[House Hearing, 118 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]


                                                              [H.A.S.C. No. 118-21]

 
                                 HEARING

                                   ON

                   NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT

                          FOR FISCAL YEAR 2024

                                  AND

              OVERSIGHT OF PREVIOUSLY AUTHORIZED PROGRAMS

                               BEFORE THE

                      COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES

                        HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                    ONE HUNDRED EIGHTEENTH CONGRESS

                             FIRST SESSION
                               __________

               SUBCOMMITTEE ON MILITARY PERSONNEL HEARING

                                   ON

        MILITARY DEPARTMENT PERSONNEL CHIEFS: PERSONNEL POSTURE
                               __________

                              HEARING HELD
                             MARCH 29, 2023
                                     
                  [GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

                               __________

                    U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
                    
53-741                     WASHINGTON : 2024                                        
  


                   SUBCOMMITTEE ON MILITARY PERSONNEL

                      JIM BANKS, Indiana, Chairman

ELISE M. STEFANIK, New York          ANDY KIM, New Jersey
MATT GAETZ, Florida                  CHRISSY HOULAHAN, Pennsylvania
JACK BERGMAN, Michigan               VERONICA ESCOBAR, Texas
MICHAEL WALTZ, Florida               MARILYN STRICKLAND, Washington
BRAD FINSTAD, Minnesota              JILL N. TOKUDA, Hawaii
JAMES C. MOYLAN, Guam                DONALD G. DAVIS, North Carolina
MARK ALFORD, Missouri                TERRI A. SEWELL, Alabama
CORY MILLS, Florida                  STEVEN HORSFORD, Nevada

               Dave Giachetti, Professional Staff Member
                 Ilka Regino, Professional Staff Member
                  Alexandria Evers, Research Assistant

                            C O N T E N T S

                              ----------                              
                                                                   Page

              STATEMENTS PRESENTED BY MEMBERS OF CONGRESS

Banks, Hon. Jim, a Representative from Indiana, Chairman, 
  Subcommittee on Military Personnel.............................     1
Kim, Hon. Andy, a Representative from New Jersey, Ranking Member, 
  Subcommittee on Military Personnel.............................     3

                               WITNESSES

Cheeseman, VADM Richard J., Jr., USN, Chief of Naval Personnel, 
  and Deputy Chief of Naval Operations for Personnel, Manpower, 
  and Training (N1), U.S. Navy...................................     6
Glynn, LtGen James F., USMC, Deputy Commandant for Manpower and 
  Reserve Affairs, U.S. Marine Corps.............................     8
Kelley, Katharine, Deputy Chief of Space Operations for Human 
  Capital, U.S. Space Force......................................     9
Miller, Lt Gen Caroline M., USAF, Deputy Chief of Staff for 
  Manpower, Personnel, and Services, Headquarters U.S. Air Force.     7
Stitt, LTG Douglas F., USA, Deputy Chief of Staff, G1, U.S. Army.     5

                                APPENDIX

Prepared Statements:

    Banks, Hon. Jim..............................................    31
    Cheeseman, VADM Richard J., Jr...............................    50
    Glynn, LtGen James F.........................................    76
    Kelley, Katharine............................................    94
    Kim, Hon. Andy...............................................    34
    Miller, Lt Gen Caroline M....................................    58
    Stitt, LTG Douglas F.........................................    36

Documents Submitted for the Record:

    Department of Defense Announces Recruiting and Retention 
      Numbers for Fiscal Year 2022 thru March 2022...............   107
    Exhibit A, Navy Personnel Form...............................   108

Witness Responses to Questions Asked During the Hearing:

    Mr. Mills....................................................   111

Questions Submitted by Members Post Hearing:

    Mr. Davis....................................................   117
    Mr. Gaetz....................................................   116
    Mr. Kim......................................................   115
    Mr. Mills....................................................   118

        MILITARY DEPARTMENT PERSONNEL CHIEFS: PERSONNEL POSTURE

                              ----------                              

                  House of Representatives,
                       Committee on Armed Services,
                        Subcommittee on Military Personnel,
                         Washington, DC, Wednesday, March 29, 2023.
    The subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 3:01 p.m., in 
room 2212, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Jim Banks 
(chairman of the subcommittee) presiding.

  OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JIM BANKS, A REPRESENTATIVE FROM 
     INDIANA, CHAIRMAN, SUBCOMMITTEE ON MILITARY PERSONNEL

    Mr. Banks. The subcommittee will come to order. I ask 
unanimous consent that the Chair be authorized to declare a 
recess at any time. Without objection, so ordered.
    I want to welcome everyone to this hearing of the Military 
Personnel Subcommittee. And I want to start by saying that it 
has been some time, if I have it correctly it's been since 
2019, that we have had the service personnel chiefs come in 
front of the Military Personnel Subcommittee.
    A lot has changed in that time. We now have a Space Force. 
The end of operations in Afghanistan. A Russian war in Ukraine 
on the eastern flank of NATO [North Atlantic Treaty 
Organization]. And the ever-increasing threat of the PRC 
[People's Republic of China] military in the South China Sea 
and in other locations throughout the world.
    These changes are what makes this hearing so important. 
Today's hearing is focused on the personnel policymakers who 
are charged with developing the policies, guidance, and 
programs that affect the strategic objectives for accessions, 
recruiting, assignments, benefits, career development, and so 
much more.
    That is to say that you are largely responsible for 
developing tools that shape the total force in each of your 
services. This is no small task.
    We are here to hear from you, your perspective, on the 
effectiveness and consequences of all of these policies, 
especially considering the current difficulties that we face in 
retaining talent and the challenges that we are encountering 
across the recruiting enterprise. And those are just two areas.
    We have heard from a number of senior DOD [Department of 
Defense] officials touting the 2023 marks--that 2023 marks the 
50th anniversary of the All-Volunteer Force. This is indeed a 
tremendous achievement that speaks to the American spirit of 
patriotism that embodies many young people that are willing to 
put service in front of self.
    Quite the difference when we consider the sometimes forced 
conscription militaries of our adversaries like China and 
Russia. These societies oftentimes give no credence to the 
desires of their young adults. But this is to be expected from 
states that espouse despotism, not democracy.
    Which makes what we are going to discuss today here so much 
more important. I, for instance, had a choice when I raised my 
hand and volunteered for service to this great Nation, 
something that I would do again over and over again. Because it 
was this opportunity to serve in our military that helped shape 
who I am today.
    That is why I can say the viability of our All-Volunteer 
Force is at stake. I have said before at this subcommittee that 
there appears to be an erosion of trust between our service 
members and its senior leaders.
    That is why these personnel issues and these policies that 
you control could not be more important. We owe it to our 
service members and their families to get it right.
    I want to thank our witnesses for being with us today and 
for their service to this Nation. I also want to thank all of 
our service members, Active Duty, reservist, and Guard members 
who are serving this Nation around the world as we speak.
    You and your families are really the subject of this 
hearing as the policies and regulations controlled by these 
senior officers profoundly affect your lives and the very 
decision to stay in service or to leave.
    In our hearing on the 9th of March, we heard from the 
senior enlisted leaders that all things are not well. That the 
services have a trust issue. And some of our service members 
are not properly taken care of. This is our, and your, 
responsibility to--and our primary responsibility.
    As I said then, the All-Volunteer Force has placed a 
covenant of trust in our military leaders. You are those 
leaders entrusted with this obligation, this sacred 
responsibility, to develop policy and recommend legislation 
that maintains the force and takes care of people, their 
careers and their families, their very livelihood.
    Secretary Austin just released a memo strengthening our 
support to service members and their families. I am heartened 
that many of these issues long advocated for by this 
subcommittee and some legislated by this Congress are finally 
being implemented. But is it enough?
    I would say no, it is not. And the service recruiting 
metrics over the last several years bear this out. Almost all 
of you are likely to miss your recruiting goals again this 
year, the Army alone by more than 15,000 just last year.
    You have reduced your end-strength requests below the 2023 
authorized numbers. So you must ask yourselves why? And I ask, 
what are you doing about it?
    What are you doing to ensure that you have the required end 
strength to fulfill this mission, the mission requirements 
around the world? Let alone issues like service members' food 
insecurity, identified by you to affect 25 percent of the 
force. That is unacceptable, so what are you doing about it?
    So today we want to focus on what concrete actions are you 
taking to address all the problems that you face, whether it's 
recruiting, pay and benefits, food security, retaining talent, 
family issues, or the elimination of unnecessary bureaucracy.
    And we don't want more of the same. Clearly that is not 
working. What are you doing differently?
    In my view, the personnel system writ large, the totality 
of statute, regulation, culture, and tradition currently in 
place that determines how uniform service members and civilians 
alike are recruited, trained, and retained, promoted, assigned, 
and compensated, is out of date and needs to be reformed. 
Reformed to be more agile, flexible, and adaptive.
    The key challenges to consider include policy bars to 
accessions like medical and physical standards. Compensation of 
personnel: What do they--what do they value, money, 
assignments, family care, for example. And talent and career 
management policy: What are the barriers? Assignments, 
promotions, service culture.
    What are you doing to attract the next soldier, Marine, 
sailor, airman, or Guardian that will be entrusted with 
defending our freedom?
    That is a lot. But all of that is a contract of trust that 
is critical to recruiting, retention, and people's belief in 
service. It is critical to the implementation of the National 
Defense Strategy and the defense of this Nation.
    What I'd like to understand today is what have the services 
done to effect change to live up to this responsibility. What I 
know is there can be no doubt the lifeblood of the military is 
our great men and women that choose to serve, whether they be 
from Indiana like me, New Jersey like our ranking member, or 
any of the other States in this Nation.
    We have an opportunity to serve our service members, and we 
must get it right.
    So I want to welcome our witnesses: Lieutenant General 
Stitt, Vice Admiral Cheeseman, Lieutenant General Miller, 
Lieutenant General Glynn, and Katharine Kelley. But before we 
hear from our witnesses, let me offer Ranking Member Kim an 
opportunity to make any opening remarks as well.
    [The prepared statement of Mr. Banks can be found in the 
Appendix on page 31.]

 STATEMENT OF HON. ANDY KIM, A REPRESENTATIVE FROM NEW JERSEY, 
       RANKING MEMBER, SUBCOMMITTEE ON MILITARY PERSONNEL

    Mr. Kim. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you, everybody, for 
participating.
    A few weeks ago, as you heard, we heard testimony from your 
services' senior enlisted leaders. They shared with us their 
concerns about recruiting and retaining the force. They also 
provided us with a snapshot of quality-of-life issues impacting 
military families.
    Today I look forward to learning how your services' 
personnel policies support our military's greatest asset, which 
is our people. Without soldiers, sailors, Marine, airmen, and 
Guardians, we couldn't man military weapon systems, deliver 
humanitarian assistance, or effectively respond to aggression 
throughout the world.
    I read your testimonies, and there is no doubt you are all 
concerned about our youth decreasing propensity to serve, their 
missing connections to the value of military service, and 
meeting your end-strength goals.
    I share these concerns and would add that while--why I 
support taking steps, whatever necessary, to widen the pool of 
applicants we can draw from for our All-Volunteer Force. It's 
also very clear that you are each exploring new ways to attract 
talent for your specific service and mission needs without 
impacting the quality of individuals we bring into the force.
    I'm encouraged by how you are employing innovative tools to 
increase the impact and effectiveness of your recruiters' 
force, who often serve as the first-line ambassadors in schools 
and communities across the country.
    I know we recruit the service member, but we retain their 
family. It's important not to lose sight of the importance 
quality of life has in reaching end-strength goals. I often 
hear from many service members in my district at Joint Base 
McGuire-Dix-Lakehurst how they struggle to get access to 
medical care and child support they need.
    And additionally, I think this is something my colleagues 
on the other side of the aisle can agree to, we need to address 
the lack of accessible mental healthcare across the force. This 
lack of care is impacting our ability to retain service members 
who have--we have a vested interest in helping return to full 
duty. We need to work together to solve this problem.
    From my time in national security, I remember that to take 
a comprehensive look at a problem, in this case recruiting and 
retention, we need a diverse experience and opinions. We may 
need to take a hard look beyond the Department at how we can 
best encourage the next generation to serve.
    As I've said before, we ask a lot of our service members. 
We ask them to risk their lives to protect our country. So we 
need to make sure they know that we have their backs and that 
we are supporting them however they need.
    Mr. Chairman, thank you for having this hearing today so we 
can discuss the importance of personnel policies on the lives 
of service members. Thank you to the witnesses again for being 
here, and I yield back the balance of my time.
    [The prepared statement of Mr. Kim can be found in the 
Appendix on page 34.]
    Mr. Banks. I thank the ranking member. I ask unanimous 
consent to allow members not on the subcommittee to participate 
in today's hearing and be allowed to ask questions after the 
subcommittee have--subcommittee members have all been 
recognized.
    And each witness will have the opportunity to present his 
or her testimony. And each member will have an opportunity to 
question the witnesses for 5 minutes.
    We respectfully ask the witnesses to summarize their 
testimony in 3 minutes or less. We have your written testimony. 
We appreciate it, we've studied it. Your written comments and 
statements were made part of the hearing record.
    With that, Lieutenant General Stitt, you may make your 
opening statement.

STATEMENT OF LTG DOUGLAS F. STITT, USA, DEPUTY CHIEF OF STAFF, 
                         G1, U.S. ARMY

    General Stitt. Good afternoon, Chairman Banks, Ranking 
Member Kim, distinguished members of this committee. Thank you 
for the opportunity to appear before you on behalf of the men 
and women of your United States Army.
    The Army's number one priority is our people: our soldiers, 
our Army civilians, families, and veterans, our soldiers for 
life. Nothing is more important for our combat readiness.
    In the Army, a pacing item is a critical--mission-critical 
piece of equipment. Our people are our pacing items, and we 
must meet our pacing challenges by taking care of our most 
important resource, our people.
    We are working tirelessly across this Nation in the most 
challenging recruiting landscape in a generation to fill our 
ranks with qualified people that want to be all they can be as 
a part of our Army team.
    There is no one-size-fits-all to the current challenge. We 
are committed to tackling these challenges head-on by 
recruiting a force that looks like the Nation it serves.
    We are laser-focused on innovative efforts such as the 
``Future Soldier Prep Course,'' which helps potential recruits 
become soldiers. This initiative, and others, are designed to 
increase the accession of qualified candidates under three 
principles.
    We will not sacrifice quality for quantity, we will not 
lower our standards, we will invest in America's youth so that 
those who want to serve can meet our standards.
    Last year the Army achieved 104 percent of our retention 
mission in our Active Component, and we are on track to do so 
again this year. This demonstrates the value that our soldiers 
and their families see in service to our Nation.
    Personnel readiness relies on an installation and 
environment that allows our soldiers and families to thrive. 
High-quality housing and barracks are key to ensuring overall 
health and wellness, contributing to the readiness, and 
critical for retaining Army soldiers and their families.
    The Army program approximately $1.6 billion from fiscal 
years 2024 to fiscal year 2028 to improve the government-owned 
Army family housing inventory. Additionally, we have invested 
an average of $1 billion per year in barracks for construction, 
restoration, and modernization across all three Army 
components.
    We are using a very selective process to create and sustain 
command climates at scale across our Army, which now and over 
time permeate down to our lethal and ready squads, crews, and 
teams. Resiliency programs and initiatives aimed at harmful 
behaviors are critical to help us combat sexual harassment and 
assault and factors that contribute to death by suicide.
    Putting our people first as an Army priority and a 
philosophy continues to drive everything we do and contributes 
to our quality of life and our combat readiness.
    Chairman Banks, Ranking Member Kim, distinguished members 
of this committee, I thank you for your generous and unwavering 
support to your Army, its soldiers, civilians, and their 
families. I look forward to your questions. Thank you.
    [The prepared statement of General Stitt can be found in 
the Appendix on page 36.]
    Mr. Banks. Thank you. Vice Admiral Cheeseman.

  STATEMENT OF VADM RICHARD J. CHEESEMAN, JR., USN, CHIEF OF 
   NAVAL PERSONNEL, AND DEPUTY CHIEF OF NAVAL OPERATIONS FOR 
       PERSONNEL, MANPOWER, AND TRAINING (N1), U.S. NAVY

    Admiral Cheeseman. Chairman Banks, Ranking Member Kim, and 
distinguished subcommittee members, thank you for the 
opportunity to appear before you today.
    As the Chief of Naval Personnel, it is my distinct 
privilege to represent the sailors of the United States Navy, 
who stand the watch 24 hours a day, 7 days a week in every 
corner of the globe, above, on, and below the surface of the 
seas, preserving the American way of life and freedom around 
the world.
    This year's budget focused holistically on taking care of 
our people, where our sailors work and live, how they are 
compensated, and how we support them and their families. We 
must ensure that sailors and their families are afforded a 
quality of life and service on par with their responsibilities.
    They must be fairly compensated through pay increases, 
targeted bonuses, and appropriate allowances. In addition, the 
budget prioritizes several initiatives that allows our Navy to 
maintain a culture to fight and win, including tools and 
education for our leadership specifically to address mental 
health, suicide, and sexual assault prevention and response.
    We released our ``Mental Health Playbook'' last month, 
which supports command leaders in minimizing mental health 
issues. But when they do occur, to empower them with the 
resources to connect sailors with the appropriate mental 
healthcare at the right level at the right time.
    With proper use, the Playbook enables everyone in a command 
to share an understanding of how to conduct mental health 
preventive maintenance.
    Continued commitment to invest in our sailors is necessary 
to sustain the fleet and is largely the reason why we have been 
able to maintain such a high retention rate. I appreciate your 
strong support here in Congress on compensation to include 
vital special pays and bonuses, which are needed to target 
specific skills and technology changes to the landscape of war.
    We have also leveraged several other monetary and non-
monetary incentives, to include extended high year tenure 
opportunities and billet-based advancement. As we navigate this 
area of strategic competition, we must continue to attract, 
influence, recruit, cultivate, and train talent from every 
corner of the country and every walk of life.
    And we recognize there's significant competition for that 
talent. As a result, we have thoughtfully and creatively 
implemented several targeted policy changes within our current 
authorities to widen our available pool of potential recruits.
    As I have traveled around the country to visit and hear 
from our sailors, one thing is clear. They embody an American 
spirit that no adversary can define. I remain inspired each and 
every day by these men and women who exceed every expectation, 
and it is my singular honor to serve each of them.
    We train every sailor that enters our ranks to be a 
warfighter, yet more importantly, we make better Americans to 
be leaders for our country, both in uniform and when they 
return to civilian life. We owe it to them, the most junior 
sailors in the waterfront today and the youngest future sailors 
of tomorrow, to continue to build the best Navy we can.
    You and every American can be proud of your sailors and 
their families. I appreciate your continued support and 
partnership, and I look forward to your questions.
    [The prepared statement of Admiral Cheeseman can be found 
in the Appendix on page 50.]
    Mr. Banks. Thank you. Lieutenant General Miller.

 STATEMENT OF LT GEN CAROLINE M. MILLER, USAF, DEPUTY CHIEF OF 
STAFF FOR MANPOWER, PERSONNEL, AND SERVICES, HEADQUARTERS U.S. 
                           AIR FORCE

    General Miller. Good afternoon. Chairman Banks, Ranking 
Member Kim, and distinguished members of the subcommittee, I am 
honored to have the opportunity to appear before you with my 
fellow service personnel colleagues.
    Today, for the first time in recent history, the United 
States is facing two peer competitors, China and Russia. To 
prevail against these sophisticated adversaries, we must 
develop a networked team of airmen with unique expertise to 
develop game-changing solutions. Only in this way can we 
increase our competitive advantage.
    We are currently working two lines of effort to prepare for 
the high-end fight. First, we are refining future competencies 
and skills required for 2030 and beyond. This effort includes 
targeted focus on digital and multi-capable airmen, which will 
enable our forces to adapt to an evolving and uncertain future.
    Second, we are modernizing our talent management process 
and systems. A multiyear effort is underway to completely 
transform our talent management architecture by replacing 111 
outdated legacy IT [information technology] systems with 6 
agile platforms. This will enable unprecedented access to 
talent management data and allow us to make real-time, risk-
informed force management decisions.
    As we move forward, we must enhance targeting the 
functional skill sets and leadership attributes of the airmen 
we want to retain. Our most recent data indicate our Active 
Duty population retention trends are healthy. Over the last 5 
years, we've held steady at approximately 90 percent.
    That said, we do have critical skill sets on our retention 
watch list: cyber; special warfare; intelligence, surveillance, 
and reconnaissance; nuclear; maintenance; and many rated career 
fields.
    However, while our retention rate indicates a strong force, 
our recruiting efforts are falling short. We are not on track 
to meet our recruiting targets for 2023. Despite this, we 
remain resolute in strengthening our recruiting efforts.
    We know that family support is key to successful recruiting 
and retention. The Air Force is committed to alleviating the 
unique challenges associated with military service experienced 
by spouses and family members. One of the most impactful 
challenges, economic insecurity, poses major readiness and 
retention risks to our force.
    I would just like to say thank you for your support in the 
fiscal year 2023 NDAA [National Defense Authorization Act] to 
increase basic pay and allowances for housing and 
[subsistence].
    Available, affordable, and quality childcare programs for 
families and spouse employment are also key to recruiting and 
mission readiness. We must continue to focus on ensuring our 
airmen and their families have a safe place to work and live, 
an environment in which all airmen are treated with dignity and 
respect and able to reach their full potential.
    These play a critical role in retention, a critical role in 
warfighting mission readiness, and a critical role to deter our 
peer competitors, China and Russia. Ready and resilient airmen 
and families are our competitive advantage, and the Air Force 
is committed to taking care of them.
    Thank you for the continued advocacy for your airmen, both 
military and civilian, and the families who support them. I 
look forward to your questions.
    [The prepared statement of General Miller can be found in 
the Appendix on page 58.]
    Mr. Banks. Thank you. Lieutenant General Glynn.

STATEMENT OF LTGEN JAMES F. GLYNN, USMC, DEPUTY COMMANDANT FOR 
        MANPOWER AND RESERVE AFFAIRS, U.S. MARINE CORPS

    General Glynn. Chair Banks, Ranking Member Kim, and 
distinguished members of the subcommittee, it's my privilege to 
appear before you today alongside my colleagues from the other 
services to provide an overview of your Marine Corps personnel.
    I've submitted a written statement to the subcommittee and 
intend to keep these opening remarks brief, as you highlighted.
    Your Marine Corps is strong. In the midst of Force Design 
2030, we met our recruiting and retention missions last year 
and are working hard toward that end this year as well. 
Recruiting, however, remains historically challenging, perhaps 
more so than last year, because our delayed entry pool was 
leveraged in the past year and is subsequently lower than we 
have habitually maintained it.
    As we continue to recruit and retain Marines, one thing 
will never change: We remain an able expeditionary force at the 
ready, committed to our standards that ensure we're prepared to 
fight and win in every clime and place.
    In this 50-year--50th year of the All-Volunteer Force, we 
are reminded that we have an all-recruited force and are 
mindful of the strategic advantage it provides: talent, 
capability, and warfighting excellence.
    To continue its success, we need to do three things. One, 
engage in a persistent national dialog on service that 
highlights the positive benefits of military service. Two, 
modernize recruiting to optimize advertising in much the same 
way the commercial sector has. And third, improve access to 
young Americans, particularly in high schools, as personal 
engagement is foundational to our recruiting efforts and its 
success.
    I'm pleased to report that Marine Corps retention efforts 
are modernizing to match the energy and enthusiasm of the 
force. This year, we have retained Marines at a historic pace, 
both in number and quality. It shows that once one becomes a 
Marine, they want to remain a Marine.
    And that says a lot about our ethos, being part of a team, 
accomplishing the mission, and taking care of one another 
remain sacred qualities to which Marines both in uniform now 
and the past hold tight.
    To further improve recruiting and retention, we have 
decisively stepped out on what we call a talent management 
design that continues to expand and gain momentum. Talent 
Management 2030 is foundational to Force Design 2030 and the 
future success of our Corps, and it leverages many of the 
authorities that Congress and this subcommittee has granted us 
in recent years, for which we remain grateful.
    It will help better maximize the number of fully trained, 
qualified, experienced, and deployed Marines in our operational 
forces. The overarching goal of talent management is to 
increase Marine Corps warfighting capability and sustain our 
ability, and frankly our responsibility, to be the Nation's 
premier expeditionary force in readiness, your ``fight 
tonight'' force.
    A pillar of warfighting readiness is built on trust, and 
that trust is maintained with a Marine support structure at 
home and in their communities. To that end, we recognize and 
promote all the ways Marine and Family Programs support the 
force and allow them to keep a focus on the mission.
    Holistic performance, including spiritual, mental, social, 
and physical fitness, are critical for Marines and their loved 
ones and are a major line of effort for successfully achieving 
our talent management goals.
    Family readiness, quite simply, is readiness. It's my honor 
to represent your Marine Corps today, and I look forward to 
your questions. Semper Fidelis.
    [The prepared statement of General Glynn can be found in 
the Appendix on page 76.]
    Mr. Banks. Thank you. Ms. Kelley.

STATEMENT OF KATHARINE KELLEY, DEPUTY CHIEF OF SPACE OPERATIONS 
              FOR HUMAN CAPITAL, U.S. SPACE FORCE

    Ms. Kelley. Thank you. Chairman Banks, Ranking Member Kim, 
distinguished members of this subcommittee, thank you for your 
leadership and the support you have provided to our Guardians 
and their families.
    I just recently transferred from the Army. I'm delighted to 
be here representing with my colleagues here today. I am a 
service IST [interservice transfer] transfer as a civilian, a 
former officer, and a spouse of a veteran. Thank you for your 
time.
    Your Guardians, both military and civilian, are preserving 
U.S. freedom of action in increasingly contested space domains. 
Developing this force is a national imperative.
    We are comprised of a powerful mix of talent from all 
branches of the service, as well as young, innovative, bright 
minds from across the Nation. This is our most important 
operational advantage.
    We are committed to taking care of our people and 
positively shaping their professional and their family 
experience. We will continue to work with this committee and 
with our Air Force partners on tough issues such as pay and 
compensation, quality of life, childcare, and family services.
    The Space Force is proposing a new approach to military 
personnel management, with flexible force design options. At a 
time when national propensity to serve is declining, winning 
the war for talent is the greatest strategic advantage.
    The proposal eliminates the complexities of traditional and 
regular reserve constructs and provides a continuum of service 
aimed at retaining critical skill sets and offering a new way 
to employ talent through service-managed part-time 
opportunities, which today are not available in the Space 
Force.
    This new model would facilitate a different conversation 
with prospective candidates. We believe it will better position 
the Space Force in the most competitive labor market we've seen 
in years.
    We understand that new statutory authorities are necessary 
and we look forward to continued conversations. The Space Force 
is actively incorporating education, training, and 
individualized development, including access to schools and 
investment in brand awareness.
    Beginning this year, we will partner with a private 
institution for senior-level education, culminating in a 
master's in public policy. This new approach is a collaboration 
between civilian academia and professional military education.
    We are also leveraging innovative ways to increase holistic 
health and fitness of the force, including mental health. We 
are studying the most appropriate ways, include long-term 
fitness standards with an eye towards departing from single 
episodic testing to interactive fitness.
    Space is no longer a benign domain. I am proud of the more 
than 13,000 military and civilian Guardians who have joined so 
far. Together we are building a force unilaterally focused on 
the mission of securing and defending America's interests in 
space.
    We thank you for your continued support, and I look forward 
to your questions.
    [The prepared statement of Ms. Kelley can be found in the 
Appendix on page 94.]
    Mr. Banks. Thank you to each of you. I'll yield myself 5 
minutes to begin questions.
    And with that, I'll start with you, Lieutenant General 
Stitt. What has been the practical effect of recruiting 
shortfalls?
    General Stitt. Chairman Banks, where we see the practical 
impact of recruiting shortfalls is primarily within our skill 
level 1 inventory across the force. So it's those junior 
enlisted soldiers that we did not recruit, that that's where we 
see the holes in ranks.
    Mr. Banks. How has that changed the Army?
    General Stitt. Chairman Banks, we have not changed. We 
believe that we are ready and capable to fight tonight.
    Mr. Banks. So even though we're way short of our 
recruitment goals, it's not--you're saying it's not changing 
the strength of the Army.
    General Stitt. Chairman Banks, yes, our overall end 
strength has decreased because we did not recruit and bring in 
the skill level 1 soldiers, those junior enlisted personnel 
last year.
    Mr. Banks. Let me ask this: Would you say that the 
difficulty in recruitment has driven your reductions in the 
end-strength requests for the fiscal year 2024, or is it 
because of the reduced mission requirements in the Army?
    General Stitt. Chairman Banks, I would ask that I take that 
question for the record, please.
    [The information referred to was not available at the time 
of printing.]
    Mr. Banks. Okay, fair enough. What's your outlook for 
recruitment moving forward? I mean, frankly, how are you going 
to fix it? How are we going to meet our recruitment goals when 
we've continued to fail at it?
    General Stitt. Chairman Banks, we're taking, as I indicated 
in my opening statement, a robust approach looking at opening 
our pool to get after as wide an applicant population as 
possible, utilizing, for instance, the ``Future Soldier Prep 
Course,'' where we can bring in applicants who do not meet the 
current academic or physical fitness requirements. And on a 
conditional basis, we train them up down at Fort Jackson, 
holistically.
    And we've also expanded this program now at Fort Benning. 
We're seeing about a 97 percent success rate to--and that is 
one of our big bolsters to recruiting that we initiated at the 
end of last year, and we're seeing significant improvement this 
year.
    Mr. Banks. So you're admitting that we're weakening 
standards to make up for recruitment shortfalls.
    General Stitt. Chairman Banks, we are not lowering 
standards. As indicated, we are not sacrificing quality for 
quantity. These are applicants who are otherwise qualified for 
entry into the service, and we are just burnishing their skill 
sets prior to sending them on into Basic Combat Training.
    Mr. Banks. All right, my next question is for all of you: 
How are we fixing the food insecurity issue in the military 
that I addressed in my opening statement?
    I'll start with you, General Stitt.
    General Stitt. Chairman Banks, we are looking and working 
with the Department of Defense through the Quadrennial Review 
of Military Compensation.
    But at the grass-roots level, we continue to train and 
inform soldiers and family members, utilizing resources through 
family programs to educate them and train them on this is what 
you can do when you are promoted, when you add a family member, 
so that we are developing financial readiness and resiliency 
across the force.
    Mr. Banks. Admiral Cheeseman, what's the Navy doing to fix 
the food insecurity issue?
    Admiral Cheeseman. Sir, thanks for the question. Very 
similar response. I note from that survey that you discussed 
earlier where about 25 percent of service members indicate some 
level of food insecurity. About 85 percent of service members 
also indicate they feel like they're fairly compensated.
    So you know, definitely endorse the quadrennial review of 
military commission, but from a grass-roots level, as my 
colleague mentioned, we are working very hard to, you know, 
help our sailors make good financial decisions.
    We start training on financial security in boot camp. We've 
provided programs at the Fleet and Family Support Centers at 
all waterfront levels and each individual unit has a financial 
specialist that can help sailors with questions of these sorts, 
sir.
    Mr. Banks. General Miller.
    General Miller. Yes, Chairman Banks, thank you. Similar to 
my colleagues, we're doing very similar things. But I will tell 
you that one of the things that we focus, in addition to the 
training at multiple levels, starting from basic military 
training, is connectedness.
    We are making sure that our command teams understand and 
our--and know their airmen. That way they can tell what is 
going on not only in their professional life, but what is going 
on in their personal life.
    And so if they find that they are having some challenges in 
food security or, you know, other areas, they can immediately 
make sure that they reach out to the appropriate resources to 
help those airmen.
    Mr. Banks. And quickly, General Glynn.
    General Glynn. Yeah, to not be repetitive I would just 
highlight that any question about insecurity in any area, 
whether it is housing or food, is indicative of the very small 
margin that we see in pay scales right now. And hence the 
reference to Quadrennial Review of Military Compensation.
    I would only offer in addition that what are we doing in 
addition is highlighting to folks the advantage they get by 
where they shop. In this case the commissary. The Department 
has made concerted efforts to ensure commissary prices on 
staples are more than competitive in ensuring that folks take 
advantage of those.
    Mr. Banks. Very good. Ms. Kelley.
    Ms. Kelley. Yes, Chairman. I agree with all my colleagues. 
I would also just add in the Space Force there is an education 
component and a team component to make sure that we're aware of 
our needs from the Guardians. And we place a special emphasis 
on making sure that we are aware if there are those issues.
    Mr. Banks. Thank you. I yield to Ranking Member Kim.
    Mr. Kim. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you all again for 
taking the time to come on out here.
    I wanted to talk to you about something that is--that we've 
been talking a lot about on the Hill since it came out last 
month. The Suicide Prevention and Response Independent Review 
Committee released about 125, over 125 different 
recommendations to reduce the rate of military suicides.
    There was one particular mention there in terms of an idea 
there that was--included creating a task force to modernize and 
reform the military promotion system to better reward and 
select the right people for the right positions at the right 
time.
    I wanted to just get your thoughts on that. Because we have 
been kind of talking through that on our end, and wanted to 
just see, you know, each of you if you could respond to that. 
So if you don't mind, maybe we will start over with Army.
    General Stitt. Ranking Member Kim, the Army is 
participating in the IRC [Independent Review Committee] 
committee. And regarding in terms of promotions, one of the 
things that we have done is we have utilized from the 2019 NDAA 
putting some of those authorities into place, such as brevet 
promotion to reward and augment critical skills and shortage 
capabilities that we have that are already in place across the 
service.
    We are also utilizing the merit-based promotion system that 
also came out in the 2019 NDAA, and we look forward to 
participating in future and ongoing efforts to look at our 
promotion system.
    Mr. Kim. Vice Admiral.
    Admiral Cheeseman. Thank you for the question, sir. Very 
similar answer. Bottom line in the Navy, for any promotion 
board is about the best and fully qualified for that sailor or 
that officer. And we enjoy maintaining that standard.
    To that end, we do enjoy the authorities, as my colleague 
mentioned, from the fiscal year 2019 NDAA, and we are using 
each one of those appropriately. But I look forward to working 
with my colleagues here on the panel and my OSD [Office of the 
Secretary of Defense] partners on getting out the 
recommendations from that report, sir.
    Mr. Kim. Okay, thank you. Lieutenant General.
    General Miller. Yes, thank you for the question. I won't 
repeat what they are saying, we are doing much the same thing. 
But we are also, we are ready to support the Department of 
Defense and where they go with the SPRIRC [Suicide Prevention 
and Response Independent Review Committee] release report.
    Additionally, we are--we have some initiatives that are 
going on with the DAF [Department of the Air Force] for the 
suicide prevention, to include a go-slow campaign, which is 
basically putting time and space in between behavior. And so we 
have got a big initiative on gun locks and safe storage 
material.
    And additionally, we have launched recently a comprehensive 
lethal means safety plan in 2022.
    Mr. Kim. Okay, thank you. Lieutenant General.
    General Glynn. Ranking Member Kim, thanks for the question. 
There are many similarities, so I think I will highlight one.
    I am happy to report inside that Talent Management 2030 
that I described, we have already undertaken an aggressive look 
at our enlisted retention and promotion approach, specifically 
leveraging one of the authorities that you have provided 
previously, which is merit reorder.
    We have applied that across several officer ranks to see 
its effect, and this year have a pilot going on the enlisted 
side as well to address what we hear from Marines, at least, 
is, How do I know that my performance is recognized? How is 
that reflected in the pace and rate at which I am promoted? And 
that is what specifically it is intended to address.
    Mr. Kim. Thank you. Ms. Kelley, you have anything to add 
here?
    Ms. Kelley. I do, thank you, Ranking Member Kim. I would 
offer in the Space Force one of the things we are thinking 
about with respect to promotion and to the specific ask from 
the committee for innovative ideas.
    We are looking at all the jobs that we have in the Space 
Force. There is a little bit of an advantage to our small size 
that we can do this. And we are looking through a lens of 
competencies that are necessary for the type of work that we 
have in the Space Force.
    A highly technical, predominantly STEM [science, 
technology, engineering, and mathematics]-focused environment, 
but aligning the competencies and then communicating them to 
Guardians so that they understand what it is going to take for 
them to be promoted is one of the goals of our competency work, 
sir.
    Mr. Kim. Some of other ideas and recommendations that came 
out, several of them focused on length of assignments, greater 
flexibility in the career trajectory, more predictability in 
unit training.
    I guess I just wanted to ask more broadly, is that 
something that stands out to you as something that we need to 
be moving towards, not just for the prevention of suicide, but 
just more broadly as employers here? Is there anyone that 
wanted to jump on that? Vice Admiral.
    Admiral Cheeseman. Yes, sir. Thanks for that question, it 
is a very important discussion to have. We find that as we are 
modernizing our enlisted talent management strategy, we have 
something called ``Detailing Marketplace Assignment Policy.''
    And that is where we provide a number of monetary and non-
monetary incentives to get--to, you know, incentivize sailors 
to stay on sea duty. And to your point, it is not just about 
money, it could be about, you know, geographic stability. It 
could be about assignment choice.
    So more today than ever before, a young enlisted sailor has 
a say in what they are doing for their career, and we're having 
positive effects from that, sir.
    Mr. Kim. Thank you. I am out of time, but I will follow up 
with the rest of you, I would love to continue that 
conversation.
    Mr. Banks. I yield 5 minutes to General Bergman.
    Mr. Bergman. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you all for 
being here, and thanks for all you do every day.
    Nineteen ninety-eight. The Wall Street Journal did a little 
survey on values. And the point is they just recently redid 
that. And I don't know if you've seen it, but the number one 
now in increase for young people is the desire for money, 
desire for money, be rich, okay.
    What's been displaced? And here is the point from the 
article. Patriotism listed as a value has basically gone from 
70 percent to 38 percent. I am not going to deal with the 
others, but patriotism.
    Ms. Kelley, you mentioned, you used the word propensity to 
serve. And according to my favorite app, that would be the 
Webster Dictionary, propensity, an often intense natural 
inclination. And when we think about recruiting young men and 
women into the military, there is a certain intensity that 
draws people into the military.
    So having said that, and I would just appreciate a simple 
yes-or-no answer from all of you, I don't need elaboration on 
the following question. The subject is GENESIS.
    Do you believe that the new MHS [Military Health System] 
GENESIS system is having a positive, negative, or neutral 
impact on your all's ability to recruit?
    General.
    General Stitt. Positive, sir.
    Admiral Cheeseman. Sir, I second that, positive from here.
    General Miller. Positive.
    General Glynn. Sir, I would say neutral, too soon to tell.
    Ms. Kelley. I agree with neutral. I think it can get to 
positive, but I think it just needs to work out some of the 
kinks.
    Mr. Bergman. Yeah, what I have heard from the recruiters is 
that it's encumbered them with timelines, delay in decision 
making and all this kind of stuff that may not add to the value 
proposition for that young person. Or maybe not so young, but 
the bottom line is that person who would show a propensity.
    They feel they are getting messed, you know, delayed with, 
screwed around with, whatever you want to call it. That we 
can't--we, the United States military, the Department of 
Defense, can't make a decision ``yes or no.''
    On March the 9th, your senior enlisted leaders from each of 
the services sat before this committee for this same topic. And 
I asked those leaders two questions. And for the record--I 
asked them to take it for the record, but I am still awaiting 
the answers for the record, so I'll ask them to you all.
    Number one, are the recruiters, are your recruiters getting 
access to the schools? Are the school influencers, the boards 
of education, the teachers, the counselors, the coaches, the 
principals, welcoming recruiters into the schools?
    And if you know the answer, I would love to hear it. If you 
would like to take it for the record, I would like to know that 
too. But when you do take one for the record, we do need an 
answer, okay?
    Anybody want to make a comment on that before I go on to 
the next one?
    General Miller. Yes, sir, I will comment on that. I think 
that it depends. I think there are some schools that are very 
welcoming. I have worked with superintendents when I personally 
was the 502nd Air Base Wing at Joint Base San Antonio, and I 
worked with superintendents across San Antonio. And they were 
very welcoming, they wanted people in there.
    But I also think that there are communities in which are 
not exposed to the military, and so they are a little more 
hesitant because they don't know what our mission is.
    And so we have got to make sure that we open our gates, we 
have people out there to explain what the military is, and 
we've got to change the national narrative on what the positive 
things about serving in the military.
    Mr. Bergman. So having said that, in your opinion, and I 
would like an answer from all of you on this, what DOD policies 
are currently inhibiting your ability to lead in your 
departments?
    And are there policies countering positive efforts that you 
are expected to comply with? In other words, what are the extra 
rocks in your pack that are making it tough for you to meet 
mission? Anybody want to offer in, from a policy standpoint?
    General Glynn. Congressman, I don't have a single one, but 
the point is taken that much has been added. And so when you--
--
    Mr. Bergman. Much, meaning rocks to your pack?
    General Glynn. Over time.
    Mr. Bergman. Okay.
    General Glynn. With very few removed.
    Mr. Bergman. Well, then let's do this, and I know my time 
is up, let's talk about I'm always, and I know I speak for I 
think for all of us here, I don't care what side of the aisle 
you are on, we are not interested in adding rocks to your pack 
that don't add value to what you are trying to achieve.
    And looking forward to our next conversation with that. Mr. 
Chairman, I yield back.
    Mr. Banks. Thank you. Representative Escobar.
    Ms. Escobar. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, thank you, Mr. 
Ranking Member. And thanks to our panelists for your time with 
us here this afternoon. But especially for your service to our 
country.
    Wanted to share a couple of observations with you, and not 
necessarily for your response or your comment, I have other 
questions. But just a couple of interesting things I'd like to 
share.
    First, as I have gone on a number of CODELs [congressional 
delegations] over the last 12 months to different countries, 
allies, mostly in Europe, and when I have had the opportunity 
to speak to their military leaders, I have asked about how 
their recruitment is going. And not consistently but I would 
say invariably most of our friends and allies are struggling 
with the same challenge.
    So this is not a uniquely American challenge, the challenge 
with recruitment. So you are all nodding, so it sounds, it 
looks like you all are familiar with the fact that this is--we 
are not alone in facing this challenge, our country is not 
alone.
    The second thing I would like to put on your radar, I get 
to meet with incredible young people who apply to our service 
academies. And I frequently ask them about recruitment as well. 
Not to a person, but I have conversations with many of them.
    Almost to a person, they have told me that they believe 
recruitment needs to start far earlier. And that many of their 
peers and friends who are very--who become very interested as 
they learn of the service academies and begin thinking about 
their own future feel like they learn about it too late.
    So just wanted to share those two items with you.
    But I represent El Paso, Texas, home to Fort Bliss, which 
has--is the largest joint mobilization force generation 
installation in the Army. And we get--we have a lot of military 
families, a lot of veterans. I am very proud of that, we are a 
very proud military community.
    And so quality-of-life issues for our personnel, especially 
because so many of our personnel make contact with Fort Bliss, 
those are a priority for me and my team and my office.
    Lieutenant General Stitt, as the Army struggles with 
recruitment and retention efforts, we need to acknowledge the 
dire need for quality-of-life infrastructure. Reporting 
yesterday indicated that the Army alone found over 2,000 
facilities across the service with mold problems, which is 
obviously unacceptable.
    The problem at hand is not merely a matter of simple 
upkeep, it is housing service members in buildings that are 
long past their service life. In your testimony, you stated 
that improving barracks and housing for our soldiers and 
families is a top priority for all Army senior leaders.
    I know the fiscal year 2024 budget request identified 
barracks across a few installations as quality-of-life 
projects, but the Army has a long way to go to include CDCs 
[child development centers] and other housing.
    Can you please speak to your efforts to convey these 
infrastructure needs to your installation management 
counterparts thus far? And how can Congress be a partner in 
addressing this problem?
    General Stitt. Representative Escobar, thank you for the 
question. And the Army remains committed to providing safe 
housing, barracks, infrastructure, and other facilities for our 
soldiers, families, and civilians.
    A critical aspect of this commitment is ensuring that all 
facilities are inspected and brought into standards. So to go 
back to the survey that was brought out, this was done with 
experts from industry partners and healthcare professionals to 
assist in our efforts to train and certify these inspectors and 
remediation teams across the Army.
    And we are also empowering leaders at the lowest level to 
highlight these concerns that they see so that they can take 
immediate action, such as what was done at Fort Bragg, North 
Carolina, when mold was discovered and soldiers were displaced.
    And we are also with our contracted housing providers, 
holding them accountable when we see issues arise.
    Ms. Escobar. Thank you so much. I'm just about out of time, 
so I'll have to follow up with my question about service 
members' spouses. But you know, in my community as well, we 
hear a lot from the spouses who are struggling to find 
employment and would love to explore that with all of you as 
well at a later date.
    Thank you, Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
    Mr. Banks. Thank you. Five minutes to Representative Gaetz.
    Mr. Gaetz. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am going to begin by 
seeking unanimous consent to enter into the record a press 
release from last year from the Department of Defense entitled 
``Department of Defense Announces Recruiting and Retention 
Numbers for Fiscal Year 2022 through March of 2022.''
    And it reads, ``Overall, it is clear the broader recruiting 
market continues to deteriorate and recruiting shortfalls can 
no longer be solely attributed to COVID-19 [coronavirus disease 
2019].''
    [The information referred to can be found in the Appendix 
on page 107.]
    Mr. Banks. Without objection.
    Mr. Gaetz. So we just heard from Secretary Austin moments 
ago that COVID was the driving headwind, that was the--headwind 
was the term he used, in these recruiting challenges that 
trouble us all. But the Department is saying that it is not 
COVID.
    So I guess I am just trying to figure out what do you guys 
think is the driving factor of the recruiting collapse that we 
are currently overseeing? Any of you who are particularly 
interested.
    General Stitt. Representative Gaetz, that is a great 
question. And what we seeing is that it is not just one factor. 
It is a variety of factors when we look at obesity, physical 
fitness, misconduct, behavioral health challenges, knowledge 
gap.
    What we saw from our data was that individuals that we 
surveyed identified that they would be potentially putting 
their life on hold if they served. So not attributable to one 
single factor, but a multitude.
    Mr. Gaetz. I agree with that. We have got a younger 
generation that is too dumb, fat, slow, addicted, and on video 
games to be eligible to serve in the military.
    And it is really troubling to hear that the response is to 
thin the soup rather than to do what we can earlier on maybe 
through our education system or nutrition programs, whole of 
government to try to get a greater share of our folks capable.
    Does anyone here attribute any of the recruiting challenges 
we face to the new DEI [diversity, equity, and inclusion] push? 
Any of you? Raise your hand if you do. None of you.
    Well, I would suggest that that is misguided. I have heard 
directly from people that this embrace of DEI and ``White 
fragility'' and ``White rage'' harms our recruiting effort in 
the area of the country where we do our best recruiting, in the 
American South.
    I have additional questions for you, General Miller. How 
many Republicans running for Congress had their personnel 
records unlawfully compromised by the United States Air Force?
    General Miller. Thank you for that question. So we did have 
a PII [personal identifiable information] breach. Eleven 
individuals overall, their data was released----
    Mr. Gaetz. You say--when I hear breach, what I hear is that 
like someone hacked or broke in or got the information. You 
gave this information.
    General Miller. Yes, we did, no the Air Force----
    Mr. Gaetz. Right, it wasn't a breach, it was a illegal 
release.
    General Miller. It was a, yes, it was.
    Mr. Gaetz. Right.
    General Miller. We take full responsibility for that.
    Mr. Gaetz. How many?
    General Miller. Eleven.
    Mr. Gaetz. Eleven.
    General Miller. Yes.
    Mr. Gaetz. And all Republicans, right?
    General Miller. I don't know the answer to that. I know 
some of them were, but I think----
    Mr. Gaetz. But if I represent to you that it is all or 
almost all Republicans----
    General Miller. Almost all Republicans, that is correct, 
yes.
    Mr. Gaetz. And this information was given to the Due 
Diligence entity, right?
    General Miller. There was--there were--there was an entity, 
yes.
    Mr. Gaetz. Yeah, and it is an opposition research entity 
that gets hundreds of thousands of dollars from the Democratic 
Congressional Campaign Committee and the Democratic Senatorial 
Campaign apparatus, right?
    General Miller. I don't know that much about Due Diligence, 
but there is--I know that we released the information 
inappropriately.
    Mr. Gaetz. Why did you do that?
    General Miller. It was a, you know, it was an error. We did 
an investigation as soon as we found out. We notified all of 
the members in which their data was released. We have put in 
place multiple layers of checks and balances. We did a 
retraining.
    Mr. Gaetz. Who has been fired for doing this?
    General Miller. We have taken the appropriate action.
    Mr. Gaetz. Okay, who has been fired?
    General Miller. We have taken the appropriate action.
    Mr. Gaetz. It is a fascinating answer, just not to my 
question. Who has been fired?
    General Miller. I can't answer that.
    Mr. Gaetz. Has a single person been fired?
    General Miller. I do not know the answer to that.
    Mr. Gaetz. Shouldn't you, though? I mean, here we are 
having recruiting challenges. You guys are releasing personnel 
information of predominantly Republicans to a Democrat 
opposition research firm.
    You run personnel for the United States Air Force, and you 
can't tell me whether anyone has been fired for this 
unauthorized release?
    General Miller. Congressman, I can tell you that we have 
taken the appropriate action based on the----
    Mr. Gaetz. But you deem it appropriate, but what if we 
don't? Because we have civilian control of the military, and we 
may have to change our laws to hold people accountable. And 
pardon me for not trusting your vague reference to the layers 
that you have put on.
    But Mr. Chairman, I request that this committee get 
specific answers for what the accountability regime was for 
this unlawful action by the United States Air Force, and that 
we not take as an article of faith the representation that they 
think they have taken the appropriate action.
    They have taken the illegal, inappropriate action to 
compromise these records, and I think we should hold them 
accountable for it.
    Mr. Banks. On that note, General Miller, for the record, 
can you submit to the committee what those appropriate actions 
were?
    General Miller. Yes, we certainly may.
    [The information referred to was not available at the time 
of printing.]
    Mr. Banks. Okay, I yield 5 minutes to Representative 
Houlahan.
    Ms. Houlahan. Thank you very much for your testimony today. 
I am going to try an experiment that I haven't tried before 
with my 5 minutes.
    I served in the military, my father and grandfather served 
more than 20 and 30 years, respectively, in the military. My 
brother did. My cousins do currently.
    And I am interested in two questions. One is, assuming that 
we have a qualified individual who has the--has the propensity 
to be able to serve, let's make that first assumption, I am 
going to give you a list of reasons, and I would like you to 
write these lists down. And I alphabetized them, so they are 
not in any value-based order.
    Please write down, childcare. Please write down, don't feel 
welcome or I don't see myself. Please write down, I'm afraid 
for my health or my life. Please write down, housing. Please 
write down, another job is more attractive. Please write down, 
pay is not competitive. And finally, please write down, spouse 
or partner.
    So to review again, we have childcare, don't feel welcome 
or don't see myself, I am worried about my health or life, 
housing, other jobs more attractive, pay not competitive, and 
spouse or partner.
    So with these seven, again, alphabetically listed, I am 
actually interested, assuming a qualified and willing 
participant, somebody who has the propensity to serve, my two 
questions are, one, why I didn't join the military.
    Could you please take a couple of minutes, 15 seconds or 
so, to pick your top four reasons why I didn't join the 
military.
    And when you look up, I will assume that you guys have got 
your four. I might have been a teacher once.
    The next question is why I didn't stay in the military. 
Again, your top four.
    Now I only have 2\1/2\ minutes left, and so quickly I would 
like you to go through your top four why I didn't join and then 
we will go through again your top four why I didn't stay.
    So General Stitt, first you, why I didn't join.
    General Stitt. Representative Houlahan, great question, and 
thank you for your service and for your family's legacy of 
service.
    What we are seeing is primarily three reasons why 
individuals do not join.
    Ms. Houlahan. Okay, could you list them, please.
    General Stitt. There's a knowledge gap, a trust gap, and an 
identity. So from----
    Ms. Houlahan. From the list that I gave you, what are the 
three reasons then?
    General Stitt. The three reasons, we would see that the 
putting their individual's life on hold. So I think that----
    Ms. Houlahan. Okay, life or health, okay. Number two?
    General Stitt. Don't see themselves.
    Ms. Houlahan. Don't see themselves, okay.
    General Stitt. And then concern for their safety.
    Ms. Houlahan. That's life, okay. And the third?
    General Stitt. And then where we see our--the spouse, 
partner.
    Ms. Houlahan. Okay, thank you. Vice Admiral Cheeseman, 
please. And unfortunately, we are going to run out of time for 
this, so I am going to ask you to submit your answers for the 
record on this.
    The Vice Admiral, please.
    Admiral Cheeseman. Congresswoman, thanks for the question. 
Similar to my colleague, everything we see in the Navy is about 
feeling like you have to put your life on hold.
    So specifically, spouse, opportunity, pay and compensation, 
something else may be more attractive because of that, and they 
just don't see themselves in the Navy because there's other 
opportunity.
    Ms. Houlahan. General Miller, please.
    General Miller. Yes, ma'am. I said spouse and partner, they 
don't want to, you know, move with the--with their spouse. I 
also said there's other jobs available. And then my third one 
was that they would--that they are not comfortable or they 
don't know enough about the military, so perhaps would not feel 
welcome.
    Ms. Houlahan. General Glynn, please.
    General Glynn. Congresswoman, thank you. Very, very 
similar. I think to your time available, the one difference in 
joining and staying, childcare.
    Ms. Houlahan. Okay, thank you, that is helpful. And 
General--and Ms. Kelley, please.
    Ms. Kelley. Thank you. I would only offer that I think the 
issue of coming in really rests on the lack of knowledge on 
what the service really is.
    Ms. Houlahan. Yeah, and that is why I think so many of us 
have served in families that serve.
    Ms. Kelley. Yes, ma'am.
    Ms. Houlahan. I know I have run out of time, but I guess my 
point is I have sat through this hearing and I have also sat 
the through other hearing with the military folks who are the 
most senior-ranking enlisted people. When we asked the most 
senior-ranking enlisted people if DEI was a positive thing, 
they all said ``yes.''
    When we asked you if it was a factor at all, you all said 
``no.'' And so I am frustrated because there are so many 
complex reasons why a person joins or doesn't stay. And I just 
really want us to qualify and quantify that, rather than 
politicize these issues.
    Thank you, I yield back.
    Mr. Banks. Representative Mills.
    Mr. Mills. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I ask unanimous consent 
to enter into record the NAVPERS [Navy Personnel], which I will 
be referring to as Annex A.
    [The information referred to can be found in the Appendix 
on page 108.]
    Mr. Banks. Without objection.
    Mr. Mills. Behind me, as you can see, is Exhibit, what I 
consider as Exhibit A. It is a page 13 service record book 
entry that currently being given to Navy reservists asking them 
to acknowledge that they will not get points for the time they 
were dropped, discharged, or otherwise prohibited from 
participating because of being unvaccinated.
    But it is also threatening that if they don't come back, 
they can have adverse administrative actions taken against 
them.
    This question is to you, Vice Admiral. By what authority is 
the Navy threatening adverse actions against the people it 
forced out in order to force them to come back in?
    [The information referred to can be found in the Appendix 
on page 111.]
    Admiral Cheeseman. Congressman, thanks for that question. I 
am not familiar with that specific page 13, but I will talk to 
you in general. There is no authority for adverse actions right 
now because of the vaccine mandate and the recission of that 
said vaccine mandate.
    In fact, we have taken the painstaking effort to go through 
our sailors' records to make sure that we have removed negative 
connotations from their records. And as a measure going 
forward, for selection boards and promotion boards, we have 
guidance there that no negative indication because of COVID 
should be considered, sir.
    Mr. Mills. And this is for everyone. We know how 
important--and I am prior military as well, have spent time 
with the United States Army, was a proud combat veteran out of 
the 82nd, and I thank you all for your service and your time 
today.
    We know how important our reentry codes are when it comes 
to our DD-214. And many of our service members who in my 
opinion were unconstitutionally purged out of our military up 
to the 8,400 personnel were receiving things like Code 3s and 
Code 4s.
    And we know the difficulty, and in some cases the absolute 
refusal to allow them to enter back into service. What are 
doing to correct and change that?
    I'll start with you, Lieutenant General Douglas.
    General Stitt. Representative Mills, thank you for the 
question, thank you for your service.
    If there is an individual who was separated under the 
auspice of COVID-19, that individual is allowed to pursue 
reentry by contacting their local recruiter or pursuing reentry 
through the Army Board of Correction of Military Records.
    Admiral Cheeseman. Congressman, similar question for the 
Navy. Any prior service sailor can petition to have their 
record changed through the BCNR [Board for Correction of Navy 
Records] process. And once complete, they can, you know, 
attempt to reenter into the service by contacting their local 
recruiter, sir.
    General Miller. Yes, sir, it is very similar for the Air 
Force. We've identified all the individuals that were separated 
with--for COVID and for the vaccine, and we've reached out to 
them so that they can come back through the BCMR process as 
well.
    General Glynn. Congressman, same process. I would just 
highlight for the Marine Corps, we were very intentional about 
the assignment of that RE [reenlistment] code so that it 
highlighted, you know, what it was for and gives very clear--
gives clarity to the process of what has to be changed.
    Ms. Kelley. Sir, I would tell you the Space Force did not 
separate any Guardians solely for COVID vaccination. However, 
we would follow the same process that the Air Force does.
    Mr. Mills. Go Guardians. All right, moving on. So did the 
DOD or your individual service perform any studies or analysis 
of the number of service members who had refused to take the 
mRNA [messenger ribonucleic acid] product based on religious or 
medical objections? Is there any study conducted as a result of 
that?
    Because, and here is the reason I ask this question. The 
DOD Inspector General said that on average, the time taken to 
determine whether or not a person qualified for a medical or a 
religious exemption was 12 minutes.
    And in my opinion, do you feel that you could determine a 
person's religious or medical exemption within 12 minutes? We 
will start with you, Lieutenant General Stitt.
    General Stitt. Representative Mills, I am unaware of the 
DOD survey that you are referencing. I know that within the 
Army, we handled and looked at each individual exemption case, 
medical or religious, on a case-by-case individual-by-
individual basis.
    Mr. Mills. Well, I can tell you right now, having worked 
for the government, we don't do anything in 12 minutes. So 
that's probably one of the rapidest time.
    And I would advise you all to please look at this DOD 
Inspector General writeup that's very clearly stating that 
these were decisions made within 12 minutes. And I don't 
consider that to be a subsequent amount of time to vet a 
person's religious or medical reasoning for exemptions.
    I want to say for the record as well, how many of you would 
support, and I do this quick in the 10 seconds, reentry back 
into the military for those unconstitutionally purged out with 
back pay, full benefits, and their ability to finally serve 
their United States military as opposed to any political 
agenda?
    I'll start with you, Lieutenant General Glynn.
    General Glynn. Sir, in terms of reentry, we addressed that 
part of the back pay would be a decision not made by a service.
    Mr. Mills. But is it something that you would support for 
those who want to continue their service and that was 
unconstitutionally purged?
    General Glynn. I support them coming back in.
    Mr. Mills. Lieutenant General Miller.
    General Miller. I support them coming back in through the 
process.
    Mr. Mills. Vice Admiral.
    Admiral Cheeseman. Congressman, same thing. I support the 
BCNR process and their ability to come back in, should it be 
adjudicated as such.
    Mr. Mills. And Lieutenant General.
    General Stitt. I support it through the BCMR process.
    Mr. Mills. Well, I hope you guys do, and I look forward to 
try and help work with my colleagues and with our chairman to 
get legislation in place that will actually allow that to 
happen so people can finally come back and serve our military, 
hopefully filling the ranks of the 25,000-plus recruitment 
shortage that we have today that in my opinion is partially due 
to the morale drop and the DEI that has been implemented, as 
opposed to increase lethality.
    Mr. Mills. With that I yield back.
    Mr. Banks. The gentleman's time is expired. Mr. Moylan.
    Mr. Moylan. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    You know, earlier today, I was--I had the opportunity to 
ask Secretary Austin a question regarding the recent reduction 
of COLA [cost-of-living adjustment] for service members on 
Guam, when he testified before the full committee.
    However, I would also like to pose that--pose it to you 
folks as well here today. So given that there's a COLA 
reduction as a result of Department policy, what can be done to 
increase the cost-of-living allowance for service members on 
Guam who live at the latter end of the supply chains in the 
service and serve in one of the most unique parts of the United 
States?
    So basically that's my question, all right. I suppose you 
all want to ensure that the COLA is there for our troops, the 
most forward-deployed. But now we have a situation where 
they're going to lose that COLA. So how good is that for us, 
for the members to ensure the quality of life is there, right?
    So I'm just posing that to you folks, as well as what I did 
to the Secretary, Secretary Austin earlier today. Whoever would 
like to answer, please.
    General Stitt. Representative Moylan, thank you for the 
question.
    We would participate with the Department of Defense 
Quadrennial Review of Military Compensation to look at cost-of-
living allowances, basic allowance for housing, basic allowance 
for subsistence, the entirety of pay and benefits so that we 
can collect the information and review that--and ensure that 
our service members and their families are adequately 
compensated for their service and their sacrifice.
    And if there are any decrements to COLA, we would request 
from the Department of Defense that the services receive 
notification so that we can work with respective chains of 
command to inform our soldiers and families and support them if 
they require assistance.
    Admiral Cheeseman. Congressman, thank you for that 
question. Very similar answer. I think we need to work with our 
OSD partners to, you know, on possible ways to modernize how we 
determine COLA.
    But more specifically to what my colleague said here, we 
need to have an active campaign with our service members so 
they understand the purpose of COLA. And then when there are 
changes, specifically reductions, we give them enough of a 
heads-up so they can plan for it appropriately in their budget, 
sir.
    General Miller. I would just add one thing to my colleague, 
thank you for the question. I would like to see compensation 
for service members structured so that they don't have to get 
any other additional service. It should be able to--they should 
be able to live on the compensation in which we provide.
    General Glynn. Like Lieutenant General Miller, I think, 
sir, that your question gets to the point of if service members 
are so sensitive to a move in COLA up or down, then it's 
indicative of the combined effect of many economic factors.
    We hear about it when changes in housing. I'm sure you've 
heard about BAH [basic allowance for housing]. We hear it about 
changes in the price of gas, food, any number of items. I think 
it speaks to the margin and how narrow the margin has become, 
particularly for our junior enlisted folks, when it comes to 
being able to afford and absorb some of the fluctuations.
    Ms. Kelley. Representative, thank you for the question. The 
only other thing I would add is the agility for the Department 
to react to market conditions. And we are talking about 
financial market conditions that move quickly, and we have got 
to be rapid in how we adjust.
    Mr. Moylan. I appreciate all your responses. And one answer 
that the Secretary Austin did give us was it is not a matter of 
law. It is Department of Defense.
    So I think this is really important for us right now in the 
Indo-Pacific to ensure that we just can't cut off that COLA or 
reduce it like what has happened. So we are expecting an answer 
by the end of--by the end of next month, according to Secretary 
Austin.
    And with your understanding, with your troops, and I am 
doing this to support. Especially we got a Marine Corps base, 
right, coming onto Guam, which we already rededicated that 
flag. Four thousand Marines coming on over for Okinawa. And 
that flag is going to be there to stay, General, so.
    We want to make it the best way possible for the morale and 
the welfare of our troops to ensure their families are taken 
care of while they defend our United States and our District of 
Guam.
    So I thank you for that, and I appreciate your continued 
support to ensure that our troops are well taken care of, 
especially with the COLA. So thank you very much.
    Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I relinquish my time. Thank you, 
sir.
    Mr. Banks. Thank you. And I want to thank all of our 
witnesses again for their service and for providing testimony 
this afternoon.
    I would close by requesting that you take the issues that 
we have identified and discussed here today back to your 
service chiefs and let them know that we will be looking for 
the concrete actions they intend to take to mitigate the 
problems that we have identified at this hearing and how they 
intend to fix them.
    With that, there being no further business, the 
subcommittee stands adjourned.
    [Whereupon, at 4:11 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.]



      
=======================================================================


                            A P P E N D I X

                             March 29, 2023

=======================================================================

      

      
=======================================================================


              PREPARED STATEMENTS SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD

                             March 29, 2023

=======================================================================

      
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

      
=======================================================================


                   DOCUMENTS SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD

                             March 29, 2023

=======================================================================

      
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

      
=======================================================================


              WITNESS RESPONSES TO QUESTIONS ASKED DURING

                              THE HEARING

                             March 29, 2023

=======================================================================

      

              RESPONSE TO QUESTION SUBMITTED BY MR. MILLS

    Admiral Cheeseman. Congressman, thanks, thanks for that question. I 
am not familiar with that specific Page 13. I'll talk to you in 
general. In response to Congressional direction in the FY-23 NDAA to 
rescind the COVID-19 vaccine mandate, and in accordance with 
implementing guidance from the Secretary of Defense and Secretary of 
the Navy, the Navy issued Fleet-wide guidance in NAVADMIN 065/23 ending 
the requirement to be vaccinated against COVID-19. As directed, the 
Navy centrally reviewed the records of all currently-serving Navy 
Service Members who requested religious accommodation from COVID-19 
vaccination to identify and remove adverse information related to 
vaccine refusal. Therefore, there is no authority for adverse actions 
right now, because of the vaccine mandate and the rescission of that 
said vaccine mandate. In fact, we've taken painstaking efforts to go 
through the records of these Sailors and make sure that we've removed 
negative connotations from their records and as a measure going 
forward, for selection boards and promotion boards, we have guidance 
here that no negative indication because of COVID should be considered. 
Other current and former Navy service Members may petition the Board 
for Corrections of Naval Records regarding COVID-19 vaccination related 
matters.   [See page 21.]


      
=======================================================================


              QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY MEMBERS POST HEARING

                             March 29, 2023

=======================================================================

      

                     QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY MR. KIM

    Mr. Kim. Recruiting challenges are not unique to the military, and 
we continue to see a labor shortage across the nation. In areas like 
cyber, we are likely competing for the same talent within the 
Department of Defense and the private sector. Have the services 
partnered with industry leaders on best practices to recruit personnel?
    General Stitt. While no official partnerships exist, attracting 
qualified talent and remaining competitive in the labor market is 
essential to our Army's future success. The Army recognizes that we 
must find ways to differentiate military service to compete and expand 
our ranks, and to achieve this objective, the Army is looking into a 
number of programs and initiatives designed to attract talent that 
align with our civilian counterparts. These initiatives include 
modernizing Recruiting Command's mission to ensure our recruiting force 
remains flexible and agile in the face of a challenging environment and 
even offering non-monetary incentives such as station of choice for 
recruits. The Army has met with corporations like Wal-Mart to discuss 
recruiting and talent management.
    Mr. Kim. Recruiting challenges are not unique to the military, and 
we continue to see a labor shortage across the nation. In areas like 
cyber, we are likely competing for the same talent within the 
Department of Defense and the private sector. Have the services 
partnered with industry leaders on best practices to recruit personnel?
    Admiral Cheeseman. Yes, the Navy utilizes industry partners and 
best practices to assist in the business of recruiting and uses the 
services of a full-service marketing and advertising (M&A) agency, 
Valentine, McCormick, Ligibel, Young, and Rubicam (VMLY&R), to provide 
M&A expertise. VMLY&R is an industry leading marketing firm behind 
award-winning campaigns for blue-chip companies such as Coca-Cola, 
Colgate-Palmolive, Dell, Ford, etc. With this M&A contractor, the Navy 
gains media purchasing power of their media buyer, Group M, a top-five 
global media network, responsible for one in every three ads purchased 
worldwide.
    Additionally, the Navy utilizes the research and insights of major 
data platforms, such as Google, Snapchat, and Reddit, to implement 
innovative campaigns geared towards our target demographic. 
Additionally, the Navy provides industry-leading tools and recruiting 
platforms, such as LinkedIn, Handshake, and others to provide 
recruiters with tools to search for applicants with specific skills/
education, as required by some of the more technical ratings available 
in the Navy.
    Mr. Kim. Recruiting challenges are not unique to the military, and 
we continue to see a labor shortage across the nation. In areas like 
cyber, we are likely competing for the same talent within the 
Department of Defense and the private sector. Have the services 
partnered with industry leaders on best practices to recruit personnel?
    General Miller. While not specifically in conjunction with 
industry, the Department has multiple initiatives underway to attract 
and retain cyber talent. Ongoing initiatives including establishing a 
``Stripes for Cyber Certifications'' that will provide entry rank 
incentives to cyber qualified recruits. Cyber recruits with current 
industry certifications will be compensated with rank advancement upon 
entry. Additionally, the Air Force is leveraging special authorities to 
reach and recruit expertise in the civilian sector, implementing the 
Cyber Direct Commissioning Program and Constructive Service Credit 
(CSC). The program awards individuals with cyber industry experience 
(amongst other criteria) with rank and commensurate pay, up to the 
grade of Colonel. The Air Force is looking to leverage the 2023 NDAA to 
offer Cyber Assignment Incentive Pay (CAIP) of up to $1,500 per month 
to attract and retain skilled and certified cyber professionals. 
Finally, the Air Force is testing a Technical Track for cyber officers 
as an alternative to the standard career field force development models 
with the intent to maximize return on investment for high-demand, low-
density Cyber Mission Force Airmen.
    Mr. Kim. Recruiting challenges are not unique to the military, and 
we continue to see a labor shortage across the nation. In areas like 
cyber, we are likely competing for the same talent within the 
Department of Defense and the private sector. Have the services 
partnered with industry leaders on best practices to recruit personnel?
    General Glynn. The Marine Corps acknowledges the significant 
headwinds the Services and private sector are facing in recruiting 
talented individuals. Residuals from COVID, generational and labor 
market challenges, historic lows in qualification rates, propensity, 
and a fragmented advertising environment have made it increasingly 
difficult to rebuild recruiting momentum. As society continues to form 
the post-pandemic normal, Marine Corps Recruiting Command has a renewed 
focus on systematic, relevant, dynamic, and anticipatory training. We 
have contracts with industry leaders to develop performance-based, 
criterion-referenced instruction for recruiters and recruiter managers 
and have invested in advertising research and development to keep pace 
with competitors in the market.
    Mr. Kim. Recruiting challenges are not unique to the military, and 
we continue to see a labor shortage across the nation. In areas like 
cyber, we are likely competing for the same talent within the 
Department of Defense and the private sector. Have the services 
partnered with industry leaders on best practices to recruit personnel?
    Ms. Kelley. The competitive market for STEM talent the Space Force 
requires creates a significant challenge to recruit across the 
Department. While the Space Force has been successful to date with 
meeting recruiting goals, we know the recruiting landscape is dynamic--
there is a high demand for talent who possess the unique and essential 
skills the Space Force needs. Thus, we remain mindful it is likely we 
will experience recruiting challenges in the future, and we must 
outcompete the civilian market for talent by demonstrating how 
attractive careers as a Guardian are for all people. Accordingly, we 
are investing in a robust Space Force brand awareness campaign designed 
to reach the American public, raise awareness of the Space Force, and 
expand the pool of high-quality applicants. Space Force recruitment 
initiatives are focused on expanding the pool of potential STEM 
applicants through several outreach initiatives and programs such as 
the University Partnership Program, STEM to Space, and Guardian 
Enhanced Active Recruiting or ``G.E.A.R'' outreach programs. We've also 
established the Grow with Google program--a career certificate program 
available to military spouses and non-degree individuals who have 
previously faced barriers to higher paying tech positions. The 
professional certificates are offered in in-demand fields of Data 
Analytics, Information Technology Support, Project Management, Digital 
Marketing & e-Commerce, and User Experience (UX) design. Furthermore, 
we have completely revamped the spaceforce.com public outreach website, 
offering visitors an enhanced, interactive insight into our roles, 
missions, and functions.
                                 ______
                                 
                    QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY MR. GAETZ
    Mr. Gaetz. General Miller, what corrective steps has the Air Force 
taken to hold the person(s) accountable for the unlawful release of GOP 
members service records to a leftist political strategy group?
    Has anyone been fired, if not why?
    What specific processes have been put in place by the Air Force to 
prevent this unlawful release of document from happening again?
    Documents related to the question:
    1) A third former House GOP candidate alerted to unapproved 
military records request--POLITICO
    2) f (10901408) (politico.com)
    3) Air Force IDs 2 new GOP candidates whose military records were 
improperly released--POLITICO
    4) GOP lawmakers seek investigation of `unauthorized' disclosure of 
their Air Force records--POLITICO
    5) https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/the-nsas-
top-talent-is-leaving-because-of-low-pay-and-battered-morale/2018/01/
02/ff19f0c6-ec04-11e7-9f92-
10a2203f6c8d_story.html?utm_term=.66951f36b998
    6) 6--Press Release March 2022 FY22.pdf (defense.gov)
    7) Politicization contributing to Americans' low trust in the 
military (militarytimes.com)
    General Miller. The DAF is taking this matter seriously. Our 
personnel, including our veterans, expect their records to be 
safeguarded and the DAF must uphold this responsibility. The Air Force 
Personnel Center (AFPC) command-directed investigation and internal 
audit identified eight individuals employed by the DAF who were 
involved in the improper records release. The command-directed 
investigation found no evidence of intentional misconduct by any DAF 
employee. Five individuals have received a written Letter of 
Counseling. One separated from active duty before the release was 
discovered. Administrative action is still pending for two individuals 
who voluntarily transitioned to a different section.
    Measures have been implemented to prevent this from happening 
again, to include: 1) second-level review on all third-party requests 
received by the Air Force Personnel Center (AFPC) are elevated to the 
Chief of Operation Support & Records Management Divisions; 2) conduct 
of a thorough legal sufficiency reviews by the AFPC Legal Office for 
all non-governmental third-party requests before records are released; 
3) Remedial awareness and specialized training to all staff members 
involved in the release process; 4) Monthly audits to ensure no records 
were improperly released. Furthermore, a personnel action was initiated 
to hire a second quality control official to ensure records are 
properly redacted before release. At the direction of DepSecDef, all 
MilDeps are currently working with Assistant to the Secretary of 
Defense for Privacy, Civil Liberties, and Transparency to provide a 
Personnel Records Protection Assessment. The DAF will assess the 
strength of processes and procedures to prevent future unauthorized 
disclosures of personnel records, and identify any additional 
enhancements needed.
                                 ______
                                 
                    QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY MR. DAVIS
    Mr. Davis. There are 8 times more veterans per capita in my 
district than nationwide. Active-duty military personnel are also 
overrepresented in eastern North Carolina. At the same time, college-
level education is comparatively low.
    Given that military careers remain a vital path for youth in 
eastern North Carolina, have you and your team considering a recruiting 
strategy that relies on the high rates of retention to persuade 
candidates that personnel tend to stay put once they commit?
    General Stitt. The Army does continue to retain its Soldiers at a 
very high rate. After decades of higher operational tempo, the Army 
recognizes that stabilizing Soldiers longer at home station helps to 
stabilize our Army Families which improves Soldier morale, retention, 
and overall force readiness. As a goal, the Army strives to ensure 
first-term Soldiers serve at their first duty station for the bulk of 
their first enlistment term and we work to make life more predictable 
for Soldiers. Staying at the first duty station longer helps to 
stabilize families and encourage spouse employment. We will continue to 
communicate to potential recruits the quality of life a future Soldier 
can expect, including highlighting the many Soldiers that choose to 
remain in the Army. This goes a long way in influencing a candidate's 
decision to serve.
    Mr. Davis. Lieutenant General Miller: In your written testimony, 
you referenced the Air Force's Total Force marketing improvements and 
the ROTC ``You Can Fly'' campaign. Specifically, you highlighted 
underrepresented female, Hispanic, Asian/Pacific Islander, and American 
Indian/Native Alaskan populations as target groups for these 
initiatives. One group you left off is the cohort of prospective ROTC 
cadets at HBCUs. As I raised in last week's hearing with Assistant 
Secretary Wagner, there is only ONE Air Force ROTC program at an HBCU 
deemed viable in the entire country out of 15 active programs and 174 
ROTC programs total nationwide.
    How can the Air Force truly attract the best candidates, including 
at Elizabeth City State University in my district, which is trying to 
activate a program of its own, if ROTCs at these institutions, which 
have received overwhelming bipartisan support I might add, are not 
included as a primary area of focus for recruiting?
    General Miller. The AFROTC You Can Fly (AYCF) program was created 
in 2019 to help increase diversity among rated forces through early 
exposure, education, and flight experience, in accordance with the Air 
Force diversity definition outlined in Air Force Instruction (AFI) 36-
7001, Diversity and Inclusion. The AYCF Execution Plan specifically 
outlines the program's two-fold intent: (1) Create a robust and 
innovative Rated Officer applicant pool with diverse backgrounds that 
can solve tomorrow's global challenges by providing combat air 
lethality with agility and resolve, and (2) Increase awareness of rated 
careers with a compelling outreach designed to inform, influence, and 
inspire AFROTC cadets from underrepresented communities.
    AYCF is a national-level ground and flight training program 
executed at FAA approved Fixed Base Operators (FBOs) across the nation 
and participation is encouraged across all AFROTC cadet cohorts 
attending any of our 145 host or 1,000 cross-town universities, 
including cadets at AFROTC HBCU detachments and crosstown universities. 
AYCF opportunities are awarded proportionally to AFROTC regions and 
detachments based on enrolled cadet populations and detachment 
commanders are empowered to nominate all cadets who meet program 
eligibility criteria (e.g., US citizenship, flight physical) and 
selected flight school requirements.
    The Air Force offers commissioning opportunities to cadets via 145 
host detachments and 1044 crosstown school partnership agreements. 
Among these, 7 host detachments are at HBCU colleges/universities and 
48 crosstown partnerships are with HBCU colleges/universities. 
Detachment non-viability does not impede cadets from participating in 
AFROTC program activities or opportunities.
    While AF line officer recruiting falls primarily under the purview 
of the Air Force Recruiting Service, each AFROTC detachment's cadre 
consists of an additional duty recruiting officer who conducts 
recruiting activities on campus and in the local area, with the 
participation of cadets from the detachment's cadet corps and in 
concert with other local AF Total Force recruiting agencies/entities.
    Mr. Davis. Lieutenant General Miller: I want to bring you your 
attention some of the challenges faced by personnel at Seymour Johnson 
Air Force Base, which is a major economic driver in eastern North 
Carolina. Specifically, I am concerned about the current state of the 
Child Development Center, which is in disrepair. Military families are 
forced to use off-base facilities because of limited space and 
deteriorating electrical systems on-site.
    Can you give me a sense as to why the Seymour Johnson Child 
Development Center is not on the current unfunded priorities list? How 
can we ensure that personnel living off-base with their families have 
the same access to childcare as those who live on-base?
    General Miller. The conditions of Child Developments Centers remain 
a top priority for the DAF to ensure our Airmen and Guardians have the 
support they require. While our CDCs overall are in adequate condition, 
we are planning a focused FSRM investment across the DAF of $42M for 
CDCs in FY24.
    Specific to your concerns at Seymour Johnson AFB, the installation 
recently completed a local repair project to improve the electrical 
systems. There is also a Facility Sustainment Repair and Modernization 
project in progress to repair other immediate concerns. Additionally, 
there are plans to build a new CDC and that will accommodate increased 
capacity. It is currently in design and will be considered for future 
budget requests.
    On-base child care is available to both on base and off-base 
residents. Additionally, Military Child Care in Your Neighborhood 
(MCCYN) supports military families not living near an installation or 
unable to access military childcare programs through fee assistance for 
community-based childcare. Currently there are 12 children enrolled in 
MCCYN approved civilian childcare programs near Seymour Johnson AFB. 
MCCYN-Plus is a Department of the Defense initiative to increase 
childcare options for military parents by expanding eligibility for 
providers to participate in military fee assistance programs. MCCYN-
PLUS launched in North Carolina in March 2023.
                                 ______
                                 
                    QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY MR. MILLS
    Mr. Mills. For each branch, what was the total amount of lost or 
withheld pay and benefits for service members on active duty, in the 
National Guard or in the Reserves for non-compliance with the COVID-19 
mandate?
    General Stitt. For the Active Component, total cost of backpay and 
recouped bonuses, through September 2023, for the 1,903 Soldiers 
separated for COVID-19 vaccine refusal is estimated to be $184M.
    For the Army National Guard, approximately 187,339 Unit Training 
Assemblies (UTAs) were not conducted as a result of the 10,469 Soldiers 
who were reported as refusing the COVID-19 vaccination at any point 
between 1 July 22 and 9 January 23. This represents singular 
occurrences in which these Service Members were not entitled to pay 
and/or points in a duty status under Title 32 U.S.C. Estimated cost per 
Unit Training Assembly (UTA) for each Soldier is $176--this equates to 
$32.97M total for the 187,339 UTAs missed during the specified period.
    For the Army Reserves, the estimate for total cost of withheld pay 
for service members in the Reserves to be approximately $9.1M. 1,962 
USAR Soldiers received a code ``Z'' for no pay/no points for the 
period. The Multiple Unit Training Assembly (MUTA) is the unit of 
measure for pay and there are 4 MUTAs for a drill weekend. The average 
cost of a MUTA in the USAR is $193 for each Soldier
    Mr. Mills. Secretary Austin's second Covid-19 Memorandum (dated 
Nov. 30, 2021) cut Federal funding for the National Guard for anyone 
who was unvaccinated. After that memorandum, how many people were lost 
from the Guard or Reserve in and following December 2021 as a result of 
this memorandum?
    General Stitt. The ``No Pay/No Points'' policy became effective in 
the Reserve Components on 1 July 22 and rescinded on 9 January 23. The 
Secretary of the Army did not direct separation actions for the RC, 
therefore, the Army Reserve and the Army National Guard did not have 
any Servicemembers involuntarily separated as a result of the mandate.
    Mr. Mills. Have all of those who had a RE-3, RE-4 re-enlistment 
code or anything less than an Honorable discharge corrected? If not, 
why not?
    General Stitt. To-date, there have not been any changes to 
servicemember records related to discharges for the COVID-19 mandate. 
The Army Review Boards Agency has received 96 applications requesting 
discharge related corrections from Soldiers who were separated as a 
result of prior COVID policies. Processing will proceed upon a final 
determination of further COVID-related policies.
    Any Soldier who has been separated from service within the last 15 
years, except for those separated by general court-martial, may request 
a correction of their DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge 
from Active Duty) Character of Service or Reentry Code entries by 
application to the Army Discharge Review Board. If additional 
corrections are requested, the Soldier may apply to the Army Board for 
Correction of Military Records.
    Mr. Mills. Did your service attempt to quantify the costs of the 
mandate (e.g., lost, discharged, or non-deployable service members) and 
compare it to the expected benefits from the mandate? If so, what were 
the results? If not, why not?
    General Stitt. We are not aware of any attempt to quantify the cost 
of the mandate and compare to expected benefits. There was no 
requirement from the Department of Defense to undergo any such study.
    Mr. Mills. Were any such studies or analyses performed on the 
policy of systematically denying religious accommodation requests, and 
in particular, whether such a policy would be perceived as hostility 
towards religion and what effect such perceived hostility to religion 
would have on the moral and readiness of those remaining in service 
and/or on recruiting new service members? If so, what were the results? 
If not, why not?
    General Stitt. There was no requirement from the Department of 
Defense to undergo any such studies. The Army did not systematically 
deny religious accommodation requests. The Army recognizes the 
fundamental right of Soldiers to observe the tenets of their religion 
or to observe no religion at all, as provided in federal law as well as 
the Department of Defense (DOD) and Army policy. Every COVID-19 vaccine 
exemption request was reviewed in a detailed and deliberate manner. The 
process included interviews with the Soldier's chaplain, 
recommendations from the chain of command, as well as a public health 
and a legal review. Exemption approval considered the Soldier's 
specific religious beliefs, chaplain and chain of command 
recommendations, the working environment of the individual Soldier and 
the public health risk. Soldiers were also afforded the opportunity to 
appeal any exemption denials to the Army Assistant Secretary for 
Manpower and Reserve Affairs.
    Mr. Mills. For each service, can you provide the demographic data 
(to include, at a minimum, race, sex, and religion) for active-duty 
service members who were discharged and for National Guard and Reserve 
service members who suffered the aforementioned adverse actions, as 
well as a comparison with the total number of service members in these 
demographic groups (i.e. in order to identify any disproportionate or 
disparate impacts from the mandate)?
    General Stitt. Soldiers separated due to COVID-19 refusal were more 
likely to be White, male, and/or Christian when compared to the Active 
Component as a whole. The below spreadsheet has the breakdown for 
gender, Race/Ethnicity, and Religion, as requested.
    Active Component:
    
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]    
    
    [Table continues on next page.]

[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

    The Secretary of the Army did not direct separation actions for 
the RC, therefore, the Army Reserve and the Army National Guard did not 
have any Servicemembers involuntarily separated as a result of the 
mandate.
    Mr. Mills. For each branch, how many members of the National Guard 
or Reserves were:
      transferred/dropped to the Inactive Ready Reserve (IRR) 
or some other inactive status;
      placed in a ``No Points, No Pay'' status;
      had active-duty orders (including professional schools) 
curtailed, cancelled, or cut short; and/or
      were prohibited from attending drills over the COVID-19 
mandate?
    General Stitt.
    Army National Guard:
      Transferred/dropped to the Inactive Ready Reserve (IRR) 
or some other inactive status: The Army did not reach the 
implementation phase of transferring to IRR for refusal of the COVID-19 
Mandate; therefore there were none in this category associated with 
vaccine refusal.
      Placed in a ``No Points, No Pay'' status: 10,469 total 
ARNG Service Members experienced ``No Pay/No Points'' at any point 
during this period.
      Had active-duty orders (including professional schools) 
curtailed, cancelled, or cut short; and/or were prohibited from 
attending drills over the COVID-19 mandate: 46 personnel during this 
period were within the Training Pipeline when they separated. No 
further data is available regarding rescission of Active-Duty orders. 
10,469 Soldiers were prohibited from attending drills as a result of 
refusing the Covid-19 vaccination mandate in accordance with SecDef 
guidance.
    Army Reserves:
      Transferred/dropped to the Inactive Ready Reserve (IRR) 
or some other inactive status: The Army did not reach the 
implementation phase of transferring to IRR for refusal of the COVID-19 
Mandate; therefore there were no Soldiers in this category associated 
with vaccine refusal.
      Placed in a ``No Points, No Pay'' status: 1,962 total 
USAR Soldiers experienced ``No Pay/No Points'' at any point during this 
period.
      Had active-duty orders (including professional schools) 
curtailed, cancelled, or cut short; and/or were prohibited from 
attending drills over the COVID-19 mandate: 1,962 USAR Soldiers were 
prohibited from attending drills for the period of the vaccine mandate. 
There is no evidence to conclude that any Soldier had their 
professional school curtailed or cancelled due to the mandate.
    Mr. Mills. Do you have any estimates as to how much it will cost to 
train new recruits to replace those positions lost due to the DOD's 
enforcement of the COVID-19 vaccine mandate?
    General Stitt. The training cost to replace those Soldiers lost due 
to the DOD's enforcement of the COVID-19 vaccine mandate is 
approximately $145M ($89K per Soldier). These costs include those from 
USAREC, USMEPCOM, and TRADOC. That said, the Army is accepting 
applications from those that left the Army due only to the vaccine 
mandate. Over 80% of those that left would require no training and 
therefore no additional cost reducing the estimate.
    Mr. Mills. The service is the custodian of the service members' 
military records, so why are service members being directed to apply to 
the BCMR/BCNR process to have their records corrected?
    That process takes years. The Board only makes recommendations that 
are ultimately controlled by the Secretaries of the service concerned. 
Why don't the Secretaries just order the appropriate correction for the 
affected personnel?
    General Stitt. The Army issued the lawful order to its Soldiers to 
become fully vaccinated against COVID-19, in compliance with the DOD 
vaccination requirement, while it was in effect. Soldiers who refused 
the lawful order were subject to adverse personnel actions including 
involuntary separation. If a Soldier or former Soldier believes there 
were mitigating circumstances that should be considered as it relates 
to their misconduct, it is their individual responsibility to initiate 
the review request. Both the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) and/or 
the Army Board for Correction of Military Records (ABCMR) will consider 
each case on its own merits, the recent changes in law and policy, the 
applicable OSD policy for clemency and the respective Board standards: 
propriety and equity.
    Mr. Mills. For each branch, what was the total amount of lost or 
withheld pay and benefits for service members on active duty, in the 
National Guard or in the Reserves for non-compliance with the COVID-19 
mandate?
    Admiral Cheeseman. The Navy recouped $2.35M in unearned bonus 
money. In addition, Sailors separated would have earned a total of 
$75.35M in total basic pay (not including special pay or allowances), 
if they remained in the Navy until September 9, 2023.
    Mr. Mills. Secretary Austin's second Covid-19 Memorandum (dated 
Nov. 30, 2021) cut Federal funding for the National Guard for anyone 
who was unvaccinated. After that memorandum, how many people were lost 
from the Guard or Reserve in and following December 2021 as a result of 
this memorandum?
    Admiral Cheeseman. The Navy does not have a National Guard 
component. The Secretary of Defense's memorandum of November 30, 2021 
does not apply to the Navy Reserve. Therefore, we assess that no Navy 
Reserve Sailors were lost as a result of this memorandum.
    Mr. Mills. Have all of those who had a RE-3, RE-4 re-enlistment 
code or anything less than an Honorable discharge corrected? If not, 
why not?
    Admiral Cheeseman. No.
    Of the 1,878 Sailors separated by the Navy, 1,856 received 
honorable characterizations. Twenty-two received no characterization. 
These twenty-two were entry level separations who exited the service 
prior to the signing of the 2022 National Defense Authorization Act 
(NDAA-22) which required all service members solely separated for 
COVID-19 vaccine refusal to receive a minimum of a general discharge 
(under honorable conditions).
    Any of the 1,878 Sailors separated solely on the basis of COVID-19 
vaccine refusal can petition to Board for Correction of Naval Records 
(BCNR) to review their records and adjust their re-entry code and/or 
characterization of service. In accordance with 10 USC 1552, the 
service's method to amend a DD-214 is to petition the Board of 
Correction for Naval Records (BCNR).
    Mr. Mills. Did your service attempt to quantify the costs of the 
mandate (e.g., lost, discharged, or non-deployable service members) and 
compare it to the expected benefits from the mandate? If so, what were 
the results? If not, why not?
    Admiral Cheeseman. No. On August 24, 2021, the Secretary of Defense 
directed all Services to immediately begin full vaccination of all 
members of the Armed Forces, and the Navy moved quickly to implement 
the Secretary's orders, as directed.
    Mr. Mills. Were any such studies or analyses performed on the 
policy of systematically denying religious accommodation requests, and 
in particular, whether such a policy would be perceived as hostility 
towards religion and what effect such perceived hostility to religion 
would have on the moral and readiness of those remaining in service 
and/or on recruiting new service members? If so, what were the results? 
If not, why not?
    Admiral Cheeseman. The Navy did not systematically deny religious 
accommodation requests.
    All Sailors who requested accommodation received a thorough, 
individualized review of their case, to include consideration of the 
Navy's compelling government interest in a medically and operationally 
ready force, as well as other, less restrictive means to meet the 
government's interest.
    In general, the Navy accepted Sailors' asserted religious beliefs 
as sincere. However, in most cases, less restrictive means were deemed 
insufficient to achieve the Navy's compelling government interest in 
protecting and maintaining an operationally ready force.
    Religious liberty is a foundational principle of enduring 
importance in America, enshrined in our Constitution and other sources 
of Federal law. Service members have the right to observe the tenets of 
their religion or to observe no religion at all, as provided in Federal 
law and Departmental policy. Like all Services, the Navy continues to 
apply the uniform standards set forth in DOD guidance regarding 
religious liberty in the military Services.
    Mr. Mills. For each service, can you provide the demographic data 
(to include, at a minimum, race, sex, and religion) for active-duty 
service members who were discharged and for National Guard and Reserve 
service members who suffered the aforementioned adverse actions, as 
well as a comparison with the total number of service members in these 
demographic groups (i.e. in order to identify any disproportionate or 
disparate impacts from the mandate)?
    Admiral Cheeseman. ``Total Force'' demographics represent the U.S. 
Navy Force as of December 2022. ``All Separated Sailors'' demographics 
represents 1,878 total Sailors separated due to COVID vaccine refusal.

[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

    Note: The Navy tracks 179 religious categories to capture the 
religious diversity of the Total Force. Several categories were 
consolidated for this response.
    *Distributes ``unknown'' (24.9%) category proportionally across all 
asserted religions.

    Mr. Mills. For each branch, how many members of the National Guard 
or Reserves were:
      transferred/dropped to the Inactive Ready Reserve (IRR) 
or some other inactive status;
      placed in a ``No Points, No Pay'' status;
      had active-duty orders (including professional schools) 
curtailed, cancelled, or cut short; and/or
      were prohibited from attending drills over the COVID-19 
mandate?
    Admiral Cheeseman. The Navy Reserve had 5,262 unvaccinated Sailors 
and no Sailors were put in an IRR status or a ``No Points, No Pay'' 
status. All Selected Reservists experienced some level of impact having 
their active-duty orders (including professional schools) curtailed, 
cancelled, or cut short due to limitations on travel, destination 
protocols, transitions to virtual when possible, and stipulations on 
unvaccinated Sailors. For example, for an extended period of time, 
mission critical official travel required approval from the Under 
Secretary of the Navy via the Assistant Secretary of the Navy Manpower 
and Reserve Affairs (ASN M&RA). The Navy Reserve enterprise submitted 
zero (0) requests for mission critical travel and did not prohibit 
Sailors from attending drills during the COVID-19 mandate.
    Mr. Mills. Do you have any estimates as to how much it will cost to 
train new recruits to replace those positions lost due to the DOD's 
enforcement of the COVID-19 vaccine mandate?
    Admiral Cheeseman. The Navy separated 1,878 Sailors due to 
enforcement of the DOD's COVID-19 vaccine mandate.
    The Navy estimates the cost required to train replacements for 
1,878 Sailors as the amount of pay and entitlements allotted to those 
new recruits during the time they are in training.
    Recruits spend an average of 285 days in training at Recruit 
Training Command and in initial training prior to reporting to their 
first operational assignment. Estimating the average pay and benefits 
of a junior Sailor at $62,435/year, the estimated cost of training 
replacements for the 1,878 Sailors that separated is $91M.
    Mr. Mills. The service is the custodian of the service members' 
military records, so why are service members being directed to apply to 
the BCMR/BCNR process to have their records corrected?
    That process takes years. The Board only makes recommendations that 
are ultimately controlled by the Secretaries of the service concerned. 
Why don't the Secretaries just order the appropriate correction for the 
affected personnel?
    Admiral Cheeseman. I cannot speak for the Secretary of the Navy. To 
provide some context, some Sailors separated for vaccine refusal also 
committed other collateral misconduct warranting an RE-4. Altering 
their RE-4 without deliberate adjudication would potentially allow 
Sailors who separated for other infractions to return.
    The Navy audited the records of all currently-serving Sailors who 
requested Religious Accommodation from the COVID-19 vaccine mandate and 
removed any COVID-related adverse information present.
    The Board of Correction for Naval Records (BCNR) is the Department 
of the Navy's authority to adjudicate corrections to individual records 
for discharged Sailors. BCNR typically takes roughly three months to 
adjudicate a request.
    Mr. Mills. For each branch, what was the total amount of lost or 
withheld pay and benefits for service members on active duty, in the 
National Guard or in the Reserves for non-compliance with the COVID-19 
mandate?
    General Miller. Active-Duty Air Force: No Airmen/Guardians 
experienced withheld or lost pay for the amount of service completed 
before separation, due to non-compliance with the COVID-19 mandate. We 
estimate a basic cost of $803M ($559M for voluntary separations, $244M 
for involuntary separations), or approximately $80M/month, to pay 1,399 
separated Active-Duty Airmen and Guardians for the time between 
separation and return (anticipate 30 Sep 2024). This amount does not 
include Basic Allowance for Subsistence, Basic Allowance for Housing or 
special and incentive pays service members may receive.
    The Air Force Reserve (AFR) estimates that members who refused the 
COVID-19 vaccination and were placed in a no pay/no points status, as 
well as those that were subsequently involuntarily reassigned to the 
Individual Ready Reserve (IRR), did not earn $4.8M in pay and benefits.
    Mr. Mills. Secretary Austin's second Covid-19 Memorandum (dated 
Nov. 30, 2021) cut Federal funding for the National Guard for anyone 
who was unvaccinated. After that memorandum, how many people were lost 
from the Guard or Reserve in and following December 2021 as a result of 
this memorandum?
    General Miller. The AFR did not separate members who refused the 
COVID-19 vaccination; instead, 547 members were placed in a no pay/no 
points status and were involuntarily reassigned the IRR, a non-
participating status of the Reserve. As such, these members could 
return to a participating status, if they came into compliance with 
medical standards. 60 Service members were involuntarily separated from 
the Air National Guard, while another 616 Service members voluntarily 
separated.
    Mr. Mills. Have all of those who had a RE-3, RE-4 re-enlistment 
code or anything less than an Honorable discharge corrected? If not, 
why not?
    General Miller. Former servicemembers who were separated 
(discharged or separated in lieu of receiving the COVID-19 
vaccination), may use the existing Discharge Review Board (DRB) process 
to petition for an upgrade to their discharge characterization. Each 
record must be individually assessed. Barring aggravating factors, such 
as misconduct or other unfavorable information, applicants who have 
appealed to the DRB have had their discharges upgraded to an Honorable 
discharge. No member received a 4-series RE code upon discharge.
    Mr. Mills. Did your service attempt to quantify the costs of the 
mandate (e.g., lost, discharged, or non-deployable service members) and 
compare it to the expected benefits from the mandate? If so, what were 
the results? If not, why not?
    General Miller. No. The Secretary of Defense mandated immunization 
for Service members on August 24, 2021, to ensure the protection of and 
military readiness of the force. Of the over 500,000 total force Airmen 
and Guardians, approximately 98% (RegAF and Space Force 99%; Guard 
94.3%; Reserve 95.9%) complied with the Secretary of Defense order 
which enabled the continued combat readiness of the force, as well as 
providing life-saving support to the American people and surge support 
to local healthcare systems and agencies at all levels of the 
government.
    Mr. Mills. Were any such studies or analyses performed on the 
policy of systematically denying religious accommodation requests, and 
in particular, whether such a policy would be perceived as hostility 
towards religion and what effect such perceived hostility to religion 
would have on the moral and readiness of those remaining in service 
and/or on recruiting new service members? If so, what were the results? 
If not, why not?
    General Miller. Religious liberty is foundational to our Nation and 
Service members have the right to observe their religion or no religion 
at all, in line with the Religious Freedom Restoration Act. All 
requests for religious accommodation, be it from the COVID-19 
vaccination or for any other reason, are handled within Departmental 
standards, to include DAFI 52-201, Religious Freedom in the Department 
of the Air Force, 48-110, Immunizations and Chemoprophylaxis for the 
Prevention of Infectious Diseases.
    The requirement to vaccinate to ensure medical preparedness and 
military readiness is not a new requirement for the military or our 
members. The Department must weigh an individual's right to follow 
their belief and our ability to accommodate that belief against the 
impact to the mission to ensure we are prepared to support and defend 
that very same right for the American people as a whole.
    Mr. Mills. For each service, can you provide the demographic data 
(to include, at a minimum, race, sex, and religion) for active-duty 
service members who were discharged and for National Guard and Reserve 
service members who suffered the aforementioned adverse actions, as 
well as a comparison with the total number of service members in these 
demographic groups (i.e. in order to identify any disproportionate or 
disparate impacts from the mandate)?
    General Miller. (Reserve Response): see attached demographic 
spreadsheet (Tab 1).

[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

    (Guard Response): The Air National Guard involuntary separated 
60 Service members. We require additional time to work with Air Reserve 
Personnel Center to acquire the requested demographics.
    Mr. Mills. For each branch, how many members of the National Guard 
or Reserves were:
      transferred/dropped to the Inactive Ready Reserve (IRR) 
or some other inactive status;
      placed in a ``No Points, No Pay'' status;
      had active-duty orders (including professional schools) 
curtailed, cancelled, or cut short; and/or
      were prohibited from attending drills over the COVID-19 
mandate?
    General Miller. The AFR involuntarily reassigned 547 members to the 
IRR. Because members can be put in no pay-no points status for a 
variety of reasons, we are unable to delineate which may have been 
placed in no pay-no points status strictly for COVID-19 vaccination 
refusal, as this was not tracked. While curtailed orders would have 
applied to Active Guard and Reserve (AGR) members, this number, if any, 
would have been small, however, these were not required to be tracked 
at the time.
    The ANG did not transfer its members to the Inactive Ready Reserve 
nor into any other inactive status.
    A.  Approximately 862 Airmen were officially prevented from 
drilling IAW the SecAF's December 7, 2021, memo, Supplemental 
Coronavirus Disease 2019 Vaccination Policy, Attachment 2, due to 
COVID-19 vaccination refusal, at least once during the January 1, 
2022--January 9, 2023, Air Force prohibition period, and placed in a no 
pay/no points status.
    B.  Four ANG members were returned home early (orders curtailed) 
from a formal school due to the members' refusal to receive the COVID-
19 vaccination. The ANG needs additional time to review all AGR orders 
for this time period.
    Mr. Mills. Do you have any estimates as to how much it will cost to 
train new recruits to replace those positions lost due to the DOD's 
enforcement of the COVID-19 vaccine mandate?
    General Miller. Throughout the year, the DOD is engaged in training 
new recruits to meet the needs and requirements of the Services. Those 
Service members who chose not to follow the lawful order to be 
vaccinated against the COVID-19 virus were of varying ranks and time in 
service. Like all military separations, discharges, and retirements, of 
prior service members, there is no ability to replace them one-for-one, 
at their respective ranks and experience.
    However, for enlisted members, basic military training costs are 
$23,661 per student and the average technical training course costs 
$47,220. For officers, accession costs vary and depend on commissioning 
source (OTS, USAFA, and ROTC). OTS costs per student is $36,153.40. 
ROTC depends on individual's scholarship program. The costs for follow-
on training also vary depending on career field, but the average cost 
is $68,500.
    Mr. Mills. The service is the custodian of the service members' 
military records, so why are service members being directed to apply to 
the BCMR/BCNR process to have their records corrected?
    That process takes years. The Board only makes recommendations that 
are ultimately controlled by the Secretaries of the service concerned. 
Why don't the Secretaries just order the appropriate correction for the 
affected personnel?
    General Miller. Former servicemembers may petition the Air Force 
Board for Correction of Military Records (AFBCMR) if they believe that 
there is an error or injustice in their situation. The Department has 
an established process to address these cases. On average, for 
currently serving Active Duty and Reserve forces, it takes 
approximately 90-days for these members to have their records corrected 
via the AFBCMR process, while for all others, (i.e., former Service 
members), the average time is 150-days.
    Mr. Mills. For each branch, what was the total amount of lost or 
withheld pay and benefits for service members on active duty, in the 
National Guard or in the Reserves for non-compliance with the COVID-19 
mandate?
    General Glynn. The Marine Corps did not withhold pay or benefits 
from Marines for non-compliance with the COVID-19 mandate.
    Mr. Mills. Secretary Austin's second Covid-19 Memorandum (dated 
Nov. 30, 2021) cut Federal funding for the National Guard for anyone 
who was unvaccinated. After that memorandum, how many people were lost 
from the Guard or Reserve in and following December 2021 as a result of 
this memorandum?
    General Glynn. The total number of Reserve Covid related discharges 
was 1,578.
    Mr. Mills. Have all of those who had a RE-3, RE-4 re-enlistment 
code or anything less than an Honorable discharge corrected? If not, 
why not?
    General Glynn. As with a range of issues, discharged personnel may 
petition the Board for Correction of Naval Records for issues regarding 
records to include requests to upgrade the characterization of their 
discharge. The Marine Corps has the authority to waive RE-3 and RE-4 
codes for personnel desiring to re-enter the Service if the 
disqualifying condition no longer applies; therefore, corrections would 
not be required.
    On 24 February 2023, the Secretary of the Navy directed the Marine 
Corps to review the records of currently serving Marines and remove all 
adverse information from their service record related to COVID-19 
vaccine mandate. In compliance with this directive, the Marine Corps 
established a cell responsible for reviewing and removing material 
solely related to COVID-19 vaccination refusal for Marines currently in 
the service.
    Mr. Mills. Did your service attempt to quantify the costs of the 
mandate (e.g., lost, discharged, or non-deployable service members) and 
compare it to the expected benefits from the mandate? If so, what were 
the results? If not, why not?
    General Glynn. The August 24, 2021, and November 30, 2021, 
memorandums requiring COVID-19 vaccination made it mandatory for all 
servicemembers until they were rescinded. As such, the Marine Corps did 
not study the costs of the mandate versus expected benefits.
    Mr. Mills. Were any such studies or analyses performed on the 
policy of systematically denying religious accommodation requests, and 
in particular, whether such a policy would be perceived as hostility 
towards religion and what effect such perceived hostility to religion 
would have on the moral and readiness of those remaining in service 
and/or on recruiting new service members? If so, what were the results? 
If not, why not?
    General Glynn.
    1. The Marine Corps did not systematically deny religious 
accommodation requests and considered each request on its own merits. 
Our religious exemption process is standard and deliberate, following 
US Statute and DOD policy.
    The Deputy Commandant, Manpower & Reserve Affairs is the Central 
Disposition Authority for the Commandant of the Marine Corps and the 
appellate is the Assistant Commandant of the Marine Corps.
    DC M&RA is assisted by a Chaplain; the Director, Health Services; 
and a Legal Advisor.
    DC M&RA reviews all material and carefully consider an individual's 
request on an individualized basis. We do not question the sincerity of 
any Marine's belief, and we do not send out form letters. Every 
Marine's exemption request is entitled to be considered in a consistent 
manner.
    2. The Marine Corps has not studied perceived hostility toward 
religion or any potential effects thereof.
    Mr. Mills. For each service, can you provide the demographic data 
(to include, at a minimum, race, sex, and religion) for active-duty 
service members who were discharged and for National Guard and Reserve 
service members who suffered the aforementioned adverse actions, as 
well as a comparison with the total number of service members in these 
demographic groups (i.e. in order to identify any disproportionate or 
disparate impacts from the mandate)?
    General Glynn. Please see attached documented response beginning on 
page 6 to page 9. [See tables that follow, beginning on next page.]

[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

[Table continues on next page.]

[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

    Mr. Mills. For each branch, how many members of the National 
Guard or Reserves were:
      transferred/dropped to the Inactive Ready Reserve (IRR) 
or some other inactive status;
      placed in a ``No Points, No Pay'' status;
      had active-duty orders (including professional schools) 
curtailed, cancelled, or cut short; and/or
      were prohibited from attending drills over the COVID-19 
mandate?
    General Glynn.
    1. The Marine Corps is unable to determine if Reserve Marines 
voluntarily dropped to the IRR for COVID-19 mandate related issues or 
for other personal reasons. Only formal administrative separation 
actions were recorded.
    2. Zero. The Marine Corps did not produce or publish a policy 
authorizing the placement of Marines into a ``No Points, No Pay'' 
status for COVID-19 mandate related reasons.
    3. Eighty Reserve Marines were on active-duty orders before being 
discharged for COVID-19 mandate related reasons.
    4. No HQMC policy prohibited unvaccinated Marines from drilling. 
Marine Administrative Messages (MARADMIN) 264/20, 417/20, and 277/21 
authorized telecommuting for inactive duty training (tele-drill) and 
annual training (AT) to minimize COVID exposure of unvaccinated 
reservists while still allowing them to earn points and pay. Tele-drill 
authority was rescinded on 27 May 2022 with the issuance of MARADMIN 
275/22 which restricted official travel but not unofficial travel 
(drill) for unvaccinated personnel in accordance with SECNAV memorandum 
dated 29 April 2022. Telecommute authority for AT was rescinded 3 April 
2023.
    Mr. Mills. Do you have any estimates as to how much it will cost to 
train new recruits to replace those positions lost due to the DOD's 
enforcement of the COVID-19 vaccine mandate?
    General Glynn. The cost to train Marines differs by grade, time in 
service, military occupational specialty, and a host of other factors.
    Currently, the Marine Corps trains over 33,000 recruits (enlisted), 
more than 2,400 officer candidates, and 1,800 entry-level Marine 
officers annually with an Operations and Maintenance budget of $34M. 
This amount includes direct materials and overhead expenses including 
transportation, armory parts and targetry, Marine Corps Martial Arts 
Program gear, personal field gear (e.g., packs, web belts, canteens), 
athletic training equipment, religious service support, laundry 
contract services, fabric repair, printing and reproduction costs, 
uniform alterations, personal protective equipment, cleaning supplies, 
outdoor hygiene stations and appliance leases.
    Mr. Mills. The service is the custodian of the service members' 
military records, so why are service members being directed to apply to 
the BCMR/BCNR process to have their records corrected?
    That process takes years. The Board only makes recommendations that 
are ultimately controlled by the Secretaries of the service concerned. 
Why don't the Secretaries just order the appropriate correction for the 
affected personnel?
    General Glynn. On 24 February 2023, the Secretary of the Navy 
directed the Marine Corps to review the records of currently serving 
Marines and remove all adverse information from their service record 
related to COVID-19 vaccine mandate. In compliance with this directive, 
the Marine Corps established a cell responsible for reviewing and 
removing material solely related to COVID-19 vaccination refusal for 
Marines currently in the service. The BCNR remains the designated 
authority for all requests to modify/correct military records for 
discharged personnel.
    Mr. Mills. For each branch, what was the total amount of lost or 
withheld pay and benefits for service members on active duty, in the 
National Guard or in the Reserves for non-compliance with the COVID-19 
mandate?
    Ms. Kelley. The Space Force did not experience any loss of 
personnel due to non-compliance with the COVID-19 mandate. No Guardian 
experienced withheld pay or benefits.
    Mr. Mills. Did your service attempt to quantify the costs of the 
mandate (e.g., lost, discharged, or non-deployable service members) and 
compare it to the expected benefits from the mandate? If so, what were 
the results? If not, why not?
    Ms. Kelley. The Space Force did not experience any loss of 
personnel due to non-compliance with the COVID-19 mandate; however, 
Guardians who had not been vaccinated chose to leave the service 
through standard attrition mechanisms such as retirements, completion 
of initial service commitment, etc. These types of losses are expected 
and accounted for, therefore there were no direct cost factors due to 
the COVID-19 mandate.
    Mr. Mills. Were any such studies or analyses performed on the 
policy of systematically denying religious accommodation requests, and 
in particular, whether such a policy would be perceived as hostility 
towards religion and what effect such perceived hostility to religion 
would have on the moral and readiness of those remaining in service 
and/or on recruiting new service members? If so, what were the results? 
If not, why not?
    Ms. Kelley. No member of the Department of the Air Force was 
separated due to their religious beliefs. The DOD and the DAF respect 
and fully support the rights of our members to follow their conscience 
with respect to their exercise of religion but must balance that 
against the impact to mission and readiness.
    Vaccination in the military has been a long-standing requirement 
necessary for the protection and readiness of the force. The Department 
must weigh an individual's right to follow their belief and our ability 
to accommodate that against the impact to the mission to ensure we are 
prepared to support and defend that very same right for the American 
people as a whole. In his January 10, 2023 vaccine mandate rescission 
memo, the Secretary of Defense expressly stated that religious liberty 
is a foundational principle of enduring importance in America . . . 
that Service members have the right to observe the tenets of their 
religion or to observe no religion at all . . . and that Components 
shall continue to apply the uniform standards set forth in DOD 
Instruction 1300.17, ``Religious Liberty in the Military Services.''

                                  [all]