This is the accessible text file for GAO report number GAO-09-562
entitled 'Human Capital: Actions Needed to Better Track and Provide
Timely and Accurate Compensation and Medical Benefits to Deployed
Federal Civilians' which was released on June 26, 2009.
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 the Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations, Committee
on Armed Services, House of Representatives:
United States Government Accountability Office:
GAO:
June 2009:
Human Capital:
Actions Needed to Better Track and Provide Timely and Accurate
Compensation and Medical Benefits to Deployed Federal Civilians:
Deployed Civilian Issues:
GAO-09-562:
GAO Highlights:
Highlights of GAO-09-562, a report to the Subcommittee on Oversight and
Investigations, Committee on Armed Services, House of Representatives.
Why GAO Did This Study:
The Department of Defense (DOD) and other executive agencies
increasingly deploy civilians in support of contingency operations in
Iraq and Afghanistan. Prior GAO reports show that the use of deployed
civilians has raised questions about the potential for differences in
policies on compensation and medical benefits. GAO was asked to compare
agency policies and to identify any issues in policy or implementation
regarding (1) compensation, (2) medical benefits, and (3)
identification and tracking of deployed civilians. GAO reviewed laws
and agency policies; interviewed officials responsible for
governmentwide guidance at the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) and
for policy at six selected agencies, including DOD and State; reviewed
all workers’ compensation claims filed by deployed civilians from
January 1, 2006 through April 30, 2008 at the Department of Labor; and
conducted a generalizeable survey of civilians deployed from the six
agencies during this same period.
What GAO Found:
Although policies concerning compensation for deployed civilians are
generally comparable across agencies, GAO found some issues that affect
the amount of compensation—depending on such things as the agency’s pay
system or the employee’s grade/band—and the accuracy, timeliness, and
completeness of this compensation. For example, two civilian
supervisors with comparable salaries who deploy under different pay
systems receive different overtime pay because the overtime rate is
determined by the employee’s pay system and grade/band level. While a
congressional subcommittee asked OPM to develop a benefits package for
all deployed civilians to war zones and to recommend enabling
legislation, OPM has not yet developed such a package or provided
legislation. Also, implementation of some policies may not always be
accurate or timely. For example, GAO estimates that approximately 40
percent of the deployed civilians in its survey reported experiencing
problems with compensation—including not receiving danger pay—in part
because they did not know where to go for assistance. Moreover, in
January 2008, Congress gave agency heads discretion to apply the death
gratuity provision retroactively for deaths connected with operations
in Iraq or Afghanistan on or after October 7, 2001. At the time of GAO’
s review, agencies had not yet issued formal policy to implement this
benefit.
Although agency policies on medical benefits are similar, GAO found
some issues with medical care following deployment, workers’
compensation, and post deployment medical screenings that affect the
benefits of deployed civilians. Specifically, while DOD allows its
treatment facilities to care for “non-DOD” civilians following
deployment in some cases, the circumstances are not clearly identified
in guidance and some agencies were unaware of DOD’s policy. Civilians
who deploy also may be eligible for medical benefits through worker’s
compensation. GAO’s analysis of 188 such claims filed with Labor
revealed some significant processing delays resulting in part from lack
of clarity about the documentation required to support claims. Without
clear information on what documents to submit to support a claim,
applicants may continue to experience delays. Further, while DOD
requires medical screening before and following deployment for
civilians, State requires medical screenings only before deployment.
Prior GAO work found that documenting the medical condition of deployed
personnel before and following deployment was critical to identifying
conditions that may have resulted from deployment.
Each agency provided GAO with a list of deployed civilians, but none
had fully implemented policies to identify and track these civilians.
DOD, for example, had procedures to identify and track deployed
civilians but concluded that its guidance was not consistently
implemented. While the other agencies had some ability to identify and
track civilians, some had to manually search their systems. Thus,
agencies may lack critical information on the location and movement of
personnel, which may hamper their ability to intervene promptly to
address emerging health issues, as GAO has previously reported.
What GAO Recommends:
GAO makes ten recommendations to the agencies included in this review
to take actions such as clarifying guidance regarding non-DOD civilian’
s eligibility for treatment at DOD facilities and creating mechanisms
to assist and track deployed civilians. Seven of the agencies generally
agreed with these recommendations; one agency did not—for example it
stated that it already had mechanisms to assist and track deployed
civilians.
View [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-09-562] or key
components. For more information, contact Brenda S. Farrell at (202)
512-3604 or farrellb@gao.gov.
[End of section]
Contents:
Letter:
Results In Brief:
Background:
While Policies on Compensation Are Generally Comparable, Some Policy
and Implementation Issues Affect the Amount, Accuracy, and Completeness
of Compensation:
While Policies on Medical Benefits Are Generally Comparable, Some
Issues Exist in Both Policies and Implementation:
Executive Agencies' Ability to Track Deployed Civilians Is Limited:
Conclusions:
Recommendations for Executive Action:
Agency Comments and Our Evaluation:
Appendix I: Scope and Methodology:
Appendix II: Comparative Analysis of Selected Key Compensation
Policies:
Appendix III: Demographic Information and Selected Survey Responses:
Appendix IV: Comments from the Office of Personnel Management:
Appendix V: Comments from the Department of Labor:
Appendix VI: Comments from the Department of Defense:
Appendix VII: Comments from the Department of State:
Appendix VIII: Comments from the Department of Justice:
Appendix IX: Comments from the United States Agency for International
Development:
Appendix X: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgements:
Related GAO Products:
Tables:
Table 1: Effect of Pay Band and Pay Grade on Nonsupervisory Overtime
Pay:
Table 2: Effect of Pay Band and Pay Grade on Supervisory Overtime Pay:
Table 3: Effect of Federal Civilian Employees' Deployment Status on
Compensation:
Table 4: Population and Sample Description:
Table 5: Compensation - General:
Table 6: Compensation - Premium Pay:
Table 7: Medical Benefits:
Table 8: Compensation - Breaks and Leaves:
Table 9: Demographic Information:
Figures:
Figure 1: Did "You" Volunteer for Duty in Iraq or Afghanistan or Were
You Required to Travel to that Country as a Condition of Your
Employment? (n = 211):
Figure 2: Factors That Greatly or Moderately Influenced Civilians'
Decision to Serve in Iraq or Afghanistan (n = 211):
Figure 3: If Given the Opportunity, Would "You" Agree to Return to Iraq
or Afghanistan on Official Government Business? (n = 214):
Figure 4: Did "You" Experience Any Medical Issues (Disease, Illness, or
Injury) during Your Most Recent Official Trip to Either Iraq or
Afghanistan? (n = 214):
Figure 5: Did "You" Seek Treatment for These Medical Issues during Your
Most Recent Official Trip? (n = 108):
Figure 6: Did "You" Experience Any Problems with Medical Care during
Your Most Recent Travel to Iraq or Afghanistan? (n = 105):
Figure 7: Upon Leaving Iraq or Afghanistan, Did "You" Seek Follow-up
Care for Any Medical or Dental Issues Related to Your Travel? (n =
209):
Figure 8: Type of Facility at which Civilians Sought Care Following
Deployment (n = 60):
Figure 9: Did "You" File a Workers' Compensation Claim under the
Federal Employees' Compensation Act (FECA) for Any Medical Issues You
Experienced while in Iraq or Afghanistan? (n = 212):
Figure 10: Did "You" Experience Any Problems with the Claims Process?
(n = 32):
[End of section]
United States Government Accountability Office:
Washington, DC 20548:
June 26, 2009:
The Honorable Vic Snyder:
Chairman:
The Honorable Rob Wittman:
Ranking Member:
Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations:
Committee on Armed Services:
House of Representatives:
As the Department of Defense (DOD) has expanded its involvement in
overseas military operations, it has grown increasingly reliant on its
federal civilian workforce to provide support. The civilian workforce
performs, among other things, combat support functions that
traditionally have been performed by the uniformed military, such as
logistics support and maintenance. DOD acknowledged its growing
reliance on civilian personnel in its 2006 Quadrennial Defense Review;
also, since fiscal year 2004, the department has converted thousands of
military positions to civilian positions, and it is planning to convert
more. In addition, in April 2009, the Secretary of Defense announced
plans to convert 33,600 contractor positions to federal civilian
positions. The Department of State (State) and other federal agencies
also play an important role in the stabilization and reconstruction of
at-risk countries and regions, consistent with the "whole of
government"[Footnote 1] approach.
The size of the stabilization and reconstruction efforts in Iraq and
Afghanistan, in terms of both cost and number of personnel deployed,
far exceeds the size of any similar undertaking since the Vietnam
conflict. According to DOD and State estimates, the federal government
has deployed over 10,000 civilians in support of these efforts since
2001. These civilians are from various executive agencies, including
the six covered in our review: DOD, the Departments of State, Homeland
Security, Agriculture, and Justice, and the U.S. Agency for
International Development (USAID).[Footnote 2] While in theater,
deployed civilians--regardless of which executive agency employs them-
-fall under the purview of either DOD or State, while remaining subject
to the administrative processes of their employing agencies for
compensation.[Footnote 3] This civilian workforce consists of employees
who are compensated under several different pay systems in use at the
time of our review, including the General Schedule (GS), Foreign
Service (FS), and the recently implemented National Security Personnel
System (NSPS)[Footnote 4] for DOD civilian employees. Each pay system
is governed by unique authorizing statutes, which are implemented in
accordance with agency regulations and policies--including some
established by the Office of Personnel Management (OPM)[Footnote 5]--
governing monetary and nonmonetary compensation.[Footnote 6]
As we previously reported, DOD's use of civilian personnel to support
military operations has long raised questions about its policies on
compensation and medical benefits for such civilians.[Footnote 7] For
example, in 2006 DOD did not have quality assurance procedures in place
to ensure that deployed civilians completed (1) pre-deployment health
assessments to make certain they were medically fit to deploy and (2)
post-deployment health assessments to document their health status
following deployment, environmental exposures, and health concerns
related to their work while deployed. Consequently, DOD had no
assurance that civilians were medically fit to deploy and could not
identify any follow-up medical treatment these civilians required
following deployment. In addition, we reported that procedures were not
in place during the Gulf War to provide for overtime or danger pay that
deployed civilians were entitled to receive.[Footnote 8] Now that
executive agencies in addition to DOD and State are deploying civilians
to Iraq and Afghanistan,[Footnote 9] Congress has noted that although
these civilians are working under similar conditions and being exposed
to the same risks, they may be receiving different levels of
compensation and medical benefits. For example, in April 2008, your
Subcommittee issued a report on incentives, benefits, and medical care
for deployed civilians.[Footnote 10] In this report, the Subcommittee
recommended, among other things, that OPM develop an incentive and
benefits package that would apply to all federal civilians deployed to
a war zone and submit legislative recommendations, if necessary, to
Congress. In June 2008, OPM issued a memorandum urging the executive
agencies that deploy civilians to make every effort to eliminate any
disparities or inconsistencies in these deployed civilians'
compensation by applying any available and appropriate compensation
authorities.[Footnote 11]
You requested that we perform a comparative review of executive
agencies' policies and practices regarding the compensation and medical
benefits they provide to civilian employees who deploy to Iraq or
Afghanistan.[Footnote 12] In response to that request, we examined the
extent to which the six agencies we reviewed have (1) comparable
policies concerning compensation and any issues--in policy or
implementation--that may affect the compensation to which deployed
civilians are entitled; (2) comparable policies concerning medical
benefits for deployed civilians and any issues--in policy or
implementation--that may affect the medical benefits to which deployed
civilians are entitled; and (3) policies and procedures to identify and
track deployed civilians to address any future medical issues that may
emerge as a result of their deployment.
To identify whether the six selected executive branch agencies have
comparable policies on compensation and medical benefits for their
deployed civilians, we reviewed applicable federal statutes, guidance,
memoranda, and other policy documents, and we conducted a comparative
analysis of these documents. We also interviewed agency officials,
including officials at OPM, to determine their perspectives on the
compensation and medical benefits to which civilians were entitled both
during and following their deployments. To determine the extent to
which these agencies have any implementation issues that may affect the
compensation and medical benefits to which deployed civilians are
entitled, we reviewed pre-deployment information and instructional
documents pertaining to the compensation and medical benefits to which
deployed civilians are entitled, as well as agency practices for
medically screening civilians both before and following their
deployments. We also conducted a Web survey of a probability sample of
civilians who were deployed to Iraq or Afghanistan between January 1,
2006, and April 30, 2008, to gather information on their experiences.
[Footnote 13] Specifically, this survey gathered, among other things,
information from deployed civilians about instructional documents
received, medical screening, and receipt of compensation and medical
care during and following their deployments. To further explore issues
that were identified by survey respondents, we conducted small group
discussions with deployed DOD and State civilians serving in Iraq at
the time of our review; we also conducted interviews with DOD and State
officials, including medical personnel. We also reviewed the universe
of workers' compensation claims filed with the Department of Labor
(Labor)[Footnote 14] between January 1, 2006, and April 30, 2008, by
civilians deployed to Iraq and Afghanistan, and we interviewed Labor
officials concerning the workers' compensation claims process. To
determine the extent to which agencies identify and track deployed
civilians for medical purposes, we reviewed applicable agency guidance
and interviewed knowledgeable agency officials. In addition, we
obtained and reviewed lists of deployed civilians from each of the
agencies. To assess the reliability of the data in these lists and
workers' compensation claims, we (1) reviewed existing information
about the systems that generated these lists and claims information and
(2) interviewed agency officials knowledgeable about the systems and
information. We determined that the information was sufficiently
reliable for the purposes of our review.
We conducted this performance audit from February 2008 through June
2009, in accordance with generally accepted government auditing
standards. Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit
to obtain sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable
basis for our findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives.
We believe that the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for
our findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. (For more
detailed information on our scope and methodology, see appendix I.)
Results In Brief:
Although policies concerning compensation for deployed civilians are
generally comparable across agencies, we found some issues that affect
the amount of compensation they receive--depending on such things as
the agency's pay system or the civilian's grade/band level--and the
accuracy, timeliness, and completeness of this compensation.
Specifically, two deployed civilians with comparable salaries who work
under different pay systems could receive different overtime pay
because the overtime rate is determined by the employee's pay system
and grade/band level. For example, NSPS supervisors, who are paid
salaries equivalent to those of GS-12 step 1 supervisors, receive their
normal hourly rate for overtime hours, while GS-12 step 1 supervisors
receive 1.14 times their normal hourly rate for overtime. As a result
of this and other variations in policy--such as how deployment status
affects the receipt of locality pay--deployed civilians at equivalent
pay grades who work under the same conditions and face the same risks
may receive different compensation. The Subcommittee on Oversight and
Investigations, House Armed Services Committee recommended that OPM
develop a benefits package for all federal civilians deployed to war
zones, to ensure that equitable benefits are received by deployed
civilians. But OPM has not developed such a package or provided
legislative recommendations. OPM officials stated that DOD had
initiated an interagency working group to discuss compensation issues
and that this group had developed some proposals for legislative
changes. However, these proposals have not yet been submitted to
Congress and do not, according to DOD officials, represent a
comprehensive package for all civilians deployed to war zones, as
recommended by the Subcommittee. Furthermore, compensation policies
were not always implemented accurately or in a timely manner. For
example, we project that approximately 40 percent of the estimated
2,100 civilians deployed from January 1, 2006, to April 30, 2008,
experienced problems with compensation--including not receiving danger
pay or receiving it late, for instance--in part because they were
unaware of their eligibility or did not know where to go for assistance
to start and stop these deployment-related pays. In fact, officials at
four agencies acknowledged that they have experienced difficulties in
effectively administering deployment related pays, in part because
there is no single source delineating the various pays associated with
deployment. As we previously reported concerning their military
counterparts,[Footnote 15] unless deployed personnel are adequately
supported in this area, they may not be receiving all of the
compensation to which they are entitled. Additionally, in January 2008,
Congress authorized an expanded death gratuity--under the Federal
Employees' Compensation Act (FECA)--of up to $100,000 for deaths
resulting from injuries incurred in connection with service with an
armed force in a contingency operation. Congress also gave agency heads
discretion to apply this gratuity retroactively for any such deaths
occurring on or after October 7, 2001, as a result of injuries incurred
in connection with the employees' service with an armed force in Iraq
or Afghanistan.[Footnote 16] At the time of our review, Labor--the
agency responsible for the implementing regulations under FECA--had not
yet issued its formal policy. Labor officials told us that, because of
the recent change in administration, they could not provide us with an
anticipated issue date for the final policy. Officials from the six
agencies included in our review stated that they were delaying the
development of policies and procedures to implement the death gratuity
until after Labor issues its policy. As a result, some of these
agencies have not moved forward on these provisions. We are
recommending that (1) OPM oversee an executive agency working group on
compensation for deployed civilians to address any differences and if
necessary make legislative recommendations; (2) the agencies included
in our review establish ombudsman programs or, for agencies deploying
small numbers of civilians, focal points to help ensure that deployed
civilians receive the compensation to which they are entitled; and (3)
Labor set a time frame for issuing implementing guidance for the death
gratuity. We provided a copy of the draft report to the agencies in our
review. With the exception of USAID, all of the agencies generally
concurred with these recommendations. We address USAID's comments,
along with issues raised by the other agencies, in detail later in this
report.
Although agency policies on medical benefits are similar, we found some
issues with policies related to medical treatment following deployment,
and with the implementation of workers' compensation and post-
deployment medical screening, that affect the medical benefits of these
civilians. Specifically, DOD and State guidance provides for medical
care of all civilians during their deployments. On the other hand,
while DOD guidance provides for care at military treatment facilities
for all DOD civilians--under workers' compensation--following their
deployments, the guidance does not clearly define the "compelling
circumstances" under which non-DOD civilians would be eligible for such
care. Because DOD's policy is unclear, confusion exists within DOD and
other agencies regarding civilians' eligibility for care at military
treatment facilities following deployment. Furthermore, officials at
several agencies were unaware that civilians from their agencies were
potentially eligible for care at DOD facilities following deployment,
in part because these agencies had not received the guidance from DOD
about this eligibility. Because some agencies are not aware of their
civilians' eligibility for care at military treatment facilities
following deployment, these civilians cannot benefit from the efforts
DOD has undertaken in areas such as post traumatic stress disorder.
Moreover, civilians who deploy are also eligible for medical benefits
through workers' compensation if Labor determines that their medical
condition resulted from personal injury sustained in the performance of
duty during deployment.[Footnote 17] Our review of all 188 workers'
compensation claims[Footnote 18] related to deployments to Iraq or
Afghanistan that were filed between January 1, 2006, and April 30,
2008, found that Labor requested additional information in support of
these claims in 125 cases, resulting in increased processing times that
in some instances exceeded the department's standard goals for
processing claims.[Footnote 19] Twenty-two percent of the respondents
to our survey who had filed workers' compensation claims stated that
their agencies provided them with little or no support in completing
the paperwork for their claims. Labor officials stated that applicants
failed to provide adequate documentation, in part because they were
unaware of the type of information they needed to provide. Furthermore,
our review of Labor's claims process indicated that Labor's form for a
traumatic injury did not specify what supporting documents applicants
had to submit to substantiate a claim.[Footnote 20] Specifically, while
this form states that the claimant must "provide medical evidence in
support of a disability," the type of evidence required is not
specifically identified. Without clear information on what
documentation to submit in support of their claims, applicants may
continue to experience delays in the process. In addition, DOD requires
deploying civilians to be medically screened both before and following
their deployments. However, post-deployment screenings are not always
conducted, because DOD lacks standardized procedures for processing
returning civilians. Approximately 21 percent of DOD civilians who
responded to our survey stated that they did not complete a post-
deployment health assessment. In contrast, State generally requires a
medical clearance as a precondition to deployment but has no formal
requirement for post-deployment screenings of civilians who deploy
under its purview. Our prior work has found that documenting the
medical condition of deployed civilians both before and following
deployment is critical to identifying conditions that may have resulted
from deployment, such as traumatic brain injury.[Footnote 21] We are
recommending that (1) DOD clarify its guidance concerning the
circumstances under which civilians are entitled to treatment at
military treatment facilities following deployment and formally advise
other agencies that deploy civilians of DOD's policy governing
treatment at these facilities; (2) Labor revise the application
materials for workers' compensation claims to make clear what
documentation applicants must submit with their claims; (3) the
agencies included in our review establish ombudsman programs or, for
agencies deploying small numbers of civilians, focal points to help
ensure that deployed civilians get timely responses to their
applications and receive the medical benefits to which they are
entitled; (4) DOD establish standard procedures to ensure that
returning civilians complete required post-deployment medical
screenings; and (5) State develop post-deployment medical screening
requirements for civilians deployed under its purview. The agencies
generally concurred with these recommendations, with the exception of
USAID, which stated that it already had an appropriate mechanism to
assist its civilians. We address this issue in detail later in our
report.
While each of the agencies we reviewed was able to provide a list of
deployed civilians, none of these agencies has fully implemented
policies and procedures to identify and track its civilians who have
deployed to Iraq and Afghanistan. DOD, for example, issued guidance and
established procedures for identifying and tracking deployed civilians
in 2006, but concluded in 2008 that its guidance and associated
procedures were not being consistently implemented across the agency.
In 2008 and 2009 DOD reiterated its policy requirements and again
called for DOD components to comply.[Footnote 22] The other agencies we
reviewed have some ability to identify deployed civilians, but they did
not have any specific mechanisms designed to identify or track location-
specific information on these civilians. As we have previously
reported, the ability of agencies to report location-specific
information on employees is necessary for identifying potential
exposures or other incidents related to deployment.[Footnote 23] Lack
of such information may hamper these agencies' ability to intervene
quickly to address any future health issues that may result from
deployments in support of contingency operations. We are therefore
recommending that (1) DOD establish mechanisms to ensure that its
policies to identify and track deployed civilians are implemented and
(2) the other five executive agencies included in our review develop
policies and procedures to accurately identify and track standardized
information on deployed civilians. The agencies generally concurred
with these recommendations, with the exception of USAID, which stated
that it already had an appropriate mechanism to track its civilians. We
address this issue, along with issues raised by the other agencies, in
a later part of this report.
Background:
DOD, State, and other executive agencies rely on civilians to perform
many critical functions in Iraq and Afghanistan. DOD relies on the
federal civilian personnel it deploys to support a range of essential
missions, including logistics support, maintenance, intelligence
collection, criminal investigations, and weapon systems acquisition.
These civilians are either deployed directly to Iraq or Afghanistan or
can be supporting the ongoing operations from other countries in the
region, such as Bahrain, Kuwait, and Qatar. State relies on these
civilians who are deployed to support ongoing stabilization and
reconstruction efforts as part of either the embassy staff or
provincial reconstruction teams. DOD, State, and the other executive
agencies that deploy civilians generally rely on volunteers to satisfy
their requirements for civilians in Iraq and Afghanistan. While both
DOD and State currently report having sufficient volunteers to fill all
their requirements for federal civilians, State has not always had
sufficient personnel to meet its needs. When the United States
established provincial reconstruction teams--civilian-military
interagency teams engaged in stabilization and reconstruction efforts-
-DOD provided additional personnel to the provincial reconstruction
teams to make up for the initial inability of State to provide
sufficient civilian personnel.
The deployed civilian workforce represents a cross section of employees
from a number of different agencies and pay systems working in close
proximity to one another. Each of these pay systems was authorized by a
separate statute that outlines the compensation to which employees
under that system are entitled, certain elements of which are set
without regard to the location in which the employees are working. In
addition, these deployed civilians are entitled to certain medical
benefits. When these civilians are deployed and serve side by side, the
differences in pay systems may become more apparent and may adversely
impact morale. As a result, Congress has enacted a number of laws aimed
at leveling compensation for deployed civilians across agencies and pay
systems. For example, beginning in 2006, Congress granted agency heads
the discretion to provide their deployed civilians certain compensation
and benefits comparable to those of the Foreign Service, such as death
gratuities and leave benefits. Congress has also enacted laws that
allow agency heads to waive premium pay caps for deployed civilians.
[Footnote 24] These laws help recognize the hardships under which they
serve.
We have reported on compensation and medical issues related to
deployments to Iraq and Afghanistan--including issues for
servicemembers as well as deployed DOD civilians. These issues have
included weaknesses in the payroll procedures associated with the
activation of National Guard and Reserve forces that resulted in
servicemembers and their families having to take extraordinary steps to
correct payroll problems--often while still serving in dangerous
environments.[Footnote 25] We have also identified weaknesses in DOD's
ability to track and record possible exposures to environmental and
industrial hazards during operations in Iraq. These weaknesses may
result in DOD not being able to evaluate the long-term health effects
of deployment on its servicemembers.[Footnote 26] Finally, we have
identified weaknesses in oversight of compliance with force health
protection requirements, including medical screenings and location-
specific tracking of deployed DOD civilians.[Footnote 27]
While Policies on Compensation Are Generally Comparable, Some Policy
and Implementation Issues Affect the Amount, Accuracy, and Completeness
of Compensation:
Although policies concerning compensation for deployed civilians are
generally comparable across agencies, we found some policy and
implementation issues that affect the amount, accuracy, timeliness, and
completeness of compensation of deployed civilians.[Footnote 28] While
all the agencies included in our review provide similar types and rates
of compensation to their civilians deployed to Iraq or Afghanistan, in
some instances deployed civilians working under similar conditions with
comparable salaries receive different compensation depending on their
agency's pay system, their pay grade/band level within that system, and
their deployment status. Additionally, our survey results and group
discussions with civilians currently deployed to Iraq indicate that
agencies face some difficulties in ensuring that deployed civilians
receive the compensation to which they are entitled in an accurate and
timely manner. Finally, a key provision authorized by Congress to
enhance death gratuities for deployed civilians is not yet formally
incorporated in policy.
Agencies' Broad Policies on Compensation for Deployed Civilians Are
Generally Comparable:
The agencies included in our review provide similar types of deployment-
related compensation to civilians deployed to Iraq or Afghanistan.
Agency policies regarding compensation for federal employees--including
deployed civilians--are subject to regulations and guidance issued by
either OPM or other executive agencies, in accordance with underlying
statutory personnel authorities. In some cases, the statutes and
implementing regulations provide agency heads with flexibility in how
they administer their compensation policies, such as certain aspects of
compensation provided for deployed civilians. For example, agency heads
are currently authorized by statute to provide their civilians deployed
to combat zones with certain benefits--such as death gratuities and
leave benefits-- comparable to those provided the Foreign Service,
regardless of the underlying pay system of the employee.[Footnote 29]
In addition, all six of the agencies we reviewed have, according to
agency policies or statements from agency officials, exercised their
statutory authority to raise the annual limitation on the amount of
premium pay that they provide to eligible deployed civilians and
provide post hardship differential and danger pay[Footnote 30] at the
same rate--35 percent of the civilian's basic rate. Further, all six
agencies may provide additional compensation to certain deployed
civilians for work performed in excess of normal work hours. Finally,
each of these agencies provides for deployed civilians to take
deployment-related leave. (See appendix II for a comparative analysis
of key policies on compensation at the six agencies we reviewed.)
Some Variations in Policies May Affect Compensation Received:
While compensation policies are generally comparable, there are
variations in these policies that may result in employees receiving
different amounts of compensation depending on their agency's pay
system, the employee's pay grade/band level within that system, and the
employee's deployment status. For example, variations in policies for
such areas as overtime rate, premium pay eligibility, and deployment
status can result in monetary differences of tens of thousands of
dollars per year. In its June 2008 memorandum,[Footnote 31] OPM
acknowledged that current laws and agency policy can result in
executive agencies paying different types of compensation to deployed
civilians at equivalent pay grades who are working under the same
conditions and facing the same risks.
Pay System and Grade/Band:
Some variations in the compensation available to deployed civilians
result directly from the employing agency's pay system. Since statutes
and policies for some of these pay systems--for example GS and FS--were
established prior to the current operations in Iraq and Afghanistan,
such variations generally exist regardless of whether the civilian is
working in Iraq, Afghanistan, or any other location. About 70 percent
of civilians deployed by our selected six agencies from January 1,
2006, through April 30, 2008, were employed under the GS pay system, 11
percent under FS, and 7 percent under NSPS.[Footnote 32] (See appendix
III for information on demographic data and selected responses from our
survey of deployed civilians.)
The unique working conditions employees may encounter in Iraq and
Afghanistan can create an environment that increases the visibility of
issues associated with pay systems and compensation that employees
working under normal circumstances would not encounter. For example,
deployed civilians, who are often subject to extended work hours, may
expect to work 10-hour days, 5 days a week, resulting in 20 hours of
overtime per pay period over the course of a year-long deployment.
Depending on the pay system and grade/band, deployed civilians receive
different compensation for these overtime hours. As illustrated in
table 1, a nonsupervisory employee earning a salary equivalent to a GS-
12 step 1 receives a different amount of compensation for overtime
hours depending on the pay system. Specifically, the NSPS
nonsupervisory employee is compensated at a rate equivalent to 1.5
times the normal hourly rate for overtime hours while the GS
nonsupervisory employee is compensated at a rate equivalent to 1.14
times the normal hourly rate for overtime hours.[Footnote 33]
Table 1: Effect of Pay Band and Pay Grade on Nonsupervisory Overtime
Pay:
Salary:
NSPS band II[A]: $59,383.00;
GS-12 step 1[A]: $59,383.00.
Hourly rate:
NSPS band II[A]: $28.45;
GS-12 step 1[A]: $28.45.
Overtime rate:
NSPS band II[A]: $42.68;
GS-12 step 1[A]: $32.42.
Annual overtime (20 hours per pay period):
NSPS band II[A]: $22,193.60;
GS-12 step 1[A]: $16,858.40.
Overtime factor[B]:
NSPS band II[A]: 1.5;
GS-12 step 1[A]: 1.14.
Source: GAO analysis.
[A] For the purpose of this illustration, these employees are exempt
from the Fair Labor Standards Act, and overtime rates are authorized by
law for GS employees by 5 U.S.C. § 5542 and for NSPS employees by NSPS
regulations at 5 CFR § 9901.362.
[B] The NSPS overtime factor is based on DOD's Civilian Personnel
Manual, DOD 1400.25-M, subchapter 1930. The overtime factor for GS-12
step 1 is calculated by dividing the overtime hourly rate by the hourly
rate found in OPM's hourly rate table for GS salary. Within the GS
system, the overtime hourly rate for employees paid at a rate greater
than the rate for GS-10 step 1 but less than the rate for GS-12 step 6
is equal to the hourly rate of basic pay for GS-10 step 1 multiplied by
1.5. The overtime hourly rate for employees paid at a rate equivalent
to the GS 10 step 1 level or lower is 1.5 times their hourly rate, and
for employees paid at the GS-12 step 6 level or higher, the overtime
hourly rate is 1.0.
[End of table]
Similar differences exist when supervisory employees are compared. As
shown in table 2, an employee with supervisory responsibility and a
salary equivalent to a GS-12 step 1 receives a different amount of
overtime pay under the NSPS system than under the GS system.
Specifically, the NSPS supervisor is compensated for overtime hours at
the normal hourly rate, while the GS supervisor is compensated for
overtime hours at a rate equivalent to 1.14 times the hourly rate.
[Footnote 34]
Table 2: Effect of Pay Band and Pay Grade on Supervisory Overtime Pay:
Salary:
NSPS band II[A]: $59,383.00;
GS-12 step 1[A]: $59,383.00.
Hourly rate:
NSPS band II[A]: $28.45;
GS-12 step 1[A]: $28.45.
Overtime rate:
NSPS band II[A]: $28.45;
GS-12 step 1[A]: $32.42.
Annual overtime (20 hours per pay period):
NSPS band II[A]: $14,794.00;
GS-12 step 1[A]: $16,858.40.
Overtime factor[B]:
NSPS band II[A]: 1.0;
GS-12 step 1[A]: 1.14.
Source: GAO analysis.
[A] For the purpose of this illustration, these employees are exempt
from the Fair Labor Standards Act, and overtime rates are authorized by
law for GS employees by 5 U.S.C. §5542 and for NSPS employees by NSPS
regulations at 5 CFR § 9901.362.
[B] The NSPS overtime factor is based on DOD's Civilian Personnel
Manual, DOD 1400.25-M, subchapter 1930. Within the GS system, the
overtime factor for GS-12 step 1 is calculated by dividing the overtime
hourly rate by the hourly rate found in OPM's hourly rate table for GS
salary. Within the GS system, the overtime hourly rate for employees
paid at a rate greater than the rate for GS-10 step 1 but less than the
rate for GS-12 step 6 is equal to the hourly rate of basic pay for GS-
10 step 1 multiplied by 1.5. The overtime hourly rate for employees
paid at a rate equivalent to the GS 10 step 1 level or lower is 1.5
times their hourly rate, and for employees paid at the GS-12 step 6
level or higher, the overtime hourly rate is 1.0.
[End of table]
Another variation in the compensation available to deployed civilians
is that some employees are precluded from receiving premium pay even
under the unique conditions they encounter while serving in these
countries. For example, some members of the Foreign Service, attorneys
for the Department of Justice, and members of the Senior Foreign
Service and the Senior Executive Service are statutorily ineligible to
receive premium pay. Officials at Justice drew attention to their
attorneys' ineligibility to receive premium pay. However, the
Department of State has recognized that Foreign Service officers
serving in Iraq or Afghanistan perform substantial amounts of extra
work and, while they may be ineligible to receive overtime and other
premium pay, State has received and exercised its statutory authority
to provide these employees with a special pay differential equal to 20
percent of their salaries.[Footnote 35]
Deployment Status:
Deployed civilians may receive different compensation based on their
deployment status. Agencies have some discretion to determine the
travel status of their deployed civilians based on a variety of
factors--including length of deployment, employee and agency
preference, employee morale, and cost. Generally, deployments scheduled
for 180 days or less are classified as "temporary duty" assignments;
deployments lasting more than a year generally result in a change of
official station and are classified as "change of station" assignments.
When civilians are to be deployed long term, agencies have the
discretion to place them in either temporary duty or change of station
status, subject to certain criteria.[Footnote 36]
Approximately 73 percent of the civilians who were deployed between
January 1, 2006, and April 30, 2008, by the six agencies we reviewed
were deployed in temporary duty status[Footnote 37] and retained their
base salaries, including the locality pay associated with their home
duty stations. Civilians deployed to Iraq or Afghanistan as a change of
station do not receive locality pay, but may be eligible for a separate
maintenance allowance that varies in amount based on the number of
dependents the civilian has. As shown in table 3, retaining locality
pay significantly increases the basic pay that an employee receives
when deployed under temporary duty status. In this example, retaining
the 2009 Washington, D.C. locality rate of 23.1 percent increases the
employee's basic pay by over $13,700. This example also illustrates
that the retention of locality pay by civilians deployed in temporary
duty status would increase the amount of compensation received for
danger pay by $4,800, post hardship differential by $4,800, and
overtime pay by almost $3,900. While an employee deployed under a
change of station may be eligible to receive a separate maintenance
allowance--in this example even when the maximum allowance is received--
the separate maintenance allowance does not match the effect that
retaining locality pay has on total compensation.
Table 3: Effect of Federal Civilian Employees' Deployment Status on
Compensation:
Type of compensation: Salary[A] (hourly rate);
Temporary duty status (retains locality pay): $73,100.00 ($35.03);
Change of official duty station (does not retain locality pay):
$59,383.00 ($28.45);
Difference in compensation: $13,717.
Type of compensation: Danger pay (35% of salary);
Temporary duty status (retains locality pay): $25,585.00;
Change of official duty station (does not retain locality pay):
$20,784.05;
Difference in compensation: $4,800.95.
Type of compensation: Post hardship differential (35% of salary);
Temporary duty status (retains locality pay): $25,585.00;
Change of official duty station (does not retain locality pay):
$20,784.05;
Difference in compensation: $4,800.95.
Type of compensation: Separate maintenance allowance[B];
Temporary duty status (retains locality pay): N/A;
Change of official duty station (does not retain locality pay): $0.00;
to $20,200.00;
Difference in compensation: $0.00 to -$20,200.00.
Type of compensation: Hourly overtime rate;
Temporary duty status (retains locality pay): ($39.90);
Change of official duty station (does not retain locality pay):
($32.42);
Difference in compensation: [Empty].
Type of compensation: Overtime (20 hours per pay period)[C];
Temporary duty status (retains locality pay): $20,748.00;
Change of official duty station (does not retain locality pay):
$16,858.40;
Difference in compensation: $3,889.60.
Type of compensation: Total;
Temporary duty status (retains locality pay): $145,018.00;
Change of official duty station (does not retain locality pay):
$117,809.50 to $138,009.50;
Difference in compensation: $27,208.50 to $7,008.50.
Source: GAO analysis.
[A] For this illustration, we used the salary level of a GS-12 step 1
employee from the Washington, D.C. area and compared it to the base
salary level for a GS-12 step1 with no locality pay. Per 5 CFR
§531.610(f) and OPM Guidance, the locality pay rate is used as the
basic rate in computing post differentials under 5 U.S.C. § 5925(a),
post hardship differential, and 5 U.S.C. § 5928, danger pay.
[B] Separate maintenance allowance may be paid to employees who are on
assignments where they cannot be accompanied by their dependents, to
assist them in supporting the dependents they have left behind. The
amount of the allowance is based on marital status and number of
dependents living at a location other than the assigned post. Our
analysis is based on the minimum and maximum allowances.
[C] Deployed civilians typically work overtime while deployed to Iraq
or Afghanistan. For our example, the employee is assumed to be working
20 hours of overtime per pay period and to be deployed for 1 year.
Overtime is calculated by multiplying the hourly rate by 20 hours per
pay period by 26 pay periods a year. We used a year because over 50
percent of our survey respondents had served 12 months or more in Iraq
or Afghanistan. In the case of the employee in TDY status, that hourly
rate includes locality pay.
[End of table]
OPM Acknowledges Differences May Occur in Compensation for Deployed
Civilians:
As mentioned previously, your Subcommittee, in April 2008, recommended
that OPM develop an incentive and benefits package that would apply to
all federal civilians deployed to a war zone and asked OPM to submit
any necessary legislative recommendations to Congress. In June 2008,
OPM issued a memorandum acknowledging that current laws and agency
policy could result in disparate treatment for deployed civilians who
work under the same conditions and face the same risks. The memorandum
urged agencies to make every effort to eliminate disparities and
inconsistencies in compensation by taking full advantage of the
authorities granted to them by Congress. While the memorandum listed
various authorities, it did not provide a comprehensive package for
deployed civilians or address variations in policy such as deployment
status and locality pay that, as we previously mentioned ,could result
in a difference of tens of thousands of dollars in compensation for
deployed civilians. Respondents to our survey and participants in our
discussion groups in Iraq stated that such differences in compensation
could affect the morale of these civilians.
Furthermore, the memorandum did not propose any legislative
recommendations to potentially be submitted to Congress. OPM officials
stated that DOD had initiated an interagency working group to discuss
compensation issues and develop proposed legislative changes related to
civilians deployed to Iraq and Afghanistan; OPM decided to participate
in those discussions. Officials at both OPM and DOD stated that while
deployment-related compensation issues were discussed at the working
group, no proposed legislative changes had been submitted to the
Subcommittee. According to DOD officials, the working group's
recommendations did not represent a comprehensive package for all
civilians deployed to war zones, because the changes focused primarily
on deployments to Iraq and Afghanistan and not "war zones" as
stipulated by the Subcommittee.
Implementation of Compensation Policies Is Not Always Accurate and
Timely, and Recent Legislation to Enhance Death Gratuities Is Not Yet
Incorporated in Policy:
Our survey results and group discussions with DOD and State civilians
who were deployed to Iraq at the time of our review indicate that
agencies face some difficulties in ensuring that deployed civilians
receive the compensation to which they are entitled in an accurate and
timely manner. In addition, recent legislation to increase death
gratuities in some cases is not yet incorporated in policy.
Approximately 40 percent of the deployed civilians reported having had
problems related to their compensation while they were deployed. Among
the respondents reporting such problems, about 26 percent reported
being improperly compensated, experiencing delays, or not receiving
their compensation. For example, they reported receiving danger pay or
post hardship differential late--or not at all--in part because they
did not know they were eligible or where to get assistance.
Additionally, officials at four agencies[Footnote 38] acknowledged that
they had experienced difficulties in effectively administering
deployment-related pay, in part because there was no single
comprehensive source delineating the various pays associated with
deployment.
Participants in our Iraq discussion groups noted that it was difficult
for them to deal with these compensation issues while they were still
deployed. For example, participants said that earning and leave
statements do not clearly differentiate among all of the applicable
deployment-related pay types or identify the associated rates; as a
result, it is difficult to determine whether pay has been calculated
correctly. In addition, the discussion group that consisted of DOD
civilians indicated that the level of knowledge regarding deployment-
related compensation varies widely among personnel offices within DOD-
-ranging from not at all knowledgeable or helpful to very knowledgeable
and helpful. Ten of our survey respondents reported being overpaid--in
part because their employing agencies did not discontinue compensation
such as post hardship differential payments at the appropriate time--
and as a result, had to reimburse the government for such overpayments.
In prior work,[Footnote 39] we reported that activated National Guard
and Reserve servicemembers encountered similar pay issues, including
difficulties in activating and stopping deployment-related
compensation. These issues were primarily the result of cumbersome
processes and lack of agency support associated with receiving these
types of compensation. We recommended that DOD evaluate the feasibility
of establishing an ombudsman to deal with Reserve pay issues. DOD
concurred with this recommendation and created an Army Ombudsman Office
to assist activated reservists with their compensation problems.
In addition, Congress provided for a death gratuity under FECA of up to
$100,000 to be paid to the survivor of a deployed civilian whose death
resulted from injuries incurred while deployed in support of a
contingency operation.[Footnote 40] This statute also provided agency
heads with the discretion to apply the death gratuity provision
retroactively for survivors of civilians who died, on or after October
7, 2001, from injuries incurred in connection with their service with
an armed service in the theater of operations during either Operation
Iraqi Freedom or Operation Enduring Freedom. This provision became law
on January 28, 2008. However, Labor, which is responsible for
implementing regulations under FECA, has yet to issue formal
implementing policy--although Labor officials told us that they have
been working to finalize a policy for over a year. Further, while some
agencies[Footnote 41] have issued memoranda or conducted briefings
concerning the death gratuity, according to officials at the agencies
included in our review, none has issued formal policy that incorporates
these provisions--including the retroactive provision--because they are
waiting for implementing guidance from Labor. In fact, officials from
State and USAID said that they cannot move forward on these provisions
until Labor issues its guidance. Labor officials told us that because
of the recent change in administration, they could not provide us with
an anticipated issue date for the final policy; Labor officials stated
that the draft policy is currently being reviewed for approval by the
Office of Management and Budget. Despite the lack of formal policy,
officials at Labor and DOD stated that, at the time of our review, this
$100,000 death gratuity had been paid in one instance.
While Policies on Medical Benefits Are Generally Comparable, Some
Issues Exist in Both Policies and Implementation:
Although agency policies on medical benefits are similar in most
respects, some issues exist both in policy and implementation--
including policies related to medical treatment following deployment;
coverage for eligible deployed civilians through FECA; and post-
deployment medical screenings, a process that is not consistent across
agencies.
Agencies' Policies on Medical Benefits for Deployed Civilians Are
Generally Comparable:
While State and DOD have similar policies regarding medical benefits
for deployed civilians, some minor differences exist in both their
policies and their implementation of those policies. For example,
regardless of the employing agency, deployed civilians are entitled to
medical care at either DOD or State medical facilities in theater,
according to both DOD and State guidance.[Footnote 42] State policies
entitle civilians serving under the authority of the Chief of Mission
to treatment for routine medical needs at State facilities while they
are in theater. DOD's policies entitle all deployed civilians to the
same level of medical treatment while they are in theater as military
personnel. Civilians who deploy may also be eligible for medical
benefits, referred to as workers' compensation, through FECA. For a
civilian to be deemed eligible, Labor must determine, based on the
civilian's application and medical evidence, that the medical condition
resulted from personal injury sustained in the performance of duty
during deployment.[Footnote 43] Civilians whose claims are approved
under FECA are eligible for continued treatment at military facilities,
regardless of their employing agency.[Footnote 44] (See appendix II for
additional information regarding medical benefits.)
Civilians' Eligibility to Receive Care at DOD Medical Facilities
Following Deployment Is Not Clear or Conveyed to Other Agencies:
While DOD guidance[Footnote 45] clearly provides that all DOD civilians
are eligible under workers' compensation for care at military treatment
facilities following deployment, the eligibility of "non-DOD" civilians
for such care is not as clearly defined. Specifically, DOD's September
2007 policy memorandum states that civilians who were treated during
their deployment for a work-related illness or injury continue to be
eligible for treatment at military treatment facilities following
deployment. The memorandum also states that civilians from agencies
other than DOD may be eligible to receive additional care at military
treatment facilities if the Under Secretary of Defense (Personnel and
Readiness) approves care under compelling circumstances. DOD's
memorandum, however, does not clearly define what constitutes
"compelling circumstances." According to DOD officials, three issues
can be used to determine "compelling circumstances:" (1) an inadequate
standard of medical care is available on the local economy; (2)
security is unavailable, so that care on the local economy cannot be
obtained safely; and (3) DOD has unique clinical capability to deal
with the particular condition. DOD officials further stated that DOD
having a unique clinical capability to deal with a particular condition
is the most likely circumstance under which non-DOD civilians would be
authorized treatment following deployment. The compelling circumstances
stated above, however, are not comprehensive and are not specified in
DOD's guidance.
Despite DOD's policy to allow "non-DOD" civilians to receive treatment
in DOD facilities following deployment, confusion exists within other
agencies and DOD regarding non-DOD civilians' eligibility for this
care. For example, officials at several agencies, including State,
USAID, and Justice, were unaware that deployed civilians were eligible
for care at DOD facilities following deployment, in part because these
agencies did not receive the September 2007 memorandum from DOD.
Additionally, confusion exists within DOD regarding non-DOD civilians'
eligibility. For example, the U.S. Army Medical Command issued a May
2008 policy memorandum[Footnote 46] that implemented DOD's 2007
guidance. While the Medical Command document specified that FECA-
approved non-DOD civilians are authorized to receive continued
treatment at military treatment facilities following deployment and
that those without an approved claim may receive treatment if it is
authorized by the Under Secretary of Defense (Personnel and Readiness),
officials from the Office of the Secretary of Defense Civilian
Personnel Policy, Health Affairs, and the Air Force's Office of the
Surgeon General had differing interpretations of the circumstances
under which non-DOD civilians were eligible to receive care at military
treatment facilities. One position was that non-DOD civilians could
obtain such care with special approval, while the other was that non-
DOD civilians were not eligible under any circumstances. Additionally,
officials from the Department of the Army's Medical Command stated that
civilians seeking treatment following deployment could experience
difficulty receiving treatment at military treatment facilities because
not all of these facilities are aware of their eligibility for
treatment. Because some agencies and military treatment officials are
not aware that non-DOD civilians can be eligible for care at military
treatment facilities following deployment, those non-DOD agencies'
civilians cannot benefit from the efforts DOD has undertaken in areas
such as post traumatic stress disorder.
Workers' Compensation Documentation Requirements Are Not Clearly
Defined:
We reviewed all 188 workers' compensation claims filed by deployed
civilians between January 1, 2006, and April 30, 2008, and determined
that claims examiners requested additional information in 125 cases,
[Footnote 47] resulting in increased processing times that in some
instances exceeded the department's standard goals for processing
claims. For example, of the 72 traumatic injury[Footnote 48] claims for
which additional information was requested, the average processing time
for about one of every five was nearly twice Labor's internal standard
of 45 days.[Footnote 49] Our analysis showed that, in 116 of the 125
cases, Labor requested medical records or physicians' reports to
substantiate the claims. Moreover, survey respondents who had filed
workers' compensation claims reported experiencing difficulty
completing the necessary paperwork for the claims. In fact, about 20
percent of our respondents reported either being asked for additional
information or experiencing delays with their claims. Additionally,
another 22 percent of the respondents who filed workers' compensation
claims stated that their agencies had provided them with little or no
support in completing the paperwork for their claims.
Further analysis of the claims process indicated that Labor's traumatic
injury claim form did not clearly specify what supporting documents
applicants had to submit to substantiate a claim.[Footnote 50]
Specifically, while this form states that the claimant must "provide
medical evidence in support of a disability," the type of evidence
required is not specifically identified. This evidence would include a
medical report containing the dates of examination and treatment,
medical history provided to the physician, physicians' findings and
diagnosis, and results of x-rays and tests.
Labor officials stated that additional information is requested when
applicants have not provided enough support to substantiate their
claims for workers' compensation. These officials also stated that
applicants may not have provided adequate documentation because they
were unaware of the type of information they needed to supply or
because they did not fully understand the application process.
Furthermore, Labor officials acknowledged that the required application
forms for workers' compensation benefits should be updated to improve
the claims process. Specifically, they noted that clearly identifying
the documentation requirements such as medical reports on the forms may
help claimants provide the information necessary to support their
claims. These Labor officials also suggested that deployed civilians
needed a liaison at their agency to guide them through the process for
applying for workers' compensation benefits and ensure that each
application is complete before it is submitted to Labor. Officials from
the six agencies included in our review stated that they recognized the
benefits of having a liaison to assist their deployed civilians with
workers' compensation claims.
While Labor has goals and measures performance for claims processing in
accordance with the Government Performance and Results Act,[Footnote
51] the act also requires that agencies explain why performance goals
are not met, and what their plans are to meet those goals. Without
clear information on what to submit in support of their claims,
civilians may continue to experience delays in the application process.
Furthermore, without the appropriate support and guidance from their
employing agencies, deployed civilians may continue to experience
difficulties in applying for medical benefits under workers'
compensation.
Medical Screening Requirements Are Not Consistent:
Both DOD and State require civilians to be medically screened before
they are deployed, to determine whether they are fit to serve; DOD also
requires medical screening of civilians following their deployments,
while State has no comparable requirement for civilians serving under
its purview. Specifically, DOD generally requires its deploying
civilians to complete the same medical screenings as active duty
military servicemembers, both before and following deployment.
Deploying civilians must undergo medical screening no more than 60 days
prior to their expected deployment dates; they receive immunizations
and complete a medical form, which includes a number of questions.
[Footnote 52] These forms are completed by the deploying civilians,
reviewed by health care providers,[Footnote 53] and included in the
deploying civilians' medical records. Approximately 93 percent of the
DOD civilians[Footnote 54] in our survey of deployed civilians
responded that they had completed pre-deployment health assessments.
Similarly, State policy requires its employees to receive medical
clearances before deploying.[Footnote 55] To be cleared, the employee
must have a current physical examination on file and obtain any
immunizations specified by the department. Approximately 92 percent of
the non-DOD civilians[Footnote 56] in our survey responded that they
had received medical clearances before they deployed.
DOD also requires that civilians complete a post-deployment health
assessment within 30 days of their return. These assessments are
conducted by trained health care providers and documented in the
civilians' permanent medical records. During the post-deployment health
assessment, the health care provider is required to discuss with the
civilian mental health or psychosocial issues commonly associated with
deployment. Approximately 21 percent of the DOD civilians responding to
our survey reported that they had not completed medical screenings
following their deployments. According to U.S. Army Medical Command
officials, these post-deployment screenings are not always conducted,
because the department lacks standardized procedures for processing
returning civilians. In addition to the post-deployment health
assessment, DOD requires returning civilians to participate in a post-
deployment health "reassessment" 90 days but no longer than 180 days
after returning to their home stations. The post-deployment health
reassessment requires returning civilians to complete a medical form
and potentially meet with a trained DOD health care provider to discuss
any health concerns they report on the form. However, according to
officials at Civilian Personnel Policy and U.S. Army Medical Command,
DOD experiences similar compliance issues with this reassessment.
State policy, on the other hand, does not require any type of post-
deployment medical screening for civilians from State, or from other
agencies, who are deployed under its purview. Instead, State requires
that employees monitor their own medical condition for purposes of
maintaining a medical clearance, and makes a post-deployment medical
examination available, at no cost, to returning civilians who request
it. Because Foreign Service officers from State routinely move from one
overseas assignment to another without returning home and are required
to maintain medical clearance for the new posting, State does not
require post-deployment screenings for its own staff following
deployment in support of contingency operations. As a result, State has
no mechanism in place to ensure that civilians from other agencies who
are deployed under its purview are screened following their
deployments, and therefore these civilians may return home without
being medically screened. State does, however, require its employees--
and all employees from USAID--to attend a post-deployment outbrief
related to stress management. This outbrief is offered to, but not
required for, all Foreign Service civilians who have deployed under
State's purview.
Without procedures to identify and document the medical condition of
deployed civilians both before and following their service in Iraq or
Afghanistan, these civilians may be inadvertently denied medical
benefits to which their deployments entitle them through workers'
compensation--that is, agencies may not identify health issues that
require medical attention as being deployment related. As we previously
reported with respect to uniformed military personnel, documenting the
medical condition of deployed personnel both before and following their
deployments is critical to identifying medical conditions that may have
resulted from deployment.[Footnote 57] Without medical screenings
before and following deployments, DOD and State will not have the
information needed to ensure that civilians receive the medical
benefits and care for deployment related conditions to which they are
entitled.
Executive Agencies' Ability to Track Deployed Civilians Is Limited:
While each of the selected agencies we reviewed was able to provide a
list of deployed civilians, none of the agencies has fully implemented
policies and procedures to identify and track its civilians who have
deployed to Iraq and Afghanistan. DOD, for example, issued guidance and
established procedures for identifying and tracking deployed civilians
in 2006, but as recently as February 2008 concluded that its guidance
and associated procedures were not being consistently implemented
across the department.[Footnote 58] In 2008 and 2009, DOD reiterated
its policy requirements and again called for DOD components to comply.
[Footnote 59] In addition, while the other executive agencies we
reviewed have some ability to identify deployed civilians, this
ability--like DOD's--relies on procedures that are not specifically
designed to identify and track location-specific information on
deployed civilians. Consequently, DOD and the other executive agencies
rely on a variety of data sources, some of which must be searched
manually, to identify deployed civilians. As we previously reported and
as indicated by both the Institute of Medicine and DOD, the ability of
agencies to report exposures or other incidents--as well as location-
specific information on employees throughout their careers--is
important for identifying potential medical conditions related to
deployment.
Since 1995, DOD has recognized the importance of identifying deployed
civilian employees and tracking their movements, and it has directed
the heads of DOD components to establish procedures to account for
civilian employees in theaters of operations.[Footnote 60] These
procedures require the department, among other things, to maintain
information on each deployed civilian--such as their names and
locations--as well as the number of deployed civilians. In 2006, the
Deputy Under Secretary of Defense for Civilian Personnel Policy issued
a memorandum requiring DOD components to initiate a personnel action to
document civilians being deployed to Iraq or Afghanistan. This guidance
requires DOD components to enter a request for personnel action into
DOD's Defense Civilian Personnel Data System for each civilian deployed
overseas in support of contingency operations to indicate the beginning
and completion of each deployment.[Footnote 61] Nonetheless, as of
February 2008, DOD reported that the components had documented only 365
requests for personnel actions dealing with personnel deployed to Iraq
or Afghanistan, a figure that is significantly lower than the actual
number of civilians temporarily assigned to duty in these countries.
[Footnote 62] On January 23, 2009, DOD again stated that a request for
personnel actions must be filed to document all unclassified
deployments and that DOD will track and account for deployed DOD
civilians, including tracking their daily locations.[Footnote 63]
Nevertheless, at the time of our review, DOD was unable to provide the
total number of DOD civilians deployed to Iraq, Afghanistan, or other
locations that support operations in this region; the latter includes
countries like Kuwait, Bahrain, and Qatar. In fact, DOD officials
conducted a special data call to obtain those numbers, but at the time
of our review these had not been provided.
As noted previously, in conducting this review, we also asked DOD and
the remaining five selected agencies to provide lists of their civilian
employees who had deployed to and returned from Iraq or Afghanistan
between January 1, 2006, and April 30, 2008. While the agencies did
have some ability to identify those employees who deployed to Iraq or
Afghanistan during this period, they did not have any specific
mechanisms for identifying and tracking their civilian employees
deployed to Iraq or Afghanistan.[Footnote 64] In order to compile these
lists, agencies relied on a variety of different data sources,
including manual searches of personnel files, to identify civilian
employees who had deployed and returned during the aforementioned time
frame. Below are summaries of the mechanisms each agency used to
compile its list of civilian employees who deployed to Iraq or
Afghanistan.
* DOD compiled its list by querying its Corporate Management
Information System (CMIS); CMIS is a subsystem of the Defense Civilian
Personnel Data System (DCPDS). According to the DOD official
responsible for compiling the requested data, CMIS is a human resource
system that is not specifically designed to track deployed civilians.
* State officials compiled their list by querying their Global
Employment Management System (GEMS). According to a responsible State
official, GEMS is a human resources system designed to document a
personnel action from its initial request until it is completely
processed.
* The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) had no internal mechanism
to track its deployed civilians and relied on State to provide a list.
DHS relied on State's Office of Orientation Processing to compile its
list by querying requests for Iraq or Afghanistan country clearances
that it had sought during the time frame prescribed by GAO.
* Officials in the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA),
Foreign Agriculture Service, Office of Capacity Building and
Development compiled their list of deployed USDA civilians by searching
through a Microsoft Excel spreadsheet. The Office of Capacity Building
and Development maintains an Excel spreadsheet to keep track of
civilians who deploy.
* USAID developed its list from information it obtained through a
manual review of its personnel records.
* Justice generated its list by querying its personnel system.
Although we determined the data to be sufficiently reliable for
purposes of selecting a generalizable sample, none of the agencies was
initially able to provide all the requested information. For example,
no agency was able to provide complete contact information for each
civilian on its list.[Footnote 65] Moreover, some agencies could not
determine whether or not their lists were complete and accurate.
Additionally, with the exception of DOD, none of the agencies could
readily provide a list of civilians deployed in temporary duty status
for less than 180 days. DOD has stated that it is critical for an
agency to possess an agencywide process to account for civilian
employees deployed in support of contingency operations overseas--such
as those in Iraq and Afghanistan--so that agencies can address any long
term medical issues related to deployment. This information should
include the name of each deployed civilian, the date the civilian
deployed, the location of deployment, the date the deployment ended,
and the date the civilian returned to his or her permanent duty
station. We reported previously that the ability of agencies to report
location-specific information on employees is necessary for identifying
potential exposures or other incidents related to deployment.[Footnote
66] This includes movement within theater and medical treatments while
deployed. Lack of such data may hamper an agency's ability to intervene
quickly to address any future health problems that arise as a result of
deployment in support of contingency operations.
Conclusions:
Deployed civilians are a crucial resource for success in the ongoing
military, stabilization, and reconstruction operations in Iraq and
Afghanistan. Most of the civilians--68 percent of those in our review--
who deploy to these assignments volunteered to do so, are motivated by
a strong sense of patriotism, and are often exposed to the same risks
as military personnel. Because these civilians are deployed from a
number of executive agencies and work under a variety of pay systems,
any inconsistencies in the benefits and compensation they receive could
affect that volunteerism. Moreover, ongoing efforts within DOD and
State to establish a cadre of deployable civilians further emphasizes
that the federal government realizes the important role these federal
employees play in supporting ongoing and future contingency operations
and stabilization and reconstruction efforts throughout the world.
Given the importance of the missions these civilians support and the
potential dangers in the environments in which they work, agencies
should make every reasonable effort to ensure that the compensation and
benefits packages associated with such service overseas are appropriate
and comparable for civilians who take on these assignments. It is
equally important that federal executive agencies that deploy civilians
make every reasonable effort to ensure that these civilians receive all
of the medical benefits and compensation to which they are entitled.
These efforts include maintaining sufficient data to enable agencies to
inform deployed civilians about any emerging health issues that might
affect them.
Recommendations for Executive Action:
To help ensure that civilians deployed in support of operations in Iraq
and Afghanistan or future contingencies receive comparable types of
compensation and benefits such as overtime and locality pay, regardless
of deploying agency, we are recommending that:
* the Director of OPM develop and oversee an executive agency working
group to review existing compensation to develop an action plan or make
legislative recommendations if necessary and appropriate to address
differences, such as overtime and locality pay, in the types of
compensation provided to civilians deployed to Iraq, Afghanistan, or
future contingencies.
To help ensure that civilians deployed in support of operations in Iraq
and Afghanistan or future contingencies receive the full compensation
and benefits to which they are entitled, we are recommending that:
* the Secretary of Labor:
- revise the application materials for Federal Employees' Compensation
Act claims to make clear what documentation applicants must submit with
their claims and:
- set a clear timeframe for issuing implementing guidance concerning
the death gratuity granted by section 1105 of the National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008, Public Law Number 110-181.
* the Secretary of Defense direct the Under Secretary of Defense for
Personnel and Readiness to:
- establish an ombudsman program to help ensure that deployed civilians
obtain accurate information and receive such compensation and medical
benefits in a timely manner;
- clarify guidance governing the availability of medical care at
military treatment facilities for federal civilians following
deployment and formally advise other agencies that deploy civilians of
the circumstances under which care will be provided;
- establish standard procedures to ensure that returning civilians
complete the required post-deployment medical screenings; and:
- establish mechanisms to ensure that the Department's policies to
identify and track deployed civilians are implemented.
* the Secretary of State develop post-deployment medical screening
requirements for civilians deployed under the purview of the Department
of State; and:
* the Secretaries of Agriculture, Homeland Security, and State, the
Attorney General, and the Administrator of the United States Agency for
International Development:
establish ombudsman programs, or for agencies deploying small numbers -
of civilians, focal points with human capital expertise, to help ensure
that deployed civilians receive the compensation and medical benefits
to which they are entitled and:
- establish policies and procedures to accurately identify and track
standardized information on deployed civilians, such as location
specific movements in theater for any future medical issues related to
their deployment.
Agency Comments and Our Evaluation:
We provided a draft of our report to OPM; the Departments of Labor,
Defense, State, Agriculture, Homeland Security, and Justice; and the
Unites States Agency for International Development. We received oral
comments from Homeland Security and Agriculture. In addition, we
received written comments from OPM, Labor, DOD, State, Justice, and
USAID, and these official agency comments are reprinted in appendix IV
through appendix IX.
Office of Personnel Management:
In its written comments in response to a draft of our report, the
Office of Personnel Management concurred with the intent of our
recommendation that it develop and oversee an executive agency working
group to review existing compensation to develop an action plan or make
legislative recommendations if necessary and appropriate to address
differences, such as overtime and locality pay, in the compensation
provided to civilians deployed to Iraq or Afghanistan. OPM stated that
it has worked closely with the Departments of Defense, State, and
"other agencies" to support and provide guidance on new and enhanced
compensation and benefits policies and authorities for all deployed
civilian employees and will continue to do so, as necessary.
Specifically, OPM noted that, in 2008, its staff participated in more
than 10 meetings with DOD, State, and other agencies to address
inappropriate disparities or inconsistencies in the treatment of
deployed civilian employees. OPM stated that the best way forward was
through its ongoing efforts to work with these agencies to develop any
permanent solutions needed to support all civilian employees and
suggested that we revise our recommendation to have the Director of OPM
work with executive agencies to make legislative recommendations if
necessary to address differences in compensation and benefits provided
to deployed civilian employees. While we believe that OPM's
collaboration with these agencies and its efforts to develop permanent
solutions for deployed civilians are notable, this approach and OPM's
suggested revision do not a capture the comprehensive review of
compensation for deployed civilians and related action plan, we
envisioned with our recommendation. Given the number of agencies that
currently deploy civilians and the administration's commitment to
bolster its civilian capability to respond to contingency operations
and stabilization and reconstruction efforts, a federal government
effort must be carefully coordinated to ensure the fair and equitable
treatment of deployed civilians. We believe OPM is in a unique position
to lead this effort because of its role in advising and developing
governmentwide policies on personnel management. We therefore stand by
our recommendation to the Director of OPM to address the issues
associated with the compensation of deployed civilians, as outlined in
this report, to ensure that all employees are treated fairly and
equitably.
OPM also stated that it did not fully agree with the premise stated in
our recommendation that all employees should receive "comparable"
compensation and benefits. They noted that variations in compensations
and benefits may be appropriate due to differences in the type and
level of work performed, geographic location, and statutory
entitlements. Upon review, we clarified our text to state "comparable
types of compensation" rather than "comparable compensation."
Additionally, OPM stated that our recommendation should clearly
identify whether it applies to Iraq, Afghanistan, and future
contingencies or solely to Iraq and Afghanistan. We agree and have
clarified our recommendation to include future contingencies.
Department of Labor:
In its written comments in response to a draft of our report, Labor
generally concurred with our two recommendations to help ensure that
civilians deployed in support of operations in Iraq, Afghanistan, or
future contingencies receive the full compensation and benefits to
which they are entitled.
Specifically, with respect to our recommendation that Labor revise the
application materials for Federal Employees' Compensation Act claims,
the department committed to reviewing the instructions that accompany
the CA-1 form, Federal Employees' Notice of Traumatic Injury and Claim
for Continuation of Pay/Compensation, to determine whether to include
further guidance on what medical information should be submitted to
support a claim. If properly designed and implemented, these actions
should meet the intent of our recommendation.
In its comments regarding our recommendation that Labor establish a
clear time frame for issuing guidance concerning the death gratuity
granted by the 2008 National Defense Authorization Act, the department
mentioned a number of efforts it has taken to date to establish
informal guidance. For example, Labor stated that it had already
contacted all of the agencies deploying civilians to war zones and
strongly encouraged them to obtain beneficiary forms from these
civilians before they are deployed. Labor further stated in its
comments that it had posted information about the death gratuity and
beneficiary designations on its website, but we note that this does not
constitute formal guidance. Furthermore, after reviewing the website,
we observed that it did not address all of the circumstances under
which the death gratuity may be applicable. For example, the website
did not mention that the Act also provided agency heads with the
discretion to apply the death gratuity provision retroactively for
survivors of civilians who died on or after October 7, 2001 from
injuries incurred in connection with their service with an armed force
in the theater of operations during either Operation Iraqi Freedom or
Operation Enduring Freedom. Specifically, regarding the timeframe for
issuing guidance, the department stated, as noted in our report, that
an Interim Final Rule concerning this death gratuity was pending review
before the Office of Management and Budget. Labor further commented
that once the final rule is approved by the Office of Management and
Budget, it will move promptly toward full implementation. If these
actions are taken as stated, they should meet the intent of our
recommendation.
Department of Defense:
In its written comments in response to a draft of our report, DOD
concurred with our four recommendations to help ensure that civilians
deployed in support of operations in Iraq, Afghanistan, or future
contingencies receive the full compensation and benefits to which they
are entitled.
DOD concurred with our recommendation to establish an ombudsman program
and noted that it has taken steps to do so. Specifically, the
department noted that in October 2008 it established a Civilian
Expeditionary Workforce Readiness Unit which, among other
responsibilities, manages a DOD ombudsman service to ensure that
deploying civilians receive needed support and guidance before, during,
and after deployment. The department noted that under this unit,
deploying civilians are provided a "case manager" who, in coordination
with component representatives, provides service and assistance. DOD
further noted that it has established civilian human resources offices
in Iraq and Afghanistan to provide assistance on matters related to
compensation and benefits. The department also noted that such an
office has been fully established in Iraq but not in Afghanistan; the
senior Human Resources Advisor for the Afghanistan office will be
deploying shortly. We commend these actions. If implemented as
described, they should meet the intent of our recommendation.
DOD also concurred with our recommendation to clarify guidance
governing the availability of medical care at military facilities for
federal civilians following deployment and to formally advise non-DOD
agencies of the circumstances under which such care can be provided.
DOD noted that current DOD policy regarding medical care of deployed
civilians at DOD military treatment facilities is contained in policy
memoranda and regulations and has been provided to federal agencies.
However, the department acknowledges that the information in that
policy is not well known or easily understood by potential
beneficiaries. DOD is therefore developing an online curriculum that
will clarify these policies for DOD and non-DOD civilians. The
Department expects the curriculum to be completed and available by the
end of September 2009. If properly implemented, these actions should
meet the intent of our recommendation.
DOD concurred with our recommendation to establish standard procedures
to ensure that returning civilians complete the required post
deployment medical screenings. As noted in our report, DOD states that
its policy requires civilians who deploy to complete pre-and post-
deployment health assessments. The department noted that data from
these health assessments for both military and DOD civilian personnel
are now processed electronically through the Armed Forces Health
Surveillance Center (AFHSC). It further noted that the department was
developing new procedures to allow DOD agencies (e.g., Defense Threat
Reduction Agency and Missile Defense Agency) to use the automated
systems of the "Military Department" for recording and processing
health assessments when a military treatment facility is used for the
assessment. If properly designed and implemented these actions should
meet the intent of our recommendation.
Finally, DOD concurred with our recommendation to establish mechanisms
to identify and track standardized information on deployed civilians.
The department noted that the Defense Manpower Data Center has
established a tracking and identification mechanism using different
military identification systems: the Deployed Theater Accountability
System and the Deliberate Crisis Action Planning and Execution Segment.
DOD further stated that these systems will be used to develop a file to
account for civilian deployments; the department anticipates completing
this file by September 2009. If properly designed and implemented,
these actions should meet the intent of our recommendation.
Department of State:
In its written comments in response to a draft of our report, the
Department of State concurred with our three recommendations.
Specifically, with respect to our recommendation that it develop post-
deployment medical screening requirements, State committed to
implementing mandatory medical clearance exams for civilian employees
upon completion of their assignment in a combat zone, beginning in
2010. With respect to our recommendation that it establish an ombudsman
program to help ensure that deployed civilians receive the compensation
and medical benefits to which they are entitled, State committed to
designating a formal ombudsman to replace its informal existing
mechanisms. Finally, with respect to our recommendation that it
establish policies and procedures to identify and track deployed
civilians, State committed to consulting and coordinating with DOD and
other executive agencies to determine the best way to establish
policies and procedures to accurately identify and track standardized
information on deployed civilians. If properly designed and
implemented, these actions should meet the intent of our
recommendations.
Department of Agriculture:
In oral comments in response to a draft of our report, the Department
of Agriculture concurred with our recommendation to establish policies
and procedures to accurately identify and track standardized
information on deployed civilians, such as location-specific movements
in theater for any future medical issues related to their deployment,
but the department did not identify any actions it planned to take. We
commend the department's concurrence with our recommendation; however,
until it informs us of the specific actions it plans to take, we are
unable to determine whether such actions would meet the intent of this
recommendation.
With respect to our recommendation to establish an ombudsman program to
help ensure that deployed civilians receive the compensation and
medical benefits to which they are entitled, the department noted that
the work currently being performed to establish a centralized office
for managing all entitlements for deployed civilians, (including
guidance in the areas of leave, retirement, travel, etc., and not
exclusively compensation and medical benefits) would meet the spirit of
the recommendation. The department considers this office to be an
intermediary for deployed civilians and to cover a broader scope of
responsibilities than a traditional ombudsman. If properly designed and
implemented, these actions should meet the intent of this
recommendation.
Department of Homeland Security:
In oral comments in response to a draft of our report, the Department
of Homeland Security concurred with our recommendations to (1)
establish an ombudsman program to help ensure that deployed civilians
receive the compensation and medical benefits to which they are
entitled and (2) establish policies and procedures to accurately
identify and track standardized information on deployed civilians, such
as location-specific movements in theater for any future medical issues
related to their deployment. The department did not identify any
specific actions it plans to take. We commend the department's
concurrence with our recommendation; however, until it informs us of
the specific actions it plans to take, we are not able to determine
whether such actions would meet the intent of these recommendations.
Department of Justice:
In written comments in response to a draft of our report, the
Department of Justice concurred with our recommendations and identified
actions that it plans to take to implement them. With respect to our
recommendation that it establish an ombudsman program to help ensure
that deployed civilians receive the compensation and medical benefits
to which they are entitled, Justice committed to developing policy and
procedures to ensure that deployed civilians receive the compensation
and medical benefits to which they are entitled or for which they may
otherwise be eligible and to identifying subject matter expertise
within the department to assist components in effectively administering
deployment related compensation. Justice committed to taking these
actions by April 15, 2010. If properly designed and implemented, these
actions should meet the intent of this recommendation.
With respect to our recommendation that it establish policies and
procedures to identify and track deployed civilians, Justice committed
to determining a mechanism to coordinate the tracking of deployed
civilians across department components, but it did not identify
specific actions it plans to take. We commend the department's
concurrence with our recommendation; however, until it informs us of
all the specific actions it plans to take, we are not able to determine
whether such actions would meet the intent of this recommendation.
United States Agency for International Development:
In its written comments in response to a draft of our report, the U.S.
Agency for International Development (USAID) generally agreed with our
conclusions but did not agree with our recommendations. With respect to
our recommendation that USAID establish an ombudsman to help ensure
that its deployed civilians receive the compensation and medical
benefits to which they are entitled, USAID officials pointed out that
the agency already has an ombudsman to support its Critical Priority
Countries, including Iraq and Afghanistan. According to USAID, this
ombudsman, among other things, helps Foreign Service employees deployed
to these countries with a variety of issues, including compensation and
medical benefits. We contacted the individual who USAID identified as
the ombudsman and asked for documentation related to this position and
its origin and responsibilities. This official stated that the position
was established in 2006 to assist deployed civilians in obtaining the
compensation and medical benefits to which they are entitled, but this
official did not provide any supporting documentation. In the absence
of documentation, it is unclear to us how USAID's ombudsman ensures
that deployed civilians receive the full compensation and benefits to
which they are entitled. Accordingly, we continue to believe our
recommendation has merit.
With respect to our recommendation to establish policies and procedures
to accurately identify and track standardized information on deployed
civilians, USAID commented that it believed its current systems to be
adequate and additional policies and procedures to be unnecessary at
this juncture. We disagree; for example, when asked to develop a list
of civilians the agency had deployed to Iraq and Afghanistan, USAID
officials stated that they had no agencywide system that would provide
this information. They relied in part on a manual search of personnel
records. Furthermore, we note that USAID was unable to provide a list
of civilians who had deployed for less than 180 days--in part because
doing so would have been extremely labor intensive. As we have noted in
this report and in prior work, agencies must be able to capture and
subsequently retrieve location-specific information on employees, to
identify possible exposures to environmental or industrial contaminants
during deployment. Such information includes movement within theater
and medical treatments while deployed. Without this capability, an
agency may be unable to intervene promptly to address any future health
problems that employees may develop as a result of deployment in
support of contingency operations. USAID's current capability, which
relies in part on manual searches and may require labor intensive
efforts to retrieve this information, does not represent a system that
meets the intent of our recommendation. Should any deployment-related
medical concerns develop in the future, such a system may fail to
identify all individuals who may be affected. As a result, we continue
to believe that our recommendation is appropriate.
We are providing copies of this report to the Armed Services Committees
and other interested Congressional parties. We are also sending copies
to the Secretary of Defense and the Under Secretary of Defense for
Personnel and Readiness, as well as the Secretaries of Agriculture,
Homeland Security, Labor, and State, the Attorney General of the United
States, the Director of the Office of Personnel Management, and the
Administrator of the United States Agency for International
Development. This report will be available at no charge on GAO's Web
site at [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov].
If you or your staffs have any questions about this report, please
contact me at (202)512-3604 or by e-mail at farrellb@gao.gov. Contact
points for our Offices of Congressional Relations and Public Affairs
may be found on the last page of this report. GAO staff who made major
contributions to the report are listed in appendix X.
Signed by:
Brenda S. Farrell:
Director, Defense Capabilities and Management:
[End of section]
Appendix I: Scope and Methodology:
To determine the extent to which the compensation and medical benefits
policies of federal agencies that deploy civilians to Iraq and
Afghanistan are comparable, we reviewed statutory requirements and
obtained and reviewed policies, regulations, and procedures from
selected executive branch agencies. These agencies were chosen based on
their civilian staffing levels in U.S. operations in Iraq and
Afghanistan as of January 7, 2008, and included the Departments of
Defense (DOD), State (DOS), Homeland Security (DHS), Agriculture
(USDA), and Justice (DOJ), and the U.S. Agency for International
Development (USAID). We conducted a comparative analysis of the
agencies' policies to identify similarities and differences in the
types of and manner in which deployed civilians are compensated and
receive medical benefits from their employing agency. We interviewed
officials in DOD--including representatives from Civilian Personnel
Policy, Defense Finance and Accounting Services, the Army, and the Air
Force--and the other five executive agencies in our review to obtain a
more comprehensive understanding of their perspectives on and efforts
to implement their respective agencies' compensation and medical
benefits policies for deploying federal civilians. We also interviewed
officials from the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) to obtain their
perspectives on compensation for deployed civilians because of OPM's
role in providing governmentwide personnel management guidance and
regulations. Additionally, we examined relevant reports, testimonies,
and studies, some of which included previous findings and
recommendations related to the compensation of deployed federal
civilians.
To determine the extent to which these agencies have issues--in policy
or implementation--that may affect the compensation and medical
benefits to which deployed civilians are entitled, we interviewed
officials from DOD and the other five executive agencies in our review
to discuss the agencies' practices and procedures for providing
compensation and medical benefits to deployed civilians. We also
obtained federal civilians' perspectives on their respective agencies'
compensation and medical benefits practices prior to, during, and
following deployment. To accomplish this, we administered a Web-based
probability survey to a sample of federal civilians who had previously
deployed to Iraq or Afghanistan. The results of this sample are
generalizeable to the population from which the sample was selected. We
identified the population of deployed civilians by requesting each
agency to provide a list of civilians who had deployed to Iraq or
Afghanistan between January 1, 2006, and April 30, 2008. These lists
were reviewed to ensure that contact information was complete and that
the deployed civilians were deployed during the time period. Based on
the lists provided by the agencies, we created 4 strata within that
population that included (1) deployed civilians who had filed a
workers' compensation claim, (2) DOD civilians deployed for a period
less than 180 days, (3) DOD civilians deployed for a period 180 days or
longer, and (4) civilians from the other five selected agencies
deployed for a period 180 days or longer. Because a deployed civilian
can only be included in one stratum, all civilians that had filed a
workers' compensation claim from January 1, 2006, to April 30, 2008,
and were also on one of the lists of deployed civilians from the
selected agencies were included in the strata for workers'
compensation. As a result, responses from deployed civilians who filed
workers' compensation claims are included in estimates for that stratum
rather than the strata related to the civilian's agency. A probability
sample was selected for the other three strata cited below. The overall
weighted response rate for eligible respondents was 72 percent. Data
obtained from the survey results have a 95 percent confidence interval
and were weighted to reflect the deployed federal civilian population
as of April 2008. Table 4 contains information on the population and
sample sizes including response rates.
Table 4: Population and Sample Description:
Strata: Workers' compensation claims[B];
Sample size: 41;
Number of response: 28;
Response rate: 68.3;
Weighted population[A]: 39.
Strata: DOD civilians deployed less than 180 days;
Sample size: 88;
Number of response: 67;
Response rate: 76.1;
Weighted population[A]: 1,261.
Strata: DOD civilians deployed 180 days or longer;
Sample size: 89;
Number of response: 58;
Response rate: 65.2;
Weighted population[A]: 473.
Strata: Civilians from other five agencies deployed for 180 days or
longer;
Sample size: 79;
Number of response: 62;
Response rate: 78.5;
Weighted population[A]: 319.
Strata: Total;
Sample size: 297;
Number of response: 215;
Response rate: 72.4;
Weighted population[A]: 2,092[C].
Source: GAO analysis.
[A] The weighted population was computed based on the lists of deployed
civilians provided by the agencies and responses we received to our
invitation to participate in the survey that resulted in the respondent
being considered outside the scope of the survey. Specifically, we
received responses that indicated the person had never been deployed to
Iraq or Afghanistan or that the person was not a civilian. We used
these responses to estimate the total number of persons included in the
lists of agency provided deployed civilians that would be outside our
scope and adjusted the population size accordingly.
[B] The workers' compensation claims included in our sample represent
those civilians who were included in the list of deployed civilians for
the six agencies in our review and also had a claim file provided to
GAO by the Department of Labor. For another segment of this review, we
reviewed 188 workers' compensation claims provided by the Department of
Labor.
[C] We are 95 percent confident that the actual population size is
between 1,930 and 2,254.
[End of table]
Because we followed a probability procedure based on random selections,
our sample is only one of a large number of samples that we might have
drawn. Since each sample could have provided different estimates, we
express our confidence in the precision of our particular sample's
results as a 95 percent confidence interval (e.g., plus or minus 7
percentage points). This is the interval that would contain the actual
population value for 95 percent of the samples we could have drawn. As
a result, we are 95 percent confident that each of the confidence
intervals in this report will include the true values in the study
population.
In addition to the reported sampling errors, the practical difficulties
of conducting any survey may introduce other types of errors, commonly
referred to as nonsampling errors. For example, differences in how a
particular question is interpreted, the sources of information
available to respondents, or the types of people who do not respond can
introduce unwanted variability into the survey results. We included
steps in the development of the survey, the data collection, and the
data analysis to minimize these nonsampling errors and help ensure the
accuracy of the answers that were obtained. For example, a social
science survey specialist designed the questionnaire, in collaboration
with GAO staff with subject matter expertise. The survey asked a
combination of questions that allowed for open-ended and close-ended
responses. We pretested the content and format of the questionnaire.
During the pretests, we asked questions to determine whether (1) the
survey questions were clear, (2) the terms we used were precise, (3)
the questionnaire did not place an undue burden on the respondents, and
(4) the questions were unbiased. We received input on the survey and
made changes to the content and format of the final questionnaire based
on our pretest results.
The questionnaire was also reviewed by an independent GAO survey
specialist. Data analysis was conducted by a GAO data analyst working
directly with GAO staff with subject matter expertise. A second
independent analyst checked all of the computer programs for accuracy.
The survey was conducted using self-administered electronic
questionnaires posted on the Web. Since this was a Web-based survey,
respondents entered their answers directly into electronic
questionnaires. This eliminated the need to have data keyed into
databases, thus removing an additional source of error.
We sent e-mail notifications to those civilians who were part of our
sample on October 20, 2008. We then sent each potential respondent a
unique password and user name by e-mail to ensure that only members of
the target population could participate in the appropriate survey, and
we activated the survey on October 21, 2008. To encourage respondents
to complete the questionnaire, we sent several e-mail messages to
prompt each nonrespondent after the initial e-mail message. We closed
the survey on December 31, 2008.
We also conducted small group discussions in Iraq with deployed federal
civilians from DOD and State in December 2008 and January 2009 to
obtain current perspectives of deployed civilians concerning issues
associated with compensation and medical benefits during deployment.
Twelve DOD and State employees responded to agency requests for
volunteers to participate in these small group discussions. The results
from these discussion groups are not generalizable.
To further understand medical benefit policies and how these policies
have been implemented, we reviewed Department of Labor policies and
guidance related to the Federal Employees' Compensation Act (FECA). We
also interviewed appropriate Labor officials to discuss these policies,
and we interviewed claims examiners to discuss how applications for
workers' compensation are processed. In addition, we obtained and
analyzed the universe of federal civilian claims filed with Labor under
FECA between January 1, 2006, and April 30, 2008, for injuries
sustained while working in Iraq or Afghanistan. Specifically, we
assessed claim acceptance rates, the timeliness of claim adjudications,
and tendencies within the claims process such as requests for
additional information to identify potential procedural and processing
issues. We also reviewed Labor's processes for training its employees
to adjudicate FECA claims, to determine the level of training required
to issue an injury claim decision on behalf of the agency. We assessed
the reliability of Labor's data and determined that it was reliable for
the purposes of our analysis.
To determine the extent to which federal agencies have established
specific mechanisms to identify and track deployed civilians both
during and following their deployments, we obtained and reviewed
federal agency policies and procedures when available for tracking
civilian employees who deploy to overseas locations. We also obtained
lists of federal civilians who have traveled to Iraq or Afghanistan
between January 1, 2006, and April 30, 2008, from the six executive
branch agencies included in our review. Where agency lists were
incomplete, we followed up with agency officials to obtain missing
data. During these meetings, some agency officials could not vouch for
the completeness of their lists of deployed civilians for various
reasons, including a lack of agencywide oversight capability. We also
examined relevant reports and studies that included previous findings
and recommendations related to the tracking of deployed federal
civilians.
We conducted this performance audit from February 2008 through June
2009 in accordance with generally accepted government auditing
standards. Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit
to obtain sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable
basis for our findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives.
We believe that the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for
our findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives.
[End of section]
Appendix II: Comparative Analysis of Selected Key Compensation
Policies:
This appendix presents a comparison that summarizes key compensation
and medical benefits for the agencies included in our review, based on
our analysis of laws, regulations, policies, and information provided
by agency officials. The tables below show that policies among these
agencies are generally comparable, but that some differences do exist.
Differences may be based on the underlying authority of the pay system
of a given employee, or on how agencies are implementing those
provisions with respect to civilians deployed in support of operations
in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Table 5: Compensation - General:
Category: Salary;
Comparison: While deployed, civilians continue to earn the basic salary
associated with their applicable pay systems. This salary includes
locality pay for civilians normally entitled to it who are deployed in
a "temporary duty" status. Locality pay applies to duty stations in the
continental United States.
Category: Pay limitations;
Comparison: The premium pay cap places a ceiling on the amount of basic
pay (salary plus locality pay or special rate) plus premium pay
(overtime pay, Sunday pay, holiday pay, and night differential) that an
employee can earn during a calendar year. The Duncan Hunter National
Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) for Fiscal Year (FY) 2009 authorized
agency heads to waive the premium pay cap for civilians serving in Iraq
or Afghanistan up to $227,300 for calendar year 2009. This waiver is
similar to authorities granted to agency heads in NDAAs for previous
years. According to State and DOD compensation summaries, they have
exercised the authority to raise the premium pay cap and reflect the
cap set for 2009. According to written responses from USDA, DOJ, and
DHS[A], they follow the same guidance as State in implementing premium
pay cap waivers. The annual aggregate pay limitation places a ceiling
on the total amount of compensation a civilian employee can be paid
during a calendar year. Prior to the NDAA for FY 2009, the aggregate
limit was established under 5 U.S.C. § 5307 for employees in Iraq and
Afghanistan. However, the NDAA for FY 2009 removed this limitation for
any employee granted a waiver for premium pay cap. The extent to which
agencies have implemented this guidance for FY 2009 is unclear.
Category: Danger pay;
Comparison: The State Foreign Affairs Manual (3 FAM 3270) and Iraq and
Afghanistan Service Recognition Packages implement a "danger pay
allowance" authorized by 5 U.S.C. § 5928. This allowance provides
additional compensation for civilian employees serving in foreign
areas, such as Iraq and Afghanistan, where conditions of civil
insurrection, civil war, terrorism, or war exist and threaten physical
harm or imminent danger to the health or well-being of the employee.
According to DOD, USAID, and DOJ policy documents, they each provide
the danger pay allowance authorized in 5 U.S.C. § 5928 and the FAM.
According to written responses from USDA and DHS, they follow the same
guidance as State in implementing this allowance.
Category: Post hardship differential;
Comparison: The State Foreign Affairs Manual (3 FAM 3260) and Iraq and
Afghanistan Service Recognition Packages implement a "post
differential" authorized by 5 U.S.C. § 5925(a). This differential
provides additional compensation to employees for service in foreign
areas where environmental conditions differ substantially from
environmental conditions in the United States and warrant additional
compensation as a recruitment and retention incentive, such as Iraq and
Afghanistan. According to DOD, USAID, and DOJ policy documents, they
each provide the post hardship differential in 5 U.S.C. § 5925(a) and
the FAM. According to written responses from USDA and DHS, they follow
the same guidance as State in implementing this differential.
Category: Separate maintenance allowance;
Comparison: The State Foreign Affairs Manual (3 FAM 3210, 3230) and
Iraq and Afghanistan Service Recognition Packages implement a "separate
maintenance allowance" authorized by 5 U.S.C. § 5924(3). This allowance
may be paid to employees required to maintain family members at
locations, other than their overseas post, because of (a) dangerous,
unhealthy, or excessively adverse living conditions; (b) for the
convenience of the government; or (c) at the request of the employee
because of special needs or hardships involving family members. The
amount of the allowance is based on marital status and number of
dependents living at a location other than the assigned post. This
allowance is not paid to employees who serve in overseas locations on
temporary duty orders; employees in travel status continue to receive
the locality pay associated with their home duty station.
Category: Language incentive;
Comparison: The State Iraq and Afghanistan Service Recognition Packages
state that members of the Foreign Service assigned to or on TDY for
more than 30 days to Iraq or Afghanistan who possess relevant language
skills are eligible to receive language incentive pay in accordance
with 3 FAM 3173. According to USAID officials, they follow the same
guidance as State in implementing a language incentive. According to
written responses, USDA non-Foreign Service employees are not eligible
for language incentive while their Foreign Service officers would be
subject to the same language incentive as State under the FAM.
According to DOD officials, DOD may provide language incentive to
General Schedule employees if a position has a language requirement,
and may also offer a language incentive to National Security Personnel
System employees as appropriate.
Category: Death gratuity;
Comparison: The State Foreign Affairs Manual (3 FAM 3650) describes
several forms of death benefits potentially available in the case of
death in the performance of duty. These benefits, as identified below,
are also potentially available to civilian employees of USAID, USDA,
DOJ, DHS, and DOD. 1) Eligible dependents of employees whose death
resulted from injuries sustained in the performance of duty may be
entitled to monthly compensation under the Federal Employees'
Compensation Act (FECA). That entitlement may be limited if certain
other retirement benefits are available or elected. 2) When a member of
the Foreign Service would be eligible for monthly compensation under
FECA, section 413 of the Foreign Service Act also permits the payment
of a death gratuity equal to 1 year of the employee's salary at the
time of death. Section 1603 of Public Law No. 109-234, as amended by
section 1102 of Public Law No. 110-417, extended the discretion to
provide this benefit to heads of agencies with individuals on official
duty in combat zones during FY 2006-2011. 3) Section 651 of the Omnibus
Consolidated Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 1997, Public Law No.
104-208, authorized agency heads to pay a death gratuity of up to
$10,000 to the personal representative of a deceased civilian employee
whose death resulted from an injury sustained in the line of duty.; In
addition, 5 U.S.C. § 8102(a), enacted by the National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008, requires federal agencies to
provide a death gratuity up to $100,000 under FECA (minus other death
gratuities paid out) for employees who die of injuries incurred in
connection with the employee's service with an Armed Force in a
contingency operation, including, at the discretion of the Secretary
concerned, retroactive payment for any such deaths occurring on or
after October 7, 2001, in the theater of operations of Operation
Enduring Freedom and Operation Iraqi Freedom.[B]
Category: Life insurance;
Comparison: Federal employee group life insurance policies as
authorized in 5 U.S.C. §§ 8701-8716 cover U.S. government personnel in
combat zones, including Iraq and Afghanistan. Section 1103 of the
Duncan Hunter National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2009,
Public Law No. 110-417, allowed employees deployed in support of
contingency operations to elect federal employee life insurance
coverage within 60 days of being notified of deployment.
Source: GAO analysis.
[A] DHS responses were exclusively provided by Customs and Border
Protection because DHS officials could not provide a coordinated
response from its subordinate agencies.
[B] As of May 1, 2009, Department of Labor officials stated that Labor
had not issued guidance related to this death gratuity.
[End of table]
Table 6: Compensation - Premium Pay:
Category: Overtime;
Comparison: Overtime eligibility and rates for employees in Iraq and
Afghanistan are, like those for all federal government employees,
governed by the statutes and regulations establishing the specific pay
system of the employee. The State Iraq and Afghanistan Recognition
Packages specify different overtime or "special differential" payments
for State Foreign Service officers to compensate for extended duty
hours, based on their underlying pay system and grade. According to
officials at USAID, they follow the same policy as State for Foreign
Service officers. According to written responses, USDA Civil Service
members and Foreign Service officers deployed to Iraq and Afghanistan
are subject to the same overtime regulations. According to written
responses, DOJ authorizes and grants overtime to nonattorney DOJ
personnel, but not to DOJ attorneys. According to written responses
from DHS, overtime cap waivers are in place for all Customs and Border
Protection (CBP) personnel on TDY in Iraq. And the DOD Civilian
Personnel Manual (DOD 1400.25-M) sets different overtime rates for
eligible personnel depending on the employee's pay system and level.
Category: Holiday pay;
Comparison: Employees eligible to receive premium pay are generally
entitled to receive holiday pay at 100 percent of the basic hourly pay
rate minus danger pay or hardship differential--for actual hours
worked--with a 2-hour minimum and 8-hour maximum. Holiday pay is
authorized under 5 U.S.C. 5546. According to State and USAID policy
under the FAM, and DOD policy under the Civilian Personnel Manual, they
each provide holiday pay as authorized in 5 U.S.C. § 5546. According to
written responses from USDA and DOJ, they follow the same guidance as
State in implementing this allowance.
Category: Night differential;
Comparison: Employees eligible to receive premium pay are generally
entitled to receive a night pay differential paid at 10 percent of
basic pay plus premium pay for work between 6 p.m. and 6 a.m. if part
of the regularly scheduled work week or as a result of a temporary
assignment to a different work schedule, in addition to overtime. Night
differential pay is authorized under 5 U.S.C. 5545. According to State
and USAID policy under the FAM, and DOD policy under the Civilian
Personnel Manual, they each provide night differential as authorized in
5 U.S.C. § 5545. According to written responses, USDA follows the same
guidance as State in implementing this allowance.
Source: GAO analysis.
[End of table]
Table 7: Medical Benefits:
Category: Urgent care in theater;
Comparison: DOD policy provides emergency care to all federal civilians
in Iraq or Afghanistan.
Category: Routine care in theater;
Comparison: DOD policy is to provide routine care to all federal
civilians in Iraq, subject to availability. State operates health units
in both Iraq and Afghanistan to provide routine care to all federal
civilians serving under Chief of Mission authority.
Category: Care following deployment;
Comparison: All federal civilians are, under FECA and in accordance
with DOD policy, entitled to no-cost follow-up care at military
treatment facilities (MTFs) for injuries and illnesses sustained while
deployed to Iraq or Afghanistan, at the same level and scope provided
to military personnel, when they have (1) an approved FECA claim, or
(2) authorization from the Under Secretary of Defense (Personnel and
Readiness). Civilians with approved FECA claims may also seek care at
private sector medical providers. DOD civilians whose claims are not
approved under FECA are entitled to treatment in military facilities,
and employees of other agencies may be authorized for treatment in some
instances, but treatment in such instances is billed to the employee
and their insurance.
Category: Workers' compensation;
Comparison: Employees who are injured or fall ill while deployed to
Iraq or Afghanistan can apply for benefits under FECA. These benefits
may include disability payments, rehabilitation, and reimbursement of
medical expenses. FECA benefits must be approved by the Department of
Labor.
Source: GAO analysis.
[End of table]
Table 8: Compensation - Breaks and Leaves:
Category: Rest and recuperation (R&R) breaks;
Comparison: R&R breaks generally provide travel benefits to employees
from their assigned post to the United States, or to other designated
locations abroad. State policy under the FAM (3 FAM 3720), as
implemented in the Iraq and Afghanistan Service Recognition Packages,
provides options for up to three R&R breaks that employees can select
depending on the duration of their assignment. USAID officials stated
that they follow State guidance. According to written responses, USDA
Foreign Service officers receive the same benefits as State, but their
civil service provincial reconstruction team (PRT) advisors do not.
According to written responses, DOJ provides up to two R&R options for
a 1-year tour, to either London or the United States. And according to
DOD policy, DOD provides 3 R&R breaks for a 1-year tour, or one for a 6-
month tour.
Category: Regional rest breaks (RRB);
Comparison: RRBs generally provide certain short-duration travel
benefits to employees within the region of their assigned post. State
policy described in the Iraq and Afghanistan Service Recognition
Packages provides up to three RRBs, depending on the duration of
assignment and employee options for R&R breaks. USAID officials stated
that they follow State guidance. According to written responses, USDA
Foreign Service officers receive the same benefits as State, but their
civil service PRT advisors do not. According to written responses, DOJ
provides up to three RRBs for a 1-year tour, depending on employee
options for R&R. And DOD officials stated that they do not offer RRBs.
Category: Administrative leave;
Comparison: Under State policy as described in the Iraq Service
Recognition Package, discretionary administrative leave is authorized
up to 20 days a year for use during R&R and RRBs, depending on the
duration of assignment. The State Afghanistan Recognition Package does
not permit administrative leave for R&R travel, but permits 5 days per
RRB. USAID officials stated that they follow State guidance. According
to Army policy, all DOD civilians are eligible for up to 20 days of R&R
for a 1-year tour or up to 10 days for a 6-month tour. According to
written responses, USDA follows the same guidance as State in
implementing this benefit. According to written responses, DOJ provides
up to 20 days a year for use during R&R or RRBs. According to written
responses, DHS employees receive 40 hours upon return to the United
States, as well as a 40-hour time off award usable within 1 year.
Category: Home leave/transition leave;
Comparison: Home leave is generally provided to employees who have
served abroad for an extended period and who expect to return to
service abroad. Transition leave is generally provided to employees who
have served abroad for an extended period and who do not expect to
return to service abroad. State policy under the FAM (3 FAM 3430 and 3
FAM 3464.3), and the Iraq and Afghanistan Service Recognition Packages,
may require either home leave or up to 10 days of transition leave,
depending on the duration of service abroad, whether the employee is
Foreign Service or civil service, and the expected follow-on
assignment. USAID officials stated that they follow State guidance.
According to written responses, USDA Foreign Service officers receive
the same benefits as State, but their civil service PRT advisors do
not. According to written responses, DOJ employees stationed overseas
earn 15 days of home leave after a 1-year tour if they agree to another
tour in Iraq or Afghanistan, and DHS employees do not receive home
leave. And according to DOD policy, 15 days of home leave are granted
upon completion of a 1-year tour if the employee is expected to return
to service abroad.
Category: Restoration of annual leave;
Comparison: State policy implemented by the Iraq and Afghanistan
Service Recognition Packages requires, upon application by an employee,
the restoration of annual leave forfeited because of service in Iraq or
Afghanistan for more than 30 days during a leave year. According to
written responses, USDA follows State guidance and USAID officials
stated that they follow State guidance. According to written responses,
DOJ employees are entitled to an increased annual leave ceiling if they
are on a permanent change of station to Iraq or Afghanistan, and
simplified leave-restoration procedures regardless of overseas status.
And DOD officials stated that they follow OPM guidance for leave
restoration.
Source: GAO analysis.
[End of table]
[End of section]
Appendix III: Demographic Information and Selected Survey Responses:
This appendix contains demographic data and responses to selected
questions from our survey. This information is intended to provide
additional context regarding the population and perspectives of
deployed civilians on various issues that supplements the information
discussed in the body of this report. The survey conducted by GAO is
generalizable to the total population of deployed civilians in Iraq and
Afghanistan between January 1, 2006, and April 30, 2008. Specifically,
table 9 contains demographic information on the agencies, gender, age,
years of service, and pay systems covered in our survey.
Table 9: Demographic Information:
Category: 1. Employing agency (n = 211)[A]: Department of Defense;
Percent: 78.44.
Category: 1. Employing agency (n = 211)[A]: State Department;
Percent: 9.27.
Category: 1. Employing agency (n = 211)[A]: Department of Justice;
Percent: 2.50.
Category: 1. Employing agency (n = 211)[A]: U.S. Agency for
International Development;
Percent: 1.75.
Category: 1. Employing agency (n = 211)[A]: Department of Homeland
Security;
Percent: 1.63.
Category: 1. Employing agency (n = 211)[A]: Department of Agriculture;
Percent: 0.25.
Category: 1. Employing agency (n = 211)[A]: Other[B];
Percent: 6.16.
Category: 2. Gender (n = 214): Male;
Percent: 86.72.
Category: 2. Gender (n = 214): Female;
Percent: 13.28.
Category: 3. Age (n = 214)[C]: Less than 30 years of age;
Percent: 4.78.
Category: 3. Age (n = 214)[C]: 30 to 39;
Percent: 14.40.
Category: 3. Age (n = 214)[C]: 40 to 49;
Percent: 35.12.
Category: 3. Age (n = 214)[C]: 50 to 59;
Percent: 36.85.
Category: 3. Age (n = 214)[C]: 60 years or older;
Percent: 8.78.
Category: 4. Years of Service (n = 214)[C]: Less than 5;
Percent: 25.68.
Category: 4. Years of Service (n = 214)[C]: 5 to 9;
Percent: 23.97.
Category: 4. Years of Service (n = 214)[C]: 10 to 14;
Percent: 8.84.
Category: 4. Years of Service (n = 214)[C]: 15 to 19;
Percent: 11.47.
Category: 4. Years of Service (n = 214)[C]: 20 or more;
Percent: 29.98.
Category: 5. Pay systems (n = 212): General Schedule;
Percent: 70.19.
Category: 5. Pay systems (n = 212): Foreign Service Schedule;
Percent: 11.25.
Category: 5. Pay systems (n = 212): National Security Personnel System;
Percent: 6.86.
Category: 5. Pay systems (n = 212): Wage Grade;
Percent: 6.39.
Category: 5. Pay systems (n = 212): Other[D];
Percent: 5.30.
Source: GAO analysis.
[A] For the tables presented in this appendix, "n" represents the
number of survey respondents that answered the associated question.
These numbers vary due to skip patterns contained in the survey and
respondents choosing not to answer a given question.
[B] The 12 "other" agency responses consisted of 11 individuals who
worked for various DOD entities and 1 individual who answered that she
did not work for any agency.
[C] .07 percent of respondents were in the category "Don't know/No
Response" to this question.
[D] The 13 "other" pay system responses, 4 were from the Department of
Justice and the other 7 were from DOD.
[End of table]
Volunteerism:
Our survey asked several questions related to the factors that
influenced civilians' decision to serve in Iraq or Afghanistan. As
shown in figure 1 nearly 69 percent of civilians volunteered to serve
while approximately 31 percent served because deployment was a
condition required of their current position. Figure 2 demonstrates
that the opportunity to serve their country was the factor that was
most influential when civilians were considering whether to serve in
Iraq or Afghanistan. Also, as noted in figure 3, the overwhelming
majority of civilians would either consider serving again or would most
likely serve again in Iraq or Afghanistan.
Figure 1: Did "You" Volunteer for Duty in Iraq or Afghanistan or Were
You Required to Travel to that Country as a Condition of Your
Employment? (n = 211):
[Refer to PDF for image: vertical bar graph]
Volunteered to travel: 68.47%;
Required to travel: 31.12%;
Don't know/no response: 0.4%.
Source: GAO analysis.
[End of figure]
Figure 2: Factors That Greatly or Moderately Influenced Civilians'
Decision to Serve in Iraq or Afghanistan (n = 211):
[Refer to PDF for image: vertical bar graph]
Serving country: 86.73%;
Social conscience: 52.91%;
Differential pay: 47.11%;
Premium pay: 446.13%;
Once in a lifetime opportunity: 41.3%;
Career enhancement: 36.32%.
Source: GAO analysis.
[End of figure]
Figure 3: If Given the Opportunity, Would "You" Agree to Return to Iraq
or Afghanistan on Official Government Business? (n = 214):
[Refer to PDF for image: vertical bar graph]
I would most likely agree travel to Iraq or Afghanistan: 69.19%;
I would consider agreeing to travel to Iraq or Afghanistan: 19.76%;
I would not agree to travel to Iraq or Afghanistan: 7.03%;
Don’t know/no response: 4.02%.
Source: GAO analysis.
[End of figure]
Medical Care During Deployment:
While in Iraq or Afghanistan, deployed civilians are often exposed to
some of the same risks as our military personnel. As demonstrated in
figure 4, GAO estimates that approximately 40 percent of civilians
deployed to Iraq or Afghanistan in our timeframe experienced a medical
issue during their most recent deployment. Approximately 90 percent of
these individuals sought treatment for these issues as shown in figure
5. Finally, as seen in figure 6, the majority of deployed civilians (78
percent) had no problems with the care they received in theater.
However, the most common problem deployed civilians said they
encountered when receiving care in theater was their inability to get
prescriptions filled.
Figure 4: Did "You" Experience Any Medical Issues (Disease, Illness, or
Injury) during Your Most Recent Official Trip to Either Iraq or
Afghanistan? (n = 214):
[Refer to PDF for image: vertical bar graph]
Yes: 39.91%;
No: 57.42%;
Don’t know/no response: 2.67%.
Source: GAO analysis.
[End of figure]
Figure 5: Did "You" Seek Treatment for These Medical Issues during Your
Most Recent Official Trip? (n = 108):
[Refer to PDF for image: vertical bar graph]
Yes: 90.46%;
No: 9.54%.
Source: GAO analysis.
[End of figure]
Figure 6: Did "You" Experience Any Problems with Medical Care during
Your Most Recent Travel to Iraq or Afghanistan? (n = 105)[A]:
[Refer to PDF for image: vertical bar graph]
Yes: 21.45%;
No: 77.91%.
Source: GAO analysis.
[A] .65 percent of respondents were in the category "Don't know/No
Response" to this question.
[End of figure]
Medical Care Following Deployment:
Following deployment to Iraq or Afghanistan, as seen in figure 7, GAO
estimates that about one in five civilians sought medical or dental
care for issues related to their travel. Most of these civilians sought
follow-up care at a private health care provider, as shown in figure 8.
Figure 7: Upon Leaving Iraq or Afghanistan, Did "You" Seek Follow-up
Care for Any Medical or Dental Issues Related to Your Travel? (n =
209):
[Refer to PDF for image: vertical bar graph]
Yes: 21.27%;
No: 74.16%;
Don’t know/no response: 4.57%.
Source: GAO analysis.
[End of figure]
Figure 8: Type of Facility at which Civilians Sought Care Following
Deployment (n =60):
[Refer to PDF for image: vertical bar graph]
DOD facility: 38.03%;
Private facility: 71.45%;
State Department health unit: 7.25%;
Other: 7.86%.
Source: GAO analysis.
[End of figure]
Workers' Compensation:
GAO estimates that approximately 5 percent of deployed civilians
experience injuries or illnesses while deployed to Iraq or Afghanistan
that resulted in the employee deciding to file a workers' compensation
claim, as shown in figure 9. While workers' compensation claims are not
filed frequently, approximately 78 percent of deployed civilians that
file a claim experienced problems with the claims process as shown in
figure 10.
Figure 9: Did "You" File a Workers' Compensation Claim under the
Federal Employees' Compensation Act (FECA) for Any Medical Issues You
Experienced while in Iraq or Afghanistan? (n = 212):
[Refer to PDF for image: vertical bar graph]
Yes: 4.62%;
No: 94.35%;
Don’t know/no response: 1.04%.
Source: GAO analysis.
[End of figure]
Figure 10: Did "You" Experience Any Problems with the Claims Process?
(n = 32):
[Refer to PDF for image: vertical bar graph]
Yes: 78.41%;
No: 21.59%.
Source: GAO analysis.
[End of figure]
[End of section]
Appendix IV: Comments from the Office of Personnel Management:
The Director:
United States Office Of Personnel Management:
Washington, DC 20415:
"Our mission is to ensure the Federal Government has an effective
civilian workforce"
hyperlink: http://www.opm.gov]
hyperlink: http://www.usajobs.gov]
June 12, 2009:
Ms. Brenda S. Farrell:
Director, Defense Capabilities and Management:
U.S. Government Accountability Office:
Washington, DC 20548:
Dear Ms. Farrell:
Thank you for the opportunity to respond to the United States
Government Accountability Office's (GAO's) draft report entitled Human
Capital: Actions Needed to Better Track and Provide Timely and Accurate
Compensation and Medical Benefits to Deployed Federal Civilians (GAO-09-
562). In the report, GAO compares the policies of agencies and
identifies issues regarding the compensation, medical benefits, and
identification and tracking of civilian employees deployed to Iraq,
Afghanistan, and other war zones.
As the Director of the U.S. Office of Personnel Management (OPM), I
believe that it is vital for Federal agencies to provide civilian
employees working in Iraq, Afghanistan, and other war zones fair and
accurate compensation and top-quality medical benefits to which they
are entitled. In addition, agencies need to be able to track and
identify deployed civilian employees to help ensure such compensation
and benefits can be delivered on a timely basis. Deployed civilian
employees are essential to the Federal Government meeting its mission
requirements and the pay and benefits employees receive must reflect of
the valuable services they provide.
I also agree that it is generally desirable for deployed civilian
employees to receive consistent compensation and benefits. While some
differences in compensation and benefits may be appropriate because of
variations in the type and level of work performed, geographic
location, and statutory entitlements. there may be room for
improvements. Any differences in compensation and benefits attributable
to agencies not providing the full range of benefits, not applying
available flexibilities correctly, or not providing pay entitlements in
a timely matter must be resolved.
To that end, OPM has already taken a number of steps to address
inappropriate disparities or inconsistencies in the treatment of
deployed civilian employees
* In 2008, OPM staff participated in more than 10 meetings with staff
from the Departments of Defense arid State and other agencies to share
information on the compensation and benefits available to civilian
employees deployed to combat zones and other overseas locations.
* On June 10. 2008. OPM issued a memorandum to agency Chief Human
Capital Officers strongly urging Federal agencies to become informed of
and take full advantage of the various compensation authorities
available to civilian employees working in combat zones.
* On September 22, 2008. OPM sent a letter to the Committees on Armed
Services in the U.S. House of Representatives and the U.S. Senate
providing OPM's position on certain provisions in H.R. 5658 and S.
3001, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2009. This
letter expressed OPM's support for providing appropriate benefits to
employees in combat zones and the extension of existing temporary
authorities and noted that OPM was working with the Departments of
Defense, State, Treasury, and others to develop possible alternatives
to ensure equity and consistency across Federal agencies.
While I recognize that additional work may be needed, I want to report
the actions OPM has already taken. The compensation and benefit
entitlements for deployed civilian employees are managed by several
different federal agencies with different mission and workforce
requirements. Any effort to change or enhance the compensation and
benefits for overseas employees must be carefully coordinated to ensure
all employees are treated fairly and equitably. I concur with the
intent of GAO's recommendation for OPM to work with agencies to develop
legislative recommendations for deployed civilians. We have already
laid the ground work for meeting this goal. 1 believe the best way to
move forward is through our ongoing efforts of working with the
Departments of Defense and State, which have most of the deployed
employees, and other agencies to develop any permanent solutions needed
to support all deployed civilian employees.
OPM staff has prepared the attached comments in response to your draft
report. I look forward to working with GAO and other Federal agencies
to meet the challenges of ensuring civilians deployed to Iraq.
Afghanistan, and other war zones receive appropriate compensation and
benefits. We appreciate the opportunity to respond to your report.
Sincerely,
Signed by:
John Berry:
Director:
Enclosure:
[End of letter]
Enclosure"
OPM'S Comments On GAO Draft Report (GAO-09-562):
Variations in Compensation-Employee's Pay System:
* GAO's report states that while compensation policies are generally
comparable, variations in the policies may result in employees
receiving different amounts of compensation depending on the agency's
pay system. The report acknowledges that the statutes and policies for
some of these pay systems were established long before the current
operations in Iraq and Afghanistan and variations between pay systems
generally exist regardless of whether the civilian is working in a
combat zone. (page 14)
Comments: Many of the differences in compensation and benefits among
agencies are attributable to the existence of independent pay
authorities authorized by Congress. Some differences between pay
systems may be appropriate because of variations in the type and level
of work performed, geographic location, and statutory entitlements,
However, any differences in compensation and benefits attributable to
agencies not providing the full range of benefits, not applying
available flexibilities correctly, or not providing pay entitlements in
a timely matter must be resolved,
* GAO's report states that the unique working conditions employees may
encounter in Iraq and Afghanistan can create an environment that
increases the visibility of differences between pay systems. The report
provides an example of differences between the overtime pay
entitlements for a GS-12, step], employee and an employee paid
equivalent to GS-12, step 1, under the Department of Defense (DOD)
National Security Personnel System (NSPS), with the NSPS employee
having a higher hourly overtime rate. The report also states that some
deployed civilians, such as members of the Senior Executive Service
(SES), are not entitled to premium pay, though they may work extended
hours. (pages 14-16)
Comments: OPM is aware of differences in premium pay entitlements
between categories of civilian employees. Such employees may have
differing rates of basic pay and, thus, the premium pay entitlements
that are computed using those rates will vary. In many cases, these
differences are appropriate because of variations in the type and level
of work performed, geographic location, and statutory entitlements.
Even within the General Schedule ('GS) system, employees receive
differing rates of basic pay based on the grade and step level the
employee holds, As another example, SES members are statutorily
prohibited from receiving overtime pay and other forms of premium pay,
which makes their compensation package similar to private sector
executives who do not generally receive overtime pay.
OPM is very aware that civilian employees deployed to combat zones
often work many hours beyond what is normally required and that the
standard limitations on premium pay for such employees is not
appropriate. OPM has urged all agencies to implement the current
authority in the National Defense Authorization Act for FY 2009 (Public
Law 110-417, October 14, 2008), which provides discretionary authority
for calendar year 2009 to establish a higher annual premium pay cap
(linked to the Vice President's salary) and provides an exemption from
the aggregate limitation on pay for employees working in Iraq,
Afghanistan, and other combat zone areas. OPM is also available to
assist DOD and State as they continue work on their FY 2010
authorization acts to ensure that Governmentwide compensation
provisions related to employees working combat zones are provided on a
temporary basis. However, we believe permanent legislation to waive the
premium pay limitations up to the annual rate payable to the Vice
President and to exempt the aggregate limitation on pay for civilian
employees deployed to combat zones should he the preferred long-term
approach.
Variations in Compensation-Employee's Deployment Status:
* GAO's report states that deployed civilians may receive different
compensation based on their deployment status because agencies have
some discretion on whether to handle deployments as a temporary duty
assignment or as an official change of station. If deployed in a
temporary duty travel status, employees continue to receive the
locality pay rate associated with their permanent official worksite. If
deployed as a change of station assignment, the employee would be paid
the rate of basic pay associated with the overseas geographic area,
which will not include locality pay, but may include a separate
maintenance allowance. Thus, two GS-12, step 1, employees may be paid
differently depending on whether the deployment is handed as a
temporary duty assignment or a permanent duty station change. (pages 16-
18)
Comments: The determination of whether to process employee deployments
to Iraq, Afghanistan. or other combat zones as a temporary duty
assignment or a permanent change of station is an agency determination
that depends on the length and reason for the deployment and other
factors. However, OPM understands the concerns about the loss of
locality pay associated with a permanent change of station. This is a
concern not only for civilian employees deployed to combat zones, but
also for Federal employees stationed in other overseas locations.
OPM Legislative Recommendations for Deployed Civilians:
* The GAO report states that while OPM issued a memorandum to agencies
urging them to make every effort to eliminate disparities and
inconsistencies in compensation for employees working in combat zones,
it did not provide a comprehensive package for deployed civilians,
address variations in policy, or contain any legislative
recommendations. The report states that OPM participated in meetings
with DOD on compensation issues for deployed civilian employees. but no
legislative changes were submitted. (page 19)
Comments: As stated in our cover letter, OPM staff participated in more
than 10 meetings with staff from DOD, the Department of State, and
other agencies to share information on the compensation and benefits
available to civilian employees deployed to combat zones and other
overseas locations. In addition, on September 22, 2008, OPM sent a
letter to the Committees on Armed Services in the U.S. House of
Representatives and the U.S. Senate providing OPM's position on certain
provisions in H.R. 5658 and S. 3001, the National Defense Authorization
Act for Fiscal Year 2009. This letter expressed OPM's support for
providing appropriate benefits to employees in combat zones and the
extension of existing temporary authorities and noted that OPM was
working with the Departments of Defense. State, Treasury, and others to
develop possible alternatives to ensure equity and consistency across
Federal agencies.
We have consistently supported DOD and State in their legislative
efforts to enhance the compensation and benefits for employees working
in combat zones. OPM will continue to work with these and other
affected agencies, as necessary, to determine the need for a
comprehensive compensation and benefits package for all deployed
civilians.
Recommendations for OPM Action:
* The GAO report makes the following recommendation for OPM: To help
ensure that civilians deployed in support of operations in Iraq and
Afghanistan or future contingencies receive comparable compensation and
benefits, regardless of deploying agency., we are recommending that the
Director of OPM develop and oversee an executive agency working group
to review existing compensation and to develop an action plan or make
legislative recommendations if necessary and appropriate to address
differences, such as overtime and locality pay, in compensation
provided to civilians deployed to Iraq or Afghanistan. (page 34)
Comments: We concur with the intent of GAO's recommendation for OPM to
work with agencies to develop legislative recommendations for deployed
civilians. We have already laid the ground work for meeting this goal
by participating in DOD's interagency meetings last year. We are using
what we learned at those meetings to work with DOD, State, and other
agencies to develop any necessary permanent legislative solutions in
support of all deployed civilian employees.
We do not fully agree with the stated premise that all employees should
receive "comparable" compensation and benefits. As previously
discussed, variations between different compensation and benefits may
be appropriate because of variations in the type and level of work
performed, geographic location, and statutory entitlements. In
particular, compensation entitlements may not be comparable unless all
employees are under one pay system, which is an issue that goes beyond
the treatment of deployed civilians in combat zones. In addition, the
recommendation should be clarified as to whether it applies to
employees deployed to Iraq, Afghanistan. and future contingencies or
only Iraq and Afghanistan. As currently drafted, the recommendation is
not consistent in that regard.
We propose that the recommendation be revised to state "To help ensure
that civilians deployed in support of operations in Iraq and
Afghanistan or future contingencies receive comparable compensation and
benefits when appropriate, regardless of deploying agency, we arc
recommending that the Director of OPM work with executive agencies to
make legislative recommendations if necessary to address differences in
compensation and benefits provided to deployed civilian employees.
[End of section]
Appendix V: Comments from the Department of Labor:
Department of Labor:
June 11, 2009:
Brenda S. Farrell:
Director, Defense Capabilities And Management:
U.S. Government Accountability Office:
Washington, D.C. 20548:
Dear Ms. Farrell:
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the GAO audit report
entitled Human Capital: Actions Needed to Better Track and Provide
Timely and Accurate Compensation and Medical Benefits to Deployed
Federal Civilians (GAO-09-562). The study reviewed the Division of
Federal Employees' Compensation (DFEC) claims process for civilians
injured in war zones and resulted in two recommendations to the
Secretary of Labor. I would like to provide our comments on these
recommendations.
GAO recommended that we revise the application materials for federal
Employees Compensation Act claims to make clear what documentation
applicants must submit with their claims. Comments in the body of the
report indicate that this recommendation is specifically addressing the
medical evidence that claimants must provide to establish a compensable
injury.
The CA-1, "Federal Employees' Notice of Traumatic Injury and Claim for
Continuation of Pay/Compensation," is the standard form used to
initiate a claim for traumatic injury in every instance that a federal
civilian employee sustains an injury while in the performance of
federal duty, In FY 2008. DFEC received over 105.000 traumatic injury
claims. The nature of the injuries claimed varied from very simple,
obvious injuries to catastrophic events. The nature of the injury
claimed by the federal employee impacts the type and amount of evidence
requested by DFEC. For instance, if an employee experiences an obvious
injury such as a laceration on work equipment, usually a diagnosis and
a physician's signature are sufficient to accept the claim. However.
when a claim that a traumatic event caused a serious medical condition
such as myocardial infarction is received, much more detailed evidence
is required. For example. the physician's analysis of the pre-existing
medical history and other possible causative factors need to be
included. The wide array of injuries that are claimed will limit the
precision of directions that we can provide as to the documentation
needed to establish a claim. We do not want to routinely require
detailed narrative medical reports in every instance when it may be
unnecessary to incur this burden and expense in order to approve the
claim.
Admittedly, our program is structured to serve the vast majority of our
claims that are generated by civilians serving stateside and outside
the war zones. Our district offices provide employing agencies'
compensation specialists with training to assist injured workers in
obtaining appropriate information to establish their claims. We provide
informational brochures and on-line procedures to aid claimants through
the claims adjudication process. Our district offices maintain phone
banks to respond to general questions, and our Branch of Technical
Assistance provides guidance and training to employers, unions and
individual claimants.
We do recognize that many of these services may not be available to
federal civilians who are injured in the war zones. Therefore, we agree
to review the instructions that accompany the CA-1 form to determine
whether further guidance can be included with respect to the medical
information that should be submitted to establish the claim.
The second recommendation was for the Secretary to set a clear
timeframe for issuing, implementing guidance concerning the death
gratuity granted by section 1 105 of the National Defense Authorization
Act for Fiscal Year 2008, Public Law Number 110-181. As noted in the
GAO report, an Interim Final Rule is pending review before the Office
of Management and Budget (OMB).
Once OMB approves the regulations, DFEC will move promptly toward full
implementation. We have already contacted all of the agencies with
civilians serving in the war zones and strongly encouraged them to
obtain beneficiary designation forms from all employees prior to
deployment overseas. We have also posted information about the death
gratuity and beneficiary designations on the DOL Website at [hyperlink,
http://www.dol.gov/esa/owep/dfec/DeathGratuity.htm]. We have designed
claim forms to be used to claim this benefit by survivors. We have
centralized our overseas claims in our Cleveland office and have
closely tracked death claims where there may be entitlement to this
benefit. As noted in this report, we have already processed payment in
one claim where the entitlement was obvious regardless of the details
in the final implementing regulations.
Again, we appreciate the opportunity to review and comment on the
report.
Sincerely,
Signed by:
Shelby Hallmark:
Acting Assistant Secretary:
Employment Standards Administration:
[End of section]
Appendix VI: Comments from the Department of Defense:
Office of the Under Secretary of Defense:
4000 Defense Pentagon:
Washington, DC 20301-4000:
June 12, 2009:
Ms. Brenda S. Farrell:
Director, Defense Capabilities and Management:
U.S. Government Accountability Office:
441 G Street, NW:
Washington, D.C. 20548:
Dear Ms Farrell:
This is the Department of Defense response to the GAO draft report, GAO-
09562, "Human Capital: Actions Needed to Better Track and Provide
Timely and Accurate Compensation and Medical Benefits to Deployed
Federal Civilians", dated May 22, 2009 (GAO Code 351166). Specific
comments are provided at the enclosure.
Sincerely,
Signed by:
Marilee Fitzgerald:
Acting Deputy Under Secretary of Defense:
Civilian Personnel Policy:
Enclosure: As stated:
[End of letter]
GAO Draft Report - Dated May 22, 2009:
GAO Code 351166/GAO-09-562:
"Human Capital: Actions Needed to Better Track and Provide Timely and
Accurate Compensation and Medical Benefits to Deployed Federal
Civilians"
Department Of Defense Comments To The Recommendation:
Recommendation 1: The GAO recommends that the Secretary of Defense
direct the Under Secretary for Personnel and Readiness establish an
ombudsman program to help ensure that deployed civilians obtain
accurate information and receive such compensation and medical benefits
in a timely manner.
DOD Response: Concur. Beginning October 2008, the Department
established the Civilian Expeditionary Workforce (CEW) Readiness Unit
for the central management. coordination, and execution of civilian
expeditionary requirements. The CEW Readiness unit is part of the
Department of Defense Civilian Personnel Management Service (CPMS). As
part of the CEW Readiness unit responsibilities involve managing the
DoD ombudsman services to ensure that deploying civilians receive the
necessary support and guidance before, during, and after their
deployment. Deploying civilians are provided a "case manager" in the
CEW Readiness unit who, in coordination with Component representatives,
provides service and assistance. Further, the Department established a
civilian human resource office. capability in Iraq and Afghanistan to
serve deployed civilians in a "just-in-time" manner. In-theater human
resources representatives, in coordination with the CE W Readiness unit
provide assistance on matters related to compensation, benefits, and
entitlements. The Iraq capability is fully established. In Afghanistan.
the senior Human Resources Advisor will be deploying shortly. In the
interim, two DFAS civilian pay liaisons are assisting deployed
civilians in coordination with the CEW Readiness unit. The Deputy Under
Secretary of Defense for Civilian Personnel Policy has made two on-site
visits to Iraq to ensure needed capabilities are provided to deployed
civilians and commanders. The Acting Deputy Under Secretary of Defense
for Civilian Personnel Policy is planning a September visit to
Afghanistan to perform a similar on-site visit.
Recommendation 2: the GAO recommends that the Secretary of Defense
direct the Under Secretary for Personnel and Readiness to clarify
guidance governing the availability of medical care at military
treatment facilities for federal civilians following deployment and
formally advise non-DOD agencies that deploy civilians of the
circumstances under which care will be provided.
DOD Response: Concur. The current DoD policy regarding medical care of
Federal civilians in DoD Medical Treatment Facilities (MTFs) is
contained in policy memoranda and regulations. The Department has
provided this guidance to Federal Agencies. including through an
interagency working group chaired by the Principal Director, Office of
the Deputy Under Secretary of Defense for Civilian Personnel Policy in
2008.
However, the Department recognizes that such information is not well
known or easily understood. The Department is developing an on-line
curriculum which will address these policies more simply and clearly
for DoD and non DoD Federal civilians and their family members. The
Department expects the curriculum to be completed and available by the
end of September 2009.
The current DoD policy states that Federal civilian employees who
require emergency treatment for illness, disease, injuries, or wounds
sustained while forward deployed in support of S. military forces
engaged in hostilities in Iraq or Afghanistan, are eligible for medical
evacuation, and healthcare treatment and services in a military
treatment facility (MTF). with the understanding that the MTF may seek
reimbursement. The Under Secretary of Defense (Personnel and Readiness)
under compelling circumstances is authorized to approve additional care
in MTFs on a case by case basis.
Recommendation 3: The GAO recommends that the Secretary of Defense
direct the Under Secretary for Personnel and Readiness to establish
standard procedures to ensure that returning civilians complete the
required post deployment medical screenings.
DOD Response: Concur. The Department has already developed a policy
(DoD Directive and DoD Instructions) providing standard procedures for
pre- and postdeployment health assessments. The current post-deployment
health assessment process requires the completion of medical screening
for those returning from a deployment. Following deployment, a Post-
Deployment Health Assessment Form (DD Form 2796) is completed and a
face-to-face interview with a credentialed health care provider is
conducted. The provider reviews the pre-deployment DD Form 2795 as part
of the postdeployment health assessment process to note and compare pre-
deployment health concerns and conditions with the employee's post-
deployment health status. Data from these health assessments are now
processed electronically through the Armed Forces Health Surveillance
Center (AFHSC) for both military and DoD civilian personnel. Further,
the Department is developing new procedures which will permit DoD
agencies (e.g., DART, MDA) to use the automated systems of the military
Department for the recording and processing of these health assessments
when a Military Treatment Facility is used for the assessments. When
completed. this will close the remaining gap in the collection and
assessment of health information for DoD civilian personnel through the
AFHSC. Data from the AFHSC will he used to report compliance of both
military and DoD civilians with the required health assessments. 'I his
will close another gap and vastly improve the ability of the Department
to monitor and ensure compliance with the policies. A working group co-
chaired by the Deputy Under Secretary of Defense for Civilian Personnel
Policy and the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Health Affairs meets
monthly to review issues specifically related to health care of
deployed personnel. They have identified and resolved several critical
issues related to the medical care of personnel.
Recommendation 4: The GAO recommends that the Secretary of Defense
direct the Under Secretary for Personnel and Readiness to establish
mechanisms to ensure that the Department's policies to identify and
track deployed civilians are implemented.
DOD Response: Concur. The Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and
Readiness is working on improving the automated system of accounting
for deployed civilian personnel. The Defense Manpower Data Center has
established a tracking and identification mechanism utilizing two
different military identification systems: the Deployed Theater
Accountability System (DTAS) and Deliberate Crisis Action Planning and
Execution Segment (DCAPES). These systems will be used to develop a
file to account for civilian deployments. We anticipate the completion
date for this file to be September 2009.
[End of section]
Appendix VII: Comments from the Department of State:
United States Department of State:
Washington, D.C. 20520:
June 15, 2009:
Ms. Jacquelyn Williams-Bridgers:
Managing Director:
International Affairs and Trade:
Government Accountability Office:
441 G Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20548-0001:
Dear Ms. Williams-Bridgers:
We appreciate the opportunity to review your draft report, "Human
Capital: Actions Needed to Better Track and Provide Timely and Accurate
Compensation and Medical Benefits to Deployed Federal Civilians," GAO
Job Code 351166.
The enclosed Department of State comments are provided for
incorporation with this letter as an appendix to the final report.
If you have any questions concerning this response, please contact Jeff
Bournes, Policy Analyst, Bureau of Human Resources at (202) 647-2665.
Sincerely,
Signed by:
James L. Millette:
cc:
GAO - Marion Gatling:
DGHR - Harry K. Thomas:
State/OIG - Mark Duda:
[End of letter]
Department of State Comments on GAO Draft Report:
Human Capital: Actions Needed to Better Track and Provide Timely and
Accurate Compensation and Medical Benefits to Deployed Federal
Civilians (GAO-09-562, GAO Code 351166):
The Department of State appreciates the opportunity to review the
Government Accountability Office (GAO) draft report titled, "Human
Capital: Actions Needed to Better Track and Provide Timely and Accurate
Compensation and Medical Benefits to Deployed Federal Civilians."
Recommendation 1: Develop post-deployment medical screening
requirements for civilians deployed under the purview of the Department
of State.
The Department of State concurs with GAO's recommendation to implement
mandatory medical clearance exams for civilian employees upon
completion of their assignment in a combat zone. The Department's
Medical Bureau will work with the Bureau of Human Resources to
implement this requirement beginning in 2010.
Recommendation 2: Establish ombudsman programs and, for agencies
deploying small numbers of civilians, focal points with human capital
expertise to help ensure that deployed civilians receive the
compensation and medical benefits to which they are entitled.
The Department of State supports GAO's recommendation to designate a
formal ombudsman to replace our more informal existing mechanisms to
ensure that our deployed employees receive the compensation and medical
benefits to which they are entitled.
Recommendation 3: Establish policies and procedures to accurately
identify and track standardized information on deployed civilians, such
as location specific movements in theater, for any future medical
issues related to their deployment.
The Department of State believes that GAO's recommendation to gather
information on the location of deployed civilians is valid but,
considering the difficulty that DOD has had with similar efforts in the
past, believes that implementation may prove difficult. That said, we
will coordinate and consult with DOD and other agencies to determine
the best way to fulfill this recommendation.
[End of section]
Appendix VIII: Comments from the Department of Justice:
Department of Justice:
Washington, DC 20530:
June 12, 2009:
Ms. Brenda S. Farrell:
Director, Defense Capabilities and Management:
United States Government Accountability Office:
Washington, D.C. 20548:
Dear Ms. Farrell:
The Department of Justice (Department) appreciates the opportunity to
formally respond to the Government Accountability draft report entitled
Human Capital: Actions Needed to Better Track and Provide Timely and
Accurate Compensation and Medical Benefits to Deployed Federal
Civilians.
The Report provides the results of the Government Accountability Office
(GAO) comparative review of executive agencies' policies and practices
regarding the compensation and medical benefits they provide to
civilian employees who deploy to Iraq or Afghanistan and makes two
specific recommendations to the Secretaries of Agriculture, Homeland
Security, and State, the Attorney General and the Director of the
United States Agency for International Development.
Specifically the GAO recommended that the Attorney General and other
agencies, noted above:
1. Establish ombudsman programs. or fin agencies deploying small
numbers of civilians, focal points with human capital expertise. to
help ensure that deployed civilians receive the compensation and
medical benefits to which they are entitled; and;
2. Establish policies and procedures to accurately identify and track
standardized information on deployed civilians, such as location
specific movements in theater for any future medical issues related to
their deployment.
The Department concurs with the recommendations. In response, to
address these issues, the Department will (1) develop Department-wide
policy and procedures to ensure that deployed civilians receive the
compensation and medical benefits to which they are entitled or for
which they may he otherwise eligible: (2) identify subject matter
expertise within the Department to assist components effectively
administer deployment related compensation; and (3) determine a
mechanism to coordinate the tracking of deployed civilians across
Department components. The Department will issue policy, procedures and
guidance regarding compensation and medical benefits by April 15, 2010.
Thank you for the opportunity to provide comments on the draft report.
if you have any questions regarding this response, please contact
Richard P. Theis, Audit Liaison Group, on (202) 514-0469.
Sincerely,
Signed by:
Lee J. Lofthus:
Assistant Attorney General for Administration:
Enclosure:
[End of section]
Appendix IX: Comments from the United States Agency for International
Development:
USAID:
U.S. Agency for International Development:
1300 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW:
Washington, DC 20523:
[hyperlink, http://www.usaid.gov]
Brenda S. Farrell, Director
Defense Capabilities and Management:
U.S. Government Accountability Office:
441 G Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20548:
Dear Ms. Farrell:
I am pleased to provide the U.S. Agency for International Development's
(USAID) formal response on the GAO report entitled "Human Capital:
Actions Needed to Better Track and Provide Timely and Accurate
Compensation and Medical Benefits to Deployed Federal Civilians" (GAO-
09-562).
While we are in general agreement with the report's conclusions, we do
differ on one important point- USAID already has an Ombudsman for its
Critical Priority Countries (CPCs). USAID's Critical Priority Countries
are Afghanistan, Iraq. Pakistan and Sudan, The USAID CPC Ombudsman
works on identifying direct hire Foreign Service personnel to undertake
these hardship assignments and also assists them with suitable onward
assignments. In addition, the USAID CPC Ombudsman helps Foreign Service
employees and their families with a variety of issues, including
compensation and medical benefits. USAID does not foresee the need to
establish other ombudsman programs beyond this one, which is already in
operation.
USAID believes that it already has adequate systems in place to track
deployed personnel and does not believe that additional policies and
procedures are necessary at this juncture.
Thank you for the opportunity to respond to the GAO draft report and
for the courtesies extended by your staff in the conduct of this
review.
Sincerely,
Signed by:
Drew W. Luten:
Acting Assistant Administrator:
Bureau for Management:
[End of section]
Appendix X: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgements:
GAO Contact:
Brenda S. Farrell, (202) 512-3604 or farrellb@gao.gov:
Staff Acknowledgements:
In addition to the contact named above, Marion A. Gatling, Assistant
Director; Matthew D. Dove; Justin S. Fisher; Joanne Landesman: LaToya
J. King; Gregory A. Marchand; Kimberly A. Mayo; George H. Quinn; Terry
L. Richardson; and John C. Wren made key contributions to this report.
[End of section]
Related GAO Products:
Human Capital: Opportunities Exist to Build on Recent Progress to
Strengthen DOD's Civilian Human Capital Strategic Plan. [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-09-235]. (Washington, D.C.: February
10, 2009).
Human Capital: DOD Needs to Improve Implementation of and Address
Employee Concerns about Its National Security Personnel System.
[hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-08-773]. (Washington, D.C.:
September 10, 2008).
DOD Civilian Personnel: Medical Policies for Deployed DOD Federal
Civilians and Associated Compensation for Those Deployed. [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-07-1235T]. (Washington, D.C.: September
18, 2007):
DOD Civilian Personnel: Greater Oversight and Quality Assurance Needed
to Ensure Force Health Protection and Surveillance for Those Deployed.
[hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-06-1085]. (Washington,
D.C.: September 29, 2006).
Defense Health Care: Improvements Needed in Occupational and
Environmental Health Surveillance during Deployments to Address
Immediate and Long-term Health Issues. [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-05-632]. (Washington D.C.: July 24,
2005).
Military Pay: Army Reserve Soldiers Mobilized to Active Duty
Experienced Significant Pay Problems. [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-04-911]. (Washington, D.C.: August 20,
2004).
Military Pay: Army National Guard Personnel Mobilized to Active Duty
Experienced Significant Pay Problems. [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-04-413T]. (Washington, D.C.: January
28, 2004).
Military Pay: Army National Guard Personnel Mobilized to Active Duty
Experienced Significant Pay Problems. [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-04-89]. (Washington, D.C.: November 13,
2003:
[End of section]
Footnotes:
[1] According to the Project on National Security Reform, Case Studies
Volume I, (Washington, D.C.), "whole of government" refers to an
approach that fosters governmentwide collaboration on purpose, actions,
and results in coherent combined application of available resources to
achieve the desired objective or end state. This approach addresses the
military and civilian coordination discussed in National Security
Presidential Directive/NSPD-44, Management of Interagency Efforts
Concerning Reconstruction and Stabilization (Dec. 7, 2005).
[2] We selected the Department of Defense because it deploys the
greatest number of civilians to Iraq and Afghanistan. We also included
the Departments of State, Homeland Security, Agriculture, and Justice,
and the U.S. Agency for International Development because these
agencies deployed most of the civilians assigned to the embassies and
provincial reconstruction teams in Iraq and Afghanistan.
[3] Under 22 U.S.C. § 3927, the Chief of Mission "shall have full
responsibility for the direction, coordination, and supervision of all
Government executive branch employees in that country (except for Voice
of America correspondents on official assignment and employees under
the command of a United States area military commander)".
[4] DOD began converting civilian employees into NSPS in 2005. As we
recently testified, as of February 2009, over 205,000 DOD civilians had
been converted into NSPS. GAO, Human Capital: Improved Implementation
of Safeguards and an Action Plan to Address Employee Concerns Could
Increase Employee Acceptance of the National Security Personnel System,
[hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-09-464T] (Washington, D.C.:
Apr. 1, 2009).
[5] Specifically, OPM issues regulations and provides policy guidance
to executive branch agencies on matters involving personnel management.
[6] In this report, we use the term "monetary compensation" to refer to
payments made to the employee for work performed such as salary, danger
pay, post hardship differential, and overtime. Nonmonetary compensation
refers to benefits such as leave, retirement contributions, and
insurance premiums paid on behalf of the employee.
[7] GAO, DOD Civilian Personnel: Medical Policies for Deployed DOD
Federal Civilians and Associated Compensation for Those Deployed,
[hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-07-1235T] (Washington,
D.C.: Sept. 18, 2007); and DOD Civilian Personnel: Greater Oversight
and Quality Assurance Needed to Ensure Force Health Protection and
Surveillance for Those Deployed, [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-06-1085] (Washington, D.C.: Sept. 29,
2006).
[8] [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-07-1235T]; [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-06-1085].
[9] In addition to DOD, State, and the other agencies involved in this
review, we have identified several other executive agencies that have
deployed civilians to Iraq or Afghanistan. These include the
Departments of Commerce, Health and Human Services, Treasury,
Transportation, and Energy.
[10] U.S. House of Representatives, Committee on Armed Services,
Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations, Deploying Federal
Civilians to the Battlefield: Incentives, Benefits, and Medical Care
(April 2008).
[11] Memorandum from Linda M. Springer, Director, OPM, to Chief Human
Capital Officers, Consistent Compensation for Federal Civilians in
Combat Zones (June 10, 2008). This memorandum listed various legal
authorities, such as § 1603 of Public Law No. 109-234 (granting federal
agencies discretion to apply certain Foreign Service benefits to their
employees), § 1101 of Public Law No. 110-181 (raising annual maximum
limitations on premium pay), and § 1105 of Public Law No. 110-181
(authorizing payment of up to $100,000 as a "death gratuity" in certain
instances).
[12] We use the term "medical benefits" to refer to any medical or
dental treatment associated with travel to Iraq or Afghanistan,
including medical screenings before and after deployment, as well as
any benefits received under the Federal Employees' Compensation Act, 5
U.S.C. §§ 8101-8193.
[13] We selected a sample of 297 from an initial population of 2,493
civilians whom the six executive agencies in our review identified as
having been deployed during the period from January 1, 2006, to April
30, 2008. Some observations in the sample were deemed to be beyond the
scope of our review, in part because the employee did not deploy to
Iraq or Afghanistan during the prescribed timeframe; consequently, we
are 95 percent confident that the actual population size is between
1,930 and 2,254. The results of the survey can be projected to the
population from which the survey sample was selected. (See appendix I
for a description of the sample population and strata).
[14] These claims are filed under the Federal Employees' Compensation
Act, 5 U.S.C. §§ 8101-8193.
[15] GAO, Military Pay: Army Reserve Soldiers Mobilized to Active Duty
Experienced Significant Pay Problems, [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-04-911] (Washington, D.C.: Aug. 20,
2004); Military Pay: Army National Guard Personnel Mobilized to Active
Duty Experienced Significant Pay Problems, [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-04-413T] (Washington, D.C.: Jan. 28,
2004); and Military Pay: Army National Guard Personnel Mobilized to
Active Duty Experienced Significant Pay Problems, [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-04-89] (Washington, D.C.: Nov. 13,
2003).
[16] 5 U.S.C. § 8102(a) states that the head of an agency may
retroactively apply this provision in the case of an employee who died
on or after October 7, 2001, and before the date of enactment of this
section as a result of injuries incurred in connection with the
employee's service with an armed force in the theater of operations of
Operation Enduring Freedom or Operation Iraqi Freedom.
[17] Under FECA, any disability resulting from a war-risk hazard is
generally deemed to have resulted from personal injury sustained while
in the performance of duty. 5 U.S.C. § 8102(b).
[18] FECA claims by agency: DOD - 116; State - 32; Justice - 19; DHS -
5; USDA - 2; USAID - 1; other agencies not included in this review and
claims where the agency is not identified - 13.
[19] Of these 125 cases, 74 were approved, 42 were denied, and 9 cases
were still being processed at the time of our review.
[20] Labor defines "traumatic injury" as any wound or other condition
of the body caused by external force, including stress or strain,
caused by a specific event or incident within a single workday or
shift.
[21] [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-06-1085].
[22] Memorandum from Patricia Bradshaw, Deputy Under Secretary for
Civilian Personnel Policy, Documentation of Department of Defense
Civilian Employees Officially Assigned to Military Contingency
Operations Overseas, (Jun. 6, 2006); Memorandum from Brad Bunn,
Director, Department of Defense Civilian Personnel Management Service,
Documentation of Department of Defense Civilian Employees Officially
Assigned to Military Contingency Operations Overseas, (Feb. 8, 2008);
and DOD Directive 1404.10, DoD Civilian Expeditionary Workforce (Jan.
23, 2009).
[23] GAO, Defense Health Care: Improvements Needed in Occupational and
Environmental Health Surveillance during Deployments to Address
Immediate and Long-term Health Issues, [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-05-632] (Washington, D.C.: Jul. 14,
2005).
[24] The premium pay cap places a ceiling on the amount of basic pay
(salary plus locality pay) plus premium pay (overtime pay, Sunday pay,
holiday pay, and night differential) that an employee can earn during a
calendar year.
[25] [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-04-911], [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-04-413T], and [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-04-89].
[26] [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-05-632].
[27] [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-07-1235T] and
[hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-06-1085].
[28] In this report, we use the term "compensation" to refer to all
payments made to or on behalf of the employee (e.g., salaries, danger
pay/hazardous duty pay, post hardship differential, overtime pay,
holiday pay, paid leave, retirement contributions, insurance, etc.)
associated with travel to Iraq or Afghanistan.
[29] For example, members of the Foreign Service are entitled to a
death gratuity equal to 1 year's salary. The Duncan Hunter National
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2009 granted agency heads the
authority to pay this same death gratuity to their civilians who
deploy.
[30] Danger pay allowance provides additional compensation to U.S.
government civilian employees for service at places in foreign areas
where there exist conditions of civil insurrection, civil war,
terrorism, or war, when these conditions threaten physical harm or
imminent danger to the health or well-being of an employee. Post
hardship differential provides additional compensation to employees for
service in foreign areas where environmental conditions differ
substantially from environmental conditions in the continental United
States and warrant additional compensation as a recruitment and
retention incentive.
[31] Memorandum from Linda M. Springer, Director, OPM, Consistent
Compensation for Federal Civilians in Combat Zones (June 10, 2008).
[32] The remaining 12 percent of respondents indicated they were part
of another pay plan.
[33] At least 114 respondents to our survey were GS employees who
received overtime at a rate less than 1.5 times their normal hourly
rate. Seven respondents to our survey were NSPS employees who received
overtime at a rate 1.5 times their normal hourly rate.
[34] At least 30 respondents to our survey were GS employees who
received overtime at a rate greater than their normal hourly rate. Five
respondents to our survey were NSPS employees who received overtime at
their normal hourly rate.
[35] 22 U.S.C. § 3972.
[36] GAO has stated that "Whether an assignment to a particular station
is temporary or permanent is a question of fact to be determined from
the orders under which the assignment is made, the character of the
assignment, its duration, and the nature of the duties." In DOD's
Civilian Personnel Joint Travel Regulations Vol. II, DOD states that
the following criteria must be met for an assignment to be temporary
duty (68 Comp. Gen. 465 (1989)): "(a) The duties to be performed are
temporary in nature, (b) the assignment is for a reasonable time
duration, and (c) temporary duty costs are lower than round-trip
temporary change of station or permanent change of station expenses."
Joint Travel Regulations, vol. 2, ch. 4, para. C4430 (current as of
Feb. 1, 2009).
[37] The approximately 73 percent includes both DOD civilians deployed
for 180 days or less as well as employees deployed for more than 180
days. For civilians deployed more than 180 days, about 42 percent were
deployed in temporary duty status and retained locality pay.
[38] The four agencies were the Departments of Agriculture, Defense,
Homeland Security, and Justice.
[39] [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-04-911], [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-04-413T], and [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-04-89].
[40] Pub. L. No. 110-181 §1105 (2008).
[41] Specifically, DOD and Justice have issued memoranda and USDA
officials stated that they conduct briefings for deploying civilians
concerning this death gratuity.
[42] Memorandum from Gordon England, Deputy Secretary of Defense,
Policy Guidance for Provision of Medical Care to Department of Defense
Civilian Employees Injured or Wounded While Forward Deployed in Support
of Hostilities (Sept. 24, 2007); Office of the Surgeon General/MEDCOM
Policy Memo 08-017, Provisions of Medical Health Screening and Medical
Care to Federal and Department of Defense Civilian Employees Injured or
Wounded While Forward Deployed in Support of Hostilities in Iraq and
Afghanistan (May 15, 2008); 16 FAM 412 establishes State's
responsibility for healthcare at posts abroad, this includes State
employee health units in both countries to meet the routine medical
needs of federal civilians.
[43] Under FECA, any disability resulting from a war-risk hazard is
generally deemed to have resulted from personal injury sustained while
in the performance of duty. 5 U.S.C. § 8102(b).
[44] Civilians with approved claims under FECA may also seek care at
private sector medical providers.
[45] Memorandum from Gordon England, Deputy Secretary of Defense,
Policy Guidance for Provision of Medical Care to Department of Defense
Civilian Employees Injured or Wounded While Forward Deployed in Support
of Hostilities (Sept. 24, 2007).
[46] Office of the Surgeon General/MEDCOM Policy Memo 08-017,
Provisions of Medical Health Screening and Medical Care to Federal and
Department of Defense Civilian Employees Injured or Wounded While
Forward Deployed in Support of Hostilities in Iraq and Afghanistan (May
15, 2008). The Army military treatment facilities, which include
hospitals and clinics, are under the purview of the U.S. Army Medical
Command.
[47] Of these 125 cases, 74 were approved, 42 were denied, and 9 cases
were still being processed at the time of our review.
[48] Labor defines "traumatic injury" as any wound or other condition
of the body caused by external force, including stress or strain,
caused by a specific event or incident within a single workday or
shift.
[49] The average processing time for the 14 traumatic injury claims
that did not meet Labor's internal standard of 45 days was 78 days from
the receipt of the claim by Labor until an initial decision was
reached. While this represents an average of 33 days beyond the
established standard, these claims exceeded the standard by as little
as 1 day and as many as 88 days. For the 58 traumatic injury claims
that met Labor's internal standard of 45 days, the average processing
time was 33 days.
[50] Labor defines "traumatic injury" as any wound or other condition
of the body caused by external force, including stress or strain,
caused by a specific event or incident within a single workday or
shift.
[51] Pub. L. No. 103-62 (1993).
[52] The medical questionnaire is called DD Form 2795.
[53] Health care providers include physicians, nurses, medical
technicians, medics, or corpsmen.
[54] As discussed in appendix I, individuals who were identified as
having been deployed by their employing agency and who also filed a
FECA claim were included as a separate FECA strata in our sample. Since
a deployed civilian could only be included in one sampling stratum, the
estimate for DOD civilians does not include those DOD civilians who
filed a workers' compensation claim.
[55] Employees whose medical clearances are current (defined as issued
within 2 years of tour of duty overseas) are asked to complete a
Medical Clearance Update form (DS-3057) and submit it to State's
Medical Clearances Office. These individuals may request an optional
early full physical clearance exam. Employees and applicants who do not
have a current medical clearance must have a physical examination and
have this evaluated by State's Medical Clearances Office. The purpose
of a medical clearance is to identify health needs and medical
conditions that may require specialty management, follow-up or
monitoring, or could be prone to exacerbation in certain environments.
[56] As discussed in appendix I, individuals who were identified as
having been deployed by their employing agency and who also filed a
FECA claim were included as a separate FECA strata in our sample. Since
a deployed civilian could only be included in one sampling stratum, the
estimate for non-DOD civilians does not include those non-DOD civilians
who had filed a workers' compensation claim.
[57] [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-06-1085].
[58] Memorandum from Patricia Bradshaw, Deputy Under Secretary for
Civilian Personnel Policy, Documentation of Department of Defense
Civilian Employees Officially Assigned to Military Contingency
Operations Overseas (June 23, 2006) stated that DOD components were to
use the Defense Civilian Personnel Data System (DCPDS) to track
deployed civilians until a permanent solution could be developed;
Memorandum from Brad Bunn, Director, Department of Defense Civilian
Personnel Management Service, Documentation of Department of Defense
Civilian Employees Officially Assigned to Military Contingency
Operations Overseas (Feb. 8, 2008).
[59] Memorandum from Patricia Bradshaw, Deputy Under Secretary for
Civilian Personnel Policy, Documentation of Department of Defense
Civilian Employees Officially Assigned to Military Contingency
Operations Overseas (June 23, 2006); Memorandum from Brad Bunn,
Director, Department of Defense Civilian Personnel Management Service,
Documentation of Department of Defense Civilian Employees Officially
Assigned to Military Contingency Operations Overseas (Feb. 8, 2008);
and DOD Directive 1404.10, DoD Civilian Expeditionary Workforce (Jan.
23, 2009).
[60] DOD Directive 1404.10, DoD Civilian Expeditionary Workforce (Jan.
23, 2009); DOD Instruction 1400.32, DoD Civilian Work Force Contingency
and Emergency Planning Guidelines and Procedures (Apr. 24, 1995).
[61] Memorandum from Patricia Bradshaw, Deputy Under Secretary for
Civilian Personnel Policy, Documentation of Department of Defense
Civilian Employees Officially Assigned to Military Contingency
Operations Overseas (June 23, 2006).
[62] Memorandum from Brad Bunn, Director, Department of Defense
Civilian Personnel Management Service, Documentation of Department of
Defense Civilian Employees Officially Assigned to Military Contingency
Operations Overseas (Feb. 8, 2008).
[63] DOD Directive 1404.10, DoD Civilian Expeditionary Workforce (Jan.
23, 2009).
[64] The six agencies included in our review experienced difficulties
in generating the lists of deployed civilians. In some instances, lists
included duplicate entries for the same personnel action and did not
include contact information for the civilians.
[65] Completeness of contact information varied significantly from
agency to agency. Some agencies provided information that was over 95
percent complete while others provided only limited contact
information.
[66] [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-05-632].
[End of section]
GAO's Mission:
The Government Accountability Office, the audit, evaluation and
investigative arm of Congress, exists to support Congress in meeting
its constitutional responsibilities and to help improve the performance
and accountability of the federal government for the American people.
GAO examines the use of public funds; evaluates federal programs and
policies; and provides analyses, recommendations, and other assistance
to help Congress make informed oversight, policy, and funding
decisions. GAO's commitment to good government is reflected in its core
values of accountability, integrity, and reliability.
Obtaining Copies of GAO Reports and Testimony:
The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no
cost is through GAO's Web site [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov]. Each
weekday, GAO posts newly released reports, testimony, and
correspondence on its Web site. To have GAO e-mail you a list of newly
posted products every afternoon, go to [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov]
and select "E-mail Updates."
Order by Phone:
The price of each GAO publication reflects GAO’s actual cost of
production and distribution and depends on the number of pages in the
publication and whether the publication is printed in color or black and
white. Pricing and ordering information is posted on GAO’s Web site,
[hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/ordering.htm].
Place orders by calling (202) 512-6000, toll free (866) 801-7077, or
TDD (202) 512-2537.
Orders may be paid for using American Express, Discover Card,
MasterCard, Visa, check, or money order. Call for additional
information.
To Report Fraud, Waste, and Abuse in Federal Programs:
Contact:
Web site: [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm]:
E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov:
Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7470:
Congressional Relations:
Ralph Dawn, Managing Director, dawnr@gao.gov:
(202) 512-4400:
U.S. Government Accountability Office:
441 G Street NW, Room 7125:
Washington, D.C. 20548:
Public Affairs:
Chuck Young, Managing Director, youngc1@gao.gov:
(202) 512-4800:
U.S. Government Accountability Office:
441 G Street NW, Room 7149:
Washington, D.C. 20548: