1. 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

2. 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

3. Congressional Language
SEC 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

4. 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

5. 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 Dec. 2011
Interim report Mar. 2011
Conduct baseline analysis Ongoing
Interim report April 2012
Determine/assess alternative manning options (Interim report 3). 26 Jun. 2012
Produce report to Congress
Draft for OSD-RA review Aug. 2012
Final Oct. 2012
Task completion Dec. 2012
Study report
Draft for OSD-RA review Sep. 2012
Final Nov. 2012
Phase 1 completion Dec. 2012 5

6. 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

7. 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

8. 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

9. Questions? 9