This is the accessible text file for GAO report number GAO-05-79 
entitled 'Army National Guard: Inefficient, Error-Prone Process Results 
in Travel Reimbursement Problems for Mobilized Soldiers' which was 
released on March 16, 2005. 

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. 

Report to Congressional Requesters: 

January 2005: 

Army National Guard: 

Inefficient, Error-Prone Process Results in Travel Reimbursement 
Problems for Mobilized Soldiers: 

GAO-05-79: 

GAO Highlights: 

Highlights of GAO-05-79, a report to congressional requesters: 

Why GAO Did This Study: 

GAO was asked to determine (1) the impact of the recent increased 
operational tempo on the process used to reimburse Army Guard soldiers 
for travel expenses and the effect that travel reimbursement problems 
have had on soldiers and their families; (2) the adequacy of the 
overall design of controls over the processes, human capital, and 
automated systems relied on for Army Guard travel reimbursements; and 
(3) whether the Department of Defense’s (DOD) current efforts to 
automate its travel reimbursement process will resolve the problems 
identified. GAO selected and audited 10 case study units that were 
identified in a preliminary assessment as having a variety of travel 
reimbursement problems. 

What GAO Found: 

Mobilized Army Guard soldiers have experienced significant problems 
getting accurate, timely, and consistent reimbursements for out-of-
pocket travel expenses. These weaknesses were more glaring in light of 
the sustained increase in mobilized Guard soldiers following the 
terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001. To its credit, the Defense 
Finance and Accounting Service (DFAS) hired over 200 new personnel to 
address travel voucher processing backlogs and recently upgraded their 
training. However, Guard soldiers in our case study units reported a 
number of problems they and their families endured due to delayed or 
unpaid travel reimbursements, including debts on their personal credit 
cards, trouble paying their monthly bills, and inability to make child 
support payments. 

Examples of Problems Encountered by Case Study Units: 

Army Guard unit: Maryland 115th Military Police; 
Number of affected soldiers in unit: 107 of 107; 
Problems encountered and status: Soldiers housed off-post were denied 
per diem authorization. Some paid for meals out of pocket while others 
hitchhiked and rode bicycles 3.5 miles to post dining facility. Unpaid. 

Army Guard unit: Mississippi 20th Special Forces; 
Number of affected soldiers in unit: 75 of 75; 
Problems encountered and status: Soldiers were erroneously required to 
pay to eat government provided meals at mess hall. Partially paid. 

Army Guard unit: Mississippi 114th Military Police; 
Number of affected soldiers in unit: 76 of 76; 
Problems encountered and status: Soldiers were denied authorization for 
proportional meal rate for meal expenses that we estimated to be about 
$6,000 each. Unpaid. 

Army Guard unit: Pennsylvania 876th Engineer Battalion; 
Number of affected soldiers in unit: 36 of 37; 
Problems encountered and status: Despite filing identical monthly 
vouchers, soldiers were paid amounts ranging from $0 to $1,718. 
Adjustments caused overpayments of $200 to about $1,350, resulting in 
debts to soldiers. 

Source: GAO. 

[End of table]

The soldier bears primary responsibility for travel voucher 
preparation, including obtaining paper copies of various types of 
authorizations. DFAS data indicate that it rejected and asked soldiers 
to resubmit about 18 percent of vouchers during fiscal year 2004—a 
churning process that added to delays and frustration. Also, existing 
guidance did not clearly address the sometimes complex travel 
situations of mobilized Army Guard soldiers, who were often housed off-
post due to overcrowding on military installations. Further, DOD 
continued to be noncompliant with a law that requires payment of late 
payment interest and fees when soldiers’ travel reimbursements are not 
timely. With respect to human capital, GAO found a lack of oversight 
and accountability and inadequate training. Automated systems problems, 
such as nonintegration of key systems involved in authorizing and 
paying travel expenses and failure to automate key processes, also 
contributed to the inefficient, error-prone process. DOD has been 
developing and implementing the Defense Travel System (DTS) to resolve 
travel-related deficiencies. However, DTS will not address some of the 
key systems flaws. For example, DTS is currently not able to process 
mobilized soldier travel authorizations and vouchers and identify and 
calculate late payment interest and fees. 

What GAO Recommends: 

GAO makes 23 recommendations to address Army Guard travel reimbursement 
weaknesses in the areas of process, human capital, and systems. GAO 
also recommends that DOD ensure that its longer term system improvement 
efforts include complete and lasting solutions to the identified 
weaknesses. 

DOD concurred with 21 recommendations and described actions to correct 
noted deficiencies. DOD partially concurred with 2 recommendations 
regarding meal cost authorizations and requirements to pay soldiers 
interest on late travel and meal cost reimbursements. 

www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-05-79. 

To view the full product, including the scope and methodology, click on 
the link above. For more information, contact Gregory D. Kutz at (202) 
512-9095 or kutzg@gao.gov. 

[End of section]

Contents: 

Letter: 

Results in Brief: 

Background: 

Weaknesses in Error-Prone, Manual Travel Reimbursement Process Were 
Exacerbated by Increased Operational Tempo: 

Process Weaknesses Contribute to Delays and Disputes in Army Guard 
Travel Reimbursements: 

Human Capital Issues Affect Timely and Accurate Reimbursements to 
Mobilized Army Guard Soldiers: 

System Problems Hamper Travel Reimbursement Process: 

Defense Travel System Currently Does Not Address Key Issues for 
Mobilized Army Guard Soldiers: 

Conclusions: 

Recommendations for Executive Action: 

Agency Comments and Our Evaluation: 

Appendixes: 

Appendix I: Scope and Methodology: 

Appendix II: Comments from the Department of Defense: 

Appendix III: GAO Contacts and Staff Acknowledgments: 

GAO Contacts: 

Acknowledgments: 

Tables: 

Table 1: Range of Allowable Per Diem Rates: 

Table 2: Examples of Problems Encountered by Case Study Units: 

Table 3: Problems with Late Payments: 

Table 4: Sources of Problems Experienced by Army Guard Case Study Units 
in Obtaining Reimbursements for Meal Expenses: 

Figures: 

Figure 1: Three Phases of the Travel and Reimbursement Process: 

Figure 2: Current Manual, Paper-Intensive Travel Reimbursement Process: 

Figure 3: Number of Army Guard and Reserve Travel Vouchers Received by 
DFAS CTO from October 2001 to September 2004: 

Figure 4: Staffing Levels at DFAS CTO from October 2001 to September 
2004: 

Figure 5: Distance between Fort Stewart Mess Halls and Government- 
Contracted Hotel: 

Figure 6: Army Reserve and Army Guard Travel Vouchers Returned by DFAS 
CTO from July 2003 through September 2004: 

Figure 7: Time Intervals between Reviewer Approval and Travel 
Computation Office Acceptance for 139 Selected Travel Vouchers: 

Figure 8: Timing from the End of Travel to Soldier Submissions for 139 
Selected Travel Vouchers: 

Figure 9: Overview of the Design of Systems and Travel Applications 
Used for Army Guard Travel: 

Letter January 31, 2005: 

Congressional Requesters: 

Since the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, the operational tempo 
for the military services has greatly increased, with corresponding 
increases in the basic administrative tasks necessary to keep soldiers 
paid, fed, and housed. Over 186,500 Army National Guard (Army Guard) 
soldiers[Footnote 1] were mobilized from September 14, 2001, through 
September 30, 2004, to serve in Operations Noble Eagle, Enduring 
Freedom, and Iraqi Freedom. Some mobilized Army Guard soldiers have 
incurred significant travel expenses in conjunction with their roles in 
carrying out critical national security missions. Army Guard soldiers 
called to active service are entitled to be reimbursed for authorized 
travel expenses incurred. The Department of Defense (DOD) is to provide 
a Guard soldier traveling on official business with transportation, 
lodging, and food, or to reimburse the soldier for reasonable and 
necessary authorized expenses if the soldier purchases them.[Footnote 
2] In short, the soldier is to be made whole for authorized out-of- 
pocket expenses, with timely and accurate reimbursements for travel 
expenses. 

Within the United States, Army Guard soldiers have guarded the 
Pentagon, airports, nuclear power plants, and domestic water supplies 
as part of the homeland security effort. Overseas, they continue to 
perform highly dangerous peacekeeping missions and force protection 
operations in Iraq, Afghanistan, and other countries. When government- 
provided meals and housing were not available to some Guard soldiers, 
they lived off the local economy--purchased food at restaurants and 
groceries, and housing at hotels--and later submitted requests to the 
Army for reimbursement of their out-of-pocket expenses. 

In October 2002, we reported[Footnote 3] that the Defense Finance and 
Accounting Service (DFAS) did not have systems in place to identify 
late travel reimbursements and therefore could not identify the 
soldiers who were not paid within 30 days of submission of an approved 
travel voucher and who therefore should have been paid late payment 
interest and fees required pursuant to Section 2 of the Travel and 
Transportation Reform Act of 1998 (TTRA).[Footnote 4] This affected 
numerous soldiers whose vouchers were paid late. For example, at one 
California National Guard unit, we estimated that about 60 percent of 
travel vouchers were not paid within 30 days of submission to an 
approving official. In March 2003, the DFAS Headquarters Internal 
Review Office also reported[Footnote 5] concern over management's 
inability to properly measure the timeliness of travel voucher 
reimbursements. According to the DFAS report, 39 percent of 
approximately 1 million travel vouchers paid during the period May 2002 
through October 2002 did not have the date the voucher was received or 
the date the voucher was approved recorded in an automated system, both 
of which are key dates for determining payment timeliness. The report 
also stated that available data showed 18 percent of the vouchers were 
not paid within 35 calendar days of the completion of travel. Further, 
during our audits of Army Guard and Army Reserve military payroll 
controls,[Footnote 6] soldiers told us about problems with delayed and 
inaccurate travel cost reimbursements and meal cost authorizations and 
entitlements. 

You asked us to determine (1) the impact of the recent increased 
operational tempo on the effectiveness of the process used to reimburse 
Army Guard soldiers for travel expenses and the effect that travel 
reimbursement problems have had on soldiers and their families and (2) 
the adequacy of the overall design of controls over the processes, 
human capital, and automated systems relied on to provide timely travel 
cost reimbursements and accurate meal authorizations and entitlements 
to mobilized[Footnote 7] Army Guard soldiers. Finally, in the systems 
area, you asked us to assess whether DOD's current efforts to automate 
its travel reimbursement process will resolve the problems identified. 

Because our preliminary assessment determined that current 
authorization, request, review, and approval processes used to pay 
travel reimbursements to active service Army Guard soldiers relied 
extensively on paper-intensive, nonintegrated systems, and error-prone 
manual transaction entry that did not provide an adequate audit trail 
or a reliable population of transactions, we could not effectively 
statistically test current processes and controls. The lack of accurate 
and complete centralized data on Army Guard travel also precluded 
statistical testing of related transactions. Instead, we systematically 
assessed the effectiveness of the overall design of controls at work in 
the key areas of processes, people (human capital), and automated 
systems. Further, we used case studies and individual voucher data 
mining to identify Army Guard units with a variety of travel 
reimbursement problems, including disputes over authorizations for meal 
reimbursements, and individual soldiers who had been reimbursed late. 
We used this approach to provide a more detailed perspective on the 
design of controls and the nature of deficiencies in the three phases 
of the travel and reimbursement process: (1) authorization; (2) travel 
voucher preparation, unit review, and transmission; and (3) computation 
office review and payment. 

Specifically, we gathered available data and analyzed the travel 
reimbursement experiences of 10 selected Army Guard units mobilized to 
active service in support of Operations Iraqi Freedom, Noble Eagle, and 
Enduring Freedom during the period from October 2001 through November 
2003. We selected four military police and four special forces units, 
which we determined from a preliminary assessment were experiencing 
travel reimbursement problems. The remaining two were selected based on 
our review of complaints to United States senators and representatives. 
We also audited a nonrepresentative selection of individual travel 
vouchers that were paid 120 days or more from the date the travel ended 
and travel vouchers selected from the unit case studies. We conducted 
our audit work from November 2003 through September 2004 in accordance 
with U.S. generally accepted government auditing standards, and we 
performed our investigative work in accordance with standards 
prescribed by the President's Council on Integrity and Efficiency. 
Further details on our scope and methodology are included in appendix 
I. DOD's written comments on a draft of this report have been reprinted 
as appendix II. 

Results in Brief: 

The current inefficient, paper-intensive, error-prone process has 
resulted in inaccurate, delayed, and denied travel reimbursements for 
mobilized Army Guard soldiers. The overall design of controls relied on 
to reimburse Army Guard soldiers for travel expenses was marked by 
weaknesses in the critical areas of processes, human capital, and 
automated systems. These weaknesses were more glaring in light of the 
sustained increase in mobilizations for Army Guard soldiers over the 
last 3 years. Our case study units experienced a broad range of travel 
reimbursement problems, including disputed amounts for meals that 
remained unpaid by the end of our review, vouchers that were submitted 
five or more times before being paid, and thousands of dollars in debts 
levied on soldiers when the approval for the meal component of their 
per diem reimbursement was rescinded after the vouchers had been paid. 

One of the primary causes for these problems is rooted in the paper- 
intensive process used by DOD to reimburse Army Guard soldiers for 
their travel expenses. The major responsibility for ensuring a travel 
voucher is properly prepared rests with the soldier, who is responsible 
for obtaining paper documents that include various authorizations and 
receipts for all expenses $75 and over, in addition to a properly 
prepared and signed travel voucher. DFAS data show that problems in 
assembling a complete travel voucher package for payment resulted in 18 
percent of vouchers being rejected and returned to the soldier for 
correction or additional documentation during fiscal year 2004--a 
churning process that added to delays and frustration. Further, this 
cumbersome process was not designed to handle the steep and sustained 
increase in travel vouchers since the terrorist attacks of September 
11, 2001, and the subsequent military activity. The increased 
operational tempo resulted in backlogs in travel voucher processing as 
the DFAS Contingency Travel Operations Office (CTO) struggled to keep 
up with both the increased volume and complexity of the travel vouchers 
submitted. For example, the monthly volume of travel vouchers being 
submitted to the DFAS CTO increased from less than 3,200 in October 
2001 to over 50,000 in July 2003. To its credit, DFAS increased its 
staffing by over 200 new personnel to address backlogs and increased 
voucher volume and reported an average processing time of 8 days for 
its part of the process in September 2004. However, our case studies of 
selected units and data mining of individual vouchers identified 
numerous soldiers who experienced significant problems getting 
accurate, timely, and consistent reimbursements for travel expenses. 
Guard soldiers reported a number of problems they and their families 
endured due to delayed or unpaid travel reimbursements, including debts 
on their personal credit cards, trouble paying their monthly bills, and 
inability to make child support payments. 

The lack of clear, complete, and accurate policies and procedures--the 
foundation of the process for authorizing travel entitlements and 
reimbursements--contributed to inaccurate, delayed, and denied travel 
reimbursements. Specifically, existing guidance did not clearly address 
the sometimes complex travel situations of Army Guard soldiers who have 
been called from their civilian lives to military service since the 
September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks. For example, as military 
activity increased for Operation Iraqi Freedom, and Army Guard, Army 
Reserve, and active Army soldiers were preparing for duty, some of the 
installations to which Army Guard soldiers were assigned did not have 
available government housing. As a result, the soldiers were housed off-
post in commercial hotels or apartments. This created novel situations 
that were not specifically addressed in regulations. Further, 
inappropriate policy and guidance on how to identify and pay soldiers 
entitled to late payment interest and fees because of late travel 
reimbursement meant that DOD continued to be noncompliant with TTRA. As 
a result, although DOD paid no late payment interest or fees to Army 
Guard soldiers through April 2004, we found a number of cases in which 
soldiers should have been paid interest and indications that thousands 
more may be entitled to TTRA payments. 

With respect to human capital, we found weaknesses, including (1) a 
lack of leadership and oversight and (2) a lack of adequate training 
provided to Army Guard soldiers and DFAS CTO voucher examiners. First, 
the lack of leadership and oversight over the travel reimbursement 
process precluded the development of strong overarching internal 
controls. Specifically, the Army is not using performance metrics to 
gain agencywide insight into the nature and extent of the delays, to 
measure performance, and to identify and correct systemic problems. For 
example, DFAS data indicate that it rejected 104,000 of 609,000 
vouchers during the period July 2003 through September 2004, with 
missing travel authorizations accounting for over half of the rejected 
vouchers. While this churning process appeared to be a primary factor 
in payment delays and soldier frustration, DFAS CTO, Army, or Army 
Guard offices had not performed additional research to determine the 
root cause of this and other voucher deficiencies. Second, the Army 
Guard soldiers with whom we spoke told us that they had received either 
inadequate or no training on travel voucher preparation and review. 
DFAS officials told us that during early 2003, subsequent to the 
mobilization surge, the newly hired voucher examiners received on-the- 
job training that proved to be inadequate to respond to the number and 
complexity of the travel vouchers submitted during this period. To its 
credit, during fiscal year 2004, DFAS CTO enhanced its training program 
for voucher examiners. 

System problems also hampered oversight and service to soldiers in the 
travel reimbursement process. The key DOD systems involved in 
authorizing and reimbursing travel expenses to mobilized Army Guard 
soldiers are not integrated, resulting in an inefficient, error-prone 
process. These problems are also a major factor in the churning issue 
discussed previously--the thousands of vouchers that are rejected and 
returned for missing documentation. Specifically, the Army does not 
have automated systems for some critical travel process functions for 
the Army Guard, such as preparation of travel vouchers, statements of 
non-availability (SNA), and temporary change of station orders, which 
preclude the electronic sharing of data by the various travel 
computation offices. Integration and automation of the authorization 
and reimbursement systems would eliminate the need for the soldier to 
accumulate numerous paper documents, increasing the efficiency and 
timeliness of the process. 

DOD recognizes it needs to improve the paper-intensive, manual travel 
and reimbursement process and has been developing and implementing the 
Defense Travel System (DTS) to resolve these deficiencies. However, 
deployment of DTS will not resolve all of the problems we found in 
reimbursement of travel expenses to mobilized Army Guard soldiers. For 
example, DTS is currently not able to process travel authorizations and 
vouchers for mobilized Army Guard soldiers and calculate late payment 
interest and fees. Given that the effort has been under way for about 8 
years and will not address key issues specific to mobilized Army Guard 
soldiers, it is likely that the department will be relying on the 
existing paper-intensive, manual, error-prone system for the 
foreseeable future. 

We are making 23 recommendations to address the Army Guard travel 
reimbursement weaknesses we identified in the areas of process, human 
capital, and systems. While DOD and the Army should take a number of 
immediate actions to address these problems, we are also recommending 
that DOD ensure that its longer term reengineering and system 
improvement efforts include complete and lasting solutions to the 
weaknesses identified. In its comments on a draft of this report, DOD 
agreed with 21 of our 23 recommendations and outlined its actions to 
address the deficiencies noted in our report. DOD partially concurred 
with 2 recommendations regarding the need for an automated, centralized 
system for SNA per diem authorizations and the need for DTS to include 
capabilities to identify, calculate, and pay late payment interest and 
fees required pursuant to TTRA. Due to the financial burdens on the 
affected soldiers documented in this report, we continue to believe 
that DOD should implement measures to resolve these matters both on an 
interim and long-term basis. 

Background: 

The Army Guard is the oldest component of any of the uniformed 
services. It traces its roots to the colonial militia and claims a 
"birth" of 1636. Today, the Army Guard exists in 54 locations that 
include all 50 states, the District of Columbia, and three territories: 
Guam, the Virgin Islands, and Puerto Rico. There are Army Guard 
facilities in more than 2,800 communities and over 350,000 Army Guard 
members. During peacetime, each Army Guard unit reports to the adjutant 
general of its state or territory, or in the case of the District of 
Columbia, to the Commanding General. Each adjutant general reports to 
the governor of the state or territory, or in the case of the District 
of Columbia, to the mayor. 

At the state level, the governors have the ability, under the 
Constitution of the United States, to call up members of the Army Guard 
in times of domestic emergency or need. The Army Guard's state mission 
is perhaps the most visible and well known. Army Guard units battle 
fires or help communities deal with floods, tornadoes, hurricanes, 
snowstorms, or other emergency situations. In times of civil unrest, 
the citizens of a state rely on the Army Guard to respond, if needed. 
During national emergencies, the President has the authority to 
activate the Army Guard, putting them in federal duty status. When 
ordered to federal active duty by the President in accordance with the 
provisions of Title 10, United States Code, the units answer to the 
Combatant Commander of the theatre in which they are operating and, 
ultimately, to the President. When called to perform duty in accordance 
with the provisions of Title 32, United States Code, units answer to 
the adjutant generals and ultimately to the governors. When Army Guard 
units are performing duty under Title 10 or Title 32, the federal 
government provides funds for reimbursement of authorized travel 
expenses. 

The Army Guard is a partner with the active Army and the Army Reserve 
in fulfilling the country's military needs. The National Guard Bureau 
(NGB), which assists the Army Guard in the partnership, is a joint 
bureau of the Departments of the Army and the Air Force and is charged 
with overseeing the federal functions of the Army Guard and the Air 
National Guard (Air Guard). In this capacity, NGB helps the Army Guard 
and the Air Guard procure funding and administer polices. NGB also acts 
as a liaison between the Departments of the Army and Air Force and the 
states. 

All Army forces are integrated under DOD's "total force" concept. DOD's 
total force concept is based on the premise that it is not feasible to 
maintain active duty forces sufficient to meet all possible war 
contingencies. Consequently, DOD's active and reserve components are to 
be blended into a cohesive total force to meet a given mission. 

DOD reported that over 186,500 Army Guard soldiers and 111,800 Army 
Reserve soldiers[Footnote 8] were mobilized from September 14, 2001, 
through September 30, 2004, for Operations Noble Eagle, Enduring 
Freedom, and Iraqi Freedom. As of September 30, 2004, Army Guard 
soldiers accounted for over 40 percent of the total reserve 
components[Footnote 9] mobilized in response to the terrorist attacks 
on September 11, 2001. 

The federal missions established in response to the September 2001 
national emergency were categorized into three operations: Operation 
Enduring Freedom, Operation Noble Eagle, and Operation Iraqi Freedom. 
In general, missions to fight terrorism and direct combat outside the 
United States were categorized under Operation Enduring Freedom and 
Operation Iraqi Freedom, while missions to provide domestic defense 
were categorized as Operation Noble Eagle. For example, Army Guard 
soldiers participated in antiterrorist and direct combat activities in 
Afghanistan and Iraq under Operation Enduring Freedom and Operation 
Iraqi Freedom, respectively. Additionally, in support of Operation 
Enduring Freedom, Army Guard soldiers provided enhanced security in 
other countries. U.S. homeland security missions, such as guarding the 
Pentagon, airports, nuclear power plants, domestic water supplies, 
bridges, tunnels, and other military assets, were conducted under 
Operation Noble Eagle. 

Army Guard soldiers called to active service are entitled to be 
reimbursed for authorized travel expenses incurred. DOD provides a 
soldier traveling on official business with transportation, lodging, 
and food, or reimburses the soldier for reasonable and necessary 
authorized expenses if the soldier purchases them.[Footnote 10]

In October 2001, the Army issued personnel policy guidance (PPG) for 
Operation Noble Eagle. In September 2002, consolidated PPG was issued 
covering both Operations Noble Eagle and Enduring Freedom. This 
guidance, which is revised on an ongoing basis, ultimately was expanded 
to include Operation Iraqi Freedom and now applies generally to all 
active service personnel who are mobilized and/or deployed in support 
of contingency operations.[Footnote 11] The PPG guidance covers topics 
ranging from general mobilization guidance to specific travel 
entitlements. 

The two primary sources of guidance used by both Army Guard soldiers 
and travel computation office personnel for information on travel 
entitlements were the Army's PPG and DOD's Joint Federal Travel 
Regulation (JFTR). 

Per Diem: 

The term per diem allowance refers to a daily payment instead of 
reimbursement for actual expenses for (1) lodging, (2) meals, and (3) 
related incidental expenses.[Footnote 12]

There are many factors that go into the per diem authorization and 
calculation, including the availability of government quarters and meal 
facilities. Generally, soldiers mobilized for Operations Noble Eagle, 
Enduring Freedom, and Iraqi Freedom must use government meal facilities 
to the maximum extent practicable when they are sent to government 
installations with dining facilities.[Footnote 13] Because they incur 
no actual expenses while living in government housing and eating in 
government facilities, they are not authorized the meal and lodging 
components of the per diem allowance. However, they are entitled to 
receive the incidental component of per diem. The daily government 
incidental expense allowance for fiscal year 2004 was $3.00 within the 
continental United States (CONUS) and $3.50 outside the continental 
United States (OCONUS). 

When the installation commander determines that government lodging and/ 
or mess facilities are not available, the PPG directs that Army Guard 
soldiers be provided with SNAs to authorize the lodging and/or meal 
components of per diem in addition to the incidental expense component 
of per diem.[Footnote 14] DOD regulations further provide that when 
government lodging and mess facilities are generally available, but an 
authorizing official determines that soldiers must occasionally miss 
meals due to mission requirements, proportional per diem is 
authorized.[Footnote 15]

Table 1 shows the various components of CONUS[Footnote 16] and 
OCONUS[Footnote 17] per diem and the fiscal year 2004 range of dollar 
amounts an Army Guard soldier may be entitled to receive under the PPG 
and the JFTR. 

Table 1: Range of Allowable Per Diem Rates: 

Per diem scenario: #: 1; 
Per diem scenario: Housing facilities: Government housing on post or 
government-contracted housing available; 
Per diem scenario: Meal facilities: Government meal facilities 
available to the soldier for 3 meals per day[A]; 
Allowable reimbursement: Per diem lodging component: None; 
Allowable reimbursement: Per diem meal component: None; 
Allowable reimbursement: Per diem incidental component: 
$3.00 CONUS; $3.50 OCONUS. 

Per diem scenario: #: 2; 
Per diem scenario: Housing facilities: Government housing on post or 
government-contracted housing available; 
Per diem scenario: Meal facilities: Government meal facilities 
available, but soldier must miss 1 or 2 meals per day[B]; 
Allowable reimbursement: Per diem lodging component: None; 
Allowable reimbursement: Per diem meal component: Actual expense not to 
exceed proportional meal rate[C]; 
Allowable reimbursement: Per diem meal component: $18 - $30 CONUS; 
Allowable reimbursement: Per diem incidental component: $3.00 CONUS; 
Allowable reimbursement: Per diem meal component: $9 - $86 OCONUS; 
Allowable reimbursement: Per diem incidental component: $3.50 CONUS; 

Per diem scenario: #: 3; 
Per diem scenario: Housing facilities: Government housing on post or 
government-contracted housing available; 
Per diem scenario: Meal facilities: Government meal facilities not 
available[D]; 
Allowable reimbursement: Per diem lodging component: None; 
Allowable reimbursement: Per diem meal component: Locality meal rate; 
Allowable reimbursement: Per diem meal component: $28 - $51 CONUS; 
Allowable reimbursement: Per diem incidental component: $3.00 CONUS; 
Allowable reimbursement: Per diem meal component: $7 - $164 OCONUS; 
Allowable reimbursement: Per diem incidental component: $3.50 OCONUS. 

Per diem scenario: #: 4; 
Per diem scenario: Housing facilities: Government housing on post or 
government-contracted housing not available; 
Per diem scenario: Meal facilities: The availability of government meal 
facilities is not a criterion for this scenario[E]; 
Allowable reimbursement: Per diem lodging component: Actual cost up to 
a maximum rate for the area[F]; 
Allowable reimbursement: Per diem meal component: Locality meal rate; 
Allowable reimbursement: Per diem meal component: $28 - $51 CONUS; 
Allowable reimbursement: Per diem incidental component: $3.00 CONUS; 
Allowable reimbursement: Per diem meal component: $7 - $164 OCONUS; 
Allowable reimbursement: Per diem incidental component: $2 - $41 
OCONUS. 

Source: GAO analysis of PPG and JFTR guidance. 

[A] Temporary change of station (TCS) soldiers who are on government 
installations with dining facilities are directed to use mess 
facilities. Soldiers are entitled to the incidental rate of per diem 
only if authorized per diem at these locations. PPG, para. 8-2.a(5) 
(reformatted April 2004). 

[B] The proportional meal rate applies each day that at least one meal 
is available and directed where the member is assigned temporary duty 
status (TDY). JFTR, U4149.C.2, change 194 (Feb. 1, 2003). 

[C] The amount of the proportional meal rate is the average of the 
government meal rate and the locality meal rate for a particular 
location. There is one DOD-wide government meal rate. For fiscal year 
2003, the government meal rate was $8.10 per day (breakfast, $1.60; 
lunch, $3.25; and dinner, $3.25). The government meal rate is charged 
to nonmobilized soldiers who eat at government facilities. The General 
Services Administration determines the locality rate for meals, 
lodging, and incidental expenses. If the locality meal rate is $28 and 
the government meal rate is $8.10, the proportional meal rate is $18.05 
[(28 + 8.10)/2]. 

[D] When government mess is not available, the installation commander 
will make the determination of mess availability and issue a statement/ 
certificate of non-availability, if applicable. PPG, para. 8-2.a(5) 
(reformatted April 2004). 

[E] When government or government-contracted quarters are not 
available, as determined by the installation commander, soldiers will 
be provided certificates or statements of non-availability for both 
lodging and meals to authorize increased per diem. PPG, para. 8- 
2.a(6)(c)(reformatted April 2004). 

[F] The General Services Administration determines the maximum lodging 
rate for the area. 

[End of table]

Additionally, the PPG provides that regardless of whether an Army Guard 
soldier is authorized the meal component of per diem, basic allowance 
for subsistence (BAS) will not be reduced.[Footnote 18] BAS is included 
in the Army Guard soldier's compensation and is not a travel 
entitlement.[Footnote 19] More specifically, BAS is a continuation of 
the military tradition of providing room and board (or rations) as part 
of a service member's pay. The monthly BAS rate is based on the price 
of food and is readjusted yearly based upon the increase of the price 
of food as measured by the Department of Agriculture's food cost index. 
As of January 2004, BAS ranged from $175.23 a month for officers to 
$262.50 a month for enlisted service members. 

Travel and Reimbursement Process: 

The current DOD travel reimbursement process for Army Guard soldiers 
operates at travel computation offices around the country, including 
DFAS CTO, the travel computation office at DFAS Indianapolis, 54 United 
States Property and Fiscal Offices (USPFO) servicing each of the Army 
Guard locations, and several other DFAS sites. Travel voucher 
processing consumes the resources of hundreds of personnel, reviewing 
thousands of pieces of paper every day. 

As illustrated in figure 1, the travel and reimbursement process 
consists of three phases: (1) authorizations and travel; (2) travel 
voucher preparation, submission, review, and transmission; and (3) 
computation office review, reimbursement computation, and payment. 

Figure 1: Three Phases of the Travel and Reimbursement Process: 

[See PDF for image] 

[End of figure] 

In the first phase of the travel and reimbursement process, various 
travel orders and other authorizations are produced and are provided to 
and/or acquired by soldiers, and soldiers incur travel expenses. 

Following the President's mobilization order, the Secretary of Defense, 
in consultation with members of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, (1) 
determines specific unit personnel requirements and (2) issues a unit 
mobilization order to various affected units and organizations within 
the Army. 

USPFO officials use the Automated Fund Control Order System 
(AFCOS)[Footnote 20] to produce individual mobilization orders for 
soldiers. Individual mobilization orders usually contain general travel 
information, such as authorized methods of transportation; directions 
regarding the use of government food and lodging facilities; and 
authorizations for the soldier to travel from the unit's home station, 
a permanent duty station, to an active Army installation (the 
mobilization station) for further processing and training. 

After completion of mission-related training at the mobilization 
station, the unit is certified for deployment, and soldiers are 
assigned duty stations. Army commands use word processing applications 
to produce temporary change of station (TCS) orders to give soldiers 
authorization to travel from their mobilization stations to long-term 
temporary assignments at other locations. During the deployment period, 
the Army may also issue TDY orders and other authorization statements, 
such as SNAs. The Army issues a TDY order to authorize a soldier's 
travel from one location to another location for generally less than 45 
days. The Army issues SNAs to soldiers when government lodging and/or 
meals are not available to the soldier. 

Following the completion of a tour, the Army issues each federal active 
duty soldier a Release from Active Duty (REFRAD) order from the 
transition processing system and a Certificate of Release or Discharge 
from Active Duty (DD Form 214). 

The second phase of the travel and reimbursement process begins with 
the soldier's preparation and submission of a travel voucher, and the 
review of the voucher by the unit reviewer prior to the transmission of 
the voucher to the travel computation office, typically either a DFAS 
or USPFO location. According to Army Guard and DFAS guidance, all 
travel vouchers for Army Guard soldiers who are mobilized under Title 
10 are to be sent to DFAS CTO for processing, while travel vouchers 
associated with Title 32 mobilizations and other nonmobilized travel 
are generally processed by USPFO and other travel computation offices. 
Final completion of the voucher occurs following the calculation of 
actual reimbursable amounts by a travel computation office. 

The soldier begins the reimbursement process by manually: 

1. preparing a travel voucher (DD Form 1351-2) (the soldier provides 
required information, such as name, rank, Social Security number, 
itinerary, and authorized reimbursable expenses);

2. attaching all supporting DOD-generated documentation (e.g., 
mobilization orders, TCS orders, TDY orders, SNAs, REFRAD orders, DD 
Form 214);

3. attaching original lodging receipts and all receipts for 
reimbursable expenses of $75.00 or more;

4. signing and dating the voucher; and: 

5. delivering the entire voucher package--the travel voucher and all 
supporting documentation--to a unit supervisor for review. 

DOD's Financial Management Regulation (FMR) requires that travel 
vouchers be submitted to the unit reviewer within 5 working days of the 
end of travel, or in the case of travel that extends beyond 30 days, 
within 5 days after the end of every 30-day travel period. In addition, 
according to The Citizen-Soldier's Guide to Mobilization 
Finance,[Footnote 21] soldiers who have government quarters and meals 
provided to them may opt to file for the incidental portion of their 
per diem entitlement on a quarterly, semiannual, or annual basis since 
the amount due the soldier is nominal. 

The unit reviewer--required by DFAS policy to be the soldier's 
supervisor/ commander or designee--is responsible for ensuring that the 
voucher claim is complete, proper, and complies with the intent of the 
order. On completion of the review, the unit reviewer signs and dates 
the voucher and forwards it and the supporting documentation to a 
travel computation office via regular mail, e-mail, or fax. 

The third phase of the travel and reimbursement process begins when the 
travel computation office receives the voucher package. The travel 
computation office reviews the voucher package, calculates the 
reimbursement amount, and processes the reimbursement to pay the 
soldier and/or the government travel card company,[Footnote 22] 
generally through direct deposit of the funds to their respective 
banks. The travel computation office is responsible for the accuracy 
and propriety of voucher payments. 

DFAS CTO and USPFO personnel perform an initial screening of voucher 
packages. If the basic information--signatures, dates, and orders--is 
present, a more detailed review of the voucher is performed. Detailed 
travel voucher data are then manually entered into the Integrated 
Automated Travel System version 6.0 (WINIATS), which calculates the 
amount of the reimbursement. Attempts are made to contact the soldier 
if any problems are noted during the initial screening, the detailed 
review, or the data entry. Failing contact with the soldier, DFAS or 
USPFO personnel mail the voucher package to the address on the voucher 
for correction by the soldier. 

If DOD fails to reimburse soldiers for travel claims within 30 days of 
submission of proper travel vouchers, DOD must pay the soldiers late 
payment interest and fees pursuant to TTRA. 

Weaknesses in Error-Prone, Manual Travel Reimbursement Process Were 
Exacerbated by Increased Operational Tempo: 

The paper-intensive process used by DOD to reimburse Army Guard 
soldiers for their travel expenses was not designed to handle the 
dramatic increase in travel vouchers since the terrorist attacks of 
September 11, 2001, and the subsequent military activity. The increased 
operational tempo resulted in backlogs in travel voucher processing as 
DFAS CTO struggled to keep up with both the increased volume and 
complexity of the travel vouchers submitted. For example, the monthly 
volume of travel vouchers being submitted to DFAS CTO increased from 
less than 3,200 in October 2001 to over 50,000 in July 2003 and 
remained at levels over 30,000 through September 2004. To its credit, 
to address the large volume of vouchers received and the unprocessed 
backlog, DFAS increased its staffing by over 200 new personnel and 
reported an average processing time of 8 days for its part of the 
process in September 2004. However, our case studies of selected units 
and data mining of individual vouchers identified numerous soldiers who 
experienced significant problems getting accurate, timely, and 
consistent reimbursements for travel expenses. Guard soldiers told us 
about a number of problems they and their families endured due to 
delayed or unpaid travel reimbursements, including debts on their 
personal credit cards, trouble paying their monthly bills, and 
inability to make child support payments. As discussed later, we found 
that these reimbursement problems were associated with process, human 
capital, and automated system deficiencies. 

Paper-Driven Process Used to Reimburse Army Guard Soldiers: 

Overall, as shown in figure 2, we found that a paper-intensive, manual, 
error-prone process exists to reimburse travel expenses to mobilized 
Army Guard soldiers. 

Figure 2: Current Manual, Paper-Intensive Travel Reimbursement Process: 

[See PDF for image] 

[End of figure] 

The primary responsibility for ensuring a travel voucher is properly 
prepared rests with the soldier. As illustrated in figure 2, the 
soldier is responsible for obtaining paper documents that include 
various authorizations and receipts for all expenses $75 and over, in 
addition to a manually prepared and signed paper travel voucher. Each 
time DFAS CTO receives a voucher and determines that it is not 
complete, either the soldier is contacted in an attempt to get the 
needed information or the entire voucher is rejected and returned to 
the soldier. The difficulty in assembling a complete and acceptable 
voucher package on the first try is demonstrated by the 11, 12, and 18 
percent return rates reported by DFAS CTO for fiscal years 2002, 2003, 
and 2004, respectively. That is, of approximately 930,000 travel 
vouchers received during this period, DFAS CTO rejected and returned 
about 139,000. The soldier must then obtain the missing documentation 
or make the necessary corrections and return the voucher to DFAS for 
processing again. This repeated churning of vouchers further increases 
the volume of claims, which, as discussed in the next section, quickly 
overwhelmed DFAS CTO's resources. In addition, returned vouchers 
contribute to delays in payment, increasing soldiers' frustration. 

Increased Operational Tempo Initially Overwhelmed Process: 

While this inefficient process may have offered some capability to 
process travel vouchers during periods of low activity when relatively 
few Army Guard members were mobilized, the current increased 
operational tempo has strained the process beyond its limits. The 
volume of Army Guard and Reserve travel vouchers being submitted to 
DFAS CTO increased from less than 3,200 in October 2001 to over 50,000 
in July 2003. As shown in figure 3, the monthly travel voucher volume 
has remained above 30,000 since the July 2003 peak. 

Figure 3: Number of Army Guard and Reserve Travel Vouchers Received by 
DFAS CTO from October 2001 to September 2004: 

[See PDF for image] 

[End of figure] 

In addition to the rising volume, the increased complexity of the 
vouchers received further slowed down the process. As military activity 
increased for Operation Iraqi Freedom and Army Guard, Army Reserve, and 
active Army soldiers were preparing for duty, not all of the 
installations to which Army Guard soldiers were assigned had available 
government housing. As a result, the soldiers were housed off-post in 
commercial hotels or apartments. This created a number of novel 
situations that were not specifically addressed in regulations, as 
discussed later. 

For example, the Virginia 20TH Special Forces Army National Guard unit 
was mobilized to Fort Bragg, North Carolina, in January 2002. The unit 
was initially housed in World War II era barracks--with free meals in 
the mess hall--that were in such poor condition that the company 
commander requested and received off-post housing. The hotel was over 
10 miles from the nearest Fort Bragg dining facility, and with many of 
the soldiers assigned to duties that required odd or extended hours 
that precluded use of the dining facility, the soldiers found that they 
were paying for at least two meals per day out of their own pockets. 
When members of the Virginia 20TH Special Forces eventually submitted 
their proportional meal per diem vouchers to DFAS CTO, some were paid 
over $2,000 for 4 months of meal expenses and some were not, due in 
part to confusion over the meal per diem entitlements in this 
situation. As a result, some soldiers had to obtain additional 
documentation and resubmit their vouchers, further adding to the volume 
of vouchers. As of May 2004, 14 soldiers still had not received the 
majority of their proportional meal per diem entitlements, ranging from 
about $1,600 to over $3,500 per soldier for a mobilization that 
occurred over 2 years ago. During our review, we brought this matter to 
the attention of the Virginia 20TH Special Forces provisional finance 
officer and DFAS CTO, and in June 2004, DFAS CTO processed vouchers for 
10 of the 14 soldiers and made final payments for meal expenses they 
incurred during their Fort Bragg duty. The remaining 4 soldiers had not 
been paid at the completion of our audit. 

During this time frame, DFAS CTO staffing levels were not keeping pace 
with the rising volume of vouchers. However, while DFAS CTO employed 
less than 50 personnel in October 2001, this number more than doubled 
by February 2003 and was increased further to about 240 in June 2003, 
including 83 Army Guard and Army Reserve soldiers, as shown in figure 
4. 

Figure 4: Staffing Levels at DFAS CTO from October 2001 to September 
2004: 

[See PDF for image] 

[End of figure] 

A DFAS CTO official told us that the office was not properly staffed to 
process travel vouchers at the beginning of 2003 when the volume 
started to increase. Inadequate staffing and the time necessary to 
train new staff created a backlog of travel vouchers at DFAS CTO, 
ballooning to over 18,000 vouchers in March 2003. In one case, an Army 
Guard specialist prepared a voucher on December 8, 2002, and his 
supervisor approved it the same day. It took 124 days before the 
voucher was stamped as received by DFAS CTO and another 66 days for 
DFAS to pay the soldier. In addition, although this payment should have 
included late payment interest, it did not because, as discussed later 
in this report, DFAS did not have the means to automatically identify 
those soldiers who should have received interest and other fees on 
their late payments. To its credit, with its increased staffing levels 
in place, DFAS CTO reported an average processing time of 8 days for 
its part of the process as of September 2004. 

Impact That Travel Reimbursement Problems Have Had on Army Guard 
Soldiers and Their Families: 

Our case studies of selected units and data mining of individual 
vouchers identified numerous soldiers who experienced significant 
problems getting accurate, timely, and consistent reimbursements for 
travel expenses. As discussed in this report, these problems related to 
process, human capital, and systems deficiencies. Major factors 
contributing to inconsistent, inaccurate, or late reimbursements 
experienced by these soldiers were that requirements for authorizing 
and supporting per diem reimbursements for meal expenses were not 
always known by the mobilized soldiers nor were they well understood by 
local base personnel, and the authorizations were not documented on 
their mobilization orders or travel orders. 

While our work was not intended to and we did not attempt to quantify 
the financial impact of inaccurate and late reimbursements on 
individual soldiers, we found a number of soldiers who were frustrated 
and concerned with the process and the amount of time they spent 
attempting to navigate it. For example, one individual responsible for 
submitting his unit's vouchers to DFAS CTO told us that he called the 
process "the travel voucher lottery" because "you never knew whether, 
or how much, you might get paid." Frustrated soldiers sought help from 
their United States senators or representatives in obtaining what they 
believed they were owed for out-of-pocket travel expenses. The 
following are excerpts from three of those letters. 

* Sergeant First Class (NY)-- "Since being released I have submitted [a 
travel voucher] for payment of travel pay and storage authorized by my 
orders. I have yet to receive the pay due. The forms have had to be 
resubmitted two other times, without changes. The previous submissions 
have either been misplaced or lost after arriving at defense finance. 
.. For me, it has become a hardship. I was laid off from [my job] in 
May of 2002 just before our activation. This was due to downsizing. I 
am currently on unemployment, attending BOCES [Board of Cooperative 
Educational Services] for welding. I had counted on this money to cover 
my medical insurance and vehicle payment. At this time I am 2 months 
behind on the medical premiums and vehicle payment. Chase Bank has said 
that after next week they will submit the vehicle for repossession. 
..These types of problems are a very good reason to leave the National 
Guard."

* Sergeant First Class (NC)-- "Trying to get my final travel pay for 
active duty for Operation Enduring Freedom. I submitted my travel 
voucher in December 02 and it was sent to DFAS Indianapolis in January 
03 and I still have not received payment [as of April 29, 2003]. .. I 
understand the workloads due to the war on terrorism, but over 5 months 
is extreme."

* Staff Sergeant (KS)-- "Below please find an e-mail that I received 
last night from DFAS informing me that they have now deleted my voucher 
from February [2003] and I must start all over again. In the last year 
and a half when this has happened, although they say it is expedited, 
in practice and reality it goes to the bottom of the pile and takes 3-6 
weeks. I'm at my wits and financial end. I have already placed approx 
$3500 of money owed to me by the Army on my personal credit cards and 
cannot afford to do it anymore."

The majority of soldiers in our 10 case study units reported problems 
related to reimbursements for meal expenses that included late 
payments, underpayments, and overpayments resulting in debts to some 
soldiers in excess of $10,000. For example, we estimated that about 
$324,000 was paid more than a year late to 120 soldiers for meal 
expenses based on the proportional meal rate for their locality. As 
discussed in detail later in this report, these issues were caused by 
weaknesses in the process used to pay Army Guard travel reimbursements; 
the human capital practices in this area, including the lack of 
adequate training; and nonintegrated automated systems. Table 2 
summarizes the experiences of Army Guard soldiers in 10 units. We 
referred 8 of these units that at the end of our audit included 
soldiers who were unpaid, partially paid, or in debt to appropriate DOD 
officials to resolve any amounts owed to the Army Guard soldiers or to 
the government. 

Table 2: Examples of Problems Encountered by Case Study Units: 

Army Guard unit: Alabama 20th Special Forces; 
Number of affected soldiers in unit: 6 of 209; 
Examples of problems encountered and status: DOD rescission of 
authorized reimbursement of meal expenses resulted in debts for 
soldiers.[A]. 

Army Guard unit: California 19th Special Forces; 
Number of affected soldiers in unit: 30 of 66; 
Examples of problems encountered and status: Soldiers' travel vouchers 
were initially rejected because split locations on vouchers did not 
coincide with information on travel orders. Partially paid. 

Army Guard unit: California 185th Armor; 
Number of affected soldiers in unit: 58 of 85; 
Examples of problems encountered and status: Soldiers were underpaid 
per diem due to DFAS CTO errors and soldiers' lack of supporting 
documentation. Soldiers eventually received reimbursement, ranging from 
$20 to over $3,000. Paid up to 4 months late. 

Army Guard unit: Georgia 190th Military Police; 
Number of affected soldiers in unit: 32 of 101; 
Examples of problems encountered and status: Soldiers incurred over 
$200,000 of debt due to confusion over rules concerning commuting areas 
and per diem for meals.[A]. 

Army Guard unit: Louisiana 239th Military Police; 
Number of affected soldiers in unit: 124 of 124; 
Examples of problems encountered and status: Soldiers were required to 
pay to eat government-provided meals at mess hall. Paid 6 months late. 

Army Guard unit: Maryland 115th Military Police; 
Number of affected soldiers in unit: 107 of 107; 
Examples of problems encountered and status: Soldiers housed off-post 
were denied per diem authorization for meals. Some paid for meals out 
of pocket while others hitchhiked and rode bicycles 3.5 miles to post 
dining facility. Unpaid. 

Army Guard unit: Mississippi 20th Special Forces; 
Number of affected soldiers in unit: 75 of 75; 
Examples of problems encountered and status: Soldiers were required to 
pay to eat government-provided meals at mess hall. Partially paid. 

Army Guard unit: Mississippi 114th Military Police (first 
mobilization); 
Number of affected soldiers in unit: 120 of 120; 
Examples of problems encountered and status: Soldiers were frustrated 
by process to obtain authorization for proportional meal rate for meal 
expenses that we estimated to be about $2,700 each. Paid 14 months 
late. 

Army Guard unit: Mississippi 114th Military Police (second 
mobilization); 
Number of affected soldiers in unit: 76 of 76; 
Examples of problems encountered and status: Under similar 
circumstances, soldiers were denied authorization for proportional meal 
rate for meal expenses that we estimated to be about $6,000 each. 
Unpaid. 

Army Guard unit: Pennsylvania 876th Engineer Battalion; 
Number of affected soldiers in unit: 36 of 37; 
Examples of problems encountered and status: Soldiers were deployed to 
Germany, and all were entitled to same monthly reimbursement. Despite 
filing identical vouchers with proper documentation, the soldiers were 
paid varying amounts, ranging from $0 to $1,718 for 1 month. 
Adjustments caused overpayments of $200 to about $1,350, resulting in 
debts to soldiers.[A]. 

Army Guard unit: Virginia 20th Special Forces; 
Number of affected soldiers in unit: 51 of 65; 
Examples of problems encountered and status: Soldiers were paid varying 
amounts for meal reimbursements due to inconsistent interpretation of 
SNA documentation at DFAS CTO. Partially paid. 

Source: GAO. 

[A] The soldiers' wages are generally garnished to repay debts, unless 
a waiver is granted. 

[End of table]

The following provides more details on the experiences of several of 
these units. 

* The 114th Military Police Company, Clinton, Mississippi, mobilized 
the first time in January 2002 and performed around-the-clock shift 
work at Fort Campbell, Kentucky, for approximately 5 months before 
being sent to Cuba. While at Fort Campbell, the soldiers could not 
always avail themselves of the base dining facilities and therefore had 
to pay out-of-pocket for some of their meals. The soldiers were not 
informed that they were eligible for a proportional meal rate until 
they returned from Cuba in November 2002. Due to various other delays, 
it took over 14 months for the soldiers to be reimbursed about $2,700 
each based upon the proportional meal rate for Fort Campbell. The unit 
commander informed us that the delays put considerable strain on the 
finances of some of his lower graded soldiers. This unit's problems 
were compounded when its soldiers were mobilized a second time in 
February 2003 and went to Fort Hood, Texas. Even though they 
experienced the same conditions, they were denied compensation for 
their out-of-pocket expenses. Soldiers told us their duty hours were 
similar to those they worked at Fort Campbell. Using the information 
from their experiences with the reimbursement process at Fort Campbell, 
the unit commander contacted Fort Hood officials to obtain 
authorization for reimbursement for costs his soldiers were incurring 
due to the inability to use the dining facilities at Fort Hood for all 
meals. The unit commander's attempts to get authorization for the 
proportional meal rate were unsuccessful. At the time of our audit, we 
estimated that none of the 76 soldiers in the unit had been reimbursed 
for about 10 months, totaling approximately $6,000 per soldier. 

* The Pennsylvania 876TH Engineer Battalion was mobilized in support of 
Operation Enduring Freedom to perform installation security and force 
protection duties at Bad Aibling Station, Germany, from July 2002 to 
February 2003. All deployed members were entitled to the identical per 
diem for meals and incidental expenses applicable to their location. 
Although the unit's administrative officer submitted identical vouchers 
for each soldier at the end of each month as required, the soldiers 
received varying reimbursement amounts each month. For example, 
following the August 2002 submission, 4 soldiers in the unit received 
what they believed to be the correct reimbursement of $1,718. The 
remaining 33 soldiers received payments ranging from $371.20 to 
$1,485.00. These types of inconsistencies occurred month after month. 
The commanding officer indicated in a memorandum that "This is a hugely 
demoralizing and frustrating action." The administrative officer, who 
sent detailed spreadsheets to DFAS CTO, wrote in one e-mail to DFAS 
officials, "I have E3's [low-paid enlisted] who are owed over $2,000. 
These soldiers deserve better.. If I call your department three times 
and ask three different people the same question I will receive three 
differing answers.… Is there or is there not a single standard for 
paying soldiers travel pay?"

During our audit of selected travel vouchers, some that were paid as 
much as 500 days after travel ended, we found that significant delays 
frequently occurred when soldiers had to submit travel vouchers 
multiple times to travel computation offices. Travel computation 
offices routinely returned improperly prepared and inadequately 
reviewed vouchers that did not contain basic required signatures, 
dates, and travel orders. Further, DFAS staffing shortfalls contributed 
to some of the delays that we noted. Table 3 shows examples of the 
extent of delays experienced by soldiers in obtaining payment for 
travel expenses. 

Table 3: Problems with Late Payments: 

Table 3: Problems with Late Payments: 

Soldier rank and state: Corporal, California; 
Amount of voucher: $779; 
Days from submission to payment of voucher: 493; 
Problems encountered: Soldier was paid about 1˝ years after submitting 
voucher eight times. 

Soldier rank and state: Sergeant, Utah; 
Amount of voucher: $1,269; 
Days from submission to payment of voucher: 237; 
Problems encountered: Soldier received partial payment in September 
2003 after submitting voucher five times since October 2002. 

Soldier rank and state: Sergeant First Class, Colorado; 
Amount of voucher: $1,387; 
Days from submission to payment of voucher: 481; 
Problems encountered: National Guard authorization for reimbursement 
was not promptly provided, which soldier claims affected his ability to 
maintain child support payments. 

Soldier rank and state: Sergeant, Texas; 
Amount of voucher: $682; 
Days from submission to payment of voucher: 82; 
Problems encountered: Soldier's command did not file travel voucher 
when promised. 

Source: GAO analysis. 

[End of table]

The following provides more details for the experiences of some of the 
soldiers with payment delays. 

* A corporal with the California 49TH Military Police Company was 
frustrated by the repeated recycling of his voucher eight times through 
the travel reimbursement process, which caused his reimbursement of 
travel expenses to be delayed for about 17 months. His story 
exemplifies process and human capital flaws. For example, (1) the 
reviewing official approved the voucher even though it lacked 
supporting documentation, (2) DFAS CTO did not know that faxed vouchers 
were not being printed, and (3) customer service was weak as evidenced 
by piecemeal requests for information. According to the California 
unit's reviewing official, the voucher, along with others, was 
initially faxed to DFAS CTO in August 2002. When not all soldiers 
received notification that DFAS CTO had received the vouchers, the unit 
official again faxed the vouchers. The corporal told us that he later 
received an e-mail from DFAS CTO requesting his DD Form 214, 
Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty. He submitted the 
DD Form 214, but he then received his whole travel voucher package back 
from DFAS CTO with a note saying that the DD Form 214 was missing. He 
checked the package and found that the DD Form 214 he had previously 
sent was in the materials returned by DFAS CTO. DFAS CTO returned the 
voucher in February 2003 because it was incorrectly completed and again 
in October 2003 because it lacked mobilization orders. DFAS eventually 
paid the corporal $779 in December 2003. 

* A sergeant with the Utah 142ND Military Intelligence Battalion 
experienced an approximate 22-month delay in receiving full 
reimbursement for his travel expenses. Delays for this voucher were 
caused by (1) fax problems, (2) missing documents, and (3) DFAS CTO 
errors in reimbursing the sergeant for properly supported expenditures. 
The sergeant told us that he faxed his voucher to DFAS CTO soon after 
his travel ended in October 2002. When DFAS CTO claimed it had not 
received the voucher, he refaxed it in January 2003. Because he 
remobilized in January 2003, he did not learn until he returned in May 
2003 that DFAS CTO did not have a record of his January resubmission. 
He resubmitted his voucher in May 2003, and DFAS CTO returned it 
because he had not attached his DD Form 214, documenting his discharge 
from active duty. After he resubmitted the paperwork in August 2003, 
DFAS paid him only $1,269, which did not include all of his lodging 
costs or any of his meal expenses while at the TDY location. He told us 
that DFAS CTO could not explain why his meal expenses were not paid. 
Following his resubmission in March 2004, DFAS paid him $189.78, which 
was the outstanding balance on his lodging receipts. DFAS did not pay 
the remaining balance of $572.00 for his meals until after GAO inquired 
about payment of the voucher in August 2004. 

* A sergeant with the Texas 141ST Infantry Company had to wait 6 ˝ 
months for reimbursement of his travel expenses because of (1) 
miscommunication about his unit's responsibilities and (2) subsequent 
inadequate unit supervisory review. The sergeant told us he had been 
informed that his unit in Guantonamo, Cuba, would prepare and submit 
his voucher when his tour of duty ended in December 2002. About 113 
days elapsed before he discovered that his unit in Cuba did not prepare 
a voucher on his behalf. At that point, he asked his home unit 
administrator in Texas to help him prepare and submit his voucher to 
DFAS CTO. However, DFAS CTO returned that voucher because it lacked 
supervisory signature. The sergeant believed he needed supervisory 
approval from his unit and sent the voucher back to Cuba for approval. 
After it was returned from Cuba, he resubmitted it to DFAS CTO, but for 
some reason unknown to him he still did not get paid. He resubmitted 
his voucher to DFAS CTO in late June 2003, and DFAS paid him $682 in 
July 2003 approximately 82 days after supervisory approval. 

Process Weaknesses Contribute to Delays and Disputes in Army Guard 
Travel Reimbursements: 

Policies and guidance, the foundation of the process for authorizing 
travel entitlements and reimbursements, were sometimes unclear to the 
Army Guard soldiers who were called from their civilian lives to 
military service since the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks. Not 
since World War II had so many Army Guard soldiers been mobilized for 
extended periods and essentially placed in travel status for as long as 
2 years. Prior to September 11, 2001, most travel guidance addressed 
relatively routine travel for brief periods and was not always clearly 
applicable to situations Army Guard soldiers encountered, particularly 
when they could not avail themselves of government-provided meals due 
to the nature of their duty assignments. In October 2001, the Army 
issued new guidance that was intended to address travel entitlements 
unique to Army and Army Guard soldiers mobilized for the war on 
terrorism. However, the lack of clarity in this guidance created 
problems not only for Army Guard soldiers but for numerous other 
personnel involved with authorizing travel entitlements and contributed 
to inaccurate, delayed, and denied travel reimbursements. Furthermore, 
inappropriate policy and guidance on how to identify and pay soldiers 
entitled to late payment interest and fees because of late travel 
reimbursement meant that DOD continued to be noncompliant with TTRA. As 
a result, as discussed in the next section, although DOD paid no late 
payment interest or fees to Army Guard soldiers through April 2004, we 
found a number of cases in which soldiers should have been paid late 
payment interest and indications that thousands more may be entitled to 
late payment interest. GAO's Standards for Internal Control in the 
Federal Government state that internal control is an integral component 
of an organization's management that provides reasonable assurance that 
objectives of the agency are being achieved, including effectiveness 
and efficiency of operations and compliance with laws and regulations. 

Lack of Clear Guidance on Travel Entitlements, Including Late Payment 
Interest and Fees: 

We found that a key factor contributing to delays and denials of Army 
Guard reimbursements for out-of-pocket meal expenses was a lack of 
clearly defined guidance. We noted that the existing guidance (1) 
provided unclear eligibility criteria for reimbursement of out-of- 
pocket meal expenses, (2) lacked instructions for including meal 
entitlements on mobilization orders, and (3) contained inadequate 
instructions for preparing and issuing SNAs. 

Two primary sources of guidance used by both Army Guard soldiers and 
travel computation office personnel for information on travel 
entitlements were the Army's personnel policy guidance (PPG) for 
military personnel mobilized for Operations Iraqi Freedom, Enduring 
Freedom and Noble Eagle and DOD's Joint Federal Travel Regulation 
(JFTR). We found that both Army Guard soldiers and travel computation 
personnel had difficulty using these sources to find the information 
necessary about the rules regarding travel-related entitlements. A DFAS 
CTO official and users told us that the guidance was legalistic and not 
user friendly. Army Guard soldiers and DFAS CTO examiners had trouble 
at times interpreting the guidance, and as a result, soldiers 
experienced travel reimbursement problems. 

Table 4 shows the sources of common problems related to meal expense 
reimbursements experienced by soldiers in our case studies. 

Table 4: Sources of Problems Experienced by Army Guard Case Study Units 
in Obtaining Reimbursements for Meal Expenses: 

Case study units: Alabama 20th Special Forces; 
Source of problem: Unclear eligibility criteria for reimbursement of 
out-of-pocket meal expenses. 

Case study units: California 19th Special Forces; 
Source of problem: Lack of specific entitlements on orders. 

Case study units: California 185th Armor; 
Source of problem: Confusing nonstandard SNAs. 

Case study units: Georgia 190th Military Police; 
Source of problem: Unclear eligibility criteria for reimbursement of 
out-of-pocket meal expenses. 

Case study units: Louisiana 239th Military Police; 
Source of problem: Unclear eligibility criteria for reimbursement of 
out-of-pocket meal expenses; 
Source of problem: Lack of specific entitlements on orders. 

Case study units: Maryland 115th Military Police; 
Source of problem: Unclear eligibility criteria for reimbursement of 
out-of-pocket meal expenses; 
Source of problem: Lack of specific entitlements on orders. 

Case study units: Mississippi 20th Special Forces; 
Source of problem: Unclear eligibility criteria for reimbursement of 
out-of-pocket meal expenses; 
Source of problem: Lack of specific entitlements on orders; 
Source of problem: Confusing nonstandard SNAs. 

Case study units: Mississippi 114th Military Police; 
Source of problem: Unclear eligibility criteria for reimbursement of 
out-of-pocket meal expenses; 
Source of problem: Lack of specific entitlements on orders. 

Case study units: Pennsylvania 876th Engineers; 
Source of problem: Confusing nonstandard SNAs. 

Case study units: Virginia 20th Special Forces; 
Source of problem: Confusing nonstandard SNAs. 

Source: GAO. 

[End of table]

Unclear eligibility criteria. We found that guidance did not adequately 
address some significant conditions that entitled a soldier to 
reimbursement of authorized meal expenses. For example, although the 
JFTR entitled soldiers to reimbursement for meal expenses when 
transportation was not reasonably available between government meal 
facilities and place of lodging,[Footnote 23] the term "reasonably 
available" was not defined. The PPG directed the maximum use of 
installation facilities, and if not feasible, then "multi-passenger 
vehicles[Footnote 24] should be used" to transport soldiers to 
installation facilities. However, the PPG is silent regarding what 
constitutes adequate transportation, particularly when transportation 
to government meal facilities is necessary for Army Guard soldiers who 
cannot be housed in government facilities. As discussed in one of our 
case studies, we found disagreements between the soldiers and their 
command officials about the adequacy of transportation to government 
meal facilities and their entitlement to get reimbursed for eating at 
commercial facilities closer to their lodgings. Without clear guidance 
on these issues, Army decisions will continue to appear arbitrary and 
unfair to soldiers. 

The following illustrates the experiences of the Army Guard soldiers 
with the Maryland 115TH Military Police Headquarters/Headquarters 
Company, their perceptions of unfair and inconsistent treatment, and 
apparent confusion between basic allowance for subsistence (BAS) 
compensation entitlements and meal entitlements while in TCS status. 
For example, BAS is included in the Army Guard soldier's compensation 
and is not a travel entitlement.[Footnote 25]

Case Study Illustration: Soldiers Claim Inadequate Transportation 
Should Have Justified Reimbursement of Out-of-Pocket Meal Expenses; 

Soldiers with the Maryland 115th Military Police Headquarters/ 
Headquarters Company were mobilized to Fort Stewart, Georgia, in 
October 2001, to perform force protection duties. As shown in figure 5, 
the 107 soldiers in the unit were housed in a government-contracted 
hotel approximately 3 to 4 miles from the base because the on-base 
housing was overcrowded. Soldiers told us that transportation from the 
hotels to the government dining facilities was inadequate. They 
explained that while military buses and vans took soldiers to and from 
the base for their shift work duties, the soldiers not on shift, 
including those on their days off, had to find their own transportation 
to the government dining facilities; 

Approximately 3 weeks into the unit's mobilization, the battalion 
commander allowed some soldiers (E- 7 and above) to use their privately 
owned vehicles, but many other soldiers were still without vehicles or 
other means to get to the dining facility. Two soldiers told us that 
they purchased bicycles to get to the base. Several soldiers claimed 
that because they could not get to the dining facilities, they either 
walked to local restaurants, or bought groceries and cookware and 
cooked meals in their rooms using hot plates. The soldiers told us they 
were also aware that other soldiers at Fort Stewart were similarly 
housed in hotels, but were paid per diem for meals based on the 
locality rate for the area. We confirmed that Florida's 3220th U.S. 
Army Reserve Garrison Support Unit was housed in hotels and was paid 
per diem for meals. Several soldiers told us they discussed several 
issues with their chain of command and company commanders, including 
inadequate transportation, having to eat on the economy, the 
inconsistencies in their treatment compared to other soldiers, and 
their eligibility for per diem. The company commanders discussed these 
issues with the battalion commander. The battalion commander told us, 
"The soldiers had a contracted hotel and laundry services and didn't 
need per diem. In addition to that, they had access to the mess hall 
and were getting BAS." When a battalion personnel officer incorrectly 
told one soldier that he was not entitled to per diem because he was 
receiving BAS he stated, "Then take away my $8 in BAS and give me per 
diem because I can't live on $8 a day."; 

The garrison commander told us that he was unaware of the unit's 
transportation problems, and had he known of the problems, he would 
have issued more vehicles to the unit; 

Using the proportional meal rate, we estimated that the soldiers could 
be due approximately $1,260 each for a total of approximately $135,000 
for the period October 2001 to January 2002. As of September 2004, the 
soldiers had not received any reimbursements for meal expenditures. 

Figure 5: Distance between Fort Stewart Mess Halls and Government- 
Contracted Hotel: 

[See PDF for image] 

[End of figure] 

The following case study illustrates another apparent lack of 
understanding of the different regulations regarding specific 
compensation entitlements for BAS compared to meal entitlements while 
in TCS status and inconsistent treatment. 

Case Study Illustration: Mississippi Army Guard Soldiers Question 
Army's Decision to Deny Reimbursement for Out-of-Pocket Meal 
Expenditures; 

Army Guard soldiers of the Mississippi 114[TH] Military Police Company 
were called up in January 2002 for their first mobilization and 
reported to Fort Campbell for military police guard duty. While at Fort 
Campbell, the 114th performed 24-hour, 7-day shift work providing force 
protection services for the 101st Airborne Division and Fort Campbell 
and could not always avail themselves of the free meals at the mess 
hall. Consequently, these Army Guard soldiers purchased their meals 
from commercial sources. After soldiers learned of their potential 
eligibility for reimbursement of meal costs, they requested and 
received authorization from the division commander for reimbursement 
and, although considerably late, were eventually reimbursed; 

However, while at Fort Hood, the location of their second active duty 
tour beginning in February 2003, installation command officials did not 
authorize reimbursement of their out-of- pocket costs for meals. 
According to the Army Guard soldiers, the conditions at Fort Hood--24-
hour shift work and the lack of 24-hour mess halls--were similar to 
what they encountered at Fort Campbell. Fort Hood officials told us 
that they justified their decision because free meals were available 
from the mess hall and noncommissioned officers could get this food to 
soldiers who were having problems and by stating that the basic 
allowance for subsistence was adequate compensation for any of the 
soldiers' out-of-pocket expenditures for meals. Fort Hood officials did 
not document their unfavorable decision or justification for that 
decision. Because an official from the Mississippi Guard Finance Office 
told them it was a "dead issue," the unit chose not to contact the 
Inspector General's office. The official told us that he informed the 
soldiers that they could not get reimbursed without the approval of the 
Fort Hood officials. As a result, we estimated, based on the 
proportional meal rate for Fort Hood, that these 76 Army Guard soldiers 
were not reimbursed for approximately $6,000 each, totaling about 
$456,000, for their meals from February 2003 to January 2004, when they 
were demobilized. 

In another case, Georgia Army Guard soldiers were frustrated by large 
debts when DFAS CTO retroactively disallowed the locality meal rate 
authorized by command officials. 

Case Study Illustration: Decisions on Meals Eligibility Result in 
Overpayments and Large Debts; 

The soldiers from Georgia's 190[TH] Military Police Company reported to 
Fort Benning, Georgia, in October 2001 for mobilization processing. The 
unit of 101 soldiers experienced problems regarding per diem for meals 
when they were subsequently deployed from October 2001 through March 
2002 to Fort McPherson, Georgia, which was near the homes of many of 
the soldiers. Soldiers told us there was confusion over who would be 
entitled to per diem for meals because Fort McPherson had not 
established a local commuting area. Certain soldiers were granted SNAs, 
signifying their eligibility for per diem for meals, based on the 
locality meal rate for the area. Relying on the determinations, 
soldiers requested and received per diem for meals, some in excess of 
$10,000, for the period they were at Fort McPherson; 

In August 2002, Fort McPherson established a local commuting area. When 
DFAS CTO processed the soldiers' final settlement vouchers at the end 
of the deployment, DFAS CTO used the newly established commuting area 
to determine eligibility for per diem for the whole period. This 
resulted in DFAS CTO retroactively disallowing per diem and creating 
debts totaling approximately $200,000 for 32 soldiers, several in 
excess of $10,000. Debt collections were initiated against the 
soldiers' pay while they were in Iraq on a second mobilization in 2003, 
creating adverse financial impacts on the soldiers and their families. 
The 190[TH] unit commander was able to get the debt collections 
suspended until they returned from Iraq. Following demobilization, debt 
collections were reinstituted and are currently being made against the 
soldiers' monthly drill pay. During our audit, many of these soldiers 
still had unresolved and unpaid debts on their records, two in excess 
of $10,000; 

We requested that DFAS CTO review all of the records to determine 
whether the soldiers were properly reimbursed for travel entitlements, 
and whether the debt amounts were correct. DFAS CTO officials agreed 
and at the conclusion of our audit were in the process of determining 
who was entitled to per diem while at Fort McPherson. 

These cases illustrate the effects of guidance that does not clearly 
identify eligibility criteria and leaves meal eligibility 
determinations to the interpretation of individual commands. Although 
it would not be practical to develop guidance for every possible travel 
scenario, we noted that the JFTR included useful situational examples 
to assist decision makers in determining nonavailability related to 
lodging and meals, while the PPG lacked similar specific contingency 
travel examples. 

Lack of specific entitlements on orders. Army and Army Guard policies 
and procedures do not provide for mobilization orders issued to Army 
Guard soldiers to clearly state that these soldiers should not be 
required to pay for meals provided to them at government dining 
facilities. In the case study units we reviewed, we found several 
instances in which mobilization orders either stated nothing about meal 
entitlements or stated, "Government mess will be used," or "Government 
quarters and dining facilities are available and directed." As a 
result, we noted instances in which mobilized soldiers arrived at 
government mess halls carrying mobilization orders that did not 
specifically state that the soldiers could eat free of charge and were 
inappropriately required to pay for their meals. 

The PPG states, "TCS soldiers who are on government installations with 
dining facilities are directed to use mess facilities. These soldiers 
are not required to pay for their meals."[Footnote 26] In addition, the 
PPG states, "Basic Allowance for Subsistence will not be reduced when 
government mess is used for soldiers in a contingency 
operation."[Footnote 27] However, the PPG does not provide guidance 
addressing the content of mobilization orders for Army Guard soldiers. 
As a result, unless the orders contain the appropriate statements about 
meal entitlements, installations sometimes inappropriately charge Army 
Guard soldiers for their meals. 

In response to questions we posed to officials representing the 
Mississippi Adjutant General's office regarding why mobilization orders 
did not include adequate provisions about food entitlements, they 
explained that the individual mobilization orders that are prepared by 
the Adjutant General's staff are very basic and include only the travel 
allowances and actions that are necessary to get the individual from 
the home station to the mobilization station. The Adjutant General's 
office received no guidance on what should be stated in the orders with 
respect to soldiers eating free of charge at government installations 
or any other conditions that may entitle Army Guard soldiers to per 
diem to compensate them for their out-of-pocket meal costs. 

We discussed the problem of unclear mobilization orders with Army 
officials during our audit. In response to our concerns, Army officials 
agreed to modify the guidance on what to include in mobilization orders 
with respect to meals and lodging entitlements. 

As a result of the unclear orders, many Guard soldiers had to 
inappropriately pay for meals and were unable to obtain reimbursement 
for their out-of-pocket costs in a timely manner. The following example 
shows the effects of that problem. 

Case Study Illustration: Guard Unit Required to Pay for Meals at Army 
Mess Hall; 

When the Mississippi 20[TH] Special Forces Group (SFG) reported to its 
mobilization station at Fort Carson, Colorado, on January 10, 2002, the 
soldiers were assigned to on-post housing at the Fort Carson Colorado 
Inn. They were told that the government dining facility nearest to 
their lodging was approximately 1 mile away. When the soldiers went to 
eat at the dining facility, they were told that they had to pay for 
their meals because their orders did not indicate they could eat free. 
Consequently, the soldiers either (1) continued to pay for their meals 
at the government dining facility, (2) purchased groceries and cooked 
in their rooms, or (3) ate at local restaurants. The dining facility 
manager told us that if the soldier's orders did not specifically 
indicate government meals at no cost, then his staff was instructed to 
charge the soldier for meals; 

The administrative noncommissioned officer for the Mississippi 20[TH] 
SFG learned from a soldier in a different group, that he was being 
reimbursed the locality rate (which at that time was $36 per day) for 
meals purchased at his own expense. In July 2002, the unit's 
administrative noncommissioned officer raised the meals issue with the 
unit's chain of command, but it was not until October 2002 that 
Headquarters, 10th SFG, Fort Carson issued amended orders for the 20th 
SFG. The orders retroactively authorized meal per diem of $11 per day 
to the soldiers of the 20th SFG, allowing them to be partially 
reimbursed for their out-of-pocket expenses from January 2002 to 
October 2002. The orders also authorized the soldiers to eat in the 
dining facility at no charge beginning in October 2002. As of the end 
of our audit, the administrative noncommissioned officer estimated that 
$150,000 was still to be paid to 75 soldiers. 

In another instance, Army Guard soldiers called to federal duty under 
the authority of Title 32 for security missions in late 2001 and early 
2002 experienced significant delays in getting reimbursed for travel 
expenditures. The soldiers were provided lodging but not meals and were 
not authorized per diem for meals on their orders. Many months elapsed 
during which the Army Guard Adjutant General for each state command 
with authority over the respective soldiers and Army Guard officials 
worked to obtain and provide the proper authorization to reimburse all 
the soldiers' travel expenses. In the interim, Army Guard soldiers 
experienced financial hardships. The following case study chronicles 
one story about these soldiers' experiences. 

Case Study Illustration: Colorado Army Guard Soldiers Experience 
Financial Hardship; 

In March 2002, the Colorado National Guard HQ 140[TH] Signal Company 
received orders to provide security at the Denver International 
Airport, Denver, Colorado. For mission related reasons, the soldiers 
were required to remain overnight at their duty station for an extended 
period in government-provided housing, but their orders did not 
authorize per diem for meals. Although the government provided housing, 
meals were not included, and the soldiers had to obtain meals from 
commercial establishments; 

In July 2002, the Adjutant General of the Colorado Army National Guard 
sent a letter to the Director of the Army National Guard Financial 
Services Center, requesting that actions be taken to resolve the per 
diem and other related issues. In December 2002, the letter was 
forwarded by the Army National Guard Financial Services Center to the 
Army National Guard Readiness Center for "consideration and action."; 

In June 2003, the Army National Guard Readiness Center issued a 
memorandum for the financial managers of all states, Guam, Puerto Rico, 
the Virgin Islands, and the District of Columbia, which communicated 
the receipt of approval from the Assistant Secretary of the Army - 
Manpower and Reserve Affairs to provide retroactive redress of the per 
diem and other issues affecting the Colorado and other Guard soldiers; 

In September 2003, 18 months after the soldiers incurred out-of-pocket 
expenses averaging over $1,400 each, the Colorado USPFO began paying 
reimbursements to the soldiers. Some of these soldiers suffered adverse 
financial impact resulting from the delays in reimbursement. For 
example, one soldier told us his government travel card was canceled 
due to nonpayment, another soldier's family had to rely on the spouse's 
salary to pay bills, and another's child support payments were late or 
less than the minimum required payments. 

Confusing, nonstandard SNAs. Lack of standardization and changing 
guidance has resulted in SNAs of various form and content, signed by 
officials at different levels of authority. Consequently, travel 
computation office reviewers were unable to consistently determine the 
validity of SNAs. Our case studies identified travel computation 
reviewers who have rejected soldiers' requests for reimbursements even 
though they were supported by valid SNAs. 

The most recent PPG guidance authorizes the installation commander to 
determine whether to issue an SNA[Footnote 28] based on each unit's 
situation and the availability of government housing.[Footnote 29] The 
guidance states that when government or government-contracted quarters 
are not available, soldiers will be provided certificates or statements 
of non-availability for both lodging and meals to authorize per diem. 
However, the guidance does not specify the form and content of the 
SNAs. Consequently, at several case study units, we found that the form 
of the SNA and the content of the information on the form varied at the 
discretion of the issuing command. For example, one installation 
stamped the soldiers' orders and handwrote an SNA identification number 
in a block provided by the stamp. Another location provided a written 
memo that stated that the meal component of per diem was authorized 
because there were no food facilities at the government installation. 
Another provided a single SNA with a roster attached that listed the 
names of the soldiers who were authorized per diem. The variety of SNA 
formats can cause confusion for the soldier, who does not know what 
documentation is needed for reimbursement and whether the travel 
computation office will accept it. The travel computation office 
personnel can also be confused about the criteria for a valid SNA, as 
illustrated by the following case study. 

Case Study Illustration: SNAs for Meal Reimbursement Not Consistently 
Accepted; 

Sixty-five soldiers in B Company, 20[TH] Special Forces of the Virginia 
Army National Guard received orders to mobilize to Fort Bragg, North 
Carolina in early 2002. After about 3 weeks, the unit moved to 
government contracted quarters off-post and soldiers were authorized 
proportional per diem for two meals a day during their Fort Bragg duty 
period. After returning from overseas duty, 51 soldiers prepared and 
submitted their final travel vouchers, with identical SNA documents 
attached, to DFAS CTO in November and December 2002. Some of the 
soldiers' meal component per diem claims were approved and paid by 
DFAS; others were not. Inconsistent recognition and acceptance of 
identical SNAs resulted in 24 soldiers receiving timely reimbursements 
and 12 soldiers receiving late reimbursements after having to resubmit 
their vouchers with additional documentation to receive their 
proportional per diem. Furthermore, at the time we completed our audit 
of B Company's travel vouchers in May 2004, approximately 22 percent of 
the soldiers (14 of 65) still had not received the majority of their 
proportional per diem entitlement. Travel reimbursements, ranging from 
about $1,600 to over $3,500, had not been made to these 14 soldiers. In 
June 2004, DFAS CTO processed vouchers for 10 of the 14 soldiers and 
made final payments for meal expenses they incurred during their Fort 
Bragg duty. The remaining 4 soldiers had not been paid at the 
completion of our audit. 

Our work found instances in which installation commands denied 
soldiers' requests for SNAs. In response to our inquiries, we found 
that commands do not generally document their rationale for denying 
SNAs and there is no requirement for them to do so. This lack of 
documentation can leave soldiers even more confused and frustrated when 
seeking answers as to why their requests for per diem were denied. 
GAO's Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government require 
the maintenance of related records and appropriate documentation that 
provides evidence of execution of control activities. 

Late Payment Interest and Fees Guidance Thwarts Intent of the Law: 

Inappropriate policy and guidance, issued by DFAS Indianapolis, 
combined with the lack of systems or processes designed to identify and 
pay late payment interest and fees, leave DOD in continued 
noncompliance with TTRA. As a result, through at least April 2004, DFAS 
Indianapolis had made no required payments of late payment interest 
and/or late payment fees to soldiers for travel reimbursements paid 
later than 30 days after the submission of a proper voucher. For 
example, of 139 individual vouchers we selected to determine why these 
took a long time to process, we identified 75 vouchers that were 
properly submitted by Army Guard soldiers that should have received 
late payment interest totaling about $1,400. Some of these vouchers may 
also have warranted a late payment fee in addition to the late payment 
interest. 

In addition, DFAS data showed indications that thousands of other 
soldiers may be due late payment interest. For example, during the 
period October 1, 2001, through November 30, 2003, dates in the DFAS 
Operational Data Store showed that about 85,000 vouchers filed by 
mobilized Army Guard soldiers were paid more than 60 days after the 
date travel ended. If the dates on these vouchers were correct, the 
soldiers who submitted proper vouchers within 5 days of the date travel 
ended would be entitled to late payment interest if they were not paid 
within the 30-day limit. 

TTRA and federal travel regulations[Footnote 30] require the payment of 
a late payment fee consisting of (1) late payment interest, generally 
equivalent to the Prompt Payment Act Interest Rate, plus (2) a late 
payment fee equivalent to the late payment charge, which could have 
been charged by the government travel card contractor. Late payment 
interest and fees are to be paid to soldiers if their reimbursements 
are not paid within 30 days of the submission of a proper voucher. 

In our 2002 report on Army travel cards[Footnote 31] we reported DFAS 
noncompliance with TTRA due to the lack of procedures and necessary 
systems and data to make the required computations. In response to our 
recommendations in that report, DFAS revised its procedures in April 
2003. Until that time, DFAS required individual soldiers to submit 
requests for late payment interest and fees if they believed their 
vouchers were paid late. According to DOD's FMR, the traveler was 
required to submit a supplemental voucher[Footnote 32] through his or 
her supervisor/approving official requesting the payment.[Footnote 33]

The 2003 guidance[Footnote 34] issued by DFAS Indianapolis stated that 
Army travel computation offices would identify vouchers for late 
payment interest and fees rather than require individual soldiers to 
take the initiative to file claims for late payment interest and fees. 
However, DFAS's interpretation of the guidance limited the payment of 
late payment interest and fees to only the final settlement travel 
voucher[Footnote 35] for all travel under a particular travel order. 
This practice contributed to continued noncompliance with the law 
because it effectively excluded large numbers of monthly or accrual 
vouchers[Footnote 36] from consideration of late payment interest and 
fees. In response to our inquiries, DFAS officials told us that as of 
April 2004, they had not paid any late payment interest or fees to 
soldiers because no final settlement vouchers were paid late. 

We questioned DFAS officials about their decision to exclude accrual 
vouchers from potential payment of late payment interest and fees. As a 
result, DFAS issued new guidance dated May 2004 to clarify that all 
travel voucher reimbursements are subject to late payment interest and 
fees. However, the provision in DOD's FMR pertaining to this issue 
continues to require that individual soldiers request the late payment 
interest and fees. Furthermore, due to automated systems issues 
discussed later, DFAS does not have the capability to automatically 
identify late vouchers or calculate the late payment interest and fees. 
Consequently, travel computation offices have to use manual procedures 
to identify late vouchers and make manual calculations. Additionally, 
the new guidance directs reviewers to sign travel vouchers on the same 
day that they are submitted and then establishes the reviewers' 
signature date as the date of submission of a proper voucher.[Footnote 
37] We are unaware of any control procedure to monitor that reviewers 
are complying with the requirement. 

Subsequent to DFAS's dissemination of the new guidance, we found 
numerous late vouchers for which DFAS did not pay late payment interest 
and fees. For example, the final vouchers for 63 soldiers with the 
Georgia Army National Guard's 190TH Military Police Company were 
processed late in April 2004 without payment of late payment interest 
or fees, even though they were covered by DFAS guidance issued in 2003. 
The vouchers were approved by unit reviewers on February 6, 2004, and 
were submitted to the Georgia USPFO on February 10, 2004, for 
additional review to identify any deficiencies that may cause the 
vouchers to be rejected. Due to the USPFO's workload and the 
unavailability of appropriate personnel to review the vouchers, the 
vouchers remained at the USPFO from February 10, 2004 until April 2, 
2004. DFAS CTO eventually received the vouchers on April 9, 2004, and 
paid them on April 27, 2004. The payments were made a total of 81 days 
after the supervisory signatures, thus making the payments 51 days over 
the 30 days allowed for payment. According to a DFAS official, DFAS's 
manual procedures did not detect the vouchers as needing late payment 
interest and fees. Travel clerks were supposed to review dates of 
supervisory signatures to determine if the 30-day limit was exceeded 
and thus require the payment of late payment interest and fees. We 
notified DFAS officials of the oversight and they subsequently made the 
interest payments. A DFAS official also informed us that additional 
changes to DFAS's manual procedures were being made to ensure that late 
vouchers are properly identified and late payment interest and fees 
paid. Because these changes in procedure were so recent, we could not 
evaluate their effectiveness. 

Human Capital Issues Affect Timely and Accurate Reimbursements to 
Mobilized Army Guard Soldiers: 

We found that weaknesses related to human capital contributed to travel 
reimbursement problems. These weaknesses include (1) a lack of 
leadership and oversight and (2) a lack of adequate training provided 
to Army Guard soldiers and travel computation office examiners. GAO's 
Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government state that 
effective human capital practices are critical to establishing and 
maintaining a strong internal control environment. Specifically, 
management should take steps to ensure that its organization can 
promptly identify problems and respond to changing needs, and that 
appropriate human capital practices are in place and operating 
effectively. Without an overall leadership structure in place, neither 
the Army nor the Army Guard had developed and implemented processwide 
monitoring and performance metrics necessary to promptly identify and 
resolve problems causing late-paid travel vouchers. We also found that 
lack of adequate soldier training was a contributing factor to some 
travel voucher processing deficiencies. For example, several Army Guard 
soldiers with whom we spoke told us that they had received either 
inadequate or no training on travel voucher preparation and review. In 
addition, a DFAS CTO official told us that the on-the-job training 
provided to its new personnel in early 2003 initially proved to be 
inadequate in the wake of the hundreds of thousands of travel vouchers 
that flooded their offices subsequent to the mobilization surge during 
this period. To its credit, during fiscal year 2004, DFAS CTO enhanced 
its training program for voucher examiners. 

Lack of Leadership and Oversight: 

No one office or individual was responsible for the end-to-end Army 
Guard travel reimbursement process. The lack of overall leadership and 
fragmented accountability precluded the development of strong 
overarching internal controls, particularly in the area of program 
monitoring. Neither the Army nor the Army Guard were systematically 
using performance metrics to gain agencywide insight into the nature 
and extent of the delays to measure performance and to identify and 
correct systemic problems. Our Standards for Internal Control in the 
Federal Government require agencies to have internal control procedures 
that include top-level reviews by management that compare actual 
performance to expected results and analyze significant differences. 

As shown in figure 6, internal reports prepared by DFAS CTO show that 
missing travel orders was the primary reason why it did not accept 
vouchers for payment. DFAS CTO reported that it rejected 104,000, or 
approximately 17 percent, of 609,000 vouchers during the period July 
2003 through September 2004, with missing travel authorizations 
accounting for over half of the rejected vouchers. While this churning 
process appeared to be a primary factor in payment delays and soldier 
frustration, DFAS CTO, Army, or Army Guard offices had not performed 
additional research to determine the root cause of this and other 
voucher deficiencies. 

Figure 6: Army Reserve and Army Guard Travel Vouchers Returned by DFAS 
CTO from July 2003 through September 2004: 

[See PDF for image] 

[End of figure] 

Similarly, our analysis of a selection of individual travel vouchers 
also disclosed that some vouchers were returned to soldiers because of 
missing documentation or the lack of required signatures. However, 
neither DOD management officials nor we could determine the root cause 
of all instances of missing information. Some soldiers told us that 
DFAS CTO lost documentation that they had submitted. DFAS CTO also 
experienced problems with faxed vouchers, which caused vouchers and 
supporting documentation not to be printed and processed in some cases. 
According to a DFAS CTO official, DFAS was unaware that faxed vouchers 
were not printing until a soldier complained that DFAS was not 
receiving his faxes. DFAS did not monitor incoming faxes, even though 
it reported that faxed travel vouchers account for approximately 60 
percent of the total mobilized Army Guard and Reserve travel vouchers 
it received. These problems obstructed the normal handling of a number 
of those vouchers. In an effort to resolve this problem, DFAS CTO, in 
March 2004, ceased relying on an automatic print function of the fax 
system software and began manually printing vouchers. 

As shown in figure 7, our audit of a nonrepresentative selection of 139 
travel vouchers (69 computed by DFAS CTO and 70 by USPFOs) found 
significant delays occurred between the date of the reviewer's 
signature and the date that the travel computation office accepted the 
voucher. Some of these delays were caused by the time needed to correct 
vouchers that were deficient and resubmit them to DFAS CTO or another 
USPFO travel computation office. 

Figure 7: Time Intervals between Reviewer Approval and Travel 
Computation Office Acceptance for 139 Selected Travel Vouchers: 

[See PDF for image] 

[End of figure] 

We determined that the travel computation office rejected 32 of the 72 
travel vouchers delayed for more than 3 days because of missing 
documentation or the lack of required signatures and sent them back to 
the soldiers for corrections. A lack of documentation or other 
information prevented us from determining the reason for delays of more 
than 3 days for the remaining travel vouchers. 

In one case, an Army Guard soldier from Texas waited over 9 months to 
be paid. The soldier prepared and submitted a travel voucher for $765 
and signed it on August 28, 2002. His unit supervisor signed the 
voucher as reviewed on the same day. The travel computation office 
rejected the voucher and sent it back to the soldier because the proper 
documentation was not attached. The travel computation office returned 
the voucher to the soldier a second time because it did not have the 
necessary signatures. A complete travel voucher was finally received 
and accepted by the travel computation office on April 25, 2003, 240 
days after the unit's initial review and was not paid until mid-June 
2003. 

The Army's lack of processwide oversight, including monitoring of the 
rejection and return of vouchers by DFAS CTO and other travel 
computation offices, resulted in undetected delays in reimbursement, 
leading to unnecessary frustration with the Army's travel and 
reimbursement process and potential financial difficulty for the 
soldier. Further, without establishing and monitoring program metrics, 
management had no assurance that it had identified where the breakdowns 
were occurring and could not take the appropriate steps to resolve any 
identified problems. For example, although the Army relied on the 
individual unit reviewer for assurance that travel vouchers were 
properly reviewed and transmitted promptly to the travel computation 
offices, the Army did not establish and monitor performance metrics to 
hold these reviewers accountable for their critical role in the 
process. 

DFAS CTO officials told us that they have taken several steps to reduce 
the number of vouchers being returned to the soldiers due to missing 
signatures and missing mobilization orders. DFAS and the National Guard 
Financial Services Center--a field operating agency of the Chief, 
National Guard Bureau, that performs selected financial services-- 
entered into a Memorandum of Agreement effective February 2004 whereby 
DFAS will obtain the assistance of the National Guard to address 
problems with certain vouchers that would otherwise be returned to 
soldiers. According to DFAS CTO data, since the implementation of the 
agreement through the end of fiscal year 2004, 13,523 travel vouchers 
were coordinated with the National Guard in this manner rather than 
initially being sent back to the soldiers for correction. However, we 
did not assess the effectiveness of these changes in reducing the 
number of vouchers that ultimately are returned to soldiers or in 
reducing the time necessary to process and pay vouchers. 

Although metrics were available on the average time DFAS CTO took to 
pay travel vouchers after receipt, the Army did not have statistical 
data on supplemental vouchers that could help provide additional 
insight into the extent and cause of processing errors or omissions by 
voucher examiners, unit reviewers, or Army Guard soldiers. Several of 
our case studies indicate that accuracy may be an important issue. For 
example, one method DFAS CTO uses to correct a voucher error or 
omission is to process a supplemental voucher.[Footnote 38] According 
to DFAS data, DFAS CTO processed about 251,000 vouchers related to Army 
Guard soldiers mobilized during the period October 1, 2001, through 
November 30, 2003, of which over 10,600 were supplemental vouchers. 
However, DFAS CTO officials could not tell us how many of these were 
due to errors or omissions by DFAS examiners or other factors. Our 
audit of 69 supplemental vouchers for the California 185TH case study 
unit showed that 41 were due to DFAS CTO errors and the remaining 28 
were due to errors or omissions on the part of the soldiers. Because 
DFAS CTO has not analyzed or tracked the extent or cause of 
supplemental vouchers to establish performance benchmarks, it has 
missed an opportunity to help identify recurring problems and solutions 
as well as measure improvements or deterioration in the effectiveness 
of the travel reimbursement program over time. 

Finally, we noted that although DFAS CTO established a toll-free number 
(1-888-332-7366) for questions related to Army Guard and Reserve 
contingency travel, DFAS did not have performance metrics to identify 
problem areas or gauge the effectiveness of this customer service 
effort. For example, DFAS did not systematically record the nature of 
the calls to the toll-free number. According to DFAS data, this number, 
staffed by 30 DFAS employees, received over 15,000 calls in June 2004. 
By monitoring the types of calls and the nature of the problems 
reported, important information could have been developed to help 
target areas where training or improved guidance may be warranted. 
Further, DFAS had not established performance metrics for its call 
takers in terms of the effectiveness of resolved cases or overall 
customer service. 

Inadequate Training Results in Late or Inaccurate Reimbursements: 

Although Army regulations specify the responsibilities of soldiers, 
they do not require that soldiers be trained on travel entitlements and 
their role in the travel reimbursement process. Some of the Army Guard 
soldiers that we spoke with told us that they had received either 
inadequate or no training on travel voucher preparation and review. In 
addition, a DFAS CTO official told us that the on-the-job-training 
provided to its new personnel in early 2003 initially proved to be 
inadequate. To its credit, during fiscal year 2004, DFAS CTO enhanced 
its training program for voucher examiners. Army Guard soldiers in our 
case studies told us that they asked DFAS representatives or used the 
Internet in attempts to find, interpret, and apply DFAS guidance, which 
by itself proved to be insufficient and required many trial and error 
attempts to properly prepare travel vouchers. As a result, many 
soldiers did not receive their travel payments on time. 

The lack of well-trained personnel can undermine the effectiveness of 
any system of travel expense reimbursement. Well-trained and informed 
personnel, conscientiously performing their assigned duties, are 
especially essential in the paper-driven, labor-intensive, manual, 
error-prone environment of the Army's current travel authorization and 
reimbursement process. 

Army Guard soldiers. Army Guard soldiers in our case studies told us 
that they were confused about their responsibilities in the travel 
voucher reimbursement process because they had not been sufficiently 
trained in travel voucher processes related to mobilization. For 
example, prior to September 11, 2001, most travel guidance addressed 
the criteria for single trips or sequential trips and was not always 
clearly applicable to situations in which Army Guard soldiers could be 
authorized short intervals of travel for temporary duty at different 
locations within their longer term mobilization. This "overlapping 
travel" proved to be problematic for Army Guard soldiers trying to 
understand their travel voucher filing requirements and travel 
computation office examiners responsible for reviewing travel vouchers. 

In addition, we found indications that some soldiers were not aware of 
DOD's requirement to complete a travel voucher within 5 days of the end 
of travel or the end of every 30-day period in cases of extended 
travel. For example, as shown in figure 8, in our selection of 139 
vouchers, 99 (71 percent) of the Army Guard soldiers did not meet the 5-
day requirement. Fifty-two Army Guard soldiers submitted their vouchers 
more than 1 year late. 

Figure 8: Timing from the End of Travel to Soldier Submissions for 139 
Selected Travel Vouchers: 

[See PDF for image] 

[End of figure] 

Of the 59 Army Guard soldiers that we could locate and interview, 23 
said that they lacked understanding about procedures, or lacked 
knowledge or training about the filing requirements. Eight Army Guard 
soldiers said that they procrastinated or forgot to file their travel 
vouchers on time. The remaining 28 said that they could not remember 
anything about the specific voucher we asked about or did not respond 
to our inquiries. Several soldiers offered their perspectives on their 
lack of understanding about certain requirements. 

Case Study Illustration: Lack of Understanding of SNA Requirements; 

A soldier with the Pennsylvania National Guard 1[ST] Battalion, 103rd 
Armor, whose active duty was extended to perform duties at Fluck Armory 
in Freidens, Pennsylvania, after his overseas duties were completed, 
was unaware that he needed an SNA to justify reimbursement of his out- 
of-pocket costs. He told us that he assumed the Army would have given 
him the documentation he needed to support his travel voucher. When his 
voucher was not paid, he contacted DFAS CTO to determine the reason for 
the delay. DFAS CTO claimed that it had not received his voucher. After 
several resubmissions, he received a payment in July 2003 that was 
about $1,500 less than what he expected. He also received an e-mail 
notification from DFAS CTO that stated, "SNA needed for lodging at 
Friedens, PA." The soldier told us that he did not know what SNA meant 
or how to obtain an SNA. Eventually, the soldier was able to obtain an 
SNA from the commanding officer of the Pennsylvania 876th Engineers. In 
February 2004, about 11 months after he completed his assignment at 
Fluck Armory, DFAS paid the soldier about $1,600 for his lodging and 
meal expenses. 

The following example illustrates a unit administrator's experience and 
frustration in having to duplicate his efforts to obtain a single 
month's travel expenses for 37 soldiers in his unit. 

Case Study Illustration: Lack of Understanding of Documentation 
Requirements; 

A unit administrator with the Pennsylvania National Guard's 876[TH] 
Engineer Battalion told us that he was unaware that he needed to attach 
a copy of the mobilization order and TCS order to each travel voucher 
before he submitted vouchers to DFAS CTO for each of the 37 soldiers in 
his unit. He explained that there was only one block on the travel 
voucher form to insert a single order number. He attached the TCS 
order, incorrectly assuming that the DFAS CTO examiner would know that 
the soldiers, being in an Army Guard unit, could not have been on TCS 
duty in Germany performing installation security and force protection 
duties without having been mobilized. As a result, he was concerned 
when he and other soldiers were reimbursed for the 1 week of their 
travel expenditures incurred in Germany, but not for the 3 weeks of 
expenses incurred during their initial duty at Fort Dix, New Jersey, 
where soldiers participated in mobilization training and other 
activities prior to overseas deployment. These expenses included 
transportation to Fort Dix, New Jersey, and daily incidental expenses. 
DFAS CTO asked him to submit new travel vouchers for this 3-week period 
with the mobilization order attached, which he did. The soldiers in 
this unit were collectively paid $7,400 about 4 weeks later, which 
represented the balance due on their initial travel vouchers. 

DFAS CTO personnel. DFAS CTO also had challenges training its examiner 
staff. The increase in mobilizations since September 11, 2001, and 
resulting increase in travel voucher submissions put a strain on DFAS 
CTO's ability to make prompt and accurate travel reimbursements to Army 
Guard soldiers. As discussed previously, DFAS CTO hired more than 200 
staff from October 2001 through July 2003, which brought the total 
number of staff to approximately 240. The training of these new 
employees was delivered on-the-job. Training time depended on the 
individual and type of work. For example, according to a DFAS CTO 
official, it took from 1 to 3 months for a voucher examiner to reach 
established standards. The DFAS CTO official told us that, in some 
cases, on-the-job training proved to be inadequate and contributed to 
travel reimbursement errors during this period. 

Two of our case studies indicated that mistakes by DFAS CTO contributed 
to reimbursement problems. For example, our California case study 
indicated that 33 soldiers were initially underpaid a total of almost 
$25,000 for meals, lodging, and incidental expenses when personnel at 
DFAS CTO selected an incorrect duty location and a corresponding 
incorrect per diem rate. Although these soldiers eventually received 
the amounts they were due, the corrections took months to resolve. 
Another example, described next, shows inconsistencies and errors in 
the payment of meal and incidental expense per diem to soldiers in a 
Pennsylvania Guard unit. 

Case Study Illustration: Pennsylvania Army National Guard Travel 
Reimbursement Problems; 

Pennsylvania Army National Guard soldiers from Company C, 876[TH] 
Engineer Battalion were deployed to Bad Aibling Station, Germany, in 
late July 2002, to augment active duty forces that were providing 
enhanced security at this installation. The 37 soldiers in Company C 
were authorized to purchase their meals because mess facilities were 
not available. Each month, the unit administrator prepared and 
submitted vouchers to DFAS CTO for reimbursement of meal and incidental 
expenses. Although each of the 37 soldiers should have received, in any 
given month, the same reimbursement amount, the actual payments to 
soldiers were not identical. For the first 3 months of their 
deployment, soldiers' travel reimbursements varied significantly. For 
example, for the September 2002 vouchers, payments ranged from $105 up 
to $1,655. Additionally, 3 soldiers did not receive payment on their 
September vouchers for several months. The unit administrator told us 
he contacted DFAS CTO numerous times to discuss the inconsistencies 
with soldiers' reimbursements, and DFAS CTO representatives provided 
specific payment amounts that soldiers should expect to receive. 
However, when incorrect payments continued, he said he was not sure 
that DFAS CTO knew what to pay the soldiers. This situation led to 
soldiers' confusion and frustration with the travel reimbursement 
process; 

The travel reimbursement errors that occurred throughout the deployment 
affected 36 of the 37 soldiers. Of the 36, 12 soldiers experienced at 
least one payment error and the remaining 24 soldiers experienced 
multiple payment errors. When DFAS CTO attempted to correct payment 
errors to soldiers by processing additional payments, the additional 
payments resulted in overpayments to 35 soldiers because DFAS CTO 
examiners made errors in determining the daily meal and incidental 
expense per diem rate. DFAS CTO caught some of these overpayments and 
processed collections on final vouchers. Fifteen soldiers received 
collection notices from DFAS on their final vouchers and, although most 
of these soldiers had debt amounts ranging from $200 to $300 dollars 
each, 1 soldier had almost $1,350 deducted from his final voucher 
payment; 

Although overpayments were collected from 15 soldiers in this unit, 
most of the remaining soldiers also received overpayments that have yet 
to be addressed. From the deployment period of late July 2002 to 
February 2003, the unit as a whole was reimbursed about $360,000. Of 
this amount, we determined that outstanding overpayments of over 
$11,200 remain. 

During fiscal year 2004, DFAS CTO worked toward improving staff 
training opportunities. For example, DFAS CTO used computer-based 
training to provide new personnel an initial overview of WINIATS and 
voucher computation procedures. In addition, a DFAS CTO official told 
us that a 40-hour course, which was designed specifically to address 
the types of vouchers received by DFAS CTO, has been established to 
train new employees. Further, according to the official, one benefit of 
the classroom instruction compared to on-the-job training is that it 
does not affect the productivity of experienced examiners, who 
previously were tasked with providing immediate on-the-job-training to 
new hires in addition to their primary duties. 

System Problems Hamper Travel Reimbursement Process: 

Coupled with the process flaws and human capital issues previously 
addressed in this report, the lack of systems integration and 
automation along with other systems deficiencies contributed 
significantly to the travel reimbursement problems we identified. The 
lack of integrated and automated systems results in the existing 
inefficient, paper-intensive, and error-prone travel reimbursement 
process. These problems are also a major factor in the churning issue 
discussed previously--the thousands of vouchers that are rejected and 
returned for missing documentation. Specifically, the Army does not 
have automated systems for some critical Army Guard travel process 
functions, such as preparation of travel vouchers, SNAs, and TCS 
orders, which precludes the electronic sharing of data by the various 
travel computation offices. Further, system design flaws impede 
management's ability to comply with TTRA, analyze timeliness of travel 
reimbursements, and take corrective action as necessary. 

Lack of Integrated Systems: 

The key DOD systems involved in authorizing and reimbursing travel 
expenses to mobilized Army Guard soldiers are not integrated. In 
January 1995, the DOD Task Force to Reengineer Travel issued a 
report[Footnote 39] stating that this was a principal cause of the 
inefficient travel system. As we have reported and testified,[Footnote 
40] decades-old financial management problems related to the 
proliferation of systems, due in part to DOD components receiving and 
controlling their own information technology investment funding, result 
in the current fragmented, nonstandardized systems. Lacking either an 
integrated or effectively interfaced set of travel authorization, 
voucher preparation, and reimbursement systems, the Army Guard must 
rely on a time-consuming collection of source documents and error-prone 
manual entry of data into a travel voucher computation system, as shown 
in figure 9. 

Figure 9: Overview of the Design of Systems and Travel Applications 
Used for Army Guard Travel: 

[See PDF for image] 

[End of figure] 

With an effectively integrated system, changes to personnel records, 
such as mobilization orders, would automatically transfer to the travel 
pay system. While not as efficient as an integrated system, an 
automatic personnel-to-travel pay system interface can reduce delays 
caused by the return of vouchers for missing travel authorizations. 
Without an effective interface between the personnel and travel pay 
systems, we found instances in which travel vouchers were returned to 
soldiers due to missing travel authorizations, causing significant time 
delays. For example, DOD took almost 500 days to pay a California Army 
Guard soldier his travel pay. This extensive delay was due in part to 
the soldier not submitting a paper copy of his mobilization order. If 
the system that created the mobilization order had interfaced with the 
travel voucher computation system, a portion of Army Guard and Army 
Reserve vouchers returned by DFAS CTO--a significant problem as 
discussed previously--could have been eliminated. This, in turn, would 
increase the efficiency and effectiveness of the process by reducing 
paper, reducing the return voucher workload at DFAS CTO, and decreasing 
the time to reimburse the soldiers. 

Further, the lack of an integrated travel system and consequent 
"workarounds" increase the risk of errors and create the current 
inefficient process. As noted previously, several separate WINIATS 
systems at DFAS and the USPFOs can process travel vouchers for 
mobilized Army Guard soldiers. These databases operate on separate 
local area networks that do not exchange or share data with other 
travel computation offices to ensure travel reimbursements have not 
already been paid. Instead, as shown in figure 9, multiple WINIATS 
systems transmit data to the DFAS Operational Data Store (ODS)--a 
separate database that stores disbursement transactions. As a result, 
when a soldier submits a voucher, voucher examiners must resort to 
extraction and manual review of data from ODS. Next, voucher examiners 
research and calculate previous payments--advances or interim payments-
-made by other Army WINIATS systems. This information is then manually 
entered into WINIATS for it to compute the correct travel reimbursement 
for the current claim. In addition to being time consuming, this manual 
workaround can also lead to mistakes. For example, a Michigan soldier 
was overpaid $1,384 when two travel computation offices paid him for 
travel expenses incurred during the same period in August and September 
2002. This overpayment was detected by DFAS CTO when the soldier filed 
his final voucher in August 2003. 

Lack of Automated Systems: 

DOD lacks an automated system for preparing travel vouchers, which 
hinders the travel reimbursement process. As shown in figure 9, 
soldiers manually prepare their paper travel vouchers and attach many 
paper travel authorizations and receipts and distribute them via mail, 
fax, or e-mail to one of the travel computation offices. The lack of an 
automated system increases the risk of missing documents in voucher 
submissions, which results in an increased number of vouchers rejected 
and returned by DFAS CTO. Another consequence of this inefficient 
process is the need for additional staff to process the vouchers, as 
discussed earlier in this report. In addition, the Army currently lacks 
a centralized system to issue uniquely numbered and standard formatted 
SNAs regarding housing and dining facilities for mobilized soldiers. 
The lack of centralized standard data precludes electronic linking with 
any voucher computation system and the reduction of paperwork for 
individual soldiers, as they must obtain and accumulate various paper 
authorizations to submit with their vouchers. 

Further, the Army lacks an automated system for producing TCS orders. 
As illustrated at the top of figure 9, the various mobilization 
stations use a word processing program to type and print each 
individual TCS order to move a soldier to such places as Afghanistan 
and Iraq. Similar to the process for SNAs, mobilization stations 
maintain separate document files for each TCS order issued. The absence 
of a standard automated system used by each of the mobilization 
stations prevents the Army from electronically sharing TCS data with 
other systems, such as a voucher computation system. Consequently, the 
process will remain vulnerable to delays for returned voucher 
submissions as mobilized Army Guard soldiers continue to receive paper 
SNAs and TCS orders. Finally, even if the Army automates the TCS, SNA, 
and voucher preparation processes, as discussed previously, these new 
automated systems would need to be either integrated or interfaced with 
a voucher computation system to decrease the amount of time from 
initiation of travel to final settlement of travel expenses. 

Other System Problems: 

In addition to being stand-alone, nonintegrated systems that do not 
have the capability to exchange/share information, the over 60 separate 
WINIATS systems at DFAS and the USPFOs that can process travel vouchers 
for mobilized Army Guard soldiers do not consistently capture critical 
dates useful for management oversight and tracking. As a result, 
complete and accurate information is not transmitted to ODS--the 
separate DFAS database that stores disbursement transactions--and is 
not available for a variety of management needs. Specifically, many 
Army Guard USPFOs were not populating key data fields in WINIATS, such 
as the voucher preparation date, supervisor review date, and the travel 
computation office receipt date. According to our Standards for 
Internal Control in the Federal Government, information should be 
recorded and communicated to management and others within the entity 
who need it, in a form and within a time frame that enables them to 
carry out their responsibilities. 

These dates are key in providing DOD management with the information 
necessary to comply with TTRA, which requires DOD to reimburse soldiers 
for interest and fees when travel vouchers are paid late. In addition, 
these dates are essential in providing management with performance 
information that can help DOD improve its travel reimbursement process. 
A March 2003 report[Footnote 41] by DFAS Internal Review noted 39 
percent of the claims it audited did not have the date of receipt in 
the travel computation office or the date the supervisor approved the 
voucher recorded in WINIATS. In April 2003, DFAS Indianapolis directed 
all travel computation offices using WINIATS to input the key dates of 
preparation, review, and receipt by a travel computation office. Our 
analysis of 622,821 Army Guard travel voucher transactions filed from 
October 1, 2001, through November 30, 2003, and processed by DFAS CTO 
and the USPFOs found that at least one of these key dates was not 
recorded in ODS for 453,351, or approximately 73 percent, of the 
transactions. Further, when we questioned the 54 USPFOs in March 2004, 
33 of the 41 that responded told us that they were not capturing all of 
these critical dates. Many respondents were unaware that WINIATS could 
collect these dates. 

In cases in which the key dates necessary to perform the evaluation 
were being captured, incorrect entries were not detected. A WINIATS 
representative told us that the system was not designed with certain 
edit checks to detect data anomalies such as those caused by erroneous 
data entry. We found that 52 of 191 in our nonrepresentative selection 
of travel vouchers filed by soldiers had incorrect dates recorded in 
ODS (e.g., the date of supervisory review predated the date of travel 
ended by nearly a year) and that these data entry errors were not 
detected. Without system edit checks to detect data anomalies, the 
accuracy and reliability of the data are questionable, and 
consequently, management cannot carry out its oversight duties. 

Defense Travel System Currently Does Not Address Key Issues for 
Mobilized Army Guard Soldiers: 

DOD's current plan--deployment of the Defense Travel System (DTS)--to 
automate its paper-intensive, manual travel reimbursement process will 
not resolve key flaws we found in reimbursement of travel expenses to 
mobilized Army Guard soldiers. DOD recognized the need to improve the 
travel reimbursement process in the 1990s and has been developing and 
implementing DTS. However, DTS is currently not able to process 
mobilized travel authorizations (e.g., mobilization orders, TCS orders, 
and SNAs) and vouchers and, therefore, does not provide an end-to-end 
solution for paying mobilized Army Guard soldiers for travel 
entitlements. According to DOD, DTS will provide this capability when 
the Defense Integrated Military Human Resources System (DIMHRS) is 
implemented. Currently, DOD plans to deploy DIMHRS to the Army Guard in 
March 2006. In addition, DTS does not identify and calculate late 
payment interest and fees required by law. Furthermore, DFAS auditors 
have reported additional problems with DTS. Given DOD's past failed 
attempts at developing and implementing systems on time, within budget, 
and with the promised capability, and that the effort has already been 
under way for about 8 years, it is likely that the department will be 
relying on the existing paper-intensive, manual system for the 
foreseeable future. 

In July 1994, the DOD Task Force to Reengineer Travel was formed to 
study the existing travel system. In January 1995, this task force 
concluded that the existing travel system was fragmented, inefficient, 
expensive to administer, and occasionally impeded mission 
accomplishment. It recommended new travel policies and procedures, 
simplified entitlements, and recommended the travel process take 
advantage of automation to become traveler friendly and efficient. In 
December 1995, the Program Management Office-Defense Travel System (PMO-
DTS) was established to implement these recommendations and acquire 
reengineered travel services from commercial vendors. 

At the end of fiscal year 2003, DOD reported investing nearly 8 years 
and about $288 million in DTS. In 2003, PMO-DTS estimated an additional 
$251 million was needed for DTS to be fully operational at the end of 
fiscal year 2006, resulting in an estimated total development and 
production cost of over 10 years and $539 million. This cost estimate 
does not include deploying DTS to the majority of the Army Guard 
USPFOs. Although the Army Guard supplies most of the mobilized soldiers 
in support of the global war on terrorism, DTS deployment to the 54 
USPFOs is not scheduled to begin until fiscal year 2006. The Army is 
expected to fund the majority of the costs to field the program to the 
USPFOs, where mobilized Army Guard travel begins. The DTS total life 
cycle cost estimate, including the military service and Defense 
agencies, is $4.39 billion.[Footnote 42]

DTS Is Not an End-to-End Solution for Paying Mobilized Army Guard 
Soldiers' Travel Entitlements: 

While DTS purports to integrate the travel authorization, voucher 
preparation, and approval and payment process for TDY travel, it does 
not integrate travel authorizations and reimbursements for mobilized 
Army Guard soldiers. DOD officials have stated that currently DTS 
cannot process mobilized Army Guard travel reimbursements involving 
various consecutive and/or overlapping travel authorizations. As 
discussed earlier, mobilized Army Guard travel involves various travel 
authorizations, most with overlapping dates. DOD officials acknowledged 
that DTS would not produce the various travel authorizations related to 
mobilization travel, because DOD is presently designing a pay and 
personnel system, DIMHRS, to accomplish this task. DOD's current 
strategy is for DTS to electronically capture the travel authorization 
information from DIMHRS, after which a soldier would use DTS to prepare 
and submit a travel voucher. This would require that DIMHRS have the 
capability to electronically capture the various authorizations 
applicable to Army Guard travel, such as mobilization and temporary 
change of station orders, and that SNAs are generated from a standard, 
automated system that can effectively interface with DTS. DOD officials 
do not plan to implement DIMHRS at the Army Guard until March 2006. As 
a result, the timing and ability of the Army Guard to process 
mobilization travel vouchers through DTS appears to hinge on the 
successful development and implementation of DIMHRS and its interface 
with DTS. 

DTS Does Not Compute Late Payment Interest and Fees: 

DTS is not being designed to identify and calculate travelers' late 
payment interest and fees in accordance with TTRA. As discussed earlier 
in this report, DOD's current travel computation system does not 
automatically identify and calculate the TTRA late payment interest and 
fees. Furthermore, no controls are in place to ensure that the manual 
calculation is performed and that the interest and fee amounts are 
entered into the system for payment. According to DTS officials, DOD 
has not directed that DTS be designed to include such a feature. As a 
result, as currently designed, DTS provides no assurance that late 
payment interest and fees will be paid to travelers as required 
pursuant to TTRA. Further, the DTS design does not meet the expectation 
set out in the DOD Financial Management Regulation,[Footnote 43] that 
DTS will automatically determine if a late payment fee is due. 

Other Auditors Identify Problems with DTS: 

A DFAS Kansas City Statistical Operations and Review Branch 
report[Footnote 44] identified several significant problems with the 
current DFAS implementation. Specifically, for the first quarter of 
fiscal year 2004, DFAS reported a 14 percent inaccuracy rate in DTS 
travel payments of airfare, lodging, and meals and incidental expenses. 
This report cited causes similar to those we identified in the areas of 
traveler preparation of claims and official review of claims. In 
addition to these deficiencies, DFAS noted errors in DTS calculations 
for meals and incidental expenses. 

Another DFAS Internal Review report,[Footnote 45] dated June 15, 2004, 
indicated that improvements were needed in DTS access controls to 
prevent or detect unauthorized access to sensitive files. DFAS Internal 
Review reported that the PMO-DTS had not established standard user 
account review and maintenance procedures. This leaves DTS potentially 
vulnerable to (1) prior DTS users retaining access to the system and 
(2) current users having improper access levels. The DFAS Internal 
Review report concludes that without conducting periodic account 
maintenance procedures and detecting unauthorized access, DTS is 
vulnerable to unauthorized individuals gaining access to the system and 
confidential information, resulting in potential losses to DOD 
employees and the government. The report also noted that DTS was not 
adequately retaining an audit trail of administrative and security 
data, leaving management unable to investigate suspicious activities or 
research problem transactions. At the conclusion of our audit work, PMO-
DTS officials informed us that they have taken or plan to take steps to 
address the problem areas in the two reports discussed above. We were 
unable to evaluate the potential effectiveness of those actions in time 
for release of this report. 

Conclusions: 

As Army Guard soldiers heed the call to duty and serve our country in 
vital and dangerous missions both at home and abroad, they deserve 
nothing less than full, accurate, and timely reimbursements for their 
out-of-pocket travel expenses. However, just as we recently reported 
for Army Guard and Reserve pay, our soldiers are more often than not 
forced to contend with the costly and time-consuming "war on paper" to 
ensure that they are properly reimbursed. The process, human capital, 
and automated systems problems we identified related to Army Guard 
travel reimbursement are additional examples of the broader, long- 
standing financial management and business transformation challenges 
faced by DOD. Similar to our previously reported findings for numerous 
other DOD business operations, the travel reimbursement process has 
evolved over years into the stove-piped, paper-intensive process that 
exists today and was ill-prepared to respond to the current large and 
sustained mobilizations. Without systematic oversight of key program 
metrics, breakdowns in the process remain unidentified and effective 
controls cannot be established and monitored. Finally, DOD's long- 
standing inability to develop and implement systems solutions on time, 
within budget, and with the promised capability appears to be a 
critical impediment in this area. While immediate corrective actions 
can be taken in some areas, the problems we identified with DOD's 
longer term automated systems initiatives--DIHMRS and DTS--raise 
serious questions of whether and when mobilized soldiers' travel 
reimbursement problems will be resolved. 

Recommendations for Executive Action: 

We recommend that the Secretary of Defense direct the Secretary of the 
Army, in conjunction with the Under Secretary of Defense (Comptroller) 
and the Under Secretary of Defense (Personnel and Readiness), to take 
the following 23 actions to address the issues we found with respect to 
the controls over processes for payment of travel entitlements to 
mobilized Army Guard personnel. 

Process: 

* Modify existing policies and procedures to require that mobilization 
and related travel orders clearly state meal entitlements. Such orders 
should specify that mobilized soldiers are not required to pay for 
meals in government dining facilities. 

* Develop and implement guidance to standardize the form and content of 
statements of non-availability for soldiers on contingency operations. 
The guidance should establish an acceptable basic SNA form (e.g., 
written, memo, stamp, number), and should address, but not be limited 
to, the following elements: 

* the period(s) covered,

* the type of per diem (e.g., housing, meals),

* the rationale for acceptance (e.g., shift work, inadequacy of 
transportation) or denial,

* the applicable meal rates (e.g., locality meal rate, proportional 
meal rate), and: 

* the required authorization levels and signatures. 

* Clarify existing guidance in the PPG for contingency operations by 
including situational examples based on laws and regulations similar to 
those in the JFTR to assist decision makers in making determinations of 
nonavailability related to quarters and meals. 

* Enhance efforts to ensure compliance with TTRA, through the payment 
of late payment interest and fees to soldiers for late travel 
reimbursements. Such efforts should include, at a minimum (1) updating 
DOD's Financial Management Regulation provisions concerning the payment 
of late payment interest and fees; (2) developing metrics pertaining to 
the payment of late payment interest and fees under TTRA and monitoring 
to ensure compliance; (3) considering the feasibility of identifying 
and paying those soldiers who were entitled to TTRA payments but, 
because DFAS made no such payments prior to February 2004, did not 
receive them; and (4) paying the soldiers who we determined were due 
late payment interest and any appropriate late payment fees. 

Human Capital: 

* Consider appointing an agencywide leadership position or ombudsman 
with accountability for resolving problems Army Guard soldiers 
encounter at any point in the travel authorization and reimbursement 
process. 

* Develop and monitor programwide performance metrics to accomplish the 
following objectives: 

* identify the root causes of travel vouchers that are rejected and 
returned by DFAS CTO and USPFO travel computation offices, including 
the reasons why individual soldiers fail to timely and properly prepare 
and submit travel vouchers;

* provide assurance that unit review of travel vouchers accomplishes 
the purposes of that review, including verifying that the required 
documents are attached and all needed signatures are included;

* monitor and analyze supplemental voucher data to help identify 
recurring problems and solutions as well as the quality of the travel 
reimbursement program over time; and: 

* document the types and frequency of travel-related problems reported 
to the DFAS toll-free number and measure the effectiveness of this 
customer service effort to help target areas where training or improved 
guidance may be warranted. 

* Evaluate the adequacy and frequency of training provided to mobilized 
Army Guard soldiers that teaches them to accurately prepare and timely 
submit travel vouchers, including procedures for obtaining and 
submitting authorizing documentation for per diem entitlements. 

* Review the outstanding travel payment problems we identified at the 
10 case study units to identify and resolve any remaining travel- 
related issues for the affected soldiers. 

Systems: 

Interim Improvements to Current Travel Pay System: 

* Develop enhanced policies and accountability mechanisms to use the 
current WINIATS system to comply with the requirements to identify late 
payments and reimburse soldiers for late payment interest and fees 
required pursuant to TTRA. Specific actions include: 

* reiterating or enhancing current policies requiring the capture of 
critical dates for management oversight and compliance with TTRA, 
including steps required to activate the WINIATS Liaison Screen, and: 

* providing training and guidance to the USPFOs on the use of WINIATS 
capabilities to capture traveler, reviewer, and travel computation 
office receipt dates, and to upload that information to DFAS's 
Operational Data Store system. 

* Develop and implement WINIATS system edit checks to ensure the 
accuracy of manual entries into WINIATS for the period of travel, the 
dates the traveler and reviewer signed the voucher, and the date the 
travel computation office received the voucher. 

* Develop an automated, centralized system for SNAs covering potential 
non-availability issues experienced by mobilized guard soldiers. 

Longer Term System Improvements: 

* As part of the effort currently under way to reform DOD's travel 
(DTS) and pay and personnel systems (DIMHRS), incorporate a complete 
understanding of the Army Guard travel reimbursement problems as 
documented in this and related reports into the requirements 
development for these systems, including: 

* automation of critical travel process functions such as travel 
vouchers and TCS orders;

* integration or interface of automated travel vouchers, SNAs, TCS 
orders, mobilization orders, and other relevant systems; and: 

* capabilities to identify, calculate, and pay late payment interest 
and fees required pursuant to TTRA. 

Agency Comments and Our Evaluation: 

In written comments on a draft of this report, which are reprinted in 
appendix II, DOD concurred with 21 of our 23 recommendations. DOD 
partially concurred with our recommendations regarding (1) development 
of an automated, centralized system for SNAs, covering potential 
nonavailability of government meals or lodging for mobilized Army Guard 
soldiers, and (2) incorporation into requirements development for DTS a 
complete understanding of the Army Guard travel reimbursement problems 
including late payment interest and fees pursuant to TTRA. The actions 
proposed by DOD to these two recommendations do not ensure that SNA 
problems we identified will be corrected or that DOD will have a travel 
system in place that will comply with TTRA, thus continuing the risk 
that soldiers will not receive all payments they are entitled to 
receive. The department also requested the inclusion of additional 
responsible DOD officials in the recommendations section of this 
report, which we have added as appropriate. 

Concerning our recommendation that DOD develop an automated, 
centralized system for SNAs, DOD responded that the Office of the Under 
Secretary of Defense (Personnel and Readiness) (OUSD (P&R)) and the DTS 
Program Management Office are working closely to ensure that functional 
requirements for military travel processes are incorporated in the 
development of DTS and DIMHRS. DOD also pointed out that DIMHRS is 
tentatively scheduled to be deployed to the Army National Guard in 
March 2006, and that therefore, it is not feasible to develop an 
"interim" automated, centralized system for SNAs. DOD also stated that 
in the interim, OUSD (P&R) will work with the military services' 
lodging communities to establish a standard SNA, and that a centralized 
process will be developed for all military services. 

Based on our understanding of the planned and existing functionalities 
of DTS and DIHMRS and the problems identified during our audit, we do 
not agree with DOD's reasons for not resolving the stated weaknesses. 
Specifically, according to a DOD OUSD (P&R) official in the 
Requirements and Reengineering Division, Joint Requirements and 
Integration Office, DIMHRS is not currently being designed to issue 
SNAs. Further, although DOD stated that it plans to develop a standard 
SNA form and centralized SNA process, this response does not provide 
for the development of an automated system, which could be incorporated 
into the development of DIMHRS or DTS either as an integrated 
capability or an interoperable interface. By planning to work with 
lodging communities to establish a standard SNA, it appears that DOD is 
taking an initial step toward addressing the plight of mobilized Army 
Guard soldiers who have had problems regarding SNAs. However, DOD needs 
to ensure that all information regarding nonavailability of both 
lodging and meals is available to appropriate decision-makers in the 
SNA approval process. 

The majority of problems experienced by Army Guard soldiers in our case 
studies related to whether meals were determined to be adequately 
available to soldiers in various circumstances such as the irregular 
hours required by guard duty, distance to meal facilities, inadequate 
transportation to meal facilities, lack of 24-hour mess halls, or other 
circumstances. Proper consideration of these meal issues in addition to 
those related to lodging, generally includes review through the 
soldier's chain of command and installation commander and should result 
in timely decisions to either (1) issue SNAs that authorize per diem 
for meals, enabling Army Guard soldiers to be reimbursed for food from 
commercial locations or (2) ensure that Army Guard soldiers receive 
government-provided meals free of charge. Because DOD's comments do not 
provide solutions to the range of problems we observed with the SNA 
process, we continue to recommend that an automated, centralized system 
for SNAs be developed, which addresses the variety of nonavailability 
issues experienced by mobilized Army Guard soldiers. 

In regard to DOD's partial concurrence with our recommendation related 
to DTS and TTRA compliance, DOD stated that this programming feature 
was not required because the travel reimbursement process is completed 
within 5 days of the traveler entering pertinent data into DTS. DOD's 
internal processes stipulate that before a travel voucher entered into 
DTS can be paid, it must be reviewed and approved. However, our report 
documented significant delays in the review and approval process in the 
current paper intensive system, and DOD did not provide any support for 
its claim that DTS reimbursements will be made within a 5-day period. 
We continue to see the need for full DOD implementation of this 
recommendation because the review and approval process is a human 
capital function that DTS will not replace. Further, the likelihood of 
late payment of travel vouchers processed through DTS remains because 
of potential factors such as (1) excessive work loads, (2) questions 
during document reviews, (3) inadequate attention to reviewer 
responsibilities, and (4) other unforeseen delays in the process. To 
ensure that Army Guard soldiers and others are paid late payment 
interest and fees required pursuant to TTRA, DTS would need to include 
capabilities to identify, calculate, and pay such late payment interest 
and fees. Such capability would also allow DOD to conduct ongoing 
monitoring of the timeliness of travel reimbursements made through DTS. 

Finally, regarding the 21 recommendations with which DOD concurred, DOD 
indicated that the stated action(s) taken were complete with respect to 
the need for (1) mobilization and related travel orders to clearly 
state meal entitlements, (2) standardization of the form and content of 
SNAs for contingency operations, (3) development and monitoring of late 
payment interest and fee metrics, (4) appointment of an agencywide 
leadership position or ombudsman, (5) identification of root causes for 
untimely and improperly prepared and submitted travel vouchers, and (6) 
evaluation of the adequacy and frequency of travel voucher preparation 
training provided to mobilized Army Guard soldiers. While the actions 
DOD described in commenting on our report appear responsive to our 
recommendations, we have not evaluated the effectiveness of their 
implementation and, therefore, cannot determine whether these measures 
will resolve the problems we identified. 

As agreed with your offices, unless you publicly announce its contents 
earlier, we plan no further distribution of this report until 30 days 
from its date. At that time, we will send copies of the report to 
interested congressional committees. We will also send copies of this 
report to the Secretary of Defense, the Under Secretary of Defense 
(Comptroller), the Secretary of the Army, the Director of the Defense 
Finance and Accounting Service, the Director of the Army National 
Guard, and the Chief of the National Guard Bureau. We will make copies 
available to others upon request. In addition, the report will be 
available at no charge on the GAO Web site at [Hyperlink, 
http://www.gao.gov]. If you or your staffs have any questions regarding 
this report, please contact Gregory D. Kutz at (202) 512-9095 or 
[Hyperlink, kutzg@gao.gov], John J. Ryan at (202) 512-9587 or 
[Hyperlink, ryanj@gao.gov], or Mary Ellen Chervenic at (202) 512-6218 
or [Hyperlink, chervenicm@gao.gov]. Major contributors to this report 
are acknowledged in appendix III. 

Signed by: 

Gregory D. Kutz: 
Director: 
Financial Management and Assurance: 

Signed by: 

Robert J. Cramer: 
Managing Director: 
Office of Special Investigations: 

List of Congressional Requesters: 

The Honorable Tom Davis: 
Chairman: 
Committee on Government Reform: 
House of Representatives: 

The Honorable Christopher Shays: 
Chairman, Subcommittee on National Security, Emerging Threats, and 
International Relations: 
Committee on Government Reform: 
House of Representatives: 

The Honorable Todd Platts: 
Chairman, Subcommittee on Government Efficiency and Financial 
Management: 
Committee on Government Reform: 
House of Representatives: 

[End of section]

Appendixes: 

Appendix I: Scope and Methodology: 

To obtain an understanding and assess the design of process, personnel 
(human capital), and system controls used to provide assurance that 
mobilized Army National Guard (Army Guard) soldiers were timely 
reimbursed for travel expenses and per diem entitlements, we: 

* reviewed applicable laws, regulations, policies, procedures, and 
program guidance;

* observed the travel authorization, review, approval and reimbursement 
process; and: 

* interviewed cognizant agency officials. 

With respect to applicable laws, regulations, policies and procedures, 
we obtained and reviewed the: 

* Travel and Transportation Reform Act of 1998 (TTRA) (Pub. L. No. 105- 
264);

* General Services Administration's (GSA) Federal Travel Regulation;

* Department of Defense's (DOD) Joint Federal Travel Regulation;

* DOD's Financial Management Regulation, Volume 9, Travel Policies and 
Procedures;

* Army National Guard Financial Services Center's The Citizen-Soldier's 
Guide to Mobilization Finance; and: 

* Department of the Army's Personnel Policy Guidance of Operations 
Noble Eagle (ONE), Enduring Freedom (OEF), and Iraqi Freedom (OIF). 

We also reviewed the following Defense Finance and Accounting Service - 
Indianapolis (DFAS-IN), Travel Technical Messages (TTM)--policy 
implementation messages relating to late payment fees and interest: 

* TTM 00-08, May 2000, which implemented the provisions of TTRA and 
provided that its terms applied to "settlement vouchers;"

* TTM 01-01, November 2000, which provided that late payment interest 
and fees be calculated and submitted by the traveler on the final 
payment amount only;

* TTM 03-04, April 2003, which removed the requirement that the late 
payment interest calculation was to be calculated and submitted by the 
traveler; and: 

* TTM 04-10, May 2004, which directed that late payment interest and 
fees be calculated on all travel vouchers, not just final vouchers, as 
well as directed reviewers to sign a travel voucher on the same day it 
is submitted so that DFAS-IN can apply TTRA requirements using the 
reviewer's signature date as a surrogate for the submission date. 

We also used the internal controls standards provided in the Standards 
for Internal Control in the Federal Government.[Footnote 46]

We interviewed officials from the National Guard Bureau (NGB); United 
States Property and Fiscal Offices (USPFOs); Army and National Guard 
pay centers; unit, duty station, and mobilization station officials; 
and individual soldiers to obtain an understanding of their experiences 
in applying and complying with these policies and procedures. 

In addition, as part of our audit, we performed a review of certain 
process and system controls. Specifically, we obtained information and 
documentation and/or performed walk-throughs of travel voucher 
processing through the Integrated Automated Travel System, Version 6.0 
(WINIATS) at DFAS-IN and one Army National Guard USPFO. During those 
walk-throughs, we observed the operation of control activities over the 
review, approval, and timely and accurate payment of travel vouchers. 
We obtained documentation and performed walk-throughs regarding soldier 
readiness checks--the Army's mobilization station process to ensure 
that Army Guard units have and know what they need. We reviewed 
existing guidance for determining and authorizing nonavailability of 
housing and meals at duty stations. Because the systems that produce 
individual Army Guard soldiers' travel orders are decentralized and not 
integrated with travel reimbursement systems, we did not conduct walk- 
throughs of them. However, we interviewed officials from Army National 
Guard USPFOs, NGB, DFAS-IN, and the Army Finance Command to augment our 
documentation and walk-throughs. 

Because our preliminary assessment determined that current 
authorization, request, review, and approval processes used to pay 
travel reimbursements to mobilized Army Guard soldiers relied 
extensively on paper-intensive, nonintegrated systems and error-prone 
manual transaction entry, we did not statistically test current 
processes and controls. The lack of accurate and complete centralized 
data on Army Guard travel also precluded statistical testing. Instead, 
we used case study and data mining to provide a more detailed 
perspective of the design of controls and the nature of deficiencies in 
the key areas of processes, people (human capital), and systems. We 
focused on how these key areas were at work in the three phases of the 
travel and reimbursement process: (1) authorizations; (2) travel 
voucher preparation, submission, unit review, and transmission of 
reimbursement claims; and (3) travel computation office review, 
reimbursement computation, audit, and payment. 

For our case studies, we gathered available data and analyzed the pay 
experiences of Army Guard units mobilized in support of Operations 
Iraqi Freedom, Noble Eagle, and Enduring Freedom during October 2001 
through November 2003. We audited the following 10 Army Guard units as 
case studies of the design of controls ensuring consistent, and 
accurate determination, authorization, communication, and documentation 
of per diem entitlements for soldiers assigned to those units: 

* Alabama 20th Special Forces,

* California 185th Armor,

* California 19th Special Forces,

* Georgia 190th Military Police,

* Louisiana 239th Military Police,

* Maryland 115th Military Police,

* Mississippi 114th Military Police,

* Mississippi 20th Special Forces,

* Pennsylvania 876th Engineer Battalion, and: 

* Virginia 20th Special Forces. 

In selecting these 10 units for our case studies, we sought to obtain 
the travel reimbursement experiences of units assigned to Operation 
Iraqi Freedom, Operation Enduring Freedom or Operation Noble Eagle. We 
limited our case study selection to those units mobilized during the 
period from October 1, 2001, through November 30, 2003. From our 
preliminary assessment of this population, we determined that military 
police and special forces units were experiencing problems related to 
per diem. We used mobilization data supplied by NGB to assist us in 
identifying military police and special forces units. From the 231 
military police and special forces units in the NGB database, and our 
prior work on Army Guard military pay (G [Hyperlink, http:// 
www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-04-89] AO-04-89), we selected 4 special 
forces and 4 military police units experiencing problems related to per 
diem for case studies. Two other units were selected from a review of 
data furnished to us by DOD from its Remedy Tracking System. These 10 
case studies were audited to provide a more detailed view of the types 
and causes of problems experienced by these units as well as the 
financial impact of these problems on individual soldiers and their 
families. 

To obtain diverse perspectives on the nature of the reported per diem 
problems, we interviewed selected guard and duty station commanders 
(where the per diem problems were experienced) and selected individual 
soldiers experiencing travel reimbursement problems for our case study 
units. We also obtained and reviewed relevant individual travel 
vouchers and supporting documentation for soldiers in selected units. 
In addition, we used available data to estimate underpayments, 
overpayments, late payments, and meal entitlement amounts that Army 
Guard soldiers expected to receive. We referred eight units, which, at 
the end of our audit included Army Guard soldiers that were unpaid, 
partially paid, or in debt, to appropriate DOD officials to resolve any 
amounts owed to the Army Guard soldiers or to the government. 

For our individual voucher data mining, we obtained a database from 
DFAS's Operational Data Store (ODS) of travel voucher reimbursement 
transactions for travel that began during the period October 1, 2001, 
through November 30, 2003. The data contained approximately 6 million 
civilian, Army, Army Reserve, and Army Guard travel voucher 
transactions paid through the DFAS-IN disbursing station symbol number 
5570. These travel vouchers accounted for $3.8 billion in 
reimbursements. The ODS database did not uniquely identify mobilized 
Army Guard travel vouchers. 

In order to identify Army Guard vouchers, we obtained a database 
extract of Army guard soldiers paid during the period October 1, 2001, 
through November 30, 2003, from the Defense Joint Military Pay System- 
Reserve Component. We did not verify the accuracy or completeness of 
either of these databases. Using dates of mobilized Army Guard service 
contained in the payroll database, we extracted the Social Security 
numbers for Army Guard soldiers with periods of active service of 30 
days or greater. We matched the Social Security numbers from the Army 
Guard payroll database to the ODS travel reimbursement transaction 
database. There were approximately 623,000 travel voucher transactions 
processed for Army Guard for the period October 1, 2001, through 
November 30, 2003, totaling $389 million. We then sorted the 623,000 
travel vouchers by the number of days it took to get reimbursed from 
the date travel ended. We identified 26,414 travel vouchers that took 
over 120 days to get reimbursed. We made a nonrepresentative selection 
of transactions from the 26,414 grouping reimbursed after 120 days, 
along with travel vouchers selected from the unit case studies, and 
audited 191 travel vouchers. Our analysis of the 191 vouchers found 
that 52 had incorrect dates entered into the database and, in fact, 
were paid timely. We performed no further audit on these 52 travel 
vouchers and concentrated our analysis on the remaining 139 travel 
vouchers. 

We obtained or requested copies of the travel vouchers and supporting 
documentation for each potential late reimbursement transaction 
selected--primarily the travel voucher, travel order(s), special 
authorizations such as certificates or statements of non-availability 
and missed meals, and receipts for other reimbursable expenses. We 
reviewed these data and used a data collection instrument to collect 
the information necessary and: 

* compared for accuracy the dates and amounts in the transaction 
database to the dates and amounts on the supporting documentation;

* calculated the days elapsed between (1) the date travel ended, (2) 
the date the traveler signed the travel voucher, (3) the date the unit 
reviewer signed the travel voucher, (4) the date received by the 
processing center, and (5) the date of payment to the soldier, and 
identified where the significant delay(s) occurred for each voucher; 
and: 

* attempted contact with the soldier, and, as appropriate, the unit 
reviewer, and the travel computation office to determine the reason(s) 
for all significant delays occurring between the end of travel and the 
date of reimbursement. 

The scope of our review did not include verification of the accuracy of 
travel voucher payments. 

For the purpose of determining the reasons for late reimbursements, we 
used available documentation supplemented with follow-up inquiries 
where possible with soldiers, unit supervisory reviewers, and the 
cognizant travel computation office personnel to gain insight into the 
facts, circumstances, and points of view of all relevant parties. 

In our case studies, which focused on per diem problems, and in our 
vouchers, which focused on late reimbursements, we attempted to 
determine the issues surrounding soldiers' questions of accurate per 
diem reimbursements, and the reasons delays occurred in reimbursing 
soldiers for travel entitlements and expenses. As such, our audit 
results only reflect the problems we identified. Soldiers in our late 
pay and case study units may have experienced additional travel 
reimbursement problems that we did not identify. In addition, our work 
was not designed to identify, and we did not identify, any fraudulent 
travel reimbursement request or payment by any Army Guard soldiers. 
Because we could not contact[Footnote 47] all individual soldiers and 
unit supervisory reviewers, we likely did not identify all of the 
effects on soldiers or the reasons for inaccurate or questioned per 
diem in our case study units and delays in the overall process 
resulting in late payments of travel reimbursements to Army Guard 
soldiers. 

We reviewed TTRA and federal travel regulations. TTRA requires the 
payment of a late payment fee as prescribed by 41 C.F.R. § 301-71.210 
requiring the payment of a late payment fee consisting of (1) late 
payment interest, generally equivalent to the Prompt Payment Act 
Interest Rate, plus (2) a late payment charge equivalent to the late 
payment charge, which could have been charged by the government travel 
card contractor. This late payment penalty and interest is to be paid 
to soldiers if their reimbursements are not paid within 30 days of the 
submission of proper vouchers. As part of our audit, we determined if 
any of the 139 individual vouchers we selected were timely and properly 
submitted by Army Guard soldiers and whether they had received late 
payment interest owed to them. We identified 75 vouchers that were 
properly submitted by Army Guard soldiers who should have received late 
payment interest totaling about $1,400. Some of these soldiers may also 
have been entitled to a late payment fee in addition to the late 
payment interest. We referred the names of the affected soldiers to 
applicable DOD officials to resolve amounts owed to these soldiers. 

Another source of information was the Remedy Tracking System, which DOD 
uses to track all controlled correspondence, such as congressional 
complaint letters. We asked DOD to provide all correspondence relating 
to travel-related expense issues. We analyzed the results from DOD for 
additional leads into travel voucher problems. We did not audit nor did 
we determine if the database provided to us by DOD was complete. 

In our analysis of DOD's Defense Travel System (DTS), we (1) 
interviewed DTS program management office personnel and other DOD 
officials; (2) obtained demonstrations of the user interface with DTS; 
(3) reviewed a DOD IG audit report and DFAS post payment audit report 
on DTS; and (4) obtained cost information on DTS from DOD's, fiscal 
year 2005 Budget Estimate, Information Technology/National Security 
Systems Budget Exhibit dated February 2004. 

We briefed DOD and Army officials, NGB officials, and DFAS officials on 
the details of our audit, including our findings and their 
implications. We received written DOD comments and have summarized 
those comments in the "Agency Comments and Our Evaluation" section of 
this report. DOD's comments are reprinted in appendix II. We conducted 
our audit work from November 2003 through September 2004 in accordance 
with U.S. generally accepted government auditing standards, and we 
performed our investigative work in accordance with standards 
prescribed by the President's Council on Integrity and Efficiency. 

[End of section]

Appendix II: Comments from the Department of Defense: 

UNDER SECRETARY OF DEFENSE: 
COMPTROLLER:

1100 DEFENSE PENTAGON: 
WASHINGTON, DC 20301-1100:

DEC 27 2004: 

Mr. Gregory D. Kutz: 
Director:
Financial Management and Assurance: 
U.S. Government Accountability Office: 
Washington, DC 20548:

Dear Mr. Kutz:

This is the Department of Defense (DoD) response to the Government 
Accountability Office (GAO) draft report, "Army National Guard: 
Inefficient, Error-Prone Process Results in Travel Reimbursement 
Problems for Mobilized Soldiers," dated November 22, 2004, (GAO Code 
192111/GAO-05-79). The DoD concurs with 21 recommendations and 
partially concurs with two recommendations in the draft report. The 
Department is already taking action to correct the noted deficiencies. 
Our detailed responses are enclosed.

The Department appreciates the opportunity to comment on the draft 
report. My staff point of contact is Ms. Jacqueline Jenkins. She may be 
reached by email: jacqueline.jenkins@osd.mil or by telephone at (703) 
697-8282.

Sincerely,

Signed by: 

Robert J. Henke: 
Principal Deputy:

Enclosure: As stated:

GAO DRAFT REPORT DATED NOVEMBER 22, 2004 GAO-05-79 (GAO CODE 192111):

"ARMY NATIONAL GUARD: Inefficient, Error-Prone Process Results in 
Travel Reimbursement Problems for Mobilized Soldiers"

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE COMMENTS TO THE GAO RECOMMENDATIONS:

RECOMMENDATION 1: The GAO recommended that the Secretary of Defense 
direct the Secretary of the Army, in conjunction with the Under 
Secretary of Defense (Comptroller), to modify existing policies and 
procedures to require that mobilization and related travel orders 
clearly state meal entitlements. Such orders should specify that 
mobilized soldiers are not required to pay for meals in government 
dining facilities. (p. 82/GAO Draft Report):

DoD RESPONSE: Concur. The Army updated the Personnel Policy Guidance 
(PPG) to require the following statement on mobilization orders: "Meals 
and lodging will be provided at no cost to the soldier. Claims for 
reimbursement require a statement of non-availability control number." 
The Army National Guard has published instructions to all states and 
territories on automatically generating this on mobilization orders. 
This is in addition to similar statements already included in the 
orders formats for Temporary Change of Station (TCS) and Contingency 
Operations Temporary Tours of Active Duty. Action is complete.

RECOMMENDATION 2: The GAO recommended that the Secretary of Defense 
direct the Secretary of the Army, in conjunction with the Under 
Secretary of Defense (Comptroller), to develop and implement guidance 
to standardize the form and content of the statements of non- 
availability for soldiers on contingency operations. (p. 82/GAO Draft 
Report):

DoD RESPONSE: Concur. The Army updated the PPG to include standard data 
elements that must be included in a Statement of Non-Availability 
(SNA). It also provides additional guidance on issuing SNAs. Action is 
complete.

RECOMMENDATION 3: The GAO recommended that the Secretary of Defense 
direct the Secretary of the Army, in conjunction with the Under 
Secretary of Defense (Comptroller), to clarify existing guidance in the 
PPG for contingency operations by including situational examples based 
on laws and regulations similar to those in the Joint Federal Travel 
Regulation (JFTR) to assist decision-makers in making determinations on 
non-availability related to quarters and meals. (p. 83/GAO Draft 
Report):

DoD RESPONSE: Concur. Using the results of the GAO review, case 
examples will be added to the PPG in order to assist installations and 
commanders in determining non-availability of quarters and meals. The 
estimated completion date is February 1, 2005.

RECOMMENDATION 4: The GAO recommended that the Secretary of Defense 
direct the Secretary of the Army, in conjunction with the Under 
Secretary of Defense (Comptroller), to enhance efforts to ensure 
compliance with the Travel and Transportation Reform Act of 1998 (TTRA) 
by updating DoD's Financial Management Regulation provisions concerning 
the payment of late payment interest and fees. (p. 83/GAO Draft Report):

DoD RESPONSE: Concur. The Defense Finance and Accounting Service (DFAS) 
will update DoD's Financial Management Regulation provisions concerning 
payment of interest and late fees. The estimated completion date is 
March 31, 2005.

RECOMMENDATION 5: The GAO recommended that the Secretary of Defense 
direct the Secretary of the Army, in conjunction with the Under 
Secretary of Defense (Comptroller), to enhance efforts to ensure 
compliance with TTRA by developing metrics pertaining to the payment of 
late payment interest and fees under TTRA and monitoring to ensure 
compliance. (p. 83/GAO Draft Report):

DoD RESPONSE: Concur. The DFAS has developed metrics pertaining to the 
payment of interest and late fees under TTRA. The DFAS also monitors 
the metrics to ensure compliance with the TTRA. Action is complete.

RECOMMENDATION 6: The GAO recommended that the Secretary of Defense 
direct the Secretary of the Army, in conjunction with the Under 
Secretary of Defense (Comptroller), to enhance efforts to ensure 
compliance with TTRA by considering the feasibility of identifying and 
paying those soldiers who were entitled to, but did not receive 
interest and late payment fees because DFAS made no such payments prior 
to February 2004. (p. 83/GAO Draft Report):

DoD RESPONSE: Concur. The DFAS will consider the feasibility of 
identifying and paying those soldiers who were entitled to, but did not 
receive interest and late payment fees, because DFAS made no such 
payments prior to February 2004. The DFAS will report its findings and 
recommendations to the Deputy Chief Financial Officer. The estimated 
completion date is April 30, 2005.

RECOMMENDATION 7: The GAO recommended that the Secretary of Defense 
direct the Secretary of the Army, in conjunction with the Under 
Secretary of Defense (Comptroller), to enhance efforts to ensure 
compliance with TTRA by paying the soldiers which GAO determined were 
due late payment interest and any appropriate late payment fees. (p. 
83/GAO Draft Report):

DoD RESPONSE: Concur. The DFAS will enhance efforts to ensure 
compliance with TTRA by paying the members which GAO determined were 
due late payment interest and any appropriate late payment fees. The 
estimated completion date is June 30, 2005.

RECOMMENDATION 8: The GAO recommended that the Secretary of Defense 
direct the Secretary of the Army, in conjunction with the Under 
Secretary of Defense (Comptroller), to consider appointing an agency 
wide leadership position or ombudsman with accountability for resolving 
problems Army Guard soldiers encounter at any point in the travel 
authorization and reimbursement process. (p. 84/GAO Draft Report):

DoD RESPONSE: Concur. The Army National Guard has established an 
ombudsman cell for all pay issues, to include travel reimbursement, for 
mobilized National Guard soldiers. The ombudsman cell already receives 
any potential rejects from the DFAS Contingency Travel Operation (CTO) 
and coordinates actions to minimize the impact on soldiers. Action is 
complete.

RECOMMENDATION 9: The GAO recommended that the Secretary of Defense 
direct the Secretary of the Army, in conjunction with the Under 
Secretary of Defense (Comptroller), to identify the root causes of 
travel vouchers that are rejected and returned by DFAS CTO and the 
United States Property and Fiscal Offices (USPFO) travel computation 
offices, including the reasons why individual soldiers fail to timely 
and properly prepare and submit travel vouchers. (p. 84/GAO Draft 
Report):

DoD RESPONSE: Concur. The DFAS will continue to provide reject data at 
both the summary and detail level to Army activities to include the 
Army National Guard. The Army will continue to monitor trends and use 
this data to identify challenges and solutions. This ongoing effort has 
already resulted in process changes significantly reducing rejects to 
soldiers for missing mobilization orders. Additionally, based on 
analysis of rejects and further review of mobilization/demobilization 
processing, travel related training and information flow to soldiers 
were greatly expanded as discussed under recommendation 13. The Army 
National Guard has published guidance to all states and territories 
reiterating the requirement for all claims for contingency and other 
operations related to mobilization under Title 10 to be processed 
centrally by DFAS. As such, there should be no mobilization-related 
travel claims rejected by USPFOs. Action is complete.

RECOMMENDATION 10: The GAO recommended that the Secretary of Defense 
direct the Secretary of the Army, in conjunction with the Under 
Secretary of Defense (Comptroller), to provide assurance that unit 
review of travel vouchers accomplishes the purpose of that review, 
including verifying that the required documents are attached and all 
needed signatures are included. (p. 84/GAO Draft Report):

DoD RESPONSE: Concur. The Army has published a reviewer checklist that 
is now being distributed at the demobilization stations. This checklist 
will be incorporated into the Army Mobilization Finance Standing 
Operating Procedures and the Army National Guard Unit Level Pay 
Procedures Manual. The reviewer's responsibilities will also be 
incorporated into the ongoing distance learning classes designed for 
mobilizing commanders. The estimated completion date is March 1, 2005.

RECOMMENDATION 11: The GAO recommended that the Secretary of Defense 
direct the Secretary of the Army, in conjunction with the Under 
Secretary of Defense (Comptroller), to monitor and analyze supplemental 
voucher data to help identify recurring problems and solutions as well 
as the quality of the travel reimbursement program over time. (p. 84/ 
GAO Draft Report):

DoD RESPONSE: Concur. The DFAS will monitor and analyze supplemental 
voucher data to help identify recurring problems and solutions as well 
as the quality of the travel reimbursement. The estimated completion 
date is February 28, 2005.

RECOMMENDATION 12: The GAO recommended that the Secretary of Defense 
direct the Secretary of the Army, in conjunction with the Under 
Secretary of Defense (Comptroller), to document the types and frequency 
of travel-related problems reported to the DFAS 800 number and measure 
the effectiveness of this customer service effort to help target areas 
where training or improved guidance may be warranted. (p. 84/GAO Draft 
Report):

DoD RESPONSE: Concur. The DFAS will document the types and frequency of 
travel-related problems reported to the DFAS 800 number and measure the 
effectiveness of this customer service effort to help target areas 
where training or improved guidance may be warranted. The estimated 
completion date is April 30, 2005.

RECOMMENDATION 13: The GAO recommended that the Secretary of Defense 
direct the Secretary of the Army, in conjunction with the Under 
Secretary of Defense (Comptroller), to evaluate the adequacy and 
frequency of training provided to mobilized guard soldiers in how to 
accurately prepare and timely submit travel vouchers, including 
procedures for obtaining and submitting authorizing documentation for 
per diem entitlements. (p. 85/GAO Draft Report):

DoD RESPONSE: Concur. In response to the ongoing analysis of rejected 
travel claims for mobilized soldiers, mobilization and demobilization 
finance processing was expanded to require briefings on travel 
entitlements and submission of claims. Demobilization stations are also 
required to assist soldiers with completion of claims. In addition, 
soldier pay handbooks, which include detailed instructions on travel 
entitlements and claims submission, were published by both the Army 
National Guard and U.S. Army Reserves. Travel entitlement flyers and 
travel claims submission and review checklists were also published and 
are distributed at mobilization/demobilization stations. This just-in- 
time training approach ensures soldiers receive the guidance and 
information when it is needed. Action is complete.

RECOMMENDATION 14: The GAO recommended that the Secretary of Defense 
direct the Secretary of the Army, in conjunction with the Under 
Secretary of Defense (Comptroller), to review the outstanding travel 
payment problems GAO identified at the 10 case study units to identify 
and resolve any remaining travel-related issues for the affected 
soldiers. (p. 85/GAO Draft Report):

DoD RESPONSE: Concur. The DFAS will review the outstanding travel 
payment problems GAO identified for the 10 case study units to identify 
and address any remaining travel-related issues for the affected 
members. The estimated completion date is April 30, 2005.

RECOMMENDATION 15: The GAO recommended that the Secretary of Defense 
direct the Secretary of the Army, in conjunction with the Under 
Secretary of Defense (Comptroller), to develop enhanced policies and 
accountability mechanisms to use the current Integrated Automated 
Travel System (WINIATS) to comply with the requirements to identify 
late payments and reimburse soldiers for late payment interest and fees 
required pursuant to TTRA. (p. 85/GAO Draft Report):

DoD RESPONSE: Concur. The DFAS will reiterate current policies 
associated with TTRA and provide updated guidance including the steps 
required to populate the WINIATS liaison screen. The DFAS will 
coordinate with the National Guard Bureau (NGB) to provide guidance and 
assistance on the use of WINIATS capabilities at DFAS and/or USPFO 
sites. The DFAS will also provide informational briefings at designated 
NGB conferences and workshops. In addition, DFAS will offer NGB end 
users semiannual instructions on the use of WINIATS. The estimated 
completion date is October 1, 2005.

RECOMMENDATION 16: The GAO recommended that the Secretary of Defense 
direct the Secretary of the Army, in conjunction with the Under 
Secretary of Defense (Comptroller), to reiterate or enhance current 
policies requiring the capture of critical dates for management 
oversight and compliance with TTRA, including steps required to 
activate the WINIATS liaison screen. (p. 85/GAO Draft Report):

DoD RESPONSE: Concur. The DFAS will reiterate current policies 
associated with TTRA and provide updated guidance including the steps 
required to populate the WINIATS liaison screen. The estimated 
completion date is February 28, 2005.

RECOMMENDATION 17: The GAO recommended that the Secretary of Defense 
direct the Secretary of the Army, in conjunction with the Under 
Secretary of Defense (Comptroller), to provide training and guidance to 
the USPFOs on the use of WINIATS capabilities to capture traveler, 
reviewer, and travel computation office receipt dates, and to upload 
that information to DFAS's Operational Data Store system. (p. 85/GAO 
Draft Report):

DoD RESPONSE: Concur. The DFAS will coordinate with NGB to provide 
guidance and assistance on the use of WINIATS capabilities at DFAS and/ 
or USPFO sites. The DFAS will also provide informational briefings at 
designated NGB conferences and workshops. In addition, DFAS will offer 
NGB end users semiannual instruction on the use of WINIATS. The 
estimated completion date is October l, 2005.

RECOMMENDATION 18: The GAO recommended that the Secretary of Defense 
direct the Secretary of the Army, in conjunction with the Under 
Secretary of Defense (Comptroller), to develop and implement WINIATS 
system edit checks to assure the accuracy of manual entries into 
WINIATS for the period of travel, the dates the traveler and reviewer 
signed the voucher, and the date the travel computation office received 
the voucher. (p. 86/GAO Draft Report):

Doll) RESPONSE: Concur. The DFAS will implement system edit checks to 
assure accuracy of manual entries into WINIATS for the period of 
travel, the dates the traveler and reviewer signed the voucher, and the 
date the travel computation office received the voucher. The estimated 
completion date is April 1, 2005.

RECOMMENDATION 19: The GAO recommended that the Secretary of Defense 
direct the Secretary of the Army, to develop an automated, centralized 
system for SNAs covering potential non-availability issues experienced 
by mobilized guard soldiers. (p. 86/GAO Draft Report):

DoD RESPONSE: Partial Concur. The Office of the Under Secretary of 
Defense (Personnel and Readiness) (OUSD(P&R)) and the DTS Program 
Management Office are working closely to ensure functional requirements 
for military travel processes are incorporated in the development of 
DTS and DIMHRS. DIMHRS is tentatively scheduled to be deployed to the 
Army National Guard in March 2006. Therefore, it is not feasible to 
develop an "interim" automated, centralized system for SNAs covering 
potential non-availability issues experienced by mobilized guard 
soldiers. However, in the interim, OUSD (P&R) will work with the 
Military Services' lodging communities to establish a standard SNA. 
Additionally, a centralized process will be developed for all Military 
Services.

RECOMMENDATION 20: The GAO recommended that the Secretary of Defense 
direct the Secretary of the Army, in conjunction with the Under 
Secretary of Defense (Comptroller), to incorporate a complete 
understanding of the Army Guard travel reimbursement problems as 
documented in this and related reports into the requirements 
development for these systems. (p. 86/GAO Draft Report):

DoD RESPONSE: Concur. The DTS Program Management Office will 
incorporate any necessary software changes after the Army and DFAS 
complete a review of the reimbursement process. The estimated 
completion date for the review is February 2006.

RECOMMENDATION 21: The GAO recommended that as part of the effort 
currently underway to reform DoD's travel (DTS) and pay and personnel 
systems (DIMHRS), that the Secretary of Defense direct the Secretary of 
the Army, in conjunction with the Under Secretary of Defense 
(Comptroller) to incorporate a complete understanding of the Army Guard 
travel reimbursement problems, as documented in this and related 
reports, into the requirements development for these systems, including 
automation of critical travel process functions such as travel vouchers 
and TCS orders. (p. 86/GAO Draft Report):

DoD RESPONSE: Concur. The OUSD (P&R), DTS Program Management Office, 
and the Army will ensure that the Army National Guard requirements are 
identified and incorporated into DTS and DIMHRS, to include automation 
of critical travel process functions, such as travel vouchers. The 
estimated completion date is March 2006.

RECOMMENDATION 22: The GAO recommended that as part of the effort 
currently underway to reform DoD's travel (DTS) and pay and personnel 
systems (DIMHRS), that the Secretary of Defense direct the Secretary of 
the Army, in conjunction with the Under Secretary of Defense 
(Comptroller) to incorporate a complete understanding of the Army Guard 
travel reimbursement problems, as documented in this and related 
reports, into the requirements development for these systems, including 
integration or interface of automated travel vouchers, SNAs, TCS 
orders, mobilization orders, and other relevant systems. (p. 86/GAO 
Draft Report):

DoD RESPONSE: Concur. The OUSD(P&R), DTS Program Management Office, and 
the Army will ensure that Army National Guard travel reimbursement 
requirements are identified and addressed in the requirements 
development for DTS and DIMHRS, to include the integration and 
interface of automated travel vouchers, SNAs, mobilization orders, and 
other relevant systems. The estimated completion date is March 2006.

RECOMMENDATION 23: The GAO recommended that as part of the effort 
currently underway to reform DoD's travel (DTS) and pay and personnel 
systems (DIMHRS), that the Secretary of Defense direct the Secretary of 
the Army, in conjunction with the Under Secretary of Defense 
(Comptroller) to incorporate a complete understanding of the Army Guard 
travel reimbursement problems, as documented in this and related 
reports, into the requirements development for these systems, 
including: identifying, calculating, and paying late payment interest 
and fees required pursuant to TTRA. (p. 86/GAO Draft Report):

DoD RESPONSE: Partial Concur. The OUSD(P&R), DTS Program Management 
Office, and the Army agree with the intent of the recommendation. 
However, DTS is not currently programmed to identify, calculate, and 
pay late payment interest and fees required pursuant to the TTRA. Under 
DTS, this programming feature is not required because the travel 
reimbursement process is completed within 5 days of traveler entering 
and transmitting pertinent data into DTS.

GAO DRAFT REPORT DATED NOVEMBER 22, 2004 GAO-05-79 (GAO CODE 192111):

"ARMY NATIONAL GUARD: Inefficient, Error-Prone Process Results in 
Travel Reimbursement Problems for Mobilized Soldiers"

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE COMMENTS TO THE GAO RECOMMENDATIONS:

Addendum to GAO Draft Report 05-79:

1. In the final report, request that GAO change recommendation 19 to 
read: "The GAO recommended that the Secretary of Defense direct the 
Under Secretary of Defense (Personnel and Readiness), in conjunction 
with the Army and the Under Secretary of Defense (Comptroller), to 
develop an automated, centralized system for SNAs covering potential 
non-availability issues experienced by mobilized guard soldiers."

2. In the final report, request that GAO change recommendations 20 
through 23 to read: "The GAO recommended that as part of the effort 
currently underway to reform DoD's travel (DTS) and pay and personnel 
systems (DIMHRS), that the Secretary of Defense direct the Secretary of 
the Army, in conjunction with the Under Secretary of Defense 
(Comptroller) and the Under Secretary of Defense (Personnel and 
Readiness) to incorporate a complete understanding of the Army Guard 
travel reimbursement problems as documented in this and related reports 
into the requirements development of these systems....."

[End of section]

Appendix III: GAO Contacts and Staff Acknowledgments: 

GAO Contacts: 

Mary Ellen Chervenic, (202) 512-6218; 
Stephen W. Lipscomb, (303) 572-7328; 
John J. Ryan, (202) 512-9587: 

Acknowledgments: 

Staff making key contributions to this report include Paul S. Begnaud, 
Norman M. Burrell, Francine M. DelVecchio, C. Robert DeRoy, Lauren S. 
Fassler, Dennis B. Fauber, Wilfred B. Holloway, Patty P. Hsieh, Charles 
R. Hodge, Jason M. Kelly, Julia C. Matta, Sheila D. Miller, Bennett E. 
Severson, Robert A. Sharpe, Patrick S. Tobo, and Jenniffer F. Wilson. 

(192111): 

FOOTNOTES

[1] Total numbers include Army Guard soldiers mobilized more than once. 

[2] Joint Federal Travel Regulation (JFTR)/Joint Travel Regulation 
(JTR), app. O, para. T4020.B.2, change 203/457, November 1, 2003. 

[3] GAO, Travel Cards: Control Weaknesses Leave Army Vulnerable to 
Potential Fraud and Abuse, GAO-03-169 (Washington, D.C.: Oct. 11, 
2002). 

[4] Pub. L. No. 105-264, 112 Stat. 2350 (Oct. 19, 1998). 

[5] Defense Finance and Accounting Service Internal Review, Army Travel 
Pay Services Performance Review, DE03PAP003DFAS (Arlington, Va.: Mar. 
27, 2003). 

[6] GAO, Military Pay: Army National Guard Personnel Mobilized to 
Active Duty Experienced Significant Pay Problems, GAO-04-89 
(Washington, D.C.: Nov. 13, 2003), and Military Pay: Army Reserve 
Soldiers Mobilized to Active Duty Experienced Significant Pay Problems, 
GAO-04-911 (Washington, D.C.: Aug. 20, 2004). 

[7] In this report, the terms "mobilized" or "mobilized to active 
service" refer to soldiers called to duty under the authority of Title 
10 or Title 32, United States Code. 

[8] Total numbers include Army Guard and Army Reserve soldiers 
mobilized more than once. 

[9] Reserve components include the Army National Guard of the United 
States, Army Reserve, Air National Guard of the United States, Air 
Force Reserve, Naval Reserve, Marine Corps Reserve, and Coast Guard 
Reserve. 10 U.S.C. § 10101. 

[10] JFTR/JTR, app. O, para. T4020.B.2, change 203/457, November 1, 
2003. 

[11] The term "contingency operation" means a military operation that 
is designated by the Secretary of Defense as an operation in which 
members of the armed forces are or may become involved in military 
actions, operations, or hostilities against an enemy of the United 
States or against an opposing military force or results in the call or 
order to, or retention on, active duty of members of the uniformed 
services under section 688, 12301(a), 12302, 12304, 12305, or 12406 of 
Title 10 of the United States Code or any other provision of law during 
a war or during a national emergency declared by the President or 
Congress. 10 U.S.C. § 101(a)(13). 

[12] JFTR, app. A, p. A-16, change 199, July 1, 2003. 

[13] Personnel Policy Guidance of Operations Iraqi Freedom (OIF), 
Enduring Freedom (OEF), and Noble Eagle (ONE), at 
http://www.odcsper.army.mil/militarypersonnel/policy.asp (last visited 
Apr. 28, 2004). 

[14] PPG, para. 8-2.a.(5) and (6)(c) (reformatted April 2004). 

[15] JFTR, para. U4149.C (change 194) (Feb. 1, 2003). 

[16] CONUS per diem rates are published annually or as necessary by the 
General Services Administration and apply within the 48 contiguous 
United States. DOD publishes separate locality per diem rates (not 
included in table 1) for the noncontiguous U.S. states (Alaska and 
Hawaii), plus Puerto Rico, the Northern Marianna Islands, and 
territories and possessions of the United States. 

[17] OCONUS per diem rates are published monthly by the Department of 
State and apply to travel in all foreign areas, including the Trust 
Territory of the Pacific Islands. 

[18] PPG, para. 8-2.a.(5) (reformatted April 2004). See also 37 U.S.C. 
§ 1009(d) as amended by the Section 605 of the National Defense 
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1998, Pub. L. No. 105-85, 111 Stat. 
1629, 1648 (Nov. 18, 1997), which provides that a soldier's BAS is not 
to be reduced when the soldier is temporarily assigned to duty away 
from the soldier's permanent duty station. 

[19] 37 U.S.C. § 402. 

[20] AFCOS is a stand-alone system separately operated by each of the 
54 USPFOs. 

[21] The Army National Guard Financial Services Center, The Citizen- 
Soldier's Guide to Mobilization Finance (Indianapolis: April 2004). 

[22] Due to the complexities of travel requirements and filing travel 
vouchers, although exceptions are sometimes authorized, the Department 
of the Army discourages the use of the government travel card in 
support of contingency operations, such as Noble Eagle, Enduring 
Freedom, and Iraqi Freedom. Military service members who use government 
travel cards must use the split disbursement feature on the travel 
voucher, which automatically pays the credit card provider for certain 
credit card charges for that travel. 

[23] JFTR, ch. 4, para. U4400-B3c, change 193, January 1, 2003. 

[24] PPG (reformatted April 2004), ch. 8-2,a, (6) (c). 

[25] 37 U.S.C. § 402 and PPG, para. 8-2.a.(5) (reformatted April 2004). 
See also 37 U.S.C. § 1009(d) as amended by Section 605 of the National 
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1998, Pub. L. No. 105-85, 111 
Stat. 1629, 1648 (Nov. 18, 1997). 

[26] PPG, ch. 8-2a(5). 

[27] PPG, ch. 8-2a(5). 

[28] PPG, ch. 8-2, .a, (5). 

[29] PPG, ch. 8-2, .a, (6) (c). 

[30] FTR, 41 C.F.R. § 301 71.210. 

[31] GAO, Travel Cards: Control Weaknesses Leave Army Vulnerable to 
Potential Fraud and Abuse, GAO-03-169 (Washington, D.C.: Oct. 11, 
2002). 

[32] A supplemental voucher is submitted to correct an error or 
omission on a previous travel voucher. 

[33] DOD FMR, vol. 9, ch. 3, para. 030801E (August 2003). 

[34] DFAS-IN Travel Technical Message (TTM) 03-04, April 3, 2003. 

[35] A settlement voucher is the final travel voucher submitted at the 
end of a period of travel, including an extended period of travel. 

[36] An accrual travel voucher is a claim for partial payment of travel 
expenses that can be filed by travelers whose travel time extends 
beyond 30 days. The traveler should file an accrual travel voucher 
within 5 working days after the end of every 30 calendar-day period. 

[37] DFAS-IN Travel Technical Message (TTM) 04-10, para. 5 (May 2004). 

[38] The term "supplemental voucher" as used in this context refers to 
travel vouchers processed for the purpose of correcting an error in a 
previous partial or accrual travel voucher submitted and paid prior to 
the completion of an extended period of travel. 

[39] U.S. Department of Defense, Report of the Department of Defense 
Task Force to Reengineer Travel (Washington, D.C.: January 1995). 

[40] GAO, DOD Business Systems Modernization: Billions Continue to Be 
Invested with Inadequate Management Oversight and Accountability, GAO- 
04-615 (Washington, D.C.: May 27, 2004), and Department of Defense: 
Long-standing Problems Continue to Impede Financial and Business 
Management Transformation, GAO-04-907T (Washington, D.C.: July 7, 
2004). 

[41] Defense Finance and Accounting Service Internal Review, Army 
Travel Pay Services (Arlington, Va.: Mar. 27, 2003). 

[42] The life cycle cost estimate is the cost estimate for fiscal years 
1996 through 2016 for the DOD business travel function expressed in 
constant fiscal year 2003 dollars. It includes investment costs for 
fiscal years 1996 through 2006, operations costs for fiscal years 2003 
through 2016, and alternate system (status quo) phaseout costs for 
fiscal years 1996 through 2006. 

[43] DOD FMR, Vol. 9, ch. 8, para. 080803 (Oct. 2003). 

[44] Defense Finance and Accounting Service, Statistical Operations and 
Review Branch, Military & Civilian Pay Services Defense Travel System: 
Results of Post Payment Reviews, 1st Quarter, FY 2004 (Kansas City, 
Mo.: undated). 

[45] Defense Finance and Accounting Service Internal Review, Review of 
the Defense Travel System (DTS) (Arlington, Va.: June 15, 2004). 

[46] GAO, Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government, 
GAO/AIMD-00-21.3.1 (Washington, D.C.: November 1999). These standards 
provide the overall framework for establishing and maintaining 
effective internal control. 

[47] Individuals could not be contacted for various reasons, including 
(1) being deployed overseas, (2) no longer in the Army Guard or Army, 
(3) no current contact number, and (4) not responsive to voicemail and 
e-mail inquires. 

GAO's Mission: 

The Government Accountability Office, the 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 the Internet. GAO's Web site ( www.gao.gov ) contains 
abstracts and full-text files of current reports and testimony and an 
expanding archive of older products. The Web site features a search 
engine to help you locate documents using key words and phrases. You 
can print these documents in their entirety, including charts and other 
graphics. 

Each day, GAO issues a list of newly released reports, testimony, and 
correspondence. GAO posts this list, known as "Today's Reports," on its 
Web site daily. The list contains links to the full-text document 
files. To have GAO e-mail this list to you every afternoon, go to 
www.gao.gov and select "Subscribe to e-mail alerts" under the "Order 
GAO Products" heading. 

Order by Mail or Phone: 

The first copy of each printed report is free. Additional copies are $2 
each. A check or money order should be made out to the Superintendent 
of Documents. GAO also accepts VISA and Mastercard. Orders for 100 or 
more copies mailed to a single address are discounted 25 percent. 
Orders should be sent to: 

U.S. Government Accountability Office

441 G Street NW, Room LM

Washington, D.C. 20548: 

To order by Phone: 

Voice: (202) 512-6000: 

TDD: (202) 512-2537: 

Fax: (202) 512-6061: 

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

Contact: 

Web site: www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm

E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov

Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7470: 

Public Affairs: 

Jeff Nelligan, managing director,

NelliganJ@gao.gov

(202) 512-4800

U.S. Government Accountability Office,

441 G Street NW, Room 7149

Washington, D.C. 20548: