352
H. Illustrative Example of Increasing
Warrant Officer Requirements
Overview
This appendix illustrates one way to increase warrant officer requirements by
conversion and downgrading of existing commissioned officer requirements and
responds to specific tasking in congressional Senate committee language. It
begins with a summary of the current use of warrant officer requirements in the
services at the end of FY 1992. It describes a simple method for uniformly
establishing warrant officer requirements across the services and provides
examples that use the existing DoD occupational codes for describing similar
technical skills. We conclude with some observations about the method and
recommendations on how warrant officer requirements could be expanded.
Introduction
Use of Warrant Officers
All four military services have used warrant officers in different ways in their
history. While the service cultures view the use of this category of officers quite
differently, warrant officers commonly perform in positions that require
technical skills.
Title 10 USC Section 571(a) currently provides for warrant officers in all four
military services. It authorizes five grades—warrant officer, W-1, through chief
warrant officer, W-5. The Army, Navy, and Marine Corps currently use this
authority with just less than 18,000 warrant officer requirements reflected at the
end of FY 1992. The Air Force is the only service that does not currently use
warrant officers and has no warrant officer requirements. Table H.1 provides the
status of warrant officer requirements as a portion of total commissioned officer
requirements for the military services at the end of FY 1992. Warrant officer
requirements constituted a relatively small, but significant, percentage of the
Navy and a much greater percentage of the Army and Marine Corps
commissioned officer requirements.
353
Table H.1
Commissioned Officer Requirements for the End of FY 1992
Officers
Warrant officers
Total
Percent WO reqmts
Army
Navy
72,100
13,000
85,100
15.2%
56,500
2,600
59,100
4.4%
USMC
13,800
2,100
15,900
13.1%
Air Force
84,100
0
84,100
0%
SOURCE: DoD, Manpower Requirements Report FY 1994, June 1993, pp. III-12, IV-9, V-6, and
VI-9.
NOTE: Officer requirements are to the nearest hundred (100) and percentage to the nearest
tenth (0.1).
Warrant Officer Skill Distribution
Warrant officers in today’s force perform in a broad range of skills. Warrant
officer requirements are found in all nine officer DoDOC areas (one-digit skill
groupings) and in 48 out of the 64 officer DoDOC groups (two-digit skill
groupings) for at least one service and in 31 groups for two or more services.
Warrant officer requirements are not exclusive to any of these skill groups, since
commissioned officers requirements are also listed in all DoDOC groups that
contain warrant officers. Further, it should be noted that some of the DoDOC
groups lack warrant officers for reasons that are either definitional or cultural,
with 1A (general and flag officers) and 2H (civilian pilots) being examples of the
former; and 6A (physicians) and 6B (dentists), which are restricted to
commissioned officers, as examples of the latter.
The DoDOC areas with the highest concentration of warrant officer skills are 2
(tactical operations); 3 (intelligence); 4 (engineering and maintenance); 7
(administrators); and 8 (supply, procurement, and allied officers). The skill
distribution of the warrant officer requirements by DoDOC area and military
service for the end of FY 1992 are shown in Table H.2.
The lack of service uniformity in warrant officer requirements is clearly evident
in the skill distribution. The two ground force services, Army and Marine Corps,
have the most similarity, but examples of heterogeneity are obvious, too. For
example, only the Army has warrant officer requirements for helicopter pilots
while only the Marine Corps has warrant officer requirements for aircraft crews
(nonpilot positions). Some of the differences are related to the technical
differences within the missions of the services. For example, the Army and
Marine Corps have requirements for warrant officers in automotive skills, which
is supportive of their land force missions, while the Navy and Army have
requirements for ship machinery warrant officers in support of their respective
354
Table H.2
FY 1992 Warrant Officer Requirements by DoDOC Area and Service
DoDOC Area
Army
Navy
Marine
Total
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
Total
0
6,332
1,006
3,368
61
233
895
1,040
17
12,952
40
400
107
1,192
116
142
308
286
0
2,591
0
218
139
828
34
0
550
278
35
2,082
40
6,950
1,252
5,388
211
375
1,753
1,604
52
17,625
SOURCE: LMI FORMIS information based upon Defense Manpower Data Center data extracts
of officer manpower and requirements for FY 1992.
fleets. However, it appears clear that similar technical skill areas, e.g.,
administration and manpower and personnel, do not demonstrate a uniform use
of warrant officers. Further, there is wide divergence in the proportion of
warrant officers within the total commissioned officer requirements in the same
skills across the military services.
One Way to Increase Warrant Officer Requirements
Uniform Use of Warrant Officers is a Key Characteristic
Uniformity is one of the characteristics of interest in our study of officer career
management systems since it addresses in several ways the equity concerns of
officers. Tables H.1 and H.2 show that the current use of warrant officers is not
uniform across the services or major skill groupings. All of the services have
significant numbers of commissioned officer requirements in the same skill
groups; yet, the use of warrant officers to perform the technical aspects of these
officer skill requirements is heterogeneous. Uniformity of use of warrant officers
across services should be a key characteristic in determining warrant officer
requirements.
Illustrative Concept for Expanding Warrant Officer Requirements
Our approach is to determine those officer skill requirements that have both
officers and warrant officers in use in one or more services and apply the average
warrant officer requirements proportion uniformly to all officer requirements in
that skill group. Our research has shown that several officer DoDOC groups have
significant numbers of both officer and warrant officer requirements. From this
355
set, we have selected four DoDOC groups to illustrate our methodology.
Secondly, we have decided to limit those officer requirements for conversion to
warrant officer to the grades O-1 through O-4 (these officer grades are similar in
the range of pay as the warrant officer grades W-1 through W-5 and therefore may
be considered similar in level of technical responsibility). More senior officer
positions generally require supervisory and management skills that exceed the
capability of the more technically trained and experienced warrant officers. We
averaged the existing proportions of warrant officer requirements to the total of all
commissioned officers (W-1 through O-4) in those services currently listing
requirements for warrant officers. We then adjusted the skill group officer
requirements for all services to meet or exceed the average proportion of warrant
officers. In this way, the number of warrant officer requirements will be increased,
and the proportion of warrant officers in use within a selected DoDOC skill group
will become more uniform across the services.
Examples of Expanded Use of Warrant Officers
We have applied our officer conversion methodology to the following selected
DoDOC skill groups to illustrate an approach that achieves a more uniform use
of warrant officer requirements:
• 2C. Helicopter pilots
• 3A. Intelligence, general
• 4C. Communications and radar
• 8B. Supply.
It should be noted that only the Army uses warrant officers as helicopter pilots
while the three other DoDOC skill groups contain warrant officer requirements
for the Army, Navy, and Marine Corps.
We used the following formula to establish the current warrant officer content of
each service with both existing officer and warrant officer requirements in the
four selected DoDOC skill groups.
Z =
# Warrant officer requirements
# (W.O. + officer (O-1through O-4) requirements)
In those DoDOC skill groups with more than one service having both warrant
officer and officer requirements, we used the sums in the numerator and
denominator of the formula to obtain the average for our uniform warrant officer
proportion factor, Z. We then multiplied the total number of officer (O-1 through
356
O-4) and warrant officers in each service that has less than that proportion of
warrant officers by the computed factor Z. This calculated a new officer and
warrant officer structure for the respective service’s officer DoDOC skill group.
Officer positions in grades O-1 through O-4 in the calculated numbers were then
aligned or converted to warrant officer requirements. The difference of the total
number of officer requirements in grades W-1 through O-4 and the computed
number of warrant officers was the adjusted number of officers in grades O-1
through O-4. In those services that already equal or exceed the proportion of
warrant officers desired for uniformity in that selected DoDOC skill group, the
existing officer/warrant officer proportions were retained (i.e., no existing
warrant officer requirements were upgraded to commissioned officer
requirements). Our objective is to increase the number of warrant officer
requirements in those services that are below the existing average proportion, Z,
of warrant officer requirements to commissioned officer requirements in the
selected grades (W-1 through O-4).
Current Composition of Selected Officer DoDOC Groups
The composition of the commissioned officer requirements in the four selected
DoDOC skill groups is shown by service and grade in Table H.3. We calculated
our average warrant officer requirements using these data.
Computation of Adjusted Commissioned Officer Composition
First we calculated the existing warrant officer requirements proportion factor, Z,
for each officer DoDOC skill group. For example, in 2C (helicopter pilots), where
only the Army has both officer and warrant officer requirements, the calculation
is shown below:
Z=
# W.O.
5, 563
5, 563
=
=
= 0.64 or 64% warrant officers
# W.O. + O-1 4
5, 563 + 3, 081 8, 644
We then calculated the warrant officer requirements of those services that are
below the proportion. In the case of helicopter pilots, we multiplied the total
requirements of each service in grades W-1 through O-4 by 0.64. For example, in
the Navy this is
178 x 0.64 = 114 warrant officer requirements.
This is done in a similar manner for the other services in this DoDOC skill group.
357
Table H.3
Commissioned Officer Requirements for Selected DoDOC Groups
DoDOC
Service Group
Warrant
Officer
O-1/2
2C helo pilots
Army
Navy
USMC
Air Force
5,563
0
0
0
400
26
47
0
O-4
633
59
432
92
1,743
107
646
144
705
12
221
37
364
0
74
18
61
0
0
0
3,081
178
1,299
273
9,069
178
1,373
291
536
237
48
201
1,109
417
184
1,426
559
313
128
828
288
193
59
518
75
103
0
246
2,204
967
360
2,455
2,967
1,289
466
3,219
4C communication & radar
Army
787
Navy
97
USMC
118
Air Force
0
701
622
118
552
1,491
212
275
3,116
707
181
170
1,185
361
67
71
705
121
22
1
228
2,899
1,015
563
4,853
4,168
1,201
753
5,786
8B supply
Army
Navy
USMC
Air Force
208
305
134
35
686
783
251
406
359
414
116
261
142
211
60
180
30
58
0
23
1,253
1,502
501
702
2,240
1,829
687
905
815
58
126
0
O-6+
Total
Off &
W.O.
O-3
3A intelligence
Army
Navy
USMC
Air Force
O-5
∑ O-1
thru
O-4
SOURCE: LMI FORMIS information based upon Defense Manpower Data Center data extracts
of officer manpower and requirements for FY 1992.
We then calculated the new composition of the commissioned officers for each
service. Continuing with the Navy helicopter pilot example
178 – 114 = 64 officer requirements in grades O-1 through O-4.
Note that the total of officer requirements in grades W-1 through O-4 remains
unchanged at 178 (114 + 64 = 178), while warrant officers now compose 64
percent of this total. Similar calculations for the other services complete the
adjustment of officer requirements in this skill group.
We follow the same procedure in the remainder of the four selected officer
DoDOC skill groups. In the subsequent DoDOC groups that contain warrant
officer requirements in more than one service, we computed an average warrant
officer requirements proportion, Z. It is important to note that in the three
remaining examples, the use of computed average factors normalized the
influences of the different service cultures on the use of warrant officers. For
358
example, in officer DoDOC 3A (intelligence, general), the individual service
computed factors are Z = 15 percent for the Army, 3 percent for the Navy, and 12
percent in the USMC. Due to the weighting of the formula, the average factor for
the proportion of warrant officer requirements in the intelligence officer skill
group was Z = 12 percent. Table H.4 displays the computed factors, Z; the more
uniform use of warrant officer requirements in all four military services; and the
results of the realignment of other commissioned officer requirements for all four
DoDOC skill groups.
Observations and Conclusions
Observations on the Outcomes
A summary of the results of our illustrative effort to increase the use of warrant
officer requirements uniformly across the services in similar skills is shown in
Table H.5.
Some Conclusions on the Methodology
The examples achieved the intended objective of realigning the warrant officer
proportions more uniformly and increasing warrant officer requirements.
However, using the average level of the existing warrant officer requirements
content in those services having both officer and warrant officer requirements in
a selected DoDOC skill group had a leveling effect. It brought the services that
have small proportions or no warrant officer requirements, the Navy and Air
Force, respectively, more in line with the Army and USMC, which use warrant
officer requirements more broadly. Further, this methodology has implicitly
assumed that (1) existing service models that use warrant officer requirements
are valid; (2) officer and warrant officer skill positions in the grades examined are
interchangeable; (3) uniform usage of warrant officers across the services is
possible and desirable; and (4) increased usage of warrant officer requirements in
lieu of commissioned officer requirements is appropriate and consistent with the
service officer career management systems and manpower resources. These
assumptions require additional examination beyond the scope of this study,
which is limited to an examination of officer career management systems.
However, this illustrative example demonstrates that application of
methodologies to obtain expanded use of warrant officer requirements across the
services in a more uniform manner is possible. In an earlier section of the main
body of this study, we suggested that another such consideration is to eliminate
the use of limited duty officers in the sea services (Navy and USMC) with
359
Table H.4
Adjusted Commissioned Officer Requirements by Service
DoDOC Service
Group
Warrant
Officer
∑ O-1
thru
O-4
Change in
W.O.
Total
Officers &
Warrant
Officers
2C helo pilots-(Z=64% W.O.)
Army
5,563
Navy
114
USMC
831
Air Force
175
0
+114
+831
+175
3,081
64
468
98
9,069
178
1,373
291
3A intelligence-(Z=12% W.O.)
Army
400
Navy
119
USMC
47
Air Force
295
0
+93
0
+295
2,204
874
360
2,160
2,967
1,289
466
3,219
4C communication & radar-(Z=18% W.O.)
Army
787
0
Navy
200
+103
USMC
123
+5
Air Force
874
+874
2,899
912
558
3,979
4,168
1,201
753
5,786
8B supply-(Z=23% W.O.)
Army
Navy
USMC
Air Force
1,253
1,201
483
541
2,240
1,829
687
905
815
359
144
161
0
+301
+18
+161
SOURCE: LMI FORMIS information based upon Defense Manpower Data Center
data extracts of officer manpower and requirements for FY 1992.
NOTE: The Army exceeded the average calculated warrant officer requirement
proportion in all four skill groups, and the USMC exceeded the average in one skill
group.
Table H.5
Summary of Service Warrant Officer Requirements Changes
Warrant
Officers
Army
Navy
USMC
Air Force
Total change
7,565
792
1,145
1,505
Warrant
Officers
Change
0
+611
+854
+1,505
+2,970
W.O. as % of
Total Officers
41%
18%
35%
15%
Total Officers
& Warrant
Officers
18,444
4,497
3,279
10,201
NOTE: The Army equaled or exceeded the average proportion of warrant officers in all
four selected officer DoDOC groups. The percentages of warrant officers shown are not
uniform across services since they are based on the total service commissioned officer
requirements (all W.O. and officers) in the four selected DoDOC groups.
360
warrant officers being substituted for the grades O-1 through O-4 and the more
senior grades considered for conversion into other officer skill management
groupings. That notion would also make the services more uniform by removing
a special category of officers.
Last, the development of a standard set of defense-level guidance for warrant
officer requirements based upon common assumptions uniformly applied in
each service seems appropriate and should be considered. This guidance would
encompass the principal objective of increasing the use of warrant officers in lieu
of existing commissioned officer positions and be employed in conjunction with
services’ detailed management reviews of their officer positions and related
position skill requirements to ensure that the use of a technically oriented
warrant officer is appropriate. The effect of converting some number of officer
skill positions to warrant officer requirements should be assessed in regard to the
objectives and functions of the respective service officer career management
systems to ensure that the results are consistent. The resulting service officer
requirements should also be costed to determine potential savings or increased
costs as an important consideration.