|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
The following HTML text is provided to enhance online readability. Many aspects of typography translate only awkwardly to HTML. Please use the page image as the authoritative form to ensure accuracy. TABLE 6.9 Number and Percent of Army Enlisted Personnel Serving in a Duty Occupation That Does Not Match Their Primary Occupation, by Selected Two-Digit Occupational Category, 1987 and 1997
by more refined (two-digit) occupational categories. As Table 6.9 shows, close to one-quarter of personnel (over 15,000 soldiers) with infantry training were serving in a noninfantry occupational category during 1997; this type of mismatch was also found for nearly 80 percent of personnel trained in clerical skills. It is not clear why these mismatches occur. A study of detailed occupational categories suggested that the primary-duty mismatches were prevalent in occupational categories that are associated with specific weapon systems—perhaps indicating that some migration may have occurred when a weapon system was scaled back or eliminated. Another possible explanation could be that the Army of the late 1990s is providing more flexibility to personnel who may wish to migrate from one occupation to an-
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
