Summary: A sample of enlisted personnel of various grades was interviewed to elicit their perceptions of the adequacy of military grievance procedures with particular emphasis on the Inspector General system's credibility. Information was also gathered on perceptions of the medical care delivery system's adequacy and whether first-term personnel felt that representations made during recruiting were fulfilled. The random interviewing of 710 enlisted personnel at 18 military installations spread geographically across the United States did not provide results that are necessarily representative of all enlisted service members because the data were not based on a statistical probability sample.
The perceived adequacy of six major grievance channels was assessed with regard to fairness, timeliness, and fear of adverse action. With regard to fairness, the Inspector General had a notably smaller percentage of responses with negative attitudes than the other procedures. Negative attitudes about timeliness were highest toward the chain of command and the lowest in the case of the Inspector General. The 390 enlisted personnel who had attempted to have grievances resolved most frequently mentioned grievances concerning transfer (32 percent) and job assignment(30 percent). Many respondents reported more than one grievance. The most frequently utilized grievance procedure used by the 390 respondents was chain of command (72 percent), followed by the enlisted advisor (40 percent) and the local commander (39 percent). Fifty-six percent of respondents said that military medical care had been considered a cause for grievance or complaint.
