Army Force Structure: Lessons to Apply in Structuring Tomorrow's Army
NSIAD-91-3
Published: Nov 29, 1990. Publicly Released: Nov 29, 1990.
Skip to Highlights
Highlights
GAO provided information on the status of the Army's conversion to its Army of Excellence (AOE) force structure developed in 1983, focusing on the: (1) progress made in correcting force structure weaknesses; (2) remaining problems; and (3) lessons the Army should apply in developing its future force structure.
Recommendations
Recommendations for Executive Action
| Agency Affected | Recommendation | Status |
|---|---|---|
| Department of the Army | The Secretary of the Army should ensure that the Army fully documents the basis for major changes in its force designs as it proceeds to restructure its force. In particular, the Secretary should ensure that risks associated with such changes are clearly identified. |
Closed – Implemented
The Army has completed a major review of the criteria used in setting manpower requirements for its units. In revising the mission capabilities statements for each unit using these criteria, Army personnel will have a clearer picture of the risks assumed in deviating from the required levels.
|
| Department of the Army | As the Army proceeds with its plan for force restructuring, the Secretary of the Army should establish mechanisms to: (1) track the implementation of any major force structure initiatives that are introduced; and (2) assess progress toward the initiatives' goals. |
Closed – Not Implemented
The Army believes its current force development processes are adequate to track force structure initiatives. It does not intend to modify these processes.
|
| Department of the Army | As the Army proceeds with its plans for force restructuring, the Secretary of the Army should resolve the current disagreement on the development and application of manpower requirements criteria to achieve a more consistent basis for determining support force requirements. |
Closed – Implemented
The Army completed its review of Manpower Requirements Criteria, revised the relevant regulation, and is revising its unit organization charts to reflect these new criteria. These actions should enhance the credibility of the requirements cited in the charts, clarify the capability shortfalls resulting from not staffing the units at the required levels, and lead to more consistent criteria.
|
| Department of the Army | As the Army proceeds with its plans for force restructuring, the Secretary of the Army should assess the implications of retaining National Guard infantry divisions (non-mechanized) in nonstandard designs and if warranted, develop a plan for standardizing those forces. |
Closed – Implemented
The Army is in the process of restructuring these forces, resulting in some consolidations and inactivations. Sufficient progress is being made to enable GAO to close this recommendation.
|
| Department of the Army | As the Army proceeds with its plans for force restructuring, the Secretary of the Army should resolve existing problems in implementing the LUPS program to improve the prospects that the expected personnel savings are achieved. |
Closed – Implemented
The Army approved a LUPS conversion schedule at its June 1991 force structure conference. ODCSOPS and OCAR submitted a proposal to resolve personnel issues to the Chief of Staff for approval in September 1991.
|
| Department of the Army | In view of past problems in the management of the LUPS program, the Secretary of the Army should provide a copy of the LUPS implementation plan, once approved by the General Officer Steering Committee, to the Secretary of Defense to provide assurance that noted problems are being satisfactorily resolved. |
Closed – Implemented
The Army is continuing its implementation of the LUPS program according to a plan coordinated by the Army staff and major commands. Funding for the remainder of the program's implementation was programmed in fiscal years 1991 and 1992.
|
Full Report
Office of Public Affairs
Topics
Army personnelArmy reservistsCombat readinessDefense contingency planningForce structureFederal agency reorganizationLogisticsMilitary cost controlMilitary operationsReductions in forceStaff utilization