This is the accessible text file for GAO report number GAO-10-615T 
entitled 'Human Capital: Status of Actions Needed to Improve the 
Timely and Accurate Delivery of Compensation and Medical Benefits to 
Deployed Civilians' which was released on April 14, 2010. 

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. 

Testimony: 

Before the Subcommittee on Oversight of Government Management, the 
Federal Workforce and the District of Columbia, Committee on Homeland 
Security and Governmental Affairs, U.S. Senate: 

United States Government Accountability Office: 
GAO: 

For Release on Delivery: 
Expected at 2:30 p.m. EDT:
Wednesday, April 14, 2010: 

Human Capital: 

Status of Actions Needed to Improve the Timely and Accurate Delivery 
of Compensation and Medical Benefits to Deployed Civilians: 

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

GAO-10-615T: 

GAO Highlights: 

Highlights of GAO-10-615T, a testimony before the Subcommittee on 
Oversight of Government Management, the Federal Workforce, and the 
District of Columbia, Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental 
Affairs, United States Senate. 

Why GAO Did This Study: 

The Department of Defense (DOD) and other executive agencies 
increasingly deploy civilians in support of contingency operations in 
Iraq and Afghanistan. Prior GAO reports show that the use of deployed 
civilians has raised questions about the potential for differences in 
policies on compensation and medical benefits. When these civilians 
are deployed and serve side by side, differences in compensation or 
medical benefits may become more apparent and could adversely impact 
morale. 

This statement is based on GAO’s 2009 congressionally requested 
report, which compared agency policies and identified any issues in 
policy or implementation regarding (1) compensation, (2) medical 
benefits, and (3) identification and tracking of deployed civilians. 
GAO reviewed laws, policies, and guidance; interviewed responsible 
officials at the Office of Personnel Management (OPM); and conducted a 
survey of civilians deployed from the six agencies between January 1, 
2006 and April 30, 2008. GAO made ten recommendations for agencies to 
take actions such as reviewing compensation laws and policies, 
establishing medical screening requirements, and creating mechanisms 
to assist and track deployed civilians. Seven of the agencies—
including DOD— generally agreed with these recommendations; one agency 
did not. This testimony also updates the actions the agencies have 
taken in response to GAO’s recommendations. 

What GAO Found: 

While policies concerning compensation for deployed civilians are 
generally comparable, GAO found some issues that can lead to 
differences in the amount of compensation and the accuracy, 
timeliness, and completeness of this compensation. For example, two 
comparable civilian supervisors who deploy under different pay systems 
may receive different rates of overtime pay because this rate is set 
by the employee’s pay system and grade/band. While a congressional 
subcommittee asked OPM to develop a benefits package for civilians 
deployed to war zones and recommend enabling legislation, at the time 
of GAO’s 2009 review, OPM had not yet done so. Also, implementation of 
some policies may not always be accurate or timely. For example, GAO 
estimates that about 40 percent of the deployed civilians in its 
survey reported experiencing problems with compensation, including 
danger pay. GAO recommended, among other things, that OPM oversee an 
executive agency working group on compensation to address differences 
and, if necessary, make legislative recommendations. OPM generally 
concurred with this recommendation and OPM officials informed GAO that 
an interagency group is in the process of developing proposals for 
needed legislation. 

Although agency policies on medical benefits are similar, GAO found 
some issues with medical care following deployment and post deployment 
medical screenings. Specifically, while DOD allows its treatment 
facilities to care for non-DOD civilians following deployment in some 
cases, the circumstances are not clearly defined and some agencies 
were unaware of DOD’s policy. Further, while DOD requires medical 
screening of civilians before and following deployment, State requires 
screenings only before deployment. Prior GAO work found that 
documenting the medical condition of deployed personnel before and 
following deployment was critical to identifying conditions that may 
have resulted from deployment. In June 2009, GAO recommended, among 
other things, that State establish post-deployment screening 
requirements and that DOD establish procedures to ensure its post-
deployment screenings requirements are completed. While DOD has 
developed guidance establishing responsibility and procedures for post-
deployment screenings, State has not. 

Each agency provided GAO with a list of deployed civilians, but none 
had fully implemented policies to identify and track these civilians. 
DOD had procedures to identify and track civilians but concluded that 
its guidance was not consistently implemented. Some agencies had to 
manually search their systems. Thus, agencies may lack critical 
information on the location and movement of personnel, which may 
hamper their ability to intervene promptly to address emerging health 
issues. GAO recommended that DOD enforce its tracking requirements and 
the other five agencies establish tracking procedures. While DOD and 
four agencies concurred with the recommendations and were in various 
stages of implementation, U.S. Agency for International Development 
disagreed stating that its current system is adequate; we disagree. 

View [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-10-615T] or key 
components. For more information, contact Brenda S. Farrell at (202) 
512-3604 or farrellb@gao.gov. 

[End of section] 

Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee: 

Thank you for the opportunity to discuss our 2009 report on the 
actions needed to better track and provide timely and accurate 
compensation and medical benefits to deployed federal 
civilians.[Footnote 1] As the Department of Defense (DOD) has expanded 
its involvement in overseas military operations, it has grown 
increasingly reliant on its federal civilian workforce to provide 
support. The civilian workforce performs, among other things, combat 
support functions that traditionally have been performed by the 
uniformed military, such as logistics support and maintenance. DOD 
acknowledged its growing reliance on civilian personnel in its 2006 
Quadrennial Defense Review, and since fiscal year 2004 the department 
has converted thousands of military positions to civilian positions 
and is planning to convert more. In addition, in April 2009, the 
Secretary of Defense announced plans to convert 33,600 contract 
positions to federal civilian positions. The Department of State 
(State) and other federal agencies also play an important role in the 
stabilization and reconstruction of at-risk countries and regions, 
consistent with a collaborative, "whole of government"[Footnote 2] 
approach. 

According to a recent DOD report, the federal government has deployed 
over 44,000[Footnote 3] civilians since 2001 in support of contingency 
operations around the world, including the stabilization and 
reconstruction efforts in Iraq and Afghanistan. These deployed 
civilians work in close proximity to one another and represent a cross 
section of employees from a number of different agencies. While in 
theater, deployed civilians--regardless of which executive agency 
employs them--fall under the purview of either DOD or State, but 
remain subject to the administrative processes of their employing 
agencies for compensation.[Footnote 4] This civilian workforce 
consists of employees who are compensated under several different pay 
systems in use at the time of our review, including the General 
Schedule (GS), Foreign Service (FS), and National Security Personnel 
System.[Footnote 5] Each of these pay systems is governed by unique 
authorizing statutes, most of which existed prior to the current 
operations in Iraq and Afghanistan. The statutes, as implemented in 
accordance with Office of Personnel Management (OPM)[Footnote 6] and 
agency regulations and policies, outline the monetary and nonmonetary 
compensation to which employees under each system are entitled, 
certain elements of which are set without regard to the location in 
which they are working. Monetary compensation includes payments such 
as salary and danger pay and nonmonetary compensation includes 
benefits such as leave and retirement contributions.[Footnote 7] In 
addition, these deployed civilians are entitled to certain medical 
benefits. 

As we previously reported, DOD's use of civilian personnel to support 
military operations has long raised questions about its policies on 
compensation and medical benefits for such civilians.[Footnote 8] For 
example, in 2006 DOD did not have quality assurance procedures in 
place to ensure that deployed civilians completed (1) pre-deployment 
health assessments to make certain they were medically fit to deploy 
and (2) post-deployment health assessments to document their health 
status following deployment, environmental exposures, and health 
concerns related to their work while deployed. Consequently, DOD had 
no assurance that civilians were medically fit to deploy and could not 
identify any follow-up medical treatment these civilians required 
following deployment. In addition, we reported that procedures were 
not in place during the Gulf War to provide for overtime or danger pay 
that deployed civilians were entitled to receive.[Footnote 9] Now that 
other executive agencies in addition to DOD and State are deploying 
civilians to Iraq and Afghanistan,[Footnote 10] Congress has noted 
that although these civilians are working under similar conditions and 
being exposed to the same risks, they may be receiving different 
levels of compensation and medical benefits. The unique working 
conditions employees may encounter in Iraq and Afghanistan can create 
an environment that increases the visibility of issues associated with 
pay systems and compensation that employees working under normal 
circumstances would not encounter. When these civilians are deployed 
and serve side by side, the differences in pay systems may become more 
apparent and may adversely impact morale. As a result, Congress has 
enacted a number of laws aimed at leveling compensation for deployed 
civilians across agencies and pay systems. For example, beginning in 
2006, Congress granted agency heads the discretion to provide their 
deployed civilians certain compensation and benefits comparable to 
those of the Foreign Service, such as death gratuities and leave 
benefits. Congress has also enacted laws that allow agency heads to 
waive premium pay caps for deployed civilians.[Footnote 11] 

In addition, in April 2008, the Subcommittee on Oversight and 
Investigations, House Armed Services Committee issued a report on 
incentives, benefits, and medical care for deployed civilians. 
[Footnote 12] In this report, the Subcommittee recommended, among 
other things, that OPM develop an incentive and benefits package that 
would apply to all federal civilians deployed to a war zone and submit 
legislative recommendations, if necessary, to Congress. In June 2008, 
OPM issued a memorandum urging the executive agencies that deploy 
civilians to make every effort to eliminate any disparities or 
inconsistencies in these deployed civilians' compensation by applying 
any available and appropriate compensation authorities.[Footnote 13] 

My statement today focuses on our 2009 review[Footnote 14] of 
executive agencies' policies and practices regarding the compensation 
and medical benefits they provide to civilian employees who deploy to 
Iraq or Afghanistan.[Footnote 15] Specifically, we examined the extent 
to which the six agencies we reviewed have (1) comparable policies 
concerning compensation and any issues that may affect the 
compensation to which deployed civilians are entitled (2) comparable 
policies and practices concerning medical benefits for deployed 
civilians and any issues that may affect the medical benefits to which 
deployed civilians are entitled and (3) policies and procedures to 
identify and track deployed civilians to address any future medical 
issues that may emerge as a result of their deployment. [Footnote 16] 

To determine whether the six selected executive branch agencies have 
comparable policies on compensation and medical benefits for their 
deployed civilians, we reviewed applicable federal statutes, guidance, 
memoranda, and other policy documents, and we conducted a comparative 
analysis of these documents. We also interviewed agency officials, 
including officials at OPM, to identify their perspectives on the 
compensation and medical benefits to which their civilians are 
entitled both during and following their deployments. To determine the 
extent to which these agencies have any implementation issues that may 
affect the compensation and medical benefits to which deployed 
civilians are entitled, we reviewed pre-deployment information and 
instructional documents pertaining to the compensation and medical 
benefits to which deployed civilians are entitled, as well as agency 
practices for medically screening civilians both before and following 
their deployments. We also conducted a Web survey of a probability 
sample of civilians from lists we obtained from our selected agencies 
who were deployed to Iraq or Afghanistan between January 1, 2006, and 
April 30, 2008, to gather information on their experiences.[Footnote 
17] Specifically, this survey gathered, among other things, 
information from deployed civilians about instructional documents 
received, medical screening, and receipt of compensation and medical 
care during and following their deployments. To further explore issues 
that were identified by survey respondents, we conducted small group 
discussions with deployed DOD and State civilians serving in Iraq at 
the time of our review. We also conducted interviews with DOD and 
State officials, including medical personnel, and reviewed the 
universe of workers' compensation claims filed with the Department of 
Labor[Footnote 18] between January 1, 2006, and April 30, 2008, by 
civilians deployed to Iraq and Afghanistan, and we interviewed Labor 
officials concerning the workers' compensation claims process. To 
determine the extent to which agencies identify and track deployed 
civilians for medical purposes, we reviewed applicable agency guidance 
and interviewed knowledgeable agency officials. To assess the 
reliability of the data in these lists and workers' compensation 
claims, we (1) reviewed existing information about the systems that 
generated these lists and claims information and (2) interviewed 
agency officials knowledgeable about the systems and information. We 
determined that the information was sufficiently reliable for the 
purposes of our review. 

We conducted our performance audit 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. 

While Policies on Compensation Are Generally Comparable, Some Policy 
and Implementation Issues Affect the Amount, Accuracy, and 
Completeness of Compensation: 

Although policies concerning compensation for deployed civilians are 
generally comparable across agencies, we found some issues that affect 
the amount of compensation these civilians receive--depending on such 
things as the agency's pay system or the civilian's grade/band level-- 
and the accuracy, timeliness, and completeness of this compensation. 
Specifically, the six agencies included in our 2009 review provided 
similar types of deployment-related compensation to civilians deployed 
to Iraq or Afghanistan. Agency policies regarding compensation for 
federal employees--including deployed civilians--are subject to 
regulations and guidance issued by either OPM or other executive 
agencies, in accordance with underlying statutory personnel 
authorities. In some cases, the statutes and implementing regulations 
provide agency heads with flexibility in how they administer their 
compensation policies. For example, agency heads are currently 
authorized by statute to provide their civilians deployed to combat 
zones with certain benefits--such as death gratuities and leave 
benefits--comparable to those provided the Foreign Service, regardless 
of the underlying pay system of the employee's agency. 

However, some variations in compensation available to deployed 
civilians result directly from the employing agency's pay system and 
the employee's pay grade/band level. For example, deployed civilians, 
who are often subject to extended work hours, may expect to work 10- 
hour days, 5 days a week, resulting in 20 hours of overtime per pay 
period over the course of a year-long deployment. A nonsupervisory GS- 
12 step 1 employee receives a different amount of compensation for 
overtime hours than a nonsupervisory employee who earns an equivalent 
salary under NSPS.[Footnote 19] Specifically, the NSPS nonsupervisory 
employee is compensated for overtime at a rate equivalent to 1.5 times 
the normal hourly rate while the GS nonsupervisory employee is 
compensated for overtime at a rate equivalent to 1.14 times the normal 
hourly rate. Further, we noted that a GS-12 step 1 employee receives a 
different rate of compensation for overtime hours than a GS-12 step 6 
employee. Specifically, the GS-12 step 1 employee is compensated for 
overtime at a rate equivalent to 1.14 times the normal hourly rate, 
while the GS-12 step 6 employee is compensated for overtime at the 
normal hourly rate.[Footnote 20] 

Additionally, deployed civilians may receive different compensation 
based on their deployment status. Agencies have some discretion to 
determine the travel status of their deployed civilians based on a 
variety of factors--DOD, for example, looks at factors including 
length of deployment, employee and agency preference, and cost. 
Generally though, deployments scheduled for 180 days or less are 
classified as "temporary duty" assignments, whereas deployments 
lasting more than a year generally result in an official "change of 
station" assignment. Nonetheless, when civilians are to be deployed 
long term, agencies have some discretion to place them in either 
temporary duty or change of station status, subject to certain 
criteria.[Footnote 21] The status under which civilians deploy affects 
the type and amount of compensation they receive. For example, 
approximately 73 percent of the civilians who were deployed between 
January 1, 2006, and April 30, 2008, by the six agencies we reviewed 
were deployed in temporary duty status[Footnote 22] and retained their 
base salaries, including the locality pay associated with their home 
duty stations. Civilians deployed to Iraq or Afghanistan as a change 
of station do not receive locality pay, but they do receive base 
salary and may be eligible for a separate maintenance allowance, which 
varies in amount based on the number of dependents the civilian has. 
The civilian's base salary also impacts the computation of certain 
deployment-related pays, such as danger pay and post hardship 
differential, as well as the computation of premium pay such as 
overtime. Consequently, whether a civilian's base salary includes 
locality pay or not can significantly affect the total compensation to 
which that civilian is entitled--resulting in differences of several 
thousand dollars. 

As a result of these variations, deployed civilians at equivalent pay 
grades who work under the same conditions and face the same risks may 
receive different compensation. As mentioned previously, the 
Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations, House Armed Services 
Committee, recommended in April 2008 that OPM develop a benefits 
package for all federal civilians deployed to war zones, to ensure 
that they receive equitable benefits. But at the time of our 2009 
review OPM had not developed such a package or provided legislative 
recommendations. In September 2009, OPM officials stated that DOD had 
initiated an interagency working group to discuss compensation issues 
and that this group had developed some proposals for legislative 
changes. However, they noted at that time that these proposals had not 
yet been submitted to Congress, and they did not, according to DOD 
officials, represent a comprehensive package for all civilians 
deployed to war zones, as recommended by the Subcommittee. 

Furthermore, compensation policies were not always implemented 
accurately or in a timely manner. For example, based on survey results 
we project that approximately 40 percent of the estimated 2,100 
civilians deployed from January 1, 2006, to April 30, 2008, 
experienced problems with compensation--including not receiving danger 
pay or receiving it late, for instance--in part because they were 
unaware of their eligibility or did not know where to go for 
assistance to start and stop these deployment-related pays. In fact, 
officials at four agencies acknowledged that they have experienced 
difficulties in effectively administering deployment-related pays, in 
part because there is no single source of guidance delineating the 
various pays associated with deployment of civilians. As we previously 
reported concerning their military counterparts,[Footnote 23] unless 
deployed personnel are adequately supported in this area, they may not 
be receiving all of the compensation to which they are entitled. 

Additionally, in January 2008, Congress authorized an expanded death 
gratuity--under the Federal Employees' Compensation Act (FECA)--of up 
to $100,000 to be paid to the survivor of a deployed civilian whose 
death resulted from injuries incurred in connection with service with 
an armed force in support of a contingency operation.[Footnote 24] 
Congress also gave agency heads discretion to apply this death 
gratuity provision retroactively for any such deaths occurring on or 
after October 7, 2001, as a result of injuries incurred in connection 
with the civilian's service with an armed force in Iraq or 
Afghanistan.[Footnote 25] At the time of our 2009 review, Labor--the 
agency responsible for the implementing regulations under FECA--had 
not yet issued its formal policy on administering this provision. 
Labor officials told us in March 2009 that, because of the recent 
change in administration, they could not provide us with an 
anticipated issue date for the final policy. Officials from the six 
agencies included in our review stated at that time that they were 
delaying the development of policies and procedures to implement the 
death gratuity until after Labor issued its policy. As a result, some 
of these agencies had not moved forward on these provisions when we 
issued our report. 

We therefore recommended that (1) OPM oversee an executive agency 
working group on compensation for deployed civilians to address any 
differences and if necessary make legislative recommendations; (2) the 
agencies included in our review establish ombudsman programs or, for 
agencies deploying small numbers of civilians, focal points to help 
ensure that deployed civilians receive the compensation to which they 
are entitled; and (3) Labor set a time frame for issuing implementing 
guidance for the death gratuity. We provided a copy of the draft 
report to the agencies in our review. With the exception of USAID, 
which stated that it already had an ombudsman to assist its civilians, 
all of the agencies generally concurred with these recommendations. 
USAID officials, however, at the time of this testimony had not 
provided any documentation to support the establishment of the 
ombudsman position. In the absence of such documentation, we continue 
to believe our recommendation has merit. In comments on our final 
report, OPM officials stated that an interagency group was in the 
process of developing proposals for needed legislation. However, at 
the time of this testimony, these officials stated that no formal 
legislative proposals have been submitted. In addition, some of the 
agencies have taken action to create ombudsman programs. Specifically, 
DOD and USDA officials stated that their ombudsman programs have been 
implemented. Additionally, Justice and State officials stated that 
they would take action such as developing policy and procedures for 
their ombudsman programs; however, at the time of this testimony, 
USDA, Justice, and State had not provided documentation to support 
their statements. Finally, the Department of Labor published an 
interim final rule implementing the $100,000 death gratuity under FECA 
in August 2009, and finalized the rule in February 2010.[Footnote 26] 

While Policies on Medical Benefits Are Generally Comparable, Some 
Issues Exist in Both Policies and Implementation: 

Although agency policies on medical benefits are similar, our 2009 
review found some issues with policies related to medical treatment 
following deployment and with the implementation of workers' 
compensation and post-deployment medical screening that affect the 
medical benefits of these civilians. DOD and State guidance provides 
for medical care of all civilians during their deployments--regardless 
of the employing agency. For example, DOD policies entitle all 
deployed civilians to the same level of medical treatment while they 
are in theater as military personnel. State policies entitle civilians 
serving under the authority of the Chief of Mission to treatment for 
routine medical needs at State facilities while they are in theater. 

While DOD guidance provides for care at military treatment facilities 
for all DOD civilians--under workers' compensation--following their 
deployments, we reported that the guidance does not clearly define the 
"compelling circumstances" under which non-DOD civilians would be 
eligible for such care. Because DOD's policy was unclear, we found 
that confusion existed within DOD and other agencies regarding 
civilians' eligibility for care at military treatment facilities 
following deployment. Furthermore, officials at several agencies were 
unaware that civilians from their agencies were potentially eligible 
for care at DOD facilities following deployment, in part because these 
agencies had not received the guidance from DOD about this 
eligibility. Because some agencies were not aware of their civilians' 
eligibility for care at military treatment facilities following 
deployment, these civilians could not benefit from the efforts DOD has 
undertaken in areas such as post traumatic stress disorder. 

Moreover, civilians who deploy may also be eligible for medical 
benefits through workers' compensation if Labor determines that their 
medical condition resulted from personal injury sustained in the 
performance of duty during deployment.[Footnote 27] Our review of all 
188 workers' compensation claims[Footnote 28] related to deployments 
to Iraq or Afghanistan that were filed with the Labor Department 
between January 1, 2006, and April 30, 2008, found that Labor 
requested additional information in support of these claims in 125 
cases, resulting in increased processing times that in some instances 
exceeded the department's standard goals for processing 
claims.[Footnote 29] Twenty-two percent of the respondents to our 
survey who had filed workers' compensation claims stated that their 
agencies provided them with little or no support in completing the 
paperwork for their claims. Labor officials stated that applicants 
failed to provide adequate documentation, in part because they were 
unaware of the type of information they needed to provide. 
Furthermore, our review of Labor's claims process indicated that 
Labor's form for a traumatic injury did not specify what supporting 
documents applicants had to submit to substantiate a claim.[Footnote 
30] Specifically, while this form states that the claimant must 
"provide medical evidence in support of disability," the type of 
evidence required is not specifically identified. Without clear 
information on what documentation to submit in support of their 
claims, applicants may continue to experience delays in the process. 

Additionally, DOD requires deploying civilians to be medically 
screened both before and following their deployments. However, we 
found that post-deployment screenings are not always conducted, 
because DOD lacks standardized procedures for processing returning 
civilians. Approximately 21 percent of DOD civilians who responded to 
our survey stated that they did not complete a post-deployment health 
assessment. In contrast, we determined that State generally requires a 
medical clearance as a precondition to deployment but has no formal 
requirement for post-deployment screenings of civilians who deploy 
under its purview. Our prior work has found that documenting the 
medical condition of deployed civilians both before and following 
deployment is critical to identifying conditions that may have 
resulted from deployment, such as traumatic brain injury.[Footnote 31] 

To address these matters, we recommended that (1) DOD clarify its 
guidance concerning the circumstances under which civilians are 
entitled to treatment at military treatment facilities following 
deployment and formally advise other agencies that deploy civilians of 
its policy governing treatment at these facilities; (2) Labor revise 
the application materials for workers' compensation claims to make 
clear what documentation applicants must submit with their claims; (3) 
the agencies included in our review establish ombudsman programs or, 
for agencies deploying small numbers of civilians, focal points to 
help ensure that deployed civilians get timely responses to their 
applications and receive the medical benefits to which they are 
entitled; (4) DOD establish standard procedures to ensure that 
returning civilians complete required post-deployment medical 
screenings; and (5) State develop post-deployment medical screening 
requirements for civilians deployed under its purview. The agencies 
generally concurred with these recommendations, with the exception of 
USAID, which stated that it already had an ombudsman to assist its 
civilians. USAID officials, however, at the time of this testimony had 
not provided any documentation to support the establishment of the 
ombudsman position. In the absence of such documentation, we continue 
to believe our recommendation has merit. To clarify DOD's guidance 
concerning the availability of medical care at military treatment 
facilities following deployment for non-DOD civilians and to formally 
advise other agencies that deploy civilians of the circumstances under 
which care will be provided, DOD notified these agencies about its 
policies in an April 1, 2010 letter. Specifically, the letter 
identified information the department posted on its Civilian 
Expeditionary Workforce website. This information included (1) a 
training aid explaining the procedures for requesting access to a 
military treatment facility following deployment, (2) a standard form 
to request approval to receive treatment at a military treatment 
facility following deployment, and (3) frequently asked questions that 
DOD states provides further clarity on its policies.[Footnote 32] In 
addition, DOD has taken some steps to standardize procedures for 
ensuring civilians returning from deployment complete required post- 
deployment medical screenings. For example, guidance on DOD's Civilian 
Expeditionary Workforce website states that deployment out-processing 
will include completion of the post-deployment health assessment. 
[Footnote 33] Finally, officials from some of the agencies told us 
that they have taken action to create ombudsman programs. 
Specifically, officials from DOD and USDA said that their programs 
have been implemented. In addition, officials from Justice and State 
stated that they would take action such as developing policy and 
procedures for their ombudsman programs; however, at the time of this 
testimony, USDA, Justice, and State had not provided documentation to 
support their statements. 

Executive Agencies' Ability to Track Deployed Civilians Is Limited: 

While each of the agencies we reviewed was able to provide a list of 
deployed civilians, none of these agencies had fully implemented 
policies and procedures to identify and track its civilians who have 
deployed to Iraq and Afghanistan. DOD, for example, issued guidance 
and established procedures for identifying and tracking deployed 
civilians in 2006 but concluded in 2008 that its guidance and 
associated procedures were not being consistently implemented across 
the agency. In 2008 and 2009, DOD reiterated its policy requirements 
and again called for DOD components to comply.[Footnote 34] The other 
agencies we reviewed had some ability to identify deployed civilians, 
but they did not have any specific mechanisms designed to identify or 
track location-specific information on these civilians. As we have 
previously reported, the ability of agencies to report location-
specific information on employees is necessary to enable them to 
identify potential exposures or other incidents related to deployment. 
[Footnote 35] Lack of such information may hamper these agencies' 
ability to intervene quickly to address any future health issues that 
may result from deployments in support of contingency operations. We 
therefore recommended that (1) DOD establish mechanisms to ensure that 
its policies to identify and track deployed civilians are implemented 
and (2) the five other executive agencies included in our review 
develop policies and procedures to accurately identify and track 
standardized information on deployed civilians. The agencies generally 
concurred with these recommendations, with the exception of USAID, 
which stated that it already had an appropriate mechanism to track its 
civilians who had deployed but was consolidating its currently 
available documentation. We continue to disagree with USAID's position 
since it does not have an agencywide system for tracking civilians and 
believe that our recommendation is appropriate. Additionally, the 
other agencies were in various stages of implementation. For example, 
DOD officials stated, at the time of this testimony, that they were in 
the process of developing a new DOD instruction that would include 
procedures for the department's components to track its civilians. 
Justice officials stated that they will establish policies and 
procedures while USDA officials said they would rely on State 
Department led offices in Iraq and Afghanistan, along with internal 
measures such as spreadsheets and travel authorizations, for tracking 
of its personnel. State Department officials noted, after talking with 
executive agencies including DOD, they planned to establish their own 
tracking mechanisms. 

Concluding Observations: 

Deployed civilians are a crucial resource for success in the ongoing 
military, stabilization, and reconstruction operations in Iraq and 
Afghanistan. Most of the civilians--68 percent of those in our review-
-who deploy to these assignments volunteered to do so, are motivated 
by a strong sense of patriotism, and are often exposed to the same 
risks as military personnel. Because these civilians are deployed from 
a number of executive agencies and work under a variety of pay 
systems, any inconsistencies in the benefits and compensation they 
receive could affect that volunteerism. Moreover, DOD's and State's 
continued efforts to develop cadres of deployable civilians 
demonstrates that these agencies recognize the critical role that 
federal civilians play in supporting ongoing and future contingency 
operations and stabilization and reconstruction efforts throughout the 
world. Given the importance of the missions these civilians support 
and the potential dangers in the environments in which they work, 
agencies should make every reasonable effort to ensure that the 
compensation and benefits packages associated with such service 
overseas are appropriate and comparable for civilians who take on 
these assignments. It is equally important that federal executive 
agencies that deploy civilians make every reasonable effort to ensure 
that these civilians receive all of the medical benefits and 
compensation to which they are entitled. These efforts include 
maintaining sufficient data to enable agencies to inform deployed 
civilians about any emerging health issues that might affect them. 

Mr. Chairman, this concludes my prepared statement. I would be happy 
to respond to any questions that you or Members of the Subcommittee 
may have at this time. 

[End of section] 

Footnotes: 

[1] GAO, Human Capital: Actions Needed to Better Track and Provide 
Timely and Accurate Compensation and Medical Benefits to Federal 
Civilians, [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-09-562] 
(Washington D.C.: June 26, 2009). 

[2] According to the Project on National Security Reform, Case Studies 
Volume I, (Washington, D.C.: Sep. 2008), "whole of government" refers 
to an approach that fosters governmentwide collaboration on purpose, 
actions, and results in coherent combined application of available 
resources to achieve the desired objective or end state. This approach 
addresses the military and civilian coordination discussed in National 
Security Presidential Directive/NSPD-44, Management of Interagency 
Efforts Concerning Reconstruction and Stabilization (Dec. 7, 2005). 

[3] Department of Defense, Report to Congress: Medical Care for 
Department of Defense and Non-Department of Defense Federal Civilians 
Injured or Wounded in Support of Contingency Operations. 

[4] Under 22 U.S.C. § 3927, the Chief of Mission "shall have full 
responsibility for the direction, coordination, and supervision of all 
Government executive branch employees in that country (except for 
Voice of America correspondents on official assignment and employees 
under the command of a United States area military commander)". 

[5] Section 1101 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal 
Year 2004, Pub. L. No. 108-136 (2003), authorized DOD, working jointly 
with OPM, to create the National Security Personnel System. As of 
February 2009, over 205,000 DOD civilians had been converted into 
NSPS. However, section 1113 of the National Defense Authorization Act 
for Fiscal Year 2010, Pub. L. No. 111-84 (2009), requires the 
Secretary of Defense to take actions necessary to terminate the 
National Security Personnel System no later than January 1, 2012. 

[6] Specifically, OPM issues regulations and provides policy guidance 
to executive branch agencies on matters involving personnel management. 

[7] In this report, we use the term "monetary compensation" to refer 
to payments made to the employee for work performed such as salary, 
danger pay, post hardship differential, and overtime. Nonmonetary 
compensation refers to benefits such as leave, retirement 
contributions, and insurance premiums paid on behalf of the employee. 

[8] GAO, DOD Civilian Personnel: Medical Policies for Deployed DOD 
Federal Civilians and Associated Compensation for Those Deployed, 
[hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-07-1235T] (Washington, 
D.C.: Sept. 18, 2007); and DOD Civilian Personnel: Greater Oversight 
and Quality Assurance Needed to Ensure Force Health Protection and 
Surveillance for Those Deployed, [hyperlink, 
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-06-1085] (Washington, D.C.: Sept. 29, 
2006). 

[9] [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-07-1235T]; [hyperlink, 
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-06-1085]. 

[10] In addition to DOD, State, and the other agencies involved in 
this review, we have identified several other executive agencies that 
have deployed civilians to Iraq or Afghanistan. These include the 
Departments of Commerce, Health and Human Services, Treasury, 
Transportation, and Energy. 

[11] The premium pay cap places a ceiling on the amount of basic pay 
(salary plus locality pay) plus premium pay (overtime pay, Sunday pay, 
holiday pay, and night differential) that an employee can earn during 
a calendar year. 

[12] U.S. House of Representatives, Committee on Armed Services, 
Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations, Deploying Federal 
Civilians to the Battlefield: Incentives, Benefits, and Medical Care 
(April 2008). 

[13] Memorandum from Linda M. Springer, Director, OPM, to Chief Human 
Capital Officers, Consistent Compensation for Federal Civilians in 
Combat Zones (June 10, 2008). This memorandum listed various legal 
authorities, such as § 1603 of Public Law No. 109-234 (granting 
federal agencies discretion to apply certain Foreign Service benefits 
to their employees), § 1101 of Public Law No. 110-181 (raising annual 
maximum limitations on premium pay), and § 1105 of Public Law No. 110-
181 (authorizing payment of up to $100,000 as a "death gratuity" in 
certain instances). 

[14] [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-09-562]. 

[15] We use the term "medical benefits" to refer to any medical or 
dental treatment associated with travel to Iraq or Afghanistan, 
including medical screenings before and after deployment, as well as 
any benefits received under the Federal Employees' Compensation Act, 5 
U.S.C. §§ 8101-8193. 

[16] We selected the Department of Defense because it deploys the 
greatest number of civilians to Iraq and Afghanistan. We also included 
the Departments of State, Homeland Security, Agriculture, and Justice, 
and the U.S. Agency for International Development because these 
agencies deployed most of the civilians assigned to the embassies and 
provincial reconstruction teams in Iraq and Afghanistan. 

[17] We selected a sample of 297 from an initial population of 2,493 
civilians whom the six executive agencies in our review identified as 
having been deployed during the period from January 1, 2006, to April 
30, 2008. Some observations in the sample were deemed to be beyond the 
scope of our review, in part because the employee did not deploy to 
Iraq or Afghanistan during the prescribed timeframe; consequently, we 
are 95 percent confident that the actual population size is between 
1,930 and 2,254. The results of the survey can be projected to the 
population from which the survey sample was selected. 

[18] These claims are filed under the Federal Employees' Compensation 
Act, 5 U.S.C. §§ 8101-8193. 

[19] Section 1113 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal 
Year 2010, Pub. L. No. 111-84 (2009), requires the Secretary of 
Defense to take actions necessary to terminate the National Security 
Personnel System no later than January 1, 2012. 

[20] Under both examples, these employees are exempt from the Fair 
Labor Standards Act. Overtime rates are authorized by law for GS 
employees by 5 U.S.C. section 5542 and for NSPS employees by NSPS 
regulations at 5 CFR section 9901.362. The NSPS overtime factor is 
based on DOD's Civilian Personnel Manual, DOD 1400.25-M, subchapter 
1930. Overtime rates are authorized by law for GS employees by 5 
U.S.C. section 5542. The overtime factor for GS-12 step 1 is 
calculated by dividing the overtime hourly rate by the hourly rate 
found in OPM's hourly rate table for GS salary. Within the GS system, 
the overtime hourly rate for employees paid at a rate greater than the 
rate for GS-10 step 1, but less than the rate for GS-12 step 6, is 
equal to the hourly rate of basic pay for GS-10 step 1 multiplied by 
1.5. The overtime hourly rate for employees paid at a rate equivalent 
to the GS-10 step 1 level or lower is 1.5 times their hourly rate, and 
for employees paid at the GS-12 step 6 level or higher, the overtime 
hourly rate is 1.0. 

[21] GAO has stated that "Whether an assignment to a particular 
station is temporary or permanent is a question of fact to be 
determined from the orders under which the assignment is made, the 
character of the assignment, its duration, and the nature of the 
duties." In DOD's Civilian Personnel Joint Travel Regulations Vol. II, 
DOD states that the following criteria must be met for an assignment 
to be temporary duty (68 Comp. Gen. 465 (1989)): "(a) The duties to be 
performed are temporary in nature, (b) the assignment is for a 
reasonable time duration, and (c) temporary duty costs are lower than 
round-trip temporary change of station or permanent change of station 
expenses." Joint Travel Regulations, vol. 2, ch. 4, para. C4430 
(current as of Dec. 1, 2009). 

[22] The approximately 73 percent includes both DOD civilians deployed 
for 180 days or less as well as employees deployed for more than 180 
days. For civilians deployed more than 180 days, about 42 percent were 
deployed in temporary duty status and retained locality pay. 

[23] GAO, Military Pay: Army Reserve Soldiers Mobilized to Active Duty 
Experienced Significant Pay Problems, [hyperlink, 
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-04-911] (Washington, D.C.: Aug. 20, 
2004); Military Pay: Army National Guard Personnel Mobilized to Active 
Duty Experienced Significant Pay Problems, [hyperlink, 
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-04-413T] (Washington, D.C.: Jan. 28, 
2004); and Military Pay: Army National Guard Personnel Mobilized to 
Active Duty Experienced Significant Pay Problems, [hyperlink, 
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-04-89] (Washington, D.C.: Nov. 13, 
2003). 

[24] National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008, Pub. L. 
No. 110-181, § 1105 (2008). 

[25] Under 5 U.S.C. § 8102(a), the head of an agency may retroactively 
apply this provision in the case of an employee who died on or after 
October 7, 2001, and before January 28, 2008, as a result of injuries 
incurred in connection with the employee's service with an armed force 
in the theater of operations of Operation Enduring Freedom or 
Operation Iraqi Freedom. 

[26] Interim Final Rule: Claims for Compensation; Death Gratuity Under 
the Federal Employees' Compensation Act, 74 Fed. Reg. 41617 (Aug. 18, 
2009). Final Rule: Claims for Compensation; Death Gratuity Under the 
Federal Employees' Compensation Act, 75 Fed. Reg. 5499 (Feb. 3, 2010). 

[27] Under FECA, any disability resulting from a war-risk hazard is 
generally deemed to have resulted from personal injury sustained while 
in the performance of duty. 5 U.S.C. § 8102(b). 

[28] FECA claims by agency: DOD - 116; State - 32; Justice - 19; DHS - 
5; USDA - 2; USAID - 1; other agencies not included in this review and 
claims where the agency is not identified - 13. 

[29] Of these 125 cases, 74 were approved, 42 were denied, and 9 cases 
were still being processed at the time of our review. 

[30] Labor defines "traumatic injury" as any wound or other condition 
of the body caused by external force, including stress or strain, 
caused by a specific event or incident within a single workday or 
shift. 

[31] [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-06-1085]. 

[32] Among other things, the guidance on this website provides some 
additional clarity regarding the "compelling circumstances" that may 
allow a non-DOD civilian to be approved for post-deployment medical 
care, including instances where the military MTF is distinguished and 
has experience in treating the injury, disease, or illness, or the 
military MTF is the only, closest, or most convenient treatment 
facility to the employee's home, place of employment, care giver's 
home, or critical personal support system. See [hyperlink, 
http://www.cpms.osd.mil/expeditionary//cew_medical_care.aspx]. 

[33] The document on the DOD webpage is titled "Entitlements and 
Benefits for Temporary Duty Service." See hyperlink, 
http://www.cpms.osd.mil/expeditionary//cew_benefits.aspx]. 

[34] Memorandum from Patricia Bradshaw, Deputy Under Secretary for 
Civilian Personnel Policy, Documentation of Department of Defense 
Civilian Employees Officially Assigned to Military Contingency 
Operations Overseas, (Jun. 6, 2006); Memorandum from Brad Bunn, 
Director, Department of Defense Civilian Personnel Management Service, 
Documentation of Department of Defense Civilian Employees Officially 
Assigned to Military Contingency Operations Overseas, (Feb. 8, 2008); 
and DOD Directive 1404.10, DoD Civilian Expeditionary Workforce (Jan. 
23, 2009). 

[35] GAO, Defense Health Care: Improvements Needed in Occupational and 
Environmental Health Surveillance during Deployments to Address 
Immediate and Long-term Health Issues, [hyperlink, 
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-05-632] (Washington D.C.: Jul. 14, 
2005). 

[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 Web site [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov]. Each 
weekday, GAO posts newly released reports, testimony, and 
correspondence on its Web site. To have GAO e-mail you a list of newly 
posted products every afternoon, 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 Web site, 
[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. 

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

Contact: 

Web site: [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: 

Ralph Dawn, Managing Director, dawnr@gao.gov: 
(202) 512-4400: 
U.S. Government Accountability Office: 
441 G Street NW, Room 7125: 
Washington, D.C. 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, D.C. 20548: