DOCUKIINT RESUBS

07933 - [C3538636]

What Are the Capabilities of the Selective Service System?FPCD-79-4; B-162111, December 14, 1978. 14 pp.

Report to the Congress; by EBler B. Staats, Comptrcller General.

Issue Area: Federal Personnel management and Compensation: AllVolunteer Force, the National Guard and Reserve Components(3181 .

Contact: Federal Personnel and Compensation Div.Budqet Function: Rational Defense (050).Congressional Relevance: House Committee on Armed Services;

Senate Cummittee on Armed Services; Congress.Authority: Selective Servi._e Act of 1948 (P.L. 92-129).

Department of Defense Appropriation Authorization Act of1979. Privacy Act of 1974.

The role of the Selective Service System is to maintaina system capable of drafting people into the arame services, tooperate a program of alternative service for persons notrequi'ed to perform military service, and to determine theavailability of standby reservists. During peacetime, themilitary departments rely on volunteers for needed manpower;however, after mobilization the Selective Service System willdraft manpower. Findings/Conclusions: Selective Serviceindicated that it had the capability to meet the Dcpartment ofDefense s (DOD's) previous manpower requirements with its fiscalyear 1977 budget of S6.3 million. DOD has since imposed stricterrequirements, and the Service now says that it could not deliverthe necessary manpower with a budget the size cf that fcr fiscalyear 1977. In addition, the current administration cut thefiscal year 1979 budget proposal of $15.4 million to about $9.5million. DOD says that it would need 100,000 people within 60days of mobilization, but the Service feels that it would take125 days to provide that many people. the key to a shorterdelivery tine lies in having a list cf eligible people tc bedrafted in case of mobilization. The Selective Service hasconsidered alternate ways to develop a list of draft-eligiblepeople, but some information wvll not be available because ofpossible violations of the Privacy Act. To attain a shorterdelivery time, the Selective Service bou] d reqguest un exceptionto the Privacy Act. (mRS)

BY I,-IE COMr T '- RO-LER GENERAL

Report To The CongressCi)F TH-E[ UNITED STATES ~3

What Are The Capabilities OfThe Selective Service System?

r-! tie evc!it a! wat or uthle, Ildtional erlner-genc7. the Setltective Service System nmiustcdraft the p!eople needledt by the Departmentof Deit is T e Service 'ays it cannot pro.vide the nIunlher of people within the re-quired ti mL flate. Sin-ce the All VolunteerForce was estall!isred, the Selective ServiceSystenl hs iid lihet(!oine nlidjil thudget ;-educ-tions. Ti e tin jrac! oi these etluctions on theService's caphi tlities has not been evaluatedby lth t xectltiveh tr ancid . Such evalu:itions

rIe lrucir! tIo U.S tiatiolal defense objectives sinc:u ;;e Se!ective Service maintains itsrole fut it,ductitls !people during niobiliza-tioll

Tthis r -c ,,er! i nre ileids itecetssary changes tothe sysle .,i ! ctl c woNu(ld hielpl the Service do

h t)ett,'! *' ,!!l Ii;ker jlobh of drafting people,

IJ [h'e.;

it t i e S V I r ..

· v } , F P C D 779-4(t~~rI~~~~~ ''(,~~ ,iDECEMBER 14, 1978

COMPTROLLER GENERAL OP THE UNITED STATESWASHINGTON. D.C. mom_

B-162111

To the President of the Senate and theSpeaker of the House of Representatives

This report discusses the problems the Selective ServiceSystem has in meeting the manpower delivery requirements ofthe Department of Defense and recommends alternatives toimprove the Service's capabilities.

We discussed the report with the Director, SelectiveService System and considered his comments in the report.We did not request written comments.

Our review was maie pursuant to the Budget and Account-ing Act, 1921 (31 U.S.C. 53), and the Legislative Reorganiza-tion Act of 1970 (Public Law 91-510).

We are sending copies of this report to the Director,Office of Management and Budget; the Director, SelectiveService System; the Secretary of Defense; and other in-terested parties.

Comptroller Generalof the United States

COMPTROLLER GENERAL'S WHAT ARE 21HE CAPABILi'iK.REPORT TO THE CONGRESS OF THE SELECTIVE SERVICE

SYSTEM?

D I G E S T

Selective Service is responsible for draftingpeople into military service, in the case ofmobilization, even though the Department ofDefense has relied on the All VolunteerForce since 1973 to fill its manpower needs.

In 1973, Selective Service was budgeted at$83.5 million and it had a staff of ap-proximately 5,200 people. Since that timethe Selective Service System's budget andthe number of full-time employees have beenreduced to $6.3 million (for fiscal year 1978)and 100 employees. The Congress passed a1979 budget of $7.04 million for t'- SelectiveService System.

The Department of Defense says that it wouldneed 100,000 people within 60 days aftermobilization, but Selective Service saysthat under the current plans and budget itwould take 125 days to provide tha- imanypeople. Had Selective Service not -ggres-sively pursued improvements to its proce-dures, its earliest completed delivery of100,000 people would have been at 150 days.

In GAO's opinion, the key to a shorterdelivery time lies in having a list of elig-ibl' people to be drafted in the case ofmobilization. Such a list could be developedand maintained if the Nation returned to someform of national registration. This is cur-rently the focus of congressional debate.

Regardless of the resolution of the debate,Selective Service will continue to beresponsible for drafting the number ofpeople the Department of Defense says itneeds. GAO recognizes that Selective Serv-ice considered alternative ways to developa list of draft-eligible people but wasadvised by the sources of the needed infor-mation that the data could rot be made avail-able because of possible violations of thePrivacy Act.

IslsmL. Upon removal, the reoortcover date should be noted hereo. i FPCD-79-4

To attain a shorter delivery time and createrefficiency, the Selective Service rystemshould request an exception to the PrivacyAct. If this is not granted the agency shouldas a fallback position obtain advance approvalwithin the executive branch to request reliefto be effective at the same time that author-ity to induct is requested. Further, itshould choose the most effective alterna-tive and make arrangements now with theselected agency for access to the dataafter mobilization.

Selective Service's ability to meet theDepartment of Defense's needs has not beenformally evaluated by the executive branch.As the Selective Service System's missionis so crucial to national security objec-tives, the Congress should require periodicexecutive branch evaluations and reportsindependent of the Selective Service Systemon the ability of the service to draft peoplewithin the time required by the Departmentof Defense.

The President's Reorqarization Study Groupis studying the organization, managementand processes of the Selective Service System;the preliminary results have not been madeavailable to GAO. GAO excluded ocganiza-tional placement as a subject for audit.Hovever, GAO's limited information indicatesthat the pros and cons of merging the Selec-tive Service System with another agency arenot critical to the agency's capability todraft people.

In October 1978, Selective Service, for thefirst time, took part in a Department ofDefense mobilization exercise. However, theprocedures tested were those needed to induct100,000 people in 125 instead of 60 days.GAO applauds the inclusion of SelectiveService in this exercise but believes theprocedures that were tested should have beenthose net.,ed to meet the 60-day requirement.

ii

The Selective Service System also intendsto rely on about 715 National Guard andReserve officers to implement the systemupon mobilization. Selective Service hasimproved its capability for using thesepersonnel. However, the Service had neitherdetermined the specific offices in whichthese officers will work nor had it madeassurances that adequate supplies and equip-ment are available at these locations whenthe need arises. Selective Service shouldmake these changes.

The Director. Selective Service System, re-viewed a draft of this report. His oralcomments were considered and incorporatedinto the report. He did not see the needfor written comments, and was in full agree-ment with GAO's conclusions and recommenda-tions.

The Congressional Budget Office recentlyissued a report on the Selective ServiceSystem. GAO coordinated with the BudoetOffice to assure that there was no unnec-essary duplication or overlap in the twostudy approaches. Conclusions reached inthis report are similar to those reachedby the Congressional Budget Office.

ISU-hbe iii

C o n t e n t s

Paqe

DIGEST

CHAPTER

1 INTRODUCTION 1Scope of Review 2

2 DOD REQUIREMENTS AND SELECTIVE SERVICESYSTEM CAPABILITIES 4

Role of the Selective Service System 4Manpower requirements levied ')y the

Department of Defense 4Number of induction orders

needed to draft 100,000 5Selective Service plans tomeet DOD requirements 6

Training of National Guardand Reserve units 8

3 WHAT HAPPENED TO REGISTRATION? 9Statutory mandate and Selective

Service System response 9

4 EVALUATIONS OF SELECTIVE SERVICESYSTEM CAPABILITIES 12

5 CONCLUSIONS, RECOMMENDATIONS, AND AGENCYCOMMENTS 13Conclusions and recommendations 13Agency comments 14

ABBREVIATIONS

AIF All Volunteer Force

DOD Department of Defense

GAO General Accountinq Office

M mobilization

CHAPTER 1

INTRODUCTION

Prior to the All Volunteer Force (AVF), the draft wasthe primary source of acquiring manpower for the military,and the Selective Service System was the agency responsiblefor drafting individuals into the Armed Forces. Since 1973the Armed Forces have relied on volunteers to fill require-ments; however, the Selective Service System remains animportant ingredient to our national security. The SelectiveService (draft system) remains as the primdry method bywhich people will be brought into the military if mobilizationoccurs and large numbers of personnel are needed immediatelyfor the military.

Because the above stated mission has not changed, ourNation must have a system capable of delivering, on a timelybasis, the types and numbers of personnel needed to fight anextended war (over 6 months). To assure this, a systemshould exist which has the capability to (1) register, clas-sify, and induct individuals who can serve in the military, (2)provide a program of alternate service for those who cannotserve in the military, and (3) determine the eligibilityof standby reservists.

The Selective Service System was legislatively estab-lished by the Selective Service Act of 1948. Just prior tomoving to an All Volunteer Force, the Congress, in 1971, in-cluded a standby draft requirement in the act which said:

"The Selective Service System * * * shall* * * be maintained as an active standbyorganization, with (1) a complete registrationand classification structure capable of immediateoperation in the event of a national emergency,and (2) personnel adequate to reinstitute imme-diately the full operation of the System * * *"

Although the Selective Service System was not fullyoperational, the Congress maintained the System in an activestandby capacity after the advent of the AVF. Since theAVF or end of large scale inductions was initiated, fundsfor the Selective Service System have generally been reducedeach fiscal year.

1

Currently (fiscal jear 1979) the Selective Service Systemis budgeted at $7.04 million while last year's budget was$6.3 million with 100 compensated personnel. During fiscalyear 1973 (the last year the draft existed) the SelectiveService System was budgeted $83.5 million and had approximately5,200 personnel. When the draft ended, the Selective ServiceSystem ceased inductions and physical examinations, but wasstill required to stand ready to induct people should thevolunteer system prove unsuccessful. Subsequently, in 1976when it appeared to the administration that the AVF wassuccessful, additional changes to the Selective ServiceSystem occurred, such as

--terminating classification,

--suspending registration,

-- terminating administrative support to local draftboards, and

-- initiating development of an annual registrationprocedure and a process to test it (a planned testwas canceled).

As a result of these changes the functior of SelectiveService shifted to maintaining a system (through planningand training) in a deep standby posture with the same respon-sibility to meet the mobilization-manpower requirementsof the Department of Defense kDOD).

SCOPE OF REVIEW

We reviewed pertinent background material to assess therole of the Selective Service System in a peacetime volunteerenvironment and a wartime mobilization period. Our effortwas concentrated on Selective Service's capabilities torespond, within scheduled delivery dates, to the DOD manpowerrequirements. We reviewed the organizational framework,plans, and programs developed to respond to DOD needs.We assessed the impacts that the reduced budgetary levelshave had on Selective Service's ability to deliver manpowerresources in the required time frames.

We worked at Selective Service headquarters and observeda training exercise in Richmond, Virginia. We did not concen-trate efforts on the organizational placement of SelectiveService functions since the President's reorganization workgroup is reviewing several alternatives along these lines.Our preliminary work indicated that organizational placementswere not the most critical factor in the capability to draft

2

people. Our main concern was whether the Selective SzrviceSystem could perform its mission. Also, we did not concen-trate efforts on the Selective Service System's role ofdetermining the availability of Standby reservists sincethis function is an appellate process for those standbyreservists ,cho indicate reasons for not being mobilized,

3

CHAPTER 2

DOD REQUIREMENTS i.ND

SELECTIVE SERVICE SYSTEM CAPABILITIES

Selective Service said that it had the capability tomeet the Department of Defense's previous manpower require-ments with its fiscal year 77 budget of $6.3 million. DODhas since imposed stricter requirements--similar numbers ofpeople within shortened time frames--and the Service now saysit could not deliver the necessary manpower with a budgetthe size of 1977's. The current administration cut theService's fiscal year 79 budget proposal of $15.4 millionto about $9.5 million. The Congress approved a budget of$7.04 million for fiscal year 1979. Even after makinginternal procedural changes to improve dieivery capability,the Service says it cannot meet DOD's demands at the $7 mil-lion level.

ROLE OF THE SELECTIVE SERVICE SYSTEM

The role of Selective Service is to (1) maintain a sys-tem capable of drafting people into the armed services, (2)operate a program of alternative service for persons not re-quired to perform military service, and (3) determine theavailability of standby reservists. During peacetime, themilitary departments rely on volunteers for needed manpower;however, after mobilization the Selective Service System willdraft manpower.

The Service is responsible for meeting the manpower re-quirements as determined by DOD. Hence, it is a source ofmilitary recruits for DOD. However, since the Service isan independent agency, DOD has no formal authority to eval-uate the agency's operations or to assess the adequacy ofits plans, and it has not done so.

MANPOWER REQUIREMENTS LEVIEDBY THE DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

In October 1977, the Assistant Secretary of Defense(Manpower, Reserve Affairs, and Logistics) issued a mem-orandum for the Director, Selective Service. The AssistantSecreLary stated that wartime requirements were being reeval-uated and that interim studies had shown the need for morepeople earlier than had previously been indicated. Accord-ing to the memo, the first inductees are needed at mobiliza-tion (M) plus 30 days, 100,000 inductees at M plus 60 days,

4

and 650,000 inductees at M plus 180 days. DUD's earlierrequirements were for Selective Service to provide the firstinductee by M+110 days, 100,000 by M+150 days, and 480,000by M+230 days.

NUMBER OF INDUCTION ORDERSNEEDED TO DRAFT 100F000

To insure the delivery of 100,C00 inductees to DOD, Selec--tive Service estimates it will need to issue approximately600,000 induction orders.

Induction Orders for 100,000

Induction orders issued 600,000

Claims for deferment 98,400Claims for emergency

postponement 23,400Statutory student post-ponement (Ifmobilization occursduring the school term) 208,200

Fail to report 70_000

Total unavailable (400,000)

Reporting for induction 200,000

Rejections:Physical 20,000Mental 50,000Moral 30,000

Total rejections (100,000)

Total inductees 100,000

Note: () Indicates Subtraction

Rates for deferment claims, postporieents, failures to report,and rejections are based on Selective Service historical data.Student postponements are based on Census Bureau statistics.It should be noted that any changes regarding deferments orDostoonements would increase or decrease the number of eligi-ble inductees.

5

SELECTIVE SERVICE PLANS TO MEET DOD REQUIREMENTS

During fiscal years 1977 and 1978, Selective Serviceoperated under a deep standby posture and was responsiblefor developing a manpower procurement system. Based on itsorganizational structure and plans, Selective Service statedit had the capabilities in fiscal year 1977 to meet the earlierrequirements levied by DOD as follows:

-- First inductee (M+110).

--100,000 inductees (M+150).

-- 480,C00 inductees (M+230).

During fiscal year 1978, Selective Service made severaloperational changes in the system which should improve itscapabilities. First, the time interval between issuance ofinduction orders and the induction reporting date was reducedfrom 30 to 10 days. Second, by modifying registrant processingprocedures, Selective Service can increase the number of re-qistrants processed each day. And, third, the Reserve andGuard personnel involved in implementing the system are nowrequired to report to active duty within 3 days of mobilizationinstead of the 30 days previously scheduled. Selective Serviceofficials stated that, with these operational changes thesystem can provide the following:

-- First inductee (M+85).

-- 100,000 inductees (M+125).

---480,000 inductees (M+205).

Although these changes represent an improvement, theservice is still not capable of meeting current DOD require-ments.

In the fiscal year 1979 budget request, the Presidentrequested $9.5 million for Selective Service. Selective Ser-vice stated that the increased budget was "necessary to fundthe improved posture and readiness of the System and willpermit the System to achieve an improved capability to meetthe new manpower requirement." With the $9.5 million budget,Selective Service stated that it intended to accomplish someactivities before M-day, shorten the time to do some postM-day functions, and better meet DOD's requirements. Theincreased budget was to be used primarily for

6

-- the recruitment and training of local and appealboard members before M-day,

-- the expansion of the Reserve and Guard forces as-signed to Selective Service and the realignment oftheir mobilization assignment, and

-- an improved automated data processing system.

Selective Service stated it could have met DOD's currentrequirements with the increased budget and the planned opera-tional changes.

However, the Selective Service System did not receive therequested $9.5 million. The House Subcommittee on HUD andindependent agencies recommended a funding level of $7.045million (fiscal year 1978 budget plus an inflation factor)which was endorsed by the House Appropriations Committee andlater approved by the entire House. In its report, the HouseAppropriations Committee stated

"* * * it is very doubtful that the budget re-quest would allow the Selective Seil ice Systemto meet the revised Department of Defense manpowerrequirements--particularly without some formof registration. Also, the President's Reorga-nization Project is currently undertaking a studyof the Selective Service System's organization,management a,, processes. The results of thatstudy are not scheduled to be available untilthe fall of 1978. After the study is completedand the results are submitted to Congress, theCommittee could consider a revised budgetestimate."

The Senate Appropriations Committee also endorsed the$7.045 budget proposal and forwarded this recommendation tothe full Senate. When the vote went before the full Senate,this recommendation was overturned and the Senate approvedthe $9.5 million request. The Conference Committee, however,endorsed the $7.045 level and the full Congress approved thisamount.

Selective Service said that with the $7.045 million forfiscal year 1979, it will maintain its fiscal year 1978 struc-ture and operational capabilities and, as discussed previously,will not be able to meet the DOD requirements in the prescribedtime frame.

7

TRAINING OF NATIONALGUARD AND RESERVE UNITS

Reserve and National Guard units are scheduled co playan integral part in reestablishing the Selective Service Sys-tam in the event of an emergency. These units (comprised ofabout 715 officers) train in Selective Service operationsduring their monthly weekend drills and annual 2-week train-ing exercises. These officers are responsible for preparingand revising the States' reconstitution and registration planswith guidance from Selective Service headquarters and forimplementing those plans upon mobilization. On a quarterlybasis Selective Service provides the units with individuallesson plans on subject matters to be covered while in train-ing. Particular subjects covered include reconstitution,registration, and classification procedIres. These lessonplans are designed to provide these officers with the neces-sary working knowledge of the operations and procedures forimplementing the system.

The Service, at the time of this review, was in a stateof uncertainty as to the funding level it would receive. Asa result the training encompassed more than one set of pro-cedures. This was to ensure that these officers would knowthe procedures to be implemented in time of national emer-gency.

Officers are tested on their working knowledge of theoperations through classroom exercises and are given simu-lation training (mobilization readiness exercises) on var-ious aspects of the system. The results are used to eval-uate the officers' performance in light of what is requiredif a draft system were implemented.

The officers are trained and tested on individual aspectsof the system, but there were no tests or simulation cover-ing all aspects of the system and how each component is inter-related. Also, officers expressed concern about not visitinglocations (area office) where plans call for reconstitutingthe system and knowing if adequate facilities and administra-tive support, such as clerical staff, telephones, and formsexisted there.

We believe these officers should be tested on theirability to perform collectively in implementing the entiresystem. In addition the Service should determine thespecific offices where these officers will work and makeassurances that the officers will have the needed suppo tat these locations.

8

CHAPTER 3

WHAT HAPPENED TO REGISTRATION?

The need for the Selective Service System to conduct aregistration program to ensure timely delivery of inductees inthe event of national emergency is being debated in the Con-gress. Registration is not conducted, although SelectiveService plans for its initiation at mobilization. Without alist of eligibles from which to draft, the Selective Ser,.icecannot meet mobilization requirements. Pending resolutionof the congressional debate, Selective Service should analyzealternative sources to devise a list. After selecting asource, the service should design its procedures accordingly.Unless such action is taken, it is questionable whether Selec-tive Service meets its statutory responsibilities.

STATUTORY MANDATE ANDSELECTIVE SERVICE SYSTEM RESPONSE

As mentioned in Chapter 1 the Congress incorporated PublicLaw 92-129 (Section 10(h)) in the Selective Service Act. Thisrequired that the Selective Service be maintained as anactive standby system with a registration and classificationstructure capable if immediate operation in a national emer-gency.

When inductions ceased in 1973, the Selective ServiceSystem established several concepts for operating a standbydraft. These concepts included

--maintaining a system and supporting organization toensure that facilities existed for the registrationof male citizens and certain aliens during the yearin which they became of age;

-- maintaining a system of classification followingregistration not to include preinduction physicals,

-- retaining a local board structure to perform neces-sary classification;

--holding an annual lottery for (1) notifying registrantsof their vulnerability should induction be resumedand (2) establishing the systems clerical work load;

-- retaining some National Guard and Reserve personnelfor the mobilization augmentation force as prescribedby law; and

9

-- retaining adequate personnel, organizational elements,and necessary procedures to insure the capability ofimmediate operation in a national emerqency.

On March 29, 1975, the administration through PresidentialProclamation 4360 suspended registration. The Proclamationstated, "In order to evaluate an annual registration system,existing procedures are being terminated and will be replacedby new procedures which will provide for periodic reaistra-tion." As a result, the Service no longer registered andclassified individuals. In addition, there was terminationof administrative support for local draft boards. The Ser-vice also began developing a test of annual registration;however, the effort was canceled before completion. More-over, there has not been periodic registration.

Currently, the Selective Service System has proceduresfor beginning to register people when (1) mobilization occursand (2) inductions resume during peacetime. Deliveryschedules under its mobilization procedures correlate toresponse times of 100,000 inductees at M+125 days but notthe M+60 days as required by DOD.

In a report relating to the Department of Defense Appro-priations Authorization Act of 1979, the House Armed ServicesCommittee stated that upon reviewing manpower mobilizationpotential it became obvious that the Selective Service Systemcannot meet manpower mobilization requirements in an acceptabletime frame. The Committee report said that to overcome thatdeficiency the Selective Service System must return to regis-tration and classification. The Committee recommended anincreased budget ($17 million versus its current $6 million)to provide for registration and classification. In addition,the Committee directed the Selective Service to formulateplans fob national registration and classification and toreport its plans to the Committee no later than at the term-ination of the 95th Congress.

General David C. Jones, Chair;nan, Joint Chiefs of Staff,stated on the November 19, 1978, program FACE THE NATION thathe also favored reinstituting registration and classification.He stated

"* * *I would advocate a restoration of registrationfor the draft, and I would seriously consider classi-fication of people; and that probably would be wise.This would help us in our mobilization. Today ittakes us about 110 days before the first recruitcomes aboard in a crisis. And also, it would be

10

available in case we had to have some sort ofnational service to meet our reserve needs."

Congressional concern exists over the current deliverycapabilities of the Selective Service System and the adverseimpact its current status has on national security. Currentprocedures and time frames do not meet DOD manpower needs.An active registration and classification program will im-prove readiness capability, through shorter time framesfor delivering inductees. However, even if registration isnot resumed, it appears most critical that a list of drafteligible people exist. Several types of data exist thatcould be used to make lists of eligible individuals, such asinformation on social security account number holders, driverslicense holders, high school graduates, and registered voters.

We were advised that Selective Service System had con-sidered various sources for designing a temporary list buthad been denied access to the data by agencies who cited thePrivacy Act as the basis for their denial. In our opinion,the Service should have pursued the matter and formally re-quested access to the data. If again denied, the Serviceshould then request a waiver of the statute since having alist from which to begin The process is so critical to theService's capability to meet DOD's manpower needs.

Selective Service stated that with the existing budg-etary level and current organization, it will take M+60 daysjust to implement the registration process, although DODsays it needs 100,000 people in this time frame. The debateon reinstituting the registration process is taking placein the Congress but, in our opinion, the Service cannot af-ford to await its resolution without planning, and implement-ing i- needed, an alternate mechanism, pending mobilization.After mobilization the authority to register individuals willbe granted, and registration will replace the alternate mecha-nism for devising a list of draft eligible individuals.

According to Selective Service, it has recognized theneed for an alternate source to use as an initial pool ofmanpower, pending implementation of the registration processafter mobilization.

The Service had not decided to request statutory relieffrom the Privacy Act. We urge that the Service, as quicklyas possible, make a formal decision as to the applicabilityof the act. If it does apply, the Service should then requestcongressional relief from the restrictions for this specificpurpose.

11

CHAPTER 4

EVALUATIONS OF SELECTIVE SERVICE

SYSTEM CAPABILITIES

Although several groups, including the Department ofDefense, the Selective Service System, the Office of Manage-ment and Budget, the National Security Council, and theOffice of Emergency Planning, have evaluated and reaffirmedthe need for a standby draft mechanism, there does not appearto exist an evaluation, by this administration or previous ad-ministrations, of the effect of budgetary reductions on standbydraft capabilities and its impact on national defense posture.For example, when the Selective Service System budget wasreduced to $6 million and the system was categorized as a"deep" standby, no formal evaluation was made to ensurethat the Service could meet DOD's delivery schedule.Moreover, there has been no evaluation of the impact of thedecision to cancel the tests of periodic registrationalthough this was one of the key factors included in thedecision to stop registering individuals.

In October 1978, DOD conducted a mobilization exercise(Nifty Nugget) to test our national defense mobilizationcapabilities. A portion of this exercise measured thecapabilities of the Selective Service System. Althoughthis was a worthwhile exercise, the Selective Service Systemincluded was the one designed to meet DOD's past, but notpresent, requirements. Therefore, the results of the testdo not present a clear picture of Selective Service's capa-bilities in relation to DOD's needs of 100,000 inducteesat M+60.

Because the Selective Service System is an essentialpart of our national defense capabilities, there appears tobe a need for a systematic executive branch evaluation ofthe System's capabilities which should be incorporated intothe Service's periodic reports to Congress.

12

CHAPTER 5

CONCLUSIONS, RECOMMENDATIONS, AND AGENCY COMMENTS

CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

The Selective Service System, under its current proce-dures, does not have the capability to respond to the Depart-ment of Defense's needs. Since the All Volunteer Force, theService has undergone major budget reductions. The impact ofthese reductions on the Service's capabilities has not beenevaluated by the executive branch. Such evaluations are cri-tical to our national defense objectives since the SelectiveService System maintains its role for inducting people duringmobilizat'on.

In our opinion, the key to a shorter delivery time liesin having an existing list of eligibles to be drafted inthe case of mobilization. Such a list could be derived ifthe Nation returned to some form of national registration.This is currently the focus of congressional debate. However,this debate does not relieve the Selective Service of itsresponsibilities.

We recognize that Selective Service considered alternateways to develop a list of draft-eligible people but was ad-vised by the sources of the needed information that the datacould not be made available because of possible violations ofthe Privacy Act. We recommend that the Service request anexception to the Privacy Act. If this is not granted theSelective Service should as a fallback position obtain ad-vance approval within the executive branch to request reliefto be effective at the time that authority to induct is re-quested. Further, it should choose the most effective alter-native and make arrangements now with the selected agency foraccess to the data after mobilization.

The executive branch has not formally evaluated theSelective Service System's ability, to meet DOD's needs. Asthe Selective Service System's mission is so crucial toour national security objectives, the Congress should re-quire periodic executive branch evaluations and reportsindependent of the Selective Service System on the abilityof the Service to draft people within the time frame requiredby DOD.

In October 1978, Selective Service, for the first time,took part in a DOD mobilization exercise. However, the pro-cedures tested were those needed to induct 100,000 people in125 instead of 60 days. It would have been more appropriateto test the procedures needed to meet the 60-day requirement.

13

The Selective Service System also intends to rely onabout 715 National Guard and Reserve officers to implementthe system upon mobilization. The Selective Service Systemhas improved its capability for using these personnel. How-ever, we believe that the Service should (1) determine thiespecific offices where these officers will work and (2) makeassurances that supplies and equipment are available atthese locations, when the need arises. We recommend thatSelective Service make those changes.

AGENCY COMMENTS

The Director, Selective Service System, was given an op-portunity to study the draft report, verify the accuracy ofthe information presented, and orally comment to ul. Gener-ally, the Director stated the report accurately reflects thecurrent capabilities of the Selective Service System. Hisoral comments were considered and incorporated into thereport. He did not see the need for written comments, andwas in full agreement with our conclusions and recommenda-tions.

(965013)

14