This is the accessible text file for GAO report number GAO-14-439 
entitled 'Defense Headquarters: DOD Needs to Reevaluate Its Approach 
for Managing Resources Devoted to the Functional Combatant Commands' 
which was released on June 26, 2014. 

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 the Committee on Armed Services, House of Representatives: 

June 2014: 

Defense Headquarters: 

DOD Needs to Reevaluate Its Approach for Managing Resources Devoted to 
the Functional Combatant Commands: 

GAO-14-439: 

GAO Highlights: 

Highlights of GAO-14-439, a report to the Committee on Armed Services, 
House of Representatives. 

Why GAO Did This Study: 

DOD operates three functional combatant commands, which provide 
special operations, strategic forces, and transportation. GAO was
mandated to review personnel and resources of these commands in light
of plans announced by DOD to reduce headquarters. This report (1) 
identifies the trends in resources devoted to the functional combatant 
commands and their service component commands and (2) evaluates the 
extent to which DOD's reductions to headquarters could result in cost 
savings. 

GAO analyzed data for fiscal years 2001 through 2013 on authorized
positions and costs to support headquarters operations for the
functional combatant commands and their service component commands.
GAO also obtained documentation such as guidance and budget documents 
and interviewed officials regarding the commands' approach for 
implementing reductions to headquarters. 

What GAO Found: 

GAO analysis of the resources devoted to the Department of Defense's 
(DOD) functional combatant commands shows substantial increases in 
authorized positions and costs to support headquarters operations. 
Specifically, the number of authorized positions across the commands 
grew from 5,731 in fiscal year 2004 to 10,515 in fiscal year 2013. 
According to DOD officials, recent and emerging missions have driven 
up demands at all three functional combatant commands and driven the 
growth in authorized personnel. In addition, costs to support 
headquarters operations also increased substantially at the functional 
combatant commands. Data, in constant fiscal year 2013 dollars, show 
that the combined costs to support headquarters operations for the 
commands increased from about $296 million in fiscal year 2001 to more 
than $1.236 billion in fiscal year 2013. Authorized positions and 
costs to support headquarters operations at the service component 
commands supporting the functional combatant commands also increased. 
Specifically, authorized positions grew from about 6,675 in fiscal 
year 2002 to about 7,815 in fiscal year 2013, and costs to support 
headquarters operations increased from about $614 million in fiscal 
year 2008 to about $657 million in fiscal year 2013. 

DOD's directed reductions to headquarters do not include all resources 
at the commands, which may affect DOD's ability to achieve significant 
savings in headquarters operations. In 2013, DOD directed reductions 
to management headquarters resources in an effort to streamline the 
department's management. However, GAO found that the department did 
not have a clear or accurate accounting of the resources being devoted 
to management headquarters to use as a starting point to track 
reductions. Officials noted that DOD relied on data self-reported by 
the commands, and GAO found that these data were potentially 
inconsistent and did not include the totality of headquarters resources.
Specifically, GAO found that less than a quarter of the positions at 
the functional combatant commands are considered to be management 
headquarters even though many positions appear to be performing 
management headquarters functions such as planning, budgeting, and 
developing policies. As such, more than three quarters of the 
headquarters positions at the functional combatant commands are 
potentially excluded from DOD's directed reductions. However, the 
department does not have any plans to reevaluate the baseline on which 
the reductions are based, in part because it does not have an 
alternative source for complete and reliable data. GAO has also 
concluded that restructuring efforts must be focused on clear goals 
and consolidation initiatives grounded in accurate and reliable data. 
Section 904 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 
2014 requires that DOD develop and submit a plan for streamlining
management headquarters by June 2014. Unless DOD reevaluates its 
decision to focus reductions to management headquarters and 
establishes a clearly defined and consistently applied starting point 
on which to base reductions, the department will be unable to track 
and reliably report its headquarters reductions and ultimately may not 
realize significant savings. 

What GAO Recommends: 

GAO recommends that DOD (1) reevaluate the decision to focus 
reductions on management headquarters to ensure meaningful savings, 
(2) set a clearly defined and consistently applied starting point as a
baseline for the reductions, and (3) track reductions against the 
baselines in order to provide reliable accounting of savings and 
reporting to Congress. DOD partially concurred with the first 
recommendation, questioning, in part, the recommendation's scope, and
concurred with the second and third recommendations. GAO continues to
believe the first recommendation is valid, as discussed in the report. 

View [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-14-439]. For more 
information, contact John Pendleton at (202) 512-3489 or 
pendeltonj@gao.gov. 

[End of section] 

Contents: 

Letter: 

Background: 

Resources Devoted to the Functional Combatant Commands Have Grown 
Considerably over the Last Decade: 

DOD's Headquarters Reductions Do Not Include All Command Resources, 
Thus Affecting DOD's Ability to Achieve Significant Cost Savings: 

Conclusions: 

Recommendations for Executive Action: 

Agency Comments and Our Evaluation: 

Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology: 

Appendix II: Headquarters Locations of the Functional Combatant 
Commands, Their Subordinate Unified Commands, and Their Service 
Component Commands: 

Appendix III: Resources at U.S. Special Operations Command and Its 
Service Component Commands (Part 1 of 6): 

Appendix IV: Resources at U.S. Strategic Command and Its Service 
Component Commands (Part 1 of 6): 

Appendix V: Resources at U.S. Transportation Command and Its Service 
Component Commands (Part 1 of 4): 

Appendix VI: Costs to Support Headquarters Operations in Nominal Terms: 

Appendix VII: Functional Combatant Command Organizational Structure 
Descriptions: 

Appendix VIII: Comments from the Department of Defense: 

Appendix IX: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments: 

Tables: 

Table 1: Functional Combatant Commands, Subordinate Unified Commands, 
and Their Combatant Command Support Agents: 

Table 2: Headquarters Locations of the Functional Combatant Commands, 
Their Subordinate Unified Commands, and Their Service Component 
Commands: 

Table 3: Costs to Support Headquarters Operations at the Functional 
Combatant Commands in Fiscal Years 2001 through 2013 Dollars: 

Table 4: Costs to Support Headquarters Operations at the Functional 
Combatant Commands' Service Component Commands in Fiscal Years 2008 
through 2013 Dollars: 

Table 5: Organizational Descriptions of the Functional Combatant 
Commands, Their Subordinate Unified Commands, and Their Service 
Component Commands: 

Figures: 

Figure 1: Headquarters Locations of the Functional Combatant Commands, 
Their Subordinate Unified Commands, and Their Service Component 
Commands: 

Figure 2: Number of Authorized Military and Civilian Positions at the 
Functional Combatant Commands, Fiscal Years 2004-2013: 

Figure 3: Functional Combatant Commands' Number of Authorized Military 
and Civilian Positions in Fiscal Years 2004 through 2013: 

Figure 4: Growth in Number of Authorized Military and Civilian 
Positions at the Functional Combatant Commands' Service Component 
Commands in Fiscal Years 2002 through 2013: 

Figure 5: Functional Combatant Command Costs to Support Headquarters 
Operations in Fiscal Years 2001 and 2013: 

Figure 6: Service Component Commands' Costs to Support Headquarters 
Operations in Fiscal Years 2008 and 2013: 

Figure 7: Reductions Needed in Management Headquarters Positions at 
the Functional Combatant Commands to Meet the Department of Defense's 
(DOD) 20 Percent Goals: 

Figure 8: Comparison of Authorized Positions Included in Management 
Headquarters Totals and Those That Are Not, Fiscal Year 2013: 

Abbreviations: 

DOD: Department of Defense: 

SOCOM: U.S. Special Operations Command: 

STRATCOM: U.S. Strategic Command: 

TRANSCOM: U.S. Transportation Command: 

[End of section] 

United States Government Accountability Office: 
GAO:
441 G St. N.W. 
Washington, DC 20548: 

June 26, 2014: 

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

To support its worldwide military missions and meet evolving national 
security challenges, the Department of Defense (DOD) operates three 
functional combatant commands: U.S. Special Operations Command 
(SOCOM), U.S. Strategic Command (STRATCOM), and U.S. Transportation 
Command (TRANSCOM). Each have thousands of headquarters personnel who 
assist in carrying out the commands' worldwide responsibilities and 
providing unique capabilities in support to DOD's six geographic 
combatant commands and four military services.[Footnote 1] 
Specifically, SOCOM provides special operations forces to defend the 
United States and its interests, while STRATCOM is responsible for 
conducting global operations to deter and detect strategic attacks 
against the United States and its allies, with missions including 
space, cyber, missile defense, and intelligence, surveillance, and 
reconnaissance. Finally, TRANSCOM is responsible for providing air, 
land, and sea transportation for DOD during times of peace and war, 
with a primary focus on wartime readiness. Generally, the combatant 
commanders have the authority to organize the structure of these 
commands to carry out assigned missions and responsibilities,[Footnote 
2] and do so with the support of subordinate unified commands and 
service component commands, each of which also has its own staff. 
[Footnote 3] 

Like the rest of the federal government, DOD is operating in a 
constrained budget environment and facing difficult decisions about 
how to allocate its resources to meet mission requirements.[Footnote 
4] In addition, in January 2012, the administration released defense 
strategic guidance to direct defense priorities and spending over the 
coming decade.[Footnote 5] The guidance states that DOD must continue 
to reduce the cost of doing business, which includes reducing the rate 
of growth in personnel costs and finding further efficiencies in 
overhead and headquarters, in its business practices, and in other 
support activities. One approach the department has pursued in recent 
years to find cost savings is to reduce the footprint of headquarters 
staff, such as the combatant commands and their subordinate unified 
commands and respective service component commands. This approach 
includes establishing personnel baselines, identifying personnel 
reductions to achieve efficiencies, instituting caps on authorized 
civilian personnel, and limiting service support contract 
expenditures. Further, in July 2013, the Secretary of Defense directed 
a 20 percent cut in management headquarters spending throughout DOD, 
to include spending on government civilian personnel, facilities, and 
information technology. The cuts, which apply to all headquarters 
staff at the combatant commands and service component commands, are 
designed to streamline DOD's management through efficiencies and 
elimination of lower-priority activities.[Footnote 6] 

We have issued several reports in the past few years on defense 
headquarters and on the department's ability to determine the right 
number of personnel needed to perform headquarters functions. For 
example, in May 2013 we found that authorized military and civilian 
positions at the geographic combatant commands--excluding U.S. Central 
Command--had increased by about 50 percent from fiscal year 2001 
through fiscal year 2012.[Footnote 7] We also found that DOD's process 
for sizing its combatant commands had several weaknesses, including 
the absence of a comprehensive, periodic review of the existing size 
and structure of these commands and inconsistent use of personnel-
management systems to identify and track assigned personnel. DOD 
concurred with our recommendation that it improve its visibility over 
its headquarters personnel, but did not concur with our recommendation 
that it conduct comprehensive and periodic reviews of the combatant 
commands' existing size, as we discuss later in this report.[Footnote 
8] We are following up with DOD about its actions in response to our 
recommendations. In addition, in March 2012, we found that DOD did not 
have complete and reliable headquarters information available for use 
in making efficiency assessments and decisions. We recommended that 
the Secretary of Defense revise DOD Instruction 5100.73, Major DOD 
Headquarters Activities,[Footnote 9] to include all headquarters 
organizations; specify how contractors performing headquarters 
functions will be identified and included in headquarters reporting; 
clarify how components are to compile the information needed for 
headquarters reporting requirements; and establish time frames for 
implementing actions to improve tracking and reporting of headquarters 
resources. These headquarters organizations include the functional 
combatant commands and their service component commands. DOD generally 
concurred with the findings and recommendations in that report. 
[Footnote 10] In response to these recommendations, DOD officials 
stated that several efforts have been made to consolidate or eliminate 
commands, and centralize administrative and command support services, 
functions, or programs. DOD has also begun efforts to assess what 
headquarters organizations are not currently included in its guiding 
instruction on headquarters, but it has not completed its update of 
the instruction to include these organizations. 

A House Armed Services Committee report accompanying a bill for the 
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2014 mandated us to 
review the personnel and resources of the functional combatant 
commands.[Footnote 11]This report (1) identifies any trends in 
resources devoted to the functional combatant commands and their 
service component commands for fiscal years 2001 through 2013, and (2) 
evaluates the extent to which DOD's directed reductions to 
headquarters, like the functional combatant commands and supporting 
service component commands, could result in cost savings for the 
department. 

To conduct this work we identified sources of information within DOD 
that would provide data on the resources of the functional combatant 
commands--SOCOM, STRATCOM, and TRANSCOM--to include their subordinate 
unified commands and corresponding service component commands. 
Specifically, to identify trends in resources devoted to these 
organizations, we obtained and analyzed available data on authorized 
military and civilian positions and operation and maintenance 
obligations from fiscal years 2001 through 2013. We focused our review 
on operation and maintenance obligations, as well as funding provided 
to TRANSCOM through the Transportation Working Capital Fund and SOCOM 
through the command's special operations-specific appropriations that 
provide funding for necessary special operations forces' unique 
capabilities and items, since these funds most appropriately reflect 
the primary mission and headquarters support for the commands. 
[Footnote 12] Unless otherwise noted, we reported all costs in 
constant fiscal year 2013 dollars.[Footnote 13] Since historical data 
were unavailable in some cases, we limited our analysis of trends to 
authorized military and civilian positions at the combatant commands 
from fiscal years 2004 through 2013 and authorized military and 
civilian positions at the service component commands from fiscal years 
2002 through 2013. We also obtained data on actual assigned personnel 
for fiscal year 2013. Using available data, we provided an analysis of 
trends in costs to support headquarters operations at the combatant 
commands for fiscal years 2001 through 2013, but since historical data 
were unavailable in some cases for the service component commands, we 
limited our analysis of trends to fiscal years 2008 through 2013. We 
also obtained and analyzed available data on contractors assigned to 
the commands, but based on the availability of data, we were not able 
to identify trends in contractors assigned to the individual commands. 
We assessed the reliability of the data given these and other 
limitations by interviewing DOD officials, incorporating data-
reliability questions into our data-collection instruments, and 
comparing the multiple data sets received from DOD components against 
each other to ensure that there was consistency in the data that the 
commands provided. We determined that the data were sufficiently 
reliable for our purposes. 

To determine the extent to which DOD's directed reductions to 
headquarters, like the functional combatant commands and supporting 
service component commands, will result in cost savings for the 
department, we obtained and reviewed guidance and documentation on 
DOD's planned headquarters reductions, such as the department-issued 
memorandum outlining the reductions and various DOD budget-related 
data and documents. We then examined whether this information 
addressed some key questions we previously had developed for an agency 
to consider when evaluating proposals to consolidate management 
functions.[Footnote 14] We developed these key questions by reviewing 
our reports on specific consolidation initiatives that have been 
undertaken, complementing this with information gathered through a 
review of the relevant literature on public-sector consolidations. In 
addition, we reviewed selected consolidation initiatives at the 
federal agency level and interviewed a number of individuals selected 
for their expertise in public management and government reform. For 
the current report, we obtained data on the total authorized positions 
at the functional combatant commands for fiscal year 2013 as well as 
the number of positions deemed by the commands to be performing 
headquarters functions and included in DOD's planned headquarters 
reductions. We assessed the reliability of the data given these and 
other limitations by interviewing DOD officials, incorporating data-
reliability questions into our data-collection instruments, and 
comparing the multiple data sets received from DOD components against 
each other to ensure that there was consistency in the data that the 
commands provided. We determined the data were sufficiently reliable 
for our purposes. We also interviewed officials at the functional 
combatant commands, some of their respective subordinate unified 
commands, and the service component commands to discuss specific 
headquarters positions and organizations that could be affected by 
DOD's planned reductions to the commands and their components. 

We conducted this performance audit from May 2013 to June 2014 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. Further 
details on our scope and methodology may be found in appendix I. 

Background: 

Combatant Command Responsibilities: 

DOD's Unified Command Plan sets forth basic guidance to all combatant 
commanders and establishes the missions, responsibilities, and areas 
of geographic responsibility among all the combatant commands. 
[Footnote 15] There are currently nine combatant commands--six 
geographic and three functional. The six geographic combatant commands 
have responsibilities for accomplishing military operations in defined 
areas of operation and have a distinct regional military focus. The 
three functional combatant commands operate worldwide across 
geographic boundaries and provide unique capabilities to the 
geographic combatant commands and the military services. In addition, 
each combatant command is supported by multiple service component 
commands that help provide and coordinate service-specific forces, 
such as units, detachments, organizations, and installations, to help 
fulfill the combatant commands' current and future operational 
requirements. Figure 1 is a map of the headquarters locations of the 
functional combatant commands, to include their subordinate unified 
commands and their respective service component commands. 

Figure 1: Headquarters Locations of the Functional Combatant Commands, 
Their Subordinate Unified Commands, and Their Service Component 
Commands: 

[Refer to PDF for image: Interactive graphic] 

Interactivity instructions: Roll over the combatant command name to see 
headquarters locations. See appendix II for the noninteractive, 
printer-friendly version. 

[End of figure] 

Combatant Command Structure: 

Unless otherwise directed by the President or the Secretary of 
Defense, the combatant commanders organize the structure of their 
commands as they deem necessary to carry out assigned missions. The 
commands' structure may include a principal staff officer; personal 
staff to the commander; a special staff group for technical, 
administrative, or tactical advice; and other staff groups that are 
responsible for managing personnel, ensuring the availability of 
intelligence, directing operations, coordinating logistics, preparing 
long-range or future plans, and integrating communications systems. 
[Footnote 16] The commands may also have liaisons or representatives 
from other DOD agencies and U.S. government organizations integrated 
into their staffs to help enhance the commands' effectiveness in 
accomplishing their missions. While the commands generally conform to 
these organizational principles, there may be variations in a 
command's structure based on its unique mission areas and 
responsibilities. 

The staff of a combatant command or subordinate unified command is 
generally composed of military and civilian personnel drawn from the 
Army, Navy, Marine Corps, and Air Force; personnel from other DOD 
components; interagency personnel; and other personnel associated with 
contracted services.[Footnote 17] Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of 
Staff Instruction 1001.01A, Joint Manpower and Personnel Program, 
states that the commands are to consider a number of factors when 
determining personnel requirements,[Footnote 18] including the total 
number of positions and the mix of military, civilian, and contractor 
support needed.[Footnote 19] After the commands' personnel 
requirements have been determined and validated, the requirements are 
documented on each command's manning document, called the Joint Table 
of Distribution, which contains permanent authorized positions for 
military, civilian, and other personnel responsible for managing the 
day-to-day operations of the command.[Footnote 20] 

Military Service Supporting Responsibilities: 

Title 10 of the U.S. Code assigns the Secretaries of the military 
departments responsibility for a variety of tasks specific to their 
respective forces, to include organizing, equipping, and training 
tasks. In addition to these service-specific tasks, Title 10 of the 
U.S. Code also assigns the Secretaries of the military departments 
responsibility for assisting the combatant commands, to include 
responsibility for assigning all forces under their jurisdiction to 
the combatant commands to perform missions assigned to those commands 
and responsibility for carrying out functions to fulfill current and 
future operational requirements of the combatant commands.[Footnote 21] 

In addition to service-specific tasks, DOD Directive 5100.03, Support 
of the Headquarters of Combatant and Subordinate Unified Commands, 
states that the military departments--as combatant command support 
agents--are responsible for programming, budgeting, and funding the 
administrative and logistical support of the headquarters of the 
combatant commands and subordinate unified commands. On an annual 
basis, each of the three military departments assess needs and develop 
a request for funding as part of their respective operation and 
maintenance budget justification to meet this requirement to support 
the combatant commands and subordinate unified commands. The directive 
assigns each military department responsibility for specific combatant 
commands and subordinate unified commands. As the combatant command 
support agent for the three functional combatant commands, the Air 
Force is responsible for allocating funding to combatant commands' 
mission areas, including the costs for civilian salaries, awards, and 
travel.[Footnote 22] As such, the operating costs of these commands 
are generally subsumed within the Air Force's budget and funded 
through operation and maintenance appropriations. Table 1 provides a 
listing of the functional combatant commands, their subordinate 
unified commands, and the military departments that support them. 

Table 1: Functional Combatant Commands, Subordinate Unified Commands, 
and Their Combatant Command Support Agents: 

Command and subordinate commands: Headquarters U.S. Special Operations 
Command; 
Support agent: Secretary of the Air Force. 

Command and subordinate commands: Joint Special Operations Command[A]; 
Support agent: Secretary of the Army. 

Command and subordinate commands: Headquarters U.S. Strategic Command; 
Support agent: Secretary of the Air Force. 

Command and subordinate commands: Headquarters U.S. Cyber Command[B]; 
Support agent: Secretary of the Air Force. 

Command and subordinate commands: Headquarters U.S. Transportation 
Command; 
Support agent: Secretary of the Air Force. 

Source: GAO presentation of DOD information. 

Notes: DOD information is from DOD Directive 5100.03, Support of the 
Headquarters of the Combatant and Subordinate Unified Commands: 

[A] Joint Special Operations Command is a subordinate unified command 
under the Headquarters Special Operations Command. 

[B] Headquarters, U.S. Cyber Command is a subordinate unified command 
under the Headquarters Strategic Command. 

[End of table] 

Other Combatant Command Funding: 

Some of the functional combatant commands also receive funding through 
appropriations other than operation and maintenance. Specifically, 
Title 10 of the U.S. Code gives the Commander, Special Operations 
Command, the authority to prepare and submit to the Secretary of 
Defense program recommendations and budget proposals for special 
operations forces and for other forces assigned to SOCOM through a 
separate major force program category.[Footnote 23] In addition, 
funding for TRANSCOM's costs to support headquarters operations comes 
primarily from the Air Force's Transportation Working Capital Fund, 
which is part of the Air Force Working Capital Fund.[Footnote 24] 
Unlike the other combatant commands, TRANSCOM is operated in a fee-for-
service manner and charges its customers for transportation services. 
TRANSCOM and its service component commands bill the customers for 
services rendered, customers transfer funds into the Transportation 
Working Capital Fund to pay the bill, and TRANSCOM and its service 
component commands receive payment from the Transportation Working 
Capital Fund. Officials noted that one component of these 
transportation costs is overhead, to include pay for civilian 
personnel, material and supplies, equipment, travel, and facility 
operations. 

Resources Devoted to the Functional Combatant Commands Have Grown 
Considerably over the Last Decade: 

Authorized Military and Civilian Positions Have Grown at the 
Functional Combatant Commands: 

Our analysis shows that the functional combatant commands' number of 
authorized positions has substantially increased since fiscal year 
2004 primarily due to added missions and responsibilities.[Footnote 
25] Taken together, the authorized number of military and civilian 
positions for the three functional combatant commands almost doubled 
from 5,731 in fiscal year 2004 to 10,515 in fiscal year 2013.[Footnote 
26] 

All three functional combatant commands' number of authorized 
positions grew. SOCOM's authorized military and civilian positions 
more than doubled from 1,885 in fiscal year 2004 to 4,093 in fiscal 
year 2013. According to SOCOM officials, an increase in authorized 
positions at the Special Operations Research, Development, and 
Acquisition Center and the Joint Special Operations Command 
contributed to the growth at the command.[Footnote 27] TRANSCOM's 
number of authorized military and civilian positions more than doubled 
from 863 in fiscal year 2004 to 1,956 in fiscal year 2013. According 
to TRANSCOM officials, the realignment of the Defense Courier Service 
from Air Mobility Command to TRANSCOM and the Joint Enabling 
Capabilities Command from the Joint Staff to TRANSCOM were the primary 
contributors to the increase in authorized positions at the command. 
STRATCOM's authorized military and civilian positions increased by 50 
percent from 2,983 in fiscal year 2004 to 4,466 in fiscal year 2013. 
During this period, the creation of new organizations at STRATCOM to 
fill additional mission requirements, including Joint Functional 
Component Commands[Footnote 28] (Integrated Missile Defense; 
Intelligence, Surveillance, and Reconnaissance; Global Strike; and 
Space), two Centers (U.S. Strategic Command Center for Combating 
Weapons of Mass Destruction and the Joint Warfare Analysis Center), 
and a subordinate unified command (United States Cyber 
Command),[Footnote 29] were the primary contributors to the increase 
in authorized positions at the command. Figure 2 shows the number of 
authorized military and civilian positions at the functional combatant 
commands. 

Figure 2: Number of Authorized Military and Civilian Positions at the 
Functional Combatant Commands, Fiscal Years 2004-2013: 

[Refer to PDF for image: stacked vertical bar graph] 

Authorized positions: 

Fiscal year: 2004; 
U.S. Special Operations Command (SOCOM): 1,885; 
U.S. Strategic Command (STRATCOM): 2,983; 
U.S. Transportation Command (TRANSCOM): 863. 

Fiscal year: 2005; 
U.S. Special Operations Command (SOCOM): 1,966; 
U.S. Strategic Command (STRATCOM): 2,965; 
U.S. Transportation Command (TRANSCOM): 1,126. 

Fiscal year: 2006; 
U.S. Special Operations Command (SOCOM): 2,063; 
U.S. Strategic Command (STRATCOM): 2,948; 
U.S. Transportation Command (TRANSCOM): 1,128. 

Fiscal year: 2007; 
U.S. Special Operations Command (SOCOM): 2,837; 
U.S. Strategic Command (STRATCOM): 2,615; 
U.S. Transportation Command (TRANSCOM): 1,145. 

Fiscal year: 2008; 
U.S. Special Operations Command (SOCOM): 3,305; 
U.S. Strategic Command (STRATCOM): 2,602; 
U.S. Transportation Command (TRANSCOM): 1,132. 

Fiscal year: 2009; 
U.S. Special Operations Command (SOCOM): 3,480; 
U.S. Strategic Command (STRATCOM): 2,776; 
U.S. Transportation Command (TRANSCOM): 1,154. 

Fiscal year: 2010; 
U.S. Special Operations Command (SOCOM): 3,716; 
U.S. Strategic Command (STRATCOM): 3,329; 
U.S. Transportation Command (TRANSCOM): 1,214. 

Fiscal year: 2011; 
U.S. Special Operations Command (SOCOM): 3,834; 
U.S. Strategic Command (STRATCOM): 4,089; 
U.S. Transportation Command (TRANSCOM): 1,339. 

Fiscal year: 2012; 
U.S. Special Operations Command (SOCOM): 4,089; 
U.S. Strategic Command (STRATCOM): 4,441; 
U.S. Transportation Command (TRANSCOM): 1,906. 

Fiscal year: 2013; 
U.S. Special Operations Command (SOCOM): 4,093; 
U.S. Strategic Command (STRATCOM): 4,466; 
U.S. Transportation Command (TRANSCOM): 1,956. 

Source: GAO analysis of Department of Defense (DOD) data. GAO-14-439. 

Note: We limited our analysis of authorized military and civilian 
positions to fiscal years 2004 through 2013 because U.S. Special 
Operations Command (SOCOM) could not provide data on its authorized 
military and civilian positions for fiscal years 2001 through 2003. 
Authorized military and civilian positions represent approved, funded 
personnel requirements at the functional combatant commands and do not 
include personnel performing contract services. 

[End of figure] 

As with our findings in our May 2013 report on the geographic 
combatant commands, we found that, over time, the functional combatant 
commands have become more reliant on civilian personnel to meet their 
mission needs.[Footnote 30] Specifically, we found that the number of 
authorized civilian positions at the functional combatant commands 
almost tripled--from about 1,900 in fiscal year 2004 to about 5,200 in 
fiscal year 2013. According to DOD officials, the increase in 
authorized civilian positions is the result of attempts to rebalance 
workload and become a cost-efficient workforce, namely by converting 
positions filled by military personnel or in-sourcing services 
performed by contractors to civilian positions, and adding civilians 
in specific functional areas, such as intelligence and cyber, to 
support warfighter needs.[Footnote 31] As a result, the proportion of 
authorized civilian positions at the functional combatant commands 
increased from about one-third of authorized positions in 2001 to 
about half in 2013. However, the functional combatant commands also 
increased the number of military personnel to support the 
headquarters. This is reflected in our analysis, which shows that from 
fiscal years 2004 through 2013 the number of authorized military 
positions also increased, by about 40 percent, from 3,850 to more than 
5,300. Figure 3 shows changes in the functional combatant commands' 
number of authorized military and civilian positions from fiscal years 
2004 through 2013. 

Figure 3: Functional Combatant Commands' Number of Authorized Military 
and Civilian Positions in Fiscal Years 2004 through 2013: 

Refer to PDF for image: multiple line graph] 

Authorized positions: 

Fiscal year: 2004; 
Military: 3,850; 
Civilian: 1,881. 

Fiscal year: 2005; 
Military: 4,105; 
Civilian: 1,952. 

Fiscal year: 2006; 
Military: 4,102; 
Civilian: 2,037. 

Fiscal year: 2007; 
Military: 4,151; 
Civilian: 2,446. 

Fiscal year: 2008; 
Military: 4,313; 
Civilian: 2,726. 

Fiscal year: 2009; 
Military: 4,238; 
Civilian: 3,172. 

Fiscal year: 2010; 
Military: 4,396; 
Civilian: 3,863. 

Fiscal year: 2011; 
Military: 4,670; 
Civilian: 4,592. 

Fiscal year: 2012; 
Military: 5,262; 
Civilian: 5,174. 

Fiscal year: 2013; 
Military: 5,324; 
Civilian: 5,191. 

Source: GAO analysis of Department of Defense (DOD) data. GAO-14-439. 

Note: We limited our analysis of authorized military and civilian 
positions to fiscal years 2004 through 2013 because U.S. Special 
Operations Command (SOCOM) could not provide data on its authorized 
military and civilian positions for fiscal years 2001 through 2003. 
Authorized military and civilian positions represent approved, funded 
manpower requirements at the combatant commands and do not include 
personnel performing contract services. 

[End of figure] 

Recent and emerging missions increased demands at all three functional 
combatant commands, according to DOD officials, and drove the growth 
in authorized positions. Since fiscal year 2001, DOD--including the 
functional combatant commands--has been supporting military operations 
to combat terrorism. According to DOD officials, these operations have 
relied heavily on special operations forces and have included the 
movement of materiel into two theaters. In addition, the department 
has seen the emergence of cyberspace as a significant warfighting 
domain. As operational requirements have increased, officials noted 
that the headquarters oversight required at the functional combatant 
commands has also increased, explaining some of the growth these 
commands have experienced since 2001. DOD officials noted that these 
demands have resulted in the Joint Staff validating increases in 
authorized positions on the commands' permanent manning documents. 

Our prior work on defense headquarters found several weaknesses in 
DOD's management of geographic combatant command resources that 
challenged the department's ability to make informed decisions 
regarding the commands' size and structure.[Footnote 32] For instance, 
in May 2013 we found that DOD had a process for evaluating requests 
for additional authorized positions, but it did not periodically 
evaluate the commands' authorized positions to ensure they were needed 
to meet the commands' assigned missions. Our current work found that 
identified weaknesses persist today, and are applicable to the three 
functional combatant commands in this review. As a result of 
identified weaknesses, in May 2013 we recommended that the Secretary 
of Defense require a comprehensive, periodic evaluation of whether the 
size and structure of the combatant commands met assigned missions. 
DOD disagreed with our recommendation, stating that the combatant 
commands had already been reduced during previous budget reviews. Our 
report acknowledged and described several of the actions DOD had taken 
to manage growth at its combatant commands. However, we previously 
found and continue to maintain that these actions do not constitute a 
comprehensive, periodic review because DOD's actions have not included 
all authorized positions at the combatant commands. We continue to 
believe that institutionalizing a periodic evaluation of all 
authorized positions would help to systematically align manpower with 
those missions and add rigor to the requirements process. If DOD does 
not require a periodic reevaluation, it lacks reasonable assurance 
that the commands are properly sized to meet their assigned missions 
or that the commands can identify opportunities to carry out those 
missions more efficiently. 

DOD has taken some steps to limit the growth in authorized positions 
at the unified combatant commands, including the functional combatant 
commands. In 2009 and 2010, the Deputy Secretary of Defense 
established personnel baselines for the number of major headquarters 
activity positions at the combatant commands to provide more 
predictability over requirements for military and civilian 
positions.[Footnote 33] In 2010, as part of the Secretary of Defense's 
2010 efficiency initiative, the department was directed to take a 
number of steps to limit personnel growth, including instituting caps 
on authorized civilian personnel for fiscal years 2011 through 2013, 
including civilians at the combatant commands and service component 
commands.[Footnote 34] To more effectively manage combatant command 
personnel levels and funding, in June 2011 the Secretary of Defense 
set limits for major headquarters activity civilian personnel at the 
combatant commands for fiscal years 2013 through 2017.[Footnote 35] 
However, the memo states that military intelligence program, defense 
health program, transportation working capital fund, special 
operations-specific appropriations, and service component command 
personnel levels are excluded from the caps and baselines. Any growth 
above these limits in fiscal years 2013 through 2017 has to be 
validated by the Joint Staff and military services, and must be based 
on workload and funding considerations. The memo also states that the 
major headquarters activity baselines and business rules established 
for military positions in 2009 and 2010 were to remain in effect. 
These efforts are reflected in our analysis and data that show that 
authorized positions leveled off in 2012 and stayed about the same in 
fiscal year 2013. 

Authorized Military and Civilian Positions Have Grown at the Service 
Component Commands: 

Our analysis of data provided by the service component commands of the 
functional combatant commands showed that the service component 
command positions also increased, although not as much as in the 
functional combatant commands that they support. Specifically, total 
authorized military and civilian positions for the service component 
commands increased from about 6,675 in fiscal year 2002 to about 7,815 
in fiscal year 2013.[Footnote 36] Changes in the authorized military 
and civilian positions at STRATCOM's and SOCOM's service component 
commands, as well as the establishment of new commands, drove the 
overall increase in total authorized positions, while the service 
component commands supporting TRANSCOM reduced their total authorized 
positions over the period. Among the military services, the Air 
Force's service component commands saw the greatest increase in 
authorized positions, accounting for more than two thirds of the total 
increase in authorized military and civilian positions. This increase 
is primarily attributable to the establishment of Air Force Global 
Strike Command--a service component command to STRATCOM--which was 
activated in fiscal year 2009 to develop and provide combat-ready 
forces for nuclear deterrence and global strike operations, and is 
responsible for the nation's intercontinental ballistic missile wings. 
[Footnote 37] The creation of Air Force Global Strike Command added 
over 330 additional military positions in fiscal year 2010. Figure 4 
shows the increase in authorized positions at the service component 
commands that we reviewed. 

Figure 4: Growth in Number of Authorized Military and Civilian 
Positions at the Functional Combatant Commands' Service Component 
Commands in Fiscal Years 2002 through 2013: 

[Refer to PDF for image: stacked vertical bar graph] 

Authorized positions: 

Fiscal year: 2002; 
U.S. Special Operations Command's (SOCOM) service component commands: 
1,233; 
U.S. Strategic Command's (STRATCOM) service component commands: 2,671; 
U.S. Transportation Command's (TRANSCOM) service component commands: 
2,772. 

Fiscal year: 2003; 
U.S. Special Operations Command's (SOCOM) service component commands: 
1,254; 
U.S. Strategic Command's (STRATCOM) service component commands: 2,579; 
U.S. Transportation Command's (TRANSCOM) service component commands: 
2,722. 

Fiscal year: 2004; 
U.S. Special Operations Command's (SOCOM) service component commands: 
1,364; 
U.S. Strategic Command's (STRATCOM) service component commands: 2,558; 
U.S. Transportation Command's (TRANSCOM) service component commands: 
2,585. 

Fiscal year: 2005; 
U.S. Special Operations Command's (SOCOM) service component commands: 
1,417; 
U.S. Strategic Command's (STRATCOM) service component commands: 2,757; 
U.S. Transportation Command's (TRANSCOM) service component commands: 
2,590. 

Fiscal year: 2006; 
U.S. Special Operations Command's (SOCOM) service component commands: 
1,463; 
U.S. Strategic Command's (STRATCOM) service component commands: 2,676; 
U.S. Transportation Command's (TRANSCOM) service component commands: 
2,598. 

Fiscal year: 2007; 
U.S. Special Operations Command's (SOCOM) service component commands: 
1,749; 
U.S. Strategic Command's (STRATCOM) service component commands: 2,610; 
U.S. Transportation Command's (TRANSCOM) service component commands: 
2,527. 

Fiscal year: 2008; 
U.S. Special Operations Command's (SOCOM) service component commands: 
1,782; 
U.S. Strategic Command's (STRATCOM) service component commands: 2,543; 
U.S. Transportation Command's (TRANSCOM) service component commands: 
2,366. 

Fiscal year: 2009; 
U.S. Special Operations Command's (SOCOM) service component commands: 
1,859; 
U.S. Strategic Command's (STRATCOM) service component commands: 2,582; 
U.S. Transportation Command's (TRANSCOM) service component commands: 
2,284. 

Fiscal year: 2010; 
U.S. Special Operations Command's (SOCOM) service component commands: 
1,933; 
U.S. Strategic Command's (STRATCOM) service component commands: 3,153; 
U.S. Transportation Command's (TRANSCOM) service component commands: 
2,299. 

Fiscal year: 2011; 
U.S. Special Operations Command's (SOCOM) service component commands: 
1,981; 
U.S. Strategic Command's (STRATCOM) service component commands: 3,535; 
U.S. Transportation Command's (TRANSCOM) service component commands: 
2,296. 

Fiscal year: 2012; 
U.S. Special Operations Command's (SOCOM) service component commands: 
2,157; 
U.S. Strategic Command's (STRATCOM) service component commands: 3,933; 
U.S. Transportation Command's (TRANSCOM) service component commands: 
2,196. 

Fiscal year: 2013; 
U.S. Special Operations Command's (SOCOM) service component commands: 
2,110; 
U.S. Strategic Command's (STRATCOM) service component commands: 3,577; 
U.S. Transportation Command's (TRANSCOM) service component commands: 
2,127. 

Source: GAO analysis of Department of Defense (DOD) data. GAO-14-439. 

Note: Total authorized military and civilian positions represent 
approved funded manpower requirements at the combatant commands' 
service component commands and do not include personnel performing 
contract services. We limited our analysis of authorized military and 
civilian positions at the service component commands to fiscal years 
2002 through 2013 because data were not available for all of the 
commands prior to 2002. STRATCOM does not have a Navy service 
component command, but does have two Air Force service component 
commands (Air Force Global Strike Command and Air Force Space 
Command). U.S. Transportation Command does not have a Marine Corps 
service component command. The following organizations were 
established after fiscal year 2002 and therefore data in prior years 
do not include these commands: Marine Corps Forces Strategic Command 
(fiscal year 2003), Marine Corps Forces Special Operations Command 
(fiscal year 2006), and Air Force Global Strike Command (fiscal year 
2009). 

[End of figure] 

We found that the service component commands' authorized military and 
civilian mix has changed slightly since fiscal year 2002. In fiscal 
year 2002 the mix was 55 percent civilian and 45 percent military, and 
in fiscal year 2013 the mix was about 60 percent civilian and 40 
percent military.[Footnote 38] 

Trends in Contractor Full-Time Equivalents Not Identifiable Due to 
Data Variations across the Commands: 

The availability of data on contractor full-time equivalents varied 
across the combatant commands, and thus trends in full-time 
equivalents were not identifiable.[Footnote 39] DOD officials stated 
the department generally tracks and reports expenditures for contract 
services, and that the combatant commands were not required to 
maintain historical data on the number of contractor personnel. As a 
result, we found that the combatant commands had taken varied steps to 
collect data on contractor full-time equivalents. We also found that 
the data on the number of personnel performing contract services at 
the service component commands varied or were unavailable, and thus 
trends could not be identified. We found that some service component 
commands do not maintain data on the number of personnel performing 
contract services, and others used different methods to track these 
personnel, for instance counting the number of contractors on hand or 
the number of identification badges issued. 

In recent years, Congress has enacted legislation to help improve 
DOD's ability to manage its acquisition of services; to make more 
strategic decisions about the right workforce mix of military, 
civilian, and contractor personnel; and to better align resource needs 
through the budget process to achieve that mix. For example, Section 
2330a of Title 10 of the U.S. Code requires DOD to annually compile 
and review an inventory of activities performed by contractors 
pursuant to contracts for services. Moreover, our work over the past 
decade on DOD's contracting activities has noted the need for DOD to 
obtain better data on its contracted services and personnel to enable 
it to make more-informed management decisions, ensure department-wide 
goals and objectives are achieved, and have the resources to achieve 
desired outcomes.[Footnote 40] In response to our past work, DOD has 
outlined its approach to document contractor full-time equivalents and 
collect personnel data from contractors in DOD's inventory of contract 
services. However, DOD does not expect to fully collect contractor 
personnel data until fiscal year 2016. 

While the department continues to compile its data on contractors, it 
has also taken steps to reduce the use of contractors to fill 
headquarters-type activities. In his June 2011 memo, the Secretary of 
Defense established limits on service support contract expenditures at 
the combatant commands for fiscal years 2011 through 2013. 
Specifically, the memo directed the combatant commands and the 
services to limit total expenditures on services support contracts 
across operation and maintenance; research, development, test, and 
evaluation; and procurement accounts.[Footnote 41] Additionally, the 
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012 imposed limits 
on DOD's contract services for fiscal years 2012 and 2013, to include 
limiting DOD's total obligations for contract services in each fiscal 
year not to exceed the amount requested for these services in the 
fiscal year 2010 President's Budget Request.[Footnote 42] Furthermore, 
the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2014 extends 
these limits into fiscal year 2014.[Footnote 43] 

Costs to Support Headquarters Operations Have Grown for Combatant and 
Service Component Commands: 

Total costs to support headquarters operations at the three functional 
combatant commands we reviewed increased substantially from fiscal 
years 2001 to 2013. Our analysis of data provided by the commands 
shows that the costs to support headquarters operations--including 
costs for civilian pay, contract services, travel, and equipment --
increased more than fourfold in constant fiscal year 2013 dollars, 
from about $296 million in fiscal year 2001 to more than $1.236 
billion in fiscal year 2013.[Footnote 44] A primary driver for the 
growth in costs has been the increase in SOCOM's costs to support 
headquarters operations, which increased more than sixfold, from about 
$75 million in fiscal year 2001 to almost $467 million in fiscal year 
2013. Costs increased across SOCOM headquarters and subordinate 
organizations, to include the Special Operations Research, Development 
and Acquisition Center, the theater special operations commands, and 
the Joint Special Operations Command.[Footnote 45] Also, STRATCOM's 
costs to support headquarters operations almost quadrupled, from about 
$164 million in fiscal year 2001 to almost $624 million in fiscal year 
2013. This increase in STRATCOM's costs was largely driven by the 
costs to establish and operate several new subordinate organizations--
Joint Functional Component Commands and U.S. Cyber Command--which 
reflect new missions and responsibilities assigned to STRATCOM over 
time. TRANSCOM's costs to support headquarters operations more than 
doubled, from about $56 million in fiscal year 2001 to $145 million in 
fiscal year 2013. Growth in civilian pay and purchased services and 
equipment drove the increases in TRANSCOM's costs to support 
headquarters operations. In addition, the transfer of the Joint 
Enabling Capabilities Command from the Joint Staff in fiscal year 2012 
added tens of millions of dollars to TRANSCOM's headquarters support 
costs. Figure 5 shows the overall change in the costs to support 
headquarters operations at the three functional combatant commands 
that we reviewed for fiscal years 2001 and 2013. 

Figure 5: Functional Combatant Command Costs to Support Headquarters 
Operations in Fiscal Years 2001 and 2013: 

[Refer to PDF for image: vertical bar graph] 

Fiscal year 2013 dollars in millions: 

U.S. Special Operations Command: 
Fiscal year 2001: $75.4 million; 
Fiscal year 2013: $466.9 million. 

U.S. Strategic Command: 
Fiscal year 2001: $164.3 million; 
Fiscal year 2013: $623.4 million. 

U.S. Transportation Command: 
Fiscal year 2001: $56.1 million; 
Fiscal year 2013: $145.2 million. 

Source: GAO analysis of Department of Defense (DOD) data. GAO-14-439. 

Note: Costs to support headquarters operations reflect obligations for 
general purpose operation and maintenance funding, special operations 
forces funding, and working capital fund costs reported by DOD 
components and are represented in constant fiscal year 2013 dollars. 
These costs include compensation of civilian personnel and contract 
services, among others costs, but do not include costs associated with 
military personnel basic pay and allowances and other military 
personnel costs, costs expended by other components such as the 
Defense Intelligence Agency, or costs for overseas contingency 
operations. See appendix VI for nominal costs to support headquarters 
operations. 

[End of figure] 

Total costs in constant fiscal year 2013 dollars to support 
headquarters operations increased slightly at the service component 
commands we reviewed, from about $614 million in fiscal year 2008 to 
about $657 million in fiscal year 2013.[Footnote 46] Among the 
services, the Air Force's service component commands saw the greatest 
increase in costs to support headquarters operations, primarily due to 
the establishment of Air Force Global Strike Command, which first 
reported costs in fiscal year 2010. Air Force costs were also driven 
by growth in costs for civilian pay associated with Air Force Space 
Command. In addition, SOCOM's service component commands also 
experienced cost increases from fiscal years 2008 through 2013, 
primarily due to increases in costs for civilian pay. Conversely, 
TRANSCOM's service component commands reduced their costs to support 
headquarters operations over the time period. Figure 6 shows the 
changes in the costs to support headquarters operations at the service 
component commands that we reviewed for fiscal years 2008 and 2013. 

Figure 6: Service Component Commands' Costs to Support Headquarters 
Operations in Fiscal Years 2008 and 2013: 

[Refer to PDF for image: vertical bar graph] 

Fiscal year 2013 dollars in millions: 

U.S. Special Operations Command: 
Fiscal year 2008: $209.6 million; 
Fiscal year 2013: $238.5 million. 

U.S. Strategic Command: 
Fiscal year 2008: $73.1 million; 
Fiscal year 2013: $129.6 million. 

U.S. Transportation Command: 
Fiscal year 2008: $331.2 million; 
Fiscal year 2013: $288.8 million. 

Source: GAO analysis of Department of Defense (DOD) data. GAO-14-439. 

Note: Costs to support headquarters operations reflect obligations for 
general purpose operation and maintenance funding, special operations 
forces funding, and working capital fund costs reported by DOD 
components and are presented in constant fiscal year 2013 dollars. 
These costs include compensation of civilian personnel and contract 
services, among others costs, but do not include costs associated with 
military personnel basic pay and allowances and other military 
personnel costs, costs expended by other components such as the 
Defense Intelligence Agency, or costs for overseas contingency 
operations. We focused our analysis of costs to support headquarters 
operations at the service component commands on fiscal year 2008 
because data were not available for all of the commands prior to 2008. 
See appendix VI for nominal costs to support headquarters operations. 

[End of figure] 

DOD's Headquarters Reductions Do Not Include All Command Resources, 
Thus Affecting DOD's Ability to Achieve Significant Cost Savings: 

In 2013, the Secretary of Defense set a target for reducing management 
headquarters budgets by 20 percent, but we found that DOD did not have 
an accurate accounting of the budgets and personnel associated with 
management headquarters to use as a starting point for reductions. Our 
work also found that management headquarters include about a quarter 
of the personnel at the commands--of the 10,500 authorized positions 
at the functional combatant commands, about 2,500 are considered to be 
management headquarters. As a result, about three-quarters of the 
authorized positions at the commands in our review are not included in 
the potential reductions. Moreover, without a clear and consistently 
applied starting point for reductions, it will be difficult for DOD to 
reliably track savings to management headquarters in the future. 

DOD's Planned Reductions to Headquarters Budgets Are Based on Self-
Reported and Potentially Inconsistent Data: 

DOD relied on self-reported and potentially inconsistent data when 
implementing the Secretary of Defense's planned headquarters 
reductions. In July 2013, the Deputy Secretary of Defense announced in 
a memorandum that the Secretary of Defense had directed reductions to 
DOD headquarters, to include the functional combatant commands, in an 
effort to streamline DOD's management and eliminate lower-priority 
activities.[Footnote 47] The memorandum directed a 20 percent 
reduction to DOD components' total management headquarters budgets for 
fiscal years 2014 through 2019, including costs for civilian 
personnel, contract services, facilities, information technology, and 
other costs that support headquarters functions. As outlined in budget 
documents, the targeted savings goal of 20 percent of headquarters 
operating budgets is to be realized by fiscal year 2019, with 
incremental savings each year beginning fiscal year 2015. DOD budget 
documents project the reductions will yield a total savings of about 
$5.3 billion over the period, with most savings coming in 2019. 

DOD began efforts to initiate reductions to headquarters during the 
development of the fiscal year 2015 President's Budget. According to 
DOD officials, the department used the end of the 5-year defense plan 
within the fiscal year 2014 President's Budget, or fiscal year 2018, 
as a point to base the targeted savings goal of 20 percent of 
headquarters budgets through fiscal year 2019, with costs adjusted for 
inflation. Officials told us that the parameters for these savings 
were established so the department could achieve already-planned 
savings from prior efficiencies. DOD officials noted that the 
Secretary of Defense provided general guidance as to what should be 
considered management headquarters for the commands to use when 
identifying their total headquarters budgets and directed commands to 
include only operation and maintenance funding. Because the department 
does not have complete and reliable information on the resources being 
devoted to management headquarters, officials noted that each 
individual component was asked to identify and self-report its 
management headquarters operating budget from which reductions would 
be based. DOD officials further noted that after the individual 
components determined what they considered their management 
headquarters budgets to be, officials from DOD's Office of Cost 
Assessment and Program Evaluation reviewed the documentation to ensure 
it was reflective of the intent of the reductions. 

DOD focused its reductions on management headquarters, or major DOD 
headquarters activities,[Footnote 48] because, according to officials, 
doing so would ensure that the department saved as much money as 
possible for the warfighting elements. However, by relying on DOD 
components to self-report their total management headquarters budgets, 
DOD cannot ensure these self-reported budgets were captured 
consistently or reflect total headquarters costs among the commands. 
DOD officials reported that each of the combatant commands developed 
different approaches for identifying the population of resources on 
which to base reductions. Ultimately, officials determined that 
reductions would be based only on operation and maintenance funds. 

We also found that the underlying data are often tracked in an 
inconsistent manner. During the course of our review, we found that 
the functional combatant commands and service component commands had 
different ways of capturing total costs to support headquarters 
operations. All of the commands included costs for categories like 
civilian compensation, and travel and transportation expenses. 
However, some commands included categories such as software for 
command-specific systems as well as command-specific equipment. Based 
on discussions with DOD officials, it is unclear whether the commands 
were consistent in their approaches for identifying and self-reporting 
the information they provided. 

Some Costs and Authorized Positions Are Not Included in DOD's Planned 
Headquarters Reductions: 

Our analysis shows that not all costs and authorized positions are 
included in DOD's planned headquarters reductions and that all of the 
functional combatant commands exclude most of their authorized staffs 
from management headquarters totals. While the trends we described 
earlier in this report include the entire commands, we gathered 
information directly from the commands to determine how much of their 
organizations they considered management headquarters. We found that 
less than a quarter of their personnel are designated as management 
headquarters. This designation is critical because the Deputy 
Secretary of Defense's July 2013 memorandum directed a 20 percent 
reduction to DOD components' total management headquarters budgets for 
fiscal years 2014 through 2019, including costs for civilian 
personnel, contract services, facilities, information technology, and 
other costs that support headquarters functions. In addition, the 
memorandum noted that organizations should strive for a goal of 20 
percent reductions in authorized government civilian staff at the 
headquarters as well as a goal of 20 percent reductions in military 
personnel billets on management headquarters staffs.[Footnote 49] 

On the basis of our analysis of data on authorized positions at the 
functional combatant commands and their service component commands, we 
found that the commands designate less than a quarter of the total 
authorized positions as part of their management headquarters 
functions. Specifically, about 2,500 of about 10,500 total authorized 
positions are accounted for in the functional commands' management 
headquarters position totals. As a result, a 20 percent reduction to 
management headquarters could result in a relatively small cut to the 
total number of positions at the three functional combatant commands. 
Specifically, as figure 7 shows, a 20 percent reduction to management 
headquarters positions means that, combined, the functional combatant 
commands would have to eliminate about 500 positions, or less than 5 
percent of the overall authorized positions at the commands. 

Figure 7: Reductions Needed in Management Headquarters Positions at 
the Functional Combatant Commands to Meet the Department of Defense's 
(DOD) 20 Percent Goals: 

[Refer to PDF for image: illustration] 

10,515 authorized positions; 
2,509 management headquarters positions: 
* 502 positions cut to meet 20% reduction. 

Source: GAO analysis of Department of Defense (DOD) data. GAO-14-439. 

[End of figure] 

Compared to the functional combatant commands, the service component 
commands have a larger percentage of authorized positions included in 
their management headquarters totals. Based on our analysis of data on 
authorized positions at the service component commands, about 6,000 of 
about 7,800 total authorized positions are accounted for in the 
management headquarters position totals (77 percent). As such, a 20 
percent reduction to management headquarters positions means that, 
combined, the service component commands would have to eliminate about 
1,200 positions, or about 15 percent of the overall authorized 
positions at the commands. This reduction is larger than the 5 percent 
reduction that would be required at the functional combatant commands 
if the reductions are based on management headquarters totals, as DOD 
calculated them. 

We further analyzed data provided by the individual functional 
combatant commands to determine what they included in their management 
headquarters totals. The proportion of personnel considered to be in 
management headquarters positions at the three functional combatant 
commands ranged from 20 to 28 percent of their overall personnel based 
on their 2013 authorized positions. DOD officials explained that the 
positions that are not accounted for in management headquarters 
positions perform more operationally focused tasks and functions. For 
example, STRATCOM officials stated that positions within the command's 
Joint Functional Component Commands for Global Strike; Intelligence, 
Surveillance, and Reconnaissance; Integrated Missile Defense; and 
Space are not included in the command's management headquarters totals 
because the positions within these components and the missions they 
perform are operational in nature. Similarly, TRANSCOM officials told 
us that because the Joint Enabling Capabilities Command is a 
deployable operational command component, all authorized positions 
within this component are excluded from the command's management 
headquarters totals. Moreover, officials at each of the functional 
combatant commands told us that some authorized positions within their 
headquarters--such as those within the intelligence and operations 
directorates--are not considered management headquarters positions 
because these positions perform operational tasks and functions. 

Examples of the positions within the individual commands that are 
included in management headquarters and those that are not are as 
follows: 

* About 20 percent of SOCOM's reported total authorized positions, or 
about 800 of 4,100 authorized positions, are included in the command's 
management headquarters position totals. According to officials, 
positions not included in management headquarters functions include 
267 authorized positions in the Special Operations Research, 
Development, and Acquisition Center; the entirety of the Joint Special 
Operations Command headquarters; and certain positions within command 
directorates such as intelligence and operations. For example, only 1 
of the 473 authorized military and civilian positions in the 
intelligence directorate is included in the command's management 
headquarters position totals. 

* About 28 percent of STRATCOM's reported total authorized positions, 
or about 1,200 of 4,500 total positions, are included in the command's 
management headquarters position totals. According to officials, 
positions not counted as part of the command's management headquarters 
totals include 1,544 authorized positions in the command's Joint 
Functional Component Commands; 918 authorized positions at U.S. Cyber 
Command; and 64 authorized positions in the command's J9 Mission 
Assessment and Analysis Directorate.[Footnote 50] 

* About 24 percent of TRANSCOM's reported total authorized positions, 
or about 500 of 2,000 positions, are included in the command's 
management headquarters position totals. According to officials, 
positions that are excluded from this total include about 260 
authorized positions that are part of the Defense Courier Service, 
among others. 

Figure 8 shows the number of authorized positions within the 
functional combatant commands in fiscal year 2013 included in 
management headquarters totals and the number not included. 

Figure 8: Comparison of Authorized Positions Included in Management 
Headquarters Totals and Those That Are Not, Fiscal Year 2013: 

[Refer to PDF for image: horizontal bar graph] 

U.S. Transportation Command (TRANSCOM): 
Authorized positions: 
Included in management headquarters for fiscal year 2013: 478; 
Not included in management headquarters for fiscal year 2013: 1,478. 

U.S. Strategic Command (STRATCOM):
Authorized positions: 
Included in management headquarters for fiscal year 2013: 1,229; 
Not included in management headquarters for fiscal year 2013: 3,237. 

U.S. Special Operations Command (SOCOM): 
Authorized positions: 
Included in management headquarters for fiscal year 2013: 802; 
Not included in management headquarters for fiscal year 2013: 3,291. 

Source: GAO analysis of Department of Defense (DOD) data. GAO-14-439. 

[End of figure] 

While the functional combatant commands have components and associated 
positions that are more operational in nature, we found that each of 
these operational components have personnel that perform management 
headquarters functions, such as conducting planning, budgeting, and 
developing policies. For example, STRATCOM officials noted that the 
Joint Functional Component Commands have resource-management personnel 
that manage the component commands' funding, which is a headquarters 
function, as defined in DOD Instruction 5100.73, Major DOD 
Headquarters Activities. However, STRATCOM excludes these personnel 
from its management headquarters totals because, according to STRATCOM 
officials, the headquarters directorates at these component commands 
are relatively small and personnel rely heavily on STRATCOM for 
support in these functional areas. Moreover, a majority of the 
positions in SOCOM's research, development, and acquisition center, 
which manages and supports the development, acquisition, and fielding 
of critical items for special operations forces, are not included in 
the command's management headquarters totals even though these 
personnel perform headquarters-specific functions as defined in DOD 
Instruction 5100.73, Major DOD Headquarters Activities. 

Absent a Clear Starting Point, Savings Will Be Difficult to Track: 

DOD's reduction initiatives targeted management headquarters, and the 
department reported a savings estimate from these reductions in its 
fiscal year 2015 budget submission, but because the department did not 
have a reliable way to determine the resources being devoted to such 
headquarters as a starting point, actual savings will be difficult to 
track. Specifically, DOD officials acknowledged the limitations of 
management headquarters data, stating that they did not have an 
operationally clear definition and good data about what constituted 
management headquarters, and agreed that this made it difficult to 
establish a starting point for reductions. However, the department 
does not have any plans to reevaluate the baseline on which the 
reductions are based, in part because it does not have an alternative 
source for complete and reliable data. Moreover, DOD reported in its 
fiscal year 2015 budget submission that reductions to management 
headquarters staffs will result in a savings of $5.3 billion through 
fiscal year 2019 in comparison to DOD's overall expected $2.7 trillion 
budget over those fiscal years. The department based this total on 
incremental savings from reductions being realized each year from 
fiscal years 2015 through 2019. However, this represents a savings of 
about 2/10 of 1 percent. If DOD's headquarters reductions do not have 
a clearly defined and consistently applied starting point on which to 
target savings--and reductions are only focused on what the commands 
have self-reported as management headquarters activities--then the 
department may not be able to track its savings to management 
headquarters or assure that reductions are achieved as intended. 

Accounting for management headquarters is a long-standing challenge 
for DOD that has created problems before in tracking savings. In 
October 1997, in the wake of the mid-1990s military drawdown, we found 
that total personnel and costs of defense headquarters were 
significantly higher than were being reported. At the time, we found 
that about three-fourths of subordinate organizations excluded from 
the management headquarters accounting were actually performing 
management or management support functions and that such accounting 
masked the true size of DOD's headquarters organizations.[Footnote 51] 
In March 2012, we concluded that DOD's data on its headquarters 
personnel lacked completeness and reliability necessary for use in 
making efficiency assessments and decisions.[Footnote 52] We 
recommended that the Secretary of Defense revise DOD Instruction 
5100.73, Major DOD Headquarters Activities,[Footnote 53] to include 
all headquarters organizations; specify how contractors performing 
headquarters functions will be identified and included in headquarters 
reporting; clarify how components are to compile the information 
needed for headquarters-reporting requirements; and establish time 
frames for implementing actions to improve tracking and reporting of 
headquarters resources. DOD generally concurred with the findings and 
recommendations in that report and is taking steps to address the 
recommendations. For example, DOD has begun the process of updating 
DOD Instruction 5100.73, Major DOD Headquarters Activities, to include 
all major DOD headquarters activity organizations. However, the 
department has not yet taken actions to fully address our 
recommendations. In April 2003, we testified on the importance of 
periodically reexamining whether current programs and activities 
remain relevant, appropriate, and effective in an agency's ability to 
deliver on its mission and noted that restructuring efforts must be 
focused on clear goals.[Footnote 54] Moreover, key questions that 
agencies should consider when evaluating organizational consolidation 
note that the key to any consolidation initiative is the 
identification of and agreement on specific goals, with the goals of 
the consolidation being evaluated against a realistic assessment of 
how the consolidation can achieve them. We further noted that any 
consolidation initiatives must be grounded in accurate and reliable 
data.[Footnote 55] 

Moreover, unless these issues are addressed, the department may be 
unable to convince external stakeholders, such as Congress, that its 
actions will address overhead in a meaningful way. Section 904 of the 
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2014 requires that 
DOD develop and submit a plan for streamlining management 
headquarters, to include the combatant commands, by June 2014. 
[Footnote 56] The plan is to include a description of the planned 
changes or reductions in staffing and services and the estimated 
cumulative savings to be achieved from fiscal years 2015 through 2024. 
According to officials, DOD has not yet decided how it plans to track 
its management headquarters reductions and report to Congress to 
satisfy this statutory requirement. Without establishing a starting 
point for reductions that includes all headquarters personnel and 
resources within these commands, it is unclear how the department will 
provide reliable information to Congress. Moreover, since the universe 
of resources that DOD has identified for headquarters reductions is 
relatively small compared to the overall size of the functional 
combatant commands, unless the department reevaluates its decision to 
base reductions on management headquarters, it may not ultimately 
realize significant savings. 

Conclusions: 

As it faces a potentially extended period of fiscal constraints, DOD 
has concluded that reducing the resources it devotes to headquarters 
is a reasonable area to achieve cost savings. However, by focusing the 
reductions on management headquarters budgets and personnel--which 
tend to be inconsistently defined and often represent a small portion 
of the overall headquarters--in the way it has, the department is, in 
effect, shielding much of the resources it directs to headquarters 
organizations like those of the functional combatant commands. Unless 
the department reevaluates its decision to focus reductions on 
management headquarters and sets a clearly defined and consistently 
applied starting point from which to base budgetary and staff 
reductions at headquarters organizations and track them, DOD is likely 
to face difficulties ensuring that its actions result in significant 
overhead savings. As the department continues to identify efficiencies 
in its operations and potential reductions in overhead, accurately 
identifying the universe of resources that DOD dedicates to 
headquarters and using that as a starting point for reductions would 
help DOD ensure it achieves savings. Finally, managing headquarters 
resources is a long-standing challenge at DOD. We have previously 
recommended that DOD improve the accounting of management headquarters 
functions and develop a process to periodically revalidate the size 
and structure of the combatant commands. We believe that these 
recommendations apply to the functional combatant commands in this 
review, and are still valid, and thus are making no new 
recommendations on these issues. 

Recommendations for Executive Action: 

In order to improve the management of DOD's headquarters-reduction 
efforts, we recommend that the Secretary of Defense take the following 
three actions: 

1. Reevaluate the decision to focus reductions on management 
headquarters to ensure the department's efforts ultimately result in 
meaningful savings. 

2. Set a clearly defined and consistently applied starting point as a 
baseline for the reductions. 

3. Track reductions against the baselines in order to provide reliable 
accounting of savings and reporting to Congress. 

Agency Comments and Our Evaluation: 

We provided a draft of this report to DOD for review and comment. In 
written comments on a draft of this report, DOD partially concurred 
with the first recommendation and concurred with the second and third 
recommendations. DOD's comments are summarized below and reprinted in 
their entirety in appendix VIII. 

DOD partially concurred with the first recommendation that the 
Secretary of Defense reevaluate the decision to focus reductions on 
management headquarters to ensure the department's efforts ultimately 
result in meaningful savings. DOD stated that this department-wide 
recommendation would garner greater savings. However, DOD officials 
raised concerns that the recommendation seemed to be outside the scope 
of the review, which focused on the functional combatant commands, and 
with our distinction between management headquarters and below-the-
line organizations and the functions that personnel in these positions 
perform. We agree that the recommendation has implications beyond the 
functional combatant commands. While our review was focused on the 
functional combatant commands, the issue we identified is not limited 
to these commands. The findings related to the three functional 
combatant commands illustrate a fundamental challenge facing the 
department in its efforts to reduce headquarters overhead. As 
discussed in this report, we have previously reported on problems with 
the way that DOD accounts for management headquarters across the 
department. As part of this review, we found that DOD did not have an 
accurate accounting of the budgets and personnel associated with 
management headquarters to use as a starting point for reductions. 
Given the longstanding issues with accounting for management 
headquarters, we believe the recommendation that the Secretary 
reevaluate the decision to focus the department's reduction efforts on 
management headquarters is appropriate. 

The department also stated in its letter that while the Secretary of 
Defense's reductions were focused on management headquarters, the 
military services were allowed to reduce below-the-line organizations-
-those not designated as management headquarters--which includes 
elements of the combatant commands. According to DOD, these reductions 
will range from 3 percent up to 15 percent depending on the military 
service. We recognize that the military services plan to implement 
reductions that may result in savings at some non-management 
headquarters organizations across the department. However, the 
department's response did not delineate how these reductions were 
determined, how they were applied by the military services, or how 
much the actions would ultimately save the department. Further, in 
discussions, DOD officials raised concerns about our distinction 
between management headquarters and below-the-line organizations and 
the functions that personnel in these positions perform. As noted in 
the report, we understand the distinctions as defined in guidance 
between management headquarters and below-the-line organizations, or 
those not considered to be part of an organization's management 
headquarters. However, our analysis focused on the extent to which the 
functional combatant commands reported that personnel were performing 
management functions, and we noted that this data was self-reported 
and potentially inconsistent. The intent of the recommendation was to 
focus on positions not included in the commands' assessment of 
management headquarters positions, but in response to DOD's concern, 
we modified the recommendation to clarify that the goal of ensuring 
cost savings was related to the assessment of personnel performing 
management functions versus the definition of people included in 
management headquarters totals. 

In its comments, the department also questioned the use of Joint Table 
of Distribution data from DOD's Electronic Joint Manpower and 
Personnel System versus the Future Years Defense Program data in DOD's 
Defense Resources Data Warehouse for this study. We attempted to use 
the data warehouse as part of our prior work examining the resources 
devoted to the geographic combatant commands in May 2013; however, 
after querying the database, Joint Staff officials explained that the 
data it yielded were unreliable. Therefore, the officials suggested 
that we obtain the authorized position and costs to support 
headquarters operations data directly from the combatant commands and 
service component commands. DOD noted in its comments that the data 
trends may be skewed since the Joint Table of Distribution presents a 
point-in-time look at on-hand personnel. For this review, we focused 
on authorized positions as documented on the combatant command's Joint 
Tables of Distribution rather than focusing on personnel on hand 
because data on authorized positions provided the most accurate and 
repeatable data to identify trends. Moreover, the Chairman of the 
Joint Chiefs of Staff Instruction 1001.01A, Joint Manpower and 
Personnel Program, notes that Joint Tables of Distribution are 
documented in the Joint Staff's Electronic Joint Manpower and 
Personnel System which is DOD's system of record to document the 
unified combatant commands' organizational structure and track the 
manpower and personnel required to meet the combatant commands' 
assigned missions. The instruction also states that manpower 
authorizations on the Joint Table of Distribution should be compared 
with the Future Years Defense Program and any disconnects must be 
resolved. Finally, in January 2012, the Vice Director of the Joint 
Staff issued a memo identifying its Electronic Joint Manpower and 
Personnel System as the authoritative data source for DOD and for 
congressional inquiries of joint personnel, stating that the system 
must accurately reflect the manpower and personnel allocated to joint 
organizations, such as the combatant commands, to provide senior 
leaders with the necessary data to support decision making in a 
fiscally constrained environment. Therefore, we maintain that the use 
of authorized military and civilian positions from the combatant 
command's Joint Tables of Distribution, as documented in DOD's 
Electronic Joint Manpower and Personnel System, was appropriate for 
our review of the resources devoted to the functional combatant 
commands. 

DOD concurred with the second and third recommendations that the 
Secretary of Defense: set a clearly defined and consistently applied 
starting point as a baseline for the reductions, and track reductions 
against the baselines in order to provide reliable accounting of 
savings and reporting to Congress. In its response, DOD recommended 
the use of the Future Years Defense Program data to set the baseline 
going forward and stated that it was enhancing data elements within 
DOD's Resource Data Warehouse to better identify management 
headquarters resources to facilitate tracking and reporting across the 
department. We agree that enhancements to the data elements will 
increase DOD's capability to track and report management headquarters 
resources across the department and, thus, the Future Years Defense 
Program data could be used to set baselines and track future 
reductions. These enhancements, if implemented, would address the 
intent of the recommendations. 

DOD also provided what it considered significant points of fact. 
However, we considered these were technical comments, which we 
incorporated as appropriate. 

We are sending a copy of this report to the appropriate congressional 
committees, the Secretary of Defense, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs 
of Staff, and the Secretaries of the military departments. In 
addition, this report is available at no charge on the GAO website at 
[hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov]. 

If you or your staff have any questions about this report, please 
contact me at (202) 512-3489 or pendletonj@gao.gov. Contact points for 
our Offices of Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be found 
on the last page of this report. GAO staff who made key contributions 
to this report are listed in appendix IX. 

Signed by: 

John Pendleton, Director: 
Defense Capabilities and Management: 

[End of section] 

Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology: 

We conducted this work in response to a mandate from the House Armed 
Services Committee to review the personnel and resources of the 
functional combatant commands.[Footnote 57] This report (1) identifies 
any trends in resources devoted to the functional combatant commands 
and their service component commands for fiscal years 2001 through 
2013 to meet their assigned missions and responsibilities, and (2) 
evaluates the extent to which the Department of Defense's (DOD) 
directed reductions to headquarters, like the functional combatant 
commands and supporting service component commands, could result in 
cost savings for the department. 

To conduct this work and address our objectives, we identified sources 
of information within DOD that would provide data on the resources 
devoted to the functional combatant commands--U.S. Special Operations 
Command (SOCOM), U.S. Strategic Command (STRATCOM), and U.S. 
Transportation Command (TRANSCOM)--to include their subordinate 
unified commands and their corresponding service components commands. 

To identify trends in the resources devoted to DOD's functional 
combatant commands, including their subordinate unified commands and 
their service component commands, we obtained and analyzed data on 
available authorized military and civilian positions, and operation 
and maintenance obligations, from each of the commands and their 
corresponding service component commands from fiscal years 2001 
through 2013. We focused our review on authorized positions, as these 
reflect the approved, funded manpower requirements at each of the 
functional combatant commands. To provide insight into the number of 
personnel assigned to each command, we obtained data on actual 
assigned personnel for fiscal year 2013. We also obtained and analyzed 
available data on contractors assigned to the commands, but based on 
the availability of data, we were not able to identify trends in 
contractors assigned to the individual commands. Our review also 
focused on operation and maintenance obligations--because these 
obligations reflect the primary costs to support headquarters 
operations of the combatant commands, their subordinate unified 
commands and other activities, and corresponding service component 
commands--including the costs for civilian personnel, contract 
services, travel, and equipment, among others. We included funds 
provided to TRANSCOM through the Transportation Working Capital Fund 
and to SOCOM through the command's special operations-specific 
appropriations that provides funding for necessary special operations 
forces' unique capabilities and items since these funds most 
appropriately reflect the primary mission and headquarters support for 
the commands.[Footnote 58] Our review excluded obligations of 
operation and maintenance funding for DOD's overseas contingency 
operations not part of DOD's base budget. Unless otherwise noted, we 
reported all costs in this report in constant fiscal year 2013 
dollars.[Footnote 59] Since historical data were unavailable in some 
cases, we limited our review of the combatant commands authorized 
positions to fiscal years 2004 through 2013, and authorized military 
and civilian positions at the service component commands to fiscal 
years 2002 through 2013. Using available data, we provided an analysis 
of trends in operation and maintenance obligations at the combatant 
commands for fiscal years 2001 through 2013, but since historical data 
were unavailable in some cases for the service component commands, we 
limited our analysis of trends to fiscal years 2008 through 2013. We 
obtained data on actual assigned personnel for fiscal year 2013. To 
assess the reliability of the data, we interviewed DOD officials and 
analyzed relevant manpower and financial-management documentation to 
ensure that the authorized positions and data on operation and 
maintenance obligations that the commands provided were tied to 
mission and headquarters support. We also incorporated data-
reliability questions into our data-collection instruments and 
compared the multiple data sets received from DOD components against 
each other to ensure that there was consistency in the data that the 
commands provided. We determined the data were sufficiently reliable 
for our purposes. 

To determine the extent to which DOD's directed reductions to 
headquarters, like the functional combatant commands and supporting 
service component commands, will result in cost savings for the 
department, we obtained and reviewed guidance and documentation on 
DOD's and the services' planned headquarters reductions, such as the 
department-issued memorandum outlining the reductions and various DOD 
budget-related data and documents. We then examined whether this 
information addressed some key questions we had developed for an 
agency to consider when evaluating proposals to consolidate management 
functions. We developed these key questions by reviewing our reports 
on specific consolidation initiatives that have been undertaken, 
complementing this with information gathered through a review of the 
relevant literature on public-sector consolidations produced by 
academic institutions, professional associations, think tanks, news 
outlets, and various other organizations. In addition, as illustrative 
examples for this prior work, we reviewed selected consolidation 
initiatives at the federal agency level and interviewed a number of 
individuals selected for their expertise in public management and 
government reform.[Footnote 60] We obtained data on the total 
authorized positions at the functional combatant commands for fiscal 
year 2013 as well as the number of positions deemed by the command to 
be performing headquarters functions and included in DOD's planned 
reductions. To assess the reliability of the data, we interviewed DOD 
officials, analyzed relevant manpower documentation, incorporated data-
reliability questions into our data-collection instruments, and 
compared the multiple data sets received from DOD components against 
each other to ensure that there was consistency in the data that the 
commands provided. We determined the data were sufficiently reliable 
for our purposes. We also interviewed officials at the functional 
combatant commands, some of their respective subordinate unified 
commands, and the service component commands to discuss specific 
headquarters positions and organizations that will be affected by 
DOD's planned reductions in the commands and their service components. 

We interviewed officials or, where appropriate, obtained documentation 
from the organizations listed below: 

Joint Staff: 

* Manpower and Personnel Directorate: 

* Strategic Plans and Policy Directorate: 

Department of the Air Force: 

* Office of the Secretary of the Air Force, Manpower and Personnel: 

Department of the Army: 

* Assistant Secretary of the Army for Financial Management and 
Comptroller, Army Budget Office: 

* U.S. Army Force Management Support Agency: 

Department of the Navy: 

* Headquarters, U.S. Marine Corps: 

Unified Combatant Commands and Subordinate Unified Commands: 

* U.S. Strategic Command: 

* U.S. Cyber Command: 

* Marine Corps Forces U.S. Strategic Command: 

* U.S. Army Space and Missile Defense Command/Army Forces Strategic 
Command: 

* Joint Functional Component Command for Integrated Missile Defense: 

* Air Force Global Strike Command: 

* Air Force Space Command: 

* U.S. Special Operations Command: 

* U.S. Army Special Operations Command: 

* Air Force Special Operations Command: 

* Naval Special Warfare Command: 

* U.S. Marine Corps Forces Special Operations Command: 

* Special Operations Command Central: 

* U.S. Transportation Command: 

* Surface Deployment and Distribution Command: 

* Military Sealift Command: 

* Air Mobility Command: 

* Joint Enabling Capabilities Command: 

We conducted this performance audit from May 2013 to June 2014 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 of section] 

Appendix II: Headquarters Locations of the Functional Combatant 
Commands, Their Subordinate Unified Commands, and Their Service 
Component Commands: 

This appendix contains information in noninteractive format presented 
in figure 1. 

Table 2: Headquarters Locations of the Functional Combatant Commands, 
Their Subordinate Unified Commands, and Their Service Component 
Commands: 

Functional combatant command: U.S. Special Operations Command (SOCOM); 

Headquarters and component command locations: 
SOCOM Headquarters, MacDill Air Force Base, Florida; 
Joint Special Operations Command, Fort Bragg, North Carolina; 
Joint Special Operations University, MacDill Air Force Base, Florida; 
Special Operations Command--Joint Capabilities, Norfolk, Virginia; 
U.S. Army Special Operations Command, Fort Bragg, North Carolina; 
Air Force Special Operations Command, Hurlburt Field, Florida; 
Naval Special Warfare Command, Naval Base Coronado, California; 
Marine Corps Forces Special Operations Command, Camp Lejeune, North 
Carolina. 

Functional combatant command: U.S. Strategic Command (STRATCOM); 

Headquarters and component command locations: 
STRATCOM Headquarters, Offutt Air Force Base, Nebraska; 
U.S. Cyber Command, Fort Meade, Maryland; 
Joint Functional Component Command-Global Strike, Offutt Air Force 
Base, Nebraska; 
Joint Functional Component Command-Space, Vandenberg Air Force Base, 
California; 
Joint Functional Component Command-Integrated Missile Defense, 
Schriever Air Force Base, Colorado; 
Joint Functional Component Command-Intelligence, Surveillance, and 
Reconnaissance, Joint Base Anacostia-Bolling, District of Columbia; 
U.S. Strategic Command Center for Combating Weapons of Mass 
Destruction, Fort Belvoir, Virginia; 
Standing Joint Force Headquarters for Elimination, Fort Belvoir, 
Virginia; 
Joint Warfare Analysis Center, Dahlgren, Virginia; 
U.S. Marine Corps Forces, Strategic Command, Offutt Air Force Base, 
Nebraska; 
U.S. Army Space and Missile Defense Command/Army Forces Strategic 
Command, Redstone Arsenal, Alabama; 
Air Force Global Strike Command, Barksdale Air Force Base, Louisiana; 
Air Force Space Command, Peterson Air Force Base, Colorado. 

Functional combatant command: U.S. Transportation Command (TRANSCOM); 

Headquarters and component command locations: 
TRANSCOM Headquarters, Scott Air Force Base, Illinois.
Joint Enabling Capabilities Command, Naval Station Norfolk, Virginia.
Air Mobility Command, Scott Air Force Base, Illinois.
Surface Deployment and Distribution Command, Scott Air Force Base, 
Illinois; 
Military Sealift Command, Washington Navy Yard, District of Columbia. 

Source: GAO Analysis of Department of Defense (DOD) data. 

[End of table] 

[End of section] 

Appendix III: Resources at U.S. Special Operations Command and Its 
Service Component Commands: 

U.S. Special Operations Command (SOCOM): 

Mission: Provides special operations forces to defend the United 
States and its interests, and synchronizes planning of and
operations against global terrorist networks. 

Headquarters: MacDill Air Force Base, Florida. 

Responsibility: Daily planning for and execution of SOCOM's mission is 
performed by the command headquarters, three subordinate unified 
commands-—Joint Special Operations Command, Special Operations Command–
North, and Special Operations Command–Joint Capabilities[A]—-and two 
direct reporting units[B]-—Special Operations Joint Task Force and a 
Regional Special Operations Forces Coordination Center. SOCOM is also 
supported by four service component commands, which are the U.S. Army
Special Operations Command; the Naval Special Warfare Command; the Air 
Force Special Operations Command; and the Marine Corps Special 
Operations Command. 

SOCOM's Organizational Structure: 

Figure: Interactivity instructions: Click on the combatant command 
name to see more information. 

See appendix VII for the noninteractive, printer-friendly version. 

Source: GAO analysis of Department of Defense (DOD), U.S. Special 
Operations Command (SOCOM), and component data. GAO-14-439. 

[End of figure] 

[A] According to Special Operations Command officials, Special 
Operations Command-Joint Capabilities was disestablished in fiscal 
year 2013 and positions will be zeroed out in fiscal year 2014. 

[B] In fiscal year 2013, SOCOM listed authorized positions in three 
direct reporting units: Joint Military Information Support Command, 
Special Operations Joint Task Force, and a Regional Special Operations 
Forces Coordination Center. However, the Joint Military Information 
Support Center was deactivated at the end of fiscal year 2011 and,
according to SOCOM, one authorized military position remained on the 
Joint Table of Distribution in fiscal year 2013. This position was 
transferred to SOCOM headquarters operations directorate in fiscal 
year 2014. 

Figure: SOCOM's Authorized Military and Civilian Positions, Fiscal 
Years 2004 through 2013[A]: 

[Refer to PDF for image: stacked line graph] 

Fiscal year 2004; 
SOCOM Headquarters: 1,167; 
Subordinate unified commands and direct reporting units[B]: 718. 

Fiscal year 2005; 
SOCOM Headquarters: 1,232; 
Subordinate unified commands and direct reporting units[B]: 734. 

Fiscal year 2006; 
SOCOM Headquarters: 1,282; 
Subordinate unified commands and direct reporting units[B]: 781. 

Fiscal year 2007; 
SOCOM Headquarters: 1,593; 
Subordinate unified commands and direct reporting units[B]: 1,244. 

Fiscal year 2008; 
SOCOM Headquarters: 1,988; 
Subordinate unified commands and direct reporting units[B]: 1,317. 

Fiscal year 2009; 
SOCOM Headquarters: 2,163; 
Subordinate unified commands and direct reporting units[B]: 1,317. 

Fiscal year 2010; 
SOCOM Headquarters: 2,244; 
Subordinate unified commands and direct reporting units[B]: 1,472. 

Fiscal year 2011; 
SOCOM Headquarters: 2,314; 
Subordinate unified commands and direct reporting units[B]: 1,520. 

Fiscal year 2012; 
SOCOM Headquarters: 2,419; 
Subordinate unified commands and direct reporting units[B]: 1,670. 

Fiscal year 2013; 
SOCOM Headquarters: 2,340; 
Subordinate unified commands and direct reporting units[B]: 1,753. 

[End of figure] 

Figure: SOCOM's Costs to Support Headquarters Operations, Fiscal Years 
2001 through 2013[C]: 

[Refer to PDF for image: stacked vertical bar graph] 

Millions of fiscal year 2013 dollars: 

Fiscal year 2001; 
SOCOM Headquarters: $69.8 million; 
Joint Special Operations Command: $0.8 million; 
Theater Special Operations Command: $4.8 million. 

Fiscal year 2002; 
SOCOM Headquarters: $73.6 million; 
Joint Special Operations Command: $0.9 million; 
Theater Special Operations Command: $5.2 million. 

Fiscal year 2003; 
SOCOM Headquarters: $90.0 million; 
Joint Special Operations Command: $1.6 million; 
Theater Special Operations Command: $5.5 million. 

Fiscal year 2004; 
SOCOM Headquarters: $103.4 million; 
Joint Special Operations Command: $2.8 million; 
Theater Special Operations Command: $5.9 million. 

Fiscal year 2005; 
SOCOM Headquarters: $112.6 million; 
Joint Special Operations Command: $2.5 million; 
Theater Special Operations Command: $6.5 million. 

Fiscal year 2006; 
SOCOM Headquarters: $144.9 million; 
Joint Special Operations Command: $3.5 million; 
Theater Special Operations Command: $7.7 million. 

Fiscal year 2007; 
SOCOM Headquarters: $248.1 million; 
Joint Special Operations Command: $6.0 million; 
Theater Special Operations Command: $10.7 million. 

Fiscal year 2008; 
SOCOM Headquarters: $265.4 million; 
Joint Special Operations Command: $2.9 million; 
Theater Special Operations Command: $16.4 million. 

Fiscal year 2009; 
SOCOM Headquarters: $385.8 million; 
Joint Special Operations Command: $62.3 million; 
Theater Special Operations Command: $19.6 million. 

Fiscal year 2010; 
SOCOM Headquarters: $329.6 million; 
Joint Special Operations Command: $67.4 million; 
Theater Special Operations Command: $27.1 million. 

Fiscal year 2011; 
SOCOM Headquarters: $328.6 million; 
Joint Special Operations Command: $69.7 million; 
Theater Special Operations Command: $27.9 million. 

Fiscal year 2012; 
SOCOM Headquarters: $377.8 million; 
Joint Special Operations Command: $73.7 million; 
Theater Special Operations Command: $34.5 million. 

Fiscal year 2013; 
SOCOM Headquarters: $373.1 million; 
Joint Special Operations Command: $71.1 million; 
Theater Special Operations Command: $22.8 million. 

[End of figure] 

Figure: SOCOM's Number of Authorized Military and Civilian Positions, 
Fiscal Years 2004 through 2013: 

[Refer to PDF for image: multiple line graph] 

Authorized positions: 

Fiscal year: 2004; 
Military: 1,172; 
Civilian: 713. 

Fiscal year: 2005; 
Military: 1,211; 
Civilian: 755. 

Fiscal year: 2006; 
Military: 1,242; 
Civilian: 821. 

Fiscal year: 2007; 
Military: 1,689; 
Civilian: 1,148. 

Fiscal year: 2008; 
Military: 1,886; 
Civilian: 1,419. 

Fiscal year: 2009; 
Military: 1,875; 
Civilian: 1,605. 

Fiscal year: 2010; 
Military: 1,945; 
Civilian: 1,771. 

Fiscal year: 2011; 
Military: 1,972; 
Civilian: 1,862. 

Fiscal year: 2012; 
Military: 2,119; 
Civilian: 1,970. 

Fiscal year: 2013; 
Military: 2,143; 
Civilian: 1,950. 

[End of figure] 

Figure: SOCOM's Costs to Support Headquarters Operations, Fiscal Year 
2013: 

[Refer to PDF for image: pie-chart] 

Total: 467 million: 
SOCOM Headquarters: 80% ($373 million); 
Joint Special Operations Command: 15% ($71 million); 
Theater Special Operations Command: 5% ($23 million. 

Source: GAO analysis of Department of Defense (DOD), U.S. Special 
Operations Command (SOCOM), and component data. GAO-14-439. 

[A] Authorized military and civilian positions represent approved, 
funded personnel requirements at the functional combatant commands and 
do not include personnel performing contract services. Data come from 
the functional combatant commands' Joint Tables of Distribution, which 
identify the positions that have been approved for each command. We 
limited our analysis to fiscal years 2004 through 2013, because
SOCOM could not provide data on its authorized military and civilian 
positions for fiscal years 2001 through 2003. 

[B] SOCOM's subordinate unified commands and direct-reporting units 
include: Joint Special Operations Command, U.S. Special Operations 
Command–North, and Special Operations Command–Joint Capabilities, 
Special Operations Joint Task Force, and a Regional Special Operations 
Forces Coordination Center. 

[C] To fund authorized positions and the acquisition of special 
operations-specific equipment, SOCOM was given responsibility for 
supervising a separate budget account Major Force Program-11. Hence, 
costs to support headquarters operations reflect obligations for 
operation and maintenance and special operations–specific 
appropriations reported by DOD components, which include compensation 
of civilian personnel and contract services, among others costs. In 
addition to funding SOCOM headquarters, subordinate unified commands 
and direct reporting units, mission and headquarters support costs 
also fund authorized military and civilian positions at the geographic 
combatant commands' theater special operations commands. Costs
to support headquarters operations do not include the costs expended 
by other components such as the Defense Intelligence Agency, nor do 
they include costs for overseas contingency operations. 

[End of figures] 

Figure: SOCOM's Service Component Commands' Authorized Military and 
Civilian Positions, Fiscal Years 2002 through 2013[A]: 

[Refer to PDF for image: stacked line graph] 

Authorized positions: 

Fiscal year: 2002; 
Army Special Operations Command: 652; 
Naval Special Warfare Command: 208; 
Marine Corps Special Operations Command: 0; 
Air Force Special Operations Command: 373. 

Fiscal year: 2003; 
Army Special Operations Command: 672; 
Naval Special Warfare Command: 210; 
Marine Corps Special Operations Command: 0; 
Air Force Special Operations Command: 372. 

Fiscal year: 2004; 
Army Special Operations Command: 688; 
Naval Special Warfare Command: 248; 
Marine Corps Special Operations Command: 0; 
Air Force Special Operations Command: 428. 

Fiscal year: 2005; 
Army Special Operations Command: 685; 
Naval Special Warfare Command: 264; 
Marine Corps Special Operations Command: 0; 
Air Force Special Operations Command: 468. 

Fiscal year: 2006; 
Army Special Operations Command: 663; 
Naval Special Warfare Command: 263; 
Marine Corps Special Operations Command: 121; 
Air Force Special Operations Command: 416. 

Fiscal year: 2007; 
Army Special Operations Command: 676; 
Naval Special Warfare Command: 356; 
Marine Corps Special Operations Command: 193; 
Air Force Special Operations Command: 524. 

Fiscal year: 2008; 
Army Special Operations Command: 659; 
Naval Special Warfare Command: 356; 
Marine Corps Special Operations Command: 199; 
Air Force Special Operations Command: 568. 

Fiscal year: 2009; 
Army Special Operations Command: 678; 
Naval Special Warfare Command: 395; 
Marine Corps Special Operations Command: 210; 
Air Force Special Operations Command: 576. 

Fiscal year: 2010; 
Army Special Operations Command: 694; 
Naval Special Warfare Command: 355; 
Marine Corps Special Operations Command: 211; 
Air Force Special Operations Command: 673. 

Fiscal year: 2011; 
Army Special Operations Command: 691; 
Naval Special Warfare Command: 374; 
Marine Corps Special Operations Command: 224; 
Air Force Special Operations Command: 692. 

Fiscal year: 2012; 
Army Special Operations Command: 682; 
Naval Special Warfare Command: 378; 
Marine Corps Special Operations Command: 305; 
Air Force Special Operations Command: 792. 

Fiscal year: 2013; 
Army Special Operations Command: 702; 
Naval Special Warfare Command: 394; 
Marine Corps Special Operations Command: 304; 
Air Force Special Operations Command: 710. 

[End of figure] 

Figure: SOCOM's Service Component Commands' Costs to Support 
Headquarters Operations, Fiscal Years 2008 through 2013[B]: 

Millions of fiscal year 2013 dollars: 

Fiscal year 2008; 
Army Special Operations Command: $146.1 million; 
Naval Special Warfare Command: $26.6 million; 
Marine Corps Special Operations Command: $8.3 million. 
Air Force Special Operations Command: $28.6 million. 

Fiscal year 2009; 
Army Special Operations Command: $146.5 million; 
Naval Special Warfare Command: $34.4 million; 
Marine Corps Special Operations Command: $7.7 million; 
Air Force Special Operations Command: $29.1 million. 

Fiscal year 2010; 
Army Special Operations Command: $173.5 million; 
Naval Special Warfare Command: $31.9 million; 
Marine Corps Special Operations Command: $13.5 million; 
Air Force Special Operations Command: $31.2 million. 

Fiscal year 2011; 
Army Special Operations Command: $166.4 million; 
Naval Special Warfare Command: $35.6 million; 
Marine Corps Special Operations Command: $13.5 million; 
Air Force Special Operations Command: $31.1 million. 

Fiscal year 2012; 
Army Special Operations Command: $158.7 million; 
Naval Special Warfare Command: $37.1 million; 
Marine Corps Special Operations Command: $16.4 million; 
Air Force Special Operations Command: $28.7 million. 

Fiscal year 2013; 
Army Special Operations Command: $159.7 million; 
Naval Special Warfare Command: $33.2 million; 
Marine Corps Special Operations Command: $16.2 million; 
Air Force Special Operations Command: $29.4 million. 

[End of figure] 

Figure: SOCOM's Service Component Commands' Authorized Military and 
Civilian Positions, Fiscal Year 2013: 

[Refer to PDF for image: pie-chart] 

2,100 positions: 
Air Force Special Operations Command: 34%; (710); 
Army Special Operations Command: 33%; (702); 
Naval Special Warfare Command: 19% (394); 
Marine Corps Special Operations Command: 14% (304). 

Figure: SOCOM's Service Component Commands' Costs to Support 
Headquarters Operations, Fiscal Year 2013: 

[Refer to PDF for image: pie-chart] 

$238.5 million: 
Army Special Operations Command: 67%; ($159.7 million); 
Naval Special Warfare Command: 14%; (%33.2 million); 
Air Force Special Operations Command: 12%; ($29.4 million); 
Marine Corps Special Operations Command: 7% (16.2 million). 

Source: GAO analysis of Department of Defense (DOD), U.S. Special 
Operations Command (SOCOM), and component data. GAO-14-439. 

[End of figure] 

Table: Fiscal Year 2013 Authorized Military and Civilian Positions by 
Directorate, Subordinate Command, and Component Command: 

U.S. Special Operations Command Headquarters Directorates[A]: 

J0 Command Staff: 
Military: 265; 
Civilian: 124; 
Total: 389. 

J2 Directorate of Intelligence: 
Military: 169; 
Civilian: 304; 
Total: 473. 

J3 Directorate of Operations: 
Military: 130; 
Civilian: 158; 
Total: 288. 

J4 Directorate of Logistics: 
Military: 30; 
Civilian: 31; 
Total: 61. 

J5 Directorate of Policy: 
Military: 79; 
Civilian: 20; 
Total: 99. 

J6 Directorate of Communications: 
Military: 62; 
Civilian: 101; 
Total: 163. 

Force Management Directorate: 
Military: 91; 
Civilian: 96; 
Total: 187. 

J8 Directorate of Resources, Requirements, and Strategic Assessments: 
Military: 58; 
Civilian: 53; 
Total: 111. 

Special Operations Financial Management: 
Military: 17; 
Civilian: 106; 
Total: 123. 

Interagency Task Force: 
Military: 20; 
Civilian: 11; 
Total: 31. 

Special Operations Research, Development, and Acquisition Center: 
Military: 44; 
Civilian: 278; 
Total: 322. 

Joint Special Operations University: 
Military: 26; 
Civilian: 67; 
Total: 93. 

Headquarters Directorates Total: 
Military: 991; 
Civilian: 1,349; 
Total: 2,340. 

Subordinate Unified Commands: 

Joint Special Operations Command: 
Military: 994; 
Civilian: 583; 
Total: 1,577. 

Special Operations Command–North: 
Military: 29; 
Civilian: 0; 
Total: 29. 

Special Operations Command–Joint Capabilities: 
Military: 34; 
Civilian: 17; 
Total: 51. 

Subordinate Unified Command Total: 
Military: 1,057; 
Civilian: 600; 
Total: 1,657. 

Direct Reporting Units: 

Joint Military Information Support Command: 
Military: 1; 
Civilian: 0; 
Total: 1. 

Special Operations Joint Task Force: 
Military: 69; 
Civilian: 1; 
Total: 70. 

Regional Special Operations Forces Coordination Center: 
Military: 25; 
Civilian: 0; 
Total: 25. 

Direct Reporting Units Total: 
Military: 95; 
Civilian: 1; 
Total: 96. 

U.S. Special Operations Command Grand Total: 
Military: 2,143; 
Civilian: 1,950; 
Total: 4,093. 

Service Component Commands: 

Air Force Special Operations Command: 
Military: 396; 
Civilian: 314; 
Total: 710. 

U.S. Army Special Operations Command: 
Military: 278; 
Civilian: 424; 
Total: 702. 

U.S. Marine Corps Forces Special Operations Command: 
Military: 211; 
Civilian: 93; 
Total: 304. 

Naval Special Warfare Command: 
Military: 202; 
Civilian: 192; 
Total: 394. 

Service Component Command Grand Total: 
Military: 1,087; 
Civilian: 1,023; 
Total: 2,110. 

Source: GAO analysis of Department of Defense (DOD), U.S. Special 
Operations Command (SOCOM), and component data. GAO-14-439. 

[A] The combatant commanders have broad authority to organize and 
structure their commands as they deem necessary to achieve their 
assigned missions. The commands' structure may include a principal 
staff officer, personal staff to the commander, a special staff group 
for technical or tactical advice, and other groups of staff who are 
responsible for managing personnel, ensuring the availability of 
intelligence, directing operations, coordinating logistics, preparing 
long-range or future plans, and integrating communications systems. 
The commands may also have subordinate unified commands, joint task 
forces, and other activities, each with their own staff, which support 
the combatant commands in conducting their operational missions. 

[End of table] 

[End of section] 

Appendix IV: Resources at U.S. Strategic Command and Its Service 
Component Commands (Part 1 of 6): 

U.S. Strategic Command (STRATCOM): 

Mission: STRATCOM conducts global operations in coordination with 
other combatant commands, military services, and appropriate U.S. 
government agencies to deter and detect strategic attacks against the 
United States and its allies. 

Headquarters: Offutt Air Force Base, Nebraska. 

Responsibility: Daily planning and execution for STRATCOM's mission is 
performed by one subunified command—U.S. Cyber Command—and seven 
component commands—Joint Functional Component Command-Global Strike; 
Joint Functional Component Command-Space; Joint Functional Component 
Command-Integrated Missile Defense; Joint Functional Component Command-
Intelligence, Surveillance, and Reconnaissance; the STRATCOM Center 
for Combating Weapons of Mass Destruction, the Standing Joint Force 
Headquarters for Elimination, and the Joint Warfare Analysis Center. 
STRATCOM is also supported by four service component commands, 
including Air Force Global Strike Command, Air Force Space Command, 
Army Space and Missile Defense Command/U.S. Army Forces Strategic 
Command, and Marine Corps Forces U.S. Strategic Command. 

STRATCOM's Organizational Structure: 

Figure: Interactive graphic] 

Interactivity instructions: 

Click on the combatant command name to see more information. 

See appendix VII for the noninteractive, printer-friendly version. 

Source: GAO analysis of Department of Defense (DOD), U.S. Strategic 
Command (STRATCOM), and component data. GAO-14-439. 

[End of figure] 

Figure: STRATCOM's Authorized Military and Civilian Positions, Fiscal 
Years 2001 through 2013[A]: 

[Refer to PDF for image: stacked line graph] 

Authorized positions: 

Fiscal year 2001; 
STRATCOM Headquarters: 1,798; 
Component Commands[B]: 0; 
Cyber Command: 0. 

Fiscal year 2002; 
STRATCOM Headquarters: 1,785; 
Component Commands[B]: 0; 
Cyber Command: 0. 

Fiscal year 2003; 
STRATCOM Headquarters: 2,346; 
Component Commands[B]: 294; 
Cyber Command: 0. 

Fiscal year 2004; 
STRATCOM Headquarters: 2,674; 
Component Commands[B]: 309; 
Cyber Command: 0. 

Fiscal year 2005; 
STRATCOM Headquarters: 2,462; 
Component Commands[B]: 503; 
Cyber Command: 0. 

Fiscal year 2006; 
STRATCOM Headquarters: 1,788; 
Component Commands[B]: 1,160; 
Cyber Command: 0. 

Fiscal year 2007; 
STRATCOM Headquarters: 1,156; 
Component Commands[B]: 1,459; 
Cyber Command: 0. 

Fiscal year 2008; 
STRATCOM Headquarters: 1,141; 
Component Commands[B]: 1,461; 
Cyber Command: 0. 

Fiscal year 2009; 
STRATCOM Headquarters: 1,267; 
Component Commands[B]: 1,509; 
Cyber Command: 0. 

Fiscal year 2010; 
STRATCOM Headquarters: 1,577; 
Component Commands[B]: 1,752; 
Cyber Command: 0. 

Fiscal year 2011; 
STRATCOM Headquarters: 1,859; 
Component Commands[B]: 1,323; 
Cyber Command: 907. 

Fiscal year 2012; 
STRATCOM Headquarters: 1,988; 
Component Commands[B]: 1,516; 
Cyber Command: 937. 

Fiscal year 2013; 
STRATCOM Headquarters: 2,004; 
Component Commands[B]: 1,544; 
Cyber Command: 918. 

[End of figure] 

Figure: STRATCOM's Costs to Support Headquarters Operations, Fiscal 
Years 2001 through 2013[C]: 

[Refer to PDF for image: stacked vertical bar graph] 

Millions of fiscal year 2013 dollars: 

Fiscal year 2001; 
STRATCOM Headquarters: $164.3 million; 
Component Commands: $0; 
Cyber Command: $0. 

Fiscal year 2002; 
STRATCOM Headquarters: $177.5 million; 
Component Commands: $0; 
Cyber Command: $0. 

Fiscal year 2003; 
STRATCOM Headquarters: $270 million; 
Component Commands: $55.7 million; 
Cyber Command: $0. 

Fiscal year 2004; 
STRATCOM Headquarters: $389.1 million; 
Component Commands: $54.8 million; 
Cyber Command: $0. 

Fiscal year 2005; 
STRATCOM Headquarters: $406.1 million; 
Component Commands: $70.3 million; 
Cyber Command: $0. 

Fiscal year 2006; 
STRATCOM Headquarters: $384.7 million; 
Component Commands: $91.4 million; 
Cyber Command: $0. 

Fiscal year 2007; 
STRATCOM Headquarters: $311.8 million; 
Component Commands: $133.2 million; 
Cyber Command: $0. 

Fiscal year 2008; 
STRATCOM Headquarters: $320 million; 
Component Commands: $129.3 million; 
Cyber Command: $0. 

Fiscal year 2009; 
STRATCOM Headquarters: $338.3 million; 
Component Commands: $148.1 million; 
Cyber Command: $0. 

Fiscal year 2010; 
STRATCOM Headquarters: $379.6 million; 
Component Commands: $217.1 million; 
Cyber Command: $0. 

Fiscal year 2011; 
STRATCOM Headquarters: $377.6 million; 
Component Commands: $100.9 million; 
Cyber Command: $193.2 million. 

Fiscal year 2012; 
STRATCOM Headquarters: $276.8 million; 
Component Commands: $117.9 million; 
Cyber Command: $125 million. 

Fiscal year 2013; 
STRATCOM Headquarters: $275 million; 
Component Commands: $167.5 million; 
Cyber Command: $180.9 million. 

[End of figure] 

Figure: STRATCOM's Number of Authorized Military and Civilian 
Positions, Fiscal Years 2001 through 2013: 

[Refer to PDF for image: multiple line graph] 

Authorized positions: 

Fiscal year 2001; 
Military: 1,423; 
Civilian: 375. 

Fiscal year 2002; 
Military: 1,379; 
Civilian: 406. 

Fiscal year 2003; 
Military: 1,965; 
Civilian: 675. 

Fiscal year 2004; 
Military: 2,150; 
Civilian: 833. 

Fiscal year 2005; 
Military: 2,130; 
Civilian: 835. 

Fiscal year 2006; 
Military: 2,096; 
Civilian: 852. 

Fiscal year 2007; 
Military: 1,766; 
Civilian: 849. 

Fiscal year 2008; 
Military: 1,742; 
Civilian: 860. 

Fiscal year 2009; 
Military: 1,690; 
Civilian: 1,086. 

Fiscal year 2010; 
Military: 1,775; 
Civilian: 1,554. 

Fiscal year 2011; 
Military: 2,032; 
Civilian: 2,057. 

Fiscal year 2012; 
Military: 1,993; 
Civilian: 2,448. 

Fiscal year 2013; 
Military: 1,996; 
Civilian: 2,470. 

[End of figure] 

Figure: STRATCOM's Costs to Support Headquarters Operations, Fiscal 
Year 2013: 

[Refer to PDF for image: pie-chart] 

$623.4 million: 
STRATCOM Headquarters: 44% ($275.0 million); 
Component Commands: 24%; ($167.5 million); 
Cyber Command: 29%; ($180.9 million). 

[End of figure] 

[A] Authorized military and civilian positions represent approved, 
funded personnel requirements at the functional combatant commands and 
do not include personnel performing contract services. Data come from 
the functional combatant commands' Joint Tables of Distribution, which 
identify the positions that have been approved for each command. Data 
included in the STRATCOM headquarters totals include those authorized 
positions that are part of the command's headquarters directorates (J0
through J9) and the Program Management Office. 

[B] Data included in STRATCOM's component commands include those 
authorized positions at Joint Functional Component Commands for Global 
Strike, Space, Integrated Missile Defense, and Intelligence, 
Surveillance, and Reconnaissance; the STRATCOM Center for Combating 
Weapons of Mass Destruction; the Standing Joint Force Headquarters for 
Elimination; and the Joint Warfare Analysis Center. 

[C] Costs to support headquarters operations reflect obligations for 
operation and maintenance appropriations, which include compensation 
of civilian personnel and contract services, among others costs. Costs 
to support headquarters operations do not include the costs expended 
by other components such as the Defense Intelligence Agency, nor do 
they include costs for overseas contingency operations. 

Source: GAO analysis of Department of Defense (DOD), U.S. Strategic 
Command (STRATCOM), and component data. GAO-14-439. 

[End of figures] 

Figure: STRATCOM's Authorized Military and Civilian Positions, Fiscal 
Years 2001 through 2013[A]: 

[Refer to PDF for image: stacked line graph] 

Authorized positions: 

Fiscal year: 2001; 
STRATCOM Headquarters: 1,798; 
Component Commands[B]: 0; 
Cyber Command: 0. 

Fiscal year: 2002; 
STRATCOM Headquarters: 1,785; 
Component Commands[B]: 0; 
Cyber Command: 0. 

Fiscal year: 2003; 
STRATCOM Headquarters: 2,346; 
Component Commands[B]: 294; 
Cyber Command: 0. 

Fiscal year: 2004; 
STRATCOM Headquarters: 2,674; 
Component Commands[B]: 309; 
Cyber Command: 0. 

Fiscal year: 2005; 
STRATCOM Headquarters: 2,462; 
Component Commands[B]: 503; 
Cyber Command: 0. 

Fiscal year: 2006; 
STRATCOM Headquarters: 1,788; 
Component Commands[B]: 1,160; 
Cyber Command: 0. 

Fiscal year: 2007; 
STRATCOM Headquarters: 1,156; 
Component Commands[B]: 1,459; 
Cyber Command: 0. 

Fiscal year: 2008; 
STRATCOM Headquarters: 1,141; 
Component Commands[B]: 1,461; 
Cyber Command: 0. 

Fiscal year: 2009; 
STRATCOM Headquarters: 1,267; 
Component Commands[B]: 1,509; 
Cyber Command: 0. 

Fiscal year: 2010; 
STRATCOM Headquarters: 1,577; 
Component Commands[B]: 1,752; 
Cyber Command: 0. 

Fiscal year: 2011; 
STRATCOM Headquarters: 1,859; 
Component Commands[B]: 1,323; 
Cyber Command: 907. 

Fiscal year: 2012; 
STRATCOM Headquarters: 1,988; 
Component Commands[B]: 1,516; 
Cyber Command: 937. 

Fiscal year: 2013; 
STRATCOM Headquarters: 2,004; 
Component Commands[B]: 1,544; 
Cyber Command: 918. 

[End of figure] 

Figure: STRATCOM's Costs to Support Headquarters Operations, Fiscal 
Years 2001 through 2013[C]: 

Millions of fiscal year 2013 dollars: 

Fiscal year: 2001; 
STRATCOM Headquarters: $164.3 million; 
Component Commands: $0; 
Cyber Command: $0. 

Fiscal year: 2002; 
STRATCOM Headquarters: $177.5 million; 
Component Commands: $0; 
Cyber Command: $0. 

Fiscal year: 2003; 
STRATCOM Headquarters: $270 million; 
Component Commands: $55.7 million; 
Cyber Command: $0. 

Fiscal year: 2004; 
STRATCOM Headquarters: $389.1 million; 
Component Commands: $54.8 million; 
Cyber Command: $0. 

Fiscal year: 2005; 
STRATCOM Headquarters: $406.1 million; 
Component Commands: $70.3 million; 
Cyber Command: $0. 

Fiscal year: 2006; 
STRATCOM Headquarters: $384.7 million; 
Component Commands: $91.4 million; 
Cyber Command: $0. 

Fiscal year: 2007; 
STRATCOM Headquarters: $311.8 million; 
Component Commands: $133.2 million; 
Cyber Command: $0. 

Fiscal year: 2008; 
STRATCOM Headquarters: $320 million; 
Component Commands: $129.3 million; 
Cyber Command: $0. 

Fiscal year: 2009; 
STRATCOM Headquarters: $338.3 million; 
Component Commands: $148.1 million; 
Cyber Command: $0. 

Fiscal year: 2010; 
STRATCOM Headquarters: $379.6 million; 
Component Commands: $217.1 million; 
Cyber Command: $0. 

Fiscal year: 2011; 
STRATCOM Headquarters: $377.6 million; 
Component Commands: $100.9 million; 
Cyber Command: $193.2 million. 

Fiscal year: 2012; 
STRATCOM Headquarters: $276.8 million; 
Component Commands: $117.9 million; 
Cyber Command: $125 million. 

Fiscal year: 2013; 
STRATCOM Headquarters: $275 million; 
Component Commands: $167.5 million; 
Cyber Command: $180.9 million. 

[End of figure] 

Figure: STRATCOM's Number of Authorized Military and Civilian 
Positions, Fiscal Years 2001 through 2013: 

[Refer to PDF for image: multiple line graph] 

Authorized positions: 

Fiscal year: 2001; 
Military: 1,423; 
Civilian: 375. 

Fiscal year: 2002; 
Military: 1,379; 
Civilian: 406. 

Fiscal year: 2003; 
Military: 1,965; 
Civilian: 675. 

Fiscal year: 2004; 
Military: 2,150; 
Civilian: 833. 

Fiscal year: 2005; 
Military: 2,130; 
Civilian: 835. 

Fiscal year: 2006; 
Military: 2,096; 
Civilian: 852. 

Fiscal year: 2007; 
Military: 1,766; 
Civilian: 849. 

Fiscal year: 2008; 
Military: 1,742; 
Civilian: 860. 

Fiscal year: 2009; 
Military: 1,690; 
Civilian: 1,086. 

Fiscal year: 2010; 
Military: 1,775; 
Civilian: 1,554. 

Fiscal year: 2011; 
Military: 2,032; 
Civilian: 2,057. 

Fiscal year: 2012; 
Military: 1,993; 
Civilian: 2,448. 

Fiscal year: 2013; 
Military: 1,996; 
Civilian: 2,470. 

[End of figure] 

Figure: STRATCOM's Costs to Support Headquarters Operations, Fiscal 
Year 2013: 

[Refer to PDF for image: pie-chart] 

$623.4 million: 
STRATCOM Headquarters: 44%; ($275.0 million); 
Component Commands: 24%; ($167.5 million); 
Cyber Command: 29%; ($180.9 million). 

[End of figure] 

Source: GAO analysis of Department of Defense (DOD), U.S. Strategic 
Command (STRATCOM), and component data. GAO-14-439. 

[End of figures] 

Table: Fiscal Year 2013 Authorized Military and Civilian Positions by 
Directorate, Subordinate Command, and Component Command: 

U.S. Strategic Command Headquarters Directorates[A]: 

J0 Command Staff: 
Military: 104; 
Civilian: 75; 
Total: 179. 

J1 Manpower and Personnel: 
Military: 18; 
Civilian: 33; 
Total: 51. 

J2 Intelligence: 
Military: 203; 
Civilian: 153; 
Total: 356. 

J3 Global Operations: 
Military: 242; 
Civilian: 245; 
Total: 487. 

J4 Logistics: 
Military: 11; 
Civilian: 37; 
Total: 48. 

J5 Plans and Policy: 
Military: 61; 
Civilian: 96; 
Total: 157. 

J6 C4 Systems: 
Military: 50; 
Civilian: 238; 
Total: 288. 

J7 Joint Exercises and Training: 
Military: 13; 
Civilian: 40; 
Total: 53. 

J8 Capability and Resource Integration: 
Military: 58; 
Civilian: 237; 
Total: 295. 

J9 Mission Assessment and Analysis: 
Military: 10; 
Civilian: 54; 
Total: 64. 

Program Management Office: 
Military: 4; 
Civilian: 22; 
Total: 26. 

Headquarters Directorates Total: 
Military: 774; 
Civilian: 1,230; 
Total: 2,004. 

Subunified Command: 

U.S. Cyber Command: 
Military: 478; 
Civilian: 440; 
Total: 918. 

Component Commands: 

Joint Functional Component Command for Space: 
Military: 185; 
Civilian: 78; 
Total: 263. 

Joint Functional Component Command for Global Strike: 
Military: 352; 
Civilian: 243; 
Total: 595. 

Joint Functional Component Command for Intelligence, Surveillance and 
Reconnaissance: 
Military: 61; 
Civilian: 18; 
Total: 79. 

Joint Functional Component Command for Integrated Missile Defense: 
Military: 51; 
Civilian: 69; 
Total: 120. 

STRATCOM Center for Combating Weapons of Mass Destruction and Standing 
Joint Force Headquarters-Elimination: 
Military: 53; 
Civilian: 21; 
Total: 74. 

Joint Warfare Analysis Center: 
Military: 42; 
Civilian: 371; 
Total: 413. 

Component Command Total: 
Military: 774; 
Civilian: 800; 
Total: 1,544. 

U.S. Strategic Command Grand Total: 
Military: 1,996; 
Civilian: 2,470; 
Total: 4,466. 

Service Component Commands: 

U.S. Marine Corps Forces, U.S. Strategic Command: 
Military: 11; 
Civilian: 3; 
Total: 14. 

U.S. Army Space and Missile Defense Command/Army Forces Strategic 
Command: 
Military: 165; 
Civilian: 1,044; 
Total: 1,209. 

Air Force Global Strike Command: 
Military: 657; 
Civilian: 334; 
Total: 991. 

Air Force Space Command: 
Military: 742; 
Civilian: 621; 
Total: 1,363. 

Service Component Command Grand Total: 
Military: 1,575; 
Civilian: 2,002; 
Total: 3,577. 

Source: GAO analysis of Department of Defense (DOD), U.S. Strategic 
Command (STRATCOM), and component data. GAO-14-439. 

[A] Combatant commanders have broad authority to organize and 
structure their commands as they deem necessary to achieve their 
assigned missions. The commands' structure may include a principal 
staff officer, personal staff to the commander, a special staff group 
for technical or tactical advice, and other groups of staff who are 
responsible for managing personnel, ensuring the availability of 
intelligence, directing operations, coordinating logistics, preparing 
long-range or future plans, and integrating communications systems. 
The commands may also have subordinate unified commands, joint task 
forces, and other activities, each with their own staff, which support 
the combatant commands in conducting their operational missions. 

[End of figure] 

[End of section] 

Appendix V: Resources at U.S. Transportation Command and Its Service 
Component Commands: 

U.S. Transportation Command (TRANSCOM): 

Mission: TRANSCOM provides air, land, and sea transportation for the 
Department of Defense (DOD) in time of peace and war, with a primary 
focus on wartime readiness. 

Headquarters: Scott Air Force Base, Illinois. 

Responsibility: TRANSCOM provides air, land, and sea transportation 
for DOD and is the manager of the DOD Transportation System, which 
relies on military and commercial resources to support DOD's 
transportation needs. The command, among other responsibilities, 
provides commercial air, land, and sea transportation; terminal 
management; aerial refueling to support the global deployment, 
employment, sustainment, and redeployment of U.S. forces; and is 
responsible for movement of DOD medical patients. TRANSCOM has one 
subordinate command—the Joint Enabling Capabilities Command. TRANSCOM 
works with three component commands to accomplish its joint mission: 
Air Mobility Command, Military Sealift Command, and Surface Deployment 
and Distribution Command. 

Figure: TRANSCOM's Organizational Structure: 

[Refer to PDF for image: interactive graphic] 

Click on the combatant command name to see more information. 

See appendix VII for the noninteractive, printer-friendly version. 

Source: GAO analysis of Department of Defense (DOD), U.S. 
Transportation Command (TRANSCOM), and component data. GAO-14-439. 

[End of figure] 

Figure: TRANSCOM's Authorized Military and Civilian Positions, Fiscal 
Years 2001 through 2013[A]: 

[Refer to PDF for image: stacked line graph] 

Authorized positions: 

Fiscal year: 2001; 
TRANSCOM Headquarters: 872; 
Joint Enabling Capabilities Command: 0. 

Fiscal year: 2002; 
TRANSCOM Headquarters: 863; 
Joint Enabling Capabilities Command: 0. 

Fiscal year: 2003; 
TRANSCOM Headquarters: 872; 
Joint Enabling Capabilities Command: 0. 

Fiscal year: 2004; 
TRANSCOM Headquarters: 863; 
Joint Enabling Capabilities Command: 0. 

Fiscal year: 2005; 
TRANSCOM Headquarters: 1,126; 
Joint Enabling Capabilities Command: 0. 

Fiscal year: 2006; 
TRANSCOM Headquarters: 1,128; 
Joint Enabling Capabilities Command: 0. 

Fiscal year: 2007; 
TRANSCOM Headquarters: 1,145; 
Joint Enabling Capabilities Command: 0. 

Fiscal year: 2008; 
TRANSCOM Headquarters: 1,132; 
Joint Enabling Capabilities Command: 0. 

Fiscal year: 2009; 
TRANSCOM Headquarters: 1,154; 
Joint Enabling Capabilities Command: 0. 

Fiscal year: 2010; 
TRANSCOM Headquarters: 1,214; 
Joint Enabling Capabilities Command: 0. 

Fiscal year: 2011; 
TRANSCOM Headquarters: 1,339; 
Joint Enabling Capabilities Command: 0. 

Fiscal year: 2012; 
TRANSCOM Headquarters: 1,358; 
Joint Enabling Capabilities Command: 548. 

Fiscal year: 2013; 
TRANSCOM Headquarters: 1,406; 
Joint Enabling Capabilities Command: 550. 

[End of figure] 

Figure: TRANSCOM's Costs to Support Headquarters Operations, Fiscal 
Years 2001 through 2013[B]: 

[Refer to PDF for image: vertical bar graph] 

Millions of fiscal year 2013 dollars: 

Fiscal year: 2001; 
TRANSCOM Headquarters: $56.1 million; 
Joint Enabling Capabilities Command: $0. 

Fiscal year: 2002; 
TRANSCOM Headquarters: $49 million; 
Joint Enabling Capabilities Command: $0. 

Fiscal year: 2003; 
TRANSCOM Headquarters: $48.6 million; 
Joint Enabling Capabilities Command: $0. 

Fiscal year: 2004; 
TRANSCOM Headquarters: $53.2 million; 
Joint Enabling Capabilities Command: $0. 

Fiscal year: 2005; 
TRANSCOM Headquarters: $52.5 million; 
Joint Enabling Capabilities Command: $0. 

Fiscal year: 2006; 
TRANSCOM Headquarters: $77.5 million; 
Joint Enabling Capabilities Command: $0. 

Fiscal year: 2007; 
TRANSCOM Headquarters: $81.9 million; 
Joint Enabling Capabilities Command: $0. 

Fiscal year: 2008; 
TRANSCOM Headquarters: $115.8 million; 
Joint Enabling Capabilities Command: $0. 

Fiscal year: 2009; 
TRANSCOM Headquarters: $125.7 million; 
Joint Enabling Capabilities Command: $0. 

Fiscal year: 2010; 
TRANSCOM Headquarters: $101.2 million; 
Joint Enabling Capabilities Command: $0. 

Fiscal year: 2011; 
TRANSCOM Headquarters: $115.7 million; 
Joint Enabling Capabilities Command: $0. 

Fiscal year: 2012; 
TRANSCOM Headquarters: $121.9 million; 
Joint Enabling Capabilities Command: $19.6 million. 

Fiscal year: 2013; 
TRANSCOM Headquarters: $106.3 million; 
Joint Enabling Capabilities Command: $38.9 million. 

[End of figure] 

Figure: TRANSCOM's Number of Authorized Military and Civilian 
Positions, Fiscal Years 2001 through 2013: 

[Refer to PDF for image: multiple line graph] 

Authorized positions: 

Fiscal year: 2001; 
Military: 535; 
Civilian: 337. 

Fiscal year: 2002; 
Military: 528; 
Civilian: 335. 

Fiscal year: 2003; 
Military: 535; 
Civilian: 337. 

Fiscal year: 2004; 
Military: 528; 
Civilian: 335. 

Fiscal year: 2005; 
Military: 764; 
Civilian: 362. 

Fiscal year: 2006; 
Military: 764; 
Civilian: 364. 

Fiscal year: 2007; 
Military: 696; 
Civilian: 449. 

Fiscal year: 2008; 
Military: 685; 
Civilian: 447. 

Fiscal year: 2009; 
Military: 673; 
Civilian: 481. 

Fiscal year: 2010; 
Military: 676; 
Civilian: 538. 

Fiscal year: 2011; 
Military: 666; 
Civilian: 673. 

Fiscal year: 2012; 
Military: 1,150; 
Civilian: 756. 

Fiscal year: 2013; 
Military: 1,185; 
Civilian: 771. 

[End of figure] 

Figure: TRANSCOM's Costs to Support Headquarters Operations, Fiscal 
Year 2013: 

[Refer to PDF for image: pie-chart] 

$145 million: 

TRANSCOM Headquarters: 73%; ($106.3 million); 
Joint Enabling Capabilities Command: 27%; ($38.9 million). 

Source: GAO analysis of Department of Defense (DOD), U.S. 
Transportation Command (TRANSCOM), and component data. GAO-14-439. 

[A] Authorized military and civilian positions represent approved, 
funded personnel requirements at the functional combatant commands and 
do not include personnel performing contract services. Data come from 
the functional combatant commands' Joint Tables of Distribution, which 
identify the positions that have been approved for each command. 

[B] Costs to support headquarters operations represented here include 
both Transportation Working Capital Funds and operation and 
maintenance funds. These costs include compensation of civilian 
personnel and contract services, among others costs. Costs to support 
headquarters operations do not include the costs expended by other
components such as the Defense Intelligence Agency, nor do they 
include costs for overseas contingency operations. Operation and 
maintenance costs increased in 2012 and 2013 because of the transfer 
of the Joint Enabling Capabilities Command from Joint Forces Command 
to TRANSCOM. 

[End of figures] 

Figure: TRANSCOM's Service Component Commands' Authorized Military and 
Civilian Positions, Fiscal Years 2002 through 2013[A]: 

[Refer to PDF for image: stacked line graph] 

Authorized positions: 

Fiscal year: 2002; 
Surface Deployment and Distribution Command: 977; 
Military Sealift Command: 290; 
Air Mobility Command: 1,505. 

Fiscal year: 2003; 
Surface Deployment and Distribution Command: 937; 
Military Sealift Command: 285; 
Air Mobility Command: 1,500. 

Fiscal year: 2004; 
Surface Deployment and Distribution Command: 941; 
Military Sealift Command: 252; 
Air Mobility Command: 1,392. 

Fiscal year: 2005; 
Surface Deployment and Distribution Command: 948; 
Military Sealift Command: 251; 
Air Mobility Command: 1,391. 

Fiscal year: 2006; 
Surface Deployment and Distribution Command: 953; 
Military Sealift Command: 251; 
Air Mobility Command: 1,394. 

Fiscal year: 2007; 
Surface Deployment and Distribution Command: 965; 
Military Sealift Command: 244; 
Air Mobility Command: 1,318. 

Fiscal year: 2008; 
Surface Deployment and Distribution Command: 839; 
Military Sealift Command: 244; 
Air Mobility Command: 1,283. 

Fiscal year: 2009; 
Surface Deployment and Distribution Command: 763; 
Military Sealift Command: 238; 
Air Mobility Command: 1,283. 

Fiscal year: 2010; 
Surface Deployment and Distribution Command: 763; 
Military Sealift Command: 238; 
Air Mobility Command: 1,298. 

Fiscal year: 2011; 
Surface Deployment and Distribution Command: 739; 
Military Sealift Command: 239; 
Air Mobility Command: 1,318. 

Fiscal year: 2012; 
Surface Deployment and Distribution Command: 741; 
Military Sealift Command: 239; 
Air Mobility Command: 1,216. 

Fiscal year: 2013; 
Surface Deployment and Distribution Command: 744; 
Military Sealift Command: 238; 
Air Mobility Command: 1,145. 

[End of figure] 

Figure: TRANSCOM's Service Component Commands' Costs to Support 
Headquarters Operations, Fiscal Years 2008 through 2013[B]: 

[Refer to PDF for image: stacked vertical bar graph] 

Millions of fiscal year 2013 dollars: 

Fiscal year: 2008; 
Surface Deployment and Distribution Command: $108.3 million; 
Military Sealift Command: $90.4 million; 
Air Mobility Command: $132.5 million. 

Fiscal year: 2009; 
Surface Deployment and Distribution Command: $98.8 million; 
Military Sealift Command: $87.1 million; 
Air Mobility Command: $125.9 million. 

Fiscal year: 2010; 
Surface Deployment and Distribution Command: $110.7 million; 
Military Sealift Command: $81.3 million; 
Air Mobility Command: $145.9 million. 

Fiscal year: 2011; 
Surface Deployment and Distribution Command: $110.0 million; 
Military Sealift Command: $76.3 million; 
Air Mobility Command: $153.4 million. 

Fiscal year: 2012; 
Surface Deployment and Distribution Command: $111.8 million; 
Military Sealift Command: $80.9 million; 
Air Mobility Command: $136.3 million. 

Fiscal year: 2013; 
Surface Deployment and Distribution Command: $104.7 million; 
Military Sealift Command: $72.1 million; 
Air Mobility Command: $112.0 million. 

[End of figure] 

Figure: TRANSCOM's Service Component Commands' Authorized Military and 
Civilian Positions, Fiscal Year 2013: 

[Refer to PDF for image: pie-chart] 

2,127 positions: 
Surface Deployment and Distribution Command: 35%; (744); 
Military Sealift Command: 11%; (238); 
Air Mobility Command: 54%; (1,145). 

[End of figure] 

Figure: TRANSCOM's Service Component Commands' Costs to Support 
Headquarters Operations, Fiscal Year 2013: 

[Refer to PDF for image: pie-chart] 

$288.8 million: 
Surface Deployment and Distribution Command: 36%; ($104.7 million); 
Military Sealift Command: 25%; ($72.1 million); 
Air Mobility Command: 39%; ($112.0 million). 

[End of figure] 

Source: GAO analysis of Department of Defense (DOD), U.S. 
Transportation Command (TRANSCOM), and component data. GAO-14-439. 

[a] Service Component Commands include: the Air Force's Air Mobility 
Command, the Army's Surface Deployment and Distribution Command, and 
the Navy's Military Sealift Command. 

[B] Costs to support headquarters operations represented here include 
both Transportation Working Capital Funds and operation and 
maintenance funds. These costs include compensation of civilian 
personnel and contract services, among others costs. Costs to support 
headquarters operations do not include the costs expended by other
components such as the Defense Intelligence Agency, nor do they 
include costs for overseas contingency operations. 

[End of figures] 

Table: Fiscal Year 2013 Authorized Military and Civilian Positions by 
Directorate, Subordinate Command, and Component Command: 

U.S. Transportation Command Headquarters Directorates[A]: 

Command Staff: 
Military: 122; 
Civilian: 68; 
Total: 190. 

J1 Manpower and Personnel: 
Military: 19; 
Civilian: 35; 
Total: 54. 

J2 Intelligence: 
Military: 77; 
Civilian: 84; 
Total: 161. 

J3 Operations and Plans: 
Military: 369; 
Civilian: 85; 
Total: 454. 

J5/4 Strategy, Policy, and Logistics: 
Military: 46; 
Civilian: 75; 
Total: 121. 

J6 Command, Control, Communications, and Cyber Systems: 
Military: 31; 
Civilian: 110; 
Total: 141. 

J8 Program Analysis and Financial Management: 
Military: 6; 
Civilian: 75; 
Total: 81. 

J9 Joint Reserve Component Directorate: 
Military: 5; 
Civilian: 0; 
Total: 5. 

Joint Distribution Process Analysis Center: 
Military: 5; 
Civilian: 6; 
Total: 11. 

Directorate of Acquisition: 
Military: 12; 
Civilian: 176; 
Total: 188. 

Headquarters Directorates Total: 
Military: 692; 
Civilian: 714; 
Total: 1.406. 

Subunified Command: 

Joint Enabling Capabilities Command: 
Military: 493; 
Civilian: 57; 
Total: 550. 

Subordinate Unified Command Total: 
Military: 493; 
Civilian: 57; 
Total: 550. 

U.S. Transportation Command Grand Total: 
Military: 1,185; 
Civilian: 771; 
Total: 1,956. 

Service Component Commands: 

Air Mobility Command: 
Military: 604; 
Civilian: 541; 
Total: 1,145. 

Military Sealift Command: 
Military: 46; 
Civilian: 192; 
Total: 238. 

Surface Deployment and Distribution Command: 
Military: 49; 
Civilian: 695; 
Total: 744. 

Service Component Commands Grand Total: 
Military: 699; 
Civilian: 1,428; 
Total: 2,127. 

Source: GAO analysis of Department of Defense (DOD), U.S. 
Transportation Command (TRANSCOM), and component data. GAO-14-439. 

[A] The combatant commanders have broad authority to organize and 
structure their commands as they deem necessary to achieve their 
assigned missions. The commands' structure may include a principal 
staff officer, personal staff to the commander, a special staff group 
for technical or tactical advice, and other groups of staff who are 
responsible for managing personnel, ensuring the availability of
intelligence, directing operations, coordinating logistics, preparing 
long-range or future plans, and integrating communications systems. 
The commands may also have subordinate unified commands, joint task 
forces, and other activities, each with their own staff, which support 
the combatant commands in conducting their operational missions. For 
TRANSCOM, command staff numbers include the Staff Judge Advocate and 
the Command Surgeon. 

[End of table] 

[End of section] 

Appendix VI: Costs to Support Headquarters Operations in Nominal Terms: 

Table 3: Costs to Support Headquarters Operations at the Functional 
Combatant Commands in Fiscal Years 2001 through 2013 Dollars: 

Combatant command: U.S. Strategic Command; 
Fiscal year 2001: $119,624,389; 
Fiscal year 2002: $131,616,659; 
Fiscal year 2003: $244,511,402; 
Fiscal year 2004: $347,795,035; 
Fiscal year 2005: $396,001,346; 
Fiscal year 2006: $410,354,469; 
Fiscal year 2007: $393,738,146; 
Fiscal year 2008: $413,957,747; 
Fiscal year 2009: $448,427,316; 
Fiscal year 2010: $562,767,722; 
Fiscal year 2011: $648,450,112; 
Fiscal year 2012: $509,085,311; 
Fiscal year 2013: $623,440,707. 

Combatant command: U.S. Special Operations Command; 
Fiscal year 2001: $54,909,000; 
Fiscal year 2002: $59,154,000; 
Fiscal year 2003: $72,907,000; 
Fiscal year 2004: $87,828,000; 
Fiscal year 2005: $101,131,000; 
Fiscal year 2006: $134,507,000; 
Fiscal year 2007: $234,376,000; 
Fiscal year 2008: $261,343,000; 
Fiscal year 2009: $431,242,000; 
Fiscal year 2010: $399,982,000; 
Fiscal year 2011: $411,496,000; 
Fiscal year 2012: $476,225,000; 
Fiscal year 2013: $466,920,000. 

Combatant command: U.S. Transportation Command; 
Fiscal year 2001: $40,843,000; 
Fiscal year 2002: $36,337,000; 
Fiscal year 2003: $36,512,000; 
Fiscal year 2004: $41,646,000; 
Fiscal year 2005: $43,667,000; 
Fiscal year 2006: $66,785,000; 
Fiscal year 2007: $72,482,000; 
Fiscal year 2008: $106,730,000; 
Fiscal year 2009: $115,862,000; 
Fiscal year 2010: $95,482,000; 
Fiscal year 2011: $111,741,000; 
Fiscal year 2012: $138,670,000; 
Fiscal year 2013: $145,167,000. 

Combatant command: Total; 
Fiscal year 2001: $215,376,389; 
Fiscal year 2002: $227,107,659; 
Fiscal year 2003: $353,930,402; 
Fiscal year 2004: $477,269,035; 
Fiscal year 2005: $540,799,346; 
Fiscal year 2006: $611,646,469; 
Fiscal year 2007: $700,596,146; 
Fiscal year 2008: $782,030,747; 
Fiscal year 2009: $995,531,316; 
Fiscal year 2010: $1,058,231,722; 
Fiscal year 2011: $1,171,687,112; 
Fiscal year 2012: $1,123,980,311; 
Fiscal year 2013: $1,235,527,707. 

Source: GAO analysis of Department of Defense (DOD) data. 

Note: Costs to support headquarters operations reflect obligations for 
operations and maintenance funding, special operation forces funding, 
and working capital fund costs reported by DOD components and are in 
nominal dollars. 

[End of table] 

Table 4: Costs to Support Headquarters Operations at the Functional 
Combatant Commands' Service Component Commands in Fiscal Years 2008 
through 2013 Dollars: 

Service component command: U.S. Army Space and Missile Defense 
Command/Army Forces Strategic Command; 
Fiscal year 2008: $22,135,840; 
Fiscal year 2009: $25,302,620; 
Fiscal year 2010: $32,586,615; 
Fiscal year 2011: $32,696,898; 
Fiscal year 2012: $29,964,524; 
Fiscal year 2013: $28,461,180. 

Service component command: Air Force Global Strike Command; 
Fiscal year 2010: $48,937,217; 
Fiscal year 2011: $46,191,990; 
Fiscal year 2012: $49,042,936; 
Fiscal year 2013: $40,589,326. 

Service component command: Air Force Space Command; 
Fiscal year 2008: $44,756,655; 
Fiscal year 2009: $58,048,935; 
Fiscal year 2010: $80,418,283; 
Fiscal year 2011: $89,921,006; 
Fiscal year 2012: $75,484,265; 
Fiscal year 2013: $60,133,982. 

Service component command: U.S. Marine Corps Forces, U.S. Strategic 
Command; 
Fiscal year 2008: $455,745; 
Fiscal year 2009: $515,297; 
Fiscal year 2010: $600,834; 
Fiscal year 2011: $584,992; 
Fiscal year 2012: $578,359; 
Fiscal year 2013: $447,077. 

Service component command: U.S. Strategic Command's service component 
commands' totals; 
Fiscal year 2008: $67,348,241; 
Fiscal year 2009: $83,866,852; 
Fiscal year 2010: $162,542,948; 
Fiscal year 2011: $169,394,886; 
Fiscal year 2012: $155,070,083; 
Fiscal year 2013: $129,631,565. 

Service component command: Naval Special Warfare Command; 
Fiscal year 2008: $24,545,000; 
Fiscal year 2009: $31,734,000; 
Fiscal year 2010: $30,041,000; 
Fiscal year 2011: $34,407,000; 
Fiscal year 2012: $36,371,000; 
Fiscal year 2013: $33,215,000. 

Service component command: U.S. Army Special Operations Command; 
Fiscal year 2008: $134,634,768; 
Fiscal year 2009: $135,069,504; 
Fiscal year 2010: $163,624,023; 
Fiscal year 2011: $160,662,024; 
Fiscal year 2012: $155,458,496; 
Fiscal year 2013: $159,716,581. 

Service component command: Marine Corps Forces Special Operations 
Command; 
Fiscal year 2008: $7,650,398; 
Fiscal year 2009: $7,087,173; 
Fiscal year 2010: $12,693,960; 
Fiscal year 2011: $12,996,194; 
Fiscal year 2012: $16,025,237; 
Fiscal year 2013: $16,186,429. 

Service component command: Air Force Special Operations Command; 
Fiscal year 2008: $26,310,141; 
Fiscal year 2009: $26,858,467; 
Fiscal year 2010: $29,433,115; 
Fiscal year 2011: $30,035,871; 
Fiscal year 2012: $28,098,593; 
Fiscal year 2013: $29,389,702. 

Service component command: U.S. Special Operations Command's service 
component commands' totals; 
Fiscal year 2008: $193,140,308; 
Fiscal year 2009: $200,749,144; 
Fiscal year 2010: $235,792,097; 
Fiscal year 2011: $238,101,089; 
Fiscal year 2012: $235,953,326; 
Fiscal year 2013: $238,507,711. 

Service component command: Air Mobility Command; 
Fiscal year 2008: $122,034,355; 
Fiscal year 2009: $116,086,356; 
Fiscal year 2010: $137,639,867; 
Fiscal year 2011: $148,075,436; 
Fiscal year 2012: $133,544,690; 
Fiscal year 2013: $112,022,186. 

Service component command: Surface Deployment and Distribution Command; 

Fiscal year 2008: $99,800,000; 
Fiscal year 2009: $91,100,000; 
Fiscal year 2010: $104,400,000; 
Fiscal year 2011: $106,200,000; 
Fiscal year 2012: $109,500,000; 
Fiscal year 2013: $104,700,000. 

Service component command: Military Sealift Command; 
Fiscal year 2008: $83,300,000; 
Fiscal year 2009: $80,300,000; 
Fiscal year 2010: $76,700,000; 
Fiscal year 2011: $73,700,000; 
Fiscal year 2012: $79,300,000; 
Fiscal year 2013: $72,100,000. 

Service component command: U.S. Transportation Command's service 
component commands' totals; 
Fiscal year 2008: $305,134,355; 
Fiscal year 2009: $287,486,356; 
Fiscal year 2010: $318,739,867; 
Fiscal year 2011: $327,975,436; 
Fiscal year 2012: $322,344,690; 
Fiscal year 2013: $288,822,186. 

Service component command: Grand total; 
Fiscal year 2008: $565,622,904; 
Fiscal year 2009: $572,102,352; 
Fiscal year 2010: $717,074,913; 
Fiscal year 2011: $735,471,411; 
Fiscal year 2012: $713,368,099; 
Fiscal year 2013: $656,961,463. 

Source: GAO analysis of Department of Defense (DOD) data. 

Note: Costs to support headquarters operations reflect obligations for 
operation and maintenance funding, Special Operation Forces funding, 
and working capital fund costs reported by DOD components and are in 
nominal dollars. 

[End of table] 

[End of section] 

Appendix VII: Functional Combatant Command Organizational Structure 
Descriptions: 

This appendix contains information in noninteractive format presented 
in the organizational charts in appendixes III, IV, and V. 

Table 5: Organizational Descriptions of the Functional Combatant 
Commands, Their Subordinate Unified Commands, and Their Service 
Component Commands: 

U.S. Special Operations Command: 

Functional combatant command: U.S. Special Operations Command (SOCOM) 
Headquarters; 
Organizational descriptions: Provides fully capable special operations 
forces to defend the United States and its interests and synchronizes 
the planning of global operations against terrorist networks. 

Functional combatant command: Joint Special Operations Command; 
Organizational descriptions: Studies special operations requirements 
and techniques, ensures interoperability and equipment 
standardization, plans and conducts special operations exercises and 
training, and develops joint special operations tactics. 

Functional combatant command: U.S. Special Operations Command-North; 
Organizational descriptions: Enhances command and control of special 
operations forces throughout the U.S. Northern Command area of 
responsibility and improves support to interagency counterterrorism 
operations. 

Functional combatant command: Special Operations Command-Joint 
Capabilities; 
Organizational descriptions: Trains conventional and special 
operations force commanders and staffs in the employment of special 
operations forces, focusing on the integration of special operations 
and conventional forces. 

Functional combatant command: Special Operations Joint Task Force when 
active; 
Organizational descriptions: Operational-level organization that may 
have one or more subordinate joint special operations task forces for 
crisis response, contingency, and major operations and campaigns, 
including all enabling capabilities required to optimize effectiveness. 

Functional combatant command: Regional Special Operations Forces 
Coordination Center; 
Organizational descriptions: Enables the global special operations 
forces network, and are regional, multilateral engagement hubs for 
facilitating communication and interoperability among global special 
operations force partners. 

Functional combatant command: U.S. Army Special Operations Command; 
Organizational descriptions: Provides fully prepared Army special 
operations forces to conduct worldwide special operations in support of 
geographic combatant commanders, American ambassadors, and other 
agencies as directed. 

Functional combatant command: Naval Special Warfare Command; 
Organizational descriptions: Provides fully prepared Naval Special 
Warfare Forces for operations and activities abroad in support of 
combatant commanders and U.S. national interests. 

Functional combatant command: Air Force Special Operations Command; 
Organizational descriptions: Provides combat-ready Air Force special 
operations forces to conduct and support global special operations 
missions. 

Functional combatant command: U.S. Marine Corps Forces Special 
Operations Command; 
Organizational descriptions: Provides task-organized, scalable, and 
responsive Marine Corps special operations forces worldwide to 
accomplish missions assigned by the SOCOM commander or geographic 
combatant commanders. 

U.S. Strategic Command: 

Functional combatant command: U.S. Strategic Command (STRATCOM) 
Headquarters; 
Organizational descriptions: Conducts global operations in 
coordination with other combatant commands, services, and appropriate 
U.S. government agencies to deter and detect strategic attacks against 
the United States and its allies. 

Functional combatant command: U.S. Cyber Command; 
Organizational 
descriptions: Plans for and conducts activities to defend the 
Department of Defense's (DOD) information networks and, when directed, 
conducts cyberspace operations in order to ensure U.S. and allied 
freedom of action in cyberspace. 

Functional combatant command: Joint Functional Component Command for 
Global Strike; 
Organizational descriptions: Conducts kinetic (nuclear and 
conventional) and nonkinetic effects planning and manages global force 
activities to assure allies and to deter and dissuade actions 
detrimental to the United States and its global interests. 

Functional combatant command: Joint Functional Component Command for 
Space; 
Organizational descriptions: Conducts space operations to provide 
tailored, responsive, local, and global effects in support of 
national, STRATCOM, and combatant commander objectives. 

Functional combatant command: Joint Functional Component Command for 
Integrated Missile Defense; 
Organizational descriptions: Synchronizes operational missile defense 
planning, conducts global ballistic missile defense operations 
support, and coordinates global missile defense capabilities and 
requirements. 

Functional combatant command: Joint Functional Component Command for 
Intelligence, Surveillance and Reconnaissance; 
Organizational descriptions: Identifies and recommends appropriate 
resources to meet high-priority intelligence requirements and helps 
ensure the best use of resources to provide decision makers and troops 
with information when and where needed. 

Functional combatant command: Center for Combating Weapons of Mass 
Destruction; 
Organizational descriptions: Provides the Department of Defense (DOD) 
with expertise in contingency and crisis planning to interdict and 
eliminate the proliferation or use of weapons of mass destruction. 

Functional combatant command: Standing Joint Force Headquarters for 
Elimination; 
Organizational descriptions: Plans and trains to enable the command 
and control of weapons of mass destruction elimination operations in 
support of geographic combatant commands and deploys to augment 
existing headquarters or provide a Joint Task Force to execute weapons 
of mass destruction elimination operations. 

Functional combatant command: Joint Warfare Analysis Center; 

Organizational descriptions: Assists warfighters in solving complex 
challenges in support of national security, coordinating directly with 
the staffs of all unified commands, combatant commands, DOD elements, 
military services, and other government departments and agencies. 

Functional combatant command: U.S. Marine Corps Forces Strategic 
Command; 
Organizational descriptions: Advises STRATCOM, subordinate joint force 
commanders, and functional component and service component commanders 
on the proper employment of Marine Corps forces and capabilities. 

Functional combatant command: U.S. Army Space and Missile Defense 
Command/Army Forces Strategic Command; 
Organizational descriptions: 
Conducts space and missile defense operations and provides planning, 
integration, control, and coordination of Army forces and capabilities 
in support of STRATCOM missions. Also serves as the Army specified 
proponent for space, high-altitude, and ground-based midcourse defense 
and is the operational integrator for global missile defense. 

Functional combatant command: Air Force Global Strike Command; 
Organizational descriptions: Develops and provides combat-ready forces 
for nuclear deterrence and global strike operations. 

Functional combatant command: Air Force Space Command; 
Organizational descriptions: Provides space and cyberspace forces for 
STRATCOM. 

U.S. Transportation Command: 

Functional combatant command: U.S. Transportation Command 
Headquarters; 
Organizational descriptions: Provides full-spectrum global mobility 
solutions and related enabling capabilities for supporting customers' 
requirements through the movement and deployment of forces and 
materiel. 

Functional combatant command: Joint Enabling Capabilities Command; 

Organizational descriptions: Provides mission-tailored, joint-
capability packages to combatant commanders to facilitate the rapid 
establishment of joint force headquarters, fulfill Global Response 
Force execution, and bridge joint operational requirements. 

Functional combatant command: Surface Deployment and Distribution 
Command; 
Organizational descriptions: Provides global deployment and 
distribution capabilities to meet national security objectives and 
works with U.S. transportation providers to conduct port operations for 
worldwide surface movement. 

Functional combatant command: Military Sealift Command; 
Organizational 
descriptions: Operates the ships that sustain the U.S. warfighting 
force and delivers specialized maritime services in support of national 
security objectives. 

Functional combatant command: Air Mobility Command; 
Organizational 
descriptions: Provides airlift, aerial refueling, air mobility support, 
and aeromedical evacuation capability; plans, coordinates, and manages 
commercial airlift; and transports humanitarian supplies around the 
world. 

Source: GAO analysis of DOD information. 

[End of table] 

[End of section] 

Appendix VIII: Comments from the Department of Defense: 

The Joint Staff
Washington, DC: 

28 May 2014: 

Mr. Richard Geiger: 
Assistant Director: 
Defense Capabilities and Management: 
U.S. Government Accountability Office: 
441 G Street, NW: 
Washington, DC 20548: 

Dear Mr. Geiger: 

The Department of Defense has reviewed draft report GAO-14-439, "Defense
Headquarters: DoD Needs to Reevaluate Its Approach for Managing 
Resources Devoted to the Functional Combatant Commands," dated 23 
April 2014 (GAO Code 351826). 

The Department is providing the enclosed official written remarks, to 
include technical and significant issue comments and/or corrections, 
regarding the three report recommendations. 

On behalf of the Secretary of Defense and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs 
of Staff, I appreciate your efforts to highlight better use of 
resources devoted to the functional Combatant Commands. 

Sincerely, 

Signed by: 

David L. Goldfein, Lt Gen, USAF: 
Director, Joint Staff: 

Enclosures: As stated: 

cc: 
USD(P&R); 
Service Chiefs; 
CDR, USSOCOM; 
CDR, USSTRATCOM; 
CDR, USSTRATCOM; 
Director, CAPE; 
Director, J-8. 

GAO Draft Report, GAO-14-439, “Defense Headquarters: DOD Needs To 
Reevaluate Its Approach For Managing Resources Devoted To The Function 
Combatant Command,” 

Dated April 23, 2014 (GAO Code 351826): 

Department Of Defense Comments To The GAO Recommendations: 

Recommendation 1: Reevaluate the decision to focus reductions on 
management headquarters to ensure the department's efforts ultimately 
result in meaningful savings. 

DoD Response: Partially Concur. Reductions across the Department would 
garner greater savings; however, this is a Department-wide 
recommendation and seems to be outside the scope of this study. 
Additionally, while the focus of the PB15 SECDEF's reductions cited in 
this report was MHQs, the Services, under the “do unto others” 
concept, were allowed to reduce below-the-line (BLT) organizations, to 
include the COCOMs (both dollars and FTEs) in proportion to cuts that 
they applied to themselves (USA 15%, AF 7%, USMC 5% and USN 3%). 

Additionally, we question the use of the Joint Table of Distribution 
(JTD) from eJMAPs, (a personnel data base) vs. the OSD Data Warehouse 
FYDP, (funded authorizations) for this study. Data trends may be 
skewed since the JTD is a point-in-time look at on hand personnel. 

Finally, there were significant points of fact raised by the Office of 
the Secretary of Defense, Office of the Director of Administration and 
Management; Office of the Secretary of Defense, Cost Assessment & 
Program Evaluation; US Special Operations Command and United States 
Transportation Command (attached). 

Recommendation 2: Set a clearly defined and consistently applied 
starting point as a baseline for the reductions. 

DoD Response: Concur Recommend the use of the OSD Data Warehouse FYDP 
to set the baseline across the Department. COCOMs have clearly defined 
MHQ Program Element Codes that are easily recognizable and replicable. 
OSD is currently implementing a MHQ flag within the data elements of 
the DoD Resource Data Warehouse (DRDW) which will facilitate the 
tracking and reporting of MHQ across the rest of the enterprise. 

Recommendation 3: Track reductions against the baselines in order to 
provide reliable accounting of savings and reporting to Congress. 

DoD Response: Concur. By using FYDP data, baselines are clearly 
defined and changes to the baseline can be easily tracked and reported 
to congress. Both the utilization of the FYDP and the enhancement of 
the DRDW data elements will increase the Departments capability to 
provide efficient, effective, and replicable data analysis. 

[End of section] 

Appendix IX: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments: 

GAO Contact: 

John Pendleton, (202) 512-3489 or pendletonj@gao.gov: 

Staff Acknowledgments: 

In addition to the contact named above, key contributors to this 
report include Richard K. Geiger (Assistant Director), Tracy Barnes, 
Robert B. Brown, Tobin J. McMurdie, Carol D. Petersen, Michael Silver, 
Amie Steele, Erik Wilkins-McKee, and Kristy Williams. 

[End of section] 

Footnotes: 

[1] DOD has six geographic combatant commands responsible for missions 
in specific areas of the world: U.S. Africa Command, U.S. Central 
Command, U.S. European Command, U.S. Northern Command, U.S. Pacific 
Command, and U.S. Southern Command. 

[2] See, e.g., 10 U.S.C. § 164; Department of Defense Directive 
5100.01, Functions of the Department of Defense and Its Major 
Components (Dec. 21, 2010). 

[3] Subordinate unified commands are established by the combatant 
commanders to conduct operations on a continuing basis in accordance 
with the criteria set forth for unified commands. Commanders of 
subordinate unified commands exercise operational control of assigned 
components and forces within the assigned operational area. A service 
component command consists of the commander and all those service 
forces, such as individuals, units, detachments, organizations, and 
installations under that command, including the support forces that 
have been assigned to a combatant command or further assigned to a 
subordinate unified command or joint task force. 

[4] Among other constraints, the Budget Control Act of 2011 
established requirements for automatic budget sequestration, setting 
caps on the levels of DOD spending from 2013 to 2021. See Pub. L. No. 
112-25, § 365 (Aug. 2, 2011). 

[5] Department of Defense, Sustaining U.S. Global Leadership: 
Priorities for 21st Century Defense (Jan. 3, 2012). 

[6] Deputy Secretary of Defense Memorandum, 20% Headquarters 
Reductions (July 31, 2013). 

[7] For purposes of this report, authorized positions refer to 
military and civilian positions that have been approved by DOD 
components for funding for a specific fiscal year. Also, assigned 
personnel refer to military and civilian personnel assigned to fill 
authorized or temporary positions, and other personnel performing 
contract services. 

[8] GAO, Defense Headquarters: DOD Needs to Periodically Review and 
Improve Visibility of Combatant Commands' Resources, [hyperlink, 
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-13-293] (Washington, D.C.: May 15, 
2013). We reported separately on U.S. Central Command in early June 
2014. See GAO, Defense Headquarters: Guidance Needed to Transition 
U.S. Central Command's Costs to the Base Budget, [hyperlink, 
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-14-440] (Washington, D.C.: June 9, 
2014). 

[9] Department of Defense Instruction 5100.73, Major DOD Headquarters 
Activities (Dec. 1, 2007) (incorporating change June 12, 2012). 

[10] GAO, Defense Headquarters: Further Efforts to Examine Resource 
Needs and Improve Data Could Provide Additional Opportunities for Cost 
Savings, [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-12-345] 
(Washington, D.C.: Mar. 21, 2012). 

[11] See H. Rep. No. 113-102 (June 7, 2013) accompanying H.R. 1960, a 
bill for the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2014. 

[12] For the purposes of this report, costs to support headquarters 
operations primarily reflect the costs for civilian personnel and 
contract services, among others costs, and include funds provided from 
DOD's operation and maintenance, Transportation Working Capital Fund, 
and SOCOM's special operations-specific appropriations. It does not 
include the costs associated with military personnel basic pay and 
allowances and other military personnel costs. It excludes funding 
obligations provided for DOD's overseas contingency operations. 

[13] We adjusted costs for inflation using the deflator for DOD 
outlays by appropriation title--operation and maintenance, excluding 
the defense health program. 

[14] GAO, Streamlining Government: Questions to Consider When 
Evaluating Proposals to Consolidate Physical Infrastructure and 
Management Functions, [hyperlink, 
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-12-542] (Washington, D.C.: May 23, 
2012). 

[15] DOD's Unified Command Plan is a key strategic document prepared 
by the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and approved by the 
President. The Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff is required by 10 
U.S.C. § 161 to review the missions, responsibilities, and force 
structure of each combatant command not less often than every 2 years, 
and to recommend any changes to the President through the Secretary of 
Defense. 

[16] Joint Publication 1, Doctrine for the Armed Forces of the United 
States (Mar. 25, 2013), states that staff organization generally 
should conform to these organizational principles. 

[17] Joint Publication 1, Doctrine for the Armed Forces of the United 
States. 

[18] Although DOD sometimes refers to "manpower requirements," we use 
"personnel requirements" throughout this report. 

[19] According to Department of Defense Instruction 1100.22, Policy 
and Procedures for Determining Workforce Mix (Apr. 12, 2010), DOD's 
workforce shall be established to successfully execute missions at a 
low-to-moderate level of risk. The instruction establishes policy, 
assigns responsibilities, and prescribes procedures for determining 
the appropriate mix of military and civilian personnel and contractor 
support within the department. 

[20] The Joint Table of Distribution is a personnel document that 
identifies positions and enumerates the spaces that have been approved 
for each organizational element of a joint activity for a specific 
fiscal year and those spaces that have been accepted for planning and 
programming purposes for the subsequent 5 fiscal years. 

[21] See sections 162, 3013, 5013, and 8013 of Title 10, U.S. Code, 
for the responsibilities of the service Secretaries. 

[22] The Army is the combatant command support agent for the Joint 
Special Operations Command, not the Air Force. 

[23] See Title 10 U.S.C. §167 (e)(2)(B). A major force program is an 
aggregation of program elements that reflects a force or support 
mission of DOD, such as special operations, and contains the resources 
necessary to achieve a broad objective or plan relating to that 
mission. 

[24] A working capital fund is a fund in which all income is derived 
from its operations and is available to finance the fund's continuing 
operations. TRANSCOM's working capital fund relies on sales revenue 
rather than regular appropriations to finance its continuing 
operations. 

[25] We limited our analysis of authorized military and civilian 
positions to fiscal years 2004 through 2013 because SOCOM did not have 
complete data on its authorized military and civilian positions for 
fiscal years 2001 through 2003. 

[26] See apps. III, IV, and V for more information on the resources 
devoted to the functional combatant commands. 

[27] The Special Operations Research, Development, and Acquisition 
Center conducts research, development, acquisition, procurement, and 
logistics of special operations-specific equipment. The Joint Special 
Operations Command is charged to study special operations requirements 
and techniques, ensure interoperability and equipment standardization, 
plan and conduct special operations exercises and training, and 
develop joint special operations tactics. 

[28] The Joint Functional Component Commands are component commands to 
U.S. Strategic Command and have day-to-day responsibilities for 
operational-and tactical-level planning, execution, and management of 
forces for their respective mission areas. The commands plan and 
integrate operations for various mission-specific areas, to include 
space; global strike; integrated missile defense; and intelligence, 
surveillance, and reconnaissance. 

[29] U.S. Cyber Command plans, coordinates, integrates, synchronizes, 
and conducts military cyberspace operations and defends specified DOD 
information networks. 

[30] [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-13-293]. 

[31] We previously found that while DOD had taken some steps to 
improve its understanding of its total workforce, several shortcomings 
remained, to include DOD not having updated its policies and 
procedures to reflect statutory requirements to use its civilian 
workforce plan and the inventory of contracted services to determine 
the appropriate mix of personnel to perform DOD's mission. We 
recommended that DOD revise its existing workforce policies and 
procedures to address the determination of the appropriate workforce 
mix and identification of critical functions and to include an 
explanation in annual budget exhibits of the methodology used to 
project contractor full-time equivalent estimates. DOD partially 
concurred with our recommendations. GAO, Human Capital: Additional 
Steps Needed to Help Determine the Right Size and Composition of DOD's 
Total Workforce, [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-13-470] 
(Washington, D.C.: May 29, 2013). 

[32] [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-13-293]. 

[33] Deputy Secretary of Defense memorandums, Combatant Command 
Management Headquarters Manpower Baseline (January 2009 and February 
2010). 

[34] Secretary of Defense, Department of Defense (DOD) Efficiency 
Initiatives (Aug.16, 2010). As part of the 2010 efficiency 
initiatives, the department also reduced the size of the combatant 
command intelligence directorates. According to DOD officials, these 
caps have been subsequently extended past fiscal year 2013. 

[35] Secretary of Defense, Combatant Command (COCOM) Civilian and 
Contractor Manpower Management (June 29, 2011). 

[36] Each combatant command is supported by multiple service component 
commands that help provide and coordinate service-specific forces--
such as units, detachments, organizations, and installations--to 
fulfill the command's current and future operational requirements. We 
limited our analysis of authorized military and civilian positions at 
the service component commands to fiscal years 2002 through 2013 
because data were not available for all of the commands prior to 2002. 

[37] Prior to the establishment of Air Force Global Strike Command, 
two separate commands were responsible for the nuclear mission--Air 
Force Space Command and Air Combat Command. Air Force Space Command 
saw a reduction of 156 authorized positions in September 2010 as a 
result of the establishment of Air Force Global Strike Command. We did 
not obtain information on the extent of changes in authorized 
positions at Air Combat Command because it was not part of our review. 

[38] We limited our analysis of authorized military and civilian 
positions to fiscal years 2002 through 2013 because data were not 
available for all of the service component commands prior to fiscal 
year 2002. 

[39] A full-time equivalent is a standard measure of labor that 
equates to one year of full-time work (labor hours as defined by the 
Office of Management and Budget Circular A-11 each year). 

[40] See GAO, Defense Acquisitions: Update on DOD's Efforts to 
Implement a Common Contractor Manpower Data System, [hyperlink, 
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-14-491R] (Washington, D.C.: May 19, 
2014); GAO, Defense Acquisitions: Continued Management Attention 
Needed to Enhance Use and Review of DOD's Inventory of Contracted 
Services, [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-13-491] 
(Washington, D.C.: May 23, 2013); Defense Acquisitions: Further 
Actions Needed to Improve Accountability for DOD's Inventory of 
Contracted Services, [hyperlink, 
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-12-357] (Washington, D.C.: Apr. 6, 
2012); Defense Headquarters: Further Efforts to Examine Resources 
Needs and Improve Data Could Provide Additional Opportunities for Cost 
Savings, [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-12-345] 
(Washington, D.C.: Mar. 21, 2012); Defense Acquisitions: Further 
Action Needed to Better Implement Requirements for Conducting 
Inventory of Service Contract Activities, [hyperlink, 
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-11-192] (Washington, D.C.: Jan. 14, 
2011); and Defense Acquisitions: Tailored Approach Needed to Improve 
Service Acquisition Outcomes, [hyperlink, 
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-07-20] (Washington, D.C.: Nov. 9, 
2006). 

[41] Secretary of Defense, Combatant Command (COCOM) Civilian and 
Contractor Manpower Management. 

[42] Pub. L. No. 112-81, § 808 (2011). 

[43] Pub. L. No. 113-66, § 802 (2013). 

[44] All costs to support headquarters operations in this report are 
in constant fiscal year 2013 dollars unless otherwise noted. Costs 
were adjusted for inflation using the deflator for DOD outlays by 
appropriation title--operation and maintenance, excluding the defense 
health program. 

[45] Theater Special Operations Commands are headquarters 
organizations that support the geographic combatant commands with 
logistics, planning, and operational control of special operations 
forces in their assigned regions. 

[46] All costs to support headquarters operations in this report are 
in constant fiscal year 2013 dollars unless otherwise noted. Costs 
were adjusted for inflation using the deflator for DOD outlays by 
appropriation title--operation and maintenance, excluding the defense 
health program. We limited our analysis of costs to support 
headquarters operations at the service component commands to fiscal 
years 2008 through 2013 because data were not available for all of the 
commands prior to 2008. 

[47] Deputy Secretary of Defense Memorandum, 20% Headquarters 
Reductions. 

[48] According to DOD Directive 5100.73, Major DOD Headquarters 
Activities is defined as headquarters whose primary mission is to 
manage or command the programs and operations of DOD and its 
components and their major military units, organizations, or agencies. 
The instruction provides an official list of the organizations covered 
by the instruction, including the functional combatant commands and 
their supporting service component commands. DOD officials use the 
terms management headquarters and major DOD headquarters activities 
interchangeably. 

[49] Deputy Secretary of Defense Memorandum, 20% Headquarters 
Reductions. 

[50] STRATCOM's J9 Mission Assessment and Analysis Directorate 
provides assessments and analyses that identify risks and alternatives 
to consider when making strategic decisions. 

[51] GAO, Defense Headquarters: Total Personnel and Costs Are 
Significantly Higher Than Reported to Congress, [hyperlink, 
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO/NSIAD-98-25] (Washington, D.C.: Oct. 
30, 1997). 

[52] GAO, Defense Headquarters: Further Efforts to Examine Resource 
Needs and Improve Data Could Provide Additional Opportunities for Cost 
Savings, [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-12-345] 
(Washington, D.C.: Mar. 21, 2012). 

[53] Department of Defense Instruction 5100.73, Major DOD Headquarters 
Activities (Dec. 1, 2007). 

[54] GAO, Executive Reorganization Authority: Balancing Executive and 
Congressional Roles in Shaping the Federal Government's Structure, 
[hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-03-624T] (Washington, 
D.C.: April 2003). 

[55] [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-12-542]. 

[56] Pub. L. No. 113-66, §904 (2013). 

[57] See H. Rep. No. 113-102 (June 7, 2013) accompanying H.R. 1960, a 
bill for the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2014. 

[58] For the purposes of this report, costs to support headquarters 
operations primarily reflect the costs for civilian personnel and 
contract services, among others costs, and include funds provided from 
DOD's operation and maintenance, Transportation Working Capital Fund, 
and SOCOM's special operation-specific appropriations. It does not 
include the costs associated with military personnel basic pay and 
allowances and other military personnel costs. It excludes funding 
obligations provided for DOD's overseas contingency operations. 

[59] In this report, we adjusted costs for inflation using the 
deflator for DOD outlays by appropriation title--operation and 
maintenance, excluding the defense health program. 

[60] GAO, Streamlining Government: Questions to Consider When 
Evaluating Proposals to Consolidate Physical Infrastructure and 
Management Functions, [hyperlink, 
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-12-542] (Washington, D.C.: May 23, 
2012). 

[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. 

[End of document]