MILTECH Study Update LtCol PJ Zimmerman, USMC Assistant Director, Manpower and Personnel Office of the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Reserve Affairs June 20, 2012 1

Background Draft version of MILTECH study in NDAA 2012 Senate Bill. DoD policy to respond to reports to Congress drafted in House or Senate bills even if not enacted in law OSD-RA contracted the Center for Naval Analysis (CNA) to conduct the study. Study promulgated in Sec. 519, NDAA 2012. 2

Congressional Language SEC. 519. REPORT ON TERMINATION OF MILITARY TECHNICIAN AS A DISTINCT PERSONNEL MANAGEMENT CATEGORY. (a) Independent Study Required- The Secretary of Defense shall conduct an independent study of the feasibility and advisability of terminating the military technician as a distinct personnel management category of the Department of Defense. (b) Elements- In conducting the study required by subsection (a), the Secretary shall-- (1) identify various options for deploying units of the Selected Reserve of the Ready Reserve that otherwise use military technicians through use of a combination of active duty personnel, Reserve component personnel, State civilian employees, and Federal civilian employees in a manner that meets mission requirements without harming unit readiness; (2) identify various means for the management by the Department of the transition of military technicians to a system that relies on traditional personnel categories of active duty personnel, Reserve component personnel, and civilian personnel, and for the management of any effects of that transition on the pay and benefits of current military technicians (including means for mitigating or avoiding such effects in the course of such transition); (3) determine whether military technicians who are employed at the commencement of the transition described in paragraph (2) should remain as technicians, whether with or without a military status, until separation or retirement, rather than transitioned to such a traditional personnel category; (4) identify and take into account the unique needs of the National Guard in the management and use of military technicians; (5) determine potential cost savings, if any, to be achieved as a result of the transition described in paragraph (2), including savings in long-term mandatory entitlement costs associated with military and civil service retirement obligations; (6) develop a recommendation on the feasibility and advisability of terminating the military technician as a distinct personnel management category, and, if the termination is determined to be feasible and advisable, develop recommendations for appropriate legislative and administrative action to implement the termination; (7) address any other matter relating to the management and long-term viability of the military technician as a distinct personnel management category that the Secretary shall specify for purposes of the study; and (8) ensure the involvement and input of military technicians (dual status). (c) Report- Not later than one year after the date of the enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall submit to the congressional defense committees a report on the study required by subsection (a). The report shall set forth the results of the study, including the matters specified in subsection (b), and include such comments and recommendations on the results of the study as the Secretary considers appropriate. 3

CNA Objective Questions What are the current requirements for the military technician program and how do the USAR, ARNG, AFR, and ANG use their MILTECHs to support their National Guard and Reserve missions? What are the benefits, challenges, and costs associated with each program? What other options might meet mission requirements otherwise met by MILTECHs? What are the relative personnel costs of alternative manning options? What are the cost implications—pro or con—of transitioning to an alternative manpower solution? Should it be advisable to modify the MILTECH program as a distinct personnel category, what administrative and legislative actions would be needed? 4

Milestones Activities/deliverables Status Obtain data, organize, and build analytical databases. . . . . . . . . . Complete Stakeholder meetings and focus groups. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ongoing Review and assess existing literature. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ongoing Project update brief. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 Dec. 2011 Interim report 1. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 Mar. 2011 Conduct baseline analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ongoing Interim report 2. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24 April 2012 Determine/assess alternative manning options (Interim report 3). 26 Jun. 2012 Produce report to Congress Draft for OSD-RA review. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24 Aug. 2012 Final. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30 Oct. 2012 Task completion. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 Dec. 2012 Study report Draft for OSD-RA review. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26 Sep. 2012 Final. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 Nov. 2012 Phase 1 completion. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 Dec. 2012 5

Stakeholders Subject matter experts (SMEs) Respective Service representatives National Guard/Reserve and active perspectives SASC and HASC staff Office of the Secretary of Defense, Civilian Personnel Policy, Military Personnel Policy, Readiness, Comptroller, Office of General Counsel, Cost Assessment and Program Evaluation, Legislative Affairs, Defense Civilian Personnel Advisory Service Labor union representatives (through OSD) State Adjutant’s General MILTECHs (Approach is TBD) 6

Potential FTS Options Review existing literature, policy, and cost estimates, as well as, analyze stakeholder provided data to determine potential costs, mission readiness implications, and administrative feasibility of alternative personnel categories. 7

Study Approach/Challenges Not in the ‘drivers’ seat CNA guidance for the study is provided in the Congressional language OSD not directing study outside of ensuring contract performance and that all stakeholder input is duly considered as may be appropriate. Institutional Review Board (IRB) Focus Groups or Surveys? Potential shift in timeline due to IRB challenge 8

Questions? 9