Most taxpayers are unaware that the U.S. government stipulates the length of time a civil servant working for the U.S. Defense Department at overseas installations can be abroad — to five “continuous” years.

While there are exceptions and extensions available, and the DoD rule does not apply to those working in the United States, it is destructive to both Hawaii- based government employees and to our regional security efforts.

Specifically, the five-year rule is an issue for employees rotating in and out of Hawaii, of which there are many, and is a serious readiness issue for the Hawaii- based headquarters of USPACOM (U.S. Pacific Command) and its component commands.

I saw its effect regularly at my previous command, in Okinawa, Japan.

This policy, according DOD Instruction Number 1400.25 of July 2012, “serves to increase employment opportunities for military spouses and family members and developmental opportunities for employees in the United States, periodically renew the knowledge and competencies of the overseas workforce, including familiarity with current strategic goals, enhance the interoperability of employees, and promote a joint perspective in the workforce.”

In some cases, it also helps to get rid of unmotivated “homesteaders” and deadwood, the latter which unfortunately deprives regional commands of true expertise.

Yet, while the goals are noble, they are misguided, lack a grounding in reality, irrelevant for much of the overseas and domestic workforce, pregnant with personnel and fiscal problems, and suggestive of just how divorced the Washington, D.C.-based bureaucracy sometimes is from local overseas working conditions and regional concerns, particularly the need to manage important alliance relationships.

There are a variety of reasons why this rule is not a good one, the most common being that is it is discriminatory — fellow civil servants back home do not have to face the anxiety of the job insecurity and the stress of picking up and moving every so often.

Many tens of thousands of dollars are involved in regularly relocating individuals and their families. Further, frequent moves require learning a new job and work environment, plus getting the family set up, all at the expense of the losing/receiving office in actual work and ultimately the taxpayer in paying salaries for no real work.

Of course, regular moves happen to our uniformed colleagues, which they (and their families) are forced to accept for the overall good. But the difference is that the civilians serve with the military in a variety of billets, settings and locations specifically to provide the continuity and subject matter expertise since our military brothers and sisters come and go.

A final concern is the harm the movement of those who have provided the continuity, the subject matter expertise, the knowledge of the local culture and the contacts in the foreign communities, and the good professional relations that have developed with the host nation, to the management of the alliance with the country in which our forces may be stationed. Not only is it practically impossible in some cultures to build up relationships in a short amount of time, but when we rotate their counterparts through so quickly that before they have developed a close working relationship, that person has since moved on only to meet the next person.

This presents a negative image for us, and even worse, can also be leveraged against us as the other country then is able to retain the institutional memory needed during tough bilateral negotiations over basing rights, financial outlays, or other legal rights affecting American citizens or our government.

The American taxpayer, inspired civil servants and vital alliance relationships would benefit from an end to the five-year rule.

Robert D. Eldridge, Ph.D., who is personally unaffected by the five-year rule, served as the deputy G-7 (Government and External Affairs) for Marine Corps Installations Pacific, in Okinawa, Japan, from 2009-2015.