b. Permit military technicians to remain as "status quo" technicians if retirement eligibility will be attained by age This option would require changes in legislation. 60. c. Assign the military technician to the IRR in the USAR Control Group Reinforcement or USAR Control Group Annual Training. Legislative changes would be required to implement this option. 6. Recommend that Department of the Army pursue legislative changes to allow assignment of military technicians to the IRR as indicated above. The military technician would be retained as a mobilization asset until civil service retirement; could perform AT with the unit he is serving as a technician; and could drill for retirement points only and maintain his military proficiency. FOR THE COMMANDER: FCJ1-RAD 19 OCT 1990 MEMORANDUM FOR Chief. Army Reserve, ATTN: DAAR-PE, Washington, SUBJECT: Statutory and Regulatory Issues Governing Military 1. Reference your letter dated 26 July 1990, subject: Publication of AR 140-315. 2. This office has begun to receive inquiries regarding the technician survey which was to have been completed by the end of October. Request a copy of the survey document and/or current status be provided as soon as possible since we understand that the completion of this action is a prerequisite to seeking appropriate legislative relief from the continuing provisions of PL 98-212 as it applies to "dual status." 3. In the interim, it appears that an immediate need exists to provide military technicians with appropriate relief from those statutory provisions which essentially prevent them from accepting a military reserve retirement without sacrificing their civilian job. An appropriate exception policy which would allow us to retain technicians whose normal military career progression jeopardizes their civilian jobs is absolutely essential and appears to have the support of all concerned. Until PL 98-212 can be modified, recommend that an interim change be pursued which would allow otherwise qualified technicians caught up by this provision to retire and still retain their technician position. 4. Finally, we also recommend that appropriate action be taken to seek a further expansion of the "unit" definition to apply to Major US Army Reserve Commands (MUSARC). This would provide our MUSARC Commanders with the same area wide management authority and flexibility now enjoyed by ARNG State Adjutant Generals and would significantly increase the career opportunities available to our military technician force. 5. LTC Kwiatkowski, AUTOVON 367-5692, can provide your staff with additional information. FOR THE DIRECTOR OF PERSONNEL: &vonald T. Mr&rachen). DONALD T. MCCRACKEN, JR. Chief, Reserve Affairs Division CINC. DCINC CSH. SJB J1 J2 J3 Jn JS J6 JB AG AFLNO CIDC CECOM-LAO COMSEC AFNSI ENG FOC IG JA LAD LIB MCP MD MEDDAC HARDET NAVINFO NAVLNO NAVMARCOR MEPS DJI PM PA POST RCAO ROC ROME 6MCD SADBU SSO TCC WE 3A 44MHD 81ST 335TH CH AIRMI RTTUZYUN RUEBJFA0710 0690216-UUUU--RHCGSRB.. ZNR UUUUU R 091530Z MAR 90 FM CDRUSAONE AND FORT CEORGE G MEADE MD //AFKA-DCC// TQ. RHCGSRB/CDREDRSCOM ET MCPHERSON_CA_-//FCCS//- INFU RHCGTWO/CORUSATWO FT GILLEM GA //AFXD-CS//.' RUCISEA/CDRUSAFOUR FT SHERIDAN IL //AFKE-CS// BT 0000.. PERSONAL FOR MG WIEGAND, C/S,. FORSCOM INFO: BG. SCOTT, C/S,. FT SUBJECT: MILITARY TECHNICIAN RETIREMENT 1 RECENTLY HE. UNCOVERED A SITUATION IN THE MILITARY TECHNICIAN PROGRAM THAT. REQUIRES RESOLUTION BEFORE., IT, AFFECTS LARGE. NUMBERS OF MILITARY TECHNICIANS. MILITARY TECHNICIANS HIRED AFTER 8 DECEMBER .1983, WHO INVOLUNTARILY LOSE. THEIR MILITARY STATUS: ARE SUBJECT TO REMOVAL FROM THE MILITARY TECHNICIAN PROGRAM ARMY.. REGULATIONS.... PAGE-02 RUEBJFA0710 UNCLAS HAVE WAIVER PROVISIONS TO PERMIT: RETENTION IN BOTH THE, MILITARY 2. MY DCSPER IS FORWARDING CORRESPONDENCE: UNDER SEPARATE, COVER-TO- LEGISLATIVE CHANGES TO CORRECT: THE SITUATION. WE. NEED. YOUR SUPPORT. BT: PERSONAL FOR THURSDAY, APRIL 30, 1992. ASSOCIATION OF CIVILIAN TECHNICIANS WITNESS THOMAS J. OWSINSKI, VICE PRESIDENT, ASSOCIATION OF CIVILIAN TECHNICIANS INTRODUCTION Mr. MURTHA. Our next witness is Mr. Thomas Owsinski with the Association of Civilian Technicians. Mr. Owsinski. STATEMENT OF MR. OWSINSKI Mr. OwSINSKI. Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman, and Members of the Committee. I appreciate the opportunity to appear before you to present the views of the Association of Civilian Technicians with respect to the Full-time Support Program within the National Guard. Our Association's President Mr. John Hunter, was unable to be here. Mr. Hunter asked me to make this appearance for him and to present you with a summary of his prepared statement. My name is Thomas J. Owsinski, and I reside in Pottsville, Pennsylvania. I was employed as a Pennsylvania Army National Guard Technician for 23 years, and I am presently in the Inactive Retired Reserve, having 33 years of combined active duty and National Guard service time. On behalf of the Association, I would like to express our sincere thanks for your continued support. My testimony will address the drawdown of the active and Reserve forces and also a matter of continuing concern to us: the active Guard and Reserve program. ACTIVE GUARD AND RESERVE PROGRAM In this time of economic budget constraints, and the proposed reduction in defense spending, the active Guard and Reserve program must be examined more carefully than ever before. We should also look at the military drawdown to determine if it is wise to reduce both the active forces and the Reserves. Many of the missions now assigned to the active duty military can be easily shifted to the Reserves at a great savings to the American taxpayers. But in doing so, we submit that the AGR program, which has consistently proven to be exceptionally costly and definitely mismanaged, should also be reexamined. A report prepared in 1980 by Management Consulting Research, Inc. for the Department of Defense criticized the program and indicated that no measurable change to unit readiness was apparent, and that no significant dif ference between dual status civilian technicians and full-time military personnel existed. This report was the first of several similar reports which also determined that the AGR program was a very costly program to support. In 1985, the Congressional Budget Office also found problems with the program and indicated that over $600 million could be saved annually by replacing AGRS with technicians. DRAWDOWN OF FORCES At the moment, with regard to the proposed drawdown of military end strength, it is difficult to conceive how the active forces can be reduced without a corresponding increase in Reserve strengths. A trimmed-down active duty force can immediately react to smaller conflicts such as Grenada and Panama, but larger operations will require support from the Reserve forces. The recent Gulf War is an example of what the Reserves can do when called upon. I know the Chairman is proud of the Pennsylvania National Guard units that served. In addition to the excellent support provided by Pennsylvania Air National Guard personnel, three Army Guard units were activated for Operation Desert Storm: The 121st and 131st Transportation and the 3623rd Maintenance units. The unit equipment, maintained and operated by technicians, was older but more dependable than that of their full-time Army counterparts. It should also be noted that 58 civilian technicians were among those activated and deployed with these units. And so, we maintain that a strong, well-equipped Reserve force must be maintained in the future. It will provide essential military security at a small percentage of the cost required to maintain a comparable active duty force. They will also be ready for call-up by the Governors for support in natural disasters and for maintaining order within the States. In the event that end-strength reductions may have to be programmed for the National Guard, we submit that any reduction in full-time manning be in the high-cost AGR program on an attritional basis and not at the expense of the highly qualified, highly experienced civilian technician work force. Not only should the cost-effective technician program be maintained, it should be increased as AGRS are phased out. This increase in technician strength should be in lieu of any planned assignment of active component personnel to the Reserves. SUMMARY In closing, Mr. Chairman, we strongly urge that: One, no additional funds be provided for AGR growth. Two, immediately phase out the AGR program by attrition. Three, dispatch investigative teams to various units to review the Technician and AGR programs, followed by extensive hearings on the Full-Time Support program in the National Guard and Reserves. Four, provide funding for a strong, well-equipped National Guard and Reserve Force. Five, incorporate the following language into the Defense Appropriations bill: "None of the funds appropriated by this Act shall be available to convert a position in support of the Army Reserve, Air Force Reserve, Army National Guard and Air National Guard occupied by, or programmed to be occupied by, a civilian technician to a position to be held by a person in an active Guard or Reserve status, if that conversion would reduce the total number of positions occupied by, or programmed to be occupied by, civilian technicians of the troop program unit or squadron unit concerned, below the number of positions occupied by civilian technicians in those units as of the end of fiscal year 1992." |