Hundreds of soldiers, at least, are stuck in jobs well outside their career paths — everything from lifeguard duty to working as gym attendants — as the service attempts to cover for civilian vacancies, some stemming from budget cuts.
But the Army doesn't keep close track of these soldiers' assignments, according to a Government Accountability Office report, nor do installations report the complete financial data necessary to determine whether sliding a soldier into such a position, sometimes for a year or more, truly helps the service's bottom line.
The report, published Monday, recommends that the Army address these concerns via new guidance on soldiers' special duty assignments, as well as requirements that commanders consider the "full cost" of such moves and keep records of their decisions. An Army official concurred, at least in part, with those recommendations in the service's official response, though a comprehensive tracking of those being used as what GAO calls "borrowed military personnel" would be "unreasonable" and "overly burdensome," the response says.
Without this tracking, however, the figures cited by GAO rely on unclear and incomplete reporting — a limitation highlighted by the report's authors. The report says 6,957 troops were on special duty as of June 2014, the last month for which data were included, but that number doesn't distinguish between borrowed military personnel, also known as borrowed military manpower, and troop diversion, which covers those filling military positions outside their units — funeral detail, for example.
Adding to the confusion, GAO reported that tallies of special duty assignments varied wildly. Fort Hood's total fell from 833 in February 2014 to 435 in May of that year, for example, when a new interpretation of "special duty" eliminated nearly half the soldiers on the list.
Some of these special duties fall within a soldiers' military occupational specialty: In May 2014, for instance, 775 soldiers were working special duty in law enforcement and another 187 with a medical MOS were working in troop clinics. However, that same month, "the Army reported 136 lifeguard positions being filled by special duty personnel, 217 special duty personnel performing grounds maintenance, and 491 working as gym attendants," the report states.
While regulations limit such duty to 90 days, a March 2013 memo from Army Secretary John McHugh gave senior leaders permission to exceed that time span, permission that later was extended through fiscal 2014.
GAO found instances of soldiers on special duty for far longer: A Fort Hood soldier was given a yearlong special duty stretch as gate guard beginning March 1, 2013, and a Fort Bragg soldier who'd served as a gate guard on special duty throughout May 2014 "was assigned to special duty for an additional 180 days," the report states. That month, 2,470 of the nearly 7,000 soldiers on special duty were scheduled to remain there "for approximately 1 year or longer."
Saving money, sort of
Using a soldier whose pay and benefits already are on the books saves installations from the costs involved in hiring civilian personnel. It also can resolve other budget issues: Army Medical Command officials at Fort Hood, for instance, told GAO that soldiers were used to fill shifts to avoid paying overtime to civilian workers.
GAO highlighted the salary differences between the soldiers and the civilian workers who usually hold some of the positions outlined in the report, pointing out that the total compensation (pay and benefits) of an E-4 gate guard might top $7,800 per month, for instance, while a civilian in that position would likely make less than $4,500.
Lifeguards also come cheaper on the open market, GAO said, with an E-4 on pool duty costing $5,000 a month more than a civilian in the same job.
Contractor cuts could be coming
The Friday before the GAO released its report, the Army announced that a "funding shortfall" could affect 3,400 civilian contractors working with Logistics Readiness Centers at Fort Hood, Georgia's Fort Gordon and Maryland's Fort Meade. The service blamed the shortfall on "continuing budget uncertainty driven by the Budget Control Act as well as the velocity of instability increasing the demand for ready forces," according to the release, citing the legislation responsible for budget cuts known as sequestration.
LRCs cover dining facility operations, transportation services and other support roles, according to the Friday news release.
Other bases could be affected if the financial situation isn't stabilized, the release states; Kim Hanson, a spokeswoman for Army Material Command, said installation commanders "will work mitigation strategies" to combat the cuts, but could not say whether such mitigation would involve borrowed military personnel.
Kevin Lilley is the features editor of Military Times.
