全球智库信息集成服务系统

Authorizations Are Sufficient

• The services report that RC G/FO authorized strength and exemptions are sufficient for the effective management and leadership of the reserve component.
• Exemptions to the basic authorized strength are appropriate in both structure and number.

Services Are Appropriately Managing and Accounting for RC G/FO Positions

• The services' current requirements and authorizations processes work but would benefit from a systematic, comprehensive review process.
• The number of RC G/FO requirements exceeds the authorized strength.
• The services' methods for ensuring compliance with RC G/FO authorized strengths are adequate but would benefit from a consistent tracking and reporting method used by all the services.
• Authorized strength should not be tied to fluctuations in end strength or the use of RC G/FOs in times of war or national emergency.

There Are Potential Opportunities to Eliminate or Downgrade RC G/FO Requirements

• A small number of candidate positions could, after review by the services, be considered for downgrading or elimination but the vast majority of RC G/FO positions are well justified.
• Positions described as mobilization assistants or National Guard assistants are the requirements category that raises the most questions.
• There are few opportunities to convert RC G/FO positions to senior-level civilian positions.
• RC G/FO requirements that have emerged since 9/11 broadly reflect the needs of the past 15 years, but should be reviewed as operational requirements change.

Increased use of the reserve component, particularly since September 11, 2001, and an expectation that this role will continue and possibly increase in the future has renewed interest in the question of the appropriate number of reserve component general and flag officers (RC G/FOs). RAND researchers conducted a review of requirements and authorized strength for RC G/FOs and determined that the services are working within the statutory limits and have relatively solid requirements processes, have a sufficient number of general and flag officers to meet mission requirements, and are able to provide ample opportunity to develop future officers. After examining the validity of current RC G/FO positions, a small number of candidate positions were identified that could, after review by the services, be considered for downgrading or elimination, but the vast majority of positions are well justified.

• Chapter One

  Introduction

• Chapter Two

  Statutory Authority for General and Flag Officers

• Chapter Three

  Managing Requirements, Authorizations, and Authorized Strength

• Chapter Four

  Review of General and Flag Officer Positions

• Chapter Five

  Considering Development in Setting Requirements

• Chapter Six

  Conclusions

• Appendix A

  Key Statutory Provisions

• Appendix B

  Subject-Matter Expert Interview Participants and Protocol

• Appendix C

  Kapos Attributes

• Appendix D

  LMI Validation Factors

• Appendix E

  RAND Data Collection Protocol: Instrument

• Appendix F

  RAND Data Collection Protocol: Development, Deployment, and Coding

• Appendix G

  Results of a More Stringent Analysis of RC G/FO Requirements

• Appendix H

  Empirical Analysis of Development Aspects of RC G/FO Positions