AD-A239 371 p

U.S. Army Research Institutefor the Behavioral and Social Sciences

Research Report 1595

INDIVIDUAL READY RESERVE (IRR) CALL-UP:SKILL DECAY

Robert A Wisher, Mark A Sabol, Hillel K. Sukenik,and Richard P. Kern

U.S. Army Research Institute

DTICSýELECTE

IAUG 08 1991]N1

June 1991

Arrnw•d for eublic release, distribution is unlimited.

91-06990

U.S. ARMY RESEARCH INSTITUTE

FOR THE BEHAVIORAL AND SOCIAL SCIENCES

A Field Operating Agency Under the Jurisdiction

of the Deputy Chief of Staff for Personnel

EDGAR M. JOHNSOI JON W. BLADESTechnical Director COL, IN

Commanding

Technical review by

Cathie AlderksLarry Brooks

NOTICESS.. .. •, ... ,€•. • .. . . • .. . -... . ._,"_... AA,u ut io,,O th' ,'r port been ao q by A ~tPi add As

Eorsponden• icance~tnj ditr buti~n •fr or d U . Afny R•'earyfi Ir stitu~e~ort4r•[Ialjviorrah&1 ci@s, [PIkI-PIX,50OFsenhowkAve., Vl•n•kd •yAK

FINALDISPOSITION. This report may be destroyed whon it is no longer nceded. Please donot return it to the U.S. Army Research nstitute for the Bchavioral and Social Sciences.

INOTE The findings in this report are not to be construed as an official Department of the

Army position, unless so designated by other authorized documents.

L

'CURITY CLASSIFICATION OF THIS PAGEi. Form Approved

REPORT DOCUMENTATION PAGE OMB No. 0704-0188

la. REPORT SECURITY CLASSIFICATION lb. RESTRICIIVE MARKINGS

2a, SECURITY CLASSIFICATION AUTHORITY 3 . DISTRIBUTION/AVAILABILITY OF REPORTApproved for public release; distribution

2b. DECLASSIFICATION / DOWNGRADING SCHEDULE unlimited

"4. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION REPORT NUMBER(S) 5. MONITORING ORGANIZATION REPORT NUMBER(S)

ARI Research Report 1595

6a. NAME OF PERFORMING ORGANIZATION 6b. OFFICE SYMBOL 7a. NAME OF MONITORING ORGANIZATION(If applicable)

U.S. ArmyResearch Institute PERTI T __I6c. ADDRESS (City, State, and ZIP Code) 7b. ADDRESS (City, State, and ZIP Code)

5001 Eisenhower AvenueAlexandria, VA 22333-5600

Ba. NAME OF FUNDING '/SPONSORING 8b. OFFICE SYMBOL 9. PROCUREMENT INSTRUMENT IDENTIFICATION NUMBERORGANIZATION U. S. Army (If applicable)Research Institute PERI-I

8c. ADDRESS (City, State. and ZIP Code) 10. SOURCE OF FUNDING NUMBERSPROGRAM PROJECT . TASK IWORK UNIT

5001 Eisenhower Avenue ELEMENT NO. NO. NO. ACCESSION NO.Alexandria, VA 22333-5300 62785 791 3302 IJ2

11. TITLE (Include Ser, rlty Classift,'•Pion)

Individual Ready Reserve (IRR) Call-Up: Skill Decay

12. PERSONAL AUTHOR . ..Wisher, Robert A.; Sabol, Mark A; Sukenik, Hillel H.; Kern, Richard P.

13a. TYPE OF REPORT 13b TIME COVERED 114. DATE OF REPORT (Year,AMonth,Day) 115. PAGE COUNTinal FROM 2/9 TO.J9_ 1991, June I 84

16. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTATION

17. COSATI CODES 18. SUBJECT TERMS (Continue on reverse if necessary and identify by block number)FIELD GROUP SUB-GROUP ( Skill Decay, Reserves.

1 Skill Retention' Mobilization,STIRR . / Training •F-

19. ABS•fIACT (Continue on reverse it necessary and Identify by block number)

Soldiers from the Individual. Ready Reserve (IRR) called-up for the Persian Gulf warwere tested at mobilization stations to determine the extent of skill decay since theirrelease from active duty. Results of these tests, which included hands-on performance,written, and weapon qualification scores, were merged with data from personnel files andresponses to a 31-item questionnaire on attitudes, job experience and personal impact ofthe call-up. The major findings were: (a) knowledge about Army jobs decayed mostly with-in 6 months; weapons qualification skills decayed mostly after 10 months; (b) previousskill qualification score was the strongest predictor of skill decay followed by AFQTscores; (c) skill decay was higher in Armor and Combat Engineering fields and lower inInfantry, Maintenance, and Supply fields; and (d) skill retention was higher for those

who entered the IR: directly from active duty. S

20. DISTRIBUOION/AVAILA8ILITY OF ABSTRACT 21. A4STRACT SECURiTY CLASSIFICATIONM•UNCLASSIFIED/UNLIMITED ID SAME AS RPT. 0 DTIC USERS "U11classif ied

22a. NAME OF RSPONSIBLE INDIVIDUAL 22b. TELEPHONE (Include A4rea Code) 22c. OFFICE SYMBOLRobert A. Wisher (703) 274t-5540 PER.. I]R -I TDD Form 1473, JUN 86 Previous editions are obsoleee. SECURITY CLAI, lFICAIION OF THIS PAGE

LE

Research Report 1595

Individual Ready Reserve (IRR) Call-Up:

Skill Decay

Robert A. Wisher, Mark A. Sabol, Hillel K. Sukenik, and Richard P. KernU.S. Army Research Institute

Automated Instructional SystemsTechnical AreaRobert J. Seidel, Chief

Training Research LaboratoryJack H. Hiller, Director

U.S. Army Research Institute for the Behavioral and Social Sciences5001 EisenhowerAvenue, Alexandria, Virginia 22333-5600

Office, Deputy Chief of Staff for PersonnelDepartment of the Army

June 1991

Army Project Number Manpower, Personnel, and Training2Q1162785A791

Approved for public release, distribution is unlimitod.

4.E

FOREWORD

The Training Research Laboratory of the U.S. ArmyResearch Institute for the Behavioral and Social Sciences(ARI) conducts research on skill acquisition and retention,and also on motivation. The significance of these researchtopics to current Army issues was apparent when the Office ofthe Deputy Chief of Staff for Personnel (DA-DMPM) tasked ARIfor a quick response to the issue of skill decay amongsoldiers from the Individual Ready Reserve called up forOperation Desert Storm. This report on skill decay, and acompanion report on the attitudes, motivation and concerns ofthese reservists, respond directly to the questions from theDirector of Military Personnel Management. Results werebriefed to the ODCSPER in April, 1991.

EDGAR M. JOHNSONTechnical Director

I) *1

AO01ssion For

NTIS GPA&IDTIC TAK' []Unmaimt ,ilie td

Jt' t If Ieali 1 1)n__ ,

AvwdJ1nbJlity Codes

Avnil amid/ur

"v I

ACBXNOWLED GMENTS

The authors would like to thank Alma Steinberg for herdedicat1-ed participation on the task force. Thanks are alsodue to Jack Hiller for his guidance, Frances Grafton for herskillful assistance in obtaining data from the enlistedmaster file and cohort database, Maria Winston and JohnFraser for their assistance in obtaining data from the ArmyTraining Requirements and Readiness System, and Joseph Thomanfor his efforts in coordinating TRADOC support.

vi

INDIVIDUAL READY RESERVE (IRR) CALL-UP: SKILL DECAY

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Requirement:

The Director of Military Personnel Managment tasked the U.S.Army Research Institute on 5 February 1991 to determine the"extent of skill decay" in the IRR call-up for Operation DesertStorm and report the findings in early April. The findings werebriefed on 11 April 1991.

Procedure:

Reservists were identified and tracked through themobilization stages through the Army Training Requirements andResources System. A questionnaire was developed and administeredto those not yet deployed. Hands-on and written diagnostic testscores were gathered from the TRADOC mobilization stations. Anassessment was made of the conditions under which these data werecollected in order to determine which tests yielded datasufficiently reliable for further analysis. From the datacollected under suitable conditions, along with information fromother personnel records, an integrated data base was formed andanalyzed to determine the extent of decay for those MOSs withinterpretable data.

Findings:

a Skill decay was evident in written diagnostic andcertification tests and weapons qualifications scores.

• The picture of skill recertification is mixed. Skills werein general adequately refreshed, as measured by coursecompletion rates, but skill decay deficits were notcompletely eliminated.

a Skills assessed by written tests decay, mostly within thefirst 6 months since separation; weapon qualificationskills decayed mostly after 10 months.

0 SQT was the strongest predictor of skill and knowledgeretention, followed by AFQT.

. A soldier's self-assessment on our Questionnaire was astrong indicator of skill performance.

vii

Fr

0 Skill retention was higher for those who entered the IRR

directly from active duty.

* Paygrade had little effect on degree o. skill loss.

* Skill decay was higher in Armor and Combat Engineer CMFsand lower in Infantry, Mechanical Maintenance, and Supplyand Services CMFs as determined from the questionnaire.

* Skill retention was better in CMFs that had moreopportunities for soldiers to use their MOS skill incivilian jobs.

* Lack of standardized "hands-on" test procedures precludedconfirmation of expected decay curves.

Utilization of Findings:

The results have been briefed to the Director of MilitaryPersonnel Management. Along with a companion report of theattitudes and motivation of the IRR call-ups (Steinberg, 1991),the results can be applied to develop policies and plans forfuture mobilizations.

rviii

INDIVIDUAL READY' RESERVE (IP.R) CALL-UP: SKILL DECAY

CONTENTS

Page

INTRODUCTION AND OVERVIEW............................................ 1

DATA SOURCES.......................................................... 3

A-rmy Training Requirements and Readiness System.............. 4

Enlisted Master File............................................ 4

Cohort File...................................................... 4

Questionnaire.................................................... 5

Performance Data................................................ 6

Integration of Databases........................................ 8

ANALYSIS AND INTERPRETATION OF DATA.................................. 8

Demographics....................................................B8

Skill-Decay Performance Data................................... 10

overview of Analyses............................................ 10

Regression Analysis ............................................ 12

Analysis of Variance (ANOVA)................................... 14

Questionnaire Analysis.......................................... 23

Skill Decay in CMF.............................................. 24

SUMMARY OF FINDINGS.................................................. 29

REFERENCES............................................................. 32

A1PPENDIZXi A. TRR QUESTIONNAIRE AND RESPONSES BY MOBILIZATIONSTATION................................................ A-1

APPENDIX B. IRR CALL-UP: MILITARY OCCUPATIONAL SPECIALTYAND CAREER MANAGEMENT FIELD........................... 2-1

APPENDIX C. IRP. CALL-UP: REASONS FOR RELEASEAFTER CALL-UP.......................................... C-i

APPENDIC D. MOS SPECIFIC PERFORMANCE TEST RESULTS............... D-i

ix

PageLIST OF TABLES

Table 1. MOS specific performance tests ...................... 7

2. Demographic breakdown of IRR soldiers .................. 9

3. Regression analysis with SQT, AFQT, paygrade,and time out of service ............................. 13

4. Summary of analyses of variance on standardizedmeasures ............................................ 15

5. Skill decay at call-up versus technicalpreparadness after recertification .................... 29

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1. IRR - skill decay integrated database................... 3

2a. Diagnostic scores and question 14 ...................... 17

2b. Diagnostic scores and time out of service ............ 17

2c. Diagnostic scores and last SQT score .................. 18

2d. Diagnostic scores and AFQT level ....................... 18

3a. Certification scores and question 14 .................. 19

3b. Certification scores and time out of service ......... 19

3c. CertificationScores and SQT level ..................... 20

3d. Certification Scores and last AFQT score ............. 20

4a. Target scores and question 14 ....................... 21

4b. Target scores and time out of service ................. 21

4c. Target scores and SQT level ...................... 22

4d Target scores and last AFQT score ................... 22

5. Response to question 13 by different CMFs ........... 25

6. Response to question 14 by different CMFs ............ 26

7. Response to question 18 by different CMFs ............ 27

8. Response to question 20 by different CMFs ............ 28

x

Hi m

INDIVIDUAL READY RESERVE CALL-UP: SKILL DECAY

Introduction and Overview

In January 1991, the U.S. Army ordered 20,000 IndividualReady Reserve (IRR) members to report to mobilization stations aspart of Operation Desert Storm. As most readers will know,members of the IRR are soldiers who have completed their activeduty contracts but have time remaining in their military serviceobligation. The IRR thus a.epresents a pool of pre-trainedindividuals with useful military experience. Since they areavailable for rapid mobilization, their proficiency at mi.litarytasks is critical. However, unlike the Selected Reserve, IRRmembers are not organized into units, do not get paid, and, mostimportantly, do not receive skill training while in the IRR. T'neabsence of sustainment training means that time in IRR representsa period of non-use during which previously-learned skills maydecay. Although the call-up was restricted to those who had beendischarged within the past twelve months, a considerable decay inskills may have occurred.

On 5 February 1991, the Director of Military PersonnelManagement (DMIA) tasked the U.S. Army Research Institute (ARI)to determine the "extent of skill decay" for these IRR soldiers.A task force was immediately formed by the Director of theTraining Research Laboratory at ARI. Members of that task forcewere: Robert Wisher (Leader), Richard Kern, Alma Steinberg, MarkSabol, Hillel Sukenik, Joseph Hagman (all from ARI), and LTCJoseph Thoman as TRADOC point of contact and Maria Winston asDMPM point of contact.

A study plan was quickly prepared and briefed to BG Stroupon 4 March 1991. Data were collected and a preliminary analysisconducted over the next month. The results were briefed to BGStroup on 11 April 1991. This research report documents theskill decay findings in greater detail. A companion report(Steinberg, 1991) documents the findings on the attitudes andmrotivation of soldiers in this call-up.

The reservists began reporting on 31 January. Mobilization wastherefore well underway by the time we received our tasking. TheTraining and Doctrine Command (TRADOC) had already established anin-processing strategy to screen for medical and other problems,Aciagnose skill deficiencies, recertify MOS and common task skills,and deploy the troops to CONUS replacement centers or to Europe.For our task force, then, there was a tight schedule in developing astrategy, collecting and analyzing data, and reporting resultsquickly.

The task force determined that time constraints andmobilization urgencies vould not allow any alteration in thediagnostic testing of skills ongoing at the mobilization stations,since IRR soldiers were completing training and being deployed inearly February. Although alterations in the test procedures mighthave yielded more useful scientific data, the mobilization tookpriority. The skill performance data that were being collectedduring the screening and testing process had to serve as theprimary basis for assessing skill decay. There was time, however,to design a questionnaire to survey skill retention, trainingpreparedness, and several related issues.

A thirty-one item questionnaire was constructed and express-mailed on 14 February to the mobilization stations, along with amessage of support from DCST TRADOC. This message (and supportinginstructions) requested that the schools retain any hardcopydiagnostic tests being administered to IRR soldiers during in-processing and that they administer our questionnaire at theconclusion of skill recertification, just prior to deployment.

In the meantime, a database was constructed to receive andintegrate the expected information. The Army TrainingRequirements and Readiness System (ATRRS) database was used toidentify soldiers who were called up and to track them through themobilization stages. As performance measures arrived and ourquestionnaires were returned, the data were integrated with otherpersonnel information. This final integrated database formed thEbasis for responding to the tasking.

The current report provides a description of the five datasources and the methodology used to collect and analyze selfassessment reports, performance data, and written tests. Theresults of the data analysis are presented and interpreted toestabl 4 sh predictors of skill decay. Appendices provide moredetailed breakouts of data on responses to questionnaire iteni andtabular layouts of specific analyses.

2

Data Sources

The data used in measuring skill decay were derived from the

five sources depicted in Figure 1. The sample sizes shown inthis figure represent IRR soldiers who contributed information tothat data source. Depending on the specific research questionposed, various combinations of these data sources were used inthe analysis, each combination requiring the matching of socialsecurity number (SSN) across two or more sources. The resultingmerged data set contained records only from those soldiers whoseSSN occurred in each component source. Therefore, the samplesizes used to address different research questions ranged from assmall as 69 for a specific MOS diagnostic test to as large as17,306 for an overall demographic analysis. Each data source isdescribed briefly below.

Army Training ReqmtsS ~& Resource System -

(ATRRS)

t/00ýn-17,306

Enlisted Master Filen-13, 173 usinar

3n-3,051

0 Chort File y,

E n =12, ].2 5 r-

S~Performance Data

•.• [27 MOSs

n-6, 3 9

3-3

Army Training Requirements and Readiness System

ATRRS was used to identify soldiers who reported for the IRRcall-up and to track them, by SSN, through reporting to themobilization station, completion of in-processing, reporting forrecertification training, and either deployment or release fromactive duty. Since ATRRS was updated electronically every 24hours from the mobilization stations (including corrections toSSNs), the number of soldiers in ATRRS and their status changeddaily during the study. In the end, records on 17,306 soldierswere identified for inclusion in our analyses. These recordswere the baseline to which data from the following two personnelfiles were matched.

Enlisted Master File

The Enlisted Master (EMF) contains 332 variables on soldierswho at some time were on active duty. Our access to EMF recordsof soldiers who had been separated from active duty for more than90 days was possible because of quarterly updates ARI receivedfrom the Military Personnel Command to support manpower researchand studies. Of the 17,306 records in ATRRS, 13,173 were foundto match SSNs in the EMF. The difference is mostly a matter ofcall-ups who were never on active duty, as well as occasionalmis-entry of SSNs in either database.

Twenty-two variables were extracted and examined from theEMF. Of these, the most important variable for the skill decayanalysis was "date of separation" from active duty. This allowedus to calculate the number of months between separation fromactive service and date of IRR call-up, which served as ourestimate of the skill retention interval. Other variables ofimmediate interest were Skill Qualification Test (SQT) score andpaygrade. Other variables (e.g., promotion points, date ofbirth, gender) were transferred to the integrated database in theinterest of future analyses.

Cohort File

The Cohort file is an ARI research file provided by the DefenseManpower Data Center. It is based primarily on data extracted fromthe EMF with the addition of other variables. It is entitled"Cohort" because it consists of separate files generated as annual"snapshots," one for each year since 1985. The main variable

4

selected from the Cohort file was AFQT score. A little over 12,000SSNs from the ATRRS file matched Cohort records.

Onest- i onna ire

A thirty-one item questionnaire (Appendix A), developed by thetask force, was administered to soldiers upon completion of therecertification training, just prior to deployment. Since the taskJ force was formed after the recertification process had begun, manysoldiers had already been deployed or discharged early, so that oursample of completed questionnaires was narrowed to 3,051. Thisquestionnaire was divided into four sections: Army Background, NCSTasks, Call-up Process and Impact, and Comm(_a.ts. Of direct interestto the skill decay study were the following questions, each w4ith amultiple choice response format (shown in Appendix A):

(Q13) "How often did you perform tasks in your recent civilianlife (job, hobbies, school, volunteer work) that were similar totasks in your primary 1405?" This question sought to determine theextent to which skills had been used during the retenticn interval;such occasional use has been known to sustain skills through periodswithout formal practice.

(Q14) "At the time you were called-up, how many of yourprimary MOS skills did you remember?" It was hoped that response tothis question could be externally validated by comparison with thediagnostic test results; if so, this question would provide a broadand consistent measure of skill decay.

(Q18) "Now that you have completed retraining, how technicallyprepared do you feel about your Army job?" This question wasexpected to provide a general assessment on the adequacy of therecertification and refresher training.

(Q20) "Overall, how confident are you that you would performwell as a soldier in a combat situation?" This question couldprovide an overall judgment of individual preparedness.

An analysis of the attitude and motivational issues stemmingfrom other questions and the many comments generated by soldiers arepresented in a companion report (Steinberg, 1991) . Resuilts thatbear directly on the issue of skill decay are discussed later in thepresent report.

5

Performance Data

The data derived from the performance and knowledge testswere either gathered directly by ART personnel on temporary dutyto the mobilization stations or mailed by the schools to the taskforce at ART HQ. The data were evaluations of hands-onperformance (both numerical scores and Go/No Go ratings), weaponsqualification scores, and percentage scores from written knowledgetests. Some bad been used by trainers as diagnostic tools, othersas means of determining whether skill recertification had beensuccessful. The "diagnostic" tests generally were administeredshortly after the in-processing of personnel, either before or attha start of recertification training. For our purposes in thepresent study, these "diagnostic" tests were most important, sincethey could potentially be used to assess the extent of skilldecay. Problems encountered in realizing this potentialinterpretation are discussed in a later section of this report.

A complete listing of MOSs with type of performance testobtained and sample size is provided in Table 1. When data fromthese soldiers were used in analyses of individual skillperformance by crossmatching between data sources, missing orerroneous entries in the other data sources resulted in droppingof a few records. Important examples of such loss were out-of-range values for separation-dates; these anomalies made accuratedetermination of time-out-of-service impossible. Also, test datafor some MOSs were available only in the form of class totals,each class having over one hundred soldiers; these scores couldnot be integrated in the larger database for later analysis ofindividual. soldier performance.

6

[..........._.

Table 1

MOS-specifJic Performance Tests

HANDS-ON TESTS

IOR fle esL Numbe r Tested

11B Infantryman M16 Weapon Qualif 205Squad Auto Wpn Qual 194liC Indirect Fire Mortar Target 134

Infantryman11H Heavy Antiarmor TOW ITV Target 134

Infantryman TOW HMMWV Target 29712B Combat Engineer Emplace M14 Mine 659

Emplace M16 Mine 658Emplace M15 Mine 659Emplace Ml9 Mine 659Emplace M21 Mine 660Locate Mine w/Probe 659AN/PSSIl DetectorLocate Mine w/Probe 661M16 Weapon Qualif 7021373 Cannon Crxiiwmember Emplace/Recover 1208Aiming Posts

Emplace/Recover 1195CollimatorIdentify/Prepare 1190Ammo for FiringLoad/Fire/Clear Weapon 1166Towed & SelfPropelled

13E Cannon Fire Dir Spec (Common tasks only) 17619D Cavalry Scout Load the 25mm Gun Feeder 207

(Plus 1.2 other tasks)19K M1 Armor Crewman Boresight Main Gun 438

(Plus 16 other tasks)63T Bradley System Mechanic Maintain Starting Sys 44

(Plus 14 other tasks)

KNOWLEDGE TESTS

Tsitle Number Tested

41C Fire Control Instrument SQT-Prior to Training 13Repairer

45B Small Arms Rupairer SQT-Prior to Training 3745G Fire Control Systems SQT-Prior to Training 8

Repairer45K Tank Turret Repairer SQT-Prior to Training 5745L Artillery Repairer SQT-Prior to Training 2063D Self-Propelled FA System SQT-Prior to Training 99

Mechanic

La7

Table 1 (continued)63G Fuel/Electric Systems SQT-Prior to Training 40

Repairer63H Track Vehicle Repairer SQT-Prior to Training 13463J QM/Chemical Equipment SQT-Prior to Training 55

Repairer63W Wheel Vehicle Repairer SQT-Prior to Training 14563Y Track Vehicle Mechanic SQT-Prior to Training 7676C Eqpmt Records/Parts Diag #1 Automated Proced 319

Specialist Diag #2 non-Auto Proced 297Certification Exam 206

76P Material Control and Diagnostic Test 128Accounting Specialist Certification Exam 125

76V Material Storage and Diagnostic Test 160Handling Specialist Certification Exam 145

76X Subsistence Supply Diagnostic Test 28Specialist Certification Exam 28

76Y Unit Supply Specialist Diagnostic Test 241Certification Exam 206

77F Petroleum Supply Spec Diagnostic Test 36177W Water Treatment Spec Diagnostic Test 19

Integration of Databases

Initially, data from the ATRRS were transferred, via floppydisks, to a PC-compatible microcomputer. Data from the EMF andCohort files were first downloaded by modem to ARI's mainframeVAX computer and then transferred to the microcomputer through alocal area network. The questionnaire and performance data wereentered into the microcomputer by hand. All of these data fileswere converted to Statistical Analysis System (SAS) data sets andthen merged on the basis of SSN.

Analysis and Interpretation of Data

A brief overview of demographic factors for our IRR

population is provided in Table 2. As determined from the ATRRS"N

database, the percentage of volunteers in the call-up was about5%. As Table 2 shows, the volunteers had higher paygrades (24%E6 or higher) than the call-ups (1% E6 or higher),

[ 8

S. .. - - "S.. . m im f -

Table 2Demographic Breakdown of IRR Soldiers (n=17,306)

Male FemaleCall-up 93% 7%Volunteer 91% 9%

RACECaucasian Black Amer Ind Asian Other

Call-up 80% 14% 1% 1% 4%Volunteer 81% 16% 1% 0% 2%

•20 21-22 23-24 25-26 27-28 29-30 Ž31Call-up 4% 30% 38% 16% 7% 3% 3%Volunteer 0% 7% 18% 29% 14% 9% 23%

E1-2 E3 E4 E5 E6-7 E8-9Call-up 13% 17% 59% 10% 1% 0%Volunteer* 11% 10% 20% 19% 15% 9%

* In addition, there were 151 officers.

The career management field (CMF) and MOS breakout is listed inAppendix B. Altogether there were 160 MOSs and 30 CMFs representedin the call-up, with Infantry (n=3,869), Mechanical Maintenance(2,701), and Field Artillery (1,991) being the three largest CMFs.

Of the 17,306 soldiers who reported to mobilization stations,2,836 (16%) did not proceed to recertification of skills because theywere separated or screened for the reasons indicated in Appendix C.The Lhree principal reasons were medical separation (6%),compassionate/dependency/hardship (4%), and temporary medical (2.5%).

Completed questionnaires were obtained from 3,051 soldiers atseven mobilization stations. The major "demographic" results were:

39% were married;33% were attending college;60% reported that their monthly income would decrease

because of the call-up;77% reported no overlap between their primary MOS tasks and

the tasks performed recently as a civilian;43% said they liked their MOS a lot or somewhat;80% reported serving on active duty only, as opposed to 20%

who reported some reserve duty in addition to the IRR.

9

A complete breakdown of response frequencies to each item in ourquestionnaire, arranged by mobilization station, is presented inAppendix A.

Skill-Decay Performance Data

As described above, skill levels were measured by usingexisting hands-on and written tests prepared earlier by theTRADOC schools. To determine the circumstances under which thesetests were admninistered, site visits and calls were made by ARIresearchers to those directing the recertification of -:kills.Although the intention of these performance tests was to diagnoseskill deficiencies and provide a basis for recertificationtraining, the practicalities of the mobilization generally led toroutines in testing that were not compatible with a strictassessment of skill decay. Aspects of these routines whichcomplicate interpretation included:

"* demonstrations prior to task performance"* coaching during task performance"* relaxation of some test criteria"* testing of sub-task combinations only"* grading group rather than individual performance.

Whenever these problems were found to be prevalent in the"diagnostic" testing, the resulting performance data for that MOSwere not included in the analysis. Such problems were identifiedprimarily in the admninistration of hands-on measures. Weaponsqualification arid written tests, however, usually involved moresuitable administration routines, so that these tests providedmeasures more readily interpretable in terms of skill decay. Theresults reported later in this section, then, will be necessarilyrestricted to those cases in which the data were collected underconditions that allowed confident interpretation and in which thesample sizes were appropriate for statistical testing. Inaddition, volunteers (5% of total) and those with a paygrade

higher than E6 (1%) were dropped because the samples sizes were

Overview of Analysis

The general strategy for our analysis was to determine theeffect that variables such as AFQT, SQT, paygrade, and time-out-of-service (TOS) had on the diagnostic, certification, andweapons qualification scores. These variables are thought to beimportant for the following reasons: (1) AFQT can be taken as a

10

rough measure of a soldier's aptitude for acquiring a skill, (2)SQT measures the soldier's level of skill achievement, (3)paygrade generally reflects the amount of experience the soldierhas in actual job performance, and (4) TOS represents the periodduring which job skills may diminish due to skill decay. Therelationship between the performance measures and variousquestionnaire items was also determined, particularly regardingthe question, "How many MOS skills did you remember?" Ifresponse to this question proved to be predictive of skillperformance, then it will be useful as an alternate toperformance data. In this way, our results would provide abroader measure, potentially generalizable to all those answeringthe questionnaire. A brief technical description of theseanalyses follows.

Three types of analyses were perlormed on these data: 1) ananalysis of the relationship between "demographic" data found inthe merged ATRRS-EMF-COHORT data set and raw performancemeasures; 2) an analysis of the relationship between demographicdata found in the merged ATRRS-EMF-COHORT-Questionnaire data setand performance measures transformed into standardized scores;and (3) an analysis to determine whether soldiers in differentCMFs responded differently to the skill-related items on thequestionnaire. The first two analyses sought an answer to thequestion, "Which variables art significant predictors of skilldecay?" The third analysis sought to answer the question "Doesskill decay vary across CMFs?"

In the first analysis, there were 15 raw performancemeasures. These included five sets of diagnostic knowledge testscores (MOSs 76C, 76P, 76V, 76Y, and 77F), five sets ofcertification knowledge test scores (obtained from the samesoldiers who gave the diagnostic test scores), one set ofprocedural scores (MOS 12B), and four sets of target-shootingscores (MOSs 1IC, 11H(2), and 12B). The lowest sample size forany of these sets of scores was 69. Since data on only a fewsubjects were eliminated from each set due to missing orerroneous file data for particular subjects, sample sizes werelarge enough to perform separate multiple-regression procedureson each set.

In the second analysis, there were three measures--diagnostic, certification, and target (weapon qualification)--andthe demographic measures included soldiers' responses to thequestionnaire. The use of questionnaire responses meant thatsample sizes within each performance measure were reduced. In

11

order to compensate for this sample size reduction, new sets ofdata were created by combining similar measures. These new setswere created by first transforming 14 of the original 15 rawperformance measure sets into sets of z-scores (the onlyprocedural measure, MOS 12B, was dropped). That is, each set wasstandardized, so that it had a mean of zero and a standarddeviation of one. These standardized data sets are comparable,in that a soldier receiving a transformed score of +2.00, forexample, on one measure and a soldier receiving the same +2.00transformed score on another measure can be said to haveperformed above average to the same degree. Transformed setsderived from the same type of measure--diagnostic, certification,

4 1or target--were then combined. Separate analysis of varianceprocedures were performed on these three data sets.

In the third analysis, the five largest CMFs in our samplewere identified: Infantry, Armor, Combat Engineering, MechanicalMaintenance, and Supply and Services. A chi-square test ofindependence was performed on responses to the four questionnaireitems most relevant to skill decay. This test asks whethersoldiers' CMFs influence their responses to these items.

Regression Analysis

The results of the multiple regression analysis arepresented in Table 3. The variables used as possible predictorvariables in this analysis were AFQT percentile, last SQT decile,pay grade (El to E6), and time out of service (in months). Thetable shows the correlations, simple Z, observed between thesuccessive MOS performance measures in the first column and eachof the four predictors, separately. The asterisks indicatestatistical significance in multiple regression, that is, thosecases in which the predictor variable made a significantincrement in variance explained by the combined predictors.

Interpretation of these results follows the table. This isbased on the measure "percent variance accounted for," which issimply 100 times the square of the correlation coefficient listedin the table. For example, SQT correlates .30 with the firstperformance measure, so SQT accounts for 9% of the variance inthat measure. Finally, the last column in the table shows thetotal percentage of variance explained by all variables whichmade significant increments to the total (based on a stepwiseregression procedure).

12

. ..

Table 3Regression Analysis with SOT, AFQT, Pavgrade, and Time Out of Service(TOS)

Performance Measure Correlation (simple r) of Total variance

performance measure with: explained

Writtern Diagnostic Tes(

Equipment Records/PartsSpecialist (n-217) .30** .32** .20* -. 08** 20%

Material Control and

Accounting Specialist (69) .40** .39* .09 -. 35** 31%

Material Storage andHandling Specialist (92) .48** .27 .02 -. 13 23%

Unit Supply Spec (116) .46** .30* .11 -. 23** 36%

Petroleum Supply Spec (261) .42** .31** .00 -. 01 21%

Written CertAfication Tests

Equipment Records/Parts

Specialist (n-136) .25** .23 .14 -. 14** 11%

Material Control andAccounting Specialist (71) .43** .53** .01 -. 30* 40%

Material Storage andHandling Specialist (83) .42** .40** .18 -. 18 26%

Unit Supply Specialist(89) .13 .19 .08 -. 09 0%

Petroleum SupplySpecialist (261) .40** .30** .02 -. 05* 21%

Hands-on Tests.,

Emplace Mines (procedural)

Combat Engineer (n-407) .02 .01 .04 -. 03 0%

Mortar (target)

Indirect Fire Inf (76) .01 .09 .18 -.. 18 0%

TOW-HMV (target)

Heavy Antiarmor Inf (200) .02 .14* .07 -. 04 2%

TOW-ITV (target)

Heavy Antiarmor Inf (81) .07 .06 .06 -. 17 0%

M16 Qualify (target)

Combat Engineer(439) .24** .07 .14* -. 05* 8%

**Significant at .01 level (from multiple regression) * Significant at .05 level

13

!! "

The findings derived from Table 3 can be summarized as follows:a) SQT decile was a significant predictor of performance on

all five diagnostic knowledge tests, accounting for 9 to 23% ofthe variance in different diagnostic measures;

b) SQT decile was a significant predictor of performance onfour out of five certification exams, as well (accounting for 6 to18% of the variance in different certification measures) and oneof the four target measures (6% variance accounted for, v.a.f);

c) Although the effect was slightly weaker, AFQT percentilewas also a significant predictor for 4 out of 5 diagnostic measures(9 to 15% v.a.f.) and 3 out of 5 certification measures (9 to 28%);

d) Pay grade was a poor predictor of performance, neveraccounting for more than 4% of the variance in scores.

e) Time out of service (TOS) was a fair predictor of threediagnostic scores (up to 12% v.a.f.) and a weak predictor of threecertification scores (up to 9% v.a.f.) and one target score (1%).

The best predictor of a soldier's performance on a knowledgetest, either before any training or after a few weeks of training,was the last SQT score the soldier obtained before leaving activeduty. The next best predictor was the soldier's AFQT score. Theseresults may include an effect of test-taking ability, so that thesoldier who did well taking a test during active duty is alsolikely to do well on such a test upon call-up; however, there mayalso be a real effect of both the highest skill level which asoldier has attained (measured by last SQT) and the soldier'saptitude for learning (measured by AFQT). The amount of Lime whichhas elapsed since the soldier saw active service had a small effect

* on pre-training scores and a still smaller effect upon post-training scores. The soldier's pay grade had virtually no effect.

Analysis of Variance (ANOVAs)

The next set of analyses utilized questionnaire responses as anadditional source of demographic data (i.e., as a new independentvariable) and used, as dependent variables, standardized performancescores collapsed into diagnostic, certification, and targetmeasures. The new independent variable was derived from Q14 ("[Atrecall], how many MOS skills did you remember?"). The three otherindependent variables were formed by dividing the SQT measure intothirds (0-33, 34-67, and 67-100 percentiles), and grouping the AFQTmeasure (3-5, 6-7, and 8-10 deciles), and the TOS measure (2-5, 6-9,and 10-13 months) to form groups with roughly equal sample sizes.ANOVAs were then performed separately on the standardizeddiagnostic, certification, and target measures. The results areshown in Table 4.

14

Table 4.

Summary Tables for Analyses of Variance on Standardized Measure

Diagnostic Measures n

Source df S MS F

Between Subjects 75 167.89 2.24

Q14 3 37.84 12.61 19.79 <.001

SQT 2 74.42 37.21 58.39 <.001

TOS 2 4.91 2.46 3.85 <.025

AFQT 2 32.87 16.43 25.79 <.001

Interactions 66 17.86 0.27 0.42 n.s.

Er:or 276 "175.87 0.64

Total 351 343.77

Certification Measures

Rnurce df S5 MS F

Between Subjects 72 138.44 1.92

Q14 3 16.19 5.39 7.15 <.001SQT 2 58.65 29.32 38.84 <.001

TOS 2 11.23 5.61 7.44 <.001

AFQT 2 39.95 19.98 26.46 <.001

Interactions 63 12.42 0.19 0.27 n.s.

Error 224 169.11 0.72

Total 296 307.55

Target Measures (Weapons Oualification)

Source df SS MS F

Between Subjects 85 128.69 1.51

Q14 3 6.14 2.05 2.47 <.065SQT 2 11.53 5.76 6.97 <.001

TOS 2 13.26 6.63 8.01 <.001

AFQT 2 0.71 0.35 0.43 n.s

Interactions 76 97.05 1.28 1.54 n.s.

Error 255 210.94 0.83

Total 340 339.63

15

For the diagnostic measures, response to Q14, SQT, and AFQTall had highly significant effects (p<.00!), while time out ofservice (TOS) was significant at the .05 level. The four maineffects of Q14 response, TOS, SQT, and AFQT, are depicted inFigures 2a, 2b, 2c, and 2d, respectively.

For the standardized and combined certification measure, allfour main effects (Q14, TOS, SQT, and AFQT) were highlysignificant (see Figures 3a, 3b, 3c, and 3d) . For thestandardized and combined target measures, SQT and TOS both werehighly significant (p<.001); however, response to Q14 just failedto reach significance (. 0 5<p<.10), while the AFQT variable didnot even approach significance. The main effects of Q14response, TOS, SQT, and AFQT, are shown in Figures 4a, 4b, 4c,and 4d, respectively.

Note that SQT was a strong predictor of all three types ofscores (diagnostic, certification, and target scores). AFQT,however, while predicting diagnostic and certifications scoreswell, had essentially no predictive value for target scoresduring weapons qualification. Similarly, time out of service hadthe biggest effect on diagnostic and certification scores withinthe first five months after separation (that is, there wasrelatively little difference in scores produced by soldiers outof service from six to thirteen months); however, for targetscores, the drop in skill performance was observed only forsoldiers out more than ten months.

Note also that response to Q14 ("[After recall), how manyMOS skills did you remember?") was predictive of all performancemeasures, particularly diagnostic scores. This result is ourjustification for using Q14 as an alternate to direct measurementof memory for skills. The principal advantage of thissubstitution is a standard administration at a constant point inthe mobilization process across varying MOSs. The justificationfor this substitution is developed below, beginning with ananalysis of all questions relevant to skill decay.

16

i,6

0.8- 0.4

0.6-

044

Diagnostic 0.0z-score Almost All Most Soe Only a Few

-0.2

-0.40 42

-0.6

.8MOS Skills Remembered -0.73

Figure 2a. Diagnostic Scores as a Function ofResponse to Question 14.

0),8.

0.6-

0.4-- 03

0.2WMean-0.01 -0.03

Diagnostic 0.0 Iz-srore 2-5 6-9 10-13

-0.2

-0.8: Time Out o~f Service (months)

Figure 2b. Diagnostic Scores as a Functior, ofTime Out of Service.

17

4j 0.8-

0.68 0.52

MeanDiagnostic 0.0z-score Highest Medium "Lowe S

SOT 3rd -0.62

Figure 2c. Diagnostic Scores as a Function ofLast SOT Score.

0.8-

0.6-

0.4- 0.36

Mean 0.2-02Diagnostic 0.0

z-scoro o. High Medium ow

04 -0.35

0.6AFQT Level

Figure 2d. Diagnostic Scores as a Function ofAFOT Level.

18

0.8-

0.6-

0.4- 0.36

0.2 "Mean 00

Certification 0 .0z-score Almost All Most Sm Only a Few

-0.2 go..

-0.26 -0.25

-0.6-

-0.8- MOS Skills Remembered

Figure 3a. Certification Scores as a Function ofResponse 'to Question 14.

__ 0.8-

0.6-0.42

0.4

0.2Mean ... ..

Certification 0.0 _________

z-score 2-5 6-9-0.2-

-0.'0-0.4

-0.6-

0.81 Time Out of Service (months)

Figure 3b, Certification Scores as a Function of

Time Out of Service.

19

0.8-

Certification 0.0-z-score Highest Uei oe~~

-0.2 -0.14

-0.6 -0.50

-0.81

Figure 3c. Certification Scores as a Function ofLast SQT Score.

0.8- 05

0.4 0500

00.2Mean 02.

Certification 0.0-z-Score -0.2 - High MediumI N

-0.39-0.6

4 -0

Figure 3d. Certification Scores as a Function ofAFOT Level.

20

0.8

0.6

0.4

0.200.2

Moan 0.04 -0.05Marksmanship 0.0

z-score Almost All Most Only a Few-0.2 -0.18

-0.4

-0.6

-0.8 MOS Skills Remembered

Figure 4a. Target Scores as a Function ofResponse to Question 14.

0.8

0.6

0.4

0.2- 0.16 0.16Mean

Marksmanship 0.0-

z-score 2-5 6-9 .0 1-0.2..

-0.25-0.4

-0.6 [18 Time Out of Service (months)

Figure 4b. Target Scores as a Function ofTime Out of Service.

21

0.80.6

0.4

0.2 0.17

Mean 0.04Marksmanship 0.0.

z-scoreowz-~oreHighest Medium ,i' •

-0.2-

-0.4 -0.28

-0.6

-0.8

Figure 4c. Target Scores as a Function ofLast SQT Score.

0.8,

0.6,

0.4'

Mean 0.2 0.08Marksmanship 0.0. 0.00 -0.03

z-scoreHigh Medium Low

-0.4

-0.6

-0.8

"Figure 4d. Target Scores as a Function ofAFQT Level.

22

Quiestionnaire Analysis

The response frequencies to the four skill decay questionsf were as follows:

(Q13) How often did you perform tasks in your recentcivilian life (job, hobbies, school, volunteer work) that weresimilar to tasks in your primary MOS?

73% A. never9% B. monthly7% C. weekly

11% D. daily

(Q14) At the time you were called-up, how many of yourprimary MOS skills did you remember?

30% A. almost all, I felt that I was ready for active dutywithout additional training

35% B. most, I felt that I needed only a few days ofrefresher training

21% C. some, I felt that I needed a couple of weeks ofrefresher training

13% D. only a few, I felt that I needed nearly completetraining

(Q18) Now that you have completed retraining, howtechnically prepared do you feel about your Army job?

18% A. I am not ready31% B. I am not sure49% C. I am ready

(Q20) Overall, how confident are you that you would performwell as a soldier in a combat situation?

15% A. not at all17% B. somewhat~28% C. moderately37% D. I am highly confident

To summarize these results, although most soldiers reportednever doing tasks similar to their MOS skills in civilian life,most assessed themselves as remembering most or all of those MOSskills upon call-up. Stich self assessment did turn out to be agood predictor of diagnostic scores, but was, in general, toooptimistic. Objective diagnostic tests, which were only availablefrom the Supply and Services CMF, showed that few soldiers could

23

t receive a Go rating without some recertification training. Theoverly eptimistic self-assessment may be a result of the tact thesoldiers completed our questionnaire after their training; thatis, their responses reflected their final state after training,rather than their initial state upon call-up. Indeed, objectivecertification measures did show that most soldiers knew most oftheir MOS skills after recertification training. This isreflected in the result that less than 20% felt "not ready" to dotheir Army job and most felt confident that they would do well incombat (see Appendix A) . Three factors influencing such selfassessment of readiness were investigated further: attitude towardthe call-up, reserve duty, and career management field.

On the basis of response to item 16 in our questionnaire ("Howdo you feel now about being called up?") we identified 488 soldierswho were positive towards the call-up as opposed to 1,831 who werenegative. Of those who were positive, 78%,' reported being "ready"(technically prepared); of those who were negative, only 40%reported being "ready." However, when these attitudes werecompared to actual performance (the Supply and Services diagnosticdata), the effect failed to reach statistical significance(F(2,423)=2.01, p<.15) . The importance of attitude as an influenceon technical readiness is therefore unclear.

Similarly, on the basis of response to item 1 of ourquestionnaire, we identified 607 soldiers who reported somereserve duty in addition to the IRR as opposed to 2,444 soldierswho reported serving on active duty only. Of the reserve-duty

1 -- group, 54% reported remembering all or most of their MOS skills,compared to 69% of the active-only personnel. This differencewas, however, reduced when it came to technical preparedness, as52%1 of the active-only and 44% of the reserve-duty group reportedbeing technically prepared to do their Army jobs afterrecertification training. 'There is, apparently, a small negativeeffect of reserve service upon skill retention and technicalreadiness. The effects of career management field are discussed

in detail below.

Skill Decay iUQ~c= Management Fields

H Figures 5 through 8 depict the response frequencies to thefour key questions on skill decay broken down by the five largestcareer management fields, three from combat arms and one each fromcombat support and combat service support. ln our questionnairesample, the number of soldiers in each of these five career fieldsranged from 136 (Armor) to 585 (Infantry).

?94

"How Often in Civilian Life Did You Perform MOS-like Tasks?

0J NEVER 0MONTHLY 0 WEEKLY 0DAILY

89 9090 83

70 62 61

50

0.00 30

10 12 13 13 210 '-7 64 2634 42

Infantry Armor Combat Eng Mech Maint Supply/Serv

r Figure 5. Response to Question 13 by Different CMFs

As might be expected, more soldiers in the mechanicalmaintenance and supply and services career fields exercised theirArmy skills in civilian life than did their combat arms and combatsupport counterparts. About 30% of those in the maintenance andsupply fields reported performing MOS tasks on at least a weeklybasis, compared to less than 10% for those in the combat arms andcombat support fields. A chi-square analysis performed on the datain Figure 5 showed these differences to be significant at the .001level (X2(12) = 174.9); that is, we can reject the possibility thatdifferences this large could be produced by chance.

L|

25

"How Many MOS Skills Did You Remember at Call-up?"

19 ALL ZZ MOST M SOME E3 FEW

50 46

393940

32 343329 29 29

U44 30 293130

19 20 1715 20020 16

N 10 1 /i j • j16 5

.0 .... ....01

Infantry Armor Combat Eng Mech Maint Supply/Serv

Figure 6. Response to Question 14 by Different CMFs

The infantry and supply and services career fields reportedthe best recall of MOS skills, with over 75% claiming theyremembered all or most of their skills. The armor soldiersreported the lowest, with 61% remembering only some or a few oftheir MOS tasks. A chi-square analysis on the data in Figure 6supported the conclusion that soldiers in different CMFs respondeddifferently to this question (X2 (12) - 151.6, a<.001).

26

"Now, After Retraining, How Technically Prepared do You Feel?"

lwNOT READY ONOT SURE [READYJ

70 64

509 49

S438 36 371032 R32303

30O 26 28

19 0

10 ' I i

0Infantry Armor Combat Eng Mech Maint Supply/Serv

Figure 7. Response to Question 18 by Different CMFs

The supply and services group reported the highest degree oftechnical preparedness, 64% "ready," and armor the lowest, withonly 30% indicating that they were "ready" after therecertification training. The chi-square analysis of the data inFigure 7 indicated that such differences were not due to chance7 Z2(8) 89.5, 2<.001).

" • 27

"How Confident Are You That You Will Perform Well in Combat?"

LNOT AT ALL SOMEWHAT E] MODERATELY D HIGHLY

50 48

- 40o

33 32 33 34

S30 28 2 2901 24iliii23j

V) 20 17 15

10 9/ • ;!•!;! ..... .. . .

0 0111LTL1JILL11IInfantry Armor Combat Eng Mech Maint Supply/Serv

Figure 8. Response to Question 20 by Different CMFs

The infantry were the most confident that they would performwell in combat, 48% "highly confident," and the mechanicalmaintenance career and armor groups were the least confident, 25%or more "not at all confident." These differences in Figure 8again proved significant (X 2 (12) = 85.4, .<.001).

The story told by Figures 6, 7 and 8 is not altogether clear.While many soldiers reported some skill decay since their lastactive duty assignment, the recertification training was, by somemeasures, effective in overcoming this deficit. For example, only6 soldiers among the over 17,000 reporting were released foracademic reasons during recertification training (see Appendix C),and the ATRRS data showed that most soldiers completed

recertification in 9 to 12 days. Nevertheless, soldiers whoinitially reported not remembering their MOS skills tended toreport also being "not ready" (not technically prepared) after thetraining.

This relationship is shown in Table 5; a chi-square testshowed the relationship to be highly significant (X2(6) = 1,082.8,P<.0001). If recertification training had been highly effective,one would expect to find an equalizing of technical preparednessafter training. That is, recertification training should restore

28

those who initially reported poor memory for skills to a high levelof technical readiness. On the contrary, skill levels aftertraining appeared to correspond to skill levels at call-up, atleast according to self report. This result indicates that therecertification training did not completely correct deficits due toskill decay.

Table 5Self-report of Skill Decay at Call-up (Q14) versusSelf-report of Technical Preparedness after Recertification (Q18)

How technically prepared do you feel toperform your Army job? [after retraining]

How many MOS skills I am I amdid you remember? not re Nt s re TtLý[at call-up]

Almost All 9% 14% 77% 100%(n-8 96)

Most 8% 30% 61% 99%(n=1054)

Some 22% 56% 22% 100%(n-618)

Only a Few 61% 32% 7% 100%(n-380)

Such concerns about the adequacy of the recertificationtraining are reinforced in the comments to our questionnairedocumented by Steinberg (1991). Six percent of the soldiers takingour questionnaire made comments specifically addressing theinadequacy of the recertification training; these included (1) anemphasis on training common tasks rather than MOS skills and (2)the use ot lax criteria for giving a Go rating. However, since wehave no external confirmation of skill levels and no comparisongroup of active duty soldiers, we cannot judge fairly the adequacyof the recertification training.

Summary of Findings

The present study found that soldiers called-up from the IRRhad lower skills and !>nowledge than expected from continuouslyactive soldiers, apparently reflecting decay due to non-useduring time out of service. In addition, trends for betterretention were found among those with higher SQT and AFQT scores.These findings are in general agreement with previous research

29

reported in the literature on skill decay during active duty (forreview see Bodily, Fernandez, Kimbrough, & Purnell, 1986, orHagman and Rose, 1983).

As examples of this agreement, Schendel, Shields and Katz(1978) demonstrated that individuals of higher initial abilityachieve higher levels of proficiency and retain skills for longerperiods than do individuals of lower initial ability. Likewise,Wisher and Sabol (1990) showed that soldiers' overallunderstanding of how their equipment operates (presumablyreflecting individual aptitude as measured by AFQT) facilitatedretention of specific skills. Finally, the overlearning of askill beyond minimal proficiency (presumably reflected in highSQT scores in the present study) has been demonstrated to improveretention of military tasks (Goldberg, Drillings, & Dressel,1981; Schendel and Hagman, 1980). One main contribution of thepresent study, then, is the extension of these effects ofaptitude and proficiency level to the IRR population.

There were, however, two complications encountered inmeasuring skill decay in the mobilization environment: (1)uncertainty regarding the exact retention interval for anyparticular soldier and any particular skill and (2) uncertaintyregarding the exact skill level an individual had at time ofdischarge from the active duty. For example, a soldier may havebeen discharged three months before call-up, but may not haveperformed any MOS tasks for two months before discharge, makingthe effective retention interval five months rather than three.Generally, the measurement of skill decay requires a baselinemeasure of skill performance, a known retention interval sincethe skill was last performed, and a subsequent measure of skillperformance obtained by the same procedure used in the baselinetest.

In the present study, although a baseline measure ofperformance at the time of discharge from active duty was notavailable, a soldier's last SQT score was used as a best estimateof baseline skill level. Likewise, although the retentioninterval was not exactly known, time-out--of-service served as aconservative substitute; the true retention interval will alwaysbe at least as long as the time since discharge, except for thethose few skills directly practiced in civilian life. Thesubsequent (decayed) skill level was available by directmeasurement for only a subset of our IRR sample of soldiers andMOSs. However, having demonstrated that response to ourquestionnaire was a valid surrogate for direct measurer t of

30

IM

subsequent skill level, we were able to extend our estimate ofskill decay to five career management fields.

Given these estimates, the principal findings of this studyare:

* Skill decay was evident in written diagnostic andcertification tests and weapons qualifications scores.

The picture of skill recertification is mixed. Skills werein general adequately refreshed, as measured by coursecompletion rates, but skill decay deficits were notcompletely eliminated.

* Skills assessed by written tests decayed mostly within thefirst 6 months since separation; weapon qualificationskills decayed mostly after 10 months.

* SQT was the strongest predictor of skill and knowledgeretention, followed by AFQT.

A soldier's self-assessment on our questionnaire was a

strong indicator of skill performance.

* Skill retcntion was higher for those who entered the IRRdirectly from active duty.

* Paygrade had little effect on degree of skill loss.

* Skill decay was higher in Armor and Combat Engineer CMFsand lower in Infantry, Mechanical Maintenance, and Supplyand Services CMFs as determined from the questionnaire.

Skill retention was better in CMFs that had moreopportunities for soldiers to use their MOS skill incivilian jobs.

* Lack of standardized "hands-on" test procedures precludedconfirmation of expected decay curves.

It is hoped that these findings can provide useful insightsinto the nature of skill decay among IRR soldiers. Combined withthe companion report on attitudes, motivation, and concerns ofIRR soldiers (Steinberg, 1991), this report contributes to theempirical basis for improving any future mobilization.

31

References

Bodily, S., Fernandez, J., Kimbrough, J., and Purnell, S. (1986)Individual Ready Reserve Skill Retention and RefresherTraining Options. Rand Corporation, Rand Note N-2535-RA,Santa Monica, CA.

Goldberg, S., Drillings, M. and Dressel, D. (1981) Masterytraining: Effect on skill retention. U.S. Army ResearchInstitute for the Behavioral and Social Sciences, TechnicalReport 513, Alexandria, VA.

Hagman, J., and Rose, A. (1983) Retention of military tasks:A review. Human Factors, Vol. 2.

Schendel, J.D., and Hagman, J.D. (1980) On sustaining proceduralskills over prolonged retention intervals. U.S. ArmyResearch Institute for the Behavioral and Social Sciences,Research Report 1298, Alexandria, VA.

Schendel, J., Shields, J. and Katz, M. (1978) Retention of motorskills: a review. U.S. Army Research Institute for theBehavioral and Social Sciences, Technical Paper 313,Alexandria, VA.

Steinberg, A. (1991) Individual Ready Reserve (IRR) call-up:Attitudes. Motivation, andc Concerns. U.S. Army ResearchInstitute for the Behavioral and Social Sciences, ResearchReport 1594, Alexandria, VA.

Wisher, R.A. and Sabol, M.A. (1990) Predicting the decay of MobileSubscriber Equipment (MSE) operator skills. Proceedings ofthe 17th Army Science Conference, Durham, NC.

32

I-i

APPENDIX A

IRR QUESTIONNAIRE

AND

RESPONSES BY MOBILIZATION STATION

A-i

Name SSN - - Date _J.._ ..J91In accordance with the Privacy Act of 1974, your responses to this survey will be held in strict confidence.

INDIVIDUAL READY RESERVE SURVEYPRINT the letter of your answer in the space at left.

ARMY BACKGROUND1. Have you ever been in a reserve component other than IRR? A. Yes. B. No.

_ 2. Have you ever trained at the National Training Center (NTC)? A. Yes. B. No.

3. Have you ever trained at the Joint Readiness Training Center (JRTC)? A. Yes. B. No.

4. What Is the highest level of military schooling you have completed?A. Basic Training B. AIT/OSUT C. PLDC D. BNCOC E. ANCOC

5. How long have you been In the IRR?A. less than 3 months C. 7 to 9 months E. 13 to 24 monthsB. 3 to 6 months D. 10 to12 months F. more than 2 years

6. Were you In the IRR to complete your _?A. Active Army obligation B. Reserve obligation C. National Guard obligation D. other

- 7. While you were In IRR, how many days of Active Duty Training (ADT) In your primary MOS did youhave In the 12 months prior to the recall?A. none B. 1-7 days C. 8-14 days D. 15-30 days E. 31-60 days F. over 60 days

- 8. Before this call-up, when was the last time you received ADT In your primary MOS?A. less than 3 months ago C. 7 to 9 months E. 13 to 24 monthsB. 3 to 6 months D. 10 to12 months F. more than 2 years ago

9. How did you feel about your Active Army service when you left it?A. very positive B. positive C. neutral D. negative E. very negative F. does not apply

10. How did you feel about your Guard/Reserve servico?A. very positive B. positive C. neutral D. negative E. very negative F. does not apply

MOS TASKS11. In general, how much did you like your Army primary MOS job during your last duty?

A. I liked it a lot. C. I neither liked it nor disliked it. E. I disliked it a lot.B. I liked It somewhat. 0. I disliked It somewhat.

S12. How much overlap Is there between the tasks required by your primary MOS and those youperformed recently as a civilian (job, hobbles, school, volunteer work)?A. None, the set of tasks are totally different.B. I did a few of my MOS tasks as a civilian.C. I did about half of my MOS tasks as a civilian.D. I did most of my MOS tasks as a civilian.E. The tasks I did as a civilian Included nearly all of those in my MOS.

- 13. How often did you perform tasks in your recent civilian life (lob, hobbles, school, voluntoer work)that were sliilar to t•s.ks in yovr Vinary MOS?A. never B. monthly C. weekly D. daily

-14. At the time you were called-up, how many of your primary MOS skills did you remember?A. almost all, I felt that I was ready for active duty without any additional training.B. most, I felt that I needed only a few days of refresher training.C. some, I felt that I needed a couple of weeks of refresher training.D. only a few, I felt that I needed nearly complete retraining.

(ov.r)

A2

CALL-UP PROCESS AND IMPACT" 15. How did you feel about being called-up when you first received your notice?

A. very positive B. positive C. neutral D. negative E. very negative

16. How do you feel now about being called-up?A. very positive B. positive C. neutral D. negative E. very negative

17. Did you experience any problems with In-processing? A. Yes B. No(If "Yes," desribe these problems briefly In the comment space below.)

- 18. Now that you have completed retraining, how technically prepared do you feel to do your Army job?A. I am not ready. B. I am not sure. C. I am ready.

19. How motivated are you to perform your Army duties?A. not at all B. somewhat C. moderately D. I am highly motivated.

S 20 Overall, how confident are you that you would perform well as a soldier In a combat situation?A. not at all B. somewhat C. moderately D. I am highly confident.

S 21. Marital status: A. married B. single C. divorced D. widowed E. separated

_ 22. How many child'en were living with you at the time of call-up?A. none B. one C. two D. three E. more than three

-. 23. How man;,, people (including yourself) depend upon you for some financial support?A. one (myself) B. two C. three or more D. no one, I receive support.

- 24. When you received your call-up notice were you attending:A. college B. trade or vocational school C. other school/training D. I was not in school.

- 25. How Important to you was the civilian schooling that you had to leave?A. I was not in school B. very Important C. somewhat Important D. not Important at all

-26. How easy will It be to continue your schooling after you are released from active duty?A. does not apply B. easy C. somewhat difficult D. very difficult

S27. How Important to you was the civilian job that you had to leave?A. I was not working B. very Important C. somewhat Important D. not Important at all

-28. How easy will it be to regain your job after you are released from active duty?A. does not apply B. easy C. somewhat difficult D. very difficult

-29. How will your personal monthy Income be changed as a result of your call-up? It will beA. a lot more B. a little more C. the same D. a lttie less E. a lot less

30. How will your family monthly Income be changed as a result of your call-up? It will beA. a lot more B. a little more C. the same D. a little less E. a lot less

31. How will it to be for your spouse and/or others at home to manage in your absence?A. does not apply B. easy C. somewhat difficult D. very difficult

COMMENTS (Before each cmrnont, Indimae UOi queation nurrnar to which It refers.)

A'3

0

N

0

0l E0a00

00

LULU

a) 0 0m Y- 0

CC

0NL LL U. L L-L

A-4.

'cc

-1 00 0

0) C 0Q

zo

"1 04 w 0m 0 0O 00 )

E w w r- I- r- I* w coC

a 0~ 02A

0 a- L- ) 0f 00 00

U) 0l to c t co C V

1.. 0a)La) 2 g0

I- 4-.

~ U) ) CUCU a

S ) U) ~ . cis

t 0a0 0 0 0 0 o' UU..L L LL LL UL U.. L

A- 5

C/ 0 ) Q-o 0 '

LLI 0 0 0 0 ) 0 F

T-T

2i Q

z) S

2 a CD0 10- 1l 00 00 ý- V0 10 o( 0 D co 1O co (D 10 to LO 0D

Az z0w Q

R 0 0 N0ow In qt V

0)

0) 2

~ 0~ 0) 0

co co

0U) x~ c t -o 0 0) a

t: 1: tý tf V00 0 0 0 00

A- 6

-09

l c.

-'-

4-.

0I 0

P--w

Cu~

z 0

m C/ j

0 0)

0 c~

- 0

0 u00 0CD0 0..

A- 7-

- 0') a) 0Y) ir, CY r 0) 00 0) C 0) 0) 0) 0F) C) 0) C0)

CL T" V- I I-

E Lu0

>,cc

w0

z 0 0 m 0l 0- w0nI-

C)D

o- o 0A(D 40 A1 c OF f

E0 t 0 u - 0i

o 0)

C.).

0)

-C

a (1) 0

NT 1-. Ci C C ' i)

0- 0na 0 0 L 0 -~

-A-

co OD CF) 0 Co) 0 0) 0) 0) M

F- T-

(j)'(B

C0owr

m- (0 0 CN0'4

C d- 4 N N N T- CM C

00

Vw co- T- 4* ci C, 4 V0- ~UjL.C 'CO qe N~ co~ co m~ cq oo

AC

C r" - w0 0) 7- UO N~ IC)t U)co U) Cf) CfO T- T- N1 C1 Cl) NY Nl

44-

W .0 0 1 - -- vl 1 0 00 -1< T- to

o) 111C

C_

~ mOO 2

-o E CL

0 0 E~u

00

C C 0 a) 0 0 c

LL LL LL LL LL LL LL LL

A-9

4-) 00 0) OD co a) 0) 020 a) ) 0) (D 0) 0) a) a) 0

LU

in C14 q* (a a n LO V

zz00

Cl) ~0 cc~0

C1 0 t - R* 0) LO oD o#o o a CJ2 ( -: ~ - .- ,

~ ~0OA0 CtIC

20 C))

o o _)1 f o L fm L 0 m 0

W20(4cm 0

_~~c z o ~ % 0i

0) 0 CO < co n in Lo in wn wn wn w w

00

0 0.C: 0 N-a z

Q) U) *z4-m 0 0C-

S t: t t0 0a 0 0 0 0 0

UL U LL UL LL. L LL LL

A-10

00 (M a) Cý CD C0

a) (D C) C) a ) 0Y)

QD co r- t c N r

a--

t* V N CO 0B Ii N

-j LL.

00 r%

LUU " >>C'~~~~~~~t 0- I I C i ~ L) NC

z 0 0 C0co Rt CC4 m co Ll

0n .0 L LLV). CV N C) CV V

A

o 0)0 Q

v L 0) cmi wB LO P-

E EE

C 0O

im F.o o N, c No co F co N- CID

.- C

ca.

0 'L..j E

0 w ca

0 a) Ea x

E~ 0

0 00 0 0 0 0 oLL UL U.L LL Li LL. U..L] A-11

C-

C) IO r- (0 CD OD 00 0) 0 C) a) 0) 0) a) 0) 0

a. L 0 co cl co

0

V- eq c - i

0 E NCo ~E a

LU Cl q

000o Eo0 c 1

z

0 0.

C- c0 Nb N0 10 10 1 0 w0 N

co C

00

0 6C6co co Rr o O)cl U)

C)C-EE

(n000 0 001 0 0La LO LL LO W) L

A- 2.2

C- (30 ) a) qT 0) CD0 a) 0) a) 0) a) C)

I-

X4-

C-

u.I CO 4 O ) (

0 L)04C C4% NO 04 q 04 N m

Cc E 10 N00 10-0 80 10- (00 10R 1010 ORcc 0- mLL I,- toN N N LO N- o 0o

z CA

o >

L.0)00C

-j 0%ý- 00 0-10 00

-, >

ci 0-0

0 O N N U 0 I-o If)

0D 0 E)

10-01Cd 0

c L.x

m co

as 0.

0 0 ua 0 0 0 0UL LL LL WL LL I.L LL IL

A-i13

T- 03) CD 0) Q 0) co 01

0) N4 a) C43 r- CO) 0 oC4LL: Rq ur C9 V Rr CD W10

w 0o P 0 to o 0 to C4

Cl) CO CI-~~~~( 0 DU ~ O ~ C

Lpa.00

Cl)

LUI U00)oG) 0 r- Cl) r-O tf) N

0~ o -0 - t -

0 W

a) 0 )0 0)

4- 0

00.0

E C04 0)E

00

000 EzCDU

0,

0 0 0L1 LL LL LL LLLO LL

A-14

0*

0 Lii im) a) a) N '

.00

U,0

-J cn

Lu LO cm V) cm c-cn

SE

z C00 co~~ co 0 C1 co r- co

in

LCD

C) A

z CM. 0 '- to 9- 1- N I- ID CO N- ce) C') N C') M CM N C')

0-

OR! -o0 0),OR O 0,) 0)) f- N a N(

T- C14 T- 4

00

E m.

-0 00)C

-a -Xo E

CD 0)( 55m (c 0D 0 w

0) 0 d~ 0 o'

00 0 0 0 0 oUL U. UL L L2 LL LL LL

A- 15

CO) CD 0 ) 0D 0 0) 0 U) 0) a)0 0 0 C) 0 0 0) Q a) 0D 03)

*l 0

EE

2 co

00

co co(n a)~h U) .6.~ ~) f ~ )0 ~

x Z M c

o~~U c. _ 03.)0 ~pf 0 ý

Cf a) -(4-Wxf D 0Uf'J( 0

00-

0 70 V _

b. 0 E-(

a 0V.'2.40 E D w 4

X- C: 0Q0-

0 0 x V

0 Q a a

Co 0 0 0 0~ o

U- . U LL WJ LL LL LI. LI

A- 16

0

0- 0 - 00 ) U)C

oO -0 0 C 0 0ý a)

0)) 0 ) 0

wL w0- * C o L

z2 *r-'

D t- w -cm V'- CD~~ 0 Ino N

0' C13 r_0 0

00

jgolE

0.0

h. 0) c

Cc~~ N .eý1CD

0~.

0) a)ODv

0. 0 E U

0 0

()0 0 000 0 0 05

* LL. LL U. LL LL LL. LL LL

A-127

to

CAC

- Cc

cl o cx ) 04 V) to cl co V) c

NO :R CLC) dC4 V oV

z L. 4)

0

~J E w co 0) q* C1 v" cm 04o) ~ 0 T - V- T- 04 N m T- C4 -C

co A

'a > CL

cc ' 0) cl m~ Rt cl to LO oOD 0

%- ) >.0 C O4)-) l nC3 Nm 1

co)0

a)C 0 C- r- 0CC I. 0) 0 (D 1O 0 N Co

C') C) c') V N N W0 c) ql co

2 N4-- - 75

0 2 EE0 ca*~' E~En E U

w 0 -2

owE iQ QC) -!e x C - T. EC ~ 0 0 D co o (nC

0 0 0 0 0 0 0U- LL LL Li. Li. LL LL LL

A-18

co co co CO 0 CO)C0 M) C) 0) 0) 0 CF) C) a)

I- 1

U)

N Lii T- w 0) 0 r- D t

2 N- N N- N N N N

w 0

MI c CoU

C)

o CL M a)jC* O 14C4q

0co

Q CA.

£0 > 0

c)a

CL 0

turj0 %

V C

C 02 :

o 0 0 x

coY CO 6~ a )a c C

tf v v v ~ t =0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0-

U;LL LI. LL LL LL LL LL LL

A- 19

4- o a) co o0 c co 00C0 0) a) c r ) C) 0)I-

ui If T- 0) LO M~~ 0 C- 0

-I0

WU 0) 0 0) 14 r, co 010l T- N - 04 N - . 4

w

0 CD~ LOt 0 02 N In) co N co4 N * N l N M C N N CO) N N4

w owo 0

NA

-z 0 4L - 40

o --

C,

00

0 >

=3 U)

> -C> C

CCI

o0 cd dEiL

A- 20

-0-Cl) co 0) r c o 0

wJ c

ol 10-0

0 0 0) 0r N 0D .0 0

E ~ 0 do, 10A -00 -0-wc 00 -00CZ co P- Go cl r- (D 0 10C

o 0

CL U)

CL

ccLU 0

0 E0 0

C "2oaas

U) C0) o 9 ~

0. It: -i' Z- a-0 0 0 0 a 0 0 (

LL LL UL LL LL LL Li. U- '

E

A-21

0

V

03CL

CL o. c-. Q~C D C1 C) (7) Go OD coI-0 0) 0)i Cl) 0)i 0) C) Go m) C)

2

zo 40 40 to cl co D

*, C.C=;D C ~2 U

"A A0Y) WD V* N~ N' 10

E E E

E U> mo < c c '

> t

-o LU

0 oE

0im E C

ZEU) m

0 0 CU)

o o0 0 0 0 0LL UL L L2 U. U.. U.L

A-22

Co *' C) 0) 0C ) 0))CC-0 ) CD a)0 ) a) C) C) 3

LU @4

T, CM Q 0 o 0 1 N 10 0

Z E

o 1- 0 L ( o L

Co A

EE

0 a E Cd C 4 0 4 0 M0 1

0 0) 0)

m .e~~2 V C ) 0 N~ 04 0 4 CO) 10

00

x cuE.-

0)0- 6 w .) 10 1- 0c(0 0z

0 (D 0

0 0.

0 072 iij L -2U-LA- 23

cc

.0

Ew

0 ) c o coUr r- a0 Dm m )mC

000

qt CO) ai 0o co a) 0 co W

z &.

a. 1-) 0 r- 1,. 0) 1 N I-. (o0 C C C4) Cm) cm CM) c') CM cm) 04

Z~

0 0 0) 1.- I') I-01 ) 0 N

0 a)

o .. oL- T- V- - I- NM T-T-

Z CD 0) CD

~0 )p0 00

00

0 0)0 2 N

0 (U

cc; 0r (n = U /

a) 0) x )>- 4-0.

00 0 0 0 0 0 0cm LL. U LL LL UL LL LL LL

A-24

o� cc C) C) C� C) 0 C)0 0) C) C) C) C) C) C) C)I-

LU 0��� 0 C�) ¶ C'� N 0 N

a,I-

W 0 0 i 0 0 0 0 0 0d

w

z a 000000zo � 'a It) '� 10 It) oC.)

a,w05C NAC

Z N N N r- � � 0 CV) It)� (0 CD �J �t It) If) It) CDo

U,C,

Q)oN � r- (0 � 0 0) 0

�V � � cv) CV) CV) N

a)

0�. (0h..

V C4.. -o ul a;

_ E �

a,_ 4-'2 '1 C-l **.* o 0

t� t t 2cnU.. U... IL IL. U.. IL

A-25

- I

co' co 01) O ) co CD 91 C0 ) CF) 0) a) a) 0) a) 0F-

LU ' 0 CV) 0 04

cis

wn 100 0 10004,

LU

z

o

0 C I01010 A

IV zC# cl in Lo qWO to N

0) N. - L V o c N C4o) to.( D D I

L. 0)

0t 0 0

<U N n (0 Uon 0 i

0 U) 0)40 0 U0

CD iTC

Wý c0, Om

0 0 ) 0 0 0 0L

LI. LL LL UL LL LL LL U

A-26

0CLC.

ES

C))

uj 0

-0-- a-0D CO) co 04 o oe

0 oe CV) Re o* C4 cm N

C,, M> A

Z (D

0000 E

A) AT q oc L 0(x 4)

0 _

C)

E o~j 02 ci ) ?z C leC l ~ CDl C

00

0) N

E00

0. 0) E00

0 T m

a)

0 E 0 0%LL 2L EL L L L L

0 WC

A-2V

c ~ 0 0O 0Y) a) Q a) 0) C) a) C

w 0id N wn w co U) n In

z0

F ~ 0

ClC)

C30

o 0 U 0

0 ± >O -00 a 0- >-) 4- o w o t - t

ci (D 00 N n n N n

0 ,3004-$.- 0-

4) 0 f- 1-J 0) to r- 00 tC) o 1 O .4 c M.f Y e(

CL0 N

LIi

v E00

4) 0 E

C~ xn -,e x 4

co _ 0 0)xU

a 0 0 0 0LL L~ U- LL U LJ~A- 28

I-~ ~LO LO) rol- m' r-l a, (0 e ) cr) 0) C) 0) 00 CY)

LU

cc a OR 110 0 101 100, o

2 -5

-few,

:D ca 0 l N Nr N m~ N

0 4- CL

-ca a

0 > U) ocC)co N co co C w r- C) O

-W a, c .l.. 0 Cq 0v v0 an 0t m0 qcr)C 0 ~ C)~1cc a)

0 Et0 ~CI

0 "L6~~ U>C1

o CL

0 0 0V

A- 2 9' ~ *

C6..

ý00

F 0)

0

0C)

0 0)

Lu CO04) T- 0- N-I. )

z (n0 c

CC

.E -Cz

0 0*- U) 0'. CIO r- 'xU0 Q~ cuJ W 4- N c'ClJ

0.i LL L U . L )L

A-30

0) 0

CD ~ ~0) Q 0 0) 0 C, 0

CDl

z -

(I) a0-

w LN

s- 10 1- C 1 0o o E).

0 0 c

1 4 t

M 0. CL Z 0 0.0E M a0 e m 0 4 to mcn

0. s a w t - w t- t % o L<DwEE

Q 0 0

0 C.O 0 co 0 1

0)C CL-, ~ ~ 0

00

o 0 0 00 0LL0 ELU. L U L L

0A-32

a)r

UU

00rci.

S0 t0)

cq 0- N 0N N) 0m V- 0) cm

cc N Ina 0) co 0) 0N0

oJ E

0 0 0~z>

2 c2

0 E- cz

0 -

00 N NNR~

C6 I

0 0) o XC~ . N N C) 0 - NCNUcc 0 0 0) cu '4 U) 1) 0 )

_ 0000 0 l

Emm

00 a 0 ) c C o C

S 0) 0 0) 07) cn 00) C

0i O) 0f) 04 qt 03 0) In 0V) N

0.

I, t- V) KO co 0D CO C#) LOoCN) C cm C4 't r4) N~'

00

o ) CD() co c n C# D'

m, I- t r- E6 C

0~0

o E

_

CD CkC

CL 00

-a) 0E 0'a00 0N~~~~ 2~ E. L U. L L U.

A-3

U-'- S) cc r- cc)D c0 ) CY ) C) 0) 0Y) M co C

CI-

0

CO LO in m~ 014 *I-

I- 0 Ui 4 C3 V) C9) C#) V') vV) CM

MCh

'0 01 V- Nq N9 N cm ~Z cczV

I-- CD

C' N4 N M t- ) onw 1 . Co m W' N m~ N N co CA

z C

o E 0_-100S0 0nC, u . 0 0 C') s- C') u 0

M.

0)o-cc

m 0-

0 0

0 E a)_

0- 00)

0n 0N

ro

o ~ ~ ( 0)C) -

o00 0 0 0 0 0 )c') Uý UL UL 1J LL LL UL U.

A- 34

0) C ) Y ) ) 0

.0

0Z- co a

E- o) C4 m~ 4 C#) 0) 04 m)0n *

0 A 0 N C ~. Il ~ 'i(

01o -0 CD

cc c IR 1- N 001 -R l 0

ca 0 Go tAof- Qca CCU) o E

0, 0 0 00~ (0

C I.L

0.0

0~0

0 2 E

.0 E5E

0) L

0 0 L 0) L 0 0E

cr) U- LL U- I LL Li - LL

A- 35

AIM-

.j

0- '-0 - 10-0 10-

00-

Lu E

cn ti . ~ 0 0

oo CMzRCi)~ ~~~ a) C0 ~ ) . ' ) 1

0,..n0)

0 0. 002L LL L . U 2=

Vr E (

-A-3

APPENDIX B - MOS and CMF breakout

PMOS TITLE #ENLISTED CMF TOTALSCMF 11 INFANTRY

111B INFANTRYMAN 2370liC INDIRECT FIRE INF. 53311H HEAVY ANTIARMOR INF. 41511 M FIGHTING VEHICLE INF. 543liZ INFANTRY SR. SERGEANT 8 3869

CMF 12 COMBAT ENGINEERING12B COMBAT ENGINEER 969120 BRIGDE CREWMEMBER 1712F ENGR TRK VEH CREWMAN 112Z CBT ENG SR. SERGEANT 2 989

CMF 13 FIELD ARTILLERY13B CANNON CREWMEMBER 145513C TACFIRE OP SPEC. 113E CANNON FIRE DIRECTION SP. 1 9313 F FIRE SUPPORT SPEC. 3341 3M MLRS CREW MEMBER 21 3N LANCE CREWMEMBER 113R FA FF RADAR OPR. 313Z FA SENIOR SERGEANT 115E PERSHING MISSILE CREWMBR 1 1 991

CMF 14 AIR DEFENSE ARTILLERY16D HAWK MISSILE CREW MBR 116F LA DA ART CRMBR (RC) 11 6P CHAPARRAL CREWMEMBER 1 316 R VULCAN CREWMEMBER 6216S PM STINGER CREWMEMBER 263 340

CMF 18 SPECIAL FORCES1 8Z SF SENIOR SERGEANT 2 2

CMF19 ARMOR19D CAVALRY SCOUT 47719E M48-M60 ARMOR CREWMAN 24319K M1 ARMOR CREWMAN 61319Z ARMOR SENIOR SERGEANT 1 1334

CMF 23 AIR DEFENSE SYSTEM MAINT.24M VULCAN SYSTEM MECHANIC 2924N CHAPARRAL SYSTEM MECH. 1025L ADA C2 SYSTEM OP/REPAIRER 5 44

CMF 25 VISUAL INFORMATION25Q GRAPHICS DOC SPECL 125S STILL DOC SPECIAUST 1 2

B-1

APPENDIX B - MOS and CMF breakout

PMOS TITLE # ENLISTED CMFTOTALS

CMF 27 LC & AD SYS DGS MAINT27E TOW/DRAGON REPAIRER 127F VULCAN REPAIRER 127N FWD AREA ALERT. RADAR REP. 1 3

CMF 29 SIGNAL MAINTENANCE29E RADIO REPAIRER 129M TATC SAT/MICRO REPR 1 2

CMF 31 SIGNAL OPERATIONS31C SINGLE CHANNEL RADIO OPER. 1 331G TACTICAL COM CHIEF 531 K COMBAT SIGNALER 2531 L WIRE SYSTEMS INSTALLER 931 M MULTI COM SYS OPER 731 N COM SYS'CIR CONT 1"31 V UNIT LEVEL COM MAINT 631 Z COM-OPERATIONS CHIEF 236 M SWITCHING SYSTEMS OPER 2 70

CMF 46 PUBLIC AFFAIR46Q PUBLIC AFFAIRS 4 4

CMF 55 AMMUNITION55B AMMO SPEC, 13855D EXP ORD DIS SPECIALIST 155Z AMMUNITION SUPERVISOR 3 1 42

CMF 51 GENERAL ENGINEERING51 B CARPENTRY & MASON SPEC 251 G MATERIALS QUALITY SPEC 151 H CONS ENGR SUPERVISOR 151 K PLUMBER 4SiM FIREFIGTHER 25iR INTERIOR ELECTRICIAN 151 Z GEN ENGR SUPERVISOR 362E HVY CONSTRUCT EQUIP OPER. 1262F CRANE OPERATOR 862H CON & ASP EQUIP OPER 162 J GEN CONSTR. EQUIP OPER. 481 B TECH DRAFT SPECIALIST 1 40

CMF 54 CHEMICAL54B CHEMICAL OPER SPECIALIST 1 2 1 2

B-2

APPENDIX B - MOS and CMF breakout

PMQS TITLE # ENLISTED CMFTOTALS

CMF 63 MECHANICAL MAINTENANCE41C FIRE CONTROL INSTR. REPAIR 1 944B METAL WORKER 344E MACHINIST 145B SMALL ARMS REPAIRER 5045D SP FA TURRET MECHANIC 3445E M1 TANK TURRET MECHANIC 3245G FIRE CONTROL SYS REPAIRER 845K TANK TURRET REPAIRER 7745 L ARTILLERY REPAIRER 314 ST BRADLEY FVS TURRET REPAIR 3352C UTILITIES EQUIP. REPAIRER 1 4152D POWER-GEN EQUIP REPAIR 752X SPE PUR EQUIP REPAIRER 262 B CONST EQUIPT REPAIRER 763B LIGHT WHEEL VEH MECH. 91263D SP FA SYSTEM MECH. 11963E M1 TANK SYSTEM MECH. 11163G FUEL/ELECT SYSTEM REPAIR 5563 H TRACK VEHICLE REPAIRER 20263J QTM/CHEM EQUIP REPAIR 8063N M60A1/A3 TANK SYS MEC 563S HVY WHEELVEH MECHANIC 15063T BRADLEY FVS MECHANIC 31 063W WHEEL VEH REPAIRER 20063Y TRACK VEH MECHANIC 11063Z MEG MAINT SUPERVISOR 2 2701

CMF 67 AIRCRAFT MAINTENANCE67N UTILITY HELICOPTER REPAIR 1 2167R AH64 ATTACK HELIC. REPAIR 2167S SCOUT HELICOPTER REPAIR 1 167T UH60 HELICOPTER REPAIR 8867U MEDIUM HELICOPTER REPAIR 5567V OBS/SCOUT HEUC. REPAIR 11 367Y AHI ATTACK HELIC. REPAIR 7468B AIRC POWER REPAIRER 268F AIRCRAFT ELECTRICIAN 1 768H AIRCRAFT PDRA REPAIR 868J AIRCRAFT ARM/MISSILE REP 6768 L AVIONIC COMMO EQP REPAIR 2968 N AVIONIC MECHANIC 4668R AVIONIC RADAR REPAIRER 1 5 667

B-3

APPENDIX B - MOS and CMF breakout

PMOS TITLE # ENLISTED CMF TOTALS

CMF 71 ADMINISTRATION71C EXE ADM N SPECIALIST 171 D LEGAL SPECIAUST I71 L ADMINISTRATIVE SPEC 3071 M CHAPLAIN ASSISTANT 373C FINANCE SPECIALIST 273Z FINANCE SENIOR SERGEANT 175B PRSNNL ADMIN SPEC 575C PRSNNL MGMNT SPEC 775D PRSNNL RECORDS SPEC 475E PRSNNL ACTIONS SPEC 27.5Z PERSONNELL SERGEANT 5 6 1

CMF 74 RECORD INFO OPERATIONS74D INFO SYSTEMS OPERATOR 1

CMF 76 SUPPLY AND SERVICES43E PARACHUTE RIGGER 457E LAUNDRY/BATH SPEC. 1 257F GRAVES REGIST. SPEC 1 476C EQP RECORDSPARTS SPEC 48676 P MAT. CONTROL/ACCT SPEC 19776V MAT. STORAGE/HANDL SPEC 28276X SUBSTIS. SUPPLY SPEC 4976Y UNIT SUPPLY SPEC 45276Z SR. SUPPLY/SERVICE SGT 1 1497

CMF 77 PETROLEUM AND WATER77F PETRO SUPPLY SPEC 52177W WATER TREATMT. SPEC 51 572

CMF79 RECRUIT & REENLISTMENT79D REENLISTMENT NCO (RC) 2 2

CMF 81 TOPOGRAPHiC ENGINEERING81 C CARTOGRAPHER 181Q TERRAIN ANALYST 1

-~ 83E PHOTO &LAYOUT SPEC 1

CMF 88 TRANSPORTATION88H CARGOSPEC 4788M MOTOR TRANSPORT OPER. 88788N TRAFFIC MGT. COORDINATOR 73 1007

,• B- 4

APPENDIX B - MOS and CMF breakout

PMOS TITLE # ENLISTED CMFTOTAL3

CMF 91 MEDICAL42D DENTAL LAB SPECIALIST 191A MEDICAL SPEC. 135791B MEDICALNOCO 8291C PRACTICALNURSE 7991 D OPERATiNG ROOM SPEC 7391 E DENTAL SPECIALIST 391G BEH SCIENCE SPECIALIST 491 H ORTHOPEDIC SPEC 191 P X-RAY SPECIALIST 3910 PHARMACY SPECIALIST 291 R VET FOOD INSP SPECIAUST 291S PREVENTIVE MED. SPEC 6391T ANIMALCARESPEC 192B MED LAB SPECIALIST 5 1676

C MF 93 AVIATION OPEPATIONS930 ATC OPERATOR 493D ATCSYS SUBSYS & EQUIPT 193P AVIATION OPER SPECIALIST 1 6

CMF 94 FOOD SERVICE94 B FOOD SERVICE SPECIALIST 26 26

CMF 95 MILITARY POLICE95B MiLIT, IY POLICE 2995C COORRECTOaS NCO 1 30

CMF 96 MILITARY INTELLIGENCEq r, 3 IN'T aLLIGENCE ANALYST 5

z IMAGERY ANALYST 19 6 w" GSS OPERATOR 1.q 7B GOUNTERINTEL AGENT 1 8

CMF 98 SIGI4,.- INTEL/ELEC WO98C SIGNALS INTELANALYST 298G VOICE INTERCEPTOR 3 5

INCOivwi"LETE MOS INFO.-2MATION11 21

wm 1 2 11 3 131 5 4 39

B-5

_t ~ rr'r W r~ir

APPENDIX B - MOS and CMF breakout

PMOS TITLE # ENLISTED CM F TOTALS

CANNOT IDENTIFY15N 119A 1

*!F36K 172E 276J 282C 184B 197W 1 10

COMMISIONED OFFICERSOOE STUDENT OFFICER 212A ARMOR, GENERAL 101 3A FIELD ARTILLERY, GENERAL I15B AVIATION 215C AVIATION 142A ADJ. GEN., 'GENERAL 256A CHAPLAIN 2

6 2 MEDICAL 16 3 DENTAL 16 4 VETERINARY 16 6 NURSE 8

66J CLINICAL NURSE 16 7MED SVC CORPS 76 8MED SVC CORPS 1

92A QM,GENERAL 1 41

WARRANT OFFICERS131 FIELD ARTILLERY 115 2 AVIATION 2915 3 AVIATION 44154 AVIAT;ON 2015 5 AVIATION 1213 ENGINEER 1251 DATA PROCESSING TECH 1

02 56 SIGNAL SYSTEMS TECH 131 1 MIL. POLICE 14 2O0ADG GENERAL 49 15 ORDNANCE 49 200QUARTERMASTER 3 110

TOTAL 17306 17306

B 6

APPENDIX C

RELEASE FROM ACTIVE DUTYAFTER CALL-UP

REASON CODE NUMBER

MEDICAL SEPARATION 1 056COMPASSIONATE/DEPJHARDSHIP 707MEDICALTEMP HOLD, NONDEPLOYAB1LE 441DOESNT MEET WEIGHT CONTROL STD 360OTHER, NOT CATEGORIZED 141DRUG ABUSE 47RECLASSIFICATION 22UNIT RECALL 1 6ERRONEOUS ENROLLMENT 1 2PERSONNEL ACTION PEND. UNDEFINED 1 2COMPREHENSIONMACADEMIC 6TRAINEE DISCHARGE PROGRAM sMOTIVATIONAL 3DISCIPUNARY/MISCONDUCT 3PHYSICAL FITNESS (REMD TNG, APFT) 2LEAVE, EMERGENCY 1ERRONEOUS ENUSTMENT 1AWOL, FROM DUTY TO 1

TOTAL 2836

Ci

r~._ _ -

- - - .. -. ..I [- - ,'T • - i

APPENDIX D

MOS SPECIFIC PERFORMANCE TESTS

RESULTS

A..t

D-1

RESULTS OF MOS SPECIFIC TESTS

HANDS-ON TESTS

MOS TITLE TEST MEAN% GO

12B Combat Engineer Emplace M14 Mine 91Emplace M16 Mine 85Emplace M15 Mine 89Emplace M19 Mine 93Emplace M21 Mine 84Locate Mine w/Probe 85AN/PSS1I DetectorLocate Mine w/Probe 96

13B Cannon Crewmember Emplace/Recover 97Aiming PostsEmplace/Recover 85CollimatorIdentify/Prepare 79Ammo for FiringLoad/Fire/Clear 85Weapon,Towed & SelfP

MOS TITLE TEST MEAN

11C Indirect Fire Mortar Target 9Infantryman

11H Heavy Antiarmor TOW ITV Target 74Infantryman TOW HMMWV Target 73

12B Combat Engineer M16 Weapn Qualif 71

i

D-2

MOS SPECIFIC TESTS

WRITTEN TESTS

MOS TITLE TEST MEAN% GO

41C Fire Control Instrument SQT-Prior to Trng 92Repairer

45B Small Arms Repairer SQT-Prior to Trng 8645G Fire Control Systems SQT-Prior to Trng 87

Repairer45K Tank Turret Repairer SQT-Prior to Trng 8445L Artillery Repairer SQT-Prior to Trng 7563D Self-Propelled FA System SQT-Prior to Trng 93

Mechanic63G Fuel/Electric Systems SQT-Prior to Trng 85

Repairer63H Track Vehicle Repairer SQT-Prior to Trng 7363J QM/Chemical Equipment SQT-Prior to Trng 93

Repairer63W Wheel Vehicle Repairer SQT-Prior to Trng 8663Y Track Vehicle Mechanic SQT-Prior to Trng 76

MOS TITLE TEST MEAN

76C Eqpmt Records/Parts Diagnostic #*-76C 69Specialist Diagnostic #2-76C 63

Certif Exam-76C 8876P Material Control and Diagnostic Test-76P 47

Accounting Specialist Certif Exam-76P 8776V Material Storage and Diagnostic Test-76V 62

Handling Specialist Certif Exam-76V 8176X Susbsitence Supply Diagnostic Test-76X 54

Specialist Certif Exam-76X 8376Y Unit Supply Specialist Diagnostic Test-76Y 61

Certif Exam-76Y 8777F Petroleom Supply Spec Diagnostic Test-77F 5777W Water Treatment Spec Diagnostic Test-77W 59

D-3