This is the accessible text file for GAO report number GAO-12-367 
entitled 'Military Education: Improved Oversight and Management Needed 
for DOD’s Fellowship and Training-with-Industry Programs' which was 
released on April 20, 2012. 

This text file was formatted by the U.S. Government Accountability 
Office (GAO) to be accessible to users with visual impairments, as 
part of a longer term project to improve GAO products' accessibility. 
Every attempt has been made to maintain the structural and data 
integrity of the original printed product. Accessibility features, 
such as text descriptions of tables, consecutively numbered footnotes 
placed at the end of the file, and the text of agency comment letters, 
are provided but may not exactly duplicate the presentation or format 
of the printed version. The portable document format (PDF) file is an 
exact electronic replica of the printed version. We welcome your 
feedback. Please E-mail your comments regarding the contents or 
accessibility features of this document to Webmaster@gao.gov. 

This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright 
protection in the United States. It may be reproduced and distributed 
in its entirety without further permission from GAO. Because this work 
may contain copyrighted images or other material, permission from the 
copyright holder may be necessary if you wish to reproduce this 
material separately. 

United States Government Accountability Office: 
GAO: 

Report to Congressional Committees: 

April 2012: 

Military Education: 

Improved Oversight and Management Needed for DOD’s Fellowship and 
Training-with-Industry Programs: 

GAO-12-367: 

GAO Highlights Logo 

Highlights of GAO-12-367, a report to congressional committees. 

Why GAO Did This Study: 

The Department of Defense (DOD), which includes the military services, 
selects mid- to upper-career-level military officers to participate in 
fellowship and training-with-industry programs conducted at non-DOD 
organizations such as universities, think tanks, private corporations, 
federal agencies, and Congress. For some fellowships, the military 
departments pay a fee or tuition to the host organization. GAO was 
directed to review DOD’s use of these programs. GAO’s objectives were 
to determine: (1) the statutory provisions that authorize DOD’s 
fellowship and training-with-industry programs for military officers, 
(2) the extent of the Office of the Secretary of Defense’s (OSD) 
visibility over these programs, and (3) the extent to which the 
services are able to determine that they derive benefits from these 
programs. GAO analyzed relevant laws and DOD policies, collected data, 
and interviewed OSD and military service officials on their oversight 
and management roles and responsibilities for these programs. 

What GAO Found: 

GAO determined that DOD primarily uses two explicit statutory 
authorities— section 2603 of Title 10 of the United States Code, which 
authorizes servicemembers to accept fellowships from certain 
organizations, and section 2013 of Title 10 of the United States Code, 
which authorizes the training of servicemembers at nongovernmental 
facilities—-for its fellowships and training-with-industry programs 
for military officers. For two specific types of fellowships—-
Legislative and Interagency-—the underlying authorities are less 
explicit than they are for the others. 

OSD has limited visibility over its fellowship and training-with-
industry programs for several reasons. First, OSD has not developed a 
mission statement that would clearly define the respective key 
purposes for these programs. Having a clear mission statement is 
critical because it defines an organization’s purpose in language that 
states desired outcomes. Additionally, OSD has not consistently 
enforced its requirement for the military departments to provide an 
annual report on fellowship and training-with-industry programs. 
Further, not all fellowship and training-with-industry programs have a 
designated office within each department for preparing the annual 
report. OSD’s visibility is also limited by not having a reliable 
inventory of these various programs, and by not having a clear and 
commonly shared definition of a fellowship. Without improved 
oversight, OSD’s visibility over the military departments’ compliance 
with its requirements governing these programs will remain limited. 
Additionally, visibility is limited over the legislative fellowship 
program in particular because oversight responsibilities are not 
clearly delineated, and because OSD does not have documented criteria 
for the placement of DOD fellows with the offices of congressional 
committees and members. OSD officials agree that such criteria would 
be helpful since it does not have enough available fellows to meet the 
full congressional demand. 

The military services are not well positioned to determine the extent 
of the benefits they are deriving from their participation in these 
programs for four principal reasons. First, not all of the services 
conduct periodic program reviews, as are required for some programs. 
In addition, the reviews that are conducted are not comprehensive in 
that they do not assess the program against program goals using 
quantifiable performance measures, review the needs that prompted the 
program, incorporate feedback from fellows into the review, or 
document the results of the review. Second, they do not have clear 
guidance as to what qualifies as a postfellowship assignment—an 
assignment that uses the skills and knowledge developed during the 
fellowship program—or criteria for when such assignments can be 
postponed or waived, thus limiting the extent the services’ are able 
to determine they are deriving benefits from these programs. Third, 
the services do not know their overall program costs, so it is 
difficult to know whether these programs are cost-effective. Finally, 
some of the services do not have memoranda of understanding with the 
non-DOD host organizations, such as think tanks, so they cannot be 
assured that expectations are clearly understood and the intended 
benefits are obtained. Without better management controls, the services’
ability to determine the benefits of these programs will remain 
limited. However, service officials believe that they obtain benefits 
from fellowships and training-with-industry programs. 

What GAO Recommends: 

GAO is making 11 recommendations to DOD for improving oversight and 
management of DOD’s fellowship and training-with-industry programs—-
for example, submitting DOD-required annual reports and performing 
service-required program reviews—-that would enhance OSD’s visibility 
over the programs and better position DOD to determine the extent to 
which it derives benefits from them. In response to a draft of this 
report, DOD concurred with the 11 recommendations and stated its 
action plan to implement the recommendations. 

View [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-12-367]. For more 
information, contact Brenda S. Farrell at (202) 512-3604 or 
farrellb@gao.gov. 

[End of section] 

Contents: 

Letter: 

Background: 

DOD Uses Several Statutory Authorities for Fellowship and Training-
with-Industry Programs: 

OSD Has Limited Visibility over Fellowship and Training-with-Industry 
Programs: 

Military Services Are Not Well Positioned to Determine the Extent of 
the Benefits from These Programs: 

Conclusions: 

Recommendations for Executive Action: 

Agency Comments and Our Evaluation: 

Appendix I: Scope and Methodology: 

Appendix II: Life-cycle Phases of a Fellowship Program: 

Appendix III: Military Service Guidance on Fellowship and Training-
with-Industry Programs: 

Appendix IV: Ethics Guidance Provided to Fellows: 

Appendix V: Comments from the Department of Defense: 

Appendix VI: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments: 

Tables 

Table 1: Offices within Each Service Involved in Management of 
Fellowship and Training-with-Industry Programs: 

Table 2: Number of DOD Fellows and Training-with-Industry Participants 
for Fiscal Years 2007 through 2011: 

Table 3: Number of Congressional Requests for DOD Legislative Fellows 
and the Number That DOD Provides, Academic Years 2009-2010 through 
2011-2012: 

Table 4: Military Service Requirement for Periodic Program Reviews: 

Table 5: Military Service Guidance on Fellowships and Training-with-
Industry Programs: 

Figures: 

Figure 1: Selected Military Educational Opportunities and Career 
Progression: 

Figure 2: Fellowship Program Life-cycle: 

Abbreviations: 

DOD: Department of Defense: 

OSD: Office of the Secretary of Defense: 

USD P&R: Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness: 

[End of section] 

United States Government Accountability Office: 
Washington, DC 20548: 

April 20, 2012: 

Congressional Committees: 

The Department of Defense (DOD), which includes the military services, 
selects mid- to upper-career-level[Footnote 1] military officers to 
participate in fellowship and training-with-industry programs at non-
DOD organizations such as universities, think tanks,[Footnote 2] 
private corporations, federal agencies, and Congress. For some 
fellowships, the military departments pay a fee or tuition to the host 
organization. According to DOD, the department’s intent for its 
fellowship program is to help fulfill a present need, anticipated 
requirement, or future capability that contributes to the 
effectiveness of the participating Military Department and DOD. 
Congressional interest in these programs has grown, in part due to an 
increase in the number of military officers participating in one 
particular program—-the Legislative Fellowship—-starting in 2008. 
[Footnote 3] We were directed, in the Senate report accompanying a 
bill for the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2011, 
to review DOD educational and legislative fellowships as well as 
training-with-industry programs and to report to the congressional 
defense committees. Accordingly, we examined these programs to 
determine: (1) the statutory provisions that authorize DOD’s 
fellowship and training-with-industry programs for military officers, 
(2) the extent of the Office of the Secretary of Defense’s (OSD) 
visibility over these programs, and (3) the extent to which the 
military services are able to determine that they derive benefits from 
these programs. 

To address our first objective, we researched and analyzed relevant 
legal authorities for DOD to use fellowship and training-with-industry 
programs, reviewed DOD and service regulations and guidance related to 
these programs, and interviewed relevant DOD attorneys and received 
written responses to questions on DOD’s use of these authorities. For 
our second objective, we collected and analyzed available service data 
on the numbers and types of fellowships and training-with-industry 
programs offered from fiscal years 2007 through 2011; interviewed 
officials in OSD, particularly with the offices of the Under Secretary 
of Defense for Personnel and Readiness (USD P&R), and the Assistant 
Secretary of Defense for Legislative Affairs; and collected and 
reviewed DOD-required service annual reports. For the third objective, 
we interviewed officials within the four military services and 
reviewed DOD and service guidance related to these programs. Most of 
our interviews centered on obtaining information about roles and 
responsibilities related to overseeing and managing fellowship and 
training-with-industry programs,[Footnote 4] and particularly on 
activities that provide means of ensuring that DOD received benefits 
from these programs. More specifically, we collected information on 
service program goals, program reviews, costs of the programs, and 
memoranda of understanding between the services and host 
organizations. We found the fellowship and training-with-industry data 
provided to us by the services on the number of participants in these 
programs to be sufficiently reliable regarding contextual information 
on the minimum number of participants; however, these data do not 
allow us to provide actual totals. We conducted this performance 
review from March 2011 through April 2012 in accordance with generally 
accepted government auditing standards. Those standards require that 
we plan and perform the audit to obtain sufficient, appropriate 
evidence to provide a reasonable basis for our findings and 
conclusions based on our audit objectives. We believe that the 
evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our findings and 
conclusions based on our audit objectives. (See appendix I for a more 
detailed description of our scope and methodology.) 

Background: 

DOD’s fellowship and training-with-industry programs comprise a few of 
the several vehicles DOD uses to provide training and education to its 
military officers to develop and advance their careers while in the 
military. Officers have educational opportunities throughout their 
careers, both within and outside of the military educational system. 
These include attendance at intermediate- and senior-level military 
schools, as well as participation in graduate programs to obtain 
advanced degrees. Fellowship and training-with-industry programs 
constitute another type of professional development that officers may 
receive in addition to or in lieu of attendance at a military school. 

Fellowship and Training-with-Industry Programs: 

To provide guidance to the services on participation in a fellowship 
or training-with-industry program, USD P&R issued DOD Instruction 
1322.06.[Footnote 5] Under this instruction, a fellowship is defined 
as an assignment in which selected DOD personnel work away from DOD to 
gain education or experience of value to both the DOD component and 
the gaining organization. Military officers can participate in a 
variety of types of fellowships at host organizations such as 
universities, think tanks, corporations, federal agencies, and 
congressional committees or member offices. Most of these fellowships 
are limited to a duration of no longer than 12 months. The following 
types of organizations can host fellowship and training-with-industry 
participants: 

* Universities. For example, Tufts University, a private university in 
Massachusetts, hosts fellows from the military services within the 
International Security Studies Program at its Fletcher School, Tufts’ 
graduate school in international affairs. Fellows at the Fletcher 
School focus on research and writing requirements and participate in 
activities both inside and outside of the classroom. The Marine Corps 
Fellows may receive a master’s degree through this program. 

* Think tanks. For example, the Brookings Institution, a nonprofit 
think tank based in Washington, D.C., has hosted fellows under its 
21st Century Defense Initiative—one of Brookings’ research projects. 
This initiative focuses on the future of war, U.S. defense needs and 
priorities, and the defense system. Fellows from the military services 
spend a year at Brookings researching and publishing on defense topics 
and provide policy feedback to help craft realistic, applicable policy 
recommendations for the military services. Fellows at Brookings may 
also elect to attend courses to obtain an executive certificate in 
public leadership, for an additional fee. 

* Corporations. For example, as part of the Secretary of Defense 
Corporate Fellowship Program, these fellows are trained at the 
executive level to learn how the host corporations use innovative 
practices and technology to plan, organize, and manage, and how these 
business practices could be applied within the military services. The 
fellows shadow corporate executives and write a paper on their 
observations and experiences upon completion of the fellowship. 

* Federal agencies. For example, the United States Agency for 
International Development is one of the federal agencies that host 
fellows from the Army Interagency Fellowship program and from the 
Commandant of the Marine Corps Fellowships program. Federal agency 
fellows are placed with departments or agencies to develop a more 
thorough understanding of the host agency’s mission, culture, 
capabilities, and procedures. The Army, Marine Corps, and Air Force 
currently send fellows to other federal departments or agencies. 

* Congressional committees or members’ offices, as part of DOD’s 
Legislative Fellowship program. This program offers officers an 
educational opportunity to learn more about the legislative process by 
being placed with various committees, or with the staff of the House 
or Senate Majority or Minority Leader, or with the staff of the 
Speaker of the House.[Footnote 6] In addition, the Army sends its 
legislative fellows to George Washington University to obtain Masters’ 
degrees in Legislative Affairs. The Navy, Marine Corps, and Air Force 
offer their officers the opportunity to take courses for credit or to 
receive a certificate in Legislative Affairs at the Georgetown’s 
Government Affairs Institute.[Footnote 7] 

Fellows pursue individual research and writing projects in 
consultation with host organization experts or faculty, and they may 
elect to become involved in host organization projects and participate 
in conferences, seminars, or classes. In addition, fellows share 
operational and service insights with host organization staff. Some 
university and think tank host organizations charge the military 
departments a fee or tuition for hosting fellows. 

In addition to fellowship programs, DOD offers training-with-industry 
programs.[Footnote 8] The DOD instruction defines training-with-
industry as a nondegree-producing program designed to provide training 
or skills in best business procedures and practices not available 
through existing military or advanced civilian schooling for 
identifiable DOD requirements. The instruction states that there must 
be an existing need or desired future capability fulfilled by the 
gained training-with-industry experience. The military departments 
generally do not pay corporations a fee or tuition to host training-
with-industry participants. 

DOD continues to provide officers participating in both fellowships 
and training-with-industry programs their normal pay and allowances. 
In exchange, after their participation, officers participating in most 
of the fellowships discussed in this report incur an active duty 
service commitment of three times the length of the term they spent in 
the fellowship or training-with-industry program. 

Professional Military Education: 

Within DOD’s professional military educational system, officers are 
afforded several key opportunities.[Footnote 9] At an officer level of 
O3,[Footnote 10] selected officers could attend primary level 
education, generally at the Branch, warfare, or staff specialty 
schools. At the level of O4,[Footnote 11] selected officers attend 
intermediate level education, generally at the service’s command and 
staff college or an equivalent military school. At the level of O5 or 
O6,[Footnote 12] selected officers attend senior-level education, 
generally at the service’s war college or at an equivalent military 
school. Officers may earn graduate degrees upon completing their 
intermediate- or senior-level education at a military school. They 
additionally have other opportunities throughout their careers to earn 
graduate degrees; for example, officers may apply to attend a college 
or university to receive a master’s or PhD degree in a graduate 
educational program. 

Military officers may participate in fellowships as either an 
alternative or a supplement to their professional military education, 
as shown in figure 1. Three of the services—-the Army, the Marine 
Corps, and the Air Force—-grant professional military educational 
credit for some of their fellowship programs at the intermediate or 
senior level.[Footnote 13] The Air Force, for example, grants 
professional military education credit for all of its intermediate- 
and senior-level fellowships. These fellowships replace an officer’s 
in-residence intermediate or senior professional military education. 
[Footnote 14] 

One service program—-the Army Legislative Fellowship Program-—grants a 
degree. 

Figure 1: Selected Military Educational Opportunities and Career 
Progression: 

[Refer to PDF for image: illustration] 

In-house Education: 

Officer level 03-04: 
Primary level education: 
* Branch, warfare, or staff specialty school; 
Intermediate-level education: 
* Services' Command and Staff Colleges; 
* Joint Forces Staff College[A]; 
Officer level 05-06: 
Senior-level education: 
Services' War Colleges; 
* Industrial College of the Armed Forces; 
* National War College; 
* Joint Forces Staff College. 
   
Fellowships: 

Army: 
Officer level 03-04: 
* Legislative Fellowship; 
* Arroyo Rand Fellowship; 
* Regional Security Studies Fellowships; 
* Intermediate-level Education Interagency Fellowship; 
Officer level 05-06: 
* Arroyo Rand Fellowship; 
* Regional Security Studies Fellowships; 
* Senior Service College Fellowship; 
* Officer level 06 only: Senior Fellowships; 

Navy: 
Officer level 03-04: 
* Legislative Fellowship; 
* Federal Executive Fellowship; 
* Cyber Federal Executive Fellowship; 
Officer level 05-06: 
* Legislative Fellowship; 
* Federal Executive Fellowship; 
* Cyber Federal Executive Fellowship; 
Officer level 06 only: 
* Council on Foreign Relations Fellowship. 

Marine Corps: 
Officer level 03-04: 
* Legislative Fellowship (Officer Level 02 also eligible); 
* Commandant of the Marine Corps Fellowships; 
Officer level 05-06: 
* Legislative Fellowship (Officer Level 02 also eligible); 
* Commandant of the Marine Corps Fellowships; 
Officer level 06 only: 
* Council on Foreign Relations Fellowship. 

Air Force: 
Officer level 03-04: 
* Legislative Fellowship; 
* Intermediate Development Education Fellowships; 
Officer level 05-06: 
* Senior Development Education Fellowships
Officer level 06 only: 
* Senior Fellowships. 

Source: GAO analysis of DOD fellowship programs. 

Notes: This figure excludes some fellowships or other training 
opportunities, such as the White House Fellowships, the Secretary of 
Defense Corporate Fellowships, and training-with-industry programs. 
With the exception of the Arroyo Rand Fellowship, the Legislative 
Fellowships, and the Council on Foreign Relations Fellowships, each 
fellowship program is comprised of various host organizations. Also, 
for some fellowship opportunities, eligibility is extended to 
noncommissioned officers. 

[A] The Joint Forces Staff College includes the intermediate and 
senior Advanced Joint Professional Military Education, and the senior 
Joint Advanced Warfighting School. 

[End of figure] 

When fellowship programs are provided in lieu of attendance at a 
military school, the participants are generally prohibited from also 
attending the corresponding in-residence military school program. For 
example, a fellow who attends a senior-level fellowship and is granted 
senior-level professional military education credits is prohibited 
from attending a senior in-resident War College program. Unlike most 
fellowships, DOD’s training-with-industry programs exist outside of 
the professional military educational system. These opportunities do 
not grant professional military education credits; instead, they are 
considered a supplemental professional development and training 
experience in private sector practices that are not available through 
existing military education and training programs. 

Roles, Responsibilities, and Guidance: 

USD P&R has overall responsibility for fellowship and training-with-
industry policy for fellowship programs that fall under DOD 
Instruction 1322.06.[Footnote 15] This Instruction covers most of the 
fellowship and training-with-industry programs in our review.[Footnote 
16] As specified in the instruction, each military departmental 
secretary has oversight and management responsibilities for that 
department’s programs, with the exception of the Legislative 
Fellowship Program. For that program, each department selects 
nominees, whose names are then sent to USD P&R for approval.[Footnote 
17] The Office of the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Legislative 
Affairs places these officers with congressional committees or with 
various congressional staffs. Additionally, some of DOD’s fellowship 
programs are administered separately; for example, the Secretary of 
Defense Corporate Fellowship Program and the Medical Professional 
Fellowship Program are administered under two other, separate DOD 
instructions,[Footnote 18] with different OSD offices having oversight 
and policy responsibilities for them. The Secretary of Defense 
Corporate Fellowship Program is managed by a director who is part of 
the National Defense University, under the authority, direction, and 
control of DOD’s Deputy Chief Management Officer, subject to certain 
exceptions. The Assistant Secretary of Defense for Health Affairs, 
under USD P&R, is responsible for monitoring compliance with DOD 
Instruction 6000.13 and providing additional guidance for medical 
fellowships, and the secretaries of the military departments are 
responsible for administering these programs. 

Postfellowship Assignments: 

The DOD instruction[Footnote 19] states that the secretaries of the 
military departments are responsible for properly managing the skills 
gained by the participants in the fellowship program, and for ensuring 
that current assignments utilizing the fellowships and training-with-
industry positions meet the intent of the program and continue to meet 
military department and DOD requirements or anticipated needs. The 
instruction also states that participants in fellowships and training-
with-industry should have an immediate follow-on utilization tour upon 
completion, but that this requirement can be delayed or waived by a 
military department, as necessary. Utilization tour assignments are 
generally based upon the area of expertise that the fellowship or 
training-with-industry program is intended to develop. For example, 
utilization tour assignments for legislative fellows are conducted 
primarily within the services’ offices of legislative liaison or 
legislative affairs, or within another office that interacts with 
Congress. The utilization tours for other fellowships vary depending 
on the host organization or subject-matter expertise of the program. 
For example, a fellow who attends a university or think tank with a 
program on national security issues and strategy may be assigned to a 
utilization tour in a strategy, policy, and planning office. 
Fellowships with a more specific focus will generally have more 
specific utilization assignments. A fellow at a host organization with 
a cyber or nuclear focus may be assigned to a utilization tour 
involving the development of strategies for cyber or nuclear warfare. 
Training-with-industry participants are generally used in positions 
directly related to a corporation’s area of expertise. For example, a 
training-with-industry participant at a private company that 
specializes in logistics and the transportation of items may be later 
assigned to a DOD position in supply chain management. 

The military departments are responsible for the management of their 
respective fellowship and training-with-industry programs (see 
appendix II on the life-cycle phases of a fellowship program for a 
more detailed description). In addition to statutory authorities and 
the DOD instruction, the military services also have their own 
guidance or regulations covering their respective legislative 
fellowship, nonlegislative fellowship, and training-with-industry 
programs (see appendix III for a list of service guidance). 

DOD Uses Several Statutory Authorities for Fellowship and Training-
with-Industry Programs: 

We determined that DOD uses several statutory authorities for its 
fellowships and training-with-industry programs for military officers. 
Primarily, it uses two explicit statutory authorities. However, for 
two types of fellowships—legislative and interagency—the underlying 
authorities are less explicit than they are for the others. 

DOD Primarily Uses Two Explicit Statutory Authorities: 

We determined that DOD’s authority to pursue fellowships at non-DOD 
educational institutions, foundations, and corporations derives 
primarily from section 2603 of Title 10 of the United States Code, 
which authorizes servicemembers to accept fellowships from certain 
organizations, and section 2013 of Title 10 of the United States Code, 
which authorizes the training of servicemembers at nongovernmental 
facilities. Generally, DOD’s fellowships and training-with-industry 
programs are conducted under one or both of these authorities. 

Section 2603[Footnote 20] allows servicemembers, subject to 
regulations,[Footnote 21] to accept a fellowship offered by a 
corporation, fund, foundation, or educational institution that is 
organized primarily for scientific, literary, or educational purposes, 
and the benefits may be accepted by the member in addition to the member
’s military pay and allowances subject to certain conditions. The 
member is required to agree in writing to serve on active duty after 
completion of the fellowship for a period of at least three times the 
length of the period of the education or training. 

To create fellowship and training-with-industry programs with a 
variety of nongovernmental facilities, DOD also uses provisions in 
section 2013 that authorize it to enter into agreements or other 
arrangements for the training of servicemembers with nongovernmental 
organizations such as medical, scientific, technical, educational, 
research, or professional institutions, foundations, or organizations—
in addition to the business, commercial, or industrial firms, 
corporations, or other nongovernmental facilities, as defined by 
section 2013. These agreements or other arrangements are not subject 
to certain requirements normally applicable to government contracts. 
[Footnote 22] Section 2013 also authorizes DOD to pay expenses in 
connection with training at nongovernmental facilities in addition to 
the member’s military pay. 

DOD Uses Less Explicit Authorities for Two Specific Fellowship 
Programs: 

Although most of DOD’s fellowships or training-with-industry programs 
are authorized under section 2603 and section 2013, we determined that 
the authorities DOD uses for its military personnel[Footnote 23] to 
participate in two specific types of fellowships-—legislative and 
interagency—-are less explicit. According to OSD attorneys, DOD’s 
legislative and interagency fellowships for servicemembers are 
conducted using a combination of more general departmental authorities 
to train personnel. For example, these attorneys noted that the 
secretaries of the military departments have the authority to train 
members of the military services within their respective military 
departments, subject to the authority, direction, and control of the 
Secretary of Defense.[Footnote 24] They also cited other authorities 
related to detailing personnel outside of DOD in support of these 
fellowships. These attorneys cited section 4301 of Title 10 of the 
United States Code as an example that authorizes (among other things) 
the Secretary of the Army to detail members of the Army as students or 
observers at locations such as industrial plants, hospitals, and other 
places, where they would be best suited to acquire knowledge or 
experience in certain specialties.[Footnote 25] These attorneys noted 
that, because legislative and interagency fellowships involve 
detailing servicemembers to “other places” best suited to acquire 
relevant knowledge, these authorities could also be used to support 
fellowships. OSD attorneys further indicated that these statutory 
sections provide authority to conduct legislative and interagency 
fellowships, but agreed that the authority for those specific programs 
is not as explicit as the authority provided for other types of 
fellowships, or for intra-governmental training of civilians. 

OSD Has Limited Visibility over Fellowship and Training-with-Industry 
Programs: 

OSD has limited visibility over its fellowship and training-with-
industry programs, because (1) OSD has not developed a clear mission 
statement for these programs that defines the programs’ purpose, (2) 
OSD has not consistently enforced its requirement for the military 
departments to provide annual reports on fellowship and training-with-
industry programs, and (3) not all fellowship and training-with-
industry programs have a designated office within each department to 
be responsible for preparing information for these programs. In turn, 
OSD does not have a reliable inventory of the various fellowship and 
training-with-industry programs to educate its military officers. The 
absence of a reliable inventory is due, in part, to OSD’s not having a 
clear definition of a fellowship and the lack of a common reporting 
requirement for the annual report on fellowships and training-with-
industry to OSD, both of which complicate OSD’s ability to develop a 
reliable inventory. Additionally, OSD has limited visibility over one 
type of fellowship program-—legislative—-because OSD has not clearly 
delineated roles and responsibilities for overseeing this program and 
has not developed documented criteria for the placement of DOD fellows 
with congressional committees and members. OSD officials agree that 
such placement criteria would be helpful, since DOD does not have 
enough legislative fellows to meet the full congressional demand. 

OSD Has Not Developed a Clear Mission Statement for Fellowship and 
Training Programs: 

OSD has not developed a mission statement that would clearly define 
the respective key purposes for the legislative and nonlegislative 
fellowship and training-with-industry programs. Having a clear mission 
statement is critical because it defines an organization’s purpose in 
language that states desired outcomes.[Footnote 26] A mission 
statement ultimately describes why an organization exists and 
constitutes an important element in an oversight structure.[Footnote 
27] Further, a mission statement is important because it serves as a 
basis for having quantifiable performance goals. DOD’s instruction on 
fellowships and training-with-industry provides a very broadly written 
mission statement for the legislative and training-with-industry 
programs, but does not provide a mission statement for the 
nonlegislative fellowship program. For the legislative fellowship 
program, the instruction identifies the need for servicemembers to 
learn the operative process of the legislative branch. For the 
training-with-industry program, the instruction identifies the need to 
develop skills in private sector procedures and practices not 
available through existing military or advanced civilian educational 
and training programs. However, these definitions do not identify the 
purpose of providing participants with additional skills and knowledge 
in terms of enhancing their value to DOD throughout their careers. An 
OSD official stated that establishing a clear mission statement would 
improve its ability to conduct policy oversight of DOD’s fellowship 
and training programs. Without a clearly defined mission statement, 
OSD is not in a position to know the extent to which desired program 
outcomes are being achieved. 

OSD Has Not Consistently Enforced an Annual Reporting Requirement on 
the Respective Military Departments’ Programs: 

Prior to our review, USD P&R did not enforce its requirement that the 
military departments submit an annual report on their program reviews, 
and has not received annual reports for fiscal years 2008 and 2009. 
Such annual reports can enable USD P&R to have increased visibility 
over these programs and can assist in confirming that DOD policy is 
being implemented as expected. DOD Instruction 1322.06 directs USD P&R 
to maintain overall responsibility for DOD fellowship and training-
with-industry policy. This instruction also directs the military 
departments to conduct an annual review of their respective fellowship 
and training-with-industry programs to ensure that they are in 
compliance, and to submit the results of their reviews to USD P&R by 
January 31 of each year. 

Since our review began, USD P&R has taken steps toward enforcing this 
requirement with regard to the fiscal year 2010 reports.[Footnote 28] 
However, two of the departments’ fiscal year 2010 reports were 
incomplete in that some covered only a portion of the programs, and 
the third department’s report was submitted significantly after the 
deadline. Specific details on these reports follow. 

* The Army reported only on one type of fellowship for fiscal year 
2010-—legislative. According to some Army officials, they did not have 
any records indicating that the requested reports should include their 
nonlegislative and training-with-industry programs—a requirement about 
which they said they did not know until our review brought it to their 
attention. 

* The Navy and the Marine Corps, conversely, reported on their 
nonlegislative and training-with-industry programs for fiscal year 
2010, but not on their legislative fellowships. Further, according to 
Navy program officials, USD P&R did not ask for the annual report in 
2008 and 2009. Navy officials stated that they noticed this 
requirement in 2010 while seeking approval for a separate task and 
brought it to the attention of the Assistant Secretary of the Navy for 
Manpower and Reserve Affairs, who then tasked the program office to 
complete the report for the nonlegislative fellowship and training-
with-industry programs. The Navy and Marine Corps provided their 
reports to USD P&R for the first time in February 2011. 

* The Air Force report for fiscal year 2010 was submitted to USD P&R 
in December 2011 (approximately 11 months after the deadline), but 
only after USD P&R officials told Air Force officials in November 2011 
to provide them with a report. The report included general information 
on legislative and nonlegislative fellowships, and on training-with-
industry programs. 

USD P&R officials acknowledged that they did not request these reports 
from the services, although USD P&R had been requiring these annual 
reports as of the November 2007 revision to their instruction. Unless 
it consistently enforces the requirement for the services to submit 
the annual reports, USD P&R does not have the visibility to fully 
review the services’ fellowship and training-with-industry programs 
and limits its ability to perform its oversight responsibilities. 

Not All Programs Have a Designated Office for Preparing Annual Reports: 

Certain offices have been designated by their military departments as 
responsible for compiling information on some fellowship programs for 
the OSD-required annual report; however, not all fellowship programs 
have a designated office for compiling this report. Each service has 
separate organizations that manage their legislative fellowship, 
nonlegislative fellowship, and training-with-industry programs, 
respectively. We contacted many different organizations to obtain a 
comprehensive picture of the various phases of the fellowship and 
training-with-industry programs, as shown in table 1 below,. (See app. 
II on the life-cycle phases of a fellowship program, such as 
monitoring the fellows’ progress during the fellowship, ensuring 
completion, and assigning the fellows to a follow-on utilization or 
postfellowship tour.) For example, we had to gather information from 
seven different organizations within the Army to obtain a 
comprehensive view for just one of that service’s programs—-the Army’s 
Senior Service College Fellowships Program. 

Table 1: Offices within Each Service Involved in Management of 
Fellowship and Training-with-Industry Programs: 

Army: 
Congressional Operations Division; 
Combined Arms Center; 
Department of Academic Affairs Army War college; 
Interagency Student Division; 
Leadership Development Division; 
Senior Leaders Division; 
Strategic Leadership Division; 
Retirements and Separations Division; 

Navy: 
Education Branch; 
Distribution Management; 
Graduate Education and Training Placement; 
Information Dominance Corps; 
Legislative Liaison Office; 
Office of Supply Corps Personnel; 
Strategy Office. 

Marine Corps: 
Congressional Fellows Program Office; 
Marine Corps University; 
Officer Assignments Branch. 

Air Force: 
Congressional Support Branch; 
Colonel Management Office; 
Force Development; 
Fellowships Program Office; 
Developmental Education Branch; 
Officer Promotions, Appointments, and Selective Continuation Branch; 
Learning Division; 
Acquisitions Career Management. 

Source: GAO analysis of DOD information. 

Note: For the Secretary of Defense Corporate Fellowship, the services 
are responsible for selection of the fellows and certain limited 
administrative tasks. The Deputy Chief Management Officer in OSD has 
oversight and supervisory responsibilities over the program, and a 
director at the National Defense University manages the program. 

[End of table] 

Although we interviewed officials in numerous offices within each 
military service to obtain a more comprehensive understanding of the 
various programs, only some fellowship program offices acknowledged 
having been designated as having responsibility for compiling 
information on their program for the annual report. Three service 
fellowship programs have included the requirement for the annual 
report in their program guidance-—the Army Legislative Fellowship 
Program, the Navy Cyber Federal Executive Fellowship Program, and the 
Legislative Fellowship Program. However, the Air Force and Marine 
Corps legislative fellowship, nonlegislative fellowship, and training-
with-industry programs and the Army and Navy nonlegislative fellowship 
and training-with-industry programs have not formally designated 
program offices for the annual preparation of these reports. 

Officials in the policy office of the Air Force and the Navy told us 
that while they have not been formally designated as responsible for 
compiling this report, they anticipate being given the responsibility 
for reaching out to the fellowship and training-with-industry programs 
to obtain information for the report. Prior to the reports being 
submitted in response to congressional inquiries in 2009 and 2010, 
some program officials said that they were not aware that they were 
responsible for submitting a report to USD P&R because they were not 
tasked as the office responsible for this requirement. Without having 
a designated office within each department to take responsibility for 
reporting requirements for their respective fellowship and training-
with-industry programs, USD P&R’s visibility over departmental 
compliance with its instruction and relevant laws will continue to be 
limited. In the course of this review, we identified an important 
consequence of USD P&R’s limited visibility over DOD’s various 
fellowship and training programs. By law,[Footnote 29] servicemembers 
in certain fellowships are required to complete a service obligation 
for a period of no less than three times the length of a fellowship. 
However, one Army regulation[Footnote 30] for certain nonlegislative 
fellowship programs stipulated a service obligation length that was 
not in compliance with the law or with the DOD instruction governing 
that program. In that instance, the Army was allowing certain officers 
to meet the service obligation requirement for a 1-year fellowship by 
committing to serve 2 years rather than the statutory 3 years. 
Subsequently, Army officials have informed us that they are in the 
process of taking corrective action to change the Army guidance based 
on our finding. USD P&R officials with whom we met were unaware of 
this instance of noncompliance. 

OSD Has Not Developed a Reliable Inventory of Fellowship and Training-
with-Industry Programs and Participants: 

USD P&R has not developed a reliable inventory of DOD’s fellowship and 
training-with-industry programs—an inventory that would be useful for 
enabling DOD to know how often, at what cost, and in what capacity it 
is using these alternative educational and training programs for its 
military officers to meet new and emerging skill needs, and to better 
fulfill its mission. We have previously reported[Footnote 31] on the 
importance of maintaining a complete inventory of the type of skills 
an agency needs to better position it to properly assess gaps in its 
capabilities and to appropriately assess risk so it can make informed 
decisions about the future direction, scope, and nature of its efforts 
and investments in support of emerging skill needs. Although USD P&R 
has collected some of the DOD instruction-required annual reports on 
fellowships and training-with-industry programs, these do not enable 
it to determine the totality of the fellowship participants and 
programs, or of the needs these programs address. We found that these 
required annual reports did not provide consistent and detailed 
information linking the fellowships with current or emerging needs, 
which are the basis for offering the various types of fellowship 
opportunities. Such information would be useful in helping USD P&R 
develop a robust inventory and identify training and educational 
solutions to fill identified gaps. We collected information, which USD 
P&R was unable to provide us, on program participants from the 
services dating back to 2007,[Footnote 32] and we found that, at a 
minimum, 1,797 mid- and senior-rank officers participated in 
fellowships and training-with-industry programs from fiscal years 2007 
through 2011, as shown in table 2. 

Table 2: Number of DOD Fellows and Training-with-Industry Participants 
for Fiscal Years 2007 through 2011: 

Type of program: Legislative; 
Army: 90; 
Navy: 69; 
Marine Corps: 46; 
Air Force: 145; 
Total by type: 350. 

Type of program: Nonlegislative; 
Army: 400; 
Navy: 81; 
Marine Corps: 68; 
Air Force: 500; 
Total by type: 1,049. 

Type of program: Training-with-industry; 
Army: 265; 
Navy: 6; 
Marine Corps: N/A; 
Air Force: 127; 
Total by type: 398. 

Total by service: 
Army: 755; 
Navy: 156; 
Marine Corps: 114; 
Air Force: 772; 
Total by type: 1,797. 

Source: GAO analysis of DOD data. 

Note: These numbers represent a minimum number of participants and not 
actual totals. 

For some years, the fellows were assigned according to a calendar year 
or an academic year. Calendar year fellowships were counted in the 
corresponding fiscal year. 

[End of table] 

The DOD instruction on fellowships and training-with-industry defines 
the term fellowship, but we found that usage of the term to describe 
various educational opportunities varies significantly from service to 
service, thus complicating the compilation of a reliable and complete 
inventory. For example, the Air Force increased its total number of 
fellowships offered when it changed the designation of some of its “
internships” to “fellowships” after adding an interagency rotation 
requirement to the program.[Footnote 33] Air Force officials said that 
they viewed the internship as being more aligned with the fellowship 
description in the DOD instruction, and thus changed the designation. 
Army officials, on the other hand, said that their interagency 
fellowships—similar to those of the Air Force—are called fellowships, 
but are not counted as fellowships for reporting purposes. USD P&R 
officials did not know about the Air Force change and stated that they 
disagreed with it. They observed that the instruction’s definition of 
a fellowship could be made more descriptive to avoid ambiguities such 
as this. In another example, the Navy included the Secretary of 
Defense Corporate Fellows Program in its annual report for 2010—a 
program that is governed by a different instruction, overseen by the 
Deputy Chief Management Officer, and managed in coordination with the 
National Defense University director. In this same report, however, 
the Navy did not include its Medical Professional Fellowship Programs, 
which are governed by a separate instruction and managed through the 
Navy Medicine Professional Development Center. 

USD P&R officials said that inconsistent views as to which fellowships 
should be counted—views that reflect the absence of a clear and 
commonly shared definition of what constitutes a fellowship—could 
hinder the development of an accurate inventory. Officials agreed that 
a more specific, DOD-wide definition of a fellowship, which would 
explain which opportunities warrant using the word “fellowship” in the 
program title, could be helpful. They said they anticipate conducting 
a review of each service’s policies or regulations that focus on 
fellowships and training-with-industry programs, to better ensure that 
all have the same definitions and are counting the programs and 
participants comparably, and that the services’ policies or 
regulations are in line with DOD Instruction 1322.06. This review will 
become even more important given that DOD will be drawing down its 
force structure and given that program officials within the services 
informed us that they are interested in increasing the number of 
fellowship and training-with-industry opportunities in the future. 

The responsibilities of the Office of the USD P&R include ensuring 
that personnel and readiness policies and programs are designed and 
managed to improve standards of performance, economy, and efficiency, 
which would facilitate visibility into its various programs, including 
DOD fellowship and training-with-industry programs. Without a clear 
definition of fellowship and training-with-industry programs, USD P&R’
s ability to maintain a reliable inventory of participants and thus 
oversee the service obligations associated with these educational 
fellowship and training-with-industry programs will remain limited. 

With regard to the military departments’ required reports on their 
annual reviews of the education and training-with-industry fellowship 
programs, USD P&R has not provided specific instructions as to the 
information the military departments should include. As noted 
previously, these reports did not contain consistent and detailed 
information on these programs. Service officials said that they would 
benefit from having more detailed reporting guidelines to help 
determine what information would be most useful for USD P&R. USD P&R 
officials said that when they update their Instruction in late 2012, 
they anticipate providing specifics to facilitate collection of more 
consistent information on the number of fellows, on their assignments 
during and after the fellowships, and on the timing of their returns 
to their official duty stations. Detailed guidelines could better 
position USD P&R to fulfill its oversight responsibility for 
fellowship and training-with-industry policy, and to help ensure 
service adherence to policies. Without USD P&R specifying in the DOD 
instruction common reporting requirements for the annual reports, DOD 
will continue to experience challenges in collecting consistent 
information and developing a reliable inventory on these programs. 

OSD Has Not Clearly Delineated Oversight Responsibilities for Its 
Legislative Fellowship Program: 

DOD’s Instruction 1322.06 does not delineate specific and clear roles 
and responsibilities for overseeing the fellowship and training 
programs for the Legislative Fellowship Program, and this absence of 
delineations has in some cases resulted in mutually contradictory 
assumptions by different OSD offices with respect to oversight 
responsibilities. We have previously reported that having clearly 
defined roles and responsibilities can be beneficial to address 
management challenges.[Footnote 34] The absence of defined oversight 
roles and responsibilities for the Legislative Fellowship Program has 
created some conflicting perspectives for two separate offices within 
OSD. For example, officials within the Office of the Assistant 
Secretary of Defense for Legislative Affairs said that although they 
assign DOD fellows to various congressional offices and serve as 
liaisons between the fellows and Congress, they do not have policy 
oversight responsibility for the program. However, officials within 
USD P&R said that they have responsibility for all reporting 
requirements for this program, but that otherwise the legislative 
affairs office manages the program. Our questions about roles and 
responsibilities concerning the Legislative Fellowship Program 
elicited contradictory information from the two offices, with each 
asserting that the other had policy oversight responsibility. Although 
officials within USD P&R have subsequently revised their position and 
said that they do have oversight responsibility, we note that this 
important role is not clearly delineated in the DOD instruction. In 
the absence of clearly delineated roles and responsibilities in DOD’s 
governing instruction, OSD is at risk of not fulfilling its oversight 
responsibilities. USD P&R officials stated that they agree with our 
observation and indicated that they plan to address oversight roles 
and responsibilities for legislative fellowships when they revise the 
instruction in late 2012. 

OSD Does Not Have Placement Criteria for Its Legislative Fellows: 

The Office of the Assistant Secretary of Legislative Affairs does not 
have documented criteria for the placement of DOD legislative fellows 
to congressional offices. We have previously reported35 that agencies 
should assign employees to host organizations to make the best use of 
their skills and help them to develop professionally while addressing 
host organizations’ needs. However, officials in OSD’s legislative 
affairs office said that the placement of DOD fellows with host 
congressional committees or individual congressional member offices is 
a complicated and very challenging process. These officials said that 
placing DOD fellows with congressional offices involves balancing a 
number of factors, such as (1) the fellows’ educational and career 
needs; (2) the availability of fellows each year to a bipartisan and 
bicameral assembly of congressional offices and members; and (3) any 
specified interests of individual congressional members regarding a 
requested fellow’s military service, educational background, and 
particular field of specialization.[Footnote 36] While these 
considerations help inform placement decisions, they do not enable DOD 
to systematically decide and explain its rationale for decisions on 
which congressional offices will receive DOD fellows. These officials 
stated that their primary intent is to provide military officers a 
broadening educational experience. In doing so, however, they have 
found an additional challenge in meeting demand when placing DOD 
legislative fellows in congressional offices because the number of 
legislative fellows requested by congressional committees and members 
has been exceeding the total number of available fellows, as shown in 
table 3. 

Table 3: Number of Congressional Requests for DOD Legislative Fellows 
and the Number That DOD Provides, Academic Years 2009-2010 through 
2011-2012: 

Academic year[A]: 2009-2010; 
Number of congressional requests for DOD fellows: 110; 
Number of DOD fellows provided: 80; 
Number of congressional requests not filled: 30. 

Academic year[A]: 2010-2011; 
Number of congressional requests for DOD fellows: 91; 
Number of DOD fellows provided: 85; 
Number of congressional requests not filled: 6. 

Academic year[A]: 2011-2012; 
Number of congressional requests for DOD fellows: 135; 
Number of DOD fellows provided: 83; 
Number of congressional requests not filled: 52. 

Source: Office of the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Legislative 
Affairs. 

[A] The 12 month legislative fellowship typically begins in January 
and ends in December, to correspond with the congressional cycle. 

[End of table] 

OSD legislative affairs officials said that because OSD does not have 
documented placement criteria, decisions as to which congressional 
offices receive DOD fellows are made on a case-by-case basis and are 
ultimately a judgment call, which can lead to inconsistent dealings 
with congressional offices. They said that they do their best to match 
the educational needs of the DOD fellow with the needs of the 
congressional office, but that there are not enough available fellows 
to meet the full demand. They further stated that these decisions can 
be difficult to defend to a congressional member who is denied a 
request for a DOD fellow, and that it is always difficult to turn down 
congressional requests. Without documented placement criteria, OSD’s 
legislative affairs office will continue to have difficulty in 
ensuring consistency in the department’s dealings with interested 
committees and members of Congress requesting DOD fellows. Officials 
in OSD’s legislative affairs office said that having documented 
placement criteria would help in the decision-making process and would 
better position the office to defend its decisions with congressional 
members who were denied a request for a DOD fellow. 

Military Services Are Not Well Positioned to Determine the Extent of 
the Benefits from These Programs: 

The military services believe that they derive benefits from their 
fellowships and training-with-industry programs, but they are not well 
positioned to determine the extent of these benefits for four main 
reasons. First, not all of the services conduct periodic program 
reviews, as required by their service guidance, for some or all of 
their programs; and the few reviews that have been conducted have not 
been comprehensive. For example, they do not ensure that the needs 
that prompted the program and the goals of the program are being met. 
Second, the services do not have clear guidance as to what qualifies 
as a follow-on utilization tour, or criteria for when such a tour can 
be postponed or waived, and this limits their ability to know the 
extent they are deriving a return on their educational investment. 
Third, the services do not know their overall program costs, including 
both direct and indirect costs, and therefore it is difficult to know 
whether these programs are cost-effective. Fourth, some of the 
services do not have written agreements or memoranda of understanding 
with the non-DOD host organizations providing the educational 
opportunity that spell out both parties’ roles and responsibilities—-
thus contributing to unclear expectations about the DOD benefit to be 
derived from these programs. Collectively, these limitations diminish 
the services’ assurances about the benefits they derive from their 
fellowship and training-with-industry programs. The services observed, 
however, that they use certain other program management practices to 
ensure that they derive benefits from these programs. 

Services Have Not Conducted Periodic and Comprehensive Program Reviews: 

While each of the services has taken some steps to review its 
programs, none has conducted both periodic and comprehensive reviews 
of its fellowship and training-with-industry programs. For some of the 
programs, there is no requirement to conduct periodic program reviews. 
With respect to fellowship programs, service review requirements vary, 
and compliance with them has been uneven. Further, for those services 
that have conducted program reviews, the reviews have not been 
comprehensive and have not included assessments of the status of the 
program against program goals. As a result, some services have limited 
assurances that their fellowship or training-with-industry 
opportunities meet desired program outcomes, address emerging mission 
requirements, or provide the best venue for developing needed 
personnel skills. We have previously reported on the importance of 
having systematically planned evaluations of training and development 
programs.[Footnote 37] In addition, evaluating programs through 
periodic and comprehensive reviews enables an agency to identify 
problems and improve a program, as needed. The services’ variance in 
review requirements for these programs is shown in table 4.[Footnote 
38] 

Table 4: Military Service Requirement for Periodic Program Reviews: 

Military service: Army; 
Legislative fellowships must be reviewed: Yes; 
Nonlegislative fellowships must be reviewed: Yes; 
Training-with-industry must be reviewed: No; 
Time frame for required review: The Army requires an annual review for 
Legislative Fellowships and no less than every 3 years for non-
legislative fellowships.[A] 

Military service: Navy; 
Legislative fellowships must be reviewed: Yes; 
Nonlegislative fellowships must be reviewed: Yes; 
Training-with-industry must be reviewed: No; 
Time frame for required review: The Navy requires an annual review for 
Legislative and Cyber Federal Executive Fellowship Programs, and a 
minimum of once every 2 years for other fellowships.[B] 

Military service: Marine Corps; 
Legislative fellowships must be reviewed: No[C]; 
Nonlegislative fellowships must be reviewed: Yes; 
Training-with-industry must be reviewed: N/A; 
Time frame for required review: Marine Corps requires nonlegislative 
fellowship host organizations be reevaluated annually for 
recertification and continued assignment of fellows.[D] 

Military service: Air Force; 
Legislative fellowships must be reviewed: Yes; 
Nonlegislative fellowships must be reviewed: Yes; 
Training-with-industry must be reviewed: No; 
Time frame for required review: Air Force requires all nonlegislative 
fellowships to be reviewed biennially.[E] 

Source: GAO analysis of military service instructions. 

[A] Army Regulation 621-7, Army Fellowship Programs and Army 
Regulation 1-202, Army Congressional Fellowship Program. 

[B] The annual reporting requirement in Bureau of Navy Personnel 
Instruction 1560.21E, Legislative Fellows Program (Nov. 12, 2010) 
corresponds to the requirement in the DOD instruction for an annual 
report to USD P&R. See also, Office of the Chief of Naval Operations 
Instruction 1590.79A, Cyber Federal Executive Fellowship (June 03, 
2011), and Office of the Chief of Naval Operations Instruction 
1500.72G,Navy Politico-Military Fellowships, Graduate Education 
Programs, and Community Sponsorship (June 22, 2010). 

[C] The Marine Corps does not have a separate instruction for its 
Legislative Fellowship Program. A Marine Corps official said that 
Office of the Chief of Naval Operations Instruction 1500.72G, Navy 
Politico-Military Fellowships, Graduate Education Programs, and 
Community Sponsorship (June 22, 2010), Marine Corps Order 1500.41A 
(Aug. 20, 1996) Scholarship Program for Members of the Marine Corps, 
Marine Corps Order1560.19E (Jun. 25, 2003) Advance Degree Program, and 
Marine Corps Order 1520.9G (Jul 31, 2003) Special Education Program 
govern the fellowship program. 

[D] Marine Corps Order 1520.28B Commandant of the Marine Corps Fellows 
Program (Oct. 22, 1996). The Marine Corps conducts its review through 
briefings presented to senior leaders and from gathering feedback from 
fellows. The Marine Corps plans to conduct a more formal review of the 
program in April 2012. 

[E] Air Force Instruction 36-2301, Developmental Education (July 16, 
2010). 

[End of table] 

Of the service programs that require a periodic review, Navy officials 
said that they conducted program reviews for their nonlegislative 
[Footnote 39] and legislative programs, and Marine Corps officials 
said they have conducted one nonlegislative program review. Two of the 
services-—the Army and the Air Force—-have not fully conducted 
periodic reviews of their programs as required in their program 
guidance. Although the Army is required to review its nonlegislative 
fellowships, it has not conducted reviews recently. In 2011, the Army 
began reviewing a portion of one type of nonlegislative fellowship—-
the Senior Service College Fellowships—-and officials said they expect 
to complete this portion of the review in early 2012, and to review 
the other fellowship programs in the near future. Air Force officials, 
on the other hand, informed us that their requirement for a biennial 
review of fellowships is an error in their instruction, and they plan 
to write this requirement out of the next version of the instruction. 
Further, these officials said that the review requirement applies only 
to graduate education programs—-not fellowships. Therefore, the Air 
Force has not periodically reviewed its fellowship programs, although 
Air Force officials said that information on fellowships is 
incorporated into their annual process for designating educational and 
developmental opportunities. 

None of the services has comprehensively reviewed its programs. A 
comprehensive review, as we have previously reported,[Footnote 40] may 
include the following four elements: quantifiably measuring the extent 
to which the program is meeting program goals; validating that 
fellowships and training-with-industry programs meet current and 
emerging requirements; incorporating feedback from program 
participants and host organizations to improve the program; and 
documenting the results of the review to enable the service to modify 
its programs, as needed. However, we found that not all services are 
including these four elements in their reviews, as described below: 

* Using quantifiable performance measures for meeting their stated 
goals for their programs. The services have not measured the extent to 
which their programs are meeting their goals,[Footnote 41] because 
they have not developed quantifiable performance measures for most of 
their program goals. We have previously reported on the importance of 
agencies developing and using performance measures to ensure 
accountability and assess progress toward achieving results aligned 
with goals.[Footnote 42] The services vary in the extent to which they 
review their programs to measure against program goals. For example, 
an Army official said that the Army has not assessed the program using 
quantifiable performance measures for its legislative fellowship 
program, but the official believed that a measure that tracks the 
completion of utilization tours could be used to assess the extent to 
which they are meeting the goal of having a pool of officers from 
which some may be selected for future utilization in the field of 
congressional liaison. Similarly, a Navy official with the Cyber 
Federal Executive Fellowship Program said that the utilization tour 
could be used as a performance measure for meeting the program’s 
goals, but they plan to use it as a qualitative, not quantifiable, 
performance measure. The Marine Corps Legislative and Commandant of 
the Marine Corps Fellowship Programs have not created quantifiable 
performance measures either, although officials said they use 
qualitative measures, such as discussions with fellows and senior 
leaders, to assess the programs. The Army and Air Force have taken 
some steps to develop quantifiable measures for some programs. For 
example, in 2011 the Army surveyed fellows in the Senior Service 
College Fellowship Program to assess the extent to which these 
fellowships met their objectives. The Air Force Fellowship Program 
surveys its host organizations on the percentage of time the fellows 
spend on the Air Force’s service-specific competencies—used by Air 
Force officials as indicators that the program is meeting its goals 
and objectives. However, the Air Force has not developed quantifiable 
goals with which these survey results can be compared. Without 
reviewing their programs to assess progress against program goals, the 
services are limited in their ability to determine the effectiveness 
of their programs. 

* Validating that programs meet current or future mission 
requirements. Some of the services have not periodically validated 
that the fellowship or training-with-industry assignments continue to 
address current or emerging mission requirements. The DOD instruction 
states that the secretaries of the military departments are 
responsible for ensuring that the current assignments using 
fellowships and training-with-industry positions meet the intent of 
the program and continue to meet military department and DOD 
requirements or anticipated needs. We have reported that successful 
organizations match training and development programs to their 
specific needs and capabilities.[Footnote 43] While the Navy and the 
Marine Corps have periodically reviewed their programs to ensure that 
they meet current and emerging needs, the Army and the Air Force have 
not. The Marine Corps has informally validated its programs through a 
process that looks at the costs of the program, updates the list of 
fellowship host organizations, and determines which fellowships are 
available for the upcoming year. Although the Army’s instruction for 
nonlegislative fellowships requires that each fellowship program be 
reviewed for continued relevancy and to determine that it meets stated 
criteria and objectives, the Army has not conducted this review 
regularly. We note that Army officials stated that in their current 
review of a portion of the Senior Service College fellowships that 
they plan to revalidate the need for each or the uniqueness of each 
host organization. While the Air Force has not revalidated that its 
fellowships meet current or emerging needs through periodic program 
reviews, it stated in its December 2011 report to USD P&R on 
nonlegislative fellowships that program oversight and management 
ensure validation that the programs fulfill a present need, 
anticipated requirement, or future capability. 

* Incorporating feedback. While all of the services have collected 
some feedback from fellows and host organizations, they have not 
consistently incorporated this feedback into their program reviews. We 
have previously reported on the importance of agencies measuring 
training participants’ reactions to and satisfaction with their 
programs, and of measuring changes in their knowledge, skills, and 
abilities after their participation in the programs.[Footnote 44] The 
Army and the Air Force have conducted postfellowship surveys for some 
fellowships to gather information on the fellows’ experiences. While 
these surveys provide information on the experience of the fellowship, 
they do not provide information on how the fellowship experience has 
been of benefit to the fellows’ careers from a perspective of several 
years later. We note that the Marine Corps has conducted surveys to 
collect feedback from both recent and earlier fellows. In addition, 
some of the services gather feedback from fellows on their experiences 
through periodic reports to the program office. All of the services 
monitor their fellows and collect feedback through intermittent 
meetings with them. The Air Force also collects feedback from host 
organizations through surveys and periodic site visits, and the Army 
has recently conducted site visits to some of its host organizations. 
Across the services, however, there has not been consistent 
incorporation of feedback in program reviews. 

* Documenting program accomplishments. Although some of the services 
said that they document a portion of their review efforts, no service 
has documented accomplishments that covered an entire program review, 
or the entirety of its programs.[Footnote 45] We have previously 
reported on the importance of using program evaluations to make fact-
based determinations of the program’s impact, and to reallocate or 
redirect resources accordingly.[Footnote 46] Service officials said 
they use or plan to use the information they collect to make changes 
to their fellowship and training-with-industry programs. Army 
officials said they plan to use their ongoing review of a portion of 
the Senior Service College fellowships to refine the Army’s portfolio 
of senior-level fellowships. Prior to the review, the Army had 
identified problems with the fellowship programs primarily by 
incident, either with the fellow or with the host organization. Marine 
Corps officials stated they have used feedback from the fellows to 
decide upon which host organizations to keep or to discontinue in 
their portfolio. Air Force officials said they have analyzed feedback 
from fellows and host organizations to make decisions on which host 
organizations to discontinue when overall education funding was 
reduced. Documentation of these results would enable the services to 
demonstrate that they have conducted the review and what steps, if 
any, they may take to improve the program. 

Some of the services informed us that they intend to do more to review 
their programs. For example, as part of its ongoing review the Army 
plans to match fellows with host organizations that will enable them 
to research issues identified by Army leadership as critical problems 
facing the Army. A Navy official said that although the Navy has not 
yet conducted its first review of the Cyber Federal Executive 
Fellowship, it plans to survey 2011 fellows in the fall of 2012, a 
year into their utilization tour, to assess how the fellowship 
benefited their careers. Marine Corps officials said that they are 
examining a more formal process to supplement their current informal 
annual fellowship reevaluation practices. Without conducting periodic 
and comprehensive performance reviews, the services’ ability to 
determine the benefit they derive from fellowship and training-with-
industry programs will remain limited. 

Services Do Not Have Clear Guidance on Utilization Tours: 

The services inconsistently implement a DOD requirement[Footnote 47] 
to have utilization tours—-assignments where program participants can 
apply knowledge and skills gained through fellowship and training-with-
industry programs—-because they do not have clear guidance as to what 
qualifies as a follow-on utilization tour, and they do not have 
criteria for when to postpone or waive this requirement. After a 
participant’s completion of the fellowship or training-with industry 
opportunity, the services are expected to assign the participant to a 
tour that enables him or her to make use of the newly gained skills, 
knowledge, and abilities, according to DOD guidance. 

Service officials described utilization tours to us as a benefit that 
DOD gains from conducting its fellowship and training-with-industry 
programs. For example, both Army fellowship policy documents and 
officials with whom we spoke described utilization tours as a 
mechanism for maximizing the benefit derived by the Army. Navy 
officials described utilization tours as a way to receive a return on 
their investment and to meet the intent of the programs, given that 
they reinforce skills, promote continued learning, and serve to meet 
the requirements of the Navy. Air Force policy documents and officials 
described utilization tours as a way to ensure that officers use the 
skills they have developed. 

However, the services do not implement utilization tours for 
fellowships consistently, either within or across services. For 
example, within the same Air Force fellowship program, some fellows 
have a mandatory utilization tour, while for others it is a 
recommendation. According to Air Force officials, the decision as to 
whether a utilization tour is mandatory or recommended is made by the 
Air Force office responsible for fellowship policy on a case-by-case 
basis at the time it initiates the fellowship. Air Force officials 
said they do not have established criteria for determining whether a 
utilization tour is mandatory or recommended. Similarly, the Army 
requires utilization tours for some of its fellowship programs, such 
as the legislative fellowship, but not for others. In contrast, the 
Navy and the Marine Corps generally require utilization tours for all 
of their fellowship programs, and all of the services generally 
require utilization tours for their training-with-industry programs. 
[Footnote 48] 

Service officials said that inconsistency across the services is 
attributable, in part, to the absence of a clear definition as to what 
constitutes a follow-on utilization tour in the DOD instruction. A 
Navy official said that the differences in how the services implement 
utilization tours are a result of not having a clear definition of the 
requirement. Similarly, Marine Corps officials described fulfilling 
utilization tours as a judgment call, and one Marine Corps official 
said there has been an internal debate as to what assignments should 
count as utilization tours, and within what time frame such tours 
should be assigned. 

Also, the services’ postponement or waivers of the requirement to 
perform utilization tours occur inconsistently, because the services 
do not have criteria to determine when it is appropriate to postpone 
or waive this requirement. As a result, the services have different 
implementation practices for postponing or waiving the utilization 
tour requirement. Generally, the services postpone or waive the 
utilization tour requirement on a case-by-case basis. For example, 
according to officials the Army postpones or waives the requirement 
for most, but not all, of its fellowships. For one Army fellowship 
program—-the Senior Service College Fellowship Program-—the former 
Army Chief of Staff provided written guidance in 2010 indicating that 
specific requirements for utilization tours upon completion of 
fellowships should not be imposed. Army officials stated that the 
utilization tour requirement was viewed as adding more stress and 
burdens to the officers during a period of high operational tempo and 
frequent deployments, and that utilization tours for these fellows 
were viewed simply as a recommendation for postfellowship assignments. 
In the case of one Navy fellowship program, on the other hand, Navy 
guidance[Footnote 49] generally requires a utilization tour, and that a 
high-level Navy Personnel Command official must approve any 
exceptions; the regulation does not provide any criteria for such 
exceptions. Service officials from all of the services stated that 
they postpone assigning a utilization tour if the tour would interfere 
with another career-advancing assignment, such as being selected for a 
command position. 

Some service officials said that improving the consistency of their 
implementation of the utilization tour requirement could increase 
assurances that they derive benefits from fellowship and training-with-
industry programs, even though their reasons for not requiring 
utilization tours vary. Army officials informed us that they are 
examining steps to better strategically link utilization tours with 
the specific research focus of the fellow, and might begin to require 
utilization tours for their Senior Service College fellows now that 
they expect fewer Army officers to be deploying overseas. Navy 
officials said they are hoping to develop a capability to better track 
utilization tour completion to better ensure that they are getting a 
good return on investment. Marine Corps officials said they also plan 
to improve their process for tracking legislative fellowship 
utilization tours in 2012. In addition, Air Force officials said that 
implementing the utilization tour requirement more consistently would 
benefit their service. 

We have previously reported on the importance of having agency 
training and development managers remove barriers that can impede the 
use of knowledge and skills gained in training, so as to improve 
performance on the job.[Footnote 50] Without having a common 
understanding of the follow-on utilization tour requirement and its 
waiver criteria, the services’ ability to determine the benefit they 
derive from fellows and training-with-industry participants using 
their newly developed or enhanced skills in these tours will remain 
limited, and the circumstances surrounding each waiver will remain 
uncertain. In addition, having assurances that utilization tour 
requirements are being met can better position the services to justify 
the use of appropriated funds for these programs and can better ensure 
that the services are meeting the intent of the programs by filling 
positions that meet current and anticipated needs. 

Services Do Not Know Overall Program Costs and Cannot Determine Cost-
Effectiveness: 

The services do not know the overall costs of their fellowship and 
training-with-industry programs, including both direct and indirect 
costs. We have previously reported on the importance of ensuring that 
training and development efforts are cost-effective relative to their 
anticipated benefits.[Footnote 51] Without having reviewed the overall 
costs of the programs, the services cannot be assured that they are 
cost-effective, and they will not have the information necessary to 
aid decision makers in managing scarce training, development, and 
education resources, particularly due to anticipated lower levels of 
defense spending.[Footnote 52] 

The services are not required by the DOD instruction to report on the 
overall costs of the program. However, while not uniformly required 
across the board, some of the service instructions do require 
reviewing a portion of the costs of their respective programs. The 
Army requires that host candidate organizations, within their 
proposals to become hosts, present the estimated costs to the 
service.[Footnote 53] As part of a periodic review for two of the Navy’
s fellowship programs—-the Cyber Federal Executive Fellowship and the 
Federal Executive Fellowship-—the Navy reviews the cost of execution, 
utilization, and any fiscal surpluses or constraints that might affect 
future execution of the program, to help inform future decisions about 
it.[Footnote 54] For one of its fellowship programs-—the Commandant of 
the Marine Corps Fellowships—-the Marine Corps requires that a cost 
estimate is determined for tuition, fees, and travel costs to aid in 
budget planning.[Footnote 55] One Air Force instruction[Footnote 56] 
requires that all fellowships be reviewed for their cost efficiency, 
but, as previously mentioned, Air Force officials stated that this 
requirement to review fellowships is an error in the Instruction. 

The services know some of the direct costs associated with their 
fellowship programs, such as the tuition and fees paid to the 
universities and think tanks that host fellows,[Footnote 57] but not 
all of them. Service officials said that the tuition or fee paid to a 
host organization was used for the administrative, academic, and 
technological support provided to the fellow, as well as for the 
facilities and resources at the host organization. Some of the direct 
costs of the program include those associated with travel, research, 
and orientation. We collected information from the services on the 
tuition or fee amounts paid to host organizations for fellowships. We 
estimated that for the academic year 2010-2011, the services paid 
approximately $2.9 million in tuition and fees for approximately 270 
fellows, of which the Army paid approximately $1.2 million; the Navy 
paid approximately $208,000; the Marine Corps paid approximately 
$378,000; and the Air Force paid approximately $1.1 million.[Footnote 
58] The services paid a tuition or fee to more than half of their 
fellowship host organizations. 

For two of the services, officials said that knowing the direct costs 
of their fellowship and training-with-industry programs is difficult, 
given that the programs are financially managed by several different 
organizations. For example, funding for the cost of a fellowship may 
come from the proponent that sponsors a fellowship, or from general 
student and educational funding, or from other components, such as the 
National Guard or Reserve, depending on the fellowship and the 
service. In addition, the costs of the program may extend across more 
than 1 fiscal year, as the programs are based on academic or calendar 
rather than fiscal years. 

Service officials said that they do not know the indirect costs of the 
programs, such as administrative support, faculty, and permanent 
change of station costs, and that there are several challenges in 
determining those costs. In addition, some officials said that for 
their programs indirect costs may include the salary and benefits of 
the officer while participating in the fellowship or training-with-
industry program.[Footnote 59] Service officials said that the 
indirect costs of the fellowship are not easily identified. For 
example, an Army official said the Army does not have a financial 
management system that would allow it to distinguish the 
administrative and faculty costs directed toward Army War College 
students from those directed toward fellows. For many of the programs, 
management and faculty support of fellows and training-with-industry 
participants is an additional duty, not the sole duty, of a service 
official. 

Without knowing the direct and indirect costs of these programs, the 
services are unable to compare the cost-effectiveness of attending one 
type of educational opportunity versus that of another type. Service 
officials said they experience similar challenges in knowing the 
overall costs of servicemembers attending military schools, or other 
professional development and training opportunities. Some service 
officials said that having more information about the overall costs of 
the programs would be beneficial because it would better inform them 
on how many fellowship and training-with-industry opportunities they 
can afford to devote educational and training resources to, and would 
provide better information for budgeting. 

Some of the Services Have Not Established or Reviewed Memoranda of 
Understanding with Host Organizations: 

Some services have not established or reviewed agreements or memoranda 
of understanding[Footnote 60] that would outline the responsibilities 
of the services and the think tank, university, and federal agency 
host organizations for fellowships, but several service officials we 
interviewed said this would be a best practice to incorporate. We have 
previously reported on the importance of having management controls to 
provide accountability for the use of government resources, and to 
outline the responsibilities of each party.[Footnote 61] We have also 
reported on the importance of having policies and procedures to ensure 
that training and development efforts and expectations are discussed 
and understood by managers, supervisors, employees, training 
coordinators, and others.[Footnote 62] 

[Side bar: The Atlantic Council is a nonpartisan, nonprofit think tank 
that focuses on transatlantic cooperation and international security.
The Atlantic Council receives some funding from federal agencies 
through contracts and grants. Each of the services sent one fellow to 
the Atlantic Council in academic year 2010-2011. The Army, Navy, and 
Air Force paid $17,500 per fellow and the Marine Corps paid $25,000, 
for a total of $77,500 paid in fees. An Atlantic Council 
representative told us that the Marine Corps paid a higher fee because 
it was a newer program, and that they planned to increase the fee for 
the other three services. The Navy and Air Force had memoranda of 
understanding with the Atlantic; the Army and Marine Corps did not.
Both the Navy's and the Air Force's memoranda outlined what was 
expected of the Atlantic Council in return for the fee. Only the
Navy's memorandum included protections against fellows engaging in 
activities that would constitute a conflict of interest, and an 
approximation of the fee. Source: GAO. End of side bar] 

The requirement for having written memoranda of understanding between 
each party varies across the services and by the type of training 
involved. DOD’s Instruction 1322.06 does not require written memoranda 
of understanding for fellowships, but it does require a written 
agreement for training-with-industry programs. The instruction states 
that before the start of a training-with-industry assignment there 
must be a written agreement shared by the private sector host, the 
employee, and the DOD component concerned. The services63 generally 
established these required agreements with host corporations. Although 
not required by the instruction for fellowships, the services have 
varied in the extent to which they have established memoranda of 
understanding with host organizations. The Army and the Marine Corps 
have established such memoranda for a small proportion of their 
fellowships.64 In contrast, the Navy and the Air Force have 
established memoranda of understanding with most of their fellowship 
host organizations, stating that these documents help them to ensure 
that the host organization understands the roles and responsibilities 
of each party as well as the key learning objectives of the program. 

[Side bar: The Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS) 
is a nonpartisan, nonprofit think tank that focuses on national 
security issues. CSIS conducts research, analysis, and policy 
initiatives on topics such as defense and security and transnational 
challenges. According to its 2010 annual report, CSIS received 16 
percent of its operating revenue from government sources. For the 2010-
2011 academic year, the Army, the Army National Guard, the Navy, and the
Marine Corps each sent one fellow, and the Air Force sent two fellows, 
to CSIS. Each service paid $25,000 per fellow, for a total of $150,000 
paid in fees. The Navy and Air Force had memoranda of understanding with
CSIS; the Army and Marine Corps did not. Both the Navy's and the Air 
Force's memoranda outlined what was expected of CSIS in return for the 
fee. The Navy's also listed the fee to be paid to CSIS and included 
protections against fellows engaging in activities that would 
constitute a conflict of interest. Source: GAO. [End of side bar] 

The services have also varied in the extent to which service guidance 
require these documents to be reviewed. The respective guidance for 
one Navy and one Army fellowship program require that memoranda of 
understanding be reviewed.[Footnote 65] More specifically, the Navy’s 
Federal Executive Fellowship requires that its memoranda of 
understanding be reviewed every 2 years; and the Commandant of the 
U.S. Army War College is required to review and make recommendations 
on all fellowship proposals and memoranda of understanding for the 
Senior Service College Fellowships to ensure that the senior-level 
educational criteria are met. However, since the Army does not have 
memoranda of understanding for a majority of its fellowships, such 
reviews have rarely occurred. 

[Side bar: The Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) is a nonpartisan, 
nonprofit think tank that conducts research on foreign policy and 
national security issues. Each year the Chiefs of Staff of the Army 
and the Air Force, the Chief of Naval Operations, and the Commandant 
of the Marine Corps nominate senior officers for the fellowship. The 
fee for each service for the 2010-2011 academic year was $20,000 per 
fellow, for a total of $80,000 paid in fees. The Air Force had a 
memorandum of understanding with CFR, and the Army, Navy, and Marine 
Corps did not. Navy officials told us that they were developing a 
memorandum with CFR. Although the Air Force memorandum did not include 
the amount of the fee, it outlined what was expected of CFR in return 
for the fee. Source: GAO. [End of side bar] 

Several service officials cited establishing and reviewing memoranda 
of understanding as a good management practice. One Navy official said 
that establishing and reviewing memoranda of understanding is a best 
practice that should be encouraged, saying these agreements would 
clear up any misunderstanding about the structure of the individual 
program. Another Navy official had positive comments about 
establishing and reviewing memoranda of understanding, saying that 
establishing these memoranda constitutes a good practice because they 
define roles and responsibilities, provide protections for ethics and 
payments, and make clear the objectives of the fellowship. 
Furthermore, the Army and the Marine Corps both agreed that 
establishing and reviewing memoranda of understanding with host 
organizations would be beneficial. Army officials said they plan to 
establish and update the memoranda for all their fellowships and to 
update their policy accordingly. Army officials also said that these 
memoranda would provide clarity on the costs of fellowships each year 
and thus facilitate better accounting and budgeting for their program. 
Further, Army officials said the memoranda would provide clarity on 
what makes each host organization unique, the purpose of the 
fellowship, and the roles and responsibilities of the Army and the 
host organization. 

Memoranda of understanding serve as a management control and document 
key information and expectations between the service and the host 
organization. As a feature of documenting key information and 
expectations, memoranda of understanding can provide protections 
against potential conflicts of interest. Several Navy memoranda of 
understanding we reviewed contained provisions that pertained to 
fellows working on certain federal projects. For example, a memorandum 
of understanding for the Federal Executive Fellowships says that the 
fellow may not work on any contract or procurement studies that would 
violate federal standards of conduct, especially those pertaining to 
conflicts of interest. Without establishing and reviewing these 
memoranda, the services cannot be assured that expectations, including 
safeguards against potential conflicts of interests and criteria for 
appropriate fees and projects, are clearly understood by the host 
organizations and the fellowship participants. 

The Services Use Certain Management Practices as a Means of Obtaining 
Benefits from Fellowship and Training-with-Industry Programs: 

While the military services are not well positioned to determine the 
extent of their benefit from fellowship and related training programs, 
service officials believe that they do obtain benefits from these 
programs. For example, officials said these programs provide officers 
with a career-broadening developmental experience; enable them to 
conduct research on topics that are important to the military; help 
them develop critical and strategic thinking skills; help them gain 
perspectives from the civilian sector; build civilian-military 
relationships; and develop more responsive leaders during times of 
significant change in the global security environment. Officials also 
believe that the use of fellowship and training-with-industry programs 
affords DOD flexibility in meeting new or emerging educational and 
training needs that sometimes cannot be met within the military 
educational structure—for example, in the rapidly developing new 
approaches and techniques of the cyber security area. Service 
officials said they use several program management practices to 
enhance the benefits derived from fellowship and training-with-
industry programs, including the following: 

* Competitive selection: Service officials said that having a highly 
competitive selection process that rank-orders officers who are 
eligible to compete for many fellowship and training-with-industry 
opportunities helps to produce a selection of highly qualified 
officers for these opportunities. Officials said the process better 
ensures that the right officer is selected for a given fellowship or 
training-with-industry program, which ultimately benefits the 
officer’s career as well as accomplishes DOD’s mission though the 
experience gained. In our review of the selection process, we found 
that the preferences of career field managers, senior leaders, and the 
officers themselves were considered, for many of the services, in the 
selection of officers for fellowship or training-with-industry 
programs. 

* Orientation and ethics counseling: Service officials said that 
conducting orientation before the start of a fellowship helps to 
prepare fellows for their program by introducing them to key contacts, 
program requirements, and expectations for the year. In addition, 
officials stated, the ethics briefings given at orientation and 
availability of subsequent counseling provide assurance that fellows 
understand what is expected of them and are informed as to how to 
handle potential conflicts of interest. We reviewed seven ethics 
briefings and found them to contain essential elements, such as 
guidance on accepting gifts and information on contacting DOD legal 
officials with questions about ethics issues. (See app. IV for our 
review of these briefings.) 

* Research: Service officials said they have assurances that they 
receive a benefit by requiring many of the fellows to conduct research 
and write papers on topics that are important to each respective 
service, as identified by senior leaders. At orientation, some of the 
services have senior leaders speak about emerging topics that could be 
better researched to benefit the service. For academic year 2010-2011, 
for example, DOD fellows researched enhancing DOD’s acquisition and 
logistics processes, as well as countering irregular threats such as 
piracy. 

Service obligations: Service officials informed us that they had 
general procedures to provide some measure of benefits obtained when 
officers complete their additional service obligation as required by 
statute or DOD guidance for participating in certain fellowships or 
training-with-industry programs—that is, that the fellow will serve in 
the military for a period at least three times the length of the 
period of the fellowship education or training-with-industry 
opportunity.[Footnote 66] 

We found that all of the services generally have (1) policies on the 
requirement; (2) special coding capabilities for personnel record-
keeping and monitoring; (3) a formalized waiver process to better 
ensure that servicemembers do not retire or separate without 
fulfilling service obligations; and (4) the potential ability to 
recoup certain educational costs. While many service officials 
asserted that these practices increase the likelihood that benefits 
are derived from fellowships and training-with-industry opportunities, 
some also said they could still improve upon these practices to have 
greater assurances that DOD derives benefits from these programs. 

Conclusions: 

According to DOD, the intent for fellowships and training-with-
industry programs is to help fulfill a present need, anticipated 
requirement, or future capability that contributes to the 
effectiveness of the department’s mission. DOD has used these programs 
for at least 1,797 mid- to senior-level officers across the services 
over the past 5 fiscal years. Even as the war in Afghanistan is 
winding down and reductions in personnel end-strengths occur, 
servicemembers will still be deployed globally, and DOD will have to 
carefully balance operational assignments with identified needs for 
professional military education, both within DOD’s professional 
military educational system and outside of DOD, in fellowship and 
training with industry programs. However, until OSD gains improved 
visibility into these programs and the military services are better 
positioned to know that they achieve their intended benefits and are 
cost-effective, DOD will continue to face challenges in ensuring that 
it is deriving sufficient value from these programs. 

Recommendations for Executive Action: 

To improve oversight and management of DOD’s fellowship and training-
with-industry programs, we are making 11 recommendations to the 
Secretary of Defense. 

To help ensure compliance with DOD Instruction 1322.06 and thus 
enhance DOD’s visibility over all of the fellowship and training-with-
industry programs, and to promote a shared understanding across the 
military services of what is expected in meeting the instruction, the 
Secretary of Defense should direct the Under Secretary of Defense for 
Personnel and Readiness to take the following five actions: 

(1) develop a mission statement that clearly defines the respective 
purposes of the legislative and nonlegislative fellowship and training-
with-industry programs to be in a better position to know the extent 
to which desired program outcomes are being achieved; 

(2) more consistently enforce the DOD instruction’s requirement on the 
submission of annual reviews from the military services on these 
programs; and; 

(3) collaborate with the military departments to ensure that each 
service has designated an office to be responsible for compiling 
information on the legislative and nonlegislative fellowship and 
training-with-industry programs for the annual reports required in the 
DOD instruction. 

In addition, to enable DOD to develop a more reliable inventory for 
these programs, the Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and 
Readiness should: 

(4) clarify in the DOD instruction the definition of a fellowship; and; 

(5) specify in the DOD instruction common reporting requirements for 
the annual report, and clarify which fellowship and training-with-
industry opportunities should be included in this report, to 
facilitate the collection of consistent information on these programs 
across the military services. 

Additionally, to facilitate OSD’s ability to perform its oversight 
responsibility for the legislative fellowship program and to better 
ensure consistency in the department’s dealings with interested 
committees and members of Congress, the Secretary of Defense should 
direct the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Legislative Affairs to 
take the following two actions: 

(6) clearly delineate in the DOD instruction the roles and 
responsibilities for overseeing DOD’s Legislative Fellowship Program, 
and; 

(7) develop documented placement criteria for legislative fellows. 

Finally, to better position DOD to determine the extent of the 
benefits it derives from legislative and nonlegislative fellowship and 
training-with-industry programs and better assess whether fellowship 
and training-with-industry programs offer the best venues for 
developing needed personnel skills, the Secretary of Defense should 
direct the Secretaries of the Department of the Army, the Department 
of the Navy, and the Department of the Air Force to take the following 
four actions: 

(8) perform periodic and comprehensive program reviews that assess the 
progress using quantifiable measures, validate that programs continue 
to meet current or emerging needs, incorporate feedback from program 
participants and host organizations, and document the results of 
reviews; 

(9) clarify guidance for determining what qualifies as a follow-on 
utilization tour, and establish criteria to determine when a 
utilization tour is needed or, conversely, when it can be postponed or 
waived; 

(10) determine the direct costs of these programs by periodically 
obtaining and analyzing overall direct program costs, and explore the 
feasibility of estimating indirect program costs; and 

(11) establish and periodically review fellowship written agreements 
or memoranda of understanding to document key information and 
expectations between the services and the host organizations, such as 
fellowship objectives, criteria for evaluating the appropriateness of 
fees or tuition charged to the military departments, and criteria for 
evaluating the appropriateness of the projects involved. 

Agency Comments and Our Evaluation: 

In written comments on a draft of this report, DOD concurred with the 
11 recommendations we made to improve OSD oversight and strengthen the 
military services’ management of its fellowships and training-with-
industry programs. DOD also outlined actions that it plans to take for 
each recommendation, which it stated will improve the issues we 
identified in the report. DOD’s comments appear in their entirety in 
appendix V. We are encouraged by the department’s action plans that 
carry the intent to implement our recommendations. For example, we 
made 7 recommendations to OSD designed to enhance OSD’s oversight and 
visibility over these programs, for which OSD provided its intended 
actions such as making planned revisions to its instruction governing 
these programs by including a mission statement, a standard format for 
the military services to follow when completing the required annual 
report, and a date when this report is due to OSD—all actions we 
believe meet the intent of these recommendations. We also made 4 
recommendations to the military service secretaries to strengthen its 
management of these programs, which again OSD provided a series of 
steps it plans to take in response to our recommendations. OSD’s 
action plans included such steps as working with the military services 
to develop qualitative or quantitative measures that the department 
believes will best meet the services needs for these programs. Again, 
we are encouraged by the department’s action plans as stated in OSD’s 
comments to our draft report in meeting the intent of our recommended 
actions to strengthen these fellowship and training-with-industry 
programs. Finally, DOD provided technical comments, which we 
considered and incorporated where appropriate. 

We are sending copies of this report to the appropriate congressional 
committees. We are also sending copies to the Secretary of Defense; 
the Under Secretary of Defense (Comptroller); the Under Secretary of 
Defense for Personnel and Readiness; the Secretaries of the Army, 
Navy, and Air Force; and the Commandant of the Marine Corps. This 
report will also be available at no charge on our website at 
[hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov]. 

Should you or your staff have any questions concerning this report, 
please contact me at (202) 512-3604 or farrellb@gao.gov. Contact 
points for our Offices of Congressional Relations and Public Affairs 
may be found on the last page of this report. Key contributors are 
listed in appendix VI. 

Signed by: 

Brenda S. Farrell: 
Director, Defense Capabilities and Management: 

List of Committees 

The Honorable Carl Levin: 
Chairman: 
The Honorable John McCain: 
Ranking Member: 
Committee on Armed Services: 
United States Senate: 

The Honorable Daniel K. Inouye: 
Chairman: 
The Honorable Thad Cochran: 
Ranking Member: 
Subcommittee on Defense: 
Committee on Appropriations: 
United States Senate: 

The Honorable Howard P. “Buck” McKeon: 
Chairman: 
The Honorable Adam Smith: 
Ranking Member: 
Committee on Armed Services: 
House of Representatives: 

The Honorable C.W. Bill Young: 
Chairman: 
The Honorable Norman D. Dicks: 
Ranking Member: 
Subcommittee on Defense 
Committee on Appropriations: 
House of Representatives: 

[End of section] 

Appendix I: Scope and Methodology: 

To determine the statutory provisions that authorize the Department of 
Defense (DOD) fellowship and training-with-industry programs, we 
reviewed and assessed relevant laws and regulations that authorize and 
govern these programs. We also interviewed officials with the Office 
of the Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness (USD 
P&R) and attorneys from OSD’s Office of General Counsel for their 
perspectives on laws and regulations governing these programs and 
obtained written responses from OSD General Counsel on these 
authorities. 

To determine the extent of OSD’s visibility over these programs, we 
obtained and assessed DOD instructions and service guidance governing 
its fellowship and training-with-industry programs to determine the 
policy oversight responsibility and other requirements. We interviewed 
officials from USD P&R and the Office of the Assistant Secretary of 
Legislative Affairs to obtain information about their roles and 
responsibilities with respect to the Legislative Fellowship Program. 
We also interviewed officials from USD P&R with knowledge of the 
service reporting requirements from the DOD instruction on fellowships 
and training-with-industry programs. We collected available service 
reports that corresponded to these requirements, and assessed the 
extent to which USD P&R has established guidelines for information to 
include in these reports. We obtained information on the extent to 
which USD P&R was aware of the services’ compliance with statutory and 
regulatory requirements, such as the service obligation commitments 
and reporting requirements. Also, we assessed the extent to which USD 
P&R had a complete inventory of its fellowship and training-with-
industry programs. We collected data on the number of military 
officers[Footnote 67] and the types of fellowship and training-with-
industry programs from each of the military services and from OSD. We 
relied primarily on data from the military services, as they were able 
to provide more detailed information on these programs. To assess the 
reliability of each of the military services’ program data, we 
obtained information on (1) the systems used to maintain their data 
and these systems’ ability to record and report on these data, and (2) 
the quality control measures in place to ensure that the data were 
reliable for our reporting purposes. We also interviewed some service 
officials who were responsible for compiling these data. We identified 
some data limitations within these data and cross referenced with 
other documentation where available. We found the fellowship and 
training-with-industry data provided to us by the services to be 
sufficiently reliable for providing contextual information on the 
minimum number of participants; however, these data do not allow us to 
provide the actual totals. 

To determine the extent to which the military services are able to 
determine that they derive benefits from these programs, we obtained 
and assessed service guidance, collected and reviewed information on 
service processes and practices used to manage their programs, and 
interviewed service officials. We collected and analyzed information 
on the extent to which the services reviewed their programs, including 
completion of periodic program reviews and whether the reviews 
assessed the program against program goals using quantifiable 
performance measures; validated that the program continued to address 
current or emerging mission requirements; incorporated feedback from 
program participants or host organizations; and documented the results 
of the review. We collected data and information on utilization tours 
and on the extent to which the fellows are assigned to them. We also 
collected information on the extent to which the services tracked the 
costs of these programs and established and maintained memoranda of 
understanding with host organizations. We obtained information from 
each of the military services on the tuition or fee paid to fellowship 
host organizations for fellowships in academic year 2010-2011. 
[Footnote 68] We also obtained and evaluated seven ethics briefings 
that DOD provided to fellows and training-with-industry participants 
prior to the start of their selected program with a non-DOD host 
organization. We identified the key elements in these briefings and 
evaluated them for comprehensiveness. In doing so, our Office of 
General Counsel staff from the Ethics Office—-an office that provides 
guidance to our employees on ethics, conflicts of interest, 
impairments to independence, and related conduct rules and issues-—
reviewed and assessed the briefings we obtained from the military 
services. We also selected and interviewed a non-probability sample of 
four legislative fellows and six think tank fellows[Footnote 69] to 
obtain a firsthand understanding about the benefits of these 
educational and training opportunities from the perspective of the 
officer. We selected fellows from each service who were either current 
or had recently completed the fellowship at the time of our 
interviews, who were available for interviews; and who were situated 
in proximity to the Washington, D.C., area. 

We selected fellows from all four services and from a variety of 
different host organizations, focusing on think tanks and on 
legislative fellows in response to the interest expressed by Senate 
Armed Services Committee staff. In addition, we interviewed a non-
probability sample of nine non-DOD host organizations to obtain their 
perspectives on the educational benefits provided to military 
officers. We selected host organizations that were hosting a fellow at 
the time of our interviews; that were available for interviews; and 
that were situated in proximity to the Washington, D.C., area. To 
provide more in-depth examples of think tank fellowships, we selected 
three of the host organizations that hosted a fellow from each of the 
services and reported on the fees associated with the fellowships, and 
on the extent to which the services established memoranda of 
understanding with those organizations. 

We visited or contacted the following organizations during our review: 

Office of the Secretary of Defense: 
* Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness; 
* Office of the Deputy General Counsel; 
* Assistant Secretary of Defense for Legislative Affairs; 
* National Defense University. 

Department of the Army: 
* Manpower and Reserve Affairs, Military Personnel Policy; 
* Congressional Operations Division; 
* Combined Arms Center; 
* Department of Academic Affairs, Army War college; 
* Interagency Student Division; 
* Leadership Development Division; 
* Senior Leaders Division; 
* Strategic Leadership Division; 
* Retirements and Separations Division. 

Department of the Navy: 
* Manpower and Reserve Affairs, Military Personnel Policy; 
* Education Branch; 
* Distribution Management; 
* Graduate Education and Training Placement; 
* Information Dominance Corp; 
* Legislative Liaison Office; 
* Office of Supply Corps Personnel. 

United States Marine Corps: 
* Congressional Fellows Program Office; 
* Marine Corps University; 
* Officer Assignments Branch. 

Department of the Air Force: 
* Congressional Support Branch; 
* Colonel Management Office; 
* Force Development; 
* Fellowships Program Office; 
* Developmental Education Branch; 
* Officer Promotions, Appointments, and Selective Continuation Branch; 
* Learning Division; 
* Acquisitions Career Management; 
* Air Force Research Institute, Air University. 

Host Organizations: 
* American Enterprise Institute; 
* Atlantic Council; 
* Brookings Institution; 
* Center for New American Security; 
* Center for Strategic and International Studies;
* Council on Foreign Relations; 
* Institute of World Politics; 
* Joint Center for Political and Economic Studies; 
* Washington Institute for Near East Studies. 

We conducted this performance review from March 2011 through April 
2012 in accordance with generally accepted government auditing 
standards. Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit 
to obtain sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable 
basis for our findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. 
We believe that the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for 
our findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. 

[End o9f section] 

Appendix II: Life-cycle Phases of a Fellowship Program 

For each DOD fellowship program, there are various phases that 
comprise the program, depending on its life-cycle as shown in figure 2. 

Figure 2: Fellowship Program Life-cycle: 

[Refer to PDF for image: illustration] 

Fellowship Life-cycle: 

1) Identify current or emerging need; 
2) Establish fellowship opportunity; 
3) Select fellows; 
4) Start fellowship; 
5) Monitor fellows; 
6) Complete fellowship: 
* start serving service obligation and utilization tour; 
7) Review fellowship need and experience. 

Source: GAO analysis of service information. 

[End of figure] 

Typical phases of a life-cycle for fellowships are as follows: 

1. Different organizations within each service identify present and 
emerging needs of the service that the officers should be educated in 
and trained on. For example, a service identifies an emerging need for 
more cyber security based on recent events. 

2. The service policy or program offices establish the fellowship 
opportunity that provides the training and skills to meet the 
identified need. For example, once the cyber security emerging need 
was identified, the Navy policy office established a fellowship 
program with leading organizations in that field outside of DOD. 

3. Generally, the personnel command or center selects officers to 
participate in the fellowships through a competitive selection process 
that ranks eligible officers for selection. 

4. The fellows start their fellowship with a university, think tank, 
corporation, federal agency, or congressional committee or member 
office, generally with DOD or the service providing orientation and 
ethics counseling. 

5. During the fellowship, the program office with primary 
responsibility for the fellowship monitors the fellows’ progress, 
assisting them, when applicable, with research associated with the 
fellowship. 

6. At the completion of some fellowships, the fellows are generally 
required to submit a research paper or article. After completion, the 
fellow’s personnel command or center is responsible for assigning the 
participant to the postfellowship utilization tour, and for ensuring 
the fellow does not separate or retire from the military before 
completing the service obligation. 

7. Reviewing the fellowship program is generally conducted by either 
the policy office or the program office. The review considers whether 
there are any necessary changes to incorporate into the program for 
the upcoming year. 

Although we discussed fellowships in terms of a life-cycle, the life-
cycle for training-with-industry programs is similar to that of 
fellowships. 

[End of section] 

Appendix III: Military Service Guidance on Fellowship and Training-
with-Industry Programs: 

The military services each have their own guidance or regulations that 
covers fellowships and training-with-industry programs, as shown in 
table 5. 

Table 5: Military Service Guidance on Fellowships and Training-with-
Industry Programs: 

Army: 
Army Regulation 621-7: Army Fellowships and Scholarships (Aug. 8 1997) 
Army Regulation 1-202: Army Congressional Fellowship Program (May 26, 
2000); 
Army Regulation 621-1: Training of Military Personnel at Civilian 
Institutions (Aug. 28, 2007). 

Navy: 
Bureau of Navy Personnel Instruction 1560.21E: Navy Legislative 
Fellows Program (Nov. 12, 2010); 
Office of the Chief of Naval Operations Instruction 1500.72G: 
Navy Politico-Military Fellowships, Graduate Education Programs and 
Community Sponsorship (June 22, 2010); 
Office of the Chief of Naval Operations Instruction 1500.79A: Cyber 
Federal Executive Fellowship (June 03, 2011); 
Navy Supply System Command Instruction 1520.7: Training With Industry 
Program. 

Marine Corps: 
Marine Corps Order 1520.28B: 
Commandant of the Marine Corps Fellows Program (Oct. 22, 1996). 

Air Force: 
Air Force Instruction 36-2301: Developmental Education (July 16, 2010); 
Air Force Instruction 36-2302: Professional Development (Advanced 
Academic Degrees and Professional Continuing Education) (July 11, 
2001); 
Air Force Instruction 90-403: Air Force Legislative Fellows Program 
(Jan. 17, 2001); 
Air Force Instruction 36-2639: Education with Industry Program (May 
22, 2009). 

Source: The military services. 

[End of table] 

Appendix IV: Ethics Guidance Provided to Fellows: 

DOD legal officials presented ethics briefings to fellows during their 
orientation to the fellowship program. Each service provided a 
multiple-day orientation to fellows prior to the start of the 
fellowship and included a segment that covered ethics issues. Some 
services provided a general ethics briefing to all fellowship program 
participants at one time, and other services provided the ethics 
briefing separately to each fellowship program. Fellows participating 
in the Secretary of Defense Corporate Fellowship Program received two 
ethics briefings, one from their service and the other at the 
Secretary of Defense Corporate Fellowship Program orientation. 

In consultation with GAO’s Ethics Office, we identified key elements 
that would provide fellows with guidance on potential ethical issues 
and conflicts of interest they may face during their fellowship with a 
non-DOD host organization. We obtained seven examples of ethics 
briefings: two from the Army, two from the Navy, one from the Air 
Force, one from the Marine Corps, and one from the Secretary of 
Defense Corporate Fellowship Program. The key elements in the ethics 
briefings included: 

* Relevant laws and DOD policies, including the Joint Ethics 
Regulation (JER), DOD 5500.7-R, the Standards of Ethical Conduct for 
Executive Branch Employees 5 C.F.R. Part 2635, and relevant sections 
of 18 United States Code, Chapter 11, Bribery, Graft, and Conflicts of 
Interest. 

* Standards of Ethical Conduct for Executive Branch Employees 5 C.F.R. 
Part 2635 include: 
- Conflicts of interest; 
- Acceptance of gifts; 
- Unauthorized commitments purporting to bind the government; 
- Using public office for private gain; 
- Seeking outside employment. 

Some of the briefings provided guidance on teaching, speaking, and 
writing, such as guidance on the proper use of disclaimers in those 
activities for which the opinions of the fellow do not represent DOD, 
and guidance on being compensated for those activities. For example, 
fellows were instructed not to take compensation for teaching, 
speaking, and writing if the activity was undertaken as part the fellow’
s official position, or if the topic dealt with an ongoing or 
announced policy, program, or operation of DOD. In addition, some 
briefings provided guidance on engaging in political activities. For 
example, fellows were instructed that they were not permitted to use 
official authority or influence for interfering with an election; to 
be a candidate for civil office except as authorized; to participate 
in partisan political management, campaigns, speeches, articles, or 
conventions; or to promote or attend political dinners or fundraising 
events as an official representative of the Armed Forces. Furthermore, 
DOD provided the fellows with a point of contact for future questions 
and advice. 

[End of section] 

Appendix V: Comments from the Department of Defense: 

Office of The Under Secretary Of Defense: 
Personnel and Readiness: 
4000 Defense Pentagon: 
Washington, D.C. 20301-4000: 

April 16, 2012: 

Ms. Brenda S. Farrell: 
Director, Defense Capabilities and Management: 
United States Government Accountability Office: 
441 G Street, N.W. 
Washington, DC 20548: 

Dear Ms. Farrell: 

This is the Department of Defense's (DoD) response to the Government 
Accountability Office's (GAO) Draft Report, GAO-12-367, "Military 
Education: Improved Oversight and Management Needed for DOD's 
Fellowship and Training-with-Industry Programs," dated March 16, 2012. 

The Department concurs with the recommendations as stated in the GAO 
report. We reviewed the comments from the collateral action offices 
and have summarized their suggestions coupled with the agreed-to 
actions that the Department believes will improve the areas identified 
in the report. 

I thank you for your review of these programs and your assistance in 
making them more productive and effective for the Department. Should 
GAO have questions in the future, my point of contact, Ms. Alfreda 
Lewis, can be reached at (703) 697-4625 or freda.lewis@osd.mil. 

Sincerely, 

Signed by: 

Virginia S. Penrod: 
Deputy Assistant Secretary: 
(Military Personnel Policy) 

Enclosure: DoD Comments. 

[End of letter] 

GAO Draft Report Dated March 16, 2012: 
GAO-12-367 (GAO Code 351606): 
"Military Education: Improved Oversight And Management Needed For 
DOD's Fellowship And Training-With-Industry Programs" 

Department Of Defense Comments To The GAO Recommendations: 

Recommendation 1: The GAO recommends that the Secretary of Defense 
direct the Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness to 
develop a mission statement that clearly defines the respective 
purposes of the legislative and non-legislative fellowship and 
training-with-industry programs to be in a better position to know the 
extent to which desired program outcomes are being achieved. 

DoD Response: Concur. 

DoD Action Plan: The mission statement will be developed by OUSD(P&R)
Readiness(TR&S) staff and circulated to the Services for Coordination 
and incorporated in the next change of the DoD Instruction 1322.06. 

Recommendation 2: The GAO recommends that the Secretary of Defense 
direct Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness to more 
consistently enforce the DOD Instruction regarding the submission of 
annual reviews from the military services on these programs. 

DoD Response: Concur. 

DoD Action Plan: The current draft of the DoD Instruction contains a 
format for the Services to follow when completing their annual reports 
which will provide consistency of information across Services. The 
current revision of the Instruction also clearly identifies exactly 
what needs to be incorporated into the report and the reporting chain 
for the report. The Navy Medical Corps use quarterly or semi-annual 
training evaluations to ensure students are meeting defined 
requirements. The Department supports any internal reporting structure 
the Services deem sufficient as long as the results are incorporated 
in the Annual report required by the Instruction. 

Recommendation 3: The GAO recommends that the Secretary of Defense 
direct Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness to 
collaborate with the Military Departments to ensure that each service 
has designated an office to be responsible for compiling information 
on the legislative and non-legislative fellowship and training-with-
industry programs for the annual reports required in the DOD 
Instruction. 

DoD Response: Concur. 

DoD Action Plan: The current draft of the DoD Instruction now requests 
this information be provided to OUSD(P&R) MPP(OEPM) staff. The 
Department of the Navy's plan includes each corps chief's office be 
responsible for compiling their information on non-clinical 
fellowships/training with industry programs. The office with the 
largest number of such programs could be designated to receive, 
compile and send this information to higher authority. Army G3/5/7 
will officially task Army Human Resource Command via directive memo to 
provide program information to OSD IAW DoDI 1336.22. 

Recommendation 4: The GAO recommends that the Under Secretary of 
Defense for Personnel and Readiness should clarify in the DOD 
Instruction the definition of a fellowship. 

DoD Response: Concur. 

DoD Action Plan: The current draft of the DoD Instruction now provides 
a detailed definition of a fellowship to include a definition for 
Legislative versus non-legislative Fellowships. Services will comment 
on the draft DoDI in a formal coordination process before the 
Instruction is signed into policy. 

Recommendation 5: The GAO recommends that the Secretary of Defense 
direct the Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness 
should specify in the DOD Instruction common reporting requirements 
for the annual report, and clarify which fellowship and training-with-
industry opportunities should be included in this report, to 
facilitate the collection of consistent information on these programs 
across the military services. 

DoD Response: Concur. 

DoD Action Plan: The current draft of the DoD Instruction contains a 
format for the Services to follow when completing their annual reports 
which will provide consistency of information across Services. The 
current revision of the Instruction also clearly identifies exactly 
what needs to be incorporated into the report and the reporting chain 
for the report and when it is due to OSD. Services will officially 
comment on the draft Instruction to include the report format before 
the Instruction is signed into policy. 

Recommendation 6: The GAO recommends that the Secretary of Defense 
direct the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Legislative Affairs to 
clearly delineate in the DOD Instruction the roles and 
responsibilities for overseeing DOD's Legislative Fellowship
Program. 

DoD Response: Concur. 

DoD Action Plan: The current draft of the DoD Instruction directs the 
ASD(LA) to develop criteria detailing how their office assigns 
Legislative Fellows to the Hill and how they monitor the Fellows 
activities during the year. The final DoD Instruction will direct the 
ASD(LA) to ensure that Legislative Fellows return from the Hill after 
the completion of their fellowship. 

Recommendation 7: The GAO recommends that the Secretary of Defense 
direct the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Legislative Affairs to 
develop documented placement criteria for legislative fellows. 

DoD RESPONSE: Concur. 

DoD Action Plan: The current draft of the DoD Instruction directs the 
ASD(LA) to develop a criteria on how their office assigns the 
Legislative Fellows to the Hill. The ASD(LA) will also monitor the 
activities of the Legislative Fellows during the year. 

Recommendation 8: The GAO recommends that the Secretary of Defense 
direct the Secretaries of the Department of the Army, the Department 
of the Navy, and the Department of the Air Force to perform periodic 
and comprehensive program reviews that assess the progress using 
quantifiable measures, validate that programs continue to meet current 
or emerging needs, incorporate feedback from program participants and 
host organizations, and document the results of reviews. 

DoD Response: Concur. 

DoD Action Plan: The current draft of the DoD Instruction directs the 
Secretaries of the Military Departments to conduct an annual review of 
their respective programs. The Department will work with the Services 
in developing both qualitative or quantitative measure(s) that best 
meet the Services needs. Navy Medical Community currently evaluates 
their programs annually as they determine whether the program meets 
the needs of the specific corps to include training and content. If 
not, the program is disapproved for selection by the Navy. 

Recommendation 9: The GAO recommends that the Secretary of Defense 
direct the Secretaries of the Department of the Army, the Department 
of the Navy, and the Department of the Air Force to clarify guidance 
for determining what qualifies as a follow-on utilization tour, and 
establish criteria to determine when a utilization tour is needed or, 
conversely, when it can be postponed or waived. 

DoD Response: Concur. 

DoD Action Plan: The Department will release a Memorandum to the 
Services requesting an outline of their follow-on utilization tour as 
well as any existing or new criteria that identifies when a 
utilization is needed or when it can be postponed or waived; and who 
in the Service has the specific authority to make the decision. 
Although a follow-on utilization tour is preferred, there may be 
instances that require movement of the recently trained member, for 
example, to an operational or overseas assignment based upon immediate 
need. 

Recommendation 10: The GAO recommends that the Secretary of Defense 
direct the Secretaries of the Department of the Army, the Department 
of the Navy, and the Department of the Air Force to determine the 
direct costs of these programs by periodically obtaining and analyzing 
overall direct program costs, and explore the feasibility of 
estimating indirect program costs. 

DoD Response: Concur. 

DoD Action Plan: The current draft of the DoD Instruction contains a 
format for the Services to follow when completing their annual reports 
which will provide consistency of information across Services to 
include the number military and civilian participants in each program 
and the estimated costs (to include training, salaries, travel, etc.) 
of the program in their annual report. The Navy sees a challenge with 
collecting direct cost data since it may by contained in various 
systems. Also, recommend not going beyond direct cost as it is hard to 
capture. Likely the effort to capture would far exceed the return 
gained. 

Recommendation 11: The GAO recommends that the Secretary of Defense 
direct the Secretaries of the Department of the Army, the Department 
of the Navy, and the Department of the Air Force to establish and 
periodically review fellowship written agreements or memoranda of 
understanding to document key information and expectations between the 
Services and host organizations, such as fellowship objectives, 
criteria for evaluating the appropriateness of fees or tuition charged 
to DOD, and criteria for evaluating the appropriateness of the 
projects involved. 

DoD Response: Concur. 

DoD Action Plan: The Department will release a memorandum to the 
Secretaries of the Military Departments asking them to maintain 
current fiscal records in a designated office illustrating their 
review of these programs in line with the attributes of this
recommendation. Navy has Memorandums of Understanding (MOU's) 
currently in place for designated training programs. In addition, each 
non-clinical/training with industry training program should have a 
training plan that lays out objectives, training requirements and 
costs associated with the Integral Parts of Training (IPOT) and 
training related travel. 

[End of section] 

Appendix VI: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments: 

Contact: 
Brenda S. Farrell, (202) 512-3604 or farrellb@gao.gov. 

Acknowledgments: 
In addition to the contact above, Laura Talbott, Assistant Director; 
Darreisha Bates; Maria McCollester; Erin Preston; Sara Olds; Terry 
Richardson; Amie Steele; Cheryl Weissman; Allen Westheimer; and 
Michael Willems made key contributions to this report. 

[End of section] 

Footnotes: 

[1] The fellowship and training-with-industry programs we reviewed 
were generally available to officer levels at the intermediate level 
of O-3 to O-4, and at the senior level of O-5 to O-6. With the 
exception of the Marine Corps Legislative Fellowships, we did not 
identify fellowship and training-with-industry programs available to 
officer levels of O-1, O-2, O-7, and above during the course of our 
review, nor did DOD officials identify such programs. 

[2] For the purposes of this report, a think tank is defined as 
nonprofit organizations that conduct public policy research and 
analysis. We used the service’s categorization of whether or not an 
organization was a think tank or an academic institution. 

[3] DOD provided Congress with a report on legislative fellowships in 
2009 as directed in Senate Report 110–335 accompanying a bill for the 
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2009. DOD also 
provided the Senate Armed Services Subcommittee on Personnel with a 
report on fellowships at think tanks and training-with-industry 
programs in 2010. 

[4] We focused our discussions with the services on fellowship and 
training-with-industry programs for military officers governed under 
DOD Instruction 1322.06, Fellowships, Scholarships, Training-with-
Industry (TWI), and Grants for DOD Personnel (Nov. 15, 2007). While we 
did collect some data on the number of participants in fellowships 
that are governed primarily under other instructions, the focus of our 
review is on fellowships and training-with-industry programs that are 
governed under DOD Instruction 1322.06. 

[5] DOD Instruction 1322.06, Fellowships, Scholarships, Training-with-
Industry (TWI), and Grants for DOD Personnel (Nov. 15, 2007). While 
DOD Instruction 1322.06 governs most DOD fellowships, some of DOD’s 
fellowships are administered as part of other DOD programs. For 
example, the Secretary of Defense Corporate Fellowship Program is 
administered separately under DOD Instruction 1322.23, Secretary of 
Defense Corporate Fellows Program (SDCFP) (May 20, 2011). 

[6] DOD Instruction 1322.06 states that Legislative Fellowship 
nominees must be assigned to one of the following staffs: a Defense 
oversight committee (Senate or House Armed Services Committee) or 
appropriations subcommittee (Senate or House Appropriations Committee—
Defense); an intelligence oversight committee (Senate Select Committee 
on Intelligence or House Permanent Subcommittee on Intelligence); 
Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs; House Homeland 
Security; Senate Foreign Relations; House Foreign Affairs; Senate or 
House Veterans Affairs; the staff of the House or Senate Majority or 
Minority leader; or the staff of the Speaker of the House. 

[7] Legislative and interagency fellowships are different from 
assignments known as details in that they include educational 
opportunities not found in details. For example, a legislative 
fellowship includes course work and a research paper, and a 
legislative detail does not. In addition, details are governed by DOD 
Directive 1000.17, Detail of DOD Personnel to Duty Outside the 
Department of Defense (Jan. 12, 2012). 

[8] The Marine Corps does not currently offer a training-with-industry 
program. 

[9] Professional military education opportunities are also available 
at officer levels O-1, O-2, and officer levels O-7 and above. Because 
the fellowship and training-with-industry programs we reviewed were 
available to officer levels O-3 to O-6, we provided information for 
professional military education at those levels. 

[10] Officer level O3 corresponds to the rank of captain in the Army, 
Air Force, and Marine Corps, and lieutenant in the Navy. 

[11] The officer level 04 corresponds to the rank of major in the 
Army, Air Force, and Marine Corps, and lieutenant commander in the 
Navy. 

[12] Officer level O5 corresponds to the rank of lieutenant colonel in 
the Army, the Marine Corps, and the Air Force, and commander in the 
Navy. The officer level O6 corresponds to the rank of colonel in the 
Army, the Marine Corps, and the Air Force, and captain in the Navy. 

[13] The Navy does not grant professional military education credits 
to its officers for its intermediate- or senior-level education, or 
its fellowships. 

[14] Officers may also complete the intermediate- or senior-level 
education through nonresident learning programs, where the officer 
takes required courses online though correspondence or through a 
blended seminar program consisting of online and seminar study. 

[15] DOD Instruction 1322.06, Fellowships, Scholarships, Training-With-
Industry (TWI), and Grants for DOD Personnel (Nov. 15, 2007). 

[16] DOD Instruction 1322.06 does not cover certain fellowship 
programs that are administered separately; for example, the Secretary 
of Defense Corporate Fellowship Program or medical fellowships. 

[17] OSD has certain congressional reporting requirements concerning 
legislative fellowships. The Secretary of Defense is required by 
section 1104 of the John Warner National Defense Authorization Act for 
Fiscal Year 2007 (Pub. L. No. 109-364 (2006)) to report to Congress 
quarterly on members of the Armed Forces and DOD civilian employees 
who have served continuously in the legislative branch for more than 
12 consecutive months in one or a combination of covered legislative 
fellowships. USD P&R officials provided us information on the five 
times they have reported to Congress since 2007. Although officials we 
met said that they had believed the quarterly report requirement to be 
a contingent one—that is, such a report only had to be submitted when 
the circumstance of an extended fellowship occurred, in March 2011, 
DOD’s Office of General Counsel informed USD P&R that a quarterly 
report is required even if the circumstances of an extended fellowship 
did not occur. USD P&R officials said they will report quarterly even 
if there have been no extended fellowships. Also, section 1104 
requires the Secretary of Defense to report to the defense and 
appropriations committees if a member of the Armed Forces is assigned 
to a legislative detail or fellowship as a last tour of duty before 
retirement or separation from the Armed Forces. Officials stated they 
have yet to submit such a report because a DOD fellow retiring or 
separating immediately after a legislative fellowship has not occurred 
to the best of their knowledge. 

[18] DOD Instruction 1322.23, Secretary of Defense Corporate Fellows 
Program (SDCFP) (May 20, 2011) and DOD Instruction 6000.13, Medical 
Manpower and Personnel (June 30, 1997). 

[19] DOD Instruction 1322.06, Fellowships, Scholarships, Training-with-
Industry (TWI), and Grants for DOD Personnel (Nov. 15, 2007). 

[20] Section 2603 was originally enacted in 1962 to address concerns 
that servicemembers would be unable to accept prestigious fellowships 
or scholarships (such as Rhodes Scholarships) from certain 
nongovernmental sources, and to allow DOD to offset its training costs 
in certain circumstances. As a general matter, federal officials (to 
include officers of the armed services) are prohibited from accepting 
pay or other things of value in connection with their government 
service from nongovernmental sources. See, e.g. 18 U.S.C. § 209. 
Section 2603 provides a limited exception to this rule, by allowing 
DOD to offset some of its educational costs, while also allowing 
servicemembers to accept potentially desirable fellowships. When a 
servicemember accepts a fellowship, scholarship, or grant from a 
qualified source, DOD’s costs for training that servicemember are 
reduced; for example, if DOD planned to send a servicemember to a 
university research center for training, and the servicemember 
received a paid fellowship at that university, section 2603 would 
allow the servicemember to accept the fellowship, and DOD’s costs for 
the training in question would be reduced commensurately. 

[21] Section 2603 provides that fellowships may be accepted under 
regulations to be prescribed by the president or his designee. 
Executive Order No. 11079 (as amended by Ex. Ord. No. 11382, Ex. Ord. 
No. 12608, and Ex. Ord. No. 13286) expressly designates the Secretary 
of Defense to promulgate regulations under section 2603.The Under 
Secretary of Defense (Personnel and Readiness) promulgated 
implementing guidance in DOD Instruction 1322.06, Fellowships, 
Scholarships, Training-with-Industry(TWI), and Grants for DOD 
Personnel (Nov. 15, 2007). 

[22] For example, agreements or other arrangements entered into under 
section 2013 are not subject to generally applicable advertising 
requirements for government purchases in 41 U.S.C. § 6101. 

[23] Intragovernmental training of this kind for civilian personnel is 
authorized by 5 U.S.C. § 4104. 

[24] Sections 3013, 5013, and 8013 of Title 10 of the United States 
Code provide that the secretaries of the Army, Navy, and Air Force, 
respectively, are responsible for and have the authority necessary to 
conduct training, among other functions. 

[25] See also 10 U.S.C. § 9301, which provides similar authority to 
the Secretary of the Air Force. 

[26] GAO, Human Capital: A Guide for Assessing Strategic Training and 
Development Efforts in the Federal Government, [hyperlink, 
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-04-546G] (Washington, D.C.: Mar. 1, 
2004). 

[27] [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-04-546G]. 

[28] The Army report covered the 2010 calendar year. 

[29] See 10 U.S.C. § 2603. 

[30] Army Regulation 621–7, Education: Army Fellowships and 
Scholarships (Aug. 8, 1997). 

[31] GAO, A Guide for Assessing Strategic Training and Development 
Efforts in the Federal Government. [hyperlink, 
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-04-546G] (Washington, D.C.: March 
2004), High-Risk Series: An Update, [hyperlink, 
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-11-278] (Washington, D.C.: Feb. 2011), 
and Military Training: DOD Needs a Strategic Plan and Better Inventory 
and Requirements Data to Guide Development of Language Skills and 
Regional Proficiency, [hyperlink, 
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-09-568] (Washington, D.C.: June 19, 
2009). 

[32] We identified each office that was involved in the fellowship and 
training-with-industry programs and then requested program participant 
information from these offices. 

[33] These internship opportunities are available to Air Force 
officers. 

[34] GAO, Organizational Transformation: Implementing Chief Operating 
Officer/Chief Management Officer Positions, [hyperlink, 
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-08-34] (Washington, D.C.: Nov. 1, 
2007). 

[35] GAO, Interagency Collaboration: State and Army Personnel Rotation 
Programs Can Build on Positive Results with Additional Preparation and 
Evaluation, [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-12-386] 
(Washington, D.C.: Mar. 9, 2012). 

[36] The Assistant Secretary of Defense for Legislative Affairs 
solicits congressional leadership offices and members for their 
interest in a hosting a DOD legislative fellow annually. The DOD 
instruction specifies the Senate and House committees, subcommittees, 
and member offices for which legislative members, such as the staff of 
the Senate Armed Services Committee or House Permanent Subcommittee on 
Intelligence, can request a DOD fellow. According to OSD officials, 
any member of Congress assigned to one of these committees or 
subcommittees is a potential recipient of a DOD legislative fellow. 
DOD officials also said that the probability of a congressional 
requester receiving a fellow depends on whether the requestor is in a 
leadership position or is a member of a committee or subcommittee, and 
the extent to which the committee or subcommittee has jurisdiction 
over defense-related matters. 

[37] GAO, Human Capital: A Guide for Assessing Strategic Training and 
Development Efforts in the Federal Government, [hyperlink, 
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-04-546G] (Washington, D.C.: Mar. 1, 
2004). 

[38] The Marine Corps does not currently have a training-with-industry 
program. 

[39] The Navy Cyber Federal Executive Program has not yet conducted 
their first program review. The program began in academic year 2010-
2011. 

[40] [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-04-546G]. 

[41] Some services’ program goals were stated as the purpose or 
objective of the program. 

[42] [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-04-546G]. 

[43] [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-04-546G]. 

[44] [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-04-546G]. 

[45] For program reviews completed during the period we reviewed, 
fiscal years 2007 through 2011. However, we note that the Army 
provided us documentation of a program review that reviewed a portion 
of its Senior Service College Fellowships and its Senior Fellowships 
in 2007. 

[46] [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-04-546G]. 

[47] DOD Instruction 1322.06 states that participants in fellowships 
and training-with-industry programs should have an immediate follow-on 
utilization tour upon completion of the fellowship, but it notes that 
each of the military departments may postpone or waive this 
requirement as necessary. The instruction also states that the 
secretaries of the military departments are responsible for properly 
managing the skills gained by the participants in the fellowship 
program, and for ensuring that current assignments utilizing the 
fellowships and training-with-industry positions meet the intent of 
the program and continue to meet military department and DOD 
requirements or anticipated needs. 

[48] The Marine Corps does not currently have a training-with-industry 
program. 

[49] Office of the Chief of Naval Operations, Instruction 1500.79A, 
Cyber Federal Executive Fellowship (June 3, 2011). 

[50] [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-04-546G]. 

[51] [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-04-546G]. 

[52] In January 2012, the Secretary of Defense released strategic 
guidance, Sustaining U.S. Global Leadership: Priorities for 21st 
Century Defense, to help guide DOD decision making in light of DOD’s 
efforts to support deficit reduction through a lower level of defense 
spending. 

[53] Army Regulation 621-7, Army Fellowships and Scholarships (Aug. 8, 
1997). 

[54] Office of the Chief of Naval Operations, Instruction 1590.79A, 
Cyber Federal Executive Fellowship (June 3, 2011), and Office of the 
Chief of Naval Operations Instruction, 1500.72G Navy Politico-Military 
Fellowships, Graduate Education Programs, and Community Sponsorship 
(June 22, 2010). 

[55] Marine Corps, Order 1520.28B, Commandant of the Marine Corps 
Fellows Program (Oct. 22, 1996). 

[56] Air Force, Instruction 36-2301, Developmental Education (July 16, 
2010). 

[57] No tuition or fee is paid to fellowships at other federal 
agencies, federally funded research centers, congressional committees 
or members, or corporations. In addition, no fee is paid to 
corporations that host training-with-industry participants. 

[58] These totals include fellowship programs that charge a tuition or 
fees. Some programs do not typically charge a tuition or fee, such as 
training-with-industry programs or the Secretary of Defense Corporate 
Fellowship Program. 

[59] The salary and benefits may be included as a direct cost if the 
officer is not participating in a fellowship in lieu of attending a 
military school. Basic pay during the fellowship varies by officer 
level and years of service. Using DOD basic pay in fiscal year 2011, 
an O-3 would have an annual basic pay range from approximately $44,500 
to $72,500; an O-4 would have an annual basic pay range from 
approximately $50,700 to $84,600; an O-5 would have an annual basic 
pay range from approximately $58,700 to $99,800; and an O-6 would have 
an annual basic pay range from approximately $70,400 to $124,700. 
Basic pay does not include other forms of pay, such as housing 
allowances. 

[60] Some services use a memorandum of agreement rather than a 
memorandum of understanding. We refer to both as memoranda of 
understanding in this report. 

[61] GAO, Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government, 
[hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO/AIMD-00-21.3.1] 
(Washington, D.C.: Nov. 1999). 

[62] [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-04-546G]. 

[63] The Marine Corps does not have a training-with-industry program. 

[64] For example, the Army has established memoranda with host 
agencies under the Army Intermediate Level Education Interagency 
Fellowship Program. 

[65] OPNAV, Instruction 1500.72G, Navy Politico-Military Fellowships, 
Graduate Education Programs and Community Sponsorship (June 22, 2010); 
and Army, Regulation 621-7: Army Fellowships and Scholarships (Aug. 8, 
1997). 

[66] As discussed earlier in this report, we found certain Army 
fellowship programs that were not in compliance with the statutory 
requirement; however, the Army still had a general process to provide 
assurances that officers complete the lesser service obligation agreed 
to by the servicemember. 

[67] We focused on military officers because many of the fellowship 
programs were only eligible to officers, and we excluded civilians 
participating in fellowship and training-with-industry programs 
because Senate Report 111-201 accompanying the National Defense 
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2011 directed us to focus on 
servicemembers. 

[68] For the legislative fellowship program, we used data on the cost 
for legislative fellowships in calendar year 2011. 

[69] We also interviewed a fellow at a graduate school-—the Institute 
of World Politics—-because we initially understood it to be a think 
tank. 

[End of section] 

GAO’s Mission: 

The Government Accountability Office, the audit, evaluation, and 
investigative arm of Congress, exists to support Congress in meeting 
its constitutional responsibilities and to help improve the 
performance and accountability of the federal government for the 
American people. GAO examines the use of public funds; evaluates 
federal programs and policies; and provides analyses, recommendations, 
and other assistance to help Congress make informed oversight, policy, 
and funding decisions. GAO’s commitment to good government is 
reflected in its core values of accountability, integrity, and 
reliability. 

Obtaining Copies of GAO Reports and Testimony: 

The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no 
cost is through GAO’s website [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov]. Each 
weekday afternoon, GAO posts on its website newly released reports, 
testimony, and correspondence. To have GAO e-mail you a list of newly 
posted products, go to [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov] and select “E-
mail Updates.” 

Order by Phone: 

The price of each GAO publication reflects GAO’s actual cost of 
production and distribution and depends on the number of pages in the 
publication and whether the publication is printed in color or black 
and white. Pricing and ordering information is posted on GAO’s 
website, [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/ordering.htm]. 

Place orders by calling (202) 512-6000, toll free (866) 801-7077, or 
TDD (202) 512-2537. 

Orders may be paid for using American Express, Discover Card, 
MasterCard, Visa, check, or money order. Call for additional 
information. 

Connect with GAO: 

Connect with GAO on facebook, flickr, twitter, and YouTube.
Subscribe to our RSS Feeds or E mail Updates. Listen to our Podcasts.
Visit GAO on the web at [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov]. 

To Report Fraud, Waste, and Abuse in Federal Programs: 

Contact: 
Website: [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm]; 
E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov; 
Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7470. 

Congressional Relations: 

Katherine Siggerud, Managing Director, siggerudk@gao.gov, (202) 512-4400
U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7125
Washington, DC 20548. 

Public Affairs: 
Chuck Young, Managing Director, youngc1@gao.gov, (202) 512-4800
U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7149 
Washington, DC 20548.