DRAFT – PRE-DECISIONAL // FOR INTERNAL NAVY USE ONLY DRAFT – PRE-DECISIONAL //

FOR INTERNAL NAVY USE ONLY

DRAFT

For INTERNAL USE only – DO NOT distribute outside of NAVY

2018 Mid-Year Report (Data as of March 2018)

ii

Executive Summary

Overview

This report provides the current state of the Navy’s uniformed workforce, including both the Active

Component (AC) and Reserve Component (RC). In addition to assessing where we are, this report also

attempts to show how we got here, and based on our best predictions, where we are headed.

The Health of the Force is measured in the context of several factors, detailed in the following sections:

1. Factors external to the Navy, but which affect critical personnel metrics

2. Manning, which impacts operational readiness and the well-being of the various officer

communities and enlisted ratings

3. Effectiveness of the personnel policies by which Navy manages the total force

4. The wellness and resilience of our Sailors

Widespread knowledge of the Health of the Force, and a basic understanding of the underpinning

Manpower, Personnel, Training, and Education (MPT&E) enterprise, is important because it describes

how we manage the single resource that cuts across every warfare specialty, platform, and organization in

the Navy - our most prized asset, our Sailors.

The MPT&E domain has been charged by the Chief of Naval Operations (CNO) with executing a line of

effort (LOE) to strengthen our Navy team for the future as part of A Design for Maintaining Maritime

Superiority. A significant part of the LOE deals with aggressively implementing “Sailor 2025.” Sailor

2025 is a living, breathing set of initiatives aimed at modernizing our personnel management and training

systems to more effectively recruit, train, and manage the force of tomorrow. Additionally, the MPT&E

domain is in the midst of a significant transformation effort that streamlines our organizational processes,

consolidates and modernizes our IT systems, and dramatically improves customer service for the end

user, the Sailor. Completing this transformation will enable full delivery and sustainment of Sailor 2025

and improve Fleet readiness. A report card of major Sailor 2025 initiatives is included in the executive

addendum for you to reference in conversations with your Sailors.

Current State of the Force

Navy continues efforts to maintain manning and readiness levels by attracting highly qualified men and

women to serve in the most effective and technologically-advanced naval force in history. We develop,

train, and educate a ready force to deliver the right person with the right skills in the right job at the right

time - a metric we call Fit.1 As of 31 March 2018, overall sea duty Fit was 89.0% and Fill2 was 94.7%,

with 7,430 gaps at sea, up from 7,181 gaps in September 2017. This increase in gaps at sea is due to a

confluence of factors, including the large Fiscal Year (FY) 2012 and 2013 enlisted accession cohort

transferring to shore duty or separating from the Navy faster than replacements arrive, as well as topline

budget pressure that caused underfunding in manpower accounts and led to a reduction in the FY16

enlisted accession cohort. The accession mission increased at the end of FY17 and continues through the

1 Fit: The percentage of sea duty billets currently filled by a Sailor of the right rating and paygrade. For this metric,

excess Sailors assigned in a given rating and paygrade can count towards billets in the same rating at a more junior

paygrade. 2 Fill: Total number of Sailors on sea duty divided by the total number of sea duty billets.

iii

Future Year Defense Program (FYDP) to meet the manning needs of the growing fleet. Gaps at sea are

predicted to slightly increase through FY19 with Fleet manning projected to improve from FY20 through

FY23 as our increased accession missions and Sailor 2025 initiatives come to fruition.

To minimize gaps at sea projected for the next 12-18 months, the MPT&E domain is aggressively

implementing mitigation measures. These include, but are not limited to, increasing the FY18 and FY19

enlisted accession mission, eliminating the Enlisted Early Transition Program, extending High Year

Tenure (HYT) gates for E3 through E6, expanding reenlistment quotas for E4s and E5s, and

discontinuing the mandatory processing of Sailors for separation as a result of a Physical Fitness

Assessment (PHA) failure, requiring them to complete their full service obligation. We have redesigned

our Professional Apprenticeship Career Track (PACT) program to better align these Sailors with ratings

following their PACT obligation to both improve Fleet readiness and career progression focus for these

worthy Sailors. We are also working to minimize an expected reduction in Fleet manning by increasing

our Reserve Component (RC) to Active Component (AC) recalls for sea duty, changing our distribution

policies for senior enlisted personnel (E7-E9) to prioritize sea duty manning, extending tour lengths and

expanding incentive programs for first-term Forward Deployed Naval Forces (FDNF) Sailors assigned to

Japan, Guam, and Spain, and increasing unaccompanied tour lengths and the number of accompanied

billets at NAVCENT.

Despite an increase in gaps at sea, critical Navy Enlisted Classification (NEC) Fit continues to improve

for FDNF, Optimized Fleet Response Plan (OFRP) deployers, and other units, largely as a result of Billet

Based Distribution (BBD). Through March of FY18, there have been 602 readiness moves (operational

holds, temporary additional duty, diverts, and cross-decks). We will continue to work with Fleet

Commanders to raise the bar and aim for improved NEC Fit in an effort to eliminate these readiness

moves that have a significant impact on Sailors and their families.

Looking outside the Navy, the unemployment rate has steadied below pre-recession (2007) levels, which

will improve wages and opportunities in the civilian market and challenge our recruiting and retention

environment.

Navy has achieved its “Big 5” recruiting goals for 131 consecutive months while meeting all quality

goals, though we continue to see leading indicators of increased recruiting difficulty, especially in recruit

quality. As a result, we’ve increased the number of recruiters, implemented big data solutions to optimize

where we spend our time and advertising, increased bonuses for both recruits and recruiters, and are

aggressively working efforts to streamline the Street to Fleet process and get recruits to the fleet faster.

We have a number of Fleet-wide issues to address. First, the recent Strategic Readiness and

Comprehensive Reviews revealed issues with the training and workload of our surface force. We are

assessing at-sea and inport workloads for Destroyers and Cruisers with plans in place for all ship classes,

improving skills trainers, and re-establishing the Second Fleet headquarters. Second, even with BBD, we

are starting to see an increase in operational moves that we haven’t seen in five years, increasing the

personnel tempo of some crewmembers in deployed units. As fit (89.0%) and fill (94.7%) (see Figure 7)

continue to decline through FY19, these moves will increase to meet the requirements of deployed units.

While the Fleet’s operational tempo is scheduled to remain the same, Sailors with critical NECs may be

subjected to longer or more frequent deployments.

iv

Finally, some Sailor destructive behaviors are trending in the wrong direction. In FY17 there were 1,300

incidents of prescription drug abuse (AC and RC) and 74 suicides (65 AC, 9 RC). Trends in FY17 are at

their highest rate since 2003 and are on pace to again top previous trends in FY18.

What’s Next for MPT&E

There are two fundamental challenges facing the MPT&E domain. First is increased competition for

talent. As we aggressively sense the environment, we have seen a decline in the number of young people

with the requisite academic and physical aptitude choosing to serve. Additionally, we are uncertain how

an improving economy will affect recruiting and retention. Many Sailors leaving the Navy feel stymied

by industrial-age personnel systems and processes, which do not provide the choices, flexibility, and

transparency they want and need. Many personnel processes, and the supporting infrastructure and

technology, are complex, outdated, and inefficient. While we have been able to meet mission

requirements with these systems and processes, it requires costly resources and levels of effort. The

MPT&E enterprise is a dynamic organization and must constantly evolve as an organization in order to

address both current and future challenges and maintain Fleet readiness. The Navy must keep up with

technological changes by modernizing our training, personnel management processes, and IT

infrastructure. Incremental change will not be enough – we simply cannot afford to wait that long.

Second, in today’s fiscal and operational environment, continuing to do business the way we have always

done it is not sustainable. We are finding more efficient and cost-effective ways to train our new Sailors,

and incentivize, retain, and utilize the talented people in which we heavily invest. Each year, we recruit,

train, and send to the Fleet around 40,000 new enlisted Sailors – we also send about that same number

home. Annually, we have about 90,000 people move to new duty stations. These fluxes in our work

force impose substantial and unsustainable replacement costs financially, and cause a negative impact to

our corporate knowledge, warfighting expertise, and leadership.

Sailor 2025

When we started “Sailor 2025” in 2015, we used the term to challenge ourselves to think about what

Sailors ten years in the future would need, and how to deliver those cutting-edge systems and policies

now. Sailor 2025 is about empowering Commanding Officers and Sailors, updating policies, procedures,

and operating systems, and providing the right training at the right time in the right way to ensure Sailors

are ready for the Fleet. We are enabling Sailors to stay Navy by providing choices, flexibility, and

transparency that enhances their career and in turn strengthens and sustains our personnel system. Sailor

2025 improves the “FIT” of our Sailors with jobs we need them to do by offering more choices and

providing relevant and timely training. This innovation is built on a framework of three pillars: a modern

personnel system, a career learning continuum with modernized delivery methods called Ready, Relevant

Learning, and shaping resilient, tough Sailors with the family support necessary for a career of service.

1. Personnel System Modernization – Our personnel system modernization initiatives are aimed at

providing better tools to Sailors and leadership to empower Commanding Officers and give

Sailors more choices and ownership over their careers. We are modernizing our personnel

policies to increase flexibility and transparency while building greater capacity for the Navy to

adapt to dynamic recruiting markets and retention challenges. These programs are being initiated

rapidly and modified as we learn. Many of these ideas originate in Fleet All-Hands calls. Some

current initiatives include:

v

Meritorious Advancement Program (MAP). MAP provides Commanding Officers the ability

to meritoriously advance talented, hard-working Sailors to pay grades E6 and below. We

continue to expand the number of those eligible each year.

Fleet Scholar Education Program (FSEP). FSEP provides 30 annual, fully-funded,

competitively-awarded, in-residence graduate degree opportunities at civilian institutions of

choice to URL and IWC officers.

Tours with Industry (TWI). TWI provides opportunities for 30 top-performing Sailors to

train at high-performing corporations, including Amazon, FedEx, Huntington Ingalls

Industries, and many others, where they can learn innovative techniques and best practices to

bring back to the Fleet.

Targeted Re-Entry Program (TRP). Realizing that not all superb talent stays Navy, TRP

supports the retention of highly talented Sailors by providing members separating from active

duty with a Golden or Silver ticket that streamlines the Sailor’s transition back to active duty.

The Golden ticket provides the member a guaranteed return to active duty within one year of

separation; the Silver ticket provides the member an opportunity to return to active duty

within two years of separation, subject to the needs of the Navy.

Other initiatives that are nearing implementation include:

Performance Evaluation System transformation. This effort seeks to correct disparities in the

current system like “forced distribution” (i.e., EP/MP/P), place greater focus on coaching and

development to improve individual and team performance, and accurately recognize and

empower our very best for future opportunities to lead and serve at the appropriate levels.

Our vision features a standards-based scale where individuals are compared against a

standard for their rank instead of their peers.

Rating Modernization. This initiative is about bringing our rating system into the 21st

century to increase Fleet readiness, provide expanded career progression options for Sailors,

and improve sustainability to meet our growing Navy’s needs. We continue to involve

Sailors throughout the Fleet in this effort using the rating modernization working group and

inputs to usnpeople.fct@navy.mil.

Detailing Marketplace. We are developing a system that will be the Navy’s version of

LinkedIn; a one-stop shop for reenlistment and billet negotiation, where Sailors will be able

to connect directly to pursue open positions, communicate their desires, and negotiate orders.

The combination of Rating Modernization and Detailing Marketplace, enabled by Ready,

Relevant Learning (RRL), will ultimately make Career Waypoints (C-Way) and Career

Management System – Interactive Detailing (CMS-ID) obsolete. Our first operational pilot is

targeted for later this year and we envision providing expanded access using a mobile app,

24/7 access, and real-time updates.

2. Ready, Relevant Learning (RRL) – A holistic approach to training our enlisted force. This will

accelerate the learning of every Sailor to better adapt their knowledge in increasingly dynamic

operational environments. Today’s legacy training does not take full advantage of existing and

emerging learning technologies. Oftentimes, the skills acquired during accession training atrophy

due to delays between delivery of training and on-the-job execution, placing an added burden on

vi

the Fleet to plug knowledge gaps and potentially compromising operational readiness. We are

using science-of-learning principles to transform the current training model to identify modern

training solutions, delivered at the point of need. This will better prepare Sailors to operate and

maintain their equipment at its technological limits and meet rapidly evolving warfighting

requirements. It will require sustained focus across three lines of effort: (1) career-long learning

continuums, (2) modern delivery at the point of need, and (3) integrated content development.

We are in the first stage of the career-long learning continuum line of effort, known as Block

Learning, which divides existing accession level training content into smaller blocks, which

are moved to real-world points of need in the Sailor’s career, shortening initial accession

training time and making Sailors available to the Fleet sooner.

The second line of effort for RRL provides for modern delivery of training by taking

advantage of emerging learning technologies to allow Sailors to receive training at the point

of need – more efficiently, at the waterfront or aboard their operational unit.

Requirements development is critical to the third line of effort of RRL, integrated content

development. Here, Fleet leadership is defining the training requirements to ensure training

content and delivery methods align with Fleet needs.

Versions of these training solutions are in use today, such as the Multipurpose Reconfigurable

Training Systems (MRTS) 3D. MRTS 3D is essentially a high-definition representation of

system hardware and circuit/equipment displayed on a series of flat-panel touchscreens driven by

commercial-off-the-shelf (COTS) gaming technology. We continue to expand to provide

renderings of various operational environments. The data is clear – this method of training allows

Sailors to get “reps and sets” needed on their system panels in all situations, and allows rapid

building of watch team fundamentals. Sailors learn faster and retain more because we are able to

simulate down to the hull number or type/model/series of aircraft they will work on. The impact

of a new Sailor reporting to an operation team will be immense – he or she is no longer the “non-

qual” carrying a two-foot stack of qualification cards around, unable to contribute to the team

effort: they are immediately on the team, on the watchbill, doing maintenance, carrying their

share of the load. The sense of value added will be a significant and positive retention influencer.

3. Career Readiness (CR) – An effort to remove barriers to continued service and improve Sailors’

work-life balance, health, and wellness. Our Navy is more powerful and more lethal when we

leverage the talents and strengths of the entire military and civilian workforce in an environment

where everyone feels valued and respected. Toward that end, we have incorporated the ONE

NAVY TEAM concept into leader development efforts to make our force stronger, more resilient,

and more competitive with the best public and private sector employers: equipped and ready to

deter war and protect the security of our nation. Our goal is to enhance Sailors’ career readiness

by better developing our leaders and removing obstacles that negatively influence a Sailor’s

decision to stay Navy. We have several key initiatives in progress:

Leader Development. Leaders have always been essential to the Navy’s success. A rich

combination of formal schools, structured on-the-job training and experience, and self-guided

education, both for general and community-specific leadership, will cultivate the generation

of leaders our Navy needs for this new era of Great Power competition.

vii

Culture of Fitness. The Go for Green program was established, making healthy food choices

more plentiful and easier to get at afloat and ashore galleys. Nutritional counselors were

brought aboard, made part of the program for those struggling with weight standards, and are

available to all other Sailors for dieting and healthy eating advice

Personal Readiness. Last October, Navy merged the Sea Duty and Overseas Duty Screening

Processes into the annual Personal Health Assessments, so that each Sailor is now screened

for both Sea Duty and Overseas Duty.

Family-Friendly Service. As part of the work-life balance, health, and wellness initiatives,

we must recast our focus from one of “the next underway” to one that more inclusive of

Sailors and their families’ personal needs. We must keep a healthy balance to keep our

Sailors at peak performance and engagement.

Toughness. The toughness initiative is aimed at providing Sailors who are better prepared to

grow and thrive as soon as they enter the Fleet. Recruit Training Command (RTC) has been

working on a systematic overhaul of the boot camp curriculum, emphasizing hands-on

training in warfighting skills and core competencies to produce tough Sailors and increase our

Navy’s lethality.

There is more to do, but these policy changes, whether in place or in the pipeline, will build the

Navy the nation needs. We will continue to look for ways to develop leaders, incentivize top

performance in fitness and personal readiness, emphasize a work-life balance and increase the

One Navy Team’s toughness – send us your ideas!

MPT&E Transformation

We are modernizing our MPT&E enterprise to significantly and systematically improve our performance,

productivity, and cost efficiencies in all aspects of the personnel readiness processes. Over the next

several years, the MPT&E Transformation will change how human resources (HR) services are both

offered and experienced throughout a Sailor's entire "Hire-to-Retire" lifecycle, while concurrently

enhancing fleet combat readiness. By streamlining processes and systems, automating as many personnel

functions as possible, and integrating commercial-off-the-shelf cloud-based IT solutions, the

Transformation will improve the speed, accuracy, and quality of personnel and pay services, better

positioning Navy to equip and manage our most valuable resource, our people.

In September 2018, we will go-live with the Beta 1 version of MyNavy Career Center (MNCC),

providing shared services and increased self-service functions for Sailors. Ultimately, MNCC will

provide users with a superior level of customer service on par with companies such as USAA and Navy

Federal Credit Union. MNCC will bring faster processing, improved accuracy and increased efficiency of

personnel actions to Sailors, their families and military/civilian HR personnel around the world. The

design process leverages proven and fielded industry-wide technology to create a robust and modern

service delivery platform that improves quality of service, accountability and transparency. Fundamental

changes will include a single HR portal with 24/7 self-service capability, a modern call center to initiate

and solve Sailor inquiries and a centralized operations center to improve delivery of service and

specialized support. MNCC will operate with a "One Team Concept," enabling a fully-integrated team to

rapidly attain solutions and bringing our technology, facilities and quality of service in-line with 21st

century expectations.

viii

In addition to the capabilities being developed for MNCC, MyNavy Portal (MNP) will continue to

improve as the single point of entry where Sailors can meet their HR needs. Coming in December 2018,

the MNP mobile app (and other related apps) will complement the functionality of the MNP web version

and add key self-service capabilities such as the ability of a Sailor to view their record, submit a request

for service, and submit a request for leave from their smartphone or mobile device without the need of a

Common Access Card (CAC). We will continue to expand the features of both web and mobile versions

of MNP throughout 2019 and beyond.

Key transformation initiatives include:

o MyNavy Portal (MNP). A single online entry point that provides Sailors with ready access to HR

systems, data and enables self-service

o MyNavy Career Center (MNCC). Centralized human resource center that enables self-service,

provides high quality 24/7 customer service and improves Sailor experience, all at less cost

o Single Authoritative Data Environment (ADE). Access to timely and accurate data that enables

improved, analytics based, decision making, and supports Fleet Readiness

o Modernized Sailor Distribution. Enable Sailors to play a more active role in their career planning

and improved talent matching to better meet Fleet needs and enhance retention

o Advance to Vacancy. In fall 2018, the first Advance to Vacancy board will enable Sailors to

receive a spot-promotion to serve in critical E8 & E9 billets, matching motivated and qualified

Sailors with selected critical fill assignments and an opportunity to prove their ability to perform

in the next paygrade.

o Navy Pay and Personnel (NP2). A modern COTS solution that combines pay and personnel

functions for both the active and reserve components into one consolidated and seamless system

that improves user interface and maximizes Sailor self-service

o Transparency. Ability for a Sailor to submit and track HR services to completion

o Efficiency. Streamlined Hire-to-Retire process that more efficiently delivers HR services to

Sailors and their families

Conclusion

Thank you for your continued interest and support in the management of our most prized resource, the

glue that binds every warfare specialty, platform, and organization in the Navy, our Sailors. The MPT&E

Enterprise works hard to field innovative solutions that keep our Fleet manned and mission-ready while

providing world-class customer service. We will continue to fight for the best talent our nation has to

offer and reinforce the Navy as an employer of choice. We will update you in six months but welcome

your feedback now.

R. P. BURKE

ix

Table of Contents

Executive Summary ........................................................................................................................ ii

Overview ................................................................................................................................................... ii

Current State of the Force ......................................................................................................................... ii

What’s Next for MPT&E ......................................................................................................................... iv

Sailor 2025 ........................................................................................................................................... iv

MPT&E Transformation ..................................................................................................................... vii

Conclusion ............................................................................................................................................. viii

Table of Contents ........................................................................................................................... ix

External Factors .............................................................................................................................. 1

Personnel Manning ......................................................................................................................... 4

Fit and Fill ................................................................................................................................................. 4

Critical NEC Fit .................................................................................................................................... 4

Future Manning Challenges .................................................................................................................. 5

Manpower Funding ............................................................................................................................... 6

Readiness Moves....................................................................................................................................... 7

Enlisted Rating Health .............................................................................................................................. 8

Advancement Opportunity (Active and Reserve) ................................................................................. 9

Advancement Time In Grade .............................................................................................................. 12

Selected Reserve Enlisted Rating Health ............................................................................................ 13

Officer Community Health ..................................................................................................................... 14

Management .................................................................................................................................. 15

Recruiting ................................................................................................................................................ 15

Training ................................................................................................................................................... 17

Enlisted Supply Chain ............................................................................................................................. 17

Ready, Relevant Learning ................................................................................................................... 18

Distribution ............................................................................................................................................. 20

Overseas/Sea Duty/Exceptional Family Member Screening .............................................................. 20

Attrition ................................................................................................................................................... 20

Retention ................................................................................................................................................. 21

Active Component Enlisted ................................................................................................................ 21

Active Component Officer .................................................................................................................. 22

Aviation Retention .............................................................................................................................. 22

Selected Reserve ................................................................................................................................. 25

x

Inclusion & Diversity .............................................................................................................................. 26

Governance and Assessment............................................................................................................... 26

Work/Life Balance .............................................................................................................................. 27

Sailor Wellness & Resilience........................................................................................................ 29

RTC Toughness....................................................................................................................................... 29

Physical Fitness ....................................................................................................................................... 29

Suicide Awareness & Prevention ............................................................................................................ 30

Operational Tempo ................................................................................................................................. 33

Behaviors ................................................................................................................................................ 34

Primary Prevention and Culture of Excellence ................................................................................... 34

Sexual Harassment .............................................................................................................................. 35

Sexual Assault ..................................................................................................................................... 36

Hazing and Bullying ........................................................................................................................... 37

Discrimination .................................................................................................................................... 38

Command Climate Assessment .......................................................................................................... 38

Alcohol / Drug Abuse ......................................................................................................................... 39

Safety ...................................................................................................................................................... 40

Transition Assistance .............................................................................................................................. 41

MPT&E 2018 Goals ..................................................................................................................... 42

Man the Fleet ...................................................................................................................................... 42

Sailor 2025 .......................................................................................................................................... 42

Transformation .................................................................................................................................... 43

Future of the Officer Corps ........................................................................................................... 44

Appendix – Additional Charts and Data ....................................................................................... 47

Personnel Manning ................................................................................................................................. 47

Management ............................................................................................................................................ 47

SELRES Officer Community Health Overview ................................................................................. 50

Unrestricted Line Officer Community Overviews.............................................................................. 50

Acronyms ...................................................................................................................................... 55

Table of Figures ............................................................................................................................ 56

Bibliography ................................................................................................................................. 58

Executive Addendum .................................................................................................................... 59

xi

Key Talking Points.................................................................................................................................. 59

Sailor 2025 Initiatives and Accomplishments ......................................................................................... 62

MPT&E Sailor 2025 and Transformation References ............................................................................ 63

xii

This page intentionally left blank

1

External Factors

Historically, Navy retention has tracked closely with the unemployment rate. The relatively high

unemployment experienced in the 2008 recession helped the Navy meet recruiting and retention goals.

Additionally, military pay raises (especially since 9/11) and the relatively flat growth of civilian wages

have largely given the military a competitive advantage over civilian employers.

Figure 1 - Comparison of Military and Civilian Pay Growth

The unemployment rate has dropped below pre-recession levels and is expected to increase slightly over

the next two years. We are beginning to see leading indicators of decreasing retention behavior. One

community that has experienced significant retention challenges is the aviation community, which is

challenged by a confluence of trends that has created a significant competition for talent. In response, we

have increased Aviation bonuses in President’s Budget (PB) 2019 to help address this retention challenge,

adding $25 million for FY19 and FY20. Additional details on Aviation efforts are provided under the

officer retention section below.

Figure 2 - Long Term Unemployment Forecast

Peak difference: 24%

18%

4.2%0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

199

0

199

1

199

2

199

3

199

4

199

5

199

6

199

7

199

8

199

9

200

0

200

1

200

2

200

3

200

4

200

5

200

6

200

7

200

8

200

9

201

0

201

1

201

2

201

3

201

4

201

5

201

6

201

7

201

8

201

9

Un

em

plo

ym

en

t R

ate

/ C

um

ula

tive

Mil

ita

ry

(vs

. C

ivil

ian

) C

om

pe

ns

ati

on

Gro

wth

Cumulative growth in pay comparison (inflation-adjusted)

Military base pay growth (1990 Base) compared to civilian wage growth

Average Unemployment

9.89.2

8.37.6

6.5

5.34.9

4.44.3

4.6 4.8 4.9

4.1 4.2 4.3 4.4

3.8 3.8 3.8 4.03

5

7

9

11

FY10 FY11 FY12 FY13 FY14 FY15 FY16 FY17 FY18 FY19 FY20 FY21

Un

em

plo

ym

en

t R

ate

(%

)

History High Consensus Low

2

The recovery from the 2008 recession is complete with regard to unemployment, and as unemployment

reaches a somewhat steady-state level, pressure on employers to retain talent could cause civilian salaries

and benefits programs to improve. This will also be amplified by the state of the current labor market and

the younger professional generation having more portable skillsets to change positions. As salaries

increase, the Federal Reserve may have to shift monetary policies to combat inflation which may impact

the unemployment rate.

Current economic indicators suggest retention will become more challenging in the years to come as

businesses with more positions unfilled hunt harder for scarce talent as the following graphs demonstrate.

Figure 3 - Firms with Job Openings, Jobs with Few or No Qualified Applicants

Because of the low unemployment rate, the labor market is tight and is predicted to get tighter due to a

strengthening economy, baby boomers retiring in higher numbers, and businesses having more difficulty

finding qualified applicants.

Figure 4 - Average Time to Fill a Job Opening

Days Days

3

We expect regional labor shortages marked by some states having a more notable shortage in the working

age population and in particular skill sets (especially computers, mathematics, and health). Skilled labor

recruitment is at a high risk based on a large number of potential retirements and few new entrants. Labor

shortages are a bigger issue in labor intensive industries and efforts in modernization across the Navy

have helped reduce our aggregate need, but there remains a significant need for a larger Navy labor force.

Figure 5 - Working Age Population Growth (Projected)

These labor market factors may pull Sailors of certain skillsets away from the Navy and into the civilian

workforce. Navy needs to more closely follow these labor indicators in order to take preemptive action to

retain key labor categories over the next several years. This pull affects both retention and recruiting, and

includes increased competition with the civilian job sector and other military services. The Center for

Naval Analyses concluded a study of the impact of various economic metrics on retention and created an

economic index more indicative of overall economic health than unemployment alone, which also more

closely aligns with historical retention behavior.3 This economic index (below) shows the correlation of

economic health and unemployment. The trend suggests challenges ahead for retention and recruitment.

Several MPT&E metrics that normally serve as the bellwether for change in Navy workforce behavior are

consistent with an improving economy and demonstrate that the competition for talent is in progress.

Figure 6 - Overall Economic Health Trends Correlated with Reenlistment Rate

3 The economic index is generated from the unemployment rate and the yield of various Treasury securities.

Work

ing A

ge P

opula

tion

Gro

wth

4

Personnel Manning

Fit and Fill

In March 2018, Fleet billets were filled at 94.7% (7,430 gaps at sea), with 89.0% fit (measuring the match

between rating/paygrade requirement and manning) as compared to 7,181 fill gaps in September 2017 and

6,592 gaps in March 2017. Fit and fill percentages have held relatively steady since March 2017 because

of aggressive personnel actions, including increasing FY17 and FY18 enlisted accessions, extending

prescribed sea tours for some ratings, increasing HYT gates, voluntary extensions to enlistment contracts,

eliminating the Enlisted Early Separation Program, and in specific instances, extending sea tours and

assigning Reserve Sailors to fill sea duty billets. Programs such as Reserve Component to Sea (RC2C),

which fills sea duty billets with Reserve Sailors on a short-term basis, and Reserve Component to Active

Component (RC2AC), where Reserve Sailors apply to reenlist for permanent recall to active duty, have

been particularly successful in FY18. Additionally, we have allotted $80.8 million in bonuses to support

growth and increased total overhead cost funding for the individual accounts in PB19 by $285.2 million

over the FYDP.

Figure 7 - Aggregate Enlisted Sea Duty Manning (Fit/Fill)

Critical NEC Fit

Critical NEC Fit for the Fleet improved for FDNF and OFRP units from January 2015 to January 2017,

but has slowly and steadily declined due to the corresponding drop in fill and fit in the fleet overall,

though Billet Based Distribution helped slow the decline. The lower-than-required accessions in FY14-

FY16 are now causing increasing gaps at sea and are now starting to affect these critical NEC Fit

percentages. All other deployers have experienced a fit decline since May 2016. Additionally, NEC

designation transition is causing some flux in measuring NEC fit, giving a slight negative impact on fit

for all units.

89.0%

94.7%

80%

85%

90%

95%

100%

% F

it /

Fil

l

Fit Fill Fit Threshold Fit Forecast Fill Forecast

Fit = Paygrade Current Onboard/Billets AuthorizedFill = Current Onboard/Billets Authorized

5

OFRP-only Fit FDNF-only Fit All Other Deployers4

Figure 8 - Critical and Non-critical NEC Fit

Future Manning Challenges

Figure (9) below shows historical and projected enlisted sea duty fill metrics. While we hit a high point

in FY15, we are projecting we will remain relatively low through FY19 and into FY20. As shown in

the dotted red lines, Navy has implemented numerous personnel policy changes to mitigate the

downward trend in sea fill, including changes in sea/shore tour lengths and sea duty incentives, better

alignment of the initial service obligation of new recruits with their expected training and sea duty

requirements, optimizing senior enlisted assignments by sending newly selected Chiefs to sea and

operational billets (NAVADMIN 192/17), and normalization/increasing of accession missions.

However, sea fill is predicted to remain below required levels until enlisted personnel imbalances are

normalized in FY20 and beyond. The green dotted line projects what sea duty fill metrics would have

been without these mitigation efforts. While future manning will remain challenging through FY20, the

continuous use of TYCOM personnel actions will ensure FDNF and OFRP manning standards are met,

but at the expense of non-deploying units.

4 Includes rotational deployers not yet included in OFRP, ships not in OFRP or FDNF undergoing maintenance, etc.

75%

83%

65%

70%

75%

80%

85%

90%J

an

-15

Ma

y-1

5

Se

p-1

5

Jan

-16

Ma

y-1

6

Se

p-1

6

Jan

-17

Ma

y-1

7

Se

p-1

7

Jan

-18

NEC Fit

76%

83%

65%

70%

75%

80%

85%

90%

Jan

-15

Ma

y-1

5

Se

p-1

5

Jan

-16

Ma

y-1

6

Se

p-1

6

Jan

-17

Ma

y-1

7

Se

p-1

7

Jan

-18

DRRS-N Avg

68%

76%

65%

70%

75%

80%

85%

90%

Jan

-15

Ma

y-1

5

Se

p-1

5

Jan

-16

Ma

y-1

6

Se

p-1

6

Jan

-17

Ma

y-1

7

Se

p-1

7

Jan

-18

Critical NEC Fit

6

Figure 9 - Projected Sea Fill

Manpower Funding

The current and pending manning challenges highlight the importance of adhering to CNO’s directed

Total Ownership Cost (TOC) with respect to manpower programming – that is, manpower is a derived

requirement from force structure decisions, not an offset to fund force structure. Manpower TOC is

the total cost to fill a billet, including costs of training, change of station, leave, etc. Manpower TOC was

fully funded in PB19 (starting in FY20) to include the required level of TOC associated with new force

structure added in PB19. The programmed manpower growth and higher than normal accession missions

over the next few years will result in higher “overhead” costs as the student component of the Individuals

Account (IA) grows proportionally.

To demonstrate the importance of funding TOC, Figure (10) below shows the relationship between the

execution of the IA and sea duty fill through FY18. There is an inverse correlation between sea duty fill

and IA execution. Other than FY15-FY16, Navy has underfunded the IA in recent years based on

programming decisions, but at the expense of sea duty manning. The TOC required to sustain and

facilitate new force structure growth was fully funded in PB19 (starting in FY20), to include the required

IA. Navy has and intends to fully fund future manpower TOC in order to meet our personnel needs for

deploying units and maintain a predictable quality of service for our Sailors.

98.3%

91.4%

98.7%

95.5%

92.3%91.8%

93.6%

95.5%

94.4%

93.9%

89.1%

91.4%

94.5%93.8%

87%

89%

91%

93%

95%

97%

99%%

Sea

Fill

Historical Sea Fill Current Plans/Policies Projection before Mitigation

7

Figure 10 – Sea Duty Fill and Individuals Account Execution

Readiness Moves

“Readiness moves” are a non-preferred means to meet emergent demands for critically-needed skills in

the Fleet. They include operational holds that prevent a Sailor from leaving sea duty at their PRD,

Temporary Additional Duty (TAD) orders to serve on nearby ships, and diverting inbound Sailors to

higher priority operational units.

Navy tracks these moves closely due to the stress they can impose on Sailors and their families and the

subsequent impact on morale and retention. The number of these moves is trending upward as the

number of gaps at sea increases. As of 31 March, 602 readiness moves were executed, matching the

upward trend in at-sea gaps from the previous year’s number of moves. In FY17, 1,019 readiness moves

were utilized to meet Fleet requirements to optimize manning and meet fit metrics in FDNF and OFRP

deployers. The 691 readiness moves in FY16 were associated with routine shortfalls.

As the large accession cohort of FY12-FY13 Sailors reached the end of their enlistment obligation and/or

prescribed sea tour and the increased manning demand as more units transition to OFRP manning

standards, Fleet manning has declined in the short-term, which is causing readiness moves to continue to

trend upward to meet Fleet requirements. However, through current manning actions and continued use

of BBD to progress toward a long-term vision of NEC fit, we expect Fleet manning to improve and

readiness moves to decrease in FY20 as gaps at sea decrease starting in late FY19.

91.4%

98.7%

95.4%

92.3%

138.5%

100.5%

117.0%

136.9%

90%

95%

100%

105%

110%

115%

120%

125%

130%

135%

140%

90%

91%

92%

93%

94%

95%

96%

97%

98%

99%

100%

FY12 FY13 FY14 FY15 FY16 FY17 FY18

Ind

ivid

ua

ls A

cco

un

t E

xec

uti

on

Sea

Du

ty F

ill

Sea Duty Fill Individuals Account Execution

8

Figure 11 - Cumulative Readiness Moves

Enlisted Rating Health

One of the principal measures of enlisted rating health is how closely inventory matches programmed

authorizations. The Figure (12) below illustrates the aggregate Navy mismatch between individual rating

inventories and authorizations. The blue line shows that, of the ratings that are over-manned, the excess

inventory represents 1.5% of the total enlisted end strength, improved from 1.7% six months prior.

Similarly, the gray line shows that, in under-manned ratings, the inventory shortfall represents 2.1% of

total end strength, 0.2% less than the 2.3% under-manning 6 months prior. Both are trending positively

towards our goal of on-point, balanced manning.

Figure 12 Cumulative Rating Manning Imbalances

0

200

400

600

800

1,000

1,200

1,400

1,600

FY11 FY12 FY13 FY14 FY15 FY16 FY17 FY18*

Nu

mb

er

of

Mo

ve

s

OPHOLD TAD Divert Crossdeck 3 CVN Swap

* Current as of 31 March

-6%

-5%

-4%

-3%

-2%

-1%

0%

1%

2%

3%

4%

5%

6%

Oc

t-0

9

Jan

-10

Ap

r-10

Ju

l-1

0

Oc

t-1

0

Jan

-11

Ap

r-11

Ju

l-1

1

Oc

t-1

1

Jan

-12

Ap

r-12

Ju

l-1

2

Oc

t-1

2

Jan

-13

Ap

r-13

Ju

l-1

3

Oc

t-1

3

Jan

-14

Ap

r-14

Ju

l-1

4

Oc

t-1

4

Jan

-15

Ap

r-15

Ju

l-1

5

Oc

t-1

5

Jan

-16

Ap

r-16

Ju

l-1

6

Oc

t-1

6

Jan

-17

Ap

r-17

Ju

l-1

7

Oc

t-1

7

Jan

-18

Pe

rce

nt

Devia

tio

n f

rom

to

tal

Pro

gra

mm

ed

Au

tho

riza

tio

n

Inventory Surplus Inventory Deficit 6 mo. avg. Surplus 6 mo. avg. Deficit

9

Navy has maintained low levels of manning imbalances for the past four years. In order to respond to

fleet manning, Selective Reenlistment Bonus (SRB) Program updates are more frequent with the latest

update in May 2018, the third so far in FY18. The latest SRB includes an addition of 39 skills in 12

ratings, increases in award levels for 135 skills in 48 ratings, and expands the eligibility window to

reenlist for SRB from 90 days to 180 days before a Sailor’s End of Active Obligated Service (EAOS)

within the same FY. An additional 4,900 enlisted programming authorizations for FY18 will also help

improve fit, fill, and manning imbalances in the future.

The Navy’s improvement on the number of balanced ratings is reflected in the proportion of individual

Sailors who belong to a balanced rating.5 Figure (13) below shows the proportion of the Navy’s Sailors

in a balanced, under-manned, or over-manned rating over time. The diagram shows a moving average,

centered on the Sailors in a balanced rating, with Sailors in over-manned ratings displayed above and

Sailors in under-manned ratings displayed below.

Figure 13 - Sailors’ Rating Manning Balance Over Time (± 4 Month Smoothed Average)

Advancement Opportunity (Active and Reserve)

Enlisted advancements include both competitive (e.g., Navy Wide Advancement Exam (NWAE) and

Selection Boards) and non-competitive (e.g., Automatic Advancements, Meritorious Advancement

Program (MAP)) opportunity. Advancement opportunities for the AC increased in FY18 across all E4-E9

paygrades from FY17 levels and the number of MAP quotas increased significantly, providing even more

authority to Commanding Officers, at sea and ashore, to provide deserving Sailors the opportunity to

advance through merit.

Petty Officers have three opportunities each year to advance, two NWAE cycles (Spring/Fall) and the

MAP season (Summer). Community managers take into account all three periods in developing

advancement plans to ensure continuous advancement opportunity and community health. Although the

5 The distinction here is that a large rating going back in balance affects more Sailors, while bringing a very small

rating into balance does not improve conditions for as many Sailors. Therefore, even if the number of balanced

ratings does not change, more (or fewer) Sailors can still find themselves in a healthy rating.

Feb 2010 Feb 2011 Feb 2012 Feb 2013 Feb 2014 Feb 2015 Feb 2016 Feb 2017 Feb 2018

-250

-150

-50

50

150

250

Th

ou

sa

nd

s o

f S

ail

ors

fro

m b

ala

nc

e

Sailors in Undermanned Ratings Sailors in Balanced Ratings Sailors in Overmanned Ratings

10

quotas for this cycle suggest a slight decrease in opportunity for E6, overall advancement opportunity

remains high with approximately 7,000 quotas available through the MAP program and over 22,000

quotas from the Advancement Exams for eligible AC and RC E4-E6 combined. The graphs below show

the historical percentages of promotions via the NWAE and MAP with FY18 MAP projections included.

Although while in a downsizing environment, we were able to stabilize advancement opportunity from

FY14 through FY16, and as we turned the corner in FY17, we are now seeing even better advancement

opportunity as we look to grow the force in FY18 and beyond.

Figure 14 - AC Advancement Opportunity E4 – E6 (including MAP)

For the Selected Reserves (SELRES), advancement opportunities continue to improve overall for the

seventh straight cycle, largely a result of Reserve Force end strength stabilization. The overall

advancement opportunity for SELRES in FY18 is 26.32%, which is above the 10-year average of 21.8%

and above last cycle's advancement opportunity of 25.6%. E5 advancement opportunity in the February

2018 cycle was 35.63%, an increase from 33.08% the previous cycle. The reversal of billet roll-downs at

the Reserve E5 and E6 paygrades improved advancement opportunity for SELRES in these paygrades,

and resulted in an overall advancement opportunity for SELRES above the 10-year average. For the first

time, due to stabilizing end strength and improved community health, the Navy Reserve participated in

the Navy's MAP Program for SELRES Sailors across the Reserve Force, lifting the moratorium that had

been in place for several years. This resulted in the successful meritorious advancement of 81 Full Time

Support (FTS) Sailors and 79 SELRES Sailors in commissioned units in FY17. The MAP program was

expanded to all Reserve units, commissioned and augment, in FY18.

Figure 15 - SELRES Advancement Opportunity E4 – E6

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

FY08 FY09 FY10 FY11 FY12 FY13 FY14 FY15 FY16 FY17 FY18

% O

pp

ort

un

ity

E4

E5

E6

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

FY10 FY11 FY12 FY13 FY14 FY15 FY16 FY17 FY18

% O

pp

ort

un

ity

E4

E5

E6

11

MAP provides Commanding Officers the ability to meritoriously advance talented, hard-working Sailors

to pay grades E6 and below. This year, with a few exceptions, the time-in-grade requirements have been

largely removed. With three years of experience in the MAP program, advancements can now be awarded

in the true spirit of the program. We’ve significantly increased MAP quotas in 2018 to 6,865 available

quotas, up from 4,188 in FY17, 3,086 in FY16, and 2,282 in FY15 when the program transitioned from

the previous Command Advancement Program.

Figure 16 - AC MAP Distribution by Paygrade

Advancement opportunity increased across the board for E7-E9 in FY18. E7 AC advancement

opportunity was 23.6% in FY18, an increase from 20.87% in FY17. E8 advancement opportunity was

12.43% in FY18, a slight increase from 11.95% in FY17. E9 advancement increased to 14.8% in FY18

as compared to 13.24% in FY17.

Figure 17 - AC Advancement Opportunity E7 – E9

5541122

1580

2977

781

939

1359

2418

947

1025

1249

1470

0

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

7000

2015 2016 2017 2018*

# Q

uo

tas

E6

E5

E4

*Maximum allotted for 2018

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

FY08 FY09 FY10 FY11 FY12 FY13 FY14 FY15 FY16 FY17 FY18

% O

pp

ort

un

ity

E7

E8

E9

12

Additionally, we are piloting a program in FY19 called the Senior Enlisted Advancement-to-Vacancy

Selection Board, which is different and separate from the E8/E9 selection boards. This board will

carefully consider the record of every qualified applicant and select the best, fully qualified E7/E8 to fill

priority billets. Sailors selected by the board will be temporarily (spot) advanced to the paygrade

associated with the billet and receive pay commensurate with that paygrade upon reporting to their

ultimate duty station. To be permanently advanced, Sailors must be selected for the next paygrade by the

regularly scheduled active-duty Senior Chief Petty Officer (SCPO) or Master Chief Petty Officer

(MCPO) selection board.

E7 SELRES advancement opportunity in the February 2018 cycle was 17.44%, an increase from 15.12%

in the previous cycle. While advancement opportunity decreased for E8 in the FY18 cycle to 9.92% from

13.77% in FY17, E9 advancement opportunity increased in the same cycle to 11.45% from 9.68%.

Figure 18 - SELRES Advancement Opportunity E7 – E9

Advancement Time In Grade

As shown in Figure (19) below, the average time in service to make rank has steadily dropped over the

past 20 years. The average time a Sailor makes E4 today is 3.4 years as compared to 4.4 years in FY98.

E5 is 6.5 years compared to 9.3 years in FY98 and E6 is 12.1 years as compared to 14.4 in FY98.

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

FY10 FY11 FY12 FY13 FY14 FY15 FY16 FY17 FY18

% O

pp

ort

un

ity

E7

E8

E9

13

Figure 19 - Enlisted Paygrade Average Time in Service

Selected Reserve Enlisted Rating Health

While Navy tracks fill and fit and other metrics regarding operational readiness of the AC, different

measures are used to measure operational readiness of the RC. For the SELRES, the ability to meet

authorized end strength levels is critical, as this underpins the ability to respond to mobilization needs, fill

demands for individual augmentation, and meet other Reserve requirements.

Figure 20 - SELRES Enlisted Manning

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16Y

ea

rs o

f S

erv

ice

E6 E5 E4 Avg E4-E9

80%

85%

90%

95%

100%

105%

0

10,000

20,000

30,000

40,000

50,000

60,000

2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018

% o

f au

tho

rize

d s

tren

gth

SE

LR

ES

In

ve

nto

ry

Inventory % Manning

* Through 31 March

14

Officer Community Health

Officer community management requires unique planning and foresight, especially considering that

actions to support career development may need to occur a decade or more in advance of when

experience is needed and must account for potential changes in authorized strength in that timeframe.

Officer manning both at sea and ashore has seen a dip since FY16.

Figure 21 – Aggregate AC Officer Manning, end-of-FY

Since FY14 we have been funding additional junior officer billets to bring the Fleet’s demand for junior

officers in line with the numbers needed to meet later community milestone needs. Officer over-

execution has been largely resolved by fully funding the IA account in PB19, starting in FY20.

Figure 22 - AC Officer Manning Afloat Figure 23-AC Officer Manning Ashore Figure 24 - Officer Manning, SELRES

102.7%

Average:106.9%

Average: 95.9%

95.0%

90%

92%

94%

96%

98%

100%

102%

104%

106%

108%

110%

112%

FY10 FY11 FY12 FY13 FY14 FY15 FY16 FY17

% o

f B

ille

ts

Fill Sea % Fill Shore %

80%

85%

90%

95%

100%

105%

110%

115%

120%

FY

10

FY

11

FY

12

FY

13

FY

14

FY

15

FY

16

FY

17

FY

18

Control Grade

Junior Officers

CG Average: 98.6%

100.1%

JO Average: 111.1%

105.4%

80%

85%

90%

95%

100%

105%

110%

115%

120%

FY

10

FY

11

FY

12

FY

13

FY

14

FY

15

FY

16

FY

17

FY

18

Control Grade

Junior Officers

JO Average: 100.4%

CG Average: 92.2%

98.6%

92.7%

80%

85%

90%

95%

100%

105%

110%

115%

120%

% SELRES Manning

Average: 96.8%

97.4%

15

Management

Recruiting

The FY18 enlisted accession goal was increased to 39K, up from 35.2K in FY17, and is expected to

increase to at least 42K in FY19. While Navy continues to meet its overall recruiting goal, there are a

number of metrics that are leading indicators of a more difficult recruiting environment ahead. For

example, we measure how many of our 22 Navy Recruiting Districts (NRDs) and four Talent Acquisition

Groups (NTAGs) are at 100% of their monthly goal for new contracts the day prior to mission day. Since

March 2017, when all 26 NRDs/NTAGs achieved 100% of goal the day prior to signing day, we’ve seen

a significant drop in this metric - only three achieved this goal in May 2018. Most of our recruiting

commands fell below key production glideslopes. Increased accession missions in FY19 and FY20 will

continue to present challenges for the recruiting force.

Figure 25 - Number of NRDs at 100% of NCO/Application Goals the Day Prior to Mission Day

Figure 26 - Joint Advertising, Market Research & Studies (JAMRS) Data

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

Ma

y-1

5

Ju

l-1

5

Sep

-15

No

v-1

5

Ja

n-1

6

Ma

r-16

Ma

y-1

6

Ju

l-1

6

Sep

-16

No

v-1

6

Ja

n-1

7

Ma

r-17

Ma

y-1

7

Ju

l-1

7

Sep

-17

No

v-1

7

Ja

n-1

8

Ma

r-18

Ma

y-1

8

# N

RD

s

20,585,000

12,370,000

4,430,000 370,000

17- to 21-Year-OldPopulation

High Academic Quality High Academic Quality +Eligible

High Academic Quality +Eligible + Propensed

(see chart below)

Po

pu

lati

on

Siz

e

21%1.8%

Report getting A’s and B’s, estimated 50% or

higher on AFQT Youth Poll eligibility estimate*

*Although Youth Poll data was used to calculate presented population estimates, QMA is the official DoD metric for eligibility.

60%

16

Numerous policy levers have already been adopted to thicken the pool of qualified applicants. Examples

include: (1) reduction of minimum line scores for aviation and engineering ratings, (2) increasing the

maximum age from 34 to 39, (3) reducing the enlistment commitment from 4 to 3 years for PACT

Sailors, and (4) allowing single parents with dependent custody to join the Active Component. We also

continue to work closely with BUMED to update medical waiver policies to reflect modern medical care

capabilities. Figure (27) below further explains some recruiting challenges as we strive to build the Navy

the nation needs. Particularly, we are committed to expanding the number of women in the Navy and in

technical ratings, but this is complicated by the higher AFQT scores required for such ratings and the

lower average AFQT scores of female accessions. Increasing both quantity and quality simultaneously is

challenging, but we are committed to find solutions that adhere to the Navy’s goals and force needs.

Figure 27 - AFQT Score Trends

In previous fiscal years, Navy typically shipped the required number of recruits at the right time with the

desired program/gender combinations. As shown in Figure (28) below, fit dipped due to increases in

current year goal, market conditions, and resources available (primarily recruiters). Increasing quantity

while maintaining quality is challenging and a decline in quality leads to reduced fit. We anticipate the

decline in fit will create disruption in optimizing the “supply chain” downstream at initial entry training

and beyond. However, fit is increasing to higher levels this summer as a new pool of future Sailors

graduates from high school.

Figure 28 - Percentage of Ratings Shipped at Goal (by Rating/Program/Gender)

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Ma

y-0

7

No

v-0

7

Ma

y-0

8

No

v-0

8

Ma

y-0

9

No

v-0

9

Ma

y-1

0

No

v-1

0

Ma

y-1

1

No

v-1

1

Ma

y-1

2

No

v-1

2

Ma

y-1

3

No

v-1

3

Ma

y-1

4

No

v-1

4

Ma

y-1

5

No

v-1

5

Ma

y-1

6

No

v-1

6

Ma

y-1

7

No

v-1

7

Ma

y-1

8

% o

f R

ati

ng

/P

GM

/G

en

de

r S

hip

pe

d v

s. G

oa

l

Required to avoidsupply chain disruption

Recruiting Fit Target

Start of gender neutral FIT

17

We are taking aggressive actions to address these issues, including an increase in the number of recruiters,

signing bonuses for both recruits and recruiters, a new and targeted advertising campaign (Forged by the

Sea), and modernized virtual recruiting techniques.

Performing an aggressive push at the end of the year, Navy Reserve was able to finish FY17 with success

in every overall category except SELRES Officers. SELRES Officer and enlisted goals will be more

challenging in FY18 due to FY17 recruiting shortfalls, the requirement for nearly 100% accession fit, and

the success of AC retention efforts that reduce the pool of separating AC Sailors who are the primary

source of Navy Reserve affiliations.

Training

While NRC has taken aggressive actions to ensure we meet our monthly accession goals by pulling

recruits forward from the Delayed Entry Program (DEP), it does decrease accession fit, meaning recruits

are no longer aligned to their specific pipeline, causing delays and increasing the IA account that

negatively impacts Fleet manning. Our goal is for Sailors to complete training within 110% of the

established time to complete the specific rating training, a metric we call enlisted cycle time (ECT). The

ECT is traditionally worse from December through March, but we experienced a second increase from

May through September of 2017.

Figure 29 - "A" School Cycle Time

Enlisted Supply Chain

The Enlisted Supply Chain, which encompasses the recruiting of enlisted AC Sailors through to their

initial sea tour (i.e., “Street-to-Fleet), attempts to be as efficient as possible as delays in the supply chain

reduce Fleet Apprentice fit and fill. To grade this overall effort, Navy tracks the number of ratings that

successfully attain their production goals (i.e. produced within 5% of goal) in a given fiscal year. The

number of ratings that met this goal increased from 13 to 69 from FY07 to FY15. FY16-FY18 cohorts

are still processing through the supply chain. Navy reduced accessions in FY16 due to the personnel

funding shortfall, but with increased accessions continuing into FY18, the number of ratings meeting goal

has and is expected to continue to increase.

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

Ju

l-1

4A

ug

-14

Se

p-1

4O

ct-

14

No

v-1

4D

ec

-14

Jan

-15

Fe

b-1

5M

ar-

15

Ap

r-15

Ma

y-1

5J

un

-15

Ju

l-1

5A

ug

-15

Se

p-1

5O

ct-

15

No

v-1

5D

ec

-15

Jan

-16

Fe

b-1

6M

ar-

16

Ap

r-16

Ma

y-1

6J

un

-16

Ju

l-1

6A

ug

-16

Se

p-1

6O

ct-

16

No

v-1

6D

ec

-16

Jan

-17

Fe

b-1

7M

ar-

17

Ap

r-17

Ma

y-1

7J

un

-17

Ju

l-1

7A

ug

-17

Se

p-1

7O

ct-

17

No

v-1

7D

ec

-17

Jan

-18

Fe

b-1

8M

ar-

18

% o

f R

ati

ng

s B

elo

w/A

bo

ve

Ap

pro

ve

d

En

lis

ted

Cyc

le T

ime

Outside ECT Threshold Within ECT Threshold

18

Figure 30 - Navy Enlisted Supply Chain Efficiency

Ready, Relevant Learning

Career-Long Continuum of Learning Block Learning (BL) divides existing, accession-level training content into smaller blocks, which will

eventually be moved to real-world points of need in the Sailor’s career, shortening initial accession

training time and making Sailors available to the Fleet sooner. BL uses existing training content while we

reengineer the training to meet objectives of the future Ready Relevant Learning (RRL) training

continuum. Specific accomplishments include:

Completion of BL analysis for all 54 ratings - 32 ratings approved for BL implementation in

FY18, saving 106 man-years

29 ratings implemented BL: LS, LS(S), PS, YN, YN(S), QM, A/E/S-PACT, DC, GSM, SW, SH,

BM, EN, HT, MM, MR, EM, GSE, CTM, STS, PR, RP, ABH, ABE, ABF, MMA, MMW

Implemented BL Standard Operating Procedures, Users Guide and Instruction

NAVADMIN 089/18, published in April, announced the commencement of BL, the first

evolutionary stage in the transformation to RRL and required organizational supporting actions.

Modern Delivery at the Point of Need Modern delivery of training takes advantage of emerging learning technologies to allow Sailors to receive

training at the point of need, whether at the waterfront or aboard their operational unit. These training

solutions will apply science-of-learning principles to make training more effective, efficient and available

by leveraging technology, thereby minimizing the necessity of repeatedly returning to a brick-and-mortar

schoolhouse. Specific accomplishments include:

Refined process and schedule for Modern Delivery

Continued requirements development and analysis of 29 Navy ratings (to include the OS rating)

Awarded accelerated delivery contract for OS rating for delivery of modernized content in FY19

Awarded contract for requirements development of 10 additional Navy ratings

Developing/refining IT requirements – aligning IT capabilities to the RRL Vision and guidance

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

FY

07

FY

08

FY

09

FY

10

FY

11

FY

12

FY

13

FY

14

FY

15

FY

16*

FY

17*

FY

18*

Pro

po

rtio

n o

f R

ati

ng

s a

t G

ive

n

Su

pp

ly C

ha

in G

oa

l A

tta

inm

en

t %

FY of initial enlistment (* indicates some recruits still in initial training)

<90% 90-94% 95-105% 106-110% >110%

19

Twenty-three ratings/courses began the Knowledge Capture (KC)/Rating Domain Analysis

(RDA) phase in FY17 and are planned to deliver new training content in the FY19-FY22

timeframe (ABE, ABF, ABH, AME, APACT, DC, EM, EN, EPACT, GSE, GSM, HT, MM, MR,

PR, ATT, BECC, AZ, PS, SH, YN, YNS, OS)

Seven additional ratings are projected to complete the KC/RDA phase in FY18 & FY19 (QM,

AE, STG, STS, LS, LSS, CTM), which will lead to new training content in FY20-FY22

KC analysis was contracted for an additional 10 ratings (IS, IT, IT(S), MA, RP, BM, FC(A), GM,

MN SPACT) and delivery of new training content is expected in the FY22-FY23 timeframe

Integrated Content Development Requirements development is critical to the third line of effort of RRL: integrated content development.

Here, Fleet leadership is defining the training requirements and will ensure training content and delivery

methods are aligned with Fleet needs. Specific accomplishments to date include:

Issued an RRL strategic communication plan, laying the foundation for RRL implementation

Initiated the Acquisition Requirements for Training Transformation (ARTT) Project pilot to

deliver commercial standards used to integrate training products, experience protocols, and

interface requirements using product lifecycle management for the Navy’s acquisition programs

Created and launched MPT&E Portal to support RRL implementation and communication

Led an RRL Fleet Summit to inform and solidify the Fleet’s role in the modern delivery process

Delivered First Annual Certification to Congress on the implementation status of RRL

Timeline and Milestones USFF, the RRL Executive Agent, in partnership with Naval Education and Training Command (NETC),

is projecting all ratings in the RRL scope will implement the Block Learning stage of the Career-Long

Learning Continuum Line of Effort by the end of FY18. Figure (31) below illustrates where the ratings

are in the approval process for the Block Learning stage of evolution.

Figure 31 - Ready Relevant Learning (RRL): Block Learning Stage of Evolution

20

Distribution

To fill billets at sea and ashore, Navy uses a personnel distribution system that identifies Sailors available

for duty of the required type and distributes those Sailors to their next duty station. The distribution

system does this while trying to minimize billet gaps caused by Sailors transferring between duty stations,

in the training pipelines, or with medical and administrative issues.

Overseas/Sea Duty/Exceptional Family Member Screening

Last October, Navy merged the Sea Duty and Overseas Duty Screening Processes into the annual

Personal Health Assessments, so that each Sailor is now screened for both Sea Duty and Overseas Duty

each year. Annual screening for both provides a more up-to-date picture of the Navy’s personnel

“deployability” status and helps prevent critical gaps. However, the largest single contributor to Navy’s

lack of “deployment” readiness is routine dental screenings and/or correction of issues identified in dental

screenings. Sailors can expect significant policy changes this year making deployability a personal

responsibility, with non-deployability to be documented on evaluations or FITREPs. Under the new

policy, remaining in a non-deployable status for greater than 12 months will be grounds for processing for

administrative separation.

Attrition

Attrition of Sailors with less than six months of service, including time at RTC, has steadily increased

since FY13. However, we are making efforts with RTC to lower the attrition rate and initial pilot efforts

are showing positive results. Service connected RTC attrition is trending to historic lows of less than two

percent. The establishment of a physical readiness “forming standard” in early CY18 now allows RTC to

assess readiness to start and complete basic military training. Preexisting undisclosed psychological and

medical conditions remain the largest contributor, at nearly 70 percent, to attrition that occurs at RTC.

USMEPCOM and NRC are partnering on best practices to address issues that existed prior to service

entry. Attrition beyond the first 180 days has stabilized, with physical readiness failures and for-cause

attrition being responsible for half the overall loss rate after that point.

Figure 32 - New Accession Attrition, Including RTC (% Attrition within First 6 Months)

17.8%

0%

2%

4%

6%

8%

10%

12%

14%

16%

18%

20%

FY05 FY06 FY07 FY08 FY09 FY10 FY11 FY12 FY13 FY14 FY15 FY16 FY17 FY18*

Att

riti

on

Rate

(%

of

New

A

cc

es

sio

ns

)

*Through 31 March

21

Figure 33 - Overall Active Component Navy Attrition (Enlisted, First Term of Enlistment)

Retention

Active Component Enlisted

Although Navy enlisted retention has been fairly stable over the past five years, in FY17 we saw a shift in

behavior. This downturn is especially concerning because we took aggressive manning actions and

significantly reduced the number of directed force shaping losses mid-way through the year so FY17

retention percentages are less constrained than in prior years. Considered in total with other leading

indicators in recruiting behavior, and civilian workforce trends, we believe we are clearly in the

competition for talent. Thus far in FY18, there has been an upturn in retention across all Zones,

specifically in reenlistment behavior. Much of this can be attributed to an increase in HYT limits for the

E3 through E6 paygrades and reenlistment control policy changes.

Figure 34 - Historic Enlisted Re-enlistment Rates (Not Counting Extensions)

1.5%

1.3%

5.7%

0%

1%

2%

3%

4%

5%

6%

7%

8%

FY05 FY06 FY07 FY08 FY09 FY10 FY11 FY12 FY13 FY14 FY15 FY16 FY17 FY18*

Att

riti

on

Ra

te

Physical Readiness Cause Overall (hardship, pregnancy, commissioning, etc.)

*Through 31 March

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

FY05 FY06 FY07 FY08 FY09 FY10 FY11 FY12 FY13 FY14 FY15 FY16 FY17 FY18*

Rete

nti

on

Rate

Zone A Zone B Zone C

*Through 31 March

22

Active Component Officer

Although officers continue to retain in numbers that meet community milestone requirements, we are

experiencing increasing challenges in some communities. Officer retention is tracked through several

metrics. Among the most significant is the resignation rate for officers completing their minimum service

requirement and the department head bonus ‘take rate,’ which tracks the number of department head-

eligible officers who agree to serve a department head tour. These rates are related but not identical, since

not every officer who remains in service will be eligible to serve as a department head. Overall officer

retention trends for the larger URL communities are shown in Figures (35) and (36) below.

Figure 35 - Resignation Rates for Unrestricted Line

Lieutenants and Lieutenant Commanders (O3/O4)

Figure 36 - Voluntary Retirement Rates for

Unrestricted Line Commanders and Captains (O5/O6)

In FY17, the Submarine community nearly met its department head goals, and with monetary and non-

monetary changes expects to meet requirements in FY18. The Surface Warfare community did not meet

their goals in FY17 and FY18 department head retention efforts are at risk due to changes in retention

behavior affected by an improving economy, the tightening labor market, and smaller accession numbers

for Year Group (YG) 2012. The Explosive Ordnance Disposal (EOD) community also did not meet its

goals, and expects risk for FY18 as well. The Aviation community did not meet its goals, and is

continuing to see overall retention rates decline,6 and are having challenges in specific subsets of their

community. Naval Special Warfare (NSW) met their FY17 goal, in part due to a higher than average

inventory for YG12. However, for FY18, low inventory numbers indicate that NSW will likely not meet

its department head goal. Nuclear-trained Surface Warfare officers (SWO(N)) did not meet FY14-FY16

retention requirements, but were able to meet their FY17 goal through use of non-monetary changes.

Aviation Retention

We are specifically highlighting the aviation community because of the impending national pilot shortage.

Civilian airlines are projected to hire between 5,000 to 6,000 pilots every year for the next ten to twenty

years and military pilots are their number one recruiting source. The airlines offer extremely generous

6 When including losses due to medical disqualification, screening board failure, resignations, etc., the retention rate

for aviation is below the 3- and 5-year average in every officer grade from LT to CAPT.

All URL

0%

2%

4%

6%

8%

10%

12%

14%

16%

% R

esi

gn

ati

on

Ra

tes

SWO SUB

AVN All URL

Note: This does not include officers who transition to Reserve, many of which are aviators.

0%

2%

4%

6%

8%

10%

12%

14%

FY

06

FY

07

FY

08

FY

09

FY

10

FY

11

FY

12

FY

13

FY

14

FY

15

FY

16

FY

17

FY

18

% R

eti

rem

en

t R

ate

s

SWO SUB

AVN All URL

Voluntary early retirements expanded due to selective early retirement

23

compensation packages, location stability, and a predictable work schedule. While our compensation

benefits are challenged to compete with the levels of the civilian airlines, we can offer competitive

compensation with improved work-life balance and career flexibility through our Sailor 2025 initiatives.

Based upon exit surveys, fleet engagements, and feedback from GAO site visits to aviation units in

Oceana and Lemoore in 2017, common reasons why Navy aviators leave service early include: lack of

non-deployed flight hours/aircraft availability, quality of life/quality of service dissatisfiers – especially in

non-Fleet concentration areas such as Lemoore and Fallon, perceptions that leaders lack job satisfaction,

disempowerment and over-burdened with administration, and the broadening pay gap as compared with

private industry, which has been a growing consideration in recent years. The Aviation community

significantly increased the number of officers who may participate in personal/professional growth

opportunities outside the traditional aviation career path in 2017 (e.g., expanded options for graduate

school and fellowships, increased opportunities in Tours with Industry and the Career Intermission

Program). It has increased the number of officers allowed to conduct non-traditional rotations outside of

production billets. Also, efforts to decouple career timing and milestone achievements in aviation’s

relatively constrained career path, such as fitness report modernization, are resonating well with officers,

in particular junior officers.

Aviation Bonus (AvB) take rates have historically been the strongest indicators of future retention

behaviors and directly correlate to our ability to retain sufficient officers to meet Department Head (DH)

and Post Commander Command (PCC) requirements. Aviation has experienced declining Aviation

Department Head Retention Bonus (ADHRB) take-rates across all communities—particularly since

FY15. FY18 take rates were tracking as aviation’s worst year in over a decade at over 20 percent below

goal. Aviation Command Retention Bonus (ACRB) take rates have similarly decreased. Figure (37)

below shows cumulative ADHRB takers for year-groups of aviators from 6 to 13 years of service. The

DH tour is shown at 11 years of service with the retention goal for each year-group of 350 takers.

Figure 37 - Cumulative Agreements for Aviation Dept. Head Retention Bonus by Year Group

Goal @ DH Start

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

450

500

6 7 8 9 10 11 12Cu

mu

lati

ve

Avia

tio

n D

H B

on

us

Ta

ke

rs

Time in Service for Year-Group

YG01 YG02 YG03 YG04

YG05 YG06 YG07 YG08

= most recent YG to reach given time in service

24

Statutory changes in 2017 increased AvB maximum annual installment levels from $25,000 to $35,000

per year and increased potential Aviation Incentive Pay (AvIP) maximum monthly levels (from $850 at

14 Years of Aviation Service (YAS) to $1,000 at 10 YAS for use at service discretion). NAVADMIN

065/18 published updates to Navy incentives that now include increases in both flight pay and bonuses in

a mutually supportive fashion with the achievement of aviation leadership milestones (DH, Command,

Major Command). NAVADMIN 065/18 describes a two-tier flight pay scale that directly rewards

performance as measured by screening at key leadership milestones (DH, Command, Major Command):

those who screen jump to higher pay levels, those who fail to screen continue at legacy flight pay rates.

The ADHRB also changed to multiple contract length offerings (both three and five-year contract

choices) and shifted AvB eligibility from MSR to O4 selection—eliminating Type/Model/Series (T/M/S)

differences in eligibility and reducing sunk costs. The ACRB is a two-year contract aimed at retaining

officers through PCC tours to fill the many O5 afloat and ashore billets where high level aviation

experience is needed. The recently approved program changed the eligibility window for ACRB so that

O5s now accept the bonus prior to assuming command, refocusing the program on PCC requirements.

Furthermore, the program ceiling expanded dramatically from $36K to $100K. These features result in a

merit-based, more competitive continuum of pay from DH through a PCC tour. Early indicators are that

take rates for YGs eligible for these revised bonus programs are up substantially.

Figure 38 – Aviation Incentive Pay (AvIP) and Aviation Bonus (AvB) Program Changes

25

Selected Reserve

Retention is high within the SELRES, as shown in Figure (39) below.

Enlisted

The SELRES enjoyed high retention across a broad range of experience.

Zone A Zone B Zones C-E

Figure 39 - SELRES Enlisted Retention, FY18 YTD

Officer

Retention is high within the SELRES, as shown in Figures (40) and (41) below. In FY17, 809 officers

leaving active duty affiliated with the Navy Reserve. Officers are also staying in the RC. This can be

seen in voluntary resignation behavior prior to retirement eligibility, which continues to decline for LTs

and LCDRs in the unrestricted line through FY18 to date, and resignations or retirements prior to

statutory limits for CDRs and CAPTs in the unrestricted line also remain relatively low.

Figure 40 - Resignation Rates, SELRES URL (O3/O4) Figure 41 - Rate of Resignations or Retirements Prior to

Statutory Limits, SELRES URL (O5/O6)

98% 98% 98%

0%

2%

4%

6%

8%

10%

12%

14%

% R

esi

gn

ati

on

SWO SUB

AVN All URL

0%

1%

2%

3%

4%

5%

FY12 FY13 FY14 FY15 FY16 FY17 FY18

% R

eti

rem

en

t/R

esi

gn

ati

on

SWO SUB

AVN All URL

26

Inclusion & Diversity

The importance of diversity is validated by data: solutions developed by teams that think the same way

are 30% more risky, whereas solutions developed by teams with different ways of thinking are 20% more

innovative.7 Diverse teams are 58% more likely to accurately assess a situation,8 ethnically diverse

organizations are 35% more likely to outperform other organizations, and gender-diverse organizations

are 15% more likely to do so.9

Governance and Assessment

This year, CNO launched a High Leverage Outcome (HLO) to “Mitigate the Negative Effects of Bias,” to

address the fact that biases – both conscious and unconscious – and bias-based decisions and behaviors

manifest themselves in all workplaces. They can have an adverse effect on team cohesion, trust and

innovation, with resulting negative impacts to warfighting advantage, lethality and readiness due to

attrition of underrepresented talent. The HLO addresses these risks through four lines of effort and 36

initiatives executed through the established governance mechanisms of Sailor 2025, the Leader

Development Framework and the Strategic Workforce Council. Supporting this HLO is CNP’s 2018 goal

to develop Navy-specific unconscious bias education and training. The Naval Leadership and Ethics

Center (NLEC) already integrates bias awareness into leader development curricula and will expand to

include bias mitigation education. This is on track to be completed by the end of CY18.

Navy’s diverse force begins with accessions, which are more diverse than ever before. Enlisted female

accessions are at their highest point in history (26% of all accessions) and women account for 28% of all

FY17 NROTC Navy commissions, which is 82% more female commissions than 20 years ago.

21% of FY17 NROTC Navy commissions were racial minorities and 8% were ethnic minorities

34% of FY17 enlisted accessions were racial minorities and 16% were ethnic minorities

USNA Class of 2017: 23% female, 21% racial minorities, 11% ethnic minorities, 2%

international

USNA Class of 2021: 27% female, 25% racial minorities, 12% ethnic minorities, 1%

international

FY17 Officer Recruits: 22% female, 13% Hispanic, 26% racial minorities

Retention of our increasingly diverse workforce is fundamental to future warfighting capabilities and

Navy continues to improve at every level:

Based on the most recent five years of data, minority JOs retain better than majority JOs for the

first 12 years of service

Female officer retention is better than ever: most recent 1-year retention average for female

officers is higher than the previous 5-year and 3-year averages

7 Juliet Bourke, Deloitte, Australia, Office of Personnel Management Diversity Summit, April 12, 2016. 8 “Ethnic Diversity Deflates Price Bubbles,” December 30, 2014, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences

of the United States of America. 9 “Diversity Matters,” McKinsey & Company, February 2, 2015.

27

Active Duty Flag officer diversity is increasing steadily: over the past 20 years it has become

182% more racially diverse, 140% more gender diverse and 154% more ethnically diverse

Senior enlisted diversity (E7 to E9) exceeds flag officer diversity and continues to increase

Over the past 20 years, Navy’s Active Duty senior enlisted population has become 60% more

racially diverse, 56% more gender diverse and over 300% more ethnically diverse

Figure (42) illustrates Navy gender, race and ethnic demographics versus the US population.

Figure 42 - Navy Demographics 2013 vs. 2018 vs. National Population

Work/Life Balance

We are also committed to establishing the work/life balance our Sailors need to maximize their potential

and support their families. We’ve recently conducted a survey showing that the force feels strained in this

department, and we are examining it closely. Only a third of the survey participants agreed that Navy

policy supports work/life balance for Sailors and less than half (43%) agreed that their current sea/shore

rotation is adequate for family planning. While 55% of women believe their command is supportive of

pregnant women, only 26% agreed that having a child does not negatively affect their Navy career.

We are committed to every Sailor’s ability to enjoy a thriving personal life in addition to their naval

career. This starts with leadership - while 61% of participants had heard leadership at their command

discuss work/life balance, only half had heard it discussed by immediate supervisors (48%) or senior

Navy leaders (51%). As we wage the competition for talent, we will engage with these results closely and

show Sailors that the Navy is an inclusive, supportive, and purpose-driven team.

28

Figure 43 - Sailor Survey on Work/Life Balance and Family Planning

For more information and additional resources, the Commander’s Inclusion and Diversity Toolkit is

located on the Navy Personnel Command website:

www.public.navy.mil/bupers-npc/support/inclusion/pages/commander’s-toolkit.aspx

11%

26%25%

23%

15%

13%

30%31%

15%

11%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

Strongly Agree Agree Neither Disagree Strongly Disagree

% A

gre

e/D

isa

gre

e

Policy Supports Work/Life Balance Sea/Shore Rotation Adequate for Family Planning

29

Sailor Wellness & Resilience

We continue to focus efforts on improving Sailor toughness while promoting a culture of respect to

prevent destructive behaviors. Through the end of FY16 and into FY18, the metrics Navy tracks to gauge

Sailor wellness and resilience have continued to trend in a positive direction.

RTC Toughness

The curriculum at RTC has been modified while continuing to meet the accession mission. The revisions

emphasize proficiency in seamanship, damage control and firefighting, watch standing, force protection,

and Sailorization to prepare the Recruits for follow-on training and readiness from Day 1 at their first

assignment. Boatswain’s Mate and Fire Fighting/DC A schools have already advanced their curricula

based on the demonstrated skillsets new Sailors have coming to their schools.

This new emphasis on foundational technical skills is coupled with developing mental, physical and

spiritual toughness, which will serve the Recruits at RTC, follow-on training and afloat to create

professional Sailors ready to serve in every operational environment and level of war. Our officer

accession training programs have established similar initiatives that emphasize technical proficiency and

development of the warrior mindset needed to lead Sailors.

Physical Fitness

Cycle 2, 2017 was the first Physical Fitness Assessment (PFA) cycle to implement our PFA incentive

policy designed to support the Culture of Excellence and warfighter readiness - where we want Sailors to

excel vice simply meet the minimum standard. Cycle 2, 2017 provided positive results with 99.2% of

Sailors passing the Body Composition Assessment (BCA) process and 98.6% of participants passing the

Physical Readiness Test, resulting in an overall PFA pass rate of 97.7%. Based on Cycle 2, 2017 PFA

data, an estimated 30% of participants were eligible to take advantage of the incentive allowing them to

be exempt from the next physical readiness test provided they are within BCA Age Adjusted Standards.

Cycle 1, 2018 data will be available in mid-October 2018.

Figure 44 - Physical Fitness Pass Rates (Active and Reserve)10

10 Source: OPNAV N170 (PRIMS data).

30

Suicide Awareness & Prevention

Sailors continue to die by suicide in increasing numbers and suicide is consistently among the top three

causes of death in the Navy annually, despite numerous aggressive campaigns to teach skills, increase

awareness, remove barriers and build connectedness.

Leading Indicators:

Ideation: Relationship problems, fall from glory (academic, career, legal), periods of transition and

history of mental health problems

Attempts: Sleep issues, anger and rage, infidelity, shame and guilt

Deaths: Firearms, hanging, overdose

Systemic Issues:

Ideation/Attempts: Fear that seeking help will harm career or security clearance, lack of awareness of

how resources vary and can assist, lack of trust in leaders and military medical system, lack of access to

mental health care in remote or small commands, inaccurate count of suicide ideation and attempts due to

inconsistent use of DoD Suicide Event Reports (DoDSER) and SITREPs.

Deaths: Limited ability due to federal/state laws to intervene with firearms, lack of manning, OPTEMPO,

cumulative effect of deployments on home life, lack of visibility of preexisting issues prior to service,

relationship issues.

All of our efforts are geared toward never having a Sailor reach the pinnacle event in Figure (45).

Figure 45 – Navy Holistic Approach to Suicide Prevention

31

The suicide rate in CY17 was a relative peak for Navy and the upward trend continues in 2018. The 2017

AC suicide rate increased by 25%,11 with the number of suicides rising from 52 in 2016 to 65 in 2017, and

the number of suicides in the RC dropped from 10 in 2016 to 9 in 2017. The suicide rate for AC Sailors was

19.9 per 100,000 in 2017. This rate remains below the civilian rate for comparable demographic groups,

which in 2016 (the last year where civilian data is available) was 26.8 per 100,000. Suicides during First

Quarter CY18 are tracking higher than the First Quarter 2017 suicides.

Figure 46 - Number and Rate of Suicides, Navy and Comparable Civilian Population

We recognize that more must be done. Our goal of reducing suicides will be realized through incremental

progress, and sustainable change may not follow a linear pattern from year to year. There is no single

proven solution to prevent suicide. However, we believe that our efforts in communications, skills

training, policy and research are making a positive impact in reducing barriers to seeking help.

We have hired a Prevention Expert for the Navy, and are developing a Comprehensive Primary

Prevention Strategy to establish a Culture of Excellence Navy-wide. The backbone of the strategy will be

grounded in 3 key action areas:

Leveraging Data Analytics (LDA) to operate at our theoretical limit

Behavior Learning Continuum (BLC), emotional intelligence development from recruitment to

transition to post Navy life

Policies, Programs, and Practices (P^3), a continuous and balanced approach to achieve optimal

performance.

11 Based on 2016 rate.

4238

34 3237 38

4438

5258

41

54

4352

65

23

911

9 13 610

8

5

7

8

5

15

14

10

9

3

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

20

22

24

26

28

30

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018

Ra

te p

er 1

00

KN

um

be

r o

f D

ea

ths

Calendar Year

AC RC Navy Suicide Rate (AC) Civilian Crude Rate (Normalized)

32

We are continuously working to strengthen efforts in prevention and intervention strategies with

demonstrated effectiveness in both civilian and military populations. Suicide Prevention efforts must be

based upon fostering resilience, toughness and a sense of belonging. The embedded mental health

program is a proven concept initiated in the Navy in 1996 with Ship Psychologists onboard 13 aircraft

carriers. The Navy is expanding this highly successful program with both active duty and civilian mental

health assets. Currently 25% of all Navy military mental health providers are embedded and provide

direct mental health services to the Fleet with additional support from the military treatment facilities,

Fleet and Family Support Centers and waterfront clinics. Prevention and intervention services are

provided by active duty mental health providers and civilian Deployed Resiliency Counselors on aircraft

carriers and large amphibious ships, with plans to add 16 more civilian DRCs. Fleet Surgical Teams

serve large Fleet concentration areas, and waterfront mental health clinics are expanding to submarine

squadrons. While most embedded mental health programs are staffed by active duty, there has been

similar effectiveness with civilian providers in waterfront clinics. We will be expanding mental health

providers to our cruiser and destroyer squadrons at the waterfront. This program continues to

demonstrate effectiveness in enhancing resilience of Sailors and families, reducing unplanned losses and

destructive behaviors, while returning Sailors to full duty. Additionally, Chaplains continue to provide

tremendous spiritual and ancillary services to support these efforts.

Curriculum enhancements are underway to improve the mental health training, suicide risk assessment

and safety planning across the fleet. Smaller combatants not large enough to have a dedicated mental

health provider or Chaplain are served by an Independent Duty Corpsmen, an enlisted medical provider.

Enlisted Behavioral Health Technicians currently serve as embedded mental health providers in Fleet

Surgical Teams in Navy Expeditionary Combat Commands. These Sailors receive enhanced training on

suicide risk assessment and safety coordination. A portion of the Chaplains Corps has been trained on

Cognitive Behavioral Therapy techniques and suicide risk assessment to enhance the embedded services

they provide to Sailors and leaders. Plans are in the works to train the remaining Chaplain Corps.

Gatekeeper training, targeted training in suicide risk assessment and safety planning, has been developed

for communities in the Navy most likely to recognize a Sailor at risk for suicide to improve early

detection of suicide and appropriate intervention. These communities include Ombudsmen and family

members, defense counsels, transitional personnel unit staff, and instructors in Navy schoolhouses.

The Sailor Assistance and Intercept for Life (SAIL) Program is an intervention approach to support a

Sailor during the critical 90-day period following a suicide-related behavior. SAIL provides care

coordination, regular telephone check-ins, and suicide assessments for Sailors with a reported suicidal

ideation or suicide attempt. Services include risk assessment, planning and care coordination.

The Navy Reserve Psychological Health Outreach Program (PHOP) was established in 2008 by the

Bureau of Medicine and Surgery to ensure that Reserve Sailors and their eligible family members have

full access to appropriate psychological health care services, to increase resilience, and to facilitate

recovery, which is essential to maintaining a ready Navy Reserve. Over the past year, quality

improvements were made to the program. The most significant improvements include development of a

screening tool, utilization of electronic survey collection and case management systems, development of

the Resiliency Check-in Process and 360 Degree Check-in Process, and establishment of satellite offices.

33

The 360 Degree Check-in Process is another proactive, non-stigmatizing strategy in which all Sailors

receive PHOP outreach and complete the electronic Behavioral Health Screening (eBHS) during the most

vulnerable milestones and events in their career. Some of these milestones include outreach for all

Sailors new to the NOSC/Unit, pre/post deployment, birth of a new child, marriage, loss of a loved one,

and retirement/discharge. This process has helped normalize the involvement of and exposure to mental

health services from the beginning of a Sailor’s career. This process was initiated in April of 2017 and

data to support the effectiveness will be presented later in CY18.

Similar services are available to the active duty component at Medical Treatment Facilities or via

embedded Mental Health Providers.

Operational Tempo

Through development and implementation of the Optimized Fleet Response Plan (OFRP), USFF has

stabilized deployment lengths at about seven months as shown in Figure (47), below. Based on feedback

from Sailors, this stabilization has been recognized and positively received, and surveys indicate it is a

contributing factor to higher retention.

Figure 47 - Average Deployment Lengths (2 Year Moving Average; Rotational Surface Warships) 12

Reserve mobilization requirements have been steady over the last three fiscal years. Filling over 81,943

mobilization requirements since 9/11, the Navy Reserve has accounted for approximately 80% of Navy's

individual augments each year since 2012. In FY17, 5,928 Navy Reservists mobilized for at least one day

to execute 2,957 mobilizations supporting Combatant Commanders. The majority of RC mobilizations

over the last 17 years have fallen under 10 U.S.C. §12302 involuntary activation authority, which was

authorized by Presidential Proclamation 7463 of September 14, 2001 “Declaration of National

Emergency by Reason of Certain Terrorist Attacks” (commonly referred to as the “DNE”). The DNE has

been re-authorized by the President every year since and corresponding OCO funding has been the

primary Congressional appropriation supporting these mobilizations. However, the Navy needs to

prepare for the eventual cessation of this mobilization authority via the (DNE) and funding (OCO)

sources. Other voluntary and involuntary activation authorities exist under 10 U.S.C. to facilitate

12 Source: U.S. Fleet Forces Slider Application.

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

10

35

60

85

110

135

160

185

210

235

200

1

200

2

200

3

200

4

200

5

200

6

200

7

200

8

200

9

201

0

201

1

201

2

201

3

201

4

201

5

201

6

201

7

201

8

201

9

202

0

Av

era

ge

Ro

tatio

na

l Un

its

Dep

loyed

Av

era

ge D

ays D

ep

loyed

Fiscal YearAverage Days Deployed Average Rotational Units Deployed

Projected Performance

34

continued access to RC resources for operational support. In 2017, Navy mobilized Reserve Sailors

under 10 U.S.C. §12304a authority to support hurricane relief operations. Additionally, some RC units

have mobilized for preplanned missions in support of Combatant Commanders for non-contingency

operations under 10 U.S.C. §12304b. But most non-OCO operational support is still provided by Reserve

Sailors volunteering to serve on additional active duty orders under 10 U.S.C. §12301(d) authority. On

any given day, nearly 10% of the entire population of our part-time Selected Reserve (SELRES) Sailors is

on orders providing operational support to the AC, which equated to over 1.12 million man-days of

support in FY17. The AC can document its need for continued support by the RC by programming

requirements appropriately into Navy’s base budget across the FYDP to ensure such cost-effective

support is sustained into the post-OCO future.

Figure 48 - Average FY01-FY18 RC Mobilizations & Volunteer Percentage

Behaviors

Primary Prevention and Culture of Excellence

In an effort to establish a shared understanding and approach for addressing workforce readiness from a

more holistic perspective, the Navy has developed an overarching plan for our prevention efforts, with

specific focus on building capacity for Primary Prevention. Primary Prevention involves the

implementation of programs, practices, and policies that prevent the onset of destructive behaviors

through a proactive, population-based approach. While response efforts are critical and will remain an

integral component for strategies addressing the welfare of the Navy workforce, a comprehensive

prevention system that provides the key principles and approach for development and implementation of

resources and tools to get to the left of mental, physical, and behavioral health issues will provide an

avenue for reducing risk factors and increasing protective factors throughout Sailors’ careers.

To that end, the Navy established a 4-Star Flag Officer Culture of Excellence Board of Governance

chaired by the Chief of Naval Operations to define and align our efforts to address the full spectrum of

behaviors. We want to establish a culture of excellence vice just a pass/fail mentality. Our efforts will

focus on the need for data sharing, simplified responses to leading indicators of destructive behaviors, and

continued focus on resilience through persistent deckplate leadership, peer support, promoting strong

family bonds, support services, and a sense of purpose and belonging.

717

9,504 9,693

4,106

4,768

5,773 5,696

4,993

5,801 6,237

3,549

3,657 4,135

2,926 2,533 2,975 2,957

66% 73%

90% 87% 89%84% 85% 83%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

-

2,000

4,000

6,000

8,000

10,000

12,000

2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018

Volu

nte

er %

Nu

mb

er o

f R

C S

ail

ors

35

The 21st Century Sailor Office (N17) has initiated a pilot to better understand the contributing or leading

factors to incidents of counterproductive workplace behavior (CWB). The working group and pilot will

consider aspects of suicide, sexual assault, alcohol abuse as well as other CWBs. Data science and the

Army Analytic Group’s (AAG) Personnel Event Data Environment (PDE) are being used to gain new

insights and improve our current prevention efforts. A critical desired outcome of this pilot is the

development and demonstration of a Commander’s Risk Mitigation Dashboard (CRMD), which will be a

Common Operating Picture that informs leadership of potential CWB risks and trends identified from

headquarters to the unit level, and each command level in between. This is essential to operational

readiness.

The approach used for the CRMD will be informed by a Technical, Organizational, and Behavioral

Indicators (TOBI) algorithm that was initially developed by Commander, Submarine Force Atlantic

(COMSUBLANT) and is used by the Navy's submarine community. The TOBI integrates a variety of

individual and submarine-level data to identify areas that need improvement / command emphasis to

prevent higher risk submarines from "steering into danger" based on crew operational and behavioral

indicators. The pilot will learn from TOBI, scale to the Fleet and apply its intent and methodology to

address the following technological gaps: the ability to incorporate high-confidence prescriptive

protective factors to reduce the number of CWB personnel incidents at the unit level and the ability to

visually assess, evaluate, and display indicators and risk factors via a comprehensive commander's risk

reduction dashboard.

Finally, another center of gravity is sustained leadership emphasis on appropriate behavior by

Commanders down to front line supervisors. Leaders are central in establishing a climate of dignity,

respect, and environmental expectations. Their engagement and positive example reinforce what “right”

looks like and help prevent unacceptable behavior, such as sexual assault, from occurring.

Sexual Harassment

In 2016 the Office of People Analytics (OPA) conducted the Workplace and Gender Relations Survey of

Active Duty Members (WGRA), which was released with the Department of Defense (DoD) FY16

Annual Report on Sexual Assault in the Military. The survey indicates that we are making progress in

our efforts to build and sustain a culture intolerance of sexual assault and sexual harassment. We believe

that awareness and prevention efforts have resulted in more Sailors coming forward to report instances of

sexual harassment. There is a relationship between sexual assault and sexual harassment - data shows

that female Sailors who have experienced sexual harassment in the last year are 15 times more likely to

indicate they have experienced sexual assault in the same timeframe, with male Sailors being 42 times

more likely.

During FY17 there were 139 formal reports of sexual harassment with 99 substantiated, 35

unsubstantiated, and five pending. The perceived barriers to reporting sexual harassment are largely

attributed to individuals believing the incident would not be taken seriously, fear of reprisal, and lack of

privacy/confidentiality. We continue to work to eliminate these barriers and close this “reporting gap”

while fostering an environment of dignity and respect.

Through the first three quarters of FY18, there have been 225 formal reports made, with 98 substantiated.

This data cannot be accurately compared to previous fiscal years due to a significant change in the

method in which FY18 data is now being collected. Incidents involving multiple alleged offenders and/or

36

complainants are now treated separately as multiple reports (i.e., if one offender sexually harasses two

complainants, this is now tracked as two separate reports vice previously being tracked as one).

DoD Instruction 1020.03, “Harassment Prevention and Response in the Armed Forces,” released in

February, 2018, established a comprehensive policy on harassment for service members by explicitly

categorizing sexual harassment, discriminatory harassment, hazing, and bullying as types of harassment.

Figure 49 - Sexual Harassment Formal Reports (Active)

Sexual Assault

Efforts to prevent sexual assault continue through a variety of actions. Leading among these actions was

the use of a metrics-based, data science approach to better understand where sexual assaults occur, the

nature of those incidents, and the rate at which they occur. Navy created targeted prevention tactics,

focusing on platforms, units, genders, and geographic location. These micro-level prevention efforts

address issues and risk factors that Sailors see every day, as opposed to generalized areas of concern that

many Sailors may not relate to. As knowledge of the circumstances surrounding these assaults increases,

the Navy will be better positioned to identify leading indicators and risk factors, and to target prevention

efforts and accurately focus action and policy.

Determining the actual incidence of sexual assaults is estimated by using survey questions. Results from

the 2016 Workplace and Gender Relations survey of Active Duty (WGRA) indicated that prevalence of

sexual assaults is down from 6.5% to 5.1% for Navy women and down from 1.5% to 0.9% for Navy men

(this equates to roughly 5,300 Sailors) having experienced some form of sexual assault, as defined by the

Uniform Code of Military Justice. For women, this represents a statistically significant decrease in sexual

assault prevalence from the 2014 survey. Even with increased reporting, most sexual assaults do not yet

result in a formal report (restricted or unrestricted) and a gap remains between reporting and prevalence of

sexual assault. The 2018 WGRA survey will be conducted in the September 2018 timeframe with results

to be released with the FY18 Annual Report on Sexual Assault in the Military.13

13 Source: PL 111-383 of January 7, 2011, Section 1631 (a), as amended by National Defense Authorization Act

FY17 (PL 114-328) Section 544 (1), requires a report to House and Senate Armed Services Committees by the

Secretary of Defense no later than 1 April of the following year (i.e., FY18 data will be released by April 1, 2019).

48.2

19.8

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

FY10 FY11 FY12 FY13 FY14 FY15 FY16 FY17 FY18*

# o

f R

ep

ort

s P

er

100,0

00

Mem

bers

Reported Reported Avg Substantiated Substantiated Avg* Data is unannualized, includes first three quarters of FY

37

Data shows a continued increase in reporting, further reducing the gap between incidents and reports. We

recognize the need to focus more on increasing male victim reporting and improving response, and will

continue to work to remove barriers to reporting and improve male-specific support. Efforts are also

ongoing to eliminate reprisal, ostracism, and maltreatment towards victims of sexual assault, first

responders, witnesses and those who intervened on their behalf.

Updated information on sexual assaults in FY17 was released in coordination with the Department of

Defense FY17 Annual Report on Sexual Assault in the Military. Navy experienced an increase in the

number of reports of sexual assault (1,450 to 1,585) compared to FY16, continuing the trend of increased

reporting that started in FY12. As with other destructive behaviors, reports of sexual assault are the result

of various factors and may not necessarily represent increased incidents of sexual assault. Many factors

contributed to changes in reporting, including additional training, education, awareness campaigns, and

improvements to victim support services. This higher reporting may indicate that more victims feel

comfortable to seek help and engage with the investigative process and justice system. Updated

information on sexual assaults in FY18 will be released in coordination with the DoD FY18 Annual

Report on Sexual Assault in the Military.

Figure 50 - Navy Sexual Assault Trends (Active and Reserve)

Hazing and Bullying

There were 16 reports of hazing through the third quarter of FY18, with eight substantiated. Figure (51)

below reflects the number of Hazing reports per 100,000 Sailors. Navy tracks bullying as a separate

category of behavior from hazing. There were four reported incidents of bullying in FY17, two were

unsubstantiated. Through the third quarter of FY18, there have been four reports of bullying, three of

which were substantiated.

484408

500604 620 578

755

1,158

1,2951,376

1,450 1,585

0

200

400

600

800

1,000

1,200

1,400

1,600

CY06 FY07 FY08 FY09 FY10 FY11 FY12 FY13 FY14 FY15 FY16 FY17

Nu

mb

er

of

Rep

ort

s

Navy Unrestricted Reports Navy Restricted Reports

38

Figure 51 - Hazing Reports (Active and Reserve) Figure 52 - Discrimination Reports (Active and Reserve)

Discrimination

There were 95 formal reports of discrimination in FY17 with five substantiated, 78 unsubstantiated, and

12 pending. There have been 55 reports made through the third quarter of FY18, with three substantiated.

This data cannot be accurately compared to previous fiscal years due to a significant change in the

method in which FY18 data is now being collected. Incidents involving multiple alleged offenders and/or

complainants are now treated separately as multiple reports (i.e., if one offender sexually harasses two

complainants, this is now tracked as two separate reports vice previously being tracked as one).

Command Climate Assessment

Commanders, Commanding Officers, and Officers-in-Charge are required to complete a command

climate assessment (CCA) within 90 days after assumption of command, and every 9-12 months

thereafter as follow-up assessments during their command tenure. FY14 was the first year of tracking

Navy-wide compliance. FY17 CCA compliance was 96% (1,627 of 1,698 commands) and Enhanced

Commander Accountability (ECA) compliance was 88% (1,491 of 1,698 commands). The cumulative

FY18 CCA compliance is 45% (767 of 1,698 commands) and ECA compliance is 46% (782 of 1,698

commands) through the second quarter of FY18. We continue to compile compliance data through the

third quarter of FY18.

Figure 53 - CCA and ECA Completion Rates (*FY18 Data Through December 31, 2017)

4.7

2.60

4

8

12

Pe

r 1

00

,00

0 m

em

be

rsHazing

Hazing Reports Avg Reported

Substantiated Avg Substantiated

24.9

1.6

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

FY10 FY12 FY14 FY16 FY18*Pe

r 1

00

,00

0 m

em

be

rs

Discrimination

Reported Avg Reported

Substantiated Avg Substantiated

96%

24%

88%

16%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

FY14 FY15 FY16 FY17 FY18*

CCA

ECA

39

Alcohol / Drug Abuse

The Navy Drug Detection and Deterrence and Navy Alcohol Abuse Prevention programs support

enhanced Fleet and personnel readiness by reducing the risk of substance abuse to our Sailors. Since the

FY12 expansion of the prescription drug testing panel,14 prescription drugs have become an increasingly

large component of overall reported positive results. In FY17, there was a slight decline in prescription

drug positive results and an increase in marijuana and cocaine positive results.

Navy’s “Prescription for Discharge” campaign started in FY12, educating Sailors on the proper use of

prescription drugs, proper disposal, and the consequences of misuse or abuse. Other tools and resources

are available for medical providers to help prescribe drugs to those who need them and minimize the

chance for abuse by those who do not.

The number of Driving Under the Influence (DUI) reports and other alcohol-related reports15 has dropped

by approximately 47% since FY06. This drop has also been seen in other statistics related to alcohol

abuse, such as a decrease in members separated for alcohol rehabilitation failure. These trends indicate a

positive effect of Navy’s efforts to deglamorize irresponsible alcohol usage.

Figure 54 - Positive Drug Test Reports (Active and Reserve)16 Figure 55 - DUI Reports (*FY18 Data Through 31 March)

14 Post-expansion, all samples are tested for prescription drugs (vice 20% of samples) and two additional

prescription drugs were added to the list of prescription drugs each sample is tested against. 15 Including civilian and military arrests, command-related alcohol incidents, and command- or self-referrals. 16 Source: OPNAV N170 (ADMITS data).

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

Rep

ort

s p

er

10

0,0

00

Sa

ilo

rs

Prescription Rates Other than Prescription

Prescription Drug Testing Expanded 1,273

1,379

1,200

1,129

985

897

460

0

200

400

600

800

1,000

1,200

1,400

40

Safety

Across the Navy, fatalities and accidents during the beginning of FY18 have maintained a relatively

stable trend as compared to FY17. There have been six motorcycle-related fatalities in FY18, a slight

decrease from the seven fatalities in FY17 during the comparable time period. Personal motor vehicle-

related fatalities remained the same at 14 between FY17 and FY18. While only a small percentage of the

Navy rides a motorcycle, their fatality rate exceeds this population percentage. The Navy will continue

our emphasis on requiring specialized training for motorcycles and sport bikes.17

Figure 56 - Motorcycle-Related Fatalities Figure 57 - Personal Motor Vehicle Fatalities

Figure 58 - Off Duty / Recreational Fatalities Figure 59 - Class "A" On-duty Mishaps

In addition to vehicle accidents the Navy has also experienced seven “Class A” on-duty mishaps thus far

in FY18, which indicates decreasing trends from previous years (11 in FY17 at this point in the year, 11

in FY 16). Off-duty/recreational fatalities continue to decrease with two in FY18 compared to ten in

FY16 and 11 in FY17.

17 Approximately 10% of Sailors are motorcycle riders, but 33% of all Sailor deaths related to motor vehicles

happen to motorcyclists.

AVG: 15.1

0.0

1.0

2.0

3.0

4.0

5.0

6.0

7.0

0

5

10

15

20

25

200

9

201

0

201

1

201

2

201

3

201

4

201

5

201

6

201

7

201

8

Rate

/ 100K

Peo

ple

per Y

ear

Nu

mb

er

of

Fata

liti

es

Fatality Numbers Fatality Rate

AVG: 30.9

0.0

5.0

10.0

15.0

20.0

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

200

9

201

0

201

1

201

2

201

3

201

4

201

5

201

6

201

7

201

8

Rate

/ 100K

Peo

ple

per

Year

Nu

mb

er

of

Fata

liti

es

Fatality Numbers Fatality Rate

AVG: 11.0

0.0

2.0

4.0

6.0

8.0

10.0

0

5

10

15

20

25

200

6

200

7

200

8

200

9

201

0

201

1

201

2

201

3

201

4

201

5

201

6

201

7

201

8

Rate

/ 100K

Peo

ple

per Y

ear

Nu

mb

er

of

Fata

liti

es

Fatality Numbers

0.0

5.0

10.0

15.0

20.0

25.0

30.0

0

10

20

30

40

50

200

52

00

62

00

72

00

82

00

92

01

02

01

12

01

22

01

32

01

42

01

52

01

62

01

72

01

8

Rate

/ 100k P

eo

ple

per y

ear

Nu

mb

er

of

Mis

hap

s

Mishap Numbers Mishap Rate

41

Figure 60 - On-duty Fatalities

Transition Assistance

The completion rate of Transition Goals, Plans, Success (GPS) is a valuable metric to track as it

demonstrates the Navy’s commitment to prepare Sailors to successfully return and reintegrate into the

civilian workforce after service to their nation. The DoD’s compliance goal for the Vow to Hire Heroes

(VOW) Act is 85% and Navy compliance has shown a steady increase since adding transition compliance

to the “Golden Anchor” Retention Excellence Award in FY16. In FY15, the Navy Retention Monitoring

System (NRMS) Analytics and the Career Information Management System (CIMS) transition reporting

module came online, which allow Navy commands to track and monitor Transition GPS compliance.

These reports provide the capability to track, report, and analyze active and reserve, officer and enlisted

transition compliance down to the Unit Identification Code (UIC) level. Additionally, DoDs Transition to

Veterans Program Office (TVPO) changed from reporting VOW based on attendance data to only using

the DD Form 2958 data received by the Defense Manpower Data Center (DMDC) to calculate verified

VOW Act compliance. In FY16, DoD consolidated all TAP forms into a single electronic form to

simplify the reporting process. In FY17, the Naval Audit Service began a study of the Navy’s Transition

GPS and the subsequent recommendations include providing better quality assurance on form completion,

implementing periodic spot checks on data for form accuracy, continual training for Career Counselors,

and updating the DoD Instruction with these recommendations. Internal data analysis indicates

compliance issues may be more related to missing form entries than Sailors who are not participating in

the transition program. The completion rates through April 2018 are 92% for AC, 77% RC, and 90%

overall.

Figure 61 - Transition Goals, Plans, Success (GPS) Compliance Rates (*as of 31 Jan)

23 23 22 17 16 15 7 10 17 12 10 4 20 80

5

10

15

20

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018

Rate

/ 100k P

ers

on

s

per y

ear

Nu

mb

er

of

Fa

taliti

es

Fatality Numbers Fatality Rate

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

FY13 FY14 FY15 FY16 FY17 FY18*

Active Reserve Overall

42

MPT&E 2018 Goals

Man the Fleet

Sailor 2025

43

Transformation

44

Future of the Officer Corps

Innovative management of personnel will be increasingly critical in enabling a future force. Like the new

Fleet we are building, our personnel system must be more adaptive and tougher in the face of labor

market realities and the demands on our force of renewed Great Power competition. Since officer

personnel processes are governed by law in the Defense Officer Personnel Management Act, they

typically take more time than the policy changes we are making for our enlisted Sailors. We’ve been

chipping away at changes and have had some successes in recent legislative cycles, to include gaining

approval for 40-year career paths for selected officer designators and the ability to conduct early

retirement boards for O5 and O6 with no minimum quota, which will allow for a small number of

directed early retirements for those who are not performing to their potential. But this year, we were able

to lay out an overall vision with our Sister Services, OSD and Congress that expresses the totality of

where we need to go in order to build the officer corps to support the Navy the Nation needs.

Figure 62 - Future Office Corps Concept

Accomplishing these objectives requires that we transition from a “conveyor belt” career model to one

more capable of quickly matching and rewarding talent-to-task. Historically, we have largely limited our

all-volunteer force recruiting efforts to entry level positions. This model will continue to serve us well for

producing warriors and leaders in our traditional “core” warfighting areas, but it is clear those core areas

may need augmentation – based either on mission specifics, time, or technology. Therefore, we must

provide a mechanism to attract experienced specialists to join our team, reducing the time to develop

senior technical experts and leaders. By leveraging direct accessions from commercial industry or

government sources, or rapid return paths for prior-service and Reserve Component personnel, we will

enhance our ability to rapidly acquire highly-trained and experienced professionals who possess unique

skillsets. Toward that end, we would be well-served by minor modifications to the current officer

personnel management framework while maintaining the core attributes of DOPMA, which have

preserved a youthful and vigorous officer corps, capable of fighting and winning in traditional

warfighting areas.

45

In developing the Future Officer Corps, Navy envisions a combination of the “Up and Out,” “Up and

Stay,” and “Up and Bring Back” constructs with a path for directly hiring experts (see Figure (62) above).

It leverages authority enacted in the FY17 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) that would allow

40-year careers for certain officer designators – for instance, in the acquisition field, where we select

some officers to this specialty after their first command tour (O5).

“Up and Out” remains the model that will be used for most of the Navy officer corps. The major

tenants of the current DOPMA structure are sound and will continue to serve us well in core

warfighting areas. We expect the majority of the Unrestricted Line (URL) officers in the Navy

would continue follow today’s “Up and Out” model until separation, retirement, or a transition to

a new path.

“Up and Stay” would allow a limited number of officers with specialized skill sets to either

remain longer in specific technical or non-command jobs without upward mobility or to return at

the same or higher pay grade depending on skills and desires. For example, the O4 Navy Pilot

who desires to continue flying but does not desire to pursue command or the research expert who

remains on a particular project at the Office of Naval Research (ONR) could stay in those roles

for longer periods without being forced out.

“Up and Bring Back” refers to rapidly bringing people back into the Service from civilian life

when their post-Service civilian job in industry has given them valuable and current skills, such

as cyber or artificial intelligence, or from the Reserve Component with needed skills such as

those learned by flying for an airline. This would require a simpler, more fluid way of moving

between the Active and Reserve Components—sometimes referred to as “permeability” between

the components.

Multiple career paths leveraging lateral re-entry and AC/RC permeability may entice a greater number of

our officers to stay Navy - more options mean more retention choices and more paths for a successful

career in the service. Broadening statutory authority could permit the Secretary of the Navy to laterally

appoint officers to any designator or specialty in any grade up to paygrade O6, and it would allow Navy

to recruit high-tech, low-capacity officer specialties such as cyber, information technology, artificial

intelligence, robotics, and acquisition. Pursuing options to afford flexibility through authorities that offer

"Up and Stay" and “Up and Bring Back” models will optimize our capability to concurrently retain

critical proficiency and expertise.

To recognize our best and fully-qualified, merit reordering of promotion boards would value talent and

skills over seniority. Promoting more quickly to the next higher rank, with receipt of commensurate

compensation, based upon recognition of sustained superior performance would offer a tangible and

desirable retention incentive for the officer corps.

Finally, we are also looking at options to give more flexibility with respect to certain requirements for

time-in-grade and numbers of “looks” for promotion.

46

This page intentionally left blank

47

Appendix – Additional Charts and Data

Personnel Manning

Figure 63 - Journeyman and Supervisor Experience at Sea

Management

Figure 64 - Rating Imbalances (Active Component)

Note: Students in “A” school (but not RTC) are spread into ratings via Program Enlisted For Code (PEFC), which

has 7% error rate. Training and compressed ratings are not shown in the chart or table.

75%

80%

85%

90%

95%

100%

105%

110%

% F

IT /

FIL

L

E7-E9 Fit E7-E9 Fill E5-E6 Fit E5-E6 Fill

E7-E9 Ave Fit E7-E9 Ave Fill E5-E6 Ave Fit E5-E6 Ave Fill

% M

an

ne

d

48

Figure 65 - Rating Imbalances (SELRES)

Figure 66 - Obligated Service Profile of Sea Duty Sailors with 8 Years of Service or Less

AW

O (

-35

)A

E (

-61

)

UT

(-6

2)

CU

(-5

)

IT (

-13

3)

LS

(-1

28

)

HT

(-2

7)

SW

(-1

1)

AM

E (

-1)

EQ

(0

)

CM

(3

5)

OS

(3

8)

MR

(8

)P

S (

26

)

AB

H (

31

)G

SM

(9

)

GS

(-2

)

LN

(-3

0)

CT

T (

-38

)

EO

(-1

09

)C

E (

-50

)

AM

(-3

7)

BU

(-7

1)

PR

(-5

)

AO

(-3

)E

M (

-7)

MN

(2

3)

SO

(-5

1) AF

(-2

)

MM

(1

29

)

ET

(2

76

)

FC

(1

54

)

ET

V (

-11

7)

MM

W (

-14

)E

TR

(-7

9)

GS

E (

-36

)

MM

A (

-11

)

AW

F (

-96

)

SB

(-1

6)

HM

(-6

38

)

IS (

-30

8)

EA

(-1

0)

BM

(-1

90

)

RP

(-1

3)

CT

I (-

11

)

AD

(-6

)

AT

(-2

)M

C (

-1)

ND

(0

)U

C (

0)

CS

(4

)M

A (

78

)Q

M (

14

)

CT

R (

14

)A

Z (

6)

YN

(7

5)

AB

F (

8)

EO

D (

2)

ST

G (

3)

AG

(2

2)

SH

(8

)E

N (

11

9)

CT

N (

55

)D

C (

16

)

GM

(1

65

)

ST

S (

8)

AB

(2

)

0%

50%

100%

150%

200%

250%%

Ma

nn

ed

Aviation Ratings SeaBee Ratings CG Intensive Ratings All Other Ratings

0

5000

10000

15000

20000

25000

30000

35000

40000

45000

2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024

Nu

mb

er

of

sa

ilo

rs

Year 'soft' service obligation expires

Colors indicate Sailors with an active-duty service date in the year shown.

2018

2017

2013

2012

2014

2015

2011

2016

49

Figure 67 - Unrestricted Line Officer Current/Projected Inventory Above/Below Funded Billets

Figure 68 - Restricted Line and Staff Officer Current/Projected Inventory Above/Below Funded Billets

-800

-600

-400

-200

0

200

400

600

800

1,000

1,200

1,400

ENS LTJG LT LCDR CDR CAPT

# A

bo

ve

/Be

low

Fu

nd

ed

Bil

lets

FY18 Δ FY19 Δ FY20 Δ

-800

-600

-400

-200

0

200

400

600

800

ENS LTJG LT LCDR CDR CAPT

# A

bo

ve

/Be

low

Fu

nd

ed

Bil

lets

FY18 Δ FY19 Δ FY20 Δ

50

SELRES Officer Community Health Overview

Figure 69 - Officer Community Imbalances, by Designator (SELRES)

Unrestricted Line Officer Community Overviews

Figures (70-74) indicate the aggregate number of officers in each of the unrestricted line communities.

The figures are the length of service charts, showing the count of every officer of a given rank and time in

service, plotted against a line showing the number of officers actually authorized.

Figure 70 - Aviation Warfare Inventory vs. Authorizations

11

35

(-5

3)

11

25

(-6

4)

11

15

(-8

2)

13

X5

(-5

8)

11

45

(0)

17

15

(-6

)

15

25

(-4

)

18

25

(-5

)

18

15

(-4

)

18

35

(-2

4)

18

05

(1)

16

55

(4)

14

45

(20

)

12

05

(11

)

15

15

(12

)

16

65

(75

)

15

05

(6)

25

05

(-3

3)

41

05

(3)

51

05

(36

)

31

05

(13

5)

21

05

(-9

1)

29

05

(-1

52

)

23

05

(-2

1)

22

05

(-1

2)

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

120%

140%

160%

180%

200%

220%%

Ma

nn

ed

URL RL Staff (non-Medical) Medical

0

200

400

600

800

1,000

1,200

0 30

# O

ffic

ers

CAPT CDR LCDR LT LTJG

ENS Pending Losses Pending Gains FY-18 OPA Milestone Reqs

Number of SELRES

designators by category:

Sep. 2014 Sep. 2015 Sep. 2016 Sep. 2017 Mar 2018

Over-manned >102% 12 14 10 10 8

Balanced (100% ±2%) 5 3 3 6 6

Under-manned < 98% 8 8 11 9 11

Number of SELRES

designators by category:

Sep. 2014 Sep. 2015 Sep. 2016 Apr. 2017

Over-manned >102% 12 14 10 8

Balanced (100% ±2%) 5 3 3 6

Under-manned < 98% 8 8 11 10

Number of SELRES

designators by category:

Sep. 2014 Sep. 2015 Sep. 2016 Apr. 2017

Over-manned >102% 12 14 10 8

Balanced (100% ±2%) 5 3 3 6

Under-manned < 98% 8 8 11 10

Number of SELRES

designators by category:

Sep. 2014 Sep. 2015 Sep. 2016 Apr. 2017

Over-manned >102% 12 14 10 8

Balanced (100% ±2%) 5 3 3 6

Under-manned < 98% 8 8 11 10

Number of SELRES

designators by category:

Sep. 2014 Sep. 2015 Sep. 2016 Apr. 2017

Over-manned >102% 12 14 10 8

Balanced (100% ±2%) 5 3 3 6

Under-manned < 98% 8 8 11 10

Number of SELRES

designators by category:

Sep. 2014 Sep. 2015 Sep. 2016 Apr. 2017

Over-manned >102% 12 14 10 8

Balanced (100% ±2%) 5 3 3 6

Under-manned < 98% 8 8 11 10

Number of SELRES

designators by category:

Sep. 2014 Sep. 2015 Sep. 2016 Apr. 2017

Over-manned >102% 12 14 10 8

Balanced (100% ±2%) 5 3 3 6

Under-manned < 98% 8 8 11 10

Number of SELRES

designators by category:

Sep. 2014 Sep. 2015 Sep. 2016 Apr. 2017

Over-manned >102% 12 14 10 8

Balanced (100% ±2%) 5 3 3 6

Under-manned < 98% 8 8 11 10

Number of SELRES

designators by category:

Sep. 2014 Sep. 2015 Sep. 2016 Apr. 2017

Over-manned >102% 12 14 10 8

Balanced (100% ±2%) 5 3 3 6

Under-manned < 98% 8 8 11 10

Number of SELRES

designators by category:

Sep. 2014 Sep. 2015 Sep. 2016 Apr. 2017

Over-manned >102% 12 14 10 8

Balanced (100% ±2%) 5 3 3 6

Under-manned < 98% 8 8 11 10

Number of SELRES

designators by category:

Sep. 2014 Sep. 2015 Sep. 2016 Apr. 2017

Over-manned >102% 12 14 10 8

Balanced (100% ±2%) 5 3 3 6

Under-manned < 98% 8 8 11 10

Number of SELRES

designators by category:

Sep. 2014 Sep. 2015 Sep. 2016 Apr. 2017

Over-manned >102% 12 14 10 8

Balanced (100% ±2%) 5 3 3 6

Under-manned < 98% 8 8 11 10

Number of SELRES

designators by category:

Sep. 2014 Sep. 2015 Sep. 2016 Apr. 2017

Over-manned >102% 12 14 10 8

Balanced (100% ±2%) 5 3 3 6

Under-manned < 98% 8 8 11 10

Number of SELRES

designators by category:

Sep. 2014 Sep. 2015 Sep. 2016 Apr. 2017

Over-manned >102% 12 14 10 8

Balanced (100% ±2%) 5 3 3 6

Under-manned < 98% 8 8 11 10

Number of SELRES

designators by category:

Sep. 2014 Sep. 2015 Sep. 2016 Apr. 2017

Over-manned >102% 12 14 10 8

Balanced (100% ±2%) 5 3 3 6

Under-manned < 98% 8 8 11 10

51

Figure 71 - Surface Warfare Inventory vs. Authorizations

Figure 72 - Submarine Warfare Inventory vs. Authorizations

0

200

400

600

800

1,000

1,200

0 30

# O

ffic

ers

CAPT CDR LCDR LT

LTJG ENS Pending Losses Pending Gains

RL Options / SWO(N) FY18 OPA Milestone Reqs

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

450

0 30

# O

ffic

ers

CAPT CDR LCDR LT

LTJG ENS Pending Losses Pending Gains

FY18 OPA Milestone Reqs

52

Figure 73 - Naval Special Warfare Inventory vs. Authorizations

Figure 74 - EOD Warfare Inventory vs. Authorizations

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

0 30

# O

ffic

ers

CAPT CDR LCDR LT

LTJG ENS Pending Losses Pending Gains

FY 18 OPA Milestone Reqs

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

0 30

# O

ffic

ers

CAPT CDR LCDR LT

LTJG ENS Pending Losses Pending Gains

FY18 OPA Milestone Reqs

53

Figure 75 - Manning Actions Taken through 31 March 2018

Figure 76 - Operating Model To Be

54

This page intentionally left blank

55

Acronyms

AC – Active Component

ASVAB – Armed Services Vocational

Aptitude Battery

AvB – Aviation Bonus

AvIP – Aviation Incentive Pay

BBD – Billet Based Distribution

BCA – Body Composition Assessment

BL – Block Learning

CCA – Command Climate Assessment

CWB – Counterproductive Workplace

Behavior

DEOCS – DEOMI Organizational Climate

Survey

DEOMI – Defense Equal Opportunity

Management Institute

DEP – Delayed Entry Program

DH – Department Head

DOPMA – Defense Officer Personnel

Management Act

DUI – Driving Under the Influence

EAOS – End of Active Obligated Service

EFM – Exceptional Family Member

HYT – High Year Tenure

IA – Individual’s Account

IT – Information Technology

FDNF – Forward Deployed Naval Forces

FTS – Full-Time Support

FY – Fiscal Year

LCS – Littoral Combat Ship

LPR – Legal Permanent Resident

MAP – Meritorious Advancement Program

MEPS – Military Entrance Processing

Station

MNCC – MyNavy Career Center

MNP – MyNavy Portal

MPT&E – Manpower, Personnel, Training

& Education

NEC – Navy Enlisted Classification

NOSC – Navy Operational Support Center

NRC – Navy Recruiting Command

NRD – Navy Recruiting District

NTAG – Navy Talent Acquisition Groups

NWAE – Navy Wide Advancement Exam

OFRP – Optimized Fleet Response Plan

OPHOLD – Operational Hold

PCS – Permanent Change of Station

PFA – Physical Fitness Assessment

PHA – Physical Health Assessment

PHOP – Psychological Health Outreach

Program

PRIMS – Physical Readiness Information

Management System

PRD – Projected Rotation Date

PRT – Physical Readiness Test

PSI – Personal Security Investigation

RC – Reserve Component

RC2AC – Reserve Component to Active

Component

RC2C – Reserve Component to Sea

RCI – Resiliency Check-in

RRL – Ready Relevant Learning

RTC – Recruit Training Command

SAPR – Sexual Assault Prevention and

Response

SELRES – Selected Reserve

TAD – Temporary Additional Duty

TOC – Total Ownership Costs

TPPH – Transient, Patients, Prisoners and

Holdees

URL – Unrestricted Line

56

Table of Figures Figure 1 - Comparison of Military and Civilian Pay Growth ....................................................................... 1

Figure 2 - Long Term Unemployment Forecast ........................................................................................... 1

Figure 3 - Firms with Job Openings, Jobs with Few or No Qualified Applicants ........................................ 2

Figure 4 - Average Time to Fill a Job Opening ............................................................................................ 2

Figure 5 - Working Age Population Growth (Projected) .............................................................................. 3

Figure 6 - Overall Economic Health Trends Correlated with Reenlistment Rate ......................................... 3

Figure 7 - Aggregate Enlisted Sea Duty Manning (Fit/Fill) ......................................................................... 4

Figure 8 - Critical and Non-critical NEC Fit ................................................................................................ 5

Figure 9 - Projected Sea Fill ......................................................................................................................... 6

Figure 10 – Sea Duty Fill and Individuals Account Execution .................................................................... 7

Figure 11 - Cumulative Readiness Moves .................................................................................................... 8

Figure 12 Cumulative Rating Manning Imbalances ..................................................................................... 8

Figure 13 - Sailors’ Rating Manning Balance Over Time (± 4 Month Smoothed Average) ........................ 9

Figure 14 - AC Advancement Opportunity E4 – E6 (including MAP) ...................................................... 10

Figure 15 - SELRES Advancement Opportunity E4 – E6 .......................................................................... 10

Figure 16 - AC MAP Distribution by Paygrade ......................................................................................... 11

Figure 17 - AC Advancement Opportunity E7 – E9 ................................................................................... 11

Figure 18 - SELRES Advancement Opportunity E7 – E9 .......................................................................... 12

Figure 19 - Enlisted Paygrade Average Time in Service ............................................................................ 13

Figure 20 - SELRES Enlisted Manning ...................................................................................................... 13

Figure 21 – Aggregate AC Officer Manning, end-of-FY ........................................................................... 14

Figure 22 - AC Officer Manning Afloat ..................................................................................................... 14

Figure 23-AC Officer Manning Ashore ...................................................................................................... 14

Figure 24 - Officer Manning, SELRES ...................................................................................................... 14

Figure 25 - Number of NRDs at 100% of NCO/Application Goals the Day Prior to Mission Day .......... 15

Figure 26 - Joint Advertising, Market Research & Studies (JAMRS) Data ............................................... 15

Figure 27 - AFQT Score Trends ................................................................................................................. 16

Figure 28 - Percentage of Ratings Shipped at Goal (by Rating/Program/Gender) ..................................... 16

Figure 29 - "A" School Cycle Time ............................................................................................................ 17

Figure 30 - Navy Enlisted Supply Chain Efficiency ................................................................................... 18

Figure 31 - Ready Relevant Learning (RRL): Block Learning Stage of Evolution .................................... 19

Figure 32 - New Accession Attrition, Including RTC (% Attrition within First 6 Months) ....................... 20

Figure 33 - Overall Active Component Navy Attrition (Enlisted, First Term of Enlistment) .................... 21

Figure 34 - Historic Enlisted Re-enlistment Rates (Not Counting Extensions) .......................................... 21

Figure 35 - Resignation Rates for Unrestricted Line Lieutenants and Lieutenant Commanders (O3/O4) . 22

Figure 36 - Voluntary Retirement Rates for Unrestricted Line Commanders and Captains (O5/O6) ........ 22

Figure 37 - Cumulative Agreements for Aviation Dept. Head Retention Bonus by Year Group ............... 23

Figure 38 – Aviation Incentive Pay (AvIP) and Aviation Bonus (AvB) Program Changes ....................... 24

Figure 39 - SELRES Enlisted Retention, FY18 YTD................................................................................. 25

Figure 40 - Resignation Rates, SELRES URL (O3/O4) ............................................................................. 25

Figure 41 - Rate of Resignations or Retirements Prior to Statutory Limits, SELRES URL (O5/O6) ........ 25

Figure 42 - Navy Demographics 2013 vs. 2018 vs. National Population ................................................... 27

Figure 43 - Sailor Survey on Work/Life Balance and Family Planning ..................................................... 28

57

Figure 44 - Physical Fitness Pass Rates (Active and Reserve) ................................................................... 29

Figure 45 – Navy Holistic Approach to Suicide Prevention ....................................................................... 30

Figure 46 - Number and Rate of Suicides, Navy and Comparable Civilian Population ............................. 31

Figure 47 - Average Deployment Lengths (2 Year Moving Average; Rotational Surface Warships) ....... 33

Figure 48 - Average FY01-FY18 RC Mobilizations & Volunteer Percentage ........................................... 34

Figure 49 - Sexual Harassment Formal Reports (Active) ........................................................................... 36

Figure 50 - Navy Sexual Assault Trends (Active and Reserve) ................................................................. 37

Figure 51 - Hazing Reports (Active and Reserve) ...................................................................................... 38

Figure 52 - Discrimination Reports (Active and Reserve) .......................................................................... 38

Figure 53 - CCA and ECA Completion Rates (*FY18 Data Through December 31, 2017) ...................... 38

Figure 54 - Positive Drug Test Reports (Active and Reserve) .................................................................... 39

Figure 55 - DUI Reports (*FY18 Data Through 31 March) ....................................................................... 39

Figure 56 - Motorcycle-Related Fatalities .................................................................................................. 40

Figure 57 - Personal Motor Vehicle Fatalities ............................................................................................ 40

Figure 58 - Off Duty / Recreational Fatalities ............................................................................................ 40

Figure 59 - Class "A" On-duty Mishaps ..................................................................................................... 40

Figure 60 - On-duty Fatalities ..................................................................................................................... 41

Figure 61 - Transition Goals, Plans, Success (GPS) Compliance Rates (*as of 31 Jan) ............................ 41

Figure 62 - Future Office Corps Concept ................................................................................................... 44

Figure 63 - Journeyman and Supervisor Experience at Sea ........................................................................ 47

Figure 64 - Rating Imbalances (Active Component) .................................................................................. 47

Figure 65 - Rating Imbalances (SELRES) .................................................................................................. 48

Figure 66 - Obligated Service Profile of Sea Duty Sailors with 8 Years of Service or Less ..................... 48

Figure 67 - Unrestricted Line Officer Current/Projected Inventory Above/Below Funded Billets ............ 49

Figure 68 - Restricted Line and Staff Officer Current/Projected Inventory Above/Below Funded Billets 49

Figure 69 - Officer Community Imbalances, by Designator (SELRES)..................................................... 50

Figure 70 - Aviation Warfare Inventory vs. Authorizations ....................................................................... 50

Figure 71 - Surface Warfare Inventory vs. Authorizations ......................................................................... 51

Figure 72 - Submarine Warfare Inventory vs. Authorizations .................................................................... 51

Figure 73 - Naval Special Warfare Inventory vs. Authorizations ............................................................... 52

Figure 74 - EOD Warfare Inventory vs. Authorizations ............................................................................. 52

Figure 75 - Manning Actions Taken through 31 March 2018 .................................................................... 53

Figure 76 - Operating Model To Be............................................................................................................ 53

58

Bibliography Blanchflower, David G. and Andrew T. Levin. "Labor Market Slack and Monetary Policy." National

Bureau of Economic Research, April 2015. <http://www.nber.org/papers/w21094>.

Connor, Katherine. "USS Ronald Reagan bids farewell to SD homeport." San Diego Source. 3 July 2015.

<http://www.sddt.com/News/article.cfm?SourceCode=20150701czj>.

Editorial Board. "Now Hiring: Must Be Willing to Work at Mach 1." Bloomberg View. 25 October 2016.

<https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2016-10-25/now-hiring-must-be-willing-to-work-at-

mach-1>.

Federal Aviation Administration. FAA Boosts Aviation Safety with New Pilot Qualification Standards. 10

Jul 2013. <https://www.faa.gov/news/press_releases/news_story.cfm?newsId=14838>.

James, Deborah Lee. "The US Air Force Is Short 700 Fighter Pilots. Here’s Our Plan to Fix That."

Defense One. 14 July 2016. <http://www.defenseone.com/ideas/2016/07/us-air-force-short-700-

fighter-pilots-our-plan/129907/>.

Morral, Andrew R., et al. Sexual Assault and Sexual Harassment in the U.S. Military, Estimates for

Department of Defense Service Members from 2014 RAND Military Workplace Study. Vol. 2.

Santa Monica: RAND Corporation, 2015.

<http://www.rand.org/pubs/research_reports/RR870z2.html>.

USS George Washington Public Affairs. Hull Swap Begins: George Washington Arrives in San Diego. 10

Aug 2015. <http://www.navy.mil/submit/display.asp?story_id=90548>.

Statement of Rear Admiral Karl O. Thomas, Director, 21st Century Sailor Office, Office of the Chief of

Naval Operations, before the Subcommittee on Economic Opportunity of the House Veterans

Affairs Committee, on Review of the Interagency Transition Assistance Program and the Need

for Enhanced Outcome Measurements, 8 November 2017.

<http://docs.house.gov/meetings/VR/VR10/20171108/106532/HHRG-115-VR10-Wstate-

ThomasR-20171108.pdf >

59

Executive Addendum To assist Navy leaders in explaining MPT&E focus areas, this addendum contains key talking points,

Sailor 2025 accomplishments/initiatives and an MPT&E Sailor 2025 and Transformation list of

references.

Key Talking Points

o Recruiting: Despite an increasingly challenging recruiting environment and a shrinking pool of

qualified applicants, we have been successful in meeting our “Big 5” recruiting goals for 131

consecutive months—a telling indicator of our value proposition. The “Big 5” monthly goals are:

o Active Component (AC) accessions

o AC New Contract Objective (NCO)

o Reserve Component (RC) Non-prior Service (NPS) accessions

o RC NCO

o RC Prior Service (PS) affiliations

NRC has implemented numerous policy-based and resource-based levers to expand our pool of

eligible applicants. These initiatives had a positive effect, but they may not be enough to overcome a

shortfall of recruiters in the field. NRC is at a high risk of not meeting accession mission

requirements in FY19 and early in FY20.

o Retention: Although retention is good overall, we are in a growing Navy. This requires more recruits

and more retained Sailors at a time when the competition for talent is especially keen. It has been

decades since the last period of major personnel growth in our Navy—we need leaders at every level

to influence Sailors to stay Navy. Retention of every capable Sailor will be critical to the operational

readiness of the Navy.

o Fit / Fill: Sea duty Fit was 89.0% and Fill was at 94.7% as of 31 March 2018.

o PCS lead time: Sailors continue to receive orders with an average of six months lead time for PCS

moves, improved from a two-month average in FY17.

o Sailor 2025: A living, breathing set of initiatives aimed at modernizing our personnel management

and training systems to more effectively recruit, train and manage the force of tomorrow while

improving the Navy’s warfighting readiness. It will provide Sailors with the choices, flexibility, and

transparency that they’ve come to expect and already receive from the private sector. It is built on the

three pillars: a modern personnel system, a career learning continuum and career readiness

o Personnel System Modernization: The first pillar is a wholesale modernization of our personnel

system. Working to create flexible policies and additional career choices as well as empower

our commanding officers with tools to retain the best and brightest Sailors

o Ready Relevant Learning: This pillar is focused on providing the right training at the right time

in the right way. We are providing training over multiple points throughout a career instead of

the entire rate-specific training up front. By delivering training through modern methods we

will enable faster learning and better knowledge retention, ensuring Sailors’ knowledge is

refreshed, renewed, and relevant to changing platforms or technologies.

60

o Career Readiness: We are helping Sailors improve their career readiness by developing our

leaders and removing the obstacles that negatively influence a Sailor’s decision to stay Navy.

We have lengthened maternity leave to 12 weeks, changed our dual military co-location policy,

expanded the Career Intermission Program (CIP), strengthened our resilience, health and fitness

programs across the force, and increased Child Development Center hours and capacity.

o MPT&E Transformation: The Navy is modernizing its Manpower, Personnel, Training and

Education (MPT&E) enterprise in order to provide improved service delivery to all Sailors, their

families and future recruits. While the Navy is successfully recruiting, training and managing our

Sailors in today’s demanding operational environment, the cost is high in terms of resources and level

of effort. The MPT&E enterprise will overcome these challenges through modernization efforts that

enhance Fleet Readiness, reduce cost, drive data-based workforce decision making, and transform

how human resources services are offered through a holistic, end-to-end effort that will directly

impact the entire Navy “Hire-to-Retire” lifecycle. The MPT&E enterprise will transform through:

o Operations: Executing HR programs that increase process efficiency and improve Sailor

career development through modernized recruiting efforts, streamlined ‘Street to Fleet’

processes, and training that’s available whenever and wherever Sailors need it most.

o Modern HR Service Delivery: Launching a new HR Operations center that enables the Navy

to offer 24/7 self-service options, call center availability, shared service capabilities, and

transactional HR support to Sailors – bringing Navy HR Operations into the 21st century and

meeting the complex and unique needs of Sailors and their families.

o Technology: Modernizing Navy HR systems by establishing an Authoritative Data

Environment (ADE), standing up a core suite of integrated MPT&E systems (i.e.,

Commercial off the Shelf (COTS) Cloud-based solutions), and developing an integrated

Navy Pay and Personnel system that streamlines operations, optimizes data management

processes, drives efficiency, and allows Sailors to conduct personnel matters with ease.

Key MPT&E Transformation components include:

o MyNavy Portal (MNP). A single online entry point that provides Sailors with ready

access to HR systems, data and enables self-service

o MyNavy Career Center (MNCC). Centralized human resource center that enables

self-service, provides high quality 24/7 customer service and improves Sailor

experience, all at less cost

o Single Authoritative Data Environment (ADE). Access to timely and accurate data

that enables improved, analytics based, decision making, and supports Fleet

Readiness

o Modernized Sailor Distribution. Enable Sailors to play a more active role in their

career planning and improved talent matching to better meet Fleet needs and enhance

retention

o Advance to Vacancy. In fall 2018, the first Advance to Vacancy board will enable

Sailors to receive a spot-promotion to serve in critical E8 & E9 billets, matching

motivated and qualified Sailors with selected critical fill assignments and providing

an opportunity to prove their ability to perform in the next paygrade.

o Navy Pay and Personnel (NP2). A modern COTS solution that combines pay and

personnel functions for both the active and reserve components into one consolidated

and seamless system that improves user interface and maximizes Sailor self-service

61

o Transparency. Ability for a Sailor to submit and track HR services to completion

o Efficiency. Streamlined Hire-to-Retire process that more efficiently delivers HR

services to Sailors and their families

o Rating Modernization: This effort was launched with the major goals of providing greater choice

and flexibility for our Sailors with respect to detailing and training, providing greater flexibility for

the Navy in assigning highly trained personnel, and decreasing the number of well trained and

experienced Sailors we now send home from overmanned ratings. While facing fast-paced global

economic growth and industrial modernization, the Navy will continue to pursue opportunities for

Sailors to advance and earn credentials recognized and held by their civilian counterparts. As we

move forward, more Sailors will have multiple occupational skillsets or ratings to provide greater

flexibility for the Navy in assigning highly trained personnel and to offer greater flexibility to our

Sailors when negotiating for orders.

o Blended Retirement System: This new retirement plan will blend the current “defined benefit” plan

(but at a lower payout) with a “defined contribution” component using the Thrift Savings Plan (TSP).

Unlike today’s TSP plans, the government will automatically contribute 1% of base pay, and provide

a further match of TSP contributions (up to 4% more).

o Will allow many more service members than before to contribute to their retirement without

significantly reducing the benefit for those who serve to 20 or more years.

o Will grant more control to the service member. They can control their TSP allocation to meet

their personal savings strategy (e.g. low risk bonds, higher risk stocks, or a blend) and also

decide to take a portion of the pension component as a lump sum when they retire.

o Took effect 1 Jan 2018 and is mandatory for new entrants to military service as of that date.

Those already serving at that point can choose to opt-in if they have 12 or fewer years of

service by 31 Dec 2017 to ensure enough time in service is possible to build up their TSP nest

egg.

o Over 40,000 AC and RC Sailors have opted into the Blended Retirement System as of 22 April

2018.

o Suicides:

o 74 suicides in calendar year 2017 (65 in AC, 9 in RC)

o 32 suicides in 2018 as of 9 May

o Navy’s most current (2017) suicide rate is 19.9 suicides per 100,000 Sailors

o The most recent (2016) demographically comparable U.S. civilian suicide rate is 26.8 suicides

per 100,000 persons

o Sexual Assault: From the most recent DOD FY17 Annual Report on Sexual Assault in the Military:

o As a Navy, in FY17 we continued efforts at creating an environment intolerant of sexual assault

and at strengthening support programs to prevent, report, investigate, and prosecute instances of

sexual assault while providing full medical and advocacy support for victims of sexual assault.

o In FY17, there was an increase in the number of reports of sexual assault (1,585 to 1,450)

compared to FY16, continuing the trend of increased reporting that started in FY12.

62

Sailor 2025 Initiatives and Accomplishments

The major initiatives and accomplishments within Sailor 2025 are summarized in this slide:

63

MPT&E Sailor 2025 and Transformation References

As Navy leaders, it is incumbent upon us to be transparent and communicate often with our Sailors and

their families. The MPT&E enterprise continues to promulgate information to the Fleet and the greater

public on all of our Sailor 2025 and transformation initiatives. In addition to policy changes released via

message traffic and posted on the Navy Personnel Command website, the following links provide

additional articles, speeches, podcasts, and videos on our initiatives.

MPT&E Strategic Communications References:

o Navy.mil Sailor 2025 and Transformation Links

o http://www.navy.mil/local/cnp/mptestratdesign.asp

o MyNavy Portal Sailor 2025 and Transformation Links (CAC-enabled)

o https://www.mnp.navy.mil/group/sailor-2025/

o Proceedings Article: “Growing to Win: Sailor 2025 – Navy’s Strategy for People in our Future Fleet”

o http://www.navy.mil/navydata/leadership/mist_ldr.asp?q=681&x=S

o Brilliant on the Basics II – Part A – Revisiting the Basics

o http://www.public.navy.mil/bupers-

npc/reference/messages/Documents/NAVADMINS/NAV2018/NAV18095.txt

o Brilliant on the Basics II – Part B – Engagement

o http://www.public.navy.mil/bupers-

npc/reference/messages/Documents/NAVADMINS/NAV2018/NAV18100.txt

o Chief of Naval Personnel Podcasts

o http://www.navy.mil/navydata/cnppList.asp

o @USNPEOPLE Weekly Wire

o http://www.navy.mil/navydata/people/cnp/Burke/Resource/CNPWeeklyWire13July18.pdf

o https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCaCmzfzfW9qB629qvbQ2-sw

o Chief of Naval Personnel Speeches

o http://www.navy.mil/navydata/leadership/mist_ldr.asp?q=681&x=S

Navy Leadership Strategic Guidance:

o A Design for Maintaining Maritime Superiority

o http://www.navy.mil/cno/docs/CNO_STG1.pdf

o Navy Leadership Development Framework 2.0

o http://www.navy.mil/cno/docs/NLDF_2.pdf

o Navy Family Framework

o http://www.navy.mil/cno/docs/Family_Framework.pdf

o Navy Civilian Workforce Framework

o http://www.navy.mil/navydata/people/cno/Richardson/Resource/Navy_Civilian_Framework.

pdf

o One Navy Team Guidance

o http://www.navy.mil/navydata/people/cno/Richardson/Resource/One_Navy_Team_2016.pdf

o Laying the Keel

o http://www.navy.mil/strategic/LayingTheKeelPrint.pdf