The National Guard is struggling with a serious recruiting problem and equipment shortages, and the budget request the Defense Department sent Congress for fiscal year 2006 threatens to make them worse.
With both the Army and Air Guard attracting at least 25 percent fewer recruits (NATIONAL GUARD, March 2005) than they need-and with no upturn yet in sight-the proposed 2006 budget provides less than half the money Guard officials say they need to turn recruiting around in the fiscal year that begins Oct. 1.
The spending plan Defense secretary Donald H. Rumsleld sent to Congress Feb. 7 provides the Guard with $163.4 million for recruiting. Army Guard and Air Guard budget officials say that's $187.7 million less than they will need.
The Army Guard plans an ambitious new multimedia marketing campaign, and the Air Guard wants to open new off-base recruiting offices to attract more recruits. To pay tor it, Guard leaders now must appeal to Congress to add money to their recruiting accounts.
Recruiting and retention bonus accounts are also underfunded. Although the budget allots $211 million for bonuses, Guard budget documents indicate a $288 million shortfall.
In many other ways as well, the 2006 defense budget leaves both the Army and Air Guard wanting.
The Army Guard's proposed budget share is $11.2 billion-8.3 percent less than it's getting this year. The Air Guard receives $7.2 billion, or 1.3 percent less than its current appropriation.
The cuts stand in sharp contrast to the 4.8 percent increase Mr. Rumsfeld is seeking for the U.S. military overall in the $419.3 billion 2006 budget he submitted to Congress.
But by the time Congress passes the defense bill-probably next fall-the Guard totals are certain to be higher.
Defense budgets submitted to Congress each year typically underfund many Guard programs, and Congress, at the behest of NGAUS and individual Guardsmen, typically adds money to eliminate the deficiency. The increases have averaged more than $1 billion annually in recent years.
Even so, fiscal 2006 is shaping up as a difficult year, says Col. James Baxter, Army Guard comptroller division chief. "We're going to have to manage a lot of risk in '06," he says.
Air Guard finances look a little less dire. "There's always risk," says Col. Kathleen Patterson, Air Guard's financial analysis division chief. "But we have enough funding to get our mission done."
In the 2006 budget, the Guard received massive cuts in military construetion. That's not unusual. The Army Guard's "milcon" account drops from a $447 million appropriation this year to $327 million in the 2006 budget-a 27 percent decrease.
But at this point, the 2006 number is merely a placeholder. It will be revised upward by lawmakers who annually use military construction as a means, in part, to steer government spending-and the jobs and other benefits it brings-to their home districts.
And they have plenty of projects from which to choose. The Army Guard backlog of unfunded military construction projects is $41.8 billion.
Air Guard milcon spending takes an even steeper drop from 2005. It falls 32 percent, from $243 million to $165.3 million for 2006. But Colonel Patterson says she is confident Congress will replenish the account. The Air Guard has $3.4 billion in unfunded projects.
Congress also usually adds money to Guard budgets to buy helicopters, aircraft and other equipment. In that way, the Army Guard received $110 million this year to buy small arms, night vision devices, radios and Humvees.
"Are we getting our fair share? Well, we hope so, but it's up to Congress," Colonel Baxter says.
Last year about half of the equipment the Guard was able to buy was added to the budget by lawmakers.
"Some years we get a lot less. Some years Congress is very passive. With the war, Congress has been more supportive," he says.
Guard officials have been briefing members of Congress on the proposed budget and what has been left out of it.
A cursory examination of the budget shows that personnel accounts for both Guard branches decline in 2006. But Colonel Patterson says the reduction is the result of an accounting change rather than an actual spending cut.
Money intended for a defense health care program has been taken out of the Guard's 2006 budget and will be paid, instead, directly to the program, she says. The change appears as a $1.4 billion decrease in Air and Army Guard personnel accounts but will have no actual impact on Guard personnel, she says.
With military construction and health care cuts factored out, the Guard's budgets show growth in some key accounts.
Troops receive a 3.1 percent pay raise. And a modest increase in operations and maintenance accounts, would pay for fuel, repairs to equipment, some training expenses, base operations and the like.
In addition, Army Guard operations and maintenance (O&M) spending increases 1.3 percent from $4.45 billion to $4.51 billion. Air Guard O&rM rises 5.8 percent from $4.46 billion to $4.72 billion.
Funding for education benefits, one of the Guard's most popular incentives, increases substantially-from $162 million to $226 million for the Army Guard and from $32.6 million to $74 million for the Air Guard. The extra money is to fund new tuition benefits.
Full-time personnel and technician funding also increase, although not by as much as the Army Guard needs to alleviate continuing validated shortages.
The Air Guard receives $15 million for a new C-17 Globemaster III associate unit at Hickam Air Force Base, Hawaii. The aircraft will be jointly operated by the Air Force's 15th Airlift Wing and the Hawaii Air National Guard's 154th Wing.
And the Army Guard should acquire new Stryker armored vehicles in 2006 as it restructures some of us brigades into brigade combat teams. The Strykers will replace Abrams tanks and Bradley Fighting Vehicles-although not on a one-for-one basis.
Over the next few years the Army Guard expects to retire 1,500 Abrams and 200 Bradleys, Colonel Baxter says. It also expects to lose about $30 million a year in funding for ground force operations because new units will need newer combat vehicles.
But for every bright spot in the 2006 budget, a corresponding account fails to meet Guard needs.
The Army Guard needs $53 million more to increase aviation flying hours to the desired 9.9 per aircrew per month in 2006. Without the extra money, 2006 flying hours are limited to 7.6 per crew per month. Last year Army Guard crews averaged 9.2 hours a month.
"We've asked Congress for a shot in the arm" on flying hours, Colonel Baxter says. Without additional money, "aviation's going to be a challenge." Operational readiness rates for helicopters have already begun to decrease, he says.
Training for ground units, which is measured in "tank miles," fares a little better than aviation. Optimally, crews for tanks and other vehicles would receive 201 live miles and 60 virtual miles of training each year. The 2006 budget permits only 190 live miles and 60 virtual miles.
In pan, funding for ground unit training was reduced because many troops are deployed, and thus are unavailable for training. In addition, some non-deployed units are short of personnel since some troops have been moved to fill gaps in deployed units, Colonel Baxter says.
Funding for Air Guard flying hours increases by $93 million to just under $1.7 billion for 2006, but it funds fewer flying hours. According to Guard budget documents, Air Guard flying hours would slip from 313,573 hours in 2005 to 308,944 in 2006.
The Army Guard faces a $192 million shortfall for initial entry and professional development training.
While there is enough money to put 36,591 soldiers through initial skills training in 2006, another 10,000 troops would need the training and wouldn't be able to get it, Colonel Baxter says.
The development-training shortfall is even greater. The budget buys training lor 17,200 soldiers, but leaves out 16,000 others.
Training requirements have increased in part because soldiers are being reclassificd as the Army transitions to brigade eombat teams, Army Guard officials say.
Funding for "special training," which is training beyond the standard 48 drills and 15 days of annual training, is cut substantially for both the Army and Air Guard. But with so many deployed to operations in Iraq, Afghanistan and elsewhere, many training exercises are already cancelled or curtailed.
The proposed 2006 budget also continues to underiund base operations, according to Army Guard budget documents. Rising utility costs and increased security requirements are particular problems. At $90 million, the "force protection" portion of the base operations account contains only 57 percent of requirements for 2006.
That "negates our ability to contract additional security guards, which in turn precludes approximately 1,800 soldiers from performing their primary military missions," Army Guard budget documents say.
An important Air Guard budget omission is $48 million for flightline communications equipment. Colonel Patterson says the Air Guard needs to buy handheld wireless communications devices for personnel who work on flight lines.
"It will get us on a par with the activeduty" flight line personnel, she says.
Increasingly, Guard troops operate with active-duty Air Force units and require compatible equipment but don't always get everything they need.
As the Air Force transfers some of its C-5 Galaxy cargo planes to the Air Guard, oftentimes support equipment doesn't follow because the Air Force needs to keep its remaining C-5s flying, Colonel Patterson says.
The budget as it stands doesn't contain the $36 million to purchase a second set of C-5 support equipment.
The Air Guard is also gritting its teeth over a shortage of dental screening funds.
"It's a readiness issue," Colonel Patterson says. Dental problems interfere with deployability. The Air Guard wants an additional $10.6 million to screen its members for dental problems.
There are some other "risks" built into the 2006 budget, she says.
One is that the Air Guard is deferring depot maintenance on some of its C-130 cargo haulers and KC-135 refueling tankers-a smart move if the Air Force decides to retire the planes.
They're old, and in February the Air Force grounded 30 C-13Os and restricted flying on 60 others after discovering cracks in their center wing boxes. The service is studying the feasibility of repairs. With the KC-13 5s, the Air Force wants to retire 100 of its oldest tankers, which are flown by the Air Guard and the Air Force Reserve.
But Congress has ordered no retirements until a Mobility Capability Study is completed this spring.
If the decision is to repair the planes instead of retire them, Colonel Patterson says there will be no money in the budget to do so.
With the fate of the planes unsettled, the Air Guard has decided to postpone depot maintenance, Colonel Patterson says. There's no point in spending money to repair planes that are going to be retired. But if the planes aren't retired, the Air Guard will have to find money somewhere to pay for the repairs.
The Air Guard is also taking gamble by budgeting lor fewer flying hours in 2006.
As long as Guard units are mobilized and flying for operations in Iraq, Afghanistan and elsewhere, their flying expenses are paid for by the active-duty Air Force. But if call-ups taper off, the Guard could find itself short of money to pay for flying.
"Everybody prays for peace," Colonel Patterson says, "but if it breaks out tomorrow, we've got an underfunded flying hour program."
© 2005 National Guard Association of the United States Provided by ProQuest LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Source: National Guard
