Reports & Testimonies

  • GAO’s recommendations database contains report recommendations that still need to be addressed.

    GAO’s recommendations help congressional and agency leaders prepare for appropriations and oversight activities, as well as help improve government operations. Recommendations remain open until they are designated as Closed-implemented or Closed-not implemented. You can explore open recommendations by searching or browsing.

    GAO's priority recommendations are those that we believe warrant priority attention. We sent letters to the heads of key departments and agencies, urging them to continue focusing on these issues. These recommendations are labeled as such. You can find priority recommendations by searching or browsing our open recommendations below, or through our mobile app.

  • Browse Open Recommendations

    Explore priority recommendations by subject terms or browse by federal agency

    Search Open Recommendations

    Search for a specific priority recommendation by word or phrase



  • Governing on the go?

    Our Priorities for Policy Makers app makes it easier for leaders to search our recommendations on the go.

    See the November 10th Press Release


  • Have a Question about a Recommendation?

    • For questions about a specific recommendation, contact the person or office listed with the recommendation.
    • For general information about recommendations, contact GAO's Audit Policy and Quality Assurance office at (202) 512-6100 or apqa@gao.gov.
  • « Back to Results List Sort by   

    Results:

    Subject Term: "Military pay"

    3 publications with a total of 12 open recommendations
    Director: Brenda S. Farrell
    Phone: (202) 512-3604

    5 open recommendations
    Recommendation: To facilitate DOD's oversight of the military services' S&I pay programs, and to fully ensure the effectiveness of these programs, the Secretary of Defense should direct the Under Secretary of Defense (Comptroller), in coordination with the military services, to explore cost-effective approaches to collect and report S&I pay program data for the Reserve Components.

    Agency: Department of Defense
    Status: Open

    Comments: As of August 2017, the Department of Defense had not taken action on this recommendation.
    Recommendation: To facilitate DOD's oversight of the military services' S&I pay programs, and to fully ensure the effectiveness of these programs, the Secretary of Defense should direct the Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness, in coordination with the military services, to review whether S&I pay programs have incorporated key principles of effective human capital management and used resources efficiently, and prioritize and complete the establishment of measures for the efficient use of resources.

    Agency: Department of Defense
    Status: Open

    Comments: As of August 2017, the Department of Defense had not taken action on this recommendation.
    Recommendation: To facilitate DOD's oversight of the military services' S&I pay programs, and to fully ensure the effectiveness of these programs, the Secretary of Defense should direct the Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness, in coordination with the military services, to routinely assess the impact of non-monetary incentive approaches on retention behavior and on the necessary levels of S&I pays.

    Agency: Department of Defense
    Status: Open

    Comments: As of August 2017, DOD had submitted a proposal to conduct a study focused on aviation officers that will examine the military services' methodologies used to accomplish their retention goals to determine the primary reasons aviation officers remain or leave the service and the degree to which these reasons affect their retention decisions. According to DOD officials, a portion of the study will consider the interaction between monetary and non-monetary incentives such as duty assignments, flying opportunities, reduced administrative burdens, and quality of life.
    Recommendation: To facilitate DOD's oversight of the military services' S&I pay programs, and to fully ensure the effectiveness of these programs, the Secretary of Defense should direct the Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness, in coordination with the military services, to clarify existing guidance for S&I pay programs regarding the extent to which personnel performance should be incorporated into retention decisions.

    Agency: Department of Defense
    Status: Open

    Comments: As of August 2017, the Department of the Navy was intending to use a servicemember's individual performance as a component for determining eligibility for selective retention bonuses. According to DOD officials, the primary criteria for the bonus remains skill based, but the Navy is planning to explore the effectiveness of first offering bonuses (and in limited cases higher bonuses) to top performers.
    Recommendation: To facilitate DOD's oversight of the military services' S&I pay programs, and to fully ensure the effectiveness of these programs, the Secretary of Defense should direct the Secretaries of the Military Departments to develop approaches to directly target Selective Reenlistment Bonuses to cybersecurity skill sets.

    Agency: Department of Defense
    Status: Open

    Comments: As of August 2017, the Department of Defense had not taken action on this recommendation.
    Director: Khan, Asif A
    Phone: (202) 512-9869

    5 open recommendations
    Recommendation: To strengthen the design of controls over active duty Army military payroll, and to assure the effectiveness of the UCFR process as a compensating control for confirming the accuracy of its military pay, the Secretary of Defense should direct the Secretary of the Army to revise AR 37-104-4, Military Pay and Allowances Policy, to establish a requirement for periodic monitoring of the effectiveness of unit commander UCFR reviews.

    Agency: Department of Defense
    Status: Open

    Comments: In June 2013, DOD and Army officials told us that the Army and Defense Finance and Accounting Service (DFAS) performed an analysis of the effectiveness of the Unit Commander Finance Report (UCFR) in preventing payroll errors. The officials shared a February 21, 2013, Army memo on the results of the analysis, which indicated that while the UCFR was an effective tool as a snapshot of a Soldier's pay, it was not comprehensive enough to provide the level of detail needed to manage many pay entitlements. Additionally, analytical results showed that in most cases, having units certify and return UCFRs to the Finance Office did not result in corrective action in the month the condition requiring action first appeared on the report. The officials told us the Army intends to rely on existing primary controls over pay transactions and the implementation of the Integrated Personnel and Pay System-Army (IPPS-A), which was targeted for implementation in 2017, to address the issues we reported rather than revising AR-37-104-4 to require certification of the UCFR and its return to the Finance Office. The Army concluded that if used properly, the UCFR could provide a secondary control for units to identify a limited number of pay discrepancies. The Army's Finance Command Director subsequently told us that because the analysis showed that the UCFR was not being used as an effective tool by unit commanders, the Army would continue to pursue methods to improve pay transaction timeliness through training and command awareness efforts, to include use of the UCFR, pending implementation of IPPS-A. For example, the Army expanded the list of entitlements that, similar to UCFRs, are sent to commands for review and increased the frequency of the command reviews. The Army also implemented a process for monitoring high-risk special pays that have an anniversary date, such as Foreign Language Proficiency Bonus, Basic Allowance for Housing, and Basic Allowance for Subsistence, and confirming that the certifications have not expired. However, DOD's May 2017 FIAR Plan Status Report showed that the Army's IPPS-A is not expected to be fully implemented until April 2020. We will continue to assess DOD's efforts to address this recommendation.
    Recommendation: To strengthen the design of controls over active duty Army military payroll, and to assure the effectiveness of the UCFR process as a compensating control for confirming the accuracy of its military pay, the Secretary of Defense should direct the Secretary of the Army to revise AR 37-104-4, Military Pay and Allowances Policy, to require unit commanders to review and submit documentation showing completion of all monthly UCFR reviews.

    Agency: Department of Defense
    Status: Open

    Comments: In June 2013, DOD and Army officials told us that the Army and Defense Finance and Accounting Service (DFAS) performed an analysis of the effectiveness of the Unit Commander Finance Report (UCFR) in preventing late transactions for updating pay. The results of an Army analysis showed that units certifying and returning UCFRs to the Finance Office did not increase timely corrective actions being taken to a soldier's pay. In a memo dated Feb. 21, 2013, the Army stated, "Creating a mandatory process of requiring Commanders to certify and return the UCFR (even when there are no errors) imposes additional administrative requirements and associated costs on the unit, the Finance Office and DFAS." The memo further stated that, based on the sample taken, most units are already certifying UCFRs and returning them to Finance -- with little impact on Soldiers' pay." Army officials told us that based on the Feb. 21, 2013, memo and subsequent follow up, the Army intended to rely on existing primary controls over pay transactions and the implementation of the Integrated Personnel and Pay System-Army (IPPS-A) targeted for August 2017 to address the issues we reported, rather than revise AR-37-104-4 to require certification of the UCFR and its return to the Finance Office. Army officials told us they would continue to pursue methods to improve pay transaction timeliness through training and command awareness efforts, to include use of the UCFR. The Army stated that the development and fielding of IPPS-A offers opportunities for reducing errors and manual inputs, while providing improved transaction timeliness and pay accuracy. However, DOD's May 2017 FIAR Plan Status Report showed that the Army's IPPS-A is not expected to be fully implemented until April 2020. We will continue to assess DOD's efforts to address this recommendation.
    Recommendation: To strengthen the design of controls over active duty Army military payroll, and to assure the effectiveness of the UCFR process as a compensating control for confirming the accuracy of its military pay, the Secretary of Defense should direct the Secretary of the Army to revise AR 37-104-4, Military Pay and Allowances Policy, to specify the time frame for submitting UCFRs, such as no later than the 10th of the month.

    Agency: Department of Defense
    Status: Open

    Comments: In a Feb. 21, 2013 memo, the Army stated that its regulations require units to take immediate action when an error is discovered during a review of an Unit Commander Finance Report (UCFR). According to the Army, specifying a timeframe for the review and submission of UCFRs, such as 10 days, would also require the development of additional controls and monitoring procedures and create exceptions/waivers for those units deployed or on training exercises. As a result, the Army intended to rely on existing primary controls over pay transactions and the targeted implementation of the Integrated Personnel and Pay System-Army (IPPS-A) in August 2017 to address the issues, rather than revise AR-37-104-4. With the slippage in implementation of IPPS-A integrated military personnel and pay functionality to April 2020, the Army needs to reconsider our recommendation along with reasonable timeline accommodations for deployed units. We will continue to assess the Army's efforts to address this recommendation.
    Recommendation: To strengthen the design of controls over active duty Army military payroll, and to provide a means for monitoring the overall accuracy of the Army's military payroll, the Secretary of Defense should direct the DOD Comptroller to require DFAS-IN to develop criteria and establish a comprehensive metric to capture and measure all types of pay errors affecting accuracy.

    Agency: Department of Defense
    Status: Open

    Comments: In June 2013, the Defense Finance and Accounting Service (DFAS)-Indianapolis Director told us that DFAS conducted a gap analysis for two installations (Ft. Carson and Ft. Gordon). This analysis compared data on the effective date of pay impacting transactions (e.g., Basic Allowance for Housing, Foreign Language Proficiency Pay, etc.); the date transactions were entered into the pay system; the elapsed time in days from the effective date through each step of the process to the date pay was input to the military pay system. The Army's analysis concluded that most errors that occurred were due to units' late submissions of source documents. The Army's position is that the key metric for military pay accuracy is the timeliness of processing of pay impacting transactions. The Army intended to rely on the targeted August 2017 implementation of the Integrated Personnel and Pay System-Army (IPPS-A) to address pay transaction timeliness and address any other identified issues rather than require DFAS-Indianapolis to develop additional criteria and metrics within the current systems environment to measure all types of conditions affecting accuracy. However, DOD's May 2017 FIAR Plan Status Report showed that the Army's IPPS-A is not expected to be fully implemented until April 2020. We will continue to assess DOD's efforts to address this recommendation.
    Recommendation: To strengthen the design of controls over active duty Army military payroll, and to provide a means for monitoring the overall accuracy of the Army's military payroll, the Secretary of Defense should direct the Department of Defense (DOD) Comptroller to require DFAS-IN to establish an interim mechanism at DFAS-IN for identifying and analyzing the extent and causes of all types of military payroll errors processed by Defense Military Pay Offices (DMPOs), Army Finance Offices, Defense Joint Military Pay System-Active Component (DJMS-AC), and Case Management System (CMS) to address any systemic control weaknesses.

    Agency: Department of Defense
    Status: Open

    Comments: In June 2013, DOD and Army officials stated that DFAS, as part of its pre-assertion audit readiness efforts for the Military Pay Statement on Standards for Attestation Engagements (SSAE) No. 16, Reporting on Controls at a Service Organization examination, has identified and validated many controls over the completeness, accuracy and validity of military pay. This included identifying gaps in internal controls and developing and implementing corrective action plans to mitigate any gaps. The Army subsequently engaged another independent public accounting firm to assess its audit readiness for the Statement of Budgetary Resources, including audit readiness for its military pay. In addition, the Army underwent an audit of its fiscal year 2015 General Fund Schedule of Budgetary Activity. Both audit engagements identified military pay issues requiring corrective action. Most recently, the audit of the Army's fiscal year 2016 Budgetary Schedule resulted in a disclaimer of opinion, in part, due to the Army's inability to produce a complete and accurate population of accession, separation, promotion/reduction, special pay, and leave populations for Active Duty, Reserve, and Guard soldiers. In January 2016, the Army auditor reported that "without the ability to produce complete populations, the risk exists that a soldier is improperly accessed, separated, promoted/reduced, awarded special pay, and/or had his or her leave account adjusted incorrectly. Further, the Army's ability to identify and correct any errors is significantly reduced, potentially misstating payroll obligations and outlays reported on the schedule." Army officials stated that it intends to rely on its current transaction timeliness metrics, pre-payment statistical sampling, Improper Payment Elimination and Reporting Act (IPERA) reporting, and eventually implementation of the Integrated Personnel and Pay System - Army (IPPS-A) to address the issues regarding completeness, accuracy, and validity of military pay. However, DOD's May 2017 FIAR Plan Status Report showed that the Army's IPPS-A is not expected to be fully implemented until April 2020. Therefore, we believe that the Army needs to revisit our recommendation and establish an interim mechanism for identifying and analyzing the extent and causes of military payroll errors and take appropriate action to address any systemic control weaknesses. We will continue to assess the Army's efforts to address this recommendation.
    Director: Farrell, Brenda S
    Phone: (202) 512-3604

    2 open recommendations
    Recommendation: The Secretary of Defense should direct the Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness to coordinate with the services on conducting research, as appropriate, to determine optimal bonus amounts.

    Agency: Department of Defense
    Status: Open

    Comments: In a July 2012 report, the USD (P&R) stated that it continues to believe that a study to determine optimal bonus amounts would be beneficial. As of September 2015, DOD is working with the RAND Corporation to develop a model to analyze the impact of adjusting bonuses and special pays for certain personnel communities. According to officials at USD (P&R) the goal of this effort is to provide the services with a tool that can be used to set bonuses and special pays more efficiently. The officials added that models have been developed for officers in the aviation community, and are currently being developed for officers in the healthcare and special operations communities.
    Recommendation: The Secretary of Defense should direct the Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness, as the consolidation of the special and incentive pay programs is completed over the next 7 years and the instructions directing the services on how to administer the new programs are revised, to monitor the implementation of this consolidation to determine whether it is in fact resulting in greater flexibility and more precise targeting of resources and what impact the consolidation is having on DOD's budget.

    Agency: Department of Defense
    Status: Open

    Comments: In a July 2012 report, the USD (P&R) states that it continues to consolidate special and incentive pay authorities. However, because this consolidation is not yet complete, it has not yet determined whether this consolidation has resulted in greater flexibility, as GAO recommended. In June 2013, OSD reported that OSD was about halfway through with its effort to consolidate special pay authorities, and in September 2015 USD (P&R) officials stated that this effort is continuing. The officials added that, while the Department is tracking the impact of the consolidation on the cost of special and incentive pays, it had not assessed whether the consolidation had resulted in greater flexibility.