| Comment Number: | OL-10508816 |
| Received: | 3/15/2005 10:53:53 AM |
| Subject: | Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, Request for Comment |
| Title: | National Security Personnel System |
| CFR Citation: | 5 CFR Chapter XCIX and Part 9901 |
| No Attachments |
Comments:
"The case for action" indicates that "civilians must be an integrated, flexible, and responsive part of the [military] team." This seems to be saying that civilians should be available for deployments the same as uniformed servicemembers are (i.e., relocation to wherever the need is greatest). This may be okay within CONUS, but not when it applies to overseas assignments in hostile or potentially hostile &/or unaccompanied areas. It appears that DoD & the Sec of Defense are attempting to compensate for declining military enlistments by using civilians to fill positions that have been done by military personnel in the past. "High performers and low performers are paid alike." By use of step increases & cash awards, high performers can receive more money than low performers. "The Department sometimes uses military personnel & contractors when civilian employees could have and should have been the right answer." Explain. Recent incidences where this has been in the press involves only overseas (usually hostile) locations. The complaint may not be that contractors had to be used (since contractors currently work side-by-side with DoD employees), but that contractors have to be paid more. If they're going into hardship &/or hostile environments, contractors expect to be paid comensurately with the environment. They often enjoy other benefits not available to civilian DoD employees (e.g., tax free status). "This will free uniformed men & women to focus on matters unique to the military." When will the military be reformed to include only warfighters? The last time I lived on a military base (2002) there were uniformed members working in the post office, dining facility, health clinic, and other areas that I would not consider "unique to the military."