Reserve Forces: DOD Actions Needed to Better Manage Relations
between Reservists and Their Employers (13-JUN-02, GAO-02-608).
Following the 1991 Gulf War, reservists and employers flooded the
government with questions and complaints concerning the
reemployment rights of reservists who had been away from their
jobs during the war. Subsequently, Congress passed the Uniformed
Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act of 1994, which
grants service members reemployment rights following military
duty and addresses the rights and responsibilities of both
reservists and their employers. Despite increases in operations
since 1992, the average operational tempo of reserves
department-wide increased only slightly between 1992 and
2001--from 43 to 46 days a year. Normal required training periods
accounted for the bulk of this total. Several factors hamper the
Department of Defense (DOD) outreach efforts to both employers
and reservists. DOD lacks complete information on who the
reservists' employers are, and it has viewed the Privacy Act as a
constraint that prevents it from requiring reservists to provide
this information. DOD relies on volunteers in the field to carry
out many of its outreach activities. However, these volunteers do
not always report their contacts with reservists and employers,
and, as a result, DOD does not know the full extent of problems
that arise and has no assurance that its outreach activities are
being implemented consistently. Although DOD has an active
program in place to address problems that arise between
reservists and their civilian employers, no such program is in
place to deal systematically with issues that arise between
students and their educational institutions. DOD has not fully
analyzed existing data on reservists' operational tempo and
recruiting and retention trends on an ongoing basis to determine
how deployments might be affecting reservists and their
employers. GAO surveys and discussions with reservists and
employers further suggests that DOD's activities to enhance
reserve-employer relations are not as effective as they could be.
-------------------------Indexing Terms-------------------------
REPORTNUM: GAO-02-608
ACCNO: A03577
TITLE: Reserve Forces: DOD Actions Needed to Better Manage
Relations between Reservists and Their Employers
DATE: 06/13/2002
SUBJECT: Armed forces reserves
Employment
Military operations
Military reserve personnel
******************************************************************
** This file contains an ASCII representation of the text of a **
** GAO Product. **
** **
** No attempt has been made to display graphic images, although **
** figure captions are reproduced. Tables are included, but **
** may not resemble those in the printed version. **
** **
** Please see the PDF (Portable Document Format) file, when **
** available, for a complete electronic file of the printed **
** document's contents. **
** **
******************************************************************
GAO-02-608
Report to the Chairman and Ranking Minority Member, Subcommittee on
Personnel, Committee on Armed Services, U. S. Senate
United States General Accounting Office
GAO
June 2002 RESERVE FORCES DOD Actions Needed to Better Manage Relations
between Reservists and Their Employers
GAO- 02- 608
Page i GAO- 02- 608 Reserve Forces Letter 1
Results in Brief 2 Background 5 Average Operational Tempos Have Not
Appreciably Increased, but
Some Reservists Have Been Affected Disproportionately 6 DOD?S Management of
Relations Between Reservists and Their
Employers Could Be Improved 11 Conclusions 24 Recommendations for Executive
Action 26 Agency Comments and Our Evaluation 27
Appendix I Objectives, Scope, and Methodology 30
Appendix II Operational Tempos of the Reservists We Surveyed 35
Appendix III Selected Allegations of Problems with Employers or of
Exceptional Benefits Provided by Employers to Reservists 37
Appendix IV Some Key Provisions from the Uniformed Services Employment and
Reemployment Rights Act (USERRA) 43
Appendix V Guard and Reserve Member Survey 47
Appendix VI Employer Survey 49
Appendix VII Characteristics of Employers That Responded to Our Survey 51
Contents
Page ii GAO- 02- 608 Reserve Forces Appendix VIII Reserve Recruiting- Goals
and Annual Accessions
(1992- 2001) 53
Appendix IX Comments from the Department of Defense 55
Appendix X GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments 60
Table
Table 1: Reservists on Duty to Support the War on Terrorism, March 19, 2002
10
Figures
Figure 1: Average Annual Operational Tempo within Six Reserve Components,
1992- 2001 8 Figure 2: Reserve Buildup to Support the War on Terrorism 11
Figure 3: Declines in Department of Labor Cases 22
Abbreviations DOD Department of Defense ESGR Employer Support of the Guard
and Reserve USERRA Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment
Rights Act
Page 1 GAO- 02- 608 Reserve Forces
June 13, 2002 The Honorable Max Cleland Chairman The Honorable Tim
Hutchinson Ranking Minority Member Subcommittee on Personnel Committee on
Armed Services United States Senate
Following the 1991 Gulf War, reservists and employers flooded the government
with questions and complaints concerning the reemployment rights of
reservists who had been away from their jobs during the war. Subsequently,
Congress passed the Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights
Act of 1994. 1 The act grants service members reemployment rights following
military duty and addresses the rights and responsibilities of both
reservists and their employers.
Since the passage of the act, reservists have been increasingly called upon
to serve in a variety of contingency operations, including peacekeeping
operations in the Balkans, where many have served 6 months or more. The
current mobilization for the war on terrorism is adding to this increased
tempo and is expected to last a long time. Maintaining employers? continued
support for their reservist employees will be critical if the Department of
Defense (DOD) is to retain experienced reservists in these times of longer
and more frequent deployments.
Concerned that frequent or long deployments could adversely affect
recruiting and retention in the reserves, you asked us to study the issues
and challenges surrounding the increased use of reserve forces. In
particular, you cited the need for the DOD to pay special attention to
reservists? civilian careers and other responsibilities to ensure the
longterm health of the reserves. As agreed with your offices, we (1)
determined how increases in military operations have affected ?operational
tempos? 2 of the reserve components and individual reservists and (2)
assessed
1 Pub. L. 103- 353, October 13, 1994, 38 U. S. C. sect.sect. 4301- 4333. 2 In this
report, operational tempo refers to the total days reservists spend
participating in normal drills, training, and exercises, as well as domestic
and overseas operational missions.
United States General Accounting Office Washington, DC 20548
Page 2 GAO- 02- 608 Reserve Forces
relations between reservists and their civilian employers, focusing
specifically on the Defense department?s outreach efforts designed to
improve these important relationships.
This report focuses on the more than 870,000 ?selected? reserve members who
generally attend 12 weekends and 2 weeks of training each year (for a total
of about 38 3 days). Unless specified otherwise, the terms ?reserves?
and ?reservists? both refer to the collective forces of the Army National
Guard, the Air National Guard, the Army Reserve, the Naval Reserve, the
Marine Corps Reserve, and the Air Force Reserve. 4 To gain first- hand
information on how deployments might be affecting reservists and their
employers, we surveyed 1, 608 reservists from 22 units that were among the
highest tempo units in the reserve components, and we surveyed 111 employers
of the units? reservists. We also held focus group discussions with
reservists who had recently deployed. Additional information on our scope
and methodology, including the units we surveyed and visited, is in appendix
I.
The National Committee for Employer Support of the Guard and Reserve 5
serves as DOD?s focal point in managing the department?s relations with
reservists and their civilian employers. Its small, full- time, paid staff
in Virginia and 4,100 volunteers throughout the country are responsible for
a number of different outreach activities. Two specific functions of these
personnel are to 1) educate reservists and employers concerning their rights
and responsibilities and 2) mediate disputes that may arise between the
reservists and their employers.
Despite increases in operations since 1992, the average operational tempo of
reserves department- wide increased only slightly between 1992 and
3 Some reserve components expect their members to perform 38 days of duty
each year, while other components expect 39. The difference largely centers
on how the components view travel to annual training. Some count it as part
of the training, and others authorize an
?extra? day for travel. 4 Coast Guard Reserve figures have been included
when available from DOD. However, we
did not include the Coast Guard Reserve in our focus groups since it comes
under the Department of Transportation in time of peace and reverts to the
Department of the Navy only in wartime or when directed by the president. 5
The National Committee for Employer Support of the Guard and Reserve is
sometimes
abbreviated NCESGR, but throughout this report we use the more common ESGR
abbreviation to include both the headquarters and volunteer field staff of
the organization. Results in Brief
Page 3 GAO- 02- 608 Reserve Forces
2001- from 43 to 46 days a year. Normal required training periods accounted
for the bulk of this total. Average operational tempos fluctuated for all
components over the period but did not appreciably increase, with the
exception of the Air Reserve components whose tempos have historically been
the highest. Tempos increased from 54 to 65 days in the Air National Guard.
Although component averages have not increased appreciably, all the
components contain some individual reservists who are in units or
occupations that have been affected disproportionately. For example, during
the past 3 years, operational tempos within the Army National Guard averaged
between 40 and 44 days per year, but hundreds of National Guard members from
units in Texas, Georgia, and Virginia were deployed to Bosnia for 6 months
or more. Hundreds more from other units are scheduled to participate in
future 6- month deployments. Moreover, reservists in the fields of aviation,
special forces, security, intelligence, psychological operations, and civil
affairs have experienced operational tempos two to seven times higher than
those of the average reservists in their services. The war on terrorism has
added to the operational tempos in all the reserve components, and on March
19, 2002, more than 95,000 reservists were on duty. Many of these reservists
had been mobilized for 6 months or more. In contrast, only about 35, 000
reservists were on duty supporting worldwide military operations during an
average day in fiscal year 2000.
Several factors hamper DOD?s outreach efforts to both employers and
reservists.
DOD lacks complete information on who the reservists? employers are, and
it has viewed the Privacy Act 6 as a constraint that prevents it from
requiring reservists to provide this information. Because information is
incomplete, DOD cannot inform all employers of their rights and obligations,
cannot identify all exemplary employers for recognition, and cannot carry
out effective outreach activities.
DOD relies on volunteers in the field to carry out many of its outreach
activities. However, these volunteers do not always report their contacts
with reservists and employers, and, as a result, DOD does not know the full
extent of problems that arise and has no assurance that its outreach
activities are being implemented consistently.
6 5 U. S. C. sect.552a.
Page 4 GAO- 02- 608 Reserve Forces
Although DOD has an active program in place to address problems that arise
between reservists and their civilian employers, no such program is in place
to deal systematically with issues that arise between students and their
educational institutions. Because students make up an estimated one- third
of all reservists, it is important that such issues as lost tuition,
credits, and educational standing be addressed more directly.
DOD has not fully analyzed existing data on reservists? operational tempo
and recruiting and retention trends on an ongoing basis to determine how
deployments might be affecting reservists and their employers. More analysis
of such data would enable DOD to better identify emerging problems and
formulate outreach activities to address them.
Our surveys and discussions with reservists and employers further suggest
that DOD?s activities to enhance reserve- employer relations are not as
effective as they could be. DOD has conducted hundreds of briefings each
year for both reservists and employers. However, in discussions and
responses to our surveys, a sizable number of the employers and reservists
indicated that they were unsure of their rights and responsibilities under
the Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act, and some had
never been briefed on their rights and responsibilities. And, while the
majority of reservists told us that they believed their employers complied
with legal requirements, some reservists in every one of our focus group
discussions alleged that their rights had been violated (see app. III). Both
employers and reservists claimed that frequently they were not given 30-
days? advance notice of deployments, and some employers wanted the right to
verify reserve duty under 30 days on a case- by- case basis. All of these
findings suggest that some changes may be needed in the management of
reservist- employer relations.
We are making several recommendations designed to enhance DOD?s management
of relations between reservists and their employers. Among others, these
recommendations are directed at seeking more complete information on
employers, more systematic reporting of contacts with reservists and
employers in the field, and a more formalized program for addressing the
needs of students.
In commenting on a draft of this report, DOD fully concurred with five of
our seven recommendations and partially concurred with another
recommendation concerning advance issuance of orders. We modified that
recommendation to address the Department?s concerns. DOD did not
Page 5 GAO- 02- 608 Reserve Forces
concur with our recommendation to analyze the effects of a legislative
provision on reservists. However, we continue to believe that the
information in this report supports the need for such an analysis.
The reserves are an all- volunteer force of about 1. 3 million that makes up
almost half the total military force, 7 and more than one- half of the total
force in the Army. Since the end of the Cold War, there has been a shift in
the way reserve forces have been used. Previously, reservists were viewed
primarily as an expansion force that would supplement active forces during a
major war. Today, reservists not only supplement but also replace active
forces in military operations and exercises worldwide. In fact, the
Department of Defense (DOD) has stated that no significant operation can be
conducted without reserve involvement.
The Assistant Secretary of Defense for Reserve Affairs has overall
supervisory responsibility for matters that involve reserve components, and
he serves as the principal staff assistant and advisor to the Secretary of
Defense on reserve component matters. The Assistant Secretary oversees
activities of the National Committee for Employer Support of the Guard and
Reserve (ESGR). Established in 1972 by President Nixon, the ESGR manages
activities aimed at maintaining and enhancing employers? support for the
reserves. Among its goals is that of informing reservists and their
employers of their respective rights and responsibilities, as military
duties can disrupt both the workplace and the private lives of reservists.
The ESGR has a small, full- time paid staff in headquarters and
approximately 4, 100 volunteers organized into 54 local committees, one for
each state and one each for Guam, the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, and
the Virgin Islands. These staff provide reservists and employers with
information and counseling concerning their rights and responsibilities. The
ESGR uses a few of its full- time staff and about 200 trained volunteers
from local committees to serve as mediators, called ombudsmen, when disputes
arise between reservists and their employers.
The Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act of 1994 8
addresses employee rights related to their involuntary and voluntary
7 The 1.3 million figure excludes members of the retired reserve. 8 See note
1. Background
Page 6 GAO- 02- 608 Reserve Forces
military service and covers both active duty military and reservists. The
act applies to military service performed during basic training, weekend
drills, and annual training, as well as deployments related to national
emergencies. Among other things, the law requires that service members be
promptly reemployed upon returning from military duty, generally in the same
position, and be given the same raises, seniority rights, benefits, and
promotions they would have received if they had remained at their jobs. They
must also be permitted to use accrued vacation before the beginning of their
military service and cannot be forced to use vacation time (instead of
unpaid leave) for military service. Upon return from military duty, service
members must be provided with continued health benefits, without waiting
periods or exclusions. The law also prohibits hiring discrimination on the
basis of past, current, or future military obligations.
Despite increases in operations since 1992, the average operational tempo of
reserves department- wide increased only slightly from 1992 through 2001.
Average operational tempos fluctuated for all components over this period
but did not appreciably increase except for the Air Force components whose
tempos have historically been the highest. But while average operational
tempo in the reserves has not increased appreciably, individual reservists
in certain units and occupations in all reserve components have been
affected disproportionately. The war on terrorism has led to major increases
in reserve participation. About 35, 000 reservists were on duty supporting
worldwide military operations during an average day in fiscal year 2000,
compared with over 95, 000 supporting the war on terrorism on March 19,
2002.
Between fiscal years 1992 and 2001, reserve operational tempos increased by
about 5 percent, from an average of 43. 4 to 45. 6 days per year. 9 Regular
reserve training declined slightly over the period but still accounted for
the bulk of the reserve tempo, with annual training periods averaging 11. 2
days and regular drill periods averaging 18. 8 days per person in fiscal
year
9 It should be noted that the operational tempo during our 1992 baseline
year already exceeded the 38 or 39 days of training that reservists are
normally expected to attend each year. Average Operational
Tempos Have Not Increased Appreciably, but Some Reservists Have Been
Affected Disproportionately
Tempos of Most Components Have Increased Only Slightly
Page 7 GAO- 02- 608 Reserve Forces
2001. 10 However, ?other? reserve tempo (primarily support to overseas
missions and exercises) increased almost 37 percent over the period, to
about 16 days per person in fiscal year 2001.
Tempo increases were greatest in the Air Reserve components, which have
historically had the highest tempos. Over this period, average operational
tempos rose from 54 to 65 days a year in the Air National Guard. Air Force
Reserve tempos rose from 55 days in 1992 to 65 days in 1999, before they
began declining. The increases resulted partly from a shift that placed more
lift and refueling capabilities in the reserve components and thus required
them to provide more support to the Air Force?s active forces. Average
operational tempos fluctuated in the other reserve components, but most
changes from one year to the next were 3 days or fewer in either direction.
(See fig. 1.)
10 Average training figures can fall below 38 days per year for a number of
reasons. Personnel who retire or leave the reserves during the year may
attend only a few days of training before leaving. Some training may also be
waived for a certain period of time following a reservist?s return from a
long deployment. Finally, some reservists may not attend training as
expected.
Page 8 GAO- 02- 608 Reserve Forces
Figure 1: Average Annual Operational Tempo within Six Reserve Components,
1992- 2001 11
Source: Office of the Secretary of Defense for Reserve Affairs data.
Component- wide averages do not reflect the wide differences in the
operational tempos of individual reservists in certain units and occupations
in all of the reserve components. While the Air Force seeks to spread its
high operational tempos as evenly as possible (relying on reservists to
volunteer regularly for deployments of 30 days or less), the other
components deploy some reservists for 6 or more months, while typically
keeping the rest of their forces on 38- or 39- day annual training
schedules. For example, hundreds of Army National Guard soldiers have
11 These figures exclude full- time Guard and Reserve members and new
members who have not yet completed their basic military and technical skills
training. Some Units and Reservists
Have Been Affected Disproportionately
Page 9 GAO- 02- 608 Reserve Forces
participated in each of the past three peacekeeping rotations to Bosnia, and
hundreds more are scheduled to participate in future 6- month deployments.
Personnel in the fields of aviation, special forces, security, intelligence,
psychological operations, and civil affairs have experienced operational
tempos that are two to seven times higher than those of the average
reservist. Over the past few years, all the civil affairs groups in the Army
and Marine Corps Reserves have supported lengthy Balkans operations. In
fact, between 1998 and 2001, eight members of the Marine Corps Civil Affairs
Group that we visited deployed to the Balkans twice- 7 to 9 months in Bosnia
and an additional 6 months to Kosovo. Appendix II lists other examples of
high tempos in the units we visited.
Training requirements also contribute to the high tempos of some
occupational specialties and units. For example, most Air Force Reserve and
Air National Guard pilots spend at least 87 days on active duty each year in
order to maintain their proficiency. During the year before an overseas
deployment or major training exercise, ground forces may also face extremely
high training requirements. For example, members of the 49th Armored
Division (Texas Army National Guard) averaged 108 days of training prior to
their 270- day mobilization to Bosnia.
Between September 2001 and March 2002, operational tempos increased
significantly for all of DOD?s reserve components due to the partial
mobilization 12 in effect to support operations Noble Eagle and Enduring
Freedom, the domestic and overseas operations associated with the war on
terrorism. Table 1 shows the numbers of reservists on duty on March 19,
2002, when DOD?s weekly report figures peaked. 13 In numerical terms, the
Army and the Air National Guards had the most people on duty. However, in
percentage terms, the Coast Guard Reserve and the Air National Guard have
been the most heavily utilized components. The 95,060 reservists on duty
March 19, 2002, represent a significant increase over the 35, 000 reservists
who were on duty supporting worldwide military operations during an average
day in fiscal year 2000. Most reservists
12 A ?partial? mobilization permits the President to mobilize ready reserve
units and individuals (up to 1 million reservists) for as long as 2 years,
while presidential reserve call- ups, such as those for operations in the
Balkans and Southwest Asia were limited to 270 days. 13 Coast Guard
participation peaked on October 4, 2001, when 21. 5 percent of the Coast
Guard Reserve members were on active duty. The War on Terrorism Has
Increased All Tempos
Page 10 GAO- 02- 608 Reserve Forces
supporting operations Noble Eagle and Enduring Freedom were federally
mobilized under involuntary orders. Complete data is not yet available on
how long reservists are serving in these operations, but as of March 2002
many had already been mobilized for 6 months.
Table 1: Reservists on Duty to Support the War on Terrorism, March 19, 2002
Component Reservists on duty a
Percentage of component?s reserve force b
Army National Guard 25,984 7 Air National Guard 24,752 23 Air Force Reserve
14,136 10 Army Reserve 13,703 4 Naval Reserve 9, 827 5 Marine Corps Reserve
4, 788 5 Coast Guard Reserve 1, 870 15
Total 95,060 7
a Figures include personnel on duty for airport security, volunteers, and
those mobilized for state and federal missions, as well as for training
directly related to the war on terrorism. b Percentages are based on reserve
force of 1.3 million rather than on drilling reserve population of 870,000.
Source: Office of the Secretary of Defense for Reserve Affairs.
Component- level figures again do not reflect the impact on some specialties
and units. The Naval Reserve, for example, has deployed only about 5 percent
of its total force, but deployed almost all of its reservists in the master-
at- arms and 9545 (security) fields. 14
Figure 2 shows that the majority of reservists supporting operations related
to the war on terrorism have been involuntarily called to duty under the
partial mobilization that went into effect in September 2001. Even if the
mobilized force declines in size, the mobilization could have considerable
long- term effects on reserve operational tempos because it allows DOD to
activate reservists involuntarily for as long as 2 years. Between the end of
the Gulf War and September 2001, reservists who were involuntarily mobilized
to support operations in the Balkans, Southwest Asia, and elsewhere had been
called to duty under Presidential Reserve Call- ups, which limit duty to a
maximum of 270 days.
14 About 5, 000 of the Naval Reserve personnel who were mobilized went to
force security positions.
Page 11 GAO- 02- 608 Reserve Forces
Figure 2: Reserve Buildup to Support the War on Terrorism
Source: Office of the Secretary of Defense for Reserve Affairs.
Good relations between reservists and their employers are important, because
deployments can be disruptive to employers, and difficulties, if not
resolved, could lead some reservists to abandon military service. Yet, DOD
has been hampered in managing its activities aimed at enhancing relations
between reservists and their employers because it lacks complete information
on who the employers are. We found that both reservists and employers are
experiencing a variety of problems, yet DOD may be unaware of the full
extent of problems because reservists and employers do not always contact
the ESGR for help, and volunteer ombudsmen in the field do not always report
contacts that are made. DOD?S Management
of Relations Between Reservists and Their Employers Could Be Improved
Page 12 GAO- 02- 608 Reserve Forces
Furthermore, because the ESGR is not specifically tasked with helping
student reservists, their unique problems are not being fully identified and
addressed. Finally, the department has not fully analyzed information that
could help identify actions needed to improve relations between reservists
and their employers.
Although DOD recognizes that employer support is crucial to the health of
its reserve forces and has taken steps to improve this support, its outreach
efforts are hampered because it cannot identify all of its reservists?
employers. Recent efforts to have reservists voluntarily report the names of
their employers have met with only limited success. DOD has not required
reservists to report the names of their employers in the belief that doing
so would be inconsistent with the Privacy Act. 15 However, a reexamination
of this position may be warranted because collecting such information would
appear to be central to the ESGR?s mission.
There is no complete listing of the civilian employers of DOD?s reserve
members. At various times, reserve units, the reserve components, the
services, and DOD have attempted to compile lists of the civilian employers
of their reservists. However, none of these lists were comprehensive, and
the limited lists that were assembled were generally not kept up to date. 16
For example, to prepare for a survey in 1999, DOD assembled a list of 13,
752 employers of its reserve members. However, when DOD officials provided
us with a copy of the list in 2001, they acknowledged that this list was
incomplete 17 and that it had not been updated since it was first assembled.
The lack of a complete and up- to- date list of employers has hampered the
ESGR?s ability to conduct outreach efforts. For example, the ESGR conducts a
?boss lift? program, which takes employers to reservists? training or
deployment sites to increase employers? appreciation of the work reservists
do, as well as an employer award program. We found that some units have
conducted multiple boss lifts and have given out scores of
15 5 U. S. C. sect.552a.
16 Most of the reserve units we visited did not maintain employer lists. A
few had assembled lists when they were deployed, but they did not keep them
up to date after their deployments. 17 In 1999 the reserve components had
almost 880,000 members who participated in regular
training. Incomplete Information on
Employers Has Hampered DOD?s Outreach Activities
DOD does not have complete information on employers
Page 13 GAO- 02- 608 Reserve Forces
employer awards, while other units have had no contact with ESGR
representatives and have not given out any awards or conducted any boss
lifts.
In 2001, DOD created a data base to collect employer information from
reservists being mobilized, but the data base is incomplete. Reservists are
being asked to supply information voluntarily. On May 14, 2002, the data
base contained data on fewer than 11,000 employers, although more than 73,
000 reservists had been mobilized to support the war on terrorism.
DOD has been reluctant to mandate that reservists provide information about
their civilian employers due to Privacy Act concerns. The Privacy Act limits
the amount and type of personal information that the government can collect
from individuals, stating that organizations may keep records of such
information only ?as is relevant and necessary? for them to accomplish their
missions. DOD officials told us that if the requirements of the Privacy Act
could be satisfied, they would support the mandatory collection of employer
information.
Knowing who the employers of its reservists are and how to contact them
would appear to be information that the ESGR needs in order to carry out its
mission. The ESGR was established to enlist the support of employers in
encouraging employee and citizen participation in the Guard and Reserve. The
responsibilities of the NCESGR/ ESGR, listed in DOD Directive 1250.1, 18
include taking actions to
operate a proactive program that ensures employers? understanding of the
role of the reserves;
encourage compliance with USERRA;
prevent, resolve, and reduce employer problems and misunderstandings
through informational services and mediation;
solicit feedback on employer attitudes and opinions regarding
participation in the reserves and recommend programs or initiatives to
enhance and sustain employer support;
18 National Committee for Employer Support of the Guard and Reserve
(NCESGR), August 17, 1999. Voluntary reporting has not
yielded complete list of employers
Page 14 GAO- 02- 608 Reserve Forces
recognize employers who are supportive of their reservist employees; and
enhance contact and cooperation between local reserve commanders and
employers.
Furthermore, the Secretary of Defense has stated that the Guard and Reserve
need the complete support of our nation?s employers to accomplish their
missions. We believe that a complete list of all reservists? civilian
employers would therefore be both relevant and necessary if the ESGR is to
effectively accomplish the purpose for which it was created.
DOD conducts hundreds of annual briefings to inform reservists and their
employers about their rights and responsibilities under USERRA. In addition
to these briefings and other outreach efforts, several DOD Internet sites
explain the law or contain links that direct people to the law or
explanations of the law. 19 Despite DOD?s efforts, we found that a sizable
number of reservists and employers were unsure about their rights and
responsibilities.
Employers. Because DOD does not know all the employers of its reservists, it
cannot inform them directly of their rights and responsibilities. A 1999
employer survey by DOD found that 31 percent of respondents were not aware
of any laws protecting reservists. Twelve percent of the 111 respondents in
our employer survey said that they were unaware of USERRA?s requirements-
despite the fact that their employees were in the reserve components? most
highly deployed units.
Most reserve unit commanders we interviewed estimated that at least
onefourth of employers do not understand the law?s requirements. The
importance of identifying all employers was demonstrated during one of DOD?s
most successful outreach efforts, a recent airline symposium. At that
symposium, a major airline representative stated that the success of
previous symposiums was demonstrated by the fact that his airline ?is now in
compliance with the law.? He stated that previously his airline was
violating the law because it was unaware of the law?s requirements. This
airline is now widely recognized as an exemplary employer of reservists.
19 www. esgr. org is one of these web sites. Despite Extensive
Briefings, Some Reservists And Employers Are Unsure of Their Rights And
Responsibilities
Page 15 GAO- 02- 608 Reserve Forces
Most private- sector employers and state and local governments are also
apparently unaware of another very important option: they may request that
some of their workers be listed as ?key employees? who cannot be mobilized.
20 On the other hand, federal agencies, which employ about 10 percent of
reservists, are well aware of the option and designated 824 of their own
employees in that category in 1999. But even after September 11, 2001, only
a handful of non- government employers had made similar requests, possibly
indicating that most employers are (or were until very recently) unaware of
this option.
Reservists. While most reservists in the high operational tempo units we
visited knew that a reemployment law existed, many were unfamiliar with
their specific rights and responsibilities, and a number of reservists in
our focus group discussions said they had never even heard of USERRA. The
ESGR attempts to provide an annual briefing for all reserve members on their
rights and responsibilities under the law, but the ESGR acknowledges that
the program is not yet reaching all reservists. On September 20, 2001, the
Under Secretary of Defense (Personnel and Readiness) issued guidance to the
services stating that all mobilization orders should include a reference to
the ESGR?s toll- free telephone number and Web site so that reservists can
contact the ESGR if they have questions regarding their employment/
reemployment rights.
We found that reservists and employers alike have experienced problems
associated with military service. At every unit we visited, we found some
reservists who alleged that their employer had not complied with USERRA, and
we found that the problems of student reservists, who represent an estimated
one- third of the reserve force, are not being fully addressed. Among other
things, employers complained about not receiving sufficient advance notice
of deployments and of being unable, under certain conditions, to verify
their employees? military duty.
Yet the ESGR is not keeping track of all the times that reservists or
employers try to contact the organization for help, and its system of
volunteer mediators is not reporting all cases consistently. Therefore the
ESGR cannot know the extent of problems or what actions may be needed to
improve the effectiveness of its outreach and mediation efforts.
20 32 CFR 44. 5( b)( 1). Extent of Reservist and
Employer Problems Is Not Well Understood
Page 16 GAO- 02- 608 Reserve Forces
Most of the reservists we spoke with said that their employers complied with
USERRA provisions, 21 and some even said that their employers had provided
benefits above and beyond the requirements of the law. 22 However, at every
focus group in every unit we visited, some reservists had complaints about
their employers. Some said that their supervisors were hostile toward their
reserve duty and had actively encouraged them to leave the reserves. Others
alleged employer misconduct that, if confirmed, would be a clear violation
of the law. 23 Allegations included being denied required medical benefits,
being forced to use vacation time for military duty, and being fired. In one
unit, more than 30 percent of the members we surveyed claimed to have had
problems with their employers when they returned from an extended deployment
to Bosnia. 24 For example, one said she was fired, and another claimed he
had to reapply for his job.
Reserve officials, reservists, and employers all commented that even in
companies with good policies to support reservist employees, reservists can
face front- line supervisors who do not always comply with the policies. One
reservist told us that despite working for a major corporation that has
received numerous ESGR awards, he was placed on probation after returning
from a 9- month Bosnia mobilization. Appendix III provides examples of the
types of problems cited by reservists in our focus groups, as well as the
benefits provided by some exemplary employers.
Student reservists, who make up a sizeable portion of the reserve force,
have a special set of problems because there is no federal statute to
protect them against loss of tuition, housing fees, or academic credit when
they are mobilized. In addition, DOD Directive 1250. 1 (which lays out the
21 Appendix IV includes additional details on the specific provisions of the
act that relate to this report. 22 Since the partial mobilization in
September 2001, many employers have increased their
benefits to reservists. However, many changes are temporary and apply only
to reservists who are specifically called to support the war on terrorism.
Of the 111 employers who responded to our survey, 60 said they provide
health benefits beyond those required by the law, 28 said that they make up
the difference for employees who are paid less in the military than they are
on their civilian jobs, and 19 said that they provide employees with full
pay for at least part of the time that they are gone on military duties. 23
We did not verify the allegations, and some reservists were unaware that the
alleged
employer misconduct might constitute a violation of the law. 24 We visited
this unit in the field and were able survey 32 members between firing
exercises. However, more than triple that number deployed to Bosnia.
Reservists at every unit visited
reported difficulties Students experience unique problems
Page 17 GAO- 02- 608 Reserve Forces
responsibilities of the ESGR) does not expressly task the ESGR with
mediating disputes between reservists and their schools. Yet up to onethird
of all reservists may be students, according to DOD officials. And our
survey of 1, 608 reservists from high operational tempo units found that 22
percent of them were students. 25
After the partial mobilization in September 2001, the Servicemembers
Opportunity Colleges 26 volunteered to mediate any disputes that arose
between student reservists and their schools. However, a senior official
from the organization told us that as of January 9, 2002, they had handled
only 24 cases. None of the student reservists who had voiced concerns at our
focus groups had contacted the organization. Reservists may simply be
unaware of the organization, because, unlike the ESGR, it does not have a
comprehensive network of volunteers to reach out to reservists. While
student reservists who become aware of the organization are likely to use
its Web site to obtain information, some may be reluctant to rely on it to
independently mediate disputes with educational institutions because the
organization is a consortium of national higher education associations.
Because the ESGR has not been specifically tasked with addressing student
reservists? problems, it has not established a program to deal
systematically with concerns that arise. A student?s occupation is not
directly comparable to that of an employee, and therefore questions
inevitably arise about the specific protections that might be reasonably
afforded to students. Some states have laws that offer student reservists
the option of obtaining tuition refunds when they are called to active duty
or completing their course work following their military duty. 27 Such
protections come at a cost to educational institutions and therefore require
careful study.
25 Appendix V contains a copy of the survey we distributed to reservists in
high tempo units. 26 The Servicemembers Opportunity Colleges is a consortium
of national higher education
associations and more than 1, 500 colleges. The organization helps to
coordinate postsecondary educational opportunities for service members
through voluntary programs that are funded by the military services. 27 At
the time of our review, three states (Arkansas, New Jersey, and Texas) had
laws
providing such protection. And many new recruits without prior military
experience have joined the reserves in recent years to obtain funding for
education.
Page 18 GAO- 02- 608 Reserve Forces
Information from our employer survey 28 as well as our discussions with
employers highlighted several problems linked to reservists? military
service.
Advance notice. Many employers are not receiving adequate advance notice
prior to their reservist employees? departure for military duty. USERRA
requires that employers receive written or oral advance notification but
does not specify how far in advance it should be given and does not require
notification if ?military necessity? or other relevant circumstances prevent
giving notice.
Although the law does not specify a timeframe for advance notice of
employers, the Office of the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Reserve
Affairs has emphasized the need to provide orders well in advance of
deployments, 29 in part so that employers could be notified promptly. In
1999, DOD had identified inadequate employer notification as one of the
problems it needed to address. And the Assistant Secretary of Defense for
Reserve Affairs has warned that ?unjustifiably late notification may harm
the working relationship between (reservists) and their civilian employers.?
Yet in spite of repeated memoranda from the Assistant Secretary, advance
notification continues to be a problem, and the services have not
consistently met the 30- day advance notification goal. On September 13,
2000, the Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness approved a
recommended change to a DOD directive that would have tasked the services
with monitoring the timeliness of advance notifications. However, as of
January 2002 the directive had not been updated to reflect the recommended
change, and DOD still had no validated data to measure the extent of the
advance notice problem. 30
In discussions with us and in their survey responses, reservists and
employers cited cases in which notification was given much less than 30 days
in advance. While some reservists told us that they have been able to
provide their employers with sufficient advance notice, many told us that
28 Appendix VI contains a copy of the survey, and appendix VII contains a
profile of the employers that responded to the survey. 29 The Office of the
Assistant Secretary of Defense for Reserve Affairs has suggested that 30
days? advance notification is a reasonable goal, and the services had agreed
to this goal in September 2000. 30 The recommended change was to DOD
Directive 1235. 10, ?Activation, Mobilization, and
Demobilization of the Ready Reserve,? July 1, 1995. Employers also reported
difficulties
Page 19 GAO- 02- 608 Reserve Forces
they themselves did not receive their orders until a few days- or in some
cases, just hours- before deploying. The commanding general told us that one
unit in his Bosnia task force had not received its orders until after it had
arrived in Bosnia. Sixty- eight of 111 employers who responded to our survey
said that they typically receive less than 30 days? advance notice, and 31
of them said that they typically receive notification 7 days or less in
advance.
Verification. Employers cannot verify their employees? attendance at
military duties that last 30 days or less. USERRA gives employers the right
to request verification for periods of duty that are 31 days or longer, but
some employers believe they should have the right to request documentation
for lesser periods if they think their employees are not being honest about
their duty commitments. According to employers, some units and reservists do
provide documentation for military duty of less than 31 days, but others do
not, even when asked to do so. Employers noted that they do not want to be
flooded with orders for every weekend duty, they simply want to be able to
verify duty in the few cases where they suspect an employee might abuse the
system. During the airline symposium, senior reserve component officials
expressed a willingness to work with employers to try and minimize or
eliminate cases where reservists ?abuse their employers? by volunteering for
non- critical reserve duties at times that are particularly inconvenient for
the employer.
Costs and disruptions. Reservist employees often cost employers more than
those who are not reservists because many employers must pay overtime
premiums to their remaining workers who do the work of deployed reservists.
Other employers provide pay or benefits to deployed reservists while also
providing pay and benefits to temporary workers who replace the deployed
reservists. In addition, pre- deployment training can cause major
disruptions to work schedules, and the early, unexpected return of a
reservist can add to costs if both the reservist and the substitute must be
paid. 31
Small employers. DOD and service officials said that small employers are
most affected by their employees? reserve duties. A firm of four people
31 Companies also derive benefits from hiring reservists. In responding to
DOD?s 1999 survey, 72 percent of the employers surveyed agreed or strongly
agreed with the following statement: ?The training and experience received
by a National Guard or Reserve employee makes that person a more valuable
employee to my company.? Only 10 percent disagreed or strongly disagreed.
Page 20 GAO- 02- 608 Reserve Forces
that loses one of its workers to military service has lost 25 percent of its
work force. These losses can be especially hard if the reservists perform a
key role within the company (for example, if the reservist is the company?s
only bookkeeper or salesperson). DOD?s 1999 survey of employers excluded
firms with fewer than five employees. However, as noted, DOD does not have a
complete or up- to- date list of employers and therefore does not actually
know how many employers have fewer than five employees. Our survey of 1, 608
reservists found that only 5 percent worked for companies with fewer than
five people. However, our survey included only reservists from high
operational tempo units and is therefore not projectable to all reservists.
32
ESGR officials told us that the caseloads of its ombudsmen, who help mediate
disputes between reservists and their employers, have been rising, but they
also acknowledged that the ESGR does not have an accurate count of all cases
because of incomplete reporting. 33 In fiscal year 2001, the ESGR reported
11, 500 cases, but this figure includes both an accurate count of cases
handled by a few full- time paid ombudsmen at headquarters and a much less
accurate count of cases handled by hundreds of part- time volunteers in the
field. Reporting by volunteers has been sporadic, and some field offices
have gone an entire year without reporting any cases at all. The ESGR, in
other words, does not have a complete or accurate way of tracking and
reporting all contacts made with employers and reservists who are seeking
help. 34
The current system, which relies largely on part- time volunteers in the
field, does not ensure complete reporting. This is because ESGR volunteers-
by virtue of the fact that they are volunteering their services
32 Within our survey group, 1, 102 reservists had full- time jobs and 100
had part- time jobs. The remaining 406 were unemployed or did not respond to
the question about their employment (see question 10 on the survey in app.
V). Of the 1,202 workers, only 60 said they worked for firms with 5 or fewer
employees. (See question 11 on the survey in app. V.) 33 Because the ESGR
figures are incomplete, we cannot verify whether its caseload is increasing.
A case can range from a single telephone call in which a question is
answered to extensive mediation efforts. 34 The ESGR does have accurate data
from its Web site, which was established in fiscal year
1997 to provide information to both reservists and employers. In fiscal year
1998 the site had an average of 200 inquiries per week, but the number rose
to an average of 5, 000 per week in early 2001. In October 2001 Web
inquiries rose to 42, 000 per week before leveling off at about 14, 000, per
week in 2002. Most visitors to the site view the USERRA law or download the
site?s list of frequently asked questions. Not all problems are being
reported
Page 21 GAO- 02- 608 Reserve Forces
in their limited spare time- cannot reasonably be expected to document every
single contact. Moreover, volunteers are not always available to field
telephone inquiries. Although many reservists said positive things about
ESGR?s volunteers, others said that they had not contacted the ESGR because
the volunteers were hard to reach, and a few who had reached the ombudsmen
said that they were not helpful. ESGR officials told us they plan to set up
a new system that would eventually route all telephone calls to the ESGR to
a central office. The system would ensure that all calls are answered,
either by the full- time headquarters staff or by local volunteers (during
their office hours). However, the details of this plan, including funding,
timelines, and responsibilities, have not been worked out.
Disputes that cannot be resolved by the ESGR are referred to the Department
of Labor. Figure 3 shows that the number of cases (relative to the number of
reservists) handled annually by Labor has generally declined since fiscal
year 1995. The actual number of cases referred to the Department of Labor
declined from 1, 069 in fiscal year 1995 to 724 in fiscal year 2001.
Page 22 GAO- 02- 608 Reserve Forces
Figure 3: Declines in Department of Labor Cases
Source: Office of the Secretary of Defense for Reserve Affairs.
Several reasons could account for the drop, including a tight labor market
that forced employers to be more accommodating and a larger number of cases
resolved by the ESGR.
DOD collects a variety of information on reserve recruitment, retention, and
deployments. But it has not combined this information to examine the
possible effects of high operational tempos on the reserves or to identify
actions that might be needed to address problems in employee- reservist
relations. A surprise problem is that some reservists want to deploy more
and are unable to do so because of certain barriers.
Of specific concern is the effect that high operational tempos may have on
reserve retention. DOD recently conducted a survey of 75, 000 reservists.
Once analyzed, it should provide some information on why reservists stay in
or leave the reserves. Several studies have attempted to identify a possible
link between operational tempo and retention, but they focused on the active
forces and came to different conclusions. However, in October 2000, for the
first time, DOD began collecting operational tempo data on each individual
reservist. An analysis of the data might shed new light on whether
operational tempos are affecting retention rates for reservists in specific
occupational specialties. Data That Could Enhance
Program Management Has Not Been Analyzed
Page 23 GAO- 02- 608 Reserve Forces
Our data, when combined with DOD?s recruiting data, shows that reserve
recruiting bears close scrutiny. Although the reserve components generally
had good recruiting years during the recession in 2001, the Marine Corps
Reserve was the only component that consistently reached its goals in each
of the last 5 years. 35 Two other trends are emerging: (1) more people
without prior military experience are joining the reserves and (2) our
survey indicates that these new recruits are less inclined to stay in the
reserves over the long term. The number of soldiers from the active forces
who joined the selected reserves dropped from 59. 1 percent in fiscal year
1999 to 49.6 percent in fiscal year 2001. Our survey of reservists in high
tempo units, though not projectable, showed wide differences in the career
intentions of prior service and non- prior service reservists. About 73
percent of reservists who had served 4 or more years on active duty intended
to stay in the reserves for 20 years or more, but only about 54 percent of
those without prior active duty service intended to stay for a full 20- year
career. If this difference in attitudes were true across the reserve force,
the shift to non- prior- service recruiting would lead to higher recruiting
requirements in the future, as fewer reservists remain in the reserves for
full 20- year careers.
One unexpected finding of our study was that a significant number of
reservists in the highly deployed units we surveyed have wanted to deploy
even more. However, the services have been discouraged from deploying these
individuals by the effects of recent legislation, 36 which requires that
service members who are deployed for 401 or more days in a rolling 730- day
(2- year) period receive a $100 high- deployment per diem allowance. 37
Sixteen percent of the reservists who responded to our survey said that they
chose to join their unit because of the unit?s high operational tempo; of
these, half said operational tempo was the ?main? reason they joined their
unit. During our focus group discussions, a number of reservists said that
they had enjoyed their operational deployments and were anxious to return to
overseas missions, such as those in the Balkans, because they felt they were
?making a difference.? Others said that they would have
35 See appendix VIII for additional details concerning recruiting goals and
annual accessions. 36 Pub. L. 106- 65, Oct. 5, 1999, sect.586, which amended
Part II of subtitle A of title 10, U. S. C. by
inserting a new chapter, ?Chapter 50- Miscellaneous Command
Responsibilities.? 37 37 U. S. C. sect.436.
Page 24 GAO- 02- 608 Reserve Forces
extended their tours to the Balkans, had this been an option, and several
even said that they had offered to forgo the $100- per- day high- deployment
allowance just to be able to deploy again. These reservists had been told
that the law did not allow the payments to be waived.
Prior to the enactment of the high- deployment legislation, some active
service members who were not anxious to deploy had experienced deployment
rates above the 400- day threshold. On the other hand, the reserve
components had limited involuntary deployments of their members even prior
to the legislation, and generally the only reservists who spent more than
400 of 730 days deployed were volunteers. Even before the payment
requirement was suspended following the attacks of September 11, the
services? extreme reluctance to pay the highdeployment per diem allowance
had prevented some reservists with considerable overseas mission experience
from being able to deploy. 38 When the suspension on the requirement is
lifted, some reservists who want to deploy may not be able to, and some who
do not want to deploy may be forced to take their places.
Information on these types of trends needs to be monitored and analyzed, in
conjunction with retention and deployment data, to provide a better
understanding of the effects that deployments may be having on reserve
forces. Using these multiple data sources on a continuing basis could also
help the ESGR better decide whether additional actions may be needed to
assist reservists and their employers.
To effectively manage activities aimed at enhancing relations between
reservists and their employers, DOD must be able to communicate directly
with these reservists? employers. However, DOD?s management of these
activities has been hampered by incomplete information on who these
employers are. Recent efforts requesting that reservists voluntarily provide
employer information have yielded only partial information. As a result, DOD
cannot inform all employers of their rights and obligations, cannot identify
the best employers for recognition, cannot carry out effective outreach
activities, and cannot implement proactive public affairs campaigns. DOD has
opted for a voluntary reporting system in the belief
38 Because the legislation went into effect on October 1, 2000, and was
temporarily suspended 373 days later, on October 8, 2001, no service member
has yet been paid a highdeployment per diem allowance. Conclusions
Page 25 GAO- 02- 608 Reserve Forces
that requiring reservists to provide information on their employers may
violate the Privacy Act. Determining whether the mandatory collection of
such information is necessary and relevant to the ESGR?s mission is the
first step in improving the quality of information in DOD?s employer data
base.
The ESGR has an active program to address problems that arise between
reservists and their civilian employers. However, to date, there is no
federal statute to protect students, who make up an estimated one- third of
all reservists, against loss of tuition, credits, and educational standing
due to unexpected or extended deployments. Such difficulties could
discourage this portion of DOD?s force from joining and remaining in the
reserves. The directive, which spells out the ESGR?s mission and
responsibilities, is silent with respect to outreach programs to address
difficulties student reservists may encounter. Therefore, DOD may need to
amend the ESGR?s mission and responsibilities to more expressly include
students so that the ESGR?s outreach activities will better serve the needs
of all reservists. More study is needed to determine what legal or other
protections might be reasonably afforded to student reservists, because a
student?s occupation is not directly comparable to that of an employee and
because educational institutions would be affected by such changes in
different ways than civilian employers.
The ESGR?s volunteer ombudsmen are providing important contributions to the
ESGR?s mission; however, they are not always available to field telephone
calls from reservists and employers and do not always report their outreach
efforts. As a result, the ESGR cannot determine the magnitude or
effectiveness of its mediation and outreach efforts and cannot determine
whether its programs are being implemented in ways that are fair and
transparent to all employers. The ESGR?s tentative plans to move to a system
whereby calls are handled centrally might yield more complete and accurate
information regarding complaints, conflicts, and allegations so that they
can be addressed promptly and consistently. Even with a different system for
fielding calls, volunteers could continue to contribute to the ESGR?s
mission as they have in the past, but with fewer administrative
responsibilities.
DOD recognizes that extended deployments can have a disruptive effect on
both reservists and their employers and has emphasized the importance of
providing sufficient advance notification of deployments to both parties.
DOD has made several attempts over the last few years to achieve its goal of
issuing orders 30 days in advance of deployments so that reservists can
notify their employees promptly. Despite these efforts,
Page 26 GAO- 02- 608 Reserve Forces
advance notification continues to be a problem, and the services have not
complied consistently with the 30- day goal. Although there will always be
cases in which the 30- day goal cannot be met due to the exigencies of
military crises, a better understanding of why the goal is not being met
would help the services know what they can do to reduce the incidence of
insufficient advance notification. Additionally, giving employers the right
to verify military duty lasting less than 31 days, as some employers desire,
appears to be a reasonable accommodation that could be granted without undue
hardship on the part of DOD or reservists.
The legislation that was intended to provide service members additional
compensation for lengthy deployments has had the unintentional effect of
penalizing a number of experienced reservists who want to deploy more than
400 days during a 2- year period. The requirements of the legislation are
currently suspended, and reservists are free to volunteer as often as they
like without the services having to pay them an extra $100 per day for
service in excess of 400 days. However, the provisions of the legislation
will go back into effect after the current partial mobilization ends.
Allowing the services to use volunteers without paying the highdeployment
per diem allowance could help minimize the negative effects and hardships
associated with involuntary mobilizations and contribute to the long- term
health of the reserve force.
A great deal of information has been regularly collected on reserve force
deployments, operational tempos, recruiting, retention, and prior activeduty
service, and additional survey and individual tempo data has recently been
collected. Using this full range of data on an ongoing basis could help DOD
identify trends and gain a better understanding of the reasons why
reservists leave the reserves and why active- duty service members choose
not to enter the reserves. This information could assist the ESGR in better
formulating its outreach activities to employers.
In order to (1) increase the scope and effectiveness of DOD?s outreach
programs, (2) promote good relations between reservists and their employers
or schools, and (3) increase an understanding of the effects of high
operational tempos on reservists, we recommend that the Secretary of
Defense, in conjunction with the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Reserve
Affairs, take the following actions:
Reexamine the provisions of the Privacy Act and determine whether
requiring reservists to report information about their civilian employers is
consistent with the act. If a positive determination is made, the
Recommendations for
Executive Action
Page 27 GAO- 02- 608 Reserve Forces
Secretary should require all reserve personnel to provide the Defense
Manpower Data Center with the name, full address, and telephone number of
their civilian employer, and update this information promptly, as necessary.
Add students as a target population to the mission and responsibilities of
the ESGR, study in depth the problems related to deployments that student
reservists have experienced, and determine what actions the ESGR might take
to help students and their educational institutions.
Direct the ESGR to promptly finalize and implement its plans to have all
calls to ombudsmen routed through a single toll- free number and central
processing station.
Direct the services to determine how many orders are not being issued 30
days in advance of deployments, and why. We recognize that it will not be
possible to achieve the 30- day goal in all cases. Once the causes are
clearly identified, the Secretary should direct the services to take the
necessary corrective actions and periodically assess progress toward fuller
compliance with the goal.
Develop a policy so that reserve units will provide employers, upon
request, with verification of military service periods lasting less than 30
days.
Analyze the effects of the high- deployment per diem statutory provision
on reservists, taking into account that deployment patterns for reservists
are different from those of active duty members, and that virtually no
reservists have been forced to deploy involuntarily for more than 400 days
over a 730- day period; if warranted, propose changes to this statutory
provision.
Analyze, on an ongoing basis, departmental data on trends in the reserves
for use in formulating outreach activities to employers.
In written comments on a draft of this report, DOD generally concurred with
our recommendations. The Department specifically concurred with our
recommendations on 1) collection of employer information, 2) the needs of
student reservists, 3) ombudsmen?s assistance, 4) verification of service
lasting less than 30 days, and 5) the use of data and trend analyses to
formulate outreach activities. Agency Comments
and Our Evaluation
Page 28 GAO- 02- 608 Reserve Forces
DOD partially concurred with our recommendation concerning the timely
issuance of orders. It agreed that it is important to issue orders in a
timely fashion and said that its ?objective? is to establish a policy
requiring that orders be issued 30 days in advance, unless operational
requirements dictate otherwise. It further stated that ?there is merit to
studying reasons why the Reserve components sometimes miss this (30- day)
goal? and said it has encouraged the services to review their processes and
establish metrics for internal management purposes. However, it did not
concur with the need for the services to report quarterly progress toward
achieving that goal, stating that this would create a ?further?
administrative burden on those involved with the order- writing process. We
believe that if DOD formalizes its 30- day goal as planned, and if the
services 1) review their internal processes to determine why the goal has
been missed and 2) establish advance notification metrics for internal
management purposes, the intent of our recommendation will have been met,
and routine reporting may be unnecessary. However, since DOD acknowledges
that late orders are a recurring problem, despite several memos from the
Office of the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Reserve Affairs stressing
the importance of this issue, we believe it is important that sufficient
attention be given to a clear identification of the reasons why units have
not been able to comply more fully with the 30- day goal. A better
understanding of the reasons is essential to identify corrective actions
that need to be taken. In view of DOD?s stated actions, we have modified our
recommendation by dropping a quarterly reporting requirement and replacing
it with a requirement to periodically assess the services? progress toward
fuller compliance with the 30- day goal.
DOD did not concur with our recommendation to analyze the effects of the
high- deployment per diem provision on reservists and, if warranted, to
propose changes to the provision. It stated that when the policy was issued,
senior leadership made a specific determination to include the reserve
components, and it further suggested that it may be better to expand reserve
participation in operational support missions. Although the determination to
include reserve components in the policy may have been valid at the time the
policy was issued, we believe that this decision should be reexamined in
light of currently available information. For example, we found no cases in
which the policy prevented or even limited
?excessive? burdens being placed on reservists, even though DOD states that
the objective of the policy is ?to prevent excessive (temporary duty)
burdens being placed on any active or Reserve member.? And the services?
reluctance to pay the high- deployment per diem allowance may result in
reservists being called up involuntarily when others were willing to serve
Page 29 GAO- 02- 608 Reserve Forces
additional time voluntarily. In units in short supply and heavy demand, some
who could be called involuntarily may have already served extensively. As we
noted in our report, involuntary and repeated call- ups could adversely
affect reserve retention rates. Therefore, we continue to believe that DOD
needs to further analyze the effects of the highdeployment per diem
provision on reserve members and determine whether changes need to be made.
DOD also provided technical comments that we incorporated as appropriate.
DOD?s comments are reprinted in appendix IX.
We performed our work between December 2000 and April 2002 in accordance
with generally accepted government auditing standards.
We are sending copies of this report to the Secretary of Defense, the
Secretary of the Army, the Secretary of the Navy, and the Secretary of the
Air Force. This report will also be made available on GAO?s home page at
www. gao. gov.
If you or your staffs have any questions concerning this report, please
contact me at (202) 512- 3958. Others making key contributions to this
report are included in appendix X.
Carol Schuster Director, Defense Capabilities and Management
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology
Page 30 GAO- 02- 608 Reserve Forces
This report is issued in response to a request from the Personnel
Subcommittee, Senate Committee on Armed Services, which asked GAO to review
issues and challenges surrounding the increased use of reserve forces. As
agreed with your offices, we (1) determined how increases in military
operations have affected operational tempos of the reserve components and
individual reservists and (2) assessed relations between reservists and
their civilian employers, focusing specifically on the Defense department?s
outreach efforts designed to improve these important relationships.
To determine how increases in military operations have affected operational
tempos of the reserve components and individual reservists, we collected and
analyzed deployment data and identified areas where tempos were high or
increasing. We then analyzed available retention data to see if any of the
data followed the same patterns as deployment data. 1 We discussed the
observed trends with top- level reserve officials throughout the Department
of Defense. Meetings were held with Deputy Assistant Secretaries and other
officials from the Office of the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Reserve
Affairs (OASD/ RA), the National Guard and Reserve General Officer Advisors
to the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and with headquarters
representatives from each of DOD?s six reserve components. Specifically, we
met with four reserve component commanders- the Directors of the Naval
Reserve and the Air National Guard, both located in Arlington, Virginia; the
Chief of the Air Force Reserve in the Pentagon; and the Director of the U.
S. Marine Corps Reserve Affairs Division in Quantico, Virginia- and their
staffs. We also met with key officials from the Office of the Chief of the
Army Reserve and the Office of the Director of the Army National Guard, both
located in Arlington, Virginia. 2
1 Both deployment and retention figures were available, but in many cases
the figures were aggregated differently, which made it difficult to compare
trends. Much of the available deployment data showed mobilization and
demobilization dates for task force organizations but did not show what
portion of the personnel in a particular unit deployed. Available attrition
data was captured for traditional military units, divisions, wings,
squadrons, battalions etc., but not for mission task force organizations. 2
We did not meet with officials from the Department of Transportation?s U. S.
Coast Guard Reserve. However, we did obtain background information from DOD
concerning Coast Guard reservists who, while comprising only about 1 percent
of the nation?s total reserve force, perform a number of key safety and
security missions both at home and abroad. Appendix I: Objectives, Scope,
and
Methodology
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology
Page 31 GAO- 02- 608 Reserve Forces
To assess the Department of Defense?s management of activities aimed at
promoting employers? support of their reservist employees, we contacted
officials from the National Committee for Employer Support of the Guard and
Reserve (ESGR) in Arlington, Virginia, and local ESGR officials in
California, Colorado, Ohio, Louisiana, Texas, and Wyoming. We obtained the
information that DOD had collected on reservists? civilian employers and
reviewed ESGR award data, as well as its data concerning employer problems.
We also reviewed and analyzed data from the 1994 and 1997 Air Force Reserve
Employer Support Surveys and the1999 Reserve Employer Survey commissioned by
OASD/ RA. We attended ESGR briefings and award ceremonies and the July 2001
and March 2002 symposiums between the airlines and the reserve components.
We also asked high tempo units if they had any unit initiatives to reach out
to their reservists? civilian employers.
To gain firsthand information from reservists and employers on how
deployments had affected them, we collected deployment data and identified
reserve units and personnel that had recently experienced high operating
tempos. These included units within each of DOD?s six reserve components. We
did not randomly sample DOD?s 1.3 million reservists to determine the
effects of increased tempos due to the cost and time involved and because
DOD had recently conducted a random survey of 75,000 reservists on related
issues.
Because each service has a different mission and uses its reservists very
differently, we developed a survey 3 to provide some baseline data for all
the high tempo reservists we visited. Our visits were scheduled during
normal drill weekends, and generally all reservists who were present at the
drills were surveyed. In total 1,608 reservists were surveyed. Although our
survey responses are not projectable to the total reserve population, all of
DOD?s reserve components were represented in the responses, as were
different geographic locations throughout the country. 4 The events of
September 11, 2001, made it impossible to complete all planned visits;
however, some of the units that we had planned to visit distributed our
3 Appendix V contains a copy of the survey. We had planned to compare the
results of our high tempo survey to the results of DOD?s survey of 75, 000
randomly selected reservists. However, the results of DOD?s survey had not
been finalized when we ended our audit work in March 2002. 4 A good portion
of our work was conducted in Texas and California, the two states with
the largest reserve populations. There are over 110,000 selected reserves in
those two states.
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology
Page 32 GAO- 02- 608 Reserve Forces
surveys to their reservists even though we were not able to attend their
monthly drills.
A list of the units and higher headquarters that we surveyed and visited
follows:
Units
404th Civil Affairs Battalion (U. S. Army Reserve), Fort Dix, New Jersey
13th Psychological Operations Battalion (U. S. Army Reserve), Arden Hills,
Minnesota 249th Signal Battalion (Texas Army National Guard), Mineral Wells,
Texas 629th Military Intelligence Battalion (Maryland Army National Guard),
Laurel, Maryland 48th Enhanced Infantry Brigade (Georgia Army National
Guard), Macon, Georgia 648th Engineer Battalion (Georgia Army National
Guard), Douglas, Georgia USS Wadsworth (FFG- 9) (U. S. Naval Reserve), San
Diego, California USS Curts (FFG- 38) (U. S. Naval Reserve), San Diego,
California VP- 65 Patrol Squadron (U. S. Naval Reserve), Point Mugu,
California Fleet Logistics Support Squadron 59 (U. S. Naval Reserve), Fort
Worth, Texas 1 4th Civil Affairs Group (U. S. Marine Corps Reserve), Naval
District Washington, Anacostia Annex, District of Columbia Marine Aerial
Refueler Transport Squadron 452 (U. S. Marine Corps Reserve), Stewart Air
National Guard Base, New York 1 Marine Aerial Refueler Transport Squadron
234 (U. S. Marine Corps Reserve), Fort Worth, Texas 5
2nd Battalion, 23rd Marines (U. S. Marine Corps Reserve), San Bruno,
California 1 336th Air Refueling Squadron (U. S. Air Force Reserve), March
Air Reserve Base, California 729th Airlift Squadron (U. S. Air Force
Reserve), March Air Reserve Base, California 187th Airlift Squadron (Air
National Guard), Cheyenne, Wyoming 163rd Security Forces Squadron (Air
National Guard), March Air Reserve Base, California 196th Aerial Refueling
Squadron (Air National Guard), March Air Reserve Base, California 112th
Fighter Squadron (Air National Guard), Swanton, Ohio 1 180th Security Forces
Squadron (Air National Guard), Swanton, Ohio 1 180th Maintenance Squadron
(Air National Guard), Swanton, Ohio 1 1 Command staff provided written
answers to GAO questions, and unit personnel completed surveys, but we did
not personally interview personnel from these units.
5 We also met with the commanding officer of VMFA- 112 and one of his pilots
while we were visiting VMGR- 234 at the Joint Reserve Base in Fort Worth,
Texas. We did not survey personnel in VMFA- 112, however, because their
operational tempo was not as high as the tempo of the other units we
visited.
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology
Page 33 GAO- 02- 608 Reserve Forces
Higher Headquarters Commands
U. S. Army Special Operations Command, Fort Bragg, North Carolina U. S. Army
Civil Affairs and Psychological Operations Command, Fort Bragg, North
Carolina 29th Infantry Division (Light) (VA Army National Guard), Fort
Belvoir, Virginia 49th Armored Division (TX Army National Guard), Camp
Mabry, Texas Naval Reserve Force, New Orleans, Louisiana Naval Surface
Reserve Force, New Orleans, Louisiana Naval Air Reserve Force, New Orleans,
Louisiana Reserve Intelligence Area Four (U. S. Naval Reserve), San Diego,
California Naval Air Reserve Point Mugu, California Deputy Chief of Staff
for Manpower and Reserve Affairs, Reserve Affairs Division (U. S. Marine
Corps Reserve), Quantico, Virginia 452nd Air Mobility Wing (U. S. Air Force
Reserve), March Air Reserve Base, California 446th Airlift Wing (U. S. Air
Force Reserve), McChord Air Force Base, Washington Headquarters California
Air National Guard, Sacramento, California 153rd Airlift Wing (Air National
Guard), Cheyenne, Wyoming 163rd Air Refueling Wing (Air National Guard),
March Air Reserve Base, California 180th Fighter Wing (Air National Guard),
Swanton, Ohio
During our unit visits, we also held focus group discussions with reservists
who had recently deployed. The discussions centered on reservists?
relationships with their civilian employers, the types of support that the
reservists had received during their deployments, and steps that could be
taken to improve support during future deployments. However, we also
discussed ways that DOD and the services could improve their support to
reservists.
To gain the perspective of reservists? employers, we contacted the U. S.
Chamber of Commerce and held discussions with local employers in Austin,
Texas; Dallas/ Fort Worth, Texas; and Los Angeles, California. We also met
with representatives from the major passenger and cargo airlines at the 2001
Military/ Airline Symposium in Dallas, Texas, and the 2002 symposium in
Crystal City, Virginia. We also reviewed the results of OASD/ RA?s 1999
employer survey and reviewed ESGR data on model employers and employer
problems. In addition, we mailed a survey to 359 employers of the reservists
we visited. Because neither DOD 6 nor any of
6 Following the events of September 11, 2001, DOD encouraged the services to
collect employer information from mobilized reservists for future input into
an automated data base. By November 6, 2001, the on- line data base was
fully functional and the services and individual reservists were able to
enter data through the Defense Manpower Data Center Web site. However, by
May 14, 2002, more than 73, 000 reservists had been mobilized and the data
base contained fewer than 11, 000 employer records.
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology
Page 34 GAO- 02- 608 Reserve Forces
the services had a complete and reliable data base with the names and
addresses of their reservists? civilian employers, we obtained employer
names and addresses during our unit visits and mailed them our survey. These
employers were not randomly selected; therefore, our results are not
projectable to all employers. However, those surveyed included both small
and large employers; federal, state, and local government entities; and
private- sector firms. 7
We conducted our review from December 2000 through April 2002 in accordance
with generally accepted government auditing standards.
7 Appendix VII contains a copy of the survey, and appendix VIII provides
additional details about the employers who responded to the survey.
Appendix II: Operational Tempos of the Reservists We Surveyed
Page 35 GAO- 02- 608 Reserve Forces
We surveyed 1,608 reservists from high tempo units (appendix I contains a
list of the units we visited and contains additional details on our survey
methodology). Of the 1, 608 reservists we surveyed
1,308 were ?traditional? drilling reservists,
202 were Active Guard and Reserve (AGR) or other full- time reserve
members,
20 left the question about the nature of their reserve service blank, and
78 were Military Technicians who were required to be ?drilling? military
members of their units in order to maintain their full- time civilian
positions with the units.
Question #15 of our survey asked reservists to fill in the number of days
they had spent on reserve duty between September 2000 and August 2001 (the
start of our unit visits). Of the 1, 308 traditional reservists that we
surveyed
712 performed more than the normally expected level of duty (39 days),
476 performed between 1 and 39 days of duty, 1 and
120 left the question blank or performed no duty during the designated
period. 2
In response to survey question #15, 1,188 traditional reservists said that
they had duty. The table below summarizes their responses.
1 Some of the reservists with low duty levels were not in the reserves in
September 2000 and joined part- way through the period covered by our
question (September 2000 to August 2001). 2 Some reservists joined the
reserves between the cut- off date for our question (August
2001) and the times when we distributed our last surveys (during a unit
visit in January 2002). Appendix II: Operational Tempos of the
Reservists We Surveyed
Appendix II: Operational Tempos of the Reservists We Surveyed
Page 36 GAO- 02- 608 Reserve Forces
?Traditional? Reservists We Surveyed Who Had Duty (Sep. 2000 - Aug. 2001)
Amount of Duty Number of responses Percentage of responses
1- 39 days 476 40% 40- 59 days 237 20% 60- 89 days 164 14% 90- 179 days 129
11% 180- 269 days 113 10% 270 or more days 69 6%
Total 1,188 101% a
a Adds to more than 100 percent due to rounding.
We also asked the reservists to tell us about their duty in the 2 previous
years. Forty- four of the 1, 308 ?traditional? reservists said that they
averaged at least 180 days of duty per year over the entire 3- year period.
Another 253 reservists said they spent 180 days or more on duty during 1 or
2 of the 3 years. About one- third of the reservists we surveyed had spent
at least 90 days on duty during 1 year during the period from September 1998
through August 2001.
Appendix III: Selected Allegations of Problems with Employers or of
Exceptional Benefits Provided by Employers to Reservists
Page 37 GAO- 02- 608 Reserve Forces
During our focus group discussions with reservists from high operational
tempo units, a number of reservists cited problems they allegedly had with
their employers as a result of their recent military service. (Many of these
reservists had recently deployed overseas, but the reservists were not all
deployed at the same time or for the same length of time.) Some alleged that
their employers, while not breaking the law, had acted in ways that, if
true, violated the spirit of USERRA. Yet a number of reservists also told us
of ways in which their employers went out of their way- and beyond the
requirements of the law- to support them. Reservists we interviewed worked
for both public and private employers and in firms of all sizes, from
Fortune 500 companies with more than 100, 000 employees to firms with a
handful of employees.
It should be noted that we did not verify the statements made to assess
their accuracy, and we did not follow up with the Department of Labor or the
ESGR to determine whether or how problems were resolved. Appendix IV
contains a summary of some of the provisions of USERRA, in layman?s
language.
Many of the examples below, if true, may have been violations of the law;
others are examples of questionable practices; still others are examples of
the hostile work environments that some reservists face.
One Army National Guard member said he was placed on 90- day probation,
lost his seniority, was denied the annual raise that went into effect during
his absence, and lost vacation time and other benefits.
One Army National Guard member alleged that she was denied a raise,
bonuses, vacation time, and the right to purchase 600 shares of company
stock after her deployment.
One Army National Guard member was told he would have to reapply for his
job. He did, but after waiting 4 months for a response, he found work
elsewhere.
One Army National Guard member said the company for which she had worked
for 13 years laid her off in her absence as part of a downsizing and
subtracted 1 week of vacation time and 3 personal days of leave.
One Army National Guard member who worked for a defense contractor said
she was denied a raise and some accrued leave. Appendix III: Selected
Allegations of
Problems with Employers or of Exceptional Benefits Provided by Employers to
Reservists
Examples of Problems Identified by Reservists
Appendix III: Selected Allegations of Problems with Employers or of
Exceptional Benefits Provided by Employers to Reservists
Page 38 GAO- 02- 608 Reserve Forces
One Army National Guard member said he was demoted, lost his title and his
office, was given menial tasks, and was denied a raise.
One Army National Guard member said she was fired. Her supervisor told her
that the work she was contracted to perform was finished and that there was
nothing left for her to do.
One Army National Guard member alleged that his employer denied him a pay
raise that he was due.
One Army National Guard member said that although the company president
was very supportive of her military obligations, her supervisor was not. The
supervisor apparently told her she was passed over for promotion and did not
receive a raise because she had not performed at the same level as others,
due to her absence.
One Army National Guard member who works for the federal government said
he was denied a raise and was passed over for promotion because he had been
away on deployment.
One Army National Guard member said his employer canceled his health
benefits.
One Army National Guard member said he was fired immediately upon giving
his employer advance notice of his deployment. The employer, a religious
organization, allegedly told the reservist that USERRA does not apply to
religious institutions.
One Army National Guard member said he was fired, allegedly for missing a
deadline while he was on deployment.
One Army National Guard member said he was told he no longer had a job
because his employer had hired someone else during his absence.
One Army National Guard member had to wait 30 days to have his health
benefits reinstated when he returned to his job.
One Army National Guard member said his employer took away 2 personal
holidays because he had been unable to use them during deployment.
One Army National Guard member said he was denied a Christmas bonus that
was given to all full- time workers.
Appendix III: Selected Allegations of Problems with Employers or of
Exceptional Benefits Provided by Employers to Reservists
Page 39 GAO- 02- 608 Reserve Forces
One Army National Guard member said he was denied a raise. He was deployed
for 270 days, and when he returned, there were only 6 days left in the
evaluation cycle. His employer told him that 6 days is not enough to use as
a basis for a rating, and therefore did not approve a raise.
One Army Reserve member said he was fired before his deployment, shortly
after he attended a 2- week training session and a 3- week exercise.
One Army Reserve member said he was denied vacation time and was warned he
would be fired if he remained in the reserves.
One Army Reserve member said he had to reapply for his health insurance
benefits and faced a waiting period before coverage resumed.
One Army Reserve member who works for a government agency said he was not
allowed to contribute to his Thrift Savings Plan while deployed and ?had
trouble? returning to his job and lost some status.
One Army Reserve member was told that because the company?s health care
provider had changed during his absence, there would be a probationary
period before his health coverage would become effective.
One Air Force Reserve member said he was fired, adding that his district
manager made it known that he did not like the idea of reserve
participation.
One Air Force Reserve member was denied a request to take 1 paid day of
leave before and after a weekend drill and said she was forced to take
unpaid leave instead. She was also told that she would have to take leave
for all future reserve duty that conflicted with her job.
One Air National Guard member stated that he lost dental insurance
coverage.
One Air National Guard member said he was removed from the promotion list
several times because of the time that he spent on reserve duty.
Appendix III: Selected Allegations of Problems with Employers or of
Exceptional Benefits Provided by Employers to Reservists
Page 40 GAO- 02- 608 Reserve Forces
One Air National Guard member said his employer unfairly terminated him
and actively discourages participation in the reserves.
One Air National Guard member who worked for a local law enforcement
agency said he was fired, and that his department head deliberately
transferred or ?drove out? reservists.
One Naval Reserve member said he was fired just before being deployed.
One Marine Corps Reserve member said that when she told her new employer
at a federal agency that she wanted to join the reserves, her supervisor
warned her it would not be a good idea to join the reserves during her
probationary period.
One Air National Guard member said that the probationary period at his job
is longer for reservists and that being in the reserves is a setback for
promotion consideration.
One Army National Guard member who worked for a defense contractor said
that her supervisor and co- workers treated her with hostility. In addition,
she said that she was given limited and less desirable tasks as a result of
her reserve duty.
One Army National Guard member said his supervisor asked him whether he
had volunteered or had been ordered to active duty. The reservist believed
that his supervisor would have fired him, had he volunteered.
One Army National Guard member said that although his supervisor was very
familiar with agency policy, someone in the personnel department was not. As
a result, he was charged leave for his military duty.
One Army National Guard member said that his supervisor constantly
harasses him, asking ?When are you planning to leave the Guard??
One Army Reserve member said his employer offered him a promotion on the
condition that he not deploy to Bosnia.
Two Air National Guard members who worked for a local law enforcement
agency said they were ?reproached? by their supervisors
Appendix III: Selected Allegations of Problems with Employers or of
Exceptional Benefits Provided by Employers to Reservists
Page 41 GAO- 02- 608 Reserve Forces
as a result of their military duties and questioned regarding their
?loyalty? to the department.
One Air National Guard member, on return to his job, was assigned to night
shift duty. His supervisor told him that the change was temporary.
One Air Force Reserve member said his employer has a policy of denying
employees the ability to ?bid? for jobs if they are deployed for more than
179 days.
Many employers provide additional pay, as well as benefits that exceed the
requirements of USERRA. The following examples, cited by service members,
illustrate some of these benefits.
A Fortune 500 company that employs some 100, 000 people provided an Army
National Guard member with differential pay and health and life insurance
coverage while on deployment.
A company with roughly 400 employees provided an Army National Guard
member with differential pay.
Another company provided an Army National Guard member differential pay
based on his years of experience.
An educational institution offered a teacher who is also in the Army
National Guard differential pay during the duration of his deployment.
An oil company offered one of its Army National Guard employees
differential pay during his deployment.
One company provided an Army National Guard member with health care
coverage and full salary for 90 days during a deployment.
A state education board offered to pay 4 months salary to an Army National
Guard member during deployment.
A telecommunications company paid 100 percent of an Army National Guard
member?s health care premiums during a deployment that exceeded 30 days.
Examples of Additional
Benefits Provided by Employers
Appendix III: Selected Allegations of Problems with Employers or of
Exceptional Benefits Provided by Employers to Reservists
Page 42 GAO- 02- 608 Reserve Forces
A Fortune 500 company paid an Army Reserve member his full salary during
deployment.
A large corporation notified an Army Reserve member of a promotion
opportunity and held the position open for 3 months, until the reservist
returned from deployment. The company also provided extended leave after
deployment and sent care packages and letters during the deployment.
A large accounting and consulting firm provided 4 weeks? paid vacation, 2
weeks? pay for annual training, and 2 weeks of differential pay to a Marine
Corps Reserve member during deployment.
A medium- sized law firm provided a Marine Corps Reserve member 1 month?s
salary and 2 weeks of paid vacation.
One company provided a Marine Corps Reserve member with health insurance
coverage and 1 month?s salary during a deployment.
Appendix IV: Some Key Provisions from the Uniformed Services Employment and
Reemployment Rights Act (USERRA)
Page 43 GAO- 02- 608 Reserve Forces
The Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act of 1994,
enacted October 13, 1994 (Public Law 103- 353 codified in Title 38 U. S.
Code, Chapter 43, sections 4301- 4333), addresses employee rights after
involuntary and voluntary military service. The law covers both active duty
military members and reservists and applies following basic training,
weekend drills, and annual training, as well as during times of national
emergency. This appendix summarized only those provisions of USERRA that are
referred to in the report and does not attempt to discuss these provisions
in detail.
Advance notice. The law requires that service members provide their
employers with advance notice of military service. Notice may be either
written or oral. It may be provided by the employee or by an appropriate
officer of the branch of the military in which the employee will be serving.
However, no notice is required if military necessity prevents the giving of
notice, or it is otherwise impossible or unreasonable to give notice.
Duration of service. To retain reemployment rights, cumulative absences
for military service may not exceed 5 years with respect to the particular
employer relationship for which a person seeks reemployment. However, many
military absences do not count against this limit. Therefore, it is very
unlikely for reservists to exceed the 5year limitation unless they accept
voluntary orders for extended active duty periods. The following are some of
the types of duty that do not count against the 5- year limitation:
required training for Reserve and National Guard members, such as annual
training and weekend drills;
duty during a war or national emergency;
duty under involuntary orders during a domestic emergency or national
security related situations;
service by volunteers who are ordered to active duty in support of a
?critical mission or requirement? in times other than war or national
emergency and when no involuntary call- up is in effect; and
federal service by members of the National Guard called into action by the
president to suppress an insurrection, repel an invasion, or to execute the
law of the United States. Appendix IV: Some Key Provisions from the
Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act (USERRA)
Appendix IV: Some Key Provisions from the Uniformed Services Employment and
Reemployment Rights Act (USERRA)
Page 44 GAO- 02- 608 Reserve Forces
Reporting back to work. Time limits for returning to work generally depend
on the duration of a person?s military service. 1
Service of 1 to 30 days - After returning from duty, service members must
report back by the beginning of the first regularly scheduled work period on
the first full calendar day and the expiration of 8 hours. If, due to no
fault of the employee, timely reporting back to work would be impossible or
unreasonable, the employee must report back to work as soon as possible.
Service of 31 to 180 days - Service members must submit an application for
reemployment no later than 14 days after the completion of their military
service. If submission of a timely application is impossible or
unreasonable, the application must be submitted as soon as possible.
Service of 181 or more days - Service members must submit an application
for reemployment no later than 90 days after the completion of their
military service.
The reporting or application deadlines are extended for up to 2 years for
persons who are hospitalized or convalescing because of a disability
incurred or aggravated during the period of military service. Such 2- year
period shall be extended for the minimum time required to accommodate
circumstances beyond the person?s control. If the person fails to report to
work or to apply for reemployment within the required time limits, the
person will be subject to the employer?s rules governing unexcused absences.
Documentation upon return. An employer has the right to request that a
person who is absent for a period of service of 31 days or more provide
documentation showing that the person?s reemployment is timely, and that the
person has not exceeded the 5- year service limitation and the person?s
separation from service was other than disqualifying under 38 U. S. C.
sect.4304. If a person does not provide satisfactory documentation because it is
not readily available or does not exist, the employer still must promptly
reemploy the person.
1 With the exception of fitness- for- service examinations.
Appendix IV: Some Key Provisions from the Uniformed Services Employment and
Reemployment Rights Act (USERRA)
Page 45 GAO- 02- 608 Reserve Forces
Placement of eligible persons in a job.
Service of 1 to 90 days - The Service members shall be promptly reemployed
in the following order of priority: (A) in the position the person would
have held had the person remained continuously employed so long as the
person is qualified for the job or can become qualified after reasonable
efforts by the employer to qualify the person; or (B) in the position of
employment in which the person was employed on the date of the beginning of
the service in the uniformed services, only if the person is not qualified
to perform the duties of the position referred to in subparagraph (A) after
reasonable efforts by the employer to qualify the person. Employers do not
have the option of offering other jobs or equivalent seniority, status, and
pay.
Service of 91 or more days - In addition to the priority above, if a
person cannot become qualified for the positions in (A) or (B) above, then
in any other position of lesser status and pay, but that most nearly
approximates the above positions (in that order) that the employee is
qualified to perform with full seniority.
Seniority and non- seniority rights. Reemployed service members are
entitled to the seniority- based rights and benefits that they would have
attained with reasonable certainty if they had remained continuously
employed. Additionally, departing service members must be treated as if they
are on a leave of absence. Consequently, while they are away they must be
able to participate in any rights and benefits that are available to other
employees who are on nonmilitary leaves of absence. If there are different
types of nonmilitary leave, the service members must be accorded the most
favorable type of leave.
Vacation pay. Service members must be permitted to use any vacation they
had accrued before the beginning of their military service, instead of
unpaid leave. However, service members cannot be forced to use vacation time
for military service.
Health benefits. Health benefit continuation is provided for persons who
are absent from work to serve in the military. Service members may continue
their health coverage for up to 18 months after their absences begin or for
their periods of service (plus the time allowed to apply for reemployment),
whichever is shorter. The premiums that an employee can be charged depend on
the length of the employee?s absence.
Appendix IV: Some Key Provisions from the Uniformed Services Employment and
Reemployment Rights Act (USERRA)
Page 46 GAO- 02- 608 Reserve Forces
Military service of 30 days or less - Service members cannot be charged
more than the normal employee share of any premium.
Military service of 31 days or more - Service members can be charged up to
102 percent of the full (employee and employer) premium for the coverage.
No waiting periods or exclusions can be imposed upon reinstated employees
who would have maintained their health coverage if they had not been absent
for military service.
Discrimination. The Act prohibits discrimination on the basis of uniformed
service status. Employment discrimination because of past or future military
obligations is prohibited.
Appendix V: Guard and Reserve Member Survey
Page 47 GAO- 02- 608 Reserve Forces
Appendix V: Guard and Reserve Member Survey
Appendix V: Guard and Reserve Member Survey
Page 48 GAO- 02- 608 Reserve Forces
Appendix VI: Employer Survey Page 49 GAO- 02- 608 Reserve Forces
Appendix VI: Employer Survey
Appendix VI: Employer Survey Page 50 GAO- 02- 608 Reserve Forces
Appendix VII: Characteristics of Employers that Responded to Our Survey
Page 51 GAO- 02- 608 Reserve For
We received 111 responses to the survey we sent to 359 employers of
reservists in the high tempo units included in our analysis. This response
rate was much lower than anticipated for several reasons. First, after we
had mailed our survey to the employers, all U. S. Postal Service mail
deliveries to GAO were suspended due to anthrax concerns. Second, we did not
include any surveys that arrived after March 29, 2002. Finally, because
survey responses were anonymous, we could not conduct phone surveys with
employers who had not responded to the mail survey. Because we did not
survey a random sample of reservists? employers, the results of our survey
are not projectable to all employers. However, the responses came from a
variety of different types and sizes of employers as summarized below. These
organizations:
Represented employers of different sizes- from 4 to 41, 810 employees
Responses to Survey Question #5 How many employees work in your
organization?
Number of employees in the organization
Number of respondents
(employers) Percentage of
respondents (employers)
4 to 10 13 12% 11 to 100 36 32% 101 to 500 31 28% More than 500 30 27%
Question left blank 1 1%
Total 111 100%
Had different numbers of reservist employees- from 0 to 763
Responses to Survey Question #8 How many employees serve in the Guard or
Reserves?
Number of Guard or Reserve members in the organization
Number of respondents
(employers) Percentage of
respondents (employers)
0 44% 1 31 28% 2 to 4 24 22% 5 to 10 22 20% 11 to 50 19 17% Over 51 4 4%
Question left blank 7 6%
Total 111 101%
Note: figures add to 101% due to rounding.
Appendix VII: Characteristics of Employers that Responded to Our Survey
Appendix VII: Characteristics of Employers that Responded to Our Survey
Page 52 GAO- 02- 608 Reserve For
Represented all sectors of the economy
Federal Government Agencies (7)
State and Local Governments (31)
Manufacturing Firms (11)
Professional/ Technical Organizations (13)
Marketing Firms (3)
Service Providers (25)
Other (21)
Health Care Providers
Mining Firms
Banks
Construction Firms
Churches/ Religious Organizations
Transportation Providers
Non- profit Institutions
Came from at least 12 different states and the District of Columbia
Alabama (1)
California (16)
District of Columbia (2)
Kansas (1)
Maryland (6)
Minnesota (1)
North Carolina (2)
New Jersey (2)
New York (5)
Texas (6)
Utah (1)
Virginia (17)
Wyoming (12)
Note: To help protect the anonymity of respondents, the surveys did not ask
the respondents for their names or locations. However, the respondents were
asked to separately mail a post card that indicated the employer had
completed the survey. The information on the location of the respondents
came from the post cards, not from the surveys. Unfortunately, we received
only72 post cards to go with the 111 surveys.
Appendix VIII: Reserve Recruiting- Goals and Annual Accessions (1992- 2001)
Page 53 GAO- 02- 608 Reserve Forces
ARNG USAR USNR USMCR ANG USAFR DOD Total
FY92 Goal 65,233 59,700 17,887 10,376 10,423 163,619
FY93 Goal 68,177 50,600 19,537 10,140 10,454 10,592 169,500
FY94 Goal 69,710 46,500 13,144 11,122 10,325 10,434 161,235
FY95 Goal 60,649 47,732 13,660 11,748 8,496 12,578 154,863
FY96 Goal 61,793 50,179 16,850 10,388 11,000 7,090 157,300
FY97 Goal 59,262 47,935 16,950 10,063 9,996 9,702 153,908
FY98 Goal 56,638 47,940 15,329 10,174 8,004 10,874 148,959
FY99 Goal 56,958 52,084 20,455 9,464 8,520 11,791 159,272
FY00 Goal 54,034 48,461 18,410 9,341 10,080 9,624 149,950
FY01 Goal 60,252 34,910 15,250 8,945 11,808 8,051 139,216
FY92 Accessions 71,700 67,342 17,864 11,606 10,533 179,045
FY93 Accessions 67,360 50,255 18,367 10,216 9,163 10,908 166,269
FY94 Accessions 61,248 47,412 13,006 11,236 9,177 11,464 153,543
FY95 Accessions 56,711 48,098 13,701 12,043 8,351 9,757 148,661
FY96 Accessions 60,444 46,187 16,820 12,566 9,958 7,566 153,541
FY97 Accessions 63,495 47,153 17,106 10,744 9,986 8,383 156,867
FY98 Accessions 55,401 44,212 14,986 10,213 8,744 8,877 142,433
FY99 Accessions 57,090 41,784 15,715 9,565 8,398 7,518 140,070
FY00 Accessions 61,260 48,596 14,911 9,465 10,730 7,740 152,702
FY01 Accessions 61,956 35,622 15,344 9,117 10,258 8,826 141,123
FY92 Goal Achievement 109.9% 112.8% 99.9% 111.9% 101.1% 109.4%
FY93 Goal Achievement 98.8% 99.3% 94.0% 100.7% 87.7% 103.0% 98.1%
FY94 Goal Achievement 87.9% 102.0% 99.0% 101.0% 88.9% 109.9% 95.2%
FY95 Goal Achievement 93.5% 100.8% 100.3% 102.5% 98.3% 77.6% 96.0%
FY96 Goal Achievement 97.8% 92.0% 99.8% 121.0% 90.5% 106.7% 97.6%
FY97 Goal Achievement 107.1% 98.4% 100.9% 106.8% 99.9% 86.4% 101.9%
FY98 Goal Achievement 97.8% 92.2% 97.8% 100.4% 109.2% 81.6% 95.6%
FY99 Goal Achievement 100.2% 80.2% 76.8% 101.1% 98.6% 63.8% 87.9%
FY00 Goal Achievement 113.4% 100.3% 81.0% 101.3% 106.4% 80.4% 101.8%
FY01 Goal Achievement 102.8% 102.0% 100.6% 101.9% 86.9% 109.6% 101.4% ARNG-
Army National Guard USAR- United States Army Reserve USNR- United States
Naval Reserve USMCR- United States Marine Corps Reserve ANG- Air National
Guard USAFR- United States Air Force Reserve
In fiscal year 2001, five of DOD?s six reserve components achieved their
recruiting goals. While this is a significant accomplishment, recruiting
Appendix VIII: Reserve Recruiting- Goals
and Annual Accessions (1992- 2001)
Appendix VIII: Reserve Recruiting- Goals and Annual Accessions (1992- 2001)
Page 54 GAO- 02- 608 Reserve Forces
results of the recent past indicate that recruiting figures should continue
to be scrutinized closely. The fiscal year 2001 success did not come without
a cost. In recent years the services have had to increase the size of their
recruiting forces, expand their bonus programs, increase their education
incentives, and increase their advertising budgets. In addition, the nation
was in a recession in 2001.
While recruiting goals are important, the services and reserve components
view recruiting within the context of their programmed end strengths. If
retention is better than expected in a particular year, then the reserve
components may achieve their desired end strengths without achieving their
recruiting goals. This was the case for the Air National Guard in fiscal
year 2001; it achieved only 82 percent of its recruiting goal, but achieved
100.4 percent of its end strength. 1
While end strengths are more important than recruiting figures in the short
term, a service or component that consistently misses its recruiting goals
is likely to eventually suffer long term consequences, regardless of its end
strength position. A component that repeatedly misses its recruiting goals
will need to continue retaining a higher- than- average percentage of
recruits during subsequent years or it will eventually become out of
balance, with too many senior personnel and not enough junior personnel.
Over time, increasing numbers of personnel at the senior levels make it more
difficult for those people to be promoted. Decreased promotion rates tend to
lead to increased attrition rates, which would lead to end strength problems
if a component were already having problems meeting its recruiting goals.
1 The Air National Guard uses projected retention rates to set an annual
recruiting goal that will lead to its desired end strength. It does not
adjust this recruiting goal throughout the year. Therefore, when retention
was better than expected in 2001, the Air National Guard made a conscious
decision to recruit less than its goal in order to achieve its desired end
strength.
Appendix IX: Comments from the Department of Defense
Page 55 GAO- 02- 608 Reserve Forces
Appendix IX: Comments from the Department of Defense
Appendix IX: Comments from the Department of Defense
Page 56 GAO- 02- 608 Reserve Forces
Appendix IX: Comments from the Department of Defense
Page 57 GAO- 02- 608 Reserve Forces
Appendix IX: Comments from the Department of Defense
Page 58 GAO- 02- 608 Reserve Forces
See comment after this appendix.
Appendix IX: Comments from the Department of Defense
Page 59 GAO- 02- 608 Reserve Forces
In view of DOD?s stated actions, we have modified our recommendation by
dropping a quarterly reporting requirement and replacing it with a
requirement to periodically assess the services? progress toward fuller
compliance with the 30- day goal. Comment
Appendix X: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments
Page 60 GAO- 02- 608 Reserve Forces
Gwendolyn Jaffe (202) 512- 4691 James Bancroft, Larry Bridges, Herbert Dunn,
Jack Edwards, Michael Ferren, J. Kris Keener, Stefano Petrucci, Irene
Robertson, and Matthew Sakrekoff also made significant contributions to the
report. Appendix X: GAO Contact and Staff
Acknowledgments GAO Contact Acknowledgments
(702099)
The General Accounting Office, the investigative arm of Congress, exists to
support Congress in meeting its constitutional responsibilities and to help
improve the performance and accountability of the federal government for the
American people. GAO examines the use of public funds; evaluates federal
programs and policies; and provides analyses, recommendations, and other
assistance to help Congress make informed oversight, policy, and funding
decisions. GAO?s commitment to good government is reflected in its core
values of accountability, integrity, and reliability.
The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no cost is
through the Internet. GAO?s Web site (www. gao. gov) contains abstracts and
fulltext files of current reports and testimony and an expanding archive of
older products. The Web site features a search engine to help you locate
documents using key words and phrases. You can print these documents in
their entirety, including charts and other graphics.
Each day, GAO issues a list of newly released reports, testimony, and
correspondence. GAO posts this list, known as ?Today?s Reports,? on its Web
site daily. The list contains links to the full- text document files. To
have GAO e- mail this list to you every afternoon, go to www. gao. gov and
select ?Subscribe to daily E- mail alert for newly released products? under
the GAO Reports heading.
The first copy of each printed report is free. Additional copies are $2
each. A check or money order should be made out to the Superintendent of
Documents. GAO also accepts VISA and Mastercard. Orders for 100 or more
copies mailed to a single address are discounted 25 percent. Orders should
be sent to:
U. S. General Accounting Office 441 G Street NW, Room LM Washington, D. C.
20548
To order by Phone: Voice: (202) 512- 6000 TDD: (202) 512- 2537 Fax: (202)
512- 6061
Contact: Web site: www. gao. gov/ fraudnet/ fraudnet. htm E- mail: fraudnet@
gao. gov Automated answering system: (800) 424- 5454 or (202) 512- 7470
Jeff Nelligan, managing director, NelliganJ@ gao. gov (202) 512- 4800 U. S.
General Accounting Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7149 Washington, D. C.
20548 GAO?s Mission
Obtaining Copies of GAO Reports and Testimony
Order by Mail or Phone To Report Fraud, Waste, and Abuse in Federal Programs
Public Affairs
*** End of document. ***