The American flag flies over the Capitol in April 2022. Some members of Congress are calling for the suspension of the so-called five-year rule, a measure that for many years has capped how long government service employees can work overseas in a military assignment. (Desmond Andrews/U.S. Marine Corps)
STUTTGART, Germany — A congressional proposal is calling for the suspension of the so-called “five-year rule,” a measure that for many years has capped how long government service employees can stay overseas for a military assignment.
Tucked inside the House’s version of this year’s National Defense Authorization Act is a seven-year prohibition on overseas term limits so that the Defense Department can study how unlimited tenures for competitive service positions affect the recruitment and retention of civilian personnel.
If the House provision is included in the final edition of the NDAA, which still must reconcile with the Senate’s version, the defense secretary beginning in March will be required to submit detailed reports to Congress about how the pilot program is progressing.
For decades, the five-year rule has been a source of consternation for many government service employees. Initially, the aim of the Defense Department policy was to open more overseas opportunities to its domestic workforce, giving a broader range of international experience to more people.
The rule was seen as a way to prevent the possibility of “homesteading” that could wall off certain jobs if people stay in their overseas positions for many years.
Critics, however, said the policy creates complications and raises questions about unfairness because its enforcement has been uneven. Since senior commanders can grant exceptions, some workers stay well past the five-year limit because they are deemed indispensable.
The rule also creates a revolving door of workers that want to be overseas being forced to rotate back to the United States, only to return a couple of years later when they are eligible.
Government service employees also have complained that taking an overseas job can limit their options when it’s time to return to the United States because DOD’s domestic workforce is under no obligation to depart positions they can occupy indefinitely.
Besides issues of fairness, there are questions about whether a steady turnover of civilian personnel can leave military commands overseas at a disadvantage.
The Rand Corp., a nonprofit research institution, said in a September report that U.S. Air Forces Europe and Africa’s ability to command and control in a crisis could be compromised because of a loss of expertise that comes with frequent troop and civilian rotations.
Civilians could better fill in the gaps, but DOD’s five-year rule was “negatively affecting USAFE’s ability to sustain institutional knowledge,” Rand said.
Anecdotally, many civilian workers in Europe and the Pacific have made similar complaints over the years.
In a post on the social media site Reddit, a civilian worker in South Korea, after learning about the pending House provision to get rid of the five-year rule, said it’s long overdue.
“The lack of institutional memory and competence is stunning,” wrote the civilian, who arrived in South Korea in 2023 after 15 years away. “The military always rotated in and out and never understood the facts (on) the ground. We relied on the civilians who had been here for years to keep things running.”
