover that the military isn't for them and not bother with schooling. This will mean a reduction in the lower officer ranks while tenuring will mean an expansion of the most senior NCO ranks. These lower level "ticket punch" slots can then be occupied by tenured Master Sergeants allowing the officers to do what they signed up to do - lead the troops.